|
Post by mildrover on Jan 12, 2021 11:43:18 GMT
No, Ronnie. Notes to Financial statements year end 30th June 2019 part 11 Contingent Liabilities. I quote from the published accounts on Companies House...." There is a contingent liability to North Lanarkshire Council for £22480. Payment of this amount is contingent on the sale of Cliftonhill Stadium. This relates to the cost of geological work carried out by North lanarkshire Council." Grant Good info Grant. This makes the ground even less of a prize . Do you know the when, why and what regarding this geological work. Anyone expecting a bumper pay day for shareholders or the club itself from a sale of the ground are in for a big disappointment I believe. There would also be significant financial costs to put any sale through. If the shareholders waived their right to money from a sale and let the club keep it , what we would raise from the sale wouldn't be nearly enough to build us a new home. Ronnie
|
|
|
Post by tommysermanni on Jan 12, 2021 11:57:56 GMT
Grant,
It was in 1964, by which time the C Division was long deceased. Rangers were looking to have a 2-league system with 16 clubs in each division - which meant getting rid of five clubs. Berwick Rangers, Stranraer, Stenhousemuir, Brechin City and Albion Rovers were the clubs they selected for the chop.
Rangers called a meeting of eleven first division clubs at Ibrox in early April 1964 to discuss the proposal. Later that month they called another Ibrox meeting, this time inviting the 32 clubs that would form the new League, but not inviting the other five.
The five contested the Rangers proposal in Court, arguing it was not competent because the criteria for selecting the five clubs were flawed. The case was argued in the High Court by Robert Turpie, a solicitor and committee member at Stenhousemuir FC. He gained an interim interdict on behalf of 'the five' which temporarily blocked the Rangers proposal.
Rangers came back to Court in October 1964, backed by 26 clubs. By this time several clubs, including Celtic, had decided to support 'the five'. Rangers argued that they should be allowed to submit a proposal to the SFL AGM to wind-up the League and form a new one with fewer clubs. This time Lord Avonside found in favour of Rangers.
'The five' plus their supporting clubs appealed to the Inner House of the Court of Session. It emerged that Rangers had threatened various clubs - Dumbarton, Alloa, Arbroath, Ayr, Cowdenbeath, Dumbarton, East Fife, Montrose, Queen's Park, Raith and Stirling Albion - that if they did not support Rangers, then they would become one of the five to be expelled with one of the original five being saved.
The Appeal by 'the five' was thrown out by the Inner Court, but Celtic were now open and vocal in their opposition to the move. Chairman Bob Kelly made several statements in support of the 'wee clubs'. Most other clubs were now against the Rangers proposal.
Rangers were now looking for a way out of the mess they had created. To save face, and more expense in legal fees, they did a deal with 'the five'. Rangers were allowed to put their proposal to an EGM of the SFL, but with an amendment tabled by Brechin City. Rangers proposal was that they should be allowed to table a resolution to wind-up the SFL. Brechin's amendement was basically that if any such proposal was carried, then the clubs concerned could not form a new league for a period of three years.
The proposal, with amendment, were passed.
|
|
|
Post by tommysermanni on Jan 12, 2021 11:59:39 GMT
The above came courtesy of Tee Kasule a few years back.....
|
|
|
Post by stewmelrover on Jan 12, 2021 12:26:59 GMT
I once met the lawyer who was the driving force behind our defence against the Glasgow arrogance- solicitor Robert Turpie. Seems to be a running theme: Glasgow teams' arrogance towards us, and others...
|
|
|
Post by Rovergrant on Jan 12, 2021 13:00:44 GMT
No, Ronnie. Notes to Financial statements year end 30th June 2019 part 11 Contingent Liabilities. I quote from the published accounts on Companies House...." There is a contingent liability to North Lanarkshire Council for £22480. Payment of this amount is contingent on the sale of Cliftonhill Stadium. This relates to the cost of geological work carried out by North lanarkshire Council." Grant Good info Grant. This makes the ground even less of a prize . Do you know the when, why and what regarding this geological work. Anyone expecting a bumper pay day for shareholders or the club itself from a sale of the ground are in for a big disappointment I believe. There would also be significant financial costs to put any sale through. If the shareholders waived their right to money from a sale and let the club keep it , what we would raise from the sale wouldn't be nearly enough to build us a new home. Ronnie It first appears on the published accounts (bear in mind only abbreviated accounts appear on Companies House)year ending 30th June 2016 but I think that this `debt` was incurred several years before that possibly (and I stand to be corrected ) during John Devlin`s tenure as chairman when he had plans drawn up (I remember seeing an artist impression) to have dressing rooms and other facilities built behind each of the goals and this testing was done to determine what foundations / land consolidation would be required to support such buildings. Ronnie, you would remember if this came about when you were first Director, then Chairman, but you from your response obviously dont and you were first appointed in January 2014. My view is that few individual shareholders stand to make much , if any, of a `windfall` from any sale of the ground if the club folded, after expenses, debts cleared, HMRC, banks etc had taken their share. Too many just have no interest...some being elderly widows of former directors. Selling the ground, if the club was still a going concern, would, as you say, release funding after charges, inadequate for construction of a new facility suitable for League football. I would imagine too, in the current economic climate, there would be few buyers willing to speculate on acquisition of the land, clearing it etc for other purposes.
|
|
|
Post by Rovergrant on Jan 12, 2021 13:03:32 GMT
Just delved into my files...appeared as a note on the full accounts (as issued to shareholders pre-AGM) on the accounts to 30th June 2012 ( I cant find any of my paper copies before that). which predates John Devlin as Chairman but not as Director - he first joined the BOD in 2008.
|
|
|
Post by mildrover on Jan 12, 2021 16:45:00 GMT
Lots of great detail there Grant. You should write a history of club AGMs. A best seller to be sure! I attended my first board meeting in October 2013. I don’t remember seeing drawings but I remember Frank, I think, talking about plans for a modular building behind the Coatbridge goals which would incorporate a small stand. I don’t remember geological work or their costs but you’ll be right. It must have been dropped probably due to costs and possible issues with what was found in the ground survey. I assume that report is around somewhere. Would make interesting reading. You are right about there not being a lot left from a sale to build somewhere new. Even if a buyer were to be found. The 2 scenarios I see is that someone shows interest in the ground and promises to set us up in a new stadium which complies with SFA licensing. Or we can raise enough funds( not loans) to modernise Cliftonhill/Reigart with an artificial pitch and modular units incorporating a small stand,changing facilities, a couple of meeting rooms and a hospitality suite. A rough reckoning for that would be £1.5 to £2 million. I’m sure the club could fire over their bank details if someone could help with that. I’m dead keen for a new share issue ,firstly to bring in much needed funds for the club and also to bring in new shareholders to give the club an injection of new people who have actually paid money to have a say in the running of the club. No harm to anyone but one of the most dispiriting spectacles annually was the AGM with 20 people there in a good year. It was smashing to see over 40 there last year, many of them new shareholders who had acquired a few shares from Eddie or myself. Hopefully that level of interest will be maintained in coming years and it would be great if some of the new shareholders would consider becoming directors as the board could do with expansion to help the existing 4 directors with the onerous task of running the Rovers.
Ronnie
|
|
|
Post by Rovergrant on Jan 13, 2021 10:52:30 GMT
Ronnie, you mention a `ransom` strip associated with NLC...isn`t there a similar `ransom` strip associated with the telephone mast ? Just for general information a ransom strip is a small piece of land that has been retained when a larger piece has been sold.
|
|