The Elephant in the Room

1315
16873

A Guest blog by @heavidor:       

Given The Takeover Panel’s success in procuring a Court of Session order to compel Dave King to make an offer for all Rangers International Football Club Plc shares not owned by the Concert Party it would be impossible for King to remain a director unless he complies with that Order.

The co-option of Barry Scott to the board and the elevation of Alistair Johnston as a person with significant control could be construed as repositioning, however it will be whether King makes an offer of 20 pence per share to all the shareholders not included in the Concert Party or not that will determine what happens next and we shall know later this month.

(King resigning) is the correct thing to do and should have already occurred. Instead, Rangers financial reputation has been dragged through the mud by association.

Irrespective of whether King complies with the Court Order or not this story is far from over, and it will continue to hamper Rangers’ prospects until it is conclusively resolved. A King resignation as a director of RIFC would reduce the prospect of contaminating the club, its directors and advisors from the full effect of cold shouldering should he decline to make an offer.

That would mean that King, as distinct from RIFC, had financial pariah status and not the club. That is the correct thing to do and should have already occurred but, instead, Rangers’ financial reputation has been dragged through the mud by association with King.

What should not be underestimated is the reality of cold-shouldering, not for just the offending party, but for those involved in business with the offending party. The consequences are dire for the individual or organisation who falls foul of the rules, making it impossible to carry out normal business activities within the sphere of influence of The Panel, and the same consequences face those who shelter the cold shouldered.

It should be appreciated that there are members of the RIFC that are members of regulated financial professions who would be further prejudiced through association with a cold shouldered non-resident King.

Perhaps unfortunately for a large slug of the mainstream media and football authorities, financial pariah status pursuant to cold shouldering in the UK coming on top of criminal convictions in SA would be impossible to spin in any positive way or to maintain continued fit and proper status. I mean, we could have the SFA cold shouldered, couldn’t we? All said though, the cognitively dissonant will carry on regardless.

If King does the right thing by resigning from the board, it is still important to appreciate that the ‘4 Bear’ Concert Party as determined by The Panel will continue to exist irrespective of how Kings deals with the instruction to make an offer for the shares. This is the elephant in the room that remains.

The Concert Party via their shares and loans will retain the same level of control they currently have, and therefore remain compelled to abide by The Panel’s rules.

King’s resignation would not remove that impediment.

It doesn’t end there. By challenging the authority and insulting the intelligence of The Panel and the Court, King has ensured all large share transactions in RIFC will be scrutinised and questioned and could additionally determine, for example, that the Concert Party is increased to include Club 1872 and Barry Scott on the basis they are working in concert with King and/or other concert party members.

There are some who think that The Panel has been slow to respond and impose sanctions and that they are all bark and no bite. It would be wrong to think so. The reality is that King has moved the whole dispute into uncharted territory. There has been no precedent for such continued brazen and naïve flouting of Panel rules. Accordingly, The Panel has chosen to move at its own pace, dotting the ‘i’s and crossing the ‘t’s and I suggest they’re being methodical rather than indecisive in dealing with the estimable Mr King.

The true value of RIFC shares was a key point in the recent court case with all kinds of claims being made. Some think that the lack of significant arm’s-length trades makes it impossible to arrive at a correct price, and others say that the price paid to Mike Ashley in recent trades is the benchmark. In my opinion, neither is correct. Current and prospective shareholders have the financial figures in the accounts to work with, and can determine the real worth from there. On that basis it is clear to me the shares are not worth anything like the last alleged trading price on Jenkins. Rather it seems that the shares only have nominal value given the business has never declared a profit, continues to lose money and is reliant upon ongoing shareholder loans to stay in business.

Any subsequent share issue – even with King gone – could muddy the waters further; The Concert Party members may expose themselves to another Panel instruction to make another offer should any of its members acquire more shares without coming to an arrangement with The Panel beforehand.

To illustrate such an arrangement, Dermot Desmond got Panel permission to increase his shareholding above 29.9% the last time Celtic had a share issue. This is preferable to trying to hoodwink the financial authorities with tall tales.

It should be clear to all followers of RIFC’s financial travails that the status quo is unsustainable. So, the question is ‘what’s next’? The chairman’s statement that accompanied the annual accounts once more talked about loan to equity conversion without reference to the impact of the existence of a Concert Party amongst the RIFC Board of directors and providers of loans. This is remarkable any such conversion cannot take place without the permission of The Panel and/or without dragging the other directors and lenders in the quagmire with another possible offer for the shares not owned by the Concert Party.

.. the shares only have nominal value given the business has never declared a profit, continues to lose money and is reliant upon ongoing shareholder loans to stay in business

So, what should happen and what is required for RIFC to rid itself of this terrible yoke? The answers are pretty obvious; King should make an offer of 20 pence per share to all those shareholders not included in the Concert Party. He has said the shares are worth more than that and that no one would accept. If he’s correct he has nothing to worry about and he would create a clear path forward for Rangers. He would also resolve the dispute with The Panel, creating the conditions for a debt to equity conversion.

