Some of us are old enough to remember the days when we played football in the streets with lamp posts for goals. The “baw” in my day was a plastic “Hampden Frido” (with wee studs that left yer forehead looking like a golf ball when heading it – see picture) and a “Wembley Mettoy”.
Cue memories of MouldMasters and days of pain and glory
But I digress.
The plastic ball was prone to bursting and on a good day or evening a replacement was secured by the original version of crowd funding.; However, the Calton then was a poor neighbourhood and sometimes the “baw” depended on the generosity of a single provider.
This came with risks because generous folk can still be bad losers and if the provider’s team of rags, taigs and bluenoses (remember when that didn’t matter) was getting a drubbing or a high shot was deemed a goal but he protested because he was only 4 feet 6 tall and ,with no crossbar ,height is but a subjective perspective, hence argumentative, or perhaps the goal that created a 10 goal gap occasionally saw the baw ,metaphorical if not physically, land on the slates, at which point the provider and now owner, out of his sense of entitlement as owner, grab the baw and threatened to storm off in the huff.
As long as the game was everything and in the Calton then EVERYTHING was fitbaw, the bawless plebs were only too willing to reduce the imaginary cross bar height or take their foot off the gas, hence the derogatory saying of those who capitulate too easily “they hivnae any baws”.
Memories! Wit are they like and what is the connection to modern day Scottish professional football?
I’m indebted to this article by The Battered Bunnet first posted on CQN on 30 June 2012 at https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/abject-failure-of-leadership/comment-page-2/#comment-1479329 since reproduced on other blogs including SFM but worth reproducing here:
“Senior Hampden source tells ch4news cannot see how RFC were allowed to play lastseason at all. Doesn’t believe they met finance criteria…”
Alex Thomson – Twitter
Alex Thomson’s tweets yesterday re ‘senior Hampden source’ casting doubt on Rangers’ eligibility to obtain a Club Licence last year were rather intriguing.
We have by now a clearer picture of the failure of governance at Rangers through the David Murray/ John McClelland/ Alastair Johnston/ Craig Whyte years, albeit we await further definitive details from the judgement of the Tax Tribunal. Essentially, over a period spanning 2 decades, the means that Rangers used to sustain its football operation utterly disregarded the requirements of both corporate governance and football regulation. While the scandal related solely to payments and procedures within Rangers, we could hope that it was contained internally.
However, the revelation that Rangers paid former manager Souness via EBT while he was manager at Blackburn Rovers confirmed for the first time that the scandal had become external. I understand that RangersTaxCase and Alex Thomson have further information on the extent of payments to Souness and also to Walter Smith, and look forward to the details being revealed, but it is now clear that the Rangers ‘toxin’ had leached out of the club by 2001.
The compelling question now is: How far did the toxin spread?
Was it contained within the ‘outer circle’ of former Rangers employees, however inexplicable such payments may appear? Or did it extend beyond that outer circle, and contaminate senior figures in the Game in Scotland. The contamination does not relate solely to payments from Rangers’offshore trust, but more subtly perhaps, the behaviour of individuals in positions of influence.
We know that Rangers’ Executive Chairman JohnMcClelland was an SPL Board member during the startling ramp up of EBT use from 2003 to 2005, and was himself a beneficiary of the scheme.
We know that Rangers’ Chief Executive Martin Bain was an SPL Board member 2008 to 2011, coinciding with the receipt by Rangers of the HMRC assessments on the EBT scheme, of which he was himself a beneficiary.
We know that current SFA President Campbell Ogilvie was simultaneously an SFA Director and Executive Director and Company Secretary of Rangers, and was a beneficiary of the scheme.
These parallel functions of course present a profound conflict of interest for each man, at once implementing a scam on the Game to disguise a fraud on the Revenue, while owing specific legal duties of care to the Game being scammed.
So far, so shabby.
Thomson’s tweets yesterday indicate a doubt on the part of a ‘senior Hampden source’ that Rangers were eligible to hold a Club Licence last season, thus disqualifying them from participating in European competition, and perhaps Scottish Football too. Is this doubt grounded in a retrospective review of the licence qualifying criteria given what has emerged recently? Or was there a ‘blind eye’ turned by the SFA’s Licensing Committee to information in the public domain at the time of the Licence application? In this respect the ‘Wee Tax Case’ represented a fundamental failure against at least one Licence criterion.
The proposals to the SFL clubs this week make it plain that should the SFA conclude the outstanding Disciplinary issues against Rangers with either suspension or expulsion of Rangers from the SFA(perhaps the only sanctions remaining available to the SFA following Lord Glennie’s Judicial Review) that the Game will face ‘financial meltdown’.
Concurrently, the SPL has adjudged Rangers to have a prima facie case to answer in respect of SPL rule breaches on player registration, the outcome of which will confirm that the club fielded ineligible players in upwards of 400 SPL matches. The only possible disciplinary outcome given such a sustained breach of SPL rules, corrupting the completion as it did from its inception in 1999 to 2011, is expulsion from theSPL.
As a consequence, the SFA, as the authority responsible for implementing FIFA’s Rules on the Registration of Players, will be required to act on these breaches of FIFA rules. Again, expulsion for what amounts to Championship fixing is inevitable.
Curiously, the SFL, this week asking its members to vote to admit the Sevco Rangers club into their top tier, has the same issue given that its League Cup competition featured dozens of ineligible Rangers players through the years, and further claims by Hugh Adam that its‘Premier Division’ competition during the 1990s was similarly bent through the use of ‘off the books’ payments to players by Rangers.
The scale of it all is breath-taking and were the rules of the Game to be applied, Rangers FC would be expelled from each Governing body in turn, before we even consider the extraordinary breaches of faith and duties by co-serving Directors.
