Rangers and Rights Issues – Will History Repeat Itself?

Skinny posted a piece regarding possibilities around a share issue or flotation by Mr Green of his company which owns Rangers. It provoked, as usual, some interesting discussion.

A regular commenter, Iain, offered some thoughts from the perspective of the Rangers fan, pointing out that the apparent failure of Sir David Murray’s rights issue in 2004 was nothing of the sort, and it is therefore wrong to take it as an indication of what might happen should the former Sevco Scotland Ltd reach a stock market.

As Iain put it:-

The RIGHTS ISSUE was indeed a 1:1 offer of preference shares to existing shareholders.
(there was an opportunity for any non shareholders who really wanted to buy to do so….with no general prospectus, publicity or finance available it’s no surprise that it wasn’t taken up in any number).

The RIGHTS ISSUE comprised of preference shares issued at a premium to what they were trading at the time. I’m sure our friend Eco will confirm that this is most unusual as preference shares are normally issued at a discount (hence the preference part).
So…not a flotation. Not a general shares issue, but a 1:1 RIGHTS ISSUE, where the offer price was HIGHER than could be bought on the open market, and there was ZERO chance of Sir David’s shareholding being diluted!

And people try to hold this up as evidence of a reticence of Rangers fans in owning their club!

The reality is Sir David knew all along that the uptake would be very low. That’s why he used MIH to underwrite it. That was the plan! Shift Rangers’ debt from them to another part of his empire….and in the process face no risk whatsoever of diluting his ownership.

We know now of course that this was all conceived under the knowledge that his mates in the banks were perfectly happy for MIH’s debt to rise. That’s why he did it!

I was interested in this analysis, as I had not seen it suggested before that the rights issue was in fact simply a device to inflate Sir David’s shareholding whilst transferring debt from Rangers Football Club PLC to the banks supporting the rest of his business empire.

It also seemed to be a suggestion that he had not actually wanted any other investors on the issue as the offer price was above the market price. I am sure Iain does  not mean to imply that Sir David, who is now Mr Green’s pal, deliberately sought to take advantage of fans of the football team!

And so, as I had a spare ten minutes, I went looking at Rangers share and rights issues.

The 2000 Rights Issue – Enter Dave King

On 30 March 2000 Murray International Holdings announced the following:-

David Murray, the Club Chairman stated that Rangers is aiming to raise up to £53.1 million in cash, before expenses, through a Rights Issue. My comments are in bold throughout.

The key elements are as follows:

proposed 1 for 3 Rights Issue of up to 15,380,507 new Ordinary Shares at 345 pence per share, to raise up to £53,062,749 million in cash, before expenses.

minority shareholders, many being loyal fans of the Club, have the opportunity to participate in the issue if they so wish.

Murray Sports, which is controlled by David Murray, has committed to take up its rights under the Rights Issue, through its wholly owned subsidiary RFC Investment Holdings, representing an investment of £32.3 million.

Of the £32.3 million, the Murray Group is investing £9.3 million with new investment of approximately £20 million from Ben Nevis Holdings, a company associated with Dave King, a successful Scottish businessman based in South Africa. A further £3 million is being invested by private parties.

This is when Mr King appeared on the scene at Ibrox, of whom was written in my last post.

Dave King is appointed as non-executive director and Douglas Odam as finance director to the Board of Rangers.

Rangers main objectives are to:

continue to improve the quality of the player pool

I wonder how well Rangers fans thought that went after 2000.

develop young players through the new Rangers Academy

Perhaps less successful although present circumstances seem to make playing the young players a necessity and as a result they may bloom into a fantastic crop in years to come, but in the years after 2000, I do not recall too many coming through the ranks to first team success. I am happy to be corrected by those who know better.

improve Rangers’ performance in European competitions where the revenue streams are enjoying significant growth

Well…

increase media revenue, potentially through pay-per-view and through the internet
use Rangers’ brand loyalty to develop new revenue streams from internet distribution channels

A fine aim all those years ago when people thought that there was a huge market for pay services on the internet.

as a result of recent significant investment in players, borrowing levels have risen substantially and the Board now wishes to reduce the Club’s reliance on short-term borrowings, as publicly stated at the Club’s AGM in December.

Ah…

Interim Results for the six months to 31 December 1999 are:

• Turnover for the six months to 31 December increased by almost 40 per cent to £29.8 million (1998 seven months: 21.4 million).

• Trading profit for the period was £112,000 (1998: loss of £3,090,000).

So, to address a comment which popped up on the blog in the last couple of days, in 1999 the turnover and the costs FOR SIX MONTHS ran at almost £30 million each!

Fast Forward to 2004

In November 2004 the following official announcement was made by Rangers:-

Again my comments are in bold.

PROPOSED 1 FOR 1 RIGHTS ISSUE OF UP TO 57,276,477 NEW ORDINARY SHARES

Correct Iain – a rights issue.

Rangers  announces  that it is offering up to 57,276,477 new ordinary shares at 100 pence per share to  qualifying  shareholders through a Rights Issue. Murray MHL Limited (“MHL”) has undertaken to take  up  its  rights  in  respect  of  the 11,785,479 shares held by it and to subscribe or to procure the subscription of further new ordinary shares so that the minimum amount raised by Rangers, after the estimated  expenses  of the Rights Issue, is GBP50 million.  The Prospectus(“Prospectus”) for the Rights Issue is being published today.

BACKGROUND TO AND REASONS FOR THE RIGHTS ISSUE

Over the last few years, the  finances of football clubs throughout Europe have been subject to major unexpected  changes  and  pressures.   Rangers  has  been affected by these changes, particularly as they came over a period when Rangers was making significant investment in its playing squad and training facility at Murray Park.

And in connection with which expenditure there had been a £53 million rights issue four years previously…

During the summer of 2002, the board set out to implement a three year plan  to stabilise  the Club’s finances.  Good progress has been made by John McClelland and his team  in  the implementation of this plan.  However, it is clear to the board that this plan alone would not be sufficient to re-establish a sound base for the finances of  Rangers.   The  actions  taken  under  that plan have been necessary  to  restore  a solid financial framework under which  the  Club  can operate on an ongoing basis.  However, the Club remains weighed down by a heavy burden of debt and this has  been recognised too by our principal shareholders, MHL and Murray Sports Limited.

I wonder if this will explain what happened to the money raised in 2000…

MIH through MHL has agreed to  provide the level of support to the Rights Issue which will allow the Club to restructure  its  financial  base.  As a result of this increased financial commitment by MIH to the Club, David Murray  announced his decision to return as Executive Chairman on 1 September 2004.

Changing financial environment

The board believes that the financing of football clubs, particularly those  in Europe,  has been affected by two key factors.  First, the impact of the Bosman rulings has  transferred  the  negotiating  initiative  from  football clubs to players and their agents.  The transfer fees that can be secured  by clubs have collapsed for all but a few superstar players.  This has also led to  increased player  wages as funds previously paid between football clubs as transfer  fees are now paid directly to the players and their agents.

If a club was a selling club, that would be a problem. But for a buying club however, Bosman was a good deal, allowing them to sign the pick of the players.

Second, media  revenues  paid to football clubs, which grew considerably during the  mid  to  late nineties,  have  now  substantially  diminished.   This  has particularly affected media related revenues in Scotland.

Impact on Rangers

Against this background,  Rangers  was  committed  to the growth of the playing squad  in  pursuing  success  in  European competition.   The  changes  in  the financial environment left Rangers  realising  lower  values on the transfer of key  players  than  had  previously been reasonably expected.   Players’  wages escalated as the Club sought  to  encourage  and retain competitive footballing talent.  Prior to the implementation of the three  year  plan  Rangers’  annual expenditure on football salaries was amongst the highest in Britain.

Oh dear… but it was not one of the highest earners…was that a slight problem?

In  addition,  media  revenues  from  domestic competitions which the board had reasonably expected to be around GBP10  million  annually  have  fallen to less than GBP2 million annually as a result of reduced media spending.

Someone maybe can educate me – were Scottish clubs, especially Celtic or Rangers ever making £10 million annually from domestic media revenues?

The board believes that the cumulative effect of these adverse factors has been the principal cause of the current financial position of the Club.   It  is  in that  context  that  the  board  believes  the Rights Issue will strengthen the longer term position of Rangers.  Although the  fund raising will not alter the Club’s basic business strategy, which is to maintain  a balanced approach to on and off field activity, it will enable the Club to re-invest  operational  cash flow which would otherwise have gone to service and repay debt.

A good plan – bring in funds which doe not cost you interest to pay off debt which does cost you interest…

BUSINESS PLAN

The  plan  which the board has been implementing contains a number of elements, including:

–    bringing   together  the  activities  and  expenditures  of  the  football operations and the commercial activities directly related to football;

–    improving performance in merchandising Rangers products;

–    concentrating  on  internal  youth  development  and the creation of  home grown talent at Murray Park to reduce player costs;  and

I have heard that one before – in 2000 to be exact.

