It has recently been suggested to me quite strongly by two separate Finance Industry experts that no matter the outcomes of the forthcoming criminal trials into the sale of Rangers and the subsequent disposal of the liquidated assets, it is highly unlikely that the sale will be reversed. In fact BDO (the liquidators of Rangers) see the path of least resistance to any remedy (if guilty verdicts are returned) through the professional indemnity insurance held by organisations involved (I am choosing my words carefully here to comply with the rules surrounding the court case).
There is of course still the dispute between the owners of Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland to consider (although depending on the outcome of the criminal cases, that may be moot).
On the face of it, all of this is good news for TRFC and Dave King. After all, one of the main problems they have been facing is the uncertainty over the ownership of the assets, and if BDO are swinging in the direction indicated above, King and his board are free to move forward – you would think.
The recent plans to raise cash from the fans is I think a smart one, but it is still a sticking plaster applied to a gunshot wound. Rangers already have a gate income which is the envy of not just most Scottish clubs, but clubs much further afield. Their problem is their astronomical fixed costs, their dilapidated infrastructure, and possible cash outflow through the fabled ‘onerous contracts’.
Even putting in place a severe austerity package (which may be unpalatable to fans being asked to part with their cash to buy off pesky shareholders who don’t share King’s vision) does not remove the need to capitalise urgently to repair the stadium and build a squad capable of competing in Scotland. So they need to raise cash, and they need it quickly – because soft loans cannot be provided forever.
So the share issue route is the obvious way to go, and to do that effectively, a listing on an exchange is required. However our sources in the financial world don’t think it is possible that this could happen with the current regime for the following reasons (not in order of importance);
- They have absolutely no credible business plan to move forward over the next five years – only a commitment to limping on with soft loans;
- The current chairman is a convicted felon;
- Two directors of the new company were directors of the company now in liquidation;
- They have no line of credit;
- They are already in debt to the tune of at least £12m – increasing as I write;
- They are unable to repay that debt;
- There is still a nominal (even if we accept the BDO position above) doubt over the ownership of assets;
- The football team does not play in the top league – and European income isn’t coming soon;
- The company have astronomical fixed costs which are way in excess of their income.
So even if the doubt over the ownership of assets is removed, there isn’t an easily navigable route for TRFC into calmer waters.
My own conclusion is that perhaps the biggest single thing that is holding Rangers back is Dave King. I really don’t know what his motivation is. There is speculation that he has his eyes on the increasing cash-pot and diminishing creditor list at the Oldco. Some Rangers bloggers are suggesting that a land-grab play is taking place. I think the former is far more plausible than the latter, but if we take his RRM credential at face-value, it seems to me that the Rangers-minded thing for him to do would be to reverse himself out of the position he is in.
That might enable the company to raise some of the cash they need to repair the stadium, rebuild the infrastructure within the club (players, management, youth and scouting etc.).
Are King, Taylor and Park really in this so they can indefinitely fork out £10m per year? Will Taylor and Park continue to ally themselves with King if he is the impediment to inward investment that we think he is? Park will most certainly not, and my information, from sources very close to him, is that he is done.
The fractures in KingCo are beginning to appear, and King himself may come under increasing pressure to do what is best for the future of the club, which is to remove himself from the equation and allow those better placed to take it forward.
It is often speculated elsewhere that SFM is a Celtic blog, and even those who give us credit for being a much broader church than that will still insist that we are anti-Rangers, obsessed with Rangers, and out to get Rangers.
The occasional outburst of Schadenfreude from commenters aside (it IS a football forum after all guys) SFM is quite definitely not editorially anti-Rangers.
I think the evidence shows that we are nothing of the kind, and it doesn’t do Rangers any favours to conflate our position on the corrupt nature of the governance of the game with that of the Ibrox club – new or old. Where we do discuss Rangers (as we have in this article), it is with an acknowledgment that the money flying around in football makes all of our clubs vulnerable to the kind of rip-off merchants who have wandered in and out of Ibrox in the past few years.
There are many areas where the SFM consensus is unpalatable to Rangers fans. But protecting all of our clubs and their fans from mismanagement is hopefully not one of them.
Also, despite the many rivalries within the game, Rangers are an important focus (old club or new) for tens of thousands of fans. As such they are of interest to ALL of us who support football in this country. Anyway, I tend to be more obsessive about my own club – and find it rather easier to be objective about others 🙂
My own preference in moving the debate forward is to get the perspective of Rangers fans on these issues. I am ever hopeful that we can have Rangers fans engage with the blog and look for areas where we have common purpose.
Nobody at SFM wants Rangers fans to have no team to support. Nobody here wants the SFA to stay unregulated and unaccountable. Nobody at SFM wants people to make up rules they go along just for the sake of a few quid. I can’t believe that Rangers fans don’t share those values.
I agree that Rangers fans are victims of this affair to a large extent, but the culprits are quite definitely not us at SFM. They need to look closer to home to find them.
Just to make my own position clear, I am absolutely, totally and fundamentally opposed to franchising in sport. To me, it is the antithesis of true sporting competition.
The latest proposal seems to be to start a “Celtic” franchise in the second tier of US Soccer, the NASL.
The problem is, as with all franchise systems, how do you ever get from the 2nd tier to the top tier. The only ways into the top tier are to buy an existing franchise, wait for a vacancy when an existing franchise goes bust- or pray for the top league to expand and invite you in. Meanwhile, who is going to pay to watch a team locked in the second tier? Average attendances in that league are below (in most cases well below ) 10,000.
I just can’t see any business sense in such a move. In fact it sounds like a great way to lose lots of money very quickly.
Sorry for some reason not able to get a link, but Jackson’s PR message in the DR today is a very lengthy example of how to write like a drowning man, grasping at anything that might float!
He states, in his usual authorative manner but without a hint of how he knows, that TRFC (only) need an additional £2 – 3m to see out the season and the 3bears are already waving the readies in the air shouting ‘here it is!’
