Accountability, Transparency, & Brave Sir Robin

Avatar ByBig Pink

Accountability, Transparency, & Brave Sir Robin

Over the weekend, we ran a quick poll on Twitter (View Poll).

Do you trust the SFA to administer football in the interests of the sport?

Around 1500 took part and the percentage shares were as follows

No: 95%
Yes: 3%
Don’t Know: 2%

Not exactly scientific, nor do we make any claim that the sample demographic is representative (although the sample size is substantial).

However by any measure the overwhelming disapproval of the SFA, or the clubs that form the major part of that body, is something that cannot simply be tossed aside.

Even if the 95% (nearly 2% of the match attending public) are mistaken or deluded, it is a very badly managed industry that would ignore the perception of mistrust held by its customers.

Of course the SFA and the media will ignore the results of this poll. It doesn’t speak to the shiny-brochure, all’s-well narrative – even if the facts prove the narrative to be false.

The authorities are under siege at the moment; the government are closing in on the strict liability issue, the fans voicing disapproval and lack of trust in how the game is run, and a major member club approaches a potential financial meltdown. On top of that, there are excruciatingly bad choices made on match scheduling, venues for neutral showpiece games, and the self-acquittal process of the cup final inquiry. Not to mention that those incompetents who run the game have presided over and actively helped bring about the (arguably)  most bitter and widest polarisation of fans in the history of the game.

Even if the 95% (nearly 2% of the match attending public) are mistaken or deluded, it is a very badly managed industry that would ignore the perception of mistrust held by its customers.

Cue Stewart Regan and club chairmen across the country burying their heads even deeper in the sand, because all is well is it not?

It is a not unreasonable expectation that governing bodies should find solutions to problems in their field of expertise. The SFA are not by any stretch of the imagination part of any solution process – in fact they are a major part of the problem itself.

Football is a public-facing industry. In Scotland, because of poor TV revenues negotiated ineffectually by, wait for it, the governing bodies, the sport relies almost 100% on attendances – on fans staying loyal to the sport. Those fans (you would think) should be cultivated, engaged with, and paid heed to.

Staggeringly though, the SFA’s civil service, in the shape of their full time executives and PR machinery have done the opposite. Instead of engaging with the customer base, they have actively waged war against them.

Regan has breathed into life the wonderful fiction of Monty Python’s Brave Sir Robin.

The originally welcome transparency of the Chief Executive’s move to communicate via Twitter became increasingly opaque in the face of tough questions. Nowadays sightings only appear sporadically; and only if you are quick enough to spot him popping his head out the bunker to take a cheap shot at a critic, or childishly ejaculating “Nothing!” at public events when asked what he will do about corruption in the game.

Sir Robin - Ran Away

Sir Robin – Ran Away

Regan has breathed into life the wonderful fiction of Monty Python’s Brave Sir Robin. He  spends more time running away than fearlessly facing his critics whilst his PR chief provides snide and contemptuous invective as cover for his and his boss’s retreat.

They are consummately arrogant and filled with contempt for the fans, but to be fair, they are no different from club directors in their disregard for fan opinion. In my experience there is a culture in football that deludes itself into thinking that the directors are doing the fans a favour by providing the football club for them. They actually expect gratitude from fans for taking their money and portray themselves as martyrs if those same fans seek to hold them accountable.

It’s a bit like your boss farting so much during a conversation that you feel compelled to say “pardon me!” and take the blame for the offence yourself.

Of course there are always wonderful words about the fans from the clubs, and from the SFA and SPFL. These are merely platitudinous lip service, a box-ticking exercise to be quickly completed before reminding fans that they “really don’t have the skill-set to have a say in the running of a modern football club”.

This from people who have presided over our country’s steep slide into the footballing wilderness where our clubs and national side have disappeared from prominence and high regard .

It is no surprise then that this kind of culture in clubs, which patronises and just about tolerates fans, has woven its way into the fabric of the governing bodies itself.

95% of football fans do not think the SFA (the “clubs”) can be trusted to run Scottish football. That is a staggering statistic

95% of football fans do not think the SFA (the “clubs”) can be trusted to run Scottish football. That is a staggering statistic, and one which provides at least enough discussion for greater accountability, but more likely a root and branch change in the governance of the game.

Too often in the past, the authorities have used partisan fan interest to divide and rule. The time has most definitely come for a mass, non-partisan fan representative body to challenge the authorities, to lobby government, and to wrest control of the game away from the mediocre, self-interested failures who have slowly destroyed it over the past three decades.

I believe that such a force is coming, and I hope SFM is part of it. The people currently charged with the running of our sport excel in only one area – in their contempt for the paying public.

It is time we moved into a new age, a post SFA age where accountability, integrity and love of sport, not riches, takes priority.

About the author

Avatar

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

273 Comments so far

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on2:18 pm - Oct 6, 2016


DUNDERHEIDOCTOBER 6, 2016 at 13:42 
     “Sorry to rain on your parade, CO, but unless you were blessed with a remarkably honourable peer group, I think your memory may be playing tricks on you.”
    —————————————————————————————————————————
    I think we played your mob a few times…..Have you stopped running yet?  21 .
ps….It was me who lit your bonfire on the 4th.  15 
    You’re correct though……….Happy days. 04

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on3:19 pm - Oct 6, 2016


Good find, JC, and well worth a read . (no mention of 10/21 ers , or playing a “ringer” though, or even the protocol for when a big dug bursts the baw ).

http://www.theifab.com/#!/laws

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on3:44 pm - Oct 6, 2016


CO & Dunderheid

I was thinking of these very things while I wrote my previous posts, of how a game between two teams of ragamuffins could take place without boundaries, and yet those boundaries existed during the game without the need for prior negotiation. While there was always bullies about, they were seldom all that good at football, and so didn’t always play. The decision of the best players, however, did often hold sway. Amazingly, my only experiences of fisticuffs when playing such a game had nothing to do with rules or boundaries, just the stupidity of youth in one case, and a row over ‘your a poacher! No am no!’ In the other.

Those of us who truly loved the game somehow managed to survive the arguments and get on with it, and, perhaps unwittingly, gain a respect for the laws of the game that those who only see it as a means to an end (their own riches and business careers) fail to even aknowledge, and even ridicule those who demand it. I am thinking, of course, of the main players in the mess that exists in Scottish football.

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on6:12 pm - Oct 6, 2016


The Rangers Retail share business is a real puzzle. According to note 10 to the latest accounts, which were published on 15 August 2016, 100 of the revised total of 200 shares, had been issued in error. No indication of when or to whom.
To allott shares, they must first form part of the Company’s authorised share capital and not yet be allotted to anyone. At incorporation (13 July 2012), the share capital consisted of 100 ordinary shares. Two returns of allotments of shares totalling 100 shares (49 Class A and 51 Class B) were made on 27 November 2012. There was a return the same day which split the company’s ordinary shares into Class A and Class B, but no numbers given.
It seems to me that the allotments on 27/11 could not be of the founding £100 shares- these were already allotted (to SD). So maybe inadvertently, or maybe deliberately, those allotments increased the share capital from £100 to £200, and then that capital was split into  A and B.
According to the Confirmation of 13 July 2016, there are now 98 A shares and 102 B shares. The only shares held by TRFC are the 51 B shares allotted to them on 27/11/2012. So it looks like the original 100 ordinary shares, all held by Sports Direct, were split 49/51 into A and B shares, and retained by SD.
This looks like a standard cock-up, rather than a conspiracy, but the lawyers could have a real field day with this if Ashley digs his heels in. 
 
