To Comply or not to Comply ?

7185
127059

UEFA Club Licensing. – To Comply or not to Comply ?

On 16 April 2018 The UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) adjudicatory chamber took decisions in the cases of four clubs that had been referred to it by the CFCB chief investigator, concerning the non-fulfilment of the club licensing criteria defined in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.

Such criteria must be complied with by the clubs in order to be granted the licence required to enter the UEFA club competitions.

The cases of two clubs::

Olympique des Alpes SA (Sion Switzerland )

and

FC Irtysh  (Kazakhstan) 

are of particular interest to those following the events under which the SFA awarded a UEFA License to Rangers FC in 2011 currently under investigation by the SFA Compliance Officer because

  1. The case documentation tell us how UEFA wish national associations to apply UEFA FFP rules
  2. The cases  tell us what might have happened to Rangers  FC in 2012 had they not gone into liquidation and as a consequence avoided the same type of sanctions that UEFA applied to Sion and Irtysh.

 

FC Sion  (Olympique des Alpes SA)

Here we are told how the Swiss FL and then the UEFA CFCB acted in respect of FC Sion in 2017 where a misleading statement was made in the Sion UEFA licensing application.

Full details can be read at

http://tiny.cc/y6sxsy

 

but this is a summary.

In April 2017 the Swiss FL (SFL) granted a licence to Sion FC but indicated that a Disciplinary case was pending.

In July 2017 the CFCB, as part of their licence auditing programme,  carried out a compliance audit on 3 clubs to determine if licences had been properly awarded. Sion was one of those clubs.

The subsequent audit by Deloitte LLP discovered Sion had an overdue payable on a player, amounting to €950,000, owed to another football club (FC Sochaux ) at 31st March 2017 as a result of a transfer undertaken by Sion before 31st December 2016, although the €950,000 was paid in early June 2017.

Deloitte produced a draft report of their findings that was passed to SFL and Sion for comment on factual accuracy and comment on the findings. Sion responded quickly enabling Deloitte to present a final report to the CFCB Investigation Unit. In response to the Deloitte final report Sion stated:

“il apparaît aujourd’hui qu’il existait bel et bien un engagement impayé découlant d’une activité de transfert. Ce point est admis” translated as

“it now appears that there was indeed an outstanding commitment arising from transfer activity. This is admitted”

What emerged as the investigation proceeded was that the Swiss FL Licensing Committee, after granting the license in April and as a result of a Sochaux complaint of non-payment to FIFA, had reason to refer Sion’s application to their Disciplinary Commission in May 2017 with regard to the submission of potentially misleading information by FC Sion to the SFL on 7th April 2017 as part of its licensing documentation.

Sion had declared

“Written confirmation: no overdue payables arising from transfer activities”, signed by the Club’s president, stating that as at 31 March 2017 there were no overdue payables towards other football clubs. In particular, the Club indicated that the case between FC Sion and FC Sochaux regarding the transfer of the player Ishmael Yartey was still under dispute.

The SFL Disciplinary Commission came to the conclusion that FC Sion had no intention to mislead the SFL, but indeed submitted some incorrect licensing documentation; the SFL Disciplinary Commission further confirmed that the total amount of €950,000 had been paid by the Club to FC Sochaux on 7 June 2017. Because of the inaccurate information submitted, the SFL Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a fine of CHF 8,000 on the Club.

Whilst this satisfied the SFL Disciplinary process the CFCB deemed it not enough to justify the granting of the licence as UEFA intended their FFP rules to be applied.

Sion provided the CFCB with a number of reasons on the basis of which no sanction should be imposed. In particular, the Club admitted that there was an overdue payable as at 31 March 2017, but stated that the mistake in the document dated 7 April 2017 was the result of a misinterpretation by the club’s responsible person for dealing with the licence (the “Club’s licence manager”), who is not a lawyer. The Club affirmed that it never had the intention to conceal the information and had provisioned the amount due for payment and that, in any case, it has already been sanctioned by the SFL for providing the wrong information.

The CFCB Investigation Unit accepted that the Sion application, although inaccurate, was a one off misrepresentation and not a forgery, (as in intended to deceive ) but that nevertheless an overdue payable did exist at 31st March and a licence should not have been granted.

Based on their findings, the CFCB Chief Investigator decided to refer the case to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber and suggested a disciplinary measure to be imposed on FC Sion by the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber, such measure consisting of a fine of €235,000, corresponding to the UEFA Revenues the Club gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.

The CFCB Investigatory Chamber submitted that it was  appropriate to impose a fine corresponding to all the UEFA revenues the Club gained by participating in the competition considering the fact that FC Sion should not have been admitted to the competition for failing to meet one of its admission criteria.

 

The Adjudicatory Chambers took all the circumstances (see paras 91 to 120 at http://tiny.cc/i8sxsy ) into consideration and reached the following key decisions.

  1. FC Sion failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 49(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the SFL not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
  2. FC Sion breached Articles 13(1) and 43(1)(i) of the CL&FFP Regulations. (Documents complete and correct)
  3. To exclude FC Sion from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next two (2) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19 and 2019/20).
  4. To impose a fine of two hundred and thirty five thousand Euros (€235,000) on FC Sion.
  5. FC Sion is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings.

Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.

It is now public knowledge that an actual liability of tax due before 31stDecember 2010 towards HMRC, was admitted by Rangers FC before 31st March 2011.

This liability was described as “potential” in Rangers Interim accounts audited by Grant Thornton.

“Note 1: The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. A provision for interest of £0.9m has also been included within the interest charge.”

The English Oxford Dictionary definition of potential is:

Having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.

Which was not true as the liability had already been “developed” so could not be potential.

This was repeated by Chairman Alistair Johnson in his covering Interim Accounts statement

“The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. “  where he also added

“Discussions are continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised.”

This could be taken as disputing the liability but In fact the resolution to the assessments raised would have been payment of the actual liability, something that never happened.

In the Sion case it was accepted the misleading statement was a one off misrepresentation, but at the monitoring stages at June 2011 in Ranger’s case the status of the liability continued to be misrepresented and in September the continuing discussions reason was repeated, along with a claim of an instalment paid whose veracity is highly questionable.

The Swiss FL Licensing Committee did at least refer the case to their Disciplinary Committee when they realised a misleading statement might have been made. The SFA however in August 2011, when Sherriff Officers called at Ibrox for payment of the overdue tax , did no such thing and pulled up the drawbridge for six years, one that the Compliance Officer is now finally charged with lowering.

