A Sanity Clause for Xmas?

ByTrisidium

A Sanity Clause for Xmas?

A Guest blog by redlichtie for TSFM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the author

Trisidium administrator

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

3,813 Comments so far

DenPosted on1:21 am - Jan 10, 2015


The emergence of £6.5M liability (unconfirmed as yet) in a relatively small (high profile) company, raises so many questions.

Accounting Standards or rules (made to broken I know) have advanced somewhat since the Enron days and “off Balance Sheet funding” is harder than it was.

Leasing was an open door but has been closed substantially under the Accounting Standards.

There are more rules as to what is reported and where. Contingent Liabilities are more precisely defined.

I cannot see a situation where £6.5m of liability can emerge in a relatively minor company (turnover wise) that should not have appeared in the Accounts (or Notes).

The Auditors must have been at the end of their patience and should have qualified the accounts. This occurrence seems to show that the client was acting in bad faith or was completely out of control. If the auditor continues with Sevco it will reflect on their ethical standards, if they walk who would want the job.

At an initial look it seems that the auditor has little power to re-state the accounts as published until next year.

Next year a whole new bunch of Directors will be in place claiming that it was the previous bunch who caused the problems. The auditors have seen it all before and it will be interesting to see if they call it like it is or roll over again, for a substantial fee.

That is assuming that the Company makes it through the intervening year.

With regard to onerous contracts. Directors have a lot of power but it is limited and they owe a fiduciary duty to the Company. Presumably they cannot just create contracts in their favour without some accountability.

Surely a hidden liability that evades at least one Audit and the attention of two CEOs (one with 120 days to review the operation) could be challenged.

I think it was Ecobhoy who suggested that this saga would form the basis of a textbook, maybe it could be an MBA on its own.

View Comment

andygraham.66Posted on1:38 am - Jan 10, 2015


Yeesh, go for a night out with Mr Nutini of Paisley and come back to 2 full pages of info 🙂

View Comment

ianagainPosted on1:56 am - Jan 10, 2015


Well
All is well.

There’s swaithes of dough and it will be ok in the morning. don’t worry.
Nighty night
Shssh

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on2:25 am - Jan 10, 2015


Den

Interesting post. I thought the work on leasing etc, was not yet complete?

View Comment

iceman63Posted on2:54 am - Jan 10, 2015


Aaah The Club that will not die, but must forever be in the throes of death. Dante would find it a place in its very own circle of Hell.
Sometimes words are not enough Omnishambolic-clusterfuck doesn’t even come close!

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:05 am - Jan 10, 2015


Danish Pastry says:
January 9, 2015 at 11:36 pm
16 0 Rate This

@scapa, Keith J. very upbeat. Park group eager to part with their money. Quite a price they’ll pay for a few seats on the board and the opportunity to spend spend spend. They must be loaded.
———————————————-

The oft quoted figure of Douglas Park’s wealth is £78M. I doubt he would be willing to throw it all down a black hole just to create an unsustainable wage bill and get it right up Celtic. Interestingly Celtic are one of his most high profile customers, and have been since the 70’s.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:05 am - Jan 10, 2015


ianagain says:
January 9, 2015 at 11:44 pm

Meantime the clock ticks and no one owns the stadium.
============================================

I guess I’m being naive here but isn’t there a real story there for our intrepid media! 🙄

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on8:46 am - Jan 10, 2015


Before Felix the Bear it was:

Christian Nerlinger will meet Rangers chief executive Graham Wallace for the second time in the coming days to discuss the possibility of him taking on a director of football style role at Ibrox.

Seems every few weeks/months there’s some name dropping to add a wee bit of legitimacy to the circus — even better if the individual can be talked into acquiring shares.

Keith’s late night announcement did not materialise. He gives the impression he’s being updated/fed selected information by someone at Ibrox, though.

View Comment

johnnymancPosted on9:03 am - Jan 10, 2015


Based on KJ’s optimistic noises about a ‘deal being close with the Park group’ I am awaiting with interest the reaction of the main Bear reps in the press and online. No doubt there will be outpourings of joy at having ‘won’. What exactly will they have won?

1)The right to pay off an unexpected £6.5m bill
2) the right to pay this months wages and Tax payments
3) a major share in a ‘loss making business with no line of credit’
4) a team struggling to stay in the play off places in the second tier
5) a team of overpaid journey men whose contracts are up at the end of the season
6) a fanbase who have delusions of grandeur in spite of recent near death experiences (they’re immortal remember)
7) onerous contracts which strip out normal revenue streams such as merchandising, catering and security

I’m sure there are many more ‘prizes’ that I’ve missed out on.

The serious question for the so called RRM is ‘why?’ Given that one liquidation has been airbrushed out of existence (unlike their history) why not push for a second and rebuild from scratch?

If the above list is the winners prize list, most sensible people would steer well clear, obviously those Blazers are very valuable!

View Comment

FinlochPosted on9:40 am - Jan 10, 2015


Rangers men and fans would be better walking away.

Leaving this mess behind for the spivs to sort out (with no more revenues).
Taking the time it needs to regroup.
Opening as a new Rangers and starting again cleanly.
Fan owned.
Playing in blue.
Govan area.
No onerous contracts long term.
Goodwill from all and a few favours guaranteed from above.

A clean and fresh start and a passion to succeed.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on9:42 am - Jan 10, 2015


Resin_lab_dog says:
January 10, 2015 at 1:18 am
ecobhoy says:
January 9, 2015 at 9:45 pm

Maybe they are being hit with the bills for unsold pies etc. now?
——————————————————————–
You reminded me of a very important series of posts on scotslawthoughts by ‘Mick’ which was labelled Piegate.

It’s an eye opener and all are worth a read – they were seen as a bit of humour at the time but perhaps it’s time to look a bit more deeply.

The first Piegate story is at: http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/piegate-the-latest-scandal-to-come-to-light-from-ibrox-guest-post-by-mick/

You can find the sequels by going to the search box on the front rhs page of scotslawthoughts and typing Mick and Piegate.

