I think everyone on SFM knew that when the new club won its first trophy, whatever that trophy was, the old “same club” mantra would surface. Over the years, and since the nature of the debate is in the “santa exists” ballpark, we have largely discouraged discussion of it.
On the “old club” side, that reluctance to debate is largely because there is little value in arguing the toss with someone who either ;
- knows the idea is preposterous, but won’t admit it for whatever reason; or
- has been lied to by the person at (a) above and can’t be bothered to look at the facts for themselves.
On the “new club” side, the discouragement to discuss is mainly because we are in the main already equipped with the facts, and there seems little need to go over them again and again.
So why republish stevensanph’s blog and Hirsute Pursuit’s response from almost a decade ago?
Well firstly because it is an excellent piece of forensic scrutiny cutting through the fog which had begun to be induced by the MSM merely weeks after they had unanimously heralded the death of the old club.
Secondly because it was written as a response to the (at the time very unpopular) decision we made on SFM to close down the debate on the subject (for the reason stated above.
And lastly because the course of the truth – even if it is only shifted by a few degrees – can get completely lost as time goes by. Consequently, there are possibly many who take sides because of a leap of faith. This is a course-correction that demonstrates the absence of any need to do so.
So here then is a reprise of stevensanph’s remarks from 2013, on his own blog.
The Newco/Oldco debate has been ended over on TSFM, with the deletion of the excellent post from HirsutePursuit marking the end. While some think we need to keep reinforcing the message that its a totally new club, others are bored of the subject, so I can’t blame TSFM for wanting to move on.
Personally – I have read all the arguments – I am yet to be shown any factual proof that Green’s Gers are the old club. People will, and can believe whatever they want. For Rangers fans who want to believe its the same club, then, as long as they are happy, then fine. However, on paper, and in law, its a new club, and thats all that I care about!
TSFM posters wanting to continue the debate can do so below following on from HP’s excellent deleted post!
TSFM
This blog, as far as I have been concerned, is widely regarded as a forum for people who wish to highlight the inequalities and skewed reporting of the issues within the Scottish football arena. If it is not, perhaps you can make it clear what you see as its purpose.
Perhaps the biggest ever story within the Scottish game has been the circumstances surrounding the demise of Rangers Football Club. It is a multi-layered story and one that that is still moving. In many ways, it may be a story that is only just beginning.
Central to the debate (that should be completely on-topic) for this blog, is whether or not the authorities (at all levels) have acted in an equitable manner and whether or not the “free press” have given life to events in a truthful and balanced way.
With absolute regard to these matters, there is a fundamental issue surrounding the status of the club incorporated in 2012 and currently playing in the 3rd division of the Scottish Football League.
If you genuinely believe that the club incorporated in 2012 are the same club as was founded in 1872/1873 then you have every right to be outraged at the behaviour of the footballing authorities. You will probably accept that UEFA were right to “ban” the club from European competitions because of its holding company’s insolvency event; but feel completely persecuted by your fellow Scottish clubs who demoted your team to the arse-end of the game. You will see this “demotion” as a punishment far too severe for the actions of the rogue ex-owner of the club’s former “holding company”. To compound matters, you will see the LNS enquiry as just another opportunity for the clubs who have already revelled in meting out a severe punishment, to have another fly-kick. You would, no doubt, believe that whatever the previous owner of the club’s “holding company” did in terms of player payments, the trophies were won fairly by the club on the field of play and can never be taken away. You will be – in the main – satisfied with the narrative of the “free press” in referring to your club as the same entity as played in the SPL.
All of the attitudes and beliefs rely 100% on the tenet of a “club” existing as a separate entity from the legal entity (“company”) responsible for a football team.
If you genuinely believe that the club incorporated in 2012 are a different club as was founded in 1872/1873 then you will still have every right to be outraged at the behaviour of the footballing authorities. UEFA would rightly refuse European Club Licence for the new club – if one was applied for – as the new club do not meet the criteria; but you will feel completely let down by the self-serving nature of the SPL and the weakness shown by the SFA in attempting to place the new club in the top tier of Scottish football. You will see the new club’s fast-track acceptance into the SFL as without precedent and their award of full member status (of the SFA) as against existing rules. You will wonder how – when the members of the SFL voted to give them associate membership as new club – the SFL executive list them on their website as the old club. As the old club had ceased footballing activities in June, there should have been no SFA membership or SPL share to transfer in August. Since the old club is no more, you will not recognise any punishment for the actions of the rogue ex-owner of the club. You will see the LNS enquiry as an opportunity for some sort of justice in relation to years of outrageous cheating by the now dead club. You will think that trophies and prize-money were stolen from clubs who played by the rules. You will think that a correction of results is simply a consequence of the old club being found guilty of cheating. You will probably think that the LNS enquiry has nothing to do with the new club; but may wonder if the enquiry orders the repayment of the old club’s prize-money, would this create a new “football debt” that has to be repaid by the new club to continue using the old club’s SFA membership? You will be aghast at the apparent repeated mis-reporting of the situation by the “free press”.
All of the attitudes and beliefs rely 100% on the tenet of a “club” being the legal entity (“company”) responsible for a football team.
You may feel that these positions are “just a matter of opinion” and do not ultimately matter.
I disagree. The indeterminate status of the club incorporated in 2012 is a huge sore in the Scottish football landscape. This is the biggest story that just cannot go away. If the schism created by this sense of injustice is not resolved, Scottish football will implode. Attitudes may already be too entrenched; but that should not stop us trying to find a way forward.
The principal difficulty (again totally on topic) is that it appears – from both sides of the debate) -that people in positions of power within the game have made decisions that cannot be justified by their rules and articles of association.
We can – as you wish us to – stop talking about the status of the club incorporated in 2012, or we can continue to argue our respective positions as a crucial factor in this controversy.
In my view we can only hold the SFA, SPL and SFL to account if we insist that a definitive answer to all of the important questions are given.
The status of the club incorporated in 2012 is – in my view – a simple matter of fact. It is only because it is being considered to be a matter of opinion that we are where we are.
The Origins of the concept of a football club having an owner from whom it can be separated and its subsequent misuse by the SPL/SFA in 2012.
The following are taken from a well informed contributor to SFM who points out that pre 2005 no such concept existed in SPL rules and the meaning subsequently applied by LNS and The 5 Way Agreement is a danger to the fundamental integrity of the Scottish football industry and its member clubs.
The very short version of what follows is this:
The SPL articles state that its definitions and expressions need to be given the meanings as described in the Companies Act 2006.
The Companies Act 2006 says that an “undertaking” is “a body corporate” i.e. a company.
Lord Nimmo Smith has ignored this definition and instead accepted (or created) an alternative meaning for “undertaking” (as used in Article 2) which is fundamental to the concept of being able to separate Club from Company.
The principle of Club and company being distinct entities was expressly stated in the commissions terms of reference.
Lord Nimmo Smith has accepted the terms of reference as “facts”.
The SPL articles and rules apply to Clubs and to their “owners & operators”.
LNS asserts that the Club “Rangers FC” was owned & operated by Rangers Football Club plc.
He asserts that the Club “Rangers FC” transferred from Rangers Football Club plc to Sevco Scotland Ltd.
The Club (if found guilty) is still liable for the alleged breaches of SPL rules, even though the Club is no longer a member of the SPL.
He asserts that Sevco Scotland Ltd – as the new owner & operator of the Club – have a material interest in his commissions findings.
However…
Instead of his accepting LNS logic that allows the ethereal Club to be transferred between companies, the truth is – read in conjunction with the Companies Act 2006 – Article 2 really says that the Club is the “body corporate”. The Club is the Company.
The Club is Rangers Football Club plc. That Club is in liquidation.
Since Sevco Scotland Ltd did not purchase Rangers Football Club plc, Sevco Scotland did not buy the Club.
*On the simple basis of Sevco Scotland’s purchase of Rangers FC’s assets, the Commission cannot legally apply sanctions that would fall to Sevco Scotland for remedy.
This issue should have been fairly straightforward. We need to understand why it is not.
It is surprising to me that an experienced high court judge accepted the commission’s terms of reference without first checking its validity. It would be interesting to understand if the statement of reasons was really his own thoughts or a re-hash of the SPL legal advice that framed the commissions work.
It does not surprise me that the SPL have framed the commission in the way that they have. The “transferable Club” logic was first used to unsuccessfully argue that Newco should have Oldco’s share in the SPL. They are acting in their own commercial interest. Sporting Integrity has never been high on their agenda. We know what they are about.
It is hugely disappointing – but perhaps not surprising – that the SFA have not stepped in to clarify matters. Conflicted and/or incompetent probably best sums up its contribution.
Longer version.
The SPL – essentially as a trade association – will correctly do what they can to maximise revenue for their members. It falls to the SFA – as the game’s regulators – to ensure that the SPL’s existing procedures, articles and rules are adhered to.
It is almost without dispute that the SPL have not functioned well in following protocol. The SFA have been incredibly weak in insisting that they do so. In fact the SFA – by being party to the 5-way agreement – are themselves seemingly complicit in going off-plan. Again, regardless of your own beliefs and agenda, the SPL (by their actions) and the SFA (by their inactions) are not TRUSTED to act as fair brokers.
Lord Nimmo Smith is due to reconvene his enquiry in just over a week’s time. When writing my previous (and quickly deleted) post earlier in the week, my mind was already moving towards (what I consider to be) the insurmountable difficulty the retired High Court judge will face in steering his commission to a logical conclusion.
In football parlance, I fear that the SPL have given him a “hospital pass” that will eventually leave him just as damaged as the game. I had already prepared an outline of why I think his enquiry will ultimately flounder; but, wonder if this topic too will fall foul of the new censorship policy on this blog.
As I think Lord Nimmo Smith’s remit is an important point that needs discussion – and out of respect to those people who have supported this blog as the spiritual successor of RTC – I will attempt to post my thoughts here first. If this post gets removed or doesn’t get past moderation, I’ll do as TSFM (Big Pink?) suggested earlier and find another, more open, forum to engage in.
I apologise in advance for the length of this post; but the points, I think, are fairly straightforward. Please do bear with me.
We should probably start at the SPL Press Release of 12th September 2012:
Independent Commission Preliminary Hearing
The Commission has considered all the preliminary issues raised in the list submitted by Newco and points raised in letters from solicitors acting for Newco and for Oldco. It has decided:
1. The Commission will proceed with its inquiry in the terms of the Notice of Commission and will now set a date for a hearing and give directions.
2. Oldco and Rangers FC, who are named in the Issues contained in the Notice of Commission and alleged to have been in breach of SPL rules, will continue to have the right to appear and be represented at all hearings of the Commission and to make such submissions as they think fit.
3. Newco, as the current owner and operator of Rangers FC, although not alleged by the SPL to have committed any breach of SPL Rules, will also have the right to appear and be represented at all hearings of the Commission and to make such submissions as it thinks fit.
4. Written reasons for this decision will be made available in due course.
Further to the decision made today the Commission make the following procedural orders:
1. We set a date for a hearing to commence on Tuesday 13 November 2012 with continuations from day to day as may be required until Friday 16 November 2012. We will also allocate Tuesday 20 and Wednesday 21 November 2012 as additional dates should any further continuation be required.
2. We direct that the solicitors for The Scottish Premier League Limited lodge any documents, additional to those already lodged, together with an outline argument and a list of witnesses by 4 pm on Friday 19 October 2012.
3. We direct that Oldco, Newco or any other person claiming an interest and wishing to appear and be represented at the hearing give intimation to that effect and lodge any documents together with an outline argument and a list of witnesses, all by 4 pm on Thursday 1 November 2012.
4. We direct that intimation of the aforesaid decision and of these directions be made to the solicitors for Oldco and Newco.
No further comment will be made.
Couple of points worth noting:
1. The Commission will proceed with its inquiry in the terms of the Notice of Commission and will now set a date for a hearing and give directions.
2. Oldco and Rangers FC, who are named in the Issues contained in the Notice of Commission and alleged to have been in breach of SPL rules
So it is clear here that Oldco and Rangers FC have, in the terms of the Notice of Commission, been described as separate entities. It is important to realise that this distinction is made before the commission has had any opportunity to consider the circumstances.
This is a non-negotiable “fact” – as supplied by the SPL – that LNS either accepts or stands aside. He has chosen to accept it.
This “fact” was later given reasoning by way of the Commission’s Statement of Reasons and carried the names of the Commission members:
History
[3] Rangers Football Club was founded in 1872 as an association football club. It was incorporated in 1899 as The Rangers Football Club Limited. In recent years the company’s name was changed to The Rangers Football Club Plc, and it is now called RFC 2012 Plc (in administration). In line with the terminology used in the correspondence between the parties, we shall refer to this company as “Oldco”.
[4] The SPL was incorporated in 1998. Its share capital consists of sixteen shares of £1 each, of which twelve have been issued. Oldco was one of the founding members of the SPL, and remained a member until 3 August 2012 when the members of the SPL approved the registration of a transfer of its share in the SPL to The Dundee Football Club Limited. Each of the twelve members owns and operates an association football club which plays in the Scottish Premier League (“the League”). The club owned and operated by Oldco played in the League from 1998 until 2012 under the name of Rangers Football Club (“Rangers FC”).
…
[33] It is now necessary to quote some of the provisions of the Articles of the SPL. Article 2 contains definitions which, so far as relevant are:
“Club means the undertaking of an association football club which is, for the time being, entitled, in accordance with the Rules, to participate in the League
…
Company means The Scottish Premier League Limited
…
League means the combination of Clubs known as the Scottish Premier League operated by the Company in accordance with the Rules
…
Rules mean the Rules for the time being of the League
…
Share means a share of the Company and Share Capital and Shareholding”.
…
[37] It is also necessary to quote certain of the Rules. Rule I1 provides definitions of various terms in the Rules. Of these, we refer to the following:
Club means an association football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club
…
[46] It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule I1 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club. Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated. While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time. In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise. So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator. It is the Club, not its owner and operator, which plays in the League. Under Rule A7.1.1 the Club is bound to comply with all relevant rules. The Rules clearly contemplate the imposition of sanctions upon a Club, in distinction to a sanction imposed upon the owner or operator. That power must continue to apply even if the owner and operator at the time of breach of the Rules has ceased to be a member of the SPL and its undertaking has been transferred to another owner and operator. While there can be no question of subjecting the new owner and operator to sanctions, there are sanctions which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which are capable of affecting the Club as a continuing entity (even though not an entity with legal personality), and which thus might affect the interest of the new owner and operator in it. For these reasons we reject the arguments advanced in paragraphs 2 and 6 of the list of preliminary issues.
Here we were introduced to a few new ideas:
1. That SPL members “own and operate” association football clubs
2. That “Rangers Football Club” was “owned and operated” by Oldco (Rangers Football Club plc).
3. Club means the undertaking of an association football club
4. An “undertaking” is “a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. “
5. “A Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. “
6. “A Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.”
So, the principle, by which Lord Nimmo Smith, purports to connect Oldco and Newco is by the alleged transference of a non-corporate entity between the two owners and operators of the “Club”. The Club is the non-corporate entity he identified as the “undertaking” referred to in Article 2.
However, this is where he gets into some very serious difficulty. It is very strange that – when quoting the relevant articles – the retired High Court Judge did not notice or think the following did not have a part to play.
2. In these Articles:-
2006 Act means the Companies Act 2006 including any statutory modification or re-enactments thereof for the time being in force;
…
4. Unless the context otherwise requires, words or expressions contained in these Articles bear the same meaning as in the 2006 Act but excluding any statutory modification thereof not in force when these Articles or the relevant parts thereof are adopted.
The SPL articles make specific reference to the Companies Act 2006. Specifically “words or expressions contained in these Articles bear the same meaning as in the 2006 Act”
So when the articles refer to “undertaking” we must refer to the 2006 Act to check what meaning we should apply. If we do so, we find:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/1161
1161Meaning of “undertaking” and related expressions
(1)In the Companies Acts “undertaking” means—
__(a)a body corporate or partnership, or
__(b)an unincorporated association carrying on a trade or business, with or without a view to profit.
(2)In the Companies Acts references to shares—
__(a)in relation to an undertaking with capital but no share capital, are to rights to share in the capital of the undertaking; and
__(b)in relation to an undertaking without capital, are to interests—
____(i)conferring any right to share in the profits or liability to contribute to the losses of the undertaking, or
____(ii)giving rise to an obligation to contribute to the debts or expenses of the undertaking in the event of a winding up.
(3)Other expressions appropriate to companies shall be construed, in relation to an undertaking which is not a company, as references to the corresponding persons, officers, documents or organs, as the case may be, appropriate to undertakings of that description.
This is subject to provision in any specific context providing for the translation of such expressions.
(4)References in the Companies Acts to “fellow subsidiary undertakings” are to undertakings which are subsidiary undertakings of the same parent undertaking but are not parent undertakings or subsidiary undertakings of each other.
(5)In the Companies Acts “group undertaking”, in relation to an undertaking, means an undertaking which is—
__(a)a parent undertaking or subsidiary undertaking of that undertaking, or
__(b)a subsidiary undertaking of any parent undertaking of that undertaking.
Everything that LNS uses to connect Newco to Oldco relies on a Club being a non-corporate entity. Without that interpretation, his original acceptance of the commissions remit would look very foolish. In my opinion, the commission’s statement of Reasons were always poorly framed
Using the 2006 Act – as it appears it is bound to do – I cannot see how any interpretation of “undertaking” can be used in the context of the SPL articles, other than “a body corporate”.
If I am correct and the correct interpretation of an undertaking in this context is “body corporate”, SPL Article 2, specifically (and quite clearly) states that a Club is the company. Since the Club that played in the SPL is in liquidation and the current version of Rangers has never been a member of the SPL, any attempt to sanction the new club for the sins of the old will be laughed out of court.
The real question – for me at least – is why has this ridiculous proposition has been put forward in the first place? Perhaps we can assume that the SPL chose to frame the commission’s remit in this way for purely commercial reasons; but, more worryingly, why have the SFA allowed it to progress?
I also complained to the BBC for their reporting over TRFC’s championship. The email reply is pasted below – it won’t surprise many. Not yet responded as I’m not sure how you communicate with an ostrich with its head buried in the sand. And to note I didn’t complain about reports on “BBC Breakfast” (I don’t even watch it…) but about their reports on the BBC website. The Committees “conclusions” say it all:
“Many thanks for contacting us about ‘BBC Breakfast’, broadcast on 6 March.
We understand you may feel reports by Mike Bushell throughout the morning referencing Rangers football team being ‘on the brink of winning the Scottish Premiership title’ are incorrect, particularly in respect of changes which have impacted on the various companies which have owned and operated the business interests of the club since their liquidation.
In keeping with the BBC Trust judgement on the matter in 2013, we referred to, and will continue to refer to the team on the field as Rangers FC and only when reporting on the business matters pertaining to the club will we, when and as appropriate, refer to the old and/or new operating companies.
The BBC Trust finding on the issue may be accessed on page 25 of the document below:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2013/apr_may.pdf#page=27
The Committee concluded:
that the choice of the right language by the BBC was highly dependent on the purpose and context of the output, including the intended audience and, for example, whether it was a sport story or a business story.
that, while there was no reason to treat the football club itself as “new” simply because the assets that make up the club had been transferred from one company to another, there was good reason to distinguish between “newco” and “oldco” when referring to the owning companies and the corporate transactions involved in the sale of the club.
In this light, we feel Mike’s reports were fair and balanced throughout.
Thank you again for contacting us. We hope that our reply helps to clarify matters and allays any concerns you may have.
Kind regards,
Ryan Johnston
BBC Complaints Team
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints“
Yup, that’s the standard BBC response when you question the same club stuff, Woking Celt.
Darkbeforedawn 12th March 2021 At 16:02
“As the member share was moved from oldco to newco then of course this is a transfer of membership and therefore Rangers were unable to compete in Europe for 3 seasons (which we were).”
The share was not moved or transferred and Charles Greens Sevco had never been or owned a member club, he bought a assetts from a liquidation sale, not the club or the history that went to the morgue.
“A “Licence applicant” is defined as:-
Legal entity fully and solely responsible for the football team participating in national and international club competitions which applies for a licence.
We then come to “Chapter 2: Licence Applicant and Licence”.
Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant
1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions which either:
a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league (hereinafter: registered member); or
b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football company).
2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.”
He would also not have had
“The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years.”
In response to Nawlite on the previous thread, you make a lot of very good points. I have never understand the reluctance to look into Res 12. In 2019 (I think) it was so long ago that the SFA could easily have opened an investigation. If it was found to be kosher then in which case it would have been put to bed and satisfied everyone. If there was wrongdoing, again they could have used the old fashioned “lessons have been learned, however the perpetrators (White, Reagan etc) have all now left so there is no point pursuing further. I don’t think anyone ever expected after so long for any real punishment to be handed out to anyone, but the refusal to investigate just makes the whole thing look fishy.
With regards the 5WA, I have always seen this as a formal arrangement similar to a personal insolvency event which agrees that any fines to come to light after the event cannot be pursued going forward (remember at that point we had no idea what else might have turned up that White or Murray had done illegally). In the personal insolvency (bankrupt) situation, if a debt from before the date of bankruptcy later comes to light, it is written off and I saw this as similar. It was a formal vehicle to manage a situation that hadn’t been imagined or accounted for before.
On the subjects of insolvency, I know Rangers are the example we all talk about on here because it is a football forum. But it is not unique. Sadly there are many unscrupulous directors who deliberately take everything from the company and fold it, screwing every other creditor in the process, only to set up a new company the following day with an almost identical name! The revenue keep trying to close the loopholes, but corrupt accountants will always find ways around it. Personal individuals often do the same, transferring any debts to their wife, going bankrupt wiping of hundreds of thousands of debt whilst still living the same life as before. A bit off topic but I guess just to demonstrate that the SFA, Rangers etc took advantage of various ‘schemes’ used daily in the country from the biggest companies to your Joe Bloggs in the street.
Darkbeforedawn 12th March 2021 At 18:55
Personal individuals often do the same, transferring any debts to their wife, going bankrupt wiping of hundreds of thousands of debt whilst still living the same life as before.
…………………..
A bit like Barry did. The thing is there are rules to stop Clubs doing this type of thing, if there was not every club in the world would do it, but then if every club in the world did it there would be no clubs as there would be no sponsors waiting to become creditors, there would be no advertising companies waiting to become creditors there would be no shareholders waiting to become creditors etc.
Hence the ibrox club and Green to his surprise found out you could not just dump the debt and take your seat at the top table. No club in the SPL had ever gone into administration and liquidation and if you believe it caught the SFA and The SPL and the ibrox club by surprise i have a bridge to sell. There was no stopping the club going into liquidation, the best they could do was to try and get some kind of franchise playing out of ibrox to stop the Armaggeddon and social unrest, but they made a right pigs ear of it.Green could only sell 250 season tickets and the SFA and SPL were wetting their pants and the best they could come up with was a 5 way agreement and if Green would pay the football debts and stop some other clubs going bust they could all sit round the camp fire and pretend the ibrox club never went Ti*s up, never happened. The thing is they unleashed Armaggeddon on scottish football and social unrest by their actions, and by their actions it is no longer a game worth the bother to many.
Club statement.
https://www.rangers.co.uk/Article/club-statement-1203212/1n9VyyP4LxhSY9QU13RWqF
Darkbeforedawn
I too am not that het up about the 5WA. A former, highly respected and knowledgeable poster on here, Campbellsmoney, referred to it as just a commercial agreement to protect commercial interests, and that the confidentiality was nothing unusual. Sporting integrity trashed perhaps, but I understand the priorities of boardroom folk are different from ours as fans.
The trouble with the 5WA, as is pointed out in the blog, and referenced recently by other posters, is whether the SFA/SFL rules at the time permitted the undertakings. Were any of the bodies involved acting Ultra Vires?
In respect of the many learned contributions we have seen on here for many a year, my judgement is that they probably were. The trouble is that it is not possible to have a JR without standing.
I do understand though, that some high net worth individuals representing fans of five different clubs, are investigating the possibility of buying a Scottish club as a project, which would of course give them standing to have a JR which may force the authorities to explain their decision to be part of the 5WA.
I don’t think this is over – in fact it ay never be.
Just for completeness, it’s probably worth adding a little further context to some of the terms used within the SPL’s articles.
When the SPL was incorporated in 1998 it’s articles stated that only association football clubs could be members.
Members were defined as being the holders of a share in the SPL.
As all the original members were corporate entities, the SPL clearly recognised Celtic plc, Ranger Football Club plc, et al as association football clubs. Each member of the league was a company which was an association football club. There was no reference then to an ‘owner and operator’.
So why the change?
Around 2002 talk began of SPL2 – effectively incorporating the top tier teams of the SFL into the SPL.
If all of the relevant clubs had been incorporated, there would have been no issue. However, by 2004 Brechin (an unincorporated association of persons) was in the SFL’s top division.
The technical position is that an unincorporated association has no legal personality – so cannot, by itself, take ownership of a share in the SPL. All assets of an unincorporated association are held in trust by one or more of the committee members.
This meant that had Brechin been accepted into the SPL (under the original articles), and allowed a committee member to registered the SPL share, that person would be considered to be the club.
The change in 2005 allowed the holder of the SPL share to be a natural person (committee member) or (possibly) an associated corporate body when the association football club itself has not been incorporated. In this context, the ‘Club’ and the holder of the SPL share (the owner and operator) are separate entities.
The new articles say that ‘except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club’. In the context of an incorporated association football club, the ‘Club’ and its owner and operator are the same entity.
LNS allowed this change – relevant only to unincorporated associations – to falsely create a distinction between Club and company, when no such distinction exists.
HirsutePursuit 12th March 2021 At 20:29
I remember that explanation from way back but stuck to it was to get Romanov line when explaining the change, especially on Twitter.
Would be fair to say its purpose was to close an anomaly concerning one potential SPL member as well as provide power to discipline major shareholder but never to confer immortality on any member club .
That can fit into a Tweet. 🙂
The questions put to UEFA re 5 Way Agreement by Phil McGiolla Bhain can be read on his blog at
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2021/03/11/uefa-were-not-told-of-the-5-way-agreement/
The UEFA answer was a sort of no comment but in view of the questions why did they not ask to see the 5 Way or say they would make enquiries of the SFA?
What we now know is the governance of Scottish football is subject to an agreement that appears to be based on a false premise that UEFA were never consulted on, that undermines the integrity of Scottish football that the clubs we support don’t care a toss about.
Mind you why should they if the paying customer don’t care a toss about sporting integrity either?
Auldheid 12th March 2021 At 20:56
1 0 Rate This
HirsutePursuit 12th March 2021 At 20:29
I remember that explanation from way back but stuck to it was to get Romanov line when explaining the change, especially on Twitter.
Would be fair to say its purpose was to close an anomaly concerning one potential SPL member as well as provide power to discipline major shareholder but never to confer immortality on any member club .
That can fit into a Tweet. ?
……………………………………….
Auldheid, When the idea was first mooted, I couldn’t see how separating the ‘Club’ from it’s ‘owner and operator’ within the SPL articles would have helped the SFA ‘get’ Romanov. Still don’t.
I understand that Romanov was, in general terms, the owner/controller of Hearts, but he was not the personal holder of the SPL share. Therefore, under the SPL’s articles, he could not be properly described as the ‘owner and operator’. The ‘owner and operator’ of Hearts is the association football club, Heart of Midlothian plc. As a corporate body, it (the Club) owned and operated its footballing operations.
I don’t understand why this change in terminology would get the SPL or SFA any closer to holding Romanov accountable.
Unless I have completely missed something, the ‘get Romanov’ explanation for the changes I have described doesn’t really stand up to proper scrutiny. imo.
Darkbeforedawn 12th March 2021 At 18:55
“Sadly there are many unscrupulous directors who deliberately take everything from the company and fold it, screwing every other creditor in the process, only to set up a new company the following day with an almost identical name!”
No-one would argue this happens daily but you have hit the nail on the head, “set up a new company the following day with an almost identical name!”
TheRangers 2012 version attempt to seperate the two, club and company as if something that was recorded never happened or wishing never happened, but all the same, denying the fact there club was incorporated into a commercial successgul business until Murray got it, and when it went bust they decided to do as you describe, only difference they leave out the almost identical name part and claim same name as in same club,
Charles Green knows he never bought a club or he would have inherited debts, liquidation is the wiping out of creditors debts and creditors get the satisfaction of winding up that, that stole their cash. Two process, pay your debts or do not pass go.
Big Pink 12th March 2021 At 20:24
”…I do understand though, that some high net worth individuals representing fans of five different clubs, are investigating the possibility of buying a Scottish club as a project, which would of course give them standing to have a JR which may force the authorities to explain their decision to be part of the 5WA.”
+++++
Ah, BP, the very idea of that cheers me up somewhat !(smiley face, if that facility were available!)
I hope your understanding proves to be based on fact.
In the world of sports cycling the suspicion was ( and now today confirmed] that a certain doctor was buying performance enhancing drugs for ‘competitors’ a decade ago .
In essence, what we have in Scottish football is the suspicion that the governance body acted corruptly in 2012.
The fact that that governance body(and other bodies] refuses to explain its actions and uses the cloak of secrecy as an excuse for its refusal simply reinforces the view that they have something to hide.
What we need is a wholly independent examination into how the ‘TRFC is Rangers of 1872’ lie was created, endorsed by Scottish Football Governance and ‘sold’ to UEFA and the Stock Exchange as the truth.
May I live to see such independent examination!
HirsutePursuit 12th March 2021 At 22:39
As I recall the notion was raised by Easy Jambo and a report by the BBC about a year later gave credence to it and it was easier to get across linking to that report via Twitter so my intent was not to persuade or argue the case the motivation was to get Romanov.
I gave it a mention on the basis that whatever the purpose of the rule change it was not meant to be a device to provide immortality to clubs.
That is the meaning I took from the original discussion regardless of both examples that I accepted as credible.
It is important because if the change did not have that immortality intent I would consider it hijacked and turned to a purpose never intended to give legitimacy to an argument to meet a desired outcome.
If that meaning is true what we have is the integrity of Scottish Football has been bound up by deceit , that would not stand scrutiny by any external authority be it UEFA , FIFA or CAS. It suggests why the SFA would not take the non compliance charges of UEFA licensing breaches in 2011 to CAS and may also be the reason Celtic did want to pass Res12 in 2013 to involve UEFA and the adjournment agreed was on the basis any investigation be confined to the SFA.
Now legal opinion based on evidence all recorded on www,res12.uk is that the UEFA Licence in 2011 was granted as a result of false pretence.
When that evidence was presented to Celtic in 2018, having given the impression themselves and via apparently friendly bloggers until then that they wanted the matter resolved, their resistance to using it was puzzling until proof of their knowledge of the 5 Way Agreement emerged.
I don’t think it stretches the imagination to breaking point to come to the conclusion that the last folk Celtic and SFA wanted in 2013 rummaging around events in 2011/2012 was UEFA, who were unsighted on the 5 Way Agreement.
One of the phrases I copied on to Twitter from today’s blog was the impact of the agreement on sporting integrity because that is what is important to me, not the number of titles accumulated although 5 of those fail to meet sporting integrity standards,
It seems to me that anything that can be done to bring out a phrase BP used i.e the ultra vires nature of the 5 Way Agreement is a step towards ditching it even if the direction is unclear.
Much will depend on supporters readiness to watch a game where the result depends on which of two club’s turn it is to fill their diminishing coffers.
When I say supporters I include all clubs not just Celtic/Rangers ones, because the others are paying into a game whose integrity has been killed by ongoing deceit and dishonesty.
Auldheid
Up till 2004 every member of the SPL had a representative on the board. In the June of that year the board was trimmed down to I think just 4 or 5 club representatives.
From memory, the board included representatives from Rangers, Dundee Utd, Hibs and Kilmarnock.
The rationale behind the proposed changes to the articles of association in 2005 would have been set out in board papers – prepared presumably by the chief executive in conjunction with the chairman.
I would be very surprised if copies of those board papers do not still exist.
In addition, it is very likely that each member club was sent a written recommendation to approve the resolution that affected the change. That recommendation will have had a summary of the boards reasons for making the change.
If creating a franchise system was indeed the SPL’s intent, that will be clearly set out in the board and AGM papers.
The matter could easily be cleared up – one way or the other – by making those documents public.
Those documents are either the smoking gun that proves the SPL lied – or utter vindication of its position.
That those documents have never been produced tells its own story.
Incidentally, and perhaps it is just coincidence, Eddie Thompson was on the SPL board when the changes to the articles went through. Eddie died in 2008 and his son Stephen took over as chairman of Dundee Utd.
Stephen, by 2012 was on the board of the SPL, but was forced off because he was accused of leaking confidential information relating to the Rangers situation. One wonders if he had his dad’s SPL board papers from 2004/5?
…and of course, Stephen Thompson, voted to refuse Sevco Scotland’s application to transfer Rangers’ SPL share.
He would know what his father voted for in 2005. Did he betray his father’s wishes in 2012? …or did he honour them?
Auldheid 13th March 2021 At 00:58
Much will depend on supporters readiness to watch a game where the result depends on which of two club’s turn it is to fill their diminishing coffers.
++++++++++
This is the notion I will never understand, and find hard to believe. If ‘Rangers’ win the league again next year it looks increasingly likely they will go straight into the Champions League Groups. Given their excellent recent record against mid ranking European teams there is every chance they will also negotiate next seasons’s qualifiers with relevant ease. If they were to access two season’s worth of CL money the effect on Celtic could be catastrophic, unless someone with deep pockets was willing to pony up. Celtic are well run, and Dermot Desmond has invested heavily in shares, but he does not take a sugar daddy approach as is his absolute right.
I just don’t get why Celtic would ever want ‘Rangers’ to have access to that kind of money. As for ‘Rangers’, I think they would not care if Celtic were ever to win a single trophy again. I find it very hard to believe either club would ever step aside for the other to win.
‘Rangers’ took a gamble on Gerrard. In my opinion if Covid had never happened he would most likely have resigned or been sacked last season after a post-new year implosion. The fans were turning against him at the point the league was stopped. I also think empty stadiums this season have taken the pressure right off him and his players, but they have been the best team by several country miles. Celtic’s implosion is inexplicable. They have the players to have taken it to the wire, but there is no way I can accept it was some kind of ‘after you’ in terms of letting ‘Rangers’ get CL money. Sometimes shit just happens, Liverpool with their brilliant players and top manager being a very good example of that this season.
Upthehoops 13th March 2021 At 09:44
‘..I just don’t get why Celtic would ever want ‘Rangers’ to have access to that kind of money’
+++++++++++++++++++=
I’m pretty sure that what Celtic wanted in 2012 was merely to ensure that there was a ‘Rangers’ football club that would allow the continuation of the revenue stream that traditionally attaches to Celtic v Rangers matches.
That was one reason , I think, why they did not insist on an investigation into the UEFA licence award at the time, and why subsequently they were party to the 5-Way Agreement: they did not relish the prospect of there possibly not being a Rangers.
They would not have imagined that the new club they helped to create and ‘legitimise’ would thrive on the myth of being ‘continuity’ Rangers!
SDM’s tax cheating killed RFC of 1872.
The Celtic board’s part in the creation of TRFC may (as in your gloomy speculation !] lead to future financial troubles for Celtic.
We may be sure that there would be no cosy arrangement under which a liquidated Celtic would be ‘looked after ‘ by the Football Authorities.
It is emerging on social media that several Celtic fans are being visited by Police and warned not to go near Celtic Park on the 21st. They are going to be busy getting round 4,000 Rangers fans homes to give them a similar warning, or do Celtic fans just need reminded of their place in Scottish society? Not that I want any Celtic fan to go near the ground, but we have just witnessed state sponsored law breaking on a grand scale. We have also witnessed Rangers players giving two fingers to Covid rules, their manager supporting them doing it, and not one word of criticism for them from the media, government or police. Yes, definitely the best wee country in the world…aye right!
Upthehoops 13th March 2021 At 14:33
Assistant Chief Constable Bernard Higgins said: “In advance of any Old Firm match, it is common practice for us to visit individuals affiliated with both clubs and remind them of their responsibilities not to engage in any behaviour or disorder which might endanger public safety.
“Given the current pandemic, it is vitally important that people do not attend Celtic Park or any other locations on Sunday, 21 March, as this would breach coronavirus regulations and is irresponsible in terms of protecting the health of the wider public and our officers.
“We will do everything we can to reinforce this message to stay at home including, where appropriate, visits to certain individuals.
“Police Scotland will also support both clubs in urging fans to take personal responsibility, do the right thing and stay at home.”
Looks like both sets of fans have been visited by the police here and it appears to be fairly standard procedure coming up to a glasgow derby. I think it’s a very sensible approach and hopefully both clubs will put out their own messages demanding similar from the supporters.
Up the hoops
I’m not suggesting Celtic threw the league this season. For one thing Rangers would still have had a qualifying opportunity as runners up.
However if not qualifying endangered Rangers existence which arguably it did in 2009 and almost certainly in 2011 given only one club qualified in that year, then it creates the conditions where integrity comes under pressure.
It is the huge incentive that CL money provides that in my opinion is the creator of an incentive to cheat to get at it, PARTICULARLY if the ability repay the debt depends on getting the CL money.
My solution is to reduce the amount the participating club gets and increase the subsidiary payment to other SPFL clubs for younger player development and retention purposes. A few million in that direction is not going to harm the qualifying clubs chances of winning and who knows gasp, it might mean the league title is purely down to who wins the 4 Celtic v Rangers matches.
English justice versus Scottish justice. Gary MacAllister is assaulted on a street in Leeds at 4 a.m. ( what is he doing out so late) and the assailant receives jail time. Neil Lennon is assaulted at his place of work and I ask could someone remind of the penalty imposed on the assailant. Memory is foggy but I believe the sentence was very light. Also, Steven Gerrard tells Sevco/Rangers fans not to fret about his leaving any time soon. Isn’t that like a manager in a precarious position getting a vote of confidence from his board shortly before the axe falls.
Not down to who wins etc.
Hirsute Pursuit
Thanks for your response useful as ever.
If the intent was to create a franchise is that not questionable of itself?
If it wasnt then SPFL misused it.
Either way the SPL appear het, it’s just from when?
Vernallen 13th March 2021 At 16:18
I’m not sure of the relevance here but it looks like the man who assaulted McAllister received 5 months for that attack. Two men who assaulted Neil Lennon in the West End of Glasgow received 2 years each for that attack.
The Tynecastle incident seemed was a strange one. The guy was accused of a sectarian attack but the verdict returned was unproven and he was ultimately jailed for 8 months for a breach of the peace, I think.
Incredibleadamspark 13th March 2021 At 16:05
Interesting for the Police to say that, especially when they knew that Rangers fans would be taking to the street in numbers last week. It was getting discussed on social media for weeks. They will need to do much more to convince me that everyone is treated the same, especially when there is phone and video evidence of officers joining in the celebrations.
During the Capitol Hill riots in America it was noted how some police just stood back and allowed it because they were Trump supporters. Last week was just the same for me. It leaves an indelible impression that what is allowed depends on the colour of scarf being worn. In general terms though I sincerely hope no idiots from either side try and descend on the ground next week. If they do though, it will be interesting to see how the Police deal with it.
Auldheid 13th March 2021 At 16:15
It is the huge incentive that CL money provides that in my opinion is the creator of an incentive to cheat to get at it, PARTICULARLY if the ability repay the debt depends on getting the CL money.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Absolutely agree with that. Financial Fair Play in Scotland post 2012 would have been a good move, although the new Rangers would have suffered more than anyone because of it in my view.
Upthehoops 13th March 2021 At 18:39
Yup, it would be nice to just watch a football match and hope that no idiots take to the streets. It’s been a strange and frustrating time this past year but hopefully common sense prevails and fans will behave themselves.
Incredibleadamspark 13th March 2021 At 19:21
An exclusion zone needs to be be created around the stadium area. Given recent events I can’t see thousands attempting to descend.
IAP 13th March 19.21
Whereas everyone and their aunt was aware of how and where the Rangers fans planned to celebrate last weekends title win i am at a loss as to where the idea of attending Parkhead on the 21st comes from. One or two have suggested greeting the team bus on it’s journey to the stadium in much the same way as the Celtic support did for the first Old Firm game of the season. Apart from that i have seen no mention of hundreds/thousands descending en masse upon the east end of the city.
Upthehoops 13th March 2021 At 18:45
0 0 Rate This
Auldheid 13th March 2021 At 16:15
It is the huge incentive that CL money provides that in my opinion is the creator of an incentive to cheat to get at it, PARTICULARLY if the ability repay the debt depends on getting the CL money.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Absolutely agree with that. Financial Fair Play in Scotland post 2012 would have been a good move, although the new Rangers would have suffered more than anyone because of it in my view.
And there you have it. Canny have rules that hinder Rangers business model .
If the 5 Way created a franchise like McDonalds but selling hateburgers then sectarianism is only the sauce that goes on the otherwise tasteless moneyburger to make it tasty.
UptheHoops
On exclusions zones because supporters might turn up for invented reasons I think recognition of “knuckleheadessness ” as an all pervading human condition is necessary.
Knuckleheads.
I think it is an American term.
I quite like it, kind of onomatopoeic quality to it. Not so much sounds like but looks like.
Anyhoo it is a denial of reality that the support of Celtic and “Rangers” do not have their share of knuckleheads and they recognise each other.
The knuckle in the head stops the consequences of the emotions reaching the brain.
It’s a condition that most grow out of but it’s also one that we grow into before we grow out of it. A human condition.
So best not deny it and deal with it free from judgment of which support has the most knuckleheads or which kind of knucklehead is worse than the other.
Just say that anyone turning up at CP will be taken as evidence of knuckleheadedness to become huckleheads into a police van.
Set a perimeter around the ground and any one approaching without valid reason to do so will be huckled.
HuckleberryTim or HuckleberryHun.
Auldheid…
On the subject of a franchise…
Is that not exactly what the SPL’s (mis)interpretation of its articles amounts to?
There have been many analogies used over the years to try and make sense of what has occurred. One that I found most amusing is from a family member who tried to liken Rangers being the same club with a local MacDonald’s branch having been taken over by new owners.
“It’s the same business, using the same trademarks, selling the same food to the same customers.”
He opined that it is only logical that Rangers is the same club in the same way the local MacDonald’s remained the same restaurant. In each case, only the owners had changed.
In accepting the general premise, I asked him if he was happy that, if he truly believed what he was saying, the SPL’s ‘new owners’ trope meant his beloved football club was no more than a franchise?
“It’s not the same thing!” was his reply.
Reminding him that it was his analogy, I said that on the face of it, it appears to be a very similar thing…
…if you believe the current Rangers FC is the same association football club as the one controlled by David Murray.
I asked him if instead of likening a restaurant to a Club, should he not relate the restaurant (the physical building and related assets) to Ibrox stadium?
I suggested that he could think of the current Rangers FC as a new Club operating in the same stadium as the old club did, just as a new franchisee was operating the same restaurant as its previous franchisee.
He didn’t like that analogy ?
HirsutePursuit 13th March 2021 At 21:31
If David Murray had only been honest with the taxman there would be no need for that type of conversation. It is also highly unlikely there would have been any shouting about 55 titles right now either, as the fact David Murray was not honest with the taxman gave them a huge advantage. As a Celtic fan I would have loved a goalkeeper of Stefan Klos’s quality, or a midfielder at the level of Ronald De Boer. I believe both made more money going to Rangers than they could have at Man United. Wow!
HirsutePursuit 13th March 2021 At 21:31
3 0 Rate This
Auldheid…
On the subject of a franchise…
At the very least the possibility that the 5 Way Agreement has turned Scottish Football into a franchise should be explored by UEFA just in case.
On McDonalds I remember reading McDonalds Behind The Arches many years ago and one of the fascinating things to come out is that their wealth was not based on burgers but on the land and buildings owned . Kind of fits your point to your family member.
Auldheid – couldn’t agree more on the corrosive effect of Champions League money. This applies not just in Scotland but also the so-called “big leagues” where business models are built on assumed success. In the EPL Arsenal bemoan their “lost revenue” from not being in recent CL (forgetting that they never earned it in the first place to lose it). And Liverpool will be under pressure next season unless they win the CL this year as this appears only real route to qualifying.
I have always felt that “UEFA” money should be shared more evenly across the domestic leagues (yes, the earning club should get a bigger share) as otherwise the destabilising effects on local leagues risk ruin. Of course such distributions would need to be done on a scrupulously fair and transparent basis but overall I think a force for good.
Whilst not a fan of the US approach to sports team franchising, it always amazes me that the leading capitalist nation applies salary caps and other controls to professional sports and yet we don’t think we can learn from them that such controls may be necessary to nurture fairer competition.
A message from Steven Gerrard.
https://www.rangers.co.uk/article/a-message-from-steven-gerrard-130321/2zAeGBJN0bgSKIfaJm00LT
As they (still?) ask at school: Compare and contrast policing methods between raucous celebrations in Glasgow last weekend with those used at a peaceful vigil demonstration last night in London.
The reason given for last night’s response was due to the risk of spreading Covid (which presumably was higher/same in Glasgow where rates I believe are higher/same and behaviour less restrained). And what mealy mouthed excuse did Police Scotland give???
@ Albertz11 – if I helped rob a bank last week but then told the gang not to rob another bank next week I am still a bank robber. There is only so much clubs can do and they will always be at the mercy of the “knuckleheads” (Auldheid – that post made me smile), but the simple facts are that Rangers were derelict (arguable wilfully negligent) in their duty in the run up and then actively complicit in law breaking on the Saturday. Maybe it’s something in the water at Ibrox that allows folk to think that they are above the law.
Albertz11 14th March 2021 At 09:40
‘.we must remember who we are, and we must remember what this club stands for.’
++++++++++++
Yes, Stevie boy you are the new club founded in 2012
Which ‘stands for deception’ in falsely claiming to be RFC of 1872, a deception which has left an indelible stain on the integrity of Scottish Football administration.
[I acknowledge that the quote I use from your link comes from Steven Gerrard’s ‘statement’ ‘A message from Steven Gerrard’ on http://www.rangers.co.uk]
Albertz11 13th March 2021 At 19:37
So none of the ‘Party at the piggery’ links from TRFC fans’ social media sites popped up on your FB feed, then? I’ve lost count of them on mine. I guess because I have occasionally clicked on posts from those sites to see the mad things their headlines imply, FB thinks I’m a TRFC fan. Shudder!
Nawlite 14th March 2021 At 14:39
I’ve seen some suggesting TRFC fans turn up disguised as the Green Brigade (black clothing and masks -who’s to know ?)with green pyros , etc . Just a bit of a laugh , right enough . The Toxic Two .
Nawlite 14th March 14.39.
I have never had a FB account and have no intention of ever having one. The example you give tends to indicate that my decision is justified.
Paddy Malarkey 15.42.
The Union Bears wear black clothing and masks.
The GB wear a olive type colour of clothing.
Not based on being a member of either group but having witnessed both.
Wed oct 26, 2006
Hearts fined for Romanov comments
Hearts have been fined£10,000 by the scottish football association after majority shareholder Vladimir Romanov’s criticism of match officials.
The Edindurgh side were also warned about their future conduct after being found guilty of disrepute on the clubs website
Romanov had refered to referees conduct during Hearts successful scottish cup run last season.
Hearts have not yet revealed whether they will appeal against the fine.
An individual charge against Romanov was deferred by the SFA’s general purpouse committee because he was unable to attend Tuesdays meeting.
His case will be delt with at the next meeting of the committee in December even if he does not turn up.
Romanov was critical of the scottish media and said “Last season you didn’t manage to protect the scottish cup and gave it to Hearts despite all the referees efforts and intrigues.
The SFA closed a loophole in May that had allowed Romanov to air his outspoken views with impunity because he has no official post at Tynecastle.
The resolution means every person holding authority at a club or control over the board falls under the SFA’s jurisdiction.
”””””
They set new rules so they can fine a person who holds authority at a club or control over the board.
Yet when you look back at Park and Robertson and some ibrox players last season for bringing the game into disrepute during the Dossier gate scandle there is still silence .
Cluster One 15th March 2021 At 00:11
0 0 Rate This
……..
During ‘dossiergate’ one began to wonder if there was concern that someone from the new club was about to betray a secret from years past that would place the SFA, and perhaps some other member clubs, in a difficult position?
The phrase ‘mutually assured destruction’ comes to mind.
Thanks for posting. It confirms that it was SFA rule changes (not the SPL articles of association changes discussed earlier with Auldheid) that were used to ‘get Romanov’
Apologies-“dossiergate” is not something I am aware of (maybe didn’t make it to the English-based MSM). Could someone post a link/point me in the right direction to help me understand. Thanks
Wokingcelt 15th March 2021 At 09:29
‘..dossiergate” is not something I am aware of (maybe didn’t make it to the English-based MSM). Could someone post a link/point me in the right direction to help me understand. ‘
+++++++++
This link might be use. It relates to the farcical Park and Robertson attack on the SPFL after the voting farce last season.
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2020/05/07/own-goal-fc-finally-produce-the-demented-dossier/
It was quite concerning to hear the views on Radio Scotland this morning of the head of the Police Federation. There was debate regarding the policing at the Sarah Everard vigil, compared to that for the Rangers fans gatherings. Referring to Manchester in 2008, he suggested the riots were the result of Greater Manchester Police ‘intervening’ in the Rangers fans party. It gives me no confidence whatsoever that if there is an attempt by fans to gather this weekend that there will be a robust response to what would be large scale lawbreaking. Anyone thinking of breaking the law in this way may just think as long as there is enough of us we can do what we like.
Thanks John Clark – had not heard these shenanigans referred to as dossiergate but do recall the fingering pointing from last year.
Albertz11 14th March 2021 At 16:10
Looks black to me .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1E6g51jmh0M
workingcelt
march 14th 8:17
Interesting reference to the franchise system in North America. The leagues appear to operate in unison with interest in providing the paying customer with a positive experience. These leagues have committees established to discuss and improve rules, look at player safety, and seek better and more efficient equipment. The salary caps are vigorously monitored and teams exceeding the cap are subject to fine. The player safety committee, usually comprised of former players, monitors games and have contact with the officials on a regular basis when it comes to issues. As an example, in a recent NHL game their was a check that was not penalized at the time, but the player safety committee reviewed it in quick order. The outcome was a 7 game suspension for the offender. No offer of a suspension, no take 2 games now, and we’ll look at the rest later. The franchise owners realize that they are only as strong as their weakest link. It may not be perfect but appears to work for the most part. Something that could improve other sporting leagues around the world. There are huge dollar amounts at play but nothing like the stranglehold UEFA and FIFA appear to have on soccer/football.
Hirsute,
What was interesting about the SFA decision to change the rules to bring Romanov under their jurisdiction ….
Twice before, people who were “office bearers” at their clubs, all but called Scottish Football corrupt, live on TV.
Namely, Turnbull Hutton on the steps of Hampden and Craig Levein in the tunnel at Ibrox.
Both were never as much as censured. (If memory serves me correctly)
Of course, at the time Romanov was not an office bearer.
Romanov was the easy target.
HS
Hirsute,
What was interesting about the SFA decision to change the rules to bring Romanov under their jurisdiction ….
Twice before, people who were “office bearers” at their clubs, all but called Scottish Football corrupt, live on TV.
Namely, Turnbull Hutton on the steps of Hampden and Craig Levein in the tunnel at Ibrox.
Both were never as much as censured.
Of course, at the time Romanov was not an office bearer.
Romanov was the easy target.
HS
Higgy’s Shoes 15th March 2021 At 23:59
‘..Twice before, people who were “office bearers” at their clubs, all but called Scottish Football corrupt, live on TV.’
+++++++++++++
I can’t quite place the Levein incident, but Turnbull Hutton , honourable man, was bang on in his observation.
Another useless blog from the Scottish Football Supporters Association. Any anti-corruption fans should worry about his free use of ‘the Old Firm’ phrase. What are these guys on? Do they understand how that phrase annoys anyone who cares about corruption in the game, given its clear connections to the Continuity myth and the biggest piece of corruption ever seen in Scottish football?
https://scottishfsa.org/an-elephant-in-george-square/?fbclid=IwAR11cLhlEKXH0nyuYCf2zQEd4CR9UmRD6p4XltmDDOyvuEmWYZJXS74jkQU
BP, if you’re still friendly with this guy (even if just in business terms) you really need to give him a heads up imo
John Clark 16th March 2021 At 00:34
It may be this one .
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/rugby-union/craig-levein-launches-incredible-rant-officials-after-rangers-loss-197534
To echo the blog title , here we go again . Why should the rest of the leagues have to develop players for the two cheeks ? Leave the youngsters to develop at their clubs , even provide free coaching ,rather than sook up all the available talent and hoard it .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56412970
Paddy Malarkey 16th March 2021 At 14:06
To echo the blog title , here we go again . Why should the rest of the leagues have to develop players for the two cheeks ? Leave the youngsters to develop at their clubs , even provide free coaching ,rather than sook up all the available talent and hoard it .
+++++++++++++++++++++++==
Well, the clubs can vote against it then, if it doesn’t suit them.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/19162837.crown-office-opposes-release-files-24-million-rangers-prosecution-case/
…………..
Here we go again right enough.
………….
Crown Office opposes release of files in £24 million Rangers prosecution case.
A virtual hearing in the Court of Session heard that Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC, a Scottish Government minister and head of the prosecution services, opposes the release of documents.
…..Some names we have heard before
wokingcelt 15th March 2021 At 09:29
Apologies-“dossiergate” is not something I am aware of (maybe didn’t make it to the English-based MSM). Could someone post a link/point me in the right direction to help me understand. Thanks
…………………………………….
Was hailed as a Dossier that would bring scottish football governance to it’s knees. Later to be laughed out the room, and still no charge for bringing the game into disrepute for those who pushed it. In the end the word Humiliation was branded about a lot.
Lord Advocate James Wolffe QC and Police Scotland’s legal team argued the documents should be banned from being disclosed.
Now, Glasgow tribunal judge Muriel Robison has sided with Wolffe’s “public interest” request.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/whistleblower-cop-gagged-over-corruption-20894977
…………………………………………………………………………………………
I wonder if anyone will side with Mr James Wolffe in the above case…… release of files in £24 million Rangers prosecution case.
Agree PM. It’s just another example of Celtic and TRFC being treated differently to the rest of the SFA Clubs. What makes it worse is that because those 2 clubs carry most of the support, they can to an extent take it for granted that the small clubs will be at least tempted to go with it, knowing that even a second string Celtic or TRFC will still have a big following compared to a Stranraer or Cove Rangers, in addition to the prize money the Top2 will go without to bribe the small clubs to vote yes.
To follow up on my report of Lord Tyre’s hearing of David Grier’s action v the Lord Advocate and others, I’ve just noticed that his decision in the matter of whether the Lord Advocate had ‘ probable cause’ is:
” I decline the invitation to hold at this stage that there is no
relevant defence that there was objective reasonable and probable cause for the inclusion of
the pursuer in charge 1 of the petition.”
and ” In my opinion it cannot be decided at this stage that there was no objective
reasonable and probable cause for charge 5. “.
The matter now has to go to proof, and David Grier has to prove that the Crown acted without ‘probable cause’
The full decision can be found at
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2021csoh028.pdf?sfvrsn=0
Cluster One
Hirsute Pursuit
Thanks for the clarification.
I can see how the Brechin reason and Romanov reason got conflated back then so we can drop Romanov from the underlying issue to look at which is:
What was the argument in support of the change in SPL rules introducing owner and operator and if it was solely to deal with a potential problem in respect of Brechin having no “owner” of a share, how did that rule change in 2005 transform Rangers from being an incorporated single Public Limited Liability Company (PLC) earning its revenue from football to a Public Limited Liability Company (PLC) that overnight owned a club earning the same income from the same source?
In terms of conforming with UEFA FFP before 2012 was it Rangers FC PLC that applied for a UEFA Licence or Rangers FC as a stand alone club or was it Rangers PLC whom Rangers Football Club had a written contract with to be their operators? The application template suggests it was Rangers Football Club only.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9VnptRTJBR01RTEE/edit
Post 2012 if its not the current club (Rangers FC Ltd) applying for a UEFA licence but the football Company (Rangers International Football Club PLC) they have a written contract with and the football company’s (RIFC) main source of revenue is from the club activities, then how can a Company go bust unless the club ceases to be able to provide that revenue?
Now had UEFA seen the 5 Way Agreement there would be the satisfaction of knowing they were OK with it.
As it stands UEFA did what their rules told them to do, Waited 3 years to allow the club that had undergone a terminal change in its legal structure to satisfy UEFA requirements in respect of historical membership of the SFA before being eligible to apply to play in UEFA competitions in circumstances that were not to the detriment of the integrity of those competitions.
After 3 years, whichever club ie legal entity that applied for a UEFA Licence, it was not the Rangers Football Club (PLC) that last applied in 2012 (which was rejected because they had no audited accounts and the wee tax bill of 2011 was admitted , unlike March 2011 when described as a potential liability, as a payable that as the world and its wean knew in 2012 was outstanding.)
I’ve listened with interest and attention these last few days to the ‘Sportsound’ discussions on the proposal that ‘colt’ clubs (plus some Highland and Lowland league clubs] should be admitted to League 2.
I don’t think I’m being excessively critical when I say that our radio pundits are apt to add to confusion rather than clearly explain and justify their particular points of view: lots of heat, without too much light.
Tonight, the Brora rangers chap was a breath of fresh air with his succinct and clear exposition and enthusiastic advocacy .
McIntyre is not the best of ‘neutral chairpersons’, in that his aggressive, needlessly challenging manner gets people’s backs up, and he doesn’t attempt to summarise the arguments put forward by the different people, so as to keep the discussion focussed.
Apart from that, though, I was struck tonight that although it was mentioned that the proposals appear to include the proposal that the ‘colt’ clubs would not be involved in promotion or relegation, there was no discussion of that.
I’m not sure I understand that proposal.
Can anyone briefly explain how that proposal would work in practice , please ?
Can a match be truly sportingly competitive when it’s between a club for which every game is in effect a mere friendly while the winning or losing of points is vitally important in terms of honest competition as well as of finance etc for the ‘regular’ league cubs?
There’s a danger, surely, that a club with nothing to win or lose might accidentally prejudice other clubs by not playing seriously against , say, the league leader at any given stage in the league?
When I saw the Castore billboards I thought they were triumphing a new rock band coming out of Glasgow. How remiss of me to think this was a tribute to a tribute club that finally won a title of some sort. If that makes you a king, what does four trebles make you. Then again some clubs have grace and dignity while others have to clutch and grab at any form of recognition. Also the subtle reference to royalty in the billboards was interesting.
Similar rules apply in Spain with the second teams for Real Madrid and Barcelona. They can go as high as Segunda Division but can’t play in the Primera (strictly speaking they could get promoted but it would require Real Madrid getting relegated in the same season – the rule is that they can’t play in the same division). I guess they trust in professional pride of teams that they will compete in all matches.
Personally I think the issue is the Academy approach that replaced the reserve team football in many countries, with young players not getting the chance to play competitively against seasoned pros. I know it’s viewed as a challenge in England where Academy players viewed as too cosseted, playing lots of bounce games on 4G pitches and then literally not knowing what’s hit them when faced with less than perfect conditions and more physical challenges. Don’t think being farmed out to Cumbernauld did the young Dalglish any harm…
@vernallen
A little off topic but I was rather taken aback by Brendan Rodgers of all people being sought out in the MSM to advise others to show class…I imagine he had the engine running whilst providing the quote!
In my email inbox today is a decision of the CAS relating to Football Club Carlos Stein [Peru].
The ‘Stein’ reference caught my eye ( maybe someone knows whether there is any connection with our Jock?]
So I had a wee gander at Wiki.
[ so NOTin relation to todays reported case]
And fancy that! It’s an older club than TRFC.
It was founded as long ago 6 March 2012! (Wow, so long ago!]
It appears that in 2019 it was defeated in the ‘Copa Peru’.
Guess what! It appealed.
On what grounds? I hear you ask.
Why, what else but on the grounds that the other team had fielded a suspended player!
FC Carlos Stein went on the final Group stages.
Its final games in that stage were against Desportivo Llacuabamba.
The overall stage winner was Desportivo Llacuabamba.
Can you guess what FC Carlos Stein did?
What else but appeal?
On what grounds? Yep, you got it in one: on the grounds that Desportivo Llacuabamba had improperly fielded a player.
Oh, there’s something tugging at my tired auld man’s memory cells about a Scottish Club founded in 2012 which claims to be an older club, a club that all of Scottish football KNOWS fielded ineligible players for years and years as part of a monumental tax fiddle by a club which no longer exists.
I’m happy that an equivalent of Brysonism was not invoked.
Workingelt
March 17th/22:53
Perhaps his tongue was firmly planted in his cheek. Then again the way the question was phrased may have dictated the way the answer was given. Those media guys can be tricky when the need arises. Also, a little off topic but a tip of the hat due to the Rangers fan group for the donation, and, a substantial one, to the hospital. It’s not often their fans get something right.
According to a report in the Glasgow Times, extra subway trains will be added to this Sunday’s schedule because Police intelligence advises of a gathering at Ibrox. I hope the story is nonsense. If it is true, then God help us all, because Scotland may just have become a lawless nation.
Vernallen 18th March 00.41
The gentlemen concerned raise money for various charities on a regular basis and have done for many years, usually done under the radar with a minimum of media coverage.
You would probably be surprised at how often we get it right.
Albertz11 18th march 10:10
No intention of being flippant in regards to the charity donation and am aware of a number of groups/people who contribute all over the world without fanfare. Just thought it would be nice to acknowledge the act of kindness as these acts seldom get any positive press.
Paddy Malarkey
“John Clark 16th March 2021 At 00:34
It may be this one.”
Paddy, thanks for the link you posted for JC.
I forgot about that one.
But I was thinking about is this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0xHWIw_dPk
John,
How could you forget this
HS
Why am I thinking of Sam English this morning?
And a ‘sine die’ suspension for Roofe?
In all my years I have never seen such a brutal flying assault.
Higgy’s Shoes 19th March 2021 At 10:37
I’ve always liked Craig Levein and his straight talking. Here is what he had to say about Celtic and Rangers during the Football Daft podcast from November last year.
“I’m fed up with the two of them. Honestly, it’s all people think football is in Scotland, and the press play up to it all the time.
“This whole stuff last season with Hearts getting relegated was a nonsense, an absolute nonsense, and part of it was to do with Celtic getting the title so that they could try and break this record of nine-in-a-row.
“I just can’t be bothered with it. For a while David Murray ran Scottish football and Rangers were calling all the shots and getting all the good publicity and now I think Celtic are doing exactly the same.
“They call the shots with all the big decisions in Scotland and I think it’s really unfair. So I can’t be bothered with the nonsense.”
It would have been interesting to see what call a referee doing a Rangers game in the scottish league would have made on the Roofe incident last night.. Also interesting when you view the predictions of the DR writers on their view of the outcome of the game (blue tinted glasses anyone). Of course the various fan websites had it all down to the referee not controlling the game and shame on the Czech team for playing keep a way as they sat on a two goal lead. The alleged incident of racial abuse can not be overlooked as there is no place for racism in any walk of life. There are instances of getting in a player’s ear (Brown vs Morelos) to distract him for performing at his best and you walk a fine line in that area as well as some comments could be misinterpreted.
We have now passed the Ides of March and still no report or punishment for the Covid 5. Is the idea to delay, delay, delay and hopefully people will have forgotten.
trued.
Vernallen, the Covid 5 have been cited, but will be dealt with on 25 March I believe. We joked on here that they must know Tavernier will be fit by then so they can do without Patterson!
John Clark 19th March 11.09
Whilst the red card for Kemar Roofe was totally justified your talk of a “sine die” suspension for the player is a total over reaction to what was a dangerous, ill judged but ultimately accidental collision. Take another look and you’ll see the player doesn’t take his eyes off the ball, even for a split second.
Statement from the club.
https://www.rangers.co.uk/Article/club-statement-190321/3V4qEF786N7Oj0dEskpfld
Nawlite
If that’s the case suspension will probably only cover remainder of scheduled games. How fortunate they are.
Vernallen 19th March 2021 At 17:19
‘.. How fortunate they are.’
Nawlite 19th March 2021 At 13:22
‘..Vernallen, the Covid 5 have been cited,..’
++++++++++++++++
Were we ever given an expanation for the unconscionably long it took for the CO to cite them?
There may be a perfectly simple explanation, such as the CO being either too run off his feet or too incompetent or some such.
But the SFA and its history of misuse of its powers and procedures have given us enough reason to be instantly suspicious of ANYTHING they do that however remotely might help TRFC!
John Clark 19th March 2021 At 19:16
I’ve mentioned this before, but I think Rangers missed a huge PR opportunity. The league was pretty much in the bag by the time of the event. Suspending the players themselves would not only have been great PR for them, but would have made the SFA job a box ticking exercise. Instead we are left to quite rightly wonder why the SFA have taken so long while Rangers continue to play the players.
I think the events at Ibrox have highlighted that UEFA have a few things to sort out:
1. They can’t have the situation of players covering their mouths whilst abusing other players. A presumption of a “beyond the pale” comment having been made might stamp it out.
2. The incident in the tunnel. If any truth that the away dressing room was locked when it shouldn’t have been and this contributed to players being assaulted, the fault will lie with TRFC. No idea how UEFA would view this.
3. Roofe challenge. This was dangerously reckless and I don’t think that intent comes into it (just because he didn’t mean it doesn’t mean he gets free licence to do it again). I would probably cause serious mayhem if put into a F1 car – I can guarantee I wouldn’t be allowed back on the track. Question for UEFA will be whether their schedule of penalties for yellow and red cards is sufficient to cover such a dangerously reckless challenge. I doubt it notwithstanding the lesson they should have learned from Harald Schumacher in 1982.
Making the rounds again , from the Guardian .
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/mar/11/the-unlikely-story-of-how-dundee-united-became-an-insult-in-nigeria
apologies, (big pink and all); albeit I have a sick note – the dog ate my covid jag….
it’s good to be off the bench. I must admit, I haven’t been tuning in for a long while. no excuses. t’internet is dreadful. as is deflection.
Parks on the field supporting manager in the aftermath of “he, I said”, perhaps he was having a word in Gerrard’s ear. Thank you Steven for losing us some valuable EL money and watch what you say as we don’t need a fine from UEFA. Oh, and thanks for not getting me another trip to some exotic stadium on the club’s dime.
The Nations game between UKraine and Switzerland due to be played last November was cancelled and not rescheduled, because on the day of the match, the entire Ukrainian delegation was placed in quarantine by the health authorities of the Canton of Lucerne.
Ukraine appealed.
CAS today dismissed that appeal, and upheld the UEFA decision that Ukraine should forfeit the match 3-0 in favour of Switzerand,
Interestingly, the “CAS Panel emphasized that, rather than being at fault, the UAF was an unfortunate victim of the COVID-19 pandemic and decided not to order it to pay any costs in favour of UEFA and/or SFA”[Swiss FA]
Something there that the SFA/SPFL might possibly mull over, having caused the kind of headless chicken fcuk-up they did with their stupid rigidity of thought and/or mindless panic?
wokingcelt
Question for UEFA
What kind of fine will the club from ibrox be given two players sent off alledged altercations after game, police now involved.
Cluster One 19th March 2021 At 23:0
wokingcelt
Question for UEFA
What kind of fine will the club from ibrox be given two players sent off alledged altercations after game, police now involved.
As the complaint was made via the Embassy in London, I don't think it would be unreasonable if it was requested that Scot squad are kept far away from the investigation, and Engerlunder plod take the reigns. It may even save the tax-payer millions in compo pay-outs.
The superiority attitude of Rangers on display in Barry Ferguson’s column today, ” the league title is back where it belongs”. This from an individual who shamed himself while on international duty for Scotland, received a lucrative EBT, and, when there was indications the tax man might be calling declared bankruptcy and transferred assets to his wife ..If the league title is deemed to be theirs forever why bother with league play.
I know it’s a small thing, but I see the press happily reporting SG’s quotes about standing toe to toe with Glen Kamara. That’s not right though, is it? I’m pretty sure standing toe to toe with someone means you’re fighting AGAINST someone. Surely he means standing side by side with Glen Kamara. I knew the SMSM were bad, but now they don’t even correct incorrect language?
@ Vernallen – I think that is BF playing to his audience (and not someone who identifies as a fan of BF I haven’t read it). But you touch on an important point which is what is the purpose of a football club. If it’s only purpose is to win all the time then it is setting itself up for failure as sport doesn’t work that way. There needs to be something more that sets it apart and attracts fans whether winning or not. Historically this was local community identity – not sure how that works now on a global basis, maybe that’s why the terms fans, customers and consumers are increasingly interchanged.
As a Chartered Accountant I should know the answer to this, but not having practised for a few years I am a bit rusty…
Looking at the accounts of Celtic plc and TRFC I can see that both capitalise player acquisition costs and amortise over the length of contract subject to impairment reviews. That all makes sense to me. But I see that TRFC have also capitalised their “Brand” and state that this has an indefinite life (why they didn’t just say “evergreen” I don’t know…). What I can’t get my head around is that TRFC doesn’t have a track record of generating profits, so how can the carrying value be justified? What am I missing?
wokingcelt 20th March 2021 At 15:58
What I can’t get my head around is that TRFC doesn’t have a track record of generating profits, so how can the carrying value be justified? What am I missing?
……………………….
At the start of the season they claimed the squad was worth over £100million, i would expect that they have added another £100million onto that now.
Workingcelt — March 20th –15:46
There have been some great sports dynasties on this side of the ocean and they have had great support during their runs. I don’t recall any member of these teams stepping up with such a claim as BF did today. Perhaps, this down to the franchise system employed by the various leagues and the difficulty ensuring you can retain the players that built said dynasties. Many of these athletes come to enjoy free agency in some form during their career and offer their services to the highest bidder.
On the accounting side an old adage comes to mind, “figures lie and liars figure” Creative accounting at its best.
Wokingcelt 20th March 2021 At 15:58
‘…TRFC doesn’t have a track record of generating profits, so how can the carrying value be justified? What am I missing?’
+++++++++++
Wokingcelt, Nice one!
What is being spoken of is NOT the capitalisation of the ‘brand equity’ of TRFC.
What is happening is a continuation of the ‘continuity Rangers’ myth.
RIFC plc falsely claims to be the holding company of the ‘Rangers of 1872 ‘( which may indeed have been ‘the most successful club in the world’ but which entered Liquidation in 2012 and is still there, its huge debts to the taxpayer and other creditors unpaid, and not able to participate in Scottish Football]
The truth is that RIFC plc is the holding company of quite a different football club.
That club is the not yet 9 years old TRFC, which has no tremendously significant record of sporting achievement to speak of, so their brand name has not been particularly enhanced.
So the effort has continually to be made to sell the lie that investment in RIFC plc is worthwhile because TRFC is the same brand name as RFC plc!
Deceit, pure and simple.
Or perhaps, impure and devious.
The world and his wife knows -and Walter Smith and Graham Sourness and James Taylor (God bless him,] know that SevcoScotland/TRFC never was, is not ,and never can be RFC of 1872!
And that as a brand name, TRFC is not so much famous as notorious , lie as they might.
Nawlite 20th March 2021 At 13:24
‘..I knew the SMSM were bad, but now they don’t even correct incorrect language?’
++++++++++
Ooohhh!
Don’t get me started on the grammatical, linguistic, interviewing skills of our BBC Scotland current affairs /news presenters, never mind football hacks!
Honest to God!
They are(I assume] graduates of some university or other?
But by the Lord Harry, I swear that they wouldn’t have [ or as Michael bloody Stewart would say ‘ wouldn’t ‘of’!] passed the bloody ‘quali’ of former years in the then much eulogised Scottish education system when that exam separated ‘senior secondary from ‘junior secondary’.
I listen to them every day: the Kaye Adams, the Mhairi Stewarts, the rugby guy, the sweetie wife, and the assorted rag-tag-and bobble -tail.
And I think: God help us, if that is the best that BBC Radio Scotland can provide.
We know of course that in matters football, it provides support for the Big lie!
And for as long as it does, it will not be criticised in any way!
RIFC issued 16.25m new shares at 20p on Friday. It equates to £3.25m, either in new money or to repay loans.
Perhaps they need the cash to pay for end of season bonuses.
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC437060/filing-history
Nawlite 20th March 2021 At 13:24
I guess it is too much for the media to highlight the fact that Gerrard publicly backed Luis Suarez when he was guilty of racism. As always everything is very selective to the advantage of Rangers.
Upthehoops 21st March 2021 At 11:04
It was a nice touch by Scott Brown before kick off to embrace Glen Kamara. Of course you will be more than aware of his response to the racial abuse aimed at Shay Logan by his then Celtic teammate Aleksander Tonev. Here it is:
We all stick by him. We know he didn’t say it, so I think that’s the main thing and all the lads in the dressing-room believe him. I don’t think he needs to explain himself. We all believe him. He says he didn’t do it and we stand by him.”
“We know Aleksandar doesn’t come in and lie. He talks to everyone in that changing room, so we have no problem.”
Enough hypocrisy to go round when something like this happens. Trying to score points here is pretty poor, in my opinion. That’s where I’ll leave it as this is a very contentious issue that’s not exclusive to any one club.
Not sure I see the hypocrisy you talk about, IAP. In both the Kamara and Logan cases, it’s team mates and managers believing what a friend/colleague/team mate has told them based solely on their perceived knowledge of his character. Surely, when the exchange hasn’t been heard, that’s all anyone can base their views on? (Unless, of course, you’re the SFA and take the word of one party over the other for a reason they failed to explain as far as I know).
It will be interesting to see how UEFA deal with it, given that the Slavia player has denied it and his team mates/colleagues/management have believed/backed what he has said.
Nawlite 21st March 2021 At 13:06
That’s a fair point, hypocrisy is possibly not the best word to use so I’ll stick to selective. In this situation it’s pretty common for players/clubs to back their own and believe they were either victims/or not guilty of the accusations.
We could all point to examples where this has happened and selectively exclude using ones that could potentially undermine an argument.
16 250 000 shares in RIFC plc issued from 19 March 2021 according to Companies House.
Total shares now in issue 357 291 872.
Morelos finally scores against Celtic. Is this another record for Rangers to proclaim, the longest time for a Rangers striker to score against Celtic. Does this now increase his value in the transfer market. The title was wrapped up, no pressure on anyone and he manages a tap in.
Hugh Keevins saying Celtic should follow the structural model possessed by their biggest rivals. Would that be the one where the former team known as Rangers stiffed close to 300 creditors, or, is it the one following the mantra of the previous team in spending money they don’t have, living on loans from the directors, or continuing to issue confetti like shares, as John Clark points out earlier. The amount of total shares is unbelievable, what are they worth,
Incredibleadamspark 21st March 2021 At 12:27
Celtic were absolutely panned by the media for backing Tonev. Yet even though a court could not possibly have found him guilty on the evidence available, the SFA contrived to do just that!
Kamara was clearly abused in my view, and if it can actually be proven then it is to be hoped the punishment fits the crime. Having said that if Rangers have locked Slavia out the dressing room in order to attack a player in front of UEFA witnesses as is alleged, there might just be a significant punishment coming Rangers way for that too. I think this has a got a bit to run, and thankfully it will not be dealt with by the Scottish media or the SFA.
Further to my post of 18.34, I forgot to mention that the ‘Investor information’ page on TRFC’s website has not yet been updated to show any changes in directors’ shareholdings.
If Club 1872 has not been a buyer, their percentage holding will be down a little at 4.534% from 4.75%
The price[ paid up] per share was £0.2 , that is, 20p, raising a few bob for current expenditure.
I wonder if the Gibson chap might have been buyer? If he bought the lot, his holding would now be 11.54%, making him the third largest shareholder after King (18.66%) and Park(14.7%)
(But please feel free to check my figure-work!}
@Vernallen – an issue with the Scottish football media is a (complete) lack of financial literacy. You would think that with the financial meltdowns across Scottish football over past 20 years that they would learn some lessons.
I think it was Cluster One who made an earlier reference to a report that the TRFC squad was worth £100m. Firstly I would like to see a breakdown of that valuation. Secondly I would like to understand who the buyers are (no buyer, no sales price). And thirdly unless you are looking to sell the players (were some players being touted?) the number means nothing.
The transfer market across Europe is bandjaxed at this time. Real Madrid and Barcelona have deep seated problems, the French league has lost TV money and EPL clubs (outside of Manchester) are all looking at cost base. For me it makes no sense whatsoever for any Scottish team to keep hold of a high value player where that value drops daily as his contract runs down – so it made complete sense for Celtic to sell Frimpong for a large amount of money when it was clear he wouldn’t sign a new contract.
It will be an interesting summer to see who spends what (net) in Scotland. It will also be interesting to see how long before limited funds leads to that well known condition known as “frustrated manager syndrome”.
Upthehoops 21st March 2021 At 22:01
‘..Kamara was clearly abused in my view, and if it can actually be proven..’
+++++++++++++
I watched and listened to the pre-match discussion on the Sky Sport ‘Now’ feckin app [or whatever] and I think Burke and McFadden and the girl presenter had the alleged offender convicted and sentenced in a way that might expose them to a civil suit for defamation!
Have we not seen splendid examples of how the LAW works?
It doesn’t matter a tuppenny toss that ‘we KNOW he done it’:! If you say on TV that ‘he done it’ without being able to PROVE that ‘he done it’, you can find yourself in court on the wrong end of a substantial damages claim!
(As the Lord Advocate and Chief Constable have found themselves recently!)
If I were a lawyer I think I might be advising the ‘accused’ to requisition a recording of that ‘trial and guilty verdict by TV’ with a view to bringing a potentially lucrative defamation action against Burke, McFadden and Sky TV!
We may have our suspicions. But the minute we assert something as a statement of fact, we’d better make sure we have proof!
I speak as being indirectly/remotely a ‘victim’ of racist/religious abuse myself in this country, and of having been directly viewed with suspicion/hostility in an Australian hospital because I chatted to the ‘first nations ‘ mother of a wee girl with whom my 3 year old granddaughter was happily playing in the kids’ playroom, while her other new-born daughter and my new-born granddaughter were fighting for their lives in intensive care.
And, in the interests of truth, I have to say that I was annoyed at the fatuous stupidity of the commentator who has bought into the ’55 titles’ lie.
workingcelt march 2st 23:05
I think signs of frustrated manager syndrome might be simmering> Recent story had Gerrard mention a number of approaches but he had no intention of moving. Could this be a sign of a lack of funds come the summer and no more spending, live with what you have from the board.
John Clark 21st March 22.16
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/6821348/rangers-1million-investment-rail-tycoon/
Vernallen 21st March 21.51
Did it not occur to you that one of the reasons there was no pressure yesterday was due to the crucial goals scored by Alfredo Morelos at Aberdeen, Hibernian & Livingston in the month of January.
Nine points instead of two.
John
Two sides to every coin indeed.
Although I agree with most folks that Kamara was indeed racially abused, I believe that it will be easier for UEFA to prove what happened in the tunnel post match (especially if the ref was within range). Some may disagree.
In addition, most intriguing to me is whether ‘Gerro’ will be asked to shed any light on ‘tunnelgate’ (Slavia apparently claim he witnessed the kerfuffle) – in the interest of transparency and honesty ye ken.
Anyhoo, whatever happens to Slavia on the racial abuse issue, I feel the home side will be in deep **** with UEFA regarding subsequent events (and don’t forget their on field indiscipline aspect – finishing with 9 men).
Aside from this, I still cannot grasp how an almost 9 year old club can amass 55 league titles in that number of seasons, although I must admit that just over six titles per season is some achievement – especially as they weren’t in the top division for 4 (?) of them!
Could be as many as 11 per season then.
Upthehoops 21st March 2021 At 22:01
To use the Rangers manager supporting one of his players who has allegedly been racially abused as a point scoring exercise about media bias is really poor. Not only was the manufactured outrage quite disingenuous it was also demonstrably incorrect.
A while later the Celtic captain would be in the exact same situation as the one Gerrard found himself in. The media praised both men whilst offering no ‘selective’ advantage to either club.
https://content.invisioncic.com/Mrangmedia/monthly_2021_03/Screenshot_20210322-151228_Twitter.jpg.349bc131070002ff14932d78f230e434.jpg
3.25m could be used to pay bonuses for winning the league although I think the total figure for this achievement maybe higher than that , it could go to pay off the Close loan which according to the last published accounts was still owing and attracting interest , it could go some way to pay off King’s loan of 5m and the 400k interest pa , there’s also the memorial walls claim , the deferred wages , the deferred taxes and a few outstanding transfer fees to be taken into account, then there is Mr Ashley waiting in the shadows awaiting his settlement.
For all the hype in the SMSM about the quality of the Ibrox outfit I doubt it will have much impact elsewhere when it comes to raising funds once the transfer window opens.
It all becomes another balancing act for survival , they need the CL money to get out of the hole they have dug for themselves and they need to add to the squad in order to qualify for the group stages yet will probably have to sell anyone they can in order to stay afloat.
Winning the SPL means very little in performance indicators and losing to Slavia Prague while exposing themselves as hammer throwers won’t fool anyone they are a team of high value talent.
The one thing in their favour is the season tickets should sell out and they won’t hesitate to raise the prices and squeeze the blue pound til it’s dry.
There may also be a large upsurge in sales of mandarin tops but with their new found drive against racism they may want to drop that item ………. or maybe not.
As for Kamaragate it will prove very difficult to prove he was racially abused if Kudela continues to deny it which he no doubt will. Covering his mouth does suggest he was trying to hide his words and I think the abuse did occur but that in itself isn’t enough to convict.
I see the tough policing continued this weekend!
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-news/football-fans-bring-west-lothian-23772029?fbclid=IwAR0SdfZxHuBiSqGx9JH8JMQ3DuMnW-npQA_N4WaZdEviSDLf74K-jrVcaVI
albertz11 22nd march 7:32
Well spotted, however does not explain the not scoring in previous games versus Celtic. Ranger fans were keen to make noise about it and tied to their magical 55. With his ability to score against other clubs, you would have thought it would have happened sooner. Perhaps a certain Mr. Brown had something to say about it.
I think Stevie Gee gets good advice about his career moves from his PR folk and his business entourage. I’m also surprised, though not pleasantly so, that he has punched above his weight, as has his team this year. A quick exit may be the smart political move, but one thing common amongst sport people is that they tend to test themselves to destruction. Maybe because of the necessary self-belief they all possess.
Celtic stumbling on 10IAR twice is a fact which I submit backs that theory up.
Rangers effort this year has been monumental. No doubt about that. My guess is that SG will have advisors suggesting a quick exit to leave the Win Jansen legacy. But his own competitive instinct will see him stay to try to repeat the feat.
Next season, a revitalised Rangers will compete with a New Celtic, a New Aberdeen, a returning Hearts, and filled stands.
Covid will also become a financial leveller, hurting big salaried clubs more than those at the modest end of the scale.
If nothing else, the events of this year have made next years competition all the more interesting. All to play for.
@ Big Pink – agree on the self-belief and testing to destruction point. You could also look at Juventus this season (looking unlikely to achieve 10IAR) and any number of boxers who went back into the ring when already beaten by Old Father Time.
Jumping ship is fine if you have somewhere to land. First time round Lennon resigned with a pretty strong cv but the offers didn’t come – when the offer is there a hasty (undignified but understandable) exit is pretty much par for the course (Rodgers to Leicester is but one example).
I don’t share your confidence yet with regards to full stadiums next season but we can hope that some normality will return.
Vernallen 23rd March 00.42
Whilst it is true that Alfredo Morelos missed several opportunities to score versus Celtic throughout the years, it would be remiss of me if i didn’t mention the part the goalkeepers played in this. Gordon & Forster in particular were instrumental in prolonging this unwanted record.
It is of course now a moot point and joins a plethora of other subjects that provided so many with great entertainment during the past decade but are now consigned to the trash can of history.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56494598
Is it sweaty bum time in the SFA offices Countdown to March 25th and supposedly decision time on the Covid 5. Oh to be a fly on the wall.. tick tock
DD says:” One of Fergus McCann’s tenets was that the Club would be run professionally and that we should never return to the position he inherited where the entire existence of Celtic could be jeopardised by mis-management and unacceptable levels of indebtedness”
As happened, I believe, to the cheating SDM’s club.
A response to one of my letters to Govt re the ‘shameful’ weekend. Pretty standard imo and doesn’t really cover the specific issues I raised, but I guess it’s as good as I’ll get. The last para re the recent derby weekend is disappointing. I guess the Armadale street parade I linked to on here the other day and just the one murder don’t matter that much!
23 March 2021
Dear xxxxxx,
Thank you for your recent correspondence with the Scottish Government about the behaviour of some Rangers supporters earlier this month. Unfortunately due to the very high volume of letters received on this subject, it is not possible to give you a personal reply, but I hope you find the following useful.
The behaviour which we saw over the weekend of 6 and 7 March was disgraceful and the Scottish
Government utterly condemns the minority of individuals who chose to completely disregard the
coronavirus regulations, putting both the wider community and police officers at risk.
Rangers Football Club was asked to put out messages to persuade fans not to go out celebrating and encourage those who did gather in large numbers to return home but did not do so. It was very clear that the messaging from the club did not persuade their fans to celebrate safely and responsibly. TheScottish Government and Police Scotland discussed these issues with the club ahead of the game.
The club was robustly reminded of its obligations at those meetings but did not agree to ask
supporters not to gather. Ultimately though, as the First Minister said in her statement to Parliament on 9 March, “those at fault are those who breached the rules.”
The policing operation was consistent with Police Scotland’s approach throughout this pandemic to
maintain public safety and minimise disorder, disruption and damage to property. Where large
numbers of people gather at an unplanned event such as this the police use established crowd control to keep the public safe and manage those who are refusing to disperse. There were 28
arrests and seven people were issued with fixed penalty notices or will be the subject of a report to the Procurator Fiscal.
The Scottish Government welcomed the referral by the Chief Constable of the Policing response to the Independent Advisory Group chaired by John Scott QC and looks forward to seeing its views on the policing response in due course.
Enforcement of the Covid regulations on mass gatherings are an operational matter for Police
Scotland, and the Scottish Government cannot (by law) direct Police Scotland in their approach. The Scottish Government will work with football clubs, local authorities and Police Scotland to ensure we do everything we can to persuade people that none of these scenes are repeated as the football season continues.
With the support of both clubs, the SFA and SPFL in giving clear and unambiguous messages, the
Old Firm match on 21 March passed off with no repeat of the scenes of the weekend of 6/7 March,
and as Assistant Chief Constable Bernard Higgins said: “I’d like to thank the vast majority of fans from both clubs who took responsibility to prevent the spread of coronavirus by staying at home and not gathering at Celtic Park or anywhere else”, along with confirmation that there had been no arrests.
Yours sincerely
Michael Jackson
POLICE : Finance and Efficiency
Congratulation to Brora.
Not played for 10 weeks. Part time. Members of tier 5= .
Hearts
Full time. 3rd (?) biggest team historically. 3rd (?) biggest budget.
The most embarrassing/worst result in our history.
HS
Nawlite 23rd March 2021 At 18:43
I had to despair when I read the report from the QC that Police Scotland paid to investigate how they managed the Rangers fans gatherings spoke of ‘human rights’, in the rather predictable summation that Police Scotland did just fine over that weekend. I particularly despaired at the thought that the human rights of everyone else who had their Covid risk increased by these gatherings means nothing, I also took it as confirmation that if for example Rangers win the Scottish Cup, then the same gatherings will be permitted regardless of the Covid laws in place.
Higgy’s Shoes 23rd March 2021 At 22:09
We’ve all had embarrassing/worst results in our history. Doesn’t make it any easier when it happens to the team we support, but the way we all feel when it does happen is what makes us football fans. At least you will be watching top flight football again next season.
A bad result for a former supremo .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56508619
Paddy Malarkey 24th March 2021 At 12:29
“.A bad result for a former supremo ”
++++++++++++++
From the FIFA report:
“.This vicious circle saw three of them (Blatter, Grondona and Valcke) signing the amendment contracts of the others and approving the respective extraordinary bonuses, while the fourth (Kattner) was in charge of implementing the payment of such bonuses (as well as of keeping the matter “off the books”, by not reflecting the bonuses in the Fifa financial statements and NOT REPORTING them to the Fifa auditors).”
++++++++++
Well, well, well!
That ‘non-reporting’ has a familiar ring to it, does it not?
Oh, that the US soccer/the FBI had had an interest in Scottish football!
Are there any Sepp Blatters and his fellow rippers-off in our wee Scottish Football world, I wonder?
John Clark 24th March 2021 At 13:13
Scottish football now has some American owners so never say never !
Make of this what you will .
https://www.rangers.co.uk/article/150-years-of-rangers-football-club/15xSSVGyaVsdkLMEXxk8rb
Something for the SFA/SPFL to bear in mind when complaints regarding referee’s performances come to light. A senior NHL official has been advised that he will never work another game as a comment he made regarding calling a penalty during a game was picked up by a live microphone, The incident occurred Tuesday night and the announcement regarding his termination came today. The league didn’t want the integrity of the game to be compromised. Now that’s a way league officials should be acting, not taking almost 6 weeks to decide the outcome of the Covid 5.
Paddy Malarkey 24th March 2021 At 20:28
‘.Make of this what you will ..'(and link)
++++++++++++
As the single biggest untruth ever facilitated and endorsed by any sports “governance body” and supported by a rotten corrupted “sports” press….
I give you, from the ‘ ‘rse’s mouth:
“IN March 2022, Rangers Football Club will celebrate the monumental milestone of the club’s 150th anniversary.”
In reality and Truth, a football club whose application for membership of a Scottish Professional Football Club was ,reluctantly enough, granted in 2012, and whose membership of the SFA dates from that same year ,
will be FALSELY CLAIMING to be 150 years old.
Absurdly so, given that in the papers and documents in the hands variously of D&P, BDO , the SPFL and the SFA will be copies of
the letter to the Administrators from the SPL asking for the surrender of RIFC plc’s share certificate and
copies of CG’s application to have his SevcoScotland admitted as a new club into the SPL/SFL, and
copies of the letter refusing such admission into the SPL, and
copies of correspondence relating to the desperate attempts by Mr Longmuir (was it?) to get them into even the lowest division :
not to mention a copy of the admission into SFA membership of the new club as a new club at a certain date in 2012, after a period of conditional membership as ‘Club 12’
Honest to God, you really couldn’t keep up with barstewards who can lie so unashamedly in face of he evidence!
The four honest young lads of 1872 will be turning in their graves at the deceit practiced in their HONOURABLE names by those who care not a whit about personal honour and integrity never mind the concept of Sporting Integrity .
[ Traditionally, of course, bad guys in general ,do not trust each other, or other baddies, so each white-collar baddie tends to keep bits and pieces in reserve to help him out of any potential future difficulty, being never sure that necessary shredding/deletion may have been carried out]
The lie is so bloody blatantly ridiculous that , as said before, I think I am more annoyed at being thought stupid enough to believe it than I am at the intention to lie!!
Paddy M, we all know that they protesteth too much. Between the 150th and the recent constant ’55’, they’re just trying too hard, which gives away their fear. They all remember crying when they lost the club so they have to shout loud to drown out that memory.
Vernallen 24th March 2021 At 22:12
‘..A senior NHL official has been advised that he will never work another game as a comment he made regarding calling a penalty during a game was picked up by a live microphone,’
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Geez, Vernallen, you had me going for minute there, trying to remember whether our Highland league had ‘National’ in its title!!
You mde me google and I see this :
“During Tuesday night’s game between the Nashville Predators and Detroit Red Wings, referee Tim Peel was caught on a hot mic discussing a tripping penalty he called with a fellow official. Peel admitted that the action he called a penalty for “wasn’t much” but said he “wanted to get a f—ing penalty against Nashville.”
What a relief, that it wasn’t a Scottish football referee!
What a scandal that would be here! Nearly as bad as would have been a BBC radio sports editor making sure that anyone employed under him would not be of a differing religious background!
Would never have happened. Eh? Whit?
[Incidentally, I see the obituary of Alastair Alexander in today’s ‘The Scotsman’.
I note that in respect of his football commentator function, he ‘took his original inspiration from the great Peter Thomson.’
Being inspired by Peter Thomson ?
Not a particularly valuable recommendation, I would say.]
Nawlite 24th March 2021 At 22:51
‘..They all remember crying when they lost the club so they have to shout loud to drown out that memory.’
+++++++++++++
Yes.
They KNEW , as did Traynor and the other football hacks, that Liquidation meant the same for them as it had meant for Gretna and Third Lanark et al.
They knew of the huge efforts Hearts had made to avoid the death sentence of being liquidated, because liquidation of a football club meant the end of its history: it would be forever a club that had ceased to live , except in the fond memory of its supporters.
Baffled, disoriented, world upside down, the RFC of 1872 supporters fell prey to the likes of CG and his successors and happily swallowed the most absurd nonsense.
I have some sympathy on an emotional level.
But for the sport’s governance body to help create the nonsense and further propagate a fundamental untruth is simply unacceptable.
It’s an act worse than if that body’s officers were accepting ( like some in FIFA] personal backhanders!
John Clark 24th march 22:58
There is only one city in the NHL that comes close to encountering something close to your religious reference. The city is in a province with a strong French background and to be on the coaching staff of that team it is a huge bonus to be either French or fluently bi-lingual. They have had unilingual coaching staffs but the tenure has been short-lived. There no overt preferences based on religion in the workings of this league.
Picking up on Vernallen’s point on swiftness of process. I can’t for the life of me understand why a professional game is run in such an amateur fashion in Scotland, particularly when it comes to disciplinary matters and a level playing field. To take just one area as an example can anyone explain to me the reasoning behind the dispensing of penalties:
“Aberdeen pub night-out” – occurred on 1st August, dealt with on 28th August.
Bolingoli trip to Spain – came to light on 10/11th August, dealt with on 28th August.
Edmundson party breach – on 1st November, dealt with on 19th November.
Rangers COVID 5 – came to light on 17th/18th February, to be dealt with 25th March.
All of the above points, at best to an organisation that is not fit for purpose. In each case rules were clear and were breached (the Aberdeen players may have had some ignorance over the rules in thinking they could socialise together but ignorance is not a defence). There are no excuses for this shambolic and shameful administration of our game.
You may remember I complained to BBC Scotland a couple of weeks back about their 6.30pm Scottish News introduction talking about TRFC’s recovery from relegation to win the league. They have now responded admitting that their report was inaccurate. The pertinent quotes are…..
“In introducing Chris McLaughlin’s report on the return of Rangers FC, over the last decade, to be the newly-crowned Scottish Premiership champions, news presenter Laura Miller said:
“We’ll look at the club’s journey from financial collapse and relegation back to the top of the Scottish game.”
This was an introduction intended to succinctly summarise Rangers’ journey back to the pinnacle of Scottish football.
We acknowledge, however, that it was inaccurate to refer to Rangers’ “relegation” as the club were not relegated from the Scottish Premiership following their financial collapse but, rather, sought and gained admission to the Scottish League in Division Three.”
I’m glad I (and others probably) forced them to acknowledge the fact that that specific part of the ‘victim lie’ is nonsense. For me, it is very important to have that acknowledged publicly because it is a supporting part of the ‘survival lie’ and needs to be called out. While it’s good that they have acknowledged the lie in their reporting, they have ignored my request that they apologise for the inaccuracy in a future 6.30pm news broadcast, so I have gone back to them asking them again to do so. After all, it was that large audience of a flagship broadcast that they lied to so I feel it is only right that they set the facts straight to that same audience. If they refuse to do so, I will then refer the matter to Ofcom who will see my argument as fair.
As John Clark knows, the BBC admission mirrors the same admission I wrought out of the SPF in March 2015 when they stated “Had Rangers Oldco been able to agree a CVA with its creditors, then it should have been able to emerge from administration (as did Hearts and Dunfermline) without further sporting sanctions. However, a CVA was rejected by Oldco’s creditors. This led to Oldco being liquidated. Newco applied for membership of the SFL and was granted associate membership but on condition it started in SFL Division Three. Newco bought the assets of Oldco from the administrations and took Rangers FC into the SFL. Rangers FC were not relegated from the SPL.”
SO I have 2 official (?) bodies confirming Rangers were not relegated. Now I just need to work out a way of getting similar to admit that it was the liquidation of the club and not the (separate, bah!) company that caused them to start afresh in tier 3.
Nawlite 25th March 2021 At 13:28
‘..You may remember I complained to BBC Scotland a couple of weeks back about their 6.30pm Scottish News introduction talking about TRFC’s recovery from relegation to win the league. They have now responded admitting that their report was inaccurate. .’
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Very well done, Nawlite, to have wrung that admission of ‘inaccuracy’ from the scaredy-cats at Pacific Quay!
But, as you say, their lying propaganda about TRFC being RFC of 1872 is still there in this:
‘…We acknowledge, however, that it was inaccurate to refer to Rangers’ “relegation” as the club were not relegated from the Scottish Premiership following their financial collapse but, rather, sought and gained admission to the Scottish League in Division Three.”
They simply refuse to acknowledge the truth that RFC of 1872 actually lost its entitlement to be part of Scottish Football by entering liquidation and that it was a brand new creation , not the liquidated RFC of 1872, that was allowed to buy a share in the SPFL and qualify for membership of the SFA.
There is perversity there , a deliberate intention to lie, in the minds of those at Pacific Quay, because no intelligent rational being could possibly deny the fact of the Liquidation of RFC of 1872 or the fact that SevcoScotland had to apply for membership as a new football club!
People of that mindset have no legitimate place in publicly funded broadcasting, as being venal, cowardly, fearful, prejudiced people ready to sell their souls in a matter of Sport!
What would they do in really serious matters?
Why, what else but sell out Truth if that saved their miserable skins and/or lined their pockets. Ja wohl!
May those at BBC Scotland who are liquidation deniers and propagandists of ‘the same club’ nonsense never enjoy peace of mind , as being the minor ‘Judases’ [ is that a word? but you know what I mean] that they are.
John Clark 25th March 2021 At 23:33
Nawlite 25th March 2021 At 13:28
I remember the report you are talking about that spoke of Rangers ‘relegation’. I used to write to BBC complaints but gave up because the establishment, of which BBC is very much part, are hard to beat.
On a podcast recently Archie Macpherson once again referred to BBC bias against Celtic during his time there, and how Jock Stein reacted to it. No doubt anyone complaining then would be labelled paranoid as they are now, but just because you are paranoid does not mean they’re not out to get you. Going back to the original point someone in BBC determined that the word ‘Relegation’ was to be used regarding Rangers and the presenter was only delivering what someone who clearly has a personal agenda approved suitable for broadcast. I suspect a very pro-Rangers man who works in the background at BBC was behind it.
In 2012 I said to my friend that the liquidation of Rangers meant there was no longer any hiding place for their friends in the media. How naïve could I have been, and I should already have seen the warning signs given that people who condemned tax evasion on the front pages were demanding it be overlooked on the back pages.
UTH 26th March 07.25.
Tax evasion?
Tax avoidance as was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2017.
Big difference UTH.
John C, UTH, there is no doubt in my mind that people at BBC Scotland are choosing to propagate the Big Lie, both from a personal point of view and to keep the Rangers fans onside. Even the quotes I posted where they admit they lied about relegation read like they were written by a TRFC fan – “This was an introduction intended to succinctly summarise Rangers’ journey BACK TO THE PINNACLE OF SCOTTISH FOOTBALL.”
Of course, it was not at all intended to succinctly summarise the relevant events but was instead intended to place the relegation lie there in support of the Big Lie. The rest of their response to my complaint regurgitated the ‘BBC Trust says…’ response that I and many other posters have received before. I didn’t ask them to comment on the Big Lie though admit I did slag them off for being wedded to it. As you say, UTH, it is difficult to provide clear enough evidence to change their mind on the Big Lie, but I will continue to search for ways.
In my case, they HAD to accept they were wrong due to their having previously reportedly accurately on the Bookmaker case. I am now wondering if using their accurate report on the death of Rangers in 2012 and specifically complaining about their new stance of reporting it as the same club might bear some fruit for me.
To day, while reading about the investigation into Boris Johnson’s alleged ‘fag’ at Eton ,David Cameron, I learned that there there is such a thing as the “Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act” . (Cameron is alleged to have ‘engaged in unregistered consultant lobbying’]
For some reason my mind turned idly to the representations supposedly made by certain MSPs in the Scottish Parliament on behalf of the tax-defaulting FC plc in 2012.
I idly wondered whether any such supposed representations could be considered as ‘lobbying’ by ‘unregistered persons’ under the Act.
Sadly, I saw that the Act was passed only in 2014 so I suppose it wouldn’t apply to anything that happened in 2012.
[Unconnectedly, I don’t know what to make of the story of Major-General Nick Welch, except that he perhaps did not attend the right school, and folk were ready to blow the whistle.
I can think of number of folk in Scottish Football governance circles who deserve longer jail sentences for their breach of the trust put in them than that handed out to the Major-General for a ‘personal’ crime.}
Nawlite 26th March 2021 At 13:47
John Clark 26th March 2021 At 17:42
At the risk of going over old ground, I believe the BBC Trust ruling which is constantly referred to was made based on information provided by the SFA. It also ignored the absolute fact that there was no separate club and holding company at the time of liquidation. I think that says it all! As I say though, going over old ground, but that won’t stop while the Scottish media continue to spin downright lies.
Upthehoops 26th March 2021 At 18:58
‘..I believe the BBC Trust ruling which is constantly referred to was made based on information provided by the SFA. ‘
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””
As with the RES 12 issue , so with ‘Big Lie’ issue:
the Res12 matter raised issues of the possible complicity of the SFA in a financial swizzle with a cash-strapped club. Who decided that there should not be an independent investigation? The SFA. Is anything to be made of that refusal? It looks suspicious.
For a view on whether RFC plc ceased to be entitled to participate in Scottish Football on entering Liquidation, who was asked ? Why, none other than the very body that allegedly CREATED the BIG LIE that TRFC is RFC of 1872. Can anything be made of that? It looks suspicious.
And the mere passage of time does nothing to lessen the suspicion.
John Clark 26th March 2021 At 19:42
Again, this is old ground, but it has never been satisfactorily answered and I doubt if it ever will be. Many people think simple commercialism drove decisions but as one brought up in the West of Scotland and still living there I simply can’t accept that there was no bias at play either. There is a natural order in the minds of many influential people and that has been especially evident again these past few weeks. Rangers will always be viewed as the head of that natural order no matter what. Even if it costs the taxpayer tens of millions. Quite why the Celtic Board are willing to accept that is another matter. Ironically the only person to effectively state Celtic were not prepared to sit at the back of the bus was John Reid, who was disliked by much of the support. How I wish he had been around today to call out the appalling discrimination applied by the Scottish Government in terms of Covid Breaches in Scottish football.
Two items in the news today struck a chord with me. Firstly the teacher in a Batley grammar school in England being placed in fear of his life for displaying an image/caricature of the Islamic religious figure Mohammed and secondly that Fox news channel in America are being sued for defamation by Dominion (the voting machine manufacturer used in the presidential elections in the USA). There is an attempt to prevent the teacher in question from disagreeing with a minority faction who are trying to impose their opinion/will on the secular majority who refuse to accept the writings of the Koran as the absolute truth on the matter. I see an obvious parallel in Scottish professional football. Dominion are suing Fox for repeatedly calling into question the accuracy and integrity of the devices supplied to various states for counting of votes. Dominion to their credit are standing up for their reputation and calling out Fox and others as purveyors of lies, and of fanning the flames of distrust by giving air to ‘alternative fact’ propagandists on a regular basis. Unfortunately in this second instance I see no parallel.
Upthehoops 26th March 2021 At 20:55
‘..Many people think simple commercialism drove decisions but as one brought up in the West of Scotland and still living there I simply can’t accept that there was no bias at play either.’
+++++++++++++++++++
Well, at the very least, extraordinary measures were taken , secretly, and lies were made up, whatever the principal motivation.
Perhaps more importantly, we used to look to the ‘serious MSM’ to try to ferret out the lies of ‘business’.
But here in this wee country, the MSM are propagandists of the lie that TRFC is Rangers of 1872.
The fact that liars support the lie is evidence only of perversity of mind, not that the lie is the truth.
Old Galileo could chuckle to himself. He had unassailable facts, that no Pope, Emperor, King or resident on the south bank of the Clyde could refute.
We can chuckle likewise when we say ‘RFC of 1872’ ceased to exist as a football club participating in Scottish professional football.
And we know that those in football governance KNOW that they are liars, because they were the very ones who turfed them out of membership of the SFA when the SPL called in their share in that company!
At the end of the day, and at the end of their lives, that knowledge is and will be their punishment.
They are/will be a cause of shame to their seed breed and generation.
And for what? selling their professional and personal integrity for the sake of preserving the memory of a defunct football club by denying its death!
Honest to God, you couldny make it up!
Since Sevco/Rangers aren’t playing this week, I see the rumor mill has opened with what will no doubt a continuing saga of major clubs interested in their players. Seems it starts up about this time every year but I don’t recall them concluding any major transactions, outgoing that is. Whose name will come up next.
If Alex McLeish believes players will influence the Celtic board on a management appointment, he has lost touch with reality. Its hard to believe the board would take a major decision like this based on whether the candidate was liked or not. Were Ranger players consulted about Pedro, Warburton, etc.
I was amused to read in the ‘Scotsman’ this morning a moan about someone claiming “credit for others’ work” in the field of politics.
You might share my amusement when I say that the moaner is none other than a non-executive Director of Celtic plc.
Brian Wilson is the moaner. Yes the self-same Wilson who has nothing to say about the most blatant example ever of people in the field of Sport claiming credit for the work of others, that example being TRFC which as a nearly 9-year-old football club lies about its sporting history!
[ ‘The Scotsman’ today, page 21, ‘Scottish Perspective’ ]
Upthehoops 26th March 2021 At 20:55
Again, this is old ground, but it has never been satisfactorily answered and I doubt if it ever will be. Many people think simple commercialism drove decisions but as one brought up in the West of Scotland and still living there I simply can’t accept that there was no bias at play either.
.
The establishment need a flag waving establishment club UTH. It doesn’t have to be a real club. Anything will do. I will suggest it rises above bias. It’s possible to believe that the SFA and a Sevco re-hash of a club once called Rangers could hold sway over the sports pages, but we have seen that the sway is also held over a much broader, and more powerful spectrum than they can ever hope to reach.
The sums involved in the original deceptions are staggering, but the continued costs to the legal system and compo pay-out system(with more in the pipeline) are beyond belief……..Hardly a dickie-bird uttered. That comes from a level above Klaxon Jack it in son’s paygrade. Other, more powerful forces are at play.
.
Vernallen 27th March 2021 At 00:57
If Alex McLeish believes players will influence the Celtic board on a management appointment, he has lost touch with reality.
.
Maybe in his experience of managing and job hunting he is correct. : )
Well, I don’t know about anybody else, but that was a great game of football between Dundee and Dunfermline!
5 goals, with two really brilliant ones, some super saves, 100 % effort all round and plenty of good skill, nearly perfect refereeing, and sportsmanship all round.
As a neutral, I would have paid full whack for that entertainment any week of the year.
We still have the word Invincible being attached to the Rangers season. I believe it would be correct to loosely apply it to their as yet undefeated league campaign, but, to use in comparison to Celtic’s invincible season is wrong an more than somewhat lazy on the part of journalists. A league cup defeat would be cause to remove the term invincible from any story. The need to be constantly to have your name attached to a feat accomplished by another club is pandering to the lowest level. To have accomplished the treble in an undefeated season is truly remarkable, to have an undefeated league season (to date) is remarkable, but the overall season still has a blip on it and there may be more to come. The comparison in regards to points total, goals scored, etc is a little tedious as well.
Vernallen 27th March 2021 At 22:00
‘..The need to be constantly to have your name attached to a feat accomplished by another club ..’
++++++++++++++++++++++
Remember, Vernallen, that what we have is a club desperately living on a lie.
And supported in that lie by lying journalists.
They lied to the Market that they are the RFC of 1872. They now simply have to keep on lying, untruth being part of their genetic make-up.
As do the lying journalists.
Albertz11 26th March 2021 At 10:28
UTH 26th March 07.25.
Tax evasion?
Tax avoidance as was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2017.
Big difference UTH.
++++++++++++++++
Semantics. What Rangers did was ruled to be illegal. The fact so many Rangers fans think it was actually okay is quite incredible. They can claim to be the same club if they want. They can spout as much as they like about 55 titles. However, a court ruled that they illegally cheated the public purse out of tens of millions in order to give them a better chance against opponents who did not cheat the public purse. A lot of the 55 titles were won on the back of that tax cheating. What a stain on the history that they claim was never broken. Ironically the so called 55th title was celebrated with another huge illegal event, with zero consideration for others and a massive sense of entitlement, just like the tax cheating.
American businesswoman Leona Mindy Roberts Helmsley once said “We don’t pay taxes; only the little people pay taxes”. I always think of that whenever the arrogance over Rangers tax cheating rears its head. Only in Scotland.
Vernallen 27th March 22.00
I don’t believe a loss in a cup competition affects the invincible status of any club, which may or may not include Rangers FC depending on the post split results
Arsenal lost in both cup competitions in 03/04 and are still referred to as the “invincibles” are they not?
UTH 28th March 10.22.
Not semantics at all UTH.
As you are well aware there is a difference between the two and as you, unintentionally i’m sure, chose the incorrect term i simply corrected it.
Surely one of the aims of the blog was to challenge any untruths and as your use of “tax evasion” and not “tax avoidance” falls into this category i am entitled to point this out.
Vernallen
Make no mistake, should the outfit from Govania go undefeated in the league campaign, it will be reported as emulating Celtic’s invincible (in all domestic competitions) season – implying, to the less informed, that this somehow would be ‘on a par’!
Just in case any of the SMSM are of a mind to cancel ( very fashionable in some areas of society these days) any of my club’s achievements, may I remind anyone with a short memory that Celtic won the European Cup in 1967 and are the only Scottish team to complete 91AR – TWICE.
Finally, a SEVCO supporting member of my (extended!) family came to visit the other day – triumphantly sporting an orange top emblazoned with RFC. I had a normal t-shirt on, but then changed into my quadruple treble top and sat beside him! Nuff said! He wiz ragin! – especially when my son took a foti!
Seriously folks. Invincible. Who gives a toss what they report. It’s Semantic Sunday after all. Invincible/not, evasion/avoidance.
Albertz’s Arsenal comparison is correct IMO, but the two achievements (if the latter is achieved) are apples and peaches. Both are outstanding achievements, ‘though one doesn’t emulate the other.
It’s all deflection, another squirrel on the loose. And all as a consequence of an absence of humility, the WATP mentality gone off the rails.
So there I am pottering about the kitchen preparing some vegetables for later on, listening ( in spite of the pain her strident voice causes me) to the general chat about tonight’s Israel game.
The last guest was Alec McLeish.
And guess what?
Jane’Absolutely’ gets his views on the prospects for tonight, and then, straight out of the blue [as it were] but no doubt scripted in advance, gives McLeish the opportunity to propagandise by getting him to talk about TRFC’s wonderful year and come out with the untruth that TRFC has won the 55th title.
I confess I never ‘liked ‘McLeish .
I now have no more time for him, or for anything he has to say, than I have for BBC Controller Scotland and the other broadcasters who have been cowed into becoming propagators of, and propagandists for ,the myth that TRFC is RFC of 1872.
Thankfully, I’m not likely ever to meet any of them in person: I would be scrubbing myself for months to get rid of the moral contagion.
We could be doing with somebody of this calibre tonight . From The Guardian .
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/mar/26/steve-archibald-barcelona-tottenham-terry-venables-diego-maradona-scotland
Albertz11 28th march 10:29
Enjoy the verbal sparring but surely a loss in any competition in the league calendar year puts a dent in the term invincible. as for Arsenal and there claim to this accolade does this not come from the English press who forever live in the land of the world cup of 1966 and believe they are the best league in the world despite English shortcomings in any major international tournaments. If not for the obscene television money foisted on them, how many of the teams in the top tier survive.
Bect67 28 March 12:22
Would have enjoyed photos of the occasion.
Might be the only team (ever) to go invincible in a title race with no red cards given against them and no penalties conceded. Some achievement and with no pressure been shown or felt, you would think someone had their back covered in that department.
Vernallen 28th March 20.25
Does “a loss in any competition” apply to domestic football only?. If not then the “invincibles” of 2016/17 were found to be far from it.
Going unbeaten through a league campaign is more common than I had realised (and in Europe the frequency seems to have increased in recent times, although this is almost certainly impacted by the increase in national leagues Eastern Europe, Balkans, etc). Steaua Bucharest actually did three unbeaten leagues campaigns on the bounce in the 80s (as did Lincoln Red Imps in 2009-12…).
Of course Arsenal were not the original “ Invincibles” as this term was coined for Preston North End who were unbeaten in season 1888-89, also winning the FA Cup that season (there was no League Cup to play for) so unbeaten through the season. As noted by Albertz11 Arsenal did not win the Cups in 03-04 so a pale imitation of the original Invincibles according to many.
I see RTC back on Twitter on same day as Sun comments on Mr McCann and his EBT bill of £700,000 having an effect on his divorce proceedings. Article actually states club went into administration followed by liquidation. Also stated Newco formed and had to enter third Div . Always good to here from RTC.
Albertz11 26th March 2021 At 10:28
UTH 26th March 07.25.
Tax evasion?
Tax avoidance as was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2017.
Big difference UTH.
Tax evasion means concealing income or information from tax authorities — and it’s illegal. Tax avoidance means legally reducing your taxable income.
It was tax evasion so illegal
Every player whos income went throught SFA was tax evasion
“Tax evasion is when you use illegal practices to avoid paying tax. This could include not reporting all of your income, not filing a tax return, hiding taxable assets from HMRC or using fake offshore accounts.”
Income hidden and side letters confirmed it, so taxable income was hidden and would be hidden on their tax returns.
See where the DR is at it again outlining the money Rangers may garner from a Champions League run. I thought there was another Scottish team who has an avenue to the same pot of money (although it may be difficult), still they have the opportunity. The $46 million could go along way to covering the losses incurred in recent years and maybe paying back some of the outstanding loans. Hopefully their directors don’t see the $46 million as a given and spend it today.
Everyone at Ibrox knew what they were involved in.
The players had indemnity letters…… Why?
Their true remunerations were not declared on their registration papers……Why?
The maj shareholder, Minty, lied when asked if side letters existed…….Why?
The club itself, shredded incriminating documentation………Why?
Dishonest claims were submitted on Euro license application(s)……..Why?
The president of the SFA, Campbell Ogilvie, mislead Billy Nimmo Smith……..Why?
Being pedantic about terminology makes it no less abhorrent. Rangers suffered the ultimate consequence of their deceit and fraudulent acts…..Liquidation !
Their victims are still seeking redress through the legal system.
It’s quite simple when one sticks to the facts and ignores the fiction.
A new club entered the league system, and changed it’s name to a Rangersy sounding one.
The original Rangers was wound up and no longer exists, other than on court papers.
Currently, two clubs called “Rangers” are in the court systems awaiting judgements on quite distinct and separate matters.
Good afternoon all.
I’ve not been on here for months, but received an email about funding ( I’ve donated small amounts before) so thought I would click in .
Glad I did . Sanity prevails.
My auld Da goes into a nursing home this afternoon, 91 years young, dementia and it’s impact has now brought on the need for some respite care at best , which might be permanent.
My mum (88) , the carers , myself and my sister have faced up to the the harsh reality , that he now needs 24 hr professional care .
My da would only shake his head in disbelief at the on going nonsense of 55 .
If only he was fit enough in mind , I could have offered my acknowledgment that what he’s been saying for decades is true. I often argued it wasn’t.
Celtic & Rangers ( old or new) only care about themselves and each other.
Two cheeks of the same arse , so to speak.
His opinion was broadly based on how they managed to be wasteful with young talent rather than nourish it .
It was always about money, and being the 2 bully’s in a wee school playground. His love is for the game rather than a team. Any game. Pass, move , challenge, compete . Expose full backs, and central defenders. Skin them with skill or pace , you get my drift. He stopped coaching beyond 14 year olds because the appearance of scouts on the touch line gave parents delusions of wonga or grandeur. The team became about the individual, in some parents eyes.
He seldom backed a favourite at the horses, a wee look at the parade ring would tell him if a horse was fit or ready. Scouts phoned him for an opinion on many young players.
He’s got an eye for both . Potential in players and in horses.
If only I could explain he was right about the Old Firm.The web of deceit that’s been sown . How it still exists when one , literally passed away is a thing of wonder.
55 or Santa coming down everyone’s chimney is roughly along the same lines .
Celtic and every other club are complicit in this nonsense.
If there was any justice ( don’t laugh) within the game, LNS wouldn’t have been a sham , it would have been the catalyst for change.
The latest judgement , a while back, not to send the European licence issue to the court of arbitration for sport, because the “ implications are to severe “ sums up the shit show that masquerades as sport.
It takes me back to a line in the 1st autobiography I ever read .
Bill Shankly stated that football in Scotland was dominated by politics , which came before the actual game itself.
Much like my dad , Shankly loved the game. The people that payed into watch from the Kop etc , were just as important as the players to Shankly .
Privilege was the word he used to describe to the players what it meant, to play in front of fanatical fans . They mattered.
Jock Stein said similar. Without fans , football is nothing.
The sad thing is , some folk believe it still is sport . Then again, for some, who control the game, sport never really mattered.
It’s all about a share price. It’s about some warped supremacy. It’s about power & privilege.
The beautiful game ?
Where’s the next World Cup ?
I think it’s Junior fitba now for me , at least it’s still got it’s soul .
Take care folks .
Angel Gabriel
Welcome. Fair old swishing about with that sword of yours. We could use it?
Excellent contribution which is pretty much I think where most of us are at.
Any news anywhere of the outcome of the Ibrox 5 investigation ? Nothing on the SFA Disciplinary Updates page .
A wee bit disappointed that Martin O’Neill in briefly mentioning RFC’s success and the relativities between Celtic and RFC of 1872 at tht time, did not take the opportunity of reminding the world of Scottish football that RFC 1872 cheated the taxman and lied to the SPL and SFA for a decade or more about what they were paying their players, in case that info reached the taxman!
Jane ‘Absolutely’ offered McLeish a wee platform to spout pis* about the 55 yesterday: no danger of Kenny McIntyre inviting MON to say anything about SDM’s ta evasion!
