Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[Seveno]

In an interview in today's SoS, Campbell Ogilvie states that he took an EBT himself and took payment of 3 bonuses and part of his settlement through the EBT. These are not loans but payment for services or in lieu of services. They would also be taxable.

Ooops, Mr Ogilvie, it seems like you have dropped a 'Doddsy" on your former employers.

[down-the-slope]

Crucial week...SPL fixtures due out next Monday...if Rangers CVA fails no way will they manage that...

Then its potentialy an SPL vote for a newco...not sure how much notice an EGM requires....

Then there is the potential of disrepute case being remitted to the very independent panel, which if it found that suspension / expulsion was merited then NewCo could not even try for the SFL3 option......(ST's not worth a lot in that senario)


I think if CVA fails Rangers will ask for origional punishment to stand to ensure they have licence to play somewhere...Green has already said some of his fantasy investors will do walking away in this case (if you can walk away before having really arrived)

If CVA is agreed the the 21 day cooling off period will cause more uncertainty as creditors can change mind so even if SPL rush out fixtures they could not be fully confirmed until after this & the disrepute case is settled...to say nothing of BTC & SPL double contract investigations..

Ticketas have been very very quiet since BK's fell out the picture - can't beleive anyone thinks they are not going to fight for their (investors of theirs who will demand it) corner ...unless more deals have been struck...

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If Rangers fans buy season tickets this coming week, does the money go into the pot for the creditors?
And if not, why not?

The CVA describes ST income as an 'Excluded Asset' which means it won't go into the creditors pot. It's fair enough really because the money is primarily to finance the forthcoming season.

On the other hand, also included in Excluded Assets are transfer fees for players sold after 12 May - not at all fair since those players were financed by the funds that creditors are now being stiffed for - and SPL money - from the season past, again financed by the creditors.

The document proposes that all these funds should be ring-fenced in a solicitor's account because "they are required to be utilised by the Company for the purpose of continued trading of the Company." i.e. needed for future working capital.

[EuanH78]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The CVA describes ST income as an 'Excluded Asset' which means it won't go into the creditors pot. It's fair enough really because the money is primarily to finance the forthcoming season.

On the other hand, also included in Excluded Assets are transfer fees for players sold after 12 May - not at all fair since those players were financed by the funds that creditors are now being stiffed for - and SPL money - from the season past, again financed by the creditors.

The document proposes that all these funds should be ring-fenced in a solicitor's account because "they are required to be utilised by the Company for the purpose of continued trading of the Company." i.e. needed for future working capital.

I thought this was not the admins primary concern? That statement should read "they are required to be utilised by the Company for the purpose of continued trading at a level which the Company deems suitable (for itself) after this sorry mess is resolved" - Utter bull****.

Edit: Another question. If the CVA fails, does the season ticket money gathered (personally I would be wary about renewing if I was a Hun) go into the liquidation pot or is that attempting to be 'ring fenced' away from that and further how would that even be legal or possible?

[ScottB]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In an interview in today's SoS, Campbell Ogilvie states that he took an EBT himself and took payment of 3 bonuses and part of his settlement through the EBT. These are not loans but payment for services or in lieu of services. They would also be taxable.

Ooops, Mr Ogilvie, it seems like you have dropped a 'Doddsy" on your former employers.

You would imagine him to be a bit smarter than Dodds...

I suspect he sees the writing on the wall, so is now suddenly all too happy to tell 'the truth' in an effort to keep his current comfy job and no doubt substantial salary.

In a way, that he's doing this suggests this issue is going to blow up in Rangers' collective face shortly...

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I thought this was not the admins primary concern? That statement should read "they are required to be utilised by the Company for the purpose of continued trading at a level which the Company deems suitable (for itself) after this sorry mess is resolved" - Utter bull****.

Edit: Another question. If the CVA fails, does the season ticket money gathered (personally I would be wary about renewing if I was a Hun) go into the liquidation pot or is that attempting to be 'ring fenced' away from that and further how would that even be legal or possible?

