A Sanity Clause for Xmas?

Avatar ByTrisidium

A Sanity Clause for Xmas?

A Guest blog by redlichtie for TSFM

From what I can see Mike Ashley is likely to be the only game in town for RIFC/TRFC fans unless they want to see another of their clubs go through administration/liquidation.

That particular scenario potentially allows for a phoenix to arise from the ashes but on past evidence it is probably going to be an underfunded operation with overly grandiose pretensions taking them right back into the vicious circle they seem condemned to repeat ad nauseam.

Ashley has the muscle to strongarm the various spivs to give up or greatly dilute their onerous contracts and I suspect that is what has been happening behind the scenes.

From Ashley’s point of view I believe that what is being sought is a stable, self-financing operation that he can then sell on whilst retaining income streams of importance to SD.

I also suspect that he will come to some arrangement with the SFA to dispose of his interest once he has stabilised the club.

The problem for RIFC/TRFC fans is that Ashley is not going to fund some mythical “return to where they belong”, though that is beginning to appear to be the second division of the SPFL where they are heading to have a regular gig.

Like at Newcastle, Ashley will cut their coat according to their cloth. This will mean, again like at Newcastle, a mid-table team with good runs every so often. If the finances can be fixed then they will have an advantage over most other Scottish clubs but in the main we will be back to actual footballing skills and good management being what is important (pace “honest mistakes”).

With recent results and footballing style clearly those are issues that will require attention and McCoist seems likely to present RIFC/TRFC with an early opportunity to address at least one aspect of that if he continues with his current “I’m a good guy” press campaign. It may take just one unguarded comment or action and he will be out.

But will the Bears go for Ashley’s plan? So far they seem antagonistic and still cling to their belief that the world owes them a top football club regardless of cost.

If the fans don’t get behind the current entity I can see Ashley deciding the game’s not worth it and cashing in his chips. Some ‘Rangers Men’ will probably turn up and create a new entity for The People to believe in and Ashley will continue to draw in income from shirt sales and, most likely, charging fans at the world famous Albion car park which he will then own.

The upcoming AGM is crucial and from what we have seen of Ashley so far he gets what he wants.

The crushing reality about to descend on The People is that there really is no Santa Claus. A Sanity Clause, perhaps but no Santa Claus.

About the author

Avatar

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

3,813 Comments so far

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on10:19 am - Jan 2, 2015


readcelt says:
January 2, 2015 at 9:54 am

Sorry if already posted up
http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-neerday-game/
very good dissection of Doncasters double speak
==================================================
It’s a good piece and well worth a read. Gets it wrong on player employment/contracts but that’s a small irritation in the grand scheme of things.

Also important in that it breaks free from a purely footballing context because at the end of the day its crying-out for the Scottish Government to get to grips with this issue.

We need a Hampden Tea Party – no more public money without fan transparency and representation.

We can’t have a major Scottish Institution being run in this way – it simply isn’t Dignified 🙄

View Comment

Avatar

howiemacPosted on10:21 am - Jan 2, 2015


neepheid says:
January 2, 2015 at 9:16 am

“… in April 2013, with the coronation of Ogilvie for a second term, and the bumper bonuses to Regan and Doncaster, even I woke up to the fact that these guys are just a front. At that point I turned my back on senior football after nearly 60 years of parting with my cash on a weekly basis.

Those of you who don’t like Doncaster’s latest message need to consider this- he is speaking on behalf of the clubs. ”

snap – that was also my turning point, the point at which I choked and refused to support this charade any further – when Doncaster, Regan, and Ogilvie were kept on after disgracing themselves repeatedly over their “armageddon” fearmongering and their attempts to hand out special treatment to “Too Big To Fail” Sevco… had these guys had any honour they would have walked before that point, without needing to be pushed. But in any case they should have been pushed out by the clubs that elect them.

The clubs that we support (or in my case supported) are directly responsible for the Scottish game remaining the hands of such immoral incompetents. Until that changes, count me out.

View Comment

Avatar

andygraham.66Posted on10:30 am - Jan 2, 2015


Does the AIM statement re McLeod money bring used as working capital and not as suspected a pay off of the loan mean that Ashley likes the idea of being owed as much as possible ?

View Comment

wildwood

wildwoodPosted on10:31 am - Jan 2, 2015


Yes, we’re most definitely being softened up for an attempted insolvency event, that has active participation once more from the governing body and other member clubs. Participation that apparently involves selection and assistance to ‘approved’ investors in the husk.

Just when we thought the carcass couldn’t stink any more Doncaster and co come along and dump another skip load of offal

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on10:31 am - Jan 2, 2015


Are we going to have to report The Rangers and the SPFL to Ann Robinson & Matt Alright at Watchdog/Rogue Traders to get any sense.

Week after week they call out folk who have seen their company go bust yet set up again a week later with a similar name to continue fleecing innocent people.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on10:32 am - Jan 2, 2015


parttimearab says:
January 2, 2015 at 10:17 am

In fairness to ND and his position vis OC/NC, agree with it (as in many respects I do) or not (the position of almost all on here),at least he’s open about it…

…and it’s not as if his views on OC/NC are new….the following gives his position pre-LNS (18th May 2012)…

“The football club will continue to be there [in the SPL]; it’s only the corporate entity that changes.”
=========================================================================
Well he was wrong about the club continuing to be in the SPL. But what is worrying when looking at that is what influence was exerted on LNS to produce the result required by the SPL which was responsible for the LNS Tribunal Hearing.

Not necessarily a direct influence but a more hidden one by structuring the evidence presented and more importantly deciding the evidence that wan’t presented.

And as to it only being the corporate entity that changes well the SPFL current rules define a ‘club’ as comprising the three elements of being a club, an owner and an operator.

And more importantly the current SPFL rules states that the 42 individual ‘members’ who each hold one share aren’t the ‘clubs’ but the owner and operator.

