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

    Gee69Posted on2:59 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    For the avoidance of doubt. the Celtic Connections event I’m due to attend in Glasgow on Sunday the 1st February has nothing to do with football (clubs or companies). Please ensure that the uncultured are made aware.

    I noted last night that Sun 1st Feb is also Superbowl night and some pubs may be open late for this. (Don’t see it bringing many into the city centre though).

    View Comment

    Nell DoncasterPosted on3:20 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    Why are the bears so desperate to get rid of the Easdale’s?

    I thought when the Sheriff’s Officers were at the doors the other week, it was Easdale who produced the £500,000 teh kept the lights on?

    Strangely I thought they were the one’s to go on about Loyalty?

    View Comment

    Nell DoncasterPosted on3:30 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    I assume Mr. Doncaster is required to receive more than a verbal assurance that all is well financially behind the Blue Doors?

    It is within his remit to receive proof that Police Scotland are paid fully up to date,no o/s invoices, no invoices in dispute, no invoices missing or not received!

    As there seems to be some doubts about the clubs stability, can SFA an SPFL not have their books audited? At the SFA/SPFL’s expense, naturally!
    Only it has to commence Tuesday 20th, 9am.

    View Comment

    Nell DoncasterPosted on3:36 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    In their normal course of duties would the Football Authorities have a fallback plan, for a replacement team being ready to immediately step into the void left, in the most unlikely event that some club had the misfortune to go into liquidation mid-season.

    After all this 2015, is it not.

    View Comment

    jean7brodiePosted on4:46 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    Phil says:

    Statement O’Clock approaches…. The King across the water has been chatting to PA. (Press Association)

    View Comment

    jean7brodiePosted on4:51 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/why-the-people-are-not-coping-with-humilation/#more-5744

    View Comment

    scapaflowPosted on4:52 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    jean7brodie says:
    January 19, 2015 at 4:46 pm

    We should get one of those ticker tape machines, they used to have in London Clubs, that carried the wire stories :mrgreen:

    View Comment

    valentinesclownPosted on4:54 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    I agree with iceman concerning Ibrox disaster and the reason behind it being used as some kind of emotional tool. I attended the actual game as a 15 year old and was totally unaware of any incident at all until I arrived home. My parents were so pleased to seem me (even though they knew I was at the other end of the stadium) and when they informed me that 15 people were confirmed dead (at that early stage) I could not believe it and then my thoughts turned to 3 of my friend who I knew were at the end of the stadium and when I found out that they were fine ( which took quite a time to confirm as no mobiles in those days) I was over the moon. I will never forget the feeling in my stomach during the period when I never knew about their safety. Football rivalry meant absolutely nothing just the safety of my friends was paramount. When I read of the use of the unfortunate dead being used in this board struggle I had another feeling in my stomach which was not pleasant.

    View Comment

    jean7brodiePosted on4:58 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    scapaflow says:
    January 19, 2015 at 4:52 pm

    😆 BTW I hate ticker tape because I remember having to use it in Physics and I hated Physics!!!!!

    View Comment

    scapaflowPosted on5:01 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    jean7brodie says:
    January 19, 2015 at 4:58 pm

    Those wonderful experiments to prove Newtonian physics 😀

    View Comment

    Jingso.JimsiePosted on5:03 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    Bawsman says:
    January 19, 2015 at 12:36 pm
    57 0 Rate This

    mcfc says:
    January 19, 2015 at 12:26 pm
    “Loan, noun: a thing that is borrowed, especially a sum of money that is expected to be paid back with interest”
    =======================

    Unless it’s a Rangers issued EBT, then it’s a loan which never needs repaying.

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

    I suspect Deloitte, the liquidators of Murray Group Holdings Ltd., may well have a look at that specific loan book & how they can recover the several millions given out on the “never-never” as EBTs through that company. I wonder if the “World’s Greatest Administrator” (among others) will get an unpleasant missive delivered via RMSD?

    View Comment

    scapaflowPosted on5:04 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    Andy Newport @AndyNewportPA · 5m 5 minutes ago
    On PA wires: Dave King insists he’ll have no problem convincing stock market bosses + football chiefs that he’s fit enough to run Rangers
    King said: “There are no problems regarding the AIM regulations and the issue with the SFA is simple. Only once a director is appointed…is an application made to the SFA by the club. Both myself and Paul Murray will have to deal with our previous directorship at the time…that Craig Whyte got involved. Additionally, I will have to deal with my reasons for staying on the board and trying to impose some level…of governance during the Whyte era. I will also deal with my favourable settlement in South Africa. These are all issues that the SFA…rightly has to address in the same way that the SFA has to review the history of anyone who gets involved with a Scottish football team…That was all considered by me prior to my application.”
    “History will judge this board as 1 of worst club has ever had. Not 1 individual who puts the club above personal interest.”

    I see dave is still rough wooing the Easdale’s and their proxies

    View Comment

    easyJamboPosted on5:26 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    @Scapa – The full text of Dave King’s latest ramblings:

    “There are no problems regarding the AIM regulations and the issue with the SFA is simple. Only once a director is appointed is an application made to the SFA by the club.

    “Both myself and Paul will have to deal with our previous directorship at the time that Craig Whyte got involved. Additionally, I will have to deal with my reasons for staying on the board and trying to impose some level of governance during the Whyte era.

    “I will also deal with my favourable settlement in South Africa.

    “These are all issues that the SFA rightly has to address in the same way that the SFA has to review the history of anyone who gets involved with a Scottish football team.

    “That was all considered by me prior to my application – as was the likelihood that the incumbent board will use the media to try and influence the debate by misrepresentation.

    “The enthusiasm that this board adopts to ‘media management’ and its failure to act in the interest of shareholders and other stakeholders is exactly why they should be jettisoned in favour of directors who have the requisite business skills and respect for the tradition of Rangers to take the club forward.

    “History will judge this board as one of the worst the club has ever had. There is not one individual who puts the club above personal interest.”

