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.
John Clark 3rd November 2015 at 12:28 am #y4rmy 3rd November 2015 at 12:18 am‘..The letter was sent on August 21st.’_______I’m in the dark. Which letter, please?
———————————————————————————
“The Evening Times has obtained a copy of a letter, dated August 21, from London-based Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP to James Blair, the Company Secretary of Rangers International Football Club plc, which relates to the sale of a season ticket card holder by the Sons of Struth.”
http://m.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/13931530.display/
There appears to be two separate issues underway, with the DR reporting a breech of the confidentiality agreement wrt to the retail deal.
‘The Evening Times contacted Sports Direct for a reply but had received no response at the time of writing.’
The above appears at the end of Christopher Jacks (Yes its Christopher now) piece in the Evening Times newspaper article.
Funny how I cannot ever remember Mr Jack or the Evening Times attempting to contact ANYONE in the past with regards to anything unfolding at Ibrox. Maybe this is new tactic to be embraced by the SMSM. You know the tactic where you actually ask the parties involved for a statement or 2. Probably ever catch on…..
Are Mr Chris Graham and Mr Craig Houston the new PR Outlets for TRIFC. It would seem they are now the go to guys for media releases.
Nice to see the llikes of SoS and Chris Graham rabble rousing. Publicly putting down Ashley and urging boycotts by continually moaning about the skewed contract is just the type of thing that could help the SD lawyers build a case to put King in the clink.
Given the proceedings against Green and Whyte will see a world record for the number of senior club officials with UK court judgements against them.?
As with McCoist’s deal DCK knows that a contract is a contract and the only way to break it is via negotiation. Given all disparaging comments re Ashley and his associates on the old board and the manner of the DCK ‘takeover’ the new board (holding a £5m debt) have never been in a strong position.While the option of unleashing the attack dogs can give some publicity to the manner in which the retail deal favours SD, surely others in the world of business and finance will view the public blabbing and moaning by DCK as ‘ not quite cricket’.
Anyone wanting to get involved with DCK and T’Rangers must surely be wondering if he would be loose lipped about them if it came to the crunch and if they were owed money would they ever see it back.
Still one big cluster you know what down Govan Way but my view is that they will still be able to struggle on for a time yet.
StevieBC 2nd November 2015 at 3:39 pm #
[And totally OT: before I left the house this morning Rod Stewart was performing on a breakfast TV show. His backing group’s bass drum had a a full-sized CFC badge on the front of it. He canny sing, but fair play – he is doing his bit to promote Scottish football overseas !And I’m guessing he will be invoicing the SFA in due course…? 14]
……………………………………
continuing OT… But a similar vein…
I was at the British Museum last night. It took me a full 90 minutes to drift through a fascinating new exhibition about the Celts. From who they were originally, through various redefinitions, 267 archaeological artifacts on display, good/informative accompanying texts. The first full 90 minutes I’ve enjoyed for some time.
A couple of steps from the exit, was the sole weakness for me (in a round-up, of how Celts are now represented). There was a fitba shirt and it wasn’t St Mirren. 🙁
(the exhibition will travel to Scotland in March 2016: will that same hooped shirt survive the shift? Can modern Scotland cope with such culture shock?)
On the same day, two Big Bad Mike stories are released by the PR industry’s two favourite proxies. The article by Chris Jack is real breaking news- a letter to SoS dated 21 August. Radar’s piece relates to court action against King which appears to date back to July. Houston claims to have known about the action against King for several weeks, and however poor our journalists are, I assume they must have known about it at the same time.
So two stories that could have been broken any time over the last couple of months are released last night, within hours of each other. Coincidence? Hardly.
In my opinion, two very large furry squirrels have just been released onto the pantomime stage, presumably to take our attention away from the real action. I wonder what it is they are so keen to distract us from? Maybe the accounts, with a “going concern” qualification? Or something bigger than that?
neepheid 3rd November 2015 at 9:11 am
I suspect you are right. Everything is being ramped up to get as many fans on-side as possible.
I never saw the Jim Whyte interview on Sky at the time but caught it this morning from a link.
The interesting thing in the interview and the recent missives re ‘investment’ is that the tune has changed from ‘over-investing’ to ‘making up the shortfall’ and that the shortfall in the club’s income is solely being put down to Rangers fans not being able to spend and support the club through the retail deal.
Of course we all know that the short fall is due to the club not being able to access daft loans from even dafter banks while still trying to operate as if they were Billy Big Baws.
Very little about actually operating the club so that it lives within its means in the current climate or, indeed, over-investing to get things on a stable footing.
It is a hand to mouth existence and I wholly agree that this is all being done to try and soften the blow of yet another ‘going concern’ warning. One that has now occurred on the RRM watch and which they have no obvious plan to resolve the situation.
neepheid 3rd November 2015 at 9:11 am #
——————————————————————–
If they want to remove pre-emption rights they need a special resolution.
To pass a special resolution they need a general meeting. At this time of year it would be an AGM rather than an EGM.
To have an AGM they need to release audited accounts, and allow a month to pass.
Rangers third set of audited accounts are due out, two stories designed to “circle the wagons” have been released.
One suspects the accounts are not going to paint a rosy financial picture. There may even be concerns raised by the auditors with regards the business as a going concern.
This one is mainly for The Hibees but applies to all supporters, and whilst the thought was prompted by Hugh Keevins on Superscoreboard I hope it’s source does not invalidate the following point:
In talking to a caller about who would win the Championship The Rangers or Hibs, HK was confident it would be TRFC. He made the point that just as Celtic would win the Premier because of their greater resources so too would TRFC win the Championship.