His views on OC/NC might be long staning but of course that doesn’t mean they are correct and it appears he is still clinging to an increasingly tattered standard unlikely to survive the next Ibrox gale.

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on10:32 am - Jan 2, 2015


I note the claim that a transfer fee for Mr Macleod is to be used for working capital needs. If it is simply to be to pay for current expenditure thatseems to me to be a misuse of the word capital, or a further example of the ND/humpy dumpty dictum that “words mean exactly what I want them to mean nothing more nothing less”.

The whole saga of trfc can be read as an episode of the roadrunner cartoon with Wile E Coyote being played by various adherents to trfc.
Wile E chases after the untold riches and glamour of the Roadrunner never to catch it but always believing that it is superior in every way to the running bird and devising elaborate scheme after elaborate scheme to catch it. Invariably Wile E runs over a cliff and continues to run successfully up until the point where he realises that there is no ground holding him up – he then plummets to the ground. We are at that point in this episode. Sometimes he lands partway down the cliff or otherwise has what he believes to be a safe landing. ND has provided one of these, however as night follows day something always comes from a great height first seen as a shadow which then crushes him. There really is a PhD in the comparisons between the two cartoons.

View Comment

yourhavingalaugh

yourhavingalaughPosted on10:34 am - Jan 2, 2015


Was it in Doncasters remit to make his(personal thoughts) on TRFC so public I would imagine Regan would have been advised of the content of his interview and sanctioned the program to go out after all it does impact on his department and him personally,just when he is worming his way to another job, well Mr Regan we would all like to know your take on ND interview.

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on10:35 am - Jan 2, 2015


I wonder if the word “Sevco” rings any bells for Mr Doncaster. Has he ever had a look at Companies House records, or checked any new VAT registration numbers?

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on10:35 am - Jan 2, 2015


Danish Pastry says:
January 2, 2015 at 8:51 am
3 0 Rate This

HirsutePursuit says:
January 2, 2015 at 1:07 am
38 2 Rate This
————

Fascinating @HP.

If the Ashley camp maintains boardroom control, though (the SoS seem to think that camp will), it still holds all the aces.

The three bears don’t have enough clout yet, surely. Wouldn’t there need to be others willing to step up and buy out other investors? Thing is, if Laxey were powerless to effect change, — and they must have had some allies — what can these well-meaning bears achieve, even with more getting on board? They seem more honey bear than grizzly, so far
=====================================================
Laxey do not have Rangersitus and would not put in sufficient funds to take overall control. Funnily enough, Laxey’s MO is to do exactly what big Mike has done: namely, provide minimal investment to leverage maximum boardroom control.

Most independent shareholders will, when pressed, support the largest shareholder block in a company because it traditionally creates the most stability. This is why 30% is seen as the tipping point for having effective control.

The 3 bears currently hold around 20% of the shareholding. Big Mike and the Easedales collectively control around 36%. The largest block have effective control.

However, there is just about to be a 2 for 1 offer to existing shareholders. The 3 bears have offered to underwrite the new share issue in its entirety.

Assume that Big Mike and the Easedale block take up their full allocation – they still only control 36% of the company. If the 3 amigos sweep up the rest, they will have 37% of the company. I have heard (but do not know if true) that Artemis are amenable to selling out – but in any case, there are bits and pieces that could be picked up to take the bears total shareholding close to or even over the 50% mark.

After the share issue, the 3 bears will control the largest block of shares and will effectively control the company.

With the SFA’s ownership restriction in place and Neil Doncaster’s intervention made, I don’t think there is a lot that big Mike or the Easedales can do to prevent the 3 bears crashing the bus. If that is what they are so minded to do.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on10:36 am - Jan 2, 2015


andygraham.66 says:
January 2, 2015 at 10:30 am

Does the AIM statement re McLeod money bring used as working capital and not as suspected a pay off of the loan mean that Ashley likes the idea of being owed as much as possible?
=================================================================
I suppose that would depend on whether The Rangers tell AIM the truth or not 😈

View Comment

valentinesclown

valentinesclownPosted on10:39 am - Jan 2, 2015


The name of the game was always about keeping the club and name of one team alive in Scotland. OCNC was always IMO the major issue with all fans. Creditors of the Govan club must be feeling quite bewildered and let down even more that they originally felt.

SMSM mainly just repel any question reference OCNC by a wee laugh followed by “are we still going down that road, it is time to move on” this approach was common. I have never moved on concerning the issue of the club that is going through liquidation.

Questions that should be asked of Ogilvie, Regan and Doncaster are simple ones like,
who was/were Sevco 5088? Who was /were Sevco Scotland? What football team was giving a made up conditional licence to play football against Brechin and why? Could they also explain TRFC and RIFC to us all in their OWN words

IMO our game is really exiting at the moment. The SPFL is more competitive than it has been over the last 20 years. Clubs are becoming debt free St Johnstone won their first major trophy. The Championship is also great to watch and I for one will be watching Edinburgh derby today.

Maybe Mr Doncaster is not interested in all of this to the point where he could not even get a sponsor for our top league. To say what he did concerning and the same club is an absolute arrogant and contemptuous statement which takes all of us fans and our money for granted. I do not attend any games at Hampden (for over 2 years now) as IMO SFA are corrupt and the starting point was Mr Ogilvie. I now await to her from my club and ALL other clubs concerning this matter and then I can decide if I have a game that I can go to.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on10:56 am - Jan 2, 2015


Happy for Mr Doncaster to interpret LNS in any which way he chooses. However now he has disclosed the SPFL view in public can he explain what footballing rule was broken that resulted in the same club playing in the lowest tier of Scottish football when that same club finished second in the premier division? Once he does that with the same certainty and voracity we can lay this argument to bed. I am sure other member clubs will want a clear and concise explaination so they know what to expect if they find themselves in similar circumstances.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on11:11 am - Jan 2, 2015


With confirmation of the new shareholdings this morning, I was reminded that George Letham has yet to receive the arrangement fee for his loan from last February.

