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

mcfcPosted on2:05 pm - Dec 23, 2014


Interesting over on LSE, that whenever the truth gets unbearable, a bunch of trolls fill the share discussion forum with vainglorious whataboutery and oldco/newco tripe. They must be on zero hours troll contracts with Jack. I think they’ll be having some good pay packets over coming weeks.

http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=RFC

View Comment

normanbatesmumfcPosted on3:49 pm - Dec 23, 2014


Has the white smoke emerged from the hampden chimney yet? Or will the decision be buried at 3pm on xmas day when the head of the establishment may be delivering her annual speech?

View Comment

oddjobPosted on3:57 pm - Dec 23, 2014


I see from Phil`s latest blog, that the lady who had worked at Ibrox since the days of Willie Waddell, was given severance pay, but only in relation to two and a half years service, not the thirty plus she had been there.

Regardless of whatever argument there may be about oldco/newco, this must be one of the meanest of acts.

Surely she was covered by TUPE ?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on4:12 pm - Dec 23, 2014


oddjob says:
December 23, 2014 at 3:57 pm

Indeed from my understanding Tupe involves length of service being maintained therefore unless any alterations or agreements were reached on transfer then she should be entitled to the appropriate redundancy.

The guidance from what I can see on-line says that when taking over a company these legacy issues need to be factored into your offer price being they could hit you down the line.

Have pointed this out on Phil’s site. Maybe needs more following up with sources to confirm it is the case and not just tittle-tattle.

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on4:15 pm - Dec 23, 2014


oddjob says:
December 23, 2014 at 3:57 pm
5 0 Rate This
==================================================
I double checked and I am informed that Charles had people sign new contracts at some point in Sevco Year One.
I do not know if this a loophole in TUPE or folk making bad decisions.

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on4:16 pm - Dec 23, 2014


oddjob says:
December 23, 2014 at 3:57 pm
===========================
I might be wrong but would a severence payment (lump sum) of 30 months salary not be quite close to standard? Maybe that is what is being alluded to, not her total package.

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on4:19 pm - Dec 23, 2014


wottpi says:
December 23, 2014 at 4:12 pm
====================================================
Excellent source

View Comment

wildwoodPosted on4:26 pm - Dec 23, 2014


I dunno about you lot, but I’m still shaking my heid / grinning about numpty nuts saying on camera ‘I was always led to believe we were the ‘establishment’ club’.

Just a pity his sterling upbringing didn’t stretch to keeping shchtum about all the work of the unseen hand developing in front of the wee mollycoddled soul. I mean we all know it happens – they know it happens, but they never really admit to it happening, do they?

Anyway I hope the wee scone got a decent nights sleep tucked up in his broxy bear onesie ready to ‘go again’ today – when the SFA are reminded about the ‘entitlement’ issue.

Shakes heid one more time – the ‘e-stab-lish-ment’ club indeed?

Couldnae make it up, could you?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on4:26 pm - Dec 23, 2014


PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
December 23, 2014 at 4:19 pm

I’m sure they are and have no doubt Mr Llambais will not be taking any risks of getting dragged to a employment tribunal.

Big Hands getting the ‘little people’ to sign away their rights to help ensure there was plenty cash for onerous contracts would be no surprise to anyone on here.

View Comment

scottcPosted on4:35 pm - Dec 23, 2014


PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
December 23, 2014 at 4:15 pm

oddjob says:
December 23, 2014 at 3:57 pm
==================================================
I double checked and I am informed that Charles had people sign new contracts at some point in Sevco Year One.
I do not know if this a loophole in TUPE or folk making bad decisions.

Presumably he didn’t manage to get Charlie Telfer to sign one of those. 🙄

View Comment

mcfcPosted on4:50 pm - Dec 23, 2014


If Derek can’t make Mike see sense then maybe Jon can

“The deal came down to the numbers – and the numbers just didn’t add up. Revenues were in a freefall.“

“The most important revenue stream to Rangers, season-tickets, was projected to be down by 20 per cent.”

“It’s an opportunity for someone with great wealth and a love of football and/or Scotland to give away tens and tens of millions of pounds. Unless some major, systemic changes occur within the UK and European football leagues, I don’t think the Rangers math works.”

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Rangers+hit+back+at+cash+claims%3B+RANGERS%27+CASH+RAP.-a0312996998

View Comment

mcfcPosted on4:59 pm - Dec 23, 2014


Just had a quick flash back there – or was it false memory syndrome – Kieran Prior and George Soros as Messaihs – are they putting mescaline in the mince pies or something – I certainly don’t have the imagination to make that up.

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on5:14 pm - Dec 23, 2014


mcfc says:
December 23, 2014 at 4:59 pm
1 0 Rate This
================================================
I have some notes for a review of 2014 piece for next week.
All of the Sevco stuff reads as being incredible, the work of a truly creative imagination.
Bizarre stuff.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on5:15 pm - Dec 23, 2014


mcfc says:
December 23, 2014 at 4:50 pm
‘..If Derek can’t make Mike see sense then maybe Jon can.’
———-
Reading Jon Pritchard’s piece again (and thanks for the handy link,mcfc) reinforces the widespread belief at the time that many of the people subsequently involved with the new club were wide-boy chancers eager for very dubious big bucks from the milk cow. A belief which turns out to have been very well founded indeed.
And STILL there are others, like vultures hovering over a dying cow, waiting for a chance to peck something from the carcase.
It is, really, quite disgusting that the business and finance world generally, and the sporting world in particular, should be plagued by such low-life, be-suited parasites: manipulative men who are strangers to the truth and hubristic enough even to insult their victims.
May they all find their Christmas stockings as empty of goodies as their hearts are of any kind of human decency or even self-respect.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on5:19 pm - Dec 23, 2014


PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
December 23, 2014 at 5:14 pm
================================
I look forward to that – it’s been a good year for out-of-the-box thinking 🙂

View Comment

mcfcPosted on5:37 pm - Dec 23, 2014


John Clark says:
December 23, 2014 at 5:15 pm

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

John, if you have the strength – Pritchett’s full analysis (over three pages) is here – took a while to find it – has Jack had it removed by Google for defamation – who would be surprised …

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2012/10/08/what-can-we-learn-from-the-financial-meltdown-of-glasgow-rangers-fc/

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on5:41 pm - Dec 23, 2014


The Bampots guessed a good while back that the obvious option would be for McCoist to go on gardening leave, with McDowell/Durrant stepping up in the interim – as it shouldn’t add to the cash outflow at TRFC.

But have they missed a trick ?

With McDowell at the helm, will the bears rally round and fill the stadium ?
Will the quality of the football and results improve ?
Not sure.

However, if they had got e.g. Terry Butcher – if only in the interim – he could have given the Ibrox a much needed boost, and would have put bums on seats. It could have generated significantly more cash inflow than his cost ?