[Sportsound five or ten mins ago]
John Clarke 18.43pm
Martin is only following a trend that he’s kept for years regards EBT’s . He’s always maintained to the media, that the games were won & lost on the park.
I’m always suspicious that he’s towing the line of Celtics major shareholder who, avoids any contentious comments about the RFC implosion like the plague.
On the subject of EBT’s my mind was drawn back to the peculiar circumstances of Arthur Newman , who signed for RFC in 1998, and left in 2003.
When contract negotiations were made public, Newman’s agent declared that RFC had only offered half the salary that his then contract was worth.
A press release ( I used to read the papers then ) by RFC disputed what the agent had said.
RFC insisted they offered him the same wages.
I remember thinking this was a strange difference of opinion.
This was when we were blissfully unaware that a certain club decided to cook the books , dodge tax and not follow the proper registration guidelines for player contracts.
Did RFC offer the half his wage and promise that the difference would be supplied by an EBT ?
Was Newman on the list of EBT recipients ?
In answer to my question –
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/19196217.rangers-five-players-wait-covid-punishment-hearing-breach-government-rules/
A wee birdy told me that there was a concerted effort by high heid yins to scupper the enquiry ,the conclusions and the punishments . Or just made representations .
Angel Gabriel 29th March 2021 At 20:29
‘.Was Newman on the list of EBT recipients ?’
++++++++++++
This guy was!
“Arthur Numan, £510,000: Dutch full-back arrived at Rangers from PSV Eindhoven in 1998 for £4.5million. Played 118 times.”
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-big-tax-case-who-6767682
I’m sorry I looked at that list, to see the names of BBC Sportsounds Rangers Former Players fan club-McCann, Dodds ,Thomson…..
To be fair to them, they’ve been very loyal in supporting the Big Lie myth!
My post of 21.32 this evening refers:
With appropriate acknowledgment I take this from a 2018 article at http://www.talkingbaws.com/2018/01/arthur-numan-says-rangers-offered-80-wage-cut-stay-club/
“Arthur Numan Says Rangers Offered Him 80% Wage Cut to Stay at the Club
Arthur Numan has revealed Rangers tried to stop him from retiring – but only offered him a deal which would amount to an 80% cut to his weekly wages.
The former Holland international moved to Ibrox in the summer of 1998 under manager Dick Advocaat, and went on to prove himself as one of the club’s all-time best left-backs before retiring after the victorious 2003 Scottish Cup Final.
Notoriously fit and healthy, Numan was 33 when he decided to hang-up his boots and could’ve easily managed another couple of years in the Scottish Premiership.
And in an interview with Open Goal and Simon Ferry, Numan has confirmed the club’s hierarchy tried to keep him at the club for the 2003/04 season – but the drop in salary just wasn’t appealing.
He said: “I was discussing another contract in the January with Martin Bain in the Dubai training camp and they offered me a contract but I thought they were taking the mickey.
“Before that I had spoke to them and I said ‘I know the situation with the club but I’m happy and I’ve always been treated well’ and I wanted to take a wage cut of 40%. But they offered me a contract that I think was 80% less.
“It didn’t feel good to accept that offer so unfortunately I had to leave. I had five great seasons and I had the best time of my career in Scotland.
“We won the Scottish Cup 1-0 thanks to Lorenzo’s header and it was a fantastic end to the season and for me because it was my last game for Rangers.
“I came to Rangers and won the treble and then after five years I won the treble again and it was brilliant.
“The sponsors Tennants made a banner for me ‘Thank you for the memories’ and when I held it and at that time it was strange because it was last game but I thought I would take my time before making a decision for the future.
“I had offers from PSV Eindhoven, Feyenoord, from one or two English clubs and Spanish clubs but I thought I would take my time to make a decision because also in the July my daughter was born.
“I had an offer to join LA Galaxy from 18-months but I said ‘no I can’t do it I need to stay with my wife’.
“Then I thought I’ve got enough. I seen all the teams preparing themselves for pre-season and I thought I don’t want this anymore.
“Then I announced my retirement and it came as a surprise becasue they all expect me to play for another year or two.
“When I thought back on it when I was holding the banner ‘Thank you for the memories’ I didn’t know it was going to be my last game – it’s as if it was fate.
“My last two games of my career I won the league, the Scottish Cup and the treble so you can’t ask for more.
“When I got the chance to sign for Rangers I didn’t know what to expect here. But it says a lot that after I left I spent another seven years staying here.”
The writer of the article adds :’ Of course, Rangers didn’t hit serious financial trouble until around 2011, but perhaps Numan’s anecdote shows that the belt needed tightening way before that’
…….”
Albertz11 28th March 21:31
It maybe time to re-define what the term invincible refers to when it comes to football. As you state does it only apply to domestic leagues and to hell with European competitions. If any of the teams lost in any of the competitions the term invincible should not apply. However going a full league season undefeated has merit and should be acknowledged. If winning a treble, going undefeated, should merit extra attention due to the fact one off games can provide a slippery slope. Perhaps the journalists that keep throwing the term around could dig into a dictionary, old school, or google the definition of invincible. Based on the quality of writing from some of them it may be a job too far.
The SFA issued a notice of complaint against the 5 ibrox players The covid 5.
Aprinciple hearing date was set for March 25, 2021.
It has gone very quite on it.
Cluster One 29th March 23.05.
Will be announced tomorrow (Tuesday) CO.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/ex-gers-chief-charles-green-23817200
Ex-Rangers FC chief Charles Green asked to testify in £56.8m claim that Ibrox should’ve been sold off
Green set to appear in a court case brought by liquidators BDO who allege iconic stadium should’ve been sold to pay off debts.
Former Rangers chief executive Charles Green is being asked to give evidence in a £56.8 million action brought by a financial firm over claims Ibrox should have been sold to pay off debt.
Green is being called in by the club’s former administrators, David Whitehouse and Paul Clark, over allegations they should’ve sold off the stadium and other assets while in control of the club.
Rangers’ liquidator, BDO, have mounted the case against the pair, claiming the lack of an asset sale left less cash to split among creditors.
Lawyers acting for Whitehouse and Clark have asked Green to give evidence at the Court of Session.
Andrew Young QC told judge Lord Tyre on Monday that solicitors are awaiting for a response from Green, who is believed to live in France.
…………….
May the 4 2021 looks like a good day in court. Will you be there JC?
Cluster One 29th March 2021 At 23:59
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/ex-gers-chief-charles-green-23817200
Ex-Rangers FC chief Charles Green asked to testify in £56.8m claim that Ibrox should’ve been sold off
.
Paul was so far ahead of the game.
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/?s=gratuitous+alienation
I don’t think the notion Ibrox should have been sold off is wrong at all, although the court will decide. A Rangers was always going to be playing and I am sure there are many companies who would have been willing to buy it then lease it to the newco. The taxpayer was well and truly shafted.
Cluster One 29th March 2021 At 23:59
‘..May the 4 2021 looks like a good day in court. Will you be there JC?’
+++++++++++++++++++++
If the Courts are open again, Cluster One, I’ll be there: wouldn’t miss it for the world!
It would be very nice to see the Charlie boy in the witness box.
I don’t know if he can be compelled to attend to give evidence? It would be exciting times for all involved in the Administration and the SAP and 5-Way Agreements, especially if Charlie is nursing any kind of wee grudge against anyone who might have profited a bit more than he did
[BDO have played a very long game very ,very carefully.
I wish I knew whether in such a case, there is scope for D&P (the company, not Whitehouse and Clark) to negotiate a deal and settle the matter out of court(without admission of ‘guilt,’] rather than see it going the distance?
Is it theoretically possible that all the money owed to all the creditors including HMRC could be won, the creditors all being paid what is outstanding to them, all costs of BDO paid, and RFC of 1872 brought out of Administration!
What entertainment that would give us! It really would make an absolute farce of Scottish Football Governance.]
Upthehoops 30th March 2021 At 08:0
‘..I don’t think the notion Ibrox should have been sold off is wrong at all,’
++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree.
The Administrators’ job was to do all that they could to save the club as a going concern.
They did not do so. The Administration failed because the Administrators failed to find a buyer prepared to take on the debt.
The Administrators’ duty was then to maximise the value of the assets .
BDO would argue , it seems, that the Administrators failed in their duty to do so.
And, I would argue, the Administrators subsequently played a part in the construction of the ‘5-way Agreement’ with the Football authorities under which the nonsensical lie was created that somehow they HAD found a buyer for the club!
One does not need to be a lawyer to see that BDO would seem to have an arguable case, more power to their elbow.
That whole mess occasioned (ultimately) by SDM has so blighted Scottish Football and needs to be faced up to.
[And on the matter of cheating, if the Celtic Board think even for a minute of hiring that sports cheat Thierry Henri as their coach, they will in my opinion, show themselves even more clearly as being of the SDM cast of mind]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56580699
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56580699
So that makes it a total of 34 matches missed with 10 suspended for the two breaches of the covid- 19 rules by Rangers players.
@ Paddy Malarkey – thanks for sharing. It begs the question what took them so long. Six or seven weeks since all five were banged to rights by Police Scotland, fixed penalties issued and not disputed. It’s almost as though the SFA seek out opportunities to demonstrate their lack of competence (or worse). Now imagine if this involved five first team players who had been allowed to play through a tight title race, including a game against closest rivals? Fergus smoked out Jim Farry many years ago and yet, and yet… compare and contrast with how the NHL acted as referenced by Vernallen.
Looks to me like a managed outcome – they will all be available for latter rounds of the Scottish Cup and , of course , the final League game v Aberdeen at Ibrox .
Lots of comings and goings in the lower league pyramid (tier 5 and below) over the last few days.
The Highland League declared Brora as champions on a PPG basis, despite only playing 3 games this season (a couple of teams hadn’t played any).
The Lowland League declared Kelty as champions on a PPG basis having played 13 (of 32) games despite having previously agreed to Null & Void the league if less than 50% of games had been played.
Despite the apparent madness in those decisions there is some means to be had. Declaring champion clubs is the only way that the LL and HL could put teams forward to the SPFL play-off. Now the focus will switch to the SPFL. Will they put club 42 up for the play-off in a curtailed 22 game season (potentially Brechin or Albion Rovers) or will they again ignore their obligations to the pyramid? Alternatively there is the prospect of reconstruction, with or without Colt teams and and admit Brora and Kelty directly. Anything to save Brechin for a second season, perhaps?
Further down the pyramid at tier 6, the WOSFL has been declared Null & Void, as has the SOSFL. The EOSFL hasn’t declared their hand as yet in the hope that their top side might get directly admitted to an expanded LL. The top side in the EOSFL on PPG is currently Jeanfield Swifts, just ahead of Tranent. Both sides are licensed so would meet the entry criteria for the LL.
Finally, following a meeting of the SFA’s Pyramid Working Group earlier today, decisions have apparently been taken to facilitate the Highland League’s adoption of three feeder leagues, the North Caledonian League, the North Region Juniors and a newly established Midland League (predominately Tayside junior sides). All three leagues would be joining the pyramid structure.
If it goes ahead, then it will create a single structure for all semi-pro football in Scotland. It’s taken a long time, but it looks as if its just about within reach. Such a move would also mark the end for Junior football with all its history, which would be sad in many ways, but has been on the cards for a few years now.
Now the difficult bit begins to sort out reconstruction, league catchment areas, play-offs, promotion/relegation, finances, licensing requirements etc.
Now that the CL maybe a place too far for Scottish teams with the proposed changes looking to be accepted, the term “sporting integrity” now surfaces in the Scottish media. Where was the use of that term during the EBT years and the ensuing fall-out, i.e. potential administration, liquidation, and the current magical financial on goings at one club.
The SFA certainly took their time in getting the suspensions in place. Certainly helped with player coverage due to injury situation Then Rangers have the cheek to state we will review and advise. Who writes the rules.
Upthehoops 30th March 2021 At 08:0
‘..I don’t think the notion Ibrox should have been sold off is wrong at all,’
++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree.
The Administrators’ job was to do all that they could to save the club as a going concern.
They did not do so. The Administration failed because the Administrators failed to find a buyer prepared to take on the debt.
…………………………………….
D Murray rejected £33mill from Andrew Ellis for the whole thing in june 2010.
………
From 2003 The exercise increased the accounting value of the property from pounds 85mill to pounds 120mill a surplus increased by a further pounds 4mill by the elimination of depreciation.
……….
Green was later to value it at 80mill after an outlay of £5.5mill.
……………………
From BDO report Dec 10 2020
The joint liquidators had sought detailed explanations regarding certain aspects of the strategy implemented by the joint administrators during the administration. A substantive responce to our requests was not received and we continue to liaise closely with the committee in considering the further actions in relation to these investigations.
……
The administrators trying to get a new player signed when the club had just entered administration will not help them one bit
Interesting little football-related judgment yesterday.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/FAPL-and-SIS-v-Lord-Chancellor-judgment.pdf
Briefly, the English FA and a company called SIS won a private prosecution against guys who ran a big illicit TV screening scam of Premier league matches through a network of 250 odd pubs. Guys were jailed for 4 years fraud and breach of copyright.
The FA and SIS were awarded costs, but only the costs as from the date of commencement of proceedings.
They were denied other costs ( of £87,050.33 and £78,846.30 respectively] on the basis that these were costs or expenses incurred before the commencement of the criminal proceedings.
They appealed, and won.
Slavia crank it up a bit .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56595234
The complaints from Scottish media that their English counterparts downplay the Scottish game as second rate, certainly isn’t helped by comments surrounding the appointment of a new Celtic manager. Almost every name brought forward is mentioned as a blockbuster showdown with Gerrard. Don’t they realize there are other teams involved and this is a slap in the face to them. You only have to pit your wits against Gerrard and the other teams are only there to make up the league.
Some interesting comments on some Rangers site in regard to finances. One of the most telling is the use of the recent share offering is to cover current on going expenses and not to be used for the Ranger’s museum.
Vernallen 31st March 22.33
Given that it was season 1984/85 when one of the non Old Firm teams last won the league title is it not understandable why some journalists think this way?.
Why is it “telling” that money raised from the upcoming share issue (not offer) is being used to cover “on going expenses” as opposed to the museum?.
The share issue as mentioned in my previous post was for 11,000,000 shares to be issued at a value of £2,200,000.
Per Companies House,
RIFC plc : another Share issue from 30 March 2021, 11 000 000 @20p , bringing total shares in issue to
368,291,872……..
Running low on the readies…..?
John Clark 1st April 11.15
In 2015 Dave King said that investors, including himself, would cover any shortfall in the finances.
The the last set of accounts intimated that a sum of £8.8 million would be required by way of debt or equity funding until the end of season 20/21.
Therefore this latest tranche of money can’t possibly come as a surprise to anybody surely?.
Vernallen 31st March 2021 At 22:33
‘..One of the most telling is the use of the recent share offering is to cover current on going expenses and not to be used for the Ranger’s museum.’
Albertz11 1st April 2021 At 10:36
‘…The share issue as mentioned in my previous post was for 11,000,000 shares to be issued at a value of £2,200,000.’
+++++++++++++++++++++++
were you both referring to the same share issue of 30 March? or was Vernallen referring to the previous one on 19 March?
Geegs rewarded .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56604689
John Clark 1st April 12.43
I was referring to the 30th March issue John.
Paddy Malarkey 1st April 13.17
Richly deserved imo. Both he and Steve Davis set a standard and level of professionalism that should be a lesson to others in the game.
Looking at Companies House , it appears that RIFC has raised quite a bit internally since the revered Mr King left town .
Sept 30 , 2020 – GBP 3,028,819.82
Nov 1 ,2020 – GBP 3,221,969.12
Nov 17 , 2020 – GBP 3,272,418.72
Dec 10 , 2020 – GBP 3,409,918.72
Dec 14 , 2020 – GBP 3,410,418.72
March 19 , 2021 – GBP 3,572,918.72
March 30,2021 – GBP 3,682,918.72
Don’t you just love those wee 1872’s ?
By my calculations , that’s £23,599,382.54 raised in little over six months . A whole lot of staunchness going on , if so .
I always find it interesting when players get towards the end of their playing careers and it becomes a fairly public commercial assessment of the club as to how much longer to commit to the player. Always that fear that the legs will suddenly “give up” and the club left with paying for an extra expensive cheerleader.
I am curious as to game time for both Brown and Davies next season. Less obvious with GKs but reflexes and reach also drop off, sometimes alarmingly.
No room for nostalgia- just ask anyone who played for Fergie!
Regarding the recent share issues at RIFC
Stuart Gibson has increased his shareholding from 7.33% to 10.86% and becomes the third highest shareholder at the club.
The total number of shares he currently holds has increased from 25.000.000 to 40.000.000 which amounts to an investment of £3 million.
Paddy Malarkey 17.06.
Not quite what the figures represent Paddy.
Is it not about a year ago we had Tampergate ? Manipulation of brakes ? I can remember a man being charged with an offence but can’t remember or find any outcome .
Albertz11 1st April 2021 At 18:07
What do they represent then . I just copied and pasted from Companies House . Just bare figures with no background info . Or are you referring to the wee 18.72’s ?
Following ‘Off the Ball’ last weekend when the sea-shanty TRFC fan Nathan was given a guest spot to plug his wares, an old rugby player 9who now hosts a kind-of-a- news-current-affairs programme on BBC Radio Scotland0 had another TRFC fan on this evening to plug his new ‘rap’- and ,in it ,the big untruth about the ’55’.
Honest to God.
What are they like ,from top down to the sports hacks and others in their disregard for sporting truth and honesty?
Paddy Malarkey 1st April 19.31.
The figures are from the number of allotted shares after each share issue and not the amounts raised. The most recent (30/03) saw 11,000,000 new shares issued at 20p each raising £2.200,000. The number of allotted shares then increases accordingly from 357291872 to 368219872.
As i said previously Stuart Gibson has increased his % shareholding as have George Taylor, George Lethem and John Bennett.
Never watched any of the Scotland games lost interest in the SFA.
A Rangers musuem that stopped collecting arifacts 2012
Buying worthless shares to date among a board and best buds in a club that is in debt is strange logic, when do you stop digging or when does UEFA wake up and tell clubs FFP is in force, you either have the readies or you do not, and Therangers borrowing from each other and without a credit line it is clear they do not have the readies.
Radio shows and SMS media is best ignored gave up on all the imposters and that includes Celtic ones if they spout the same club lie and myth.
Albertz11 April 1sr/21/9:29
I believe, if I understood correctly, Club 1872 believed some of the funds raised where to go to the museum fund and appeared to be quite surprised when Stewart Robertson advised that wasn’t the case. What appears to be telling is 7 share issues since last September and the amount of funds raised which seems to be well in excess of the 8.8 million quoted to see out the year. It does not present a case of a club/company in robust financial health with repeated trips to the financial well. The closeness of the amount of shares issued in each case I would think quite a coincidence as well. I understand shares are issued on a sometimes regular basis and think it would be difficult to find a similar situation in other businesses.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19205631.judge-ruling-opens-door-criminal-action-prosecutors-police-malicious-rangers-fraud-probe/
Judge ruling opens door for criminal action against prosecutors and police over malicious Rangers fraud probe.
I am astounded that even for the media in this country there has not been far more pressure put on the authorities over this. What on earth were Police and Prosecutors trying to achieve and what was the motive behind it? I guess I’ve probably answered my own question because the media might not want to constantly ask a question they might not like the answer to.
My personal view is that it doesn’t matter how important a certain football club is perceived to be by the media and others with influence, when innocent people could have been jailed and the Scottish taxpayer is out of pocket by tens of millions then we are entitled to answers.
Vernallen 2nd April 01.45
As i’m not a member of Club 1872 i have limited knowledge of how they operate. I do believe that monies raised are split 47.5% each between buying shares and Club1872 projects, which could cover the museum to be included in the new build on the site of the former Edmiston House
The figure of £8.8 million was included in the annual accounts dated 17/11. If you include the share issues from and including that date, then a total of just over £9.2 million has been raised.
The club are fortunate to have such a loyal group of investors willing to back the club financially.
Albertz11 1st April 2021 At 22:08
I took the figures to be the value of the transaction . I’m not suggesting that the club raised all that money in cash , merely that they printed more shares and bought them among themselves to the value of £23,599,382.54 . The reasons and mechanisms would probably not be public knowledge .
Paddy Malarkey 2nd April 12.35
As i said previously the figures are NOT the value of the transactions.
They are the total number of allotted shares after each share issue.
As of 31/03 RIFC have a total of 368,291.872 ordinary shares.
If you look at the 23,599.382 raised in share offerings since last September, on average, this would come awfully close to the monthly operating costs of the team. What do these loyal group of investors get in return. In this time of a world wide pandemic I would prefer to keep my money closer to home and look for something where I can see a return in the near future, not, hopefully based on CL money down the road.
Vernallen – if the investors are investing as fans and not looking for a financial return then it makes sense that, if funding monthly operating expense shortfalls that they provide the cash on a monthly basis (as a private company the cost of doing so is minimal on the company). It might give the finance director a few sleepless nights waiting for the cash to arrive, but avoids the risk of money for operations being splurged on a new player.
For me the more interesting point is what does it mean for player transfers in the summer. Do TRFC stick or twist in pursuit of CL money? Without a line of credit how would transfers be funded – Ticketus? A further point which I think affects TRFC more than Celtic next season is not having the preliminary rounds to negotiate. I think both clubs have benefitted in recent years from these rounds by bringing confidence and fitness from winning those matches into the main Europa League competition (I know Celtic bombed this year but I believe other factors played a part).
Paddy Malarkey 2nd April 2021 At 12:35
‘..I’m not suggesting that the club raised all that money in cash , merely that they printed more shares and bought them among themselves to the value of £23,599,382.54 . ‘
++++++++++++++++++++++
The Companies House pages relating to the recent and previous RIFC plc share issues have the statement
” No shares allotted other than for cash”.
That is, not in exchange for shares in another company or for anything else.
I’m not sure whether it means that the purchaser has to pay the full purchase price up front, or can only part of the price for each share while being liable, of course, for the whole amount if the company calls it in.
A company desperate for cash is not likely to sell shares if that wasn’t going to raise the amount of money needed at the time of sale: I would think there wouldn’t be much point in doing that?
But perhaps someone will tell us if the recent issues were fully paid up?
Albertz11 2nd April 2021 At 13:03
Ah , got you now . Allocated shares
42,250,000 between 23/9/20 and 30/9/20
19,314,931 on 1/11/20
5,044,960 on 17/11/20
13,750,000 between 18/11/20 and10/12/20
50,000 on 14/12/20
16,250,000 from 19/3/21
11,000,000 on 30/3/21
All @ £0.2 and no shares allocated other than for cash .
That would be 107,659,891 shares yielding £21 531,978.20 ?
Color me surprised. Rangers to appeal Covid 5 suspensions. How long will it take the SFA to hear the appeal, render a decision, etc. I would suspect it may be a helluva lot quicker than the original process. They may add an apology for troubling Rangers with such minor issue. Did Rangers appeal the suspension of the earlier covid violators. Does the appeal allow them to play until a verdict on the appeal is finalized…
@Vernallen – I can only assume TRFC are following appeal process that they are allowed to. I won’t blame them for doing so but for me points to the SFAs processes being not fit for purpose. Suspensions were given for breaching two rules (rule 24, being a breach of Coronavirus rules, and rule 77, not acting in best interest of football). Given that the players were issued with fixed penalty notices by Police Scotland, this should be an open and shut case, with penalties for breaches clearly laid out by the SFA – there should be no room for dispute over the penalties imposed.
If the SFA had not laid out the penalties in advance this is sheer incompetence.
If TRFC is appealing because they can, but with no clear grounds of appeal such an appeal should run the risk of incurring a penalty.
If TRFC look to argue that they had suspended the players that to me is completely irrelevant as the clubs can’t dispense their own justice.
Completely off-topic, but enjoyed the feature on Athletic Bilbao on BBC football page. An approach that feels more sustainable and connected to fans than the two super clubs in Spain.
Vernallen 2nd April 2021 At 22:49
‘.. Does the appeal allow them to play until a verdict on the appeal is finalized…’
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Afraid so, Vernallen!
From the judicial panel protocol:
“Suspension of Determination pending appeal
14.12 Subject to Paragraph 14.10 once a Notice of Appeal has been validly delivered in terms of
the provisions of Section 15, the Determination against which the Notice of Appeal is
submitted shall be suspended until such time as the matter has been heard by the Appellate
Tribunal hearing the appeal, and its Determination has been communicated or delivered to
the Alleged Party in Breach, following which the suspension of the Determination shall end,
unless the Determination of the Appellate Tribunal hearing the appeal provides otherwise”
There appears not to be any scope for considering ‘an appeal’ by a Party against a decision of a ‘Disciplinary Tribunal’ just to be an attempt to act the madam! [although the CO can appeal against too lenient a sentence!]
Rangers appealing their covid bans seems to me that they are simply gaming the system. Arrogance doesn’t even begin to describe it. They should consider themselves lucky that the SFA and Scottish Govt. conveniently ignored multiple covid breaches by their management and players when they won the league. Then again their fans were given the free run of Glasgow by the Police at the same time, while the rest of us were being told to stay in the house.
One Scotland, many cultures we are told, but one culture is still clearly regarded and treated as superior over all others.
Would the idea of an appeal for the Covid 5 be in place if the injured Ranger’s player was available for selection. Surely with the amount of players they have available a juggle of the lineup could have been used and given some of the lesser players game time. Since they appear to be “invincible” and with the manager they have it appears to be a simple solution. However with the “namby pamby” attitude of the SFA nothing should come as a surprise. As I stated earlier if you put forward a 6 game suspension it should be the 6 games, not 4 with 2 suspended. If players follow the rulings on suspensions this can play into their hands and lead to ugly incidents down the road.
Happy Easter to one and all.
Just in the passing, there was an email in my inbox yesterday from the ICIJ.
I sent the following reply
“Dear Hamish Boland-Rudder
“..And so we truly learned the full and awesome power of collaborative, deep-dive investigative journalism” ”
That’s a sentence I lifted from your email of 3 April, an email which I read with interest.
But I read it with a kind of detached, ‘academic’ ,interest rather than with a deeply-felt personal interest.
Not that I do not understand that the big baddies in the world of high international financial skulduggery ultimately affect me and my family by their criminal money-laundering, tax-evasion and perhaps complicity in God-knows-what aspects of political corruption.
I do understand very well , in my intellect, that what the ICIJ Team do is incredibly important.
But somehow that intellectual understanding does not translate into the feeling of rage that is engendered when I learn that I have been ripped off by , say, a local second-hand car dealer or some such!
Or when so-called journalists (including sports journalists in the BBC) in a wee small country such as Scotland buy into and propagate a sporting lie!
Of course, this is small beer compared with the lies and deceit of FIFA that were investigated by the US soccer authorities and the FBI; and very successfully investigated.
Soccer fans worldwide rejoiced to see ‘bad guys’ in the sport on which they spend good honest money being nailed for being less than honest and true in their governance responsibilities and duties.
There was emotional satisfaction in seeing truth being sought, and dishonest people being brought to book.
I come to the point I wish to make:
There are suspicions here in Scotland that
a) the Scottish Football Association colluded with a particular financially distressed football club to ensure that that club , in spite of not being entitled under the Rules relating to tax indebtedness, nevertheless was given a license to compete in UEFA competitions, thus automatically gaining several millions of pounds with the possibility of gaining several millions more if the club succeeded in winning games.
b) there are serious questions to be asked about how a soccer/football club that was admitted , as a new football club, into Scottish Football in 2012 can be described for financial marketing purposes as being the very same football club founded in 1872 ,that is presently in Liquidation, having gone bust in 2012.
The Press in Scotland have totally refused to investigate these matters as have the football authorities.
In fact, the BBC has disciplined the occasional individual employee who has made ‘unacceptable’ observations.
Now, here’s the thing!
I understand that one or two Scottish journalists are part of the ICIJ team !
Would it be possible to ask those Scottish members of the ICIJ team to have a wee in-depth investigation into the SFA and the awarding of a UEFA competitions licence to RFC plc of 1872 and into SevcoScotland and the 5-Way Agreement of 2012?
If FIFA were called into question, is it too much to suggest that a wee national football governance body and a new football club could and should have a wee forensic light shone upon them?
Down at very basic man-in-the-street level an investigation at that everyday level carries much more immediate relevance.
Cheers,
upthehoops 2nd April 2021 At 07:07
9
0
Rate This
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19205631.judge-ruling-opens-door-criminal-action-prosecutors-police-malicious-rangers-fraud-probe/
……………………………………..
Thanks for the link.
Never seen much of that reported, very quite.
Steven Gerrard explains covid appeal while praising Nathan Patterson:
“We don’t think everything has been taken into consideration.
“We’re talking about one of the brightest prospects ever in terms of right-back. All of the sudden the SFA want to ban him for that long”.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don’t think even Rangers under David Murray could have taken arrogance to this level.
@UTH – I don’t know where you got the SG quote from (not doubting you), but if true he should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute as he quite clearly is calling out the competence of the SFA proceedings. And to begin to suggest that, because Patterson has potential (in his opinion-I haven’t seen enough to form a view) that this should provide him with special treatment is beyond belief. Maybe someone can better explain the SG quote as something other than an iteration of WATP.
Of course we live in an Alice in Wonderland world – are the SFA processes robust and fit for purpose? Almost certainly not – but can you call them out as such? Of course not, as that’s bringing the game into disrepute…
I agree with UTH and Workingcelt in regards to SG’s latest on the Covid 5. Does the punishment not fit because he believes one of the accused is a future star who only got into the lineup due to injury. I stand to be corrected on that point but don’t recall Patterson having featured in any games prior to that. Were the first tow violators deemed expendable so no need for an appeal. I believe a firm rap on the knuckles should be in store for SG for far too long has taken liberties, starting with his first ever game, with the SFA. Also I think SG and the Rangers support in general are placing a lot on Patterson’s shoulders talking about international stardom, etc. Does this not sound like the praise heaped on John Fleck many years ago. The Rangers management team must be complicit in the activities of the Covid 5 and should have stressed time and time again, following the initial incident, the rules involving Covid and external activities.
Wokingcelt 4th April 2021 At 22:41
The Gerrard quotes are widely reported by several media outlets. Bizarrely he has also chosen to mention that Steve Clarke won’t be too happy if Patterson gets a ban.
Gerrard’s players broke the rules and also broke the law. I am sickened by Gerrard’s attitude, and equally sickened at the meek acceptance of it by the media.
It so smacks of WATP.
Upthehoops 4th April 2021 At 22:56
‘..and equally sickened at the meek acceptance of it by the media.’
+++++++
no, no! not ‘the meek acceptance’ , surely, but the wholehearted support of the lying media!
Nothing new there.
The latest appeal, even for the Newco Rainjurz makes a complete mockery of the justice system.
Covid restrictions broken . Police involvement. Fine . Cautioned . Given credit by the government for quick decisive action, now they’re appealing the ban that was handed out, on grounds of what ? Potential ? Dear Doctor.
Excuse my cynicism, surely yesterday’s cup draw and their captain being injured doesn’t figure in this development ?
As ever , other clubs will meekly say, he haw .
Strictly business after all .
Sport ? My arse .
@UTH – thanks, have now seen SG comments on the bbc. I am at a complete loss to be honest. If the manager of Motherwell, Aberdeen, St Johnstone or any other club made these comments they would be crucified by the SFA, Scottish government and MSM.
My most acute/crystal clear football memories are of getting back on the supporters bus in the 80s and asking how Aberdeen and Dundee Utd (and latterly Hearts) had done. Had dropping a point at Dens Park cost my team? Had Hearts won again? There was a team missing from the calculus and I can’t help but think it was for the best for Scottish football: we qualified for Spain, Mexico and Italy world cups.
We can choose to be small-minded as a country and have nothing to offer or we can be truly open and welcoming and embrace what differences can bring. However I think my ashes will be blown to the four corners of the earth before that happens as the “Establishment” only see what they may lose and not what we all would gain..
Wokingcelt 5th April 2021 At 19:44
I have been thinking of the media reaction if Neil Lennon had said Bolingoli’s career could be ruined by having to serve a ban. There would have been carnage. Now we have a manager saying it’s not fair on his player to serve a ban, because he is too good, and it might affect his career. How is a four match ban going to affect his career? It might just teach him a valuable lesson though. What a four match ban will affect though is Rangers being able to field a recognised right back in a crucial cup game.
Do the media have no shame at all though?
Upthehoops 5th April 2021 At 20:08
‘..Do the media have no shame at all though?’
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The puppet Gerrard is only doing what the puppet masters tell him.
At least, I would hope that he was only following orders: he would be less ridiculously despicable than if he made those kinds of statements off his own stupid bat!
For a brief period a little while ago the PR folk at Ibrox were coming across in a less aggressively hostile and more reasonable way.
They seem now to have reverted to type!
@UTH – media reaction to NL…nuclear. Let’s imagine if NL had been helped by a person well-known to the police to resolve a local difficulty and that person was subsequently shot dead in a “hit”…
On a lighter note, what a nice, wee clever goal by QoS defender Maxwell!
That was another splendidly entertaining game, and would really have been exciting if Willie the Ref had whistled for the penalty!
And I speak as being nearly as complete a neutral as having had a very good friend who was a Hibs supporter, and whose son in Oz is my own son’s pal, can be!
Sounds like Dafoe is lobbying for a contract extension ( is he on a rumored 60 k a week) with all his apple polished stories in the DR. If the 60 k is true or anywhere near that I can’t see an extension being offered to a 38 year old. Bologun referring to Celtic as the other team is interesting, I’m sure he was well informed before landing at Ibrox on the two clubs. Also his comment that a goalie refuses to watch them on tv. I think any player worth his salt would want to watch any of their opposition looking for advantages to use in upcoming games. And, finally we have Barry Ferguson offering his opinion on the potential new manager at Celtic and no news of a signing. The team he played for brought in a manager following an on line interview, Celtic on the other hand, except for this year, usually does their business in a, with no need to be professional and quiet manner with no need to be harping on about “world” records, and, media opinions of their latest triumphs. What is the status of their latest appeal to the SFA. Perhaps the backlash from most sources has caused them to pause and think.
Vernallen 5th April 2021 At 22:43
‘..And, finally we have Barry Ferguson offering his opinion on the potential new manager at Celtic and no news of a signing.’
+++++++++++++++
Ah! dear old sneaky ‘two -fingers-to-the Scotland-team and Scottish football’ Barry!
An icon of Scottish Football?
Barry of the £2.5 M EBT, the ‘bankrupt ‘Barry, with assets transferred to the wife!
The taxman might not get to him as easily as he may yet get to the ‘very frightened’ EBT recipient McCann!(And others who owe HMRC substantial sums of unpaid tax!)
But, course, to any ordinary decent and honest person, Barry’s name is in effect ‘Mud’.
His opinion on anything whatsoever is not of any greater significance than anything that comes from the pen of Keef Jackson; and that’s saying something!
johnclark april 6th 2021 0:08
Its a sad but true story for some retired athletes that once the adulation is gone and the back slappers aren’t around anymore they become pundits. Have the occasional article posted and some former player ( particularly Ranger players) get their name in the media and conjure up memories of what once was .. Funny nobody asks him about the EBT years, surely he could comment on them..
Dominic McKay to join Celtic on 19 April, but take up officially in July.
Most folk will have seen the (expected) plethora of negativity clearly aimed at undermining Eddie Howe’s potential appointment as Celtic manager from the anti CFC agenda driven posse of SMSM, Nicholas, Boyd, Rae, Commons (whit a right wee gnaff he is!) etc. Strikes me that therein lurks fear – that Celtic could restore the natural order of the 9IAR years, thereby depriving the 9 year old club of further league success next season. Time will tell I guess.
(As an aside, regarding the ‘age’ of said 2020/21 champions, I don’t see anywhere on their current emblems, badges, strips etc the date of 1872 to indicate that they have existed continuously since then. Is that a tacit admission that they are indeed a new club? A good few clubs have the date they were founded on jerseys. Am I wrong? If so – apologies! Ahm jist no sure!)
Anyway, back to Eddie Howe. Hitherto, before any links to Celtic, no one seemed to make any disparaging comments about his managerial and coaching abilities (wasn’t he linked with Arsenal at one point?). From most accounts, he received a great deal of praise and positive views.
What might have changed dear readers?
One of the stupidest and most pathetic comments to date for me is this extract from an article in Football Insider (Paul Robinson):-
“Howe, a natural introvert, could be put off being at a club where the expectation is to win every match”
Please read that again – whitaloadaguff!!!
Just noticed this from last Thursday’s Court Roll:
LORD TYRE – T Sadler, Clerk
Tuesday 6th April
Proof Before Answer (12 days)
CA72/20 David Grier v The Lord Advocate &c ”
I might try and listen in tomorrow.
This appeared today, JC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56651684
Nawlite 6th April 2021 At 17:52
0 0 Rate This
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56651684
“Mr Whyte bought the company that ran the Glasgow football club”
Perhaps the investigation will reveal to the BBC that there was no company that ran the Glasgow football club. Then again perhaps they will keep looking the other way and pretend they didn’t notice.
Nawlite 6th April 2021 At 17:52
‘.This appeared today, JC.’
++++++++++++++++++
Thanks for that, Nawlite: I would probably have missed that report otherwise.
Macfurgly 6th April 2021 At 20:16
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56651684
“Mr Whyte bought the company that ran the Glasgow football club”
Perhaps the investigation will reveal to the BBC that there was no company that ran the Glasgow football club. Then again perhaps they will keep looking the other way and pretend they didn’t notice.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++
A little bit further on in that report and we have this ( in reference to Whyte):
” He was accused of using Rangers’ own money to buy the club while claiming the funds were his”
As ever, those who lie must keep remembering the lie or else they slip up, as whoever wrote that BBC report did even as he/she was writing it!
The relatively small fry who penned that report will probably be drawn aside and disciplined for writing that Whyte was buying the ‘club ‘
But it’s the top brass who, like so many self-seeking, self-protective, gutless ‘gauleiters’ under the Third Reich, so disgracefully accepted and obeyed orders from the BBC Trust in 2012 to LIE to the nation and propagate an insulting myth ,who should be disciplined.
The BBC Trust is no more, of course, but their lie continues.
John Clark April 6/21 22:10
I believe in most cases involving the on going story of Rangers/Sevco. or whatever name they appear to be operating under, as you get farther away from 2012, you get more lazy journalism. Why dig into the history/records when you scalp the information from previous stories, re-phrase a sentence or two, and ergo you have what they think is a new twist. Job done, everybody happy, except for those who have followed the saga and know the ins and outs and continue to keep the rightful version in front of the people. Don’t give up, there may be a dedicated, resourceful journalist out there who has a look and realizes that there is a helluva of story here and actually goes to print, tv, and radio with it.
wokingcelt 4th April 2021 At 22:41
@UTH – I don’t know where you got the SG quote from (not doubting you), but if true he should be charged with bringing the game into disrepute
…………………………..
Still wating on his charge of bringing the game into disrepute from this time last year, also for parks comments and Robertsons comments and releasing sensitive information that the SPFL said they would deal with but as yet nothing.
upthehoops 4th April 2021 At 22:56
22
0
Rate This
………………………….
What part of Red card did the lad not grasp? NS put it in terms that even players would understand was a no can do.
There was an old fan who swallowed a lie;
I don’t know why he swallowed a lie – Perhaps he’ll die!
There was an old fan who swallowed a myth
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled his girth
he swallowed the myth to feed the lie;
I don’t know why he swallowed a lie – Perhaps he’ll die!
There was an old fan who swallowed a rumour;
How absurd to swallow a rumour!
he swallowed the rumour to feed the myth
That wriggled and jiggled and tickled his girth!
he swallowed the rumour to feed the lie;
I don’t know why he swallowed a lie – Perhaps he’ll die!
There was an old fan who swallowed a fable;
Imagine that! he swallowed a fable!
he swallowed the fable to back up the myth
that fed the rumour that tickled his girth
to back up the lie that his club didn’t die
cause the men in the brogues were terribly sly
and sold him a dream to follow follow a team
that didnae exist or widnae be missed
by the rest of the world who remain rather pissed ……………..
to be continued
mibbees
Vernallen 6th April 2021 At 22:47
‘..there may be a dedicated, resourceful journalist out there who has a look and realizes that there is a helluva of story here and actually goes to print, tv, and radio with it.’
+++++++++++++++++
Well, we had high hopes of Alex Thomson, of course!
But I think he was frightened off by some gorilla of a sports hack in the mean streets of Glasgow!
Or, perhaps more likely, warned off by his own media bosses and told not to ‘interfere’ in matters that don’t concern his and their English viewers/readers.
And, to be fair to him, reporting on possible corruption in a sports governance body in what the rest of the world thinks is a nice wee part of somewhere in the north of England is not really going to win you any ‘journalist of the year’ prizes.
And why should he bother when ‘journalists’ living in the feckin’ place are on the side of untruth?[ That’s actually a much better story! But who’s going to write it? ]
There is not a liquidation-denying journalist in all the SMSM who could look me in the eye without embarrassment at knowing that I know that he/she is worse than worthless as a journalist -and also as a man/woman.
The truth ALWAYS emerges, sooner or later.
Timtim 6th April 2021 At 23:40
‘..cause the men in the brogues were terribly sly
and sold him a dream to follow follow a team
that didnae exist .’
..to be continued
mibbees
++++++++++++
Let’s have no mibbees!
Continue!
You have to work-in all the other evil-doers in the saga-the SFA, the SMSM, the LNS inquiry, good old Brysonisms, the cowed SPL and SFL .. but sing the praises of the only man to put his head above the parapet in the cause of sporting integrity and truth, Turnbull Hutton, God rest him!
You have talent there!
Rap? or maybe sea-shanty?
Maybe Stuart and Tam or big John Beattie will help sell your record by giving you free advertising [but using our licence money to do so?]
In a pig’s eye, would they! The BBC would not let them.
@ John Clark. Re Alex Thomson. I doubt he was frightened off given his track record, probably more that the story was told as much as the wider audience was interested.
Now perhaps he would be interested in the ongoing impact of tens of millions of Scottish Government money being spent on legal costs when public finances are stretched… if someone has the background details for the story maybe it could be pitched to him? May run well with the politics at this time.
Mr Moynihan qc taking pains this morning to emphasise to Grier and the Court and the media that nothing that he , Moynihan ,is asking is meant to imply that Grier is any way guilty of any offence, having been acquitted of all criminal charges.
Rather the questions he is asking are directed solely at trying to show that ,in the detail of the unusual financial arrangements under which Rangers loaned money (obtained from Ticketus by selling 3 seasons’ tickets in advance) to Wavetower to so that Wavetower could pay Lloyds there was enough to allow a Prosecutor to bring charges.
Grier very composed in his competently delivered replies.
Midmorning break
To reconvene at 11.45.
Court reconvened at 11.45.
A lot of referring to para this and para that of various documents in various folders, email-chains, and stuff that was learned during the English civil Court proceeding, about involvement of various people in ‘frantic communications’ about funds being available to complete the transaction, letter of comfort, people having ‘visibility’ of funds when what was required was absolute guarantee that the funds were there.
Two points of interest:
Mr Moynihan QC ended this morning’s proceedings with a clear allegation that Mr Grier had been misleading when he had ,in a witness statement, said that he had had no involvement in arranging for ‘show money’.
Mr Grier pooh-poohed that observation, but had in an email had merely been relaying the concerns of his client (Whyte).
Earlier, I was amused when Grier referred a couple of times to ‘the process of selling the club’- and not to some ‘holding company’.
I don’t think I’ll bother to try to tune in any further. The experience of virtual hearings is not quite the same as being in the court-room.
And there are things to do, and wifely orders to follow!
We’re in !
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56656500
Judging by something posted on another blog last night, the appeal and hearing etc for the Covid 5 might be sometime in the distant future. Writer was quoting from the guidelines and it got a little confusing. Apparently once the appeal is received they need to form a panel and the the group has 5 days to approve the panel, etc. Perhaps there is someone out there a little in touch with the guidelines and could take a look. By the tone of the posted item it might be well down the road and long after the upcoming Celtic/Rangers/Sevco games, allowing time for injuries to heal and let the latest rising star in Scottish Football show his wares.
vernallen 7th April 2021 At 17:39
Both sides have to agree on panel appointments. It will be some time down the road, the ibrox club know how to kick a can.
Cluster One 7th April 2021 at 23:26
Now that Tav has agreed to a contract extension the suspensions will probably carry over to the new season ensuring he is well and truly healed. Would be interesting should he pick up an injury and pre-season, would that lead to further appeals., The SFA may as well drop the rules regarding suspensions as the current system appears to be a mockery of rules. Maybe a re-write should be looked at after investigating other sporting organizations to see how they deal with suspensions, appeals, etc.
Rangers statement.
https://www.rangers.co.uk/article/rangers-players-and-management-boycott-social-media/40OVL6DxYTOl0pbusoJ5e2
Cluster One 7th 23.26
Appeal date set for April 20th.
All players therefore free to play until then.
So the appeal for the Covid five will be heard on 20th April, which of course means Rangers will have right back cover v Celtic three days earlier. Utterly farcical that the initial hearing took so long in the first place, and it appears Rangers have been allowed to control the entire narrative. With a media willing to do its job that wouldn’t happen of course, but it’s no longer worthwhile even asking why they are not prepared to.
The recent photo of the Ranger’s brain trust brought to mind a couple of captions for each individual some kind some not. Opted for the kinder version, SG gazing into the future in regards to SFA ( Steve forever appealing rules), the coach with the finger in the eye ( we only need one eye to see them off on rules), the fellow with his finger in his, this doesn’t smell too bad coming from the SFA, and Gary MacAllister had to turn his back as he was laughing so hard, can’t believe we hood winked them again guys. What can we do to them next.
Celtic interim manager John Kennedy on delays in disciplinary process. Made me chuckle at how late he is to the party.
“…..Players played against us who probably should have been banned’’
” Kennedy cannot comprehend why the saga has become so protracted ..” reports Andrew Smith (The Scotsman”, today) about re-action to the 39 day delay in fixing the appeal hearing of the TRFC Covid-5.
It is clear from the Judicial Panel Protocol ( see Para 15 et seq] that in respect of ordinary appeals by players against a Disciplinary Tribunal decision the Judicial Panel Secretary (or his nominee) has absolutely arbitrary power to decide on the date of an appeal hearing, in that there’ no specified time period in which he must set up a Hearing.
The Judicial Panel Secretary can take as long as he likes over the process !
(The Judicial Panel secretary is appointed by the SFA Secretary( CEO))
And anyone in that position can act the madam with impunity, as can, of course, the SFA board.
Scottish Football governance was holed below the waterline in 2012 by the fabrication of the Big Lie, and holed again when the SFA simply refused to allow an independent investigation into the Res 12 UEFA licence matter.
I have no doubt in my mind about why the Covid-5’s appeals hearings were kicked into the long grass for so long!
I rather imagine Kennedy also has no doubts!!
The time for calling out the SFA was in 2012.
And Kennedy’s call will be met either with crap about the ‘independence’ of the Judicial Panel process and the people who operate it, or with some bureaucratic nonsense about unavailability of panel members or some such.
And nothing will change, because everyone is thirled to the Big Lie.
Don’t think there’s anything unusual about the the Rangers* appeal in the sense of “gaming the system”. In my TU days, I spent a lot of time poring through rulebooks looking for procedural loopholes that would allow an advantage at meetings, conferences etc.
I don’t think that Rangers* are any different from anyone else in that. The problem lies within the system itself, allowing the abuse to take place. With money and honours at stake, I’d expect any club to try to turn the rules to their own advantage.
With the league already won, and another trophy up for grabs, if a key player’s suspension could be deferred (at worst), I’d be expecting the same from my club/company 🙂
There is much to find fault in how Rangers * acquit themselves, including the ridiculous (if reported accurately) suggestion that discipline shouldn’t apply to a good player, but I’m not sure using the existing rules to you advantage is one such example.
John Clark
My instinct is to hope that the authorities do not systematically run their processes to deliberately give any one club an advantage. The car-crash over relegation last year gives me cause to think that there are some folk running the game who you wouldn’t send for a loaf or a pint of milk, and feeble minded folk have a habit of buckling readily in the face of any kind of assertive behaviour on the part of others.
However, it seems crazy that any club disadvantaged by the bendability of the feeble-minded would keep their own counsel in the matter.
As an example, Celtic (who might feel disadvantaged by the current shambles), who are often reluctant to go public about matters adversarial, are nonetheless quite adept at using the media to get their displeasure aired. On all matters involving both Rangers and Rangers*, Celtic (and others who have been cheated in the past) have remained silent.
That seems to me to be either an acceptance of what goes on – or a belief that everything is kosher.
Of course we have long been unable to explain the meek attitude of Scottish Football to proven cases of cheating by Rangers, so new club or not, at least some things appear to be no different.
Big Pink 9th April 2021 At 10:47
‘..My instinct is to hope that the authorities do not systematically run their processes to deliberately give any one club an advantage…’
+++++++++++++++++++++++
In which connection, maybe the upcoming Appellate tribunal will have a special look at para 15 of the Judicial Panel Protocol at
“15.9 Frivolous appeals and submissions
15.9.1 Where a Tribunal considers an appeal, it shall be open to the Tribunal to also
consider whether:
15.9.1.1 The individual bringing the appeal had no prospect of success;
15.9.1.2 The appeal is considered by the Tribunal to have been an abuse of
process or a delaying tactic for the sanction originally imposed; and/or
15.9.1.3 The appeal is considered by the Tribunal to have been a frivolous claim.”
It would be a brave tribunal which did not at least look at that para, with Gerrard’s fatuous and irrelevant comments in their minds as being nothing but despicable ‘gamesmanship’
[ps. I went to ‘Thumbs up ‘ you but my effort appeared and immediately returned to zero?]
https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/fraud-probe-into-rangers-was-based-on-panorama-documentary-court-hears.
…………………………………..
Fraud probe into Rangers was based on Panorama documentary, court hears
I listened into the Grier case this morning. Lord Mullholland (former Lord Advocate) was giving evidence. It was relatively short as he had submitted a written statement yesterday.
A couple of points of note: He distanced himself from the claim made previously by Gerry Moynihan in a hearing before Lord Malcolm that he had “his hand on the tiller” throughout the progression of the case. He acknowledged a supervisory role but was not involved in decision making. It sounded like he was prepared to throw Depute Advocate James Keegan under a bus. Moynihan objected to the line of questioning (the implication being that he had previously misled the court), but Lord Tyre overruled and allowed Grier’s QC to continue.
Lord Mullholland also made a brief reference to the sale of Rangers from administration, but quickly corrected himself by saying “sorry, the sale of Rangers assets”.
Big Pink 9th April 2021 At 10:47
My instinct is to hope that the authorities do not systematically run their processes to deliberately give any one club an advantage.
++++++++++++++++++++++=
I feel the issue is much broader than that. The rules on paper are the same for everyone. The wider attitude of the media and (in terms of Covid) the SNP Govt, have a major bearing on how those rules are applied. Both the media and Govt. have taken a far softer line with Rangers on Covid breaches than they have with Celtic. It makes it far easier for the SFA to rigorously apply rules when two such influential bodies are baying for the blood of one particular club.
We had a situation only four weeks ago where not only did Rangers management and players actively encourage Covid breaches among fans, they committed breaches themselves in terms of car sharing, social distancing, and mask wearing. Yet compared to the outrage from the media and Govt. over a poolside photo of Celtic in Dubai, there was zero mention let alone criticism of any breaches involving Rangers management and staff.
Had the media and Govt. created a huge stink about Ranger Covid breaches the SFA might just have felt they were on shakier ground in terms of how they dealt with the matter. Instead the entire situation is now beyond farcical, and whether or not it actually is, looks (to quote from a recent major political issue) to be ‘tainted with apparent bias”.
Another 20 million .Directors keeping their side of the bargain , it seems .
https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-live.ch.gov.uk/docs/oPXIq1V9S7CCQPWPf9S-36RInwR2h88giwpQM_lWDjo/application-pdf?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAWRGBDBV3MRRX6QUY%2F20210409%2Feu-west-2%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20210409T162409Z&X-Amz-Expires=60&X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEBsaCWV1LXdlc3QtMiJGMEQCIDs8LmvLcdwVfifBi1J%2FULzifLGWZwPcri3lst1dxyxfAiBvQeKiTuYH%2BhjEEyd6XGStGqfCO9CbPunpqUimYb7Nfyq0Awh0EAMaDDQ0OTIyOTAzMjgyMiIMKyDEiDOPj0f5anYsKpEDdYsbpaX%2BUI%2FZf7E7Buy0sqIvzxYYrrxrjx3%2BW1UI08dtErHusrun0Gr0VPvjMOPCYp5zCG2wGvZh5gC%2Bx3PT%2Bfh4DBw4rj5wuda7%2B6biQxE2iPSdaO7KzSWyt0BjUqdXt52iJFSA0QjOrNWgWwIo0tS4wiONsv%2FpDGs1lrUvbIHMT4Zxzz4%2BLmKsKcx4aHl8w7SIrsmXAgEnQ08s9yWqe1Fvgefz2RvvKrhXi%2BkFsE4RdtvBMcrHhlBpaviuWytC2gC%2FvfkfIr9Rq8LG8JYL9lNHs5bbXkGsXrTsMtqiD3YSFiOcM9I%2Bp7n0dmlJQgnAXjHEBygiK4%2BAaLLQCrAaVdPsDxauKsFQk3k37Cy1iz8IMoPck7bSMaGnUpL6upwLt7Spw170OdTf0%2BSBP8quCeSlBnjlQ6ykHUTFBUYmjvsFNOZPKH%2FIIW8Fy08x6Qw8XtB89bTSZPKmXV0DSsDbSiovL0kvTyql%2FAYJBWdF1Bnvs6zKdpc13voHknGl78BHWcZi65Q6M67fG5dQ%2F4UdlKAwmN%2FAgwY67AFJeB03kMpuBe%2Bv5rXxm54rKYfgrkcMfMXG48KjrQBxKNgcoNqbG%2FFp0PrFqT81cZdZ80RRjpmkDo9SHX280qe%2Bvo0rwY%2F5AZAxpQf5OgDxyl14dXEhuXgFy1R4qTuFgpyb7sCnBgPNRX%2BXUDaablxU%2B8EzHdRtvfE4p740Jinm9hH4%2Buc4cnGf0Zlea1%2F4b4k8TIkpaGLIgQI4KmDOtu8bOSTh4CzEeBPqY0BpoMLeDVwGWKYknIOdk5c87He1Y2r3ID4jTh3U2iv9GWfdb11qGbgr%2BAK9H%2F6SIacQad0JjlWLfPEw10RjIlaLyA%3D%3D&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=63cc83558dcecfde9282c9c8caba30282833d1f19ea230c3618dea6fb23500e7
Paddy Malarkey 9th April 2021 At 17:25
‘ another 20 milion’
+++++++++++++
Gremlins got you there, PM!
Yes 20 million shares issued from yesterday @20p each.
Desperate need for cash, I imagine.
It’s a wonder they could stump up the appeal deposit for the Covid-5 @ £1000 a head!
Have they been told they’ll winm and get it back?
John Clark 9th April 2021 At 17:59
I read on social media that Carlos Pena won an unfair dismissal claim against them, was awarded £2.1m, and that another load of share confetti was required to settle up. No idea if fact.
I can’t fathom how the Celtic board cannot reach decisions on manager, DofF, etc. They are receiving plenty of advice from the likes of Kris Boyd, Craig Moore, who seem to have a pipeline to the Celtic boardroom. The best part of this unsolicited and basically useless advice is that it’s free. Only if all these ex-Rangers had come forward in the EBT years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56688895
Perhaps Livingston should ask for tips on how to get round this.
John Clark 9th April 2021 At 17:59
Just a lack of competence , JC ! I still regard this stuff as being akin to magic . With one club in particular , that would be necromancy .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56694630
Upthehoops 9th April 2021 At 18:14
” ..I read on social media that Carlos Pena won an unfair dismissal claim against them”
++++++++++++++++++
Sadly, UTH, I don’t see any record of such a case on BAILLI (British and Irish Legal Information Institute)
http://www.bailii.org
which publishes even Employment Tribunal stuff.
I think TRFC referred in its statement at the time that Pena’s contract was terminated by’ mutual consent,’ which probably means that Pena did not do too badly out of it, or at least well enough to prevent him taking an unfair dismissal action.
(But perhaps BAILLII is not quite up to date-Pena left only in Feb 2019……..and BAILLII may not yet have got round to reporting. Unlikely, I’d say, with regret!)
Upthehoops 9th April 2021 At 19:44
‘But an insufficient youth system and lack of published accounts could bar the club from Uefa competition’
++++++++++
Apologies, but for some reason I’ve only just seen this post of yours, UTH.
Oh, I love it!
What do we have?
A serious, very serious matter!
‘Lack of published accounts’, eh, what?
Whoooofff!
What in heaven’s name would UEFA make of
-FALSE statements about social taxes indebtedness made by a club
-the uncritical ENDORSEMENT of those false statements by the licensing committee of the National Football Association of which that club has not been a very long member
Have there been allegations that such things might have happened?
If so, have those allegations been independently investigated?
In respect of one national association , I understand, the answer to question one is ‘YES’
and to question two, a not unpredictable ‘NO’
Honest to God!
And can I just say that the death of HRH Prince Philip is of infinitely less emotional significance to me than were the deaths of my mum and dad.
But obviously I understand that his widow and children and wider family may be affected as we all are at the death of a loved one or close relative.
I sympathise and condole with them as I do with any family that suffers a bereavement
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-56694137
Senior judge Lord Mulholland gives evidence in Rangers damages case
A senior judge has been giving evidence in the £7m damages case brought by business expert David Grier over his prosecution in the Rangers fraud probe.
Lord Mulholland, who is now a High Court judge, was the head of Scotland’s prosecution service at the time Mr Grier was charged in 2014.
The former lord advocate denied having his “hand on the tiller” of the doomed Rangers investigation.
He said other Crown lawyers made the key decisions in the investigation.
Ally McCoist is right when he states the Covid 5 situation is not John Kennedy’s concern. It’s the concern of any club who has played the Rangers since the incident first surfaced more than two months ago, and it should be the concern of the clubs who will have to play following the split in league games. There is a lot at stake for a number of these clubs including the potential of European football next season. These clubs should follow the lead set by Rangers and swamp the SFA with letters demanding answers NOW, not two months or longer later. What took so long from the initial reporting of the incident until where we are today. As Bomber Brown claimed long ago “show me the deeds”, the clubs should be demanding “show me the paper trail.” Would it not be sweet justice if the undefeated season fell during the games following the split, and, for a double dose of sweetness, elimination from the Scottish Cup.
Hats off to Graham Spiers in his column today:
“…I commend Rangers FC, the club I supported passionately as a kid but have been extremely critical of in my working life, for their anti-racism stand in the wake of the Glen Kamara outrage. The rise of racism in our society is worrying — fuelled by social media — and football can play its part. But I do just want to check: Rangers FC are just as animated and passionate, aren’t they, about fighting anti-Catholic and anti-Irish bigotry, which have been blights around the club for decades? They are, aren’t they?”
Rangers of course are right to be angry about the alleged racism towards Kamara, but Spiers aside they are getting a very easy ride from the media. They are being portrayed as some kind of saint like trailblazers in the fight against racism, when the fact is if fans were currently attending games, the huge issue they still have among a section of their support would be laid bare.
I have completely given up on any hope of the vast majority of the Scottish media growing a set and actually doing their job. I actually gave up a long time ago, but it just gets worse by the week. They should be truly ashamed, but instead continue to act like a huge collective positive PR outlet for Rangers.
Reading the report on the conclusions reached by La Liga on the alleged racist abuse by Juan Cala I find it difficult to see UEFA reaching anything but the same conclusion re the Kamara case. To be followed by howls of indignation from “the pundits”.
With regard to the COVID 5, John Kennedy has every right to comment as the team which employs him is directly impacted. McCoist of course has the same right as you or I to comment as bystanders. Whilst TRFC may be playing the system would it be too much to ask that the grounds of the appeal are made public? Without further details one assumes appealing on grounds of a technicality rather than substance of the charges.
I suspect that TRFC’s appeal may be based on ‘disproportionate punishment’; commonly called ‘whitabootery’.
This may reference the refereeing team who went to Greece, didn’t obey protocols & weren’t cited, or even other teams that may or may not have played fast’n’loose with the rules & escaped the beady eye of the Compliance Officer (HAFC buses, CFC in Dubai etc etc. ad nauseam.).
Wokingcelt 10th April 2021 At 11:53
I believe in the case of Kamara another Rangers player claims to have heard what was said. Not sure if that makes a difference to how UEFA will deal with it.
As for McCoist I am sure he knows fine well Gerrard had nothing to comment on regarding Celtic breaches as none of his players had at that point been treated differently. Celtic have every right to ask why what appears at face value to be favourable treatment is being given to Rangers players in this case. I don’t believe they will get an answer though. Rangers and ergo the media are quite happy with the way it is panning out so the SFA are on safe ground.
I am not a lawyer but my understanding (delighted to be educated?) is that when you appeal a decision you have to give a reason/rational that supports the appeal. And the court grants leave to appeal based on the reason/rational given or not as the case may be. Surely a professional sport with multi millions at stake would have robust protocols in place to maintain (or should that be regain?) the integrity of the game…
Hearts are now promoted after one season spent in the Championship in the most acrimonious of circumstances. The top league will be far better for their presence. It would be good if the excellent Hearts contributors who used to post on here would consider coming back to the forum.
Upthehoops 10th April 2021 At 12:21
I think it is the media who are saying that another Rangers player heard the alleged racist abuse , and Stevie G is happy to go along with that . It seemed to me that the other Rangers playewr reacted to what Kamara was shouting as he chased Kudela . The UEFA investigation should clear it all up .
@Paddy M – that was certainly my impression (and I would stress impression) watching the TV pictures, that Kamara told a colleague what was said. It doesn’t change what may have happened but it does change the quality of the evidence if no one else heard first hand. Separately we await the judgment on the tunnel shenanigans; if as serious as reported then I wouldn’t be rushing into the transfer market on the back of CL millions this time next year Rodney…
Upthehoops 10th April 2021 At 22:06
‘..It would be good if the excellent Hearts contributors who used to post on here would consider coming back to the forum.’
++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree.
And I confess to having been too preoccupied [who said ‘obsessed?!] with what I considered(and still consider) to have been the DELIBERATE and calculated wrongdoing of our Football Authorities in the Rangers liquidation matter and the false claims of TRFC , to get too involved in a matter ,occasioned by Nature rather human badness, but which exposed our Football Governance people as being hopelessly blinkered!
A once-in-a-lifetime event that was no-one’s fault could surely have been dealt with in a way that did not punish any members of the business groupings that made up the membership of the SFA.
And I regret that I didn’t focus my SFM blog attention on that issue in support of the clubs that suffered.
I was very happy today that ( whatever other internal problems!) Hearts got over the line early , and will be back in the SPL.
I have just read this:
“The Guardian
“Cameron ‘lobbied senior Downing St aide and Matt Hancock’ to help Greensill”
Kalyeena Makortoff, Michael Savage and Ben Butler 14 mins ago”
‘The Observer can reveal that Cameron was in line to profit from a $30m (£21.8m) employee benefit trust registered in Jersey thanks to his role with the collapsed Greensill Capital.’
++
Good old EBTs, eh, what?
Honest to God: greedy, grasping, lying bast.rds!
In SDM’s/RFC of 1872’s case the EBT scheme was not licit.
Cameron’s EBT scheme was probably licit ( else he would have been a stupider Etonite ‘fag’ ( allegedly)of Boris than I think!), but the lobbying, the tapping-in to people in positions of influence (some of whom might owe their present jobs to him ?) reeks of that disgusting moral corruption at public expense so familiar to us in the humbler sphere of Scottish Football.
Really.
John Clark 10th April 2021 At 23:08
The former Hearts posters were good at keeping me in line…well if not quite in line, certainly good at presenting an alternative view on certain issues which made me stop and think. In terms of the league, Hearts are one of Scotland’s biggest clubs and the top league can only be better by their presence.
Paddy Malarkey 10th April 2021 At 22:46
‘..The UEFA investigation should clear it all up .’
+++++++++++++++++++
I’ve been trying to find on the UEFA website what the ‘standard of proof’ is that they use.
They have already made a preliminary ‘judgment !
” In accordance with Article 49 DR, the CEDB today decided to provisionally suspend Mr. Ondřej Kúdela for the next (1) UEFA club competition match for which he would otherwise be eligible for the prima facie violation of Article 15(1)(a)(iv) DR, without prejudice to any ruling that the CEDB may subsequently make on the alleged violation of Article 14(1) DR.
Further information about this case will be made available once the CEDB has taken a decision in due course.”
Your man has already been tried and convicted by BBC Sportsound etc ( I could not believe my ears that BBC people would not automatically use words like ‘alleged’-Kenny at his partisanship worst, I think, not checked by the producer)
We simply do not know for a fact what was said to Kamara. We have what he said was said to him. But that is uncorroborated by anyone except by hearsay from the victim.
I’ve tried to find from the UEFA website what is the ‘standard of proof’ they use in their disciplinary cases. I can’t find any reference to it.
So I can’t say whether they operate on the basis of ‘balance of probabilities’ or actual proven evidence ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
Having myself been a ‘victim’ of racism, I am instinctively on the side of any other victim.
But allegations are allegations- not necessarily well-founded.
And allegations by a suspect football club itself founded on a lie are, perhaps, to be treated with caution.
Does Kris Boyd not understand the meaning of the word irony. He is quite willing to flap his gums on Leeds being successful due to the fact they spent a lot of money ( and I believe it was their own money). Does his memory bank not go back to the years when money was poured onto the Rangers in some what dubious ways allowing for their success.
Steve Evans now claiming Gerrard could be the next Sir Alex Ferguson. Where to start on that one. He wins one title and all of a sudden the world is his oyster. Can we give it a few years before going off the deep end with silly comparisons.
And, finally, SG says he is the only one who knows the details in regard to the Covid 5, If that is the case would that information not have been put forward to the SFA to alleviate all the aggravation that has arisen in the last two months. Of course SG knowledge of the details would have been completely unbiased. Should the SFA be asking for said information if it hasn’t already been presented. Where is the media following up on details.
New podcast. Very interesting proposals from the Celtic Trust worthy of wider audience
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/scottish-football-monitor-sfm/id817766886?i=1000516753435
Daryl Broadfoot really toiling desperately to explain the delay in the COVID-5 with a non-explanation.
Despicable.
John Clark 12th April 2021 At 18:07
Daryl Broadfoot really toiling desperately to explain the delay in the COVID-5 with a non-explanation.
Despicable.
+++++++++
He’ll be fine though, because ultimately it benefits Rangers and there will be no massive media backlash for that reason.
My post of 18.07 above refers: apologies for not saying what I was listening to at the time: the laptop had to come off the kitchen table or I! would have got my dinner o’er ma heid!
I was listening to Daryl on ‘Sportsound’
@ John Clark – guess that might have been heid bangers and mash then…sorry!
Wokingcelt 12th April 2021 At 22:38
‘@ John Clark – guess that might have been heid bangers and mash then…sorry!’
+++++++
I was certainly bangin’ my heid when Daryl (or is it Darryl?) came out with the ’55’ assertion, and Collins hadn’t any more guts than English( who of course long ago bought into the lie that TRFC are continuity ‘Rangers of 1872’)to contradict him!
When one thinks of the really quite brave journalists who exposed David Cameron as a wee chancer , smoothly oiling his way out of trouble as easily as he might use vaseline, one can have only contempt for our wee pretendy ‘journalists’ in the SMSM.
In their approach to ‘sporting integrity’ they are pretty much in the mould of those who work as ‘journalists’ for governments who subsidise the doping of their athletes.
That is, they are as dishonest and dishonourable as can be: and in the relatively trivial matter of sport!
It’s been a while since we heard the words ‘succulent lamb’.
But I think it is very likely that many of our SMSM people are still getting the odd wee bit of lamb tossed to them , with a draught of Rhenish, which ,as the tossers they are, they greedily swally with relish!
Where would they be, if they were required to lie about more fundamental matters?
Yep, you got it in one!
Jawohl , with knobs on!
Honest to God!
I’ll need to listen again to the latest podcast, and David Low’s ramblings.
The Celtic Trust seems to me to be kind of equivalent to Club 1872 in that it seems, to me at least, to be a tool of the Celtic plc board ,just as Club 1872 is a tool of TRFC. It is basically controlled by the Celtic Board as much as Club 1872 is by the TRFC/RIFC boards .
Am I wrong?
Answers, please, in a word.
Stopped listening to all the Scottish broadcasts, Clyde and Sportsound and TBH I am better off and more informed than i was when i used to listen to them. They talk utter sh*te and are made up of either huns or soup takers amd liars.
There was no escape out of Admin and no route out of liquidation, to pretend that a business is the same and was allowed to wipe off it’s creditors debts when it’s creditors agreed to have them wound them up is not just a lie, it is a fraud to the public who may in the future believe they are buying into something claimed to be an original when in fact it is not possible for it to be, every merchandise, media print that sells based on the lie is committing fraud and carrying it out in the knowledge they know it to be a lie and fraud.
The goods sold, are goods not as described, as they cannot be associated, for example there has been no 55 titles won, with an association to the club proclaiming to have won them, how could there be the club is only 10 years young.
Angel Gabriel 13th April 2021 At 06:37
Celtic did not break any rules by going to Dubai. They had the permission of both the SFA and the Scottish Government to go. I know for a fact that they spoke once again to the Scottish Government only three days before travelling and they still had no objections. The point Broadfoot made was they broke no social distancing rules of the country they were in.
He completely tied himself in knots on that programme. He tried to justify everything, including in his words that social distancing rules are broken almost every week at many clubs but everything has to be taken in context. He very cleverly slipped in at that point that included Rangers celebrations when they won the league.
He was clearly speaking for the SFA though (he still does work for them), and the real point of alarm for me was that it seems the SFA, despite the fact that the Rangers Covid-5 were fined by Police, allowed Rangers a lengthy period to allegedly carry out their own investigation. He tried to say it was not an open and shut case, despite the fact they broke the law and were fined by Police. This, along with Rangers making an appeal based on the grounds that a player can’t be banned if he is a good prospect. has led to the whole thing being a farce, and Rangers are hugely benefitting from it by being able to play a player who is their cover for a key player injury. 66 days have now come and gone since those players broke the law, and still they remain unpunished.
As for Broadfoot and his 55 titles statement, it was just a case of a Rangers fan (which he is for a fact) using his paid position on BBC to gloat. Humility is certainly not their strong point.
UTH 13th April 08.33.
Having not yet had the opportunity to listen to the episode of Sportsound in question i won’t comment.
On the subject of the Rangers appeal, do you honestly believe that it is based on SGs comments regarding Nathan Patterson?. According to the manager himself the quotes were taken out of context ,which isn’t surprising given the quality or lack of in journalism at present.
I see where the SFA are apparently calling two managers on to the carpet for recent remarks regarding officials> The SFA operating at almost warp speed to get this down. It appears that if you have an assistant manager you can get caught in their crosshairs, but, if you have a back up for an injured player, and, that player finds himself facing suspension the wheels will turn ever so slowly an almost glacial like pace. Gerrard has had a fair number of goes at the game, officials, etc and I don’t recall him being brought to task.
@Albertz11 – on what other basis are we to surmise an appeal has been made? All 5 players broke the law of the country. All 5 players were excluded from training/squad bubbles which suggests that TRFC acknowledged that COVID regulations within football were breached (I may have missed TRFC claiming this was done in error).
Simple fact is we lack consistent and robust application of what should be a straightforward set of rules. And we lack a media willing to hold these authorities to account on a without fear or favour basis. And if SG has been taken out of context – well it took a while for him to realise.
For me TRFC are shamelessly playing the system – they may benefit from this but do you consider such behaviour worthy of your support?
Albertz11 —– Gerrard has had a lot to say since coming to Rangers regarding officials, attitude of fans toward then, etc. Despite all the past comments we are led to believe his comments on Patterson were the first and only to be taken out of context. He is good with the media, maybe even slippery when he wants to make a point,
but to fall back on the old crutch, “taken out of context”, by the Ranger loving media is hard to swallow
Albertz11 13th April 2021 At 16:39
At the time of the press conference, which some media outlets played back in full, Gerrard’s comments about Patterson were the only justification he gave for an appeal. I am sure even some Rangers fans inwardly thought how good a prospect your manager thinks you are is stretching it to say the least as a basis for an appeal. It was at a following PC he claimed they were taken out of context. These players broke the law and accepted their fines. An appeal looks frivolous to say the least. However as others have pointed out Rangers are simply using the system. The SFA should have been swift and firm with them from the outset instead of letting them control all the timing. It doesn’t really take a genius to suspect it’s all about the fact the regular right back got injured around the same time and Patterson was the only right back cover. Even if their appeal fails, Rangers have got what they wanted. Plus ca change!
And propaganda meister Halliday continues the work of untruth:
Here he is in today’s ‘The Scotsman’ : ” .the most coveted win in their 149- year history” and ” the figure of 55 which has been notched up this season in their record collection of league titles”
What kind of diabolically perverted journalism stands facts absolutely on their head and comes out with untrue nonsense?
The very worst and most untrustworthy and self-seeking kind, of course.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56747993
Paddy Malarkey 14th April 15.46
A 10 game ban is the minimum punishment UEFA could have imposed for Kudela.
As Aamer Anwar has said it’s “making a mockery of UEFA’s claim on taking racism seriously”.
Glen Kamara was originally banned for 5 games before being reduced to 3 on appeal.
Disgusted but not surprised.
Albertz11 14th April 2021 At 16:19
My opinion is that Kamara was racially abused and Kudela should have been banned for at least a year . Unfortunately , it appears to be one players word against anothers’ . Stevie G stated that “Other players around it heard it. I will stand toe-to-toe with Glen Kamara.” , so I would imagine these players will be front and centre in the proposed appeal , or are Rangers only contesting the sanctions on their players ? In the midst of all this , it’s easy to forget that Rangers were sanctioned by UEFA in 2019 for their fans “racist behaviour” .
“How on earth do we rid football of this cancer?” screams Kenny Mac about the curse of racism.
And quite rightly.
I agree with him wholeheartedly and with all who condemn racism in whatever circumstances.
But where is the cry for restoration of truth in SCOTTISH football, which has been living an absurd lie since 2012 in accommodating the fantasy that TRFC (of special admission into football as a new club in 2012 ) is somehow 149 years old and entitled to claim honours and titles for football achievements that they were not in existence even to participate in?
Racism is unquestionably a far more horrendous matter with far more serious social consequences than any stupid lying by a Sports governance body or by any football club.
Nevertheless, such lying is scarcely acceptable just because it’s of lesser global consequence.
Untruth is untruth.
And folk who promote untruth are pernicious liars who must be called out.
Paddy Malarkey 14th April 16.19
I agree with regards to your proposed punishment for Kudela.
If UEFA are serious about eradicating racism from the game then the punishment must fit the crime and 10 matches is obviously insufficient. As SRTRC tweeted today ” Players can wear respect on their arms, but without zero tolerance of racist abuse, it stands as an empty gesture”.
I listened in to this morning’s session in the Grier damages case. The cross-examination of Det Superintendent Robertson continued.
I could only listen to the morning session, having other things to do in the afternoon.
The questioning seemed to be trying to establish whether ,once the English Court had issued an injunction forbidding access to and use of ‘Legal and Professional Privilege’ wrongly seized from solicitors in London and Manchester (I think) , the Scottish police had breached that injunction even though they ad apparently been told to stop any further investigation at that time.
That was about as far as proceedings got to by lunch.
Also on today was
CALLING LIST
Wednesday 14th April
CA71/20 Duff & Phelps Ltd AG The Lord Advocate
which, of course, I missed!
Again we have McCoist clogging up the media with the telling of a story how he negotiated with David Murray over bottles of wine and always seem to come out second best. If they had indulged in that much wine did he ever read the contract, or, have the ability to read it. As you will remember when his contact as manager of Rangers came to light he famously claimed he just signed the papers and didn’t read them. Poor Ally must have been hard done by during his playing time at Rangers if that’s how he really negotiated his contract.
The 10 game ban was the maximum allowed not the minimum , Kudela I imagine denied he said this and there were no Independent witnesses to the allegation. I have little doubt he did use this language but we need more than one person to verify it and a team mate is not Independent. We can have a situation now where people can make false allegations in order to benefit from them . Players are quite happy to dive and fake injury in order to seek an advantage on the pitch or have a player sent off , what’s to stop them claiming racial abuse for the same purpose ? If we are punishing people without evidence then this will end up being abused .
If the club from Ibrox were serious about standing up to racism then they should immediately ditch their “mandarin” top . Every man and his dog knows exactly what it represents and the type of bigot they are playing to . When they are happy to profit from racism then they can hardly complain when they come in contact with racism themselves.
Paddy Malarkey 14th April 2021 At 18:37
I have always been of the view Kamara was definitely racially abused. People can say what they want about proof but his reaction and statements following it make it pretty much a slam dunker for me.
While Rangers were absolutely right to demand appropriate action the absoute moral high ground they and their fans are taking over racism does not sit well at all with me. There is a significant problem with racism and sectarianism among a section of their support and this will become evident again when fans are allowed back in. It will also attract the attention of UEFA. They are not the only club with problems but they should have eased up on the holier than thou stance they are taking. It would be harder for them to be like that if more in the SMSM pointed this out to them, but so far only Graham Spiers has, who is of course banned from Ibrox. On another note I am hearing Michael Stewart is also banned now for having an opinion.
Timtim 15th April 13.17.
According to Article 14 Racism and other discriminatory conduct.
Any person under the scope of Article 3 who insults the human dignity of a person or group of persons on whatever grounds, including skin colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, gender of sexual orientation, incurs a suspension lasting at LEAST ten matches or a specified period of time, or any other appropriate sanction.
A superb tour de force by Marvin Bartley of Livingston FC on Sportsound!
What a powerful, passionate speaker on a matter that is of supremely greater importance than mere football.
But it was amusing to hear Chick say how good it was that Marvin had this opportunity on the BBC to express himself!
Not making any equation between the Big Lie and the evil of racism, I wonder at the perversity of the BBC in refusing discussion ,even ,of the Big lie never mind giving permission to anyone to argue for the Truth-that RFC of 1872 was liquidated, cease to exist as a football club, and that TRFC is not, could not possibly be, RFC of 1872.
Some people are very selective about the truth, and such people have a bloody cheek to try to speak as honest people.
I managed to catch the beginning of the cross-examination of the lady Det. Inspector in the Grier damages action.
Kick-off was delayed until 10.30, and she was sworn in then.
The questioning was about the disks , which were in envelopes, that had been part of the material seized from the offices of HFW/DFW.
Further questions related to conversations between Det SUP Robertson and the witness, and communications with Crown office , and more senior police officers, an interview with Phil Betts at a time when he was regarded as a suspect, and a formal statement from Betts later when he was interviewed formally as a witness.
And so on, until Lunch.
I took some notes, of course, and could put down some more questions and answers. However, a condition of getting telephone access to the Hearings is that any reporting has to avoid being in any way prejudicial to the Hearing or any participants.
I’m afraid that I have no sure way of knowing where the line may be! And I don’t want to face a Contempt of court charge if I made a mistake in my notes!
Besides, I didn’t hear any more testimony from the Det Inspector because I didn’t tune in after lunch.
As an almost unconnected observation, I read a week or so ago an article by the Dean of Faculty in which, although he was all for streamlining Court procedures and was appreciative of the great boon it was that modern comms enabled virtual hearings to take place to let important matters be dealt with, he expressed the view that there is nothing to bet live, open court, face-to-face justice, even in civil matters.
I think I agree with him!
John Clark 15th April 2021 At 18:39
Another thing I am becoming increasingly frustrated with is the huge push within the Scottish Media for racism punishments to be increased after this particular incident. Racism is horrible – all right minded people agree on that, but discrimination and hate filled abuse has been around Scottish football for a long time, and the same media are often apologists for it. You don’t have to be a person of colour to be racially abused, and abuse based on a person’s religion is every bit as bad. Let’s see if that continues to be swept under the carpet when crowds return. I suspect it will be.
Upthehoops 15th April 2021 At 20:36
‘..You don’t have to be a person of colour to be racially abused,.’
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Conversely, uth there is no Constitutional bar on persons of colour INHERITING THE CROWN on grounds merely of their ethnic origins or skin colour.
Whereas there is an ABSOLUTE legal bar on RCs becoming King/Queen!
Under the laws of the UK ,these days a person of colour who is transgender/homosexual/bisexual/ lesbian and of the religious faith of Islamism/ Hinduism/ Taoism/ Buddhism/’atheism’, or whatever, who may happen to be the heir to the Throne is not , right from the off, debarred by Law from being crowned as Monarch.
Whereas his/her parallel ( except in not being a person of colour ] , but who is Roman Catholic IS absolutely barred!
That the Act of Settlement of 1701 is still on the Statute book is a piece of nonsense: and a pernicious piece of nonsense in that it betokens AN ATTITUDE OF MIND that has resisted change in ONE aspect of civic society when every other aspect of former discrimination has, thankfully , been removed by statute.
Upthehoops 15th April 2021 At 14:04
‘..On another note I am hearing Michael Stewart is also banned now for having an opinion.’
+++++++++++++++++++
Mmmmm.
I thought I had heard that too, on BBC radio Scotland?
And I thought , how come?
Stewart did not express an opinion.
The very opposite, in fact.
He said what I myself said at the time: we do not know what was said.
It could have been any kind of ‘noise-up’ abusive, insulting terms.
I myself can think of plenty of ways to insult and verbally ‘abuse’ a TRFC player, that would have nothing to do with racism!
In fact, by declaring that TRFC is a cheating club, claiming to be 149 years old, I am, albeit indirectly, ‘abusing’ the entire playing squad and management of the cheating club by implying that they personally ,wittingly or unwittingly, have bought into a lie!
But of course, I speak not ‘opinion’, but objective truth,… and not abuse.
And even UEFA would have to acknowledge that TRFC did not exist prior to 2012!
Honest to God!
That the lie should have continued for so long…..
And that so many journalists , print and radio, should be so thirled to the lie !
God help them square their consciences before the ‘Eye’
Pitiful, weak-minded, sheep-like sort of disgrace to ‘journalism’ that they are!
On Marvin Bartley, I think I heard that he had the support of big-name English premiership players ‘of colour’ to take direct action by walking off the field sometime soon in whatever match they were playing in to force their own clubs and the FA and UEFA to get to grips with racism in a meaningful way.
That would really get minds focussed!
More power to his elbow!
John Clark 16th April 2021 At 00:00
When Celtic last visited Ibrox the players were subjected to significant sectarian abuse when they exited the team bus, The police stood by and watched. The video is available on social media. They arrested one man some days later rather than deal with multi-offenders at the time. I do hope that now Rangers have come out firmly against all types of discrimination and prejudice that they will have worked with police to ensure no bigots are allowed near the front door on Sunday. Then again reading social media all of their fans don’t have a racist or bigoted bone in them, such is the anti-racism stance they have all taken these past few weeks. So there shouldn’t be an issue.
A sense of whataboutery on some of the recent posts. I think most would agree that Kamara was racially abused based on immediate reaction and that likely there were no witnesses. UEFA appear to have acted on basis of balance of probabilities rather than reasonable doubt, presumably based on their rule book.
Based on press reports (in England) the Slavia player made a singular racist comment. Given its singularity and no witnesses I understand why UEFA may have felt that going beyond the minimum sanction not appropriate otherwise it begs the question what would attract the minimum sanction. I am not justifying the level of sanction, just noting what is currently available per their rule book.
Let’s hold each other to account for our casual ‘isms each of which can be just as toxic and destructive.
And if not too sanctimonious maybe question why we want to hold on to our history if not to learn from it and disown it at the same time.
UTH 15th April 20.36
All types of discrimination, be it Racist, Sectarian, Homophobic etc should be highlighted by all sections of the media without fear or favour and then dealt with in a appropriate manner. If this should result in players/clubs being banned or stadiums being closed then so be it.
To be discussing this in 2021 is depressing.
Enough is enough.
On a personal level the look of disbelief, hurt & anger on the faces of Glen Kamara, Bongani Zungu & Connor Goldson will live long in the memory, as will the images of Glen being consoled by Steven Gerrard post match.
Just to say I accessed the virtual hearing in the Grier action this morning at about 10.50 ( presumably it had begun at the scheduled time of 10.00
When I tuned in, I heard the witness , a police officer, being asked whether he knew anything about Wavetower? Anything about Merchant Turnaround? Had he dealt with Mr Ross Bryant? Did he know anything about ‘the letter of comfort’?
Did he read any statement by Mr Betts? Did he have unrestricted access to the documentation in the whole case? How often was he briefed?
Next witness was a much more senior police officer.
He was asked to identify ( on a screen that only he and the legal chaps could see] 3 documents. These were from what he referred to as the Policy Management File, The first was signed by the witness himself and another officer(A DCI, not Robertson)
The second was again signed by that same DCI and had the words” decision taken in consultation with [the witness]
The third document was signed by the same DCI.
I’ve no note about anything the witness may have said, other than to confirm the document was from the Policy Management File. All I have is the QC saying “we see DCI Z’s name Would we be better asking him ..?
That was Mr Duncan’s last question to the witness.
Lord Tyre: Mr Smith?
Mr Smith QC: Thank you, m’Lord. Mr Y, I represent David Grier. First, can I ask whether you were watching evidence given by others?
W: No. The person assisting me has only just connected me. [ I presume that witnesses are assisted by a techy/ court official/ polis who makes sure that witnesses cannot access the proceedings until they themselves have to take the stand? I wonder how they prevent witnesses accessing on the phone right from day one, using a friend’s phone?]
QC: Look again at the document. Is it a notebook with details?
W: No.. (???)
QC: Reason ‘ due to ‘potential public interest and response by supporters of Rangers’… Do you remember that meeting?
W: No.
QC: About anticipating of potential response, the nature of it?
W: Well, it would have been about public order, and the safety of individuals.
QC: There could be trouble, verbal and physical abuse?
W: Yes.
Qc: You are an extremely senior officer-what did you think was the worst case scenario?
W: An assault on the Duff and Phelps administrators.
QC: You would ensure their safety. How many officers did you direct?
W: I didn’t. The officer responsible did.
QC What resource would have been reasonable?
W: I would ask those on the spot.
QC: Let’s speak hypothetically: I’m a police officer and I come to you…situation of high tension. how should I manage?
W: well, I would take advice from the people who run the Court. ..
QC: But it’s a matter of public safety.. it’s for the Police?
W: In partnership with Court officials.
QC: Did you ask for a formal risk assessment ?
W: I reassured myself that the people in charge had enough resources.
QC: But how and when did you reassure yourself? When did you satisfy yourself?
W: prior to the individuals’ appearance in court.
QC: But now you know that wouldn’t it be reasonable to take positive steps?
W: Yes, but it’s what I did do.
QC: Shouldn’t that be in the Policy Management Manual?
W: No.
QC: Where would we find that?
W: The Policy Management file was DCI Z’s.
QC: Did you make sure that DCI Z was in charge?
W Yes.
QC: When? at that time, how many police officers?
W: I can’t say.
QC :How many people might have turned up?
W: Maybe none, maybe many.
QC: I would expect something in writing: where will I find it?
[If there was a reply, I missed it! The QC, Mr Smith, suggested to the judge that since he had more questions this might be a good time to take a break.
So there was a break from 11.30 to 11.50.
And I will give you all a break as well, and resume again tomorrow.
[ I’m a one-finger typist, and can hardly read my own scribbled notes. I would have done this earlier today, but the boss said: Nicola says we can leave our own council area today, it’s a beautiful day, so get in the car and take me to Peebles!
Nice wee town, Peebles. ]
Ranger fans, players and management continue to drone on regarding their alleged 55th league title and that theme has been fairly consistent for many years. With a QF game in the Scottish Cup on the horizon you hardly here any mention of Celtic being on the road to their 40th Scottish Cup. Surely if the shoe were on the other foot the Scottish media and Rangers fans, players, management would be advising all and sundry of the next feat in their somewhat spotty history, and, possibly another world record.
I cannot imagine how I missed the announcement in February 2021 of the appointment of a new Editor for ‘The Scotsman’.
The appointment was announced on 21 February and I’ve just become aware of it.
“A senior BBC executive has been appointed editor of a flagship daily newspaper in the first major editorial appointment by its new owners.”
https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2021/news/bbc-boss-becomes-dailys-editor-as-publisher-begins-management-shake-up/
And he introduces himself on page 2 of today’s edition.
In his message he mentions “that it was impossible to resist the opportunity to ensure The Scotsman pursues vigorously its 204 -year-old mission..”
Will his feeing for true history prompt him to face up to the fact that the newspaper of which he is now the Editor deliberately fosters and promotes the ridiculous untruth that a football club that was newly admitted into Scottish Football in 2012 is 149 years old? And restore some notion of journalistic and sporting integrity?
Or will he happily lie along with BBC Scotland in continuing to promote the untruth that RFC of 1872 did not die, and that a 12-year-old football cub has 149 years worth of sporting achievement?
I think I can answer that question in a word of two letters..
Vernallen 17th April 2021 At 01:59
Vernallen, I commented on this ‘shouting’ about 55 a little while back, convinced as I am that TRFC and their fans (including those in the broadcast and written media) are ONLY proclaiming it so loudly (and, sadly, visibly too in the case of their fans with ’55’ flags and t-shirts!) because they are trying DESPERATELY to drown out the original voice in their head reminding them how they felt when the club was liquidated and they read the papers, watched the news etc.
I have family on my wife’s side who are Rangers/TRFC fans. They have bought ’55’ t-shirts for themselves and friends. I wind them up by asking “Have you still got your ’45’ t-shirts that you presumably bought when the old club reached that milestone?” They’re not happy, but then I guess any club that claims to be the world’s most successful when they can see the likes of Real with their Decimo, other Euro trophies and loads of higher standard league titles; Bayern with their domestic record in a much higher standard league as well as CL wins etc would have no problem celebrating a ridiculous number like ’55’.
I find it laughable! I can’t think of any other club who would celebrate a ‘-5′ honour in such a way, but that just convinces me that the ONLY reason for the hyperbole over ’55’ is to shout over that wee, horrible voice in their head saying ‘it’s not really the same club, but okay….’ It’s the exact same, of course, as the 140th anniversary celebrations soon after liquidation. It’s actually quite embarrassing, but cognitive dissonance will do that to you, I guess.
For anyone who may be interested
The David Grier action : my notes of the Hearing on Friday morning 16 April 2021 continued.:
Court resumed at 11.50
QC: [ instructs the ‘operator’ controlling the showing of documents on screen to show 6485 of Bundle 3.] Mr Y, who is that in the photograph.. the lady in black holding back a Rangers fan? We can’t tell she is a police officer. There’s another image at the bottom- car keys in her right hand.No indication that she is a police officer.
Not really a police presence?
W: Agreed. But the assessment would be made at the time, and resources could be provided very quickly by radio.
QC: But if there was a riot…you would expect to be able to say that risks had been properly assessed..?
W: Yes.
QC: There is a document about that?
W: There is a ‘strategic intention’… [ ed:I think this is a paper outlining the strategy that the responsible officer proposes to adopt]
QC: If we turn now to page 1054….. [silence while the operator gets it on screen]
. ’14 November 2014- intelligence received Whitehouse ‘flying to Portugal’. You knew Whitehouse had house in Portugal?
W: Yes. The SIO wanted all to be detained at the same time. If someone left the country that
wouldn’t happen .. and there might have been difficulties.
QC: But at that time European Arrest Warrants were available whatever the present position is, after Brexit.. Did he have a return ticket?
W: I don’t know.
QC: In 6839, 6803 [ of the witness’s statement] you can see “ I knew JR by name … met him once or twice….. I wasn’t aware of anyone raising questions about JR’s conduct or JO’N.
Is that so?
W: Yes
QC: “ if there had been any concerns about them it would have been noticed.No possibility of a ‘rogue cop’. It can be reasonable for officers to be robust in questioning..”
Let’s suppose that a colleague had broken rules like opening an envelope when the question of LPP had not been resolved…and Jo’N knew that the envelope ought not to have been opened.
What would you expect?
W: to report it to her supervisor or another senior officer if her supervisor was the person..
QC: She did give evidence that she reported to AB. What would you expect to happen?
W: An enquiry.
QC: A serious official matter?
W: Yes.
QC: Maybe even disciplinary ?
W: At least reported to the PF.
QC: And if AB ignored the report, it would be terrible?
W: Yes
QC: Even you would expect to be told?
W: Most important that the PF be told.
QC: How would something as serious as this not reach you?
W: I don’t know why that is.
QC: I’m interested in whether you would wish to amend your statement where you say “ at no stage has anyone ever highlighted any concern”.. the report would have gone up the chain of command from AB up to Superintendent T, then to C. and then to you?
W: Yes.
QC: Was there a question of taking JR off the enquiry?
W: that would be an option.
QC: This would all be in writing?
W: Yes.
QC What do you understand that police officers are obliged to tell the Crown?
W: the evidence they have obtained..
QC: It’s all covered by the Act? [ ed: The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984] It’s not up to the Police to decide what to tell? Is that right?
W: Yes.
QC: Philip Betts during 2013 ,originally a suspect ,was interviewed for about an hour in the middle of March 2013 at Stanstead airport. That should have been disclosed.?
W: Yes.
QC: Mr Betts was a Director of Wavetower. He persuaded Mr Patel to change a name on the spreadsheet that was presented to MIH. Looks like afraud?
W: Yes
QC: It’s hard to see how Mr Betts could move from being a suspect to being a witness?
W: Well, it depends ..
QC: The Crown took JR’s word that there was no criminality in Mr Betts!
W: I’m surprised that the Crown simply accepted the word of JR
QC: You would have expected the Crown to ask questions about it?
W: Yes.
QC; It’s all right for police officers to be robust in questioning.But there are allegations that JR was inappropriately aggressive?
W: Mmnn, yes.
QC: In your statement you imply that a PC can’t be a snowflake when interviewing?
W: Yes.
QC: if we look in Bundle 5,page 3 paras 3,4 and 5. In context , this relates to the statement of Philip Duffy, managing director of Duff and Phelps, where he says “arrest was based on Panorama programme”
and that JR said “ you had better make sure it’s true’ and allegedly chanted Rangers songs and made remarks like ‘don’t get smart with me, sonny’ woudn’t that be considered as [inappropriately aggressive]?
W:Yes
QC: There’s another example at p.4, from Mr Paul Smith’s statement[ed:I missed that quoted extract and the quote from a Mr Chalmers, solicitor ]
the QC continued: these interviews took place after the indictments were served on people in Duff and Phelps along with others..a Crown witness is being interviewed!
There is more of that kind of stuff in Paul Smith. And Mr Raynford – solicitor in criminal law for nearly 40 years and a part-time judge recorded (on page 55)
“ What I recall we were all very close together to make written witness statements…..JR was ‘coming after us!”This was a complete shock. He was very aggressive , saying ‘I’m going to take you up to Scotland today’.”
Wouldn’t you say that that was completely unacceptable?
W: I agree.
QC: Andrew Gregory, solicitor for Duff and Phelps? If Mr XX believd that Gregory could not be trusted, you’d expect him to mention that fact?
W: Yes.
QC: In the matter of returning the D &P stuff ,was that a fairly low level task?
W: Not necessarily.
[There followed a brief discussion about why senior officers rather than junior officers took the bxes of dcuments that had been seized. The witness sad that it was a matter of balancing costs of taking officers off other duties against the convenience of using officers familiar with the investigatin.
QC: Document 35, statement of Andrew Gregory, solicitor of 37 years standing.Para 23: on page 39
“10 12 2014
DCI JR addressed me” He asserts that JR said to him “I don’t want to be locking you up”.
W: If that is true, his attitude is appalling.
QC: no further questions, m’Lord.
Lord Tyre: Mr Moynihan have you any question?
Mr Moynihan: No,m’Lord.
Lord Tyre: Mr Duncan.?
Mr D: Thank you, m’LordI
If we go back to the ‘spreadsheet’ and ‘fraud’ ,doesn’t that question have to be seen in the whole context, for example, what reliance the Murray Group placed on the change?
W: yes
Mr D: And on the matter of reporting the allegedly wrongfully accessing of material, that was in October 2017. When did you retire?
W: October 2016.
Mr D: 17 November 2014, did you know that Duff and Phelps had arranged private security for their people?
W: Yes.
Lord Tyre: Mr Duncan have you more questions?
MrD: Yes, my Lord. I’m conscious that we lost some time earlier, so perhaps ..
Lord Tyre: Yes, but I think we might stop for lunch now.
Court rose at 1.07 pm.
Very interesting indeed, JC. Please keep doing what you do.
So Barry Ferguson sees a Ranger’s win tomorrow creating space in the Celtic trophy room. Well that maybe true there is still a lot of room to fill in the Ranger’s trophy room. This year’s league title, the pre-season thing from France, and the outstanding Challenge Cup from early on in the journey. With the amount of column inches he garners weekly, how does he cope with managing a football team.
Vernallen 17th April 2021 At 18:58
Do ex-players such as Barry Ferguson actually write their columns, or are they ghost written by Journalists?
Nawlite 17th April 2021 At 18:51
‘..Very interesting indeed, JC.’
++++++++++++++++++
I just wish I had ‘Pitman’ shorthand skills!
However, I don’t think I have in the least misrepresented anything that was said by any of the ‘legals’ or witnesses.
I write what I hear, and if I haven’t heard, I make that fact plain .
And, of course, I carefully avoid comment of my own .
UTH 17th April 2021 21:30
No matter who writes them they aren’t exactly cutting edge pieces of journalism. The extra few bob a week must feel like receiving an EBT for non performance.
John Clark 17th April 2021 At 22:36
0 0 Rate This
Nawlite 17th April 2021 At 18:51
‘..Very interesting indeed, JC.’
++++++++++++++++++
I just wish I had ‘Pitman’ shorthand skills!
However, I don’t think I have in the least misrepresented anything that was said by any of the ‘legals’ or witnesses.
I write what I hear, and if I haven’t heard, I make that fact plain .
And, of course, I carefully avoid comment of my own .
+++++++
JC, I admire your note taking skills. I remember the good old days when people with shorthand skills would take notes at meetings and draft the minutes. Then when there was money to be saved it morphed into sometimes having to take your own notes and draft your own minutes. I retired late last year and by then meeting minutes (for some meetings) had become a lot less formal and detailed than they once were. To be honest a lot of it was long overdue.
Big changes in Europe , and maybe an uncivil war .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56794673
The latest news about a possible breakaway by Europe’s top clubs isn’t really a surprise, nor is it a surprise that there has been widespread opposition to the proposals.
However, if I was to play devil’s advocate, what is the difference in what is proposed in Europe with what happened in England in 1992 and in Scotland in 1998 when the EPL and SPL were formed? Both leagues had the same desire to break away from their existing league structures and for the biggest teams to benefit financially from the move.
The EPL and SPL relented to some extent by allowing promotion/relegation in order to maintain their dominance, control and status at home and with UEFA. However, both leagues are now the dominant voices in domestic football, along with their broadcasting partners, not the FA or SFA.
It would not surprise me if the super league came up with some compromise arrangement that would see the CL winners play off against the super league’s bottom side, in order to gain acceptance.
The super league is so far removed from Scottish Football that it should make no difference whatsoever here. In any event there appears to be a growing desire that Scottish football itself needs restructured again, to focus on the full time professional clubs and reduce the influence of the part time clubs. Colt or B team proposals are just another manifestation of that. Again the primary drivers are financial and self interest reasons.
Paddy Malarkey 18th April 2021 At 18:39
Lurkio 18th April 2021 At 18:49
++++++++++++++
I’ve just read the Joint Statement, https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56794673 from which I lift this little gem:
“In a separate statement, the Premier League said it condemned the proposal as it “attacks the principles of open competition and sporting merit which are at the heart” of domestic and European football.”
Maybe at the heart of football in England perhaps, but certainly not in Scotland where the SFA created and continues to promote the biggest Sports lie in sporting history, and point-blank refused to have an independent investigation into a potential crime which may, allegedly, have involved officials in the SFA and/or officials of a football club .
No notion of sporting merit here, chaps!
The latest announcements regarding a European super league suggest to me that those clubs see the Harlem Globetrotters approach as the way to go – fully fledged entertainment business and to hang with the pesky sporting considerations.
It amazes me that so few in “big business “ (whatever that is) seem never to have heard of the story of the goose that laid golden eggs. Their greed will consume anything and everything it touches. Football as a closed shop with pseudo competition – not for me, it would make Giant Haystacks v Big Daddy look Olympian by comparison!
Wokingcelt 18th April 2021 At 23:01
‘.Football as a closed shop with pseudo competition – not for me’
++++++++++++++++++++++
Eh, even pseudo competition is a tad more acceptable than no competition whatsoever being required in order to gain sports titles and honours!
There’s TRFC being allowed ,by our ‘men of integrity in sport’ , our sport’s governance bodies, to claim honours etc won in competitions which they did not exist to be able even to take part in !
We must not be suckered by the passage of time to forget that rot at the heart of our ‘sport’
With that untruth at the very centre, who can trust that anything is honest?
Are games rigged? Are ‘draws’ rigged? Are ‘own goals’ or ‘penalties’ rigged by arrangement between clubs?
Am I paranoid, or was RFC of 1872 liquidated and TRFC founded in 2012?
I am not paranoid. RFC of 1872 died, and TRFC was born in 2012.
And we do have a very suspect governance body.
And every man jack on that governance body knows that.
SG moaning about the penalty awarded today. So would that be another record down the drain, a full season of Scottish football without a penalty being awarded against Rangers.
Can someone supply the editors of scottish papers with the definition of liquidation. Again we have reference to the potential of Rangers possibly achieving their first double since 2009. Since the club/company/engine room was placed in liquidation in 2012 would this not be there first double ever. Only if someone had the internal fortitude to report in the truthful manner.
Can we expect a press release in the near future about Rangers being invited to enter the proposed new Super League.
John Clark 18th April 2021 At 21:24
My instinct is yhat UEFA are comfortable with the franchise system , where the “big” clubs never die and can’t be relegated , and are happy to have the concept trialled in a lesser league . By not nipping it in the bud , they’ve allowed it to grow outwith their control , much like giant knotweed is now . They didn’t realise it could kill them .
On 14th April at 22.33 I posted a short note of the hearing I ‘virtually’ attended in the Grier damages action.
Although I had actually taken some detailed notes, the post was scarcely more than the briefest summary. That was because I was unsure whether I could freely report without being in any kind of breach, and had not typed up my notes.
Having read what the rules are on the Court Rolls page I felt able to post a report on 16th April a 17.19 about what I heard of the hearing on that day.
I have now typed up my notes of the earlier hearing on 14th April and post them herewith:
“Mr Smith QC: Mr Robertson , will you refer to a document in which it is recorded that Grier was lying about his knowledge of the Ticketus arrangement, in an interview in London in October 2011, signed by Grier: look at the paragraph where it says “from speaking to Paul I learned there was concern in respect of HMRC..I was made aware that Ticketus…..I would like to say at this stage that I had no knowledge of the Ticketus deal”
There is another document in Bundle 3, p. 6630, your statement Mr Robertson at para 66
“ ..Grier only had broad knowledge …of deal” Do you stand by it?
R: Yes
QC: You refer to Craig Whyte email and BBC transcript.. if we look at 36.10.12 [ ed: that’s what I wrote. I think it’s a reference number rather than a misheard date?]
R:WHat page…89?
QC: .back to the other page… “..aware of Ticketus deal, Betts mentioning £9 million , not the same deal,” which would suggest that Grier had no knowledge of deal at this time.
R: That is what I am reporting as what Grier is telling me.
QC: No. .. “I only knew from Bryant, Withey and CW totally relying on what I was being told”
On a different topic, Mr Robertson,…the ‘Black File’, schedule 9, 28.8. 2013, a search in the Shard and the Manchester Offices of Duff and Phelps and Legal and Professional Privilege. You are not claiming that there was no claim to LLP?
R: I didn’t have an email-activated phone.. I had left a contact..
QC: Who made the assertion?
R: I can’t recall at all…I do recall once we left the building we did seek advice .
QC: Who from .
R: Mr Coleman[ ed.(?)]
QC: So at least very shortly after, you knew!
R: What’s your time-scale? We travelled right away by train to Glasgow.
QC: What did you do with the items seized?
R: We made a list of documents seized, including the ‘Black Folder’
QC [referring to a a photograph on screen] Can you look at the photograph. How was it labelled?
R: Further down, a red star…I think that’s the file.
QC: The ‘Scott schedule’, contained 314 pages. We will hear a report from Jackie [Jacqui?] A legal claim.
R: I agree today, but not in 2013.
QC: About the execution of the warrant, the Injunction obtained against the Crown and the Police..
R: Cubbin [ed:?] had sent me an email.
QC: That email contained the warrant signed on 9th June 2015 by Justice Cox, stamped on 10th, and told you of the Injunction.
What did you do?
R: I sent it to my line-managers to tell them of the injunction and stop the van taking the documents from HFW.
QC: What were the terms of the Injunction?
Lord Tyre [intervening] Mr Robertson, when did you first see this warrant?
R: On the evening of the search, a midnight phone call. I must have looked at it then and called Jackie O’Neill and a DC to say ‘we can’t take the van’ and to make other arrangements to get people home.
QC: [quoting from the warrant] “If you disobey this order you may be held in contempt of Court..” This was a serious event taking place?
R: yes. That would have woken me up..
QC: [continuing to quote] “ You shall not read, inspect, or make use of any of the documents or give the gist of the documents etc to any third party..”
R: I couldn’t access them: they were in the van with the City of London police.
QC: You knew that you couldn’t use the documents or any copies or replications. Do you think you could have re-exercised the execution of the warrant?
R:If it was necessary; I would have to go through the same process.
QC: 10..12.2015, an email from Campbell to Eddy Thomson copying in Caroline McLeod of the PFS. – If read from “restricting investigations” down to Campbell’s signature as Interim Head of Legal Services, Police Scotland.
Do you recall receiving this email?
R: Is there a reply from me?
QC: No.
R:I don’t dispute it..
QC: You were anxious about things?
R: There were things to do-check out of the hotel , get across London..
QC: Mr Grier did not have access to police documents, and details very recently received;
“Op Stop, Stop, Stop. Jim to do nothing unless authorised by us”
Do you recall receiving that, very shortly after the service of the Injunction?
R: Yes, we had stopped the night before.
Q: Did you email back to Campbell or were things just left?
R. There was more correspondence. I would have been seeking legal advice, and I think I would have phoned Mr Campbell.
QC: Was there contact with Novae Insurance following HFW and the Injunction?
R: I tried to get the materials to cut through the difficulties..
QC: That would have been the Injunction?
R: No. Andrew was telling me that Duff and Phelps might not be insured. Isn’t there something in there?
QC: Hard on the heels of the warrant and Bill of Suspension?
R: Yes. I couldn’t understand why. It had nothing to do with trying to get access to ‘warrant’ documents.
QC: Did you go back to HFW?
R: Yes
QC What did you ask them for?
R: The electronic material- they said they would.
QC: Who said that? At this point the indictment had been served on Grier. Isn’t that the normal thing?
R: Yes..
QC: But you’re still trying to get information! . Why were you interested in whether Duff and Phelps were insured for legal claims ?Why did Andrew Gregory offer to help and then not?
R: I explained all that to Alec Moon.
[Adjourned for lunch]
On resumption,
QC: How was it you were asked to provide information about HFW? You spoke to Sheriff Wood?
R: Yes.
QC: By-passing the Crown Office. Have you ever been asked by a Sheriff to produce documents, subject sheet ? Being asked for a ‘subject sheet’ is not strange, but after a warrant has been issued?
[here the QC spoke to the operator “Bundle 3, p. 747, please,” and continued – “SPR: standard prosecution report. This is a report for which you are responsible , sent by you to the Crown is your end suggestions as to what should happen?
R: yes.
QC [reading] “ ..fraudulent scheme charge, you Mr Grier did formulate and…scheme to gain control of Rangers..”
You formulated that charge. Who would have assisted you?
R: Sally Clark, McLeod….
++++++++++++++++++++++++==
And at that point I disconnected , and took the wife to Peebles!
Nice wee town, Peebles.
Always interesting, the way other organisations in sport look at things:
” Christian Coleman’s appeal was partially upheld and he will serve a reduced period of ineligibility of
18 months as from 14 May 2020.
The CAS Panel in charge of the matter, composed of Mr James Drake QC (UK), President, Mr Jeffrey
Benz (USA) and Prof. Ulrich Haas (Germany), arbitrators, held a hearing with the parties by videolink on 15 February 2021.
In coming to its decision, the CAS Panel determined that Christian Coleman had indeed committed an
Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Article 2.4 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules, but found
the athlete’s degree of negligence to be lower than that established in the Challenged Decision: the
Athlete was not at home during the 60-minute time slot on the day of the out-of-competition doping
control (9 December 2019), as he should have been, and the Athlete should have been on ‘high-alert’
on that day, given the two existing whereabout failures against him. On the other hand, however, had
the Athlete been called by the Doping Control Officer, he would have been able to return to his
apartment during the 60-minute window and a test would have been concluded. Although a telephone
call during the 60-minute window was not required by the rules, it was nevertheless reasonable for the
Athlete to expect such a call, as a matter of standard practice among other Doping Control Officers.
In conclusion, the CAS Panel determined that an 18-month period of ineligibility was the appropriate
sanction in the circumstances”
I had to laugh .
I heard English on ‘Sportsoud’ saying a minute ago
“the sheikhs, the oligarchs don’t care about history” .
Why should they when they have the splendid example of the SFA and TRFC just creating it instantly?
We’ll hear a lot of guff about ‘sporting integrity’, ‘true competition’- from lying hypocritical tossers who have destroyed the integrity of football in Scotland.
@ John Clark – if that’s what English said then so much for ranting about racism. To say “the sheikhs” don’t care about history is a bang to rights racist statement – no question. Not sure if oligarchism exists so not sure if he’s an oligarchist too ?
Another share issue by RIFC plc today, according to Companies House
2 150 000 @ 20p each.
Total shares now in issue 390441872.
John Clark 19th April 2021 At 21:22
……………
The win bonus must be crippling the new club;-)
https://twitter.com/ClydeSSB/status/1384208263026069507/photo/1
……………………
SFA. Uphold the values and very fabric of football.
……………..
Blow Torch and red neck come to mind
John Clark 19th April 2021 At 13:05
…………………..
Thanks JC
I was told a while back that restructuring was being discussed by someone who has contacts at board level. it was implied that a euro league 1 and 2 could be on the cards and both the large Glasgow clubs were interested . This could explain why money is being thrown at keeping the club at Ibrox functioning if they believe that the gravy train will shortly be stopping at their station. Having heard these rumours on many a previous occasion ,Atlantic league etc I didn’t pay much attention and took it with a pinch of salt.
The news today has gone down like a lead balloon as far as the fans are concerned and I personally hope it fails massively . The CL is already a mockery of its title and little more than an elite experiment that paves the way for footballs version of Kerry Packers cricket circus.
If these elitists want to go it alone then it should be with the proviso that should it fail then their return will be entry to the lowest division of their respective leagues.
Well today (tomorrow) is the day the SFA announces the outcome of the covid 5 appeal. I suspect now that Tav appears to be ready to return to action and the road to the Scottish Cup has passed another hurdle the hammer will fall with the upholding of the original bans. ( no laughing at the back). Instead of gleaning reports from all over, again, regarding another Rangers win, perhaps they could look into the continual need to issue shares. Where is the money going at such an alarming rate. A couple of million here, a couple of million there,,the accountants could get jobs as buskers with the amount of juggling going on, possibly an appearance on Britain’s Got Talent.
Vernallen 20th April 01.23
The latest share issue raised £430k.
When Dave King and others gained control of the club back in 2015 it was made clear that any shortfall would be filled by investors including himself.
This is exactly what has happened and so i’m not sure why anyone seems surprised.
Self awareness isn’t a strong point with the SPFL or SFA .
The core sprit of sporting merit gets mentioned, as does holding up the values and very fabric of football. ?
Secret 5 way agreements.
Basic registration requirements being punted .
Fraudulent European licence.
Thistle & Hearts being relegated .
Aye right. Gie me peace .
BBC 5 live giving a voice to fans of English Premiership clubs.
This new European Suer League is seemingly a cartel ???
The “Champions “ League ???
Further to my post at 08.35.
Shares were bought by Club 1872.
On the subject of the European Super-League, a correspondent to the ‘The Scotsman’ today remarks that
“..the12 teams… have forgotten ..the vital element making for successful sporting competition-tradition.
All the money in the world cannot buy history.”
Money isn’t necessary, not, at least, where corruption of the Football Authorities allows a club founded in 2012 to claim all the traditions (and sporting achievements) of a club that in disgraceful circumstances was put into liquidation as a cheating debtor, in hock for tens of millions of pounds!
[ btw-that correspondent is not , for the avoidance of doubt]
MIne of a few minutes ago!
Missed a word! Should be ‘is not me!’
According to a tweet by David Low, Rangers have banned every newspaper from Ibrox because they don’t believe they get fair coverage. God only knows what they would expect positive coverage to look like.
So the government are promising to assist in strangling at birth the European super league. A strange position for a free market advocacy to take but it has obvious popular vote connotations.
I am all for letting these clubs or any club decide to play in whatever league they wish to join.
Cross border issues are ridiculous in a global economy. It is the fans of football who will ultimately decide if they want to subscribe to, and support , an American style franchise that rejects the excitement and thrill of the relegation battle and the depression of unexpected defeat at the hands of a lower league club in cup competition. There is a lot of hypocrisy and revisionism currently about the integrity factor…gie me peace.
Works ok when visiting the sfm site on Opera browser. But, when using Chrome, I get a scary privacy message saying that attackers might be trying to steal passwords, messages or credit card details.
It includes the following line – suggesting a problem with the site’s SSL certificate.
NTE::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID
Anyone else see this message?
HirsutePursuit 20th April 2021 At 15:59
I was getting similar error using Brave web browser but not after clearing web cache and cookies. It is possible Chrome has cached a security certificate which has since been updated.
Albertz11 — April 20/21 — 11:02
Wasn’t disputing the amount of the last issue of shares, just curious, as to the continual short falls that need to be addressed. There appears to significant recurring shortfalls on a regular basis. Surely the tap has to be shut off sooner of later.
Any news of the covid 5 appeals ? Good day to bury bad/good news .
European Super League
Man City and Chelsea blink first.
Both have withdrawn their application to join.
HS
Higgy’s Shoes 20th April 2021 At 21:24
Hearing that Barca, Atletico and Man Utd have followed suit , and that Ed Woodward of Man U has resigned – he was going at the end of the year anyway .
It’s interesting that club* 1872 have bought the latest tranche of shares , firstly they are not usually given the opportunity to increase their holding and secondly having already agreed to purchase King’s shares they have opted to first buy from the club*. I imagine King will not be too happy seeing £430 000 slip through his fingers .
They are usually lenders of last resort by this board so it could indicate their funds are beginning to dry up but it could also be an opportunity to get back at King as I imagine the relationship isn’t as happy as it once was.
£430 000 is not an insignificant amount for club* 1872 and it will take a while to refill the coffers to start payment to King . The recent announcement that the Ibrox entity are snubbing the media may point to trouble at mill and this 430k may be the source of the fire that’s emitting the smoke. Will be interesting to see if King still has some sway over his pet journos .
The Super League seems to already be holed beneath the waterline with a couple of EPL members having 2nd thoughts on participating . If Super League 1 is a non starter then Super League 2 is going nowhere soon and regardless of what a few locals may believe Celtic or Rangers* will not be elite enough to replace them in the eyes of JP Morgan .
One positive aspect of all this is if the fans begin to take back control from the oligarchs and return it to the people.
Enough ranting from me ,I’m away for a prawn sandwich.
SG on the bookies list for Tottenham. Makes for an interesting thought process, does he stay as the big fish in a little pond, or opt for the little fish in the big pond matching wits with many successful and proven managers. The backroom staff would no doubt go as well as they appear to have their wagon attached to his horse. Must be some concern in the blue room as it would be a step closer to Liverpool and would save blushes if it didn’t work out at Tottenham rather than tarnish his Liverpool halo. …. Covid 5 decision stuck somewhere in the “cloud”.
Albertz11 20th April 2021 At 08:35
1
5
Rate This
Vernallen 20th April 01.23
The latest share issue raised £430k.
When Dave King and others gained control of the club back in 2015 it was made clear that any shortfall would be filled by investors including himself.
This is exactly what has happened and so i’m not sure why anyone seems surprised.
………………………………………….
I am only surprised they are still doing it, as even Dave king at his last AGM in 2019 said they can’t keep doing it.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19244894.ex-rangers-chief-charles-green-unwilling-testify-56-8m-claim-ibrox-sold-off/
Ex-Rangers chief Charles Green unwilling to testify in £47.7m claim that Ibrox should have been sold off.
Former Rangers chief executive Charles Green has refused to give evidence in a £56.8 million action brought by a financial firm over claims Ibrox should have been sold to pay off debt.
The Court of Session has head that Mr Green has been unwilling to give as statement after being called in by the club’s former administrators, David Whitehouse and Paul Clark, over allegations they should have sold off the stadium and other assets while in control of the club when it went into financial meltdown ten years ago
He knows where the bodies are buried.
In my post of 15 April at 19.57, I mentioned that I had on that day ” managed to catch the beginning of the cross-examination of the lady Det. Inspector in the Grier damages action.”, but I was hesitant about putting my notes of that on the blog.
But having now already put notes on the blog, for consistency’s I put the notes of that hearing of part of the DI’s evidence given on 15 April.
It’s entirely at the discretion of the SFM monitors whether they let me post them-I claim no special right to bore people who may not be at all interested!
But for those who have read the other bits, this bit adds a little more detail
David Grier v Lord Adcocate, David Grier v Chief Constable , Police Scotland,
Virtual hearing, 15 April 2021.
Witness, Det Insp Jackie ( Jacqui?) O’Neill 10.30 a.m
[Mr Duncan QC is ‘QC’ and DI O’Neill is ‘O’N”
Lord Tyre presiding Judge
Mr Duncan QC: Can you hear me?
O’N: Yes
If we look at Bundle (page 1721 for the operator, who put documents on screens of the legals and witnesses, but no one else)
{delay while operator finds the document and puts it on screen)
You see photographs of disks with elastic bands?
