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!
I see the Daily Record back page this morning is gloriously announcing the Rangers Board have ‘caved in’, accompanied by a picture of the universally respected fans spokesman Chris Graham. It is good to see the Record applying such thoughtful, impartial analysis in these days of sensationalism, and also good to see they are so selective in only associating themselves with such respected people. I guess by tomorrow they will be back to discussing Ally’s ‘warchest’.
wottpi says:
May 14, 2014 at 10:43 pm
11 0 Rate This
Will the board’s consideration of the UoF proposals be like any failing business listening to its employees, only to find that the owners turn around and shut up shop the following week because it is all about doing the best deal for the shareholders?
Guessing someone is at hard work crunching the numbers as we speak.
===================================================
Wottpi…I would think that the numbers, and all their possible combinations, have already been crunched some time ago, waiting for the appropriate button to be pushed when the appropriate conditions are met.
We beancounters are nothing if not creative…!
ecobhoy says:
May 15, 2014 at 6:48 am
However I really wonder if this Board understand what might await if the Bears get their act together and actually UNITE.
The anonymous overseas shareholders will be OK but others who are identifiable could experience the bile of the Bears which in Scotland might not be as medically efficacious as believed in traditional Chinese medicine.
=============================================
There can be no doubt if they all got together and truly admitted the sh*tstorm their club is in, and united against the current board then they could bring about change very quickly. However, the thirst to be viewed as dignified and superior means all that happens is smart sounding men in suits assure them all will be fine in the end. Meanwhile their world continues to fall around them and the smart men in suits are collecting all the goodies, leaving nothing but dust and rubble for them to sift through in the cold light of day.
yourhavingalaugh says:
May 15, 2014 at 12:00 am
the puzzler here is the Easdales
====================
Yip I would agree and especially wrt the Easedale exercise of the proxy vote inluding that of Margarita.
I can’t help but wonder if the Easdales know the identity of the people who are behind the actual anonymous overseas based vehicles which protect their identity. Or does Easdale only know who their ‘professional’ representatives are?
And in view of Phil’s recent comments about catering contracts in particular is Easdale aware of the alleged connection between the owner of the proxy votes he wields and these allegedly ‘iffy’ contracts.
Even Wallace has referred to very unusual Rangers contracts that appear to be possibly unbreakable and which apparently Rangers entered into without legal advice. I don’t know if the alleged Margarita catering contracts falls into that category but perhaps it’s time Wallace gave some answers rather than hide behind hot air.
But I would assume that Easdale – as part of his duty as a director – would have investigated this issue and if he found that the alleged Margarita contract was one of those described by Wallace I wonder if Easdale would still be happy to act as a proxy for this anonymous overseas-based investor ❓
I am never happy with any company where directors act for mystery blocs of anonymous shareholders by exercising their proxy votes and essentially thus do their bidding. It’s not illegal afaik but I just don’t feel it sits well especially if the company runs/owns a football club.
Lots of simple question to be asked at Ibrox these days – why is there never a journo around, like a bus, when you need one ?
StevieBC says:
May 15, 2014 at 1:12 am
12 0 Rate This
GoosyGoosy says:
May 14, 2014 at 11:47 pm
…
They want your ST money so they can declare Liquidation and run off with it
…
========================
This is where I get confused again.
====================================
StevieBC…likewise little me.
Someone posting in the last few days implied a tax advantage (not scam!) on the part of the investors.
I can see a possible angle in this in either Enterprise Investment allowance or even the idea of the “permanent diminution in value of shareholdings” but as you say, that would have involved another administration/liquidation event.
I think I will have to consult a CA on this…Mr Wallace….Mr Wallace…have you got a moment?, I have a query for you……..
Or maybe that nice young man from Ernst & Young….Neil…whatsisname….?
Can the Board of a Plc really give a legally binding undertaking not to sell, or sell and leaseback, or borrow against its only two ‘real’ property assets ❓
And how does Laxeys unlock shareholder value with such a lock?
If I was the UoF I would be asking for the minute of the board meeting which made that decision. And which board: Is it TRFCL? Is it RIFC? Or is it some other company? And what about the qualification in the accounts which deals with the CW claim and the problems this appears to have wrt raising ‘normal’ finance?
I actually am beginning to smell desperation and high-risk gambles from down Ibrox Way.
ecobhoy says:
May 15, 2014 at 7:14 am
1 0 Rate This
I am never happy with any company where directors act for mystery blocs of anonymous shareholders by exercising their proxy votes and essentially thus do their bidding. It’s not illegal afaik but I just don’t feel it sits well especially if the company runs/owns a football club.
======================================================
Ecobhoy…you are (unsurprisingly!) correct. This is an area of law, nominee shareholdings, which many say should have been consigned to the legal waste-bin many years ago. In today’s society, allegedly seeking transparency of behaviour in all areas, this concept is a relic.
ecobhoy says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 15, 2014 at 7:55 am
0
0
Rate This
I wondered how the pro-Board Rangers Groups were taking the Wallace fraternisation with the enemy within as personified by the UoF. Always remember that the pro-Boarders have already bought their STs so they really don’t matter anymore. Divide and Conquer remains an effective quick-fix solution to any problem it seems 😎
I think the following post – which I have sanitised – says it all:
I quote this as an example of the feelings which are being generated by the Rangers debacle – I really am beginning to wonder how long this Board can survive. OK that leaves the shareholders in place but who in their right mind would take a seat on any replacement Board.
And at some point AIM surely will be forced to act.
I wondered how the pro-Board Rangers Groups were taking the Wallace fraternisation with the enemy within as personified by the UoF. Always remember that the pro-Boarders have already bought their STs so they really don’t matter anymore. Divide and Conquer remains an effective quick-fix solution to any problem it seems 😎
I think the following post – which I have sanitised – says it all:
I’m afraid that my post from the Darkside has gone into mod probably caught by the filter. However I hope it is released because it reveals the depth of dangerous emotions which are being generated by the Rangers debacle – I really am beginning to wonder how long this Board can survive.
OK that leaves the shareholders in place but who in their right mind would take a seat on any replacement Board.
And at some point AIM surely will be forced to act – won’t it ❓
essexbeancounter says:
May 15, 2014 at 7:37 am
ecobhoy says:
May 15, 2014 at 7:14 am
I am never happy with any company where directors act for mystery blocs of anonymous shareholders by exercising their proxy votes and essentially thus do their bidding. It’s not illegal afaik but I just don’t feel it sits well especially if the company runs/owns a football club.