Promotion would not be guaranteed of course, but at least a Butcher/Davies/whoever would come with prior management experience, and maybe better able to handle the expectations and pressure for the rest of this season ?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on5:57 pm - Dec 23, 2014


The following is a copy over from CQN re Celtic’s part in the 5 way agreement. I’ve copied over because although it addresses the conflicting Celtic supporters’ perspective on the deal, I think it highlights the current battle for the soul of Scottish football and the future social impact if we get it wrong.
———————
weeminger

14:54 on

23 December, 2014

Just to make it totally clear where I’m at with this

Doncaster, Regan etc say to the clubs we want to strike a deal. We’ll allow Sevco boosted entry into the SFL, but they’ll need to agree to penalties and clearing all football debts. They agree.

What I’m saying is that they didn’t know the detail of what those penalties might be and how much it would do in terms of the same club myth. This allows them to maintain a certain level of deniability.

I think anybody that considered the clubs to have no knowledge at all of the agreement is naïve in the extreme.
==============
Auldheid says

If I may add to your thinking which I agree with; I think what the critics of Celtic on the 5 way need to separate is the survival of the Scottish leagues from the dependency on the bigot pound (which I think we all deplore).

That there is a bigot pound element to decisions is undeniable, but that does not mean Celtic do not deplore that fact as much as the Celtic support do.

What Celtic could not ignore was the impact on other clubs of the loss of the income that they enjoyed from having a Rangers in Scottish football. That does not mean other clubs liked that bigot pound dependency either, but whereas Celtic could stand the cost (not financial loss as our accounts show) the other clubs could not stand the financial loss.

Therefore Celtic were never in a position to dictate to other clubs that under no circumstances would TRFC be allowed to take part in Scottish football at a professional level. To think so is to ignore a reality to feed a prejudice.

It should also be remembered that the SFA’s preferred position was an SPL parachute for TRFC which Celtic objected to because the Celtic support would have walked away had they not done so. The argument was sporting integrity and Celtic pushed it but they, like other clubs were also being pushed by their support to reject the idea.

Thus when it became clear that the only route back into the game for TRFC was via the SFL, all the parties set about an agreement to cover those circumstances. The agreement did not enable something to happen that would not have in its absence, it simply set out the terms and conditions that all parties demanded to safeguard themselves, primarily of which was TRFC paying what debt RFC owed to Scottish football clubs.

Those conditions would have been set in principle by all clubs including Celtic, but the drafting of the agreement itself to meet those principles would be under Regan and Doncaster.

No matter how much we deplore RFC and their descendant or the dependence on the bigot pound, there is NOTHING Celtic could have done to stop TRFC gaining a place in Scottish football and had they tried, they risked killing off a number of clubs who did depend on the income (TV money for example) that TRFC generated just by being part of the set up.

Did Celtic have a say in the 5 way? I friggin hope so.

Should they have? Definitely.

Does that mean Celtic want TRFC back? No more than we supporters do, but to prevent it was

a) impossible and

b) if successful could have killed off other clubs as well either leaving us with no one to play or diluting the level of competition way below what we currently have.

The real underlying issue being raised here IS the bigot pound that the game has allowed itself to become a slave to.

With that element now visibly shrinking the opportunity to change the whole culture of Scottish football to make it a family occasion should be the aim,. not to restore the bigot dependency and prolong that culture.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on6:22 pm - Dec 23, 2014


Auld heid,

I’ll need to read that again to fully digest but my immediate impression, accepting the source as a CFC site so it would always come from a certain perspective, is that I’m surprised at you. Sorry.

Immediate point. The bigot pound is different to the fact that RFC in whatever form happen to be big, so to the diddies the first benefit of a visit (from either side of the divide for that matter) is a big pound. The bigot element unfortunately seems to follow on soon after.

Will read again later as maybe over reacting.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on6:42 pm - Dec 23, 2014


back to BBC Radio Scotland’s continuing propagation of the big lie.A few minutes ago, in the quick run-through of McCoist’s managerial career, we had a mention of Administration, followed immediately by the recording of the ‘ announcement ‘the SFL has no choice but to put ‘Rangers’ into the third Division’.
Not a word about Liquidation and the death of RFC (IL) or the creation of a new club.Oh, no, the practised deceit-mongers ( whose salaries we pay) continue to lie and deny.
May they choke on their forked tongues as a disgrace to the BBC!

View Comment

shawfieldtoteboardPosted on6:51 pm - Dec 23, 2014


I read a BBC online article about McDowell earlier and his claim that he was told that Durie would be his assistant and that Durrant was to be “demoted” to U-20’s coach. What struck me was he then apparently was left to go and tell Durrant. If a peer came in and told me that they were boss now and that I had to ship off to another department I would be less that chuffed and indeed would smile graciously and march straight to my bosses office. A spineless cowardly board, a bit of s**t stirring by McDowell or the board being deliberately provocative?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on6:52 pm - Dec 23, 2014


Auld heid. Still digesting. Could you expand on “the bigot pound” for us non CQN’rs. I take it to mean the ramping up of the basic old firm football rivalry, so it is to say that the whole is worth more than the two halves by adding in he sectarian bit. I am slightly less clear why the rest of the game has “become a slave to it.” Just wanted to check before going off on one!

View Comment

andyPosted on7:03 pm - Dec 23, 2014


looks like the Rangers board going after sons of struth for releasing that email yesterday
______________
I have just been informed that the lawyer claiming to be acting on behalf of Mr & Mr Easdale, Mr Somers and RIFC has submitted to the crown an action against me and the emails i released last night

The action is NOT against authenticity nor publication but he believes the emails have been obtained through illegal means. How could you obtain an email illegally if it were fake? The action in its self proves authenticity.

I shared this email with the Rangers fans for one reason and one reason only, to show the members of our board are more interested in self preservation than the future of our club, I done so in the belief that the public had to see the email i was in possession of and without concern to any future action against me, I believe I have done the right thing.

I will not be bullied in my attempts to clear our club of those controlling it for their own benefit and wish every man removed who does not put Rangers interests in front of their own

I am unsure of the outcome of this action and what i will face tomorrow so i will therefore be taking a break from online activity until this outcome is known and will leave the page to the moderators to oversee with no further posts until things clear up

Merry Christmas and happy New year to all in the Rangers Family

Craig.

