Armageddon? What Armageddon?

ByBig Pink

Armageddon? What Armageddon?

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.

Average Weekly Attendances SPL 2011-2014

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.

ex Celtic & Rangers

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;

  1. Since Rangers’ liquidation and subsequent absence from the top league, the average home attendance of the other clubs has INCREASED overall (See Fig 2).
  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).
  3. 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.
  4. In that time, both Dunfermline Athletic and Hearts (who both had historical financial problems) entered – and exited – administration after fan-led buyouts.
  5. Dundee United have cleared off their bank debt.
  6. Kilmarnock have restructured their bank debt, freeing the club from a precarious long-term situation.
  7. 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.

table

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.

Excluding Celtic

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!

* Source ESPN          

About the author

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.

2,810 Comments so far

ecobhoyPosted on8:49 am - Jun 11, 2014


Barcabhoy says:
June 11, 2014 at 2:25 am

@bb

I love a dose of brutal realism to start the day 😆

They might have been better with Rizvi but then maybe they still have him in amongst the anonymous offshore investors who seem to be known only to the Easdale Camp which carries out their instructions by proxy. Others more cruel might liken them to a ventriloquist dummy – we see the lips moves and we know who has written the PR script.

Is their only one Puppet Master pulling the strings or are there a number each with a different bit of the Ibrox commercial entity under their control?

And yet some Bears are still supporting this financial shambles to preserve a history and cultural tradition that any sane person would want to bury quietly and forget about and attempt to build a new club simply based on sporting integrity.

I say ‘financial shambles’ but that’s only to those outside the charmerd magic circle which, in reality, is actually highly organised to extract every thin Blue dime from Ra Deluded People.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on8:59 am - Jun 11, 2014


Barcabhoy says:
June 11, 2014 at 2:25 am

Can’t argue with any of that. Good stuff.

The issue for me is that despite all of the above and the current shenanigans they are still rolling along.
We keep expecting the wheels to come off but here we are with a third season ahead of the new club and it appears like it is business as usual.

Despite what many on here would like to see happen and given all the predictions going right back to the outcome of the FTTT my fear is that somehow that last wheel may never come off.

PS Just wondering why Dave King and Gough have gone all quiet and why no-one in the MSM are chasing them fro an update?

View Comment

mcfcPosted on9:07 am - Jun 11, 2014


They Shoot Horses Don’t They

So £8m from 40m shares – that’s 20p each – a tad optimistic to say the least.

How far into the season does that get them – Xmas – well maybe

Will this satisfy Deloitte – along with another ethereal loan facility that never was perhaps

Is there a pot of gold that they are striving to reach that will solve everything ?

Otherwise, what’s the point of raising enough cash to get no where in particular.

Mr Wallace – where’s the plan to the 2015 ST cash injection – sod the deeds – show us the spreadsheet.

My assessment, there is no viable plan, there is no viable cash flow analysis, they are just stumbling from crisis to crisis hoping that something turns up, things will turn around – because they don’t want to go down in history as the men that killed another Rangers.

Or maybe the host is just being kept alive so the onerous contract parasites can suck a bit more out before they move on to another opportunity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7l4L6HW5mQE

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on9:12 am - Jun 11, 2014


I suppose Ibrox and/or Murray Park could never be sold before the share issue otherwise why would anyone invest in a company with no assets which has burnt through tens of millions of £s in under 2 years and looks as though it is still on that road.

Of course we shouldn’t forget that many many people have lived high on the hog during this saga.

So now we wait to see if anyone will be daft enough to buy shares other than those who have already drawn-up the blueprint as to how maximum dosh can be extracted from a tiny transfusion to keep the cash provider alive for a little longer while its innards are stripped clean – an offal prospect for the poor tortured animal.

And after the share issue – what next?

IMO there is only the assets either to be sold outright or to be leased if a mug can be found. But maybe the Rangers Men will just wait for Hampden to become available as it’s bound to be a lot cheaper than what the spivs would charge for Ibrox.

View Comment

Carfins FinestPosted on9:21 am - Jun 11, 2014


Castofthousands says:

June 10, 2014 at 10:53 pm

4

0

Rate This

twopanda says:
June 10, 2014 at 6:49 pm

“World Cup `Bagsies`”
——————————————-
Twopanda’s World Cup bagsie as sponsored by Campbellsmoney.

Teams currently unselected:

Australia
Iran
Japan
Algeria
Nigeria
Honduras
Ecuador
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Greece
Russia
=================
Can I Baggsy Japan. Always good to watch.

View Comment

oddjobPosted on9:35 am - Jun 11, 2014


John Clark says
June 11 @12.10am

My post @1.47pm yesterday was prompted by the statement in made by BDO in their interim report, that a decision made at a Tribunal in England, May have relevance to the matter being considered at the UTT.

Is it possible BDO have had sight of the document you refer to, or are prIvy to the substance of the said document?

My deduction from the BDO statement was that the additional submissions, were to be allowed after the hearing of all other evidence, and that these additional submissions were in reference to the case in England.

Incidentally, it was not my intention to misquote you regarding your chat with the FD of MG. I just wondered, since said FD cited advice from his legal team, whether they would introduce that argument at some stage.

I appreciate your response to my earlier post. Thank you.

View Comment

EKBhoyPosted on9:40 am - Jun 11, 2014


Morning,

I am assuming that the whole invest in Rangers has 2 purposes :

– offset losses against other parts of your business, whilst at the same time,
– make money from replacing contracts and mgt personnel

I recall that the original Dec 2012 investment had some sort of 2 year restriction in the ability to offset against other gains.

Perhaps , the next influx of cash is to get past the Dec 2014 deadline ……. longer term strategy is for the something to turn-up strategy.

The levels of dignity are at all time low …..

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on9:51 am - Jun 11, 2014


“Twopanda’s World Cup bagsie as sponsored by Campbellsmoney.”

“Sponsored by”?? Eh what who when?

Anyway Uruguay always win the World Cup when it is held in Brazil.

View Comment

Night TerrorPosted on10:27 am - Jun 11, 2014


John Clark says:
June 11, 2014 at 12:10 am

That is a very convincing interpretation of Lord D’s dilemma. All educated guesswork of course, but I’m buying it over the other options.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:34 am - Jun 11, 2014


oddjob says: June 11, 2014 at 9:35 am

John Clark says June 11 @12.10am
————————–
I don’t know which case is being referred to in the BDO report, so it is impossible to look at the judgement and see what parallels there are between the Murray Group and this other case.

