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.
HirsutePursuit says:
January 6, 2015 at 9:03 pm
Allyjambo says:
January 6, 2015 at 8:26 pm
ecobhoy says:
January 6, 2015 at 7:56 pm
It may well be that LNS finds himself involved with some banter from fellow judges over his jaunt on an SPL tribunal, but I doubt he worries too much about his findings or whether he got it right. He really does have more serious matters to concern himself with; that no one will find amusing.
=======================================================================
I bet in his whole career he will never ever deal with a case which has had so much written about it or debated as exhaustively and it appears it still refuses to lie down and die just like the eternal or should that be infernal club 😆
==================================================================
Except perhaps this:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/lockerbie-trial
—————————————————————-
I had totally forgotten that he was the junior judge on the 5 member appeal court which heard Al Megrahi’s appeal against conviction.
I suppose that kind of makes my point and I think possibly tens of thousands of Scots will remember his link to Rangers for every 1 who remembers his link to the Lockerbie Appeal case 🙄
And a ps to my previous. Did no one at the DR even phone the guy after getting the Press Statement? How can they just sit there and print what they’ve been handed, without trying to follow it up in some kind of way? I’m no great shakes in the initiative department, but even I would have tried to get some kind of little extra bit of a’human interest’ angle.Or at least, tell folk that I had tried to. How much are these hacks on as a salary? Are they monkeys because they get paid peanuts?
iceman63 says:
January 6, 2015 at 9:54 pm
“ … the supposed cleverness, arrogance and vacuousness of a Medieval theologian … .”
—
Some of the greatest minds in the history of humanity were those of medieval theologians.
iceman63 says:
January 6, 2015 at 9:54 pm
Its starting point is that the club exists, like God, and given that unchallengable assumption, he can then prove his own supposition.
====================
Thanks Iceman,as a confirmed proponent of the OC side of things I’d forgotten to consider the possibilities of an ontological argument….time to read up on St Anselm of Canterbury… 😀
iceman63 says:
January 6, 2015 at 9:54 pm
14 0
Rate This
Doncaster’s reply has the supposed cleverness, arrogance and vacuousness of a Medieval theologian. Its starting point is that the club exists, like God, and given that unchallengable assumption, he can then prove his own supposition. He supposes that there is an entity divorced from the legal, material and physical entity which exists. He does not state, and cannot state what it actually is, but by bringing it into existence as distinct from the legal, corporeal, corporate entity he then proves its existence when the corporate entity dies. At no point is it defined, nor identified, nor described in any concrete fashion. He then throws in a couple of earlier miraculous non corporeal clubs someone made earlier, and ends satisfied with his own baseless, tautologic bilge as being the ultimate in reason and logic.
If he ever gives up football administration, clearly a job as an Archbishop awaits.
What a smug, arrogant buffoon of a man, he truly is.
================================================================
Bearing in mind the reaction to the man’s initial proclamation on 2nd Jan, and the probable deluge of emails to chairmen/owners of the other 41 clubs. Has anybody noted any responses at all from said clubs?
As usual the silence seems deafening. 🙁
To be fair to LNS, he did try to define the ethereal club.
“it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time.”
So according to LNS a club comprises a brand name/trading name, contracts which even LNS admits cannot be entered into by the entity, employees again whose contracts can’t be entered into by the entity, and a ground which it can’t own or rent because it has no legal persona.
In short, it is something that anyone can latch onto as being the essence of a football club, without consideration or responsibilities for people, property, or financial matters.
parttimearab says:
January 6, 2015 at 10:07 pm
_____________________________________
Thanks Iceman,as a confirmed proponent of the OC side of things I’d forgotten to consider the possibilities of an ontological argument….time to read up on St Anselm of Canterbury…
You could do worse… 😉
easyJambo says:
January 6, 2015 at 10:16 pm
In short, it is something that anyone can latch onto as being the essence of a football club, without consideration or responsibilities for people, property, or financial matters.
==================
At the risk of getting all OC/NC (I’m sure that TSFM knows what to do if I have 😛 ) you’d assume that, if you take the LNS view (as I do) that you’d require a regulatory body which would ensure that these responsibilities were met…an association of clubs and other stakeholders of the game…a member of a world governing body…we could call it…dunno… the Scottish Football Association maybe…oh, wait a minute…
Seriously though, that’s where the problem lies…not in how a “club” is defined, but in the way it’s regulated by the governing body.
Well, Richard Wilson reckons admin is out because of the ‘offers of investment’. Oor ain GoosyG is flagging a form of liquidation, though. On Sportsound Alistair Johntone believes Sarver has credibility because he comes from the banking industry (there was the small issue the global banking crisis, but no big deal). And according to Alistair, Sir Dave M. led RFC in a business-like fashion for years!
Such a pity journalists/broadcasters just hand over the mic and let people like AJ say what they like, totally unchallenged. Even an amatuer bampot in exile could find a few pertinent questions to ask!
