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.
John Clark says:
December 7, 2014 at 11:44 pm
======================================================
Cheers John.
Phil
This is an operchancity I could not pass by as:
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. 🙂
ianagain says:
December 8, 2014 at 12:50 am
================================================
A tale of two entities…
#GetsFrockCoat
At least its not fish related
Nite All
Yes I’ve got the cough thing
I’ve just read a tub thumping column from yet another journalist about the SFA and Regan, and the SPFL and Doncaster, and how terrible they both are. Not that I will disagree with that but no mention of Ogilvie. When the starting point is that Ogilvie is beyond reproach for reasons that seem all too apparent then the game is up.
Bravo @JC.
Was half expecting after the ‘not entirely clean potato’ comment to read that ‘Scottish fitba will have had its chips’! But maybe benign-despot Barry wouldn’t have understood that 🙂
Thing is, he might be a super pragmatist for all we know. I’d hope he’s not of the ‘rule manipulation school since it sells 11 pints per head’ type.
I noticed some in the media already whispering against his ideas, now he’s doon the road again: ‘Aye, he can fill the Hydro wance a year, but try gettin a crowd oan a rainy Tuesday in Dingwall’ type of thing.
@Phil Two very readable pieces in the one evening! That McLeod thing is hard to get the head around. When people start calulating human beings as assets to be bartered then it’s really off everyone’s radar. I read similar a few weeks ago on twitter when someone said McLeod was off for about £800,000 and that he wasn’t a happy chappie. So maybe there is substance to it even though you yourself express understandable scepticism.
Danish Pastry says:
December 8, 2014 at 8:43 am
@Phil Two very readable pieces in the one evening! That McLeod thing is hard to get the head around. When people start calulating human beings as assets to be bartered then it’s really off everyone’s radar. I read similar a few weeks ago on twitter when someone said McLeod was off for about £800,000 and that he wasn’t a happy chappie. So maybe there is substance to it even though you yourself express understandable scepticism.
======================
I think it became clear with the Carlos Tevez case that a player’s registration could in effect be owned by a third party, not the club he plays for. So the registation is an asset, and maybe it can be used as security for a loan. I don’t see any reason why it couldn’t be, and “Rangers” are clearly running short of unencumbered assets to use as security.
I believe that third party ownership of players’ registrations is now banned in England, but I don’t know the position in Scotland. Here is a link to an interesting article on the topic-
http://www.footballaid.com/news-match-reports/news/ball-10-third-party-ownership-premier-league
Apparently the Rangers Land Bears are about to launch the latest act in their comedy show alleging that Celtic received illegal State Aid.
Their own club is collapsing about their ears in financial and footballing terms with a bitterly divided support boycotting matches and merchandise; demonstrating against their Board and Manager and sole financial lifeline. Chaos doesn’t come close to describing the implosion and that’s without mentioning the level of football dished-up to a dwindling band of ST holders.
But a handful of obsessed Bears with no interest in what’s happening at Ibrox have decided it’s more important to attack Celtic than return Rangers to that mythical ‘Rightful Place’.
Back in November the European Commission (EC) gave Celtic a clean Bill of Health and totally rejected the deluded claims that the club had received illegal State Aid.
The sectarian-based allegations were so flimsy that after investigation the EC ruled – on the evidence submitted by Celtic, Glasgow City Council and the UK Government – that the sale of public land to the club by the local authority didn’t breach EC State Aid Rules.
Having led so many Bears up the garden path for so long you might have thought it was time for the two or three nutters from McMurdo’s Blog to call it a day and start addressing the imminent second extinction of Rangers.
Instead, their latest whacky ploy is to lodge an appeal with the European General Court in Luxembourg calling for an annulment under Article 263 of the Treaty of Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) wrt the EC decision to reject their spurious State Aid claims.
The Bears are now claiming the original EC decision to reject the illegal State Aid claims should be set aside as well as the decision to refuse them ‘interested party’ status.
The major plank to their argument is that being Rangers’ shareholders qualifies them as ‘interested parties’ in EC terms. Wonder if that means being a current shareholder of the new club or having been a shareholder at the time of the land sales? Interesting point because, of course, that company is in liquidation.
The Bears have just over a month left to comply with the 2-month appeal time frame under Section 263 TFEU. I reckon the General Court will reject their submission which is a bit of a pity as there are interesting locus standi issues wrt private individuals seeking an annulment of EC decisions.
But the silver lining is that if the General Court accepts being a football club shareholder confers ‘interested party’ status then this allows all Celtic shareholders and possibly even supporters to submit their opposition to the Rangers’ annulment motion. Indeed it probably opens the door to all football supporters in Europe because Celtic, of course, play in European competitions whereas Rangers don’t.
Indeed the new club and new companies that comprise ‘The Rangers’ have never made any complaint to the EC that Celtic gained a competitive advantage over them through the illegal State Aid fantasies and neither have the 95% of shareholders who aren’t fans of the club but who mainly invested purely for financial gain.
The handful of fans driving the PR deflection exercise against Celtic are an insignificant percentage of the fan shareholding bloc and have no authority from other shareholders or the club to take legal action against the EC. But they have an agm coming-up within days so have they tabled a motion to get shareholders’ approval to instruct the club to join their cause?
Don’t be silly! Spivs try and avoid courts if possible and I rather think that real fans might have more on their mind come the agm than feeding the delusions of those behind the ludicrous State Aid allegations.
However let’s throw the Land Beached Bears a sugary tit-bit to chew-on: IMO best place to start your journey is probably Plaumann v Commission 25/62 [1963] ECR 199 wrt ‘closed groups’ and ‘individual concern’ for non-privileged applicants.
But there’s a long long way to go from there and having observed and commented on your previous lack of legal ability I would recommend that you engage a lawyer tout-de-suite. Your spiv friends should be able to recommend a suitable one I would think.