–    providing a competitive playing squad within a sustainable budget.

Ditto.

These initiatives have made a significant contribution already in improving the Club’s financial position.

CURRENT TRADING

On 14 September 2004 Rangers announced full year results  for the year ended 30 June  2004. Turnover  was  up  by 16.5% from GBP49.0m to GBP57.1m.

The loss on ordinary activities  before  tax  of  GBP5.9m  is an improvement of GBP23.7m against the prior year loss of GBP29.6m.

Past ambition was financed by large capital investment and the promise  of media revenues that did not materialise.

That is not a great strategy then, is it? Fortunately the man in charge in 2004 had no connection with these failed tactics. Hang on…oh.

The Club must now operate within its financial constraints.  The board intends, having regard to available financial  resources,  to  field  the best available team for each game.

STRUCTURE OF THE RIGHTS ISSUE

Qualifying  Shareholders are being given the opportunity to subscribe  for  one new ordinary  share  for  every  existing ordinary share held at a price of 100 pence per new ordinary share.

The Rights Issue structure allows  all  the  minority  shareholders in Rangers, predominantly loyal supporters, to participate fully in  the  issue  of the new ordinary shares on an equal basis with MHL and Murray Sports.

Funny how each pitch to the fans mentions how “loyal” they are. And if Iain was correct, then Sir David did not intend his fans to take this on, as they were being sold shares at too high a cost.

THE  SUBSCRIPTION  PRICE OF 100 PENCE PER NEW ORDINARY SHARE COMPARES WITH  THE OFEX MIDDLE MARKET PRICE OF 98.5 PENCE PER EXISTING ORDINARY SHARE, AS SUPPLIED BY THE NEWSTRACK SERVICE OF OFEX, ON 4TH  NOVEMBER 2004, THE LATEST PRACTICABLE DATE PRIOR TO THE PUBLICATION OF THE PROSPECTUS.  INVESTORS SHOULD THEREFORE BE AWARE THAT THE SUBSCRIPTION  PRICE  REPRESENTS  A  PREMIUM OF 1.52 PER CENT. TO THIS MIDDLE MARKET PRICE.

MHL has agreed to take up rights in respect of  the  11,785,479 ordinary shares held by it and, in accordance with underwriting arrangements,  to  subscribe or procure subscribers for further new ordinary shares so that the minimum  amount which  will  be  raised by the Club, after the estimated expenses of the Rights Issue, is GBP50 million.   If  fully  subscribed  the  Rights Issue would raise approximately GBP57.3 million before expenses.

The new ordinary shares will, when fully paid, rank pari  passu in all respects with the existing ordinary shares, including the right to receive all dividends and other distributions hereafter declared, made or paid on ordinary shares.

Sadly Iain falls into the error trap of which he accuses others. The rights issue was of ordinary shares, not preference shares.

PROSPECTS FOR RANGERS

The Rights Issue is expected to raise a minimum of  GBP50  million  for Rangers after  the  estimated  expenses  of  the Issue.  The net funds  will  be  applied to paying down the Club’s debt.

In  addition  on  4th November 2004 Bank of Scotland entered  into  a  facility agreement with the Club.  Under this agreement, additional details of which are set out in the Prospectus, Bank of Scotland has agreed to provide the Club with up to GBP15 million  on a revolving credit basis to finance the ongoing working capital requirements of  the Club and up to GBP22 million on a fixed term basis to refinance part of the Club’s existing bank debt.

It still seems remarkable that, at the same time as raising £50 million to pay down debt, Rangers at the same time lined up £37 million more debt! I know that the terms might have been better etc, but is this not symptomatic of the excesses of top football teams in the early part of this century? Burning money as if going out of fashion!

The board believes that this  restructuring  of  the  finances of the Club will provide  the stability required to continue the good progress  which  has  been made during  the  past  two  years.   The board believes that prospects for the financial position of Rangers will be greatly  improved  as  a  result  of  the Rights  Issue  and  that  the  Club  will be well placed to build on the secure foundations  provided through the support  of  its  shareholders  and  Bank  of Scotland.

Sadly it was not to be.

OFEX

THE EXISTING ORDINARY SHARES AND THE NEW ORDINARY  SHARES  ARE NOT TO BE LISTED ON  ANY  STOCK  EXCHANGE  NOR WILL THEY BE DEALT IN ON THE AIM MARKET.   IT  IS INTENDED THAT THE NEW ORDINARY  SHARES WILL BE ADMITTED TO TRADING THROUGH OFEX BUT THIS SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS IMPLYING THAT THERE WILL BE A LIQUID MARKET FOR THE EXISTING ORDINARY SHARES OR THE  NEW ORDINARY SHARES.  CONSEQUENTLY, IT MAY BE DIFFICULT FOR AN INVESTOR TO SELL OR REALISE EXISTING ORDINARY SHARES OR NEW ORDINARY  SHARES.   THE  VALUE OF THE EXISTING  ORDINARY  SHARES  AND  THE  NEW ORDINARY SHARES MAY GO DOWN AS WELL AS UP AND THEREFORE ON A SALE INVESTORS MAY REALISE LESS THAN THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT THEY INVESTED.

A very necessary warning – no one could say they were misled!

How Did This One Go?

The Herald on 14th December 2004 discussed the results of the Rights Issue.

DAVID MURRAY, the Rangers owner, said last night he is “quietly confident” the club will be debt-free within 12 months, after revealing the outcome of the club’s £57m rights issue.

Some 3390 existing and 1263 new Rangers shareholders subscribed. They invested an average of £248 each, raising additional sums of £848,465 and £307,530 respectively.

Murray admitted that he was “delighted” by the participation in the offer of more than 4500 shareholders and supporters, declaring that it demonstrated “strong support” for the initiative. He added: “Collectively, we have created a firm financial footing for the club.”

The near-doubling of Rangers’ share capital has tightened Murray’s grip on the club. He now controls 99.8m shares, representing a 91.8 per cent stake. The Rangers chairman again underlined his commitment to fiscal prudence by stressing that all the new money will be used to eliminate debt.

Hindsight is always perfect, but surely, even in 2004, someone was questioning Murray’s “Commitment to fiscal prudence”? Was this not the man who boasted about doubling the spending of Celtic?

” It [the new money] is all going to square the books off.”

Murray expects Rangers’ net debt to be cut to £10m-£15m by the end of the financial year next June, down from £74m at the end of 2003-04. Such a figure would be roughly on a par with Old Firm rivals Celtic.

Murray would like to go further, though. “It is still my intention to cut the debt back to nothing. We own our stadium, our training ground and our brand. We are in a very strong position. I am quietly confident that over the next 12 months we can get the club on a position of having no debt.

That did not quite work, did it?

Eyebrows were raised when it emerged in the rights issue prospectus that Rangers had lined up £37m of borrowing facilities from Bank of Scotland, even as it detailed plans to pay down debt. Most of Rangers’ existing borrowings are with the bank in the form of long-term loan and overdraft facilities. Murray has stressed, however, that the new facility was put in place because the club had to satisfy auditors Grant Thornton that it had sufficient funds for its rights issue business plan under a “worst-case scenario”. That could perhaps involve a swift exit from European competition, or even the unlikely event of failing to qualify for Europe at all.

Commenting on the extent to which Rangers will draw on that new facility, Murray said the club “does not intend to go anywhere near £37m”.

I love that comment – “of course we have no intention of going anywhere near THIRTY SEVEN MILLION POUNDS” OF DEBT! This from the owner of a team which had just been £74 million in debt and had only succeeded in reducing exposure to the bank by having another part of the business, funded by the bank, underwrite the issue, to raise funds to pay off the same bank, being also the one offering the new facilities!

Conclusion

Thanks to Iain for sending me off through the history books.

None of the contemporary information suggests any perception that the rights issue was a device to make Murray’s hold on the company stronger. Indeed at an estimated cost of £700,000 it seems an expensive way of doing so.

Over 5,000 individuals subscribed. Was Murray taking them for dupes?

That would be scurrilous to suggest, and wrong. I am sure therefore that between what Ian has said and what I have read, I have misunderstood him.

“The reality is Sir David knew all along that the uptake would be very low. That’s why he used MIH to underwrite it. That was the plan! Shift Rangers’ debt from them to another part of his empire….and in the process face no risk whatsoever of diluting his ownership.”

And, as I said, this is the man to whom Mr Green is cosying up…the fans of the team he used to own seem to think very negative matters about him.

Maybe Sir David back in the Ibrox Directors’ Box, and just in time for a floatation flotation share issue rights issue Dutch auction scramble ach, call it what you like!

Posted by Paul McConville

Advertisements

75 Comments

Filed under Football, Rangers

75 responses to “Rangers and Rights Issues – Will History Repeat Itself?

