It’s now seven years since the festering sore on the skin of Scottish Football became fully septic, causing the liquidation of Rangers Football Club. Many of us at that time felt that the environment which had enabled the systematic, industrial scale cheating by that club, having now been exposed as unfit to fulfil its purpose, would be dismantled and replaced by something more accountable, more transparent, more honest.
Many more of us thought that other clubs who were the victims of the cheating that had gone on would be seeking a clear-out and a rewrite of the rule book, if for no other purpose than to ensure that a repeat was not possible.
We were all mistaken.
Let’s be honest about this. Football, whether it is played in Scotland or Argentina, at the Maracana Stadium or at Fleshers Haugh, is a rules-based endeavour. The rules of the game – both on the field and in its administration – are there to ensure as level a playing field as possible, to ensure that the constraints put on one club are the same for the rest.
Referees are in place to ensure the rules are complied with on the pitch, albeit with varying degrees of success. No matter what you might think of the guys in black, their craft is carried out in full public gaze, and consequently they are accountable to public opinion.
Off the field though, things are rather more opaque. Without the revelations of Charlotte Fakes for instance, we would never have known that a club had applied for a licence with false information, to a committee partly comprised of two folk who were employees of that club, and by extension part of the deception. Nor would we have known that the Chief Executive of the SFA had written to the club in question looking for approval on how the controversy surrounding the issue of the licence could be managed in the media.
The detail of the crimes of the people in charge of our game are the domain of those who have relentlessly pursued the truth of these matters. The devil is always in the detail, and the real devil is concealed in the fact that many of us are forced to switch off when confronted by the daunting prospect of having to follow that multi-threaded narrative.
In that regard, we owe much to the likes of Auldheid and EasyJambo (and many others) who unravel those threads for us and present the facts in a way most of us can follow. By doing so, they have allowed us to keep our eye on the ball.
Despairingly though, the upshot is that no matter what the facts tell us, Scottish football, at boardroom level, aided and abetted by the mainstream media, has no interest in seeking justice, or more importantly, clearing house.
The sins of the past will be the sins of the future, because the authorities have learned no lessons in the wake of Rangers’ liquidation, and in fact have now enshrined Doublespeak as the official language of the game.
No sporting advantage is a curious phrase used to describe sporting advantage
Imperfectly registered in lieu of not registered
Same for Different
I could go on, but the sins of one club, whilst fundamentally undermining the integrity of the sport in this country, are not the real problem. The authorities who set out to distort, bend, break, and tear up the rule-book are.
So too are the clubs who have refused to back their fans’ demand for proper oversight of the game, who have stood back and said nothing (except: “nothing to do with us guv!”) whilst their Patsies at Hampden do their dirty work, refusing to engage with or explain themselves to fans. These are the real culprits, they who have betrayed the trust of their own supporters. And if we are looking for a reason, look no further than their bank balances.
The recent scandal where the SPFL shared the outcome of its Unacceptable Behaviour report with the Scottish Government on the basis that it would not be made public shines a harsh spotlight on this.
The football authorities currently receive public funds from government, but in a “have your cake and eat it” scenario, they are accountable to no-one but themselves – and that’s how they want to keep it.
Publication of the SPFL report would put them at risk of having the accountability that they fear thrust on them. No-one in football wants the sectarian blight on our game to be cast under the glare of public focus. Especially if it becomes apparent that the game itself is the medium in which sectarianism thrives best.
And they know that it does exactly that. The trouble is that the societal divisions caused by sectarianism is a money maker. The old adage sectarianism sells has never been truer. The divide and rule model of empire applied to football. It is good box office.
But making football accountable could force measures to be put in place to cut out sectarian behaviour – and the clubs do not want that. It’s not the fear of being held responsible for their own fans’ behaviour under Strict Liability that worries the CFOs of our clubs – it’s the fear of losing the hatred which sees the money – bad money if you will – roll in.
Why did the cover up take place? Because losing Rangers was just not acceptable to football. Removing one of the vital protagonists in a money making cartel that thrives on hatred was a greater fear than any altruistic notion of sporting integrity (also now Doublespeak for “lack of integrity”).
Who could have foreseen that amidst the chaos surrounding Rangers demise, that they were only a symptom of the greed and couldn’t care less attitude of the money-men in football, and that our eyes would eventually be opened to the possibility that the football industry in Scotland is itself the enemy of public harmony?
Ironic perhaps, that the beautiful game, born out of the sense of community felt by the founding fathers of all our clubs, would emerge as a major malign influence in those communities.
There is no doubt that football is not prepared to cede any of its sovereignty to its customer base. They will go on – as long as we continue to bankroll them – in exactly the same way, like their bedfellows in the media a self-regulating industry with little or no regard for the public.
I am a supporter of Strict Liability, and we have already had discussions on the pros and cons of such an intervention. It is also clear that there is no SFM consensus on that. I want to leave that aside for the moment, because we do have a consensus surrounding our desire to see greater accountability in the game, and it is clear that fans’ voices, however temperately and eloquently articulated, are falling on deaf ears at Hampden.
The women’s game at the World Cup has recently provided us a window into the past, of the origins of the sport in Scotland. That which is a celebration of each others endeavour, skill, excellence and culture. The spirit of our game nowadays is a million miles away from that, because the market has taken over.
Taming the wild excesses of the market is the responsibility of government. It’s about time the Scottish Government did just that. It is certainly clear that the SFA or the SPFL have zero interest in reining themselves in.
We have suggestions if anyone is listening.
Timtim 24th July 2019 at 15:23
How would the support react to Ashley taking control again ?
………….
Who knows, but the banter years would continue
The ibrox fan base is so fickle that if Ashley was to reduce the price of a replica kit then get the smsm on side and call him a billionare and some major puff pieces from ex legends to say how good it will be and a bit of reminiscent about the glory years and job done. A hatchet job would have to be done on king and club 72 to see them off. A bit of bear on bear action if that is to happen.
………
Removing King from his throne would seem like a no brainer as a first step but what would it take ?
The Bill to Ashley made public as soon as and some of the above.
…………………
There is a lot of noise on a £1mill cap. But the only cap i can see coming is the ibrox club going cap in hand to Ashley.
They are a loss making business, they just can’t make ends meet even without being hit with a large bill from SDI.
The "written-off", director's debts, are now replaced by substantially rising debts to external bodies.
That's just a fact.
Sooner or later these debts will become unserviceable. Further debt will be unattainable.
