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?
Once again I see some are getting excited about the prospects of insolvency and subject of ‘internal debt’.
As we know with the likes of Chelsea, Newcastle Utd and others, millions can be thrown at the football operation in the form of ‘internal debt’ from the owner via their holding company.
Similarly Brooks Mileston at Gretna lavished cash towards to his beloved football club until it ran out.
This nonsense happens all the time.
The internal debt, while hanging around like a bad smell, is, in effect, money being pissed up against a wall by folk who want to be involved with a football club, for whatever reason. The millions thrown at Chelsea has achieved a degree of success but, as this season shows, it is not always the result.
The way in which the ‘internal debt’ gets dealt with is letting it sit on the back burner until a share swap can be sorted, or indeed if some Sugar Daddy finally comes over the horizon!!
While I believe Aberdeen owed the bank some money they had a total debt of circa £15m for a good number of years that they ‘disappeared’ that the other year by bringing in new ‘investors’ and clearing everything they could to end up ‘debt free’.
The machinations at Ibrox are no different with the exception of a few pesky shareholders in the Plc who are not RRM and one in particular who has a finger in the retail pie.
Given the emergence of two new chancers I stand by my view that regardless of what happens there are folk out there willing to part with their cash to keep the club alive. The ‘investment’ will be on an emotional basis as there is no obvious way of coming out of this with any return.
The questions are:-
How many emotionally attached addicts are out there?
What monies do they have?
How long will it last and can suppliers and taxman continue to be paid?
Will the fans hold their nerve if things don’t work out on the pitch over the next two seasons?
(e.g. At the start of the season most Hearts fans would have been happy this with a decent top six finish, the current third spot and potential Europe spot would just be a bonus – will the Bears be as patient or willing to play second fiddle for a good number of years before the calls for even more sugar daddy investment ).
Next up will be raiding the money held by the fans groups. The alternative is holding out as long as possible so Season Ticket money (with the hope of increased Premiership prices) will come in and with one or both these sources you have enough to scrape through into next season. What kind of team you can put out on the pitch is a different story altogether!!
As some point the begging bowl will no doubt come out again with a drip feeding of funds and promises being required to get the accounts signed off.
The internal debt does not matter one jot, as long as the bills to suppliers and the tax man is being paid the club from Ibrox are doing nothing that plenty other clubs around the UK and the world are doing and the footballing authorities will continue to turn a blind eye until such times as, non payment of player wages, Administration or Liquidation comes a knocking.
The required equity share swap issue will mostly likely get resolved over time given the few points they need to get it passed. Someone somewhere will crack and say ‘sod this for a game of soldiers’.
Unless Ashley puts some kind of spanner in the works I still think the prospect of an insolvency event is still a bit off.
Like Newcastle he knows there are enough emotionally attached folk out their who, despite SoS boycotts etc, are willing to buy the clubs merchandise. Other than making King look like a fool he has no real need to crash the bus but he certainly won’t be helping them out either, unless it suits him
Homunculus 3rd January 2016 at 1:51 pm #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.
==================
A points deduction following an insolvency event is mandatory under the rules. Whether that deduction is 15 points or 25 points, it will most certainly NOT be acceptable to the support. Rules are only for others, so sanctions of any sort, on any entity calling itself “Rangers” and playing at Ibrox, will never be acceptable to the support. That’s Scottish fitba’, sadly.
There are some timing issues to consider, but it is possible that if the football operation transfers to RIFC, TRFC remains in place for a while – licenced by RIFC to sub-licence the IP to SD and as the parent company of heritable property, security and website companies.
It could subsequently be hived off as a going concern – on a one-to-one share basis to to existing shareholders to become a linked company to (rather than subsidiary of) RIFC. Crucially, owing RIFC northwards of £25m which is secured by way of a floating charge on its assets.
In this scenario, if TRFC later became insolvent, there would be no points deduction as it would no longer be part of the group. RIFC would take possession of the assets covered by the floating charge.
I don’t think that there would be any barrier to any of this from the SFA or SPFL as the membership transfers would, I think, be permissable under the articles and rules of both organisations.
The sticking point for any of this is the current licencing deal between RR and TRFC, and how this might be affected by ownership of the IP transferring to RIFC. This is likely (or at least possibly) the conditional part of the £5m payment that RIFC have reportedly sent to SD.
wottpi 3rd January 2016 at 2:35 pm
========================
As I have said before, what you are describing is a hobby, and the financial fair play rules were brought in specifically to stop that sort of thing. It is just a shame that they have pretty much died a death.
The big difference with Rangers compared to the likes of Chelsea or Manchester City is that these men really are billionaires. They can afford the millions they throw away on their hobbies (even if it is later converted to equity).
Rangers have to look to break even. I just don’t see how the way things are going. There is a catch 22, if they cut costs too much then they don’t put out a good enough team for the support to buy tickets etc. They do in fact do walking away. No matter what you may have heard.
Best video ever.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi90Ymb9o3KAhWI7BQKHcw7BwIQyCkIJTAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Di7zw92lSNus&usg=AFQjCNEzTRkhRrOhB3ld2egaBAZA-g01JQ&bvm=bv.110151844,d.ZWU
https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2016/01/03/an-apology-to-barry-scott/
Good afternoon all.
Avid lurker and rarely post on this blog but its my sanctuary! I have been doing my own ‘Sherlocking’ re one of the Hong Kong Investors and thought it premature of JJ to describe one as an embezzler!
I’d like to clarify something and here are my findings.
Mr Barry Scott (Date of Birth 1962) of Barum Securities (who I think has been mistakenly identified as the Hong Kong Investor) fled to New Zealand with his wife, au pair and three children after having embezzled clients investments. He set up two investment companies under his Psychiatrist wife’s name, both now struck off.