  1. Robert D Bruce

    Step up and play, the machine seems to say, as I walk round and round the Penny Arcade,
    Just ring the bell on the ………….

    There are none so blind as those who will not see. 🙂

    • ecojon

      @ Robert D Bruce

      On reading the response below of the contributor deluded by the distorting blue lenses of his history-correcting specs – which also hide those revealing eye glints – I would say you are spot on with: ‘There are none so blind as those who will not see’.

      I must add: ‘And who will never see and comprehend or even question’ as they view anything other than uncritical adulation of Rangers as an unjustified slur.

      @ Paul

      I woke this morning and strangely enough was thinking of Hector and the Daves – after the exertions my wooly mind suffered reading the tax decision last night – and wondered whether HMRC’s interest in Rangers was not solely as a creditor but was also linked to their collection role for the SA tax authorities.

      Did they see the Rangers CVA rejection as an opportunity to examine the mechanisms by which money or liabilities was moved around the Murray Group?

      I was actually thinking that it would be worth looking at what happened to King’s money as my memory wasn’t very clear on it. And what do I find? A wonderfully lucid explanation which makes pretty dismal reading for all those Rangers supporters who so fervently followed Murray and brushed aside the few thinking Bears who repeatedly argued that the club finances were built on quicksand and that it would all come to a horrible end.

      This time I see those same thinking Bears again being isolated and derided by the Green followers who also followed Murray and his get outa ra Ibrox jail disciple Whyte.

      Still it’s nice to see that Dave and chico are having a love-in over property sales as there’s money to be made and to hell with all those fans who say they’ll never forgive Muyrray for what he did to Rangers. chico has declared it’s time to move on and forget the past 🙂

      These of course are the fans who think they are staying in the SFL – sadly for them chico and Ally have already marched away from that commitment and still quietly flows the Clyde 🙂

      Still it was nice to see iain actually create the groundwork for a guest post as I have often said he should write one as I was sure it would have been a fascinating and enlightening read and so it has proved to be although not quite in the way I expected 🙂

    • Ernesider

      “Blindness can take many forms other than the inability to see. Fanatics are often blinded in their thoughts. Leaders are often blinded in their hearts.”
      Orange Catholic Bible

      For iain

      ” Some lies are easier to believe than the truth.”
      Ditto

  2. Robert D Bruce

    ……… Roll up and spend your LAST DIME.

    You have been warned. 🙂

  3. iain

    “Sadly Iain falls into the error trap of which he accuses others. The rights issue was of ordinary shares, not preference shares”

    So in all of that all you can dig up that got wrong was that I said it wasn’t a sale of ordinary shares (even though it’s called a rights issue throughout)?
    I would give that a good hit rate and will gladly take that.

    So..
    The shares were sold at a premium.
    Hardly making it attractive to investors.
    Sir David committed to taking all the 1:1 shares he was entitled to. A commitment of over £32million. And crucially meaning that even if every other share was either taken up by an existing shareholder or by a new one, then Sir Davids control of the club would not change one iota.

    Cast your minds back to the campaign behind Celtics flotation. Adverts in the papers appealing to the rank and file Celtic fan. Finance packages for as little as £1000 (or there abouts I’m sure I will be corrected) available to buy the shares. None of which was in evidence during the Rangers rights issue.

    So..Maybe Sir David did hope for some more buy in from the fans. I don’t know.
    What we do know is that he was comfortable with the rest of his empire stumping up over half of the figure.
    Did he make it attractive for the fans to take the rest? I would say he didn’t. The worst case was he took the majority of the £52million, and not only consolidated his position but gained a bigger stake in the club than before!

    We also now know that even the minimum £32million was financed by a very compliant and friendly bank. A bank who had no issue funding the rest up to £52million. We also know that essentially the £52 million of Rangers debts was simply shifted to another part of Murray’s empire.

    Paul thinks that at a price of £700,000 it was an expensive way of doing it.
    I confess I am not a businessman, nor an accountant or a lawyer. Can anyone tell me of an other way of moving over £50million of debt from one company in a group to another legally? Because I don’t know of one.

    • TheBlackKnight

      iain,

      what do you think in regard to the possible F.C. held over M.P and I.S?

      Will that affect yours and others position?
      kind regards
      TBK

      goosygoosy says: “Well well well, Some news from the Spivs,
      Whyte’s Liberty Corporate applied to be liquidated on 25 Sept 2012 (See notice at Companies House)
      That’s interesting because………
      Liberty Corporate holds a floating charge over the assets of Whyte’s RFCG. It is wholly owned by Whyte’s BVI co Liberty Capital
      RFCG hold a £27.5M floating charge over the Ibrox and MP assets of RFC (I.A.)
      So
      In the world of Spivery the liquidation of Liberty Corporate has only one meaning
      It means Craig Whyte’s floating charge over RFC(IA) is alive and well and getting ready to move somewhere even safer than Liberty Corporate
      And
      If Craig Whyte’s floating charge over RFC (IA) assets is alive and well the one place it will certainly not be at present is in the RFC(IA) List of Creditors where the departure of assets makes it worthless.
      Meaning
      The RFCG floating charge must have ceased being an RFC (IA) debt as part of the deal under which Sevco 5088 acquired the assets of RFC (IA) for £5.5m
      The $64 question now is:
      Which Co now holds the RFCG floating charge?
      It has not been registered as an fc charge against either Sevco5088 or Sevco Scotland.
      So where is it?
      The answer I reckon lies in the structure of the Sale Agreement
      Under this agreement a company called “Sevco” were committed to buy certain assets if the CVA sale to Sevco 5088 was rejected by Creditors People thought that “Sevco” and Sevco5088 were the same company.
      This sale duly took place. The title deeds for Ibrox and MP assets were transferred from RFC (IA) to separate legal entity, Sevco Scotland apparently without passing through the books of Sevco 5088. If they had passed through the books of Sevco 5088 then Sevco5088 would have been obliged to register any floating charges that moved with these assets. This did not happen.
      We know the Scottish Sports Council had a floating charge over MP and were a Creditor of RFC (IA). On 6 July 2012 Sevco Scotland registered this SSC floating charge at Companies House. This suggested it was legal for a floating charge to be reassigned from RFC (IA) direct to Sevco Scotland without passing through Sevco 5088 books and thus having to be registered by Sevco5088
      So if it was legal to assign the SSC floating charge to an independent legal entity Sevco Scotland then it was equally possible to reassign the RFCG floating charge to yet another independent legal entity
      Here’s what may have happened
      ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
      Assume that both Sevco5088 and Sevco Scotland are owned by a parent company called Sevco plc. which is registered offshore (perhaps in the BVI where Liberty Capital is registered)
      Sevco as parent co of Sevco5088 is also legally entitled to buy RFC (IA) assets for £5.5m This seems a bargain price particularly since it will be reduced by £2.75m if players refuse to be transferred for a fee. Since this happened in practice the real purchase price was probably around £2.75m
      Sevco plc. was able to acquire these assets for a bargain £2.75m because it accepted responsibility for a Ticketus contract and 3 floating charge debts owed to RFCG, Close Leasing and the Scottish Sports Council
      So
      D&P are instructed that everything bought from RFC (IA) by Sevco 5088 is to be transferred from RFC (IA) to Sevco plc. This allows Sevco5088 to drop out of the picture altogether. We thus move from a scenario where RFC (IA) assets are being sold to a UK Co (Sevco5088) to one where RFC (IA) assets are being sold to an offshore co (Sevco plc.)
      Sevco plc. then transfers the SSC floating charge plus Ibrox and MP to its subsidiary co Sevco Scotland. This means Sevco Scotland owes its parent co big bucks for these valuable assets
      Sevco plc. retains the Ticketus contract together with the RFCG and Close Leasing floating charges. over Ibrox and MP. As an offshore co Sevco plc. Is not obliged to register the RFCG and Close Leasing floating charges at Companies House.
      By taking on these floating charges Sevco plc. have to pay Whyte £27.5m (or whatever lower figure they agree) to cancel the FC .Similarly , Sevco plc. have to pay Close Leasing to cancel their FC
      We thus end up with the following situation
      Sevco Scotland owe their parent co for the value of the assets transferred (perhaps the £50m recently quoted by a Sevco Scotland Director)
      Sevco plc. owe CW some agreed figure to cancel out his floating charge
      Sevco plc. owe Ticketus the right to sell £27m of STs over the next few years
      A share issue takes place which enables Sevco Scotland to reduce its debt to parent co Sevco plc.
      Sevco plc. Then pay off Close Leasing and RFCG with some of the fund raising proceeds
      Ticketus get a staged payment on their £27m debt as their share of the fund raising
      Everybody lives happily ever after
      Apart from TRFC the “football club” which is stuck with debt owed to its parent co Sevco plc. and a Ticketus deal that will last for years
      Plus of course
      Any fans who think that by investing in the fundraising they will be getting better quality players on the park”

      • John Burns

        Yes – Yes – Yes TBK Notwithstanding the HMRC & SPL outcomes – there are so many ifs, buts and maybes hanging over the Rangers brand, that there could be a much bigger ‘stooshie’ further down the line.