Checking back on the old AIM announcement, he is due to receive £45,000 by 23rd February 2015, which he can take in shares if he wishes to do so. I don’t know the price of the shares though.

http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=RFC&ArticleCode=4kh7hf2v&ArticleHeadline=Repayment_of_Shareholder_Loans

View Comment

Avatar

pau1mart1nPosted on11:11 am - Jan 2, 2015


“so they know what to expect if they find themselves in similar circumstances.”

they all know that? Doncaster himself would happily tell them where to go and why its different.

View Comment

Flocculent Apoidea

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on11:16 am - Jan 2, 2015


Hasn’t the SPFL just knackered their own credit rating or those of the member clubs/operating companies? I wonder if potential league sponsors find it a less attractive proposition, now. Or is it the opposite – that ND needed to re-assure a third party, before they put pen to paper, that there will always be an Ibrox club? Will ND say anything to get a deal done (and, maybe, another bonus for himself)?

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on11:16 am - Jan 2, 2015


Paraphrasing someone on lse share chat. Are the NomAd on piece-rates? While the thre bears notifcation was required shirley the transfer of a player was not necessary.

As for the working capital of the £425k up front if you take out the provision for VAT (no laughing at the back) and agents fees there isn’t much left to make a dent in repayments needed for MASH’s additional £1m loan

View Comment

Avatar

borussiabeefburgPosted on11:33 am - Jan 2, 2015


Might have missed it due to, er’ ‘festivities’, but don’t think I’ve seen the following angle to Doncaster’s New Year’s Day message regarding the Ibrox club: remember, he’s getting a bit of grief due to an inability to attract sponsors, as recently highlighted by Barry Hearn.

The interview itself initially appeared to be focussed on lack of sponsorship, when Doncaster changed the spotlight to OCNC. As conjecture, has he got a potential preferred sponsor in waiting who has insisted on the Ibrox club being portrayed as the pre-liquidation entity?

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on11:40 am - Jan 2, 2015


As a follow up to my earlier post if any Bars are listening what is your view on Doncaster’s pronouncement that Rangers are still Rangers?

Why were those in charge at Ibrox happy to accept a duff deal from the footballing authorities that appears to have had no standing in law. Surely forcing a member club to accept a pig in a poke deal is a disgrace.
I hope to see you joining the rest of Scottish Football fans in demanding a full explanation from Mr Doncaster of the situation.

View Comment

Avatar

borussiabeefburgPosted on11:41 am - Jan 2, 2015


Note: I see Flocculent Apoidea at 11:16 am wrote something along similar lines to my comment of 11:33! 😛

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on11:46 am - Jan 2, 2015


The Cat NR1 says:

January 2, 2015 at 1:15 am

7

0

Rate This

One final thought before lights out.

How much of the assets of RFC PLC (IL) would CG have had to buy for the Doncaster Interpretation to be applicable?

Assuming that the Sevco purchase is a precedent, how much of the assets would any combination of number of Bears/types of Knight need to buy from the liquidators of RIFC PLC/TRFC Ltd for the DI to apply to RFC III?

If the assets were split up, as would appear likely to be the case, how would they decide on the ranking points of each asset in the event of a dispute over the succession, or is there an as yet undisclosed document setting it out, along the lines of The Succession to the Crown Act 2013?
———————————-
What would happen say late on in the season Liquidation. By that time if MA does not get paid back,he has the retail the car park and edmison drive.( could he start up “A rangers”).
If some other group bought say the stadium (could they then start up a rangers).
Then say some other group bought up murray park (Is it still called that? 😉 ).(could they start up a rangers?

We could have a three way fight for a club called rangers something.

How many assets would give you the best chance of making up an entity called rangers something that the fans will go for, and who has the best chance?

Ps tried to make the post short as i can so hope you get what i was trying to ask

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on11:58 am - Jan 2, 2015


Cluster One says:
January 2, 2015 at 11:46 am

How many assets would give you the best chance of making up an entity called rangers something that the fans will go for, and who has the best chance?
=====================================================================
The main asset required isn’t bricks and mortar. It’s the number of fans that each of the different entities attract.

That IMO will determine matters although I do believe that such is the division and hatred within the Rangers support that at least two fairly equal teams could take to the field – they might even share their rented stadium.

Perhaps eventually they might combine but whether they are allowed to aggregate their 3 different histories? That thankfully will probably be a fight for long after I am pushing-up the daisies – thank gawd 😆

View Comment

Avatar

The_Pie_ManPosted on12:00 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Cluster One says:
January 2, 2015 at 11:46 am

I would Imagine in that Situation, Whoever owned Ibrox would be seen by the SFA and SFPL as the Rightful Owners of the “Club”.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on12:02 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Flocculent Apoidea says:
January 2, 2015 at 11:16 am

10

1

Rate This

Hasn’t the SPFL just knackered their own credit rating or those of the member clubs/operating companies? I wonder if potential league sponsors find it a less attractive proposition, now. Or is it the opposite – that ND needed to re-assure a third party, before they put pen to paper, that there will always be an Ibrox club? Will ND say anything to get a deal done (and, maybe, another bonus for himself)?
====================================================================
There is of course ‘history’ – isn’t there always ❗

You only have to look at the TV deals to see that some form of Rangers is required to survive.

View Comment

Avatar

pau1mart1nPosted on12:06 pm - Jan 2, 2015


“We could have a three way fight for a club called rangers something.”

RAF, Navy and Army one each then? big gun goes to real rangers obviously.

View Comment

melbournedee

melbournedeePosted on12:10 pm - Jan 2, 2015


The_Pie_Man says:
January 2, 2015 at 12:00 pm
0 0 Rate This

Cluster One says:
January 2, 2015 at 11:46 am

I would Imagine in that Situation, Whoever owned Ibrox would be seen by the SFA and SFPL as the Rightful Owners of the “Club”.
———————————————————————

Do you mean Craig Whyte?