So, why might that not happen? Because if the shares are worth 27 pence as the directors have suggested that means the loan to equity conversion would have to be at the same price and, of course, if the shares not worth anything like that there would be a rush to accept 27 pence and the ball would be on the slates, so to speak.

It appears to me the board is stuck between a rock and a hard place, that King will resign, and that there will be no offer.

If this happens the position would be precarious. The current board doesn’t have the credibility, money or experience to take Rangers forward. Being a true blue should not be the defining characteristic of what’s required to make Rangers competitive but it appears to be the preferred qualification of most of their customers.

I believe Rangers need a need owner with a controlling shareholding and deep pockets to sort out this mess, and I have reason to believe this view is shared by some of those with influence.

That is not to say that a solution is imminent, but the reality check is at least a start.

1315 COMMENTS


  1. Clarabo, I don’t mean to doubt you or your sources but under the SPFL rules a first administration event, and more importantly for the NC/SC argument the first in 5 years results in a 15 point penalty. There is nothing in the current set of rules that allow a 25 point reduction. We would have had to go into admin before February 2017 for that to be the case. And (correct me if I’m wrong) post 2012 new rules were written in that allowed even a liquidated club to regain the membership of the previous club. 

    Dont get me wrong, i believe admin2 is a matter of weeks away, but it will be a 15 point deduction even under the big bad L word

    View Comment

  2. nawliteJanuary 9, 2018 at 15:04

    The subsidiaries of a holding company are no more freed from their debt to that company, than you or I would be freed from having to repay a loan to a bank that goes into administration. If what you describe was possible, then capitalism would have died out many years ago, for every company, whether they were failing, or not, would have set up a holding company to carry out the same wheeze15 

    Another thing to consider, regardless of what the directors of a holding company might want the outcome to be, an honest firm of administrators, called in to carry out the administration of the holding company, have a duty to save the holding company by calling on all the assets of that company, including those of it’s subsidiaries. 

    Now, it might be possible to carry out an administration of RIFC plc, without pushing TRFC Ltd into administration, itself, but the end result would be that TRFC still owe RIFC, if it survives administration, every penny they did before, for in your scenario, there would be no CVA involving TRFC and so its debt, to all its creditors, will not have been reduced.

    From memory, the SFA/SPFL have rules that state that should a holding company fall into administration, but for whatever reason (ie the holding company ran a pre-pack admin) the ‘club’ didn’t fall into admin, then the club still faces the appropriate points deduction.

    All that said, though, I cannot see what benefit your scenario would bring to the RIFC/TRFC set up, as the majority of RIFC’s debt is owed in directors’ loans, and they could achieve this outcome, by debt forgiveness, without the additional expense of administration. If they are not prepared to forgive their debt, then there is no way they are going to go through administration without involving the subsidiary, TRFC Ltd.

    View Comment

  3. This time last year, the directors of 802Works Ltd had to accept Sheriff Miller’s very willing readiness to believe  that TRFC Ltd  were good at any time to meet their debts, when he saw no justification for ring-fencing the £300,000 that 802 Works Ltd were fearful of being cheated out of.
    Unless they have since been paid (perhaps they have?) they are behaving very recklessly in not bringing a repeat action in light of the totally worse position TRFC Ltd are now in, in consequence of King’s position vis-à-vis the ‘offer’ requirement and Court of Session order.
    And the clumsy ‘help ‘ being offered by the DR is enormously unhelpful: unfounded assertions by a ‘red top’ that a business is NOT in danger of failing actually fuel  speculation that it may very well be failing, else why the need to deny the fact?
    If I were in control at 800 Works Ltd, I’d be seeking to persuade a Court that I should have what I am owed protected.
    And if I was even a face-painter owed £40, I’d be shouting for it, loud and clear.

    View Comment

  4. Thanks Allyjambo, like I said I’m not knowledgeable. Would any of what you say change if admin were to lead to liquidation for RIFC? I.e. in an admin of RIFC would the (hopefully honest!) administrators be able to force TRFC to repay the loans to RIFC? How could TRFC do that if it doesn’t have assets (as I understand it)? 
    If they can’t force repayment I surmise that may force RIFC into liquidation. At that point, there is no RIFC for TRFC to owe money to so TRFC as a club would be in a better place.
    Is it simply impossible for any administration of RIFC to work that way? I appreciate what you say re the world falling apart if business/administration was allowed to work this way, but I simply don’t know if there is anything that expressly prevents it. Although Clarabow is not real, I worry that my potential scenario leaves a door open for, say, DM to buy a debt free TRFC relatively cheaply with King and co getting their money back. This was, of course, the nightmare conspiracy theory posited right back at the outset!!
    Re points deduction, I know the Southampton argument puts the kybosh on them avoiding that (albeit under the English FA).
    Thanks again.

