Two wrongs and a right

Avatar ByBig Pink

Two wrongs and a right

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.

UnderTableIf 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?

handsMaybe 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?

About the author

Avatar

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

1,703 Comments so far

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:16 am - Jan 5, 2016


Good morning. For those of you who are going back to work today after being off since before Christmas just remember it will soon be Friday! For those like me who availed themselves to attend work last week, Friday is no less important!

Anyway, does anyone know if there is a time limit for the CoS to respond to BDO’s appeal on the tax case? 

View Comment

Avatar

armchairsupporterPosted on9:22 am - Jan 5, 2016


JC, just a few hours ago.

Take your eye off the blog for even an hour and you can find yourself behind the curve.I love it!

Maybe that’s why I’m not sleeping – worried that I miss something through the night.

View Comment

Avatar

armchairsupporterPosted on9:25 am - Jan 5, 2016


Good morning upthehoops- glad someone is keeping the country running.
03

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on9:48 am - Jan 5, 2016


What remains of my mind has been chewing over the question of whether the Rangers Retail exclusive worldwide licence would survive the liquidation of its owner, TRFC. I believe that the answer to that question is likely to determine King’s next course of action. I can see the point of a liquidation if it effectively breaks Ashley’s grip over retail, but if it doesn’t achieve that, then I really don’t see the point.
When you can’t answer a question yourself, find someone who can, is usually a good approach, so I wrote to the very nice people at the Intellectual Property Office, asking whether a licence over IP survives a change of owner.
I got an almost immediate response, referring me to The Trade Marks Act 1994, Section 28(3) which states that “Unless the licence provides otherwise, it is binding on a successor in title to the grantor’s interest”.
So if TRFC was liquidated, and ownership of the IP transferred, whether to RIFC or another Newco, then the licence for Rangers Retail to use the IP would remain in place.
I also learned (from the IPO website) that once an owner of IP licences it, then unless the licence explicitly says otherwise, then the owner has no right to use the IP without the licensee’s consent.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:55 am - Jan 5, 2016


neepheid 5th January 2016 at 9:48 am

Great piece of work, neeps.

I was going to say that you’d be a shoe-in as an investigative journalist at any of our top newspapers…but then again, probably not 21 

You see, you forgot to clear it with Ibrox Central 191919 before publishing 22

View Comment

Avatar

OdiochainPosted on10:32 am - Jan 5, 2016


A Happy New Year to all in the SFM community.
James Doleman is at the High Court in Edinburgh.
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman
No tweeting allowed from court but he does have the new indictment which is nearly twice as long as the previous version.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on10:34 am - Jan 5, 2016


upthehoops5th January 2016 at 7:16 am#
Anyway, does anyone know if there is a time limit for the CoS to respond to BDO’s appeal on the tax case?
————————————————————-
does anyone know if there is a time limit for the match delegates report of the rangers v Hibs game?

SFM asking the questions the SMSM are afraid to ask02

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on10:47 am - Jan 5, 2016


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 56s56 seconds agoNew indictment accuses Charles Green of taking over £200k from Rangers Youth Development Ltd to help “Sevco” purchase the Club’s assets.

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on11:19 am - Jan 5, 2016


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 10m10 minutes agoAccording to the new indictment Craig Whyte is accused of fraudulently obtaining a total of £28,262,094 from Ticketus and Merchant Capital

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on11:32 am - Jan 5, 2016


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 3m3 minutes agoAccording to the indictment Charles Green is accused of fraudulently obtaining the sum of £5,500,000 to purchase the “assets of the club”
.

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on11:34 am - Jan 5, 2016


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 22s23 seconds agoCharles Green is also accused of raising £21 million “by fraud” during the Rangers IPO to the stock market.

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on11:40 am - Jan 5, 2016


http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-importance-of-good-information/

View Comment

Avatar

Ex LudoPosted on11:57 am - Jan 5, 2016


Lots of news from the courts. Nothing on the BBC yet. Perhaps the Propaganda Bureau circa 1914 has been reinstated? Or has it ever gone away? Scary wee show yesterday on Radio Scotland.

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on12:05 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Phil is blogging (thanks for the link, Jean) to the effect that what many on here suspected is correct- Ashley won’t accept the loan repayment, because a) unacceptable conditions are attached (dropping litigation) and b) Ashley reckons that penalties are due on top of the £5m.
King now has £6.5m sitting in the bank. Over to you Dave? His next move will be interesting- unless of course Ashley moves first.

View Comment

Avatar

armchairsupporterPosted on12:13 pm - Jan 5, 2016


neepheid 5th January 2016 at 11:34 am #James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 22s23 seconds agoCharles Green is also accused of raising £21 million “by fraud” during the Rangers IPO to the stock market.

Outstanding, begs the question – where were our intrepid media while all this was going on in front of their eyes – I know.
Wait and see how clever they try and make themselves look when they break this as an exclusive. One things for sure though – they couldn’t say “we told you so”. Could they?

View Comment

Avatar

rantinrobinPosted on12:32 pm - Jan 5, 2016


A Happy New Year to all at TSFM.It seems 2016 is already providing excellent entertainment by way of The Scottish Courts.Much to look forward to.

