Now that we are at the end of the league season, and with respect to the job still to be done at Tannadice and McDiarmid Park, it seems like a good time for a post holocaust report.
Fig 1 Average Weekly Attendances SPL 2011-2014
Peppered around this page are three charts and a table* showing the attendance figures for the SPL in the last three seasons. A school kid could tell you that there is a positive trend in those charts and figures, but the people who run our national sport will look you straight in the eye and tell you “that can’t be right – Armageddon is coming!”
It is one of the most ridiculous and mendacious situations I have ever come across. The people who run our national game, aided and abetted by those in the MSM (sans the eye contact though) are actually trying to persuade us of how awful our game is and how unsustainable it will be in the absence of one, just one, club.
Think about that. The SFA and the SPFL trying to talk us out of supporting the game unless we all recognise the unique importance of one, just one, club. That is what has happened, no matter how they try to spin it. And despite evidence to the contrary contained in these figures, not one of them has admitted to an error, never mind the downright lies that they told to support the position they held, the one where anyone speaking of sporting integrity was mocked and ridiculed.
Whilst growing up as football supporter in the 60s, one of things I was constantly bombarded with via the medium of the tabloid newspapers was that football clubs should be grateful for the publicity afforded them via their back pages. These were probably reasonable claims, especially in the light of the relative lack of access to players and officials conceded to the hacks in those days, and the pre-eminent cultural position in which they helped to place football. Alongside that, the broadcast media, particularly Archie Macpherson’s Sportscene and Arthur Montford’s Scotsport could be relied on to talk the game up. Of course, there was something in it for the papers – sales. The more column inches devoted to the national sport, the further northward their sales, and consequently advertising revenues travelled.
Fig 2 Avg. Attendances excl Celtic & Rangers
The situation was further cemented by the fact that the press in that ante-interweb era held a monopoly over the exchange and dissemination of information. That symbiotic, win-win relationship between football and the press was as much a part of football reality as the Hampden Roar. It also endured for decades. The press would talk up the game to such an extent that folk often remarked that they hadn’t realised how much they had enjoyed a particular match until they had read Malky Munro or Hughie Taylor’s report the next day. Archie Macpherson is on record as having said the same thing about legendary commentator David Francey, “It was a much better game to listen to than to see!”
Today that symbiosis is broken. The press themselves, in print and in front of microphones consistently belittle the product, talk of crises and Armageddon, of our own version of the Eisenhower domino effect of clubs going to the wall one after another.
Aided and abetted by the two chief bureaucrats in charge of Scottish football, Stuart Regan and Neil Doncaster, who have consistently helped to hammer home the message that Scottish football is not good enough, and cannot sustain itself financially without Rangers, a club that could not itself sustain itself financially to the extent that it is being liquidated.
At a time when Scottish football was clearly in crisis, and badly in need of sponsorship which could mitigate the effects of that crisis, the press and the authorities sought to strengthen their own negotiating hand by making negative claims about the state of the game which never came to pass, and for which they have never apologised. The actual situation, which would not have been hard to predict had anyone actually bothered to analyse the business of Scottish football, is summarised quite easily by saying this;
- Since Rangers’ liquidation and subsequent absence from the top league, the average home attendance of the other clubs has INCREASED overall (See Fig 2).
- In this season, the other clubs have added 50,000 fans to home attendances compared to 2011-12 (the last year Rangers were in competition).
- In that time the league has been won (twice) by Celtic, and the other honours have been claimed by St, Mirren, Aberdeen, Celtic and (either) Dundee United or St Johnstone.
- In that time, both Dunfermline Athletic and Hearts (who both had historical financial problems) entered – and exited – administration after fan-led buyouts.
- Dundee United have cleared off their bank debt.
- Kilmarnock have restructured their bank debt, freeing the club from a precarious long-term situation.
- League reconstruction has allowed some money to trickle down to the second tier clubs in an attempt to mitigate the immediate effects of relegation and to reward ambitious clubs.
Looking at the table of attendances above, it is pretty clear that immediately upon Rangers exit, the overall figures took a dip. However there was little difference the in the figures if you leave Rangers out of the equation (Fig 3) – despite Celtic’s attendance taking a hit that year (down by around 5,000 per home match).
Taking Celtic out of the calculations, it is clear that there is a 6,000 uplift in this average (Fig 2).
It is still undeniable that less people overall are watching football (Fig 1), but the trend is upward if one leaves the Ibrox club out of the picture.
Furthermore, this statistic exposes the double edged sword that is retention of home gates. The fact that gates are not shared is predicated upon the notion that the bigger clubs do not depend on the smaller clubs for income. And since the smaller clubs are no longer recipients of big club largesse, their fortunes are not affected, at least not as much as was suggested by the Regans, Doncasters and Traynors of this parish. The “Trickle-Down” theory of Reganomics said otherwise – but clearly and demonstrably it was wrong.
The abandonment of gate sharing has made Scottish football less interdependent than it once was, but the irony is that it works both ways. There is hardly a club in the country that depends on Rangers for their own existence, and here is the news; small clubs are no longer financially dependent on the former Old Firm.
Fig 3 Excluding Celtic
The fact, that is F-A-C-T, is that Scottish Football attendances in the top division are on the increase. The absence of Rangers has made no appreciably negative difference to any other club, far less caused a catastrophe of biblical proportions.
Even if the fools who were the harbingers of our doom were simply guilty of making an honest mistake, it is clear that they are uncontaminated with the slightest notion of how the game in this country operates. The Old Firm may be dead, but the OF prism is still being peered through by Stuart Regan, Neil Doncaster and the vast majority of print journalists. The latter who failed to honour that age-old football/press symbiosis because they believed, erroneously that David Murray’s dinner table was the hand that has fed them for over a century.
The irony is that as job opportunities diminish in the print sector, so too will the fine dining and patronage. I think they call that evolution.
Two years ago, in the wake of the fans’ season ticket revolt which saw the new Rangers forced to apply for membership of the league and begin at the bottom, those same MSM hacks taunted fans about putting their money where their mouths were. The fans responded splendidly as our statistics demonstrate, but typically there has been no recognition of this either at Hampden or in the media.
And the message from those fans is this: Scottish football is not dying. Not any more. At least not as surely as it was when David Murray started to choke the life out of it in the late 80s. The supporters are returning in numbers to see a competition untainted by the outrageous liberty-taking and rule-breaking of the last couple of decades, and all but one club has emerged from the mire of the Moonbeam Millennium looking forward to a new era.
If authorities allow the new era to thrive by restoring sporting integrity to the agenda, then the numbers, like the opportunities available to more and more clubs, will grow. The question is … will they?
Admittedly, these figures, like any set of statistics, can be cherry-picked to suit almost any argument that you care to construct. The fact remains though, that whilst it would be fanciful and ridiculously over-optimistic to claim that they bear witness to a burgeoning industry, it is utterly dishonest to conclude that they represent financial Armageddon. Armageddon? Aye right!
re; the 43.4m share figure
Originally there were 100m shares in RIFC available, of which just under 65m were taken up, leaving a shortfall of around 35m shares.
Where does the extra 8m shares come from?
Campbellsmoney says:
May 18, 2014 at 7:15 pm
Probably just wishful thinking on my behalf..
Well unless we get another extension of the renewal deadline the board should have a fair idea of where they stand. The general sale may see a bit of a minor rush from those that want a better seat but I doubt if it will change the bigger picture. Assuming the club can survive I think a bigger problem may be the divisions in the fan base as if social media is any indication there is no love lost between the various fan groupings. Perhaps we will see the moderate fans form a sustainable club and move forward but I fear it means ditching the talisman that Is Ibrox and that may be a move too far for some. Whatever the outcome it is self inflicted and I wish it would end as it is a sideshow and deflects from the real problems that face Scottish Football those that reside at Hampden rather than Govan.
hector says:
May 18, 2014 at 6:28 pm
——————————————————————-
My apologies sir your nuanced humour is too sharp for my plodding brain.