That got me thinking. What greater resources do TRFC have over their Championship rivals, particularly Hibs?
Are Hibs going begging around the world’s Wongas for high interest loan? What is Hibs wage bill compared to TRFC?
Would it be fair that a club operating on a sustainable financial basis lose the financial rewards of that policy to a club who continue to run on an unsustainable basis? Call it financial doping if TRFCs wage bill exceeds Hibs but TRFC’s wage bill is unaffordable using normal football income streams.
The problem here is that clubs operating on an unsustainable basis are only brought to footballing account in points deduction terms if they go into administration although I think the rule book term now is insolvency event.
A wee history of points deduction is perhaps apt here. Way back in days when Gary Lineker was involved in a consortium running and funding Leicester so that Leicester were going to be promoted, the manager of Sheffield Utd Neil Warnock complained in summary that the money coming into Leicester gave them an advantage over Sheffield Utd. The league looked at his point and as a deterrent brought in the points deduction rule triggered by an insolvency event.
It was in effect a crude version of UEFA FFP whose break even principles have now been adopted in the English Championship.
In Scotland there is no equivalent deterrent to a club operating (as many have in the past) on a financially unsustainable basis. It has to be an insolvency event that triggers the unfair play principle.
This is clearly nonsense waiting for such a trigger when there are plenty of indicators in a club’s accounts of a club operating on an unfair financial basis.
There is club licensing but it is toothless in sanction terms. In fact I reckon that Hearts who had an Entry level licence in the Finance category are actually in breach of the standard required of Premier clubs by the SPFL. (Of course Hearts are now heading up the standard scale so I’m not suggesting action against, but pointing out how useless the current football rules are in deterrent and corrective terms.)
The problem the game has is that to become more Draconian would at a stroke remove the supposedly financial advantage HK says TRFC have over Hibs.
In fact it would probably kill TRFC off as promotion contenders so is the reality of Scottish football that it has become so dependent on the big 2 club model it simply cannot conceive of another way to run the industry?
Are we and have we for years been living in a football illusion that sporting integrity ever existed and is it a forlorn dream or an illusion on our part to expect it ever will?
The challenge our game faces is to get real and that challenge is made harder by those media like Hugh Keevins who lived through the illusion and want it back.
Just another thought re the retail deal.
Looking at the Celtic accounts for 2014 (and assuming my reading is correct) it would appear the club has a merchandising revenue of £13.520m however there were costs of £8.667m thus resulting in a profit of £4,853.
While the overall retail SD contract may well favour Ashley in some manner is the argument not, should it go to court, that a legally binding retail deal was struck between the parties and given that subsequently the club couldn’t sort itself out in other areas of finance SD has generously given an open-ended (when abiding by the agreement) interest free loan to help the club out in return for commercially acceptable securities.
Without such a loan the club would have been unable to continue to operate and trade to the end of the 2014/15 season thus gaining a significant financial benefit in relation to fellow competitors in the championship.
SD has, instead of charging interest and stipulating a final repayment date, been able to recoup some money through merchandising sales. However the maximization of this income (which would have also benefited the club) been hampered by the actions of the board and their associates in various supporters groups.
The amount of the current outstanding loan, £5m, is similar to the profit generated per annum by the current Premiership leaders through their merchandising operations and therefore cannot be snuffed at.
A further £5m was also available, if required, to ensure the club was a going concern during the 2015/2016 season and achieve the aim of Premiership Football as soon as possible along with the possibility of European revenue in future years which could go some way to repaying any outstanding loans.
For all this SD and its owner are getting pelters from a convicted tax dodger.
Put in those terms it all looks pretty reasonable to me.
Case closed M’Lord
wottpi 3rd November 2015 at 10:54 am #
=======================
The figures for Celtic’s merchandising in 2014 have been superseded by the 2015 numbers and make an interesting comparison in that, while revenue and profits both fell, the club improved its profit margin, meaning that they operated more efficiently. That efficiency may have come from a greater emphasis on online shopping rather than retail outlets. The Board put the reduction in revenue down to kit launch cycles and the absence of CL football.
2014 – Revenue £13.250M, Costs £8.667M, Profit £4.853, Profit margin 37%
2014 – Revenue £11.679M, Costs £6.995M, Profit £4.684, Profit margin 40%
The claimed 75p (7.5%) return on every £10 spent on Rangers Retail is a misleading one in that the net profit must be double that at £1.50 (15%) when taking account of SD’s share and conveniently avoids the one off costs of closing unprofitable shops and excess orders. The failure to repay the SD loan will obviously not be a consideration when the numbers from the latest accounts are published shortly.
There is no reason why the Rangers retail deal cannot produce a decent return for the club with overall numbers approaching Celtic’s. However they are hamstrung by a vocal few who seem intent on destroying any hope they have of achieving a decent return, albeit shared with SD, yet were silent when the oldco’s JJB deal only guaranteed them £3M a year.
Retail revenue has generally fallen in the intervening years. For comparison, oldco Rangers’ revenue in their last, pre JJB, season of 2005/06 was £17.937M, and Celtic’s was £14.337M.
Oops – Typo in above post – In the quoted figures from the accounts the second 2014 should be 2015
Speculating, but would a “proof of funds” letter be required for the shareholder’s guarantee to meet the season’s shortfall, thus satisfying the auditors?
If so, the auditors would have an idea of the available cash going forward to top up projected gate income.
Would they then need a “comfort letter” from Ashley (which I don’t imagine he would provide) that he has no intention of seeking repayment of his loan in the next 12 months.