He met his wife in Aberdeen after she had graduated in 1997. She returned to Britain and took appointments in at least one Consultant Psychiatrist post in Ayrshire and Dumfries. A company, J.Scott Medical was established in 2014 with her husband Barry Scott 50% shareholder.
He came back to Scotland but I’m not sure when and set up a bed and breakfast Business (I wont divulge where)
We are confusing him (I think) With Barry James Scott born 1975. I found an article from the Hawick newspaper where a Barry Scott (a teri) ( Now living in Hong Kong) and Geraint Facey Richards of Allied International donating money to a charity.
By coincidence, a Court case in Hong Kong that I had to translate reveals A Barry Scott (AKA as Barry James Scott)and a Geraint Facey Richards defending a claim against them/Company? of £350,000.
Barry James Scott is listed as a Director in Hong Kong. He was born in 1975. His first appointment was as a Director of Fitzgerald Lodge management company Ltd. He resigned in 2008.
I believe the latter Barry James Scott may be the Investor? That’s all I have managed to find on him
Regards all and keep shining the torches!
GV
HirsutePursuit 3rd January 2016 at 2:56 pm #There are some timing issues to consider, but it is possible that if the football operation transfers to RIFC, TRFC remains in place for a while – licenced by RIFC to sub-licence the IP to SD and as the parent company of heritable property, security and website companies.
=================================
Perhaps an obtuse question, but which of RIFC or TRFC actually holds the necessary licences from the SFA/SPFL?
@JJ given that RIFC claim that TRFC are the club and indeed RIFC didn’t even exist when TRFC were granted a conditional licence to play Brechin in July 2012, it has to be TRFC. Note also that the SFA transferred the RFC licence to replace the conditional licence soon after the Brechin game about 3 months before RIFC existed;
TRFC is the association football club in membership of the SFA.
TRFC is a member of the SPFL which, in its terms, is the owner and operator of Rangers FC
Homunculus 3rd January 2016 at 3:09 pm
Totally agree.
Keep saying that they can only go on for so long until the money available fails to meet the fans expectations (which are currently high given DCK’s run away mouth but would be more realistic if they listened to Douglas Park).
There has to be a tightening of the belt (how, I continually ask) and the only way it works is if there is a continual drip feeding of money from investors and the fans change their attitude in that, like those loyal Newcastle fans, they stump up cash to ‘Follow Follow’ their team as opposed seeking silverware and turn out regardless of what goes on on the park.
I note the war chest appears to have been opened but it looks like so far it is only six month contracts for a journeyman and bench warming winger Harry Forrester (25 and ex Brentford a few years back) and out of contract Polish goalkeeper Maciej Gostomski (27).
Not much ‘added value’ there from what I can see.
tykebhoy
—————–
Indeed.
Membership of the SFA was conferred automatically to Sevco via membership of the SFL – from memory 12th July 2012
Rangers (mark 1) remained a member of the old SPL until 3rd August 2012.
The SFA transferred Rangers status as a FULL member to the new club – which was already a registered member in its own right. Only when Rangers gave up its membership of the SPL did its membership of the SFA lapse. For around three weeks, both clubs held membership of the SFA via membership of their respective leagues.
I think we also owe Barry Scott an apology for getting his identity wrong. Thanks to GiorgioVasari for his excellent work in discovering the error.
Once again, our apologies to Mr Scott.
Trisidium 3rd January 2016 at 4:21 pm #I think we also owe Barry Scott an apology for getting his identity wrong. Thanks to Giorgio Vasari for his excellent work in discovering the error.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I wouldn`t be too concerned
There are at least 50,000 fans supporting a Championship team with the wrong identity
The recent game at ibrox and the sectarian singing.
When will we hear the match delegate’s report ?
Does a report usually take a week?
Or is this the longest a match delegate’s report has taken to be published?
Or is a week a normal time frame for such matters?
Trisidium
Thank you.
I’m not 100% sure there has been an error or even if the Barry James Scott IS indeed the Hong Kong investor but it certainly points more towards him than the former.
Strange thing is when I Google imaged the name along with ALLIED INTERNATIONAL, the person is most certainly not 45!
Hmm.
GoosyGoosy….Ha!
https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2016/01/03/an-apology-to-barry-scott
this blog seems to have been removed.
Cluster One 3rd January 2016 at 5:16 pm #
The recent game at ibrox and the sectarian singing.
When will we hear the match delegate’s report ?…
=============
Exactly.
And why can’t these reports be shared online for all Scottish football fans to access?
Why not?
(And with any necessary redaction to avoid potential libel?)
This would provide a tangible, welcome improvement to transparency in the game.
…yes, I know… 🙁
Thanks for that, I read the deleted post earlier today and it was simply an apology to Barry Scott on the basis of mistaken identity. It has been replaced by a post entitled “Reverse Engineering”, on the theme that Scott and Ross used a Hong Kong registered company called Ibrox Park Holdings Ltd to acquire their stake in Workington, and that this suitably named company is likely to be used by King andhis allies to acquire the assets of TRFC, with that company being liquidated.
I checked the CH record for Workington AFC Ltd, and Ibrox Park Holdings Ltd (no address given) holds 86426 of the 322600 issued shares at September 2015 according to the annual return.
Fascinating insight on the possible chair shuffling on the temporarily floating facility chaps.
Question for HP and others. I understand TRFC holds the magic membership just now. Surely, with 25m of debt to RIFC then they are insolvent. I thought one of the conditions of an acceptable transfer was solvency to save on ‘a Portsmouth’ situation where these owner and operators simply run away from debt?
neepheid 3rd January 2016 at 10:10 pm #
I checked the CH record for Workington AFC Ltd, and Ibrox Park Holdings Ltd (no address given) holds 86426 of the 322600 issued shares at September 2015 according to the annual return.
