A spectre is haunting Scottish Football

ByTrisidium

A spectre is haunting Scottish Football

From the TSFM Manifesto 🙂

A spectre is haunting Scottish Football — the spectre of Sporting Integrity. All the powers of the old firms have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Billy and Dan, Blazer and Cassock, Record and Sun, Balance Sheet and P&L.
Where is the football fan in opposition to these that has not been decried as a “sporting integrity bampot” by his opponents in power?

Two things result from this fact:

I. Sporting Integrity is already widely acknowledged to be itself a power for good.

II. It is high time that Lovers of Sport should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, and meet this nursery tale of the Spectre of Sporting Integrity with a manifesto of fair play.

To this end, Lovers of Sport of various partisanship have assembled on TSFM and sketched their manifesto, to be published on tsfm.scot.

Those who love sport though are challenged not just by the taunts of the monosyllabic automatons in the MSM, but by the owners of our football clubs who have displayed an almost total disregard to our wish to have a fair competition played out in the spirit of friendly rivalry. In fact the clubs, who speak those fine words, are not nearly as outraged as we are by the damage done to the integrity of the sport in the past few years .

In fact the term Sporting Integrity has become, since the latter stages of the Rangers era, a term of abuse; a mocking soubriquet attached to those who want sport to be just that – sport.

Sporting integrity now lives in the same media pigeon-hole as words like Islam, left-wing, militant, Muslim – and a host of others; words which are threats to the established order now set up as in-jokes, in order to reduce the effectiveness of the idea.

In fact, a new terminology has evolved in the reporting of football by both club officials and The Succulent Lamb Chapel alike;

“.. Sporting Integrity but …”.

For example

“We all want sporting integrity, but finance is more important”

Says who exactly?

Stated in such a matter of fact way that the obvious question is headed off at the pass, it is sometimes difficult to re-frame the discussion – perhaps because crayon is so hard to erase?

This is the backdrop to The Scottish Football Monitor and the world in which we live. Often the levels of scrutiny employed by our contributors are far in excess of any scrutiny employed by the MSM. Indeed our ideas and theories are regularly plagiarised by those very same lazy journalists who lurk here, and cherry-pick material to suit their own agendas; regularly claiming exclusives for stories that TSFM and RTC before us had placed in the public domain weeks earlier.

This was going to lead into a discourse about the love of money versus the love of sport – of how the sacred cows of acquisitiveness, gate- retention and turnstile spinning is far more important to the heads of our football clubs (the Billys, Dans and Blazers of the intro) than maintaining the traditions of our sport.

However events of Friday 14th November have given me cause to leave that for another day. The biggest squirrel of all in this sorry saga has always been the sleight of hand employed instil a siege mentality in the Rangers fans. The press have time and again assisted people (with no love of football in general or Rangers in particular) to enrich themselves – legally or otherwise – and feed on the loyalty of Rangers fans.

A matter for Rangers fans may also be the identity of some of those who had their trust, but who also assisted the Whytes and Greens by their public statements of support.

Our contention has been that rules have been bent twisted or broken to accommodate those people, the real enemies of the Rangers fans – and fans everywhere.

Through our collective research and group-analysis of events, we have also wondered out loud about the legality of many aspects of the operating style of some of the main players in the affair. That suspicion has been shared most notably by Mark Daly and Alex Thompson, but crucially now appears to be shared by Law Enforcement.

I confess I am fed up with the self-styled “bampot” epithet. For the avoidance of doubt, the “bampots” in this affair are those who have greater resources than us, and access to the truth, but who have lacked either the will or the courage or the imagination to follow it through.

We are anything but bampots. Rather, we have demonstrated that the wisdom of the crowd is more effective by far than any remnants of wisdom in the press.

I have no doubt that the police investigation into this matter is proceeding in spite of great opposition in the MSM and the Scottish Football Authorities – all of whom conspired to expose Rangers to the custodianship of those for whom football is a foreign language.

I have no doubt that the constant exposition of wrong-doing on this blog, in particular the questions we have constantly raised, and anomalies we have pointed out, has assisted and enabled the law enforcement agencies in this process.

If we are to be consistent in this, our enabling of the authorities, we MUST show restraint at all times as this process is followed through. People who are charged with a crime deserve to be given a fair trial in the absence of rumour or innuendo. We must also, if we are to continue as the spectre which haunts the avaricious – and the real bampots – be seen to be better than they, and give them no cause to accuse us of irresponsibility.

This affair has now evolved way beyond one club gaining unfair advantage over others. For all the understandable Schadenfreude of many among us, the real enemy is not Rangers, it is about those who enabled and continue to enable the farce at Ibrox.

This is now about systematic cheating at the heart of the Scottish game (in the name of cash and in spite of lip service to sporting integrity), and how the greed of a bunch of ethically challenged officials allowed another group of ethically challenged businessmen free rein to enrich themselves at the expense of the fans.

Whether laws were broken or not, the players at Rangers have come and gone and are variables, but the malignant constant at the SFA and SPFL are still there. Last night, even after the news that four men had been arrested in connection with the takeover at Ibrox in 2011, they were gathered together at Celtic Park with their Irish counterparts, tucking into succulent lamb (perhaps) and fine wines, doing some back slapping, making jokes about the vulgarities of their fans, bragging about the ST money they have banked.

The revolution won’t be over until they are gone, and if they remain, it is Scottish Football that will be over.

 

 

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.

4,164 Comments so far

ianagainPosted on10:09 pm - Nov 27, 2014


easyJambo says:

November 27, 2014 at 10:00 pm

0

0

Rate This

ianagain says: November 27, 2014 at 7:39 pm

A 6 mil rise in retail? How everyone layering ?
===========================
What the accounts don’t tell us is what were the costs of Retail operations.

The half year figures for Retail were Income £4.8M and Costs £3M, i.e. a profit of £1.8M to be shared with Sports Direct?

If the ratio of income to costs was maintained over the whole year then the costs would be around £4.75M giving a profit for the year of approx. £3M.

The Cash in the Bank figures for what was not available for immediate use were Jun 13 £946K, Dec 13 £1.669M and Jun 14 £3.069M. I suspect that the bulk of the Retail profits is sitting in that account.
================================================
Easy

I love accountants, easy when ones available. Well easy for me and the other dunces on here.
Hat on in corner.
Ta 😀

View Comment

MartinPosted on10:13 pm - Nov 27, 2014


BTW My last post is simply my attempt at joining the dots with regard to certain elements contained in Special Resolution 9.