View Comment

Avatar

Bogs DolloxPosted on12:58 pm - Jan 5, 2016


neepheid 5th January 2016 at 12:05 pm #Phil is blogging (thanks for the link, Jean) to the effect that what many on here suspected is correct- Ashley won’t accept the loan repayment, because a) unacceptable conditions are attached (dropping litigation) and b) Ashley reckons that penalties are due on top of the £5m. King now has £6.5m sitting in the bank. Over to you Dave? His next move will be interesting- unless of course Ashley moves first.
================================================================================
Do RIFC have £6.5m at their disposal though?
The lenders lent for the specific purpose of repaying the SD loan and presumably were expecting to take the same security as SD once the loan was repaid. That may mean the £5m lent is “ringfenced” and it may not be possible to use it for any other purpose than the one originally designated. If I was one of the lenders I would have made sure it was set up that way.

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on1:13 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Bogs Dollox 5th January 2016 at 12:58 pm
Do RIFC have £6.5m at their disposal though?The lenders lent for the specific purpose of repaying the SD loan and presumably were expecting to take the same security as SD once the loan was repaid.
=========================
You are almost certainly correct. Only a lunatic would lend them £6.5m without security, so the money is probably sitting in an escrow account, where King can’t touch it.
If so, they really are in trouble- some of that money is needed just to pay the wages.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on1:36 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Hang on.  £5m should be ring fenced (assuming DCK forgot21 to tell them about Mike’s charges).  The £1.5m should be available unless, per CD’s note, ‘some’ of it was needed in December.

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on1:48 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Smugas 5th January 2016 at 1:36 pm #Hang on.  £5m should be ring fenced (assuming DCK forgot  to tell them about Mike’s charges).  The £1.5m should be available unless, per CD’s note, ‘some’ of it was needed in December.
+++++++++++++++
I think it more likely that it’s all locked up, pending the availability of security. All the previous “soft loans” were advanced on the assumption that they would be rapidly converted into shares. Now it seems clear that there will be no debt for equity swap in the short term, and the only assets available for security are unavailable. I’m guessing that the three bears might now want security for their earlier loans, since they aren’t getting shares anytime soon.
Maybe somebody is prepared to advance £1.5m unsecured, but I would be surprised.

View Comment

yourhavingalaugh

yourhavingalaughPosted on1:55 pm - Jan 5, 2016


It is looking like shares in popcorn companies are about to go through the roof.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on2:03 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Neeps,

My recollection was that the CD qualification predated the loan repayment announcement by some distance.  They clearly stated some funding would be required in December and, at that time, it is unclear if security was to be available – perhaps that is what led to the failure to pay win-bonuses.  To be fair, the position was also muddied somewhat by Charlie’s on/off relationship with RFC’s courtroom chequebook and DCK’s virtual addiction to it.

Interesting times.

View Comment

Prohibby

ProhibbyPosted on2:06 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Forgive my ignorance and naivety on these matters but while I understand why MA/SD would not be agreeable to accepting payment with unacceptable conditions and writing off penalties etc, is the option not open now for MA to seek to sequestrate (or whatever the correct term is) the funds that were offered so that he would be assured of a substantial part-payment? 

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on2:26 pm - Jan 5, 2016


So as James Doleman adds further meat to the indictments is anyone at the SFA touching cloth given that the questions being raised by the prosecutors are most likely the exact ones Regan implied he wanted answers to in May 2013 prior to the Pinsent Masons report and that if that report didn’t provide the right answers more investigations would take place.

http://cda.uat-thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/sport/league2/4935879/Stewart-Regan-SFA-can-hit-Gers.html
21 May 2013

The SFA chief said: “There are some very specific questions we have asked that require some very specific answers. If we don’t get those answers, we reserve the right to further investigation.
“The nature of the questions we have asked relate to the links between Green, Ahmad and Whyte, the details surrounding money lodged in Ahmad’s mother’s bank account and various conversations that allegedly took place.
“We should get some specific answers on those.
“We have seen the scope of the Pinsent Masons report, it is very detailed and thorough. We expect to see quite a lot of detail when it comes back.”

However after reviewing the report the SFA appeared to accept the findings and took no further action.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/10183586/Charles-Greens-controversial-Rangers-takeover-cleared-by-SFA.html
17 July 2013

However, it has been revealed that the SFA has decided that there is no case for Green and Ahmad to answer.
On the basis of the evidence of the Pinsent Masons findings, the SFA has decreed that there is no need for the matter to be referred to compliance officer Vincent Lunny.
It is understood that the SFA was unable to contact new Rangers chief executive Craig Mather on Tuesday night but it has informed the club of its view, while reserving the right to continue monitoring the situation.

Like Fifa it appears as though our domestic footballing authorities are wholly inadequate and not fit for purpose with regard to undertaking investigations into potential corruption and wrong doing within the game they are supposed to manage and control. Meanwhile everyone and their uncle can smell something fishy is going on.

Regardless of the outcome of the ongoing case on the acquisition of the business and assets of Rangers surely an investigation into Regan, the SFA and their procedures needs to be undertaken? 

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on2:29 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Prohibby 5th January 2016 at 2:06 pm

I see where you’re coming from, but I suspect the ‘loans’ are not held within any account or biscuit tin belonging to RIFC/TRFC, and so will be out of the reach of any such action. Even if the proposed lenders/donors were daft enough to hand the money over to ‘the club’ before SD accept repayment (or not), I’m pretty certain that King would be shrewd/cunning/devious enough to ensure it wasn’t held anywhere Big Mike could get his hands on (perhaps even if he accepts the repayment14).

