The John James blog has of late thrown up many hooks to hang our theories on and provided much food for thought on the Rangers issue.
His casual invective against individuals, particularly Dave King, and often members of the Bench is not particularly SFM-like in its approach, but despite the industrial nature of much of the discourse, the value of his work cannot be denied.
On the subject of revisiting LNS, I find myself in agreement with his conclusions. His argument about Celtic’s attitude to Resolution 12 is to my mind compelling insofar as it serves as a barometer for Celtic’s disposition towards rocking the SPL/SFA boat. Like him, I cannot see any real evidence, (despite the recent statement by the club) that they are disposed to move in the direction of a revisited LNS (although it should be noted that besides Celtic there are another 40 clubs who may have an opinion on this).
His conclusions though should not be confused with his opinion on the rights and wrongs of LNS. Like most of us, he appears to be of the opinion that LNS was seriously flawed on multiple counts.
I saw Bill McMurdo’s remarks too in reference to the same topic. He alleges that the whole SFA house of cards would come down if information he has at his fingertips, information that off-book payments in Scottish football was much more widespread that the RFC EBTs, was made public.
If what he says is true, and he has evidence, he should be expanding on the innuendo.
If he chooses not to, then he is as complicit as those he accuses.
In any event, to say that no action should be taken because others have done it is not the same as saying that no action WILL be taken.
If he means the former, then he is wrong. By the logic of that argument it follows that burglars for example should not be prosecuted because other people burgle houses but didn’t get caught.
I suspect he knows himself that by any objective standard, this view is in error, because when he is called out on it, he reverts to ad hominem attacks on those who called him on it. No defence, just withering, dismissive sarcasm – in the manner of former pundit Jim Traynor when he refers to those who speak of sporting integrity.
If he means the latter, then he should do what he can do prevent it and make his information public. I believe he knows that the £3 note fraternity runs through Scottish football like lettering on a stick of seaside rock, but I suspect he doesn’t actually have evidence.
If there is evidence, then McMurdo is in a unique position to get it out in the open and make life difficult for those he alleges are corrupt.
Then we should go back in time as far as possible to investigate those who participated in “black money” schemes, whether they are EBTs, other forms of tax dodge, or just money in a brown paper bag.
I do not believe that any of us participating in the Scottish Football Monitor would fear exposure of any of our clubs. I think we all know that this is far more important than club loyalties.
If McMurdo’s information is correct, then we also have the opportunity to show that the clamour for revisiting LNS is not an anti-Rangers with-hunt. Instead of reconvening LNS, let’s have Bill’s info, and constitute a wider enquiry. If the info was made public, and it will now be difficult for him to put his genie back into the bottle, could the SFA and the clubs resist the pressure for such an enquiry?
Maybe McMurdo’s intervention/revelation may yet be seen as a seminal moment in the campaign to rid ourselves of corruption and incompetence in football.
Our position has always been clear. Corruption is counter to sporting integrity. Therefore it must be rooted out.
John James and Merlin are probably correct in that the clubs will seek to thwart any move for a new enquiry; and there could easily have been a deal done with King last week.
However there was also a deal done with Charles Green about the new club being parachuted into the SPL. How did that one turn out?
It’s getting more puzzling by the month,we now have 7 lenders involved in the latest loan deal,a deal brought together within an hour,copyright DK,this is where it gets misty,are not 3 of the new loanees not due a loan from early 2015 to be paid back by yesterday,what’s the deal here, is outstanding loans now sitting at 10m ,minimum,with further monies required,surely someone at the SFA is not doing a job that they are taking a wage for,a case of fraud,can we expect questions from the SFA when they open on Tuesday to the club from Govan,their latest statement ,again,has been timed to buy time,a regular trait from the club from Govan ,the real focus now should on the people in charge of our game,they are the real liars and cheats and are bringing the game in Scotland to its knees,how can any club in the future that gets into a financial crisis ,not even as near as the one the club from Govan finds itself in,be dealt with ,in a fair manner,not possible any more,these people need thrown out of their cosy jobs and the rules re-established if Scottish football is to gain respect again,a tough one.
So a total now of over £15m in loans made by shareholders (and others) that the board wants to convert to shares. In a company that is losing circa £10m per year and where there is a continuing struggle for control. Where legal proceedings are imminent around the actions of previous officers of the company. Where the company may eventually have to take responsibility for the actions of those people.
Strange.
Consolidating all their existing loans into one massive loan they cant repay would seem to be the way forward.
HirsutePursuit 1st January 2016 at 4:52 pm
==============================
I thought it was currently £10.25m
The £3.75m, plus the £6.5m just announced (which replaces other existing borrowing).
They have already said they need a further £1m in borrowing just to see out the season.
So it should be £11.25m at the end of the season, and the accounts appear to indicate that they foresee further borrowing to see their way through the next season. (Why would the SFA allow them to start it then, particularly with operating losses of around £10m in all three years of their existence).
Attached note from accounts re funding.
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) 1st January 2016 at 5:20 pm
====================================
So it’s been confirmed, they genuinely are RRM.
A spokesman for the FSA said: “We have taken this action because the two individuals have not met the standards of honesty and integrity we require. RRM indeed
Andy & Barry are real generous characters propping up loss making sporting adventures with their hard earned cash,I am surprised they where not included in this years honours list,maybe next year guys,never mind ,if it’s attention you crave you will get plenty now,wether you like it or not.
