Comment on Accountability via Transparency. by easyJambo.

    RIFC's last full year accounts (to June 2018) showed loans of £23.425m outstanding.

    The September 2018 share issue converted around £11.63m of those loans

    The proposed conversion will convert a further £14.165m, £13.365m of which will be accounted for by Concert Party and Directors interests (King, Taylor, Letham, Park, Scott)

    The two conversions are greater that the 2018 balance of loans by approx £2.4m, which would suggest that they have borrowed at least that amount over the last year, but there is currently no indication of the balance of loans provided by other shareholders, such as Julian Wolhardt (Borita Investments and New Trace Ltd), so the borrowing requirement may have been greater. Their last accounts suggested that they needed £4m this year and will need a further £3.6m next season.

    An additional impact on completion of the conversion to shares would be dilution of Club1872’s holding from 9.5% to 6.2%.

    easyJambo Also Commented

    Accountability via Transparency.
    Confirmation that Andrew Dallas is to step down as a FIFA ref.


    He cites personal/work reasons, although others have suggested it was because he was going to be demoted in any event.

    Accountability via Transparency.
    Not a huge amount to report on the Grier v Police Scotland case at the CoS this morning.

    Both parties and Lord Bannatyne were content to have the case heard at the CoS. It was previously being heard at Glasgow Sheriff Court.

    There appeared to be some confusion about how the parties wished to proceed, to a procedural hearing, then a summary decree motion, debate or a proof before answer. We didn't get a decision other than a procedural hearing will be scheduled on 12 July, for which both parties were asked to provide notes on the issues they wished to pursue in advance.

    What did come out was that DCI Robertson (remember him) has apparently, as recently as February this year, admitted that errors were made in bringing the fraud / conspiracy case forward against Grier. For their part, Grier's team is still waiting for disclosure of documents requested many months ago.

    As I suggested in a post a week or so ago, Grier, Whitehouse and Clark are all seeking to show malice and lack of probable cause when they were arrested, detained and charged. Reading between the lines it appears that Robertson has acknowledged in the last few months that didn't have an evidential basis for the arrests. I don't know how Police Scotland will seek to defend those "errors" other than they were made in good faith and not malice. The alternative would be to seek immunity from prosecution on the basis that they were acting on the instruction of the Lord Advocate. 

    Police Scotand's QC seemed somewhat put out by something that Grier's team had submitted to the Court about the former Lord Advocate, Frank (now Lord) Mulholland, describing a misrepresentation of Police Scotland's position as "outrageous".

    I'm sure that JC will be along later with his verbatim account of proceedings.


    Accountability via Transparency.
    Yes  …. I mean no …… well maybe yes

    Sky Sports Scotland‏Verified account @ScotlandSky 

    BREAKING NEWS: Celtic are set to sign David Turnbull despite it looking like the deal had fallen through earlier this week. The midfielder had visited Norwich in the last few days but is expected to sign for the Scottish Champions tomorrow.

    Recent Comments by easyJambo

    In Whose Interests
    Bogs Dollox 14th October 2019 at 21:52

    Does anyone know how far reaching the could shoulder sanctions are?


    The judgement stated:

    In our opinion is Mr King an offender who is not likely to comply with the Code and whose conduct merits cold-shouldering by professional bodies regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority


    The judgement also relates to King individually, unless he acquires a controlling stake in the company.

    My reading of the above is that FCA regulated companies will not do business with him as an individual.  That may extend to club activities where King is the signatory or nominated person to act on the club's behalf. In those cases it may be as simple as getting someone else to act on behalf of the club.

    The net effect on King and the club will be neglibible if anything at all.


    In Whose Interests
    Aside from the TOP ruling, I note that "Sons of Struth" (Craig Houston) appears to have got hold of SDI's pleadings from the hearing last month.

    He has put his own spin on the contents on Facebook (as expected) but has added a number of images of pages extracted from the 69 page document.




    In Whose Interests
    King's admission that it cost him over £1m in legal costs should be set against what he saved in not having to buy out shareholders who accepted the Code 9 offer.

    Purchasing the 18.9m shares offered by those shareholders who accepted the offer would have cost him £3.78m plus costs of the offer, so a net saving to him personally of around £3m.

    In Whose Interests
    Timtim 11th October 2019 at 11:55




    Probably around two years to late and as a result will be ineffective.

    The TOP has failed to protect the interests of ALL shareholders by allowing the share issue in September 2018 to gerrymander a positive result for King when he finally made his offer in February 2019.

    The conclusions in paragraphs 84 and 85 are wrong, as the level of acceptances in the February 2019 offer makes it clear that the offer, had it been made in the time frame as originally demanded by the TOP, and before the targeted share offer the previous September, then it would have become unconditional. Those who wanted to sell were effectively prevented from doing so by King's failure to comply timeously with the Takeover Code.

    In Whose Interests
    dom16 7th October 2019 at 16:12


    I for one would be interested in the machinations around Hearts problems. 

    My sense is that every football admin process is different to the others and Murray’s book might shed some new perspective.


    If I can summarise in a few paragraphs, there were a range of issues at play. We had a foreign owner. That foreign owner was insolvent themselves, so their administrators were looking for the best return for their creditors and the Lithuanian legal processes were interminably slow, which had a knock on impact on the progression towards a CVA and the transfer of shares.

    Hearts administrators themselves had the more common problems of multiple groups being interested, but few having the means to deliver a bid. They weren't helped by Hibs supporters writing to the Lithuanians advising that the assets were worth more than they had been offered and a couple of previously rejected bidders going over their heads and making offers for the club directly to the Lithuanian administrators. These "offers" were never backed up by proof of funds.

    FOH itself was not without its problems in the early stages. It had been set up in 2010 (three years before administration) but, once the club's crisis deepened in 2012/13 there were, lets say, personality clashes and differences of opinion and approach between the founder directors, the fans groups representatives who had been brought on board and Supporters Direct representatives who were engaged to assist in developing a fan ownership model.  Fortunately those issues were overcome, although not without some casualties on the way. 

    A lot of the book is taken up talking about those events, communications, discussions, meetings etc.

    If you bear with me, it might be possible for us all to get a better insight on those machinations in the next week or two.