====================================
The previous year’s AR01 lists them with a Hong Kong address. (see attachment)
Since the creation of the SPFL I’m not entirely sure what the voting structure now is on a matter such as league reconstruction, so perhaps I’m talking mince with this post.
back from the States?
I have just been re-reading Warburton’s statement as reported in today’s ‘Scotland on Sunday’ by Ewing Grahame.
Grahame quotes in some detail Doncaster’s 2011 financial argument against a 16-team top tier, and reports Warburton as strongly disagreeing with Doncaster’s analysis, Warburton asserting that ‘the presence of of his club, plus Hibs and Falkirk, could enhance the top flight…’
There is obviously a desire for ‘belt and braces’ provision as regards their chances of promotion, and the need therefore for some sweet-talking about TRFC’s desire to help enhance the Scottish game, a need for a public charm offensive, to weaken Doncaster’s former position.
For the club manager to get into the politics of the SPFL ( and, correct me if I’m mistaken, I don’t think Warburton has made any other ‘political’ pronouncement of the kind, confining himself to managing a football team on the park) is a bit unusual.
It suggests to me that the script was written for him by his Board and/or the RIFC Board, who may be planning an ‘insolvency event’ , assured that even a 25 point hit will not matter.
And that would suggest to me that Doncaster’s Board were already onside, having had the benefit of a little ‘courtesy call’ chat with King.
And that would suggest to me EITHER that Desmond /the Celtic Board are also onside OR that attempts via the SMSM will/would be made to cast them as the bad guys if they were to resist any league restructuring for ‘selfish’ reasons.
Am I a)drinking too much on a Sunday night?
b) still suffering from having ‘jetted’
c) both of these?
Smugas
It’s internal debt, so is effectively ignored by the football authorities, who are satisfied with consolidated accounts for the group as a whole. If RIFC decides to operate football operations directly and has the SFA and SPFL memberships transferred, the debt, initially at least, will still be internal.
Transfer of membership within the same group would be treated as a solvent reorganisation and would not be treated as an interruption of membership.
If/when TRFC is hived off, the football authorities will have little interest. RIFC would, by then, be recognised as the club and would be a creditor should/when TRFC is liquidated.
As long as RIFC holds the memberships and TRFC is taken out of group consolidated accounts before going belly up, there will be no points deduction.
HirsutePursuit 3rd January 2016 at 11:57 pm #SmugasIt’s internal debt, so is effectively ignored by the football authorities, who are satisfied with consolidated accounts for the group as a whole. If RIFC decides to operate football operations directly and has the SFA and SPFL memberships transferred, the debt, initially at least, will still be internal. Transfer of membership within the same group would be treated as a solvent reorganisation and would not be treated as an interruption of membership.If/when TRFC is hived off, the football authorities will have little interest. RIFC would, by then, be recognised as the club and would be a creditor should/when TRFC is liquidated.As long as RIFC holds the memberships and TRFC is taken out of group consolidated accounts before going belly up, there will be no points deduction.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
This sounds like
Our corrupt football authorities view TRFC, and only TRFC as an ethereal thingy club that never dies and can`t be held responsible for breaking rules like insolvency or offensive behaviour legislation.
All these pesky rules that every other club has to live with don`t apply to the ethereal thingy. Particularly rules that damage sporting advantage like points deduction
Except when there is TV money to share out or when the ethereal thingy wins something.When that happens the ethereal thingy becomes a limited liability company that can receive payments
What a wheeze
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Have we finally discovered the real meaning of “the establishment club” ?
i.e.
Everybody else, clubs fans, and corrupt governing bodies exist to service the needs of the establishment club
And the choice is quite simple
Take it or leave it
For one
If TRFC the club get off scot free from an insolvency created by a Spiv to shed debt
I`m out
John Clark 3rd January 2016 at 11:34 pm #
John
My understanding is that Warburton was a City trader for some 25 years before going into football as a youth coach at Watford (U9- U16 responsibility, later moving on to boss the U17-U19 set up).
He went on to Brentford after a break (he was sacked at Watford), where he was a coach but then Sporting Director which involved him in dealing with agents, club finances and contracts (hopefully onerous ones and how to get out of them!).At the second attempt he got the Managers job there.
Given his City background it’s maybe not a surprise that he applies his mind to SPL economics and shooting down the amateur musings of Doncaster in the same way many posters on here do with ease.
However, I don’t rule out your suggestion that it is all part of the bigger picture. The way has been smoothed for 3 months now and that is why suspicions about a corporate reorganisation followed by an insolvency event are well founded. If only Mike would play ball like the SFA/SPL and accomodate a bit more.
goosygoosy 4th January 2016 at 12:34 am #
To be fair Goosy. For as long as I can remember us Diddys were here to service two Glasgow based clubs. Servicing just the the one in the SPFL at the moment is proving to be more interesting and less onerous.
HirsutePursuit 3rd January 2016 at 11:57 pm
‘..It’s internal debt, so is effectively ignored by the football authorities, who are satisfied with consolidated accounts for the group as a whole.’
________
I am as a child in these matters, HP.
But isn’t there a need for some statutory declaration of Solvency by the directors to be made before any resolution to dissolve the company can be valid?
How could TRFC directors make such a declaration, owing (supposedly) a considerable sum to a different legal entity? If they cannot claim to be solvent, then any ‘liquidation’ and dissolution would not be a ‘members voluntary’ dissolution, but the more prosaic forced liquidation.