======================================================
Ecobhoy…This is an area of law, nominee shareholdings, which many say should have been consigned to the legal waste-bin many years ago. In today’s society, allegedly seeking transparency of behaviour in all areas, this concept is a relic.
===================================
I had no real problem with nominees in the old days when most people investing knew the score and were ‘savvy’ to some extent or had professional advice. OK there were still scams that happened but that was more down to an individual’s greed IMO rather than a lack of knowledge.
But in the modern age many are basically gambling blind in the likes of the AIM Casino and have no idea where the power lies and the alliances that are in play and there is no one to effectively look-out for their interests.
NEDs don’t IMO mean anything wrt safeguarding small investors when they are tied-in with significant shareholding blocs.
The financially unsophiticated are simply there for the plucking by the Big Boys I’m afraid and in reality have little protection.
The pressure of the constant upheavals at Rangers and the Boardroom high-wire act whilst trying to juggle the dosh – with no financial safety net – can have unexpected but serious consequences.
It will be interesting to learn whether the undernoted report is accurate and, if so, just what kind of state everything else is at Ibrox and I’m not talking about the fabric of the edifice but more the paperwork.
http://therangersreport.com/2014/05/15/did-charlie-telfers-teammates-just-confirm-his-departure/
ecobhoy says:
May 15, 2014 at 9:14 am
_______________________
If Telfer does move to Dundee Utd, I would assume that RIFC are due compensation under the current “rules”. Presumably the amount depends on how long he has been at the Club.
So will it be 10 years or two? Over to you, oh governors of Scottish football…
Para Handy says: May 15, 2014 at 9:23 am
If Telfer does move to Dundee Utd, I would assume that RIFC are due compensation under the current “rules”. Presumably the amount of depends on how long he has been at the Club.
So will it be 10 years or two? Over to you, oh governors of Scottish football…
====================
The compensation due at each age group is as follows: (the first figure refers to premiership sides. the second to the other three divisions)
11 £5000 NIL
12 £5000 £3000
13 £5000 £3000
14 £5000 £3000
15 £10,000 £6000
16 £10,000 £9000
17 £10,000 £9000
18 £10,000 £9000
19 £10,000 £9000
Telfer won’t be 19 until July (i.e. he will be out of contract before then), so the sum due may be as little as £18,000 (2 x £9k) or as high as £58,000. (2x£9k + 2x10k + 4x£5k)
By my reckoning TRFC should only get the £18,000 with £30,000 going to the creditors of the oldco, RFC 2012. However with TUPE purportedly involved in the transfer from the oldco to the newco, length of service and conditions of employment are maintained, so I suspect that the SPFL will rule that the full £58,000 is due to TRFC.
Para Handy says:
May 15, 2014 at 9:23 am
ecobhoy says:
May 15, 2014 at 9:14 am
_______________________
If Telfer does move to Dundee Utd, I would assume that RIFC are due compensation under the current “rules”. Presumably the amount depends on how long he has been at the Club. So will it be 10 years or two? Over to you, oh governors of Scottish football…
==============================
With apologies to the Great Man – Big Joe Beltrami 😆
Send for Bryson ❗
My thanks to Woodstein for the information on Charlotte.
Didn’t the then directors of RIFC have to give statements to TRFC’s auditors that they wouldn’t call in the massive loan that TRFC “owes” RIFC for at least a year.
Does that year not run out next month and would that undertaking not hanging over them make an insolvency event much easier, especially if the idea is to transfer ownership from TRFC to RIFC at some point?
I suppose another issue is – to whom would any undertaking be granted?
UoF is not a legal entity. Are we to understand that this latest nonsense is between Mr Wallace on the one hand and UoF and Mr King on the other hand or is UoF going it alone (i.e. without Mr King)?
Given that ST sales the key component to Rangers solvency and given the rumours of low take up (which seem to be born out by the boards offer to the UOF) will they need to make an AIM announcement on Monday confirming ST sale numbers?
Without wishing to appear smug (sorry Smugas 😉 )- I posted this on May 6):-
“Would you be surprised if out of the current impasse somehow an agreement is reached between the Board at RIFC/TRFC and Ibrox 1972 Limited (let’s call it the Camp David Accord)?
Somehow (once again) Mr King finds a way to back away without actually doing anything. He says that supporting the Board is now the only game in town given the Board’s implacable refusal to give security. So for the good of “the club”, the supporters should go ahead and renew.
Much cheering as unity is achieved and renewals go ahead as normal.
Brilliantly done. Three months ago we were wondering which “great/legnedary Rangers man” was going to do the season ticket selling this time round because Mr McCoist was now tainted and there was a growing groundswell against the Board.
A Camp David accord could be just the excuse the supporters need to put them out of their existential angst. And hey presto the fleecing is yet again achieved.”
Hmmmm
Does anyone know if the Union of Fans is a corporate entity? I’m curious as there’s no record of it at Companies House and I’m not clear how the group could enter into some sort of “agreement” (never mind why any company would enter into such an agreement).
Googling returned the Ibrox 1972 domain as the top result so I’m not sure if the two are being presented as one and the same?
Oh, I also checked the OSCR website too … just in case …
got an up close and personal view of Armageddon last night……..
1500 fans at the Beanos’ playoff final 1st leg. A very respectable contingent of East Fife fans and the home stand pretty much full. Good to see the playoffs generating so much interest. We’d generally be lucky to get half of that on a Saturday afternoon.
football wasn’t great, result certainly wasn’t from my point of view but it was good to see the ground reasonably full for a change.
The away fans were incredibly enthusiastic even when their team was terrible in the 1st half. they get a lot of respect for that (as well as for making the journey on a Tuesday night).
Armageddon eh? You cannae beat it!
Apologies if already mentioned elsewhere on this board. I’ve just been collared by our security guard (neither of us Celtic fans , down here in England) who insisted on showing me a Youtube clip of the Celtic celebrations at the weekend.
That clip is a gem – to see that lad’s face at the end when he turns to Samaras with a big beaming smile : you’d have to have a heart of stone not to say “aaaaaaaaaaaaaw”!
Fabulous to see not all footballers are self absorbed , money grabbing ********.