He then attempts to create some balance by saying King has had 234 days to produce a business plan. Keith, he should have had a business plan in place months before he took power, and produced it within days (unless that plan would not please the bears). That’s how proper business men work. They have, at the very least, an outline plan, because without it, they don’t have a clue whether or not they can do what they set out to do.
If ever there was an article that was a clear PR puff piece, it is this one. Not one mention of where his information comes from. Not one hint that it comes from a board member. Or an insider. Or, even, that it is just his take on on the situation. It is written with an air of authority but without any justification. Classic PR placement.
Oh, and King isn’t a convicted criminal now! No, he is now a convicted ‘man of mystery’! I wonder who thought that one up… and how much it cost TRFC?
If Keith Jackson isn’t aware that he is being used as a conduit for PR placement, he’s a bigger fool than he appears to be from his writing.
He should get a job with Screwfix, as an award-winning tool!
Whose assets are they anyway?
BP
“In fact BDO (the liquidators of Rangers) see the path …..through the professional indemnity insurance held by organisations involved. “
—————————————————————————————-
I found that odd, due to the purpose of a PI policy:-
“Professional indemnity insurance is for individuals and companies of all sizes that provide an advisory service. All businesses are vulnerable to claims being made against them if the client is not satisfied with the service. The cost involved in settling the claims could leave the company vulnerable and severely affect business operations if it is a small company. This is especially the case if you work individually as a consultant. Professional indemnity insurance can protect you if a claim is made against you by a client or customer due to a problem with the work that you have done for them. This could include negligence, loss of personal documents or infringement of any intellectual property. An instance where Professional indemnity is required would be if your business was tasked with producing promotional materials for a company and misprinted the company’s name on all of the items. Or alternatively, if you provide advice that was incorrect albeit a simply mistake that could lead to a claim for wrongful advice.”
“
The main difference between Directors’ and Officers’ insurance and Professional indemnity insurance is that Directors’ and Officers’ is aimed to provide financial assistance should senior members of your business require legal costs to be covered should a claim be made against them. Whereas Professional indemnity insurance covers errors the business has made that have negatively affected their clients or customers.
Directors’ and Officers’ insurance provides financial assistance to fund the defence costs for any directors or senior managers who find that a claim about the way in which they have managed the company has been made against them. These claims can be made by a variety of sources including Regulators, Employees, Shareholders and Creditors etc. “
I would have advised a D&O policy.
Why doesn’t “Radar” just arrange a telephone interview with King, ask him the questions about funding, and report King’s answers? Or report the fact that King won’t talk to him, if he draws a blank? I thought that was kind of how journalism was supposed to work, but maybe that’s just me being naive.
Rant over Ally?
£2-3m is pretty much the lowest anyone outside the Kingco camp has come up with as the shortfall to season’s end. Playing squad costs will have reduced and match day revenues almost certainly increased since last season but remember it needed a £5m loan from Uncle Mike and at least £1.5m from the ursine triumvirate to keep the lupines from the door last season and I don’t think the shortfall will have halved. There is also the oft forgotten fact that unless there is an extension the 3 bears are supposed to be repaid in a little over 2 months time.
While much of what Keith has apparently written is unsubstantiated he is starting to ring alarm bells which have previously been conspicuous by their absence in most of the MSSM
Keith Jackson’s piece in the Record today suggests that the club will need just £2M-£3M to get them through to the end of the season. I’ve had a look back at the last published accounts and the timing of the loans/fund raising last year and come up with the following as my best guess as to the quantity and timing of funding needed.
In 2014/15 they reported a final total of 24,589 STs earning approx £6M
For 2015/16 they have reported around 34,000 STs earning approx £9M
Additional walk ups should net them an extra £1M in the first half of the season.
So their income should be £4M up in total
Their player, management and other costs should have fallen by up to another £1M thus far making their income/expenditure £5M better off than this time last year.
They raised cash/loans at the following times last year
September 2014 – A Share issue raised £2.8M, but was also used to pay off loans of £1.5M to Letham and Easdale, so a net £1.3M was raised.
October 2014 – The first loan from Mash of £2M
November 2014 – The second loan from Mash of £1M
The end of December saw Sandy Easdale provide an emergency loan of £0.5M until the funds from the Lewis McLeod transfer came in.
That’s a total of £4.8M that was required to keep them afloat until the end of 2014.
On that basis, and if my reckoning is correct, then they will probably run out of money around the year end. They may be able to get some short term funding from Rangers First and the Rangers Supporters Trust, but it won’t last long.
The additional funding for the second half of last season saw the following sums raised:
January 2015 – Sports Direct provided £5M, of which £3M repaid the Mash loans, so a net £2M
March 2015 – The Three Bears provided £1.5M (repayable in December 2015)
April 2015 – The Three Bears provided another £1.5M (repayable in December 2015)
May 2015 – King (allegedly) provided £1.5M to get them through to the ST money
That’s a total of £6.5M for the 2nd half of the season.
Additional walk up income and reduced costs may save them approx £2.5M over the second half of this season. That would leave a funding gap of around £4M to get them through this season, with the money required from the end of this year through to next June. If they need money earlier than that then it is likely that the cost cutting hasn’t been effective as I’ve suggested.
I have assumed that the existing loans from King & the Three Bears will be rolled over or converted into equity. Similarly, I haven’t factored in repayment of the Sports Direct loan either.
The above doesn’t take into account any improvements in player trading, broadcasting or retail income. I also haven’t taken into account the absence of Commonwealth Games income they received last year, nor made provision for legal costs associated with the current proceedings.
With regard to the alarm bells ringing down Govan way I note over on the Bears Den someone has realised an AGM is due by the end of the year and that DCK intimated, in his wide ranging interview in September, he said he had a preference for November.
How important is it the club now has new auditors and advisors on board?
“They are separate issues; the importance of the auditors was that if you don’t get the accounts audited on time then you can’t have a general meeting.