You won’t be disappointed.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on9:49 am - Jan 10, 2015


Finloch

And no doubt a welcoming arm from the SFA/SPFL into the 4th division, as a bear minimum (see what I did there! )

View Comment

andygraham.66Posted on10:08 am - Jan 10, 2015


The problem with this Finloch is that the default position of the Rangers fan past and present is that they support a team that is financed from outwith their own pocket to achieve results that, as a bear 😉 minimum is level or one step ahead of Celtic.

Your scenario just doesnt fit with their outlook

An example of sorts can be given with the reaction to the Glazer takeover with Man United and how now years later FC United are a fairly well funded, well supported team not a million miles from League 2.

That just couldnt happen here, its just not something in the way they think and a lot of that thinking is fed to them by a media who just dont want that option going forward.

The discussion today in pubs and in the crowd wont be who will save the club out of all the current factions it is who will win the race to finance the return to the top.

View Comment

futbolPosted on10:15 am - Jan 10, 2015


Been playing catch-up for the past hour – thanks to all involved for the analysis and very informed speculation on what might have been found behind the toaster in the big hoose.

A couple of things have come to mind for myself …

1. I’ve struggled to find a definitive line on whatever came of the Ticketus deal, i.e. the monies owed to them. From memory the administrators intended to tear up the deal but I think there was some uncertainty that this would be possible to they had applied for some sort of court power to do so?

What I did find in one of their reports was that they acknowledged that this may result in damages being sought.

I wonder (and it is only wonder) whether some form of contract continued and the boycott and subsequent reduction in season ticket sales has resulted in an inability to meet this debt, resulting in the full repayment becoming due.

The reason I’m asking is that I noted that at the AGM Bomber asked “what involvement to ticketus have in this” to which the response was “we are adamant that Ticketus have no involvement whatsoever” (Source: http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/304376-rangers-agm-live-updates-from-the-shareholders-meeting-at-ibrox/)

Why would he ask about this now? And Ahmad and Green? For some time its been acknowledged that Bomber has some mind-blowing information (possibly from the Cardigan).

And what does “no invovlement” mean? He didn’t ask if they were a creditor or if a contract remains in place.

And what if they really did find the contract behind the toaster?

The above could all be irrelevant of course, which brings me to the next point:

2. The other currently relevant statement from the AGM was the one from Somers: “With a number of contracts we’ve just said ‘sod you, we will see you in court.'” (http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/304376-rangers-agm-live-updates-from-the-shareholders-meeting-at-ibrox/)

Could it be that this approach – combined with defaulting on a payment is what’s made a full payment so suddenly due as others have speculated?

If this is the case it could explain how and why it was not listed in the share prospectus or accounts.

More worryingly it would suggest that being hit with the sudden bill is entirely of the board’s own doing.

So there’s the same question of whether this was expected or not. As others have opined, the coincidental figure of £6.5m being offered by other parties seems to suggest they may well have known about this, possibly even the immediate nature of the payment being demanded.

Lastly, in looking for the above quotes I came across the video on the STV page of the AGM (http://news.stv.tv/scotland/257443-rangers-boardroom-battle-comes-to-a-head-at-annual-general-meeting/).

I’d not seen this before and would presume that on the radar millionaires don’t have the time or interest to frequent the diddy country news websites. However, if I was considering investing in a company (or club…) I’d probably be interested in the accounts and the last AGM. I wouldn’t expect to see what looks like a trailer for The Thick of it.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on10:17 am - Jan 10, 2015


Morning all.
I suppose we’ll now be subjected to a weekend of “good news” stories,telling us mega funds have been obtained and RRM will soon be in control.
In reality we’ll just have to wait and see what Monday brings.
If I was a potential investor,however,I’d want to know if there are any other Incognito Leverage debts out there.
Hidden debts
Police investigations
8 Figure losses per annum
Player pool needing replaced
Stadium ownership under dispute
Stadium needing major refurbishment
No merchandising income
Limited image rights/IP.
Etc etc.
Yet we have at least 2 parties trying to buy this basket case.
Why?.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:26 am - Jan 10, 2015


justshatered says:

January 9, 2015 at 10:48 pm

53

1

Rate This

James Doleman says:
January 9, 2015 at 9:04 pm

Once again dear old Hugh is forgetting himself. Surely he should be telling everyone that the latest ‘holding company’ is doomed without £6.5 million on Monday!!!

Remember Hugh, once you start telling a lie you have to keep going.

As for the ‘lost’ paperwork, I find it very hard to believe that such documentation could be ‘lost’ given the accusations flying about concerning RFC. I would have thought that everyone involved would have kept copies galore to ensure their propriety was beyond question.

Did CW in his last paper interview not say that he could not get his hands on his paperwork as the police had it and it will be explosive

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on10:43 am - Jan 10, 2015


StevieBC/Den/Scapa…again I see the general thread of “Auditor(s)” and how they can possibly perform their function.

It must be remembered that their job is still essentially, to pass an opinion on the accounts, as presented to them by the directors and based on questions and answers received prior to sign off.

The document which an auditor will always come to rely on in order to ensure that all material facts have been disclosed to them is a “Letter of Representation”, confirming that there are no nasties waiting to crawl out of the woodwork, such as the off-balance sheet finance arrangement as appears to be the case discussed over the last couple of days.

Like their predecessors, Grant Thornton, Deloitte will have their professional backsides well and truly covered…whether they would want to continue as auditor is another matter.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:50 am - Jan 10, 2015


@ModgePKR says:
January 9, 2015 at 11:43 pm

RIFC could maybe challenge the fees under the unfair contract terms legislation but given the panic to raise funds they seem willing to find the cash to pay it…

==================================================
And that’s what really interests me.

What happened to Somers tough-man image when he declared that some of the onerous contracts had already been dealt with and the others had been told to GTF and chance their arm in court.

What’s so toxic about this one that it can’t be allowed to reach court where the proceedings will be held in public.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on10:50 am - Jan 10, 2015


essexbeancounter says:
January 10, 2015 at 10:43 am

Essex, Mickey taking aside, there is way to much emphasis placed on these documents. They are useful, but, not the “Holy Grail”

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on10:51 am - Jan 10, 2015


peterjung says:
January 9, 2015 at 11:26 pm

ianagain says:
January 9, 2015 at 11:38 pm

Good morning to you both.
Thanks for the link pj.
I am fine thanks ianagain.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:51 am - Jan 10, 2015


GoosyGoosy says:
January 9, 2015 at 11:41 pm

@GG – no that’s great I just hoped maybe you’d found something I’d missed.

