Little black and white as Green faces closer scrutiny

[djbroxybear 660]

Rangers will soon commission an independent examination into "recent allegations concerning the chief executive, Charles Green, the commercial director, Imran Ahmad, and their management of the club".

It will report directly to the four non-executive directors, Walter Smith, Ian Hart, Bryan Smart and Philip Cartmell, and the hope within the club is that a judgement will be delivered sooner rather than later. Here, Herald Sport looks into the background of the decision made on Saturday, and what the consequences might be.

Why have the board taken this decision?

Green and Ahmad have been forced on to the defensive after he revealed in a newspaper interview that he occasionally addresses Ahmad as his "little P*** friend" but also by the drip-feeding of information to the media by Craig Whyte. The former owner released audio of conversations held with Green and Ahmad last year, and it has emerged Whyte paid £137,500 into Ahmad's mother's account and a £25,000 cheque was deposited in Green's bank account by Aiden Earley, Whyte's long-time business partner. In one recording – a short edit of a much longer conversation – Green is heard to say "You are Sevco".

Last Friday, STV revealed a document signed by Green authorising the appointment of Whyte and Earley as directors of Sevco 5088, the company that was granted exclusive bidder status last summer. Some of the board are uncomfortable with the revelations. Malcolm Murray, the chairman, was already at odds with Green, and wanted the removal of the chief executive and Ahmad.

What do Green and Ahmad say?

They are adamant that, like all of the other groups bidding for Rangers last summer, they had to negotiate with Whyte. For example, Brian Kennedy met the former owner and believed he had reached an agreement on the transfer of Whyte's majority shareholding. This was required in the event of Rangers Football Club plc achieving a Company Voluntary Arrangement to come out of administration. Green and Ahmad say they were stringing Whyte along and intended to "shaft him". When the CVA proposal failed, the business and assets were sold to Sevco Scotland. Lawyers for Green and Ahmad in Scotland and England are compiling a dossier of evidence alleging blackmail by Whyte, which will be passed onto the police.

So what is the problem?

The board appear to not be taking Green and Ahmad's explanations at face value. This appears to leave their positions untenable. However, the independent examination will either exonerate one or both of Green and Ahmad, or force the board to act decisively.

Whyte is an unreliable witness, and it is no coincidence he released information at the same time as he lost his £17.7m civil case with Ticketus, and when properties in Scotland and England were being raided by police as part of an investigation into his purchase of the club from Sir David Murray in May 2011. The documents in STV's possession are not forgeries, but also do not prove that the two men were ratified as directors. They were filed to Companies House last Friday, despite Sevco 5088 currently being wound up.

Nonetheless, it is the amount of collusion that the independent examination will be probing. Given that Green denied any links with Whyte, then admitted to one meeting, and now several, there is a feeling among the board that the issue has to be cleared up once and for all. Crucially, if there were no more payments made, no more deals struck and no business involvement between Whyte and Sevco Scotland, then Green and Ahmad could be fine. Yet because Whyte has been drip-feeding information, there is a perception of continuous revelations.

Is this the end of Green and Ahmad at Ibrox?

Not necessarily. There is a split on the board, but not enough support to oust or retain them. The independent examination will provide a conclusion either way. Many fans support the notion of Whyte being outflanked, but Green's bluster and tendency to talk without restraint was only benign when it didn't involve the former owner, who is a toxic figure for fans. Some now distrust Green. Even so, he overcame significant obstacles last summer in winning over the fans, and could do so again.

What is the difference between Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland?

The 5088 company was the one granted exclusivity by Duff & Phelps last summer. Whyte alleges that he was behind it, which is denied. The administrators pledged not to sell Rangers to any group involving Whyte, so how much did they know about the talks with the former owner? When the CVA failed, the assets were transferred to Sevco Scotland, but without Duff & Phelps announcing or explaining this change in circumstances. The explanation from the club at the time was that Rangers needed to be owned by a company registered in Scotland. It also now appears that this was the means to cut Whyte out of the equation, completely.

What if a CVA had been granted?

After the vote against it, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs said that they could never have voted in favour, and they held the decisive vote, so it is a moot point. Green has not explained how Whyte would have been "shafted" in those circumstances. There is no suggestion, however, that Whyte is involved now, hence his leaks to the press.

Is Rangers' licence under threat?

The Scottish Football Association has written to the club seeking an explanation of Whyte's claims. Last summer, as part of the undertakings to grant the transfer of the licence from Rangers Football Cub plc to Sevco Scotland, assurances were provided that Whyte was not involved. The former owner has made no claim about being part of Sevco Scotland, only that the sale of the assets ought to have been to Sevco 5088, which he does allege to be involved in. On that basis, if the assets were never part of Sevco 5088, it does not seem that Rangers breached any of the undertakings. If it transpires that they have, the only way to head off potentially serious sanctions might be to sack those involved and distance the club from their actions. Again, though, there is no evidence of this.