Some input from others more qualified would be greatly appreciated. 😀

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on10:13 pm - Nov 27, 2014


So its not ideal, obviously, but it’s ok for an auditor to say “no real problems, the company will be fine for the next year IF it manages to find squillions of £ soon”.
Therefore every company could always get a similar sign off no matter how bad things are, because you never know there’s always the possibility that squillions could possibly be raised somehow. No wonder the country is in the shit if this is how the economic system is allowed to work.
And don’t even start me on the effectiveness of any relevant regulatory body.
Sigh, nearly speechless.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on10:18 pm - Nov 27, 2014


Bad Cap

Think its worse than “no probs”.

I do get a sense from the wording that its the last resort here. No comment other than liquidity a problem with no actual answer as to HOW that will be solved is actually saying we’ve seen it and no idea how they will fix it.
For me that’s alarm bells. No?

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on10:23 pm - Nov 27, 2014


John Clark says:
November 27, 2014 at 9:22 pm
4 0 Rate This

mungoboy says:
November 27, 2014 at 8:20 pm

I note that “The company has passed a resolution in accordance with section 506 of the Companies Act 2006 that the auditor’s name should not be stated.’
And that section allows the name of the Auditor ( either the Firm or the individual person)to be omitted…

(a)considering on reasonable grounds that statement of the name would create or be likely to create a serious risk that the auditor or senior statutory auditor, or any other person, would be subject to violence or intimidation, has resolved that the name should not be stated, and

=============================================================================
JC and Mungoboy…it is indeed a sad reflection on today’s society at large that such accounts are signed off in the name of the firm, e.g. Deloittes/KPMG/PWC etc, rather than the name of an individual within the firm who would normally sign in his/her own name as the named “senior statutory auditor” as laid down by the Companies Act 2006.
PS I never had to take such precautions…just wondering why… 🙁

View Comment

ianagainPosted on10:32 pm - Nov 27, 2014


Essex

PS I never had to take such precautions…just wondering why… 🙁

—————————-
Oh your not you know.

Anyhow what’s you take on “the books” as we used to say?

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on10:32 pm - Nov 27, 2014


ianagain says: November 27, 2014 at 7:39 pm
A 6 mil rise in retail? How everyone layering ?
================================================

See below…some smoke and mirrors…time periods for figures not comparable…note esp the time period for the previous retail figure not given…

“A 32% increase in total revenue from £19.1m to £25.2m was recorded in the year ending 30 June 2014, with the majority of the uplift due to the first full year of our retail venture with our long term partner Sports Direct. This resulted in a 375% increase in retail revenue from £1.6m to £7.6m. It should be noted that the previous financial year’s total is from a considerably shorter period in which our new retail business was trading and therefore is not a like-for-like comparison.”

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on10:35 pm - Nov 27, 2014


Allyjambo says:
November 27, 2014 at 8:07 pm
9 0 Rate This

So, accounts’ opinions required – what level would you set these accounts at:

(a)Bad?
(b)Very Bad?
(c)Extremely Bad?
(d)Terminal?

Even I can work out that the answer is not, (a)Bad 😐
===================================================================
Allyjambo…thanks to posters like yourself and the many others on this glorious blog, and over the last months, I do not feel the need to read the accounts as published, since:
1) They are completely sanitised
2) Any pertinent questions raised will never be answered (but please keep on asking!)
3) No credible information has been released/revealed that has not been at least intimated by contributors to this blog (you know who you are!)

The most interesting aspect, as picked up by contributors this evening, is the wording of the Auditors Report, which is a true masterpiece in the art of semantics, and in doing so, quite correctly and explicitly, makes detailed reference to all aspects re the going concern for RITC/TRFC, but still manages to be “without modification”, i.e. unqualified.

A master stroke in the black art of professional weasel words! 👿

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on10:35 pm - Nov 27, 2014


I’m a wee bit confused
These accounts refer to RIFC
Now strictly speaking this company doesn’t need an injection of millions of pounds
It’s the blood sucking, life sapping subsidiary that needs the cash
Normally a parent would kill of a subsidiary if it was draining it the way TRFC is
Or are we really saying Company & Club are one and the same ?

View Comment

ianagainPosted on10:40 pm - Nov 27, 2014


parttimearab says:

November 27, 2014 at 10:32 pm

0

0

Rate This

ianagain says: November 27, 2014 at 7:39 pm
A 6 mil rise in retail? How everyone layering ?
================================================

See below…some smoke and mirrors…time periods for figures not comparable…note esp the time period for the previous retail figure not given…

“A 32% increase in total revenue from £19.1m to £25.2m was recorded in the year ending 30 June 2014, with the majority of the uplift due to the first full year of our retail venture with our long term partner Sports Direct. This resulted in a 375% increase in retail revenue from £1.6m to £7.6m. It should be noted that the previous financial year’s total is from a considerably shorter period in which our new retail business was trading and therefore is not a like-for-like comparison.”
=======================================================

See Jean

Troops on the job all the little quirks explained.

PT Arab

Cheers well explained.

As a question how devious are accounts statements/comments allowed to be?

The Chairman’s statement is overly long (and disingenuous?) for such a small outfit in my view.

Filler in the place of truth?

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on10:40 pm - Nov 27, 2014


campsiejoe says:
November 27, 2014 at 10:35 pm
0 0 Rate This

I’m a wee bit confused
These accounts refer to RIFC
Now strictly speaking this company doesn’t need an injection of millions of pounds
It’s the blood sucking, life sapping subsidiary that needs the cash
Normally a parent would kill of a subsidiary if it was draining it the way TRFC is
Or are we really saying Company & Club are one and the same ?
=========================================================================
Campsiejoe…this was the lasting legacy of Mr Charles Green of Normandy…who has used, and continues to use, the holding company/subsidiary concept/myth from day 1 all the way through till today…and the confusion still reigns, just as he intended!

Well played Charlie boy…spivs still luvvin’ ya!

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on10:45 pm - Nov 27, 2014


essexbeancounter says:
November 27, 2014 at 10:40 pm

Key to whole operation, and as far as we know (at the moment) all perfectly legal

View Comment

SquigglePosted on10:46 pm - Nov 27, 2014


Apologies if someone has queried this.

So, Mr Lawwell says Celtic lose £10m through a lack of Sevco.?

Sevco have lost only £8M by being Sevco?

Is that an inverse perpetual motion machine…

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on10:48 pm - Nov 27, 2014


ianagain says:
November 27, 2014 at 10:32 pm
2 0 Rate This

Essex

PS I never had to take such precautions…just wondering why… 🙁

—————————-
Oh your not you know.