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:13 pm - Jan 2, 2015


This will be my one and only comment on the LNS/ND interpretation of OCNC

parttimearab says:
January 2, 2015 at 10:17 am
2 0 Rate This
=====================================
When the SPL was created, its Articles and Rules had to be written in a form that acknowledged the theoretical possibility that not all of its members would be incorporated. From memory, I think at least 2 members of what is now the SPFL are not incorporated.

This created some difficulty in that to be a member a Club had/has to own a share (in the SPL/SPFL). Of course, if the Club is not incorporated, it has no legal personality and therefore of itself, cannot own anything.

This is why “Owner and Operator of a club” and “Club” can, in some circumstances, be different things.

“The owner and operator of a Club participating in the League shall become a member of the Company by acquiring one Ordinary Share therein at par for cash, such Ordinary Share to be acquired, through the Secretary, in accordance with the provisions of the Articles of Association. The owner and operator of a Club ceasing to be entitled to play in the League shall cease to be a member of the Company and shall relinquish its Ordinary Share at the end of the relevant Season in accordance with the Articles of Association.”

Where a club has been incorporated, the Owner and Operator is the club itself – the company.
Where the club is an unincorporated body, the Owner and Operator must be a person nominated by the club’s committee to take on that role.

“Club means an association football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club;”

If say Pollok (a club that has no corporate body) were promoted through the pyramid structure to become part of the SPFL, the share would be held by a person nominated to hold that share. That nominated person would, for the purposes of the SPFL be regarded as the Owner and Operator. Remember the term only means holder of the SPFL share: it has no legal meaning with regard to actual ownership or control of a club.

In the case of the trading entity “Rangers FC” as it previously existed, Club included/was the company RFC plc(IL). As it exists right now, the Club “Rangers FC” includes/is TRFC Ltd (formally Sevco Scotland Ltd).

The only context in which the definition of Club would not include the Owner and Operator is when the club has no corporate body.

Neil Doncaster set the terms of reference for LNS that created a false separation of Club and company. LNS chose to create an adversarial enquiry that meant he would only consider ideas and evidence put before him.

The separation fiction was not a LNS decision. It was an idea propagated by ND and accepted by both sides in the adversarial battle as an agreed “fact”. LNS simply chose to accept the interpretation since no-one objected.

ND showed his utter contempt for the remainder of Scottish football by saying LNS settled the matter.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on12:24 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Main thrust of an email sent to Hearts today, the two article referred to are the Rev Stuart Campbell’s from ‘Wings over Scotland’ and James Forrest’s from ‘On Fields of Green’. My thanks to both and I hope they are happy for me to use them in this way:

(setting out my credentials and other personal details) email continues:-

It is with all this in mind that I write to say how disgusted I was with the statement by the CEO of the SPFL, to the BBC, to the effect that a club cannot die, though clearly he was only concerned with one club, Rangers. Without going into the details of why this is wrong, and indeed tantamount to a lie, I will link two online articles that adequately set out Mr Doncaster’s error and gross misrepresentation. I also think there is an important question to be asked, one I know our compliant (to all things Rangers orientated) will not ask, and that is:

Why now? Why, particularly if he believes what he said to be true, has it taken almost three years for him, or anyone from Hampden, to make this statement? Did he ever think it worthwhile to contact Mrs Budge, Iain Murray or anyone else battling to save our club with this good news? News that, at the very least, might take some of the fear and anxiety from all of us! Now, had Mr Doncaster, or anyone else, made that statement, say a year ago, I would still not have accepted it as true, for I well know it not to be, but the fact it was not made again begs the question, why now?

In the way Mr Doncaster framed his statement, and it was a statement as he wasn’t actually asked the question in what appears to be a sham ‘interview’ or PR exercise, it would appear that he was speaking for all the SPFL clubs and that they unanimously agreed with what he was saying. As a shareholder, and member of FOH, I feel I have a right to know if my club concurs with the Doncaster view on this, and is happy to allow him to maintain it without question. There can be no doubt it was said solely for the benefit of The Rangers Football Club, and not Hearts or any one of the other 40 clubs. Regardless of the motivation it is wrong and untrue, and dangerous for the reasons made clear in the two articles linked below.

I will be very grateful for a response to my email, either from Mrs Budge or one stating the club’s official stance on the statement by the man entrusted with maintaining the integrity of the SPFL. If, on the other hand, Hearts were to make a public response then there would be no need to give me a personal reply.

As I stated earlier, I am a Hearts shareholder and member of FOH. My contributions are small, as are my personal finances, and, though I will continue to contribute for as long as possible, should the Hearts board back the Doncaster statement, then, when the time comes for me to retire (in two years time) I will bear in mind the club’s response when deciding what commitments I can continue to meet.

I am a reader and contributor to The Scottish Football Monitor (TSFM) and post under the name Allyjambo. I will post the thrust of this email on there today but will only post any reply from Hearts if given your permission to do so. I will, however, make it known whether or not I receive a satisfactory, unsatisfactory or neutral response, or, indeed, no response.

My personal details are undernoted.

Best regards, and regardless of however you respond, thank you from the bottom of my heart for the good you are all doing for Heart of Midlothian Football Club,

(Personal details supplied)

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on12:27 pm - Jan 2, 2015


The_Pie_Man says:

January 2, 2015 at 12:00 pm

2

0

Rate This

Cluster One says:
January 2, 2015 at 11:46 am

I would Imagine in that Situation, Whoever owned Ibrox would be seen by the SFA and SFPL as the Rightful Owners of the “Club”.

But if it was not a rangers man that owned ibrox yet the rangers men who owned say everything else, and both wanted to start up a rangers something. Could be a big problem with fans as to which side of the divide they go to.