 


 

The case of FC Irtysh of Kazakhstan is set out in full at http://tiny.cc/y9sxsy  and is a bit more straightforward but is nevertheless useful to compare with events in 2011 in Scotland.

Unlike Rangers FC , FC Irtysh properly disclosed that they had an overdue payable to the Kazakhstan tax authorities at the monitoring point at 30th June 2017. This caused the CFCB Investigatory Unit to seek further information with regard to the position at 31st March

It transpired that Irtysh had declared an overdue payable at 31st March but cited their financial position (awaiting sponsor money) as a reason for non payment to the Kazakhstan FA who accepted it and granted the licence. The outstanding tax was paid in September 2107.

The outcome of the CFCB Investigation was a case put to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber  who agreed with the CFCB Investigation Unit that a licence should not have been granted and recommended that Irtysh be fined the equivalent of the UEFA prize money, (that had been withheld in any case whilst CFCB investigated.)

The CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber however decided that a fine was not sufficient in sporting deterrent terms and ruled that:

 

  1.  FC Irtysh failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 50bis(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the FFK not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
  2. To withhold four hundred and forty thousand Euros (€440,000) corresponding to the UEFA revenues FC Irtysh gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.
  3. To exclude FC Irtysh from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next three (3) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons). This sanction is deferred for a probationary period of (3) three years. This exclusion must be enforced in case the Club participates again in a UEFA club competition having not fulfilled the licence criteria required to obtain the UEFA licence in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
  4. FC Irtysh is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings. “

 

The deferral was because unlike Rangers FC,  FC Irtysh had properly disclosed to the licensor the correct & accurate financial information required, so the exclusion was deferred for a probationary period of (3) years.

 

Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.

From the foregoing it could be deduced that had Rangers FC qualified for the Champions League (or European League) and not gone bust as a result and so not entered liquidation BUT it became public knowledge by 2012 that a licence had been wrongly and possibly fraudulently granted then

  1. Rangers would have been fined the equivalent of their earnings from their participation in the UEFA competitions in 2011
  2. At least a two year ban from UEFA Competitions would have been imposed, but more likely three in view of repeated incorrect statements.
  3. The consequences of both would have been as damaging for Rangers survival as the real life consequences of losing to Malmo and Maribor in the qualifying rounds of the Champions and European Leagues.

Karma eh!

Interestingly in the UEFA COMPLIANCE AND INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY REPORT 2015 – 2017 , the CFCB investigatory chamber recommended that both the Kazakhstan FA and Swiss FA as licensors

“pay particular attention to the adequate disclosure of the outstanding amounts payable towards other football clubs, in respect of employees and towards social/tax authorities, which must be disclosed separately;

Would the same recommendation apply to the Scottish FA with regard to their performance in 2011 and will the  SFA responses thereafter to shareholders in a member club be examined for compliance with best governance practice by the SFA Compliance Officer investigating the processing of the UEFA Licence in 2011?

This would be a welcome step in fully restoring trust in the SFA.

7185 COMMENTS


  1. final final word on the terms HMRC apply.
    1 I write further to your letter of 20 May 2011 and our subsequent meeting at the Club on 31 May 2011 in order to provide an interim update and proposal in respect of the Club’s PAYE liability for 2000/01 to 2002/03 (as detailed in your letter of 31 May
    From RFC to HMRC Courtesy Charlotte Fakeovers.

    View Comment

  2. It is one thing to quote from the UEFA club Licencing Manual. In doing so, it’s probably best to quote ALL of the relevant provisions.

    ANNEX VIII: Notion of ‘overdue payables’

    1. Payables are considered as overdue if they are not paid according to the agreed terms.

    2. Payables are not considered as overdue, within the meaning of these regulations, if the licence applicant/licensee (i.e. debtor club) is able to prove by 31 March (in respect of Articles 49 and 50) and by 30 June and 30 September (in respect of Articles 65 and 66) respectively that:

    a) it has paid the relevant amount in full; or

    b) it has concluded an agreement which has been accepted in writing by the creditor to extend the deadline for payment beyond the applicable deadline (note: the fact that a creditor may not have requested payment of an amount does not constitute an extension of the deadline); or

    c) it has brought a legal claim which has been deemed admissible by the competent authority under national law or has opened proceedings with the national or international football authorities or relevant arbitration tribunal contesting liability in relation to the overdue payables; however, if the decision-making bodies (licensor and/or Club Financial Control Panel) consider that such claim has been brought or such proceedings have been opened for the sole purpose of avoiding the applicable deadlines set out in these regulations (i.e. in order to buy time), the relevant amount will still be considered as an overdue payable; or

    d) it has contested a claim which has been brought or proceedings which have been opened against it by a creditor in respect of overdue payables and is able to demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the relevant decision making bodies (licensor and/or Club Financial Control Panel) that the claim which has been brought or the proceedings which have been opened are manifestly unfounded.

    The “agreed terms” for the payment of PAYE and NICs is nothing to do with a request for payment. The “agreed terms” are simply those set out by statute and that apply to every employer in the UK.

    That is, the deadline for taxes that should have been collected in the year 2000 was er…   …the year 2000.

    If it is being argued that those taxes were not overdue because no bill (invoice) had been delivered to the taxpayer, then perhaps someone can explain the very explicit statement in UEFA’s “Notion of ‘overdue payables’” that says:

    “(note: the fact that a creditor may not have requested payment of an amount does not constitute an extension of the deadline)”

    The payment request on 20th May 2011 included taxes that had been technically overdue payables since the year 2000. Again, the “applicable date” is the date the taxes should have been paid within the routine operation of the PAYE and NICs regimes.

    Had Rangers submitted a formal appeal or had been granted an extension in writing prior to the 31st March, the Licence application should have been submitted with those details. And may well have been granted.

    Prior to the testimony heard under oath in court, it may have been a (somewhat tenuous) defence to say that Rangers had acted in good faith and had not, on the 31st March, accepted that these already long-time overdue payables were valid. 

    Prior to that court testimony it was (just about) credible that the club’s acceptance of the overdue payables did not happen until the expiry of the 30 days following the request for payment.

    However, even if that claim was true, the application would still have included incorrect information because the overdue payables – no matter what the club claimed it believed at the time – were already ‘live’ on the 31st March. The club’s claim to not recognise the overdue payables on the 31st March could only ever be in mitigation of the bare facts, it could not change the fact that they had made that error.