        TBK – Is it you belief that, if and when Green moves to ‘float’, all the other Whyte and Ticketus skeletons will tumble out of their respective cupboards?

      • ecojon

        @ TBK

        This of course takes us to the flotation prospectus which should spell-out what the capital raised is to be spent on. I also believe that any AIM float must show that it has enough money to cover 12 months operating costs.

        But we’re back to the ‘old’ timing argument and it may well be that we won’t get any sort-of answers until the results of the floated Plc are eventually published and the leading players may well have departed long before.

        With regard to floating charges is there no back-checking mechanism which reveals on the registers or deeds where or what a charge is registered on in terms of a company?

        Otherwise how could anyone check the probity of the ‘vehicle’ being used?

        I have to say that I have never believed that Ticketus was walking quietly off into the sunset – there are too many strands which connect Ticketus to others who are connected with the Rangers deal which is pretty small fry in relation to all the other ‘business’ these people will be doing with each other in future. They won’t let a measly £27 million drip from the gravy-train upset their ongoing hunger and digestion of fresh companies

      • Duplesis

        This is fantasy.

        I would first note that the author doesn’t know the difference between a Standard Security, an assignation in security and a Floating charge.

        SSC have a standard security over Auchenhowie, not a floating charge.

        Close Leasing had/have an assignation in security in respect of the (I think) catering income, not a floating charge.

        RFCG do have a floating charge, which was granted by the old plc and floats over the assets of the old plc. It has never crystallised so isn’t attached to any assets. It certainly doesn’t transfer from the plc to the purchasing company when the plc’s assets are sold. The only relevance it might have is in respect of a claim on the plc’s assets, which are now effectively just whatever is left in the pot from the payment made by Green’s consortium for the assets.

        It most likely doesn’t even have that however, since RFCG confirmed that the value of the debt secured by the floating charge was nil, and are making no claim.

        The author might want to look at paragraphs 70 and 113 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 to get a better idea of the position about floating charges when assets are sold “from under” a floating charge by administrators.

        As to the hypothetical Sevco plc – well there’s no evidence of it exists at all, nor is there any evidence it took title to any of the assets. There is however clear evidence (from the Land Register) that Sevco Scotland Ltd took title to the assets, and did so in a grant of title which came directly from the old plc.

        • carl31

          Duplesis,
          I have never ‘bought in’ to this, ‘Octopus Hypothesis’. Ive read the posts of goosygoosy on a number of blogs and its just too far fetched that SDM is still pulling strings. Its well known that since the 4rse fell oot of the international steel market, he’s had more than enough on his plate.

    • Ernesider

      Iain you wrote

      “We also know that essentially the £52 million of Rangers debts was simply shifted to another part of Murray’s empire.”

      Are you saying that the debts were removed from Rangers and taken on by another Murray company. If not what are you saying?

    • Den

      Iain

      “So in all of that all you can dig up that got wrong was that I said it wasn’t a sale of ordinary shares (even though it’s called a rights issue throughout)?
      I would give that a good hit rate and will gladly take that.”

      We all make mistakes I suppose. but you were not very forgiving about other peoples errors.

      “Andy….this bloke Skinny wants to be taken seriously then states that not only did Sir David Murray have a “share issue” but also a “floatation”!
      I can feel a post from Paul coming on….”out of 2 he got 2 wrong!!”
      Maybe not!”

      There was in fact a share issue, So one error. You have stated that one error is a good hit rate.

      Unfortunately your hit rate drops a bit with.

      “The RIGHTS ISSUE comprised of preference shares issued at a premium to what they were trading at the time. I’m sure our friend Eco will confirm that this is most unusual as preference shares are normally issued at a discount (hence the preference part).”

      The Preference part has nothing to do with discount or premium. Preference Shares are very different to Ordinary shares as they rank before Ordinary shares for dividends and for any proceeds on liquidation. There are other differences which I won’t go into ‘.

      “So…not a flotation (thankfully I now know how to spell that). Not a general shares issue, but a 1:1 RIGHTS ISSUE, where the offer price was HIGHER than could be bought on the open market, and there was ZERO chance of Sir David’s shareholding being diluted!”

      Small point but since SDM had committed to take up his allocation then there was ZERO chance of his shareholding being diluted anyway; even if all the minority shareholders had bought up to the hilt. A rights issue gives existing shareholders the RIGHT to buy new shares in proportion to their holding thus allowing them to keep the same % holding as before.

      I don’t know why the shares were offered at a premium, rights issues are usually at a discount for various reasons.

  4. Tyke Bhoy

    [blockquote]Someone maybe can educate me – were Scottish clubs, especially Celtic or Rangers ever making £10 million annually from domestic media revenues?[/blockquote]
    Shirley the MSM weren’t paying for RFC’s press releases, which they are still taking as gospel truth!

  5. mick

    goosygoosy says you know to listen the legs of the octupus are all the sevco companys its a plan hatched now its unfolding and its about to pop out whyte and ticktus are stealth in this pulling some strings

  6. Ernesider

    Paul

    One of your very best.

  7. “Players’ wages escalated as the Club sought to encourage and retain competitive footballing talent. Prior to the implementation of the three year plan Rangers’ annual expenditure on football salaries was amongst the highest in Britain.”

    As this was during the ‘EBT years’ does this extract from the Rights Issue blurb not confirm that the payments to players were indeed salaries and not ‘loans’. Did the remuneration outlined in the contracts supplied to the SPL/SFA tally up to’amongst the highest in Britain?

  8. ecojon

    The media reports that Green has been on a share selling foray to NI.

    What is really interesting is the way that Imran Ahmad, who accompanied Green on the two day trip, is being portrayed as a ‘financial aide’. My understanding is that ‘aide’ means ‘assistant’ although to further pursue the French Connection I note that ‘aide-de-camp’ is a junior officer who acts as an assistant to a more senior one. Of course as chico probably knows the word ‘aide’ could mean a ‘Basque Deity’ – so who knows what chico means when he uses it 🙂

    However, enough of ra auld French: When did Imran slip to being an aide? He is a non-executive director of Rangers and also MD of Zeus Capital which along with its associates are also investors in the newco Rangers. Many believe he is the Rangers Money Man with chico as just the ‘face’.

    Blue Pitch Holdings – the biggest investor in Rangers – is believed be an investment vehicle under the control of Zeus Capital although this has never been confirmed publicly despite repeated assurances from Gawd – aka Basque Deity – that the mystery investors would be named.

    chico was the founding subscriber of The Rangers FC Ltd with 2 x £1 subscriber shares. It appears that one of those shares was transferred to Imran Ahmad prior to the change of name from Sevco Scotland Ltd to Rangers newco. However there is, as yet, no paperwork at Companies House to confirm this.

    But no matter how you look at this it really is worth pondering the reasons behind the ‘demotion’ in Ahmad’s role although, as with much of the smoke and mirrors wrapped around Rangers, sometimes the only clue is a glint in chico’s eyes.

    • @EJ

      The reason is simple, CG is “the face” IK is the face of the money and does nt want the same crap as CG will soon get from the people he is currently “onsiding”.

      @paul great post but its set me thinking down another alley now…….and BK some bits and pieces falling into place but not sure if it makes a “big picture” yet.

      @Cam – Iain – Andy really would enjoy a post from yourselves on the perspective from your view on current and past matters surrounding the club. Why don’t you give it a go?

  9. JimBhoy

    Green is genius at sussing things out and exploiting all other entities in the game. He has managed to get Ally, the fans, Leggo and now Murray in his pocket, whose to say in a few month’s time Whyte won’t get the same treatment and come back into the loyal fold. Maybe Bomber Brown was right after all…. Lots of gullible people out there hanging on his every vague, premeditated sentence, forgetting his broken promises as long as he sings from the hymn sheet he has been quick enough to determine. All this fast tracked by the help of those who call themselves journalists.
    I wonder why Brown hasn’t bleated out what he purports to know, what has he got to lose?
    I mentioned Leggo earlier in this post I know I shouldn’t but for a laugh you should check out Leggo’s rants on the snake-oil salesman maybe 6 or 7 weeks ago ’til now… That to me is a good barometer on how well Baron Greenbacks has managed to manipulate the bears loyal… Leggo will not say anything bad against the man now because he knows that tide has turned and he would lose most of his audience if he did.

    Green rocks… I do not think it will matter how much evidence dug up on websites and based on proper facts suggesting he is a shyster, he seems to have a captive audience who love life in the lowest Scottish league, I suppose it beats not having a team to watch at all.