It could end up like Mike Reids runaround for the fans
thanks for all reply’s

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on12:43 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Allyjambo says:
January 2, 2015 at 12:24 pm
================================

Good e-mail AJ. I do hope Ms Budge continues to buck the trend in Scottish football and gives you a substantial reply. As far as I am aware CEO’s and Chairmen of Scottish Clubs have not entered into correspondence with fans over this issue, probably through concerns over the reply entering the public domain with possible risks arising from that. However, as I said, hopefully Ms Budge responds to you. Please keep us posted on whether you receive a response, while of course respecting any confidentially requested.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on1:07 pm - Jan 2, 2015


HirsutePursuit says:
January 2, 2015 at 10:35 am
15 0 Rate This
————

Thanks @HP, intelligible ben for a layman like masel 🙂

In that scenario, I’m wondering why Laxey didn’t go for broke, get total control via the upcoming offer and exit with a profit instead of a loss. Must be a lot more of background jiggery-pokery than meets the eye.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on1:13 pm - Jan 2, 2015


HirsutePursuit says:
January 2, 2015 at 12:13 pm

If say Pollok (a club that has no corporate body) were promoted through the pyramid structure to become part of the SPFL, the share would be held by a person nominated to hold that share. That nominated person would, for the purposes of the SPFL be regarded as the Owner and Operator. Remember the term only means holder of the SPFL share: it has no legal meaning with regard to actual ownership or control of a club.

===================================================
@HP I agree with everything in your post. However the bit where you state the term ‘Owner and Operator’ only means the holder of the SPFL share caught by nit-picking attention 🙄

I assume you specifically refer to Pollok which would be fine and in context and I would agree in general. I might well be over-cautious in asking for confirmation but if you are actually including incorporated clubs that opens-up a different scenario which I would disagree with.

Cheers.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on1:28 pm - Jan 2, 2015


upthehoops says:
January 2, 2015 at 12:43 pm

Cheers, uth. Should have pointed out that the email was addressed to her PA with a request to pass it on. I have since received a very polite acknowledgement (not just a standard response) confirming that my email has been passed to Mrs Budge.

Professionalism shines in everything that that lady touches, it seems.

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on1:35 pm - Jan 2, 2015


George Taylor is only the contact, according to http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12202187.html Morgan Stanley (his employers?) are the actual shareholder. Is this an investment fund purchase? If so do Morgan Stanley know how risky the investment is given the shares were sold by another investment company at a £2m loss?

View Comment

Avatar

Hoopy 7Posted on1:37 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Allyjambo says:
January 2, 2015 at 12:24 pm
Well done AJ.

Just getting round to read the posts.

The fact that LNS said something outwith the Court of Session does not make it so, nor does it define the Law. He did he profession no good with his utterings.

No doubt there will be a definitive statement from a Court in the not too distant future which will bury the lie once and for all.

I too am at a stage in life where I am considering going back to Celtic Park next year. There will be no ST renewal and especially if Doncaster’s pronouncement goes unchecked.

We should now put pressure on the chairmen to deal with this person.

The failure to attract a sponsor and at a figure which far exceeds that publicly touted in his e-mails should be enough. Barry Hearn said it, he would not be working for him so why should he work for us. It is the fans who pay his wages and he should not forget that.

Is it beyond the wit of man to approach someone like Barry Hearn and pay him a commission to find a sponsor in the market?

In life I like to see people getting on and achieving things in their life but every now and then you come across someone who achieves a level which leaves you scratching your head as to how the Hell the got there. I think we have yet again found such an example.

If he does not fall on his sword he should be forced out now.

Great to see the competition in Scottish football producing a challenge but I would remind those who think they have arrived that nothing is won at this stage, and that includes my own team. Do the talking on the park, entertain us and come back and tell us when you have achieved something.

Happy New Year to All.

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on1:44 pm - Jan 2, 2015


HirsutePursuit says:
January 2, 2015 at 10:35 am
15 0 Rate This
————

Thanks @HP, intelligible ben for a layman like masel 🙂

In that scenario, I’m wondering why Laxey didn’t go for broke, get total control via the upcoming offer and exit with a profit instead of a loss. Must be a lot more of background jiggery-pokery than meets the eye.
===================================
I think whoever forces out big Mike will take a very substantial loss. The 3 bears are more likely to be willing to take the hit than Laxey.

Laxey’s motives (sans the Rangersitus) are more measured than before and certainly less altruistic than the 3 bears. Laxey, it appears, do not see any path that will get more money out than still needs to be put in.

The bears appear to be quite desperate and may be prepared to take quite a high risk strategy to achieve their goals. In some ways this desperation is to their advantage; but it also leaves them open to huge disappointment. It could cost them £15m – £20m in the next couple of months to take control of the assets with no absolute guarantee that they will be able to carry on as “Rangers FC”.

The bears worst case scenario is having a top level sustainable football business (even if the existing club/company is sacrificed) for the Rangers fans in perhaps 3 to 5 years.

Best case scenario is that £15m – £20m gives them a Premiership club free from onerous contract in season 2015/16

Either way, there is no dividend for past or future investment. The best this club will do in the medium/long term is break-even.

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on1:59 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Big Pink says:
January 2, 2015 at 2:19 am

Ah light on time! was Stunney not the paper boy/man of old?

Or am I haverin’

———————————————————-

Big Chief Donkeycaster speak with forked tongue.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on2:25 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Allyjambo says:
January 2, 2015 at 1:28 pm
——————————

Good stuff AJ. I often wonder how Fergus McCann would have dealt with all of this, as well as the late Paul McBride.

PS I’m looking forward to watching the Edinburgh derby on Saturday. Should be quite an occasion.

View Comment

Avatar

justbecauseyoureparanoidPosted on2:37 pm - Jan 2, 2015


upthehoops says:
January 2, 2015 at 2:25 pm
0 0 Rate This

Allyjambo says:
January 2, 2015 at 1:28 pm
——————————

Good stuff AJ. I often wonder how Fergus McCann would have dealt with all of this, as well as the late Paul McBride.

PS I’m looking forward to watching the Edinburgh derby on Saturday. Should be quite an occasion.

I think we all know the answer to that question – both would have nailed it for the b*llocks that it is

Also would like to congratulate Allyjambo for his email (and in anticipation) Mrs Budge for her reply.

