A Sanity Clause for Xmas?

Avatar 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

Avatar

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

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on1:16 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Resin_lab_dog says:
January 15, 2015 at 12:54 pm

Didn’t McCoist shout that out at the presentation of the League 1 trophy? They all seemed to cheer mighty loud at Ibrox, and the bar I was in at the time in Lanzarote (I was there with my Man City supporting son-in-law to watch their game), when he shouted that out. I have never met a Rangers supporter who denies that ‘they are the peepul’, though some might only ever use it in a semi-jocular fashion.

To be fair, the only bear I’ve ever met down here in Derbyshire has never uttered it in my presence, but he is quite embarrassed about events at Ibrox anyway and seldom mentions football. I didn’t know him before the club fell into liquidation so he might well have said it in the past – to a totally bemused audience of Man City and United fans 😐 😐

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on1:17 pm - Jan 15, 2015


parttimearab says:
January 15, 2015 at 12:39 pm

4

0

Rate This

BBC have updated their article and claim MA has offered a £10m loan – the 3bears had offered £5m and the board didn’t think that was sufficient (can see their point).

Odd though that it’s Sports Direct that can be granted security…if it’s tied in with a short term naming deal would that get round the SFA’s objections to MA influence as it could be dressed up as a commercial venture?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30827483

_______________________________________________________

This gives Mash time to dispose of his interest in NUFC at a time convenient to himself, and immediately convert his loans into a controlling stake in RIFC via a d4e swap. Makes sense in terms of the Pardew exit at the Magpies (hints that Mash wouldn’t be around much longer to cover for his wing man).

Prediction:
MA will fund to the close season with soft loans.
Overpaid fuds will exit at termination of their contracts, except those that can be got rid of sooner.
Half decent manager will be brought in in the close season.
Ruthless cost cutting.
Maximum brand exploitation.
Club will then bring in young talent and develop them, with investment in coaching and player development, instead of over indulged journeymen.
Books will balance.
Club will be run properly, whilst mercilessly exploited by sports direct of course.
Which is a win win, to be fair.
The odious WATP element will snake off in disgust (which will suit MA down to the ground – I don’t see MA having any truck with the bigoted element – its bad for business ) and the decent support will drift back over time, as success is earned, fair and square.

TRFC could be in Europe within 4-5 years.
MA will use the revenue generated to fund development, and promote SD off the back of it.
Finally some good news for the decent bears, no less.

If the 3 bears had any sense, now is the time to start cosying up to Mike.
So I expect them to start mouthing off about him in the Scottish press any minute bow.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on1:33 pm - Jan 15, 2015


incredibleadamspark says:
January 15, 2015 at 12:34 pm

Call me a saddo but I just trawled back through the last ten pages of comments and did ‘control F’ to search for the terms ‘clan’ and ‘Darkside’

Clan was only used once to describe the Margherita/Blue Pitch holdings and only one poster came upon three occasions using the term Darkside.

Just a small selection but one that I feel shows that posters to this site do not use overly disparaging terms re fans of the club playing out of Ibrox (did you see what I did there)

I am sure there are the occasional slip but generally the tone of this site is far more civil and welcoming to the Bears who have appeared and contributed intelligently than many others that folks may wish to pay a visit to.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on1:35 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Resin_lab_dog says:
January 15, 2015 at 12:59 pm
ecobhoy says:
January 15, 2015 at 12:46 pm
Eoinel Jessi says:
January 15, 2015 at 12:23 pm

My attention has been drawn to a rather significant detail. Has no one noticed that the name of the Granter on Ashley’s Advance Notice to the Land Register is “Rangers Football Club Ltd?”

That’s Oldco!.
—————————————————————-
Actually it isn’t 🙂 Oldco was The Rangers Football Club Plc.

I have dealt with the issue of the granter being a non-existant legal entity viz ‘Rangers Football Club Ltd’ earlier in the thread if you check back.
______________________________________________________

Isn’t oldco now ‘Rangers 2012 Ltd’?
——————————————————–
IMO there is a difference between oldco: The Rangers Football Club Plc which is now dead and oldco (in administration) which is: RFC 2012 Plc (in administration). I’m not sure if/when the (in administration) tag changes/changed to (in liquidation) btw.

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on1:37 pm - Jan 15, 2015


http://www.therst.co.uk/news/rst-examines-legal-action-over-ibrox/

RST seeking legal advice

The RST is taking urgent legal advice regarding the attempt by the board of Rangers Football Club to pass the most prized assets of the club to Mike Ashley. We believe the board may be acting illegally on two fronts and we will be working with any other shareholder who wishes to challenge this. Quite frankly this latest move by the board is legalised theft and we will not stand by and watch it happen. If necessary we will instigate legal action against the directors both collectively and individually.
We have also contacted several MPs and will be seeking political and government support to stop this attempted asset grab.
We would urge anyone who feels the same to support us in our efforts by joining at http://www.therst.co.uk/buyrangers and helping us fight this corrupt regime. We have to rely on our strength in numbers and each other. It is time to come together and take back our club.

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on1:50 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Are we to assume that Mike has received a nod and a wink from the SFA that his latest loan of last resort does not confer undue influence over a certain SFA member? The SFA need to make a judgement on 27th at their hearing http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1962&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=14110

Or is Mike just pulling their chain. If he gets clobbered on the 27th, the loan cheque is not handed over on the 28th, the 3 Bears can’t offer a secured loan, the salaries are not paid, and The Rangers face SFA sanctions – not to mention winding up orders, insolvency etc etc.

I’m not entirely sure that the SFA understand that some people just enjoy a bit of a scrap – a bit of blood and snot – just for the craic. I’d count Mike amongst these people – strictly in business terms you understand. And that puts the effete chaps at the SFA way out of their competence zone.

Never a dull moment at Ibrox – well except when they are playing football – allegedly

View Comment

Avatar

Kicker ConspiracyPosted on1:55 pm - Jan 15, 2015


neepheid says:
January 15, 2015 at 1:37 pm

RST seeking legal advice

We believe the board may be acting illegally on two fronts…
Quite frankly this latest move by the board is legalised theft…

————————————————————————–

Make up your minds guys. Do you think it’s legal or not?