😉
Campbellsmoney says:
May 18, 2014 at 7:15 pm
It is 90% see section 979 Companies Act 2006
“979 Right of offeror to buy out minority shareholder
(1)Subsection (2) applies in a case where a takeover offer does not relate to shares of different classes.
(2)If the offeror has, by virtue of acceptances of the offer, acquired or unconditionally contracted to acquire—
(a)not less than 90% in value of the shares to which the offer relates, and
(b)in a case where the shares to which the offer relates are voting shares, not less than 90% of the voting rights carried by those shares,he may give notice to the holder of any shares to which the offer relates which the offeror has not acquired or unconditionally contracted to acquire that he desires to acquire those shares.
“
Are we sure shareholders in a plc. can be forced to sell? I seem to remember Abramovich had to make an offer to buy everyone out when he reached about 30% of Chelsea. He then issued, and bought, more shares ’til he eventually had enough to change it back to a Ltd company where he answered to no-one. The Chelsea fans still have their shares, but diluted beyond any power. Or maybe I’m remembering this incorrectly?
As Scapa has shown the 90 percent rule applies where a takeover offer has been made and acceptances have reached 90 percent. Then you can force the minority to sell at the highest price offered in the takeover offer.
What do you do with an unplanned £400 in your pocket in June or July?
Or put another way
What does your partner insist you do with it?
Certainly not tuck it away in DK`s piggy bank
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Make no mistake
This idea of paying at the gate could catch on and become the norm for many Bears
If GW has planned on a core support of 15K STs and not 15k paying at the gate he could be found out big time
More worryingly
Those whose memory stretches back to when paying at the gate was the norm
Will remember the choice of going or not going depended largely on the weather and whether the team was playing mince
………or playing dumplings
Joeninho says:
May 18, 2014 at 9:27 pm
=================================
Dermot Desmond has a 29% stake in Celtic. I am sure I’ve read if he increases that he would have to offer to buy the rest of the shareholding.
Edit: I know zilch about such matters incidentally.
upthehoops says:
May 18, 2014 at 9:45 pm
——————————————————————————————————–
That is also my understanding.
29% is the tripwire figure.
Regarding thresholds, I think the following may be the position.
Owning 30% of a plc forces you to make an offer for the other shares. (Which needn’t be accepted, but you have to have the cash to buy everyone else out in case they choose to sell).
Owning 90% of any company entitles you to squeeze out the rest (that is, you can force the small shareholders to sell). Similarly, the small shareholders can force you to buy. This may well happen in practice in normal companies, as a means of tidying things up, reducing compliance costs.etc.
Of course, with football clubs, it may be different in practice. Small shareholders are usually fans, and so wish to maintain a notional stake in their club, even if that stake is realistically worthless (and let’s not forget that often the controlling shareholding is virtually given away, so the mandatory purchase price may be of the order of 0p.) Similarly, the large shareholder is content to let minority interests continue if it keeps them happy.
upthehoops says:
May 18, 2014 at 9:45 pm
‘..Edit: I know zilch about such matters incidentally.’
———–
Me too
But, thanks to this blog, I know a heckuva lot more now than I ever would have! And over quite a wide range of matters that I was hitherto blithely ignorant of.
I wonder indeed that I ever made it to adulthood in this scheming world of con men and chisellers dressed up as ‘businessmen’ or ‘financiers’ or Insolvency Practitioners or, God save the mark, Football Administrators and whiz-kid mega-bucks tax cheats. ❗
Union of Fan’s statement, it’s a bit of an epic:
“In response to the disingenuous statement from the board, and to clear up the confusion they appear to be deliberately trying to cause Rangers supporters, we would like to reiterate our truthful account of the discussions held with Mr Wallace, Mr Crighton and Mr Sandy Easdale.
“We were invited to Ibrox by Mr Wallace, days after the launch of Ibrox 1972, to discuss the ongoing issues surrounding the security of Rangers’ assets. During the course of that discussion on Wednesday 14th May, Mr Wallace suggested that, whilst security would not be granted, the board would be open to offering a legally binding undertaking that Ibrox would not be sold, subject to sale and leaseback or any type of loan security.
“For the avoidance of doubt, that was Mr Wallace’s proposal, not ours, and he indicated that the plc board would meet on Thursday 15th May to discuss it. Given that two of the four plc board members who were required to rubber stamp this proposal were present, and apparently in favour of it, this was very much presented as a formality.
“We made it very clear that any such undertaking would need to be evaluated by our lawyers and this was accepted by all those in attendance.
“Given what Mr Wallace proposed regarding Ibrox, we asked that the same arrangement be put in place for Murray Park in order to safeguard it from the same fate.
“This was met by more substantial opposition from the board representatives, in particular Mr Easdale, who we would like to emphasise is not a plc board member, and Mr Crighton. They said they wished to retain “flexibility” over Murray Park.
“However, by the end of the meeting they had also agreed to consider granting the same undertaking as the one they suggested for Ibrox. This, we were told, was also to be discussed at the plc board meeting on Thursday 15th May.
“Our statement on the night of Wednesday 14th May reflected all of that and was 100 per cent accurate. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.
“Since that meeting we have heard nothing from the board. It is clear that they have now rejected Mr Wallace’s proposal to give a binding undertaking over Ibrox.
“It is clear that they have considered our proposal that the same undertaking be given for Murray Park and have also rejected that. The idea that this latest board proclamation should give supporters any type of additional confidence over the club’s assets is therefore utterly ridiculous. In fact it should confirm just how much danger our vital assets are in.
“It is clearly impossible to deal with this board in good faith. They told us we would receive a swift response following their deliberations. We have received no response.
“They told us that over the past two weeks, all major investors, bar one, have indicated they will participate fully and proportionately in any future rights issue. We do not believe this to be the case.
“They told us that all those major investors are supportive of their business plan and were impressed with the ‘120 day’ review (of Rangers operations and finances). We do not believe this to be true.
“They told us that they have access to an instant £5m of equity funding from existing major investors. This, according to Mr Wallace, is available at “the push of a button”. We believe that, if this is true, it will be used to benefit Mr Easdale’s associates.
“It is clear that Mr Wallace, despite being Chief Executive, has less influence in the plc boardroom than Sandy Easdale, who is not even a member of the plc board. It is clear that Murray Park is in grave danger and has been since December 2013.
“The statement from the board that they “will not be seeking” a sale and leaseback of Ibrox is not binding and it is still not unequivocal. We believe, as long as the shareholders fronted by Mr Easdale are calling the shots in the boardroom, Ibrox will remain in grave danger too.
“Until this situation is resolved we would continue to urge supporters to think very carefully before they hand this board their hard earned money up front. It is clear from meagre renewal levels that a large majority of fans do not trust this board.
“Our experience is that this position is the correct one to adopt. Support the team, not the regime.”
James Doleman says:
May 18, 2014 at 11:04 pm
Did nobody make a recording?
James Doleman says:
May 18, 2014 at 11:04 pm
‘….Union of Fan’s statement, it’s a bit of an epic:.’—-
————–‘
Thanks for posting the UoF statement.
What a state for any plc to get into! And where does anything resembling the truth lie?
But my eye was particularly caught by this : “They told us that over the past two weeks, all major investors, bar one, have indicated they will participate fully and proportionately in any future rights issue.”