    • kennymccaffrey

      I suppose if the one-eyed man is king in the land of the blind, then it surely doesn’t take much for the chief exec at Ibrox to be described as a ‘genius’.

      From his record, I’d say he seems to be an operator bestowed with ample amounts of what many people call ‘low native cunning’ – talks a good game, gets what he wants and leaves, probably just when everyone realises what he’s up to. Bet he couldn’t believe his luck when he washed up at Ibrox.

  10. JimBhoy

    Not relevant to the fiscal details from paul. Something mentioned by an earlier poster, some lyrics, can anyone tell me the relevance of the song ‘penny arcade’ to the bears faithful, if any relevance or background.. Just wondering? 🙂

    • cam

      Just an attempt to get away from the sad songs ,,,its a cheery wee number and if you watch the youtube vid of tony west performing it totally unrelated to Rangers then you will get a laugh.

    • M_A_R

      If I recall correctly, there was a woman who was a long-standing Rangers supporter or employee, who used to give it laldy with Penny Arcade, and it was simply picked up by the fans.
      There’s nothing hidden to be read into it – it’s just turned into a favourite song of the fans.

  11. Michael

    For me this is the funniest part:
    “The RIGHTS ISSUE comprised of preference shares issued at a premium to what they were trading at the time. ……….preference shares are normally issued at a discount (hence the preference part).”

    “hence the preference part”.
    Ha ha ha ha ha.

    I guess this is not your bag, Iain.

  12. thomo

    Can anyone direct me to information on the relationship between MIH and HBOS(formerly BOS) re: amounting massive debts multiplying year on year whilst SDM and cohorts receiving huge pay cheques each
    Plus-is there no-one held accountable at the bank for allowing this farcical lending structure to go on for so long

    PS-sorry this post isn’t as witty or inciteful as a lot of the others,can I just congratulate everyone on these forums for giving me hours of endless,enjoyable,knowledgable reading….Keep the faith,the end is nigh for the dark forces in this country.

    PPS-also can anyone enlighten me as to what WATP NS means,I’ve seen it on a lot of hate campaign websites/forums…

    We All Talk Pish…..No Shit Maybe?????

    • We are the peeeeple no surrrrrrrrrrender……………………………hail hail !!

    • Marching on Together

      HBOS (or BofSc) are corrupt. I am aware of a company which banked with BofSc, which encountered financial difficulties, and which entered negotiations to sell itself to MIH. The BofSc informed MIH of the financial position of the selling company, so that the selling company had no negotiating position.

      The BofSc then bribed the owners of the selling company with promises of financial backing for a new venture if they kept shtum about this corruption, whereas it should have been on the front page of The Scotsman.

    • Gypsybhoy

      try http://www.ianfraser.org/a-brief-history-of-halifax-bank-of-scotland

      and google a company called Stadia (created by mgr of commercial lending at the bank), associate of SDM

      and…Operation Hornet

  13. Andy

    Talk about ‘whataboutery’….this site should just be renamed ‘whataboutery’ haha, the conspiracies so many posters on here make up are incredible, though I have to commend the time spent making them up, kudos for the efforts lads!!

    Green wants Edminston house – He speaks to the man that currently owns this, Murray, how else was he ever going to try and get hold of this? Now everyone thinks their best pals, well I doubt this highly, and the point Green made on DM being the man to talk to about EBTS is spot on, why on earth have none of the football authorities asked Murray, thats ridiculous. As for saying its time to forgive Murray, well its another PR stunt just to make sure fans dont get annoyed with Green for meeting DM and also sweetens DM up to a deal, and as CG has done often, makes DM the fall guy if he doesnt get what he wants. (As for forgiving Murray, well it’s too early to tell, if we carry on rebuilding and get back to the top then I would forigve his wrong doings, or as most on here predict the doors are slammed shut, then Murray would have to be deemed most culpable and unforgiven).

    Now my turn for whataboutery…So here goes, strap yourselves in for the ride, your probably going to get all wound up, so what if:

    Green and Co, bought All assets, stadium, murray park, car park, branding rights, light fittings, titles (whoops sorry cant say titles on here) etc etc for £5.5m

    He has some initial investment from his partners, mainly Zeus to get things up and running, and he gets fans on board, via seige mentality and the fact that people like to go watch their team play football, sheds all the top earners and starts work on his project to get rangers back to top:

    – So he signs some middle of the road spl players so that Rangers can romp up the leagues whilst maintaing a skeleton squad to keep wage bill affordable
    – he then goes about improving the sponsorship deals and exposure of the club, so gets sports direct on board, then goes to adidas, he makes sure rangers are still in the best selling football game worldwide and getting their slice of that pie, he gets as best a tv deal for the club as possible despite spl crude attempts to ruin a deal.
    – He then says we need to develop other avenues of income, so where can we develop, round about ibrox would be good, but we need edminston house, so lets try get that, so il phone the owner and make it publicly difficult for him not to do a deal.
    – Then what, well I need money for these developments so I will do a share issue, and raise the funds from fans and other investors to start work on developments (be it hotels, bar..whatever) that will bring future income to the club at a time when I can ge away with it because a. we cant buy players and b. iv already put a team capable of winning our way up to spl, by which time development should be complete and generating revenue.

    At the end of our journey to spl, we have a club that owns its stadium, training, ground, car park (or something else) and another revenue generating development, at which point he may need to do anther share issue to raise funds for squad investment to get back into europe for the next stage of the plan.

    This is a more likely plan, not saying its going to be successful, but its more likely than all this conspiracy nonsense. Get a grip of your lives.

    @Jim bhoy

    No idea on why they chose the song, I go every week and never heard it before the season before last, but its catchy and helps build an atmosphere before games so Im happy with it.

    • @ Andy

      I accept that your proposition is credible and in the main workable and I sicerely wish the fans if not CG the best and hope that it works out.

      I can see that it COULD work and yes if it was in someone elses hands might even be convinced that it was a workable business plan. Problem is that the man ” engineering” this is CG and anonnomus cohorts. So while its a good business plan outline under his stewradship I doubt he has even considered it.

      perhaps you should offer yourself as his business manager……………….

      Good post though, thanks.

    • COYBIG

      @Andy

      “Talk about ‘whataboutery’….this site should just be renamed ‘whataboutery’ haha, the conspiracies so many posters on here make up are incredible, though I have to commend the time spent making them up, kudos for the efforts lads!!”

      Whataboutery?…. He has been handed a four-match ban for racially abusing QPR’s Anton Ferdinand.

      As far as posters on here making up conspiracies, I hope your not stupid enough to include myself as one of them. Any post I have put on here has either been; A query. As I am looking for an answer from an authority figure, as in someone with greater experience or knowledge in the field of Scots Law than myself. Or what I think is a possible or the correct answer to a question another poster has posed. Or if I do post my theory regarding a part of the saga, I either seek factual conformation first or use allegedly, or words to that effect.

      “Green wants Edminston house – He speaks to the man that currently owns this, Murray, how else was he ever going to try and get hold of this? Now everyone thinks their best pals, well I doubt this highly, and the point Green made on DM being the man to talk to about EBTS is spot on, why on earth have none of the football authorities asked Murray, thats ridiculous. As for saying its time to forgive Murray, well its another PR stunt just to make sure fans dont get annoyed with Green for meeting DM and also sweetens DM up to a deal, and as CG has done often, makes DM the fall guy if he doesnt get what he wants. (As for forgiving Murray, well it’s too early to tell, if we carry on rebuilding and get back to the top then I would forigve his wrong doings, or as most on here predict the doors are slammed shut, then Murray would have to be deemed most culpable and unforgiven).”

      I agree, it is a big jump to conclude that since Green is talking to Murray then they are best pals and in cahoots.

      I honestly don’t know why none of the football authorities have not questioned Murray on EBTs, I agree that it’s ridiculous.

      As for forgiving Murray, again I agree, it might be a PR stunt.

      I don’t understand your reasoning, that if everything turns out OK, then you will forgive Murray. But if it doesn’t, then you won’t forgive him. Because either way, he still did the ‘deeds’ that he done.

      “Green and Co, bought All assets, stadium, murray park, car park, branding rights, light fittings, titles (whoops sorry cant say titles on here) etc etc for £5.5m”

      Agree with everything except t… I don’t even have to write the word or explain why, do I?

      “He has some initial investment from his partners, mainly Zeus to get things up and running, and he gets fans on board, via seige mentality and the fact that people like to go watch their team play football, sheds all the top earners and starts work on his project to get rangers back to top:”

      There is a distinct possibility that could be the correct version of events.

      “- So he signs some middle of the road spl players so that Rangers can romp up the leagues whilst maintaing a skeleton squad to keep wage bill affordable”

      Not really ‘romping’ Division 3 just now, but I take your point. Again, distinct possibility.