  

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on6:51 pm - Oct 6, 2016


I’ve just read a very interesting allegation on another forum. During the summer Rangers had some large murals attached outside Ibrox. The allegation reads that X company (I won’t name them because I’ve no idea if it’s true) is taking Rangers to court for an £80k unpaid bill. 

Now I speculate. If a company knew it was going to hit an insolvency event, would it really care about owing someone £80k? 

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on7:38 pm - Oct 6, 2016


UPTHEHOOPSOCTOBER 6, 2016 at 18:51 
I’ve just read a very interesting allegation on another forum. During the summer Rangers had some large murals attached outside Ibrox. The allegation reads that X company (I won’t name them because I’ve no idea if it’s true) is taking Rangers to court for an £80k unpaid bill. 
Now I speculate. If a company knew it was going to hit an insolvency event, would it really care about owing someone £80k? 
_______________

Now it’s some 40 years since I sat my Law and Practice of Banking exams, but I seem to remember something about a company’s dealings in the lead up to an insolvency event had to show no favours to any creditors (to avoid gratuitous alienation, I’d imagine). This period had a name, but it escapes me and I might even be spouting mince, but it would make sense that directors of a company sailing close to administration can’t cherry pick who they pay, hence the list of small amounts owed by the late RFC. So, the club might have £80,000 that they might use to settle this debt, but dare not for they would face charges should they go into administration within, say, the next few months.

If true, then an inability to pay this debt might well be what takes them into administration, although I am sure the first we hear from the club of this action will be to tell us the goods were faulty and they are in dispute. A bit like the wifi company who tried to have quite a bit more than £80,000 attached! That’s still to be settled, too!

But, as you so correctly say, all speculation at the moment, though, as, I think may often have been the case with some of PMGB’s information (and that of others), just because it doesn’t come to pass, doesn’t mean that the information was, at the time of posting, wrong!

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:51 pm - Oct 6, 2016


UPTHEHOOPSOCTOBER 6, 2016 at 18:51       3 Votes 
I’ve just read a very interesting allegation on another forum. During the summer Rangers had some large murals attached outside Ibrox. The allegation reads that X company (I won’t name them because I’ve no idea if it’s true) is taking Rangers to court for an £80k unpaid bill. 
Now I speculate. If a company knew it was going to hit an insolvency event, would it really care about owing someone £80k? 
————————
If true the SMSM would be all over this story,won’t they.
Anyway today brought a smile to my face about the 10,21er. If one side had a player called up for dinner they played with a backsie or got a loan of a player from the opposite team on loan(no documentation required) until said player had returned from lunch.Always some debate on which player was crossing over;-) In goals we always played the smallest player as the crossbar was imagined just above his head and any high balls were shouted at as “well over the bar”
Ps a Backsie ment the goalkeeper on the team that had a player less was allowed out of goal but not allowed over the imaginery half way line,but he was allowed to score goals

View Comment

Avatar

Hoopy 7Posted on9:02 pm - Oct 6, 2016


Phil reporting that his last article was bang on the money.
He says that he knows it and Sevco director with the bouffant knows it.
I am 100% convinced Sevco are in arrears and that HMRC is waiting to pounce at the right moment.
Veritas vincit

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:39 pm - Oct 6, 2016


It has been reported today that the JB betting saga that the Hampden beaks were given information by the Gambling Commission that JB had breached regulations.That saw the SFA gather information from various bookies. And last night they finally moved to issue a formal notice of complaint.Also in the same report. It is understood Betfair chiefs flagged up a possible rule breach after JB  personal online account was allegedly used to place the bet.
—————
Did the SFA get there information first from Betfair who are said to have flagged up the rule breach.
Or did the SFA get their information first from the Gambling Commission that JB had breached regulations.
Did Betfair contact the Gambling Commission who then contacted the SFA.And if Betfair chiefs did flag up a rule breach then contacted the Gambling commission who then contacted the SFA. Why did the SFA have to gather information from other various bookies? And what information if any did they gather?
Does anyone know the protocol for the SFA to have been given a rule breach.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:48 pm - Oct 6, 2016


Sorry mods for another post but just remembered.
Anyway today brought a smile to my face about the 10,21er. If one side had a player called up for dinner they played with a backsie.
Or anybody saves,until said player returned from dinner.
All very fair on football played without a ref

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:42 pm - Oct 6, 2016


Cluster OneOctober 6, 2016 at 21:39
‘…were given information by the Gambling Commission .’
_______
As I understand things, any betting outlet is required to report direct to the sports body, not to the Commission. The Commission are not the ones who alert the sports body.
The betting shop sees some player placing suspicious bets. They tell the SFA. The SFA seeks information from the betting shop. And has todecide  whether there is a prima facie case for the player to answer. And ,  if so,the Compliance officer issues the charge, not the Commission.
My query to the Gambling Commission is whether a guy who works in a betting office ,who knows that his bosses have communicated their suspicions about a particular player/punter, is free to blab to the likes of ,say, Off-the-Radar jackson or his contemptible equivalents.
We’ll have to wait and see.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:38 am - Oct 7, 2016


Hoopy 7October 6, 2016 at 21:02
‘..I am 100% convinced Sevco are in arrears and that HMRC is waiting to pounce at the right moment.’
_______
And I think it’s important to keep in mind that this blog is not about the possible collapse into Administration of a particular football club, but about making sure that if ‘Administration’ turns into’ Liquidation’, the Football Authorities do not even ATTEMPT to act as they disgracefully acted when RFC were Liquidated, and a brand new club was deemed to be the same as a still’ living-dead’ club, in a totally absurd Alice-through-the-looking-glass phantasmic way.
That is, the blog is about:
the cheating of a now liquidated club,and
the fact that that cheating was not picked up by people who were in a position of authority and knew about the cheating, and
the fact that when the cheating became an issue there was denial and misinformation in quantities to protect and defend that cheating, not least by the SMSM, and
the fact that when that did not save the cheating club from legal, commercial, and football death, a most horrendous and perfidious deal was struck by the Authorities with a charlatan to create a myth
and so on.
Essentially, this blog is about Truth. The Football Authorities have lied already.
We must not acquiesce in that lie.
And we most certainly will make bloody sure that they do not even begin to think of lying again to preserve the new club, if it happens to die , like the club that it ludicrously claims to be.

View Comment

Avatar

fan of footballPosted on6:59 am - Oct 7, 2016


JC
How would it pan out for sevco 2012 if there was to be an insolvency event ,it seems that they have set this club/company up as TRFC/RIFC would they fold RIFC and could there loans be safe within TRFC as they were given on the proviso of a future share issue .Do you think it stated a future share issue in RIFC or any future share issue the club may instigate .
forgive my ignorance on financial matters 

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on9:35 am - Oct 7, 2016


The key point they are at now Fanoffootball is for an admin event a creditor is required.  Right up until May, having last minute body swerved i.e. replaced from allegedly dubious sources Milke Ashley’s 5m loan they didn’t have any third party creditors of note so no-one was there to make any claim.  They were a financial basket case for sure but they were doing it with ‘their own’ money.  It is presumably a fair assumption that RIFC won’t be calling up their loan to TRFC any time soon. 