As far as I can see the proposal doesn't say what happens to the ST money if the CVA fails, but if newco is formed I would inagine the ST rights would transfer over and the cash probably would as well. If no newco is formed (or if they are suspended) I assume the ST money would have to be refunded to the mugs.

[Hibbyradge]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As far as I can see the proposal doesn't say what happens to the ST money if the CVA fails, but if newco is formed I would inagine the ST rights would transfer over and the cash probably would as well. If no newco is formed (or if they are suspended) I assume the ST money would have to be refunded to the mugs.

At 9p in the £.

[poolman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It was'nt me , honest says Campbell Ogilvie.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...dent-1-2347933


It is a pity the interviewer had'nt concluded with the following question.

" So you left Rangers in 2005 and turned up at the PBS, and Hearts are now subject to HMRC investigations, see a patern ? "

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

You would imagine him to be a bit smarter than Dodds...

I suspect he sees the writing on the wall, so is now suddenly all too happy to tell 'the truth' in an effort to keep his current comfy job and no doubt substantial salary.

In a way, that he's doing this suggests this issue is going to blow up in Rangers' collective face shortly...

He has previously admitted to receiving those payments quite some time ago - three bonuses of £5,000 and severance pay of £80,000. I can't see that any of those properly fall under EBT provisions.

He's very cagey in that interview as well -

Q: Can you see there being an issue with you being SFA president at a time when there is an ongoing SPL investigation into non-disclosure of payments at Rangers that you are directly linked to? You were a director and the secretary who signed off the accounts in November 2001. At that time the EBT scheme was in operation and players were receiving payments that weren’t in their contracts.

A: you're right, I was a director and secretary.

Plus the old 'I didn't know' defence. As a director he was duty-bound to know - that's what he was paid for.

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

At 9p in the £.

It should be, but it would be the full whack - it doesn't fall into the CVA pot.

[EuanH78]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He has previously admitted to receiving those payments quite some time ago - three bonuses of £5,000 and severance pay of £80,000. I can't see that any of those properly fall under EBT provisions.

He's very cagey in that interview as well -

Q: Can you see there being an issue with you being SFA president at a time when there is an ongoing SPL investigation into non-disclosure of payments at Rangers that you are directly linked to? You were a director and the secretary who signed off the accounts in November 2001. At that time the EBT scheme was in operation and players were receiving payments that weren’t in their contracts.

A: you're right, I was a director and secretary.

Plus the old 'I didn't know' defence. As a director he was duty-bound to know - that's what he was paid for.

Are directors receiving money from EBT 'loans' not just about a legal use of the EBT though? Sure that it could be argued that it was just about kosher in those circumstances.

Either way CO's position is compromised and he should be asked to resign if he does not have the decency to do it himself.

[Caversham Green]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Are directors receiving money from EBT 'loans' not just about a legal use of the EBT though? Sure that it could be argued that it was just about kosher in those circumstances.

Either way CO's position is compromised and he should be asked to resign if he does not have the decency to do it himself.

Not really. An EBT payment is a discretionary loan that is requested by the employee and approved by the trustees, who are independent of the employer, and is not a reward for employment services. I can't see that Ogilvie's £95k satisfies any of those criteria.

[Kaiser1962]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Are directors receiving money from EBT 'loans' not just about a legal use of the EBT though? Sure that it could be argued that it was just about kosher in those circumstances.

Either way CO's position is compromised and he should be asked to resign if he does not have the decency to do it himself.

As it was a "loan" we could always ask CO, given his position of prominence within the SFA, what provisions he has made for this "loan" to be repaid which would add legitamacy to Rangers procedures, and clarify the issue of legality. If there are none then, to all intents and purposes, it does not qualify as a loan and is therefore either a gift or a payment for services rendered or anticipated. It would not fit any known descrpitors as a loan. IMO.

