Campbell Ogilvie was an executive director of Rangers for the first five years of their Employee Benefit Trusts and during their earlier illegally-executed tax avoidance Discount Options Scheme. He received a ‘loan’ from a Rangers EBT, which he has not repaid and is not expected to repay, and recently described his company responsibilities during this period to a friendly journalist as being administrative, and then legislative.
He has been a director of the SFA for 22 years and is now president.
During the period when Ogilvie was director of both Rangers and the SFA the club illegally registered dozens of footballers with the SFA. All directors are responsible for actions of a company, executive directors especially so. Those who represent themselves as having administrative and legislative roles, absolutely so.
SFA chief executive, Stewart Regan, yesterday defended Ogilvie’s shameless refusal to resign by offering a defence which echoed Rangers ‘Craig Whyte acted alone’ defence, which was comprehensively dismissed by the SFA Judicial Tribunal.
Regan said, “We have had very clear feedback that the president was not involved in any letter or correspondence with regards to player EBTs.
“We are all aware of businesses being run where you have one owner and operator running the club and a number of directors sitting below. The way this process has been managed, a lot of this correspondence was done much higher up the chain than Campbell Ogilvie.”
This is cringe-worthy nonsense and gets to the heart of the lack of corporate governance at the SFA. Mr Regan is not qualified to assure us that Mr Ogilvie has no case to answer. That is not a judgement for him to make and is certainly not an inference that can be made on the basis of private comments from Mr Ogilvie or other former Rangers directors similarly contaminated by this issue.
Before the chief executive can state as fact how Rangers conducted their business, and the limited involvement of Mr Ogilvie, some form of inquiry must have taken place. No such inquiry happened.
“We have had very clear feedback”, said Mr Regan. Who is “we”, was it an independent panel that received this feedback, or did Mr Regan deal with this personally? Who gave the feedback? Was Mr Ogilvie subject to the same independent scrutiny as anyone else in the game, from Neil Lennon to Craig Whyte, or was this passed off with a handshake?
Mr Regan’s failure to recognise the serious corporate governance failures in his conduct is alarming. We don’t need this guy to know the offside rule but he has to understand good corporate governance requires questions against your president to be openly and independently investigated.
When these are our standards, what else is the executive turning a blind eye to?
Mr Regan was careful to limit his claim on what Mr Ogilvie was not party to. “We have had very clear feedback that the president was not involved in any letter or correspondence with regards to player EBTs” sounds like a substantial piece of information but it’s not.
This only claims that Mr Ogilvie did not author any side letter or contract relating to an EBT, which is not in doubt. The important issue is clearly Mr Ogilvie knew dozens of players had EBTs, he knew football players’ remuneration is subject to detailed written contracts and he knew all money paid to a player, from any source, in relation to football, must be detailed on his contract and registered with the SFA.
For Rangers players’ EBTs to be consistent with SFA and Fifa requirements they would need to be completely discretionary, an optional extra the players were unable to rely on. Mr Ogilvie, the Great Football Administrator, knew all of this.
Instead of good corporate governance we appear to have a self-certified president – we know Mr Ogilvie did nothing wrong because Mr Ogilvie said he did nothing wrong. He is at once, a Great Football Administrator and unaware of the football administration actions of the company he was legally responsible for.
Ogilvie was an executive director of Rangers. It was his responsibility as a director of Rangers to ensure that the club contracts and legislative responsibilities were conducted in a proper manner. He was simultaneously a director of the SFA. It was his responsibility as a director of the SFA to ensure the Association was run in an even-handed manner, that one club – his club or any other – could not load the dice.
Regan went on to say “Since February 14 he has had no involvement at all in any board meetings, any decisions or any meetings with the club.”
It is reassuring that he has withdrawn from an important part of the legislative process of the SFA but his prominent participation in yesterday’s AGM confirms that his influence in other areas remains.
Regan added “[EBTs] are illegal if they are used knowingly in an incorrect manner. That is something we are still waiting for facts on. But I am satisfied that Campbell has discharged his duty of care. He has done everything we could have asked of him and, so far as his integrity is concerned, he is a man with many years as a highly respected administrator across the game of football in Scotland.”
“So far as his integrity is concerned….many years …. respected administrator”. Those words may bring to mind all those years Ogilvie was at Ibrox while Rangers sectarian signing policy was in place.
Regan dismissed calls for his own resignation, no doubt confident he can self-certify his performance.
