Uilleam

Ange Postecoglou, eh? An unusual appointment. I think it will boomerang on them

All's well that ends well, then..... Botched breakaway to European Super League costs ‘big six’ clubs millions Martyn Ziegler, Matt Lawton Tuesday June 08 2021, 10.30pm, The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/botched-breakaway-to-european-super-league-costs-big-six-clubs-millions-9ndxb09nr The Premier League is close to agreeing a settlement with the European Super League rebels that would mean the “big six” clubs paying out millions of pounds for their part in the failed breakaway. The six — the two Manchester clubs, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea and Tottenham Hotspur — have not faced formal disciplinary charges from the Premier League, as efforts have focused instead on striking a similar peace deal to Uefa’s settlement with the English clubs, Atletico Madrid, Inter Milan and AC Milan. Although some of the other 14 Premier League clubs had wanted harsher sanctions for the breakaway attempt, including points deductions, league chiefs are understood to have proposed a financial settlement. A bone of contention has been over whether all of the money should go to good causes or some should be distributed among the other 14 clubs. Following heated talks, it appears an agreement is close and may even be finalised before tomorrow’s annual meeting. The Premier League is believed to have taken the view that a settlement agreement would be much quicker than opening a formal disciplinary process, and less divisive in the long term. The league is also planning changes to its constitution to block any similar breakaway attempt. The Uefa sanctions led to the American owners of Liverpool, United and Arsenal paying up to £7 million from their own pockets. Fenway Sports Group, the Glazers and Kroenke Sports and Entertainment said they would cover the financial hit arising from the failed coup rather than using club revenues. Nine of the 12 sides who sought to start the breakaway league accepted measures which included the withholding of 5 per cent of the revenues they would receive from Uefa club competitions for one season — worth between £3.5 million and £5.5 million. In addition, the nine clubs agreed to donate a combined £13 million to Uefa which will be used for the benefit of children, youth and grassroots football in local communities across Europe, including the UK, and to have fines of € 100 million (about £86m) imposed if they seek to play in such an unauthorised competition again. Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus, who have refused to pull out of the ESL scheme, are facing possible bans from European competition after being charged by Uefa.

Supporter politics. I may just have lost the will to live.

As I understand it: A figure for damages may not be plucked out of the air, and any claim has to be demonstrable, and provable. Setting compensation "at the highest possible level" seems to advocate going beyond what might be demonstrable in court: the 'highest possible level' can only be the actual loss they incurred as a result of the actions of the Police and the Crown. I stand to be corrected on this, of course. The Crown, having, by necessity, capitulated, will settle out of court. That adds something different to the mix, possibly to the advantage of Green and Ahmed, although I don 't see how theycould prove losses amounting to the figures bandied about above. I don't know whether there is any statutory limitation on damages for wrongful prosecution, or malicious prosecution. As far as 'punishment' goes -those responsible are -should be- subject to internal disciplinary procedures -where their actions may be construed as 'criminal' or' criminally negligent', they should face prosecution -in any event, whether their actions were determined by incompetence or by wrongdoing, they should be subject to the disciplinary procedures of their profession, with punishent up to and including being struck off. Perhaps, in cases of abuse of Crown Power, punitive damages should be considered. That's a debate for the lawyers, and for, god help us all, the lawmakers at Holyrood.

You are advocating "Punitive Damages", which are problematic under Scots Law.

The scale of the settlements to date -the suggestion of recompense sought by Messrs Green and Ahmed is surely nonsensical, but pay outs will no doubt be considerable- indicates, perhaps, one of two things: -the files are lost, or, destroyed, or, somehow, inaccessible, and no coherent defence to assertions of malicious or incompetent prosecution may be made; or -the files are readily available for examination, and scrutiny has indicated that The Crown has not one leg on which to stand.

I referred earlier to 'Treasure Island', I see now that the appropriate comparison would have been to 'Fantasy Island'. Quite how Green and Ahmed think they can establish loss to the extent indicated below is beyond understanding.

It was before Wolffe's turn -the man i/c was Frank Mulholland- although a cursory glance at the file(s), should such remain intact and accessible (not a gimme, nowadays), is all that he would need to identify those responsible for the prosecutions.