Big Mike may, of course, seek to have all assets of RIFC/TRFC attached as he seeks to ensure his loan, plus charges and penalties, are adequately covered, especially now that the charges are mounting in the Sevco case in a way that suggests there won’t be many assets left for those daft enough to have extended RIFC/TRFC credit!

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on2:34 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Wottpi,
I would add that, given the gravity of the charges, any thoughts of league reconstruction should be put on hold, until at least the trial(s) are over.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on2:41 pm - Jan 5, 2016


From James Doleman’s excellent updates, it would appear the indictments match many of the questions SFM, and RTC beforehand, have been asking for quite some time, and that the answers the investigative authorities expect is also very similar to those that we came up with here, and RTC, almost as soon as the questions were asked! I expect, though, that a great deal of meat will be added to the bones we produced during the court case(s).

Of course, I am referring to (some of) the questions the SMSM refused, or were scared, to ask!

SFM, doing what it says on the tin04

View Comment

wee_alpha

wee_alphaPosted on2:58 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Re the £5m raised to pay loan, I was watching Judge Judy yesterday afternoon (er, I watch it for the social interaction obviously). Anyway, in this particular case one sister was suing the other over money she was due. One sister had given the other $1500 in order that she could bail a friend out of jail. When she got to the jail she discovered someone else had already bailed out said friend, so she kept the $1500 and spent it on herself, her reasoning being she had been given the money and could do what she liked with it. As you would expect Judge Judy did not agree.

This sister also went to state she was not liable to pay for damage to a borrowed car after she crashed it into a tree whilst avoiding a deer that had run into the road, claiming that this was an act of God! Wonder if DCK has thought of that one yet?

Another thought, think how much fun there would have been if it had been Judge Judy instead of LNS! 21

View Comment

Avatar

pau1mart1nPosted on3:03 pm - Jan 5, 2016


judge rinder would be good for the sfa enquiry. he sometimes resolves things involving brothers.

View Comment

Prohibby

ProhibbyPosted on3:08 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Allyjambo at 2:29.
Thanks for you help, A.J.

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on3:42 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Oddjob
I disagree if League Reconstruction is a good thing it should not be delayed because of the travails of any one club.
Substitute the name of any of the other clubs for the Doomed Entity and ask if reconstruction should be delayed for one Club. If yes then that is a level playing field if no then that is Govan exceptionalism. Indeed since many other clubs have made substantial off field progress it might be argued that now is a prime time for reconstruction if that would be further benefit to those clubs.
Any gerrymandering should be stamped on otherwise the SFA is in the same business as the WWE- sport as a vehicle for soap opera nothing more nothing else. That is fine but I can find other entertainments and genuine sporting competition to follow.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:47 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Thanks to those providing court updates.
And when you read these charges – and the many millions involved – it’s really quite sobering.
If I was Whyte or Green I would be shi… erm, very scared indeed.
Their p!sh was dutifully accepted without question by the SFA / SPFL, but a court of law is a different kettle of fish !

Agreed, these types of fraud cases can be very complex and have significantly lower conviction rates, but if Whyte & Green are indeed convicted they are going down for many, many years for the sums involved.
No bargaining, no fine, no community service 14 – just a very lengthy stay in the pokey.

And how would that reflect on the Scottish game – and the incompetents at the SFA / SPFL ? 09

IMO, convictions would provide further validation of the value of the Internet Bampots – and the continuing irrelevance of the SMSM.  191919

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on4:06 pm - Jan 5, 2016


  • Bfbpuzzled,
  • Thank you. I am not in favour of reconstruction at any stage.
  • I believe, had TRFC been a safe distance ahead in the championship at this stage of the season, there would be no talk of reconstruction at all. At this time there may be some cause to doubt automatic promotio is a certainty, hence the resurrection of the bigger league debate.
  • My feeling, now, is the uncertainty of the legal status of TRFC should put a stop to any plans, “at least” until verdicts are reached in court
  • Gerrymandering is not an option I would consider at any time .
View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:51 pm - Jan 5, 2016


OK, this tidbit is from the ET / Graeme Macpherson so could be nonsense, but he does include quotes;

Rangers could get Accrington Stanley pair in January after compensation row

Holt [the majority shareholder] also expressed his disappointment at the way in which Rangers had communicated with Accrington that they would be opening talks with their players.
“The way Rangers have gone about things has annoyed me a bit,” he added. “Instead of coming through me or our manager John Coleman they just sent an email to our secretary and that’s not the norm. I thought they might have called one of us, or even our chairman Peter Marsden and told us their intentions. In normal circumstances a manager would ring his fellow manager to say what was going on so that was a bit disappointing.”
===================
TRFC now trying to manipulate Accrington Stanley ?!
Where’s the dignity in that…?  21

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on4:59 pm - Jan 5, 2016


James Doleman tweeting:
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 4m4 minutes ago From the indictment, how Duff and Phelp’s valued Rangers at sale to Charles Green.#
Stock £1
Plant and Machinery £1,250,000
James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 4m4 minutes ago Murray Park, Ibrox stadium and Albion Car park £1,500,000
Leasehold interests £1
SPL share £1 SFA membership £1
Goodwill £11
Subsidary companies £5
Player contracts and registrations £2,749,990
SPL fees and TV money £0

View Comment

Avatar

OdiochainPosted on5:02 pm - Jan 5, 2016


StevieBC 5th January 2016 at 4:51 pm
If this report is to be believed… might I respectfully suggest that Mr. Warburton has not treated his fellow manager with respect…

