It looks as if TRFCG is due to be dissolved – The Scottish Football Monitor

It looks as if TRFCG is due to be dissolved …

Comment on Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns by easyJambo.

It looks as if TRFCG is due to be dissolved next week, despite H&J being appointed as directors last week.  There is a post-dated notice on the Companies House website.

27 Jun 2017 GAZ2
Final Gazette dissolved via compulsory strike-off
This document is being processed and will be available in 5 days.

If H&J has indeed purchased the rights to the claim against RFC (2012) assets, then I don’t see why they would need TRFCG to survive. The alternative way of doing it would have been for H&J to have bought the company, TRFCG, but I’d guess that would be a riskier course of action as it would have left the “company” open to other claims.

easyJambo Also Commented

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
It looks as if Henderson & Jones still see some mileage in their claim against the Oldco.

There has been a document lodged at Companies House seeking to resurrect TRFCG (Wavetower) from its recent dissolution.

20 Jul 2017 RT01 Administrative restoration application

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
JJ’s latest blog and email chain from the days following the LNS decision are illuminating. Well done to him for sourcing and publishing the information.
The Anatomy of a Cover Up

We have the following board members commenting as follows:

Michael Johnston (Kilmarnock) – In my view, we should NOT appeal. 

Stephen Thomson (Dundee United) – I personally wish to ‘draw a line under this’ and move on.

Ralph Topping (Independent chairman) – The outcome in my view is still not proportionate.

Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen) – I am at pains to point out that I, like Ralph, find the size of the fine and therefore the punishment to be disproportionate to the scale of the actions undertaken. 

….. and in conclusion:

Ralph Topping – The consensus is clear on an appeal. There is a majority against.

Time for Scots Government to Take Bull by the Horns
Den July 16, 2017 at 23:08 
It would be good to have the details of the Ticketus arrangements.
Most of the details have been disclosed in various statutory documents, e.g. Companies House, court documents or creditors reports.  The figures vary somewhat from one to another, but the essence of the arrangements can be established.

Rangers use of Ticketus prior to Whyte was normally done on a fee only basis, e.g Ticketus will advance you £3M for three months against ST sales for a fee of £160k. Those figures came from Rangers Financial Director, Donald McIntyre, in court.

Figures from the Whyte period rely on official documents. The MG05S security document lodged at Companies House in May 2011, specified the no. of STs involved as:
2011/12 – 23,154
2012/13 – 27,017
2013/14 – 27,014
2014/15 – 23,154

Payments from Ticketus to RFC were recorded as follows:
The original criminal indictment.
£24,337,094 into Collyer Bristow client account on 07/04/11  (probably included VAT which Ticketus would reclaim)

Lord Hodge’s ruling on 23/04/12
£20,300,912 on 9 May 2011 (first tranche) – for first three seasons (seems like the above figure net of VAT)
£5, 075,213 on 21 Sep 2011 (second tranche) – for more STs from 2012/13 plus 2014/15

D&P Creditors Report 05/04/12
£20,300,000 Advanced May 11 – STs from 2011/12, 2012/13, 2013/14 (first tranche net of VAT?)
£25,400,000 Revenue expected in return
£3,000,000 Repaid June 2011
£5,000,000 Advanced September 2011 – STs from 2012/13, 2014/15 (second tranche)
£9,300,000 Revenue expected in return
£5,000,000 Repaid September 2011
£26,700,000 Creditors Claim April 2012 – (equates to total revenue expected less amount repaid)

Recent Comments by easyJambo

To Comply or not to Comply ?
Andy Newport‏Verified account @AndyNewportPA

Response from Rangers to today’s SFA statement on 2012 UEFA licence case: ‘Rangers has always been clear about the futility of this action and hopes the Scottish FA will now put the matter to bed and agree to move on and concentrate on the development of Scottish Football…

To Comply or not to Comply ?
We will see how the SFA deals with registration issues on Monday. 
A 3-0 defeat for Hearts coming up?

Message from the Chief Executive
It is with much embarrassment that we have to advise that during last night’s Betfred Cup group stage match away to Cove Rangers, Hearts inadvertently fielded an ineligible player.
Due to an administrative error on the club’s part at the end of the January transfer window, Andrew Irving entered the field of play in the 65th minute as an unregistered player. Andrew was given an extension contract in January, 2018 and his extension paperwork was all properly completed and in order. However, it was not loaded onto the online SFA registration system at the time.  His official registration, therefore, ran out on 9th June, 2018.  Unfortunately, this was not picked up in advance of last night’s game.
While stringent processes are already in place to try to prevent something of this nature occurring, clearly mistakes can happen.  An additional step in our internal procedures will be implemented immediately to try to ensure this cannot happen again.
The club would like to apologise to its supporters, to Cove Rangers Football Club and to the footballing authorities for this inadvertent breach of the rules.
A hearing with an SPFL panel has been scheduled for Monday, July 23rd and will be attended by representatives of the club, where sanctions against Hearts will be determined. Until then, no further comment will be made.

Barry Anderson
‏ @BarryAnderson_
4m4 minutes ago

Barry Anderson Retweeted

As a very rough guide, Cove Rangers and Stranraer were each fined £2000 in 2016 for fielding ineligible players in the Betfred Cup.

To Comply or not to Comply ?
The case schedule for CAS over the next three months.

To Comply or not to Comply ?
Questions for Auldheid and the Res 12 guys.

Is it possible to get access to the JPDT’s decision, either through Celtic (possible?) or your lawyers (doubtful?) in order to establish the grounds on which TRFC argued that the JPDT did not have jurisdiction over the Notice of Complaint?

Do you know of any time limitation to CAS’ powers?  I’d imagine that they could go back for many years as has happened in the case of drug cheats.


To Comply or not to Comply ?
gunnerb July 19, 2018 at 16:26
EASYJAMBOJULY 19, 2018 at 16:12
Is this the ultimate can kicking ? What can TRFC possibly hope to gain other than time. Will the resolutionists be concerned that the dates of the inquiry will still be gerrymandered as the issue is passed to the CAS.
I’m more concerned that it has been kicked permanently down the road with the uncertain statement at the end of the update.

“The Judicial Panel Disciplinary Tribunal proposes to continue consideration of the complaint until parties consider next steps and terms of reference for any remit to CAS”.

That to me leaves it open for the JPDT just to say that it isn’t worth pursuing any further, perhaps because of the time that has elapsed since the 2011 licence application that CAS may not want to consider it.

SSL Certificates