Think Traynor might have shot his bolt a little early on this one..Quote:
Originally Posted by poolman
Printable View
Think Traynor might have shot his bolt a little early on this one..Quote:
Originally Posted by poolman
I was going to add 'CWG seems like a decent sort' but I'm glad I didn't now.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
As one of cyberspace's nonentities, I take great offence at some of what he says.Quote:
Originally Posted by EuanH78
The only way football supporters can get to express their opinion is through the medium of the internet. I presume therefore that Mr Traynor is referring to the messageboards of non rangers fans and the odd blogger. Given that the vast majority of opinion on these sites is that a newco current buns should have to apply for a place in the SFL and should not be allowed straight in to the SPL, which is against what he wants, we are all "pious nonentities".Quote:
Originally Posted by poolman
If wanting to see cheats punished makes me a "pious nonentity" James, then guilty as charged.
Better a pious nonentity than a biased journalist who has allowed years of sucking on the teat of the old firm to terminally cloud his journalistic integrity and judgement .......... The first stop for any sports journalist should be to identify cheats wherever possible and bring them to the attention of the public, in the hope that they will be stopped and punished .... Without sporting fair play and integrity sport, be it professional or amatuer is NOTHING !
The amount of money the cheat concerned generates for the sport involved should be of absolutely no consequence whatsoever !!!
"Pious nonentities" is it ? At least we now know what he thinks of his non rangers readers. As if we hadnt worked it out anyway.
:agree: The club has no legal identity beyond the limited company, so it can't legally employ anyone. If you do carry on with that approach though, the club is currently under a 12 month signing embargo; the club has been fined £160k plus £200k levied on an officer of the club; the club stands accused of hidden contracts with players and the club was guilty of defrauding the tax authorities. The limited company is only accountable for the last of these because that's the only one it actually gained from.Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Does this all not boil down to whether RFC get to play in the SPL next year (aside from the trivial matter of fleecing people of 10s of millions of pounds)?
Millers NewCo need the OldCo licence - is this a given that they get it?
If they get it, can they just play again next year in the SPL?
Does someone need to grant the NewCo permission to play in SPL. Despite Doncasters view and recommendation will it actually be voted on?
UEFAs 3 year rule - I imagine any new owners have accepted no Euro football for 3 years. I would like to think that if UEFA impose this 3 year rule as it deems a newco is dodging liabilities, then they would also not be happy with a newco sitting at the top end of a domestic league and act on it.
So what would be everyones most memorable buzzword (or phrase) throughout this whole process? Mine would have to be "For the avoidance of doubt..." You can pretty much guarantee that any sentence that has started with this over the past 12 weeks has lead to anything but clarity.
It's also the opinion of Fraser Wishart that the players' contracts cannot be transferred to a new company that easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by Newry Hibs
I wouldnt CWG, maybe a cyberspace nonentity but he's a fat, corpulent hack...nonentity.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
English BBC journo who appears to specialise in football administration:
Quote:
Matt Slater @mattslaterbbc
Been making calls re SPL/SFA promises to BM. There weren't any. It's posturing & an attempt to force the other clubs' hands #RFC
Yup, this is a poker game now.. Wonder if Duff and Duffer and the Sherman Tank know about our Rod's poker face? :cbQuote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Could have swore i read at the time that the players renegotiated contracts meant if a newco was set up they could leave with no or a nominal feeQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
There were a lot of speculative assumptions at the time, such as the one you mention, the right to walk away if they didn't like the new owner, and the right to walk away at the end of the season. I don't think anything was ever actually disclosed, and rightly so. My assumption is that each renegotiated contract was different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mon Dieu4
UEFA's moral and direct policy of refusing licences to play in European competiions to clubs which have 'dodged the bullet' of paying debts and taxes, theft, in any other language, is commendable and logical. However I suspect that that is where their active involvement in this case will stop. While the SPL and SFA have, fudgingly, not played their final cards, I think that even the wildest exponent of fair play, decency and honesty expects them to eventually roll over and have their bellies tickled by the lure of financial security and continuity of the status quo (corrupt and servile as it seems,when it comes to the final crunch, most clubs will unfortunately and cowardly admit to a dependence on the presence of a 'successful Old Firm' in the SPL). If and when these cowards open the door to welcome back the 'cleansed' Govan newco,) nothing would please me more if UEFA came down on our football authorities like a ton of bricks and took drastic measures to make an example of them and warn other countries that this sort of chicanery will not be tolerated. But, somehow, we all know they probably wont.Quote:
Originally Posted by Newry Hibs
Quote:
Originally Posted by EuanH78
Rods pair off 2`s will way to much for the Huns .:cb
With the admin's willingness to tell a load of porkies to the compliant weegie media yesterday. You have to wonder what fantasy assurances Bill Miller has been given. Player contracts to a newco, rules on newco in Europe, SPL and Hector lying down etc etc etc.