O’N: Yes.
QC: what are they?
Documents belonging to DWF/HFW.
QC: [to p.1719, please. Zoom in on image.] Are you able to read that?
O’N: Need to refresh your mind?
O’N: No.
QC: Were they opened?
O’N: Not at that time.
QC: Do you agree it would have been improper for those envelopes to be open.
O’N: Yes.
QC: Who was in attendnce at DWF- you, Robertson, Gregory, Logan..Anyone else?
O’N: No.
QC: This was to return envelopes. Something annoyed Mr Gregory?
O’N: Yes, disks had been removed from envelopes.
QC: There’s another view of the table..boxes, notebooks, disks…
O’N: yes.
QC: Did Mr Gregory take photographs?
O’N Yes.
QC: Whose notebook is in th photo?
O’N :Not mine.
QC: Who packed the boxes?
O’N: I would have been involved in it.
QC: Was there anything unusual
O.N Disks were in production bags.
QC: Are the bags transparent?
O’N: Yes.
QC: Could you see whether the disks were outside or inside the envelopes?
O’N: Inside.
QC: Nothing unusual..?
[ed: I missed any reply that was made]
QC: Did Mr Robertson say anything to you on the way down, to Manchester.
O’N: I honestly couldn’t tell you, with the passage of time.
QC: What was your understanding of why you and D I Robertson went down rather than a police constable just to sign certificate? An. Other enquiries to be dealt with ? Why did you and Mr Robertson go down
O’N: Because we had been involved.
QC: Did you and Mr Robertson return every production?
O’N: No..
QC: 20/10/2017.How did disks end up being outside the envelopes, on the table?
O’N: I had a list, sitting at the table. The boxes on my right-hand side on the table. Ticking off certificates etcetera, and labels, handing them to Adam Logan and (?), to put them in the box.
QC: Could you see what Mr Robertson was doing before handing over to you/
O’N: The boxes were piled up, like conveyor belt ,with the disks out of the envelopes
QC: Can you think of any possible reason why the disks would be out?
O’N:No
QC: On this other image..elastic band seems to be relaxed.[ ed: that’s what I think I hear]…?
O’N: Yes
QC: Do you recall Mr Robertson opening the production bag? How was it opened?
O’N: I can’t recall. Usually by scissors..
QC: There were spare elastic bands, so that Mr Robertson could put them on the bags. Any reason why only 3 had bands?
O’N: [ I could not make out what the witness said]
QC: [began his sentence with “What was ..” , stopped, and began again “ The disk should not have been taken from envelope.. What did you do?
O’N: Can I refer to my statement?
Lord Tyre (intervening) I prefer that you answer before referring to your statement.
O’N: [ed; again could not make out her response: it might simply have been a ‘yes,m’Lord’]
QC: and Mr Gregory was angry?
O’N: yes.
QC: So angry that he took photos?
O’N: Yes.
QC: Do you understand that Mr Robertson thought there was nothing wrong about what had happened?
O’N: Not sure.
QC: You acknowledge that something had happened that shouldn’t have?
O’N: Yes.
QC: You travelled straight back?
O’N: Yes.
QC What did you say to Mr Robertson.
O’N: I can’t remember
QC: What was Mr Robertson’s response?
O’N: I can’t recall.
QC: Are you saying you don’t recall?
O’N: It wasn’t a .[ ed: my scribble looks like the letters ‘lny’ or”lng’]..
QC: Did you say that it is out of order?
O’N: No.
QC: You’re a police officer of some years standing and used to asking questions- are you saying you can’t . Did you ask him why he opened the envelopes?
O’N: Possibly
QC: Did you or didn’t you?
O’N: Probably did.
QC: You’ve gone from ‘possibly’ to ‘probably’. You would need a full conversation took (sic)place so that you could report to Crown Office?
O’N Yes.
QC: But did you ask Roberson about the full circumstances when you were in the van?
O’N: I honestly can’t remember. We must have done if I could report it back to the Crown office.
QC: Did you take any notes.
O’N: not on that day.
QC: This was sticking out like a sore thumb, an event worthy of memory.
O’N: Yes.
QC: Look at 3937 (3934 for the operator….blow-up the top half) An email from you, 9th October to Caroline Mcleod of the PFS, copied to Robertson: Operation IONA update:
“ confirmation….. Did you see Mr Stevenson before Mr Robertson, did you speak to Mr Robertson over that weekend, email or anything?
O’N: [ed :If there was a reply I missed it ]
QC: Friday 6th October arrangements were made to return 45 boxes (containing about 4000 documents) to Duff and Phelps..
[There was a gap on my line for long enough to make me think connection had been broken)
then,
QC: Why did you record that Gregory began looking though the boxes?
O’N: ( indistinct response)
QC: Did Mr Robertson say it was unusual..?
O’N: [indistinct response]
Why was that paragraph inserted? Did Mr Robertson ask you to put that para iin?
O’N: No.
QC: [reading] “Boxes were checked..ticked off… Gregory asked why there were disks that had been removed.. Robertson said so that they could check the disks were present.”
Do you understand that explanation
{ed: I accidentally put my phone on ‘hold’ at 11.15, thought it was the court system that had a fault and did not discover the mistake until a full 2 minutes later)
then,
QC: Either you said nothing or raised it with a more senior officer? [Did you raise it with Eddy Thomson?
O’N: No..
QC: A serious matter: you had witnessed a senior officer doing that, are you telling me that you think it acceptable not to report it?
O’N: I can’t prove that it was reported. At the very lest it would have been on the Monday.
QC:[ed: missed what he asked]
O’N: If Det Superintendent Thomson had asked for written report…
Q:C: We have three statements from DSU Thomson and there is no mention. Is it your evidence that you reported ..it to DSU Thomson?
O’N: There is no way it would not have been reported.
O’N: Did you over the weekend email to Robertson?
O’N: I can’t remember.
QC: Did you hear from Caroline McLeod ? A reply from her? You can’t recall?
11.45.
QC: The witness statement from Philip Betts This was the first statement from Mr Betts.
O’N: Not necessarily..
QC: We see that , 2nd April 2013 at 10.15 , a statement
taken by DSR Robertson and DS O’Neill. Was this the first time?
O’N: No, we met him the week before.
QC: When was this?
O’N:[ ed : gave some details of meeting at Stanstead airport]
QC: What do you understand about a police constable disclosing information to someone who may be accused?
O’N:[ed: missed the reply]
QC: {reading] “Wednesday 27th March 201, Radisson Hotel..Phil Betts, JR…” How long did the meeting take?
O’N: About one and a half hours
QC: A good deal of detail gone into.. Ticketus deal, Betts… Why was there no formal statement obtained?
O’N: The formal statement was taken week later.
QC: But different date and place, and contains different details. Why did your notes not say that a statement was taken on that day? What was the difference?
O’N: (ed: don’t know what the witness said in reply)
QC : We have a man who is interviewed in the presence of his solicitor and that was not a ‘statement’?
Why did you not disclose that Betts had made a statement ?Did you submit your notes? Did you compare what he said at the Radisson with his ‘formal’ statement?
O’N: No.
QC : [reading next page] “… met me I St Paul’s and took me to Octopus offices. Don’t think John Ross, Bryant, NF [Nigel Farr, colleague of Betts] CW asked for pof (proof of funding)”
Right hand page…bottom right. [from 6th line of writing]
Ms O’Neill, …there’s a good deal of information in those handwritten notes abut what Mr Grier may or may not have known about Ticketus..
The obligation would have been to tell the Crown, who would no doubt have passed iit on to the defence. Why was this not done?
O’N: It was an initial statement..
QC: Why is it a matter of hindsight? As an experienced police officer..?
O’N:: Those notes were never intended to be a statement.
QC: Are you saying that Mr Betts would have right to change what he said?
O’N [ed: I could not make out what the witness said]
QC: but at the time Mr Betts was a suspect, not a witness.
O’N: I might not have taken any notes.
Qc; Are you saying that in an interview with suspect in the presence of his solicitor you would not have taken notes?
O’N: I…
[ed: I give the next couple of questions exactly as they are positioned on the paper I scribbled on.
QC: Did you know that Betts was a Director of Wavetower?
police decision or Crown decision
are you referring to
[ed: not entirely sure who said
was saying what]
QC 15/3/2013
are you suggesting that there had been dealings
with Betts before 20/32013
QC: did you have any doubt about Bett’s honesty?
O’N: No.
QC: Did you become aware that Mr Gilhooly of HMRC had doubts?
Statement taken 27th May 2013 by you from Mr Gilhooley, wth DC Gordon Black present. Just read that to yursef, please………………Does that sit well with your recollection?
O’N: Yes
QC: Page 1515,last paragraph. EBT and debt collection. 27/05/14 about honesty of Betts. What did you do? Who did you tell?
O’N: :It was highlighted to Crown
QC: You were at the Shard search?
O’N: Yes.
QC: A photograph of a file , the Black File, was seized. Where was it found?
O’N: In a cupboard.
QC Who found it?
O’N: I did, with Carol..
QC: It’s clear that this related to a ‘legal case’
O’N: Yes.
QC: What did you do?
O’N: Took it to the conference room
QC: And you would then put it into a documents bag, labelled…
O’N [gave a very brief description of the usual bagging and labelling process]
QC:314 pages-a substantial amount?
O’N: Yes.
QC: What were you looking for?
O’n: Evidential material to support the case.
QC: How long did it take you?
O’N A quick flick through.
QC: Did you start from the beginning and go through to the end?
O’N: Just a quick flick.
QC: It must have been obvious that it related to a legal case?
O’N: I wouldn’t be looking at it with any knowledge of legal PP.
QC: But you’re agreeing that it was obvious.
O’N: Yes.
QC: An ‘initial sift’ as opposed to examination of a file.
O’N: A quick flick is an initial sift, to see if related to warrant.
QC: How would you tell? Were Duff and Phelps given a copy of the warrant? Or were they deliberately not given a copy of the search warrant?
O’N: I don’t know.
QC: Schedule 9, Cash Flow forecast. Do you recognise?
O’N: Yes.
When did you identify that this, on an initial sift, that this was an important document?
O’N:The same day
QC: How?
O’N: The reference to Ticketus.
QC: Whereabouts?
O’N: About page 288.
QC: Did any prior pages give you evidence?
O’N:[ I think she said No,] while the QC continued “ Why did you continue with the sift once you saw that it fell wthin the warrant.? Did you call Mr Robertson over to say ‘look what I found’?
O’N: Yes.
QC [ ed; not heard]
O’N: I believe it showed that Duff and Phelps had that information.. A brief review of material to establish if it fell within warrant, if it was then it was not examined.
QC: Why did you keep looking at it while in the Shard? Bundle 1, page 1954. Can you confirm this email of 30th January 2014 shortly after Shard assertion of Privilege as at 30th January 2014 that as at 30th January 2014 the question of Privilege had not been resolved…
[ It was now about 1.55 pm and I had to disconnect from the hearing to attend to other matters}
Timtim 20th April 2021 At 22:42
If Super League 1 is a non starter then Super League 2 is going nowhere soon and regardless of what a few locals may believe Celtic or Rangers* will not be elite enough to replace them in the eyes of JP Morgan .
+++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree, but it should never be forgotten that the Scottish Media at one point in the late 80’s / early 90’s were more than happy to push the idea that Rangers would be in a European Super League. This nonsensical notion was of course driven by the now disgraced David Murray whose words were along the lines of “when it comes we will be in it, but Celtic won’t have a ticket to the party”. The media lapped this up of course and used it to deride and ridicule Celtic even further, amid forecasts of them being “left behind forever”.
Michael Kelly of the old Celtic board complained bitterly on his exit that football success is ‘cyclical’ and that success would have come to Celtic once again. Whether it would have under his watch is debatable, but come again it did under new owners, and none of it required a questionable relationship with a bank, nor did it require using taxpayers money to fund success on the pitch. It is also worth noting once again that the bank who funded Rangers, tried all they could to put Celtic out of business.
The lesson to be learned of course is that money from questionable sources under the stewardship of megalomaniac owners who are fawned over by an unquestioning mainstream media is not always what it seems. There is also a lesson that clubs should stand on their own feet financially, but that clearly hasn’t been learned in some quarters.
Ach, doesn’t it make one puke?
“Rangers assistant manager Gary McAllister and Celtic caretaker boss John Kennedy both expressed their opposition to the [ super-league] project yesterday, echoing the feeling across the game that the closed shop nature of the breakaway competition was an assault on sporting merit” [ Phil Johnson, “The Scotsman” today]
Where was , is, their sense of sporting merit when it comes to accepting that the Scottish Football authorities can create a lie and award a football club ,founded in 2012, titles and honours that it never could even have competed for, let alone win?
Honest to God, the sickening hypocrisy of Scottish Football is worse than the wicked cheating by RFC of 1872 that caused its death as a football club, and caused the need for the lie.
[As an aside, the accompanying front-page picture caused me to chuckle: it shows a demonstrating crowd of football fans , a line of police officers, fans bearing placards .
One of the placards in the middle distance instantly caught my eye. ” RIP CFC” it said.
For a nano-second I was back in 2012 when our James Taylor’s newspaper had banner headlines about the death of RFC and the end of 140 years of history, and of how very quickly the truth of RFC’s actual liquidation and football death was quickly , to Taylor’s and his newspaper’s eternally disgusting shame and disgrace, was quickly denied.
The placard referred of course to Chelsea FC and its part in the ‘Super league’ agreement.]
@ John Clark – I find your court room reports fascinating (not least to see the hours the Courts keep – they don’t appear in danger of breaking many harnesses…). From a selfish perspective i would be grateful if you could point me in the direction of a summary of what the charges are against each of the various protagonists.
Thanks in advance.
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/sport/19248396.rangers-add-major-new-shareholder-investor-information/
As an aside. My eldest daughter received football kit today from local team. Came direct from manufacturers and included their brochure for football trophies. I can get customised trophies from £1.99, free carriage for orders over £100 and dispatched within 2 days. I reckon by the weekend I could have the most successful football club in history for about £200…
Wokingcelt 21st April 2021 At 16:20
“..in the direction of a summary of what the charges are against each of the various protagonists.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thank you, Wokingcelt.
It’s important to note that this is a civil , not a criminal, case.
David Grier was arrested , detained and indicted ,wrongly, and any and all charges that he had been implicated in a criminal conspiracy with CW an d Whitehouse and Clark and a couple of others were dropped absolutely.
The Inner House (Scotland’s highest court of appeal in civil cases) decided in 2019 that the Crown had no immunity. Under that Court ruling, a person who has been prosecuted without sufficient evidence and maliciously has a right to seek damages,
Grier brought such an action for damages for wrongful ‘malicious arrest’ against both the Lord Advocate and the Chief Constable, and that is the action that is currently in Court.
It’s to be noted that the burden of proof is on the ‘pursuer’: that is , the Crown and the Chief Constable DO NOT have to prove their innocence-Grier has to prove their guilt.
As I understand things, part of trying to prove that there was ‘malice’ would require the pursuer to show that the Crown/Police had no reasonable, legitimate grounds for BRINGING a prosecution.
I’m not a lawyer, of course, so I may be fuzzy or plain wrong, but that’s what I understand .
I probably don’t need to, but I should perhaps mention that this present case does NOT involve a jury, and ,of course, the Judge will hear every last word of evidence ( not just bits and pieces!] and will carefully, determine the facts and apply the law to the facts, only after he has done that.
I hope that helps.
ps. When you see the number of pages of material that have to to read and studied out-of-court, I think it’s a wonder that the actual time spent in court is able to be so much.
These guys- Judges, Counsel, solicitors really do put in the hours .
What we see in the court room is only part of their day’s work.
Thank you Mr Clark. And apologies if any lawyers/legal folk took offence at my off-hand comment!
I understand that the Scottish Government/p
Police Scotland have already paid out compensation to some of the Sevco actors. Is the cost (of this leaving aside unpaid income taxes) to the taxpayer known?
Another major shareholder added to the ever growing list at Rangers. I would like to see what they envision as a return on their investment, and, when that might happen. I would put that in the category of the SFA’s verdict on the Covid 5 appeal outcome, somewhere in the year 2525.
Wokingcelt 21st April 2021 At 21:44
‘.. Is the cost (of this leaving aside unpaid income taxes) to the taxpayer known?’
++++++++
If I may refer you to this link as a starting point.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55983492
There is the possibility of claims from others!
And, apart from the sums in damages, there are the expenses ( as they are known in Scotland, ‘costs’ in England) of the court proceedings
All coming from the tax-payer, ultimately.
[quote]HirsutePursuit 20th April 2021 At 15:59
5 0 Rate This
Works ok when visiting the sfm site on Opera browser. But, when using Chrome, I get a scary privacy message saying that attackers might be trying to steal passwords, messages or credit card details.
It includes the following line – suggesting a problem with the site’s SSL certificate.
NTE::ERR_CERT_COMMON_NAME_INVALID
Anyone else see this message[/quote]
Do you access via a bookmark from Chrome? I suspect you are using an old bookmark to https://www.sfm.scot/ which is still active (as an archive) but it would appear the https certificate on its web server has expired. In Opera I suspect you have https://blog.sfm.scot/ which does have a valid https certificate on its web server
Cluster One 20th April 2021 At 23:24
‘..The Court of Session has head that Mr Green has been unwilling to give as statement after being called in by the club’s former administrators,’
+++++++++++++++++++++++=
I missed that, Cluster One: I had kind of forgotten that case, which is of far greater interest in the scheme of things than the personal claims for damages by individuals, interesting enough as they were/are in throwing light on our legal system and how it operates.
John Clark 22nd April 2021 At 09:14
Cluster One 20th April 2021 At 23:24
‘..The Court of Session has head that Mr Green has been unwilling to give as statement after being called in by the club’s former administrators,’
+++++++++++++++++++++++=
I missed that, Cluster One: I had kind of forgotten that case, which is of far greater interest in the scheme of things than the personal claims for damages by individuals.
…………..
Isn’t this kind of missing the point John. Rangers Football Club was liquidated and Ibrox WAS sold off to help pay the debt, ……But it was sold off under-value.
On the subject of CG’s reported unwillingness to give evidence, I’ve been fiddling about trying to find whether anyone can be compelled to give evidence , in civil cases.
I note this link
https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_taking_of_evidence-76-sc-maximizeMS_EJN-en.do#toc_2_8
from which I have lifted ths:
“European Judicial Network
(in civil and commercial matters)Scotland
Taking of evidence – Scotland
2.8 Are witnesses obliged by law to testify?
Generally speaking, any witness who is cited to give evidence is required to do so.
2.9 In which cases can they refuse to give evidence?
In cases where a witnesses has privilege against answering questions e.g. communications between a legal adviser and his or her client. There is also a general rule in Scots law that a person cannot be forced to incriminate themselves. A witness is entitled to refuse to answer a question if a true answer may lead to a crime or involves an admission of adultery as an untrue answer could lead to a charge of perjury.
2.10 Can a person who refuses to testify be sanctioned or forced to give evidence?
If a person refuses to give evidence then he or she can be forced to testify under threat of a charge of contempt of court. It is also possible to lodge as evidence a previous statement the witness made if they now refuse to give evidence. ”
I wonder whether any one of these situations applies to witnesses in the BDO civil action who are living in France?
If so, would it still apply now that the UK is no longer a member state of the EU? Is there extradition for civil matters?
Can CG be legally compelled to give evidence as to how the purchase price of some of the major assets of RFC was arrived at?
What fun and games!
But shoosh, you’ll frighten the horses!
I am at a loss to understand how Mr Green will get away with refusing to give evidence in this case.
I have given evidence in civil cases a handful of times – criminal cases lots of times. It was always made clear to me that attendance in the civil courts was compulsory. I recall on one memorable occasion many years ago, having to give evidence in a civil case at the court of session in Edinburgh. I had been involved in this case where the incident had occurred almost 6 years prior to the court case. My part in it was extremely minor. The court appearance clashed with a final professional examination I should have been taking that day. My employer got in touch with the court to explain that to attend and give evidence would mean missing the exam. Their reply was almost, “…and your point is?” I had to attend court and missed the exam. It was infuriating because I was in the box for no more than 3 minutes and answered a series of yes/no answers before being dismissed. (“Were you in such and such a place on this date?”, “Yes”. And did you see so and so there?”, “Yes.” “And did you speak to him?”, “Yes”. “And did he say, such and such?”, “Yes”. “Thank you. No more questions my lord”. )
Had this been a criminal case, the procurator fiscal, unless there was a chance the case would have collapsed without my evidence, would undoubtedly have excused me given my minor role. I had been excused court attendance for much less many times over the years.
John Clark 22nd April 2021 At 09:14
I missed that, Cluster One: I had kind of forgotten that case, which is of far greater interest in the scheme of things .
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19244894.ex-rangers-chief-charles-green-unwilling-testify-56-8m-claim-ibrox-sold-off/
……………………………
It is all very hush, hush you would never know there was the case you reported on JC or the up and coming BDO case against the administrators, i only stumbled on the charles Green link while looking fore something else.
May 4th 2021 for your Diary.
Is it just me?
Has the whole RFC of 1872 saga turned me into a rank rotten cynical sod?
The misleadingly named ‘Rangers Football Club’ website tells us that ‘Perron Investments Ltd ‘has 16 million+ shares in RIFC plc.
It tells us that John Halstead declares himself to be the beneficial owner of those shares.
I’ve spent a bit of time looking at the Companies House register.
I cannot find any company registered therein in the name ‘Perron Investments Ltd’ (There is a Perron Ltd, but that’s a wee dormant company with one shareholder]
Perhaps I’m missing something?
I look up ‘John Halsted’
Well, there is a ‘John Combotekrash Halsted’, American,but resident in England, who is indeed a Managing Partner of Pamplona Capital Management, which the ‘Glasgow Times’ article (presumably having been told as much) reports him as being.
Now, I’m not making connections where there might not be any, but I had a wee smile to myself when I read this article by ‘moneynerd’ : https://moneynerd.co.uk/pamplona-capital-management-debt/?nab=1
” What is Pamplona Capital Management?
This is a group of investors who have collectively put up £100m to buy portfolios of loans and credit card debt.
US hedge funds, private equity firms and even pension funds are among investors. These United States investors secure debt packages from big-name banks and lenders here in the UK.
They are also known for buying debt managed by IVA agreements. For banks, selling IVAs is a way to reduce risk and free up capital. For the person paying the IVA, it means potentially being hounded by an unknown debt collection agency if they default on their payments.
Who Owns Pamplona Capital Management?
Pamplona Capital Management in London is not a solicitors or debt management company, but it is a capital management firm. They’ve got dozens of investors and have raised millions to acquire and profit on consumer debt.
95% of their investors are based in the US but their focus is on UK-based consumer debt.”
There is a delicious wee irony in the fact that a Managing Partner of a (whatever else) debt-collecting ‘investment’ company is the beneficial owner of the shares invested by another company which is a significant shareholder in a financially struggling football club living on borrowed monies!
Is it just me?
John Clark 22nd April 2021 At 12:53
Although it doesn’t meanhe can’t be President John C Halstead is listed as having resigned as a director of Pamplona Capital over 2 years ago. He has either resigned or the company has been dissolved in the case of his 6 other UK Directorships.
Isn’t there a lot of Bull in Pamplona? There are certainly a lot of Pamplona’s at 25 Park Lane. At least 4 Registerd Companies/Partnerships registered there with Pamplona in the name.
There is a Perron Investments LLC registered in Joe Biden’s backyard of Wilmington Delaware . You can do a search on Delaware’s state government web page https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/eCorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch.aspx (File number is 5687794). It doesn’t list directors/owners and it was only created at the end of last month.
Was it Dave King who inferred money laundering or other criminal activities amongst suspended shareholders?
Tykebhoy 22nd April 2021 At 13:50
”..Isn’t there a lot of Bull in Pamplona?”
+++++++++++++++++++
Nice one.
And this, about Delaware as tax haven:
“Delaware Division of
Corporations
Annual Report Statistics
A Message from the Secretary of State – Jeffrey W. Bullock
“Delaware’s business entity franchise saw another year of healthy growth in 2019. The total number of LLCs registered in the First State crossed the one million mark and we continue to be the domicile of choice for members of the Fortune 500 and newly public companies, with approximately 89% of all U.S. initial public offerings last year.
Statutory changes adopted by the Delaware General Assembly in 2019 consisted of relatively minor revisions to promote consistency and provide additional clarity with respect to business entity division. In keeping with longstanding tradition, the revisions were recommended by a panel of experts in Delaware corporate law and jurisprudence, and acted on by the Legislature in a process largely free of political influence.”
Image representing 68.8 percent of all Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware and more than 1.5 million legal entities are incorporated in Delaware.
https://corp.delaware.gov/stats/
‘Only fools and horses’ allowed us to laugh at DelBoy.
I suspect that the real life Delboys are nothing to laugh at, as they laugh at us and our naivety and the politicians who are their friends!
Appellate Tribunal Update | Calvin Bassey, Brian Kinnear, Dapo Mebude, Nathan Patterson, Bongani Zungu (Rangers FC)
Thursday 22 April 2021
Alleged Parties in Breach: Calvin Bassey, Brian Kinnear, Dapo Mebude, Nathan Patterson, Bongani Zungu (Rangers FC)
Date: 13/14 February 2021
Disciplinary Rules allegedly breached:
Disciplinary Rule 24 – A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official or other member of Team Staff, player, match official or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall be subject to and shall comply with the Articles, the Laws of the Game and the rules, procedures and regulations, bye-laws and Decisions of the Scottish FA.
Disciplinary Rule 77 – A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player, match official or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times, act in the best interests of Association Football. Furthermore such person or body shall not act in any manner which is improper or use any one, or a combination of, violent Conduct, serious foul play, threatening, abusive, indecent or insulting words or behaviour.
Principal hearing date: Thursday, 25 March 2021
Outcome: Suspension of 6 matches applied as follows: 4 matches immediate and 2 matches suspended until End of Season 2020/21.
Determination appealed
Appellate Tribunal Hearing (on 20 April 2021) Outcome:
Appeals dismissed;
The Decisions of the appealed Tribunal are affirmed and the original sanctions are re-imposed.
Paddy Malarkey 22nd April 2021 At 17:09
‘..The Decisions of the appealed Tribunal are affirmed and the original sanctions are re-imposed.’ (Covid-5)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Good spot, PM.
Penalty immediately effective I would imagine.
Somewhat cryptic response .
RANGERS notes the outcome of today’s appeal.
We remain disappointed in the result. Furthermore, we believe this outcome highlights the inconsistency of decision making in the Scottish FA’s disciplinary process.
We are cognisant that the approach taken by other football associations across Europe has no resemblance to that of the Scottish FA. We urge the Scottish FA to be open minded to learn from other football authorities.
We now focus on Sunday’s quarter final at Ibrox.
If Rangers have banned all newspapers from Ibrox, why don’t the papers retaliate by not printing the countless press releases they issue. Most of them have nothing to add to the on going concerns, issues, etc, surrounding Scottish football.
In the honeyed words of a QC questioning a witness, perhaps someone will help me with this, so that I’m sure in my own mind of my arithmetic: I have been known to get my arithmetic wrong.
After the RIFC plc share issue of reported date 9 April 2021, their total shares in issue figure was 388 291 1872
And after the issue of 2 150 000 shares of reported date 19 April 2021, that total was increased to 390 441 872
Deep down in the bowels of the website used by ‘Rangers FC’ it is reported that the chap called John Halsted [ cf. my post of 12.53 today] is the beneficial owner of the 16,250,000 shares [4.16% of the total] held in RIFC plc by Perron Investments LLC,
I conclude that Perron Investments LLC is not a NEW shareholder, but must already have held such number of shares as an additional 2 150 000 would raise to that percentage level of the total that is required to be reported as ‘significant’ and the shareholder named.
Am I right or a meringue?
If I am right, then the managing partner of a company that[among other things] buys up IVAs ( Individual Voluntary Arrangements [=debt repayment agreements ] may personally have been a shareholder since the first day that RIFC plc lost any normal credit facility and had to resort to loans from this, that and the other quarter.
Loans that a perhaps worried lender sells off to , perhaps, such companies as Pamplona ,or whatever, to make sure he gets most of his money back.
I’ve no real understanding of these things, of course, but I think I’d feel a wee bit uncomfortable if I were a shareholder in a company alongside a shareholder who might profit if ANOTHER company, of which he is a managing partner, were in control of debts ‘sold’ to it by the company of which I am a fellow shareholder.
If I were a contributor to Club 1872, for example, I think I would be a wee bit annoyed!
If you can make sense of that.
I have made a note of the access number for the [final?] day ‘s Grier hearing tomorrow.
All other things being equal , I hope to tune in to hear any kind of final submissions on behalf of the pursuer and defender[if that is what happens?]
I gather from an informed source that an important witness appeared to concede that the prosecution case was ill-prepared ,ill-researched and sort of scatter-gun in approach.
If that is true, the question has to be asked: was that, could it have been, because of deliberate intention to ensure that any prosecution would fail?
or because of an unacceptable level of sheer incompetence?
Will we ever know the truth about the whole disgusting Liquidation ‘saga’ and its consequences, and all the many lying cheats and ,perhaps, some innocent folk involved or caught up in it?
The baddies themselves , of course, know who they are.
And know how much they are despised by the rest of us in the abstract, and how much more they would be despised face to face and in the flesh.
If Kris Boyd wasn’t a former Ranger’s player would he garner the press coverage for his comments regarding anything in Scottish football.
Rangers ask the SFA for consistency in rulings regarding suspensions, etc. Since it took almost two months to hand down a final verdict and Rangers having use of the players involved that borders on the comical side of things. If they want the SFA to follow the rulings of other European leagues, I see more dossiers being created as rules are followed.
And, finally the media still going on about the “invincibiles” as the league draws to a close. Again they fail to mention that they would be the second Scottish team to achieve that feat, as they were second to nine a row, have never achieved a quadruple treble, and the list goes on. Those achievements by another Scottish club stand far brighter than the alleged 55. Oops, almost forgot the trophy from 1967.
John Clark 22nd April 2021 At 23:34
Wasn’t it suggested Club18-72 bought the 215000.
16.25m were alloted on 19th March Companies House allotment of shares
which is 7 days before Perron Investments LLC in Delaware was Incorporated. A further 31 million shares were allotted between those two transaction and in total this RIFC Financial Year just shy of 130m shares have been alloted raising just under £26m or more likely converting debt to worthless equity
Just to say I that I had to go out early-ish this morning, and got back in a short while ago,
I connected with the ‘virtual’ hearing but only to hear Mr Moynihan questioning a woman witness (possibly a financial expert) about the basis of her calculation of the amounts of money claimed as damages by Grier [salaries, bonuses lost compared with the calculations of the figures in the Rawland’s Report (?)
I frankly lost interest after a few minutes!
Tykebhoy 23rd April 2021 At 10:15
‘..which is 7 days before Perron Investments LLC in Delaware was Incorporated.’
+++++++++++++++++++
Good point, and I’m happy to defer to your greater knowledge.
The saga, I’m afraid, has led me to be ready not to believe a word of anything that comes from Ibrox given the rotten foundations of TRFC?RIFC plc and how the fiction has to be maintained.
I think I would still not be happy as a shareholder in an enterprise which also had a shareholder with a ‘vulture’s’ interest struggling , debt-laden enterprises!
No personal disrespect to Mr Halsted, of course.
With regard to the COVID 5, a few observations from me:
1. There needs to be greater transparency such that the basis of the appeal is made public (even if after the decision if to do beforehand would be deemed unfair). Clubs might think twice that being the case.
2. No apparent jeopardy from making a baseless appeal for sporting advantage. In such cases an additional penalty should be applied – I don’t think the player(a) should bear this as it may well not be their decision to appeal. A financial penalty should apply to the club (based as % of that club’s turnover).
3. The timetable for the determination of sanctions and appeals should follow a weekly drumbeat (after all, last time I looked games are played every week during the season). Applying an amateur-game committee style approach to a professional game is untenable.
4. Sanctions for breaching any rule or regulation should be established and communicated to all at the start of the season, removing opportunity for “discretion”
SG is apparently upset he is losing some players for four games, but, has nothing to say about the use of said players during the long drawn out saga of awaiting a final decision. I know Patterson played in many games but did the other two members of the senior squad get any games, minutes, etc. Surely they must have been missed in such an illustrious season.
“Dear Sirs,
Are you yet in a position to favour me with a reply to my email of 11 March 2021?
I have no other email address for Mr Ceferin.
Yours faithfully ,”
I sent that as an email to Ceferin’s law firm half an hour ago.
Your man Ceferin has had plenty to say these last few days.
I wish he paid more attention to his law firm’s manager, who seems to have a staff who do not respond to emails!
Or maybe they did pass on to him my earlier emails, and he himself has opted to ignore?
Either way, black marks to him from me , and I will view him with the same dark suspicions with which I view the SFA.
Of course, obtaining replies is not the prime objective- it is the ‘putting on record’ of assertions that is important.
And a great example of that is the wonderful final exculpation of the post office folk , and the disgrace of those who prosecuted them. The Post Office has been shown to be ready to lie and have people sent to jail.
I believe that lies were told, myths created, by Football Governance in Scotland.
I believe that those who I believe lied, know that they lied, and may very well be afraid that somewhere down the line someone will be as ready to spill the beans as , it seems, was the late Gary Withey in the matter of the purchase of RFC by CW.
I may be long dead and gone by that time.
But the record will show that at least one person continued to insist on Truth, and future historians of football in Scotland will not be able to ignore that,
Unless , like what used to be called ‘linesmen’, they commandingly scream ‘Red Card, Red Card’ in a paroxysm of excitement!
[tongue a little bit in cheek]
Graham Spiers in his Times Column today is the latest Scottish football journalist to pour scorn on the ESL, and to savage the greed of the elite. Spiers is far from the worst, but like the rest he turns a blind eye to the utter corruption that has taken place in the Scottish game since 2011. In my view that makes his words as hollow as the rest. I have no idea if Graham reads this blog, but all I will say is cheats do win, and Scottish football is a prime example of that. Not only do they win, the Scottish media celebrate them winning.
If the ESL ever happens I don’t expect my club to have an invite. That being said I would gladly welcome any opportunity to escape the clutches of a Football Association and media that in 2021 still reflects the prejudices of the 1950’s. If that ever happens, the Scottish football media can influence nothing, no matter how many lies they support.
Nice piece from Gerry Hassan on super league and other football matters.
https://www.scottishreview.net//GerryHassan567a.html
Upthehoops 24th April 2021 At 10:33
‘… Spiers is far from the worst, but like the rest he turns a blind eye ‘
+++++++++++++++++
Quiet night tonight.
This allows me to mention again the extraordinary lack of interest shown by, for example, Douglas Fraser,[the undoubtedly very able and up-to-the-minute business chap on BBC Radio Scotland,] in trying to explain to us how
a football club in compulsory Liquidation in 2012 , deprived on that account of any entitlement to membership of the SFA , can somehow be alive and well?
I saw Fraser in Court twice in the early days, but I have never seen him give any explanation as to how that could come about!
I venture to suggest that he knows it to be an impossibility at least as well as he knows on which side his bread is buttered.
It is absolutely beyond doubt that RFC of 1872 was NOT bought out of Administration, but entered Liquidation.
Its hundreds of creditors were not paid what they were owed,
The club was not ‘rescued’ by restructuring, reducing costs by redundancies, or by selling off assets, or any of the other possibilities of avoiding Liquidation and carrying on in existence as the same club .
No. It went into Liquidation, where it still is.
Everybody of however low an IQ KNOWS that!
And it is absolutely unbelievable ,and unacceptable ,that financial/business journalists should meekly buy into what, at the beginning and at the end of the day, is a monstrous fiction.
The murdered Daphne Anne Caruana Galizia , journalist in Malta, would look not so much with scorn, but, WORSE , with PITY on such craven abdication of any notion of ‘journalism’ by our SMSM.
Honest to God.
What sporting times we live in!
And what journalistic reporting times!
‘After 150 years, the Spiders went pro in 2019′ says John McLellan in the piece he has in today’s [Saturday]’The Scotsman’ about the Super League.
And, God forgive me, my mind immediately came up with ” after 140 years the Glasgow Rangers of 1872 went into Liquidation’.
As it happens, both those statements are true!
I love it!
For weeks now we have had the Scottish media moaning about racism in football on back of the Kamara incident. Football needs to rid itself of racism, etc, as the stories rolled out ad nauseum. Yet today one of the papers referred to one of Ranger’s target as the Copper Bullet. I realize his national team is referred to as the Copper Bullets but to affix this tag to an individual player of color is hypocritical based on the recent stance on racism. It is not surprising as not many members of the Scottish media appear to be blessed with an iota of common sense.
Vernallen 25th April 2021 At 01:39
‘….to affix this tag to an individual player of color..’
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
I may be wrong, of course, but I think perhaps the team’s nickname is self-adopted and not in anyway intended to be a self-insulting reference to skin colour.
“The side is nicknamed Chipolopolo (the Copper Bullets) as copper is one of the south central African nation’s main exports”
https://www.bing.com/search?q=why+is+the+zambian+national+football+team+known+as+the+copper+bullets&form=ANNTH1&refig=316e40809e0c4004980e1313d47a145b
[that’s a helluva long link!]
I had an idle moment this morning in which to read the judgment of the English Court of Appeal(Criminal Division] in the Sub-postmasters’ appeal.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2021/577.html
I was struck by this: ” .. two cogent lines of argument in relation to abuse of process were available to each appellant: first, that the reliability of Horizon data was essential to the prosecution and conviction, and it was not possible for the trial process to be fair; and secondly, that it was an affront to the public conscience for the appellant to face criminal proceedings.”
That little phrase ‘”an affront to the public conscience” EXACTLY describes the Big Lie in Scottish Football, in my opinion.
It is an affront to the public conscience that TRFC is permitted to claim to be RFC of 1872, while not being legally liable for the tens of millions of pounds of debt that cheating club owed to the public purse.
It is an even greater affront to the public conscience that the SMSM , including the BBC, not only buys into the Lie, but actively supports and propagates it.
We are as ill-served by such a Parcel of Rogues in the SMSM as was the nation of Scotland by the lying political masters slated by Rabbie:rot their bones. in their unhallowed graves
Can we now remove the adjective “invincibles” from any descriptions regarding Rangers/Sevco from the 2020/2021 season refer to the potentially the unbeaten league season. They have fallen in two cup competitions to clubs whose combined payroll may not even be close to that of Rangers. Perhaps the lack of nous from SG and the lack of same from NL in regards to the league led to an inflated sense of its ours because we are Rangers/Sevco. Looking back at their track record in Scottish cup competitions this should not have been unexpected. Too much focus on European success and not minding the store come to mind. I sense another round of share issues to cover the loss from this cup competitions. Also removes the Liverpool job from any conversations.
Well.
” I couldn’t believe the space I had.
I’ve had it against me many times, you’re just shouting for somebody to pick the keeper up but everybody’s got a man and you float about and try to get yourself on the end of it.”
So said Zander Clark, in his post-match interview tonight.
Numerically, of course, that’s not the case, The taker of a corner kick reduces the attacking team to nine outfield players , while the defending team still has ten, so there is a ‘spare’ in terms of man-matching.
I suspect that in future, when the opposition goalie comes up for a penalty in the dying moments, someone will be told specifically to mark him.
Calum Davidson is quite clearly much more of a savvy football game strategist and tactician than your man Gerrard,
John Barnes, [was it? ]the Sportsound commentator, annoyed me by a throwaway reference to ‘Rangers’ not having won the cup since 2009…as if it were RFC of 1872 that was playing tonight…
Honest to God,
What the hell is wrong with him and his like, peddling a ridiculous piece of nonsense as though their very lives depended upon it?
Bad cess to him for propagating the myth, fearfully doing as he is bidden by his heavily truth-challenged Pacific Quay masters.
Not that I’m any kind of Jim McLean, of course, I hasten to add.
Vernallen 25th April 2021 At 22:48
‘…Also removes the Liverpool job from any conversations.’
++++++++++++++
Unquestionably so.
Gerrard was appointed for reasons unconnected with his supposed abilities as a football team manager.
No harm to the man, superb player that he was, but he was not employed by TRFC for any reason other than that he was a ‘name’, a well respected name, but respected only as a footballer of great talent.
As a football manager/coach he has failed to deliver anything very much, and certainly not anything of such merit as would persuade any serious football club that he was worth hiring.
Apparently the SFA are considering introducing a new rule where teams with “Saint” in their names are not allowed to play in Cup competitions. I bet they would if they could get away with it….
Officials are looking into reports of a possible minor earthquake in sections of Glasgow last night. Fortunately after further investigation it was found to be Rangers fans falling off the bandwagon lamenting the fact that Cup competitions aren’t their cup of tea. The supposed double wasn’t to be and now some of their fan sites are looking to dump players as well.
In amongst a plethora of other ‘facts’, which he likes to give us, Jonathan Sutherland I’m sure stated on Sportscene that the victory by St Johnstone was ‘Rangers first domestic defeat of the season’. Did I hear him correctly? If so, a couple of points:-
Does Jim Goodwin know this?
Who is his fact checker ?
If I misheard/misunderstood Sutherland’s utterance, I will of course come back on here and apologise!
Maybe we are witnessing a sub-species of the cancel culture i.e the St Mirren defeat didnae happen coz it might mean wir no’ invincible!
On the subject of invincibility, ff TRFC go through the League programme undefeated, this will still be placed on a par by our beloved SMSM plus usual deluded Sevco apologists (too numerous to mention by ‘ye ken them weil’) with Celtic’s invincible season.
Not being a supporter of a team that hovers around invincibility , I looked up the word in various dictionaries and the consensus appears to be ‘too powerful to be defeated or overcome’ , so I can see it being applied to a current league campaign(if defeat can be avoided in the remaining fixtures ) but not to their entire season . RFC(IL) actually had a perfect league season in 1898/99 , winning all 18 league matches , if we are only considering league fixtures .
You’re right Paddy. I reckon, in short, that an ‘undefeated -in-the – league’ season would be spun to pander to Sevcoites as per the SMSM narrative.
Real relativity and comparability (with Celtic’s achievement) be damned!
Bect67 26th April 2021 At 14:35
‘On the subject of invincibility, ff TRFC go through the League programme undefeated, this will still be placed on a par by our beloved SMSM plus usual deluded Sevco apologists (too numerous to mention by ‘ye ken them weil’) with Celtic’s invincible season.’
Celtic did not have an invincible season. They were unbeaten in 47 domestic games but suffered five defeats in Europe.
Lincoln Red Imps 1 – 0 Celtic
Hapoel Be’er 2 – 0 Celtic
Barcelona 7 – 0 Celtic
Celtic 0 – 2 Borussia Monchengladbach
Celtic 0 – 2 Barcelona
No doubt Rangers fans will focus on the league season and proclaim themselves invincible (if they manage to avoid defeat in the remaining fixtures) just as you have ignored the defeats Celtic suffered in Europe to claim an invincible season in 2016-17.
A little light reading from Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unbeaten_football_club_seasons
@Beck67 – thought I posted earlier so this might repeat. I would focus solely on the respective league campaigns. In 2017 Celtic gained 106 points, with 106 goals and +81 GD. With 3 games to go TRFC can gain a maximum of 102 points with a current 81 goals scored and a GD of 69,
So in any comparison I think my question would be “what’s your point caller?”
But then again, would I rather have 2017 or 1967 when we lost twice in the league campaign? Let me think about that ?… Tell you what, I’ll have both!!!
Here we go again indeed !
Saw this online – I thought it was still Al Ahly with 118 officially .
https://content.invisioncic.com/Mrangmedia/monthly_2021_04/Screenshot_20210312-183125_Twitter.jpg.d68a0291d1ae171b12c8b8e038d4713c.jpg
incredibleadamspark
I don’t recall anyone claiming an invincible CFC season which included Europe. That would just have been plain daft. You and I (together with anybody’s granny who may be interested) KNOWS I and other Celtic minded supporters were referring to the domestic scene.
So… ur ye hivin a laff?
Unless you have a jealous/envious agenda, you must know the context in which Celtic’s invincibility is placed. Having said that, I do concede that anyone who looks long and ungraciously enough (as you seem to be doing) will find an argument which suits a pre-determined narrative.
Out of interest, I wonder who first used the invincible tag regarding to Celtic’s achievement.
So … ‘geezabrek’!
I can’t see David Robertson being invited to Ibrox anytime soon after his recent media interview. Some of the better clips, “well short of invincibles, “not quite back to their best,” “not back as a dominant force”. Not the standard interview from former Rangers. It will be interesting to see comments on Rangers blog sites.
Bect67 26th April 2021 At 22:58
I reckon that everyone and their granny would know that any ‘invincible’ tag affixed to Rangers season (if they avoid defeat in the league) would know it would be in reference to the league. Unless they had an agenda themselves to manufacture some sort of outrage to suit a predetermined narrative.
Such manufactured outrage is pretty tedious and a waste of everyone’s time so let’s just take each other in good faith, shall we?
If Rangers can remain undefeated in the league then that would be some season for them. Celtic also has a fantastic undefeated domestic season. Both are worthy of celebrating.
Incredibleadamspark 27th April 2021 At 07:08
Surely there is no argument that to remain undefeated in three domestic competitions is a superior achievement to remaining undefeated in only one? Of course Rangers would be league invincibles should they achieve that, but from what I can see is that most Celtic fans are annoyed that the media keep shifting the goalposts in terms of the definition in a desperate effort to get parity with Celtic’s 2016-17 season. I am genuinely struggling though to think even the post partisan Rangers fan would not admit an invincible treble is a far superior achievement, although I won’t blame Rangers fans for the appalling bias of the Scottish media, apart from the Rangers fans in the media who perpetrate it.
Upthehoops 27th April 2021 At 07:31
No argument whatsoever. But I’d respectfully suggest that fans on both sides can be guilty of goalpost shifting when describing one achievement and another (potential) achievement.
I’ve read plenty of opinion on the subject and I’d say it’s far more balanced than your suggesting.
A video has appeared on the internet where what appears to be sectarian abuse is directed towards a St Johnstone player when they equalised against Rangers at Ibrox. There were no fans at the game so the alleged abuse must have come from someone acting in an official capacity either on or off the field. Many people on social media have shared the video with mainstream journalists, Rangers and the SFA. One video seems to show the fourth official turn round on hearing the abuse.
I expect there will be a full and immediate investigation into this by all three parties…there will be, yes? If not, why not?
@UTH – I’ve not seen the footage but if as clear as is suggested then a fourth party, namely Police Scotland, should also be investigating as such abuse is I believe classified as a hate crime. Interesting decisions to be made by many.
Workingcelt and UTH
Strange nothing has appeared in the mainstream media. This was major news for them a couple of weeks ago when Rangers were the aggrieved party and now the shoe appears to be on the other foot. Of course chasing major stories involving Scottish football ( especially ones that appear to be true) is not in their journalism background. EBT’s, etc come to mind. Now that the media are apparently banned from Ibrox it would be a good time to do some actual digging and see what lies below the surface, continual share issues, what is the financial situation, are payments to suppliers up to date, are transfer fees paid, on the other hand that sounds too much like work, they’ll just wait for the press releases.
I’ve been trying to find out about this and it appears it’s mostly Celtic blogs (absolutely nothing wrong with that) and their users who are commenting on this. From what I’ve seen the original video was posted on St Johnston’s Twitter and no complaint has been made by any player or the club themselves.
I’d urge anyone who’s interested to find the clip themselves and make their own minds up on what is shouted. My own view is that it’s very difficult to make out the words shouted at the end and it’s far from an open and shut case. I’ve only seen one clip but maybe there are others with clearer audio?
Incredibleadamspark 28th April 2021 At 06:58
‘..I’d urge anyone who’s interested to find the clip themselves.’
++++++++++++++++
My view, on the contrary, is that the onus is on posters to provide a link to the source(s) they use as the base for their comments!
Otherwise, their comments are of little more value than anything the hack journalists might put in their opinion pieces.
I for one have neither the skill nor the patience to go hunting for you tube clips or fan blogs. [bad enough having to read those that are sometimes referred to!]
Wokingcelt 27th April 19.06
Having seen the clip it is not clear what was said and who said it.
Having seen another video of the incident at Ibrox on Sunday.
Seems pretty clear that what was said was “How we not f*****g organising ourselves, picking people up.
Albertz11 28th April 2021 At 14:12
Having seen another video of the incident at Ibrox on Sunday.
Seems pretty clear that what was said was “How we not f*****g organising ourselves, picking people up.
++++++++++++++++++
Very plausible, except nothing is perfectly clear. Others are as equally clear that abuse including the word ‘fenian’ can be heard. I am sure the modern anti-racism, anti-sectarianism, and anti-discrimination Rangers will ensure everything is cleared up given the accusations.
If you listen carefully you can hear, quite clearly, and it has been suggested elsewhere that it’s Allan McGregor, screaming, “you’re having an F… orgasm ya F… Fenian C….”. If you can’t hear that it because you don’t want to hear. As usual nothing will come of it but substitute “Black” for “Fenian” and all Hell breaks loose.
Whatever was uttered is a lot clearer than whatever was whispered in Kamara’s ear. Only the reaction is different, but such language is in every day use in Scotland, so that is of little surprise.
However a clear opportunity has arisen for Sevco to issue a statement saying the allegations have been brought to their attention, alongside a full denial and the listeners have misheard the comment. This could be backed by an assurance that Sevco would never tolerate such behaviour and would have taken robust action if their “investigation” had found it to be true.
A clear condemnation of sectarian language with no admission of guilt….Perfect!….It would go a long way.
But they won’t. !
Albertz11 28th April 2021 At 14:12
Having watched a clip from Premier Sports, although the commentary gets in the way a bit, I don’t hear any sectarian abuse. It really does sound like McGregor saying “How we not f*****g organising ourselves, picking people up?”
I’m sure that will clear everything up…..
IAP 28th April 18.50
No doubt that was what was said.
Absolutely no sectarian comments whatsoever.
As previously noted I haven’t viewed any footage but I would be amazed if in the circumstances any professional football player would say “…organising ourselves, picking people up…”
“Picking people up” – did he really say that?
Wokingcelt 28th April 21.09
Having just conceded a last minute goal at which there was both a lack of “organisation & picking people up” then yes it makes perfect sense.
Now as for orgasms !!!! anyone want to explain that?.
https://voca.ro/1o1pVHPp5Seb
Having an orgasm ya fenian cnut 17 seconds in
Few folk complaining about being blocked tonight. probably a new spam prevention tool turned up to eleven. I have switched it off for tonight and will tweak tomorrow.
Apologies for the inconvenience
Bigboab1916 28th April 2021 At 22:01
‘…Having an orgasm ya fenian cnut 17 seconds in’
+++++++++++++
Thanks for that link, Bigboab.
If the SFA chooses to do so that recording could go straight to a forensic linguistic analysis lab to ascertain the precise words used.
Will the SFA bother its ar.e to do so?
No.
No more than it bothered its a.se. over the Res 12 matter or over making liars of themselves by the 5-Way Agreement.
Commitment to anti-racism? Oh, sure, they have the wonderful Marvin Batley as adviser.
Commitment to anti-sectarianism? They have a dismal track record, and a deaf ear.
As an organisation of any sort, the SFA is unfit for purpose not only in the field of ethics and morality but also in the practical business of the governance of football, as witness the whole bloody nonsense of the current play-offs ‘problem’.
Good God Almighty!
What John said at 00.13am. Here here . Thumbs up.
No players, match officials, St Johnstone representatives or the person recording the goal celebration have made any claims of sectarian abuse. Lots of online speculation, which we’re all doing now, about what people think they might have heard. Or not heard.
This really doesn’t seem like the most solid of foundations for an investigation. I genuinely don’t hear any sectarian abuse here. Not sure where this is going.
IAP 29th April 07.07
This is being driven by bloggers and fans on social media, no-one else.
No complaint from anyone at St Johnstone be it players, management or officials.
Let’s think about it. A goal is conceded in the last minute where the opposition goalkeeper gets a free header in the box with no-one picking him up. Shambles from a defensive viewpoint, no organisation.
Incredibleadamspark 29th April 2021 At 07:07
I fail to see why St Johnstone would need to make a complaint for an investigation to be undertaken, and many others claim it IS sectarian what is being said. I would have thought with so many accusations being made that Rangers would want to quickly clear things up, in particular as they are such a welcoming club that does not have any racists or bigots attached to them or among their support, as they have confirmed to the world several times since Glen Kamara was abused.
I see it said often that racism and other forms of discrimination is a big problem in football. Why is the world not learning from Rangers and asking how they don’t have any of these problems? Seems like an opportunity lost to me.
John Clark 29th April 2021 At 00:13
If the SFA chooses to do so that recording could go straight to a forensic linguistic analysis lab to ascertain the precise words used.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
If the accusation was that a black person was being abused then I am sure some sort of analysis would take place to clear things up. However in Scotland such alleged comments against Irish / Catholics rarely merit a second look with the SFA or the media.
How do you add an Avatar?
Albertz11 28th April 2021 At 21:49
Wokingcelt 28th April 21.09
“Having just conceded a last minute goal at which there was both a lack of “organisation & picking people up” then yes it makes perfect sense.
Now as for orgasms !!!! anyone want to explain that?.”
Would you agree that what is been said below is very audible and not what you presume to have heard or stated, and orgasm is very clear as is fenian cnut
https://voca.ro/1kgejws1Ocgk
Bigboab 29th April 10.10.
I am hearing exactly what i stated previously.
“How we not organising ourselves, picking people up”.
Organise not orgasm & people up not fenian c**t
Clear as day.
Bect67
“In amongst a plethora of other ‘facts’, which he likes to give us, Jonathan Sutherland I’m sure stated on Sportscene that the victory by St Johnstone was ‘Rangers first domestic defeat of the season’. Did I hear him correctly? If so, a couple of points:-”
I remember hearing something of that ilk, but it may have contained “at Ibrox” or “home”.
As for “orgasmgate”, the rant was allegedly aimed at the St Johnstone videographer who could be heard celebrating the late equaliser just before. But as has been said, you’ll hear what you want to hear
“Albertz11 29th April 2021 At 11:11
Bigboab 29th April 10.10.
I am hearing exactly what i stated previously.
“How we not organising ourselves, picking people up”.
Organise not orgasm & people up not fenian c**t
Clear as day.”
And so another myth is created in the mind just like the same club myth.
https://streamable.com/2ma9jv
Watch the fourth official 19 secs in stares straight to the incident and no doubt the venom.
There’s no way on earth that says anything about “fxnian cnts”.
“xxx fxckin organise ourselves, shouldnae be xxx” … though you can hear “havin’ a fxckin’ orgasm …” equally well.
Anybody hearing sectarianism in there is absolutely just hearing what they want to hear, though. And only on a Celtic-minded site would there be such in-depth discussion of it, with more than a hint of desperation for it to turn out badly for Sevco.
Interested to note that all pretence of being non-partisan has disappeared from this site.
only on a Celtic-minded site would there be such in-depth discussion of it. says Angus1983.
Well you wouldn’t expect to hear anything about it on a Sevco site. He/she also seems to make light of it. I wonder again if the discussion was over whether the words included “Black” would the attitudes be different. In my life experience many supporters of other teams have a leaning towards Sevco as their second team and that may be why they (Sevco) get away with so much.
BTW, I’m still waiting for someone to advise me how to add an Avatar, how about it “Upthehoops” as you have yours.
Ballyargus 29th April 2021 At 16:56
BTW, I’m still waiting for someone to advise me how to add an Avatar, how about it “Upthehoops” as you have yours.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I added my Avatar many years ago under a previous operating platform. It has continued throughout all changes and updates to the site. I’ve had a look and it doesn’t seem obvious to me how to add one under the current platform. Big Pink is the technical brains behind the site and may be able to help. Sorry I can’t help.
Upthehoops 29th April 2021 At 08:24
But there are no accusations, only online speculation. There is no general consensus as to what has been said, who said it or who it was aimed at. No person on or off the park who was involved in the match has suggested anything inappropriate was said.
How can an investigation take place when there has been no complaints by anyone? Because internet says so?
@Albertz11 – having listened through the links provided I can’t decipher what has been said.
I would however be surprised if the words are as you heard them (“how we no organising ourselves, picking people up”) simply because that’s too polite given the circumstances!!!
I’m off to play 7-a-sides this evening and if I don’t track back the abuse I’ll get will be of the industrial variety (and that’s in leafy Surrey!).
The Authorities have the technology to better detect what was said. I don’t know who decides next steps.
Incredibleadamspark 29th April 2021 At 18:29
Several people have e-mailed the SFA, and contacted them via social media. Complaints HAVE been made. It needs looked into. The SFA have said they accept complaints from anyone regarding cases to be considered for video review, so why would they not look into this? As I and others have said if the allegations were that a black person was abused then it would be looked into, even just to clear things up. As I also pointed out Rangers have been keen to tell everyone there is no racism, sectarianism or other discrimination whatsoever attached to their club. You would think having worked so hard to attain such an enviable worldwide reputation they would be outraged at people trying to tarnish it. Especially as we are told the rest of football has such a problem.
Upthehoops 29th April 2021 At 19:53
Complaints by anyone involved in the match. Why wouldn’t the SFA look into it? Because disputed online speculation surely cannot be the basis for a complaints procedure to kick in.
Wokingcelt 29th April 18.31
Here’s a link that may help you decide what was said.
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1387683818732146688/pu/vid/1280×720/PJ7awOwug9yNoNf_.mp4?tag=12
Two different microphones with one slowed down.
IAS, what makes ‘online speculation’ any worse than the speculation of people like Stephen Thomson, James McFadden etc whose views, it appears, form the basis of every other incident looked at by the Compliance Officer? You think they know better than reasoned, intelligent online posters?
Albion Rovers player David Cox has retired from football and left the stadium at half time after the Stenhousemuir captain told him he should have done it right first time referring to Cox having attempted to take his own life.
https://www.facebook.com/100004246595542/videos/2019976328153901
Thought i’d seen/heard everything in the game but this is beyond comprehension.
SFA didn’t dally when it came to suspending the Hamilton manager for 4 games with two reserved. Where was that action in regards to the Covid 5, one rule for favored club and another rule for others. If Rangers had been involved in a relegation fight and SG had been charged the hearing probably would have been held in 2022. One other thing, do Celtic really need a board of directors. It seems several former Ranger players have opinions and advice to offer. Get on with it DD and hire these people asap and put an end to the current regime.
Sampled through software getting clearer
https://voca.ro/1f21DFmj5Oot
Incredibleadamspark 29th April 2021 At 20:51
‘.. Because disputed online speculation surely cannot be the basis for a complaints procedure to kick in.’
+++++++++++++++++++++++
That’s not quite right.
There is a question of fact to be settled.
In the Kamara case of racist abuse, the matter was taken very seriously-even though the only evidence was Kamara’s assertion, supported by the unsworn testimony of some of his team-mates.
Perfectly legitimately, an investigation was undertaken, and a judgment was made on the basis of ‘balance of probabilities’. [ I have no difficulties with that concept]
In the present case of alleged sectarian abuse there IS a recording of what was shouted.
There are differing ‘speculations’ about what was shouted.
But the matter is at least as serious as the Kamara matter, in terms of the law
And recordings can easily be forensically analysed to establish what in all probability was said.
The SFA simply MUST have the matter investigated.
And they will, as others have generously acknowledged, have the full backing of the Boards of RIFC plc/TRFC in their honest endeavours to root out racism and sectarianism.
Angus1983 29th April 2021 At 15:49
‘..Interested to note that all pretence of being non-partisan has disappeared from this site.’
+++++++++++++++
Angus1983, I do not of course speak for this site or its operators.
I speak only for unalterable fact and truth:
RFC of 1872 died as a football club entitled to participate in Scottish professional football.
TRfC is a lying football club, created in 2012 by deceitful persons with the support of equally deceitful persons in the very Governance body of Scottish Football.
It is not ,and cannot be as a matter of simple fact and truth , ‘partisan’ to reflect the truth.
There is absolutely no TRUTH in the assertion that TRFC is the ‘Rangers’ of one of my grandfathers who was 21 years old when the 4 young men of Glasgow Green founded RFC of 1872!
To believe that it is , is itself partisanship of a ‘head-in-the-sand’ kind of simplicity that would be risible if not so dangerously indicative of perversion of intellect.
Nawlite 29th April 2021 At 22:31
I think pundits are capable of talking absolute mince just like online posters, myself included. They can also offer insightful comments just like online posters, mysel… I’ll leave that.
I don’t see the relevance of your comparison here, sorry.
John Clark 29th April 2021 At 23:47
A players claim of being racially abused on the pitch is not the same as what is happening here.
Which is a group of online fans currently trying to decipher what a member of the public, or player or someone else has said to another person. Nobody is sure who that person is or what was actually said and there has been absolutely to claim of abuse by anyone involved at the match.
And this is the basis for an investigation into what? An investigation into online speculation, plain and simple.
Incredibleadamspark 30th April 2021 At 06:52
there has been absolutely to claim of abuse by anyone involved at the match.
+++++++++++++++++++
The Police sometimes still charge people with assault even though the person assaulted does not make a complaint, as other evidence is available. My personal view is anyone having sectarian abuse hurled at them at Ibrox might not think it’s worth the hassle from the mob. Neil Lennon used to complain about it…enough said.
Upthehoops 30th April 2021 At 07:41
And the police will sometimes not proceed with an investigation because of a lack of evidence or false accusations.
Just in the passing:
From the Court of Session Rolls
“LORD TYRE – S Alexander, Clerk
Tuesday 4th May
Proof Before Answer (32 days)
P115/17 Note: RFC 2012 Plc for orders under paragraph 75
This is BDO’s action v D&P
I think ‘proof before answer’ is where further elaboration of the facts is called for before the judge can rule on the law.
32 days????? Surely that must be a misprint? Or there’s been helluva lot of work done by BDO.
Another thing about the video is it is also not McGregor speaking as at 19 seconds he is in the frame lips sealed and the official is now looking to the bench as fenian cnut is uttered, wonder if this might set a Jimmy Bell ringing.
there was no fans and they know it is more damaging as they cannot accuse a deflection apart from the ones on here.
The official is the main man to look at he has no reaction to the sentence until fenian cnut is uttered. It happened and no-one is suprised was a big game to lose as it would have earned more credibility to slippy G and the media would have been creaming the prospect of a double. As it stands the season for the new club is over same as Celtics it all about the semi finalists and good luck to them all and to the Saints on the pospect of been the second scottish team in the last decade to achieve a double, Celtic first achieving a double with title and L cup then topping it of with a treble by adding a SC .
Incredibleadamspark 30th April 2021 At 08:08
And the police will sometimes not proceed with an investigation because of a lack of evidence or false accusations.
++++++++++++++++
Of course, I understand that. However the basis of your argument is just because nobody from St Johnstone complained then there is nothing to see. As I said, sometimes putting your head above the parapet brings unwanted attention from unreasonable people, especially regarding something that has been acceptable in Scotland for so long.
Upthehoops 30th April 2021 At 14:40
And the basis for your argument is that online speculation is justification enough for authorities to begin an investigation.
I don’t think we’ll agree on this so I’ll leave it there but completely accept your good faith argument as I hope you will mine.
Enjoy your weekend.
“Journalist” Keith Jackson says he and his paper are joining the weekend boycott of social media. Maybe Keith can use his free time to review some of his posts to social media while not as vile or vicious as some, they are pretty far out. One about covid and he being the only one not getting his knickers in a twist over of something along that line. The Scottish media should be thankful for the activity of credible social media sites as they garner a lot of their stories from there. Thankfully the Celtic/Ranger game this weekend will give them all they need to fill the required column inches.
Incredibleadamspark 30th April 2021 At 17:36
Please enjoy your weekend too. It was my birthday today and I am now quite p*shed. Happy days!
There are some things we can all share in common I’m sure!
If Celtic beat Rangers tomorrow will the word invincibles finally be removed from articles in regards to the Ranger’s season. If they win and also win their next two games will they be acknowledged as the second team in Scotland to complete a league season undefeated ( second to you know who again). What is behind all the media stories attaching Rangers to a number of potential players. Who is going and will there be yet another share issue, or, a dubious loan to cover these transactions. So many questions, so few answers.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56956183
Interesting story about Dumbarton. I wonder where the new owners see the club going? I stopped and had a look at the stadium a couple of weeks back when I was in the area. Only one stand and right next to an ongoing new housing development. Hopefully that is not the intention.
The Sun newspaper under freedom of information has been able to establish that Police told the Scottish Government that shutting down gatherings of Rangers fans at Ibrox and Glasgow’s George Square would have sparked “significant and prolonged” disorder. Is it just me that thinks that makes it seem that Rangers fans are untouchable, even when they break the law on a grand scale? Why does the law apply to some and not to others? However, having lived in Scotland my whole life I don’t find it at all surprising.
UTH – the role of the police is:
protecting life and property;
preserving order;
preventing the commission of crimes;
and bringing offenders to justice.
So I sort of get a “don’t interfere policy” as this may cause more damage to life and property and lead to more disorder. What I don’t get is what appears to be a complete abrogation of responsibility to “bringing offenders to justice”.
Based on my understanding of COVID laws at the time EVERYONE who turned up at Ibrox and George Square broke the law. Huge amounts of video/CCTV/Social media footage exists to prosecute all and sundry. And yet…how many have been charged? And just to be clear the COVID restrictions are in place to minimise people dying (not too much of a stretch to say that if you breached these restrictions you are a potential accessory to murder).
Watching Match of the Day and noticed they still refer to Man City as “champione-elect , in the same way it was once used here . I thought Celtic would be the Champion club until the end of the season ,
Wokingcelt 1st May 2021 At 21:27
I can see the argument that to facilitate them lessened the risk to public safety, but it poses so many other questions. Would the fans of every club have been treated the same? Police Scotland stopped a Celtic treble treble bus procession. What would they have done had the fans said “we’re not having this”. Would they then have allowed it to go ahead? I doubt it. There is also the inescapable fact that some officers were caught on video joining in with the Rangers fans illegal celebrations. As I said though, it is no surprise to me. One Scotland, many cultures…don’t make me laugh! If it ever changes, there are still decades to go.
Wokingcelt 1st May 2021 At 21:27
‘..So I sort of get a “don’t interfere policy” as this may cause more damage to life and property and lead to more disorder.
Upthehoops 1st May 2021 At 22:59
‘. to facilitate them lessened the risk to public safety,.’
+++++++++++++
Raises interesting questions, doesn’t it?
The polis say they can’t cope, and opt to do nothing.
The government agrees.
That is ‘Carte blanche’ to lawbreakers, easy as pie, especially if they have not only sufficient numbers, but can rely on numbers of police officers who readily sympathise with them.
The capitulation to law-breaking on the grounds that it cannot be counteracted is , in any country, the ABSOLUTE failure of government [ curiously, in the same kind of way that the 5-Way Agreement and the failure to investigate the Res !2 matter was an abject , cowardly failure by the governance bodies of Scottish Football to discharge their governance function]
The Chief Constable and the politicos in Government should be punted for having been so ready to surrender to lawless masses.
Cavalry charges? Kettling?
Not a chance: those tactics only apply in the east end.
As the record shows.
Upthehoops 1st May 2021 At 18:24
‘..Interesting story about Dumbarton.’
++++
I’ll say this: that report by the BBC is very poor; merely publishing a a PR handout, in effect.
I fiddle about on the Companies House website, and see that you get nothing on ‘Brabco’.
Because the name is actually Brabco 736.
Useless tosspots of supposed ‘journalists’.
Honest to God, we are very, very, ill-served by BBC Scotland.
[ Although I laughed today at Ken Bruce’s story about the guy in the Sheriff Court in Glasgow who asserted ” As God is my judge, I am not guilty”, only for the Sheriff to say ” He is not. I am. And you are”
True or not, that’s brilliant.
And , as Sammy Pepys said, ‘so to bed’
@JC – completely agree on the failure of police and government here. In the vast majority of convictions the law is broken, police gather evidence after the fact and then look to convict the individual charged with the crime. In this instance the law was repeatedly broken, the evidence of this (sufficient to convict) is in the public domain and what are the authorities doing about it? Not sure how anyone could vote for the current government this week given their complete and utter incompetence in what is a primary responsibility of any government.
Morelos shows a complete lack of class and understanding of the Scottish game with his crocodile tears show to Scott Brown. Perhaps if he ever achieves the success Brown has enjoyed in the Scottish game he may earn the right to mock someone who has the trophy and medal haul Brown has. One trophy does not make you a great player. Also the media glossing over his scoring record noting that he has his second goal in three games with Celtic. I think if you go back over the years that would be the second goal in numerous games against Celtic, not quite as glossy as the media would like you to believe. Also interesting that the referee got a rave review from the DR, what would have been the take if a Ranger had been red-carded early in the game. And, finally still living in the land of make believe with their “pretendy” 55 banner.
upthehoops 1st May 2021 At 19:01
5
1
Rate This
The Sun newspaper under freedom of information has been able to establish that Police told the Scottish Government that shutting down gatherings of Rangers fans at Ibrox and Glasgow’s George Square would have sparked “significant and prolonged” disorder.
………………………………..
They just mention Manchester, that still sends shivers down the spine for the people who lived there. No scottish goverment wants that, better to have folk die with covid with no cameras about than see folk kicked to death on mobile phone images splashed around the world.
I posted ,at 0035 this morning, a criticism of the BBC’s inadequate report about the sale of Dumbarton FC in respect of it not giving the full name of the selling company.
I have since been reading up a little on Dumbarton FC.
As far as I can make out from the Companies House pages, the majority shareholder of Dumbarton FC was Brabco 736, of which company the majority shareholder was Granada Enterprises Ltd, owning more than 75%.
That Granada Enterprises Company seems to have been registered in Belize: they are not on CH, and I don’t have the savvy to find another source that would provide the information about who the shareholders of Granada Enterprises Ltd were. ( and the Sons and other smaller shareholders appear not to have known too much about who owned tat company]
(An Andrew Hosie was a director of Brabco 376 until he resigned on 28 July 2012)
Anyway, Brabco 736/Granada Enterprises sold their greater-than-75% shareholding to Cognitive Capital Ltd.
That company had been incorporated under the name Sepit , with Company number 9567426, in April 2015.
There were 100 shares , and two initial shareholders, one having 49 shares, the other having 51.
On 20 June 2016, all 100 shares were owned by George New Mattam.
On 28 September 2018 the company name was changed to Cognitive Capital Ltd.
A Confirmation Statement on 22 April 2021 shows that George Mattam had transferred all 100 shares to an Andrew Hosie.
This Andrew Hosie has the same month and year of birth ( August 1972] as the Andrew Hosie who was a shareholder of Brabco 736.
Now, I note separately that the [relevant] Secretary of State ‘ ..accepted a ‘Disqualification Undertaking ‘ from an Andrew Laird Hosie (d.o.b. 09 August 1972] under which he is disqualified for 12 years from 24 November 2016 and may not, without the permission of a Court, act as a Director of a company.
Is it the same Andrew Hosie?
If it is, then there are two football clubs in Scotland which have majority shareholders who are not permitted to act as directors. ( Gosh, I’ve forgotten the name of the other one!]
Is there something about football clubs that attracts a certain type? types such as those whom newspaper hacks happily claim (without checking!) to be multi-millionaires to those whose millions saved them from a very , very long prison sentence? or, God save the mark, those who have done time?
@Vernallen – with regard to the points you raise:
1. Brown and Morellos – if you dish it out then be prepared to take it., Brown has been a great player for Celtic, and in no small part with his ability to control both games and minds. I don’t think he will be losing any sleep over Morellos.
2. Morellos goal record – agree. Highly unlikely to be having lots of big tempting offers to sell him (not to say he won’t be sold but not for many millions)
3. Referee – he was too quick with his yellow cards for his first two (Simpson and McGregor). Probably trying to make an early mark but by doing so ruined the game. He was then unable to apply same level of consistency throughout.. Over the course of this season I’ve felt that McGregor has been trying to cover too much ground (consciously or sub-consciously) given Brown’s lack of legs. Personally I would not have started Brown.
4. “55” titles – living in England fans of (English) teams find it risible that the “history” is considered to have just continued. Some people still think the earth is flat, what can you do other than keep telling the truth and it will eventually sink in.
A quick visit to Rangers sites reveals a complete trust in today’s referee. Visited same sites last weekend following St. Johnstone win and they were more than harsh on the referee in that game. If you were to believe the comments Rangers were lucky to have enough players fit to play today. It seems they were under attack, hacked at, kicked at and mugged through out the game. I suspect today’s referee will be the toast of supporter’s clubs throughout the land and will be welcomed back to Ibrox with open arms. Last weeks referee will be walking the streets with one eye over his shoulder. Oh, by the way how muck did Kris Boyd pay for that set of teeth. hopefully it was a real dentist that did the work.
New hair , new teeth , still the same Kris Boyd . A presentational change only .
Speculation ?
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/sport/19275070.andy-walkers-sky-sports-absence-revealed-ex-celtic-striker-hit-ibrox-ban/
Paddy Malarkey 3rd May 2021 At 10:56
‘…speculation’….”.. it has now been claimed that there has been a row over comments he made regarding the Gers’ finances.”
“”””””””””””””””””””””””
What a useless ‘reporter’ Aidan Smith is.
Did he make any attempt to speak to Andy Walker, and ask him what he allegedly said about the finances of RIFC plc/TRFC? Apparently not, he just lifts from the ‘Daily Mail’
There are plenty of questions to be asked about how the lying club at Ibrox keeps the show on the road.
If Andy Walker has asked any such question , good on him.
I suspect that Sky Sports are as prejudiced/biased/cowardly as anyone in Pacific Quay when it comes to challenging the football club that embodies the biggest lie in the history of Scottish Football.
Psychology 101: cognitive dissonance “..the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change.’
Karyn McCluskey is CEO of ‘Community Justice Scotland’. She is, among other things, a trained psychologist.
She is also, of course, a member of the Board of the SPFL.
I wonder whether she ever reflects on the fact that wearing one hat she is involved in promoting ‘justice’ while under another hat she serves on a Sports governance body which agreed to and supports the big lie that is embedded in Scottish Football, contrary to any understanding of justice and truth?
Has she a very selective view of what constitutes ‘justice’?
John Clark 3rd May 2021 At 12:07
I think , JC , that Aidan Smith (if that person actually exists ) is merely dispensing information received from Ibrox , so the club themselves don’t look childish and insecure . I also think that Sky Sports looks at the demographic of their customer base before deciding their stance – don’t bite the hand that feeds you .
John Clark 2nd May 2021 At 18:59
As far as I can make out from the Companies House pages, the majority shareholder of Dumbarton FC was Brabco 736, of which company the majority shareholder was Granada Enterprises Ltd, owning more than 75%.
That Granada Enterprises Company seems to have been registered in Belize: they are not on CH, and I don’t have the savvy to find another source that would provide the information about who the shareholders of Granada Enterprises Ltd.
===============
JC
You’re not liable to find that information for a Belize company as like Panama and a few other places it’s used among other things, as a tax haven using offshore IBC’s and unlike CH has no requirement to carry the name or identity of any shareholder or director, the identity of this person will not appear in any public record.
Andrew Hosie does indeed though appear to be the same disqualified person, good spot
regards
ff
Can anyone ( Alberts 11 perhaps) who posts on here, confirm whether those Rangers supporters that bought a seat for life , in the club deck stand during the Sir David Murray years, still have the same seats ?
When Charles Green bought the assets ( and supposedly the history ! ) were the dudes who purchased seats for life , given them back ?
I vaguely know a couple of guys that were fairly vociferous about the ole Rangers, but since the implosion in 2012 , say very little.
I’ve never asked either as it might seem vindictive, as it certainly wasn’t anything they could individually prevent.
Without knowing either very well, I do respect both.
Just asking, while wondering.
Any feedback would be appreciated.
The DR trolling former papers looking for upbeat news on Rangers. Why is it that the only seem to do this when they defeat Celtic. Why is there no trolling when they lost in cup playoffs. Now we have Mark Hately resurrected to provide comments on football. His comment that he is surprised the Edouard still has his teeth shows someone truly in touch with today’s game and treatment of athletes by teammates. He must have been a joy in the dressing room of the former Ranger’s club.
Oops .. that should read trolling foreign papers
AG
They lost all the rights to their seats after Administration, some have regained them probably through a further/different payment method.
As far as I’m aware the original 1990 club deck bond scheme purchasers still have their names on the seats, even though someone else may now have the seat.
https://imgur.com/a/KY1Hc5K
regards
ff
Paddy Malarkey 3rd May 2021 At 16:03
”..Aidan Smith (if that person actually exists )..’
+++++++++++++
Ha, ha! Yes, there is an Aidan Smith who is a sports journalist with regular pieces in ‘The Scotsman’ and other publications.
To be scrupulously fair, his non-football articles are sometimes very entertaining ( he has one in ‘The Scotsman’ today , talking about the ‘final’ episode of ‘Line of duty’]
My beef with him ,and the SMSM generally, is that they did not have, and do not now have , the moral fibre to challenge the Big Lie, but happily bought into it, most dishonourably and continue to propagate it.
Proper journalists would have argued with their editors for the right to investigate and report, and, if not granted, would have quit.
Or would have tried to explain in some sort of sensible, intelligent way how a football club that was created before their very eyes in 2012 can be the same club whose death by Liquidation also happened before their very eyes!
John Clark 3rd May 2021 At 22:02
In fairness , if the big beasts are reluctant to raise their heads , somebody at his level would be ridiculed . Oh for simpler days when football was honest and we were innocent !
Fitbawfan 3rd May 2021 At 19:29
‘..They lost all the rights to their seats after Administration,’
+++++++++++++++++++
A trip down memory lane:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/378676/rangers-fans-hit-by-8m-penalty/
And, of course, there was NO ‘new owner’, Instead,
RFC of 1872 went into liquidation,
a monstrous sorting ie was created,
and I believe that tomorrow there is further action in the Court of Session related to the value of Ibrox as quoted in that ‘Sun’ article as against the miserly sum that the Administrators sold it for to the founder the newest member of the SFA, TRFC, which of course would have denied any liability for the debts of RFC of 1872!
Fitbawfan.
Thanks for the reply. When I used an internet search engine, one of the links brought up a recent thread from the follow follow web site.
On that thread , they mentioned Sir David Murray being culpable, and it was also claimed that the club can’t be arsed taking off the original names of bond holders who bought the seats , for life ( or 35 years).
Another example of clubs treating their customers with disdain.
I wonder why the 6 thousand fans who lost the seat for life at Ibrox , never get a mention in the media??
John Clark .
Yip . Indeed, there wasn’t ever a new owner.
BDO v The Administrators, the smsm will be all over this i expect, or will there be a big deflection from ibrox to keep the glare away?
Angel Gabriel 3rd May 2021 At 17:44
6
0
Rate This
Can anyone ( Alberts 11 perhaps) who posts on here, confirm whether those Rangers supporters that bought a seat for life , in the club deck stand during the Sir David Murray years, still have the same seats ?
………………………………………………
They still get a Joint Liquidators’ statutory reports to all known creditors published on https://www.bdo.co.uk/en-gb/rfc-2012-plc site within six weeks of each anniversary of the date of Liquidation, in accordance with Rules 7.4 and 7.8 of The Insolvency (Scotland) (Receivership and Winding up) Rules 2018.
@ AG and JC – regarding that “seat for life” reading the Sun article implies the fans coughed up for the right to have the same seat but would obviously have to pay annual season ticket subs. Unless I’m misreading something the fans lost the right to buy a season ticket for the same seat to see RFC play. Given RFC no longer existed it wouldn’t have been possible for D&P to honour their rights… couldn’t be simpler.
“The Scotsman” today reports Ian McCall as saying “nobody from the SPFL or SFA will be allowed in the stadium, which is great.” [ on Wednesday, from the club’s trophy celebrations]
He added “Yes” when asked if Doncaster is banned .”They won’t be allowed in the stadium. Is it really going to make a difference? Is the governance going to change? It has been incompetent for decades now. Is it going to change? I don’t know”
Not in any way do I disagree with McCall or seek to excuse the inability or unwillingness of the SFA and SPFL to recognise that punishing clubs that were victims of a natural disaster was totally unjust.
Their readiness to punish innocent clubs was in marked contrast to their readiness to betray their Governance functions in order to concoct an absurd lie to enable a new club to claim, in its IPO , a sports pedigree and history that it simply could not have earned.
The great shame of Scottish Football is that too many other clubs were and are prepared to buy into that lie.
There be can be NO honest professional football governance until the BIG Lie is rescinded, and some form of truth and justice restored.
Didn’t think we had it in us !
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/sport/19276315.ian-mccall-confirms-spfl-sfa-banned-partick-thistle-title-celebration-demotion-row/
And it looks like Mr Walker was even-handed when selecting targets
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/7056401/rangers-celtic-ban-walker-sky-sports-legal/
Paddy Malarkey 3rd May 2021 At 22:20
“… Oh for simpler days when football was honest and we were innocent !”
“”””””””””””””””””””””
Certainly we were innocent and unquestioning in former times.
But I believe that the SMSM of those days had the courage at least to imply ,by the creation and use of the concept of the ‘Old Firm’ , that there might have been a mutually beneficial match-fixing wee deal operating.
[There was something quite recently about the rights to soubriquet having been renewed? That’s a bit f a puzzle, because one cheek of that ar.e is DEAD and any new cheek could hardly be described as being old enough to pretend to be that old cheek.
And, surely to God, the living cheek wouldn’t have the cheek to suggest that a new club could pretend to be the dead cheek? would they]
If any teams in the Scottish premiership are looking for a new manager, may I suggest Barry Ferguson. His insights to games that have been played are tremendous and always full of praise for his beloved Rangers. Its a shame that he can’t focus on the team he currently manages as you hear very little about them, How must the players feel when they have such an esteemed leader raving about another club. On the other hand you have the bitterness of Charlie Nicholas and his constant moaning regarding anything Celtic. Somebody must have done the dirty on him for him to carry on the way he does. I remember back in the 80’s Scotland were playing an exhibition game in Edmonton, and, Charlie’s main concern expressed in the media was getting a hair cut trim daily. Another signing by Rangers today, while they have two or three teams next year, one for the league, one for cup games, and one for Europe. I see another share issue/loan coming.
What’s this I hear?
Dreadful inefficiency on the part of football club in going about the business of ensuring that whatever the problem is in obtaining a UEFA licence, a way cannot be found for love nor money to having it quietly removed?
It surely can’t be that hard to get round the rules : I cannot believe it hasn’t been done before.
Paddy Malarkey 12.16.
Fair play to Patrick Thistle , who were denied any form of fair play when they were relegated. I wonder if any of the Scottish MSM will ask Ian McColl to expand, on his assumption that the governance of the game has been incompetent for decades.
Personally, I think he’s being kind using the word incompetent. Crooked would be more apt.
So the “ Old Firm” have both banned Andy Walker.
I remember Neil Lennon being upset with Andy Walker describing the Dubai trip as a jolly.
Neil’s defence of that accusation was stating that 80% of the Celtic squad don’t drink alcohol.
I wondered then , wouldn’t it have been more apt for the remaining 20% and Neil Lennon , to refrain from drinking and show some empathy to the fans ?
Remember, it was the fans, who were stuck indoors for months, that payed through the nose for the privilege of watching the team implode , on an average virtual streaming service.
I’m certainly not Andy Walkers biggest fan , but find it strange that no other Scottish MSM individual, ever asks about the financial well being of a club with a “ going concern “ warning in their accounts.
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.
Or yer barred !!
Cluster One 4th May 2021 At 01:05
‘..BDO v The Administrators, the smsm will be all over this i expect, or will there be a big deflection from ibrox to keep the glare away?’
“””””””””””””””””””””””
I tried this morning , Cluster One, to get the access code needed to listen-in to today’s hearing. It wasn’t there at 10.00.
I had an appointment on other business which took me up to lunch.
It still wasn’t there, so I emailed the clerk to ask whether the hearing had taken place or whether it had been postponed or whatever.
As my other affairs panned out, however, although the reply had come in at 3.30, it was almost 4.00 when I looked at my emails and got the access number, so I didn’t try to use it for the minute or two remaining.
Happily, the access code for tomorrow was also emailed.
Now, I’ve to take Mrs C to the station at 10.00 tomorrow so I won’t be able to access until about 10.30 or so.
I just want to get a flavour of what is happening.
If I manage to follow whatever is being said I’ll make such note as I can ….
“…players would take a reduction of 25%?”
These were the first words I heard when I tuned in to the Hearing today at about 10.20.
I have been listening with great interest since.
A witness whose name sounds like ‘Shippoley’ or Chipolez or some such, and who appears to have worked under Whitehouse’s instructions on site at Ibrox while Whitehouse largely worked from Manchester , is being examined by Mr McBrearty.
Lot of reference to emails to and from some well-known names, of course , and I find it of absorbing interest.
Broke for lunch a second ago , to resume at 1.50.
[The QC examining is Mr McBrearty]
Thus far: player agreements to wage cuts , with agreements about reduced release amounts in return, player valuations before and after the SAP agreement, TUPE and player registrations, Fraser Wishart and the PFA , the JPP ban on player transfers, RIFC plc IPO, first RIFC plc accounts in respect of player valuations, ‘brand’ value’ , ‘negative goodwill’, continuing influence of CW after the appointment of Administrators, the MCR/ Grier/D&P connection , the frustration of the on-site D&P workers at the apparent uncertainty, lack of overall Administration strategy, the front-line problems caused by the huge amount of publicity, the RFFF….
these have all been mentioned, with a fair mount of references to email traffic,
Quite a lot of ‘I don’t recall’.
Entertaining listening… which I must now get back to…
John Clark 5th May 13.49.
Simon Shipperlee is the name John.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19278678.ex-rangers-administrators-fight-bonkers-56-8m-shut-club-down-claim/
……………………………….
FORMER administrators of Rangers are fighting the liquidators of the business who are suing them for £56.8m because they believe they should have conducted a “bonkers” strategy which would “effectively shut the club down for good”.
Details have emerged as Rangers liquidators BDO began court action against the former club administrators Paul Clark and David Whitehouse of Duff and Phelps who have already agreed an estimated £24m settlement after Scotland’s senior law officer the Lord Advocate agreed there was a malicious prosecution in connection with the collapsed club fraud case.
John Clark 5th May 2021 At 13:49
Quite a lot of ‘I don’t recall’.
………………………………
I recall there is quite a lot of that when anyone with anything to do with the ibrox saga has anything to not say in court.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court (thank you JC) and also in the press. BDO would not be pursuing this without strong legal opinion behind them (not to say that it is watertight) as they have a corporate reputation to think about. I suspect the waters will be muddied and reporting furiously spun by vested interests. I see already some conflating of this case with the putative prosecution.
Dubaigate correspondence between Celtic & SG.
https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/foi-eir-release/2021/04/foi-202100132886/documents/foi—202100132886—information-released/foi—202100132886—information-released/govscot%3Adocument/FOI%2B-%2B202100132886%2B-%2BInformation%2BReleased.pdf
Today’s Hearing resumed at 1.50 p.m, after lunch.
I missed the opening words (had to redial and in my haste couldn’t get the wee ‘plus sign’ on my phone for several seconds.
First I heard was Mr McBrearty reading from something. What I think I heard was “Sandy wants the staff to have a half-day…..Don’t let David know..”
It turned out that Sandy was a reference to the late , very decent Sandy Jardine. Sandy wanted the non-playing staff to get a half-day-morale was flat, staff were twiddling their thumbs. Apparently David (Whitehouse] was not to be told.
When asked why this was, the witness [Mr Shippoley- my apologies to him] said something about there being few games to play, nothing much happening..
The QC asked again why David was not to be told. The witness answered that it was because he might not have understood the ebb and flow …
The QC answered his own question with ” He might have wanted to make more cuts, isn’t that right?”
The QC moved on to talk about ‘brands’, asking the witness about the obtaining of a ‘brand valuation report’..The witness said that there might have been some discussion of the matter.
The QC said that the decision was taken NOT to instruct a ‘brand’ report, and referred the witness to the page on screen, reference Vol 3 page 7766, which showed the front page of the witness’s ‘day book’ covering 15 March to ? April.
The QC pointed out that against 15 March there is the entry: Ibrox meeting. 1.15 on the fifteenth, and on the following page ‘D&;P conf. call 4.05 pm.” and asked the witness could he see that? The witness said he could. The QC continued (reading from the screen] “Morale at RFF. Int. parties.” broke off to ask whteher ‘int. parties’ referred to ‘international parties’, and witness said no, it stood for ‘interested parties’. The QC carried on ” Brand valuation” “InterBrand”, and asked what ws meant by ‘Inter.Brand’
The witness replied ” I can’t recall… it could be a ‘brand’ agency..
The Qc read again: ” Tell HMRC won’t mean anything ultimately” and suggested that the witness was noting (at?) a meeting it may be that HMRC were looking for Brand valuation.
The witness replied that that may have meant that it did not mean anything ultimately.
The QC continued : you did not have a Valuation of a Brand, [was there a valuation] of players as an asset of the brand?
The witness agreed.
The QC then said” Steven Naismith , January 12, valued at £4 to 5 million?
[ The judge interjected , as an aside, to ask the slide controller to make the screen blank]
The witness replied yes..
There followed a long session about the proposed transfer of Naismith to WBA , which did not materialise.
I haven’t had an opportunity to study my notes properly, But it was interesting stuff.
Sadly, I had to get into Waverley to pick up the wife, so I disengaged at 3.15, and in the event, didn’t get back home till just after 4.00.
I’ll try to get my notes organised in my usual style . I find it a bind trying to just to do a wee short summary.[This is where eJ is badly missed, I have to say.]
Anent my posts of the ‘Hearing’, I have just learned from a reliable source that the name of the witness is Shipperlee.
The way the ‘lee’ was spoken sounded more like ‘ay’ as in ‘say’, Known to his friends and colleagues as ‘Shippers’.
I reckon that Counsel’s incidental reference to him as ‘being in his mid-thirties ‘ was related to his age at the time of the Administration back in 2012.
I missed any swearing in of Shipperlee so I don’t know if he is still working in D&P. He is an accountant, and was working in Ibrox under instruction from the Joint Administrators.
Wokingcelt 5th May 2021 At 17:34
‘..It will be interesting to see how this plays out in court (thank you JC)..’
++++++++++++
It will indeed.
In the interests of everything to do with justice and truth, of course, I need to say that while I record what I hear as I hear it, and would not and do not make anything up or try to falsify anything, it is possible that I may mis-hear , misunderstand, or hear things in a misunderstood context ( perhaps not having properly heard an opening sentence or such like]
It ‘s day two, and I did not access the first days Hearing.
So, with what? 30 days still to come, there’s no way really of assessing the merits/demerits of the legal case being argued.
But I’m happy that I have not deliberately mis-reported, and fairly sure that the official record will show that.
I hope that I will be able to tune in tomorrow, but so far the access code is not available.
Somewhat confused about Barry Ferguson’s employment status. Is he a reporter for the DR as he appears to now have a daily column, has he been hired as part of the Ranger’s management team as he makes reference to “we can’t lose”, Ryan Kent and there is just a passing mention of the people who had/are writing his pay cheque, Kelty. So many roles, so little time for any of them.
Cluster One 5th May 2021 At 15:28
‘…Quite a lot of ‘I don’t recall’.
I recall there is quite a lot of that when anyone with anything to do with the ibrox saga has anything to not say in court.
++++++++
Aye, of course.
But to be fair, witnesses are not themselves on ‘trial’.
And by and large don’t want to, and should not be expected to, suffer consequences for what they say in evidence.
On the one hand they do not want to lie, and on the other hand do not want to give evidence that may lead to difficulties of any kind for themselves.
The Law allows them the ‘I can’t remember’ option.
How the Court then views and evaluates their evidence?
That, to me, is a fascinating question.
Or am I talking sh.te?
Vernallen 5th May 2021 At 22:52
‘.. about Barry Ferguson’s employment status..’
+++++++++
Your man’s ‘two-fingers’ to Scottish Football told us all about your man (and one or two others]
And the DR’s readiness to accommodate him tells us a lot about the DR.[ not that we did not already know where their rotten hearts lay]
Honest to God. ( and the wee donkey)
Cognitive dissonance?
Halliday in ” The Scotsman” today.
How an otherwise intelligent person can come out in the same article with
” …the destination was finally reached this season with the capture of their club’s coveted 55th Scottish league title..” and “So began the extraordinary saga which saw BDO appointed as Liquidators in June 2012- a process ongoing to this day-while the business and assets of Rangers were acquired by a consortium led by Charles Green”
If only he had the guts to tell the unvarnished truth -that RFC of 1872 is as dead as Third Lanark, has won no trophies or titles since before 2012.
Gutless journalism is the bane of Scotland.
Is it possible to include/insert images to the comment section of the blog?
Well, today’s session in virtual Court saw the end f Mr Shipperlee’s evidence at the lunch break.
After lunch, Mr Peter Hart was sworn in.
His evidence-giving finished at about 4.05.
For listeners , there was promising beginning: Mr McBrearty’s opening question to Hart was ” Mr Hart, who were Dilly and Dally?”
And there was a little frisson of excitement when Mr McBrearty warned the witness that he thought he was being evasive, and remarked that he might refer the matter to the judge.
The line of questioning seemed to focus on the frustration apparently evidenced by email comments made by the witness , due to the lack of clear strategy, lack of communication, differences of opinion between the Administrators
Dilly and Dally was a reference, it seems, to Whitehouse and Clark made in an email Further references were to Ticketus holding the power to block a CVA,
the failure to secure an agreement with the PFA and players,
the suggestion that there was no proper redundancy plan, the decision that there would BE non-playing staff redundancies only being taken, apparently, the day before meetings with staff to tell them,
the remarkably small number ( in effect, only 7] ,
no axing of ‘Community Coaching’ ( which, whatever its value to youngsters in the community, was not strictly necessary in terms of trying to get out of Administration.]
Moved on to the RFFF and the Save Rangers and other fan organisations and the money raised/pledged and the fact that no thought seemed to have been given to inviting such groups actually to invest their funds in the club by buying shares or even by bidding to buy
I listened most of the day, but there were times when I lost the thread badly enough to make me stop trying to take any kind of note .
I have 10 double-side A4 pages of scribbles, but it will be difficult to decipher them.
Cheers JC
Should the manager of the year be based on performance in the league and cup competitions and not be glossed up any European football. Some seem to think/feel that SG is a shoo in for manager of the year and keep bringing the European record into the conversation. Let’s have the outcome decided by games in Scottish football and I believe the award is for the Scottish manager of the year. I believe there are a number of candidates under consideration and some of those did not have the advantage of share issues, directors’ loans to assemble a team they could not afford.
WWell, that’s the Hearing adjourned till Tuesday.1.00 pm.
Hart finished giving evidence, and then there were McKinlay, and Rod McKenzie.
A lot of use of the ‘ the company owning the club’, some ‘I can’t recalls’, references to 5-Way agreement, Hearts ( Mr McKinlay mentioning that Hearts came out of Admin via a CVA), Naismith ‘transfer’ , player registration ,the discretionary powers of the Board(s) , amendments in May 2012 to reserve some decision-making to the members, mention of Gretna, obligations to fulfil fixtures, distribution of broadcast monies, dispensations from competing in under-19 league, mention of EBTs and spill-over into post-Administration.
I’ve got some notes.
To the extent that I can, I’ll write them up and consider posting them
@JC – thank you, very much appreciate the dedication and indefatigability!
@Vernallen – I hadn’t thought of the Scottish football only consideration before but I can see the fairness in it. SG deserves consideration given the points gathered in the league, arguably offset by overseeing two cup upsets. CallumD at St Johnstone deserves consideration for both league and cup performances (to date). Personally I also think Jack Ross for what he has done at Hibs must be in the mix. Of course if Jack Ross were to win he would join Strachan as only two to have won the PFA award twice, with Ross winning in 2017/18 despite Rodgers overseeing back to back trebles.
And in 2019/20 Neil Lennon won the Treble and PFA Scotland cancelled their awards because of COVID.
Discuss…
I see where McCoist, with some help from Sutton, have suggested Kent is worth somewhere between $ 25–$30 million. If memory serves correct wasn’t Liverpool trying to flog him a few years ago and there was a dearth of bidders. It appears the free spending Rangers were the only club to step up with a bid that Liverpool happily snatched ( have they ever been paid any portion of that fee). If not I’m sure another share issue or a round of directors loans can be arranged. Would happily be corrected if my memory has failed me.
Vernallen 7th May 2021 At 01:35
‘..some of those did not have the advantage of share issues, directors’ loans to assemble a team they could not afford.’
++++++++++
It’s an open question as to the extent to which Gerrard is actually the man, as opposed to the figurehead , his ‘successes’ rather being due to others, as well as to the relative ‘riches’ of a loan funded club!
JC 7th May 2021 @ 23:09
It seems that most managers at this club have had access to funds and wrote cheques with abandon in the signing market. Sooner or later there will be a repeat of 2012. Just how deep are the pockets and how much vanity is involved.
@Vernallen – it would not make economic sense to retain £25m players in the SPL and every team would bite your hand off for the cheque (they would probably hire the private jet to get the player south of the border!).
Living in England and with regard to Ryan Kent, I have not heard or read any reports linking him with teams here (of course I might have missed the reports). Similarly not even a sniff of a suggestion that he could be on the fringes of the England squad which maybe talks to the lack of profile of Scottish football down here.
Only “big name” regularly mentioned is Eduoard – generally seems that his indifferent season this year is weighed in context with his record with France U21s.
Most of the EPL clubs are struggling with impact of COVID on revenues (Liverpool lost close to £100m and West Ham have put contract talks with Moyes on hold due to finances – and this with him taking them to verge of Champions League!).
Could be a good time to rebuild a squad (buyer’s market) but maybe not so good to cash in on player assets… Throw in the Euros and the transfer froth that usually accompanies it then we have an interesting summer coming up methinks.
Vernallen
I’m not so sure that the inevitability if Admin2 is plausible. The ability of the new club to write off losses and consistently find funds is remarkable. By any objective metric, the funding situation, coupled with the audit warnings , would have seen them sink into oblivion. But they have come from the brink many times and now have the possibility of ECL cash which would be a life-changing event. In terms of matching Celtic long term, the root cause of liquidation for the old club was the structural disadvantage they suffered as a consequence of having 10,000 fewer seats to sell each season.
How they deal with that will be interesting, especially since the EBT route is now closed.
But any doubts over their long term sustainability is now gone IMO. The league victory has seen to that.
Been asked by a couple of folk if we would consider the possibility of a politics thread on SFM.
Anything on SFM would strive to be fair and equitable of course, and fact-checking of claims would be encouraged.
Indy debate is gonna be front and centre of our lives for the next few years, and there is an eclectic flavour to our community.
Thoughts?
If there are 3 subjects you should avoid talking about in a pub it’s religion, football and politics and in Scotland in particular all 3 seem to be inextricably linked so why not . I did notice but have not listened to the podcast with George Galloway on here. What an utter charlatan of a man he has become . A supporter of the Union , a man who voted Conservative in the latest election , a man who claims he has been a Man Utd fan for the last 30 years and just to get a bit of religion in a man who stated that the Reverend Ian Paisley was a good Christian man ………..
Hmmmm a politics thread would certainly be opening a can of worms lol
Tim Tim
Had great admiration for George, but he has become a real fascist. Have no problem with his Unionism, but the depths he has gone to on his journey are not on the socialist levels. Particularly in his deliberate repetition of untruths and invective that should be unnecessary for a man of his eloquence and intellect.
He has become, and possibly always was, a populist, a charlatan and an opportunist. Such a pity that a mind like his has been put to those uses.
Big Pink 9th May 2021 At 10:42
Decent political debate on social media is almost impossible due to extremists hurling abuse. I tend to avoid it for that reason. It would be nice to have somewhere for a reasonable debate without that type of interruption. I assume all debate on independence would be allowed? I do note on Twitter that the SFM account is very polarised towards one side of the argument.
UTH
Twitter account is pro Indy, but I don’t have a problem with anyone who is pro-union. I was myself until fairly recently. It’s the George Galloway type of stuff I’d like to keep away from.
Big Pink 9th May 2021 10:36
I would be concerned if they got a sniff of CL money and went on another spending spree and not thinking of the future. They still have Dave King (loan) and the Mike Ashley court action to come. Surely the directors’ loans will need repaying somewhere down the line. These items alone could eat into the $25 — $30 million from CL funds quickly. Another area of concern is the team list currently shows 15 players 28 and over. It is astonishing how quickly someone in those age brackets can lose their legs, especially with some of that 15 well into their 30’s. If that was to happen that would require another spend on players. They have been fortunate thus far, but you do not want to go to the well too often as it may suddenly dry up.
The Directors seem to have converted those loans to shares already so there’s nothing to pay back unless there are other loans outstanding we don’t yet know of . The previous club* gambled every year on CL riches to bail them out until the Malmo/Maribor double whammy that left them short and if this is the new policy then they will come unstuck at some point.
The Ashley/King money may yet be a game changer , I’m not convinced they can endlessly write cheques to fund this madness while funding Gerrards transfer demands to compete at CL Group stage level . Most if not all of those older players don’t have any resale value and I don’t believe the younger ones have done enough to attract silly money bids from the richer leagues.
Timtim 9thMay 2021 @ 19:57
Because of the team involved and past issues with HMRC, it would be interesting to know if HMRC are watching the “conversion of loans” to shares. They have history of playing fast and loose with HMRC. It would nice to know how close some of the “investors” are being monitored. Could be considerable personal tax benefits for them.
Big Pink 9th May 2021 At 10:42
‘..Been asked by a couple of folk if we would consider the possibility of a politics thread on SFM.’
++++++++
Well, we know already that Scottish Football has been shown to be ‘Unionist’ in its readiness to lie in order to accommodate a stupid sporting fiction!
There can be no meaningful discussion with ‘liquidation deniers’ whatever their ‘political’ views may be.
The death of RFC of 1872 is not a matter of political ‘opinion.’
It is a stark fact.
There would be nothing for me in engaging in political discussion with , in effect, people who support and propagandise on behalf of the Lie that seeks to deny that fact.
John C
Admittedly it is harder to take seriously (on any subject) the views of folk who can be so easily pressed into suspension of disbelief on the RFC matter, but there is room for some respectful discussion I hope?
Big Pink 10th May 2021 At 00:24
‘.. but there is room for some respectful discussion I hope’
++++++++++++++
Ha, ha,BP:
I had intended to add an observation to the effect that if there was any football-based blog on which intelligent and generally respectful political discussion might take place it is the sfm.scot blog! But I thought that might have sounded too sycophantic.
There is a view that ‘politics’ is very largely about some folk trying to get things their way, and everything else is subordinate to that; that there are precious few politicians who are not self-seeking , and very few who are not prepared to abandon principles if any bending is required to gain or retain political office; that ‘Politics’ involves deceit and that there are many politicians who have no difficulty dissimulating and/ or lying in order to ‘win’.
Discuss.
JC
Sadly the politicians’ motivations are usually career-based. Lies, half truths and dissimulation come easily to them.
Politics is most certainly the pursuit of self-interest though, and I have heard it said recently that in Western capitalist countries “the top 5% convinced the middle 50% that the bottom 45% are to blame for everything”.
Effectively reducing political discussion to little more than a flag waving/rosette wearing exercise. I think there may be a wide range of views on SFM which may bring about an interesting discourse without resort to the “Jimmy Crankie” type invective we often hear on social media.
I must admit that although I find Douglas Ross (for example) to be a mildly ridiculous figure, I’m not so sure that it is helpful or ultimately beneficial to portray him solely in that way.
Indy is of course important to all of us for two quite different reasons, but the demise of the Labour Part in Scotland – and the rest of the UK – is also a phenomenon which plays to the sense of history we in Scotland share.
There are also warning signs that the SNP are treading the same path as the LP (and indeed trade unions) have in taking folk for granted, becoming a vehicle for political careers instead of change.
I certainly think that Independence and Labour’s decline would dominate any casual political discussion on SFM, but like I say, politics is the art of self interest, and the scope for multithreaded discussion is there.
I think we may all have something to learn from each other. Be interested to hear more thoughts on whether folk find it appropriate for discussion here.
You have to wonder about Ranger’s newest signing. Sakala claims to have interest from England, Spain, and France and yet opts for Scotland. Is this a show of a lack of ambition or just trying to boost his image for the fans. Will be interesting to see what he actually brings to the playing field. An article in the DR claims someone outside the coaching and playing staff had comments for Brown as he walked up the tunnel following the last game. This is now the second issue with someone connected to Rangers having a need to garner some publicity in regards to Brown. Either its jealousy of his record and stature with some fans, or, poor sportsmanship. I always found that the more the opposition booed you or tried to mock you the more inner respect they had for you and would more than welcome you suiting up for their side. I opt for the latter idea.
If political chit chat is to prove viable then it might help if the forum has some idea of the general makeup of its contributors.
My background and heritage politically is solid Labour. I was a card carrying shop steward at 20 years of age in a factory in Leeds and fought for primarily a safer working environment , the years of poor investment and profit taking at the expense of the workforce had led to wilful neglect and ignorance of health and safety. My major bugbear was not enthusiastically supported by the members at the time who had whispers from management of costs,redundancies etc. I was elected shop steward on the demise of the older guy who seemed to have a cosy relationship with the directors and owners. The day after my anointment the managing director called me to a meeting with the board to be held at 10.00am. I duly arrived ‘upstairs’ at the time stated and was made to sit and wait for almost an hour before the door opened and I was shouted in. It was an obvious attempt at intimidation . I walked in and there was no seat to be had( I suppose at this point I should have been wringing my cap and apologising for taking up their time) . The MD started to explain how dire the situation was and how the company could ill afford wage rises at the time. I listened respectfully and waited until he had finished. I then explained that I had reviewed the previous years balance sheet and was in no doubt that certain emoluments and pension contributions allied to salaries indicated the company was in rude health and well able to afford a cost of living rise and refurbishment to ensure shop floor safety. I then explained I had to leave as I was about to call a union meeting that may well last most of the day. It was a gamble as I was unsure as to the support I could actually count on having heard many married women say to me they weren’t that bothered as it was only ‘pin money’ to them. I tore that argument apart in front of the rest of the membership and left them red faced with embarrassment but determined not to be taken for granted either in the workplace or at home. We won our cost of living and workplace improvements. The MD later asked me if I played golf. A year later and while I am on holiday in Scotland the factory is sold and all made redundant with 80% rehired on lesser terms. The local news carries the item highlighting the ‘absentee’ shop steward situation. We move on and I make my home in Scotland to escape the recent election of Thatcher who then lands me with the hated poll-tax. I continue to vote for Labour but eventually realise that I am voting for a party that is not sufficiently engaged or interested in its local base. It is no longer the Scottish Labour Party but is the Labour Party in Scotland. I switch allegiances to the SNP figuring independence is the only way Scotland can achieve a true caring and socially democratic society. Brexit is thrust upon us and once again I feel the anger and frustration of disenfranchisement. I voted for the SNP in the recent constituency election and Alba in the regional list. It seemed a straightforward decision but I was disheartened by the first ministers response when asked if enough independent minded members were elected she would still not seek immediate talks for ceding from the union. It seems elected representatives no longer are answerable to their supporters. A friend asked if independence was of paramount importance and I foolishly said yes . She pointed out that tory brexiteers had the same mindset ..at any cost and deal with the fallout afterwards. So persuasive was her reasoning that I now await a proper costed structured and convincing path to independence….I hate her.
We tried meddling with the blog not long ago and had to admit it was a mistake. Personally I’m not interested in engaging in political controversy and more slagging matches. The blog either stands or falls as it is in my opinion and maybe we should reach out to some of our lost posters and try and woe them back. How to do that I’m not sure but maybe they look in now and again and might reconsider returning.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57064415
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57059711
According to what I am reading online it is looking highly likely that this weekend is going to witness a repeat of Rangers fans marching from Ibrox to George Square where they will hold a party. This despite such gatherings still not being permitted at that time. Police Scotland are apparently saying they are powerless to stop it and businesses with outdoor tables are being asked to close. The last time this happened Police Scotland claimed it was spontaneous even though it had been discussed online for some time. Similarly it is being heavily discussed online for this forthcoming weekend. I await with interest, but should this come to pass I think someone of influence somewhere needs to stand up and ask why the Scottish Government and its Police Force are not treating all citizens equally as per the law of the country.
Two years ago thousands of Celtic fans had gathered for a treble treble bus procession. This was pre-covid but the Police cancelled it on safety grounds. A line of police ensured ‘thou shall not pass’, and the crowd dispersed with Celtic making an appeal to do so peacefully, which is what happened. If Glasgow is subjected to a repeat of what happened in March, and the Police effectively give it their blessing, then I simply don’t know how anyone can think that would be okay.
UTH, I already sent this to 3 MSPs in the hope that a more proactive approach might be taken…..
I was impressed by your comments in Parliament a while back after the SG and Police Scotland seemed to be taken aback by the illegal mass gatherings of Rangers fans when results meant that they had won this season’s league title. Those shocking scenes of huge, unruly crowds at Ibrox, then the unbelievable sight of that illegal gathering being given a police escort to George Square where violence and damage to shops and memorial benches was the order of the day (weekend!) still live in the memory of all of us.
I m hoping the SG and PS are aware of the plans for an organised march this weekend after Saturday’s final game against Aberdeen at Ibrox. Indeed, I see PS has already warned fans not to turn up in breach of Covid regulations, advising that “an appropriate policing plan is in place to maintain public safety and minimise any disruption to the community.” My worry is that the insipid efforts of PS during that awful incident will form the basis of this weekend’s “appropriate policing plan”!
I realise that the SG does not tell the police what to do, but given the disaster last time, when the illegal activity seemed to be homologated by Police Scotland, I assume the SG is in discussion now with PS about how best to prevent such an illegal gathering this weekend. The excuse used by PS then was that once the gathering had grown past a certain size, the best that could be done was to control it rather than disperse it, due to public safety concerns.
After that abhorrent display, the next Rangers-Celtic match saw a different tactic used where the clubs were asked/forced to communicate very forcibly with their fans that they should not gather at the match or at all. This appeared to have a comparatively successful outcome and I would hope that the SG and PS is making sure that Rangers FC comes out strongly to advise their fans not to gather anywhere this weekend. This proactive approach seems to be the most likely way of avoiding another illegal gathering, so I am surprised that I have not seen any sign as yet that Rangers FC has been asked to assist in this way.
Please can you find out and let me know what the SG is doing to ensure no repeat of the dreadful scenes from a few months back. A response before the weekend would obviously be beneficial.
Thank you.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19290497.rangers-sold-fifth-fair-value-brand-worth-16m-snapped-nothing/
……………………………………….
RANGERS FC was sold to Charles Green’s Sevco consortium after its financial collapse for at least a fifth of its fair value – with the club’s brand worth over £16m given away for nothing.
The revelations have come through financial papers seen by the Herald as the liquidators of Rangers oldco BDO sue the former administrators of the business for £56.8m claiming a seriously flawed strategy in raising money for the thousands owed money from the 2012 insolvency
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/19290721.rangers-sold-fifth-fair-value-brand-worth-16m-snapped-nothing/
.
……………
Rangers sold for a fifth of its ‘fair value’ with brand worth £16m snapped up for nothing
upthehoops 10th May 2021 At 18:34
……………………..
Has the damage been paid for from the last gathering?
Cluster One 10th May 2021 At 19:57
Has the damage been paid for from the last gathering?
+++++++++++++++++++
As far as I know some of the damage was paid for out of monies collected by Rangers fans. However, there was a large bill to the public purse in terms of policing and clean up. I really find it incredible this is going to be allowed to happen again. As Nawlite said in his post there was a much firmer stance taken by the Government and Police when Rangers played at Celtic Park, but of course they could very conveniently forewarn Celtic fans on that occasion as well. Quelle surprise!
Cluster One 10th May 2021 At 19:50
” the link to the Herald
+++++++++
The propaganda machine again! ” ‘Rangers FC was sold’ to Chares Green’ indeed. FFS.
Would you buy a second-hand car from that ‘ journalist’? Would anyone even give him the time of day>
He KNOWS that RFC was not sold. It could not BE sold. It is in Liquidation, even as I write.
Charles Green ( in circumstances which are even now being challenged] bought nothing but some assets.
Guys like Williams simply have to be called out as being utterly unreliable reporters of fiction rather than fact.
Honest to God.
I believe that Rangers & Celtic colts teams will participate in the Lowland League next season.
Eleven clubs in favour, Five against with One abstention.
Confirmation expected in Two weeks at AGM.
I find the valuation of the “brand” interesting to say the least. I believe that TRFC has cumulative losses since being incorporated in 2012, and I don’t recall it ever making a profit in any year of its existence. How such a “brand” can be worth £16m is risible as to have a carrying value intangibles such as brands need to demonstrate positive returns.
Some bits and bytes from today’s media. UEFA upholds 4 game suspension for Roofe. Does UEFA not know who they are dealing with, this is the Rangers that are not used to such treatment. To quote one of their heros, “who are these people”. Rangers will now be short handed for CL qulaifiers, perhaps Salaka can pick up the slack.
Is Derek McInnis lobbying for a job at Rangers His media friendly interviews surely look like a way to worm his self into a job.
Victory celebrations this weekend. Could the group in charge of Covid policies and procedures not advise if there is a similar gathering as to the earlier one, that Ibrox be closed to fans for a number of games when fans are allowed back in. Could the SFA not have a firm discussion with the Rangers board about the optics of such a demonstration and advise of potential action, which no doubt be appealed, but at leas appear to look like they have a hand on the tiller of sports governance.
At the risk of boring some people [ but of course , scrolling past is easy], I give my transcript of my full notes of last Thursday’s BDO v RFC 2012 hearing with a little preamble:
“The ‘virtual’ Proof Hearing of the action brought by BDO against the Administrators of RFC plc began in the Court of Session on Tuesday 4th May 2012.
I was not able to access that hearing, so I missed a full day’s hearing.
On 5th of May, I was able to access at a point a little after the start of business, so this report begins in mid-sentence. [see my posts of 4th May at 20.02, 5th May at 13.49 and 20.21]
I know now that the QC doing the questioning was Mr Young, and the witness giving evidence was Mr Shipperlee, who had worked at Ibrox for D&P during the Administration process. At the time, I simply could not make out ‘Shipperlee’ from the sounds I heard when his name was mentioned.
I assume that Shipperlee had begun to give evidence the day before, on the 4th , and that what I was hearing was a continuation, but perhaps he had only been sworn in that morning?
As before, I have recorded what I heard and what I think I heard, not altogether verbatim ( although my notes use the most of the words used by the speakers). I have made nothing up, but of course I may have misheard, or mis-transcribed.
There was a LOT of referencing to the pages of documents which were shown on a screen at the time. That, of course, was not seen , nor was anything else, on the access phone line available to the public.
This is what I heard:
Mr Young QC: ( apparently reading from something)….’..time of a meeting or time of phone call’…..What does this entry men?
Mr Shipperlee): it’s the time I made a call or [attended?]a meeting.
QC: …any other markings to jog the memory later on?
S: Sometimes
QC: If we look at Document number 2, page 3780….what you can see is an email from Paul Clark to David Whitehouse, in which he summarises events relating to playing staff, 16 February entry, can you read that?
S: Yes
QC: Mr McBrearty indicated that that entry shows the intention was to make redundancies, and you seemed to agree.
S: Yes
QC: Can you look at the top half- what is it recording?
S: A meeting with Ally McCoist.
QC: Look at, down here, can you read it?
S : ‘possible wage deferral or reduction’
QC: Was that you speaking or McCoist?
S: It’s.. possibly,… no..I can’t say who said it.
QC: The line after that..?
WS ( reading) “ ..or Ally McCoist can move players if they’re happy to go.’
QC: ..on the same page, bottom section, there’s an entry- ‘meeting at 10.55′
S Yes.
QC: Who with?
S it was a meeting with players
QC: Is there any indication [ that it ws about? Redundancy or wage reduction?
S [ ed: I missed the opening words]…………’ where did the cash go?’
QC: Was that question asked by you?
S: no, by the players.
QC: On the next page, am I right in saying you had a meeting with Fraser Wishart on the same day?
S: Yes
QC; [ed: I missed his question]
S: There was some concern that some players might want to leave.’
QC: Is it correct that the only thing discussed was redundancy?
S: I can’t remember exactly, but also mentioned wage reductions.
QC: If we look in the Joint Bundle , page 2276, in the top half, there’s ‘Friday 24 February’. So, what does that relate to?
S It’s a note of a meeting at Murray Park with players
QC: At the first indent, what does it say?
S: ‘No decision made’
QC: The next bullet point?
S : ‘ question about redundancy being able to be avoided’
QC: Who asked?
S:…….One of the players.
QC: You were being non-committal at that point?
S:…….Yes.
QC: And [where it says] ‘playing’?
S: [That’s] ‘ playing costs high, so serious hard decision needed’
QC: And ‘ FW focussed on..?’.
S: ‘FW focussed on no redundancy’
QC: [ed: I missed the question/reference]
S: ‘FW will appeal to SPL and SFA’
QC: What do you understand Mr Wishart was saying?
S: That if there were redundancies the PFA will appeal:
QC: This is [on] the 24th February….?
S: I can’t say for certain , but I think I was just acknowledging ….
QC: On page 1981- this is in your handwriting?
S: Yes.
QC First indent, “ Potential breach of contract. Appeal to SPL and FIFA”
S: Yes.
QC: [ed: missed the question]
S It was….. [ ed: could not follow what he said]
QC: In the email from Fraser Wishart to Paul Clark, the last paragraph :” Should any redundancies be made the PFA appeal will be made”
On page 3372 of the Joint Bundle , top half. This is a note made on 1st March, your writing.” ‘A D’?.
Is that Andrew Dickson? .. What was his role?
S: He was the head of football, regulatory matters…
QC: Had he been doing football administration for some time?
S: Yes, a good number of years.
QC:: Did you work closely with him?
S: Most days .
QC: ..Can reliance be put on him?
S Oh, yes.
QC: Halfway down the page -‘Player Contract’ …’what does it say?
S: ‘ Term’ is ‘termination, can appeal to SPL.
QC What is likely to have happened here?
W: I think that it would have been something Dickson raised with me.
QC: [ quoting] …’wide-scale redundancies compared with cross-the -board payments,’, another aspect , look at Vol 2 of the Joint bundle, page 4566. Who in Duff and Phelps would put together the sensitivities analysis?