Should be some game at Tynecastle tomorrow – will be watching that one!

View Comment

Avatar

GoosyGoosyPosted on2:53 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Re Donkeys OCNC remarks
Sounds like the 3 bears have told the spfl they intend to liquidate RIFC

View Comment

Avatar

tearsofjoyPosted on2:58 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Message to Allyjambo.

Please let us know the response from HMFC/ Ann Budge.
If the club does not distance itself from the ND proclamation I will cancel my subsription to FOH. I might do it anyway – after all, a club
Cannot die so what does FOH need my cash for?

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on3:02 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Quite simply The Scotsman is no longer fit to be classed a newspaper.

They have repeated the Doncaster line without any critical examination of his falsehoods and twisting of the facts.

Sad days for a once great institution which I always thought provided better informed news coverage than The Herald and a much superior business reporting department.

Now it would appear its staff – which I won’t accord the title of journalists – only have the ability to cut and paste with no understanding of the content or crtical examination to establish its veracity.

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on3:04 pm - Jan 2, 2015


moo @moo_ted · 3h 3 hours ago
I’ve spoken with the co owner of a Scottish Premiership team who confirms that Neil Doncaster “has no mandate to discuss this topic” (1)
(2) ” no discussions have taken place on the subject” , ” no opinion was asked or given” and that ” he does not speak for our club” . End

moo @moo_ted · 3h 3 hours ago
So just as @LaytonBhoy suggested yesterday,Doncaster WAS talking out of turn it appears,and it would appear to be only his opinion, not all!

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on3:05 pm - Jan 2, 2015


The official notification of Letham’s shareholding to AIM has been posted.

http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=RFC&ArticleCode=g2vihyty&ArticleHeadline=Holdings_in_Company

It shows that Letham previously held the grand total of 100 shares, which he obviously didn’t purchase at the time of the IPO as the minimum purchase was 714 shares (£500)

His original loan offer last February stated “Mr Letham is a shareholder in the Company and a lifelong Rangers fan.”

Sounds more like a shareholder of convenience.

View Comment

Avatar

TAMJARTMARQUEZPosted on3:09 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Message to Allyjambo.

Also Shareholder and FOH subscriber, keen to hear what Ann has to say, on behalf of our club, on this matter. Echo the sentiments of tearsofjoy comments.

If club cannot die what does FOH need my cash for? ❓

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on3:18 pm - Jan 2, 2015


tearsofjoy

I will certainly let you know how satisfied I am with any response, though wouldnt advocate anyone stopping their FOH contribution on my say so, but am aware you were writing somewhat tongue in cheek 😉 It does, though, show how Hearts might need to listen to the supporters more than was previously the case, a pretty good thing for any club, I would think.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on3:31 pm - Jan 2, 2015


To all TSFM readers. Please contact your clubs to let them know how you feel about Doncaster’s statement, even just a short email to ask if he spoke for your club. Shareholders in particular have a right to know how their board view such blatant skullduggery, and it might raise the profile of your correspondence to quote your shareholder reference. The clubs might well be snowed under by the number of such requests and so unable to reply but it’ll let them know the strength of feeling and perhaps make them question the value of such as Doncaster compared to their supporters. It will also remove that feeling of not being able to influence things that make you mad.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on3:44 pm - Jan 2, 2015


GoosyGoosy says: January 2, 2015 at 2:53 pm

Re Donkeys OCNC remarks
Sounds like the 3 bears have told the spfl they intend to liquidate RIFC
==========================
It sound more like Bill Miller’s “incubator” idea.

Take the ethereal “football club” along with key assets (e.g. Ibrox)into the ownership of an incubator newco, leaving all the (onerous) contracts behind in TRFC which would be liquidated.

With SFA and SPFL blessing, this would be dressed up as a “Solvent Reconstruction” which is permitted under SFA rules.

The newco would be re-capitalised, retain/recruit what players they want going forward, and continue as the ethereal dreamco.

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on3:44 pm - Jan 2, 2015


wildwood says:
January 2, 2015 at 10:31 am

41

0

Rate This

Yes, we’re most definitely being softened up for an attempted insolvency event, that has active participation once more from the governing body and other member clubs. Participation that apparently involves selection and assistance to ‘approved’ investors in the husk.

Just when we thought the carcass couldn’t stink any more Doncaster and co come along and dump another skip load of offal

_______________________________________________________

Regarding dungcaster’s timing, he has chosen the optimum timepoint in terms of ST renewals and transfer speculation to blindside fans.
Clearly the hope is that by the time Season Books are due for renewal it will have blown over, and fans chat and backpages will be more preoccupied with transfer news and speculation, which he hopes will drown out some of the furore.

he really is egregious. Fetch his coat for him someone!

View Comment

posmill

posmillPosted on3:52 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Watched the Dundee derby the other day. Couldn’t help but notice that Dundee had 2 – count them! – 2 shirt sponsors – Hangar Records on the front and Scott Fyffe Motors on the back. I’d never heard of either business, and while that fact might speak to the current level that the Dees find themselves at, it underscores that if you’re a public facing brand with a following – any following – you will be able to attract some form of sponsorship. That the SPFL has been unable to attract any kind of sponsorhship in the absence of a Govan-based footballing entitiy is clearly rot, bunkum and codswallop. They clearly can. They just don’t want to. And they won’t until some form of GBFE is back in the top division. Though unfit for purpose and rotten to the core, yet they serve their masters well.

View Comment

Avatar

readceltPosted on3:54 pm - Jan 2, 2015


http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/neil-doncaster/

View Comment

Avatar

aclydefanPosted on4:00 pm - Jan 2, 2015


To all TSFM readers. Please contact your clubs to let them know how you feel about Doncaster’s statement,
————————
Yeah… I have politely enquired about Clyde’s take on Doncasters statement… particularly with respect to why is it we have spent years in the wilderness in an ongoing attempt to resolve financial issues.