    The club had not met the deadline on the “agreed terms” for PAYE and NICs since the year 2000. As per the very clear UEFA guidance, the request for payment on the 20th May cannot be construed as an extension to those agreed terms.

    In my view, if the court testimony is to be taken at face value, this is not a matter for an SFA judicial panel , it is a matter for the police.

    View Comment

  3. Le Guen’s French Revolution comes to a sad end…. Gaurdian.

    Ally McCoist won’t fail in his Rangers Revolution… Evening Times.

    Mark Warburton’s Rangers Revolution aims for Champions League… Herald.

    Pedro Caixinha’s Rangers Revolution… Daily Record. The Sun. Herald.

    Graeme Murty’s Revolution of dynamic movement… The Observer.

    Gerrard makes secret dash to Glasgow to prepare Rangers Revolution… Scotsman.

    You wait over a century for a Revolution then six arrive at the same time….

    View Comment

  4. Auldheid,

    “they issue an assessment give time to accept or appeal, if appeal made it is considered and if rejected there is more time to pay.”

    When HMRC issue a Regulation 80 Determination there is a 30 day period in which to appeal and/or apply for a postponement of the duties.

    Once HMRC accept that the grounds of appeal are valid they consider any application for postponement of payment separately and may agree to full or partial postponement or decline any request for postponement either in a letter or on a notice in a Form 64-4 or 64-5.

    The relevant procedures are detailed at:

    Employer returns: regulation 80 determinations: contents                  
    https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/paye-manual/paye54000


    Legislation: PAYE Regulations: Determinations of amounts due
    https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/debt-management-and-banking/dmbm450060
    Employer returns: regulation 80 determinations: making a determination  https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/paye-manual/paye54025
    Employer returns: regulation 80 determinations: time limits and appeals: regulation 80(5): parts IV and V TMA 1970https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/paye-manual/paye54015 
    Employer returns: regulation 80 determinations: appealshttps://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/paye-manual/paye54130
    Employer returns: regulation 80 determinations: payments on account https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/paye-manual/paye54140  Reviews and appeals for direct taxes: Payment of tax pending the outcome of an appeal: Postponement applications                                                                         https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/appeals-reviews-and-tribunals-guidance/artg2510 Where the usual HMRC Debt Management action is unsuccessful the debt is referred to Enforcement Office. Details of the enforcement action to recover any debt are at:Enforcement action: contents                                                                   https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/debt-management-and-banking/dmbm650000
    Distraint: Contentshttps://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/debt-management-and-banking/dmbm655000
    Enforcement action: taking control of goods (TCoG): contents               https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/debt-management-and-banking/dmbm657000
    Summary Warrant: Contents                                                                        https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/debt-management-and-banking/dmbm670000Summary Warrant: Introduction to Summary Warrant: Contents          https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/debt-management-and-banking/dmbm670010Summary warrant: Preparing for summary warrant action and sending the warrant to court: Contents https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/debt-management-and-banking/dmbm670210
    Summary warrant: Action following summary warrant returned by court: Contents https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/debt-management-and-banking/dmbm670310

    View Comment

  5. AULDHEIDJUNE 6, 2018 at 22:18

    The issue is simple. Did RFC give the SFA truthful reasons to grant a licence in March 2011? The Court testimony challenges that they did.If they didnt give truthful reasons and were granted a licence as a result then its fraud. If there reasons were truthful then the SFA need to make it known why they accept them or be complicit in a fraud.

    There is no UEFA statute of limitations on that and UEFA advice is necessary to rule out that possibility.No one really wants to go there, we just need to be assured that the same cannot happen again and those assurances need to be believable and need to come from the people still involved, both at SFA and Rangers.

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

    I don’t disagree, but in my view there is no way on this earth we are going to get fraud charges, or even get them considered. This is Scotland and it is Rangers we are talking about. The Whyte court case left the SFA with no wriggle room in terms of looking into it further, but keeping the nature of the charge and punishment in their own hands leaves them plenty of wriggle room. They can tell us the process is independent as much as they like, but LNS proved how much it can be set up to get the desired outcome. This is closure time for the SFA, and they won’t miss the opportunity. 

    View Comment

  6. A bit more timeline information for “The Lawman2” re his insistence that the only “bill” he knows of was the one dated 20 May 2011.

    RFC was first issued with a “bill” on 28 September 2007.  Rangers chose to appeal, which they did on 26 October 2007.

    The RFC appeal was put on hold while the similar Aberdeen Asset Management (AAM) scheme went to a FTTT.  AAM had been issued with their “bill” on 16 January 2007, but for reasons unknown to me the FTTT did not hear the case until June /July 2010.  The AAM FTTT decision was published on 29 October 2010.

    HMRC then proceeded, just four weeks later on 26 November 2010, to present RFC with an offer to settle on the same terms as AAM, or to pursue their own FTTT appeal. As we know they did neither.

    What do I take from that?  A bill/liability existed on 28 September 2007. When RFC decided to appeal on 26 October 2007 it was within their rights to do so. Putting the appeal on hold until the AAM appeal played out, only stopped the clock. The bill still existed. When HMRC made their offer on 26 November 2010, the clock had restarted. RFC did not appeal, but prevaricated while they sought the opinion of counsel, and came up with a quantum for an actual settlement figure, taking account of the additional interest that had accrued since 2007.  What happened on 20 May 2011 was an enforcement procedure for a bill that had been issued three and a half years previously.

    View Comment

  7. Upthehoops @ 07:09:

    I’m intrigued as to why you think fraud charges are out of the question.

    Assuming that Rangers* will be found to have ‘imperfectly applied’ for a UEFA licence …

    My thinking is that, if the SFA itself (acting on behalf of all the other clubs) does not choose to pursue Rangers* and/or its then directors, then the Res 12 shareholders of Celtic FC plc are themselves likely to try to seek redress: because this is no longer merely a sporting matter.

    Once a judgement is made known, I don’t think the SFA will be able to keep this ‘in house’ any longer: if the ruling goes against Rangers*, I foresee King & co (eventually) making a challenge through the courts; if the ruling somehow exonerates Rangers*, then I think there’s a good chance the Res 12-ers will also turn to the courts.

    A fudge (the careful preparation of which may be one of the reasons the SFA has taken so long to bring this matter to a hearing) anywhere between the above outcomes is likely to lead to serious discontent from all sorts of interested parties – not least the fans of clubs beyond Celtic and Rangers*.

    B.T.W.  This is no longer ‘Rangers we are talking about’: what we have now is a burst ball that is slowly leaking air.