S: It would possibly have been Luke Norman [ed:I think that was one person, but it may have been two people Luke and Norman] or Sidney..who worked on spreadsheets.
QC: Who selected the scenarios you wanted to analyse?
S: Others in the team, Dickson…[various]
QC: Can you explain what one is comparing against another, the criteria?
S: Looking at the impact on cash-flow forecast
QC: Look at the first column..19 February.. do we see these re the first 5 sensitivities, 1. Bank balance, in the far right column , a different bank balance?
S: Yes. All start with the same balance, then different analyses would produce different outcomes
QC: How are the analyses used?
S: We use them to play out different scenarios and their impact on outcomes.
QC: There were at least, pay cuts, pay deferrals, redundancies. What were the main factors in weighing up ?
S: The cash flow forecast, weighing reduced costs against value to buyer.
QC: We looked earlier at the threat of the Players’ Union?
S .. the union would agree [ ed: I think that was what was said, but I missed his opening words]
QC There was the question of TUPE…..As an Insolvency Practitioner you have a broad understanding of TUPE?
S: Yes, but it is very complicated and legal advice is..
QC: Were you aware that employees could opt out of transfer?
S: That’s not relevant in most transactions: employees could resign,
QC: In March there was discussion – asset sale or a CVA were possibilities?
S: in March, an asset sale was one possibility.
QC: In respect of any choice to go for pay cuts rather than redundancies, could Rangers have bought new players?
S: There was an SFA embargo for a year…
QC: In relation to your dealings with the SPL, if we look at the Joint Bundle, vol 2, page 374: there is an entry 16.2.2012- meeting with Doncaster, Rod Mck
Kenzie, Ian Blair and you, Paul Clark, David Whitehouse, Ali Russell of Rangers. First, can you see the letter ‘Q’? Is that a Question?
S: Yes, recording that a question was raised.
QC: Would that be…
S: The context would say who raised the question.
QC: Seems to be a note saying Paul Clark looking at RM, raises points re Group shareholdings
DW ..” HMRC not completely against CVA”
Ian Blair;” HMRC called to say…”
Does that suggest that there was direct contact between HMRC and the SPL?
S: Yes.
QC: “ PJC At present not sufficient funds for rest of season, but…” What does that relate to?
S: The SPL seeking assurance that funds will enable continuation to the end of the season.
QC: ‘number of fixtures 19′ ..’ Did Rangers play all fixtures?
S: As far as I know.
QC: “14 days” relates to ?
S: The Insolvency Rules, in relation to redundancies.
QC: Page 376 ‘Q. ‘Financial Disclosure’ It’s hard to follow, but three regimes’ requirements, SPL, SFA and UEFA?
S: Yes
QC: There are arrows underneath ?… what do these [ed: I lost what was said , but presumably the arrows were underneath each of the organisations ]
S :.. there was a three year ban on registrations.
QC: That was different from in a CVA?
S: Yes, in a CVA, the entity owning doesn’t change.
[ ed: The next exchanges I found difficult to follow for a while, so bear with me]
QC: ………
S………..
QC: Can you read that line?
S ……………
QC: …and below, can you see “ Failure to qualify for SPL competitions”?
S ————-
QC: Are SPL competitions separate from league?
S:….No..
QC: And can you see “..expulsion rests on the other eleven clubs, embargo, points deduction”
S: the Board could make a decision…
QC: Was this a note of information someone in the SPL was providing?
S: Yes.
QC: If we look at the Joint Bundle 3572 , this was a meeting on [?] March. From the top few lines it seems to be a meeting with Paul Clark, Doncaster, Topping, McKenzie, Ian Blair and you; You seem to have noted “ PJC (Paul Clark?) raised cost cuts deferrals don’t work”
and “Ian Blair – if…..? .. termination of contract, SPL go to FIFA for dispensation”
S:…Yes
QC: ………
S:………….
QC: Can you say what the SPL thought was their role?
W: …….
QC: Who would pick up any damages due to players?
S: I’m not sure.
QC: do we also see ‘SPL investigate EBTs’. What was this about?
S:..the Employment Benefit Trusts.
QC: This was all pre-Administration stuff.
S: Yes.
QC: Was this the first indication of an investigation into that matter?
S:… Yes
QC: Were you involved in making documents available to the SPL?
S: ..I recall some info was brought together..
QC: Were you personally involved?
S:..I discussed the time limit.
QC: Who in the Rangers staff helped?
S: .. Andrew Dickson, I think, Jacqui Gourlay…
QC: Did Olverman have involvement?
S:…Yes,as Financial Director.
QC; Can we look now at page 2536 of the Bundle.
Monday,27 February. Your note?
S: Yes.
QC:: You see ’employees’?
S: Yes.
QC: Where did you get the information that there had been cuts under David Murray?
S: From [ ed: didn’t catch the name]
QC: On pge 2721 of the Joint Bundle, top half… So, in the action column “ Meeting between PC (Paul Clark) and you., and who else?
S: .. the Heads of the main departments….’A’ would be Andrew Dickson.
QC (quoting) “ PJC raised redundancies” ?
S: Yes, there was a discussion…
QC (referring to the note on the page) Whose initials are there?
S: Jacqui Gourlay, All-in-the- Community, D[ ed: didn’t hear the name]
QC: Did the heads come back with proposals?
S: : I believe they did come back with some suggestions.
QC: The Joint Bundle , page [?]…the second email Jacqui Gourlay Peter Hart.
[ed: I think I missed a question or two here]
QC The entry in your day-book, in the Joint Bundle Vol 2 page 2459, a note of Dave Baldwin: who does he act for?
S: Alan McGregor
QC:…You’ve got numbers to the side. Valuations of players. What is the context?
S: I’ve asked Dave Baldwin if he could provide indicative values , it may be that Paul Clark had asked.
QC:.. There’s no email that I can see from Paul Clark or David Whitehouse. Did you do it off your own bat?
S.. I met with David Whitehouse and had a conversation.
QC Why do you think you may have asked that, and made a note?
S:…[ ed: did not hear his reply]
QC: for Naismith nought -dash- Four?
S… I can’t recall exactly, the range is due to… it may be in relation to his injury.
QC: Naismith..the offer from WBA – the end point of that negotiation , “18th of April the Ashworth deadline has now passed.”.see that?
S:…Yes
QC:.. another, day-book entry, seems to be “ Conf call with DW, PC” you’ve written?
S:… That suggests some consultation about buying extra time
QC: but no one did go back? Isn’t that right?
S Yes.
QC: Did Ashworth chase you after 18th April?
S: I can’t recall that he did, no.
QC: We’ve seen that Peter McLean was very active on behalf of the players.
W:..Yes.
QC: Did he prod you to contact WBA after 18th April?
W:…..No
QC: Did Naismith?
S…No.
QC: Did Andrew Dickson indicate that WBA hd been chasing him for a response?
S…. No.
QC: There was a press report in the ‘Sun’, referring to other clubs. Do you recall any contact with those other clubs?
S ….No.
QC:… Turning to buy-out clauses: can you recall whether any agents of other players approached you about release clauses?
S: No
QC: Any offers for players with buy-out clause?
S:…No,I can’t recall.
QC: If we look now at the RYD Co. [ed: i.e. Rangers Youth Development Co]
First, day-book entry , Joint Bundle 5, page 504. Is this your writing?
S:… No, it’s Paul Clark’s.
QC: On 24th there’s a meeting: “£250,000 loaned to RY D” Did you have individual dealings with Mr Hart
S…No, not directly.
QC: His loan of £250,000 to RYD and the abstraction of that loan for Rangers?
S:…I worked on some paperwork.
QC: The Joint Bundle, page 2017.Is that your writing?
S: No, I think it’s Paul Clark’s.
QC:…I’ll come back to Mr Clark. On page 2975, there’s alletter from RYD to SevcoScotland relating to funds held by the Administrators in error. Were you involved?
S:….I may have been involved in some way
QC: What was your understanding of what Hart was doing at the time of the Sevco deal?
S.. My understanding was that he was willing to write off his loan in exchange
QC:… For what?
S: I understood he was taking an investment in Sevco, a shareholding .
QC: The issue of strategy in an Administration. What role does someone in your position have in relation to strategy?
S…My role, day-by-day, was feeding information to the Administrators, and listening to the team’s views
QC: There’s no easy dividing line. Would the Administrators be willing to listen to the team’s views?
S: Yes.
QC: Would you accept that you don’t have as clear a view as the Joint Administrators?
S:.. Yes.
QC: Did you have a significant role vis-a-vis HMRC?
S…No, I may have been copied in to emails.
QC: All the emails have become available and have been pored over. Is that the sort of thing in any ‘administration’?
S…Yes. There will be frustration ..
QC: If we look at Joint Bundle 1, page 2584…This is a pre-Administration ‘organisation structure’ view. On page 2587 there’s a flow diagram-heads of departments ,people under them. Which of these did you have dealings with?
S:……. Andrew Dickson, Ken Olverman, .. those were the main two.
QC: Ally McCoist?
S: Yes. Andrew and I would drive to Murray Park .
QC: What did your dealings with Olvermaan relate to?
S……Payroll, player costs, analysis of CB funds….
QC :Thank you, Mr Shipperlee. No more questions.
Lord Tyre: Mr McBrearty?
QC Thank you, m’lud. Mr Shipperlee, you’ve given two witness statements already. Are you happy with them in relation to anything you say today?
S: Yes.
QC Can we look back at the meeting you had to discuss wage deferral? Page .. [ ed: didn’t catch it] half-way down “ Players want knowledge and transparency”. Is that what Ally McCoist is telling you? Read it..
S…. “Ally McCoist… [ ed: I lost the rest of what he said, it was a sentence or two]
QC: [ed: I missed what he said, a short question]
S……( quoting) “ Water Smith left, one less coach”
QC: That’s Ally telling you that 5 players left in the January window?
S…… yes.
QC: It’s looking like Ally is updating you?
S….Yes.
QC (quoting) “ possible moving to other clubs, if they are willing” That’s Ally telling you?
S……..Yes.
QC Your dealings with Fraser Wishart – the email chain Paul Clark -FW? Didn’t put the Administrators off redundancies?
S… Yes
QC: On 29th February you were planning redundancies for 1st March?
S:… Yes.
QC: even on 5th March , still considering up to 15 redundancies?
S: ….. Yes.
QC: And on 9th March you said players would be spoken to individually
S Yes.
QC: So Fraser Wishart didn’t influence the redundancy concept: as creditors they would be small beer?
S……… Yes.
QC: Still Ticketus as a creditor?
S:… Yes.
QC: And 20 million pounds HMRC Big Tax case, wee tax case ?
S:…………Yes.
QC: Transfer embargo?
S:………. Yes.
QC: you would have expected that to end at exit from Administration?
S:…………Yes.
QC: The ban was lifted as a result of Judicial Review?
S: …….Yes.
QC: Were non-playing staff redundancies in Peter Hart’s territory?
S;……….Yes.
QC: So Peter Hart would be able to help the Court, rather than you?
S Yes.
QC: Vol 2 , page 721… Do you remember looking at this with Mr Young? Meeting with Jaqui Gourlay ?
S: ….. Yes.
QC: We see PJC raise redundancies. Jaqui Gourlay seems to have been asked about the parameters relating to redundancy?
S…………..Yes
QC: this would be difficult for her without asking the Administrators? This is 20th February before the day you indicated the plan …discussion of redundancies. They came up with a list, didn’t they?
S:……….Yes
QC: In other Administrations, what’s the practice?
S…..Yes, it’s common to ask staff for names
QC: Staff are unlikely to name themselves?
S:………..Yes.
QC: And if employees are asked, they’re likely to give a small list? Without being in the business , it’s difficult? .
S…..Yes.
QC: In this situation, we know that David Grier and his company were involved for a year with the company. He could be expected to know?
S…..Yes, information about staff.
QC:….Well before..?
S……..Yes.
QC: And knowledge of particular functions and jobs?
S……Yes
QC: You were asked about the concern of players in early March? They appeared to be more concerned about any new owner rather than moving away?
S: …Yes.
QC: If we look at the email from Paul Clark to David Whitehouse copying you in , “.. a confused Fraser………we know that various players were prepared to offer themselves for sale, and Greg Wilde might have been happy to move on, given that he took redundancy
S……….Yes.
QC: And other players were approached from outside?
S……….Yes
QC: John Fleck? You approached them?
S:………….Yes, he was on loan.
[ ed: I missed the next short exchange]
then,
QC:…. 7th march , the senior players and release clauses.
[ ed:The next that I have is;
S .. ?
QC: Lastly, you were asked by Mr Young about emails expressing frustration..
some people become irritated by their boss?
S:…… Yes.
QC: You would agree that you would expect in a high profile Administration that ……[ed: missed that]
W: Yes
QC: And these were not minor matters?
S:………..No
QC: You expressed frustration about the Craig Whyte shares, that was not a minor matter ?
S….No
QC: and the CVA was not a minor matter.
Thank you, Mr Shipperlee. No more questions. And I hope Orient’s (?) improve!
S: Thank you. And the same for Aberdeen.
Lord Tyre; Thank you Mr Shipperlee. You’re free to go.
S: Thank you, m’Lord.
—–
Lord Tyre: What’s next? Mr Hart? We’ll go into practice mode, till things are ready.
[ several minutes pass, on hold, until at about 12.45 a voice ( the clerk of Court’s?) says Lunch break , reconvene at 1.45]
Court resumed at 1.45:
Lord Tyre: Good afternoon, Mr Hart. Can I just check that you are alone, and have made arrangements not to be disturbed, and your mobile phone is on silent , although don’t switch it off in case there’s a breakdown and you need to be contacted……Are you prepared to take the oath.
H: Yes, m’Lord. [ Oath administered]
Lord Tyre: Mr McBrearty?
McB QC:: Confirmed name, age , address and occupation of the witness), then
Mr Hart, Who are Dilly and Dally?
H: I don’t recall using those names?
QC: Look at an email, in Vol 4 p1950, at the bottom of the page..It’s an email from Simon Shipperlee to you “SFA,,,..licence…” your reply “ I am trying to persuade dilly and dally”. Who were you referring to?
H: That would be Clark and Whitehouse.
QC: Who was which?
H: I don’t recall the circumstances.
QC: (quoting) “ Simon I’m trying to persuade dilly and dally to proceed on both counts” Did you use this generally or is this specific?
H: I don’t recall..
QC: Do you recall being frustrated specifically at their failur to develop a strategy?
H : Not specifically, but in a large exercise there’s always…
QC: Do you remember any particular issue?
H:….No,not after nearly 9 years.
QC; In the email you say “ “ another day in the pantomime that isRFC”
H:…I don’t recall: The assignment was complex, played out in great publicity..
QC: There was always a risk of it turning into a panomime?
H: This was a challenging assignment with lots of stakeholders,….
QC: But by the 3rd of April you’re still expressing the view that it was a pantomime?
H:…I’m not talking about the conduct of the Administrators [ ed: but perhaps he said ‘administration’]
QC: Were there disagreements between Paul Clark and David Whitehouse?
H: There are always some differences of opinion in any assignment.
QC: Were there significant differences?
H:…No.
QC: On page 3377 there is an email from Andrew Stoneman – who is he?
H: Managing partner.
QC:… email from him to your colleague Kevin Bucket.
Kevin Bucket emails you in February , talking to you about his concerns . In your reply to him on 29th February “ Kev if it’s any consolation it’s worse here, the same with Whitehouse, Clark and Grier relationship”
H:….I don’t recall that particular email. Things were normal.
QC: You were saying your situation was worse than his.
H:….I was just probably trying to offer some comfort.
QC: The 29th of February, that was the day when there was talk of redundancies?
H: Yes.
QC: And also about wage deferrals ..
W: I recall discussions taking place.
QC: Look at page [ed:???5] in the bundle: there’s an email saying “ Ally not able to deliver” [ ed: collective bargaining deal with the PFA]
H: Yes.
QC: It looks as though discussions were about…..it looks like you were keeping in the loop with Simon Shipperlee?
H: Sharing information..
QC: There would be information exchange because you were friends?
H:….We were both working on the same big assignment
QC:.You would exchange fairly frank opinions, do you agree?
H:….Yes.
QC: There’s an email at the top of the page from you to Simon Shipperlee. This follows the news of there being no collective bargaining with the players.
H:..I don’t recall that, but it would have been a significant .
QC: Did it reflect…..[ ed; I missed the rest]
H: ..[ed: I missed the response]
QC: You say “all we need now is for Grier to be photogrraphed with Whyte and this thing will fall off a cliff”. What did you mean?
H: I don’t recall- just sarcasm, perhaps?
QC: Where is the sarcasm?
H:….It was just a throwaway comment. I didn’t think the event would happen.
QC:I think, Mr Hart, you’re being evasive, and that you knew it was an event that might happen.
H:…I don’t recall that.
QC: Do you know if anyone in the Administration team was speaking to Whyte?
H:…No. I don’t know.
QC: When Shipperlee mentions that people were speaking to Craig Whyte, do you agree?
H: No.
QC: I think you are reluctant to disclose
H:…[ ed: I missed the short reply]
QC: If we look at the Bundle, Volume 3,page 4524, there’s an email at the bottom of the page., from Simon Shipperlee to you: Headed ‘RFC: HP payments’ and then “ we don’t pay HP payments” Who said we don’t pay?
H:….I can’t recall whether it was David Whitehouse or David Grier who said we don’t pay.
QC: There’s another email from you to Shipperlee where you say “ I checked with David” Does that help that ‘David’ is Whitehouse?
H:….No. I think it was Grier.
QC: Why would David Grier be making decisions on whether payments should be made?
H:….It’s entirely possible that Grier would have an opinion.
QC: “ irrational market trader” …Who is that?
H: I don’t recall.
QC: Oh, come on, Mr Hart, they’re your emails. You must know.
H:…I don’t recall
QC: Mr Hart, you have taken an oath. This is the most high-blown Administration you were involved in…and Shipperlee would have known.
H:..I can’t recall.
QC: At the top of the previous page: This is you writing again to Shipperlee
“ You’ve got to stop paying people, I fucking mean it”
Who was saying that?
H:…I think it was David Grier.
QC: ‘CW’ is mentioned. Who is that?
H: Craig Whyte.
QC: You’re making fun of CW and you’re later saying CW has the cash?
H: Yes.
QC: And you’re saying in the same way “ CW has the cash and the club is not going burst”
H:..[ed:I missed his short reply]
QC: Whyte wanted to become involved again, didn’t he?
H:….I may have known anecdotally..
QC: In Vol 4 of the bundle, p.82 , Saturday 14th April, an email from Shipperlee to you: information on the bidders. Your response to him, on Page 81,on 14th April 2012 “ Simon this is symptomatic of the madness…the blind leading the blind”. What did you mean?
H:…[ed: didn’t catch his words]
QC; On redundancies in relation to non-playing staff you were responsible?
H: …..[ ed:if he replied I missed it]
QC: You had access to a day-book?
H: Yes
QC: The witness statement bundle [ here he gave instructions to the ‘techy’ ,’4.12 of Mr Hart’s statement] Your 15 Feb 2012 “ my first task was to…..my plan was to ask… redundancy to start on 20th February..
H:…Yes
QC: At para 704 ,18/19 Feb you say: “ exchange with PC that Ali Russell, Gordon Smith as first names on list”
H;….yes
QC: and over the page is the process you followed?
H:…Yes.
QC: 20th February the day of the start of ‘redundancy’?
H:… Yes.
QC: Look at 511-5.3. There’s no mention of a meeting of departmental Heads?
H:… No.
QC: At 5.4, no mention of any proposals?
H:…..No.
[There was a technical problem at about about 2.55.Lord Tyre suggested a short comfort break while it was attended to]
Resumption at 15.05.
Mr McBrearty: Mr Hart, on February 29th there was a plan that redundancies would be made and staff gathered together and told. ” we were still aiming to make redundancies, staff meetings to be arranged..”
You and Sarah Bell were to .. identify specific people..
If we look at Vol 2,page 2308, the email at the top ,from Sarah Bell to you at 1.33 pm on 29 February “ We need to identify the specific persons who are to be made redundant”
So ,on the day before, the specific persons had NOT been identified?
H:…Well ….[I couldn’t follow what he said, but my note is ‘Yes’ which was a short way of saying that I understood that he was saying ‘yes’]
QC: You emailed Sarah Bell to say “ Sarah I was not aware that OPS redundancies had been agreed” [ ed:I take OPS to stand for Operational Staff, but I hadn’t heard that acronym being used earlier]
That would suggest that you were not aware that any non-playing staff were to be made redundant.
H:….I can’t recall..
QC: I think you’re wrong. You were NOT aware.
H:…..[ed: I did not hear the reply]
QC: Up the page, the response to you at 13.40 on 29 February is “Possible man.meeting” Agreed?
H:… Yes.
QC: (quoting) “ I have just spoken to JCW who is with Paul, and I think this is the way we are going”
H:[ed:I’m not sure that Hart made any response to that . My notes show ‘A’ ( for answer) and “ I prep” ,with those two words scored out!]
QC:( going back to his statement) There are tables showing cuts to be suggested by Jacqui Gourlay.
H: Yes.
QC: Can we go to Vol 2 page 3235.Jacqui Gourlay’s email to you, copied to Claire Riggs ,of 29 February ,at 18.45. “Please find …The proposals have the buy-in by those present” Who were present?
H:… I can’t recall.
QC: But it .. [ed.I missed what followed , various kitchen clatter and noises forcing me to go to another room]
[ed: there was then a couple of exchanges which I completely missed
and then,]
QC: page 2036, email from Simon Shipperlee at 18.55 “ ..but DG is convinced that there is significant overlap.. that would allow ….DW thinks you can provide….”
We know that David Grier had been involved some considerable time before the appointment of Administrators?
H:….Yes.
QC: I haven’t found anything about anyone discussing with David Grier about redundancies?
H:…I don’t recall.
QC: 144 staff, 100 others on zero hours contracts……12 redundancies is not a significant number?
H:….I agree.
QC: Do you recall that Ticketus had leverage over Craig Whyte?
H:…Yes.
QC: ..because he had granted them..a…
H:…Yes
QC: If there was a CVA the question arose about how to get hold of the 85% of shares?
The bidders were trying to do a deal with Ticketus
H:…….[ ed: missed any reply]
QC: Ticketus had an interest as a creditor and had leverage over Craig Whyte?
H:….I suppose.
QC: So Ticketus had a veto over a CVA from another bidder?
H: Yes.
QC: You’re expressing surprise that it took 8 weeks to work that out?
H:…Yes
QC: Also, You find it “worrying” about how long it had taken to find out HMRC’s position?
H:….I didn’t have information I needed.
QC: Did you find the assignment becoming tedious because of lack of information .?
H:….I don’t believe so.
QC: On 15 April you emailed Simon Shipperlee saying “ The whole thing is……..Clark” Does that jog your memory about people having conversations with Craig Whyte.?
H:… Yes, I accept that.
QC: In what way was communication deficient?
H:.. It was difficult not having detail.
QC: You recall that Bill Miller was the preferred bidder?
H:…Yes
QC: He pulled out?
H:…Yes
QC: Why was it necessary for you and Simon Shipperlee and Charles Walder to be ‘covered’ if “the shit hit the fan”?
H:.. If I said that, it would have been about personal security.
QC: I suggest, Mr Hart, that you were concerned that you and Shipperlee would get the blame if all went wrong.
H:…If things didn’t go the way the Administrators wanted there were worries about the personal security of 12 staff…..
QC: There was an email from Charles Walder to you, and copied to Shipperlee in which he says “ I think I should fly up’ .You reply “ Ha Ha, you’ll have to get out of bed early to keep David happy….the current climate of misinformation..” There’s nothing there about ‘security’?
H: There was a lot of Press and other recriminations and fan interest.
QC: And you were suggesting that Walder should go to Glasgow, singling out 3 people who should be covered. You’re not concerned about the remainder of the team.
H: Yes.
QC: That suggests the recriminations would come from the Administrators?
H:….If the deal had collapsed we had to make sure we had done everything .
QC: No, it’s not. It obviously… ,Mr Hart, the strong impression is that you are not being straight. Do you follow? I may refer to his Lordship , it’s a matter for him, do you follow?
H:..Yes
QC: You have sent uncomfortable emails…Did you discuss those with anyone?
H:…No
QC: On page 296, there is another email from Simon Shipperlee on 9th May 2012. “I think the RFFF is at 2.00pm.Unless I get [?] I’m not sure I’ll go”
And your response is “ Maybe we should remind David that he should make the numbers more optimistic”
What was that about?
H: This was cash-flow predictions, conservative, and we knew that David wanted more optimism’
QC: Why is the word ‘optimistic’ in inverted commas?
H:….That was the word David used.
QC: Why would it have been convenient to have forgotten about that?
H:….In the last line “ I’m worried that it’s out of control”
QC: He was worried that it was out of control? [ ed: I missed the next question.]….
H:.. he may have used that expression before
QC: If you asked staff for a list of people who could be made redundant you would expect a short list?
H:….. I had discussions [ed: I couldn’t follow what the witness said]
QC: Why was the list reduced from 12 to 7?
H:..I can’t recall.
QC: Look at your witness statement para 727. “ further staff cuts would cause difficulties” Who told you that staff had already been cut before Administration?
H:…Possibly Ken Olverman.
QC: What did you do to cross-check that information?
H:…I can’t recall specifically, but in conversations ..
QC: So you don’t recall.
H:..I didn’t have a list, or check..
QC: The reason I ask : Andrew Dickson said there had been 127 staff in 2010. So what you were told must have been wrong?
H:.. Well..
QC: The Charity Foundation… 3 employees . Why were they retained in Administration?
H:….I don’t know.
QC: Scouts- why would they have been retained ?
H:….I would have had no dealings with football operations.
QC: Community Coaching would not affect the operation of the company in Administration?
H: I guess it might when selling a football club.
QC: Do you know whether it was a consideration?
H:…I don’t know.
QC: The consideration of non-playing redundancies was cobbled together with little consideration?
H: I don’t agree.
QC: Do you agree that the Administrators could have come up with a longer list?
H:… I can only say that ..[ ed: I’ve no note , so I cannot say whether he actually finished his sentence]
QC: On the football side redundancies, you would refer to Mr Shipperlee?
H:… I didn’t participate in any discussion or deals with the footballing side.
QC: About fan groups: you say David Whitehouse was supported by fans generally and that this led to the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund. You see that?
H:….Yes
QC: The RFFF was set up with the support of well-known figures?
H:…. Yes
QC; Sandy Jardine, Walter Smith …?
H….Yes.
QC: You were aware of the purpose of the RFFF?
H:…I believe they wanted to raise funds to help the club.
QC: It was seeking to assist with ordinary payments, not to invest?
H: [ ed: did not hear his reply]
QC: Did you understand the difference between the RFFF and the ‘Save Rangers?
H:….[ ed: again I did not catch what was said]
QC: The RFFF paid to to have some work done on the pitch?
H:..I believe so.
QC: And they paid the fees of Counsel..
H:…I heard that.
QC: The ‘Save Rangers’ campaign had been seeking pledges from eleven thousand five hundred members, raised…[millions]
H:…I was not aware.
QC: One last para ,6.22 on page 720 of your statement “ Simon had been liaising with Andy Kerr of the Rangers Supporters Trust. I apologise for the incorrect reference to Andy Kerr as being the director of the Rangers Supporters Trust, he was not the director.
H:…We would only accept donations if they could be used without conditions.
QC: The key word was ‘donations’.
H: [ ed: didn’t hear what he said]
QC: There was no attempt to discuss with fan groups the possibility of fan groups investing in shares or acquiring the club?
H: I was not aware of any such discussions.
Lord Tyre: This might be a convenient point Mr McBrearty to finish for the day [ or words to that effect]
Agreement al round
Adjourned till 10.00 am tomorrow. (Friday) ”
I have still to get my notes of Friday’s proceedings typed up.
There was of course no hearing yesterday, Monday.At least, on Friday that was the decision!
I have the access code for tomorrow’s proceedings but whether I can tune in for any kind of extended time is another matter.: A lovely wife of 50 years and 7 months standing has to be accorded some respect. [In the throes of new feckin kitchen planning, and new backdoor[guys are coming to do the door tomorrow!]
Vernallen 10th May 2021 At 22:46
‘..Could the SFA not have a firm discussion with the Rangers board .’
+++++++
No.
We saw in 2012 that the SFA board shat itself big time when it came to dealing with the Liquidation.
Scottish Football governance has been in hock to the lying new club ever since its shocking capitulation to untruth in 2012, when it fabricated a Disneyland fantasy that a club that was newly admitted into the SFA was somehow 140 years old!
There is no way that the SFA or the SPFL will attempt to call TRFC fans to heel. They have lost any kind of moral authority.
And they know that they can rely on Police Scotland not to fussily interfere .
Honest to God!
Those on the Board of the SFA are the most abject of men, compromised to the nth degree, but not as compromised as the gentlemen of the SMSM, who have shown themselves to be ready to lie, and on that account , to be the ‘mostest abject ‘ of men entitled to nothing but scorn and contempt.
JC – thanks for taking the time to disseminate your notes from the ongoing court case. They are very informative. From the beginning of the Rangers debacle it has only been through court reporting that the public have been given anything close to the truth.
Today’s Daily Record basically saying it’s fine for Rangers fans to gather this Saturday. Yet more evidence that one demographic in Scotland is considered superior to all others, even to the point of deliberate law breaking.
Perhaps if we do start a political section on here one topic for debate could be how under an independent Scotland a process would be put in place where the Government, Police and media treat all people equally, and don’t selectively turn a blind eye to lawbreaking based on supporting the football club with the greatest cultural power in society.
Albertz11 10th May 2021 At 21:55
No surprise there as the twin cheeks go waltzing off on another joint ‘OF brand’ venture.
Though it may be another shot to the foot by the current CFC board if the general comment on Celtic blogs is anything to go by.
Upthehoops 11th May 2021 At 08:56
What has been written in the Daily Record? Do you have a link to it? I’ve had a look online and the only article I can see is this:
The Scottish Government are set to ask Rangers keep their fans off the streets of Glasgow after this weekend’s top flight title presentation.
Police Scotland yesterday urged the club’s supporters not to join in a planned march from Ibrox to George Square in the city centre amidst fears of a repeat of the illegal lockdown celebrations which caused furore on the weekend the championship was secured.
And Record Sport understands Holyrood top brass are also set to urge Rangers to nip the party proposals in the bud ahead of Saturday’s final game of the season at home to Aberdeen.
Steven Gerrard and his players will be presented with the trophy after the final whistle inside an empty stadium, with ultras attempting to coordinate their own mass gathering outside.
Rangers are now expected to come under political pressure to ask their own supporters not to take part and urge them to celebrate from the safety of their homes instead.
Police chiefs are already drawing up emergency plans to keep the numbers under control and they reiterated that any mass gatherings are not permitted under the current coronavirus rules, which will not be relaxed until later this month.
In a statement the cops said: “Ahead of the match between Rangers and Aberdeen at Ibrox Stadium on Saturday, 15 May 2021, an appropriate policing plan is in place to maintain public safety and minimise any disruption to the community.
“Under the current restrictions no-one should be gathering in numbers of more than six at the stadium or any other location and Police Scotland supports the club in urging its fans to do the right thing and follow the coronavirus regulations around gatherings.
“We will continue to liaise with our partners, including the Scottish Government, to ensure these matches can be completed safely and to minimise the risk to both our officers and the public.
“The sacrifices people have made have allowed for further easing of regulations, however, we continue to ask people to take personal responsibility and to use Greater Glasgow safely and respectfully”
Fans group the Union Bears are behind the plans for a rerun of the title celebrations which saw thousands of Rangers supporters gather outside the stadium before flood into the city centre.
In a statement the Union Bears group said: “We are unable to confirm an exact time but we will be outside Ibrox after the match and once the trophy has been lifted, we will make our way to Govan Road/across from the Louden Tavern at Kinning Park.
“We would ask all supporters wishing to take part in the march to keep an eye out for members of the group outside Ibrox who will indicate when we are ready to head to the meeting point to begin the march.”
Maybe there is a different article in the print edition? This article does not say it’s ‘basically fine for Rangers fans to gather on Saturday’, directly or indirectly.
There is a very clear police message to stay away and hopefully the fans will do as they are told. I’d like to see further statements from Rangers and the Scottish Government as the week goes on. Hopefully any fan thinking of going on this will think again and stay at home.
Thanks IAP – I haven’t looked at any edition of the DR but based on what you have posted it seems pretty clear to me that the Union Bears are guilty of intentionally assisting or encouraging a criminal act (marches and such gatherings being against the law). Given what appears to be in the public domain the police have evidence of this crime having been committed by the organisers. I have no doubt PS know the individuals concerned and have all the “digital fingerprints” necessary for conviction. Let’s see what happens next…
Thanks JC.
Wokingcelt 11th May 2021 At 12:23
Yup, complete madness by whoever is trying to arrange this. I have no idea if the police know the individuals involved in this but hopefully appropriate action, whatever that may be, is taken and this march does not go ahead.
Incredibleadamspark 11th May 2021 At 11:52
That article wasn’t online when I read the Record site very early this morning. Happy to acknowledge it is not implying the march is fine to go ahead. The article I read simply pointed out restrictions are less strict than they were in March, and that Partick Thistle fans had gathered when they won the league. The content of the article you posted is more along the lines of what I would expect to see. I am however disappointed at the Police Scotland statement which makes it seem it will be the same as we saw in March.
Upthehoops 11th May 2021 At 12:55
Hundreds of Patrick Thistle fans gathered by the canal side to celebrate as their team won the title. The pictures at the time showed very few people wearing masks, socially distancing or sticking to current pandemic guidelines.
No condemnation, maybe I just didn’t see it, from any posters on here (myself included), the police or the Scottish government. One rule for Patrick and Rangers fans and another for the rest of society…. ?
The province I live in is currently under very strict lock down protocols. We have numerous individuals who decided to flaunt said protocols. The fines imposed total $2400 including court costs and fees. Some of these gatherings were for as few of two people and others for larger gatherings. A church had a large fine imposed on it and its members were fined individually to the tune of $2400. A hair dresser tried to open in secret and her fine came in at $11,000. On a previous weekend police issued 37 tickets in separate incidents. One bright fellow got nabbed on one day and again the next. The people of this province have accepted the fact the lockdown is for the good of all, but, every place has their share of a__holes who don’t care about anyone else. Hopefully the police will be more diligent with crowds this weekend.
Incredibleadamspark 11th May 2021 At 13:16
I can’t disagree with you about the Partick fans. They broke the law. I have no idea how organised it was but law breaking is law breaking.
Going back to the forthcoming weekend though there is evidence that there is an organised plan to break the law on a significant scale, and the Police are simply saying ‘please don’t do it’. A word in the ear of those planning it before the weekend is the least we should expect, then arrests and charges should they continue regardless. However, it looks likely they will be accommodated rather than challenged, along with all the disruption to other citizens and businesses that will cause. I simply don’t believe any other group of fans, including Partick fans, would be able to get away with something like that on such a scale.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57073714
Incredibleadamspark
11th May 2021 At 13:16
Know your place !
Seriously, though difference of scale may be the problem.
John Clark 10th May 2021 At 23:11
……………………….
Thanks JC for the Great work.
£43,397 worth of confetti issued over at ibrox, with each passing month it gets less and less.
Someone has to come up with the win bonus i suppose
CO – “£43,397 worth of confetti issued over at ibrox, with each passing month it gets less and less.
Someone has to come up with the win bonus i suppose”
This takes the cumulative shares issued this FY to 130,026,875 raising, @ £0.20 / share, £26,005,375. This has been principally necessary as non-season ticket “turn style” revenue and match day hospitality has been wiped out due to COVID. In FY 19-20 this income stream was £18.4m.) With 6 weeks before the books close there may well be more share issues to come in preparation for the annual debate over the “Going Concern” language the auditors are prepared to sign off on.
As I posted on the trial format, the P/L loss for FY 20-21 will be significantly higher than the total comprehensive loss of £18.1m recorded in FY 19-20. At the moment the projected loss will likely be at least the £26m raised with potential for further necessary cash injections over the next 6 weeks. This also assumes that the auditor doesn’t demand additional accruals with respect to the SDIR case.
That RIFC continue to find Rangers facing businessmen to fund these ongoing annual losses is remarkable. At the end of FY 19-20 RIFC’s cumulative losses sat at £61.9m. It looks likely they will reach, and maybe pass, £90m by end June.
Considering that SFM is a non-partisan site whose prime concern is sporting integrity, there seems to have been precious little or no discussion about the Lowland League’s decision to allow the ‘Old Firm’ colts teams entry to their league, after the two clubs involved failed to secure entry further up the pyramid.
It seems that Celtic and Rangers* can simply buy their way into any league willing to change its rules to accommodate them and their money.
So much for meritocracy. So much for sporting integrity. So much for Celtic not being part of the Old Firm.
My view is that either all Premiership clubs should have colts teams in a lower league, or no clubs should have colts teams in that league. The SPFL’s function is to serve its members equally, not pander to the whims of the two clubs with the largest support; two clubs who already have a massive financial advantage over their competitors.
It’s not up the rest of us to develop those club’s youngsters for them. Perhaps if they tried integrating them into their teams instead of importing expensive, mediocre foreign mercenaries, they might make some progress.
Please spare me the claims that having colts in lower leagues works for Barca and Real Madrid, because you’ll only strengthen my argument.
Rangers* managing director Stewart Robertson’s weasel words about helping Scottish football are as fake and unconvincing as those of Real’s president, Florentino Perez, on the subject of the European Super League being “for the good of all of football.”
The only thing occupying the otherwise vacuous cranial spaces of Robertson and Perez is self-interest.
Robertson, subsequently endorsed by Steven Gerrard, claims that pitting their young colts against the likes of Civil Service Strollers (with all due respect to them) will ultimately lead to an improvement in the quality of player available to Steve Clarke at international level. Seriously?
Anybody with an ounce of cynicism might suspect that the Old Firm, who seem determined to leave the Scottish domestic game behind as they pursue English, British, North Atlantic or European league aspirations, want to reserve a space at home in case their foreign endeavours don’t work out.
We can only hope that sporting integrity prevails and they’re told in no uncertain terms to organise their own two-team Glasgow Super League once the dust has settled after the inevitable post-Manchester type apocalypse sees them and their fans, with their ingrained pseudo-religious, Irish political nonsense, banned from all UEFA and FIFA competitions.
‘Westcoaster 12th May 2021 At 10:58
CO – “£43,397 worth of confetti issued over at ibrox, with each passing month it gets less and less.
Someone has to come up with the win bonus i suppose”
This takes the cumulative shares issued this FY to 130,026,875 raising, @ £0.20 / share, £26,005,375. This has been principally necessary as non-season ticket “turn style” revenue and match day hospitality has been wiped out due to COVID. In FY 19-20 this income stream was £18.4m…’
::
::
On the other hand, TRFC (as with other clubs) hasn’t had to pay all of the various costs associated with full stadia: some external, like policing; some internal (and mostly casual/part-time) like turnstile operators, stewarding inside & outside the ground, catering operations, post-match stadium cleaning & minor repairs etc. etc..
Some the money not spent on operating at capacity will have been required to ensure COVID compliancy, but I doubt if the sums are equivalent.
J.J – “On the other hand, TRFC (as with other clubs) hasn’t had to pay all of the various costs associated with full stadia: some external, like policing; some internal (and mostly casual/part-time) like turnstile operators, stewarding inside & outside the ground, catering operations, post-match stadium cleaning & minor repairs etc. etc..
Some the money not spent on operating at capacity will have been required to ensure COVID compliancy, but I doubt if the sums are equivalent.”
J.J. – Undeniably your logic on there being some cost reduction (YoY) in specific accounts must be true however I think those reductions will already be considered in the share purchases during the year.
As an example the share purchases / loan conversions from FY 19-20 totaled £17.7m and the Total Cumulative loss recorded was £18.1m – as both years have seen no “needle moving” player disposals and both years saw new players joining the squad I think it likely the same situation may well result in FY 20-21 as a minimum.
Highlander, you’re right – I too think the Colts issue should have formed more of the debate here….albeit I didn’t think to post on it myself! I cannot disagree with anything you’ve said and I find the ridiculous altruistic statements sickening. I am also annoyed that the Lowland league clubs have so easily been swayed by a paltry £25,000 bribe (though any size of bribe from the 2 clubs would have annoyed me anyway and I believe the decision has yet to be formally ratified). That the football authorities cannot understand the optics of this i.e. how it simply reinforces other fans’ view that the SFA and SPFL exist only to homologate what the ‘Big2’ clubs want to do is supremely blinkered of them.
Talking of optics, I cannot believe the Celtic board’s support/pursuit of this. From what I see on Celtic fan sites, there is already HUGE suspicion that the Celtic board has been doing its best not to stretch too far ahead of TRFC because it recognises the need for the traditional, religion-based rivalry to generate income. Anything like this, where the 2 clubs appear to be working in tandem to better their joint position, is absolute anathema to a lot of Celtic fans. Like you, I fail to see the real merits of developing young players by playing them against a poorer standard of opponent – I don’t really buy the ‘toughen them up’ argument or the ‘it was good enough for Kenny Dalglish’ claim. The game has surely moved on! That leaves the unpalatable reason of the ‘Big 2’ moving to another league leaving a fallback Colts team as you suggest. Given that they have been talking about the EPL, Atlantic League etc for 20 years plus, I don’t see that coming to fruition. This may be Celtic ‘hedging their bets’ I guess.
Highlander, as a Celtic supporter (albeit one who has not lived in Scotland for close to 40 years), I have to concur with your view that all Premiership clubs should do this, or none. The fact that there is no “reserve” or “up and coming” competitive football for non-first team players is a complete blight on the Scottish football landscape. Young players need to learn how to play competitively as part of their growth – I think the lack of this alone may underline why so few players come through to the Celtic first team (many former Academy players now do play elsewhere in football, so it could be said Celtic’s Academy does develop first team players, just for other clubs…).
I also agree on the apparent self-interest of Celtic’s Board and can clearly see where the “two cheeks” perspective comes from. In this example and in several others of late (not least of which, the ham-fisted removal of Palestinian flags earlier today), I do wonder whether the leadership at Celtic Park is really in tune with the broad support and society in general. And to be clear, I would not consider myself a socialist as many on here are, more of a centrist.
Overall, Highlander, you made some excellent points. I think, though, that your reference to a two-team Glasgow Super League does a dis-service to Scottish football as a whole. All teams need strong competition to grow. I concede in the current European football financial climate that climbing out of the well may be close to impossible.
$43.000 (plus) in share issues, is this to cover the SG’s bonus for being named manager of the year. At least there’s another trophy for the spacious trophy case at Ibrox.
Does the DR not understand the idea of promoting Scottish football, or is the idea only to promote Rangers. The article today about Red Star on the road to possibly topping the world record of the Celtic’s invincible season is rather a slap in the face. If it was a Ranger’s team on the world record, I’m sure nothing would have been said.
It will be interesting to go back to the numerous articles about all the records Rangers were on target for and see what was actually achieved.
Just in the passing, last Friday’s witnesses in the BDO action were Hart ( continuing from Thursday), Andrew McKinlay, and Rod McKenzie. There was no business on Monday. Yesterday’s witnesses were Dickson, Walder [ a D&P guy giving his evidence from California], and today it was Neil Doncaster (SPFL] ,Gordon Stewart ( ‘Save Rangers’ campaign) and then back again to Walder.
I have my usual scribbled notes from each day. Interesting enough , but the Lord knows when I’ll get them typed up! (Other matters have to be attended to).
I might get an hour for tomorrow’s morning session and maybe an hour in the afternoon. But Mrs C hasn’t quite the same interest as I have!
Nawlite 12th May 2021 At 12:47
‘…Anything like this, where the 2 clubs appear to be working in tandem to better their joint position’
++++++++++++++++++=
Speaking entirely theoretically, hypothetically and in the absolute abstract, there is nothing in itself morally wrong businesses getting together to help each other make more money. [ human legislation might of course have to think of preventing or limiting unfair competition, or cartels and such like, but generally businesses in the same field tend to form associations to help protect and further their common interests]
But there WOULD be something shockingly wrong in business A deciding to protect business B from the consequences of B’s criminal behaviour, and something ridiculous about so doing when that criminal behaviour of B resulted in financial loss to A itself.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19295479.rangers-icon-ally-mccoist-axed-experts-alternative-cost-cutting-strategy-clubs-financial-collapse/
………………………………………
This will keep them going JC until you get the notes typed up
Cluster One 12th May 2021 At 22:36
‘This will keep them going JC until you get the notes typed up’
++++++++++++++++
Anyone like Martyn Williams who believes that a football club that ceased to a shareholder in either of the leagues of what is now the SPFL and lost its membership of the SFA did not cease to exist is a fool. Best not to read anything he has to say!
The only football club playing out of Ibrox Stadium is a new club created in 2012, and admitted into Scottish Football AS a new club for the first time in 2012 and then admitted into membership of the SFA.
To say anything other is just rubbish, and Williams should be embarrassed to come out with such stupidities.
It s an incontrovertible fact that RFC of 1872 ,like Gretna, lost its membership of Scottish Football, and like Gretna exists no more as a football club except as living in the land of Legal Liquidation sooner or later to disappear even from the pages of the Companies House records, when it dissolved.
Some further notes:
BDO v RFC 2012 (IL)
FRIDAY 7 May 2021
(continuation of Mr Hart’s evidence this is put on the blog on the same basis as my previous posts)
Lord Tyre: MrMcBrearty?
Mr McBrearty QC: Mr Hart, I’d like you to look at Vol 2,Page 2721.This is Simon Shipperlees day-book in which he recorded that redundancies were discussed. “PJC raised redundancies” Yesterday Shipperlee said “ JG (Jacqui Gourlay) ..difficult as no” parameters Q then what sevices to cut FITC” See the line after that, ‘PH’ was a reference to you as saying easy to identify cuts. It looks on 29 February like the Rangers staff were asking what services to cut.Does that accord with your recollection?
H: ….what cuts [ ed: did not hear him clearly]
QC: The cuts that were easy to identify are the list of 12.
H:….That’s possible
QC: No further questions.
Lord Tyre: Mr Young?
Mr Young QC: Mr Hart, you had read the statement you signed?
H:…Yes.
QC: If we look at vol 2 of the Joint Bundle , page 328, top half first. You’ll see the heading ‘Club staff only’. Who would have prepared a document such as this?
H:….This prticular one I don’t know. …ultimately douments would bbe signed off by David or Paul.
QC: It’s a relatively standard document?
H: The format would be standard , in Administrrations most procedures are identical.
QC: The bottom half “.Q. “Will there be any staff redundncies?”Is that normal in Administrations?
H: Yes, after questions about whether being paid.
The Joint Bundle page 1183: an email you sent to the Joint Administrators on 19 February:”I’m starting on the basis that we start this week on redundancies and headcounting and reduction proposals” What do you do?
H: We have our data on costs etc then consult to put life into the abstract data, on a consulttion basis.
QC: Do you deal with Heads of departments individually?
H: Normally we start with a general meeting , and then meet people individually
QC On Page 1184 see the reply you got from Paul Clark. He gives you his view, he’s been speaking to Sandy “Wider held view that Jacqui could take Ally’s job leaving Ally to run the football.” How did you relate to this.
H: A slow process, general meetings with senior people, over the course of two weeks we get a general feel for how things are run.
QC:Right. Can you look at Para 5 of your statement ,page 705 of the witness bundle. To put it in context, this is a meeting you had with Irene Munro-a note of that meeting in Joint Bundle2 page 1463. First, who is writing?
H:…….It’s my writing, I think.
QC: page 1462- in the left-hand margin , a reference to Irene Munro?
H:….Yes.
QC: Then ‘income generation’ ideas
H: Yes.
QC: Page 1463, zoom in, essential cost cutting including possible redundancies?
H:….Yes, we were constntly interested in cutting costs while incresing revenue.
QC: page 1464 , Donna McLellan , references to match-day cost reductions
H:…that ws consistent with our approach.
QC: We have a period of 19/20February where you talk about redundancies to 29 February. What was happening in that gap?
H:…In the early stages one is trying to get control, then gather data on costs and looking t every aspect of the business.Throughout that period there is a constant look at cost cutting and income generation.
QC: page 715 of the statement bundle,near the end of 28 Feb 2012 last sentence “ the fact remains that…operate safely “ Who said that?
H:……That view is based on an assessment of what was required for running football matches. I would be responsible, meeting with Police, ambulance, ticketing nd the other people needed to operate if we continued to trade.
QC: Was there any drop-off in fans?
H: The opposite, in fact.
QC: The Joint Bundle, p.2587, top of the page:can you read the names?
H:….Yes.
QC: Taken from the summer of 2011: on the left-hand side you see 3 names – Irene Munro, Claire Dale, Carol Paterson; in the middle, Sinclair, Ally McCoist, Raymond Farrelly; below that, on the left, Donna McLellan, centre Raymond Farrelly, right-hand Alan McTavish: then Jacqui Gourlay, ? McCaskill , Ken Olverman, Claire Riggs.
One of the propositions is that the Administrators should have been more ‘brutal’.In your general view could you have operated without ome of these individuals?
H:.. the majority of them, Olverman, Gourlay, Riggs .. without them it would have been difficult.
QC: It might be suggested that these people could have been released in 2012 and that Administration staff could have picked up and managed?
H:…I think it would have been impossible.
QC. Thank you, Mr Hart. No more questions.
Lord Tyre: Mr Mc Brearty
Mr McB QC: Mr Hart, you were asked about the gap between 19th and 29th February
H:…Yes.
QC: There was also a gap between ? And ? and 19th and 20th, when you were ‘unconsciously’ working..
H:… It…..
QC: It was on the 29th February that you identified specific staff to be made redundant?
H:…Yes
QC: And we heard from Simon Shipperlee that playing staff wouod be redundant by 24th February, and you did not have a list of non-playing staff?
H:…Yes.[ed: didn’t catch it]
QC:About staff that were needed toensure match-day operations?
H:..Yes
QC…..taken to the ‘organigram’>
H:…Yes.
QC: It would have been difficult to operate without those staff?
H: to continue as normal, yes.
QC: But in the circumstances of Administration..
H: I meant, to continue to the end of the season, as close to normal as possible.
QC:.. There were senior members of staff that might have been… [ed: lost what was said]
H:… {ed: I did not hear what was said]
QC: The ‘events’ department was large? You would have been able to make some redundancies?
H:……..[ ed: didn’t hear]
QC: The numbers necessary to make match-days work-police, fire, ambulance-what is their involvement ?
H: They would attend meetings ..
SC: These are all external people?
H:….There are also members of staff.
QC:…all zero hours contract staff?
H:……..[ed: missed it]
QC:…The focus was on continuing football operation?
H:…yes, to continue to trade and operate.
QC: There were plenty of departments where none of the staff was required for matches?
H: There were supporter liaison, ticketing, stewarding, the operation of the structures, purchases..
QC: You didn’t need to have the Charity Foundation?
H: I can’t recall the specific circumstances of every division or about the Charity Foundation, we were trying to attract purchasers, there were about 30 potential purchasers
QC: It was fairly basic: restructuring , lowering the cost-base, not trying to maintin thngs in exactly th same form?
H: ..to maintain in a format that would be attractive ; to offer for sale a functining footbaall club, to preserve the assets to rescue the club in a CVA.
QC: If you make the Charity Foundation redundant a new purchaser would have been ble to set it up again?
H:..It was not my responsibility to guess what a new purchaser would do.
QC: So what was ..{ed: did not hear]
H: To continue to trade……and find a buyer.
QC: The scouting department and other departments, a decision ws mde to save costs?
H: Cost-cutting was not to damage the possibility of a sale.
QC: That’s wrong.The extent of cutting was what we saw on 29 th February.Do you agree?
H:…The decision was to ..strategy to cost cut while not damaging the buusiness
QC: No positive decision ws made until 29 February. Do you agree?
H: I didn’t ultimately make the decision.The Administrators did.I was asked to look for sensible cost-cutting measures.
QC: I’m not sure whther you agree with me or not?
H: I didn’t make the decision.
QC: No further questions.
Lord Tyre: Thank you, Mr Hart.You can switch off now.
Mr McBrearty : The next two witnesses, m’Lord ,are Andrew McKinlay and Rod McKenzie.
Lord Tyre: We”go into paractice mode while things get set up.
[Practice mode for about 10 minutes) At 11.10.
Lord Tyre: Good morning, Mr McKinlay. [ usual words about being alone, phone in silent,etc and Oath administered]
Mr McBrearty QC: established the witness’ name, age, addree and occupation. And then,
Mr McKinlay, will you look at thee witness statement by you on the screen?
Is that your statement?
McK: Yes.
QC: No further questions.
Lord Tyre: Mr Young?
Mr Young QC: You started work at the SFA in 2012? Have you any football regulatory experience?
McK: No
QC: You made a comment that there was no great rush to cut costs. Did you have any specifiic knowledge of that?
McK: No.
QC:.. Paras 4.2 to 4.3 -here you are setting out permutations of final position of the club?
McK: I was asked how low Rangers could finish in the division.
QC: Did someone give you information
McK: I can’t recall-I may have looked up the internet
QC: You have had subsequent experience of Administration with Hearts?
McK: Yes
QC: ..Hearts in the SPL went into Administration in 2013
McK: Yes.
QC: Do you know how many redundancies of players there were?
McK: Five.
QC: Were they voluntary/involuntary?
McK: I don’t know.
QC: size of the squad?
McK; I don’t know.
QC: the way you describe the normal hacking, cutting costs, were Hearts making significant cuts of ofice staff at that time?
McK: {ed; I missed the answer]
QC; .. Hearts went into Administration at the end of the season?
McK: Yes.
QC: Rangers still had games to play?
McK: Yes
QC: Any problems with the Hearts’ share?
McK: I wouldn’t think so, bbecause it was a CVA
QC: One of the propositions is that ….Is it correct that the SPL requires under 19s and over 19 teams to play?
McK: it’s not bothered aboout under 19s.
[ to be continued..]
Highlander 12th May 2021 At 11:07
Nawlite 12th May 2021 At 12:47
I am an infrequent visitor to this site, mainly because the discussion is partisan and rooted in events of 10 years ago, so your posts are a welcome diversion.
The structure of the leagues, playoffs and the entry of colt teams are topical issues that should generate much more discussion than they do.
At least the pyramid play-off issue appears to have been resolved for the moment with Kelty now having the opportunity to play Brechin for a place in League 2, but not before the SPFL argued the case, on behalf of Brechin, in front of an arbitration tribunal.
The league structure has been a thorny issue since Covid curtailed the leagues last season. In my opinion it was a lost opportunity lost to fully integrate the pyramid leagues in terms of promotion / relegation. One of the options was to include colt teams in addition to the HL and LL champions, but that was rejected by the SPFL clubs last summer.
A more recent approach by Celtic and Rangers to enter colt teams directly into League 2, by way of a financial inducement, was also rejected by the L1 and L2 clubs who fear an expanded league and possible relegation from the SPFL. I do however, believe that proposal might have gained more traction if the L1 and L2 clubs had not just received six figure sums in grants from the Scottish Government.
So now we have the Lowland League apparently making an approach to both Celtic and Rangers, inviting their “colt teams” to participate in the LL next season, although restricted by way of no promotion/relegation, all for a fee of £25,000 each.
If I’ve understood the proposals correctly the results between the colt sides and the rest of the league will count towards promotion and relegation for the other league teams so, with that, all sporting integrity has gone out the window. It is a slap in the face to all the clubs in the LL’s feeder leagues, the EOSFL, WOSFL and SOSFL who were denied the opportunity to progress up the pyramid. The three tier 6 leagues were united in their opposition to the arrangement and issued a joint statement to that effect.
In an indicative vote the Lowland League sides voted 12-5 in favour of the proposals with one abstention. Bonnyrigg, Bo’ness, Civil Service Strollers, Dalbeattie and one other voted against, while Kelty abstained claiming that they didn’t have enough time to consult with their members, which they are currently undertaking. Kelty may well end up voting against when the decision and associated rule changes are revisited at the LL AGM at the end of the month. It is worth noting that Kelty, Bonnyrigg and Bo’ness are the last three sides to progress up through the pyramid form the EOSFL to the LL. They all recognised the need to start at the bottom when entering the SFA’s pyramid, as former Junior sides.
I fully support those clubs and their reasons for opposing the short circuiting of the pyramid, although I have no problem with colt teams from any club entering the pyramid at its lowest level.
My questions for George Fraser, president of the LL, are why the approach to Celtic and Rangers (and only them) was made and who initially prompted such an approach to the LL Board. I can’t believe that the LL Board would generate and make such an offer from within, as they have always been viewed as fully ingrained in the meritocracy of the pyramid. I can only speculate that this offer is a precursor to the colt sides being included in the restructuring/expansion of the lower SPFL leagues envisaged in new proposals written by Rangers, which have yet to be made public. The aim being that the new structure would be in place from season 2022/23.
Rangers statement 13th May.
https://www.rangers.co.uk/Article/club-statement-130521/1glg97x0CkSyzYqtHE2yeg?fbclid=IwAR0o86mmJ6gfZ3k-eiZ-lJRo8oEn487WOGSp9sYBeYp9-DGsMnOAj1BglTA
Club make their position clear.
Lurkio 13th May 2021 At 10:50
” If I’ve understood the proposals correctly the results between the colt sides and the rest of the league will count towards promotion and relegation for the other league teams so, with that, all sporting integrity has gone out the window. ”
+++++++++++++++++
We share that point of principle, I’m happy to say. If there is no real ‘competition’ with something at stake for both parties in a football match, there is no guarantee of true sporting /team endeavour. There could be scope for all kinds of unsporting jiggery-pokery to influence the final positions in the league.
And Scottish Football is already under a cloud of suspicion about its understanding of the words ‘sporting integrity’
The police, the justice secretary and now Rangers have all spoken out about the planned march by the Union Bears. It’s good to see such a clear message across the board from everyone about this. Hopefully anyone thinking of taking part will now have got the message.
I’m glad that the issue of Colt sides has been raised again on here, previously it appeared posters were generally in favour so it’s pleasing to see contrary views with which I agree.
Arguments against have been well covered by Lurkio, Nawlite and Highlander, and I would add a few more.
A point made by backers of the colts centres on future provision of Scottish international footballers, with them selectively pointing to other countries who appear to successfully operate such a system. This is demonstrable drivel, easily shot down with facts, figures and dates. In any case, when did it become the job of the lower leagues, this time the Lowland League, to produce international talent for the SFA? Or more specifically, in this case, the Glasgow two.
Going down through the leagues, Scotland has a range of clubs with much larger numbers attending games than most European leagues, even considering our relatively small population. It’s something that is rarely publicised or mentioned by the media.
Denmark, as an example, has a second tier average which was less than Queen of the South averaged in 2019-20. Slovakia’s second level average, at 269, is lower than any club at our fourth tier. East Fife averaged the same as Finland’s second division: 824. Next door, Ireland’s top level average was 2910; our second tier averaged 3023. All these countries have populations similar to Scotland’s number.
Poland has a population approximately six times bigger than Scotland, and averaged 1990 at second level (roughly the same as Raith Rovers).
The point: why alienate these successful and popular lower reaches of Scottish football, where fans attend for the love of their game and connection to their community, where to a club the colt proposal has been rejected? For the Lowland League colt proposal is simply a Trojan Horse for introduction of this type of side into League Two. And even then, it appears that of the eleven clubs who have supported the proposal in the Lowland League, a number have taken their position despite supporters’ wishes.
The proposal, which may be changed, suggests the OF colt sides should be playing at the same time as the senior clubs, while outlining pie in the sky dreams of television contracts: can’t understand why they haven’t seen the issue with that.
Finally, these colt sides will not be second string outfits. The Ibrox Managing Director Stewart Robertson, and Crain Mulholland, Academy Head, have stated this, planning for their reserves to be playing fixtures against other UK and European second sides, as they have since they withdrew from the Reserve League in Scotland. There will be no crowd appeal for 2002 born OF players facing Gretna 2008.
The latest Ranger’s statement regarding Saturday’s planned events ring a little hollow even for them. A 150 year old institution that has been placed in liqudation in 2012, claiming a world record 55th title for a club/team/whatever formed under questionable circumstances in the same year, etc. The only part that rings true is the statement surrounding the 10 year journey. Also asking their fans to stay safe and sensible is a little strange considering the messaging on some of the fans’ blogs. The pictures of George Square don’t do anything to allay concerns about Saturday. Hopefully the police will show some gumption rather than acting as paid escorts.
Vernallen 14th May 01.21.
Can i ask what exactly you mean by ” Hopefully the police will show some gumption rather than acting as paid escorts”?. What practical steps do you expect the police to take?.
A11 – ‘Club make their position clear’
While it is a step forward that a statement has been made ahead of Saturday why didn’t they categorically tell fans not to congregate and not to participate in any marches? The ‘if possible’ further undermines the whole release.
John Clark 13th May 2021 At 09:52
……………………………
Thanks JC
……………………………….
H: ..to maintain in a format that would be attractive ; to offer for sale a functining footbaall club, to preserve the assets to rescue the club in a CVA.
……………………………………….
QC: Any problems with the Hearts’ share?
McK: I wouldn’t think so, bbecause it was a CVA
………………………………………..
Brilliant
Albertz11 13th May 2021 At 12:20
…………….When was the last time the ibrox club released a statement and never tried to drop in 150 years or 55 or history? The desperation to include these key words is laughable.
Albertz11 @ 7.05
In answer to your question, I fully expect them to be taking the same steps they’ve been taking i.e. acting as paid escorts for the marauding ‘followers’ (mildest word I can think of at this point) around about the 12th July during the lifetime of RFC (1872-2012) and Sevco (2012 -).
IMHO there will be ‘anti-social’ scenes similar to those of a few weeks ago, minimal arrests and little real condemnation from police and the football authorities.
The celebrations will also be portrayed as ‘mainly peaceful’ by a compliant SMSM.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19298491.scots-football-chief-criticises-ex-rangers-administrators-handling-clubs-financial-implosion/
……………………………………….
SCOTTISH football chief Neil Doncaster said that the way administrators handled cutting costs when Rangers went into financial meltdown was “different from the usual practice”.
The chief executive of the Scottish Professional Football League questioned the transparency of the administrators of the collapsed business Paul Clark and David Whitehouse of Duff and Phelps and said he expected them to have sold or at least tried to sell any players of value after the club financially imploded nine years ago.
I had the access number for today’s ‘virtual’ hearing in the BDO v RFC 2012 plc[IL] case. I phoned the phone number and put in the access code when prompted by the automatic voice, and got the message ‘the host hasn’t joined, please hold”. The ‘holding musak’ came on, with regular ‘please continue to hold’ reminders. By considerably later I had lost patience, and turned to other things, intermittently dialling up again.
I eventually phoned the Court about 20 minutes ago to ask whether the hearing had taken place. The clerk of court was in a ‘meeting’ but if I phoned back later after 4.00 I should get an answer.
Now, the ‘meeting’ might turn out to be the afternoon hearing, at which of course the clerk would be present..
If that turns out to be the case, then either the ‘virtual’ arrangements got buggered up ( and there’s no method of letting listeners know) or the public access facility was withdrawn.
However , it is possible , I suppose, that the session had to be postponed for some reason or another.
Perhaps I shall find out before 4.30.
Communications???
I had the access number for today’s ‘virtual’ hearing in the BDO v RFC 2012 plc[IL], phoned the phone number and put in the access code when prompted by the automatic voice, and got the message ‘the host hasn’t joined, please hold” The ‘holding musak’ came on, with regular ‘please continue to hold’ reminders. By considerably later I had lost patience, and turned to other things, intermittently dialling up again.
I eventually phoned the Court about 20 minutes ago to ask whether the hearing had taken place. The clerk of court was in a ‘meeting’ but if I phoned back later after 4.00 I should get an answer.
Now, the ‘meeting’ might turn out to be the afternoon hearing at which of course the clerk would be present..
If that turns out to be the case, then either the ‘virtual’ arrangements got buggered up ( and there’s no method of letting listeners know) or the public access facility was withdrawn.
However , it is possible , I suppose, that the session had to be postponed for some reason or another.
Perhaps I shall find out before 4.30.
Communications???
@ClusterOne 13:19
Is this another sign of Neil Doncaster’s incompetence?
“and said he expected them to have sold or at least tried to sell any players of value”
How many transfer windows were open between the 12th February and the rejection of the CVA in May? I don’t think many clubs paya transfer fee in advance for a transfer at the next window.
Tykebhoy @1450:
I believe that clubs may apply to the SFA/UEFA to obtain permission to conduct transfer business, outside of mandated windows, in certain circumstances. Administration appears to be one such event where player sales would raise funds towards keeping the club/company trading (and, by extension, playing). Better to allow a mid-season transfer than a club going bust…
Doncaster’s point was that there was no attempt by RFC/D&P to sell players.
Indeed, they tried to sign one!
Thanks JJ but surely there is no compulsion on the buying club’s FA to allow them to register a player outwith the transfer window for that FA. You can sign a free agent at anytime but not a player registered with another FA.
Agreed there was no attempt to offload any players by tearing up contracts which the Admin would have permitted. Also agreed the SPL prevented them signing Daniel Cousin who was a free agent.
Evening.
The ‘continuation’ of ‘Level 3’ in Glasgow isn’t exactly news. More so if that’s all you’ve ever known. After all, that’s where it all started.
I have missed you lot and I hope you are all well.
Big P – I’ll catch up on my subs!
Albertz11 May 14th/2021/7:05
Rather than forming what looked to be a protective wall around the crowd which appeared to be the extent of their action during the last gathering of fans, why not pullout some not wearing masks, not exercising social distancing, or any exhibiting signs of enjoying too many spirits and let them spend the night as guest of he police. Perhaps they could also look into any government regulations that allow for ticketing and fines. The issue involving liquor consumption should be a no brainer.
Well, here’s a dichotomy…
…..you can only leave or enter a Level 3 area for a permitted reason such as going to work
Geez, I’m well ahent o’masel
I refer now to my post of 13th May 2021 At 09:52 and give a continuation of my notes of the hearing on Friday 7th May: again without comment, or conscious bias, but with some degree of certainty that the ‘official’ record will not in any important point differ from what I have recorded.
You need no lectures from me about the need to wait until all the evidence has been led and challenged before it is possible to arrive at any assessment, and there’s a long way to go, apparently.
We resume after the break for the transcriber
QC: No more questions, Mr McKinlay. Thank You.
Lord Tyre: Thank you Mr McKinlay, You’re free to switch off…..
.. Is Mr McKenzie ready?
Voice : he’s been on stand-by since 12 o’clock.
Lord Tyre: We’ll go into practice mode .
At 12.27:
Mr McKenzie sworn in.
Mr McBrearty confirmed the witness’s his age, address, and occupation, then:
QC: Mr McKenzie You see on the screen a witness statement in your name. Is it yours?
McKen: Yes.
QC: Look at the supplementary statement on p.811. Is it yours?
McKen: Yes.
QC: Are you content with them?
McKen: Yes.
QC: No further questions.
Lord Tyre: Mr Young?
Mr Young, QC: If we look at section3 of your statement, a conversation with Gary Withey in October, about the question that a newco might possibly take over Rangers presenting dificulties?
McKen: No. I had two conversations with Mr Withey.
[ed: my phone went on hold for a couple of minutes for some technical reason It became live again and I heard this:-
…a member ceased to be entitled to hold that share once he ceased to be the owner of the club. It was the holding of the share that entitled the company to operate the club?
McKen: It was the holding of the share that entitled the company to operate the club.
QC: In the Joint Bundle, vol, para 1009: Would you look at Article 6 , p 1015? what does this mean?
McKen: it the case that a member who ceases to own or operate a club loses entitlement to a share.
QC: The selling company ceases to hold the share?
McKen: Yes. If you sell all the assets you no longer have a club.
QC: If the selling company holds on to the share what can the SPL do?
McKen: Back then there was no provision, and we began to think of this, whether the share could be forfeit. It wasn’t necessary to come to a conclusion.
QC: How can a purchasing club get a share?
McKen: It can apply to the Board- the transferring company can apply to the Board to transfer the share to the new company. It was necessary to get the consent of the Board in the case of a promotion, eh.., eh..,eh….Except in the circumstances of a promotion you had to get the consent of the Board to transfer.
QC: First of all, were there any criteria by which permission would be granted, or just a general..?
McKeN: Let me see the …
QC: Para 19 [ed: or maybe ‘1a’ – my scribble could be either]
McKen: [ed: didn’t catch it]
QC: What would happen if transfer was refused?
McKen: I don’t think the Articles contained any provision.. I thought it was just at the discretion of the Board , except for Article 13 provisions.
QC: “ the Board shall refuse..”?
McKen: The ‘consent of the Board’ became the consent of the members on 20 May 2012.
QC: What was the background to that?
McKen: You’d need to ask the members. There were many different public views expressed about whether transfer should take place, questions of in what context the Directors could exercise their discretion, questions as to whether the discretionary powers would be wider if the club/members had the discretion. So eleven out of the 12 voted in favour of the amendment.
QC: Can we look now at your first written statement, par 4.1.4? In the post-Administration period , at a meeting on 16 February, you were told that all fixture obligations would be fulfilled. Was that a note you had?
McKen: I don’t have my notes. That’s my recollection.
QC: Take it from me , we have a note, to the effect that Mr C could not give you an assurance that they could continue to the end of the season.
McKen: It doesn’t. We had questions in the same context as other Administrations, about players, and the plan for exiting the Administration.
QC: In section 5 of your statement , reference to ‘Penalties/Sanctions’ to do with the EBT investigation. This event was prior to the Administration?
McKen: Yes. But I sholud say that the SFA had carried out its own investigation.
QC: Was the the SPL investigation carried out in March wider than that of the SFA?
McKen: Yes, in the the sense that the alleged payments had not been made: we were interested in the 2010/2011 previous year.
QC: This is the start of the SPL beginning to act as a Regulator in the EBT proceedings?
McKen: But we knew that HMRC were investigating.
QC: So in March you sked for documentation for information?
McKen: We were asking the club: the fact that its owner was in Administration is neither here nor there.
QC: Once the club was owned by SevcoScotland …. the 55-Way agreement?
McKen: Sevco agreed to accept liability for sanctions , except those in respect of Whyte, although we did not receive [ ed; that is the word I wrote clearly enough, but perhaps ‘perceive’ was said/or meant] that it itself was a disciplinary party.
QC: Are all clubs required to comply with SPL rules and FIFA etc rules?
McKen: Yes.
QC: If a club is in breach of a UEFA or SFA article is that being in breach of SPL rules?
McKen: Yes. There were times when the SFA and SPL were both seeking documents.
QC [ addressing the Judge] M’Lord, would this be a good time to break..
Lord Tyre: Very well. We’ll adjourn to give the transcriber a break and comfort break for others.
( 1.45, for about 10 mins)
[ to be continued, entirely at the discretion of Mrs C, who has what are trivial matters to me ,such as ‘ new kitchen’ on her mind. I am, in justice and love, required to accommodate her desires, though they may differ from mine! Most of you will understand, I’m sure]
Some Ranger records are that aren’t doted on in the press
-most share issues in the past years
-most times leading the league in posting major losses
-most share issues converted to loans
highest accumulated losses in past 10 years ( am being generous here and didn’t want to include the years prior to liquidation)
-non stop mention of dubious 55th title
-most court cases in past ten years
And just afore I go to bed , I looked back on my post of 22.46 this evening, and remembered that Gary Withey is dead.
And reflected: Only those connected with him in business related to what we call ‘the saga’ about the death of an honourable and successful football club, a death caused by the most blatant cheating of the taxman and of every other club in Scottish football, may KNOW whether he was any kind of lying cheat.
Of course, if they did, they sure as hell will not say so, in self-preservation mode.
Honest to God!
What are they like? Seriously?
Film image? ” The Wild Bunch’- bad guys thrashing about in their badness knowing their badness and exulting in it.
And again, honest to God!
And as old Sam Pepys said, ‘so to bed’.
John Clark 14th May 2021 At 22:46
EDIT
“QC: Once the club was owned by SevcoScotland …. the 55-Way agreement?”
This made me chuckle JC. Maybe there are indeed more parties involved in the subterfuge than we thought. Regardless thanks for your courtside reporting , it’s fascinating to read and imagine some witnesses squirming with terminology.
Gunnerb 15th May 2021 At 01:01
‘…the 55-Way agreement?’
++++++++++++
Ha ha, Gunnerb, that was a genuine mis-type. When, if, I post a continuation, I shall be obliged to point out the [obvious] error.
[As an unconnected but interesting point, very often the QCs use the phrase ” You can take it from me” when a witness seems not to know a particular fact mentioned . For example, the QC might ask ” do you know that such and such was said by so and so?” and if the witness says he doesn’t, the QC will say ” You can take it from me that it was said”
I wonder if that phrase originated in the Courts and then found its way into everyday use as a quasi- sworn oath?
Referring to my post of 14th May 2021 At 22:46, I continue my report of the BDO v RFC 2012 plc [IL]- Rod McKenzie’s evidence : I pick up from the morning break:
[“QC [ addressing the Judge] M’Lord, would this be a good time to break..
Lord Tyre: Very well. We’ll adjourn to give the transcriber a break and comfort break for others.]
( @ 1.45, for about 10 mins)
On resumption:
QC: Let’s look at the Joint Bundle, p.1824. That’s an estimate of the clubs’ fees……under the ‘UEFA’ column: there’s a standard amount, and the rest is made up by reference to the positions at the end of the league.
McKen: Made up by UEFA solidarity payments… divided equally ( with less for club 8 because of their more limited youth work)
QC: The final tranche, no set date for payent of final amount due: there are advances in August, payment on account because the Broadcasters pay……typically about 5 payments in the season. Final payment not made till October?
McKen: Yes
QC: The Joint Bundle 4120: a letter from you to the Administrators in relation to sums due to RFC. The position the SPL were in was that they couldn’t fund 2011/2012?
McKen: Yes. The Rangers Football Club plc(In Administration) was considered to be in anticipatory breach of contract with the SPL which would follow 2012/13.
QC: Look at the last paragraph.’ anticipated the SPL will suffer loss if Rangers..’? I take it you were satisfied that you had proper legal basis for that letter.
McKen: Yes.
QC: We know that because of the 5-Way Agreement that Sevco had rights to that money. They did not claim it. What happened to it?
McKen: It was distributed..
QC: Was there any furth correspondence on this subject?
McKen: I have a recollection os sending something to Simon Shipperlee, but I haven’t found it.
QC: even after the 5-way agreement Rangers did not participate in the..?
Mcken: I can’t remember if we expressly discharged the plc. We discharged Sevco of any further claim.
QC: In this letter, the loss is being anticipated because Ranger not be participating in 2012/2013. That fact did not change?
McKen: the share that the plc had was transferred to Dundee, so the plc was no longer in breach of contract.
QC: Did you write to say there would be no loss after all, it had fallen away?
McKen: I don’t recollect ever doing so.
QC: Youth development: in 2011/2012 there ws an under 19 league, can’t remember when it changed from 21.
McKen: [ed: if he replied I missed it, but the Qc may simply have continued without pause]
QC: Was it part of the criteria that clubs had to follow the directions of the regulator?
McKen: There was [ ed: lost what he said]
QC: In the Supplementary Bundle, p 424, the context p.423 at the bottom, membership criteria, over the page , 25.5 one of the criteria ‘implement requirement of youth..’ Would under 20 league be considered ‘youth’?
McKen: No.
QC: Under 19, that would be mandatory. If Rangers had been able to continue would they have had to participate in an under 19 league?
McKen: I can’t answer. When clubs suffered an insolvency event clubs could ask. I can’t remember whether asked us in respect of the rest of the 2011’2012 season. But if the Administrators had asked it’s possible that it would have been granted.
QC: [ ed; missed it]
McKen: Discretionary…. to do whatever to have clubs….[ed: missed the tail end]
QC: On ‘leaseback’:, the SPL rules, Supplementary Bundle p 423 So we see 8.2.52-must be a registered ground, .8.2.53 club must own its registered ground or have other..’ -If one wants approval of ‘right of occupancy’ of a ground they have to apply by March of the year?
McKen: Yes
QC: there’s power to excuse late applications and to allow any form of tenure?
McK: Yes. But the Board has set out the sort of criteria and considerations..
QC: a non-exhaustive list of factors set out…1.3.35
McKen: That’s what applied in 2012/2013. The rule that you’re referring to was not really drafted with the position of a club such as Rangers applying for approval; but for clubs up from promotion. If a club such as Rangers was at risk, the rule would apply, but these guidelines were not there.
QC: If a club has a lease of a ground, does it have to be approved every year?
McKen: If it carries on for a year, that’s approved. But the Board does have an interest in the standard lease.
QC: What are those?
McKen: The standard lease will say “ ..in the event of a breach of lease the landlord will be able to terminate.” Those provisions are not compatible for football. We look for a lease where even if there is a breach it can’t be brought to an end, to ensure that fixtures can be fulfilled.
QC: Any other?
McKen: Can I look at the letter?……’right of occupation to continue throughout whole of the season, provision to allow European fixtures to be played…’
QC: I can see at the end that the list is not exhaustive. But as a matter of practice, what other consideration…..?
McKen: The provisions of the following paragraph. ….I should say this is all based on the experience of the SPL over 12, 14 years..
QC: bear with me a moment…….. Mr McKenzie: you’ve just said 12 years experience: is there a history of clubs being refused approval by the SPL?
MCKen: Yes. Falkirk FC in 2003 . Motherwell was at the bottom and Falkirk were champions. The question was whether Falkirk’s basis of tenure were satisfactory, they were not . Falkirk appealed to the SFA, the SPL won and Falkirk were refused promotion.
But Gretna was of more significance.
QC: Thank you, Mr McKenzie. No further questions.
Lord Tyre: Mr McBrearty?
Mr McBrearty: No re-examination.
Lord Tyre: Thank you Mr McKenzie: you’re free now to switch off and leave us….. That’s us for the day? We’ll adjourn then until Tuesday 3.30 pm to 5.00 pm, and then 5.00 pm to 7.00 pm.
That’s the last bit of that Friday’s hearing.
I have my notes of Tuesday 11th, Wednesday 12th and Thursday 13th ( such as they are] still to decipher. I forgot to phone back to the Court yesterday afternoon, so I don’t know whether a hearing took place. There is no Hearing on Monday 17th, so I might get some time to get what I have into typescript.
Disgraceful scenes in Glasgow today. The rangers fans who ignored the advice of police, politicians and the club have acted in such a selfish way it’s beyond embarrassing.
They’ve put themselves at risk, the public and the police who have to be there to try and control this mess. Glasgow remains in level 3 and this behaviour helps no one. Any Rangers fan involved in this should be ashamed of themselves.
Some truly shocking photos of Ranger fans embarrassing themselves and the clubs leaders. The fans seems to understand 55 but don’t get the safe and sensible part. Does safe not mean hanging from light fixtures, sitting atop the gates to the stadium ( how did they mange to get that close to begin with), gathering en mass without masks, less than six feet apart, and all this while the city is in level 3 lockdown. It takes the virus about two weeks to surface in anyone affected, so a further surge in Glasgow should be expected. Where I live we had a demonstration recently with a couple of hundred people gathering with no mask, etc. They planned another demonstration today, apparently along with others throughout the world against masking and distancing, the provincial government wasted no time in getting an injunction against such displays. We are in a complete lockdown and the government takes their duty in protecting their citizens seriously. Is the SNP governing Scotland, or, is RFC/Sevco.
Vernallen 15th May 2021 At 19:50
‘…Is the SNP governing Scotland, or, is RFC/Sevco.’
++++++++++++++++++++
On the very evident evidence so far, the answer has to be that the Holyrood government cannot trust Police Scotland to enforce the ‘Law’ if Police Scotland does not agree that the law should apply to those to whom it considers it ought not to apply!
One remembers how easily and readily it was to cavalry charge one end of the pitch, and on another occasion to ‘kettle’ one lot of fans in the east end of Glasgow.
Professor Jason Leitch this very afternoon reminded us that Covid 19 kills! Kills, ffs.
And it has long ago been established that deliberately infecting folk with, for example, the AIDS disease is a crime.
Freedom is freedom, certainly: but, just as bogusly shouting ‘Fire’ in a packed cinema is NOT an expression of free speech but a hugely irresponsible and dangerous act, so is a flagrant breach of serious public health regulations designed to protect the populace from a killer disease.
I do sincerely hope that none of the [fair do’s!] relatively justifiable celebrants of premier league title number one contracts Covid.
I hope even more fervently that none of them infects anyone that I know and care about.
If any of the ‘celebrants’ are themselves infected ?… well, of course, it would be tragic that their stupidity had that result.
But a self-inflicted illness caused by wilful stupidity?
Lawbreaking on an industrial scale overseen by Police Scotland. Chief Superintendent Sutherland should be sacked forthwith as clearly either incompetent in role or complicit in this disgrace. Justice Secretary Yousaf must also be sacked – to say the gatherings were “selfish and irresponsible” but make no reference to the fact that they were illegal, maybe because it’s his responsibility to maintain law and order!!!
So what will TRFC do? Fans are easily identifiable – ban them for life?
What will SPL and SFA do? I cannot think of any good reason why TRFC would not be charged with bringing the game into disrepute – unable/unwilling to have fan free access to the stadium and their manager posing for selfies! All the while putting lives at risk.
Dear SFA,
Here’s an idea.
The Scottish Government has kiboshed the attendance of a few hundred fans at Hampden for your showpiece event, the Cup Final.
Why don’t you just abandon the idea of having the match in a stadium & use ‘jumpers for goalposts’ & play the game in Kenmure St., Edmiston Dr. or George Sq.? There are apparently no difficulties in having a crowd at these locations. Police Scotland & the Scottish Government may even assist you as you flout regulations.
Yours in fitba’.
JJ
Where to start with those ‘celebrations’ in Glasgow yesterday.
Probably the best place to start would be the lead up to the Celtic v Rangers game at Celtic Park in March. Both the Scottish Government and Police Scotland were very forcible in their views that if there was a risk of fans gathering that the game would be cancelled. If anyone did try and gather then they would be met with Police action. The crucial difference of course is that they had their preferred position of being able to blame both sides. The gatherings in Glasgow yesterday have been openly planned online for weeks, even to the extent that people were travelling into Scotland to take part. The Government and Police could just as easily have issued the same warnings with the threat of a game cancellation. Instead, while the rest of Glasgow was told to remain in level 3 restrictions at very short notice, they allowed one section of Scottish Society to do as it pleased, and when the riot gear was finally donned the horse had well and truly bolted.
It truly beggars belief that a Government with such a high level of public support is not willing to face up to this issue. They are treating the rest of society with contempt. Streets are taken over in many towns and ‘decorated’ and no-one in authority bats an eyelid while the taxpayer picks up the bill.
Celebrating success is a natural phenomenon for any group of football fans. Angrily ramming it down the throats of the nation is not though, and again if the authorities and media had not been so accommodating to the ridiculous notion that a club illegally withholding tens of millions in tax was some kind of victim then that anger might not have festered for so long.
I’ve just watched footage of yesterday’s joyous ‘celebrations’ involving fighting, rioting and the large-scale ignoring of covid regulations for totally selfish and entirely unnecessary reasons.
The clean-up and impact on Glasgow’s hospitals will be similar in magnitude to what Manchester ‘enjoyed’ in 2008.
What struck me wasn’t just Police Scotland’s apparent impotence in dealing with what were highly predictable events, but the mass hysteria caused by the winning of a league title which is claimed to be their fifty-fifth. I don’t recall celebrations on this scale for titles 54 or 53 for example.
It can’t even be claimed that the decade-long gap between top-league titles triggered a march to the city centre because there’s no way that there was this amount of celebrating when Rangers stopped Celtic’s previous ten-in-a-row.
I wonder what other seismic event might they be airbrushing out of history with their over-the-top references to title 55 and 150 years of history.
Clearly that history has been doctored to exclude inconvenient facts such as liquidation, although the current club shares many likenesses with its defunct predecessor, since both are a permanent embarrassment and an occasional disgrace. This is why they can forget the notion of ever receiving an invite to the EPL or Atlantic League etc.
For those who think yesterday’s events were just the natural and understandable consequences of over-exuberance following over-indulgence, we don’t let people off with drink-driving, domestic abuse, rape or murder just because they were intoxicated.
I trust Police Scotland will be using every resource at its disposal to identify and charge the knuckle-dragging neanderthals that seemed to make up a substantial swathe of the throng. They only need to look at widespread footage on social media and coverage within the media in general for evidence.
UTH @ 10.34
“they allowed one section of Scottish Society to do as it pleased”
That, I’m afraid has been the case throughout the history of Sevco (in whatever guise it has gone under), and will basically never change. The ‘Divine Right of H*** (aka WATP) will prevail. (cf the Irish Tricolour controversy, where the football authorities tried, unsuccessfully, to ban the flying of same at Celtic Park in the 1950s).
Will there be a stripping of their first ever title -Nah! (tongue in cheek here!)
There will no doubt be token protestations (!) and threats about the marauders’ behaviours – but little action from Scottish Government, Police Scotland , SFA. Oh, wait a minute there were a several (?) arrests! So …TRFC will be depicted as powerless innocents by the SMSM, and will not, in all likelihood, be held accountable for misbehaviour by their supporters.
No doubt, there will be a moralistic quote from from Sevco that they tried all in their power to prevent the unlawful actions. Aye right!
Finally – “the horse had well and truly bolted”
Would that be King Billy’s by any chance?
It is worth pointing out amidst yesterdays scenes that there are many very decent people who support Rangers who will be appalled at what happened. Over the years I personally have known very many decent Rangers fans so some of the generalisations going around on social media are uncalled for.
However, there is an unlanced boil within a section of the Rangers support that the club ignored when it took the moral high ground on racism and discrimination a few weeks back. They were absolutely right to support Glen Kamara the way they did, but some humility would not have gone amiss. Something was always going to happen which would expose their ‘anyone, everyone’ stance, which is at clear odds with the views of a significant element among their support.
It is not the time for any more summits or committees. The SNP Government have to address specific issues as they arise without muddying the waters. People say Nicola Sturgeon is a great leader, but she has cowered away from this issue twice now. I also hope that the Directors of my club are ready to tell her where to go if she goes down her preferred route of roping us into this.
I can no longer update my comment at 12:08, so I think it is only fair that I acknowledge the hard hitting statement from Nicola Sturgeon which certainly does not miss.
Will the media be scouring the world looking for comments on the disgusting display by Ranger wannabe fans yesterday. They seem very keen on following this avenue when its a positive story about their team. It will be interesting to see if they drum up any reaction from their favorite foreign newspapers. Any true Ranger fan who took part in yesterday’s displays should be sitting down and be doing some serious soul searching about how they and Scotland are portrayed. Will they have another whip around to alleviate the cost of clean up in George Square. Perhaps the club, in a show of good faith, could have another share issue dedicated to the cost of the clean up. They seem to have them with great frequency for most matters financial.
I have just read again the statement from Chief Superintendent Sutherland. His incompetence is not in doubt. He said that due to the peaceful nature of the gathering in the afternoon they decided to escort them to George Square. So not only were his police officers facilitating an illegal gathering they failed to learn any lessons from the last “gathering” and allowed an action replay but this time the mob probably felt they were allowed to do as they pleased as the police joined in last time. And for the avoidance of doubt he and his colleagues were happy to turn a blind eye to the repeated hate crimes that even our First Minister has referenced.
We now have Police Scotland trying to look tough after the fact with statement of future arrests – yeah right.
Rangers’ twitter account has been very active today. Regrettably there is no sign of any contrition regarding yesterday’s appalling scenes.
Westcoaster
There WILL be no contrition from the Sevcorati – it’s not in the DNA ye ken.
Bect67 – contrition was probably optimistic on my part but I hope they are under pressure to at least issue a statement ‘condemning the actions of a minority……blah blah…’. Personally I think their Managing Director should be hauled in to explain the pre-game statement which was an open invitation to what transpired.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19306184.rangers-fc-brand-not-valued-sold-nothing/
…………………………………..
RANGERS administrators did not get a proper valuation of the club before selling the business assets for just £5.5m to the Charles Green’s Sevco consortium, it has emerged.
While some within Duff and Phelps, the company responsible for guiding the club through its financial implosion, were pushing for a brand valuation, it has emerged it was dropped in a matter of days with one manager saying it had been considered “a waste of money”.
tykebhoy 14th May 2021 At 14:50
……………………………
Special dispensation for clubs in administration, players can be sold outwith the transfer window
John Clark 15th May 2021 At 13:42
………………………..
Thanks again JC
Westcoaster 16th May 2021 At 15:47
3
0
Rate This
Rangers’ twitter account has been very active today
……………………………….
i’m Blocked;-)
One of the Rangers fan sites directs people to an ugly scene in Vancouver a number of years ago when celebrations got out of hand. Vancouver, like Rangers had just won a conference championship and the right to advance to the finals. The similarity between Rangers and Vancouver is that it was the first championship for either team and led to displays of joy. The primary difference between the two incidents was the size of the crowds, the intent of the crowds, no mention of sectarian incidents, and minimal damage in Vancouver. The most glaring difference was there was no pandemic to worry about, and no lock down measures in place. Attitudes of some Ranger fans toward the press, the government, the police indicate a true lack of understanding the problems that may carry forward from their little jollies.
A video has appeared on social media ( since taken down) showing Sevco players singing a song containing the words ‘F… the pope’ as an add-on, during their title ‘celebrations’.
Not a peep on any Scottish media platform so far which is surprising, isn’t it?
Sergio Biscuits 17th May 2021 At 08:57
The video is still freely available. It certainly sounds like some people in the room are uttering those words. Interestingly the fan who originally posted it on Instagram got pelters from other Rangers fans and removed it. Some Rangers fans say it is doctored but offer no evidence. Here is a link for those with Twitter.
https://twitter.com/SNDigitalNews/status/1394053497994293248
So in the space of a few weeks we have reports of undignified behavior emanating from Ibrox without the media digging into the reports. The incident at the end of the Scottish Cup game, the incident involving Scott Brown in the tunnel, and the latest as referenced in the above posts. Not only ignored by the media but the SFA as well. Strangely enough the SFA President, Rod Petrie, emerged from hibernation to condemn the actions of Rangers supporters on the weekend. Where was he a couple of weeks ago when a similar scenario played out. Any form of action from the SFA could have possibly prevented or diluted the actions on the weekend. I’m not sure of Scottish law, but in North America the injured policemen would have no problem attracting lawyers to launch civil suits to cover cost of injuries, lost wages, and the mental effects of being attacked.
Various videos of this incident exist taken from different angles so it is unlikely they were all doctored .
We all know the kulture of that place and as Terry Butcher explained how players get caught up in it , his marriage to a Catholic didn’t deter him from joining in the “banter” . This is a club* who employ an ex DUP spokesperson as their PR agent and brought out an orange top specifically to pander to the bigot element . Let’s not forget their Directors who were singing the famine song and Stewart Robertson who described the Billy Boys as a catchy tune . A fish rots from the head and this Cod awful club* needs to be dealt with.
This is part of my report of the BDO v RFC 2012 plc (IL] hearing on Tuesday 11th May. As ever, I’ve tried to record accurately and without embellishment or comment.
“Tuesday 11 May 2021
Court of Session.
BDO v RFC 2012 p(IL)
[ I was unable to ‘attend’ the hearing until 1.40 pm and when I dialled at that time I heard the following:]
“..look at the note itself, the note of the Petition…right… [ed: I didn’t identify the voice]
Another voice which I did not recognise said after a few seconds “ I haven’t got that.”
Lord Tyre: .Maybe …could Mr Alexander [ ed: the Clerk of Court] be given document sharing privileges?
A third voice said “ I have this document on a separate I-pad..
Lord Tyre: I got my copy in that way… is that a possible way of doing that?
Voice: I’m trying now..
Lord Tyre: Mr Dickson if you stay for a moment , we’ll go into practice mode.
( 1.50, back in session)
QC: Mr Dickson, I’m sorry for thaat deay If we look at some tables, the very last Tabe first, heded ‘Marketable Playing Staff’- a couple o defenders , Naismith and Wallace, identified. Above that, the up-to-date Table, 24 names player redundancies Broadfoot, apac, Boccnegri , Terry….Do I understand that you agreed aall those defenders ought to be made redundant?
D: Yes.
Effectively, you’re clearing out all defenders of the squad?
D: Yes
QC: Your position is that you have no problem with all defenders being made redundant or put on sale?
D: Yes.
QC: Bartley, how about him -on loan to Rangers?
D: He was not our employee, you couldn’t make him redundant.
QC: Strikers up for sale are mentioned, Naismith , Lafferty and, up the Table, Healy. My understanding is that Healy was to be made redundant along with [ed: missed the name] , a Youth player? The only strikers left would be Little, Hemmings, Burrows. Is that the appropriate number for another season?
D: No.
QC: If we look at Bundle 1, p.2762 front age, p.2764 , do you agree that Little whose contract was coming to an end at the end of 2012 you would be reliant on him re-signing or you would be down to two?
D: Yes
QC: What would the fans’ reactions be, at being left, effectively, with a youth team?
D:They wouldn’t be very happy, but under the circumstances, well…
QC: They would wish a solution to retain as many top players as possible?
D: Yes
QC: And the players, would they have preferred wage-cuts rather than redundancies?
D: Yes
Bundle Vol 2, p.1141-this is the Rangers team sheet for 18 April 2012. The only players identified by Christie as being retained are Kirkwood, Hemmings and [ed: I missed the third name],there were six up for sale and nine for redundancy. Do you still think that Mr Christie’s redundancy approach was a sensible way forward?
D:From a financial perspective, yes..
QC: But you didn’t look up the cost-benefit analysis so you wouldn’t know?
D: Given the knowledge of what the players were earning I’ve got a good knowledge..
QC: But you’re not really, not having seen the cost analysis report?
D: Yes, I can still comment.
QC: At para 3.1 you say in the Transfer window there was a proposal for redundancies- who arranged valuation profiles for players’ Agents?
D: I may have contacted one or two agents.
QC: And you saw their valuations?
D: Yes.
QC: Jelavic was sold in that window?
D: Yes.
QC: p.5303 ( of vol 1).yes. So, you’ll see a letter from a France club, addressed for your and Ali Russell’s attention , with the ‘best and last offer’ for Edu, 1 million euro. We know this transfer didn’t go through: was the offer withdrawn or not accepted?
D: I can’t remember.
QC: Would you have been part of the process?
D: probably not.
QC: .your hands on involvement-p.2101, in Bundle 4: Neil Murray to you. …who is Neil Murray?..
D: The Chief Scout.
QC: Neil Murray giving you some update , ‘Matt McKay, D. Healy “ some calls to a League 1 club”
McKay, Broadfoot and Healy were not moved in that window.?
D: not ..
QC: When players go on loan, who will pay their wages?
D: Normally the club that borrows.
QC: [ed: missed the question]
D: Normally a proportion of their wages.
QC: Is it correct that when a club sells a player , quite often the trasfer fee is paid over a period of time, sometimes a year?
D: Correct
QC:Is it the norm that the selling club will pay the Agent’s fee?
D: yes
QC: normal 10%?
D: Anything between 5 and ten per cent.
QC: What sort of deductions from monies coming to Rangers …do players sometimes view contractual arrangements about money?
D: Yes
QC and the previous club also?
D: Yes.
QC: Para 6.6 of your main statement- here you had discussion with Simon Shipperlee about buying outwith the window. If there’s an agreement outwith the normal window is it the norm for payment not to be made until the registration window?
D: No, it’s not the norm.
QC: What’s the normal time for payment?- the contract date or the registration date?
D: Outwith the window?
QC: Yes.
D: (ed: didn’t hear the short reply]
QC: Have you ever been in the situation when a player at Rangers has been outwith the transfer window?
D: Not to my knowledge.
QC: Is the existence , the presence and level of a buy-out clause easy to know?
D: [ed: missed that reply]
QC: Is Naismith the only player with a buy-out clause that an offer was received for?
D: As far as I know.
QC: You talk about a pro-active approach to buy-out clauses . Why would that be [ed: missed the question]
D: [ed: and missed the response]
QC: Ashworth of WBA says putting a player up for sale takes the initiative out of the seller’s hands?
D: It normally does.
QC: Matt McKay wasn’t interested in Russia?No matter what Rangers wanted, the player has control?
D: If a player won’t go, he won’t go.
QC: interest in a Chinese club-to buy or go on loan? Why didn’t he go? Look at p.374, last ten lines, the note in handwriting, your name at the top: next to Guoyan “ fraudulent offer”. Any recollection?
D: No.
Lord Tyre: I think we’ll take a break now. Its 14.24.Let’s resume at 25 to 3.
On resumption,
QC: At para 6.21 in your statement : John Fleck I think was on loan to Blackpool. You had discussions, but Blackpool were not interested?
D: Yes.
QC: This was a pro-active move in trying to sell?
D: I can’t remember where the initial contact came from.It may have been the secretary at Blackpool who contacted me.
QC: How could you not sell him to a third club?
D: His loan couldn’t be cancelled.
QC: So the earliest would be the opening of the next window.
D: Yes
QC: Almeria?
D: [ed: didn’t catch his answer]
QC: Naismith. At p. 6.23 of your statement I think you talk about Ally McCoist ‘might express an opinion’, but down to the Administrators. Look at .4383, 4384. There is an offer there from WBA for £1.5 M sent on to yourself…There is clear advice from Simon Shipperlee that the offer would be rejected. Was that your point of view?
D: Yes.
QC: At para 6.2 of your statement you say “ I was surprised that the offer of £1.7M was not accepted by the Administrators”
Your email on p.4009 “ Simon, just to flag up.: 4% would have to be deducted? That’s another reason for non-acceptance” How do you square that with your ‘surprise’?
D: I don’t know the answer.’
QC: You were in a position to give advice. It was an important matter-you were telling the Administrators ..
D: I wasn’t giving advice.
QC: Yet you were giving advice not to accept it?
D: I can’t remember what the context with the managers was
QC: para 6.26: You’ve gone back to £1.7M and Robert was a good offer and should have been accepted.
D: I don’t know. I can’t recall at that time.
QC : If Rangers sold for over £1.9M , 20% would go to Kilmarnock. I don’t see whether you made the Administrators aware of that?
D: I can’t recall.
Lord Tyre: Some clarification on ‘solidarity payments’- 5% to other former club, yes?
[ ed: there seemed to be agreement with the judge’s point]
QC: para 6.28 Naismith could have blocked the move, but you say that that would have surprised you because he had already agreed personal terms. Did you know?
D: No
QC: It is not WBA’s view that personal terms had been agreed.
D: I had only general knowledge of the transfer
QC: So you have no evidential basis?
D: No
QC: Would WBA be in breach?
D: Yes
QC: Turning to non-playing staff , at Murray Park and Ibrox: At paras 2.1-2.3 what you say there is that you looked back at former headcounts in the previous era. Look at Joint Bundle Vol 1, p 195, the heading ‘Board Meeting February 2010’ and look at the minute on p. 197- “ ‘Financial Director’s report’ Martin Bain,, every stone turned to increase revenue and reduce costs.” Were there in Murray’s time significant efforts made?
D: yes.
QC: Was it towards the end of Murray’s time that there were redundancies??
D: Some, but not significant.
QC: Let’s look at Mr Christie’s document on Non-Player redundancies’ First, the names of individuals who ought to be made redundant. Have you seen this document before?
D: I don’t think so, no.
QC: But you set out a Table, without names. Had you been asked.?
D: No
QC: You would be the line manager for the management team?
D: Not really.
QC: Joint Bundle 1 p 1.87 [ ed: that’s what my scribble says, but I suspect I made a hames of the numbers] “ Organisation structure overview 2011” Your name is there. The people you were responsible for are there.. McCoist, Sinclair, Yeats, Farrelly…
D: Not McCoist, the others yes.
QC: The Table at the back of the note, the Football Management section. What Christie is suggesting is that six people should go- Ally McCoist .. (What would be the fans’ reaction to that?
D: I don’t’ think that would go down well )
QC: (continuing) ….. Stewart, goalkeeper…Look at those you are responsible for, the Table “Youth Development” Christie suggests five- Kirkwood, Sinclair, Wilson …[ ed: if the other names were mentioned I missed them]……. Would you have supported the Joint Administrators if they proposed redundancies?
D: I don’t know.
QC: The Scouts- separate ..but your responsibility
D: They reported into the management
QC: Community Coaching?
D: That ran courses in a commercial operation
QC: Was the whole of the Community Coaching staff to go ?
D: Yes
QC: Did you agree they were appropriate ?
D: There would have to be a cost-benefit analysis.
QC: Under “ Press Office” there is ‘Sandy Jardine, Club Protocol Head’ What would be made of it if Jardine were to be made redundant?
D: the same as for the Manager.
QC: and would you have agreed with redundancy?
D: No.
QC: And the medical people-Yeats and…..if the Administrators made them redundant…?
D: I can’t remember
QC: Joint Bundle vol 2 , p 2721, top half . This is a note that Simon Shipperlee took of a meeting on 29 February 2012 about redundancies Do you recall a meeting about redundancies?
D: Yes
QC: The result of it is on p. 2338… the lower email , an email from Jacquie Gourlay to Peter Hart
“ the proposals have the buy-in of …” You and the other Heads of departments agreed the redundancies
D: I recall the meeting, not the outcome, the list
QC: The one name under your control was Farrelly and later another…How do you square the two?
D: I haven’t commented on the list
QC: Let’s have it back up on the screen….Do you agree that the bulk of the names ought to have been made redundant? Para .5 of your statement “ .. to be brutal… scope for some staff..” what you told the Joint Administrators…. two people. What you told Christie…more people.
Mr McBrearty: Don’t answer that!
[ed: There followed a discussion between the Judge and the QCs: the objection seemed to be that the wtness was being asked a question based on a false comparison]
Lord Tyre: I’ll allow the question, subject to competence and relevance.
QC: (to Dickson) You identified two people for redundancy to the Joint Administrators. , and to Christie, more. What was your view on which was more important
D: In the context of the time, somewhere in the middle.
QC: Let’s imagine 74 redundancies…would you have been willing to stay in your job.
D: it was a difficult time for everybody. I don’t know if I can answer that.
QC: I understand that morale was low. Do you agree that those who were not being made redundant might not wish to stay on? Could the club have continued if there were so many?
D: That depends on the numbers.
QC:Do you have a feel for what the fans would think of non-playing staff redundancies?
D: Fans are more concerned with what happens on the park, not behind the scenes.
QC: Coming back to your first statement, the section that starts at 9.1, SPL clubs fees. Look at 9.14 your conclusion, expressing a view of the Administrators being really a view of the law?
D: I agree that it is a legal matter..
C: The Rangers Youth Development Limited section, para 11 of your principal statement . RYD company you were a Director, along with Sandy Jardine Joint Bundle vol 5 p.2975 and company secret..
[ ed: my phone went ‘on hold’ at this point. I did not consciously do that, but I had picked it up and might accidentally ( I wouldn’t know how to do it deliberately!) put it on hold myself? A few minutes passed and then..)
QC’s voice “ …£250 000 loan…Can you recall that conversation?
D: It rings some bells.
QC: Did someone give you a satisfactory explanation for releasing monies to Sevco?
[ed: there was silence for a space, then the QC’s voice
QC: Just a couple of points : the fans’ attitude to redundancies , do you agree that fans also have to be kept aboard, supporting the club?
D: Yes indeed.
QC: The effect of cuts on future revenue generation ?
D: Yes.
QC: Fans have previously expressed dissatisfaction, by way of boycott?
D: Yes.
QC: Thank you Mr Dickson, no more questions.
Lord Tyre: Mr McBrearty?
McBrearty QC: Thank you, m’Lord. Mr Dickson, if we look at Vol 2, p 184, the email from Ian Blair to Paul Clark: “ to seek clarification….Daniel Cousins registration. On 13 February received contract consequent upon the sale ofJelavic to Everton..” and Vol 5,p.2161 from you to McLaughlin copied to Simon Shipperlee Petition for Judicial review..
D: that was in relation to the SFA hearing ,… the registration embargo. The club took that to Judicial Review..
QC: Do you understand why you were asked?
D: [ed: missed the response]
QC: What was the impact of the embargo? You would wish to paint a pessimistic view?
D: Yes
QC: Numbers….left 17,……….36 that it was necessary to play with under 17 ,and under 20 matches.
D: yes
QC: How have the present squad fared?
D: Very well.
QC: Another document to look at: minute of the Board 13 August 2010, list of Directors, and in attendance Mr Smith
D: Yes
QC: He was quite good.
D: Yes
QC: Smith “ we now have 15….hoping to take it to 18”?
D:There have been times when the squad was as low as that
QC: Grant Adam.. criminal charges .Were you asked questions?
D: No
QC: Bartley?….Were you asked about that?
D: [ed: missed any response]
QC: p.3303 ..contract between Rangers and Bartley, following page, 5 August 2011 to 30 June 2012.” he could just return to Arsenal “
D: He was a Rangers employee we were paying his full wages”
QC: And let’s imagine Naismith and better players had been sold, you would not have been happy with that? If a weaker team had continued would the fans have supported it to avoid Administration and going into the third division? Is there a distinction between ordinary ‘gripes’ and the serious business of supporting the club?
D: Yes,that’s valid.
The Joint Bundle vol 4 p 101 [ed: not sure I got that reference right] – Neil Murray to you “ No real update as such”, but some details re Kirkwood and Healy. He been in touch with other clubs….it doesn’t look as though NM is making a big effort?
D: No
QC: Mr Young asked you about ‘pro-active’ approach: where a player has a buy-out clause, and the Agent could make enquiries, which of the two procedures would be better?
D: ..if the Administrators [ed: missed the next few words] …Agents might, I suppose, be incentivised.
QC: Let’s narrow it down to Naismith. We know that WBA made an offer. If the Administrators had appointed an Agent, would that have been better?
D: [ ed: I have no note of a reply]
QC: Was it your job to decide whether to sell Naismith or not? Spreadsheet 36- at the very top, Heading “Player Schedule 22 February 2012” If we go down to Row 10-Steven Naismith , in columns across the top……to the right Col A-J 20% of transfer fee of £1.9 million, and reference to Kilmarnock.
D: Yes
QC: Mr Young asked whether you ever told the Administrators about the 20%. Do you know whether they would have known?
D: I think the HR department pulled that together for them
QC: “ somewhere in the middle” of the list of redundancies?
D: Yes
QC: The Joint Bundle, Vol 1 2721: the intention was to make redundancies the following day, and JG’s (Jacqui Gourlay) list of 12 : “ PJC raised redundancies” and JG’s “ difficult with no parameters” “start with easy to identify cuts”. Do you recall that you said that there would have to have been a discussion with the Administrators if the question had been about keeping the club operating during Administration
[ed: There were then some short exchanges which I couldn’t follow relating to Naismith’s personal terms]
QC: Thank you, Mr Dickson. No more questions.
Lord Tyre: Thank you Mr Dickson. You’re free to switch off now…… We’ll adjourn now till 5 o’clock
[Court rose]
Tremendous account of proceedings JC , thank you for all the time you spend to give us an insight.
Just to return to Sweet Carolinegate , I have listened a few times now and some people are responding Do do doo but others are definitely saying FTP. The claims that the video is doctored by the club* are nonsense as it was a live feed and more than one video exists. By claiming it has been doctored they are also admitting that the FTP does get said which is a bit of a shoot yourself in the foot moment for them.
If this was after a Uefa tie then Uefa could exclude them from competition as it also happened within the confines of the stadium, I don’t think they have the authority to act as it was a domestic tie. After the display at George Square I can’t imagine any club in Europe will want them or their supporters as visitors.
If it is left to the authorities in this country then excuses will be made or ineffective punishment of junior players as scapegoats will be expected.
It really is time we stopped ignoring this vile discrimination , it is incredibly damaging to our society and the hatred that it breeds destroys many lives.
Where were the statue guardians when Glasgow needed them ?
So Barry Ferguson is confused by the fans reaction on Saturday and doesn’t understand why. If he had been following reports on the pandemic he should have grasped the fact that such an alcohol fueled demonstration would only lead to trouble. After all didn’t they pull the same stunt a few weeks earlier with little or no consequence. As someone who acts as a “club spokesman” on numerous issues and with his iconic standing with the fans, couldn’t he have issued a statement regarding the folly of such acts. Maybe a statement from him would have carried a little more weight than the official statement issued by the club.
My post of 17th May 2021 at 17:29 refers.
I found a space of time after my other duties were completed this evening to type up a further page or two of my notes of the hearing on Tuesday 11 May. Here they are, such as they are.
“Tuesday 11 May 2021.
BDO v RFC 2012 plc (IL)
Continuation at 5.00 pm of today’s Hearing ,which began at 1.00 pm today.
Lord Tyre: That’s us . Good evening Mr Walder, or good morning where you are? [then followed Lord Tyre’s questions about the witness being alone, not likely to be disturbed , cell phone on silent, and the administration of the Oath]
Mr McBrearty: Mr Walder, your full name please? Walder: Charles Walder. Address? California. [ ed: hence the 5.00 pm session!]
QC: you’re one of the Duff and Phelps Administration team?
W: Yes
QC: You were involved in the bidding process?
W: Yes
QC: And the CVA or sale of assets?
W: yes.
QC: Your position ?
W: I’m an Associate.
QC; Were you the only person at first?
W: Not necessarily, there were others on the team.
QC: Jimmy Saunders, Sarah Bell ?
W: Yes.
QC They were primarily involved in the sale?
W: How do you mean?
QC; well, Simon Shipperlee on this aspect, Sarah Bell on that?
W: They were on the sale.
QC: They were more senior to you?
W: No.
QC: You say you were not senior?
W: Yes.
QC: Mr Walder, I’m going to ask you as a matter of fact what was done, no apportioning of blame, you follow?
W: yes
QC: Is it part of an Administrator’s function to get the best arrangement he can for the creditors as a whole ?
W: Yes
QC: The primary objective is to rescue the company as a whole?
W: I wouldn’t necessarily recall that
QC: To achieve a CVA rather than Liquidation?
W: I don’t recall.
QC: Would you agree that …[ed: I missed the end of the question; Walder’s link from California was not of the best]
W: [ ed: missed his reply]
QC: Do you remember the “outcomes statements”?
W: Yes
QC: Do you agree that … [ed: missed it]
W: [ed; I missed the response]
QC: When we come to look at ‘outcomes’, there were three bids, and the outcome of Liquidation?
W: I would agree we would prepare scenarios.
QC: Liquidation was always an outcome?
W: Not sure I follow..?
QC: …(?) sense: If bid A is better than bid B and bid C but is still not as good as Liquidation, then consideration would have to be given to Liquidation?
W: Yes .
QC: Or an alternative strategy ?
W: That depends , what other strategy..
QC: Well, to go back to the bidder and seek more?
W: Potentially
QC: If an Administrator is trying to save the company?
W: Perhaps at high level..
QC: It’s better to have more bidders than fewer?
W: That depends on the bidders
QC: The Administrators will not necessarily know that they are getting the whole story?
W: Can you explain?
QC: The bidders will play their cards close to their chests?
W: Yes, interested parties could do that
QC: You were dealing in this case with reasonably sophisticated commercial bidders?
W: It depends what you mean by reasonably sophisticated bidder.
QC: You would have ‘joke’ bids and so on, but you would have bidders who knew what they were doing?
W: Yes, some.
QC: The bid that was successful was Sevco?
W: Yes.
QC: The amount?
W: I don’t recall the precise figure.
QC: It was £5.5 million… it was broken down thus: £1.75 M for..[ed:I missed that!], £1.55M for heritable properties, £2.749 M for player contracts, £1.00 for a share in the SPL, £1.00 for SFA membership.. [ ed: these figures were rattled off, and I missed at least one, I think]
[ ed: I missed the next couple of exchanges ]
QC: So, not a race upwards to get to £5.5?
W: I could not comment.
QC: Your statement set out various levels of bids?
W: In my witness statement ,yes. But circumstances were changing regularly, so it it’s hard to say. The headline figures not ..
QC: Higher bids falling, lower bid accepted ?
W: With some of the bids that would be the case. I don’t recall a bid smaller than £5.5 M.
QC: There was an indicative bid of £25M from Bill Miller, £25 from the Blue Knights, £10M from the Singapore Consortium, Kennedy’s bid at £5M the only one below?
W: I don’t recall.
Geez, in the olden days, I would write, put my paper in the out tray, and the wonderful Greta of the typing pool would get one of the expert typists to produce a flawless typescript before outgoing mail time. Doing that wee bit that I’ve just done took me damned near an hour and a bit. Admittedly, I canny read my own writing , but still.
I’m away in to join Mrs C watching the Pact, is it?
With regard to the video posted of TRFC celebrating at Ibrox. Leaving aside what was sang (not that I’m ignoring it), isn’t Glasgow under level 3 restrictions? Are not indoor gatherings of this number against the law? Is what on show in accordance with SPL COVID protocols for maintaining bubbles and social distancing?
Has the SFA/SPL asked TRFC for an explanation?
If Hibs or St Johnstone play out similar scenes next week do we think reactions would be as muted?
Here’s a link to a “First of its kind”, “Doesn’t miss them and hit the wall” article by Andrew Smith in the Scotsman.
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers/rangers-the-superiority-syndrome-and-anti-catholic-bigotry-why-it-cannot-go-unchallenged-any-more-3240210
Wilson does let himself down a tad with the “on the back of Rangers’ 2012 liquidation and rise through the leagues” nonsense, but otherwise has produced a unique, and very welcome offering from a Scottish mainstream media outlet, which will undoubtedly garner howls of derision and condemnation from The People Who Are.
Has a pebble just been launched into the pool?
Let’s hope so.
The Rangers Nil? Who Missed The Penalty? 18th May 2021 At 09:09
re the link to Andrew Smith’s article.
I have the print copy of today’s ” The Scotsman” open before me.
Smith says this ” we in the media have all been enablers in allowing a corrosive sense of entitlement to be brewed.”
Not the least of that ‘enabling’ has been the SMSM’s ridiculous denial that RFC of 1872 was liquidated every bit as much as any other Scottish club that was liquidated and ceased to be entitled to participate in Scottish Football.
Had the SSM , including Smith, been brave enough to tell the simple truth that was told on day one ” the end of 140 years of history”, the reality might have been accepted.
If the SFA and SPFL would now say that CG’s Sevco/TRFC is not RFC of 1872, sanity might be restored, and Truth re-introduced into Scottish Football. No one is entitled to propagate untruth, least of all ‘journalists’
“We are aware of a video circulating on social media. It is evident that this video was shared with an adjoining narrative which attempts to discredit our players and the reputation of Rangers Football Club. ”
This is from the official statement
https://www.rangers.co.uk/Article/club-statement-170521-2/7eHCUpQg2cNNifjgXyaE71
They now cannot claim the phrase FTP wasn’t in the video , they can only claim it was dubbed in later.
Unfortunately it was a live feed , unless the company De Lorean was used then it isn’t possible to do.
The onus is now on them to produce the original video which leads to another problem , that video lasts for approx 20 minutes and may produce even more incriminating evidence.
Here is a link to a previous incident https://twitter.com/1888JT/status/1011134538314141696
It involves a man of the catholic faith and a number of men married to people of the catholic faith. I hope today some of the people in that dressing room like Jermaine Defoe also reflect on their behaviour and the culture they have become immersed in . No more soundbites like anyone everyone , no more PR promises like we will send fans for therapy (zero so far) , time to ditch that orange top , sack their DUP PR guru, and get rid of those fans and players who revel in this illness. The SFA also need to act but as it’s now end of season I expect the silence to be deafening from all quarters.
John Clark 18th May 2021 At 10:05
I agree wholeheartedly, John, that the media’s propogation of the continuity/victim lies lie at the very heart of the emboldenment of The Rangers’ supporters, and should be vigorously condemned – hence my “Wilson does let himself down a tad with the “on the back of Rangers’ 2012 liquidation and rise through the leagues” nonsense” comment, but that shouldn’t prevent me from congratulating him on publicly calling out anti-catholic, anti-Irish racism in absolute terms for the first time (that I’m aware of) in a mainstream publication and, just as significantly, without recourse to the nauseating equivalency that would normally accompany it.
Disclaimer: No coin-sides or posterior cheeks were harmed in the production of this post!
John Clark 17th May 2021 At 17:29
…………….
Thanks JC for all your hard work and time.
wokingcelt 18th May 2021 At 08:37
Are not indoor gatherings of this number against the law? Is what on show in accordance with SPL COVID protocols for maintaining bubbles and social distancing?
Has the SFA/SPL asked TRFC for an explanation?
…………………………………
I expect this will be the only punishment of that day and will consist of we sent them a letter.Sending a letter worked the last time.
The sense of entitlement that emanates from Ibrox is beyond the pale. I’m sure that the Ibrox board, or somebody in charge, knew full well what regulations were in place in regards to gatherings in Glasgow. The nerve it took to write a letter requesting the admission of 10,000 people to their grounds is shameful based on the current climate and pandemic. Perhaps they left that submission so late hoping that a Rangers supporting government flunky might approve it. Apparently they have no shame and a lack of common sense. God forbid they win any more titles or cups as they will be looking to have the rule book re-written based on their plans for the game.
Taken from the blog above and originally written in 2013. Sadly in some ways, I think these comments have stood the test of time.
“Perhaps the biggest ever story within the Scottish game has been the circumstances surrounding the demise of Rangers Football Club. It is a multi-layered story and one that that is still moving. In many ways, it may be a story that is only just beginning.
Central to the debate (that should be completely on-topic) for this blog, is whether or not the authorities (at all levels) have acted in an equitable manner and whether or not the “free press” have given life to events in a truthful and balanced way.
With absolute regard to these matters, there is a fundamental issue surrounding the status of the club incorporated in 2012 and currently playing in the 3rd division of the Scottish Football League.
If you genuinely believe that the club incorporated in 2012 are the same club as was founded in 1872/1873 then you have every right to be outraged at the behaviour of the footballing authorities. You will probably accept that UEFA were right to “ban” the club from European competitions because of its holding company’s insolvency event; but feel completely persecuted by your fellow Scottish clubs who demoted your team to the arse-end of the game. You will see this “demotion” as a punishment far too severe for the actions of the rogue ex-owner of the club’s former “holding company”. To compound matters, you will see the LNS enquiry as just another opportunity for the clubs who have already revelled in meting out a severe punishment, to have another fly-kick. You would, no doubt, believe that whatever the previous owner of the club’s “holding company” did in terms of player payments, the trophies were won fairly by the club on the field of play and can never be taken away. You will be – in the main – satisfied with the narrative of the “free press” in referring to your club as the same entity as played in the SPL.