[VickMackie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

As it was a "loan" we could always ask CO, given his position of prominence within the SFA, what provisions he has made for this "loan" to be repaid which would add legitamacy to Rangers procedures, and clarify the issue of legality. If there are none then, to all intents and purposes, it does not qualify as a loan and is therefore either a gift or a payment for services rendered or anticipated. It would not fit any known descrpitors as a loan. IMO.

Exactly.

Why has no one asks any of these people to repay their loans?

Rangers are in heavy debt, can the trustee not ask for the money to be repaid.

Oh, I know why. Because the players and other beneficiaries will pull out their second contracts and put the final nail in Rangers coffin.

[Eyrie]

The loans were made by the EBT which is a separate entity to Rangers. Even if the loans were repaid immediately (which would defeat the whole point of them), the creditors wouldn't see a penny.

[grunt]

The BBC is our national broadcaster; a position which brings responsibilities for fair reporting.
So why do they publish this rubbish?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/footbal...medium=twitter

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Rangers could attempt to sign new players before the club is officially out of administration.

Charles Green is aiming to have a Company Voluntary Arrangement approved on Thursday, after which there is a 28-day cooling-off period.
But SPL rules state that, with board approval, clubs in administration may replace players whose contracts expire.
"If you are correct, that is an avenue open to the club," Green told BBC Scotland on Sunday.
Rule 6.20 of the Scottish Premier League's regulations makes provision for signings being made in special circumstances by clubs who have suffered an insolvency event.
While there is no guarantee the SPL board would approve any signings, with several players' contracts expiring, that could allow Rangers to use the rule to bring replacements in.
If the CVA is approved, which is still the subject of dubiety, the cooling-off period would take Rangers to mid-July.
The club had been banned from signing players for 12 months by a Scottish Football Association-appointed Judicial Panel, a decision upheld by an Appellate Tribunal but subsequently set aside by the Court of Session.
The Appellate Tribunal must now decide what punishment to administer.

In the meantime, Green has confirmed he had told a supporters' meeting on Wednesday that he has a list of 19 target players drawn up, five of whom are involved at Euro 2012.
And he says he has added £1.5m to the budget Ally McCoist and the administrators Duff & Phelps had been working to for next season.
Green had also been examining the possibility, if Thursday's creditors' vote goes in favour of a CVA, of setting aside the 28-day cooling-off period, to allow a swifter exit from administration.
But lawyers have advised that even if the two main creditors - HMRC and Ticketus - had been willing to agree to that, it would not be possible because other creditors had to be allowed the right to raise objections in that period and only a judge can bring the period of administration to an end.
Of the money raised so far (£5.5m is lodged with the lawyers Taylor Wessing, as confirmed by Simon Shipperley of Duff and Phelps at the fans' meeting), £2m has come from Singaporean investors, £2m from another major investor, with the remainder split.
Having closed the initial round of funding with £10m raised, Green says he will entertain a second round of investment with a maximum of £4m per investor.

Green also referred to a £10m stadium-naming deal with "an airline investor or alternative".
"I've been speaking to a number of people, some of whom are connected to our investors, some not," he added.
"I've said all along, stadium-naming is an emotive issue, but whatever we do it would always be Ibrox Stadium."

As for the bit in bold - he clearly doesn't quite grasp what a stadium naming deal entails.

[stokesmessiah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The BBC is our national broadcaster; a position which brings responsibilities for fair reporting.
So why do they publish this rubbish?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/footbal...medium=twitter


As for the bit in bold - he clearly doesn't quite grasp what a stadium naming deal entails.

That made me laugh also.

Could you imagine sitting in a meeting with Green about investing 10m to own the stadium name rights to the next day reading him say even if we rename it it will always be Ibrox.

[HibbyDave]

I assume that shop at Ipox is still trading? If so, where does the cash go? wages for staff? into creditor pot (since the stock was bouht with csh from creditors)?
Also, I noticed that they have been making arrangements for overseas pe-season tours/freindlies etc.....how are they paying the bills for these trips?

[stokesmessiah]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The BBC is our national broadcaster; a position which brings responsibilities for fair reporting.
So why do they publish this rubbish?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/footbal...medium=twitter


As for the bit in bold - he clearly doesn't quite grasp what a stadium naming deal entails.