Homunculus 1st January 2016 at 5:33 pm #
————————
Of course.
New year’s day celebrations not worn off yet!
Still – £11m or £15m – with more loans necessary just to keep the lights on. With no obvious business plan that would stem the flow, why would they throw good money after bad?
Seems to me that ownership of the club’s IP and other assets is the key to the next big event.
If the IP ends up with RIFC – rather than TRFC – a new chapter in this saga could be just about to begin.
Homunculus 1st January 2016 at 4:16 pm #Attachment
The Cat NR1 1st January 2016 at 4:05 pm ============================
Like I said earlier, I think it is interesting that the loans are to RIFC. As I understand it the SD loan (facility) was to TRFC.
So I suspect the “internal” debt from TRFC to RIFC is now around £25m.
The attached extract tends to suggest it was TRFC who borrowed the money initially.
=========
£25M seems about right, as the amount shown on the RIFC PLC company b/s was £18M and there were no post b/s transactions disclosed. The additional £6.5M would take it to that figure.
Phils latest wrt the loan:
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/sleeping-with-the-fascists/#comment-165834
HirsutePursuit 1st January 2016 at 6:23 pm
=============================
I totally agree, there has to be some reason they were basically forced into repaying SD when they were so adamant they wouldn’t and are so cash strapped they really couldn’t afford to, so have had to borrow from elsewhere just to do it.
The bit you put at the end is particularly intriguing. As has been discussed here for quite some time, whoever holds the IP has true power. Is there some way that moving that would allow them to extricate themselves from the licence held by Rangers Retail.
Would an insolvency event negate that licence, it really is crippling them just now. In fact they could possibly even sell such and event to the support if it was the only way to get away from Ashley.
Why would Mike Ashley accept any conditions other than those which were in the original deal.
People have mentioned these “conditions” before. Yes, possibly if Ashley was desperate for money, I can see how that would work. He might be willing to accept further conditions just to get the repayment.
However in this transaction it is the borrower who is cash strapped, not the the lender. Rangers adding any sort of “conditions” makes no sense to me.
Homunculus
maybe they can then say,oh we tried to pay the loan but big bad mike never accepted it
Homunculus 1st January 2016 at 7:22 pm #Why would Mike Ashley accept any conditions other than those which were in the original deal.
People have mentioned these “conditions” before. Yes, possibly if Ashley was desperate for money, I can see how that would work. He might be willing to accept further conditions just to get the repayment.
However in this transaction it is the borrower who is cash strapped, not the the lender. Rangers adding any sort of “conditions” makes no sense to me.
______________
If you want to make an offer, but don’t want to have to part with any money, then a highly conditional offer begins to make sense. There might also be situations where repaying a loan is only worthwhile if it frees a business from other incumbrance; so make an offer, be seen to make the offer, then, if it pays off, you are such a hero all your false promises are forgotten, if it fails, things are no worse than before, and, in this case, theres £6.5m lying around…
The smokescreen provided by the media to Rangers is quite incredible, in fact it is utterly unbelievable. That’s all.
upthehoops
surely goes deeper than “they are just my favourite team”
tony 1st January 2016 at 7:48 pm #
upthehoopssurely goes deeper than “they are just my favourite team”
=====================
Absolutely. I know not all Scottish sports journalists are Rangers fans. However, the cultural power associated with the Ibrox club appears to be massive.
upthehoops
and yet they where allowed to die,or if i’m being cynical,allowed to get rid of debt
Allyjambo 1st January 2016 at 7:37 pm #Homunculus 1st January 2016 at 7:22 pm #Why would Mike Ashley accept any conditions other than those which were in the original deal. People have mentioned these “conditions” before. Yes, possibly if Ashley was desperate for money, I can see how that would work. He might be willing to accept further conditions just to get the repayment. However in this transaction it is the borrower who is cash strapped, not the the lender. Rangers adding any sort of “conditions” makes no sense to me. ______________
If you want to make an offer, but don’t want to have to part with any money, then a highly conditional offer begins to make sense. There might also be situations where repaying a loan is only worthwhile if it frees a business from other incumbrance; so make an offer, be seen to make the offer, then, if it pays off, you are such a hero all your false promises are forgotten, if it fails, things are no worse than before, and, in this case, theres £6.5m lying around…
————————————
Would this make sense?.
RIFC have borrowed £6.5m that they’ve now loaned to TRFC.TRFC now owe RIFC circa £25m.
TRFC have offered to repay SD with this but SD may not accept.
TRFC are now sitting with £6.5m.
What if RIFC put TRFC into administration?.
£25m owed would almost certainly(unless there’s things we don’t know) make RIFC the major creditor with over 75% of total debt.They could guarantee a CVA if they so wished.There would also be £6.5m in cash to meet the administration costs & get TRFC through the season.Blame Ashley for the points deduction.
The only fly in the ointment is the business tie up with Ashley/SD.Is there a way this could be removed by an administrator?.
tony 1st January 2016 at 8:32 pm #upthehoopsand yet they where allowed to die,or if i’m being cynical,allowed to get rid of debt
==============================
They did die. It is a simple fact, but the SFA, SPFL, and the media recognise them as exactly the same club, with the same history. In my humble opinion, only the cultural power associated with Ibrox could force such a position. No other Scottish club would be deferred to in this way, especially if they had willfully withheld tens of millions from the public purse.