In line with what I was saying the other day about Laxey’s modus operandi , I’m guessing that they are the ‘one’ who won’t play ball with the rights issue plan, but will steam ahead to shut down the business as next to useless as a money-making concern.
ecobhoy says:
May 18, 2014 at 11:01 am
37
9
Rate This
Resin_lab_dog says:
May 18, 2014 at 12:54 am
_________________________________
Then I think we are in complete agreement.
Hail fellow, well met.
“I was surrounded by a lot of kids in the St Johnstone support yesterday and there were enormous amounts of mums there cheering on their team as well. There was a Saintee behind me who spent the whole game explaining things to his young son about football and what was happening on the park.
It’s these kind of experiences that can create a love and a bond with football or any sport or activity and looking at all the young excited faces I was thinking that this one result could be enormously beneficial for the future of Saints and also for the whole town of Perth.”
…. This reminds me of the league cup final (we lost!).
… It is what wh should aspire to.
… But cost is a barrier.
It makes no sense to have empty stands while families are priced out of the game, and social cohesion breaks down all around us.
WOTTPI
Did nobody make a recording?
————–
CW did…
Scottish football needs a strong Arbroath.
UTH at 9.45pm & PHIL MAC at 10.25pm. Correct me if i’m wrong, did Dermot Desmond not ask Celtic F.C. shareholders at an AGM to alter their rules of association that in any eventuality that he would exceed the limit of 29% that he would not be required to buy out all other shareholders. Memory is not so clear on this. Apologies to McCaigs tower, did not see post
GoosyGoosy says:
May 18, 2014 at 9:44 pm
What do you do with an unplanned £400 in your pocket in June or July?
Or put another way
What does your partner insist you do with it?…
=====================================
[Apologies in advance to Jean & Brenda.]
A bear’s partner has probably got an awareness that TRFC is on a shoogly financial peg.
So why buy a ST – when you know the grief you would get – and especially if TRFC fails.
For simple, pragmatic reasons it makes sense to pay as you go – absolutely !!
But the real risk for any Govan based club is : if a supporter relinquishes his/her ST – will they ever become a ST holder again ?
I’m guessing that once a ST holder gives up their seat they are highly unlikely to commit again, [does anyone have any percentages of returning ST holders at football clubs ?]
And a reduced, core ST membership just creates more uncertainty re:revenues and increases risk for TRFC.
The information I have to hand is confusing but I will be as clear as I can. The confusion comes about because shares in The Rangers Football Club (Sevco Scotland) were converted to Rangers International Football Club shares and then a dilution took place at the IPO.
The extrapolation of the total number of shares issued at IPO according to an LSE announcement is 65 million.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/new-and-recent-issues/new-recent-issue-details.html?issueId=8816
The extrapolation of the IPO prospectus numbers gives you 58 million.
The number of shares at the top of the prospectus available for offer is 72 million.
http://scotslawthoughts.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/rifc-prospectus.pdf
The new shares arise from the following statement.
“25 Apr 2014 11:54:12
Rangers International Football Club plc
Business Review and Strategic Plan Update
…The authority given to the Board at the AGM in December 2013 to enable the Company to allot up to 43, 400,000 new ordinary shares of 1p each in the capital of the Company on a pre-emptive basis to existing shareholders has not been exercised to date. In the event that season ticket sales over the forthcoming weeks are materially less than anticipated then the Company may seek to use this
pre-emptive authority which can offer a cost effective and efficient method of raising capital.
To implement the initial phase of the three year plan set out below, the Board intends to seek shareholder approval in Autumn 2014 for the issue of additional equity pursuant to Section 551 of the Companies Act 2006…”
In reference to John Clarks post above ie; learning much in such a short time. I also have to expound my gratitude to many on here, Phil, Eco,JC, Auldheid et al and last but not least Paul McConville RIP for the crash course in seeing through spiv speak.
The internet has brought together like minded people with varying sinews of ideals. It has allowed many a ‘voice’ they hadn’t had before, while being educated at the same time. Pushing for fairness, integrity and decency within the chambers of the rulers of our game has allowed many that voice.
Varying sites have different appeals and this could depend on the individuals particular mood on any given day but for informative, in depth analysis, TSFM has to be up up there
So gentlemen and not forgetting ladies, a little self congratulations is in order and ‘Lang May yer lum reek.’ Keep up the excellent work as I feel there could be a deciding outcome in the not too distant future.
ekt1m says:
May 19, 2014 at 12:30 am
UTH at 9.45pm & PHIL MAC at 10.25pm. Correct me if i’m wrong, did Dermot Desmond not ask Celtic F.C. shareholders at an AGM to alter their rules of association that in any eventuality that he would exceed the limit of 29% that he would not be required to buy out all other shareholders. Memory is not so clear on this. Apologies to McCaigs tower, did not see post
==================================
I have no idea. I am a very long standing season ticket holder at Celtic but not a shareholder. I don’t recall anything like that being reported after an AGM mind you. Going back to only being a season ticket holder I only expect 20 games for my money every year 😀
http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/86134974571/fade-to-whyte-glasgow-rangers-from-beginning-to-end
32k words – the entire Rangers story
This is going to be a bit left field but….
Is it just possible that Reagan and Doncaster set out such a low expectation of the future prospects for Scottish football that anything above that expectation would be seen as a great success.
To paraphrase Tom Peters ‘under promise and over deliver’.
I don’t think the two are that smart, but you never know. Will we soon see a volte face where the two suddenly start to proclaim this was all part of a wider strategic direction to safeguard the Scottish game?
Another day and another statement in the Ibrox farce, this time from the Union of Fans. Only those people will know whether they stood and clapped as Craig Whyte strolled up Edminston Drive. Did they lap it up as Charlie Green stood handing out the cups of tea to the season ticket queues while disparaging the rest of Scottish football. Did they love it when Charlie Green disparaged Celtic and offered to compare balance sheets at the end of the season. Did they just love it as Rangers media poodles drooled over the ‘Institutional Investors’ who had lavished their cash into the club, while writing and speaking of how rich Rangers would be after the stroll through the divisions was complete.
Sometimes in life you reap what you sow, but they can’t complain about the bitter harvest they have now got. They were warned time and again but wouldn’t listen. They are as much to blame for what happened as anyone else.
James Doleman says:
May 18, 2014 at 11:04 pm
From UoF statement
This, we were told, was also to be discussed at the plc board meeting on Thursday 15th May.
So it was a board meeting on Thursday according to UoF, has anybody told AIM of the future share issue yet?
John Clark says:
May 18, 2014 at 10:44 pm
18 0 Rate This
upthehoops says:
May 18, 2014 at 9:45 pm
‘..Edit: I know zilch about such matters incidentally.’
———–
Me too
But, thanks to this blog, I know a heckuva lot more now than I ever would have! And over quite a wide range of matters that I was hitherto blithely ignorant of.
I wonder indeed that I ever made it to adulthood in this scheming world of con men and chisellers dressed up as ‘businessmen’ or ‘financiers’ or Insolvency Practitioners or, God save the mark, Football Administrators and whiz-kid mega-bucks tax cheats.
==============================================================
JC(e)…I rejoice in the knowledge that you have kindly omitted journeymen beancounters such as myself!
However, like you, I have also learned a massive amount from these sites (RTC & TSFM), particularly about the spiv/horde/klan mentality that is now endemic in the Govan club.
Dear mr Hugh o’fans
I note your quote below
“It is clear that Mr Wallace, despite being Chief Executive, has less influence in the plc boardroom than Sandy Easdale, who is not even a member of the plc board. It is clear that Murray Park is in grave danger and has been since December 2013.
“The statement from the board that they “will not be seeking” a sale and leaseback of Ibrox is not binding and it is still not unequivocal. We believe, as long as the shareholders fronted by Mr Easdale are calling the shots in the boardroom, Ibrox will remain in grave danger too.”