I am hugely reluctant to open a political debate, but does the painful lack of accountability and scrutiny in Scotland not alarm you? The actions (inactions) of Ogilvie and Regan would never be accepted in England, where structures exist to hold officials to account. As a relic from Rangers sectarian signing policy days, Ogilvie would be regarded as an embarrassing dinosaur, he would never be made president! The ability for officials to state facts without an inquiry would never be tolerated.
We look more like a rotten borough than a country with the mechanisms necessary to nurture a successful state. Where’s your voice now, Mr Salmond?
942 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- ...
- 25
- »
BDO=Bull Dose Orcs
HH
Italian press reporting RFC have made an offer to Gattuso…
Could it be an EBT?
Quick question: When does the transfer window open
lochgoilhead bhoy on 7 June, 2012 at 21:19 said:
bournesouprecipe on 7 June, 2012 at 21:17 said:
*pattern*
or Right backs that wurnae?
Yogi on 7 June, 2012 at 21:18 said:
Hoping so mate, but even if they are ready before my hol i dont know if you deserve yours ya h*n :-p
HH
I was as depressed as almost everyone else on the blog earlier – but now see the light again at the end of the tunnel (even if it is still a long one!). HMRC alone have the power to block the CVA – if they were intending to approve it, why bother setting up BDO. I have never believed that HMRC would accept the CVA all along and have been trying to calm family members down at various stages of the saga saying that everything would be ok and Hector would do the right thing. I still believe that and look forward to it. Time to stock up on ice cream and jelly again – it’s coming soon. Dave King has added to my confidence – funny how he always re-appears when something bad is about to happen (obviously trying to position himself as some kind of saviour to the dissilusional masses). HH and stay patient
BRTH
I Posted the questions below earlier. Either someone at Rangers lied to Ogilvie, or Ogilvie is guilty. He is guilty if he didn’t ask the questions he should have asked. He is guilty if he asked and got an answer that suggested law breaking, which he didn’t report
These are the key questions as I see it
1. Were you aware of any side letters, or financial commitments to players , in relation to contracts that you signed
2. Did you ask David Murray whether the contracts you were signing on behalf of Rangers included all financial obligations to the player
3. Did David Murray provide you with an answer to point 2
4 if he did was the answer Yes or No
Now , and bear with me, the only correct sequence of answers which could possibly keep Ogilvie in the clear is :
No
Yes
Yes
No
Anything other than that and Ogilvie is guilty. Regan will only be guilty if he fails to ask Ogilvie those four questions.
BRTH
Well played sir.
Lovely piece and some good analysis.
Yogi on 7 June, 2012 at 21:18 said:
Only joking with the h*n comment ;-)
Hoping badges ready before I go as I want mine too lol
HH
Fraser Forster puts pen to paper?
So….seems that we might actually get some money back for Juarez ?
Wonder if CSKA ever stumped up the £250,000 for Cillian…?
And what happened regarding Mervan Celik…did the Huns get off,without paying the £200,000 development fee to his old club ?
Kojo@17:02…I agree !
Hoping so mate, but even if they are ready before my hol i dont know if you deserve yours ya h*n :-p
Shameful and not to mention hurtful comment from you…….
H*n, that’ll be effing right!
HH
Barcabhoy on 7 June, 2012 at 21:22 said:
Are you sure?
I think he would need to answer
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
to get away with it.
Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan supports Kano 1000 on 7 June, 2012 at 21:05 said:
Good article.
What makes all of this so galling is that juncture after juncture the SFA / SPL keep giving them these byeballs, in the knowledge that people like your good self are articulate enough and guys like Paul are high enough up the business ladders to KNOW they are acting completely outrageously – yet they dont care.
They seem to be content enough to know that those with a public voice and those within the real positions of power – will do and say damn all, whilst guys like yourself, Paul and hundreds of others (which becomes thousands after you’s have spread your word) are on the periphery.
Hell – they dont even care that the BBC have enough facts to sink them – which tells us there is something more at stake, something forcing their hand to continue to defend the indefensible.
The real mafia extends from the inner corridors of Ibrox, Hampden, Hollyrood and straight to the masonic lodge that effectively run Scotland.
I deplore what the huns have done, been caught doing and are being helped to forensically ‘clean’ the scenes of those crimes by footballs cops.
We need a police investigation into their fraudulent activitites – Billy dodds revelation that they deducted tax from his share of the EBT has told us all that it is necessary.