During the UTTT, Lord Doherty noted the publication on 26th February of a Supreme Court decision in the case of Forde & McHugh Limited (FML) v HMRC, and asked both parties in the Murray Group case if they wished to consider it. It may be that it is this case which is being referred to by BDO.

In that case FML won their appeal against HMRC at an UTTT. HMRC then appealed to the Court of Appeal where they got the UTTT decision overturned in their favour. FML then took the case to the Supreme Court which overturned the decision back in their favour again by reinstating the UTTT decision

Here is a link to the Supreme Court decision in that case.
http://supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0162_Judgment.pdf

As I say, I don’t know if this is the case in question, but both HMRC and Murray group were invited to consider it at the UTTT.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on10:39 am - Jun 11, 2014


According to today’s Beano, £8 Million shortfall as a result of lack of ST purchases. No accurate numbers have ever been quoted as sold to my knowledge. So say each ST is £350 approx then that equates to a shortfall of roughly 23,000 fans if this is true there seems to be a real split among the fans. With the board and investors not seeing eye to eye how can this bear well ( a wee play with words there). Obviously SFA not going to get involved as they just turn a blind eye to everything Sevco. On another note Hampden is an embarrassment and the people who reside there are also an embarrassment, they compliment each other well. We need to get rid of both IMO to move our game on.

View Comment

EKBhoyPosted on10:51 am - Jun 11, 2014


EKBhoy says:
June 11, 2014 at 9:40 am
5 0 Rate This

Morning,

I am assuming that the whole invest in Rangers has 2 purposes :

– offset losses against other parts of your business, whilst at the same time,
– make money from replacing contracts and mgt personnel

I recall that the original Dec 2012 investment had some sort of 2 year restriction in the ability to offset against other gains.

Perhaps , the next influx of cash is to get past the Dec 2014 deadline ……. longer term strategy is for the something to turn-up strategy.

The levels of dignity are at all time low …..

——-

Doh , – offset against gains ……..

View Comment

GiovanniPosted on11:00 am - Jun 11, 2014


The DR are referring to Alexander Easdale as CEO and now the BBC are calling Graham Wallace chairman. Have I missed an AIM announcement?

View Comment

mcfcPosted on11:09 am - Jun 11, 2014


One Man’s Going Concern is Another Man’s Basket Case

In wondering where this will all end and why it continues to continue continuing, it occurred to me that people can see the same situation very differently. For example, If I were an investor who’d picked up some assets and shares from a liquidation sale for a couple of £mill cash and I was sucking out say half a £mill cash each month and was already deep in the black on the deal, then the fact that the reformed concern was leaking a £mill a month, upsetting its customers, attracting ridicule and teetering on the edge of solvency might not concern me too much – after all it’s not my £mill being burned each month.

The best thing to do is just keep things ticking over by all means possible – and maybe prime the pump with the occasional £mill if it ensures several more months at half a £mill pure profit. But what about the customers and the future of the business you ask. Well that’s really not my concern – what was the business again ?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:13 am - Jun 11, 2014


So TRFC are going ahead with a rights issue because of the low uptake of season tickets, at least according to the DR and we can be pretty sure the article is just a publishing of a TRFC puff piece with a few comments. But wasn’t it always on the cards, even if the ST sales had been a success? Weren’t they also planning to go to the market for even further finance – again even if the ST sales were a resounding success? If I’m correct, then the projected best case scenario, which was based on a full uptake of STs, and a rights issue, and highly successful re-visit to the market, is already way behind plan. What’s more, if the rights issue isn’t fully taken up, at least by all the financial institutions with shares in RIFC, then the resultant display of lack of confidence will surely sink any plans to go to the market soon and possibly forever. Again I return to my suggestion of a last throw of the dice/Kamikaze scenario.

And if the ‘Charlotte’ tweet, posted here by taxman, is correct, and Sandy Easdale is taking over as CEO, does it mean Wallace is on his way out? Will the first piece of austerity, financed by the rights issue, be to pay him off?

As a Hearts supporter, watching the favourites for the Championship continue to strengthen their squad, I can only say that I hope they continue to buy players no other team in the league could afford…coz they certainly can’t afford to sign them either.

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on11:21 am - Jun 11, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
June 11, 2014 at 12:39 am
…………………………

That is the point…with a spiv the element of least spend is the aim…if I am looking to get my hands on a cash cow with the least amount of outlay I would be keen to ensure certain things.

1. If I buy the business… there is no effect to employees they carry on as normal no TUPE required

2. If I want to appear to buy the business…but don’t…and only buy the assets then I have no responsibility to the employees as the business I bought the assets from is still trading! Albeit in administration.

3. If I want to purchase a service or happen to succeed in a tender process for a part of that business then the employees directly and only employed in that service will be effected and I have a duty to accept TUPE.

The question is did CG buy the football club/the business?…if he did TUPE applies and the associated costs..or did he buy assets only?

I accept it has layers of complexity that I would suggest suits a spiv who will be looking for least spend and least spend would be to ensure what was bought did not invoke TUPE, after all who wants to accept a cost base they can avoid or adjust downwards?

I have often wondered why CW chose to ramp up certain players wages just before the pop? and why those same players walked instead of invoking TUPE to continue with their new increased salaries?

View Comment

oddjobPosted on11:23 am - Jun 11, 2014


EasyJambo says
June 11 @10.34

Lord Doherty clearly has a very difficult decision to make, and I believe he will make based on all the facts which have been laid before him, and I am sure he will pay attention to any other matters of relevance (in his view), before he delivers his judgment.

Like yourself, I am none the wiser regarding which case BDO were referring to.It could be that which you have kindly linked, though I wonder why,if Lord D referred to it during the hearing , submissions had to be made after the conclusion. Perhaps research , further instruction? Who knows.

As an aside, I noticed in his judgement in the FML case, Lord Hodge used an updated reference to the view of the “common man”, when he said “what would the ordinary man on the underground think”. A modern version of “what would the man on top of the Clapham Omnibus say”.

Thanks for your help.

View Comment

indy14Posted on11:27 am - Jun 11, 2014


MCFC says

Is there a pot of gold that they are striving to reach that will solve everything ?

eh yeh the champions league, think of the spivs rolling their hands like Monty Burns “excellent” were they to qualify proper, bonuses costs etc would be huge for TRFC and no doubt all of that income would be “reallocated”

Suffice to say they’ll never get there but that’s what they’re all praying at the foot of

View Comment

mcfcPosted on11:33 am - Jun 11, 2014


indy14 says:
June 11, 2014 at 11:27 am
eh yeh the champions league, think of the spivs rolling their hands like Monty Burns “excellent” were they to qualify proper, bonuses costs etc would be huge for TRFC and no doubt all of that income would be “reallocated”
============================================================
Indy – that pot of gold is at the end of a rainbow on a planet in a galaxy far, far away 🙂

View Comment

indy14Posted on11:42 am - Jun 11, 2014


Indy – that pot of gold is at the end of a rainbow on a planet in a galaxy far, far away

Are they trying ot get there on a death star?