The balloon is going to go pop soon I hope. I think today at the court of session and Monday's SPL meeting are pivotal.
http://www.journallive.co.uk/newcast...1634-30897946/
So much for Doncaster's blatant lies about there being no difference in exiting admin. with a CVA in place or not and how in England clubs just stay in the same league.
Darlington are heading for the Evo-Stick premiership but not through a SOLVENT reconstruction. :greengrin
Has any Learned Hacks suggested how, if the switch to Newco Hun is to be done before the end of the season, the Newco can't have any players cleared to play their last game with the transfer window shut ?
The tache will be twitching in anticipation at the opportunity to fleece them good. I'd hope.Quote:
Originally Posted by EuanH78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mon Dieu4
It was reported at the time that some / all the players had clauses allowing them to leave if Whyte was still involved with the club. He still owns his shares...Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Surely the Court will call them out on the apparent bare faced lies they spouted yesterday...Quote:
Originally Posted by green glory
The clubs he mentioned exited through a CVA. He really needs to work a bit harder on his research. The one he really should have quoted was Leeds United. They had no CVA, were (I think) liquidated, and yet they retained their league share, the league quoting an "exceptional circumstances rule".Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Nails Doncaster's blatant lying. Quelle surprise. :rolleyes:Quote:
So while liquidation has been avoided, the absence of a company voluntary agreement to pay off creditors means further FA sanctions are likely, in the shape of demotion to Evo-Stik Premier or North, and a possible points penalty.
All these nonentities add up to more than he thinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
So everyone employed by Rangers is lying, everyone previously employed by Rangers is lying, the administrators are lying, this Doncaster chap is lying, 99.9 per cent of the Scottish media are lying. :coffee:
Leeds actually had a CVA agreed but it was later challenged at the last minute (by the mighty Hector) as there were some dubious shenanigans going on which may have inflated the %age of debts owed to opaque offshore companies with alleged links to Ken Bates. All very murky.Quote:
Originally Posted by BarneyK
I agree it is the only available precedent which comes close to applying but I'm not sure it's one they really want to be comparing themselves to!
"Leaving Glasgow, am stunned that tax-dodging Rangers' latest Big Idea is....a tax dodge. Glasgow papers report this as some kind of triumph!"
Alex Thomson - Channel 4 News (twitter account)
Nicked this from a Sheffield Wednesday forum. It was written by one of the guys behind Club 9 sports and may inform on Miller's motivation (note reference to Der Hun so they were obviously keeping tabs on Scotland as well). Accountancy comments welcome ... :wink:
Quote:
A Case In Favor of English Football Investment
The recent smattering of insolvencies and financially distressed situations in English football has once again placed the spotlight on the current football league model as well as the financial management of clubs in the top four leagues of the FA. The resulting financial disarray has not only caused many clubs as well as their financial partners to seek the restructuring of existing bank loans but those same clubs to seek additional equity capital or outright sale of the club.
The Perfect Storm
English clubs from a period beginning in 2003 through 2009 relied increasingly on leverage to fund club acquisitions as well as to fund football operations and ongoing earnings deficits. English football was awash in bank liquidity from their major financial institutions including but not limited to RBS, Lloyds Bank, Barclays and other middle market players such as Co-Operative Bank plc. In many circumstances, these loans were structured and secured by first mortgage facilities on club grounds and extended on an overdraft or demand basis. Even foreign competition entered the markets with Wachovia Bank’s syndicated financing in concert with RBS on the refinancing of Liverpool FC’s debt in 2008.
While the loans were secured by first mortgages and so called hard collateral, in effect, most of the secured by the enterprise value of the clubs typically modeled after some multiple of EBITDA or turnover. As a result, many of the banks were extending credit with the assumption that the club would be a going concern and turnover from television revenues and higher attendance figure would drive increases in value for the foreseeable future.