Anyhow what’s you take on “the books” as we used to say?
==================================================================
Ianagain…whatever today’s publication(s) may be called, the last thing they will resemble in a way, shape or form, is “the books”.

As mentioned in my previous post, semantics, creative accounting (yes it is allowed within reason!) and a degree of positive spin, will ensure that this is seen as a gigantic PR exercise, designed to buy sufficient time until……..(fill in your own ending to suit!)

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on10:56 pm - Nov 27, 2014


Accounts are not particularly interesting to me to be honest. They show we are losing money at a stupid rate, the funds are all being wasted on “other operating costs” and we are relying on loans to survive. This has been discussed on this blog since about 1988.

It is, as we are find of saying here, nothing more than a squirrel in my view.

View Comment

comeongetaffPosted on10:59 pm - Nov 27, 2014


Good evening.

Just a quick wee true tale about the late Arthur Montford(RIP).

It must have been more than 30yrs ago when I was in the DryCleaners at the top of Byers Rd.
Anyway in comes Arthur with one of his famous jackets to get cleaned.
The shop-assistant took down his particulars and then asked him his name.
Quick as a flash I jump in and say…..Archie McPherson.
Cue us both pissing ourselves laughing.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on11:01 pm - Nov 27, 2014


EssexBC

designed to buy sufficient time until……..(fill in your own ending to suit!)
===============================
Too tempting see what you mean though.

However just concentrating on cash in out. Does it work beyond January as is implied without some kind of “saviour” with bags o cash? Or is this RFC (AIM) dead in the water?
I’m afraid I cant separate the wish from the fact in the accounts is what I am saying.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:07 pm - Nov 27, 2014


It would appear the “gonnae geez yer spare £8m mister” going concern warning is also based on the company’s own cash flow projections which contain the intrinsic assumption of a return to premiership football next season. Somebody’s confident!

As an aside I like the managers reports “me, Kenny and wee durranty are a team and we work best as a team and please don’t sack us, any of us. ”

Ok I may have embellished the last bit slightly.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on11:08 pm - Nov 27, 2014


Another Rangers accounts find: “…obligation of Rangers Retail Ltd to purchase stock at cost higher than resale value for season 2013/14.”

@pkelly67 They had to pay to buy stock at a price higher than they sold it in the shops. Presumably unsold stock.

Just to reiterate that. Rangers paid £411,000 under obligation to buy stock through Rangers Retail Ltd at a cost higher than resale value.
===============
Onerous contract?.

View Comment

cowanpetePosted on11:15 pm - Nov 27, 2014


Oh that cheeky chappy!
From the scotsman:
“”
The news of Whyte’s detention was welcomed by Rangers boss Ally McCoist.
He said: “It’s a police matter which I obviously wouldn’t and couldn’t comment on. But I am pleased that the police are doing something about it, to be quite honest. I think everybody in the club is.”
“”
Just as well he didn’t comment then. Absolutely.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on11:19 pm - Nov 27, 2014


RyanGosling says:

November 27, 2014 at 10:56 pm

1

0

Rate This

Accounts are not particularly interesting to me to be honest. They show we are losing money at a stupid rate, the funds are all being wasted on “other operating costs” and we are relying on loans to survive. This has been discussed on this blog since about 1988.

It is, as we are find of saying here, nothing more than a squirrel in my view.
==============================================

Ryan

I cant believe you think its just a “distraction” surely.
Or are you just so fed up with the rotating “leaders” you’ve given up?
Don’t sound like you Ryan.

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on11:19 pm - Nov 27, 2014


Lovely words from Mr McCoist today on Arthur’s passing.

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on11:21 pm - Nov 27, 2014


Ianagain,

Obviously, I embellish. I know it’s more than a distraction. I just don’t think it goes so far as news, given that I have not been surprised at any of the information I have read today.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on11:26 pm - Nov 27, 2014


Ryan

So Whats your thoughts of getting out of this situation. New club, new ground?
I know my mates in OZ reckon (after ploughing in many thousands to MIH and CG) that is what they want.
Your thoughts please.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:29 pm - Nov 27, 2014


On the plus side I see oor keef has sorted the Ashley owns both clubs therefore they can’t both play in Europe debate with the solemn words…..

Newcastle might never play in Europe again.

Kermit was less of a muppet!

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on11:32 pm - Nov 27, 2014


Ianagain,

Thank you for asking. It’s late and a very difficult question. So my off the top of my head short answer is; I’m under no illusions that Rangers went into liquidation. A new club was started to continue the last one (I can’t be bothered writing essays to be politically correct, you all know what I mean). So many people bought into it, including me, that starting a new club now, again, would be problematic on many levels. If the fans were United on it then it wouldn’t be a problem and I’d absolutely be all for it. But the fans are not. Chances are, a “splinter” group fan club would be the one that would get my support but only a fraction of the current Rangers support.

Saddest thing is that in hindsight, we could have clubbed together, held off for a few months, bought Ibrox cheap and after a year out the league started again with a fan run enterprise, our old ground and colours and a rosy future. We didn’t, and that is partly our fault and partly the fault of people who are currently under investigation.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:35 pm - Nov 27, 2014


Ianagain

I’d come at it from a different angle. 16m will get you to the end of next season with mike paid back and pennies left. By then you’ll definitely have had 1 old firm tie, possibly a play off series with the following season dependent on the outcome. Still a chance of outright promotion but I don’t want to wind EJ/AJ up!

So that’s the upside, and it assumes the nasty court cases and stuff die a death.

So, what could you realistically do with your £16m that would give you a better return?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:35 pm - Nov 27, 2014


ianagain says:
November 27, 2014 at 10:40 pm
‘..As a question how devious are accounts statements/comments allowed to be?’
———–
Remember that ‘business’ and ‘morality’ are not necessarily related, indeed are very often in conflict, with morality losing out.

A business man can be what we would all recognise as a thieving, lying crook, but can cockily tell us to ‘prove it’.

You can be very sure that there is not a provable lie in the wholly misleading crap spouted by any CEO or Finance director.The language used is the language of ‘ it is my belief..’ , ‘there is every reason to expect..’ ‘we are confident that the company will..’……..All that kind of guff.

We saw it in the Imran Ahmad case, where Lord Armstrong accepted that ‘there was no real risk of insolvency’ simply[or so it seemed to me] on the basis of assertions made by the company: assertions and affidavits not of provable/disprovable fact, but of opinion as to what MIGHT happen IF hopes were realised.

