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.
Madbhoy24941 says:
November 19, 2014 at 11:47 am
I do not quite understand where DK is going with this one and that is not me being flippant, I genuinely don’t get it.
=================
I’m glad it’s not just me, then. What on earth is King talking about? King’s logic leaves me struggling. What would Ashley and Co do that would destroy this 140 year history? It seems to me that King’s boycott call is the most likely way that the club would be destroyed. Ashley, if he still hangs around once he is informed that what is under the bonnet is a write-off, will have “Rangers” run as a tight and efficient business. Perhaps what King is saying is that a tight business is not “the Rangers way”, so TRFC would then lose the right to claim the glorious history?
So far as I can discern it, King’s masterplan is to drive TRFC into liquidation, pick up its assets in a fire sale, then start again with Rangers3. But even in a liquidation sale, how can King be sure that he will get the assets? Ashley might have something to say about that, and there could be others.
I have serious doubts about King’s business acumen (and yes, I know, he’s got a lot more money than me) which first arose with his laughable scheme to ring fence the ST money and drip feed it to the Board. That was one of the stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard from an allegedly astute businessman.
I certainly can’t see King beating Ashley at any game of stare eyes over the ownership of “Rangers”. If Ashley wants it, he’ll get it -and cheap. If Ashley doesn’t want it, then we can look forward to a good old fashioned public roup on the pavement outside Ibrox.
Helicopter view of the options facing Rangers :
1. No more distressed loans from mugs , current shareholders with Administration to follow. Manager and coaching team sacked , replaced by Stuart McCall. All players wages reduced to £1k per week. Murray Park mothballed.
2. Bears listen to Dave King and boycott in sufficient numbers to hasten 1 above.
3. MASH fund the club through to the end of the year.
4. There is a revolution and the only way out is to start again ( the Hampden option)
You would be mad to predict which way the dice will fall, anyway my bet is option 3 as I believe that Mr Ashley, whilst looking to incessantly make money by some fairly despicable means ( 17,000 out of 20,000 workers on zero hours) , he is at least several rungs up the rip-off capitalist ladder than the shady rascals in charge at Ibrox, and is looking to get their noses out the trough.
I believe that the Hampden option is fanciful , seems to me they have several cards in the locker , sell Murray Park , players wages and the like before they will ever contemplate getting out if Ibrox.
neepheid says:
November 19, 2014 at 12:26 pm
The attitude of the “Rangers Big Men” all the way through has been unbelievable. They genuinely believe that they should have been handed Rangers at at a peppercorn price, simply because they are the true custodian of the Rangers Ethos. Its an attitude more reminiscent of some bizarre cult, than what would one would expect from hardnosed businessmen.
No matter how many times reality has booted them in Blue Room, they keep chanting the mantra. Gollum did, in the end, retrieve His precious, but, he didn’t get long to enjoy it, before being consumed in the fires. 😀
Ecobhoy says
November 19. 2014 @ 1221.pm
I agree with that. Those in “charge”, ie the signatories to the 5 way agreement surely learned something over the last two years !!
The lesson must be that there are others involved in Scottish football who have to be considered.
So many Junior clubs, for example, now compete in the Scottish Cup. Will they (amongst others) be prepared this time to roll over and die?’
If TRFC fold, the space they occupy in the SPFL should be reallocated to the next club genuinely in line.
The suggestion that any new version of TRFC plays out of Hampden, simply indicates that nothing has changed in the outlook of those who have led the club to the point of disaster it now faces.
Any new club, in my view, must examine the circumstances, and progress made by clubs like ACC Wimbledon, and realise they will have to be able to walk, before they can run.
That Dave King ‘response’ is an absolute belter. Is it just me, or has he given up even trying to softsoap his followers, and has just resorted to ‘THIS is just how thick as s*** I think you lot are’?
140 years of history – check! Except, surely if the celestial being of a club hadn’t died, it would have to be 141/2 years by now, or is he not counting the ‘Big Yorkshire Hands’ years? Is it like one of these insects in the artic that freezes solid, and then comes back to life sometime down the line?
As pointed out by another poster above, what would so different about what MA was up to this time that the ethereal Rangers FC would cease to be? If liquidation couldn’t kill it, I can’t really think of what else could, other than MA having copyright over the name and crest rights, and refusing to allow them to be used.
However, my absolute favourite bit was King’s contention that he had the money and backers, and would have let the board have proof on both counts ………. once the offer was accepted. Seriously? That’s how they operate in the world of big business, is it? If I went into a garage and went ‘I want that gleaming new Porsche.’, I’m sure the salesperson would be quite happy to hand it over to me on the understanding that I’d show him I had the money for it once I had driven it out the show room with my name on the V5.
There’s been a few bonkers, mental statements associated with the goings on at Ibrox over the past few years, but surely even the most blinded of King’s followers would have to think ‘Whoa, hang on a second.’ after today’s?
Bawsman says:
November 19, 2014 at 9:32 am
“Rangers takeover by Green is probed by policeMartin Williams
Senior News Reporter.”
—————————–
In amongst a detailed article of the general type that we have been crying out for, there appears this little piece of mantra:
“…the company appointed administrators after the Rangers operating company fell into insolvency under the reign of Whyte…”.
I’ve never been that hung up on the OCNC debate but here amid all the hubbub of the latest drama the party line is being adhered to firm and strong. Any obsessiveness claimed to reside with ‘Rangers haters’ seems to be well met by the SMSM. The need for brand continuity requires that irrespective of the backdrop, the ‘Operating/Holding Company’ incantation must be repeated at every turn.
Then there is the comment:
“Whyte continues to claim he was the man behind the Sevco 5088 consortium that bought the liquidated assets of Rangers and that front man Mr Green was in cahoots with him.”