Since august though (despite a submitted cashflow to the contrary 10) creditors have once again started to build.  We have anecdotal hearsay of cash on delivery only, the mural painter rumour, JJ saying the pot is empty and Phil saying there are HMRC arrears.  No substance yet but lots and lots of accumulating smoke.  These are all completely independent third parties and each and every one is perfectly entitled to go after them legally.  This problem is then magnified 20fold if JJ’s claim that King has siphoned off £6.25m of ST receipts and has used/will use them to repay his debt (the original Ashley debt).  If the business is operating at a loss – and I cannot see how they can’t be – and they are taking it upon themselves to repay directors loans then they simply have to go bang UNLESS more monies are injected.  They can keep this basket case on the road for years if they wish and never suffer an event.  But to do so in its current operating format will require them to give and give and give with no hope of ever seeing a return without a significant change in fortune for their club which can’t come in Scottish football’s current operating confines.   

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:25 am - Oct 7, 2016


fan of footballOctober 7, 2016 at 06:59
‘…forgive my ignorance on financial matters ‘
________
I doubt if you know any less than I when it comes to the world of finance and business, fan of football. I frequently ask myself ” where was I when all these Del boys and CGs and other low lifes were getting the smart (but twisted, like the Donald) brains that enable them to prosper at our general expense?”
As I understand it, RIFC has no revenue resources of its own: all its income derives from TRFC, which apparently is not only not bringing in enough to pay its way but also cannot repay the loans it has.
But what exactly would (will?) happen if TRFC goes into Administration probably depends on the kind of ‘Administrators’ it is able to appoint, and which finance low-lifes are hovering about like scavengers ready to imitate CG ( and we know there are plenty such), who know that the forsworn   Football Authorities ,having already set a precedent, could hardly refuse to accommodate them.
But it would be interesting to hear what our posters who are up to speed in these matters think could happen.

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on11:17 am - Oct 7, 2016


ALLYJAMBO
usually happened when one team was about 5 goals ahead lol

View Comment

Avatar

aclydefanPosted on11:58 am - Oct 7, 2016


What about when the ball was deemed to have hit the post and someone had to stand over the jumper with his back to the play, and throw the ball over his head to simulate the rebound  🙂

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on12:02 pm - Oct 7, 2016


SMUGASOCTOBER 7, 2016 at 09:35

Correct, T’Rangers could go on for years if they run a tight ship.

It is not long ago (Nov 2014) that Aberdeen finally dealt with £15m of debt. Some of which was held by club loving investors and a bank that they obviously had a good working relationship with. So you can bob along quite nicely.

However when Aberdeen’s debt was restructured and a deal agreed with the banks it was on the basis that

Dons chief executive Duncan Fraser revealed the deal was only made possible because the club have shown it can run at a break-even position in recent years.

The challenge down Govan Way is trying balance the books while meeting the fans aspirations.

If the fans keep turning out hell or high water, regardless of results, then they can be in a really good place. However that won’t be the same as being where the recent hubris from the board has told us they should be. The fans will need to be patient and whether or not they are will only be come apparent as this season progresses.

If the current board can resolve the financial pressures and achieve the publicly stated objectives on the park then I will take my hat of to them.

However IMHO I can’t see both financial and footballing objectives being achieved simultaneously. From countless examples we all know what lies ahead when a club’s board gambles pursuing footballing success in favour building a sound financial base.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on12:51 pm - Oct 7, 2016


 FAN OF FOOTBALLOCTOBER 7, 2016 at 06:59
JOHN CLARKOCTOBER 7, 2016 at 10:25

Recent seat damage has shown that replacements come in at around £200 a pop. Sevco are sitting on (pun intended) around £10m worth, possibly more if you factor in emotional attachment. Add in the contents of the trophy room, art and memorobillia, old programmes, jerseys etc, top it up with a bit of turf, a boardroom table and a staircase for a swanky American home, a few, if limited bob, for some players, and the assets, and I would say TRFC are good for the money they owe RIFC. 
    Pity about the Arsenal shares, but there is always some way to recoup any losses incurred. Enough to at least fund a one-way exit from a light airfield….No messy administrators required…..Just shut up shop.
    Just saying like.    06

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on1:05 pm - Oct 7, 2016


Precisely WOTTPI which brings us nicely to JC’s comment of 10.25.

Why should TRFC work their way (back 04) to the top when instead they could beg borrow and ultimately steal to achieve the same end?  There is an argument that it would almost be incumbent on the TRFC directors to follow this miraculous new route that our administrators have opened to them as the most cash efficient way of achieving their goal with, relatively speaking, minimal downside risk.  Such actions will of course not just invite but positively attract the shysters and financial lowlifes that JJ refers to and who, in turn, will know precisely the knobs to turn (pun absolutely intended) to get a return on their time investment.  Of course there will be consequences.  Banks will take the lead and not deal with any clubs that don’t have a standard security in place for instance.  But hell that’s only acceptable collateral damage isn’t it?

View Comment

Avatar

bordersdonPosted on1:51 pm - Oct 7, 2016


Totally OT but just noticed that the UKIP MEP involved in the “incident” with his colleague Steven Woolfe is called Mike Hookem!121212

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on3:59 pm - Oct 7, 2016


SMUGAS
“Why should TRFC work their way (back 04) to the top”
they have never been at the top 04

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:03 pm - Oct 7, 2016


Re: rumoured RIFC/TRFC’s escalating cash flow problems.

We have been here before many times, and with RFC previously.
Somehow, RIFC/TRFC has managed to limp along from one crisis to the next, whilst attracting external investment at the eleventh hour – and despite the business apparently being economically non-viable.

I’m sure there is a lot of info. we don’t know about what is going on behind the scenes to justify – to certain individuals anyway – keeping the ‘Rangers’ show on the road.

But, IMO, the rumoured arrears to HMRC is the potential, smoking gun.

If true, then one could ‘reasonably’ assert that cash is at an all time low, and it’s desperate times at Ibrox now.
I suppose the only validation we could get is an imminent winding up order petition from HMRC – or not.

Wonder if the Hampden blazers are already working on a new, secretive
‘5WA v2.0’ ?

View Comment

normanbatesmumfc

normanbatesmumfcPosted on4:27 pm - Oct 7, 2016


For all we know some “pre-pack” steps may have already been taken. The smaller creditors may be stacking up but may still remain below 25% of total debt, leaving RIFC the major creditor and able to control another admin event. This would allow them to accept a pennies in the pound CVA stiffing the other creditors, but keeping the show on the road.

However this will not fix the retail deal and return the club to a profit making, or at least breaking even business, so merely kicking the can down the road.

Alternatively, could some of the major assets, (required to carry out a football operation) already have been assigned to RIFC in Lieu of their debt. TRFC are crashed and burned like the original club, removing all onerous contracts. RIFC then start a new club The Glasgow Rangers Football Club Ltd, debt free and playing out of the crumbledome.

I’m sure the blue-eyed, slanted arbiters at the SFA and SFPL will manage to find a way to transfer memberships and licences to the new club, with a minimal points deduction and on we go. It’s not as if our unscrupulous leaders haven’t previous for worse offences already.

Anything is possible in the Sevco Twighlight Zone!!!!

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on4:51 pm - Oct 7, 2016


Tony

Hence the parenthesis

Stevie BC

My personal money, if I had any, has for some time now been on an administration, points deduction and an entirely co-incidental league reconstruction sans relegation.  But, and its a huge but, apart from hosing down debt (and frankly anyone stupid enough to be indebted to them just now deserves what might be coming) it is not clear to me what else it solves other than a fairly drastic reality check which could backfire spectacularly on several parties – the authorities, other clubs etc.  Other problematic and onerous issues appear to be admin proof.  But as Rick Parfitt has discovered himself recently the status quo actually can’t go on and on.    