It would be helpful if you could talk us through in detail how the scenario you paint ( and I’m not at all saying that you are wrong) can come to pass.
John Clark 4th January 2016 at 1:02 am #
John
In consolidated accounts the debt is eliminated because the results of the subsidiary are combined with the holding company.
The Holding company has an asset in the debt – the subsidiary has a liability. On consolidation the two positions cancel each other out. That is why Smugas is dismissing the “internal debt” in his posts.
Bogs Dollox 4th January 2016 at 1:10 am
‘..In consolidated accounts the debt is eliminated ..’
______________
I think I know what you mean, Bogs Dollox. ‘ You’re my parent, I owe you, but, parent-wise, you forgive me the debt’ kind of idea so that even though I can’t pay what I owe, I am not in an insolvency situation.’
Not your fault, of course, but the law seems to favour folk like the contemptible, the utterly contemptible, Bryson. Perhaps because it is made by contemptible politicians!
Goosy
Whether the scenario I’ve laid out comes to pass will not be decided by the SFA nor by the SPFL. Actually, I don’t think it would break any of their rules. Sevco will not be shedding debt as such. The reason I think an attempt might be made to make it happen is that the SD deal (along with other things) makes the club a financial basket case. They need to find some way of getting a better deal.
The reason it might not happen is that the existing SD deal may well preclude a transfer of the IP to RIFC. If that IP transfer doesn’t happen, I don’t think TRFC could be hived off. If TRFC remains within the group, liquidation will incur the 25 point penalty and would likely prevent promotion to the top division this year or risk relegation next season.
My starting point in all of this is that the £5m wouldn’t be paid back to SD unless there was a very good reason. To be clear, I’m not saying it will happen; but I think it is reasonably likely that there may be an attempt to make it happen.
Watch out for the change of ownership of the IP in the next week or so.
If it is changed to RIFC from SD, wait to see if there is any reaction from MA/SD. If the IP remains with SD or changes to TRFC or MA publicly objects to a change to RIFC, the second switcheroo is probably not on
John Clark
TRFC owns assets with a book value greater than its total debt and apparently can pay its bills as they become due, so are not technically insolvent.
You can look at how SDM managed to lose tens, if not hundreds, of millions whilst remaining solvent as the book value of RFC’s assets increased year by year and bank loans and cash from share issues kept the cash flowing.
I’ve just noticed an out of contract and relatively unknown Polish goalkeeper has ‘jetted’ into Glasgow to sign for Rangers. Instant superstardom guaranteed already. It just doesn’t happen anywhere else.
Cluster One 3rd January 2016 at 5:16 pm
Administration (where any version of Rangers is concerned) takes time.
For example, we await the investigation into the sectarian singing in Milan when only corporate Rangers (IL) supporters attended.
Numerous examples of TV commentators having to apologise to their viewers for sectarian language from the Rangers support are on record, nothing will happen.
Seems strange to me that the SNP can go to the trouble to enact a stupid unworkable law to root out sectarianism, then refuse to enforce the law when 40,000+ break it with impunity.
Are we closing in on a true definition of ‘club’
1/. Something that fans support, albeit conditions of ownership, like debt, can be altered to suit. Obviously winning stuff is transportable, combined winning stuff, otherwise referred to as ‘istry’ is equally mobile but debt is stuck on like glue.
2/. Control of, if not outright ownership of, the IP rights.
3/. Control of, but not necessarily ownership of ‘a membership’
my immediate thoughts are good luck anyone trying to raise finance for one of these there ‘club’ thingies in the future. Is that worth it Neil, Stewart?
Tris has added a mention of Turnbull Hutton to the front page. This has given me pause for thought about what a great loss TH’s death was for football.
I certainly hope that he is not forgotten any time soon, but I do think it is appropriate that we remember him at the start of a year in which we will be deprived of his presence.
Interesting take on new King manoeuvres on jj
https://johnjamessite.wordpress.com/2016/01/03/reverse-engineering/
Comments on the plausibility? Certainly seems to make sense to me, assuming the IP is returned to TRFC before any asset sale.
Are you sure they’ve got the £1?
I agree with many on here, the ducks are being set up for another “cleansing of debt” event.
DCK’s visit to Hampden was probably to get the final pieces of the operation in place; i.e. more dodgy (lack of) governance.
I believe the Ashley loan will be repaid to have the security over the IP removed. These latest loans being to RIFC suggest as many have alluded to, the plan is to increase the RIFC creditor status to over 75% and in a position of ultimate control. I also believe the Mark II team will be kept alive for the remainder of the season via more drip feed loans, however once Ashley is repaid the loans from RIFC to TRFC will be fully secured against all assets, including the big hoose! The providers of these loans will ultimately be paid back via a significant share in the new entity.
The 41 other clubs will be told reconstruction to 14 clubs in season 2016/2017 is a must for the good of the game and there will be 2 clubs promoted and no relegation at the end of next season. This would pave the way for RIFC to call in their debt from the subsidiary, forcing administration and subsequent liquidation. A 25 point penalty at the start of next season will be yet another meaningless exercise with no relegation and little chance of title honours anyway.
This would render the retail deal capoot, leaving Ashley out in the cold along with possibly another 273 smaller creditors including HMRC, who might have to sing for their quarterly dues???
Problems? The other 41 clubs would obviously have to agree to accept Third Rangers in the top league, (hence the Hampden meeting) and I’m sure the compliant press along with the wall of silence from the various clubs’ hierarchy will somehow ensure this time the new club retain the top tier status.
All conjecture of course but hard to see another reason for the recent developments. There could of course be many other spanners, (via the courts) to be tossed into the workings of any plan and I’m sure many on here will be able to shoot holes in this conjecture. However we must remember, normal rules to not apply in Govan, a sinister, unseen web of control exists both in Scotland as well as the UK as a whole and the end justifies the means will be the mantra.