With Whyte indicating that he would return to defend his claim this opened up the prospect of the full machinations being laid bare. Then…
————————-
easyJambo says:
November 19, 2014 at 10:52 am
“I think that the Herald needs to get up to date with the status of Craig Whyte’s claim against TRFC.”
——————————-
…and went on to illustrate why Whyte may no longer be the claimant in any such controversy. Having lost touch with that level of detail I was grateful to find myself better informed.
AmFearLiathMòr
Doesn’t need your Porsche example. Apparently there’s a much more recent case involving somebody buying, of all things, a football club. Turns out they said they had the cash, but you’ll never guess what…. So the lesson you would think would be never sell on trust in case you get duped, or is the rule different for self made billionaires 😉 from Castlemilk?
Belated thanks to Cast of Thousands for the link to the RIFC share prospectus. I work shifts. The bit that creased me at the time was the section detailing revenues available in the Champions League group stages. Much of the rest now rivals it, with the benefit of our old pal, hindsight. Comforting to know it has become essential reading for others much brainier than I.
So Phil’s latest prompts a new concern on SFA thinking.
We’ve had a possible league reconstruction because it is suddenly obvious really why we need a 16 team top tier??
But what if the future event is another liquidation, what then? Until 2012 we all knew what happened if a club was liquidated. The end. Goodbye Third Lanark, goodbye Gretna, hello Gretna 2008.
But in 2012 that had to change. Because we faced ARMAGEDDON!! A new club but the same club, a soul transplant with continuity in the top flight magically preserved. Until No to Newco and admission to the fourth tier.
Is this a warning that liquidation this time will see, remarkably, another magical soul transpant, to preserve the team in the second tier of Scottish Football because lets face it, otherwise we could face ANARCHY or APOCALYPSE or something even worse beginning with A?! They’ve suffered enough, surely no one could kick them again when they are down?
I’d like to think Phil’s sources are wrong for once. But with the same old guard in charge, who knows? Recent comments by Gordon Strachan concerning “manipulating change” to get the right teams to where they belonged maybe involved an element of kite flying?
Perhaps a new SFA rule is required, that the just treatment for a club spending more than it can afford depends on its name? At least then we know the rules are being applied!
Obvious questions re Phil’s speculation
Could Newcopropertythatmayyormaynotbeking Ltd guarantee they could get the property assets in the fire-sale? Bear in mind Ashley would own the car park and Edmiston House by virtue of his security but I’m sure he’d be amiable to a deal!
Who would finance Football Rangers Club Ltd (I forget who came up with that name to save changing the gates but it made me laugh) during their period of exile however long, or short?
Presumably Ashley would retain the image rights/branding even through the liquidation? Would he feel any compunction to come out of this with anything else?
This would be a pretty high risk move just now if the previous RIFC purchase was to be unravelled? I can see why you would go ahead with it to help provide a clean slate from all of the above, but the Football Rangers Club Ltd will need money to operate, just like the old model. Who would stump up in the meantime?
ianagain says:
November 19, 2014 at 1:01 am
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/02/17/charlotte-fakes-material-ruled-admissible-28m-oldco-rangers-trial
—————————-
As BDO appear to have obtained an out of court settlement from Collyer Bristow’s insurers, will this case, scheduled for January 2015, now be overtaken by events? I know you were so looking forward to the proceedings, like a child waiting for Christmas it seemed to me; but it seems the reindeer may have been pulled up short.
You might wish to speculate that this settlement coupled with the current criminal proceedings in Scotland acts as a judicial gag on discussion of many matters we have found interesting but I couldn’t possibly comment.
I do wonder however how any potential contempt of court action might play out. The shenanigans are intentionally complex so unless any jury members were TSFM acolytes, I suspect they would be oblivious to any influence that such information and discussions might have upon them. Had it not been for EJ’s intervention earlier I too might have been swept up in the Whyte Sevco 5088 claim line that the Glasgow Herald was hawking in today’s piece.
I suspect that if due subtlety is employed and allusion created rather than straight forward assertion, much conversation might be transacted without anyone beyond the walls of TSFM ever being entirely sure what was being said. There is a litany of in jokes that appear on the blog (no laughing at the back) that suggests to me that a subtle narrative might yet be sustained if all participants tread carefully and lightly.
Smugas says:
November 19, 2014 at 2:38 pm
Which is why I give the “contingent liability” wrt to RIFC properties some credence. There are, undeniably, high impact Operational Risks around RIFC, arising from more than one direction. How likely they are to come to fruition, is the question. It will be interesting to see how these Operational Risks are treated in the accounts, if/when they are produced .
Madbhoy24941 says:
November 19, 2014 at 11:47 am
18 0 Rate This
Mr King added:
“I truly hope that those fans that continue to blindly support the club (for the right reasons) finally realise that 140 years of the club’s history will be irretrievably lost unless they withhold their financial support for the current regime at matchdays and the retail outlets.”
————————
I do not quite understand where DK is going with this one and that is not me being flippant, I genuinely don’t get it.
Rangers Football Club went into and are still going through the process of Liquidation, during that process they changed name. As far as the fans, SMSM and Footballing Authorities are concerned, the team in Blue, playing out of Ibrox and calling themselves Rangers, have assumed the mantle which includes the 140 year history.
So exactly what will have to happen for that 140-year history to end in 2014?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Liquidation may trigger the revelation that the IP rights of RFC are not part of the assets of TRFC and never have been
Because
These IP rights belong to Green. TRFC are only able to use them as long as Green permits them to do so.