    View Comment

    John ClarkPosted on5:33 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    With reference to the Glasgow Herald’s ( what’s in a name change?- same old, same old local newspaper!)report that our gung-ho Mr House has written off RFC(IL)’s debt to his polis force, I thought I would have a word with the Chair of the Scottish Police Authority. I sent this email:

    To

    enquiries@spa.pnn.police.uk

    “To: Mr Vic Emery, OBE, Chair of the Scottish Police Authority:

    Dear Mr Emery,
    Many people were staggered to learn today that the Police Service in Scotland has written off tens of thousands of pounds owed by the liquidated Rangers Football Club.

    This has been done before the Liquidators have finished their task of gathering in monies owed TO the liquidated club-which apparently may be quite substantial-and arranging for the Registrar of Companies to strike it from the Register.

    It has also been done while the question of whether RFC(IL) owes millions of pounds in tax has still to be resolved in the Courts. It remains possible that the Courts may decide in favour of RFC (IL), in which case HMRC would cease to have a claim on any monies ingathered by the Liquidators. This would mean that the other creditors might well be entitled to a meaningful share of the ‘pot’ available. The share due to the Police Service may in fact be an amount counted in thousands of pounds, rather than pennies.

    I think it is outrageous that the decision was taken to write off the debt so prematurely, and I would like an explanation from you of precisely why this was done.

    Yours sincerely,

    { full real name and address supplied: after all, if the Polis couldn’t quickly find out, who could? 😀 )

    View Comment

    SmugasPosted on5:35 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    Right, so is new oasis putting anything in to deserve this director status, or is the money from letham, park and Taylor going to yield this result?

    And that’s just Q1!

    View Comment

    mcfcPosted on5:40 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    easyJambo says:
    January 19, 2015 at 5:26 pm

    @Scapa – The full text of Dave King’s latest ramblings:
    ======================================================

    Dave; “Only once a director is appointed is an application made to the SFA by the club. ”

    For a moment there, I thought Dave was going to use the Bryce Paradox defence, which is approximately; ‘once a director is registered, if he is found to be improperly registered, no action can be taken because his registration was accepted as proper at the time of registration’

    View Comment

    mcfcPosted on5:47 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    John Clark says:
    January 19, 2015 at 5:33 pm
    ========================================================
    JC – it would also be interesting to know how much credit PS are extending to RIFC/TRFC in comparison to other clubs/companies. Are payment terms the same as for others and are payments up to date. What steps has Mr Emery taken to avoid another write off eg factoring, payment in advance. Or is Mr Emery happy to accept another write off in the near future at a club/company that is obviously in severe financial difficulties? We hear police forces nationwide complaining about the impact of cuts on their activities. Can there be any justification for treating a commercial venture preferentially?

    View Comment

    andygraham.66Posted on6:01 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    Anne Budge interview on the stv news at 6 re Friday night

    View Comment

    easyJamboPosted on6:19 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    andygraham.66 says: January 19, 2015 at 6:01 pm

    Anne Budge interview on the stv news at 6 re Friday night
    ==========================
    http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/hearts/307084-ann-budge-seeking-facts-on-rangers-v-hearts-crowd-trouble-reports/

    Pretty guarded in her answers to the questions asked.

    View Comment

    mcfcPosted on6:25 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    As someone who openly admits his addiction to the Ibrox mini-series box set, I think King being given control of the board would be a fantastic plot twist. Imagine all those old characters that could be brought back with varying degrees of revisionism and amnesia, imagine all the OPM they could burn on aging RRM for the squad, imagine the new bus and DIY SOS revamping the stadium over a long weekend. The possibilities are endless – and so much more entertaining than Mike (Micawber) Ashley’s reality show.

    View Comment

    neepheidPosted on6:44 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    mcfc says:
    January 19, 2015 at 6:25 pm
    3 0 Rate This

    As someone who openly admits his addiction to the Ibrox mini-series box set, I think King being given control of the board would be a fantastic plot twist.

    =================
    But King’s really not much fun- he looks like Kenny Dalglish with toothache. Why can’t Charles Green do a Bobby Ewing and return from the grave (or Normandy, in Charles’ case). Now he was genuine good value. And think of the cast of characters he could bring back with him- Ahmad, Stockbridge, Craig, Ritzvi, Ahmad’s mum—. Come on Charles, you know you want to!

    View Comment

    4424mePosted on6:47 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    If the police are intent in writing off the debt I wonder if they would be willing to sell it to us for a nominal sum giving us access as creditors to the whole process BDO are going through. We might even make a coin to help this place run!!

    View Comment

    mcfcPosted on6:52 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    neepheid says:
    January 19, 2015 at 6:44 pm
    ======================================================
    Well King will need someone to help him raise lots and lots of OPM so he can spend a tenner etc. And who has experince of that and who knows how to play the bears like a banjo – entree Monsieur Vert, Menteur!, Menteur!, Pantalons en feu!

    View Comment

    bect67Posted on7:00 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    A bit off topic, but Ronny Deila is beginning to annoy me a tad, with his vagueness (for want of a better word) when asked about possible comings and goings at Celtic Park during this transfer window – especially wrt to Kris Commons and Virgil Van Dyck, both of whom could well be ‘for the off’ anyway imho.

    It was also reported that he has apologised do DU for the approach for Mackay-Steven. I actually think he was trying to be clever when stating that he was not aware about the rule regarding approaches, and was in fact ‘digging up’ McNamara.

    View Comment

    justbecauseyoureparanoidPosted on7:28 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    HMRC run an advert during Clyde SSB warning tax dodgers that they will be caught.
    Absolute comedy gold.
    Hector is my hero!

    View Comment

    rabtdogPosted on7:38 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    Aberdeen reporting at least 15k tickets sold for League Cup semi (and they’ve been on general sale since). United estimating 10k-12k travelling to the game. Maybe over 30k at Hampden on the day? More than the 19k at Ibrox for the Aberdeen v St Johnstone SC semi anyway. #armageddon Oh but for a 30k seat stadium somewhere in the east… (Triple the size of McDiarmid?)

    View Comment

    Resin_lab_dogPosted on7:49 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    easyJambo says:
    January 19, 2015 at 5:26 pm

    3

    0

    Rate This

    @Scapa – The full text of Dave King’s latest ramblings:

    “There are no problems regarding the AIM regulations and the issue with the SFA is simple. Only once a director is appointed is an application made to the SFA by the club.