In any case you can’t plead your case personally before the General Court but have to engage a lwyer to do so. And don’t worry about costs as legal aid is available but then you’re well used to the taxpayer picking-up the tab – that’s the Rangers Way it seems 😳
Danish Pastry says:
December 8, 2014 at 8:43 am
Not surprised that Phil is a bit sceptical about the use of Lewis McLeod as ‘security’ for Ashley’s loan, as I doubt there is any enforceable form of security that could be utilised other than a floating charge – and surely they wouldn’t…
There may be some sort of contract drawn up to pay Ashley back from funds raised from the sale of players, but that would only rank alongside other creditors in the event of administration or liquidation so Ashley will again have to keep the lights on long enough to take the club into the transfer window, requiring more security. At this rate he could end up owning all the assets of the company, without actually owning the club.
With Ashley putting more and more of his money into the club just to meet wages and bills, the potential dividend for shareholders in a voluntary liquidation must be getting smaller and smaller with each passing month! I wonder if there will be a call for a voluntary liquidation at the AGM, before the December wages are due!
Police have widened their investigation into the Rangers takeover, with the circumstances surrounding Charles Green’s buy-out of the Ibrox club also in the spotlight. (Daily Record)
. . . Did Green “buy-out the CLUB ” ?
Jimlarkin
Only the good bits 😉 but that still counts Shirley?
jimlarkin says:
December 8, 2014 at 9:35 am
———–
Of course not. But as the old newspaper in-joke has it, never let the facts get in the way of a good story! 😀
Yet another interesting twist from Phil’s latest effort.
Ashley is owed £3m plus whatever he needs to put in in December, and January, and Febr…. Repayment of the first tranche is scheduled for April. Phil suggests that Mike might catch Rangersitis and write it off. Well he might 😆 but in the real world he’s more likely to do a debt for equity swap. But of course that brings him toe to toe with the SFA and their 10% ownership rule, which if they stick to it means Ashley can fold them the next day.
But they’ve to get to April first. and March. And February…
neepheid says:
December 8, 2014 at 9:16 am
—————————————-
The End of the Licensed Football Agent?
The whole structure governing football agents is facing change.
Interesting read at: http://www.lawinsport.com/search?q=football+agents&Itemid=108
I started reading about it a couple of weeks ago but am still pondering the full ramifications of FIFA’s decision to deregulate football agents. Might be advantageous to some players but be detrimental to policing an import element of the sport.
Seems that FIFA has simply thrown in the towel and in the process national FAs that have run a tight ship as opposed to others could lose their power to continue that policy or face legal action at the European Courts. Now where have I read about that already this morning 😆
There’s a another worrying development (amongst the many) in Phil’s latest blog which I hope our footballing authorities will investigate as a matter of urgency.
A loan security being granted over a player contract? In the case of Lewis MacLeod.
If true, not only ethically dubious, but it sounds to me to be in breach of even the most basic of UK and EU employment legislation and completely at odds with how UEFA interprets the post Bosman footballing landscape.
Livingston: Court move sparks fresh administration fear
By Brian McLauchlin
BBC Scotland
A former Livingston director is asking the Court of Session in Edinburgh to freeze the club’s bank accounts, and if successful it could force the club into administration again.
Ged Nixon is claiming the Almondvale outfit owe him more than £300,000.
A source close to the club has told BBC Scotland that if Nixon succeeds Livi may not be able to pay salaries and could go into administration.
Salaries are due to be paid on 25 December.
BBC Scotland understands the players will be told about the situation when they arrive for training on Monday morning.
Livingston have already been deducted five points by the Scottish Professional Football League after they admitted breaching league rules regarding the non payment of tax to HMRC.
The club have refused to comment on the situation and so far Nixon has not been taking calls.
The case is scheduled to be heard at the Court of Session in Edinburgh on Wednesday morning.
Livingston went into administration in 2004 and then again in 2009.
What is the differences (if there is any) between
Administration
And
Liquidation
John Clark says:
December 7, 2014 at 11:33 pm
___________________________________
Magnificent JC!!!!!
Smugas says:
December 8, 2014 at 10:07 am
And this is what I can’t understand. Why are the major shareholders allowing this to happen, the debt building up with no increase in asset value? And not only debt, but secured debt. At the moment, the company owes Ashley £3m, by April that could be £7 or 8m. The total assets were purchased for £5.5m two years ago and have deteriorated since then. It’s conceivable Ashley could own all the realisable assets in April so RIFC plc will be worthless, though still have a number of creditors. If the major shareholders don’t act soon they could end up owning a company that owns nothing of any realizable value! Or, if Ashley does do a debt for equity deal, they would then own diluted shares that are valued at a fraction of today’s price, which works out at pretty much the same thing.
neepheid says:
December 8, 2014 at 9:16 am
I think it became clear with the Carlos Tevez case that a player’s registration could in effect be owned by a third party, not the club he plays for. So the registation is an asset, and maybe it can be used as security for a loan. I don’t see any reason why it couldn’t be, and “Rangers” are clearly running short of unencumbered assets to use as security.
——————-
A player’s registration has always been seen as an asset since it can command a fee for its transfer from one club to another. Using that particular kind of asset as a security for financing does however seem to be both unusual and desperate.
A player registration may well be viewed by the Club (or management company in the case of Tevez) as an asset, but I do not see how you can grant security over a player contract.
Even, as I say, outwith the gross impingements on freedom of movement and restriction of trade, it would have severely detrimental impacts on a player if a club suffered an insolvency event.
If, for example, Naismith had had a security over his contract during Rangers’ liquidation, he would not have been able to find any new club until security was discharged. That’s not right. I do find it unlikely such a security exists over Lewis Macleod, however, it has such potentially serious implications I do think the matter needs clarified with some urgency. Not least for the player.
PW1874 says:
December 8, 2014 at 10:17 am
There’s a another worrying development (amongst the many) in Phil’s latest blog which I hope our footballing authorities will investigate as a matter of urgency.