We need charges brought forward and we need people to serve time for their crimes – and that includes the ‘institution’ whose name they did it in.
It wont cost tax payers a great deal of money and wont take more than a week – all they have to do is request all the information the BBC have and wait for the court to grant it..
Simples
Awe naw
If the plan was to liquidate, which I agree it was, why haven’t D and D done so already ?
There would have been more in the pot if they had liquidated earlier.
Yogi on 7 June, 2012 at 21:28 said:
read my post just after ;-)
Was speaking to your brother today mate
HH
Barca
I agree, however, the main point is that Ogilvie appears to have sung a song to maintain his position as El Presidente. That song seems to say that he was completely and totally unaware ( whether he should have asked is certainly relevant ) but that there were others who were clearly in the know.
Not all of these can have been Directors– that is impossible—- and the SFA has an audit procedure which uncovered nothing— repeatedly!!!
However Ogilvie has clearly said that someone knew and has pointed up the food chain.
If he is telling the truth, then independently of the SPL enquiry and every other enquiry then Regan knows… or at least has a good idea.
Brogan Rogan…….
Excellent post. You should have entitled it All the SFA President’s Men. There could be a screenplay in it yet!
HH
Duff & Phelps Finally
Release the Results of the
Creditors Meeting on
20 April!
Today, Duff & Phelps released the results of
the 20 April creditors’ meeting. You can
see it here – Result of Rangers’ Creditors’
Meeting It is clear that the resolutions, as
they stand, are now as modified by HMRC,
rather than as originally framed by Duff &
Phelps. As is not surprising in this saga,
matters are not clear yet.
There is some discussion about whether or
not the resolutions allow a sale of the assets
of Rangers to Charles Green without further
creditor approval. I frankly do not see the
point of the tightening up of the Resolutions,
unless it gives HMRC power to “interfere”.
Why would they have revised the
Resolutions to put in place their own
liquidator, if only to allow a sale of assets at
an alleged knockdown price? I think there is
enough ambiguity, as I mention below, to
meet the requirement of HMRC which is that
a CVA needs to be approved by creditors;
an asset sale needs to approved by
creditors; and if those options are gone,
because Mr Green walks away, then BDO
come in as liquidators.
—————————————-
I wrote in detail on 22 April about the
Virtual Creditors’ Meeting which took place
on 20 April.
In light of the outcome of that meeting
being reported now by Duff & Phelps,
coincidentally I am sure, following upon the
delay in producing the report having been
raised with the Registrar of Companies, I
thought I would revisit the resolutions.
My commentary follows at the end of the
resolutions.
RESOLUTION (1) APPROVED WITHOUT
MODIFICATION
17.1.1 That the Joint Administrators continue
the Administration to deal with such
outstanding matters in relation to the
Company as the Joint Administrators
consider necessary until such time as the
Administration ceases to have effect.
17.1.2 That the Joint Administrators do all
such other things and generally exercise all
of their powers as contained in Schedule 1
of the Act, as they, in their sole and absolute
discretion consider desirable or expedient
in order to achieve the purpose of the
Administration.
17.1.3 That the Joint Administrators can
investigate and, if appropriate, pursue any
claims the Company may have.
17.1.4 That the Joint Administrators can
explore any and all options available to
realise the assets of the Company without
recourse to creditors. The Joint
Administrators be authorised to conclude a
sale of the whole, or part of the business,
property and assets of the Company without
having to obtain the sanction of the
Company’s creditors at further creditors
meetings, upon such terms as the Joint
Administrators deem fit and they be
authorised to liaise with all relevant parties,
bodies or organisations which they deem
relevant for achieving that purpose.
17.1.5 That the Joint Administrators seek to
establish a creditors committee, and they be
authorised to so establish a committee in
such terms and on such basis as they deem
fit without having to obtain any further
sanction from the Company’s creditors at a
further creditors meeting.
RESOLUTION (2) MODIFIED WITH
ADDITION OF NEW PARAS 17.1.9 and
17.1.10 as noted
17.1.6 That the Joint Administrators may
propose such CVA(s) or Scheme(s) of
Arrangement as they deem appropriate and
see fit, subject to the outcome of offers.
17.1.7 Upon approval of a CVA or Scheme
of Arrangement to exit the Administration at
such time as the Joint Administrators deem
appropriate by making an application to the
Court pursuant to Paragraph 79 of Schedule
B1 of the Act.