Let’s hope some overseas journalist, (NYT?) can really get his teeth into this whole pantomime, deliberately dressed up as a farce to conceal the greatest sporting scandal in the history of sport in the UK.
Big Pink 4th January 2016 at 12:19 pm #
I can certainly see the benefits, though not sure if it’s as simple as it seems. I would imagine it’s not something that could be done on the say-so of the board and would probably require a vote with, at least, 75% of shareholders in favour.
Assuming they were able to surmount any obstacles, it (the club) would surely become/continue as a home for spivvery, with a Green style IPO in the pipeline using a Green style prospectus omitting/neglecting to mention the company history and the business history of the main players in the boardroom. Somehow I can imagine the likes of King ending up with a large proportion of shares, just like Green, that he didn’t have to pay for. All that would be required is a large number of gullible ‘investors’ and some City institutions with fund managers none too carefull when investing other people’s money. It worked before, though it does have it’s pitfalls…!
I assume the retail deal must have provision for financial clawback in the event of default (particularly entirely predictable default) on the part of the holder. Some formulation of 7 years lost income assuming prior notice hasn’t been given? The holder here would be RIFC they having picked up the IPR as part of its floating charge following the proposed liquidation of TRFC (on the strength of a call up of the RIFC debt).
JJ then proposes an additional sale of said IPR along with “the assets” (which combined purport to be the club) from the toxic RIFC to IPH.
The default clause on the retail agreement would surely attach to the IPR itself, not the holder of it though, else one would be exposed to the very default risk that the clause is designed to avoid? In this case, first TRFC, then RIFC and finally IPH would still be liable, at the very least, for any compensation.
Any new entity either needs new badges, needs to pay Mike out, or needs to include Mike in the carve up somewhere Shirley?
Completely separate to that, I still think the ‘conditions’ of the loan repayment were the dropping of the JR into the machinations of the original switcheroo by our glorious leaders.
Finally, FWIW, I think Norman’s Mum’s comments re the restructuring timeline are bang on, but again it requires someone now to throw good money after bad just to get the club to the upper tier in the first place. I hope all these soft loaners have done their sums as to what exactly it is they are getting the promised shares in, and how many appear to be being promised, after the latest proposed switcheroo.
IMHO
ICT Press Release today – brill.
easyJambo 3rd January 2016 at 10:28 pm
============================
I had a quick look at that address last night.
2nd Floor, 625 Kings Road, North Point, Hong Kong
Baker Tilly Hong Kong
2nd Floor, 625 King’s Road
North Point
Hong Kong
T: +852 2525 0171
F: +852 2810 1417
As has been noted elsewhere
Andrew D. Ross
Managing Director
D: +852 2152 2641
andrewross@bakertillyhk.com
It seems entirely plausible that if someone was setting up a PLC in Hong Kong that they would use the address of a reputable firm of accountants and auditors to do so. Particularly if one of those involved was closely linked to that reputable firm of accountants and auditors.
HirsutePursuit 4th January 2016 at 2:31 am
=============================
I know what you mean and do not disagree at all. However it really is a preposterous system.
Rangers main assets are “valued” using this “depreciated replacement cost” method. Basically, what it would cost to replace it with a modern equivalent (in very simply term).
It does not represent what they could sell the asset for. So the notion of the value of the assets being higher than the value of the liabilities is a tad disingenuous. That’s not a comment on a specific club, just the system as a whole.
Smugass,
Finally, FWIW, I think Norman’s Mum’s comments re the restructuring timeline are bang on, but again it requires someone now to throw good money after bad just to get the club to the upper tier in the first place. I hope all these soft loaners have done their sums as to what exactly it is they are getting the promised shares in, and how many appear to be being promised, after the latest proposed switcheroo.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
You are of course making the assumption that this is “good” money and not that stuff which may be slightly tainted and in need of a wee bit o doby????
normanbatesmumfc 4th January 2016 at 12:29 pm
The 41 other clubs will be told reconstruction to 14 clubs in season 2016/2017 is a must for the good of the game and there will be 2 clubs promoted and no relegation at the end of next season.
==================================
That would be totally unacceptable, changing the rules of a competition during the competition shouldn’t even be discussed.
If it is put to the clubs and they agree to it for 2017/2018 I have absolutely no issue with that. However there must be a clear season for such changes to be made.
Homunculus
it’s in their own rules,but we know they mean nothing when dealing with sevco
I may may have go this wrong but so it goes
The debt is of two types first to the RRM provided in the form of soft loans with the hope of being replaced by equity. The second is that owed to MA secured by the valuable stuff. Pay that off and the valuable stuff goes back to the RRM.
At that point the debt becomes that which is owed to those inside the fraternity with nothing owed except to them. transferring out assets to reset the debt meter would mean that the losers would be the RRM who currentlly provide the soft loans. For them to accept such a Manouevre would be a lot to swallow.
Third Rangers would need to be either self sustaining or within the hobby money of those who have taken the assets from under the noses of the current soft loan providers. I would guess that the possibility of any more soft loans from proper businessmen would Be destroyed by the switcheroo.
The assets might be valued on a DRC basis for capital purposes. The real question is what profit could be derived from them on a sustainable basis? if the answer is less than zero ( and it may very well be given the size of the fixed assets and their condition compared to the potential income from them ) then either the Club dies or downsizing needs to be done which makes the assets more onerous on the limited income from the downsized operation. the downsized operation might find its level but it is always going to be less viable than other similar sized clubs unless it moves from the current stadium and training ground. would that be acceptable to the people?