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on5:21 pm - Oct 7, 2016


Would that be the same members of the public that pay to spin the turnstyles, and in turn, your wages?……..Bad show wee man !….Bad show.

https://twitter.com/theoffshoregame/status/784341386187243520

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on5:31 pm - Oct 7, 2016


SMUGAS
the league reconstruction requires a years notice,but as with all things sevco/sfs/spfl things change to suit 

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on5:41 pm - Oct 7, 2016


Just a wee reminder of how the income and expenditure has worked at Ibrox over the last few years.
From the full year (to end of June 2014 and 2015) and six monthly interim  accounts it would appear that the business takes in around 54% of its total income before the end of the calendar year.
The business also plays out around 51% of its costs during the first half of the season.
Therefore apart from previously not having enough money coming in to meet the outgoings,  the timing of how money comes in and goes out appears to be balanced.

Therefore if for last season (financial end to June 2016) and this season (not long under way) the business has managed to increase income (higher premiership prices and good uptake) and reduce costs ( savings presumably made from not having  high earners like the gardening squad, Law Bell, Templeton etc) then all could be well in terms of getting closer to balancing the books and cash flow might not be too much of a problem.

The unaudited interim accounts to end of December 2015 appear to indicate that income was heading back up and that costs had been reduced.

So if that position was maintained to the end of last season, it really all comes down to whether or not the new signings and the recent contract extensions etc are still managing to keep the player wage bill down and manageable or if they have simply eaten into any savings that had been made previously.

The the golden oldies are on anything like what is being reported then there could indeed be trouble ahead as a good deal of the cash from cost cutting and increased income from Premiership football will most likely be accounted for.

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on5:44 pm - Oct 7, 2016


CORRUPT OFFICIALOCTOBER 7, 2016 at 17:21 
Would that be the same members of the public that pay to spin the turnstyles, and in turn, your wages?……..Bad show wee man !….Bad show.
https://twitter.com/theoffshoregame/status/784341386187243520

CO, I’ll be generous and suggest that the national team manager has the same respect for Scottish mainstream sports media as people on here do. 

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on5:44 pm - Oct 7, 2016


Extracted from DJ’s latest effort in the ESJ, [(c) The Clumpany, 2015]
My highlighting.

“…Unless he agrees to walk away, which I don’t think any player would when you consider the money involved, then Joey Barton is going to be staying there.
I don’t know if he has breached his contract and that could give Rangers a way to deal with him. But they can’t afford to have a player taking home a considerable wage each week and doing nothing for it.
Joey said that if he knew then what he knows now then he wouldn’t have signed for Rangers and a lot of fans just want rid of him if he doesn’t want to be here. But it will cost the club too much money to just do that.
If he walks away, that is up to him and he will find a club in England fairly easily I would think. If there is no agreement, Rangers will have to welcome him back…”
=============================

Confirmation that TRFC could not uncover any legal justification for ripping up Barton’s contract ?

DJ not very subtly implying that Barton should ‘consider’ walking away, as it is ‘what the fans want’, and it will save TRFC a few quid ?

If Barton decides against walking away – but is not in the team – then he will be in for a rough time, IMO, and mostly from the SMSM, courtesy of Level42 copy/paste instructions.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on6:40 pm - Oct 7, 2016


Watch for next week’s exclusive – as we take a walk around JB’s stunning house complete with address…

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on8:23 pm - Oct 7, 2016


Is it really only a few months ago that we were reading how such a marquee signing as Joey Barton showed just how big a club (new) Rangers were? Well, one thing it does show is that TRFC have not progressed very far, at all, since the heady days of Charles Green and Ally McCoist, and that the Ibrox centric SMSM are just as compliant as they were while enabling those early Sevco pioneers to fritter away the IPO treasure chest.

Added to that, though, it must surely be some sort of world record, the amount of times the internet bampots have been correct to predict that whatever ‘big club’ wonder event was announced, with great fanfare by the SMSM, would end in tears – though, despite the best efforts of board and management, allied to the SMSM, so far there’s been no end to Joey Bartongate, just the tears!

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on8:32 pm - Oct 7, 2016


A wee “heads up” for DCK on where he can spend the warchest monies at Christmas (allegedly)

Below is a list of all 23 members of the Barcelona squad and how much their current release clause is.
PlayerRelease ClauseYear Contract ExpiresSergi Roberto£26.5m2019Jordi Masip£31m2017Sergi Samper£43m2019Denis Suarez£44m2020Jeremy Mathieu£44m2018Samuel Umtiti£51.65m2021Lucas Digne£53m2021Aleix Vidal£53m2020Jasper Cillessen£53m2021Arda Turan£60m2019Rafinha£66m2021Marc-Andre Ter Stegen£70.5m2019Andre Gomes£86m2021Javier Mascherano£86m2018Paco Alcacer£86m2021Ivan Rakitic £88m2019Jordi Alba£132m2020Andres Iniesta£139.4m2018Gerard Pique£143m2018Sergio Busquets£172m2021Luis Suarez£172m2019Neymar£215m2021Lionel Messi£215m2021

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:27 pm - Oct 7, 2016


PADDY MALARKEYOCTOBER 7, 2016 at 20:32       1 Vote 
A wee “heads up” for DCK on where he can spend the warchest monies at Christmas (allegedly)
Below is a list of all 23 members of the Barcelona squad and how much their current release clause is.
————————-
not a problem. Just let DK dish out the ibrox Bingo card.And put an x next to everything but money
History x
Fans x 
Murray Park x
The Breakfast x
The trophy room x
One look at the ibrox bingo card and any release clause will be ripped up quicker than a warchest promise

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on1:20 pm - Oct 8, 2016


BLUOCTOBER 7, 2016 at 17:44  
CORRUPT OFFICIALOCTOBER 7, 2016 at 17:21 Would that be the same members of the public that pay to spin the turnstyles, and in turn, your wages?……..Bad show wee man !….Bad show.https://twitter.com/theoffshoregame/status/784341386187243520CO, I’ll be generous and suggest that the national team manager has the same respect for Scottish mainstream sports media as people on here do.

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

The cynic in me says a journalist wanting to ask questions allegedly on behalf of the public is being less than sincere. I could be wrong, but not too many Scottish football journalists have done anything these past four years to earn an ounce of respect, therefore I’m unwilling to given them the benefit of the doubt.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on2:20 pm - Oct 8, 2016


     
UPTHEHOOPSOCTOBER 8, 2016 at 13:20       4 Votes 
BLUOCTOBER 7, 2016 at 17:44  CORRUPT OFFICIALOCTOBER 7, 2016 at 17:21 Would that be the same members of the public that pay to spin the turnstyles, and in turn, your wages?……..Bad show wee man !….Bad show.https://twitter.com/theoffshoregame/status/784341386187243520CO, I’ll be generous and suggest that the national team manager has the same respect for Scottish mainstream sports media as people on here do.
=================================
The cynic in me says a journalist wanting to ask questions allegedly on behalf of the public is being less than sincere.
      ———————————————————————————————————————-
   I agree that WGS treats the SMSM with contempt Blu. I saw another interview, where he explained he tried to protect the players from negative headlines and it was a battle of wits. I would rather have the headlines, so long as they were honest.
       UTH, surely EVERY question a journo asks should be on behalf of the public he purports to serve. 
     For me it matters not how a Q is dressed up, but the important thing is that it is asked. 
    Whether he was going to ask the TOG Question, I can only guess at (I guess not!) but tellingly for me, WGS also stated the journo was getting no more questions.
    That wraps up the “culture” in a nutshell for me………….Ask something I/we don’t like, and you are bombed out.
   That’s not supposed to be how it works.  
    