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on11:42 am - Jun 11, 2014


lyjambo says:
June 11, 2014 at 11:13 am
And if the ‘Charlotte’ tweet, posted here by taxman, is correct, and Sandy Easdale is taking over as CEO, does it mean Wallace is on his way out? Will the first piece of austerity, financed by the rights issue, be to pay him off?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Yes and No
Wallace is a Spiv
Very probably he came on a contract with a terminal bonus
Like all Spiv v Spiv deals he will have ensured his payment was protected before he took the job
Most likely in an escrow account
So his time will be up
He will move on and get replaced by another Spiv lower down the food chain
That’s how it works in Spivland

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on11:51 am - Jun 11, 2014


Interesting that in all the landmark EBT cases, there was only one lost by HMRC. You can guess which one.

http://www.cch.co.uk/croner/jsp/editorialDetails/category/Tax-Insight/HMRC/editorial/Employee-benefit-trusts

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on11:53 am - Jun 11, 2014


On clearing out FIFA. Not before time with trickle down to National Associations.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/jun/10/lord-moyniham-challenge-fifa-british-government?CMP=twt_gu

View Comment

SouthernExilePosted on11:55 am - Jun 11, 2014


Paulmac2 says:
June 11, 2014 at 11:21

The question is did CG buy the football club/the business?…if he did TUPE applies and the associated costs..or did he buy the assets only?
———————————-
CG bought the assets necessary for the Undertaking of professional football by a team called Rangers playing out of Ibrox in blue strips.

There are no “layers of complexity”. It was a TUPE scenario.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on12:08 pm - Jun 11, 2014


It seems to me (from what I pick up from the “media”) that only UEFA look as though they are prepared to stand up to Mr Blatter.

Did I hear correctly that, having undertaken some time ago, to stand down soonish, Mr Blatter has reneged on that promise and has instead been garnering votes from various delegates to deliver his re-appointment as a fait accompli?

Given what appears to be coming out about Qatar, I expect that Mr Blatter would much rather be in charge at the time that any investigation/revelation occurs so that he can best manage that process. Better inside the tent.

Now one wonders what leverage UEFA on their own have. Economically UEFA is a huge part of the footballing world. In purely numeric terms, it must be pretty small. So what are their options if Mr Blatter will not willingly step aside if he carries the support of the requisite number of associations?

Would a UEFA boycott of the World Cup (not this one – too late for that) be worth it? A price worth paying?

As it happens cricket has in the last 10 or so years undergone a huge power shift with the traditional powers (England and Australia) being marginalised by the huge economic power of Indian cricket. The test match calender is now largely organised around India and Indian wishes.

UEFA have Mr Platini. A man who voted for Qatar. A man whose son is employed by the Qatari company that owns PSG I believe.

There are times that is difficult to look at the World and not despair.

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on12:42 pm - Jun 11, 2014


A few random points

Wallace, chairman and Easdale CEO could this be TRFC as opposed to RIFC who already have Sommers and Wallace respectively?

Share Issue. I think £8m is optimistic and if the costs are anything approaching the IPO costs that’s 50% already gone.

UEFA stance on Blatter. I think we have seen enough evidence in the Warner years to draw a conclusion on CONCACAF. Reports are that most of the African and Asian associations with votes got Qatari bungs which would only leave the South American Federation and the very insignificant Oceania to stand up to Blatter if the perceived view is he will arrange a whitewash (oops would he call me racist for that 😉 ) of the Qatar selection

SFA to buy Ibrox? Are they really serious when both thay and the SPFL are claiming they have no money because of the Armageddon. Tesco have to be a more serious contender.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on12:45 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Paulmac2 says:
June 11, 2014 at 11:21 am

“The question is did CG buy the football club/the business?…if he did TUPE applies and the associated costs..or did he buy assets only?”
—————————————————
I am willing to accept that the Rangers business continued following the events of 2012 based on, if nothing else, their continued existence. The TUPE discussion has been enlisted as a metaphor for the nature of this business continuation and different perspectives have been emoted depending on which facet is being observed. However, speaking from the position of a seat on the Glasgow Underground, I am unashamedly a little confused about how a bankrupt business manages to extricate itself from certain death. It may be a perfectly legitimate and well precedented process but like David Attenborough, I am fascinated by the intricacies of the animal kingdom.

At the point Rangers fell into administration, their biggest creditor, HMRC, wanted their money back and Rangers didn’t have the aye readies.

So the business goes into administration whereby a bunch of guys with no emotional attachment to the business arrive and try to sort out the financial turmoil. Their primary objective is to keep the business going and to this end they attempt to negotiate with creditors a reduction in the amount of debt. Should this process be successful they will have achieved a CVA. The business will thereafter continue albeit in a slimmed down format and with a bunch of suppliers (creditors) that are non too happy how they have been treated but are willing to give it another try.

It turns out that a significant portion of the creditor value (HMRC) are not content to accept their outstanding monies being whittled down to a few pence in the pound. They’d just as soon see the business liquidated (all the assets sold off in a fire sale) as settle for such a derisory amount. So no CVA is achieved. The business has no continuing viability. The components that comprise that business will be disassembled and sold in job lots to whoever can make use of them. The purpose being to obtain as much return as possible for the creditors.

I know HMRC stated that they were happy for the business to continue, I am just fascinated by the mechanism by which this purpose was achieved.

So, prior to the liquidation process, a bunch of ‘assets’ that pretty much represent the bones of the business is sold off. That’s fine. Why go to a fire sale if there is someone who can make good ongoing use of big chunks of the bankrupt business. To use Paulmac2’s analogy, the tractor, barn, slurry tank and pig house can be sold as a job lot to the farmer next door who can make use of all these items congruently. It likely provides a higher price than their piecemeal sale.

Where the fascinating jump comes for me is that after NextDoorFarm Ltd buy these assets, the cousins of the previous owners of BankruptFarm Ltd move into the old farm house and continue trading as if nothing had happened.