A loan security being granted over a player contract? In the case of Lewis MacLeod.
If true, not only ethically dubious, but it sounds to me to be in breach of even the most basic of UK and EU employment legislation and completely at odds with how UEFA interprets the post Bosman footballing landscape.
———————–
Using MacLeod’s registration as security does not impinge upon his basic employment rights or in any way interfere with his contract. TRFC also have the right to use any money raised from the transfer of any player as they see fit without it being in any way the concern of the player sold.
The problem is that using the registration as security means that it may make TRFC rather more keen to sell him than they would be otherwise, and MacLeod may not be too happy about being placed in a position where he knows that he needs to be sold to keep the club afloat.
He is, though, by no means the first player at a club to be placed in that position. Impoverished clubs have always sold players to meet bills – in the mid 70s Stoke City sold off a number of players after their main stand suffered storm damage (presumably they were under-insured).
There has been plenty of talk about players being moved on during the transfer window for this very reason and MacLeod’s name has figured prominently as he appears to be one of the few saleable assets TRFC has.
Using his registration to raise cash in advance is, like I said above, an unusual and desperate way of doing so, but I don’t think there are any other implications beyond that.
Unless, of course, he digs in his heels and decides he’s not going anywhere. That would be interesting in a popcorn kind of way.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/police-extend-probe-rangers-saga-4766682
Interesting that the DR claims it isn’t just the granting of ‘preferred bidder’ status that the police are now investigating wrt to the sale of the ever-eternal entity but also what happened to the money raised by the IPO. I’m sure there will be fulsome explanations forthcoming in due course which will explain everything.
Allegedly – according to the DR – police have also interviewed Malcolm Murray and others in London last week in their quest to unravel what went on in the Blue Room and, who knows, perhaps other as yet unspecified UK and heaven forbid – possibly offshore locations.
Personally I am amazed at the pace of this new investigation and I wonder how the detectives involved have been able to get through the mass of new evidence – I suspect they have recently received – in such short compass.
I wonder when Ashley is going to wake-up and realise he is fast heading into Gerald Ratner territory – remember the honest man who destroyed his business empire and ‘brand’ by correctly describing his jewellery as ‘crap’.
There’s no argument that the Ibrox product is also ‘crap’ and even their staunchest supporters accept that. The big difference is that IIRC there was no microscopic police investigations into the Ratner collapse whereas the boys in blue are currently crawling all over the Ibrox pantomine.
I doubt if the Ibrox ‘brand’ is worth more than £1 the way things are going but surely Ashley won’t want the SportsDirect brand tainted by too close a relationship with Rangers. Is there enough Blue £s left to make it worth the financial and reputational risk?
For any too young to recall Ratner or so old they’ve forgotten it 🙄 here’s a link: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/22/gerald-ratner-jewellery-total-crap-1992-archive
jean7brodie says:
December 7, 2014 at 9:02 pm
===================================
To be honest I think that’s insulting to comics. I’ve gotten a lot of genuine entertainment (and as a kid encouragement to read) from comics. It’s a pity they make cheap soft toilet rolls these days otherwise it might be able to serve a useful function.
PW1874 says:
December 8, 2014 at 10:59 am
2
0
Rate This
A player registration may well be viewed by the Club (or management company in the case of Tevez) as an asset, but I do not see how you can grant security over a player contract.
Even, as I say, outwith the gross impingements on freedom of movement and restriction of trade, it would have severely detrimental impacts on a player if a club suffered an insolvency event.
If, for example, Naismith had had a security over his contract during Rangers’ liquidation, he would not have been able to find any new club until security was discharged. That’s not right. I do find it unlikely such a security exists over Lewis Macleod, however, it has such potentially serious implications I do think the matter needs clarified with some urgency. Not least for the player.
—————
I think you need to be clear whether you’re talking about a player’s registration or a player’s contract because they are two very different things.
How can security over a player registration not interfere with his contract?
I find the implications worrying, I’m sure Lewis Macleod would do too.
If Mike Ashley has security over Lewis Macleod’s registration, then no matter what contract MacLeod has, is he not being effectively restricted in movement until that security is satisfied?
From the DR.
“During this time Yorkshire businessman Green launched a hugely successful IPO raising more than £22m from selling new shares to institutional investors as well as Rangers supporters.”
IIRC not all the shares on offer were taken up. Successful for Green and his buddies in that they has £22m to play with but not ‘Hugely Successful’ in terms of the overall take up. Then of course there is the admin costs etc etc.
However nice to see the DR taking Barry Hearn’s advice and continue to talk things up!!
PW1874 says:
———————-
A player’s registration is held by a club and enables said club to field that player in relevant games/competitions. It is an asset because it is transferable.
A player’s contract is the employment agreement between a player and a club, whereby (among other things) a club pays the player for playing in games/competitions. Hopefully ones for which they’ve been correctly registered (see also The Bryson Interpretation). It is a liability because it a drain on resources and is not transferable (unless you choose to TUPE).
Using a registration as security presumably means that if the cash isn’t to hand to meet repayment terms then the player would have to be sold – again this is something that clubs have had to do since time immemorial – but the player, because of their contract, cannot be sold against their wishes, nor can their contract be altered without their agreement
So far as player movement is concerned, the player can still request a transfer, and that request can be granted or denied (whether or not that request is granted or denied depending on the security is another matter entirely). I don’t however see anything that directly infringes on their movement other than the contract that the player, presumably willingly, signed – and we do seem to often forget that contracts in football work both ways.
I still don’t think that it’s a particularly good way of going about things though.
PW1874 says:
December 8, 2014 at 11:27 am
If Mike Ashley has security over Lewis Macleod’s registration, then no matter what contract MacLeod has, is he not being effectively restricted in movement until that security is satisfied.
—————————————————-
I think it impossible that Ashley could have any security over a player’s registration with his national association. Obviously the member club has certain rights as enshrined in both the national association and Fifa’s rules.
