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.
Asking Walter Smith to take over at Rangers is like inviting the termites back in to chew up what’s left of the house.
Also demonstrates the lack of analytical thought in the game itself.
Just noticed the snow flakes. Very nice 😮
Reflecting further on one of Mr Somers statements….
Somers said the board had found a “lot of dodgy” deals when they came in just over a year ago, revealing some “watertight” ones would be honoured, some had been renegotiated and “in a lot of cases we have said: ‘We will see you in court'”.
“in a lot of cases”….just how many of these things were there ❓ ❓ ❓
Also confirms what Phil said some time ago about some of the onerous contracts being unbreakable except in the case of liquidation.
TSFM, love the snowflake effects.
redlichtie says:
December 22, 2014 at 6:43 pm
Good article although I always preferred Chico Marx using that line gloriously in his Italian accent in “A Night At the Opera” in the classic ‘contract scene’ between him and Groucho: ‘Ah you canna fool me, I know there ain’t no Sanity Clause!’ ……. genius.
Anyway back to business.
‘The Rangers’ have now backed themselves into a corner where there is only one pay master in town.
If the SFA block Ashley will the remaining shareholders crash the bus, or set fire to the bus, just to force the fans to go through the journey again.
The fans don’t like the board.
The fans don’t like Ashley.
The fans are now staying away but that will only truly become apparent after Christmas as all clubs suffer a down turn in attendance at this time of the year. Of course I’m attempting to be optimistic as a downturn in 10K plus is serious.
By all accounts today’s performance by the board at the AGM will have done nothing to have the faithful returning so where do they go from here?
If there has to be more loans what security will have to be put up?
I wouldn’t be surprised if Mike Ashley voted against Res 9 today he has not purchased new shares since his original investment. He bought shares a week after the last share issue in a private sale so that the money didn’t go to the club. It does not suit Mike Ashley for the club to receive money when he is the only person that can supply money which in turn re-enforces his grip on the business.
If the business attempt to go elsewhere then any money received will have to pay Mike back his £3M and he still has his merchandising deal so he is no worse off. More importantly any money invested by the Blue Knights will see the business back in exactly the same position in twelve months with Mike still waiting there. This is because the Blue Knights have no interest in make the business break even. They will have one massive push for Euro glory and if that fails then the business is bust again.
This is the fundamental problem now facing this business. It is now caught in a death spiral where it needs money to survive but to survive it must cut costs. The business, if it is to compete, MUST have access to all revenue streams and it no longer has that. This in turn eats into it’s ability to compete which in turn drives away the fan base which cost the business money and that drives it back for more loans.
This now only ends one way and that is with an impoverished business with poor merchandising sales, a poor playing squad, and an ever deteriorating stadium.
They say you reap what you sow, well if that is the case, this harvest has been nearly three years in the making but it is the grim reaper who will be cutting the crop.
joburgt1m says:
December 22, 2014 at 8:36 pm
3 0 Rate This
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?
If any individual or “concert party” ( I.e. parties acting together) take an interest of greater than 30%, he/they must make an offer in cash for all remaining shares at the highest price paid in the previous 12 months.
I’m sure Mike’s numbers boys won’t let that happen though.
Auldheid says:
December 22, 2014 at 8:40 pm
==================================
There seems a real reluctance to move on and instead see the solution to always go back to a more successful era in the belief it will be repeated. In particular there seems to be an abject fear of the club being run in a self sufficient way. This fear seems rife among fans, ex-players, ex-directors and ex-managers who all benefited through the fantasy years of Bank of Scotland ‘sponsorship’ and EBT’s. It’s a bit like an addict who won’t admit they have a problem.
@ModgePKR says:
December 22, 2014 at 9:01 pm
=======================
They would be forced to make a cash offer for the other 70% of the shares under the takeover code. That’s why they would be very careful to stop at 29.5% or 29.9%
http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/the-code/download-code
When a person or group acquires interests in shares carrying 30% or more of the voting rights of a company, they must make a cash offer to all other shareholders at the highest price paid in the 12 months before the offer was announced (30% of the voting rights of a company is treated by the Code as the level at which effective control is obtained).
jean7brodie says:
December 22, 2014 at 8:59 pm
9 3 Rate This
TSFM, love the snowflake effects.
===================================
I thought my eye floaters had gone into overdrive!
So what’s Llambias going to offer the SFA (and the member clubs) tomorrow and what does he want?
“We’ll cut costs and make TRFC a sustainable business. We’ll make shady characters go away. We’ll sell our 29.9% shares to Blue Nights asap and certainly before they get a chance to compete against NUFC in Europe. We’ll only keep our own onerous contracts”.
“No fine, no points penalty for Admin. if we need to do it. No historical investigations. No conditions on loaning an entire squad from NUFC.A Grade 1 referee for the play-offs. Our money from the SPFL. Cup draws, ground rentals…”
upthehoops says:
December 22, 2014 at 9:04 pm
I’ve thought about this often, questioning all my RFC supporting mates & trying to understand the psychology of why it’s necessary for Rangers, as a business, to be continually spending money they don’t have. And logically, following on from that is posing the most obvious question, why can’t they simply live within their means?