Could it be the case that any “proof of funds letter” cannot stretch to this additional £5m (possibly + interest), and that is why we are seeing a repeat of the “Ashley bad”, rabble rousing, ahead of the accounts release and AGM.
On a separate matter, The situation wrt to Green’s legal fees will be in court next Thursday and Friday. Will a decision be made then, or will the judge need time for “deliberation” before deciding, Kicking that can beyond an AGM?
easyJambo 3rd November 2015 at 11:55 am
Thanks EJ.
Kinda of hoped you would come in on this one with your spreadsheets to clarify and expand on the position.
While I understand it may stick in the craw that a share of the retail money is going to SD there seems to be a failure to recognize that without their involvement as a ‘marquee’ investor/business partner Green’s revival plan may never have got of the ground.
There is no doubt SD and Ashley are in it to make a wee bit of cash but hacking them off as the first strategy of your takeover plan seems to be somewhat daft when you admit that you need the retail income to be viable and you know that the money being lost by SD is but a bauble in terms of their overall income stream.
As I said at the time the warning notice given to the Stock Exchange re DCK was an olive branch to the 3 bears who had they taken it may have been in a better negotiating stance to improve the deal. However they chose to back the wrong horse.
PS
Loved The Clumpany’s observation with regard to Jim Whyte’s tour round DCK’s hoose.
“And look at his collection of sports memorabilia! [No, I didn’t spot any Rangers or Sevco material either…]”
New Podcast published. Still some technical problems in the new office, but we will get round those soon.
The Podcast will be available soon on the RSS feed, but meantime, here is the link ..
Edit: Previous link broken. Here is the proper one ….
http://www.podcastgarden.com/episode/roundup-s01e02_62769
As I say in the Podcast, the Contempt of Court tory is probably fantasy.
Corrupt official 3rd November 2015 at 1:21 am #
‘.. There appears to be two separate issues underway, with the DR reporting a breech of the confidentiality agreement wrt to the retail deal.’
_____
Thanks for posting that link. I had actually seen it, but couldn’t really see in what way anything King had said in any recent interview ( did I miss one that came later after the 10 th September?)breached confidentiality. Nor could I relate the ‘wallet’ issue directly to the Board/King being responsible for copyright infringement.
I still can’t make out whether all that has happened is that Ashley has begun the process of taking the matter to Court, or whether that’s well on the way, with a court hearing already fixed, or whether there is already a Court Order in force from earlier,which King has since defied?
It confirms my belief that the SMSM hacks are really not worth a tuppenny toss at trying to establish FACTS, and the subs are crazy fantasists, desperate for headlines and stories deliberately prejudiced in favour of the Board.
Keith Jackson.
Is there no beginning to this man’s journalistic talent?
Today’s Daily Record piece by the man who only days ago was tweeting at length about how “ashamed” he was that he followed the orders of his then Sports Editor (who, let it be clear, was not Jabbaesque) and penned the infamous “wealth off the radar” article shows that his shame threshold is not easily crossed.
Mr Jackson (for it is he; not Sport Staff Member or the late, lamented Pat Roller) reports anent “…a gagging order placed on the Ibrox board by his firm Sports Direct…”
We’ve not got to the end of the first sentence and already we’ve got to say “Whit?”. Twice.
I’m pretty sure the legal status of Sports Direct is not that of a firm.
I’m also pretty sure that Mr Jackson is not using the word “firm” to describe Sports Direct as secure.
I’m more than pretty sure that no”gagging order” was placed on anyone.
Sports Direct required to go to Court to enforce a pre-existing contractual provision; a provision agreed by both contracting parties, pertaining to commercially confidential information which had been leaked by one party to the contract. Any Court order was to prevent the disclosure of information which should never have been disclosed anyway because the parties had contractually bound themselves not to do so.
Reading the rest of the article it is clear that space did not permit Mr Jackson to report the reason why the Court action was necessary.
The action was triggered by the leaking by the Ibrox board of details of the contract; in particular its seven year term. The evidence was that only the parties to the contract knew of this term and one party, Sports Direct, had not not leaked it leading to the unavoidable conclusion that the leak came from Ibrox.
If space had permitted Mr Jackson’s article today could have reported who it was that the Ibrox board leaked this commercially confidential information to.
It was the Daily Record.
A Daily Record article on 27th May 2015 referring to the seven year term was referred to in Court to evidence the leak.
A Daily Record article by Keith Jackson.
In the course of the Court case Counsel for the Ibrox board sought to downplay the matter and referred to “an article in a tabloid newspaper that is full of hyperbole”.
That’ll be as in the dog’s hyperbole.
Bryce Curdy 3rd November 2015 at 12:34 am #
‘..and to add to the intrigue latest EBT appeal decision to be announced Wednesday lunchtime. HMRC apparently not confident.’
_________
Are you reporting this as a fact, Bryce Curdy?
If so, then I’m sure Mr Ghosh is prepared for the Supreme Court.
(Although of course, removing the business to that Court doesn’t necessarily remove the particular ‘local’ dimension, because, of course, there are Scottish judges,well acquaint with all things Scottish, who sit in that Court).
LUGOSI 3rd November 2015 at 12:38 pm
“The action was triggered by the leaking by the Ibrox board of details of the contract; in particular its seven year term.”
———————————————————————————————-
I have looked on-line for the specific leak, and the particular part referring to the seven year “notice period” Everything I have found quotes that particular snippet as being sourced from the DR.