But I have never seen any rights that a third party has. Obviously the player’s contract is another kettle of fish and the most important factor there is who is the employer especially if a Tupe situation kicks-in.
What valuation has been put on young Mcleod and by whom?
I have not seen the lad play so cannot make any judgement, but I think Armstrong of Dundee Utd and Stewart of Dundee are players worth a good punt on, so what is their value and how do they compare with McLeod?
(Remember Boumsong)
Re the Lewis Macleod situation. I suspect that what has happened is that RIFC/TRFC have formally agreed with MA that should they be unable to pay back the various loans then McLeod will be sold, subject to McLeod’s agreement, and the proceeds will go to MA.
As has been pointed out this has no impact on McLeod’s contract with TRFC except that he may be ‘encouraged’ to leave the club at some point. He will undoubtedly have the right to see out his contract should that be his wish.
I’d be surprised if the arrangement differs from this as shirley RIFC/TRFC are now experts in employment law and well aware of the little local difficulties that can arise.
One point about all of this though is could such an arrangement be constructed to survive an insolvency event? I suspect not as TUPE would kick in. Does that mean that MA is not envisaging such an event? If so, will he be providing further funding and on what basis? And when do the SFA step in and properly question his control of RIFC/TRFC?
Scottish Football needs an awfy lot of things but primarily some strong leadership from the SFA.
ecobhoy says:
December 8, 2014 at 11:10 am
7 0 Rate This
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/police-extend-probe-rangers-saga-4766682
Interesting that the DR claims it isn’t just the granting of ‘preferred bidder’ status that the police are now investigating wrt to the sale of the ever-eternal entity but also what happened to the money raised by the IPO. I’m sure there will be fulsome explanations forthcoming in due course which will explain everything.
Allegedly – according to the DR – police have also interviewed Malcolm Murray and others in London last week in their quest to unravel what went on in the Blue Room and, who knows, perhaps other as yet unspecified UK and heaven forbid – possibly offshore locations.
Personally I am amazed at the pace of this new investigation and I wonder how the detectives involved have been able to get through the mass of new evidence – I suspect they have recently received – in such short compass.
I wonder when Ashley is going to wake-up and realise he is fast heading into Gerald Ratner territory – remember the honest man who destroyed his business empire and ‘brand’ by correctly describing his jewellery as ‘crap’.
There’s no argument that the Ibrox product is also ‘crap’ and even their staunchest supporters accept that. The big difference is that IIRC there was no microscopic police investigations into the Ratner collapse whereas the boys in blue are currently crawling all over the Ibrox pantomine.
I doubt if the Ibrox ‘brand’ is worth more than £1 the way things are going but surely Ashley won’t want the SportsDirect brand tainted by too close a relationship with Rangers. Is there enough Blue £s left to make it worth the financial and reputational risk?
For any too young to recall Ratner or so old they’ve forgotten it 🙄 here’s a link: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/22/gerald-ratner-jewellery-total-crap-1992-archive
……………………………………
Of course the “Brand” will be “worth” far more than £1.
Apparently MA’s MO is to buy up ailing brands, obviously for the name at least, but the major “difficulty” I suppose, in this case, is that this Brand seems to be tied to a building where this particular brand is based (Ibrox).
Is the Brand “worth” anything if the Brand has to be seperated from being based at Ibrox?
Not sure about security over a specific registration or player but I have heard of other clubs who are funded from time to time by directors’ loans, where the first x% of any player sales proceeds are used to pay back these loans. I would presume the “legals” are in the loan document rather than a separate security over a registration.
ianagain says:
December 8, 2014 at 1:01 am
At least its not fish related
=======================================
I don’t know … wasn’t there a Mr Guppy in Bleak House?
Brian McLaughlin on BBC radio Scotland sport seems to be awfully chipper when declaring today’s news that a Scottish Club
could ”go bust” – if the club loses a court case to have their bank account frozen, if a former Director is “successful” !
(Livingston FC)
ecobhoy says:
December 8, 2014 at 12:03 pm
I think it impossible that Ashley could have any security over a player’s registration with his national association. Obviously the member club has certain rights as enshrined in both the national association and Fifa’s rules.
But I have never seen any rights that a third party has. Obviously the player’s contract is another kettle of fish and the most important factor there is who is the employer especially if a Tupe situation kicks-in.
=============
How do you reconcile that with the Tevez situation? My earlier comment refers. It is quite clear that a third party owned Tevez’s registration, and in effect loaned him out to whatever club wanted him. The FA have now totally outlawed this practice (allegedly), but FIFA are only interested where the third party can determine transfers and their timing. The rest of Europe are happy to accept third party ownership of players’ registrations, apparently. I will repost my earlier link.
http://www.footballaid.com/news-match-reports/news/ball-10-third-party-ownership-premier-league
Unless that link is complete nonsense, then it seems to me that a player’s registration is a property right. If so, it can surely be used as security for a loan, in other words, if the debtor defaults, then the registration can be taken by the creditor in satisfaction of the debt.
Whether such a security would survive insolvency, I’m not qualified to say.
Yon McMurdo chap seems to be going for the full ‘Leggoland’ with his latest post.
Bonkers stuff! 😀
Appendix 3 – Notice of Annual Meeting on 9 December 2014
RFC 2012 P.L.C. FORMERLY THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB P.L.C.(IN LIQUIDATION)
Company Number: SC004276
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to Rule 4.13 of the Insolvency (Scotland) Rules 1986, that
the Annual Meeting of Creditors of the above named company will be held within The Merchants
House of Glasgow, 7 West George Street, Glasgow, G2 1BA on 9 December 2014, at 10am, for
the purposes of receiving the Liquidators’ account of the winding-up.