The implication is that no new football clumpany could claim the history of RFC without doing a deal with Green
GoosyGoosy says:
November 19, 2014 at 2:52 pm
Extract from
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/the-death-of-rangers-fc-guest-post-by-johnbhoy/
Listed below are the assets of Rangers FC Plc bought by Charles Green:
Assets Price
Goodwill £1
SPL Share £1
SFA Membership £1
Leasehold Interests £1
Player Contracts & Registrations £2,749,990
Stock £1
Plant & Machinery £1,250,000
There has been an attempt to conflate a company’s goodwill with ownership of its historical timeline. HMRC define goodwill as “the value of the attraction to the customers which the name and reputation possesses”. The value of purchasing Ibrox stadium and playing in the same colours as the old club, given the record of achievement of the old Rangers FC, was obvious to Charles Green, but equating goodwill to ownership of Rangers FC and its historical timeline is an incredulous sleight of hand that flies against both the common sense definition of goodwill and the concrete clarity of insolvency law.
==================================================================================
November 19, 2014 at 10:05 am
13
0
Rate This
you can equally understand HMRC’s response telling them to do one and pay up sharpish.
===========
You were bang on right up to the above point.
Paying up sharpish only started when HMRC realised that ( gasp) they too were being duped.
Auldheid says:
November 19, 2014 at 3:11 pm
never, in the annals of Scottish Business, have so many, been duped, by so few
Can you expand auldheid for those of us with failing memories?
Do you mean duped with regards to the PAYE and VAT? Shirley they had sufficient cause to chase the WTC settlement on its own? In fact was that not the original sheriffs officers raid which then gave rise to the licence issue?
It all seems so long ago!
On the face of it, of course a governing body should be in discussions with any senior club which is facing financial distress. The SFA should have informal discussions so there are no surprises and – within the rules – to see if the SFA can legitimately help.
However, as we have seen with TRFC and the secret deals and special treatment, no reasonable person would trust the SFA to ‘do the right thing’ this time around in the event of perhaps a liquidation at TRFC.
Best case for a TRFC2 is placement into the bottom division, as per the TRFC favour.
[But that would still be unfair to Spartans etc.]
Would the SFA/SPFL be brazen enough to try to slot a TRFC2 directly into the SPL or Championship ?
StevieBC says:
November 19, 2014 at 3:46 pm
Would the SFA/SPFL be brazen enough to try to slot a TRFC2 directly into the SPL or Championship ?
============
Yes
been thinking about admin/liquidation scenarios. a liquidation of RIFC does not necessarily mean a liquidation of TRFC. TRFC have the license. TRFC could be sold on to a buyer as an asset (i know, stop laughing at the back).
The other thing to consider in a liquidation is what information might come out that some parties want to keep hidden. It would be far easier for all concerned to have a friendly administrator who won’t ask the wrong questions or pull at the wrong threads.
In any scenario, i can’t see them wanting to go through the hassle again with regard to which league they will be in. I don’t think they anticipated the level of outrage last time. If there is league reconstruction talk, i think it will come from elsewhere first – see the recent pr offensive for 16 team league.
King is clearly posturing to pick up the assets after an insolvency event of some kind and has been for a while.
What Ashley is now thinking……..who knows? i can’t see him ponying up enough cash to get them to the end of the season. there’s nothing there worth having for that kind of money.
Castofthousands says:
November 19, 2014 at 2:44 pm
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/02/17/charlotte-fakes-material-ruled-admissible-28m-oldco-rangers-trial
—————————-
As BDO appear to have obtained an out of court settlement from Collyer Bristow’s insurers, will this case, scheduled for January 2015, now be overtaken by events?
——————————-
CoT
The short answer, I believe, is no.
There are two separate disputes which somehow became conflated into one court action.
The first is the action for damages by BDO/oldco against Collyer Bristow. This now seems to be subject of an out of court settlement.
The second is a multi-party dispute over the residue of monies in the CB client account which apparently was the financing conduit for the Wavetower acquisition. These monies, amounting to £3.6m, have been transferred by court order to the safekeeping of solicitors Taylor Wessing.
Worthington is a sleepy old northern manufacturing company which fell on distressed times. It eventually came under the control of a group of businessmen with multiple documented links with Craig Whyte.
Worthington’s pension fund is operated through a subsidiary, Jerome. Part of the fund’s assets consisted of £3m in low risk, low yield bonds. Late in 2010, the trustees of the fund (whose identity is not clear) decided to liquidate these bonds in order to pursue “an exceptional investment opportunity”.
This opportunity seems to have been participation in the purchase of RFC by Wavetower. It hardly needs to be said that an investment of this type is unusual for a pension fund primarily concerned with stable, long-term income.
Those claiming dibs on the CB monies include BDO/oldco, HMRC, Jerome and possibly Merchant Turnaround. It remains to be seen whether the court case still goes ahead.
Disclaimer
The above seeks to be a summary of previously published information, which includes reports of court proceedings in national/ trade press and releases by Worthington group.
Good summary SouthernExile.
This one really intrigues me as i work in corporate pensions myself.
The trustees of the scheme are almost certainly heading for some trouble in my opinion. They have blatantly failed in their duty to represent the interests of the scheme members.
Bawsman says:
November 19, 2014 at 9:32 am
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/rangers-takeover-by-green-is-probed-by-police.25910886
Rangers takeover by Green is probed by policeMartin Williams
Senior News Reporter.
Wednesday 19 November 2014 POLICE are investigating the circumstances surrounding Charles Green’s takeover of Rangers.
___________________________________________________________
Charles Green has a straightforward defence. There was no takeover of Rangers…..
Morecelticparanoia,
I think it speaks volumes that you could have chosen any of the available emoticons to support that post at 4.50pm with each being appropriate to varying degrees!
Bawsman
Charles Green has a straightforward defence. There was no takeover of Rangers…..
