Printable View
Lets not forget our friends over at the PBS. The Yams accounts have not appeared yet, and if they do appear before March 31st and they are in a league position to get into Europe, would the previous restriction on the accounts be an obstacle to getting a Euro Licence or will Mad Vlad be forced to open up the U B I G books. ?
Yup... that's the state of play just now. The only variables I can see just now are:-Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibernia&Alba
1. HMRC changing their policy of not agreeing to CVA's. That would have enormous consequences throughout the economy.
2. someone with more money than sense riding in on a white horse, singing the Sash, and rattling a biscuit tin with 100 million gold pieces in it.
I doubt that Ticketus have insurance in the event of default due to the liquidation of Rangers. No credit insurer would give cover on a business in that level of debt.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Contingency insurers might give cover against the reduction in the future sales of ST's based on previous history but that would be no use if Rangers just went bust and ceased to exist.
As things stand, I think they only need to submit accounts. I don't think it matters what the accounts, or the auditors' report, say.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
However, Doncaster was saying today that they are having a meeting on Monday to discuss the implementation of Financial Fair Play rules within the SPL/SFA. These would broadly reflect UEFA's rules, I reckon, but I don't think they would affect Hearts ability to play in Europe next season.
Anyone know if hearts will have their accounts signed off by 31 march? Someone on here thought the auditors may have a problem this time if i remember correctly?
I am no insurer, but about 30 pages ago, there was a discussion on this point. The conclusion seemed to be that yes, it was insurable. PatHead is the man to tell you.:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
A problem this time????Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnHughes
They have a problem every frickin year.....:rolleyes:
I can't see the auditors having any report other than last year's, which, IIRC, said that they couldn't establish whether HMFC were a going concern.
And with the BTC hanging over them, who would do this? You know what all this adds up to, CWG..............Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
http://youtu.be/PKIaMsm7Hlk
It's my specialist subject, Magnus.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
They were signed on 31 March last year, I expect they will want to achieve that deadline again this year. How difficult it will be for the auditors to sign will depend on how much credence they give to Vlad's announcement that he was no longer going to fund them in future. I expect that if they believe him, it will be difficult for them to agree that HMFC are a going concern. I guess much will also depend on whether Vlad gifts them a further "forgiveness of debt " to allow them to report a small profit, like the £8m he forgave last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnHughes
Barely a day goes by on this thread without mention of a Magnusson :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
I'll let you and PH argue that one, then lol
Sorry but you do nothing for me, in that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The UEFA Club Financial Control Panel will assess , among other thingsQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
g) The budgets of the club and its ability to meet its commitments in the future;
To me that would raise the " Going - Concern " issue thats had the Yams auditors inserting question marks in their Reports.
Yeah, but when does that come into force? I thought we still had another season to go, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Interesting what you write !!
Coming back from the game today with my friend who is a retired " liquidation administrator " ( an accountant to you and me !!) and we heard the score from Ibrox and were talking about the short term future for Hearts .
His point was " It depends how the powers that be look at Hearts in the light of what constitutes a " going concern" and the then implications "
Just as you say it could be the " achilles heel"
:flag:
When the story first broke I checked with Octopus regarding the position of investments. I received replies regarding them and the following was stated in an email-Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
"The Reality & Facts:
The Ticketus deal(s) are all credit insured."
" We have had a club that has went into insolvency (South Coast) and because of the added protection we never lost any of our capital and indeed made the margin we expected."
I can't print the whole email as various clients' names are on it. Obviously if I have been mislead I would really like to hear from you or pointed in the right direction. By the way I have since been told the South Coast club was Plymouth.
Well if you were an Insurer, would you provide cover a against a company defaulting due to liquidation if it was in debt, losing money and had an outstanding court against HMRC a sum of involving a £45m ?Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
If the clubs were in a great financial position they wouldn't need the money up front and to sell the tickets at a discount. Would expect a fairly high premium though! Bit like a car insurance firm covering a previously convicted drink driverQuote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
More like a car insurance company giving cover on a driver who is currently drunk and driving the wrong way along a motorway at 90mph.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
We know that now but at the time the purchase was made they were giving the money to a company which was receiving a cash injection from the new owner, was getting rid off it's overdraft etc. Yes had a tax case hanging over it but no guarantee they would lose it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
We now know that the new owner wasn't all he seemed and had borrowed a pound from his mate to buy Rangers before using Ticketus money to clear the overdraft and not buy new players as Daily ****** was reporting at the time.