But according to the SFL/SFA/SPL circular to clubs, “Rangers Terminated or Suspended’ will cause “Financial Meltdown”.
To avoid this meltdown, it is proposed by the Executives of the combined SFL/SFA/SPL that the rules of the Game are not applied to Rangers, and that the clubs effectively rewrite the rule book to permit what remains of the club to compete at the top of the SFL.
In effect, according to the Governing Bodies,the Rules of the Game CANNOT be applied to Rangers or the Game’s finances will‘meltdown’.
The corollary question this raises is: For how long have the Governing bodies been so unable to apply the Rules of the Game to Rangers? Is this a new epiphany, or a longer standing recognition?
When Rangers submitted their allegedly ineligible application for a Club Licence in 2011, did the SFA recognise that Rangers failing to participate in Europe would cause the club to fail, as it subsequently did? Were the Rules ignored to avoid ‘financial meltdown’ then?
How far did the toxin spread?
Did this recognition extend back to the period following the disintegration of Murray International, hitherto Rangers’ source of continuing funding? Was the season of ‘Honest Mistakes’ some absurd, dutiful reaction to the recognition that should Rangers fail, Scottish Football would melt down?
Was the ineligible status of so many of Rangers’ first team players noticed prior to the SPL’s Inquiry commencing on 5th March? Was it noticed in an Audit as part of the SFA’s Club Licensing process some years ago? Was it noticed by the recent SFA Chief Executive Gordon Smith, who as an Agent had represented players on Rangers’ books through his Directorship of Prostar Management and other Agencies?
Beyond the duplicity of Ogilvie, McClelland and Bain, were Rangers’ irregular practices known to others at the SFA and SPL,others who chose not to address the matter, thus further contaminated the Governing Bodies with the Rangers toxin?
It is heartening that the Liquidators of Rangers plc will be instructed to examine all of the circumstances surrounding the failure of Rangers as a corporate entity. Equally, perhaps the detail contained in the Tax Tribunal judgement will reveal further connections,hitherto unknown.
What is likely to remain hidden from view though, is the full extent to which key influencers at the Governing Bodies were aware of Rangers’ conduct and circumstances, and how this affected their behaviour and their decision making in applying the rules of the Game to that club.
What we can say with certainty now though is that the people holding office at the Governing Bodies are unable or unwilling to apply the Rules of the Game to Rangers, despite the breaches being fundamentally and profoundly corrupt. The SFA and SPL, despite having outstanding disciplinary cases against Rangers that will, in all other circumstances see the club expelled from the Game, are intent to delete the cases provided the SFL clubs accept the Sevco Rangers into the SFL’s top division.
The Rules of the Game cannot be applied to Rangers.
When the rules cannot be applied, the Game itself is broken, and we can say now with some certainty that the Rangers toxin has spread beyond the club, its former employees and Directors of the Governing Bodies, and contaminated the very Game itself. The Office Bearers of the SFA,whose FIFA mandate requires them to “protect and foster the Game” in Scotland,and “protect it from abuses”, have contrived to do the contrary, to the point where the Game is stricken.
It is for this reason that a thorough clear out of the Office Bearers in the Governing Bodies is now a prerequisite to the Game recovering from the poison inflicted upon it by Rangers. The dissolution of the Governing Bodies is perhaps appropriate.
Clear your desk Gentlemen, the bus to ignominy departs shortly.
The position that the SFA and then SPL found themselves in is perfectly clear from the foregoing. Desperately keen for commercial reasons to hold onto the “baw” they changed the rules, but never took ownership of the baw from the owner and so are still beholden to him.
Hence the blog title “We Are Going To Need Another Baw “ because the one currently in play is burst, stuffed with £14M worth of share vouchers.
What was done in 2012 was understandably commercially necessary, but the price to be paid was twofold:
- Not just to the integrity of our game then but the ongoing price now, where all energies are directed at continuing to pretend that the rules are followed without fear of favour.
- The idea that the Scottish game cannot survive without a “ Rangers” is one that most folk would accept but the danger arising, which is unacceptable, is that because of it “Rangers” think they can do as they please as a result which requires rules to be reinforced. And seen to be reinforced.
They clearly aren’t under the SFA’s own rule enforcing process called the Judicial Panel Protocol https://www.sfm.scot/jpp-perverting-justice/ not to mention Club Licensing processes that have so far manged to avoid the scrutiny that, had Resolution 12 been acted upon in 2013, would have resulted in changes that would protect the game from all those who think it is still their baw.
The general perception of supporters is that lessons have not been learned from past behaviour.
Until there is evidence that they have, for example: the Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal investigating at snail’s pace the process followed in 2011 that allowed a UEFA licence to be granted to Rangers FC without question, coming to conclusion or providing reasons why it cannot by the spring, the perception will continue to be “Its all about Rangers” followed by what is the point?.
Is it not about time now that the fear that drove thinking in 2012 was faced and recognised by all clubs as unfounded and a new integrity filled baw was used?
What is there to fear now from restoring integrity to its rightful place, unless of course you were party to the thinking that kicked the integrity of our game to death in 2012 and are still in a position of influence?
Whit the hell wiz ‘e daein’ Tam ??????? 🙂 …….
http://content.invisioncic.com/Mrangmedia/monthly_2019_01/R4Rpm4tGHMdjYQ0I.mp4.154a17e839cb88ca25c214c728eea59b.mp4
I have just been in touch with a humble correspondent who once ran the French desk of an American company in La Defense, Paris so I'm sure he is the go to guy for updates on matters football on the Cote d'Azur. Should the £9m offer be upped to £12m in the last hours of the transfer window I have been assured that Mr Gerrard will reluctantly let the South American Superman go. Gerrard himself ,his employers or even the French club concerned have not verified that any offer was made , there has been no confirmation from BBC journalists of a verbal offer been seen with their own eyes just a statement that if rumours of a proposed offer of £8m was made it would be the most disrespectful incident at Ibrox since Mark Warburton was disrespected for an incident so trivial that even I have forgotten what it was. With negotiating tactics like his I'm surprised the aforementioned humble correspondent has not been head hunted to lead our negotiations out of the EU.
