A spectre is haunting Scottish Football

Avatar 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

Avatar

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

4,164 Comments so far

Avatar

joburgt1mPosted on9:44 am - Dec 15, 2014


y4rmy says:
December 15, 2014 at 9:17 am
2 0 Rate This

Not sure if it’s been mentioned, but it looks like Somers is off too:

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/546941/Rangers-chairman-David-Somers-time-ending-at-Ibrox

———

Quote from above
‘Meanwhile, the cost-cutting at Ibrox will continue with managing director Derek Llambias, right-hand man of influential shareholder Mike Ashley, understood to be dismayed at the amount of cash paid out in salaries to non-playing staff.’

I thought Mr Llambias was a non exec dir ??? did I miss an appointment or is this a mistake in the article?

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on9:47 am - Dec 15, 2014


jimlarkin says:
December 15, 2014 at 9:37 am

I’m pretty certain you are correct that his contract was amended, in his favour, at the inception of the new club. When he signed his contract with RFC there would have been no conception of the idea that he might be managing a club in the lower divisions, so every benefit to him would have been geared to the top league. We know Ally isn’t so dumb as to pay no attention to his contract 🙄 so there’s no way he wouldn’t have had his new environment sewn into his terms of employment, in a rather onerous way. No doubt, too, more onerousity 😉 was created when he volunteered to a ‘reduced’ salary.

View Comment

Avatar

Jake CantonaPosted on9:49 am - Dec 15, 2014


y4rmy says:
December 15, 2014 at 9:17 am

Not sure if it’s been mentioned, but it looks like Somers is off too:

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/546941/Rangers-chairman-David-Somers-time-ending-at-Ibrox

———————–

Second line of article: “Influential shareholders believe he may leave shortly after the club’s AGM”

Further down: “Derek Llambias, right-hand man of influential shareholder Mike Ashley”

Now, is the repetitive use of “influential shareholder” just lazy writing or is it a way of flagging up the source of the story?

Or do I just have way too much time on my hands?

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on9:51 am - Dec 15, 2014


Allyjambo says:
December 15, 2014 at 9:31 am
y4rmy says:
December 15, 2014 at 9:17 am

So, if Somers does go, and I know it’s only rumour because I read it in a ‘newspaper’, just what percentage of the remaining board will be Ashley’s men? Just how much power will that give him?
===============================================

At least with Ashley’s men we know who is pulling the strings if not all the reasons for it. But who is pulling the Easdale strings by proxy?

All we know is they are anonymous, apparently live outwith the UK and are probably fronted-up by companies operating from offshore tax havens.

This is the reality of the shambles. And the bit that makes me laugh loudest is that the impressively named ‘Offshore Tax Havens’ bluenose site spends all its time launching sectarian-based fantasies of illegal State Aid against Celtic – which have been tossed in the garbage can by the European Commission giving Celtic a clean bill of health.

Why doesn’t Football Tax Havens concentrate on its own Ibrox midden and find out who actually owns Rangers and who these mystery offshore investors are?

But they never get on that bus and I wonder why although I strongly suspect they are merely a PR smoke and mirrors front designed to deflect Bears’ attention from the pillaging of Ibrox.

View Comment

normanbatesmumfc

normanbatesmumfcPosted on9:55 am - Dec 15, 2014


With news of the “Super” one’s resignation, I notice the RIFC and Greggs share prices have taken an upward step, coincidence?????

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on10:10 am - Dec 15, 2014


Jake Cantona says:
December 15, 2014 at 9:49 am

I reckon Derek Llambias will end-up chair of RIFC and the ch exec and finance director will be straight from the Sportsdirect stable.

That will signal to the City that Tank Commander Mike has torn-up the old Ibrox turf and is in control and that the new share offer should be backed. But will he head that way?

I’m really beginning to think that if Ashley is actually serious about Rangers that he might delist it from AIM and run it as a private Ltd company.

I think it could be an attractive proposition in many ways. OK still the dual club thing but let’s be serious Rangers is increasingly unlikaly to be seeing any European action for years.

Being in AIM is expensive, it’s public with all sorts of things that need to be reported. Far better for it to go dark as a private company. And Mike can always get round the SFA by doing a deal with Blue Knights.

He probably needs the Easdales for a bit but eventually they’ll be put on the late night bus to Greenock with a couple of one-way tickets.

I’m sure they can be persuaded that Greenock Morton is more their thing and they might actually be appreciated there – and I’m serious about that. They are playing way out of their League in so many ways and at some stage will realise that.

Lots to happen yet methinks 🙄

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on10:15 am - Dec 15, 2014


ecobhoy says:
December 15, 2014 at 9:51 am

But they never get on that bus and I wonder why although I strongly suspect they are merely a PR smoke and mirrors front designed to deflect Bears’ attention from the pillaging of Ibrox.
________________________________________

Funnily enough, I was going to respond with something similar until I read that last line 😀

If only someone had done some digging in the right dungheap, from the off, then perhaps many of the bears could have held onto their cash and been on the road to creating a club to be proud of (even if for all the wrong reasons to be proud). The mess that has been allowed to grow must have reduced the possibility of anything of substance emerging from the ashes for a very long time. Even someone like King must have some thoughts that the wreckage is best dumped and a completely new venture created to distance real Rangersness from this train-wreck. Any new club will have as much right to the past glories of RFC as TRFC does (none – but they’ll never admit it), and no one at Ibrox would miss the titles of TRFC which forever will be an embarrassment and reminder of what happened.

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on10:20 am - Dec 15, 2014


Jake Cantona says:
December 15, 2014 at 9:49 am
2 0 Rate This

y4rmy says:
December 15, 2014 at 9:17 am

Not sure if it’s been mentioned, but it looks like Somers is off too:

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/546941/Rangers-chairman-David-Somers-time-ending-at-Ibrox

———————–

Second line of article: “Influential shareholders believe he may leave shortly after the club’s AGM”

Further down: “Derek Llambias, right-hand man of influential shareholder Mike Ashley”

Now, is the repetitive use of “influential shareholder” just lazy writing or is it a way of flagging up the source of the story?

Or do I just have way too much time on my hands?

. . . . . . . . . .
Influential ???
Who told you that?
It’s obviously not true, otherwise the SFA boss men would be wanting a wee wordie with Mr CASHLEY ??