Insurance companies are always looking for a get out clause. If Ticketus did not disclose the risks fully (ie BTC) then the insurance company may not pay out.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Purely speculation of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
Their accounts are certainly signed and dated 31st March but they were not lodged at Companies House until the 13th of May. That seems a bit strange as it probably doubled or trebled their late filing fee.
No chance of their Auditors back-dating a signature ?
Anyway I think any date used in deciding on clubs admission to competitions will be when the SFA receive said accounts and not some dodgy Tipex and photo-copy job with any date you like at the bottom. :wink:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottis...ties_1_2152461
No Huns in Europe....
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
A far better headline the the Scotman's.
:thumbsup:
Interesting comments from Stewart Regan:-
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...robe_1_2152924
I wonder if there are any players who actually had twin contracts and a wee bit down on their luck just now and might fancy a last pay day.:aok:
Anyone know who the present board members are?
I've tried to find some links but I've had no success.
Edit ; this might help......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/14215981
The excellent www.rangerstaxcase.com blogged this article in April last year. Given that they have been ahead of the game on most cases it is perhaps worth regurgitating, now that we are aware how events appear to be unfolding, and there should be a warning thet there is considerable Yam content,
http://rangerstaxcase.com/2011/04/14/campbell-ogilvie/
"anything from Armageddon to a slap on the wrist"Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
No need to guess which way this is going to go then.
Lazy get. It's in one of the articles I linked.:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by WindyMiller
Why do you say that? SR was merely pointing out the range of sanctions. That is all.Quote:
Originally Posted by degenerated
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
CWD do you think the SFA have all the info they need to act ,its just that there seems to be new tangents daily to this moneychase .
The 2 links regarding Ogilvie are scary, his times at Hearts and Rangers the same payments etc .
His position in the SFA commitee you couldnt right this , plus the SFA`s part in this has to be investigated if they acted on a honest and trustworthy manner for all of Scotlands football clubs or a puppet to be played with at the chairmans fancy
SR does say in one of the articles I linked that, at least as far as the "double contracts" are concerned, they might decide to set up a separate enquiry. My hunch is that this IS what will happen. Given that the Adam accusations only arose this week, and the SFA enquiry is reporting next week, there is no way IMO that they can come to a satisfactory conclusion on that.Quote:
Originally Posted by cad
I do get the feeling that SR is trying his best to be transparent in all of this. It wouldn't surprise me if he decided that past events at the SFA were worthy of external scrutiny.
It's Sunday morning!Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
:greengrin
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Dont forget CWG if the fixture list was different it could be us waiting for a wedge from them, wonder how Rod and this message board would have reacted ,not best pleased .
Do you think George Pleat and his emergency fund of £5/6 Million should be used to ease the burden that Dunfermline are going through and pay them the £80,000 also Dun Utd theyre £100,000 it was on theyre watch sort of thing ,, finances put aside should be forthcoming and sorted out at the conclusion of
The Rangers Circus IMHO.
Wouldn't have happened under Rod, IMO. Remember that this happened just before administration, months after the gossip first emerged. RP would probably have done what he did with Hearts, and demanded that we sell the tickets ourselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by cad
As for your second question, there is precedent in that the SPL advanced Gretna some of their prize money, to enable them to get to the end of the season. But that's as far as it should go, IMO. The rest of the clubs making up the SFA (to whom the emergency fund belongs to, of course) shouldn't be made to pay for RFC's, DUFC's and DAFC's financial mismanagement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Im trying to remember what the situation was before Dunfermline and Dundee Utd played them ,were Rangers in financial difficulties I cant remember , if everything was hunkydory why would you stipulate how you were to be paid a crystalball they didnt have they were just the unlucky sods who still have to be paid ,a fixture that could have been us as I said before .
You dont think one of the biggest football clubs in Britain, the world ( well they like to think so )
is going to stiff you for £200,000 CWG come on.
If I understand the Adam accusations correctly they take the tax case on to a new level. The big tax case has previously centered on whether the EBTs, which are in principle a legal method of tax avoidance, had been administered correctly. Adam's accusation seems to be that there were payments which were concealed from the SAF and the revenue. That would surely be tax evasion and lead to criminal cases. It certainly requires something far greater than an SFA enquiry.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I think you're missing my point. You had asked about the hypothetical situation of Hibs being in DAFC's position.Quote:
Originally Posted by cad
Part of financial management is risk assessment. Hearts and Rangers' financial problems were well-known, and had been for a long time. In RFC's case, administration had been talked about for a while.
When Hearts came to call in January, we assessed the risk of not getting paid, and decided that one did exist. So we sold Hearts fans their tickets. Presumably, DAFC (and United) went through that same process, and decided that the risk was not that great. In hindsight, a poor decision.
