Club Statement

[TheWee BlueDevil 0]

Sad to say I am finding it difficult to decide who is lying, Pacific Quay or the Board.

Have to agree with that, as much as I despise so many at the Biased Broadcasting Corporation.

Something stinks here. Again!!!

[the gunslinger 3,366]

maybe next time the easdales are granting them an exclusive they can also threaten the bbc a bit with a firebombing or such.

[Blue Moon 1,113]

I doubt this statement would be accepted with no retort by the BBC if it weren't true.

 

I would expect a response from them in the next couple of days and if none is forthcoming then it would seem to be a malicious article, in which case I would expect a formal complaint to be made by the club.

 

Given the level of mistrust between the club and BBC Scotland, no club employee or incumbent should be talking to these guys.

[der Berliner 3,240]

Sad to say I am finding it difficult to decide who is lying, Pacific Quay or the Board.

 

The board and our lawyers would place their heads on the block writing somesuch:

 

Companies House have confirmed to the Company that they have accepted and filed the Annual Return for Rangers Football Club Limited and have not raised any queries in relation to it.

 

The BBC reported that Companies House were to contact Rangers’ subsidiary SEVCO Scotland Ltd over an incomplete report and also confirm if a second Annual Return would need to be filed.

 

However, Rangers’ lawyers have been informed by Companies House today that Companies House do not normally make public comments or issue official statements to the press in the manner reported by the BBC.

 

Companies House also pointed out they have no record on file of a conversation regarding Rangers Football Club Limited and its Annual Return last week.

 

Indeed, it was confirmed by Companies House to Rangers' lawyers that the Annual Return has been accepted for filing and that Companies House had not contacted and did not expect to be contacting the Company in relation to the Annual Return.

 

It would be another leaking of confidental information, this time by Companies House (of all people) and it is up to the BBC to proof the validity of their sources. IMHO, if the club has hard evidence here, we should go straight after those who whipped up this story.

[Darthter 542]

Incidentally, the original article is still on the BBC web site....

 

Companies House is to contact Rangers' subsidiary Sevco Scotland Ltd after it filed an incomplete annual return.

 

The document submitted on 12 September contained no details of shareholding during the return period from the company's date of incorporation.

 

Annual returns usually provide details of the identities of shareholders.

 

Sevco Scotland Ltd was the company that acquired the assets of The Rangers Football Club PLC last summer after it formally entered liquidation.

 

Sevco Scotland Ltd changed its name to The Rangers Football Club Limited in July 2012 and is now wholly owned by The Rangers International Football Club PLC.

 

Companies House told BBC Scotland that it would raise the issue with Sevco Scotland Ltd and confirm if a second annual return was to be filed by the company.

 

Reading the quote, it sounds like the BBC "acquired" the document via a 3rd party & then questioned Companies House about it.

 

BBC: "Sevoc Scotland haven't listed shareholders in their annual return....."

Companies house: "How do you know this???"

BBC: "errmmmmmm.....that doesn't matter, what ya gonna do about it???"

Companies House: "We'll have a look & if there's anything wrong, we'll contact the company in question."

 

This obviously then indicates foul play and that Companies House are gonna unleash the Hounds of Hell on Sevco Scotland.....

Edited September 24, 2013 by Darthter

[the gunslinger 3,366]

Last Monday the Rangers board issued a statement castigating the BBC for “inaccurate reports” suggesting an issue had arisen between the club and Companies House, following the recent filing of an Annual Return.

 

The statement went on to state very robustly that: “Companies House has not raised any issues or questions with them in relation to the Annual Return,’ before stressing again that: “Companies House have confirmed to the Company that they have accepted and filed the Annual Return for Rangers Football Club Limited and have not raised any queries in relation to it.”

 

Rangers interim chief executive Craig Mather Rangers interim chief executive Craig Mather

Graham Stuart/Action Images

 

 

And so it went on: “Indeed, it was confirmed by Companies House to Rangers’ lawyers that the Annual Return has been accepted for filing and that Companies House had not contacted and did not expect to be contacting the Company in relation to the Annual Return.”

 

It’s all fairly unambiguous. Nothing to see here. No issues. No discussions. No questions. No problem. Got it?

 

And yet, in the past few days I’ve received emails from Companies House which appear to suggest something very different.

 

After asking for clarification of their position, Companies House responded with the following: “When we receive a complaint or query relating to company filings these are passed to the relevant department in Companies House to pursue.

 

“This normally consists of writing to the company outlining the concern and asking them to clarify whether the complaint is justified.

 

“If so, they will be asked to submit amended documentation at the earliest opportunity.”

 

All of which seemed a little bit vague. So I tried again.

 

And this is what came back: “Our correspondence with the company is still ongoing and so at this stage we have nothing further to add.”

 

Wait a minute. Still ongoing? How can something be still ongoing if it never started in the first place?

 

Just who are we expected to believe?

 

The truth is almost always the first casualty of any war. But seldom the only one.

Reply With Quote

 

have the board been telling porkies?

[Super Cooper 0]

Rangers board in lying to fans shocker? As much as i detest the Daily Rhebel, i am inclined to believe Keith Jackson before anyone at our club.

[bossy 0]

My own experience in the big bad world of business tells me that when you start to alienate your customers, generally, your days are numbered. Of course there are differences here. Usually, when a CEO/CFO is messing up it is the Board that removes him or her. However, in this case, we have a problem with both the CEO, the CFO and the Board. The other difference is that the club have already got their hands on the season ticket money so that limits the power of supporters (think Michael Porter's five forces model).

 

So the real leverage here is not really the supporters. The real leverage is how much cash the club has and when/if the club starts to run out of cash. Do we have enough cash to get through the rest of the season? Where will new cash come from and who will provide it? Will it be from asset sales (e.g. Ibrox, Auchenhowie, players)? Will the current Board be able to find new investors or will they stump up the cash themselves? Is Admin 2 a realistic prospect?

 

And this is the kind of analysis that fearless journalists like Jackson need to be indulging themselves in because it cuts right to the heart of the matter. The strength of the McColl team resides in their representation of institutions that have put a lot of money into the club. It isn't unusual for investors to have to put in more cash as a business gets back on its feet and a cash call would not shock the institutions. But if they are saying they will not put new money into the club with the present board and if there is a cash crunch then that becomes an existential problem.

 

Our media love indulging in trivia when it comes to reporting Rangers and the latest stushie about the troops singing 'naughty' songs is a good example of something that is wholly trivial and unimportant. Equally, the stuff about Companies House is not really very important either. So what if the Club have been caught being economical with the truth in the matter? It isn't the first time and it is unlikely to be the last. More importantly, it doesn't really tell us anything about the real state of affairs.

 

So, for Keith Jackson or any other journalist looking in, my advice is to follow the cash. It is an old adage but a true one nevertheless. And that is where the story is.