All of the attitudes and beliefs rely 100% on the tenet of a “club” existing as a separate entity from the legal entity (“company”) responsible for a football team.
If you genuinely believe that the club incorporated in 2012 are a different club as was founded in 1872/1873 then you will still have every right to be outraged at the behaviour of the footballing authorities. UEFA would rightly refuse European Club Licence for the new club – if one was applied for – as the new club do not meet the criteria; but you will feel completely let down by the self-serving nature of the SPL and the weakness shown by the SFA in attempting to place the new club in the top tier of Scottish football. You will see the new club’s fast-track acceptance into the SFL as without precedent and their award of full member status (of the SFA) as against existing rules. You will wonder how – when the members of the SFL voted to give them associate membership as new club – the SFL executive list them on their website as the old club. As the old club had ceased footballing activities in June, there should have been no SFA membership or SPL share to transfer in August. Since the old club is no more, you will not recognise any punishment for the actions of the rogue ex-owner of the club. You will see the LNS enquiry as an opportunity for some sort of justice in relation to years of outrageous cheating by the now dead club. You will think that trophies and prize-money were stolen from clubs who played by the rules. You will think that a correction of results is simply a consequence of the old club being found guilty of cheating. You will probably think that the LNS enquiry has nothing to do with the new club; but may wonder if the enquiry orders the repayment of the old club’s prize-money, would this create a new “football debt” that has to be repaid by the new club to continue using the old club’s SFA membership? You will be aghast at the apparent repeated mis-reporting of the situation by the “free press”.
All of the attitudes and beliefs rely 100% on the tenet of a “club” being the legal entity (“company”) responsible for a football team.
You may feel that these positions are “just a matter of opinion” and do not ultimately matter.
I disagree. The indeterminate status of the club incorporated in 2012 is a huge sore in the Scottish football landscape. This is the biggest story that just cannot go away. If the schism created by this sense of injustice is not resolved, Scottish football will implode. Attitudes may already be too entrenched; but that should not stop us trying to find a way forward.
The principal difficulty (again totally on topic) is that it appears – from both sides of the debate) -that people in positions of power within the game have made decisions that cannot be justified by their rules and articles of association.
…
In my view we can only hold the SFA, SPL and SFL to account if we insist that a definitive answer to all of the important questions are given.
The status of the club incorporated in 2012 is – in my view – a simple matter of fact. It is only because it is being considered to be a matter of opinion that we are where we are.”
I believe the tail is wagging the dog over by and that the letter to admitt 10000 invited guests to the game was under instructions that if the SFA caved in to this thinly disguised threat, then it would have been a GIRUY Celtic we win a title and we decide if fans can get in, not an SNP run Gov, or Police Scotland, but us the Peepul.
The message in Scotland as in other countries is clear, people are dying and the country is attempting to get back on it’s feet without bams running around having square gos and smashing up the city and likely spreading the disease and perhaps leading to a longer lock down.
We dont do pandering to people when the country has a pandemic and financial crisis looming, we listen and try to do whats right for all the country and it’s people, the disease does not discriminate and through the actions of these loons more people have to suffer.
I am absolutely gobsmacked that Rangers actually expected they should be allowed fans into Ibrox to see the trophy presentation. Had some of their fans not caused the trouble they did then I doubt if we would ever have known about this. If it is an attempt to lay blame at the feet of the Government post-event then it is even worse.
The simple fact is crowds on that level have not been allowed into a Scottish football ground since March 2020. That is only one restriction the public have had to put up with and it doesn’t even come close to the impact there has been on people who have not been allowed to visit family or attend funerals to name but two things. On a general scale many fans of all clubs have paid out for season tickets in the full knowledge they would never get in to see a game. Yet here we have Rangers having the temerity to ask the Government to make a special case just for them and their fans. It beggars belief but certainly fits in with the sense of entitlement and supremacy which has been so evident yet again these past few days.
I have an alternative idea. Rangers could simply have, for the past few weeks, drummed into their fans regularly and publicly that large gatherings are not allowed yet, either inside or outside a stadium. Their fans could have accepted that in the full knowledge that gathering in itself is against the law as it stands, never mind the violent thuggery, racism and sectarianism some of them also chose to indulge in. When the time allowed they could have had the biggest party in Ibrox they wanted, but that wouldn’t be showing the rest of Scotland who is really in charge, and who decides when or when not laws are adhered to. It’s sickening.
Edit: Some people are claiming they actually wanted to let 10,000 fans into Ibrox on five separate occasions! If true, where on earth do you go with that?
I note the PA reports that the TRFC MD wrote a letter to a ‘senior Scottish Government official’ to request a concession from COVID regulations allow 10k fans into Ibrox on Saturday (and perhaps on subsequent days as well).
I haven’t seen any mention that the SFA or SPFL were copied into the letter sent by Mr. Robertson. Were they, or did TRFC try to circumvent the (supposed) governing bodies?
Where are Maxwell & Doncaster? They should be front & centre here. They’ve pandered to Robertson, Park & Gerrard. This is what they reap. They’re being made to look like idiots (again & again & again).
Time for one of my favourite quotes attributed to Churchill: ‘An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.’ Maxie & Doncy can see the eyes glinting, the jaws opening & closing & the teeth flashing…
Upthehoops 19th May 2021 At 08:23
It’s a rare occasion but I agree 100% with you on this. At first I thought the messaging was sufficient from Rangers but agree they should’ve done much, much more on this. I assumed fans would take individual responsibility and act accordingly.
Utterly undefendable behaviour on so many levels by the Rangers fans who took part in this. Not every Rangers fan is guilty of racism, sectarianism (a paramedic doing her job was allegedly subjected to this because of her green uniform), violence or antisocial behaviour.
I’m not sure what the consequences are here, certainly large numbers of arrests for starters, but I’d make Rangers play behind closed doors for their first 5 home games of next season because of the actions of their supporters. Don’t think that’s possible, or likely, but the events that day were a complete disgrace.
And all this as Glasgow struggles with the pandemic. Every single one of those Rangers fans made that choice to travel and ignore social distancing rules on an epic scale. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Just tuned out from the BDO v RFC 2012 plc(IL).
Yesterday I could only attend the morning session of the BDO v RFC 2012 plc(Il) case. Those giving evidence were Ashworth (formerly of WBA, now at Brighton] , Mr Baird of HMRC, and Mr Dingwall was just being sworn in at 1.30, as I was leaving the house.
This morning , one of the Liquidators (Mr Steven) who presumably was called yesterday afternoon , concluded his evidence at about 10.30. The next witness was not available until 11.00. So, Mr McBrearty took the opportunity to discuss a matter(apparently different valuations of Celtic’s money by the RST and Mr Dingwall raised yesterday by Mr Young QC,. This led on to a three way discussion about the difficulties of virtual hearings, and then a break of bout 20 minutes.
The next witness , at 11.00 o’clock was MR Maurice Rothbart, a managing partner in a firm finance raisers for high net worth individuals and institutions.
His evidence giving finished at noon.
And that’s it for today.
Court adjourned until 10.00 tomorrow.
If the authorities thought things would quieten down it would appear they were mistaken……
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19313058.peel-road-celtic-chief-peter-lawwells-home-petrol-bombed-early-morning-attack/
Incredibleadamspark 19th May 2021 At 12:09
“Not every Rangers fan is guilty of racism, sectarianism (a paramedic doing her job was allegedly subjected to this because of her green uniform), violence or antisocial behaviour.”
Firstly I totally agree with you 100% on the above. I wrote in an earlier post that I personally have met and know many Rangers fans who are really decent people.
What concerns me is the narrative that now seems to be creeping in to the media reporting. That being that had the Scottish Government agreed to allow its own laws to be broken in the way Rangers wanted, then the law breaking that did end up taking place could have been prevented. Why not just stress there should be no law breaking at all? Rangers PR are playing a very dangerous game here in my view, but appear to have enough friends in the media to get away with it.
I’m shocked and disgusted at the attack on Peter Lawells home, I cannot begin to think what goes on inside the head of the person or persons responsible for this . There was a young child inside that building that could have been injured or worse. This was attempted murder and pre meditated so the highest tariff should be called for when hopefully the perpetrators are caught. I think it was Kevin Bridges that once remarked that attempted murder shouldn’t have a lesser punishment than murder just because they made an arse of it .
My thoughts and prayers are with Peter and his family , what they have just experienced is most traumatic.
MY post of 17th May at 17.29 refers.
That was the first bit of the hearing on Tuesday 11 March 2012:
I pick up from the last Q and A in that post.
“QC: There was an indicative bid of £25M from Bill Miller, £25 from the Blue Knights, £10M from the Singapore Consortium, Kennedy’s bid at £5M the only one below?
W: I don’t recall.
QC: Look at Vol 5 p.3346 Duff &Phelps headed file note, email from Paul Clark to you, PC and DW were appointed on 14 February 2012 , this file note describes the process of valuation the acquisition , on 14 June 2012, just after the date of closing.
W: if the date is accurate does it contain all relevant information.?
QC: You prepared the Note,… does it?
W: I don’t recall.
QC: Would you expect it to?
W:That would have been the goal.
QC: Why did you begin the note with setting out the ‘hurdles’ that beset the process?
W:I don’t recall.
QC: “ Ticketus had the right to future ticket sales , the need to seek direction from the Court”?
W: Yes.
QC: Indicative bids were sought by 16 March. What did the bidders say about Ticketus?
W: They did not say anything specifically.
QC: Can you remember what any bidder said about not wanting to be obliged to Ticketus?
W: I can’t comment.
QC: Bids were invited by 16 March, and Final bids in April. The Ticketus question was resolved in March. Do you agree?
W: No.
QC: the Court said ‘in the best interests of creditors. The ‘hurdles’ had been overcome-don’t you agree the other bidders continued?
W: No.
QC: Are you just saying ‘no’ ?
W: It was 12 years ago
QC: —-[ed: I missed the question]
W: …. [ed: I missed the response]
QC: You don’t recall the date?
W: No
QC: You read it in your witness statement! Do you recall?
W: No, I can re-read the statement
QC: How did you go about preparing your statement?
W: I looked at documents etc
QC: In the matter of the ‘resolution’ of the SPL that was to be voted on 30 April 2012 , the ban on signing players imposed by the SFA on 23 April 2012– was there a process to overturn it, do you recall?
W: No
QC: It was overturned on [ ed: I didn’t catch the date in April for sure, My figure looks like 20 but the 2 might be badly written 3]
On the ‘hurdle’ of Craig Whyte owning 85% of the company, what [ ed: missed the question]
W: At a high level.
QC: What’s your ‘high level?’
W: There were one or two issues from CW at a high level.
QC; Do you recall the CVA idea?
W: Yes.
QC: .to sell the shares of the company in Administration?
W: Yes
QC: Do you recall that the shares were controlled by Craig Whyte?
W: Some of the shares, yes.
QC: 85% of the shares that needed to be transferred
W: I see the figure.
QC: Doesn’t that jog your memory?
W: Yes
QC: This stood in the way of being a ‘hurdle’ to the sale policy?
W: I see that written.
QC: Why did you frame your note to say that the purchasers were unable to deliver the shares?
W: I can’t recall.
QC: ..[ed: I missed his question]
W: I can’t recall
QC: Will you now read the file note, and give us your interpretation,please?
W: Yes.[ed: silence for space..]
QC: When you wrote that, a CVA was being considered?
W: It was a consideration, yes.
QC: When a CVA is proposed, creditors might vote against it, do you agree?
W: To a degree, yes.
QC: What do you mean by ‘to a degree’?
W: I’m not familiar with what the CVA rules were 10 years ago., at a high level an insolvency process.
QC:Is that it?
W; [ed: missed it]
QC: Are you really saying that you can’t say what a CVA is?
W: Under oath I wouldn’t risk not getting it right.
QC: I’m only asking you what a CVA is!
W: I don’t know about today. A CVA is a process where creditors agree.
QC: HMRC could vote against it?
W: Yes
QC: Why was it described as a risk to the process?
W: My recollection is that HMRC would consider it prior to the vote
QC: Have you ever worked in an insolvency which involved a CVA?
W; I may have, but I would have to check.
QC: The Joint Administrators instructed agents, valuation of major assets, chattel assets, and how the Administrators chose the agents.. see that?
W: Yes
QC: So, the valuations of heritable and moveable property. What was the purpose?
W: To have the value of those particular assets.- the estimated value of the assets
QC: The Lambert Smith Hampton valuations, vol 5 p 3357– valuations of Ibrox and the Murray Park training centre?
W: Yes
QC: p. 83409 the Valuations: “ Market Value” “….£32 Million “ assuming continuation of business, assuming ‘going concern’ basis, with no liability to HMRC and Ticketus?
W: That’s the value they put on it.
QC: Murray Park….£6 million, on a ‘continuation of use’ basis, like Ibrox?
W:subject to vacant possession.
QC: “ special assumptions…….discontinuation of use..£3.4 million?
W: You can see that valuation is on a discontinuation basis.
QC :Do you understand ‘break-up’ term, not ‘continuing basis’?
W: I don’t recall.
QC: I’m not asking you to ‘recall’-just to read what is there!
W: I …..[ed: he said a few words which I did not catch]
QC: SO, we have a valuation of two properties, on two bases, continued use and discontinued use. What was the purpose?
W: To get better information of values….going forward
QC: Why would you need a valuation on a ‘discontinued basis’?
W: To understand the assets in that scenario
QC: What would that value be used for?
W: To inform decisions
QC: How would they use the information?
W: I don’t know.
QC: Did you know at the time?
W: I don’t know … I… [ ed: couldn’t catch the rest of long ,hesitant sentence]
QC: Why would you need to know the value on a discontinued basis?
W: What do you mean?
QC: How would you use it to inform the path forward?
W: It wouldn’t necessarily be in one specific area.
QC: You just don’t know, do you? Would you use the information to assess how much you could find for the creditors?
W: [ed: I did not catch the response}
QC: Are you doing your best to avoid answering? Mr Walder, before I go to his Lordship….
W: I’m answering as truthfully as I can.
QC: My Lord, may I ask for a short pause?
Lord Tyre: Mr Walder, it’s 6.00pm here …what time is it where you are?
W: 10..00 a.m.
Lord Tyre: we’re pausing for 5 minutes, and can I suggest to to you that you consider seriously.
.[ five minute ..pause, in practice mode] then,
Mr McBrearty: Mr Walder, we’ll look at p.3346, of Vol 5- thi s is just after the acquisition by Sevco: who instructed you to prepare this?
W: I don’t recall.
QC: Would it have been Paul Clark or David Whitehouse?
W: They would have wanted…
QC: look again at the “sale process was beset by hurdles”. Why such a defensive way?
W: It was to set the scene, to give context.
QC: Was it a context to justify the acceptance of a £5.5 million offer?
W: I don’t recall.
QC: You were a junior member f the team at the time?
W: Yes.
QC: Presumably you discussed with your seniors?
W: I don’t recall what happened with this file, but generally yes.
QC: Did anyone tell you that you had to begin with ..?
W: I don’t recall.
QC: Is there any reason why you are being so cagey?
W: I…. lapse of time..
QC: Who have you spoken to about this case?
W: friends and family.
QC? Former colleagues?
W: I do not believe with anyone.
QC: If I were to look at your cell phone would I find numbers..?
W: I don’t believe so.
QC; Let’s look now at p.3347, “ Sale of Business—Overview” In the last paragraph “ The Joint Administrators engaged in dialogue with all parties…….until such time as a legally binding agreement was reached” Do you recall?
W: At a higher level, yes
QC: What do you mean?
W: It was [ ed: I have no other words of what he said]
QC: Was it a marketing document to make the company seem attractive to bidders?
W: Yes
QC; On 18 February there was a confidential email memo , with the heading “ Communications” : there is “Under no circumstances should employees or ex-employees of Rangers to be made aware….” Your name is there.
What was your role in preparing this memo?
W: Probably pulling it together
QC: Were you primarily responsible “ You produced….” . Accurate?
W: Accurate
QC: Where does that statement come from?
W: I don’t know specifically.
QC: Look at section , p.3622, the first statement “ Founded in 1872, Rangers is one of the ..” Do you recall?
W: No
QC: You mention 54 league titles , and European success.. See that?
W:Yes
QC: Those successes would be an important part of the brand. AT 2.5 you mention Celtic, equal ..”?
W: They were part of the history of Rangers.
QC: 5 million fans etc?
W: yes
QC: the fans underpin everything?
W: Yes
QC: where the revenue comes from?
W: Some revenue.
QC: You’re describing the heritage, the name…?
W: the brand
QC: The fans are an aspect of the brand?
W: Yes
QC: p.3629 ., 4.2 “ Revenue Analysis” 5 main streams. Do you agree tht all derive from the right to use ‘Rangers’ and compete under that name?
W:: Yes.
QC: If we look at p.3644 appendix one, p.3645, what we see is a list of Registered Trade Marks.. another aspect of the brand. Seven pages in total. That indicates the Intellectual Property part of the overall brand?
W: Yes
QC: “ A key strategy note” Vol 2 p.2595. Do you recognise the format?
W: No
QC: We see “this final note should be updated throughout the assignment.'” Do you recall?
W: No I don’t recognise where it comes from.
QC: p.2598, what the Tables show usAssets, value, comments on the progress of the assets, for example “cash at bank” and details.
Half-way down the page see the heading “ Int Prop” and the value is stated as “uncertain there is value in the int.prop,” Do you agree that that is consistent with what you say in the in the Information memorandum?
W:[ ed: missed it]
QC: You set out all the brand values, do you agree?
W: Yes.
QC:.. Go back to 3347, vol 5,, your file note Under ‘process’ “ a total of 36 interested parties signed and were given access to the Data Room. You recall?
W: Yes
QC: on the following page “ the Joint Administrators originally requested indicative offers by 5.00 p.m…..at at 16 March legal action in course ( about Ticketus) on the morning of 16 th. Offers were asked for with the inclusion of the Ticketus problem.” What was the purpose of the revised bid offer document?
W: Counsel advised that the Ticketus obstacle was continuing.
QC: There were 3 bases of offer :p.3686 memorandum of offer of 16 March 2012 . Do you agree?
W: Yes
QC: p.3688 we see the bases spelled out:1- a CVA , 2- A Sale , 3 – CVA with Ticketus continuing
Then at p.3692, we have “ The format of the offer is as follows” This is how the Joint Administrators want the bids broken down : Ibrox Stadium, Murray Park, Brand, Intellectual property, Trade Marks. Agreed?
W: Yes.
QC; The Administrators did not get a valuation of ‘Brand’ , Can you explain?
W: No
QC: Was consideration given to such?
W: Yes
QC: Vol 2, p.336- an email from you to Simon Shipperlee and Peter Hart on 17 February:” ..Paul also said to hold off getting the IP done for now” Do you recall that conversation?
W: No
QC: Is it a fair reading that you were going to get a valuation but he told you to hold off?
W: Yes
QC: Page 2645 from you to Nick at NWH consultants,, copied to David Whitehouse, Simon Shipperlee…
W:[ ed: didn’t hear}
QC: Does the name Nick mean anything to you [ ed: reads the email in silence, and then I lost a few questions and answers, then heard
QC …..4908. ‘conference call’. There’s an email from Simon Shipperlee to you : “ .before you joined David Whitehouse said he wants D&P to get a brand valuation”… David Whitehouse told other members before this message was sent to you during the course of the call?
W: [ ed: no idea what his response was]
QC: on 13 March 2012 you instructed a brand valuation asking Matteus Schumacher..[ ed: that’s what the name sounded like to me!]. if he had…by the way ,what was his role in D&P?..
W: I think he was a valuer.
QC: Did he value anything in particular
W: I don’t know
QC: There’s an email from you to Schumacher “ Matteus we need to get a Rangers brand valued. Do we have the external expertise…” Does that jog your memory about what he valued?
W: Matteus was senior, there’s a lot of categories of valuation, I don’t know what in particular..
QC: on 14 March 2012 you emailed Jimmy Saunders and Sarah Bell, p.3371:” I spoke to Matteus and he has people to value brand…… to be adjusted because of Administration”
Is ‘going concern ‘ value what you’re describing here?
W: Yes
QC: was the context “ to show that the Administrators achieved fair value when we sell the assets”
W: That was not the full purpose
QC: Have you mentioned any other purpose?
W: [ed; didn’t hear him]
QC: [ ed: didn’t hear him]
W: [ed: didn’t hear]
QC: there’s an email the same day from you “ 14 March 2012 “ …about valuation, we need the Brand on an on-going basis” and , top of the page, on 15 March an email from Matteus to you “ ..better understanding of context of valuation and on a Liquidation basis” That’s an addition to what you said to Simon Shipperlee and Sarah Bell .Is it a fair inference that someone told you? Sarah Bell?
W: It might have been.
QC: And that basis would be the same as ‘discontinued use’ ?
W: yes.
QC : It’s agreed that on 16 March 2012 D&P paused the valuation work, that it may not be necessary.?
W:[: ed: didn’t hear]
QC: from Simon Shipperlee’s day-book, a note of a conference call: “ tell HMRC won’t mean anything ultimately “ Is it correct that there was no further pursuit of a valuation?
W: I couldn’t say.
QC: Looking back, you had included brand and IP, they would be worth something ,…. and then
considered valuation unnecessary?
W: I don’t recall
QC: bear with me a moment……..look at Vol 3 p.811 .. an email to Charles Walder “…two weeks we need a valuation” Consistent with other comments.
No further questions for today.
Lord Tyre: We adjourn until 9 a.m. his time tomorrow.”
I meant to add that today’s witnesses were the last of the Noter’s (BDO’s) witnesses. There are still the Expert witnesses to come, and then presumably the witnesses for RFC 2012 plc (IL) and any other Expert witnesses.
John Clark 19th May 2021 At 20:15
…………………………
Thanks again JC, great reading
From the editor’s meeting at Scottish newspapers. Guys the ad department has been slowing in getting spots sold so we need to come up with something to fill the pages. Any ideas, and after a brief pause and no thoughts forthcoming a decision is reached. O.K. then lets call McCoist, Ferguson and Boyd they should have enough to fill sufficient column space but no tough questions as we don’t want to stretch their insights and we may need them again, again, and again. Oh, well we are at it let’s try this facebook thing. Post something to the effect need comments from SG’s former teammates on the potential managerial talent they spotted and so many other clubs missed. Meeting adjourned, copy deadline is 4 p.m.
QC: on 13 March 2012 you instructed a brand valuation asking Matteus Schumacher..[ ed: that’s what the name sounded like to me!]. if he had…by the way ,what was his role in D&P?..
………………………………………………
On the 13 March the media headlines were
The Fighting fund launch.
David Murray, i was duped by whyte.
David Murray could face SFA Directors ban.
The jerome group claiming a share in millions seized from rangers owner whytes lawyers by administrators Duff and phelps.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19314737.revealed-finance-firm-talks-betrayal-failure-14m-bid-rangers/
……………….
PROPERTY financiers have told of “betrayal” after revealing they made a £14.185m bid for key Rangers assets before a sale for £5.5m to Charles Green’s Sevco consortium after the club went into administration.
Manchester-based Seaford Finance made the offer on behalf of Canadian clients to buy Ibrox, the Murray Park training ground and the stadium car park.
It was a deal which would involved the stadium and car park being leased back and the bidders believed they were in “pole position” to do a deal.
I hope Dundee are promoted to the Premiership . The Dundee Derby is always interesting and will be a welcome addition next season.
It will also mean no artificial surfaces in the top League – and I think a grass pitch should be made a condition if /when Hamilton or Kilmarnock return .
Cluster One 20th May 2021 At 20:15
the link: Property financiers have told of “betrayal” after revealing they made a £14.185m bid for key Rangers
+++++++++
Actual words: ” I do recall feeling betrayed by…”
The hack copped out of saying who was accused of betrayal!
And so will I.
The Peter Lawwell incident the other night has shocked me. I think most of you know I have little regard for him either personally or professionally. Most folk would also agree that he’s not at the top of Celtic fans’ Christmas Card list. However the level of hate, the extent of inhumanity that allows a person to carry out such an attack on others is way in excess of the animosity aroused by Lawwell’s dealings at Celtic over the past 18 years.
Of course the attack may have been a case of mistaken identity or address, or it may have been personal, and unrelated to football.
As a Celtic fan I certainly hope it wasn’t one of our number because that would require a serious rethink on my part about involvement with football. When clubs appear disconnected from the fans, it is often only the fans you can continue to trust. If fans resort to this kind of violence, where three generations of a family could have been killed in the supposed safety of their own home, then it really is time to reserve Saturday afternoons for shopping expeditions. I also fervently hope that the perpetrators are not found to be Rangers fans, because that kind of thing would not only severely damage Rangers themselves, but would be a worrying development in the direction of the Ulsterisation of Scotland, and a threat to the cohesiveness of Scottish society.
I wish to God that this attack had never happened – and I hope to God it is not football related.
Goes without saying that my thoughts and sympathy are with Peter Lawwell and his family.
Just an observation:
It appears to me that the civil case BDO are currently making against Clark and Whitehouse (of D&P) looks very like the criminal case that Police Scotland and the COPFS were attempting to pursue against the same two men (and others).
However, as I understand it, Police Scotland and the COPFS have already admitted liability in relation to the wrongful arrest and detention in relation to the case. Again, as I understand it, it has been admitted that Police Scotland did not uncover any substantive evidence of wrongdoing – or at least, evidence they were able to put to the court – and therefore there was never any realistic prospect of a successful prosecution.
So you would think it strange, in such circumstances, if BDO succeed in winning substantial compensation from Mr Clark & Mr Whitehouse for their alleged “mishandling” of the events leading up to the liquidation of the old Rangers.
Funny thing is that it may be sad and pathetic, but it would not really be that surprising.
If BDO succeed in this civil case it doesn’t change the fact that Police Scotland and the COPFS were at best, hopelessly inept. Some have suggested there could have been a degree of purposeful ineptitude at play. I hope not, but it is not a good look at the moment.
The primary key to this, in my opinion, is the question of why the old club’s assets were held together. Who benefits from such an arrangement?
If it did not make financial sense to do so, what motivation could the administrators have go down a path that would ultimately mean a lower dividend for the creditors than would otherwise have been possible?
The question too persists over why members of Police Scotland knowingly spoiled the prospect of uncovering evidence by legal means through the illegal seizure of privileged client files from a solicitors office. Even if the evidence was there, it could never be used in court. How could experienced officers make such a basic error?
Of course, BDO’s case may too, fall away. But if it does not, we should all be asking how it came to be possible that Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse were paid substantial compensation, from the public purse, in connection to these events.
@HirsutePursuit – it is of course possible to reach two different conclusions between a reasonable doubt and a balance of probabilities bases of judgement.
I agree with your line of thinking “who benefits from the arrangement”. To this I would add “follow the money”. This drama has more twists and dodgy characters than Line of Duty – although I’m hoping the finale isn’t as much as a damp squib!!!
Big Pink 21st May 2021 At 00:07
Hopefully the Police will catch whoever is responsible for the attack on Peter Lawell’s home. Best not to speculate on the motives behind it but I think you pretty much covered all the possible bases.
Whatever the motive what type of human being can carry out such an attack with such complete disregard for the life of other humans?
Wokingcelt 21st May 2021 At 08:31
@HirsutePursuit – it is of course possible to reach two different conclusions between a reasonable doubt and a balance of probabilities bases of judgement.
I agree with your line of thinking “who benefits from the arrangement”. To this I would add “follow the money”.
Following the money can sometimes be misleading WC. Normally it would be a sensible approach, but in this case there is another facet, that being the debt. A very considerable debt which has not, and never will be repaid. A sum that far outstretches anything that an opportunist may hope to make. Somebody won a watch there.
It should also be remembered that the Duff & Phelps dynamic duo, were previously in the employ of David Murray via the company MCA (if memory serves), tasked with structuring the sale, and finding a suitable buyer.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19318548.key-rangers-administrators-manager-defends-club-brand-giveaway-charles-greens-sevco/
……………………………….
A KEY member of the Rangers administrators team that managed the club’s financial implosion has dismissed criticism over a failure to get a valuation of its brand before selling the business assets for just £5.5m to Charles Green’s Sevco consortium.
Sarah Bell, an insolvency expert with Duff and Phelps said that the brand was not a valuable asset when there was no Rangers team playing.
While some within Duff and Phelps, the company responsible for guiding the club through its insolvency were pushing for a brand valuation, it has previously emerged it was dropped in a matter of days with one manager saying it had been considered “a waste of money”
Reading the court stuff from JC brought back memories.
https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/sale-and-leaseback-ibrox-murray-park-albion/
There was talk of a leaseback of Ibrox and Murray park a way back, not much in the SMSM about it though at the time.
@Corrupt Official – I agree and I was lazily lumping both together. Leaving the taxpayer/the innocent holding the debt is classic shyster behaviour.
In other news I see that Moray has moved down to Level 2 but Glasgow remains at Level 3 with cases continuing to rise. I wonder why that is?
Paradisebhoy 20th May 2021 At 20:38
6 2 Rate This
I hope Dundee are promoted to the Premiership . The Dundee Derby is always interesting and will be a welcome addition next season.
It will also mean no artificial surfaces in the top League – and I think a grass pitch should be made a condition if /when Hamilton or Kilmarnock return .
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is the Toni Macaroni being reverted to grass this Summer?
This afternoon, Paul Clark giving evidence.
A throw-away remark struck a cord in me :in response to a question as to whether in matters of Scottish football he would defer to the Scottish football authorities ,he referred to them as ‘bordering on duplicity’
I make no comment.
Big Pink 21st May 2021 At 00:07
There may be more to all of it ‘
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/7134265/firebombing-home-james-mortimer-linked-attack/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-57206480
Tykebhoy 21st May 2021 At 14:23
Is the Toni Macaroni being reverted to grass this Summer?
Sorry Tykebhoy – I forgot all about Livingstone !
Maybe they’ll cover the Tony Macaroni with a giant sheet of Pasta – can’t be any worse than what they’ve got ,
Mr McBrearty QC to witness: ” …you would have been better off closing Ibrox etc”
Witness [Mr Clark] ” Not to be taken lightly. I had a meeting with the First Minister and the police and others: what happens if you close Rangers? Understand the implications. The costs could not be under-estimated”
And ,looking over my notes of yesterday’s hearing , I see that Mrs Bell of D&P said that she had a meeting with a Murdo Fraser. on 27 April 2012.
That name rings a bell somewhere in the corridors of memory. Where could I have heard it before?
Bridgebuilding again .
https://www.rangers.co.uk/Article/club-statement-210521/3QVwERdF4P6Ty6NjCkL0kL
It doesn’t mention anywhere that I can see that the video was fake/had been doctored , just that no criminality had been established . From that I take that the video was genuine
Paddy Malarkey 21st May 2021 At 19:06
‘…Bridgebuilding again .’
++++++++++++====
I wish to God they would hire a decent PR person with a bit of savvy and a better writing style!
That must be the worst ‘Statement’ of many poor statements, and there have been many poor statements from Ibrox, with one or two exceptions some time ago now, which made me think they were changing their ways.
But no, today’s piece is the same kind of very badly conceived blustery, aggressive, threatening and poorly written piece that we had become used to.
The consciousness of their own guilt in trying to live a lie is, of course, the force behind the aggressive stance.
They know the truth, but cannot admit it and fear to show ‘weakness’ in case honest folk make them admit it.
That’s a well-known path down which many in history have trodden, to their eternal shame and condemnation.
TRFC will be no different, forever tainted with a deceit even worse than SDM’s
Cluster One 21st May 2021 At 11:1
‘…Sarah Bell, an insolvency expert with Duff and Phelps said that the brand was not a valuable asset when there was no Rangers team playing.’
+++++++++++++++
I have a note of the relevant exchange between QC and witness . It has the exact 22 words that at one point in the exchanges with the QC that were used by the witness.
I have re-read the Court of Session rules governing access to virtual hearings: “Any social media comment in relation to the proceedings of other types of court case during the course of a hearing:
must be fair and accurate
must not be in Contempt of Court
must not be prejudicial to the court case
I have abided by those rules thus far, and will continue to do so.
But I can safely say that while the ‘Herald’s” report is true, it is not reflective of the full truth of that exchange , but is selective.
@ John Clark – Lady MacBeth has stuck with me from secondary school (look time ago!) as the truism that your sins haunt you and will ultimately destroy you.
With regard to the Herald’s reporting. If I am reading you correctly they have breached the guidelines in their selective reporting. Will they be held to account? Not today or tomorrow but hold fast to MacBeth!
Celtic may lose out on a substantial fee should Edouard be sold this summer due to the sell on fee. Any fee Celtic garner from the sale of this player will out strip any fees Rangers have earned in player sales recently. Perhaps the scottish media might look a little deeper before rushing to print.
The DR appears to be concerned over Celtic losing more of the fee for the sale of Edouard due to the sell on clause. Any fee Celtic get for the sale of this player will outstrip any fees Rangers have earned recently. Perhaps the Scottish media could do more digging before rushing to print.
Vernallen
Nothing to do with Rangers whatsoever so why the constant need to reference them in every post.
HirsutePursuit 21st May 2021 At 00:55
It appears to me that the civil case BDO are currently making against Clark and Whitehouse (of D&P) looks very like the criminal case that Police Scotland and the COPFS were attempting to pursue against the same two men (and others).
However, as I understand it, Police Scotland and the COPFS have already admitted liability in relation to the wrongful arrest and detention in relation to the case. Again, as I understand it, it has been admitted that Police Scotland did not uncover any substantive evidence of wrongdoing – or at least, evidence they were able to put to the court – and therefore there was never any realistic prospect of a successful prosecution.
So you would think it strange, in such circumstances, if BDO succeed in winning substantial compensation from Mr Clark & Mr Whitehouse for their alleged “mishandling” of the events leading up to the liquidation of the old Rangers.
………………………………
There is a difference between wrongdoing and not doing your job correctly
Who do you think wrote this:
” Rightly or wrongly, Rangers is about more than football and for 14 years the Scottish Government has been run by a party which traduces the symbols and denigrates the country in which most supporters have been brought up to believe.
This season represented the full return from a collapse many supporters believe was driven by an establishment hostile to everything they represent. They recall a crippling and inflated tax demand which sent the club into liquidation in 2012.”
Would you believe any intelligent person could write such absolute rubbish?
The cause of liquidation being the taxman?? and not the grasping, cheating greed of an oleaginous tax and football cheat who lied to HMRC, to the SPL, to the SFA, and cheated every club and football supporter for a decade or more?
Or, ‘ a full return from a collapse ….. which sent the club into liquidation in 2012?’
Who else but a Scottish ‘journalist’ who can end his piece with “The club’s song is Follow, Follow and my dad and cousin did so to their graves, and no mindless hooligans , partial politicians or sanctimonious commentators will stop its supporters doing the same”
Name and rank of said ‘journalist’?
Well, you’re not talking Sportsound Ibrox Supporters’ Club here. No, indeed, we’re at the high-end of the truth-distorting market: who else but John McLellan, former editor of “The Scotsman” (2009-2012), Scottish Conservative Party media chief (2012-2013) and current Edinburgh Councillor?
( in today’s print version of ‘The Scotsman’)
Wokingcelt 21st May 2021 At 23:08
‘..If I am reading you correctly they have breached the guidelines in their selective reporting. ‘
+++++++++++++++
No, I don’t think so. They used a form of words which reflected a truthful enough answer tin the context in which the question was posed by the QC, but which, in a broader context, would be seen as not reflecting the full truth.
hello
John Clark 21st May 2021 At 18:16
3
0
Rate This
Mr McBrearty QC to witness: ” …you would have been better off closing Ibrox etc”
Witness [Mr Clark] ” Not to be taken lightly. I had a meeting with the First Minister and the police and others: what happens if you close Rangers? Understand the implications. The costs could not be under-estimated”
And ,looking over my notes of yesterday’s hearing , I see that Mrs Bell of D&P said that she had a meeting with a Murdo Fraser. on 27 April 2012.
That name rings a bell somewhere in the corridors of memory. Where could I have heard it before
……………………………….
Murdo Fraser was the MSP, Debenture holder who wrote a begging letter to the admistrators stating that any bids should not involve liquidation…. sorry for the late reply.
ST JOHNSTONE Did well two cups in one season, Callum Davidson how he never got Manager of the season.
Well done St Johnstone. What an incredible achievement. They are also a very well managed club financially so it’s good to see some reward for that too.
I hope they and their fans have a very enjoyable and safe celebration tonight.
upthehoops 22nd May 2021 At 17:11
somehow can’t see the town centre getting wrecked, but i bet a few ST Johnston fans will be, celebrating.
Cluster One 22nd May 2021 At 17:14
Any large gathering of St Johnstone fans will be leapt upon by many with demands for it to be condemned by Police and Politicians, even if there is no violence. At the end of the day crowds should not be gathering as per the law.
On Sportsound today Tom English claimed that St Johnstone winning the two domestic cups was the best ever domestic achievement by a Scottish club. He based his argument on budgets. It is a fantastic achievement, truly the stuff of dreams, but do people agree or disagree? I will leave out anything won by Celtic and Rangers* given the budgets available. Wasn’t Dundee United winning the league a better achievement than what St Johnstone just achieved?
On the cup final, I very much enjoyed it as a game of football, and I’m not so old and jaded as not to appreciate the ‘fairy tale’ ending of the season for St Johnstone, while understanding the disappointment of a particular Hibs fan in Australia , the son of a now sadly deceased friend of mine, and my son’s best pal.
But back to the Court hearing;
Here are my notes of part of the proceedings [ Doncaster’s evidence]
“BDO v RFC 2012 plc(IL) Day 6
Court of Session
Wednesday 12 May 2021
!.00 pm kick-off
Lord Tyre:[establishes that witness is alone, has arranged not to be disturbed, has his phone in silent mode, and is prepared to take the oath. Oath administered]
Lord Tyre : Mr McBrearty?
McBrearty Q: Good afternoon, Mr Doncaster. [ Full name, age, address, occupation}
You gave an interim statement… on p.66. See that?
D: I do.
QC: Have you re-read the statement?
D: Yes
QC: Are you happy to have your evidence in that statement subject to any answers you make today?
D; I am.
QC: Thank you, no further questions.
Lord Tyre: Mr Young?
Mr Young, QC: In para 4.1 of your statement you speak of an initial meeting with the Administrators at Hampden Park a couple of days in?
D: Yes
QC; Para 4.2 , concern about completion of fixtures “ ..Joint Administrators made it clear that they would finish the season. £3 million in the bank” Was that your understanding?
D:…Came away happy that they would be fulfilled.
QC: Based on a note by you?
D: No, I rely on others to keep notes…
QC: In the Administrators’ , Joint Bundle 2 375, you’ll see that PJC, that is, Paul Clark, is saying that not sufficient funds. That seems to contradict you. Is it possible that the Administrators couldn’t give…[ed:?]
D: Entirely possible.
QC: In para 22 of your statement , the context here is redundant playing staff, “unusual: no intention to make players redundant”
D: That’s my belief from that meeting.
QC: Joint Bundle “ p375.- should be ‘Q’ in the margin-we’ve had evidence on this- “Clark said meeting went well” If that’s a reference to ’14’ days could it be that they were NOT considering redundancy?
D: It’s possible.
QC:para 6.2….the attempt to sign David Cousins? The SPL refused to register. Do you recall?
D: Yes
QC: Prior to Administration had there been an attempt to register?
D;.. No
QC: 7.4 of your statement-see it?
D: Yes
QC: It’s dealing with the possibility of selling players on Administration -“ Usual practice is to transfer players of no value…’: You’re not giving evidence of the usual practice?
D: Certainly not.
QC: Were Rangers the first SPL club to go into Administration?
D: I believe there were previous ones, when I arrived.
QC; …[ed: missed the short question]
D: I was on the Board of the English Premier league during which time there were Administrations. I took an interest.
QC: You had experience of what happened in England was that the normal practice in Administration was termination of contract?
D;[ ed: missed his reply}
QC: English clubs in 2007-2009- are you saying that players were made involuntarily redundant in those clubs?
D; [ed; missed his opening words] …….in the English context doesn’t exist
QC: so in Scotland you just had to earn from others? Mr Rod McKenzie?
D: Yes.
QC: The offer from West Bromwich Albion for Naismith: why is this in your statement? Were you asked to do this?
D: I was shown the email between WBA and D&P relevant
QC: but you had no first-hand knowledge, evidence?
D; No. Reading the information presented to me I was surprised.
QC: But you didn’t have any more knowledge?
D: But shown the email I expressed surprise and that’s what I felt.
QC: Look at clubs’ fees- 8.8 The 3rd tranche of advance monies from the Board?
D:.. Correct
QC: You refer to Gretna-Why?
D: Gretna were going into Administration as I was arriving. Mr McKenzie and Mr Blair had made advance to Gretna to help.
QC; That was a loan rather than an advance?
D:.. Beyond me. Ian Blair would be the best person to ask
QC: There were statements in the newspapers?
D: There’s a distinction between an ‘advance’ and a ‘loan’.
QC: Slightly different because it’s a loan
D: Bringing money due to be paid later, paying earlier.
QC: the (Rangers) Administrators were looking for the last tranche? If we look at JB 5 p.3890; these emails are to Ian Blair:
Simon Shipperlee to Blair:….release of advance
..time of next tranche
Hearts application for off-set
come back on point below, reason for stopping 12 June 2012
Response -payment arranged on Monday, revert about tranche, off-set refused
The para above that 13 June Shipperlee acknowledges 27 June update on funds, release of arrested tranche relates to share funds
This relates to McIntyre, earlier arrestment?
D: I can’t help on that one
QC: Do you know when the third tranche was released.
D: at the normal time.
QC: [ed: did not hear]
D; You’d have to speak to Blair.
QC: the SPL did not get back until 6 July 2012, letter from McKenzie, JB vol 5 p. ??40 : no further payment ..claim of breach of contract” Can you help with the detail of this?
D: No.
QC: You don’t mention this in your statement? Is there a reason for that?
D: The issues would have been dealt with by Rod McKenzie.
QC: but McKenzie is doing this on behalf of the SPL because Rangers had sold their assets to another company?
D: [ed. I missed his words}
QC: go to p.4121 McKenzie says the club can’t fulfill its fixtures, therefore breach of contracts, breach significant even in 20 Feb 2013?
D: there were the Sky contracts, clauses whereby both Celtic and Rangers had to be in the contract.
QC: There were other sponsor contracts?
D: Clydesdale Bank was likely to have that in its contract.
QC: 27 July 2012: The settlement of the 5-Way Agreement Were the SPL still under threat because Rangers wouldn’t be in the SPL?
D: It was a real issue, we had to do a deal with the SFL..
QC: Did that post-date the 5-Way?
D: I can’t be sure.
QC: Para 9.5-9.6 of your statement. You make some criticism of the Joint Administrators as to their lack of transparency. Would you agree that they put some bidders in contact?
D: Yes, an American bidder..
QC: Bill Miller. So the SPL could get access to Miller’s intentions?
D: Well, we could ask questions.
QC: The Blue Knights also and ? ?
D: I don’t recall.
QC: Broadly, the role of the SPL – the application to register Cousin, the disciplinary matter in respect of Dunfermline, the investigation into the EBTs, rule changes on Insolvency; do you understand how the Administrators were baffled and confused?
D: No. The matter concerned all members of the SPL.
QC: The bidders were dependent on approval of the transfer of the share?
D:..Yes.
QC: Sale and lease-back of the ground, they would need to approach the SPL?
D: Yes
QC: The Administrators if they wished to run into the following season , they would have to seek approval, a dispensation, a waiver…?
D: Yes.
QC: The obvious comparison is the Hearts Administration. Did Hearts’ under-19s have to play?
D: I can’t recall, I’m afraid.
[ed; there followed a silence for a space of time .]
Then
C: no more questions.
Lord Tyre: Mr McBrearty?
QC: On matters in England, you answered you have a ‘football creditors’ rule in England? See Vol 1, p.1163: a letter from Packer Young, the Administrators of Portsmouth on 2e September 2010 to all known members. Look at Section 6, on p.1166 : ‘cash flow’ “ in excess of 80 staff..”’ Do you see that?
D: Yes.
QC: On the next page you should see “Players’ Wages……imperative that players be sold” Are you familiar with that practice?
D:Certainly, Norwich I had experience, and Wimbledon too.
QC: p.1168 “ negotiations” see that? ‘List of players sold’ , p.1169 “compromise agreement with the following players” ? So it seems that ‘ “compromises” were possible for the players that were NOT to be sold, to sell players for a fee?
D: Yes, very common, I’d expect clubs to do that’
[ed: silence for a space]
QC: The last point, Mr Doncaster, Joint Bundle p.3526……no, my apologies, page 3256..’arrested funds’- an email from Blair about payment in June , Part 7 of an internal email to D&P “ ..£120,000… not aware of this issue..”
Are you..?
D: No
QC: Thank you Mr Doncaster, no more questions.
Lord Tyre: That concludes your testimony, Mr Doncaster, Thank you very much for making yourself available. You’re free to switch off now and leave us.
D: Thank you, m’Lord.
[ into ‘practice mode’ at 13.58 while next witness -Gordon Stewart- is lined up]
“No criminality has been established”
For criminality to have taken place someone within the vicinity would have to have been offended by what was said . Maybe they had difficulty establishing exactly who was singing the offensive words.
“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”
The doubling down of claiming they are now going to take legal action against those who they perceived had tarnished their reputations is laughable. The faux offended would not wish for any independent investigation into the validity of the video taking place.This is the same bullying tactics we saw with Kheredine when he doubted the validity of a 20m verbal offer for Morelos and then backtracked under orders from his BBC masters to claim he had seen evidence (of a verbal offer)
Threats,abuse,lies and cover ups , same old same old.
On the plus side well done to St Johnstone on a fantastic achievement
A further bit of my one-fingered typescript of my court notes;
BDO v RFC 2012plc(IA)
hearing on Wednesday 12 May 2021.
At 14.03, Mr Gordon Stewart was sworn in.
Mr Young QC: In para 4.3 of your statement, the launch of “Save Rangers” campaign. If we look in the Joint Bundle, vol 2, p.1892 -the main text, is this the document you are referring to at the start of the campaign , 3 main organisations?
S: yes
QC: Investment, meaningful fan ownership, tied in with RST objective for many years?
S: yes
QC: All monies should stay within the club?
S: Yes
QC: You insisted…Why?
S; I’m trying to remember , long time ago. We wanted no money to go to owners, but just for the club.
QC: Yes, on the page below you talk about being patient, to be ready- you saw you could look forward long time ?
S: Yes. The Administrators said ‘wait till there’s a plan
[ ed: I missed the next couple of exchanges. My next scribble is
… McCoist trusted, Sandy Jardine trusted..[ ed:I can’t tell from my note who was speaking]
QC: para 4.12 , pledges by 8 March 2012 from individuals
Alan McKenzie £1 million
p.3449 Mr X is in Australia?
S: I had no personal contact with him
QC :The McKenzie letter- an offer on some conditions?
S: Yes
QC: Some of the pledges were hoaxes.. from Celtic fans?
S: Yes, some.
QC: But some would be genuine but when pay-up time came some couldn’t deliver?
S: Yes.
QC: Some would back out if they didn’t like…[ed: didn’t hear his final words]
S: Yes
QC: 5.3 to 5.6. [ed: silence while the reference was found]
QC: [ed: I missed his short question]
S: [ed: and missed the short reply]
QC: ..pre-Administration , planning for fan ownership?
S: Yes.
QC: £30 million might be raised?
S: Yes.
QC: p.916 ‘under Andy Kerr assembly’ … who is Andy Kerr?
S: Head of the Rangers Assembly.
QC: Fans wanted to help, not all the way to fan ownership scheme?
S: The Assembly was controlled by the club.
QC; Fans would not contribute if monies were going back to Murray?
S: In 2010, yes. In 2012 times had changed.
QC: He wanted money to pay off debt?
S: But during an Administration you might have to pay [ed: I missed his words] ,,rather than buy players?
QC: Para 5.11- a rights issue made by SDM 2004/205. £1.2 million of supporters’ money, and look at JB p.1184: here is an internal email of 19 december 2012: “ 1. PC had a long chat with SJ
2. Sandy manages archive
disastrous £50 million offer, only £1 million in” Do you agree with that statement?
S: Yes. Can I elaborate?
QC: Yes.
S: SDM said he would underwrite . Let the rich pay!
QC: para 5.2: this is the IPO. You say “ ordinary fans £5million worth of shares,” That’s a better estimate estimate than pledges?
S: Yes. The IPO was at 4 weeks notice. To get that amount in was useful and impressive.
QC: There was a lot of groundwork in 2010, fans were primed for shares?
S:.. Yes.
QC: Do I understand that the organisations were in Blue Knights communication?
S:…. Yes
QC: No formal decision or agreement about what would happen if the Blue Knights…[ ed: I missed a bit] ..Very informal?
S:…Yes
QC: Money to purchase no…. [ed: missed the question]?
S: Money after purchase
QC: You were being assured that they had the cash?
S: yes
QC: Were they optimistic of a CVA?
S:….Yes, a CVA rather than Liquidation
QC: Were the pledges dependent on a CVA rather than other routes?
S:…. We never put any.. [ ed: didn’t hear the end of the sentence]
QC: Did the Blue Knights share with the groups?
S:… Not with me.
QC: Did they keep the groups up to date with the levels?
S: I don’t know.
QC: One obvious suggestion is that you should have made your own bid?
S:….. We shouldn’t compete with Blue Knights fans-we would piggy-back.
QC: Were they confident the Blue Knights would …..[ed: missed the end of the question]
S; Yes.
QC: If instead of Sevco the Blue Knights had won favour the groups would have been happy?
S: Yes.
QC: Let’s say the Blue Knights have the winning bid and the Joint Administrators came to fans and said “ we’ll sell the stand to you for £10 million?
S : No.
QC: Because there would be no point if the Blue Knights had the other [ ed; didnt hear the end of the question]
S:…..Yes.
QC: You would have been looking to buy the whole for £10 -15 million? ”Save Rangers” did not go into the Data Room?
S;…. No
QC: Were you aware of dates? [ed: my scribble looks like ‘dates’ but might be ‘data’]
S: No
QC: Assuming that the Joint Administrators were aware of the “Save Rangers” and thought you were part of the Blue Knights, why would they come to you?
S:…..We were told better not to, just save our money to buy players.
QC: para 6.11 . Where did you get the £10-15 million figures?
S; Just a ball-park figure.
++++
And here I have to stop: I hear the siren calls from Mrs C, and not being ,like Ulysses, secured to the mainmast with ears unplugged , I am free to respond to the compelling blandishments .
I’ll finish off the report of Stewart’s evidence tomorrow.
I believe Michael Stewart was correct when he suggested they should wait until the end of the season before handing out awards. The job done by St. Johnstone’s manager guiding a low budget club to two cups certainly bears noticing. What would the outcry have been like if a certain manager won two cups, but, didn’t win the league only to lose out in the awards department.
My post of 23rd May 2021 at 00:16
Here is the rest of my note of Gordon Stewart’s evidence during the BDO v RFC 2012 plc (IL),on Wednesday 12 May 2021
QC: para 6.11 . Where did you get the £10-15 million figures?
S; Just a ball-park figure.
QC: Turn to Ibrox and Murray Park, in your statement you mention ‘sale and lease-back’ at para 6.8.
Is it true that historically fans had concerns about Ibrox being separated,
S: 2003 matter- I couldn’t really add to my statement.
QC: Okay. But more recently concerns about Mike Ashley taking security over the stadium?
S: Yes, fans were very emotional.
QC: The fans simply would not accept a commercial organisation having ownership of Murray Park or Ibrox?
S; Yes.
QC: At 6.19.. “ if the Joint Administrators had approached us…we would have been interested.. we could have achieved “ Have you got any knowledge of whether the Joint Administrators knew formally about the pledges?
S: No.
QC:.The £10-15 million you mention, is that for the purchase of Ibrox?
S: [ed: I missed the response ]
QC: not tied to any valuation?
S: No.
QC: Ina break-up of assets sale Ibrox is only worth £3 million. Why would the RST be willing to pay £15 million?
Mr McBrearty [ objecting] Don’t answer ! M’Lord, that’s not a proper question- the witness is not an expert in property valuation.
Lord Tyre: In fairness, Mr Young…mention the ‘going concern’ valuation.
Mr Young: [ ed: addressing the witness] If it can be used for football, £30 million, without football, only £3 million.
S:.. Fans wouldn’t purchase it unless to play football.
Lord Tyre: I think that’s what I understood.
Mr Young: We know that Sevco bought the whole club for £5.5
S: Could you repeat the question again?
QC: We know Sevco bought all of the assets for £5’5 million. Would there have been fan concern at paying £15 million for only part- why did the fans no go for a bid?
S: We didn’t know. We thought it would go for far,far more.
The purchase price is all gone to the Creditors.
QC: It took 2 months to get the ‘pledges’ in?
S: the IPO money was raised within one month.
[ ed: I missed the next couple of exchanges because I had to answer the door to let the plumber in!]
QC: look at para 6.25- will you read it to yourelf first?
S:{ed:reads silently] Ok.
QC: What is the point being discussed here?
S: …about selling the club to a third party, fans wanting to make it legally our stadium
QC: If saving the stadium would not have been possible?
S: well, we wouldn’t have bothered; few fns think it is a new club.
QC: [ed: missed it]
S: [ed: missed the response]
QC: Would it be fair to say that the bidding process went on for a time?
S: Yes.
QC: There were concerns that the Football Authorities were not helpful?
S: Oh, yes.
QC: A longer period of Administration ?
S: [ ed: began to answer but Mr McBrearty intervened]…
McBrearty: Hold on, that’s hypothetical..
Lord Tyre: I’ll let it be asked subject to relevance and competence
[ ed; whatever the question and response I don’t have a note of it.I had to reach for a new sheet of paper and the question and answer were over before I was ready. Whatever it was, it was the last of Mr Young’s questions, and it was Mr McBrearty’s turn]
Mr McBrearty:Mr Stewart, you were asked about various investments…the IPO had brought in only £1 million. In your view how was that different?
S: Sir David Murraybwas going to underwrite that offer, so fans said, what’s the point in us getting involved. But in Administration we had to start thinking…[ed: I couldn’t catch his next words]
QC: The club was facing extinction in 2012-what difference would that have made?
S:::: It would be to keep the club going
QC: The IPO of 2012: your view was that £5 million raised by fans?
S: yes
QC; But Charles Green had bought the club?
S:: Yes, it was back on its feet.
QC: There were vexatious edges?
S: at least 100 ‘Craig Whyte’ pledges.
QC: You accept all of that?
S: Yes
QC: What would you have thought if the Administrators had put out an appeal to the fans, the offers are not at the right level, an appeal to purchase Ibrox? What would you have thought?
S: I would have struggled with the separation of assets, it would have been a difficult sell..
QC: the emotional owning of Ibrox outright.
S: Not having the football? It would get a bit more complicated.
QC: Would the fans accept third party ownership of the stadium?
S..: No.
QC: What would fans do in their discontent?
S..:…. boycotts of the club..
QC: There were times in the past when fans found things objectionable ; fans unhappy about an asset sale.Fans wouldn’t like the idea of Liquidation?
S: Yes.
QC: An asset sale not acceptable?
S: Yes.
QC assets would not be owned by the new company?
S: but the fact that the club would have been saved …that must have been acceptable?
S; Yes
QC: there were taunts about Sevco?
S: you get over it!
QC; 54 titles etc?
S: asset stripping would have caused problems.
QC: Fans would not have accepted a new
[ ed: again I was interrupted by domestic matters and missed the next couple of questions . I got back on the phone and put it on ‘speaker ‘ again, to hear..]
QC: Just a moment , m’Lord… Mr Stewart, you were asked how long it might have taken to plan to buy Ibrox. Look at 2.1, 2.2 of your statement.
AT 2.2 there is “ Supporters Direct”’s part: were they are a resource available to them…the proposal to go to them to purchase..
Mr Young QC: [objecting] M’Lord- I asked no question about Sport Direct.
Mr McBrearty: [ed: missed it]
Lord Tyre: I took the question as following on from the Sports Direct reference. Put the question again, Mr McBrearty , and Mr Young can question it if he need s to.
McBrearty: Mr Young suggested it might take time to raise money from the fans. If the Administrators had drawn up a lease-back ..
Lord Tyre: I’ll allow the question.
S:: m’Lord, I don’t…..
Lord Tyre: The question is: if the Administrators had provided a lease would that have helped in terms of the time-scale?
S: Yes.
Mr McB: No further questions.
Lord Tyre: Thank you Mr Stewart for making yourself available. You’re free to switch off and leave us.
S: Thank you.
Lord Tyre: Court adjourned until 5.00 pm.
Did I hear the commentator at the Brechin v Kelty game while referring to Barry Ferguson’s celebrations after Kelty’s goal, say that the delighted Barry Ferguson is worth millions?
Didn’t he self-declare personal bankruptcy, unable to pay huge debt, giving the same two-fingers to the tax-man as he gave to the Scottish national team?
Another fallout from the RFC/TRFC/RIFC saga ?
John Clark 23rd May 2021 At 15:24
QC: The club was facing extinction in 2012-what difference would that have made?
QC: There were times in the past when fans found things objectionable ; fans unhappy about an asset sale.Fans wouldn’t like the idea of Liquidation?
S: Yes.
…………………………………..These days the fans don’t believe a club can become extinct. And the fans don’t remember the idea of liquidation.
……………………
Thanks again JC
Sorry , it appears I forgot this bit
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57221516
Paddy Malarkey 23rd May 2021 At 23:34
‘…Sorry , it appears I forgot this bit’
+++++++++
I’ve just this minute taken a break from typing up my notes of the BDO hearing on 12 May ..and I read what’s on the link you provided.
My gut feeling? There has been dirty, dirty work at the crossroads.
Are we really back in 1560?
For the sake of a cheating football club now dead ,and the phoney TRFC?
Honest to God, there’s a Scandinavian ‘saga’ there.(I reserve the authorial rights!]
And what a burden of guilt lies on the shoulders of those in football governance who kow-towed for the basest of reasons to those who lied and cheated, and who continue to permit a new football club to claim to be what it is not.
Craven cowardice incarnated, and, of course, they know it.
May they never sleep easily, aware of their fundamental rottenness.
As they just couldn’t wait for the “year” to end before giving out manager of the year maybe they could make amends by issuing an outstanding achievement award to St Johnstone football club .
John Hughes steps down. Barry Ferguson steps down.
I would be surprised if the Hughes to Celtic backroom staff (which is doing the rounds) is true – but Barry Ferguson to Ross County anyone?
Bect67. 24th May 18.57.
Not Ross County but Alloa.
Bect67 24th May 2021 At 18:57
Add Mickey Mellon stepping down at Dundee United to that list , along with Peter Grant from Alloa and Jim Duffy from Dumbarton and we have musical chairs in Scottish managerial circles .
My post of 19th May 2021 At 20:15 refers.
[Mr Walder (in California) began giving evidence at 5.00 p.m UK time on Tuesday 11 May, and that post has my note of that evening’s hearing.
On Wednesday 12 May , again at 5.00 p.m , his evidence-giving hearing was continued. This present post is my report of that continuance]
“Continuation at 5.00 pm UK time on Wednesday 12 May 2021 of Mr Walder’s examination which began on Tuesday 11 May 2021.
Mr McBrearty QC: Mr Walder, if we look at Vol 3,p.1094- Wage reductions email: which players agreed to wage reductions and the exact agreement, for example, are players entitled to leave at the end of the season at a reduced sale value… email: Singapore consortium enquiring about nature of agreement, information in the Data Room. Were wage reductions still to be in place when a new purchaser took over?
The wages would have returned to normal?
Walder: That was the case
QC: Individual assets: for some?
W: Yes
QC: Steve McKenna?
W: Yes, I recall the name, but not details
QC: He followed up on his bid. Look at the email in Vol 3 p.3548: you should see 3 April an email to you from Chris Tulip [ed: ?] “Murray Park I have been asked to value £10 million, 22 acres”?
W:…Yes
QC : “ heads of term are well known”
W: Yes
QC: p.3547 your response on 3 April “ Thank you for your proposals…proof of funds provided…”
W: Yes.
QC: p.3546, email from Steve McKenna himself “ Charles offer is based on planning permission for 22 acres..”
W;…Yes
QC: Confirming to you?
W: Yes
QC; Attempting to gain planning permission over some of the area, leaving room for football?
W: Yes
QC: McKenna emailed re offer for the car park, debenture seats and land at Ibrox. Your response to that …and an email from McKenna to you on 17 April?
W: Yes, an email from you to Steve”
QC: he states he has 3 offers for Murray Park. At p.3479 “Your offers have been noted but note that the Joint Administrators are looking to sell all of the ssets on a ‘going concern’ basis or a CVA Their strategy…”
W: I…
QC: His email is ‘noted’ and you’re not interested?
W: [ ed: I don’t know if he made any response
QC: Later McKenna made a bid with a third prty looking for lease-back of Ibrox. Vol4 p.3577 an email to you on 11 May: total payment of £9.5 million over a period of time?
W: Yes
QC: and then about debentures
W: Yes
QC: then restructure of leadership at Rangers?
W: Yes
QC: Then an email to Charles Walders from Steve McKenna “.can you give me a call?” and then an email from M. Rothbart forwarded to you 10 May and we have there “Dear Steve , I have revised …… an offer Ibrox Stadium and training ground £14.185 million, lease-back £1.8 million per annum, club entitled to buy back after 10 years, rent review every 5 years from Maurice Lambard..” See that?
W: Yes.
QC: So a proposal of offer for sale and lease back of stadium
W: Yes
QC: Other assets generally?
W: Not specifically Murray Park
QC: Spreadsheet 46: various tabs, tab headed ‘Assets’, title at the top shows “ D &P buyers list”?
W: Yes
QC: Do you recall the purpose of this spreadsheet?
W:…To track interest from potential parties
QC: The tab to the left, headed ‘Club’–Brian Kennedy, Sounness ,contacted D&P…. Looks as though that’s the tab showing bidders for the club as a whole?
W: Yes
QC: Look at number 3 on the other tab: Alan McBeth of DTZ property consultants “ Client interested in Murray Park” next column, stay away from Rab ( Celtic fan), 2 or 4 columns headed ‘Contacts’ What’s inserted there 15 February , the day after the Administrators were appointed “Advised Alan McBeth we’ll be pursuing ‘going concern’ but will come back to you in due course’
Number 10 on spreadsheet: ‘interest in Albion Car Park’ : comments made: 21 February email re going concern, but if assets sold on break-up will get back” Consistent with previous.
Rodney White of McGrigor’s: Murray Park interest 1 March “CXW called, not for sale, i.e for future reference. ?
W:…..Yes
QC: the Joint Administrators were not thinking of separate sale of assets, agree?
W:…Yes
QC: Kenten? Who is he?[ed: the name sounded like Kenten, Kenton, some such]
W: with D&P
QC: Did you work with him?
W:.. Yes
QC: Did you take advice from him?
W:…. There was contact with Paul
W: Let’s look at the email chain: Vol 4, 9396 , email Paul Tenten to PC, copied to you: “Hi, Paul, review of Rangers process with Paul Kenten . Dual track process and IPO and share issue 100 000 mad fans who could put up 500 quid each” Don’t rush the sale process. The more time we have the more bids we might get. Charles will be able to provide more detail” Remember Paul Murray? Who he was?
W: Yes, formerly involved with Rangers , leading the Blue Knights
QC: Associated with the Blue Knights
W:…Yes
QC: Vol 2, p. 3791, at the top: an email you sent to David Whitehouse, copy to Paul Clark 3 March “ prior to meeting with Paul Murray .. see…” and you refer to your email of 01 March to Paul Clark: “I had a conversation with Paul Murray…He’s keen to meet you. He has been a vocal critic of Craig Whyte” The security was a problem and Murray was concerned that Whyte would not deal with him. Any CVA would have to be higher than Liquidation?
W: Yes
QC: Vol 3, p.2887, email 29 March from you to Paul Clark, David Whitehouse, and others: “ The process letter has been sent to…..Blue Knights/Ticketus I have tried Ross Brian [Ticketus] I have spoken to Brian about whether he has spoken to CW about his shares”
W:…Yes.
QC: following page, it starts “Paul Murray: I spoke to him to allay his fears that Whyte wouldn’t sell to him, that Whyte would block … Paul asked why we had not got the shares already.”
W:…. Yes.
QC: Let’s look at p.1594 [ed: I may have misheard that reference] email from Paul Murray copy to C Walder? See it?
W:…Yes
QC: “ Gents, where are we with Whyte and the transfer of shares?” You’re not a recipient of that email?
W:.. Yes
QC: David Whitehouse to Paul Murray “ copy to C Walder who had a sensible discussion with CW about transfer”
W:. That rings a bell.
QC: [ed: I missed the question]
W:…[ed: and missed the response]
QC: email 02 April “ of course I am. I spoke to Mario and he said CW was not handing the shares over” Who was Mario?
W:.. I can’t recall
QC: an email from you to Paul Murray “ this is contrary to what Ticketus said last week”
W:…. yes
QC: You then emailed Ticketus and they remained confident they would get Whyte’s shares. Paul Murray emails you, copy David Whitehouse….. why didn’t you commence action against Whyte?
W: [ ed: I have no note of a response]
QC: to get the shares from Whyte?
W: [ ed: I have a ‘yes’ as the response]
QC: So 7 weeks in, there is dissatisfaction about the shares? Look at Witness statement , page 427. I’m going to allow you to read it to yourself
W:…Yes
QC: 7.21, 7.22, see that okay?
W: Yes
QC: Is it fair , 11/12 April to say concern about the viability of bids from Blue Knights and Ticketus together?
W: There was uncertainty.
QC: Ticketus were going with the Blue Knights?
W: Yes
QC: There was a lack of cohesion between Ticketus and the Blue Knights?
W:….Yes. Question marks.
QC: The Singapore consortium withdrew?
W: .. I don’t recall whether they did or were unsuccessful
QC: Vol 4 p.236 email from you 15 April to D&P colleague. “ Paul Saunders [ ed; sounded like that] called. Ticketus refusing to release his shares to PM. It feels like CW has everyone where he wants..”
W: Yes.
QC: your last sentence was your opinion?
W: yes.
QC: vol 4, 316, a day on. email from you to D&P colleague 16 April “ update. Singapore intend to withdraw. Not happy that they would need to rely on a creditor. Administrators should be guaranteeing…”
W; Yes
QC: both Paul Murray and Saunders , both unhappy?
W:….Yes
QC: 20 April, Singapore withdrew over concerns about the deliverability of shares and Whyte. Friday 20 April: email from you telling of that?
W:….Yes
QC: Bill Miller, the preferred bidder at one stage?
W: Yes
QC: He pulled out 08 May 2012. look at 4.2475 , email from Archie Paton at Tupco.com “ we’re on the calc. Ken is just running through the figures” Was Paton an associate of Miller?
W: Yes
QC: Was ‘Ken’ Ken Olverman?
W:.. [ ed; I have no note whether there was a reply]
QC: It’s a fair inference it was Ken Olverman?
W: yes
QC : Paton seems to be asking if Roberts is saying Bill Miller is no longer interested “ just had Bill and …” That was Miller out?
W:…Yes
QC: email to Simon Shipperlee , he responds to you. Page 2582 your response to him: 10.30, Friday night “W just called me blaming it on the forecast , apparently figures that were not in the data room., and unbelievably W is blaming me” Do you recall?
W:… er, er…
QC: 2591. email from David Whitehouse to Ally McCoist , “ Bill is back in” Does that ring a bell?
W:…No
QC: P.2595 email at top, from Ken to you, copy Peter Hart 12.34, 5 May “ Hopefully narrative makes clear” email address to Archie, the same Archie?
W: Yes
QC: “the model was rushed not fully reviewed” So you had been asked to get on with Ken to review and send more financial information?
W: Yes
QC: Vol 4 p. 6209 On 6 May: from DW to you, copy Paul Cark, Sarah Bell.. “Bill’s nervousness is around the £30 million cash hole…..if purchasers are making wrong assumptions ….the bidding is running away from us.” A cash hole?
W: I disagree
QC: Why?
W: Based on my view ..
Q: Why can you disagree when you’ve agreed all the other emails?
W:…I don’t recall feeling it was running away from us.
QC: p.2623 This is an email from you on 6 May “David, John ( Pritchard, adviser to Bill Miller) not responded. He is due to call Ken directly. The issue is this £30 million cash hole…They need me there…We need to get to the bottom of cash hole. Timescales are tight” Recall?
W: Yes
QC: p. 2622 6 May – “David- please get Ken to get Walder into the case [ ed: or my scribble might be ‘call’] There is no cash hole “ Do you think that is a fraught email from Mr Whitehouse?
W: [ed: I can’t tell whether there was a response]
QC: Some confusion as to company’s cash position?
W: The cash position is related to post-Administration period, related to diligence…
QC: Do you agree there was confusion?
W: ?
QC: post-Administration…
QC: “ I am conscious of the £20 million cash hole?” Was there confusion?
W:…. As it relates to ? [ ed: didn’t hear ] ? Yes
QC: What was the attitude of the team? Did they share the confusion?
W:…. No.
QC: 8 May was when Miller pulled out. Email at top of the page, you to Peter Hart and Simon Shipperlee “ I should probably fly up to keep David happy” That’s what you’re telling us.
Your response “Ha Ha, Agreed. I’ll fly up later tonight”
QC: There was a need to agree that the three of you be covered?
W : I don’t recollect, it could be me agreeing to other aspects..
QC: getting up early?
W: I don’t recall specifically.
QC: Bill Miller pulled out. Agreement with Sevco on 12 May. By that time Miller was not the only bidder. From your interim statement , Brian Kennedy was still a bidder. Have you forgotten that?
W: [Ed: missed his reply]
QC: What do you recall of Ally McCoist?
W: in what respect?
QC: Following Miller’s dropping out. At 7.76 , you “ Ally McCoist, Brian Kennedy still bidders” ?
W: I don’t recall.
QC: Your interim statement -Singapore withdrew Do you remember when Brian Bohan [ed: sounded like that] 9 May 2012 was “ one of the…..they did not want to be a bidder as such but would step in..”
W: I agree.
QC: Do you recall another bid?
W: No.
QC: Vol 4 p.2929 email : was sent on 9 May to Ryan Murray from Howard Clark Burton on 9 May “ non-disclosure agreement”
p.2928 , the reply “ Howard you’re very late…if time allows….signed Paul Clark” Do you recall?
W: I don’t recall
QC:…..Mr Frank Stronach , possible bid?
W: [ed: missed any reply]
QC: Do you recall contact with Alistair McCoist, Walter Smith?
W: No
QC: if the suggestion was that Charles green was the only bidder, that would be wrong?
W:: I agree.
QC; No further questions.
Lord Tyre: Mr Young?
Mr Young QC: Are you happy that the statement you signed is still okay?
W; Yes
W: This is a series of emails on 3 April between McKenna and you. The one in the middle “ the funding of £10 million proof of funding” Was it ever sent to you?
W: I don’t recall.
QC: JB , p.4672- this is where you are narrating the main reason why the Singapore consortium pulled out “ Sharsad Can you recall whether Singapore criticised the Administrators..”
You reply that you don’t recall
4.6257 email to you and David Whitehouse from Paul Clark, reference to Frank Stronach
4.6258 7 May- you tell Paul Clark that you’ve spoken to Stronach , but he didn’t want to speak to Stronach. Have you any other recollection of speaking to Stronach?
W: no
Mr Young: That’s all.
Lord Tyre: Mr McBrearty?
McBrearty QC: No questions, m’Lord.
Lord Tyre: You’re free to sign out, Mr Walder. Thank you.
[And to the QCs]: we revert to normal timings? 10.00 a.m tomorrow.
Mike Ashley v Rangers in court again tomorrow.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/royal-courts-of-justice-cause-list/royal-courts-of-justice-daily-cause-list
Does anyone know what has actually been decided in this case yet? Is Ashley entitled to damages as ruled by the court and Rangers are appealing? It seems to have gone on forever.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19325751.rangers-administrator-denies-craig-whyte-calling-shots-5-5m-sale-charles-greens-sevco/
…………………..
A FORMER Rangers administrator has denied controversial former owner Craig Whyte had control of the selling of the club after its financial collapse and has defended a failure to seek a break-up sale including Ibrox to bring in more money to pay the thousands owed millions.
Paul Clark, who was one of the joint administrators of Rangers when the club financially imploded denied failure as an “ordinarily competent administrator acting with reasonable skill and care” through not controlling the sale process, not getting a valuation report on the club brand and not securing Mr Whyte’s shares.
upthehoops 25th May 2021 At 17:08
……………….
Judge gave both parties a period of meditation to see if they could come to an agreement. Ashley has the money to bide his time.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/19325815.sfa-chief-defends-rangers-george-square-unrest-dismisses-politicians-unfair-calls-strict-liability/
……………………..
SFA chief executive Ian Maxwell has absolved Rangers of any blame for the trouble that flared in Glasgow city centre after the Ibrox club were presented with the Premiership trophy earlier this month and dismissed politicians’ demands for “strict liability”.
MSPs James Dornan, Patrick Harvie and Humza Yousaf all called for strict liability – which punishes clubs for supporters’ actions with fines, point deductions and stadum closures regardless of the preventative measures they have put in place – to be introduced following the unrest.
………………………………..
The SFA are very afraid of strict Liability.
Cluster One 25th May 2021 At 17:33
Judge gave both parties a period of meditation to see if they could come to an agreement. Ashley has the money to bide his time.
+++++++++++++++++++++++
So I’m guessing they haven’t been able to agree if it’s still running? Also, whatever the outcome I assume it will be kicked down the road to the next appeal stage.
upthehoops 25th May 2021 At 18:22
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2021/103.html&query=(SDI)+AND+(retail)+AND+(services
………………………………..
Any member of the public wishing to attend a remote hearing should provide an email address and contact number to be sent an appropriate link for access. please contact QBMastersLisitng.@justice.gov.uk putting the hearing date and time in the subject box.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/royal-courts-of-justice-cause-list/royal-courts-of-justice-daily-cause-list
4.5 Notices of judgment
John Clark 24th May 2021 At 22:20
………………………….
Thanks again JC
Its now been a week and a half since the George Square demonstration. Is there any news on a spike in covid cases in and around Glasgow. Surely the main stream media will be giving this issue their full and undivided attention.
Vernallen 26th May 02.27
No spike in cases which is similar to the March celebrations.
Albertz11
Haud oan a meenit!
I’m reliably informed/have it from my sources that the increase in cases in Clackmannanshire was down to the local Sevco Loyal running riot after the recent triumphalism!!
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/19329152.rangers-administrator-says-valuing-club-16m-waste-money-sevco-got-nothing/
…………………………………..
A former Rangers administrator has insisted valuing the club brand was a “waste of money” after it emerged that it was effectively given away for nothing before being valued at £16m.
Paul Clark, who was one of the joint administrators of Rangers when the club financially imploded in 2012, has spoken out as he and David Whitehouse of Duff and Phelps are being made sued for £56.8m by Rangers oldco liquidators BDO which says their flawed cost-cutting strategy meant creditors lost millions from the handling of the club’s financial implosion.
vernallen 26th May 2021 At 02:27
…………………………….
Last time it was reported there was a spike and that police attending the first carnage had reported an increase in officers with covid positive who had attended.
Not heard much reported this time though.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-56465540
Dozens of police officers have been forced to self-isolate after some positive Covid cases two weeks after Rangers’ title win.
The Scottish Police Federation (SPF) said a number of officers who attended illegal gatherings of fans on 7 March have tested positive.
……………………………….
To late to Edit.
Albertz11
See Cluster One’s post @ 18.05.
Bect67
March ?
Glasgow and area are extremely lucky to have escaped a spike in covid case since the two George Square demonstrations. Has testing continued to see if the virus is spreading or has testing fallen off. Where I live we were in relatively good shape and boom a rash of outbreaks saw us having cases numbering in the 100’s on a daily basis. This led to a rush of testing which taxed the system greatly. Cases are now falling in dramatic fashion and so has the testing numbers. These items make it difficult to get a true reading on what’s actually going on. The post regarding the number of police self isolating was interesting. Would this lead to another unseen cost attributed to the demonstrations. If you have a number of officers off surely the overtime must have been available in abundance. Just another cost someone has to bear in relation to the demonstrations.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/790.html
The SDIR v TRFC case was an appeal by SDIR to confirm that TRFC could not profit from the Elite/Hummel deal. TRFC had interpreted an earlier injunction differently from SDIR and sought to sue Elite for monies due.
The three judges concluded, by a majority decision, to accept the SDIR appeal and their interpretation of the earlier injunction.
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/phs.covid.19/viz/COVID-19DailyDashboard_15960160643010/Overview
a spike in cases in Glasgow and North Lanarkshire giving those areas double (pro rata) the rest of the country.
It’s quite common that symptoms can take 1-2 weeks to appear after transmission occurs
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19331308.rangers-administrator-said-fans-bid-club-akin-herding-cats/
…………………
A Rangers administrator said fans’ attempts to be involved in the purchase of Rangers were “akin to herding cats” and had referred to one supporters’ representative as a “c*ck”.
David Whitehouse of Duff and Phelps spoke out as liquidators of the club business accused him of giving no consideration to Ibrox or the training ground Murray Park being bought by a fan trust.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19331325.rangers-administrator-admits-inappropriate-talks-craig-whyte-described-like-lads-pub/
…………………
FORMER Rangers administrator David Whitehouse admitted that some conversation with controversial former owner Craig Whyte were not appropriate after being accused of treating one meeting “like lads in the pub”.
He has joined Duff and Phelps colleague Paul Clark in denying they had lost control while Mr Whyte had control of the selling of the club after its financial collapse.
The begging bowl is being held out once again by “The Scotsman”.
Today we have this:
“ With the exponential increase in unverified claims and inaccurate news made available through social media in the last decades, it is vital the public can find sources of news they can trust”.
So says Mr Sam Shedden (“ engagement” editor) in his piece on page 2
Yes, it is, Mr Shedden, I couldn’t agree with you more!
My difficulty is that I cannot see that “ The Scotsman” is entitled to be counted among ‘sources of news that can be trusted’.
For, in the very same edition of the newspaper in which you speak of ‘trust’, there are several instances of the propagation of a ludicrous sporting untruth, namely, that the Rangers Football Club founded in 1872 somehow did not lose its entitlement to participate in Scottish football when it HAD to surrender its share in the SPL on entering Liquidation, and in consequence ,lost its membership of the SFA! -an untruth so manifestly untrue as to be laughable if it were not such a pernicious and perverted untruth.
The propagation of that untruth is further compounded by propagation of the untruth that The Rangers Football Club that was founded and admitted into Scottish Football in 2012 and is managed currently by Steven Gerrard , is somehow 140-odd years old and has a history of sporting success stretching back that far!
Thus we have Andy Newport on page 61 : “ Demand to see Steven Gerrard’s team back in action …is soaring on the back of a 55th Scottish championship”, and quoting without comment other propagandists of untruth “…It’s been our job to do what we’ve done-deliver 55….” , and
“ Let’s do 56 and celebrate 150 … winning 56 in the 150th year will be enormously important.”
“The Scotsman”, rather than beg for money to help it survive in the pretence that it cares for truth, should take a right good hard look at itself , man-up , and show a fraction of the courage that real journalists show in risking death in pursuit of truth ,as opposed to the shameful cowardice shown by ‘he Scotsman’ in reporting truth in a matter of mere ‘Sport’
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/SDI-v-Rangers-judgment.pdf
…………………..
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 27 May 2021
So what is expected to happen now with SDI v Rangers (IL).
Will damages be paid out anytime soon. Is there another court date due. I only ask as I know this case will not be recorded/discussed by our msm.
Lurkio 27th May 2021 At 12:07
Cluster One 27th May 2021 At 23:06
+++++++++++
Thanks for the link, gentlemen.
Huge legal costs already and only a 2-1 majority? Worth a punt at an appeal to the Supreme Court (UK)?
The observation at para 24 of the judgment is, I think, quite telling. Says it all , really, in my opinion.
mine of a few mins ago: slip of the keyboard not para 24 but para 14!
For them as missed it –
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57286385
The shambles that is the Celtic Football Club just now is astounding. Their fans laughed at Dave King’s comments re: tumbling like a pack of cards is coming back to haunt them. Somebody had to be asleep at the wheel in the protracted negotiations with Eddie Howe, or, they were leading the fans and media on regarding the level of interest. This is a multi million pound business and the action of lack thereof from the board is highly questionable. Who was in charge, surely not the self proclaimed football wizard and CEO whose departure can’t come soon enough, is the major shareholder behind the snafu, as John Brown roared at one point, who are these people. The mainstream media have a buffet table full of leads to follow and provide more misery for Celtic fans. Of course this may require some serious work on their part but I’m sure they will gleefully cover this from every angle and with every pundit with a link to Ibrox providing their two cents worth. Celtic need their PR people out in front of this with an honest and sincere explanation. Does the report of the backroom staff not wanting to relocate have anything to do with the George Square demonstrations.
I wonder what those of you who have read the SDI Retail judgment make of this ;
Paragraph 61 : “Rangers pointed out that it was “fortunate” that the Judge was available to consider the issue, but did not rely upon the fact that the Judge was interpreting his own order in the context of his own judgments, and rightly so. Apart from the fact that the objective nature of the exercise forbids that subjective consideration (not least because the proper interpretation cannot depend in the slightest on whether or not the judge who made the order is the judge interpreting it),..”
What do I make of it?
What other than that Counsel for ‘Rangers’ may have been acting the goat, sort of sneakily making implications without the balls to come out with what he was implying.
I may, of course, be entirely wrong .
But I was cheered by the fact that the Court slapped the idea down. [I would privately hope that the Master of the Rolls would be having a word in the ear…]
valentinesclown 28th May 2021 At 10:52
………………..
Get back to me next year
Vernallen 28th May 2021 At 22:53
‘..Does the report of the backroom staff not wanting to relocate have anything to do with the George Square demonstrations.’
++++++++++++
That’s a possibility , of course, and not to be discounted.
But more importantly, in my view, is the question of what does Howe’s dependence on his backroom staff say about him?
A leader who can’t lead if he’s out of his comfort zone?
A leader so dependent on his subordinates as not to see himself capable of finding equally good other subordinates?
A vacillating ditherer, unable to solve a problem and arrive at a conclusion without stringing people along ?
What the hell kind of ‘manager’ is he?
And who in hell on the Celtic board authorised that farcical recruitment exercise and allowed it to continue for so long, with a candidate who, in the end, proved himself [in my opinion] to be a temporiser, a weakling not in charge of himself , with half-heartedness and no discernible sense of commitment?
All other things being equal, guys like Callum Davidson and John Hughes have more oomph about them than the Howes of this world.
John Clark May 28th 2021 22:53
Some very interesting and valid points raised in your comments. If only someone on the board had the wherewithal to raise those points or are they all cowed and enjoy the perks of being a board member with little to do. Shareholders might want to raise the question if the board has actually filled their duties and obligations in a forthright manner. Based on the last few months it would appear that any sense of fulfilling their responsibilities have gone out the window. Then again this board appears to give the shareholders a cold shoulder when questions are raised. Perhaps the Resolution group might want to take a shot.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19337681.rangers-lose-right-2-8m-merchandise-income-due-mike-ashley-legal-block/
………………………………………..
Rangers loses right to £2.8m of merchandise income due to Mike Ashley legal block
RANGERS have lost the right to take legal action to force the receipt of two years income from its own branded merchandise worth millions after Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct won a legal block.
The Ibrox club launched a legal bid last year to get back more than £2.8m it says it is owed through its merchandise deal with sports firm Hummel in a row over replica shirt sales
Test.
I’ve struggled to post the last couple of days for some reason. Test.
I agree with JC on whether Howe would have the appetite for Celtic. Whilst huge questions over board during the process, I think Celtic may have dodged a bullet with Howe.
I do think home grown talent gets overlooked for the exotic and or big name (who will ALWAYS see Scotland as a stepping stone). There are two obvious talented and hungry Scottish managers who should be given full consideration in Ross and Davidson – sorry Hibs and Saints fans!
A bit of deckchair moving from UEFA ?
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/sport/19338150.uefa-scrap-away-goals-rule-european-club-competitions/
@Paddy Malarkey – whilst it’s hard to argue with UEFAs logic based on goals being scored, travel being easier, refs better, etc what this does is make it harder for the little guys to knock out Goliath. A surprise 2-0 at home would put the pressure on (especially defensively) for the big boys. Downgrading away goals on balance favours the favourite as it becomes two equal games.
Wokingcelt 29th May 2021 At 22:55
‘.. Downgrading away goals on balance favours the favourite as it becomes two equal games.’
++++++++++++++
The notion of handicapping in horse-racing has always puzzled me. Never really understood it.
If I have a fast horse and bet you that it will beat your horse , why should I allow you to say that my horse should carry extra weight?
You might respond that it makes the competition fair.
But how , I ask, is it then a meaningful sporting competition?
If factors other than the fact that my horse runs faster than yours are given any place, what price sporting competition?
In 1965 I was in my twenties, and thought then that the ‘away goals ‘rule was nonsense and that it introduced a notion of ‘handicapping’ that was foreign to the sport, however much it was customary in ‘sports’ such as golf and horse racing.
The whole point of sport as sport is genuine competition, not artificially arranged ‘equality’ in competition? Am I right, or a meringue?
If I remember correctly the away goals rule was introduced to encourage the away team to attack more and try to score rather than simply “park the bus “ .
My gripe with the rule was that when the tie was even it continued into extra time , giving the away team a clear advantage .
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19338512.revealed-secret-taxman-gameplan-liquidate-rangers/?ref=ebln?c=i38rp6
……………………
THE taxman had a secret gameplan to push Rangers towards liquidation weeks before its financial implosion so there could be a full investigation over the non-payment of millions of pounds in tax, it has emerged.
Details of HM Revenue & Customs’s role as the club financially collapsed show how they wanted to avoid having the business remain under the control of Craig Whyte, whose nine month tenure of the club led to it falling into administration in 2012.
Cluster One 30th May 2021 At 09:55
‘…The taxman had a secret gameplan …’
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“…….as the club financially collapsed..”
Truth will out, won’t it, even subconsciously!
The Herald knows, the entire SMSM including the BBC knows, the SFA and the members of the SPFL know, and the man in the pub knows that it was RFC of 1872 that died the death of Liquidation, not some ‘holding company’.
The ridiculous lie that TRFC is the angers Football Club is an assault on reason and truth that is truly as shameful as it it is ludicrous.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57299624
So Henry McLeish is to be involved (again) in yet another review of Scottish Football. What is the point? Personally I wouldn’t care if I never heard a thing from this man again. To clarify, I do not wish any ill will on him, I just think it’s time to recognise he has nothing to offer.
Any review of the game which does not address the criminality, fraud and corruption in the game is of lesser value than a chocolate fireguard.
They will have the MSM inside of course. McLeish will be open to a payday -despite the fact that his last report was ignored.
Just another day at Hampden.
Big Pink 30th May 2021 At 22:06
Same old , same old . Maybe them and such as them believe that we’ve forgotten that McLeish has already produced a report that was widely ignored , especially by themselves . They need to pay for an independant investigation into the whole of Scottish football , including the professional referees’ set up and training , the incompetence and corruption across the board , the bowling club management , the secrecy and the favouritism . It should not have been set up for the benefit of the two biggest clubs to the detriment of others . We have to share the available income more equitably among the surviving clubs . We also have to improve the product by , among other things , getting rid of plastic pitches in the top division at least .
Test
@JC – I’ve no argument with your purity of sport point. However the European competitions are already rigged in favour of the big clubs/big countries. Why should performances in prior years (and of other clubs in your country and not just your own) secure direct/earlier entry? Why have seedlings? Removing away goals on balance helps the bigger clubs.
Then again I have felt for many years that UEFA have adopted a Strictly Come Dancing/X-Factor format with cannon fodder for comedy value whilst we get to the final 8 that you could have picked at the outset.
Re the fairly and widespread and rather negative, reporting around Ange Postecoglu’s lack of UEFA Pro Licence as an obstacle to coming to Celtic ..
…could someone please remind me of the similar hysterical drama surrounding Gerro’ s(lack of ?) qualifications before taking over at Sevco – and any major issues that caused?
I’m trying to recall what, if any, qualifications he had.
I appreciate that no one in the honest, intrepid media is trying to undermine CFC’;s attempts to appoint him.
Big Pink 30th May 2021 At 22:06
Any review of the game which does not address the criminality, fraud and corruption in the game is of lesser value than a chocolate fireguard. They will have the MSM inside of course. McLeish will be open to a payday -despite the fact that his last report was ignored. Just another day at Hampden.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Absolutely spot on. In 2017 the SFA had a chance to get everything out in the open then move on from it, although some heads may have rolled. Instead they didn’t want to ‘rake over old coals’. Well, those old coals still seem to be burning.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57304063
Will Eddie Howe ever be approached again for a top level management job. I believe there is enough blame to go around for both parties involved in this farce. It’s like something out of the old movie, The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight. Other reports indicate a memorandum of agreement was in place but apparently looked like a piece of swiss cheese with many opportunities to back out. Who crafted such an agreement, surely a club with the resources of Celtic could afford a lawyer skilled enough to produce a document that was leak proof. As for Howe if he had a back up plan it will be interesting to see if, when and where he lands.
Vernallen 31st May 2021 At 22:45
Today’s Daily Record are reporting that part of Eddie Howe’s decision was based on Peter Lawell’s house being attacked. I have no idea if that is true, but if it is then that has to be a worry. However, the other thing springing to mind is it might just have been a convenient thing to add for a man who never really wanted to move to Scotland? I guess we’ll never really know because all any media outlet has to say is ‘we understand that…’, or ‘sources close to…, and they can then say what they want. This of course gives some leeway to people who want to maliciously attack or defend an individual or club. That is why I no longer buy newspapers – at times they are no better than the crap you read on social media. Some of what they print is probably taken from social media.
UTH
Simply put,that ‘guff’ is just part of the historic anti-Celtic narrative and agenda – present since CFC’s founding in 1888.
Academics such as Tom Devine are deluding themselves if they think that this has disappeared.
It is alive and thriving.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57313879
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57315647
Wrt the share issue to fans, looks like Club1872 are no longer picking up the slack and are sticking to the deal to buy King’s shares, and there is a lack of staunchness among the directors in funding the defecit. I can envisage fans having to choose between the two, and opine that Club1872 will haemorrhage members..
Everyone , Everyone with at least £500 to spare after other outgoings? Looks a wee bit less than inclusive to me.
Is this share offer (!) earmarked for Big Mike?
Wonder if he’ll seek to ‘ringfence’ it (tongue considerably in cheek – but who knows!?)?
Paddy Malarkey 1st June 2021 At 12:45
‘..https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57315647‘
++++++++++++++++==
From the link you provided.
Chairman Douglas Park said: “Rangers has been here for 150 years and it’s vital that we future-proof the next 150 years. By widening the ownership to a broader base of like-minded supporters and shareholders, we feel it helps put the club on an even stronger footing going forward.”
Nothing like losing an expensive court case to make one whistle even louder to drown out the truth, eh, what?
Honest to God how can they live with themselves?
When your board resort to lies and especially members who run businesses and understand how not paying debts will be the end of your business, then you know that TheRangers new club fans are just as stupid as the old club fans, fools and their money as they say.
“Chairman Douglas Park said: “Rangers has been here for 150 years and it’s vital that we future-proof the next 150 years. By widening the ownership to a broader base of like-minded supporters and shareholders, we feel it helps put the club on an even stronger footing going forward.”
Someone need to put this wee soul out of his misery, its only the company give us your £500.00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpImJxXg7K0
“Here we go again”
The latest rattle of the collecting tin through Tifosy equity crowdfunding is an interesting turn of events.
The company in its infancy just 3 yrs old has yet to make a profit and has not got Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs looking over their shoulder just yet . The Risk Warning attached to their profile was interesting enough
“Investing in equity crowdfunding and early stage businesses involves high risks, which may include long-term investment horizons, illiquidity, lack of income and potential dilution. Any investor needs to be in the position to afford a total loss of capital invested.”
They do say birds of a feather flock together and this has all the hallmarks of a match made in heaven.
Usually when funding is required it is limited to the closed shop of Directors so they can keep their shareholding percentages in control territory. When the buttons are short they have looked to their charitable arm of Club* 1872 . It is most unusual to have to ask the public to contribute , maybe even an act of desperation . There has to be a limit to how much they are willing to spend and any idea that the failed euro super league would expand to include them in a super league 2 is now a distant dream .
The old saying of the way to make a small fortune in football is to start with a large one may well be playing out here. King wants his loan back , Ashley is waiting to collect a significant amount and if it’s all down to negotiating the minefield of CL qualification to reach the group stages then that’s a lot of pressure . It all feels a bit deja vu
Another addition to their outstanding record of “world” records, another share issue. Its not that long ago that a board member indicated that within 12–18 months they would be financially stable. Considering the debt they racked up over the last few years and that sooner or later some large bills maybe landing on their desk, I would be reluctant to give them 500 pounds as an investment. It appears that they are pinning their hopes on CL money to cut into the accumulated debts. That sounds an awful lot like what happened back in 2011 — 2012.
Vernallen 1st June 2021 At 19:29
Just as well it’s a new club or UEFA may have been keen to slap fiscal probity into them as a repeat offender .
On a lighter (?) note…
Just watched a penalty shootout in a crucial match the Irish Premiereship (Cliftonville v Crusaders), where the tenth penalty was deemed to have been missed, which makes one wonder about the role of the goal line assistant. This would have made the score 5-5. Cliftonville won 5-4.
I asked myself “What did he not see”?
The guy was in line, 2 yards away, and apparently didn’t see that the ball was, even to my admittedly fading eyes, about 2 feet over the line, having come down off the crossbar! I know this kind of error happens, but Jeezo…
Even the ref. with a clear view must,I would assert, have seen this.
I wasn’t basically interested in who won the match, but am ‘ragin’ about the all-round incompetency and injustice!
Rangers to use 6.75 million share to bulletproof the next 150 years. At 45.000 per annum, based on their figures, its not much in the way of bullet-proofing, and, that doesn’t allow for any inflation. Love their math solutions
Bect67 31st May 11.32
Steven Gerrard had both his Uefa A & B Licences and had already started his Pro Licence when arriving at Ibrox in 2018.
Vernallen 31st May 22.35
I have no doubt that EH will be considered for future appointments when & wherever they arise. Why wouldn’t he?.
Paddy Malarkey 1st June 12.36
Club 1872 is at present haemeroghing members due to recent decisions made by a few people in positions of power
I see the managerial merry-go-round is in full pelt across England. Numerous PL clubs looking for managers – could get interesting if clubs look north…
“Rangers is a modern, pioneering football club” says the statement.
Indeed, yes, very pioneering;
the first “club 12”
the first club to have ‘provisional’ membership in the SFA as SevcoScotland ,
the first new club to try to get away with claiming in 2012 to be 140 years old and to falsely claim sporting successes that were actually won by a club that went into Liquidation in 2012 and is still in Liquidation;
the first club to have so compromised the Scottish Football authorities in their dealings with it as to raise serious questions about the integrity of Sporting competition in 2012 and since;
Very pioneering.
Does anyone have a theory why the media are so indifferent to the fact that the original Rangers cheated HMRC out of so much money?
Do they think the so called ‘relegation’ was sufficient punishment, even though a court ruled ‘Rangers’ were not relegated? I just don’t understand, because the same media are very critical of major companies like Amazon and Starbucks LEGALLY not paying enough tax (in their view). So why is it that that special rules seemingly have to be introduced for ‘Rangers’?
I am sick of it all, especially because we are having ’55’, and ‘150 years’ rammed down our throat by ‘Rangers’ and the media every day. What WOULD ‘Rangers’ have to do to cause media outrage?
Rant over.
Upthehoops 2nd June 2021 At 20:12
‘… What WOULD ‘Rangers’ have to do to cause media outrage?’
+++++++++++
That’s an easy one, uth:
if the Ibrox boards admitted openly
that Rangers of 1872 died the death of Liquidation
that CG did not buy Rangers of 1872 and its place in the SPL , but just some of the assets of a defunct club, and had to apply for a share in a football league in order to get his new creation membership of the SFA
that TRFC has not won more than one premier league title ,
then, by the Lord Harry, would we see some real media outrage as truth was told!
lbertz11 2nd June 2021 At 08:10
2
1
Rate Up
Paddy Malarkey 1st June 12.36
Club 1872 is at present haemeroghing members due to recent decisions made by a few people in positions of power
…………………………..
I read that, a few emails going around and one or two unhappy people
So another SFA farce – Brechin are not being allowed to join the Lowland league but have to play in the Highland league.
Surely as a precondition of a club going up in the pyramid system, clubs coming down must be allowed to enter the place that becomes vacant – unless it’s geographically impractical eg far north highland club wouldn’t enter the lowland league as costs for all clubs would then significantly increase
Why aren’t these conditions in place so the lower leagues don’t have the ability to reject teams coming down ?
Or am I missing something ?
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19346156.judge-starts-same-club-debate-experts-argue-whether-rangers-fans-support-another-team/?ref=twtrec
………………………………….
A JUDGE entered into a debate over the value of the Rangers brand as he questioned an expert over whether he had underestimated the importance of the club name.
Lord Tyre entered into a ‘same club’ court discussion as experts argued whether fans would happily have supported a team similar to Rangers but under a different name such as the Glasgow Blues.
Cluster One 3rd June 2021 At 19:53
Your link to the ‘Herald’ piece brought to mind my views on the ‘same club’ fiction.
Tomorrow I will (barring unforeseen events such as my sudden death or not enough pennies to buy the essential recorded delivery stamp)- post a letter to the Master of the Rolls anent the ( English) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) published judgment in the SDI Retail v Rangers action.
Here is what I have written:
“..The Rt Hon the Master of the Rolls,
Royal Courts of Justice,
Strand,
London WC2 2LL
“Dear (then in manuscript , fountain pen, auld man’s shaky hand) Master of the Rolls,
On 27 May 2021 the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) issued a judgment in a particular case .
I had ,and have, no personal ‘interest’ in the case, being neither a party to the litigation nor a witness nor in any respect legally affected by the actual judgment; nor do I wish to comment on, far less query, the Court’s decision.
However, I am concerned that there is a factual error implicit in the ‘background’ section of the written judgment as published in ‘BAILLII’ which, although it does not bear on the matter in the litigation or on the Court’s decision, ought to be corrected.
The judgment I refer to is [2021] EWCA Civ 790 Case no A4/2020/0329 , published on 27 May 2021 and the error is to be found in the short summary of the background to the case, thus
“ .. The background
5.Rangers operates Glasgow Rangers Football Club (“the Club”), having acquired its business and assets on 14 June 2012 from the interim liquidators of the previous corporate owner.”
That sentence is, I believe, misleading. It suggests that the ‘ Rangers’ in this litigation operates the Rangers Football Club that was founded in 1872, as if the latter had not entered liquidation but had simply been brought out of Administration by the purchaser of the ‘business and assets’
That is very far from being the case.
Rangers Football Club (of 1872 foundation) when it entered Liquidation was obliged under the Articles of Association of the then Scottish Premier League (the “SPL”) to surrender its share in that company. In consequence, it was no longer a member of a recognised football league, and therefore under the Articles of Association of the Scottish Football Association (“the SFA”),lost its entitlement to membership of that association.
It thereby ceased to be a football club eligible to participate in Scottish professional football.
The purchaser of the assets ( not all of them, as it happens) used as his purchase vehicle a company set up expressly for the purpose, Sevco5088 Ltd, incorporated on 29 March 2012.
We are told that by a deed of novation a short time later, the assets were transferred to the ownership of SevcoScotland Ltd , incorporated on 29 May 2012.
Now, in order to become a football club recognised by the SFA, SevcoScotland had to become a shareholder in a recognised football league.
To this end it applied to the SPL to try to buy a share in that company, but was refused.
It then applied to the Scottish Football League. It was eventually accepted into that league as a new club, starting in the bottomost place in the lowest division of that league.
Only then was it admitted as a new club into membership of the SFA .
The Rangers Football Club of 1872 foundation ( which for some reason was renamed as RFC 2012 plc on 31 July 2012),is still in liquidation, its huge debts still unpaid.
It therefore follows that the club (named The Rangers Football Club) being operated by the ‘Rangers’ that was a party in the litigation to which I have referred, is not, and cannot possibly be, the Rangers Football Club of 1872.
I believe that the doubtlessly unintentionally misleading sentence in the written judgment should be re-written to reflect that truth.
I have written to you because I understand that as Master of the Rolls you have general oversight of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) and would naturally wish to ensure that, as far as possible, written judgments emanating from ‘your’ Courts should be free of statements that are unintentionally misleading or incomplete in relation even to peripheral matters that do not bear on the legal matters in dispute.
Yours sincerely and with utmost respect,
me.”
Cluster One 3rd June 2021 At 19:53
A JUDGE entered into a debate over the value of the Rangers brand as he questioned an expert over whether he had underestimated the importance of the club name.
Lord Tyre entered into a ‘same club’ court discussion as experts argued whether fans would happily have supported a team similar to Rangers but under a different name such as the Glasgow Blues.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The second sentence is the crux of the matter, and why the SFA, SPFL, and the mainstream media had to go down the road of claiming that the Rangers currently playing, are the Rangers who were liquidated. The idea that a football club is essentially just an idea in itself certainly is a novel one. I still think at some point a court case will arrive where the same club argument is going to be seriously tested. However, as we can see with the media ignoring the court ruling that Rangers were not relegated, they would ignore whatever the court ruled anyway if it didn’t suit their narrative.
ANY other Scottish ‘club’ we would not have to put up with this in my opinion. It would have been put to bed years ago whether their fans liked it or not. Here is my partisan contribution. Consider the absolute outrage towards Celtic for the Dubai trip, from the Government, media, other fans and general public. It was way beyond what could be deemed a proportionate response. In light of that does anyone seriously think if Celtic had stiffed HMRC for tens of millions and had been liquidated that all those groups would accept them being able to pretend nothing had changed, claiming their history since 1888, and not even saying the theft of unpaid tax was wrong, never mind actually apologising for it? Would a ‘Celtic’ even exist?
My post of 3rd June 2021 At 22:44 refers:
I did not die suddenly overnight and I found I had enough cash for recorded delivery so my letter to the
Master of the Rolls was posted early this afternoon.
[ I had to consult Debrett’s Guide to Etiquette to find out how to address him.
For anyone remotely interested the present master is Sir Geoffrey Vos, appointed on 11 January 2021. The Master is second in seniority in England and Wales only to the Lord Chief Justice. and the office of Master of the Rolls goes back to at least 1286, and probably much further back. One lives and learns!]
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC437060/filing-history
Another debt for equity swap this time for just 70k
Timtim 20.29
Somebody is keeping the auditors happy by raising funds to pay bills as they become due. The latter part is required practice, the former smacks of a business teetering on the edge. They are hoping for a huge cash influx but StevieG may repeat the SuperAlly experience and if UEFA get wise that Champions League money is required to keep them afloat then they might torpedo it anyway.
Companies House , RIFC plc page
“04 Jun 2021 Statement of capital following an allotment of shares on 4 June 2021
GBP 3,910,088.57”
previous statement of capital
“1 May 2021 Statement of capital following an allotment of shares on 7 May 2021
GBP 3,906,588.57”
If this is the share issue from which they are hoping to raise £6 million before the pre-registration period ends on 11 June they have a way to go.
I get the feeling that the RIFC plc Board tend to open their mouth and let their belly rumble more in desperate hope than in well-founded expectation!
They still haven’t got a meaningful handle on their PR:
Robertson says “..investing in the new Edmiston House multi-purpose venue, developments at Ibrox Stadium, the acceleration of Rangers’ digital transformation strategy and the club’s international expansion”. Meaningless guff of the ‘jam tomorrow’ kind!
Sporting director Ross Wilson says it is a “wonderful opportunity” to become part of a club “heading in a positive direction”.
What a stupidly insulting remark to have made!
Insulting to the many, many fans who are not shareholders. There are reputed to be 5 million Rangers fans ( or was it 5 hundred million?). I don’t know how many fans actually are shareholders , but clearly there will be a substantial number who are not.
Are they not ‘part’ of the club?
Do you have to be ‘monied ‘ to be part of TRFC? Have £500 to ‘invest’, as if you were as rich as an Insolvency Practitioner or a QC or a bus transport entrepreneur or a Gauteng-based whatever, before you can be ‘part’?
Dearie me!
The GBP 3,910,088.57 is a bit of a squirrel , it’s referring to the nominal value of the “company”if shares are valued at their nominal value of 1p .
The latest injection is nothing to do with the share issue they hope to raise 6.75m from it is just another debt for equity swap with someone as yet unknown paying a 70k loan and getting 350k shares in return .
I think P McGh has speculated that this(6.75m) maybe to pay off the Dave King loan (or the larger of his 2 loans) that is roughly the same amount.
King’s cold shoulder is still active and as a significant shareholder it is having a detrimental affect on their ability to borrow at competitive rates and until club1872 get rid of him his involvement even from the sidelines isn’t helping.
The feelgood factor at the club* has never been higher so this is the perfect time to shake the collecting tin however those fans have never been keen to invest in previous issues at their former club*
This share issue has costs associated with it and by going public it suggests the Directors may be tapped out.
Ashley,Close,Memorial Walls,outstanding transfers and HMRC are all sizeable creditors that haven’t gone away.
John Clark 4th June 23.09.
The recent share issue you refer to is not a part of the share offering made to supporters on 01/06.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjlMnwYO4_A
The EH project has the potential to be a key revenue generator for many years/decades to come.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAVDrZ4rPmI
The developments both to the interior and footprint of Ibrox Stadium are long overdue and had been neglected by previous boards.
The improvements to the digital output are striking both in terms of quality & content, allied to a new relationship with fans media, which is innovative and is the future for many clubs.
I also find the comments by RW no different to when Season Tickets (44,000) &MyGers (30,000) packages were being sold.
As an aside John, can i ask what has happened to your court reports ?
Timtim 5th June 11.57.
Leaving aside the parts of your post that are purely speculative can you let me know what are the “costs associated” with the share offering?, offering not issue. By limiting the amount to £ 6.75 million, then no expensive prospectus is required.
Albertz11 5th June 2021 At 16:01
“..As an aside John, can i ask what has happened to your court reports ?”
++++++++++++
Yes. There was no way I could ‘attend’ every , or even many, hearings, I’m afraid. I have notes still to type up of some days when I was free to listen without interruption, and of course there have been a number of days when there was no hearing. I listened all day on Thursday, but to tell the truth the evidence sessions of the ‘valuers’ was difficult to take notes of because their responses were very long-winded , and I kind of lost the thread of their responses.
There wasAlbertz11 5th June 2021 At 16:01
“..As an aside John, can i ask what has happened to your court reports ?”
++++++++++++
Yes, of course.
Sadly, there was and is no way I could ‘attend’ every , or even many, hearings, I’m afraid.
I have notes still to type up of some days when I was free to listen without interruption, and of course there have been a number of days when there was no hearing.
I listened all day on Tuesday and Wednesday last but to tell the truth I found the evidence sessions of the ‘valuers’ tedious and it was difficult to take notes because their responses tended to be long-winded , and I sometimes kind of lost the thread of their responses where they were explaining their methodologies. There was one interesting exchange which was reported in the Press in what I would call a spiced- up , lower-end SMSM hack kind of way.
Perhaps the hack’s hearing is better than mine!
@Albertz11
Tifosy are not organising this share offering for free therefore there are costs associated with it , to put a figure on that would be speculative so I will refrain from doing so .
I’m sure the potential of EH to be a key revenue generator for years /decades to come will cover it if your speculation is correct.
@Albertz11 – thanks for sharing. I watched the EH promo. Three observations/comments:
1. 150 years of history. Leaving aside old/new club for a moment, I am curious as to how they/you would present the Murray years. Trophy-laden splendour or debt laden, underpayment of taxes and incomplete football returns?
2. As someone from an Irish Catholic upbringing how do you think they may represent the many, many years of discrimination and racial abuse that the “club” practiced and encouraged during this 150 years? I may have missed it in the past (and if so I apologise) but I am not aware of any statement of apology ever.
3. Forgive my cynicism (and I apply this to all clubs and businesses that I see in my day job looking to raise money) but the EH development looks like a facility (funded by fans through a share offer after which each fan will be inconsequential) to allow the company to then extract more money from said shareholders/fans.
Regards
John Clark 5th June 19.28
Thank you for the reply John.
Thought you might like this letter which appeared in Thursday’s Independent.
“So Boris Johnson has postponed his honeymoon for 2 weeks.
That will give him a fortnight to find somebody to pay for it”
HS
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19352917.administrators-fire-17-5m-insolvent-rangers-valuable-players-went-less-1m/
………………………………………………
FORMER administrators or Rangers have come under fire over how they handled the insolvent club as analysis revealed that their most valuable players worth £17.5m ended up leaving for less than £1m.
It has further emerged that Craig Whyte would not sell their most valuable player for £6m, £500,000 less than the whole club’s assets in administration was sold to the Charles Green-fronted Sevco consortium, it has emerged.
https://kilmarnockfc.co.uk/news/club-statement-remarks-by-kyle-lafferty/
……………………….
Good statement.
And a wee dig i hope at the friday night statements of other clubs, who just can’t wait to make statements public.
upthehoops 4th June 2021 At 15:52
The second sentence is the crux of the matter, and why the SFA, SPFL, and the mainstream media had to go down the road of claiming that the Rangers currently playing, are the Rangers who were liquidated.
………………………………………..
Only 250 season tickets sold to follow a new club showed us that. Green, the SFA and THE SFL and the SPL were facing a black hole
John Clark 5th June 2021 At 19:28
…………………………
Thanks JC Look forward to anything you get to report on hearings
wokingcelt 5th June 2021 At 20:39
5
1
Rate This
@Albertz11 – thanks for sharing. I watched the EH promo.
………………………………………..
The large share issue to get these projects running i believe. But happy to be corrected. what happens if the offer is not met, the projects shelved?
Cluster One 6th June 10.48
Nothing to do with the “new club” theory.
A rival bid involving Jim McColl, Douglas Park & Walter Smith was the preferred option.
There is no hearing tomorrow in the BDO v RFC 2012 case, btw.
On Tuesday, some ‘property experts’ are scheduled to give their evidence.
I suspect that their stuff will be as boringly ‘technical ‘as that of the brand valuers last week.
I ‘ll tune in if I can .
The difficulty I have is that to my ears, the max volume on my phone speaker is not loud enough to listen to without strain unless I’ve got the phone jammed to my ear.
If I leave it lying on the table beside me when I’m making notes, any other noise, like the kettle going on, or wife going in and out or opening cupboards , or the landline phone ringing, causes me to miss what’s being said.
And to try and hold the feckin thing to my ear for any kind of length of time brings its own problems.
Any advance on putting the phone in a coffee mug, speaker end up, placed near my favourite left ear as I listen and try to scribble?
If the ‘virtual’ links are poor or if the particular speakers speak rapidly, or disjointedly, or are long-winded or sit too far from their own device or what-not, and all the rest of it, it’s quite easy sometimes to miss several questions/answers in a row.
This afternoon Mrs C and I went down to Selkirk .I’m kind of embarrassed to say that we had never before been there. It’s only about 40 miles from Edinburgh!
Very interesting place, which includes the Court wherein Sir Walter Scott ‘dispensed justice’ as a Sheriff.
On the way back up the road, we turned in to have a gander at Abbotsford, which was yer man’s house.
What an honourable man!
In the days before the kind of charlatans that the ‘saga’ has exposed to us in recent years had dreamed up the concept of ‘limited liability’ and passed it into law so that rogues could dodge their debts by saying ‘it’s the company’s debts, not mine’ , he refused to avoid the shame of bankruptcy.
And worked to pay off his debts ( c.£10 million in today’s terms) by his writing, and by selling the rights to his tremendously successful novels and other literary work.
Oh, what it must be , to be the kind of cheat that causes a football club to die, having shafted it right left and centre for more than a decade, lining your own pockets while piling debt on it!
Must make you feel great, eh?
But, oh, what must it be like to be leeches who latch onto the cheating in order to profit from it?
Or, worse, to be a member of a governance body which endorses cheating?
Sir Walter Scott’s shade will doubtless agree with me that being in either category marks a man as being not even worth a well-aimed spit of contempt.
John Clark 6th June 2021 At 22:25
“Any advance on putting the phone in a coffee mug, speaker end up, placed near my favourite left ear as I listen and try to scribble?”
John, did your phone perhaps come with a small set of earphones? I think I have a set in the box my phone came with although I’ve never used them. Otherwise, depending on the type / age of the phone you might find any set of headphones, if you have any lying around, will do the same job. Just a thought!
Can I also add please add my appreciation for all the hard work you do for us in following these cases. I for one am very grateful to you.
Mordecai 7th June 2021 At 05:47
‘..did your phone perhaps come with a small set of earphones.’
“”””””””””””””””””””””””
Now there’s a thought! I know I’ve seen earphones lying around somewhere in the house, that I used with my language learning cds .
I shall forthwith institute a search for them in the usual dumping places-the attic and the garage.
Thank you for the suggestion.
John Clark 7th June 2021 At 09:20
Come into the modern world , JC , and buy yourself a pair of earbuds . You can get them online for not more than a fiver and you can listen remotely to your phone (10ft anyway) .
https://twitter.com/BBCchrismclaug/status/1401910547696730112/photo/1
……………………….
Mr Ahmad gets his letter of Apology june 7, 2021
Part of the problem for John C and others following court cases, is that it is explicitly forbidden to record proceedings and transcribe them later.
In this D&P case, the judge actually mentioned doing the trial that he was aware that this practice was in place amongst ‘certain bloggers’.
Scarily, we were approached by the court a day or so after the judges remarks, and we were reminded of our obligations.
I telephoned the court in reply and made it very clear how we were reporting, and assured the court that we were absolutely not recording the proceedings.
It is though a reminder that there is a fine line to tread when reporting on, or commenting upon such cases.
The recent contempt trial of Craig Murray is a good example of how you can find yourself in trouble easily. Working within these restrictions is a challenge, and John deserves great credit for his efforts as well as our gratitude.
So the Scottish taxpayer will now have to foot the bill for many more millions for another two men who were maliciously prosecuted. That’s four in total. If we (the taxpayers) are not going to get an apology for OUR money being wasted on this pursuit of innocent men, then the least we should expect is an explanation of why it happened. What was their end game? Given that so far no-one has even tried to explain what went on then in my view we are entitled to wonder if the end game was to save the name of ‘Rangers’, even if that meant innocent people going to prison. If that’s not the case, then they need to explain exactly what it was. It truly is shocking, and I am amazed that the media are not making a massive issue of it…well actually I’m not amazed. Not asking questions if you might not like the answers and all that!
Royal Mail ‘track and trace’ tell me that my letter to the Master of the Rolls was delivered today.
The question now arises:
a) will it be ignored completely?
b) will receipt of it even be ‘acknowledged’?
c) will it be replied to with a ‘ thank you for your letter but the Master has no observation to make about any Court judgment’
d) will it be acknowledged courteously with the suggestion that I refer to the SFA on whose judgment and statements Counsel in the case, and the Courts ,relied?
e)will it be acknowledged with a letter saying ‘hmm, I see your point. Let me look into it?’
Will my letter even be seen by Sir Geoffrey Vos?
Hard to say.
A hand written address on the envelope? Would it be opened in the general post-room? or passed up the line in case it was ‘personal’? Are there ‘liquidation deniers’ in the post-room of the English Royal Courts of Justice? Or further up?
We await with bated breath..
@UTH – personally it increasingly feels to me that there should be an independent review. Obviously the Lord Advocate’s Office cannot be involved. Personally I think the CPS in England and Wales should be asked to lead this review – not holding my breath that our First Minister will ask the CPS to help though…
Court proceedings over for the day at, 2,45.
3 property experts giving evidence relating to the range of realistic property advice options that might have been considered by the Joint Administrators.
Court adjourned till 10.00 a.m tomorrow
Wokingcelt 8th June 2021 At 09:38
@UTH – personally it increasingly feels to me that there should be an independent review. Obviously the Lord Advocate’s Office cannot be involved. Personally I think the CPS in England and Wales should be asked to lead this review – not holding my breath that our First Minister will ask the CPS to help though…
+++++++++++++++++++++++
I doubt that the FM will ask anyone from the English and Welsh CPS for help. However, a non-Scottish Judge to lead an inquiry is a must in my opinion. This simply can’t be overlooked, but I’m not sure it is possible for a Scottish led investigation to be truly independent. At face value in this case the establishment in Scotland would circle the wagons in my view.
@JC
They could have got 20m from Tesco , retained the main stand facade as the basis for offices or even a museum sold off the seats , turf, floodlights and goalposts to football fans(or other clubs) demolished the 3 other stands and recouped some costs from the scrap . To allow Green to buy it for 1.5m was scandalous.
There was no need for Sevco to play there (they could have sought to groundshare at Hampden or Firhill) unless of course they needed the stadium to carry on the same club* pretence . Of course if Green’s plan had collapsed because the fans failed to back it (which they were doing) then Green could have then initiated the above to ensure he made a large profit at the expense of the creditors.
Now Green is sitting waiting for millions in compensation , Whyte has the film rights, Sir Dupe still has his title and not one penny of this unlawful tax scam has been recovered.
Upthehoops 8th June 2021 At 16:29
‘..However, a non-Scottish Judge to lead an inquiry is a must in my opinion…’
++++++++++++++++++
What I wonder is whether the Westminster Parliament /UK Government has any power to set up an inquiry into the operation of the Scottish judicial system? That is, is the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service answerable to Westminster/Downing Street, or ONLY to the Scottish Government and people?
If it is answerable only to Holyrood and if the Scottish Government decides that a public enquiry is called for I cannot imagine that they would countenance using an English judge to head it.
On a separate but connected point, I gather that the budget for the COPFS for 2021/22 is about £156 Million. Damages already agreed plus the amounts likely to be claimed by others who were wrongfully arrested/ held in custody over the unfathomable and mysterious cock-up of a prosecution will make a bloody big hole in that!
Back in 2012, my working assumption was that Charles Green (and Craig Whyte before him) would have no interest in actually running a football club.