Having seen this evolution unfold before our eyes there is nothing shocking in this and my following repetition of the arguments will likely prove laborious but…

The whole point of having a money based economy is so that account can be made. When accounts are not settled in timescales agreed then disputes are ventured upon. When these disputes become insoluble legal recourse is taken for which much precedent likely already exists. The punishment for bankrupting a business beyond the point of rescue is oblivion. Or is it? Well no. It is actually inconvenience to the point of irritation.

At this point the scorpion sting the animal that is conveying it across the stream.

View Comment

twopandaPosted on12:47 pm - Jun 11, 2014


The Simple Simon story flogged this morning is wafer thin.

That sort of thing needs a majority formally approved. If it is 42m shares that’s circa 66% of what’s out there at the moment and a serious dilution if sanctioned.

Some `Investors` could see no point in a shares dilution. They have 3 choices – lie possum accept – bail out somehow – or reject the dilution proposal taking their chances with an insolvency admin to reset..

Others may not be content with certain parties gaining overall control – may have nothing to hide, see no point in dilution, may want to bail-out, or they too could take their chances with an admin to try to rescue the thing – and the money they`ve put in to date.

If other parties none too keen on the prying eyes of admin have an interest in avoiding said prying eyes they`ll need to buy up enough current or new shares to gain overall control.

I don`t know, how the deckchairs may be switched but the layers of intrigue in such matters are probably worth some analysis insight. Are the accountants imposing discipline? Is a grab for control possible? What could the options mean for the Bears? They are the customers after all.

What do Bears get reported on a Public Company?
`8m in new shares to keep the lights on` – bit of padding and err that`s it. Carry on Spivs.

P-retty R-ubbish.

View Comment

toadintheholePosted on1:19 pm - Jun 11, 2014


I’ll take Ecuador if they’re still available.

View Comment

Para HandyPosted on1:36 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Well if not enough shares are purchased they can always blame the customers again. That seems to be the approach anyway. Not sure how successful it will be, however.

The more this continues the more ludicrous it becomes. Until they make major adjustments to the current cost base there is no way that they are capable of breaking even let alone providing a return to any shareholders.

£8M this season just to keep the lights on and hopefully get promoted. How much will thy then need to make a run at the Premiership? More than £8 M that’s for sure.

Also, with the recent SFA negotiation tactics, are we seeing a realisation that Scottish football cannot maintain three major stadia? Hampden would be a good site for some housing. I’ll need to have a chat with my arachnid friend…

View Comment

steph1895Posted on1:45 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Tin hat on, sandbags barracading the front door and cats on armed sentry patrol – alternate shifts.
I’m going for England because I am English

I’ve said it and now I’ll await my fate…………………….

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on1:46 pm - Jun 11, 2014


ecobhoy says:
June 11, 2014 at 9:12 am

“an offal prospect for the poor tortured animal”

I saw that ❗ 😀

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on1:57 pm - Jun 11, 2014


The latest Land Bear quackery consists of smearing a Public Servant and Celtic Football Club by suggesting an alleged shared ‘history’ might have affected the District Valuer’s professional judgement and resulted in a favourable land deal for the football club.

Explaining this complex and sensitive issue in a balanced and objective way has been made more difficult by the usual lies and distortions generated by the Land Bears in pursuit of their hate-ridden sectarian agenda against Celtic.

I won’t waste time demolishing spurious and inconsequential claims made by obsessives which hold water only in the eyes of their deluded brethern. I will simply lay-out the facts as I understand them and leave readers to form their own conclusions.

The story is fairly long and complex and exposes a number of issues that need answered but none of them IMO relate to State Aid. They are potentially much more serious than that.

The allegations centre on a land exchange between Celtic Football Club (CFC) and the West of Scotland Housing Association (WSHA). The story dates back to circa 2002 when CFC and the WSHA agreed to exchange two plots of ground with no charge to either side.

One piece was the Celtic bus parking area in Camlachie and the other was owned by the housing association within what became known as the Celtic Triangle. A District Valuer was involved and it must be assumed he agreed both plots of land were of equal value otherwise they could not have been exchanged without a balancing payment by one of the parties.

This ‘gentleman’s agreement’ was never put into effect for reasons which are now unclear. But we know that a site investigation was done on the bus park – presumably on behalf of WSHA (the intended purchaser) – which apparently revealed that two-thirds of the site was undermined and unsuitable for housing and only useable as green space.

The Clyde Gateway route was seen as an essential part of East End regeneration and Glasgow City Council (GCC) compulsorily purchased land from Celtic and WSHA as well as others to build the new road.

The land compulsorily purchased from WSHA by GCC included most of the ground within the Celtic Triangle involved in the no charge swap for Celtic’s Camlachie bus parking in Stamford Street. But a small portion of the WSHA land wasn’t required by GCC and was left marooned in the Celtic Triangle – it measured 2,620 sq metres which for visualisation purposes equates to 262 metres x 10 metres. A tiny landlocked plot and IMO of no great value to a Housing Association even as a ransom strip. And one that realistically no one else would buy because of the constraints.

The new road and associated landscaping was completed and, as often happens in large construction projects, some of the compulsorily purchased land ended up surplus to requirements. As this is a fairly common occurrence there is even a set procedure to deal with it known as the Critchel Down Rules.

It would appear by late summer 2013 that the possible swap of Celtic’s Camlachie bus park with the by now much-reduced WSHA plot within the Celtic Triangle was back on the agenda.

The WSHA management committee discussed the deal on 25 September 2013 and apparently were told a value of £555,000 had been put on the housing association’s small remaining plot within the Celtic Triangle. Celtic were obviously stunned at the valuation arrived at by a new District Valuer given that a previous District Valuer had agreed the cashless swop of the two bits of ground circa 2002. Celtic were now faced with handing over the Camlachie bus site plus £555,000 in return for a postage stamp piece of ground.

Negotiations juddered to a halt when Celtic raised the earlier ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’ which the football club were still prepared to honour despite the WSHA land having shrunk to a fraction of its original size because the GCC had compulsorily purchased the majority of housing association land within the Celtic Triangle.

But WSHA wasn’t prepared to honour the original 2002 deal on the basis that DV reports at the time would have expired after 6 months and WSHA stressed it had to secure ‘value’ for their land as ‘franked’ by the District Valuer or any other suitably qualified valuer.

I have no knowledge of Celtic’s thinking but it seems fair to assume that they would have no problem with an up-to-date valuation but they might have expected that their own site would have increased by a similar percentage and therefore the land swop would still essentially have remained a cashless excambion.