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoia

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on2:01 pm - Jan 15, 2015


casper999 says:

January 14, 2015 at 6:43 pm

105

1

Rate This

Just watched on bbc reporting scotland , ” 3 of murrays company’s involved in dispute with hmrc ,are in liquidation and will. , Wait for it.
“Cease to exist ”

Strange they know exactly what it means when they want to……
————————————————-
The same BBC Reporting Scotland (mis)reported that Rangers fined for “their use of EBTs”.

No they were fined for not disclosing the side letters associated with the EBTs, therefore did not comply with the rule that requires full disclosure of player contracts.
Not “for the use of EBTs” as reported by he who speaks with forked tongue Scottish media

Therefore many Rangers fans (the vast majority in my experience) subsequently believe “But EBTs were legal, so we were fined for nothing, kicked when we were down, attacked by sinister enemies blah blah etc etc RAGE!”

This kind of media misrepresentation (i.e. lies) is stoking up and fanning the irrational anger among Rangers fans and the BBC/STV/Daily Record/Herald et al are all responsible in some way if events get out of hand, particularly at the upcoming League Cup semi final at Hampden.

I don’t believe for a second this kind of dancing around the truth of the matter is some kind of incompetence, the statement was very carefully crafted to avoid infringing on RFC sensibilities. It’s shameful and utterly cowardly. No wonder the profession of journalism is held in such contempt.

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on2:03 pm - Jan 15, 2015


neepheid says:
January 15, 2015 at 1:37 pm

We believe the board may be acting illegally on two fronts…
Quite frankly this latest move by the board is legalised theft…
===========================================
Isn’t that what people say when the bailiffs take their 50″ telly ?

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on2:04 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Je n’est pas Sevco mais Sevco est! – doesn’t scan does it, true though it is. Many moons ago I worked as a barman spontaneously when not well into his cups a denizen exclaims ” Rangers ur Scotland Rangers ur Scotland” This puzzled me up to 2012 and I thought things had changed- well I ken noo

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on2:04 pm - Jan 15, 2015


incredibleadamspark says:
January 15, 2015 at 12:34 pm

When I see Rangers fans described as ra people, the clan and the darkside I wonder how I’d feel about contributing on this site if I were a Rangers fan. I’d probably avoid it to be honest. To me the use of such language seems counterproductive to the overall aims of TSFM. Words. Complicated, eh?
=====================================================================
I do use the term ‘Darkside’ and make no apology for so doing. For me it represents an overwhelming lack of objective and informed debate to be found on a lot of Bear sites coupled with abusive attacks on anyone dissenting on the WATP line.

Hopefully there will be a Second Scottish Enlightenment and I will feel no need to use the term and I have to say some sites and many Bears are starting to actually question what the old-style, self-appointed fan ‘leaders’ with unhealthy addiction to barathea think is the right road.

Rangers fans refer to themselves as ‘Ra Peepil’ and are proud to do so. Who am I to decry the use of the term.

As to ‘clan’ I don’t think I have ever used the term but as of itself I don’t find it objectionable unless there was an undeserved identification wrt people who wear pointy white hats and look comical but are actually dangerous.

However the Rangers Support must look inwards on that issue and the harassment and threats it directs at anyone – and their family – who is perceived to be a Rangers Haters – often wrongly and without any credible evidence.

Posters on any football-related site often have to don a tin hat – no matter what team they support. My tin hat has plenty of dings on it and no doubt will have plenty more but that’s the price you sometimes have to pay in the real world when debating very emotional subjects and they don’t come much more emotional than football in my experience.

However as someone else noted I have no doubt that plenty of Bears read this site. I wish more posted but that’s a decision for them – The sad thing is I don’t see them posting on Bear sites either.

I think they know the kind of response they would get there.

But you should never ever dismiss the silent majority. They are out there and they are reading and at some stage I hope they can bring about a new beginning for a new Rangers.

Any open-minded Scottish football fans must accept that move. The club simply has to live within its means and adhere to Sporting Integrity and at the very least ditch its most corrosive baggage.

I personally don’t look for any spologies from individual Bears – I would be much happier seeing them in a club they have some control or say in and where they can watch good football.

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on2:06 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Kicker Conspiracy says:
January 15, 2015 at 1:55 pm
1 0 Rate This

neepheid says:
January 15, 2015 at 1:37 pm

RST seeking legal advice

We believe the board may be acting illegally on two fronts…
Quite frankly this latest move by the board is legalised theft…

————————————————————————–

Make up your minds guys. Do you think it’s legal or not?

================
Well RST themselves say it’s legalised, so I would say that means that it isn’t theft, but they’re going to throw some more of the Bears’ cash at some happy lawyers, just to clarify.

By the way, I wonder if they’re still buying shares? I suppose it provides market support for anyone wanting out, but I’m struggling to understand what else it achieves.

View Comment

Avatar

erniePosted on2:09 pm - Jan 15, 2015


i apologise but just to put a wee bit of humour in before the next armageddon, stolen from another forum.
“Today’s the day the teddy bears got their pitch nicked.”

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on2:10 pm - Jan 15, 2015


highfibre says:
January 15, 2015 at 2:06 pm

Ecobhoy

Let me clear up the legal requirements on the registration of securities.
=======================================
That’s brilliant and has taught me a lot. Only other thing I wondered about was leases and whether the term affected any legal requirements for registering.

View Comment

Avatar

sixlargebeersPosted on2:12 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Eco/AJ, been lurking for last while but thought I would chip in my 2p worth to clarify on the legal niceties of MA’s latest move. The notice that has been lodged is what’s known as an advance notice. It was introduced only in December 2014 as part of various changes to the system of land registration in Scotland.

The notice provides protection for a deed between two parties which is intended to be registered. The notice creates in favour of the grantee (SD I assume) a protected period of 35 days. So long as the deed (Standard Security in this case) is registered within the 35 days the grantee has priority over competing deeds. To that extent the grantee has headed any other potential lenders (who would require security over the same property) off at the pass.

Therefore, the loan needn’t be repaid during the 35 day period. It is likely that the security will be registered in the next few days. Incidentally, Eco, if a security (or a lease for that matter if it is for more than 20 years) is not registered in the Land Register then the grantee is exposed to the risk that a third party could “get in first”.