Homunculus
The expansion of the league at the end of 2016/17 (i.e. the end of next season) can be brought in without doing anything mid season as it were – they still have 6 months to complete the paperwork. It is the promise to expand to 14/16/whatever in 2017/18 that automatically infers no relegation in 16/17 that could be so so valuable! And yes, there is nothing to stop a one down, three up scenario, but then would you take that risk with a possible points deduction still being bandied about? Nice and clean. Just move along. Nothing to see.
Norman,
Correct. Please replace “Good” with “more”
BFB,
Correct and herein the problem lyeth. If they have all been promised shares in Rangers 3 (IPH Ltd in JJ language) and Mike’s licence is as watertight as it should be then they are no better off, hence it disnae work – revitalised TV deals or not! There is more to it than the deck chair shuffling being proposed. Mike’s licence will obviously receive the most publicity but others require to be cut out of the deal, yet more require to ‘look on favourably’ and absolutely everyone have to not notice that somewhere along the lines the same cake will need to have two extra slices with the initials PM and DK forcibly inserted.
And that’s without mentioning the SFA’s willingness to play ball. Which doesn’t require mentioning. Obviously.
Smugas 4th January 2016 at 2:47 pm #
Homunculus
The expansion of the league at the end of 2016/17 (i.e. the end of next season) can be brought in without doing anything mid season as it were – they still have 6 months to complete the paperwork.
==================================
Personally I have no issue with changes beginning in 2017/2018. So long as that is agreed prior to the 2016/2017 season starting.
Homunculus 4th January 2016 at 1:55 pm #normanbatesmumfc 4th January 2016 at 12:29 pm
The 41 other clubs will be told reconstruction to 14 clubs in season 2016/2017 is a must for the good of the game and there will be 2 clubs promoted and no relegation at the end of next season.==================================
That would be totally unacceptable, changing the rules of a competition during the competition shouldn’t even be discussed.
If it is put to the clubs and they agree to it for 2017/2018 I have absolutely no issue with that. However there must be a clear season for such changes to be made.
======================================
On my Christmas present pile was a book about Celtic called ‘The McCann Takeover – The Inside Story.’ It was written by David Low and journalist Frances Shennan. I’ve just finished it and it was a fascinating read. In terms of what we collectively want on this forum one particular part stuck in my mind. The authors quoted a thriller writer, Gavin Lyall, and the fourteen words he used to sum up what democracy means. The words are “democracy is enough people standing up and saying ‘you can’t bloody well do that'”. So if the authorities are of a mind to change anything for next season to make absolutely sure of a Rangers in the top league, and the rest of the clubs are willing to play along perhaps they should remember season ticket renewal time is only a few months away now. This will be even more relevant if it is revealed that King’s visit to Hampden a few weeks ago was all part of the plan. I speculate of course, but in 2012 the fans collectively said ‘you can’t bloody well do that’ and the clubs were forced to listen. They better be prepared to listen again if need be.
The recent speculation regarding another “switcheroo” raises some interesting ideas; RIFC liquidate TRFC due to an internal debt circa £25m. I believe the SFA will transfer the licence from TRFC to RIFC, then using doublespeak, will invent some “two companies under the same umbrella ” nonsense to justify another “same club”! This “same club” will be deducted 25 points at the start of next seasons Premier League to reinforce the “same club” myth and as a crumb off the table to the idea of fair play. This agenda will not be put up for the consideration or votes of the other clubs! They know what happened last time! Unfortunately I BELIEVE that the vast majority of the other 41 clubs will be happy to go along with this and if they do then Scottish Football will be destroyed.
bfbpuzzled 4th January 2016 at 2:24 pm
I think that is a far stab at it.
At the moment (and EasyJambo will put us right) the RRM hold a good deal of the shares and of those they don’t hold my guess is that the remaining holders are just in it for a punt. What they have is just held for the sake of it and the losses have been written off long time ago. A decent amount of the other shareholders either voted with King &Co at the AGM or could’nae be arsed voting at all.
The ‘excluded shareholders’ don’t seem to be up for rocking the boat.
Therefore the RRM are nearly in charge of the whole ship but still have to contend with MA and those who voted against their share equity swap resolution.
If, as I suspect someone in the ‘25%’ cracks soon then the door is open for the RRM to do what they will – if MA doesn’t do something via the courts to stop them.
Regardless of whether or not it is Rangers III, I cannot see anyone else giving a toss about buying or funding such a Scottish Football club with the current overheads, the damaged reputation, a toxic fan base and the ongoing legal issues. Therefore as you correctly say it has to be sustainable from within the club or within the limits of the RRM’s kids’ inheritance money.
Either way because of the damage and lack of saving for a rainy day under SDM the whole thing is a busted flush in terms being a consistent a Premiership winner, Euro challenger or profit maker for investors. The money generated by 40k plus fans cannot be discounted and if managed properly and the fans keep turning up in numbers ‘the level’ will be fighting it out for the Euro spots and struggling with the Euro lay-off system.
Even if a ‘Moneyball’ plan worked any half decent players would be out the door ASAP to finance the lights being kept on.
If Wabs was seen to be successful then others will come looking for him. Magic Hat gone!!
Similarly if there was the thought of any half decent threat from Govan, or elsewhere, then Celtic Park would mostly likely begin to fill up again every second week to ensure additional income to add to the large financial cushion they already have.
Despite the last two seasons poor performances the bookies will still give you better odds on Celtic getting another Euro millions pay day long before T’Rangers get a sniff.
Its a Blazer, Tie and a load of headaches for anyone daft enough or emotionally attached to the club to put their hand in their pockets. Either your cash runs out or the fans will be on your door step calling you for everything for not investing enough.