View Comment

Avatar

vascodaparsPosted on6:34 pm - Oct 8, 2016


In today’s Dunfermline v Queen’s Park match programme the following appears on page 13 in a regular feature containing trivia about today’s opponents:
“some seven years earlier, some 95,722 saw Queens play the original Glasgow Rangers in the Scottish Cup”. (my emphasis)
I wonder if the Par’s programme editor or the article’s author will experience the wrath of the fans of the current entity that plays at Ibrox.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on10:10 pm - Oct 8, 2016


Didn’t want to watch the game and just heard the result: a draw with Lithuania at Hampden is very poor, even with a relatively poor Scotland squad of players.

Something is seriously wrong with the SFA setup – and that’s aside from anything Ibrox related !

I am surprised that c.39K attended the match – but that is still c.13K less than capacity for such an important game.

Although I am not keen on ‘Chesney’ it’s not really all his fault, IMO.

Mibbes the national team should take a hiatus – to stop these awful results and to focus on what needs to change at the SFA – from top to bottom.

Whatever is going on at the SFA it has been an abysmal failure for the last 20+ years.

Rant over.  

View Comment

Sergio Biscuits

Sergio BiscuitsPosted on10:20 pm - Oct 8, 2016


VASCODAPARS,
Good to see a club unafraid to tell the truth when it comes to the continuity myth.
Of course we’ve seen this before, only for the club in question making a totally unnecessary apology for daring to tell said truth! Hopefully the Pars hold their ground on this occasion!
Been quite quiet on the site these last few days, no doubt international week having a big part to play in it.
After watching that dross tonight it just shows how much of a mess the dinosaurs at the SFA have made of our game. They really need to be cleared out.Turgid football played in a soulless stadium with, by the look of things, another major tournament passing us by. 

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on2:17 am - Oct 9, 2016


And when a Welsh team wins the challenge cup. How will that sit with everyone? What Is going on here?
Are cummnock or polloc doing likewise in Wales?

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on7:25 am - Oct 9, 2016


ianagainOctober 9, 2016 at 02:17
‘..What Is going on here?’
_______
Just heard a reference on the BBC (England) news  to what the English papers are saying about the performance of their national team: ” new boss, same old dross!”

We don’t have a new boss, but certainly have the same old dross.

It cannot simply be the case that we have not found a half-decent national manager for  two decades or more. The fault must lie deeper than that, when nations with no great history of football achievement have been able to raise themselves to higher levels while we slide inexorably, it would seem, into decline.

What is it that is so fundamentally lacking in our football governance and direction?

Basic honesty and largeness of mind?

View Comment

Avatar

FinlochPosted on8:13 am - Oct 9, 2016


I used to be a card carrying Scottish fan.
I didn’t see the game last night and am not going to comment on the football apart from saying it was a very disappointing outcome.
I did see the English game on SCOTTISH TV.
It was free.

Its just plain wrong that the commercial powers that be at Hampden have decided it makes commercial sense to sell their games to the likes of BT meaning a substantial part of their potential audience (and their potential future audience who are young and don’t and won’t read newspapers any more) is disenfranchised.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on10:39 am - Oct 9, 2016


JOHN CLARKOCTOBER 9, 2016 at 07:25 _______Just heard a reference on the BBC (England) news  to what the English papers are saying about the performance of their national team: ” new boss, same old dross!”
We don’t have a new boss, but certainly have the same old dross.
It cannot simply be the case that we have not found a half-decent national manager for  two decades or more.

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

The peg upon which Gordon Strachan’s jacket hangs is getting shoogly. A bad result on Tuesday might see it fall off. The only problem is that if he leaves, his replacement will almost certainly be a past Manager who also failed. The media clamour will be for Alex McLeish or Walter Smith.  They might not do any better, but for the media it will have a far more natural feel to it.  The problems in this country run deep and wide. 

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:22 am - Oct 9, 2016


 I have lifted this extract from    http://www.truelithuania.com/topics/lifestyle-in-lithuania/sports-in-lithuania
Read, and despair!

“However, very unlike basketball, Lithuanian football is weak. The national team never even qualified to the European Championships let alone the World Cup. In football the element of luck is bigger than is basketball, therefore there were times when the Lithuanians scored draw against major teams such as Germany, Italy or Spain. However defeats to the likes of Faroe Islands or Liechtenstein soon afterwards dash the hopes of Lithuanian fans and decrease the popularity of football.
Football clubs of Lithuania attract less funding than their basketball counterparts and so they are weak, relying on Lithuanian players and foreigners who didn’t manage to get hold into their national leagues. Not a single Lithuanian team ever took part in main stages of the Champions’ League or the UEFA Cup. Moreover, the Lithuanian national football league (“A lyga”) is frequently dipped into scandals of betting fraud. “Panevėžio Ekranas” from Panevėžys long dominated this league, ammasing a yearly budget of 2 million Euro (yes, this is the richest football club in Lithuania). “FBK Kaunas” used to prevail in the 1990s and 2000s (the Kaunas’s team left “A Lyga” amid controversies in 2009). “Vilniaus Žalgiris” was the best Lithuanian team in the 1980s and still has a larger fan base than other Lithuanian football clubs. It has recently returned to prominence.
Vilnius Žalgiris ultras sector during a 2013 season game. These are the most numerous football ultras in Lithuania. ©Augustinas Žemaitis.Some of the major football clubs, including both FBK Kaunas and Žalgiris are or were owned by controversial Russian businessmen whose irregular investments brought the clubs to the verge of collapse at one time or another. Vilniaus Žalgiris was saved only by its fans establishing an alternative club under the same name. In 2009 the A lyga was rejuvenated by accepting numerous clubs from minor towns (less than 20 000 inhabittants) that did not meet the official criteria but were arguably managed more transparently, such as “Banga” from Gargždai or “Kruoja” from Pakruojis.
Unable to see quality football in the local stadiums many fans follow leagues like England’s Premier League on TV (or, of course, the European Championships and the FIFA World Cup). The stadiums, which are not as modern as in the Western Europe, are thus left to the ultras. In the fields however football is a popular pastime.
Lithuania’s largest stadium (S. Darius and S. Girėnas stadium in Žaliakalnis borough of Kaunas) has 9180 seats, while in general “A lyga” stadiums have some 1500-4000 seats each. Seating is typically only on a single side of the stadium and the football field is combined with athletics track. Even these stadiums get full only during some national team games and rare matches against powerful Western European teams that usually end the UEFA tournament qualification bids of Lithuanian clubs.
An A lyga football game (Žalgiris vs. Sudūva of Marijampolė, 2013) in Lithuania’s most modern stadium (renovated by the Football federation in 2011). National team now plays its home games here as well. ©Augustinas Žemaitis.Should you wish to see a football game in Lithuania take note that unlike in some Western leagues the Lithuanian season is held in summer (i.e. from spring to autumn) with a rest period in winter due to harsh weather. In addition to the top “A lyga” there are lower tiers known as “I lyga” and “II lyga”.”

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on12:25 pm - Oct 9, 2016


Apologies for the OT nature of this message, but it is a quiet day.

Just got some sad news recently about the passing of an old friend of mine, Ian Goldie, taken too young at 58.