Could I suggest you spend a short while this morning learning the difference between CEO (librarian) and majority shareholder (person that owns the library).
If your going to pick and choose who you bow and scrape at least get the statuses correct. Just because they’re wearing a tie and brogues doesn’t mean they’re the messiah. Maybe they’re just naughty boys!
From the moment Alex Salmond opened his mouth and said Rangers were part of the fabric of Scottish society I was hooked. I wasn’t a football fan, just a middle-aged grandmother of 14. I had been brought up, like most people to work hard, be honest and respect my neighbours and now I was being told that a football club who had disregarded all the values that I had been taught were so important that they had to be saved. I couldn’t believe it, I must have missed something. I started reading everything I could find, finally my search led me to RTC and eventually to TSFM. I read every post and I have spread the word to anyone that will listen. Thank you all for expanding my education and knowledge, even though my sons think I ‘m mad to be so interested.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/keith-jackson-graham-wallace-borrowed-3568105
A cracker from Jackson- even by his standards. According to him Wallace’s coat is on a shoogly nail, but it doesn’t take “off the radar” intellect to work that one out.
The part that astonishes me is this gem, apparently sourced from Walter Smith-
“It had become clear the board of the Rangers International Football Club PLC was not calling the shots inside Ibrox. Rather it was those who made up the so-called “football board” who were really in charge.
This all-powerful football board is also known as Rangers FC Ltd. It was previously known as Sevco Scotland. Over two years it has been home to many a colourful character, including Charles Green, Imran Ahmad, Brian Stockbridge and more latterly, current chairman Sandy Easdale.
Of them all, only Easdale has not sat on both boards. Then again brother James has been keeping that seat warm.
Smith’s frustration with this entity became overwhelming. It’s understood even basic requests to see details of commercial contracts signed on the club’s behalf were repeatedly turned down flat.
In other words it does what it wants.”
So the same people, broadly, sit on both boards. Then why would the same bunch of people make a request of TRFC Ltd in their capacity as board members of the PLC, just to then turn round as members of the TRFC board and effectively tell themselves to get lost? Surely in any case the Board of TRFC can be dismissed by RIFC as 100% shareholders?
Could the cruel truth be that Walter was just used as a patsy to bring in the ST money, but nobody took him seriously as chairman? Which makes sense, since (IMO) Walter clearly lacked any of the experience, knowledge or skills required to be chairman of a PLC. How on earth they got his appointment past AIM is a complete mystery.
As regards the UoF statement last night, clearly open war has now been declared on the Easdales. They seem to have failed the UoF “Rangers Man” test. Luckily those lads look to be well capable of handling a little bit of aggro.
I can’t help thinking that the UoF are going to end up pushing TRFC towards insolvency. All the major shareholders are going to get sick of this sort of nonsense. Maybe that’s King’s preferred outcome. By the way, has anyone heard from the King across the water? It’s certainly not like him to miss out on a flurry of statements.
Morning all. Trying to keep up. I’ve probably missed this (jeg beklager meget, i så fald) but is this TV Aid business a real issue or a red herring? Looking at the extract of the document linked to in the tweet below it would seem that there was a ‘sponsorship’ of £250,000 available to ensure that Sevco Scotland matches were broadcast.
I’ve got to be reading this wrong, surely? Since when did league bodies pay TV companies to send matches?
Danish Pastry says:
May 19, 2014 at 10:13 am
1 0 Rate This
=============
Interestingly in the Leeds United Admin a radio station came out of the woodwork claiming to be a creditor due to broadcasting matches. Said radio station was owned 100% by Ken Bates.
While I have seen no firm proof that ESPN and then BT have received payments for broadcating 4th and 3rd tier matches respectively it is a bit of a wild accusation to make without proof. If true then whoever made the decision needs to be removed from office. It certainly reads as if the games would probably not have been broadcast without the alleged inducement. The only reason the scottish football authorities could have fro theses games needed to be televised is it may affect the advertising and commercial revenues of just one club. Like much of the omnishambles IT STINKS.
A final statement on STs?
THE renewal deadline has now passed.
However as in previous years renewals will continue to be accepted but your seat may not be guaranteed as we now begin season ticket transfers and then new sales from late June. Please see below for ways to renew your season ticket.
@ECO re: Mick’s piegate, we sure had fun with that… 😀 😀 😀
What was Mick’s mantra, Newco, Sevco, Tesco…
Re the latest UOF statement. Two things stand out;
“….the security of Rangers’ assets”
This seems to me like the assets are Rangers’ and no matter what really happens they will always belong to Rangers fans. Boy are they in for a shock !
and the use of “our” ;
“In fact it should confirm just how much danger our vital assets are in.”
The penny clearly hasn’t dropped, the people who own the assets are in complete control and they appear not to give a flying * about football or feelings of £400pa fans. The fans own NOTHING to do with Rangers.
Even shareholding fans own nothing of any value.
None so blind as those who cannot see.
timomouse says:
May 19, 2014 at 6:24 am
http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/86134974571/fade-to-whyte-glasgow-rangers-from-beginning-to-end
32k words – the entire Rangers story
=================================
I think we may have quite a bit to go before we can be sure we know ‘the entire Rangers story’ but none-the-less a credible effort.
I have had a quick skim through and have a few comments to make but will obviously re-read it and at a more leisurely pace. But it’s certainly worth a read.
Some of my comments are possibly niggles and others perhaps of more importance.
1) I didn’t notice any reference to Rangers traditional use of Ticketus long before CW appeared on the scene and it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if DM had introduced CW to Ticketus. This of course allows the question to be asked as to whether DM knew what CW intended to do with the Ticketus money.
2) The comment about Murray having never previously known failure. I think that a lot about Murray’s drive to succeed can be understood by looking into the history of his father’s alleged business difficulties as a coal merchant in Ayrshire if memory serves me correctly and the possible consequences of that for his abortive bid for Ayr not apparently finding favour with some local businessmen.
3) The mention of the fan protest against Miller wasn’t IMO simply a spontaneous demo against ‘The Yank’ but organised by some of the Blue Knights and probably PR influences. It has to be remembered that it also caused a very damaging and bitter split in the Bear support some of whom supported Miller and thought he was the best bet.
4) It states:
I think the decision was taken at a lot higher level than a pencil-pusher and not without political considerations. It is therefore unhelpful to denigrate the decision taken.
5) It states that the CF info:
It has been published repeatedly on the internet and that’s the major reason it is going to be allowed as evidence by the court. Publication in legal terms isn’t just about something being printed – it’s about communicating something to others and TSFM has played its part in CF by publishing the material and posters debating it.
On the same subject I also feel the SMSM are given a very easy ride in their craven silence on CF with the excuse that the information might have come from an illegal source. I have no need to rehearse why they could have used it as it has already been done here on many occasions.
6) It is stated:
I have always been of the opinion that Green needed to leave Dodge in a hurry and his reference to Imran was very very conveniently timed. What might have been worth more of a mention is the fact that Green had failed to have Sevco 5088 voluntarily wound-up and suddenly up popped CW and AE as directors of Sevco 5088.
CG had them removed but after the Registrar of Companies investigated she reinstated CW and AE as directors of Sevco 5088. I think this created something of a Blue-do in the Blue Room and the emergency exit sign started flashing.
And tied-in is the comment:
When trrying to establish facts in a highly contentious area where the full facts have probably yet to be revealed I often find it wise not to paraphrase but to use the actual words used by the key players. If this had been done it would have been clear that the statement above is misleading and incorrect on a very vital point of the Rangers story.
The remit of the P&M investigation was carefully structured in order to ensure that no link could be established between CW and CG because Sevco 5088 wasn’t included and therein lies the key to everything that happened from prior to admin and which financially bedevills Rangers to this day.