Taking the hit on the points deduction might have been part of the plan that was probably put together late Sept when the forecast was to go unbeaten along with scoring goals for fun,put together a smoke screen of paying the loan back to Mike with the blame for an admin being landed on Mike,weeks later,around Feb all would be well again,new war chest for summer signings,feed the gullibles a pre scripted load of bull and off we go season tickets all sold for next season,the future is bright,but the pesky 2 of Hibs & Falkirk closing the gap has called for a plan B, still go ahead with the admin ,take Mike out of the frame and just hope the promotion can be achieved ,if not the bonus to be fed to the gullibles that another season won’t matter as the club is now truly cash rich and another season to prepare for the Premier will make them a better force,the farce of paying Mike back ,well the money had to be there which Dave dished up a nice pork pie to confuse the orks and will prob be handed back to the 3 bears shortly ,the Hong Kong 2 will be an unfortunate casualty regards their investment but hey ho there are always casualties but these 2 are not new to that game,now next week we can expect Mike to send the money back telling them where to go ,then we are off and running.
This is what I love about citizen journalism: within minutes/hours these 2 new Rifc/Trfc
‘investors’ are exposed – regardless of what the SMSM reports.
Those pesky Internet Bampots!
And the power of the Internet…it really should bbe censored…
for the good of Scottish football ! 😉
upthehoops
yet with this supposed power behind them they are living hand to mouth on a month to month basis
@torreJhonbhoy PMGB insists that an insolvency event will be controlled by secured creditors. If that is still SD the intercompany debt of £25m will be irrelevant, I don’t know if this http://uk.practicallaw.com/book/9781847661487/chapter08#IRM-s8_3 applies under Scots law but I would imagine its not far off anyway. It is my opinion that SD can and will ensure they are repaid and/or that onerous RRL contracts survive an insolvency event.
tykebhoy 1st January 2016 at 10:01 pm #@torreJhonbhoy PMGB insists that an insolvency event will be controlled by secured creditors. If that is still SD the intercompany debt of £25m will be irrelevant, I don’t know if this http://uk.practicallaw.com/book/9781847661487/chapter08#IRM-s8_3 applies under Scots law but I would imagine its not far off anyway. It is my opinion that SD can and will ensure they are repaid and/or that onerous RRL contracts survive an insolvency event.
———————————–
Cheers,Tykebhoy.
That’s why I was asking.I don’t know the law.I suppose what I was asking is :
If admin occurs,can an administrator satisfy Ashleys fixed charge then cancel onerous contracts & the Rangers Retail deal.I realise Ashley would take most,if not all of the £6.5m but if this could be done,I’m sure the “investors” would find enough cash to see the company/club through administration & to the end of the season.
Of course,if this could happen(and I don’t know),unless there’s a quantum change in the mindset at Ibrox,then we can look forward to the same scenario in a year or two.
Paul had a Pre-Pack scenario
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/tag/pre-pack-administration/
I noticed a part,
‘There will be an administrator appointed to carry out a “pre-pack” administration whereby the assets of the Club are sold off to another party (likely to be Group or another branch of CW’s business empire)’.
Charles Green anybody!
Paul knew his stuff and this might apply to this scenario. Different actors, same play!
God bless Paul and a Happy New Year from the Iron Burgh.
That makes a lot of sense. However the plan seems to involve stiffing Ashley for his £5m. Unless and until the £5m is repaid, Ashley has security over everything but Ibrox, either by fixed or floating charges. He also owns the IP and gets 100% of Rangers Retail for a song in the event of administration.
Maybe the most important factor is the IP, which Ashley currently owns, although TRFC get it back once the £5m loan is properly repaid. Whether repayment by an administrator as part of a CVA would release the securities and recover the IP may depend on the detail of the loan agreement. Since insolvency was on the cards at the time the loan was advanced, I would guess that the loan agreement has been structured to make it insolvency proof, so far as possible.
Whatever happens to TRFC, Rangers Retail has a world wide licence over the IP for at least 7 years, and Ashley has effective control over Rangers Retail. I’m pretty sure that the licence would survive any insolvency event at TRFC.
However I’m sure King has a plan. But then I’m even surer that Ashley has a plan too. It will be interesting to see how this works out. Next week should at least bring news on whether Ashley has accepted repayment. Maybe King is hoping Ashley sends the money back. Which would explain any unacceptable conditions attached to the repayment.
And on it goes,More from the guys on Twitter:
TheTributeAct @TheTributeAct 1m1 minute ago Ignoring 176 related party transactions? This guy was made for Ibrox. http://www.dailyreportingsuite.com/securities/news/auditors_ok_39_d_financial_statements_that_did_not_adequately_disclose_related_party_transactions …
————————————
Sure it’s just a coincidence but were Baker Tilly not announced as RIFC auditors just to resign shortly after,replaced by Campbell Dallas?.
Amazing how the same names crop up time & time again.
Sorry,
link doesn’t seem to be working.Here’s a snapshot.
From Securities Regulation Daily, December 18, 2014
Auditors OK’d financial statements that did not adequately disclose related-party transactionsBy Rodney F. Tonkovic, J.D.