Who mentioned squirrels? Ahhhh that pesky TOP offer just gets closer and closer and yet not a peep anywhere that everything is in hand which makes me wonder if it isn't. How do Empires collapse ? well slowly at first then all of a sudden. An admin event would certainly complicate matters after all how can one make an offer to shareholders of a company if that company doesn't exist . If King does stump up ,I wonder how many more will be looking at that 20p a share offer after last nights slip up reduced the prospect of a Champions League pay day in the near future. As always this saga just gets more and more intriguing , roll on tomorrow.
I would imagine if all was well with the TOP case then favoured media outlets would be getting the story out already and there would be a triumphant announcement tomorrow. That’s just my imagination though.
Timtim 24th January 2019 at 12:38
'..roll on tomorrow.'
+++++++++++++++++++
Oh, aye, there's this:
"4. To ensure that Laird makes an offer for Rangers in full compliance with the Code by no later than 17:30GMT on 25 January 2019, being the date that is eight weeks from the date of this undertaking."
Am I agog with excitement? Well, I'm just a bit hacked off that I can't be in Court on 29th Jan.
Because even if yer man has done what Lady Wolffe ordered him to do, and has now 'complied', he still faces charges of being in contempt of Lord Bannatyne's order.
That is, the matter is now not between TOP and King. If those parties kiss and make up, so what?
The Court itself has to think of its own position! Some tyke frae Castlemilk thumbed his nose to Lord Bannatyne and the majesty of the Law.
If that tyke gets away with it, then the authority of the Law, of the judges who apply the law, is shot to hell.
In my opinion, freely and honestly expressed, King must be 'done' for contempt of Court at least as far as having that noted on the record.
The Court in its pragmatic view might decide that no punishment may be due, because King has punished himself by putting his hubristic self under some financial difficulty and inconvenience.
That will be for Lady Wolffe to decide.
Me, masel, personally? I'd hang him!
https://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
I may have posted this before , it is a profile of a sociopath by R McAfee and King for me certainly ticks boxes, it starts with point 1 -Glibness and Superficial Charm which in my opinion more than ticks a box it sums him up from the very start. There is a serious point here , sociopaths like King are dangerous people and cause immense damage to peoples lives so if nothing else it's helpful to be able to identify such individuals and avoid them for our own good. Industries with the highest levels of sociopathic disorder are banking, politics and the military, I am unaware if they had included Scottish journalism in their study but would be unsurprised if they weren't reasonably high on the list. I do agree with Ex Ludo that smsm would be trumpeting King for complying proving he is backing the club* financially and people would be mad to cash out now. If I could just finish by saying to John "hanging is too good for him"
LADY WOLFFE – E Hunter, Clerk
Tuesday 29th January By Order At 10.00am
P341/17 Pet: The Panel on Takeovers & Mergers for orders sec955 – Dentons UK – Lindsays
==================================
At least the hearing is already in the rolls should he not have complied by then.
IIRC Lady Wolffe indicated that she wished to know from the legal teams the day before (28 January) whether or not King had complied. I suppose that would be to let her consider how the following hearing day's should be conducted, e.g. a rubber stamp exercise if he had complied, or an explanation of why not before summoning King to appear in person the following week.
An alternative hearing to attend is the Judicial Review into Aberdeen proposed new stadium at Kingsford, which starts on the same day (scheduled for 3 days).
There is another hearing next Wednesday at Glasgow Sheriff Court in David Grier's action against Police Scotland. It doesn't appear to have reached the "proof" stage, otherwise I might have been tempted to go along.
Glasgow Sheriff Court
Wednesday 30 January 2019
David Grier v Philip Gormley QPM, Chief Constable, Police Scotland GLW-A988-17 – Fleming & Reid
Timtim@15.18
To continue your last point – he needs a good kick up the a**e.
Somewhat off topic admittedly, but a good exercise in spin for any budding journalist.
"Celtic ahead of Rangers in Deloitte's football rich list".
https://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/17379764.celtic-ahead-of-rangers-in-deloittes-football-rich-list/
It would appear that Deloitte's have Celtic, "somewhere between 40th. and 50th." in their list of the world's richest football clubs, with "Rangers", "just outside the top 70". No further explanation of the latter is given, but I'm with the Comment below, I hope he doesn't mind me reproducing it here.
"John Griffin 8 hrs ago
2 I think it's a bit like saying I'm just outside the top ten of possible partners for Scarlett Johansson".
So it seems the sfa have told Celtic to jog off in regards to the beaton report.
It has been suggested to me that TRFC have gone "all in " this season in order to prevent CFC from putting 5 wee stars on their shirt alongside the one that's already there . Shirley not ?
If anyone would like to read the report, it's here:
https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/sports-business-group/articles/deloitte-football-money-league.html
I can't find any reference to "Rangers" at all, other than in an analysis of Celtic's finances. Being thorough, the Herald must have enquired of Deloitte's where "Rangers" were in the list. "Just outside the top 70", was the reply.
‘Obviously HMRC have got to pursue, in the public interest, taxation.
‘Equally, they’ve got to have cognisance of the fact that we’re talking about a huge institution, part of the fabric of the Scottish nation, as well as Scottish football, and everybody realises that.
‘The most die-hard Celtic supporter understands that Celtic can’t prosper unless Rangers are there.
‘The rest of the clubs understand that as well. Therefore you have to have cognisance of these things when you’re pursuing public policy.