Btw you’re a brave man even thinking about revealing how your thought processes work 🙂 I would never ever attempt that or all the posters and lurkers here would take to the hills screaming and I’d be well out in front.

View Comment

futbolPosted on10:54 am - Jan 10, 2015


ecobhoy says:
January 10, 2015 at 10:50 am

What happened to Somers tough-man image when he declared that some of the onerous contracts had already been dealt with and the others had been told to GTF and chance their arm in court.

My thinking is this has happened but after legal advice or perhaps after a visit to Mr Nash (chapeau Phil MGB) they’ve called (in) his bluff?

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:54 am - Jan 10, 2015


@ModgePKR says:
January 9, 2015 at 11:07 pm

Too simple? Maybe. But the simplest explanation is usually the correct one…
============================================================================
I think you’re explanation might be on the money and generally I agree that simply explained clusterf*cks rather than carefully crafted conspiracies are usually the answer.

The thing that niggles me with your explanation is that the areas where I could see your scenario working would be in the the part-time employees especially those employed on matchday.

That would take in security, catering and cleaning. But I would think employee turnover levels would be high so presumably the original agency would continually be involved in recruitment which I would have thought would require continual fresh invoicing. So not sure how that could remain hidden.

I would also have thought that their is a legal onus on a creditor to supply invoices for money owed to them. And that opens another thought – there are IIRC time limits within which any unpaid debts most be brought to court and perhaps that has been a factor in timing.

Of course the timing trigger might be that those in the hypothetical position sketched might think it’s time to get out of Dodge otherwise there’ll be no money to pay them.

One thing’s for sure we won’t need to wait long to see. Perhaps it’s all a bluff to hook Sarver or the 3Bears plus 1 asap. Jeesuz not even 11am yet and ma heid’s hurtin 🙂

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on10:55 am - Jan 10, 2015


oops peter just read your later post.

Can’t seem to get a link at all!! Strange???

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on11:01 am - Jan 10, 2015


I caught a snippet of CSSB last night as I jumped in the car on a quick errand. I heard HK talking about doors closing on Monday at Rangers mark II and thought what have I been missing! things must be moving fast since I was last on TSFM. The tail end of one call I heard was from a Rangers II fan who you could only have sympathy for as he discussed the long running shambles at his beloved club. As it went to the adverts we heard about Celtic in Gran Canaria v PSV and then another for The Champions League game against Inter Milan and I thought what a contrast between the fortunes of the two clubs, Gers fans listening must be shaking their heads in disbelief at the situation and feeling pig sick as these adverts play. Going forward there will I’m sure be a positive outcome for Gers Mark II fans but it will be a long road to redemption.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on11:04 am - Jan 10, 2015


Let’s not let logic get in the way of a good story – logic said it was 100% all over 4 years ago and just about every month since. People have been predicting the end of days since the beiginning of days.

I’m still on series 5 of Breaking Bad and that looked like it would burn out by series 1, episode 3. So I’m confident there’s lots more 18 rated entertainment still to come.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:08 am - Jan 10, 2015


Cluster One says:
January 10, 2015 at 10:26 am

Did CW in his last paper interview not say that he could not get his hands on his paperwork as the police had it and it will be explosive
==========================================================
Yip – but he’ll still have the originals stashed away for the movie or in case the police lose the copies.

And no mention of the tapes 🙂

View Comment

bect67Posted on11:15 am - Jan 10, 2015


Whilst taking on board all the comments about the WATP mentality e. superiority, arrogance, ‘divine right’, I believe an increasing number of TRFC fans would accept starting over – without all the spivvery, skulduggery, PR guff etc.

Trouble is – they’re trapped by onerous contracts and above mentioned spivs.

The RRM can’t extricate them from this.

View Comment

scottcPosted on11:21 am - Jan 10, 2015


On the big bill … is it possible that it is the simplest thing of all? The original buyout plan was to lend the club £8.5m to achieve the CVA and, that failing, to purchase the business for £5.5m.

What if CG, in his ultimate spivness, structured the buyout money as a loan to Sevco Scotland to make the purchase, repayable with £1m interest after a certain period or on certain events occurring. That money has now been called in.

We are all assuming that the original investors got their money back as ‘fees’ at the flotation, but those payments were noted as ‘fees’, so this potential loan would still exist.

It’s just a thought, but the numbers would certainly add up

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on11:37 am - Jan 10, 2015


aren’t Scottc and ultimate ‘spivness’ I do not see such a loan as such but perhaps a sensible arrangement. The ultimate in junk bonds or bonds for junk maybe but sensible (assuming it is legal) The timing is perhaps correct also 2 years plus see you in court time gets us to now.
good game, good game as the Crackerjack generation say

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:44 am - Jan 10, 2015


On this £6.5m; I don’t think we know whether or not it relates to the ‘incognito leverage’ in full; is an amalgamation of all debts requiring payment immediately or urgently, with one or more being critical; or is completely fictional, being a figment of our thick lamb munchers’ imaginations, brought on by the strange way the figure £6.5m keeps cropping up..

Phil seems pretty confident there is a bombshell within the ‘incognito leverage’, and with Green’s record there’s no surprise that it exists, and Sarver’s bid could well be the catalyst that has forced him to play, possibly, his final, devastating hand.

Still no idea how it might play out, with TRFC’s continuation seeming to hinge on the stupidity of wealthy men to be careless with their millions!

There’s so much mess still within TRFC/RIFC that I’d be very surprised if there’s anyone who knows exactly how many more bombshells exist!

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on11:50 am - Jan 10, 2015


bect67 says:
January 10, 2015 at 11:15 am
1 0 Rate This

Whilst taking on board all the comments about the WATP mentality e. superiority, arrogance, ‘divine right’, I believe an increasing number of TRFC fans would accept starting over – without all the spivvery, skulduggery, PR guff etc.

Trouble is – they’re trapped by onerous contracts and above mentioned spivs.