I can’t get my head around why notice of termination has not been served. It would seem an easier position to fight against in court, to have the seven year notice period reduced as “unreasonable”, if notice was in place. At least they would be no worse off if the attempt was unsuccessful.
Could it be that there is no such notice period, but simply seven years remaining of a ten year retail contract?
LUGOSI 3rd November 2015 at 12:38 pm “The action was triggered by the leaking by the Ibrox board of details of the contract; in particular its seven year term.” ———————————————————————————————- I have looked on-line for the specific leak, and the particular part referring to the seven year “notice period” Everything I have found quotes that particular snippet as being sourced from the DR. I can’t get my head around why notice of termination has not been served. It would seem an easier position to fight against in court, to have the seven year notice period reduced as “unreasonable”, if notice was in place. At least they would be no worse off if the attempt was unsuccessful. Could it be that there is no such notice period, but simply seven years remaining of a ten year retail contract?
———————————————————————–
Beat me to it CO. With this much publicised “7 year notice” period on the retail contract, I have been wondering if notice has actually been served – I don’t recall seeing that mentioned anywhere. Every day it isn’t just means release from SD remains 7 years away.
So why hasn’t notice been served?
I see on Twitter that Mash have called a general meeting of RIFC. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CS44vRYWEAAre0y.jpg
The link is to an image of a letter dated 26/10/15. After the usual preliminaries, here is the nub of it-
The general nature and purpose of the meeting is for the Directors to attend such meeting to explain in detail to the shareholders (and answer questions raised by the shareholders at the requisitioned general meeting )
Sorry about formatting, etc, that’s my version of a not very good image.
Looks like the gloves are off, though!
That letter may be a fake, of course. It’s not very well drafted, so maybe, maybe not.
Now that I’ve actually read the DR’s report ( the online 0635 this morning version) I ‘ve got a clearer idea of where everyone is coming from in their posts….
So, the legal action was taken a while ago, an injunction was in force, and King is alleged to be in breach of that injunction by what he said to STV in the SA interview in July. I was still in Brisbane,getting ready to come home, at the end of May, so maybe missed the beginnings of this episode.
Geez, canny afford to take your eye off the saga even for a minute, without something new happening when your back’s turned!
Keef should be stripped of his titles for the low grade mince he continues to serve up to the dwindling readership of his editors paper,if there is an editor in post,you have to pity this papers readership and wonder how they can continually go out and buy this low quality excuse for a newspaper ,Keefs stories are continually pulled apart and exposed as scribbles of a fiction writer ,low quality at that,better comics have went to the wall .
Might the confidentiality clauses cover notice being given on the SD retail contract? I think its more likely that much like a transfer of a contracted player, that the remainder of the contract has to be paid up. And everybody, other than the deluded of Sevconia, knows the chances of RIFC buying out the seven year contract with the ahem ……… overinvestment is less likely than DCK being taken at his word by a South African court without credible corroborating evidence
neepheid 3rd November 2015 at 2:07 pm
‘…The link is to an image of a letter dated 26/10/15.’
_________
Great spot, neepheid.
Maybe SFM should send a similar letter to the SFA asking the identical questions!
Re the alleged Mash letter dated 26/10/15. I am doubtful about its provenance. Would such a letter not be on headed paper? There is also a faint line above the signature which may indicate that it has been pasted there. The alignment and clarity of the “Yours faithfully” section looks slightly bit different from the body of the document.
However there is a case of that number from 2013
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/578.html
Also:
James Doleman @jamesdoleman · 6m6 minutes ago
My first impressions of this is it’s a fake. For example court ref number in last paragraph is wrong format.
I’m getting lost here . I thought DCK was chair of TRFC ad only a representative of a family trust with shares in RIFC ? Would all this stuff not be the province of RIFC ?
Also, well done Jambos – we were lucky to get nothing .Doesn’t help , though when your bossman says that’s the worst you’ve played in a while !
Somebody beat me to it on James Dolan’s twitter feed but the reference is not only the wrong format its also missing a C
HC 12 C 00707 from http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/1807.html which I found via the website of someone we have now been without for almost 2 years https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/category/revenue-and-customs-anor-v-ben-nevis-holdings-ltd-ors/. RIP Paul
With the report of the plain-clothes police raid on the German FA, and boxes of documents being seized, in connection with corruption allegations, are we seeing just how much scope there has been for corruption in the industry as a whole?
How ridiculous was it for our Football Auhorities to depend on ‘trusting’ in the integrity of a Knight of the Realm or of the boards of any other other professional club (- but were the others ‘trusted’? or were their accounts carefully scrutinised?), instead of crawling all over the information they provided, especially when there were people who already knew for years that the Knight had little secrets ?
And how ridiculous it is that they are unwilling even now to acknowledge that they made a dreadful ‘mistake’ in trying to cheat Scottish Football and treat us all like imbeciles, ready to accept that two different football clubs are actually one and the same some of the time, but different at other times.
And how ridiculous was it that,when the rest of the world knew that by no ordinary definition could a financial fraudster be considered as being a fit and proper person to run a business, our own less than able Authorities rubber-stamped a convicted fraudster.
What the hell else might they have been up to, in a ‘trusting’ civic and Press society in which no-hard-questions would ever be asked of SDM…
Feed is now updated, but we have a new Podcast host from today and you can get all of our podcasts at the menu item “PodCasts” in the main menu or at podcast.sfm.scot.
For some people that link won’t work for a few hours s DNS changes propagate. The change makes it easier to get all of our content and to reminisce if required 🙂
Sorry I’ve been away and just catching up with claims on bears den that John James and Barcabhoy are one and the same person???? What’s that about?