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on5:03 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Well, that was quite an interesting day in Court 3.
I got sight of the new Indictment , but was told by the court media chap that he was not allowed to give me  copy, and when I nipped down to the Press room to try get one there the woman there specifically asked if I was Press. Alas, not being quite as glib and shameless as some others, I could not lie. (Innate high principle backed up by the realisation that I would probably be asked to show a press pass!)
Reporting restrictions covering any and all submissions made and names and events and all that kind of thing still apply.
But I think I can say that the essential business was all about what would be the agreed joint minutes of what would be in the ultimate evidence bundle, and whether the Advocate depute had met the defence’s request for documents , and the implications of the volume of material that might have to be examined etc etc.
The judge ordered that the Advocate Depute should respond more fully to a number of minutes from various Counsel for the defence, within 2 weeks, and set a date for another preliminary hearing for ( I think, 21st January- he had said 19th to begin with, but changed it, and I heard the 1st February mentioned but I got somewhat confused: I think eJ has a more accurate note).
He also expected that the parties would move quickly to resolve difficulties and reach agreement.
There was no significant police presence or great public interest ( only a handful in the public seats, and James D, Grant Russell, and a couple of others in the ‘press’ seats)
I concluded that it will be quite a long time before a trial date is fixed, because as was repeatedly stated, this is a very, very complex case with lots of documentation and email-chains,numerous witnesses, and some basic legal questions to be resolved regarding disclosure of documents.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on5:09 pm - Jan 5, 2016


oddjob 5th January 2016 at 4:06 pm
‘…Gerrymandering is not an option I would consider at any time .’
________Experience has shown that it was, is, and is likely to be again , the default option of our Football Authorities, where it is necessary to save and protect one club ( and one club only)

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on5:17 pm - Jan 5, 2016


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) 5th January 2016 at 4:59 pm #James Doleman tweeting:James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 4m4 minutes ago From the indictment, how Duff and Phelp’s valued Rangers at sale to Charles Green.
Stock £1
Plant and Machinery £1,250,000
Murray Park, Ibrox stadium and Albion Car park £1,500,000
Leasehold interests £1 SPL share £1 SFA membership £1
Goodwill £11
Subsidary companies £5
Player contracts and registrations £2,749,990
SPL fees and TV money £0
===============================
Plagiarised from Twitter, but made me laugh…

ObsessedPar ‏@doelcmila 20m20 minutes ago@jamesdoleman
Was Lee McCulloch included under “Plant and Machinery” ?

View Comment

Avatar

Paulmac2Posted on5:26 pm - Jan 5, 2016


The prosecution have had their say….now lets hear what the defence has to say when they are given the floor!
My summary…previous owner in court on serious Fraud charges….the previous owner to the previous owner in court on serious Fraud charges….current owner is a convicted criminal on 42 counts….2 new investors….one on the run from Grampian Police for Fraud…another facing various FSA charges…another who is/was involved at the club on the Interpol wanted list…
But MA is the big bad guy….go figure…
Are the Scottish Media so desperate that they really need this mess in Scottish football? Are they so desperate all of the above does not matter as long as their favourite 3 year old club gets into the top flight?…
Is there nothing on the face of God’s good earth that is off limits to allow people to get involved with a certain club in Scottish football? Can anyone no matter the background they have be welcomed in to own/run/invest in this west end farce?
Robert Mugabe…come on down…
The SFA have passed the point of shame and embarrassment aided and assisted by level 5pr…they no longer care what’s right and what is wrong…what is morally right and what is morally wrong…what is legally upstanding and justifiable or what is indefensible…forget whether rules are there to be followed or to be ignored…
The game is a bogey…and certain people are going to try and front this out on the basis nobody will or can do anything to stop them…
Stewart Regan….this happened and is still happening on your watch…your career in football is or should be finished.
For the sake of Scottish football just go!

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:40 pm - Jan 5, 2016


I’m unable to discuss any matters discussed in court today but here is a summary of the updated indictment, which is a public document.
CW – Whyte, GW – Withey, DG – Grier, DW – Whitehouse, PC – Paul Clark, CG – Green, IA Ahmad
Substance of the charges:
1. CW, GW, DG, DW, PC conspired to obtain funds by fraud from Jerome, Merchant and Ticketus to fund the fraudulent purchase of the club (offence was aggravated)
• CW & GW obtained £2,825,000 by fraud from the trustees of the Jerome Pension Fund
• CW & GW obtained £1,000,00 by fraud from Merchant Turnaround PLC
• CW, GW & DG made false representations to Rangers Independent committee about the funding of the purchase
• CW & GW obtained £24,337,094 by fraud from Ticketus
• CW & GW made false representations to the Takeover panel re the funding
• CW failed to disclose a disqualification as a director
• CW & GW made false representation to the PLUS stock exchange re CW’s disqualification
• CW, GW & DG made false representations to Murray Holdings Ltd re funding of the purchase and the future funding of the club including the wee tax case (£2,800,000) and an H&S liability (£1,700,000)

2. CW & GW contravened the proceeds of crime act using the £28,262,094 obtained by fraud when purchasing the club

3. DG, DW & PC failed to report suspicions of Money Laundering by CW & GW using “Financial Assistance” to purchase the club, contrary to the proceeds of crime act

4. CW, GW, DG, DW, PC did conspire together to act as in  Charge 1

5. CW & GW breached the Companies Act by using the clubs own money to fund the acquisition (Financial Assistance”

6. CW & GW committed fraud by failing to disclose CW’s disqualification to the SFA

7. CW & DG committed fraud by falsely submitting invoices for £253,800 to Rangers which should have been submitted to Liberty Capital.