If you haven’t seen it yet , go have a look.(sorry I don’t have a link)
tearsofjoy says:
May 15, 2014 at 1:39 pm
__________________________
here’s the link
https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/early-doors/celtic-star-touching-gesture-brave-young-fan-074345129.html
Mr Samaras’ reputation has just went up 100% and rightly so.
He will always be remembered for this gesture and retain a special place in Celtic supporters hearts with this touching moment. When wee Oscar unites both sides of the divide followed by this fantastic sight, it pales it all into insignificance.
Think I’m turning soft in my old age. Ho hum!
@scotzine: Pre-season friendly between Bournemouth and Rangers on July 30 has been cancelled according to reports down south.
Probably interfering with dates for the USA tour.
It seems Danny McGrain is recovering in hospital from a heart attack.
Best wishes.
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
May 15, 2014 at 2:38 pm
‘@scotzine: Pre-season friendly between Bournemouth and Rangers on July 30 has been cancelled according to reports down south.’
———
I can confirm that .
I can’t see that. This game was pencilled in for 30 July. They have a Ramsden Cup game on 26th July and the season starts on 9th August.
Big Pink, you have PM
Mr McOist has been very very quiet over the ST renewal debacle. Not once do I remember him having a say or indeed pushing for ST sales as his remit as manager would surely see him doing. Has he been dumped as the poster boy for ST sales. Strange when you consider that he, almost single handedly, with only a wee hand from Walter Smith was responsible for the enormous numbers of ST Sales in the last 2 years. Not once has he backed his board and pleaded for renewals this year. All very odd indeed.
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
May 15, 2014 at 2:38 pm
@scotzine: Pre-season friendly between Bournemouth and Rangers on July 30 has been cancelled according to reports down south.
Probably interfering with dates for the USA tour.
=====================================
Absolutely, tjb !!
And if the ‘US Tour’ doesn’t actually happen…?
IMO, TRFC should think about paying for a decent PR guy to ensure they are not embarrassed like this.
Oh, hold on… 🙄
Carfins Finest says:
May 15, 2014 at 3:28 pm
Mr McOist has been very very quiet over the ST renewal debacle… All very odd indeed.
==============================
Not really CF.
McCoist is probably on his annual, freebie white water rafting holiday over here. 👿
Allegedly.
The duties imposed by law upon directors of limited companies can be fairly easily stated. Fundamentally it is a duty to act in the best interests of the company and that is, more or less, it.
Where things get a bit confused is that sometimes people think about the duty as being a duty owed to the shareholders. That is sort of correct. The shareholders after all own the company, but it must never be forgotten that the shareholders and the company are separate legal persons and indeed that what is good for one particular shareholder may indeed be bad for the company. Equally, what is good for one shareholder may not be good for another shareholder. So, if the duties of directors are described as being owed to the shareholders, that gives rise to a real possibility of confusion.
Two particular situations can give rise to particular difficulties. The first is where the company in question is a subsidiary of another company (or part of a wider group) and the second is where a director may have been appointed to the board of the company at the specific behest of a large shareholder. Of course, in many ways the second scenario is implicitly contemplated by the first scenario, as the parent company of a subsidiary will control appointments to the board of the subsidiary.
Regardless of how or why a director is appointed to the board of a company, his or her duties are owed to the company (not to the person or persons responsible for his or her appointment).
Thus, if I hold 28% of the share capital of a company, I might well be able to require the board of directors to co-opt on to the board my choice of director. Technically, under the Companies Act, I could only force my choice of appointee on to a board if I held in excess of 50% of the share capital but (particularly in plcs) having a large (albeit still a minority) shareholding is sufficient to wield enough influence to enable me to have my way. In fact, this is the reason why the 30% rule for plcs is important. If you recall, anyone whose shareholding exceeds 30% of the share capital of a plc is obliged to make a takeover offer for the remaining shares. That’s why people often talk about stopping at 29.9% of the share capital when buying up shares. The Takeover Rules accept that anyone wielding 30% is likely to be able to influence matters sufficiently that they are in effect in control. This is because (again particularly in plcs) there is rarely anything like 100% turnout at EGMs and therefore 30% of the entire issued share capital will often translate into a majority at any given general meeting.
Anyway, back to the main track of this discussion.
So, if, having acquired my 28% stake in the company, I say to the board that I want my best friend appointed, if the board do not agree to this proposal (and I cannot force them to do it under Comapny law), my remedy is to requisition a general meeting and at that general meeting to have the appointment of my friend put to the vote. I might also take the opportunity to look to remove the directors who didn’t want to do what I told them to do.
At that general meeting, clearly I will vote in favour with my 28% of the vote. I might be able to persuade some other shareholders to go along with me. If at that meeting, my votes and those of the other shareholders constitute a majority of votes cast, then I get my way.
If not, then I do not.
However, regardless of how my friend gets to be appointed to the board, his duties are owed to the company in exactly the same way as any other board member. My friend is not entitled to put my interests over and above the interests of the company. He must act, always and only, in the interests of the company. So, for example, he cannot suggest that the company enter into a contract with me at a more onerous rate than could otherwise be obtained, because to do so, would be to put my interests over and above those of the company. He may even be able to persuade the other board members to do what he (and I) have suggested under threat that if they do not agree, I will requisition another general meeting and have them removed (using my minority but nonetheless substantial block of shares).
So the point to take from all of this is that the directors of a company must always and only act in the interests of the company of which they are directors. The only gloss I would put on that fairly straightforward statement is that where the company is in an insolvent or near-insolvent situation, the duties of directors switch from being owed to the company (and by extension the shareholders) to the creditors (and quite right too!).
Campbellsmoney says:
May 15, 2014 at 4:22 pm
So the point to take from all of this is that the directors of a company must always and only act in the interests of the company of which they are directors. The only gloss I would put on that fairly straightforward statement is that where the company is in an insolvent or near-insolvent situation, the duties of directors switch from being owed to the company (and by extension the shareholders) to the creditors (and quite right too!).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And we all know how well that was applied the last time there was an insolvency event at the top of the Ibrox stairwell…
Para Handy says:
May 15, 2014 at 4:38 pm
And we all know how well that was applied the last time there was an insolvency event at the top of the Ibrox stairwell…
——————————————————-
Para Handy
Maybe, but we now see a disqualification action against a director as a result of the failure to abide by these duties.