It's not rocket science.
It is not in Mick Ashley's interests to kill Sevco stone deid. (Income is income)……….But I'm not so sure of the others????….He may be the only saviour they might possibly have.
All the King's horses, And all the King's men.
Couldn't…………………………………………………
https://twitter.com/jduffin24/status/1154053054166999041?s=21
It’s all Big Mike’s fault obviously but this is a novel way of getting him out of the way.
We've all seen this movie before.
Just as the Ibrox shambles is about to tip over into the abyss, there is a last minute reprieve – and that battered old can is nudged a wee bit further along the dodgy road.
But, there is an unpleasant smell in the air that could indicate that the accumulation of bad news could – finally – be about to bring down the Ibrox house of cards.
And, as the inept, blazered diddies at Hampden lack original thought – the average Bampot can easily predict the moves ahead IF TRFC hits the skids.
My point is:
THIS TIME, it should not be a fans' threat of non-renewal of ST's in support of "No to Sevco!"
THIS TIME there should be a threat of non-renewal of ST's in support of "No to Hampden",
and a demand for a dissolution of both the SFA & SPFL, to be replaced with modern, independent, professional governance and which includes meaningful supporters' participation and oversight.
THIS TIME – it should not be simply about stopping an Ibrox club: it should be about stopping incompetence and corruption within the governance of the Scottish game.
Cluster One @22.26,
If going cap in hand back to Mike Ashley is their only way out, wouldn't it be a lovely irony if the big fella insisted on the third club to play out of Govan being called Sports Direct Rangers, in a Red Bull Leipzig/Salzburg style!
rougvielovesthejungle@08.10
That's a great idea and there would be no need for the fashion police as both SD and TRFC feature patriotic colour palettes in their marketing.
A number of commentators on Twitter, including David Low are casting doubt on the financial health of TRFC given the latest court development.
On reading article 14 of UEFA’s licensing rules sections 4 and 5 caught my eye.
”4 A licence may be withdrawn by the licensor’s decision-making bodies if:
a) anyoftheconditionsfortheissuingofalicencearenolongersatisfied;or
b) the licensee violates any of its obligations under the national club licensing regulations.
5 As soon as a licence withdrawal is envisaged, the UEFA member association must inform the UEFA administration accordingly.
naegreetin 24th July 2019 at 18:11
"I was ….having similar thoughts as yours JC & was wondering if anyone would lodge a complaint to the Law Society re the Judge's comments on Blair's contribution to the SDI case evidence ."
++++++++++++++++++
The Law Society of Scotland has a Director of Regulation, whose functions include the supervision of the mechanisms governing the investigation of complaints brought against lawyers.
I will be totally astonished if Judge Persey does not refer Mr Blair's untruthfulness to the Director of Regulation.
If he for some reason chooses not to do so, I think that the Lord President of the Court of Session who presumably ,as a private citizen, keeps as abreast of the 'news' as the man-in-the-street will have to take action to have the Judge's observation investigated.
We simply cannot let lawyers get away with lying before the Court.
The vast majority of lawyers are honest is as honest does, if not from inherent respect for truth and morality, at least out of pragmatic common sense: you might get caught! And if you are, bang goes job, status, reputation, and a prison sentence might attach as well.
The trouble is that we might not ever hear whether Blair is asked to explain himself, unless the balloon really went up and he was disbarred or jailed when even the SMSM might feel obliged to report the fact.
Not that I am saying he is guilty of anything, of course: only of having been declared by a judge to have told an untruth.
If Close Asset Mgmt. (now) has grounds to call in their loan early…
would it be "GAME OVER" at Ibrox?
I'm guessing there are still funds available from ST sales…
but this scenario could mean that Europa group qualification becomes the ultimate tipping point…
just like McCoist's failure to obtain CL group qualification in 2011.
Deja vu, again?
StevieBC 25th July 2019 at 11:18 If Close Asset Mgmt. (now) has grounds to call in their loan early… would it be "GAME OVER" at Ibrox? I'm guessing there are still funds available from ST sales… but this scenario could mean that Europa group qualification becomes the ultimate tipping point… just like McCoist's failure to obtain CL group qualification in 2011. Deja vu, again? ___________________________
Close Brothers might not be too worried about the debt as long as they are satisfied that the security holds marketable value in the event TRFC folds, as part, at least, of the security would surely be reduced in value should no football club be playing at Ibrox as it's main function involves match-day catering. If they are confident that their security comfortably covers their lending then I am sure they will be happy to let others worry about recovering their unsecured commitments while the interest (covered by the security) mounts up.
On the other hand, if their security covers assets they'd like to get their hands on…
The similarity you mention to the last stand of the old club that was European competition based is quite interesting, amusing even.
Correct. As long as the assets secured are inextricably linked to the eventual football operation (in whatever form) then the position of the secured lender is actually improved the more available cash is frittered away.
Which is is why it was ever so handy for that nice Mr Whyte to come in and remove Lloyd’s welcoming clutches in 2011.
Can anyone confirm that
King and Paul Murray were personally liable under the old retail contract so a deal was done with SDI where 3m was paid by the club* and the new onerous deal which favoured SDI in perpetuity was signed off with all liability now on the club* rather than King/Murray , the blame for which is now resting on the shoulders of company puppet James Blair . Is this where the phrase "selling the jerseys" came from ?
Interesting looking at the outstanding charges on the assets, it appears a few have been secured more than once – presumably they didnt take full value in the first instance and went back to leverage more.
Looking at the finance costs in the accounts lease finance agreement to June 18 were £54k, I am assuming that's the two initial charges registered in Feb 18 – so £13.5k month potentially financing on a loan of??????
SC42 5159 0013 (18th Feb, 2018) – Outstanding
Assets Secured:
Stadium Catering Outlets
Stadium PA System
Stadium Bowl Screens
Stadium WiFi (whatever happened to the court case on that!)
Albion Car Park
Edmiston House
SC42 5159 0014 (20th Feb, 2019) – Outstanding
Assets Secured:
Stadium Catering Outlets
Stadium PA System
Stadium Bowl Screens
Stadium WiFi
Albion Car Park
Edmiston House
SC42 5159 0015 (20th Feb, 2019) – Outstanding
Secured Assets:
Albion Car Park
Edmiston House
Timtim@ 12:40
That's correct – the judgement confirms under para.20 ("Termination of the IPLA"):
SDIR issued a derivative claim on 4 August 2016 on behalf of RRL in which it sought declaratory and injunctive relief the effect of which was to maintain the IPLA in place and to claim damages for breach of contract from Rangers and compensation from Mr King and another director, Mr Murray. The application was heard by Richard Millett QC in March 2017. He gave judgement on 6 April 2017 SDI Retail Services Limited v David King & Ors [2017] EWHC 737. SDIR was given permission to continue its claim as a derivative claim.