Starting with the 2008 credit crisis, the party ended for many football clubs and the punch bowl taken away by the banks. The years of calling the club’s banker to increase as well as extend the club’s credit facility were over. All of a sudden, senior credit officers and credit committees were taking an increasingly critical eye of their loan portfolios including those extended to football concerns. Most, if not all banks were tightening their credit policies and balked at any additional facility increases and in many cases requiring that clubs raise substantial equity to reduce the bank’s exposure. Between the years 2001 and 2009, the FA typically has experienced between 1 and 3 clubs filing for administration/CVA per year. Entering the 2010 season, Crystal Palace has already filed administration in January and it appears that several more clubs may soon follow by April. Notts County and Cardiff City are also face a winding-up petition from HM Revenue & Customs over unpaid tax bills, while Watford has warned that it could go into administration. On the same day that Cardiff City has a winding up hearing (February 10, 2010); Portsmouth FC will also have a hearing conducted with HMRC. Portsmouth, currently in the relegation zone in the Premiership, is feared to have debts in excess of £40-50 million. Currently on many fans’ watch list are: West Ham United as well as Hull City. It is well within the realm of possibilities that the Premiership may see the first side ever to file for administration. Two of the largest clubs facing major refinancing of their debt in 2010 are Manchester United and Liverpool FC which have a total amount of funded debt in excess of £900 million.
Valuations
If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs…… Rudyard Kipling
The dearth in new bank financings as well as the overall economic malaise has caused a withering of football club values in the last 1-2 years. New investment funds have sought a respite from the current market volatility and moved to more traditional bond and equity investments as well as cash. Additional concerns over football spending by supporters in the form of season tickets, merchandise and concessions has spooked many an experienced investor. Finally, the latest extension of Sky Sports television contract through the 2012/13 season provided little to be encouraged by in terms of a significant uptick in revenues.
Southampton FC who competed in the EPL as late as the 2004-05 season filed for administration in April of 2009. As a result of this administration, the club was relegated to League One status for the 2009-10 season. The sale of the club out of administration provides an interesting data point in terms of valuation. Southampton Soccer News Topics, who had spent 25 years in England’s top division, was reportedly sold at a valuation metric (assuming turnover of £13 million) of approximately 1x. This is a significant departure from previous sales multiples for Championship level clubs in recent years (Coventry 2007 for 6.0x, Ipswich 2007 – 4.2x, Birmingham City 2007 – 2.0x, Wolverhampton 2007 – 2.52x). The only club acquisition approaching that of Southampton’s was Derby County in 2008 following its relegation to the Championship where previous turnover was inflated from the Premiership.
Recent equity raises and outright sales of Championship clubs have met with continued tepid response, at best, over the past two years with no new sales of clubs occurring in the 2009 calendar year. Clubs such as Crystal Palace Soccer News Topics, Watford, Charlton Athletic, Sheffield Wednesday and Reading had reportedly tested the markets for new investors and were met with little success.
The Specter of Administration
Administration has a significant cost associated with it in English Football. League rules specify that any club filing for administration will be assessed a 10-point penalty in the league tables. As a result of Crystal Palace’s recent filing, the club went from a potential playoff contender for promotion to 21st place just above the drop zone. While administration may appear at first blush as a viable financial alternative, the penalties associated with it can force a club into relegation into the next lower football division and diminish the overall value of the club. Due to this hefty penalty, clubs as well as banks are reluctant to force a club into administration. Many banks have chosen instead to work cooperatively with the banks in terms of finding new equity investors to repay debt (causing dilution in the existing equity holdings), increased supervision by the bank (as has been reported in the case of Scottish FA giant Glasgow Rangers) or an overall restructuring and forgiveness of debt (‘cram-down’ in American parlance).
Due to the above intervening factors, the FA has turned into a relative treasure trove for the experienced sports entrepreneur or investor. Banks and equity stakeholders as of late have shown a greater propensity to be more flexible in their negotiations with potential investors and purchasers. This new-found flexibility will result in clubs emerging from restructurings without having to go through the process of administration while providing reasonable purchase multiples which were non-existent as recent as two years ago.