======================
The continuity issue has been based on the idea that the club is separate from the holding company and can exist if the holding company goes bust.
How UEFA define a club is in Article 12 of FFP
Chapter 2: Licence Applicant and Licence
Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant
1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions which either:
a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league (hereinafter: registered member); or
b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football company)
Although MIH had shares in RFC and so could be described as a holding company and RFC treated as a subsidiary, was MIH fully responsible for the football team at any time or did a contract exist between MIH and RFC that constituted the legal entity that was viewed by UEFA as a football club?
Going back to when Lawrence Builders (Lawrence Marlborough) “owned” RFC, presumably in shares, did a contractual relationship exist between the builders and RFC and were the builders fully responsible for RFC?
Fully responsible to me means operating the club as a business.
My point is that whilst MIH may have held the majority shares they were not fully responsible for the running of RFC which makes RFC a legal entity on its own.
However when CG purchased the assets he set up RIFC which is fully responsible for the football team playing in national and international competitions. Thus whilst an operating/holding company structure existed post sale to CG, it never existed before then.
That means that what is now TRFC could be passed on under UEFA definition to preserve continuity from 2012, but that RFC definitely as a club under UEFA definition came to an end in 2012.
This is my reading of Article 12 and I may have got it wrong but if I am correct then there is a basis for TRFC being passed on (if another liquidation happens) but none whatsoever for claiming any continuity from RFC, the “holding company” idea not being of itself sufficient to fully meet UEFA criteria for what they define a football club to be.
GoosyGoosy says:
November 19, 2014 at 2:52 pm
Liquidation may trigger the revelation that the IP rights of RFC are not part of the assets of TRFC and never have been because these IP rights belong to Green. TRFC are only able to use them as long as Green permits them to do so.
========================================
The problem I have with this is that all bar one of the traditional Rangers’ trade marks, I am aware of, are registered in the UK official government trade mark register as being owned by TRFCL with Rangers Retail Ltd – the joint venture company between Rangers and Sportsdirect – holding an exclusive licence for their use.
OK it could be argued that this is some kind of sleight of hand but all of the trade marks have an IPO agent in place whose name and address is given as well as a licence representative who is similarly identified.
I would imagine that both of these would have some kind of responsibility to ensure the trade mark register details are accurate.
StevieBC says:
November 19, 2014 at 3:46 pm
6 0 Rate This
———–
Very dangerous precedent, though. TRFC divorces from shipwrecked RIFC financing company; continues, having accrued points in triumphalist wins to leap-frog every other team living within its means. If that’s not financial doping, then the SFA and SPFL must ask themselves what is. Every other team can do the same — but they wouldn’t. There are not that many real cheats in sport.
The unholy Sevco mess may be coming back to haunt the SFA. Illegitimate, then, now, forever. I heard the former SFA high heid yin GS on radio yesterday talking about the need for transparency at FIFA — secret 5-way closer to home not mentioned.
I really don’t expect Phil to get an answer to his questions.
The reason is simple; they would be actively working against a member club!
Remember TRFC have the license and that cannot be transferred without their permission as far as I know.
If news of these discussions were revealed the share price would collapse because investors would know that the next incarnation has already been accepted by the governing body. By even entering into dialogue with an entity that does not have a license is surely beyond even the incompetence of the SFA.
I also think that every club needs to specify where they will play their matches every year to obtain a license and that they must have their own ground. It is acceptable to move while your ground is being upgraded but this new club would not have a ground.
So the new, new entity would have to buy a ground while at the same time paying rent for the current one. If it does not purchase Ibrox then it stands to reason they will have to build a whole new stadium. Good luck with that.
I think there are a few people of a mind that if Ibrox closes it will simply never re-open due to start up costs.
The new owners would also have to fund the on going monthly losses and be prepared to do so for at least three years before they enter the top league.
I have posted before that to attempt to foist a new team, giving them the points of a club that has been liquidated, into the current Championship would cause enormous ructions.
To attempt to install a club with no license into the top league, while the other club refuse to release it, would be even more farcical. To attempt to foist a new entity into the top league with all of the above would cause another revolt from the fans of every other club.
Now it could be that the club will simply be sold.
This means on going losses will have to be paid and Ibrox rented. I do not even think the cost of renting Murray Park could be afforded in such a scenario.
This would be the final hollowing out of the carcass but I don’t think “The Real Rangers Men” would be willing to pay this price.
“Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee”
So, i think its a serious question….(haha)….if there is a Third Rangers, which history would they claim?
If its the old oldco, then there’s more to claim but no current-ish league place or points so nowhere to be relegated from if you see what I mean, and no current end point to start from. What is the status of an argument to UEFA for example for accounts, history? blah blah blah.
If its the now old newco, then there’s also the question of how many histories does it have? Some differing opinions there, but at least there’s a position to work from in terms of points deductions, starting points for the new newco, etc.
The history of the old newco may not a particularly wonderful one also given current possible legal and financial credibility and respectability, but its maybe less laughable than claiming the history (broken timeline included) of a really dead club, and which involves denying the existence of the new oldco or the old newco that has up till now been accepted by many as the old oldco as well as the old newco (if there is indeed to be a new newco)
– Now I’M confused.
Some questions for the potential new newco, fans, authorities and other clubs to ponder.
Haha
Smugas says:
November 19, 2014 at 3:19 pm
HMRC’S responsibility was to get the wtc bill paid.
They had no responsibility to see UEFA FFP rules observed.
Let’s just say if they had acted sharpish, the liability being admitted in late March 2011, then it would have been a lot harder to convince anyone that an overdue payable did not exist at 30th June.
It was what happened in July after the bill had landed that prompted HMRC action in August.
This is Res12 territory and it might be possible to add more after AGM.