    View Comment

  8. Sannyofmessy
    I wasn’t referring to Regulation 80 procedures there but what happens in the normal PAYE.cycle but thanks for the extra information.

    For anyone with tax expertise in a PAYE situation how long is the average time  between a demand for payment and sending in Sherriff Officers assuming taxpayer has made appeals. Is 4 months the norm or too soon?
    Same question re Reg80 procedures once liability accepted where discussions are not about disputing but trying to come up with a plan to pay that HMRC will accept?
    I only ask because to a lay person 4 months seems pretty quick if the overdue payable clock only kicked off in March. 
    It was the arrival of Sherriff Officers in early August 2011 that set suspicions there could be an overdue payable before 31st March.
    The responses by SFA to questions thereafter never explained the basis on which the licence was granted but the fact that there is to be a JPDT triggered by Court testimony , testimony that had eyebrows raised in legal circles , suggests that what Regan had said in his draft that never saw the  light of day after a meeting with CW that Ogilvie attended, was in fact the basis of granting.
    All that is needed is an explanation of why that basis was acceptable in light of court testimony.
    It’s like drawing teeth.
    Interesting that no objection to claims of non compliance during the monitoring period when CW was in charge.

    View Comment

  9. Upthehoops 7.09
    The fear of fraud entering the arena would be a basis for TRFC already saying all was in order with the end of March 2011 application for a UEFA licence.
    Dunderheid has said the rest.
    SFA cannot be perceived to be covering up for fear of the consequences.
    Actually maybe they don’t care on the basis more than enough football supporters in Scotland will not care either.
    In that sense you could be right.

    View Comment

  10. AuldheidJune 7, 2018 at 09:53
    ‘…..….All that is needed is an explanation of why that basis was acceptable in light of court testimony…’
    ______________________
    And the fact that no explanation that accords with all the facts has as yet been provided convinces me that there was no  justification in truth for the award of the licence: those who provided false information and those who accepted that false information must face investigation into the question of conspiracy to commit fraud.
    This is not a simple football matter. The shareholders of a plc are not bothered about football rankings, but about being done out of a good few million quid!
    But, of course, if people connected with football administration have to stand trial (and be convicted)[Croatia, anybody?] then Scottish Football administration will benefit.

    View Comment

  11. Jimbo
    That comment about fighter jets is very strange even by your own whimsical standards.
    I am even more puzzled than usual -which is beyond bemused. I was less puzzled when reading Kafka in German in Berlin late at night after a lot of beer.
    You have made me remember what happened when I tasted Geman beer after abstention for 10 years I discovered that I had lost the taste for it, which was unexpected and disappointing and I have not had anything since.
    and me a pacifist too…

    View Comment

  12. Perhaps someone at the SFA,SPFL,any of the member Clubs,Companies House,HMRC,Government could explain why the following says this (see below in bold) and why none of you (or any of the Media who read these blogs for information and to judge how fans are thinking) have ever dared question not only the validity/existence  of the 5 Way Agreement but the fact that up to this day why not one of you has challenged it’s content?

    https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/sites/default/files/A_Guide_to_Starting_a_Sports_Club_tcm21-149209.pdf
    Incorporation as a Limited Company

    Forming or converting your sports club to a Limited Company enables your club to become established as a legal entity in its own right, separate from the individual members. There are two forms of Limited Company:
    1. Companies with an issued share capital, where ownership and control lies with the shareholders. This form is generally inappropriate for sports clubs.
    2. Companies limited by guarantee, where the members of the company each guarantee to pay a nominal sum (usually up to £5 each) in the event of the company being unable to meet its obligations. This form is usually used for sports clubs wishing to incorporate as a company.

    There are several advantages to this structure. Because the club is a distinct legal entity, it is easier for the club to enter into contractual arrangements e.g. to borrow money, own buildings, or stage very large events. The club itself, rather than the individual members, are responsible for the club’s obligations and debts (unless one of the officers has acted negligently or fraudulently, in which case the individual remains personally liable). And the individual members can only be held responsible for the debts and obligations of the club up to the nominal value of their guarantee.
    The regulation and administration of Limited Companies is more onerous, and there are legal penalties for failure to comply. All Companies require various legal instruments such as a Memorandum and Articles of Association, and these must be registered with Companies House. The annual accounts must be presented in a prescribed form for Companies and also lodged with Companies House where they are open for public inspection. All Companies are subject to the provisions of Company Law; they are run by “Directors”, and some club members may potentially be prohibited from becoming a Director because of their previous involvement with other companies or their financial status.
    You should consider forming as a Limited Company if one or more of the following apply to your club:

    You own a high value of assets in the form of buildings, facilities, or financial reserves. However, some clubs have found a significant capital gains tax may be liable if they own considerable assets.You are engaged in selling significant volumes of goods and services to non-members such as training courses, accreditation, equipment, lettings, books and other materials You are planning to organise a major event where there is a potential risk of significant financial loss (in which case, you might consider establishing the event as a limited company owned by your club)

    Now that we have this apparently cleared up by Government approved guidelines-Supported by Company Law and Companies House that :
    A Rangers Fc did indeed Incorporate as a Legal Entity
    B That Legal Entity did indeed enter into Administration and subsequent Liquidation due to a failed CVA
    C That Legal Entity ceased to exist and who’s Liquidation can be traced from Legal Inception to it’s sad demise  at Companies House
    Why is it the New Entity claiming to be the very Entity that Legally Incorporated and Legally was Liquidated can openly disregard the  facts and Regulations(which the previous Entity succumbed to in the end) both in their own words and on their own Website without one single Person,Association or Club or Legal Institute challenging these claims?
    Why are the press,Companies House,the Creditors shafted by the previous Entity remaining silent on this very contentious issue?
    The Football Authorities,Clubs,Chairmen,Boards and Media wonder why we have little faith in any of them sorting this never ending shambles out?
    Seriously grow a set and give us the game we deserve,the transparency we need,the dedication it requires and last but not least the honesty that all of this needs to work.
    Or alternatively do us all a favour pack yer bags and let someone else do your jobs that will.
    Rangers according to Companies House are no more.
    The new Entity at Ibrox should be treated exactly as that and without the baggage of it’s predecessor.
    If you cannot/will not do this then I suggest you really should not be in the job that you are.
    Incidentally in case you aren’t aware (why wouldn’t you be it’s there to be read) this what the current Entity at Ibrox Claims:
    ====================================
    BUSINESS OVERVIEW
    Rangers Football Club is a football club based in Glasgow, Scotland.
    The Rangers Football Club, formed in 1872, is one of the world’s most successful clubs, having won 54 League titles, 33 Scottish Cups, 27 League Cups and the European Cup Winners’ Cup in 1972.
    Playing at the 50,987 seat Ibrox Stadium and benefitting from the world class 37 acre Murray Park training facility, the Club has been a dominant force in Scottish football for decades. This world class stadium, training infrastructure and a loyal and passionate global fanbase provide an excellent foundation for the Rangers Group.
    Currently the Club is competing in the SPFL Premiership, having returned to the top flight for the start of season 2016/2017.
    ==================================
    Now how can this be even remotely possible given all the Legally binding implications surrounding The Club that Incorporated on 27th May 1899 and wound up 31st October 2012 ?