Evaluating Opportunities
Financial analysis of football clubs is not terribly onerous and focuses on a number potential value drivers:
1. The grounds must be owned by the club;
2. Size of grounds must be in upper quartile of its respective league;
3. Fan support (as defined by average attendance) in top quartile of its respective league;
4. The club must maintain a well-respected academy;
5. Positive EBITDA (exc. Player transfers);
6. Pro-Forma debt less than £10 million post acquisition;
7. Must be in Championship or Premiership; and
8. Wages/Turnover must be maintained at 60% or less and be competitive in its respective league.
Adhering to the above screening criteria provides a strong foundation in order to build a financially viable club long-term. Many of us will look back upon this time in this space and realize that this was a once in a lifetime change in an industry where some will capitalize and reap huge rewards.
Joseph M. Kosich is the founder of Dornoch Capital Advisors LLC, a merchant banking and advisory firm specializing in professional sports finance and located in Pinehurst, NC. Previously, Joe founded and served as a managing director and head of originations and syndications for Wachovia’s Structured Finance Group which specialized in sports and entertainment finance. Joe was responsible for structuring and syndicating complex corporate finance transactions in the United States, Canada and U.K for ultra high net worth families and individual sponsor groups. Joe’s primary focus was on enterprise value lending, preferred, mezzanine and other subordinated debt structures. Prior to joining Wachovia in 2005, Joe spent 16 years, in various structured finance and corporate/private banking positions, with Citigroup, UBS, AG and Bank of America Soccer News Topics.
Just had a thought, and it's probably one for the lawyers out there.
BM wants to buy the property of RFC, and presumably his solicitors will do their due diligence and checking of title etc. CW's company still have a charge lodged with Companies House, over the whole of RFC's assets. I think, as do the administrators, that that charge is worthless.
Here's the questions.:-
1. does that charge, even though it may be worthless, have to be lifted before a sale happens? How easy is that?
2. what are CW's rights in blocking the sale?
Flies... ointment.. now.
Apparently there is a UEFA statement doing the rounds stating that any transfer to a newco would constitute an interruption of membership and an automatic three-year ban would from Europe would ensure.
Michel Platini was going to get UEFA involved but has changed his mind now that he's seen this heartfelt masterpiece
http://youtu.be/ek7SfViBvJs
:thumbsup::greengrin:greengrin:greengrin
That rule was invoked to stop Derry City playing in Europe this year, their third year as a reborn entity - and this despite the FAI petitioning to have it waived. We got their place :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
:faf: not sure if it's better or worse than the one with the bairns keyboard but hysterical all the same :faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by joe breezy
The Huns... Dont do er.. Dignity.
What a sad inbreed with his wife/daughter/lover. Hope they don't have more childrenQuote:
Originally Posted by joe breezy
Despite the collective sigh's of relief from those of a Rangers persuasion, I feel honour bound to point out that except from Bill Millar achieving preferred bidder status in the fight(?) to take ownership of the clubd in administration, the material facts are exactly the same as they were when the process started. I won't dignify organs like the Daily Ranger who are lauding the arrrival of Mr. Millar, in a similar manner to which they would mark the second coming by pointing this out or the fact that considering the background to this drama, no money has actually changed hands yet. Being, totally honest the chances of the Millar deal coming to fruition are not high.:flag:
Is there any word on the outcome of today's visit to the Court of Session by Duff and Duffer?
comedy gold :not worth ..... some of the comments are brill as well! :top marks ....... I'm scooshed tho..... do I score it up or down?! :Ummm:Quote:
Originally Posted by joe breezy
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...r_laughing.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by joe breezy
Oh God... NOOOOOOOOOOOO
http://t.co/MPECfApd
:rolleyes:
They got six monthsQuote:
Originally Posted by green glory
Deary ****ing me!!!! What a sad hun ******. All thats missing is the spaghetti hoops sauce stain on the shirt.Quote:
Originally Posted by joe breezy
Pretty much how i see all this ending up also...shocking!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Alf R
It ignores the question of the players' contracts, and the security issue that I raised earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando7
Very very sad indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by joe breezy
His karaoke isn't even playing the right chords.
TUPE governs the transfer of employees from one entity to another and will:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mon Dieu4
- protect players existing terms and conditions when they transfer into Newco
- allow the players to walk for hee haw at the time of staff transfer.