The RRM can’t extricate them from this.
====================================

I often wonder how many fans would be happy for Rangers only to look forward rather than continually looking back. Looking back, both on and off the pitch, has got them to where they are today. How refreshing would it be for a new owner to strongly state that there will be no immediate going toe to toe with Celtic financially, rather that the club will be built into the strong, self sustainable entity it could without doubt be with a bit more all round humility and people in charge who are not out to line their own pockets.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on11:57 am - Jan 10, 2015


Is there a chance the current Ibrox silence is down to how to gently break the news big Mike has put up £10M secured on Murray Park? Just a random thought

View Comment

y4rmyPosted on12:00 pm - Jan 10, 2015


From the time of the asset purchase:

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/103752-rangers-crisis-charles-green-offers-85m-loan-to-buy-club/

Administrators also state that should the CVA fail, on July 23, Mr Green is “contractually obliged” to purchase the club’s assets for a newco for £5.5m. Whether this cash is also in the form of a loan is unclear and details of this proposal are “confidential”.

Was it ever clarified? If not, will it all become clear on Monday?

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on12:06 pm - Jan 10, 2015


scottc says:
January 10, 2015 at 11:21 am

On the big bill … is it possible that it is the simplest thing of all? The original buyout plan was to lend the club £8.5m to achieve the CVA and, that failing, to purchase the business for £5.5m.

What if CG, in his ultimate spivness, structured the buyout money as a loan to Sevco Scotland to make the purchase, repayable with £1m interest after a certain period or on certain events occurring. That money has now been called in.

We are all assuming that the original investors got their money back as ‘fees’ at the flotation, but those payments were noted as ‘fees’, so this potential loan would still exist.

It’s just a thought, but the numbers would certainly add up
—————————————————————-
I think firstly we have to be careful about the numbes as Phil actually responded to a post of mine where I had posted that the £6.5 million related to the onerous development which appears to have suddenly reared its head.

Phil said that the required £6.5 million wasn’t all for the new development but that the latest cash drain was something like ‘significant’ or a similar word but not the whole £6.5 million.

As to a loan to buy the assets from D&P there’s no doubt that Green was scrabbling to raise the cash. The paper trail identifies the original consortium of investors who raised the ‘cash’ which may well have been promissory notes of some description or even debentures secured on assets.

What to me is the achilles heel for the Sevco 5088 switcheroo to Sevco Scotland wasn’t so much the probable duping of Whyte but the alleged verbal agreement of the members of the original consortium to scrap the condition that Sevco 5088 was to be the purchasing vehicle for the Rangers assets and that Sevco Scotland was to replace it.

I’ve always felt that’s a crunch point. What happens if some refused to agree or indeed were never consulted? They would need to be bought-off in some way after event.

There’s also some evidence that the original investors were promised a doubling of their original investment in six months repaid in cash. Instead the IPO took a lot longer and further fund raising to pay for it and to raise cash to keep the club going proved very difficult.

So it ended-up with the repayment coming in the way of bonus free or cheap shares being issued to them as opposed to later investors not in the original consortium loop or who were important to achieving a successful IPO.

Indeed it appears that one very rich and powerful member of the Blue Pitch consortium told Green to stuff his shares and demanded the original cash deal and got it because he was much too powerful for Green to refuse.

Obviously all sorts of other things came into play with commissions for this, that and another but all going to companies/individuals with associations but not necessarily shareholders. Could kick-backs have taken place? I don’t know but they have happened in similar scenarios.

As always this has never been a transparent situation and I’m talking long before Green or Whyte arrived on the scene and that’s what makes it so difficult to get the info required to understand and unpick it.

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on12:15 pm - Jan 10, 2015


Whoever ultimately wins the battle for RIFC/TRFC or whatever eventually emerges, you can be sure of one thing

He or they had better have deep pockets and unlimited funds to throw at the basket case
Nothing less will be accepted or expected
Living within their means just will not be tolerated, as it will not satisfy the lust for supremacy
The next few weeks will be interesting

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on12:15 pm - Jan 10, 2015


scottc says:
January 10, 2015 at 11:21 am
15 0 Rate This

On the big bill … is it possible that it is the simplest thing of all? The original buyout plan was to lend the club £8.5m to achieve the CVA and, that failing, to purchase the business for £5.5m.

What if CG, in his ultimate spivness, structured the buyout money as a loan to Sevco Scotland to make the purchase, repayable with £1m interest after a certain period or on certain events occurring. That money has now been called in.

We are all assuming that the original investors got their money back as ‘fees’ at the flotation, but those payments were noted as ‘fees’, so this potential loan would still exist.

It’s just a thought, but the numbers would certainly add up
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
How would that go with the IPO?
Would the prospectus have to show TRC had £6.5m of debt?
Or
Could the debt have been exchanged before the IPO for staged payments invoiced and buried in onerous contracts?
If so it may not have involved all the original Green consortium.
Just those willing to wait for their money

View Comment

DenPosted on12:20 pm - Jan 10, 2015


scapaflow says:
January 10, 2015 at 2:25 am
11 0 i Rate This

Den

Interesting post. I thought the work on leasing etc, was not yet complete?

————————————————————————-

I am sure that it will evolve as changes are made by Leasing companies to circumvent the rules, however the standards (IAS17 covers leases)are there and quite sensible in my view.

If there really is a big liability that has emerged it would be interesting to know what triggered it. It may be the last throw of the dice by a holder of an onerous contract who sees this being threatened and they are positioning themselves as a major creditor at worst when the Insolvency event happens.

View Comment

scottcPosted on12:32 pm - Jan 10, 2015


GoosyGoosy says:
January 10, 2015 at 12:15 pm
0 0 Rate This

scottc says:
January 10, 2015 at 11:21 am

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
How would that go with the IPO?

I’ve no idea Goosy. It just strikes me that the numbers are about right and the trigger event could easily be the declared interest of Robert Sarver. It may be that a debt was not declared at the IPO because it was contingent on a future sale of the business and at that point no such sale was envisaged.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on12:36 pm - Jan 10, 2015


y4rmy says:
January 10, 2015 at 12:00 pm

From the time of the asset purchase:

http://news.stv.tv/west-central/103752-rangers-crisis-charles-green-offers-85m-loan-to-buy-club/

Administrators also state that should the CVA fail, on July 23, Mr Green is “contractually obliged” to purchase the club’s assets for a newco for £5.5m. Whether this cash is also in the form of a loan is unclear and details of this proposal are “confidential”.