7) It states:
A small but very important point is that the Easdales don’t control the club as their ‘power’ comes from the proxy votes they exercise on behalf of anonymous overseas investors some of which are alleged to benefit from the so-called unbreakable contracts. Easdales are their to ensure the agenda of these shareholders is achieved. Does that agenda always mesh with their own agenda as shareholders – I don’t know. Do they even actually know who they are acting for – I don’t know.
8)
Perhaps I missed it but I don’t remember seeing any reference to what has befallen City in a regulatory sense. Also I didn’t think Wallace was at CEO level at City but I could be wrong.
9) It states:
I think a very telling failing in comprehension in that the Board – through all its various emanations – has been factionalised and is a bigger danger to itself than the fans IMO.
10) Saying the wage budget was also cut when Brian Stockbridge walked out has to be qualified. He didn’t walk-out with nothing but got his contractual pay-off so the wage budget wasn’t effectively cut and it will cost to replace him as well. It might be more interesting to know why Stockbridge chose his moment to go.
11) perhaps the strangest conclusion that the book draws is in relation to CO.
I am sure many would want a thorough deconstruction of Ogilvie’s unique roles in the Rangers crisis, the fact is that, through his own inaction, Ogilvie has rendered himself an irrelevance in a story in which he should have been a central player every step of the way. As Ogilvie has rendered himself irrelevant, it is only right that this book as a whole should treat him as such also.
Many here know I have had battles over CO’s position in terms of how he should be best dealt with for the good of Scottish Football. But one thing I am clear on is that someone in Ogilvie’s position with so many serious question marks hanging over him – which he refuses or avoids adequately answering – cannot escape the consequences because he hunkers down and tries to be invisible.
Ogilvie isn’t irrelevant and never will be until his role is fully examined and explained. Only then will he be deemed to be irrelevant to Scottish or European Football because hopefully he will have no further part in either. A seriously conflicted man who should have walked long before now IMO for the good of Scottish Football.
12) It states:
I think this encapsulates IMO the weakness in the book to actually look at the ‘planning’ for want of a better word wrt to the period after CW bought Rangers and the plans that were set in motion from the point that financial collapse was inevitable.
There’s a reference in the book which makes it appear as though CG just suddenly dropped out the blue and scooped-up the prize. This misses the whole critical wheeling and dealing that was going on from at least February 2014 and for some possibly months before that.
I just don’t think that the likes of Imran can be ignored – he is a key component in the saga. And there’s no mention of Zeuss without whom it is unlikely the CW/CG scheme or schemes – depending on where you believe the truth lies – could have got off the ground financially.
And then Mr Hart the man who never seemed to know if he was a Blue Knight or CG investor. But in there right from the very start it would appear and who bought his shareholding with money described as lying about in the Rangers youth department. I’ve never ever figured out that one – perhaps the youth department came under a different legal entity not affected by admin.
So I’ll call a halt there and hope the author takes my criticism in the manner it is offered which is to make a good product a bit better. It is hard to cast anything in stone when the volcano is still erupting and the red hot lava is still spewing forth.
Obviously when Phil created Downfall he was up against much more onerous timeframes and a lot less material in the public domain.
So I repeat – I admire the effort which anyone puts into creating this kind of work for posterity and I hope any input from me is seen as having positive motives which might provide food for thought. But I claim no right to be correct on any of my opinions because there is so much, as yet, still hidden wrt this saga.
JimBhoy says:
May 19, 2014 at 11:45 am
@ECO re: Mick’s piegate, we sure had fun with that… 😀 😀 😀
What was Mick’s mantra, Newco, Sevco, Tesco…
————————————————————-
Yea that was it – said they wouldn’t even need to change the colour scheme 😈
Happy days with Paul playing the scholalry Heidy attempting to retain order and to impart not just knowledge but wisdom which he possessed in bucket loads way beyond his years.
Who could have dreamt of the tragedy to come? RIP Paul you truly will never be forgotten by those whose lives you touched and enriched.
Why should we be surprised if the SPL had an agreement to subsidise the TV games involving SEVCO?
After all…we only have to look at the SFA…who took the unusual decision 5 months in advance…to award both the Scottish cup semi finals to 1 club?…
However on a serious note…where a neutral governing body or a neutral organisation within the governing body decides to commit a proportion of its finances to the support and promotion of one particular club to the financial detriment to all of its other member clubs then surely Tthe question must be asked…WHO MADE THIS DECISION ON BEHALF OF THE SPL?…
Corruption deosn’t begin to describe this!
Looks like Murray Park is the play of the day. http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/murray-park/
Paulmac2 says:
May 19, 2014 at 1:55 pm
Why should we be surprised if the SPL had an agreement to subsidise the TV games involving SEVCO?
After all…we only have to look at the SFA…who took the unusual decision 5 months in advance…to award both the Scottish cup semi finals to 1 club?…
However on a serious note…where a neutral governing body or a neutral organisation within the governing body decides to commit a proportion of its finances to the support and promotion of one particular club to the financial detriment to all of its other member clubs then surely Tthe question must be asked…WHO MADE THIS DECISION ON BEHALF OF THE SPL?…
Corruption deosn’t begin to describe this!
====================================
I’m still finding it hard to see the concrete evidence that this was done for the sole benefit of Rangers. If it was it’s a disgrace but before concluding it was I want to see the stigmata.
hector says:
May 19, 2014 at 1:57 pm
Looks like Murray Park is the play of the day. http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/murray-park/
================================
Well I’m totally opposed to this – what other world class training facilities are available for Celtic’s annual European Opposition to train on. I mean we don’t want them complaining to Uefa that they only had Bellahouston Park to run round 💡
Somewhat skeptical re the running costs and savings to be made by getting rid of Murray Park.
That’s not to say the operation doesn’t come cheap and if needs must then it seems an obvious choice.
I am sure there are plenty staff involved and while grass cutting can’t cost too much there will be the rates, utilities, admin, catering(!!!!!) cleaning, security et al.
The question is what is needed in terms of cost to cover some kind of training operation elsewhere.
Surely people can’t expect the Famous Glasgow Rangers to revert to the old days and turn up a Gullane Beach and local parks.
How would a club without Murray Park appear that attractive to players when teams like Hearts have Riccarton and Hibs have their own place down East Lothian? While the money at Ibrox is good I am sure the ‘whole package’ has been an attraction in the past.
If the place was to go as opposed to being borrowed against what does that say for CEO Wallace’s Review and the commitment of the club to develop its own talent?
I am sure the bean counters will have done their work.
Just better not to tell Ally yet that his new training budget may only allow him a new set of water proofs for out door training on cooncil ash parks and a reliance on NHS physio departments.
I guess the combination of the various internal ‘Ibrox’ leaks and the public statements from the various supporters group, means in red-top terms , “the club is riven from top-to-bottom with splits”. I would expect that escape tunnels (Tom, Dick, and Harry) will be in construction for all the major players and that we are now officially at the beginning of the end.
What can the Rangers football fans (i.e. those with a brain who like football) do about the current situation?
It is very tempting to just sit back and laugh at the predicament that their ‘loyalty’ and their economic hold over the SMSM has gotten their club into such a horrible mess.
There is another viewpoint, along the lines of they are a vulnerable (albeit triumphalist utter shower) group whose loyalty , which is very often a good human trait, has directly resulted in the current carnage, so the football authorities should be assisting them.
If I were in charge of the Rangers supporters, the route forward is straightforward:
– Unite as many fan groups as possible
– Sign-up as many ex-players to the ’cause’
– Complete freeze on club purchases
– Petition the SFA to ban sine die the following
– Lord Murray
– Charles Verte
– Brian Stockbridge
– Craig Blanc
– Petition the SFA for an investigation into the current and previous Board, as the directors appear to have acted in self interest , which is counter to their broader responsibilities to the game, and hence have brought the game into disrepute.