Have you forgotten that normal law doesn;t apply to 'ra Rangers!:wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
Alex Thomson implying that Lloyds Bank have been sending letters to SPL clubs. Can only assume that the letters relate to the huns administration in some way.
I remember when R*****s were playing in Manchester, remember that? The night their loyal followers smashed up Manchester city centre and each other, anyway I was driving back north on the M74 after working in Carlisle that day. Gradually I started to get overtaken by big BMWs wi RFC number plates and the like. Not who I wanted to be sharing the motorway with, but then I saw an overbridge and some C****c lads must've been out, cause there was a banner hanging from the railings and it said, "Burn A Hun, Burn a Hundred" That's it. Classic. That's what it said :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by millarco
pretty poor statement from the SFA
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish...wsCategoryID=1
In other words. - 'welcome back, Rangers. What was all the fuss about.'Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim44
Or, " A sustainable future for the Club " Start again in the 3 rd division and learn some humility !
Well you can always dream. :wink:
I am shocked :rolleyes:
An #SPL source tells me they would have no problem with #Rangers transferring players contracts to a newco company.@BBCchrismclaug 7 hours ago
Now let me guess, that would be Doncaster?Quote:
Originally Posted by stokesmessiah
The SPL clubs will have to have a say on this.
Doncaster spent half of last season reporting that the SPL were on the point of agreeing to the 10-club league setup despite the fact that several clubs were not prepared to sign up.
To be honest if Doncaster reported that Hibs were to play Hearts in the Scottish Cup final I would question if this was true. He is very untrustworthy indeed.
There are ways around TUPE though. eg if it's a transfer of shares then the purchasers can get around the regs. I srate this as a victim.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs0666
Thair the ones I feel sorry for in all of this, a great voice and a big heart !:wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by joe breezy
:giruy:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/scotland/17947695#asset
This radio interview with Paul Murray (may have been posted already) has lots of very interesting bits...D&P not playing with straight bat if you take from what Murray says....
Also very interesting that Europe income was totaly crucial to thier business plan cash flow...and in effect he is saying any NewCo = none for 3 years (which is why they were only going for CVA) and that in effect he can't see finances working without it.....
It just gets more ridiculous....so not only do they need to be in SPL...BUT they need Champs league income for it to work....they are royaly busted if thats the sand they are built on....
Is it their call? I thought it would be up to the SFAQuote:
Originally Posted by stokesmessiah
This bit interests me:Quote:
Originally Posted by H18sry
In the recent radio discussion Doncaster was very evasive about whether the new contract contained a 'four OF games' clause but openly admitted that the old one did. This suggests that the new one doesn't and Doncaster has been scaremongering. I think his position is close to becoming untenable.Quote:
Meanwhile, ESPN have denied they are ready to pull the plug on their contract with the SPL.
An inaccurate report suggested the uncertainty over Rangers’ future had prompted the broadcaster to ditch the agreement drawn up for the next four seasons.
PS. So Murray reckoned they needed 'double digit million' (so 10+ million) funding to get past first year with no Euro income....and under NewCo that would be needed for 3 years...Buffalo Bill who was talking about living within their means (I take that as i'm not putting my cash in) won't wear that...so when he realises UEFA won't roll over he will either walk away....or they will be radical running cost cuts...(even if all the other hurdles can be jumped)Quote:
Originally Posted by down-the-slope
Sorry but how can a club with 50,000 paying supporters not at the least break even without a substantial pot of European money?
So Paul Murray has learned squat from the Whyte / Leeds United plan, and he's complaining his bid wasn't chosen? What nonsense!
Post CVA / liquidation, as long wages are kept under turnover I don't see how it would be difficult to have them turning at least a small profit.
Another thought on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by H18sry
The board members want the full vote because they fear reprisals against their clubs - presumably from Rangers fans. That suggests they did not intend to just rubber-stamp a newco's entry into the SPL after all. Encouraging if that is the case.
BTW, I thought there were six members on the board including someone from Celtc. The report only mentions five.
I get the impression that Paul Murray thinks that Rangers need to be strong and competitive, whereas Bill Murray will cut back the squad to the bare bones, anything to turn a profit. The latter obviously doesnae fit in with their perceived place in the footballing world :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by down-the-slope
http://www.sfo.gov.uk/fraud/what-is-...stripping.aspx
I think this is the exact template of what Duff and Duffer are proposing the purchaser of Rangers F C in Administration should do. Great when Officers of the Court are actively encouraging fraud.