In a capitalist system of economics which, historically (in the case of the first truly capitalist aggregation of nations, Great Britain) has allowed and accepted that it is absolutely morally okay to force another nation at gun-boat point to ‘trade’ with you entirely on your terms, and if it refuses to do so, to go to war with them, it is of nothing that company CEOs should be allowed to tersgiverate.[good word, that]

One does not win empires by being truthful and honest.

And as SDM quickly learned, one does not win sports trophies by strictly observing the sporting rules.

Naw, we’re stuck with deliberately fudged legislation, and regulation aimed at NOT raining in too tightly the really bad guys in case we catch the more ‘honest’ businessmen as well….

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on11:46 pm - Nov 27, 2014


RyanGosling says:
November 27, 2014 at 11:19 pm

“Lovely words from Mr McCoist today on Arthur’s passing.”
—————————-
I done an internet search but couldn’t find anything.

Ally McCoist takes a pasting on here so perhaps a wee bit of balance can be struck by revealing his redeeming features.

Perhaps you can post a link whilst I fetch my tin hat.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on11:46 pm - Nov 27, 2014


Thanks Ryan

Well said. Yup late.
Continue when we all have time I guess.

Keep well.

See you soon.

Cheers Ianagain

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:51 pm - Nov 27, 2014


cowanpete says:
November 27, 2014 at 11:15 pm
‘The news of Whyte’s detention was welcomed by Rangers boss Ally McCoist…’
————-
As well it might be by a man under siege -and perhaps one of the very few who has not been recorded saying unfortunate things by Craigie!However much anyone else might be wondering what’s on tape, Ally can absolutely relax…..Maybe.

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on11:52 pm - Nov 27, 2014


Castofthousands,

I heard it on the radio so don’t have a link. He said he felt like a piece of his childhood, and a piece of every football fan of a certain age’s childhood, had died. Genuinely nice words, I’m too young to even know who the man was but I was moved by Mr McCoist’s words, having been touched by the loss through this blog.

View Comment

Adeste FidelesPosted on11:56 pm - Nov 27, 2014


Shouldn’t

“the holding company for the ‘Rangers Football Club Limited (“Club”)”

actually be

“the holding company for ‘The Rangers Football Club Limited (“Club”)”

Some punctuation and a single capital makes all the difference.

View Comment

iceman63Posted on12:01 am - Nov 28, 2014


I am with Jean on the opacity of the accounts.
From my reading and minimal understanding RIFC group has no cash, and is totally reliant on discretionary sums of cash from Ashley. It is going to lose a further 8million which no- one has guaranteed to cover. Is that not the very definition of insolvency? And is it not illegal to trade whilst being knowingly insolvent? So why are these accounts being published? And why is this company still being allowed to trade? Genuinely puzzled!!

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:25 am - Nov 28, 2014


iceman63 says:
November 28, 2014 at 12:01 am
‘….. So why are these accounts being published? ‘
—————–
Because it’s one of the few legal requirements, is the short answer.

The deeper question is: what mental gymnastics must have been performed by the Deloitte’s auditor?
He/She must have been put to the pin of his/her collar to find a form of words that did not condemn the company while keeping some degree of trust in the integrity of his own firm.
If, indeed, he/she managed to do that.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:48 am - Nov 28, 2014


My post of 11.35 pm. I apologise for the use of ‘raining’.

I got confused trying to avoid ‘reigning’- which didn’t seem right. It was ‘reining’ I meant, as in horses’ reins.

One reins in one’s horses.
As that horse’s a.se David Mellor, and the other, very similar in attitude, bicycle-riding (but not, I think, Chelsea-shirt wearing), ex-Cabinet ‘plebs’ turd, might say.

What utterly despicable types these are! The word ‘entitlement’ runs through their bones like ‘Blackpool’ runs through a stick of rock.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on12:54 am - Nov 28, 2014


RyanGosling says:

November 27, 2014 at 11:52 pm

4

0

Rate This

Castofthousands,

I heard it on the radio so don’t have a link. He said he felt like a piece of his childhood, and a piece of every football fan of a certain age’s childhood, had died. Genuinely nice words, I’m too young to even know who the man was but I was moved by Mr McCoist’s words, having been touched by the loss through this blog.
===================================
Ryan

A wee insight to Ally.

When I worked for an EK electronics co my mate (Lindsay Hunter ran EK rovers as was) and we used to pick him up on game nights usually in the company van as at that time he couldn’t drive and drop him off at the ground as was then ground at EK. Lindsay was always on about how great he was etc. Little surprise to me now how he got where he was player wise.
However I truly believe the funny wee guy we used to know neither belongs or enjoys the situation he is in now.
And just for the rest of you Lindsey was a ‘gers man I was always Well.
I’m just thinking he should walk away simply from my perspective he looks like he doesn’t enjoy it and he always said to us if he didn’t he would chuck it and that’s when he was 17!

Ok heid down

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:22 am - Nov 28, 2014


ianagain says:
November 28, 2014 at 12:54 am
‘A wee insight to Ally..’
———
No need for a ‘heid down’, Ianagain, as far as I’m concerned.

I freely acknowledge that McCoist was a talented, and perhaps, in his own football specialism, gifted player.

He was also able, in that very odd world of TV quiz shows which show every sign of having been rehearsed to the last little joke, to come across very well as a likeable, cheeky chappie, not least to what’s- her-name,Prue?Sue? the tennis player.

What he was not able to do, it seems, in his more mature years,was refrain from whispering in a fellow-manager’s ear.

Or refrain from stirring-up trouble by demanding ‘names’, and other such needlessly inflammatory behaviour.

And, of course, he has endorsed every fly-by-bloody-night director/CEO or ‘saviour’ that has come and gone.

Not really a man of principle, however many goals he scored.
And, increasingly, being told by those who know about these things, that he should walk away from football management.

View Comment

iamacantPosted on4:20 am - Nov 28, 2014


John Clark says:
November 27, 2014 at 11:51 pm
4 0 Rate This

cowanpete says:
November 27, 2014 at 11:15 pm
‘The news of Whyte’s detention was welcomed by Rangers boss Ally McCoist…’
————-
As well it might be by a man under siege -and perhaps one of the very few who has not been recorded saying unfortunate things by Craigie!However much anyone else might be wondering what’s on tape, Ally can absolutely relax…..Maybe.
——————–

Trying to find a bookie who will give me a price on Donald Findlay QC defending Craig Whyte in court. Anyone got any prices?