    To sort Scottish Football out May I suggest you need to address this very ,very strange anomaly that seems to have been created (or at the very least accepted by all of you) and so far seems to be going uncontested AT ANY LEVEL.

    It’s making a total mockery of the entire Game in Scotland.
    Until it is dealt with don’t expect it to go away.
    It won’t.

    View Comment

  13. BFBPUZZLEDJUNE 7, 2018 at 12:32
    May I suggest you give Weihenstephaner a try?
    Oldest brewery in the World who produce some absolutely stunning brews.

    View Comment

  14. For anyone with tax expertise in a PAYE situation how long is the average time between a demand for payment and sending in Sherriff Officers assuming taxpayer has made appeals. Is 4 months the norm or too soon?
    Same question re Reg80 procedures once liability accepted where discussions are not about disputing but trying to come up with a plan to pay that HMRC will accept?I only ask because to a lay person 4 months seems pretty quick if the overdue payable clock only kicked off in March.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    To understand the actions of HMRC we need to remember that the Wee Tax case liabilities arose from a chance find by the City of London police of the “side letters” when raiding Ibrokes as part of a wider enquiry into allegations of fraud in England.

    The letters were passed to HMRC who up to then had been receiving stiff denials from RFC that they didn’t exist. There were then accusations of fraud by HMRC in the correspondence we have all seen posted on the internet. RFC then admitted they were bang to rights and so began the delaying tactics to agree and pay the quantum of the liability and interest.

    The Whyte takeover then became a thing and his tax people asked for a bit of leeway until the acquisition by Whyte was complete and Rangers would sort out payment then. But not much happened post acquisition.

    Against this background I believe HMRC were fed up being led up the garden path by the club and went to formal collection procedures as soon as all their ducks were in a row legally.

    I’ve dealt with the Inspector who led this case a few times and he is smart, diligent and does not like anyone taking the pee out of HMRC.

    It is beyond doubt the payable was overdue before March. There would have been no grounds to lodge a successful appeal against the Determinations given that Rangers had accepted the liability. The Determination is only a legal mechanism to collect PAYE tax that is already due.

    View Comment

  15. Daily fined £80,000 for contempt of court over ‘severely prejudicial’ stories
    by David Sharman Published 06 Jun 2018
    A daily newspaper has been fined £80,000 after admitting contempt of court over two articles relating to separate criminal proceedings.
    According to Scottish Legal News, the Daily Record pleaded guilty to contempt after publishing “severely prejudicial” details in the stories

    https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2018/news/daily-fined-80000-for-contempt-of-court-over-severely-prejudicial-stories/

    oops 22

    View Comment

  16. AULDHEID JUNE 6, 2018 at 20:10
    …we just need to be assured that the same cannot happen again and those assurances need to be believable and need to come from the people still involved, both at SFA and Rangers.

    I agree, however, with all the recent bluster from King, the UEFA Licence, TOP inaction, Res12 still to be resolved etc. etc. and the SFA/SPFL doing little more than paying lip service instead of dragging King in to explain himself, explain how RIFC/TRFC are arranging finance (as they did with Lambias iirc) then I am becoming increasing concerned that not only are plans in place to infact allow this to happen again but that it is now actually happening – again!.

    As others have said, unless something happens soon then the game’s a goner.

    Apologies for the little rant; maybe you just have much more patience than me 18

    View Comment

  17. Nice to see that Level42 tracks my invaluable input to SFM. 16

    Following my query last night: 
    “Anybody seen McAllister…?”

    TRFC has issued an incredibly short statement, [especially for TRFC], confirming his appointment, and another 4 new backroom staff members.

    Which is nice.

    But no photo’s of these new recruits standing on the Ibrox pitch, holding TRFC scarves aloft…or sitting down signing imaginary contracts for the cameras.

    It just all seems a bit odd, IMO.

    Come on Jabba, what’s the story…?  222222

    View Comment

  18. Would love somebody to justify why we spend so much time talking about previous issues when there is currently one major issue overriding the lot?
    There is a Club being allowed  to masquerade as another and no one absolutely no one is doing a single thing to question it?
    Ask yourselves why it is no Club has challenged this?

    I include the Celtic PLC apologists in this too.
    Go on put all the other distractions to one side and justify why doing hee haw about this is benefiting anyone bar one Entity?
    Genuinely interested in what you have to say on this as for me it is fairly straightforward.

    Farce.

    View Comment

  19. Court date for next week.
    LORD DOHERTY – C Munn, Clerk
    Wednesday 13th June By Order Between 9.30am and 10.00am
     P115/17 RFC 2012 Plc for orders under paragraph75 – Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP – CMS

    This is BDO’s action against the administrators

    View Comment

  20. AULDHEID JUNE 6, 2018 at 20:10…we just need to be assured that the same cannot happen again and those assurances need to be believable and need to come from the people still involved, both at SFA and Rangers.

    Rangers don’t exist.
    You of all people should know this.
    This is exactly why this 5 Way bollox needs addressing people are becoming lazy with the facts and slowly but surely as time slips by a myth becomes the acceptable norm.

    View Comment

  21. Cluster One June 7, 2018 at 17:59
    Club 1872 given deadline to confirm level of investment in Rangers share issue
    ==========================
    Interesting development and timescales if true.  Could be a “crash bang” share issue ignoring all normal governance protocols if there is a need to convert loans or raise cash by the end of June. (UEFA monitoring point?).

    Looks like they are having a vote to reallocate “projects” funds to buying shares. If I contributed to Club1872’s “projects” I wouldn’t be happy if the rest of the membership (including those who opted for their contributions to be used for share purchases) decided that the “projects” cash was going to be used to buy shares.