Slow progress for sure but progress nonetheless. Perhaps little comfort or redress yet for creditors but (and I have said this before) that is little comfort or redress YET. Not no comfort or redress ever.
Campbellsmoney says:
May 15, 2014 at 4:22 pm
—————
That raises an interesting point about protecting minority shareholders interests. Rangers have a history , in current and previous corporate forms, of being very kind to the financial interests of key shareholders.
Imran Ahmad had an extremely generous contract of employment based on the information so far available through his claim against Rangers. There appears to have been commercial contracts awarded by Green & Mather which , according to Wallace, appear loaded very heavily in favour of the contractor.
Should any of these contracts have been awarded outwith a competitive bidding situation , and without legal advice, then the minority shareholders have not been properly protected. Should there be the double whammy of the contractors being associates of a Rangers shareholder or director, then I might be inclined to seek advice on what legal redress could be available.
There of course is prededent for this. Murray awarded huge contracts , totaling in excess of £25 million to his own group companies for contracts undertaken at Rangers.
The question for King,Alistair Johnston , Paul Murray , Martin Bain and other non execs is whether Murray subjected these awards to independent competitive bidding. Who’s interests were being protected by the award of these huge contracts . Rangers or Murray’s .
If there was no competitive bidding , why not !
If there was no competitive bidding, what action did the above named non execs take to protect Rangers.
Not only did these MIH subsidiaries receive huge contract value, most of them , if not all, were sold out of MIH with these contracts in place. So MIH / Murray benefitted twice over.
No problem with that if the bidding process was fair, open , transparent and unbiased . Is that likely to have been the case in a business controlled by an individual like Murray ?
If I was one of the BDO partners tasked with looking at what happened and why, I would have this very high on my tick list
Barcabhoy
as far as I am aware, there is no obligation upon a limited company (private or public, listed or unlisted) to award contracts only after a competitive tendering exercise. Clearly there are such obligations where what is being spent is public money (which, given what has happened, it largely turns out to have been in Rangers anyway) but not generally otherwise.
But the absence of a positive obligation to tender does not mean that a board (or an alpha male director who dominates a board) are completely free to enter into whatever contracts they want. There are restrictions. Conflicts of interests arise. In some cases, shareholder approval at general meeting can be required (otherwise a contract can be voidable). And where there has been a breach of duty and a director makes a profit at the expense of the company, the director has a duty to account to the company. Tying the company into onerous contracts with your pals is unlikely to be in the interests of the company and is likely to be a breach of duty. (As I type this, I struggle to think if I am talking about oldco or newco – which I think proves your point about the “history” (which of course was bought so that explains it)).
These issues often arise where a director’s service contract is involved or the contract is with the director or his/her connected parties.
There is so much to look at in the liquidation of Oldco. I suspect that some of this stuff (though likely reprehensible) is now too old to challenge (5 year time limit on some stuff) although the fact that directors occupy a fiduciary position (akin to that of trustees) with the company may take the scope of challenge outwith the normal limitation provisions.
I think the problem with BDO’s tick list is that there is an awful lot that is high on it.
From a conspiratorial perspective, there was still a lot of money left in the kitty at the end of last season. The IPO had taken place the previous December so would not have been exhausted and the encroaching season ticket renewal would have boosted funds further. However there now seems to be barely two brass farthings to rub together and future income is in jeopardy. Which kinda ties in with…
Only I’m wondering whether the accord could actually have been a mutual discord. Now that all the money is spent, as has been trumpeted all over the press (and we thought they had found their souls), there can be an argument made that the strangulation of funds has risked the club’s viability. The absence of the usual tub thumping for season tickets and its replacement by rancour and dissent may not be entirely engineered but it could be very convenient.
With a full kitty last year any disappearance into the sunset with a bag labelled ‘Loot’ might have aroused suspicion. Now however the guys in black hats might easily be run out of town on a half starved jade. Which would leave the Rons looking a bit forlorn…
Now they are big boys and might fancy their chances fending for themselves. They have emerged from the sharp elbowed taxi and bus market so perhaps their skill in getting to the front of the rank might allow them to make the leap from cash rich businesses to those contracting in bills, using newly acquired skills and set of business contacts. In fact if you needed anyone to oversee the salvage of a burnt out bus then you couldn’t find two finer men.
Campbellsmoney says:
May 15, 2014 at 4:22 pm
12 2 Rate This
“The duties imposed by law upon directors of limited companies can be fairly easily stated. Fundamentally it is a duty to act in the best interests of the company and that is, more or less, it…”
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
Let me change that a little…
“The duties imposed IN REALITY upon directors of SPIV companies can be fairly easily stated. Fundamentally it is a duty to act in the best interests of the SPIVS and that is, more or less, it…”
Spivs operate in the margins between the possible and the probable. It may well be possible to hold these people to account through various company law statutes but in reality; if the last few years have demonstrated anything, it is that there is neither the appetite nor the effective mechanisms required to do so.
Head Hunter says:
May 15, 2014 at 7:30 pm
Spivs operate in the margins between the possible and the probable. It may well be possible to hold these people to account through various company law statutes but in reality; if the last few years have demonstrated anything, it is that there is neither the appetite nor the effective mechanisms required to do so.
==============================
A couple of years ago I started to raise specific issues with Companies House wrt Companies Act breaches I believe had taken place with Sevco Companies. To begin with they were nice and friendly and fed me a load of cr*p.
I pointed out where they appeared to have accidentally/deliberately misinterpreted what I was saying and also acted contrary to the provisions of the Companies Acts.
Now they don’t even acknowledge any email I send nor do they respond to them although I allege criminal breaches of the Companies Acts.
They just don’t want to know and it would now appear that if CW goes down he will carry the can for everyone. None of the breaches I believe took place had anything to do with CW and they began after the club went into admimistration but they are simply ignored.
It’s a spivs’ charter – it really is that simple ❗
“One day rangers will be back, they will play in light blue and play at ibrox. but it won’t be the club i played for. Richard Gough feb 2012.
http://billmcmurdo.wordpress.com/2014/05/10/richard-gough-rangers-now-then-forever/
HOW THE MEMORY CAN PLAY TRICKS 😕
or is it a way to get the fans to back him and king?
Now that Richard Gough has retracted the statement he made in Feb 2012 to the effect that Rangers are dead, are we to expect similar retractions from The Daily Record, The Herald, The Evening Times and Stephen Naismith to name but a few.
