Comment on JPP: Perverting Justice? by Allyjambo.

    Darkbeforedawn 14th October 2018 at 20:01


    …The other group that were in for the club (Paul Murray and his partner) I believe would have lived within their means and done what I and other fans wanted – build a foundation out of youth prospects, coming through the leagues with a bit of humility accepting what we had done, apologising for the mess and making some friends along the 'journey'. By the time we were back in the top league we could have built up a nice bit of money in the bank and without the huge chip on our shoulder and 'everyone is out to get us' mindset I'm sure there would not be the same hatred towards us now, and certainly not the financial basket case we are! So yes, that's why I hate Green and hold him second only to Murray for the problems of recent years…



    A very good post, DBD, but this part is very much something that didn't happen, and it didn't happen because the people involved did not come up with enough money to satisfy the CVA (they were a long, long way off) and, as far as we know, did not offer anything in the event the CVA failed. They only wanted the real Rangers football club, and, as men (in your opinion) were not steeped in the same level of spivery as Charles Green, and so did not have the crass dishonesty to come up with fanciful claims of continuation.


    It was Bill Miller, the American, who first came up with the 'incubator' idea, but, from memory, his idea was to buy the 'club' before the CVA was refused. Even his idea was fanciful and was built on his own experiences of the American Football franchise system. It was, of course, the support that you suggest would have (eventually) accepted an impoverished club that chased him away.


    As things stand, there is no evidence that anyone other than Charles Green was going to buy the club's assets in the event of no CVA, and with the media and everyone surrounding Rangers accepting that no CVA meant no Rangers, it took a liar of the highest degree to push the media to change their minds without explanation.


    Charles Green came up with the £5.5m for the club's assets, no one else came close to that figure, nor did they offer their cash upfront – even for the club as a going concern. So the idea that someone else would have been able to cobble it all together, convince those they had to convince that it was the same club, then keep enough supporters onside to finance a team and the upkeep of that crumbling stadium can only be wishful speculation.


    Whether or not we accept the idea that Charles Green 'saved' Rangers, he was the only man who came up with enough money, at the most critical moment, to buy the assets and to continue with a club playing out of Ibrox. Had he not done that in the manner it was done, then a process of buying the assets (advertised as the assets of RFC(IL) would have taken place and, if dealt with properly, it could have taken months, or even years, to complete, and there would now be no club playing out of Ibrox claiming to be the continuation of your beloved club.


    By the way, the name Brian Kennedy has hung around as a potential buyer almost from the off, and continues to be named from time to time as an incoming Blue Knight, but has never put hard cash on the table, and even if he had, there is no evidence to suggest he would have done a great job, just ask the Stockport County fans, who see him only as an asset stripping publicity seeker!


    In short, Charles Green was the only man in a position to continue (almost seamlessly) with a football team at Ibrox, and for anyone who believes that Rangers still play there, it must surely be considered that he did 'save' the club.

    Allyjambo Also Commented

    JPP: Perverting Justice?

    1. View Comment
    2. Homunculus 14th October 2018 at 21:48  




      14th October 2018 at 19:09  

      Allyjambo 14th October 2018 at 17:10  

      I think what UTH is alluding to is, if they'd managed a CVA or found a buyer, they would have, at a later date, had to face the EBT tax bill which didn't 'crystalize' until after the Supreme Court ruling.


      That is what I meant, or if they had managed to get to the CL group stages they might have struggled on. However the tax bill would have hit at some point. 


      Surely at a CVA the debt owed to a creditor is the debt at that time.

      They put a claim in and the administrator accepts or rejects it. If the CVA is agreed and the appropriate payments are made by the administrator then that is a clean slate. That is the whole point of trying to save the company and getting it back operating again. That was certainly the intent of the Enterprise Act as I understand it. To save companies and jobs.

      The idea that someone could come back in and claim a huge debt, relating to the pre CVA period seems counter intuitive to the intent of Parliament.

      I am more than happy to be told I am wrong on this, it is really not my area. Every day is a school day for those willing to learn.

    3. ______________________
    4. I do not think the intent of parliament was to provide businesses with a way of shedding debt currently going through the courts by going into administration before a final ruling is made (on the contingent debt). At the same time I think it would be equally wrong for a contingent creditor to be able to vote and block a CVA when it might later be found to be owed nothing. I suspect that in a case where a CVA is achievable, but a contingent liability exists, that the purchaser of the company would have to accept the contingent liability as part of the deal. It would then be up to the purchaser to decide whether or not he considers the risk worth it. Like you, Homunculus, I have no knowledge on the matter, but, if I am wrong, then however it might work, someone would surely be unfairly disadvantaged.


    JPP: Perverting Justice?
    Homunculus 14th October 2018 at 16:50  


    I think what UTH is alluding to is, if they'd managed a CVA or found a buyer, they would have, at a later date, had to face the EBT tax bill which didn't 'crystalize' until after the Supreme Court ruling.