‘We’ve certainly been arguing to HMRC on one hand, and indeed to Rangers, to for goodness sake get a settlement, get a settlement and a structure over time whereby Rangers can continue because Rangers must continue for the future of Scottish football and for the fabric of the country.’
………………..
Who said that?
Ooooh….
i was tempted to deploy those lines, but thought the whole “fabric” shite (of whence he spoke) was trite and of less concern, than his potential criminality, in this instance.
Warburton……….2016/17……….22 games, 12 wins, 4 losses, 4 draws…….42 points
Caixinho/Murty. 2017/18……….22 games, 12 wins, 6 losses, 4 draws…….40 points
Gerrard……………2018/19……….22 games, 12 wins, 4 losses, 6 draws…….42 points.
Warbs 12 wins 4 draws and 4 losses is 20 games and 40 pts not 22 and 42 but the point is relevant , not much progress despite the inflated wage bill in fact points per £ paid they are underperforming under Gerrard.
CO, those are surprising stats there.
Off the cuff, I would have thought that Gerrard had a much better win ratio.
I must have fallen for the PR p!sh …
So, for all his £2M (?) salary, and a more expensive squad, Gerrard's only really got one home league win against CFC as an obvious improvement on those other TRFC managers?
Hmmm, and looks like February 9th could be rather significant.
If Gerrard's team continue to slip up
in the league – and assuming they actually turn up and then beat Cowdenbeath…
they then face another tough tie away to Killie.
Out of the Cup, out of contention for the league, and with McAllister – or even Murty – in charge by early February?
…as in 2 weeks tomorrow!
Timtim 24th January 2019 at 15:18
The profile of a sociopath undoubtedly fits Mr King.
Donald Trump would also tick a lot of the boxes but a bit closer to home many of the character traits listed have surfaced on this site courtesy of Spoutpish, Niall Walker, Ernest Becker, Lawman2 et al.
Gone but not forgiven.
Have to share this: the funniest ever line written – by possibly the most ignorant SMSM churnalist. Enjoy!
[DR headline today]
"Real deal or also rans? Rangers right now stand somewhere in the middle – Gordon Parks
…
The desperation for Rangers to be a major force again has been massaged by a lack of reality.
…"
======================================
I suggest that this Gordon Parks has indeed won the Interweb for Scottish Sports Writers.
Truly breathtaking stuff!
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17383804.rangers-chairman-dave-king-expected-to-make-court-ordered-11m-shares-bid-today/
Martin Williams "expects" him to comply
we will see.
Thanks for the correction TT.
To get back to King's offer, due later today. I note that the order was to make the offer 'no later than 17:30GMT on 25 January 2019'. That doesn't say that the offer must be made at half-past five today. Or even that it must be made today. It says that it must be made 'no later than…'
While it's obviously well within the obnoxious nature of King to wait until the last moment to make the offer, surely, in the best interest of the club, RIFC shareholders and TRFC supporters, even he must feel a need to comply as soon as he possibly could – in other words, before today, which he could have done as soon as the money was in Investec's hands – if it was indeed there on the due date.
Either way, whether or not he makes the offer at 5.30, he's once again shown just how much of a scumbag he is, and how little he truly cares for the club and those affected by it.
Timtim 25th January 2019 at 11:35 https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17383804.rangers-chairman-dave-king-expected-to-make-court-ordered-11m-shares-bid-today/ Martin Williams "expects" him to comply we will see.
____________________
TimTim
I'd written my earlier post before reading yours, and thought it worth pointing out that William's article makes no mention of the fact that King was free to make the offer before now provided the money was safely held by the 'third party'.
Might I suggest that the Herald's 'understanding' is based solely on the notion that they've heard absolutely nothing one way or the other about whether or not King has complied with the court order and, aware they should publish something on the matter, have chosen to 'understand' in a positive manner.
Oops, my previous comment, referred to above, is in moderation, I presume because I referred to King as a 'sc*mbag'. Sorry mods.
Anyway, to make my last post clearer, I'd pointed out that there was no requirement for King to wait until 5.30 today to make the offer and, if the money was in the hands of the third party, he could have made the offer at anytime since it's deposit.
The offer has been made.
https://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/shareholder-centre/circulars-admission-document/mandatory-offer-for-rifc-plc/
McCoist is among those who have made irrevocable undertakings not to sell.
List of Irrevocable Undertakings
Neil Hosie 2,000,000
Ally McCoist 1,092,988
Andrew Ross 2,500,000
Club 1872 13,372,254
Barry Scott 8,645,000
Hargreaves Landsdown (Graeme Henderson) 579,757
Hargreaves Landsdown (John Bennett) 5,300,000
HSBC Global Custody Nomminee (Leslie Hutchison) 771,997
Andrew Hawkward 2,500,000
New Trace Ltd 7,500,000
Borita Investments 11,132,500
Total of Undertakings 55,394,496
That is the equivalent of £11m of the potential £19m that King was required to put up, so I suspect that he only ended up depositing around £8m in a UK account.
easyJambo 25th January 2019 at 12:39
EJ, are any of these names shareholders you might have expected to accept the offer, or are they all already discounted as potential acceptors? Do you think that there is enough remaining non-supporter type investors to ensure King has to pay up something?
King needs acceptances for just over 23m shares for the offer to become unconditional.
Potential sellers include:
Blue Pitch*** 4,000,000
Margarita*** 2,600,000
Norne Ansalt*** 1,200,000
Putney Holdings*** 700,000
Sandy Easdale 5,256,110
James Easdale 572,749
River and Mercantile 2,123,159
Beaufort Securities*** not known
Total of potential sellers 16,452,018 + the holdings of Beaufort Securities***
*** That assumes that the "frozen" shares and those held by Beaufort are permitted to sell.
It is still possible that the offer will become unconditional, but my gut feel is that the level of acceptances will be below the threshold.
Note that the offer closes at 1pm on 15 February.