The Record’s back page. – Doomcaster flexing his muscles?
https://twitter.com/Record_Sport/status/552593007359578113
easyJambo says:
January 6, 2015 at 10:48 pm
0 0 Rate This
The Record’s back page. – Doomcaster flexing his muscles?
==========================================================
If true it’s taken him a while to notice…is that the third or fourth loan they’ve had to keep the lights on…I forget
iceman63 says:
January 6, 2015 at 9:54 pm
‘..Doncaster’s reply has the supposed cleverness, arrogance and vacuousness of a Medieval theologian. Its starting point is that the club exists,.’
——–
We could have lots of OT fun with this,iceman63!
Medieval theologians were no more ( or, perhaps, less) clever,arrogant and vacuous than ,say, Stephen Hawking and others of that scientific bent. Their starting point is a ‘big bang’. Very good. But what was there to be big banged? Nothingness? Or Somethingness? Their starting point is, if you like, just as vacuous, arrogant and ‘clever’ as any theologians.And perhaps even more blinkered because they just refuse to discuss the question of what was there to make the big bang!
In other words, it seems to me that they are acting ‘on faith’, and on no more solid a provable foundation than some people attribute to theologians.
But maybe TSFM will keep us right.
And you’re right about Doncaster, except that he would make a lousy Archbishop whether as philosopher, pragmatist, or theologian.
In my opinion! 🙂
John Clark says:
January 6, 2015 at 10:54 pm
—
Stephen Hawking is in a film, makes regular cameos on The Big Bang Theory and is a household name, but that doesn’t mean anything he has ever read or written will still be the subject of discussion 1200 years from now.
parttimearab says:
January 6, 2015 at 10:53 pm
0 0 Rate This
easyJambo says:
January 6, 2015 at 10:48 pm
0 0 Rate This
The Record’s back page. – Doomcaster flexing his muscles?
==========================================================
If true it’s taken him a while to notice…is that the third or fourth loan they’ve had to keep the lights on…I forget
———
Doncaster was apparently ‘grilling’ Llambias. I expect Derek said, ‘It’s all the SFA’s fault, guv.’
smallchange says:
January 6, 2015 at 10:14 pm
Bearing in mind the reaction to the man’s initial proclamation on 2nd Jan, and the probable deluge of emails to chairmen/owners of the other 41 clubs. Has anybody noted any responses at all from said clubs?
As usual the silence seems deafening. 🙁
—————————————————–
Actually – leaving aside festive season delays – I would expect this issue would require serious discussions and possibly a Board level discussion at football clubs so I am not in the least peturbed at this stage at no response.
I think that any club chief exec who made a comment on this issue without his Board approval should be fired and probably would be.
Will we ever get a response? I don’t know the answer to that but I live in hope. I am still working on my own response to my club and that entails me researching the original LNS material that Doncaster relies on.
I reckon that will take me a few days yet to finalise but hope to post something tomorrow here and see if there are any comments which further shape my thinking.
Richard Wilson: ‘admin least likely option’
Admin it is then.
Danish Pastry says:
January 6, 2015 at 11:02 pm
‘.Doncaster was apparently ‘grilling’ Llambias.’
—–
Sadly, guys like Ashley and his lackey Llambias know with killers’ instinct that Doncaster, the SPFL Board and the SFA are straw men, historically unable/ unwilling to challenge even an ersatz ‘ mighty ‘Gers’.
To be ‘grilled’ by Doncaster? Llambias would swat him aside as an ineffectual irrelevance.It’s not only Charles Green who can suss the orientation, and work the oracle.
There is not enough backbone of principle in the governing bodies of Scottish Football.And Ashley and Llambias and Leach [ and possibly Sarver] know it.
The SFA and the SPFL are floundering in a morass of their deceitful making, and have to stand by as mere spectators while the nonsense carries on.
Danish Pastry says:
January 6, 2015 at 11:02 pm
Doncaster was apparently ‘grilling’ Llambias
I saw what you did there :slamb:
easyJambo says:
January 6, 2015 at 10:48 pm
The Record’s back page. – Doomcaster flexing his muscles?
https://twitter.com/Record_Sport/status/552593007359578113
—————————————————————-
I don’t know about flexing his muscles – he should be demanding a bond be put in place to protect other clubs from any financial loss incurred if Rangers go down the Swannie.
AJ & eco…
Those who sit on the bench do not dispense ‘Justice’, rather, they pass Judgement. There are many, many cases where the ‘Judgement’ is most certainly not ‘Just’ but is lawful. A distinction, I feel, should never be far from mind.
easyJambo says:
January 6, 2015 at 10:16 pm
To be fair to LNS, he did try to define the ethereal club.
“it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time.”
So according to LNS a club comprises a brand name/trading name, contracts which even LNS admits cannot be entered into by the entity, employees again whose contracts can’t be entered into by the entity, and a ground which it can’t own or rent because it has no legal persona.
In short, it is something that anyone can latch onto as being the essence of a football club, without consideration or responsibilities for people, property, or financial matters.
===================================================================
This is one of the areas where LNS either carelessly or verly cleverly missed his direction.