Was it ever clarified? If not, will it all become clear on Monday?
=====================================================================
I think the problem here is loose journalism. Sevco 5088 Ltd was the original approved purchaser of the Rangers assets and paid £200k to D&P for this authorisation.

We have been told that the original Sevco 5088 consortium members who put up the cash or promised it to buy the Rangers assets agreed to a transfer of authority from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland who eventually successfully completed the purchase.

The purchase agreement covered either a CVA or a buying bits purchase although the latter was at a reduced price for the bits Charlie didn’t buy but being Charlie later claimed he had bought everything anyway except the non-football debts.

View Comment

dedeideoprofundisPosted on12:48 pm - Jan 10, 2015


From the Belfast Telegraph re Tesco troubles,

“It’s understood abandoned Tesco developments in other parts of the UK have been sold on to retailer Sports Direct”

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on1:03 pm - Jan 10, 2015


regarding the I.P.O
Did it not say something like
“. . . Rangers* enjoy the magnificent world famous Ibrox stadium.”

Vague wording but not actually saying “they” own it ??

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on1:09 pm - Jan 10, 2015


WRT the alleged funds required urgently from T’Rangers, could it be a claim from BDO on the grounds of Gratuitous Alienation. Thus keeping the creditors in the frame as creditors, in any forthcoming administration process.

View Comment

yourhavingalaughPosted on1:14 pm - Jan 10, 2015


Maybe ,just maybe the team that plays out of Ibrox don’t scout enough as it so happens the team that Celtic are playing in their next European game has quite a talented Scot on their board of Directors, he is their financial director ,placed there by their Far Easter owners strangely enough,he has extensive experience of his time working in Hong Kong and America ,his bosses also run an East Coast of America football club,this 53 year old was a big fan of the old club from Govan that is presently going through a liquidation process,I am told he will not be travelling to the game in Glasgow.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on1:54 pm - Jan 10, 2015


Den says:
January 10, 2015 at 12:20 pm

I shall turn to page 441 of the Gospel according to Elliott and have a read.

Covering for the management Accountant just now, Karma is a fickle bitch :mrgreen:

View Comment

Nell DoncasterPosted on2:03 pm - Jan 10, 2015


I suppose if your business is trying to sell toilet paper every day, a daily dose of this unfounded exciting diarrhoea (exciting to those grasping at straws) is enough to get the gullible fools to purchase some extra roll, so they will find out which of all the tooth fairies this week is going to take away all the problems and leave a pot of gold.

View Comment

DenPosted on2:17 pm - Jan 10, 2015


essexbeancounter says:

January 10, 2015 at 10:43 am

19

0

Rate This

StevieBC/Den/Scapa…again I see the general thread of “Auditor(s)” and how they can possibly perform their function.

It must be remembered that their job is still essentially, to pass an opinion on the accounts, as presented to them by the directors and based on questions and answers received prior to sign off
—————————————

I wasn’t meaning to imply that the Auditors were in any way responsible for a liability being overlooked.

My point was that they will be furious should it transpire shortly after they completed what looked like a challenging audit.

Responsibility for this fiasco resides with the management.

I am sure that the Auditors have obtained the necessary assurances, quite rightly too.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:30 pm - Jan 10, 2015


The SMSM continues to underwhelm. 🙁

So, the other day we had the DR ‘reporting’ that Valencia’s Scottish assistant was being linked to the TRFC manager role.
No quotes, no “sources said”, and not even a name to the article.
Obviously nonsense.

Today we have Michael Grant at The Herald discussing this speculation with;
“…it was reported this week that Cathro, Valenica’s 28-year-old Scottish assistant manager, may be approached to take the job on a permanent basis…”
The key phrase there is “may be approached”.

No quotes, no “sources said” – and not even the professional courtesy of accreditation to the DR as the source of the nonsense !

I had always viewed The Herald as being better than the DR, [albeit the DR had set a very low bar.]

Has there been any improvement in the quality of the SMSM since RTC days – or has it in fact regressed ?
People are – if slowly – becoming more aware of the deficiencies in the mainstream media generally by cross-referring stories to other, online sources.

There is still a massive gap in the SMSM for some proper, consistent, quality sports journalism.
Will it ever be filled ?!

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/mcdowall-ignores-cathro-link-to-rangers.115868200

View Comment

bailemeanachPosted on2:58 pm - Jan 10, 2015


Without wishing to stoke up the Ched Evans debate, here’s an interesting piece comparing it to the Rix appointment at Hearts, from a Hearts blog:

http://mattleslie74.blog.com/

I’d all but forgotten about this episode

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on3:39 pm - Jan 10, 2015


StevieBC says:
January 10, 2015 at 2:30 pm
11 0 Rate This

The SMSM continues to underwhelm. 🙁

Has there been any improvement in the quality of the SMSM since RTC days – or has it in fact regressed ?
People are – if slowly – becoming more aware of the deficiencies in the mainstream media generally by cross-referring stories to other, online sources.

There is still a massive gap in the SMSM for some proper, consistent, quality sports journalism.
Will it ever be filled ?!

==============================================================================
Stevie…only if you can resurrect or re-create the likes of Rafferty or Archer or Horne…duly assisted by an editorial mission to print what would pass as a decent effort to report events as facts and not simply pass off garbage, largely to stem an ever decreasing readership base. :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :slamb:

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:52 pm - Jan 10, 2015


StevieBC says:
January 10, 2015 at 2:30 pm
”’People are – if slowly – becoming more aware of the deficiencies in the mainstream media generally by cross-referring stories to other, online sources.’
———–
I’ve just been reading (online)the “Arizona Republic” report on 8th Jan of Sarver’s offer.
They have just taken the Associated Press report as it came over the wires.

And the AP report has this little bit which they undoubtedly got from one or more of our has-been hacks:
“The 54-time Scottish champions were demoted to the bottom tier of Scottish soccer in 2012 because of a financial meltdown and now play in the second tier.”