This is especially prescient of course, because their traditional rivals Celtic, have been doing this since Seville & every Celtic fan knows that at some point, every player is available for sale.
So, why then, can’t they only spend what they earn………answer: because they cannot accept that Celtic would be a bigger club & potentially earn more than them, hence the need for war chests & sugar daddies.It is what Tony Robbins defines as a “need for significance”….
Entitlement, superiority & hubris….a deadly mixture.
parttimearab says:
December 22, 2014 at 8:55 pm
======================================================
Quite
Auldheid says:
December 22, 2014 at 8:40 pm
If I have learnt anything over the last couple of years it is this:
Whenever the situation concerns Rangers, anyone involved in the running of Scottish Football, automatically loses 50 IQ points
The real question is why the Spiv Shareholders blocked the decision to dis apply pre –emption rights when they had showed little support for a rights issue in Sept 2014
There is really only one explanation
In Sept 2014 the majority RIFC Spivs were the major Creditor of TRFC and as such would acquire ownership of the assets in the event of TRFC being liquidated. These assets included Edmiston House, Ibrox and MP
By Dec 2014 the same group of Spivs faced the prospect of sharing 75% of Edmiston House with Ashley in the event of TRFC being liquidated
And
If Resolution9 had been approved and Ashley acquired 29.9% the same group of Spivs faced the prospect of sharing 75% of Edmiston house and 50% of Ibrox and MP in the event of TRFC being liquidated
So
The Spivs get a bigger piece of the pie if they go for liquidation now rather than wait until Ashley has increased his shareholding or debt
If so
Step1 is to reject any further loans from Ashley and fire Ashleys CEO if he resists
Step2 is to apply for MVL with a friendly Liquidator
Step3 is to invite DK to buy or rent the assets and form a Newco
WRT to easyjambo’s post of the Sons of Struth leaked e-mail from David Somers to Justin Barnes. Parttimearab also notes that “Justin Barnes is an ex-director of SD and still I think does consultancy work for them….seems to specialise in trademarks…”
The gist of the e-mail is that Somers is chiding Barnes for changing what he believed was a deal they had agreed the previous day. He even threatens to vote to terminate the SD contract “even though it is likely to be one of the last board meetings Sandy and I attend.”
The reason for this view is perhaps set out earlier in the e-mail : Justin Barnes is told by Somers that if Dave King’s proposal is accepted and he secures Board seats “you can vote them off at the next AGM”.
How can this be? Who is Justin Barnes representing? SD (a less than 10% shareholder)? Some other (overseas?) investors? A concert party led by SD with other investors? The implication from the e-mail suggests he is working on an SD contract negotiation for what that is worth.
The MA desire to remove directors from the Board was noted during the loan arrangement process. At that time this appeared to be a condition of the loan, formally or not, and was agreed by the Board.
This however is different – according to Somers, Barnes apparently has the power to remove people from the Board through the shareholder voting process. If Barnes is acting on behalf of SD, a possibly not unreasonable assumption in the circumstances, then surely we now have prima facie if not de facto evidence of MA’s strong if not complete influence over the management of RIFC/TRFC?
I trust that the SFA will take note of this situation and raise this further evidence with MA/SD during their exchange of festive good wishes tomorrow.
I also note Somers comment on the Dave King proposal that his board “are clamouring for a board call to discuss it and no doubt approve it”. How does this square with his statement that King’s proposal fell at the first due diligence hurdle over the issue of transparency? The irony of such a stance is of course lost on RIFC/TRFC!
King in fact seemed to believe that he had an agreement on how such things were to be handled with Sandy Easdale :
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/9568874/rangers-chairman-david-somers-says-dave-king-offer-did-not-meet-due-diligence-requirements
Scottish Football is going to need a multi-year Truth & Reconciliation Commission after all of this is finally settled!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30583740
Another serious road accident
Cygnus X-1 says:
December 22, 2014 at 9:54 pm
Entitlement, superiority & hubris….a deadly mixture.
____________________________________________________________
We’ve seen the hubris. And now we’re seeing the scandals.
(Gergen)
According to Richard Wilson on Twitter, Somers has said that the company is refusing to pay sums due under some onerous contracts, and will see them in court.
I wonder who these creditors are, and why none have gone to court yet?
Cygnus X-1 @9:54pm
=====================
When Celtic built a 60k capacity ground Murray spoke publicly for some time about increasing Ibrox to greater than that. I’m guessing he couldn’t persuade anyone to part with the millions for it. I often wonder if Murray Park was ever actually paid for as well, given the amount of debt Murray shuffled around his group of companies, hundreds of millions of which the bank effectively wrote off.
Ahh…the “holding company” is into the equation – AGAIN
. . . . .