View Comment

Avatar

Paulmac2Posted on4:17 pm - Jan 2, 2015


HirsutePursuit says:
January 2, 2015 at 1:44 pm
………………..

That stadium still needs repaired..rewired and maintained…

We still need to know who actually owns the assets?

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on4:23 pm - Jan 2, 2015


I can see 41 club chairmen pointing their fingers in shock and horror in the direction of Doncaster saying “it was that bad boy there!”

I think it is safe to assume – no matter the motivation for ND’s remarks – that yesterday’s statement will go unchecked.

On reflection, and if those remarks are correct in football terms, it seems to me that the SFA are now operating a franchise system whereby they can sell the right to be [insert club name here] to whoever they choose. The price paid by Green appears to have been the settlement of football debts.

Strange that this option was not available to fans of Airdrieonians when they couldn’t avoid liquidation. One must assume though, that it is now available to any club which chooses to opportunistically shed it’s debt at the cost of five on-field defeats.

In Dunfermline Athletic’s and Heart of Midlothian’s case, that was not considered an honourable course of action. I wonder who will be the first (after RFC) to avail themselves of that opportunity?

In either case, it appears to me to be an institutional (SFA) enablement of companies to escape debts and carry on as normal. It may be sport Jim, but not as we know it. And as for good governance: Are they having a laugh?

View Comment

Avatar

gerrybhoy67Posted on4:23 pm - Jan 2, 2015


I would like to say thanks for my education over the last few years both on this site,RTC,etc and others where we browse – as a 1st time poster can’t help but think ND doesn’t follow TSFM or he would have known Sevco recently received a communication from BDO to Cease and Desist from referring to themselves as the previous entity and as PMG has notified them I am sure there will be a request for clarification of his comments.
All The Best In 2015 to you all

View Comment

yourhavingalaugh

yourhavingalaughPosted on4:30 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Just been round the sales,not of my choosing but the promise of a visit to a watering hole was enough to swing it,we went into a calendar shop and I was left to browse I came across the Rangers 2015calender,this was the actual from cover wording,anyway the picture on the front had the players celebrating something or other in a sort of huddle and it showed Nicking Law wearing. The # 7 shirt with his name on the back also,has this just happened this season

View Comment

Barcabhoy

BarcabhoyPosted on4:49 pm - Jan 2, 2015


i commend AJ for his email to Ann Budge. It is reminiscent of the efforts fans made to ensure the custodians of their clubs understood the resistance to parachuting Rangers directly into the SPL or SFL 1.

Some may remember that i wrote the Ann Budge was a hostage to fortune by making public statements about vandalism after the Scottish Cup game against Celtic.

Well the hostage has now arrived at her door in the form of AJ’s well written and entirely reasonable letter. Ann claimed she went public on the matter after receiving letters and communication from Hearts shareholders and supporters.

I am happy to take her at her word tht this was indeed the motivation for her public statements. The hostage to fortune comment relates to the fact that she is not then able to pick and choose what issues are appropriate for shareholders and fans to be concerned about.

Ann Budge must make a public response to AJ’s concerns. She has left herself with no wriggle room on the matter. I would recommend all fans and shareholders of Hearts who share AJ’s concerns to make the same point to Mrs Budge.

Equally this is not just a matter for Hearts fans, although they and Dunfermline fans must be particularly vexed at Doncaster given the blood sweat tears and cash they investedin saving their clubs recently.

To be told be Doncaster it was all unnecessary must be infuriating

View Comment

yourhavingalaugh

yourhavingalaughPosted on4:56 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Lest we forget
The Ibrox tradegy
Sympathies to all
football is not more than life

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on4:56 pm - Jan 2, 2015


King makes his move

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12202893.html

1RNS Number : 2121B

Rangers Int. Football Club PLC

02 January 2015

Rangers International Football Club plc

(“Rangers” or the “Company”)

Holding in Company

The Company was informed on 2 January 2015 that New Oasis Investments Limited (“New Oasis”), a Company 100% owned by the Family Trust of Dave King, acquired 11,869,505 Ordinary Shares in the Company on 2 January 2015. Following the transaction, New Oasis will be interested in 11,869,505 Ordinary Shares in the Company, representing approximately 14.57% of the Issued Share Capital.

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on5:02 pm - Jan 2, 2015


posmill says:
January 2, 2015 at 3:52 pm

13

0

Rate This

Watched the Dundee derby the other day. Couldn’t help but notice that Dundee had 2 – count them! – 2 shirt sponsors – Hangar Records on the front and Scott Fyffe Motors on the back. I’d never heard of either business, and while that fact might speak to the current level that the Dees find themselves at, it underscores that if you’re a public facing brand with a following – any following – you will be able to attract some form of sponsorship. That the SPFL has been unable to attract any kind of sponsorhship in the absence of a Govan-based footballing entitiy is clearly rot, bunkum and codswallop. They clearly can. They just don’t want to. And they won’t until some form of GBFE is back in the top division. Though unfit for purpose and rotten to the core, yet they serve their masters well.

_______________________________________________________

You have to ask yourself, in the light of Doncaster’s shenanigan’s, what REPUTABLE business would want to risk their reputation by association with such venal operators.

In short, I think the probelm is this:

While the scottish referees can be sponsored – albeit tongue in cheek – by a prominant brand of opticians, unfortunately the type of ‘professional’ organisations that would reputationally benefit from association with messrs Doncaster and his ilk tend to be quite publicity shy. They rely on word of mouth recommendation and repeat offenders, sorry I mean, customers, in order to satisfy their limited marketing needs.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:03 pm - Jan 2, 2015


It was suggested earlier that Artemis was willing to sell up. They held 8,109,223 shares or 9.95%.

It could be that New Oasis already held some shares (below 3%) prior to today’s announcement.

View Comment

Avatar

James DolemanPosted on5:04 pm - Jan 2, 2015


The plot thickens
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/12202893.html

View Comment

Avatar

rhapsodyinbluePosted on5:10 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Well well well!