Celtic apparently point-blank rejected the deal and the new District Valuer then slightly revised the WSHA plot value downwards with a stipulation that if within 25 years Celtic developed it then the club would make an additional deferred payment to WSHA.

However matters remained deadlocked and the local MP appeared to have been brought in on 11 October 2013 in a desperate move to restart negotiations between the parties. Time was of the essence for WSHA because they were bidding for a £100,000 grant from Kew Gardens to create a ‘Grow Wild’ Project on the bus parking site with an application deadline of 13 October 2013 which passed with no movement on the land swop.

However the Kew Gardens grant publicity camapign didn’t start until 14 October 2013 and on that date two senior officials of the WSHA met with the new District Valuer in what appears to have been a last ditch attempt not to miss out on the £100,000 grant.

They noted concerning their meeting with the DV: ‘No solution was suggested as it is not his place (the DV) to attack his own valuation. CFC needs to make a counter-offer and then a negotiation can commence’. That reads to me as the DV spelling out his position and maintaining it.

The WSHA officials also noted:

‘Doing something with the bus park is important to the community, WSHA, the City Council and everybody involved with the Commonwealth Games.

‘The project will also remove any threat of this area being used again as a bus park, the Bambury Mound will be moved there at minimal cost (£240,000 to go offsite) and moving the mound will create a better site for the proposed Phase 10 building project’.

This needs a little explanation. The Bambury Mound was situated on another WSHA site which had no connection to CFC but the WSHA intended to remove the Bambury Mound and build 18 houses in its place. Disposing of the mound as landfill was costed at £240,000 as opposed to a minimal cost to move it to the bus parking site where it would provide a very visual centrepiece for a greenspace project and also ‘cap’ the hydrocarbon pollutants associated with the parking use and some asbestos mixed-in with an existing smaller mound on the site.

To fully appreciate what was actually happening behind the scenes back in October 2013 let’s fast-forward to January 2014 when a senior WSHA official prepared a briefing note for the association management committee on the background to the WSHA land valuation and negotiations.

The note stated:

“It was during this time that WSHA worked closely with the DV involved and [WSHA Senior Official] formed the view that there was a ‘history’ between this individual DV and CFC.

“In hindsight I now believe that the DV started high as a negotiating stance hoping to extract the maximum possible from CFC.

“If we had reached agreement at £75,000 and then brought the matter to WSHA’s Management Committee, I believe we would have been pleased that there was a payment to WSHA involved.”

The deluded Land Bears have taken this statement to mean that the DV’s ‘history’ meant that Celtic received advantageous treatment from the DV.

I do not take that meaning from the use of the word ‘history’ by the WSHA official as I struggle to see the advantage gained by Celtic in having to pay £555,000 for a transaction which a previous DV had agreed should be done without costs to either party and further that it appears the WSHA would have been happy to accept £75,000 for their land which they eventually did.

I accept that in the intervening period the value of the WSHA site had apparently increased enormously. However I have a difficulty in wondering why the nearby 10,150 sq metre Celtic bus site in Stamford Street – four times larger than the WSHA site – didn’t appear to receive the same % uplift in value. It become even curioser IMO when you remember that the WSHA plot had shrunk to a fraction of its size in the intervening period.

I believe that answers are required on this issue if for nothing else than to repair the damage which has been done to the reputation and impartiality of the District Valuer’s Office.

So how did it all work out in the end? Well seems to me the local MP knocked a few heads together and got negotiations restarted between the parties and it emerged that the DV admitted he didn’t realise the WSHA site he was valuing was much smaller than he thought.

He apparently fell into the same trap as the Land Bears in wrongly thinking the valuation under consideration included the much larger portion of WSHA land compulsorily purchased by GCC which really is a bit of a shocker IMO 😳

It also seems the DV had a major rethink on the basis he originally valued the WSHA site which entailed: Getting its size correct; taking into account the £300,000 grants the bus station would attract for landscaping; the savings of £220,000 in removing the Bambury Mound; the adverse effect on WSHA residents of Celtic’s continued use of the bus park; and possibly the financial spin-off from building 18 WSHA houses on the cleared Bambury site; and an unquantified drop in value of the WSHA £85 million Camlachie housing investment.

Perhaps it’s better in explaining the volte-face to use the DV’s own words to WSHA:

The District valuer concludes: ‘Therefore, whilst it appears that you are selling an asset at less than Market Value, you are doing so based on the fact that it would be unwise to try and hold out for a higher consideration when the potential additional cost to your Association would more than exceed the differential if the excambion did not proceed.

‘The worst case scenario is that having invested £85M in Camlachie, the Stamford Street site either lies vacant and semi-derelict or even worse reverts back to a bus park for Celtic FC. If that were the case, I would imagine there would be significant adverse affect upon the value of your property holdings in Camalchie which we obviously wish to avoid.’

So the upshot was that the DV dropped the price of the land swap for celtic from £555,000 to £75,000. That’s pretty fascinating but what fascinates me more is that reading his words I get the impression he is blaming the WSHA Management Committee for accepting his original £555,000 figure. He’s the independent expert who may or may not have some ‘history’ with Celtic. I have no idea if he has and if I was a Land Bear I would be demanding to know what team he supported; whether he had a ST; whether he was a shareholder; and whether any of his family were the same.

After all the Land Bears have made the same demands of the local MP who has obviously done a wonderful job for the WSHA and local community.

Personally given the weight of reasons advanced for the DV’s change of opinion I would have thought that the WSHA should have been paying Celtic for the deal. However I am sure Celtic with its strong commitment to the local community wouldn’t have pressed for that.

Still there are lots and lots of questions which require to be asked over this issue so that we can fully understand what ‘history’ if any the DV supposedly had wrt Celtic which required to be commented on in a report to WSHA by one of its senior officials.

We must have an impartial and even-handed DV service and they require to provide assurances and explanation on what has happened and the WSHA or its new parent company Gentoo also require to provide explanations as to what it did when the question of ‘history’ was raised as one of their senior officials appeared to think it influenced critical land valuation negotiations. I would say this – at the very least – requires the matter to be reported to the police in order to protect the DV concerned from any misconceptions as to his role.

At the end of the day WSHA accepted the amended DV valuation and confirmed that the Scottish Housing Regulator would require to accept the DV’s justification for his enormously reduced valuation figure. They also noted the transaction was subject to ‘statutory consent’ under section 107 of the Housing Scotland Act 2010.

The deal was finally accepted by the WSHA management committee on 13 November 2013 with 8 votes for and 2 abstentions.