    There is also a nuance in the story that the vote is to decide that share buying is a “project”.  That’s a bit at odds with the binary choice that members had on joining Club 1872  ….. either contribute to buy shares …… or contribute towards projects.

    It could backfire on them if they lose some monthly DDs as a result.

    View Comment

  22. Justthefacts,

    Whereas I love your heartfelt search and exposing of the truth,  Auldheid is not your target.

    Its the sods at Hampden.  Auldheid has given much of his time towards the goal of exposing the corruption.

    We don’t know the outcome yet.

    take heart.

    View Comment

  23. JustTheFactsJune 7, 2018 at 17:55
    “…….and slowly but surely as time slips by a myth becomes the acceptable norm.”

    Here whit you all aboot noo my wee win wants a unicorn aff santa.

    View Comment

  24. DUNDERHEIDJUNE 7, 2018 at 09:31

    Upthehoops @ 07:09:

    I’m intrigued as to why you think fraud charges are out of the question.

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

    Sorry for taking so long to reply – pesky work and all that.

    My reason is fairly straightforward. it would be a step too far for the establishment given the people who may be charged with the offence. Craig Whyte was an easy target to face criminal charges and had they succeeded Rangers would officially be a victim – was that the aim?  Fraud charges in the licence application would mean ‘real’ Rangers people facing charges (and we know who they all are). The media won’t bother as we know, and neither will politicians, many of whom would have been happy to see Rangers being allowed to get off scot free with non tax payment. 

    As I said I believe the SFA will see this as a chance for closure. It will mostly only be Celtic fans up in arms at a light punishment, and the media will line up beside the SFA and tell the fans ‘tough sh*t, it’s over’, just like they did with the LNS farce. 

    All they need is the correct Terms of Reference and a respected legal figure who is happy to work to them. 

    View Comment

  25. Cluster OneJune 7, 2018 at 17:59 
    Club 1872 given deadline to confirm level of investment in Rangers share issuehttp://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/16276574.Club_1872_given_deadline_to_confirm_level_of_investment_in_Rangers_share_issue/———–should it not read Club 1872 given deadline to confirm level of investment in the RIFC share issue?
    _______________________

    I find the following paragraph quite interesting. Apart from the emotional blackmail of saying 99.9% of small shareholders (she is referring to the supporters) won’t be able to buy more shares through the issue, so hurry along and sign up to Club 1872, surely this is something that would give cause to any shareholder, large or small, who wishes to avail themselves of the 20p offer King is obliged to make, to get in touch with the TOP and ask them why they are allowing this to happen as it will reduce their stake in the company, please take action now!

    I would imagine it’s more than possible that, whatever the cause of the apparent delay in taking action against King, that this is exactly why the ruling is in place – to stop the board from taking self-serving action that might have a negative effect on those, or some of those, not connected to the concert party (in this case).

    “99.9% of the six thousand or so small supporter shareholders will not be invited by RIFC to participate in this share issue. We would ask them and any other supporters who have not yet signed up to Club 1872 to do so before 14th June. Particularly via the annual donation option which will maximise our investment in this issue.

    View Comment

  26. CLUSTER ONE
    JUNE 7, 2018 at 17:59

    Club 1872 given deadline to confirm level of investment in Rangers share issuehttp://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/16276574.Club_1872_given_deadline_to_confirm_level_of_investment_in_Rangers_share_issue/———–

    should it not read Club 1872 given deadline to confirm level of investment in the RIFC share issue?

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

    Yes, the money raised would then be provided as loans to the subsidiary.

    It could also quite possibly be the only actual cash raised in the issue. Unless they have found someone else who wants to put money in, as opposed to converting existing loans to equity.

    View Comment

  27. Just a wee thought. This vote to allow shares to be purchased using ‘project money’, could it be that part, or maybe all, of the money loaned to RIFC by Club 1872 was ‘project money’? If it was, then perhaps they need to get this motion passed so that the loan(s) can be converted to equity. Wasn’t there something mentioned (not sure where) that UEFA were raising questions over the C1872 loans, asking if they were loans or gifts? It might be that, to meet one of UEFA’s criteria, this loan(s) has to be converted, but can’t be, in part or in full, because it was made up of monies earmarked for a purpose other than buying shares?

    Totally flying a kite, here. Regardless, it very much seems to be a rushed job, and smacks of a high level of urgency.

    A question for EJ, or anyone else who might know. Do you know if 7 days notice is long enough for a limited company (Club 1872 is a limited company, is it not?) to give to shareholders when calling for a vote of this nature?

    View Comment

  28. ALLYJAMBOMAY 20, 2018 at 12:03
    If Sevco (Scotland) Limited, after having bought the assets of Rangers FC (IL), had not changed it’s name to The Rangers Football Club Limited, there would be no version of a ‘Rangers’ playing in the SPFL, or at Ibrox, now.
    —————————
    CLUSTER ONEJUNE 3, 2018 at 14:29

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16264939.There_are_so_many_Rangers_firms_they_could_form_their_own_Premiership/————————-There are so many Rangers firms they could form a league.—————seen this on twitter.A few asking why this article out now.
    ——————–
    Sorry for the OT but was looking for this at the time (see picture) and just found it.
    Limited options for new name june 13,2012

    View Comment

  29. LF: It is affordable for every fan. It is £5 per month and, as Bruce said, it can become part of something that every Rangers fan does. You buy your season ticket, you buy a jersey and you put your £5 into Club 1872. That is two pints per month or a pie and a Bovril and you can help rebuild the club.
    —————–
    Will be a lot of slim16 club 1872 supporters in future if they have to give up the pie and bovril.
    http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/15898584.Rangers_Q_A__Club_1872_on___1million_share_issue_fundraising_drive__Ashley_share_purchase__board_representation_and_fan_ownership/?utm_content=buffer30052&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    View Comment

  30. Just a wee thought. This vote to allow shares to be purchased using ‘project money’, could it be that part, or maybe all, of the money loaned to RIFC by Club 1872 was ‘project money’?  
    ——————————————————–
    I think the first ‘project money’ was used to buy MASH shares.And The money going directly to Mike Ashley.
    ————-
                                                                     It got to about 9.30pm and we said it looked like it wasn’t going to happen so I was driving Joanne home and her mobile rang and it was the call. We pulled over and the person on the phone asked if we could confirm that we were alone in the car and that nobody else was there. They revealed it was MASH that we were purchasing the shares from and Joanne and I literally high-fived each other. We knew the significance of that.
    It has not been easy at Club 1872 and because it is run by people who are passionate about it and believe in the project, that is why you can take it to heart. But that was such a significant moment for us and what it is all about. We want to be working towards that again and something that is so important for the club.
    The money did go directly to Mike Ashley. But we believe it was an investment in the club in terms of removing his influence. It was a really good moment.

