The Rangers soap opera goes on and on.

[...a bit disco]

apparently the Takeover Panels solicitors are going to court for the 3rd time with a Sectiion 955 petition.

 

From The Companies Act (2006)...

 

955Enforcement by the court

(1)If, on the application of the Panel, the court is satisfied—

(a)that there is a reasonable likelihood that a person will contravene a rule-based requirement, or

(b)that a person has contravened a rule-based requirement or a disclosure requirement,

the court may make any order it thinks fit to secure compliance with the requirement.

(2)In subsection (1) “the court” means the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session.

(3)Except as provided by subsection (1), no person—

(a)has a right to seek an injunction, or

(b)in Scotland, has title or interest to seek an interdict or an order for specific performance,

to prevent a person from contravening (or continuing to contravene) a rule-based requirement or a disclosure requirement.

(4)In this section—

• “contravene” includes fail to comply;

• “disclosure requirement” means a requirement imposed under section 947;

• “rule-based requirement” means a requirement imposed by or under rules.

[Spellczech]

47 minutes ago, jambovambo said:

http://files.heraldscotland.com/news/homenews/16294700._Disgraceful____20m_cost_of_Rangers_oldco_liquidation_leaves_creditors_with___1_4m/

 

The face painter gets a mention. 

Duff & Phelps really come across as a dodgy bunch of opportunist lawyers...They took £4m in fees in 4 months which is the same as BDO have taken in 6 years!

[The Gasman]

5 hours ago, ...a bit disco said:

apparently the Takeover Panels solicitors are going to court for the 3rd time with a Sectiion 955 petition.

 

From The Companies Act (2006)...

 

955Enforcement by the court

(1)If, on the application of the Panel, the court is satisfied—

(a)that there is a reasonable likelihood that a person will contravene a rule-based requirement, or

(b)that a person has contravened a rule-based requirement or a disclosure requirement,

the court may make any order it thinks fit to secure compliance with the requirement.

(2)In subsection (1) “the court” means the High Court or, in Scotland, the Court of Session.

(3)Except as provided by subsection (1), no person—

(a)has a right to seek an injunction, or

(b)in Scotland, has title or interest to seek an interdict or an order for specific performance,

to prevent a person from contravening (or continuing to contravene) a rule-based requirement or a disclosure requirement.

(4)In this section—

• “contravene” includes fail to comply;

• “disclosure requirement” means a requirement imposed under section 947;

• “rule-based requirement” means a requirement imposed by or under rules.

 

This could prove to be a tad awkward for King and/or Rangers, any idea when it’s being heard?

Edited June 19, 2018 by The Gasman

[...a bit disco]

24 minutes ago, The Gasman said:

 

This could prove to be a tad awkward for King and/or Rangers, any idea when it’s being heard?

 

Not sure?

Possibly today?

[jambovambo]

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/16300543._Disgraceful____20m_cost_of_Rangers_oldco_liquidation_leaves_creditors_with___1_4m/

[Footballfirst]

4 hours ago, The Gasman said:

 

This could prove to be a tad awkward for King and/or Rangers, any idea when it’s being heard?

 

It's just a continuation of the initial case against King. Today was an "unstarred" motion (counsel not required) before Lord Doherty.  Basically a rubber stamp job.

 

There was similar motion maybe four or five weeks ago.  It could be that four weeks were allowed for whatever action was required following the last motion, and that today will be confirmation of whether or not it happened.

 

We can speculate on what TOP have been asking for, or what King has committed to do, but without sight of the motion we are all still in the dark.  One thing we can be certain of is that TOP hasn't gone away. It's still a live issue.

[NANOJAMBO]

2 hours ago, jambovambo said:

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/16300543._Disgraceful____20m_cost_of_Rangers_oldco_liquidation_leaves_creditors_with___1_4m/

They just can't bring themselves to say it, can they ..............

 

It is understood HMRC has not yet received any of the £72 million in unpaid tax and interest believed to be owed by the liquidated company

[jamboz]

Spot on with this quote. 

 

“Scotland needs to have the politicians have a look at what is going on”

[Footballfirst]

16 hours ago, The Gasman said:

 

This could prove to be a tad awkward for King and/or Rangers, any idea when it’s being heard?

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16301067.Ibrox_chief_in_new_court_proceedings_over_failure_to_make___11m_Rangers_shares_bid/?ref=mrb&lp=1

 

REGULATORS have brought fresh legal action over the failure by Rangers chairman Dave King to make a judge-ordered £11 million bid for most of the club’s shares.