If the DV had changed his valuation a month earlier the WSHA might have also scooped £100.000 from Kew Gardens. No doubt the hapless Land Bears blame Celtic for that as well. One thing’s for sure and that’s the certainty that no illegal State Aid was involved.

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on1:58 pm - Jun 11, 2014


“World Cup `Bagsies`”
——————————————-
Twopanda’s World Cup bagsie as sponsored by Campbellsmoney.

Teams currently unselected:

Australia
Iran
Japan
Algeria
Nigeria
Honduras
Ecuador
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Greece
Russia

If there is still time I will take a country with a track record of producing shock results against strongly fancied opponents:

Iran 😉

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on2:01 pm - Jun 11, 2014


twopanda says:
June 11, 2014 at 12:47 pm
7 0 Rate This

The Simple Simon story flogged this morning is wafer thin …
———-

Well, Mt Wallace sounded awfully emphatic during his Super (Begging) Bowl speech that the club/company was in no financial danger. Thanks for the link MCFC, btw.

I passed a huge model of Noah’s Ark berthed in Helsingoer Harbour today. Was it a sign?

https://mobile.twitter.com/ArthurStramash/status/476643655189803009/photo/1

PS Yes, my real name is Arthur Stramash 😆

View Comment

Galling fiverPosted on2:04 pm - Jun 11, 2014


I don’t doubt any of our experts at all on the tupe subject, what does have me baffled is who played Brechin ? Both situations cannot work in favour of The Rangers or have I got employment law, registration process and reality all mixed up. A valid contract must exist for the player transfer system to work at any price or registrations are incorrect….again. Am I loosing it? Be gentle please, I’m no genius.

View Comment

SouthernExilePosted on2:19 pm - Jun 11, 2014


ecobhoy says:
June 11, 2014 at 1:57 pm
3 2 Rate This

“I won’t waste time demolishing spurious and inconsequential claims made by obsessives which hold water only in the eyes of their deluded.”
—————————–
Sorry, mate, that’s exactly what you are doing. Nobody on here believes a word of this nonsense. You are keeping it alive.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on2:23 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Galling Fiver

Sevco Scotland Limited played Brechin.

View Comment

twopandaPosted on2:25 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
June 11, 2014 at 2:01 pm

Well, Mr Wallace sounded awfully emphatic during his Super (Begging) Bowl speech that the club/company was in no financial danger.

That`s true DP – but could he say anything else?
Still not convinced about this share lark – will take weeks – oh yes season start
That`ll be any stay-away protest test.

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on2:34 pm - Jun 11, 2014


SouthernExile says:

June 11, 2014 at 2:19 pm

Sorry, mate, that’s exactly what you are doing. Nobody on here believes a word of this nonsense. You are keeping it alive.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
keep it up Echo I want to hear the facts.

View Comment

Galling fiverPosted on2:35 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Thanks, and DUTD pay very little compensation then ? And another issue will not see a courtroom under law.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on2:36 pm - Jun 11, 2014


twopanda says:
June 11, 2014 at 2:25 pm
1 0 Rate This

Danish Pastry says:
June 11, 2014 at 2:01 pm

Well, Mr Wallace sounded awfully emphatic during his Super (Begging) Bowl speech that the club/company was in no financial danger.

That`s true DP – but could he say anything else?
Still not convinced about this share lark – will take weeks – oh yes season start
That`ll be any stay-away protest test.
———

At least there’s a bit more SFA rental cash coming in. Qualifier being played at Ibrox in October.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:51 pm - Jun 11, 2014


SouthernExile says:
June 11, 2014 at 2:19 pm
ecobhoy says:
June 11, 2014 at 1:57 pm

“I won’t waste time demolishing spurious and inconsequential claims made by obsessives which hold water only in the eyes of their deluded.”
—————————–
Sorry, mate, that’s exactly what you are doing. Nobody on here believes a word of this nonsense. You are keeping it alive.
===============================
Yea in a sense you are correct and I always have a difficulty in deciding when and if I should respond to developments in the State Aid case. So I tend to pick carefully on issues which I believe are important.

I happen to believe we are about to see a massive ratcheting-up of the claims made by the deluded Land Bears who are currently organising another email campaign which will be just as corrupt as the one they attempted against the HMRC.

The HMRC campaign failed because of the evidence provided to Parliament about the corruption of behind the way signatures had been obtained. Parliamanr took steps to ensure their mechanism wasn’t abused and the rest is history – the 500 million Bears needed a 100,000 signatures and ended-up just getting over 40K after 12 months of ceaseless effort.

I happen to believe that it is usually better when a torrent of lies are being printed to establish what the actual facts are because I believe that ignoring dangerous people can actually embolden them especially by taking silence as meaning no one is prepared to oppose their lies. It also IMO can provide a boost to their campaign because other less rabid Bears see that no one is arguing against the Bear Land ‘Experts’ so therefore they must be correct.

And that also goes for other non-Bear football supporters who may well form a conclusion that Celtic supporters have no defence to the claims.

I obviously can make a judgement about what people oin here who ppost their opinions might think on the subject. But I have no means of knowing what the many more lurkers – who I think include a lot of Bears – are thinking.

So I am putting an alternative view out there which I believe is rational. But you may not agree with me and that is your right just as I have the right to post my opinion..

I also happen to think the Land campaign is an organised attempt to deflect Bears from their own internal problems and personally I believe that for the good of Scottish Football they would be better employed thinking about their own issues.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on2:58 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Share issue / Share option? The difference? How does that work?

View Comment

Gym TrainerPosted on3:11 pm - Jun 11, 2014


If nobody else is going to step up to the plate, I shall take Nigeria. Not quite sure where I’ll take them but I’ll take them anyway.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:35 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
June 11, 2014 at 2:58 pm

Just because nobody more able has offered, I’ll have a stab at explaining 😕

A share issue invites us all to invest in the company at a set price by filling in an application and sending it to the company’s registrars with a cheque for the required amount. While a rights issue gives existing shareholders the right, by way of an option certificate, to take up shares, at a set price, in proportion to their holding, ie one for one, one for two etc. Basically all existing shareholders are given an option to buy, or not to buy, more shares. The options certificate itself has a value and can usually be traded on the stock market, depending on how popular the shares are likely to be. There are other forms of share options, but, I think, what I’ve described roughly covers what TRFC will be doing.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on3:36 pm - Jun 11, 2014


ecobhoy says:
June 11, 2014 at 2:51 pm
======================================================
Eco – keep fighting the good fight. I for one appreciate your efforts and applaud your dedication to neutering this super massive blue squirrel.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on3:46 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Allyjambo says:
June 11, 2014 at 3:35 pm
1 0 Rate This