An audit firm and two of its principals were sanctioned for improper professional conduct regarding related-party transactions. During an audit, an audit firm and two of its principals failed to respond appropriately to information that the company had engaged in 176 related-party transactions in 2009. Contrary to GAAP, the firm’s financial statements did not disclose these transactions, but the auditor nevertheless issued an audit report containing an unqualified opinion on the company’s 2009 financial statements. The Commission issued a cease and desist order and monetary sanctions, and the principals were suspended from practice as accountants (In the Matter of Baker Tilly Hong Kong Limited, Andrew David Ross, CPA, and Kwok Laiha Helena, CPA, Release No. 34-73862, December 17, 2014).
Background. Baker Tilly Hong Kong Limited is a PCAOB-registered audit firm located in Hong Kong. Andrew Ross and Kwok Laiha Helena (a/k/a Helena Kwok) were Baker Tilly directors, the equivalent of a partner at a U.S. firm. In 2010, Baker Tilly was retained to audit the December 31, 2009 financial statements of China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited (CNEP), a Nevada corporation that operated in China.
In mid-2010 CNEP’s audit committee learned of material related-party transactions among CNEP, its CEO, the CEO’s mother, and others. The company retained a forensic accounting firm and accepted the resignation of the CEO and his mother, who was also a CNEP director. The forensic accounting firm’s report identified 176 related-party transactions and found numerous red flags and deficiencies in CNEP’s internal controls. The Commission charged CNEP with fraud arising out of these transactions in late 2012.
Violations. According to the Commission, Ross, Kwok, and the engagement team received the forensic report, but did not adequately review it, revise their audit planning on fraud risks, or audit the related-party transactions in accordance with PCAOB standards. When CNEP’s financial statements were filed as part of its 2009 Form 10-K, the related-party transactions were not described in detail, disclosing only that the company owed a stockholder $89,269. Baker Tilly, however, issued an audit report containing an unqualified opinion that was filed with CNEP’s financial statements.
Sanctions. The Commission found that the respondents engaged in improper professional conduct by failing to plan, design, and carry out audit procedures to identify the company’s material, related-party transactions that required disclosure in its financial statements. Baker Tilly, Ross, and Kwok were ordered to cease and desist from violations of Exchange Act Section 10A(a)(2), which covers audit procedures to identify related-party transactions. The firm was censured, and Ross and Kwok were suspended from practice as accountants for three years. Baker Tilly was ordered to disgorge $75,000, plus prejudgment interest of $9,101. Ross was ordered to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $20,000, and Kwok was ordered to pay $10,000.
Antonia Chion, an Associate Director in the SEC’s Division of Enforcement said: “Auditors play a critical gatekeeper role in our financial markets, and Baker Tilly failed to uphold U.S. auditing standards and exercise appropriate professional care and skepticism with regard to numerous related-party transactions.”
The Release is No. 34-73862.
Companies: Baker Tilly Hong Kong Limited; China North East Petroleum Holdings Limited
MainStory: TopStory AccountingAuditing Enforcement InternationalNews
Does it not seem strange, that a company, trying to negotiate a deal, any deal, would publish the exact amount of money they have raised and, apparently, have available, while the opposition ponder their offer?
On the one hand they are telling SD that they have £1.5m over the principal amount available to meet any interest, penalties or fees, and on the other, they are letting them know that they are currently £1m short of the, no doubt optimistic, stated requirement to reach the end of this season.
So, if MA is prepared to take his money back, but wants to make as much as possible from the deal, and to save face at the same time, he has been given the optimum target figure.
If, on the other hand, it’s his plan to force King into submission, or even to end TRFC, he knows, or at least can make a good guess at, exactly how much they have left to fight him with.
A bad move, or a cunning ploy? Or is the information aimed elsewhere, to fool some other body of people?
Just wolk up again. Despite my best intentions I got to my sisters house at half past four half cut. It was brilliant. I got way laid by my best mate Jambo pal (they are a bad lot, sorry Easy and Ally). You cant beat new years day. Hope you all had a good day too. He wasn’t to happy about me sending him a reminder that ‘Sunshine on Leith was on. so this is for you Ally & Easy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmELS03_4So
Happy New Year Everyone
I love smileys.
I was expecting this to be a slow day on the site,not where the RIFC are concerned, I think the whole month of January is going to be busy,the mayhem goes on.
Perhaps it’s just the new year; but there are a few bells ringing at the moment.
Remember back in 2011, when we first learnt of the Tickets deal. We all said, “are they mad? What were they thinking of? Why risk their clients’ cash with such a basket-case of a business?”
We still don’t know for sure; but for some reason, the money came and was ultimately lost. Subject of course, to ongoing proceedings?
Later, we found the administrators attempting to render the Ticketus deal void. We learnt then from Lord Hodge that the administrators could refuse to perform the contract ; but could not make it void. Unless Ticketus agreed, only liquidation of the club would kill the season ticket deal.
Here we are in 2016 and the new Rangers, like its predecessor, seems to defy all known logic in its ability to draw in investment when under severe financial strain.
We also, in 2016, know of a contract that the new club would like to shed; but, if reports are true, administration alone cannot shift.
If I remember correctly, the Rangers Retail contract was signed by TRFC before RIFC came into existence. On a flight of fancy, I just wonder what would happen if RIFC decides to wind up TRFC?