It has emerged that representatives of the Takeover Panel were in the Court of Session on Tuesday in a private session in front of Lord Doherty as the impasse over the issue continues.

Last month the Takeover Panel was granted a court order which forbid any attempt by Mr King's South African-based Laird Investments (Proprietary) Limited from making the mandatory offer to thousands of shareholders without a third party confirming that the funds to support it are there.

The Rangers chief who says he has the funds in South Africa rather than the UK has since accused the Takeover Panel of “bullying” while confirming the club hoped to raise £6 million of fresh capital from a share issue “before June”.

The Rangers chief has already been told that he is in breach of takeover rules by failing to make the shares bid by a deadline of April 26.

[jambovambo]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16301067.Ibrox_chief_in_new_court_proceedings_over_failure_to_make___11m_Rangers_shares_bid/?ref=mrb&lp=1

 

REGULATORS have brought fresh legal action over the failure by Rangers chairman Dave King to make a judge-ordered £11 million bid for most of the club’s shares.

It has emerged that representatives of the Takeover Panel were in the Court of Session on Tuesday in a private session in front of Lord Doherty as the impasse over the issue continues.

Last month the Takeover Panel was granted a court order which forbid any attempt by Mr King's South African-based Laird Investments (Proprietary) Limited from making the mandatory offer to thousands of shareholders without a third party confirming that the funds to support it are there.

The Rangers chief who says he has the funds in South Africa rather than the UK has since accused the Takeover Panel of “bullying” while confirming the club hoped to raise £6 million of fresh capital from a share issue “before June”.

The Rangers chief has already been told that he is in breach of takeover rules by failing to make the shares bid by a deadline of April 26.

Which June ?

[John Findlay]

King is a dead man walking. Sevco that remains to be seen.

[PortyJambo]

32Red fined £2m for failing to protect a problem gambler...and doing no money laundering checks on him. They and Rangers are a good match.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44544950

 

Never been a fan of the multitude of betting companies now sponsoring football teams, one more reason why I'm glad we have the partnership with STC with them as our shirt sponsors.

[buzzbomb1958]

7 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

King is a dead man walking. Sevco that remains to be seen.

The lying king will just ignore  this and hope it goes away,it's about time someone had the stones to take this odious institution to task ,any other club would be facing fines and sanctions 

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 hour ago, jambovambo said:

Which June ?

 

Must be this one! Terry even has an orange hat on! 

 

 

[jambovambo]

https://twitter.com/FrPaulStone/status/1009345825426804736

 

@FrPaulStone on Twitter

"Ex-Liverpool defender you mean? He’s a free-agent as a result of battering his girlfriend in Liverpool last Cristmas. Convicted at the start of this year. Birds of a feather though..."

re https://stv.tv/sport/football/1419692-rangers-in-discussions-with-flanagan-over-ibrox-move/

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by jambovambo

[Escobar PHM]

3 minutes ago, jambovambo said:

https://twitter.com/FrPaulStone/status/1009345825426804736

Interesting video in that link. Makes the objection to the 'great unwashed' comment look utterly pathetic.

[jambovambo]

18 minutes ago, Escobar PHM said:

Interesting video in that link. Makes the objection to the 'great unwashed' comment look utterly pathetic.

 

Right enough. Horrendous ...

[Tommy Brown]

45 minutes ago, Escobar PHM said:

Interesting video in that link. Makes the objection to the 'great unwashed' comment look utterly pathetic.

Ah the good old days..

 

when you could beat your wife after a defeat.

 

Have Rangers fans stopped doing this??

[Escobar PHM]

11 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

Ah the good old days..

 

when you could beat your wife after a defeat.

 

Have Rangers fans stopped doing this??

Yes. Its a new club in that respect.

[7628mm]

Well unfortunately all the hope of THE Rangers being unable to meet UEFA Rules and Regulations to play in Europe have come to nothing. I presume that UEFA require the SFA to declare if a Scottish Team are good to go and so we have THEM playing some mob from Macedonia.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2018/06/20/rangers-handedeuropa-league-first-qualifying-round-tie-fk-shkupi/

 

I hope and pray that they get papped out at the 1st hurdle

[Mysterion]

8 minutes ago, 7628mm said:

Well unfortunately all the hope of THE Rangers being unable to meet UEFA Rules and Regulations to play in Europe have come to nothing. I presume that UEFA require the SFA to declare if a Scottish Team are good to go and so we have THEM playing some mob from Macedonia.

 

Do they not come under UEFA scrutiny now? Perhaps accepting them is the first step to having action taken.