Are there not enquiries already ongoing?

Yes, the police and the liquidators of RFC plc, BDO, are both investigating Whyte's takeover and ownership of the club. Those enquiries also now extend to last summer's sale of the business and assets by Duff & Phelps.

What if Green and Ahmad are exonerated?

It is impossible to see the status quo being maintained, so in that scenario it is likely that non-executive directors would stand down. The departure of Smith would have a profound effect on the mood of the fans.

What about in the meantime?

This has come at a very damaging time for Rangers. Ally McCoist is trying to plan for next season, but has lost his physio and chief scout. They need replaced and the football operation needs investment if it is to be run sustainably. Scouting and youth development need additional resources. McCoist's own position is strengthened, since Green wanted to remove his assistants, Kenny McDowall and Ian Durrant, but the manager now needs to be fully backed to take the club forward.

There is also the issue of season tickets. Rangers need to sell as many, if not more, than the 38,000 sold last year to fund the ongoing rebuilding of the club. Although £22m was raised by floating Rangers International Football Club on the Alternative Investment Market last December, that money is capital and if it is used for cash flow purposes, investors will become wary and start to sell, driving down the share price, which is already falling due to recent events.

Will this lead to a change in ownership?

For that to happen, somebody would need to start buying shares. For now, that is not happening in significant amounts. The original members of the consortium fronted by Green have already seen their investment rise significantly, since they bought in when the club was purchased for £5.5m. Their plan, and those of more recent investors, will be to realise their profit when Rangers return to the top-flight and into Europe. At that stage, external investment may be required.

Could the events of yesterday have a bearing?

If Rangers are invited to any top-flight set-up, they will have to balance the commercial benefits against the sporting implications. The team would need to be significantly strengthened, but is still operating under a registration embargo. Some investors might want that to happen, though, so that they can sell up immediately.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/sport/football/little-black-and-white-as-green-faces-closer-scrutiny.20769831?_=313a97d1d2596eaaba2fda4cf3233412ede80197

[Creampuff 22,630]

I was convinced this thread would be about Andy Little, Ian Black and Craig Whyte.

Missed opportunity.

[simplythebest 11,453]

.

[simplythebest 11,453]

Rangers will soon commission an independent examination into "recent allegations concerning the chief executive, Charles Green, the commercial director, Imran Ahmad, and their management of the club".

It will report directly to the four non-executive directors, Walter Smith, Ian Hart, Bryan Smart and Philip Cartmell, and the hope within the club is that a judgement will be delivered sooner rather than later. Here, Herald Sport looks into the background of the decision made on Saturday, and what the consequences might be.

Why have the board taken this decision?

Green and Ahmad have been forced on to the defensive after he revealed in a newspaper interview that he occasionally addresses Ahmad as his "little P*** friend" but also by the drip-feeding of information to the media by Craig Whyte. The former owner released audio of conversations held with Green and Ahmad last year, and it has emerged Whyte paid £137,500 into Ahmad's mother's account and a £25,000 cheque was deposited in Green's bank account by Aiden Earley, Whyte's long-time business partner. In one recording – a short edit of a much longer conversation – Green is heard to say "You are Sevco".

Last Friday, STV revealed a document signed by Green authorising the appointment of Whyte and Earley as directors of Sevco 5088, the company that was granted exclusive bidder status last summer. Some of the board are uncomfortable with the revelations. Malcolm Murray, the chairman, was already at odds with Green, and wanted the removal of the chief executive and Ahmad.

What do Green and Ahmad say?

They are adamant that, like all of the other groups bidding for Rangers last summer, they had to negotiate with Whyte. For example, Brian Kennedy met the former owner and believed he had reached an agreement on the transfer of Whyte's majority shareholding. This was required in the event of Rangers Football Club plc achieving a Company Voluntary Arrangement to come out of administration. Green and Ahmad say they were stringing Whyte along and intended to "shaft him". When the CVA proposal failed, the business and assets were sold to Sevco Scotland. Lawyers for Green and Ahmad in Scotland and England are compiling a dossier of evidence alleging blackmail by Whyte, which will be passed onto the police.

So what is the problem?

The board appear to not be taking Green and Ahmad's explanations at face value. This appears to leave their positions untenable. However, the independent examination will either exonerate one or both of Green and Ahmad, or force the board to act decisively.

Whyte is an unreliable witness, and it is no coincidence he released information at the same time as he lost his £17.7m civil case with Ticketus, and when properties in Scotland and England were being raided by police as part of an investigation into his purchase of the club from Sir David Murray in May 2011. The documents in STV's possession are not forgeries, but also do not prove that the two men were ratified as directors. They were filed to Companies House last Friday, despite Sevco 5088 currently being wound up.