17.1.8 That the Joint Administrators are
authorised, subject to implementation of a
CVA, to conclude a sale of the whole, or part
of the business, property and assets of the
Company, without having to obtain the
sanction of the Company’s creditors at
further creditors’ meetings, upon such terms
as the Joint Administrators deem fit and
they be authorised to liaise with all relevant
parties, bodies or organisations which they
deem relevant for achieving that purpose.
17.1.9 Any proposed Voluntary
Arrangement or Scheme of Arrangement
will be considered on its merits by HMRC
Voluntary Arrangement Service.
Acceptance of the Joint Administrator’s
(sic) proposals by HMRC does not
therefore imply acceptance of any
Voluntary Arrangement proposals that
may be put forward as a consequence.
17.1.10 That The Joint Administrators
shall report to creditors no later than 3
months from the date of the meeting of
creditors on the feasibility of a CVA or
Scheme of Arrangement.
RESOLUTION (3) MODIFIED AS PER
ALTERATIONS BELOW
17.1.9 11 That the Joint Administrators, when
it is anticipated that no better realisations
will be made in the Administration than
would be available in a winding up, take the
necessary steps to put the Company into
either CVL or into compulsory liquidation as
deemed appropriate by the Joint
Administrators. It is proposed that the Joint
Administrators, currently Paul John Clark
and David John Whitehouse of Duff & Phelps
would act as Joint Liquidators or such other
parties as creditors may resolve should the
Company be placed into CVL. In accordance
with Paragraph 83(7) of Schedule B1 to the
Act and Rule 2.47 of the Rules creditors may
nominate a different person as the proposed
liquidator, provided the nomination is
received at this office prior to the approval
of these proposals. In the absence of such
nomination, the Joint Administrators will be
appointed Joint Liquidators and in
accordance with Section 231 of the Act any
act required or authorised under any
enactment to be done by the Joint
Liquidators is to be done by all or any one
or more of them. In accordance with
paragraph 83 (7) of Schedule B1 to the
Act and Rule 24.7 of the Rules, HMRC
nominate Malcolm Cohen and James
Bernard Stephen of BDO as joint
liquidators of the Company and pursuant
to Section 231 of the Act any act
required or authorised under any
enactment to done (sic) by the joint
liquidators may be done by all or any
one or more persons holding office as
joint liquidators.
As an aside, I have copied below what I
wrote on 22 April regarding this
Resolution.
“There were extensive rumours on Friday
that BDO, a worldwide business accountant
with Glasgow offices, had been approached
regarding Rangers. Was this an effort to
nominate them, prior to Friday at noon, to
be liquidators if winding up takes place?
“The position of HMRC on this resolution
will be very telling. If they let it pass that
will be a sign that D&P are in it till the end.
If not, then it would be clear evidence that
HMRC’s patience had come to an end.”
RESOLUTION (4) MODIFIED AS SHOWN
17.1.10 12 That , without prejudice to or
effect upon the creditors’ rights to bring
any challenge to the level of that
remuneration shall they consider it
appropriate to do so, the Joint
Administrators’ remuneration be fixed by
reference to the time properly incurred by
them and their staff in attending matters
during the Administration.
17.1.11 13 That the Joint Administrators’
statement of pre-Administration costs
under Rule 2.25 of the Rules, where no
Creditors’ Committee is established, be
approved for payment in accordance with
Rule 2.39C of the Rules.
17.1.12 14 That the Joint Administrators be
authorised to draw their reasonably and
properly incurred Category 2
Disbursements.
RESOLUTION (5) REJECTED
17.1.13 That the Joint Administrators’
Proposals be approved without
modification.
So what does all this mean?
Clearly HMRC objected to Resolutions 2, 3, 4
and 5. The free hand that D&P wanted to
have was not given to them.
Looking at the three options D&P laid out in
its proposal to creditors, we see the
following.
CVA – This is D&P’s preferred option.
Whilst D&P are free to propose any CVA
they think fit, the decision on it lies with the
creditors, and the fact that creditors to the
value of 25% or more of the debt owed can
block it. If a CVA is approved by creditors,
then D&P are in charge of precisely when
Rangers comes out of administration.
In terms of 17.1.8, if a CVA is agreed , then
D&P can sell off the assets and business of
Rangers without further recourse to
creditors for approval.
It is now made clear that the CVA is to be
considered on its merits by HMRC, and that
consent to the administrators making a
proposal is NOT consent to the CVA itself.