[7628mm]

7 minutes ago, Mysterion said:

 

Do they not come under UEFA scrutiny now? Perhaps accepting them is the first step to having action taken.

 

Because they are in the draw and have their 1st fixture against FK Shkupi confirmed I "assume" that they have "passed" all the UEFA requirements.

 

So basically "I haven't got a clue"...............so no help there then

[Mysterion]

6 minutes ago, 7628mm said:

 

Because they are in the draw and have their 1st fixture against FK Shkupi confirmed I "assume" that they have "passed" all the UEFA requirements.

 

So basically "I haven't got a clue"...............so no help there then

 

I believe Uefa start monitoring teams financials now. So you could potentially qualify by shifting financial debts around then a month or two later your finances would breach FFP rules. 

 

[RENE]

31 minutes ago, 7628mm said:

 

Because they are in the draw and have their 1st fixture against FK Shkupi confirmed I "assume" that they have "passed" all the UEFA requirements.

 

So basically "I haven't got a clue"...............so no help there then

I heard UEFA checking for next year not this.

[kirkierobroy]

We're all Macedonians now.

[jambovambo]

Celtic blog on Sevco season tickets ... sold out, waiting list or ... public sale ?

 

https://thecelticblog.com/2018/06/blogs/it-seems-sevcos-season-ticket-sales-have-not-gone-as-well-as-they-have-claimed/

 

(before anyone starts, one could check this by doing what the guy did ... personally I'd feel dirty ...)

[VALDOS]

1 hour ago, jambovambo said:

Celtic blog on Sevco season tickets ... sold out, waiting list or ... public sale ?

 

https://thecelticblog.com/2018/06/blogs/it-seems-sevcos-season-ticket-sales-have-not-gone-as-well-as-they-have-claimed/

 

(before anyone starts, one could check this by doing what the guy did ... personally I'd feel dirty ...)

Ah the good old Celtic Blog 

[jambovambo]

3 minutes ago, VALDOS said:

Ah the good old Celtic Blog 

Do they have a point (about Sevco STs) ?

 

That’s why I added the caveat. 

[Footballfirst]

9 minutes ago, jambovambo said:

Do they have a point (about Sevco STs) ?

 

That’s why I added the caveat. 

No.  I've done a dot count and can only see 25 seats available.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, Footballfirst said:

No.  I've done a dot count and can only see 25 seats available.

[Hagar the Horrible]

7 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

No.  I've done a dot count and can only see 25 seats available.

That is good going, and if you consider thay have cut Celtics to just 800, thats a huge amount. wont matter though its still not enough? there will not only be a shortfall they still need to pay back the Close Bros. loan?  unless a good run  in Europe, it will be a long season

[kirkierobroy]

Depressing, though, that a European run appears to be possible (though I bet the Macedonians are better than the team that put them out a year ago).

 

They are financing themselves off the back of a lorry switching money from used car lot to lock-up like Arthur Daley with HM Inspector of Taxes on his tail - yet that's OK from the PoV of financial fair play?

[The Gasman]

On 20/06/2018 at 09:01, Footballfirst said:

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16301067.Ibrox_chief_in_new_court_proceedings_over_failure_to_make___11m_Rangers_shares_bid/?ref=mrb&lp=1

 

REGULATORS have brought fresh legal action over the failure by Rangers chairman Dave King to make a judge-ordered £11 million bid for most of the club’s shares.

It has emerged that representatives of the Takeover Panel were in the Court of Session on Tuesday in a private session in front of Lord Doherty as the impasse over the issue continues.

Last month the Takeover Panel was granted a court order which forbid any attempt by Mr King's South African-based Laird Investments (Proprietary) Limited from making the mandatory offer to thousands of shareholders without a third party confirming that the funds to support it are there.

The Rangers chief who says he has the funds in South Africa rather than the UK has since accused the Takeover Panel of “bullying” while confirming the club hoped to raise £6 million of fresh capital from a share issue “before June”.

The Rangers chief has already been told that he is in breach of takeover rules by failing to make the shares bid by a deadline of April 26.

 

King missed his “before June” target, he’ll not make it “before July” now, and with the Take Over Panel still apparently taking a very close interest it looks like his (dubious) business plan is already in tatters.

 

Season Ticket money will be keeping the wolf from the door over the summer, but they’re still spending (a lot!) and with far fewer walk ups possible, cash flow could become critical at an early point in the season....

 

Unless he has a cunning plan?