Very nice of Glib and Murray (named directors of RRL) to eschew personal liability by paying out £3m of TRFC Ltd's money, agree a further onerous contract making TRFC Ltd liable and claim victory over the bad guy's in the process.
https://twitter.com/saglalbachiara/status/1154328172340682752?s=21
Something to read whilst you’re taking refuge in the shade.
Thank you Otto for the very detailed evidence . Nobody in the MSM , the SFA , the fans or his fellow Directors paid a blind bit of notice of his criminal background or the warnings given by the Sth African Judge as they laid a path of rose petals down Edmiston Drive . Even today as the full implications of his tenure are beginning to hit home they find excuses and deflection to shield him from criticism . I've seen it written that they should contemplate what would be the situation if King hadn't stepped up to the plate and that Ashley would own their club* . Imagine ….. a real billionaire owning the club*. If there's one thing that unites Scottish football fans it's they want Dave King to have control of the levers inside Ibrox , but for very different reasons.
Long live the King.
Would be perfectly understandable if Gerrard 'did a Brendan' and disappeared in an overnight flit to another club – any club – in England.
Shirley he – or his advisers – will be asking questions at Ibrox about this latest Court defeat and the subsequent media coverage?
Ex Ludo 25th July 2019 at 13:23 5 0 Rate This https://twitter.com/saglalbachiara/status/1154328172340682752?s=21 Something to read whilst you’re taking refuge in the shade.
……..
Interesting piece by Roger Mitchell – erstwhile (founding) SPL CEO.
His premise, that Roma should be not be thought of as a football club – more a 'state of mind', has relevance in Scotland too.
It's easy to see how a 'state of mind' can survive all sorts of issues that a football club would find fatal.
An interesting perspective from Mr Mitchell – who can clearly appreciate the ethereal quality of a sporting institution.
I wonder if he had that I'm mind when he started his recent Twitter exchange?
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/sport/football/4521914/roger-mitchell-rangers-bust-sports-direct-ashley-celtic/
What's the chances that if Sevco go bust, more, or less weight, will be added to calls for an independent judicial inquiry?……
I think it could possibly add to it. …Just my opinion.
And that is for DBD…..Wadye think bud?
Stadium WiFi (whatever happened to the court case on that!)
…………………
Rangers Wi-Fi providers have failed in a bid to have £300k ring-fenced from club accounts over an unpaid debt.15 January 2016.
802 Works were initially granted an arrestment warrant on December 31. However, that has now been removed after they were unsuccessful in attempts to shows that Rangers were in immediate danger of becoming insolvent.
Lawyers for the company argued at Glasgow Sheriff Court that the internet service worked until Rangers had their service cut by Virgin Media over non-payment of bills.
The club paid the first two installments before withholding the final payment on the £900k total bill.
……………………..
26th February 2018
Rangers use Ibrox property including WiFi and TV screens as security over £3m funding.
It had been known that the Manchester-based financiers Close Leasing, who have offered the working capital, had ensured the funding against the club’s Edmiston House and Albion car park properties.
…………….
The figures from July to December 2015 were lodged during the hearing, showing an improvement in the club’s accounts.
The sheriff said that document “did change the whole focus of the hearing”.
During submissions earlier in the week counsel for Rangers, Christopher Wilson, said that those investing in the club “would not stand by and let the club go under”.
Delivering his judgment, sheriff Miller said: “It is right to take in to account this fact of the particular nature of the business, its present situation and willingness of those with deep pockets and affection for the club to keep it in business, at least for the foreseeable future.”
………………….
I take from that that they got paid in the end.
HirsutePursuit 25th July 2019 at 19:17
'…It's easy to see how a 'state of mind' can survive all sorts of issues that a football club would find fatal.
An interesting perspective from Mr Mitchell – who can clearly appreciate the ethereal quality of a sporting institution'
+++++++++++++++++
Mitchell, I think, is taking the p.ss out of at least one fatuous QC in the jurisdiction!
@ Otto 12.52
13.5k / month = 162 k a year , the onerous rates suggested by esteemed bloggers were 25/33 % which would be way short of the 3m that was borrowed. The secured loan for those terms would be approx 5.5% yr which seems too reasonable for this type of lender . I also take issue with the suggestion that the latest loan is for circa 7m the security taken is way short of 7m in value so either the rates are eye watering or the loan is not that high. It also brings into question why nobody on the board was willing to lend at a more reasonable rate . 10% return in todays financial climate is excellent , either the pressure to convert into worthless shares or the realisation there was a chance of default can be the only answers (unless they really are all tapped out)
Doing a podcast with David Low on Monday. Originally had intended to be talking about the new interest in Scottish clubs from abroad – especially with the Partick Thistle and Hibs developments.
I am sure that the spectacular own goal debt-to-equity swap at Ibrox might form part of the discussion
Am I not correct in thinking that SDi's claim is against TRFC. The debt for equity was RIFC. There is an inter-company loan from parent to wholly owned subsidiary of the amount of all the directors loans. TRFC's biggest creditor is still RIFC?
I think the holding company scenario is enough to circumvent UEFA FFP rules. The holding companies entire assets are locked in to a loss making company that has a basket of assets that could, say, be used to create a football club.
Far be it from me to offer comfort and solace to any company that may have been mentioned in passing on the TSFM, but I note with interest a small piece in today's print issue of 'The Scotsman'
It is a comment piece by Alistair Wood, of Pinsent Masons 'corporate crime and investigation team.' I give you this excerpt:
" In Scotland we have a unique corporate self-reporting and civil settlement regime which has at its heart the objective of promoting corporate transparency, by providing a more lenient outcome for businesses which have the courage to address corrupt practices."
It seems that if a company 'self-reports' that a director (or former directors) for 'corrupt practices' the business itself will might not be prosecuted but the individual wrongdoing directors will.
I think if I were a company director , I would make a resolution to report any suspected 'corrupt practice' that any of my fellow-directors or past directors may have indulged in ostensibly on behalf of the company. Let the company be fined , certainly, but let only the particular directors who actually are guilty of the 'corrupt practice' be personally prosecuted!