      “- he then goes about improving the sponsorship deals and exposure of the club, so gets sports direct on board, then goes to adidas, he makes sure rangers are still in the best selling football game worldwide and getting their slice of that pie, he gets as best a tv deal for the club as possible despite spl crude attempts to ruin a deal.”

      Sponsorship, logically, would be down. The Adidas deal has yet to be confirmed. Motherwell(No offence to any Motherwell fans reading this) are in “the best selling football game worldwide” also. Anyway, I don’t think the slice is that much, if at all, to be worth a mention.

      I remeber reading certian SFL rules, on another site, which said than since The Rangers haven’t got the ‘right’ membership, they don’t get any money from the TV deal. But if they do get any money then it would be a percentage of the £1m, which is divided between all 30 SFL clubs, and Division 3 clubs get a smaller percentage than Division 2 clubs, who inturn get a smaller percentage than Division 1 clubs.

      (To confirm, I am not saying that is correct. It’s just somthing which I read. Maybe someone on here could clarify the situation).

      Any, in your opinion crude, attempts by the SPL to ruin a deal, were unsuccessful. Although, they did manage to secure the SFL rights for £1m, i.e. the current deal.

      “- He then says we need to develop other avenues of income, so where can we develop, round about ibrox would be good, but we need edminston house, so lets try get that, so il phone the owner and make it publicly difficult for him not to do a deal.
      – Then what, well I need money for these developments so I will do a share issue, and raise the funds from fans and other investors to start work on developments (be it hotels, bar..whatever) that will bring future income to the club at a time when I can ge away with it because a. we cant buy players and b. iv already put a team capable of winning our way up to spl, by which time development should be complete and generating revenue.

      At the end of our journey to spl, we have a club that owns its stadium, training, ground, car park (or something else) and another revenue generating development, at which point he may need to do anther share issue to raise funds for squad investment to get back into europe for the next stage of the plan.”

      There is a distinct possibility that could be the conclusion.

      “This is a more likely plan, not saying its going to be successful, but its more likely than all this conspiracy nonsense. Get a grip of your lives.”

      So after dismissing other peoples “conspiracies” you then went and wrote your own. I know, it was to show how anyone can make stuff up.

      Anyway, just because you choose not to believe somthing another poster on here writes, doesn’t make it any less plausible. That is of course, unless you have factual evidence that discredits their point of view.

      • Tyke Bhoy

        I remeber reading certian SFL rules, on another site, which said than since The Rangers haven’t got the ‘right’ membership, they don’t get any money from the TV deal.

        You have probably read it on here too. TRFC are associate members of the SFL. Associate members are supposedly not entitled to any financial interest in the assets of the SFL (point 19 on page 127 of http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/docs/009__034__constitution__rules__SFL_Constitution__Rules__1346425915.pdf ). Given this is true then in theory an associate member should not receive any tv money (perhaps Paul could confirm the sale of media rights would be financial interest in an SFL asset). Of course given the recent penchant of the sfa and the spl for not following the rules then who is to say the SFL won’t follow suit.

    • kennymccaffrey

      Andy – I have no problem with the ‘what if’ plan. It’s what anyone would want to do, completely sensible, laudable even. Does not wind me up in the slightest.

      There are a couple of issues that I think could well hinder this, though.

      First and foremost is the financing itself of course. Green, from what he has said himself even, needs a helluva lot more than just investment from people who react positively to his ‘rabble rousing’ comments of late (if that’s what they are indeed aimed at doing). He needs serious investors, of the £10m a throw variety (or just even £1m), and they don’t seem to be queueing up to hand over the funds.

      Of course they could be waiting to see the outcome of the various things that are expected to occur over the next month or so (see below).

      Revenue is a problem too. Season tickets have sold well, albeit at much reduced rates (but maybe pretty high for the competition on offer). I wonder how long that will last? Also, I’m sure I read somewhere that whatever the costs of staff, etc, maintenance of Ibrox & Murray park will mean the company needs more than this – again, Green needs to attract the bigger investors just to keep things on an even keel.

      Sponsorship. Ah. Don’t think he’s projecting the best image for this, do you? Green is constantly odds with the authorities, has played the ‘bigot’ card and is generally not providing a wholesome image for any would-be sponsor. This affects any flotation/big investors too of course.

      TV deal & worldwide rights. I’m not that sure exactly what you mean here, but again, I would have thought the rights for Div3 football games would not bring in a massive amount, while I cannot see Newco having much of a ‘slice of the pie’ on an international basis – at least not until the ‘next phase’: once/if they get to Europe. They do need to get there first.

      Liquidation of the oldco. It seems that BDO may have a problem with Green’s initial purchase of the club – and may even have the power to do something about it. We won’t really know about that once they get to work (which is … when?). No matter, the upshot is uncertainty, again affecting prospective investment.

      Finally (or maybe not), we have the HMRC verdict(s), the SPL commission, and various other investigations and (quite possible) revelations in regard to the oldco, but ones that will certainly have an effect on the Green regime. The media coverage alone – yes, the media will eventually write the full story, once it is forced to by all the above being official statements on the matter – is bound to have an effect on investment, sponsorship, worldwide image and so forth. And that’s before any actual penalties (remember them?) are brought into the equation. We may finally have some proper delineation of the old club/new club debate – no doubt brought on by the implementation of such penalties.

      Now I know a lot of what I argue here is dependent on things that have yet to be announced. But even that fact must lead to uncertainty that will hamper any of Green’s plans. Of course, we also have Green’s ‘plans’ – he has always intimated that he just needs his 10% of the £30m and then he’s gone: what’s he going to leave behind, and when, I wonder?

      • Andy

        My point was lads, that a lot of what is posted on here is the extreme situation – That, whyte will still get 27.5m and ticketus there money, and murray, whyte, green are part of some master plan to scew over Rangers seems to me, somewhat far fetched…considering ticketus are already taking court action against whyte for those infamous ‘personal guarentees’ that are worth nothing because he is.

        I am the first to say that Greens plan, whatever it is, might not work, but the conspiracies around him buying the club just so he can shaft us over for his own £3m i don’t buy into. His plan might well fail and his get out may well be, shit I need to sell an asset and yes at that point were well and truly f$£ked, if that point ever comes. But if it does come then I doubt it will be part of a master plan to make it all fail….Who seriously writes a business plan, planning on it failing??

        • Andy

          @Tykebhoy/Coybig

          The SFA membership was transferred and therefore continous hence why Rangers are afforded what I suspect will be a significant cut of the deal.

          • Tyke Bhoy

            TRFC were granted a new category of temporary membership of the SFA, while RFC(IA) remained full members of the SFA,in order for the former to compete in the first round of the Ramsden’s cup. I can only assume that the SFA broke its own constitution by cancelling the temporary membership if it transferred the full membership given that the SFA rules quite clearly state membership can not be transferred. Of course they pretty much made the rules up as they went along by creating the temporary membership category.

            However I think you are missing the point Coybig and I were talking about SFL membership. The SFA only have a tv deal for the national teams and the SFA Cup

            • Andy

              @Tykebhoy

              Okay, well with SFL and the apparent cosy relationship we have with them at the moment, I would bet my bottom dollar Rangers are getting the best part of the money from that deal. Another, everybodys happy deal in SFL, clubs get money they wouldnt normally, Rangers get decent money for 3rd Div football, and gers fans can still watch most games.

              But if you wish to beleive that Gers dont get any money from that deal then go ahead. Rules, have been bent, twisted, re-written throughout the whole saga….maybe because they were bad rules to start with..

            • Tyke Bhoy

              oh from the mouth of bairns!! Andy proves the WATP attitude and suggests that rule bending on behalf of TRFC is commonplace, What was the suggestion that RFC benefited from compliany authorities deemed as?? Paranoia? Paranoia needs to be unfounded fear, Andy confirms it isn’t unfounded

        • Andy,
          for a long time now I’ve thot that CG and his backers were after a quick killing, so quick it was supposed to be that they thot they could pay £5.5m on a Wednesday and by Friday had sold it to Wattie or TBKs or Cam for £15m, in-out £10m better off.
          Because they are now stuck with this, the big kill needs to be huge because the club is again loosing about £1m a month

          • Forgot, just what is so special about this building (Edminston) that it is paramount to the future of TRFC, Is it fully occupied of tenants pleading for their rent to increase? Is it an empty? I dont know anything about this property, what makes it so special that Minty did not sell it to Sally sorry Craigy (dont they look alike now)

        • COYBIG

          @Andy

          I agree, some people do go ‘over board’. On the Ticketus vs Whyte situation. Arn’t Ticketus sueing Liberty Corporate, and didn’t someone on here say Liberty Corporate have applied for liquidation? You say that Whyte is worth nothing, but hasn’t he still got a floating charge on Ibrox and/or Murray Park? And as for setting up a buisness plan to fail? I wouldn’t be calling it a ‘failing’ if I walked away with a 7 figure sum of money, would you?