One wonders if HMRC foresaw an effort to
argue that acceptance of the administrators’
proposals would be an acceptance of a
CVA. In any event, this has been headed off.
A helpful link to the HMRC Voluntary
Arrangement Service, and the reasons why it
might reject an arrangement, can be found
here.
Reasons for rejection are listed as follows:-
“Rejection is appropriate when
debtors do not resolve VAS genuine
concerns about their proposals
debtors do not expect to meet all
statutory liabilities as they fall due.
Occasionally exceptional or compliance
reasons will cause VAS to decline proposals.
Examples are
deliberate default or evasion of
statutory liabilities
past association with contrived
insolvency
operating a policy of withholding
payment of Crown money
any proposal that requires sale of
HMRC debt or does not provide cash
failure to meet any obligations under
a prior VA
exclusion of creditors who are
entitled to receive the same
treatment as all others within their
class
a purchaser assuming responsibility
for payment of some of the debtor’s
debts in consideration for the
purchase of the debtor’s assets
any proposal by any member of any
organisation that requires debts
owed to its members to be paid in
full, whether inside or outside the
arrangement or before or after
completion of the arrangement when
all other unsecured creditors will
become bound to accept a
compromise of their debt. Here
‘members’ includes any prescribed
associate(s) or other creditor(s)
specified by the organisation.”
At the foot of the page it says, “Collect all
you can by being cost-effective and
commercial.”
Finally as regards the CVA HMRC do not
want this to be open-ended, D&P now being
required to report on the feasibility of a CVA
or Scheme of Arrangement within three
months of the 20 April creditors’ meeting.
To recap, D&P are authorised to put
forward a CVA proposal. HMRC will look at
it commercially and taking account of the
factors mentioned above. D&P know that
they have to make progress with the CVA, or
else will have to report to the creditors, and
especially to HMRC, by 20 July.
Asset Sale to Newco – This is believed by
many to be the actual preferred route, if not
of D&P, then of Mr Green. For one, it is
cheaper and gives more of a chance to
dump the penalties liable to be imposed on
oldco.
This though is where it gets tricky. On one
view Resolutions 17.1.4 and 17.1.8 are
inconsistent.
Taking the latter first, I think 17.1.8 only
applies to give D&P authority to sell the
assets without further consultation, if a CVA
has been agreed successfully. If not, then
there is no authority under 17.1.8 to sell the
assets and business without creditor
consent.
What about 17.1.4 though? It states, read
with the preamble attached:-
“ The Joint Administrators propose the
following – that the Joint Administrators can
explore any and all options available to
realise the assets of the Company without
recourse to creditors. The Joint
Administrators be authorised to conclude a
sale of the whole, or part of the business,
property and assets of the Company without
having to obtain the sanction of the
Company’s creditors at further creditors
meetings, upon such terms as the Joint
Administrators deem fit and they be
authorised to liaise with all relevant parties,
bodies or organisations which they deem
relevant for achieving that purpose.”
Does this make sense? The second sentence
in the paragraph is key. On one reading,
which involves running that sentence on
from the preamble, it does authorise the
Joint Administrators to conclude a sale.
However, the plain reading of the paragraph
suggests that something has been missed
out, or that the clause has been framed very
badly. There are typographical errors
elsewhere in the document. There could be
one here.
In addition, if D&P are authorised to sell
assets etc if a CVA has been approved, as
per 17.1.8, why would that clause be
needed if they had the power to sell anyway?
I think that HMRC has taken the view that
clause 17.1.4 is uncertain and therefore
void. If D&P attempt to carry through a sale
to Mr Green, who is now the only show in
town, under that clause, I suspect that
HMRC will be at court to stop it in a flash.
Therefore, without further approval by
creditors, I submit that D&P have lost the
power to conclude a sale to Mr Green.
I have seen a discussion ongoing on Twitter
re this issue. I think I can clarify matters. (I
hope).
The plan of Craig Whyte, as revealed by me,
involved an asset sale AND A CVA OF THE
EXISTING COMPANY. That was Bill Miller’s
plan. It is perfectly possible that Mr Green
wants to pursue some version of this, in the
event that the “original” CVA fails. I believe
that a pure asset sale to a newco does
require creditor approval.
Liquidation – This is most straightforward.
As soon as it becomes clear that the
administrators cannot fulfil the aims of
administration, then it is game over for
Rangers and liquidators will be appointed.