Timtim @25th July 2019 at 22:52
It's a good point you raise – presumably it wasnt a small value the Close Bros. loan, otherwise you would think that the directors themselves would likely have covered it off – insofar as they seem to be able to pull together between £1m-£5m at various times.
On that premise you would think it's got to be over £5m and would likely attract a rate that would reflect that commercial risk i.e. above 10% and possibly more based on the credit rating of the borrower
Unfortunately with the available RIFC accounts only being up to June 18 all that is visible will be the first lot of finance charges (I am assuming they are booking it under that of course) covering Feb 18-June 18.
The next set of accounts will give greater insight as to what the rates are based on the second tranche of charges and the remaining initial charge.
tykebhoy26th July 2019 at 07:51
Am I not correct in thinking that SDi's claim is against TRFC. The debt for equity was RIFC. There is an inter-company loan from parent to wholly owned subsidiary of the amount of all the directors loans. TRFC's biggest creditor is still RIFC?
I think the holding company scenario is enough to circumvent UEFA FFP rules. The holding companies entire assets are locked in to a loss making company that has a basket of assets that could, say, be used to create a football club.
=======================
Sometimes in these situations the debt for equity swap is also carried out with the subsidiary as well to eliminate their debt.
Long time since I posted as I had forgotten my password and was too lazy to ask for a reset. Anyway I was wondering if these loan notes are never converted to shares, does that mean the loans are still outstanding. Is it possible this is just another cunning plan from the glib one to appease UEFA and pretend to be compliant with FFP rules? This would mean directors would still have a strong hand in the event of an insolvency event. Or is my imagination running wild?
Anybody running a book on when the RIFC 2018/19 accounts will be published?
RIFC/TRFC year end is 30th June, (currently).
Don't think we'll see them this side of Christmas.
StevieBC 26th July 2019 at 16:13
Anybody running a book on when the RIFC 2018/19 accounts will be published?
===============================
Late October or early November. As a PLC, I believe that the accounts have to be filed within 6 months of the end of their financial year, so before the end of December.
Buteo Buteo 26th July 2019 at 13:10
====================================
I think the more interesting point, if I have read it correctly, is that the club has not actually got rid of any debt.
The board / shareholders / associates lent the money to the PLC and subsequently accepted a debt for equity share with the PLC.
So the debt of the PLC has been cleared (well excluding loans to people like Close and outstanding liabilities to Sports Direct, as yet unquantified).
However if the PLC in turn lent the money to the club (which only makes sense) then why would that be cleared.
It could be argued that because that money is owed to it's parent then it's not that important. I'm not so sure particularly if administration or liquidation come into play.
“Sports Direct faces €674m tax bill in Belgium”
Headline in the Irish Times online. That’s quite some quantum.
Homunculus 26th July 2019 at 19:09
The only point I am trying to establish is; the notice of the general meeting says IF the notes are converted to shares at20p. it doesn't say when. So do the lenders have to take up the shares? when dealing with King every word has to be considered. I would not put it beyond him to be playing the slippery eel again
Lest I forget, I have penned this letter 9in proper letter form, of course) ready for posting tomorrow if need be: a month is way beyond any acceptable delay.
26 July 2019
Mr Andrew Bailey,
Chief Executive Officer,
The Financial Conduct Authority,
12 Endeavour Square,
London
E20 1JN
Dear Mr Bailey,
May I ask,please, whether I am to expect even an acknowledgement of receipt of my letter to you of 25th June?
Yours sincerely,
(me)
eJ, I appreciate the official submission deadline dates to Companies House.
I'm speculating that RIFC will decide to delay their submissions as long as possible – and probably whilst continuing to spin good news stories in the SMSM.
A bit like the bold Craig Whyte, who simply didn't produce a final set of accounts under his watch, IIRC.
He delayed the AGM from December, then it just didn't happen.
Buteo Buteo 26th July 2019 at 19:46
Homunculus 26th July 2019 at 19:09
The only point I am trying to establish is; the notice of the general meeting says IF the notes are converted to shares at20p. it doesn't say when. So do the lenders have to take up the shares? when dealing with King every word has to be considered. I would not put it beyond him to be playing the slippery eel again
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I haven't been keeping up with debt to equity swap.
Are you saying that the debt has been exchanged for Loan Notes and at some stage these can be converted to shares at 20p. Is there an alternative for the company to redeem them?
I can see why Loan notes like this might be acceptable as "capital" and not debt for FFP purposes but what I don't know is what accounts UEFA look at for licensing purposes. The Holding Company or the Clubs?
Bogs Dollox 26th July 2019 at 20:23
I can see why Loan notes like this might be acceptable as “capital” and not debt for FFP purposes but what I don’t know is what accounts UEFA look at for licensing purposes. The Holding Company or the Clubs?
………………
Whoever applied for the licence i believe.
Auldheid could point you in the right direction.
Homunculus 26th July 2019 at 19:09 Buteo Buteo 26th July 2019 at 13:10 ==================================== I think the more interesting point, if I have read it correctly, is that the club has not actually got rid of any debt. The board / shareholders / associates lent the money to the PLC and subsequently accepted a debt for equity share with the PLC. So the debt of the PLC has been cleared (well excluding loans to people like Close and outstanding liabilities to Sports Direct, as yet unquantified). However if the PLC in turn lent the money to the club (which only makes sense) then why would that be cleared. It could be argued that because that money is owed to it's parent then it's not that important. I'm not so sure particularly if administration or liquidation come into play.
____________
I'd say you are totally correct here, Homunculus. Put more simply, should the parent company, RIFC, become insolvent, there is no escape for the subsidiary, TRFC, as in an insolvency event all the assets of the company are called upon to satisfy its debts, and TRFC's debt to RIFC, as detailed in the accounts, is an asset (basically the only asset) of the parent company.
The money RIFC borrowed from the directors was lent to TRFC in its entirety, and hasn't been repaid, so the only change is that RIFC has reduced its debt, but TRFC's debt, to RIFC, remains unchanged.
Bogs Dollox 26th July 2019 at 20:23
I haven’t been keeping up with debt to equity swap.
Are you saying that the debt has been exchanged for Loan Notes and at some stage these can be converted to shares at 20p. Is there an alternative for the company to redeem them?
…………
This caught my eye while having a read.