    View Comment

  5. You would think it must be Statement O’Clock by now ?

    In the absence of any denial, you would also think that any suppliers who are overdue significant payments will be getting rather twitchy.

    And any supplier-imposed ‘cash on delivery only’ to TRFC would simply exacerbate a cash flow crisis.  

    …unless you can’t deny the truth in an official, public statement?

    Or the SMSM is instructed to copy/paste a high Level of positive TRFC BS stories – to counter the speculation?

    View Comment

  6. Darkbeforedawn
    im afraid I only know what I learn from here  re the ins and outs of the rule book so I guess my ‘source’ is mistaken. Think I’ll stick to believing what I learn from this site. Mind you, it was from ‘the horses mouth’ 😊

    View Comment

  7. Just a wee thought.

    If RIFC/TRFC do enter administration soon, is the SFA/SPFL just going to accept a situation where a member club, clearly aware they were heading for an insolvency event, signed new players, increasing a wage bill they couldn’t afford, and also tried to negotiate transfers they could not possibly afford? Will the rest of the Premiership, and others who may face them in cup competitions, just shrug their shoulders and say, ‘ah well, it’s ‘Rangers’, it’s just the way things go in Scottish football’?

    Will the SFA/SPFL insist that TRFC show this administration will stabilize the club’s finances, and that they are committed to a business model that doesn’t involve paying for players they do not have the resources to support, without outside loans, and without relying on European football?

    Most importantly, will the governors allow them to retain the players they have just signed, while using administration to dump those they do not want, giving them a clear advantage in the relegation battle they would otherwise face after a points deduction, and, possibly, a shot at qualifying for Europe*?

    If they have, indeed, gone out and signed players while knowing that they were heading into administration, or even just knew it was a possibility, then their actions were/are absolutely disgusting and another spit in the eye of sporting integrity!

    * Administration should put paid to Europe, of course, but who knows what they might get up to, but a top six finish would still be unfair on the rest if achieved by using these recent signings. Would administration also mean they fall foul of European FFP regulations, having qualified for Europe while on the road to insolvency?

    View Comment

  8. nawliteJanuary 9, 2018 at 16:27 
    Thanks Allyjambo, like I said I’m not knowledgeable. Would any of what you say change if admin were to lead to liquidation for RIFC? I.e. in an admin of RIFC would the (hopefully honest!) administrators be able to force TRFC to repay the loans to RIFC? How could TRFC do that if it doesn’t have assets (as I understand it)? If they can’t force repayment I surmise that may force RIFC into liquidation. At that point, there is no RIFC for TRFC to owe money to so TRFC as a club would be in a better place.Is it simply impossible for any administration of RIFC to work that way? I appreciate what you say re the world falling apart if business/administration was allowed to work this way, but I simply don’t know if there is anything that expressly prevents it. Although Clarabow is not real, I worry that my potential scenario leaves a door open for, say, DM to buy a debt free TRFC relatively cheaply with King and co getting their money back. This was, of course, the nightmare conspiracy theory posited right back at the outset!!Re points deduction, I know the Southampton argument puts the kybosh on them avoiding that (albeit under the English FA).Thanks again.
    _____________________

    In the event that RIFC fall into liquidation, the liquidators would call in the debt TRFC owe to its holding company – in exactly the same way they would with every debtor of the company. TRFC would then only survive if a buyer of the club could be found prepared to pay a price the liquidators consider fair.

    There was a similar scenario with Hearts when Ann Budge bought the club from the administrators, thus saving everything Rangers didn’t. I can’t remember, though, if Hearts were bought prior to the holding company, UBIG, going into liquidation (EJ might be able to help) so it’s unclear whether or not it would be too late for TRFC if a buyer isn’t found before, and if, RIFC fall into liquidation.

    TRFC would then, depending on how the purchase was designed, be debt free, but the purchaser, one assumes, would have had to fork out a substantial sum and, if not incredibly rich, and the bears’ demands remain the same, the new new club might well end up in the same old same old!

    View Comment

  9. For those who believe in the imminent admin rumours there is always the option to bet on Aberdeen at evens to win the league without Celtic. Even if the The Rangers continue to the seasons end, Aberdeen may very well prevail anyway.

    On the subject of admin, (pre-pack or otherwise). My understanding of the situation is the Clumpany TRFC own the major assets, (although maybe somewhat encumbered) Ibrox and Auchenhowie. However the Clumpany is in deep debt to the parent company RIFC, who are in turn deeply indebted to their “generous” directors.

    My questions centre around RIFC calling in their loans to TRFC, who obviously don’t have the proverbial pot 2p in. As part settlement of the debts owed to the Directors, TRFC could transfer ownership of the main assets to RIFC, prior to calling in an Administrator to cut costs and shaft the other creditors. So long as the remaining Director debt is 75%+ of the overall debt, then a CVA for TRFC should be achievable. The Clumpany then gets the 15 point penalty, but crucially gets the unwanted high earners off the payroll.