A lot more could have been added but recent events require caution.
Justshattered
Having a licence and having membership are two different things.
I’ll copy over a recent post from CQN making the distinction.
This does NOT invalidate your point but I think you mean membership rather than licence.
Chancery Court Rolls for tomorrow
COURT 6
Before MR JUSTICE NEWEY
Thursday, 20 November 2014
At half past 10
INTERIM HEARINGS LIST
HC12F03282 Ticketus LLP & anr v Whyte & ors
If he turns up I assume he will be arrested in connection with another matter. This case may explain his willingness to return to the UK as reported yesterday.
Justshattered
Found the CQN post
auldheid
18:44 on 18 November, 2014
For avoidance of doubt
A licence is granted annually on reaching a certain level against different sets of criteria. Ground, Player Development, Financial stability.Standards go from Entry to Gold and Silver in each category.
A membership of the SFA is a one off granting that stays with a club as long as it’s in business. It is dependent on meeting criteria the SFA have not specified but promise to promulgate from time to time.
The SFA used a discretionary clause in Article 14 that
wait for it
PROHIBITS transfer of SFA membership to actually transfer RFC ‘ S membership to TRFC for what I assume were commercial reason as an alternative was available but would have same club myth impossible..
Membership is not conditional on meeting licensing criteria and as long as the lowest level of licence can be achieved clubs are not stopped from playing although there is provision to withdraw a licence.
You would think that meant a club could not play but in Through The Looking Glass SFA La La land nothing is as it seems.
Grant Russell @STVGrant 4m4 minutes ago
Rangers football board chairman Sandy Easdale issues a statement through his PR man. “I have grown tired of Mr [Dave] King’s antics.”
Easdale: “I can only conclude that Mr King’s phantom bid was designed as vehicle for self-promotion of some kind.”
Easdale: “For a bid to be rejected it has to be received first.”
Grant Russell @STVGrant · 1m 1 minute ago
Easdale: “For a bid to be rejected it has to be received first.”
0 replies . 2 retweets 1 favourite
Reply Retweet2 Favourite1
More
Grant Russell @STVGrant · 1m 1 minute ago
Easdale: “I can only conclude that Mr King’s phantom bid was designed as vehicle for self-promotion of some kind.”
0 replies . 3 retweets 3 favourites
Reply Retweet3 Favourite3
More
Grant Russell @STVGrant · 4m 4 minutes ago
Rangers football board chairman Sandy Easdale issues a statement through his PR man. “I have grown tired of Mr [Dave] King’s antics.”
Ref the Holding Co.
My understanding is that Murray Sports ( now in liquidation ) held the equity in Rangers. There is a note in the Murray Sports accounts for 2010 which states that Murray Sports has no influence over Rangers , as Rangers are a subsidiary of Murray International Holdings . So thats clear enough.
Shareholders in Murray Sports included Dave King , Alistair Johnston and Trevor Hemmings who owns Preston North End , as well as Murray. Murray Sports owed £60 million to Murray MHL , who are owned by MIH , who in turn owed the £60 million to Lloyds ( as part of the nearly £1 Billion they owed at one time)
When the equity was sold to Whyte for £1 , there was no other assets in Murray Sports to repay the £60 million and they were wound up
You wonder when the penny will drop with Sons of Struth and similar , that King is no saviour.
Mind you being found guilty of multiple criminal charges and being branded a glib and shameless liar by a high court judge , was a fairly big hint that King is toxic
Keith Jackson retweeting this….
David Somers yesterday rejected an offer that Sandy Easdale says didn’t exist.
Top fucking stuff, Rangers!
Barcabhoy says:
November 19, 2014 at 7:13 pm
You wonder when the penny will drop with Sons of Struth and similar , that King is no saviour.
Mind you being found guilty of multiple criminal charges and being branded a [..] by a high court judge , was a fairly big hint that King is toxic
___–
We can take it then SoS `and similar` are a bit misguided with DK `branded` and `toxic`
That`s clear, isn`t it
mr tp
Auldheid says:
November 19, 2014 at 6:50 pm
Thanks for that.
It is a reminder to me to use the correct terminology but looking at you comment:
“A licence is granted annually on reaching a certain level against different sets of criteria. Ground, Player Development, Financial stability. Standards go from Entry to Gold and Silver in each category.”
So the SFA talking to a new, new entity we would have the following results:
Ground – we might not have one but then again we might. Would have to rent Hampden but haven’t spoken to Queens Park. Result for SFA – PASS.
Player Development – Through our excellent Murray Park we will bring forward the internationalists of tomorrow……. although we might not have Murray Park because we can’t afford it. However we may still have the bloated over paid squad that the old club couldn’t afford. SFA result – PASS.
Financial stability – …….cough!! SFA result – PASS.
I take it that it is the all powerful, all discretionary SFA Board who would take this decision.
As a season ticket holder of another club, where do I sign up for that deal!!!!
The clubs don’t have to own their ground. They just need to have some sort of contract/agreement to play there. Dundee don’t own Dens Park, unless they have recently repurchased it. It was owned by one of the Directors of DUFC, I believe.
keith jackson @tedermeatballs 4m4 minutes ago
Brian Kennedy statement details his loan offer to RFC board…
1. A £3m facility for a period of 6 months from the date of drawdown.
2. 3% annual charge
3. Fixed security charge over Albion Car Park and Edmiston House
4. The board would endeavour in the future to extend this to security over Murray Park as they were unable to grant such at this time.
5. Ibrox to be protected in a trust or similar legal mechanism that would allow this asset to be used solely for RFC in whatever legal entity to play football in perpetuity.