Real just punted Benitez…with Zidane apparently to be in charge for rest of season…
Homunculus 4th January 2016 at 1:55 pm # normanbatesmumfc 4th January 2016 at 12:29 pm
The 41 other clubs will be told reconstruction to 14 clubs in season 2016/2017 is a must for the good of the game and there will be 2 clubs promoted and no relegation at the end of next season. ==================================
That would be totally unacceptable, changing the rules of a competition during the competition shouldn’t even be discussed.
If it is put to the clubs and they agree to it for 2017/2018 I have absolutely no issue with that. However there must be a clear season for such changes to be made.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My apologies Homunculus. I did mean restructuring agreed this summer for implementation at the start of 2017/18 ensuring the golden child cannot fall from grace AGAIN!!!
If the authorities do assist TRFC via reconstruction, and/or transfer of registration, and/or in other ways – to ensure a ‘Rangers’ is in the top flight for next season…
Then as mentioned before, logically the SPFL has to make in/formal ‘rules’, or ‘discretion’ to ensure that a ‘Rangers’ can never be relegated, [or inserted into the bottom league].
And to extend Doncaster’s logic of wanting all ‘the big teams’ in the top league to maximise TV interest/revenues, then arguably Celtic, Aberdeen Hearts and Hibs might not be allowed to be relegated in future. A quasi-franchise system ?
Of course this ignores sporting merit, ignores the fans wishes, and would require SPFL agreement about which teams are in fact the so called ‘big teams’.
Why would the SFA/SPFL go to all the trouble of assisting TRFC to get into the top league, when they could potentially be relegated in the following season ? Doesn’t make sense.
normanbatesmumfc 4th January 2016 at 5:09 pm
=================================
In my opinion Rangers will be promoted this season, either by winning the division, or via the play-offs.
So long as there is no insolvency event and 25 points deducted.
Homunclus 5,09pm ================================= Any insolvency event/ 25 point deduction will take place in the close season. “Same club” must get promoted under their own steam for this latest ruse to stand a chance of working.
The Ungrateful Dead 4th January 2016 at 5:47 pm
==================================
So long as people keep providing loans (King has admitted they need another £1m) and the support keep showing up and buying tickets you are probably correct.
However in your scenario they would start their first ever season in the Premiership on -25 points.
That would be quite a deficit, particularly so if it was a proper administration and the squad was cut to the bone.
Unless reconstruction was to occur in the season after next avoiding the need to relegate anyone!
I think someone with balls ,although I don’t know why they would need them from the incompetent Scottish press should ask questions of Doncaster et al if there are discussions taking place with all the clubs (COLLECTIVELY. ) to restructure the leagues set up within the next 2 seasons or more and how these discussions are going,and at the same time some of the other press imposters,no balls required so a lot to pick from,can at random ask a few club directors the same question,they can then run a story for as long as they want claiming restructure due to the man with the magic hat transforms the game in Scotland ,we know this would not be the truth but hey ho this is what they are good at ,but at least the public would be getting something from the newspapers that they still buy,I wonder when the last time this lot actually asked any challenging questions to the inhabitants of the bunkers,go on you lot give us something in 2016 ,imposters.
Smugas 4th January 2016 at 6:29 pm
=========================
A very good point.
And if you ever needed any further proof about the quality of the SMSM…
Here is a DR ‘journalist’
blithely confirming that some sports journalists self-censor their output.
…and whilst he simultaneously has a pop at those Bampots who debate the topics these journalists choose to ignore !
Who needs a free press for these Scottish sports hacks – who are seemingly limited to copy/paste activities ?
Extracted from today’s DR / Gannon article;
[with my bold highlighting added for emohasis]
===============================
“…
Anyone who thought we’d left the cesspool of sectarianism behind has sadly been forced to review their optimism settings after the Rangers-Hibs game…
We’ve had social media’s always-offended cranking it up at every turn.
And yes, there are guys in the media who refuse to write about it because they don’t see the point.
They’re either culturally inured to it or they don’t think it’ll ever change…”
===============================
I rest my case.
An ethereal thingie that breaks the law every week
Backed up by
Corrupt SFA and SPFL Directors
Corrupt Tabloid Journalists
Corrupt BBC and STV Reporters
Corrupt Sky and BT Management
Corrupt Police and Politicians
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Whit a country ..eh!
Rabbie was right
Here’s Tae Us – Wha’s Like Us – Damn Few And They’re A’ Deid
goosygoosy 4th January 2016 at 7:46 pm #
An ethereal thingie that breaks the law every week backed up by…
==========
Yes, but gg what we – the paying punters – don’t understand, is that all of them are all only being corrupt for the good of Scottish football…
Is tomorrow’s High Court cases merely a reading of charges and pleas from the indicted, or will the case continue for the rest of the day?
yourhavingalaugh 4th January 2016 at 6:31 pm #
I think someone with balls ,although I don’t know why they would need them from the incompetent Scottish press should ask questions of Doncaster et al if there are discussions taking place with all the clubs (COLLECTIVELY. ) to restructure the leagues set up within the next 2 seasons or more and how these discussions are going
—————–
Doncaster 3rd. August 2015:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/33765192
“The only certainty with any structure is that people explore other structures. People are always looking for the perfect league structure and that doesn’t exist.
“What we have at the moment works very well, it creates lots of interesting games and excitement at the end of the season. If we are to allow any possible new structure then it’s essential those element remains.