Has Club 1872 buying a whole load of shares (for cash) and maintaining its percentage holding had a significant effect on the likely result.
Ok, King has made the offer.
But as I think Lady Wolffe is well aware of, he may possibly have lied to his Counsel , Lord Davidson QC, whom he allowed to tell the Court that he (King) was penniless.
No fault of Lord Davidson , who, like any QC, can only act on the facts as related to him by a solicitor on behalf of a client, and, of course, the solicitor can only act on what his client tells him.
I suspect that our Dave is not out of the 'contempt' situation.
And I think Martin Williams is wrong in implying that the fact that King has now made the offer means that his lying contempt will be quietly forgotten.
On the contrary, I believe that Lady Wolffe will have hard questions to ask about why he lied to the Court about his lack of control of his monies, and listen with interest( and, I suspect, with total disbelief) to his explanation of how he can now suddenly access the funds needed to comply.
.
Re King/Laird Offer
Giving (a little) grudgingly credit to the TOP for finally getting King to submit an offer to shareholders which was always their (TOP) objective to protect the rights of the RIFC shareholders – what this process has cost I'm not sure but presume TOP's legal costs are coming from King .
Presume this case has been a wake up call to the TOP & will probably result in a re-evaluation of their proceedures/regulations in light of the hoops King made them go through particularly vis a vis the Scottish legal aspect in this case .
Cluster One 24th January 2019 at 22:23
'…Who said that?'…
++++++++++++++
Well, C1, since no one else has put their hand up, let me claim the prize!
It was our former First Minister , Alex Salmond, (now facing his own little legal difficulties) who came out with that crap.
The report of that in the 'Daily Mail' in February 2012 went on to report what the D&P comment was:
"In broad terms, supporters can be reassured that Rangers will continue as a football club and we hope to reach a stage as soon as possible where the club can emerge from administration.'"
Well, of course, as we all know, Rangers' did not emerge from Administration.
It was Liquidated.
And if our football governance body had been composed of ordinary, decent, honest men, that simple fact would have been recognised.
But, what did we have? Anything but a governance body composed of ordinary, decent, honest men,
Instead, we had stupid and/or malicious and/or partisan/and/or frightened rabbits caught in the headlamps!
So we have ended up with a corrupted sport, corrupt, like a fish, from its very head.
Aided and abetted from the start by several MSPs and the then First Minister!
Tells its own story.
Homunculus 25th January 2019 at 13:56
Has Club 1872 buying a whole load of shares (for cash) and maintaining its percentage holding had a significant effect on the likely result.
==========================
It is only part of the explanation. The broader reason is the share placement in September which saw 63m new shares issued. The concert party took up sufficient shares in a debt for equity exchange to maintain their percentage at 34.05%, but most of the others who took part have given irrevocable undertakings not to accept the offer along with two or three others.
The offer document also indicates that two further share issues are planned which will dilute Club 1872 and others if they don't stump up more cash to maintain their percentage.
I had to smile at the "independent directors" statement in the offer document. It was signed off by John Bennett, an RIFC non exec director, one of the September placees, and someone who has given an undertaking not to accept the offer. Hardly "independent".
Mr Kings intransigence has, on the face of it, saved him a shed load of money. It is clear why he did what he did in relation to the TOP finding.
My understanding of the matter is that this will not improve the financial health of the football club he is connected to and that remains a loss making business without a credit line etc.
naegreetin 25th January 2019 at 15:01
'…Presume this case has been a wake up call to the TOP & will probably result in a re-evaluation of their proceedures/regulations in light of the hoops King made them go through particularly vis a vis the Scottish legal aspect in this case '
__________________
Well, the two very senior TOP chaps that gave evidence, and to whom eJ and I spoke, seemed to be happy enough with the way things were panning out.
eJ's knowledgably based questions gave them pause for thought, in surprise at such acute and detailed questioning, but they were quite comfortable in their response.
They were equally comfortable with the wording of Section 955 of the companies Act 2006, and its use of 'may' , which seemed to me to have given Lord Bannatyne some problem.
But I think that the TOP will use this belated victory in a Scottish case to show to good effect that in any English Court case , the likes of Dave King would have no hope of success in not complying with an order from the TOP.
Lots of interesting stuff going on,King making 19m offer to buy out the rest of shares in the Club/company ,Chinese ,yes them guys again,whispers that a before he became A Knight of the Realm was happy to help pay of some ministers gambling debts ,surely not,who could this have been,and is Boyata off next week to be replaced by McKenna,you can’t beat a good rumour (or three)
JC@16.14
As an aside JC did any of the mainstream media people seek to interview or get a quote from the TOP representatives?
Has King made the offer ?
THIS ANNOUNCEMENT IS FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT INTENDED TO, AND DOES NOT, CONSTITUTE OR FORM ANY PART OF, AN OFFER TO SELL OR AN INVITATION TO SUBSCRIBE FOR OR PURCHASE ANY SECURITIES OR THE SOLICITATION OF ANY VOTE OR APPROVAL IN ANY JURISDICTION.
One thing that did amuse me was the witness to Andrew Hawkyards irrevocable undertaking was a Chubacca Hunk from Hong Kong . (page 31)
(I have just found the bold button by accident)
Until it is confirmed in court that King has complied in full then I won't accept a statement on a King controlled website as proof of anything. He was charged in Sth Africa with falsifying documentation ,he did claim the Easdales had given an undertaking not to sell, the Easdales denied this and do not appear in the list of irrevocable undertakings. If King is trying it on here it is madness but he has previous for this kind of behaviour. For the avoidance of doubt I can find no reference to a Chubacca Hunk in Hong Kong although they may well exist . Why would he falsify undertakings? would it limit the amount of money he needs to transfer ? would it convince others thinking of selling that he has the backing and trust of many of the main holders ? Another aspect of these undertakings is the similarity in the handwriting of some of the "undertakers"
Remember the warning of the South African Judge when dealing with this man. He is not to be trusted an inch.