* All bar £45,000 of the loan provided to RIFC by Mr Scott will be discharged on the Loan Conversion. The remaining loan of
£45,000 will continue to be available to RIFC on the same terms until 1 July 2020
……………..
https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2019/05/Circular-FINAL21561323_1.pdf
This caught my eye also.
(b) The Rangers Football Club Ltd (“TRFC”) agreed a 3-year contract in April 2018 for manufacture
and supply of Rangers kit and training gear. It is envisaged that this contract will significantly
enhance the revenue generated for TRFC from this area of the business but entering into the
contract has led to litigation with SDI Retail Services Limited.
Buteo Buteo 26th July 2019 at 19:46
The only point I am trying to establish is; the notice of the general meeting says IF the notes are converted to shares at20p. it doesn't say when. So do the lenders have to take up the shares? when dealing with King every word has to be considered. I would not put it beyond him to be playing the slippery eel again
============================
The loan notes conversion to shares has a time limit of the next AGM. From the last circular:
The company's website hasn't been updated with revised shareholdings, suggesting that they haven't been converted as yet.
If they aren't converted, then the holders of the notes would retain the debts attached, as unsecured creditors of RIFC.
Ex Ludo 26th July 2019 at 19:45
'…“Sports Direct faces €674m tax bill in Belgium”'
++++++++++++++
The chaotic delays in Sports Direct getting its accounts published today suggest that Mike Ashley might be losing his grip, and buying House of Fraser was an unsound decision. Poor news for SD shareholders, of course.
Even poorer news for King , though, as Ashley will be in no mood to bargain over how much he wants in damages!
Mike will not be in the least interested whether or not a bird in the hand (weighing maybe £10 million) ) kills TRFC Ltd: it would take a few years for any two or more birds in the bush ( such as continuation of an 'Agreement' with TRFC ) would generate that amount.
easyJambo 26th July 2019 at 21:46
'……If they aren't converted, then the holders of the notes would retain the debts attached, '
++++++++++++++++++++++=
I was earlier trying to research a question posed earlier by Bogs Dollox, if I understood it correctly: namely, is TRFC Ltd permitted in the interim to claim that they do not owe any monies to their director lenders?
I have signally failed to find an answer to the question; to claim so would, of course, be in the ordinary way a bit of cheat and in the ordinary way a bit of a lie. But would it be legal, would the SFA or anybody else have to accept that that amount of debt need not be carried on the books?
John Clark 26th July 2019 at 22:02
I was earlier trying to research a question posed earlier by Bogs Dollox, if I understood it correctly: namely, is TRFC Ltd permitted in the interim to claim that they do not owe any monies to their director lenders?
================================
I've also had a look and believe that they will be accounted for as equity in the annual report. My understanding of what I read is that classification as equity is allowed because of the "fixed" nature of the conversion £x of debt = 5x (total no of shares issued @20p a share).
As 20p is the current (most recently used) price of a share, then there is no discount on the price that the shares are being offered, so there is no paper "cost" or "expense" to the company from the transaction(s).
That is how I expect RIFC to handle it.
The position with TRFC is slightly different. In the last couple of years they haven't reported the inter company loans as debt. The loans have been treated as equity (or capital contributions) on the basis that the loans would not be repaid. The total of such equity contributions stood at £41.5m which is a mix of loans received and the sums accrued from the various share issues going back to 2012.
For their part RIFC now report the inter company loans as "investments in subsidiaries", rather than loans.
John Clark 26th July 2019 at 21:50
Ex Ludo 26th July 2019 at 19:45
'…“Sports Direct faces €674m tax bill in Belgium”'
++++++++++++++
The chaotic delays in Sports Direct getting its accounts published today suggest that Mike Ashley might be losing his grip, and buying House of Fraser was an unsound decision. Poor news for SD shareholders, of course.
Even poorer news for King , though, as Ashley will be in no mood to bargain over how much he wants in damages!
Mike will not be in the least interested whether or not a bird in the hand (weighing maybe £10 million) ) kills TRFC Ltd: it would take a few years for any two or more birds in the bush ( such as continuation of an 'Agreement' with TRFC ) would generate that amount.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The delays are very much down to Grant Thornton (former Auditors of Old Rangers Plc) being under examination by the regulator following their shoddy and borderline criminal work (yet to be decided) at Patisserie Valerie. They cannot sign off on yet another set of shit accounts.
Of course "General Ashley" has been mismanaging his Empire for quite a bit and the Stock Market price of SD shares has dipped despite having tanks on the lawn of D King Esq. seeking out compensation.
Ashley's own troubles a timely reminder that there are no guys with white hats running around in this scenario.
Swimming with sharks and all.
Ashley usually takes a huge chunk out of those he deals with, but it's only a matter of time before somebody takes a bigger chunk out of him.
It would be karma, but the seas are full of the innocent consequences of the avarice and greed.
A wee thought.
While I am sure Mike Ashley's apparent travails will bring a welcome feeling of Karma to many a bear, the more sentient amongst them might realise that a reassessment of SDI's priorities could well see them not only look to maximise any litigation spoils, but also prefer good old cash to any compromise that might see them accept a reworked deal that keeps them in any relationship with a troublesome club at Ibrox.
This might not be so traumatic for TRFC if the quantum involved is not as great as some might think, but if it is, and unless there is some new source of capital about to appear, then some compromise, and climb down by the club board, might be all that stands between the club and undisguisable insolvency.
Here's another wee thought. Once the dust has settled on the TRFC v SDI litigation it will be apparent that, rather than getting into bed with new merchandise providers, while determined not to deal with SDI, it would have been better to have had no merchandising deal, whatsoever, as it's going to cost the club more than it could possibly have made from any form of merchandising. But even after it became obvious that Big Mike had them by the short and curlies they continued to try and make money from kit sales.
So, just how desperate must they have been for 'instant' income to turn a blind eye to what must inevitably happen, and what must it do to them now that that income is going to be swamped by the eventual cost of their battle with SDI? Especially when we remember that all income they made has already been spent while continuing to make increased losses during the period of that income!
I never have any expectation that TRFC's financial woes with SD will lead to TRFC downfall. There is more chance of SD going bust in the near future than TRFC or as Big Pink puts it "it's only a matter of time before somebody takes a bigger chunk out of him." Why? SD is a bog standard stack it high, sell it cheap business and going bust is always an option worthy of consideration in such businesses with such an owner. TRFC on the other hand have a clientele who may find a "second liquidation" (as I've heard their fans call it!) hard to take and the business is small fry (about the same as good going hotel for example) requiring relatively small injections of dosh to keep it going. They can stumble on whereas SD would choose not to. GASL is gambling on this perchance?