    “Both myself and Paul will have to deal with our previous directorship at the time that Craig Whyte got involved. Additionally, I will have to deal with my reasons for staying on the board and trying to impose some level of governance during the Whyte era.

    “I will also deal with my favourable settlement in South Africa.

    “These are all issues that the SFA rightly has to address in the same way that the SFA has to review the history of anyone who gets involved with a Scottish football team.

    “That was all considered by me prior to my application – as was the likelihood that the incumbent board will use the media to try and influence the debate by misrepresentation.

    “The enthusiasm that this board adopts to ‘media management’ and its failure to act in the interest of shareholders and other stakeholders is exactly why they should be jettisoned in favour of directors who have the requisite business skills and respect for the tradition of Rangers to take the club forward.

    “History will judge this board as one of the worst the club has ever had. There is not one individual who puts the club above personal interest.”

    ___________________________________________________________________

    If I was Llambias or Easedale I’d be reaching for the phone lawyers about now.
    Defammation lawyers on speed-dial.

    View Comment

    Resin_lab_dogPosted on7:49 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    easyJambo says:
    January 19, 2015 at 5:26 pm

    3

    0

    Rate This

    @Scapa – The full text of Dave King’s latest ramblings:

    “There are no problems regarding the AIM regulations and the issue with the SFA is simple. Only once a director is appointed is an application made to the SFA by the club.

    “Both myself and Paul will have to deal with our previous directorship at the time that Craig Whyte got involved. Additionally, I will have to deal with my reasons for staying on the board and trying to impose some level of governance during the Whyte era.

    “I will also deal with my favourable settlement in South Africa.

    “These are all issues that the SFA rightly has to address in the same way that the SFA has to review the history of anyone who gets involved with a Scottish football team.

    “That was all considered by me prior to my application – as was the likelihood that the incumbent board will use the media to try and influence the debate by misrepresentation.

    “The enthusiasm that this board adopts to ‘media management’ and its failure to act in the interest of shareholders and other stakeholders is exactly why they should be jettisoned in favour of directors who have the requisite business skills and respect for the tradition of Rangers to take the club forward.

    “History will judge this board as one of the worst the club has ever had. There is not one individual who puts the club above personal interest.”

    ___________________________________________________________________

    If I was Llambias or Easedale I’d be reaching for the phone about now.
    Defammation lawyers on speed-dial.

    View Comment

    scapaflowPosted on7:55 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    easyJambo says:
    January 19, 2015 at 6:19 pm

    The situation is more serious, and volatile, than it was a few weeks back when the seats got damaged. The, almost ritualistic, vandalism that goes on by away supports of all types, is a problem that has been swept under the rug for far too long.

    This is different, though I would be willing to bet that Ms Budge will have made her feelings clear to Doncaster et al in private, and may yet have more to say in public, once all the facts are in.

    View Comment

    wottpiPosted on8:01 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    King’s Statement

    “Additionally, I will have to deal with my reasons for staying on the board and trying to impose some level of governance during the Whyte era.”

    And remind us how that turned out? It would appear that trying to run or influence a plc operation from the other side of the planet is not a strong suit.

    Yet another reason for the current board to tell him to sling his hook.

    Serious question. Why would the majority of hard working directors and chairpersons of other clubs want this guy anywhere near the game.

    View Comment

    bailemeanachPosted on8:04 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    Neepheid

    “he looks like Kenny Dalglish with toothache”

    I cannae stop laughing!

    Genius!

    View Comment

    easyJamboPosted on8:05 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    scapaflow says: January 19, 2015 at 7:55 pm
    —————————
    The difference with her comments after the Celtic game was that Hearts was the home club and she had immediate access to all the information, physical damage and CCTV footage.

    She is now reliant on partial information from Hearts sources, but will have to rely on Rangers providing more information. I don’t know if that will be forthcoming though.

    The SPFL and SFA should certainly be asking questions of Rangers, the police and the referee as to all the circumstances of what went on.

    View Comment

    scapaflowPosted on8:09 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    easyJambo says:
    January 19, 2015 at 8:05 pm

    There should be a number of lessons to be learnt from this, by all the parties involved. As much as we, and everyone else, might want instant answers, it doesn’t work that way

    EDIT

    If Anne feels she is getting the run around, and info is being withheld from her, then I really wouldn’t want to be in Doncaster, or whoever’s shoes, but, I would buy a ticket

    Edit o the Edit
    alex thomson ‏@alextomo 39s40 seconds ago
    Can it really be that a convicted tax fraudster is seriously bidding to take over Rangers after everything Ibrox has been dragged thru?

    View Comment

    PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on8:42 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2013/oct/29/daily-record-rangers

    Apropos Dave King the SMSM do have previous…

    View Comment

    parttimearabPosted on8:46 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    Wrt Dave King’s “fit and proper” status and the SFA I’ve been keeping half an eye on the situation at Leeds Utd and Massimo Cellino.

    My reading of the article below is that the EFL only take convictions into account in line with the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

    In Cellino’s case one year.

    Different footballing jurisdiction but same legal one (for this particular piece of legislation).

    Will the SFA have to take the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act into account as well ❓

    http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jan/19/massimo-cellino-loses-appeal-leeds-director

    View Comment

    bailemeanachPosted on9:00 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    RTC has posted a link to this:

    https://twitter.com/theoffshoregame

    Just had a cursory look but some interesting links to wider governance issues in the game

    View Comment

    justshateredPosted on9:15 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    It really is any port in a storm isn’t it!
    It does not matter if you are a convicted tax fraudster as long as you’ve got a big bank balance.

    The best that can be said about buying up of shares by the Real Rangers Men is that it is thirty two months too late. If these gentlemen had all ponied up when the CVA was getting considered and trumped Charles Green then they would have been in the door then. Instead of that they have waited as the new entity lurched from one crisis to another. So the properties that Charles Green bought for £5.5M they will now pay the best part of £6.5M for by the time you factor in paying off Ashley.