Jungle Jim 3rd November 2015 at 3:21 pm #
‘.. John James and Barcabhoy are one and the same person..’
__________
Sometimes aye, sometimes naw, maybe, on the RFC(IL)/TRFC model!
On the face of it, it looks like the “Exclusive” Keef story and the MASH letter are indeed squirrels.
Lots of misdirection to get us Bampots twitching.
And as mentioned earlier: what is the purpose ?
What is really going on and what is about to be revealed ?
I’m guessing that whatever it is, when it does become public King will be safely back in his ‘RFC/TRFC memorabilia-free’ house in SA !
bobcobb 3rd November 2015 at 1:50 pm
tykebhoy 3rd November 2015 at 2:16 pm
—————————————————————————————
I am not trying to let a squirrel loose, but every time I think about this I return to the “heads of terms” and it is bugging the hell out of me. There are lots of wee side shoots and alleyways, but I believe the real power decider in all this hides in the retail deal. Hence the activity.
If there is no seven year notice period, but instead seven years remaining on a 10 year contract,…. And if “first charge on season tickets” (which we know was legally unsafe as a mechanism) is replaced by “retail”, then this is pretty much the same deal in another form.
I don’t have a fraction of the savvy of most posters on here, and it is not keeping me awake at night, but it is bugging me none the less. Could the “Heads of Terms” be in operation, or at least parts of it in alternative mechanisms?
——————————————————————-
“Crucially, rent is to be securitised against ticket receipts and the new landlord is to be granted “first charge on the season tickets”, so, just as Craig Whyte planned with Rangers, Sports Direct FC would collect ticket money before passing it on to the security holder.”
———————————————————————-
Then it would follow that the buy-out price for retail is as follows
———————————————————————–
““The tenant” will be able to buyback the stadium. In year one the price would be £10m (they would still owe the £6.55m loan). The set price increases by 12% p.a. for 10 years, so the year-10 price would be £27.7m. Thereafter “price will revert to Market Value but will not be less than £20m”.”
————————————————————————
So The Rangers (club/company/whatever) get the title deeds, but it is not paid for yet. It is being paid for through an alternative unbreakable structure.
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/sale-and-leaseback-of-ibrox-murray-park-heads-of-terms/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
ps…..How do you do the block quote thingies?
Jungle Jim 3rd November 2015 at 3:21 pm
Had a wee look in there myself, JJ, and the tone of the comments includingheartfelt death wishes on Ashley are not far from astounding.
Not one of the many contributors is even suggesting that Rangers should pay back the loan. It really is an amazing forum and surely must misrepresent the average Bear.
If not there is surely no hope for them.
John Clark 12:45
Very good if second hand source regarding announcement of latest HMRC appeal decision. I know you’ve followed this particularly closely so PM me if you want details although not a huge amount to add.
It seems we will know the result tomorrow
http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/25/1513/Advocate-General-for-Scotland-v-Murray-Group-Holdings-and-others
Jungle Jim 3rd November 2015 at 3:21 pm #Sorry I’ve been away and just catching up with claims on bears den that John James and Barcabhoy are one and the same person???? What’s that about?
—————–
it’s a lie which was created by a fantasist who goes under the twitter handle of @phantoml5
the fruitcake has accused various people of being John James. It’s easier for him and his state aid loony pal to accuse any critic of King of being a Celtic supporter. In my case he simply made up the lie and fed it to those who follow him. He knows its a lie, i know its a lie & whoever John James is knows its a lie.
HMRC appeal judgement tomorrow at 10.30 for a summary and 12 noon for full decision.
http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/25/1513/Advocate-General-for-Scotland-v-Murray-Group-Holdings-and-others
John Clarke 2.44
I share your frustration but console myself with the saying “there is no need to push the river, it is flowing all by itself. “
Re the JJ/barca thing. Funnily enough I think I actually might know John James. Something he got wrong in a recent blog post reminded me of a conversation I had with a Rangers supporting former colleague called John (surname not James) about 3 years ago, back in RTC days.
This may, of course, just be a coincidence but if he is who I think he is he’s definitely not a Celtic supporter and not based in Barcelona.
Bryce Curdy 3rd November 2015 at 4:00 pm
‘..so PM me if you want details although not a huge amount to add.’
_______
Thanks, Bryce. I was just about to when I saw Homunculus’ post and link!
The BTC case judgement is almost irrelevant with the passage of history.
Even if the ebts used from 2002/03 are still deemed legal the ebts with side letters used from 1999 to 2002/03 were not. They amounted to tax evasion and as my previous post relating to SDM pointed out this tax has never been paid.
In football terms the illegal scheme was not open to other clubs to use and so gave RFC a sporting advantage in those seasons.
If it now transpires RFC were clever enough to switch to a tax avoidance system from 2003 that only went undiscovered in football terms because they failed to comply with football registration rules, a failing that Bryson was able to relegate to the status of administration error, then good on them for finding a way to pay players legally that no other club discovered.
But at what cost? A bunch of shysters who would risk anything to outdo their opposition and risk the entire clubs being on winning that legal bet.
They might get a favourable judgement in the courts but in life they lost big time where they have been shown to be crooks, spivs and gamblers playing with the reputation of our game for their own ends.
The inability to appreciate the moral angle of their attitude is all the more reason for having robust governance and rules to protect our game from it.