Oops, another wee thought.
The rather embarrassing 'pop up' shops! Just how much did TRFC imagine they could make from such a 'Del Boy' type operation? A few thousand, maybe?
Just how desperate must they be that they'd be prepared to not only embarrass themselves and their supporters in this way, but also be prepared to show the world (and Celtic supporters) just how truly impoverished they are?
I'm sure Celtic supporters' song writers can come up with a nice little 'Pop Up Shop' ditty in time for the first Glasgow Derby
easyJambo 26th July 2019 at 21:46
Thanks EJ. That is what I wanted to know. So the shareholders could choose to remain as lenders rather than convert debt to equity. If they fail to get to Europa league groups they would be in a better position with the loans rather than shares, should their financial situation become more risky
ernie 27th July 2019 at 09:47 I never have any expectation that TRFC's financial woes with SD will lead to TRFC downfall. There is more chance of SD going bust in the near future than TRFC or as Big Pink puts it "it's only a matter of time before somebody takes a bigger chunk out of him." Why? SD is a bog standard stack it high, sell it cheap business and going bust is always an option worthy of consideration in such businesses with such an owner. TRFC on the other hand have a clientele who may find a "second liquidation" (as I've heard their fans call it!) hard to take and the business is small fry (about the same as good going hotel for example) requiring relatively small injections of dosh to keep it going. They can stumble on whereas SD would choose not to. GASL is gambling on this perchance?
____________________
I think you may well be correct that SDI are heading for a fall and perhaps are in a more precarious position than RIFC/TRFC. But SDI's failure would not take away the debt TRFC, or any other company, owes them, so SDI's potential failure has no bearing on what the future holds for TRFC, unless the SDI operation that involves the club is sold off to an operator prepared to provide TRFC's kit, but that will only matter if TRFC survives the litigation hit. And SDI's problems could be even worse news for TRFC for it may even lead to a shortening of the time available for the compromise discussions the judge initiated, leading to the point where an injunction is served for the 'many millions' sooner rather than later. As we've repeatedly seen with King and TRFC, the passage of time is his friend. and he certainly needs that friend here.
As has often been commented on, TRFC have survived a plantation full of banana skins in its short history, but as Rangers discovered, there comes a time when it all catches up and it is not inconceivable that, like their predecessor, TRFC is in the position where substantial Euro income is a must. Things looked precarious in the last accounts, and the projections were not good, even without losing 'many millions' extra, so, unless there is a fresh injection of cash – and who's to say there won't be? – failure to qualify for the Euro group stages, plus these many millions, would appear to be an insurmountable obstacle for a company already the subject of repeated 'going concern' issues.
ernie 27th July 2019 at 09:47
============================
The problem is TRFC have required these "relatively small injections" in every year of their existence.
How long can they "stumble on" like that.
It will be interesting to look at their accounts this year (the club not the PLC) to see just how much debt they have now. Albeit the debt is to their parent company. That money had to come from somewhere, the PLC has no source of income other than the club itself, and the way it looks it is going to have to keep coming from somewhere.
They had already predicted losses for this year (July onwards) and who knows if they had factored in having to pay large sums to SD.
It's a financial mess, and if they are stumbling just now it won't take much for them to fall flat on their face.
And whilst there is considerable discussion on the financial future of TRFC…
the – allegedly – smart guy in the Blue Room, Stewart Roberston is quoted in the SMSM as looking to spend money on expanding the capacity at Ibrox.
(Agreed, it's PR p!sh, but there are direct quotes from Robertson.)
The point made by Aj above – about timing – seems most apt.
If SDI is in distress then it can only spell bad news for RIFC/TRFC – in the short-term, IMO.
…which is nice.
StevieBC 27th July 2019 at 13:34
2 0 Rate This
And whilst there is considerable discussion on the financial future of TRFC…
the – allegedly – smart guy in the Blue Room, Stewart Roberston is quoted in the SMSM as looking to spend money on expanding the capacity at Ibrox.
(Agreed, it’s PR p!sh, but there are direct quotes from Robertson.)
……………………..
Back in January 25, 2013
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1155042252135247872?p=v
Charles Green gers vision. I’ll build a bigger ibrox
Three months later Mr Green was gone.After this mouthpiece has delivered his latest quotes i can’t see him lasting another three months either.
…………………
Also in Jan 2013 we had
Deal to rename ibrox.
Lewis Macleod the best ibrox prospect.
League reconstruction discussions.
Gers vow to quit Scotland.
Eamond Holmes abused by rangers fans.
ESPN has no intention of walking away from scottish football.
Ally McCoist claimed talk of stripping titlesfrom rangers was driven by people with agendas.
Gers fans ready to boycott every club.
Rangers continue to seek compensation for the players who declined to transfer their contracts.
As things down ibrox way have a history of repeating themselves i wonder what it is i’m missing here.
Continuing on from the build a bigger ibrox. This from March 23, 2004.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ClusterOne2/status/1154496655271444481/photo/1
Now what was going on behind the scenes at ibrox when this was put out.
That is right HMRC inquiry into rangers at this time in 2004
A word of explanation.
Our post is delivered usually about midday.
We left home at 10.00 a.m. to travel to Glasgow (by bus: shocking wet weather made me disinclined to drive) to meet the most recent addition to Mrs C's Italy-based brother and his wife, and their son and his South Vietnamese wife , newly home on vacation from South Korea (where they live and work)with their first wee baby, a smashin' wee girl.
So it was about 7.00 p.m when we got back home. No reply on the mat from the CEO of the FCA, and too late to send my letter.
It will be sent on Monday (if nothing comes in the post that morning).
But this post is about the article written by Alan Pattullo in today's issue of 'The Scotsman",which I read this morning on the bus to Glasgow.
I have of course been critical of Pattullo both on SFM and by personal email in relation to the 'saga', and tend to assume automatically that what he may have to say on any subject has to be looked at as critically as anything coming from Ibrox or the 6th Floor.
However, the article is not in any direct way related to the SMSM's mission which is to propagate (on behalf of RIFC plc and TRFC Ltd and the SFA and the SPFL) the utter falsehood that in some mysterious way a Scottish Football Club that lost its membership of Scottish Football by suffering the 'insolvency event' of Liquidation, is somehow still in membership.