Analysis – Douglas Fraser: BBC Scotland’s business & economy editor
“Rangers badly needs cash – not for investment, but simply to stay solvent from month to month,
“The only people likely to provide it are either going to demand very high interest rates, because of the risk of default, or because they’re passionate about the club, or because it could give them control.
“A company can go back to shareholders, offering them the right to buy shares in proportion to their existing holding to ensure no-one’s shareholding need be diluted.
“But the need for investment is such that the directors believed they needed to go much further with a big bang issue of new shares, giving more power to one or more new investors while diluting the power of existing ones.
“Given the unhappy recent history of dominant shareholders at Ibrox, there’s too much suspicion of directors for that to get past the annual general meeting, this year or last.
“So it’s back to those other options; seeking out short-term and expensive loans: or asking existing shareholders to find new funds for the club (after seeing the share price fall from 93p to 18p in the two years since the holding company floated): or looking to a rich individual who has an interest in gaining a controlling interest.
“That’s where Mike Ashley is key. The Sports Direct boss has nearly 10% of shares, and a merchandising partnership. His man, Derek Llambias, has just been made chief executive.
“He’s already bankrolled Rangers on apparently attractive terms. And he’s got pots more money to keep doing so, though that would require an ever-bigger security over the assets.
“At least one problem is that he’s got to get past the Scottish FA, which wants an explanation for what appears to be his controlling interest in both Rangers and Newcastle United.
“Unfortunately for the SFA, Mike Ashley could turn round and force them to face their own dilemma; either let him continue to invest in Rangers, thus taking control, or let one of thei
Trust BBC Radio Scotland to remain partisan in their reporting of all things TRFC/RIFC plc!
I heard two news bulletins tonight referring to tomorrow’s SFA/Llambias meeting.In each, the phrase ‘the SFA is reluctant to allow Ashley more than a 10% share’was used.
How does the BBC know that? Has Regan used such a phrase in public? Or has he told them privately?
And if they do NOT know, why do they feel they can report it as a fact?
All anybody KNOWS is what the rules currently say, and that the SFA want to discuss matters relating to the rules.
It is so like BBC Radio Scotland to try to influence matters in favour of the already most favoured new club there ever has been!
There was a very disgruntled TRFC supporter who said after the AGM ” I grew up believing we were the Establishment.”
By fingering the SFA as being an obstacle to the restoration of ‘Establishment” status,( without a shred of evidence from anything the SFA has said) the BBC is undoubtedly trying to influence the SFA in support of those many, many people who share that disgruntled fan’s cherished view.
In my opinion. ( And, of course, it would be a ‘belt and braces’, supererogatory approach by the BBC, because I think ( as many do) that the SFA would roll over of its own volition)
Geez! There’s wee green dots falling down my screen! Was it something I said? 😆
John Clark says:
December 22, 2014 at 10:51 pm
Geez! There’s wee green dots falling down my screen! Was it something I said? 😆
=========================================
John, just further evidence for the McMurdo’s of this world of the implicit bias on TSFM.
Where’s my maroon snowflakes then? 😆
Scottish Football is going to have a great 2015.
In Mike We Trust
Just a thought, Mike could put, or promise the SFA to put, his NUFC interests into trust for 3-5 yrs until all is hunky dory at Ibrox. Would piss off the Mags, but they’re used to it. That would make it difficult for the SFA to object to his total control of RIFC. I’m no expert on trusts, but I understand it is a common route for eschewing temporary control of as asset to avoid suspicion of conflict of interest.
mcfc says:
December 22, 2014 at 11:15 pm
———————————-
Probably not necessary if the BBC are spinning this with inside information.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30582696
“Rangers: SFA to hear case for Mike Ashley increasing stake”.
“Article 13 of the association’s rules state that an individual cannot hold stakes in two clubs without the prior permission of the SFA board”.
“Llambias would need to make a business case to the SFA board, which will hold the discussions informally following a board meeting at Hampden, that Ashley is the only source of the funding that the club requires to continue trading”.
Sounds like a negotiation which might even head off the disciplinary hearing, with the transfer window imminent to manoeuvre in, or 30 days to bale out.
The real question is, or should be, “What do the clubs think?”
Need you ask?
Although I’ll cut them some slack that whilst the “this is the last time” will be as effective with them as it is with any 30 month infant you would expect to see a degree of interest in seeing some kind of end game laid out, one that doesn’t just say we’ll defy gravity because we can.
macfurgly says:
December 22, 2014 at 11:46 pm
‘..The real question is, or should be, “What do the clubs think?”’
——–
Or, perhaps, just what authority will the SFA reps at tomorrow’s meeting have to agree any exception to the rules? Will they be constitutionally free allow Ashley what he wants? Have they already been authorised by a majority of the SFA membership to do so? Or, perchance, has the majority of the SFA membership decided that enough is enough, and refused to give their consent to any exception to the rules being made?