6. Paul Murray to be appointed to the PLC main board for a period of 24 months.
7. A lightweight floating charge over all assets except Ibrox.
8. No qualifying floating charge to be granted to any other party.
9. In the event of administration the lender would have the right to appoint an administrator.
BK: I was informed by Mr Somers that the board had no objections to any of these terms.
BK: He later informed me that he had made the decision to go with Mr Ashley’s offer.
#4 seems to be a questionable one. It would suggest a further question of Why?
#9 confirms that administration is a real possibility
ecobhoy says:
November 19, 2014 at 5:42 pm
7 0 Rate This
GoosyGoosy says:
November 19, 2014 at 2:52 pm
Liquidation may trigger the revelation that the IP rights of RFC are not part of the assets of TRFC and never have been because these IP rights belong to Green. TRFC are only able to use them as long as Green permits them to do so.
========================================
The problem I have with this is that all bar one of the traditional Rangers’ trade marks, I am aware of, are registered in the UK official government trade mark register as being owned by TRFCL with Rangers Retail Ltd – the joint venture company between Rangers and Sportsdirect – holding an exclusive licence for their use.
OK it could be argued that this is some kind of sleight of hand but all of the trade marks have an IPO agent in place whose name and address is given as well as a licence representative who is similarly identified.
I would imagine that both of these would have some kind of responsibility to ensure the trade mark register details are accurate
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Understand the point you make
Where I am coming from is this
There was nothing to stop Green from defining IP in terms that allowed “history” to become a standalone element which he then bought. He could then “permit” TRFC to use the history only with his written agreement.
A similar ploy could have been done with Trademarks under which they can be registered as owned by TRFC but cannot be used commrcially without written permission from Green
Re last night’s friendly.
They didn’t show it on Swiss TV but if they had I would have found some dental extraction to do in any case.
Was wondering what the attendance was and how that compared with the match that mattered last Friday?
I have checked a few reports {BBC, Guardian, Scotsman} but have not managed to find the figure for attendance.
I continue to refuse to pay any of my hard-earned into the SFA’s coffers. As for International Friendlies do not get me started.
From Brian Kennedy’s statement-
4. The board would endeavour in the future to extend this to security over Murray Park as they were unable to grant such at this time.
Now that is very interesting indeed. Clearly the ownership of Murray Park (and Ibrox too? ) is not quite as clear cut as the IPO prospectus and subsequent accounts would have us believe. Perhaps some intrepid journalist will ask Somers what is it that stops them from registering a charge over Murray Park. Or probably not. The Sons of Struth will certainly be drawing the obvious conclusion. Where’s that Bomber Broon when you need him? 😯
#5 would suggest that consideration has been given to a Third Rangers
Was Walter Smith compensation paid to the SFA ?
==================================================
Re: the unaccounted for £400K in the SFA’s accounts, ‘received’ in 2007.
Update
– CashBack Programme [Inspiring Scotland] contacted
– Auditors BDO Stoy Hayward Audit Partner/Glasgow office contacted.
– English journalist approached
Will relay any responses/updates in due course.
[F.A.O. Darryl: this isn’t going away.]
Rangers properly re-constituted would work just fine and would be very welcomed IMO
mr tp
EJ
Agree re #5. Most telling word is “solely”
Who else would think they could use it?
“The second question for the consortium was ‘I know there are eight of you, I only know three of you. Can I please have the other five names?’…… Rangers chairman David Somers
Something the ibrox fans have been asking the board for a couple of years.Can we please have names, Yet David Somers and the board will not give the names behind Blue pitch and Margarita, 😕
I see a hack has lifted something I wrote last night and used it in an article today – my mention of Third Rangers FC.
I actually think it is probably just great minds thinking alike. (Hi Phil 😀 )
If CG does own the name/badge/history could he possibly be encouraged to enter Les Rangers in the French league?
French Football needs a strong Rangers. Please….
A little more info from the Beeb re Kennedy’s offer
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30123149
“The CEO of Rangers PLC approached me on 22 October 2014 asking whether I would be willing to provide a short-term loan,” Kennedy said.
George Letham, a Rangers fan and shareholder who has loaned the club money in the past, was to provide £1m of the £3m.
“The loan was designed to give the board of Rangers PLC the time to pursue Dave King’s offer and/or a new share issue in order to ensure long-term financial security,” Kennedy said.
“Furthermore, the appointment of Paul Murray would provide much-needed harmony between the board and the supporters. I was informed by Mr Somers that the board had no objections to any of these terms.
Dave king’s £16m AND/or a share issue and then weel be reet.
Don’t know how the rest of us manage. It seems the Sevco board don’t get out of bed for tranches of less than £20m
StevieBC says:
November 19, 2014 at 8:30 pm
Was Walter Smith compensation paid to the SFA ?
==================================================
For those with Twitter accounts – could you do me a favour please ?
Please tweet something like ;
“Did the SFA receive the £400K Walter Smith compensation ?”
and copy to all and sundry to retweet ?
The more people who are aware, the more chance we have of getting an answer…mibbes.
BB a bit shy of recent perhaps
Never mind, all positive stuff – to be sure
mr tp
cowanpete says:
November 19, 2014 at 8:19 pm
‘…Was wondering what the attendance was and how that compared with the match that mattered last Friday?’
———
The ‘Herald’ gives the attendance figure as 55,000 (which is what the commentary folk seemed to think as well).
Apology to all for last night’s rant. Whisky and keyboard now mutually exclusive.
This is from kumb a West Ham United web site ,sorry its abit long but seems to sum up in one go where this is all is at the moment Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)
Postby Wembley1966 on Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:44 pm
DaveWHU1964 wrote:
Wembley- from what you say it doesn’t sound like they can stave off another administration indefinitely? Are they in the words of one of their compatriots doooooomed?
