TRFC submit incomplete Annual Return
Companies House published the long overdue Annual Return for The Rangers Football Club Ltd (previously Sevco Scotland Ltd) today. Although only received by Companies House yesterday (12 Sep 13) it was dated 29th May 2013, however, the submission was incomplete.
A company is required to detail all their shareholders since their previous Annual Return (or as in this instance, since formation). Companies House say the Annual Return must detail “the name of every shareholder (or joint-shareholders) who has ceased to be a shareholder since the made-up date of the previous annual return (or in the case of a first return, since the incorporation of the company)”.
The only shareholder detailed on this Annual Return is Rangers International Football Club PLC (RIFC PLC). RIFC PLC was not formed until 16 November 2012, nearly four months after Sevco Scotland Ltd was formed, so could not have been a founding shareholder.
And there’s more…….
The Rangers Football Club Ltd issued a Statement of Capital to Companies House, dated 31 October 2012, showing the same number of shares in issue as this Annual Return (33,415,200), some two weeks before Rangers International was formed. The Statement of Capital was submitted by Caroline Nicholls of Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP, who should be in a position to assist the directors.
I’d never really given any consideration to who owned Sevco Scotland Ltd prior to the shares being consumed by Rangers International, but this omission is curious. The story will move on now with auditors Deloittes taking centre stage. They have plenty on their plate prior to signing off the PLC’s accounts so may be happy to turn a blind eye to the reporting requirements of a subsidiary company. Companies House already have an active issue over submissions for Sevco 5088 Ltd, it remains to be seen whether this one passes below the radar.
This is all so unnecessary as I am sure the correct information would be perfectly appropriate and in good order.
Can you imagine what we would be doing if our ‘club’ was being run in this manner? This story is being played out while all those who should be asking questions are being distracted by a player betting against his own club!
In the grand scheme of things it doesn’t matter if Ian Black hedges against himself, or what embarrassingly light punishment he receives. The real story is so much bigger, it is being written in large type, visible from the moon landings, but the football authorities appear happy to stand back and let events take their course.
No looks of surprise next time around – from anyone.