“And the general meeting has to happen before the 31st of December but my personal preference is before the end of November so I can have my summer vacation as I’d rather not be coming back to the cold of Scotland.
“The auditors timing is quite important so that we can get the accounts out as soon as possible but it is not directly related to the listing, although clearly indirectly but directly if you don’t have audited accounts it’s hard to pursue a listing.”
Given we are in the last week of October and that notice will be required, the clock must now be ticking loudly (assuming the company’s articles haven’t been altered to do away with an AGM!!!) for both the accounts and the meeting.
Where is Brenda and that clock when you need it?
Hard to tell which camp keef’s article falls into:
1/ Complete PR spin
2/ I know something you don’t know
3/ Something will turn up as it always does – It better had – not least because I’m now acknowledging others’ work on trifling details like budgets, cash requirements, sustainable financing etc. Oh and I’ve also pigeon holed Taylor et al to make sure the engine still fires. No pressure guys. Or repayment.
Worth mentioning Graeme Macpherson’s article in the Herald too. We’re all heading back to duopoly heaven apparently, although no-one is entirely sure why! Depressing reading for this committed diddy. Still a distinct lack of basic arithmetic in evidence right enough.
My first thought on reading KJ’s piece was its timing, preparing the bears for an announcement on the next round of fund raising. Whether that comes from the RST, RF or the 3 Bears is a moot point. It certainly won’t come from King himself.
The other interpretation of the article is that there is a growing unease within the Board re King’s failed promises and that the Board is taking the first steps to prepare for King’s abdication.
Just picking up on the franchising thing.
I would assume the reason would be to increase exposure per se to try to keep Celtics name mentioned in the same lights as the Bayerns, Reals and Arsenals (and for the record, no I don’t understand the last one either). Fundamentally if the 2nd most influential man (No, not you David) on the planet makes a beeline for, and agrees to, a frankly ridiculous selfie with some EPL footballing bloke then you can see why you might think CFC have to up their game to try to stay relevant on the bigger stage.
I would agree there are surely cheaper ways to develop simple player links but, as above, I don’t think common sense fitba thinking comes into the equation in this instance.
One interesting thing for me (and apologies up front if, as I suspect, this might make your shiny new server melt BP) would be if Lawell believes it is easier/more profitable to go with a basic ‘Celtic’ Brand presumably as someone said to Boston or the likes, or if he dared wait and attempted to give rebirth to some form of ‘Old Firm’ brand instead. I’m not mischief making – if the herald is to be believed we will soon have the two behemoths* bouncing off each other once more with both facing the same exposure issues should the golden EPL invitation not come calling.
*OC/NC notwithstanding
I see RST have voted for DCKs latest wheeze.
A fool and his money etc. Just as Keef at the DR finally raises (tentative) questions about the glaring lack of a plan or indeed money.
That’s gold-dust for King if true. Now he can safely file away the “give generously now dammit or we fold by Friday” tactic for yet another day.
They have voted for it via a poll. Not sure how legal that is ? Result on their site.
It’s in the paper!
Scotland’s 2nd Div league fixture list may require serious points adjustments and remaining fixtures hurriedly re-jigged, and the cups in danger of being up the spout unless TRFC can get themselves a sub.
I suppose a statement from the SFA/SPFL on this trifling detail is a bridge too far.
justshatered 25th October 2015 at 8:29 pm
Notre Dame, home of the Fighting Irish, is in Indiana. Oddly enough, though, their big “Holy War” rival is Boston College, and I’d agree that Boston would be the natural choice for a Celtic franchise, not least since there are already three New York clubs in the top two tiers of US soccer, but only MLS side New England Revolution in the Boston area. There may however be some potential confusion with the Boston Celtics.
upthehoops 25th October 2015 at 8:05 pm #Re this talk of Rangers accessing money from supporters groups. How much money will these groups have available, and how long will it keep the wolf from the door?
*****As of Jan 2015, the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund had £516,984.99 held in the bank account of the Rangers Assembly.
The problem here is that those funds were raised for a very specific purpose relating to a very specific legal entity which is in the throes of liquidation. Any alteration to those purposes would legally need to be approved by each and every donor unless there had been a specific catch-all that donors signed up to at the start. I have a very good friend who donated £1,000 but has heard nothing since and does not recall any catch-all.
As Corsica and I pointed out several times, the RFFF is not a legal entity and neither it would still appear is the Rangers Assembly which raises several rather tricky legal and fiscal issues. However, not one single authority was interested in investigating this when the matter was brought to their attention by someone else. It’s second-hand info, but I was told that the individual concerned was told in no uncertain terms by then-Strathclyde Police to “go and do one”. It seems that despite all sorts of legislation, it is perfectly acceptable in Scotland to have a vague slush fund in excess of £0.5m kicking around without any regulatory oversight.
JJ on Twitter suggesting the King may have jetted in
@woodstein 26th October 2015 at 10:45 am
It’s not odd at all.
Professional Indemnity insurance would appropriate for any consultants, accountants, lawyers and any other providers of professional services that might have been involved in either of the transactions in question e.g. Collyer Bristow, Duff & Phelps.
PI policies are there to compensate those who lose out if and when those services are deemed to have been provided negligently. PI policies can often have hefty claims made against them and for some providers PI premiums can be their biggest cost.
Strelnikov, urraahhh!
(One for our older readers)
I agree with that analysis, and I can fully understand why BDO would prefer a cash settlement with a reputable (and solvent) insurer, rather than fighting for ownership of TRFC’s assets through the courts- assets which BDO (and the creditors) have no use for anyway.