Ex Ludo 25th January 2019 at 16:51
"As an aside JC did any of the mainstream media people seek to interview or get a quote from the TOP representatives?"
++++++++
When eJ and I were in conversation with the TOP chaps, everyone else had left or was leaving, I saw no one else besides ourselves speak to the TOP guys.
Just as an aside to the irrevocable undertakings, one of the new names as a shareholder is "Leslie Hutchison". I wonder if that is the same "Les Hutchison" who was majority shareholder at Motherwell until his shares were transferred to the Well Society in September 2016.
Just logged on to state that "earlier reports of my death" have been greatly exaggerated…I have been lurking in deepest Essex and not missed a single blog or post, especially from my old literary mentor John Clarke(e) and fellow "beancounter" StevieBC…and all the other regular posters/suspects.
My day has been marked with the announcement of the death of that TRUE sports writer and PROPER journalist Hugh McIlvanney…RIP
His piece in The Observer on the death of Jock Stein moved me to tears, and not just because I had paid £3 for a hard copy of the paper in Menorca…I would love to find that article again…
JC@17.06
Thanks for the reply. This story is arguably the second biggest story of the week in purely Scottish terms. I probably knew the answer before I asked you and I don’t believe anyone on here is in the least bit surprised that no comment was sought by the SMSM. I await a statement from the SFA and t’Rangers but I already know that only one organisation will be making a statement.
Sports headline from the DR today;
"Robert Gumny 'interests' Celtic as Lech Poznan slap £4.3million price tag on right-back"
============
Shirley, some mistake?
Money aside, would it not be more likely he would attract significant Ibrox interest?
…well, the player has all the makings of a 'Gumny Bear'…
Apologies: I'll let you all chew over that one, [or groan].
I'll get my popcorn…
easyJambo 25th January 2019 at 15:50
=====================================
Thanks for that, makes sense.
I particularly like your point re the "independence" of a place man.
John Clark 25th January 2019 at 15:35
14 0 Rate This
Cluster One 24th January 2019 at 22:23
‘…Who said that?’…
……………….
I was half expecting a statement from ibrox backing Mr Salmon along the lines of.
Obviously the police have got to pursue, in the public interest,
‘Equally, they’ve got to have cognisance of the fact that we’re talking about a huge institution, part of the fabric of the Scottish nation, and everybody realises that.
Therefore you have to have cognisance of these things when you’re pursuing public policy.
‘We’ve certainly been arguing with the police on one hand, for goodness sake get a settlement, get a settlement and a structure over time whereby Mr Salmon can continue because Mr Salmon must continue for the future of scotland and for the fabric of the country.’
Well he did put in a word or two for them.
easyJambo 25th January 2019 at 12:39
List of Irrevocable Undertakings
Neil Hosie 2,000,000
Ally McCoist 1,092,988
……………………
I was always under the impression that Ally had cashed in a long time ago. I wonder if he will consult a certain EK Football club.
Rangers director warns loss-making club cannot run on loans indefinitely
https://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/17386364.rangers-director-warns-loss-making-club-cannot-run-on-loans-indefinitely/
He said financial support was partly addressed by September’s £12m share issue and there would be two further share issues.
But he added: “Going forward it will become necessary to resolve the flow of losses incurred by the company. The independent Directors believe this is achievable subject to the two share issues proceeding as planned.”
Mr Bennett said the independent directors believe there is still the possibility of “significant upside” in the club’s trading and prospects.
The club were still hampered by some unspecified “legacy issues” entered into before Mr King and his Three Bears group took over the running of the club from a board said to be linked to Sports Direct supremo Mike Ashley.
………………….
Could this be the softening of the bears. “Listen we had to sell our best player even if we did not get the price we wanted,listen we are a loss-making club and cannot run on loans indefinitely we had to sell.What else could we do?
“The independent directors recognise that many shareholders will have acquired their shareholding in order to support Rangers Football Club and the independent directors continue to believe this is important and that shareholders who share this prime motivation should reject the offer.
…………………..
The shareholders will have acquired their shareholding in a company, TRIFC in order to support Rangers Football Club.
Is that what he is saying but not saying?
Doesn't sound good for Lennon.
Suspended by Hibs?
Breaking…
tevieBC 25th January 2019 at 22:21
1
0
Rate This
Doesn't sound good for Lennon.
Suspended by Hibs?
Breaking…
=============================
I was thinking that myself. Too many sevco minded people in positions of power at my club.
David Lows take on the share offer:
David Low @Heavidor 4h4 hours ago
So, the Dave King concert party has irrevocable undertakings of 38.30% not to accept the offer added to their own 34.06% meaning 15.96% of the remaining 27.64% would have to accept the offer to become unconditional. Seems a great opportunity to get control if such a great club.
Rangers director warns loss-making club cannot run on loans indefinitely He said financial support was partly addressed by September’s £12m share issue and there would be two further share issues.
They are now hopping that another two share issues will address financial support for a loss making club.
But he added: “Going forward it will become necessary to resolve the flow of losses incurred by the company. The independent Directors believe this is achievable subject to the two share issues proceeding as planned.”
They Believe.
Mr Bennett said the independent directors believe there is still the possibility of “significant upside” in the club’s trading and prospects.
They Believe.
The board said in October that the latest forecasts indicate at least £4.6m was required for the rest of this season and a further £3m was needed for 2019/20.
However, the independent auditor from Campbell Dallas accepted a failure to secure the additional funds would result "in the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt as to the group's ability to continue as a going concern".
The board said in October that the latest forecasts indicate at least £4.6m was required for the rest of this season and a further £3m was needed for 2019/20.