    TRFC then limp on until the end of the season at which point the troops rally to rebuild the new team. Not sure how they rid themselves of their pariah chairman, other than offering him a pay-off, possibly part-ownership of Ibrox, from which he could receive a healthy rent for the remainder of his ownership.

    All conjecture of course, but I have always felt the reason that TRFC was not “floated” back in 2012, was to create a set up for this or a similar eventuality.

    Time will tell…

    View Comment

  10. Thanks again, Allyjambo. Worryingly it seems to me from your reply that there is potential for the nightmare scenario – i.e. David Murray doing for Rangers what Ann Budge did for Hearts? And the current owners/directors of RIFC would be happy as long as he repaid them (at least) their directors loans?
    So, say, £20m for DM to own a debt-free ‘Rangers’? That’s better than when he had to get rid 6 years ago owing a bit more than that (!) and the possibility of the Big Tax Case crushing him.
    Please tell me that can’t happen!

    View Comment

  11. ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 9, 2018 at 16:46
    6
    3 Rate This
    Just a wee thought.
    If RIFC/TRFC do enter administration soon, is the SFA/SPFL just going to accept a situation where a member club, clearly aware they were heading for an insolvency event, signed new players, increasing a wage bill they couldn’t afford, and also tried to negotiate transfers they could not possibly afford? Will the rest of the Premiership, and others who may face them in cup competitions, just shrug their shoulders and say, ‘ah well, it’s ‘Rangers’, it’s just the way things go in Scottish football’?

    Yes.

    View Comment

  12. nawliteJanuary 9, 2018 at 17:17

    It is, I’m afraid, a possibility, but it would depend on what benefits he could see in it for himself, and he may very well feel, that after all that negative publicity involving tax cheating and court cases, he’d do best to keep as low a profile as possible, and as far away from football as possible too. But who knows?

    It would also depend on how any administration pans out, as the club could be left with a threadbare squad, and should the reports of the state of Ibrox be anywhere near accurate, the new owner(s) will need to have very deep pockets, and we know Murray prefers to spend other peoples’ money, which probably isn’t available to him now.

    Still, it’s one thing having a plan for administration, it can be another seeing it through, and when it might end up making an enemy of a man like Dave King, things could very easily get messy. Who wants to pick up a mess, especially a high profile one?

    View Comment

  13. justbecauseyoureparanoidJanuary 9, 2018 at 17:33 
    ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 9, 2018 at 16:4663 Rate ThisJust a wee thought.If RIFC/TRFC do enter administration soon, is the SFA/SPFL just going to accept a situation where a member club, clearly aware they were heading for an insolvency event, signed new players, increasing a wage bill they couldn’t afford, and also tried to negotiate transfers they could not possibly afford? Will the rest of the Premiership, and others who may face them in cup competitions, just shrug their shoulders and say, ‘ah well, it’s ‘Rangers’, it’s just the way things go in Scottish football’?Yes.
    ________________________

    I wish that was just because you’re paranoid14

    View Comment

  14. Allyjambo January 9, 2018 at 17:06
    There was a similar scenario with Hearts when Ann Budge bought the club from the administrators, thus saving everything Rangers didn’t. I can’t remember, though, if Hearts were bought prior to the holding company, UBIG, going into liquidation (EJ might be able to help) so it’s unclear whether or not it would be too late for TRFC if a buyer isn’t found before, and if, RIFC fall into liquidation.
    =============================
    Hearts situation was quite unusual.

    Ukio Bankas, Hearts’ largest creditor (secured), and holding a 29.9% stake in the club went into “bankruptcy proceedings” on 2nd May 2013.
    Hearts followed suit, entering administration on 19 June 2013.
    UBIG, Hearts largest shareholder with 46.4% and also the second largest creditor, also had its assets frozen in May 2013. It formally entered insolvency processes on 26 July 2013, but wasn’t actually declared insolvent until 11 November 2013.

    Bryan Jackson (administrator at Hearts) was therefore required to negotiate with the respective administrators of Ukio and UBIG. 

    Hearts creditors actually agreed a CVA on 29 November 2013, but it was conditional on the shareholdings of Ukio and UBIG being acquired.

    The process of obtaining the shares was prolonged, mainly as a result of the Lithuanian administrators having to hold creditors meetings (which were regularly postponed) to authorise the sale.  Approval for the sale of the shares was only achieved on 16 April 2014, with the deal going through on 9 May 2014.  Hearts formally exited administration on 11 Jun 2014, 51 weeks after going into administration.