          Anyway, I have some good news for you. But, I also have some, what looks like, bad news too. The good news is, The Rangers get paid, no matter what type of membership they may have. The, so called, bad news is:

          “SFL CONSTITUTION AND RULES

          68. MONETARY AWARDS
          68.1 The League shall make monetary awards to each Member and Associate
          Member in the three League Championship competitions.
          68.2 For the purposes of this Rule 68, the surplus on the League’s Trading
          Account shall be subject to a capped limit of £1,187,649 in Season
          2008/09 (the “Capped Limit”).
          68.3 The Capped Limit shall be adjusted each year by a percentage equivalent
          to the difference between the Retail Prices Index issued on behalf of HM
          Government for the month of March in the year of distribution and the said
          index for the month of March in the preceding year. In the event of the
          cessation of publication of such Index, the Board shall have power to
          substitute such Index for adjustment purposes as it may consider most
          closely reflects the impact of inflation upon the costs incurred by football
          clubs in carrying on their business.
          68.4 The surplus on the League’s Trading Account at the end of each financial
          period shall be distributed to Members and Associate Members as follows:-
          68.4.1 75% of the Capped Limit shall be divided equally among all Members and
          Associate Members;
          68.4.2 25% of the Capped Limit shall be disbursed among the Members and
          Associate Members on an incentive ladder based system of payments; and
          68.4.3 Any excess of the surplus above the Capped Limit (“the Excess”) shall be
          distributed on an incentive based ladder system by the Board allocating:
          68.4.3.1 55% of the Excess, to be divided among the Members in the First Division;
          68.4.3.2 33% of the Excess, to be divided among the Members in the Second
          Division; and
          68.4.3.3 12% of the Excess, to be divided among the Members in the Third Division.”

          I don’t know exactly how much The Rangers would get, but it doesn’t seem like much.

    • Den

      i would like to see your business plan fleshed out a bit.

      There is a good deal of optomism in it, there will also be some downsides.

      I think that Rangers will be in a position to win their way back to the top flight of Scottish football and in time back into Europe. They have the resources at present and the players to do that. I still think there shoudl be an element of trimming costs as their infrastructure is still very costly. The main threat to their progress is working Capital. a successful share issue would remove that threat if the money was used wisely.

      At present Rangers are probably 3 years from being back at the top and 4 from being back in Europe. If the management are anything like like Murray and Whyte the share issue windfall would be gone much sooner than 3 years.

      There is the assumption that there is great development potential around Ibrox. I would have thought that developers would have seen that and put in a bid for more than £5.5m for the lot and then sold off the team, stadium and history titles etc for what they could get and keep the valuable development land. The only reasons that this didn’t happen was; either the developers didn’t great the profit potential or there was a conspiracy or three to deliver Rangers into Green’s hands. I favour the first as I am not into conspiracy where there is a more logical answer.

      Supporting the first theory is the fact that development is at a low ebb at the moment. Casinos bars and hotel developments have been promised over the years and nothing done about it.

      These developments can generate substantial profits but also crippling losses. They are not a natural fit for a Football club. Most high profile collapses are companies that think they can move into an adjacent market and clean up because they have some things in common.

      If the development is to go ahead it would require big money. £30m to £50m would hardly get you to the ground breaking. Ther is a lot of unravelling of ownership and limitations on use to overcome before planning permission can reasonably be applied for.Partners in the development will want guarantees and security so the club will be forced to give up some control of the development and hence profits. The stadium itself may fall into the hands of developers should there be cash flow problems.

      Expanding your brand into the Middle East, Far East, Russia (just substitute any place that is experiencing an economic boom, except Brazil obviously) is another sytandby.. Another old standby. Man U, Barcelona, Real Madrid and a few others have done it. They have their own local teams, they have the big Leagues on TV, chances of breaking into that big time – Low. The cost to infiltrate it is massive and even Man U and Real are massively in debt.

      I would applaud CG and Rangers if they pulledit off. I had my doubts about McCann so I am wrong every so often.

      Most likely scenario is get in, get the money and get out. a lot easier than that long term headache.

  14. kennymccaffrey

    Thanks for that Paul, hadn’t seen any of that before (living in SE England). A great read, great work.

    Even with our 20:20 hindsight, I can’t believe how anyone would have swallowed any of the reasoning in the case as written. It is all over the place. To me it was not just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic – they were adding a load of new deckchairs too.

    Like you, I would also take issue with the comments about media revenue. According to the argument, Scotland must be the only place in Europe where media revenues have fallen over the past 20 years. (Even so, it does point to another shortcoming of the SPL/SFA or whoever is responsible for the woeful quality of coverage and level of revenues from TV given to Scottish football in general).

    But perhaps my biggest bugbear is the continued comparison made by some posters (not just you, iain) between such rights issues/flotations and Celtic’s financial crisis. Celtic’s was a ‘cri de coeur’ to help avoid it going out of business – they made no bones about it – and Celtic fans rallied to help. This was all part of a real revolution that saw a massive change in the club, attracting serious operators, and even executives with experience at blue-chip multinationals like ICI and institutions like the Bank of England – and all resulting in the well-run, viable business it is today.

    Rangers,on the other hand, were asking for money to just continue with the same business plan as before, and with the same people at the helm who got them into the mess, not only in 2000, but in 2004 and thereafter. And we now know the consequences.

    To get back to the question you posed at the start, Paul – will history repeat itself? – I’m not so sure. Quite apart from the fact that in the current situation at Ibrox, we are dealing with an entirely NEW history (!), I don’t think you can really compare the levels of public knowledge about the problems being faced. Also, reading from what you’ve agreed with iain on, it is also not really a comparable situation.

    What I am very interested in, however, is what the good Black Knight has come up with. That’s scary, mainly as it makes so much sense. I cannot believe (but sort of can, sadly) that we’re now getting the return of the Mad Knight. Are the wagons being circled by any chance? I suppose it won’t be long before we see the full cast getting back together for a final shot at box office glory – the Over-Expendables: the Last Stand, if you will.

    Maybe this will actually prove handy when the full force of what is about to come hits them – at least they’ll all be in the one place when The Law comes knocking.

  15. JimBhoy

    @cam the lass that ran my local used to give it laldy at her sunday night karaoke… It is a fun number I just wasn’t sure where it came from…

    • cam

      Yup,first time i heard it was at a karaoke and thought what a stupid song,,,then i found myself singing it at the fifba,,,i do do stupid rather well!
      And it is rather fitting as we are a penny ante team at present.

  16. JimBhoy

    @andy thanks for the reply, i can’t argue it’s not catchy, i think it goes back 2 seasons but came out of the blue if you pardon the pun 🙂 I think the Killie fans sing paper roses, not sure why, apart from that i can’t think of any pop song currently sung by any other scottish team that would not be considered contemporary… Anyone?

    • Andy

      @Jimbhoy
      No probs, I’ve got a number of Killie fan friends so can tell you that they sing Paper Roses as that was number 1 the week they won their league title.

      • Michael

        I don’t think it was ever number 1 in the UK charts and the US dates wouldn’t tie in. Maybe they sing it because they are daft 😉

  17. John Burns

    I can hear Green’s comments as he “walks away” with a few million profit, leaving the Rangers brand up the creek without a paddle – “I tried my best but there were too many vested interests against me – Scottish football is dying”

  18. Is Charles Green ruling out institutional investors in the IPO, or is playing to the crowd again:

    Charles then brought up the question of Rangers Shares.

    He explained that Rangers Shares will ONLY be available direct from Rangers F.C.

    They will be sold at first to Rangers Fans and Rangers Fans only, as in Season Ticket Holders registered Supporters Clubs and Members of the Rangers Family.

    No other option for buying shares will be available.

    http://vanguardbears.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=287

  19. martin c

    He then stated that whilst things are the way they are, the onslaught continues AND as long as he is C.E.O of Rangers F.C, Rangers will NEVER play in the S.P.L again.

    So he’ll leave somebody else to mend bridges, fences and so on and so forth.

    What sort of thought processes makes a football club owner say they would never play at the top level in their own country?

    I was thinking this may be a freudian slip and his tenure as CEO is for the short-term.

    Are TRFC bucking the recession and really going to plan hotels (plural), a new shop and football academies in two different continents. And global marketing, all from the lower tiers of Scottish football?

    I don’t need an IPO to realise this is pies in the blue sky. What is need at ibrox is some real blue sky thinking and getting on with the football.

  20. COYBIG

    The vanguard Bears Q&A with Charles Green:

    “Q1: What is happening about the money that is owed to Rangers by the S.P.L etc ?

    C.G: “The S.P.L are refusing to hand what is due to Rangers and the fight against these disgraceful decisions was still ongoing”

    Q2: Would Rangers Consider putting a Team back into the N.I Milk Cup ?