James Bernard Stephen
Joint Liquidator
Date: 12 November 2014
BDO LLP
4 Atlantic Quay
70 York Street
Glasgow
G2 8JX
The Rangers Standard has got an Accountant to go through their Annual Report. It’s fairly easy reading, but there’s little that hasn’t been discussed on here previously.
http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/332-rangers-2014-accounts-analysed
The finalised Annual Report is also available from the RIFC website.
http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/shareholder-centre/reports-accounts
No expert, but I doubt that there is actually a vehicle for taking an individual players contract or registration as security for a loan. There might be an agreement or contract in place whereby TRFC agree to pay any monies received from the sale of McLeod to cover a loan, but that wouldn’t be ‘security’, at least in the strictest sense of the word, as, in the event of insolvency, Ashley would only rank alongside the other creditors for payment of this money. If I am correct, it would probably mean Ashley has to give them another loan to see them through to the January transfer window to ensure that he gets his McLeod money, but what ‘security’ will he demand this time?
The MacLeod issue is one that needs clarity and I do think we’re all right to be sceptical over the existence of any formal security. However any agreement, no matter what it’s called or how it’s constituted, to have borrowing being repaid dependent on a specific player sale is very dangerous ground for all concerned.
I could have saved myself 4 rambling posts if I had just said this first. Apologies.
easyJambo says:
December 8, 2014 at 1:50 pm
9 0 Rate This
The Rangers Standard has got an Accountant to go through their Annual Report. It’s fairly easy reading, but there’s little that hasn’t been discussed on here previously.
http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/332-rangers-2014-accounts-analysed
The finalised Annual Report is also available from the RIFC website.
http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/shareholder-centre/reports-accounts
…………………………….
“Rangers Football Club Ltd (which operates the club)”
A quote from TheRangersStandard
Maybe they have never heard of
THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB Ltd
Or is TRFC a “myth” ?
easyJambo says:
December 8, 2014 at 1:50 pm
The Rangers Standard has got an Accountant to go through their Annual Report. It’s fairly easy reading, but there’s little that hasn’t been discussed on here previously.
http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/332-rangers-2014-accounts-analysed …
=================================
Skimmed through the chap’s notes, and this jumped out;
“…Auditors’ Fees
The auditors have charged £155,000 for the audit of the group. That is up from £90,000 the previous year and the level of the fees is no doubt reflective of the issues that they have to consider. However, that is a substantial increase and a very high fee for the type of business Rangers should be.
As a comparison, Celtic’s fees for their audit were disclosed in their accounts at £34,000…”
RIFC/TRFC might be a financial basket case, but it’s still a nice earner for Deloitte.
A 72% jump in revenue from one client in a year is pretty good going.
StevieBC says:
December 8, 2014 at 4:12 pm
===========================
I think PMGB repeatedly said that it was a Deloittes team up from London and one that would not normally be asked to audit a relatively small company. It suggests Deloites were expecting a tricky audit from the start and boy were they not disappointed. I suspect they may wish to get unappointed in case there is a need to carry out next years although I note the RIFC AGM does include an agenda item to reappoint.
Martin says:
December 8, 2014 at 1:07 pm
14 0 Rate This
Yon McMurdo chap seems to be going for the full ‘Leggoland’ with his latest post.
Bonkers stuff! 😀
_________
Anyone who doubts there is an Establishment fix in to prevent Rangers progress need only look at the Telegraph’s ongoing crusade against Mike Ashley and the recent pronouncements against the Sports Direct tycoon from beleagueared Labour leader Ed Miliband.
The fact that the attacks on Ashley come from both ends of the political spectrum support the contention of a high-level, cross-party conspiracy to keep Rangers under as a crippled force in both football and society in general.
Whoever is at the helm of Rangers comes under massive attack, as Mike Ashley is discovering right now.
Whyte is now the subject of legal proceedings and many Rangers fans are delighted with this. However, the pursuit of Whyte and possibly others for seeming crimes should send a chill down the backs of genuine bluenoses if these legal proceedings are not about a search for justice but rather a stick to beat Rangers down with.
There is an obsession with keeping Rangers a crippled, impotent force – and even some so-called Rangers fans have bought into this mindset. 😯
___________
andy says:
December 8, 2014 at 4:26 pm
===============================================================
Oh dear
tykebhoy says:
December 8, 2014 at 4:20 pm
====================================================
Spot on.
Just a wee observation on the RIFC plc accounts;
“16. TRADE AND OTHER PAYABLES
2014 2013
£’000 £’000
Current liabilities
Trade creditors 2,852 2,010
…
The average credit taken for trade purchases is 29 days (2013 – 32 days)…”
http://www.rangers.co.uk/images/staticcontent/documents/164581RangersAnnualReport.pdf
============================================
RIFC/TRFC is getting credit from its suppliers.
RIFC/TRFC – as expected – doesn’t have the leverage to extend credit terms to say 45/60 days – to aid cash flow.
In fact, it’s the reverse, with payments made sooner compared to previous year.
Maybe the suppliers have given notice that any late payments after 30 days will result in payments up front.
But at the end of the day, the club/company has managed to increase its trade debt to almost GBP 3M – and suppliers could end up being sick as a parrot if/when they are stung in another insolvency event down Govan way.
Would burned suppliers deserve any sympathy this time around ?
I decided to reread Phil’s blog on the McLeod situation. These are his words :
“….young McLeod is, somehow the extra security on the additional £1M that Big Mike kindly lent to Sevco in November” and
“…several senior people at Sevco…consider that young McLeod is not theirs to sell.”
==========================================================
This suggests to me that MA/NUFC actually has an option on McLeod probably until his loans are repaid. With his renown canniness it would also not surprise me if this option was at a fixed price, maybe even below what RIFC/TRFC could achieve in an open market auction.
Following this idea he could also have things worded so that he offsets part of his loans against the purchase of McLeod during this or any future transfer window.
From the player’s point of view he would probably be quite happy to move to NUFC with the likely substantial uplift in salary and signing on fee that would bring.