Auldheid 4:56 pm
Not irrelevant to me. Possibly the most sickening moment for me in this disgraceful story was when the overweight gardener claimed on the night the LNS decision was announced that Rangers had been cleared of cheating, and that ‘Sir’ David Murray had been vindicated. I will be utterly gutted if ultimately there is no ‘official’ recognition of cheating. Knowing what you and I do will be scant consolation. I want there to be an asterix beside every honour won by them during the period in question with the qualification that they were illegal EBT/DOS assisted.
Coming back to the obsolete SMSM print media, have you noticed the online ‘articles’ about the Coca-Cola truck’s visits to UK towns and cities in the run up to Christmas ?
.
The same photo / content has appeared in the ET, DR, Scotsman, Independent etc – and typically without the disclaimer; “Advertising feature”.
An ad obviously posing as an article, and the rags concerned don’t even bother to pretend. Not dissimilar to what we regularly see from the likes of Keef and the SMSM print sports ‘journalists’ – and even the BBC too – with their regurgitated, no questions asked copy/paste routine.
Forget the fact that Coca-Cola ‘soda’ sales are falling off a cliff because more people are now informed about how unhealthy it is: just take the money and publish the PR guff without question – and hope that your readership don’t know more about the article content than you do yourself !
Auldheid 3rd November 2015 at 4:56 pm
‘…….They might get a favourable judgement in the courts but in life they lost big time where they have been shown to be crooks, spivs and gamblers playing with the reputation of our game for their own ends.The inability to appreciate the moral angle of their attitude is all the more reason for having robust governance and rules to protect our game from it.’
______________
And let us hope that the new SFA President will read the runes and opt for truth, honesty, integrity and begin to
acknowledge and apologise for the great sporting wrong that was inflicted on us,
correct the record books, stripping the appropriate titles and honours from the club in Liquidation,
refuse to allow the new club to be in any way officially regarded or referred to as if it were the old club,
and be damned to the SDMs of the sporting world and his likes in the Press and BBC.
To be fair the relevance of the BTC’s existence is in the onward sale from SDM to Whyte. Had that not happened then who knows what would have happened. Would, for instance, a Sarver have come in as he eventually did for the Spanish club? Personally I don’t think so. I don’t recall anywhere in his one page deconstruction of RFC’s finances that he said – but it would all be ok were it not for the BTC. In fact post FTTT as it was I don’t think it even merited a mention. But I do recognise the comfort blanket that some draw from it.
iincidentally, did we ever get to the bottom if HMRC’ liability was restricted to the WtC and the Whyte stuff, if Kings phantom 20m was enough to pass the CVA.
Now that would be a fitting epitaph. Well at least it would be if liquidation actually meant anything!
easyJambo 3rd November 2015 at 4:26 pm #HMRC appeal judgement tomorrow at 10.30 for a summary and 12 noon for full decision.
http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/25/1513/Advocate-General-for-Scotland-v-Murray-Group-Holdings-and-others
===============================
Can someone with knowledge of these matters please clarify for me. The latest appeal result will be known tomorrow yet the widespread view already is HMRC have lost. I assume they (and Murray Group) have both been informed some time ago and it’s leaked? Is there zero chance whatsoever that HMRC could be victorious?
Bryce Curdy 3rd November 2015 at 5:16 pm
====================================
It is worth bearing in mind that Rangers had to accept that they had underpaid tax by millions of pounds, in relation to a handful of players. They did not win their appeal in totality.
This is just another of those things where the propaganda that Rangers “won” simply isn’t true.
They underpaid tax in the “small tax case”. The underpaid tax in the “big tax case” and they stole tax leading to them being placed into administration, leading to liquidation.
upthehoops 3rd November 2015 at 6:23 pm #
Can someone with knowledge of these matters please clarify for me. The latest appeal result will be known tomorrow yet the widespread view already is HMRC have lost. I assume they (and Murray Group) have both been informed some time ago and it’s leaked? Is there zero chance whatsoever that HMRC could be victorious?
=============================
Murray Group no longer exists as it was wound up in February 2015, hence it didn’t even contest the CoS appeal so I don’t know if SDM will be formally advised in advance.
From the days I attended the appeal, I formed a view that, while HMRC’s arguments were given a good hearing, it will take a tsunami to overturn the decision of the lower tribunals. The reason being that there must have been errors in law in coming to a decision in order for the appeal to succeed. If the lower tribunals are deemed to have considered all the evidence fairly and come to a reasonable decision, then the appeal will fail.
The ironic part, for me, goes back to the 2-1 decision of the FTTT. If Dr Poon’s view had prevailed and the decision had been 1-2 instead, then I think that an appeal by the Murray companies would have had the same problem in reversing the outcome.
Just a reminder that we are still waiting for a reconvened FTTT to come to a decision on the assessments for the 5 admitted illegal EBTs and to consider a further 35 involving termination payments.
Now I’m not getting anyone’s hopes up, especially us old timers who remember FTTT release day only too well, but;
if you had escaped some dark places and scaled a proverbial mountain to attain control of something you profess to love, and you were given advance notice of a judgement that would give you a PR boost at a time that you are desperate for good news, any good news, would you stay and revel in it, using it to maximum effect with a supportive press or, would you scuttle back under a rock until the bad men and litigating sports conglomerates go away?
Anyone who read the judgement in full from the First Tier Tribunal could reasonably have formed the opinion that NO court in Scotland would rule against Murray & Rangers. Ms Poon’s dissenting opinion shredded the notion that Murray & Rangers were innocent. She showed up her colleagues on the panel .
I suspect HMRC expected that the appeal process would have to move outside of Scotland for them to get the verdict they believe is correct. A different outcome tomorrow ,to previous hearings and appeal , would be a surprise .