View Comment

Avatar

mungoboyPosted on10:22 am - Dec 15, 2014


For what it’s worth, I think that Camp A££y leaked the news on Friday, with only a few hours to go till the markets closed thus tying the board’s hands in commenting till Monday.
In the meantime, his PR went into overdrive so much so that by the time I’d spent over the weekend listening to SSB, Sportsound and reading articles on line, I came to realise that I was truly in the presence of a Saint. Who knew??
However, the statement this morning indicating his substantial salary increase due to resignation is the first sly kick in the gonads for the sainted one.
If Ally thinks he can play hardball with Ashley by taking on the MASH Men on his turf then his employment suicide will be far from painless.
Maybe he should have a word with Malky Mackay who tried to play hardball with Vincent Tan.
All was going well in his departure till the club mobile was handed back and forensically examined.
Even deleted items are recoverable and we all know what happened to Malky in the end. He was well malkied!
Should be some interesting text messages and emails from last Thursday and Friday as Ally sped south in the bus towards Dumfries.
The next time he’s driving over the Erskine Bridge towards Auchenhowie, maybe he should slow down mid way, wind his car window down and launch the work’s smartphone into the void and down into the deep, flowing waters of the River Clyde.
One thing’s for sure…… it’s all going to get very messy….. And we’re not talking Lionel here!

View Comment

Avatar

RaymacPosted on10:39 am - Dec 15, 2014


I want to be there when the Driscoll Brothers get put on a one-way journey. I know the Newcastle boys are no goat’s toe with the heavy stuff, but evidently they haven’t watched “Get Carter”. They are big guys, but they’re out of shape. It’s the wee Driscoll brother I’d be worrying about. But, fear not, Regan and Doncaster are mobbed up too, with Ogilvie, Longmuir and co with a host of blazers as back-up.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on10:48 am - Dec 15, 2014


jimlarkin says:
December 15, 2014 at 9:37 am

Charles Green needed AMc to TUPE over, that’s when the free shares and other amendments, etc etc were put in place. at least the bampots led me to believe such . . . .
==========================================================
I’m afraid the evidence doesn’t confirm what the bampots are saying. Everyone employed by oldco Rangers were entitled to Tupe over on their original employment contracts. Most did although some players didn’t as was their right.

I very much doubt if McCoist’s terms & conditions – effective from 8 January 2007 – changed in the Tupe transfer in June 2012. The essence of Tupe is that the identical terms and conditions transfer – that is the legal protection given.

Indeed the Rangers AIM Prospectus issued December 2012 lists all the ‘old’ bonus details of the original Rangers contract which reinforces that it followed the Tupe procedure and that conditions weren’t changed.

The reason I say that is because it has all the bonus trigger points that didn’t apply to being in SFL3 but in the top flight. If the original contract was altered then it would have reset the bonus triggers to apply to the club’s SFL3 status.

So the change in the contract came after McCoist discovered that Green and Stockbridge were getting big bonuses for promotion to SFL2 and he (McCoist) was getting nothing.

That’s when either the original contract Tupe’d over was changed or a separate bonus contract was created to relate to where the club now was in the Scottish footballing structure.

I tend to think there are now 2 contracts held by McCoist: One is the amended Tupe contract from the time he agreed to a wage cut and the other is his bonus contract.

View Comment

Avatar

MartinPosted on10:57 am - Dec 15, 2014


They should at least have spelled his name right in the regulatory announcement. 😳

View Comment

Avatar

Paulmac2Posted on10:59 am - Dec 15, 2014


jimlarkin says:
December 15, 2014 at 9:37 am
4 1 Rate This

Jake Cantona says:
December 15, 2014 at 9:18 am
1 0 Rate This

jimlarkin says:
December 15, 2014 at 9:11 am

A bit vague on WHY his contract was amended since 2010
and how can RIFC even claim he has been with RIFC since 2010 as they did not exist then!!!???

——————

Continuity of service under TUPE. I was once worked for a company that had been in existence for 15 years and the longest serving employee had 28 years service
. . . . . . . . . . .
Yeah, that’s my point…When he “agreed” to TUPE over, that’s when and where the amendments were made.
Charles Green needed AMc to TUPE over, that’s when the free shares and other amendments, etc etc were put in place.
at least the bampots led me to believe such . . . .
=======================================================

Under TUPE your existing contracted benefits must not be degraded in anyway when you agree to TUPE…the fact his contract was amended suggests his salary, benefits or conditions were improved…they most certainly would not have diminished in any way…and I cannot for the life of me think of why you would amend a contract where neither party benefits.

View Comment

Avatar

MartinPosted on11:17 am - Dec 15, 2014


Rangers Int. share price down (-9.25%) small volumes traded.

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on11:19 am - Dec 15, 2014


Martin says:
December 15, 2014 at 11:17 am
0 0 Rate This

Rangers Int. share price down (-9.25%) small volumes traded.

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

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on11:22 am - Dec 15, 2014


Martin says: December 15, 2014 at 11:17 am

Rangers Int. share price down (-9.25%) small volumes traded.
=================================
Yes. – Mid price now down to 19p. Obviously a reflection of the name change by deed poll, from “Super Ally” to “Onerous Ally”. Either that or Ally is in the process of offloading his 1M shares.

View Comment

Esteban

EstebanPosted on11:29 am - Dec 15, 2014


All McCoist needs to do to hole Sevco below the waterline is make a public statement to the effect it isn’t the same club, that he was duped into pretending it was by Charles Green, but has now realised it’s a different entity with ‘very little if any connection’ to the good old days.

This is a dangerous game for the onerous ones to play. The canvas roof of the big top may be about to collapse.

View Comment

Avatar

Paulmac2Posted on11:33 am - Dec 15, 2014


ecobhoy says:
December 15, 2014 at 10:10 am

That will signal to the City that Tank Commander Mike has torn-up the old Ibrox turf and is in control and that the new share offer should be backed. But will he head that way?

I’m really beginning to think that if Ashley is actually serious about Rangers that he might delist it from AIM and run it as a private Ltd company.

I think it could be an attractive proposition in many ways. OK still the dual club thing but let’s be serious Rangers is increasingly unlikaly to be seeing any European action for years.