8. CW & DG committed fraud by falsely submitting invoices for £409,320 to Rangers which should have been submitted to Liberty Capital.

9. CW & DG committed fraud by falsely submitting invoices for £66,120 to Rangers which should have been submitted to Liberty Capital.

10. CW, GW, DG, DW & PC conspired to defraud creditors, including non-payment of taxes and while they ran the club in order to facilitate CW in buying back the club debt free, which was in breach of the Companies Act

11. DW & PC perverted the course of justice when stating to Lord Hodge that they were unaware of the Ticketus arrangements

12. CW, GW, DW, PC, CG & IA conspired to defraud creditors by purchasing the club’s business and assets significantly below market value.
• CW, DW & PC sought to put the club in administration• Caused the court to appoint DW & PC as administrators
• DW & PC falsely pretended to act in the interests of all creditors
• CG falsely presented himself as an independent purchaser
• DW & PC pretended that the purpose of administration was to get the best return for creditors
• CW acquired Sevco 5088 of which CG was appointed director• CG received £25,000 from CW to pay legal fees related to Sevco 5088
• CG paid the legal fees with the £25,000
• IA paid the administrators DW & PC £200,000 as an exclusivity fee
• DW & PC granted Sevco 5088 exclusivity to the exclusion of other prospective purchasers
• CW paid £137,000 into IA’s mother’s account as part payment of the exclusivity fee
• DW & PC completed a sale and purchase agreement  with CG on behalf of both Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland for a price of £5,500,000, significantly below market value.
• DW & PC falsely advised creditors that SPL prize money was reflected in the consideration paid for the assets, but the sale and purchase agreement reflected a “nil” consideration
• Permitted the transfer of £291,823.10 from Rangers Youth Development to help fund the purchase of assets

13. CW, GW, DW, PC, CG & IA participated in a conspiracy to purchase the business and assets of the club depriving creditors of the rightful sums due to them and the material benefit going to themselves

14. CW and IA defrauded investors in Sevco 5088 and RIFC, acquiring money and shares by fraud and to increase the value of their shares in RIFC
• CW pretended he had no interest in Sevco 5088• Induced investors to put £5,500,000 into Sevco 5088
• CG caused the change of exclusivity from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland without proper approval
• CG did appropriate the £5,500,000 invested in Sevco 5088 by fraud without the investors knowledge or agreement
• CG & IA allotted themselves 2,000,000 shares
• CG & IA changed the name of Sevco Scotland to The Rangers Football Club
• CG & IA appointed Cenkos as a nomad but failed to advise them of the source of funding through Sevco 5088
• CG & IA thereby raised £21,000,000 in the IPO by fraud

15. CW failed to provide police with mobile phone and laptop passwords, when requested, in breach of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers  Act by police contrary to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act

View Comment

Avatar

jimmciPosted on6:29 pm - Jan 5, 2016


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) 5th January 2016 at 4:59 pm #James Doleman tweeting:James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 4m4 minutes ago From the indictment, how Duff and Phelp’s valued Rangers at sale to Charles Green.Stock £1Plant and Machinery £1,250,000Murray Park, Ibrox stadium and Albion Car park £1,500,000Leasehold interests £1 SPL share £1 SFA membership £1Goodwill £11Subsidary companies £5Player contracts and registrations £2,749,990SPL fees and TV money £0============================

but what about the history? Where is that – legally?

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on6:55 pm - Jan 5, 2016


 A quick glance around social media tonight has me very puzzled. If all this court stuff, both criminal and civil, was going on with my club at the centre I would not be thinking it’s great news for the club. Apparently it is though. Good Lord!

View Comment

Avatar

goosygoosyPosted on6:56 pm - Jan 5, 2016


jimmci
jimmci 5th January 2016 at 6:29 pm #torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) 5th January 2016 at 4:59 pm #James Doleman tweeting:James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 4m4 minutes ago From the indictment, how Duff and Phelp’s valued Rangers at sale to Charles Green.Stock £1Plant and Machinery £1,250,000Murray Park, Ibrox stadium and Albion Car park £1,500,000Leasehold interests £1 SPL share £1 SFA membership £1Goodwill £11Subsidary companies £5Player contracts and registrations £2,749,990SPL fees and TV money £0

============================
but what about the history? Where is that – legally?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
In Baby Bear`s porridge 
Waiting to be swallowed by the queue at the door  

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on6:57 pm - Jan 5, 2016


John Clark,
Gerrymandering. What you say maybe true.
I hope and pray that the evidence produced in the coming trial will expose all that has gone before, and ensure a cleansing of the system for the future.
Any attempts to pursue dubious practices, should be dealt with as stated by Bfbpuzzled.

View Comment

Avatar

James DolemanPosted on7:09 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Firstly was good to see John again and meet easyJambo (excellent summary BTW)
Been starting to type up the indictment, the opening is well worth a read.

https://rangersfraudcase.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/the-indictment-part-1/

View Comment

Avatar

timabhouyPosted on7:18 pm - Jan 5, 2016


http://www.mourantozannes.com/media/588258/overseas_restraint_orders_in_guernsey_have_no_extra-territorial_effect.pdf

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on7:25 pm - Jan 5, 2016


When you read all these charges you think to yourself, surely some of them will stick.  I’m not so sure.  After LNS, as I posted a few months ago, was he struck dumb?  He would need to have been a total incompetent judge not to know of the wee tax case result, or worse, happily, knowingly, being kept in blissful ignorance by the corrupt football authorities, if you know what I mean.  I would never suggest an ‘esteemed’ ex judge would allow that.

