A Sanity Clause for Xmas?

Posted on by

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.

This entry was posted in General by Trisidium. Bookmark the permalink.

About Trisidium

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 thoughts on “A Sanity Clause for Xmas?”


  1. That twitter response was correct. The chance was there to press for answers, and instead they responded in time honoured fashion – threats, abuse and fury.

    What concerned me, though, was the tossed off comment about Scottish football being against them (They didn’t quite manage ‘bigots’ this time around – Don’t you miss Charles Green?). I dont know whether they saw how well it worked last time and thought that this was how you win round the fans, or whether they genuinely believe it, but it now seems to be the standard response to any Rangers-centric questioning, which is ridiculous given how much of a free ride they and their predecessor got for years. Even now, the press still can’t quite bring themselves to put the boot in to Ally, even a tiny bit, for claiming the largest managers salary in Scottish football, by some distance, for plotting his players progress against the guys that delivered their post that morning.

    I thought he’d actually died at the weekend, given the lovingly crafted and respectful obituaries we were reading.


  2. Auldheid says:
    December 22, 2014 at 1:47 pm

    Cheers, they are probably fed up of my Hogwarts style “Howlers” lol

    Seriously, the clubs are the pressure point in this situation


  3. WRT the meeting with the SFA tomorrow: I’m not sure that Ashley will be in attendance as it could be read from what I’ve seen tweeted that it is Rangers The Club that is meeting with the SFA.

    I could be wrong of course. And perhaps even the SFA will meet with a legal entity but that might make it legal so it will probably be ‘The Club’.

    However I doubt even if Ashley is meant to be there that he would personally attend. I rather think it might be his various legal representatives.

    And there was the comment from Llambias that he wasn’t connected to Ashley/SportsDirect in terms of being paid from any related companies.

    Sounds as though the defence is already being erected although if Ashley/Mash takes 29% of the shareholding that should be strong enough grounds for the SFA to act. Sadly I haven’t believed in Santa for a wheen of years.


  6. ecobhoy says:
    December 22, 2014 at 2:04 pm

    And there was the comment from Llambias that he wasn’t connected to Ashley/SportsDirect in terms of being paid from any related companies.
    ==============================================

    Weasel Word Warning

    Eco, Grant reports “in terms of salary” – no mention of shares, bomus, dividends, expense accounts, other companies, other vehicles etc etc etc

    Grant Russell @STVGrant · 3 hrs 3 hours ago

    Llambias: I have no connection to Ashley or Sports Direct in terms of salary.


  7. Just listened to Malcolm Murray on BBC 24 News. Absolutely scathing about Somers and his arrogance. Said they know less now than before the agm.


  8. Another meeting with SFA tomorrow. If we’re lucky there will be a press release from one or other of the participants, putting a spin on the proceedings that suits their aims.

    What we need above all is TRANSPARENCY of all SFA dealings. Aside from those circumstances that require commercial confidentiality, virtually all discussions between clubs and SFA should be minuted, and the minutes made publicly available. There is no need for secrecy when it comes to issues of football club management.

    So come on SFA, publish all your minutes of meetings so that supporters can see what is going on.


  11. mcfc says:
    December 22, 2014 at 1:43 pm
    3 0 Rate This

    Question is, how wide is Mike’s stubborn streak and how much time does he have for this, and if Derek walks (for being ignored) does he have other football-hardened lieutenants to see it through. After all, one third of one percent of Mike’s reported net worth (£3bil) would see The Rangers dancing to Zadok – well maybe with a fair wind.
    ———–

    Is his worth really that important? I’d have thought MA would be looking at his profit margins. I believe last year it was in the region of £250m approx. Plenty really, but I seriously doubt he fancies wasting any of those millions on Sevco Rangers’ ambitions.

    The clear-out mentioned by Phil, and with McDowall (McTrowall, nice one 🙂 ) taking over it should be an example of what could have happened three seasons back — team of promising youth with one or two old hands.

    If MA tells the SFA he’s thinking of getting out, they’ll panic, so what do they have lined up by way of sweeteners?


  13. So res 9 never had a chance – missed by over 30% – no womnder Somers and co were de-mob happy – they’ve probably had a nip or two before the AGM.


  14. James Doleman says:
    December 22, 2014 at 2:26 pm
    1 0 Rate This

    No share issue means what, admin?
    ———–

    You heard something James?