Whilst DUFC and DAFC deserve a lot of sympathy, they also should take part of the blame. It's in situations like this that we should be thankful for the Board we have.
And, it was £80k DAFC lost out on, not £200k :na na:
All raises the spectre of fraudulent misrepresentation.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
Was Dundee United's problem not arise with their share of the Scottish Cup tie at Ibrox. It was Rangers game so not much United could do to avoid a risk.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Ah ok, hadn't realised that. They can escape my Sunday grumps then. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
They should still have taken out insurance against being drawn away against a financial car crash!!! :greengrin
So, in your opininion, who sues who here?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
Ticketus sue the insurance company if they don't pay out?
Ticketus sue RFC for the misrepresentation?
Ticketus sue CW for taking on the deal when he wasn't, at that time, RFC?
The insurance company sue RFC? PLEASE!!
First thing that I would expect is that the insurers don't pay out and effectively challenge Ticketus to take them to court.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
There are sufficient grounds for suspicion that there was some form of collusion in the whole deal.
The more that comes out, the more that I am convinced that Whyte is just a stooge, sent in to drive Rangers into Liquidation. Leaving Rangers FC behind, along with all the debts, a newco is formed and Whyte's 'employer' steps in to buy the assets, sell off whatever is necessary to fund the purchase and then invest in the playing squad.
Ah, the C word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seveno
I mentioned, hunners of pages ago, that I thought David Murray must have known what CW was up to. The media have stayed away from such accusations, for lots of reasons. However, what you say just makes me even more convinced.
Don't think so. When the OF tried to stiff the rest of the SPL clubs by adding a premium to the ticket sales RP refused to allow them to handle our tickets and all ticket sales for OF matches go though our ticket office. Just another case of RP doing the best for our club and fans IMHO but it would certainly have helped if we had played rangers in the recent past home or away. Of course he did the same in respect of hahahahearts and was criticised on this forum because it meant a hike of something like £6 to hahahahearts fans for handling fees.:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by cad
Apparently these are the players that will be released:
papac
mculloch
bocanegro
alexander
healy
wylde
wallace
alluko
kerkar
perry
little
hemming
mccabe
mitchell
gallagher
Would take Wylde off them. :agree:
Why? Canny play him.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaSaikouKujabi
Where did you get this?Quote:
Originally Posted by PaSaikouKujabi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/inde...owtopic=212889
Must be a fake - either that or Broadfoot had the day off when they did the headcount.Quote:
Originally Posted by H18SVG
Can't see Wylde being on the list either.Quote:
Originally Posted by CyberSauzee
I wouldn't even bet my jar of pennies I keep in the office on that list being real, blatant fake.
Rangers short term objective is to save £1m a month, all the high earners have to go. Whittaker, McGregor - all of them. Even if they can raise funds by selling them in the summer it'll be no use to them if Rangers are extinct in the summer anyway!
IF true, then thats 13 of 16 of their squad yeaterday against their cousins in iniquity. 'Well guaranteed second I'd say, and you'd have to wonder what Celtic will do to the in a few weeks. Cant see Lennon telling his players to take it easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaSaikouKujabi
It's not as simple as just getting rid of the high earners.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Todd
It has to be a mixture of high earners/older players/those coming to the end of their contracts.
Also, the admins have to have an eye on the potential sale of the club. They have to keep enough value in the playing squad to make it attractive to a buyer.
Players with massive sell on value like Davis and Mcgregor won't be released, they'll be put on reduced wages or something but there's no way they'd release a player like Mcgregor that could be sold for anything up to £9m (based on what Gordon went for) for nowt when they could make that sort of money in a few months.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Todd
Except they'll be worth nothing like that as it's known Rangers have to sell: unless they can get an auction going.Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo70
Normally yes, they'd look to keep some to sell in the summer but Rangers are goosed well and truly. They need to save £1m per month just to survive to May, let alone come out of admin. So again, what is the point in keeping the higher paid players til May to sell them if Rangers FC doesn't even exist come May because they couldn't make the required cuts?
Also, the players won't automatically accept lower wages, they may just happily say "sod that" and leave.
You're missing the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Todd
The admins are not only trying to cut costs, but sell the club on as well.
A club with a few valuable players is going to attract a higher price than one full of untried youngsters.
Maybe so, however i'm still certain they won't release players like Mcgregor and Davis, how they get around it and make the money back i don't know but i'm just sure they won't be releasing them.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Todd
we'll find out tomorrow of course and if i'm wrong i'll hold my hands up but i don't think i will be.