AJ – it’s quite possible that the loan was (amongst other things) to pay off the contingent liability/claim over the property – that would make complete sense. However if the creditor in that liability has no security, then MA can simply let the creditor fight it out via the lawyers. Bottom line is that as holder of a security he is starting form a strong position. That said, I don’t know the nature of the contingent liability and it’s impact but I am 100% certain that MA’s lawyers will have been absolutely sure that the granter of the security was also owner of the property in question so that MA’s security is valid.

Interesting point about Rangers Football Club Ltd being the granter of the security. Last I heard, the company that had title to Ibrox was The Rangers Football Club Limited – the apparent omission of “The” suggests either an error on the notice or that those lodging it are satisfied that the Registers of Scotland won’t be too fussed about the omission.

Hope this informs the debate in some small way. Back over to you proper analytical minds – and power to your individual and collective elbows !!

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on2:14 pm - Jan 15, 2015


mcfc says:
January 15, 2015 at 2:03 pm

0

0

Rate This

neepheid says:
January 15, 2015 at 1:37 pm

We believe the board may be acting illegally on two fronts…
Quite frankly this latest move by the board is legalised theft…
===========================================
Isn’t that what people say when the bailiffs take their 50″ telly ?

__________________________________________________________

I think the key word above here is ‘LEGALISED’.

A certain amount of confusion there among the Sons:

If you think it is LEGALISED, then how come you are taking them to court?

And no mention that MASH is stumping up a £10m consideration in exchange for SECURITY over the assets. Only reverts to ownership in the event of a default. Sounds perfectly legal to me.

Especially when you consider that not so long ago Charles Green was able to buy them outright from the administrators (along with alot of other stuff) for a mere £5.5m… and I didn’t hear any objections from TRFC fans then… although quite a few other fans and taxpayers raised eyebrows and murmurred about gratuitous alienation, and I would imagine some creditors of oldco weren’t too happy either.

Legalised theft, ye say? Hmmm…

As you sew, so shall ye reap, it seems.

View Comment

Avatar

sixlargebeersPosted on2:23 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Edit – highfibre is spot on – particularly I suspect with the negative pledge angle, which suggests that the onerous contract in question would need to be bought out (for want of a better word) to allow the security to go ahead.

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on2:26 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Resin_lab_dog says:
January 15, 2015 at 2:14 pm
===========================================
Can’t Pay, We’ll Take it Away

No money? No excuses! Following people on the sharp end of bad debt – and those whose job it is to get the money back.

http://www.channel5.com/shows/cant-pay-well-take-it-away

View Comment

Avatar

TailothebankPosted on2:40 pm - Jan 15, 2015


What a mess the SFA have created for themselves.
Looks like MA has given them all 30 days or so to come up with the cash to pay all the bills and clear the decks with his loans or he presses the big L button
This is what happens when you are fundamentally conflicted as CO was in 2012 and still is . You don’t take the safe solid logical decisions that protects the wider organisational objectives

Given their own catastrophic governance failure with Rangers of old ..AND rangers own failures..as we all know in 2012 they should have sent Rangers away and told them not to come back until they had a well funded credible business plan supported by true FFPs . They then should have a had a team of forensic accountants and lawyers examine the guts of the detail before even granting a license…..
They have ‘off the radar ‘ culpability again for what has ensued in these past 2 years or so culminating in this latest shambles
So now days after telling MA he can’t get 29%….he effectively has 100% of the assets …Great job guys
As was asked a week or so ago…Who runs Scottish football?
Rangers and the gang at Hampden OR the clubs ?…..because if MA has effectively financially emasculated that particular club then the license should be withdrawn ..surely ..per their own rules !
IE They should be told now as they should have been told in 2012 go away and come back when you have a solid plan supported by proper FFPs
Time for a big boys and girls decision from the 5 big club bosses about what to do with this SFA crowd and it’s pet club.
Put both out now of their misery now ?..or stand back and wait for liquidation 2 and then consign CO and co to the bin and send RFC way down to the lower leagues for 7 or 8 years ?

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on2:41 pm - Jan 15, 2015


sixlargebeers says:
January 15, 2015 at 2:12 pm

Thanks for the clarification, 6large.

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoia

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on2:47 pm - Jan 15, 2015


I see Castofthousands made more or less the same point as me last night at 9.43pm with more eloquence and diplomacy.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on2:48 pm - Jan 15, 2015


wottpi says:
January 15, 2015 at 1:33 pm
incredibleadamspark says:
January 15, 2015 at 12:34 pm

Call me a saddo but I just trawled back through the last ten pages of comments and did ‘control F’ to search for the terms ‘clan’ and ‘Darkside’
======================================================
I defo won’t call you a saddo but I did it the easier way and just seached ‘clan tsfm’ and got quite a few hits where the word ‘clan’ was used to describe many different things. I haven’t looked at them in detail but I’m sure any poster who is disturbed by the use of the word can check out the wide-ranging contexts.

And just do the same for ‘Darkside’.

View Comment

Avatar

nawlitePosted on3:04 pm - Jan 15, 2015


So does this move by MA mean that ‘Rangers’ does indeed still own Ibrox and MP? Despite some of the excitement yesterday (and to a layman like me, well argued explanations)about that not being the case?

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on3:08 pm - Jan 15, 2015


You’ve got to admire Ashleys approach to negotiation.

27th Jan
SFA – Rights Ashers you streetwise club kidnapper, you, you’re not pulling your loan stunt to get round our 10% limit so what are you going to do about it?

MA – Not put in my new loan thus causing the wages to bounce tomorrow. Our unpaid players will almost certainly strike and not play in your pathetic showpiece and if we time the announcement right we could have a 30,000 aside square-go right outside your window. The questionable finances will also prompt me to call in my existing loan meaning any knights on whatever colour chargers they wish will need £3m just to get to the bottom of the marble stairs, never mind ascend it. Disgruntled players, disgruntled shareholders, disgruntled face painters? Sorry that’s got administration written all over it so, oops, there goes your show piece play offs and of course, there’s the small matter of fulfilling fixtures until May by a groundless club, new or otherwise with what we can only describe as a chequered history so good luck finding a generous administrator like last time. Oh and incidentally, just on that last bit re the groundlessness, don’t look at me pal, I’ve got my money back. Now, what are you going to do about it…?