A successful appeal by HMRC tomorrow would be welcome but a real surprise. However it’s clear HMRC view Murray as guilty as hell and will therefore take every option available to have that proven in court
upthehoops 3rd November 2015 at 6:23 pm
‘ I assume they (and Murray Group) have both been informed some time ago and it’s leaked? .’
______
When I asked a court official last year what the form was when it came to issuing court judgements, I was told that normally, the legal chaps/chapesses are phoned shortly before the public announcement , then the Press might be told, and then the rest of us.
i would imagine that the legal teams would instantly communicate what they heard to their clients. Thereafter,it’s quite likely that the office cleaners in, say, Ibrox or wherever HMRC are,would know, and in seconds scores of people would know..
I always assumed that ‘shortly before’ wouldn’t mean the day before!
For HMRC, there is little in the way of ‘personal’ or ’emotional’ interest in the outcome.They would just carry on with preparing the appeal to the Supreme Court, if the judgement were to go against them .
The other party would whoop with joy-until they realise that that big sum of money is still owed until the Supreme Court decides ( assuming that HMRC appeal). and this may take some time.
easyJambo 3rd November 2015 at 6:40 pm
==================================
Thanks for putting a number on that EJ.
Rangers no more “won” the FTT than the “won” the LNS decision.
John Clark and Easy Jambo, thank you both for your responses. Interesting John that you confirm the news will not yet have been leaked to either party based on what the court official told you. So we may yet get the surprise of an HMRC victory.
My personal opinion as a Layman is that this case was always likely to go the whole way, i.e to the highest court in the land. Scottish Courts have so far been asked twice to rule that Rangers, under David Murray, operated an illegal tax avoidance scheme meaning they hired players better than they could otherwise have afforded. A decision to rule Murray guilty would cast an official shadow over every trophy won during that period, no matter what anyone says. It would be a incredibly momentous decision for a court to make, given the cultural power the Rangers brand continues to wield in Scotland. I’ll leave it at that and let matters take their course.
upthehoops 3rd November 2015 at 7:14 pm #
‘…My personal opinion as a Layman is that this case was always likely to go the whole way, i.e to the highest court in the land. ..’
__________
Yes.
I think that the legal point at the heart of it has to be tackled in order to make it incredibly difficult for even the best legal brains to devise tax evasion schemes and dress them up as legitimate, honest and sensible ‘tax avoidance’ arrangements.
Basically, as Mr Ghosh argued, tax assessment of corporations and big companies would become impossible if it were to be held that schemes constructed expressly to avoid tax were NOT to be looked at in the round, ‘purposively’.
If HMRC lose on appeal ( assuming that they have lost at the Court of Session), then Parliament will have to have a major re-write of tax legislation-and soon.
When even the likes of Osborne and Cameron are calling ‘tax avoidance’ immoral and unacceptable, I think the writing is on the wall for those who want to dodge their societal obligations.
I assume Alex Thomson must have been on the press mailing list judging by this tweet at 11:31 this morning. It would appear he was notified the previous evening, but no indicator as to the verdict.
https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/661626717891620867
Smugas 3rd November 2015 at 6:43 pm #Now I’m not getting anyone’s hopes up, especially us old timers who remember FTTT release day only too well, but;
if you had escaped some dark places and scaled a proverbial mountain to attain control of something you profess to love, and you were given advance notice of a judgement that would give you a PR boost at a time that you are desperate for good news, any good news, would you stay and revel in it, using it to maximum effect with a supportive press or, would you scuttle back under a rock until the bad men and litigating sports conglomerates go away?
=========================================
Frankly, I’d be of a mind that the current boards of RIFC/TRFC see the BTC as an irrelevance.
It’s not their fight, it’s in the past, they have no liability & they have pressing current problems to face.
‘Winning’ doesn’t help them; ‘losing’ doesn’t hinder them.
Jingso.Jimsie 3rd November 2015 at 7:46 pm
=================================
But Dave King might want to resurrect the old club. He has spoken about it, in spite of the fact that no-one else seems to have any idea what he is talking about.
Homunculus 3rd November 2015 at 7:55 pm #
===============================
“Show me the money!”
Bryce Curdy
My point was not that the BTC was irrelevant but that the judgement, if it goes RFC’S way, is irrelevant because the intent behind the BTC was the same as the intent behind the wtc, where side letters were deliberately kept from HMRC (and SFA) when HMRC asked if they existed.
No question of administration oversight in those cases, indeed it was the deliberate misleading of HMRC that allowed them to pursue payment after the normal 6 year time limit had elapsed.
(Original was posted after consuming 1 Crabbies Alcoholic Ginger beer then two rather large bacardi and cokes.)
Wee bit of a comedown for Malmo since firing CFC out of CL . Humped at home (know the feeling) by their country’s new champions, finishing 5th in the league and missing out on a place in Europe next season. (I suppose they could finish 3rd in their CL group, and qualify for CL next year by winning EL)
Jingo jimsie
ah, I believe you are referring to that dumb old thing we call reality. I, of course, was referring to immortalclubland.
Yet another milestone to be reached tomorrow then.
Apropos Bryce C & Auldyin above, I remember RTC emphasising something along the lines of, ‘it’s the dual contracts, stupid’. So regardless of what the law lords come up with this time, it really all comes back to our dignified administrators at the SFA. The courts seem to be an endless process of ‘Sir’ this and ‘Lord’ that pontificating on whether another titled individual has been a bit naughty. A very speculative society indeed. Gie us strength!
In a just world oor fitba heid yins they’d face the same scrutiny as Blatter, Platini & co.