There is a report suspected fraud Tel Number if anyone on here feels incensed enough to give them a call. :agree:
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Sandy Jardine basically threatened sanctions on the other SPL clubs who would be deemed to be 'unfair on Rangers'.
I shared your optimism when I read the article too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Also, yeah, I thought there were six on the board... and that Butch Topping would have the casting vote if it were tied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
OR
The board members want the full vote because they fear reprisals against their clubs - presumably from other SPL Clubs Chairmen and fans. That suggests they did intend to just rubber-stamp a newco's entry into the SPL after all. Not encouraging if that is the case.
But that is the point...current spending is way beyond income (without Euro income) so either keeping this income / investing millions to cover this deficit / cutting costs (dumping most of current squad and replacing with cheaper alternatives) are the 3 options...Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottB
NewCo means can't keep income / BK admitting they dont have cash to burn to fill 3 year gap (Does will Buffalo Bill?) / third option the fans (who don't do walking away) wont stomach.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by BarneyK
:agree:....I predict Buffalo Bill won't see it through...and we will see BK back...but that would mean a long drawn out affair with Rangers suffering more sanctions etc
But that would suggest that the other clubs are against newco's entry, and they are now getting a vote. And the Rangers fans (egged on by employees of the club) are the only ones who have openly threatened 'sanctions' against anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Shot Hamish
At least it's going to a full vote which has to be the right thing IMO. Does anyone know what the majority needs to be? This is one area where I think it should be unanimous - i.e. 11-1.
:agree: Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
Master of the positive soundbite and of making patronising, simplistic statements to the media, he always comes across as someone who hasn't the faintest grasp of the complex situations he's tasked with handling.
He does, however, appear to possess a level of confidence in his own abilities that is remarkable for someone quite so incompetent.
In any normal profession, that would certainly be the case. Here's hoping the clock is ticking for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
OR....Topping & Doncaster have 'suggested' this senario...as they know they will get pelters if they are back in too easy and they are part of vote...and are relying on self interest of enough of SPL chairmen to get their way in wider vote...while they don't get blame....:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot Shot Hamish
When is the bell going to ring in all this ,no more answers put your pens down ,we will give you a result shortly ,whens D day .
The best way to described Rangers IMO is that they are troublesome keek that just wont go away no matter how many times you flush ,but through time eventually it does go you just got to keep battering it with the appropriate chemicals ,:agree:
Quote:
Originally Posted by down-the-slope
I go with this as well. :wink:
Key Criteria:
Serious Fraud Office [SFO] criteria
SFO's criteria for taking on a case
By law we can investigate only those cases where there is evidence to show that serious or complex fraud, and corruption has taken place.
To determine the seriousness and complexity of a particular matter then it may be useful to ask yourself the following questions:
The key factors we consider before taking on a case:
- Does the value of the alleged fraud exceed £1 million?
- Is there a significant international dimension?
- Is the case likely to be of widespread public concern?
- Does the case require highly specialised knowledge, e.g. of financial markets?
- Is there a need to use the SFO's special powers, such as Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act?
Serious and complex: what do we look for?
In addition to the above criteria we look for factors such as:
Is it serious?
- Whether the fraud will impact on the integrity of the financial market
- Whether there is a wider group than shareholders or creditors who have lost money as a result of the alleged fraud
- Whether the fraudsters have targeted financial institutions and government (local or central) or other public serving authorities
Is it complex?
- Whether the case involves multiple countries
- Whether the evidential material to be obtained during the course of the investigation will be found in multiple locations (within the UK or in other countries)
- Whether the case involves multiple and complex financial transactions - e.g. involving many companies, accounts, Trusts and countries
- Whether the investigation will need to involve a large accountancy analysis
If your case of fraud fits the above criteria then please submit as much information as possible, in total confidence, at:
https://report.sfo.gov.uk/sfo-confidential---provide-information-in-confidence.aspx
or contact us directly through our SFO Confidential hotline on 0207 239 7388.
I think you have one Murray too many?Quote:
Originally Posted by BarneyK
Unless it is groundhog day?