Being in AIM is expensive, it’s public with all sorts of things that need to be reported. Far better for it to go dark as a private company. And Mike can always get round the SFA by doing a deal with Blue Knights.
================================
There are 3 things to bear in mind with delisting from AIM…

1. You need 75% of share holder approval…does he or can he get that?
2. It will cost a chunk of money to become delisted…is he prepared to pay it?
3. On a positive not…after the cost to delist…you can expect to save around £200k to £250k a year in AIM costs.

View Comment

wildwood

wildwoodPosted on11:34 am - Dec 15, 2014


The Entity’s statement to AIM is obviously a retaliatory blow, and there may indeed be more to come.

But let’s not forget that Mr McCoist holding out for top whack on Wednesday will fair put a Stanley Knife through the side walls of the good bus sevco’s tyres.

He might take a few blows further down the road, however he’s in a position to cause a fair bit of financial merriment this week.

One final point – all this talk of settlements and full salaries and gardening leave etc. not many in the SMSM are factoring in his back room staff costs to any equation. Neither are they factoring in the new guys costs or his back room staff. Which will be costs ON TOP OF everything else.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on11:59 am - Dec 15, 2014


Paulmac2 says:
December 15, 2014 at 11:33 am

There are 3 things to bear in mind with delisting from AIM…

1. You need 75% of share holder approval…does he or can he get that?
2. It will cost a chunk of money to become delisted…is he prepared to pay it?
3. On a positive not…after the cost to delist…you can expect to save around £200k to £250k a year in AIM costs.
===========================================================
Ah perhaps I should have said that I would envisage – If I was MA – that the original shareholders (say 3% holding and above) would be offered same percentage shares in new Ltd company. That would get over the approval and cost issues if it could be sold.

But I have been musing away while trying to repair the steam cleaner which went fritz yesterday 🙂

With Ally going – and it doesn’t matter whether the fans hate him or not – the last link with Rangers Men has been totally severed. Even the long serving employees are being weeded out.

Ashley will never contract Rangeritis of that I am certain 😎 But he isn’t daft and he will have some Rangers Pawns up his sleeve I reckon. They will be the ones paraded to ‘front’ the ‘new’ Ibrox operation.

There’s no way this show will stay on the road if the fans don’t think there is some kind of link to their history – it’s in their DNA. This could be the time that DK is dusted down and brought back and his role will be to inject Rangerness and also cash to buy-out mystery men with onerous contracts.

The other thing about transferring share blocs to a ltd company is that Ashley can work the old Rangers Retail shell game. He gave Rangers 51% of the shares but he brought in different classes of shares so he actually outvotes them 96 to 51.

Yip it seems the way to go and could resolve a lot of issues – and he can give a few ‘bauble’ directorships away to Blue Saviours and new blazers although brogues are out and will be replaced by trainers – all the better for a speedy exit if need be.

View Comment

Avatar

Paulmac2Posted on12:28 pm - Dec 15, 2014


ecobhoy says:
December 15, 2014 at 11:59 am
===========================

He would still need to cough up around £200k to delist…in the long run it is worth paying…but not if you are working to a short term game

Delisting is what they should do…have a look at the current AIM market moves…most companies of a similar size are delisting…that can afford to do so…AIM is prohibitve to small Companies with little or no growth…or in the case at Ibrox…shrinking…remaining in AIM only makes sense if you intend to go to market for external investment….who in gods name would? except maybe those who have access to other peoples money in the city (of a blue persuasion) and are in the privileged position of giving it away on a supposed investment opportunity?

That has to be the purpose…otherwise why make such a concerted effort to surgically remove as much operating cost as possible with rapier speed?

It points to another share issue…and all that follows behind it..

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on12:43 pm - Dec 15, 2014


Probably mentioned before but is it just coincidence RIFC’s new NomAd has an office in Douglas IoM http://wh-ireland.co.uk/contact/locations Did Laxey influence the appointment.

View Comment

Long Time Lurker

Long Time LurkerPosted on12:50 pm - Dec 15, 2014


The entity that operates the football club Rangers have publically noted that they need circa £8m to see out season 2014/15. The financial statement also provided some clarity around cash-flow, noting significant cause for concern.

Given that the transfer window is drawing ever nearer, should the SFA impose a transfer ban on the club, as there are reasonable doubts on the ability of the club to make good payments and other commitments?

Have the SFA or any other governing body imposed a transfer ban where a club is in financial distress and taking on additional commitments could be difficult?

View Comment

Avatar

Night TerrorPosted on12:55 pm - Dec 15, 2014


If McCoist “knows where the bodies are buried”, why should Ashley be worried? He will have, presumably, nothing at all to do with any of that and has clean hands as to how the Ibrox club has been run until very recently. Ashley might even be delighted to see McCoist threatening to spill the beans as that would only weaken Ashley’s foes.

There’s only one winner in the game McCoist seems to be playing, and it isn’t Alastair (sic).

As to the overseas interests so secretive in their Ibrox involvement, isn’t that due an airing again? Where was it, the Philippines or someplace?

View Comment

Barcabhoy

BarcabhoyPosted on12:59 pm - Dec 15, 2014


To try and provide some context as to what Ashley may get out of keeping Rangers afloat , it’s worth looking at Celtic’s merchandising revenues.

In the financial year to June 2014 Celtic had merchandising revenues of £13.5 million. It has been so long since Rangers had anything remotely resembling a normal merchandising deal that comparatives are risky, however we could use this number as an absolutely best case scenario.

To generate that number requires a title winning , CL competing team. Failure on field hits metchandising sales . Thats problem #1 for Ashley. Rangers are nowhere near title winning or CL level, and will not be without huge investment.

Assuming a 7 year position where total merchandising revenue could start at £10 million and rise by £500k a year to eventually match Celtics number, then Ashley could be looking at the following as his margin before costs.

The contract seems to allow for SD to receive a minimum of 50% of profits, with interesting/ onerous committments to buy stock on top of that . Merchandising margins are healthy , but somewhat blurry, so its sensible to build in sensitivity to the numbers.

2015
Revenue A) £10 million , low margin B) £5 million , high margin C) £7 million. SD share on low D) £2.5 million on high E) £3.5 million

To save space and reading time on here the 7 year totals show that Gross Profit to Sports Direct vary between £23.5 and £32.9 million .

The estimated cash flow funding required is somewhere around £12 million to get Rangers to end of Decemeber 2015. Now you have to caveat all of the numbers on the basis they are estimates, not the exact figures that Ashley will be working to.

