The Sun Says Mazen Nabil Houssami Behind Rangers Board Moves – Who Is He?

Today’s Sun reports that Mr Houssami is the man behind the EGM requisition at Ibrox. Thanks to Ecojon’s efforts, readers of this blog know a lot about Mr Houssami.

He was discussed here some time ago and the full posts can be accessed here.

———————————————-

From this blog in October 2012:-

Blue Pitch Holdings and Mazen Houssami

As far as Blue Pitch Holdings is concerned, we have the name of Mazen Houssami as “the legal beneficiary”.

He has been mentioned before.

Advertisement

Some Questions For David Grier and the Administrators of Rangers

In which I explore the nature of conflict of interest, wonder why Duff and Phelps accepted appointment, wonder why Andrew Ellis was not appointed a director on takeover, as was intended, and ask some questions of Mr Grier of Duff and Phelps.

Some of those questions are below.

What were D&P told by Craig Whyte about sources of funding in the period from January 2011 to April 2011 when D&P was negotiating with the Bank re clearing Rangers debt?

If it was D&P’s primary role to provide assistance to Liberty Capital in negotiating a settlement and assignment of the debt due to Lloyds Bank, what was its secondary role?

When did Mr Grier’s concerns re Ticketus crystallise?

Why did he speak to HMRC about these concerns?

Why did he speak to the “controlling directors”, who one assumes were the people involved in what concerned him? After speaking to them and HMRC, why did D&P continue to act? Presumably his concerns were allayed?

Did Mr Grier have indirect contact with Ticketus, or did anyone at D&P have direct contact pre-takeover? What about post-takeover? Did discussions to which D&P were party regarding Ticketus involve Ticketus?

Did D&P provide written advice re HMRC pre-takeover?

Why does the Report to Creditors make no mention of D&P being engaged pre-takeover to give advice re HMRC and regarding the effect on insolvency of a funder of season tickets?

Was the alleged Collyer Bristow letter the only information seen by D&P showing that Mr Whyte had access to £33 million?

Did D&P give any advice to Mr Whyte regarding the wisdom of his purchase, bearing in mind he was asking about insolvency prior to spending £33 million on the purchase?

Did Mr Grier read the 19^th April email referred to by the BBC? If he did, was his curiosity not piqued by reference to “Ticketus agreements” (plural)?

How could financial projections show that money was coming from Wavetower, which had no money?

What did HMRC do about Mr Grier’s concerns?

Mr Grier refers to discovering the FULL extent of the funding relationship with Ticketus. Did D&P know part of the funding relationship previously, or the nature but not the full extent?

Did the cash flow projections prepared by D&P post takeover include reference to Ticketus, either in terms of short-term funding, or the £20.3 million “understood” to have been paid? If not, and as the forecasts were, inter alia, for the purposes of negotiating with HMRC, was false or incorrect information provided to HMRC?

Is the invoice referred to in Mr Grier’s email dated 24^th June the same as those referred to in Rangers Financial Controller’s evidence to the SFA Judicial Panel, namely the multi-million pond invoices to Ticketus which were completely unknown to the Financial Controller, and were prepared using clip-art?

If Mr Grier was preparing invoices for Rangers to Ticketus, how is this covered in the statement in the Report to Creditors of what D&P did prior to appointment as administrators?

If Mr Grier was preparing invoices for Rangers to Ticketus in June dated May, how did it take him “over the summer” for concerns to crystallise?

Why do Mr Grier and D&P consider there is no conflict of interest?

Whilst D&P were assisting Rangers with short-term cash flow projections, £3 million was paid to Ticketus. Did Mr Grier make enquiries as to what this related to?

Could he or his colleagues prepare forecasts and projections without knowing the nature of the payment to Ticketus, and further liabilities to them?

By August 2011, D&P was monitoring cash flow and discussing capital raising. Had Mr Grier’s concerns crystallised by then?

I want to make clear that Mr Grier and Duff & Phelps have vigorously maintained that they have acted at all times with consummate professionalism and that they have at no time failed in their legal duties. I am sure Mr Grier and his colleagues would have answers to all of the questions raised above. However these seem to be reasonable queries arising from the statements made by D&P. I do not intend any negative connotations for D&P to arise from these questions. I merely pose them as a matter of interest.

(I refer to D&P throughout this piece, even where the work was done by MCR, taken over by D&P last year.)

D-Day for Rangers? Preferred Bidder to be Declared? All Problems Sorted? Maybe Not

I posted this as a comment on the Rangers Tax Case Blog last night:-

“The Blue Knights are to be the preferred bidder! The world is rosy again! Let us fill Edmiston Drive and sing our sings of triumph!

That seems to be the consensus amongst internet Rangers fans just now.

Indeed plans are already afoot for a £50 million share issue. Wealthy Rangers fans will contribute £40 million and the rank and file £10 million.

The less wealthy fans are already making their plans however, to ensure that a part of them will remain in Rangers, and vice-versa.

As one of them commented:-

“Holidays and nights out will be a memory after I take out a bank loan for as much as I possibly can to invest in my Club. The hope just now is utterly overwhelming.”

Wait a minute! Perhaps this poster is Sir David Murray in disguise – after all, was his MO not to fund Rangers by way of ever increasing bank lending!”

——————————————–

Forgetting the attempts at humopur in the above comment, I wondered if the plan was near fruition.

The plan seems now to be as follows, with what I see as obstacles noted.

Rangers “Virtual” Creditors’ Meeting – What Happens Now?

The creditors’ meeting for Rangers Football Club PLC (In Administration) took place on Friday 20^th April. The administrators had earlier issued their proposals to creditors (Duff and Phelps Proposal 5 April 2012), and proposed various resolutions to govern how administration should continue.

These were voted on by post, up to the deadline of noon on Friday, and the results are now awaited.

What effect, if any, will the decisions on the resolutions have for the administrators (D&P) and on the future of the Club?

I think the results of the votes, which have to be made public, will be very instructive as to how HMRC views the administration process. Opposition to the administrators might suggest that HMRC feels D&P have been too cosy with the company, for example.

It might simply be that HMRC is unimpressed by the efforts of D&P to secure a sale.

We will find out soon. But for now, what rules apply?

Rangers (In Administration) and Ticketus – Back in Court on Wednesday 25th April

Rangers Football Club PLC (In Administration) will be back in the Court of Session on Wednesday 25^th April before Lord Hodge.

 

The Scottish Courts website has the following entry for Wednesday. (Scroll about 2/3 of the way down the Scottish courts page to see it in situ.)

 

LORD HODGE – H. Fraser, Clerk

Wednesday 25^th April

Starred Motion

Between 10.00am and 11.00am

 

1

P221/12 Pet: Rangers Football Club Plc for an Administration Order

Biggart Baillie LLP

Burness LLP

Biggart Baillie act for the administrators, Duff & Phelps, whilst Burness represent the various companies who together make up Ticketus.

The court rolls do not tell us whose application is before the court, but it is likely to be one by D&P. Burness are involved because the hearing relates to its client.

It might only, of course, be a hearing to decide who pays for last months court proceedings. In any event, it will not be another attempt by D&P to have Ticketus and its deal torn up with court approval, or if it is, then Wednesday’s calling will be for the purposes of scheduling a full hearing at a later date.

One hour is rather long, even for the Court of Session, to simply fix a new date.