Then there is the debacle in London.  A lets say a judge from off the wall, joking about not being free mason but he might! If asked by John Greig!   Is the High court the right place for such ribaldry?  And did anyone else notice his silence on the second day when it was announced that the £5m had not been paid? as declared on the first day.

I will believe it all when it is all over, as long as you have scheming, sleekit pieces of shit like Regan, Doncaster, Ogilvie and Bryson bending over to Rangers to get their tummies tickled and judges in the same frame of mind you can expect anything.  I hope I am wrong.

View Comment

Avatar

TheGamesABogeyPosted on7:26 pm - Jan 5, 2016


@upthehoops 5th January 2016 at 6:55 pm
I think the belief is that everything will be passed back to DM and things will continue as it was prior to CW. Ignoring the fact that DM had been trying to sell the club for years prior to CW and that the Murray empire is currently in shreds. And of course the Bank of Scotland is no longer in a position to bankroll them.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:27 pm - Jan 5, 2016


On the  updated indictment, and some of the charges
————————
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/fun-with-forms-could-sevcos-change-of-name-to-rangers-be-invalid/
Random Thoughts Re Scots Law by Paul McConville.
how ahead of the game he was

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on7:46 pm - Jan 5, 2016


James Doleman, John Clark and Easyjambo,

Thank you all for the efforts you have made, absolutely superb work by all three of you. Without your efforts we’d all be in the dark as to what happened in court today, and the same goes for the supporters of both clubs involved in the proceedings.

Either by accident or design, though, it looks like the scene is set for an affirmation of ‘I was duped’! Unless, of course…

View Comment

4424me

4424mePosted on7:58 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Surely given the indictments served today the time has come for the SFA to suspend the licence to play of the tribute act operating out of Ibrox
To allow it to continue is only causing more knots to be tied in this ball of string which will be increasingly difficult to untie at the conclusion of proceedings
“But no one has been convicted of anything yet”, yip thats true but not many thieves get to keep watching the telly they got caught stealing whilst awaiting their day in court

View Comment

Avatar

alzipratuPosted on7:59 pm - Jan 5, 2016


easyJambo 5th January 2016 at 5:40 pm #I’m unable to discuss any matters discussed in court today but here is a summary of the updated indictment, which is a public document.CW – Whyte, GW – Withey, DG – Grier, DW – Whitehouse, PC – Paul Clark, CG – Green, IA AhmadSubstance of the charges:1. CW, GW, DG, DW, PC conspired to obtain funds by fraud from Jerome, Merchant and Ticketus to fund the fraudulent purchase of the club (offence was aggravated)• CW & GW obtained £2,825,000 by fraud from the trustees of the Jerome Pension Fund• CW & GW obtained £1,000,00 by fraud from Merchant Turnaround PLC• CW, GW & DG made false representations to Rangers Independent committee about the funding of the purchase• CW & GW obtained £24,337,094 by fraud from Ticketus• CW & GW made false representations to the Takeover panel re the funding• CW failed to disclose a disqualification as a director• CW & GW made false representation to the PLUS stock exchange re CW’s disqualification• CW, GW & DG made false representations to Murray Holdings Ltd re funding of the purchase and the future funding of the club including the wee tax case (£2,800,000) and an H&S liability (£1,700,000)2. CW & GW contravened the proceeds of crime act using the £28,262,094 obtained by fraud when purchasing the club3. DG, DW & PC failed to report suspicions of Money Laundering by CW & GW using “Financial Assistance” to purchase the club, contrary to the proceeds of crime act4. CW, GW, DG, DW, PC did conspire together to act as in Charge 15. CW & GW breached the Companies Act by using the clubs own money to fund the acquisition (Financial Assistance”6. CW & GW committed fraud by failing to disclose CW’s disqualification to the SFA7. CW & DG committed fraud by falsely submitting invoices for £253,800 to Rangers which should have been submitted to Liberty Capital.8. CW & DG committed fraud by falsely submitting invoices for £409,320 to Rangers which should have been submitted to Liberty Capital.9. CW & DG committed fraud by falsely submitting invoices for £66,120 to Rangers which should have been submitted to Liberty Capital.10. CW, GW, DG, DW & PC conspired to defraud creditors, including non-payment of taxes and while they ran the club in order to facilitate CW in buying back the club debt free, which was in breach of the Companies Act11. DW & PC perverted the course of justice when stating to Lord Hodge that they were unaware of the Ticketus arrangements12. CW, GW, DW, PC, CG & IA conspired to defraud creditors by purchasing the club’s business and assets significantly below market value.• CW, DW & PC sought to put the club in administration• Caused the court to appoint DW & PC as administrators• DW & PC falsely pretended to act in the interests of all creditors• CG falsely presented himself as an independent purchaser• DW & PC pretended that the purpose of administration was to get the best return for creditors• CW acquired Sevco 5088 of which CG was appointed director• CG received £25,000 from CW to pay legal fees related to Sevco 5088• CG paid the legal fees with the £25,000• IA paid the administrators DW & PC £200,000 as an exclusivity fee• DW & PC granted Sevco 5088 exclusivity to the exclusion of other prospective purchasers• CW paid £137,000 into IA’s mother’s account as part payment of the exclusivity fee• DW & PC completed a sale and purchase agreement with CG on behalf of both Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland for a price of £5,500,000, significantly below market value.• DW & PC falsely advised creditors that SPL prize money was reflected in the consideration paid for the assets, but the sale and purchase agreement reflected a “nil” consideration• Permitted the transfer of £291,823.10 from Rangers Youth Development to help fund the purchase of assets13. CW, GW, DW, PC, CG & IA participated in a conspiracy to purchase the business and assets of the club depriving creditors of the rightful sums due to them and the material benefit going to themselves14. CW and IA defrauded investors in Sevco 5088 and RIFC, acquiring money and shares by fraud and to increase the value of their shares in RIFC• CW pretended he had no interest in Sevco 5088• Induced investors to put £5,500,000 into Sevco 5088• CG caused the change of exclusivity from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland without proper approval• CG did appropriate the £5,500,000 invested in Sevco 5088 by fraud without the investors knowledge or agreement• CG & IA allotted themselves 2,000,000 shares• CG & IA changed the name of Sevco Scotland to The Rangers Football Club• CG & IA appointed Cenkos as a nomad but failed to advise them of the source of funding through Sevco 5088• CG & IA thereby raised £21,000,000 in the IPO by fraud15. CW failed to provide police with mobile phone and laptop passwords, when requested, in breach of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act by police contrary to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
*****
Yet, OSCR still believe the misappropriation of £500,000 charity funds by these guys was done in good faith!!!!