It appeared to me then – and still does today – that if there is money to be made in football, it would be in the bricks and mortar.
In 2005, Bournemouth sold the freehold of its fourteen thousand stadium to a property company in a sale-and-leaseback deal.
Bournemouth received £3.5m and agreed to pay around £300k a year in rent.
Manchester City (capacity 55k) pay around £4.4m annually to lease the Etihad Stadium from the local council.
Newcastle, Chelsea and others all rent their stadia from 3rd parties.
While the stadia are of a similar size, I doubt – due to the different financial landscapes – if Ibrox and the Etihad would be closely matched in value. Nevertheless, if the current inhabitants were looking to sell and leaseback Ibrox, it wouldn’t surprise me if they could raise around £20/£25m for something like a £2.5/£3m rent.
It has always puzzled me why Duff and Phelps did not look to market the stadium and training ground separately from the remaining assets. They may not have achieved ‘top dollar’ from a liquidation sale; but, a shrewd speculator would have the safety net of the basic property values if the new football club did not survive into the long term. To my mind at least £12/£15m should have been easily achievable – if sold with a rental agreement in place to the purchaser of the Rangers trademarks.
Breaking up the assets would not necessarily have meant the end of football at Ibrox – but it surely would have resulted in a better deal for the old club’s creditors.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19358596.rangers-administrators-criticised-not-selling-off-ibrox-part-club-break-up-sale/
……………
LIQUIDATORS of Rangers suggest Ibrox and Murray Park training ground should have been sold off separately when the club went into administration after it emerged they ended up being bought for just £1.5m.
An expert for Rangers oldco liquidators BDO says that a sale and leaseback of the iconic club assets should have been pursued. It would have raised millions more for the club which under Craig Whyte financially collapsed nine years ago.
Albertz11 Nothing to do with rival bid by walter smith jim McColl and douglas park as they walked away in june 19. Only 250 season tickets were sold by july 6. Fans did not want to follow what they knew was a new club until Green served cups of tea a d Ally was claiming still the same club. Don’t try and convince me otherwise, as someone who sat with ibrox friends and said they would not follow the new club and were not buying a season ticket
Cluster One @13.32
And in addition to the efforts of Mr Charles and Mr McCoist the stunning volte-face by the entire SMSM ensured that season books were sold and the ground work laid for the IPO.
Albertz11
Simple question, out of idle curiosity,..
Would you consider the outfit currently operating within the state of Govania to be the same club as the one which was consigned to liquidation in 2012 once the legal process is completed?
A short, simple answer will suffice.
I was also thinking – whatever became of reasonablechap (RC) ?
I find Dave King’s comments on Malcolm Murray quite interesting, almost like they were spoken with tongue well and truly placed in cheek. King bemoans the actions of Murray but didn’t that group have the club within months of being in a break even position, an area that is and was quite foreign to whatever entity is/was operating out of Ibrox. With King at the helm the losses soared and even as his stepped aside him hand was on the tiller for a number of years. Pot kettle black comes to mind.
If Billy Gilmour had not been involved in Ranger’s youth set up would he be garnering all the press currently and during the past season being lavished on him. Has anyone done any in-depth look at his playing time at Chelsea of is the thinnest of Ranger’s connection leading to elevation as a star.
@Vernallen – re Billy Gilmour. No doubt the young man is seriously talented. He is getting game time in a Chelsea team that are Champions League winners and probably since turn of the year most consistent team in England (with City). He has the potential (which doesn’t guarantee anything of course) to be one of the break-out stars in the EPL next season. The Euros may just be a season too soon for him to really shine.
Bect67 9th June 15.14.
Yes.
@wokingcelt – re Gilmour . Granted he is getting Chelsea game time but predominantly the starts are in “dead rubbers” and the appearance as sub have mainly been when the game or tie are beyond doubt. Very much the approach of keeping a fringe player sweet even if that does suggest one they want to keep as backup.
SPFL announce new sponsorship deal.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57426594
Not linked to gambling or alcohol is a positive i suppose.
@Tykebhoy – his game time and profile of matches is following a similar trajectory to that of Phil Foden at Man City (1 year his senior). It’s unlikely that Foden would have made the English Euros squad if it had been played last summer. Of course lots of young players don’t “train on” (to use a horse racing term for two year olds as they move up) and time will tell.
(Ps – it’s Gilmour’s birthday tomorrow…I expect the DR to send him a birthday cake…)
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC425159/charges/Cx1BDOpVbXMd0e-QL_eZt-E3HGA
charge for The Scottish Sports Council Trading as Sportscotland was satisfied yesterday
The 3 charges giving security to Close Leasing remain.
Does this satisfaction of charge now allow them to raise funding using the training ground as security ?
BDO case: all evidence now gathered, Counsels’ submissions to be with the judge by 5.00 p.m on wednesday 16th june for judge to study and arrive at at his judgment and write it up on Thursday 17th.
Court adjourned until Friday 10.00 a.m.
Timtim 10th June 2021 At 13:28
‘..charge for The Scottish Sports Council Trading as Sportscotland was satisfied yesterday’
+++++++++++++++++++++
There was something about the the Sports Council suddenly realising in 2015 (?) that the Rangers to which they had loaned money [on the back of a ‘charge ‘ on Murray Park ] had gone into liquidation in 2012 and that TRFC Ltd could have refused t o repay on the grounds that it wasn’t their debt,. ?
..Whatever, there was a necessary ‘transfer of original contracts of award’ agreement , which made TRFC liable.
Otherwise we (the Scottish taxpayer) might well have have been f***ed again by the club that cheated us out of many millions
John Clark 10th June 2021 At 19:04
I have always thought there was a story about Murray Park that is worth looking into. It was built at the behest of Dick Advocaat at a time the Bank of Scotland were almost giving Rangers a blank chequebook. The much trumpeted cost was £14m, and very soon after Rangers debt rose to £80m, of which David Murray transferred £50m to another part of his group to bring the football debt down. As we know David Murray’s group had many millions written off by BOS, who in turn received massive taxpayer funding like other banks. My question is was Murray Park ever payed for and has the taxpayer picked up the bill for it? Let’s face it, the de-facto position seems to be that the taxpayer had to fund the previous Rangers anyway.
I have had several Rangers fans say to me how much better Murray Park is to Celtic’s training ground. My answer always is that Celtic paid for their ground with their own money, but that always seems lost on them. Sadly we are now seeing through the courts a challenge as to why Murray Park wasn’t sold to pay off creditors. Let’s not forget either that the Bank who gave Rangers money to build Murray Park, did all in its power to end Celtic for good, for a debt less than half of what Murray Park cost.
Albertz11 9th June 2021 At 14:33
Fears over Charles Greens ownership
………………………
There was no fear of ownership as Green had a binding agreement in place with the administrators. As of june 14 everything belonged to Green, it was his assets to do with what he pleased.
………………………
Assurances were sought by two of the unsuccessful consortiums that in exchange for certain conditions being met they would then in meetings with supporters representatives encourage the purchasing of Season Tickets.
……
The assets at ibrox and murray park were nothing to do with them, they could have had all the meetings they wanted.
Green told the consortium on june the 15 give me £20 and it is yours, they never did Green also assured the fans he would not sack Ally.
The consortium were told on 17 by Malcolm Murray nothing was for a quick sale the intention was to rebuild rangers.
The RFFF after a meeting with Green and Murray on june 20 put out a statement encouraging fans to buy season tickets.Green also released a statement encouraging fans to buy season tickets claiming ST Money would be ring fenced.
Still by july 6 only 250 fans wanted to follow the new club.
Here ends the history lesson
I’m happy to report that I have received an acknowledgement from the Assistant private secretary to the Master of the Rolls ( Full marks for traditional courtesy and quick response! ]
The letter reads:
“Dear ….(me),
Thank you for your letter dated 4th June 2021 addressed to the Master of the Rolls which was received by this office on 9th June 2021.
The Master of the Rolls has asked me to pass your letter to the constituition who heard the appeal and I have done that today.
Yours sincerely,
A C”
An interesting wee touch: just as I used pen and ink to address my letter, the address on the acknowledgement is handwritten.
Now, I’m not exactly holding my breath; however , even if the Master merely said to the presiding judge , ” Hey, Nick, have a look at this when you get the chance, and let me know if there’s anything in it?” that’ll be something. At least two judges will know that at least one person believes the Court put its name to an error!!
Cluster One 11th June 15.13
I’m well aware of the timeline of events back in June/July 2012 so no history lesson required from yourself.
Do you honestly believe that what Charles Green said in public was the same as what was said in private?.
Only 250-300 Season Tickets had been processed before they were suspended as talks continued in private.
Reassurances were eventually given leading to 38228 being sold.
Completely off topic, but just watched BBC News re G7 with the Queen visiting. Two observations:
1. What a class act Elizabeth Windsor is (and I say this as a died in the wool republican).
2. Joe Biden – another class act. Others crowding the Queen, he stands back in recognition of his democratic status.
Cluster One 11th June 2021 At 15:13
‘…Still by july 6 only 250 fans wanted to follow the new club.’
++++++++++++++++
Like the SMSM and the SFA and the SPL, the generality of the fans KNEW that RFC of 1872 was no more, that it was as dead in Liquidation as Gretna and Third Lanark.
In my view, those who had purchased some, but not all, of the assets [because they were not buying the whole club, debts and all] for buttons, must have had some assurance from authoritative quarters ( to whom had they spoken, one wonders!?] that ‘continuity’ as Rangers of 1872 was guaranteed!
And made sure that the SMSM very quickly bought into the notion that it was the ‘holding company’ that entered Liquidation
If there was a ‘holding company’ it was Wavetower, now the Rangers FC Group ,that would have entered Liquidation,
But, of course, the Rangers FC Group [previously Wavetower, ]is still alive and is NOT in Liquidation or dissolved [although presently dormant]
As an actual, indisputable fact, the entity in Liquidation is the RFC of 1872 .
[as I ventured to tell the Master of the Rolls… I will be astonished if their Lordships to whom the Master has referred that statement of mine , will be able to contradict it.
At the very least, hope I have given them a problem, not least in having to question what was told to them in Court as background to the case which they were hearing.
I would further hope that if they accept that my statement is true, they will acknowledge that fact.]
The 5-way Agreement , I imagine, gave SevcoScotland/TRFC/RIFC plc some comfort in that the SFA and SFL were prepared[ deceitfully, in my opinion] to allow them to CLAIM that they were simply the new owners of a 140 year old club that was the most successful club in the world, and not mere applicants for a share in a League ,and for first time membership of the SFA.
That emboldened them to put that claim in the Prospectus for the IPO : who would want to buy shares in a newly created football club?
I personally think that claim to be entirely unjustified and extremely questionable.
And I think I know in my heart that the Liquidation of RFC of 1872 is acknowledged quietly in the hearts of those who , credit to them, buy season tickets to watch a new club for wishful reasons related to emotion rather than reality.
The fans of other clubs which entered Administration had Insolvency Practitioners who managed to save them from entering Liquidation.
Unfortunately for the fans of RFC of 1872 , the Administrators of such a debt-laden football club were unable to save it .
It died the death of Liquidation.
The SFA and SPFL should come clean and acknowledge that fact.
And then we can all ‘move on’.
It’s that time to dish out the Knighthoods, Damehoods, MBE’s, OBE’s again. Personally I totally object to the honours system. So much of what is handed out is totally undeserved, including to ‘ordinary’ people. It’s farcical in my view.
Once again I am left to question why a man who implemented an illegal tax avoidance scheme which cheated the state out of tens of millions gets to keep his Knighthood? Not only did he do that, much of the rest of his business also went bust leaving many out of pocket.
Yet STILL the Scottish Media fall over themselves to address him as ‘Sir’ David, and frequently regale the successes his tax cheating brought. You really couldn’t make it up, and in my opinion shows that the media would not care how ‘Rangers’ achieve success, as long as they achieve it. Surely a media properly doing their job would have campaigned long and hard for his Knighthood to be rescinded, instead of celebrating what he did. Incredible.
Albertz11 11th June 2021 At 20:39
Reassurances were eventually given leading to 38228 being sold.
………………………
Reassurance that he would not sell the stadium and season ticket money would be ring fenced and he would not sack Ally. Does not take away the fact that only 250 fans bought into the new club in the first place and did not require reassurance of anything.
Now that all the evidence in the BDO damages claim against the D&P Administrators is in, and the decision of the Judge in the case cannot be in the least affected by anything I say, I’m happy to give you as much as I have been able to type up of the last day of evidence giving.
Remember that I have heard only some of the virtual hearings, and that while I try[faithfully ]to capture the guts of what the protagonists say in the words that they use, I don’t claim to be a Judith [ that’s the name of the official court reporter.] I heard her voice saying ” that’s us live, m’Lord’
“BDO v RFC 2012 plc Day 20.
9 June 2021
Lord Tyre: Good morning Mr Christie and Mr Blucher. [then followed the usual questions about whether they’re alone, mobiles on silent, have arranged not to be disturbed, and the swearing-in [ with one of the witnesses being asked to use his other right hand!] Then:
Mr McBrearty: M’Lord there is one preliminary matter I wish to raise. I have an objection to Mr Blucher giving evidence. I’ll explain it now if you wish ,but I don’t want to hold things up..
Lord Tyre: Yes, I’ve noted your objection , and you can proceed subject to that reservation.
Mr McBrearty, QC: Mr Christie, [ he then asked the witness to confirm name, age,address and occupation ; and that his expert report, supplementry report and a joint report agreed by him and shown on screen had been signed by him and that he he was content to have them stand , subject to anything he may wish to add today]
Lord Tyre: Mr Young?
Mr Young QC: Mr Blucher, [ then the same confirmation of name etc etc] Then: Mr Blucher, if we look at p148 of your first report, and p.149, we see in your CV “ experience in advising on insolvenct procedures for football clubs, for example Oxford United, Millwall, Bradford, Swindon Town…Could you tell us about that experience, about common features..?
Blucher: Yes, there were several common themes, redundancy, cost-cutting, football regulatory matters…
QC: Tottenham Hotspur?…Club for sale?
B: Yes, I was vice-chairman and CEO.
QC: How did that sale process turn out in terms of difficulty?
B: It was very difficult, because in 1991 the company owed about £10 million pounds to the bank, who were insisting on payment, serious enough money then. I spoke to the Administrators , there was no !0 million available. And there huge dispute about selling Paul Gascoigne for £8 million.We were able to market the business for sale. There were all sorts of bidders who didn’t have the money. It was not until Alan Sugar, Lord Sugar as he became, came through the door was a deal done.
QC: Can you say how many false bidders there were?
B: There was probably only 3 or 4 or 5 real bidders, and something like 35 or so false bidders.
QC: [ now addressing Mr Christie]
Mr Christie, on the subject of player redundancies, in your report you refer to wage ‘deferrls’ and wage ‘ waivers’, and say that ‘waivers’ are more attractive?
C: Yes. ‘Waivers ‘ take th cost of the wages out.
QC: Wage deferrals significant?
C: Yes
QC: [instructing Mr Hyde, who was operating the projection of documents on screen] Let’s look at the Joint Minute, please….. So, in the second joint minute, in the last table ‘marketable players’.. I’m not quite seeing how to..
C:.. there’s headings at the top if…
QC: Ah, yes…These 10 players , were paid £608,000 for three months.. The 4th column , £1.7 million, if there is no ‘waiver’.. So, if there had been ‘deferrals’ a million pounds would have to have been picked up by the new owners. Mr Christie can I ask if you have seen or heard any of the evidence in this case?
C: I’ve seen some transcripts..
QC: Let’s look at the Hearts administration, in Joint bundle 5, 6036 para 6.2, . In the context of the heart administration, the SPFL required satisfaction of the football debts. Have you seen this?
C: Yes. The point you’re making is that liability should be paid.
QC: If you make players voluntarily redundant is that not a deferral?
C: If depends on whether it’s a definite or possible liability.
QC: Could you explain?
C: well, can the liability be passed on to a purchaser.?
QC: The Administrators of Hearts talk about the purchaser having to satisfy football debt.
C: The wording….
QC: If there is a definite liability on the purchaser, is voluntary redundancy the equivalent of wage ‘deferral’?
C: Yes.
QC: Isn’t it even worse, because you lose their services?
C: There’s certainly an argument to that effect.
QC: Please look at your Supplementary Report at 272 para (d) “ Buchler’s comments did make ‘waiver’ attractive….purchaser would have no obligation …” Would you agree that if there was a football creditor rule requiring the purchaser to pick up liability for football debt..
C: If Court found that a purchaser was liable . But by making redundancies your reducing the amount…
QC: But ..[ed: I missed what he said]
C: That’s a valid point.
QC: Did you discuss the football creditor rue with Mr Pethybridge ?
C: No.
QC: f we look at your first Report,on page 28, th table at 6.11 .Your summary is that £2.7 saved over a 2 month period.On page 275 in your Suplementary report at 5.3 you finesse that to £2.8 million, with employers’ National insurance contributions.
C: I factor in bonuses and the way NICs re calculated.
QC: [ed: misseed what he said]
C: I think that’s correct.
QC: The list of non-playing staff. …immediate redundancies 4 months salaries that were paid , £955,623.The next table shows the players proposed for redundancy , 4 months period, nd at the top ‘ salaries …basic…. NIC…’ A total £1.4 million saved.
C: That’s based on what they were actually paid..
Mr McBrearty: Objection!. M’Lord, what does this document show?
Mr Young: I’m trying to show, m’Lord, the comparison between ‘wage waiver’ and redundancies.
Lord Tyre: Not a fair comparison..?
Mr Yung: I’ll come back to that.
Lord Tyre: Yes, you may want to discuss with Mr McBrearty.
Mr Young: Mr Christie, at 6033 p 38 of your report you say “ regardless of….” Is it your understanding that the Administrators were prevented from selling players because..[ ed: missed it]
C: Could you repeat the question, please?
QC: [ed: missed it again]
C: No, I’m not suggesting that a ‘waiver’ prevented prevented sale.
QC: Your proposal is that redundancies would be better?
C: Well, if you’re cutting costs and selling players that’s an attractive way of [ed: I can’t read the next two words!]
QC: But isn’t there an element of uncertainty of sales?
C: [ed: missed what he said]
QC: Wage ‘waiver ‘ don’t prevent further waivers?
C : But that was never considereed to be realistic.
QC: Mr Buchler, have you anything to say?
B: Redundandcy as a policy causes huge problems, requires delicacy in handling combined with something to give players comfort, and compassion..
QC: Mr Christie, anything to say in response?
C: I would not dispute that compassion is needed, but I don’t agree that you cannt make redundancies.
QC:It’s a judgment call as to how to save money?
C: It’s combination of how to save money and making the business attractive to buyers.
QC: but there are drawbacks in making redundancies?
C: There are also drawbacks if you use ‘waivers’.
QC: It’s a judgment call. The Joint Administrators’ approach was reasonable.
C I don’t agree.
QC: On page 31 of your first report , at para 16 you talk about immediate redundancy programme. [ed: I missed the tail end of what he said]
C: [ed: I missed what he replied]
QC: You refer to Portsmouth… your experience in football clubs is limited to Queens Park. When was that?
C: About 1999 or 2000.
QC: At a time when players were amateurs?
C: Yes.
QC: In the context did the Administrators make redundancies?
C: Yes.
QC: “ para 1166……So, under cash flow Staff ( non-playing)
para 1167…..imperative to sell players
para 1168….some player are sold
para 1169…compromise agreements with the following players, 6 agreed to leave.
Payments £230,000..” That doesn’t seem to be a widespread redundancy programme? Is that not different from what you are saying is normal?
C: I’d need to check..
QC: You’re suggesting that the normal practice is redundancy, players let go. Your comments?
C : In principle a redundancy programme would be normal.
QC : Where does your evidence come from?
C: there are clubs not mentioned.
QC: Page 32 of you report, your suggestion here is that maybe redundancies were the best way to go?
C: You take action at the start and the situation develops.
QC: Once the bidders came in there was……[ed: missed what he said]
C: [ed: missed his opening words]..if there had not been an agreement not to make further redundancies.
QC: On page [ed: didn’t hear the number] Indicative bid from Bill Miller , .p 976 (5) bullet point 4
“ all relevant players and key coaching staff transfer to his company [ed: then I have what looks like ‘cond 8’ ….Bill Miller is saying ‘I want key players and staff, and want to know the fabric of the team’
C: It’s not saying the squad as it is today, but only to meet the obligation of fixtures
QC: [ed: all I have here is.] .. evidence of Singapore consortium……recall?
C: No.
QC: Whilst none of the bidders may not have expressed that particular players be retained, some bidders would drop out..
C: I don’t see the two things as inconsistent
QC: You talk about indicative…?
C: illustrative
QC: yes, illustrative list of players. How’d you decide?
C: An initial view on how many players in each position, and their value. If a player is on a huge wage but is of no value he’d be on my list of redundancies.
QC: Did you take account of contracts?
C: Not at that time.
QC: But if players were going to leave?
C: That’s a point.
QC: Why did you not consider it?
C: I just didn’t.
QC: What about the rules relating to under 19s?
C: I didn’t specifically consider that.
QC: Did you consider it at all?
C: No
C: So you just needed to complete the season?
QC: And next season?
C: That would be for the purchasers
QC If the club was not able to register players?
C: That was a [ed: didn’t hear him]
QC: Mr Christie, damages in this action are claimed in relation to the list of players. Did you not consider in your supplementary report that the Administration was likely to continue into the following season? Did it occur to you?
C: I can’t say specifically
QC: did you not consider the need to look again at your list
C: No, that would be at the edge.
QC: Your list. Once Administrators go into a club don’t they speak to the football Authorities about redundancies, the under 19s?
C: There’s a huge number of considerations.
QC: Is it not optimistic to suppose that going down those routes you’e going to be able to make those redundancies?
C: Well, most insolvencies are difficult.
QC : In respect of staff redundancies your list is not based on what the individuals did.You didn’t look at the business case for making each redundant?
C: No.
QC: Jackie Gourlay, Ken Olverman …. did you speak to them about their jobs?
C: No. I didn’t consider that as an option.
QC: You have no idea whether the business could operate without [ ed: I have no note of any further words that finished the sentence, but I have no ‘full stop’ or dots .He may have finished, but maybe he just stopped there. ]
C: That’s unfair. You look at the obvious things , Youth Development and such… others are more difficult, need refinement
QC: ‘Football in the Community’… Were you aware that that earned income?
C: No.I would have expected something from the Administrators
QC: If you didn’t look into it, you are not in position to say it should be cut
C: illustrative [ ed: that’s the only word I see in my notes. I assume that that was my understanding of the gist of his reply?]
QC: Why didn’t you discuss with Mr Dickson?
C: I was not aware I was able to.
QC: Were you aware that the Scouting Operation was funded by the fans?
C:….I read something about it.
QC: document p 1184 .. email 19 February 2012 “ SJ spoke openly …..JG could easily do Ally Russell’s job..” This is within the bundle. It’s some evidence that JG was highly regarded.
C: You could argue on various individuals.
QC: I’m looking at what you could have done. … Ken Olverman, look at the documents and consider the importance of his role?
C: That’s a possibility that that might have been ..
QC: You simply divided up? [ed: here I have a wee scribble of my own to remind myself; ‘damages being claimed point’]
C; That’s why it’s illustrative not final.
++++++++++++++
Geez, it’s taken me an age to type this much! Christies evidence goes on for several more pages, before we get to Blucher.
I have earlier stuff to type up of course, and I’ll do that as and when.
But again I have to say that I have not heard all the evidence, and that it’s entirely possible that I may have mis-heard, or misunderstood the context of the hearings that I heard.
Basically I just want to give a flavour of the court proceedings.
This might (probably will) come back and bite me on the bum… but having watched England-Croatia today I am a wee bit more confident about Friday (especially if England stick with the same team). One game at a time though – any sort of win tomorrow will do just grand!
My post of 12th June 2021 At 23:53
For anyone interested, this is a continuation of my notes of the evidence-giving session of Mr Christie.
“Continuation of day 20 [9 June 2021]of the virtual hearing in the BDO v RFC 2012 plc case’
“QC: The table on page [ed: missed the number], a list of possible redundancies drawn up by Jacqui Gourlay. You put Goodall on the same list as ..[ed: didn’t catch the name] Why was that?
C: I couldn’t say.
QC: Joint Bundle , vol 2 p 4779, email on 9 March …?
C: I’m not sure it’s the same…..different salaries?
QC: There is a reference in the Joint report…We’ll leave it there for the moment.[ed: he asked another question only one word of which I heard, ‘optimistic”]
C: Not optimistic. You’ve got to move quickly.
QC: Mr Manning assumed redundancies before March, not February?
C: Payroll and wages were the biggest costs though.
QC: Let me ask Mr Blucher about the relevance of that schedule.
B: [silence]
Lord Tyre: I’m not hearing you, Mr Blucher. Perhaps if you drew a little nearer to your microphone?
B: [presumably adjusting] Apologies, m’Lord. I do agree with Gordon, the early days are particularly difficult. One thing is that the most important aspect is that there is regulatory interest in every case by the authorities- match days securities, crowds, tickets ,very time- and people-consuming to keep your people. It’s difficult to cut staff immediately because you might have difficulty in meeting the regulatory requirements.
Christie: But you would have two teams looking at regulations etc before you finally decide.
Mr Young: M’Lord, would now be good time for the break?
Lord Tyre: Yes. We’ll break now, and resume at ten to twelve.
[Court rose for ten minutes or so]
On resumption,
Lord Tyre: Mr Young?
Mr Young QC: thank you , m’Lord. Now, Mr Christie, in the matter of player sales there seems to be two main points where you disagree with the Respondents. The first is on the lack of independent advice obtained by the Joint Administrators. The second is on the absence of a pro-active policy?
C: Yes: and a third is the lack of completion of the sale of Naismith.
QC: Let’s just focus on the pro-active policy lack. Can we agree that the Joint Administrators did not set their faces against transfers?
C: That’s probably fair enough.
QC: Discussion with clubs in China, Norway, and Blackpool about Fleck, for example?
C; [ed: I did not catch his words]
QC: Your view is based on?
C: My view is based on insolvencies generally. If you have surpluses that you don’t neeed, you would sell.
QC: Can I ask Mr Blucher for his view?
B: Every case is different. The Administrators have to consider carefully what their strategy should be. Every case as I say is different. The challenges are different. Redundancies always ? No. Waivers? Deferrals?..
QC: In relation to player transfers, Mr Christie has no personal experience but says he can read across from general insolvencies. Does this apply to Football Clubs?
B: They’re fairly unique. In terms of players transfers, Rangers would have its unique circumstances, with the transfer window closed.
QC: Mr Christie, one of your touchstones is Portsmouth. If we look in the Joint Bundle vol 1, p1168, in the second paragraph : ‘ the Premier league opened the window early.’ From your report you say Portsmouth created an organisation to try to sell players but despite that it was a while before a sale?
C: The achievability of football sales I beyond my expertise.
QC: But would you still be suggesting negligence if there is no pro-active policy?
C: Yes.
QC: But if having or not having a pro-active policy had no effect would you still consider it negligent?
C: Yes
QC: There would be expense incurred?
C: You could appoint an agent ,paid on commission
QC: Mr Blucher, would you have a view, on negligent?
B: I’m not sure I have a view on that..
QC: Mr Christie, on the subject of Steven Naismith..page 273 of your Supplementary report, sub-para (h) [ed: that might have been ‘8’] You say it was ‘irrational’ not to sell Naismith. Is it right that you think buy-out clauses should not have been put in?
C: Yes
QC: Because the purchaser woud offer less?
C: Yes, because it wasn’t linked to ‘waivers’ but was a permanent change.
QC: Isn’t it rational to seek at least the buy-out clause price?
C: [ed: I didn’t hear his response]
QC: The £2.75 million allocated by Sevco to the playing squad- was that a fair price for the contracts?
C: Unless the interested parties [ed: I missed the rest of his reply, and the next exchange]
QC ——?
C: —–
QC: Moving on to talk about the ‘brand’. You’ve not had to deal with seeking a football club valuation?
C: Correct.
QC: Did you look at the Leicester City or [ed: I missed the name of th club]
C: No
QC: Did you go down the route of looking at other instances?
C: No, I’m just generally aware of others.
QC: You didn’t look at how the Liquidators looked at brand valuation?
C: The fact that it was done in other cases doesn’t mean that it was appropriate in Rangers case.
QC: But wouldn’t you expect brand valuations of other clubs?
C: You’ve confirmed that the Rangers situation was different.
QC: [ ed: I caught only the words ‘in-house valuation’..]
C: [ed: I caught something like ‘ there would only be objectivity if out-of-house’]
QC: Didn’t Hearts think it worthwhile?
C: Cases are unique.
QC: On the question of fault, others had looked over things before you?
C: Yes
QC: BDO itself reported?
C: Yes
QC: Mr Manning?
C: Yes.
QC: You had Manning’s and BDO’s reports in August 2020?
C: Yes
QC: Are you the first to mention ‘fault’?
C: I was asked to look at it.
QC: Did you have the brand valuation reports?
C: I think I may have seen a draft
QC: If we look at pages 93, 94 of the Experts Bundle………there’s the draft report from Mr Forbes, then the final report on page 96. The reason why you come to a diferent view may be that you already had the report of valuation by Mr Forbes, you were triggered by that report?
C: I’m not sure what you mean by ‘triggered’……I was asked to look ..
QC: At para 11.8 page 76, you describe ‘normal practice’ …?
C: In any insolvency if you think you have an asset of value you would get it valued. I don’t think I was ‘triggered’….Just normal practice.
QC: Can I ask Mr Blucher?
C: I don’t know of any football case I’ve been involved in where there was a brand evaluation.
QC: Mr Christie, Mr Forbes states that it would take 6 to 12 months to market the brand. Do you say that the Joint Administrators should have taken that time?
C: Not necessarily. It emphasises how necessary it is at the start to know your plan.
QC: On the basis of Mr Forbes’ report it is likely that the Joint Administratrs would go into the following season?
C: If you agree with the estimate.
QC: Did you look into trading loss account?
C: No
QC: How would you integrate the brand value with a sale and lease-back ?
C: [ed: no idea what he said]
QC: A period of months… did you think in terms of timescale
C: [ed: missed what he said]
QC: What about the fans’ reaction to delays?
C: Yes, but there would have to be a media manager
QC: [ ed: I missed his question]
C: Fans support their clubs through thick and thin.
QC: Mr Blucher… Mr Blucher ? I can’t hear you
Lord Tyre: Mr Blucher you’re on ‘mute’……..
B: My apologies. Can you hear me now
Lord Tyre: Yes, can hear you now.
B: Can you repeat the question, please?
QC: If the Administration goes on for longer than expected does that cause problems?
B: The Administrators set their cash and cash flow to end at May, or the middle of June. If they fet that their timing was wrong they might have to trade on……
Lord Tyre: Mr Christie, you have something to say?
C: Yes, m’Lord. I don’t disagree. Cash is king. How to maximise the cash available.
QC: Mr Christie, Mr Blucher talked about the end of May. You talk about the ‘artificial deadline’ when waivers cease, but it was a natural deadline that the Administrators were working to?
C: But if you were working to waivers and that period ends, it’s an artificil deadline.
QC: Let’s look now at heritable property. Mr Blucher, what is your view about the need for Administrators to seek professional advice?
B: I always take advice. But the Administrators have to make the strategic decisions………
QC: Mr Christie?
C: You need to take advice about alternative options If you don’t take strategic advice.
B: …. any valuation you had from your agents you’re working with…..[ ed: I missed the beginning and end of his remarks]
QC: Mr Christie, Mr Hutchison envisaged the Joint Administrators setting up a structure for the fans to enable them to put forward a bid?
C: That was one option, though you might have to help. I’ve no problem with tht suggestion.
QC: No point of conflict?
C: No, I don’t think so- you’re only going to sell for the benefit of the creditors, or in a management buy-out.
QC: [ed: he referred to a document but I missed which one! The reference was to ‘10.30 of page 32 or 33 of whatever , maybe the Expert bundle?] This talks of a parallel approach ( sell) the club with all its property, or sell each separately. You envisage that if the offer for the club was too low, you would try sale and lease-back?
C: Yes, thats almost a simple arithmetical point.
QC: Mr Hutchison woud sell the club first without the heritable property, and then arrange a lease?
C: You’d have to refer to property experts.
QC: Again, with a lease-back and sale approach , bidders for the whole might walk away?
C: It’s a balance.
QC: On a discrete point, the Rangers Youth Develoment monies. If we look at page 294 of your Supplementary report, this wasn’t in your first report. Why?
C: I had not been asked to look at it.
QC: So you are asked to look at specific topics?
C: Yes
QC: Can we look at the documents , 342, you were sent, 343, 344 up to 352. These were the documents relating to Youth Development?
C: Yes.
QC: To be quite clear: this is not the grounds of fault against the Joint Administrators. Were you given any information about Ian Hart and a loan to Rangers Youth Development?
C: Part of the ….[ed: didn’t catch the rest]
QC: Mr Hart sought repayment., and bought shares.
C: I was aware of that.
QC:Had you carried out any investigation into the £250,000?
C: No. I based myself on what was given to me.
QC So ..[ed: I didn’t catch his point]
C: Passing the money to one creditor is inappropriate.
MR McBREARTY intervening : M’Lord, it would be fair to put to Mr Christie that he had..[ed: ?]..
Lord Tyre: Let’s see the passage.
[ed: I assume that the passage in question was put on screen for the judge and others to read?]
Then, the next person to speak was
C: Paying all the money to one creditor.
QC: Did you do any further investigation into other creditors?
C: No.
QC: Did you investigate further debts up to 2012. No?
C: That’s correct.
Lord Tyre: Let’s stop now, and adjourn for lunch till 1.45. “
@WokingCelt
The Queen has done nothing for the poor of this country , she is happy to strip the public purse to upkeep her many castles and palaces , her extended family are paid a fortune and when the country is surviving on foodbanks she is quite happy for a new Royal yacht in memory of her husband to come before funding the NHS. The heir to the Dutch throne who has just finished school has refused to take any money from the State . Our Royal family are crucial in the subservient domination expected on its subjects which filter down the pyramid system of nobility and entitled to the Lords and most honourables.
The next Queen is Camilla Parker Bowles and it’s just fate that it isn’t Sarah Ferguson , it is bad enough that the next head of State will be the very good friend of Jimmy Saville , it could have been the very good friend of Jeffrey Epstein.
As for Biden , he is just a mass murdering war criminal
Wokingcelt. 11th June @11.31
I don’t, as a rule, comment on here about establishment/ political issues, but in off topic response…
It seems a bit odd for a ‘died (dyed?) in the wool republican’ to praise the ‘noble Queen’ (in fairness, not Lizzie’s fault) in such a glowing fashion, but I’m more taken by your Joe Biden comment about ‘standing back in recognition of his democratic status’.
To me that he, sadly, is a mere figurehead/puppet of his progressive masters, and a bit slow in the uptake these days (to put it mildly). To be brutally honest, he is becoming ever more confused about his surroundings. That’s why Sleepy Joe is ‘standing back’
His cognitive difficulties (by and large covered up by the liberal leaning and Trump hating American MSM) are evident for all to see (e.g unable to operate without a teleprompter – which, if it breaks down, leaves him stranded). He is being used and ought to be removed from the ‘firing line’.
That’s just my ‘tuppence worth’ mind!
Tremendous work JC , without your dedication and input nobody would have a clue to what was going on , a fascinating insight .
My post of 13th June 2021 At 22:48 brought Day 20 of the BDO v RFC 2012 plc case up to lunch on 9 June
This picks up after lunch:
Continuation of 9 June evidence session:
[ I apologise for getting Mr Blucher’s name wrong from time to time. It is Blucher (like the Prussian general at Waterloo) but I frequently typed Bulcher!]
Lord Tyre: Mr Christie, unmute, please. Mr Young?
Mr Young QC: On another topic, Mr Christie, the Craig Whyte shares. There’s no discussion in your first report. Why?
C: I wasn’t asked
QC: Can we look at p 258 para 3.14 in your Supplementary report? So you say that the Administrators had no control over the shares such that they could deliver the shares. Can I suggest there were three elements in the Administrators’ strategy? One, get agreement from Whyte, two, leverage of Ticketus, three, getting legal advice about taking legal action?
C: Arguably. But they should have had a clear strategy to remove all doubt immediately.
QC: but ….
C: but immediately on appointment get a mandate.
QC: What are you envisaging?
C: That you have the shares under the control of the Administrators
QC: Let’s say they tried but Whyte refused?
C: They could take early legal action to force control
QC: Are you suggesting there was a legal process that the Joint Administrators overlooked?
C: I’m suggesting that if you’re going to take legal action you want to do so as soon as possible
QC: If those are taken and there is no clear route, persuasion only?
C: If there is no voluntary handover ,or legal route, then there is no possibility of deliverability.
QC: [ addressing Mr Blucher] As an Administrator taking control of shares what was your experience?
B: It’s a normal situation ,when you’re trying to get a CVA to rely on shareholders to vote for;
Lord Tyre:or to hand over their shares when going for ‘going concern’
QC: Mr Blucher have you any examples of having taken control through a mandate at the outset?
B: Can’t think of one.
QC: Mr Christie , have you?
C: Not in shares, but we took a mandate to get control of a licence that we needed.
Lord Tyre: Mr Christie , obtaining legal advice: are you aware of a legal route whereby Whyte couldn’t refuse to hand over his shares?
C: The obvious route, m’Lord, would be if there was a debt to be called up.
Lord Tyre: Thank you.
QC: Mr Christie, what is your position in relation to looking at both CVA and an asset sale: is it your view that a CVA was inapplicable?
C: A CVA would have avoided the need to transfer the SPL share, but overly focussing on a CVA was ..[ ed: didn’t catch the end]
QC: A CVA was an option until June: are you accepting that it was reasonable to keep it on the table?
C : If it were kept in mind that it might not be deliverable.
QC: But how did they focus on one rather than the other? It was a parallel option-What can you point to to show there was undue focus on a CVA?
C: I’m not sure there is a specific point.
QC: [ citing ] “ it’ not clear…” Have you seen Mr Baird’s view?
C: Yes, I have
QC: Sale of the whole, if the Joint Administrators believed that HMRC might go with a CVA it was reasonable for them to keep it on the table?
C: That’s true.
QC: [to Blucher] Mr Blucher, what is your view of keeping the CVA on the table for as long as it did?
B: It seemed to me that the CVA was part of the discussions and it was reasonable to keep that live.
QC: Can you look, Mr Christie, at page 81 [ed: I didn’t hear what document he was referring to] .this clarifies : -you would be asked to comment on matters, but also be able to raise issues’
No further questions.
Lord Tyre: Mr McBrearty?
Mr McBrearty: QC Good afternoon Mr Buchler. You mentiond that you had dealt with ‘thousands’ of cases.How many?
B: Age has taken that away, I’m afraid, the memory is not what it was… [ ed: said with humour]
QC: Bedlow Manor plc. You were appointed. Who was your Joint Appointee?
B: No recollection.
QC: David Whitehouse……You did not disclose this.
B: I’ve made it clear in my documents that I’ve worked with Whitehouse, .. Gordon.. [ed: I think that’s a reference to Mr Christie] … nothing inappropriate.
QC: In your first report you didn’t mention this
B: [ed: I missed his reply]
QC: You took joint appointments with Whitehouse. Did you not think it proper to inform the Court?
B: [ed: again, his reply was not clear to me, but I think I heard the word ‘irrelevant’]
QC: Being in partnership with someone not relevant when you’re involved in a case..[ed: ‘concerning him’??]
B: I did think it relevant to mention it, but I don’t think that the fact that I was in partnership with Whitehouse and Clark……[ed: I’m not sure whether he finished or was cut off]
QC: You didn’t mention it.
B: [ed: he made some reply which I didn’t catch ]
QC: You were involved with Bradford City. So was David Whitehouse. What were your respective roles, you were senior?
B: yes
QC: Would you have been supervising Whitehouse?
B: No
QC: how many other appointments have you worked on with David Whitehouse?
B: I can’t say.
QC: A ball-park figure?
B: A handful.
QC: With Paul Clark?
B: A handful
QC: Is there a reason why you did not include this in your first report?
B: I can’t remember
QC: You recall that it was David Whitehouse’s mention of it in his report?
B: I didn’t focus on David Whitehouse’s report until March
QC: Were you asked to add this?
B: No.
QC: Did you discuss it?
B: Yes, with the instructing lawyers
QC: [quoting] “ I did not have any business contact with David Whitehouse” ?
B: I ws instructed in late 2020 approximately.
QC: what do you mean by approximately?
B: A reasonable time
QC: But you might be out by a couple of years?
B: I can’t remember
QC: But you know it was important ?
B: That… [ed: missed it]
QC: {ed: missed that question]
B: You are reminding me of dates I had forgotten
QC ——–
B:———–
QC: ———
B: ——–
QC: the precise number of years may not be important but you’ve been a little bit casual in expressing it in the way you have.
B: I wasn’t being deliberately casual
QC: You say that Whitehouse and Clark joined Duff and Phelps to set up the Manchester office?
B: Yes, but Clark was based in London.
QC: Blucher Phillips has 13 partners?
B: Yes
QC [ed: I didn’t hear the question]
B: [ed:didn’t hear the reply]
QC: Close working relationships?
B; Yes.
QC: In Joint appointments you would be the overseer as the more senior?
B: That’s more than likely.
QC: ‘Mentoring’ , in effect?
B: I don’t remember mentoring.
QC: Were you impressed by them?
B: They were good people.
QC: [ed: I missed the question]
B: Like most of the people I’ve worked with I don’t remember anything negative about Whitehouse and Clark.
QC: When you first heard of the criminal charges what was your first reaction?
B: I never really followed the Rangers cases, I’m not sure I had a specific view. There was something not quite right about it. They were never criminal people.
QC: When you write your reports you choose your words?
B: I write my report.
QC: You say you had no business contact with Whitehouse and Clark, what about other contact? We know from your CV that you’ve been involved in four football club Administrations. Football Club Administrations are at one every ten years. You’ve had four over 40 years or so, and the clubs involved were not on a par with Rangers.
B: Yes
QC: There were certain similarities; how to control the cost base, cash is king, continue trading…
B: Yes
QC: In an Administration one would try to make the company as attractive as possible to potential buyers?
B: Yes
QC: And if there was a specialist area you would seek advice?
B: You would use your own experience and expertise.
QC: But if it was outwith, you would seek advice?
B: Yes
QC: The Experts Bundle… the terms…“ please provide your expert opinion ” “appropriate to criticise” “ ..alleged deficiencies.” Agreed?
B: I was asked to comment on whether an ordinarily competent administrator would…
QC: How were you informed of the relevant facts?
B: I worked on all of the expert reports
QC: Par 5.6 , “ I understand that the Singapore consortium ….action of the SPL” From what source did your understanding come?
B: It would have been from information provided to me
QC: And what kind of documents?
B: The bundles, documents sent by my instructing lawyers (CMS)
QC: Have you different sources?
B: I can’t remember
QC: Did you meet with David Whitehouse to discuss?
B: No, I only met him this year in March, April.
QC: Let’s look now at page 194, para 8.11. If you would read that to yourself….
B: [ after reading] Yes
QC: The point you’re raising is that voluntary redundancies might be in breach of the regulations of the SPL.Is it a fair reading that you saw this as reading like part of the Joint Administrators’ thinking?
B: I’m sure the Joint Administrators would have had their thoughts..
QC: Do you know that they took it into account, or are you saying it?
B: [ ed: I missed the reply]
QC: There’s a distinct difference there
B: [ed: never heard his reply]
QC: We’ve seen that the Joint Administrators were on the cusp of making redundancies on 3 and 4 March 2012..We don’t see anywhere that they were considering whether they would be in breach of SPL regulations..?
B: Well, they would be aware of the need not to breach any rules
QC: Did you speak to the SFA and SPL?
B: No
QC: what I’m trying to be clear about is whether you are providing an ex post facto rationalisation?
B: I don’t understand.
QC [ ed: he explained what he meant,]
B: [ ed: all I could pick up of the reply was ‘…any action that would attract disciplinary measures..’
QC: Naismith? a close judgment call?
B: Yes
QC: Read what you say about that?
B: Yes
QC: [quoting] “it is my understanding that it would….. less attractive”. On what basis did you arrive at that understanding?
B: I got that from Paul Bobroff, my colleague and Chairman of Tottenham Hotspur. We discussed Naismith. He was very clear that the club would be less attractive if Naismith was sold.
QC: So that was not contemporaneous?
B: It was part of a discussion that I had..
QC: Do you think a bidder would be put off because of the sale of a single player?
B: [ed: I didn’t catch his reply]
C: It must be true that the Administrators were ready to sell?
B: Yes
QC: The final offer for Naismith was on 17 April 2012. By then the best and final bids were in. The best and final bids were around £10 million. So the Joint Administrators knew that the value [ed: I missed the next clause of the sentence] … and the PFA had indicated that players would not necessarily transfer under TUPE.
[ There then followed an exchange about Naismith and the possibility/ desirability of selling him given that he might leave for nothing. The exchange ended with
B: It’s a judgment call. And I wasn’t there so I can’t judge it.
Mr McBrearty suggested that perhaps his Lordship might think it was break-time.
Lord Tyre: Yes, we’ll break now and resume at 3.10.
On resumptionat3.12.
Mr McBrearty : Mr Blucher, as a formality I have to put it to you that no ordinarily competent administrator would have failed to sell Naismith. Your comment?
B: I just don’t agree with that.
QC: If Naismith had been the subject of report in the Press, mightn’t you have contacted other clubs?
B: It’s a very small market. Anyone reading would know what was going on in Rangers. If there had been interest it would have come to Rangers.
QC: If there was reported interest, wouldn’t you go to look?
B: If there was a specific club….
QC: Let me ask the question again: if you know there is an interest wouldn’t you go and ask?
B: Wouldn’t it be the other way round? The ‘interested’ club would trigger other interests?
QC: But what I’m not getting from your answer is what would be lost by phoning other clubs?
B: Probably very little.
QC: You are not an expert on the value of players. On page 19 , para [?], you say “ I also note that Mr Lombardi’s valuation”… Why do you call his methodology arbitrary?
B: I remember his methodology being discussed with Paul Bobroff and Cathie Gledhill.
QC: Mr Lombardi is an expert, why did you comment?
B: I’m not an expert but I have a degree of knowledge as to how the market works
QC: But you haven’t been instructed to give a report?
B: [ ed: missed what he said]
QC: The paragraph above, 7.33 , has “ Naismith injured” You’re not a medical expert. Why are you speculating as to his injury affecting performance?
B: Just a general observation.
QC: Nothing to do with your area of expertise?
B: I don’t have knowledge ….I said ‘the injury’
QC: When you use the words ‘my understanding is’ what do you mean?
B: It’s just part of my language
QC: Based on facts provided from discussion with colleagues?
B: It could be.
QC: What you are saying may or may not match up with what happened in 2012?
B: I wasn’t there.
QC: Let’s assume that at 5 April 2012 the wage reductions had been agreed and at that date the bids were around £10 million , they would not [ ed: I lost the rest of his question]
B: I don’t necessarily agree, but I’m waiting for you to get to your point
QC: They should have sought to realise their value as soon as possible.
B: I think there’s a lack of understanding about what it’s like with a closed transfer window. The ability to sell players is rare. I cannot see that the disposal of players as possible..
QC: 5th April 2012, at that point, take advice on the prospect of sales?
B: Take advice from those who know , those in the club.
QC: If they did not know whether they could sell or not they would have needed to ask?
B: In a closed window, sales are minimal
QC: Why wouldn’t you sell ?
B: Why would you sell a whole load of players when you’re trying to sell on a ‘going concern’ basis?
QC: Why would it destroy the hierarchical values?
B: Because it’s not the way the market works. When you’re thinking of buying a player it’s in the needs of your own club.
QC: Again, why would you not try?
B: [ed: missed that]
QC: para 5.11: is it your understanding that the cash flow deficit was £4.5 million? Were you aware of that?
B: No
QC: The trading deficit was just over £4.5 million.If they had attempted to sell some players?
B: It is so difficult to see how the sale of players would……….I don’t believe it.
QC: But that is not your specialism
B: You asked me to comment
QC: But the market could have been tested?
B: [ ed: didn’t hear his reply]
QC: The signing of Daniel Cousin, Mr Blucher. Within the first week of the Administration the Joint Administrators had supported the wish to sign him. What do you make of that?
B: I wasn’t there at the time
QC: So you dont’ want to comment on that?
B: It’s not something I think I would have done, but not having all the facts…
QC: On another point, wage reductions or redundancies? Is that a matter of judgment?
B: Yes, a judgment made on the facts.
QC: a de facto creditors rule, would that have the same effect as ‘deferral of wages’?
B: Yes
QC: It’s not your area. If it were to be the case that there was no de facto creditor rule then there was no equivalence to deferral of wages?
B: Yes
QC: The purpose of Administration is re-structure in the context of cost reduction?
B: Yes
QC: page 3774, an internal email , Whitehouse,11 March , right hand side “and what I’ll come on to shortly….bid for business..” There would be an attempt to change the cost base ?
B: They’re going to have to save cash..
QC: [ began to ask a question]….
Mr Young QC: Don’t answer, Mr Blucher, for the moment. M’Lord, what Mr Whitehouse meant is for Mr Whitehouse to answer.
Mr McBrearty: Very well. I’ll ask Mr Blucher: do you believe that the cost base should be restructured so that a new purchaser doesn’t inherit a failed structure?
B: [ ed: I have no note of what he said],
QC: Major cash flow problem, cash deficit £3.5 million, and structure that caused that problem needs to be changed?
B: ———
QC: ——-
B: They found a buyer prepared to take the structure on.
QC: Deferrals didn’t have the effect of restructuring the cost base
B: But it reduced the cash need.
QC: The contracts making the club nearly unbuyable points to something having gone wrong in the way the Administrators approached matters.
B: there’s no doubt that the club was loss-making
QC: The Administrators had entered a deal with the players NOT to make redundancies.
B: [ if they hadn’t] there would have been loss of goodwill etc
QC: Do you accept that making redundancies would have cut the cost base?
B: [ ed: I have no note of reply by Blucher. If he replied I didn’t hear it ]
and the next thing Lord Tyre brought business to a close with a “we’ll leave it at that, till tomorrow morning 10 o’clock. Hearing is adjourned till then.”
Now, I have to repeat that I have written only what I heard for sure was the essence of what was asked and answered., using as far as I could the actual words and expressions used by Counsel and witnesses. I have not made anything up or knowingly distorted anything that anyone said, and certainly did not deliberately report inaccurately.
I also have to say that although I have notes, or partial notes, of about 12 or 13 days hearings, I have not heard all the evidence from all of the witnesses. And , of course, it’s axiomatic that until all the evidence has been heard, any attempt at ‘judgment’ is not on.
As a civil action, judgment is made on ‘the balance of probability’, where the court weighs up the evidence and decides which version is most probably true.
I should maybe add that the ‘virtual hearing’ technology in itself worked pretty well. There were no serious malfunctions. When I had difficulty hearing was when ,for example, the speaker was too far from his mic , or when Mrs C was going about her lawful business in the kitchen, emptying the dishwasher or washing machine , or when the phone rang or an Amazon delivery arrived and such like.
I will try to get round to typing up some of the rest of what I’ve got before Friday.
[Quite entirely unconnected, I enjoyed Willie Miller this afternoon as the upbeat comforter of Richard Gordon and Craig Levein and Billy Dodds!
And he was right to be upbeat, in my opinion. The result did not reflect the game.
Thanks again JC
Cluster One 14th June 2021 At 23:53
‘ ..Thanks again JC.’
++++++++++
Not that I’m looking for thanks !
There are, I am sure , many of the people who could see me far enough!
Truth can hurt.
But the denial of Truth ?
That kills!
There is a lot of talk that out of the Covid loan fund, Rangers accessed £3.2M, while every other club got £1.6M. One club did not take the loan. Why was the extra available £1.6M not offered equally between all other clubs instead of being given in whole to just one? Rangers themselves have confirmed they owe the SG £3.2M.
Can the punters and media layoff the call for Gilmour and Patterson to come to the rescue of Scotland’s national team. While both maybe young and exciting players to expect them to lift the Scotland team to success against England and further advancement in the Euros might be too much to bear for the young men. The expectations of the country should not rest on their shoulders. Neither has much experience at this level and while playing in CL and EL games is good for development throwing them into the pressure cooker on Friday and having the team come up short could affect their future development if they don’t perform as the punters and media seem to think they can/will.
John Clark 15th June 2021 At 00:09
………………………….
You will get it from me all the same;-)
UTH 15th June 17.00
Can i ask where “the lot of talk” emanates from?
@UTH – any idea which club didn’t take up the loan option? On the face of it, it does seem extraordinary. Maybe that the loan was available on some sort of jobs to loan ratio. Having said that would I (or indeed HMG) lend a punter money (our money) when the same punter still owed me from previous dealings and had no intention of paying? Of course not – there goes the “same club” argument right there.
@Vernallen – couldn’t agree more. I would argue against Steve Clarke’s starting 11 against Czech Rep but:
1. The man got us there
2. Lumping such expectation on to these young players is gambling with promising futures for our own gratification.
I am sure that Steve Clarke is doing his level best (which is a heck of a lot better than I could do) to put the right team on the pitch through the 90 minutes. To read Tom English (amongst others) to give views with hindsight is sickening, not least when they refuse POINT BLANK to hold our football authorities to account for consistency and (heaven help us) honesty and decency.
Off to watch France v Germany (you would think England fixed the draw!)
Wokingcelt 15th June 2021 At 19:37
@UTH – any idea which club didn’t take up the loan option? On the face of it, it does seem extraordinary. Maybe that the loan was available on some sort of jobs to loan ratio. Having said that would I (or indeed HMG) lend a punter money (our money) when the same punter still owed me from previous dealings and had no intention of paying? Of course not – there goes the “same club” argument right there.
+++++++++++++++++
The conclusion being made is Celtic didn’t take up the loan offer, but there is no evidence provided to confirm that.
Here are my notes of Day 19 ( 8 June 2021) of the BDO v RFC 2012 plc.
Lord Tyre: Mr McBrearty?
McBrearty QC: Good morning, m’Lord. I want to introduce Mr Hutchison.
Lord Tyre: Good morning, Mr Hutchison. Can I ask you to confirm that you’re alone, mobile on silent, and have arranged not to be disturbed?
H: Yes
Lord Tyre: Will you take the oath? [ administers the oath]
Mr McBrearty: Mr Hutchison, can you confirm your name, age, address, occupation [chartered surveyor] , and that the statements on page 379 of the Experts Reports bundle and the Supplementary report on page 492 and the note of a Joint meeting between Mr Timney and Mr Plum have your signature?
H: Yes
QC: Have you had a chance to re-read them and are you content to have them as your evidence subject to anything you might wish to add today?
H; Yes.
Mr Young QC introduces Mr Timney and Mr Plum.
Lord Tyre: [ usual spiel, and swears each in individually]
Mr Young: [ takes them through the same name, age, address stuff] You’ll see the Experts bundle on the screen. And a copy of the Joint report.Mr Timney, this is a joint report. Why?
T: The normal practice. Alan specialises in football stadia. I focus on trading practices.
QC: Do you have particular expertise in Insolvency
T: I worked for some years with Bank of Scotland/Lloyds.
P: I have.
QC: If we look in the Joint Bundle at p 3032. This is an email from a Morris Rothbart, an offer on behalf of a Mr McKenna, proposing a sale and lease-back of Ibrox for 20 years at £1.8 million a year, with the possibility of a buy-back at the end of ten years, for £14.185 million. Have both of you seen this?
T: Yes
P: Yes
QC: Mr Timney, how deliverable would such an arrangement be?
T: I would have had some concerns,particularly about Murray Park, the planning belt conditionality, the Planning Commission, and why rent would be guaranteed by Capita, a third party.
QC: Mr Plum, do you have any comments on the level of rent, £1.8 million?
P: It’s extraordinarily high.I cannot imagine a distressed football club being able support a rent such as that.Even doing well, Rangers would have struggled.
QC: Mr Plum, Capita guaranteeing- would you ever see a guarantor?
P: I’ve never seen it. A very rich man might possibly..
QC: No further questions.
Lord Tyre : You can begin your cross-eamination of Mr Hutchison
Mr Young QC: Thank you, m’Lord. Mr Hutchison, a lease-back structure , you’re envisaging the lease being between the purchaser and the Joint Administrators?
H: Yes.
QC: In the situation where the club emerges from Administration?
H: It could be, or another party later.
QC: In broad terms ..[ed: missed it]
H: [ed: missed the reply]
QC: The terms of lease-what were you envisaging in your report, para 5.85 on page 405, last sentence , ‘short lease’?
H; There could be another option, a licence to occupy until the purchaser …
QC: Isn’t it more likely a longer lease would be wanted by a buyer?
H: That’s a fair comment.
QC: Under a fan ownership model……12 months……..3rd party 6 months?
H: Yes
QC: If it was a valid option you’d set out the pit-falls? Anyone purchasing the club even without a stadium would need to be encouraged to keep their bids active….The price woul reduce?
H: They would not be getting the heritable property.
QC: [ ed: missed
H: [ ed: missed]
QC: There’s a risk that they would drop out?
H: A risk, certainly
QC: In an arrangement between the Joint Administrators and prospective tenant….The terms: you say an option to purchase later would be attractive?
H: Yes
QC: Necessary?
H: Not absolutely, but helpful
QC: [ ed: missed the question]
H: [ed: missed any reply]
QC: The rent level would be crucial?
H: Yes
QC: You suggest £1-2 million, based on turnover and profitability
H: There are various comparables
QC: To be affordable to Rangers, profitability is key?
H: If the club is run in a viable way
QC: You refer to the accounts in 2013-2017, but 2012 onwards is in your report?
H: The club had not been run in a sustainable manner
QC: Had you looked at profitability for 2012 onwards?
H: Not in any great detail
QC: There are serious questions about whether Rangers could have paid that level?
H: I disagree.
QC: Mr Plum, profitability or turnover?
P: Turnover is one thing, ability to pay is another. Unless you are making a profit you’re not in a position.Profit is the key, otherwise you need subsidy.
QC: Mr Hutchison?
H: What you need to look at is whether the operation .. [ed: I can’t say whether he finished his sentence before Lord Tyre spoke}
Lord Tyre: Mr Hutchison, “ ongoing subsidy” – Football clubs are run differently: do you assume that there will be an owner prepared to subsidise?
H: No
Mr Young: Mr Hutchison, can we look at the first bundle, p 1944, of the Expert documents: operating loss 2013 £17.5 million.Year 2017 , p 2705, bottom of pge, in the Premier league. £6.5 million loss.
H: Yes
QC: If we have the lease in place , look at the Joint Administrators’ next need: to find a commercial investor.Would a Pension Fund be interested?
H: Possibly, but it’s more likely that high net worth individuals would be
QC: Can you flesh that out?
H: Yes, property companies, overseas investors, private investors
QC: They would be looking for a 7.5% yield?
H: Yes
QC: That’s not realistic,really. Wouldn’t they be looking for a better yield?
H: In Peterborough United ‘s case as an example the yield was much lower, and there are some other parallels.
QC: Mr Timney, ?
T: Pension funds wouldn’t look at such an arrangement, and 7.5 is only a shade over what prime office properties in Glasgow were fetching.Buy-back arrangements make an asset difficult to sell.
QC: Mr Hutchison, thhere’s a difficulty if there is no certainty as to buy-back option?
H: Yes
QC: [ed: missed the question]
H: The likelihood of ‘no club’ was not going to happen. Effectively investors were given a ‘covenant’ by fans
QC:; Another insolvency event…?
H: The Dundee example… covenant to successor club
QC: Mr Timney?
T: A property investment is just another investment- fraught with risk.
QC: Mr Plum?They’re not transactions at all. If you want a responsible club to come in, you wouldn’t be paying rents of £1 million.
QC: Mr Hutchison, one of the other differences is the ‘alternative use’ values. You refer to…
H: Am I allowed to come back to Mr Plum, please?
QC: Yes.
H: Arms-length purchases in smaller clubs…
QC: But can I ask you about your description of Savil’s alternative use as being misleading?
H: I think it’s unlikely that Rangers would have shut up shop.
QC: Any investor has to look at worst case scenario, so ‘alternative use’ is relevant
H: It is unrealistic that Rangers would not continue…Investors look at current use as being highest value, alternative use considerations are less relevant
QC: Mr Timney, do you accept that?
T: No. It’s not misleading to look at worst scenario- the back-stop position in case of arrears, failure to pay…
QC: Mr Hutchison?
H: The worst case realistic scenario
QC: You may be aware that the fans groups were well informed. They knew the bids were going down from about £10 million downwards.Wouldn’t there have been great difficulty in persuading the fans to pay £20 million?
H: I think the Joint Administrators backed themselves into a corner. I think they should have made the running, taking property advice.
QC: Of the two models wouldn’t fans want to minimise the cost?
H: [ed: didn’t catch his comment]
QC: The assumption would be that fans would have sought…?
H: The Joint Administrators would set up a company for the fans…
QC: 15 to 20 million pounds? What drives that sale price, 20,000 fans paying so much each?
H: [ ed: all I got was ‘.. debentures… a scheme different from mine..’]
QC: Completely driven by the number of fans prepared to pay?
H: Ultimately, yes.
QC: What incentive would there have been to purchase after the club had been saved?
H : Obtaining an element of control
QC: But there is a difference between when the club has been saved by a new owner, and the danger is passed ?
H: t The danger is not necessarily passed
QC: If you were advising the JA’ s you would be hoping that the fans will still feel so energised
H: There’s always a risk with property investment
QC: This is a different risk- a key investor….
H: [ed: again I missed his observtion]
QC: Let’s have a different look at this. Lease-backs , in general. Have you personally any experience in leasing stadia?
H: No
QC: The timescale, broad estimate?
H: Informed, but broad, yes
QC: Have you any knowledge of an actual ?
H: No
QC: Any example in the UK of fans owning stadia separate from the clubs?
H: Not aware of any.
Lord Tyre intervened: [ed:@11.36] I think we should have a break for the transcriber.15 minutes till 10 to 12.
On resumption
Mr Young : Mr Hutchison, in terms of lease-back of stadia in general, do you accept that often the the common situation is lease-back from a Council or club-related body?
H: Yes
QC: Bournemouth, the only example of an ordinary commercial example?
H: [ed: missed it]
QC: Council tenant, related company, rents not necessarily market rent?
H: Not necessarily
QC: At p 1221 on p 498 of the Experts Bundle, you refer to similar structures- Aston Villa, Derby County, Sheffield Wednesday. Have you looked at these in detail?
H: No, they’re of limited relevance, 2018
QC: Do you know who the landlords are?
H: All related parties
QC:; and the ‘driver’?
H: ‘Fair Play’ arrangements
QC: Look at para 5.4 You say that there is separation of ownership from the club. Are you saying a professional adviser would be negligent in not suggesting separation?
H: Yes, it would be negligent not to suggest different options.
QC: You go a little further: “ the better option IS to separate”?
H: I do believe that.
( the voice of Judith, the transcriber, intervened, informing the judge that there was a glitch, her machine had not recorded the last few exchanges. This was sorted, and business resumed at 12.11)
Mr Young : Would you be critical of advisers who did not flag up the better option?
H: Yes
QC: Only critical of the £5.5 million offer?
H: I think the JA s should have been monitoring as they went along
QC: So, for example, we know that when the final bid came in at £10 million, the adviser should have been looking at separation?
H: Yes
QC: But one option is fan ownership, a risk, and the other option a high risk?
H: There is risk in everything, risk must be managed.
QC: the fan option has never been done
H: there were still two options.. and fans could be epected to..
QC: [ed: missed his actual words]
H: they could have set up a structure, do a proper job….
QC: To be run by the Joint Administrators…. that’s not in your report as such
H: My apologies.
QC: Huge risk. Joint Administrators having to hold for year or more?
H: They could have set up a company to manage the process
QC: My proposition I that you don’t acknowledge the high degree of speculation. Mt Timney, hve you view?
T: Incredibly speculative from my perspective.I don’t think an Adviser would be incompetent if he did not put separation forward .
Mr Plum: We discussed this at our joint meeting with Mr Hutchison. We are at completely opposite ends.
QC: The 6 to 12 months for fan ownership. Mr Plum, what do you think of those timescales?
P: Extremely tight, I believe. 6 months is not a reasonable time.
QC: Mr Timney, anythingto add?
T: 6 months was highly ambitious at that time, and a pioneering venture? 6-12 way too short.
QC: Mr Hutchison?
H: We just agree to disagree
QC: In relation to Murray Park, there is agreement that it might have been sold for circa £3 million.In Savils report ,p1025, pge 475, te suggestion is that that could take 18-24 months. Do you agree the timescales?
H: my figure is not too different, butv there is some agreement about time scales.
QC; No further questions,
Lord Tyre: Mr McBrearty?
Mr McBrearty QC: Mr Timney, the Lambert Smith Hampton property valution, unusual?
T: Yes
QC: Planning condition make it uncertain what the Ibrox land would be worth?
T: Yes
QC: Look at the land around?
T: Yes, listed building..
QC: LSH looked at the surroundings, no difficulty with that approach?
T: No
QC: Break-up values,… assets sold separately?
T: Yes
QC: Need to provide a valuation that is reliable?
T: Yes
QC: At para 10.18 you say “ unique circumstances opinion guesstimate” Are you not doing down you own profession?
T: No. It’s not as though you have row of shop and such like, there’s high degree of valuation tolerance
QC:[ ed; missed the question]
T: The Red Book is quite clear ,we don’t have lots of Ibrox stadiums being sold.
QC: Sale and leaseback. Mr Plum, sale and lease-back is well known, agreed?
P: Agreed
QC: It has been used for football stadiums?
P: It has been known.
QC: Bournemouth?
P: Yes, 2005
QC: Peterborough?
P: I didn’t look in detail at smaller outfits
QC: Arms-length transaction?
P: I can’t answer,don’t know the detail. I have a note about Leeds.
QC: Can you read yo…
Lord Tyre: Mr Plum, I’d rather you didn’t read your note if it is not a document lodged with the Court
QC: Leyton Orient?
P; Not arms-length
QC: You agree that there are property experts who specialise in stadia?
P: I don’t know any
QC: There is a flier….?
P: That would be Alan Whittaker. He would not claim to be an expert.
QC: Are you aware of the offer from Rothbart on behalf of high net worth individual?
P: Yes
QC: You said that rent level at £1.8 million was higher than Mr Hutchison’s?
P: Yes
QC: But that was a first offer?
P: [ed: missed his reply]
QC: Might have been room to increase the price?
P: [ed; missed it]
QC: Only one way to find out?
P: You’d expect it to be explored.
QC: There might have been others, there would be a market?
P: Not everything sells. But the rent..
QC: But the point is, the only way is to test the market.
P: But the time required…
QC: What would be the downside of exploring? Wouldn’t your job be to advise of all possible…?
P: As long as they didn’t have time constraints
QC: Wouldn’t you just see what offers you could get?
P: You could, but you need to have things established , a data room
QC: But if you had been approached?
P: We do turn work away.
QC: Rothbart was prepred to make an offer
P: He didn’t have a position.
QC: He made an offer without prompting- you’d be expected to… [ ed: missed it]
P: ‘Hope’ might be a better word.
QC: The difficulties. First the ‘covenant’ of the fans. .. Clubs survive?
P: Yes, in some shape or form
QC: Because of the fans
P: Yes
QC: [ed: missed his question]
P: The guys at Rangers were in a desperate position.
QC: [ed; missed ]
P: [ed: missed]
QC: [ed: missed]
P: There’s no way that the club could have afforded £1-1.5 million rent. There’s only one club in Scotland that makes a profit, Celtic.
QC: But Rangers, 55 titles, qualifying for Europe, 50,000 fas every two weeks, elite fans, 5 million worldwide?
[ed: What I have next is ‘ Mr Hutchison …. properly managed Rangers could afford that rent ‘. It’s not clear whether the QC was saying that that was what Mr H utchison’s already stated view was, or whether he had addressed Mr H and that was Mr H’s response]
LordTyre: We’ll break for lunch now, till 1.50.
After lunch:
Mr McBrearty: Rent is paid out of profit, not turnover?
P: Yes
QC: You look at income and expenditue?
P: You work out rent and wht you can afford.
QC: So we go back to the dispute about the level of rent?
P: Yes
QC: Someone will reduce their bid if they’re not getting the property?
P: Yes
QC: Clubs need access to the stadium,agreed?
P: Absolutely.
QC: But they don’t have to own it?
P: No
QC: Their bid is likely to be less ,and depend on all sorts of factors?
P: Anybody buying a club will want to know where they will play. Buying a club without the property is a different thing
QC: There are other factors that a bid for the whole shooting match will depend .. Sevco £5.5 million?
P: Where did that price come from?
[ ed: I have blank spaces and a few scribbles that I can’t make sense of ]
then
P: There’s no question that £1.5 million is a realistic sum!
QC: [ed: didn’t catch the remark]
P: £5.5 million.
QC: If what was on offer was £5.5 million and you had a third party offering £10 million?
P: You would test deliverability
QC: And if …[ ed: another short quick-fire echange that I missed]
then, QC : [ to Mr Timney] … because the landlord can rent to only one party
T: [ed; missed it]
QC: There’s only one tenant and one landlord and retain…[ed: missed it]
T: [ ed: didn’t hear what he may have said]
QC: To either. Now, on a third party investor, “ he fans might not have liked”?
T: Yes.
QC: A fans’ group purchasing the heritable property: would you not have looked at it?
T: [ed: I caught only] “………how would we deliver a higher price?”
QC: If you’ve got a club for sale you want as many bids as possible .The Administrators would be looking to the fans to get organised?
The nub of the difference : Mr Hutchison has greater optimism about the fans’ ability and
willingness?
T: Yes. But how to do that in practical terms?
QC: Negativity….
Timney interrupts: It’s about being realistic and robust about something that hs never been done…
QC: I hadn’t finished my question ..
[ ed: my next line is ‘whether it is worth..’ I can’t say who said it and in what immediate context]
then,
QC: Mr Hutchison, if the offers were [ed: didn’t hear the full question]
Mr H: [ed: didn’t hear any reply tht was made]
QC: [addressing both Mr Timney annd Mr Plum] It would hve been reasonable to look at the fan’ record?
P: Agree.
QC: a new stand built 20 years ago, by the fans,unsecured debenture holders…?
P: [ed: missed his reply]
QC: To own outright the whole of Rangers?
P: [ed: missed his observation]
QC [ed: missed it]
P: If the club were already saved , the fans might not step up.
[QC: It may be that money is going to the creditors but the fans would own the home ground?
P: But why would the fans not have bought the whole thing?
QC: There were lots of fans willing to….
P: 20 000 fans-why did they not submit a bid?
QC: [addressing Mr Hutchison] Mr Hutchison, your observations?
H: To my mind the Joint Administrators were in a position to help the fans set up.Remember the fans were very nervous when the Bank held security.
QC: Mr Plum I do think you are looking at things from the emotional side…
P: I’ve been doing this for a long time: a pioneering situation? I don’t think ..
QC: Well, we’ll accept that we’ve been round the houses on this..
As regards Murray Park do you agree that Murray Park would have sold?
P: Broken up.
QC: What do you mean, broken up?
P: Broken up, smaller units
QC: Would it have been possible for the club to have kept part of it?
P: Possible.
QC: A sale of the whole thing, with a lease-back?
P: Possible, yes.
QC: I have no further questions for Mr Timoney and Mr Plum. Mr Hutchison, there are two sets of accounts of losses. Does that detract from your view that a rent of between £1 million and £1.5 million was possible?
H: No. If Celtic could be profitable, so could Rangers.
QC: No further questions, m’Lord.
Lord Tyre: Mr Young?
Mr Young QC: Thank you, m’Lord; Now, Mr Plum, you remember Mr Rothbart, Joint Bundle 4, p 3032. O ne of the things you would expect this offer to be explored. Did you know of the discussion between Mr Rothbart and Mr McKenna?
P: I don’t know a lot.I couldn’t say whether Mr Rothbart was broking for a position.
QC: Were you aware of the signing [ed; my manuscript is ‘sign.’ ] of 11th May?
P: No
QC: no further questions.
Lord Tyre: Mr Plum, Mr Timney, Mr Hutchison , you’re free to switch off and leave us.
T, P and H variously ; Thank you, m’Lord.
Lord Tyre:Any further business? No? Mr Christie and Mr Blucher tomorrow.
We’ll adjourn till tomorrow at 10.00.
.
Great work, JC. I particularly liked this line from the above….
“No. If Celtic could be profitable, so could Rangers.”
Said with absolutely no understanding that e.g. Celtic has 10k more seats at the stadium for every home game, was starting with more money in the bank as at 2012, had access to all their season ticket money for the next X years as opposed to Ticketus taking their share etc etc. Where do they dig these ‘experts’ up from?
Nawlite 16th June 2021 At 14:27
‘…Where do they dig these ‘experts’ up from?’
+++++++++
That’s an interesting question, which prompts another: in the abstract, who defines what an ‘expert’ is?
Who checks that any particular ‘expert’ HIRED by someone is going to give evidence that won’t help that someone?
What price ‘objectivity’?
Particularly in those areas where there can be no ‘hard’ scientific ‘absolute’ truth?
I come back to reflecting on the Del Boy type of barra-boy ‘financial adviser’ in the silver-haired, pin-strip- suited , but cockney- accented type of con-person we have seen during this saga.
Are we to assume that ‘professional men /women’ are by definition honest, and free of any bias in favour of those who are going to pay them?
I speak in the abstract, of course, and not in connection with any current litigation. I think its an interesting philosophical question.
But then what do I know?
[ except maybe that the football that led to Locatelli’s second goal was absolutely brilliant!]
Nawlite 16th June @ 14.27
In this case, ‘experts’ are recruited and delusional propagators of the ‘Big Lie’ narrative. All their comments are linked to that. Keep the faith on that eventually being exposed.
They should be ignored by rational people like your good self and JC!
Judging by comments from elsewhere then the full transcript of the BDO VRFC 2012 case will make interesting reading for some whose long held beliefs may be challenged.
Best wishes to Bertie Auld who has been diagnosed with dementia.
upthehoops 15th June 2021 At 17:00
There is a lot of talk that out of the Covid loan fund, Rangers accessed £3.2M, while every other club got £1.6M. One club did not take the loan. Why was the extra available £1.6M not offered equally between all other clubs instead of being given in whole to just one? Rangers themselves have confirmed they owe the SG £3.2M.
============
From what I have been told, the fund was available to all 12 Scottish Premiership teams, equaling a loan of £1.6m per club, only 6 clubs took up the loan option (which to mind mind seems crazy) I’d bite your hand off for a £1.6m 20year interest free loan, just to let it sit in a bank and accrue interest. So TRFC and 5 other clubs apparently had double the spoils to take the loan option on, making theirs around £3.2m.
I’m sure with their flawless record of paying their debts, all will be fine 🙂
Fitbawfan 17th June 2021 At 18:01
‘…I’m sure with their flawless record of paying their debts, all will be fine’
+++++++++++++++++++
Do we know whether the loan fund was to the SPL as the principal borrower, and they then offered loans to those clubs that asked?
And, if so, and any club defaults, does the SPL pick up the tab for that club’s loan? Or is each borrower directly liable to the Government ?
If it’s the former, how very brave of the SPL board to underwrite a £3.2 million loan to TRFC Ltd!
Well, tat was a bit of a dissy. That’s the proceedings in the BDO v RFC 2012 plc case finally concluded. I had thought (unthinkingly) that judgment was to be given today. But Counsel had their oral submissions to give. Began at 10.00 this morning and finished at 3.35, with Lord Tyre thanking all and sundry.
The judge said he would deliver his judgment as soon as he could.
Counsel more or less summarised all the main points they wanted to make , while dealing with counter points made by each other.
The judge made one or two observations about the weight he would attach to the evidence given buy some witnesses, and had some questions about the significance of some of the arithmetical calculations relating to various bases of comparing savings under redundancies v wage reductions + player sales.
And, apparently, while Regan former CEO of the SFA had provided a written statement , he did not give oral testimony (about any de facto football creditor rule )
Just two comments tonight from me:
1. Billy Gilmour – just wow. A superb performance from him and our team overall.
2. Harry Kane – he didn’t bite me in the bum!
Croatia – who knows…
Yesterday I received a reply dated 15th June from the Assistant Private Secretary to the Master of the Rolls.
The full text of the letter is as follows:
” Dear [ me],
Further to my letter of 9th June.
Your letter of 4 June 2021 has been considered by the Vice-President of the Court of Appeal ( Civil Division}, Lord Justice Underhill ,who presided in this appeal.
He appreciates the care with which you have read the judgment of Phillips LJ, but he is not persuaded that his summary of the background involves the misleading implication which you suggest; and in any event a point of this kind could not justify recalling and re-issuing the final judgment of the Court.
Yours sincerely,
A. C. ”
I will of course acknowledge receipt of that very courteous reply.
But I will have to consider carefully what else I should or may say!
I may discuss with my MP, who, I believe, is a Hearts supporter very proud of how hearts exited Administration honourably enough rather than opt for Liquidation and create a new club begging for admission into Scottish Football.
Wokingcelt 18th June 2021 At 22:38
‘..Just two comments tonight from me:’
++++++++++++++
And one comment from me.
Apart from anything else, that was a great game of football by a whole team. Akind of reminder of the 1967 victory over the World cup winners of ’66.
I wish I could read the European newspapers’ comments tomorrow to get their perspective.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19384210.ex-rangers-administrators-accused-negligence-failure-consider-ibrox-sale/?ref=ebln
……………………………….
Former Rangers administrators have been accused of negligence through a failure to get advice on a sale of parts of the club including Ibrox and effectively selling the brand for nothing after it financially collapsed and was sold for £5.5m.
The claim has been made by club liquidators BDO case who are suing the former administrators of the business David Whitehouse and Paul Clark of Duff and Phelps for £56.8m claiming a flawed strategy in raising money to reimburse thousands owed money from the club’s 2012 insolvency under then-owner Craig Whyte.
…………………………………..
The claim has been made by club liquidators BDO…..What sacrilegist is this? Don’t they know it was the engine room holding company thingy.
The fellows who write for the DR surely have their blue tinted glasses on suggesting/hinting Steve Clarke might introduce Nathan Patterson into the line up for the game against Croatia. If you look at this realistically this is a must win for Scotland and scoring a few goals wouldn’t hurt in their quest to advance. Yesterday’s line up was quite impressive and performed very well. Why would Clarke want to break up that combination. Sometimes you have to look at the big picture and realize that its not all related to anyone connected to Rangers. Leave this group intact and the odds on advancing are very good, start tinkering, unless injuries dictate, and the hope of advancement could go out the window.
I know that not everyone is interested in the BDO v RFC 2012 plc case.
The case has little to do with TRFC , who of course are not the football club that entered Liquidation :the Administrators having signally failed to bring it out of Administration as a ‘going concern’ and being obliged to sell the assets extraordinarily cheaply to a new a company ,which then had to apply to be a football club. Oh ,the nonsense of ‘club 12’.
[How can guys like Regan and Doncaster live with themselves, as being the paid mouthpieces of Boards which instructed them to create a myth, and throw reality and truth to the wind? God help them to cope with the opprobrium they brought upon themselves as being suspected of being men of untruth, ready to obey untruthful superiors. Ja!]
But for any who are interested , I give you such part that I have so far typed up of my notes of the hearing on Friday 18 June, when Counsel made their final oral submissions.
I’ll get round to typing up the rest of my notes of that day’s hearing.
“Friday 18 June 2021 BDO v RFC 2012 plc (IL)
Lord Tyre: Good morning, gentlemen. I have read all the submissions, but have not followed up the Authorities.
Mr McBrearty QC: Good morning, m’Lord. With regard to the authorities, first, on a point made by the Respondents, I refer to Davey v Money ,Lord Justice Snowden, and the duties of Administrators, page 4, paras 255 and 256: the first para quoted , dealing with the standard of review of administrator’s decisions, the standard is “..of good faith and rationality”. Parliament has allowed latitude in regard to the hierarchical objectives.
Para 3(4)(b) of Schedule B1 is the 3rd of the objectives
Para 3(2) of Schedule B1 is the general .. not framed in terms of ‘thinks’ but of a more objective measure.
Para 256, ‘that latitude does not also extend to methods. ‘
That’s the territory we are in here. BDO do not criticise the CVA, but only the method used .
Another theme, in the authorities ie in para 2.11 of the Noters is failure to take professional advice: failed to take advice in the matter of sales outside the window, on brand valuation, on alternative disposals of heritable property.
There is support in the authorities; in passing: Ary Digital v Iqbal -flawed process ( cites his Lordship Walker in Pitt and Holt in relation to flawed process);
“In re Home and Colonial Insurance Co Ltd”, failure to take advice on the enforceability of creditor claims;
“American Express International Banking Corporation v Hurley”-failure to take advice on sound and lighting equipment;
In re One Blackfriars.( a virtual hearing, lengthy judgment , the importance of understanding context and the passages that the respondents rely on;
the breaches of duty were, one, too ‘light touch’ ( not sufficiently independent)
two, the Administrators had failed to investigate available planning consent for property, and three, a general allegation that the bidding process was not appropriately conducted.
Para 101-103 -agents appointed, paras 123-124-marketing strategy, 141-145 -administrators had [ ed: didn’t catch the end of the phrase]
The expertsi n the case thought it was appropriate to take professional advice , the Court had found that the Administrators had done,
367, the above shows they followed …[ed: lost what he said], but did not follow the advice, but followed a strategy . Nevertheless , acceptable.
In contrast with the current case in which advice was not taken.
Part of page 6 of the Respondent’s written submission: what I say is this : the administrators had kowtowed to the secured creditor. That doesn’t necessarily ..[ed: missed what he said].. but strategy needs to be continually assessed and revised…..
and later, ‘exposure of an asset to the market’ . Not enough, though, simply to leave it at that, but in the case the two pre-existing evaluations in different sums the administrators just put it on the market to see which. Not good enough
In the present case the Administrators 330-332 not in the same territory. [ ed: that’s what my note says.]
The Blackfriars case is consistent with the Noters’ case.
The other [ed: indecipherable scribble] “standard of care” and how it is to be judged, even if Blucher evidence is admissible.
Lord Tyre: Are you saying that Christie and Blucher is not…?
Mr McBrearty: In relation to Blucher and Christie, your Lordship is not bound to accept Blucher’s evidence.[ed: I have in parenthesis the words ‘ Mr Hyde v JG?’ . I assume that was a note to myself to remind me of context, not any words spoken by Mr McBrearty.]
Lord Tyre: The Hunter and Hanley case was just about.. broader admission of doing something..?
Mr McBrearty: Lord Justice Sedley, Lord Justice Ward… where no ‘specialism’ is involved for example, ‘getting under the skin of a different profession’. In this case are Insolvency practitioners, no ‘specialists’ Your Lordship is to decide , not ‘having to get under the skin’
and, two, Nye Williams case ,’”this is what I have done’ is not expert.
Three [ed: I missed what he said]
Four , ‘Dunvale’ [ ed. presumably some case that his Lordship was familiar with]
About the admissibility of Blucher’s evidence, there was not just a proven connection, but a late and incomplete disclosure. It’s for Blucher to do it, not for the Noters to point it out.
And [ ed: next word indecipherable] ..2020, 2021: he should have thought about what might be thought.
And report by Lee Manning in brand evaluation, CVA strategy. A considerable irony: Manning was Joint Administrator in Millwall, and the Respondents had complained , not to retain Manning. Now they seek to rely on his submissions.
I’m happy for your Lordship to read the whole [ed: can’t read the scribbled word] but it might be ‘thing’]
They can’t cherry-pick.
Lord Tyre: Why not cherry-pick? If you’re right, we have Christie making a point about brand which Manning doesn’t… On Mr Blucher,, [ ed: if he continued, I missed what he may have said. I have a number of dotted lines indicating that there were exchanges that I missed in terms of note-taking for some minutes because I had lost the thread . I next have
McBrearty: more generally, not surprising that questions arise later. “ Rangers is a social, political, footballing, religious phenomenon”
Redundancy, sale of players etc. One fundamental response. There was no proper preparation. Both the Administrators and David Grier had been involved for a year before. “ Crazy to wait for appointment before preparing” [ed: this seemed to be a quote from the text of an email]
Upthehoops 15th June 17.00.
Simply not true i’m afraid.
Amounts borrowed were as follows.
Rangers £3,200,000
Aberdeen £ 3,119,000
Motherwell £ 2,959,000
Hibernian £2,882,000
Dundee U £ 2,818,000
St Johnstone £ 2,600,000
Kilmarnock £ 1,828,000
Livingston £ 1,783,000
St Mirren £ 1,764,000
Ross County £ 1,158,000
Hamilton £ 1,151,000
Celtic Nil
Albertz11 20th June 2021 At 10:07
where did you get the loan amounts from Albertz. they total over 25 million pounds. The spfl loan allocation from scotgov was 20 million. Source?
My post of 20 June refers:
I give below the continuation of my report of the last day of the BDO v RFC 2012 (IL) case
I pick up from Mr McBrearty’s words:
Continuation of the Friday 18 June 2021 hearing of BDO v RFC 2012 plc.
“ Crazy to wait for appointment before preparing- cash flow deficit of £ 3 million. Took over 3 weeks to agree wage reductions.
If properly prepared, there was no reason not to make a plan of redundancies. The 16 February meeting with the regulatory bodies the SPL and SFA …
Lord Tyre: The arithmetic, player and non-player savings, didn’t create a deadline of 31 May…the question, are there separable bits of it? If the Administrators should have made the players redundant would the same savings have been made?
Mr McBrearty: There is no evidence of any comparison being carried out. They didn’t give proper consideration to non-playing staff , two and a half weeks in, by which time they were nearly ‘unbuyable’.
To answer your question, m’Lord, the point we make in para 86/87 of the Respondent’s submission, £2.5 million against £2.848 million player redundancies [ four]. Instead of keeping the club’s value, they made it nearly unbuyable.
Lord Tyre: It wasn’t exactly a secret , every club knew what was going on? Once the deadline was in place , that shifted power to potential purchasers?
Mr McBrearty: Ashworth- the advantage of not waiting for ‘window’ to open, Rothbart …Pethybridge ..[ed: these are witnesses who had given evidence relating in part to transfer/sale possibilities during closed window periods]
The quantification of redundancies- Your Lordship has the figures, they’re in the schedules.
Lord Tyre: I looked at the schedules yesterday..I think I’ve got an understanding.
McBrearty: p116 of the Respondents’ submission- a credit for those players who were retained ,against savings?
Lord Tyre: I think we’ll break now, till 11.45.
After the break:
Mr McBrearty resumed: We see Paul Clark throwing up his hands saying “ we can’t sell Naismith because the bidders will drop off” We see the clubs to which players would go… Norwich…. It’s unlikely that McGregor and Whittaker would not have gone. Naismith didn’t have it in mind that he might become a free agent.
The respondents are a bit unfair on Mr Lombardi [ed:he had been a witness ] He wasn’t saying what a player would sell for, but indicating a starting point. Pannick wouldn’t value, the Respondents put the buy-out clause in.
So that’s all I have to say about player redundancies etc.
On the bidding process, a better bid for the ‘whole assets’ or separation, whether all of the individual failures.. I mention the inheritable property gives a good idea…. They should have sought a valuation..
The Respondents’ response is weak., see p 121 [ed: the Judge reads it to himself]
Lord Tyre: Yes..
McBrearty: In my submission that’s not an answer to the charge of negligence……what was lost ,in my submission, the Respondents make a great deal more of the hurdles.
Mr Hutchison was giving property advice..
Lord Tyre:[quoting] “ yes, but give me a year or six months” at 11 May??
McBrearty: Mr Rothbart was a bidder.If the Administrators had worked pro-actively..
Lord Tyre: Buchler dismissed Rothbart’s figure of rental? Any evidence?
McBrearty: Ashford’s figure is £1-1.5 million.He carried out a detailed analysis of premier league club rentals
Lord Tyre: Rothbart included a buy-back option. Was this significant? I can see the potential difficulties whether for the owner or fans. Does buy-back have significance?
McBrearty:Hutchison says it was an attractive part……Leeds United buy-back. Buy-back doesn’t necessarily mean separation for ever. Why wouldn’t they test the market? And Murray Park?- there was a market that included accommodation of Rangers’ needs.Murray Park separate..
Lord Tyre: The interest of fans was not the benefit of HMRC: what’s in it for the fans for their contributions?
Mr McBrearty: [ed: quotes Mr Dingwall] “ In order to save the club we’re looking to get an increase by selling Ibrox. The fans were not unrealistic: if that wss the option, then yes ”
Lord Tyre: There is a difference between having shares and having ownership of heritable property?
McBrearty: Yes. It’s a novel approach, as Mr Hutchison agreed.There was a real chance of generating…
Lord Tyre: I would have an uneasy feeling about Ibrox being owned by ten thousand people.But there could be a vehicle..I’m just raising the possibiity of probems if the owner of the stadium went a different way from the owner of the club.That’s why the buy-back?
McBrearty: There’s a vehicle just now for buying shares.[ ed: he did not mention Club 1872, but I infer that that was the reference]
On the matter of brand, the only point I haven’t covered, in terms of value – Forbes said £20 million, but £16 million in the Jeffrey report.It would be naïve to imagine that Green would be surprised at the value of the brand. The brand monumentally important.
Bidders know what they’re buying.The Administrators did not know what they were selling:Ibrox didn’t have redevelopment value , the brand drives everything.The stadium is just a place to accommodate 50 000 people, players come and go, take all that away and you are left with ‘the brand’
Lord Tyre: I’m conscious, of time, Mr McBrearty: you can have till quarter to one.
McBrearty: Thank you, m’Lord, I’m nearly finished. Even at £10 million .. In Liquidation: the valuation is not going to be loston Liquidation.And another connection between brand and property?
On the Craig Whyte shares:the strategy was flawed.The Administrators had already been involved for a year before appointment. They regarded Whyte as untrustworthy and slippery. So, on the question of a mandate? Why not ask for a mandate?
Instead they’re forced to rely on …they have undifying conversation for an officer of the Court, disclosing details of the bids of others
So a mandate should have been asked for. If that failed, then legal advice should have been obtained on it on day one.
There were other conversations within the Administration team, pointing up issues that were not being dealt with.
Bidders were vying to get the shares from Craig Whyte.The Blue Knights fell, the Singapore consortium fell…
On 4th April there were three bids of aroud £10 million.You would expect bids to spiral upwards, in a properly handled bidding process.
I’ve nothing else to add, m’Lord, except to hope that you’ll make a reference to Aberdeen!
Lord Tyre: [ he made some pleasantry about mentioning Aberdeen, then] Mr Young?
Mr Young QC: thank you, m’ Lord. First, my prayer of note to be reviewed, and before lunch the expert report..
the admissability of Mr Buchler, and Mr McBrearty’s objections.M’Lord, we had a number of case appointments but there was no objection at those stages.What happened was that Mr Buchler was approached and did mention that he did have dealings with Whitehouse and Clark. The Agent had no difficulty in January. On 19th February it was realised from Whitehouse’s report that there had been an omission.It ‘s an administrative failure.
Lord Tyre: Even after the disclosuret there were disclosures that were not made.Did he disclose the joint appointments after?
Mr Young: Not the joint appointments.His recollection.. [ ed: I think the next words may have been ‘failed him’]
Lord Tyre: I’ll have to arrive at a judgment on that.There will be more to my assessment:I will get the tone of his report
Mr Young: Before I leave that, m’Lord, I refer to Mr Manning.He had in 2012 been advising HMRC in relation to the Rangers case
Lord Tyre: Yes
Mr Young: Buchler, criticism of him. There is no doubt that he would use a phrase such as “I would not have done that”.But if you look at the whole, he gave reasons, and on what factual basis he was looking at [ p 419(1) of the Notes], in relation to the SPL football creditor issue.We referred to that in 2012 and D&P had sought advice then.Buchler had a basis for looking at that.
I concede that in commenting on Naismith’s injury he went outwith his own role.
I comment on Mr Christie’s evidence and there are issues to be highlighted:first, his experience of Football Administrations is very limited. On all of the football issues he couldn’t help the Court.He was limited to Portsmouth document. Limited value.
Secondly, his evidence shifted between his report and his oral evidence. In essence his reports show that he thought the attempted progress of sale via a CVA was inexplicable.But his oral evidence changed, when he said that there was no undue evidence of change of focus……And that mirrored a shift in the Noters’ evidence, where they were happy to keep the CVA on the table so that players would not realise they could walk away as free agents.
Lord Tyre: I think we’ll stop for lunch at ths point. Adjourn until quarter to two.
On resumption at 1.45,
Lord Tyre: Mr Young?
Mr Young: The witnesses, Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse.
There were criticisms of Mr Whitehouse’s long answers, ‘mini submissions’.What cannot be underestimated is the whole profound effect on both Clark and Whitehouse of the criminal action et cetera for the last decade or so.
This case was the first opportunity for them to give out what happened..
Lord Tyre: The events are a year before the Administration.
Mr Young: Other criticisms : ‘recollections’ or ‘reconstruction’of evidence.They are so immersed in litigation, perfectly understandable.The Court has a huge volume of documentation and can test whether anything is ex post facto or not.
There were other criticisms of Whitehouse as of being confrontational, but he is naturally robust.
Hart as ‘unreliable’ bordering on the incredible-he was speaking only of non-player redundancies.
He was also criticicised as being ‘mocking’.
Lord Tyre: His tone of evidence didn’t match the email content?
Young: there was [ed:I missed what he said}
Lord Tyre: I’ll look again.
Young: Walder unreliabe? Not so much as not very helpful one way or the other.
Lord Tyre:Why he found it appropriate to be uncooperative? At best I will not be attaching much weight to his evidence.
Young: Mr Pannick and Mr Wynne had the same reason for producing alternative values.
The property experts were instructed only to comment on sale and lease-back, and no alternative use of Murray Park
The Noters’ case has evolved and developed, for example, the CVA approach. One of the criticisms was that a CVA should not have been used. But that had changed.
The issue of the CW shares had gained prominence and also the brand claims developed.At face value,brand and heritable property 6-12 months at maximum, and maximising fans grouping
But at the beginning, very widespred plans to get things done. Dickson’s evidence …
And the Noters have not addressed the cost of running beyond 2012
Other comments I make are about how the Noters focus on the reason for a particular strategy or action, whether there was a good reason.But in for professional negligence, you’re looking at the result of actions taken.Was the action something that no reasonably competent Administrator would take?One has to be very careful not to focus…[ed: I’m not sure whether he finished the sentence and I missed it, or whether he stopped at that]
A final broad point:is just to look at how they deal with the fans. If the Administrators had done as suggested, there would have been a huge backlash . For example, if you made 24 players redundant and half of the non-playing staff, and yet you want to be going back asking fans if they want to buy Ibrox? Inconsistent.
The phone lines were being jammed even about who was going to buy the club.The idea that one could…
Lord Tyre:In practical terms, how did the fans react to the outcome? The Administrators knew to expect reaction-it’s part of the job?
Young: I’m not suggesting that the Administrators could allow the fans to take over. But the consequences of decisions have to be considered in the light of further actions they want to take., that the heritable property would be sold to the fans for more than £5.5 million, that the fans should raise the money. That assumes that the fans would not realise that they were paying more than they need. An unattractive proposition.
Mr McBrearty spent some time on Hunter v Harnley. 2.14 of the Noters’ submission: it may be that a simple test of common sense but one has to be careful. An administration is unusual, expert evidence should be involved. Eg, pages 8 and 9 of the Respondents’ submission, what the Courts did, were helped by expert evidence.
Exposure to the market was normal.
Player redundancies, the list: the Noters describe the report of the Respondents as showing wild swings of strategy. That is not a fair categorisation of their strategy. There were two mechanisms-involuntary redundancies or wage reduction. I don’t accept that they did not know.
There’s an error in 5.1 of the Noters’ submission.referring to the Joint Administrators’ justification of…..[ed: ?] but contemporaneous documents [JB 2, 3757] do show two scenarios, One, wage reductions, saving around £1 million per month, but retaining the substantial value of the squad; two, deep cuts in the playing squad “ 15 or more top players..”
This was not ex post facto rationalisations: Retaining the playing squad was in their minds.
“ noticeable that never re-visited”: but certain ‘sensitivities’ discussion. So it’s wrong to say there was no cost benefit analysis. Shipperlee was taken to this and….page [?] in JB 2494 an email of 8 March referring to ‘sensitivities’.
P 5.1.6, top of page 32 “Mr C expressly … Mr c was asked ‘ wage cuts v redundancies plus player sales “
p.5.24 page 35, , p5.30 page 38: “ no consideration of advantage of..’
Bill Miller wanted to get the bulk of the squad.Had the club been taken over as an SPL club….
para 5.51 suggestiont hat the fans would not come was a factor that the Administrators thought relevant
Was what Christie was proposing practical, with depleted squads?One might have gone to the SPL for assurance but if Admnistrators were , 5.53, 5.54 football debt issue? The evidence of the SFA that was being relied upon was that there was a de facto rule, and if one accepts that there is a de facto rule then that’s a relevant factor for the Administrators.
And ‘question of judgment’, p116 p63: Salaries and benefits actually paid……..Noters now accept £1,253,852, next, accepted by Mr McBrearty, some credit for wages £1,411,346 , total sales
£20, [?]19,409 that 10 players would have been paid over three months, actually paid £16,[?]08,463
the difference is the savings that would not have been made if the redundancy process had been adopted.
[ ed: I was totally bemused by this time, figures being rattled out at speed, so I stopped trying to jot them all down, and picked up again, when Mr Young arrived at ..]
wage reduction was a better route than redundancies.
Proposition, if redundancies are less expensive and …[ ed:missed a bit]
then either option is acceptable.
I don’t accept that the redundancy route had to be taken because of the deadline of the wage reductions which put pressure on the Administrators. The pressure was on already on.
The Craig Whyte shares: Althouh Lord Hodge’s decision had been given, the Administrators still couldn’t deal with things until they knew what the bidding was like.
Moving to player sales,para 9.5 on page 59,quantum, sale price, total price – sale price is not agreed by the Respondents.
Mr McBrearty’s question of ‘what’s the downside’– you’ve asked for bids, bids come in, and then you start selling? You’ll affect the bid. If a clear sales policy on 5 April, what would the Joint Administrators do when on 24 April a registration ban is imposed?Not to be able to purchase in the summer and the following window? You’d immediately have to roll back from player sale strategy. Even if you moved to such a strategy you’d only have a very short window to replenish.
The lower the price the sooner the sale? But players had buy-out clauses, their prices were lower and there was still no interest.
Another point on player sales: We talk about fair valuation or Mr Lombardi’s. Mr McBrearty talks about cross-check. Caution, once you get into Administration value drops, , Jelavic-the estimate for him was far higher than his sale price- which was largely deferred.
Naismith- I don’t accept that he was a near certainty to go to WBA.
There’s odd elements in Ashworth’s valuation: he couldn’t why he did not offer £2 million instead of £1’7 million.Maybe by mid-April , we know that an asset sale was a possiblity and that they didn’t need to transfer. He knew that Naismith might be a free agent, and he could sit on his hands and see what happened.Would Naismith agree to personal terms?His own evidence was a “ master class of saying not very much”, but it makes sense for Naismith to sit and wait., so there might have been a 20% chance of moving on transfer.
20% deduction on fee? For agent?
Lord Tyre: Shall we have a 10 minute break now?
Resumption at 3.07.
Mr Young: Peter McLean ‘orchestrating’? [ed: transfer to WBA] Just what a good agent would do.It does not imply that that was where Naismith or the agent want to go.There were no other approaches at the time.
Turning to the bidding process in general: p711 of the Noters’ submission:that because Ticketus had the shares the number of bids would drop. But Ticketus were willing to offer the same terms to others ,see JB 3, 4416, email of 10 April 2012.
Ticketus were trying to ride as many horses as possible. The Blue Knights had a joint offer, and the Singapore Consortium had bid. It’s quite wrong to imagine there was only one bidder for a CVA.
The mandate issue, this was not discussed in the expert reports…the pre-appointment position of Administrators?-it’s doubtful if that places an obligation on them.There will be cases where Shareholders are uncooperatve until Administrators are actually appointed. Mandates are not the norm.
But even with a mandate the evidence is that a CVA was scuppered anyway. £8.5 million CVA voted down by HMRC , it was not likely that HMRC would vote for £10 million CVA.
Even if Singapore dropped out, it could have dropped out because of the SPL etc.
Indicative submission, p 6.89 (4) ,page 10 “ the level of indicative bids was £4 million to £25 million. I have to accept that Buchler gave a figure near to Christie’s, in terms of practicalities
Mr Timney and Mr Plum accepted that sale and lease-back was possible but probably difficult.
Timneyhas experience of Bank of Scotland/Lloyds, he thought he would have had a hard time trying to pitch a sale and lease-back. Plum thought the market not sufficiently mature.Mr Paul thought that lease and sale-back would have been last option.
And the fans’ interest was in shares rather than the stadium
Lord Tyre: A no-brainer that fans would want to protect for the future?
Mr Young:the general view is that fans would do anything to save the club. But the timing ….? and if the club by that time was already saved? Para 6.16(2) of the Noters’ submission, last sentence “ Clark rejected fans’ funds ”( Joint Bundle 2, p3760) an email where Clark is explaining to Andy Kerr that money raised {ed: missed a bit] …….. and at the end of the day the creditors got the money.
As for third party investment, for example, Rothbar: I would caution m’Lord.That offer was from one individual who understood that Murray Park had planning potential. His proposition was to sell Murray Park for development and rent being guaranteed by Capita. We have Rothbar’s letter. It does not advance the position.
The buy-back clause would be more attractive, the point is that such a clause would dictate what a landlord would want.
Lord Tyre: The purchase price plus a percentge per annum?
Mr Young: but if the purchase price of buy-back is not known?
Lord Tyre: Yes
Mr Young: Difference [ed: missed a bit] inheritable prop was never tested
‘brand’ is slightly different -the market was tested BM and CG were well aware of the brand, If the brand was actually tested, there was no need for separate valuation.
And ‘duty’? Evidence of what happens in general as opposed to football clubs as regards brand. Not like Debenham’s.
Lord Tyre: as happened.
Mr Young: Can’t just attach brand to an under 19 boys’ club and lo and behold it’s ‘Rangers’.
Unless you have any other question, m’Lord, I have nothing more to add.
Lord Tyre: Thank you.
Mr McBrearty: the reference to fans’ giving is Ian Paton.
And Gordon Christie, I'm not accepting that he changes his position. That's unfair. , his supplementary report, 2.22-2.24, 2.32, 3.38.
And de factor creditor rule, relies on Regan, but he did not come to speak to his evidence.
Lord Tyre: Thank you. I have no further questions.
The Judge then thanked Counsel, and witnesses, Mr Hyde, and the transcriber, the Court staff and everybody else.
He will give his judgment as soon as he possibly can
+++++++++
Can I correct a correction? Bulcher’s name is indeed Bulcher. My Napoleonic war history made me think of Blucher!
Buteo Buteo 21st June 10.17.
The amount of loan funding was increased to £25 million this year.
Gilmour out of Croatia game!!!!
Positive for Covid
HS
@HS – got to feel for the boy.
Is it just me or does Scotland’s record for COVID instances in their bubble poorer than other nations?
“Mr Young: Can’t just attach brand to an under 19 boys’ club and lo and behold it’s ‘Rangers’.”
+++++++++++
And,of course, you can’t attach the brand to a CG/SFA newly created in 2012 and lo and behold it’s the undead but Liquidated RFC of 1872!!
The sheer nonsense and deceit of it all is still mind-boggling, and the suspicion that there was all kinds of dirty work being done at sophisticated levels of governance…
Buteo Buteo 21st June 2021 At 10:17
The Premiership Support Fund was £20million then was increased to £25.2million, clubs can also appeal for more loans until the end of July.
====
Anyone else getting glitches on the site blocking your posts and asking you to fill in your email address for admin ?
Fitbawfan 21st June 16.10
Whilst clubs can appeal for further loans they are capped at the total losses & additional costs the clubs faced as a result of the pandemic.
The loans are interest free and are to be repaid in equal monthly installments beginning in September 2022 continuing until August 2042.
Wokingcelt 21st June 2021 At 12:10
3 0 Rate This
@HS – got to feel for the boy.
Is it just me or does Scotland’s record for COVID instances in their bubble poorer than other nations?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Maybe they should have followed The Rangers systems and protocols which appear to have been 100% effective!!!
A belated “many thanks” to JC for his court reports and general indefatigable resolution. Oh that there were more like him…..
Normanbatesmumfc 22nd June 2021 At 11:59
‘.. Oh that there were more like him……’
++++++++++++
Oh, I’d much rather that the spurious nonsense that there is any legal and sporting continuity between RFC of 1872 as a football club and the club newly admitted to Scottish Football in 2012 would be recognised for what it is: deceitful balderdash dreamed up by deceivers and endorsed ,by panicky ,faithless weaklings in football governance ,for despicable commercial reasons.
Bad cess may the whole farce bring upon them all!
I’m hoping that my hearing hasn’t tricked me in regards to the following. I’ve watched the three Scotland games and felt I heard the national anthems of the opposing teams being booed. Not sure if the opposition fans were sufficient in attendance to be heard, but it definitely sounded to me like booing. In the England game it felt/sounded like both anthems were booed. Glad to hear or receive any clarification on this. If it was booing, and hopefully it wasn’t, it certainly detracts from the overall atmosphere.
My post of22nd June 2021 At 14:54
‘ Bad cess may the whole farce bring upon them all’
++++++++++++++
And by ‘them all’ I meant only the wretches in the SFA and SPL and TRFC/RIFC plc who so sold out on sporting integrity!
NOT the Scottish national football team or its manager. Our players and management team are free of any involvement in the duplicity and cheatery of the governance bodies and deserve the utmost credit for their endeavours. I have no criticism to make of them, they can hold their heads high in honourable defeat.
No shame in that, as compared with the shame of the Governance bodies in supporting a ridiculous childish untruth that betrayed a level of sport corruption that is , frankly, unforgiveable, and ranks with any of the reported CAS cases of football authorities’ abuse of office that I have read .
We have to remember that a fish rots from the head!
If the current ‘head’ endorses the rot created by a former ‘head’ , the rot is still there.
For as long as the SPFL and the SFA continue to propagate the untruth that TRFC is 149 years old, the rot continues.
Anything that the SFA has to say as a governance body has to be viewed as with a lie detector.
Fitbawfan 21st June 2021 At 16:10
Anyone else getting glitches on the site blocking your posts and asking you to fill in your email address for admin ?
++++++++++++++++++++++
I contacted Big Pink about this and he advised to fill it in. It allows them to ‘whitelist’ your e-mail address.
Albertz11 20th June 2021 At 10:07
Upthehoops 15th June 17.00.
Simply not true i’m afraid.
Amounts borrowed were as follows.
Rangers £3,200,000
Aberdeen £ 3,119,000
Motherwell £ 2,959,000
Hibernian £2,882,000
Dundee U £ 2,818,000
St Johnstone £ 2,600,000
Kilmarnock £ 1,828,000
Livingston £ 1,783,000
St Mirren £ 1,764,000
Ross County £ 1,158,000
Hamilton £ 1,151,000
Celtic Nil
+++++++++++++++++++=
I was simply posing a question based on the info available at the time. What you have posted here was not available at that time.
What I am really struggling to grasp is why Celtic did not access a completely interest free loan which does not have to be repaid until 2044? It is truly baffling.
UTH – “What I am really struggling to grasp is why Celtic did not access a completely interest free loan which does not have to be repaid until 2044? It is truly baffling.”
At first glance UTH you make a valid point. Perhaps to access the loan clubs had to demonstrate that they had no access to further banking finance facilities? Celtic, as a PLC, had informed the market that they had increased their overdraft facilities in their last annual report as a prudent contingency given the projected impact of the evolving COVID crisis. Could that have worked against them?
Westcoaster 23rd June 2021 At 11:04
0 0 Rate This
UTH – “What I am really struggling to grasp is why Celtic did not access a completely interest free loan which does not have to be repaid until 2044? It is truly baffling.”
At first glance UTH you make a valid point. Perhaps to access the loan clubs had to demonstrate that they had no access to further banking finance facilities? Celtic, as a PLC, had informed the market that they had increased their overdraft facilities in their last annual report as a prudent contingency given the projected impact of the evolving COVID crisis. Could that have worked against them?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Or maybe they just wanted to help their “partner in sporting corruption” to get more cheap money. Unless and until CFC publicly denounce the nonsense that TRFC are the same club as RFC, I will see them as jointly corrupt, along with the SFA and SPFL.
Upthehoops 23rd June 10.24.
What info & from which source was there ” a lot of talk”?
By stating that “Rangers accessed £3.2 million while every other club got £1.6 million” allied to “Why was the extra £1.6 million not offered equally among all other clubs instead of being given in whole to just one” the clear inference was that Rangers benefited at the expense of others which is clearly untrue.
Normanbatesmumfc 23rd June 2021 At 12:10
‘…maybe they just wanted to help their “partner in sporting corruption” ‘
++++++++++++++++++
Certainly the extreme unwillingness of the Celtic board to INSIST on an independent investigation ( perhaps even by the police) into the granting of a UEFA competitions licence to RFC showed a casual readiness to let a few million quid get out of their grasp ,while stringing along the Res 12 guys almost as contemptuously as SDM spat on the board, shareholders and fans of RFC plc.
It would not surprise me if you turned out to be right.
@Normanbatesmumfc
Or perhaps Celtic took the view that they did not need the support from the UK taxpayer – there is no free money, someone has to pay. Many big corporates have returned monies received during the pandemic earlier than required. Others refused to draw down on what was available.
Personally I think corporations taking taxpayer money when not needed may well make economic sense but perhaps not morally acceptable.
Football clubs loading up on government loans when not needed when school kids go hungry…not a good look
Will Rangers be doing a new share issue, whip around on a monthly basis to repay the 3.2 million. By my calculations that works out to about 13,333 per month over the term. That might be a salary for at least one and maybe two players. Interesting comments on Porto’s dealings with Rangers re: Morelos. Numbers quoted are a long way from what the Ibrox bosses think he’s worth. Also worth noting a clause regarding discipline. And the Rangers want the fee up front unlike the normal 3 year installments. It’s encouraging to see they are getting near to self sufficiency.
My post at 13.27 today:
a typo: in line 4,’spat ‘ should read ‘s*at’
And how that guy could pull the strings of the SMSM !
Even though his vain boasting and cheating was the cause of death of the Rangers of my grandfather’s day [the Rangers recently described as a ‘footballing, political, social and religious phenomenon’] SDM escaped all blame or shame, while ensuring that his personal fortunes were untouched.
The shte Whyte’s shte was as nothing compared with the excrement dumped on Rangers by SDM-who walked away smelling still of the succulent lamb that he fed to the fawning, truth-twisting ,self-styled ‘journalists’ of the SMSM.
Honest to God, even this many years later, there can be no forgiveness for those ‘journalists’
And, of course, no forgiveness for those in Scottish Football ‘Governance ‘who so disgracefully abased themselves and abused their office by creating the untruth of ‘continuity Rangers’ even though they themselves had insisted that CG’s new club had to to apply for admission as a new club!
Oh, the pernicious nonsense of it all!
We are being told to live with a lie. In a matter of sport?
What is the point, if the sport is rigged?
If the sporting honours of a dead entity can be attributed to and cashed in on by a newly created club trying to market itself as being a hunnert and forty years old?
Gie’s a break!
Everybody knows, KNOWS, that TRFC is not, cannot possibly be, the RFC that is in Liquidation awaiting dissolution whenever the Liquidators conclude the liquidation formalities.
I’m hoping that Lord Tyre will find in favour of BDO, and that D&P made an arse of the Administration. [which I think they did]
I doubt though, that the judgment will result in the award of the full financial claim made by BDO.
You may remember I had complained to the BBC following their 6.30 news report of 8 March, where they referred to Rangers’ ‘relegation’. After they had acknowledged the inaccuracy but refused to broadcast an apology/correction I took it further to their Executive Complaints Unit. Today I received the following reply.
“Dear Mr (me)
Reporting Scotland (6.30pm), BBC One Scotland, 8 March 2021
I am writing to let you know the outcome of the Executive Complaints Unit’s investigation into your recent complaint about the headline on the above edition of Reporting Scotland. I am sorry this has taken longer than we initially led you to expect. I have taken you central point to be that it was inaccurate to refer to Rangers FC’s “journey from financial collapse and relegation back to the top of the Scottish game”. I also note you believe it is necessary that “the BBC broadcast an apology to the same audience it had misled”.
As you are aware, BBC Scotland has acknowledged the wording used by the presenter in the headline at the start of the programme was incorrect, in that the club was not relegated. In 2012 Rangers FC, under the new ownership of Charles Green, had its application to join the Scottish Premier League rejected and had to apply to join what was then the Scottish Football League. The club was offered a place in the Third Division. I think it is worth noting the subsequent report by Chris McLaughlin gave an accurate summary of the situation. I appreciate you think further action is required but we would usually only consider a broadcast correction to be necessary when the inaccuracy in question has resulted in serious unfairness to an individual or organisation, or when it is so material to the issues under discussion that it has a significant effect on the audience’s understanding. Neither of those conditions applies here. I therefore believe the action taken is sufficient for me to regard this matter as having been appropriately resolved.
I should explain that the Executive Complaints Unit publishes the outcome of its investigations every fortnight and a summary of our finding in this case will be published in the complaints section of the BBC website, bbc.co.uk, later today. This ensures the error you identified will be corrected as a matter of public record. I hope that goes some way towards addressing your concern and I would like to apologise, on behalf of the BBC, for the lapse in editorial standards on this occasion.
Yours sincerely
Fraser Steel
Head of the Executive Complaints Unit”
The following is what will be published in the BBC Complaints section of their website.
“Reporting Scotland (6.30pm), BBC One Scotland, 8 March 2021
Complaint
A viewer objected to the presenter’s reference to Glasgow Rangers FC’s “journey from financial collapse and relegation back to the top of the Scottish game” on the basis that the club had not been relegated in the course of this process. The ECU considered the complaint in relation to the BBC’s editorial standards of due accuracy.
Outcome
In 2012 Rangers FC, under new ownership, had its application to join the Scottish Premier League rejected and had to apply to join what was then the Scottish Football League, resulting in the offer of a place in the Third Division. This differs from relegation, which is the transfer of a club from one division of a league to a lower one. In the context of the club’s recent history, the difference is a material one, and the ECU judged that the reference to relegation fell short of the BBC’s standards of due accuracy in news programming of this kind. However, it noted that the situation had been accurately summarised in the report which followed the presenter’s introduction, and that BBC Scotland had acknowledged the inaccuracy in correspondence with the complainant. In the light of these factors, the ECU considered the issue of complaint to have been resolved.”
To be honest, the wording is pretty much what I had hoped might be broadcast to the 6.30 news audience, so I’m happy enough with the wording, though I still feel it IS appropriate that they should broadcast the correction – the BBC should NOT be happy at misleading its audience imo.
The good news is that because it took them so long to reply, I had already referred the matter to Ofcom some weeks back. Apparently, they deal with the company complained about and don’t respond to the complainer so I’m not sure I will be able to update much.
Nawlite 24th June 2021 At 13:34′
‘.You may remember I had complained to the BBC following their 6.30 news report of 8 March, ””
+++++++++++++++++
Very, very well done , Nawlite, on forcing the BBC to correct an incorrect report.
The determination to continue to maintain the Big Lie is still there though, in the glib use of the phrase “In 2012 Rangers FC, under new ownership, ” as if CG had become the owner of ‘Rangers’ , buying it out of Administration.
Their bloody-minded refusal to acknowledge that TRFC is not and cannot possibly be the Rangers FC that entered Liquidation shows what contempt they have for Truth and/or how much they are in sympathy with such as those who prate on about a ‘footballing, social, political religious phenomenon’ or in fear of repercussions if they tell the truth that by definition a football club admitted into Scottish football in 2012 cannot be ‘Rangers’ of 1872.
Nawlite 24th June 13.34
The subject matter and processes involved were covered in the Kinloch v Coral case.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=c72b2da7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
Rod McKenzie’s evidence (69) 8,9,10 explains this in detail.
UTH thanks i was trying to post and reply to thank you and was continually banned, it may be sorted now, it was banning me from posting for the last 3 days, although it fixed itself once then next day the same “Due to spam You are banned from posting”
Strange error as i don’t like spam/chopped pork
“…I appreciate you think further action is required but we would usually only consider a broadcast correction to be necessary when the inaccuracy in question has resulted in serious unfairness to an individual or organisation, or when it is so material to the issues under discussion that it has a significant effect on the audience’s understanding.”
Do they mean like when someone actually hears them referring to something that he personally took to court only to be told did not happen, so Mr Albert Kinloch would simply understand on hearing that the BBC was talking shite and would not feel aggrieved to hear the lie been spoken.
A former bookmaker who sued a betting chain for £250,000 winnings over Rangers relegation has lost the action after a judge ruled his wager was “a losing bet”. Albert Kinloch placed £100 on the Ibrox club being relegated from the SPL in 2011 and was given odds of 2500/1 by Coral Racing
Sorry about the spam blocker folks. If you ask for an exemption, we should pick it up and grant the exemption.
I will see if I can add all registered emails to Whitelist sometime over weekend.
Nawlight
Might be worth replying to correct the correction.
Rangers FC did not apply to join the SFL.
Until 3rd August 2012 the SFA still recognised The Rangers Football Club plc as an association football club and (in SPL terms) the owner and operator of the Club called Rangers.
Sevco Scotland Ltd applied and was granted associate membership of the SFL on the 13th July. Membership of the SFL automatically gave Sevco Scotland Ltd registered membership of the SFA. It is worth noting that the SFL had no artificial construct that sought to separate the company from the association football club. Sevco Scotland Ltd was the association football club.
It is also worth noting that the SFA rules forbid clubs from using the same name (or similar) as another club in registered membership without SFA board approval.
As Rangers remained a member of the SPL (and therefore a registered member of the SFA) at the time Sevco Scotland Ltd became a registered member of the SFA, it is simply untrue to say that any entity calling itself Rangers FC applied to join the SFL.
Sevco Scotland Ltd could only use the Rangers name following the board meeting of 27th July, when the board gave conditional approval to the transfer of Rangers full SFA membership to Sevco Scotland Ltd. That transfer did not take place until the 3rd August.
