Adam Answers the Walter Smith Mystery – The Rangers Website Got it Wrong!

I posted a piece a wee bit earlier today, which was prompted by Adam and Ecojon talking at cross purposes (that being a charitable explanation) about Walter Smith’s position as a Director of Rangers.

I have mentioned before, regarding other Ibrox directors, that there is a duty to notify Companies House of Directorial appointments and departures within 14 days. Ecojon was wondering why Mr Smith’s appointment, trumpeted all over the press on 11th and 12th November did not seem to have been noted by Companies House.

I looked at what the official Rangers website said on 11th November, and what it is saying today, and pointed out certain inconsistencies.

Adam, who has in the past had access to the inner workings of Rangers came up with a fine “nothing to see here, please move along” response as noted below.

The official site got it wrong a few weeks ago. Nothing sinister in it, they just jumped the gun with what they said. Todays piece clarifies the position as i stated earlier this morning Paul.

As you say though, not a huge issue. In fact, its not even an issue at all.

I agree that this is not a big issue, yet the response is in the finest tradition of spin-doctoring. Almost in a “We are at war with Eastasia; we have always been at war with Eastasia” manner.

(I am not suggesting Adam is a power-mad egomaniac, intent on world domination and happy to twist the truth to dupe the cowed population and to direct them at his enemies.  No that is actually ##### ######! Boom-tish!

[Editor’s note – even though this is intended as a joke I have instructed the writer to remove the name of ##### ###### in case they take it seriously – thank you])

So what is Adam’s explanation for declaring that two directors had been appointed “WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT” in November when that is wrong? Ah yes.

“The official site got it wrong and jumped the gun.”

So, the official site, operation of which has been taken in-house by Mr Green to save £30,000 per month, managed to announce two new directors, complete with quotes from them both and from the CEO, coupled with a picture of all three, leading to this being all over the press the next day…and this was all a mistake!

Indeed, such a mistake that the “mistaken” post was still there this morning when I looked!

It would, I suspect, be an embarrassment to Mr Green that his internal website operation were able to make such a mistake, and then not to notice it!? Maybe he should out-source it again to someone who won’t make such a mistake! After all, on Adam’s explanation, the present operation is incompetent!

People accuse me of finding something negative to say about Rangers everytime I post. That is not true. In one post in February, for example, I was neutral about them until the end of the second paragraph. (Another joke by the way).

I have repeatedly proclaimed my belief in Mr Green’s remarkable business abilities, which have resulted in him turning an asset worth £5.5 million into one worth upwards of £60 million or more, in under six months!

And this website issue is not a big deal. However the immediate rush by Adam and others to respond and to suggest that today’s post by Rangers “clarifies” the situation, when in fact it directly contradicts what it said before, is indicative of the instinctive desire to “defend” Rangers, even where there is no attack at all!

And bizarrely, the way in which the official site acts as if the report of 11th November does not exist, is what makes people interested in the previous announcement. I suspect that literally thousands of companies every year manage to forget to tell Companies House about directorial changes. I imagine very few, if indeed any, have any action taken against them.

I find the matter curious.

Posted by Paul McConville

 

PS Do me a favour guys (and girls) – tone it down a bit please. I am delighted that the blog is known as a place for reasoned discussion generally, and the quality of the commenters and their respect for each other, even where disagreeing, is integral to that. Let’s not lose it. Thanks.

Advertisements

262 Comments

Filed under Charles Green, Companies Act 2006, Rangers

262 responses to “Adam Answers the Walter Smith Mystery – The Rangers Website Got it Wrong!

  1. COYBIG

    A nice family friendly show using a PMS joke:

  2. COYBIG

    Eastenders (1:10):

  3. COYBIG

    Russell Howard (1:40):

  4. COYBIG

    Karen Taylor:

  5. COYBIG

    ***Go to video number 12 on the previous post***

    Tommy Tiernan:

  6. COYBIG

    The one and only Victoria Wood:

  7. COYBIG

    Just to clarify, I posted those videos of current popular comedians, just to show that I am not some disgusting sexist. I just wrote a wee joke. And now that I know Violet and Maggie are offended, I would just like to make clear once again, I sincerely apologise and am deeply sorry for any offence it caused.