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on8:00 pm - Jan 5, 2016


[For some light relief, from Sky Sports today.]

Just in case anyone was getting concerned that they hadn’t been reminded about the 1966 World Cup for a while…

Geoff Hurst’s crucial second goal in the World Cup final comes under the MNF microscope
It’s official – Geoff Hurst’s crucial second goal for England against West Germany in the 1966 World Cup final was correctly awarded…”

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/12016/10119554/geoff-hursts-crucial-second-goal-in-the-world-cup-final-comes-under-the-mnf-microscope

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on8:07 pm - Jan 5, 2016


alzipratu 5th January 2016 at 7:59 pm

Yet, OSCR still believe the misappropriation of £500,000 charity funds by these guys was done in good faith!!!!
_______________________

And no doubt these redoubtable fellows, who police the nation’s charities, are looking the other way while the people they somehow considered managed to misappropriate funds ‘in good faith’ stand trial for multi-million pound fraud! They’ll be doing the ‘looking the other way’ in the upmost good faith, of course!

View Comment

4424me

4424mePosted on8:32 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Isnt the £291k transferred from Rangers youth development, as per the indictment ,money which would have been raised from charitable purposes 

View Comment

ThomTheThim

ThomTheThimPosted on9:09 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Some thoughts posted earlier on CQN

Even this early, it looks like the Club, RFC, are being cast as innocent victims of a serious of heinous crimes committed against it, by unscrupulous alleged crooks.

On reflection, though, that is properly correct.

However, what it does is create a timeline from the day Dave the First accepted the shiny £1 coin from Craig the Cad.

As a result, all the attention will be centred on these court cases and on completion, we will all be urged to finally “move on”.

The Tax evasion/avoidance and improperly registered players offences will be swept away as being historical, belonging to the old company.

At which time, the switcheroo wil be complete.

This is when the counties football supporters have to decide whether to continue to be fools or

regain any lost self respect.

OR

They/we can organise and target our clubs and, particularly the SFA/SPFL axis of evil and reclaim the Game.

View Comment

ThomTheThim

ThomTheThimPosted on9:10 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Typos
Properly = Probably

Counties = Country’s

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on9:15 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Big Pink: I’ve had to PM you a couple of mins ago.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on9:18 pm - Jan 5, 2016


jimbo 5th January 2016 at 7:25 pm
=======================

I was told Rangers would never be placed into administration it just couldn’t happen. It wouldn’t be allowed.

I was told that the CVA would never be rejected, that HMRC would rather take something than get nothing.

I was told Rangers would never be liquidated, it simply wouldn’t be allowed to happen. How could Rangers be liquidated.

I was told no-one would ever face charges over what had happened, simply no way that could ever be.

We’ll see if anyone pleads guilty to any of those charges, or is found guilty at trial.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on9:20 pm - Jan 5, 2016


James Doleman 5th January 2016 at 7:09 pm #
============================
I’ve scanned and OCR’d a copy of the indictment and sent it to you in a PM. It may save some typing.

View Comment

Famous song

Famous songPosted on9:30 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Happy to be told I’m just plain wrong, but is the IP purchase not missing here? IIRC, an extra c. £3m which took the asset purchase to £8.5m? 