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on7:20 pm - Dec 23, 2014


andy says:
December 23, 2014 at 7:03 pm
3 0 Rate This

looks like the Rangers board going after sons of struth for releasing that email yesterday

******
It is a pity that they never woke up to the dealings of Murray Major, when he ran their club into the ground.

View Comment

mungoboyPosted on7:44 pm - Dec 23, 2014


JC,

Can’t get Sportsound on the internet so had to make do with SSB with Guidi and McColl.
It was a real ‘Dorothy’ moment when you know you’re not in Kansas anymore.
The canonisation of Ally continued apace, followed by Guidi trying to give the impression he may have been at the AGM but when Scott fae Larkhall ( who had been there and was well angry) pressed him he replied he’d followed it ‘closely’.
The best bit was when he tried to give the impression that he somehow knew what My Cashley would do re monies into ‘Rangers’ and what Cashley was thinking.
I don’t think even Cashley knows that!
He did reckon Llambias was a good thing and very professional.
If these fans are looking for info as to what’s happening then stick with Guidi. He’ll keep you posted.
The rest of us can just hang about here and our man in Donegal.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on7:49 pm - Dec 23, 2014


Auldheid says:
December 23, 2014 at 5:57 pm

Thus when it became clear that the only route back into the game for TRFC was via the SFL, all the parties set about an agreement to cover those circumstances. The agreement did not enable something to happen that would not have in its absence, it simply set out the terms and conditions that all parties demanded to safeguard themselves, primarily of which was TRFC paying what debt RFC owed to Scottish football clubs.

Auldheid, I really have to take issue with that,and in particular- “The agreement did not enable something to happen that would not have in its absence”.

Without the express agreement of the SFA, RFC’s membership of that body could not be transferred at all. So the true default position was that the holder of the RFC membership was going into liquidation, and without SFA consent to a transfer to Sevco, that SFA membership would simply be extinguished. The 5WA was essential for the survival of the RFC membership, and for the survival of Sevco as a footballing entity. Without the transfer of the existing RFC SFA membership, Sevco had no way of gaining entry to the SFL.

Your comments regarding the “Blue Pound” are contentious, but that is just a difference of opinion. In my opinion, the “Blue Pound” benefits no one except the team at Ibrox, and never has done. Clearly you (and CFC) disagree with me.

Maybe I’m dead wrong on that. But I’m dead right on this- the 5WA agreement was an essential element of the process which ensured that a newly formed company could play a team in the SFL. And that is surely at the heart of all our current problems.

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on7:59 pm - Dec 23, 2014


Auldheid says:
December 23, 2014 at 5:57 pm

That does not mean other clubs liked that bigot pound dependency either, but whereas Celtic could stand the cost (not financial loss as our accounts show) the other clubs could not stand the financial loss.
————————————
Auldheid, I’m interested to know if there’s an assumption regarding the “other clubs” ability to cope with (I assume were talking TV money here ❓ ) income reduction or is there any evidence that these clubs were basically saying we’ll go under too if RFC go under ❓

From memory were not talking vast sums for third place downwards back then.

Also would appreciate some clarification as per Smugas’ earlier post.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on8:07 pm - Dec 23, 2014


“Blue pound”?

Just on the 5wa by the way, I am absolutely convinced and have already been proven half right by CF that, ironically in a side letter, that RFC * agreed in return for accepting the football debt that they RFC wouldn’t pursue the authorities as long as the authorities took no further action including, crucially, LNS.

View Comment

Partizani TiranaPosted on8:09 pm - Dec 23, 2014


Auldheid, a couple of points.
Are you really agreeing with Regan that Armageddon was approaching if no Rangers were in Scottish football? There has been plenty of analysis on here of attendances and increased opportunities to all clubs to win silverware or compete in Europe, to put the Armageddon argument to bed.
The vast majority of money that Rangers brought/bring to the Scottish game is not distributed among the other clubs, but paid to Ibrox employees, or siphoned off by Spivs. The lack of sponsorship in Scottish football is a damning indictment of the authorities and by extention the clubs who should be up in arms about it.

In my opinion if Celtic were complicit in the 5WA then hell mend them if the whole thing collapses. To be honest my head tells me they were complicit, but if I truly admit that to myself I’d have to quit being a Celtic fan, and I can’t face that just yet.

View Comment

sixtaesevenPosted on8:10 pm - Dec 23, 2014


This morning I was seeing headlines in the SMSM along the lines of:

“SFA hold crunch talks with the Mike Ashley camp today”

I’ve been trying to get a report on how it went – mainly to know just how far backward the SFA bent this time.

Not a sniff this evening as far as I can see in the SMSM.

Anybody any news on the “crunch talks”?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on8:14 pm - Dec 23, 2014


To complete my post of 8.07 I meant to add – the clubs had to have been consulted on the 5way agreement. I’m not convinced there was full disclosure of those tripartite side letters. The irony of that is not lost on me.

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on8:20 pm - Dec 23, 2014


andy says:
December 23, 2014 at 7:03 pm

looks like the Rangers board going after sons of struth for releasing that email yesterday
==================================
It’s been picked up on by Roddy F who claims to have seen proof of provenance (wrt the e-mail) and has elicited a “no comment” from “Somers through Rangers”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11311642/Rangers-chairman-David-Somers-pleaded-for-Mike-Ashley-takeover-to-succeed-emails-reveal.html

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on9:10 pm - Dec 23, 2014


Neepheid:

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/110828-video-in-full-sfl-announce-rangers-will-be-admitted-into-third-division/
Sevco Scotland Ltd – trading as Rangers FC – were admitted as a new member of the SFL on 12th July 2012. They were AUTOMATICALLY given registered membership of the SFA at that time. As per SFL rules, the new club had 14 days to apply for full OR associate SFA membership status.

Sevco applied for, and were granted, the full member status held by the then non-operating RFC plc – though still officially holding memberships of the SPL and SFA. Full SFA membership was granted on the 3rd August 2012, when the old club gave up their membership of the SPL.

Had the SFA refused to transfer FULL membership status, they could still have granted associate membership to the new club.

Sevco were admitted to the SFL (and thus were already SFA members) before the transfer of status from the old club.

The SFA’s decision to transfer membership status did not in itself facilitate Sevco’s participation in the SFL. Associate membership would have allowed participation in that league.

The SFA decision to transfer membership status was likely more to do with having an eye to the proposed reconstruction that would have expanded the SPL to two divisions. FULL SFA membership was necessary to participate in the SPL. Associate membership lasts for at least 5 seasons. This could have seriously stalled the new club’s progress.

The transfer also acknowledged Sevco Scotland as the “legitimate” successor of the Rangers FC brand.

Ultimately, there was always going to be “a Rangers” in the senior game. For commercial reasons, the SPL wanted the link between old and new to be as seamless as possible and attempting to promote them as the same club seemed to be the most expedient solution.

I have always thought that Stewart Regan and the SFA were weak in acceding to the needs of Neil Doncaster’s “same club” fiction; but are probably a little less culpable in the ill-conceived construction of the 5WA.

Incidentally, the SFA distinction on membership status no longer applies as all new SPFL applicants are (if accepted by the SFA) granted full SFA membership status.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:19 pm - Dec 23, 2014


Just reading that there are 3,700 souls at the Cowdenbeath v Hearts match — on 23 December!