  15. It seems, reading warring accounts on Twitter, that the Ibrox support has too many factions which actively detest each other for any progress to be made from their side: threats of boycotts and disruption are seen as ‘disloyal’ by opposing divisions. Spokespeople such as Graham, Dingwall, Dinnie, Macmillan, McMurdo, Kerr all appear to have an active dislike for some or all of the others who see themselves as leaders of the fans.

    Some on here will take great pleasure from the events at today’s Ibrox AGM. But it was an opportunity missed for those of the Light Blue persuasion. The event probably went as well as could be hoped for by the board.

    Now that the Sports Direct man has got McCoist on a different sort of zero hours contract, where he doesn’t get guaranteed work, sick pay or holiday pay, but if quiet can pocket large sums of money, it seems, following the disarray and disruption shown by shareholders today (I wonder how many ‘plants’ were sitting in the cold seats?) that there is not a single thing Ibrox supporters can do to prevent their club falling further into the abyss.

    Hell mend them: these supporters’ past arrogance is a major influence in the financial dilapidation that resides in Govan. Of course, the circumstances were aided and abetted by the SFA/SPFL.

    Ashley presently appears to be in control of the rescue gear, and it appears he, and not the spineless football authorities, will decide on the next moves, and whether there is enough left to salvage of the scuttled 30 month old wreck.


  16. James Doleman says:
    December 22, 2014 at 2:26 pm

    Or more loans, but secured against what, enquiring minds would like to know?

    Squeaky bum time for many


  17. so, in layman terms, what would Res 9 passing have allowed RIFC to do and subsequently what options are open to them now going forward?


  19. James Doleman says:
    December 22, 2014 at 2:26 pm

    No share issue means what, admin?
    =============================================
    So no dilusion in favour of Mike and his mates. No big plan for the City. Just more of the same unless Mike gets serious and goes for it.
    The SFA have the chance to shoot themselves where the sun don’t shine tomorrow.

    It could all be over by Christmas 🙂

    Phil Redmond must watch this plot and weep at his inadequacies. (Brookeside Plague anyone 🙂 )


  20. Resolution 8 renews directors authority to allot shares:

    Existing authority to allot

    A company may have an existing authority to allot shares either in its articles of association or by virtue of an ordinary resolution passed in accordance with the Companies Act 2006 (the CA 2006) or the Companies Act 1985 (the CA 1985) (as appropriate).

    Directors of a private company with one class of shares, which is incorporated under the CA 2006, may exercise the power of the company to allot shares without pre-authorisation.

    Directors of a private company with more than one class of shares or a public company must be authorised by resolution or by the articles of association to allot shares.

    Listed public companies are subject to investor guidelines which recommend maximum limits on the allotment of new shares and expiry dates for the authority to allot.


  21. It will put the SFA in a difficult position in tomorrow’s discussions with RIFC. Ashley or bust? You choose!


  22. From twitter?

    Easdale, Ashley and Laxey couldn’t have voted in favour of resolution 9 as it would have got more than 44%


  23. Disapplication of pre-emption rights:

    Pre-emption rights

    Before a company can allot shares it must consider whether pre-emption rights apply, and if they do, whether those rights should be disapplied. Pre-emption is a right of first refusal to an existing holder of ordinary shares on any allotment of ordinary shares or the grant of a right to subscribe for or convert any security into ordinary shares in a company. Disapplication of pre-emption is the modification or removal of those rights.

    Pre-emption rights are an important shareholder protection because they enable an existing shareholder to maintain his percentage shareholding in the company on a new issue of shares.

    All companies are subject to the pre-emption requirements in Chapter 3 of Part 17 the CA 2006. Listed companies are also subject to pre-emption rights in the Listing Rules of the Financial Conduct Authority and investor guidelines.


  24. easyJambo says:
    December 22, 2014 at 2:38 pm
    1 0 Rate This

    It will put the SFA in a difficult position in tomorrow’s discussions with RIFC. Ashley or bust? You choose!
    ———–

    So he was about to underwrite new ahares for £8m but existing shareholders have said no to dilution of their existing shareholding? Can’t blame them really, since they’re down at 17p and falling.

    You wonder if MA expected this. If not, what’s plan B?


  25. I’m guessing that Somers attitude at the AGM may have been influenced by the knowledge that an early count of the proxy votes meant that he knew that Resolution 9 was going to fail and that he would be on his way out the door as a result.