    Oh but wait a minute that is only the start of the paying because every month they will be flushing another £700k down the pan.
    Oh and that is before the fans start their demands for more players, larger budgets, bigger and better facilities. Just as long as they don’t have to pay for it.

    Still they will own the stadium that is in dire need of repair.

    I’m sure the city will be only too eager to ‘invest’ in this new board because they are the embodiment of fiscal prudence. No, I don’t think so either.
    If this ship is going to be re-floated then it is going to be with their own cash. You see, and this is what most of them fail to understand, investment isn’t a one way trip. People who invest expect a return on that investment. Not only that but they expect the value of that investment to rise. Since RIFC floated the price is down 66% and nobody has seen a penny returned in a dividend.
    For any fans looking in when was the last time RFC or ‘The Rangers’ paid a dividend?
    And there is the nub of the issue. No one, unless they have an emotional attachment, will now invest in this venture because there is no return to be made. Worse than that, when you do not deliver what the fans want then you become public enemy number one. They demand that you be ousted and replaced by an even more Real Rangers, Rangers Man.
    So the circle decreases and the howling becomes louder.
    The gap between myth and reality also becomes wider.

    Still, they will own the stadium.

    View Comment

    AuldheidPosted on9:18 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    jean7brodie says:

    January 19, 2015 at 4:51 pm

    http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/why-the-people-are-not-coping-with-humilation/#more-5744
    =============================
    I thought this part from Phil’s article worth highlighting because it seems that nothing is out of bounds when it comes to restoring a “brand”

    ” Since then a narrative of victimhood has been constructed among the Ibrox customer base.

    This has been facilitated by a venal media and by those in authority who have put the Ibrox brand above the general health of the national game in Scotland.”

    If there are problems surrounding the LC Semi Final between Celtic and TRFC beyond what was tolerated as a norm in days gone by, those who promoted or failed to challenge the victimhood myth will be the first to condemn the bitter fruit whose seed they planted in a ground they have cultivated.

    View Comment

    parttimearabPosted on9:26 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    justshatered says:
    January 19, 2015 at 9:15 pm

    No one, unless they have an emotional attachment, will now invest in this venture because there is no return to be made.
    =============================
    Unless your Charles Green 😈

    View Comment

    jean7brodiePosted on9:39 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    Auldheid says:
    January 19, 2015 at 9:18 pm

    “This has been facilitated by a venal media and by those in authority who have put the Ibrox brand above the general health of the national game in Scotland.”

    ___________________________________

    And their actions have not been ‘venial’.

    View Comment

    StevieBCPosted on9:40 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    So amongst other things in Scottish football, we currently have;

    – continued uncertainty about Ashley and dual ownership/influence
    – continued uncertainty about King and the ‘FPP’ test
    – shameful scenes/witness accounts/songs at Ibrox on Friday
    – real apprehension about the upcoming League Cup semi…

    It’s a time when strong, clear leadership is required from the SFA, [I know].

    And yet there is still silence from the Hampden bunker: can Ogilvie and Regan not get wifi reception ? 🙄

    And another timely reminder of the SFA’s ‘2020 Vision’ strategy’s fourth pillar;

    “Respected and Trusted to Lead”. 😥

    You would think if Regan or Ogilvie had any shame, this page would have been quietly dropped from the SFA website long before now…

    http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_football.cfm?page=3212

    View Comment

    wildwoodPosted on9:41 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    Like before when we guessed there was something afoot when the SFA jettisoned Ashley’s lurch to 29% (just ahead of the appearance of the 3 bears & king). I think yet again something similar is afoot.

    I have a feeling King has already been told that he will be allowed to operate as a director by the SFA.

    I selse another ‘No To a Newco in the SPL’ type campaign in my bones

    View Comment

    easyJamboPosted on10:02 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    So now Kenny McDowall has walked away. Felix Magath next in line?

    View Comment

    Paulmac2Posted on10:02 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    easyJambo says:
    January 19, 2015 at 8:05 pm
    …………………

    I hear that Anne is waiting for Ibrox to find someone to work their Beta Max recorder…and she can have the Video Tape…

    View Comment

    easyJamboPosted on10:05 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    It seems McDowall has just handed in his notice.

    http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/8371-club-statement

    Club Statement
    Written by Rangers Football Club

    KENNY McDOWALL has tendered his resignation as caretaker manager of Rangers Football Club, citing personal reasons for stepping down.

    Kenny, who has been a fantastic servant of the club, will serve his 12-month notice period, during which time he will remain 100% committed to his normal duties.

    The club respects Kenny’s decision and he will continue to have the full support of everybody at Rangers.

    View Comment

    SmugasPosted on10:08 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    It is an interesting pitch though.

    You have to allow our refinanced newco into the SPL because we can’t be trusted with our own money in the lower leagues……again!

    Or,

    You have to accept and deal with the fact that our oldco because we spent all our money for a large price on something that at least two, and counting, successful businessmen had previously bought for a low price, whilst of course we simply have to run at a monetary deficit to allow us to distort your competition unfairly to our long term gain (not to be confused with profit).

    Even mays election will have a better choice than those. Well it might!

    View Comment

    wildwoodPosted on10:08 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    Over a million quid a year on gardeners and they canny even brush snow off a park!

    View Comment

    jimlarkinPosted on10:12 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    Financial shenanigans at Birmingham club or company ??

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30883291

    View Comment

    Big PinkPosted on10:24 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    Timing of Kenny McDowall’s resignation seems odd. Another bid to force Ashley’s hand?

    View Comment

    scapaflowPosted on10:26 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    BP, maybe, but by this time next week, Jimmy Bell could be first team manager :mrgreen:

    I don’t think these guys understand Ashley at all.

    View Comment

    StevieBCPosted on10:28 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    Is this another ‘Rangers’ world first…

    A caretaker manager resigns before a permanent manager has been identified ?

    For the same reasons, presumably McDowall will be joining McCoist in the garden then ?

    And how demoralising must all this be for the players ?

    Is it Durranty’s turn in the hot seat now…? 😕

    View Comment

    easyJamboPosted on10:33 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    Even Stan Collymore has noticed.

    Stan Collymore Verified account ‏@StanCollymore
    Are Rangers attempting to enter a team into the Chelsea Flower Show next year with all of this gardening leave?