A wave of publicity tomorrow then about how Hearts are sustaining Scottish football and how their supporters are saving other clubs by turning out in such huge numbers. Too big to fail, manager tipped for top UN post, either that or sainthood, no salary too big for Jambo’s boss, living legend, huge warchest expected from CEO next month … aw naw, haud oan, it’s ainly Hearts, so it tis :irony:

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on9:29 pm - Dec 23, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
December 23, 2014 at 9:19 pm

Just reading that there are 3,700 souls at the Cowdenbeath v Hearts match — on 23 December!…
====================
That’s it right there DP: the successful elements of Scottish football now, which should be receiving positive, full coverage in the SMSM.

Except the Govan club is still dominating the SMSM coverage with all things negative – and to the detriment of Scottish football in general.

TRFC is not Rangers of old, and TRFC is not as relevant as it thinks it is today: it’s just another club.

But good on Hearts – and well done to both sets of paying punters !

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:54 pm - Dec 23, 2014


HirsutePursuit says:
December 23, 2014 at 9:10 pm
‘……..For commercial reasons, the SPL wanted the link between old and new to be as seamless as possible and attempting to promote them as the same club seemed to be the most expedient solution.’
—————–
Indeed. Expediency and Cowardice and Connections conspired to ditch Sporting Integrity.

And that is a much graver offence than any committed even by SDM,CW and/or any of the barra-boy chancers who have been in positions of authority at RFC(IL), or any of the cobbled up, ersatz versions that have existed since.
[Mind you, the distortions reported by the BBC are even more grave. If the BBC is prepared to fudge the truth in matters of Sport, what will they do in the serious matters of life? Indeed, one is entitled to ask,what may the BBC already have done in the matter of distorting the ‘facts’ they report? On anything?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:20 pm - Dec 23, 2014


StevieBC says:
December 23, 2014 at 9:29 pm
‘..TRFC is not Rangers of old, and TRFC is not as relevant as it thinks it is today: it’s just another club.’
———
Agreed.
I am, I hope, open-minded enough to accept that there are many thousands of my fellow citizens who want to hear and read about a ‘Rangers’, whether the dead RFC or the new club called The RFC.

And I have no, and would not want to have any, objection to the Press giving some proportionately greater,prominence to ‘Rangers’ than to other clubs in ‘lower’ leagues and with relatively fewer supporters.

What I do object to, of course, is the insistence by the SMSM on NOT reporting truth, on trying instead to maintain the pretence that RFC is still alive, that TRFC’s ‘rightful place’ is the same place that RFC(IL) held,and up to SDM’s time possibly held on football merit(give or take the odd Secretary of the SFA and the odd referee).
That is,it is not the fact that the SMSM ‘reports’ on TRFC, but the knowledge that, in the main, the ‘reports’ are, fundamentally dishonest in that they maintain a pure legal and commercial fiction.
In my factual opinion.

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on10:29 pm - Dec 23, 2014


Well done Hearts

Thanks to your Ethos, Owner and Mgr

You`re now officially

….. My wee Team

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:41 pm - Dec 23, 2014


GoosyGoosy says:
December 23, 2014 at 10:29 pm
‘..Well done Hearts
Thanks to your Ethos, Owner and Mgr ‘
———
Come now, GG, one must remember how much better for Scottish Football Competitiveness it would have been had C’beath snatched a victory! 🙂

( With a comment like that, I could get a job on the DR!)

View Comment

neepheidPosted on10:45 pm - Dec 23, 2014


HirsutePursuit says:
December 23, 2014 at 9:10 pm

The SFA’s decision to transfer membership status did not in itself facilitate Sevco’s participation in the SFL. Associate membership would have allowed participation in that league.

=================
To become an Associate Member of the SFA, a new applicant would have had to meet the membership criteria promulgated by the Board (Rule 6.3). I recall that the criteria at the relevant time required 3 years audited accounts, which is why Sevco desperately needed a membership transfer, but I cannot find a link to the SFA membership criteria in operation for 2012. Can anyone provide a link to the details?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:59 pm - Dec 23, 2014


On the SFA/Llambias meeting, did I hear correctly earlier today that it was only Regan himself who met Llambias ‘informally’, not any kind of ‘official’ SFA contingent?
If that is the case, it calls to mind the nice wee, informal meetings between significant parties at an earlier stage in the history of the saga. Significant parties still in office.
What might have been Regan’s brief today? Whose agenda might he have been working to? Are we likely to hear how the informal discussion went?
Are we hell. Is it likely that Mr somebody-else’s-trusted-right-hand-man Llambias emerged discouraged from what had been the main thrust of the discussion?
Why ask, when I suspect we all can guess the answer?

View Comment

neepheidPosted on11:01 pm - Dec 23, 2014


Regarding Associate membership of the SFA, I managed to find this link-

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/112218-qa-the-outstanding-issues-over-rangers-scottish-fa-membership-transfer/

from which-

Don’t Sevco Scotland Limited need four years of accounts to gain a membership?

If Sevco were applying for a brand new membership of the Scottish FA, they would need four years of accounts to become an associate member. Participation in the SFL is dependant on being either a full or associate member of the Scottish FA.

The difference in this situation is that Sevco are applying to have the old company’s registration transferred to them. As the oldco had submitted historic accounts, with the exception of 2011, the four year rule does not apply.

That fits with my own recollection. So I cannot agree that the SFA could have granted Sevco associate membership in the absence of the 5 Way Agreement for the transfer of the oldco’s SFA membership to Sevco. Without the 5WA, Sevco could not have played in the SFL.

View Comment

justshateredPosted on11:04 pm - Dec 23, 2014


I see Phil is saying that the SFA’s rules, regarding Mike Ashley, may be unenforcible in law.

Can I ask some of the Hearts fans Allyjambo etc What was Romanov’s connection with a Lithuanian team, was it Kaunas, when he owned Hearts?
Was there dual ownership/influence?
I seem to remember lots of players coming and going?
Did Romanov own the Lithuanian team as well?
Was there any sanction against Hearts?
I honestly can’t remember so I’m trying to refresh my memory because I’m sure that at some time one of our intrepid reporters is going to ask this question although I’m sure it will never be couched in ‘whataboutary’ terms.

As for ‘The Rangers’ well if they do not wish to play by the same rules as everybody else, you know the same rules that are conditional as part of their membership, then they can return it after all membership is a priviledge not a right.

Once again our sport is heading for the cliff edge because one club will not or cannot live within it’s means.

I wonder if anyone has asked the question “If ‘The Rangers’ make it back to te top league and cannot, through fair play, qualify for Europe what will the SFA’s response be to their demands to pre qualification?”
This goes to the heart of governance and will cause even more suspicion if it is possible. Every contentious refereeing decision will be questioned at length as everyone now knows the state this club is in.
Imagine just for one minute that the referee has a bad day on semi-final day; gives two bad penalty decisions, disallows a perfectly good goal, and sends one player off. Imagine the outcry. This is the mistrust that now pervades our sport.

We’ve all seen referees have bad days but the pressure for these guys will be greater than anything seen yet.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on11:13 pm - Dec 23, 2014


JC
I wrote some time ago that many Rangers supporter are unable to get out of the denial/anger stages (in the Kübler-Ross model) whilst the pretence of the club’s survival continues.