No. It is instead about the 'f'riendly' to be played tomorrow at Murrayfield between Liverpool and Napoli.
I can't reproduce the whole article, of course, but if I give you this excerpt and say that I am with Pattullo in what he says , you might understand where, as they say, I am coming from. i.e, from the stance of Scottish Football supporter as all of you who read this are.
"..The late Jim Farry [ ed: I know, I know!] ..would have a fit if he knew what was happening. The former chief executive would not countenance any game across the globe being shown live at the same time as a Scottish fixture, never mind agree to a friendly, one actually played in Scotland between two non-Scottish teams, averting interest from domestic matches, however low in profile.
Here we have a very rich English club getting richer on the back of the Scottish Football pound. Worse, the governing body benefiting from the arrangement is not Scottish football's governing body. Scottish Rugby will make an estimated six-figure profit from the rental agreement and hospitality cut."
Earlier in the article, Pattullo reports that Liverpool did not seek FIFA permission for such a cross-border match. The SFA have sought compensation.
Pattullo's observation is :
" Liverpool will fling something the SFA's way, a figure that's small beer compared to what they will earn from a match that shouldn't be seen as anything other than a money-making exercise.. Why else would they have eschewed playing at Hampden..? "
As I said, I (seriously) think it is appalling that an English club should think it ok to act the madam and defy the rules. I also think it is a bit underhand of Scottish Rugby to be party to the arrangement.
I think FIFA should kick Liverpool's arse good and hard, and I am glad that the SFA have guts enough at least to seek compensation, if not enough guts when it truly matters.
I am especially glad that the SFA will now realise that if they themselves break the football rules,( in the matters, say, of allowing a new club to market itself as being the Rangers of 1872 and in awarding a UEFA licence to an unentitled club) they deserve to have their arse kicked very hard.
And, of course, if journalists want to write articles about football clubs breaking the rules they cannot choose to ignore any one particular delinquent club, and must expect to have their arses kicked even harder when they do.
Having mentioned Pattullo of 'The Scotsman' and his article about the Liverpool/Napoli 'friendly', my eye has now fallen on a piece on the same page which does not carry an author's name ( but is presumably part of Pattullo's offerings).
It is about Edusport Academy ( which we talked about recently) having changed their name to Caledonian Braves, which we have already read about on the blog.
It mentions that Chris Ewing, the owner, 'has been approached by a French company who are trialling an app at a French sixth division club where fans are involved to the extent they vote on who should be subbed off."
He does not say who Chris Ewing is, or that he lives in France, and he does not ask questions about the French company and what they are after and who they are…….
Geez, if I am asking those questions as a matter of course, why the hell isn't a sports journalist?
This is not to say anything against Ewing or his renamed football club.
But really, the old, old mantra is still valid: journalists have to ask who, what, when, where and why? and take no one at his word without independent verification.
A journalist who does not make it clear that he has followed that mantra is just a PR guy happy to sell his ass for a column inch. In my opinion.
JC, I'm ambivalent about the Liverpool v. Napoli game in Edinburgh. It's just a friendly – aka a training session which generates some cash.
My wife had wanted us to go, and I would like to see the current European Champions in action: but not in a kickabout.
And yes, it should embarrass the SFA that Murrayfield is hosting this game.
But the Internet Bampots know full well how inept the SFA blazers are – and that their necks are of the proverbial brass type!
And, I do have to smile to myself when you consider that by hosting this game, the CEO of Murrayfield / SRU has – metaphorically – driven along the M8, parked outside Hampden and then proceeded to p!ss all over the steps leading up to the SFA offices!
While we are back on the subject of the lower leagues, I went along to Bonnyrigg on Saturday to watch their first game in the Lowland League against Vale of Leithen (which they won 6-0)
I was pleased to see Bonnyrigg receiving their SFA membership certificate from SFA President Rod Petrie before the game.
I was even more pleased to note that the Bonnyrigg officials kept their distance and left Petrie to watch the game on his own thereafter.
eJ I do hope that someone shouted embarrassing truths at Petrie throughout the match?
…or that someone approached him to ask for a look at his infamous '5 Way Agreement' ?
Alternatively, and guessing by the photo, the SFA President could have easily shook hands with everyone in attendance there, and thanked them for turning up – if he had wanted to of course.
StevieBC 28th July 2019 at 01:55
Alternatively, and guessing by the photo, the SFA President could have easily shook hands with everyone in attendance there, and thanked them for turning up – if he had wanted to of course.
===========================
There was a decent crowd of 416 there, despite the earlier heavy rain which only went off just before kick off.
Since the court ruling in favour of Sports Direct against Rangers we have had stories about Rangers increasing the capacity of Ibrox, Sports Direct allegedly being in tax trouble with the Belgian Authorities, and AC Milan being interested in Morelos.
Newspapers are under financial duress these days, so why don't they just ask Rangers PR people to send them stories every day and pay one person to copy and paste them? It's almost what seems to be happening anyway.
upthehoops 28th July 2019 at 10:21 Since the court ruling in favour of Sports Direct against Rangers we have had stories about Rangers increasing the capacity of Ibrox, Sports Direct allegedly being in tax trouble with the Belgian Authorities, and AC Milan being interested in Morelos. Newspapers are under financial duress these days, so why don't they just ask Rangers PR people to send them stories every day and pay one person to copy and paste them? It's almost what seems to be happening anyway.
___________________
Good to see they've updated their PR tactics, it's not as though they've used moonbeams and feelgood stories at Ibrox before to deflect from seriously bad news
Allyjambo 28th July 2019 at 10:45
The more the feelgood stories come out of Ibrox the seriously bad news is being hidden.
From The Herald: Has Jabba given Ewing Grahame permission to dip his toe in the water with the mention of the 'L' word? Is something about to come down the pipe in Govan?
Rangers’ humiliating elimination by Luxembourg’s Progres Neiderkorn in a Europa League qualifying round in 2017 was a major factor in the club recording losses of more than £14m in their most recently published annual accounts. The 2-0 victory over the same opponents at Ibrox on Thursday means that a similar outcome should be avoided this time around but a more significant defeat earlier in the week has ramped up the pressure on manager Steven Gerrard and his players to repeat last season’s achievement of reaching the group stage of the competition.
Gerrard’s team exceeded expectations and, although they subsequently won only one of their six games against Rapid Vienna, Spartak Moscow and Villarreal, being there was enough for Rangers to announce (albeit unaudited) profits of £5.2m for the final six months of 2018. Increased costs on the footballing side are likely to see them post yet another annual loss, however, and the need for additional revenue is greater now than at any time since 2011.