After all, the SFA Board is answerable to all the other clubs-who are, at the end of the day, competitors of TRFC. Have they even been asked their views?
The AGM made the second slot on News 24 Sportsday, 11:45 south of the border – but the reporting was dismal. First Rangers need to “recoup” £8mil. Wtf does that even mean. Then over to McLaugh-in who led with a share issue being approved but forgot to mention that the important share issue (res 9) was articulate, defeated big time. Several interviews with reasonable, distraught and calmly furious fans.. Human interest trumps factual reporting – BBC hang your head – and fire Mclaugh-in.
Just a cheeky wee thought to end the evening.
If your Ashley and you’re looking to put down a marker to tell the fans, players, blue knights, rogue billionaires, contract holders , the SFA and the clubs that they should all now note that they ‘re dancing to his choice of music, what should he do? How best to demonstrate it?
Bounce the wages perhaps?
John Clark says:
December 23, 2014 at 12:01 am
——————————
One would hope that any case made by Llambias tomorrow would be referred back to the clubs for comment. I still wonder how much was known about the 5 Way Agreement before it was signed.
The fact that all clubs in the same division as TRFC are competitors does not appear to have been considered thus far. They don’t seem to matter for some reason. Those at risk tomorrow are the competitors this season of course, and those currently in the top division who may face TRFC in a play-off.
By way of balance, the pundits on Sportsound this evening were frantically talking (wishing) up King and Kennedy.It was as though the imminence and consequence of cost cutting had just struck them.
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
December 22, 2014 at 6:13 pm
‘Níl aon tinteán mar do thinteán féin.’
——-
There was a song, I seem to remember, about the Homes of Donegal, sung by Bridie Gallagher.
Round about the time when my brother and I as wee boys found ourselves on holiday in Dunkineely.
Have a good Nollaig!
If Llambias’s business case for Ashley increasing control is that he’s the only show in town, I guess that would open the door to TBKs to insist the opposite.
Given the fans’ feelings it would be difficult to ignore the existence of alternative funding.
On that basis, I think the argument will be something other than “my way or the highway”.
Do Rangers (the “club” and “the company”) now need the SFA/SPFL and the MSM
more than the SFA/SPFL and the MSM need Rangers (“the club” and “the
company”)?
The SFA seem to have grown a pair recently and the lack of armageddon
suggests that the SPFL by deed rather than word don’t need the umbilical
connection any more. The MSM appear to be too moronic to realise that
emancipation is theirs to take, even as their target market is rebelling.
Surely even the most laptop loyal sycophant would have read the bizarre
pre-AGM statement on the RIFC PLC website (or the press release email, more
likely) and realised which way the wind was blowing?
As a shareholder in two football PLCs, I would have been totally shocked
to read such a statement from either of my chairmen.
macfurgly says:
December 23, 2014 at 12:23 am
‘.. I still wonder how much was known about the 5 Way Agreement before it was signed.’
———-
And you’re not alone!
When the full history becomes known, I think it will show that not even the whole Board had been apprised of the action that was decided upon, and were faced with a fait accompli, engineered by an over-powerful small clique.
And I think, therefore, that the general run of club chairmen/owners knew nothing about that iniquitous agreement until after it had been made and sworn to in deepest secrecy!
I hope I live long enough to read the whole true story.( Not that I’m about to pop my clogs, but it will probably be many years before the truth finally emerges!)
John Clark says:
December 23, 2014 at 12:45 am
Rate This
macfurgly says:
December 23, 2014 at 12:23 am
‘.. I still wonder how much was known about the 5 Way Agreement before it was signed.’
———-
And you’re not alone!
When the full history becomes known, I think it will show that not even the whole Board had been apprised of the action that was decided upon, and were faced with a fait accompli, engineered by an over-powerful small clique.
And I think, therefore, that the general run of club chairmen/owners knew nothing about that iniquitous agreement until after it had been made and sworn to in deepest secrecy!
I hope I live long enough to read the whole true story.( Not that I’m about to pop my clogs, but it will probably be many years before the truth finally emerges!)
=================
I’m not so sure JC. I lurch from despair that nothing will ever happen, to
a feeling that the top will blow off and a volcano of truth will erupt, in
a very short space of time. At the moment, I sense that the seal is about
to break and that there will be an overload of revelations. Not quite on a
biblical scale, but such that too much will appear to enable proper debate
and understanding before it is swept aside. I have the feeling now that
no-one is in control and someone will knock over the first domino after
which it will all come out.
Who will win the peace, once we have won the war?