I wonder, though, whether the insurers might try to recoup some of their losses by going to court for the recovery of the TRFC assets. As part of any insurance pay-out, I assume that BDO would assign their rights to the assets to the insurers. I’m not an insurance expert, but I would imagine that an insurance company would owe it to its own shareholders to try to recover what it could. So BDO claiming against the insurers might not be the end of matters for TRFC.
neepheid 26th October 2015 at 10:57 am #Why doesn’t “Radar” just arrange a telephone interview with King, ask him the questions about funding, and report King’s answers?…”
: apologies in advance but to me it actually read ‘OK’ at first glance. On the face of it, he queried King’s absence / silence, and for not following up on his initial promises. And that confused me a bit, as I thought that Jackson’s Level42 copy/paste instructions were always in support of TRFC and King together ?
=============================
nh, back of the class for you for making such a crazy suggestion for the SMSM sports ‘journalists’ !
As for Jingle Jangle’s latest article
An indication of a break in the ranks, with King being put on the spot before he jets in ?
As ever, who knows…?
http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/news/4697
Statement from Hearts regarding undesireable element at Tynecastle.
Glad to see that did not take long.
StevieBC 26th October 2015 at 3:16 pm
==========
PMGB on his twitter feed is suggesting that due to RIFC austerity measures succulent lamb served up by the catering firm level5 is off the menu. I haven’t worked ou whether that means level5 are owed monies or whether its just been indicated there isn’t enough to fund future meals.
JJ was suggesting King’s arrival is because money might be too tight to mention.
Any one that sure RIFC have insurance of the type described.
I wouldn’t be writing that policy for sure.
magicroundabout 26th October 2015 at 3:27 pm
Good stuff from Hearts but disappointing that because of these young fools the club will now have to take action that will cost money by way of more stewarding and a greater Police presence.
Just hope the other minority element of the support who were up to the signing nonsense at Celtic Park stay away on Wednesday so everyone can enjoy what should be a cracking game.
I think the most likely target will be Duff & Phelps insurers. RIFC wouldn’t carry such insurance, since they don’t have a financial services business.
The cat is well out of the bag, and has been for some time amongst those not aligned with King and co. Even those at the head of King’s targeted associations must have some doubt as to the wisdom of funding his plans, though they are probably still at the stage of denial, even to themselves. King I am sure is aware of this, it is probably something he has come across before when pushing one of his ‘investment opportunities.
I doubt very much that the vote in favour of King’s plans for the joint association funds will guarantee the plans go ahead, for if enough light is shed, and the lights go on in those bear heads, then there could well be a delay in the required action.
So, what happens today? A ‘hard hitting’ article from Keith Jackson calling for King to show some transparency and asks, ever so gently, where is his ‘over investment?’ But it’s a long article, and the questioning of King takes up relatively little of it. Instead there is praise for the way the football side has been turned around, TRFC are no longer a joke under King (according to Jackson), King isn’t a convicted criminal, he’s a convicted ‘mystery man’!
Then, in spite of his call for transparency and questions regarding the £30m investment, he makes out the lack of investment is a good thing, by calling it a ‘scaling down’, of his grand plan (suggesting there was actually a plan).
Then, this afternoon, it appears King may well be back in Britain!
Coincidence? Jackson writes his piece (taken as a whole no worse than a neutral assessment), then King appears (maybe).
Or, Jackson is given the bones of an article and publishes it as part of King’s PR.
There’s nothing questioning King that hasn’t been out there for months, there is, though, much succour for doubting bears. It’s preparation for King’s next move, nothing more!
easyJambo 26th October 2015 at 11:41 am
My first thought on reading KJ’s piece was its timing, preparing the bears for an announcement on the next round of fund raising. Whether that comes from the RST, RF or the 3 Bears is a moot point. It certainly won’t come from King himself. The other interpretation of the article is that there is a growing unease within the Board re King’s failed promises and that the Board is taking the first steps to prepare for King’s abdication.
========================================================
I don’t follow Twitter, but one of the several things about KJ that disappoints me is that, when I have occasion to see a screen cap of his ‘Tedermeatballs’ persona, he always seems to be hinting that he could write (or, has written) a hard-hitting expose of the Ibrox imbroglio, because he genuinely knows ‘stuff’, but nobody would want to read it.
I’d agree with your second interpretation & perhaps posit that KJ may be changing his alignment (other journalists to follow) as he has some inside knowledge concerning events in the next few weeks.
Hell hath no fury etc & expect much use of the ‘duped’ card…
Ah sorry get it now.
neepheid 26th October 2015 at 3:09 pm # <zerotolerance1903 26th October 2015 at 2:45 pm #@woodstein 26th October 2015 at 10:45 am It’s not odd at all. Professional Indemnity insurance would appropriate for any consultants, accountants, lawyers and any other providers of professional services that might have been involved in either of the transactions in question e.g. Collyer Bristow, Duff & Phelps. PI policies are there to compensate those who lose out if and when those services are deemed to have been provided negligently. PI policies can often have hefty claims made against them and for some providers PI premiums can be their biggest cost. >I agree with that analysis, and I can fully understand why BDO would prefer a cash settlement with a reputable (and solvent) insurer, rather than fighting for ownership of TRFC’s assets through the courts- assets which BDO (and the creditors) have no use for anyway.I wonder, though, whether the insurers might try to recoup some of their losses by going to court for the recovery of the TRFC assets. As part of any insurance pay-out, I assume that BDO would assign their rights to the assets to the insurers. I’m not an insurance expert, but I would imagine that an insurance company would owe it to its own shareholders to try to recover what it could. So BDO claiming against the insurers might not be the end of matters for TRFC.————————————————————————
I feel this too. I cannot see insurers paying up without then seeking some kind of remedy themselves, especially when the assets are still kicking around.
Whatever transpires, there must be continuing doubt over the eventual ownership of the assets until a fairly lengthy legal process is finally ended.
During the course of that process it would be a very brave man indeed who would take security on those assets for any ‘soft loan’, the situation being made even more unstable by the entity in current ‘ownership’ being a loss making company without a credit line at a bank.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Rangers wouldn’t have PI insurance. They’re not a provider of any professional services that would require indemnifying.
PI insurance is for consultants, advisors, auditors and accountants, actuaries, lawyers, IT services, media and advertising, etc.
