A Roman God, a New Year, a Paycheque a Sports Jacket and that thing called football!

By

Chancer67 says: Monday, January 14, 2013 at 19:29 I remember your post …

Comment on A Roman God, a New Year, a Paycheque a Sports Jacket and that thing called football! by AllyJambo.

chancer67 says:

Monday, January 14, 2013 at 19:29

I remember your post and very enlightening it was too. I think in other cases from England there was no actual ‘test’ of the matter, things just drifted along and the supporters of the clubs involved were happy to blindly accept it. I made this point to Marching on Together over on Paul MacConville’s blog and he reluctantly accepted that in his club, Leeds United’s case, there was no testing of that, just an acceptance.

That was a great peice of digging up by the way, and the fact that it was an FA decision kinda puts the tin lid on it. As far as the SFA accepting it as a precedent; if pushed, they’d have little option other than to accept it, but who’s going to push them?

AllyJambo Also Commented

A Roman God, a New Year, a Paycheque a Sports Jacket and that thing called football!
It would appear that Hearts have cleared their outstanding remuneration default and have had their registration embargo lifted. But they are not Rangers, or TRFC, and so it’s not enough that they have paid up. Unlike The Rangers, who didn’t clear the debt to HMRC of some £14m, but still had their embargo delayed so they could sign anyone they could convince to play in SFL3, the embargo effectively remains for Hearts as they are only allowed to sign under-21 players until the end of the season. Now it doesn’t take a genius to work out that Hearts are unlikely to find any under 21 players who could enhance any SPL first team squad, because, at that age, if they’re any good, they cost money and want big wages. It is sensible for the ‘one out-one in’ restriction with reduced wages to remain in place, but why not just say, ‘you are not Rangers, you do not get any special treatment, so even though you’ve settled the outstanding monies, the embargo stays until the end of the season.’

I’m not suggesting Hearts don’t deserve this punishment; if taken in isolation, they undoubtedly do; but why weren’t TRFC also told they could delay their signing embargo, but could only sign under 21 players? In fact, in SFL3 that would probably have been quite a good scenario, both for TRFC and for some of the country’s best young talent – which is probably the only argument for allowing the signing of young players in these circumstances.

Let’s remember, too, the Rangers’ penalty wasn’t just for failing to pay bonuses timeously to highly paid (in real life terms) footballers, it was for bringing football into it’s greatest ever level of disrepute, by failing to pass on money deducted from highly paid (even in football terms) players’ wages and, even though they play in SFL3 now, it was handed out by the same SPL that has penalised Hearts. It was also part of the notorious 5 way agreement that they accept the penalty, and it could not have been delayed without both the SPL and SFA sanctioning it.


A Roman God, a New Year, a Paycheque a Sports Jacket and that thing called football!
theglen2012 says:

Wednesday, January 16, 2013 at 01:20

It’s heart-warming to hear that at least two TRFC fans are in agreement with you on what’s going on at Ibrox. Did you think to ask them to join us here and to put their more enlightened views across, giving a more ballanced discussion? Like you general recieve yourself, I’m certain, they would be made welcome and be given, by most, the chance to put their points and have them debated. Perhaps if they see that we are not just banging an anti-Rangers drum, just wanting to see the correct things done, they might spread the word amongst their fellow Gers fans and so more might be prepared to accept that there has been many wrongdoings by their club (either old or new) and instead of bleeting on about people and clubs out to get them, realise just how lucky they are to be playing in any league at all this season. If they should read the post from Andrew Woods above, they might get some idea of how they are viewed by everyone, not just those who follow Celtic.

With regards to the 37,000 fans singing the BB song at Ibrox, certainly not all will be singing it, as many, like myself, will rarely sing any songs at football matches, but obviously there will be many who do sing, but perhaps, now, not that contentious song. It still remains, however, that a very large proportion do sing it, and nothing is being done to stop it, either by the authorities, or by the decent fans themselves. Do you believe anything is actually being done by TRFC to stamp it out, or by the ‘decent’ fans to discourage it? Do you think it would be a good idea if those who genuinely want it stopped started to sing something else whenever the morons start up? Or do you think that, at Ibrox, there is a fear that if they take the kind of action that makes these extreme bogits feel unwelcome and unable to spout their disgusting bile, thousands would be removed from these record attendances?