As the main creditor the club’s assets would go to the parent company. Any contracts signed by TRFC – and not countersigned by RIFC – would fall. It would be up to RIFC to decide whether to operate as a club, create a new subsidiary or sell to a new or existing football club. Whatever entity ends up with the assets and operates as Rangers FC – as long as it is not TRFC – will, I believe, be free to negotiate its own retail deal with whatever supplier it chooses.
Of course, this all depends on the SPFL and SFA playing ball and the club owning all its own assets free of external encumbrance. If I had seen a Rangers official unexpectedly meeting the people at Hampden and paying off external debt, I might think this flight of fancy had a ring of truth?
trial sub judice court illegal guilty money laundering
Hopefully this goes into moderation.
I note my last comment was, rightly, put in moderation.
RayCharlez 2nd January 2016 at 12:34 am
While it is potentially defamatory to the three people involved I would argue that previous sanctions and actions taken against them make them ‘fair play’ in that they no longer have a public reputation for honesty.
I’m not a lawyer and totally understand if you err on side of caution.
If you don’t and decide to publish the comment, could you please fix one of the links I provided as it is incorrect.
It should be http://www.icij.org/offshore
All the Best and a Happy New Year
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/2014/34-73862.pdf
redlichtie
it’s like an RIFC template
Seems the two new “investors” have been on the scene for a while.
Once again the guys on Twitter are ahead of the story.This is from 2014.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/rangers-blazers-war-dave-kings-4670042
HirsutePursuit 2nd January 2016 at 12:39 am #Perhaps it’s just the new year; but there are a few bells ringing at the moment. Remember back in 2011, when we first learnt of the Tickets deal. We all said, “are they mad? What were they thinking of? Why risk their clients’ cash with such a basket-case of a business?” We still don’t know for sure; but for some reason, the money came and was ultimately lost. Subject of course, to ongoing proceedings Later, we found the administrators attempting to render the Ticketus deal void. We learnt then from Lord Hodge that the administrators could refuse to perform the contract ; but could not make it void. Unless Ticketus agreed, only liquidation of the club would kill the season ticket deal. Here we are in 2016 and the new Rangers, like its predecessor, seems to defy all known logic in its ability to draw in investment when under severe financial strain. We also, in 2016, know of a contract that the new club would like to shed; but, if reports are true, administration alone cannot shift. If I remember correctly, the Rangers Retail contract was signed by TRFC before RIFC came into existence. On a flight of fancy, I just wonder what would happen if RIFC decides to wind up TRFC? As the main creditor the club’s assets would go to the parent company. Any contracts signed by TRFC – and not countersigned by RIFC – would fall. It would be up to RIFC to decide whether to operate as a club, create a new subsidiary or sell to a new or existing football club. Whatever entity ends up with the assets and operates as Rangers FC – as long as it is not TRFC – will, I believe, be free to negotiate its own retail deal with whatever supplier it chooses. Of course, this all depends on the SPFL and SFA playing ball and the club owning all its own assets free of external encumbrance. If I had seen a Rangers official unexpectedly meeting the people at Hampden and paying off external debt, I might think this flight of fancy had a ring of truth
——————————————————
Food for thought.
Say RIFC have raised £6.5m and have offered to pay Ashley on behalf of TRFC.
If Ashley accepts TRFC regain control of the IP & shirt sponsorship but not the RR deal.
RIFC then wind up TRFC,the RR deal falls & RIFC can then do as you say with full control of the IP.
If Ashley refuses then RIFC still wind up TRFC then surely Ashleys fixed charge would have 1st dibs on the assets.Same result.Ashley gets paid off & RIFC own everything left.
The problem I see with this is I don’t see how the SFA/SPFL could sell this to the other clubs and the supporters of other clubs.This would be a definite Rangers 3.(Would there not be problems transferring TRFCs licence & SFA membership to RIFC).I think any attempt by Regan,Doncaster et al to treat the new entity as the same could bring civil war to Scottish Football.The fan backlash would be worse than in 2012 & the clubs know this.Unless of course you are suggesting that TRFC simply rebrand as RIFC and continue as if nothing has changed in a football sense.
RIFC and TRFC are different companies with different loans and finances. Watch for all the debt being allocated to one company and not the other one. Watch for one company going under and the other staying afloat. Watch for all the manouveres to ensure promotion.
[]
The SFA doing SFA. I cannot forsee Mike Ashley being shafted out of 5,000,000. Who will be the creditors owed 25,000,000 when the plug is pulled? Debt converted to shares? So much rests on gaining promotion.
The only sure way is to win The Championship.
tony 1st January 2016 at 9:59 pm #upthehoopsyet with this supposed power behind them they are living hand to mouth on a month to month basis
=================================
The key to the power IMO lies in the fact a Rangers exists at all in the senior leagues. When the old club was liquidated that should have been that, just like Gretna and Third Lanark. Rules were bent/broken left right and centre to ensure otherwise. It is a matter of record that the SFA and the then SPL also attempted to put the new club directly into the top league.
[]
Again, that is quite some power to have behind you. In summary, it appears no matter the ‘crime’ committed by Rangers, those in power are willing to wipe the slate clean at every turn. Is there any other football club in the world with that level of backing?