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on3:13 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Allyjambo says:
January 15, 2015 at 11:20 am

58

0

Rate This

I wonder if Mike’s latest loan to TRFC will be to cover, amongst other things, the cost of whatever it was that sparked the £6.5m frenzy a week ago. Could it be that any loan will be used to ‘clear the way’ to use Ibrox as security with the loan granted to do this secured against the stadium? Ashley will now be in a position to lend the club money until his lending reaches a level he considers Ibrox to be worth. Then what happens? Unless Ashley is prepared to lend more than he values Ibrox at, how would they get additional funding? Who would now buy new shares in a business with all but one (MP) of it’s major assets already being used as security? Will Murray Park be next?

I think we are watching a master class of how unscrupulous businessmen like Ashley work, providing a relatively small loan to a struggling business then gradually lending more, taking security over the assets, until everything the business owns is effectively owned by him, shutting out any prospective saviours. He can then use, or crush, the business as he sees fit!

And Sarver, what was he doing in all this? Well, he’s come and gone, and while all eyes were on him, Ashley has played his ace!

__________________________________________________________

So Sarver was ‘a squirrel’…. ( Oh look over there…)

Its that time of year again.
When Bears chase squirrels!
Eyes peeled folks!

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on3:15 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Nawlite,

as always, it depends!!!

If Ashley’s money comes then that is on the basis of an unfettered security. This would be possible IF the £6.5m (which in itself is unseen) was to buy off off any existing encumbrance. However the main train of thought on the £6.5m (if real) were that these either represented lease costs, or a loan repayment, neither of which would imply transfer of actual ownership. A simplistic way to look at it is if you hire a room to work in from a bank. You might even take a loan from the bank to assist your little business. You repay yhour loan AND you pay the lease cost of the room as and when it falls due. Payment of both these items still does not entitle you to say you own the room!

If it helps, I would be astonished if Mike put in that kind of money against an incomplete security. That does of course imply he is ignorant of who the security party pooper is? I think in some of the CQN May 12 sale and leaseback stuff, was it not Sports Direct that were suggested as prospective landlords?

View Comment

wildwood

wildwoodPosted on3:17 pm - Jan 15, 2015


This is all beginning to remind me of those harrowing scenes at the end of ‘Last Exit to Brooklyn’ when hordes of scoundrels lined up to have a pump at the prostitute TraLaLa (FC Ltd) in the back of a . . . taxi or a McGill’s bus – can’t quite recall

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on3:34 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Smugas says:
January 15, 2015 at 3:08 pm

7

0

Rate This

You’ve got to admire Ashleys approach to negotiation.

27th Jan
SFA – Rights Ashers you streetwise club kidnapper, you, you’re not pulling your loan stunt to get round our 10% limit so what are you going to do about it?

MA – Not put in my new loan thus causing the wages to bounce tomorrow. Our unpaid players will almost certainly strike and not play in your pathetic showpiece and if we time the announcement right we could have a 30,000 aside square-go right outside your window. The questionable finances will also prompt me to call in my existing loan meaning any knights on whatever colour chargers they wish will need £3m just to get to the bottom of the marble stairs, never mind ascend it. Disgruntled players, disgruntled shareholders, disgruntled face painters? Sorry that’s got administration written all over it so, oops, there goes your show piece play offs and of course, there’s the small matter of fulfilling fixtures until May by a groundless club, new or otherwise with what we can only describe as a chequered history so good luck finding a generous administrator like last time. Oh and incidentally, just on that last bit re the groundlessness, don’t look at me pal, I’ve got my money back. Now, what are you going to do about it…?

_______________________________________________

Its carrot and stick negotiation Ashley style.
He’ll beat you about the head with the stick, or poke you in the eye with the carrott. Its your free choice which, ultimately.

View Comment

Avatar

twopandaPosted on3:36 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Looks like Rangers Oblivion is now assured. With luck CFC will disappear too, but it will take a couple of couple years, hopefully less, but good riddance to the endless mindless aggravations. Everyone will move positively on with their lives without this antiquated OF societal stain of negating / dividing communities.

Our Grandkids shouldn`t be burdened with all the past nonsense – make it happen Folks – Please!
tp&mtp

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on3:39 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Resin_lab_dog says:
January 15, 2015 at 2:14 pm

As you sew, so shall ye reap, it seems.

It’s a stitch up right enough.

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on3:42 pm - Jan 15, 2015


The wrong type of Billionaire.

Where to begin? Like Eco I believe there must surely be a silent majority of Rangers supporters who only wish to see a well managed team, competing fairly and playing good football. All who fall into this camp have had my heartfelt sympathy throughout this pantomime. The good news is that these people may get want they want. Not a certainty yet but looking a possibility.

MA has taken his look under the hood and if the press reports are to be believed is prepared to stump up the cash (as loans) necessary to keep the lights on and fund the proper restructuring (austerity) that should have followed the initial IPO. Whilst he himself would want to retain his advantageous merchandising arrangements he might have the muscle to see off other onerous spivs. He would want to make money – he always does. He is no sugar daddy.

So far he seems to have:
• Bought shares – legally
• Offered loans – legally
• Got board placements in return – legally
• Might be willing to lend more dosh to help put in place a team paying its way (and debts) – legally

Yet the public reaction of “self appointed spokespeople” on behalf of the Rangers support seems to career between hostility and disbelief that such a thing could come to pass.

If, and I accept there is an if about this, MA’s end game is to establish a sustainable club from which he gets financial reward then his only obstacle would seem to be the SFA’S/SPFL’s objections to dual ownership.

As others correctly state the Advance Notice closes off the possibility of anyone else using Ibrox or Murray Park as security for a loan. MA has the authorities by the short and curlies. If (again if), I am understanding this correctly he really is now the only show in town. Either the SFA/SPFL fold or he can turn off the lights on the current entity and walk away with just about everything of value.