I have, of course, emailed AP to draw attention to the inaccuracies in that report.I have asked them to refer to their own ‘statement of principles’, in which, among other things, they say they will not report unchecked facts or material. And asked them to make sure that any further report they may do on RIFC plc sticks to verifiable facts.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on4:01 pm - Jan 10, 2015


There was some debate last week over the merits of Richard Wilson. I have to say on Sportsound today he spoke very sensibly and realistically in terms of how much it would take just to get Rangers on an even footing. He was also not quite as confident as others that a deal is about to be brokered at Ibrox. He even seemed a bit embarrassed at using the ‘three bears’ title and opted to change to the names of the individuals involved.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on4:08 pm - Jan 10, 2015


bailemeanach says:
January 10, 2015 at 2:58 pm

The previous piece on Magath is well worth a read as well. Ibrox is no slouch when it comes to providing comedy, but, hiring Magath, would mean there really would be no requirement for Only an Excuse next year, there will be comedy gold aplenty on the news channels.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:16 pm - Jan 10, 2015


essexbeancounter says:
January 10, 2015 at 3:39 pm
‘….or re-create the likes of Rafferty or Archer or Horne..’
———-
Memory-lane time at the mention of Horne ( or was it Horn?)

Our French teacher, a hard man indeed and not at all into the working-class sport of football, astonished us one Monday morning in 1957 /1958, when he came in with a copy of the then ‘London Times’ and proceeded without preamble to read Horne’s brief report of a match.
It began ” Weeping grey skies over paradise..” ( that might not be an exact quote, of course, but it’s reasonably close)

He read it, of course, as an example of descriptive writing in English, rather than to tell us anything about the game, and was making the point that even sports writing can profit from imaginative, intelligent use of language that tries occasionally to rise above cliches.

I was quite struck by that:as is evidenced by the fact that I remember the occasion!

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:28 pm - Jan 10, 2015


upthehoops says:
January 10, 2015 at 4:01 pm
‘…There was some debate last week over the merits of Richard Wilson..’
———-
Yes, I go along with you on that,uth, especially his embarassment at the use of ‘3Bears’!
This may merely signal a desire for ‘gravitas’ in dealing with a serious story which might well end in a lot of grief for quite lot of people.
But it might also, with any luck, reflect an awareness that to be considered seriously as any kind of journalist ( particularly if reporting for the ‘BBC’) one must be seen to be trying at least to be objective and truthful as far as one can, separating what one reports as ‘facts’ from what is mere speculation/wishful thinking.
There might be hope for the boy, yet!

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on4:42 pm - Jan 10, 2015


John Clark says:
January 10, 2015 at 4:28 pm
2 0 Rate This

****
Ah, the great Cyril Horne.

What a writer that man was.
His gift with words matched his knowledge of the game.

I believe that although not a Celtic supporter, he used to pen some articles for the Celtic View, in it’s early days.

I believe that only editorial control stopped the late Glenn Gibbons from carrying on the tradition of articulate, honest sports journalists in Scotland.

My major, current disappointment in this area is Hugh Mc.Illvaney in the Sunday Times.

He writes with authority on all sports, but has never dipped his pen into the scandal of Scottish football.

I would imagine that, by now, he has the established credibility and reputation to deliver the coup de grace to the SMSM, with the definitive exposé of their deceit.

Why hasn’t he?

View Comment

rabtdogPosted on5:19 pm - Jan 10, 2015


Well, if the London media only woke up to #indyref immediately beforehand when •one poll• gave #yes a v narrow lead, how much of a flying thingie do you think the London media give about:
• Scottish football in general;
• a solitary club?

If your readership wants English Premier top-end news and what’s happening in Barcelona, Madrid, Milan, Munich etc then the peripheral complexities of clubs that might be UCL makeweights •at best• don’t really figure…

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on5:40 pm - Jan 10, 2015


ThomTheThim says:
January 10, 2015 at 4:42 pm

He writes with authority on all sports, but has never dipped his pen into the scandal of Scottish football.

I would imagine that, by now, he has the established credibility and reputation to deliver the coup de grace to the SMSM, with the definitive exposé of their deceit.

Why hasn’t he?
===============================================================

Perhaps he was wise enough not to and now in his 80s he no doubt has better things to think about and spend his time and energy on.

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on5:44 pm - Jan 10, 2015


rabtdog says:
January 10, 2015 at 5:19 pm
1 0 Rate This

Well, if the London media only woke up to #indyref immediately beforehand when •one poll• gave #yes a v narrow lead, how much of a flying thingie do you think the London media give about:
• Scottish football in general;
• a solitary club?

If your readership wants English Premier top-end news and what’s happening in Barcelona, Madrid, Milan, Munich etc then the peripheral complexities of clubs that might be UCL makeweights •at best• don’t really figure…

******
Ain’t that the truth.

However, given Mc.Illvanney’s obvious pride in Scottish football’s history, via his open admiration and respect for Messrs. Stein, Busby and Shankley, one would think that out of respect for those giants of the game, he would call out those who denigrate their memory.

At this stage, Hugh doesn’t have his career prospects to consider and he surely has enough clout with his editor.

I am left with the conclusion that some sort of pact has been agreed between all the decision makers and opinion formers that RFC(in any of it’s manifestations), has to be accommodated within the Scottish game, through fear and favour, if necessary.

View Comment

Para HandyPosted on5:52 pm - Jan 10, 2015


ecobhoy says:
January 9, 2015 at 7:46 pm

John Clark says:
January 9, 2015 at 7:39 pm

But I just hope masses of Celtic fans decide that they will have something better to do on that match day than support the continuation of the Big Lie.
=================================================
I have no doubt the Celtic allocation will be well oversubscribed. I won’t be going myself but plenty of others will. I will watch it on the telly though.
===========================
Not a dig at you Eco, it would be best for many people in Scotland who have little or no connection with either of the two teams, that this game was not televised.

In recent years, when similar matches have been played, the majority of the trouble has not been around the ground but in the streets outside bars and homes where the game is shown on TV.

And on the subject of TV, haven’t watched Only an Excuse and regardless of any perceived “balance” or “bias”, it was scripted and shot before Ally resigned…

View Comment

@ModgePKRPosted on6:13 pm - Jan 10, 2015


Ecobhoy says:

I would also have thought that their is a legal onus on a creditor to supply invoices for money owed to them.
========================================

I believe the maximum limit is 6 years (!).

A while ago, I bought something which had to be ordered overseas. Long story short, they eventually delivered it before I actually paid anything. 2 years went by and I had forgotten about not paying it and the invoice was finally received. I checked the rules then and I’m sure it was 6 years, although it may be different for goods rather than services.