Upthehoops
Surely the people you mention that tried to abuse the power of their position should be brought to book ,another one for the NYT or others to follow up on,these charlatans should be made to explain how they thought being a member of the flat world society entitled them to abuse the positions they where in,and get away with it,time for the haunting to commence.
#CillitBang
Fisiani 2nd January 2016 at 3:29 am
========================
I suppose the big question is which is more helpful.
Getting the World wide licence to Rangers Retail Ltd cancelled or to be deducted 25 points for an insolvency event. The only way I can think of for the former to be achieved is by accepting the latter.
Even then I suspect Mike Ashley would fight any such move. So it would be down to the administrators and Court whether an administration would achieve it. It may require TRFC Ltd to be wound up entirely for the licence to be cancelled.
It is worth bearing in mind that Rangers Retail Ltd is an English company, based in England and that the deal is under English law. That may have an effect in relation to rights / insolvency. That certainly seemed to be a major factor in the Ticketus case.
Talking of changing mindsets!.
http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/156976-50-years-ago/
In my view, no club playing out of Ibrox can make a profit until full control of retail is recovered from Ashley. Insolvency seems to be the only way to achieve that.
The critical factor determining whether TRFC is placed into administration by its parent company, RIFC, may well be the terms of the IP Licence Agreement between Rangers Retail and TRFC. The full detail of that agreement has never been made public, all we know about it appears in the IPO admission document.
We know it is an exclusive worldwide licence, we know that there is currently no royalty payable, instead goods are procured by RR at cost plus 10%. However if SD take 100% of the shares, following an insolvency event, then a royalty will be paid to TRFC based on a formula of which we know nothing.
Now if TRFC goes into administration, but carries on trading, then I can see no reason why the licence to RR would terminate. RR would presumably become a 100% subsidiary of SD, and a royalty under the agreed formula would then be paid to TRFC. Given the rest of the terms of the Retail Agreement, I’m guessing that the royalty formula will be favourable to SD.
So a pre-pack administration followed by a CVA would not, as I understand it, get rid of the retail deal. All it would achieve would be the loss of any shares in RR, replaced by a royalty in respect of the IP licence.
The only sure way out of the retail contract would ultimately be the liquidation of TRFC, having first paid off Ashley his £5m, and extracted the assets via a “friendly” administration. Start again as Rangers3, Sevco2 or whatever. I’m absolutely certain by now that the SFA/SPFL will place no obstacles in the way of such a project.
Is not the way the RRL deal structured that they own the exclusive rights to produce shirts and all merchandise using the ‘Rangers’ brand and that in the event of an insolvency they get to pick up the IP at a song. Mike Ashley knows the people won’t accept a rebranding away from Rangers because that will kill the same club fantasy stone dead. If the loan has been repaid and if the notice is 7 years then I make it January 2023 before anyone other than RRL can directly* make money out of the ‘Rangers’ brand. *TRFC do receive dividends from RRL making it indirect.
The only way out of the RRL deal is a completely new club and if they thought about Govan Rangers they can forget about that SD would see them in court and win even with the judge who would have jumped at the chance of being introduced to the masons by John Greig
It would be interesting to see the process by which a PLC places a wholly owned subsidiary into administration, then has it liquidated.
With the sole real result being Rangers Retail Ltd, which is also owned 51% by the same PLC losing it’s only licence to produce sporting goods, and almost certainly dying as well.
Kill off a subsidiary, just to destroy a joint venture, which the subsidiary entered into in the first place.
I’m sure Mike Ashley’s highly paid experts in this field would have a great deal of fun with that one.
Re a TRFC insolvency. RIFC would need to ensure there are no bills becoming due anytime soon in that event because other than loans then TRFC is the only part of the group generating income. Bills becoming due like director’s expenses, for example, could not be paid because the Administrators wouldn’t pay something on account. That would leave RIFC open to trading while insolvent accusations
Just out of interest, I have attached the certificate of incorporation relating to Rangers Retail Ltd, just in case anyone hasn’t seen it.
It’s quite an interesting document. Particularly as it shows the genesis of the business.
As stated earlier, it’s an English company with an English address.
This is the document explaining the different share types and how that relates to financial matters. It is why Sports Direct hold all of the power.
Last one before I bore everyone too much. Sorry if I am too late, it’s just not possible to upload multiple documents.
This is a particularly clever extract from the last one.
Bottom line, only SD can ever hold the “special” shares as I read it
Happy 2016 to one and all .
We wuz robbed !
Rogues Rascals Miscreants – rel RRM indeed
Happy New Year on and all. I’m only just managing to keep up with my reading – thanks for keeping me informed. I’ve also read Phil, the Clumpany and JJ to try and get my head round things. This story is really getting interesting. It’s like we are nearing the end of a one-sided game of Chess and the best the King camp can hope for is stalemate. It’s like an amateur versus a Grandmaster – mind you I think a few grandmasters may have been giving King a bit of support.
armchairsupporter 2nd January 2016 at 10:53 pm #
‘….This story is really getting interesting. It’s like we are nearing the end of a one-sided game of Chess and the best the King camp can hope for is stalemate…’
______
Yes, it is indeed.
But we have to keep focused on the fact that our expectation ,based on their previous actions, is that those responsible for the conduct of the game in accordance with the rules, will happily accommodate the loser of the game by re-writing the rules. The loser , if we allow our Football Authorities to do so, will win!