However assuming that they are within the bounds of what is likely then you can see why Ashley has got himself involved so far.

The consequence is that the club will be unlikely to be able to repay SD loans in the short or medium twrm, and that an absolute prerequisite is break even based on Rangers cashflows.

What this is likely to look like moving foeward is the following.

Rangers debt to Ashley £12 million plus

Rangers playing wage bill circa £6 million

Auchenhowie sold.

No or minimal transfer budget .

All of the above will be affected by the need for infrastructure investment. Therefore if Ibrox requires £5 million it is likely the debt to Ashley increases to £17 million.

There may be a change in control clause built into future loans from Ashley, which require him to be repaid in full should a new owner appear. Interest charges could also apply on change in control .

In any event it appears to me that Ashley’s decision will be based on how likely it is to be able to match Celtic’s merchandising numbers without matching Celtic’s playing budget. The notion that Rangers can go from £6 million wage budget to £26 million is in my view impossible.

The potential profit to SD over 7 years is just under £33 million at best. Even if Ashley was prepared to lend all of that to Rangers , it will not build a squad that should be able to compete with Celtic.

I am ruling out Ashley being a benefator type owner in the way the Abramovich is, therefore it’s a business basis only, and that doesn’t look promising for those who’s sense of entitlement demands supremacy

View Comment

AmFearLiathMòr

AmFearLiathMòrPosted on1:03 pm - Dec 15, 2014


With their well timed ‘McCoist’s salary will increase to £750,000’, does that not make it more likely that The Rangers will hit the skids? There was already doubts about their viability, and that budgeting was based on McCoist’s salary being 50% of what it was (apparently) – will this increase not accelerate things? Or was it just all smoke and mirrors, and in reality, there will be no salary increase since there was never a salary cut?

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on1:03 pm - Dec 15, 2014


@LTL
++++++++++
I don’t think the SFA need to impose a transfer ban. Shirley there isn’t a football agent in the world that would send a client to Govan and there can’t be many clubs in Europe who wouldn’t be aware they need cash up front for a transfer. Add that to Lambias watching costs like a hawk loand deals are likely to be the only addition to the squad in the window. There will probably be departures though if some compromise can be reached on the departing players’ drop in wages

View Comment

melbournedee

melbournedeePosted on1:12 pm - Dec 15, 2014


PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
December 14, 2014 at 4:55 pm
40 1 Rate This

The Cat NR1 says:
December 14, 2014 at 3:52 pm
====================================================
The OnCons for Charlie and the boys are with RIFC.
The exception is the Superstore deal for MA/SD-that is with TRFC.
———————————————————————-
Phil,

I can’t see how RIFC can be the money-pit entity for onerous contracts.

The RIFC company has no income generating activities.

The accounts disclose that RIFC made a loss of only £516,000 in 2014 and a loss of £332,000 in 2013. That would only cover Directors’ Fees, company audit and AIM/NOMAD fees etc. Can’t see that onerous contracts can bee sucking cash out of RIFC.

TRFC and Rangers Retail are the only cash generating entities

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on1:17 pm - Dec 15, 2014


Barcabhoy says:
December 15, 2014 at 12:59 pm

I don’t see anything to disagree with in your figures or reasoning. But I have a niggle which is why would Ashley shell-out dosh that I assume would benefit others with onerous and other contracts who weren’t contributing a peny to running costs?

OK I realise Ashley will be expecting a return on his investment but he has never struck me as the kind of guy who would allow parasites to hitch a free lift off him.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on1:22 pm - Dec 15, 2014


melbournedee says:
December 15, 2014 at 1:12 pm

The RIFC company has no income generating activities.

TRFC and Rangers Retail are the only cash generating entities
===============================================================
RIFC is a big cash generator through share issues and is the holding company for subsidiaries that are cash generators.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on1:31 pm - Dec 15, 2014


tykebhoy says:
December 15, 2014 at 1:03 pm

Shirley there isn’t a football agent in the world that would send a client to Govan.
===================================================

Whit aboot ra EBTs? Urtherrnane left?

View Comment

Avatar

Jake CantonaPosted on1:35 pm - Dec 15, 2014


Slightly OT, but an interesting read here on Newcastle United under Ashley:

https://www.theblizzard.co.uk/articles/the-great-betrayal/

This in particular stood out, from a local MP:

” I wrote to Ashley to invite him for tea in Westminster. It was a very nice letter and I took a long time over it but the only response was a note from Lee Charnley (the managing director) not to bother Ashley again. ”

If Ashley can’t even be bothered to deal directly with an MP, he’s not going to have much time for sports ‘journalists’, fans ‘leaders’, and ‘loyal’ bloggers.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on1:37 pm - Dec 15, 2014


Night Terror says:
December 15, 2014 at 12:55 pm

If McCoist “knows where the bodies are buried”, why should Ashley be worried?
========================================================================
I haven’t a clue whether Ashley has anything to be worried about or not but he has been there with Green from the beginning and that certainly seems to worry some Bears especially over the set-up of Rangers Retail Ltd and various other issues like stadium naming rights, trade marks and merchandise contracts.

View Comment

Tartanwulver

TartanwulverPosted on1:38 pm - Dec 15, 2014


coineanachantaighe says:
December 15, 2014 at 1:29 pm

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hmmm quite a few managers have tried [GBH], even at top European level. Surely Celtic supporters still remember Athletico Madrid?
——————————————–
Even some of us non-Celtic supporters well remember that particular contest! It was the first thing that sprang to my mind when I read the original post

View Comment

Avatar

Night TerrorPosted on1:40 pm - Dec 15, 2014


@Barcabhoy – if you were not steeped in Scottish Football & The Old Firm, and found yourself in charge of the Ibrox club, why would it even occur to you that you have to “match” any particular expenditure or income item on Celtic’s P&L to challenge for Europe, titles, cups and Champions League places?

A big clean out of Ibrox and there’s no reason why they can’t compete with Celtic (albeit probably not beat them) and sweep everyone else aside on a much lower budget than they’re used to. Why, they might even break even! For a business-minded, unsentimental character as Ashley, he is probably licking his lips at that challenge.

View Comment

melbournedee

melbournedeePosted on1:48 pm - Dec 15, 2014


ecobhoy says:
December 15, 2014 at 1:22 pm
3 0 Rate This

melbournedee says:
December 15, 2014 at 1:12 pm

The RIFC company has no income generating activities.