    View Comment

    FisianiPosted on10:38 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    There is a masterplan behind the scenes.
    Step 1 The Board accepts Ashley’s LOAN. Taking his LOANS to 13M
    Step 2. This pays the January wage bill and the unforeseen onerous contract.
    Step 3. In February / March the club goes into administration and Ashley is the biggest creditor. He gets Ibrox , Murray Park, Edmiston House and the Albion car park.
    Step 4 A new company is formed which takes over the running of the club.
    Step 5 This company employs staff within running costs.
    Step 6. Despite the points loss from administration a few honest mistakes allows the team to emerge from the playoffs and ready for the Premiership.
    Step 7 Appoint Felix Magath, current shareholder and ex Bayern Munich manager to be head coach. Get some loan players from Newcastle.
    Step 8 Convince the Bears that this will be greatest version of Rangers ever. The marketing will be superb and the away strip will be orange.

    Alternatively go belly up in two weeks.

    View Comment

    scapaflowPosted on10:58 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    Fisiani says:
    January 19, 2015 at 10:38 pm

    Magath is a loonytune, appointing him in any capacity, won’t resolve the team issues, it’ll just create a whole bunch of additional ones :mrgreen:

    View Comment

    John ClarkPosted on11:00 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    mcfc says:
    January 19, 2015 at 5:47 pm
    ‘…..We hear police forces nationwide complaining about the impact of cuts on their activities..’
    —————
    Exactly so. Here is a bit of the Scottish Government’s bumph on the SPA:
    ” The Scottish Police Authority was established under the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 to maintain policing, promote policing principles and continuous improvement of policing, and to hold the Chief Constable to account.

    The SPA Board was appointed in October 2012 and is working to ensure the people of Scotland receive the best policing possible.

    The Board will do this through a robust governance approach focused on securing best value, reducing duplication and keeping police officers out in our communities and tackling crime.

    It will hold the Chief Constable to account for the policing of Scotland and the Chief Executive of the SPA to account for its role as employer of staff and the delivery of services to the board and policing….”

    I think we’re entitled to expect that ‘a robust governance approach’ should extend to checking why Mr House casually throws away £52 grand of our money

    Expectation, of course, is one thing. Having one’s expectations realised is another. And when it comes to Mr House, the SPA has been about as effective in keeping him under any kind of reasonable control as the SFA was/is in dealing with the miscellany of egocentric fruitcakes, lying s.ds, convicted criminals, and other low-lifes that the suffering ‘Rangers-of-old’ support have had the misfortune to see in the Ibrox board room over, say, the period since SDM took over.
    In my opinion.

    View Comment

    scapaflowPosted on11:11 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    John Clark says:
    January 19, 2015 at 11:00 pm

    You’re losing me here. The £52k owed by Rangers mk1, is gone, vanished, just as surely as if Dave King used it to light cigars with. At some point in the distant future, PS may get a few pence in the pound from the liquidators, having the debt appear on the balance sheet, won’t affect that one way or another.

    That said, I agree with you about the SPA, but, I was never that keen on the amalgamation in the first place. yes, savings will be made through central admin, procurement etc, but you could have realised most of those savings, while retaining the local accountability we enjoyed previously.

    View Comment

    DonegaltimPosted on11:30 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    parttimearab says:
    January 19, 2015 at 9:26 pm
    11 0 Rate This

    justshatered says:
    January 19, 2015 at 9:15 pm

    No one, unless they have an emotional attachment, will now invest in this venture because there is no return to be made.
    =============================
    Unless your Charles Green 😈
    ___________________________________________
    Surely Charles didn’t buy it for Mike??

    View Comment

    John ClarkPosted on11:32 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    scapaflow says:
    January 19, 2015 at 11:11 pm
    ‘.. At some point in the distant future, PS may get a few pence in the pound from the liquidators, having the debt appear on the balance sheet, won’t affect that one way or another.’
    ———-
    Two points, I think.
    First, BDO has already got a sizeable sum in from various sources ( at least as I understand matters). If the Court of Session were to say that HMRC are NOT creditors, then all of the pot is there for sharing out proportionately among the other creditors, the shares being bigger because HMRC would not be entitled to what would have been a whacking proportion of the total.
    £x million divided by even 399 small to medium creditors might still be worthwhile. (And to take action before the liquidation is completed is unjustifiable, in my opinion)

    Second, and again as I understand things, ‘writing off’ means abandoning any further claim. So, the debt having been written off by the polis,. BDO would have no need to pay them no matter how big the eventual pot was.
    As ever, of course,I’m always open to correction on matters of fact.

    View Comment

    ZilchPosted on11:35 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    Is it just me?

    Is it just the post-festive period misery kicking in?

    Or is it the miserable experience of filling in my tax return?

    I dunno about you, but my tolerance for tax cheats is running extra low about now.

    The sight of SDM and DK being allowed to spout history-rewriting rubbish virtually unchallenged is bad enough.

    The bleedin cops writing off football Oldco debts at the drop of a bobbies helmet is just about the last straw.

    Anybody at the SFA or SPFL – and I include all the guys there that represent our clubs on the various boards – any of them that think allowing DK or any of The Tainted back into our game is, frankly, off their heads.

    I could appeal on the grounds of sporting integrity. But we know that means nothing to them.

    But how about the damage it does to the concept of Scottish Football as a viable business proposition?

    Seriously. If you were a reasonably successful business person, with a club that you had some sort of emotional attachment to, and could afford to put money into – would the return of any of these chancers increase or decrease the likelihood of you choosing to get involved in Scottish Football?

    Maybe Mr Lawell believes that his (my) club will make more money if some form of Rangers is facilitated into the top league? Maybe he is right? Maybe he doesn’t care how many of his own club’s fans he alienates on this? I for one hope that the growing demand from Celtic fans for accountability and social responsibility will give him and the board pause for serious thought on this.

    But surely there must be any number of other clubs who can only lose out long term? Not only would a return to the “Old Firm” cartel be toxic (on just about every conceivable level), the loss of business credibility would surely be disastrous?