    View Comment

  15. John Clark you been upsetting folk again? Fit ye like eh.04

    John Clark and @TheSFMonitor at it again By ian1964, 5 hours ago in Rangers Chat
    ian1964Club Legend 28 33,576 posts
    Posted 5 hours agoJas Boyd · @Jas72Boyd9th Jan 2018 from TwitLonger
    Santa Clause and his dirty beard still writing letters to companies trying to sell his theory that Rangers are a new club. Thought i would write a reply which may look long and a waste of time but most of it was on a previous post.
    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sqd2hg

    View Comment

  16. Rangers supporters received an email today inviting them to download a revamped “RFC Connect” App which allows supporters to download and share information about the club, video clips etc.

    There’s nothing unusual in that, however the developer of the App is  a company called “Vicast Limited”

    That name may ring a little bell with some people, being a company set up in October 2012 by Martin Bain, Paul Murray, John McClelland and couple of others with links to the Oldco.

    Indeed, the above named individuals are still shareholders in the company (as at the date of the last confirmation statement on 28 October 2017).  Furthermore, Paul Murray is still a director of the company and Martin Bain is a “Person with Significant Control”.

    I wonder what Rangers supporters will make of their current and former directors looking to make money from their connections with the club. 

    It’s not a new thing of course, despite a previous statement to the effect that no directors would be awarded contracts by the club. We know that Donald Park did get the bus contract back once he took up a place on the Board.

    View Comment

  17. It turns out that the Pena transfer deal is just a year long loan.

    RFC statement
    RANGERS can today confirm the departure of Carlos Peña to Mexican outfit Cruz Azul on an year-long loan deal.
    The 27 year-old departs until next January having netted five goals in 14 games for the Light Blues.
    Rangers would like to thank Carlos for his services to date and wish him the best at his new club.

    It will obviously help get the wage bill down, but it’s unlikely to result in a boost to the immediate cash flow, which might have occurred had he been sold.

    View Comment

  18. With the state of play as we presume it at the moment .With TGASL looking to be looking like a total liability now .I would assume that he would only be interested in going with his pockets as full as he could get them ,If this were to be the case .Any suggestions on how he could maximise his take .I am convinced he would not do walking away for the good of secvo 2012 ,that’s for sure

    View Comment

  19. BIGBOAB1916JANUARY 9, 2018 at 18:10
    WHAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA
    just read some of that link you provided .
    LNS,SFA ECA and the rest .
    must be true then 
    Cmon sevco 1872 
    JC will be bricking it when he sees the postman 

    View Comment

  20. EASYJAMBOJANUARY 9, 2018 at 18:25
    4
    0 Rate This
    It turns out that the Pena transfer deal is just a year long loan.
    RFC statementRANGERS can today confirm the departure of Carlos Peña to Mexican outfit Cruz Azul on an year-long loan deal.The 27 year-old departs until next January having netted five goals in 14 games for the Light Blues.Rangers would like to thank Carlos for his services to date and wish him the best at his new club.
    It will obviously help get the wage bill down, but it’s unlikely to result in a boost to the immediate cash flow, which might have occurred had he been sold.
    ===========================================================
    Think Pena may be treating it as anything but a loan deal ,if his antics with the shorts are anything to go by .
    On that note what do you make of it ,I must admit sevco 2012 are usually good for first’s but I cant recall any player anywhere wiping his beak on his clubs kit when going out on loan .
    It was obviously stage managed and he meant it as a slur on sevco but surely there must be more to this gesture than just being annoyed at being sent out on loan .
    Strange to say the least .

    View Comment

  21. NAWLITEJANUARY 9, 2018 at 17:17
    5
    0 Rate This
    Thanks again, Allyjambo. Worryingly it seems to me from your reply that there is potential for the nightmare scenario – i.e. David Murray doing for Rangers what Ann Budge did for Hearts? And the current owners/directors of RIFC would be happy as long as he repaid them (at least) their directors loans?So, say, £20m for DM to own a debt-free ‘Rangers’? That’s better than when he had to get rid 6 years ago owing a bit more than that (!) and the possibility of the Big Tax Case crushing him.Please tell me that can’t happen!
    ————–
    After the SC case that found rangers guilty and the hidden side letters. i believe murray would not be allowed anywhere near a scottish club again.But then again maybe he “Can’t Recall” what he did and neither can the SFA

    View Comment

  22. ClusterOne, do you honestly think that if Murray wanted to buy TRFC if RIFC were liquidated that the SFA, SPFL, MSM and the Ibrox fans would dream of stopping him? More likely to dream of how it might be (again!!).

    View Comment

  23. JOHN CLARKJANUARY 9, 2018 at 16:15
    17
    1 Rate This
    This time last year, the directors of 802Works Ltd had to accept Sheriff Miller’s very willing readiness to believe  that TRFC Ltd  were good at any time to meet their debts, when he saw no justification for ring-fencing the £300,000 that 802 Works Ltd were fearful of being cheated out of.Unless they have since been paid (perhaps they have?)
    ——————-
    I think it is waiting on a court date,probably Glasgow sheriff court.i believe someone posted.
    i could be wrong and it has been settled. if i remember right i think phil said something about it last year that it was still ongoing

    View Comment

  24. fan of footballJanuary 9, 2018 at 18:41
    BIGBOAB1916JANUARY 9, 2018 at 18:10 WHAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAA just read some of that link you provided . LNS,SFA ECA and the rest . must be true then  Cmon sevco 1872  JC will be bricking it when he sees the postman 

    Defo off their heads they will accept anything and they are going to be fleeced again.