TRFC and Rangers Retail are the only cash generating entities
===============================================================
RIFC is a big cash generator through share issues and is the holding company for subsidiaries that are cash generators.
———————————————————————
eco,

I know that RIFC raises cash through share issues, but that all goes to TRFC through the intercompany loan.

There doesn’t appear to be any onerous contract leakage from RIFC as that would show up as RIFC expense. That hasn’t been the case in the accounts for the past 2 years.

View Comment

Avatar

Night TerrorPosted on1:48 pm - Dec 15, 2014


@ecobhoy

Ashley … has been there with Green from the beginning and that certainly seems to worry some Bears especially over the set-up of Rangers Retail Ltd and various other issues like stadium naming rights, trade marks and merchandise contracts.

And if he explains it’s just business – he’s provided funding, services etc and nobody else was, get over it? He has a history of “no comment, no apology, no explanation” which will be harsh at first, but with a decent team on the park and no more off-field fuss, the bears will soon be sedated.

Remember how long it took them to suspect anything at all was wrong off-field?

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on1:48 pm - Dec 15, 2014


Barca,

It won’t completely fill the gap, but the answer as to how RFC fill the gap on merchandising from where they are now (which the rest of us diddies can only dream of of course) to where they would wish to be (Celtic) is, of course, rhetoric.

New pretendy club versus CL group particpants Celtic will sell modest shirt numbers.

Old club emerging from the tunnel to the thudding chords of “back where we belong,” five stars and world records stuffed in their socks will sell jerseys a plenty. You are correct, trooping off the field to the chorus of “Sacked in the morning”, will reduce the number a bit but the principle is established and the numbers overall will be higher. Rangers* need to be big to continue to be big, if that makes any sense at all.

Its always been an interesting question in this saga – who in RFC(old) decided that Div 1 wasn’t good enough – they had that a bartering chip early doors buty it never seems to have been seriously considered? It would have served the above purpose perfectly and would have given them the IPO to achieve it. Surely they didn’t think they would call the SPL/SPFL’s bluff did they?

What?

Oh!

Eco

The answer is surely for Mike to take a cut from the onerous contract. say Green gets £200k per game. He’ll now get £150 and Mike will get the £50k back in roundabout fashion.

View Comment

Avatar

Billy BoycePosted on1:49 pm - Dec 15, 2014


RE; today’s AIM announcement: is Richard Wilson responsible for writing this piece?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30475395

“Rangers, who were founded in 1872, had never played outside the top division from the formation of the Scottish League in 1890 until they were demoted in 2012, a year after winning their 54th Scottish title”.

This footnote to the article has no relevance to the story of the Stock Exchange notification. Why does Wilson feel the need to include such inaccurate tosh? Is he doing it because his BBC Scotland editor is out of the room? I think John Clark should fire a sharp e-mail to Pacific Quay and remind that shower of their public obligation to tell the truth.

View Comment

Avatar

Night TerrorPosted on1:52 pm - Dec 15, 2014


In short – see all that stuff about Rangerses place in Scottish Football, way of doing things, ways, history, currying favour with fans and the media? Mike Ashley does not care about any of it.

Does. Not. Care.

It’s business. His business.

And who else are you going to support? Now shut up and watch the football.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on2:01 pm - Dec 15, 2014


Night Terror

See my post of 1.48pm. It might not matter to him directly. It is certainly not him who is provoking/prolonging it – why would he, he has several willing journalists to do it for him – but the end result, more jersey sales, most certainly does matter to him, with regards to his Rangers project. In the bigger scheme, I agree, its small beer.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on2:14 pm - Dec 15, 2014


McMurdo I see has blown another fuse – it must be terrible being out of the power and influence loop and any prospect of a blazer 😆

Appears the loss of power has causied his memory banks to empty when he states:

‘It is great to see Derek Llambias doing what Graham Wallace was supposed to do a year ago and trim the fat off the club’s expenditure.’

Bill should ask his Greenock-based pals why the Board didn’t instruct Wallace to carry out his austerity plans.

Oh that’s right IIRC some mystery investors who control Rangers by proxy from their overseas tax havens didn’t want expenditure cut – well not any that benefited them 😆

View Comment

Avatar

rabtdogPosted on2:16 pm - Dec 15, 2014


In it for the jerseys?
Celtic outspend everyone else in Scottish football. Their outlay on wages, attracting a certain level of manager & player, has seen them into the UCL quite a few times in their recent history; into the last 16 three times I think? (Milan, Barca, Juve.) Clearly reaching the group stage is not guaranteed on this outlay; I seem to remember Strachan describing it as club management with one hand tied behind your back at that stellar level – so games in the Europa League follow on a regular basis too, the ineffable glamour of provincial Romania.
All this stuff about ‘how to make money out of Rangers’ then. Flogging T-shirts in Sports Direct outlets to celebrate a Europa League second qualifying round game against a side from Norway? This is the alleged business plan? This is why people are tussling over balance sheets and onerous contracts? Because eventually Alex from Renfrew will add a couple of quid to Ashley’s bottom line – literally – by buying a naff T-shirt? God that’s weak. Moreover it’s just sad.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on2:55 pm - Dec 15, 2014


melbournedee says:
December 15, 2014 at 1:48 pm
======================================
You stated that RIFC wasn’t a cash generator and I corrected that error.

As to visibility of onerous contracts – well I’m not a spiv so therefor am no expert in the field but I have a wee notion that they won’t have a flashing neon sign proclaiming: ‘I’m an Onerous Contract’ 🙄

View Comment

Avatar

stifflersmomPosted on3:00 pm - Dec 15, 2014


Billy Boyce says:
December 15, 2014 at 1:49 pm

Billy.
Wilson has previous on promoting the myth. You may recall him campaigning on editions of Newsnight (circa June 2012) for the SPL clubs to vote them ‘back in’…..

http://youtu.be/zI9zb_9jXO0

http://youtu.be/YHxst2slWU0

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on3:17 pm - Dec 15, 2014


If money’s not a problem, but you have a potentially valuable car that is deteriorating before your eyes, and will get more expensive to sort the longer you go without sorting the main problems, but your intention is to keep the car and sort it eventually, do you get the mechanic to stop the deterioration urgently, or do you get someone just to spend time looking at the problem while getting rid of the bits that actually work, but don’t make the car look any better?