This is all bit academic. Where is this 'buyer' going to come from? Whyte will not back down, neither will HMRC or Ticketus. Murray couldn't give the club away before all this hit, so why should Rangers suddenly become a something worth purchasing?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
If, or rather when, Rangers lose the Big Tax case, the game will be up and insolvency will be inevitable.
I suspect that the redundancies will include those not prepared to take a big pay cut.
The Administrators will also be trying to put out a competitive team to keep the walk up fans coming in or they will not make the end of the season.
Whilst I agree that no-one with sense would buy the club as it is, the fact remains that there are potential buyers out there. The admins have been talking to them. They would be failing in their duty if they didn't at least try to make the club more attractive for a buyer.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Once the 16th March comes and goes, if there is no serious activity on the selling front, I suspect we might see more redundancies.
You're right, I suppose. But they have to figure out what's more important and what will come first? Finding a new buyer in the long term, or even having a club to sell to begin with. It's a tough job those administrators have got, and I don't envy them - unless they get to announce liquidation and then I'd be very envious of them :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
It's a balancing act...... I don't envy them either, even at £600 per hour. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by The_Todd
At those rates you really would take your time thinking about matters. No point in rushing into decisions (well not as long as there is any money left in the kitty anyway) :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Ticketus will be insured and the insurance company will then lay the liability off with other insurance companies-that's the way the market works.
I suspect that all the highest earners will be given the chance to go-as I understand it if anyone is given the option of reduced wages it generates the right to go anyway.
A standard security must be registered at the Register of Sasines otherwise it has no effect.
The reason that no buyer was forthcoming for Rangers was that there were two tax disputes hanging over Rangers to a total amount of over £53 million. Add in the £18 million due to Lloyds Bank group and the fact that Rangers were hemorrhaging millions each year thanks to a dubious financial model and it is clear why no-one credible would touch the club with a bargepole.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
The £18 million due to Lloyds s no longer there but there is £24 million due to Ticketus. The tax bill has been increased by £15 million since Whyte took over and could be as high as £75 million.
The tax cases need to be won (unlikely) and also the Ticketus deal would have to be avoided (dubious) but even then the only way that Rangers will ever be sold is if there is a CVA. And HMRC are not going to fall for that one.
Some realism is needed here. The administrators should attempt to keep Rangers going until the end of the season before an orderly liquidation and the creation of a phoenix company and an applcation to the SFL for next season.
I think you're missing my point. There ARE people out there who are interested in buying RFC... Paul Murray for one. Whilst they remain, the admins must consider them.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
I am sure they know, as you and I do, that a sale is unlikely, hence the 16th March deadline.
Paul Murray, all he's doing is trying to get a consortium together. Absolutely no danger he has anywhere near the financial clout to be considered.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Any deal of his will either be backed by bringing in more debt or he'll need to convince several investors to take a huge gamble akin to giving Greece a loan
I know this, but the fact is he is TRYING to get a deal done. The admins have to give him the necessary respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulSmith
IMO, Greece is a safer bet, by the way :wink:
Was informed last night in my taxi
That mcgregor,Whittaker,Davis are
All having there wages paid by a
Third party and will not be on the
Goodbye list.
Is that a Haiku? :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibby cal
TBH, if they are being paid by a third party, there's no saving if they are let go. :cb
Petty sure that's not legal - all income into RFC however it is derived belongs to the creditors and only the admins can dictate how this is deployed - for the good of the creditors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibby cal
Are you the fella that noted interest in buying them?Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Todd
Maybe the buyers don't want players on big money contracts on the books.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
IMO, that would be even dafter than wanting to buy them in the first place. :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by WindyMiller
Quote:
Originally Posted by WindyMiller
Think you are nearer the truth than you realise :greengrin
David Moyes is advocating a 20 % in EPL wages to reduce gate prices .
There are at least two SPL and three SFL teams looking at the possibility of part time football next season .
Money is tight financial future is unsure and that is the bottom line
Possibly, probably even , there will be some deluded soul for whom RFC ticks all the boxes in his ego which will bring him to take on the task of running the club .
:rolleyes:
Read an article written by a concerned Evertonian apparently they are spending beyond their means but can't afford to do otherwise cos relegation would see them in deep doo-doo so the lemmings keep on playing the game alongside the others.Quote:
Originally Posted by jdships
Maybe not surprising to hear that from Moyes.