At last!

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on5:11 pm - Jan 2, 2015


From Twitter-

keith jackson ‏@tedermeatballs 4m4 minutes ago
Dave King buys out Artemis and Miton shares in RIFC to take a combined 14.5% stake.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:11 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Keith Jackson saying that Artemis and Miton sold the shares.

View Comment

Avatar

andygraham.66Posted on5:12 pm - Jan 2, 2015


King buying in probably makes this idea of liquidation more likely.

All about being in position to have a say.

View Comment

Top Cat 1874

Top Cat 1874Posted on5:15 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Liquidation? No problems, big Neil says it will still be the same club. He’s an insolvency law expert you know lol!

View Comment

Avatar

macfurglyPosted on5:17 pm - Jan 2, 2015


In addition to the points made above over the last 24 hours or so on Doncaster’s remarks and the contradictions with SPFL rules, it is worth noting that he has legitimised the claims of victimisation from the more vocal of the TRFC fans as to why they were “dropped” into the bottom tier.
The SPFL (and the SFA) cannot have it both ways.
With, for example, the Hearts example standing this will not go away. That edifice will not vanish. Franchises will not wash.
The 5 Way Agreement was broken the minute TRFC went to the bottom division. Accept that and fix the mess. There are far too many hostages to fortune waiting from the Agreement and LNS in particular to make it possible to brazen it out.
Get back on the rails. Forget the fine relating to the activities of RFC(IL).Be ready to repay monies already paid by TRFC/RIFC if required to do so by court action. Remove the history from the website,it’s an embarrassment to everyone including TRFC fans. It’s only a matter of time before the whole nonsense is subject to a genuine legal challenge.
Take the initiative, before an “incubator” makes it impossible to manage credibly, even with smsm assistance.
To enable this, Doncaster can be sacrificed. He has proven to be useless anyway, whether his function was to attract sponsorship or finesse liquidations.
The clubs have the opportunity now to act quickly, through their representatives on the football board of the SPFL to do this. Better now than later, the mess is only going to get worse and the complete alienation of fans and the legal consequences will, sooner or later, require a decision to be made.
Doncaster has forced the issue: get on with it.

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on5:20 pm - Jan 2, 2015


We’ve recently seen the SFA show some backbone towards MA and there was comment on whether this was Regan trying to boost his credentials for a new job application down south.

With Regan having stabbed Doncaster in the back by allowing Barry Hearn to trample all over his performance I am left wondering if Doncaster has weighed everything up and decided to have a Charles Green “Ahmad” moment by making a statement that was guaranteed to cause controversy and very likely lead to him joining Mr McCoist in his gardening endeavours?

Are they expecting some major fireworks in the weeks ahead?

Perhaps having the very hot potato of Dave King’s new shareholding to consider – how can that possibly be sanctioned? – alongside the very real potential for an insolvency event at RIFC/TRFC?

Scottish Football needs the application of rules without fear or favour Mr Regan. Just as you said yourself on 24 April 2012.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on5:21 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Sorry lads. Big business and finance ain’t my thing (I’m an East End refugee from Better Together Britain!); why buy into a company to liquidate it? It’s not even RFC 1872.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:24 pm - Jan 2, 2015


It probably won’t affect the boardroom balance directly for the moment, but may do so with the next share issue.

GoldieLies and the Three Bears will have 35% to Mash and the Easdales 36%.

The Real Ranjurs Man should also be able to call on River & Mercantile (7.1%) and most of the small shareholders thus taking them over 50%, but the Spivs will still have a blocking vote against any dis-application motion re the issuance of new shares.

Once the next share issue takes place, then Mash and the Easdales will have to pony up to protect their share of the company, otherwise they will be diluted to insignificance.

Ashley will continue to look after his onerous contracts, so I’d still expect a fair bit of jiggery pokery over the next few months.

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on5:26 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Crikey! It’s all happening now.

We need to know who sold before we can understand how this affects the balance down Ibrox way.

Speculation and questions:

1) Only liquidation can break the onerous contracts
2) MA has a lucrative onerous contract hence it has been worth his while to try and keep the current entity alive
3) If the man who would be King is working to the same agenda as the three bears will the regulatiors deem them a concert party and require a full takeover bid?
4) If King and the 3B’s are working together then a full takeover would seem to be their objective?
5) Which brings us back to 1 above. Liquidation and start again having then purcharsed the assets
6) What value will be put on the assets (encumbered or otherwise) by the adminstratior/liquidator in charge at the time of the sale?

If it is a takeover by Rangers Men, followed by liquidation and a new start then, (and it doesn’t matter where you stand on OC/NC), the promotions from the last two years have been won by a club engaging in usustainable financial doping. Any new entity must surely re-start in the fourth tier at the very best.

View Comment

Bam Potter

Bam PotterPosted on5:26 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Danish: Simply, to control what happens to the assets when they are liquidated.

View Comment

Barcabhoy

BarcabhoyPosted on5:27 pm - Jan 2, 2015


It will be interesting if King tries to force a board position for himself.

could the SFA possibly sanction a recently convicted criminal as an appropriate director of a board of a member club ?

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on5:30 pm - Jan 2, 2015


Barcabhoy says:
January 2, 2015 at 4:49 pm
===================================

Anne Budge was generally commended in media circles for speaking out when other clubs just sit in silence. So they could hardly criticise her if she were to publicly pose just a couple of the many questions which fly in the face of what Doncaster said. It would certainly be better if Ms Budge spoke out than Peter Lawwell, who would just be attacked by the media. Look no further than the public savaging he took for the Rory Bremner comment in 2013. I do hope Ms Budge, who was not in office when TRFC were admitted to the lower tier, asks the questions others appear unwilling to ask. Especially as the club she is in charge of remains intact only because she and a number of supporters moved heaven and earth to avoid liquidation. Now Doncaster says they needn’t have bothered!

View Comment

Comments are closed.