Was just channel hopping and had the misfortune to come across ESPN's eulogy to Rangers' "history" que Bill Struth etc.. In a truly amazing inversion of reality the viewer was asked to all but pray for the suffering of poor innocent Rangers fans.. Then we move to shots of Super Ally a nice weans- Jesus I'm gonna puke!
The rest of the SPL manages to cope without any guarantees of money for playing in Europe, so with 50,000 fans every second week the Huns would be more than competitive. Wild Bill Pickup seems to realise this even if the Barren Knights don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by BarneyK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyrie
Don't think so!
This is one thing 'wee bulging eyes' got right!:agree:
The overheads at Greyskull are far too high and as WBE said, there needs to be cuts of around £1 million a month to make the books balance.
Without money from Europe (critical) there will massive cuts to the wage bill (including that of Sally McWattie Junior) and hordes from the backroom staff (does a club really need 25 folks in PR??)
(Not that it has seemingly any value to all the newco RFC folks and pundits but let's remember the 100+ names on the unpaid creditors list, including you and me, the taxpayers, who might get a penny in the pound from RFC and Wild Bill made no mention of that in his statement!!:rolleyes:)
They could certainly inhabit the same planet as the rest of us fairly easily. The only problem with this is that it doesn't produce success and Rangers don't do a lack of success. They're a special case, don't you know. A debt free Rangers should theoretically manage just as well as Celtic, shouldn't it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
Groundhog Day is very likely unfortunately :greengrin Ah, you knew who I meant... :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by jgl07
I read the statement as they were thinking of rubber stamping the Newco's entry back into the SPL but their own fans could be very annoyed with their own chairmen for giving it the OK. If it goes to all chairmen and its a majority wins we will probably never know who voted for what.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
A big stick can work as a last resort!Quote:
Originally Posted by cad
The report says they feared that their clubs 'could have been singled out'. That suggests to me that it would be other fans, not their own that would be taking 'sanctions', so it would either be Rangers fans annoyed at them taking the honourable course of action or fans of other clubs annoyed at them disgracing Scottish football even more.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs13681
I would say probably the latter, they probably requested all clubs to be involved in the decision so that it can be seen as a combined decision by all clubs. Most of the chairmen IMO dont care that this could be a chance to move the game forward for the better, they will see it as the start of a very difficult financial period which they may need to partly fund themselves. I just dont think a lot of the chairmen fancy the posibility of a struggle financially.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caversham Green
Dont know if this has been posted yet but Alex Thomson ( this is what a real journalist does Traynor) is saying exactly what the majority of fans in scotland feel.
The two videos are great.
http://www.channel4.com/news/miller-...eferred-bidder
It feels so weird to hear a journo asking difficult, probing questions in our world of chics, jims and billys.
"I'll tell you why it looks like a massive tax dodge, because you could continue to play in the SPL much as you were before, with very few sanctions, and other clubs that have been run properly could face relegation."
Kilmarnock chairman Michael Johnston
"We need more clarity on Bill Miller's plan for Rangers and how it will it structured.
"There is a feeling that member clubs see the commercial benefits of having Rangers in SPL, even if it is a newco.
"Member clubs are mindful of a sporting integrity aspect but the commercial benefits outweigh that."
Shockeroony :cb
Don't tell me you seriously expect the Daily Record to write it's own stories do you? :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by ancienthibby
That is the same Kilmarnock chairman that gave over 3 stands to Celtc supporters for their League winning party. :cbQuote:
Originally Posted by BarneyK
Commercial benefits only outweigh sporting integrity when you are so poorly supported that you have to whore yourself to the old firm, even if it means a newco old firm :rolleyes:
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by moff1875
Threats incidentally which we are still waiting for him to be hauled up for. If calling for supporters to boycott other member clubs isn`t bringing the game into disrepute, i dont know what is....
...or it might just be something else to sweep under the carpet..
Well if that's the case the game will die.Quote:
Kilmarnock chairman Michael Johnston"We need more clarity on Bill Miller's plan for Rangers and how it will it structured.
"There is a feeling that member clubs see the commercial benefits of having Rangers in SPL, even if it is a newco.
"Member clubs are mindful of a sporting integrity aspect but the commercial benefits outweigh that."