View Comment

melbournedeePosted on5:25 am - Nov 28, 2014


Apologies for the length of this post and those that aren’t interested in the RIFC 2014 accounts can give this a miss. I have tried to include a couple of tables in this post but formatting could be a major problem.

Published accounts are often prepared to conceal more than they reveal, but there are always some snippets of information that can be gleaned from a study of the numbers. Anyway, here are my observations after a quick look through the accounts released yesterday.

Cash
Total Cash at 30th June 2014 was £4.6 million – £3.1 million belongs to Rangers Retail, so TRFC only had £1.5 million available. There are no other cash equivalents or deposits disclosed on the balance sheet, so this year’s season ticket money was essentially all spent before June 30.

Excluding Rangers Retail cash, RIFC ended 2013 with £10.3 million in the bank with a further £2.4 million due from season tickets on payment plans. In 2014, this had reduced to £1.5 million cash and £0.9million from deferred payment season tickets – so a £10.4 million deterioration.
There was no ring fencing of season ticket money as requested by Deloittes, hence the need for a share issue and Mr Ashley’s loans within 3 months of the start of the season.

Income Statement
To better understand some of the numbers in the income statement, we have to understand how the results of Rangers Retail are reported.

Rangers Retail is a 51%/49% Joint venture between Rangers and Sports Direct. The accounts for RIFC include 100% of the Rangers Retail numbers, then back out Sports Direct’s interest at the bottom of the income statement. From the basic information contained in the accounts, we can deduce a basic profit position for Rangers Retail.

Total RIFC 51% Share
£’000 2014 2013 2014 2013
Revenue 7,647 1,607 3,900 820
Costs 6,490 1,109 3,310 566
Profit 1,157 498 590 254
Profit Margin – % of Rev. 15.1% 31.0% 15.1% 31.0%
Cash 3,069 946 1,565 482

Sales have grown strongly over last year, due to sales of 3 kits over the year and 2013 didn’t reflect a full year of operations. Margin has dropped sharply which would include allowances for the excess inventory that needed to be bought (from SD?) at above cost and allowance has been made for exiting leases of unprofitable Retail stores (Belfast/Glasgow Airport).

Now, let’s look at Rangers Income statement and how it would look if we exclude Sports Directs share of operations and a scenario without any Rangers Retail.

As Published Excluding SD Retail Excluding All Retail
£’000 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013
Revenue 25,230 19,107 21,483 18,320 17,583 17,500
Costs 33,530 33,468 30,350 32,925 27,040 32,359
Operating Loss (8,300) (14,361) (8,867) (14,605) (9,457) (14,859)

First Team Wages 6,560 8,216 6,560 8,216 6,560 8,216
% of Revenue 26% 43% 31% 45% 37% 47%
Revenue Growth % 32% 17% 0%

So the true operating loss that belongs to RIFC is around £8.9 million rather than the headline £8.3 million. Without any Ranger Retail, the figure increases to £9.5 million.

The headline improvement in First Team wages to Revenue are also less impressive when expressed as % of “Football” operations.

The statement in the financial highlights that revenue increased by 32% and the claim that “progress is being made” looks a little bit optimistic when the results are looked at excluding retail. The only part “making progress” is the part that Mr Ashley has an interest in!

Unfortunately, to keep the football operations running will require £10 million/year of increased revenue or further cost reductions. I’m not sure it’s worth the effort.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:11 am - Nov 28, 2014


melbournedee says:
November 28, 2014 at 5:25 am

Unfortunately, to keep the football operations running will require £10 million/year of increased revenue or further cost reductions. I’m not sure it’s worth the effort.
——————————-

Nicely summarised MD. Increased revenue could come from increased success on the pitch with more season tickets sold, but better players means a higher wage bill. Looks like only participation in the CL group stage every year could steady the ship, which simply isn’t going to happen.

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on7:03 am - Nov 28, 2014


£22m raised via IPO

Circa £22m lost over years

Suggestions of onerous contracts

Phil reporting that Mr Ashley not inclined to provide further loans or investment

Circa £8m required to fund football operations to continue this season

7 figure monies required to repair stadium (questions over ownership)

Going concern noted in the financial statement

Fan boycots

Players out of contract in 2015

No scouting system in place

There is a hell of a lot of alarm bells there. If the club falls into a position that it cannot continue to meet its footballing and creditor obligations, will the SFA see this as a surprise?

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on7:06 am - Nov 28, 2014


John Clark says:
November 28, 2014 at 12:25 am
9 0 Rate This

—————–
Because it’s one of the few legal requirements, is the short answer.

The deeper question is: what mental gymnastics must have been performed by the Deloitte’s auditor?
He/She must have been put to the pin of his/her collar to find a form of words that did not condemn the company while keeping some degree of trust in the integrity of his own firm.
If, indeed, he/she managed to do that.
==========================================================================
JC…nicely put in your own inestimable style.

However, I am more than 100% certain that the wording and final audit clearance would have been reviewed and approved at the highest level…in London!

Ironically, Deloittes, from my comfortable seat in Essex, are between the proverbial rock and hard place, since most firms in their position would dearly love to resign. However at this stage, any such resignation now would be deemed to have a worse effect of RIFC/TRFC than any modified or “qualified” audit report would have had at the time of publication of the accounts.

“In my opinion” to crib your expression.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:16 am - Nov 28, 2014


Will the authorities now demand a showdown to establish whether TRFC can fulfill it’s fixtures, or does TRFC’s cultural position within Scottish society make it immune to such trivialities?

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on7:53 am - Nov 28, 2014


I can’t see any indication of how much the latest 10 redundancies cost, the payments made to Imran or the severance payments to Wallace & Nash.

View Comment

Jake CantonaPosted on8:14 am - Nov 28, 2014


davythelotion says:
November 28, 2014 at 7:53 am

I can’t see any indication of how much the latest 10 redundancies cost, the payments made to Imran or the severance payments to Wallace & Nash.