However, the independent auditor from Campbell Dallas accepted a failure to secure the additional funds would result "in the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt as to the group's ability to continue as a going concern".
Let me get this down, so they Believe.
There is still the possibility of “significant upside” in the club’s trading and prospects.
And they Believe.
That Going forward it will become necessary to resolve the flow of losses incurred by the company. With two further share issues.
Do they believe then that two share issues and maybe an upside in the clubs trading and prospects will clear £7.6 million so they are just covering the money they need to keep the lights on?
Well i Believe they are fecked if all they have is Belief
And in the meantime.
The club were still hampered by some unspecified "legacy issues" entered into before Mr King and his Three Bears group took over the running of the club from a board said to be linked to Sports Direct supremo Mike Ashley.
And Mr Bennett said it may be another two or three years before these are completely resolved.
He Believes. I think he meant to add.
Cluster One 26th January 2019 at 08:00
And in the meantime.
The club were still hampered by some unspecified "legacy issues" entered into before Mr King and his Three Bears group took over the running of the club from a board said to be linked to Sports Direct supremo Mike Ashley.
And Mr Bennett said it may be another two or three years before these are completely resolved.
He Believes. I think he meant to add.
__________________
And I believe that some of these 'legacy issues' have been exacerbated by King's belligerent attitude towards Mike Ashley and his company to an extent that some of the issues have really been created by him. Still, why waste an opportunity for some tub thumping at Ibrox?
Interestingly the Herald article makes reference to a loss making club. That must mean the company must be doing ok ? Doesn’t it?
Allyjambo 26th January 2019 at 08:45 And I believe that some of these 'legacy issues' have been exacerbated by King's belligerent attitude towards Mike Ashley and his company to an extent that some of the issues have really been created by him. ………………..
And i Believe
that some of these 'legacy issues' will add to the £4.6m that is required for the rest of this season and a further £3m that is needed for 2019/20.
What then, another share issue?
Please bear in mind that this £12m share issue was mostly used for the repayment of existing loans by converting them to equity. Very little actual money was raised.
They are running a football club on loans whilst trading at a loss every year. They have been doing it since the club was formed.
Financial Fair Play is a joke.
It's all getting very Rangers at Rangers* , gambling on CL qualification while holding never ending share issues. Patrick Vieira has been left confused at his clubs bid for Morelos, are they trying to undermine him or is it their version of a belated secret Santa . The definition of insanity should be explained to Jim Traynor ,it didn't work with Red Bull Barry , failed with Beijing Rehne and now at Nice . Morelos will take the hump (again) and who can blame him , maybe a wee pay rise will soothe his rancour (again). Meanwhile back at the ranch (if) King has deposited approx 10m in the escrow it will have cost him 15% in non refundable exchange control charges plus the associated costs of preparing the offer plus the court costs of fighting to do so plus TOPs costs . In total it won't be far off the amount needed to fund this seasons shortfall that he himself guaranteed . Time for a crossbar challenge or summat.
The offer document also states that the costs of the offer will be £606,000 for Laird and £52,000 for RIFC.
Add that to the legal costs and it would probably have been just as cheap for King just to have gone ahead with the offer when first requested to do so in 2015.
The document also gives an indication of King and his family’s wealth.
At the the current exchange rate of 18 Rand to the £1, then his gross assets are £36.7m and his net assets £23.5m
easyJambo 26th January 2019 at 10:39
=====================================================
Forgive my ignorance but why would it cost RIFC anything.
It is King who has been instructed to make the offer, why would it cost the PLC anything. All that means is the shareholders of the club are having to pay for King to make an offer (to them) he should have made in the first place
There are external factors that can affect football club finances as well and that is the state of the general economy. In the good old days when recessions hit , football actually flourished as it was seen as an escape from the harsh realities of life however the cost of escaping for 90 minutes was affordable back then . Paypackets for the Jardines and Johnstones weren't much greater than your average working man less than double in most cases so football and the clubs could shoulder the cold winds of austerity. Today your average Jardine or Johnstone is 20-30 times your average fans income and in some cases even more. The economy is not in great shape , in fact the effects of 2008 far from being fixed are now coming back to haunt us . Back then we shook the magic money tree , created more debt and reduced interest rates so we could afford to service that debt. Today we have the same issues but while we can press that print button again we cannot reduce interest rates to compensate.Europe is in a bad way , the yellow vest protests are very serious and are spreading , China is on the verge , Venezuela crumbling, Zimbabwe back to being a basket case and then there's Brexit. The economy is more global now than ever before and the downward trend is spreading even amongst stable economies (USA Canada Australia etc) Those clubs who have been well run and within budget will fare far better than those relying on loans and share issues . They say the best time to fix the roof is when the sun is shining , they did fix the roof didn't they?
Homunculus 26th January 2019 at 11:03
easyJambo 26th January 2019 at 10:39
=====================================================
Forgive my ignorance but why would it cost RIFC anything.
It is King who has been instructed to make the offer, why would it cost the PLC anything. All that means is the shareholders of the club are having to pay for King to make an offer (to them) he should have made in the first place
================================================
I don't know the answer. The only costs I would have thought were appropriate is the work done by the club by the "independent directors" and preparing responses to Laird re their share register.
The document states that they got specialist advice.
easyJambo 26th January 2019 at 12:05
====================================
Thanks but that makes no sense to me, business often doesn't to be fair.
I really don't understand why anyone other than King (through whatever vehicle) should have to pay for this offer to be made.
The club cannot continue to run on loans indefinitely.
What will they run the club on, if not loans?
Cluster One 26th January 2019 at 12:42
=================================
The options are
Increased sales, matchday, additional games, better income from merchandising etc
Decreased costs, probably wage bill.
Share issues, which seems to form part of the plan, but it can't just be to repay loans with equity.