The visible, vocal Rangers “leaders” should now be putting the pressure on for Mike to be allowed to put in place this sustainable club.

Having come to this saga via RTC (just wanted to know how RFC could have got in such a mess) from my perch down here in Essex I’ve been truly astonished by what I’ve seen. About three years ago I ventured onto the Bears Den, for about five minutes, never to return. I couldn’t get my head around the sheer quantity of the spleen and bile that went with the “either for us or against us” mentality.

The first time I saw the phrase, “We are the People” I thought someone was having a joke. I didn’t know grown adults could think like that.

Some of the comments on Keith Jackson’s Twitter feed today have been ludicrous. “Can’t a proper Rangers Man just put in the money unsecured” being my favourite. The best riposte being that now the bears have the wrong type of billionaire they are now looking for a “Billyionaire”.

Again, looking in from the outside this sense of entitlement just leaves me staggered. But what truly boggles my mind is the way this is indulged by the MSM and the football authorities. If someone three years ago had told me that in the 21st century it was possible to have a football league with an “establishment” team I would have laughed. How wrong could any one person be?

If, MA’s end game is to establish a sustainable football business putting out a team it can afford surely the SFA/SPFL could do a deal? Maybe, allow MA to own/operate/control in the short term with everything put in a blind trust in 2/3 years times when a sustainable Rangers might be heading back to Europe? However, I’m really not sure they have the wit or wisdom to even contemplate such a possibility. They clearly thought the 3B’s offered salvation when they arrived just in time for Christmas. Big Mike has just run rings around them IMHO.

I really have no more idea today how this will end than I did three years ago.

Sorry for the overly long post – just need to get it off my chest.

View Comment

Avatar

The Exiled CeltPosted on4:00 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Part of the problem in accepting the austerity drive required to make TRFC a sustainable entity that is seemingly being put into action by MASH is the SMSM nonsensical view point in defending Murray and his fellow cronies.

Now to go back in time, when Fergus was singing the same song and looking under the bonnet (see what I did there!) and making the cuts and savings needed to get the ship back on an even keel, all the Celtic supporters could grumble all they wanted – however we had the fresh memory of the Kellys and Whites to remind us that it could be a lot worse etc. This gave Fergus the time to do his changes and work his magic.

However over in Govan, Dave King, David Murray, Paul Murray and Alastair Johnson are all revered in the press – as is Walter – to such an extent that these same group that spent a tenner for every fiver their rivals spent are the ones that are deemed real Rangers men – the ones who got their club in such a state that they not only bankrupted it financially but also morally. So what chance does anyone have following that lot when all the SMSM talk about is 9 in a row, UEFA Cup and Laudrup etc when discussing these RRM – when these are the very ones who put their club out of existence.

For those with a long memory I posted many years ago on RTC and TSFM about my Rangers supporting family – seems I was the only bad fruit in the family – however since the first year when they all went to see the likes of Montrose and Stirling at Ibrox, none of them have ever gone back – mostly because the football was dire and also they are sick of all the boardroom nonsense. Indeed they are all sickened to an extent most have lost interest. Shame of it is that they were probably among the group that would have been best for the club since none of them have the baggage I see from other RRM and supporters. Shame that!

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on4:08 pm - Jan 15, 2015


There have been loads of Establishment teams but in dictatorships from Spain to the DDR to Rumania – unusual in a democracy though…

View Comment

Tartanwulver

TartanwulverPosted on4:13 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Tincks says:
January 15, 2015 at 3:42 pm
…what truly boggles my mind is the way this is indulged by the MSM and the football authorities. If someone three years ago had told me that in the 21st century it was possible to have a football league with an “establishment” team I would have laughed. How wrong could any one person be?
———————————————-
The concept of ‘post-democracy’ is having a creeping influence on society. Essentially, the institutions of power (parliaments, local authorities, football associations for example) that have been around for ages remain constituted in the same ways as they have traditionally been. The difference is that the power no longer resides with them, but with big business, which is accountable to those with the big money, rather than to parliamentarians, voters, or for that matter, football clubs or fans.

If only I could think of a good example of this that was currently being played out in Scottish football, I’d mention it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-democracy

View Comment

Barcabhoy

BarcabhoyPosted on4:15 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Barcabhoy says:
January 7, 2015 at 12:27 am
54 3 Rate This

Richard Wilson claims Admin least likely option ………agreed

He also claims it’s unlikely Ashley will provide more loans ……..don’t agree, in fact i think it is by far the most likely option.

Lets see who’s right ……….

—————————

Seems like The Bampots were right .

View Comment

Tartanwulver

TartanwulverPosted on4:17 pm - Jan 15, 2015


A P.S. to my post above re. post-democracy – To quote the solution suggested in the Wikipedia article – …”there is an important task for social media in which voters can participate more actively in public debates.”

Three slaps on the back for TSFM.

View Comment

Avatar

TrisidiumPosted on4:40 pm - Jan 15, 2015


incredibleadamspark says:

January 15, 2015 at 12:34 pm

The abuse of Delahunt is crazy and it’s got me thinking about how important our use of language is to overall debate. In an ideal world no words should be banned and we’d just exercise our own judgement about the effect certain words might have on another group. Sevco is fine, by the way. Sevco, Sevco, Sevco, Sevco, Sevco. See. Sevco. Faux outrage is embarrassing and I’ll stop just short of Voltaire on this one.

When I see Rangers fans described as ra people, the clan and the darkside I wonder how I’d feel about contributing on this site if I were a Rangers fan. I’d probably avoid it to be honest. To me the use of such language seems counterproductive to the overall aims of TSFM. Words. Complicated, eh?

______________________________________________________________

incredibleadamspark ,

A good point – and very well made. It’s not that complicated at all though. Casual pejorative references should have been eradicated, but unfortunately they still crop up.

There are some posters on here who have posts removed on an almost daily basis because of it, but still they have a go the next time. Perhaps because they are so unself-aware – or because they are so imbued with the web-forum ethos where abuse for abuse sake is often the norm.

There is undoubtedly a hostility on TSFM with regard to the actions of Rangers, the football authorities and the MSM over the last few decades, however if there is a point to make, it doesn’t have to be made in a way that dehumanises individuals, or generalises about the characteristics of huge swathes of the population.