Does anyone else think that these press releases that have been coming out over the last few days are intentionally designed to turn the creditors against the CVA???

[grunt]

The only creditors that matter from a CVA perspective are HMRC and Ticketus.
I would hope they are not swayed one way or the other by bs news conferences by Green.

[Skol]

Is it not Ibrox Park rather than Stadium ?

I just dont get how there can be a planned warchest for next season and all this planned income generation while they are paying current creditors pennies. Its just not cricket.

[Kaiser1962]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The loans were made by the EBT which is a separate entity to Rangers. Even if the loans were repaid immediately (which would defeat the whole point of them), the creditors wouldn't see a penny.

But you would guess that the money that has been used to fund the EBT has been accounted for somewhere in the process? Our accountants even want receipts for a packet of tea bags out the petty cash, which itself has to balance or hellfire and damnation will follow. But is that not the whole point of "accounts"? There must be a paper trail either in the form of an expenditure/cost to MIM or Der Hun, and must therefore be reflected as both income AND an expenditure for the EBT trust which should have to file accounts in its home country, if its anywhere in the civilised world that is.

All this money surely cant move about without someone recording it somewhere, or attracting the attention of the authorities at either source or destination? If not then "money laundering" immediately springs to mind.

[Dr Jimmy]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The only creditors that matter from a CVA perspective are HMRC and Ticketus.
I would hope they are not swayed one way or the other by bs news conferences by Green.

On Friday, I was speaking to someone high up in HMRC and although he is not involved with Rangers cases he said HMRC will never accept the CVA.
He also said they will be going full out on the EBT case.

Not my words, but someone high up in HMRC.

[Terrymac]

Ogilvie admits “might have signed some documents”

Posted on 10 June, 2012 by Paul67
49
Campbell Ogilvie was interviewed in today’s Scotland on Sunday but he singularly failed to deflect the central criticism of him continuing as president of the SFA despite being a director of Rangers during the period they introduced the controversial EBTs and, allegedly, illegally registered players with the SFA, which Ogilvie was also a director of.
Interviewer, Andrew Smith, asked “Can you see there being an issue with you being SFA president at a time when there is an ongoing SPL investigation into non-disclosure of payments at Rangers that you are directly linked to? You were a director and the secretary who signed off the accounts in November 2001. At that time the EBT scheme was in operation and players were receiving payments that weren’t in their contracts.”
Ogilvie’s response laid bare how inappropriate the situation is: “I was secretary up until 2002. That’s correct. I was a director, that’s correct.”
All he could do in response to the question of how inappropriate his job as SFA president is when Rangers are under investigation for non-disclosure of payments he was “directly linked to” is confirm he was a secretary and director. He didn’t even offer a counter argument.
It was as though he’d been coached, badly, about what to do when you are asked a question you don’t want to answer. Simply not answering the question and making an irrelevant statement treats Scottish football fans like fools.
The truth is he did not and cannot answer the question. If Campbell Ogilvie cannot argue why there is not an issue for him continuing to be SFA president, why is he still SFA president?
Ogilvie confirmed that in March he told Andrew Smith that there were no side contracts and insisted this was “the case to the best of my knowledge”, despite Smith referring him to the recent BBC documentary, the assertions of which have not been challenged.
Readers would have been confused by this ‘knowledge’, that there were no side contracts as Ogilvie immediately denied involvement with player contracts.
This duel position, bearing witness that there were no side contracts, while denying knowledge of player contracts, is wholly inconsistent and, in itself, reasons enough to for his dismissal.
One of the most intriguing comments from Ogilvie was “I might have signed some documents from time to time. I certainly didn’t do the player negotiations, I didn’t do the contracts.”
He “might have signed some documents from time to time”. Oh dear.
If he signed some documents active in this scandal “from time to time”, for pity sake, just go. Pack your bags, apologise profusely and get out of Scottish football.
We await to hear who conducted the inquiry into Ogilvie which allowed Stewart Regan to clear Ogivlie, but if this shoddy testimony informed their decision, the scandal at the heart of the SFA has taken on a new dimension.
Rumours that the SFA did not conduct an inquiry into Campbell Ogilvie and that chief exec, Stewart Regan, spoke inappropriately in order to save the skin of his pal, remain unfounded.
1

share on F'book or Twitter
1

0

[Capt Mainwaring]

So he was on the Board at Rangers and either didnt understand what was going on or he didn't do his job and ask.