    View Comment

  25. Read a comment somewhere else that mentioned if Administration happened within the next 12 days then the Cold Shoulder melts away – does anyone know if that is the case?  If so, would King sink the ship to save himself?

    The one thing we know about Rangers is that you never know what is going to happen next…

    View Comment

  26. BIGBOAB1916JANUARY 9, 2018 at 19:31
    Sevco are the same club because 
    The SFA say they transferred the same membership to them (temporary membership anyone )
    The ECA said they were .    (the ECA asked the SFA ) …………..enough said 
    LNS said they were a floaty ethereal thingamy (SFA up to their necks in that farce)…. enough said  
    HMRC said liquidation did not mean the club could not continue ,as I see that one ,I assume they mean the club could be BOUGHT out of liquidation and it still can be if your willing to pay over £160m of the old clubs debts .
    Did TGASL not say he may do that very thing at some point in his moonbeams to the gullibles .

    View Comment

  27. Rangers in crisis: SFA dossier reveals how David Murray was aware of Craig Whyte’s recordDAVID Murray sacrificed Rangers to save his business empire after bankers held a £700million gun to his head, it was revealed yesterday.
    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-in-crisis-sfa-dossier-reveals-877727
    —————
    DAVID Murray sacrificed Rangers to save his business empire after bankers held a £700million gun to his head, it was revealed yesterday.
    An SFA panel’s damning report also lays bare how close Rangers came to being kicked out of the association because of Craig Whyte’s disastrous stewardship of the club.
    And despite Murray’s later claims of being duped by Whyte, the panel concluded he was well aware of the shady businessman’s failings.
    The former Ibrox chief sold the club to Whyte knowing he was involved with a string of insolvent companies and there was no evidence of him having the means to run the club.
    The appalling management of Rangers is exposed in the SFA’s Judicial Panel Disciplinary report, released yesterday.
    ——-
    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-in-crisis-david-murray-blasts-877775
    RAGING David Murray last night tore into the SFA over their blistering report that laid bare his apparent mismanagement of Rangers.
    The dossier accused the former Ibrox owner of selling the club to Craig Whyte despite being aware of his dodgy business career.
    The 100-page report from the association’s judicial panel revealed Murray sold the club under pressure from his bankers at Lloyds TSB. It claimed he ignored other directors’ warnings about Whyte.
    But Murray is seething that nobody from the SFA spoke to him before the report’s publication.
    ————–
    Had a look for that 100 page report and can’t find it…any help?

    View Comment

  28. easyJamboJanuary 9, 2018 at 17:50 
    Allyjambo January 9, 2018 at 17:06There was a similar scenario with Hearts when Ann Budge bought the club from the administrators, thus saving everything Rangers didn’t. I can’t remember, though, if Hearts were bought prior to the holding company, UBIG, going into liquidation (EJ might be able to help) so it’s unclear whether or not it would be too late for TRFC if a buyer isn’t found before, and if, RIFC fall into liquidation.=============================Hearts situation was quite unusual.Ukio Bankas, Hearts’ largest creditor (secured), and holding a 29.9% stake in the club went into “bankruptcy proceedings” on 2nd May 2013.Hearts followed suit, entering administration on 19 June 2013.UBIG, Hearts largest shareholder with 46.4% and also the second largest creditor, also had its assets frozen in May 2013. It formally entered insolvency processes on 26 July 2013, but wasn’t actually declared insolvent until 11 November 2013.Bryan Jackson (administrator at Hearts) was therefore required to negotiate with the respective administrators of Ukio and UBIG. Hearts creditors actually agreed a CVA on 29 November 2013, but it was conditional on the shareholdings of Ukio and UBIG being acquired.The process of obtaining the shares was prolonged, mainly as a result of the Lithuanian administrators having to hold creditors meetings (which were regularly postponed) to authorise the sale. Approval for the sale of the shares was only achieved on 16 April 2014, with the deal going through on 9 May 2014. Hearts formally exited administration on 11 Jun 2014, 51 weeks after going into administration.
    ______________________________

    I think you’ll agree, though, that relegation never smelt sweeter! Just having a club to be relegated at that point was a huge relief.

    Back on the topic of the post, though; do you know if RIFC plc fell into liquidation before the club was purchased, would it be too late for anyone to then buy TRFC Ltd as a going concern? 