I'm not sure if this is actually 'off-topic', but, "Imran Ahmad and Charles Green should never have been prosecuted, the lord advocate has said" You may have forgotten these chancers, before whom the Lord Chancellor, Scotland's premier Law officer, now performs obeisance, and who will shortly receive, no doubt, eye-watering, no doubt, cash settlements from the public sporran. These guys saw an opportunity to line their pockets from Rangers; little did they realise that they had found the map to Treasure Island. Refresh your memory: The Lord Advocate does state, "I have given a commitment that there will be a judge-led inquiry into these matters once all relevant legal cases have concluded", although, since he is offski, soonest, much -the nature, scope, and vigour of any enquiry, for starters- will depend upon whether his replacement is of similar mind. Lord advocate issues new apology to Charles Green and Imran Ahmad over Rangers prosecutions Douglas Barrie Tuesday June 08 2021, 12.01am, The Times Imran Ahmad and Charles Green should never have been prosecuted, the lord advocate has said https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lord-advocate-issues-new-apology-to-charles-green-and-imran-ahmad-over-rangers-prosecutions-dvcjb2ss7 Scotland’s senior law officer has again apologised to a former director and a one-time chief executive of Rangers FC. James Wolffe QC, the lord advocate, has also repeated that the pair “should never have been prosecuted” in connection with the football club takeover. Charles Green was unveiled as the new man behind the club in June 2012. He stepped down the next year. In 2015 he and five others, including Imran Ahmad, were charged with serious organised crime offences in relation to the acquisition of the club. Green, 67, suffered what his lawyer called a “damaging, traumatic and stressful life event”. The Scottish government said last month that Wolffe was to resign along with Alison Di Rollo, the solicitor general. Both have held their positions since June 2016. Yesterday the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service confirmed that Wolffe had apologised “unreservedly” in writing to Green and Ahmad for the prosecutions, with the Crown accepting a failure in its procedures. In a statement Wolffe, 58, said: “Between 2015 and 2016, Mr Imran Ahmad and Mr Charles Green were prosecuted in the High Court concerning matters associated with Rangers Football Club. They should not have been prosecuted and, as lord advocate and head of the system for the prosecution of crime in Scotland, I have apologised unreservedly that they were. “I made a statement to the Scottish parliament following the settlement of two related cases, and I said at that time that there had been profound departures from normal practice. Lessons have been learnt from what happened and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service has taken steps to prevent a similar situation arising in the future. I have given a commitment that there will be a judge-led inquiry into these matters once all relevant legal cases have concluded. The actions by Mr Ahmad and Mr Green continue with a view to settlement of their financial claims.” Green also faced charges of conspiracy, fraud and an offence under the Companies Act 2006. David Whitehouse and Paul Clark, who were appointed joint administrators of Rangers in February 2012, also had charges against them dropped and were awarded more than £20 million. Wolffe told the Scottish parliament in February that a judge-led inquiry would be held, and that it had the backing of Iain Livingstone, the chief constable of Scotland. A hearing in March, after Whitehouse and Clark began a civil action against the Crown Office and Police Scotland, was told that a complaint over malicious prosecution could be taken to police or other authorities. Alex Salmond, the former first minister, had called for Wolffe to resign over the Scottish government’s handling of harassment complaints against him.

From The Sunday Herald, and behind a paywall (no, really) https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19352917.administrators-fire-17-5m-insolvent-rangers-valuable-players-went-less-1m/ BDO is attacking Duff & Phelps for not selling players during the period of administration, players that the Club lost anyway, with no, or very little, financial consideration in return. I wonder if Whyte, Green, and the rest of them actually knew that they would lose these assets post liquidation, as the players then were under no obligation to transfer to the new 'enterprise'. I'd like to think it was a case of the asset strippers stripped.

A restaurant in Hope Street, frequented by parents/grandparents.