… While a rights issue gives existing shareholders the right, by way of an option certificate, to take up shares, at a set price, in proportion to their holding, ie one for one, one for two etc. Basically all existing shareholders are given an option to buy, or not to buy, more shares. The options certificate itself has a value and can usually be traded on the stock market, depending on how popular the shares are likely to be …
———–

I see. That makes more sense then. An opportunity to gain total control of everything of value perhaps? I suppose some might fancy that. I noticed Phil mentioned the cash raised could be used to fund the austerity programme, and goodness knows where that leads. In theory, a leaner, more sustainable version could be possible at the end of it all.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on3:50 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Mates’ Rates

I wonder how much of the £8mil (yeah right) will disappear in fees. The IPO cost £6.5mil of £22mil raised – nearly 30% compared to the industry norm of around £1.5mill (6-7%)

Look, I can’t do this for everyone, but since you’re a mate, let’s call it 20%, that’s £1.6mil for cash – half now – the rest on delivery – no questions asked. It’s a pleasure.

View Comment

EddiegoldtopPosted on3:58 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Just a quick note to update .

I have spoken with the owners of of the club I sponsor and we have a meeting arranged for Tuesday 17th June to discuss my Issues.
I gave them a brief outline of the concerns and I was pleasantly surprised at the response . They have told me that in principal they have no fear of approaching the SFA If they are happy that my concerns are for the betterment of Scottish football in general.

For those of you wondering what level of football club I am sponsoring ( not that it matters ) , the club are currently a Premiership team .

Again, wish me luck !

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:19 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
June 11, 2014 at 3:46 pm

I see. That makes more sense then. An opportunity to gain total control of everything of value perhaps?
__________________

It might well be if every non-aligned shareholder just sits on his/her hands. If every shareholder takes up their rights, then they stay at the status quo – but that’s not going to happen. I’m not sure if the controlling spivs will be able to hoover up the unclaimed shares, though perhaps they will underwrite the issue themselves, if that is legal. I believe most successful rights issues come when a company is expanding it’s business with a good chance of increasing profit as a result, hence the reason people want to take up their rights. There are other factors, of course, but just for working capital in an industry with a history like football, where success on the field seldom, if ever, leads to increased value, doesn’t seem very attractive to me (but then, I don’t have any RIFC shares 😀 ) in fact, it just doesn’t make sense at all.

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on4:24 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Hereford United expelled from Football Conference
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27786442

Justice seen to be done?…….eventually? 🙄

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on4:26 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Right, two things….

First this share issue – it’s hard to get a proper understanding without a Regulatory Announcement. The BBC site talks about as just a “share issue” and that “Major shareholders Laxey Partners and Sandy Easdale, chairman of the football board, have both indicated they will buy more shares.”

Is this a rights issue and has someone underwritten it?

Secondly we again have musical chairs at Sevco 5088 with the registered office changed on 10/06/2014 from 35 Vine Street, London, EC3N 2AA to (I think) Riverbank House, 2 Swan Lane, London, EC4R 3TT. This is the address of the new offices of Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP.

Kinda lost touch with the “registered office tennis” match – is this just a tidy-up or something else?

Scottish Football needs a cleaner pair of hands in charge – like Sepp Blatter perhaps.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:28 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Eddiegoldtop says:
June 11, 2014 at 3:58 pm

Again, well done on your efforts so far, and good luck for the 17th 😀

View Comment

oddjobPosted on4:42 pm - Jun 11, 2014


REDLICHTIE says
June 11 @ 4.26pm

Re your last paragraph —-maybe Regan is just miffed about missing out on the succulent lamb. Could be a game changer if you sent him a box of Arbroaths finest!

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on4:44 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Eddiegoldtop says:
June 11, 2014 at 3:58 pm
____________________________________
Thanks for the update and good luck and best wishes on your quest. God speed!

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on4:51 pm - Jun 11, 2014


51 weeks and it’s over. Hearts are now officially out of administration. 😛

….and now the hard work starts.

View Comment

oddjobPosted on5:00 pm - Jun 11, 2014


EasyJambo says

June 11 4.51pm

Good luck to the JamTarts, now that the suffering is over, enjoy the football.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:07 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Easy,
The relief is immense. My team lives on, and it’s now official. I guess you know how I’m feeling; and for the benefit of others, there’s no sense of celebration, just thankfulness that we continue.

Still, it’s a pretty good excuse for a drink 🙄 Off down the pub now, where I hope I’ll meet somebody (one of the few who might understand in this Man City/United hotbed) to give them my good news.

View Comment

oddjobPosted on5:16 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Re my post at 4.42.

REDLICHTIE , forget that idea, things are a bit fishy round there already !!!

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on5:23 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Well done AJ and EJ!!! Enjoy 😀

View Comment

ekt1mPosted on5:31 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Good piece today on Metrosport, Ayr United chairman Lachlan Cameron calling for the clubs who have mismanaged their finances, naming Sevco, Hearts, Dundee and Dunfermline who have all gone broke in the recent past to be banned from Cup competitions. saying “The System is broken and it’s clubs like ourselves who play by the rules who are being penalised while those who go bust and screw the taxpayer flourish. No wonder the SPFL can’t find a sponsor- which company would want to be associated with disasters like that? I don’t think these clubs should be allowed to take part in those tournaments for a specific period of time” Well said Sir.

View Comment

MartinPosted on5:43 pm - Jun 11, 2014


EJ and AJ

Good to see Hearts exiting administration, and they didn’t even have to get liquidated first – amazing! 😆

View Comment

TSFMPosted on5:45 pm - Jun 11, 2014


easyJambo says:

June 11, 2014 at 4:51 pm

51 weeks and it’s over. Hearts are now officially out of administration. 😛

….and now the hard work starts.
________________________________________________________

Great news and an excellent sense of perspective EJ. I have written to FOH with our best wishes and an invitation for a representative to speak to Big Pink for a future Podcast.
Be interesting to hear and see the broad direction of the maroon roadmap.

🙂 😀 :mrgreen: 😎

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on5:51 pm - Jun 11, 2014


ecobhoy says: June 11, 2014 at 1:57 pm

I believe that answers are required on this issue if for nothing else than to repair the damage which has been done to the reputation and impartiality of the District Valuer’s Office.

Still there are lots and lots of questions which require to be asked over this issue so that we can fully understand what ‘history’ if any the DV supposedly had wrt Celtic which required to be commented on in a report to WSHA by one of its senior officials.