Nonetheless, it is the amount of collusion that the independent examination will be probing. Given that Green denied any links with Whyte, then admitted to one meeting, and now several, there is a feeling among the board that the issue has to be cleared up once and for all. Crucially, if there were no more payments made, no more deals struck and no business involvement between Whyte and Sevco Scotland, then Green and Ahmad could be fine. Yet because Whyte has been drip-feeding information, there is a perception of continuous revelations.

Is this the end of Green and Ahmad at Ibrox?

Not necessarily. There is a split on the board, but not enough support to oust or retain them. The independent examination will provide a conclusion either way. Many fans support the notion of Whyte being outflanked, but Green's bluster and tendency to talk without restraint was only benign when it didn't involve the former owner, who is a toxic figure for fans. Some now distrust Green. Even so, he overcame significant obstacles last summer in winning over the fans, and could do so again.

What is the difference between Sevco 5088 and Sevco Scotland?

The 5088 company was the one granted exclusivity by Duff & Phelps last summer. Whyte alleges that he was behind it, which is denied. The administrators pledged not to sell Rangers to any group involving Whyte, so how much did they know about the talks with the former owner? When the CVA failed, the assets were transferred to Sevco Scotland, but without Duff & Phelps announcing or explaining this change in circumstances. The explanation from the club at the time was that Rangers needed to be owned by a company registered in Scotland. It also now appears that this was the means to cut Whyte out of the equation, completely.

What if a CVA had been granted?

After the vote against it, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs said that they could never have voted in favour, and they held the decisive vote, so it is a moot point. Green has not explained how Whyte would have been "shafted" in those circumstances. There is no suggestion, however, that Whyte is involved now, hence his leaks to the press.

Is Rangers' licence under threat?

The Scottish Football Association has written to the club seeking an explanation of Whyte's claims. Last summer, as part of the undertakings to grant the transfer of the licence from Rangers Football Cub plc to Sevco Scotland, assurances were provided that Whyte was not involved. The former owner has made no claim about being part of Sevco Scotland, only that the sale of the assets ought to have been to Sevco 5088, which he does allege to be involved in. On that basis, if the assets were never part of Sevco 5088, it does not seem that Rangers breached any of the undertakings. If it transpires that they have, the only way to head off potentially serious sanctions might be to sack those involved and distance the club from their actions. Again, though, there is no evidence of this.

Are there not enquiries already ongoing?

Yes, the police and the liquidators of RFC plc, BDO, are both investigating Whyte's takeover and ownership of the club. Those enquiries also now extend to last summer's sale of the business and assets by Duff & Phelps.

What if Green and Ahmad are exonerated?

It is impossible to see the status quo being maintained, so in that scenario it is likely that non-executive directors would stand down. The departure of Smith would have a profound effect on the mood of the fans.

What about in the meantime?

This has come at a very damaging time for Rangers. Ally McCoist is trying to plan for next season, but has lost his physio and chief scout. They need replaced and the football operation needs investment if it is to be run sustainably. Scouting and youth development need additional resources. McCoist's own position is strengthened, since Green wanted to remove his assistants, Kenny McDowall and Ian Durrant, but the manager now needs to be fully backed to take the club forward.

There is also the issue of season tickets. Rangers need to sell as many, if not more, than the 38,000 sold last year to fund the ongoing rebuilding of the club. Although £22m was raised by floating Rangers International Football Club on the Alternative Investment Market last December, that money is capital and if it is used for cash flow purposes, investors will become wary and start to sell, driving down the share price, which is already falling due to recent events.

Will this lead to a change in ownership?

For that to happen, somebody would need to start buying shares. For now, that is not happening in significant amounts. The original members of the consortium fronted by Green have already seen their investment rise significantly, since they bought in when the club was purchased for £5.5m. Their plan, and those of more recent investors, will be to realise their profit when Rangers return to the top-flight and into Europe. At that stage, external investment may be required.

Could the events of yesterday have a bearing?

If Rangers are invited to any top-flight set-up, they will have to balance the commercial benefits against the sporting implications. The team would need to be significantly strengthened, but is still operating under a registration embargo. Some investors might want that to happen, though, so that they can sell up immediately.

http://www.heraldsco...3233412ede80197

What exactly is the point in this enquiry if that's the case?

[Creampuff 22,630]

What exactly is the point in this enquiry if that's the case?

What's the point in quoting such a long OP for a one line response that would have made sense even if I didn't need to scroll down the OP again? .

[simplythebest 11,453]

What's the point in quoting such a long OP for a one line response that would have made sense even if I didn't need to scroll down the OP again? .

Hmph.

[NamibianBear 1,853]

Hmph.