  26. andygraham.66 says:
    December 22, 2014 at 2:28 pm

    They can’t go to the markets for new funding via a share issue. Given that reso 8 was passed, they could, I think, try and raise new capital from existing investors, Murray tried that back in the day and got burned.

    Yet more loans is another option, but what assets could you secure more debt against?

    The board is in a maze of twisty passages all alike, and some so and so keeps closing off the exits :mrgreen:


  27. andygraham.66 says:
    December 22, 2014 at 2:28 pm
    0 0 Rate This
    ====================
    I’ll have a go. If passed it would have allowed RIFC to create more shares and sell them to who they wanted without offering equal proportions to all existing shareholders. That would have meant dilution for the shareholders who weren’t given the opportunity to buy these shares at source.

    Of course the shareholders that lost out could restore their own concentration by buying on AIM but there would still be an overall dilution of non favoured purchasers.

    I believe we still have the situation where any shares offered has to be way of a “rights issue” where any offer has originally to be in proportion to the existing shareholdings but with the ability to also purchase a proportion of the shares not taken up as a right (as happened last time). While the Spivs still have the opportunity to dilute in this way, by hoovering up the rights not taken up, it does make it harder to dilute the holdings of those serious about having an influence but that the spivs wished to marginalise.


  28. Surprised that resolution 9 only received 44.84% of the vote. Given that figure can anyone intuit how the various share blocks will have voted? And does the way in which votes were cast on resolution 9 offer any indications as to what we can expect in the short term?

    Are major shareholders consolidating their positions as creditors with a potential insolvency in mind?


  30. I don’t necessarily think that Ashley will be unhappy with the failure of Res 9 as it means he probably won’t require to buy as many shares to get his 29%.

    Any shares being sold now have to be offered to existing shareholders first and this will stop shares going to spivs in lieu of I’m sure perfectly legal obligations owed to them by the company which the company even yet might not be aware of 🙄


  31. Reminded of a fantastic, cringe-worthy management mantra on last night’s The Apprentice final “It’s the team work that makes the dream work !”

    Is it too late to apply this to The Rangers – with the fan groups at each other’s throats and the major shareholders equally divided voting down Res 9, and appearing to favour the Admin end-game in the absence of manna from Ashley.


  32. Jings, it never rains but it pours for those waiting for nth coming of the Messiah, it seems

    “Phil MacGiollaBhain ‏@Pmacgiollabhain 2m2 minutes ago
    I am hearing that there are some interesting manoeuvres in South Africa apropos SARS.
    Some people might be back in the mire.”

    edit

    Phil MacGiollaBhain ‏@Pmacgiollabhain 5m5 minutes ago
    With Resolution 9 falling Plan “B” can come into play for Big Mike. Internal loan secured against Ibrox and Murray Park.


  34. According to Mr Llambias at this morning’s AGM talks are planned with the SFA tomorrow. STV describes these as informal talks.
    As I understand both Rangers and Mr Ashley are due to meet the SFA on disrepute charges on 27 January.

    So, why would the SFA agree to any meetings with officers of the company in advance of a disciplinary tribunal and to what purpose?
    Will Mr Ogilvie be further compromising himself by participation in said talks.
    Things get murkier and murkier over Hampden way.


  35. ‘Shug and Dazza’ should be fun tonight 😉 on superscoreboard ……….. Do you think there will be a name change there???? To just ‘scoreboard’ 😛


  36. The 54.3M shares approved in Resolution 8 would raise £9.77M at today’s mid price of 18p.

    However 54.3M shares would represent a 66.7% increase in the shares available, or 40% of the enlarged share total.


  37. EJ

    An offer price of 15p would get them the £8million, but, I really struggle to see this issue flying. Still, who knows with this lot 🙄


  38. The Doors of Perception

    I’ll have what Malcolm Murray is experimenting with – this from his STV interview – observe the facts then apply hallucinogenic substances to get to what you want to see in a Technicolor blizzard spin-cycle:

    “The only thing I would glean from the meeting – although it was not actually said specifically but I gleaned from that – Ashley will not let this club go into administration. He will definitely fund it.