Playing with people’s emotions may be good for circulation figures and the commercial needs of what was the SPL; but it cannot be healthy for the fan’s mental health.

There are signs that many are now in the depression stage – often the precursor to acceptance – but the fan-base still cannot coalesce around a single idea because reality is drowned out and chased away by those still suffering denial and feelings of anger. It is this fragmentation that has allowed the spivs to keep hold of the new club for so long.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:24 pm - Dec 23, 2014


neepheid says:
December 23, 2014 at 11:01 pm
‘….. Without the 5WA, Sevco could not have played in the SFL.’
———
My view, entirely.
Apart from anything else, the need for the agreement to be secret indicates that the signatories KNEW that they were up to no good, and insisted on ‘legal’ secrecy.
Though how any of them thought that any one of the other parties would be sure to honour the secrecy when the heat was on is beyond me. Because,by definition, in my book, if one is dealing with someone who is prepared to go along with you in a dishonest transaction, one knows by that very fact that one cannot possibly trust him-unless you’ve got his cochones in a pair of nutcrackers!
Or maybe those kind of pliers that people who deal with horses use for various gelding purposes.

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on11:41 pm - Dec 23, 2014


justshatered says:
December 23, 2014 at 11:04 pm

I see Phil is saying that the SFA’s rules, regarding Mike Ashley, may be unenforcible in law.
====================================
I suspect that neither side will be anxious to trouble the courts with this….an expensive, potentially lengthy exercise and the outcome often doubtful…so anyone want to bet against a wee compromise ❓

A ban on transfers between the clubs should deal with one potential COI (with UEFA rules taking care of the obvious other one).

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on11:47 pm - Dec 23, 2014


justshatered says:
December 23, 2014 at 11:04 pm
%%%%%
Many football rules are unenforceable. In the sense that you can’t make clubs field their best teams, you can’t make clubs try to win a game, you can’t make players ‘not cheat’, you can’t make officials ‘perform, to the best of their ability, in an impartial way.
When it comes to ownership, the same owner can have more than one horse in the same race, the same garage can have more than one car in F1 races, the same sponsor can be represented by more than one club in the same competition.
Why have rules?
To ensure that the paying public see genuine competition and not the corporately desired, most lucrative outcome. The rules ensure genuine competition.
Ashley owning rangers lock, stock & gazebo has no influence on the integrity of competition.
Why doesn’t he make his move for 30%?
Why doesn’t he underwrite the £8m offer (thereby becoming de facto owner)?
Why did MASH vote against No 9?
Because he’s not an idiot. He wants the schmutter, he’s got it.
The rest is just smoke and mirrors. Nobody knows who owns Ibrox & Murray Park, the SFA can insist on knowing the names of the beneficial owners behind Margherita and Blue Pitch Holdings, why are they so reluctant?
The AGM was a big circus in a very small tent.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:09 am - Dec 24, 2014


justshatered says:
December 23, 2014 at 11:04 pm
‘…….This is the mistrust that now pervades our sport..’
—————
And that mistrust is so utterly corrosive!

Who among us now is ready to believe, and take at face value, ANYTHING that the SFA and SPFL now say, as corporate bodies?

They have deceived us once, big time.

And like an adulterous wife/husband/civil partner/ or any such thing, they have a helluva job in trying to restore trust.

And they most certainly don’t do that by engaging in even ‘informal discussions’ with wealthy guys who want them to grant them commercial favours against the rules.

That the SFA should even be talking to Ashley is an absurdity.The man controls TRFC plc. In everyday fact.

He has spat in the eye of the SFA, pretty much in the same contemptuous way that CG did, and in the same expectation that the straw men, the conflicted men, will give way.

They gave way to a charlatan with no money to speak of.How much more will they cringe and fawn before another bully boy who DOES have money?

Trust? integrity?
Not from our presently constituted SFA board.
We may, I have to say, look to an early ‘2-way’ agreement.

In my opinion.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:12 am - Dec 24, 2014


neepheid says:
December 23, 2014 at 11:01 pm
4 0 Rate This
************************************
The accounts requirements, I think is in relation to the National Club Licensing Criteria. This is from 2012:
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PartTwo-NationalClubLicensing/8%20%20Legal%20Admin%20&%20Finance%20Criteria%20(2).pdf

A club is required to submit a summary of financial information covering the reporting year for 2011 and the previous two years i.e. 2010 and 2009 as detailed below.
Clubs are required to provide a summary of financial information Clubs will provide this information as follows –
drawn from the Audited Accounts
submitted at 8.1.1.
SPL clubs – by 31 March 2012
All other clubs – by 30 April 2012

However, also from 2012:
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PartTwo-NationalClubLicensing/4.%20Core%20Process%20(2)b.pdf

The Licensing Committee can decide to –
(a) reject the licence application pending immediate remedial action by the club
(b) to award a Licence at Gold level
(c) to award a Licence at Silver level
(d) to award a Licence at Bronze level
(e) to award a Licence at Entry level
(f) in exceptional circumstances the Licensing Committee may award a Licence at Platinum level.
(g) Take any step which, in its discretion, the Licensing Committee considers it would be appropriate to take in order to deal justly with the case in question. This includes an option to grant derogation based upon the application from the club.

Licensing Committee will provide the club with an explanation of the reasons for its decision.

Licensing Administration shall communicate the decision to the club within five days of the decision. If relevant the club will be provided with a copy of the Appeals procedure at that time.

This includes an option to grant derogation based upon the application from the club.

As no historic accounts were available, the club would have applied for derogation. I simply cannot imagine that this would have been rejected.

View Comment

macfurglyPosted on12:12 am - Dec 24, 2014


There has been no Armageddon.
No club has been proved to be dependent on the Blue Pound.
There was never any reason to think there would be.

There was a cultural need, which clearly still exists.
There was greed.

In the interests of fairness, Sevco should never have been asked to pay the football debts of RFC and should not have done so.

HirsutePursuit says
December 23, 2014 at 9:10 pm

“The transfer also acknowledged Sevco Scotland as the “legitimate” successor of the Rangers FC brand”

This idea means nothing to any football fan. It is horseshyt, and it needs to be exposed and ridiculed now, so we can all move on.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:24 am - Dec 24, 2014


neepheid says:
(and maybe Smugas)
December 23, 2014 at 7:49 pm

Auldheid says:
December 23, 2014 at 5:57 pm

Thus when it became clear that the only route back into the game for TRFC was via the SFL, all the parties set about an agreement to cover those circumstances. The agreement did not enable something to happen that would not have in its absence, it simply set out the terms and conditions that all parties demanded to safeguard themselves, primarily of which was TRFC paying what debt RFC owed to Scottish football clubs.

Auldheid, I really have to take issue with that,and in particular- “The agreement did not enable something to happen that would not have in its absence”.