We must have an impartial and even-handed DV service and they require to provide assurances and explanation on what has happened and the WSHA or its new parent company Gentoo also require to provide explanations as to what it did when the question of ‘history’ was raised as one of their senior officials appeared to think it influenced critical land valuation negotiations. I would say this – at the very least – requires the matter to be reported to the police in order to protect the DV concerned from any misconceptions as to his role.
________________________________

Eco,

I really appreciate your efforts to apply the disenfectant of truth to these matters.

As you correctly state the final valuation of this plot of land has been acepted by both parties. If either party had any serious concerns about the impartiallity and personal integrity of the DV then they could have contacted the Valuation Office Agency to make a formal complaint per their Code of Practice on Complaints published at
http://www.voa.gov.uk/corporate/_downloads/pdf/VO9710_Code_of_Practice_2011_English.pdf

As a TU Rep in the Civil Service with experience of representing members in internal investigations I can assure you that these would be rigorous and if any criminality was alleged then the worker would be facing immediate dismissal without notice for gross misconduct as well any relevant criminal charges.

On reflection do you not think that inadvertantly you might have overdramatised the need for the DV to be the subject of an investigation to be carried out by Police Scotland?

View Comment

Famous songPosted on5:52 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Well done Hearts, leaving administration by dint of, er, more conventional means than others recently.
Meanwhile, in the media fishbowl that is The Championship (world’s most important league, or WMIL), the Record reported yesterday, 10th June, that Alloa had re-signed ace striker Kevin Cawley. A fact which the rest of us had known since May 22nd, but it’s nice to have confirmation from such an august organ.

View Comment

TSFMPosted on5:58 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Folks,

On the subject of the Land Deal. I have up to now been happy to let the thing go as long as there was no objection to the Celtic-centric nature of the subject.

Ecobhoy has worked very vigorously to debunk the nonsense that is out there. We are grateful to him for that, and through his efforts I think we are all on the same page as far as the spurious nature of the allegations is concerned.

Unless there is anything significantly new posted here by way of accusation that Celtic or any other agents involved in these purchases have acted improperly, can I suggest that further discussion on the matter should be reserved for Celtic forums, or;

in view of the wider interest in the matter, I am happy to open a new thread if ecobhoy would like to summarise the story in a leader post. That way we would have a record of the facts and arguments for reference and back-reading.

View Comment

Cygnus X-1Posted on6:00 pm - Jun 11, 2014


If it’s not taken can I have Russia please:shock:

Off to the cream cookies to stick my hard earned rubles on them

View Comment

mcfcPosted on6:07 pm - Jun 11, 2014


When the Boat Comes In

An interesting comment on LSE that the internal share issue (option) is to get to the start of the season in August, then all will be OK because the gate money will replace the lost ST money. So let’s say 18,000 STs are sold, so assuming they get the same total gate that is 20,000 extra paying cash or cheque at the gate – queue early to avoid disappointment.

But at £10-£15 per ticket – that’s say £12.50 & 20,000 = £250,000 incl VAT = £208,333 excl VAT.

Not to be sniffed at, but is that really enough to make a material difference when you are burning £3,400,000 per month ?

It just underlines that even with last year’s ST sales volume the business model is probably relying on a very successful public share issue with a glowing prospectus with lots of nice revenue projections etc to get to the end of the season. That now looks shakier than a shaky thing.

Of course if the football is as dire as reported last season, then when the seats are empty the till don’t ring and you can’t count the non-STs in the official attendance numbers. Puts a bit of a premium on adventurous, exciting football, eh Ally. So, some new realities to be faced there I think – I’m sure HMRC will also be watching carefully – oh the temptation of all those lovely, lovely pre-tax readies.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on6:18 pm - Jun 11, 2014


When the Boat Comes In – and another thing

It must be possible to count empty stadium seats pretty accurately from video images – perhaps it is already done. I read recently that CCTV systems now do logo recognition in much the same way the Police do number plate recognition – because many perps have a distinctive combination of sportswear logos – a bit like modern day tattoos or finger prints.

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on6:40 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Just a passing thought TSFM, would it be worth having a separate World Cup thread through the tournament? Given this is where I do most of my football talking these days it would be good to be able to chat about games without distracting from any main thread.

Ryan
Good idea. Have just set up a page in advance of tomorrow night.
Entitled, “Incorruptible FIFA World Cup Thread”
TSFM

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on6:40 pm - Jun 11, 2014


woodstein says:
June 11, 2014 at 1:46 pm
7 0 Rate This

ecobhoy says:
June 11, 2014 at 9:12 am

“an offal prospect for the poor tortured animal”

I saw that ….!
======================================================
So did I…a bit late amongst some super posts today…every day a school day indeed…

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on6:42 pm - Jun 11, 2014


Oops
Another so called share issue or rights issue This time described as the only means of raising enough funds to keep TRFC going
That may well be true
But
We are dealing with Spivs
Their real objective in this share issue is to dilute ordinary shareholders and charge Spiv rates for expenses
Now
The cheapest way to dilute ordinary shareholders is to disapply preemptive rights. This gives the Board the right to issue as many freebie shares to as many people as they want

It needs a 75% resolution and only got 65% last time round
So
The real reason for the share issue is to get Spiv control up to 75%
It doesnt matter what price the shares are sold at if the buyers are mainly Spivs..
They probably wont pay for them upfront anyway
The next move is to use that 75% control to issue freebie shares
e.g If a Bear shareholder takes up his right to buy a share in the share issue at say 15p
It costs him 15p
whereas
If a Spiv s “pay” 15p for a share in the share issue
And 3 months later get two free shares
He only actually pays 5p for the share
And its all perfectly legal

View Comment

twopandaPosted on6:52 pm - Jun 11, 2014


[stv – May] `The Scottish Professional Football League will release the fixture list for the 2014/15 season on Wednesday, June 18. The league body will release the list of games for the Premiership, Championship as well as League 1 and League 2 at 9am on the day. All four leagues will kick off on the weekend of August 9/10.` [8 weeks]

`Lower leagues sides will return to action on July 26 when the Challenge [fr Ramsdens] Cup resumes.` [6 weeks]

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on6:54 pm - Jun 11, 2014


@GoosyGoosy

That being the case mate I guess there will be nowhere near £8m raised, maybe £800…Spivs just required to make a donation for their share wad.. I do not think there will be many bears putting their hands in their pockets or any serious investor who is looking for a return.. Where’s ma penny shares!!

View Comment

Leave a Reply