The other type of insurance being discussed is D&O (Directors and Officers) and this type of insurance is designed to cover company directors against claims for their actions on behalf of the company
Just uploaded a new podcast, the first of our ‘Round Ups’. Be kind. I took the bull by the horn today and I will enlist help for future episodes. Anyone like to join me by telephone or in the studio?
The purpose is not so much to bring news, but to stimulate discussion – and hopefully to widen participation as well.
http://www.podcastgarden.com/episode/roundup-s01e01_61994
@ neepheid and redlichtie.
Agree with you both. A claim against insurers would not be the end of it. The saga over ownership of assets has years to run. However, the issue is also made less complicated as the assets are currently in the possession of the party that acquired them – i.e. they’re not put out of reach by a subsequent transaction.
Duff and Phelps insurers are probably the softest target here, it was much commented during the administration that they seemed to be prioritising their client (Rangers, whether that be in the guise of Green, Whyte or both) over the party to whom they owed a duty of care (the creditors of Rangers).
I trust/belief nothing that KJ puts out in the beano. He is bought and paid for IMO and as mentioned by Allyjambo the whole article was nothing but the usual praise and a few wee lines that is common knowledge to us all. There is always a motive with these people and it is usually to one team and supporters benefit, not for the benefit of sporting integrity or god forbid journalistic honesty (which is free and has no price attached to it).
Referring back to the blog, my main interest now is in the corrupt SFA, and the need to replace this obsolete organisation.
But wrt ‘Rangers’, I view the whole debacle in 2 distinct themes;
1) RFC/RIFC / TRFC business and legal ‘historical’ issues.
IMO, this is where the TRFC board and fans have no control.
These financial queries and related court cases will probably rumble along for several more years.
2) RIFC/TRFC football issues.
This is where the 5WA, the perceived favouritism, helpful rule changes, lenient or non-application of the rules etc are still current – and will always be a source of comment / suspicion by non-TRFC fans.
The TRFC fans themselves can affect this football side of things, whether it is fan ownership, [I know], meaningful fan representation on the Board, or even improved behaviour amongst its own supporters at games and even on social media ?
Point 1) will take care of itself, eventually.
Point 2) requires constant attention from interested Scottish football fans, and TRFC must be seen to receive the same level of treatment as any other of the 41 clubs: no more and no less, IMO.
======
[And another, non-TRFC theme is of course the inept Scottish newspapers’ sports coverage. But they seem to be doing a really effective job all by themselves…of killing off their own industry with substandard output.]
erotolerance1903 26th October 2015 at 5:16 pm #
” However, the issue is also made less complicated as the assets are currently in the possession of the party that acquired them – i.e. they’re not put out of reach by a subsequent transaction.”
________________________
This is a possibility bearing in mind PMG’s reporting of the onerous monthly payments offshore – so could be another part of the master plan if we bear in mind the history of some participants and their track record of companies and insolvency.
zerotolerance1903 26th October 2015 at 5:06 pm #
————————————————————————
“Rangers wouldn’t have PI insurance……….. Correct
Professional indemnity insurance covers errors the business has made that have negatively affected their clients or customers.
Duff and Phelps may have that but :-
For both D & O and PI the highlighted text applies
General Cover Restrictions
Liquidated damages – damages that are specified and agreed in the contract for example penalty clauses for late completion.
Criminal fines and punitive damages – it is against public policy for these to be covered by an insurance policy
Claims brought outside the jurisdiction show in the policy or claims brought under USA/Canada jurisdiction
circumstances that may lead to a claim that the insured was aware of at the inception of the policy
claims arising from the dishonesty of the insured.
claims arising from work undertaken outside the geographical limits of the policy
claims arising before the retroactive date in the policy
liability assumed under contract that would not normally attach to the insured in the absence of the contract
Big Pink:
Regarding the podcast, too many ramble on, most of them aimlessly and almost all for far too long. A podcast with a decent structure to it and no more than 20 minutes would be ideal and I’d like to hear a different guest fan from every (at least top flight) club on each one. This site gets accused of too much Celtic influence (natural due to numbers and the RTC influence).
Rubbishing the press output on a daily basis should be pretty entertaining. Keeping score of how much they actually get right would be worthwhile. Why anyone would want to read someone else’s opinion on what happened a day or two ago is still a mystery to me.
Doesn’t matter who the owners of ‘the assets’ are
. . . They’re getting money thrown AT them from somebody
http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/club-receive-grant-for-pitch/?
(Does anyone know – has any other ‘club’ received such a generous ‘award’)
http://sport.stv.tv/video/4475567020001/
Not sure if this video is from today, can’t see a date anywhere for some reason, but if it is, another opportunity missed to ask King the difficult questions. Again, if it is from today, I wonder if Keith Jackson got along to ask those searching questions he mooted in his rag today?
Sorry if the clip is an old one.
Saw the relaying of the indoor pitch the other night on TV and wondered how much it was costing.
If the money is out there to assist with such projects then T’Rangers have as much right as anyone to ask for help.
However the footnote to the clubs PR piece is interesting by noting the RFFF may have coughed up some cash too the help with the project.
Clearly DCK is still having trouble with those deep pockets.
jimlarkin 26th October 2015 at 8:45 pm #
Doesn’t matter who the owners of ‘the assets’ are. . . They’re getting money thrown AT them from somebody
http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/club-receive-grant-for-pitch/?
(Does anyone know – has any other ‘club’ received such a generous ‘award’)
====================================================
According to their website they’ve disbursed £17m to date so quite possibly although a glance at the website proved to be short on club by club specifics.
http://www.thescottishfootballpartnership.com/
jimlarkin 26th October 2015 at 8:45 pm #
‘..(Does anyone know – has any other ‘club’ received such a generous ‘award’)’
________-
How shifty-eyed and uncomfortable was McCafferty?