Here's a report from the Herald. "Judge starts 'same club' debate as experts argue over whether Rangers fans would support another team" There's a lot of discussion around "the Brand" (and not the Ralph Brand), as BDO seeks to establish that Duff & Phelps sold Rangers on the cheap. Personally, I don't think that enough is made of what used to be called "good will", which is more than just possession of the Trademark(s) and other intellectual property. Apart from which, I find the whole debate around the "Company Limited" less than helpful; if everything depends on the existence of this (or a PLC), then it is unclear -at best- what happened, and what the status of the Club was, between 1872 and 1889 (?) when a Company was established to run the Club's affairs, and to raise capital. Generally, however, if pressed, I ask, "If I, or a company I own, buys The Horseshoe Bar tomorrow, is it still The Horseshoe Bar?" Judge starts 'same club' debate as experts argue over whether Rangers fans would support another team Exclusive by Martin Williams @MWilliamsHTSenior News Reporter EXCLUSIVE https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19346156.judge-starts-same-club-debate-experts-argue-whether-rangers-fans-support-another-team/ A JUDGE entered into a debate over the value of the Rangers brand as he questioned an expert over whether he had underestimated the importance of the club name. Lord Tyre entered into a 'same club' court discussion as experts argued whether fans would happily have supported a team similar to Rangers but under a different name such as the Glasgow Blues. It came as one brand expert criticised Rangers administrators in charge of the club when it financially imploded for a failure to proactively sell its assets including the Rangers brand. Thayne Forbes, an intellectual property expert, made the criticism as it emerged that the financial experts who took control of the club when it became insolvent in February, 2012, did not get a valuation for the brand, which includes the ability to use the Rangers name, trademarks and logos for financial gain, and is used in all its merchandising. The Court of Session has previously heard that it was effectively sold for nothing when it was valued at being between £16m and £20m. The questions over the value of Rangers' brand came as BDO, the liquidators of the Rangers oldco sue the joint administrators of the club Paul Clark and David Whitehouse for £56.8m saying a flawed cost-cutting strategy meant creditors lost millions from the handling of the club’s financial implosion. Part of BDO's argument is that the administrators should have had a brand evaluation before selling the assets of Rangers to the Charles Green-fronted Sevco consortium for £5.5m in June, 2012. Mr Whitehouse and Clark are defending the action in the Court of Session claiming the liquidators expected a “bonkers” strategy of a ‘fire sale’ of Rangers which would have “effectively shut the club down for good”. The case comes nine years after the Craig Whyte-controlled Rangers business fell into administration and then liquidation leaving thousands of unsecured creditors out of pocket, including more than 6000 loyal fans who bought £7.7m worth of debenture seats at Ibrox. Administrators have admitted that they failed to get a valuation of the club brand and an assessment carried out by an independent finance expert on the day of the Sevco purchase and commissioned by the new owners put the value of the brand alone at £16m. But Andrew Wynn, an intellectual property expert for the administrators said the valuation that had been put on the brand was unreliable and it could not be assumed that fans would naturally follow and spend money on any entity that was simply called Rangers. Lord Tyre entered the discussion after Kenny McBrearty QC for BDO asked if Mr Wynn agreed that if the club had been called the Glasgow Blues, fans would no longer have the history of following a club that had been founded in 1872. "I don't agree with that," said Mr Wynn. "I don't think that you secure the brand, then that gives you the ability for people to perceive it as the successor club. Conversely, if you don't have the brand I don't think it's impossible that people wouldn't consider that to be the successor club, you know, it's just so imponderable." Mr McBrearty added: " If you have the name Rangers and you carry with it the history and the heritage, then you carry with it, for example 54 league titles [now 55], and a European Cup Winners Cup, and all of the club legends like John Greig and Bill Struth that don't belong to Glasgow Blues. It seems to me that those are utterly essential to the following of Rangers and the Rangers brand rather than the Glasgow Blues." Mr Wynn replied: "So what I would agree with is, what is valuable is for your club to be considered to be Rangers or the true successor to Rangers. My point is that it's not at all clear to me that acquiring the legal rights to the Rangers trademark are the thing which give you the key to being considered the true successor club." Lord Tyre then questioned whether Mr Wynn had a grasp of the recent history involving the Old Firm. He said: "I wonder whether you're aware of some of the fallout from the Rangers debacle, particularly in relation to the attitude taken to Celtic fans who to this day will, in order to wind up the Rangers fans, argue that it's not the same club. "And they will still refer to the club which won the league championship this year as Sevco. And I mean that's just a fact of life in Glasgow. It's an unusual place when it comes to football loyalties. And it's against that background, that I really do wonder whether you are undrestimating the importance of the Rangers name when it comes to the continuing club." Mr Wynn replied saying that you cannot put a reliable figure on how much having the ownership of the name of Rangers was worth. "I do not think that I'm underestimating the importance because I'm not saying that it would not have any plausible value. What I'm saying is that in the liquidation scenario, it's very difficult to assess what that value is," he said. "And I'm trying to make a distinction