We know Article 2 of the SPL defines ‘club’ as the undertaking of an association football club which, is for the time being, entitled, in accordance with the Rules, to participate in the League.
However SPL Rule 11 further defines this association football club to ‘include the owner and operator of such club’. We also know that the Member of the SPL can’t be the association football club.
An SPL Member, who holds a £1 share membership share in the SPL, can only be held by a person who is the owner and operator of a club. By definition a ‘person’ can also be a company both of which are legal entities.
So a club’s name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, are all assets held and owned by the owner and operator of the club. The club owns nothing and holds nothing.
I have finally realised that the ‘Club Myth’ is based on terms like the ‘Membership Club’ and the ‘Club Playing’ in the rule books. That however is utter garbage.
There is only one League Member or membership and that is held by the owner and operator not the club.
The club is nothing other than a word spelt C_L_U_B. We have allowed ourselved to be bedazzled by the word and the magic of eternal and ethereal qualities bestowed upon it by LNS, the SPL and the SFA.
We went searching for the complex answer – it doesn’t exist. the ‘club’ is merely a definition in the SPL, SPFL and SFA Rule Books. It doesn’t exist anywhere else but there.
SPL Rule A7.2 provides that League Membership will begin when the Club is admitted to the SPL and terminate when it ceases to be a Member.
We know that the club includes the owner and operator who hold the membership share so when they ceased to hold the SPL share when it was given to Dundee then the ‘Club’ ceased to exist. Nothing remained because the owner and operator was in admin and the League membership was cancelled.
All that was left is the dictionary definition of ‘Club’ in the SPL Rule Book which was identical for the 12 league clubs at the time.
LNS talks about the operator and owner of a club not playing on the field or words to that effect and states it’s the club that takes to the field.
This is used to imbue the word ‘club’ with some kind of function or purpose.
But tThe nearest I have ever seen to a club taking to the field is when its carried by a hockey or shinty player.
A club doesn’t play professional football. It’s the 11 players who play it and are under a contract of employment to the club’s owner/operator who pays their wages after deducting NI and tax and remitting it to HMRC – well sometimes 😆
A ‘club’ is simply a definition in the rule book how can it play a game of football?
What exactly is the wording of the spfl rule that (Doncaster, or was it Blair), yesterday said that rule ?? (Regarding the missed
N I payments) had NOT been broken ??
Sign early and sign often
“The fans signing this petition will no longer financially support this board.
They will no longer buy match tickets, purchase anything inside stadium, merchandise nor online subscriptions
We will however fully support an acceptable new regime by purchasing half year season tickets, match tickets, hospitality merchandise (on an improved deal) and online subscriptions.”
http://goo.gl/kYNm1K
Richard Wilson claims Admin least likely option ………agreed
He also claims it’s unlikely Ashley will provide more loans ……..don’t agree, in fact i think it is by far the most likely option.
Lets see who’s right ……….
and in contrast
“How London’s Left-Wing Utopian Non-League Ultras Are Reclaiming Football”
http://goo.gl/sgNKVZ
Meant to say that the :slamb: emoticon for lamb-munching churnalists is just not working…
or is it TSFM’s idea of a subtle joke ?!
I think we should be told ! 😉
Barcabhoy says:
January 7, 2015 at 12:27 am
Richard Wilson claims Admin least likely option ………agreed
He also claims it’s unlikely Ashley will provide more loans ……..don’t agree, in fact i think it is by far the most likely option.
Lets see who’s right ……….
—————————————————-
The bit that intrigues me is if Ashley keeps shelling out loans there must be an end-point when there’s no security left to attach.
Obviously a share release could resolve that problem but if a disapplication res isn’t passed that means the shareholders at that point have to raise all the cash. Will they?
jimlarkin says:
January 7, 2015 at 12:18 am
What exactly is the wording of the spfl rule that (Doncaster, or was it Blair), yesterday said that rule ?? (Regarding the missed N I payments) had NOT been broken ??
——————————————————————–
You’ll find the various rules on BarcaBhoy’s twitter @BarcaBhoy and I posted them on here earlier for someone if you go back a bit.
Barcabhoy says:
January 7, 2015 at 12:27 am
‘.Richard Wilson claims Admin least likely option ………agreed
He also claims it’s unlikely Ashley will provide more loans ……..don’t agree’
—————-
One of the serious questions that the ‘saga’ has thrown up is that of the objectivity and reliability for truth of BBC Radio Scotland ( and perhaps of BBC Scotland TV, to a lesser extent)
I for one simply disbelieve that anything I hear from Richard Wilson, or anyone on BBC Radio Scotland, about the ‘saga’ even approximates ‘objective’ truth. The guys can’t help it.They are supporters of what was RFC ( now in liquidation) and therefore cannot be objective.
They have nothing of value to say to me of any more credence than any poster on a Rangers fans’forum, unless my own researches can confirm it.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-boss-derek-llambias-gives-4930632
Jackson on Llambias and personal guarantees to Doncaster Rangers won’t go bust.
And also some interesting bits about next loan required for next week.