O what a tangled web we weave !!
So to be clear then, what Mr Gough said in 2012 was not what he really meant. I wonder what he might say in 2016 about what he says now.
To be fair he could not really be expected to appreciate the intricacies of insolvency and that is no doubt an excuse. Begs the question though – why bother asking him (or any of them)?
billyj1 says:
May 15, 2014 at 10:30 pm
Now that Richard Gough has retracted the statement he made in Feb 2012 to the effect that Rangers are dead,
It may have been this statement, but who knows he said so many.
“I’m still numb by the news 140 years of history wiped out in one fell swoop, Richard Gough feb 2012.
Maybe he will print a retraction in his newspaper column 🙄
John Clark says:
May 14, 2014 at 10:36 pm
63
1
Rate This
“A proposal was made by Mr Wallace that whilst the board would not grant a security they could consider giving a legally binding undertaking which would protect Ibrox from sale, sale and leaseback or as any form of security for a loan or other finance.
——–
This would be very easy to do with apparent honesty if they don’t in fact own title to the property! I could give the same ‘legally binding’ undertaking, as could any of us. 😀
I hope the UoF ask for proof of ownership before they accept any such undertaking! They must know they are dealing with some slick practitioners of business speak who have not been above being, well, slick.
____________________________________________________
In summary, we think the board have discovered that they can’t legally sell off or raise finance against Ibrox and MP because of a contingent liability.
So they have agreed with the UoF that they won’t sell off or raise finance, in exchange for the UoF calling off a seaon ticket boycott.
Now tickle their tummies, why not!
billyj1 says:
May 15, 2014 at 10:30 pm
‘.O what a tangled web we weave !!’
———
Never fear, billyj1, the Ministry of Truth on the 6th Floor will keep us from all error!
According to them,the life of an ‘important institution’, part of the very ‘fabric of society’, is, on being subjected to what for other entities has been death and extinction, simply changed, not taken away! It lives!
And every PR artifice has been and is being used, by the spinners of the tissue of lies necessary to support and sustain that zombie life, to propagate that false message.
I say again, without apology for the oft repeated repetition, that a very great evil and harm was done to our game and sport by the Football Authorities in allowing their fear of the consequences of being truthful to override their obligations to Truth and Sporting Integrity.
A wholly contrived, elaborate charade was enacted, with the heart and hand endorsement of the SMSM, in which the principal actors feigned the appearance of ‘judicial’ propriety while giving two fingers to objective truth.
I feel that this ought ALWAYS to be in the forefront of our minds.
Whether the new club dies at its own hands, torn apart by faction, greed, or whatever, is in a sense, still a secondary issue. It is part of the charade that it is there at all.If it dies,some kind of justice will have been served.
Of much more importance , there was something rotten in football governance in our own wee country.
And I for one don’t think that has yet gone away.
Resin_lab_dog says:
May 15, 2014 at 11:22 pm
‘……a contingent liability.’
——-
That’s the term that I just could not remember! I know that the Board may indeed have legal title to the property, but that there’s a strong probability that their legal rights over it are hemmed in by a legal claim over their rights. ‘Contingent liability’. The very dab, as we used to say in the middle 1950s( I don’t think I’ve heard it or said it too many times since them Lonnie Donegan days of skiffle!)
Isn`t it ironic ?
……….and even a bit scary?
A football club run by a greedy Spiv
……..funded by a greedy Spiv Bank
Uses Spiv methods to scam their tax bill
Comes to grief for not paying HMRC
Who could have put them to the sword
But instead
condemns them to eternal torture
Endlessly milked
Forever and ever
By Spivs
Can anyone settle an argument for me please.
When Sevco was admitted to the SFL Div 3 , am I right in thinking that when this shiny new club was playing in Div 3 they were allocated top grade referees – unlike the rest of their fellow Div 3 clubs ?
If so , did this continue into their 2nd season and will it continue into next season ?
Friday’s Daily Record Exclusive – by you know who
WE’VE BEEN SOLD A DUMMY
Ibrox fans urged not to buy season tickets after board stalls on deadline deal to safeguard Ibrox and Murray Park.
Is it just me? or do others visit this site and read comments, then you see one from Barca, Eco, or Campbells that scroll forever? … you know you gotta read it cos it will be brilliant, but you know you need to go pee first! 😆
Interesting to think about Armageddon. It’s been curious to observe a lot of comments here,talking up the state of Scottish football with particular regard to the spread of trophies since the implosion of Rangers, which often finish with something along the lines of “I’m loving this Armageddon lark”.
I usually interpreted this, without thinking, as people saying how much better things had got since aforementioned implosion.
Some people probably meant that, some people probably meant something else. On thinking about it further something stuck in my mind, so I looked it up. The first “peoples final” that I can remember being hyped as such was Kilmarnock vs Falkirk in 1997. Attendance? 48,953 according to Wikipedia. So I don’t think “Armageddon” is a sign that the game in Scotland has necessarily improved since the implosion. What has been proved however, is that not much has really suffered, or even noticed a difference, as the expected attendance at the next Scottish cup final is in line with that at Kilmarnocks famous victory. And that is probably the biggest two fingers to the SFA and SPL officials.
I must admit to being one who thought that a lot of clubs would have suffered through the lack of gate money from Rangers fans. Not necessarily Armageddon, but I thought there would be a noticeable impact. I was wrong. From a Scottish football perspective I’m glad to be proved wrong, from a Rangers perspective I feel a little bit less important than I did before this all kicked off.
Carfins Finest says:
May 15, 2014 at 3:28 pm
‘.Mr McOist has been very very quiet over the ST renewal debacle.’
——————
I was reading this post, CF, earlier this evening, listening to Gary Locke being positive about staying in football management. And as I listened to him, I was thinking about Levein’s statement that the decision to dump Locke had been made 3 months before.
And ( sorry again, EB) I reflected on Hamlet’s ” …that one may smile, and smile, and be a villain”
Many of us will probably have experienced what Locke experienced:the realisation that one has been played for a sucker, that one’s boss and his circle of intimates knew that one was for the chop but said not a word while still benefiting from one’s honest and loyal efforts for the team.
The big boys in the yard tell us, of course, that that’s what life is like, tough titty, dry your eyes,get over it and so on.
But…. it would take a saint to accept that with meekness.