He was the company secretary at Rangers and signed off the accounts containing information on the EBTs that he wasn't aware of and also didn't ask or query. He even had his own snout in the trough with his own EBT.

He's either an incompetent fool or guilty of negligence and failed spectacularly in his duties as a Board member.

So where is he now - President of the Scottish Football Association who are investigating the crimes of the past Rangers regimes in which he played a key role!!!!

You really could not make it up!

[snooky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So he was on the Board at Rangers and either didnt understand what was going on or he didn't do his job and ask.

He was the company secretary at Rangers and signed off the accounts containing information on the EBTs that he wasn't aware of and also didn't ask or query. He even had his own snout in the trough with his own EBT.

He's either an incompetent fool or guilty of negligence and failed spectacularly in his duties as a Board member.

So where is he now - President of the Scottish Football Association who are investigating the crimes of the past Rangers regimes in which he played a key role!!!!

You really could not make it up!

-> etc.......

[Onion]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

He has previously admitted to receiving those payments quite some time ago - three bonuses of £5,000 and severance pay of £80,000. I can't see that any of those properly fall under EBT provisions.

He's very cagey in that interview as well -

Q: Can you see there being an issue with you being SFA president at a time when there is an ongoing SPL investigation into non-disclosure of payments at Rangers that you are directly linked to? You were a director and the secretary who signed off the accounts in November 2001. At that time the EBT scheme was in operation and players were receiving payments that weren’t in their contracts.

A: you're right, I was a director and secretary.

Plus the old 'I didn't know' defence. As a director he was duty-bound to know - that's what he was paid for.

My thoughts exactly. He was LEGALLY duty bound to know and as a Director carries full responsibility for the decisions and actions of the company. The fact that he's offered this as a defence proves he's not fit to be a Director let alone Chairman of any company.

[Onion]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So he was on the Board at Rangers and either didnt understand what was going on or he didn't do his job and ask.

He was the company secretary at Rangers and signed off the accounts containing information on the EBTs that he wasn't aware of and also didn't ask or query. He even had his own snout in the trough with his own EBT.

He's either an incompetent fool or guilty of negligence and failed spectacularly in his duties as a Board member.

So where is he now - President of the Scottish Football Association who are investigating the crimes of the past Rangers regimes in which he played a key role!!!!

You really could not make it up!

this.

[Eyrie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But you would guess that the money that has been used to fund the EBT has been accounted for somewhere in the process? Our accountants even want receipts for a packet of tea bags out the petty cash, which itself has to balance or hellfire and damnation will follow. But is that not the whole point of "accounts"? There must be a paper trail either in the form of an expenditure/cost to MIM or Der Hun, and must therefore be reflected as both income AND an expenditure for the EBT trust which should have to file accounts in its home country, if its anywhere in the civilised world that is.

All this money surely cant move about without someone recording it somewhere, or attracting the attention of the authorities at either source or destination? If not then "money laundering" immediately springs to mind.

It was accounted for as an expense in the Huns accounts every time they paid money into the EBT.

Fair point though about the EBT's own accounts. Are the loans to players/directors/managers/Blackburn employees still shown as assets, or have these been written off as irrecoverable?

[Cropley10]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not really. An EBT payment is a discretionary loan that is requested by the employee and approved by the trustees, who are independent of the employer, and is not a reward for employment services. I can't see that Ogilvie's £95k satisfies any of those criteria.

Not so much put his foot in it, more blown it clean off...