Wrt Llambias’ supposed assurances to Doncaster;
“We have inherited a mess from the previous management…
Rangers will be playing at Ibrox long after we are all dead and buried. The club is not going under. I can assure everybody that, whatever happens, in the worst-case scenario, Rangers will still be here.”
Erm, except that the above quote actually came from the lips of one Craig Whyte…and declared several short months before Rangers was indeed lodged in liquidation. 😕
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2011/sep/12/craig-whyte-rangers
That’s the problem with verbal assurances – they’re not worth the paper they’re written on.
ecobhoy says:
January 7, 2015 at 12:14 am
On the definition of club: Apart from the fact LNS was not commissioned to make a judgement on the matter, so was only expressing his opinion without back up (a point already made)in order to justify Oldco being judged at all on ebts, it seems to me that the final authority should lie in football rules and that such rules should be guided by UEFA then FIFA going up the authority ladder if they have supplied such guidance.
Given what is ultimately at stake here is the integrity of football competition in Scotland then what UEFA has to say about that surely must hold sway?
The relevant Article on the matter is Article 12 which says
Chapter 2: Licence Applicant and Licence
Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant
1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity FULLY responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions which
either:
a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league (hereinafter: registered member);
or
b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football company).
2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any
alteration to the club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on
sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a
competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (IF ANY) within the meaning of this provision.
My reading of that is that ND is right in that some clubs do have a owning or holding company construct and UEFA cater for it in their rules above.
Indeed it is probably the case (although it would be good to see the documentation) that TRFC and RIFC enjoy such a contractual relationship since 2012.
I am far from convinced however that such documentation exists in respect of the Rangers FC that is now in the course of being liquidated.
I understand Rangers FC (Oldco) were listed as a subsidiary of MIH but does that mean a contractual relationship supported by documentation existed between MIH and Rangers (Oldco) or indeed John Lawrence Builders before Murray took over?
The idea that MIH were FULLY responsible for the football team seems absurd but would be supported if the UEFA Licences were handed out to MIH and not Rangers (Oldco)!
I cannot say for sure that they were but I seriously doubt it and my betting is UEFA saw Rangers as an entity covered by para (a) in Article 12 and not para (b).
Thus when Rangers went into liquidation they were the club as UEFA defines it and their authority in terms of upholding the integrity of our domestic competition had better take precedence over anything LNS said in the narrow context of his Decision (whether Doncaster got that wrong or not.
If I have read Art 12 wrong can someone put me straight?
If I have it right how many reasons do we have no for discounting LNS on this matter?
1. He was not directly commissioned to make that judgement.
2. Doncaster only used the parts that suited his claim.
3. LNS was misled from the outset in its main commission on ebts by the failure to supply requested evidence that would have enabled those commissioning to make a distinction between ebts already judged irregular by an FTT and those still under appeal by HMRC. As such its findings which skew football integrity should be set aside.
4. UEFA have given guidance on protecting the integrity of competitions that should not only take precedence over what LNS said in the same club context but should actually be adopted into SFA Articles.
Flabbergasted, utterly dumbfounded that, even with Murdoch’s Millions, the gunners still feel they can be charging nearly 3 figures for a numb-bum in the Emirates.
“Compare this to Arsenal’s £97 on the gate and £4.40 for a Carlsberg.”
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/dulwich-hamlet-non-league-football-109?utm_source=vicetwitteruk
There’s something far, far wrong and not just in football. ‘Mon the Hamlet, vive la revolucion!!
More puff pieces today, although most surround Alastair Johnston. Apparently he is demanding the SFA investigate Mike Ashley as ‘he has concerns over the governance of the club’. In any other country the media may point out the governance issues that existed in Johnston’s time at Ibrox, but instead we get nothing but fawning adulation.
Tomorrow I expect to see:
– Alastair Johnston announces the world is flat
– Dave King reveals the moon is made of green cheese
– Douglas Park announces babies are actually delivered by Storks
Sportsound and Radio Clyde will then spend their entire shows trying to maintain that all three are perfectly correct in what they are saying, just because they are ‘real’ Rangers men, who cannot be wrong about anything at all.
James Doleman says:
January 7, 2015 at 12:33 am
12
0
Rate This
and in contrast
“How London’s Left-Wing Utopian Non-League Ultras Are Reclaiming Football”
http://goo.gl/sgNKVZ
—————————————–
Thanks James – Best thing I’ve read for a long time.
If my pal Shug reads this, he may just give up his Fulham season book!
If they played in Scotland I would go
as much as I could.
So reassuring in these days of corporate greed, financial doping and sleekit agreements!
James Doleman says:
January 7, 2015 at 12:33 am
12 0 Rate This
and in contrast
“How London’s Left-Wing Utopian Non-League Ultras Are Reclaiming Football”
http://goo.gl/sgNKVZ
———
I can relate to this, James. Back to basics fitba, though don’t need the booze myself.
Rarely even switch channel to watch the EPL on offer these days. The early FA Cup rounds are probably closest they get to spirit in the article.