I keep saying, and will keep saying, that this is not, in essence, about the death, and spurious resurrection, and possible re-death of one particular new club , but about the readiness of the Football Authorities to lose their heads in panic and fear to the point where they abandon all sense of truth and sound administration in desperate attempts to save, resurrect, re-resurrect a dead club, and lie to us all.
That is, while the death and extinction of the new club might be of some interest to quite a lot of folk, the more fundamental interest has to be in getting rid of those who for utterly unworthy financial or partisan reasons chose to sacrifice their personal integrity and abandoned any notion of Sporting Integrity in order to accommodate a lying, cheating club which had played them for mugs.
easyJambo, I have just PMd you.
Sure
There is legitimate interest in whether TRFC can survive to the end of the season
But there is a bigger issue for Bampots to think about
There was no worldwide IS threat in 2012
A threat that has the UK Gov bending over backwards to avoid offensive behaviour towards our Muslim brothers. This belated focus on toleration is something they cannot be seen to be doing simply because of terrorism. Their response has to include all minorities.
There has been a growing appetite by Government and large companies to take a tough line with abuse of minorities. So far the results are most visible in England. In Scotland the SNP Government are perceived by TRFC fans as against a legitimate culture that has unionism at its heart. This is probably the reason they have done nothing so far to deal with widespread disregard for lawbreaking by football fans
But
It’s only a matter of time
When RFC died their bereaved fans went backwards. They now espouse a make believe world where TRFC are only a few tens of £ms away from the RFC greatness they enjoyed for decades. They act out behaviour not seen in Scottish football since the 1930s. A time when their culture was flaunted at will with negligible intervention by local and national government
However
In 2016 there is no place for the culture that underpinned Rangers (IL) The vast majority of Scots will not put up with it any more. Including (I suspect) an overwhelming majority of the non- football community who give tacit support to the Rangers (IL) establishment concept but disapprove of their sectarian behaviour
What does all this mean?
IMO
There is a ticking time bomb under this club
Their fans cling to titles won by a liquidated football club
They cling to a 1930s offensive culture that is no longer acceptable
The world has moved on in the 4yrs since 2012
But
The behaviour of many former RFC (IL) fans has regressed to the 1930s
IMO
Tolerating this behaviour in the lower leagues has made it a dominant fixture in make believe land
The return of TRFC to the top league with a poor quality football side is a recipe for greater misbehaviour than we had before RFC died in 2012
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
This is the real issue we should all be focussing on
Perhaps MA will sort it out as a matter of expediency ………..if it fits other goals
More likely
We will need Scottish government action.Ideally set out in the upcoming manifestos for the May elections
John Clark 2nd January 2016 at 11:52 pm
“readiness of the Football Authorities to lose their heads in panic and fear to the point where they abandon all sense of truth and sound administration in desperate attempts to save, resurrect, re-resurrect a dead club, and lie to us all.”
And the SMSM who make a mockery of these words.
“There are three estates in Parliament but in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder there sits a Fourth Estate more important far than they all. It is not a figure of speech or witty saying, it is a literal fact, very momentous to us in these times.”
Edmund Burke
woodstein 3rd January 2016 at 12:31 am
‘….And the SMSM who make a mockery of these words…’
________
And isn’t it sad, very, very sad, that in our democratic , ‘free press’ society , we should have nothing but gombeen men and lickspittle propagandist sports ‘journalists’?
Good God Almighty, the truth is staring them in the face.
Yet they choose to propagate a lie.
They are entirely without honour.
They will be accursed by their children, and by their children’s children.
Which child would wish to have a sleazy, lying journalist as a father?
John Clark 3rd January 2016 at 12:05 am #
easyJambo, I have just PMd you.
=======================
Reply sent!
I was just reading some historical articles re two of the new Ibrox investors who we are told contributed towards the latest loan. I think it is now fair to think the SFA and the SPFL have zero interest at all in the fitness for purpose of who is financing the Ibrox club. Where does it all end I asked myself. The answer I came up with was flag day at Ibrox to celebrate the winning of the Scottish Premiership title. This really is beginning to look like Rangers at the very top no matter the cost. If the authorities don’t want us to have that impression, then perhaps some rigid rules on financial fair play and fit and proper directors and investors in Scottish football would help allay our concerns.
Sorry, I have to go now because a huge pink elephant has just crash landed out the the back of my house!
The SFA don’t really have a say though, unless the Ibrox club decide to make the new investors Directors, in which case the fit and proper person ‘rules’ come into play. Absolutely anyone can ‘invest’ in a Scottish team (or loan them money) if they are not having any sort of influence over the running of the club and the SFA would not even need to be informed.
The man with the magic hat has been offering his wise words again. Warburton says Rangers(IL) should play fewer O/F games to improve Scottish football. “If you want things to change,if you want things to improve,then there has to be some short term pain for longer term gain”.Arrogance or Rangersitis? Probably both. The only pain in Scottish football has been the pain the shape shifter entity from Govan has visited on our game over the last number of years aided and abetted by the charlatans at Hampden.
It now seems clear that RIFC have managed to borrow £6.5m. Given the fine upstanding characters involved, it would be churlish to doubt the truth of that statement, even for a moment. However I wonder how the real RRM ( Douglas Park, for example) feel about a club statement that puts them in the same category as a pair of complete rogues? Mind you, King’s background isn’t exactly the CV of a fine upstanding example of business probity either, and for some reason people of apparent integrity seem willing to be used by him.