The only losers in this scenario are RIFC/TRFC.
If this scenario was true – and it is obviously highly speculative – then it would be a very neat deal indeed.
Scottish Football needs a good dose of transparency.
neepheid says:
December 8, 2014 at 12:45 pm
ecobhoy says:
December 8, 2014 at 12:03 pm
I think it impossible that Ashley could have any security over a player’s registration with his national association. Obviously the member club has certain rights as enshrined in both the national association and Fifa’s rules.
But I have never seen any rights that a third party has. Obviously the player’s contract is another kettle of fish and the most important factor there is who is the employer especially if a Tupe situation kicks-in.
=============
How do you reconcile that with the Tevez situation? My earlier comment refers. It is quite clear that a third party owned Tevez’s registration, and in effect loaned him out to whatever club wanted him. The FA have now totally outlawed this practice (allegedly), but FIFA are only interested where the third party can determine transfers and their timing. The rest of Europe are happy to accept third party ownership of players’ registrations, apparently. I will repost my earlier link.
http://www.footballaid.com/news-match-reports/news/ball-10-third-party-ownership-premier-league
Unless that link is complete nonsense, then it seems to me that a player’s registration is a property right. If so, it can surely be used as security for a loan, in other words, if the debtor defaults, then the registration can be taken by the creditor in satisfaction of the debt.
================================================================================
Using the link you have provided reveals that West Ham didn’t own the Tevez’s economic rights which were held by a by a Third Party Owner (TPO) who had inserted a clause in the sale contract stating West Ham had no veto over the future sale of the player or for how much.
This refers to the contract covering the sale of Tevez to West Ham. But it doesn’t affect the player’s registration IMO which is a separate matter between the player, his club, the national association and Fifa. This isn’t an ownership issue but a sporting registration one governing a player’s right to play in designated competitions and also handle future transfers between clubs and their respective associations.
So the third party owner might decide to sell Tevez to another club and can ignore the wishes of West Ham but West Ham could play hard ball by refusing to release the player’s registration. Or the association or associations involved or even Fifa could block the registration transfer. I have excluded the new buying club on the basis that they will have negotiated the proposed sale with the player’s TPO.
It’s not that different a situation from when Green believed he had bought all the players’ contracts when Rangers’ went into administration. So Green had the economic ownership but not the legal one as that was trumped by Tupe. But even then Rangers assisted it appears by the SFA refused/delayed the transfer of registration to try and squeeze some dosh out of the various new clubs. There was no legal requirement to pay but some did so the registration could be transferred and the player be allowed to play with minimal delay.
The link provides quite a good explanation but a player’s registration isn’t a property right it is simply the mechanism which allows a player to participate in football and to transfer between clubs. Neither the player nor his club IMO can assign his registration for security on a loan as the ultimate control of registrations lie with Fifa.
As the link importantly stresses the problem for the FA wasn’t the third party agreement per se but the actual clause removing the veto over sale and the transfer fee and the fact that the agreement hadn’t been disclosed to the FA which led to a £5.5 million fine.
It’s the old story if there was nothing wrong with the agreement why wasn’t it disclosed. Does it remind you of anything similar down Ibrox Way?
In any case the issue is of course much more complex because of the clash between European Law and its focus on free movement of capital and labour within the EEC and the fault lines created with the inevitable clash with Fifa and National Associations and Leagues who argue they have the legal power to determine how football is governed to maintain Sporting Integrity.
Article 18 of FIFA’s Rules on the Status and Transfer of Players states that:
I couldn’t help notice the similarity in the crowd photos of ~14,000 (Alloa) and ~28,000 (Cowdenbeath) at Ibrox. Most comentators seem to use the offical figures without question. But surely experienced hacks would be able to tell the diffenrece.
Martin says:
December 8, 2014 at 1:07 pm
Yon McMurdo chap seems to be going for the full ‘Leggoland’ with his latest post. Bonkers stuff! 😀
=================================================================
Poor Bill – he’s no longer being fed succulent lamb tit-bits from the Blue Room banqueting scraps.
It’s a mournful plea to Mike Ashley to recognise his existance and throw him a scrap to he can kid on he’s still in the loop.
I don’t think Mike’s in the business of retaining failed business models whether they be football clubs or blogs 🙁
Bear Legal Logic
If the Police Scotlansd investiagation concluydes there is no case to pursue re Green’s preferred bidder status and the subsequent burning of £70mil, does that mean everything is officially above board and beyond criticism?
One interesting tidbit from my own blog that I felt was worth sharing here.
A couple of weeks ago, I took a look into the prospective South American takeover of Motherwell. It’s an interesting topic and I posted about it, about the links to InterToronto, etc that are very easy to find.
Then I noticed something odd about the traffic. Someone from a particular IP checking it through google, direct, through forums, etc – essentially through any means they could, as if they were researching what people were saying about it.
That, in itself, isn’t odd. Were you to be taking over a club, it’d make sense to see what people were saying so as to judge the public mood.
No, the odd thing was the location of that traffic. Was it from Motherwell itself? No. Was it from some far flung favela in Rio? No.
It was from Banstead.
Now, that may be that there’s just some really thorough Motherwell fans in the small town that calls itself home of the Earleys, but when one frames it in the light that Motherwell were a pre-Rangers fancy of Craig Whyte himself, it would seem mightily coincidental were this rooting through of PR to not be at least related to the Earleys or even Whyte himself (for no-one knows his whereabouts for the time he spends outside court).
I’m not suggesting that Whyte/Earley are directly funding or directly interesting, but it is plain to see that that is a link that is more than worth investigating whether it is South American wide boys or the Well Society who are involved.
I may well be doing the old 2+2=17 adage, but it’s some coincidence.
Re Lewis MacLeod – I think that the likeliest arrangement, if there is one, is for MA to take a cut of any transfer fee(s) received for MacLeod or any others exiting during the transfer window.