    Armageddon has turned into a financial reconstruction that has benefitted a great many clubs. Is that really going to be jeopardised by letting this shower of cheats buy their way back into brogues?

    Of course, for the RRM at Hampden, Scottish Football only has meaning if it serves the Establishment club, at all costs.

    I do wish the other clubs, including my own, were a bit more vocal in letting us know what their ambitions are for ensuring the game is fit for purpose, both on the field and off it.

    I want to know if they are still worth giving my support to.

    PS. I paid my tax. All of it. On time. I know it is the right thing to do. These guys make me feel like a mug for doing it. And I hate them for that.

    View Comment

    dedeideoprofundisPosted on11:43 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    Slugger O’Toole trying as usual to stir the pot
    ===
    “Rangers has become a magnet for every chancer in town….”

    Mick Fealty on 19 January 2015 , 10:49 pm

    ==
    It’s an article in the FT by John McDermott, there’s a link on Slugger’s website.

    View Comment

    James DolemanPosted on11:44 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    “writing off’ means abandoning any further claim.”

    No it just means you stop bothering to include it in the accounts, you still have a claim lodged.

    View Comment

    scapaflowPosted on11:50 pm - Jan 19, 2015


    James Doleman says:
    January 19, 2015 at 11:44 pm

    exactly. There may even be some tax benefit for PS in the write off.

    EDIT
    (PS, unlike every other police force in the UK are liable for VAT. Why? I don’t know, but it infuriates the PS senior management)

    View Comment

    grail14Posted on12:31 am - Jan 20, 2015


    To clarify write offs:
    If a company goes into administration owing my company 6ok
    that would consist of 50k goods and services and 10k VAT.
    I would lodge proof of claim for 60k to administrator, which then qualifies my company however many pennies in the £ that are eventually realised.

    In house; I would write off the debt immediately because I could reclaim the 10k Vat ~(once the debt is 6 months old) on my next return and also get the 20% corporation tax relief on the 50k on that years tax return.

    The only reason I would not write it off immediately was if my own
    balance sheet was flaky and a hit of 60k might make bank manager
    nervous

    View Comment

    John ClarkPosted on12:40 am - Jan 20, 2015


    As a bit of light relief, I was fiddling about trying to find some info on the SFA as a Limited Company [I was trying to find how many members are needed to requisition an EGM. I have long been puzzled at the inaction of so many experienced men of business who have let their elected Board almost destroy the game ( and eventually, their businesses!) without taking action to call that Board to heel]. And by chance I came upon this absolutely unrelated but very informative and interesting case of a referee who regularly earned over £200,000 per season, for refereeing.
    It’s a long Employment Tribunal appeal kind of a thing, not everyone’s idea of a light read. But it contains a lot of quite interesting stuff about the relationship between the SFA and the referees.
    You will find it at
    http://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed22367
    But £200,000 per season? Whaur’s ma whistle!?

    View Comment

    John ClarkPosted on12:50 am - Jan 20, 2015


    James Doleman says:
    January 19, 2015 at 11:44 pm
    ‘..No it just means you stop bothering to include it in the accounts, you still have a claim lodged’
    ——–
    Thank you, James, for keeping me right.

    (But I did want to have a pop at our police ‘Supremo’ , who got away with the stupid but vaguely menacing ‘Police Scotland’ nomenclature which leaves out the notion that the Police answer to the democratic process and have no powers other than those that we, the real people, give them).

    View Comment

    Resin_lab_dogPosted on12:53 am - Jan 20, 2015


    John Clark says:
    January 20, 2015 at 12:40 am

    0

    0

    Rate This

    As a bit of light relief, I was fiddling about trying to find some info on the SFA as a Limited Company [I was trying to find how many members are needed to requisition an EGM. I have long been puzzled at the inaction of so many experienced men of business who have let their elected Board almost destroy the game ( and eventually, their businesses!) without taking action to call that Board to heel]. And by chance I came upon this absolutely unrelated but very informative and interesting case of a referee who regularly earned over £200,000 per season, for refereeing.
    It’s a long Employment Tribunal appeal kind of a thing, not everyone’s idea of a light read. But it contains a lot of quite interesting stuff about the relationship between the SFA and the referees.
    You will find it at
    http://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed22367
    But £200,000 per season? Whaur’s ma whistle!?

    _________________________________________________

    The SFA is a company limited by guarantee rather than shares.
    As such, you would need to refer to its articles of association to see the terms under which an EGM could be called. There are no ‘voting’ shares, of the type in a conventional company (limited by share capital).

    View Comment

    scapaflowPosted on1:13 am - Jan 20, 2015


    John

    Have at House. He seems to have redefined operational to mean everything except paper clips & consequently feels that he is independent & unaccountable. The creation of ps in its current form was a huge error

    View Comment

    HirsutePursuitPosted on1:18 am - Jan 20, 2015


    David Cunningham King was a director of Rangers until 1st June 2012. He is recently reported as saying “… I will have to deal with my reasons for staying on the board and trying to impose some level of governance during the Whyte era.”

    From the SFA Judicial Panel considering the charges against Rangers and Craig Whyte:

    …whereas prior to 6 May 2011 all of the directors of Rangers FC were provided by Mr Ken Olverman and other managers with briefing papers, management accounts, bank correspondence, financial accounts and projections and other materials to assist in the corporate governance of Rangers FC, after that date, on the instructions of Mr Craig Whyte, little or no information relating to the affairs of Rangers FC was made available to Mr David King (Non Executive Director), Mr John McClelland, ( Non Executive Director) or Mr John Greig ( Non Executive Director). Mr Ken Olverman was concerned about the policy in which he was instructed but implemented it.

    …between 6 May 2011 and October 2011 the Board of Directors may have met once. It did not meet more than once either in conventional manner or by electronic or other means.

    …there were no meetings of the Board of Directors held after 24 May 2011.