I mention it here because he was a well-kent face in he south side of Glasgow as the assistant manager, for several years in the 80s and 90s, of the (very) bluenose New Regent pub in Pollockshaws Road. Consequently, some of you may have come across him. Ian was from Toryglen and also worked for a decade or so in the old DHSS in Laurieston.

Ian was an uber RFC man of course, and the gentlest, kindest, most generous person I could ever have wished for as a friend. He fancied himself as a bit of an Ian Gillan rock god, but alas, in looks only 🙂

Also a big reminder to us all (particularly in view of some deleted posts recently) when we seek to generalise about folk on account of their allegiances, whether sporting, racial or political, that it is almost always a mistake to do so.

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on1:07 pm - Oct 9, 2016


BIG PINK
was that ian who worked in the montford at curtis avenue?

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on2:33 pm - Oct 9, 2016


Tony,

PMd

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on3:16 pm - Oct 9, 2016


BIG PINK
replied 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:33 pm - Oct 9, 2016


It appears that Rangers have extended Joey Barton’s period of suspension.

I can only assume that they are trying to either sack him, or to come to some sort of arrangement by which the two parties part company. It seems unlikely that he will play for them again, it might even be a “it’s him or me” situation.

Can Rangers really afford something like £1.5m to pay off his contract though. Or can they afford to sack him then deal with being sued. With the adverse publicity which would go with that. If you sack him there is no “gagging” clause.

It would be the height of irony if the thing which pushed them over the edge was a PR exercise designed to sell season tickets.

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on3:52 pm - Oct 9, 2016


HOMUNCULUS
seems like joey ain’t bothering 

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on4:03 pm - Oct 9, 2016


They certainly have a very disconnected triangle at the moment.  Joey sold season tickets.  DK has allegedly harvested said tickets. Joey is either not required, not interested or not good enough as a player at this level.  At some point the masses, no doubt in support of the boards hard stance will realise they paid for the player, the funds repaid Kings loan and in return they, erm, don’t have a player!!!

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on4:14 pm - Oct 9, 2016


SMUGAS
rope a dope

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on4:32 pm - Oct 9, 2016


It appears that Joey Barton  is about to be dumped by TRFC on the grounds of gross misconduct. I doubt that Joey is about to do walking away without a very large payoff- in fact I doubt he’ll even walk away, full stop. A verbal bust-up with a teammate and his manager- grounds for dismissal? Really? Almost every professional footballer in the world must be in grave danger of summary dismissal.
What this really tells us is that King (and  I don’t believe for a moment that  Warburton was involved) recruited Barton simply to boost Season Ticket sales. Job done. Once the money was in, Barton was dispensable. Could King have anticipated that, based on  Barton’s track record, it was  likely that his contract could be torn up before his wages became a serious problem? I wonder.
I also wonder whether King thought that Barton would just quietly roll over? If so, he’s a fool- in my opinion. Barton will go to court, and sell another book on the back of it.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on4:37 pm - Oct 9, 2016


       Last week’s PR, was all about a humble and respectfully remorseful JB returning from his desert boot-camp, into the warm loving arms of welcome. 
   It would appear this PR “offer” has been refused. 

View Comment

Avatar

goosygoosyPosted on4:48 pm - Oct 9, 2016


HOMUNCULUS
OCTOBER 9, 2016 at 15:33
 It appears that Rangers have extended Joey Barton’s period of suspension.
I can only assume that they are trying to either sack him, or to come to some sort of arrangement by which the two parties part company. It seems unlikely that he will play for them again, it might even be a “it’s him or me” situation.
Can Rangers really afford something like £1.5m to pay off his contract though. Or can they afford to sack him then deal with being sued. With the adverse publicity which would go with that. If you sack him there is no “gagging” clause.
It would be the height of irony if the thing which pushed them over the edge was a PR exercise designed to sell season tickets.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
IMO
I suspect the top priority  for a club living hand to mouth is to avoid paying him any wages for the next two weeks. By that time it would be close enough to the LC semis for TRFC to ask for an advance on their gate money to help make the October payroll run in the week following the semis
In all probability TRFC have advised (or will advise) JB in writing they are mindful to sack him if found guilty by the SFA of the betting charge and that meanwhile it is in the clubs interest that he continue his suspension without pay. Since Octobers payroll run won`t take place until w/c 23 Oct anyway all JB can do (or be advised to do ) is threaten legal action if he gets no pay in October.
This presents JB with a dilemma
He can launch a series of appeals against any SFA punishment and risk being suspended until his appeal(s) is exhausted. If he does so he will not get paid and be effectively gagged until the end of the process.
 If he accepts the SFA punishment, doesn’t appeal and gets sacked by TRFC he can sue TRFC for unfair dismissal
His chances of successfully suing TRFC may depend on how professional his “fracas” disciplinary process was handled. If it was commenced with the aim of sacking him he will have got a final warning stating that any infringement in the next 2 yrs. carries the sanction of dismissal
Someone as undisciplined as JB has no reputation to lose so he may choose both to sue TRFC for unfair dismissal and concurrently go public with his side of the story. He might even sell his story to some English rag and recoup some living expenses while awaiting the result of an action against TRFC. It would only be  a tempting offer of another job that could compel him to settle
Meanwhile, TRFC with the SMSM in their pocket will no doubt ride out any adverse publicity on social media and the English MSM
The most interesting aspect of this comedy is that if TRFC are intent on not paying JB any more wages full stop then their cash crisis must be dire
Since
They would be giving up the opportunity of getting him off the payroll and possibly even  some money for him in the Jan transfer window

View Comment

Avatar

coineanachantaighePosted on5:33 pm - Oct 9, 2016


tonyOctober 7, 2016 at 17:31

It has already happened though not with TRFC.   Some years ago Inverness were promoted despite not having a 10,000 seater ground (as was the rule at that time – other clubs had previously been knocked back over this) and dcelaring they had no intention to build one in time for the following season.
Despite protestations from PTFC who were poor that season and came bottom (and two separate votes – one deciding not to promote Inverness and then a re-run to get the “right” result) they relegated the Glasgow Thistle team and promoted the Inverness one, meaning the rule was changed mid-season (or ignored). 
I should add as a still-miffed-about-it PTFC supporter that the season we got promoted a couple of years’ previous, we applied for a time extension for the building of a new stand (which was well underway and would take us up to 10000) – with the delay we would still get it built before the new season but doing it earlier would cost us a lot in overtime.  The SPL refused to budge and forced us to pay the extra money even though we would have had it in place for the new season even with a delay.
I believe it was a response to a MSM campaign regarding the “fairy tale” of Inverness. Don’t get me wrong:Inverness were worthy winners of their league and we were rubbish, desrvedly bottom of ours but the point is the rule in place was ignored for whatever reason.