The short answer – administration is a very very strong possibility. If they lose at Hearts on Saturday then it could happen quickly – they will be 9 points behind them and looking unlikely to win the Championship and automatic promotion – they won’t mind taking the hit on points docked.
The long answer:
It’s not straightforward as when the new club was set up by Charles Green after the previous club was liquidated there are 2 companies involved. The Rangers Football Club Ltd bought the assets from the administrators of the old The Rangers Football Club Plc. This is the operating entity which holds the license to play football and things such as the player registrations, employs all the staff and collects revenue from its football operations. The Rangers Football Club Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rangers International Plc which is the publicly listed company that was floated on AIM – and it is the holding company that people invested in – not the company operating the football club.
There is a great deal of obfuscation deliberately set about by the management and being ambiguous when referring to the Company and/or the Club. It is the holding company that has the shareholders, had the £20m+ from the IPO and the one that has to publish its accounts. It also has a considerable loss making subsidiary that owes it rather a lot of money. They could call that money in at any time – probably in the form of any assets that the subsidiary owns (Ibrox and the training ground) in lieu of cash, close down that subsidiary company and revert to being a property company. If that was in the best interests of the shareholders then there’s nothing to stop them – there’s only a small percentage of fans as shareholders.
Mike Ashley might want to keep the football side going so that he can sell more shirts, but would not keep on loaning the company money to enable it to continue. His investment so far has been to acquire 9% of the shares probably for under £2m. He was involved right at the start of the new organisation and invested originally in the subsidiary whose shares were converted to the holding company and would have been offered shares at a favourable rate as well as the merchandise deal. Subsequently he has only bought shares from existing shareholders, refusing recently to buy into the rights issues which would have seen the club get money for the shares. He has also loaned the company £2m secured against assets potentially worth more. If he decides he’s had enough and bails out he won’t be out of pocket – he’s had some nice income from merchandise and has security on his loans if they don’t get repaid. There doesn’t appear to be anyone prepared to invest – Ashley has very explicitly not invested anything since the new holding company was formed – he’s bought enough additional shares from existing shareholders to gain influence and now is only loaning them money. There’s very little other security to loan against – Ibrox and the training ground have a potential ownership issue over them. Why would he want to put any more money in if he’s not going to get any additional return. He’s seen a good return on his original investment that got him the favourable merchandise deal – he’s drip fed them some more money against security to keep them going a few more months – perhaps just enough to last over the Xmas shirt buying period. To keep them going to the end of the season is far too big an outlay for a small return.
Alternatively they could just liquidate the company and sell the assets to a Third Rangers. This is what Dave King wants – the ex Rangers director and shareholder who was convicted a year ago of tax evasion on 41 counts in South Africa and called a “glib and shameless liar” by the judge – he was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment on each count (82 years) – but avoided jail by paying £44m in fines instead! Seems as though not paying taxes is a quality of Rangers owners – and the SFA have refused to answer questions when asked whether he would be a ‘fit and proper’ person to be involved in the running of a football club. Dave King has repeatedly said that he will invest millions into the club – but when the time comes he never comes up with it. He has had plenty of opportunity to buy shares, but refused to do so saying he doesn’t want the money going to other existing shareholders. He was at the forefront of the season ticket boycott at the beginning of this season which has had an impact on Rangers revenues and yesterday urged fans to starve the club of cash by refusing to spend any money with them. He wants to force a liquidation and buy the assets on the cheap and set up a new company.
With so many parties involved – most of whom have no emotional attachment to Rangers, but see it as a source of money which is now starting to rapidly dry up – then anything could happen. Remember most of the shareholders are not people that you would want owing shares in a football club – Cayman Islands anonymous companies linked with Rafat Rizvi (wanted by Interpol for money laundering), Isle of Man hedge fund that specialises in extracting asset value from distressed companies, Sandy Easdale (jailed for 27 months in 1997 for a £1.5 million VAT fraud). The public war of words between them all has started – partly to try and distance themselves from the blame when it crashes again. What will not happen is continued support from any investors into an organisation that cannot live within its means – something Rangers has not be doing for 10+ years and being entirely dependent on Champions League revenues to break even. They’ll be no more ‘war chests’ and inflated salaries.
However – now the police are investigating the sale of the assets from the old company’s administrators and misrepresentation of the subsequent IPO prospectus and who actually owns what assets of the new company. Again Craig Whyte was involved – and the interesting thing is that he is probably one of the few people in this farce that has not made any money out of all the dodgy deals – and has a liability to Ticketus of £20m. He has formally stated that he is coming back to the UK to help the police with their enquiries following the warrant for his arrest at the weekend. He has nothing to lose – and he had the habit of secretly taping every conversation, meeting and phone call he was involved in and keeping copies of all emails and documents. Many of these recordings and documents have made their way on to the Internet, including one where the discussion continues in the toilet and you can hear them having a piss! You can be sure that there are many people very very concerned about what they may have said in his presence!
This is going to drag on for years and would probably get very messy. Expect to see a lot of backstabbing as people try to protect themselves and blame others – it’s already underway. There are many people in many organisations complicit in what has been allowed to happen. It goes back to when the Bank of Scotland happily loaned Murray International (the parent company of the old Rangers) and Rangers themselves, more and more money without any security. They were the bankers of most of the other Scottish clubs – encouraging them (do as we say or pay back your overdraft immediately) to spend a lot of money to upgrade their stadia – which needed steel supplied by Murray International.
You’d think that this would make a good film – that’s already been thought of – Craig Whyte has already sold 26% of the rights!
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/craig-whyte-sells-rangers-book-and-film-rights-1-2898764
“Those assets include the Book, Film and Television rights to the two takeovers of The Rangers Football Club in 2011 and 2012 as it relates to Craig Whyte.