A Roman God, a New Year, a Paycheque a Sports Jacket and that thing called football!
neepheid says:

Monday, January 14, 2013 at 22:26

Thanks for info on that, neepheid. Looks like it remains untested in any official/legal setting. To be honest, I hope that one day we will get a definitive ruling on this, and that it declares the club IS separate from the company, as my club is in financial turmoil, and I think all clubs face that possibility in the future, and it would be nice for us all to think OUR clubs are sacrosanct! Problem is, I just can’t see it, hard as I try I can find no argument that makes it any different from club=company. I just hope, one day, somebody proves me wrong 🙂


Recent Comments by AllyJambo

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Big PinkJanuary 2, 2018 at 13:54 
AJI suspect the TDs are not from SFM folk (remember the ratings are available to all manner of trolls). It is a disgusting world-view if made in earnest. A shocking way to score a point if not.
_________________-

I didn’t, for a moment, suspect they were from anyone who posts here, even the more prolific troll posters are better than that, I am sure. 

For some time now I have had the feeling that there is someone, or some people, coming on here and just TDing a number of posts without bothering to read their content, either out of malice or as some sort of concerted effort on behalf of people with reason to dislike our message. It really is quite strange how, suddenly, a number of posts receive one, two or occasionally three thumbs down in very short order, and often posts like uth’s, that could offend no one, receive these petty TDs as a result. 

I can honestly say that I have never read anything from our regular, or occasional, posters that might suggest they would TD anything relating to that terrible day. I include, of course, all supporters of Celtic and RFC/TRFC who have, over the years, made their arguments on SFM. My experience of Celtic supporters talking of that day is one that leaves me certain in the knowledge that only the basest of their support (and we all have them) were not badly effected by the disaster and in full sympathy with the deceased, their families and the wider Rangers support. 

I can still remember that night, sitting in the Queens Arms in Edinburgh, watching the death count rising on the TV, waiting for one of our mates we knew was at the game, getting more and more nervous until he appeared. It had a lasting effect on me.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
upthehoopsJanuary 2, 2018 at 08:52 29 2
Rate This
On this day in 1971, the Ibrox disaster happened during a Rangers v Celtic game at Ibrox. 66 fans died in a crush. Some of us remember that day, some of us may even have been there, while some of us would not even be on this earth at the time. We are all football fans. Nobody should go to a football match and never return home. Rest in Peace.
_____________

Wow! I know we are not meant to put much store on the thumbs up or down, but two people have given thumbs down to this post! Who on earth could find fault with a post respecting the dead from the Ibrox disaster?

It kind of confirms my belief that there are people coming onto this site who don’t read the posts, but are assigned with the task of creating the appearance that there is some disagreement with posts that mostly criticise Rangers(IL) and TRFC and hit the TD button without thought.

Alternatively, of course, it could just be that others, like myself, have difficulty hitting the correct symbol on tablets or mobile phones, I certainly hope that is the case here.

Thanks to Upthehoops for reminding us of that sad day, something we should do every year as a mark of respect for those who died on Scottish football’s worst day.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
DarkbeforedawnJanuary 2, 2018 at 03:48 
Stevie BC, the issue with declaring himself bankrupt is it stops him holding any director role in a company in the UK and possibly South Africa. I can’t see him doing that “for the sake of the club”. I think like Murray before him he likes the limelight. He knows very well the best option for the club would be resign as any acting party in the club and still provide the soft loans. It would take all scrutiny away from the club and could leave the chairman role to someone more respected such as Alistair Johnston. That would stop the risk of the TOP ruling having such a huge impact on the club. It’s the selfless and obvious choice to make and he could still be seen as the saviour from abroad saving the club through loans, but he wouldn’t get the same exposure he so much craves. His defiance is what will lead to his downfall and his selfishness could lead lead to the downfall of the club.
_______________________

DBD, though I used your above post to highlight the impossibility of separating club from company, I have to agree, to some extent, with the thrust of the post. While I am not sure that by declaring himself bankrupt that King could escape the wrath of the TOP and CoS, he isn’t going to do anything for the benefit of your club if it doesn’t benefit him, or save him, at the same time.