———————

Presumably because the accounts are up to end of June 2014, when both Wallace & Nash were still in post and the other redundancies had not occured

View Comment

Gym TrainerPosted on8:47 am - Nov 28, 2014


Long Time Lurker says:
November 28, 2014 at 7:03 am

No scouting system in place

Wee Stevie in IT’s legal people are sure to be in touch :mrgreen:

View Comment

jimmciPosted on8:56 am - Nov 28, 2014


Question for those who know better than me but is it normal to have such a resolution at an AGM as Res1 at the forthcoming AGM?
1. “THAT the Company’s audited Financial Statements, the Directors’ Report and the Strategic Report for the financial year ended 30 June 2014 together with the Auditor’s Report be received and adopted.”
———
Seems to me like they are asking for four rolled-up questions to be voted on rather than four individual ones. I assume the strategic review is Wallace’s famous 127 day review.
I also note that, unlike last year, Mr McCoist’s remuneration has not been included. This seems odd also or,perhaps the 2013 results were even more odd in declaring them. I’m sure someone from the press pack will ask…..

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:11 am - Nov 28, 2014


iamacant says:
November 28, 2014 at 4:20 am

Trying to find a bookie who will give me a price on Donald Findlay QC defending Craig Whyte in court. Anyone got any prices?
—————————–

I reckon we are in 100/1 outsider space.

View Comment

futbolPosted on9:27 am - Nov 28, 2014


A question for the bean counters:

“the forecast identifies that the Group will require up to £8 million by way of debt or equity finance within the next 12 months”

Is this 12 months from the date of publication or the end of year accounts?

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on9:29 am - Nov 28, 2014


SKY news “Craig Whyte appearing in court today with regards to takeover of Rangers, which led to administration and then it’s subsequent liquidation”
Easy as that, simple small truthful statement which seems to be outside our smsm remit. Shame on them.

View Comment

FairwaysPosted on9:33 am - Nov 28, 2014


jimmci says:
November 28, 2014 at 8:56 am

No, much simpler (!) than that.

1. “THAT the Company’s audited Financial Statements, the Directors’ Report and the Strategic Report for the financial year ended 30 June 2014 together with the Auditor’s Report be received and adopted.”

These four documents together are what now make up “the books”. The Strategic Report used to be the pie-in-the-sky part of the Directors’ Report but has recently been given equal billing – this means it needs a separate sign-off.

Nothing to do with the 120 (127) day review.

View Comment

stevensanphPosted on9:40 am - Nov 28, 2014


it has been a while since we’ve had accounts to pour over, so I’m going to reiterate what I have said in the past. One of the best indicators of performance is to ignore the P&L, which can be easily manipulated and head over to the balance sheet.

Here you want to have a quick look at the Current assets, against Current liabilities.

Current assets are 8m, against 15m in 2013
Current liabilities are 15m… the same as 2013.

Now, 6m of the liabilities are season tickets, so not actually due to be paid IF they complete all their games. That reduces the liabilities as of June 30 to 9m.

What that means is as of June 30, if all debts were paid, and all income from realised, they would be £-1m. Now, if we agree that 3m of their assets are Rangers Retail’s, then that increases to £-4m.

They are well and truly on life support right now…

Meanwhile, this note was in the accounts – i’d take that as a fairly strong qualification:

EMPHASIS OF MATTER – GOING CONCERN
In forming our opinion on the financial statements, which is not modified, we have considered the adequacy of the disclosures in note 1 to the financial statements concerning the Group’s ability to continue as a going concern. The Group requires additional funding to continue to meet its liabilities as they fall due. The Group has made key assumptions in relation to its ability to secure further funding in addition to the timing and value of season ticket income, increases in matchday income and sponsorship, the timing and value of dividends and further cost reductions.
These conditions around the need to secure further funding, along with the details provided in note 1 of the financial statements, indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt over the Group’s ability to continue as a going concern and therefore that the Group may be unable to realise its assets and discharge its liabilities in the normal course of business. The financial statements do not include the adjustments that would result if the Group was unable to continue as a going concern.

View Comment

melbournedeePosted on9:41 am - Nov 28, 2014


futbol says:
November 28, 2014 at 9:27 am
0 0 Rate This

A question for the bean counters:

“the forecast identifies that the Group will require up to £8 million by way of debt or equity finance within the next 12 months”

Is this 12 months from the date of publication or the end of year accounts?
—————————————————————
At least £8 million will be needed from now, after the recent share issue and Mr Ashley’s loans. They would be forecasting on the basis of being promoted to the Premiership and having a sizeable increase in season ticket numbers and prices in May/June. No allowance made to repay Ashley’s loans.Their cash burn rate is currently around £10 million per year.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on9:59 am - Nov 28, 2014


Or to extend that (because it is quite an important detail eh stewart 😉 ) They need 8m to get from Jan 14 to Jan 15 and that is using a projected cashflow which by their own admission includes both promotion, season ticket uplift and I’m guessing TV revenues as well although they list that only as an expectation. By extension then, they need, what, 12 m maybe to get to the end of the season (I did the Maths just for you Stewart), but before they get there there’s the small matter of a £3m loan repayment to MASH. So Kings 16m is gone before it even starts. Still they’ll be OK just as long as CL group stages are attained.

Or, in shorthand, they appear to have a wish to lose £10m annually. They no longer have £10m to lose, whether borrowed or not.

View Comment

finchleyflyerPosted on10:08 am - Nov 28, 2014


Surely the only effective immediate action for this embarrassment of a commercial organisation is a firesale of its only assets in January. Forget about the future – if they don’t raise some money, and fast, there is no future. It’s obviously going to be a buyers’ market, but tough. A few large salaries will go as well.

If the opportunity to sell players is not taken, the board are putting everything on a final punt for survival with a very, very weak hand.

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on10:47 am - Nov 28, 2014


finchleyflyer says:
November 28, 2014 at 10:08 am
0 0 Rate This

Surely the only effective immediate action for this embarrassment of a commercial organisation is a firesale of its only assets in January.
:::::::::::::::::

As I have previously posted about how difficult it will be to sell/get players off the wage bill in January
It will be now near impossible (unless th player wants to move)
To bring in any money at all from transfer fees. Now that the account’s have been released and everyone and their dog knows how desperate they are

As of this moment every TRFC player has a value of £0.00 and they are all up for grabs if u can match or come to an agreement on their wages

View Comment

andyPosted on11:01 am - Nov 28, 2014


Jake Cantona says:
November 28, 2014 at 8:14 am
10 0 Rate This

davythelotion says:
November 28, 2014 at 7:53 am

I can’t see any indication of how much the latest 10 redundancies cost, the payments made to Imran or the severance payments to Wallace & Nash.

———————

Presumably because the accounts are up to end of June 2014, when both Wallace & Nash were still in post and the other redundancies had not occured
____________
it did not stop them mentioning the share issue that was done after the year ended 🙂

View Comment

Night TerrorPosted on11:12 am - Nov 28, 2014


tcup –

As of this moment every TRFC player has a value of £0.00 and they are all up for grabs if u can match or come to an agreement on their wages

If a player is coveted by more than one club, I doubt you’re right on that.