– Petition the SFA to transfer the membership from the current Rangers to another ‘New Rangers’ who will play at another ground and start again in the fourth tier.
Essentially, to get their club back the Rangers fans will need to write-off in the short term their loyalty to Ibrox; the Loving Cup, St Etienne Bike, Portraits of Her Majesty can always be crated-up or given a temporary home at the Hampden Museum.
Whilst I extract my tongue from my cheek, there is a serious point to made here. The SFA / SPL stood back and watched Lord Murray of Snakeoil , peddle his illegitimate wares for decades, the authorities now appear to adopting the same laissez-faire approach (although I suspect most Chairmen, after a beverage or two, will at least although themselves a smirk at Rangers predicament).
A coherent approach from a sensible Rangers group should be able to seek redress from the authorities and get their previous Lords and Masters, sine die and the current lot found unfit to run a football club , with the club membership transferred to a new group , playing outwith of Ibrox.
Two provisos’, no history can be transferred and a new name will be required, Glasgow Wanderers springs to mind.
I guess all of the above is a bit of a left field option, however I am still perplexed that the Rangers fans are not ‘up-in-arms’ marching to the SFA to get the current shower that run Rangers chased out of Scotland.
Still, with a split board , some of the investors will have had enough and will walk away; the prospect of providing more money to Rangers seems, well bonkers. Whilst they are all disagreeing , cash burn to next to nothing and gates shut …..
ecobhoy says:
May 19, 2014 at 2:16 pm
Looks like Murray Park is the play of the day.
Is it still called that? 😀
If Phils sums are correct and MP is around the £12million mark on an annual basis, it would raise the question of SDM being a really terrible businessman who was more of a gambler who struck lucky and started to believe the hype and the boot licking from the psychophants gathered around him.
Treated like royalty in Charlotte Square by that other no gooder Masterton, it seems to me that SDM thought he was invincible. The important question would be, just when did he realise his empire was built on sand. The figures involved were absolutely mind boggling and how it was allowed to get to this beyond comprehension. £900 million debt at one time.
I’ll move on as it makes me feel dirty when discussing this man. My concern would be the ordinary working men and women who have been screwed royally while his lord and master sits in France alongside that other chancer CG. The working class guys who made the stadium operational for match day. The stewards, workers in bars, behind shop counters and cafés and any other worker who relied on this paltry wage to feed the weans.
Who is concerned about them? Have they had their pensions raped? These people are proud working class Glaswegians and every single one of them deserves what is owed to them. A lynch mob should be at his chateau door till he pays back every last coin he has screwed from these people. He and his like, should never be able to retain any financial cushion when these ordinary punters are left high and dry.
Every single one of them should be reimbursed all they have lost. Is it not bad enough to lose ones job without having your nose rubbed in the dirt. These ordinary working class men and women are creditors as well in my eyes. The perpetrators should be jailed for this robbery.
ecobhoy says:
May 19, 2014 at 12:33 pm
30 3 Rate This
timomouse says:
May 19, 2014 at 6:24 am
http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/86134974571/fade-to-whyte-glasgow-rangers-from-beginning-to-end
32k words – the entire Rangers story
==========================
Read the first couple of pages and after two glaring errors decided to give up. Firstly Rangers did play Catholics before they signed Maurice Johnston. Secondly the new years day game in 1998 was at Celtic Park, not Ibrox. Basic errors which should have been spotted, especially if the writer took a year to write it.
I know I’m being picky but if you want to write the complete narrative then make sure it’s factually correct. Especially if you want to rubbish someone else’s attempt.
What was Mick’s mantra, Newco, Sevco, Tesco…
————————————————————-
Yea that was it – said they wouldn’t even need to change the colour scheme
Happy days with Paul playing the scholalry Heidy attempting to retain order and to impart not just knowledge but wisdom which he possessed in bucket loads way beyond his years.
Who could have dreamt of the tragedy to come? RIP Paul you truly will never be forgotten by those whose lives you touched and enriched.
=======================================================
The wit was second to none. In his own style, he said an awful lot without saying too much. He could cut the legs from a poster in one sentence. On Piegate, he stated he had to edit a little and he hoped Mick wouldn’t mind. Mick thought he spent ages on it. Brilliant. A man gone from this world far too soon. RIP Paul.
@Eco, Donegaltim, read down to Nial’s point on freezing pies and mick’s response… The man was a legend (Mick that was not de-nial)
Sorry can’t resist re-highlighting this bit from oor Keef
“Could the cruel truth be that Walter was just used as a patsy to bring in the ST money, but nobody took him seriously as chairman?”
Do you reckon Keef? Really? Well blow me away with a pheasant’s tail!
Eco. I’m with you on the TV front. As I read the stuff, essentially ESPN/BT were being reimbursed for not getting the viewing figures they were promised (whether they had a right to have that expectation is a separate matter, however correct that view may be). Aligned to the payment was the right to show some sevco games (extraneous to the SPL that the original TV deal covered – who would want to watch div 3 matches anyway!) presumably to keep the viewing figures up, with the cash payments then making up the difference, or am I a cream filled confectionary item? The much needed publicity received seems to have been in an attempt to reduce the cash payment made, not as a direct result of it.
But I would be VERY happy to be proved wrong.
With Rangers fans caught in a kind of catch twenty blue situation as they consider whether or not to renew their season tickets (not handing over your season ticket money with no certainty of future prospects looks like a perfectly sane decision. Not handing over your season ticket money could destroy the club you support – that would be crazy.)
You can be sane and crazy at the same time. If you are sane you don’t pony up, if you don’t pony up you are crazy.
Catch twenty blue is some catch!
Sadly for Rangers fans the only outcome of this is a continuation of the in-fighting that we have witnessed so far.
Without collective action they are powerless, left with no one to fight with except themselves.
As an old trades unionist might have might have advised, you are either all ‘in’ or you are all ‘out’, nothing else produces an effective result. There is no half-way house, save one that is bitterly divided.
It will be interesting to see just how many Rangers fans either renew or take up new season tickets. I suspect that if significant numbers do not renew they will not be easily replaced.
For most clubs in Scotland there is a hard core of fans willing to spend money on a season ticket, their numbers can be increased if things are going well. There is a supplementary group willing to pay for tickets to individual games as the mood takes them.
Converting the transient into the permanent has never been easy, doing so when circumstances are less than appealing looks well nigh impossible.
So there we have it, a scenario where nobody wins. It’s what we once called MAD.
Smugas says:
May 19, 2014 at 3:10 pm
1 0 Rate This
Sorry can’t resist re-highlighting this bit from oor Keef
“Could the cruel truth be that Walter was just used as a patsy to bring in the ST money, but nobody took him seriously as chairman?”
=================
Sorry, Smugas, but those words are mine, not keef’s. I really need to learn this “block quote” thing.
Ah, so what you’re telling me is that the first sane words written on the ST debacle were actually yours whilst our award winning red top remains blissfully in the dark. Disappointing – yes. Surprising – No!
Smugas says:
May 19, 2014 at 3:10 pm
Eco. I’m with you on the TV front. As I read the stuff, essentially ESPN/BT were being reimbursed for not getting the viewing figures they were promised (whether they had a right to have that expectation is a separate matter, however correct that view may be). Aligned to the payment was the right to show some sevco games (extraneous to the SPL that the original TV deal covered – who would want to watch div 3 matches anyway!) presumably to keep the viewing figures up, with the cash payments then making up the difference, or am I a cream filled confectionary item? The much needed publicity received seems to have been in an attempt to reduce the cash payment made, not as a direct result of it. But I would be VERY happy to be proved wrong.