Regarding that petition from SoS, you get the impression they’ll still be trying to oust Ashley in 2020. No one among them courageous enough to debunk the myth and start their own fan-run club.
Bearing in mind the reaction to the man’s initial proclamation on 2nd Jan, and the probable deluge of emails to chairmen/owners of the other 41 clubs. Has anybody noted any responses at all from said clubs?
As usual the silence seems deafening
—————————————–
Nothing from Clyde yet. I accept it might take time to word their response, but a wee bit disappointed there has been no acknowledgement of receipt of my question.
easyJambo says:
January 6, 2015 at 10:16 pm
To be fair to LNS, he did try to define the ethereal club.
“it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time.”
__________________
Ah, I get it now, a club is a pile of papers (contracts) lying on the ground in a football stadium that has a name on it!
Am I the only one with the impression that, faced with the absurd notion of having to define a club that couldn’t die, he decided to define it in an absurd fashion?
Auldheid says:
January 7, 2015 at 2:28 am
ecobhoy says:
January 7, 2015 at 12:14 am
If I have read Art 12 wrong can someone put me straight?
If I have it right how many reasons do we have no for discounting LNS on this matter?
1. He was not directly commissioned to make that judgement.
2. Doncaster only used the parts that suited his claim.
3. LNS was misled from the outset in its main commission on ebts by the failure to supply requested evidence that would have enabled those commissioning to make a distinction between ebts already judged irregular by an FTT and those still under appeal by HMRC. As such its findings which skew football integrity should be set aside.
4. UEFA have given guidance on protecting the integrity of competitions that should not only take precedence over what LNS said in the same club context but should actually be adopted into SFA Articles
————————————————————
As always you raise interesting issues but unusually I am going in a different direction but that by no means indicates that I think you are necessarily wrong and I won’t even attempt to set you straight 🙂
I simply want to focus on what the word ‘club’ actually means in the Rule Book and what it meant to the LNS Commission and how it has been twisted by others like Doncaster to suit ulterior purposes.
Your remit is much wider and more complex than mine but hopefully my efforts can assist towards the greater task.
So we are left with:
LNS was directly commissioned to make a decision on various issues under the applicable rules which, in his opinion, applied at that time to Scottish Football.
I accept that he was not directly commissioned to deal with the UEFA issue you raise but as I have said I don’t see that as a barrier to my argument.
However as it actually forms part of my thinking let’s look at:
The Rangers Football Club Plc was the legal entity recognised by the SFA and SPL as being fully responsible for a football team as ‘operator and owner’ which participated in national and international competitions.
The licence issues which arises from the ‘Wee Tax Case’ does not invalidate the generality of the prior statement IMO.
The Rangers Football Club Ltd was obviously a wholly-owned subsidiary of MIH the group holding company but that didn’t make MIH ‘a football club’ under SFA, SPL or UEFA Rules.
Turning to:
The Rangers Football Club Plc was a registered member of the SPL and the SFA – David Murray either as a person or through a holding company wasn’t. That’s because the owner and operator of a football club must be a member of the SPL by holding one of its £1 shares and in Rangers case the holder was The Rangers Football Club Plc which means (b) obviously can’t apply.
You state:
Actually all SPL Clubs by definition under the SPL Rule Book had to have an owner and operator company construct – IIRC ‘holding company’ wasn’t used in the SPL rule book wrt to league membership nor in the new SPFL rules.
I will come back with a slightly more polished version of my claim that a ‘club’ is only a definition in an archaic rule book but I thought it worth laying the ground to some extent wrt to your own post.
StevieBC says:
January 7, 2015 at 1:05 am
That’s the problem with verbal assurances – they’re not worth the paper they’re written on.
==========================
Fortunately Doncaster is a qualified man trained and experienced in the commercial/contract side of the business world so he would have required any such verbal communication to be confirmed in writing otherwise he couldn’t really report back to the board, could he? I wouldn’t have dared to do otherwise. Day two of any such commercial training would have him know that if there was any reluctance for such assurance in writing he needs to go into print to confirm his understanding and request agreement, I’m being facetious but it’s pretty basic stuff.
Allyjambo says:
January 7, 2015 at 8:56 am
easyJambo says:
January 6, 2015 at 10:16 pm
To be fair to LNS, he did try to define the ethereal club.
“it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time.”
__________________
Ah, I get it now, a club is a pile of papers (contracts) lying on the ground in a football stadium that has a name on it!
Am I the only one with the impression that, faced with the absurd notion of having to define a club that couldn’t die, he decided to define it in an absurd fashion?
——————————————————————-
I am more and more coming to believe that a lot of bampots – and I include myself in this – got it wrong and actually helped create the enduring club myth.
We also failed to prevent or seriously damage the PR Campaign which was mounted to establish the continuing club argument.
I am trying to go back to basics on this and establish what a club actually is and what it isn’t as per the rule books.
Maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree as well as barking at the Moon or just simply barking.
But I see things much more simply than before although to be fair I have always previously steered away from the OC/NC argument by and large.