That is what worries me now. Plus ca change or a brave new world?
macfurgly says:
December 23, 2014 at 12:23 am
================================
That is an interesting point. On the one hand it irks me that the SFA are almost certain to accommodate Ashley despite the public charade of forthcoming disciplinary cases. On the other hand it is equally almost certain that under Ashley a club from Ibrox will be living within its means for the first time since early 1986. The alternative of King, Murray etc once again being promoted by the media tells me the hubris of the Murray era and rubbing Celtic’s noses in it is all they care about. Spare me the crocodile tears about the ‘good of the Scottish game’, as all they care about is the unwritten natural order which frankly belongs to an era it would do no-one any good to return to. Scottish society, the SMSM aside, no longer supports the subservience required for a Rangers to be bankrolled and supported to the top far more often than not. It is a disgrace it ever did mind you.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-chief-derek-llambias-must-4859995
Wee bit of extra pressure applied by the DR
My thanks for the response to my musing and question last night, Merry Christmas to all on TSFM
A couple of seasons back our clubs (after a fair bit of arm twisting from their supporters) did the right thing and blocked Newco entrance straight back to the top table. With the Ashley dual ownership issue, I think we are coming to another defining moment with respect to the treatment of the new club by the authorities. If the SFA let MA know that he’s welcome to march across their red line, that their “rules” don’t apply, what will the other SFA member clubs do or say?
I am writing to my club to ask for their stance on dual ownership, and what action they intend to take should Ashley be accommodated. Perhaps other concerned supporters could do the same.
The journey for TRFC the football team has ended. The level they are at today is the level that they will have to settle for. In fact todays level is unrealistically
high. With no warchests and no sugar daddy the team will need to get used to fielding a mixture of journeyman pros and young sellable talent. This being the case there would be no place for a new highly paid manager. So looking to Sir Walter is a non runner. Davies and McCall are also overqualified for the position so a young rookie manager is the only answer. Any way, as I said, the magnificent journey has now ended and a level of ability is about to be reached. The fans who cheered along the road of the journey seem to have accepted this and, as the falling attendances show, now believe that their support is no longer required. I am afraid the chances of TRFC and Newcastle United being involved in European football at the same time are slim to none. Mike Ashley is the only future for them so there will be no triumphant rise to the top of the SPFL. Championship football for the foreseeable future is their destiny. He certainly will not let TRFC interfere with any progress of his ‘Big Team’ in European competition. So journey over. Time to start living within their means. As difficult as that may be.
Daily record still struggling to come to terms with anything approaching reality. Peter lawell may step out of the meeting due to his obvious conflict of interest. Meanwhile rod Petrie, currently direct competitor for the play off spot can vote all he likes because he is, of course, just a Diddy (in the footballing sense of course).
Sorry for the cross-thread post, but as comments seem to be suspended on the previous post, here in all its unsavoury glory is my response to
You’re pretty much spot on there, Smugas.
What actually transpired (as relayed to me by someone who actually heard the exchange) was Paton uttering the word “P##f” at Hayes. Hence the immediate reaction, subsequent denial of spitting from both, and reluctance to discuss what actually went on.
normanbatesmumfc says:
December 22, 2014 at 4:22 pm
I cannot for the life of me see what’s in this for Ashley and SD.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
His interest may not be solely financial
Perhaps Ashley has a vested interest in controlling TRFC during the period when the court cases are ongoing
Smugas says:
December 23, 2014 at 8:26 am
Though your post was wonderfully perceptive, I think you should ask a Hibs supporter how likely Petrie is to put the footballing interests, as opposed to the financial interests, of his club first. From memory, Petrie is knee deep (no reference to that vile song intended) in everything the SFA have done to facilitate Sevco/TRFC, including the 5 way agreement. But you are right, Lawwell is only mentioned because it builds upon the ‘TRFC are being victimised’ policy of the SMSM.
All the other clubs who have financially reconstructed and sorted themselves in the last few years did it themselves and with no SFA help assistance or rule bending .
Rangers have done all this to themselves. Under the rules Ashley and his cohorts should remove themselves from controlling Rangers or the license gets withdrawn. Then whilst we are at it btw guys..forget King as a new leader as he won’t get past the FPP criteria…so you have until Jan 27th to withdraw or the license goes
SO they do what all the others have done…go sort yourselves out…..that leaves Ashely and the others having to sell out to a real proper fan group…ideally via Admin or if they can’t agree liquidate. Then the new team take over but down at the bottom.
If the SFA won’t make this High Noon type move…fans and clubs should demand they form a new association and bin the lot of them at the SFA SPFL…
The same rules as outlined above should apply to new newco
From a NUFC Blog.
======
Derek Llambias has been speaking in his new position North of the border and what he’s had to say about Rangers will be familiar to Geordies from his time at Newcastle.
“We’ve taken a tight review of the business and we will continue to cut costs and our improve commercial revenue. Every penny of that will go onto the park. That is the only way we can prove our commitment to the club.”
For those unable to remember, what he said at Newcastle back in February 2011, having sold Andy Carroll for £35m was
“Mike Ashley has only ever put money into this football club; he has never taken a single penny out. And he won’t take a single penny of this £35 million either – all the money will go to the club and we are already working on identifying transfer targets for the summer.