D&P wanted to be in position to be
liquidators if the administration failed.
HMRC was not prepared to stand for that,
and BDO have been lined up in their stead.
BDO is one of the main insolvency firms in
the UK, and there would have been no
surprise if they had been appointed initially.
However, we have had the saga of Duff &
Phelps instead.
BDO is sitting there, figuratively revving
engines ready for takeoff. All they are
waiting for is the word to go.
And when they do, D&P will depart the
scene, ingloriously.
Costs – The final change makes it clear that
fees and costs need to be properly incurred
and justified, and specifically recognise the
rights of creditors to object to D&P’s costs.
It may be reading too much into that to say
that this is a precursor to HMRC challenging
fees and outlays, but £1.8 million in legal
costs and £3.3 million in administrators’
fees are worth looking at, if you stand to
benefit from those amounts being reduced.
Conclusion – Why has it taken so long to
reach this point of publishing the outcome
of the creditors meeting? Who knows?
Perhaps long negotiation between HMRC
and D&P? However, as modifications are
meant to be approved at the creditors
meeting, this suggests that any support for
the D&P position was insufficient to
overcome the massed votes of HMRC.
Therefore we are seeing what HMRC wanted
the Resolutions to say, and for that reason, I
cannot see them as having left open the
door, for example, for a belated “pre-pack”
or “hive down” or whatever the technical
term is.
I think it is quite apparent that D&P know
that HMRC is watching every move they
make. I would be very surprised if they did
anything to activate further concerns on the
part of Hector.
Posted by Paul McConville
Could HMRC be sitting back and allowing CW,D&D ,CG and any other spivs to come into this farce to snare as many as they can when this charade is over .
It seemed strange to me that HMRC had allowed CW to run up massive unpaid taxes at a club they were investigating because the previous owner was using EBTs to avoid /evade millions in tax ,then they allowed D&D to do the same thing when they came in .
With them amending the CVA proposal to include pursuing the peepil involved after the fact ,could this be Hectors grasping his chance to get a bunch they have (no doubt ) been after for a few years now .
Should a few peepil be looking out their passports very soon
HH
BRT&H – excellent post.
Maybe’s there wouldn’t, forget my last post
So where are we….?
Big tax case ?
Tax not paid for last season?
Unfit owner?
Ticketus bumped?
Luquidation?
CVA not accepted?
Players free to leave as Whyte still in charge?
King alleging he has first dibs on MBB shares?
Green wanting to rename minty park?
But green doesn’t own rangers ?
Is he going to buy rangers?
Who is his backers?
Are they fit and proper?
Or have they backed out?
Are they guilty of dual contracts?
Are they banned from Europe?
Are they staying in SPL ?
Are they going to 3rd div
Are they getting penalties ?
Will they be a newco ?
Is the SFA president guilty of knowing ?
Will ticketus or rangers get season book money
Will there be criminal charges?
Is king fit and proper?
Is Paul Murray?
Will the sky deal be scuppered ?
Will dunfermline sue if relegated?
Will there be any answers ?
Oh and I missed one……..
Are rangers ACTUALLY actively selling season tickets now?
Or are they simply waiting for the club to be bagged and tagged and the Phoenix to rise from the stinking ashes???
Mort on 7 June, 2012 at 21:11 said:
Apologies mate, too eager.
I take your point. However, Creditors agreeing to allow D&P to sell in whole or part assets does not mean that Green will get to buy for £5.5 million.
The resolution cannot be challenged, I accept that. However, what can be and what is likely to happen is that HMRC will challenge the sale for £5.5 million as they will no doubt value the assets more.
If you took the resolution at face value i.e. D&P have the consent of Creditors to sell assets without knowing how much for, theoretically you, me, Green or anybody could buy them for £1, £1 million without that being challenged.
Two very different scenarios mate.
TET
SPL prize money
HH
BSR 21.07
Same case but with a wee link to hectors man on how they done. him its only 02.36 long but the bit at 02.10 would REALLY REALLY worry me if I was a tax cheat:))))))
DOHHHHHHH
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-18352528
The Kano Foundation Euro 2012 Predictor
eventually i work out how to do these things !
Simply log onto
http://www.sportguru.co.uk/euro2012/pool.asp?p=10018468
with the following details
Pool name: TKF Euro 2012
Pool code: tuna lulu
Currently we’re siting at 94 contestants and I’m hoping we can have the largest number of CQNers EVER joining in for an online comp.