If only they had not brought in lots of high wage, experienced, no resale value players they would have a much better prospect of bringing cash in whilst reducing the wage bill. They still have Macleod and Wallace who I’m sure a few clubs would pay money for. That’s probably it, though.

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on11:20 am - Nov 28, 2014


ianagain says:
November 27, 2014 at 7:39 pm

“A 6 mil rise in retail? How everyone layering ?”
————————
Assuming a sale price of £50 per shirt, that equates to 120,000 additional sales. Once you factor in manufacturing and distribution costs you must be getting near 200,000 additional sales.

Impressive.
=====================================================
COF1000s

Impressive? Bloody puzzling. I mentioned my mate bought 6 to take back to OZ but he did not have a few tens of thousand mates Gers supporting with him.
Something’s off about that number.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Perhaps there has been some last minute creative accounting to persuade Deloittes to sign off and let them resign quietly
e.g.
These accounts are supposed to be up to end June 2014
I wonder if Rangers Retail pulled forward some calendar 2014 “sales” into the first half of the year so they can artificially boost income for the previous financial year?
It wouldn’t be too difficult to manipulate “orders” for SD stores such that RR income is booked but the goods don’t arrive until months later

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on11:31 am - Nov 28, 2014


Night Terror says:
November 28, 2014 at 11:12 am
0 0 Rate This
:::::::::::::::::::::

If they are coveted by more than 1 club
This will not raise the value of the player Maybe get the player closer to the over played wages he’s on at RIFC but will certainly not push his value up to what it should be
Why would it when they can wait a couple of weeks/days till TRFC fall into the abyss

View Comment

mcfcPosted on11:35 am - Nov 28, 2014


Dear Mr Somers

As group Chairman can you please tell us the RIFC/TRFC survival plan for the next twelve months? It would seem that your plan has satisfied the SFA and the SPFL. Please share.

Your sincerely

mcfc

View Comment

BigGavPosted on11:45 am - Nov 28, 2014


davythelotion says:
November 28, 2014 at 7:53 am

I can’t see any indication of how much the latest 10 redundancies cost, the payments made to Imran or the severance payments to Wallace & Nash.
——

Note 7 (Directors’ emoluments), following mention of severance payments to Mather and Stockbridge during the year, states “Since the year end a further severance payment has been made to Graham Wallace of £100,000”.

Note 32 (Post balance sheet events) mentions the Ahmed settlement, saying “this is an adjusting post-balance sheet event and the settlement value has been included in these financial statements”. Anyone know what this actually means?

View Comment

FairwaysPosted on12:04 pm - Nov 28, 2014


BigGav says:
November 28, 2014 at 11:45 am

The first one means that the directors are making us aware that there has been a significant spend “after” the year end and that they will include it in the next year’s books (if they get there).

The second one means that there has also been a significant spend “after” the year end but that they have included it in these numbers, effectively accelerating the accounting for the cost. This number is in these books. This will be as the directors (and auditors!) consider the cost relates to 2013/14 even though the cash was spent after the books would normally close. Nothing sinister, normal practice.

View Comment

mungoboyPosted on12:07 pm - Nov 28, 2014


I see from the media today that Ally is absolutely, definitely, positively looking forward to getting into the witness box where he wants to “speak from the heart”.
Rather that being a gig for him to do his “Friends,Romans and Countrymen” bit, he’ll find himself at the mercy of a skilled defence Advocate, who will play with him for as long as he wants to and ask questions he won’t have thought about until such time as he feels he’s planted doubt into the minds of the jury.
Perhaps he could get hold of some kind of training aid before he gets in there.
I would suggest getting hold of an old Met Police training video used to instruct recruits at Hendon in the art of giving evidence in the box.
The main speaker is an eminent Criminal Bar QC whose opening gambit goes along the lines of….
“My job is to tear you limb from limb and nail your bleeding, disembowelled carcass to the witness box.”
Such a outcome would even allow us to actually see the heart from which Ally so eloquently wishes to speak.
I’m sure he’ll absolutely love it.
Absolutely!

View Comment

whispererPosted on12:13 pm - Nov 28, 2014


Re : Rangers Int F.C. PLC – Final Results

Got as far as these two paragraphs ………

About Rangers Football Club

Rangers Football Club, formed in Scotland in 1872, is one of the world’s most successful clubs, having won 54 League titles, 33 Scottish Cups, 27 League Cups and the European Cup Winners’ Cup in 1972. The Club’s loyal and sizeable supporter base, both in Scotland and around the world, enables the Club to boast one of the highest percentages of season ticket holders in the UK. Playing at the 51,082 seat Ibrox Stadium and benefitting from the world class 37 acre Murray Park training facility, the Club has been a dominant force in Scottish football for decades. This world class stadium, training infrastructure and a loyal and passionate global fanbase provide an excellent foundation for the Rangers Group.

The Club was confirmed as unbeaten SPFL League One Champions for Season 2013/14 and it is the intention of the Directors and the Manager for the Club to return to top level football as soon as possible. The history, facilities and ambition of the Club are such that it remains a desirable destination for foreign and domestic players alike. The first team squad is managed by Alistair McCoist, the former Rangers and Scotland forward, who remains the Club’s all-time leading goal scorer.

Thought I had read enough

Then made a small comment

That got deleted ……… WHY ?

View Comment

Hoopy 7Posted on12:17 pm - Nov 28, 2014


Good Afternoon
Once again the SFA/SPFL and SMSM are conflating “The Rangers International Football Club” (TRIFC) with “The Rangers Football Club”(TRFC)
The SFA/SPFL has a governance role over TRFC they have no authority or control over TRIFC.
In pursuing their role as the governors of the game they should be demanding answers from their member club, TRFC.
TRFC are completely and utterly insolvent and trade only courtesy of their benefactor TRIFC.
If the SFA /SPFL cannot get the necessary confirmation that they, TRFC, will be able to fulfil their fixtures till the end of the season then they should take action now.
They should impose among other sanctions an embargo on taking any players on loan, particularly from NUFC which seems to be what the bears are pinning their hopes upon to beat Celtic in January.
In my opinion both TRIFC and TRFC are trading whilst knowingly insolvent.
They are basing their survival on events which may not come to pass and that is no way to run a business. If I were a creditor I would be demanding payment and certainly would not extend further credit.
It is the equivalent of hoping to pay off your mortgage if you win the lottery.
If this were any other business in any other commercial setting it would be closed.
Just my opinion but I still expect there to be an insolvency event, and hopefully one which would prevent TRFC playing Celtic in January. We could all do without the carnage

View Comment

oddjobPosted on12:22 pm - Nov 28, 2014


Mungobhoy says

November 28. 2014 @ 1207pm

Well said. He’ll experience a different kind of “winger” !