Now I don’t pretend to know Ashley’s plans, and certainly don’t know as much about fixing ailing companies as he does, but he does seem to be taking his time over ‘saving’ TRFC. Despite the cuts (the getting rid of things that work but don’t enhance the club’s appearance) the club is continuing to deteriorate, both on and off the field.

Even if his plans are for next season, why risk failing to gain promotion? Even if it’s too late to catch Hearts (it’s not) they really need to be the strongest of the rest, and stronger than second bottom of the Premiership. They definitely don’t want an extra play-off tie either as it will just become a bigger lottery.

Getting rid of McCoist is a must, with a reasonable replacement to boost performances on the park. If loan players from Newcastle are his only plans to improve the playing side, while getting rid of the better players, it may well be too late to challenge Hearts by the time they can be signed (assuming Hearts don’t balls things up meantime), so if he doesn’t put money in soon (to at least get rid of McCoist), I doubt it’s going to come this season. Then promotion becomes the lottery, and Ashley’s potential returns take longer to come to fruition. In the meantime merchandizing profits (for both SD and TRFC) are hammered, whereas news of positive action would send Xmas sales soaring.

Back to the car analogy; could he just be keeping it going to sell off as spare parts?

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:24 pm - Dec 15, 2014


Billy Boyce says:
December 15, 2014 at 1:49 pm

RE; today’s AIM announcement: is Richard Wilson responsible for writing this piece?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30475395

“Rangers, who were founded in 1872, had never played outside the top division from the formation of the Scottish League in 1890 until they were demoted in 2012, a year after winning their 54th Scottish title”.

This footnote to the article has no relevance to the story of the Stock Exchange notification. Why does Wilson feel the need to include such inaccurate tosh?…
===========================================
Could simply be that yet another churnalist has forgotten to omit a footer from a PR missive – and they need to go back to copy/paste school for a refresher course… 😉

And you would think that at this advanced stage in the TRFC saga, even succulent churnalists would be reticent to create nonsense prose as per above as their own.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:36 pm - Dec 15, 2014


Allyjambo says:
December 15, 2014 at 3:17 pm

Now I don’t pretend to know Ashley’s plans, and certainly don’t know as much about fixing ailing companies as he does, but he does seem to be taking his time over ‘saving’ TRFC…

Back to the car analogy; could he just be keeping it going to sell off as spare parts?
=====================================
Agreed: the only reasonable ‘assumption’ that we can make is that MA is sticking around as it’s worth his while. Otherwise, Llambias would have departed Ibrox long before now, IMO, without so much as a look back over his shoulder.

So MA could be regarded as the latest ‘saviour’ of TRFC – if only to keep it ticking over at no/minimal net cost to himself.

As far as the car analogy goes: if your car is needing extensive repairs, it might be more economical to hire a car in the meantime. Hire cars can be very expensive, so you might hire a ‘mini’ cheapy car for an extended period – simply to get you to your destination.

I’m thinking ‘cardigan’ again… 🙄

View Comment

tcup 2012

tcup 2012Posted on3:49 pm - Dec 15, 2014


Billy Boyce says:
December 15, 2014 at 1:49 pm
33 0 Rate This

RE; today’s AIM announcement: is Richard Wilson responsible for writing this piece?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30475395

“Rangers, who were founded in 1872, had never played outside the top division from the formation of the Scottish League in 1890 until they were demoted in 2012, a year after winning their 54th Scottish title”.
//////////////////////////

Maybe someone can help Mr Wilson by pointing out That Celtic won the league in 2011/12
Then move onto his Demoted comment

View Comment

tcup 2012

tcup 2012Posted on3:53 pm - Dec 15, 2014


Oops bloody mobile 🙁
And bad eyes

Ment to add Rangers came in second
And maybe he could explain how you get demoted from 2nd to the 3rd division

View Comment

Avatar

Night TerrorPosted on4:30 pm - Dec 15, 2014


@rabtdog

Flogging T-shirts in Sports Direct outlets to celebrate a Europa League second qualifying round game against a side from Norway? This is the alleged business plan? This is why people are tussling over balance sheets and onerous contracts? Because eventually Alex from Renfrew will add a couple of quid to Ashley’s bottom line – literally – by buying a naff T-shirt? God that’s weak. Moreover it’s just sad.

Welcome to Scottish Football. And the top end of it, at that.

Setting aside the constant amusement provided to the rest of us by the Ibrox denizens, the heart of the matter is how Scottish Football as a whole can do better, not how 1 or 2 particular clubs can challenge for European honours.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on4:42 pm - Dec 15, 2014


au contraire NT

I think you’ll find the mission statement is how the rest of Scottish Football can do better whilst riding on the coat tails of 1 or preferably 2 clubs challenging for European honours. There is no other way. There isn’t I tell you. Why? Just because there just isn’t OK. There isn’t, there isn’t, there isn’t and I’ll keep telling you that as long as you pay me to!

Can I get my 20% bonus now? Its just that apparently it needs bonuses of that amount to keep people of my calibre in the industry and I understand general wage inflation for underperforming top execs in the industry has gone up markedly, since Friday.

Oh and :irony: :irony: :irony:

View Comment

Avatar

GoosyGoosyPosted on4:43 pm - Dec 15, 2014


I think Ashley made a fatal mistake today
By referring to McCoist`s salary in a resignation announcement he is indicating that there are no depths to which he will sink to get rid of the Mgr without paying him what he is legally entitled to be paid
But
In reality it is McCoist who has the ball at his feet
There is unlikely to be a confidentiality clause in his current contract.That sort of clause is normally added during negotiations about early departure. Even if he was paid in full Ashley would insist on adding this clause.
McCoist has only one problem if he digs his heels in
Ashley will go out of his way to humiliate him throughout the full notice period. He will be safe in the knowledge that any retaliation by McCoist provides an opportunity to sack him without pay for “misconduct” then pass the problem to a Tribunal which he can delay for months if not years
However
McCoist is sitting on a goldmine if he has kept a diary of what happened at Ibrox in the past 2yrs
He should say nothing, stick it out and ensure he is well advised
Eventually the fans will turn on Ashley and hit him where it hurts
Glasgow folk aren`t Geordies and won`t behave like them.