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on9:45 pm - Jan 5, 2016


StevieBC 5th January 2016 at 8:00 pm #[For some light relief, from Sky Sports today.]
Just in case anyone was getting concerned that they hadn’t been reminded about the 1966 World Cup for a while…
“Geoff Hurst’s crucial second goal in the World Cup final comes under the MNF microscope It’s official – Geoff Hurst’s crucial second goal for England against West Germany in the 1966 World Cup final was correctly awarded…”
http://www.skysports.com/football/news/12016/10119554/geoff-hursts-crucial-second-goal-in-the-world-cup-final-comes-under-the-mnf-microscope
=========================================
So there’s no question now that Scotland did beat the deserved World Cup winners 3-2 in April 1967, rather than the beneficiaries of an honest mistake. 02

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on10:00 pm - Jan 5, 2016


The £11 for goodwill covers all manner of intangibles including history. It is done all the time when businesses have died and the frankenstein electrodes are applied to the cadavers. Jessops is a recent example. However that does not mean that anyone denies the death. If I buy a new Zeiss Ikon camera I know that is Japanese use of the original name and not a real Zeiss Ikon in the traditional sense it is all marketing in all its dark turpitude.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on10:14 pm - Jan 5, 2016


John Clarke
Easyjambo

Can you check PMs. Urgent.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:15 pm - Jan 5, 2016


It is interesting how they valued Ibrox et al for the purposes of the sale to Green / Sevco 5088, then Sevco Scotland.

However then the business immediately revalued them for the books, using the depreciated replacement cost method.

Basically the two main premises are “worth” (with apologies to rogues and charlatans) a couple of million, until they sit in your balance sheet then you multiply it by 30 and your assets value is higher than your liabilities.

Am I not right in saying they also released negative goodwill in the first set of accounts, about £20m or so. Showing a paper “profit” of several million, in spite of the large trading losses.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on10:18 pm - Jan 5, 2016


bfbpuzzled 5th January 2016 at 10:00 pm #
The £11 for goodwill…
===================
In the interests of pedantry…
The Goodwill valuation has been overstated.
Goodwill at eleven quid gives a total of £5,500,010

It’s a typo: Goodwill was actually £1.
James Doleman quoted £1 on Twitter.

Still think Green overpaid for “Rangers Goodwill” though… 22

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on10:28 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Homunculus 5th January 2016 at 10:15 pm #It is interesting how they valued Ibrox et al for the purposes of the sale to Green / Sevco 5088, then Sevco Scotland.
However then the business immediately revalued them for the books, using the depreciated replacement cost method.
Basically the two main premises are “worth” (with apologies to rogues and charlatans) a couple of million, until they sit in your balance sheet then you multiply it by 30 and your assets value is higher than your liabilities.
Am I not right in saying they also released negative goodwill in the first set of accounts, about £20m or so. Showing a paper “profit” of several million, in spite of the large trading losses.
===============================
Indeed they did.
The assets in the group balance sheet are as overvalued as they were in the balance sheet of RFC PLC under (S)DM.

View Comment

4424me

4424mePosted on10:33 pm - Jan 5, 2016


4 thumbs down rapidly for my previous post about the £291k got me thinking perhaps someone didnt like me mentioning it so I had a wee look at companies house and would you believe it That rangers youth development fund where the £291k was allegedly removed from seems to be in a bit of bother and has basically died with liabilities far out stretching its assets ….but dont worry cos as with all things down govan way a new one has appeared, rebranded with a remarkably similar name and relaunched itself with none other than John Greig himself on the board

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on10:35 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Auldheid 5th January 2016 at 10:14 pm #
John Clarke Easyjambo
Can you check PMs. Urgent.
===================
Reply sent

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:49 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Auldheid 5th January 2016 at 10:14 pm #
‘..John Clarke Easyjambo
Can you check PMs. Urgent.’
____
Done.

View Comment

Bawsman

BawsmanPosted on10:50 pm - Jan 5, 2016


https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiD8rPT35PKAhWJ6CwKHUVrDwQQyCkIHjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DpieK7b4KLL4&usg=AFQjCNEUq19tkiaUPnXVGrqpBfDY9J3cIA&bvm=bv.110151844,d.bGg

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:53 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Homonculus, with respect,  amongst other parts of the charges against them we have this little gem:
“CW, DW & PC sought to put the club in administration• Caused the court to appoint DW & PC as administrators• DW & PC falsely pretended to act in the interests of all creditors• CG falsely presented himself as an independent purchaser• DW & PC pretended that the purpose of administration was to get the best return for creditors•”

You may not have believed that rangers would be put into administration and then liquidation, and I might have believed you at the time.  But the charge now is it was engineered, I’m not saying it was but it would explain a lot why this impervious shower ever got to the graveyard. 

Remember this, neither the SFA, SPFL, the Court of Session, the High Court, EUFA brought that team to their knees, it was a bunch of Spivs in my opinion starting with SIR David Murray, I don’t know whether to laugh at that title or vomit to it.

However SFA, SPFL, the Court of Session, the High Court, EUFA are all complicit in one way or another, some by being tacit other by acts of violence against any sense of decency and integrity.  Regan and Doncaster OUT NOW.

View Comment

Avatar

goosygoosyPosted on10:53 pm - Jan 5, 2016


To Mods
Delete if sub judice
One of the charges relates to  work done by MR on behalf of Liberty Capital being invoiced to RFC and not to Liberty Capital.For this to be an alleged fraud the work itself must have taken place before the date of sale i.e. during the RFC 2010-2011 financial year
which means
This invoice could not have been included in the accounts without the approval of the auditors who did the RFC books at the 3O June 2011 year end
And
more significantly
The Auditors would surely have sought the approval of  MHM?
Perhaps
There was a side agreement to the the sale  under which  MR fees associated with both the Buyer and the Seller were to be paid by RFC
and if there was
Is there someone yet to be charged?

View Comment

Avatar

martin cPosted on11:14 pm - Jan 5, 2016


Here is a poser for the legal bods, if those facing charges are found innocent then has no fraud taken place?

View Comment

Comments are closed.