[Footballfirst]

It's today that the SFA's Judicial Panel (JP) meets to consider the charges against "Rangers FC" (I don't know if this is a legal entity or the ethereal thingy) with respect to their UEFA LIcence application in 2011.  It should all hang on what the club said about the status of the wee tax case, both at the time of the initial application and at the subsequent monitoring periods.

 

If the JP does its job right then they should have sought information from both HMRC and UEFA, rather than rely on just the evidence from Rangers officials. If the JP hasn't done that, then any decision made is likely to be flawed.

 

I've seen copies of enough contemporaneous documents to satisfy myself of what the outcome should be, but I suspect that all we will get is a pre-determined fudge.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Footballfirst

[Strachsuit]

10 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

It's today that the SFA's Judicial Panel (JP) meets to consider the charges against "Rangers FC" (I don't know if this is a legal entity or the ethereal thingy) with respect to their UEFA LIcence application in 2011.  It should all hang on what the club said about the status of the wee tax case, both at the time of the initial application and at the subsequent monitoring periods.

 

If the JP does its job right then they should have sought information from both HMRC and UEFA, rather than rely on just the evidence from Rangers officials. If the JP hasn't done that, then any decision made is likely to be flawed.

 

I've seen copies of enough contemporaneous documents to satisfy myself of what the outcome should be, but I suspect that all we will get is a pre-determined fudge.

 

This is the SFA's speciality, FF! 

[Meadows]

Possibly why Tony McGlennagan resigned ? 

[John Findlay]

When you enter Maxwell's office at Hampden. You can't see his desk for the large mound in the middle of the room. It's where the S(G)FA sweep everything.

[Elmore]

18 minutes ago, Meadows said:

Possibly why Tony McGlennagan resigned ? 

I suppose this will let us know if his replacement is someone of substance. If not, its the same old shite for a wee while yet. Anybody know if everybody at the SFA are originally from the west? It wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't. 

[JamboAl]

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

It's today that the SFA's Judicial Panel (JP) meets to consider the charges against "Rangers FC" (I don't know if this is a legal entity or the ethereal thingy) with respect to their UEFA LIcence application in 2011.  It should all hang on what the club said about the status of the wee tax case, both at the time of the initial application and at the subsequent monitoring periods.

 

If the JP does its job right then they should have sought information from both HMRC and UEFA, rather than rely on just the evidence from Rangers officials. If the JP hasn't done that, then any decision made is likely to be flawed.

 

I've seen copies of enough contemporaneous documents to satisfy myself of what the outcome should be, but I suspect that all we will get is a pre-determined fudge.

 

Be surprised if they would help (confidentiality aspect).

[Don Dan]

I take it the Judicial Panel are eminently qualified practitioners in the relevant law?

[Elmore]

We'll know if rangers get found guilty of any wrong doing.  

[corryjambo]

42 minutes ago, Dannie Boy said:

I take it the Judicial Panel are eminently qualified practitioners in the relevant law?

 

I think after a long and exhaustive search they have found their ideal candidate.

 

All the experience he needs for a job in the corridors of power in Scottish football.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYFURVn4-i0

 

[doctor jambo]

22 hours ago, The Gasman said:

 

King missed his “before June” target, he’ll not make it “before July” now, and with the Take Over Panel still apparently taking a very close interest it looks like his (dubious) business plan is already in tatters.

 

Season Ticket money will be keeping the wolf from the door over the summer, but they’re still spending (a lot!) and with far fewer walk ups possible, cash flow could become critical at an early point in the season....

 

Unless he has a cunning plan?

HIs plan is identical to his approach to SARS

 

ignore, prevaricate, obfuscate and generally lie and dilly dally until folks appear at his door with tazers and hand cuffs

[7628mm]

37 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

HIs plan is identical to his approach to SARS

 

ignore, prevaricate, obfuscate and generally lie and dilly dally until folks appear at his door with tazers and hand cuffs

 

So basically he meets all the requirements as a FPP for the SFA/SPFL 

[doctor jambo]

14 minutes ago, 7628mm said:

 

So basically he meets all the requirements as a FPP for the SFA/SPFL 

I don't think even the SFA would give him one of its blazers

 

And that's from a group that have Ed Gein on catering and Himmler as diversity manager

[Elmore]

1 hour ago, Elmore said:

We'll know if rangers get found guilty of any wrong doing.  

This was in response to Dannie boys post. 

 

2 hours ago, Dannie Boy said:

I take it the Judicial Panel are eminently qualified practitioners in the relevant law?

 

[Elmore]

30 minutes ago, 7628mm said:

 

So basically he meets all the requirements as a FPP for the SFA/SPFL 

It was the handcuffs and tazers that got him passing the FFP test. Utter perverts the SFA.