“Let’s keep an open mind. We’re in the final year of the three-year lockdown period and let’s see where discussion takes us in the future.”
ekt1m 4th January 2016 at 8:46 pm
========================
Preliminary hearing
At the preliminary hearing, the prosecution and the defence will tell the Judge whether they are ready for the case to go to trial. If they are, the court will set a date for the trial. If they are not ready, the case will be “continued”, that is another date will be set to find out if prosecution and defence are ready to go to trial. The trial date will only be set once both parties are fully prepared.
Preliminary hearings are held in public. But witnesses who might be called to give evidence during the case will be asked not to attend as this could prejudice the case. The accused can plead guilty at the preliminary hearing.
http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2006/11/22132102/6
Homunculus 4th January 2016 at 9:21 pm #
ekt1m 4th January 2016 at 8:46 pm
=======================
I’d expect that the main issues discussed will related to agreeing what evidence is not disputed by either party and to ensure that all evidence held by each party is disclosed. We know from previously published information that there are 10s of thousands of pages of evidence, if not 100s of thousands.
The preparedness or otherwise of each of the parties will then determine when the actual trial proceedings will begin. I think that could be three or four months away.
Smugas at 6.29pm
========================
Unfortunately that’s the nail right on the head. Reading between the lines, all this mood music emanating from Govan approving of league expansion – Warburton thinks two ‘old firm’ fixtures per season being a good thing etc,etc. can mean only one thing.
Everyone and their dog knows that at some point in the near future the current team playing out of Ibrox will slip into their first administration. I dareasy the meeting at Hampden between King and whoever he met was to discuss this inevitability but the plan was formed to do whatever possible to get Sevco up this season without going into administration as the season after next, the leagues will be ‘fixed’ to ensure no relegation from the top league. I.e if the inevitable administration occurs early next season, it will be largely irrelevant.
This is the fix that I believe is well and truly in.
Sensible fans will leave the game in their droves if they haven’t already done so.
Homunculus 4th January 2016 at 9:21 pm #
‘..If they are not ready, the case will be “continued”, that is another date will be set to find out if prosecution and defence are ready to go to trial…’
_________
I suspect that in the present case, which is already a continuation of a ‘preliminary hearing’, it will go hard with any Counsel, or with the Advocate-Depute, who confesses to not being ready.
If my aging memory does not fail me, the judge was getting on for being insistent that whatever ‘minutes’ on whatever points were still to be agreed between each of the separate Counsel and between them and the Advocate-Depute as regards to what would be in the final ‘bundle’ had better be agreed by tomorrow’s date.
There will still be procedural matters for the judge to rule on, I suppose, and I’m looking forward with interest to see whether the business will last as long as the three days which I believe have been set aside for it.
I just hope that Matt McGinn’s big Effan polis chaps have been replaced by less intimidating gentlemen!
John Clark 4th January 2016 at 11:05 pm
============================
The Judge can get as annoyed as he wants, but in reality it will be continued for as long as it needs to be.
The right to a fair trial, meaning your defence is prepared, is sacrosanct.
John
I recommend Imlachs dittie.
Just hum to yourself
“It was 10oclock when they found it.
Propped in the old chip shop door
TWA’s a badly bashed aboot body
Dadada da da da dee……….
I must be missing something. And I thought I was keeping up. I seem to have got lost when people started talking about a switcheroo from RIFC to TRFC or the other way round. I don’t really have a problem with debt dumping if the debt is only to a bunch of RRM and spivs. However, if tax and VAT was not being paid then there would have to be serious sanctions and I dare say HMRC would liquidate them. I do think though that what is being proposed cannot be completely legal since it has implications for individual share holders. I would not be happy if my share holding was diluted in what could only be seen as an attempt to circumvent due processes. As this attempt to gain control of ‘club’ and assets has bee suspected for some time, I cannot see Big Mike lying down.
as some else pointed out today, the SD contract would, in any case, survive such an event (according to Phil anyway)
Also, I think I knew but have now forgotten, who owns Ibrox.
And, as JC and others rightly point out, this whole mess is bigger than one club. The real issue is the collusion of our authorities which allow and enable this to happen.
Homunculus 4th January 2016 at 11:26 pm #
‘…The right to a fair trial, meaning your defence is prepared, is sacrosanct..’
___________
Of course.
But in the present case, there appeared ( to me) to have been a bit of dilatory buggering about and gamesmanship that his lordship was ready to be a bit sniffy about, while making a point of getting them to agree that by tomorrow’s date they should be fully prepared.He would have been happy if they had agreed a later date, as long as they agreed a date.
And having agreed a date, the onus is on them to meet that date, all other things being equal.
rougvielovesthejungle 4th January 2016 at 10:45 pm
‘…Sensible fans will leave the game in their droves if they haven’t already done so.’
________
And that sums it all up wonderfully well.
The mere suspicion that the game as a whole can be rigged not just in an individual case by a cheating knight but by the very guardians of the game is enough to sound the death-knell of professional Scottish Football.
The growing belief that that suspicion is well grounded is likely to persuade many thousands that they have been played like mugs.
Who needs it? There are other ways to spend our money.
And our Football Authorities simply have to be made to realise that that is the case.
They have to back-pedal, find their soul, acknowledge that they gravely erred, correct the error, put the new club into its proper place as a new club with but a three year history and one or two ‘titles’, forswear any intention to maintain the Big Lie or any intention to lie again to save the new club by chicanery and deceit if it happens to founder….
And then we can move on and cheerfully and gladly give our support to our various wonderful teams in the knowledge that true sport and sporting endeavour is what we are paying for. Not some crooked casino style mug’s game.
armchairsupporter 5th January 2016 at 12:01 am
‘…. And I thought I was keeping up…’
_______
So did I, but my goodness, it’s becoming ever more difficult as the various possible scenarios are sketched in and added to!
Take your eye off the blog for even an hour and you can find yourself behind the curve.
I love it!