It was only then that The Rangers Football Club plc ceased to be recognised as an association football club.
The new association football club, Sevco Scotland Ltd (given permission to play using the name Rangers FC just two days earlier), played its first ever match against Brechin City on the 29th July.
@HP – that’s got me thinking (not always a good idea)… what about recognising “Sevco Day” as the 29th of July… a social media extravaganza, things you didn’t know about Sevco, a “This is your life (Whyte/Green/King/et al). Maybe get Simon @ Garfunkel to record “54 ways to lose your titles”. You get the idea. Make it a celebration of all things that make Scottish Football so unique (having just witnessed Wales yet again do something we have been incapable of).
Someone posted on here about a fish rotting from the head – SFA Leadership and Scotland’s failure to make an impact on the world stage – go figure!
I’ve just got round to typing up some of the evidence of Mrs Bell.
It’s a slow, slow process for the likes of a ten-thumbed auld eejit like me. But since I’ve got some manuscript material that may as well be in print and that some readers who have never attended any kind of real life Court proceedings might find of interest, I put it on here.
Nobody is required to read it!
BDO v RFC 2012 plc(IL)
Day 11 , 20 May 2021
“ Lord Tyre: Good morning.Mr McBrearty?
McBrearty QC: Good morning, m’ Lord. I have two preliminary points to mention. First , that there is a difference in some figures due to different bases of calculation. That has been sorted out.
Second, there is an additional agreed spreadsheet.The original was lodged by the Respondents, and then there was another, and one was chucked out, buut the wrong one, mistakenly chucked out by me. I apologise for that.
Lord Tyre: Any problem, Mr Young?
Mr Young: No, m’Lord. The spreadsheet just needs to be given a number.
Lord Tyre: That will be done ? Okay.
Mr Young: Yes,m’Lord. Now, m’Lord, I want to introduce Sarah Bell.
Lord Tyre: [addressing the witness] Can I ask you whether you are Mrs or Miss..how you prefer to be addressed?
Bell: As ‘Mrs’ , m’Lord.
Lord Tyre: Thank you, Mrs Bell. [ there followed the usual questions about being alone, undisturbed, phone on silent, and the administration of the Oath] Mr Young?
QC: Mrs Bell, [usual confirmation of name, age,address, occupation [ Insolvency Practitioner], and that the signature on the written statements made by her were indeed hers, and that she had had opportunity to read them and was content to have them as her evidence subject to anything she might say today: then] The background section of your statement Mrs Bell, up to February 2012 had you acted as an Insolvency Practitioner? In how many cases by then?
Mrs B: In the hundreds.
QC: When did you start?
Mrs B: about 4 years before.
QC: No experience of football administrations;how bout more complex administrations?
Mrs B: Yes.
QC: for example? Such as..
Mrs B: Multiple, complex.
QC: Just to get a feel for your experience..?
Mrs B:[ ed: what I scribbled reads “ Duff and Phelps on the large side,but some fairly substantial..”]
QC:You were operating below the Administrators but above the others?
Mrs B: Yes. I was senior to Jimmy, Simon , Peter and Charles.
QC: Thank you, Mrs Bell.
Lord Tyre: Mr McBrearty?
Mr McBrearty: Good morning, Mrs Bell. The extent of your involvement: you joined about the 27th?
Mrs B: Yes.
QC: And you were sometimes out of the office? 5th to 11th, you recall?The 5th was the day after the best and final offers?
Mrs B: Yes
QC:14.10, 15.1 ….and France 4th May to 8th May?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: 21st May to 6th June, which was after the deal with Sevco?-recall?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: You sat above the routine work …Agree?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Involved in managing the action within Collyer Bristow and Ticketus?
Mrs B: Yes’
.
QC: And also ‘Deal Bureau’
Mrs B: Yes, discussions about..
QC: Player wage-cuts -limited involvement?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Football issues, Paul Clark and Simon Shipperlee?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: From the fourth of April, the last day for best and final bids, to twelfth of May I see you only 4 meetings that you attended: 18 April, with HMRC ; 18 April with Bill Miller; 27 April with Murdo Fraser; 10 May with KPMG. Accurate?
Mrs B: These were immediately related to my statement: I may have attended other meetings.
QC: According to the time-sheets, you were involved relatively less than others
Mrs B: Correct
QC: 488 hours against 966 for Simon Shipperlee, 771 for Peter Hart ..agree?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Were the panels kept up to speed?
Mrs B: No, not at all.
QC: Were you frustrated by that?
MrsB: I don’t recall
QC: One email, p 4337, from Steven Kerr copied to Simon Shipperlee PeterHart and Ramsay Smith,Platt “ Mr R has asked me to send you ..( this was in connection with a press release 7 March)…. “ David Whitehouse …club in perilous situation unable to agree cost-cutting from the playing staff faced with making redundancies that will seriously …” Agree?
Mrs B Agreed.
QC: p.4337, email: forwarded to you, your response “ I’m always last to know” ?
Mrs B: Yes.
QC: [ ed: missed the question]
Mrs B: It was a tongue-in-cheek remark to an extent
QC: : Why?
Mrs B: Sometimes you’re embroiled in meetings, situations may change when you out.
QC: pra 12.21 page 562 of the ‘witness statement’ bundle ( to Mr Hyde:Mr Hyde, move up to 561, please) we see 21st /22nd April, late on Sunday night; just read it to yourself ,please
Mrs B: [having read it] Yes.
QC: HMRC wanted alterations to say that they wanted to appoint the liquidator if Liquidation was the outcome?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: p.726, vol 4. email from David Grier to Paul Gilhooley[ed:of HMRC] and copied Friday 20 April 11.46 a.m. Would you read that ,please? “ Paul, further to……set out our position.. HMRC…Administrators are trying to achieve a liquidation…” Do you know why Grier would say that?
Mrs B: I can’t speak for Grier. Do you want my interpretation?
QC: yes.
Mrs B: HMRC had felt their role was on behalf of the taxpayer, to look for a commercial outcome but also people had to look to the question of non-compliance.They felt that a Liquidation would enable them to hold people to account.
QC: HMRC had a need for a commercial outcome, and an investigation?
Mrs B: yes.
QC: Seeking modification about proposals re Liquidaors: Grier says “ we have no objection to HMRC liquidators” but he nevertheless is expressing disappointment in the stance of HMRC?
Mrs B: Agreed.
QC: How do we square Grier’s view with your view that HMRC were helpful?
Mrs B: When we were drafting it became clear that HMRC would want to appoint the liquidators.In my view from a fan PR point of view it would be better for an outside Liquidation.
QC: Your personal view? Not shared by David Grier?
Mrs B: There was some debate within HMRC about which Liquidators.When they settled on BDO I thought that was a good thing.
QC: I don’t think you answered my question: it wsn’t shared by Grier?
Mrs B: Yes.
QC: What about others on the team?
Mrs B: On reflection, that it was a good perception, that HMRC choice ws good.
QC: But David grier expressed the view that it would create negative PR, from the Duff and Phelps perpestive. Agreed?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: What difference did it make to D&P which Liquidator was appointed?
Mrs B: That seemed to me to be a question of timing.We said we had no objection to who the Liquidators should be.But it was an objection to the timing of implementation.
QC: What was Mr Whitehouse’s view of it?
Mrs B: Both he and Mr Clark were content.
QC: Vol 4, page 755: David Whitehouse to Paul Gilhooley 28 April “ Paul apologies for heated call, see below.” You had a close working relationship at the time.’
Mrs B: Obviously I know him’
QC: Was it unusual for ‘heated calls’ between Whitehouse and others?
Mrs B: Yes, unusual.
QC: page 756, email from J Roberts copied to J Saunders, to Mike Baird, about revised wording,
17 Res.3[ed: that’s what I jotted down ?] about appointment “ If there’s to be a CVL it is proposed that David Whitehouse and Paul Clark be appointed as joint liquidators”
Mrs B: Yes, that it may not be HMRC.
QC: page 756, at the top: response from Baird “ HMRC content with the appointment of liquidators” referring to the email of 20 April: “heated call” based on the fact HMRC were naaming another Liquidator?
Mrs B: I could see why, but I can’t comment on the ‘heated call’
QC: Vol 4, page 761 John Bradshaw , solicitor, for HMRC to David Whitehouse, copied to you .. “ modification stands, now reds “ the Liquidators to be appointed are BDO. I note your frustration”. S So David Whitehouse was expressing frustration?
Mrs B; at the timing.
QC:How to square with…[ed: missed the end of the question]
Mrs B: [ed: missed any reply]
QC: I must press you.At tht stage D&P wanted only n acknowledgement that ….
Mrs B: It was not for D&P to appoint. We jut wanted a substantial Liquidator.’
QC: But they wanted BDO. What we re seeing is Whitehouse epressing frustration.
Mrs B: We had no objection other than to the timing.
QC: Well, we’ll just have to disagree.
Let’s go back to12.21 of the witness statement.
Mrs B: [ apparently not heaaring] Hello?
QC: Vol ,page 972, apologies Mr Hyde, top of the page , email from Simon Shipperlee copied to you 22 April at 22.57 “ my reservation is that this could be interpreted as disapproval of D&P. Do you agree?
Mrs B: No doubt that could be an interpretation
QC: You knew from early April that Liquidators were to be appointed?-Sunday night 22 April?
Mrs B: We had gone from disppointment, it was a good thing.
QC: Isn’t that a gloss?
Mrs B: It’s my view.
QC: But you hadn’t mentioned other .
Friday 4 May “ this was the day we received a [?] from Sevco5088.”
That’s not right ; Clark to C Green 22 May “ Thank you for..” Paul Clark must have met on 2 May.
Vol 4, p 2192 we see there an email from Charles Walder Wednesday 2 May “non-discloure agreement….” It looks as though by Wednesday 2 May discussions with Charles Green had been had.
If we go back toyour witness statement, you’re wrong about that date?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Redundancies of non-playing staff:
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Para 3.18,page 524, 3.17 last sentence ‘heads of departments carried out an assessment ..asked for evidence’ Agreed?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: The evidence was a meeting at Ibrox and Murray Park at the same time on 1 March; look at
Vol 2 para 2308- an email from you to Peter Hart 29 February at 1.17 pm “ Thank you…”
Your response at 1.33 “ We need to identify…”
So, as at 1.32 you had not identified specific staff, and at 1.36 “ I was not aware that non-playing staff were agreed”
You say at 1.48 “ I think this is the way we’re going”
Do you agree?
Mrs B: Peter was saying we didn’t have a specific list
QC:It’s on the 29 February ‘you think’. Until this time it wasn’t clear that non-playing staff would be made redundant.?
Mrs B: [ ed: begn to try to disagree , but stopped short and said ]….Yes.
QC: At 4.10 pm on the same afternoon there was a meeting of the heads of departments, vol 2,p 2721, Simon Shipperlee’s note- “ PJC, SMS, Andrew.., Donna McLelland ..” PJC re redundandancies “ JG difficult -no parameters” Then a list..
So, a contradiction between what you say and what occurred on….
Mrs B: Quite often decisions are made quite quickly.
QC: [ed: completely missed what he said/asked]
Mrs B: I have nothing to say to [ ed: I have a scribble that might conceivably be ‘that’, but looks more like ‘Rat’ with a capital ‘R’,as maybe the first part of a name which I didn’t quite catch?]
QC: You said [ ed: again, I missed the question and any response]
QC: Andrew Dickson. He says staff increased 2010/2011
Lord Tyre: I think we should have a break now for the transcriber, and a comfort break for everybody. 20 minutes till ten to twelve.
On Resumption at 11.50,
Mr McBrearty; [ addressing Mrs B who is still in the ‘witness box’] Playing staff redundanies, non-playing staff redundancies- ? [ ed: missed his question]
Mrs B: I am.
QC: but primarily for Paul Clark?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: There were numerous meetings in which you were not involved?
Mrs B: But ultimately I went over to Murray Park
QC: Simon Shipperlee would be better placed to speak on that?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: If we look at 3.19 of your statement “ if there had not been wage deduction they’d have to find another way”?
Mrs B: They’d have to consider it.
QC: There would have been other ways to get to the end of the season?
Mrs B: Yes
QC : [quoting] “ ..avoided the need to lose the best players”?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: The strategy at the time to make the club attractive?
Mrs B: A mix of …
QC: …had you lost the best players?
Mrs B:Yes
QC: A weaker send [ ed: I think that’s what my scribble reads] if a CVA?
Mrs B: Your point wouldn’t hold good, because playerss could walk away as free agents/
Mrs B: Yes.
QC: If we look at para 3.20, “ I had limited involvement in the sale of players”?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Simon Shipperlee would be better than you to talk about this?
Mrs B: Yes
QC [ quoting] “ Widely known that the company was seeking to sell players”, a strategy of retaining players. How was it widely known?
Mrs B: [ed: completely missed what she said
QC: What you mean is that you might be known to be in Administration: that’s different from ‘widely known’ that you were selling players?
Mrs B: Yes.
QC: email of 2 March, discussion re redundancies or wage deductions. You work in the same office as David Whitehouse?
Mrs B: I hadn’t worked with him closely but only on a couple of assignments.
QC: Who might attend a meeting with fans: Whitehouse suggested you ‘one of David’s own people’
Mrs B: I’m not quite sure what I’m answering?
QC: Close working relationship.
Mrs B: David has respect for everybody.
QC: p3740 , email from David Whitehouse to Ramsay Smith, to you, and Paul Clark but to no one else: “ ..core issue , player costs… any monies from Collyer Bristow could be months away.. costs must come down…. the purpose of Administration is to restructure.”
Mrs B:Yes
QC; Whitehouse is expressing a desire to make redundancies in order to restructure?
Mrs B: Yes..
QC: You agree with my interpretation?
Mrs B: At that point in time.
QC: p..5.86[ ed: not entirely sure I heard that accurately] 3 March , 9.27 a.m. Email to Paul Clark
“ ..cash flow does not make pretty reading. Player cuts the backbone..” Eligibility for Europe?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Rangers then not playing in Europe?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: looking to the future? “Player sales the backbone”?
Mrs B: Yes, no viability..
QC: You must have been talking about redundancies rather than wage cuts?
Mrs B: Yes.
QC: a company would inherit.. [ ed: missed the question]
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Paul Clark to David Whitehouse “ looks like a big cock-up”[Mrs Bell reads ]
QC: From Whitehouse to you alone “ Looks like a big cock-up”
+++++++++
I’ll try to get the rest of that evidence session typed up over the next day or two.
Remember, though, that I have heard only some of the ‘evidence’ , and even at that only over a phone-line, while Mrs C may have been creating interruptive domestic noise!
Lord Tyre [sharp as a tack] has heard all the evidence.
And, of course, he knows what the Law is as regards the legal duties of Administrators under the Insolvency Act.
I suppose that what I’m saying is that I am reporting objectively what I heard in so far as I heard it accurately, but that I have not, unlike the judge, heard everything.
I am sharing what I heard, no more, no less.
For why?
because Truth is what I have sought in the whole ‘saga’.
Wokingcelt 26th June 2021 At 23:36
‘.. what about recognising “Sevco Day”’
++++++++++
Aye, okay.. but , eh, which Sevco?
Sevco5088 ? which some inebriated charlatan is, apparently , allegedly, recorded as having told Craig Whyte that he is Sevco
Or Sevcoscotland, of the ‘novation’?
The lying sods are entrammelled in their own lies.
Honest to God!
That we should be expected to accept the lies and believe that our football governance is honest?
No way,
My post of 26th June 2021 At 23:50:
For those interested, here is some more of Mrs Bell’s evidence’ continued :
“QC: From Whitehouse to you alone “ Looks like a big cock-up. Can we go through the forecasts in the morning? ”?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: So the question of why a ‘big cock-up” would be natural?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: A significant .[?]. for you, big assignment..?
Mrs B: Very high profile, but not personal
QC: “big cock-up”? You must remember? Share with us.
Mrs B: David shoots from the hip- ‘we’re going to have a review ‘
QC: It means a big mistake.
Mrs B: [ed: missed her reply]
QC: Did David Whitehouse explain?
Mrs B: No
QC: Very odd?
Mrs B: I agree. It’s a typical way David speaks… ‘this looks like it hasn’t worked’
QC: You knew it was a mistake.
Mrs B: I disagree
QC: Look at para 6.8 of your statement,please
Mrs B:[reads quietly] Okay.
QC: Now, the last line “ We therefore felt these release clauses..” Was this an outcome of discussion that you were involved in?There is no reference to refer to?
Mrs B: [ed:missed her reply]
QC: the buy-out clauses were reasonable?
Mrs B: ..to enable continue trading …
QC: So, wage reduction so as to avoid redundancies?
Mrs B: And get to the end of the eason.
QC: The effect of the buy-out clauses was to reduce the value ..asset worth
Buy out clause allows him to leave ….
The Liquidators should have made redundancies early.
You didn’t arrive until 20th?
Mrs B: [ ed: said something too indistinct for me to capture]
QC: You are critical of the Football Authorities, on page 522? You’re unhappy at the SFA and SPL being unhelpful if there was a purchase of the assets by Newco?
Mrs B: We’re looking for clarity and how the SFA and SPL would see matters going forward, and where meetings were required re certain rule changes should be made.At one point, sanctions which were appealed any time we thought we could go forward with a club.
QC: You’re not suggesting ‘engineered’? Lot of pressure, competition?
Mrs B: [ed: didn’t catch what she may have said]
QC: certainly very bad if one of the main revenue sources [ed: lost what he said] The SPL and the SFA refute your suggestion, and say they were dealing with an unprecedented situation.
Mrs B: Why ‘unprecedented’?
QC: They were looking at a Newco….
Mrs B: I agree
[ ed: my manuscript next has this :
QC: Rod McKenzie knew of no other ..
It was not his job to advise..
B ]
[I cannot now tell whether the words ‘it was not his job to advise’ were said by Mr McBrearty or whether they should be attributed to ‘B’ ( i.e Mrs B) ]
QC : These regulatory considerations .[ ?].. but only in the same way as other difficult administrations. Agree?
Mrs B: Agree
QC: HMRC’s attitude- there was need for commercial return and Liquidation?
MrsB: Yes
QC: You said that at no point did they say that they would oppose or support a CVA but might go down the liquidation route. Did you ever meet Mr Whyte?
MrsB: 99% not.
QC: Did he have a glowing reputation?
Mrs B: I would say not.
QC: Page 540 of your statement- apologies, page 534 at the bottom; Monday 12 March , a call from Collyer Bristow and “ how best to deal with CW, major owner of Rangers Football Group: fans wanted him to have no part..” Balance between? Agreed?
Mrs B: Agreed.
QC: Without a transferof shares, a CVA couldn’t work?
MrsB: Agreed.
QC: Two days later, an email from you to DW, PC and Saunders “ we really need to…” As at 14 March you identify the need to deal with Whyte with some urgency.Did you also have concerns over Whyte’s control of the bidding process, not controlling, but were cognisant of his leverage?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: And Ticketus?
Mrs B: Yes; that scenario was a concern
QC: We know that the Ticketus matter was resolved on 23 March. But Ticketus were claiming to have control over the shares, Mr Whyte’s ‘personal guarantee’ to Ticketus.
Mrs B: If the guarantee was true….
QC: Two bidders in discussion with Ticketus…
Mrs B: Blue Knights and Ticketus…
QC: Singapore with Ticketus?
Mrs B: Possibly.
QC: You don’t have a good handle on all these movements. Lots of intereted parties who said they might speak to Whyte.
One email, Vol 3 p. 3560 3 April [ the date for best and final bids was 4 April] from you to Paul Clark, David Whitehouse, Charles Walder. “ RFC Group Ltd shares: need to nip in the bud if CW agreed to transfer his shares…” ?
Mrs B: We weren’t sure if anyone had a binding .[?]. we needed clarity.
QC: “ left with only one option”? Only one option that you could deal with, all others would drop out?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: it comes back to Craig Whyte controlling the process.In effect, he might have been in control of which bidder was successful?
Mrs B: vague…
QC: An email from you to DW, PC, Saunders, Walder, Simon Shipperlee and Peter Hart..two weeks on
“ this would be a…. we have to acknowledge that Ticketus are in the strongest position to deliver the shares” ?
Mrs B: We are making assumptions- I don’t recll seeing the ‘personal guarantee’
QC: that is, Craig Whyte had control, and you don’t know what Ticketus can do. Why not give Ticketus a deadline, then go with the Blue Knights and Singapore or Bill Miller…?
Mrs B: because that’s who was arguing with Ticketus.
QC: Singapore unhappy..?
Mrs B: We have to go with the only bidder..
QC: You might end up with no ‘going concern’, a Liquidation?
Mrs B: We aimed to move things forward..
QC: You also did not have limitless time: wage reductions were coming an end at the end of May?
Lord Tyre: We’ll break now and resume at 1.50 ”
+++++++++++
There are another eleven pages of manuscript scrawl of Mrs B’s evidence session to come.
Thanks , JC . Wiped out the rest of your TU’s again , though !
Paddy Malarkey 27th June 2021 At 19:21
‘.. Wiped out the rest of your TU’s…’
++++++++++++
That reminds me,PM: I miss the other facilities that we used to have, of using italics, underlining, using bold, and what not. I thought it was only my machine illiteracy , but maybe those textual editing tools have been removed?
If BP reads this…..?
My post of 27th June 2021 At 17:02 refers.
This is a continuation of my report of the evidence hearing on 20 May in the BDO v RFC 2012 plc litigation.
‘Lord Tyre: We’ll break now and resume at 1.50
On resumption at 1.50pm.
Mr McBrearty: Mrs Bell, ‘difficult balance’ dealing with Craig Whyte/fans and the desire to get hold of the shares?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Would you agree with “ We should have nailed him on day one”?Agree?
Mrs B: Depends what you mean.
QC: [ed: missed the question]
Mrs B: Nigh on impossible
QC: Why? The Administrators were appointed by Craig Whyte: surely they could have had a mandate?
Mrs B: That’s for Whitehouse and Clark.
QC: [ed: missed the precise question]
Mrs B: Just because they appoint you it doesn’t mean you have that relationship.
QC: It might be important to seek advice to see if there is a means of controlling the shares?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: If not till 20 April [ Taylor]…
Mrs B: It depends.
QC: At least know what your options are as early as possible?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: One thing that was known at the outset was that Craig Whyte had the shares.
Mrs B: Yes
QC: And that Whyte was a slippery customer?
Mrs B: he would be looking to protect his interests
QC: ..526 of the Witness Bundle para 3.23 you say “in relation to Murray Park, looking at ‘going concern’ rather than to sell Murray Park as an individual asset..” Steve McKennaa’ bid you didn’t regard as credible?
Mrs B: In my view.
QC: Were there parties interested in Murray Park not being actively marketed as a separate asset?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: If expressions of interest , explain ‘going concern’, the Administrators would revert if a change?
Mrs B: Yes. Trying to be clear and transparent, encouraging but not separately marketing
QC: Never an occasion when the Administrators went back, on change of circumstances?
Mrs B: Only one I remember was McKenna. We were in reasonably regular dialogue. We would inform of the bidding process, not a case of being dismissive. There may have been other interests.
QC: Alan McBeth of [ ed: I thought I heard ‘BCZ’, or maybe BTZ as the name of a company?] : response was ‘going concern’, but he was told he would be informed of change of decision. Are you aware?
Mrs B: No.
QC: Also another from Rodney of McGrigors’?
Mrs B: I don’t recall.
QC: Can you help with this?
Mrs B: No
QC: The strategy waas to sell all the assets. Is it fair to say that that strategy did not change?
Mrs B: No, that’s what we achieved.
QC: Mr McKenna- offer from major housebuilder to develop 22 acres of Murray Park, recall?
Mrs B: I do.
QC: Did you ask to see the offer?
Mrs B: No: he wasn’t disclossing who the housebuilder was.
QC : Mr Rothbart’s offer- do you recall?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: p. 4032, Rothbart toWalder “ offer for Ibrox and Murray Park, with lease-back of stadium and car park. Did you see that?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: What did you find out about Rothbart?
Mrs B: That he lived in Salford.
QC: Find out anything about his business?
Mrs B; No.
QC: About his previous involvement with football?
Mrs B: No
QC: Did you carry out any follow-up after his email to Walder?
Mrs B: I’m not aware of any follow-up.
QC: Brand evaluation: p 527 of the Witness bundle, would you read it, please, to yourself and let me know when you’ve finished?
Mrs B: [ after she has read ] Ok.
QC: Are these your own views in this paragraph?
Mrs B: I would suggest that they are my views now and at the time we would have debated the position.
QC: 12th to 16th of March consideration of ‘brand’?
Mrs B: Yes.
QC: Contact with Schumacher?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Two bases of valuation of brand?
Mrs B: That was what we were exploring, and this is what he considered.
QC: You, Charles Walder and Saunders and the suggestion of adding in a ‘Liquidation’ valuation?
Mrs B: Yes. Done on the valuation as the physical
QC: Valuation of heritable property on both bases?Right?
Mrs B: Right.
QC: Getting a valuation you would want it on those two bases?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: The brand valuation was not obtained , on 24th March?
Mrs B: I can’t recall exactly. Some suggestion that HMRC wanted a brand evaluation. We would have asked for it on two bases.
QC: Mrs Bell, the question was: [ed: what I have next is ‘ was what you [?]on 24 reft were your thoughts]
Mrs B: I would say it reflects my thoughts
QC: “ I do not accept this was a valuable asset unless Rangers Football Club was playing” – the brand was intrinsically linked to the football team?
Mrs B: Yes
QC : It would still be a constituent part of the valuation?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: You could have obtained a valuation?
Mrs B: A distressed sale makes it difficult to give a material value
QC:A specialist in valuing brands might have been able to tell you?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: You did not know whether there would be a valuation?
Mrs B: If the company was placed in Liquidation the brand woud have no value.
QC: You are not qualified?
Mrs B: No.
QC: If Rangers went into liquidation….
Mrs B: liquidation- if there was no football team going forward.
QC: Value lies in potential revenues, season ticket sales, broadcasting, merchandise?
Mrs B: [ ed: I missedwhat she may have said]
QC: If you don’t have the use of the ‘Rangers’ brand you’re not.[ ed: missed the end of the sentence]
[ I haveno note of any reply by Mrs Bell]
QC: So if Charles Green hadn’t come forward on his white horse to save Rangers…and keep..
Mrs B: You’re supposing Rangers is still playing.This is a club that has existed ; if there is Liquidation there is no brand value.
QC: The 50 000 people will .. [ ed: lost a bit of the sentence] .your ..
[ed:I then have
B
QC If cash had run out and start a break-up sale those revenue streams ..
Mrs B: Whether you have a football team to resurrect
QC: The only person who could tell us is an expert.. You are not an expert.?
Mrs B: That’s my view.
QC: If you had gone to Schumacher and his view was different.?
Mrs B :We ‘d consider it
QC: Unlikely to disagree?
Mrs B: We are not always bound to agree
++++
Geez, that’ll dae me for the night!
I may observe that Mrs Bell seems to me to have sussed the truth: that the Rangers football Club brand could not exist after Liquidation.
God protect her from any vindictive harm from the deniers of the consequences of liquidation for a football club.
JC – thanks for providing a flavour of these court proceedings. It will be interesting to see what comes of it.
Thanks again.
Further to my post of yesterday at 23.3, here’s another wee bit of my notes of Mrs Bell’s evidence. It follows straight on from Mrs Bell’s response ” we are not always bound to agree”
“QC: The ‘estimates of outcomes’ statements “we were constantly running an analysis” Important point?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Accuracy is important?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: One outcome:p.573 ,events of 11 May 2012 ” There was a busy morning…updating…latest positions…..some more deliverable than others…” The 11th May was the day before Paul Clark and David Whitehouse met with Sevco, which resulted in an agreement?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: They would have wanted to know the ‘outcomes’. You agree?
Mrs B:Yes, it would have been the documents where we would have tried to set out the outcomes.
QC: Your covering email, Vol 4, p.3496, you to Des Dolan copied to DW and PC ” please…estimated outcomes ” You sent this on to HMRC, Vol 6 spreadsheet 13, no, correction! this is the spreadsheet that was…
Lord Tyre: 16. 1603
QC: [ checks with Mr Hyde, then..] The Singapore bid: there was a meeting where they were prepared to offer £5 million.
[ed: the figure- work on the spreadsheet related to comparisons between the amounts that might be obtained for the Creditors from the exercise of different options, and against three levels of what the HMRC ‘s tax claim might be , Low, Medium, High.
For example, the CG Asset sale, the Ally McCoist asset sale, Brian Kennedy CVA of £5.5 million, and a close-down end-of-season CVL.
Mr McBrearty , rattling off figures and using the Medium and High levels of expected indebtedness to HMRC, concluded that the figure-work showed that in terms of ‘pence per pound’ for the creditors that the “Liquidation is a better option than the others. How little there was between the bids and liquidation? ”
He continued by referring to the ‘Low’ tab “on the Low tab in his case £5.5 million, at row 30, football debtors (from transfer fees due , another…This is a mistake.? [ed: This I think was addressed as a question to Mrs B]
Mr Young QC: Don’t answer! .. m’Lord, where is this going?
Lord Tyre: Mr McBrearty?
Mr McBrearty: M’Lord, ..unreliabiity of referencing.. Mr Buchler’s report.. p620, 3.1.3 ” the best option for creditors was a CVA”
Mr Young: I’m suggesting, m’Lord, that Mr Buchler is dealing with outcome statements. The point is that if a particular error is made that is what ought to be argued about.
Lord Tyre: I shall allow question of Mr Bucher and Mrs Bell.
Mr McBrearty: Mrs Bell, would you look please at Note 10 of the Notes? ” B. Kennedy, acquiring the balance of football debtors”?
Mrs B: We were not getting clear response and wondering why Kennedy was saying things to the Press and taking things away.
QC: email , vol 4, 3505 from you to Kennedy 11 May 2012 ” Your bid £5.5 million-less football debtors.” I’m not getting at you personally, but football debtors £2.9 million. I get pence per pound 10.98 for Kennedy. Difference between asset sale and Liquidation values. On Liquidation debenture holders £7 million. but not following the agreement with Sevco. Vol 5, 173 of the Sale and Purchase Agreement…. this is 28 May 2012 re-statement because Sevco hadn’t paid account ‘ is excluded from the sale the excluded assets and liabilities..” And th definition of ‘excluded liabilities’ – monies due to the debenture holders
The point is that Sevco are not taking on the football debts. If I am right, you have to put a liability on Charles Green to pay the liability. And that completely changes the ‘pence in the pound’
[ed: my next scribble of Mr McBrearty’s words reads : ” Liquidation is always better with liquidation than a trade sale There is very little difference” I’ve no idea now what that means. I must have missed the whole point or maybe a couple of points]
Mrs B: That’s with hindsight
QC: No, on the basis of the scenarios, not with the benefit of hindsight. The Charles Green trade deal is worse than Liquidation.
Mrs B: I don’t agree.
Lord Tyre: We” have a ten minute break now, until 3.10
On resumption ,
Mr McBrearty: Mrs Bell, at the ‘asset’ side of the spreadsheet. So we’ve got the heritable property at the top. No value for the ‘brand’?
Mrs B: These ‘outcomes’ are not personal to me, but to D&P.
QC: if one were to assume the ‘brand’ had a value of £8 million then by ….. the best outcome of a CVA = £21.93 million= 28.93 pence in the pound ?
Mrs B: Agreed
QC: none of the other outcomes included the ‘brand’? No liquidation value for equipment and plant?
Mrs B: Not on any of them
QC: Plant and equipment would be wrapped up in the other offers, for example the CVA?
Mrs B: I can’t recall
QC: But no valuation on ‘brand’ in the liquidation ?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: No valuation of the loan due by Rangers to the ‘Community [?] loan?
Mrs B: Nor is it in any other scenario
QC: The estimate of HMRC’s ‘High’ level was £90 million. the claim for voting on a CVA , Vol 5, p 2532: letter from HMRC 8 June 2012 ” note of claim in £ 19,426,000 not available at the time. reasonable figure not plucked from the air?”
+++++++++++++++++
That’ll have to do for the moment.
I’ve a job trying to decipher my own scribbles , and the last thing I want to do is mis-report, by second-guessing what was said or what was meant by whoever said it, when I am not sure that I may have heard all of a question or response,
Thanks again JC
…………….
nawlite 24th June 2021 At 13:34
…….
nawlite good work.
Nawlite,
I think a follow follow-up complaint should be made to their “outcome” statement;
“In 2012 Rangers FC, under new ownership, had its application to join the Scottish Premier League rejected and had to apply to join what was then the Scottish Football League, resulting in the offer of a place in the Third Division.”
As we all know, Rangers FC were not under new ownership(FULL STOP)
In fact, at the time CG’s new club applied to join the Scottish Premier League, one of the clubs voted in favour of them being admitted. That club of course being Rangers FC, under the control of Duff & Phelps. The vote was declared as 1 for, 10 against, and 1 abstention, (Kilmarnock). As Charles Green’s new club, (originally Sevco Scotland) and the original Rangers club (still in administration) existed at the same time, they cannot possibly be the same club.
Let’s see what verbal gymnastics the BBC Executive Complaints Unit come up with in an attempt to nullify those widely reported FACTS!!!
A further tranche of my notes of Mrs Bell’s evidence. The last bit ended with Mr McBrearty saying
“…QC: The estimate of HMRC’s ‘High’ level was £90 million. the claim for voting on a CVA , Vol 5, p 2532: letter from HMRC 8 June 2012 ” note of claim in £ 19,426,000 not available at the time… a reasonable figure not plucked from the air”
No response, and then :”
Mr McBrearty: No further questions, m’Lord.
Lord Tyre: Mr Young?
Mr Young QC: Mrs Bell, the Estimated Outcomes Statements [ed: ‘EOS’]were constantly being run?
Mrs B: They were not my thing: Simon, Jimmy, Charles shared, reviewed..
QC: Constantly evolving?
Mrs B: Yes. When we hand over to the Liquidators we can make actual …
QC: So, EOS’s every few days?
Mrs B: Yes., ever changing scenario, excess of 10, roughly.
QC: Can we look at the far right column: heritable property, for example……Ibrox £1 million, Murray Park £44200 [ Can you call up Joint Bundle 5,p 198, Mr Hyde, please?] ..that figure seems to be reduced.. Murray park ..the 442zero -that figure seems to be reduced..? [ ed: didn’t catch the rest]
Mrs B: If it were to be sold, lengthy time, holding costs for security and safety costs, complex property assets.
QC: This calculation reduces the figure. In relation to Ibrox different [?] £3.4 million. The figures for liquidation of heritable property are different?
Mrs B: Line 8
QC: We have £3 million under the Liquidation the value of player contracts?
Mrs B: If you take me to Note 8- an estimate of value
QC: The registrations go back to the SFA but on here some value is put on player contracts. If zero was put, there would be a difference
Mrs B: Yes
QC: The next EOS in terms of time, Joint Bundle vol 5,p.221: this is 6 days after the last EOS. Figure for Liquidation of Ibrox and Murray Park?
Mrs B: £1.167 million and £3.423 million.
QC: Player contracts asset surplus; again, a change in this EOS- now a ‘nil’ entry for Liquidation?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Trading shortfall -[?]
and trading shortfall 30 July 2012… different figures? What does ‘trading shortfall’ try to capture?
Mrs B:You’ll have to show me the Notes…I’m speculating: so you’ve got two dates effectively terminating 9 7 [ ed: 9 July?] , four week appeal to object to CVA,; second, trading to a later date, deficit due to increase of salaries.
QC: On the face of it, the CVA £1.00, the Liquidation is £ 2 million and [ed: I missed something] Why funding by Sevco?
Mrs B: there was an agreement?
QC: [Joint Bundle 5, p 221 , Mr Hyde] …sum available for unsecured creditors, bottom line, £7.7 million under the CVA, £4 million under asset sale £628,000 under Liquidation
bottom line: Distribution 10p in the pound for CVA, 5.5 pence for asset sale, 0.73 for liquidation
On the debenture issue point: ‘Nil’ on a CVA, Nil on an asset sale, £7 million debit on Liquidation,
an evolving picture….
Mrs B: Exactly what it is, yes..
QC: If we look at your statement in relation to the modification by HMRC? You found it helpful that HMRC wanted BDO , JB 4, p972, two emails, Simon Shipperlee’s, and the bottom one 22 April, Peter Hart’s email, and do you see that that is expressing the view that this will be out in the public domain “ can we get PR to show that we are not in this for our gain”.
Mrs B: We thought that BDO would have the resources. We thought that was a good thing.
QC: If there was any sense of displeasure about BDO..?
Mrs B: Our only displeasure was that we were not going to be the liquidators.
QC: On a different topic, non-playing staff redundancies 29 February 1st march, look at JB 2, p.1462, an entry for 21 February 2012, his initials, your initials, 6 entries, revenue -raising question?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Next page: Saving: there are entries relating to staff redundancies
Mrs B: yes
QC: next page 1464, same date as Mr Hart is writing to Donna McLelland “Match-day staff costs reductions” email from Donna McLelland 21 February “ Income that might be generated: saving of £400 a match”
Mrs B: Not worth while cutting for that amount
QC: You liaised with Heads of department . Last minute?
Mrs B; No.
QC: The Heads’ of Departments views on redundancy: Who told you about previous redundancies?
Mrs B: Difficult to pinpoint details, or any one in particular..
QC: “ Not much scope for redundancy” How did you go about that?
Mrs B: You need to be careful; that people look after their people, for example, staff might say that they don’t need a receptionist, but you do. And need to check and ‘challenge’ need.
QC: In the context of player cuts/player redundancies: it was suggested that restructuring would not be achieved if wage cuts were coming to an end. You said it bought time?
Mrs B: You can achieve restructuring in different ways. You need time to explore with purchaser.
QC: You might have gone through that process if a purchaser had been found for Rangers?
Mrs B: It would depend on the purchaser
QC: The dialogue with Mr McKenna, Mr Stewart, face-to-face meeting?
Mrs B: I think a meeting early in March.
QC: Joint Bundle 2, p4169, the date 6 march 2012. This is your writing?
Mrs B; Yes
QC: a note of a meeting to discuss proposals?
Mrs B: Yes
QC: Joint Bundle [ed: I missed the reference] ……. from you to [ ed: missed the rest]
Mrs B: [ed: missed any reply]
QC: JB vol 3, p.2612, you go back to McKenna : you to him on 20 March 2012 “ in position to explore the options..”
Mrs B: I couldn’t recollect about interests- McKenna and colleagues had been in contact with us. We followed up with McKenna.
QC: p.3389, at the foot, email from McKenna to Walder, and a further email: “proof of funding £10 million in the morning” Did McKenna provide?
Mrs B: We were contacted by his solicitor, but I don’t know if it was provided.
QC: Mr Rothbar? JB p 3032: email from Rothbar to McKenna 10 May and on to Walder 11 May. Do you know whether McKenna asked you or anyone else to speak to Rothbar?
Mrs B: I don’t.Charles forwarded that email on to me.
QC: p.3577 email from KcKenna to Walder 11 May at 6.30 An offer which Mckenna is making for the whole club. “ Charles, can you give me a call. Steve” Is it clear to you what Mr Rothbart’s connection was?
MrsB: Seemed to me to be an offer of finance, confused, an offer of funding which did not match up with the offer.
Lord Tyre: We will continue tomorrow., Mr Young
Mr Young: yes, m’Lord.
Lord Tyre: Mrs Bell, do not discuss the case with anyone overnight.
Court adjourned until 10.00 tomorrow. “
Normanbatesmumfc 30th June 2021 At 11:56
‘….Let’s see what verbal gymnastics the BBC Executive Complaints Unit come up with in an attempt to nullify those widely reported FACTS!!!’
+++++++++++++++++++
I daresay they will use the untrue garbage they were ORDERED to use by the [thankfully now defunct] BBC Trust.
That body told the BBC (BBC Scotland in particular] to preach that it was the COMPANY that owned Rangers of 1872 that had gone into Liquidation, and not the ‘football club’ that it owned and operated.
That must go down as the biggest whopper of an untruth that Auntie BBC ever came out with, even in war-time!
I suspect that the Trust was told a lie, and meekly , under the kind of pressure associated with ideas of ‘institutions that are too big to be allowed to fail” accepted that lie without question: The SFA said it, so it must be true!
Which reminds me: I have not yet responded to the reply to my letter to the Master of the Rolls.
I cannot find a way of saying safely and politely that I think the Judges in the case MUST have been fed a load of garbage about Rangers having simply changed ownership, as if it had been bought and brought out of Administration.
If the parties in litigation accept ‘background’ facts that don’t relate to the matter of the litigation, a Court happily accepts that agreement, and wouldn’t see any need to carry out any independent verification or checking of their own.
Counsel in the case will likewise run with what their instructing solicitors tell them , and if those solicitors instructing Counsel on either side are themselves happy with what their respective clients say about incidental background, then there is no need for them to question what each has been told; there’s agreement all round, so no forensic questioning required into a peripheral matter.
So, the Court is (innocently) told a bum story , that Rangers FC of 1872 simply changed hands, and that CG became the owner.
I can’t really believe that Lord Underhill and his fellow judges did any research, but just routinely accepted what was told the Court , because no one questioned the ‘background’.
How do I say that to 5 judges of the [English] Court of Appeal?
Short of raising a legal action myself against the ultimate authors of the untruth that TRFC is RFC of 1872, calling on the liars to show how a club which was admitted into Scottish Football for the first time in 2012 can be awarded the honours, titles, and history of a club that THEY THEMSELVES stripped of its membership on account of its insolvency, an insolvency not caused by poor management or bad luck, but by the calculated cheating and deceitful practices of its majority shareholder, who, to get out of the mess he had created, sold his club all the way down the Clyde for a £1.
Let me win the lottery, and by geez, an action would be raised.
We cannot allow our Football Governance bodies to lie to us. What would be the point?
At the very least we need to keep reminding them of their lie and the dishonour they have brought upon themselves and our game
In my opinion.
And incidentally I was in Glasgow today, for the first time in 18 months , to meet and have a drink with three old pals, as I did roughly once a month before Covid.
Two observations: first, what a stunning change to Queen St station. The last time I was there it was hard to tell what the works were aiming to achieve.
My goodness, what a terrific end result. ‘Chapeau’, (as used to be used on this blog ( who was it who first used it?) to Scotrail or whatever. Tinged with a wee regret that the pub has gone, in which Magnus Magnusson and I had a couple of ‘halfs’ before sprinting for the last train to Edinburgh, a wheen of years ago. [ we were not together, of course, except in the fact that we were at the same bar.!]
I arrived early and used the time before the guys showed up to use my phone to photograph a number of those absolutely beautiful buildings in and around West George street , West Nile street , St Vincent Street… that as child, youth, young man cutting about, married man in the 1970s ,I had never looked at or noticed.
I’ve lived in Edinburgh since 1980: no harm to it, but Glasgow is home, still.
And it has taken all these years for me to realise what brilliant architecture it has.
The intense joy of that realisation was equal to the joy of meeting up again in the flesh with friends.
Nothing to beat the badinage and comfortable, relaxed chat and gossip with guys that you’ve known, worked with, for 50 years or more, absolutely as comfortably as with your brother.
Beautiful afternoon.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/business_hq/19412547.sir-david-murray-hands-control-family-business/
More fawning sycophancy from the Scottish Media towards a man who is responsible for the public purse having tens of millions illegally withheld from it. If he was involved with any other ‘club’ I am sure his Knighthood would have been removed a while ago. Meanwhile the taxpayer is shelling out another £100m + to compensate people who the Scottish police and prosecution services maliciously tried to blame for the demise of that ‘club’. Surely he should be referred to as ‘disgraced former Rangers owner’?
What an utterly incredible country we live in.
Upthehoops 1st July 2021 At 16:36
‘…..More fawning sycophancy from the Scottish Media..’
++++++++++++++++==
Come ,sir, you appear to be surprised?
after 9 years of journalistic cowardice -in a matter of Sport?
If mere football hacks can appreciate succulent lamb and a wee glass (or crate or two) of ‘Chateau Routas’, how much more appreciative must be any non-specific deputy business editor, even if his newspaper were to be dying on its feet- and maybe even might go into Liquidation?
Ach, what am I saying?
I don’t think that even the business editors of ‘national’ newspapers believe in Liquidation even when their football club has died that death!
What ARE they like?
I’ve just been having a swatch at my bundles of manuscript notes, looking for the rest of Sarah Bell’s evidence
But I see that I didn’t( or maybe couldn’t) until about noon on the 21 May.
When I dialled in, Mrs Bell had finished her evidence giving, and it was Mr Clark of D&P who was in the virtual witness box.
I can’t tell from my notes at what time Mrs Bell’s evidence session ended. For all I know, Clark could have been sworn in maybe by 10.30 or so. If so, by noon I would have missed about an hour and a quarter or so of his testimony( taking account of the usual ten/15 minute break at around 11.30)
There’s no way I’m going to begin to try to type up my 30+ pages of scribbles [boy, could that man talk!]
but here are the first few exchanges I heard as I tuned in:
QC; (McBrearty) ” combination disappointment with SPL Board…. Bartlet
When you say you made this application you’re wrong
[ed: if there was a reply I either didn’t understand it or didn’t hear it ]
QC: What I am putting to you is you’re looking backward to make an ‘ex post facto’ rationalisation of what happened at the time. You understand?
Mr C: yes”
I’ll get around to typing up the rest.
BDO v RFC 2012 plc (IL) ‘ virtual’ Hearing before Lord Tyre May 21st May 2021
Evidence of Mr Clark ,Insolvency Practitioner , one of the Joint Administrators of Rangers Football Club in 2012
Note: I assume that the the evidence session of Mrs Sarah Bell, which was to have been continued from the day before, had concluded by the time I dialled in to the hearing at about noon. I have therefore no idea when Mr Clark was sworn in. He may have been in the witness box for some time before I joined.
The first words I picked up were being spoken by Mr McBrearty QC:
QC: …combination , disappointment with SPL Board., Bartlet. [ed: if there was more , I did not hear it]
C: [ed: if he had been asked a question, I did not hear his reply]
QC: When you say you made this application [ed: missed some words] you’re wrong.You’re looking back to make an ex post facto rationalisation of what happened at the time.You understand?
C: Yes
QC: Redundancies and wage-cuts: you would not have made wage-cuts but redundancies you identified?
C: Yes
QC: Your strategy was to hold on to the best players?
C: Yes, the nucleus of a team was to be held together
QC: That bidders would put in a sum that would reflect player value?
C: Yes
QC: [ed: missed the question]
C: [ed: missed reply]
QC: At the beginning, the strategy was to make redundancies, then that changed?
C: We thought about redundancies but moved quickly to cuts.
QC: Can we be precise?- redundancies at the outset then changed?
C: Yes. Changed quickly, transfer window, voluntary redundancy. We moved from straight redundancy to pay cuts, and I say pay cuts because FW suggested deferrals.[ ed: I can’t be sure because the full name had not been mentioned earlier in this exchange, but I think that was a reference to Fraser Wishart ]
QC: Wage-reductions idea came from Ally McCoist?
C: Cannot recall how it came to be
QC: McCoist would have an interest in keeping players?
C: Yes
QC: Was it his suggestion?
C: I would be speculating.
QC: There were negotiations with players and the Players’ Union?
C: Yes, negotiations. McCoist was sent in to discuss with players in hope of something sensible, and then with FW, complicated, he wanted deferrals, discussion conducted in collective manner to begin with then with individuals.
QC: First and second of March. On 29 March the plan was to make redundancies?
C: I take your word about the date…When you say ‘redundancies’ I don’t know whether you mean non-playing staff and players?
QC: Simon Shipperlee’s email “ Redundancies to be made first of March”
C: I take your word.
QC: It was a unilateral decision by the Administrators to make redundancies?
C: Yes
QC: [ed: missed it]
C: [ed: missed it]
QC: the plan to make redundancies went pear-shaped because of the prolonged discussions with the players?
C: No, not pear-shaped: it was better to continue negotiations.
QC: [ed: didn’t catch the question]
C: If wage-cuts could achieve a good effect then change of strategy; we did not ever consider deferrals. This was all about negotiations.
QC: Was there a change of strategy or not?
C: Strategy can change over time. I can’t give that assurance.
QC: The players were tough negotiators?
C: Yes, and Ally McCoist did not deliver. We had to take a stronger hand.And the players’ agents were very strong negotiators
QC: By close of play, agree to wage-cuts by Monday 5 March or redundancies by 5 March?
C: Yes
QC: They called your bluff?
C: I cannot recall….but it was not as simple..
QC: email, Vol 2, 3874, to Simon Shipperlee 4 March 2012, (reference to an email from Fraser Wishart:) “ … to allow [ ed: ‘make to’ is what I have written ] deliver wage-cuts we’ll have to get a plan and execute it tomorrow” Panic?
C: I don’t recognise panic, only that we had not delivered what we hoped. Panic? no. just what do we need to do, need to discuss media frenzy etc. No panic.
QC: The negotiation period stressful?
C: Yes, interesting
QC: It took toll of your health?
C: It was more that it took my time
QC:Vol 3, 430-from Jason Gofroy, 7 March: “ ..hope you’re feeling lot better……lack of sleep” Would you accept that the player negotiations had taken a toll on you- unable to speak or focus?
C: I needed to get away from Glasgow. Certain veiled threats…. a need to take time out.. I don’t accept time-out as a criticism
QC: You took no advice on the value of the players?
C: We had spreadsheets in relation to previous window.
QC: the value did not reflect?
C: I accept that. Jelavic sold only for £5 million rather than the £10 million
QC: You did not seek advice from others?
C: No
QC: We heard Simon Shipperlee’s evidence that transfers outwith the window couldn’t be made?
Lord Tyre: [ed: I have nothing written, so I assume he perhaps only asked for the question to be repeated]
C: My belief is it is impossible to sell out of the transfer window.. there was an extra hurdle, and that was my understanding.
QC: Let’s be clear. At the time you were negotiating Simon Shipperlee says that Naismith transaction was not possible? It’s fair to say what was your understanding?
C: I could not say I had a greater knowledge than Simon. I can’t be specific. Simon would have had greater knowledge. I can’t dispute..
QC: Let’s pass on to talk about the time of agreeing on 9 February wage reductions. No bidders had signalled whether they wanted players to be kept or not?
C: I would be speculating. Simon Shipperlee’s evidence, no bidder had done so..I’m sure Simon is telling the truth, what I can’t say is whether he told me.
QC: Page[ ed:I missed the detail of the reference] – An email from Fraser Wishart to you, 4th para: “ I am told while reductions in the short term, the cost…. Already a small squad ,any new owner
would have to rebuild entire squad? ” Agree?
C: Yes. But Fraser Wishart was negotiating [ed: missed the end of the sentence]
QC: Are you saying that Shipperlee was not aware of bidders saying that? You’re calling Fraser Wishart out?-Other email from FW. You saw, Vol 3, p.2369 the opposite . No interested party has said he wished to go for pay deferral.
C: You’re mixing up….
QC: Retain or not retain?
C: They may or may not have.
QC: On the CVA plan..
C: Yes
QC: ..At wage deductions there was a risk of a CVA not being accepted?
C: I accept that.
QC: The risk because of the Shares issue? [ed: i.e. the Shares held by Craig Whyte]
C: Yes, but whether the creditors would vote was a bigger issue
QC: HMRC being a preferred outcome?
C: Yes
QC: [ed: missed the question]
C: [ed: missed the reply]
QC: A material risk of HMRC not voting?
[ed:there was the sound of a voice/voices breaking in for a few seconds until their mic was put on mute]
QC: 24 February , HMRC meeting, 26 February David Grier noting that Liquidation a possible outcome?
C: Yes
QC: 25 February you record….. another firm acting to avoid…[ed: missed the sense of what he said/asked]
C: [ed: missed any reply, if indeed a question had been asked]
QC: Focussed on a CVA you did not consider the risk of players refusing to transfer under TUPE if there was an asset sale?
C: Oh, there’s always a risk. TUPE on a regular basis .Employees do not have to transfer. Had Rangers continued in the SPL, or in the First division, then all of the players would have transferred over. The players didn’t want to be in lower levels.
QC: That answer is quite a long way from the question! What did you have in mind at the time? You did not have in mind…[ed: missed it]
C: Probably not
QC: In your mind at all?
C: Well, it was always in my mind, but not at the front, because we assumed that the SPL would keep Rangers in position even if there was a sale of the corporate business. There was an assumption of the top flight, so we may not have asked ‘what if?’
QC: I can’t find an email in which the possibility of players not transferring is being discussed?
C: The working assumption was that..
QC: You’d expect Simon Shipperlee to be on the same assumption?
C: I agree if he wasn’t
QC: By refusing to transfer, players would be in power, either in relation to other clubs or with Newco owner.
C: Yes, but less likely with Newco
QC: The players gain by becoming free agents?
C: Yes.
QC: On an asset sale the players could move or transfer. You would know there was a risk?
C: Agree.
QC: It’s most unlikely that a prospective purchaser who wants an asset sale, and one of the playing squad is worth £4 million , and there’s a risk ….You’ll walk away?
C: You’re making an assumption about values.It’s for players….
QC: Focussing on what you should have borne in mind: you knew that there was a risk of no CVA, and therefore of an asset sale.
C: I agree
QC: You would have known that players might not transfer?
C: I agreed already.
QC: And those players are of no value to a prospective purchaser?
C: Yes
QC; The best thing is to sell players sooner?
C: It was still too early. Rangers had been offered for purchase before. So I don’t accept..
QC: As at the date of wage reduction you were blind as to whether there were offers or bids?
C: Yes
QC: 8/9March…Indicative bids at 16 March?
C: I accept that.
QC: No idea what was to come?
C: I agree
QC: So at the time, could have been anything.
C: Yes
QC: So purchasers may or not have paid for players they might not get?
C: horrible..
QC: So you should have sold when you could.
C: I disagree…
QC: At the time, 8/9 March you knew, and the rational thing would have been to sell.
C: I disagree.
Lord Tyre: We’ll adjourn for lunch now. Resume at 1.55.
+++++++++
The DR reaches out to Dave King for comments on the new Celtic manager. This takes brass neck to a whole new level based on the man who hired Pedro who had a sparkling non resume. At least Ange had experience at the World Cup level. Then not to be out done they have Barry Ferguson bumping his gums on the potential of a $40 million CL pay day easing the losses accumulated by his former club. That money, if ever attained, will be a drop in the buck as compared to the reported $80 — $90 million built up over the last few years. And we still have this year’s numbers to look forward to.
Vernallen 2nd July 22.57.
Any losses “built up” are of course covered by a loyal group of Shareholders/Investors.
I don’t believe that Rangers will be the only team who will suffer large losses during these unprecedented times.
As John Bennett stated earlier this week ” the recovery phase is nearly complete and then it’s on to the growth phase”.
Exciting times for Rangers fans both on & off the pitch.
Albertz11 3rd July 9:49
Its fine for shareholders and investors to cover the accumulated losses but sooner or later they will want some form of return. It might be exciting times on and off the pitch for Rangers fans but some how one has to look back a few years at the EBT program, unlimited loans from the banks to see where this group might be headed. Reports indicate Dave King is looking to get his “loans” back and they carry a hefty price tag, Mike Ashly makes it more exciting with new reports of his involvement with Castore ( can you imagine the excitement if Ranger fans realize he is still getting money from them), the court cases wend their way through the courts, payments for purchased players must be coming due, yes they are definitely on to the “growth phase”. The level of excitement must be off the charts.
My post of 2nd July 2021 At 18:35 refers.
Rather than continue to watch the Ukrainians let me down, I bashed out some more of Paul Clark’s evidence session.
This bit follows on from the bit posted yesterday
“Lord Tyre: We’ll adjourn for lunch now. Resume at 1.55.
On resumption(at 2.03)
QC: You knew…
C: No, I don’t. Doesn’t close off the possibility.I don’t recall any conscious change of strategy.
QC: The rational thing was to try to sell the players.
C: Would the players have sold? If you take away..Complete closedown.. that was not in the mind of HMRC or Ticketus
QC: mr Clark, that’s all ex post facto .None of that was in your mind because you didn’t even consider it.
C: We believe the best result intimated to us was the continuation of ..
QC: That didn’t require that Rangers FC be in the same form. Those matters were not on your mind.
C: .in my mind, maintaining the same squad, same team..
QC: You did not know at that time.
C: We didn’t have a separate value of the brand
QC: Nor value of the players
C: We had indicative values.
QC: [ed: missed it]
C: you meant to say the business and assets. The brand was a futile exercise, the market, the brand could not be separated from the brand of the club.
QC: We’ll have to agree , or dis agree, n reaching a view absent a value of the brand and the players
[ed: I missed what he said] Agree?
C: I agree.
QC: Para 8.9 on p 374: 8/9 March statement you made. Please read it to yourelf, Mr Clark
C: [ having read] Yes.
QC: Is that really what you thought of the Rangers fans at the time, that if you sold Naismith the fans would have left?
C: …from previous media reports. The fans of any club have emotional attachment. If they had seen key players not playing it would have created a negative impression.
QC: But that should not have blown you off course?
C: To disregard them would have been foolish. If you’re hoping to sell as a ‘going concern’.. better for creditors.
QC: “ Rangers don’t do ‘walking away’”? Sign of the strength of football fans?
C: If they had no football club…?
QC: We’ll have to disagree. It’s ex post facto rationalisation
C: Just because it’s not in an email…thousands of thoughts, no to time to record everything
QC: Para 8.10, please “.. barrier…to sale.transfer window closed, limited ability, regulatory difficulties outside the ‘window’ We know that Simon Shipperlee did not know, you did not take advice. So this is ex post facto rationalisation
C: I don’t accept accept that. There were barriers. In the UK sales outside the window are not the norm, there are restrictions .I’m not looking back, and I don’t know why you ask
QC: [ed: didn’t hear]
C: I’m not an expert, but that is my belief . I understood from Ashworth that there are hurdles
QC: Simon Shipperlee did not know it is possible to transfer. So you did not know.
C: it’s not right to say it could not be done .My understanding
is..
QC: you’re rationalising after the event.
C: Although I accept that Simon ought to have known the best I can say is….
QC: That’s a change of position, from this morning?
C: Apologies if that is so.
QC: point 12, the second difficulty: the need to sell players quickly. That doesn’t make it impossible, you could accept a discount?
C: Yes.
QC: D’you see where you say the Company’s financial problems hindered the sale of players.. ? But Mr Dickson said there was little attempt to sell?
C: My belief is that Craig Whyte intended to ease problems by selling.
QC: But Rangers did sign a player.. Celic [ed:?]
C: I accept that
QC: On why there were barriers …” if company could not be rescued by a CVA then a ‘business and assets’ sale”?
C: Yes.
QC: The Biggart Baillie advice was 20 March, and 24 April Michael McCl.[ed: who?]. and Biggart Baillie were in many meetings not recorded in emails. Impracticable.
QC: You can’t be sure, though?
C: Granted
QC: the Court has to look at what is there, agreed?
C: Agree
QC: 8.14, 8.15 “players would be free to negotiate personal terms..Our strategy was to secure a series of wage reductions..”… I understand that to mean that this was to make it unattractive to bidders for Rangers, if players could leave?
C: Could you repeat the question, please?
QC: [ ed: repeated, rephrased the question]
C: [ ed: I missed any reply}
QC: Am I understanding correctly: yes? Potential waiting and seeing?
C: Yes
QC: So you did not actively pursue a sales strategy?
C: Yes
QC: the rational thing would be to sell?
C: No. The decision on transfer was the SPL one but this was changed. The Board would not like to lose a significant club..
QC: This is you engaging in rationalisation after the event?
C: It was in my mind.
QC: [ed: I missed the question}
C: David Whitehouse and I in the initial period each had a certain task.
QC: Did you and David Whitehouse have a difference of opinion?
C: The final strategy was an agreed strategy
QC: Vol 2, p 1889, at the bottom, email from Whitehouse to you and Sarah Bell: “ we need to be hard. I don’t want to be a funding hero.”
Your response “..do not forget we need to play football and finish second”
and Whitehouse’s reply “ we don’t need to finish second unless we get a CVA before…’ That shows a disagreement? What did you mean by we need to play football?
C: European Football, not to close Rangers in mid-season.
QC: An email about cutting staff: “I think cut hard and early” was Whitehouse’s opinion.
C: No. David Whitehouse is forceful, but “cutting hard” is “cutting costs”
QC: Redundancies, that was what was under discussion!
C:If you show me..
QC: p3740, foot of the page, 2 March at the end of that day ..
restructure cost base?
C: Yes:
QC: [ed; missed the question]
C: Cost bases are at a time: This is more about cutting the costs of the Administration.[ several more sentences followed that I did not try to note down]
QC: You’re giving answers that stray miles off, Mr Clark.
C: [ed: missed the reply]
QC: Any purchaser would have known that they would inherit that cost base. Agree?
C: Any purchaser [ ed: missed the rest]..
C: No, I disagree. In a CVA… it’s for a new owner to decide what would be best.
QC: In a CVA?
C: Yes
QC; [ed: missed it]
C: [ed: missed any reply]
QC: Would you defer to the Scottish Football Authorities?
C: [ed: I missed his opening remarks, but he concluded with ] ……. the Scottish football authorities were bordering on duplicity
QC; ‘deadline’?
C: During Hearts’ administration the rules did not change, but we were faced with SPL rule changes.
QC: As of 31 May.
Lord Tyre: Mr McBrearty, if it’s convenient I think we’ll take a break here? We will retstart at 10 past
On resumption:
Mr McBrearty ( continuing): Mr Clark, you did not compare the savings between …[ed: I missed ]
C: I don’t believe, er, er, .. the answer has to be no .My understanding is that the handful of redundancies made were small in comparison with the wage deductions of players. I don’t think there was carried forward a comparison.
QC: On wage deductions: cost deficit of £4.5 million to the end of season?
C: Agreed.
QC: ‘Cash deficit’ is not the same as ‘trading deficit’?
C: Agreed.
QC: 3.3 million in the bank?
C: Yes, that rings a bell.
QC: There are assets available for creditors?
C;Yes
QC: Trading deficit?
C: Probably more than £3.3 million.
QC. It was £ 4.4 million.
C: OK.
QC: All the cash in the bank was spent?
C: I think that’s a fact.
QC: When agreeing wage deductions you were trying to ensure there ws no cash deficit, but were not worried a trading deficit?
C: We had an eye on sale of the business other than a CVA. To give us time
QC: No inroads into the trading deficit?
C: Without cuts the trading deficit would have had inroads into it
QC: To put it in brash terms…. £2.2 million. You would have been better off closing Ibrox etc?
C: Not a step to be taken lightly. I had a meeting with the First Minister. What happens if you close Rangers? Understand the implications. Costs could not be underestimated.
QC: Formally, Mr Clark, I have to put it to you: in all the circumstances discussed, no ordinarily competent Administrator acting with reasonable care would fail to 1. take advice on the sale of players, 2, assess minimum number required to continue to trade, 3, make some players redundant 4, seek advice as to selling others as assets, appointing an agent, 5, making non-playing staff redundancies, 6 [ed: I missed ] 7 [ed: I missed] 8, monitor , and if initial view of what was required was [ ed: I missed the phrase or word] , nd change and at worst on 4/5 April .. [ed: I missed that , too]
You failed …..you acted as no ordinarily competent administrator would have done.
C: I don’t agree with you.There is no such template. There are other ways of looking at it so therefore I disagree.
QC: Thank you. Let me turn to Naismith. You ought to have tried to sell him and others, and might have created a better opportunity.But you ought to have accepted the West Bromwich Albion offer. Was it your decision not to accept?
£1.7 million. By that time you had dropped his buy-out clause to £2 million.And you would have saved wages if you had acceppted, then £1.75 million = £2 million. That’s only £150 000 away in net terms from the ‘worth’?
Naismith was injured: if you had held out for £2 million , there was £20,000 due to Kilmarnock. Were you aware?
C: I can’t recall.
QC: £1.75 million , the payment would have been immediate?
C: Yes. Naismith was more reliable but it would be difficult to justify.
QC: Hold on to players, because of their value? Actual bids showed that bidders weren’t putting great value on the players.
C: Yes
QC: The move to WBA was being orchestrated by his agent?
C: I accept that.
QC: that Fraser Wishart said that players might not transfer?
C: he was pledging his allegiance. Some, if Ranger had stayed in..
QC: You could have had £1.7 to £2 million immediately?
C: Yes. £1.7 to £2 million wasn’t too much of bridge, subject to rules..
QC: Another formality Mr Cark: no reasonably competent administrator would fail to accept the offer…
C: With hindsight. There were lots of moving parts. Naismith was an influence in the dressing room.
QC: 8.25.5 Naismith might not have accepted the offer., other people are better placed to judge that?
C: Yes.”
More to follow, as and when.
I don’t know about anyone else, and I certainly don’t know whether Clark, on oath, was telling the truth about the meeting with the First Minister and the questions that were raised.
but from a certain perspective… there might be some questions I would like to put to our First Minister.
@Albertz11 – what I don’t get is what is the “growth phase” (and this would apply to all clubs, including my own). Within a Scottish context what does this mean? Growth in what? Revenues? Profits? Trophies? Clearly a European Super League is off the cards at the moment (not that Scottish clubs were invited to play…). So if we are realistic then we are looking at “growth” in the domestic market. So what does this “growth” actually mean?
Continuation of Clark’s evidence ( see my post of 3rd July 2021 At 23:23] which ended with
“QC: 8.25.5 Naismith might not have accepted the offer., other people are better placed to judge that?
C: Yes.””
QC: On ‘Brand’ valuation. The “ Informemorandum” for possible bidders: “most successful brand..”?
C: I disagree that the brand by itself had value. It’s the whole basket that comprises the football team known by the name of Rangers. The revenue stream…
QC: A part-purchaser , certain players come and go, a purchaser of a ‘going concern’, it wouldn’t be essential that a stadium be owned?
C: You’d be treading on diff. [ed: can’t now say whether that was an abbreviation of ‘different’ or ‘difficult’] ground if you separate Ibrox from the team.
QC: A stadium just allows performance of a function: not essential that it be owned?
C: It’s for others to comment. Ibrox is the home . Fans expect the football club/fans to own it.
QC: Leasing?
C: Yes…
QC: But they need the ‘brand’?
C: Yes
QC: [ed; missed the question]
C: Brian Kennedy, one of his requirements was that he would put the property into a different company from the company that owned the ground.
QC: Consideration was given to obtaining brand report- Schumacher to obtain on a “going concern” basis and “ on Liquidation” basis. On 15 March the decision was taken NOT to?
C: Yes
QC:9.3,p.380 of the Witness Statement bundle: would you read it quietly to yourself, please?
C: [ having read it] yes, thank you.
QC: You regarded the brand as being indivisible from the club. But did you get valuation of the individual parts?
C: yes.But valuation is subjective, and market conditions change, even with property. For example, a shopping centre:£15 million pre-covid, 4 years ago, now £4 million. No straight comparison , but valuation is not straightforward, especially intangibles.
QC: Mr Clark, we’re straying miles< we’re going to be here forever!
Lord Tyre: Mr Clark has answered the question.
It’s been a pretty full day so we’ll leave it at that for tonight.
Court adjourned till Monday morning
+++++++++++
Are footballers exempt from covid regulations when returning to the UK after featuring in competition ? Just thinking of Alfie returning from Brazil , which is on the red list , or Colombia ,which is on the amber list . Both require quarantine for us mere mortals .
I’m thinking that TRFC may have turned their back on external media as they have no need to sell those season books .
Having a read through John Clarke’s court notes. It’s very easy to be cynical, but it appears to me from everything that happened overall, the plan might just have been:
‘Rangers’ are sold for a very low price, including the stadium and the training ground (did happen)
Creditors would be shafted, except football ones (did happen).
The authorities will allow the newco straight into the top flight anyway (SFA and SPL wanted this to happen).
The players, some of pretty high value if under contract, will TUPE over and then will be able to be sold for a good fee that the shafted creditors will not get a sniff of (didn’t happen but Charles Green did his best)
There is so much more, but to quote a theme from the end of every Scooby Doo cartoon when the bad guy is unmasked, “…and I would have got away with it if it wasn’t for the pesky fans of the other clubs”.
You really have to laugh when you see comments by John Bennett recently about ‘Rangers’ having scores to settle. ‘Rangers’ stole tens of millions from the public purse under the stewardship of two different owners. Many people would be ashamed of that, in particular those Rangers fans who value the ‘Britishness’ of the club so highly, and the association with the armed forces which are funded by taxpayers money. Does Mr Bennett actually believe it was okay? It seems he does.
‘Wokingcelt 3rd July 2021 At 23:24
@Albertz11 – what I don’t get is what is the “growth phase” (and this would apply to all clubs, including my own). Within a Scottish context what does this mean? Growth in what? Revenues? Profits? Trophies? Clearly a European Super League is off the cards at the moment (not that Scottish clubs were invited to play…). So if we are realistic then we are looking at “growth” in the domestic market. So what does this “growth” actually mean?’
::
::
I think that it’s all about ‘revenue’ & there are four areas where TRFC would be looking for ‘growth’:
Match-day income, including advertising & in-house hospitality.
UEFA competition payments.
Transfer income.
Sale of redundant assets & land.
I think they’re all quite self-explanatory.
My post of 4th July 2021 At 11:27:
“QC: Mr Clark, we’re straying miles, we’re going to be here forever!
Lord Tyre: Mr Clark has answered the question.
It’s been a pretty full day so we’ll leave it at that for tonight.
Court adjourned till Monday morning’
+++++++++++++++++++
This is my report of the Hearing on Monday 24th May .
Mr McBrearty QC picking up where he left off at close of session on Friday 21st.
Mr McBrearty: You’re not an expert in brand valuation, Mr Clark?
C: No.
QC: The brand of Rangers was in the fore?
C: Yes, the brand was connected with Club [ed: missed the word] , Rangers out there as a prominent name.
QC: You didn’t have a valuation of the brand so you could not include it?
C: I understand, yes.
QC: A hypothesis: if as of the date of the Singapore bid pulling out you had plugged in a value for the brand and Liquidation was a possibility, everyone would still be looking to avoid Liquidation?
C: Yes, but what would be the additional costs?
QC: The brand person might have been able to tell you?
C: [ed: I have nothing written, so perhaps Mr McB came in quickly]
QC: ….if Liquidation was plainly the best you would have to have had a rethink?
C: Yes
QC: “going concern” valuation: if you got a brand report you should have got a ‘Liquidation’ brand report?
C: Yes
QC: Heritable property, on a ‘going concern’: if you do the same to all the assets you can bench mark a “going concern” ?
C: Yes
QC: The total value would give you a bench mark?
C: Yes
QC: and also something to go back to bidders..?
C: Yes
QC: Let’s say £12 million bids, if “going concern” is £20 million?
C: Yes, but there was a peculiarity in the Rangers matter: we entered into an NDA with the bidders, who were openly talking to the Press. Ordinarily, if you have 2 you will play them against each other, or take a bid off the wall. But when bidders are talking…..
[sound breaking up]:Lord Tyre interjects: We’re missing you Mr Clark , can you lean in nearer the mic?
C…… [Apologies my Lord…is that better?.]…..it would have been difficult..
.QC: If bids are coming in at a particular level?
C: the total value of the three constituents….
QC: Is it not important to know the value of what you’re selling?
C: It gives you an indication , not value. I recognise that we don’t have the valuation.
QC: Heritable, moveable, players: you knew the worth of, but the brand? The brand might very well be the most significant asset?
C: It was a conscious decision not to value the brand.
QC: Mr Clark, an ordinarily competent Administrator ….would have obtained independent specialist advice
C: I hear you, I don’t agree with you.I don’t know about other football administrations.
QC: For the sake of clarity: sell the playing staff rather than wage-reduction, you recall?
C: My reply ws that outside the window there are hurdles.
QC But you should have done it?
[ed:Mr Clark launched into a longish response which I frankly couldn’t follow well enough even to jot down the gist of it]
QC; Mr Clark, a normally competent administrator acting with reasonable care would not have allowed ‘buy-out’ clauses.
C: [ ed: missed his reply]
QC: ..the bidding process: “going concern” strategy ? Agree?
C: Yes.
QC: Individual assets, like Murray Park, you needed to keep it in the full package?
C: Yes
QC: and the same for Ibrox..?
C: Yes.
QC:You didn’t deviate…?
C: That’s fair. But a closer look at Murray Park offers might have beeen looked at, if offers. But we didn’t see any such offer. And the same with Ibrox.
QC: You didn’t take any separate advice about lease-back?
C: [ed: I didn’t hear his reply]
QC: We’ve seen Lambert Smith Hampton…?
C: Could have been followed.
QC: Potential negotiating strategy , to ask for higher price for something a bidder had expressed interest in?
C: I’m no expert, but Brian Kennedy….Coventry City.. [ed: that’s what I wrote, but I had no idea what the connection was]
QC: Vol 3, 1996- email from Paul Tenten [ed: of D&P] to you and Charles Walder “ …1. run a dual track process sale and lease, 2. IPO ” ..So an alternative strategy was a possibility?
C: Agree
QC: a sale and leaseback basis or “going concern” basis?
C: I accept that.
QC: One bid of £25 million but by 4 April a maximum of £10 million?
C: Yes
QC: £5.5 million to Sevco,£1.5 million to the heritable property?
C: Yes
QC: Break-up value £7.8 million, brought down to £4.5 million?
C: Yes
QC: Touch and go whether ‘a bid for the ‘whole’ was worth more than break-up? And if brand value had been included?
C: [ed; he may have responded , but if he did I didn’t hear]
QC: The bids were not what you hoped?
C: What was going on at the time— Ticketus, HMRC. We didn’t look at sale-and-leaseback..If we had gone down that route we might have scared the “ going concern” bidders
QC: A sale-and-leaseback was the obvious strategy. You understand ?
C: Yes
QC: It ought to have been an obvious strategy : it would have kept open the continuation of football.
C: [ ed; I did not catch his reponse]
QC: ….. other football Administrations?
C: Yes, Leeds United, I did work at preparing…
QC: Vol 2, p.339 email from Neil Weeks to David Grier, 13 February: “ my colleague is a football expert in…” Do you know Neil Weeks?
C: Yes
QC email Neil Weeks ,copied to you: ‘flier’ and Chris Honeywell experience
p. 903, “ football property expertise. Edward Simmons have particular experience in the football area, eg, Chrystal Palace sale-and-leaseback, Barnet and Yeovil value of sale-and leseback purposes, Portsmouth-assisting in Administration, Darlington-,sale-and-leaseback” What we are seeing is a practice of sale-and-leaseback?
C: I accept that it was a possible practice but we did not actively consider.
QC: The point is that there were people with experience… Leaseback had been considered by David Grier?
C: I have no recollection
QC: Who is Gerard Fohrg?
C: Yes, he moved into asset lending, operating a brokerage business
QC: Look at Vol 1, 2677, David Grier emails: DG to Gerry Fohrg “ ..unencumbered property…. separate company…. no planning permission at present”
the response “ I can get the…..which club is it?”
David Grier to him on 30 June : “ it’s Rangers. Sale and lease-back”
So it looks as if David Grier was helping Craig Whyte to get out of a hole?
C: Yes
QC: Vol 1, p. 209, letter from Fohrg addressed to Phil Betts…. £80,000 commitment fee to arrange leasing”
Vol 5, p.4181 Rangers FC subject to diligence 1. commercial mort 2. sale and leaseback £17 million , interest charge to be finalised.”
The point is, it was an option that David Grier was prepared to explore. It would have been an option for you at the outset?
C: It seems a bit pie-in-the-sky. But I accept we didn’t look at it.
QC: The simple point is that it was an option to look at, not that it would necessarily have been successful?
C: Yes
QC: Bidder for holding heritable property separate from the other assets?
C: Yes. Brian Kennedy.
QC: German consortium, 19 March : “ The price indicatives ,Heritable property, brand £25 million”, excludes Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park?
C: Yes. If that offer had proceeded it might….[ ed: lost what he said]
QC: Do you agree or not that there was… ? [ ed: lost it]
C: Yes
QC: Maurice Rothbart, Mr McKenna? Seems to support the view that there was a market? You don’t dispute that?
C: If it were a manufacturing business , easy to see break-up. I accept that we did not actively go out to look
QC: What you did not do was to seek advice on….?
C: I accept that.
QC: You identified the concern of fans at the prospect of break-up?
C: Yes
QC: Football fans protest over many things?
C: Yes
QC: The SFA embargo?
C: Yes.
QC: Might be ‘Liquidation’ equals ‘asset sale’ because it might break continuity?
C: Yes
QC; Red card protest in the 77th minute?
C: Yes
QC Very considerable emotional …?
C: Yes.
QC: Understandable, at facing the demise of their football club?
C: Yes
QC: They didn’t like the sale to Sevco?
C: They preferred a CVA
QC: When a CVA did not happen and the ‘asset sale’ went ahead ,although it was technically a Liquidation of the existing entity the Rangers fans kept supporting?
C: Yes
QC In advance you knew the fans didn’t want an asset sale to Sevco?
C : The first structure we put in place for a deliverable outcome, we decided near the end of the season that the actual sale to Sevco was either going to be a CVA or an asset sale. It was only when we knew that a CVA was not going to proceed that we decided on an asset sale.
QC: You had to make an unpopular decision?
C: We had to decide. We had not heard from the one creditor who had influence who wanted the CVA to be proposed. We could not wait.
QC: You reached a stage where the decision was not popular?
C; Yes
QC: If a sale and leaseback you would have had to decide?
C: Yes
QC : the Rangers fans , they just have to suck it and see?
C: [ed: I missed the response]
QC: And they’re back, winning the league!
Lord Tyre: We’ll break now 11.28 resume at 11.45
On resumption,
Mr McBrearty: What would potential “going concern”-basis purchasers say if, for example, the stadium was leased, rent to pa; you didn’t think they would like that?
C: It would depend on the rent: a peppercorn rent might have been..
QC: Para 6.13: annual rent suggested by Rothbart was £1.8 million?
C: [ed: missed the reply]
QC: You could have taken advice to find whether it might be achievable?
C: We did not take advice
QC: But it might have been done?
C: We didn’t think the offer was ..
QC: It was an open offer, come and go?
C: I don’t know
QC: All the assets , but I need to go with the others. You’d expect resistance?
C: Yes.
QC: A purchaser would want to have Ibrox?
C: Yes
QC: How cheaply the other assets [ed: missed the rest] ?
C: It would depend on…..[ed:missed it]
QC: If you had a brand valuation report you could have said to the bidders they were getting a great bargain?
C: Why didn’t they just buy at £20 million … and get the brand?
QC: Without testing we don’t know that! So far, in the context of sale/leaseback /liquidation, suggest the possibility of fan purchase of the Heritable property for Ibrox or Murray Park: you gave no consideration to that?
C: I have no personal knowledge of fans buying heritable property
QC: Six thousand debentures, £7.7 million to build a stand?
C: I accept that harnessing fans’ ..[ ed: didn’t catch the rest]
QC: The power of harnessing fan loyalty , in financial terms?
C: I know that was how the debentures were….
QC: Gaining the right to a seat, not ownership?
C: Yes
QC: Fans were prepared to purchase debentures and all that they got was a right to a seat?
C: [ed: didn’t catch his response]
QC: Are you aware of how Celtic had harnessed the power of the fans in 1994 with a share issue?
C: Not in detail
QC: It’s not controversial to say that it was at least possible to harness the fans’ loyalty in some shape or form?
C: Yes
QC: RFFF, the organisation set up by Sandy Jardine with Walter Smith, was not to purchase the club but just to provide funding for certain costs?
C: There were various fan groups . The point made to them was that the funds could not be controlled by them for purposes they wouldn’t want. For example, they didn’t want monies to go to the creditors.
QC: Vol 2, p.3677 , email from Andy Kerr [ed: Rangers Supporter Association] 01 March 2012 to various recipient eg “Bluenose”, “ Administrators do not favour taking fans’ money now… legal minefield” That reflects what you were saying?
C: Not so much a legal as a practical difficulty: the fans couldn’t demand what the money could be used for.
QC: They did eventually pay for some work to the pitch?
C: They funded some legal costs
QC: The fees of Mr Keen to carry out the Judicial review? [ed: the transfer/registration embargo]
C: Yes
QC: You talked to RFFF about providing specific costs?
C: Fans would only provide funds on the stipulation that no money was to go to the creditors.
QC: ..in the context of fans providing donations for specific costs?
C: That part I recall
QC: You don’t mention “Save Rangers”?
C: I don’t recall. There may be some email traffic, pledges made. {bottom of page 7 of m/s]
QC: Vol 2, p.4354 email from Carol Paton 24 February to you and a long line of recipients, and David Whitehouse ..
p. 4356 para [?] “ SaveRangers.com” £5.8 million pledged in five hours reported in the Daily Express
C: I can’t recall specifically seeing it.
QC: Another email Vol 2 p.2281 Ryan Murray to Peter Hart, Simon Shipperlee, Charles Walder, and you “ all Save Rangers”- 11500 members
C: Yes
QC: If ‘sale-and-leaseback’, another possibility was to sell to the fans?
C: I don’t recall any proposal or any detail
QC: If you had taken advice, this is a possibility?
C: I accept that.I would turn it around and suggest that it would have been for the fans to initiate
QC: Pledges have to be turned into cash but if they could , some of the problems would disappear if it were the fans buying?
C: [ed : missed the reply]
QC: Bear with me a moment………[ presumably the QC was looking something up] then
QC: ..hypotheticals, out of fairness, a ‘fans’ purchase of Ibrox ‘ might have been sold to Miller?
C: The issue of Miller was about closing the club, not being a Rangers man.
QC: He was American. But if he was going to hand back Ibrox to the fans?
C: Miller was much the best equipped but neither he nor his team suggested.
QC: Really, at the outset you should have been ‘dual track’?
C: It could have been, there could have been alternative suggestions.
QC: A formality again, Mr Clark; I have to put it to you that an ordinarily competent administrator acting reasonably would ,one, obtain property valuations and consider alternative arrangements such as sale-and-leaseback; two, assess all offers;three, assess [?]; four, establish best net recovery taking proper advice; five, [?] if price below break-up value ; six, and would not sell until all previous steps had been taken.
You failed to reach the standard expected…
C: they could have been but were not
QC: ordinarily competent, sale-and leaseback should have been explored?
C: We thought it best to ell all together.
QC: You should have tested the alternatives. Agree?
C: Could have, but did not
QC: For others to judge?
C: Yes
QC: What you did do: kept the CVA on the table. If you hadn’t all the players relise they could be free agents
C: The… [ed: I missed he said]
QC: You were in the hands of Craig Whyte and Ticketus
C: Yes. We had some leverage , moral leverage, over him, and some potential legal remedies.
QC: Leverage- some bidders were trying to deal with Craig Whyte?
C: Yes
QC: You did not consider Whyte as trustworthy, ..slippery?
C: He is not straightforward when you eal with him
QC: [ed: missed the question]
C: He was looking out for himself
QC: The bidders were trying to get the shares ,competing with each other
C: Not quite Craig Whyte, but a company.
QC: Yes, Rangers Group. You couldn’t be sure that Whyte would give up the shares?
C: [ed: didn’t pick it up]
QC: He might only transfer them to one bidder, not necessarily the best for..?
C: ..the problem of enforcement…
QC: The formal steps you took, Vol 3, 2644, 26 March letter to Taylor Wessing.
[ ed: the system went down]
Lord Tyre : it’s got…..
QC: Can you hear me?….
Lord Tyre: We’ll go out of session till this gets sorted out…It’s 11.28 a.m
Back in session at 11.31
Mr McBrearty: Vol 3, p.2644 Taylor Wessing letter to Craig Whyte. Email from you to Taylor Wessing “ Craig is still investigating retaining, unlikely to give up with no consideration” …Whyte was still trying to keep control?
C: [ed: didn’t catch what he said]
QC: Whoever wanted the shares would have to deal with Whyte?
C: Yes, cash consideration, directors’ box tickets,..
QC: Not at 28 March when best and final bids by the 4 April?
C: First offer was on the basis of an asset sale.
QC: [ed: missed the question]
C: Whyte would nt have..
QC: Vol 3, 4594 email from Craig Whyte to Arthur Fernandez 11 April a week after
“ RFCG 51% shareholding at no cost Craig Whyte retains….. up to £40 million … consensual, avoids liquidation ” These were a week after the date of ‘final bids’
. Not acceptable to any bidder?
C: This is a proposal by a solicitor in a vague set of terms. I don’t recall discussion.
QC: What he wanted was unsustainable? Board representation. No bidder?
C: I suppose that Whyte knew it was unlikely , and his solicitor.
QC: The legal advice you took on enforcing , Taylor Wessing, was a week later, and after close of final offers?
C: A formaal letter is not the only way to receive advice.
QC: No steps were taken to enforce the transfer of the shares?
C; No, they weren’t
QC: Craig Whyte had control of the process?
C: Not control, but he could slow down
QC: Do you recall saying you would take legal action to enforce?
C: If you’re going to Court to press urgency..
QC: 14 February that urgency existed?
C: If we had gone to Court we would have…[ed: missed it]
QC: But when you’re inviting purchasers and tell them togo off and negotiate with someone….?
C: I accept it would be something…
QC: Simon Shipperlee “ Craig Whyte should have been nailed on day one” You could have demanded a mandate, otherwise HMRC appointment?
C: Craig Whyte tried to avoid Administration. Original intention was to have a period of time for final discussion with HMRC, pull the pin out of the grenade.. one, notice of intention was leaked to social media , two, application was made by HMRC
QC: You were proceeding on the basiss that Whyte would transfer the shares?
C: Yes
QC: You were having discussions with Whyte throughout?
C: Yes, David Grier, David Whitehouse and I.
QC: How often did you meet?
C: I met him four or five time s..no, eight or ten times.
QC: But you had met him before Administration?
C: Six or seven times, on matters to do with Rangers, and a high net worth individual at dinner in January 2010 and then in April 2011 and perhaps…
QC: David Grier would have known him better? Were you friendly with Whyte?
C: Not particularly
QC: What did you speak about?
C: The shares. He would have been aware of Collyer Bristow action and what we were doing with Ticketus.
QC: How much did you disclose to him?
C: Not much, there was lots of stuff in the media.
QC: Vol[? ] p. 2330: 01 May 2012 transcript of a discussion with Craig Whyte, personal or by phone?
C: Personal
QC: “ Hi, Paul..”…. was it you alone, or with Whitehouse or Grier?
C: Not sure, but possibly someone else
QC: Looks as though someone else was with you. Let’s read the conversation:
“ Shall I give you ..”
“ Yeah, go on”
“ We’re obviously down to..”
“ yes.”
“ Blue Knights have a deal, leaves Kennedy way .. . ”
“ What sort of offer has he got?”
“ 5 up front ”
“……”
“ Yeah, yeah ”
“ So really you need to have a conversation..”
“ I tried to call him but..”
So, you’re discussing the Blue Knights’ offer.You describe Whyte as ‘slippery’. Why tell him?
C: Most of this was in the public domain
QC: “ …they haven’t .. David Grier “do you think they’re serious”
Did it occur to you that Craig Whyte might have an interest in Green succeeding?
C: From 1 May to 10 May you’ve missed out that time period. The position was that the best bid was CG
QC: The reason I ask, we can see Craig Whyte is suggesting the Charles Green consortium, did it occur toyou…
Mr Young QC, interrupting: Wait a bit! M’Lord, we seem to have moved into a different area,,
Mr McBrearty: The criticism is that something had to be done to get Whyte’s shares, but Whyte is calling the shots: the criticism goes back to the outset.
Lord Tyre: Mr Clark, I think a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer.
C: M’Lord, I can’t be clear. We were told in no uncertain terms that Whyte was not involved.
QC The question was, did he have an interest?
C: We are getting into May: if he was able to introduce someone who could provide a deliverable bid… hence we announced Bill Miller…I totally refute that he was calling the shots
QC: Craig Whyte had an interest in that he might get something for his shares?
C: I don’t think we were told…
QC: In the context, did it seem wise to disclose other bids to him?
C: Very round numbers, just to give him an indication
QC: p.2235, please, three lines from the foot… [ ed: a little system crash 2.12 pm to 2.13 pm]…. “ he seems pretty keen” “ not necessarily about money but deliverability” p. 2237 “if we think we can get a deal” You’ve been emphasising deliverability, he’s the one with the shares?
C: Deliverability is not only about transfer of share.
QC: Was it wise to tell Whyte all these details?
C: The stage we were at: we had another month.
QC: It was unthinkable that you would have gone down a legal process?
C: No, we would have even if the Administration was held up while the Court considered.
QC: But Craig Whyte is asking what sort of offer has Kennedy got on the table.You did not know that he knew that?
C: If we wanted to get Whyte to cooperate…
QC: I’m not sure I understand why you felt .. [ed: missed the rest]
C: [ed: missed any reply]
QC: Whyte is not saying “ I see from the Press that Kennedy has offered..” You’re giving him information about another bid?
C: I don’t know.
QC: We’ll leave it for now.
Lord Tyre: We’ll break for lunch now. Resume at 1.55
On resumption:
McBrearty QC: Mr Clark, vol5 p.2231 would you read to yourself from “ where it gets to a position” down to…?
C: [having read] Yes.
QC: Craig Whyte is asking which bid is likely to succeed?and you are tlling him about Miller? Information is being shared about the bidding process?
C: I accept that.
QC: “CW I was contacted by another bidder, Charles Green…01 May due to meet him again tonight. For me if they deliver …” The first introduction to Charles green came from Craig Whyte, on that day 01 May?
C: yes
QC: He agreed to transfer shares only to Green?
C: I’m not sure about the ‘only’
QC: email from you to David Whitehouse on 10 May: Miller is out, CG is in, Kennedy, Ally McCoist/Walter Smith ?
C: Yes
QC: “Craig has signed to release his shares but only to one party”
C: Prior to that there was no bid that required his shares
QC: Vol 5, p. 2233 from “ Do you know how much” . ‘DG’ is that David Grier?
C: Yes. I can’t speak for the provenance of that.
QC: You’re not disputing this conversation?
C; No, no.When Miller withdrew we continued to help bidders. The party we helped most was McCoist/Smith.
QC: Was it wise to tell Whyte all these details?
C: … I stand by the decision
QC: You did not require to disclose to him the details?
C: Need to be there in the moment to give an accurate answer. I didn’t say I was in the room or was not…I don’t know.
QC: p.2239 “ ..any possibility of any of these boys falling away Nichola Sturgeon Alex Salmond.. ” It seems to be D&P explaining to Whyte the plan if deals fall throughout
C: [ed: missed his response]
QC: Disclosing how bad the situation was : p.22 D&P “ we were thinking £20 million… I thought we …. David Grier ” Someone is expressing that the level of bids is not what you thought?
C: Yes
QC: 6 June , p.2261 leading up to the CVA proposal
C: Yes
QC: “ DW: “ and you think these shares will be all right, You’ll deal with Charles?”
CW: I’ll deal with him”
So it looks as though D&P were still encouraging Craig Whyte?
C: Yes
QC: You were aware that he was asking for £1 million a year?
C: I don’t recall specifically
QC: p.2262, D&P “ the other thing I would say if ..” This was a discussion of what will happen if Charles Green doesn’t have the money and HMRC come in.
C: I don’t believe I ws involved in that conversation.
QC: If it wasn’t you, it would have been David Whitehouse?
C: yes
QC: [ed: missed the question]
C: [ed: there was a long sentence from Mr Clark which I missed]
QC: Same page, “ it would be good to get thiis done and we don’t any more disasters DG…” HMRC have said from day one they want a Liquidation”
C: HMRC are in difficult position, are they prepared to dish a CVA?
QC: We won’t go through the transcript….do you accept :one, how the SPL would deal with Newco?
C: I don’t remember
QC: two, how the club would be funded through CVA?
QC: three, HMRC attitude
C: just been discussed
QC: four, Administrators’ claim against Collyer Bristow ?
C: We would have been guarded, certain aspects less strong than others, the amount held by Collyer Bristow, doubt wheth other parties had an interest in those funds…
QC: five, claims made against Craig Whyte by Ticketus?
C: Yes
QC: six, whether ? had breached the JJB contract, Charles Green?
C:….
QC: seven, You and David Whitehouse and Craig Whyte , the views about Ally McCoist, Paul Murray, Jacqueline Gourlay..
C: I don’t remember specific
QC: eight, you/David Whitehouse scathing about certain persons ,in conversation with Craig Whyte.Was that wise?
C: I don’t know
QC: You described individuals using language that is not professional : “ a complete twat”
unprofessional, unwise?
C: I accept that.
QC: Disclosing information, communicating about other bidders…Agree?
C: I understand what you say
QC: The Bill Miller bid on 2 or 3 May, of £8.5 million. Recall?
C: Yes
QC; ‘Break- up’ £5.5 , £8.5 ?
C: Yes
QC: File note- the record of bidding process, no mention of £3.5 million . Explain?
C: No, I can’t. It’s meant to be a summary.. . an oversight.You would have hoped someone…
QC: There’s no reference to Bill Miller’s bid in your statement. Why not?
C: No, I can’t explain. It wasn’t a conscious thought..
QC: The 5.5 million 8.5 million ‘headline figures’ and the 5.5 / 8.5 Sevco figures Can you explain how Sevco could use the same figures?
C; [ed: no idea what he said in reply]
QC: You’ll see than an inference can be drawn tht the information came from craig Whyte
C: I can only say that the majority of bids were in the public domain…but it is possible.
QC: A CVA was your preferred exit. I suggest that you allowed Whyte to control your preferred outcome?
C: I don’t accept that Whyte controlled: we were open to other approaches
QC: As of mid-April: Bill Miller ,Singapore Consortium pulled out over serious concerns over shares, protest at length of time,.. You lost a bidder because of delay in deliverability of shares?
C: People make Press statements…
QC: The Blue Knights in April relied on Ticketus to get the shares. And you knew that Ticketus would not deal with Murray?
C: They were never properly funded.
QC: Your preferred outcome was a CVA. You should ‘have nailed Whyte on day one’?
C: I preferred a CVA, but also was prepared to consider options.. I believe that if there had been a CVA then Craig Whyte would deliver the shares.
QC: But you should have … Agree?
C: That’s ..[ed: if there was more, I missed it]
QC: You had lost, by your lack of action, a number of bidders?
C: Craig Whyte would have passed on the shares and if not we would have gone to Court.
QC: “downward spiral”- you and David Whitehouse contributed to the spiral?
C: In my view Whyte would deliver the shares if there was a deliverabe bid from, say, a Rangers legend…If he had not we would have gone to Court. But there was urgency to get a CVA delivered.
QC: Mr Clark, I again have to be formal: no ordinarily competent administrator would have failed to take action on the shares.
C: I can only repeat.. [ ed: I missed the rest of his sentence]
QC: That failure also had effect, your loss of control not only in relation to shares but also to wage-deductions….
C: I don’t accept we lost control.
QC: An ordinarily competent administrator would have obtained a brand valuation report?
C: I’m not able to discuss.
QC: heritable property-failure to investigate another strategy?
C: Yes
Lord Tyre: It’s 14.59. Let’s break until ten past three?
On resumption:
Mr McBrearty QC: Mr Clark, you mentioned information beinng in the public press. Vol 4, 2780: This is BBC article 8 May 2012 “ Bill Miller has withdrawn”
p.2783, in the same article, “ however it is believed that neither Kennedy nor the other close to the same figure ( £11.2 million)”
p.2975, Press cutting summary circulating list DR …
p. 2976 “ Sun” -Bill Miller £11 million., torrent of abuse Daily Express £11.2 million The same figures attributed by other newspapers.
The point is, the bid ws NOT £11.2 million?
C: I can’t recall
QC: The bid was £5.5 with another 3.5 deferred , to make £8.5 million. What was said was not accurate.
C: Yes
QC: But what you told Craig Whyte was accurate?
C: Yes
QC: So what you said was important?
C; Well, Miller was the least media friendly. I stand by my view that a lot of information was in the public domain.
QC: The missing bid- can you say how it came to be that Sevco’s bid ws so accurate?
C: No, I can’t, I’m sorry I cannot remember
QC: “Estimated Outcome Statement” 10 May 2012, Sarah Bell’s evidence, This was sent to HMRC on 11 May. The difference between bids was small and the difference from the Liquidation figures at the time showing that liquidation was better than Charles Green’ s bid.
According to Sarah Bell, this was what was there when a binding contract was signed . Post-dated outcome statement showed the outcome figures changing ,showing that the outcome statement was worse than Liquidation. You signed a binding deal for a CVA and if not carried, then an asset sale. You did not have the later figures. Agreed?
C: I understand.
QC: You knew that Liquidation was better than the ‘asset sale’ when you signed the binding contract. Why?
C: An estimated outcome is an estimate. I maintain the costs of closing down Rangers, Ibrox ,don’t figure. If the creditors had been prepared…
QC: What was in your mind? Did you disregard the estimated outcome or did you regard it and maintain your …?
C: The Liquidation costs would be £1 million. One or other bases normally is a clear winner.
QC: If entering a binding agreement wouldn’t you have gone to the creditors before signing a binding agreement?
C: [ed: I didn’t catch what he said]
QC: When Mrs Bell was taken to various figures, all the matters that were changed could have been changed before the 11 May?
C: The Sevco arrangement was on 12 May; the meeting started at lunch-time on 11 May. I was in various meetings in and out, 16 hours……I can’t really remember.
QC: There’s another possibility: you didn’t have regard to the outcome figures?
C: [ed: I have only the tops of the letters of the two word reply and a question mark,impossible to decipher]
QC: What was the point of an outcome statement?
C: They’re an internal tool: they don’t drive the strategy.
QC: There were 5 or 6 . Length of time to take to sell the property. Other figures changed after the signing?
C: I can’t account for late changes. I may have suggested..
QC: The sale to Sevco. The balance of any SPL monies due. Agreement on 12 ,date of acquisition was 14 June. Discussion due with SPL?
C: Yes
QC: Which question was £1.345 million?
C: also a suggestion of fines.
QC: A question of fact: a sale and purchase agreement can be arranged in many ways..
[ ed: at this point, (3.50 pm) I have ‘phone died’ then
Lord Tyre : ‘reserve until first thing tomorrow’ 10.00 a..m tomorrow.
+++++++++++++++++
Unfortunately, I was unable to ‘attend’ the hearing on Tuesday 25th. This means that I haven’t any note of what Mr Young, QC might have raised in response to anything Mr McBrearty put forward.
I think I can safely say that I heard nothing to support the idea that Rangers Football Club plc, the holder of a share in the SPL and on that account a member of the SDA was not the entity that was liquidated!
The RFC Group ltd as a company holding the majority of shares in RFC plc did not go into Administration, far less into Liquidation: it is still alive on the Companies House register, although dormant. Whereas RFC plc had to surrender its share in the SPL , lost its entitlement to membership of the SFA, and ceased to exist as a football club recognised as being eligible to participate in Scottish professional football.
James Traynor and the others spoke nothing but the truth on Liquidation day- 140 years of sporting history came to an end.
And little phrases like ” technically a liquidation” or “the sale of the business and assets” cannot hide or disguise that truth.
Good work JC. That’s the most interesting one yet, with the introduction of CW and his desire to release the shares ONLY to CG as a buyer. “You are Sevco”. Interesting to see mention that in return CW was looking for £1m per month?! Remember Phil’s (continuing) talk of ‘onerous contracts’ hindering CG’s stewardship? Although it always seemed to me that Phil was pointing to Mike Ashley when he mentioned that, could CW’s demand be another? (Though I recognise that the story goes that the need for CW’s shares fell away when HMRC rejected the CVA).
I loved the wording “QC: Might be ‘Liquidation’ equals ‘asset sale’ because it might break continuity?
C: Yes”. and “QC: When a CVA did not happen and the ‘asset sale’ went ahead ,although it was technically a Liquidation of the existing entity…” To me, the word technically here equates to ‘actually’ so to hear that said in court just reaffirms the truth that the entity which was RFC1872 is the entity that is in course of liquidation.
Lots of nasty stuff in there too for D&P from disclosing confidential info to CW; not quickly acting for the creditors by failing to realise full value of players, properties and brand; favouring certain bidders over others (Smith/McCoist or ‘a Rangers legend, the CG – I don’t know how the Court will view it but BDO’s case looks quite strong to me.
John Clark 6th July 2021 At 13:54
Thanks for the latest update John.
It’s a pity the QC had to mention Celtic in 1994, as those unfamiliar could be mistaken for believing that in 1994 Celtic were liquidated, and had stiffed creditors in the way Rangers did in 2012. Celtic of course were not liquidated, and paid every single penny owed to creditors at the time. There is no argument whatsoever about Celtic being the same club. It’s also worth remembering that it was the bank who were giving Rangers an open cheque book at the time, who were doing all they could to put Celtic out of business. There was/is a great story there but it is no surprise that the Scottish media don’t want to go after it…they prefer to just tell us we’re paranoid.
Thank God for Fergus McCann.
I had to move into the kitchen to let Mrs C sit in her usual seat in front of the telly while making her nightly phone call to her pal in Glasgow, and missed seeing the Spanish equaliser.
I’m glad I’m not so unsporting as to be bothered whether it’s Denmark or Italy that bumps England. In fact, an Italy-Denmark final would be quite good!
More generally, I was suddenly prompted to try to find out how many cases of ‘Insolvency practitioner’ disciplinary actions there are in year, and what the reasons for them might be.
I shouldn’t these days be surprised at how easy it is to find ‘public interest’ statistics. But I always am. [ I just learned today what a ‘QR code’ is and how to use my phone on it, to see some video footage of a wedding in Lebanon of the daughter of a friend of my USA based son. See me! see this IT stuff? I could begin to get interested]
This link gave me some basic info.
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/current-insolvency-practitioner-sanctions
If there are hundreds/ thousands of Insolvencies a year….. the number of disciplinary actions against practitioners seems to be commendably small?
The few individual cases I’ve clicked on are , it seems, more like cases of carelessness, forgetfulness or muddle rather than anything else. None of the few seem to have resulted in any serious loss to creditors, or to Insolvency Practitioners or their employers being sued for millions in damages.
By any measure, I’m an auld man now- and I am just beginning to realise how feckin naive I have been all my life!
And how trusting in banks, insurance companies, the police, the SFA …
The Rangers saga has been a real education, and a wake-up call
And I am embarrassed to recollect that at one time ,however briefly, I thought Fergus was just an ‘American’-style businessman of the Trump variety.
I now am convinced that if he had been at the helm of Celtic in 2011/12 the ridiculous 5-Way Agreement would never even have been proposed. and the earlier granting of a UEFA licence to Whyte’s RFC would have been subjected to such expert forensic examination as Baroness Black of Strome conducted on any corpse as to ensure that there was absolutely no jiggery-pokery either by RFC or anyone in office in the SFA at the time.
Looking back over my notes of the Clark evidence, I see this:
“QC: You were having discussions with Whyte throughout?
C: Yes, David Grier, David Whitehouse and I.
QC: How often did you meet?
C: I met him four or five time s..no, eight or ten times.
QC: But you had met him before Administration?
C: Six or seven times, on matters to do with Rangers, and a high net worth individual at dinner in January 2010 and then in April 2011 and perhaps…”
And I’m trying to think : do we know who this ‘high net worth individual’ is/was? I don’t . My mind is going back over all that I know and remember of the court cases , and the only figures that might have been described ( as I understand the term] as being ‘high net worth individuals’ would have been SDM and Dave King.
Any ideas, anyone?
2010, SDM desperate to sell? Was DK eager to buy? Did Clark[ and perhaps Whitehouse ?]dine on succulent lamb with the ought-to-be-publicly -disgraced knight and/or the convicted cheater of the SARS?
One would love to know, wouldn’t one?
Oh, that real , fearless investigative journalism was the norm in Scotland!
‘John Clark 6th July 2021 At 23:41
…C: Six or seven times, on matters to do with Rangers, and a high net worth individual at dinner in January 2010 and then in April 2011 and perhaps…”
And I’m trying to think : do we know who this ‘high net worth individual’ is/was? I don’t…’
::
::
I think you’ve misheard/misread/misunderstood. The meeting referred to was likely at a function (sponsored by some City financial/investment services company) for a collection of HNW individuals which included Whyte, rather than a dinner with a single, unknown, unnamed HNW individual.
Jingso.Jimsie 7th July 2021 At 11:01
“I think you’ve misheard/misread/misunderstood”
+++++++++++
Thank you, Jingo.Jimsie. That’s a very possible explanation, although my note uses the singular
‘a.. high worth individual’.
God forgive me, but I thought Clark may have been kind of name-dropping!
But of course I suppose that, in that world ,business millionaires [real or fake, liars or no] are stock-in-trade for Insolvency Practitioners !
Mc Brearty’s question, I supposed, was aimed at establishing previous connections between the business in Administration and the Administrators, given that the choice of Administrator was in the hands of the business, and previous knowledge/dealings are useful when choosing anyone to do a job of work.
But , as Mr Clark might say: ” I accept that you’re probably right”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57763001
@PaddyM – can you imagine the uproar if the positions were reversed here and the match was being played in Copenhagen…dearie me Nigel Farahe would be leading an armada (from the back mind!) to invade Denmark!!!
Denmark won the Euros in 1992 and obviously reached the semifinals this time. Population of Denmark is 5.8m. Population of Scotland is 5.4m. I would like the SFA to explain our performance relative to similar sized nations.
Croatia 4.1m
Wales 3.1m
Slovakia 5.5m
Finland 5.5m
Bulgaria 6.9m
Switzerland 8.7m
I could be wrong but would suggest against our peer group we have under-performed consistently over past 30 years. And for that you have to blame the leadership at the SFA (not the players, not the managers).
Back in 2012 the BBC gave this report:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-19981266
My initial response was one of incredulity:
https://archive.sfm.scot/naming-the-rose/comment-page-25/#comment-1825
If the BBC reported Mr Clark’s words correctly he appeared not to understand the basic responsibilities of an administrator. I have not seen any correction from the BBC to indicate that the words attributed to Mr Clark were misreported.
It seems utterly implausible; but it appeared as if he was more focused on ‘saving’ the Rangers brand than he was on achieving the best result for creditors.
Can it be readily accepted that this flawed strategy was purely the result of incompetence?
It seems beyond belief that the administrators would not be able to distinguish between:
1. saving the company (the football club) and,
2. saving the business/brand by selling a majority of the old club’s assets to a new company.
The former IS the primary statutory purpose of administration – which the administrators singularly failed to achieve.
The latter has no purpose – UNLESS IT ACHIEVES THE BEST RESULT FOR THE CREDITORS. This outcome WAS achieved; but, there is nothing to indicate that this achieved (or even aimed to achieve) the best result for creditors.
Remember the questions that Duff and Phelps were facing relating to its potential conflict of interest?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18179264
I have been reading JC’s court reports with some interest.
It is interesting to see that Mr Clark admits to meeting with Craig Whyte six or seven times PRIOR TO ADMINISTRATION.
It is also interesting to see BDO’s focus on establishing that Craig Whyte was controlling the administration through his shareholding in RFC plc.
If BDO are successful in its action against the former administrators, I would not be at all surprised if further legal action ensues.
Interesting times…
HirsutePursuit 8th July 2021 At 19:34
” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-19981266
“Coverage of Rangers Football Club, BBC Online
This is a consolidated appeal from two complainants who said that a number of reports on
the BBC’s website were inaccurate in giving the impression that Rangers Football Club,
rather than the company which had previously owned the club, had gone into
administration/liquidation. … ”
%%%%%%%%%%
The first link you provide , HirsutePursuit, which I give above, reports the infamously perverse decision by the BBC Trust that it was not RFC plc that was liquidated but some un-named company that owned the football club, while the club , having lost its membership of the SFA ,was bought ,miraculously whole and entire and free of debts etc , by Sevco., while a brand new club claiming to be Rangers of 1872 was admitted !
In my opinion, such a wicked perversion of truth must have had the backing of deliberate and very powerful liars, able to shut BBC journalists down by threat of disciplinary action.
It is greatly to the discredit of Pacific Quay that they neither publicly challenged that disgraceful order nor at least ask for the evidence on which the Trust based their view that Rangers had been sold whole and entire and had not been put into Liquidation.
I doubt if there has ever been such a cowardly lack of integrity by the BBC in all its years.
It’s my sincere hope that judgment will favour BDO , that the D&P ‘Administration’ will be found to have been a farce and suspect from beginning to end, that the damages claimed will be awarded , that the greatest publicity will be given to such a judgment, and that further investigations will be undertaken into the nature of the 5-Way Agreement…..
Well done to all concerned.
https://www.motherwellfc.co.uk/2021/05/11/free-season-tickets-for-unemployed-and-low-income-families/
As a club they do a lot of good work in the local community on various issues.
I know with the Euros on attention to matters pertaining to Scottish football may be overlooked. A recent statement from Ranger’s board member, to the effect, “we have scores to settle”. Would this not be of interest to the SFA and should an explanation not be sought. This group has history in regards to rash statements about the league, administration ( oops that’s a bad word) , etc. What is the intent of this statement, what scores to be settled, how will they be settled who are the targets, etc. Clarification is a must in this case.
Regarding the earlier comments on the smaller countries and their performance at the Euros, perhaps the SFA should use international matches with these countries as a fact finding mission, rather, than a paid holiday for the executive.
John Clark 8th July 2021 At 21:22
………….
It’s a pity that the BBC complainants focused so much energy on the newly created religious dogma of an eternally enduring metaphysical entity called Rangers.
If a more secular approach was taken, the supporters (including those in the media) may have stuck with their initial suspicious view that the remnants of their club may have been placed in the hands of someone who (initially at least) had little understanding or interest in the old club’s history and culture.
If the fans had been less distracted by their sudden conversion to metaphysics, more searching questions could have been asked around the bizarre circumstances as to how those precious assets actually got into the hands of Sevco Scotland.
Vernallen 6th July 01.37
Where does JB say that “we have scores to settle”?
Reading again the absolute untruth spouted by Clark , the IP,
“Secondly, we were tasked to secure a buyer for the club and this too was achieved.” and
“We are delighted that plans for the revitalisation of Rangers are now continuing with the new owners’ intention to float the club on the AIM market.” I simply had to reply to Lord Underhill’s relayed response to my letter to the Master of the Rolls.
I was in several minds about daring to appear to contradict an Appeal Court judge, but I’m sure they were fed the nonsense cobbled up by the SFA/SPL/ The Administrators/ Charles Green, nonsense eagerly swallowed by deceitful rogues in the Press.
“Mr Andrew Caton
Assistant Private Secretary to the Master of the Rolls
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Dear Mr Caton [in manuscript] ,
Thank you for your letter of 15 June 2021, in which you relay Lord Justice Underhill’s observations on the matter I raised in my previous letter to the Master of the Rolls, which the Master had passed to him for comment.
Let me at once say that, being very conscious of the great gulf that exists, in almost every dimension of life, between me and an eminent appeal Court Judge such as Lord Underhill, I really am grateful and, indeed, somewhat honoured that he should have taken the time and trouble of reading, let alone responding to, my earlier letter to the Master of the Rolls.
That letter, of course, was not written as any kind of complaint against, or criticism of, his Lordship or his fellow Judges in the case. I take comfort, from the courteous tone of his reply, that he understood that.
I dare to hope that he may be as understanding that I mean no disrespect now when I say that I am disappointed in his reply.
I have to conclude that he and the Court may have been given an untrue story to the effect that Rangers Football Club plc (IA) had been bought whole and entire by a new owner ,and brought out of Administration under a CVA.
The actual facts are that the Administrators failed to rescue Rangers Football Club plc as a “going concern”, and the club entered Liquidation ,in which state it continues to this day.
The Rangers Football Club Ltd created in 2012 and admitted into Scottish Football in that year is not, and cannot possibly be, Rangers Football Club plc that was founded in 1872.
My renewed thanks to you ,
Yours sincerely,
me “
Albertz — 9th July 2021 — 6:21
I believe these comments surfaced in the same interview ( in the DR) recently when he as offering his opinion on the status of their finances which he claims are returning to good health. The article appeared just before or just after the Euros started. I believe reference was made to it earlier on this forum.
Albertz — 9th July 2021 — 6:21
The article in question appeared in the DR digital section, July 2, 2021, posted at 19:30. Trust this helps.
Vernallen 10th July 00.59.
Thanks for the reply.
The article relates to an interview given by JB to Rangers TV on July 1st.
At no time did he mention that “we have scores to settle” as you alluded to.
You can’t use quotation marks when there was no quote.
upthehoops 1st July 2021 At 16:36
15
0
Rate This
https://www.heraldscotland.com/business_hq/19412547.sir-david-murray-hands-control-family-business/
More fawning sycophancy from the Scottish Media towards a man who is responsible for the public purse having tens of millions illegally withheld from it
…………………………….
HMRCs rejection of the CVA gave them the oppertunity to go after ex Directors and owners of the ibrox club. Murray knows this.
Hence the need to move everything away from his name
vernallen 9th July 2021 At 01:37
A recent statement from Ranger’s board member, to the effect, “we have scores to settle”.
…………………………..
Albertz11 9th July 2021 At 06:21
0
7
Rate This
Vernallen 6th July 01.37
Where does JB say that “we have scores to settle”?
…………………………………………
At no point in vernallens post 9th July 2021 At 01:37 Does he mention JB (John Bennett) But for reasons unknown you knew who was alleged to have said it, therfore you must have been familiar with the story to add his initials.
“And that is all that matters to me in this whole thing – righting this club on the pitch and off the pitch.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/john-bennett-fires-rangers-scores-24449649
Diferent quote from the headline
…………………………….
“And that is all that matters to me in this whole thing – righting this club on the pitch and off the pitch.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/7343689/rangers-vice-chairman-john-bennett-scores-settle/
Again different quote from the headline.
………………………………
Bennett told Rangers TV: “I know what was done to my club.
If he knows liquidation was done to his club why does he pretend they just won 55 titles and are ready to celebrate 150 years
……………………………..
Sorry for the double post time ran out
Quick question (tongue in cheek!) …
Is Albertz11 in fact the much missed Reasonablechap?
This can be clarified by RC (not Georgie Boy) posting!!!
Cluster One.
Given that JB was the only board member to make a statement recently it really wasn’t that difficult.
Regardless of a newspaper headline there was no quote from JB about settling scores or anything like it.
Bet67 12.12.
No and don’t know who he is.
RE: scores to settle and John Bennett, I believe the statement read he feels they have scores to settle after what was done to his club.
Perhaps settling sores might stretch to the hundreds who were left holding the bag when their financial world well and truly crashed. It would be nice if they could show some concern for all those they left high and dry after playing with monopoly money for many years.
Perhaps the newspaper headlines don’t accurately reflect John Bennet’s words. It wouldn’t be the first time I’ve read a headline then struggled to find the substance of that headline in the article.
But unless the Sun and the Record are sharing sub-editors, it would be strange that JB’s words were being interpreted in the same incorrect manner.
Could it be that more was said, off the record, that would give greater context to the statements that could be quoted?
Or possibly, the reporters and/or sub-editors simply betrayed there own similar feelings in the headlines? But surely not! I find it difficult to imagine the narrative related to Rangers being distorted within the media in Scotland.
Up till now they have been an absolute paragon of truth and virtue.
HP 10th July 20.08
“Perhaps”?. There is no question that the headlines in no way reflect the words of John Bennett.
Given that the articles were taken from a interview on Rangers TV there would be no “Off the record” remarks made.
Simply a case of words being twisted to portray Rangers in a negative way.
I’ m having a wee smile to myself, sitting here in relaxed mood after a wonderful afternoon in Dunbar; nice drive, beautiful day, and day one of the European Stone Stacking Championship 2021! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-57791811
http://stonestacking.co.uk/what-is-stone-stacking/
A very pleasant and interesting afternoon.
This evening, I’ve just had the fun of noticing that the BDO ‘Liquidators’ arrived at an interesting figure in making their counter claim ( in the claim that Whyte/the RFC Group made against the Liquidators]
“The company currently has a claim of no less than £18,453,263.72 against Group in respect of sums which Group received from the Company’s assets on or around 9 May 2011.”
I’m not a ‘numerologist’, but I see ’18’ and ’72’, and I wonder : a wee subtle suggestion that it was RFC of 1872 that the Liquidators were representing , not some feckin non-existent ‘company’ that had gone into liquidation while the football club it ‘owned’ had carried on being a shareholder in the SPL and a member of the SFA?
Honest to God!
The sheer absurdity of the’ Big Lie’ outdoes anything that Joe Stalin, Boris Ionsonov or Mao ever came up with in the way of lying!
John Clark 10th July 2021 At 23:57
As a young man I suffered a really bad ankle break, which required me to be in plaster for a while. The consultant who I saw was a man called Rae Simpson, who was actually the chairman of the old Rangers at the time. Not only was he clearly brilliant at his job, but he was willing to have a right good laugh with a young Celtic fan in his early teens. I was left with the impression of a thoroughly decent, very professional man, although at the time there seemed a general public acceptance that Rangers did not sign Roman Catholics. What I often wonder is what people like Mr Simpson and other Rangers board people of the past would think of the robbing of the public purse that took place in their club’s name, to the tune of tens of millions. My guess is they might be horrified, and aside from the sectarian signing policy they were prepared to ignore…well, I simply struggle why people can’t face up to the wrongs of the past, then try and move on, but what do I know!!!
Albertz11 10th July 2021 At 22:50
……..
I suppose it is a question of perception.
Rangers, as I understand it, are currently in the midst of a share offer to its fans.
I have no particular insight into how well or otherwise that offer has been received. However, from an outsider’s perspective it appears that, at various stages since it’s inception in 2012, the current version of Rangers has required an ‘enemy’ to bring the supporters together to fight the perceived injustices that have been presented.
I understand that there is currently a little local difficulty with Club 1872!
Whatever JB’s intention, the idea that ‘Rangers’ (and vicariously, the Rangers support) have ‘scores to settle’ is probably not that unhelpful from a unifying and fundraising perspective at this time.
From my perspective, the news headlines would appear to be written to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the same tone and substance I have heard from many (though, by no means all) Rangers fans over the past 8 or 9 years.
Interesting comments from Hugh Keevins today in regards to Celtic transfer plans, which at the moment aren’t great, but there is no need to knock one of the incoming transfers as whose he, while praising John Lundram as the greatest thing since sliced bread. I believe he came on a free from that well known football powerhouse Sheffield United. He also alludes to the glamor friendly with Real Madrid as a potential learning curve in CL football. Do the visiting teams in these glamor friendly not look for a fee for making an appearance. If so this could be a large size bill.