    I think we know it is not going to go into administration which could be a relief for some. For me I would rather know there was a big investment coming rather than cutting costs because this great stadium needs to be full and back in Europe as soon as possible.”

    http://www.football365.com/scottish-football/9617239/-


  39. Brenda says:
    December 22, 2014 at 3:00 pm
    4 0 Rate This

    ‘Shug and Dazza’ should be fun tonight 😉 on superscoreboard ……….. Do you think there will be a name change there???? To just ‘scoreboard’ 😛
    ———-

    They should think twice about inviting DJ on. He doesn’t sound a well man at the best of times and the potential for sky-high blood pressure is definitely there tonight.


  40. scapaflow says:
    December 22, 2014 at 3:08 pm

    EJ

    An offer price of 15p would get them the £8million, but, I really struggle to see this issue flying. Still, who knows with this lot 🙄
    =================================================

    Two things as I see it. What % of the shareholding does Ashley need to get his 29%.

    And how likely is it that other existing shareholders will buy the rest.

    We don’t really know the answer to the second question but it could be crunch day at the SFA tomorrow because it might be pointed out to the SFA that unless they accept Ashley the club goes under.

    I simply don’t think the SFA have got the balls to refuse anything that Ashley wants and then be held guilty for the latest death of Rangers.

    Although at least this time a lot of supporters would be happy with that death it would appear as it opens the window of opportunity for another eternal entity to take flight.

    And would Ashley rather buy shares than give a loan secured on property?

    It’s all down to Ashley but I really don’t think he would let Rangers go under as he sees the opportunity to make money and it would be a bit of a blow to his ego.

    And then there’s Llambias left holding the baby as a director in the event of insolvency – reduces his future usefulness for Ashley I would have thought.


  41. easyJambo says:
    December 22, 2014 at 3:01 pm
    4 0 Rate This

    The 54.3M shares approved in Resolution 8 would raise £9.77M at today’s mid price of 18p.

    However 54.3M shares would represent a 66.7% increase in the shares available, or 40% of the enlarged share total.
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    Thats not how it works
    Because there is no new assets to back up the extra shares all that happens is the fund raising causes dilution of the share price for existing holders
    so
    If 54.3 new shares are offered making the total shares 135.75m the new sp becomes 65.3m x 18p divided by 135.75 =8.65p
    The extra money brought in is approx 54.3m x 8.65p = 4.06m less expenses
    which would get TRFC to about March


  42. Good effort there redlichtie.

    TSFM needs more guest bloggers… 😉


  43. Alex Thomson ripping into the RIFC board on his twitter feed


  44. GoosyGoosy says: December 22, 2014 at 3:28 pm
    =====================
    I’m aware of the effects of dilution on the share price.

    The last one was only partly successful at 20p, which was at a discount of 20% on the prevailing share price at the time.

    My post was more about the numbers in relation to Ashley’s suggested increased holding going up to 29.9%, i.e. if all the required cash is going to be raised via a share issue, then it will need another shareholder to buy into it.


  45. ecobhoy says:
    December 22, 2014 at 3:22 pm
    It’s all down to Ashley but I really don’t think he would let Rangers go under as he sees the opportunity to make money and it would be a bit of a blow to his ego.
    =====================================================
    Eco, all the easy money has been made from The Rangers. What is left is an opportunity to work hard building a football club by doing all the everyday things of winning matches, buying players, selling players etc.
    The pluses are a ready 50,000 crowd as glory approaches. The negatives are a decrepit stadium. onerous contracts, toxic brand. It’s a coin toss whether Mike would be better waiting for another club near a large metropolitan centre to go into admin and start there.


  46. thought with all those caught up in the George square accident, Glasgow not having it easy this Christmas either


  47. 35M votes against resolution 9. More or less the same total of votes as the other resolutions.

    So, who voted against and why?


  48. Surely “administration” is the best way for them?

    That way, The entity can continue (post CVA – this time), means the expensive deadwood can be cleared out, so a base can be established for the real fans to buy merchandise from MA/SD shops and so MA gets his continued revenue and the onerous contracts can be watered down a bit with a virpew tour pumping them up sometime in future?


  49. ecobhoy says:
    December 22, 2014 at 3:22 pm
    ‘.I simply don’t think the SFA have got the balls to refuse anything that Ashley wants ..’
    ——–
    I’m inclined to agree. There is an outside chance, though, that the fact that they went public about the ‘rules’ on dual ownership MIGHT , and the fact that the SPFL are going after the ‘fine’ money, MIGHT conceivably indicate that attitudes are changing.