So can Rangers supporters take Llambias at his word? Of course they can’t. First of all, every Newcastle fan remembers the clubs failure to make any major moves in the transfer market that summer. Vurnon Anita came in for £6.7m and the club recouped £5m from the sales of Leon Best and Fraser Forster.
Furthermore, the staunch defense of Ashley not taking a penny out of the club rings hollow when he’s pulled 1,100,000,000 pence (£11m) out of the coffers in debt repayment.
From the 2012 accounts, we can see his loan being reduced from £140m to £129m…
ohn Clark says:
December 23, 2014 at 12:32 am
13
5
Rate This
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
December 22, 2014 at 6:13 pm
‘Níl aon tinteán mar do thinteán féin.’
——-
There was a song, I seem to remember, about the Homes of Donegal, sung by Bridie Gallagher.
Round about the time when my brother and I as wee boys found ourselves on holiday in Dunkineely.
Have a good Nollaig!
——————————————————–
Jeezo John! IRISH? Nostalgia?? Well that’s just asking for TD’s!! Safer with the cowboy stuff.
By the way, Paul Brady’s version is way better, haha.
I note a Campbell Ogilvie is involved as a member of the SFA board.
Not the Campbell EBT Ogilvie, by any chance?
The problem is that there is a gulf between what the footballing establishment and clubs want and what a vast majority of fans (outwhith Rangers supporters) want.
Many fans would have welcomed a reconstructed Rangers, starting again at the bottom, into the bosom three years ago. However D&P/Green/Walter/Ally/SFA/SPL all put paid to that. The authorities clearly got it wrong by not making and enforcing a clean break with the past.
Because of the wishy-washy approach most of the fans from other clubs saw was new Rangers (arrogant, boastful, financially incompetent, sense of entitlement, glory hunting etc etc) same as the old Rangers.
Unfortunately, when it may be the case that Ashley will finally get the club to live within its means, my guess is that most of the fans from other clubs now have no sympathy for the Rangers case and couldn’t give a monkey’s if they disappeared of the face of the planet.
The next problem we have is that while other clubs are going down the community owned path we may have a large club being no more than a marketing arm of a sports clothing retailer. Ashley may be a very nice man and run his business in a sustainable manner but once again I believe most fans of other clubs are wanting to move away from the model of controlling individuals or companies owning clubs.
For me the current mood is for community based clubs rearing their own youngsters with a view to playing an attractive style of football. With the right blend of youth and experience then we will have a decent product.
In the short term that may mean no great Euro runs for most clubs who qualify but over time if we can up the overall standard then we would still have half decent competitive teams even discounting those most talented who may be scooped up by teams in bigger leagues.
Our biggest club Celtic just about have the balance right in terms of maintaining that community link while trying to play on the big money stage. However my fear is that, other than heading to a league elsewhere, a return of Rangers just has them playing the same old broken record that has not served the overall Scottish game well over the last couple of decades.
Further thoughts on the DR pressure piece about Peter Lawwell – though actually about Rod Petrie’s involvement in any negotiations or vote.
Can you imagine the effect it would have on the Hibs supporters if Petrie didn’t do his best to stop any ‘easing’ of the rules and TRFC were then able to secure loan players from Newcastle they couldn’t otherwise afford, who then play a big part in preventing Hibs gain promotion? If Petrie stands down or doesn’t do his upmost to ensure the rules are adhered to, and TRFC then benefit to Hibs’ detriment, he might well do damage to his own club that it never recovers from. Even as a Hearts supporter that would clearly be so very wrong.
Just in case he doesn’t realise this himself, I hope the supporters are letting him know!
It’s actually unbelievable that we could be debating the possibility that one club’s representative might agree to the bending of the rules to accommodate another club to his own club’s detriment! It really is crazy. Hibs stand to suffer so much from any Ashley involvement it’s clearly ludicrous that the DR should choose Lawwell as their target! And who could possibly (justifiably) criticise anyone for insisting the rules are adhered to?
What’s more, if the SFA do allow it to happen, against Petrie’s wishes, he should, at the very least, insist that the SFA publicly justify their rule bending/breaking that puts his own club at risk of finding itself in similar straits as the favoured one is in now!
andygraham.66 says:
December 23, 2014 at 7:11 am
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-chief-derek-llambias-must-4859995
“Rangers chief Derek Llambias must seek approval for vision of club from SFA panel that includes.. Celtic boss Peter Lawwell”
Wonder why the Record didn’t go with:
“Rangers chief Derek Llambias must seek approval for vision of club from SFA panel that includes… £95,000 EBT recipient Campbell Ogilvie”.
Smugas says:
December 23, 2014 at 8:26 am
…Peter lawell may step out of the meeting due to his obvious conflict of interest…
==================
Interesting that…HE MAY…are we guessing here? or is this another journalist trying to push the same club thing by association?
Then we have …’Due to his obvious conflict of interest’…what conflict would that be? What possible conflict would Peter have with a 2 year old club…
By the sounds of it…if everyone who had a supposed conflict of interest with the 2 year old club…left the room…Mr. Lambias would be left talking to himself…don’t laugh …anything is possible with the SFA!