Ally may end up as the Pied Piper who persuades the Bears to set up a new club

View Comment

Avatar

andyPosted on4:59 pm - Dec 15, 2014


Robbyp says:
December 15, 2014 at 9:35 am
19 0 Rate This

Could someone clear up my confusion? McCoist originally had a contract that paid 825,000 per year. He then (allegedly) took a pay cut of 50% in October 2013. Now we’re being told he will have a wage hike up to 750,000 for the last year of his contract. Well, unless he signed a NEW contract in October 2013, clearly indicating that his salary would now be 412,500, rather than a voluntary salary reduction, ‘gesture of good will’ on his part, this 750,000 actually represents, contractually, a drop of 75,000 per year. So, did he sign a NEW CONTRACT in October 2013 with lower salary or did his original contract have a clause where his salary would drop for the final year? Is it normal for someone to take a salary cut in their final year? I hope I have explained this clearly, because as I read it, it becomes more confusing.
_______________

was the 825k fig not the one that was given in the first set of accounts that covered 13 months
and his actual salary was around 750k a year ❓

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on5:04 pm - Dec 15, 2014


GoosyGoosy says:
December 15, 2014 at 4:43 pm

McCoist is sitting on a goldmine if he has kept a diary of what happened at Ibrox in the past 2yrs
He should say nothing, stick it out and ensure he is well advised
Eventually the fans will turn on Ashley and hit him where it hurts
Glasgow folk aren`t Geordies and won`t behave like them.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Agree that Ally could hurt people by spilling the beans but it won’t bother Ashley one bit unless he is as mad as a bag of frogs and has (or will) put in more money than he has (or can) take out.

Ashley will not be putting any money the clubs way if the thinks he can’t make a return. He isn’t a billionaire from making poor decisions.

I have said all along this is a mere punt for him.

If it all gets too difficult or troublesome he will pull the plug and let them all lie in their own mess and think nothing more of the matter.

Clearly he sees something worth sticking around for at present but that could change at a drop of a hat IMHO.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:07 pm - Dec 15, 2014


Here we go!
http://scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2566&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=14110

Notices of Complaint: Rangers FC and Michael Ashley Monday, 15 December 2014

The Compliance Officer has issued the following Notices of Complaint:

Alleged Party in Breach: Rangers FC

Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached:

Disciplinary Rule 1: All members shall:
(B) be subject to and comply with (i) the Articles (ii) this protocol.
(f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith.

Disciplinary Rule 19: Except with the prior written consent of the Board: (a) no club or nominee of a club; and (B) no person, whether absolutely or as a trustee, either alone or in conjunction with one or more associates or solely through an associate or associates (even where such person has no formal interest), who: (i) is a member of a club; or (ii) is involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of a club, or (iii) has any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration or a club, may at the same time either directly or indirectly:- (a) be a member of another club; or (B) be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of another club; or © have any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of another club.

Disciplinary Rule 77: A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player, match official or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times, act in the best interests of Association Football.

Principal Hearing date: Tuesday, 27th January 2015

Alleged Party in Breach: Michael Ashley

Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached:

Disciplinary Rule 19: Except with the prior written consent of the Board: (a) no club or nominee of a club; and (B) no person, whether absolutely or as a trustee, either alone or in conjunction with one or more associates or solely through an associate or associates (even where such person has no formal interest), who: (i) is a member of a club; or (ii) is involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of a club, or (iii) has any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration or a club, may at the same time either directly or indirectly:- (a) be a member of another club; or (B) be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of another club; or © have any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of another club.

Disciplinary Rule 77: A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player, match official or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times, act in the best interests of Association Football.

Principal Hearing date: Tuesday, 27th January 2015

View Comment

Avatar

CastofthousandsPosted on5:15 pm - Dec 15, 2014


stifflersmom says:
December 15, 2014 at 3:00 pm

“You may recall him campaigning on editions of Newsnight (circa June 2012) for the SPL clubs to vote them ‘back in’…..”
——————————–
Having over the years divested myself of all forms of media intrusion I hadn’t seen that article before.

It is clear that Armageddon was being forewarned. In the event this was a false dawn and that indeed for many teams the absence of Rangers from the upper league echelons has led to a halcyon resurgence of competitiveness and a focusing of commercial outlook to achieve long term viability. Given the unlikelihood of such a turnaround being achievable in such a tight timescale it is great credit to the clubs concerned that they have been able to successfully negotiate these difficulties.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on5:18 pm - Dec 15, 2014


@easy & @Martin

I’m guessing this course of action is something they have tried to avoid like the plague.

View Comment

Avatar

y4rmyPosted on5:23 pm - Dec 15, 2014


Blimey 😯 Has Stewart Regan grown a pair before exiting stage left?

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on5:29 pm - Dec 15, 2014


While the SMSM were telling us a few short weeks ago Ashley would be investing £20-30M, they were also telling us Ashley will stick two fingers up at the SFA if they dare to hold him to account. Seems very simple according to them, and furthermore they seemed very content with the prospect of that scenario.

Interesting times ahead.

View Comment

Avatar

erniePosted on5:31 pm - Dec 15, 2014


y4rmy says:
December 15, 2014 at 5:23 pm
3 0 Rate This

Blimey 😯 Has Stewart Regan grown a pair before exiting stage left?
===================
Or is it the case that they have to call it in so that they can ok it? (When did I become so cynical? Rhetorical question btw.)

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on5:34 pm - Dec 15, 2014


easyJambo says:
December 15, 2014 at 5:07 pm

Well knock me down with a feather ❗

AJ you ain’t having us on ru?

View Comment

Avatar

CastofthousandsPosted on5:37 pm - Dec 15, 2014


Allyjambo says:
December 15, 2014 at 3:17 pm

“Back to the car analogy; could he just be keeping it going to sell off as spare parts?”
————————————-
I’ve been following the contributions concerning Mr. Ashley’s possible intentions but have felt ill qualified add my own perspective until your useful analogy surfaced.

When working in engineering asset management there tended to be two main strategies :

1. Keep everything well maintained and sell the asset on when it starts to show signs of degradation. The management costs just become too substantial otherwise.

2. Invest in ailing assets nearing the end of their useful life and sweat them for their worth. The initial outlay is not significant. Maintenance is the real issue so there is a constant juggling of priorities to ensure a minimum money is spent to maximum effect. Safety conscious regulatory authorities will often be the main issue since a rusting hulk held together with sticky tape presents a real hazard. Therefore any assistance that can be gained on the regulatory side is invaluable.