Every member of the SPFL is a ‘club’ and perhaps it really is time we knew exactly what that means.
———————————-
Ha ha. I used to have a pal who was in marketing before buying his soul back! He used to describe his job as, “If the board say black is white then its my job to convince the world that they are right and everyone else is wrong!”
Also I can just imagine Neil Doncaster grilling Derek Llambias.
ND Are you going bust?
DL No. We have a series of austerity measures already in place. We are pleased to welcome fan representation via the 4bears to the board as long as they a/ put up significant funds as we are and b/ operate at board level in a manner that suits the new philosophy of this club. Players will be sold and expensive hangers told to pay up or pi$$ off. Budgets will be balanced and loan funds brought in to ensure flexible liquidity is maintained. Overall I see a bright, sustainable future for this club albeit with shortened more realistic expectations.
ND (slams fists on table). The hell you will!
A snippet from Johnston in this record article- http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/former-rangers-chairman-sounds-alarm-4931847
All that lovely arrogance has clearly not mellowed over the years. There also appears to be logical disconnect between the first part of that “screw Rangers at your peril” and the second part, easily summarised as -a load of chancers have screwed us over, and it’s only Rangers that ìs suffering.
The truth is that everyone can see that not only do you not screw Rangers at your peril, screwing Rangers is in fact an extremely profitable pastime. Unless you are a smart “institutional investor” of course. Because in that case, you get screwed too.
Charles Green must be laughing his socks off as he watches his legacy unravel in the hands of his successors. He definitely got out of Dodge just before the shooting started.
Regarding the theological peregrinations last evening. I would venture that the hermeneutics of Sevconian or best found in the Catholic Anarchist groups in particular the writings of Peter Maurin The key things relevant here are voluntary poverty, not believing in the profit system, opposition to usury in any form, corporal works of mercy perhaps less relevant are pacifism and Being Catholic.
Additionally there is an intention to keep away from the State and not relying on it.
Augustine (not medieval I know) is very good on the Big Bang (an idea from a catholic priest)
Believing that medieval theologians started from ‘ there is a God therefore’ rather than reaching a point which is ‘therefore there is a God’ is analogous with the Rangers believer, substitute Rangers for God above and you will see what I mean….then please explain it to me as I have lost the thread…
My guess is that Llambias’ assurance to Doncaster was along the lines of:
DL “Don’t worry Neil, Mike isn’t going to let this nice little earner slip through is fingers, nuf said ?”
ND “nuf said !”
Re. Johnstone’s comments: “Screw Rangers at your peril” – and yet they get to screw everyone with impunity? Unpaid bills, threats, boycotts, etc…
Out of all the things in the world, I hate hypocrisy the most. I have no problem with “a” Rangers, playing out of Ibrox etc IF they are treated (and indeed treat others) equally, and I have nothing but respect for “real” Bluenoses who subscribe to this – but it also means there’s a certain schadenfreude with Mssrs Whyte, Ashley & Green (my favourite WAGs) et al doing what spivs do…
Regarding the assurances sought and apparently given, I’m reminded of the assurances given by one Lawrie McMenemy to the fans of Sunderland AFC as he took over in 1985 (then playing in the second division (second tier) of the English league) “I will lead this club out of the second division”.
Nobody thought to press him further – and Sunderland found themselves in the third division (third tier) of English football for the first time in their history for the 1987-8 season.
Wonder if Neil asked “will you go into administration?” and Derek replied “no” (whilst simultaneously thinking “because we’ll go straight for liquidation this time”)
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/305651-who-owns-rangers-our-detailed-breakdown-of-the-shareholders-at-ibrox/
What STV claim to be an up to date list of the major shareholders in RIFC. What? No Ally? He can’t have cashed out, can he? Surely not.
Call me simplistic but . .
Its the thingy playing with a ball that is the ‘club’
Regardless of any financial/business constructs in place. .
The pertinent point is that the ‘thingy’ that benefits on the pitch from the financial/business arrangements (Whether sound book balancing style or egomaniacal sugar daddy entitlement style) is also the ‘thingy’ that suffers when the financial/business construct struggles . . . Or
implodes , ahem.
This I believe is how the majority of fans perceive a ‘club’ . . And crucially how they expect “THEIR CLUB” to be perceived and treated . .
With ONE obvious exception. . . ! !
I personally accept at face value that if Llambias personally guaranteed that Rangers won’t go bust then it won’t and that means that Ashley is there for the longer haul. I don’t think he’s going anywhere in a hurry.
Everyone knows the connection between Llambias and Ashley and unless Llambia has gone ‘native’ like so many before then Ashley wouldn’t want his reputation damaged or destroyed if it turned out that Llambiad was spouting porkies rather than finest lamb.
Of course anything from the SMSM has to be handled with asbestos gloves and it all depends on the wording of the question put to Llambias by Doncaster and the exact wording of the reply.
However if it was radically different from what is reported then Llambias has obligations to correct any incorrect impressions or lies that have been propagated by Ra Meeja.
I wonder which side the leak came from or was it a mutual accord?