The Rangers nil? Who missed the penalty? says:
December 23, 2014 at 10:37 am
……………………
Because that payment came form a club who no longer play association football due to being in liquidation…the new club had nothing to do with that payment…simple really!
On the dual ownership/control question….it would appear that most journo’s and TRFC fans do not believe it to be an issue….on the basis one club is in England…and one in Scotland…and it should be allowed…just because it should…and the rules should be ignored…just coz they should…
Well here is the rub…if you allow Mr. Ashley to dual own/control 2 seperate clubs by bending the rules to suit…because one is in England and one in Scotland…then what is to stop Mr. Ashley from buying into another club…in Scotland?
The rule is there for a reason…to prevent match fixing…
I fully understand there are those who are desperate enough to want this dual ownership/control thing to be ignored…it simply cannot be ignored…it is fundamentally wrong to allow dual ownership/control of 2 football clubs.
So today could be the day, when the SFA not content with bringing our game into disrepute two and a half years ago, could possibly go for broke by compounding their farcical form of governance
You could argue that there is a business case for bending and twisting the rules yet again, in the false belief that this basket case of a club, masquerading as the Old Rangers, is somehow vital to the well being of our game
This phoenix club has learned nothing from the demise of the club that it has modeled itself upon, and embarked on the same reckless road as its predecessor, with the same predictable outcome
It is now going cap in hand to the same authority that broke all of the rules to give it birth, on the grounds that it must be allowed to survive and indeed prosper for the good of all of Scottish football
This of course is nonsense, as the only beneficiaries would be TRFC themselves
And what of their rivals in the Championship, not to mention the other Leagues
Most, if not all of them have got their affairs in order, and are now by and large living within their means
Yet we have this rogue club, because they can’t manage their affairs properly, asking for more special treatment so that they can return to what they alone see as their rightful place lording over everyone else
They are asking again to be given another unfair advantage over everyone else to satisfy their sense of entitlement and superiority
The SFA have to draw a line in the sand, and tell this club that there will be no more rule breaking or bending, and that they must sink or swim by standing on their own two feet
Anything less and they will simply be confirming that those running our game are prepared to benefit one club to the detriment of all of the others
For myself, and I’m sure for others, it will be the last straw
It’s probably a good thing that the SFA and the SPFL appear to be disunited. It makes another five-way agreement harder for the spivs and spivs with blazers to pull out of the hat.
It’s probably a good thing that Stewart Regan is actively seeking brighter lights under which to display his talents. He has to know that if he is perceived to cave in to craven spivs again and causes a stooshie and has even more people connected to Scottish football calling for his resignation than he already has, it might just attract the attention of the odd interview panel.
CampsieJoe’s post should be read by everyone involved in football in this country from its greatest administrator down to through Keith Jackson and his profession, to everyone who has a say at any level in every club from the SPL down to the lowland leagues.
Even if only a small number of them acted on it we would be in a far better place going forward.
Stewart Regan, do the right thing, man.
You’ll never get anything else past the bampots. It can’t be done.
You know it makes sense.
PS. Good luck in your new job (don’t let the door, et cetera … ).
So, McCoist is on “gardening leave” and the Sevco AGM was a meltdown. The SFA now has to deal with this shambles. Can we trust them not to sow the seeds of another forest of thorns?
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/the-bottom-of-the-garden/
The report on the DR would suggest that it’s this group that is meeting with Mr Llambias:-
Clearly the Chairman, Mike Mulraney, Peter Lawwell and Duncan Fraser have an interest, being involved with competitor clubs.
Regan has publically declared his fears for Scottish football should(sic)Rangers go out of business.
Doncaster threatened to cut payments to the SFL if Green’s SEVCO wasn’t admitted to SFL1.
Any reasonable assessment of Ogilvie’s position would be that there is, at least, the perception of a conflict of interest.
So the majority do have an interest.
What I’ve never understood is why the those involved in the clubs don’t want to kill off a previously dominant competitor that’s struggling – they’re supposed to be competitive! This is all the more surprising as events since 2012 have seen the shedding of debt by a host of clubs and they should be leaner and meaner. Put Celtic to one side, and wonder why Aberdeen, Dundee United, Hibs and Hearts haven’t gone for it (taking out Rangers not splurging cash they don’t have)? In the short to medium term Celtic would continue to win, not winning isn’t strange to these clubs but this is a once in generation opportunity to have a go. Post-Rangers, Celtic has almost inevitably struggled to maintain a high performance level as the competition hasn’t been strong enough and the club also says it’s the biggest financial loser, Celtic still has plenty of SB buyers but not all are turning up, presumably because most fixtures are too easy.
I know what I’d be saying to the SD man.