========================================
I just can’t get past the notion that we have total incompetents at Hampden wrt extracting proper rates for televising Scottish Football as well as other important income streams.
But I can’t really blame a TV company for drawing-up a contract to their financial advantage and we have to remember that the original contract guaranteed I think 4 – dare I say it – Old Firm Games. TV is about viewing figures and like it or lump it Rangers has previously been capable of generating those more than most other teams in the bottom two rungs as were.
So as I understand it the complaint is about Rangers getting more publicity than they should and not that they made any more cash. From the few games of Rangers I have seen in the last couple of years I would say they must have been mad to agree to any TV coverage which put their dire football on display.
Bear of many years standing usually, in my experience, ended-up drifting away to the puggies and the only ones avidly watching for a laugh were bhoys and ghirls.
I really think we have to be careful of over-egging our ‘outrage’ and just enjoy the funny side and when we make any claims ensure that they are backed-up with solid evidence. But – not just a sop to Ryan – we shouldn’t forget decent Bears who are only interested in watching football. They are not responsible for the financial mess engulfing Rangers.
They just paid their money either by ST or walk-up to go and support their team and like any other supporter they wanted them to win but very few in the mixed-locals I drink in believed they had any divine right to win and those that did didn’t last long as both sides ignored them.
Even bar staff got the message and they took their Blue Pound elsewhere for better service. They weren’t missed 😆
The issue of “onerous contracts” within RIFC/TRFC has come to the fore over the past few weeks.
It has been used as a further stick with which to beat the current boards of directors. This is the case even though the current directors were not in office when these contracts would have been put in place (albeit the shareholders who have engineered the appointments of the current board members will have been those who engineered the appointments of the directors who did execute these contracts).
As I understand it, there is a suggestion that these contracts are with RIFC rather than TRFC and that this may contribute to their supposedly “unbreakable even in insolvency” nature (i.e. even if TRFC goes into insolvency that will not affect a contract entered into between Party A and RIFC (because RIFC is not in liquidation/administration)).
Well that analysis is OK as far as it goes but what can it mean? Let’s take “catering”.
If Party A has a contract to provide catering services and that contract is with RIFC, then fair enough. If TRFC goes bust, it matters not a jot on the face of it. But think about that. To whom are the catering services being provided? RIFC? if so, that means RIFC is paying Party A for those services. What is RIFC doing that it needs catering? Really of course we are talking about matchday hospitality packages and the like.
The terms and conditions for matchday hospitality indicate that you or I would be contracting with TRFC (incidentally I see that payment by credit card for bookings was available.)
So how does this work if the catering service is actually supplied by Party A to RIFC and not to TRFC?
Well, one way would be to have TRFC pay RIFC in return for RIFC providing catering services to TRFC. This is just sub-contracting. RIFC agrees to provide catering to TRFC. RIFC sub-contracts that to Party A. TRFC pays RIFC. RIFC pays Party A.
Fine. The contract between Party A and RIFC does not get “broken” if TRFC goes into administration.
Let’s say it exits administration by way of a CVA.
What happens to the contract between TRFC and RIFC? Well, that depends upon whether or not the administrator chooses to breach that contract. If he/she does, then the Party A/RIFC contract remains unaffected but now becomes a millstone around RIFC’s neck (as it has to pay for catering it has no use for). But would an administrator terminate such a contract? What benefit is there to the creditors of TRFC in doing so? To do so would increase the size of RIFC’s claim in the insolvency of TRFC. The creditors are not in fact going to get any more money out of a CVA if the contract is terminated. So it might well be left in place.
Anyway – the other thing I wanted to say about onerous contracts was this. If Mr King and his current friends, the UoF, wish to kick up a stink about onerous contracts they should remember that Mr King sat on a board of Oldco that awarded very similar contracts to parties connected with the then majority shareholder.
And it should also be remembered that Mr King never invested in Oldco. He invested in a company that held shares in a company that held shares in Oldco. Why did he do that? Did any of those companies have a contract with Oldco I wonder?
Donegaltim says:
May 19, 2014 at 2:49 pm
What was Mick’s mantra, Newco, Sevco, Tesco…
————————————————————-
Yea that was it – said they wouldn’t even need to change the colour scheme
Happy days with Paul playing the scholalry Heidy attempting to retain order and to impart not just knowledge but wisdom which he possessed in bucket loads way beyond his years.
Who could have dreamt of the tragedy to come? RIP Paul you truly will never be forgotten by those whose lives you touched and enriched.
=======================================================
The wit was second to none. In his own style, he said an awful lot without saying too much. He could cut the legs from a poster in one sentence. On Piegate, he stated he had to edit a little and he hoped Mick wouldn’t mind. Mick thought he spent ages on it. Brilliant. A man gone from this world far too soon. RIP Paul.
===============================
Mick wasn’t perfect – who is? But he was a socialist with outspoken principles especially wrt to womens’ rights and discrimination of any description. And he was a totally unconscious comedian with blistering one-liners that seemed to come from nowhere.
Campbellsmoney says:
May 19, 2014 at 4:50 pm
The issue of “onerous contracts” within RIFC/TRFC has come to the fore over the past few weeks . . . .
====================================================
As usual interesting piece.
I have been thinking a lot about these contracts and reminiscing over Mick’s Piegate has just made my brain engage.
Obviously when D&P were running the club during the admin period they continued with in-house catering. I now wonder whether these contracts were amongst those ‘sold’ to Sevco Scotland and who was actually operating therm during admin.
I came across this: http://www.moduline.it/foto/news_36_it_.pdf from April 2012 which states:
Apparently ScoMac had carried out a trial in 2008 at a kiosk which provided a 20% hike in uptake but: ‘For various reasons the project never gained any legs until mid-2010 when the club’s owners showed a desire to reignite it’ wrt the 42 separate kiosks according to the article which also stated:
Iain Munro added that Scotmac was fully paid for all work and in November 2011 it received the final payment for work completed in 2011, with the remaining 20% that it was owed for the last phase of work
paid three weeks before the project was fully completed.
He added: ‘“After July 2011, every other bit of work that we did we were paid for in advance of completing that work.”
There seems to be a suggestion that at least some of the “onerous” contracts acting as a financial millstone around the neck of RIFC concern the field of catering.
I have mentioned here many times that by my reckoning the main characters behind Blue Pitch and Margarita are connected to the Abela clan from Lebanon.
Who just happen to have been involved in the catering business for 50 years.
Is the penny (or Craig Whyte pound) about to drop?
neepheid says:
May 19, 2014 at 3:56 pm
“I really need to learn this “block quote” thing.”
————————————-
Put the word blockquote inside the following brackets preceding the text you want to block quote.
At the end of the text to be block quoted do the same thing again but this time precede the word blockquote with /.
You can try a test and delete it immediately.
It isn’t possible to show the actual format since as soon as the computer (WordPress) sees an instruction inside this type of bracket, the brackets and instruction get hidden.
If I were to use a different type of bracket for demonstration purposes then you get :
{blockquote}I really need to learn this “block quote” thing.{/blockquote}
Which when the {} are replaced by becomes :
Possibly off topic but it seems one of the most prominent football bloggers in Scotland has some interesting political points of view.
http://goo.gl/W8hFsF
The type of bracket is <.
James Doleman says:
May 19, 2014 at 6:05 pm
Possibly off topic but it seems one of the most prominent football bloggers in Scotland has some interesting political points of view.
http://goo.gl/W8hFsF
______________________________________
If ever we needed confirmation that this guy is a supremacist *rse we have just had it.
On Contracts I have put together some info on catering as it has been mentioned elsewhere. I haven’t checked the info but I’m sure others will be able to add bits. From memory Close Leasing was a creditor but I think they had a fixed charge and probably were protected by a finance agreement as well and I vaguely seem to remember posting on this many many moons ago which I will try to find.