Gordon Smith (for it is he) coming up on Talksport … after 11am UK time.
Folk are wondering why Ashley may keep pumping money into a ship that’s holed. Is it not just simply the case that he is securing his retail and advertising contacts and playing a ‘will he won’t he’ game of running things close to the wire financially to smoke out the Rangers Men so they can take up the slack when he decides he has it all wrapped up.
Giving loans gives you a lot more bargaining power than simply entering a standard contact.
The problem is that King showed his hand early by stating he and others would be happy to provide soft loans. Like any good con or one sided business deal Ashley is just waiting to get to the point where he can part the fools from their money being they will end up having to take the strain while Ashley sits back pulling the strings.
Call me simplistic but . .
Its the thingy playing with a ball that is the ‘club’
Regardless of any financial/business
constructs in place. .
The pertinent point is that the ‘thingy’ that benefits on the pitch from the financial/business arrangements (Whether sound book balancing style or egomaniacal sugar daddy entitlement style) must also be the ‘thingy’ that suffers when the financial/business construct struggles . . . Or
implodes , ahem.
This I believe is how the majority of fans perceive a ‘club’ . . And crucially how they expect “THEIR CLUB” to be perceived and treated . .
With ONE obvious exception. . . ! !
@parttimearab
======
From wikipaedia:
So one club put up a bond of 3/4 a million and still get punished, another just have to say “don’t worry”. (Also look at the size discrepancy between the two clubs – Rangers would need a bond for several million to match Livvy’s).
Not that I’m excusing Livingstone’s mismanagement but the treatment ought to be the same regardless of the size of the clubs.
Oops . . Apologies for the double posting with the (unecessary?) edit . .
Still a rank amateur at this lark I’m afraid. . 😆
STV Sport @STVSport · 12m 12 minutes ago
SFA to introduce vanishing spray to Scottish football later this year http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/aberdeen/305675-sfa-to-introduce-vanishing-spray-to-scottish-football-later-this-year/ …
They will need a helluva lot to make their problems with Truth and Integrity vanish!
easyJambo says:
January 6, 2015 at 10:48 pm
The Record’s back page. – Doomcaster flexing his muscles?
……………………….
EJ…lets not forget the SFA also have the power to inspect the clubs books…to satisfy themselves that what they are being told is correct.
jockybhoy says:
January 7, 2015 at 10:36 am
13 1 Rate This
but it also means there’s a certain schadenfreude with Mssrs Whyte, Ashley & Green (my favourite WAGs) et al doing what spivs do…
====================================================================================
Jockybhoy…I see what you did there… 🙂
Doncaster’s Blue Dress
Bill Clinton famously stated on national TV; “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” But we all know about “the stained blue dress”.
In case you are wondering, in the Paula Jones perjury case the Independent Counsel’s Office offered Clinton a rather unusual definition of “sexual relations” that excluded the very act at issue (Deposition Exhibit 1). This meant Bill could deny the act without perjuring himself.
As we know, definitions are so very important in Scottish football: “bigot” (fr, old), “club” (scots, new) etc.
So what did Doncaster mean by “administration” when interrogating Llambias and over what time scale: voluntary administration, unplanned administration, HMRC induced administration, this week, next week, this month, next month.
And which SPFL rule covers telling financial porkies to a willing audience? And what is the penalty?
wottpi says:
January 7, 2015 at 11:08 am
Folk are wondering why Ashley may keep pumping money into a ship that’s holed.
,,,,,
IMO
The name of the game is simple
Keep lending in dribs and drabs with ever more onerous conditions. Eventually the lender is such a big Creditor he can orchestrate a Prepack Liquidation of RIFC that gets him all the assets in a Newco with 100% ownership. The rest of the shareholders get stuffed. The onerous contracts get rewritten in his favour for the foreseeable future thereafter; austerity is the name of the game. When the original debt is “repaid” (meaning “repaid plus onerous contracts “) there is some relaxation of austerity but not so much that the business is running at a loss. Useless players from NUFC are loaned to TRFC to optimise the accounting needs of both NUFC and TRFC
If any genuine Bears offer to lend money for working capital it will be accepted providing there are no conditions that can prevent the game plan
Without an immediate liquidation of RIFC the 4Bs are doomed to lose their investment
Since
Ashley controls the appointment of new RIFC Directors and can`t be outvoted on a simple majority decision
Ashley controls whether any loan offered by the 4Bs will be approved by the Board
Sarver is Ashley’s man using Ashley’s money to do Ashley’s bidding.
Probably in exchanges for some quid pro quo related to Sports Direct International
So
If Ashley or Sarver make the next loan the 4Bs and the Onerous Spivs are doomed to lose out completely.
They ought to be getting together to make a deal that instructs the Easedales to switch sides and vote for an immediate Liquidation of RIFC
If not
Only the SFA or the TRFC Fans can stop Ashley and Sarver implementing their game plan
The SFA could suspend the license and force Liquidation of RIFC and TRFC. Any Newco which applied for the license would have to be owned by a group acceptable to the SFA
Alternatively (but unlikely)
The ordinary TRFC Fans could unite around their preferred Newco to force liquidation of TRFC through a lengthy and unprecedented boycott of Ibrox
mcfc says:
January 7, 2015 at 12:12 pm
It could also depend upon which entity Llambias was talking about, RIFC or TRFC. I can easily come up with scenarios involving the Administration and/or Liquidation of one, the other, both or neither.