  8. Adam

    So 122 pages of opportunities for people to pick and choose the bad parts just to have a go at a 3rd division club thats no longer “a rival”.

    Initial viewing gives me 4 initial points to raise.

    1) The players and staff WERE subject to a TUPE transfer on the 14th June 2012 just as i said but was chased about the place and told i was wrong.

    2) Walter Smith was appointed YESTERDAY as a Non-Executive Director of the Holding Company. Not weeks ago as wrongly stated on the website.

    3) Contrary to some myths and crazy theories, Ibrox Stadium and Murray Park are assets of the New Company and not assigned to anyone they shouldn’t be.

    4) I cant see any details of loan outstanding to anyone and from my initial quick reading though happy to be shown/debate otherwise, the initial investment was converted to a share purchase and is not owed back to the consortium.

    Here is a link as the one on the other page doesnt work.

    https://www.rangersshareoffer.com/Prospectus.pdf

    As stated, let the madness begin. 🙂

    • jinks

      Adam
      1. Because the prospectus says it, doesn’t make it true. Employees are offered a Tupe transfer but do not have to accept. This actually contradicts the continuing history argument, as if the club continued then why any need to transfer employment?
      2. Does it not say Walter will take up position after the share issue is settled at end of year?
      3. The valuers have not seen the Title Deeds for Ibrox & Murray Park (yet theyve valued them as assets of TRFC) but should ‘no sight of deeds’ not concern fans? Bomber thinks so.
      4. Don’t appear to be any loans stated, but money converted to shares, so CG (& others) could make millions clear profit thro fans’ money (if all goes to plan)

      Don’t get me wrong it’s their right to make a profit but there cld be financial sleight of hand going on which cld cost the fans in long term.

    • You only need to go as far as page 15:

      “On 20 November 2012 the tax tribunal determined that there was no
      tax liability for RFC 2012 plc which had arisen in relation to the EBT.”

      That is patently untrue, as a read through the FTTT decision shows.

  9. COYBIG

    @Adam

    I’ve not read the Prospectus. I might read it later. But there are a lot of views on Twitter that differ from yours. Here are a few examples:

    The Rangers admitted they have not settled football debts to Rapid Vienna, GAIS and Arsenal.

    For the three month period up to 31 August 2012, The Rangers’ income was £1,711,000. But their expenditure was £5,487,000.

    Charlie Green’s on £360,000 per annum (plus benefits & expenses). And he gets is a bonus of 100% gross salary, if the Club wins promotion. He also has over 5,000,000 shares in company after investing only £25,000 whch he has now received back. So If the shares sell for £0.70 each, then he would have a wee pot of £3.5 million. A mere profit of £3,475,000 on his initial investment.

    Brian Stockbridge is on a salary of £200,000 per annum (plus benefits and expenses). And he gets is a bonus of 100% gross salary, if the Club wins promotion.

    PFA Scotland has raised an employment tribunal claim against The Rangers, on behalf of 67 unnamed players.

    Sone Aluko, Kyle Lafferty and Jamie Ness have raised employment tribunal claims against The Rangers. They claim constructive dismissal.

    The Rangers meets its daily cash requirements using a balance of cash.

    The Rangers does not have access to any further banking facilities.

    Crucially, the accounts have not been “audited in accordance with required practices”.

    • George

      Another leak then, usual impeccable sources. I wait to be proved wrong however if you or I left a company with financial woes and got a job with another company at my own request in the same industry, this would be constructive dismissal? No wonder the world is in the mess it is.

    • Adam

      So to answer your responses, the footballing debts are correct but ive always known about them. Despite the clamor to remind people that the old club is dead, newco has agreed to pay the footballing debt to the lcubs you mentioned plus Hearts when the debts arise. None of these payments are overdue to my knowledge.

      The 3 month period you refer to is correct as well, though it should be noted that the income for season tickets is being released on a accrued basis rather than a cash received basis. As for expenses then the new total wage bill for all staff has halved from a normal £30m to £15m if we work on an even quarterly basis.

      You have the bonus wrong in that the 100% bonus applies to getting back into the Top League in Scotland, not promotion.

      Charles Greens shares are correct and he has been up front about that all along. If he delivers what he says he will, then i have no issue with that. That remains to be seen of course and i will sit on the fence on a judgement.