    …during the period from 6 May 2011 until October 2011 Mr David King (Non Executive Director) who lived in South Africa, made repeated requests by email to Mr Ken Olverman for financial and other information and accounts in order to fulfil his duty as a director in the governance of Rangers FC. Mr Ken Olverman went some way to prepare the materials for Mr David King but on seeking approval from Mr Craig Whyte for the provision of the requested information to Mr David King, a director of Rangers FC, Mr Craig Whyte instructed that Mr Ken Olverman should not provide it to Mr David King. Mr Craig Whyte then assumed responsibility for communicating directly with Mr David King and did so. In email correspondence he instructed that Mr David King should not make requests for information from Mr Ken Olverman but should instead obtain any information through Mr Craig Whyte. Mr David King became deeply disturbed by the manner in which he as a director was being treated and the manner in which Rangers FC were being governed.

    From May 2011 Mr David King was aware that he was being excluded from the governance of the company and he appears to have done little about it except repeat his demands to Mr Olverman and Mr Craig Whyte for information.

    There was no information about any other steps he took as director when matters were plainly out of the control of the Board and information and accounts were kept secret from the Board.

    Similarly, Mr John McClelland and Mr John Greig resigned in October because they knew that they were being excluded and marginalised at the same time as they had great concerns for the governance of Rangers FC and were deeply suspicious of Mr Craig Whyte before and after his acquisition of the majority shareholding from MIHL.

    The question might be “What could they do?”. The answer is “They could have made public the activities of Mr Craig Whyte of which they were aware or ought to have been aware”. Their fiduciary duties owed to the company might for example have led them to disclose to the PLUS Stock Exchange that no accounts were likely or that no AGM was likely to be held on account of the conduct of Mr Craig Whyte and that there was a complete breakdown of the corporate governance of Rangers FC.

    On any view the matters involved in this case are as serious offences against the ordinary standards of corporate governance as one could imagine. The Tribunal attempted in its exercise of fixing these matters on the scale of offences to identify a more serious offence than those on the complaints, and concluded that only match fixing in its various forms might be a more serious breach. It had no hesitation in concluding that the breaches struck at the heart of good corporate governance and social and financial probity and responsibility. They brought the game into serious disrepute. As such, they required to be regarded as at the top of the scale of seriousness.

    The Tribunal took into account the extraordinary circumstances of the offences and the extent to which Rangers FC through its directors had been apparently misled and deceived by Mr Craig Whyte. Against that it took the view that whatever their position a number of individual directors and employees must have known that what was happening within Rangers FC was entirely wrong and illegitimate but they chose to do nothing to bring it to the attention of the public. That may be matter for their long term reflection but it does reduce the mitigatory impact of the suggestion that Rangers FC were innocent victims.

    https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/05/12/the-sfa-judicial-panel-verdict-on-rangers-full-text/

    The Judicial Panel were certainly not impressed with Mr King’s attempt to “impose some level of governance”.

    As we know, section 216 of the Insolvency Act prohibits Mr King from being a director or taking any role in the new club’s management until 2017. If a person acts in contravention of this section, he is liable to imprisonment or a fine, or both. Although, he can apply to the court to have the prohibition lifted, I wonder if the court will take the same view of his conduct as the Judicial Panel did in 2012.

    On the face of it, his wish to be elected on to the board of RIFC plc, owners of the football club founded in 2012, seems to be, at best… quite optimistic. 🙄

    View Comment

    Ron.an.MathPosted on1:53 am - Jan 20, 2015


    Just heard a plug for 5 lives Nicky Campbell show lamenting Rangers fall from the giddy heights of the champions league SEMI-FINAL ( ? ) in 1994 ! ! !
    Now I’m pretty sure they finished behind Marseille in a 4 team group ( bruges + psv maybe the other teams ? )
    with a won 2 lost 2 drew 2 record courtesy of an outrageous fluke goal from Scott Nisbet in one game . . .
    Appears its not just the smsm that inhabit an alternative reality these days ! Or is it me ? 🙄

    View Comment

    John ClarkPosted on1:59 am - Jan 20, 2015


    Resin_lab_dog says:
    January 20, 2015 at 12:53 am
    ‘.The SFA is a company limited by guarantee rather than shares.’
    ——–
    Thanks, Resin.
    I confess to being confused by the supposed ‘transfer of share’ idea and each member having one share.
    But whatever the deal, it seems to be the member clubs of the SFA that elect their Board members.And I was just interested in what happens if a number of the ‘electors’ want to ‘sack the board’.What number would be needed to call the Board to account in an EGM?

    Because beyond a peradventure, the Board has created a whole lot of problems for the game they are meant to advance!
    And appear not to have been challenged or even questioned by those who elected them.

    View Comment

    yourhavingalaughPosted on6:25 am - Jan 20, 2015


    These guys continue to rack up world records,do we now have the first caretaker caretaker manager.

    View Comment

    StevieBCPosted on6:38 am - Jan 20, 2015


    IMHO, if one David Cunningham King somehow passes the FPP criteria for being a director of a senior Scottish football club…then it could result in many reasonable, Scottish football punters/customers walking away for good – including myself & my family.

    But I still think that ‘Smiler’ King will never get close to that scenario… 😐

    View Comment

    Hartsons CombPosted on6:58 am - Jan 20, 2015


    Meanwhile, in non-gardening news, Mr. Sarver has spoken to Mr. Jackson of the Daily Record:

    KJ: So where does Robert Sarver sit right now? Is it over or is there a chance you will try again, perhaps working with the Park Consortium and/or Dave King?

    RS: That’s a good question. I’m at the same place I was when I issued my last press release. As I stated before, I really think what the club needs is more equity, not debt. Debt is more of an enemy than a friend to the club given its cash flow situation. So I am really more of an equity proponent. That’s where I’m at.

    KJ: Do you struggle to understand why the board might be in favour of a £10m loan from Mike Ashley?

    RS: I’m not privy to the board’s conversations and what their plan is. But from a distance, where I sit, the best thing for the club is equity and to actually have no debt. Taking on more debt makes no sense to me, let alone mortgaging the stadium. I’m not sure I understand that at all. I’m sure these people have a plan, I just don’t know what it is.

    KJ: The problem is Ashley has control of the board. Were you seeking to change this by repaying Ashley’s outstanding debt?

    RS: Yes, correct. My plan was basically to have the club debt free. That’s not to say at some point in the future there isn’t a reasonable amount of debt to have on a club. But it needs to be put in place once the club has cash flow and is on solid footing.

