"Rangers International Football Club plc (Rangers), formerly The Rangers Football Club Limited, is a holding company for the Scottish football club Rangers Football Club (the Club). The nature of the Company’s operations is that of a football club. The Company’s businesses include football activities, stadium, facilities and hospitality, and retail and merchandising. The Club’s primary asset is Ibrox Stadium, situated 2.5 miles south-west of Glasgow city centre and has been home to the Club. The all-seated 50,987 capacity stadium is owned by the Company and houses a retail outlet, restaurants, function rooms and executive suites. In August 2012, Rangers Retail Limited (Rangers Retail) was formed as a joint venture with sports retailer SportsDirect.com. As of December 19, 2012, the Company had won 54 League titles, 33 Scottish Cups and 27 League Cups. On June 14, 2012, the Company acquired the assets and business of the Club from RFC 2012 plc."
It's pretty obvious that nobody questioned this description too much as it is full of doublespeak and gobbledegook. Note that it is made to look as if it was a smooth transition from The Rangers Football Club Limited to Rangers International Football Club plc. Anyway, be that as it may, the story is recounted that it is a holding company for the Scottish football club Rangers Football Club (the Club). Yes, I know I'm repeating things but bear with me. 'The Company's businesses include football activities, stadium, facilities...etc...etc' Next comes this bit: 'The Club's primary asset is Ibrox Stadium.' Wait a minute! I thought that belonged to The Company! Not unless by The Club they mean The Company, which, after all, is called Rangers International Football Club plc. But, that can't be right. They already said that 'The Club' referred to Rangers Football Club, not the holding company. It then goes on to say that the stadium 'is owned by the Company.' What? What the hell is going on here? Right, pass us over those paracetamol. Yes, dear, I know it's your time of the month but my need is greater!
The last bit is interesting. On June 14 2012, the Company acquired the assets and business of the club from RFC 2012 plc, which, if you remember, was the name that Duff and Phelps changed the Oldco to so that Green could call his new company 'Rangers.' Of course, he could not just call it the same, hence the Sooper-Dooper International etc. Is your head still here? Now, according to Reuters, as of December 19 (my daughter's birthday, by the way!) 'the Company had won 54 League titles, 33 Scottish Cups and 27 League Cups.' Now that's bloody impressive! The Company only acquired the assets and business in June and by December had already won all that lot! No wonder they shout 'We are The People!'
Right. Time for a few minutes' break. I'll need to go outside for a cigarette and let my brain recuperate from the story so far!
Okay, I'm back and ready for Round 2. Suppose we accept the claim of the Bisto FC supporters that the Club and Company are two separate entities, this presents certain problems of its own. When insolvency hits a holding company, any subsidiary company, if still solvent, can carry on regardless. From the statements that Green bought 'the assets and business of the Club' it can be assumed that the Club was, in fact a subsidiary company. In this scenario, Rangers could have carried on as before, still in the SPL and not having to contribute money to a defunct holding company.
Problems arise, however, when questions are asked about what this company 'The Club' actually did. Green claimed to have bought 'the business' and Mather, in his recent statement regarding the accounts, claims exactly the same thing. So what was this 'business'? It must have been trading some kind of comodity, surely? Even if all transactions were passed up to the holding company, the fact remains that The Club had to be a subsidiary company in order to do 'business.' In which case, there should be two sets of books, one for the club and one for the holding company. I haven't heard this mentioned anywhere, have you?
Or we could go down another road. This one says that only the holding company does business while the club is some separate entity. Again, the question arises; what exactly does The Club do? In this scenario the club owns nothing, does no business, pays nobody, collects money from nobody but is just some kind of chimerical beast to be bought and sold. This scenario also means that this chimera should be listed among the assets of the Company, as something that it bought and something that can be sold; but it is not so listed. Why not? In fact, even if The Club is a subsidiary company, it should still be listed under the assets of the holding company; but it is not. Why not?
The only conclusion to be reached is that the whole thing is a fraud, both literally and figuratively. This will be why BDO is taking so long to even get started on the liquidation. The Gordian Knot of all these convoluted name changes and reassessment of what 'club' and 'company' mean will not be easily untied. Of course, there is the added problem that our legal system, as well as our football authorities, seem to have looked the other way and permitted this serious financial chicanery to take place. My own opinion is that the liquidators are being put off in order to put a good temporal distance between Duff and Phelps's fraudulent sale of the assets to Green, and all that has subsequently happened, and the actual liquidation. The longer it takes, the less likely it is that BDO will demand the return of all the assets to pay the creditors.
Sorry I've been so serious and mind-bending today but it's time somebody looked at all this. The laws regarding holding companies, subsidiary companies and insolvency are easily found on the internet so obviously our Fourth Estate has just decided to ignore the issue. Or maybe they're scared of what the postman might bring!
I had a quick look at Loony Leggat's blog yesterday but did not really take in what he was saying; it was just a cursory read. I went back today to find that his post for Friday 4th October has mysteriously disappeared! Don't tell me the PSA is in trouble again! I wonder who he has upset this time. I can't for the life of me remember what he was ranting and raving about. I wish I did remember so I could speculate on who has consulted their lawyers this time! Or maybe his Presbyterian Granny didn't like it.
No comments:
Post a Comment