    C.G: “This had already been raised by the Youth Team Coach and would definitely be looked at in the future”

    Q3: Would Rangers consider bringing out an Orange Top?

    C.G: “Yes, they have a number of designs and are coming near agreement with Adidas”

    Q4: Will you continue with the fight against all Rangers enemies out there as you have been doing ?

    C.G: “Absolutely and with everything in my body, I wasn’t a Rangers Supporter when I came here but I am now”

    Q5: Would Rangers Consider flying the 4 Home Nations Flags alongside the flags already above Ibrox ?

    C.G “I dont see why Not as the contribution and dedication of Rangers Fans throughout the U.K and the world is second to none and should be recognised””

    I’m sorry, but honestly, you get a chance to ask the new CEO of your club anything, and that’s the 5 questions you ask him? No questions about the share issue. No questions about the current business model that The Rangers are operation under and how, despite logic, sustainable. Not one searching question.

    No. The VB are more intrested in ‘fighting enemies’. If there will be an ‘orange top’ they can proudly wear. They’re even more intrested in what flags will be flying at Ibrox, rather than will it still be open or safe enough(asbestos) to watch football in, in a years time.

    Any The Rangers fans care to comment?

    • COYBIG

      **SORRY, FORGOT TO INCLUDE THIS**

      It was Green himself who had to bring up the share issue:

      “Charles then brought up the question of Rangers Shares.

      He explained that Rangers Shares will ONLY be available direct from Rangers F.C.

      They will be sold at first to Rangers Fans and Rangers Fans only, as in Season Ticket Holders registered Supporters Clubs and Members of the Rangers Family.

      No other option for buying shares will be available”

      That means no Underwriters, no big fee, right? But does it also mean No IPO? No Prospectus? No need to explain what you’re going to do with them money raised? Is it then a Private company?

      • ecojon

        @ COYBIG

        Rangers shares for Rangers Supporters ONLY!

        Now that could be an interesting development – Only on 18 September chico stated: “From the outset, the consortium which purchased the club has stated its commitment to giving supporters and the wider public the opportunity to buy shares in Rangers.

        “The appointment of Cenkos Securities plc and Capita Registrars are important steps in the process and we are looking to continue making good progress on these matters.”

        Looks as though he has now given up on the wider public and what happens with all the investors who must already have put in £5-£10 million – do they get shares? What about the promise to the original investors about doubling their money? I wonder what their investment is actually secured against especially as it doesn’t appear they will qualify for shares? Curioser by the day.

        And the vow that as long as he is CEO, Rangers won’t play in the SPL unless the SPL changes its attitude. This really verges on delusional and institutional investors can only view it as damaging the return on their investment by not being in the top-flight of Scottish football and excluded from Europe.

        Of course perhaps it is realised within the Green camp that the only potential investors left are indeed the Rangers family and the more they are emotionally whipped into a frenzy to defend their club from all attacks then the deeper they will dig into their pockets.

    • cam

      My theatre group has run into some financial probs due to its share flotation going udders up and the pantomime horse being sued for inappropriate behaviour.
      We are trying to organise a show to raise funds and a reprise of the Mel Brooks classic Young Frankenstein is at the casting stage.
      The chaps in here are good with words and i think there may be a few budding thespians in our midst.
      I would like to ask Eco and mick to play the roles performed so well by Gene Wilder and Marty Feldman.
      Chico has expressed an interest in playing the monster,,for a small fee.
      I would of course be happy to supply the abnormal brain and the play will be staged at Castle Greyskull.
      Give me a shout if any of you want to be an extra,,,we have plenty slots available as villagers with pitchforks and flaming torches storming the castle.

      • COYBIG

        @cam

        One or two sarcastic posts, tenaciously linked to the blog, was kinda funny. But now it’s every single post you make, which is tiresome. And with the last few being, at best, a load of incoherent shit, don’t you think it’s probably best you concentrate on posting comments that are relevant to the blog they’re under? No offence.

        • cam

          ok,,,,,,i’ll try

          • mick

            Don’t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience

            • ecojon

              @ mick

              I think I’ve finally cracked it – chico didn’t buy Ibrox for football but to open a pie factory – he gives it away in his NI speech: “If it was a Pie company going bust with the loss of Revenue to the local Economy and Job losses, Scottish M.Ps and Government Ministers would be bending over backwards to help”

              And if it’s cold pies there’s no VAT to pay which is a real bonus 🙂

            • well said Mick, Cam dont listen to them

          • mick

            your a faxxy cam your constantly bating me and eco your a fool blinded by bigotry and full of greens moon beams a hope you cry at the ebt stripping just like on liquidation night and losing your 18 point lead to wee lenny ,you cant go a topic without stocking both of us your a creepy zombie type lurking to defend green because you dont know reality and are a follower you lack basic leadership skills nevermind blogging ,

            • mick

              hi ecojon a read that over at tsfm a said a wonder if that was referance to halls of broxburn igorant man green this country owes them nothing they are parasites to the earths surface and resourse totally in self presivation scum if your laymen

            • You know what Mick, you’re deluded! Cam so far has never to my knowledge wanted or sought to be a LEADER of what? You and your best bud have over the past week echoed CG, you have rallied a troop, you have now even got COYBIG telling him to shut up,(lets hope it stops here) because of what? As I stated last week to EJ, the more you banged on, the more thumbs down you were getting, most likely did not matter to you.
              Lets go back last week to where both your onslaughts on Cam started. Show me the post from Cam that makes both of you get into a piranha like feeding freenzy, I might have missed it. EJ, what was the post? Tell me Mick, was it as vile and stupid as the Phil incubator blog?
              I cant remember you Bull fucking Phil for that.
              In case you maybe wondering, I ran a CFC bus for a long time, My first memory of CFC game was shortly after the 67 game, My second memory is being told by my dad to pee where I stood, in this game it was before the main stand was built and we stood, I saw hee haw, but I did pish on a mans leg who punched my dad. I am a Celtic supporter. In Shotts during the 60’s it was accepted that during the big walk you could walk into any home and have a drunken pish or shite, the door was open. Unless like my dad, we vacated for 6 hours from our house to the bing behind us. I am a Celtic supporter Mick,
              I think Cam is a Rangers supporter with a sense of humour.
              I want the world to know that RFC died in disgrace, thats why I’m here, trying to get informed goss and even expert opinion.
              But I cringe at most of your comments now.

          • nobody puts cam in a corner,:)

            • ecojon

              @ jedi01

              My beef with cam has nothing to do with mick and goes back further than mick. He is a twister of words and uses his humour to mask the bigotry he inserts and now I ignore him as I recognise what he is and what he’s about.

            • COYBIG

              @jedi01

              “you have rallied a troop, you have now even got COYBIG telling him to shut up”

              Please don’t misqoute me. I did not tell cam to shut up. What I said was:

              “don’t you think it’s probably best you concentrate on posting comments that are relevant to the blog they’re under? No offence.”

              I like cam’s sarcastic posts, some are actually funny even. But when every single post he makes is unrelevant, and mostly incoherent, to the blog it’s under, it gets tiresome. Also, I am not a “troop”. I came to my conclusion all by myself.

              Actually I’d say Mick does the same too sometimes, but without any puntcuation, no offence Mick. It just so happens that cam did it in reply to my post, so I decided to ask him.

              I’d rather that people post about the subject of the blog, with the odd sarcastic comment. But when every other post is basically nonsense, it ruins it for posters that are asking relevant questions, or making relevant points.

  21. mick

    theres great activity lately rtc tsfm her all the statements theres news about to come the late statement from sfa not released the 1 we were promiced in 48 hours also the ebts is just around the corner the paper chace is well on not as pop corn as the last 8 month but it is still gripping the fan sites and blogs greens making his own shares 500 in aframe lol fat sally upset at bbc not saying sorry the curren trolls are not mentioning 1 thing negative deluded as ever its comedy gold the league cup no draw yet waiting on fixed balls celtic v sevco zombies at ibrokes a bet lol

  22. mick

    one of our top internet bampots dont listen to what he says its 95%lies lol

    http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/a-dignified-deja-vu/#more-3153

  23. mick

    phils told you so moment on the share flop opps issue

  24. ecojon

    NEWS FLASH SPESHAL ON SHARE SINK

    Now that Charlie has escaped from his latest safe house he has now explained that as well as: ‘Existing season ticket holders, former shareholders, former bond holders, employees and fan groups members’ that ‘institutional investors’ will also be allowed to buy shares.

    Wow that should stop the institutional suits jumping out of the windows at Ibrox at the thought of all that dosh they weren’t going to make 🙂

  25. mick

    the crap from sally and the zombies falls on deaf ears scotlands sick to the back teeth with it every fansite in scotland is laughing at them and the msm coverage ,its just people who dont mind being conned that can have them lol
    500 in a frame charlie bhoy will sign it as real like a rail road bond lol

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s