    KJ: At any point in your bid, were you given proper access to the books ? Did you see the full extent of the financial crisis?

    RS: It’s a public company so the books are public. What I reviewed was all public information. I couldn’t go any further than that because I never could get the board to engage with me in any kind of meaningful discussions as relates to a capital raise.

    KJ: Did you find that odd? This is a company which is hemorrhaging money and yet they would not engage with you?

    RS: Well, I understand some of the issues the board faces but if I were to put myself in their shoes I would have been looking at all options and investigating all options, including equity into the club. I’m not sure I would be so limited as to just look for more debt.

    KJ: Did you feel a high degree of scepticism from the media and supporters?

    RS: The feedback I got from fans was probably about 95% encouraging and I received a lot of it. That further confirmed my view as to how popular the club is and how large a following it has. Listen, I’m not saying I’m the wealthiest or the smartest potential owner for a soccer club but I felt I was pretty damn good option for this club at this point right now.

    KJ: Don’t take this personally, but I used the phrase ‘shooting to miss’ when describing your offers as they were absolutely conditional on a level of shareholder support which you were never likely to achieve. Do you understand why people will view you with scepticism?

    RS: Well, I’ve always had the view that you’re better off owning a smaller percentage of something that is really healthy and strong than a larger percentage of something that’s not. My goal was that the shareholders with the largest stakes would look at this as an opportunity to really strengthen their investment, not be negative towards it.

    KJ: But surely the situation changed when Dave King and the Park consortium bought up 35% of the shares?

    RS: It did but it shouldn’t have. In order for their investment to be strong and successful the club still needs significant equity put into it. It needs to get itself onto solid footing. So this shouldn’t have impacted upon their decision. I still think all the shareholders today would have been better off with additional equity in the club. Even if their ownership percentage would have been diluted I believe the value of their shares would have been better off.

    KJ: But the guys who bought the 35% were making an emotional investment. It’s not a question of profit and loss for them.

    RS: That’s good. They are the kind of shareholders you want. But I would look at it a little bit differently because one way or another the club needs to sort out its finances to be successful, regardless of who owns shares. When you look at the club itself, I wouldn’t say it’s in better shape today than it was a month ago.

    KJ: But after your first bid was rejected were you not minded to reach out to these emotional investors? Surely if they had come over to your side it would not have been so difficult to achieve 75% backing?

    RS: Yeah, maybe. I’m not sure. The board were the only ones who were really privy to that information because they had canvassed the shareholder base. Look, what I said all along is that it’s helpful for a club to have good local ownership. I thought that was a good idea but I was never in any meaningful partnership negotiations with them.

    KJ: Could that change?

    RS: Anything can change but from my point of view, until the board of directors formally decide they need equity capital, the investment isn’t for me.

    KJ: Is this board putting the club in danger by increasing debt?

    RS: Well they are in a weak position right now. As I’ve said, I don’t think at this stage debt is a friend to the club. I think equity is. That’s why I find it hard to get my had around what the board is thinking right now. I mean, the club has negative cash flow. Why would you take on more debt when you are in a situation like that?

    KJ: The question Rangers fans wanted to ask you when you offered £30m of your own money was: Why? What’s in it for you?

    RS: I saw it as an opportunity. The club needed a hug instead of someone kicking it around. I was prepared to give it a hug and the benefits for me would have been watching the team turn around and back to an elite level. That satisfaction would have been rewarding to me.

    KJ: Come on, seriously, you must have thought you could make money from this somehow?

    RS: Well yes, I think long term that soccer is a good investment because it’s watched by fans all over the world and it will continue to grow in popularity around the world. So yes, I did think it provided a good investment opportunity but the primary reason you get involved in sports is more about passion and competitiveness than it is about profitability and investment returns. There are easier to ways to make money?

    KJ: So you’re saying this was money you could afford to lose?

    RS: Well, you never want to lose money. But could I afford to lose it? Yes, I guess if you say it that way. But I looked at it as an investment in a business which could have been very successful long term, if it was put on a solid financial footing with the right management team in place.

    KJ: But Scottish football is not in a good financial place right now. There must have been other more obvious options?

    RS: I agree. But sometimes the best places to look are the places other people don’t want to look. I think Rangers is a gem. It just needs some love and it needs to be polished.

    KJ: You said if the Rangers fans need your help they only have to ask. What exactly did you mean?

    RS: Given the rules of the London Stock exchange, I can’t comment any further. All I can say is I’m in a holding pattern. I’m following what’s going on and I hope things work out for the fans and the club. It’s a storied franchise and a treasure in the community. I hope it gets itself squared away.

    KJ: If Dave King’s EGM is successful and this board is wiped out, it changes your position? Is this something you would welcome?

    RS: I can’t comment. It’ll be up to the shareholders to decide in what direction they want to go or if they want to make a change or not.

    View Comment

    upthehoopsPosted on7:15 am - Jan 20, 2015


    A quick glance around this morning shows a full blown PR offensive on behalf of Dave King, and in the case of the Daily Record, also Robert Sarver. If the line being peddled was that Rangers need money to stabilise the club and to continue a programme of austerity measures to make it self sufficient I could understand. However it is very much the opposite as we all know, which can only lead to one place. Much is made of increased revenue via season tickets and future European revenue. Yet David Murray packed Ibrox to the rafters every game, and the team regularly played in Europe. Despite that he needed £80M from the Bank of Scotland, £40M from Joe Lewis, £20M from Dave King, and £18M up front from Dave Whelan for merchandise. In addition he sold media rights to NTL for £10M up front. When all that failed he embarked on a risky EBT scheme which has proved completely ruinous. So why do the media think £20-30M from the assorted prospective buyers, minus what Ashley might be owed, is going to set them on the path to greatness?

    View Comment

    fishnishPosted on7:45 am - Jan 20, 2015


    I seldom venture into the informed conjecture on this board. My financial acumen is, at best, Micawberish.
    However, in the few posts above I’ve spotted an unmentioned connection.
    The Park Consortium – and a sudden glut of Gardeners.
    Mr Green must be connected somewhere…?

    View Comment

    Comments are closed.