Without the express agreement of the SFA, RFC’s membership of that body could not be transferred at all. So the true default position was that the holder of the RFC membership was going into liquidation, and without SFA consent to a transfer to Sevco, that SFA membership would simply be extinguished. The 5WA was essential for the survival of the RFC membership, and for the survival of Sevco as a footballing entity. Without the transfer of the existing RFC SFA membership, Sevco had no way of gaining entry to the SFL.

Your comments regarding the “Blue Pound” are contentious, but that is just a difference of opinion. In my opinion, the “Blue Pound” benefits no one except the team at Ibrox, and never has done. Clearly you (and CFC) disagree with me.

Maybe I’m dead wrong on that. But I’m dead right on this- the 5WA agreement was an essential element of the process which ensured that a newly formed company could play a team in the SFL. And that is surely at the heart of all our current problems.
===================
The idea that the other clubs were going to let the income from over 40,000 supporters just disappear from the game along with the value added to the TV contract from 4 gladiator vs the lions 4 times a year contest is what drove the effort not to allow that to happen.

The 5 way was only the means of making it happen not the reason for it happening. That is my point. In Celtic terms only, they were never going to stop some form of RFC continuing, even if they had wanted to or had the power to.

They would not want to for fear of the financial risks to other clubs that Celtic could better cope with. They had not the power to because they did not have majority vote.

You have to go back to summer of 2012 to see how other clubs might view matters and accept that they were not as financially healthy as many have become since by cutting their cloth or attracting other income.

I think there was an added value from the blue pound, it gave Scottish football a unique selling point for TV companies. The scramble after TRFC was not allowed in SDPL was to minimise the drop in that value so that clubs would not lose more than they could afford to. In fact did Celtic not take a bigger hit in terms of reduced TV income than other clubs? That was to help keep the league alive, not help TRFC.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:28 am - Dec 24, 2014


macfurgly says:
December 24, 2014 at 12:12 am
‘..In the interests of fairness, Sevco should never have been asked to pay the football debts of RFC and should not have done so.’
—————
Never mind fairness, Sevco as a completely new legal entity had no legal liability for the debts of a liquidated company.
It was the damnable determination to create the fiction that newco was still oldco that lay at heart of the 5way agreement.CG was happy to agree to that fiction-but only in relation to ‘football debts’. He could read the motivation of the SFA/SPL as being the ‘need’ to foster the ‘Rangers continuity’ myth.
Charlatan he may have been. But reader of mens souls he surely was.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:35 am - Dec 24, 2014


neepheid says:

December 23, 2014 at 11:01 pm

Regarding Associate membership of the SFA, I managed to find this link
==================
Hirsute has pointed out the relevance of the accounts requirement which was for licensing purposes. For membership purposes SFA applied Article 14 which gave them unencumbered discretionary power to do what they liked, so they did.

They could have applied the SFL rule that allowed a new club to SFL to apply for Associate Membership of the SFA after 14 days of joining the SFL, but for many reasons they used Article 14 of SFA rules to, as I said previously, support what clubs wanted to happen anyway.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:40 am - Dec 24, 2014


HirsutePursuit says:

December 23, 2014 at 9:10 pm

Spot on. Thank you.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:50 am - Dec 24, 2014


macfurgly says:
December 24, 2014 at 12:12 am
2 0 Rate This

There has been no Armageddon.
No club has been proved to be dependent on the Blue Pound.
There was never any reason to think there would be.

There was a cultural need, which clearly still exists.
There was greed.

In the interests of fairness, Sevco should never have been asked to pay the football debts of RFC and should not have done so.

HirsutePursuit says
December 23, 2014 at 9:10 pm

“The transfer also acknowledged Sevco Scotland as the “legitimate” successor of the Rangers FC brand”

This idea means nothing to any football fan. It is horseshyt, and it needs to be exposed and ridiculed now, so we can all move on.
=========================================================
Hmmm… yes and no 😕

As most Airdrionians went on to support Clydebank following their own club’s demise, the Rangers support needed a clear alternative.

By allowing Clydebank to change its name to Airdrie Utd, the SFA gave its approval to the idea that it was the successor club to Airdrieonians. The fact that the SPFL do not even acknowledge its existence (as Clydebank) prior to 2002 further emphasises that idea.

Allowing Sevco to call itself Rangers FC and award it the full membership previously held by the old club was perhaps no more than an an acknowledgement that that it was recognised as the “official” successor.

Stewart Regan is on record as saying that “it was up to the fans” to decide if it was the same club. Technically, of course, it is not the same; but spiritually… as a clearly defined “successor” club, I think I can live with that.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:57 am - Dec 24, 2014


It is the idea that it is more than a successor club I take issue with.

The promulgation of Neil Doncaster’s idea, via the SMSM may be risible to most fans; but is hung on to as fact by those who need it to be true.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:15 am - Dec 24, 2014


Partizani Tirana says:

December 23, 2014 at 8:09 pm

Auldheid, a couple of points.
Are you really agreeing with Regan that Armageddon was approaching if no Rangers were in Scottish football? There has been plenty of analysis on here of attendances and increased opportunities to all clubs to win silverware or compete in Europe, to put the Armageddon argument to bed.
The vast majority of money that Rangers brought/bring to the Scottish game is not distributed among the other clubs, but paid to Ibrox employees, or siphoned off by Spivs. The lack of sponsorship in Scottish football is a damning indictment of the authorities and by extention the clubs who should be up in arms about it.

In my opinion if Celtic were complicit in the 5WA then hell mend them if the whole thing collapses. To be honest my head tells me they were complicit, but if I truly admit that to myself I’d have to quit being a Celtic fan, and I can’t face that just yet
===================
No I think that Regan was trying to frighten clubs with unfounded claims.

However in 2012 there were a few SPL clubs whose finances would not have withstood the potential loss of TV money from Rangers not being part of the TV audience.

Now whether that fear was contractually real or not I don’t know, but it was certainly a risk that clubs with large debt like Killie, Hearts, Hibs and Dundee Utd would not have wanted to face. So they would have wanted TRFC to survive if possible.

There is a TSFM blog at

https://scottishfootballmonitor.wordpress.com/tag/scottish-football-finance/

by Stephensaph that gives an idea of the top clubs financial position in 2010 and why they would not want to make matters worse.

Being complicit suggests getting together to do something underhand or immoral. It would not be difficult for those clubs to argue that what they were doing was ensuring their survival and so that of the SPL and the 5 way set the conditions for that to happen.

Had TRFC not been made to start in the SFL then that would have been immoral.

There is a fair minded argument that putting them out of business altogether would have turned what was a consequence of their behaviour into an excessive punishment coming from the same trait that wants their disappearance to have happened.