There are two possibilities regarding the £6.5m.
In short, the only viable way forward is to get rid of Ashley and recover the retail income stream. It was said a year ago (by PMG?) that Ashley would walk away for £25m. Insolvency seems a much cheaper option, but only if insolvency breaks Ashley’s retail /IP contracts. And only if the Ashley loan is repaid first.
The full cooperation of the SFA and SPFL in whatever plan is decided on, insolvency or not, can, of course, be absolutely guaranteed. That is the only certain thing in the whole mess.
Helpmaboab
Merlin is obviously covering all the exits,just in case of a points deduction,we all know the only way he will get what he is saying is if he can turn back the clock,play less old firm games,to play any in the future will be some trick to pull out the hat,we know what that he is really meaning league reconstruction due to an administration event at the new club that has him spell bound,so much so he is now day dreaming,Phil,can you send Merlin a copy of Downfall ,me thinks he has been eating too much of Daves pork pies .
neepheid 3rd January 2016 at 10:13 am #
—————————
If RIFC decide to wind up TRFC, SD will have a claim against TRFC for the consequential breach of licencing contract. SD will be a significant creditor in a liquidation scenario.
Which makes me think…
It will be interesting if the payment of £5m to SD has come from RIFC or TRFC.
And wonder…
With repayment will the IP ownership revert to TRFC or will it go to RIFC?
Will the SD security over TRFC’s assets be transferred to RIFC? Is this the ‘highly conditional’ aspect of the repayment?
Will the only unsecured asset in a liquidation scenario be Ibrox itself?
Is this a scenario in which RIFC would seek to negotiate a favourable deal with SD rather than ditch them entirely? Would MA play ball?
Oh, so many questions!
…and one last question.
Will TRFC ‘s SFA and SPFL memberships be transferred to RIFC in the very near future? Will we be told if they are?
Sorry, that’s two questions!
HirsutePursuit 3rd January 2016 at 10:53 am #
neepheid 3rd January 2016 at 10:13 am # ————————— If RIFC decide to wind up TRFC, SD will have a claim against TRFC for the consequential breach of licencing contract. SD will be a significant creditor in a liquidation scenario.
Which makes me think…
It will be interesting if the payment of £5m to SD has come from RIFC or TRFC.
And wonder…
With repayment will the IP ownership revert to TRFC or will it go to RIFC?
Will the SD security over TRFC’s assets be transferred to RIFC? Is this the ‘highly conditional’ aspect of the repayment?
Will the only unsecured asset in a liquidation scenario be Ibrox itself?
Is this a scenario in which RIFC would seek to negotiate a favourable deal with SD rather than ditch them entirely? Would MA play ball?
Oh, so many questions!
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Or could it be as cheeky as this?
RIFC request the governing authorities to transfer the football licence from TRFC to RIFC as a preamble to liquidating TRFC
The corrupt governing authorities agree
TRFC the company get liquidated along with the RR contract
TRFC the club don`t die because the change of licence changed them from TRFC the clumpany to RIFC the clumpany with the full support of the governing bodies.
The Gullibles are told its just a legal thing and swallow it whole
Its business as usual
Even better
No points deduction
Edit
HP
re your post above
Great minds think alike
My thoughts are that the January 1st statement by RIFC was forced by SD (who already knew “Who are these people?”) to get certain individuals named on a company statement.
Cue “Cheque received, but unable to accept until due diligence carried out on source of funds, due to certain individuals involved” statement from SD, if not tomorrow, but sometime in the future.
Of course, they may not need to use that particular tool if the payment is as ‘conditional’ as has been suggested & is not acceptable for other reasons.
I wonder what Mr King and the SFA spoke about (planned ) on their wee meeting not long ago. The SFA as mentioned before will do anything to keep the new rangers alive and will be fully backed by the smsm as history tells us they have took the 30 shillings in the past. What power to have as a govan club. The only power out of thier grasp is us the fans. I know we stopped them in their tracks before and hopefully can do again but why just us, we may need our clubs behind us as well ( surely the dead entity has no control of our clubs)? The SFA are opnely breaking rules to aid one club and are doing this in front of us and our clubs, what is it going to take for a stand against our IMO corrupt SFA.
On a seperate issue when is the decision made concerning BDO appeal reference the COS decision on EBT’s.
If this COS decision stands then what do we realisticallyy want/expect to happen for the good of our game. As the SFA will only look after the good of one club as they always have.
If any of the above scenarios come into play,how will this affect the board of the take over company,does allowing a company/club that you are knowingly drip feeding life into,a life which you know you will end not put you in a position of not being a fit and proper person/s to be on a board for the next umpteen years,then there is the board of the club/company that goes under,that has at least 2 board members that were not so long ago passed as fit and proper ,so many questions,this is really going to get interesting.
If TRFC were to suffer an insolvency event then the club would receive a 25 point deduction. That would currently put them on 22 points, 7th in the division. They could still get promotion, but it would probably have to be through the play-offs
Alternatively they would have to be recognised as what they are, a new club, in which case they would lose 15 points, that would put them on 32 points, 3rd in the division.
I don’t think either would be acceptable to the support.