Can we now remove the year 1966 from everyday conversation. The commentators certainly were in overdrive during today’s final, just in case folk didn’t know about what happened that year. They also didn’t waste time in referencing any England appearances in WC games.
Conor Matchett has this in ‘The Scotsman’ this this morning:
” Rangers fan group the Union Bears threatened a “riot” should officers fail to facilitate their planned march from Ibrox to George Square, police have claimed….In a Police Scotland briefing ….officers describe how the event was policed. The officers state” The Rangers risk group known as the Union Bears requested police to facilitate a mass procession threatening a ‘riot’ if this request was not granted. The request was denied and engagement continued.”
The request was denied?
I rather thought a police escort was provided, along with some constables also participating in the celebrations?
Looking broadly at things since the Liquidation, we see : the SFA, the SPL, the SFL, the SMSM, the BBC, the ASA, abandon any notion of Truth in reporting the death of RFC of 1872 as a football club, and the civic authorities responsible for ‘law and order’ terrified to carry out their duties.
John Clark 12th July 2021 At 12:00
All of the above mentioned in your post could learn a lot from HMRC, who had no hesitation when dealing with Rangers 1872 to simply close them down and end of. Squeal and stomp about not fair, no matter the damage was done and it took all of eight minutes; no riots, no protest, and lastly empty threats of sink us well sink you ignored.
https://spfl.co.uk/news/spfl-statement-47786
SPFL statement
Premier Sports Cup – East Kilbride v Kilmarnock – 10/07/21
Kilmarnock have confirmed to the SPFL that they included Daniel Armstrong in Saturday’s Premier Sports Cup Group G game against East Kilbride at K-Park Training Academy when the player was subject to a one-match Scottish FA suspension in the competition.
Daniel Armstrong entered the field as a 72nd-minute substitute in a match Kilmarnock won 2-0.
As a result, Kilmarnock have been charged with breaching SPFL Rules and Regulations and the SPFL has arranged a disciplinary hearing for Thursday July 15.
…………………………………………………….
This will be interesting
Cluster One 13th July 2021 At 18:16
………….
I think there have been a couple of examples of ineligible players in this competition over the past few years. Without looking it up, Hearts comes to mind…?
Pretty sure that Hearts were fined and given a points deduction (without the opposing team being awarded the game). Did they not qualify for the next stage of the competition despite the deduction?
Also think there was another case were there was no points deduction – just a fine.
I don’t know if the hearing committee consider whether or not the player involved had a significant influence on the result of the game.
Given the previous examples, I’d be surprised if Kilmarnock were kicked out of the competition – but then again, I’ve been surprised in the past!
Bigboab1916 12th July 2021 At 13:39
‘..could learn a lot from HMRC, who had no hesitation when dealing with Rangers 1872 to simply close them down and end of. .’
++++++++++++
Your reference to HMRC prompted me to post part of the evidence of Mr Saunders , in which HMRC re mentioned a couple of times. Again, I have to say, it is all of what I heard that afternoon, but is only part of all of Saunders’ evidence.
I don’t doubt that there were differences of opinion within HMRC and I suspect that there was a strong body of opinion pushing hard to save RFC plc from Liquidation, or at least, trying to play down that Liquidation was the end! Certainly someone wrote that craven nonsense of a statement that HMRC issued.
However, as you say, in the end they didn’t faff about, but killed the CVA and in doing so, killed RFC plc as a football club.
“Extract from my notes of the BDO v RFC 2012 plc case
The hearing on Thursday 13 May 2021,
Witness: Mr James Saunders, Accountant, possessor of a Law degree, member of ACCA, senior manager and Insolvency practitioner with D&P.
Mr Saunders began giving evidence at 10.07 a.m .
This ‘extract’ covers the full afternoon session.
Mr McBrearty: Mr Saunders, the German Consortium?
Mr Saunders: Yes
QC: 19 March was 3 days after the date of submission for individual bids?
S: Yes
QC: “ Dear Charles [ed: Charles Walder, of D&P] , see….goodwill, brand, players’ contracts…£25 million, excluding Ibrox and Murray Park..”
That bid never went anywhere- Fair?
S: They may have engaged some advisers,
QC: It was an offer splitting out the heritable property from the other assets?
S: But the lack of function..
QC: The Ally McCoist/Walter Smith bid – were you around?
S: Yes, kind of
QC: Look at Vol 4,p.3936, “potential deal structure” – nominal £1.00 on completion: Ring a bell?
S: No.
QC: Don’t recognise it as a deal between [ed: indecipherable squiggle] McCoist & Smith?
S: No
QC: The Administrators were appointed on 14 February, were you on the team?
S: No, I didn’t join until third week in March.
QC: Moving on, the strategy was to go for a CVA as opposed to assets sale, agree?
S: Agreed
QC: There was no straightforward answer about which was better. A CVA would solve the SPL share problem because the club would have continued?
S: Yes
QC: It would have avoided fans’ perception of Liquidation?
S: Yes
QC: But a CVA would need 75% of Creditors, and HMRC could block it?
S: Yes
QC: And there were doubts abouut HMRC approval?
S: [ed: I have a wee dash; not sure whether that signifies there was no response,or whether the QC did not pause for a response]
QC: the Administrators did not have the means to deliver a CVA because of the shares?
S: Yes
QC: No legal steps were taken to gain control?
S: Taylor Wessing wrote to Craig Whyte asking him to deliver the shares.
QC: Were you aware of discussions between the Administrators and Whyte?
S: To see if the shares would be delivered.
QC: Rangers FC Group had been granted ‘Debentures’?
S: I can’t recall
QC: The effect was in favour of Craig Whyte-controlled entity?
S: I can’t say
QC: There was ongoing dialogue with Whyte to get the shares?
S: Yes
QC: There was a memorandum of offer, telling bidders the basis of bids?
S: Yes
QC: Vol 3, p 269, top of the page. Sarah Bell to David Whitehouse and Paul Clark, you copied in : “ Jimmy/Charles produced … confident in a CVA we have a blan…..” She seems to desire to move forward on the issue of the shares?
S: Yes
QC: Letter to Craig Whyte’s solicitor, Vol 3 , p. 2997, a letter from Taylor Wessing on 6 March, two weeks after Sarah Bell’s urgency about shares? Solicitor acting on behalf of Craig Whyte
“ 85% Share purchase agreement -Administrators request Group to transfer shares” ?
S: Yes
QC: Feedback, Vol , p.2644 ( and you’re not a recipient, Mr Saunders) Paul Clark to David Whitehouse: David, Johnson Taylor Wessing “…no identity of that party..” Craig Whyte not going to give up his shares?
Were you aware that some form of payment needed to be paid?
S: Yes
QC: Vol 3 p. 4594, email from Arthur Fernandes to David Whitehouse ad Paul Clark “ outline of Group’s position..”, then an email from Craig Whyte to Arthur Fernandes:
“RFC(G) will provide 51% shareholding, CW must accept Ticketus contract, CW will retain… which would not be available in Liquidation, CW would like representation on the Board, CW conditions for…..”
This is what Craig Whyte was saying. Is it right [ed: that is, in the meaning of ‘correct’] that Ticketus had leverage over Whyte?
S: Yes
QC; the other bidder knew?
S: Yes
QC: Ultimately, Whyte did agree to transfer the shares to Sevco , there would be CVA proposal, failing which an assets bid. Vol 4 p.2214, top of the page: an email Paul Clark/David Whitehouse( you’re not recipient, Mr S)
“ Craig has signed to release his shares but only to one party, Sevco”
S: Ticketus had said they had aligned with th Blue Knights
QC: There never was a point where Whyte was going to release to Ticketus?
S: There was no formal agreement that I was aware of
QC: HMRC’s attitude to a CVA. Need to investigate the causes of insolvency?
S; [ed: if there was a response I didn’t jot it down: in the context it was probably ‘yes’ ]
QC: Vol 2,p.2466: Paul Clark 26 February 2012 , from up-date with HMRC ( 26th was a Sunday, so the meeting was on 24th) “ HMRC want money back, prosecution of company officers, Liquidation the preferred outcome for full investigation.. ” ?
S: I was aware that HMRC preferred Liquidation, wanted to reserve their position
QC: So there were people expressing…..[ed:?]?
S: They didn’t have the authority..
QC: Vol 3, p. 2868, email content David Grier to David Whitehouse, draft up-date note for HMRC, recording the meeting with D&P, HMRC attending: p.2869: “HMRC restated their concerns with a CVA exit” Were you aware that HMRC were expressing [ed: indecipherable word, might be ‘decision’ or ‘desire’] re investigation?
S: I can’t recall
QC: In so far as D&P were meeting HMRC, there were concerns about HMRC and the football creditor rule ( in England football creditors get paid first). Do you recall HMRC expressing concern?
S: Yes, presented as a topic for discussion
QC: Vol 2, p.4176 email Des Dolan HMRC to Paul Clark copied to Paul Gilhooley of HMRC:
“ Read about gate money owed to Dunfermline, “£8 000. .. All debts of Administration..” Do you see that?
S: I do.
QC: It will vote against a CVA that will treat application of football creditor rule?
S: I don’t recall whether the Administrators paid those monies across.
QC: Had to deal with [ed: indecipherable wors/abbreviation] ?
S: Not really
QC: Vol 3,p.318 email 14 March Simon Shipperlee to David Whitehouse , copy to you:
“ football creditors: we will not be paying Dunfermline any further”
S: I don’t remember that
QC: But all attempts were being made to ensure compliance with HMRC? Vol 5, p 441.. another email “Sarah ,
(p 442 Football Creditor Rule ) “ HMRC will not support a CVA when there is a football creditor rule”
Do you recall that this was an issue throughout the Administration?
S: I understood… I don’t recall..
QC: But questions were still being raised about it, agreed?
S: Yes
QC: Internally, D&P attitude about CVA: Vol 3,p 704 ;You to Sarah Bell, Simon Shipperlee, David Whitehouse, Paul Clark, Peter Hart: “ dear all, we need to consider if a CVA is possible:
control of shares
15% on the ‘plus’ market
HMRC want Liquidation and investigation, is this possible in the context of a CVA..”
Do you agree that CVA should be called off?
S: Yes
QC: You were positing a way by which 85% could be got?
S: Yes
QC: A pro-active approach to try to get your hands on the shares?
S: Yes
QC: You ask for any ideas In the absence of a CVA will the SPL share be allowed?
S: Yes
QC: [ed: missed the question]
S: Yes: any way a potential claim could be carved out and..
QC: “ HMRC wants a Liquidation and Investigation”?
S: Yes, that was the preference of HMRC staff
QC: Your witness statement, p 5.32 “ also on 14 March I said ‘ a CVA was sufficiently feasible”.
There were meetiings..?
S: Yes
QC: “ sufficiently feasible” ? Might not work?
S: [ed: I’ve no note of any reply]
QC: the email of 14 March, various issues?
S: Yes
QC: Was there agreement that a CVA was ‘feasible’, by everyone?
S: The Administrators possibly challenged,
QC: There was no change in the circumstances?
S: Not that I was aware of
QC: p.730, email to Ronnie [ ed: Brown?] of Biggart Baillie 14 March, Sarah Bell
“ Thanks, Ronnie .HMRC want us to place the company into Liquidation. This would give the SPL a problem with the share….Clutching at straws”
This is a follow-up to the question whether Investigation could be got through Supervisor?
S: Yes
QC: In that email, is that HMRC seeking Liquidation in order to investigate?
S: Yes, but I would use ‘preference’
QC: In your witness statement you said earlier on the same day that on 14 March you were communicating that HMRC wanted Liquidation?
S: Yes, but they wouldn’t rule out a CVA
QC: I don’t see any change in meaning between what you said in one email as opposed to the other?
In that email you are asking whether a CVA supervisor could investigate?
S: There was a much wider dialogue going on at the time
QC: There is another possibility: that members of the team had a different opinion?
S: I was wondering that there was slim possibility of CVA investigation..
QC: The alternative to that slim possibility was Liquidation. You were more pessimistic than the Administrators?
S; I can’t say.
QC; [ed: I missed the question]
S; ..the SFA share would enhance the value.
QC: but always a risk?
S: Yes
QC: Another email-Joint Bundle Vol 3, 1470, to Simon Shipperlee: “ Did you get an email from the SPL? My gut feeling is still we can do this by CVA” That’s a fairly open expression of your opinion?
S: Yes. That was 3 days after offer of £25 million.
QC: I understand that. But you’re gut feeling is being expressed?
S: If HMRC were definitive a CVA would be closed off.
QC: But you wrote that at the time?
S: Yes.
QC: “my gut feeling is still.. You used that word in your previous attitude?
S: Yes
QC: The agreement reached with the Admin team being feasible, the others were more optimistic?
S: It was just an offer open for debate
QC: Vol 3, p.1545 , email, you to Peter Hart, Simon Shipperlee, on 20 March “ Sorry, chaps, …the Americans don’t wish to do a CVA..”
If the American £25 million, it avoided problems with the SFA and SPL?
S: A straightforward trade sale, better than a CVA
QC: Vol 3 p.2255, now an email from you to Nick at Taylor Wessing [ £25 million Bill Miller, £10 million Blue Knights/Ticketus, £12 million Singapore] The Blue Knights were looking for a CVA?
S: I can’t recall.
QC: “ Nick [ed: Moser..?], “mechanics of how we get shares under our control” : is this the email you are indicating that if can’t deliver on a CVA basis?
S: Correct
QC: Vol 3, p.3093: an email from Ramsay Smith, Media House to D&P: 30 March “get a statement out about what is happening to bids”
in the email from you to David Whitehouse and Paul Clark, you’re revising the statement from Ramsay by mentioning ‘going concern’ sale?
S: Yes
QC; 3091 draft statement “Administration Statement: ……” it would be….on a going concern’ basis” ?
S: Yes
QC: Vol 3, 3164 , what you then said in an email to Ramsay “I have removed reference to ‘going concern’ … Why? Can you explain the removal of ‘going concern’?
S: Yes. There was a lot of anxiety about anti-Trade sale
QC: Why would Whitehouse ask you to remove?
S: I can’t recall
QC: You got advice ( Vol 4 p379) from Taylor Wessing: heading ‘ memo to DW, PC, Sarah Bell’,- “Dear David, preview of options: dynamic situation …” Do you remember this advice?
S: I don’t really.
QC: “ Exec Summary-A scheme of arrangement would be good” Taylor Wessing :possibility of putting the Group into Administration and a scheme of arrangement = cancelling current shareholding, re-issue the shares , and no need of Craig Whyte; …asset sale?
S: No
QC: This is two months after the appointment of the Administrators and one month after you got involved!
I can’t find any [ed: ‘note’?] as to any advice that was taken?
This is the first formal advice re the transfer of shares?
S; I’m sure we discussed all this verbally; not that I’m aware of..
QC: And no legal step had been taken to transfer the shares?
S: No.
QC: And this was after 17 April.. The claim by Ticketus was part of the discussions
the two bidders were negotiating directly with Ticketus?
S: Yes, and with Craig Whyte directly.
QC: The other bidders were going to have to exert leverage over Craig Whyte, and the only one was Ticketus. Two bidders negotiated with Ticketus and Ticketus were also a Creditor. If Ticketus became an unsecured creditor they could vote against CVA?
S: Not sure
QC: If Brian Kennedy could get Ticketus on-side then Singapore were out, only one bidder left? Agree?
S: Which..er, ..?
QC: Vol 5, just “ by the deadline : SCAF ( Bill Miller) £25 million, Colin McLeod,[?] Brian Kennedy £5 million on CVA, Blue Knights £10 million ( CVA but Ticketus not to be secured creditor) Singapore in the same camp as Blue Knights.
16 March Kennedy drops out.
Singapore drops out 23 March
on 23 march Lord Hodge provided guidance in relation to Ticketus. Two bidders competing for the Whyte shares. ‘best and final ‘offers by 4 April
The bids at that stage were :
Singapore £12 million ,CVA basis, consensual agreement with Ticketus;
Brian Kennedy £10 million, CVA, Ticketus not to be a creditor, shares to be obtained by purchaser;
Bill Miller £10 million trade sale;
German consortium £30 million CVA
S: Regarded as not credible.
C; Two bidders trying to secure shares from Whyte.
Bill Miller, an asset sale: he was not interested in dealing with Whyte?
S: I can’t recall
Qc: Now- Mr Walder: his evidence regarding emails was that Paul Murray of the Blue Knights was expressing concern that there was no means for the Administrators to obtain the shares, and there was concern on the part of Singapore Consortium.
It was unclear who Ticketus could do a deal with?
S: Yes
QC: But you recall that was a concern, that the Administrators did not, but should have, controlled the shares?
S: We didn’t..er….weren’t able
QC: Do you recall concern in D&P about lack of control over Ticketus shares?
Vol 3, 3506, email: Sarah bell to Paul Clark, David Whitehouse, and you: “ Ticketus are purporting….” What did you understand?
S: That Craig Whyte was going to transfer his shares to a bidder to support Ticketus.
QC: You’d only be left with one option?
S: He wouldn’t have had the shares.
QC: p. 3911: at foot of page, you to Whitehouse and Sarah Bell, (day on which best and final bids)
“actually says we can only pursue 3(1)(a) only if better.. ,not duty bound to go for CVA ”
Bringing to the attention of Whitehouse the provisions of the Insolvency Act.
Did he ask you?
S: I may have done it…
QC: But “actually”? Does that suggest that there had been discussion? Wasn’t it a bit patronising of you to tell him?
S: I can’t recall.
QC: Can you recall what you meant by it?
S: That we didn’t have to propose a CVA
QC: ‘best and final bids’ are in, and you are deciding what to do with them “So we must pursue CVA if it is a better outcome”
S: If the offer in the hands of the bidders
QC: It is agreed that on 25 April the Singapore Consortium withdrew. partly because of Whyte shares.
Just prior to that an email from you, Vol 4, 410, to Sarah Bell & co: “17 April Amendment BK [Blue Knights] have stepped back.”
So, although BK and Ticketus didn’t finally pull out till 25 April, already BK stepping back
It would take too long now to get legal action against Ticketus. Bit of a bind: BK/ Ticketus bid fell apart, Bill Miller became front bidder?
Lord Tyre: I think we’ll adjourn for the day now. Mr Saunders, come back for 10 tomorrow. Court adjourned till tomorrow.”
Great effort once again JC.
I can’t help but notice when witnesses in this trial want to, they seem to have a photographic memory. However, when an awkward question, or an answer that might portray them/D&P in bad light, the response seems to be; I don’t recall, I don’t know, I wasn’t aware etc. Take your pick.
Slippery characters the lot of them!!!
Normanbatesmumfc 14th July 2021 At 15:55
‘… the response seems to be; I don’t recall, I don’t know, I wasn’t aware etc. ‘
I haven’t checked my notes, Normanbatesmumfc, but I think I heard one witness being told by Mr McBrearty QC that he was in danger of being referred to the judge for his apparent ‘ I can’t recall’ evasiveness,; and another being instructed by the judge to answer a question straightforwardly, the judge himself repeating Counsel’s question.
I’m no expert, of course, but I think the Courts accept that any witness might truthfully ‘not recall’ and allow for that.
But, of course, too much failure of memory in respect of some questions, while demonstrating a really good recall of other matters relating to events in question would at the very least make anyone think that, however honest the witness may be, his overall testimony might be unreliable.
In open Court, Lord Tyre said he would carefully consider how much weight to place on the testimony of one witness whose evidence I heard.
Just for fun, I tried to google on the subject , but got diverted by this entertaining and informative piece on cross-examination techniques
http://www.benchmarkinstitute.org/t_by_t/cross_exam/controlling_the_witness.htm
Incidentally, as far as I can see from the Court of Session website
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/current-business/court-notices/contempt-of-court-orders
there are only 4 cases relating to the ‘saga’ still under ‘reporting restrictions’:
HMA for restraint order re Craig Whyte 11 September 2015
HMA v Whyte, Withey , Grier, Whitehouse etc 16 October 2015
CG v RIFC plc 12 November 2015
The Rangers FC Group Ltd re Adjudication of claim 15 March 2016
And I hope there is a typo in this entry
” Pet: AD for leave to raise proceedings against RFC 2021 plc, Edinburgh Court of Session, 5 February 2021″
Two ‘Rangers’es are bad enough : a third would be intolerable!!
Hirsuitepursuit 13th July 19.44
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57819557
@JC – indeed 2 are quite enough. I was taken by your phrase “only 4 cases relating…” in the context of the time, cost and overall imposition this farrago has imposed on Scottish society. An inordinate amount of consequence arising from the desire to “save” a relatively small business.
@UTH – likewise taken by your phrase “…did not sign Roman Catholics”. One of the first things that struck me when I moved to England in late 80s was the complete lack of interest in my (or anyone’s) religion in normal day to day life – the idea that your team wouldn’t sign a player based on this was unimaginable.
England is no paragon of virtue – witness the racism that is self evident at the moment – but it truly saddens me that Scotland appears unable to move beyond its sectarian past. Go back to 2012 and there was the option to start afresh – a New Rangers playing out of Ibrox but striking a new inclusive path, acknowledging lessons from history and offering a new beginning. Unfortunately that ship has sailed…
Great to see that crowds, albeit in restricted numbers, are being allowed back into stadiums for their European games
Provided they stick to the social distancing rules we can only hope that they remain safe, and lead the way for other clubs
Oh, the irony!
‘The Scotsman’ reported yesterday that another real journalist , Peter R de Vries ” always seeking the truth and standing up for justice” ,had died of wounds inflicted by some murdering sod of a gangster because of his investigative journalism and fearless truth-telling.
Today, the same newspaper’s sports section devotes a whole back page to propagation of the untruth that TRFC of 2012 creation is RFC of 1872, and about to celebrate the beginning of its 150th anniversary season with a friendly against Arsenal.
Another example of SMSM cowardice and dereliction of any journalistic duty to truth.
How deeply contemptible, to sell one’s soul for a ridiculous piece of nonsense.
John C
The transactional journalism model where access is granted for favourable coverage is the basis of fake news. It allows the same club myth is perpetrated after a 180 degree turn on the initial accurate representation of what liquidation actually means. The ‘stick’ side of the model is what happened to de Vries, but although the Scottish football story has not plumbed those depths, the threats implied in the dog whistle diplomacy of the post-Rangers era is probably sufficient to deal with the lesser men who infest the print and broadcast media in our country.
Given what is happening globally, the dishonesty in our game seems trivial, but it still needs to be challenged.
From memory, I can recall of only three journalists who have never bought into the continuation myth; Jim Spence, Phil Gordon and Ewing Grahame.
All, despite threats from the usual suspects, still continue to do so.
There’s no excuse for cowardice. That goes for football authorities as well as journalists.
Big Pink 18th July 2021 At 13:25
‘.. the dishonesty in our game seems trivial, but it still needs to be challenged.’
%%%%%%%%%%
I mentioned in a recent post , BP, that I hope, hope, that judgment goes in favour of the BDO Liquidators against the Administrators of RFC 2012 plc (In Liquidation]
Now, it’s a fact that even if I had heard ALL the evidence in the case, I would not presume to think I’m qualified in any particular way to pronounce judgment on the question as to whether the Administrators made an absolutely incompetent arse of the Administration. ([my gut feeling is that they did… But I keep in mind Mr Clark’s reference to ‘threats’ and ‘stress’]
What they, very competently, DID do , was to write this arrant ( and some would say ,craven] nonsense in their ‘Report to Creditors ‘ of 24 August 2012:
” 6.2 The sale of the business and certain assets included the sale of the Company’s right, title and interest in its SPL share and SFA membership. Following the sale of these assets, the sale of Ibrox and Murray Park and the transfer of the playing staff to Newco the Company was no longer in a position to meet the criteria for membership of any of the Football Authorities and therefore no longer operates a football club.
6.3 The Purchaser however required membership of the SFA and either the SPL or SFL in order to continue to operate as Rangers Football Club and participate in a senior football competition in Scotland, and therefore sought agreement with the football Authorities. The Company was required to be a party to such agreements in order to assist the Purchaser , as required by the SPA.
6.4 As has been widely publicised , the Purchaser was unsuccessful in its application for the transfer of the Company’s SPL share and following further negotiations with the Football Authorities ultimately agreed such terms as were necessary to obtain the transfer of the Company’s SFA membership and gain membership of the SFL. The terms of these agreements were ,inter alia:
6.4.1 that the Company’s SPL share was transferred to Dundee Football Club
6.4.2 that the Company’s SFA membership was transferred to the Purchaser.
6.4.3……..
6.4.4…….”
[ see https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC004276/filing-history?page=1 ]
Honest to God:!
” the transfer of the playing staff to Newco ” ! as if there had been no TUPE problems which meant that none of the players was legally bound to transfer, because the whole club was not being bought whole and entire, and that some walked away, cocking a snoot at ‘the Purchaser”
” the Company’s SFA membership was transferred to the Purchaser.” Rubbish. Green’s Club 12/ Sevco 5088/ SevcoScotland/ TRFC had FIRST to apply as a NEW club for membership of a league, before they could become a new member of the SFA. No question of ‘inheriting’ a defunct club’s membership
The genesis of the Big Lie is in there.
And I rage that that nonsense was foisted on us by Doncaster and Regan ( and , of course, by the rotten, fearful club owners who meekly acceded to the nonsense for commercial reasons and accepted the filthy, secret 5-Way Agreement]
And my rage boils over at the hacks who betrayed their function as ‘journalists’ and swallowed the nonsense as greedily as they had for years swallowed the succulent lamb served up to them by the biggest sporting cheat there has ever been in Scottish football.
As you rightly point out, jiggery-pokery in Scottish Football or in its governance or in football reporting by the SMSM is not in itself of earth-shattering importance – relative to famine, pandemics, climate change disasters and such like .
But if public ‘authorities’ such as Sports Governance bodies and the Press are prepared to lie in ‘unimportant’ matters, what will they do in serious matters?
Who now believes anything that comes from Hampden?
Or from the pen of any editor of a Scottish newspaper which propagates the Big Lie?
Or, worse, from those in charge of BBC Pacific Quay?
I had almost forgotten that David Grier’s action for damages is still live
The Court of Session Rolls has this
“Tuesday 20th July
Lord Tyre
Continued Proof Before Answer
CA86/19 David Grier v The Chief Constable of Police Scotland Kennedys Scotland Ledingham Chalmers LLP A & W M Urquhart SGLD
CA72/20 David Grier v The Lord Advocate &c Kennedys Scotland SGLD
John Clark 18th July 23.39.
The fact that there was a TUPE completely proves that there was a “Transfer”. Thats what the T stands for. TUPE gives every employee two options. Continue as normal, or resign with immediate effect. TUPE only exists when there is a continuation.
Oh.My.God ?
#TUPE
Incidentally, I’ve just noticed that Duff and Phelps Ltd ( company number 05568550] notified Companies House on 30 April 2021 that it had changed its name to ‘Kroll Advisory Ltd’ following a company Resolution of 23 April.
And a shareholder ‘with significant control’ , D&P International Services (UK) Limited, notified its change of name to ‘Kroll International[UK] Limited’ on 7 July 2021.
Do they anticipate that BDO will win their case that the Administrators fell below par , and that huge damages may have to be paid thanks to their chaps’ incompetence?
Albertz11 19th July 2021 At 11:32
‘..The fact that there was a TUPE completely proves that there was a “Transfer”’
%%%%%%%%%
It was not a ‘relevant’ transfer under the TUPE.
Fraser Wishart / the PFA established that in Court, much to CG’s anger and rage. The contracts with RFC plc were ended automatically when the club was not rescued as a ‘going concern’.
There was no CVA and the club were liquidated, this meant all contracts were legally terminated and employees allowed the option to move on under the freedom of TUPE , which allows contracts to be terminated and/or decide if they wish to go with a new company, if offered new employment. Charles Green was under no obligation also to offer the same terms of contract to employees as he was not held under the employment laws that governed the old club, how could he be, he merely bought assert and ( and decided to start a new club and company) not the club/company, that was liquidated.
Some people cannot get over it, how sad.
Well, I listened in to most of the morning session of the ‘Proof’ in the Grier case, and to a chunk of it after lunch.
I only made some skimpy notes , so I don’t think I’ll be posting anything on the blog.
I don’t think I heard anything new, though.
The Pursuer’s main arguments were that the Police investigation involved serious breaches of fundamental rules [ seizing documents which they had been told were under legal privilege, failing to disclose to the accused information that ought to have disclosed [ for example, a meeting at Stanstead airport with Betts who from being a suspect, turned witness, and gave evidence to the Police] The basis point being that, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, it is not for the Police to decide what is to be disclosed.
The Hearing is completed [ finished at about 4.25] and Lord Tyre took the matter to avizandum, promising only to deliver judgment as soon as he can, being already started on writing up an earlier judgment.
Let’s remind ourselves of the good old days when the BBC reported reasonably truthfully on matters to do with the Liquidation, showing CG to be a chancing son of a bag of horse manure:
While ordinary football fans can be forgiven for not knowing the basics of the ‘Transfer of Undertakings Regulations’, it was a bit much for a ‘business man’, scavenging in the mire for the pickings of a liquidated football club, to pretend not to be fully aware of what the Regulations say -even for the BBC in early June 2012.
I’ve just refreshed my memories with this
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18435185
How can Rangers get 8500 fans on Saturday then get 12750 the next day ? Does the virus lose 50% of it’s effectiveness overnight ???
Menace 20th July 2021 At 22:50
“…8500 fans on Saturday then get 12750 the next day.”
%%%%%%%%
No where near as miraculous as the phenomenon of a club founded in 2012 being already a hunner and fifty years old!
The Professor will doubtless have a wordy explanation!
Albertz11 19th July 2021 At 11:32
5 14 Rate This
John Clark 18th July 23.39.
The fact that there was a TUPE completely proves that there was a “Transfer”. Thats what the T stands for. TUPE gives every employee two options. Continue as normal, or resign with immediate effect. TUPE only exists when there is a continuation.
……..
This may be of some assistance in explaining the provisions of TUPE and why it did not apply to Rangers’ employees when it ceased trading:
https://www.ilntoday.com/2012/06/how-scottish-football-made-tupe-exciting/
“There is more than one significant problem with Mr Green’s analysis of the situation. While TUPE does seek to protect continuity of employment and ensure employees who work for an employer whose business is taken over have their terms and conditions of employment preserved, regulation 8(7) expressly states that the employment protections laid down in TUPE do not apply where the current employer (i.e. Rangers) is the subject of insolvency proceedings. This would include liquidation. Where this occurs and certain legal requirements are met, then the liquidation acts as a wall, which brings every employees employment to an end, without this transferring to the newco.”
Charles Green talked up the effect of TUPE – because, as you have just done, it falsely creates the impression of some sort of legal bridge between the original Rangers Football Club and Sevco Scotland.
It is claimed by many that the Rangers players who chose not to transfer to Sevco Scotland were doing so under the TUPE provisions. Even if true, Charles Green’s nonsensical proclamations could never seriously have been about forcing a transfer of employment/registration when players had objected. His rants were simply designed to reinforce the narrative that a relevant transfer of undertaking had taken place.
In reality, since Rangers Football Club was insolvent and being liquidated, regulation 8(7) meant that the TUPE safeguards did not apply to its employees.
Of course Sevco Scotland desperately wanted the players to transfer – it was no burden on the new club to offer its new employees the same terms and conditions as they had enjoyed at the old club. The players’ contracts were viewed as assets capable of being monetised.
While the subject of undertaking is in my mind…
Another aspect of Charles Green’s TUPE nonsense is an attempt to provide a partial validation of Lord Nimmo Smith’s enquiry.
LNS stated that, according to the SPL articles of association, a Club was an “undertaking”, without legal personality, that was capable of being transferred between owners.
If “undertaking” in the SPL articles has the same meaning as in the TUPE regulations – essentially any organised grouping of resources which has the objective of pursuing an economic activity – then the LNS interpretation of Club could be seen as broadly accurate.
However, the SPL articles state that words and expressions should be given the same meaning as provided in the Companies Act 2006.
In the Act, “undertaking” is defined as either:
1. A body corporate (a company), or
2. An unincorporated association
So, according to the SPL articles, The Rangers Football Club plc was a Club.
Clearly, Sevco Scotland Ltd did not purchase The Rangers Football Club plc.
HirsutePursuit 21st July 2021 At 12:24
‘.. provisions of TUPE and why it did not apply to Rangers’ employees when it ceased trading:
HirsutePursuit 21st July 2021 At 12:45
‘.While the subject of undertaking is in my mind…’
%%%%%%%
HP, thanks for that very useful link, and your further comment re Nimmo Smith.
Good morning all.
Can anyone confirm that Stewart Robertson ( RFC2012) is taking a place on the SPFL board this season ?
If so , does this continue the recent trend where Celtic & RFC (2012) have taken a place on alternate years, since the latter gained promotion ?
Seems like the 2 rivals may really have a cosy relationship.
One half of nothing ? Aye right.
Angel Gabriel 23rd July 2021 At 09:07
‘..Can anyone confirm that Stewart Robertson ( RFC2012) is taking a place on the SPFL board this season”
%%%%%%%
From the SPFL website
“Elected to serve on the 2021/22 SPFL Board, alongside SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster, chairman Murdoch MacLennan and independent non-executive director Karyn McCluskey, were:
cinch Premiership: Ron Gordon (Hibernian), James MacDonald (Ross County), Stewart Robertson (Rangers)
cinch Championship: Les Gray (Hamilton Academical), Ross McArthur (Dunfermline Athletic)
cinch League 1 and League 2: Alastair Donald (Forfar Athletic), Alternate director – Paul Hetherington (Airdrieonians)..”
Earlier references to the election of board members to the SPFL prompted me to have a look at what the Companies Act 2006 has to say about the duties of directors:
“Chapter 2 General duties of directors
Introductory
170.Scope and nature of general duties
The general duties
171.Duty to act within powers
172.Duty to promote the success of the company
173.Duty to exercise independent judgment
174.Duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence
175.Duty to avoid conflicts of interest
176.Duty not to accept benefits from third parties
177.Duty to declare interest in proposed transaction or arrangement”
Can I be alone in being surprised that there appears to be no duty on a director or non-exec director to whistle-blow if the Board is going down paths of illegality?
For example, hypothetically, if a director/ non-exec director is told that ‘the best interests of the company’ require that he should shut up about possible criminality on the part of his board in relation to the malfeasance of another company …….
Is there a wee weakness in the Act, that absolves directors from any responsibility for lies told ‘in the best interests’ of the company?
Discuss.
In 1963, when I had even less sense, and certainly less money ,in relative terms, than now, I bought a second-hand [none of the bloody attempt-to-deceive language of ‘ pre-owned’: geez, how I hate the mindset of those sellers who use that expression rather than ‘second-hand’! It marks them in my mind as feckin conmen of the first water] Ford Consul.
That was my first encounter with ‘second-hand car salesmen’. I had not seen ‘Psycho’ then and ‘California Charlie’ doing his salesman bit
I hadn’t been aware that the sponsor of the SPFL was a second-hand car dealership. I missed Doncaster’s waffle at the time he waffled it.
As a matter of social history, I believe, there was a time when even journalists were better regarded than second-hand car dealers.
There was also a time when our Scottish Football governance bodies were regarded as guardians of the integrity of our game.
I smile to myself.
From the Sunday Herald – Police and prosecutors accused of ‘criminality’ over Rangers fraud case prosecutions
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/19467194.police-prosecutors-accused-criminality-rangers-fraud-case-prosecutions/
PROSECUTORS and police are facing accusations of criminal behaviour and oppression while they are alleged to have attempted an unlawful pursuit of finance executives in the collapsed Rangers fraud case.
Court documents reveal details of allegations that police and the Crown Office acted unlawfully and in “abuse of power” in relation to the fraud case inquiries surrounding the purchase of the club by Craig Whyte.
Among the concerns that surfaced were around the examination of a hacked email account of former Rangers owner Craig Whyte and a trawl through a cache of protected confidential legal communications, as part of the inquiry.
The court has heard that police initially ‘withheld’ emails and recordings which were illegally accessed by a hacker, eventually sold to the club’s chairman David King for £20,000 and then passed onto the police.
During Craig Whyte’s fraud trial his lawyer said that an individual known to the Crown “stole material” known as the Charlotte Fakes trove of emails and recordings after hacking into the former Rangers owner’s computer.
The court papers emerged in the case of key Rangers takeover figure David Grier of Duff and Phelps who is suing the Chief Constable and the Lord Advocate for a total of nearly £9m over wrongful arrest. Both the Chief Constable and the Lord Advocate are contesting the action.
The court files in Mr Grier’s damages case also reveal allegations that moves were made to obtain a warrant from a sheriff rather than the High Court to secure the privileged documents from Duff and Phelps solicitors in an attempt to secure prosecutions in what the High Court in London labelled “an abuse of state power”.
It is argued that the correct practice was to secure the warrant through the High Court where criminal proceedings against Mr Grier had already begun.
Legal firm Holman Fenwick Willan was awarded £500,000 costs at the High Court through carrying out an illegal raid.
“No prosecutor would act in ‘abuse of power’ as has been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction,” stated Mr Grier’s legal team in a submission.
The court papers further claim there was a further use of legally privileged material by police through use of Duff and Phelps CD discs with emails and other documents which included sensitive legal material including a potential action against the BBC, which had broadcast an expose over the controversial sale of the club to Craig Whyte in the documentary Rangers: The Men Who Sold The Jerseys.
It is further claimed that the Charlotte Fakes trove uncovered an executive who had been involved in a potential offer for the club rejected as “insufficient”.
The club was sold to the Sevco consortium headed by Charles Green for £5.5m in 2012 and its sale at ‘under value’ was an important component of the doomed fraud conspiracy allegations.
But the legal team for Mr Grier who is suing the Chief Constable and the Lord Advocate for a total of nearly £9m says that it was never investigated.
Representatives for the Lord Advocate have objected to what they say are claims of criminality over the way the prosecution was conducted.
Gerry Moynihan QC, for the Lord Advocate, said it was contrary to procedure to bring accusations of criminality in relation to the investigation to court which had not previously been raised.
He said allegations in relations to boxes of information obtained in relation to Duff and Phelps and a law firm that were properly raised with appropriate warning would have led to a debate about its relevance.
Further allegations surfaced in papers seen by the Herald on Sunday relating to the damages case pursued by Mr Grier, a key figure in businessman Craig Whyte’s purchase of Rangers from Sir David Murray for £1 in May 2011.
Former Rangers administrators David Whitehouse and Paul Clark along with Mr Grier and four others were subjected to detention and criminal proceedings in relation to fraud allegations in the wake of Craig Whyte’s disastrous purchase of Rangers and its subsequent sale before a judge dismissed all charges.
The police investigation was launched against a backdrop of the controversial nature of Mr Whyte’s nine-months in charge which ended with the club’s business going into administration with debts soaring over £100m while the team ended up relegated to the bottom rung of the Scottish football pyramid.
Mr Whyte had agreed to take on Rangers’ financial obligations, which included an £18m bank debt, a potential £72m ‘big tax case’ bill, a £2.8m “small tax case” liability, £1.7m for stadium repairs, £5m for players and £5m in working capital.
But he controversially helped fund his takeover by setting up a loan in advance from London-based investment firm Ticketus against rights to three to four years of future club season ticket sales in a bid to raise £24 million and pay off bank debt as part of a share purchase agreement with Sir David Murray.
Mr Grier has always said he was unaware that London finance firm Ticketus funded Mr Whyte’s controversial purchase of the club by buying up rights to future season tickets.
Mr Grier, of London was charged with fraud, conspiracy, a charge under the Proceeds of Crime Act and a charged of attempting to pervert the course of justice – before the case was dropped.
Prosecutors and the police argue that they had a degree of reasonable cause to pursue Mr Grier who was an executive with Duff & Phelps in the wake of the controversial BBC documentary.
The Chief Constable argues that officers formed a “reasonable belief” that he was implicated in criminal wrongdoing and had assisted in a fraudulent scheme.
Court of Session judge Lord Tyre has already ruled there was no “probable cause” to prosecute Mr Grier and the continuing case is trying to establish malice and the amount of damage caused.
Mr Grier’s legal team said in the legal submissions: “The Crown were driven by a desire to convict any or all of [Mr Grier], Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark irrespective of the evidence available against any or all of them.
“It is believed and averred that that was because they were seen as ‘high profile individuals.”
Andrew Smith QC, representing Mr Grier said that the way aspects of the case was handled amounted to oppressive conduct. He said another judge had said that he did not consider he could see that there was oppressive conduct in bringing the charges against Mr Grier – but that was without knowing the full details of what had happened, including the seizure of discs which were legally privileged.
“I think each of the defenders acknowledges that there were there was to some extent in some respects, unsatisfactory conduct. But the analysis of the case … is utterly eclipsed by the wrongdoing, which we say has occurred.
“If the rules are being broken, that is evidence of malice,” he said.
According to Scottish law oppression is seen where an abuse of executive power has occurred and an unfairness has arisen which has caused such prejudice relief is entitled.
He said the prosecution had been led by the Crown Office – whereas south of the border there’s a “very clear line” between the investigation by the police and the involvement of the English version of the Crown Office, the Crown Prosecution Service on the other.
“This case is different, because the Crown were involved, in fact they directed this investigation take place from the outset directed the police, the Crown were in it from the beginning.
“So, in these circumstances it is somewhat out of the ordinary, I would think that there was the very close involvement of the crown and the police together.”
He also said he believed that Jim Keegan QC was “thrown in at the deep end” when he was asked to handle the prosecution against Mr Grier.
And he said claimed that that the then Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC – who now sits in the high court as judge Lord Mulholland – had some involvement in ‘directing’ the prosecution. The ‘hand on the tiller’ claim is denied by representatives of the Lord Advocate.
Mr Grier’s legal team say police took possession of the Charlotte Fakes database containing correspondence between Mr Whyte and other through Mr King.
According to the court documents, Mr Grier’s team assert that the Crown was aware that the police had accessed an unlawfully obtained version of the database and sought to conceal that.
“The material was not ‘intelligence’ gathered material. It was illegally obtained material,” the state.
“The efforts by the Crown to avoid disclosing it and its illegal source, itself is unlawful.
“Accordingly at various stages the Crown was aware that there had been gross irregularity in the proceedings, and failed to disclose that to the pursuer or his legal advisers.”
They added: “The Crown failures to disclose matters namely the implication of another individual in possible fraud regarding the purchase of the club, the existence of the Craig Whtye database and its provenance, the lack of incriminating material upon it, the presence of exculpatory material upon it, the accessing of documents over which privilege was maintained…. were all matters which the Crown ought to have disclosed to [Mr Grier],” said the legal team. “Far from disclosing the material, in several respects the Crown took active steps to conspire with the police to manufacture a reason (which was false) to avoid disclosure.”
Mr Moynihan said criminality had been raised in aspects of the case relating to boxes of documents. The court heard that legal privilege had been asserted in relation to boxes of files obtained from Duff and Phelps and a law firm.
“He said [Andrew Smith] is alleging criminality that was never raised” and said it contradicted past Scots law to bring forward a proposition of criminality at a late stage.
“When something like this, you know, a mistake that’s being made, is going to be translated into a crime counsel ought to have raised it, ought to have raised that,” he said.
He said the evidence showed prosecutors and police acted appropriately and lawfully.
“As far as malice is concerned my lord, these people were not acting out of an ulterior motive – they rightly or wrongly believed there to be a sufficiency of evidence,” he said.
“They proceeded, wrongly, on the basis that there was a sufficiency of evidence to bring the case to trial.”
Lord Tyre is to give a judgement in the case later in the year.
Upthehoops 25th July 2021 At 18:02
”… with the club’s business going into administration with debts soaring over £100m while the team ended up relegated to the bottom rung of the Scottish football pyramid.”
%%%%%%
“The Herald” at it again with untruth: ‘… with the club’s business going into administration with debts soaring over £100m while the team ended up relegated to the bottom rung of the Scottish football pyramid.’
I hope the day is not far away before ‘The Herald’ itself goes bust and, I wish I had some means of hastening the day it dies a miserably inglorious death.
Honest to God!
That was the line that jumped out at me, JC. I think I might complain to them about the relegation thing, using the BBC’s admission as evidence. Would be good to see the Herald have to print a retraction!
In terms of linguistic gymnastics, what the hell does “…the club’s business going into administration…” actually mean? Bad enough the past nonsense of ‘holding company’ or ‘engine room subsidiary’ but while still a pretence, those at least tried to pretend that the club was owned by something, which might be feasible in the minds of some who want to believe, given that some clubs are indeed set up in such a way
This new nonsense of. “…the club’s business going into administration…” seems to be a new suggestion that the club owned a business which was liquidated!! I think while challenging the relegation thing, I’ll ask them to clearly explain what business the ‘surviving’ club (Haha!) owned.
Nawlite 25th July 2021 At 22:32
‘…This new nonsense of “…the club’s business going into administration…” seems to be a new suggestion that the club owned a business which was liquidated!..’
%%%%%%%%
I wish I had noticed that!
Oh, what fun, watching the mental, moral, linguistic gymnastics of puny individuals trying not only to defend the indefensible but to propagate it.
What moral weaklings must they be.
And what a source of recruitment for any new Adolf, Mao, Stalin and such like as may emerge in our place and times; broadcasters, journalists ready to do what they are told!
Even without the succulent lamb !
Have any of the scottish media committed to the purchase of access to the rangers press conferences, players and managers. Don’t know why they would spend the money as the fawning attention given to them for free should suffice. SG’s man management ability/skills might get a test if they continue with the 25 man roster and juggling of playing time. Based on media reports some of the newcomers appear to be one step away from being crowned a rangers star, when does the bidding start for some of these players. Who in the current line up will happily concede game time.
Given both the SG’s & Media’s reaction to the events in George Square on 15/05 i find this reply from Police Scotland to a FOI request very interesting.
https://ibb.co/tDZthkq.
Both the First Minister & Justice Secretary were quick to highlight the sectarian element, whilst providing no evidence, and yet NO arrests were made for sectarian offences.
https://rng.rs/3i3vCE1
Paddy Malarkey 26th July 17.54
Only met Alistair once but he was very generous with his time. A great ambassador for the club and has been taken far too soon at 63.
Albertz11 19th July 2021 At 11:32
The continuity refers to the employees rights, to have the same rights as their old contract. It is not continuity in terms of the same company or employer.
Mark Hamilton, an employment partner and Tupe expert with law firm Maclay Murray & Spens, said the legislation made a specific exception in the event of insolvent liquidation. “The current Tupe Regulations, which became law in 2006, do say that, in general, employees’ contracts are automatically transferred when a company’s business is sold from administration.
“But the rules are different for liquidation. In that case, the key point is that employees do not transfer under the Regulations, though they are free to agree new contracts with the buyer of the business.
“Regulation 4 is the one which refers to contracts transferring under Tupe and this applies to administrations. However, Regulation 8 (7) says that this automatic transfer of employment contracts does not apply in the event of liquidation. Players and other employees can choose to move to the newco. But, if people do not want to go, they cannot be compelled.
“What happens is that, at the point when a liquidation commences,
employment contracts are terminated. That does not mean they become null and void, because employees can still make claims on the company, such as for any wages due. But, from that point they are under no obligation to work for the liquidated company or any newco unless that is agreed.”
Wishart’s statement, posted on the PFA Scotland website, said: “The purpose of Tupe is to protect employees’ terms and conditions of employment in exactly this type of situation. Should the players wish to transfer across to the newco, Tupe ensures that they do so on their existing contractual terms.
“Equally Tupe affords every employee the statutory right to object to the transfer. Employers cannot select which parts of Tupe they wish to apply. If a player wishes to object to being transferred, his contract of employment would immediately come to an end, leaving him with no contract, no dismissal and no right to compensation from either oldco or newco. Both the club and the player are then free from their contractual
………………………………………………………..
https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers/latest-rangers-news/rangers-takeover-rangers-powerless-stop-players-leaving-says-expert-1622414
upthehoops 25th July 2021 At 18:02
Thanks for the link
Let me share a wee oddity that I had not noticed before this evening.
Remember Charles Green’s action against RIFC plc , looking for that company to pay his legal costs in the alleged ‘conspiracy trial’ farce of a prosecution?
Lord Doherty in his ‘opinion’ in that action ( which was not published until the criminal case was concluded by the abandonment of all charges) ) wrote this:
“Background
[2]The Rangers Football Club plc (“Oldco”) was placed in administration on 14 February 2012. In May 2012 the joint administrators granted Sevco5088 Limited an “exclusivity” option. Sevco5088 Limited paid the administrators £200,000 as consideration for the grant of that option. A sale agreement was concluded subject to a creditors voluntary arrangement (“CVA”) being approved by the required majority of creditors. Creditors did not give that approval. On 14 June 2012 the administrators sold the business and assets of the company to Sevco Scotland Limited “
Lord Doherty knocked back Charles, who appealed.
Lady Dorrian ( who with Lord Malcolm and Lord Bracadale) heard Charlie’s appeal, has this in her ‘background’ note:
4] The Rangers Football Club plc (“Oldco”) was placed in administration on 14 February 2012. In May 2012 Sevco5088 Limited, a company of which the reclaimer was the only director, paid the joint administrators £200,000 for an “exclusivity” option to purchase the assets. A proposed sale agreement was concluded subject to approval of a creditors voluntary arrangement (“CVA”), which was not forthcoming.
[5] On 14 June 2012 the administrators sold the business and assets of the company to Sevco Scotland Limited, incorporated on 29 May 2012 (“Newco”)”
Now, one minute there is Sevco5088. Next minute there’s SevcoScotland!
And not a word of explanation as to where the hell SevcoScotland came from? Not a word about the ‘novation’?
Sevco 5088 is down two hundred grand , but it’s SevcoScotland that walks away with the assets of the ‘distressed’ club?
I’m sure that if I had been the majority shareholder in Sevco5088 I might not have been consoled by a drunken Yorkshire man’s assurance that I was ‘Sevco’.
But what are we to make of that ‘segue’, a smooth transition from the company that paid 2 hundred grand ,to a previously not mentioned company?
I am surely not ‘murmuring the judges’ by asking the question.
But the whole dirty saga of the RFC plc Liquidation, denied by the Football authorities, ignored by the FCA, and creating problems for the Courts about who or what was liquidated’, bespeaks in my opinion something absolutely and utterly deficient in Insolvency legislation or in the interpretation and application of that legislation
In the last few days we have SG referred to as a Ranger legend, compared to Walter Smith in the look he can give a player, pretty high praise indeed. But, SG has no idea when his Columbian striker will return ..Wasn’t there a similar problem a year or two ago when Morelos was away. High praise on one hand and an amateur type look on the other when it comes to tracking his player, or, is this a case of not wanting him back and a deal has been completed to sell him. Strange ways indeed.
John Clark 27th July 2021 At 00:02
But the whole dirty saga of the RFC plc Liquidation, denied by the Football authorities, ignored by the FCA, and creating problems for the Courts about who or what was liquidated’, bespeaks in my opinion something absolutely and utterly deficient in Insolvency legislation or in the interpretation and application of that legislation
+++++++++++++++++++++
I am not a lawyer, nor am I an expert in insolvency. On saying that I am sure there is not a lot wrong with insolvency legislation. The Rangers case is unique in the sense that basically the establishment were being asked to do down one of their own, in fact their most favourite club. A club considered regal and superior in comparison to all others, in particular to the club in the east end of the city who they regard as an underclass. The wagons were always going to be circled. Let’s face it, if HMRC was not a reserved institution under Westminster, there would never even have been an insolvency of any kind to argue about…it would never have happened if it was purely a Scottish matter.
JC, there was no need for a “novation” as the CVA failed thereby nullifying the exclusivity agreement. D&P would then be free to deal with anyone else for the asset sale and “strangely” chose Sevco Scotland.
To me, it always sounded like a stitch-up, but the “stitch-upee” who lost the £200k was likely to be involved in Sevco Scotland too, hence the paper loss of the £200k was more than made up for with the reduced, (£8.5m to £5.5m??) purchase price…..I think???
Normanbatesmumfc 27th July 2021 At 15:54
EDIT
“To me, it always sounded like a stitch-up, but the “stitch-upee” who lost the £200k was likely to be involved in Sevco Scotland too”
I agree , plus there was always the sweetener of an ‘onerous contract’ to be had. Still, the whole affair put me and many others off contributing to a sport that is self evidently less than honest.
Normanbatesmumfc 27th July 2021 At 15:54
“JC, there was no need for a “novation” as the CVA failed thereby nullifying the exclusivity agreement. D&P would then be free to deal with anyone else for the asset sale and “strangely” chose Sevco Scotland.”
%%%%%
Yes, Normanbatesmumfc.
I think I was just observing that the judge of first instance and then 3 other judges could all refer to Sevco 5088 and immediately confuse readers by talking about SevcoScotland, without a word of explanation .
It is as if they took it for granted that SevcoScotland was the same entity as Sevco5088.
Or had thought it wiser not to ask questions about which entity had signed the binding agreement with the Administrators, but went with the flow rather than get side-tracked on an issue that didn’t immediately relate to Green’s claim that RIFC plc should pay his legal expenses.
[ And I think , by the way, that the agreement gave Green exclusivity to buy the assets even if [or indeed when it was expected that the CVA would be knocked back : Green was getting them either way!].
The whole mucky, mucky business from beginning to end was /is a national disgrace , from the football cheating, the tax cheating, football governance abandonment of sporting integrity, ballsed-up criminal investigations and prosecutions, deficiencies (as I see it] in the whole Insolvency Act and Regulations and the velvet-gloved treatment of individuals found not to have been compliant ,and so on and so forth.
Greetings folks, haven’t been on for a while. I wasn’t keen on the new look version of the blog the last time I was on but this time around I love it. Very easy to use.
Hope you are all well.
Have the Jambos not returned? They were great posters. I was thinking about them last night when I watched the programme about Hearts on BBC Scotland. They covered the relegation issues last year when it was a big topic on here.
I’ve always thought it a good thing for Scottish football to have representation at European level – EUFA etc.
I read recently that Peter Lawwell is still going to hang around the Celtic board in order to maintain his role at the ECA.
I’m at a loss as to what on earth he could bring to the table which would benefit Scottish football or Celtic!
Jimbo 28th July 2021 At 15:26
‘..I read recently that Peter Lawwell is still going to hang around the Celtic board in order to maintain his role at the ECA…’
%%%%%%%%%%
Welcome back, Jimbo, lovely to see you posting.
As I understand things, the statutes of the European Club Association say that to be eligible for election to the Executive Board you have to be in a senior management [board level]position in a member club.
Peter has resigned/retired as CEO of Celtic plc,: if he is to stay on the executive board of the ECA Celtic must be retaining him as a board member? ?
Or the ECA is at the madam.
Which of course it has been already, in permitting a new club to be honoured as if it were the RFC of 1872 that was a founding member of the ECA, while simultaneously recognising that RFC of 1872 was Liquidated!
Honest to God!
What are they like?
There’s no end to the deceit in the world of football. It was most assuredly not TRFC that was a founder member of the ECA because TRFC did not exist before 2012.
Not that Peter Lawwell would ever have mentioned such a fact at an ECA executive board meeting, any more than he would have mentioned RFC plc/TRFC/SFA in the context of potentially questionable awards of UEFA licences to suspect clubs!
Bad cess to the lot of them.
Couldn’t agree more John. But out of respect for this site the least I say about Peter Lawwell -especially after last night – and his role at Celtic the better!
Suffice to say his ‘expertise’ was damaging both On the pitch as well as Off it!
Lawwell has resigned as a director of the plc, but is on the football board still. Upcoming podcast with recently resigned Celtic Trust chair David Low will touch on this.
Big Pink 29th July 2021 At 07:48
2 0 Rate This
Lawwell has resigned as a director of the plc, but is on the football board still. Upcoming podcast with recently resigned Celtic Trust chair David Low will touch on this.
###########
BP, in this context what is the Celtic “football board”?
Since Celtic plc is the football club, what entity is PL a member of that has a hand in the football operations of the club?
Genuinely confused..
John Clark 27th July 2021 At 00:02
Lord Doherty in his ‘opinion’ in that action ( which was not published until the criminal case was concluded by the abandonment of all charges) ) wrote this:
“Background
[2]The Rangers Football Club plc (“Oldco”) was placed in administration on 14 February 2012.
………………….
Do you have the link to this JC?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Lady Dorrian ( who with Lord Malcolm and Lord Bracadale) heard Charlie’s appeal, has this in her ‘background’ note:
4] The Rangers Football Club plc (“Oldco”) was placed in administration on 14 February 2012.
…………………….
And do you have the link to this also JC?
Thanks in advance.
Just checked and PL remains a director of the Pacific Shelf company.
Surely no-one is referring to that entity as the club?
Please tell me that is not the case!
Given the latest bout of fury directed towards the Celtic PLC Board I wonder if they ever reflect that their strategy on Resolution 12, the Five Way Agreement, and the LNS farce was simply wrong, and that their desperation to maintain an Old Firm brand has now come back to haunt them. All of these issues could have been properly addressed years ago had they not sat back and meekly accepted that their club was disadvantaged, and that the games governing bodies were actually part of it. It’s too late now. They have their work cut out big style.
HirsutePursuit 29th July 2021 At 19:58
‘..Surely no-one is referring to that entity as the club?
Please tell me that is not the case!’
%%%%%%%%5
It’s not the case.
Go to the Celtic plc page in Companies House.
The Celtic Football and Athletic Company changed its name on 15 December 1994 and was on that same day registered as Celtic PLC, of 1887!
See page 17 of the CH page, for 15 December f1994 for certificate.
And you can trawl through the original Articles of Association and the changes made to them in the run-up to going public.
No worries!
It is the plc that is the shareholder in the SPFL and the member of the SFA.
Cluster One 29th July 2021 At 19:56
‘..And do you have the link to this also JC?’
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Yes indeed.
Are you familiar with BAILLII ? Let me know if you’re not, because the links I have are references to case identifiers by name. There’s the Lord Doherty judgment :
ref: Green v Rangers International Football Club plc ScotCS CSOH_90 (22 June 2017)
and the Appeal judgment : Green v Rangers International Football Club plc ScotSC CSOH_37 [22 June 2017]
If you need any help, PM me and I’ll get back to you. But I suspect you know your way in these matters better than I do!
( I assume the BAILLII entries have the same date because , although the cases were heard at different times, they could not publish the judgment until the criminal cases were abandoned]
Further to my reply at 21.51 tonight to HirsutePursuit’s earlier post of 19:58, I look at his slightly earlier post of 19.48 where he asks ‘what entity is PL a member of that has a hand in the football operations of the club?’
And I agree with him that there is a question there that the ECA needs to answer about the application of the ECA statutes:
Is a board member of a ‘subsidiary’ in any sense a senior manager of the holding or parent company? ?
If PL is merely a board member of the subsidiary , 27-year-old Celtic Football and Athletic Club Ltd, in what sense is he a member of the senior management of the entity that is the SFA-registered football club for ECA purposes?
At best, he can only be an adviser to the plc board,.
No doubt the ECA will have received assurances from the Celtic plc board that PL will be their authorised mouthpiece [ and not the mouthpiece of the Celtic Football and Athletic Company [or ‘Coy’ , as was the old abbreviation used], but it’s a bit untidy, to say the least!
I mean, can someone be legally a ‘director’ with the legal responsibilities, duties and liabilities of a company director without actually being legally a ‘director’ of that company?? Can ‘directorship’ be delegated?
Thanks JC.
Perhaps I am misreading the situation.
Big Pink has suggested that PL remains on Celtic’s “football board”. But, as you say, he is not on the main board – only of a non trading subsidiary that the last accounts state is dormant.
My concern is the terminology.
Calling the board of Pacific Shelf 595 Ltd of 1994 (later renamed Celtic Football and Athletic Club Ltd) the “football board” would suggest that the hierarchy consider Celtic plc to be no more than a holding company and the association football club known as Celtic FC is now vested in the 27 year old entity. If so, when did the transfer take place and how does that fit in with the claim of an unbroken history?
I’m sure I must be misunderstanding the position because, if this is the message the club are putting out, they are playing with fire.
HirsutePursuit 30th July 2021 At 00:20
The registered company number of Celtic has not changed since incorporation over 100 years ago. It is the same number now as it was then. This was answered many times years ago, even by some media enquiries to Companies House, when there was a desperation to say Celtic were a new club, just because the old Rangers were liquidated.
Celtic’s history is unbroken. As Fergus McCann said, the better option was to pay all the debts owed. Only one ‘club’ could ever be allowed to keep all the good bits, and ditch the bad bits. Scottish society would certainly not have allowed Celtic to do that. Not a chance – there would have been a public and media outrage.
Upthehoops 30th July 2021 At 08:35
0 0 Rate This
############
I agree entirely with your comments. My concern is only with the idea that somehow Peter Lawell is
being presented as a member of Celtic’s “football board” through a directorship of non-trading subsidiary.
The reality of such an idea can only be realised if you accept that Celtic plc is not, of itself, the association football club.
Another way of looking at it is the situation with Dave King. He has (putting aside the notion that he may have been acting as a shadow director) never been on the Board of the current Rangers Football Club.
Of course Dave King was on the board of the club’s holding company; but technically never of the club itself. I accept that it’s something of a moot point when the holding company holds 100% of the shares in the club – so the group board has effective control of the club. But, is there any logic in presenting Peter Lawell as a member of the “football board” when he is not on the board of Celtic plc?
Most of us recognise the plc as the association football club. Is the club hierarchy now telling us that a club is some sort of ethereal floaty thing that can pass between or is shared between different corporate entities?
I think I read something similar from Neil Doncaster and Lord Nimmo Smith in relation to another – now deceased club. I didn’t agree with the concept then. I don’t accept it now.
HP
The Celtic Football & Athletic Co Ltd, formerly Pacific Shelf, IS the football club. The plc created a subsidiary in 1995 and transferred the SFA & SPL memberships to it. Process was to prepare Plc for listing on AIM.
HirsutePursuit 30th July 2021 At 10:08
‘..But, is there any logic in presenting Peter Lawell as a member of the “football board” when he is not on the board of Celtic plc?”
%%%%%%%
I think you and I are on the same wavelength, HP.
The ECA needs to be asked to show why they think Lawwell is eligible to sit on the Executive board of the ECA when, by any ordinary understanding, he is not on the board of Celtic plc football club!
This seems a great way to talk up the Scottish game, huh? Ignore anything to do with football and focus on all the stupid stuff that goes on around it! Good old BBC Scotland sports team selling the game well.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57821757
In other news. I’m not clever enough to post the link but BBC reporting on Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus continuing with ESL plans. What made me chuckle was the BBC comment that earlier proposal collapsed within 72 hours “ amid fan protest…opposition from the Royal Family!” Really – I don’t recall the Queen or the heir getting involved – and even if they did I am sure it made Atleti and AC think twice…nothing like a good laugh to start the weekend!
Big Pink 30th July 2021 At 16:08
1 0 Rate This
HP
The Celtic Football & Athletic Co Ltd, formerly Pacific Shelf, IS the football club. The plc created a subsidiary in 1995 and transferred the SFA & SPL memberships to it. Process was to prepare Plc for listing on AIM.
###############
BP
The entity with membership of the SPFL is definitely still Celtic plc
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC175364/filing-history/MzI2NTM2NDAxN2FkaXF6a2N4/document?format=pdf&download=0
You can check the membership listing as far back as the SPL/SPFL has existed. It has always been Celtic plc listed as the member.
The SPL/SPFL articles state that its members must also be members of the SFA.
As far as I am aware the Celtic Football and Athletic Club Ltd company was created only to protect the intellectual property of the club’s historic name. Its last accounts say that it is a dormant company.
A dormant company cannot be the legal entity responsible for the operation of the club.
Although it is certainly allowable, I am not aware of any recent application to either the SPFL nor the SFA to transfer membership from the plc to a subsidiary. Indeed, I don’t think it would be practical to do so as I believe the Club License is non-transferable.
@ Big Pink – agree with you here. However I think the point remains around PL as he is not a director of that entity, only of the dormant subsidiary of that entity. I think I probably cut PL more slack than others on here (he didn’t get everything right, but he didn’t get everything wrong either) but a point of governance remains for ECA as to what position he occupies to allow him to continue to represent Celtic.
@Nawlite – I couldn’t agree more. Simple test for me – would BBC post anything like that in relation to the EPL? Says it all.
Wokingcelt 30th July 2021 At 19:23
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58032324
@HP – there are 3 companies to take account of here. Celtic PLC is the original founder company (becoming a Plc to go public). Celtic FC Limited (Co. no. SC223604), a wholly owned subsidiary of Celtic Plc, operates the football club. I believe this is the company BP refers to. The Celtic Football and Athletic Coy Limited (SC153534) is a dormant subsidiary of Celtic FC Limited.
PL is still a director of this dormant subsidiary- this may be an oversight or perhaps a fig leaf to allow him to do the ECA role (if it is I can’t believe that the Plc would have gone down this route without a prior approval from the ECA).
Big Pink 30th July 2021 At 16:08
” The Celtic Football & Athletic Co Ltd, formerly Pacific Shelf, IS the football club…”
%%%%%%%%%
BP, with the greatest respect, of course, that does not seem to square with the Companies House records!
I have copied this from the filing entry of 15 December 1994 relating to Celtic plc, company number SC003487 ,
” This document contains a print of the memorandum and New Articles of Association of Celtic plc as amended by Special resolution passed on 15th December 1994 signed …[Fergus McCann ??)Director
MEMORANDUMand
NEW
ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION
of
CELTIC plc
( Incorporated 12th April 1897)
McGrigor Donald
Pacific House
70 Wellington Street
Glasgow, G2 6SB
NEXT Page:
THE COMPANIES ACTS 1862 TO 1890
THE COMPANIES ACTS 1985 AND 1989
PUBLIC COMPANYLIMITED BY SHARES
MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION
of
CELTIC plc (1} [ indicating ‘footnote]
1 The name of the Company is ‘Celtic plc'( 1)
2 The Company is to be a public company
3. The Registered Office of the Company is situated in Scotland
4. The Company’s objects are :-
4.1 (a)(i) to carry on the business of a football club and to promote the practice nd play of football, cricket, lacrosse, lawn tennis , ………….and exercises of every description…. ”
__________________-
Footnote 1. A Certificate of Incorporation on Change of Name and Re-registration as a Public Limited Company was issued on 15 December 1994 to certify that the Company had by special resolution changed its name from The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Limited and had that day been re-registered under the Companies Act 1985 as a public limited company incorporated under the name of Celtic plc .
That would seem to suggest that the plc is the football club that holds the share in the SPFL and membership of the SFA, so an entity of that that name was incorporated as a subsidiary of the plc.
As ever, I’m open to correction!
JC you are correct.
I think what is causing confusion is the other subsidiary” Celtic FC Ltd” as noted by WokingCelt.
Reading the latest plc accounts, it explains that for accounting purposes, the operation of the football operation is nominally through this subsidiary. However Celtic FC Ltd has just one ex officio director – Dominic McKay. This subsidiary operates only through the direct hand of the plc board. Operationally, the plc and Ltd company operate as a single entity and are collectively referred to in the accounts as Group.
Rangers have a similar set-up – but there, the Ltd company holds the relevant memberships. The Ltd company is therefore recognised by the footballing authorities as the Club.
At Celtic the plc remains the member club of the SPL/SPFL and SFA. The Ltd company is merely ancillary to the Club.
@JC – the line to follow here is not the name but the company number. Celtic Plc is the original founding company – there can be no debate about this. It changed its name and status to become a Plc rather than a Limited company but the lineage is the company number that gives the continuity. I don’t know when but a subsidiary was then created to presumably protect/secure the historic name that appears on the crest. The immediate trading company below the Plc is a common vehicle to allow flow of dividends, finance and such like (heaven forbid any dodgy tax structures!).
My take is that Celtic Plc is the club (look at the history), the immediate subsidiary manages operations (on an outsourced type arrangement) and the dormant company holds the historic name for IPT protection.
Wokingcelt 30th July 2021 At 20:41
0 0 Rate This
##########
Completely agree with your summary.
What the hell has gone wrong at Sellik?
Not seeing a lot about it on here.
Bogs Dollox
Maybe posters are respectfully waiting to see how the next couple of weeks unfolds, but meantime why don’t you ask the impartial and open minded Martin Watt (Daily Record} for an expert opinion?
Before a ball is kicked in the 21/22 season, and well before the transfer window closes, he has declared the situation as ‘Celtic in crisis’.
Jesusjoany! Nothing like an anti Celtic narrative eh?
Bect67 31st July 2021 At 12:41
The Daily Record had Celtic in crisis in 2004 after they lost two pre-season games in USA to Man Utd and Chelsea. It’s what the media do, although such wording is rarely applied to any other club. The same Martin Watt on the BBC website said the first day of the season is when hope springs eternal, ‘unless you’re a Celtic fan’. How utterly pathetic.
Bect67 31st July 2021 At 12:41
The Daily Record had Celtic in crisis in 2004 after they lost two pre-season games in USA to Man Utd and Chelsea. It’s what the media do, although such wording is rarely applied to any other club. The same Martin Watt on the BBC website said the first day of the season is when hope springs eternal, ‘unless you’re a Celtic fan’. How utterly pathetic.
Stewart Robertson barely has his seat on the board and already he’s firing bullets at the SPFL .. This from the team that has racked up horrendous debt in the last few years, had embarrassing scenes of celebrations during covid, displayed a complete lack of respect for Manchester, and, left hundreds of people high and dry with debt, and millions owed to the tax man. Some cheek on his part. The season barely underway and SG is looking for rule changes. Is this an indication of a bloated squad and rumblings of discontent from within the dressing room, or, a lack of man management skills. Is he becoming another cheque book manager.
Vernallen, always remember the current Ibrox team didn’t do some of those things. The dead one did. I know what you mean, but try not to write things that read like you’re acknowledging the same club lie. Too many people doing that already,
Nawlite 31st July 2021 At 21:03
‘…always remember the current Ibrox team didn’t do some of those things. The dead one did.’
%%%%%%%%%%%%%
A useful wee reminder, Nawlite.
The dearest wish of the RIFC plc and TRFC boards and the SFA and the SFPL and ( I suppose) the general run of TRFC fans is that we would all shut up about the Big Lie that they wish us all to swallow.
The ‘Summary’ of the RIFC plc IPO Prospectus told the Market and potential investors that the new plc would be the holding company of ‘the most successful football club in the world’ and had been founded in 1872.’
The remotest suggestion that that ‘summary’ might have been misleading gives them the jelliwobbles.
They know that SevcoScotland was not and is not the Rangers football club that was founded in 1872. They know that SevcoScotland//TRFC were admitted into Scottish Football , thus becoming a recognised league team , in 2012, and no earlier.
The public record is clear: the club known and registered as Rangers Football plc had to surrender its share in the SPL in 2012 and lost thereby its membership of the SFA .
A new club had to apply, NOT re-apply, for ‘conditional’ membership in order to play its first game, and thereafter apply for a share in the SPFL ( it is meaningless to talk of ‘inheriting’ the dead club’s share, or of that share being ‘transferred’ to TRFC, or of that newly-applied for share magically transforming the new football club into the dead club. The RIFC plc Board has to do that, of course.
WE don’t.
We can acknowledge the baseness of a Board that claims the honours of a dead club but disclaims any liability for that dead club’s dishonourable behaviour and deceit and huge debts.
But we can’t hold them responsible for those debts. The club that incurred those debts was not in existence at the time of the cheating any more than they were in 1872!
We can just be glad that the public record shows that RFC of 1872 did not ‘exit’ Administration and stay in existence via the hoped-for CVA, but went into Liquidation – no matter what the fundamentally dishonest ,twisted language (as I believe) the BBC and the SMS use to try to disguise that fact!
My post of 21.46 this evening. Amendment ( to make sense}
Penultimate para: Delete ‘ The club that incurred those debts” and replace with ” the club newly formed in 2012’
[Mrs C interrupted me as I was writing!]
Nawlite — 31st July 21:03 —- See what you mean by being all inclusive, maybe some sports editor will pick up on it and offer a job .. Fresh face and name to feed the continuation saga..
HP
Will check further. You are most probably correct though. Apologies if my reply was misleading.
J
Vernallen 31st July 22.18
Regarding SG “becoming a cheque book manager”
Rangers starting team v Livingston £13.73 million. Subs £3.0.
Celtic starting team v Hearts £ 28.20 million. Subs £5.0
Totals Rangers £16.73 million. Celtic £ 33.20 million.
Always eager to broaden my general knowledge and understanding of things about which I had no knowledge or interest in until fairly recent times, I was fiddling about on the internet idly looking for legal stuff relating to IPOs and share offers and such like.
By pure chance I came across a law firm called Deacons and this caught my eye.
” Unprecedented order by the Court against Hontex International Holdings Company Ltd for a HK$1.03 billion buy-back offer for false and misleading information in prospectus
22 June 2012, Regulatory, Legal Alert By Joseph Kwan
On 20 June 2012, the Court of First Instance (in proceedings brought by the Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”)) ordered Hontex International Holdings Company Ltd (“Hontex”) to make a repurchase offer to about 7,700 investors who had subscribed for Hontex shares in the initial public offering in December 2009 or purchased them in the secondary market during the 3 months after its shares were listed (by then the present action was taken by the SFC).
The orders were the first of their kind made under section 213 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (“SFO”). The orders were made by agreement between the SFC and Hontex 12 days into the trial. Essentially, Hontex acknowledged, for the purpose of the civil proceedings, that the following information in the prospectus was materially false and misleading:
the amounts stated in the IPO prospectus in respect of its turnover for the three years before its listing from 2006 to 2008; and
the value of its cash and cash equivalents for the years ended 31 December 2007, 2008 and 30 June 2009.
The SFC alleged that the overstatements in the turnover and cash positions were as much as RMB 974 million and RMB 204 million respectively. Although Hontex did not agree to the extent of overstatements alleged by the SFC, their acknowledgement amounted to an admission of the contravention of section 298 of the SFO. This, in itself, enabled the SFC to seek the present order through the power given under section 213 of the SFO, to compensate the investors.
Section 298 imposes criminal liability on any person who intentionally or recklessly discloses, circulates or disseminates information that is false or misleading as to a material fact and the information is likely to induce another person to subscribe for securities, to sell or purchase securities or to maintain, increase, reduce or stabilise the price of securities.
The Court ordered Hontex to pay a total sum of HK$1.03 billion (HK$832,244,497 of which had previously been frozen by the Court upon the SFC’s application). Hontex is required to convene a shareholders’ meeting to decide whether to approve the repurchase and, upon approval, take steps to repurchase the shares allotted or purchased. The repurchase price will be at HK$2.06 per share, which was the closing price of the shares on 30 March 2010, when the SFC directed that trading on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong be suspended. The price is about 4 % less than the offer price of HK$2.15 in Hontex’s listing. The repurchase will be managed by Court-appointed administrators under a protocol to be agreed by the SFC.
In addition, the Court ordered Hontex to pay SFC’s costs at HK$7,000,000, which is quite a large bill….”
I fell about laughing at the ” which is quite a large bill”- the writer has a fine sense of humour.
The link to the whole piece is
https://www.deacons.com/news-and-insights/publications/unprecedented-order-by-the-court-against-hontex-international-holdings-company-ltd.html
Yesterday in ‘The Scotsman’ John McLellan [ a director of the Scottish Newspaper Society and blah blah blah former editor ] quoted Boris Johnson: ” What we want to do is to make sure that we don’t do anything to interrupt the operation of good journalism.. the searchlight by the British press will continue to shine on every crevice”
[This was in the context of Pritti Patel’s proposed changes to the Official Secrets Act 1989 and fears about freedom of the press]
I am minded to write to Boris to quietly let him know that in relation to matters to do with the integrity of Scottish football ( and perhaps ‘integrity’ in other areas of life] he is mistaken if he thinks there is anything like ‘good journalism’ , or ‘searchlights on every crevice’ in Scottish journalism.
If sports writers and sports editors can sell their souls for the sake of a football club, what would they not do or say , or not say, to avoid going to jail?
One cannot be selective when it comes to truth. If you’re a liar over a relatively unthreatening matter, you’re as sure as hell likely to lie to avoid a prison sentence!
And therefore be in no mood to challenge even a corrupt government.
In my opinion.
After all the complaints of the authorities underselling the Scottish football product , we have a club refusing to wear a new sponsoprship logo on it’s shirt as it clashes with the personal business of it’s chairman . Hopw’s that going to look to any potential investor . And it must be open to all other SPFL clubs ( and their players )to take the same stance .
Paddy Malarkey 2nd August 2021 At 12:18
‘..new sponsoprship logo on it’s shirt as it clashes with the personal business of it’s chairman .’
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Douglas Park had a car dealership business [Robert Wyper (Motors) ltd but that was dissolved nearly two years ago.
Has he got another one?
or is there another RIFC plc/TRFC director who has a car dealership?
Is it another bolloks-up by the SPFL board negotiators , not checking out whether the members were all happy with ‘cinch’?
Or is their a clause in the sponsorship contract allowing TRFC not to advertise the sponsor?
If there is such a clause, then there’s no story, really.
John Clark 2nd August 2021 At 13:42
I got the info here , JC .
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/7487280/rangers-spfl-8-million-sponsorship-cinch/
Paddy Malarkey 2nd August 2021 At 15:10
‘..I got the info here.’
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Thanks for the link,PM
If “cinch are understood to be furious about this latest controversy” they would seem not to have been too clever when it came to reading the fine print of the contract, if TRFC felt that it didn’t apply to them!
John Clark 2nd August 2021 At 16:41
TRFC saying that it’s nothing to do with them , contact SPFL . I would imagine that this will have a negative effect when trying to source future sponsorship/investment .
As JC suggests (hope I’m not doing a disservice here ?) this should be an open and shut case. Either SPL are within their rights (conferred through some sort of collective bargaining arrangement) or they have gone beyond their authority. It wouldn’t surprise me if they have gone beyond authority but it all just points to rank amateurism across the Scottish game. Assuming an error – where was the SPL oversight and diligence? Why didn’t TRFC raise this earlier? Surely the nature of what was being pursued (and thankfully not a betting or alcohol business) was known? Have the people governing our football and our clubs EVER heard of stakeholder communications??!
‘Rangers’ shirt sponsors are 32 Red, but they never objected to Ladbrokes being on their shirts. However, no-one will have the guts to try and punish them, so they might as well do as they please. They always have anyway. LNS showed that even when the authorities do issue a punishment, it will be one which suits ‘Rangers’. Same with the so called transfer embargo that ‘Rangers’ were allowed to dictate the terms of.
As we have seen many times since 2012, the Scottish Football authorities via their BIG LIE and Secret 5-Way Agreement, have created a monster, over which they have no control.
Cinch-gate is merely the latest episode in the “Wearrapeepul” supremacist journey, where one “infant” club continues to stick two fingers up to the rest of Scottish football.
The easy way to deal with this, (and what would have happened had it been any other club) would be to say, “That’s your one warning. Further failures to adhere to the stipulated sponsor promotion requirements will result in a forfeit of the match concerned”.
Should be easy, but of course we know the pandering cowards will fail to take on the delinquent club again. Rules are only for the other clubs, who should be threatening to expel The Rangers from the league for jeopardizing this much needed sponsorship income.
Governance my bahookie!!!
Re Douglas Park, chairman of RIFC:
Park holds several listed motor-trading directorships. See https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/officers/KkbmWrkE52eT-FVAQWYZ0QGoH_w/appointments
He’s also part of the privately-run, family-owned Parks Motor Group. He therefore has considerable skin in the motor-trade. I don’t think he’s a director of TRFC, which holds the SPFL membership (and is the body affected by the cinch sponsorship), though.
The SPFL Handbook for 2021/22 contains the following in Section B –
‘Agreement on Compliance with Applicable Rules, Statutes and Regulations
B4 Membership of the League shall constitute an agreement between the Company and
each Club, and between each of the Clubs, to be bound by and to comply with:
B4.1 these Rules and the Articles;
B4.2 Regulations made from time to time by the Board as authorised by the
Articles.’
…and in Section G –
‘Shirts to Bear Logo(s)
G46 If so determined by the Board, the shirts of all Players in League Matches and PlayOff Matches shall carry the League logo and/or, the name/logo(s) of the title or other
sponsor of the League, on one or both sleeves, as specified from time to time by the Board.’
…and in Section I –
‘Commercial Contracts, Broadcasting and Transmission
I4 The Company shall in accordance with the Articles and these Rules enter into
Commercial Contracts for the purpose of generating Commercial Revenues.
I5 Subject to these Rules, the Company shall seek to maximise Commercial Revenues.
I6 The Clubs and each of them agree to centrally pool and market their rights, facilities
and properties relating to and concerning, Radio Transmission and Transmission of
League Matches and Play-Off Matches for exclusive exploitation by the Company of
Radio Transmission and Transmission of League Matches and Play-Off Matches.
I7 Subject:-
I7.1 that a Club shall not, other than in respect of a Commercial Contract relating
to Radio Transmission or Transmission, be obliged to comply with this Rule
I7 if to do so would result in that Club being in breach of a contractual
obligation entered into prior to the Commercial Contract concerned being
approved to be entered into by the Company; and
I7.2 these Rules including Rule I21’
https://spfl.co.uk/admin/filemanager/images/shares/pdfs/SPFL%20Rules%20and%20Regulations%2001-Jul-21%20(MASTER%20COPY)%20CLEAN.pdf
Are we to assume that TRFC (the member club) has a pre-existing, pre-cinch sponsorship, commercial contract with one (or several) of the chairman of RIFC’s companies which specifically excludes the advertising of a competing used-car company logo on their shirts & supersedes the requirements of the SPFL board?
I haven’t looked into the stadium & pitchside advertising angles, I’m afraid.
Has there been any confirmation as to the nature of Rangers refusal to comply in this case?.
A conflict between Cinch and the Park Motor Group has been mentioned without any official confirmation so it may be wise to await a statement from either side before demanding punishments be handed down.
Aplogies, having re-read my last post, I’m not sure that Section I actually applies directly in this instance…
So Rangers are in a snit because of potential sponsorship conflicts. How is the other teams are not concerned. Isn’t the idea of the league to work towards what best for everyone. (oops got a little carried away there). Perhaps it would be best for Rangers to write a new rule book, negotiate sponsorship deals for the league, negotiate tv contracts, negotiate with the government on fan attendance, is there not an area that appear to be expert in. However if any of this was to occur I would have any funds delivered to a top notch legal firm to be handled in trust for all concerned. We have history of how Rangers handle funds.
Thanks JJ – that all appears quite clear cut to me and onus should be on TRFC to explain their behaviour.
Will the scottish media be as quick off the mark now that Rangers CL ambitions have hit a slippery spot. Will the story line involve the potential of EL play, how will the potential loss of CL money affect them, will Morelos finally be sold to offset the potential loss of CL money. It didn’t take long to put a black cloud over Celtic’s Europena misfortunes.
@Vernallen – I think we might learn how many ways there are to say “it’s only halftime…”
On a wider point it always surprises me the arrogance we have in Scotland that we should be beating teams from Sweden, Denmark, Romania, etc. All countries with bigger populations and better national records in Euros and WCs. Yes there may be bigger wages to be had in Glasgow but some of that is a premium to get a player to come in the first place (so not a true reflection of their ability per se). History, yes but it can’t score you a goal or defend.
And yet we continue to be surprised when we lose to such teams. I think Celtic have learned not to bank on CL money – whether other clubs have is another issue.
Albertz11 3rd August 2021 At 11:19
‘Has there been any confirmation as to the nature of Rangers refusal to comply in this case?’
%%%%%
I agree with you in so far as that you and I and everybody else simply don’t know.
The PR people of both RIFC/TRFC and the SPFL must be among the most feckin useless in the business!
They seem to be incapable of simply telling the truth .
What was the sponsorship deal?
What was required of the clubs?
Did all the clubs sign up?
Were there exceptions, exemptions?
These would be matters of fact.
How the hell is the SPFL being run as a business?
As in 2012, I venture to suggest, very, very badly and without any moral authority.
They fu.ked themselves by the 5-Way Agreement which gave carte blanche to any club that wishes to thumb its nose to ‘rules’ and ‘articles’.
Hell mend them.
In relation to the current spat between the SPFL and one of its member clubs, it seems to me that the question is whether or not the club in question is acting within the SPFL rules.
Theoretically, the SPFL board have it within its power to formally make that determination. In practice, it would seem more likely that it would form a commission to look at the matter and make a ruling. The club can then appeal through a judicial panel if an adverse decision is reached.
It’s fairly straightforward to resolve the issue. The procedures are there.
Why do I have little faith that the standard procedures will apply in this case?
There’s a piece by Murdo Fraser MSP in the Scotsman this morning –
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/does-the-snp-have-a-rangers-problem-murdo-fraser-3333330
It’s really quite an extraordinary column, riddled with factual errors & slights.
Murdo Fraser MSP- at it again, propagating Scottish football’s biggest sporting untruth, trotting out the nonsense of ” the liquidation of the holding company”, ” the team’s consequent descent into the lower leagues” ” last season’s historic 55th league title for the Ibrox club”.
He comes out with this nonsense in the context of an attack on the SNP Government, clearly aimed at demonising the SNP government and party as Rangers haters , and observing that “it is not difficult for conspiracy theorists to question the motivations behind these prosecutions [ what he calls the ‘ malicious prosecution of the former administrators of Rangers’]. ” In due course” ,Fraser continues , ” the then Lord Advocate, now a high court judge, will have serious questions to answer about his and his office’s conduct in relation to these matters”
What a disgusting specimen of a politician he reveals himself to be when he says ” Perhaps it suits the SNP to demonise an institution which is culturally identified with British unionism and support for the monarchy. If working-class unionists can all be caricatured as red-faced anti-Catholic bigots, then won’t that help build support for Scottish independence?”
The ‘Rangers saga’ is saga of venal cheating in sport and in sports governance, and of the efforts of politicians and the SMSM to avoid the consequences of facing up to the Truth: that Rangers Football Club of 1872 foundation died as a football club in 2012 and its sporting history died with it, and that RIFC plc/TRFC are living a sporting lie, falsely claiming sporting honours and titles that they did not exist even to participate in let alone win.
You can read Fraser’s poisonous bile on page 26 of today’s issue of ‘The Scotsman’, and then sanitise your hands.
Jingso.Jimsie 4th August 2021 At 10:40
John Clark 4th August 2021 At 10:50
Thanks guys.Chuckled my way all the way through to the belly laugh punchline at the end.
“..If you haven’t already, please consider supporting our trusted, fact-checked journalism”
JC HP
RANGERS have today hit back at the SPFL in a stinging letter sent to Scotland’s clubs.
The Ibrox club are at war with league chiefs over their £8million sponsorship with online car sales firm cinch.
Stewart Robertson has written to clubs
2
Stewart Robertson has written to clubs
Gers claim the £1.6m-a-year agreement clashes with the deal they have in place with chairman Douglas Park’s motor company.
And their lawyers argue rule I7 of the SPFL’s own rulebook allows them to snub the agreement.
That saw SPFL chairman Murdoch MacLennan email clubs earlier this week expressing ‘disappointment’ in Rangers over their stance.
He urged clubs to back under-fire SPFL CEO Neil Doncaster as he fights for his job.
But there is a growing fear that cinch could now walk away from the five-year deal.
And now Gers Managing Director Stewart Robertson has hit back in a letter penned to clubs.
Crucially he claims Rangers made it clear to the SPFL there was an issue BEFORE the deal was signed.
Robertson has written: “We have been in private dialogue with the SPFL Executive since 8 June on this topic but, given that they have sought to make the issue public, it is appropriate for you to be aware of the circumstances involved.
“For the avoidance of doubt, Rangers continues to comply with the rules of the SPFL.
“One of the key rules that protects the commercial interests of all members is Rule I7.
“When the SPFL Executive put forward the written resolution with regards to the new sponsorship contract, Rangers immediately notified Neil Doncaster that, in line with Rule I7, we would be unable to provide the new sponsor with many of their rights due to a pre-existing contractual obligation.
“We cannot breach an existing contract. This is a legal principle which is founded in Scots Law and is the reason that the SPFL has Rule I7 within its rules.
“Rangers has complied with and will continue to comply with the SPFL rules and fulfil all sponsorship obligations which do not conflict with our pre-existing contractual obligations.
“However, this situation has raised some questions which the members may well wish to ask of the SPFL Executive:
Given the possibility of Rule I7 being relied upon by members, did the SPFL Executive/legal advisors include a clause in the contract with cinch, which allows the SPFL not to provide rights to cinch where members rely upon Rule I7? If not, why not?
Given that the issue was raised by Rangers (when there is no need under the rules for Rangers to do so) immediately after the written resolution was raised, why did the SPFL Executive proceed to sign the contract when they knew there was an issue and without further checking with Rangers as to its extent?
Did the SPFL Executive inform cinch prior to the contract being signed that it could not provide all of the rights it was contracting to provide due to SPFL Rule I7?
It was interesting that the Chairman provided the Chief Executive with the credit for closing the deal when it was introduced to the SPFL by an agency that will receive c.£100,000 pa in fees for each of the 5 years of the deal. That is c.£500,000 of cash that will be leaving the Scottish game. Is this the best use of Scottish Football’s limited resources? Could this money have been better spent by employing a full time Commercial Director?
“I trust that this clarifies the position. Best regards. Stewart Robertson
Managing Director.”
Commercial Contracts, Broadcasting and Transmission
I4 The Company shall in accordance with the Articles and these Rules enter into
Commercial Contracts for the purpose of generating Commercial Revenues.
I5 Subject to these Rules, the Company shall seek to maximise Commercial Revenues.
I6 The Clubs and each of them agree to centrally pool and market their rights, facilities
and properties relating to and concerning, Radio Transmission and Transmission of
League Matches and Play-Off Matches for exclusive exploitation by the Company of
Radio Transmission and Transmission of League Matches and Play-Off Matches.
I7 Subject:-
I7.1 that a Club shall not, other than in respect of a Commercial Contract relating
to Radio Transmission or Transmission, be obliged to comply with this Rule
I7 if to do so would result in that Club being in breach of a contractual
obligation entered into prior to the Commercial Contract concerned being
approved to be entered into by the Company; and
I7.2 these Rules including Rule I21
the Clubs and each of them shall license and otherwise provide to the Company the
use of such of their other rights, facilities and properties as may be required by the
Company to enable the Company to enter into and/or fulfil its obligations under and
in terms of Commercial Contracts entered or to be entered into by the Company.
Shirley it would be easy to show a (redacted) version of the contract with Parks , if Parks it is ,that precludes TRFC putting cinch advertising on the shirt sleeve . Parks don’t appear on their sponsor page – Seko is listed as Logistics Partner and Tomket Tires as sleeve sponsor – so it may be quid pro quo arrangement eg use of busses /free advertising . Pure conjecture !
I’m a little confused.
Stewart Robertson says that the Club cannot be made to breach an existing contract. He is 100% correct.
This should be a black and white issue. Theoretically, all he has to do is provide the evidence that such a contract was in existence prior to the SPFL arrangement.
But, if it so simple, why would the SPFL move ahead with the sponsorship if it was known one of the top-tier clubs was unable to take part in the promotional activities?
Perhaps the contract (if it even exists in written form) between the chairman and the club is so scant that it has no explicit exclusivity provision? Is it possible that it is only “custom and practice” that dictates Rangers will not seek sponsorship from competitors of its chairman.
Maybe it is arguable that such an arrangement is legally binding; but it is not entirely certain that conforming with the requirements of the SPFL sponsorship deal could constitute a breach of an unwritten (or poorly written) contract.
I am only speculating; but, if Rangers’ position causes the SPFL contract to flounder, the club could be held liable for the losses if it was unable to prove that its position is on a solid legal footing.
On the other hand, if the situation is as clear as Stewart Robertson describes, the entire SPFL hierarchy should fall on their respective swords.
It will be interesting to see how things play out.
HirsutePursuit 4th August 2021 At 20:43
“..Maybe it is arguable that such an arrangement is legally binding; but it is not entirely certain that conforming with the requirements of the SPFL sponsorship deal could constitute a breach of an unwritten (or poorly written) contract”
%%%%%%%%%%%%%
HP, for fun and in no way trying to be a lawyer( which I am not) I turn immediately to the Contract (Scotland)Act 1997, and note Section 1(1) especially 1 (2) thereof:
” 1. Extrinsic evidence of additional contract term etc.
(1)Where a document appears (or two or more documents appear) to comprise all the express terms of a contract or unilateral voluntary obligation, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the document does (or the documents do) comprise all the express terms of the contract or unilateral voluntary obligation.
(2)Extrinsic ORAL or documentary evidence shall be admissible to prove, for the purposes of subsection (1) above, that the contract or unilateral voluntary obligation includes additional express terms (WHETHER OR NOT WRITTEN TERMS]. [my capitals]
That suggests perhaps that TRFC are arguing that ,however lacking in precision may be any written contract it may have with Park , oral evidence or other extrinsic evidence (i.e. not in the contract document itself) TODAY about the terms of the agreement is admissible?
Is Robertson arguing that the parties to the contract agreed and agree what were the terms and will now be prepared to swear to that agreement in the absence of or as supplement to, any written evidence in any document they may each have signed?
As I read it, TRFC might well have the right of it!
And Doncaster/the SPFL might well have brought about something of a disaster, rather than a ‘sponsorship coup’
As I say, I’m no lawyer.
If, however, that is what TRFC is relying on, they may very well bring about that which the SPFL and others, by abandoning Truth and Sporting Integrity in the 5-Way Agreement , claimed to be trying to avoid: Armageddon’ for Scottish football.
That would be the supreme irony!
I expect there will be some dirty wee compromise , in secret, as the SPFL backs down having made another balls of things.
Let’s see how things pan out , but whatever happens, my withers are unwrung!
Charlie Adams, a former Ranger, says the best way to solve the cinch problem is to give Rangers and Celtic a bigger slice of the pie. I follow things quite closely from afar and my understanding is the only team that has spoken out against the deal is Rangers. I stand to be corrected but have yet to hear anything from Celtic in regards to the contract with cinch. Is the media putting words into Charlie’s mouth so as to lump the two teams together and ease some of the pressure on Rangers. Also if Stewart Robertson wants Doncaster gone, have him all for an EGM and put forward a motion for his dismissal. This year’s battle of words seems to be a carry over from his last term on the board. Strange he had little to say when he was at Motherwell.
My post of 22.21 refers.
And from our Keef [remember him?] of the ‘Daily Record’ at 22.33 tonight, we have :
“Now we understand his [Robertson’s]outburst will be discussed at an urgent SPFL board meeting on Thursday – while league chiefs are still waiting for Robertson to provide contractual proof to back up his claims that Rangers are legally obliged not to promote the partnership with cinch.”
Vernallen 4th August 2021 At 23:03
‘.. I follow things quite closely from afar.’
%%%%%%%%%
That’s a brilliantly clever oxymoron, by the way.
“Is the media putting words into Charlie’s mouth so as to lump the two teams together and ease some of the pressure on Rangers”, you ask.
As a matter of course the SMSM will always , always, always bring the other cheek of the once ‘old firm’ arse into involvement/participation in anything that is potentially discreditable to TRFC.
The regrettable thing is that that other cheek goes along with the nonsense, and has gone along with the nonsense of the 5-Way Agreement and the award of the UEFA competition licence to CW’s club that was the real Rangers of 1872.
Just re: the £500k “finders fee” mentioned in the interview. Does that not constitute a breach of the commercial confidentiality of the deal?
It sounds as though all of the clubs were given a chance to input to the deal (i.e. TRFC Ltd say they raised concerns about non-fulfilment of the sponsor display prior to it signing) so presumably the rest of Scottish football were fine with that going out of the game on the basis they were getting more out of the deal than previous – that’s not to say its a great deal; compared to a Belgium we are sold well short IMHO.
To the contractual conflict re Parks Motor Group – lets just hope that the sponsorship agreement isn’t a means to bypass FFP……I mean if you’re a sponsor you want that sponsorship visible like on a strip, dont you?……
‘OttoKaiser 5th August 2021 At 10:06
…To the contractual conflict re Parks Motor Group – lets just hope that the sponsorship agreement isn’t a means to bypass FFP……I mean if you’re a sponsor you want that sponsorship visible like on a strip, dont you?……’
::
::
I suspect (but don’t know) that one or several of the RIFC’s chairman’s many businesses supplies ‘company’ cars to some staff & players within RIFC & TRFC. If so, it’s strange that such an arrangement isn’t even featured on the list of sponsors on the TRFC website.
Jingso.Jimsie 5th August 2021 At 10:36
Let us hope that the company car is given the appropriate tax treatment for that kind of benefit!
Meanwhile
“LORD TYRE – S Alexander, Clerk
Tuesday 10th August
Proof Before Answer (8 days)
A54/19 Charles Green v The Chief Constable of Police Scotland &c Jones Whyte Law Ledingham Chalmers LLP ”
%%%%%%
I hope I can tune in to at least an occasional session over the 8 days.
Stewart Robertson says that the Club cannot be made to breach an existing contract. He is 100% correct.
Are we to assume now clubs can enter into contracts with companies making them businesses or even companies themselves, changed days indeed from separate entity claims, were one entity goes into liquidation whilst the other continues, as if it were all a dream.
“I7.2 these Rules including Rule I21
the Clubs and each of them shall license and otherwise provide to the Company the
use of such of their other rights, facilities and properties as may be required by the
Company to enable the Company to enter into and/or fulfil its obligations under and
in terms of Commercial Contracts entered or to be entered into by the Company.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58104430
Did Celtic refuse the Scot Gov loan offer because they didn’t need the money, or was it because of the conditions attached, especially to executives pay??
Also, I hope The Rangers read the small print;
“Quarterly financial reports are also being issued to ministers by the clubs.”
I wonder if these will be made public and will these “reports” be properly scrutinised or more likely, given a cursory glance. Let’s hope they are made public.
Surely the Scot Gov would not lend tax-payers money to a club that had stiffed tax-payers out of tens of millions of pounds less than ten years ago?? Unless of course they know fine well this is a new club.
Incontrovertible evidence????
Normanbatesmumfc 6th August 2021 At 11:20
‘
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58104430‘
%%%%%%%%
Thanks for posting that link, Nbmfc.
I note this “and in the event of any club with a loan going into administration, the unpaid money is expected to be paid back with interest.”
What football club would these days fear to go into Administration?
Wouldn’t the RFC of 1872 model be followed? -Stiff the creditors, go into Liquidation, find some chap to fund a purchase of some of the assets including a few players (with their agreement] , call those chaps a football club, and then order the SFPFL and SFA to admit the new club into a League and into the SFA, and carry on debt free, name and sporting history intact, cocking a snoot at HM treasury and the rest of us?
Wouldn’t that work?
Nah, you’re right: such a disgraceful abandonment of all notion of sporting integrity as was demonstrated in the Rangers’ saga couldn’t happen again, could it?
Certainly not when there are politicians around who see nothing wrong in what happened as a result of the cheating by SDM/CW and the cowardly abdication of duty by the governance bodies of our game.
TRFC has been paying debts .Company number SC425159
Company Results (links open in a new window)
Date(document was filed at Companies House) Description(of the document filed at Companies House) View / Download(PDF file, link opens in new window)
05 Aug 2021 All of the property or undertaking has been released from charge SC4251590015
View PDF All of the property or undertaking has been released from charge SC4251590015 – link opens in a new window – 1 page(1 page)
05 Aug 2021 Satisfaction of charge SC4251590013 in full
View PDF Satisfaction of charge SC4251590013 in full – link opens in a new window – 1 page(1 page)
05 Aug 2021 Satisfaction of charge SC4251590014 in full
View PDF Satisfaction of charge SC4251590014 in full – link opens in a new window – 1 page(1 page)
09 Jun 2021 Satisfaction of charge 1 in full
View PDF Satisfaction of charge 1 in full – link opens in a new window – 1 page(1 page)
09 Jun 2021 Satisfaction of charge SC4251590011 in full
View PDF Satisfaction of charge SC4251590011 in full – link opens in a new window – 1 page(1 page)
Better like this
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC425159/filing-history
Paddy Malarkey 6th August 2021 At 14:40
It looks as though they have paid off Close Bros. They have done the same in the past only to go back to the well quite sharpish.
Gunnerb 6th August 2021 At 16:14
‘..It looks as though they have paid off Close Bros…’
%%%%%%%%%
B.gger Close Bros [ and, by geez, when you read the details of what is involved in borrowing from them [ or, perhaps, from other loan sh .. companies] you’d want to have a pretty sharp lawyer acting for you, and make sure you paid them off as soon as you could!
The good thing is that in June , Sportscotland were repaid the money they [ i.e. we , the public] loaned to arch-cheat in respect of Murray Park .
What I don’t know is whether the present footballing successes of TRFC , with some UEFA monies coming their way ( and that last-second goal v Malmo might well be worth a good few bob] may have enabled them to return to ‘ordinary’ sources of borrowing from regular banks, and to acquire a generally recognised ‘safe borrower’ status, without any FCA black marks/cold shouldering ‘King ‘ effect?
[ and , private rant,mentioning Malmo can I be permitted to excoriate our football commentators on BBC Sportsound [with the honourable exception of Liam McCloud] for their bloody annoying insistence on not finding out how to pronounce the names of foreign clubs or players? It takes two minutes on the internet to find out how to pronounce any foreign names or words
The worst offender in this respect is Pat Bonner: how the f.ck he can keep saying ‘Rojic’ when all about him are saying ‘Roggitch’ . He , as an Irishman, must know that even though European languages use the same alphabet( mainly] as English does, some of the letters are sounded completely differently.
Pat will have no difficulty in pronouncing ‘taoseach’ as ‘teeshoch’ , for crying out loud.
And to hear the guys and gals ( hon exception Liam] talking about ‘jab[ as in vaccination] lonetch ‘ or some other variant is as infuriating and unforgiveable as to to hear any talk about ‘reel Madrid’.
Admittedly, in our earlier days before the Internet there was no quick way to learn how foreign names were pronounced.
But surely people employed now by the BBC must be young enough to have been on the internet for a substantial part of their adult lives?
There’s no excuse for not making the little effort to try to get it approximately right and the BBC producers who do not insist on their programme fronters trying to do so deserve a kick in the goolies [in so far as they have any]
I see from Twitter that Rangers player Kemar Roofe’s young child is in hospital, and the club are asking that his privacy be respected. Here’s hoping the wee one gets well soon.
Uth 7th August 20.55.
Well said uth.
Puts football and everything that surrounds it into perspective.
Interesting if true .
://videocelts.com/2021/08/blogs/latest-news/ibrox-ace-lundstram-admits-to-positive-cvid-cases-inside-the-club/
How diligent will the government be in reviewing Rangers accounts in lieu of the money borrowed/lent. It looks like old times in Rangers world, borrow money or have money lent with long term generous payments. Would the sale of one player not cover this and expedite re-payment to the government. How will the accountants/auditors dress up the financials to give the appearance of robust financial health. Will the government get nervous if a large egg is laid at Ibrox this week and the anticipated/hoped for CL millions go out the window. Will an early exit provide impetus to sell a certain player who like someone at Celtic has his bags packed and is eying the door.
Upthehoops 7th August 2021 At 20:55
‘… Kemar Roofe……….. Here’s hoping the wee one gets well soon’
%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Of course.
The sins of the fathers are not to be visited upon the children.
I’ve lived long enough to have seen football as it was played in the early 1950s. I have NEVER seen such a recklessly flying boot head-height tackle on a standing goalkeeper as Roofe’s was.
It was outrageously , almost murderously, ‘reckless’ and a 4 match ban was nowhere near severe enough a penalty.
But perhaps Roofe , with a child in hospital, will reflect on the fact that the goalkeeper he recklessly boot-slammed in the head might have died on the pitch if he had fractionally moved just before impact:
and realise that Ondrej Kolar’s family would have been every bit as worried about Ondrej as Roofe himself now may be about his own child.
I do hope that the child will be well and restored to the parents hale and hearty in due course.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting the situation regarding pay-back of loans granted by the Scottish government, but by stipulating that the loans be paid back in the event of administration, seems at odds with an administrators duties. Surely such a decision would lie with them ?.
The only mechanism I can think of to permit such a stipulation would be the archaic “Fitba’ debts” loophole whereby the loans are elevated to that status. Otherwise the govt. is merely an unsecured creditor
If “Fitba’ debt”, is the case, then I assume agreement must have been achieved between the government and football authorities to have it recognised in some way as such.
Or a meringue?
Perhaps the longer term and zero interest of the ScotGov loan gave Rangers* an opportunity to borrow to the max and pay off the less favourable terms of the Clise Bros loan? Don’t know about the amounts involved in the latter, but it would be smart to take that opportunity.
John Clark 8th August 00.00
Sorry John but to describe the challenge in the terms you have done is arrant nonsense. At no time does KR take his eye off the ball and as a result has no idea where the GK is.
1.20 in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iihIR2Mklw
Now this is reckless.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUyQxNfASPc
Big Pink 8th August 2021 At 08:37
………………………………….
https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202100213841/
………………
tackle lost ticket revenue during the pandemic. Not to pay off loans
Big Pink 8th August 2021 At 08:37
………………………….
https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202100213841/
…………………..
tackle lost ticket revenue during the pandemic. Not to pay off loans
oops sorry i posted that twice
SPFL asks SFA to intervene in sponsorship row with Rangers.
In an email breaking the news chairman Murdoch MacLennan told member clubs: ‘The one SPFL club that has failed to deliver club inventory for cinch is also hampering the SPFL from promoting the SPFL’s relationship with cinch by, for example, refusing to permit cinch-branded interview backboards to be delivered to, or used at, its home ground and to be used for broadcast partner interviews with club representatives at away matches.
‘At their opening league match, none of that club’s players wore the cinch branded sleeve patch; there were no LED advertising or static advertising boards with cinch branding allowed in the stadium; and the club concerned also refused to allow the use of the standard SPFL broadcast partner interview backdrop board displaying cinch branding.
‘Over several weeks now, your board has sought to engage with the club concerned to find a way through this very serious impasse.
‘However, we have been met with a refusal to give the board sight of any pre-existing third-party contract that would prevent the club from providing inventory for cinch.
‘The refusal by one of our clubs to provide inventory for cinch presents a real and substantial commercial risk to the SPFL – and one which materially threatens the SPFL’s fee payments to all 42 SPFL clubs.
‘This is the first time in the history of the SPFL, or the SPL before that, where a club has not provided agreed inventory to the League for use in fulfilling a commercial Contract.
‘Your board considers it has been left with no realistic option, in compliance with Scottish FA articles, other than to refer this dispute to Scottish FA arbitration. Your Board has reached this conclusion with great reluctance.
‘However, your board believes that it has a clear obligation to embark upon this course of action to protect and advance the interests of the SPFL and all of its member clubs.’
A couple of questions.
Have the SPFL signed a deal knowing that a member club had a conflict of interest that could affect the deal?
Have the “one club” adhered to the SPFL rules or not?
Shouldn’t be too difficult for them to answer.
https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2021/08/09/spfl-call-in-sfa-in-rangers-cinch-row-as-8million-deal-hangs-in-the-balance/
Keith Jackson raises a valid point in today’s column in regards to covid impacting Rangers pre season training. Where was the media when John Lundstram raised this issue earlier. Did they not want to spend the $25,000 Rangers are apparently looking for in line with media access. Is there a much deeper issue with covid they want to hide. Wasn’t it just last year they played fast and loose in regards to results from covid test prior to a pre-season game.
Are the rumors of earth tremors in certain areas of Glasgow or is it just a case of Rangers fans falling off the bandwagon. Could be full blown earthquake if they lose tomorrow night.
Albertz11 9th August 2021 At 16:25
A couple of questions.
Have the SPFL signed a deal knowing that a member club had a conflict of interest that could affect the deal?
Have the “one club” adhered to the SPFL rules or not?
Shouldn’t be too difficult for them to answer.
+++++++++++++++++++++=
There will be lawyers involved in the arbitration process so it’s up them to successfully argue their case. The SPFL claim that despite repeated requests Rangers have not produced any evidence of contractual obligations which conflict with the deal. Rangers of course promised Scottish Football evidence of corruption within the SPFL last summer, and failed to do so. Lets see how this pans out.
Mibbes the problem is that the Parks , father and son , are board members of RIFC Plc , which has nothing to do with SPFL and not TRFC Ltd , which is in dispute with SPFL . It should be easy to find the provision of services from one to the other in both sets of accounts , especially as tax is due for any private use of vehicles supplied and used . I can’t find any businesses that would be in conflict among this lot
Stewart Robertson – Managing Director
Andrew Dickson – Director of Finance and Football Administration
Ross Wilson – Sporting Director
James Blair – Company Secretary
James Bisgrove – Director of Commerical and Marketing
On the subject of Parks Motor Group I stood and watched the Celtic squad and management team arrive on four Parks buses yesterday. Dundee arrived on two (not Parks). A chap in the vicinity claimed there is a decades long agreement that Parks do not charge Celtic or Rangers for the buses. Perhaps Big Pink, who once worked at Celtic, can shed some light on whether or not that is the case.
As I understand matters, if the SFA-arranged Arbitration panel (if things come to that point] is told by both TRFC and the other party to the contract that TRFC says it has with it, that there was/is a verbal contract between them that pre-dated the SPFL’s contract with cinch, then the SPFL are up the creek without a paddle!
I mean, if you and I tell the rest of the world that we have a contract and that we both are happy with the terms of that contract, then it’s no one else’s business.
How would anyone be able to prove that we had not or don’t now have, such a contract, even in the form of an unwritten gentleman’s agreement? [ except, perhaps, that a contract to do or bring about something illegal probably wouldn’t have any validity!]
If TRFC have any proof ,written or oral, that they can put before the SPFL that they have a prior contract which legally prevents them from complying with the SPFL’s contract with cinch, why don’t they simply do that, in the knowledge that the SPFL board would be bound by commercial confidentiality to keep the details secret?
Have they any questionable ‘contract’ to hide, any commercial arrangement that they do not wish the SPFL to know about?
We know that there have been cases in the past of clubs keeping secrets from the ‘governance’ bodies to which they they belong.
Surely to goodness no club today would be so crass as to do that? I’m sure the present set of circumstances is more simply explained by administrative muddle, bureaucratic incompetence, on one side or the other, or, more likely, both.
The really interesting questions for me are :what if any Arbitration Panel actually found in favour of TRFC? Where would that leave cinch? And what would they do?
Alternatively, if the Panel were to find in favour of the SPFL, where would that leave TRFC in relation to their ‘prior’ contract with whomever?
Oh what fun!
If Rangers have a contract with someone which is in conflict with cinch, what are they supplying the contracted party with. They don’t appear to have any markings on jerseys, field board advertising, or any visible signage in the stadium. Surely a company contracting with one of the “largest” and “most successful clubs” in world football would want something indicating they are/were a sponsor. If it a verbal contract the waters get quite muddy, when did it begin, who was involved, etc. Also with the track record in some of their past dealings wouldn’t you want the “i’s” dotted and “t’s” crossed.
John Clark 9th August 2021 At 22:19
As others have said there does not appear to be any sponsor or partner listed anywhere on Rangers website or elsewhere that might have a conflict with Cinch. The Rangers Chairman does of course own a car dealership but is that a reason alone to say they refuse to comply? I can’t help thinking this is all about Rangers having another fight with the SPFL, after spectacularly failing to prove corruption in the summer of 2020. This arbitration will be interesting, particularly as BBC revealed last night on Sportsound that the losing side must pick up the legal bill. Before any side can lose both have to agree on the arbitration in the first place. What if Rangers just refuse?
Of course they will refuse to comply with arbitration. No one! can challenge The Rangers. Even in the slight chance of agreeing to arbitration, they will only comply with the outcome if it is in their favour. Anyone doubting this has not been paying attention for the last few decades.
They will simply say the have a confidential verbal agreement which they will refuse to divulge. They already say they told the SPFL of this before the Cinch deal was agreed. Unless they have a “gentleman’s agreement” including a third knuckle handshake from SFA, that they will be assured of success in arbitration, they will not comply. Simples as they say…..
Charles Green content, apparently, to accept£6,393,046.00 plus legal costs. Lord Tyre has been asked for decree in that sum.
Normanbatesmumfc 10th August 2021 At 10:48
I think the SPFL rules do require you to produce evidence of a pre-existing Contractual agreement, so even though it may be a verbal agreement they will still have to evidence this to the arbitration panel in some way. I am guessing by confirming the terms of it in writing as you would imagine the panel require written submissions in some form.
You would also imagine you’d need sworn affidavits from the parties to the verbal agreement to support that one exists (3rd party verification helps) and then a confirmation that the terms of that agreement were then followed i.e. did the parties subsequently do what they say the agreement confirms.
Interesting quirk of Scots Law is that you don’t require “consideration” (usually money) to form a Contract – what then is your loss if it is a non-financial agreement…..
OttoKaiser
“I think the SPFL rules do require you to produce evidence of a pre-existing Contractual agreement”
Yes yes yes but when did rules ever apply to the Govan mob???
Let’s assume The Rangers refuse to make any other comment other than referring to their earlier one and stick two fingers up to the “offer” of arbitration. What do you think will happen then???
OttoKaiser 10th August 12.21
Can you tell me where in the SPFL rulebook it states that a member club must divulge evidence of a pre-existing contractual agreement. when requested?.
Would Murdoch MacLennan not have mentioned that Rangers had breached rule whatever in his e-mail to member clubs if this was indeed the case.?.
Rangers through SR have made their position clear and need not comment further.
John Clark 10th August 2021 At 11:10
Charles Green content, apparently, to accept£6,393,046.00 plus legal costs. Lord Tyre has been asked for decree in that sum.
++++++++++++++++++++++=
How much in total are taxpayers now out of pocket for all these malicious prosecutions? Surely this is a massive scandal deserving of widespread media coverage, yet all we get are media reports telling us how much more public money is being paid out in compensation.
I believe there is to be a public inquiry into this. Right now though anyone could be forgiven for thinking that persons within the establishment set out to prove Rangers were victims of a fraud, and spectacularly failed to do so costing honest taxpayers an awful lot of money. The very fact the Crown Office themselves have admitted the prosecutions were malicious is quite incredible, and it worries me that whatever football club is involved may actually have a bearing on justice. How can we ever trust them to be impartial?
Upthehoops 10th August 2021 At 16:23
‘… though anyone could be forgiven for thinking that persons within the establishment set out to prove Rangers were victims of a fraud, ..
%%%%%%%%%%
The whole mucky mess opens the door to a barra-load of conspiracy theories!
IF some in the establishment wanted to portray SDM’s/CW’s Rangers as being an innocent victim of a conspiracy, another theory would have to be developed as to how other ,perhaps more powerful, people in the establishment managed [ as conspiracy theorists might contend] to sabotage the prosecution of any alleged conspirators?
I haven’t yet seen that such Inquiry as is to be held will be a full Public Inquiry, judge led.
But given that any inquiry will have to more than touch on the involvement of ,on the one hand,
a senior police officer ,whom one would reasonably expect to be aware of the consequences for any proposed prosecution, of police wrongdoing in the matter of collection of material that was under legal and professional privilege,
and on the other hand, a Lord Advocate ( now a Senator of the College of Justice], apparently in contradictory directions ( one apparently aiming at prosecution , the other apparently taking actions that would make prosecution impossible, and cause proceedings to collapse..].
doesn’t one wonder what the hell may have been going on?
I ‘m beginning to think that the Rangers saga has thrown up serious questions that may go beyond the Scottish Judiciary’s capacity to deal with.
We will await developments.
Re SPFL Rules to produce documentation
The Article of Association for the SPFL (No. 103 and it’s iterations) the powers of the board are fairly broad but basically they can determine whatever necessary to ensure the correct running of the company (SPFL).
Within the Rules and Regulations themselves though :
Power of Inquiry and Determination
J4 The Board and, where appointed by the Board, a Commission, shall have the power
of inquiry into all financial, contractual and other arrangements within, between
and/or amongst Clubs and Players and into all matters constituting or pertaining to
any suspected or alleged breach of or failure to fulfil the Rules or Regulations by any
Club, Official and/or Player or any matter considered by the Board or, where
appointed by the Board, a Commission, to be relevant to an Adjudication or an
Appeal and every Club and Official and Player shall be liable to and shall afford every
assistance to the Board or, as the case may be Commission, as may be requested or
required of it or him.
To a lesser extent E30 gives SPFL board powers of inspection where E30.1.1 being the trigger and E30 2&3 providing the power of inspection of not only financial records but also to include other records/and or information.
Essentially an open book policy but to ensure that:
B1 In all matters and transactions relating to the League and Company each Club shall
behave towards each other Club and the Company with the utmost good faith.
OttoKaiser 10th August 2021 At 20:09
‘… In all matters and transactions relating to the League and Company each Club shall
behave towards each other Club and the Company with the utmost good faith.’
%%%%%%%%%%%%
‘With the utmost good faith’ :
Sadly, RFC of 1872 (now, of course, RFC 2012 plc in Liquidation] and the SFA and SPL/SFL boards of 2012 all acted with anything but ‘the utmost good faith’ in relation to football in Scotland as an HONEST sport, in creating and propagating the myth that TRFC is Rangers of 1872.
And see where that has left Scottish Football and the wider Scottish society now!
No club, no fan, no potential sponsor or actual sponsor of clubs or Scottish Football can put ANY faith whatsoever in anything that comes either from Ibrox or Hampden Park( and some would say Celtic Park as well, if the old ‘Res 12’ matter is raised] and perhaps our very legal system with questions of its own to ask itself.
A little bit of truth from SDM a decade or so ago probably would have prevented the desperate need, occasioned by his overweening arrogance and boastfulness ,for him to sell liability for huge debts to any charlatan who , when sensible, successful business consortia walked away , was happy to cobble up a nice wee arrangement that gave him ownership, and provided [ due process of law] a number of other folk with the opportunity of obtaining millions of pounds.
SDM has never had a fraction of the opprobrium that was heaped on CW and others associated with CW.
And he STILL swans about as ‘Sir’ David , tax and football cheating and [ by any ordinary reckoning] the blood of the dead Rangers on his hands.
What was that loud thud near Ibrox earlier this evening. Was that the rest of the fanbase falling off the band wagon. Are the phone lines buzzing with out going calls looking to raise the missed 30 million. Can SG now cast his eyes at other oportunities. So many questions, so few answers. As they say in Malmo, how swede it is.
New post up