I’ll admit to having doubts myself about my theory. I just enjoy trying to understand how the spiv mind works and how well educated and experienced directors can be embarrassed by huge bills suddenly appearing out of “the blue” 😀

I’d love to have been a fly on the wall when they found out about this. I bet it was like that advert years ago when the board are in a crisis meeting and the guy snaps “How can this happen? Who’s job is it to ensure we know about stuff like this?”. Then someone sheepishly says “Um, yours…”. :mrgreen:

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on6:21 pm - Jan 10, 2015


I have been watching the Darkside on the power struggle at Ibrox and many now seem to believe – although it may well be wishful thinking – that the 3Bears plus 1 have won and that the Board will allow them a controlling shareholding interest. It appears there is still a tussle over Board deckchair allocation right enuff.

However the new buzzword seems to be that this will be achieved with a debt for equity swap. Now I had always thought that this mechanism was often used when a financially distressed company was trying to reduce its debts in a bid for survival. So the creditor swapped their debt for shares in the company.

Now I get it as far as that but why would a creditor who has their loans secured on property give-up that certainty for bits of paper in the form of share certificates which might well be worthless if the company collapses.

And how does a debt for equity swap work for the 3Bears plus 1 who aren’t owed anything by the company afaik. So how can they be given shares in exchange for a debt they don’t owe?

Is it possible they might clear debt owed to others involved with the company whether they be existing shareholders or not and then get the shares of these creditors or fresh shares for clearing debts of those not holding shares.

Am I missing something here?

On another note I see that the Copland Road Organisation have got round to dissecting and actually understanding the Rangers Retail Ltd joint venture deal with SportsDirect and are horrified at what they have found.

Us bampots did this two years ago – still I suppose it’s better late than never because it will help them be better prepared for the next time.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on6:42 pm - Jan 10, 2015


@ModgePKR says:
January 10, 2015 at 6:13 pm
Ecobhoy says:

I would also have thought that there is a legal onus on a creditor to supply invoices for money owed to them.
========================================
I believe the maximum limit is 6 years (!). A while ago, I bought something which had to be ordered overseas. Long story short, they eventually delivered it before I actually paid anything. 2 years went by and I had forgotten about not paying it and the invoice was finally received. I checked the rules then and I’m sure it was 6 years, although it may be different for goods rather than services.

I’ll admit to having doubts myself about my theory. I just enjoy trying to understand how the spiv mind works and how well educated and experienced directors can be embarrassed by huge bills suddenly appearing out of “the blue” 😀

I’d love to have been a fly on the wall when they found out about this. I bet it was like that advert years ago when the board are in a crisis meeting and the guy snaps “How can this happen? Who’s job is it to ensure we know about stuff like this?”. Then someone sheepishly says “Um, yours…”. :mrgreen:
============================================================
Btw I’m not challenging your scenario as it fits better than most. I suppose a key question is what legal system has jurisdiction over the debt which of course Ticketus learnt to their cost.

The classic ‘poison pill’ was obviously used by directors to prevent or delay takeovers or be well compensated for allowing one. But this scenario could be a more subtle variation designed not to be stymied with evolving company legislation to protect shareholders.

We know what happened with Stockbridge and his little surprise so T’Rangers do have some history in these matters 😆

View Comment

HamerdoonPosted on6:45 pm - Jan 10, 2015


upthehoops says:
January 10, 2015 at 4:01 pm
26 0 Rate This

There was some debate last week over the merits of Richard Wilson. I have to say on Sportsound today he spoke very sensibly and realistically in terms of how much it would take just to get Rangers on an even footing. He was also not quite as confident as others that a deal is about to be brokered at Ibrox. He even seemed a bit embarrassed at using the ‘three bears’ title and opted to change to the names of the individuals involved.
———————————————–
Agreed UTH, he was a bit better, even dissing somewhat his colleague McLaughlin’s hyperbole.

I’ve been critical of his lack of investigation and interpretation and I think I’d like to see a more prolonged sojourn into proper journalism (titter ye not at the back).

View Comment

sixtaesevenPosted on6:57 pm - Jan 10, 2015


upthehoops says:
January 10, 2015 at 4:01 pm
26 0 Rate This
There was some debate last week over the merits of Richard Wilson…

————————-

“Woodward and Bernstein” compare and weep.
And I don’t mean Wilson, because unbelievably he could be the best of _ God, I wish ah could think of a more accurate expression _ a bad bunch.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on7:00 pm - Jan 10, 2015


@ModgePKR says:
January 10, 2015 at 6:13 pm
===============================================

Under English Law it can be up to 12 years depending on type of contract but most are at least 6 years so it looks as though time wouldn’t be a problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_Act_1980

In Scotland it seems to be 5 years.

In both jurisdictions a debt can be “Statute Barred” but I doubt if anyone sophisticated to use or draw-up such a contract or deed would fall into that trap. But the time limits have yet to expire in any case.

View Comment

@ModgePKRPosted on7:03 pm - Jan 10, 2015


ecobhoy says:
January 10, 2015 at 6:21 pm
5 0 Rate this

And how does a debt for equity swap work for the 3Bears plus 1 who aren’t owed anything by the company afaik. So how can they be given shares in exchange for a debt they don’t owe?

Is it possible they might clear debt owed to others involved with the company whether they be existing shareholders or not and then get the shares of these creditors or fresh shares for clearing debts of those not holding shares.

Am I missing something here?
========================================

I believe they mean that the Board take out a new loan from K and T3B and pay back Ashley. Rather than being secured on the properties, these new loans would convert to equity if they can’t be repaid.

It may be a method of getting round the disapplication problem in that shareholders would be faced with a stark choice: allow the new issue or go bust.

View Comment

@ModgePKRPosted on7:16 pm - Jan 10, 2015


ecobhoy says:
January 10, 2015 at 6:42 pm
2 0 Rate This

@ModgePKR says:
January 10, 2015 at 6:13 pm
Ecobhoy says:

I would also have thought that there is a legal onus on a creditor to supply invoices for money owed to them.
========================================

I’ll admit to having doubts myself about my theory. I just enjoy trying to understand how the spiv mind works and how well educated and experienced directors can be embarrassed by huge bills
________________________________________
Btw I’m not challenging your scenario as it fits better than most. I suppose a key question is what legal system has jurisdiction over the debt which of course Ticketus learnt to their cost.