I made this case to a couple Gers fans at work last night, to be fair, they reckon the club deserves everything it gets, but are sure it won't happen. However they wouldn't accept my point that keeping them in the SPL at all costs will kill the game dead. I think they expect us all to just forget about it and carry on.
If this happens you are basically saying Rangers and presumably Celtic can do whatever they like, duck their taxes, spend money they don't have, outright cheat, and their league status is guaranteed no matter what, while the rest of us carry on trying to put squads together on shoestrings within the same rules that everyone and everything else have to live by.
If the other chairmen follow Johnston's desire to suck on the old firm cash **** then the SPL and everything in it deserve what's coming to them. We shall see how much commercial benefit he has in the 34 games a season there's nobody in his stadium.
Jees, I can't believe he said that. This is like watching the Nazis walk in to Poland. If sporting integrity is no longer important (and can be bought like any commodity) WHERE do you draw the line or is there no line ? What if the Huns were paying off referees would that be a step to far for Killie ? What if the Huns insisted on Killie throwing a game for a wedge of cash - would that be ok with Mr Johnston ? This is no man of integrity and should be no where near any business let along Scottish Football.Quote:
Originally Posted by BarneyK
Manic Street Preachers - If you tolerate this then your children will be next.
What a spineless wart. That's another nail in the coffin of Scottish Football.Quote:
Originally Posted by BarneyK
I'm so glad my son is only 3, there's still a chance to undo the brainwashing and try and get him interested in a sport with integrity. If all this comes to pass as I fear it will, then I refuse to fill the SPL's coffers with any of my cash ever again.
Like a firing squad where there is always one blank bullet. Everyone can say, it wasn't us who did the deed :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by hibs13681
Do these chairmen and clubs actually know what they are doing and the fall out that will come their way if the Huns are given a free pass into the SPL ? Every one of them will be named and shamed as the people who effectively KILLED a national sport. Their names should be carved in stone - starting with Johnston of Kilmarnock FC.
If Rod Petrie said something like that I would be calling on him to resign immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by BarneyK
:agree: It's a horrible sentiment and if football doesn't hold sporting integrity as its fundamental priority then there's no point in any of us going. We'd be as well going to the wrestling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Can anyone remember Petrie's wording of the point he made on the tv debate, sure that referred to a need for sporting integrity. Hope he has the baws to stand firm to that principle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
The host put the question to Petrie.
" Does Scottish Football need a strong Rangers
Petrie's answer was , " What Scottish Football needs is sporting integrity "
Lets hope he sticks to it and convinces any waverers before the vote.
The SPL need all teams in a strong financial position but without sporting integrity it isn't a sport it's just a money making machine. We'd all be as well to start supporting Tescos or Morrisons.Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Sometimes it would be nice to see the authorities in this country do the RIGHT thing and not just make the commercial decision.
what a cowardly spineless weasel. One vote in the bag from an OF http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...%202/lick2.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by BarneyK
Dinnae forget yer vaseline Johnston http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...02/buttsex.gif
:agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
The chairperson on the debate was going round asking "does the SPL need Rangers?). Houston replied "yes, the SPL needs a STRONG Rangers".
Petrie was asked the same question. He ignored the question and went on to say the SPL requires sporting integrity. My understanding of Petries statement was that sporting integrity was more of a priority than Rangers being in the SPL. Petrie and Pressley were the only participants in the debate who were not sycophantic towards Rangers.
It looks like we are being stitched up. If this happens I will be getting a refund for my ST. You can call me every name under the sun. I will be done with this charade of a league. Chairmen seem to think that most people will still go, it's in the blood ain't it. Wrong. I was not raised a fool and I sense a mugs game. Hibs could collapse and go bust for all I would care about them. If our club as a sporting institution back these proposals, hell even if they do not and this newco are brought back in, I'm done.
I have followed this team since 1986. I have saw some right duff games in my time and some of the best. I have spent thousands of pounds on this club, I have endured god awful cold nights up in Aberdeen, Inverness etc with nothing to show for it bar a cold. But this would be the breaking point for me.
As a club we need to be seen in fighting to retain sporting integrity. Otherwise we will lose fans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Mandela
As would I Spike. :agree:
Quote:
Originally Posted by greenginger
Thankfully Rod does not have a history of changing his view to suit anybody other than Hibs. This is one occassion when I would welcome his bloody minded intransigence.