    JPP: Perverting Justice?
    RyanGosling 14th October 2018 at 12:29 2 0 Rate This Allyjambo / Upthehoops, I think you’re both mistaken. There may still be some Rangers fans who see Mr Murray in a positive light, but I don’t know a single Rangers fan who thinks of him positively and everyone I know sees quite clearly how he is the author of Rangers downfall.



    Ah, but do they hate him for it? For they surely hate everyone else they see as culpable in their club's demise.


    Having had no 'Rangers' supporting acquaintances for quite some time now, I have no way of knowing how one would talk now of Murray (the last one I knew, at the time of LNS agreed that the decision not to strip titles was wrong but would not hear a word said against Murray 'because he was doing what was best for Rangers at the time') but from what I can gather from social media any criticism of him would always have a 'but' in it. A 'but' recalling all the trophies won, mitigating his guilt (it would never be 'guilt'), leaving all those others to take the hatred that really belongs to Murray!

    Recent Comments by Allyjambo

    Dear Mr Bankier
    macfurgly 8th December 2018 at 18:41 15 0 Rate This easyJambo 8th December 2018 at 18:00 Allyjambo 8th December 2018 at 18:18 ————————- What strikes me about this is that it has taken so long for this apparent loophole in the Takeover Code to be exploited. We have been following the RIFC saga, but as far as I can make out, the Takeover Code has been regulating the whole of UK business since 1968 and with Statutory Powers since 2006. Has no-one tried this dodge before? King seems to have successfully undermined the fundamental principle of the Code, to protect the interests of small shareholders, simply by ignoring it completely until it suited him to comply. Every day is a school day right enough. I wonder how many other regulations governing the UK economy are being undermined as easily. I'm no lawyer, but if what King has done is OK by the TOP, then I can't see where the small shareholders could get a foothold in law to challenge it.



    Still no more than my opinion, and an uneducated one at that, but I believe the directors of all companies have a duty to preserve the rights of all shareholders and not to take actions that might, in any way, remove the rights, or diminish the share value, of all shareholders.


    The RIFC plc directors were all fully aware of King's protracted losing battle with the TOP and the law of the land, yet they proceeded with a policy that might well protect the company chairman from his duty under the law while knowingly taking action that would very likely end in them depriving shareholders of their rights under the law – rights that were currently being protected in the courts.


    I'd be very surprised if those small shareholders don't have some grounds to sue RIFC, or maybe the individual directors, but would imagine that that would depend on the outcome of the offer and whether or not there is a take-up that would have taken King over the 50% prior to the rights issue.


    Wouldn't it be so Kingesq if this did result in King passing the cost of his misdeed to the club or his fellow directors? And I wouldn't be surprised if he knew/thought it might be the case from the very beginning.



    Dear Mr Bankier
    macfurgly 8th December 2018 at 14:50


    I am of the opinion that the recent RIFC share issue shows exactly why the TOP was set up – to prevent the railroading of smaller shareholders by unscrupulous directors. We can see how King has initially taken control then used his influence over the less astute (and in this case, emotionally attached) shareholders to take control of the business and sideline shareholders who do not want the company to be run by King.


    Like most, I am baffled by the leniency being shown to King, for he has used his delaying tactics to secure a situation that might well enable him to achieve the end he has sought, at the expense of those who would have taken up the offer. These people will have lost out on (in some cases) a substantial amount of money while seeing their already diminished in value shareholdings become virtually worthless.  It seems incredible that the courts would allow someone to abuse the system in this way.


    I do, though, have a wee thought (hope, actually) that this might well backfire on RIFC/TRFC and that, having been denied what King was legally ordered to offer them, the shareholders sue the company (RIFC) for having acted in a way that denied them the opportunity to recoup part of their investment that is now diminished further. I suspect, though, that, should this be possible, they would have to be able to show (by way of the level of uptake of King's offer) that the share issue has directly prevented King reaching the required 50% before they can proceed.

    Dear Mr Bankier
    Ex Ludo 6th December 2018 at 17:35


    I wonder if the SFA suits are aware! This must have come as quite a shock for themdevil

    Dear Mr Bankier
    I remember from a good number of years ago that BBC Scotland sent a news team to Lithuania to investigate Romanov, on what was then no more than rumours/a hunch. They ended up showing a half-hour program of not very much. Now, on their very doorstep, with clear allegations (from a man in a position to know) in court that criminal money was used by one of our football clubs (regardless of it's age) not one member of our media is showing the least bit of interest.


    It's not even worth asking why that might be.



    Dear Mr Bankier
    HirsutePursuit 30th November 2018 at 01:30


    That's an interesting situation, HP, and one I'd like to see played out. I had wondered, though, if, in view of the success of King's delaying tactics, and should he be found in contempt, will the sentence handed down reflect this and be the severest penalty available as a result? (Rhetorical question 🙄)


    There is still, of course, the question of the 'cold shoulder' and how the financial world will view it in light of they way King has played fast and loose with the law. Will it result in a much wider effect than the mere 'cold shoulder', and could it have implications for the club and, for aiding and abetting King in his manoeuvres, the rest of the concert party.