      The potential tribunal cases have been launched by the PFA but according to the prospectus its not something they were authorised to do. Ironically the reason the PFA has launched this is because all the players were TUPE’d across on existing contracts and not given new ones as there was no need to. This is the very thing a few people argued with me the 4 days ago on when i stated and i quote. “The players and employees of Rangers Football Club that still remain working for newco TUP’d across. I can assure you of that.

      You wont believe me, much the same as people are still arguing with me that Leeds were not liquidated and that a CVA was succesful.

      We could go round and round though”

      I was spot on and its ironic this will now be one of the things that will be dredged up online considering the stance was the exact opposite only 4 days ago. As for the outcome, there is robust legal opinion that the PFA had no right to do this especially when the players who remain werent even consulted on it.

      Finally, to the 3 names you mentioned, it will be piddling amounts as they found new clubs and were not out of pocket for any length of time. Lafferty should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for doing so though considering he was one of the most overpaid idiots at the club.

    • Adam

      “Crucially, the accounts have not been “audited in accordance with required practices”

      Thats simply because an annual audit is not required at this stage. Its a snapshot for a prospectus. If there was anything untoward on it, do you think Deloitte LLP, the biggest audit firm in the world this year would put their name to it and sign the declaration ???

      There is nothing “crucial” about it at all. More hyperbole drama.

      • COYBIG

        @Adam

        Maybe you didn’t read the start of my post:

        “I’ve not read the Prospectus. I might read it later. But there are a lot of views on Twitter that differ from yours. Here are a few examples:”

        In other words, it’s got nothing to do with me. I just gave you some examples of Tweets I seen, that opposed your view of the Prospectus. So please, don’t shoot the messenger.

  10. George

    And the crucially bit about the accounts not being audited etc. why is this crucial?

  11. Duff & Phelps obtained a valuation of the Ranger’s brand (Trade Marks, Copyright and other incorporeals) of zero whilst this is now valued at over £16,000,000. If this isn’t Gratuitous Alienation then what is?

    • JohnBhoy

      Walter’s role as director is gratuitous alienation.

    • D & P valued the rangers brand as zero, because they are deid! Chuckles has merely tapped into a vein of pretence, with a similar sounding name. He has cleverly manipulated a gullible pliant audience tomaximise how much he can lighten their pockets by.. A bit like people buy a Hoover, which is not a Hoover, but some other vaccuum cleaner made by a different organisation completely. A sucker in other words.

  12. lordmac

    just to add here is someone else got it all wrong
    this was held in a place where a virgin would be as rare as hens teeth.
    … The Blythswood Hotel, 11 Blythswood Square, Glasgow, G2 4AD …. saw the service taken from Virgin Trains and given to FirstGroup,

  13. nickmcguinness

    It’s a bit childish of folk (albeit ultimately meaningless) to give the Thumbs Down treatment to Adam, even when he is making perfectly valid and factual points, no matter how unpopular they may appear to some.
    However, there are a few things there that should perhaps worry any potential investors:
    1. The balance sheet is skewed by around £50m relating to the revaluation of Ibrox and Murray Park plus the £16m valuation of the Rangers brand, all helping to produce the 70p per share valuation.
    2. The huge amounts being taken out of the company by Green, who is paying £50,000 (1p each) for his 5m shares.
    3. The apparent necessity of £9m of renovations for Ibrox Stadium.
    4. A single fleeting mention of Ticketus as a contract that was not taken on. Hmmm.
    5. The document says The Rangers FC Ltd “purchased” Ibrox and Murray Park in June, then goes on to state that it “benefits” from Murray Park and “occupies” Ibrox and Murray Park, the status of which are listed as “Heritable Properties”. Their values are listed as Assets but, in the absence of a full set of audited accounts, I remain suspicious that there is something here we are not being told.

    The real story of what has gone on here won’t emerge for another year or so when the full accounts emerge and the directors are allowed to begin selling their shares.
    However, I’m sure there will be plenty of entertainment along the way.

  14. weegie

    Just passing thought I would mention that the opening 3rd para in the Prospectus heading says that “… the Directors (whose names appear on Page 16 of this document) accept responsibility for the information contained in this document.” There are no Directors etc on p16, an error Adam?
    Brief look shows that share valuation is based on revaluation of assets, trading account shows a loss for the 3 months.

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