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on6:51 pm - Oct 9, 2016


goosygoosyOctober 9, 2016 at 16:48    2 Votes 
HOMUNCULUS OCTOBER 9, 2016 at 15:33  It appears that Rangers have extended Joey Barton’s period of suspension. I can only assume that they are trying to either sack him, or to come to some sort of arrangement by which the two parties part company. It seems unlikely that he will play for them again, it might even be a “it’s him or me” situation. Can Rangers really afford something like £1.5m to pay off his contract though. Or can they afford to sack him then deal with being sued. With the adverse publicity which would go with that. If you sack him there is no “gagging” clause. It would be the height of irony if the thing which pushed them over the edge was a PR exercise designed to sell season tickets. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, IMO I suspect the top priority  for a club living hand to mouth is to avoid paying him any wages for the next two weeks. By that time it would be close enough to the LC semis for TRFC to ask for an advance on their gate money to help make the October payroll run in the week following the semis In all probability TRFC have advised (or will advise) JB in writing they are mindful to sack him if found guilty by the SFA of the betting charge and that meanwhile it is in the clubs interest that he continue his suspension without pay. Since Octobers payroll run won`t take place until w/c 23 Oct anyway all JB can do (or be advised to do ) is threaten legal action if he gets no pay in October. This presents JB with a dilemma He can launch a series of appeals against any SFA punishment and risk being suspended until his appeal(s) is exhausted. If he does so he will not get paid and be effectively gagged until the end of the process.  If he accepts the SFA punishment, doesn’t appeal and gets sacked by TRFC he can sue TRFC for unfair dismissal His chances of successfully suing TRFC may depend on how professional his “fracas” disciplinary process was handled. If it was commenced with the aim of sacking him he will have got a final warning stating that any infringement in the next 2 yrs. carries the sanction of dismissal Someone as undisciplined as JB has no reputation to lose so he may choose both to sue TRFC for unfair dismissal and concurrently go public with his side of the story. He might even sell his story to some English rag and recoup some living expenses while awaiting the result of an action against TRFC. It would only be  a tempting offer of another job that could compel him to settle Meanwhile, TRFC with the SMSM in their pocket will no doubt ride out any adverse publicity on social media and the English MSM The most interesting aspect of this comedy is that if TRFC are intent on not paying JB any more wages full stop then their cash crisis must be dire Since They would be giving up the opportunity of getting him off the payroll and possibly even  some money for him in the Jan transfer window
============================================================
7.4    suspension of playera professional player who is registered for a club in full membership of the scottish FAby means of a registration Form shall, during the period of any suspension imposed upon him for any reason other than breach of contract, be paid the basic minimum wage to which he is entitled under the terms of his written agreement with the club.
.
From SFA Handbook 2016-17 page 165.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2016-17/Scottish%20FA%20Handbook%202016-17.pdf
.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on8:55 pm - Oct 9, 2016


Rumours about a large Scottish football club receiving demand letters from HMRC are growing by the day. They remain rumours, but believe me it is not idiots who are saying it. 

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on9:15 pm - Oct 9, 2016


goosygoosyOctober 9, 2016 at 16:48
”’….By that time it would be close enough to the LC semis for TRFC to ask for an advance on their gate money to help make the October payroll run in the week following the semis..’
__________
I doubt if the SPFL Articles of Association would allow that Company to ‘advance’ gate money to any member club even in the best of circumstances: and surely to God not to help it to meet its payroll requirements. If TRFC need that kind of loan, they’d need to rely on whatever old faithful sharks  have been subsidising them so far.
And it would be suicide  for TRFC to admit that they couldn’t meet payroll!
(Do we know, incidentally, whether Barton is suspended without pay?)

View Comment

Matty Roth

Matty RothPosted on9:16 pm - Oct 9, 2016


The TRFC extension of JBs suspensions seems to indicate they are working to keep him off the payroll at least temporarily if not permanently.
All of which makes the very timely action from the SFA really quite questionable in my opinion.
Are we really supposed to believe that JB just happened to be the only player in Scotland placing bets and the SFA just happened to get their ducks in a row just as TRFC fell out with JB.
I find it just a bit too convenient.
I suspect TRFC reported their own player, which is up to them but what worries me is the SFA are able to act very quickly (once again) when the interests of certain teams are at stake.

View Comment

Avatar

fan of footballPosted on9:26 pm - Oct 9, 2016


john clark/corrupt offical   7/10/16
Sorry for the very late reply ,first chance to get back to blog 

Re sevco 2012 cash flow woes .
Rumours are begining to appear regards the bills getting filed in the bottom drawer ,whether there is any substance to them or not the bottom line is that NO scottish football club can continue running with losses in the millions in todays financial climate and I mean NO CLUB . 

Regardless of where the money is coming from the club really has to move to an at least break even position .
Promises of propping up a Scottish football club with loans is lunacy ,end of .

I have a feeling that sevco 2012 are treading water and the perfect storm is on the horizon ,the crazy statements the defending of the worst of the support ,the attacks on the SFA and media ,just lead to me to think that they know they can’t avoid the storm ahead .

The cost base of the club is too high ,even with the ST sales at an all time high ,they are showing all the signs of a club in crisis and having cut everything to the bone (except 1st team wages) they are one bill from left field away from sinking below the waterline .

Was this very scenario the real reason for the BIG LIE ,did they know that it would take the death of 2,3,4 clubs to finally stabalise a club that the old ragers fans could latch on to .
Once the LIE that a club was immortal was accepted by the gullible ,what does it matter if it happens over and over again.
We all know now that the SFA ,the media and the other club boards will do ANYTHING to ensure that the BIG LIE is maintained 

It worries me about the impact of the aiding of this club that refuses to get it’s house in order is having on future investors in the Scottish game 

What company would be happy investing money into our game when it looks like we endorse ,or encourage clubs to renage on paying their debts or fufilling contracts .
Don’t even get me started on the corruption stench .
 

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:23 pm - Oct 9, 2016


Matty RothOctober 9, 2016 at 21:16
‘……did they know that it would take the death of 2,3,4 clubs to finally stabalise a club that the old ragers fans could latch on to .’
________
Reading that gave me a wee twinge of anxiety: strong enough to re-check on the Companies House page just who had the  SPFL ‘share’. If, when, things go pear shape, we don’t want a repeat of the ludicrous and untrue mantra “it was the holding company that was liquidated, not the club”.
The Companies House record shows this:
“18 May 2016 Annual return made up to 13 May 2016 with full list of shareholdersStatement of capital on 2016-05-18 GBP 42
View PDF ( Annual return made up to 13 May 2016 with full list of shareholdersStatement of capital on 2016-05-18
GBP 42 ”
And, when one clicks on ‘view PDF’ one sees that  Share 39 in the SPFL is held by “The Rangers Football Club Limited”,and not by any ‘group’,or ‘holding company’, or Rangers Internatiional FC .
If TRFC goes bust, entitlement to the SPFL share is extinguished, and TRFC Ltd ceases to exist as a football playing entity, and bang would go its SFA share as well. .No question.

View Comment

Long Time Lurker

Long Time LurkerPosted on10:44 pm - Oct 9, 2016


Regarding the rumors that a football club is struggling to pay its taxes to HMRC.
Were the SFA / SFPL rules not changed whereby if a member club was struggling to settle their tax bills, that they also had to notify the SFA and/or SFPL of that difficulty?
If the rumour has any teeth, perhaps a journalist could contact the club and/or the football authorities to ask if notification (of difficulties in playing taxes) has or has not taken place.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on11:04 pm - Oct 9, 2016


While the Joey Barton situation is interesting ( including the precedents of Black and Simonsen not getting sacked for betting) surely the SFM should be more concerned with yet another failure of the national team to beat a lower ranked opponent – this time at home.
FFS WGS get a grip.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on11:49 pm - Oct 9, 2016


JOHN CLARKOCTOBER 9, 2016 at 22:23  

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsID=10252 

     And the SFA may find it hard to say anything else John. Membership was definitely given to Sevco Scotland Ltd, now known as “The Rangers Football club”.
 NB…..RFC (or Rangers FC) are not The Rangers Football Club, no matter how intricate the wording, but further to that, Sevco Scotland agree to pay, “all outstanding fines and costs.”  
        “Following the completion of all legal documentation, the Scottish Premier League will conduct the formal transfer of the league share between RFC (IA) and Dundee FC on no later than Friday 3rd August 2012. At this point, the transfer of Scottish FA membership will be complete.”    
     Obviously TRFC then joined the SFL, and had no need for the SPL share, resulting in the outstanding LNS fine being in dispute. 
   I am unsure if the LNS fine has been paid yet (anybody know?) but clearly as the “legal documentation” could not possibly have been completed, (due to the outstanding disputed fine), then the only conclusion to reach is that Sevco Scotland have never held a SPL share, and cannot possibly lay claim to SPL titles.
   RFC or Rangers FC league share must have went direct to Dundee FC,  bypassing Sevco Scotland (TRFC), or the LNS fine would not have been disputable.
   