I think what annoys folk most about the 5 way was the transfer of membership to provide the illusion of continuity, but if CG insisted on it to make RFC’s assets worth buying and clubs did not want them to fold, I can see why it was accepted even if the other clubs did not like it ethically. However from a commercial perspective I doubt that they had a problem with it or anticipated the rancour and real problems it would cause.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:18 am - Dec 24, 2014


Auldheid says:
December 24, 2014 at 12:35 am
‘ but for many reasons they used Article 14 of SFA rules to, as I said previously, support what clubs wanted to happen anyway..’
———-
Essentially, of course, they lied and cheated for
a)for supposed commercial reasons
and
b) for fear of ‘civic disorder’ and ‘Armageddon’!
Neither reason consonant with even the most primitive understanding of the idea of Sporting Integrity.
I accept that it was not in the constitutional power ( let alone ‘political’ power) of any individual club to demand that truth honour and integrity be upheld and insist that the new club ought not to have been admitted at all.
But I still question the integrity of people like Longmuir who were prepared to accept a ‘bastard’ parvenu club, for the basest of reasons..

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on1:26 am - Dec 24, 2014


justshatered says: December 23, 2014 at 11:04 pm
=========================
Romanov actually had interests in three clubs, Hearts, FBK Kaunas in Lithuania and MTZ Ripo in Belarus.

While he was ultimately recognised as the “Owner and Operator” of Hearts, he was never a shareholder in his own right or even a director of Hearts. His shareholdings were always held through a third party, e.g. HOM 2005 Ltd and UBIG. It was the SPL themselves who changed the rules in order to be able to sanction Romanov for his rants against the authorities by defining the “owner and operator” of the club.

If I recall correctly, Kaunas was actually owned by Ukio Bankas, which Romanaov only owned 33%, although this was increased to 51% in 2010 and 63% in 2012.

His involvement with the third team of MTZ Ripo was through his companies being the major sponsors of the club.

In addition to Newcastle and Rangers, Ashley also has major sponsorship deals with Oldham, with the ground renamed at the SportsDirect.com Park and also as their shirt sponsor.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:30 am - Dec 24, 2014


HirsutePursuit says:
December 24, 2014 at 12:50 am
‘..Technically, of course, it is not the same; but spiritually… as a clearly defined “successor” club, I think I can live with that.’
————
No, not while it claims to be entitled to the titles and honours of a legally unconnected club that died at the hands of its megalomaniac majority shareholder!
TRFC is not in any ordinary sense of the word a ‘successor’ of RFC(IL). it is a a 2 year old creation. As the poor redundant lady apparently discovered to her cost!

View Comment

The GlenPosted on1:47 am - Dec 24, 2014


StevieBC says:
December 23, 2014 at 9:29 pm

Except the Govan club is still dominating the SMSM coverage with all things negative – and to the detriment of Scottish football in general.

—————-
In fairness the Govan club is still dominating the TSFM coverage too.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on2:00 am - Dec 24, 2014


John Clark says:
December 24, 2014 at 1:30 am
0 0 Rate This

HirsutePursuit says:
December 24, 2014 at 12:50 am
‘..Technically, of course, it is not the same; but spiritually… as a clearly defined “successor” club, I think I can live with that.’
————
No, not while it claims to be entitled to the titles and honours of a legally unconnected club that died at the hands of its megalomaniac majority shareholder!
TRFC is not in any ordinary sense of the word a ‘successor’ of RFC(IL). it is a a 2 year old creation. As the poor redundant lady apparently discovered to her cost!
==========================================================
I think that was the point I was trying to make.

TRFC has never played in the top division of Scottish football, never mind winning titles prior to its existence.

Nevertheless, the supporters have their memories and will associate themselves with the history and successes of the former club as much as with the current version. Rangers FC is not an abstract technical entity, it is something held within the people who have attended games at Ibrox for many years.

If my grandfather was multiple club champion and had been allowed to pass his membership to my father, I would be no less proud of his achievements. If my father went on to his own success, I would probably keep count of the total cups won by my immediate ancestors.

I, of course, know that my grandfather is dead and that there are two distinct people involved in the overall sporting success of my family.

More importantly, my father knows he is not his father – nor does he pretend to be.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:26 am - Dec 24, 2014


The Glen says: December 24, 2014 at 1:47 am

StevieBC says: December 23, 2014 at 9:29 pm

Except the Govan club is still dominating the SMSM coverage with all things negative – and to the detriment of Scottish football in general.

—————-
In fairness the Govan club is still dominating the TSFM coverage too.
===========

I’ll give you that The Glen… 😉

View Comment

The GlenPosted on2:52 am - Dec 24, 2014


StevieBC says:
December 24, 2014 at 2:26 am
——
No worries – wasn’t meant at a criticism, just an observation!

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:32 am - Dec 24, 2014


Auldheid says:
December 24, 2014 at 1:15 am
===================================

For me it is the secrecy of the 5WA that has caused the rancour you describe. Most fans of other clubs would probably have been happy with the new club starting in League 3 with no claim to the honours of the old club. The media and Rangers fans themselves clearly believed liquidation meant the history had ended, although no-one would have denied them the emotional attachment. It was Paul Clark of Duff & Phelps who first said liquidation was not the end as the history was sold as part of the assets. I remember thinking at the time that only in Scotland, and only with Rangers, could this ever happen. It was enough to convince the majority of the media and Rangers fans, and sod the rest.

This wound can never be healed.

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on7:46 am - Dec 24, 2014


Returning to what Phil and others said about employees at Ibrox being presented with new contracts. If those contracts in effect nullified the effect of previous years service following TUPE this suggests that whoever decided to issue new contracts may have been planning for a future admin event. Minimizing the monies to be paid to employees would free up cash for other creditors. Or have I got this wrong?

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:15 am - Dec 24, 2014


The Glen says:
December 24, 2014 at 2:52 am
7 0 Rate This

StevieBC says:
December 24, 2014 at 2:26 am
——
No worries – wasn’t meant at a criticism, just an observation!
——–

Fortunately @Glen, the preoccupation with Ibrox is not all entirely serious. A big part of maintaining my interest in the story is the quite marvellous comedy generated. Not the ‘ho ho ho Sevco ur deid’ stuff, which more vindictive than funny, but the thoughtful quips and parodies.

For example, the other day someone posted a photo of the nativity scene at Ibrox with the caption: ‘Now is the Winter of Our Discount Tent’ . This led to some suggestions about Shakespearean Sevco analogies. My feeble contribution (until now) has been: ‘A Mad Somers S***e Dream’ .

At some point you have to see the funny side of it, otherwise it becomes very downbeat stuff to focus on. Sometimes mocking the imperial masters at the SFA & SPFL, as well as poking some pantomime jokes in the Sevco direction is the best antidote to the frustration brought on by this corruption.

Humour has helped many soul subject to tyranny see the light at the end of the tunnel. The old Soviet Union was awash with underground humour and jokes. A nice way of ridiculing the regime.

If you can’t beat them, laugh at them. And some is the stuff on twitter is outstandingly funny. @theclumpany at Clumpany Towers is worth a follow. It certainly keeps me tittering in between the bouts of Sevco 5-way bollocks from High Heid Yinville, not to mention the heavy-bevy we plough through on here.