I doubt if anyone’s body-language ever betrayed such self-consciousness of how dodgy a wicket he was standing upon, trying to justify the ‘grant’. He’s obviously not practiced at being glib, or maybe just too,too embarrassed at the idea of giving money to what is looking like a hopeless case!
jimlarkin 26th October 2015 at 8:45 pm #
————————–
“For the past 15 years, we’ve been supporting the game at all levels in Scotland, helping clubs to improve facilities, and we are glad to have helped with the new surface at Murray Park.
“I think if you want to develop elite football players, which is what we want to do in Scotland and particularly at Rangers, then you need to give them a platform, then you need to have elite training surfaces.
—————
Why particularly at Rangers
John Clark 26th October 2015 at 9:26 pm #
I watched the clip and immediately thought that the guy talking was all nervous and uncomfortable. I felt sorry for him.
_________________________________________
Sometimes I should just go with my gut feeling. You stole my thunder John.
Anyway, really glad it all went well in Perth. I hope there is another ‘meet-up’ soon and look forward to attending it.
I had a look at the Scottish Football Partnership website and checked which SPFL clubs had received support. In the last two months the following clubs received grants for various projects, mainly for community based programmes but some were for facilities improvements:
Alloa, Cowdenbeath, Hibs, Stranraer ICT, Ross County, Hearts, Dunfermline, Berwick, St Mirren, Aberdeen, Annan, QOTS, Forfar, Kilmarnock, Arbroath, Queens Park, Morton, East Fife, St Johnstone, Ayr, Montrose, Partick, Stirling.
A comparable award to Rangers was £40,000 to Montrose to help re-lay Links Park.
http://www.thescottishfootballpartnership.com/facilities-award-for-montrose-f-c/
The only question I would have re Rangers would be to ask what community or youth programmes would benefit in addition to the club’s professional players.
I had a quick look at the accounts of the Scottish Football Partnership. Most of their money comes from the SFA, and while an element goes to genuine development projects, which I don’t think many could argue with, a lot of money goes back to SPFL clubs. There is no breakdown of which club gets what. The most surprising aspect of the accounts for me is that there are always millions just sitting in the bank. £4.37m at 31/3/2015. Why are the clubs putting up with that? Scottish football generally isn’t awash with money. Very strange.
I’ll try to find time for a more detailed look at this company tomorrow. If anything stands out, I’ll let you know.
neepheid 26th October 2015 at 9:53 pm #I had a quick look at the accounts of the Scottish Football Partnership. Most of their money comes from the SFA, and while an element goes to genuine development projects, which I don’t think many could argue with, a lot of money goes back to SPFL clubs…
==================
I had a quick look too, and was first of all surprised it was a privately held company, according to Duedil – and yes there seemed to be a chunk of cash there.
I was expecting it to be a public body funded at least partially by public monies ?
It did look a bit odd – and even more odd that a club with ‘Rangers standing’ would even be able to attract funding for a private purchase.
[I am also assuming that the ‘grant’ does not come with any conditions – like there must be some, free public access to the relaid pitch ?]
On the face of it: SFA monies being redistributed to the senior clubs ?
Why not directly from the SFA ? Curious.
Keep digging.
Re my slip up regarding PI today. (Confused with directors insurance which we may find RIFC don’t have,)
Its all well and good to say PI insurance will pay up. You may forget CBs desperate court battle with their insurers. Wasn’t settled easily or quickly. Should D&Ps insurers act up. This aint done and dusted.
http://www.thelawyer.com/1009611.article
jean7brodie 26th October 2015 at 9:50 pm
)
‘…I watched the clip and immediately thought that the guy talking was all nervous and uncomfortable…’
_________
I had read up a little on the Scottish Football Partnership and had seen which senior and other clubs had received grants, including some of the big names. So my post was not meant to suggest that one particular club was being favoured to help them out , but rather that it might be good money being thrown away because the asset might be lost entirely to Scottish football. (Why didn’t I just use those words?
easyJambo’s question is very relevant, in something of the same area.
And neepheid’s observation is very pertinent: a stack of cash , millions, lying unallocated when there’s a pressing need to get kids playing football. There is surely a case for trying to reverse the damage done generations ago by the ‘teachers’ strike’ , when those incredibly dedicated men and women who ran the primary school football teams in their own, unpaid for, time, had to disengage on foot of the Local Authorities’/Scottish education department’s intransigence. ( As I believe!)
If there is money to spend, let it be spent doing something useful, rather than lie in the vaults of a bank.
Just caught up with the celtic american franchise story. How very depressing…from my view both as a Celtic fan and as a football fan. From a Celtic fans point of view if Peter Lawell etc are so desperate to remain relevant outwith Scottish football take a good look at yourself over the past 4-5 years or so … appointing novices to IMHO the most important appointment at any football club ie the manager/coach and continual failure to beat clubs in euro qualifiers with less resources as ourselves. Oh and the small matter of saying schtum to crooked autorities at home and possible involvement in the 5 way agreement . As a football fan …………where do you start with this nonsense…football is slowly being taken away from its roots…………oh if only we still had the 4 foreigners rule again applied all over Europe and back to a more level playing field ……………..and no Sky !!…getting grumpy in my old age
0SO a week ago Phil says DCK due to jet in.
Today JJ says he has. (Little belatedly Keef urges him to give the folks a plan).
RST “poll” their membership and decide to join the Rangers Fan Board ship.
Cue DCK all over the media shortly (given RST cough up to L5):
On “We wont pay for Green”
Rangers unite. Pay me without thought or reason or foresite just do it. Its urgent.
Ashley bad.
Me good.
End of polemic.
The sad thing is they will buy it.
ianagain 26th October 2015 at 10:49 pm #
‘….Ashley bad.Me good.End of polemic.The sad thing is they will buy it…’
________
The really sad thing, ianagain, is that the general run of those who supported RFC(IL) are still, like bereaved persons, in a state of unbelieving shock.
They will do anything, listen to any charlatan, who promises them that there was NO death that a few million quid from them couldn’t reverse!