LOL Alan has a fair point there but he now needs to (or someone does) answer the question!

If you read that at face value, it is saying either Green has to go or some of the non executives will have to.

Any clever person willing to clarify?

[danger ranger 922]

LOL Alan has a fair point there but he now needs to (or someone does) answer the question!

If you read that at face value, it is saying either Green has to go or some of the non executives will have to.

Any clever person willing to clarify?

Looks like a split boardroom, and the investment side has to win to keep Rangers stable.

[simplythebest 11,453]

Basically I don't see why board members would agree (the statement said it was unanimous) to this investigation if their minds are made up regardless. For it to be worthwhile the chance has to be there for Green's name to be cleared surely?

[tartansmokie 36]

If The board thought that something was seriously amiss, would they not have suspended either or both of them pending the enquiry?

[AlCapone 7,678]

I think someone outside of green is trying to drive the share price down to allow it to be bought cheaply, if they wait until we are SPL champions in 5 years and in Europe the price will be too high

[Guardian 4,281]

The writer misses a very simple explanation for the inquiry.

If the board simply accepted Greens explanation, then it would be decried as a whitewash and thrown at us repeatedly.

By instigating the inquiry, the report will in all probability exhonerate Green and it's business as usual with a line drawn under that particular path of attack.

Stating that board members would leave in that event is mere speculation.

Boardroom splits happen all the time, it's the point of having a board, rather than one man dictating.

As for Green not disclosing any more about Whyte than he needed to, would you ?

When he was first on the scene, every suitor was accused of being a front for CW, so it's hardly likely anyone wanting to win the fans over would highlight any dealings with the google-eye.

He would have to deal with Whyte, as would anyone, so the events reported shouldn't be a surprise. Granted, if anything more solid appears we can start getting out the pitchforks, but until then lets give Green the benefit of the doubt.

[StornowayLoyal 8]

I think someone outside of green is trying to drive the share price down to allow it to be bought cheaply, if they wait until we are SPL champions in 5 years and in Europe the price will be too high

You could be on to something here..

[trublusince1982 768]

CG has already stated Neil Murray will not be replaced his role is now defunct same as the physio role if the herald can't even get that right then I wouldn't put much stock in anything else they say

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

I think someone outside of green is trying to drive the share price down to allow it to be bought cheaply, if they wait until we are SPL champions in 5 years and in Europe the price will be too high

we no - it would be really difficult ult to make a major difference in our share price for an ownership battle - the value of the company is underwritten by our assets (ibroxetc) and the cash in the bank and as publically traded shares if it starts to look a good price others would buy ( sending the price up again) so really without a financial collapse it would be a stupid strategy to try to drive the price down by discrediting Green.

[legalbeagle 3,734]

What exactly is the point in this enquiry if that's the case?

It does seem to be a ridiculous comment.

If they are exonerated, then surely nothing would change. If they are found to have acted improperly, then they would be out.

The only reason for non-execs to leave is if CG/IA are 'guilty' but kept on.

[1trixi 44]

Lets face it we all have different opinions on CG. He's obviously a successful businessman but the question is, did he see Rangers as a quick buck or a longterm investment. I wish I had the answer but until all the questions are asked, I'm happy to sit on the fence.

Lets hope our manager has already sorted out our restructuring program and we will be hearing an announcement in the near future.

[Bertent 2,081]

It is a piece from the Gherald to be fair, facts, clarity and openness will be alien in any such scribblings. But its no surprise some within the support will abandon their scepticism of the paper as it suits their agenda despite most f not all of the accusations having been previously debunked on RM in the last few days.

[Beaujolais 1,371]

I have had only 2 concerns going forward regarding this scenario:

1.) The SFA and those in the SPL who are unfriendly to us do not use the alleged collusion between Green and Whyte as a way of stripping us of our SFA membership. That single act would undo all the good work CG has done over the past year. However the article suggests that this is not a possibility given it is Sevco Scotland that was the registering Company. That in itself is a big relief for this supporter.

2.) A second concern is the issue of integrity. How Investors and Sponsors will perceive us as a Club, and any investigations/ penalties that could result due to our Stock Market Listing.

As to the details of CG's relationship with Whyte during the process which saw the Club through the last 18 months- this supporter is no longer interested in the detail of their relationship, as long as Whyte is no longer involved and has no hold over any of our assets. I am now only interested in how Rangers moves forward. In my ideal world I would like to see the current Status Quo remain ie CG, Walter Smith, and Ally McCoist- however sadly I feel that given what I read and see, my perfect world is possibly not going to happen in the long term- I hope I am proved wrong.

[Crespie6 334]

What exactly is the point in this enquiry if that's the case?

to lie (or oversensationalise something trivial) to sell papers? that would be my guess.