As I've said all along this all stems for a failure of the authorities to protect the
Sustainability of the game. If they are not about that then what is their purpose ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by VivaPalmeiras
Imho there is a sizeable proportion of people involved in football, from national to world level, for whom the purpose is to milk the cash cow as much as they can for their own benefit, regardless of how much the game they profess to love is damaged in the process.
I'd have thought the out of contract in the summer players would be 1st on the list, then 2nd string that Coisty thought he could do without, then he'd let the younger players who probably won't make it at the club go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jc1
The thing is the players who arent playing wont be the high earners, they have to save £1million per month just to exist so their has to be a smattering of high earners in there to add up to £1million savings.
Also be non football staff, they won't need coaches for 60 players so some of them will go and they will only need a small Rock Steady workforce to manage home crowds of 6,000.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannySugden
:faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by silverhibee
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/footbal...6908-23773872/
Spl rivals are being too soft. imo :agree:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGd7uUh5HpUQuote:
Originally Posted by PaSaikouKujabi
:faf:
:faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by silverhibee
:agree: I'd be astonished if the likes of Allan McGregor and Steven Davis are released this week.Quote:
Originally Posted by bingo70
The likes of McCulloch, Healy, Papac, Aluko and Broadfoot, who will all be on pretty good wages, but who have very little transfer value, will be some of the first names on the list for redundancy.
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/inde...owtopic=212950Quote:
Absolute *****, McGregor would be one of the first to take a pay cut. Rangers through and through.
Sun spouting their usual pish, they can **** right off
:faf:
There were consortia interested in taking over Hearts but none was forthcoming with the cash needed. Pat the Plumber springs to mind!Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
As for Paul Murray, in his dreams. He is a time waster and the Administrators certainly know this although you are correct that they are duty bound to consider his interest.
The fact that Dave King is linked with the Murray consortium tells it all. Just what Rangers need is another tax avoiding crook running the club! King has been linked with a takeover of Rangers for the past five years in numerous Chick Young 'exclusives' but it never happened.
The Administrators may delude themselves into thinking that Rangers can be sold as a going concern but it is not going to happen, certainly not with a potential £75 million tax bill hanging over them. That case will not be resolved by 15 March so any deadline for then is pointless.
Their emphasis should have been focussed on cutting costs in the interests of the creditors. They have been in control for three weeks now and have hardly saved anything. Compare the situation at Motherwell when the Administrators dispatched 17 players on the first day and cancelled all season tickets making everyone pay at the gate.
Duff and Phelps seem to have a totally different agenda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaSaikouKujabi
McGregor Naismith Lafferty and Whittaker are all refusing to take wage cuts.
So i have heard.
More questions than answers
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/...tion.16923666?
The papers are suggesting similar this morning.Quote:
Originally Posted by silverhibee
I think the players are edging their bets. They know they have value in the transfer market to Rangers so they're taking the chance that the administrator decides there's more value in paying them until the summer then punting them. But if they do get laid off, they'll get a bigger choice of clubs to go to with no transfer fee to pay, and they likely end up getting a bigger signing on fee.
Win win for the players involved.
Agree with most of that apart from Laugherty being one of those with a value to the club!Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney McGrew
I actually think D & P have done a decent job thus far. 5 or 10 pages back, I set out my reasons for thinking that, and I haven't seen anything yet to change that opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
I don't think you can compare RFC to Motherwell. The two situations are different, in that Motherwell didn't have the kind of shenanigans that RFC have; that was much simpler and, in administration terms, "normal".
Just read the story and then noticed the links on the left hand side... :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by silverhibee
TICKETS
Great offers
JOBS
Search 1000s
TRAVEL
Find a deal
Some of the backup on the bench will still be on around £5-10,000Quote:
Originally Posted by DannySugden
BIG BIG NEWS RE TICKETUS DEAL
Received an email from Ticketus this morning.............
It has come to my attention that XXXXX (staff of ticketus) has been in contact with you about the Ticketus/Glasgow Rangers deal and suggested that the deal was credit insured.
I would like to point out that this is not correct and to apologise for this error.
Assume they must be bricking it now. Doubt wee Shytie Whytie's guarantee will seem so secure.
Well better get off to speak to clients.......urgently
Wow, that is big news.Quote:
Originally Posted by PatHead
I would presume that CW was speaking the truth when he said that he had underwritten the deal, then? Otherwise, where was Ticketus' comfort?
Thinking aloud then... RFCG (presumably) guaranteed the Ticketus deal. RFCG had security over the RFC assets, which might have been enough in normal circumstances.
Ticketus, though, clearly didn't allow for the fact that RFC were crap in Europe. The minute Malmo scored back in August, the deck of cards began to wobble.