Caught a bit of a rather belligerent Craig H. of SoS on SSB tonight. A surprising interview (or not) regarding money owed to Mike Ashley. Fair to say he’s now in the ‘holistic’ camp when it comes to repaying borrowed money. Jings, I thought, no wonder they can’t find a lender. Zany stuff.
upthehoops 3rd November 2015 at 7:14 pm #
It would be a incredibly momentous decision for a court to make, given the cultural power the Rangers brand continues to wield in Scotland. I’ll leave it at that and let matters take their course.
____________________________________________________________–
As Joe Pesci said to the Judge in ‘My cousin Vinnie’ : “I think I get your point…..!!!”
The whole TRFC saga is dragging on forever…and that can’t be good for anyone associated with TRFC, or for Scottish football in general.
You would think that by now some TRFC fans would be so disillusioned with King, and the continued drama around the club, that they would be taking the steps to start their own version of ‘FC United of Manchester’, as someone mentioned here a few days ago.
If Ashley owns the IP, then the fans could approach him directly to get his support ?
Ashley is only interested in the money in the fans’ pockets, and presumably SD sales are being adversely affected in the West of Scotland ?
But mibbees those TRFC fans who have the ability and finance are painfully aware of the vitriol coming their way if they went public with such a radical plan.
And that leaves the hard of thinking TRFC fans who dutifully ‘follow follow’ like sheep the incumbent Ibrox chancer.
When it does implode, Ashley is the prime candidate for being blamed for causing ALL of TRFC’s woes…which won’t be good for SD sales.
Nothing like a bit of outrage on a quiet night. I honestly think that they are trying to provoke Ashley into a response. Do they in fact want an insolvency that they can blame on him? I really can’t work it out.
If I was employed in one of the Worlds many football association’s and got myself involved in any dodgy descisions I would be more than a little concerned that the Tsunami that is currently sweeping through the corridors of each of these powers will engulf the one I was working for,the Hampden bunker will be tested for sure and somehow,I don’t see it holding out,the clock is ticking down and the inhabitants of the bunker should be afraid,very afraid.
I posted the following on another message board in response to a question about the elements of the Big Tax Case that don’t fit with the narrative of a Rangers win over HMRC.
Firstly, HMRC made an assessment of liability on all the EBT cases and sent the bill to the Murray Group companies including Rangers.
Murray Group appealed against this assessment, meaning that the cases were heard by a FTTT.
The FTTT heard evidence where a tax liability for five EBTs with guaranteed bonuses were admitted:
“Mr Thornhill noted five cases where peculiarly trust payments were made in respect of guaranteed bonuses. These relate to Messrs Selby, Inverness, Doncaster, Barrow, and Furness, as confirmed by his instructing solicitor’s letter of 29 September 2011. The Appellants concede that in these cases there is a sufficient nexus with a contractual right to create a tax liability“
The FTTT also noted the 35 EBTs with Termination payments:
“The Respondents’ witnesses gave evidence regarding payments via the remuneration trust on the occasion when employment was terminated, with some 35 sub-trusts being identified as having been used to make what would have appeared to be termination payments. Most of these payments concerned footballing employees, with three non-footballing employees”
“In the termination of employment of some 35 employees, it would appear that payment in lieu of notice, transfer fee entitlement, inducement payment were paid through the trust mechanism. What would appear to be s403 payments were also settled via the trust with the £30,000 exemption being utilised through payroll.
HMRC then appealed to the UTTT which reported the following re the termination payments
“The majority had failed to determine how each of the 35 termination payments made through the remuneration trust fell to be treated. They had merely identified (para 209) some considerations which might be applicable in the case of the termination payments to footballers. The onus had been on the respondents to satisfy the FTT that the assessments in relation to these payments were erroneous. They had failed to do so. The FTT ought simply to have upheld the assessments.”
The UTTT “decision” then referred the following back to the FTTT
Case remitted to the FTT (i) with a direction to allow the taxpayers’ appeals against the assessments relating to the payments to the sub-trusts of Sir David Murray, his sons, Mr McClelland, and Mr MacMillan; (ii) to proceed as accords in relation to the termination payments, the payments in respect of guaranteed bonuses, and any related questions of grossing up.
I don’t know the quantum of the tax liability for these 5 and 35 EBTs. However, one of the five, “Mr Inverness” is better known as Nacho Novo. His EBT was worth £1.2M. Take 40% higher rate tax and 13.8% Employer’s NIC off that and you are looking at a liability in excess of £600,000 for his EBT alone, and that is before any penalties and interest are added.
Dave King has previous when it comes to contempt of court. He was found guilty in 2013 of contempt of court and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment ( suspended for 3 years)
He clearly is an individual with no respect for the law. The fact that Sons of Struth ( with their criminal founder) are such supporters of his, is hardly a surprise.
http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2013/68.html
Scroll to the end for the Judges verdict & Summary
Barca – Given the date of the judgement (13 Feb 2013), King must still be under the suspended sentence of 3 months imprisonment until February next year.
easyJambo 3rd November 2015 at 10:03 pm
—————————————————————
Once again, thank you for filling in the details of the tax avoidance which Rangers have either admitted, or lost at tribunal.
For anyone who wants to put forward the specious argument that tax avoidance is perfectly acceptable I have attached HMRC’s views on the matter.
easyJambo 3rd November 2015 at 10:51 pm #
‘..Given the date of the judgement (13 Feb 2013), King must still be under the suspended sentence of 3 months imprisonment until February next year.’
______
But are the UK courts able to act on that, if by any chance King is found guilty of contempt of a UK court?