There is an argumument that the press should not be immune, especially as they themselves carry out vicious personal attacks on individuals routinely. However we had agreed at the outset of the blog that we were better than that.

I think the reference to rapeepil is less pejorative and more ironic, however fans of other clubs are not refered to in that fashion. The terms Darkside and clan are both evocative and intended to demean. Of course some may argue that this is not the intention, but I think it’s a small price to pay for our own self respect that we find other ways to express our thoughts in less evocative terms.

The mods, with the help of the word filters, will continue to root out that kind of language. It is diametrically opposed to the ethos of TSFM. Thanks for shining a light on it.

View Comment

Avatar

indy14Posted on5:11 pm - Jan 15, 2015


re Ashleys loans – he basically owns Newcastle via a loan which was and is and will be fully repaid – ergo Newcastle debts inc) cost him nowt!
AND
He’s at it again, like someone who constantly pawns his gear, eventually the costs become too high to buy back, as you get deeper in the mire, Ashley will end up owning in its entirety – TRFC, if that is his desire. And he’ll have spent nothing. he’ll own eveyrthing of value and tell the fans its up to them to fund, or alternatively he’ll walk and leave the delapidated hulk…..thems the truth of it all…..but as I’ve said since RTC – WHYTE OWNS IT ALL, GREEN HADNSOMELY PAID EMPLOYEE, and all the surly faces wearing the brogues over the years, all invited to the feeding trough…..simples…

View Comment

Avatar

Paulmac2Posted on5:38 pm - Jan 15, 2015


indy14 says:
January 15, 2015 at 5:11 pm
……………….

Indeed….he did the same at NUFC via loans…which as far as I am aware are still in place..

His MO… acquire distressed brands and squeeze the life out of them..

They can scream…they can jump up and down…they can cry foul…they can create such a hullabaloo as much as they like…but the fact is…MA has all the cards in his favour…either you keep handing him your cash or he will cash in the assets he has loaned against…

And then there is the stadium maintenance…any sign of that being carried out…which from previous indictions is somewhere north of £15m to bring the stadium up to scratch.

No matter which way you cut this…it is a mess…the fans should just walk away…because either way MA is the winner no one else….and Scottish football has been used and abused along the way.

View Comment

Avatar

nawlitePosted on5:45 pm - Jan 15, 2015


With all the reaction from the RST and the UoF being based on the board (or Ashley’s stooges, as they are referred to) helping MA “grab the remaining assets of the club” or to “ensure that MA retains power”, can the SFA really afford to sit on their hands until the meeting on 27th? Surely they, like the fans groups (and us), must see that MA is in control of and having undue influence on his second club.

View Comment

Bawsman

BawsmanPosted on5:48 pm - Jan 15, 2015


According to Darryl, the SFA can do nothing.

View Comment

Avatar

joburgt1mPosted on5:57 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Bawsman says:
January 15, 2015 at 5:48 pm
1 0 Rate This

According to Darryl, the SFA can do nothing.

—————-

At this moment in time Darryl is correct, the SFA can (and will) do nothing.

Once big Mike has control THEN the SFA can act by following their rules and withdrawing the licence to play football in Scotland – but will they????

View Comment

4424me

4424mePosted on5:59 pm - Jan 15, 2015


http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/gunfight-at-the-ibrox-corral/ Phils latest

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on6:09 pm - Jan 15, 2015


So the Board now feels able to use Ibrox/MP as security for lending.

And MA feels comfortable in accepting security over Ibrox/MP.

Was this not an obstacle upon which other offers foundered? What has changed?

Has the Contingent Liablility been extinguished or otherwise been neutralised?

Scottish Football wonders what is going on behind the scenes but will the stenographers ask and publish?

View Comment

Avatar

parttimearabPosted on6:22 pm - Jan 15, 2015


redlichtie says:
January 15, 2015 at 6:09 pm

So the Board now feels able to use Ibrox/MP as security for lending.

And MA feels comfortable in accepting security over Ibrox/MP.

Was this not an obstacle upon which other offers foundered? What has changed?
============================
MA probably has bigger cojones than previous knights/bears and certainly has the wealth to make any visit to the COS over the contingent liability very expensive.

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on6:34 pm - Jan 15, 2015


424me says:
January 15, 2015 at 5:59 pm

5

0

Rate This

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/gunfight-at-the-ibrox-corral/ Phils latest

________________________________________________

As I said previously, the smart move for the 3 bears is to cosy up to MASH.
Both parties have something the others could use in working together.
The 3 Bears could detoxify Mash in the eyes of the support, making his life easier and £ return swifter.
They could protect the value of their investment and add value to MASH by encouraging the bears to return.
And Mash has them over a barrel, since he can pull the big L lever any time he likes and emerge with the assets they need, leaving them with valueless shares and no club.
Mash is paying the piper and calling the tune.

View Comment

Avatar

Cygnus X-1Posted on6:36 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Richard Wilson emotional, neurotic & utterly clueless on Radio Scotland….talking of MA shouldn’t take on Rangers & their fans. Bringing in politicians, protests(again) 😯

Slagging off Easdale Bro & never stating that the 3B’s would want security of Murray Park, but unlike MA they are of course RRM 🙄

View Comment

Avatar

jimmciPosted on6:36 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Richard Wilson on Ashley in tonight’s Sportsound….
“He’s not grasped the importance of Rangers on Scottish society. This is not Newcastle”!!!!

Dear god, BBC. How about taking fans off the air until they can calm down and offer proper journalistic coverage.

View Comment

4424me

4424mePosted on6:37 pm - Jan 15, 2015


So given phils latest …who on the board leaked it to stv news today then?

View Comment

Bawsman

BawsmanPosted on6:40 pm - Jan 15, 2015


joburgt1m says:
January 15, 2015 at 5:57 pm
7 0 Rate This

Bawsman says:
January 15, 2015 at 5:48 pm
1 0 Rate This

According to Darryl, the SFA can do nothing.

—————-

At this moment in time Darryl is correct, the SFA can (and will) do nothing.

Once big Mike has control THEN the SFA can act by following their rules and withdrawing the licence to play football in Scotland – but will they????