The financial restructuring at Dundee United contained such a deal whereby the Bank of Scotland would receive a cut of any transfer fees until August 2015, capped at a total of £2.65M. Given that United sold Gauld and Robertson for good money in the summer, the bank should have recouped a fair bit of that sum.
Price Vs Value
When it comes to asset/equity swaps, share dilution and large unnamed shareholders, don’t forget that many of these shares were bought for just one hundredth of a pound each and that the owners fully understand that they can’t sell more than a few hundred thousand without crashing the listed price, currently 21.5p. The value of the shares is in controlling RIFC plc to support onerous contracts, appoint board members, dictate AGM proceedings etc. The financial value of RIFC plc to these foreign gentlemen does not lie in the value of their shares but in it’s ability to direct hard cash in their direction.
Is there potential for Rangers to emulate Steaua Bucherest as a team with no name?
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/dec/08/steaua-bucharest-romania-lose-name-colours-emblem-court-ruling-defence-ministry
ecobhoy says:
December 8, 2014 at 5:11 pm
Martin says:
December 8, 2014 at 1:07 pm
Yon McMurdo chap seems to be going for the full ‘Leggoland’ with his latest post. Bonkers stuff! 😀
=================================================================
Poor Bill – he’s no longer being fed succulent lamb tit-bits from the Blue Room banqueting scraps…
===========================
Actually, that is one aspect that has impressed since Ashley’s involvement.
A virtual ‘dignified silence’ emanating from Ibrox.
No rambling, incoherent statements released.
No nonsense claims / deflection issued to the :slamb: :slamb: :slamb:
Unlike the tyre-kicker Smiler King, Ashley doesn’t seem at all interested in publicity. He probably has laser focus only on making money.
And if he does choose to stick around, the churnalists might be upset that they won’t have access, like in the Minty days. 🙄
The Charlie Telfer transfer tribunal is due to sit tomorrow.
I wonder if the result will give some clarity re old club/new club argument, or if there will be a last minute “out of court” settlement between the clubs to save face.
http://www.unlockthelaw.co.uk/News/what-next-for-former-rangers-owner-craig-whyte.html
Infamy. Infamy, …..
The funniest thing about McMurdo’s self-imposed blindness, is that he can’t specify anything the establishment conspiracy has achieved in holding down The Rangers, other than a bit of light criticism in the press:
• Did the conspirators spend all the money ?
• Did the conspirators sign onerous contracts ?
• Did the conspirators fail to renew their season tickets ?
• Did the conspirators assemble a squad of expensive has-beens ?
• Did the conspirators dictate medieval football tactics ?
Martin says:
December 8, 2014 at 5:45 pm
http://www.unlockthelaw.co.uk/News/what-next-for-former-rangers-owner-craig-whyte.html
=======================================================================
Had a wee laugh when I read: ‘A jury will consider the evidence and decide whether each accused is guilty or not guilty of each charge’.
I have let them know we have a 3rd verdict – yip the pesky ‘Not Proven’ 😉
I suppose the cast in this annual panto is anyone’s guess,no lead character has been invited back
Martin says:
December 8, 2014 at 1:07 pm
Yon McMurdo chap seems to be going for the full ‘Leggoland’ with his latest post.
=================================
Indeed…
“The two decades of Murray’s tenure saw Rangers go from being other fans’ second favourite team to being despised.”
I had forgotten how much I loved the pre-SDM Rangers…thanks for reminding me Bill 😉
Some idle speculation re Livingston and TRFC & insolvency events….
If TRFC has an insolvency event, and is deemed a second event, then minus 25 points puts them on level points with Livingston, who if in turn also has an insolvency event then saves TRFC from being in the relegation spot.
Lucky for TRFC eh? Another season not even in the Championship would not be a good thing at all.
I hope the Livingston director taking action isn’t being influenced at all by Rangersitis.
I realise this is just mean-minded speculation, and discounts half a season of games still to play, but with a skeleton playing squad and months of turmoil could you guarantee TRFC getting above the relegation spot / play off place?
My twisted mind cant help wondering just how lucky TRFC would be if Livingston get a large point penalty, or the SFA force insolvency by requiring a bond…
Quite what would happen if Livy go completely out of business though is beyond me at this point.
Allyjambo says:
December 8, 2014 at 10:37 am
Smugas says:
December 8, 2014 at 10:07 am
And this is what I can’t understand. Why are the major shareholders allowing this to happen, the debt building up with no increase in asset value? And not only debt, but secured debt. At the moment, the company owes Ashley £3m, by April that could be £7 or 8m. The total assets were purchased for £5.5m two years ago and have deteriorated since then. It’s conceivable Ashley could own all the realisable assets in April so RIFC plc will be worthless, though still have a number of creditors. If the major shareholders don’t act soon they could end up owning a company that owns nothing of any realizable value! Or, if Ashley does do a debt for equity deal, they would then own diluted shares that are valued at a fraction of today’s price, which works out at pretty much the same thing.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Never forget we are dealing with Spivs
Money is all that matters
At the current time it is better for the Spivs not to put any more of their money into TRFC
As long as somebody else is willing to give loans to fund the ongoing operation they will go along with it in the hope that it will never be paid back and gets exchanged for some security they don’t actually own
There are 3 groups of Spivs
Ordinary Spivs who own shares and nothing else
Spivs who own both shares and onerous contracts
Spivs with no shares but onerous contracts
They all want to make more money and if that seems impractical they will get out
Currently share owning Spivs can add about 30% to the value of their holding by dis applying pre-emption rights, increasing the share capital, awarding themselves freebie shares and diluting the minority holders to under 10%
To do this they need a 75% vote at the AGM and a 51% vote at a future RIFC Board Mtg
Shareless Spivs with onerous contracts cannot participate in this 75% vote if they could they would vote against the resolution since it might well be followed by an early Liquidation which would directly challenge the onerous contracts. The Shirt Sponsor, Catering, Wi Fi, and Security Cos may not be owned by shareholders so they also could be in this category
Share owning Spivs with onerous contracts will be against the resolution unless they can be bought over in some way
Share owning Spivs with no onerous contracts need the 75% resolution to be passed in order to dilute the rest of the shareholders
So
IMO
The issue is not “if” but “when” TRFC is put into Admin or Liquidation. This will rest on the AGM vote to increase the share capital and dis apply pre-emption rights for existing shareholders
The vote may be finely balanced. The situation is complicated by the arrival of the Bill. This is likely to encourage some Spivs to get out ASAP
A successful 75% resolution depends on whether onerous contract holding Spiv Shareholders can be bought out They need to be guaranteed sufficient freebie shares to make it worth their while Otherwise they risk losing some or all of their onerous contracts in a subsequent Liquidation
Spiv shareholders with onerous contracts that we know about include Green, Ashley, Margarita, Blue Pitch and McCoist. The Easedales may also have some onerous contracts
Ashley will drive a hard bargain for his support of the resolution. However he does not have control of the most valuable assets and risks being an Admin Creditor for the £3m in loans he has outstanding
He will put retention of his onerous contracts ahead of freebie shares so perhaps some deal is being worked on that enables RR to survive intact in a TRFC Administration or even a MVL
The most likely scenario remains share dilution of minority holder (i.e. under25%) followed by Administration where some genuine Bears take over TRFC, The acquired business will be saddled with umpteen onerous contracts.