between two things. So, there's believing that if I secure the trademark rights, I have the key, no-one can challenge me, I will be able to recreate the successor club. And I'm saying, one, there are no examples of that happening so we don't know what would happen, and two, I don't think we can conclude that it's the key. " Mr McBrearty said: "I think the bit I'd have difficulty with is the idea that somehow or other, with some other rival successor club, the fan base might go with them rather than a club called Rangers. "I mean, it might be encapsulated by thinking of, perhaps, Rangers most famous song and I'm trying to envisage the crowds at Ibrox singing, 'everywhere, anywhere we will follow on, follow follow, we will follow the Glasgow Blues'. I mean, this kind of thing transmits by the brand doesn it. It's the name of Rangers and the heritage that comes with that and the rivalry with Celtic and historically the manifestation of Protestantism, through the medium of football in the west of Scotland. I mean, it's all about the brand of Rangers." Mr Wynn replied: "I think we're dealing with a subtlety here. So there's a difference between people wanting to call the club Rangers, with people being willing to pay sums of money to acquire the trademark rights. That assumes that buying the trademark rights alone gives us the ability, the unchallenged ability to set up a successor club." Thayne Forbes, a brand expert for BDO insisted the Rangers brand was key, and suggested the administrators did not do enough to properly market the club before it was bought by Sevco. He said there were 57 potential buyers for the club listed and 14 would-be buyers of the assets which he said seemed "extremely low". "I would have expected a far greater level of interest with hundreds of potential buyers listed. "In order to encourage a sale of the brand at a reasonable price and within a reasonable timeframe, I consider it would be necessary to describe the Rangers brand, highlighting its value and selling it in more detail than was given..." He said there appeared to be a "reactive" approach " and based entirely on approaches made to Duff and Phelps". He added: "I consider that a proactive approach should also have been made to approach potentially interested parties with a view to selling them the assets including the Rangers brand. "Many of the replies noted that Duff and Phelps were seeking to sell on a going concern, and not a piecmeal basis. The sale process should not have been confined to this. Any offers on the potential buyers' preferred bases, should have been encouraged in order to generate as many options to sell as possible." Earlier he said he believed hardly any fans would have switched allegiance had Sports Direct supremo Mike Ashley had control or the club. The Newcastle United owner went on to have a stranglehold on the club in 2014 through bailout loans and a 9% stake in the club. Andrew Young QC for Mr Whitehouse and Mr Clark created a scenario where Mr Ashley could have bought the Rangers brand on its own, without the rest of the assets such as the players, Ibrox and Murray Park training ground, during liquidation with a view to resurrecting the club. He said: "That might succeed if the fans follow him, but if for example the fans, for whatever reason didn't regard him as true Rangers man, whatever that means, they might be inclined to take their loyalty to another form of football club which seemed to more properly reflect the Rangers they knew. Is that not the risk that someone buying the brand has, that the fans will not follow the the brand as you anticipate?" Mr Forbes said: "Not much of a risk, no, there were five million fans. I think some of them might have disagreed with certain potential aspects but I think that they would not switch their allegiance to another club." Mr Young added: "Again, I'm not sure how you can say that, surely it depends on what the individual fans feel properly reflects their team going forward. And if they feel that the person who holds a brand, let's say person holding the brand is even a Celtic supporter they might well not feel that that was a team they wanted to follow anymore, and they would switch allegiance to some other form of a Rangers team even if it couldn't call itself Rangers. "It doesn't follow that the fans will always follow that particular brand, if they do not feel that the new club properly reflects the old club." Mr Forbes replied: "I just don't think that's right. The fans' allegiances to the Rangers football club, is allegiances to Rangers, that's the brand. And I don't think they're going to leave, or switch their allegiance really for any reason, even if some of them express some kind of dissatisfaction with an owner like Mike Ashley and Mike Ashley was a shareholder in Rangers at one point. "I'm pretty sure that the fans, hardly any of the fans would have switched allegiance to Celtic for any reason, but particularly just because Mike Ashley was a shareholder someone who was seen as a bit of a controversial businessman and a bit of a vulture maybe." Lord Tyre asked Mr Forbes: "So they set up a football club and they call it something else, say they call it, West Glasgow FC or something like that. And they employ a lot of the staff who were formerly employed by Rangers and they managed to get hold of a number of the ex-Rangers players. Let's say they get hold of some of the stars who were playing for Rangers at the time of administration and they apply successfully to re-enter one or other of the Scottish leagues. They may not be successful in getting into the SPL but they get into the Football League. Would that be a viable proposition without having acquired the Rangers brand?" Mr Forbes said: "No, I don't think it would be viable because the brand is so important to the club, and so important to driving the revenue streams which you need to generate in order to meet the costs. "So the main revenue streams that it drives are matchday tickets. I just don't think you would be able to get much attendance at all for a football match, put on at Ibrox even with some continuity of people if you couldn't call it Rangers."