As I said yesterday, the witness box is the loneliest place in the world.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on12:24 pm - Nov 28, 2014


The non-Chairman’s Statement

We’ve been waiting so long for these accounts and the writing has been on the wall for so long that they are an anti-climax. We’ve become numb to the true meaning of the language of insolvency and financial profligacy and mismanagement. The glib statistics that portray improvements are a cynical mishmash of events before and after the period covered and are there merely to calm the hard of thinking.

Imagine for just one moment that Sky or EE or Amazon faced “material uncertainty” and “significant doubt” about their ability to “continue as a going concern” and meet their “liabilities as they fall due”. Would you be renewing your contract or ordering your Christmas goodies on line. Would you give them credit? Would you invest in buying their shares?

Of course, in the case of RIFC, I use the term “invest” in the whimsical, tongue in cheek never-see-your-money-again sense. If you wince at the very idea, well you’re not alone, because the fumes in the tank are from loans from Mr Easdale, Mr Letham and Mr Ashley secured against brick and mortar. When you understand that the men with most to gain will no longer invest in this group, do you need to know more? Oh, very well, if you insist:

No cash

No credit

No investors

No sugar daddy

No Rangers Men consortium

Brick and mortar assets tied up for another 4-5 months

City types choking on their coffee

Foreign gentlemen visit, never to return

Criminal charges relating to the provenance of all assets, the football licence, the league membership and the IPO

Sounds like a dead cert to me – a dead cert for the knacker’s yard – bye – bye – bye !

View Comment

mungoboyPosted on12:29 pm - Nov 28, 2014


Oddjob,

As you said yesterday, it sure is a lonely place as I well know from experience.
Plus, unlike Question of Sport, there’ll be nae conferring!

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on12:32 pm - Nov 28, 2014


I’m very surprised that Chairman Somers did not reveal his masterplan to deal with the Deloittes issue.

Clearly the solution is to appoint E&Y as auditors and have that nice Mr Patey give everything a clean bill of health? In fact, Mr Patey would probably put forward RIFC/TRFC for some kind of “Clumpany of the Year” award. 🙄

More seriously, with the figures and position now in the public domain the SPFL and SFA have no room to hide. One of their members is teetering on the brink of an insolvency event with no fixed means of avoiding such a fate.

These football organisations owe it to their other members to take decisive action to ensure that Scottish Football is not again wounded by another badly managed club.

Confirmation that TRFC will fulfil all remaining fixtures and a bond to cover any monies potentially owed to other clubs should immediately be secured.

Failure to so do will be a resigning matter should events unfold into such an insolvency event. They have been more than warned and now it is in writing.

Scottish Football needs strong financial discipline and fair play – why should one club be able to spend beyond its’ means to the detriment of others? If TRFC manages to secure a spot in the Premiership next season at the expense of another club that IS living within its’ means that cannot be fair play. It is time that the SMSM also spoke up on this subject.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on12:38 pm - Nov 28, 2014


Much as I’d hate to presuppose anyone being sacked in the run up to Christmas but if I was a club taking the SFA seriously I think I would be asking for the plan B from September when the RFC admitted publicly they had no money. Then, at least I would have had something to throw in Regans face when he replies to you now that “we are where we are we’ll just have to go with it.”

View Comment

thirdmanrunningPosted on12:39 pm - Nov 28, 2014


There have been suggestions made elsewhere that some of the Onerous Contracts also include bonus payments TO suppliers in the event of promotion to the Premiership.

If this is the case, would they not have to be shown as Contingent Liabilities in the Accounts?

It’s a nice scenario though, promotion – rather than securing additional income – putting yet another hole in th life raft.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on12:44 pm - Nov 28, 2014


Redlichtie

“If TRFC manages to secure a spot in the Premiership next season at the expense of another club that IS living within its’ means that cannot be fair play.”

It might not be fair but its within the rules as long as the club in question has access to funds, whether serviceable (and for the absence of doubt repayable) loans, soft loan investment or sugar daddy’s plaything. FPP

View Comment

FinlochPosted on1:15 pm - Nov 28, 2014


The accounts are dire and full of Deloittespeak which is about all they are good at.
(These guys were the RBS auditors too remember)

But all is not lost for the blue club.
In fact this could be the start of a genuine renaissance.

Rangers the football entity has one thing going for it in these dark times.

It has a very substantial fan base.

This fan base in turn have a substantial spending power and have demonstrated it even during the recent carpet bagging period.

That is why Rangers in some form will continue.

Their fans want it too even the currently disillusioned groups.

The SFA and SPFL don’t want to lose the revenue and some of
them (maybe most) are also sympathisers/fans of the blue club and will ensure it is looked after whatever happens. There will be a way back.

Other clubs appreciate the on the day revenues that accrue from the fan base. And a share of the tv revenues.

And their biggest competitor needs “Rangersness” to compete with and to stay the unnatural size it currently is.
The two sides of the sub Irish socio politico-nonsense fuel each other and increase revenues for both at the expense of all the other clubs.

I’m not sure there was ever a real spivs plan apart from taking as much as possible for as long as possible but I believe someone somewhere is waiting for the opportunity to do a Chip and Dale and Rescue Rangers in the eventual fire sale.

That will be the new battle ground for us to see as some of the carpetbaggers and opportunists battle with Rangers people.
The current mob will try to hang on to their share in the future revenues of this troubled entity.
But a change is in the air and poker is being played.

Will it be Third Rangers with some onerous contracts kept in place?

Or will it be Govan Rangers starting anew.

If I was one of their substantial support I’d be getting Govan Rangers ready to step in.

The history would follow with the fans and they’d be proud to play with GRFC on their shirts and in a few years they could do an Airdrie and reclaim Glasgow in their title.

All this would take is the right type of Anne Budge to front it, a non owning consortium of Rangers people who sign up to a fan owned club and a few wee favours from Campbell and his pals and people like Jackson.

They might even play at Hampden till they buy Ibrox back in a fire sale.

I’d go for a January 1 launch.

View Comment

Comments are closed.