Interestingly Azure of the catering contract also won the cleaning contract at Ibrox pre-admin so I’m not sure who has that now.
theguardian.com January 2004 stated:
When Saturday Comes April 2011 states:
In November 2011 on Pie & Bovril
STV February 2012
Record February 2012 states:
Alfieprince says:
May 19, 2014 at 9:39 am
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Poor Alex Salmond gets it tight on here for his ‘fabric of the nation’ statement. He’s also used those words, or variations of, to describe shipbuilding on the Clyde, same-sex legislation and, well, basically loads of things.
It makes regular appearances in his speeches or interviews and seems to be a phrase he enjoys using. Or, more likely, a phrase his speech writers and advisers enjoy getting him to use. So those words are not exclusive to Rangers. He’s just doing what most politicians do and that’s play to your audience because you’re addressing a group of people whose votes you want.
As a Hearts fan (no laughing at the back) why didn’t he use identical words about their predicament? I have no idea. It doesn’t really bother me much. And anyone who thinks he’s wasting his time trying to get votes from Rangers fans because they’re all pro union, flag waving empire apologists…. that’s a generalisation as sweeping as Archie Macphersons heroic comb over.
Donegaltim says:
May 19, 2014 at 2:40 pm
———————————————————
For the avoidance of doubt my sums come from within the place.
tomtom says:
May 19, 2014 at 2:45 pm
ecobhoy says:
May 19, 2014 at 12:33 pm
the entire Rangers story
==========================
Read the first couple of pages and after two glaring errors decided to give up. Firstly Rangers did play Catholics before they signed Maurice Johnston. Secondly the new years day game in 1998 was at Celtic Park, not Ibrox. Basic errors which should have been spotted, especially if the writer took a year to write it.
I know I’m being picky but if you want to write the complete narrative then make sure it’s factually correct. Especially if you want to rubbish someone else’s attempt.
===============================
I have to say I was a little surprised at the tone of the opening remarks which I hoped weren’t actually meant in the way they came across.
It is usually easier to follow in my experience than trailblaze 🙂
I’ve often thought that. Politician wades in unprepared and says something that he thinks will go down well, before being pulled aside by one of his advisors and told in no uncertain terms that was the worst thing he could have said. He’s not the first politician to have done it, and he certainly won’t be the last.
It’s interesting that he’s never mentioned it since, which would be unusual, since if he just read the MSM, then he’d probably think he said exactly the right thing. I think it’s more likely that his advisors have pressed on him what an absolute vote loser it would be to repeat it.
BTW, from memory, I think he did contact the Lithuanian authorities on behalf of Hearts, and requested that they deal with the liquidation of UBIG etc. as quickly as possible. I mean, don’t quote me on that, but I’m sure I remember reading it somewhere!
Could the ST boycott change the habits of a lifetime?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Suppose this ST boycott took hold at TRFC
Picture the scene
In the old days
Some Bears go to their “football” pub with an intention to go to the match and “pay on the day”.
Some meet in the town intending to catch the subway. Others team up near the ground intending to walk to the match.Since they were standing all the time they were certain they could all be together
Bears from outside the City had to make their attendance decision earlier in order to allow for travel
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Nowadays
…….. with the spread of smart phones
It is technically possible now to check availability of seats together and pay for thembefore kick off
You wouldn`t even need a ticket since you could get everybody in by swiping a card
But heres the thing
With an ST the Bear gets a £400 pain in his pocket once a year and probably has a one off moan about it being poor value
But
Doing it every week is different
He is constantly reminded that he could have 8 pints for the price of admission
It wouldn`t take long before Bears pick and choose which games to attend
Or whether to stop going altogether
And it wouldnt just be TRFC that would suffer
Making it easy to gain entry on the day could be the death of STs
Unless your club has a waiting list
Its a catch 22
Make it hard to get seats together and many people wont be bothered with the hassle
Make it easy to get seats together and people will pick and choose
Unless of course its cash at the door and open seating
Which would be wide open to fiddling
ecobhoy says:
May 19, 2014 at 12:33 pm
———————————————————
The author of any book is the last person to have a valid opinion on the value of the work.
However, here is the only professional review of Downfall from the SMSM:
http://www.scottishreviewofbooks.org/index.php/back-issues/volume-8-2012/volume-eight-issue-four/522-what-s-the-score-kevin-mckenna
Shooperb says:
May 19, 2014 at 7:19 pm
————————————————————————
“Politician wades in unprepared and says something that he thinks will go down well, before being pulled aside by one of his advisors and told in no uncertain terms that was the worst thing he could have said. He’s not the first politician to have done it, and he certainly won’t be the last. ”
It was anything of the sort.
I covered this at the time.
Salmond was kite flying on Al Jazeera with great precision.
Glasgow Evening Times Mon 19/5/14
Double page spread inside of back page.
Cammy Bell ,Keeping The Faith In His Light Blues
Picture of same Cammy sitting beside the moziac crest on the floor .
Hold on ,the yellow Admiral top he is wearing has the Tennents Logo.
Looks like a new sponsorship deals has been struck on the QT.
While not doubting or questioning the figures at all, can anyone explain in detail how on earth a training facility in Glasgow can possibly cost upwards of £1m a month to run?! By the beard of Zeus!
Sorry Phil, can’t agree. If he was deliberately kite flying, he’d have done it in an ambiguous way that would have allowed him wiggle room. That’s the whole point of kite flying, surely? To gauge the mood without promising anything? Certainly, the very least is to avoid making an idiot of yourself in the process?
The board have been busy
“Following recent dialogue, Admin representatives of Vanguard Bears, on Thursday 15th May, met with the Board of the Rangers PLC and Ltd companies; David Somers, Graham Wallace, Norman Crighton, James Easdale and Sandy Easdale, at Ibrox.
The purpose of the meeting was to begin a process of wider engagement between grassroots supporters, and Directors of the club. For Vanguard Bears this was an opportunity for us to express a number of concerns to the Directors about a variety of issues that the club is facing.
The meeting, which lasted a little under an hour and a half was frank, informative and open.
A number of questions were asked and the Board have given a commitment to review and feedback on them. These will be available in the first instance on our forum, and thereafter on our website front page for all supporters to form their own opinion.
For the avoidance of doubt, Vanguard Bears are committed to holding Directors and prospective officials to the highest levels of scrutiny, and we hope that this engagement can be a basis for progress for everyone with the well-being of Rangers at heart.”
Shooperb says:
May 19, 2014 at 8:44 pm
—————————————————————————————————–
I know the back story to this and Salmond was kite flying and against the advice of his own advisers.
The choice of Al Jazeera was very deliberate.
I wondered whether any catering contracts at Ibrox might fall into the onerous category and have a connection with any major club shareholders.
Azure Catering hold the catering contract at the stadium and press reports indicate that CW used future income from their long-term contract payments to Rangers for providing match-day stadium catering to refurbish and re-equip the Ibrox catering facilities.
Azure was apparently initially funded by Charlotte Ventures and became a Murray Group company but was eventually purchased by Elior UK – the UK’s fourth largest contract caterer – known as Avenance UK until 2005.
Elior UK is a subsidiary of Groupe Elior of France the world’s fourth biggest player in its field which operates in 12 countries.
Given that background I am finding it difficult to see how an RIFC shareholder could financially benefit from the Rangers catering contract with Azure even if it were long-term and onerous in some regard. Obviously there might be some connection with the mystery overseas Rangers shareholders that I am unaware of but Elior doesn’t give the impression of that kind of link.
Anyone got any thoughts on the issue? Obviously the Abela name has previously been raised wrt Rangers but has it ever been connected to Elior?