Remember the prizes include 3 drawings of Big Jock , Cesar and MON – the 3 most iconic managers in my lifetime , as well as a choice of Kano Foundation prizes
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.379240838800292.84328.117509731640072&type=1
Sanna
Pauloantony,
Who would buy a season ticket unril they know that there will actually be a team to watch? There’s a lot still to happen over the next month – and I’m not convinced that everything could be sorted out to enable a newco to play next season.
Can anyone help with my PC problem?
The contrast has gone wonky, so that I can hardly see pictures properly.
Is there an easy way to adjust this?
I have obviously banjaxed something without realising.
Thanks in advance
HH
Here come the Bhoys.
Cliftonville Football Club are delighted to announce that Celtic will visit Solitude as part of both clubs’ Pre-Season
programmes for the 2012/13 campaign.
The game, which will take place on Saturday, July 28, will offer boss Tommy Breslin an opportunity to fine-tune his
preparations with a thorough test against quality full-time opposition, while the Hoops will doubtless be keen to
avenge the defeat they suffered when they last visited in October 2009.
On that occasion, the Reds celebrated their 130th Anniversary with a stylish 3-0 triumph thanks to two goals from
Chris Scannell and another from Ciaran Caldwell on a night when the Hoops – under the guidance of Neil Lennon
and Danny McGrain – were making their first trip to Belfast for more than a quarter of a century.
Having vowed to ensure a quicker return this time around, the Scottish Premier League Champions have remained
true to their word and Cliftonville Chairman Gerard Lawlor is pleased to confirm details of the tie.
“I’m delighted that we will be welcoming a Celtic XI back to Solitude for what will undoubtedly prove to be another
hugely memorable occasion,” he said.
“The game back in 2009 was a fantastic night for our Club both on and off the pitch and I’m sure our supporters are
already counting down the days until this re-match, which further strengthens our relationship with one of the world’s
biggest Football Clubs.”
Manager Breslin, meanwhile, expects the contest to bring out the best in his players.
“Fixtures like this don’t come around every day and, when you’re lucky enough to find yourself up against a team and a
Club as famous as Celtic, you naturally want to do the very best that you can,” he explains.
“Some of the lads will have been fortunate in so much as they were also involved in the 130th Anniversary game a few
years back so, while it’s not quite a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity as such, it’s still an occasion to be relished,
savoured and remembered.
“I know our supporters enjoyed the bragging rights over local Celtic fans and they’ll be keen to remind them that we
won 3-0 last time, so I’m sure Celtic will want to put things right in what promises to be another entertaining clash
between our two Clubs.”
Ticketing arrangements for the game will be released in due course, along with information on additional Pre-Season
fixtures.
imo DK has 20m in this sinking ship and he will be looking for it back ,so he will be around the place like a bad smell till he gets it .
Looks like wee billy bluenose will have to pen a new album
HH
This made me smile :))))
Graham Spiers@GrahamSpiers
No wonder Rangers supporters are in disarray. King, Green, Whyte, Duff & Phelps all making their claims/counter-claims today. What a mess.
Expand Reply
Retweet
Favorite
11m Phil MacGiollaBhain@Pmacgiollabhain
@GrahamSpiers You still think Murray will pay the Big Tax Bill? #pollyanna
Good night all HAIL HAIL
Awe Naw
I realised that after I posted.
I still think that no prize money should have been paid, they cheated, they were found to have cheated, if I were the chairman of say Murderwell, Hartz, D Utd I would be suing the SPL for paying out to a club who had cheated to win it’s prize money.
The whole country reeks of the stench of hunnery.
TET
Player sales too brown bags ago go in that business with these experts.
HH
Yogi
You not talkin to me buddy? lol
HH
As far as the RFAia website says, STs are still not on sale.
I wonder if the SFA/SPL are bending over backwards to accommodate them because they really really want a CVA to succeed in order to avoid having to make an awkward decision re the licensing, history etc of a newco?
celtic heritage on 7 June, 2012 at 21:21:
…HMRC alone have the power to block the CVA – if they were intending to approve it, why bother setting up BDO…
They have to be objective and keep an open mind, hence the lining up of BDO. HMRC are giving a warning they want somebody they trust. They did not want D&P appointed but relented as they are answerable to the Court and could and can object to their role as Administrators;.
Subliminal message from HMRC on D&P’s performance to-date I believe.
Keep the Faith!
Hail Hail!