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on8:44 am - Oct 10, 2016


Long Time LurkerOctober 9, 2016 at 22:44
‘..Were the SFA / SFPL rules not changed whereby if a member club was struggling to settle their tax bills, that they also had to notify the SFA and/or SFPL of that difficulty?..’
________
Perhaps this is what you are thinking of, LTL:  from the rules of the SPFL [  http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__therulesofthescottishprofessionalfootballleagueasat19january2016_1461332495.pdf

“HMRC Obligations and Reporting
E20Subject to Rules E21 and E28, any Club which:


E20.4does not within twenty eight days of the date of an assessment issued by HMRC on or after 1 June 2014 pay to HMRC the full amount of the Club’s Tax Liabilities arising as a result of that assessment
……….. shall report each such Default Event in writing to the Secretary within 2 days of the Default Event arising…”

View Comment

Long Time Lurker

Long Time LurkerPosted on9:00 am - Oct 10, 2016


John ClarkOctober 10, 2016 at 08:44
John, thanks. Yes that was rule I was thinking of.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on9:31 am - Oct 10, 2016


And while we are speaking of rules and such like (my immediately preceding post refers), I wonder would it be considered to be OT if I quote from an interesting letter in ‘The Scotsman” this morning?
The letter ( not written by me, incidentally) is about the Scottish Governmnet’s refusal to support a public register of Judges’ outside interests.
The letter writer says that  Lord Carloway( Lord President of the Court of Session) opined that “The proposal for a public register of the judiciary’s interests, gifts and hospitality is both unnecessary and undesirable” and also contended that ” It is inappropriate for judges to make public comment beyond their judicial opinion in relation to individual cases. Therefore, unlike an elected representative or member of the government a judge has no right of reply”
The letter writer goes on to remark: ” A ‘right to reply’  to what? To the fact that a litigant or curious layman can consult a public register to ascertain a particular judge’s outside interests? To the fact that the laity could discover that some judges are members of a budgie club or a peculiar cult that can influence the patterns of public and private life by a mere handshake? ..The SNP Government ….agreed with the judiciary and refused to to support the creation of a register. That display of deference ensures that Scotland’s legal system is tainted with the possibility that the outside (and secret) interests of the judiciary could allow bias to seep into the judicial process…….”

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on11:59 am - Oct 10, 2016


This is a thought provoking article on E Tims covering Scottish football and the kind of society in which it operates.
 It has always perplexed me why it has taken three years and a campaign to get a straight answer to the questions underlying Res12.
 I mean what is the worst than can happen now if those questions are answered? An apology from the SFA for using the letter of the law to circumvent the spirit of it?
 An admission the rules that allowed a club to participate in the CL at a time when Sherriff Officers were calling to collect overdue tax are in fact lacking or that the rules are only OK if they are honestly followed?
 I just don’t get it but it raises wider issues about Scottish society that are clearly articulated at
 http://etims.net/?p=10050 Well worth a read.

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on12:32 pm - Oct 10, 2016


I might be wrong here but this  time there is a real, not conjured out of the ether, holding company and a Club.  The club owes huge amounts to the holding company as well as to others. Might the Club die and the holding company live? I find that paradoxical prospect to be potentially perfect.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on1:35 pm - Oct 10, 2016


BFBPUZZLED
OCTOBER 10, 2016 at 12:32

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

The previous club did have a holding company, it was called Wavetower and owned something like 85% of the shares. Wavetower’s only reason for existence was to own those shares. As far as I am aware it did not have any other business. If I remember correctly Wavetower was in turn owned (100%) by Liberty Capital.

I think I am right in saying that a parent company does not have to own 100% of the shares in a subsidiary to be considered a holding company. Rangers were a subsidiary, if not a wholly owned one. So long as the parent has sufficient shares to totally control the subsidiary and it’s reason for existence is to own other companies, rather than to trade in it’s own right then it is a holding company. 

With regards you main point, it is entirely possible, some may even suggest likely, that the subsidiary will run out of funds and “die” whilst the holding company lives on. In that instance I would venture the assets of the subsidiary would be transferred to the holding company in order to satisfy the debt. Would that include the SFA / SPFL membership is an interesting question. If not it would hold a load of assets and have nothing to use them for.

View Comment

helpmaboab

helpmaboabPosted on1:43 pm - Oct 10, 2016


Police Scotland say reports of scary clowns gathering at the SFA offices at Hampden Park is inaccurate. A spokesman said ” it would appear someone was being mischievous. The only gathering held today was an SFA team meeting”

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on3:31 pm - Oct 10, 2016


HomunculusOctober 10, 2016 at 13:35
‘..Would that include the SFA / SPFL membership is an interesting question. If not it would hold a load of assets and have nothing to use them for.’
______
Unless they bought,say, another smaller club, changed its name to one they preferred? Or more likely, sold out to a developer?

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on3:51 pm - Oct 10, 2016


bfbpuzzledOctober 10, 2016 at 12:32
I might be wrong here but this  time there is a real, not conjured out of the ether, holding company and a Club.  The club owes huge amounts to the holding company as well as to others. Might the Club die and the holding company live? I find that paradoxical prospect to be potentially perfect.
=======================================
I would say that the holding company would be hopelessly insolvent, as the main asset on its balance sheet is the debt from the subsidiary.
We’ve not seen the latest RIFC PLC accounts to 30 June 2016, and since it cesaed to be listed we’ve had no meaning ful management accounts or interims (I’m ignoring that rather pathetic schoolboy item purporting to be interims that appeared on their website). I expect the 2016 accounts will be filed on the deadline day 31 December.
The latest published RIFC PLC accounts (to 30 June 2015) show the following
NON CURRENT ASSETS
Investment in subsidiaries £13,295K
CURRENT ASSETS
Amounts due from subsidiary £18,099K
NET ASSETS £31,394M

EQUITY
Share Capital £815K (81,478,201 ordinary 1p shares)
Share premium £19,048K
Merger reserve £12,960K
Retained earnings/(loss) (£1,429K)

It would be a reasonable assumption that the retained loss has increased, or at best remained static in the 15 months since.
If TRFC Ltd suffers an insolvency event, non currect assets, current assets and merger reserve would have to be restated, so what would that leave on the balance sheet?
How much is TRFC Ltd worth, and how much of that on a sale would revert to the holding company in the event of either an asset sale or sale of the business as a going concern?
The share premium is looking somewhat of a poor investment for those investors that paid full price in the IPO!

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on4:20 pm - Oct 10, 2016


The Cat NR1October 10, 2016 at 15:51
==========================
NET ASSETS £31,394M should of course have read
NET ASSETS £31,394K
.
I was heading off into warchest territory with that typo.

View Comment

Comments are closed.