    View Comment

  29. Cluster One January 9, 2018 at 20:07
    Had a look for that 100 page report and can’t find it…any help?
    ==========================
    My copy was only 63 pages long

    View Comment

  30. Allyjambo January 9, 2018 at 20:14

    Back on the topic of the post, though; do you know if RIFC plc fell into liquidation before the club was purchased, would it be too late for anyone to then buy TRFC Ltd as a going concern?
    =============================
    If RIFC was put into voluntary liquidation, then TRFC would be an asset of the liquidated company and therefore could be sold.

    I think the problem would arise if the intention was for TRFC to be sold free of debt.  It would be up to the liquidators to determine what the “asset” was worth to the creditors of RIFC.  After all, TRFC would be RIFC’s biggest debtor.

    If an attempt was made to do some sort of a pre-pack of TRFC, then liquidate RIFC then I could see the issue of alienation of creditors raising its head.  You also have to remember that something akin to pre-pack was what effectively happened with the sale of assets to Sevco 5088/Scotland by Duff & Phelps.  That could leave the SFA/SPFL having to make up the rules as they go along once again.

    Does anyone know if a “Sevco 5089” has been created in the last few days? 07

    View Comment

  31. ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 9, 2018 at 20:14
    Back on the topic of the post, though; do you know if RIFC plc fell into liquidation before the club was purchased, would it be too late for anyone to then buy TRFC Ltd as a going concern? 
    ————
    Bring trfc out of administration before BDO finish the liquidation of rfc kind of thing

    View Comment

  32. Thanks for the document Easyjambo, my first thought was why did they allow Rangers a year to pay their fines but only gave Craig White a month?

    View Comment

  33. If David Murray does plan to return to Ibrox I predict a run of events along these lines.

    1. Murray would speak to selected media people about his ‘regrets’ at how it all ended, but would blame it on bad advice and would stop short of an apology.  This view would then be given a very sympathetic platform on air and in print. The BBC would be particularly supportive, with Richard Wilson being assigned to present the thinking man’s analysis, while Chick Young would be tasked with whipping up the troops.  Murray would make it clear Rangers and the BBC would be partners, and the ‘ban’ would be lifted. 

    2. He would have a couple of big names alongside him, Souness almost certainly would be one of them. 

    3. There would be access to some cash, although no bank would extend their hand like the then Bank of Scotland did previously. 

    4. A huge play would be made of the success under him the first time, and we would be strongly reminded that LNS declared no sporting advantage was gained.

    5. Any lingering media doubters would eventually be silenced either by fear, or by their Editors who would be quite happy to enjoy the love-in. 

    6. The SFA would welcome Murray back with open arms.

    View Comment

  34. easyJamboJanuary 9, 2018 at 20:46

    As I see it, then, should RIFC enter administration, and then liquidation, the liquidators could allow TRFC to continue trading until a buyer is found, as long as it is able to fund itself, either by loans, gifts and/or normal trading. Should it run out of cash before a buyer could be found, though, it would then enter liquidation, itself, while all the while, owing the holding company the debt it owed when RIFC entered liquidation.

    I’d expect that most of the liquid assets of the club, such as players, would have to be sold, with the money going to enhance the RIFC creditors pot (before their value was diminished), and, no doubt, release the higher paid employees to reduce the TRFC wage bill. I’m sure, too, that there would be complications along the way, not least a disaffected Dave King. Do you see it in a similar vein in terms of the basics?

    View Comment

  35. UPTHEHOOPSJANUARY 9, 2018 at 20:56
    1
    0 Rate This
    ————-
    4. A huge play would be made of the success under him the first time, and we would be strongly reminded that LNS declared no sporting advantage was gained
    —————
    Murray admitted at the FTT that the tax scheme allowed Rangers to sign players they could not otherwise afford.

    View Comment

  36. AJ, I guess in that scenario the big question is how would it fund itself with no funding from RIFC. Presumably none of its current owners (via TRFC) could afford to fund it or they would do it via TRFC as they have been doing. Who else would keep it going without any guarantee that it would be somehow worth their while? And even if such a person/group could be found, would the existing owners allow it? Would a ‘friendly’ future owner be allowed to if a behind the scenes deal was made to ensure their investment bore fruit for mutual future benefit? Could such a behind the scenes deal be made to the detriment of others looking to get what they can from RIFCIL e.g. the alleged £800k of creditors. 

    View Comment

  37. CLUSTER ONEJANUARY 9, 2018 at 21:18
    Murray admitted at the FTT that the tax scheme allowed Rangers to sign players they could not otherwise afford.

    ===================

    He did, but the fix that was LNS was put in place for him. As far as the authorities are concerned no other view matters. In fact, it is not even possible for there to be another view. 

    View Comment

  38. Allyjambo January 9, 2018 at 21:06
    ======================
    My problem is that I don’t see the value in putting the club into administration.

    The main losers would be the lenders.  If those “lenders” weren’t expecting their money back, then why not just write it off now.  They already have control of the boardroom and the majority of shares.