Especially if the ‘chop’ was not for sound reasons but ,say, for reasons to do with the particular predilections of the boss and his fancy-woman ( or, in these days of equality, man) or some other such loaded, personal-gain as opposed to company efficiency ,reason.
If McCoist is presently quiet, it is quite possibly the case that he has realised that he has been being played like a patsy, and that he has been working with, for, and among some of the more basic and hard-nosed ‘business-men’ and money-grubbers that Scottish football has had the misfortune to encounter.
He has no chance. He is doomed.
He will suffer the indignity of being damned by faint and false praise when the ‘barra-boys’ decide -probably very soon- that they have exhausted his usefulness and that he is no longer worth a button.
Strangely, I feel no real sympathy for him, as I do for Danny Lennon and Gary Locke, honest decent blokes who would not in a million years have dog-whistled to the worst elements in their clubs’ fanbases in a cheap appeal to popular support.
new development!!!!!
Dr. Mike McDermott @MikejMcDermott 14m
So it seems there’s a 3rd player in the #SevCo saga !
http://celticsupportersbuyoutofibrox.webs.com/
John Clark says:
May 16, 2014 at 1:06 am
16
0
Rate This
Carfins Finest says:
May 15, 2014 at 3:28 pm
‘.Mr McOist has been very very quiet over the ST renewal debacle.’
————————
It gives a warm glow of achievement when one of the most respected posters on this site, Mr John Clark, whether with or without an ‘e’ admits to reading one of your posts.
Carfin’s Finest @ 6.45am
Good morning 😀 That is so very true, had that privilege a while ago, let’s hope today is good day in our fight for justice in our beloved game, ( I am allowed to dream 😉 )
John Clark says:
May 15, 2014 at 11:56 pm
10 0 Rate This
Resin_lab_dog says:
May 15, 2014 at 11:22 pm
‘……a contingent liability.’
——-
That’s the term that I just could not remember! I know that the Board may indeed have legal title to the property, but that there’s a strong probability that their legal rights over it are hemmed in by a legal claim over their rights. ‘Contingent liability’. The very dab, as we used to say in the middle 1950s( I don’t think I’ve heard it or said it too many times since them Lonnie Donegan days of skiffle!)
==========================================================
JC(e)…your literary memories apparently know no bounds…but I am sure that “…the very dab…” was an expression used frequently by those DC Thomson creations of “Oor Wullie” or “The Broons”…!
And since you have apparently taken a distinct liking for the expression “contingent liability”, I would be delighted to post the accountancy definition of this lovely concept…honestly Mr, ah’m no kiddin….!
enough is enough says:
May 16, 2014 at 12:47 am
16 2 Rate This
Is it just me? or do others visit this site and read comments, then you see one from Barca, Eco, or Campbells that scroll forever? … you know you gotta read it cos it will be brilliant, but you know you need to go pee first! 😆
===========================================================
Enough (sic)…I am certain your are far from alone…ah…the joys of middle/old age waterworks…!
John Clark says:
May 16, 2014 at 1:06 am
18 0 Rate This
I was reading this post, CF, earlier this evening, listening to Gary Locke being positive about staying in football management. And as I listened to him, I was thinking about Levein’s statement that the decision to dump Locke had been made 3 months before.
And ( sorry again, EB) I reflected on Hamlet’s ” …that one may smile, and smile, and be a villain”
==============================================================
JC(e)…I have to warn you that any more of these superb quotes in such accurate context will have me a convert to the cause (of Shakingspear!)
However, it is not a patch of the cynical manner in which Mr Levy dispatched Tim Sherwood of THFC, which happened literally on my Essex doorstep! Here was a guy, despite a few bad results, had an outlook for the future and was seen as a natural man manager at all levels…sacrificed on the altar of Mammon!
John Clark says:
May 16, 2014 at 1:06 am
==============================
You are spot on re McCoist in comparison to Locke. McCoist has lined up beside the spivs when it suits him, and has backed almost every spiv who has ran the show in his time there as manager. He has gone on about being kicked when they are down, and has contradicted himself time and time again. He never misses an opportunity to insert the words ‘our 140 year history’ into a statement, which suggests he doth protest a little too much. His performance during the Ian Black betting scandal was farcical, but still he got away with it, and all only because of an inherent media bias towards him due to his status as a Rangers legend.
Locke on the other hand worked tirelessly for the club he loves, which we must always remember is the same club he has always loved. He tried his best with a team of youngsters as the administration was carried out as per due process. Never once did he go on about getting kicked or imply someone else was to blame, so he must be hurting, and hurting badly now he’s not there. I suspect he will get another chance somewhere.
Going back to McCoist, if and when the governance of the club he works for is ever resolved, it is unlikely in the extreme he will have a future there, and even more unlikely he will get a chance as a manager anywhere else. He will of course be welcomed back with open arms by his friends in the media – that much we do know.
upthehoops says: May 16, 2014 at 7:14 am
Locke on the other hand worked tirelessly for the club he loves, which we must always remember is the same club he has always loved. He tried his best with a team of youngsters as the administration was carried out as per due process. Never once did he go on about getting kicked or imply someone else was to blame, so he must be hurting, and hurting badly now he’s not there. I suspect he will get another chance somewhere.
==========================================
It’s ironic that Gary Locke should just have been named Manager of the Month for April then been told his contract wasn’t being renewed.
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl/manager-of-month-gary-locke-leaves-hearts-on-high-1-3413063
easyJambo says:
May 16, 2014 at 7:43 am
It’s ironic that Gary Locke should just have been named Manager of the Month for April then been told his contract wasn’t being renewed.
=========================================
Indeed E.J. The Hearts situation was discussed at length on here earlier this week. Getting rid of a club legend will only crank up the pressure if the new regime doesn’t make a decent start.
The SMSM would do better to focus on the Armageddon currently playing out in it’s own backyard. Newsprint circulation is plummeting, the number of people who pay for papers is in steep decline. Newspapers are shedding posts and are simply publishing press releases and advertisements dressed as articles.
More worryingly, for the SMSM, is that the public has lost faith in the media institution. Leveson, Hillsborough, Orgreave, phone-hacking, Clifford & Saville have fatally undermined the public’s confidence in the media. In addition, sites such as RTC, TSFM & independent journalists’ blogs have proven to be a more reliable source of information, in relation to RFC(IL) for example, than the SMSM.