    View Comment

  31. Anyway,  met a lovely lady this afternoon.  I thought it was Jean Brodie.  She is a long term lurker.  Twasnt Jean.  But she loves this site.

    View Comment

  32. TheLawMan2June 7, 2018 at 21:27

    You may be right, I do seem to remember there was something about club 1872 wanting to lend RIFC money, but for some reason it was refused, but who knows what might have gone on since. Still doesn’t take away from the rushed job this seems to be, and whether or not it’s legal to give such short notice for a vote of this nature. It does seem very short.

    And. of course, the share issue, itself, might cause the TOP to intervene if shareholders contact them to request/demand action over their delayed 20p per share.

    View Comment

  33. Re the vital letter from HMRC that got ragers 1872 in by the skin of their teeth for a crack at the CL in 2012 and the perception that this was a bill for a paltry £2.8m 

    IIRC the black knight left the WTC liability out of the data room and CW found out just before the deal went through .

    The question is why would the paying of £2.8m be omitted from the data or allegedly hidden from CW ,after all CW was using £18m from ticketus to take over the club so what would be the difference in borrowing £21m ,as again IIRC he increased the ticketus borrowing a few months after the deal so the option was obviously there .

    IMO the WTC was not just a £2.8m bill it was in fact a possible £20m inflow of cash into the business 

    If the club had not dragged the paying of that bill out for as long as they did then it could have been a possible loss of £22m 

    So we seem to have someone appearing on the site that constantly bangs on about the 30 days to pay after the HMRC letter ,which conveniently takes ragers 1872 past the march 31st date  .

    I must admit ragers 1872 and sevco 2012 seem to carry some amount of luck when it comes to just scrapping by rules and decisions ,so much so I would would have to say they are without doubt two of the luckiest clubs in scotland 

     

    View Comment

  34. THELAWMAN2JUNE 7, 2018 at 21:27

    I assumed a person of your staunchness would , at the very least , have a ST, shares in RIFC (like I have) and be an ardent contributor to and supporter of Club 1872 , and would be able to ask the great and good of your club(s) these questions . I think I will email TOP to find out when I can expect to see my £2 from Dave . 

    View Comment

  35. I don’t honestly know if the TOP situation affects a share issue, but I suspect that it won’t. TOP will have no desire to affect the day to day running or fundraising of any company they are looking at.  They have a pretty narrow remit of ensuring that small shareholders are not disadvantaged in a takeover situation.

    Even if a share issue does go ahead, I would expect that TOP will still insist on a 20p a share offer for the existing non concert party shares.  If the percentages change following the share issue, then there is the possibility of TOP making another order on the basis of the new share capital and share distribution.

    Notwithstanding the TOP position, I don’t believe that there are many other hurdles to be overcome to enable a share issue to go ahead.  They already have the necessary authority to dis-apply pre-emption rights, so all that I believe is required is to make an offer to the targeted individuals or companies and wait for their acceptances and that’s about it.

    There will be a few administrative tasks to follow, including advising Companies House, but nothing that is likely to cause any difficulties, as long as the targeted parties come up with the cash, or agree to the extent of the DFE swaps.

    View Comment

  36. AllyjamboJune 7, 2018 at 20:25
    ‘.. Do you know if 7 days notice is long enough for a limited company (Club 1872 is a limited company, is it not?) to give to shareholders when calling for a vote of this nature?’
    _______________
    Aj, youwill know, of course, that Club 1872 was incorporated as private company,limited by shares.

    There is only one class of shares, ‘Ordinary’, @£1.00.

    The number of shares allotted is ONE,  the £1.00 is  fully paid up.

    The holder of the share is ‘Andstrat Nominees’ Ltd. ( Anderson Strathearn, solicitors for RIFC plc I think)
    Who is the beneficial ownerr??? 

    As a private company the owner , the only shareholder(?), opted to adopt the ‘Model’ Articles of Association.

    There’s not a thing said in those articles that says anything much about notice of meetings , certainly nothing such as there is in the Articles of a plc!

    Club 1872 seems to be a one man band, none of the 5 current Directors being shareholders.

    James D Blair (secretary of RIFC plc) stood down as a Director last year, and the current 5 are :Euan MacFarlane, Bruce Taylor, Mrs Fawkes, Ms Percival and Rev Stuart MacQuarrie. [ nice to see a ‘Brucie’ in the same sentence as the name of a famous  Governor of Australia!]

    I’m not well-versed enough to be able to work out what TRFC Ltd supporters get for their monthly offerings, other than what anybody gets from donating money to their favourite charities.

    Certainly they don’t seem to be members of anything in which they have any kind of control of their ‘board’ or any kind of participation in decision making.

    Maybe Lawman2 or some such could give us some better idea of how Club 1872  is nothing  other than a continuous, glorified begging bowl to help meet running costs?

    And I’m not being a smart-ass in asking : Like many people I have a couple of direct debits for a couple of charities, including one for Erskine Hospital.

    What I get for that is the intangible satisfaction of making some small contribution to the hospital in which my dad spent many months as a war wounded Scots Guardsman.

    I certainly don’t get a say in the affairs of the place, or any kind of ‘shareholder’ reward.

    The oddity is that Club 1872 was set up as a Limited Company- able to make profit, not as a Charity, which would put some kind of restriction on how it used its money ( a previous Rangers charity was mildly spanked on the hand for breaching Charity regulations!)

    So all the donations legally go to the shareholder, the only shareholder, who or which is at perfect liberty to put the monies received to whatever purpose he, she or it chooses.

    Fair enough, provided that the language used to describe ‘donations’ does not begin to imply that the donors are any kind of ‘investors’ (in the financial market use of that term) who might expect a cash return or shareholding stake in a commercial company.

    I am no expert, and would be most grateful for the kind of straightforward, accurate guidance that I can’t readily get from ‘google’ or other search engine.