From them,collectively, mind you, ( because the charlatan-in-chief, in spite of his pledges and promises,wouldn’t dream of actually putting in tuppence of his own money, let alone the millions required).
Even sadder, perhaps, is that the ‘bereaved’ were encouraged in their readiness to follow the charlatan by the Football Authorities’ decision to accept the charlatan-in-chief as any kind of ‘F&P person’.
They, and we, have been very ill-served by a parcel of rogues, who, instead of dealing summarily with the club that cheated and died, facilitated the creation of a new club in a disgraceful act of betrayal of Sporting Integrity.
And were asked no hard questions by the unprincipled, fellow-travelling, mongrel running-dog lackeys in the SMSM.
From memory the Well have spent 3 million in 4 years on the pitch at Fir Park.
Hope they got some of that surely from this fund. As we all know it was shit for years
Wow JC
That final sentence is in HO CHI MIN territory.
(For younger readers someone who didn’t suffer fools gladly).
He shot them.
As should we.
Well metaphorically.
Night all.
ianagain 26th October 2015 at 11:48 pm #
)
‘…HO CHI MIN territory..’
________
Which prompts me to urge younger folk to have a read of ‘The Quiet American’, by Graham Greene.( And the Michael Caine movie wasn’t too bad, although like most ‘movies of the book’ a helluva lot is lost)
Perfidy, distrust, deception in the context of a monumental untruth….Makes it sound as if it was about the SFA!
Seriously, a really great read. ( And I am not Graham Greene, or a descendant or heir, or publisher, or bookseller, or(sadly) likely to receive any money for making that recommendation!
So KJ says in his much discussed article that trfc need loans to get through the season, right? I thought there was rules in place that ensured all clubs had to have enough funds to see out the season already? Maybe i’m mistaken.
I read the KJ piece and have to agree with a couple of earlier posters that although there was some soft questioning, as usual, mostly it was DK is great and has turned the club around? His statement to the effect, online rumors of there demise has been greatly exaggerated, is laughable coming form the Radarmeister?? Does he enjoy being mocked?
I really don’t get how most, if not all, SMSM journalists think their readership/viewership/listeners are buttoned up the back?
Still think a rogue paper telling the truth in it’s sports page’s would demolish the rest in sales!
How’s that annual jaunt down to Melbourne coming along anyway SFM?? Make it happen
Re the subject of this blog, and I’ll keep it general.
Let’s say a group of people form a company, and purchased the assets of a liquidated company. The very same company is then found to have purchased the assets illegally, by a court. The agents for the creditors of the liquidated company choose not to pursue the assets that were purchased illegally, and try to gain recompense elsewhere. Surely it is still wrong on every count the very same company that illegally purchased the assets could keep those assets to do with as they please? It would send out the wrong message to me.
Johnbud78 27th October 2015 at 6:31 am
I read the KJ piece and have to agree with a couple of earlier posters that although there was some soft questioning, as usual, mostly it was DK is great and has turned the club around?
______________________________________
That’s exactly how I saw that ‘article’. I consider that the ‘tough’ suggestions of questions that need answering are no more than an attempt to give the piece some gravitas, and by saying, ‘see, I’m no King lover’, his fawning love-in of King might pass unnoticed, while getting across the subliminal message!
He revealed nothing that we and the likes of JJ don’t know, and even the most gullible were beginning to see, so he’s done King and the board no harm whatsoever, while delivering the desired message from Ibrox. Which was, ‘look at all the good things Dave King has brought to ‘Rangers’!’ and, ‘his lack of over-investment is a good thing and should be appreciated.’
From a PR point of view, a message that a man is good, coming from an apparent critic, is more believable than one coming from a card carrying sycophant like, say, Chris Jack.
Of course, Jackson could easily be classed alongside Jack as a sycophant, but the fact that some people, more aware than the average bear, have read the article and noted a ‘toughening’ by him, shows the PR tactic has worked.
I see the Scotsman “Gossip Column” is trailing a piece which effectively concedes that Green will be getting his defence costs paid for.
I’d love to know what the plan is- get the fans to cough up, presumably.
I think King would be well advised to throw in the towel now, rather than waste a few hundred thousand on a hopeless 2 day hearing.
I wonder whether this story is why King has jetted in to Scotland now. Things must be serious, because he can’t hang around too long (for tax reasons) and he has an AGM to attend in the next 8 weeks.
But while he’s here, what a great chance for Radar to conduct one of his exclusive softball interviews on King’s funding plans?
I think there is a very compelling case to be made for the editors at the Daily Record to proscribe the reporting of Rangers’ business items by the sports staff – and to have non-conflicted journalists (perhaps with some experience of business matters) deliver the news.
On the one hand, it would make people like Keith Jackson somewhat less of a PR front (which he most definitely is at the moment) whilst still allowing for the “good news” to be delivered daily on the football front. It would also make the Record look a lot less like the Edward Lear of Scottish news reporting.
Win win? You betcha. Will it happen? No chance!
neepheid 27th October 2015 at 9:27 am
There’s been a bit of twitter about this on Twtter as to nice of them to come up with a plan for something they may be legally forced to do.
Genuine question, other than it wouldn’t go down too well with the shareholders is there a legal requirement for the Chairman to physically attend the AGM. Could he do it by Skype (other videoconferencing software is available) from South Africa
JC – Great analogy of the Quiet American by GG – sums up the SFA to a tee.
As for RST it really does beggar belief as to the number of blindfolds they must have thrown away. As everyone here has seen the [ahem] support laid a red carpet down for CW and then CG, both times thinking they had off the radar wealth to take them back to their rightful place and as soon as they were hauled in by the police they wanted to rip them to shreds. How they cannot see DCK is a huge risk and only in this to try and get money for himself is beyond me; certainly no way the RSA authorities (SARS in particular) are going to let him take money out to the extent of the numerous figures he has said he has in the war chest.