Most sports hacks are probably missing the ‘lamb & perks’ that SDM used to lavish on them in return for uncritical reports of profits and hover pitches.
Billy Boyce says:
May 16, 2014 at 12:30 am
17 0 Rate This
Friday’s Daily Record Exclusive – by you know who
—————————————————
Article now online
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-fans-urged-not-buy-3549042?
“last night Craig Houston of the Sons of Struth revealed to Record Sport that there had been no further contact with the board.
He said: “It is with a deep sense of disappointment that I can confirm there has been no further movement.
“At present we have no agreement with the board and, for this reason, we cannot endorse the buying of season tickets.
“We would suggest that the fans hold back until such times as we have a firm agreement on the proposals.
“We expected the board to act with some sort of urgency. But we have heard nothing.”
Campbellsmoney says:
May 15, 2014 at 10:45 am
Without wishing to appear smug (sorry Smugas )- I posted this on May 6):-
“Would you be surprised if out of the current impasse somehow an agreement is reached between the Board at RIFC/TRFC and Ibrox 1972 Limited (let’s call it the Camp David Accord)?
——————————————————-
Hmmmmm. Am feeling a bit less convinced of my prediction skills this morning.
davythelotion says:
May 16, 2014 at 8:07 am
======================
Agree with much of what you say. The halcyon days for the media have gone. In terms of the Scottish Sports media the golden days pre-internet must seem like a dream. They were in total control of what they wanted us to know, and when someone like David Murray was controlling them like glove puppets it became ever more dangerous. I still maintain had Rangers not been paying tax in the 1970’s the establishment, including the media, would have covered it up and we would have been none the wiser. Despite information being more freely available now, I still expect, decades down the line, for things to emerge that show just how much the establishment tried to save them. The real irony will always be that a club who loves to portray itself as uber-British and loyal to the crown, did everything in its power to avoid and evade paying taxes to the Crown’s very own revenue service. Going back to the media, why did they condone, or at least try to excuse tax evasion and avoidance on the back pages, while condemning it on the front pages and demanding action against the defaulters? I always thought to be an establishment club would involve being law abiding and doing the right thing. What does that tell us about the establishment?
RyanGosling says:
May 16, 2014 at 1:03 am
Interesting to think about Armageddon. It’s been curious to observe a lot of comments here,talking up the state of Scottish football with particular regard to the spread of trophies since the implosion of Rangers, which often finish with something along the lines of “I’m loving this Armageddon lark”.
I usually interpreted this, without thinking, as people saying how much better things had got since aforementioned implosion.
Some people probably meant that, some people probably meant something else. On thinking about it further something stuck in my mind, so I looked it up. The first “peoples final” that I can remember being hyped as such was Kilmarnock vs Falkirk in 1997. Attendance? 48,953 according to Wikipedia. So I don’t think “Armageddon” is a sign that the game in Scotland has necessarily improved since the implosion. What has been proved however, is that not much has really suffered, or even noticed a difference, as the expected attendance at the next Scottish cup final is in line with that at Kilmarnocks famous victory. And that is probably the biggest two fingers to the SFA and SPL officials.
————————————————————
A lot of points worth thinking about in your post.
To me the fear of Armageddon which was being promoted by Hampden suits and the SMSM was sussed by most football fans for what it was and there’s no need to further dwell on that because we all know what I am saying.
The routing of Armageddon for me isn’t necessarily measured in an immediate increase at gates. To me it’s a deeper thing with a huge swathe of Scottish football supporters being educated and thus empowered and they have given the SFA especially a huge Viccy 😆
They have seen clearly over the last few years a naked partiality exhibited and extended towards one team and I think possibly a lot more clubs no longer regard all of Celtic’s ‘whinging’ at the unfairness as the product of a paranoid support.
Football club chairmen aren’t daft and most are in touch with what their support is thinking and I honestly believe that change is coming at Hampden. It’s slower than a lot of us would like but it’s underway of that I am certain. And the main thing that is required is transparency: We need to know why certain decision are taken wrt rules and governance and, oftem ore importantly, why no action is taken is some case. And the reasons for any rule change or contentious interpretation must be spelt-out. And most importantly Sporting Integrity must be made the bedrock of the game.
Football Authorities can no longer continue to ignore the customers – jeesuz no other business could survive by treating its customers like trash – the suits and blazers have to be cleared out and men and women of integrity installed to renew and reinvigorate our game in the modern age.
And overpaid second-rate execs who actually seem to be the ones wielding the power have to be swept-out as well. We pay them pleny and we are entitled to better for oiur money – always remember it is OUR money that keeps the Hampden Circus on the road
So Ryan the game might not have improved in some ways although I have thoroughly enjoyed a number of games this year and not just in the Premiership. The gates might not have gone through the roof but they most certainly haven’t collapsed in the middle of a continuing recession in Scotland where money is very tight for a helluva lot of households.
Football in Scotland can’t be run for the benefit of one or two teams especially when it’s not just financial benefit that’s the main motive but other, historic, outdated and unacceptable drivers.
As I mentioned the other day I have bought a couple of tickets for the cup final tomorrow and as they are ‘concession’ tickets I have donated the reduction from the normal price to the club’s youth development programme. I have gone to a few games this year which didn’t feature Celtic and I’ll be going to more next year. Now believe me that’s a change in my behaviour and understanding and it’s for the better.
OK not a huge amount of money but what I am trying to get across is it’s not just about money – it’s about knowing our game is ‘clean’ and that no club is gaining an advantage off the field of play because of secret deals done in back rooms or even over a dinner in luxury surroundings 😉
The authorities thought it would all settle down and go away if they said nothing – Well, Scottish Football Supporters have a message for them: It will never go away till we get the truth and kick out the corrupt and morally bankrupt.
In the words of an old trade union mentor: ‘If we aw spit itra same time we’ll droon ra b……s ❗
As to comparing stats from 1997 to 2014 well for them to be meaningful for me I would need to look at the overall stats for both seasons and see what they indicated. The main thing is that Armageddon has been defeated by fan power which further exposed the fuds in suits for what they are 😆
CM
No worries. Your right to be smug was only granted conditionally in any case pending handover of the original right to be smug from the original smug2012 to smug5088. 😆
As you were.
upthehoops says:
May 16, 2014 at 9:21 am
davythelotion says:
May 16, 2014 at 8:07 am
======================
Agree with much of what you say. The halcyon days for the media have gone. In terms of the Scottish Sports media the golden days pre-internet must seem like a dream. They were in total control of what they wanted us to know, and when someone like David Murray was controlling them like glove puppets it became ever more dangerous. I still maintain had Rangers not been paying tax in the 1970′s the establishment, including the media, would have covered it up and we would have been none the wiser.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
It is simple the SMSM IMO are aka WATP’s Press. Away back then, to this day and forever.