“It is intended that these rights will be commercialised in due course.”
Craig Whyte purchased a debt-saddled Rangers from Sir David Murray in May 2011. Under Whyte’s stewardship, the club was placed under administration the following year in February.
The legal claim launched by Whyte contests a version of events given by Green that Sevco Scotland Limited purchased Rangers’ assets for £5.5m – Whyte claims this was done through another company, Sevco 5088 Limited, which Whyte insists he was in charge of.
More things come to light each day – however as people start to get formally charged then discussion on the alleged offences becomes muted as if they go to trial then it will be in front of a jury and contempt of court applies from the time of the charge – a jury should only consider the evidence presented in court and not influenced by comment outside.
I expect a Third Rangers to be formed – if the fans can accept living within their means and not blaming everyone else for their problems, then this time it might have a chance. They probably won’t be playing at Ibrox for a few years though.
Wembley1966
Posts: 2660
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:48 pm
ianagain says:
November 19, 2014 at 10:00 pm
Apology to all for last night’s rant. Whisky and keyboard now mutually exclusive.
======================================
We’ve all done it !
Waking up the morning after, feeling a bit sluggish – and then suddenly trying to remember what we typed the night before.
Don’t drink & type… 🙄
StevieBC says:
November 19, 2014 at 9:44 pm
_____________________________________
Done!
easyJambo says:
November 19, 2014 at 9:29 pm
” I was informed by Mr Somers that the board had no objections to any of these terms.”
=======================================
Of course not…the objections will have come from BPH/Margarita and their Easdale shaped glove puppet
“Furthermore, the appointment of Paul Murray would provide much-needed harmony between the board and the supporters. I was informed by Mr Somers that the board had no objections to any of these terms.”
Really, I rather think Mr Murray is far from universally popular with the fans. At this point in time, I don’t think a unifying figure exists. The various factions have done their work of exacerbating the splits among the fans far too well.
In any event, isn’t their something in the SFA/SPFL rules about directors of failed clubs, re-appearing?
StevieBC says:
November 19, 2014 at 9:44 pm
Done
scapaflow says:
November 19, 2014 at 10:16 pm
“Furthermore, the appointment of Paul Murray would provide much-needed harmony between the board and the supporters. I was informed by Mr Somers that the board had no objections to any of these terms.”
……………………..
Really, I rather think Mr Murray is far from universally popular with the fans. At this point in time, I don’t think a unifying figure exists.
…………………….
What about Neil Lennon ?
They were pretty unified about him
easyJambo says:
November 19, 2014 at 8:22 pm
‘#5 would suggest that consideration has been given to a Third Rangers’
—————-
And the same deceitful creatures in the SFA who authorised the bogus ‘2nd Rangers’ are no doubt already preparing to smooth the path for whichever bunch of entirely seedy,disreputable chancers, fraudsters and convicted South African criminals might emerge as triumphant scavengers for the choicest pieces of of the decaying flesh of another failed club .
We have to hope that the majority of club chairmen/owners/CEOs can again be made to remember where their bread is buttered and will find the moral strength to say ‘nix’ to any crooked SFA rescue package if there is another farcical Administration/Liquidation.
GoosyGoosy says:
November 19, 2014 at 10:25 pm
StevieBC says:
November 19, 2014 at 10:07 pm
‘.and then suddenly trying to remember what we typed the night before.
Don’t drink & type… :roll:’
———–
Oh, I don’t know. Some of my worst gibberish has been written when cone stold sober.One sometimes need a little mental stimulant. 😀
StevieBC says:
November 19, 2014 at 10:07 pm
‘.and then suddenly trying to remember what we typed the night before.
Don’t drink & type… :roll:’
________________________________________
Been there, done it, bought the tee-shirt 🙄
Answer BB – please
mr tp
The day that the SFA used a clause to prevent a member transfer to transfer membership was the day that Scottish. Football ceased to be a sport.
What we see now is an entertainment masquerading as sport.
Rules will be applied only where the application of these rules does not in any way impact upon the commercial vision of the organisation which places Rangers , regardless of its actual status within the rules of sport, or the laws of business, at its core.
This vision is explicitly shared by the Scottish government , it is a central culturally necessary organisation, and all political parties, and by both the privately owned media and the publicly funded broadcaster.
Regardless of any liquidations, bankruptcies, frauds, tax dodging , sectarian baggage and ownership by alleged or convicted felons, such a club will always have to exist.
They are the sporting equivalent of the High Street banks. They will continue regardless of cost or conduct.
The entire saga is a damning indictment of Scottish society and the moral vacuum which exists at the core of all of its key institutions.
That is why this matters so much.
East End Hammer says:
November 19, 2014 at 10:02 pm
This is from kumb a West Ham United web site ,sorry its abit long but seems to sum up in one go where this is all is at the moment Re: Rangers in administration (Non WHU)
Postby Wembley1966 on Wed Nov 19, 2014 12:44 pm
________________________________________________________________
Not a bad summary of some of the events to date. Seeing it gather together like that just reminds one of just what an absolute cluster****k this has become….
The fact that this summary only really scratches the surface of the entire shambles convinces me that sooner or later this lot are finished and I would be surprised to see anything emerge…
I feel for anyone who has lost their job including those administrative staff at Ibrox. Is there any feelings of guilt amongst those who have taken and are still taking obscene salaries from Ibrox, I wonder !
StevieBC says:
November 19, 2014 at 9:44 pm
Done.
Also tweeted to Alex Tomo.
briggsbhoy says:
November 19, 2014 at 11:36 pm
‘..I feel for anyone who has lost their job including those administrative staff at Ibrox.’
————-
And I think we can take it as read that those who were ‘made redundant’ will be more truly loyal to their club than the b.stards who were their employers.