[Footballfirst]

It seems to be a bit quiet on the Judicial Panel front, given that they were due to meet yesterday.  I wasn't expecting an immediate decision, but I did expect that there would be some indication on how things would progress from here, e.g. further hearings, more documentation requested, or a timescale set.

 

I was alerted to a post on a Celtic blog, made yesterday by one of the four guys who make up the Resolution 12 group of Celtic shareholders. I get a strong feeling that this group will be moving on anytime soon regardless of the outcome.

 

Amongst other things, he posted the following:

Quote

First of all, yes, note that the hearing commences this evening and not during normal working hours. I have to question whether or not a national football association should be holding such proceedings outwith normal business hours? Does that send out the right message? The hearing will be chaired by a legally qualified chairman with wingmen. There might be more than one legally qualified person on the panel, and indeed there might me more than three people on the panel altogether. We will have to wait and see.

A few years ago, the whole disciplinary process was shaken up and various people were appointed to the list of potentially available panel members who would hear such charges. This was meant to make the whole process more independent and indeed transparent. However, not too long ago someone within Scottish Football just happened to mention to me that it was strange that despite there being a large list of “potential panel members” the same faces kept showing up!!  I believe that this was raised and perhaps that is why a few months back all potential panel members were written to with a view to checking their ability for proceedings that were coming up in the near future?

Bringing the charges will be Tony McGlennan the SFA Compliance Officer. It was he who prepared the report recommending that the charges proceed. Yes he has resigned from his position, but he is currently working his notice period before returning to mainstream legal practice I believe.

He wasn’t in his office yesterday evening when I was over at Hampden but he has been appraised of the documents which were delivered yesterday and which have been the subject of correspondence and telephone conversations with a leading form of International Lawyers this morning. Part of the conversation revolved whether or not these documents were pertinent to this evening’s hearing. There is no doubt that they are of significant import, should be before the tribunal and may well give the current or future SFA officials some pause for thought and possibly a little work to do. An accompanying letter also asked some simple questions. Simple answers such as “yes” and “no” will suffice in the reply.

I expect this evening’s meeting to be inconclusive and to be adjourned to another day (or evening) as there will be substantial preliminary matters to determine — such as just who is going to answer to these charges and comply with any sanction should there be one?

Alas, I can’t agree with those who argue that there is no appetite for a proper sanction in the event of culpability being determined in any shape or form. Part of my reasoning for that view is that UEFA have moved on and have a standard way of dealing with similar situations by way of fines and penalties against the clubs concerned. Standard means standard.

UEFA regulations are alive to the — possibility — that national associations and even Tax Authorities might be tempted from time to time to help out a struggling club by being lax in their enforcement procedures. In such circumstances UEFA are free to, and have threatened to, sanction the National association and ALL the teams under their jurisdiction, and so it is not in the interests of member clubs who qualify for European competition or the National Association of which they are a member and which represents them, to protect one rogue club should that be established. Not only that, none of the clubs in Scotland can afford a Scottish wide European football sanction. Further, some club officials are now alive to what was going on in 2011 and are not best enamoured with the conduct shown by the offending party then, or their successors now.

While there are no guarantees as to what will happen, there is only one thing that is certain and that is that no one in this long running farce can afford to produce a fix which is based on statements which can and will be shown to be completely false and ficticious. That is how we arrived at where we are now, and why Mr McGlennan has some additional reading to do today when he goes into his office.

Further reading can be supplied to him or his successor if necessary – although the SFA have the ability to get all of that from the horse’s mouth as opposed to relying on hand delivered lawyers letters.

 

Edited June 27, 2018 by Footballfirst

[Footballfirst]

15 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

I get a strong feeling that this group will be moving on anytime soon regardless of the outcome.

 

That should of course be "won't"

[Boof]

From FF's quote...

 

"UEFA regulations are alive to the — possibility — that national associations and even Tax Authorities might be tempted from time to time to help out a struggling club by being lax in their enforcement procedures. In such circumstances UEFA are free to, and have threatened to, sanction the National association and ALL the teams under their jurisdiction, and so it is not in the interests of member clubs who qualify for European competition or the National Association of which they are a member and which represents them, to protect one rogue club should that be established. Not only that, none of the clubs in Scotland can afford a Scottish wide European football sanction. Further, some club officials are now alive to what was going on in 2011 and are not best enamoured with the conduct shown by the offending party then, or their successors now."

 

I dunno - I'd be quite happy with a 1-season ban for all Scottish clubs in European competition...as long as it's this coming season.