Much Ado
Mike and Derek have already evaluated all the options for side-stepping and bamboozling the SFA and for them the situation is not a showstopper, barely a traffic hump. Amongst many option are:
Mike puts NUFC interest into trust
Mike sells 8.92% to someone else for safe keeping – it’s only worth £1.3mil after all
Mike sells proxy voting rights to someone beyond criticism
SFA set up commission lasting six months to decide between the above.
The point is that Mike does not control RIFC by virtue of his shareholding but by controlling merchandise revenue AND being the last lender of last resort. Derek does not need Mike’s day to day guidance. He already has the objectives that will last him five years.
Rules are made to be interpreted and they will be so that the SFA does not need to harm it’s bastard love child.
Sorry guys there will be no revolution today, although it may be televised.
John Clark says:
December 23, 2014 at 12:32 am
19 6 Rate This
==================================================
Dún Cionnaola is a fine spot John.
I was on a search operation there over ten years ago-thankfully it had a happy ending.
I hope that you and yours are fine and well this time of year.
blu says:
December 23, 2014 at 12:01 pm
Put Celtic to one side, and wonder why Aberdeen, Dundee United, Hibs and Hearts haven’t gone for it (taking out Rangers not splurging cash they don’t have)?
===============================================================
Napoleon put it best, “Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
These guys know that either The Rangers will continue self-harming until the inevitable happens, or they will be forced into severe austerity which will take them out of contention for several years.
Why make unnecessary enemies – better focus on your own success, there are other rivals to think about as well.
blu says:
December 23, 2014 at 12:01 pm
Put Celtic to one side, and wonder why Aberdeen, Dundee United, Hibs and Hearts haven’t gone for it (taking out Rangers not splurging cash they don’t have)?
=============================================================
Or Machiavelli, “Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.”
From today’s Daily Record article, the quote below:
‘…However, an under-strength and under-funded Rangers effectively gives Celtic a free run at the Champions League each season and the riches it can provide.’
What, exactly, is an ‘under-funded’ Rangers? Is there a pre-determined level of funding they should get, and if so who foots the bill for it? What an incredibly stupid statement for any journalist to make. The funding level for any club is what they can afford. What part of that don’t they get?
upthehoops says:
December 23, 2014 at 12:30 pm
What part of that don’t they get?
======================================
every part 🙂
Napoleon also said, “To have ultimate victory, you must be ruthless.”
But your thinking also prompts this one, “What kills a skunk is the publicity it gives itself.” – Abraham Lincoln
Sorry if this was posted yesterday and I missed it.
Bomber back at the stadium he played for, trying to be erudite in all things $ev@0
http://youtu.be/_0rwe3aI5Og
Paulmac2 says:
December 23, 2014 at 11:01 am
14
0
Rate This
The Rangers nil? Who missed the penalty? says:
December 23, 2014 at 10:37 am
……………………
Because that payment came form a club who no longer play association football due to being in liquidation…the new club had nothing to do with that payment…simple really!
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Of, course. How silly of me.
Note to self: Enroll in SFA’s next “Beyond Liquidation: Clubs’ Rights and Responsibilities” seminar.
upthehoops says:
December 23, 2014 at 12:30 pm
From today’s Daily Record article, the quote below:
‘…However, an under-strength and under-funded Rangers effectively gives Celtic a free run at the Champions League each season and the riches it can provide.’
What, exactly, is an ‘under-funded’ Rangers? Is there a pre-determined level of funding they should get, and if so who foots the bill for it? What an incredibly stupid statement for any journalist to make. The funding level for any club is what they can afford. What part of that don’t they get?
==================================
They are still unable to operate outside the “old firm” framework.
Remove that from the SMSM mindset, and it will open their collective eyes.
upthehoops says:
December 23, 2014 at 12:30 pm
9 0 Rate This
===================================================
Entitlement issues…
blu says:
December 23, 2014 at 12:38 pm
But your thinking also prompts this one, “What kills a skunk is the publicity it gives itself.” – Abraham Lincoln
==================================================
good one 🙂
upthehoops says:
December 23, 2014 at 12:30 pm
This is exactly the mind set we are up against
It’s not enough that there is a TRFC playing football, but it has to be a super duper all conquering TRFC
The concept of living within its means and building just doesn’t have a place in the master plan
Someone has to provide the funding and to hell with the rules and consequences
The governing authorities have a golden opportunity to redeem themselves for all the harm they did to Scottish football in the last 3 yrs.
All they have to do is apply their current rules and do nothing else.
The passage of time will do the rest
As a young and inexperienced MD I got pelters from my chairman when a board we held had a “real” discussion and we lost an important vote.
I learned.
Meetings are not where business gets done.
Yes they can rubber stamp stuff but any decisions will have been already made by the chair in association with a couple of his committee and of course whoever the committee reports into.
Today is just for show and the outcome is already agreed between Rod and the people at the SFA he holds this meeting for.
RCO will not be uninvolved.
The only thing that might derail a pre planned event is if people on today’s committee rebel.
I hope they do.