Sale of assets, which would also decrease costs.
Homunculus 12 .46
The vicious circle. How to increase attendance to watch lesser quality players as result of reducing the wage bill that impacts on going for anything?
Perhaps acting like Killie or Aberdeen or Hearts etc might provide a clue.
Stop acting Billy Big Baws and join the same league on the same sustainable basis as everyone else.
The risk of TRFC''s "business model", where a tap is more than a jersey, is the danger of collateral damage to the other clubs in the league.
At what point do they agree to domestic version of financial fair play that protects all clubs?
They are derelict in their duty to themselves and each other. Hell mend them.
easyJambo 25th January 2019 at 17:12
'Just as an aside to the irrevocable undertakings, one of the new names as a shareholder is "Leslie Hutchison". I wonder if that is the same "Les Hutchison" who was majority shareholder at Motherwell until his shares were transferred to the Well Society in September 2016.'
+++++++++++
eJ, in the list of those shareholders of RIFC plc who gave an irrevocable undertaking NOT to accept 'the Offer' the name of one of the registered owners ( of 771,997 shares) is given as 'HSBC Global Custody (UK) Limited.
Their undertaking was executed as a Deed, and was signed by someone with an indecipherable squiggle of a signature.
However, the name and address of the witness to that signature is very clear: it is that of an 'executive assistant' ( presumably of the person, or in the office of the person of the signatory, whichever lawyer or accountant was used by HSBC ).
That address is in Barbados.
Now, it happens that the place of residence given by one Leslie Hutchison , major shareholder until 2016 of Motherwell Football and Athletic Club as recorded in the Companies House entry for that club(under 'people') was given as Barbados.
I rather think that that Leslie(Les) Hutchison is indeed the shareholder of 771,977 shares who pledged his allegiance to the King cause.
Whether there is any kind of back story about conflicting allegiances I just don't know?
Perhaps Tam Cowan or some other Motherwell supporter might have a view.
John Clark 26th January 2019 at 15:36
Only the nominee company was listed in the list of irrevocable undertakings, but the name Leslie Hutchison was used in the offer document itself, both with the figure of 771,997 shares.
It was just the name of "Leslie Hutchison" being associated previously with Motherwell that piqued my interest.
Homunculus 26th January 2019 at 12:46
The options are
Increased sales, matchday, additional games, better income from merchandising etc
Decreased costs, probably wage bill.
………………………………….
Auldheid 26th January 2019 at 13:35
The vicious circle. How to increase attendance to watch lesser quality players as result of reducing the wage bill that impacts on going for anything?
………………….
As Auldheid points out cutting costs and quality on the park so that the club does not continue to run on loans would not increase attendance to watch lesser quality players. Would the ibrox fans follow another gimick? would they turn on their own if they look as if they will never catch celtic? It is the hope that they could stop the ten that is killing them.
If celtic remain dominant this season would Mr Gerrard get the same amount of money to spend next season if he is still there.
Would the ibrox fans buy into lesser quality with increased match day prices?
The cutting cost’s next season if they don’t win anything this season will be a must i believe.
That is why i believe this season is an all in and throw the kitchen sink at it because if they don’t win anything this season the next few season’s are going to be a wake up call.
Cost cutting or administration could be the Banner headline.And cost cutting in the ibrox fan’s eyes if you want to stop celtic is a no go.
I really don't see what good administration would do.
Currently the club owes fortunes to the PLC and the PLC owes money to its own shareholders and directors. Basically because no-one will lend money to it without onerous terms and security.
It really is a genuine question, how would administration and putting the PLC into the hands of an administrator to make the decisions help. Any genuine professional would simply liquidate it.
The only option left appears to be trying to buy their way out of this, and it doesn't seem to be working.
Homunculus 26th January 2019 at 19:04
2 0 Rate This
I really don’t see what good administration would do.
……………..
I don’t think the club/company would want administration.But the threat of it to the ibrox fans if the club/company don’t bring in austerity if the don’t win anything this season,maybe the only hope of getting an ibrox fan base hungry for sucess to play along.
Getting an ibrox fan base to accept celtic could just do 10 in a row while they the ibrox club/company cut cost is the club/company sticking point.
Is the point i was trying to get across very badly…. sorry for that.
………………………………………
Homunculus 26th January 2019 at 19:04
The only option left appears to be trying to buy their way out of this, and it doesn’t seem to be working.
………………….
That is why i believe this season is an all in, if it works.(and it doesn’t seem to be working).
Mr Gerrard was brought in to win trophies and so far is out of two. If it doesn’t work this season with the kitchen sing thrown in,it is going to be a long hard couple of years for the bears that will make the last couple of seasons look like the Hey day’s for them.
Cluster One 26th January 2019 at 19:59
=======================================
Thanks for the clarification.
It may also encourage them to put their money into Club 1872, which may be one of the few sources of new money coming into the club via the share issues they have said they are going to have.
Homunculus 26th January 2019 at 20:10
It may also encourage them to put their money into Club 1872,
…………………………
Just how much can they afford? Season ticket money subscription to 1872, share issues and match day spend, all mounts up.
………………………..
My conversation today with Homunculus has brought back memories of when the ibrox fan base were asking questions of the spend at ibrox.
17th July 2013
Craig Mather tells Ibrox fans: we’re living within our means.
New Rangers chief executive Craig Mather has moved to reassure fans that the club is living within its means despite recruiting a number of new players over the summer.
Rangers’ past financial problems were well-documented when they were forced into administration, followed by liquidation of the old company.
Mather said: “People are talking about the signings we have made and we’ve agreed deals to bring in seven players so far but in comparison to last year’s wage bill, it’s less this season.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/13114194.craig-mather-tells-ibrox-fans-were-living-within-our-means/
…………………….
Different times now with the TEN so near.