The classic ‘poison pill’ was obviously used by directors to prevent or delay takeovers or be well compensated for allowing one. But this scenario could be a more subtle variation designed not to be stymied with evolving company legislation to protect shareholders.

We know what happened with Stockbridge and his little surprise so T’Rangers do have some history in these matters 😆
========================================

Understood, although please do feel free to challenge anything I propose. There’s so many good analytical people here that between us we might just hit the nail on the head.

The key difference to the Ticketus deal here though is obviously that there’s no insolvency yet, so RIFC has to pay otherwise it’s Third Rangers time.

I do see this as a kind of poison pill, but with the twist the pill was swallowed by a previous Board and the current incumbents were blindsided by it. Charlie seems such a clever boy, eh? And to think I used to question why he seemed happy with so little!

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on7:18 pm - Jan 10, 2015


sixtaeseven says:
January 10, 2015 at 6:57 pm

“Woodward and Bernstein” compare and weep

“You talkin’ to me?” 😆

ecobhoy says:
January 10, 2015 at 6:21 pm

“On another note………………..still I suppose it’s better late than never because it will help them be better prepared for the next time.”

At this particular time it will hasten the next time. :mrgreen: 😯

View Comment

andygraham.66Posted on7:22 pm - Jan 10, 2015


Jim Delahunt has said the word Sevco on Clyde.

has been added to banned list

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on7:23 pm - Jan 10, 2015


@ModgePKR says: January 10, 2015 at 7:03 pm

It may be a method of getting round the disapplication problem in that shareholders would be faced with a stark choice: allow the new issue or go bust.
=================================
It would still require a special resolution at an EGM to approve the allotment of new shares if there was an insufficient number of shares available to K+T3B from those approved at the December AGM (must be made available existing shareholder in proportion to their current holdings)

I’ve just checked the Aberdeen proposed DFE swap by Stewart Milne and a Special Resolution (75% threshold) was required.

View Comment

stifflersmomPosted on7:26 pm - Jan 10, 2015


All this gushing over Richard Wilson. Have yous no shame?

Get a grip lads (and girls). We’re actually paying this guy to spout all that gash. He’s had years to redeem himself and his profession.

He’s fell way short in my book.

View Comment

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on7:42 pm - Jan 10, 2015


How can the SPFL be confident of the Ibrox club’s ability to fund remaining fixtures when the directors appear unable to even quantify their liabilities, never mind pay them? Time to revisit that opinion? Time for another dinner date?

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on7:42 pm - Jan 10, 2015


Para Handy says:
January 10, 2015 at 5:52 pm
ecobhoy says:
January 9, 2015 at 7:46 pm
John Clark says:
January 9, 2015 at 7:39 pm

But I just hope masses of Celtic fans decide that they will have something better to do on that match day than support the continuation of the Big Lie.
=================================================
I have no doubt the Celtic allocation will be well oversubscribed. I won’t be going myself but plenty of others will. I will watch it on the telly though.
===========================
Not a dig at you Eco, it would be best for many people in Scotland who have little or no connection with either of the two teams, that this game was not televised.

In recent years, when similar matches have been played, the majority of the trouble has not been around the ground but in the streets outside bars and homes where the game is shown on TV.

And on the subject of TV, haven’t watched Only an Excuse and regardless of any perceived “balance” or “bias”, it was scripted and shot before Ally resigned…
=======================================================================
I certainly don’t see it as a dig but would agree with your sentiments. I haven’t attended an Old Firm Game for 20 years for personal reasons and quite honestly couldn’t care less if Celtic and Rangers never played each other again.

Most of the trouble over the decades has seldom been at the ground – although there have been notable exceptions – simply because of the police presence.

It happens in local pubs and in family homes and it would be wrong to think that the agressors in these situations didn’t attend the match and only watched it on TV. And the bulk of it goes unreported to the police although ER departments in Glasgow Hospitals looked like field hospitals in a war zone.

The whole situation is a massive stain on Scotland but it has slowly improved especially over the last 10/15 years for a whole variety of reasons to do with our society changing and especially the don’t interfere mentality which allowed women, kids and pets to be used as punchbags when the big man’s team lost.

The reason I will watch the game on the telly is because my local pub is mixed with supporters from a variety of clubs but mainly Celtic and Rangers.

In over 25 years there has never been one violent incident associated with an Old Firm game except once when 3 strangers landed there intent on trouble and were ejected by a mixture of Old Firm supporters – not too gently I’m afraid 😆

So when I watch the match it isn’t to support Celtic or even that I actually want to see it but to support the gathering of decent fans from each side many of whose kids now follow in their dads and grandfathers footsteps.

And it’s the youngsters where I really see the difference – they quite simply don’t have the prejudices or the hang-ups or at least not the same deep level as many of my generation were brought up with.

I am an optimist but very much a realist and it’s possible a return to hostilities aka ‘normal business’ might sadly turn the clock back for a bit but it will pass and things will continue to improve IMO.

As to ‘Only an Excuse’ it’s on its last legs and has run out of steam. It’s part of all our yesterdays and I’ve a tinge of sadness that it is so out-of-touch. I used to laugh my head off at the skits but this time I yawned.

View Comment

@ModgePKRPosted on7:44 pm - Jan 10, 2015


easyJambo says:
January 10, 2015 at 7:23 pm
1 0 Rate This

@ModgePKR says: January 10, 2015 at 7:03 pm

It may be a method of getting round the disapplication problem in that shareholders would be faced with a stark choice: allow the new issue or go bust.
=================================
It would still require a special resolution at an EGM to approve the allotment of new shares if there was an insufficient number of shares available to K+T3B from those approved at the December AGM (must be made available existing shareholder in proportion to their current holdings)

I’ve just checked the Aberdeen proposed DFE swap by Stewart Milne and a Special Resolution (75% threshold) was required.
========================================

Agreed, but I think 75% is more achievable when the alternative is bankruptcy.

Plus, it gets the money through the door now and allows details to be ironed out later.

View Comment

Comments are closed.