    View Comment

  37. JustTheFactsJune 7, 2018 at 17:55 (Edit)

    AULDHEID JUNE 6, 2018 at 20:10…we just need to be assured that the same cannot happen again and those assurances need to be believable and need to come from the people still involved, both at SFA and Rangers.
    Rangers don’t exist. You of all people should know this. This is exactly why this 5 Way bollox needs addressing people are becoming lazy with the facts and slowly but surely as time slips by a myth becomes the acceptable norm.
    ============================
    Normally I say TRFC but I slipped up. I say TRFC to stop posts like yours reminding me that Rangers don’t exist.
    At my age reminders play an important path in negotiating the way to the bathroom.  Thank you.
    Regarding challenging the 5 Way or the Frankenstein Agreement any suggestions as to how?

    View Comment

  38. fan of footballJune 7, 2018 at 21:51 (Edit)

    I think it has pretty much been established that under Regulation 80 an overdue payable dating back to 2001 to 2003 existed as far as HMRC are concerned.
    This from a letter of 6th June 2011 from RFC to HMRC describes what HMRC were writing to RFC about.
    1 I write further to your letter of 20 May 2011 and our subsequent meeting at the Clubon 31 May 2011 in order to provide an interim update and proposal in respect of the Club’s PAYE liability for 2000/01 to 2002/03 (as detailed in your letter of 31 May2011) (“the Liability”).
    You don’t get much more overdue in 2011 than tax owed from 2000/01 to 2002/03.
    So the question is did RFC in their Interim accounts and the reason given by Regan in his unpublished draft in the 7th December e mail describe the liability as such or did it not?
    Was what was said that described the liability as potential by the auditors, repeated by Alastair Johnson plus the addition of discussion happening, truthful statements of the position at 31st March or would they mislead the Licensing Committee?
    Did those statements accurately reflect the discussions that went on between HMRC and MIH/RFC on 21st March 2011 and is there any evidence that the Compliance Officer has seen to tell him what was discussed or is he taking the word of TRFC with no proof?
    That is one of the areas the JPDT have to make a decision on and if those statements in the Interim accounts and Regan’s draft have been excluded from the JPDT  remit then we need to know, why because what was said is not, on the face of it, a truthful presentation of what the actual situation was.

    View Comment

  39. upthehoopsJune 7, 2018 at 19:57 (Edit)

    The terms of reference are key and significantly we do not know what they are.
    Fixing the Terms of Reference to produce the desired result is something the SFA under Regan were really good at and when they weren’t setting the terms as in the LNS enquiry they or RFC kept information that would have changed them out of sight. 
    You are right to be sceptical but as long as there is no independent oversight of the SFA they will keep themselves unaccountably safe.
    One of Maxwell’s tasks should be to change this but its going to need more than keyboard campaigners to do it.

    View Comment

  40. Justthe facts 13.52
    The genesis of the holding company myth etc was discussed a few months back on SFM.
    If you read down the article at
    https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/neil-doncaster-and-the-birth-of-monster-myths/ 

    you will see that the concept was one hi jacked by Doncaster to use a change in SPL rules for a purpose it was never intended.
    The problem with tackling the 5 Way is it is a secret and without a signed copy to go on attempts at challenging it have been scatter gun.
    The hard truth is no club wanted RFC and their support to disappear from Scottish football, whose value was only seen (and still is) through blue and green tinted glasses. Not all supporters wanted to lose the hate fest either. 
    A bit of a Don Quixote task in those circumstances.

    View Comment

  41. easyJamboJune 7, 2018 at 22:32 ‘I don’t honestly know if the TOP situation affects a share issue, but I suspect that it won’t. TOP will have no desire to affect the day to day running or fundraising of any company they are looking at. They have a pretty narrow remit of ensuring that small shareholders are not disadvantaged in a takeover situation.Even if a share issue does go ahead, I would expect that TOP will still insist on a 20p a share offer for the existing non concert party shares. If the percentages change following the share issue, then there is the possibility of TOP making another order on the basis of the new share capital and share distribution.’
    ______________________
    There is, I think, no way round it for Laird Proprietary/King, if the TOP remain firm.

    The legally enforceable obligation on King/Laird Proprietary is , for example, to buy from  me (ha!), or you(ha ha!) , or any poster on this site( ?) the shares in RIFC plc that we might want to sell.
    And to pay us 20p per share.

    All the buggering about with a quite separate share ‘issue’ is not relevant.

    As you say, any additional shares issued to a select few will increase the total number of shares in issue. 

    But the price that the Dave boy would have to pay me if I wanted to sell will still be 20p per share!

    As long as the TOP make the necessary adjustment to their order.

    Which, if they are in any real sense an independent regulatory body, they would have to do.

    View Comment

  42. PADDY MALARKEYJUNE 7, 2018 at 22:25
    THELAWMAN2JUNE 7, 2018 at 21:27
    I assumed a person of your staunchness would , at the very least , have a ST, shares in RIFC (like I have) and be an ardent contributor to and supporter of Club 1872 , and would be able to ask the great and good of your club(s) these questions . I think I will email TOP to find out when I can expect to see my £2 from Dave .

    ——————

    I have a few season tickets for my immediate family though unfortunately my working location means more often than not I can’t attend any longer. The tickets are used every game though. 

    I have shares in Rangers. I don’t have shares in Celtic. Why would I.?

    I wouldn’t give 1872 a single penny of mine.

    Not sure the relevance of any of the above is to my question to Allyjambo about his point on the money 1872 used to give RIFC a loan. Why would I ask 1872 about it when I don’t believe it happened so surely best to ask the person who claimed it did? 

    View Comment

  43. AuldheidJune 7, 2018 at 23:50
    ‘…A bit of a Don Quixote task in those circumstances.’
    _________________________
    Don Wheeotay! 

    Hey, man, this Spanish living bit has got to you, eh?08
    Don Quixote, as you know of course, challenged non-existent ‘enemies.’

    The enemies  of Sporting Integrity, journalistic truth, and sheer common sense and commercial and legal reality that we on this blog face are not imaginary, but very, very real.

    They are a Governance body ( perhaps bodies) which actually created a monstrous lie and may have been party to a criminal conspiracy to defraud a plc of millions of pounds, and a parcel of broadcast journalists and print media journalists who consistently and insistently defend and propagate that lie: these are no imaginary enemies such as windmills were for the Don!

    But real, and utterly pernicious, enemies of Truth.

    And they must, by dogged persistence and insistence on our part ( allied, of course, with knowledge of fact) be made to see the truth.

    Preferably while I am still alive, but I’ll settle for sometime in the rotten lifetime of the liars, however young they may be now.

    Who would be a Fat Controller?or the son of a clergyman? or a past board member of the SFA? or associated with a football club trying to live on the back of a history that is not theirs?

    View Comment

Comments are closed.