That said, however, King’s ‘ownership’ of the NOAL Trust was established in court to the judge’s satisfaction, and I doubt that he would get away with making further loans to RIFC plc through it or any other hidden avenue, once declared bankrupt. Indeed, despite my limited knowledge of bankruptcy laws, I am certain that King (or anyone else) can’t just announce bankruptcy and clear themselves of all fiscal responsibilities, they have to prove they have no money to meet their debts, and as far as we know, King doesn’t have any – and if he had, the court would make sure the funds in his NOAL Trust would be used to meet them, as far as possible, with, I am sure, an investigation into what other (disguised)investments he holds. One thing’s for sure, he would not be allowed to ‘lend’ any money to RIFC/TRFC, and, if he does, indeed, have substantial debts, his creditors might well force the return of his existing RIFC loans to meet his debts.

One thing’s for sure, the law will not allow someone to avoid the consequences of breaking the laws and regulations of the land by availing one’s self of the laws of bankruptcy! While a little tax cheating scrote like Barry Ferguson might get away with transferring his assets to his wife, just prior to receiving his tax bill, King and his money are already on the court’s radar and I doubt that even his Masonic connections would be enough to let him get away with further fraudulent behaviour.

Something I am sure of, and has to be considered before wondering if bankruptcy is a way out for both/either King or RIFC, and that is – you have to have debts that you demonstrably can’t meet before you can petition for bankruptcy. Unless King has very substantial debts, that outweigh, at least, the funds held in the NOAL Trust, then he has no grounds to declare himself bankrupt.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
DarkbeforedawnJanuary 2, 2018 at 03:48 
Stevie BC, the issue with declaring himself bankrupt is it stops him holding any director role in a company in the UK and possibly South Africa. I can’t see him doing that “for the sake of the club”. I think like Murray before him he likes the limelight. He knows very well the best option for the club would be resign as any acting party in the club and still provide the soft loans. It would take all scrutiny away from the club and could leave the chairman role to someone more respected such as Alistair Johnston. That would stop the risk of the TOP ruling having such a huge impact on the club. It’s the selfless and obvious choice to make and he could still be seen as the saviour from abroad saving the club through loans, but he wouldn’t get the same exposure he so much craves. His defiance is what will lead to his downfall and his selfishness could lead lead to the downfall of the club.
_________________

Hi, DBD, and a Happy New Year to you.

While your recent posts have been pretty good, showing a realistic approach to what’s happening at your club, might I ask how it could be that the chairman of RIFC’s selfishness, and I presume you include his dishonesty in that, could lead to your club’s downfall, if, as you’ve previously claimed, the club is separate from the company? Surely, in your belief structure, it would only be the company, TRFC Ltd, that would ‘fall down’, and the club would just sit around, responsible for none of the inherent financial chicanery of the ‘overspend our way to success’ ethos that permeates at Ibrox, until some new ‘football company’ is set up to carry the can again!

I know it’s a bit early in the year to reintroduce the OC/NC debate, but I am wondering if you’ve, perhaps, come to realise that the idea that a football club can, for some skewed reason, escape the consequences of it’s own greed, is pretty ludicrous?


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
ODDJOBJANUARY 1, 2018 at 13:42
Allyjambo,Thanks.I also suspect that the assignation of ” ra deeds” would provoke an angry response in some quarters
___________

And I suspect that the assignation of ‘ra deeds’, should it ever come to pass, might well be the last throw of the dice! What’s more, once any assets are used as security, it reduces the amount the current lenders are likely to get in the event of liquidation. It may well be that the directors, who are now refusing to give more loans, have, rather than reached the end of their free funds, decided that the lending has reached a level greater than, or close to, the total value of the group’s assets.

It’s one thing lending without security when in a position to ensure there is enough in the pot to, more or less, cover the amount of the loans, it’s an altogether different thing once someone else gets that security!

Whatever the accounts give as a value for the fixed and current assets, the directors will all have a very good idea of the realisable value of those assets (particularly the heritable asset value), and should total creditors begin to outstrip that value, they may well begin to wonder if it’s time to call in the administrators. Granting security over some of the heritable assets would only hasten the moment for unpleasant decisions.

If PMGB is correct in saying King is looking out for loans secured on the club’s heritable assets, then I am certain that the rest of the directors would carry out proper due diligence on the potential lenders before granting any security. Not that they have any dodgy characters in their midst, or anything, just that they are canny businessmen.


About the author