    Possibly,also, the general run of club owners/directors have begun to lose patience with this club and Board, and have realised that their own clubs/businesses both have actually survived and look set, broadly speaking, to better survive as Football begins to accept that sound finances and FFP can work the oracle.
    I certainly hope that that might be the case.


  50. Just Heard about what has Happened in Glasgow.. Thoughts are with the Relatives.. Puts Football into Context 🙁


  51. easyJambo says:
    December 22, 2014 at 3:36 pm
    I’m aware of the effects of dilution on the share price.

    The last one was only partly successful at 20p, which was at a discount of 20% on the prevailing share price at the time.

    My post was more about the numbers in relation to Ashley’s suggested increased holding going up to 29.9%, i.e. if all the required cash is going to be raised via a share issue, then it will need another shareholder to buy into it.
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    Point taken


  52. At least 6 dead according to Radio Scotlan’s unconfirmed report.


  53. Looking at the current shareholding split Laxey + Alexander Easdale + shares over which Alexander Easdale has voting rights = 34.6M votes. Votes against resolution 9 were 35.1M votes.

    The combined Laxey/Easdale votes would have accounted for 99% of the votes against resolution 9.

    Was it them?


  54. John Clark says:
    December 22, 2014 at 3:52 pm

    ecobhoy says:
    December 22, 2014 at 3:22 pm
    ‘.I simply don’t think the SFA have got the balls to refuse anything that Ashley wants ..’
    ——–
    I’m inclined to agree. There is an outside chance, though, that the fact that they went public about the ‘rules’ on dual ownership MIGHT , and the fact that the SPFL are going after the ‘fine’ money, MIGHT conceivably indicate that attitudes are changing…
    =======================

    I can’t see why the SFA would now change its behaviour at this late stage, and get tough with TRFC and Ashley.

    Perhaps an acceptable compromise for both sides is if the SFA announce that they have granted ‘time-limited, conditional dispensations’ to Ashley to help out TRFC – for the good of Scottish football of course.

    A bit like that ‘conditional membership’ wheeze they dreamt up for Sevco/TRFC… 🙄


  55. The_Pie_Man says:
    Just Heard about what has Happened in Glasgow.. Thoughts are with the Relatives.. Puts Football into Context 🙁
    =================================================================
    well said – very sad events – best wishes to all affected.


  56. Just heard about the accident in George Square.
    Thoughts are with those involved and their families.
    Tragic.


  57. I just noticed that I missed James Easdale’s shares. When you add his shares into the mix the Easdale/Laxey votes would have been equivalent to 100% of the votes against resolution 9.

    Coincidence?


  58. For the life of me I cannot fathom out how MA can make a good return on any serious investment. Ignoring CG’s estimate of half a billion fans and instead considering 50,000 loyal. Assuming these 50,000 spend £100 each on strips, scarves piggy banks etc. each and every year. That’s still only £5 million gross income, less costs for production and sales as well as tax and TRFC’s share. The net figure will probably be nearer £3m.

    Fair enough if he can garner that income year on year from a small initial outlay, (where he currently is). However as many have posted on here, getting the new club to the level of challenging at the top of the Premier League and qualifying for European competition, (squad rebuilding and ground refurbishment) will probably cost getting on for £100m.

    I cannot for the life of me see what’s in this for Ashley and SD. The only possible angle I can see, is the possibility of using TRFC as some sort of feeder/development club for NUFC. Maximising income from player development, transfer moves and cross border transfer advantages. Even then, it seems unlikely.

    Very interesting times ahead…….. 🙂


  59. Eco,

    Small poin. I don’t think you did Malcolm Murray’s quote justice. The full quote was “We came out of the Agm actually knowing less than when we went in and that’s quite an achievement.”

    Made me smile anyway.


  60. Just heard of the accident in Glasgow. How very tragic especially at this time of year. Condolences to the families concerned.

    …………………………………………………….

    I think I read somewhere earlier Llambias quoted regarding some of the “onerous” contracts, something along the lines of these not being reasonable so they weren’t going to pay them and to the recipients see you in court. Seriously???

    Is this the start of the great creditor shafting as proved to be the downfall of the old club.

    Regarding the meeting with the SFA tomorrow. I wonder if there will be a charge of bringing the game into disrepute, when the chairman today suggests there may be an anti-new club agenda within the establishment. What could he possibly mean? I’m sure they’ll want it clarified at least.