UTH
Its not the most extensive poll ever, but if you went to my old man whom I consider to be quite intelligent, certainly experienced and able to form a balanced viewpoint, and who still faithfully plods to the paper shop every morning I can tell you he would be astonished if “Rangers” went bust again.
Eco
Excellent summation on armageddon to which I would only add that it remains a large weeping sore, that we (most of us anyway) believe that our clubs were in some way complicit, possibly in the cover up pre 2012, certainly in the stramash in summer 2012 and potentially remain to be so.
Deal with that, even if it means bringing in a new fans’ RFC into our fold and we might just have a game on our hands. Failure to deal, the three monkeys approach, does not at present appear to be damaging to the majority of clubs but it will remain the proverbial elephant in the room for quite some time to come – well it will if I have anything to do with it!
I posted on here a couple of days ago about Partick Thistle and how they risked alienating a large part of their core support by moving their home support out of their North Stand (largely to accommodate bigger away supports). Following a very strong reaction from the Thistle Fans the club issued a further statement on Wednesday (link) acknowledging that they may have underestimated the strength of feeling from fans on the subject. A meeting will take place tonight involving the PTFC supporters federation. Hopefully this will lead to an outcome that Thistle fans will be happy with.
http://ptfc.co.uk/news/2013-2014/may_2014/club_statement
Where does all this fit in the greater scheme of things? Well, to me it is a reminder of one of the most important developments in Scottish Football in recent years, a growing realisation of the power of the fans. We no longer rely on spoon fed succulent lamb MSM articles. We communicate instantly through social media with fellow fans, access intelligent articles on the net from bloggers free from corrupting ties with the clubs and join with more sympathetic elements of the MSM in mocking the authorities (all those references to “Armageddon” this year on the BBC from Richard Gordon, Jim Spence, Tam Cowan, Stuart Cosgrove etc). Within hours of PTFC’s original announcement a Thistle messageboard was alive with organising a fans response, petition and letters to the club on why season ticket holders would not renew.
The single biggest force for integrity in this shambolic saga has been us, the fans. The authorities wanted a stitch up but the internet came alive with No to Newco. The action now of fans of PTFC and indeed of the supporters of TRFC reinforces and underlines a developing trend of fan power. We have the potential to organise and influence. We know it. They know it.
“Football is nothing without fans.”
davythelotion says:
May 16, 2014 at 8:07 am
An exercise which was popular in English classes was ‘opposites’. With reference to our craven hacks, find the opposites of: Truth, Integrity, Courage, Insight, Coherence, Logical Thinking ……..tbc
Campbellsmoney says:
May 16, 2014 at 9:20 am
1
0
Rate This
Campbellsmoney says:
May 15, 2014 at 10:45 am
Without wishing to appear smug (sorry Smugas )- I posted this on May 6):-
“Would you be surprised if out of the current impasse somehow an agreement is reached between the Board at RIFC/TRFC and Ibrox 1972 Limited (let’s call it the Camp David Accord)?
——————————————————-
Hmmmmm. Am feeling a bit less convinced of my prediction skills this morning.
——————————————
I wouldn’t worry – I confidently predict the ST deadline will be extended today possibly with the explanation it’s to allow time to reach agreement with the UoF. And all the time they hope that ST sales will trickle in.
Of course it could be that there’s no need to do any deal because they are happy with the amount of STs sold but they are keeping quiet so as not to annoy any section of the Bears.
I think the only prediction any of us can make with any certaintly is that anything can happen and probably will 😆
It’s quite intriguing because when the ST sale ‘window’ for existing holders closes then that opens the period when transfer requests are activated before the public sale opens.
If there is a lot of people making transfer requests for better seats or whatever reason and a currently non-renewing holder loses their seat then that could have an adverse affect if finally cutting a fan’s connection to the club just because they will no longer be in their regular seat surrounded by people they have got to know and just the comfort zone exoperienced in familiar surroundings.
Lot of factors going on which is a real gamble for the club. I have never seen figutes for any club but I would think the non-renewal rate for ST holders must be pretty high in years 1 & 2 in any case and much higher than for established attenders.
As Rangers have a lot of new ST holders then that will IMO be another pressure point on ST sales.
Still we will know at some point – it’s something that can’t be hidden unless Willie Vass gets the boot as well 🙄
RyanGosling says:
May 16, 2014 at 1:03 am
I recall way back on the RTC site the whole issue of how much money Rangers bring to the game was debated.
It was acknowledged that Rangers, especially in the top flight, help bring in more TV revenue.
However beyond that the cash from 40k every second week goes directly to the Ibrox coffers.
The benefit of income from travelling Rangers fans to other clubs is generally limited to two games a year
Some teams may benefit from a cup game or extra fixture in the Premiership end of season split system and from now on the possibility of play-off spots.
The income from the Rangers away support is then further limited by the capacity of the ground and the ticket allocation. The impression seems to have been in some quarters that when either of the big Glasgow two arrive they somehow take over a whole stadium.
No doubt on the journey back up some smaller teams have had a nice pay day when Rangers have visited but as I said to a taxi driver the other day it probably just help pay off the overdraft. While no doubt welcomed none of those teams will be putting a bid in for Messi in the close season.
The irony is that as Rangers move up to the Championship they will be playing at grounds with larger capacities, so their travelling fans could generate reasonable amounts of income for other teams. However this is at a time where the level of support could be fluctuating and previous noise has been made about punishing the likes of Hearts (and now possibly Hibs) from the SPL who did them wrong. They don’t fancy the Falkirk stadium announcer much either (if they don’t go up).
As was predicted on RTC while there would be some from of financial the possibility of maintaining or seeing rise in attendances through the possibility of winning something or having more wins per season would go some way to help balance things out.
The importance of Rangers and indeed Celtic relates more to the potential TV income (if the power that be were capable of brokering a decent deal), however as has been shown over the past two years the rest of Scottish football would happily adapt and survive within a sustainable financial model if either one or both were to go elsewhere.