On that note, Merry Christmas all. Today, the 24th, is the big one here replete with late evening scoffing and presents. But we maintain the early morning 25th presents that appear under the tree — as if by magic — which my big teens tell me is the real Christmas. Easy for them to say, when it’s laptops and iPhone 6! Gone are the days of ‘Give-a-Show Projectors’, Oor Wullie Annuals and an orange and thrupney bit in your stocking 🙂

View Comment

Cygnus X-1Posted on9:15 am - Dec 24, 2014


I admit to not having the technical knowledge that many of the posters on here have in relation to finance, law & rules of the game, but after liquidation the entity/company does not survive either in law or in reality.

Now, I couldn’t give a monkey’s, if Rangers fans choose to believe otherwise, just don’t expect the rest of us to believe it. And neither should the SFA or SPFL, it is their job to administer the rules of the game fairly & impartially for the benefit of all clubs & supporters.

However, I am a trained bereavement Counsellor & I know the emotional damage that can be done by constantly living one’s life in the past, a refusal to move on & accept that things change & having a retrospective & retrograde outlook on life can cause immense personal damage.

That’s equally applicable to organisations & institutions as well.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:23 am - Dec 24, 2014


Cygnus X-1 says:
December 24, 2014 at 9:15 am
1 0 Rate This
———

Excellent point @Cygnus. Judging by the callers to phone-ins, some people really are in crisis. The media, imo, is responsible for this in a big way. They’ve fed people what they want to hear instead of explaining the facts and helping fans move on so they can transfer their football heritage and allegiance to newco as a fresh start.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:33 am - Dec 24, 2014


justshatered says:
December 23, 2014 at 11:04 pm

I’m sure easyjambo will be able to give a fuller and more accurate answer (if he hasn’t already done so) but it is something that I’ve wondered about too. I’m not exactly sure how involved Romanov was with Kaunas, though I’m certain either him or UBIG were heavily involved/owned the club. Hearts use of loanees from Kaunas wasn’t so much borrowing Kaunas player as players that Hearts were signing being routed through Lithuania in order, I imagine, to take advantage of their low tax rate. You may remember Hearts ended up in trouble as the system was later held to be illegal, though there were no claims that they’d tried to hide it.

I do recall reading in the MSM, so accuracy of the facts cannot be certain, that Romanov got dispensation from UEFA as it was considered very unlikely that the two clubs would ever meet, but just what the argument in favour of allowing it was, I don’t know.

I have a feeling, though I don’t know where from, that the ‘dual ownership’ rules are a new introduction to Scottish football, perhaps as a result of the Romanov connection, or just moving with the times as this sort of thing was creeping in more and more.

I’ve written before that there must be more to the rules prohibiting dual ownership than just the two clubs being drawn against each other. We are aware that LNS used the ‘lack of an unfair sporting advantage’ excuse/reasoning why RFC were let off so lightly, mainly because the EBTs had been found ‘legal’ and therefor open to all clubs.

It therefor must follow that an ‘unfair’ sporting advantage must not be allowed.

So, if Ashley (or anyone) was allowed to own both Newcastle and TRFC, what’s to stop him ‘financing’ TRFC by overpaying for players moving from TRFC to NU, while undercharging for transfers/free transfers/cheap or free loans in a way unavailable to any other club? That must surely create both an unfair sporting advantage and equally unfair financial one.

Rangers got let off so very lightly over their EBTs (despite being found ‘guilty’) because they, allegedly, gained no ‘unfair’ sporting advantage over any other club. It must be incumbent upon the SFA/SPFL to ensure that no club, particularly one from Ibrox, ever again, gains even a whiff of any kind of unfair advantage – sporting or otherwise.

One thing to consider is, that although not suited to anything more than PR puff pieces, I’m sure at least one Scottish ‘journalist’ will have considered the Hearts/Kaunas connection and looked into it. The fact that there’s been no mention of it in the media would suggest that there must be a substantial difference in the two cases, or that I am correct that it is a new rule only recently introduced, perhaps at the inception of the SPFL.

View Comment

TaysiderPosted on9:54 am - Dec 24, 2014


It must be very difficult being a supporter of the Ibrox club and listening to BBC Sportsound last night heaping praise on Hearts, how that club has responded to their insolvency event, the unity through Boardroom, team and supporters.

It didn’t have to be this way for TRFC. David Murray gambled with the future of the club he professed to love. If He had made different decisions as relatively recently as, what 2009, it could have been very different. Hubris has come at a very high price.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:54 am - Dec 24, 2014


It seems that Craig Houston is pursuing another avenue to expose the Boardroom shenanigans.

Sons of Struth

Part two of the rat catcher in progress.

Now if it was found out that someone deliberately went out their way to de rail the recent share issue for their own benefit and to the detriment of our club, that wouldn’t be a good thing would it?

This one may be bigger than the somergate emails.

Stay tuned.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:03 am - Dec 24, 2014


John Clark says:
December 24, 2014 at 1:30 am

And I am certain that that lady believed she worked for, and was made redundant by, Rangers Football CLUB. That is, Rangers Football Club, except as recognised under Scots Law.

Sadly, despite having to face up to the reality of her situation, she will, no doubt, still ‘believe’ that she was made redundant by the same club that she joined some 30 years ago; although made redundant by non-Rangers men and so the club remains blameless!

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:10 am - Dec 24, 2014


The new Craig Houston investigations may be rooted in what is stated in the BBC article.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30571648

When RIFC held an open offer to existing shareholders last September, another associate of Ashley – Stephen Mucklow – was set to underwrite it. A draft RNS statement to the Stock Exchange was prepared to that effect, only for the underwriting offer to be withdrawn less than a week before the open offer.

On the day of the offer, Ashley also announced that he would not participate in the fundraising, which Rangers required for working capital. The offer raised a little over £3m.

Ashley subsequently spent around £400,000 acquiring Hargreave Hale’s stake in RIFC.

The problem for Houston is that there is nothing untoward or illegal in the (non) underwriting of the share issue.

However, what it may do is to get more fans backs up against the Board and force a decision from them whether or not to sell up or go down the insolvency route.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:24 am - Dec 24, 2014


easyJambo says:
December 24, 2014 at 10:10 am

We can’t be certain of the provenance of this, but if there is even a whiff of truth, or believability (is that a word?) about it, then, surely, not even our pathetic football governors can even entertain the prospect Mike Ashley being involved with TRFC, until, at least, it is fully investigated and found to have no foundation. If there is foundation, then ‘fit and proper’ doesn’t even enter the equation, but ‘civil disorder’ might! There would certainly be more chance of that happening than there was in 2012, and as for Armageddon…

It sounds like a successful tactic that might be used by an unscrupulous businessman quite often, in which he only gets away with it because it’s done completely devoid of publicity or public interest!

The plot thickens, and thickens, and thickens…

View Comment

Comments are closed.