  61. I’m interested to know who leaves work first tonight ready for a good nights sleep. Llambias or Ogilvie!

    Know who my money’s on

    “I’m sorry, we’ve made a backside of this from the start. We’ve played every card, from bigot to sectarianism. We’ve plumbed new lows and lost, nay sold out the very dignity card on which our reputation was built. Forgiveness, peace and above all, mercy, mercy, for all saints, MERCY.

    Aye, get up Campbell, you’re just being embarrassing now.”

    There’s your minutes!


  62. Níl aon tinteán mar do thinteán féin.
    Safely home in Dún n nGall after visiting loved ones in Glasgow.
    My thoughts are with those affected in the George Square tragedy today.
    Once more Glasgow is a City that steps up at times like this.
    I hope ye are all safe and where you need to be this midwinter.


  63. redetin says:
    December 22, 2014 at 8:50 am
    Radio Scotland phone-in this morning (Morning Call) is about a new club with a legendary manager who’s just been told he’s NRB.
    =================================================

    I caught a short segment of this when Graham Speirs was introduced as a “football expert”.

    I was astonished to hear him say in response to a query that the EBTs had been found to be legal. (Was this challenged at any point?)

    As five EBTs were in fact found not to be legal, the balance being under appeal by HMRC and the WTC sums & penalty having been accepted as payable by Rangers at the time I was unsure if Speirs was :

    1. Misinformed – but of course he was a ‘football expert’ brought on to the show to provide factual information and comment and should have checked such assertions OR

    2. He was seeking to put an untrue gloss on past misdeeds at Ibrox.

    I think in either case the BBC needs to re-assess whether Mr Speirs should continue to enjoy their faith as a ‘football expert’.

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.


  64. On a desperately sad night, dear old Craig Brown povides some much neede hilarity:

    The rangers board should get down on their knees and beg Walter smith to takeover the team.

    Goan yersel ye auld Highland Dancer :mrgreen:


  65. Gee69 says:
    December 22, 2014 at 8:56 am

    Can’t believe we haven’t had the gardening puns yet.

    ====================================

    seen this on Twitter, suggesting a headline they’d like to see in papers, Green Fingers McCoist


  67. scapaflow says:
    December 22, 2014 at 7:02 pm
    12 0 Rate This

    On a desperately sad night, dear old Craig Brown povides some much neede hilarity:

    The rangers board should get down on their knees and beg Walter smith to takeover the team.

    Goan yersel ye auld Highland Dancer
    ===============
    Down on their knees? They should surely prostrate themselves before such an icon of Rangerness. Although I’m sure that Charles Green will be happy to testify that the services of Sir Walter are readily available for that stuff called money- no bending of knees whatsoever required.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20292601


  69. Can’t speak for veracity or fine detail but essentially SOS are trying to split Ashley and somers.


  70. Utter stupidity of Craig Brown to get involved in this debacle. Into the bargain Smith would only go back to Ibrox with the promise of tens of millions to spend, and he wouldn’t care where it came from or whether the club could afford it. History proves that to be the case.


  71. easyJambo says:
    December 22, 2014 at 8:03 pm
    2 1 Rate This

    Sons of Struth have just posted an email from October from Somers to a Justin Barnes of Barlin Associates mentioning the proposed Dave King deal and possibly breaking the SD contract. I don’t know the relevance of it, if any.
    ===================================================
    Justin Barnes is an ex-director of SD and still I think does consultancy work for them….seems to specialise in trademarks…

    Guess we’d need to know what Justin was “pratting about” at precisely to be sure…but the trademark expertise is suggestive…


  72. Having been able view the Email better on a desktop I think the key in it is in what context the proposed SD deal, particularly a late amendment is “stupid.”

    Stupid for whom, and why?


  73. Red Lichtie 3.43

    Mr Speirs was one of 13 journos sent hard copy of the documents kept from Harper MacLeod with an explanation of their significance.

    He either did not get them or has ignored them. He is not alone in either case.


  74. On this quiet and very sad night, allow me to go off on a tangent with something that is rattling around my head and a question.
    We hear stories of big Mike wanting 29.9% of the rangers shares, as unlikely as it would be what would happen if he cocked up and got 30.1% by accident?


  75. Re the SOS email and the replies ,beggars belief that these guys have opened their festive bottles and are now venting their spleens at all and sundry,somethings never change,does Ashley realy want to be part of this.

Comments are closed.