It almost seems inevitable that if [when] the whole club/company/whatever eventually crumbles the RST will bring back the mob mentality and cry for DCK’s head in the same way as they did for CW and CG. There can be no sympathy for those that do not learn from mistakes and more so when a judge in RSA confirms him to be a GASL and that unless there is proof in writing he should not be believed. If the lack of a credit line from a bank (thanks Phil), nomad, exchange listing, auditor, accounts, war chest, etc etc etc can’t wake up the bears then what can?
Finally, I am just a little bit amazed that DCK feels it is safe enough to “jet in” to UK; Corsica I am sure did say that DCK was part of that coincidence of a meeting when a number of people involved in this soap opera were in Switzerland at the same time in 2012? Or is there another twist or turn to come out of this yet? I hope those in the Hampden bunker are still not sleeping well.
Very true. Does any of us know an insurer that likes paying out and doesn’t make you jump through hoops to get the protection you thought you paid for?
neepheid 27th October 2015 at 9:27 am
“DAVE King and the majority shareholders at Rangers have agreed on a plan to pay for Charles Green’s legal costs – should they be ordered to do so by the court. The former chief executive is facing charges of fraud from his time at the Glasgow giants. He will stand accused with five others, including ex-owner Craig Whyte.”
_________________________________–
Well worth reporting that – that they have a plan to pay something. That, in the event, being something a court of law says they must pay. Even King won’t be able to call it ‘holistic’, though it will be true to say it’s not a loan.
It would have been news if TRFC announced they had a plan to repay MA’s loan, but saying they have a plan to pay something the law might enforce them to pay, is no more newsworthy than to say they have a plan to pay their next electricity bill.
Of course, in TRFC’s case, it might be newsworthy to say, categorically, that they have the money available to pay Green’s legal fees, if required to do so, and also newsworthy to say the same of the next electricity bill. But that’s quite different from just saying they have a plan!
This is yet another PR piece dressed up as a news report.
I wonder why PR people might think it good PR to announce that TRFC have a plan to pay something they have no choice but to pay? We do know, though, that they have a plan unfolding at the moment involving King’s favourite currency – other people’s money…!
Allyjambo 27th October 2015 at 10:35 am
I note John James pointing out that by having publicly announced they have a plan, for the reported £1.5m sum, then they have given the court a degree of quantum with regards to potential claims, caps and ring-fencing.
Of course if the club wins the day in November then I am sure that W&W and the new crack team of analysts and talent developers will be asking for access to this new ‘rainy day’ money to put to good use in the January transfer window to enable the team to hit the ground running when in the premiership.
tykebhoy 27th October 2015 at 10:01 am #neepheid 27th October 2015 at 9:27 am
There’s been a bit of twitter about this on Twtter as to nice of them to come up with a plan for something they may be legally forced to do.
Genuine question, other than it wouldn’t go down too well with the shareholders is there a legal requirement for the Chairman to physically attend the AGM.
———————————————————————————-
Tyke. Item 39. Only if he wants to….. Any other director can step up to the plate
http://www.companylawclub.co.uk/law-on-company-general-meetings#39
The oddest thing for me in Keith Jackson’s latest piece was that, for some reason, 234 days has been given a significance that, say, 189 or 217 days didn’t have. If he had written it at 120 days, then an earlier board’s financial timescale could have been used for comparison purposes, or even if he had waited another 6 days, 240 days could have been presented as twice the length of the 120-day review. But no, “234 days in the helm is long enough”, which is “just shy of eight months”.
As the ‘234 days’ and ‘not quite 8 months’ appear to have no significance, the conclusion would indeed appear to be that the timing of the article coincides with something else happening or about to happen.
Corrupt official 27th October 2015 at 12:04 pm
) Paul Murray could step in if DCK is at risk of incurring UK income tax through overstaying.
Thanks CO, so his right hand man (the one controlled by sitting on that hand
Perchance a 234 day old unpaid invoice ?
I’ve had a further look at the accounts of the Scottish Football Partnership.
The company is limited by guarantee, with the 2 members being the SFA and Sport Scotland. Sport Scotland don’t seem to get involved very much, with most of the money coming from the SFA, and being handed out in grants to various football organisations, including SPFL clubs.
I don’t know if there’s a simple way to work out how much has been paid to which SPFL clubs- the accounts don’t go into that level of detail.
However the SFP has been maintaining huge cash balances for years.
For the year to 31/3/2015 the accounts show that SFP received £3.1m from the SFA. £557.939 of that went in grants to SFA clubs and associations, and £529.945 went to the SFP Trust, a charity which gives grants to grassroots football. The use of a charity makes sense, since the SFP can gift aid the money to the Trust, which can claim tax back from the government.
But here is what puzzles me. Cash of £4.370.140 was in the bank at 31/3/2015. I really cannot get my head round this. Why is the SFA handing out £3.1m to an organisation which could clearly have met all of its grant commitments, and still have had over a million in the bank at the year end if the SFA had given it nothing? That’s just a lot of dead money in the bank, in my opinion.
Probably a bit off topic, but James Doleman is at Glasgow Sheriff Court this morning reporting on Paul Paton’s trial on a charge of assaulting Lucasz Zaluska. It seems that views on Rangers were at the root of the alleged assault
http://jdoleman.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/hma-vs-paul-paton-morning-report.html
neepheid 27th October 2015 at 12:57 pm #
————————————–
The Scottish Football Partnership income and expenditure seem to be extremely variable. While they received £3.1M from the SFA in the last financial year, they only received £800K the previous year and £500K the year before that. The grants awarded also vary considerably from year to year.
I can’t see anything particularly untoward from the accounts. It may be that the SFA receives government grants to promote youth and community projects which it in turn passes onto the SFP for distribution.
I agree, and I wasn’t implying any impropriety. However the cash at bank figure just seems very high in relation to activity, and has done for years. I would much rather see the money invested in grass roots football, than languish in the bank. That’s the only point I was trying to make.