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

I repeat, the SFA will do nothing.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on6:41 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Same old, same old on Sportsound tonight. Richard Wilson very aligned to one side of the Rangers argument. Is it right that the BBC allow this given he is paid from the public purse? He also chooses to remind us how ‘different’ it is riding roughshod over Rangers fans compared to Newcastle fans. I’m sure ‘Scottish society’ got a mention but not 100% on that one. Good old Neil Patey broke cover and said nothing much that we didn’t know anyway.

I suppose they could have just said they wished Fergus McCann had invested in the Boston Red Sox instead, and that the credit crunch never happened. Simples!

View Comment

Avatar

Kilgore TroutPosted on6:46 pm - Jan 15, 2015


jimmci @ 6:36pm

Just back in the door. Still very cold out there.
I hadn’t planned to go out but when you told me that Richard Wilson had said this wasn’t Newcastle I thought I better go out and check.

Unusually,on this occasion he was correct.

On his other point that Mike Ashley hasn’t grasped the importance of Rangers to Scottish society, I think he is back to being his usual mistaken self again.
I think Mr Ashley has a good grasp on the importance, or otherwise, of this.

View Comment

Avatar

occamPosted on6:46 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Interesting to see the contrast in priority between STV and BBC news. Don’t have much time for the general BBC attitude to the whole Sevco issue but credit them for deciding that North Sea employment concerns, current weather problems and Clutha are more important. Perspective is often a casualty of obsession!

View Comment

Avatar

pau1mart1nPosted on6:49 pm - Jan 15, 2015


dearie me. does he think jims old job at sevco is still vacant ?

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on6:54 pm - Jan 15, 2015


4424me says:
January 15, 2015 at 5:59 pm
7 0 Rate This

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/gunfight-at-the-ibrox-corral/ Phils latest
————

Sounds to me that Mike A. is calling the bluff of Phil’s ‘shy off-shore types’. Or is the £10m loan their staged pay-off?

So what’s the grand plan? Does he really want to turn Ibrox into a retail park with fitba thrown in? Tesco, Sports Direct, squash courts?

We’re overdue a statement from the 3B faction…

View Comment

Avatar

parttimearabPosted on7:00 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Oh dear, never a good sign for Rangers when there’s a sighting of Neil Patey spouting vacuous nothings…and guess what I think I just saw on BBC*

*in truth I can’t be sure as Mr Patey’s presence on my TV seems to cause my synapses to shut down leaving a vague recollection of some pointless wittering but no clear memories

View Comment

Avatar

hectorPosted on7:00 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Not sure who to listen to in the Rangers saga but having watched Reporting Scotland and seen Mr Patey dusted off for a comment it must be serious. 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

BrendaPosted on7:03 pm - Jan 15, 2015


SSB quite interesting tonight pundits actually realising what’s happening and admitting it!!! John the Newcastle Utd fan told them how it is and how Mr Ashley operates and then there was the TRFC fan who doesn’t want Mr Ashley ……. He wants King and the 3 bears because they are all HONEST men 😉 the saga continues.

View Comment

Avatar

Cosmic TruthPosted on7:13 pm - Jan 15, 2015


@4424me “So given phils latest …who on the board leaked it to stv news today then?

I reckon Phil’s source is Jack Irvine. I think I could narrow it down to two guys who may have leaked the info to Irvine.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on7:20 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Point that’s been nagging me all afternoon.

Posters above querying what’s changed (legally, not attitudinally) re the assets and security.

I’m still not convinced anything has changed, the contingent liability is possibly Ashley so it hasn’t actually gone away, its just that Sports Direct are willing to acceot what is essentially a first charge to Mike Ashley. If that’s the case then this would be the obvious weakspot for the 3B’s to go after, albeit there isn’t much they can do about it and the consequences of outing it are either disastrous, very expensive for the 3bears, or both.

Alternatively, if the 10m loan makes the nasty 6.5m Contingent Liability permenantly go away then that is probably very good business for them.

View Comment

Avatar

dedeideoprofundisPosted on7:20 pm - Jan 15, 2015


So it’s costing MA £13mill to buy what CG paid £5.5mill for? What are we missing here?

View Comment

Avatar

BrendaPosted on7:21 pm - Jan 15, 2015


And Mr Wishart made it clear that a ‘loan’ has to be paid back one way or another 😉

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on7:22 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Brenda says:
January 15, 2015 at 7:03 pm
5 0 Rate This

SSB quite interesting tonight pundits actually realising what’s happening and admitting it!!! John the Newcastle Utd fan told them how it is and how Mr Ashley operates and then there was the TRFC fan who doesn’t want Mr Ashley ……. He wants King and the 3 bears because they are all HONEST men 😉 the saga continues.
————-

Callers all sounding as though there’s been a death in the family, Brenda. Strange thing is, the supporters seem to say they prefer no ‘Rangers’ if they can’t have the one that they’re used to. If they can’t be top dog they’d rather not bark at all.

No overt ‘Gers’ men on SSB tonight so it’s a more reasonable option than the British Broadcasting Corporation’s Scotland dept. by the sound of it.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on7:24 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Point that’s been nagging me all afternoon.

Posters above querying what’s changed (legally, not attitudinally) re the assets and security.

I’m still not convinced anything has changed, the contingent liability is possibly Ashley so it hasn’t actually gone away, its just that Sports Direct are willing to acceot what is essentially a first charge to Mike Ashley. If that’s the case then this would be the obvious weakspot for the 3B’s to go after, albeit there isn’t much they can do about it and the consequences of outing it are either disastrous, very expensive for the 3bears, or both.

Alternatively, if the 10m loan makes the nasty 8.5m Contingent Liability permenantly go away then that is probably very good business for them. Of course they’ll still need to find 5m to get them to May, but what else are they going to do? Please Mr mike, can we have some more?

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on7:40 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Apologies, no idea the reason for the double post other than the edit from 6.5 to 8.5m contingent liability having read Phil in between!