Apparently Mr. Ashley’s right hand man was seen wandering through the Scotland team hotel recently accompanied by Brian Stockbridge. Helpfully there was a citizen journalist on hand to capture just enough video of this phenomenon to make it substantive.

Like the rest of youse, I’ve limited idea what Mr. Ashley’s plans are but I recognise that acquiring an ailing asset would usually lead to one of two primary courses of action. It should rapidly become clear whether the former strategy is being embarked upon.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on5:44 pm - Dec 15, 2014


I’ve got a lot of time for the German Chancellor (unlike the Scottish Chancer) so this from Phil’s latest puts things in context:

As it stands it is undeniable that the admirable Alistair is currently being paid more than the combined salaries of President Obama, Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Cameron

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-admirable-alistair/#more-5465

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on5:51 pm - Dec 15, 2014


Not wanting to sound old firm centric but you would have to question the timing of the SFA inquiry too Shirley?

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on5:55 pm - Dec 15, 2014


GoosyGoosy says:
December 15, 2014 at 4:43 pm

Eventually the fans will turn on Ashley and hit him where it hurts
Glasgow folk aren`t Geordies and won`t behave like them.
================================================================
I love Geordies and I know you’re not having a go at them.

But you’re right: Us weegies are a thrawn bunch and not only capable of cutting our nose off to spite our face but do it without giving it a second thought.

When you add the other components into the mix that have been swirling around Ibrox for the last couple of years then the stage is set for: Tank Commander – The Fightback.

This could be a real test of how good a businessman Ashley actually is or indeed how obsessive he is. If he starts wasting time on Rangers then he isn’t the businessman I thought he was. Wasting money means nothing to Ashley or his European ambitions as he’s got plenty.

But if he wastes time and energy on an Ibrox street fight then he could face and lose a never-ending war of attrition despite his initially successful blitzkrieg.

Doesn’t he know there are 500 million overseas combatants just itching to defend the Govan HQ. This truly could get interesting!

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on6:02 pm - Dec 15, 2014


I remember that the SPL tried to do Hearts for not acting with the “utmost good faith” regarding unpaid wages. I also seem to remember that Chick Young reported that Hearts would be docked 8 points as a result.

Neither actually came to pass as the SPL dropped the action.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on6:03 pm - Dec 15, 2014


As it stands it is undeniable that the admirable Alistair is currently being paid more than the combined salaries of President Obama, Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Cameron

Yea but they’re only facing Putin and ISIS – McCoist is facing Tank Commander – the man never previously defeated who wants to put the shirt up Europe 😆

View Comment

yakutsuki

yakutsukiPosted on6:11 pm - Dec 15, 2014


Jake Cantona says:
December 15, 2014 at 1:35 pm

23

0

Rate This

Slightly OT, but an interesting read here on Newcastle United under Ashley:

https://www.theblizzard.co.uk/articles/the-great-betrayal/
=====================================================================

Very profound article indeed. Fans spelling out just how it felt to be part
of the NUFC/Geordie family, what attracted them to the club, what drew them back and, what it feels like now.

Jeezo, it seems that club has had it’s very soul ripped out! It’s impossible to read without thinking of how it would feel if your own club was in that position. Adverts for parasitical moneylenders emblozoned over the chest of the famous strip and the stadium being turned into one giant advert for cheap, nasty products.

Really feel for those guys. Hope they get their club back some day.

View Comment

Avatar

Jake CantonaPosted on6:22 pm - Dec 15, 2014


easyJambo says:
December 15, 2014 at 5:07 pm

Here we go!
http://scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2566&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=14110

————————-

1. The SFA are responsible for the administration of football in Scotland.
2. The alleged breaches outlined make no mention of football clubs without Scotland
3. Newcastle United are an English football club.

Have I missed anything? Because from my reading of the disciplinary rules allegedly breached (and specifically rule 19) they all appear to be framed to refer to clubs under SFA jurisdiction, and there is no specific mention of ‘foreign’ clubs.

View Comment

Avatar

MartinPosted on6:30 pm - Dec 15, 2014


Jake Cantona says:
December 15, 2014 at 6:22 pm

Under the SFA articles in the section covering dual interest in Clubs. Club is defined as:

“club” means any club in membership of the Scottish FA and any club in
membership of an association in membership of UEFA and/or FIFA;

View Comment

Avatar

Jake CantonaPosted on6:35 pm - Dec 15, 2014


Martin says:
December 15, 2014 at 6:30 pm

—————-

Yes, thank you. Just found that, but hadn’t thought to look there first.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on6:40 pm - Dec 15, 2014


Disciplinary Rule 77: A recognised football body, club, official, Team Official, other member of Team Staff, player, match official or other person under the jurisdiction of the Scottish FA shall, at all times, act in the best interests of Association Football.

Wrt to the SFA allegations against Ashley does Rule 77 stand on its own and we just don’t know the detail of any acts not in the ‘best interests’ of Scottish Football. Or is it simply linked to the alleged breach of Disciplinary Rule 19 viz:

Except with the prior written consent of the Board: (a) no club or nominee of a club; and (B) no person, whether absolutely or as a trustee, either alone or in conjunction with one or more associates or solely through an associate or associates (even where such person has no formal interest), who: (i) is a member of a club; or (ii) is involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of a club, or (iii) has any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration or a club, may at the same time either directly or indirectly:- (a) be a member of another club; or (B) be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of another club; or © have any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of another club.

View Comment

Avatar

HamerdoonPosted on6:41 pm - Dec 15, 2014


GoosyGoosy says:

December 15, 2014 at 4:43 pm

Do you know GoosyGoosy, as I become ever more cynical about all sort of things, I think you might be on to something here. Mr McCoist forwards his intention to leave (but not yet gone) in 12 months and the media report it’s D-day for him on Wednesday coming. On the preceding Monday the SFA take action against Mr Ashley……….who would have thunk it, eh? 😈 I appreciate that Rangers are included in the notice of complaint, but we all know it’s not Rangers who are the real subject of the complaint, do we….? 😯

I’m just exhausted having to continually change my ontological view of football in Scotland, when and where will it end? Yip……….exhausted.

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on6:44 pm - Dec 15, 2014


Any doubters of Phil`s “sources”, should consider the reference he makes in his latest blog re MrMcoist`s resignation letter. It was handwritten.

View Comment

Comments are closed.