I'm loving every minute of it, and it just gets better and better. I think that you may be correct: when Fast Eddie took a runout powder, the fhilth probably braced Feargal - is there anyone -who is cheap -who is available -who, with a little help, we might scrub up not too badly?? Oh, and have you any ideas about how to sell season tickerts?

"While conversations have taken place between Celtic and Harkin, the Director of Football job was not offered to him..." Oh. Really, I wonder what the fuck they talked about.

Ask your brief, McBrearty, QC.

Spin, deliberate obfuscation, diversion, none of which we should hear from the witness box.

If only Scotland had a player as good at football as 'Canelo' Alvarez is at boxing.... ...or perhaps just more red haired players... As for Moussaka, I am afraid that the Young Team's favoured Greek delight is Pastitsio. Like me they find aubergine somewhat boring, a bit like Steve Clarke, and his teams. He is the egg plant man They are they egg plant men...

Does anybody think that Scotland could do a Greece, and win the damned thing? (Asking for a guy I know.)

So, the ageing Apollo does not possess the relevant and required professional qualifications. How, then, does he obtain a Work Permit?

OK. But is a few months of PAYE and NI, et al. really “on a level that I haven’t seen from other football clubs” ? Or is it more ikely that he referred to Murray's EBT strategy?

A brief resume of HMRC submissions to the trial appears. The HMRC "Investigator" averred that he "......highlighted the risk of HMRC being perceived to be seen as inconsistent as historically it had taken more forceful action in respect of other Scottish football clubs.” Really? I wonder who the clubs were, or the club was. Third Lanark? It is not reported if he was challenged on this, or asked to clarify. Furthermore he opines that "...tax non-compliance at Rangers..." was “on a level that I haven’t seen from other football clubs”. Well, that maybe the case, if you posit your view on the fantasy figures that HMRC claimed to have identified, and which Messrs BDO have pared down very significantly (and a f a I k, continue to do so). Again, is is not reported if he was challenged on this, or asked to justify the HMRC initial estimates, or even to clarify. Of course, one might wonder why HMRC is being dragged into this dispute at all. HMRC ‘wanted full investigation into Rangers unpaid tax’ David Leask Monday May 31 2021, 12.01am, The Times https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hmrc-wanted-full-investigation-into-rangers-unpaid-tax-r6vs8llvm HM Revenue & Customs wanted to push Rangers straight into liquidation to ensure a full investigation of millions of pounds of unpaid tax, new court evidence on the club’s financial collapse in 2012 has revealed. For the first time a senior HMRC official has set out the body’s thinking on how to handle the financial meltdown of one of Scotland’s most important sporting franchises. Rangers Football Club plc went into administration in 2012 and then, under pressure from the taxman, into liquidation months later. The club itself survived, its name and assets bought out of liquidation by a new company. However, Mike Baird, an HMRC investigator, has told a court that he had been eager to see Rangers go directly into liquidation. During a series of written and oral submissions reported by The Herald on Sunday, Baird said that he “believed an independent review by a liquidator maximised our chance of securing greater recovery for creditors”. He added: “I also highlighted the risk of HMRC being perceived to be seen as inconsistent as historically it had taken more forceful action in respect of other Scottish football clubs.” Baird was giving evidence in a case brought by BDO, the eventual liquidators, against its administrators, David Whitehouse and Paul Clark of Duff and Phelps, in the Court of Session. BDO is suing for nearly £57 million, saying the men’s strategy in administration cost creditors millions. Whitehouse and Clark have said that BDO expected a “bonkers” strategy of a “fire sale” of Rangers that would have “effectively shut the club down for good”. The pair were investigated over their role in the collapse but charges were eventually dropped. They were paid £21 million in compensation for what was ruled to be a malicious prosecution. Baird said he had concerns over a “risk of conflict” if Whitehouse and Clark became involved in the administration. The two men had advised Craig Whyte, the former Rangers owner, over his 2011 acquisition. Baird stressed that HMRC was concerned by Rangers’ alleged use of employee benefit trusts to pay staff, including players, and avoid tax. It wanted a full investigation of tax affairs. Baird described tax non-compliance at Rangers as being “on a level that I haven’t seen from other football clubs”. He added: “That’s why I personally thought an exit liquidation would be the better route to try to understand what was going on.”

Missed the game, but was delighted for the Abu Dhabi Franchise. Coming 2nd is not to be scoffed at Pretty good for £2billion, or whatever the team cost. I wonder if The Creepy One will head back to the Costa Brava. Perhaps he will just console himself with spending another £250/£350/£400M on players. It is a great, profound, historic, tactical innovation to buy the best players you can get you hands on for every position, then buy the second best players you can buy for every position, and then buy a few spares. Amazing that no one thought of it before Old Baldy. Herr Tuchel, however, seems to have the measure of him. Very impressive, given that he has only been i/c for 30 games or so, that none of the players are "his", and that they had given every indication of having chucked it under Frank Lampard. Der Neue Special One? Or just a new manager bounce?