On the vexing Club issue. Perhaps what we are seeing is the “Club” being reduced to the sum of its IP and treated as a brand.
Perhaps what is required is the outlawing of the term “Club” from professional Footballing businesses. Football “Clubs” ceased to be clubs in the true sense of the term a very long time ago. We fan are not members of Celtic, or Hearts or even Rangers Football Club(s), we are customers, nothing more, nothing less. Some of us are also shareholders, but being a shareholder in a Football “Club” doesn’t convey any additional status, that a shareholder in Tesco doesn’t also enjoy.
Time for a petition to parliament, for a change in the law to prevent professional football businesses being described as “Clubs”, unless they genuinely are Clubs, owned by their members?
STV Sport @STVSport · 12m 12 minutes ago
SFA to introduce vanishing spray to Scottish football later this year http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/aberdeen/305675-sfa-to-introduce-vanishing-spray-to-scottish-football-later-this-year/ …
Can we not just cover Willie Collum in it??
mcfc………thanks for the image of Doncaster in a blue dress. i feel like i need to wash my brain out.
it would take some brass neck to say no plans for admin is straight to liquidation was the ploy, even for Llambias.
i wonder if Ashley’s plan is now to let the 3 Bears and King fund things while he continues to cream off cash from his onerous contracts. i never thought he wanted full ownership, with his contracts and men on the board why would he need that?
Consistency is Over Rated
Isn’t it quaint that the matter of RIFC’s continued existence is the subject of a brief SPFL to CEO tete-a-tete whilst the matter of Ashley’s shareholding was a matter for a formal, unanimous SFA judgement and statement, and the matter of Ashley’s “influence” over a football club is the matter of an SFA hearing later this month.
World’s Gone Mad !
http://www.dpa-international.com/news/sports2/refilegerman-amateur-club-has-fifa-ordered-demotion-nullified-in-court-a-43747851.html
Of interest re the recent Telfer ruling? Certainly shows that German clubs aren’t afraid to take FIFA to their domestic courts.
GoosyGoosy says:
January 7, 2015 at 12:30 pm
I would accept probably everything you say. The only thing I would pick-up on is: ‘They ought to be getting together to make a deal that instructs the Easedales to switch sides and vote for an immediate Liquidation of RIFC’.
Problem with that is their personal shareholding isn’t much and they only have one vote on the RIFC Board.
Their power of course is in doing their Masters’ bidding via proxy – but what way will the anonymous offshore investors decide is in their best interests.
Without knowing who they are it’s impossible to make an educated guess as to what best suits their agenda and it might well lie with supporting Ashley IMO.
So I’m not sure that the Easdales make much difference to the Big Picture.
Shocking terrorist attack in Paris – possibly 12 dead including 10 journalists and two police officers.
Certainly looks like an extremist Islamist attack.
Black Day for Freedom of the Press.
Just on the Livvie thing earlier can someone confirm what division Livvie were demoted from, and to, and on what basis. I get a bit confuddled when the leagues also change names. Thanks.
Quick Question. (or maybe not so quick, and maybe more than one)
In the event of liquidation can we predict with any certainty how creditors would currently line up?
At this stage can we surmise who would be left holding what? With the shareholding very much split between opposing camps what would happen to Ibrox (Whyte’s FC not withstanding)?
Was it King Solomon who ordered an infant to be cut in half when it was claimed by two mothers?
Scottish football needs wise men.
Without appearing to be a smart ears. My new gardener is 15th on the list, unless it’s a cousin, father, grandpa, or that wee dug he has.
My apologies if stv have changed the list at MA’s request.
Keep Up Stevie Mate !
Who owns Rangers? Our detailed breakdown of the shareholders at Ibrox http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/305651-who-owns-rangers-our-detailed-breakdown-of-the-shareholders-at-ibrox/
This is the website for Rangers International Football Club plc, . . ..
The following information set out below is being disclosed for the purposes of Rule 26 of the AIM Rules for Companies:
http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/share-information
Oldham signing Evans acc to Sky and also reporting the shirt sponsor has already bailed.
More pressure on Mr Ashley.
Eoinel Jessi says:
January 7, 2015 at 1:16 pm
Was it King Solomon who ordered an infant to be cut in half when it was claimed by two mothers? Scottish football needs wise men.
============================================================
Sounds as though Scottish Football is looking for a sacrifial infant.
Livingston’s demotion is somewhat irrelevant in relation to any penalty T”Rangers would expect today for admin as they were subject to now defunct SFL rules.
However as I and others discussed long time ago on RTC accepting T’Rangers into the SFL should have come with a bond condition, similar to Livingston, that could have still been transfered and enforced by the SPFL if necessary.