Ashley may then simply exit the scene having secured all he needs for his Sports Direct Co with perhaps a superstore at Ibrox and some ongoing promotional goodies in exchange for his loans
Just throwing these out there in case anyone has anything useful or interesting to add. Or more likely so I can be told not to be so daft 🙂 (what do you mean “again”?)
How does the BBC’s commitment to brand neutrality fit with its coverage of sport, and in particular Scottish Football? Keep in mind we are constantly told by one and all that the sport of Football is actually a commercial enterprise and clubs are businesses whether we like it or not. Is there some obligation to give equal coverage when they cover a chosen division or league? (should there be?)
Secondly how does the BBC Scotland spend on football coverage compare to the BBC nationwide/England spend on football? Both as a proportion of the relative budgets spent by each organisation and relative to the potential TV audience?
When the BBC are spending licence payers money on sport they are investing in that sport. Do all licence fee payers get a fair crack of the whip? Particularly do Scottish Football fans get a comparative proportion of their licence fee spent on “their” football coverage?
andy says:
December 8, 2014 at 4:26 pm
Martin says:
December 8, 2014 at 1:07 pm
============================
thats up there with the tories accusing BBC of bias against them
For those of us who hoped that a new club set up by the fans would leave all the old baggage behind please read and, if you interpret it as I have, weep.
http://www.therst.co.uk/news/item/492-rst-statement.html
weeman says:
December 8, 2014 at 8:05 pm
================================================
The subtext is laden with all the old shibboleths…
Trying to catch up on several days of posts and not getting very far.Not sure if anyone has considered the Mike Ashley holding position. The request to the football high heid yins was to let MA increase his holding to a figure which off the top of my head was an unusual number. Could this have been an attempt to get MAs previous shareholding out in the open by adding it to his declared holding. What if MA was one of the mystery shareholders and Margarita would be a nice fit given the initials.Now that this squirrel is off and running time for my tea. Was MA there at the start with Charles and the boys ?
I must be missing a step here weeman…Celtic fans daub vile graffiti celebrating the Ibrox disaster, a Rangers supporters group issues a statement condemning this and yet somehow the Rangers group are in the wrong? If the graffiti had been about Hillsborough wouldn’t you expect some comment from Liverpool fans? I also notice that you’re too busy having a pop at the RST to mention a harsh word about the graffiti itself.
Interesting to see Manchester City have just opened their new training facility at a cost of £200M.
Yes that was TWO HUNDRED MILLION POUNDS!!
While I’m all in favour of better facilities for clubs, players and fans £200M is ripping it just a tad.
Wasn’t Man City fined for flouting FFP earlier this year?
Is this astronomical sum included in FFP rules?
In the 70’s I used to have a soft spot for City with players like Tuart, Bell, Dave Watson etc. They were exciting but never won a lot but there was a character about them, probably like most teams in that era. What these guys must think of todays City I don’t know.
Unfortunately for me, but not for the city fans I think, they are another club that has sold its soul.
After years in the wilderness they have been catapulted from obscurity to Premier League winners in six years.
Reading this back I must admit that jealousy is a terrible thing but it does beg the question;
“Would you sell your club to watch the best players in the world and have access to the Champions League or would you rather your club remained relatively locally owned?”
Obviously only real billionaires should apply!!
RyanGosling says:
December 8, 2014 at 8:52 pm
Of course on the evidence currently available there is no detail with regard to how, when and by whom the graffiti got there. The subject matter is however beyond the pale.
I am with Ryan on this one. As we often say on here about the debacle down Ibrox way, listen to what is being said and don’t automatically shoot the messenger just because you don’t like the cut of their jib.
If there is proof to say that this is not the result of potential toe rags who have attached themselves to Celtic then I would expect the club to clarify matters in greater details than provided to date.
Similarly if these hard of thinking young guns are somehow managing to secure tickets through the club and can be identified then I am sure we will see all steps taken to resolve the situation and a statement forthcoming from Mr Lawwell hopefully with the potential handing of details over to the police, life banning orders etc.
I have been taking my son to Tynecastle this season for his first experience of professional football, and very enjoyable it has been. However I deliberately chalked off the visit of both of Glasgow’s finest and the Edinburgh derby from our calendar because I did not want his joy of watching the game soured and his young mind exposed to the toxic atmosphere generated by both sets of fans in such heated fixtures. If he lasts the pace he can make his own mind up on attending such fixtures in the future but at this time I’ll keep him at arms length.