    The only possibility would be a split in the Boardroom, e.g King is asked to resign but refuses to do so, with the threat of calling in his debt if there is a move to do so via an EGM. Then the boot would be on the other foot. Those against King might seek to call in their loans, but as RRM would they want to be portrayed as bringing down the club.

    If there were people on the Board who think it’s a good idea then what is the end position that they want to achieve?  Is it a debt free TRFC, a TRFC free of King but still in debt, a position where progress towards a fan owned club is achievable? No-one has yet been able to articulate how to get to a financially sustainable model for the club, short of pie in the sky participation in the CL group stages (at least in the short to medium term)

    I’m finding it difficult to work out who benefits from a voluntary administration, which is why I remain sceptical. It might still still happen, but I’d like to know who pulled the trigger, why, and what is envisaged as the end result.

    View Comment

  39. On the subject of Murray returning to Ibrox.

    He is a wealthy man, but not as wealthy as he was once believed to be, and unless he has some bottomless pit of other peoples’ money, I doubt there’s anything in his past to suggest he will spend his own to recreate his ‘Rangers’, and I am sure he is well aware that should he again become Mr Big at the decaying stadium, he, more than anyone else, will be expected to spend huge sums without even thinking about it.

    Even a cleaned out club, with no debt after administration, would require in the region of £20-30m to challenge Celtic in the initial two or three years, so, after buying the club, Murray (or anyone else who wants to recreate the glory years rather than just save the club) has got to be prepared to put that level of cash in. Even if he has it to spare, it’s an awful lot to risk.

    View Comment

  40. @ FAN OF FOOTBALL    JANUARY 9, 2018 at 19:08

    Perhaps his English improved while over here so that he was able to understand one of the Ibrox chants, to whit: We hate catholics, We hate catholics, We hate catholics, We hate catholics, etc.
    Or maybe it was just the infighting at the club and the WATWP app.

    View Comment

  41. easyJamboJanuary 9, 2018 at 21:32 
    Allyjambo January 9, 2018 at 21:06======================My problem is that I don’t see the value in putting the club into administration.The main losers would be the lenders. If those “lenders” weren’t expecting their money back, then why not just write it off now. They already have control of the boardroom and the majority of shares.The only possibility would be a split in the Boardroom, e.g King is asked to resign but refuses to do so, with the threat of calling in his debt if there is a move to do so via an EGM. Then the boot would be on the other foot. Those against King might seek to call in their loans, but as RRM would they want to be portrayed as bringing down the club.If there were people on the Board who think it’s a good idea then what is the end position that they want to achieve? Is it a debt free TRFC, a TRFC free of King but still in debt, a position where progress towards a fan owned club is achievable? No-one has yet been able to articulate how to get to a financially sustainable model for the club, short of pie in the sky participation in the CL group stages (at least in the short to medium term)I’m finding it difficult to work out who benefits from a voluntary administration, which is why I remain sceptical. It might still still happen, but I’d like to know who pulled the trigger, why, and what is envisaged as the end result.
    ______________

    Totally agree with you, EJ, and have written similar previously. I cannot get my head round the idea that administration can possibly get rid of King, other than to get him off the board, as he would still have his shares, and nominally forms part of the concert party as long as he does, and he has his loans, that leave him in a powerful position should it come to a CVA. To that end, like you, I do not believe there is any value in a purely voluntary administration. 

    I don’t know, either, how people are so sure that it will be a voluntary administration if it comes about, or at least one done only to reach a desired beneficial goal. It could well come about because the coffers are empty, or nearly empty, and there is now no lender on the horizon. In which case it may be considered better to enter administration now, or after they maximise player sales, rather than to wait until the last possible moment when they would leave the administrators very little to play with.

    Remember, any administrators first concern is his company’s fee, and if there’s nothing in the coffers when he is called in, a player or two will have to be sold, just to meet that.

    View Comment

  42. Can’t help feeling sorry for Nadir Ciftci.  It’s just not worked out for him for whatever reason since he moved from Dundee Utd.
    He told Motherwell’s official site. “It’s been a bit difficult, but it’s been a great lesson, you can look it in a bad way, you can’t just think everything goes against you. I’ve learned a lot in the two years without really playing much.”

    He’s away to Motherwell on loan until the end of the season.  I really hope he gets it together.
    ———————————————————-
    John C is still in USA so he will be bored when we are all away to bed.  So this is for him.  Gary Innes chats about music and shinty.
    (It’s only 20mins John)

    View Comment

  43. JIMBOJANUARY 9, 2018 at 22:26
    Can’t help feeling sorry for Nadir Ciftci.  It’s just not worked out for him for whatever reason since he moved from Dundee Utd.
        ————————————————————————-
        I heard that Motherwell offered a million for him, but Celtic said “Nah..Just have a wee lend of him for now, and you can square us up in the summer. 15
        What?

    View Comment

Comments are closed.