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on7:58 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Smugas says:
January 15, 2015 at 7:24 pm

I’m still not convinced anything has changed, the contingent liability is possibly Ashley so it hasn’t actually gone away, its just that Sports Direct are willing to acceot what is essentially a first charge to Mike Ashley. If that’s the case then this would be the obvious weakspot for the 3B’s to go after, albeit there isn’t much they can do about it and the consequences of outing it are either disastrous, very expensive for the 3bears, or both.
===============
I agree entirely. The only way that this makes any sense is for the dreaded contingent liability to be Ashley himself, in one shape or form. Of course Sports Direct don’t consider that to be a problem, all the latest move does is tighten Uncle Mike’s iron grip on the “crown jewels”.

For anyone else, the contingent liability seems to be an insurmountable problem.

I saw this document on here earlier, I’m sorry I can’t remember who posted it, but it really brings home the extent of Ashley’s involvement from the very early days.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7ZgjkYCAAAneok.jpg

As for Richard Wilson’s pitiful performance on the radio tonight, cringeworthy does not do it full justice. Funny and sad in equal measure (bathos?), but seriously, it is a national disgrace from a publicly funded broadcaster.

View Comment

Avatar

nawlitePosted on8:08 pm - Jan 15, 2015


From the Bears’ Den tonight. The self awareness gene seems not to have developed…

“Our shitebag support is embarrassing. Robbie Neilson has had his digs at us, poking fun that we’re not title contenders, etc.

When did we go from being feared, to fearing everyone else? Hearts are small, pathetic wee club coming to Ibrox, if they’re not worried about the game, then they should be. Let’s remind them that they are cheats, a club run on the back of money stolen from customers of a Lithunian bank who lost everything, so their gangster owner could spend way over the odds on shite players just to keep them in the division. At least when we went insolvent it was for a phantom debt that HMRC cooked up from thin air.”

View Comment

Avatar

SteveplustaxPosted on8:11 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Guidi being challenged on SSB about an earlier claim that £10 million – £12 million would make Sevco title contenders. He defended himself by explaining how far that money could go if it was spent in a clever manner. Obviously no-one reminded Guidi of just how many millions will have to be poured into this sorry operation before so much as one thin dime can be spent on the playing side. At this point I don’t know whether these phone-ins are funny or sad. 😆

View Comment

Avatar

essexbeancounterPosted on8:13 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Barcabhoy says:
January 15, 2015 at 4:15 pm
44 2 Rate This

Barcabhoy says:
January 7, 2015 at 12:27 am
54 3 Rate This

Richard Wilson claims Admin least likely option ………agreed

He also claims it’s unlikely Ashley will provide more loans ……..don’t agree, in fact i think it is by far the most likely option.

Lets see who’s right ……….

—————————

Seems like The Bampots were right .
======================================================================
…yet again…! 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

View Comment

Avatar

James ForrestPosted on8:19 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Tonight’s On Fields of Green was originally going to wait till tomorrow, but this one ought to be dissected before the weekend.

This is our definitive piece on Doncaster, and the scandal of 2011, with a focus on the TV deal.

A lot of people on this site contributed to this, directly or indirectly, and I hope it does them justice. I’ve linked to some of their work, but not all. You all know who they are.

Articles like this are what On Fields of Green is supposed to be for, and I hope to hear from some of you on it.

Thanks guys

http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/the-long-spoon/

View Comment

Avatar

HamerdoonPosted on8:23 pm - Jan 15, 2015


I know several people have commented, but I just can’t let it be. Richard Wilson’s only omission tonight was to indicate he would personally lead the boycott. Really, Newcastle fans better just get to grips with the fact that their company is not Rangers, they just don’t have that analogous place in Scottish society………………….

WTF……….he was appalling. There would be a new way forward if they just voted Ashley off at an EGM, with money to be invested and beautiful weather over Govan. The future was a well managed company and back to the rightful place in Scottish society.

Have I missed something? Wilson talked about reducing the debt drastically under a new regime, where did the £16m owed to the holding company disappear to?

FFS the BBC in Scotland is an utter disgrace and not just in football.

View Comment

Bawsman

BawsmanPosted on8:30 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Conversation I had With Darryl Broadfoot earlier today, this gives the SFA’s position

Good afternoon Darryl,
So, days after telling Mr. Ashley he can’t get 29%….he effectively has 100% of the assets …Great job guys, looking forward to what you’ll be doing next.
Regards
John

Hi John, can you let me know how the scottish fa can have jurisdiction over company law and an AIM-listed business, as opposed to the jurisdiction over a football club in respect of football rules?


Thanks

Hi Darryl,
So why bother telling him he can have no more than 10% in the first place?
Regards

That is an enforceable footballing limit on dual interest

If owning 10% of the shares is an enforceable limit on dual interest, what pray does 100% ownership of the club/company/entity empower the SFA to do?

who owns 100per cent of the club?

Mr. Ashley has control of the deeds for Edmiston House, the Albion Car Park, owns Rangers Retail, he has now just offered to take Ibrox Park and Murray Park for a �10 Million loan…………..You know all that of course.

That is a commercial agreement with a public listed company, not a dual interest point

Ah, that’s OK then.

You mistake the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA.

I mistake an awful lot of things about the SFA.

View Comment

Avatar

CastofthousandsPosted on8:34 pm - Jan 15, 2015


ecobhoy says:
January 15, 2015 at 11:48 am

“I have never seen any suggestion that the two sat near each other or even talked if it’s that function.”
———————————–

“She said she had hosted the Cash for Kids lunch at the Hilton hotel earlier that day and afterwards had gone on to an after-party with her husband and others, including Newcastle United owner Mike Ashley and former Rangers owner Craig Whyte, who was then still with the club.”

http://www.scotsman.com/what-s-on/tv-radio/dj-suzie-mcguire-tried-to-take-own-life-over-abuse-1-3586627

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on8:41 pm - Jan 15, 2015


James Forrest says:
January 15, 2015 at 8:19 pm
________________________________________

It’s an absolute belter James. Thanks.

View Comment

Avatar

futbolPosted on8:44 pm - Jan 15, 2015


Re Phil’s latest suggesting that awareness of the impending invoice was known in late November/December – I had asked before whether the statement at the AGM of “we will see you in court” etc had set the wheels in motion. Has this all been orchestrated in a very deliberate way to get to the current position?

View Comment

Comments are closed.