Back then, Rangers faced a massive bill from HMRC and desperately needed the cash from continental competition to keep the lights on. However, Ally McCoist’s team was eliminated from the Champions League by Malmo and Maribor prevented them from progressing in the secondary competition, plunging them into administration and then liquidation later that season.
Charles Green’s newco was admitted to the fourth tier in 2012 and has subsequently boasted the second-highest wage bill in Scotland without ever turning a profit. Chairman Dave King, who usurped the previous regime in March, 2015, admits that his club is deliberately run at a deficit in an attempt to compete with Celtic but losing their latest court battle with Mike Ashley over their breach of contract with his Sports Direct International company could have far-reaching ramifications.
Rangers paid Ashley £3m last year to terminate a contract King regarded as onerous, while simultaneously signing a new agreement which stipulated that SDI must be allowed to match any bid from rival companies seeking to market strips and merchandising.
Rangers then entered into a three-year, £10m deal with kit manufacturers Hummel/Elite without informing SDI. Judge Lionel Persey this week found in SDI’s favour this week, announcing that they must be recompensed by Rangers for lost revenue in 2018/19 as well as the current campaign and that Rangers cannot work with Hummel/Elite in 2020/21 without first offering SDI the opportunity to match their terms. That, in turn, could leave the club open to being sued by Hummel/Elite.
The verdict, which Rangers will appeal, has the potential to cost them around £10m in legal fees and compensation. Failure to overturn that decision (and Judge Persey’s ruling was comprehensive) would see them lose more than a quarter of their turnover.
King and his directors reduced their exposure to Financial Fair Play penalties earlier this year by converting loans into equity but that also had the effect of diluting the value of shares in the club. Rangers are unlikely to attract further investment (or top-drawer kit manufacturers) while Ashley’s stranglehold on their operation remains intact.
With their ability to generate money from their retail division limited by the contracts they entered into with Ashley, Rangers crave the income stream the Europa League provides. Entry to the group phase would ensure seven additional capacity crowds at Ibrox which are not included in season-ticket books, not to mention the remuneration from UEFA for advancing to that stage.
They now seem certain to have at least three but FC Midtjylland, who re-signed centre-back Erik Sviatchenko from Celtic for £1m last year, will be a tougher proposition in the next round. In 2015/16 they beat Southampton in a Europa League play-off before qualifying from a group which included Napoli, Club Brugge and Legia Warsaw and then defeated Manchester United at home before eventually being eliminated in the round of 32. Should Rangers prevail then Wolves are among the more formidable adversaries they could meet in the play-offs.
At the club’s AGM in November, 2017, King confessed that the possibility of Rangers ever breaking even is dependent on European football.
“The only way we can be self-reliant is to have annual success in Europe,” he said. “The only way that we feel we are sufficiently resourced is to be reasonably sure that we get into the Europa League, get to the knock-out stages and, occasionally, the Champions League.”
Celtic, meanwhile, will meet either CFR Cluj or Maccabi Tel Aviv in the third qualifying round of the Champions League, which guarantees a minimum of an extra £30m boost for clubs reaching the competition proper, 10 times the reward for participation in the Europa League.
Last season Rangers’ average league attendance was an impressive 49,534. However, Celtic Park’s greater capacity saw them record average crowds of 57, 471. Over a Premiership campaign that amounts to an extra 150, 803 people attending their fixtures; at an average of £20 per ticket, that alone provides them with an automatic £3m advantage over their closest rivals.
Celtic also benefit from a successful commercial and retail department and the value of Neil Lennon’s squad is also considerably higher than Gerrard’s, with no bids yet received for Alfredo Morelos or James Tavernier.
In spite of missing out on the Champions League bonanza last season, Celtic still posted profits in excess of £15m and were able to reject Arsenal’s offers for Scotland full-back Kieran Tierney.
Rangers fans are desperate to prevent Celtic, who have been champions for the last eight seasons, from setting a new record of 10 in a row and four months ago King stated that the club was within “tangible reach of becoming the dominant force in Scotland.” His latest legal reverse suggests otherwise.
Unlike 2011, failure to travel deeper into European competition is unlikely to trigger another insolvency event; at the very least, though, it will severely hamper their ability to overtake Celtic.
Billy Boyce 28th July 2019 at 13:56
'…From The Herald:..'
+++++++++++++++++++++
Is that piece by Ewing Grahame genuine?
If there had been a mention of SDM's vile cheating as having been the major factor in the death of RFC 1872,
and if instead of 'Charles Green's 'newco' it had been 'Charles Green's new club', I believe that piece [ is it genuine??]
and if there had been strong criticism of the Football Authorities and a call for record books to reflectthe newness of TRFC,
the piece might have been written by any one of us who do not buy into the 'Continuity Rangers' lie.
Can we look forward to more such pieces, until the full truth of the 'saga' appears in the SMSM with a call for the necessary naming , shaming and condemnation of the people responsible for the 5-Way Agreement?
John Clark 28th July 2019 at 15:35
Is that piece by Ewing Grahame genuine?
Sorry, John, I forgot to include the link:
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17799930.sports-direct-verdict-analysis-court-ruling-heaps-pressure-rangers-39-european-push/
We should not be congratulating the SMSM for merely stating facts, albeit that even this piece is not quite the unvarnished truth. I note Grahame has mentioned a figure of £10 million. Is this to prepare the bears for bad news? He also comments that failure to reach the group stages of the Europa League this season will not trigger an insolvency event. I think he is being a little bit optimistic, as King himself said recently that it was vital to the survival of TRFC.
At the club’s AGM in November, 2017, King confessed that the possibility of Rangers ever breaking even is dependent on European football.
“The only way we can be self-reliant is to have annual success in Europe,” he said. “The only way that we feel we are sufficiently resourced is to be reasonably sure that we get into the Europa League, get to the knock-out stages and, occasionally, the Champions League.”
four months ago King stated that the club was within “tangible reach of becoming the dominant force in Scotland.” His latest legal reverse suggests otherwise.
Unlike 2011, failure to travel deeper into European competition is unlikely to trigger another insolvency event;
………….
Maybe Unlike 2011, failure to travel deeper into European competition is unlikely to trigger another insolvency event; But His latest legal reverse and failure to travel deeper into European competition could suggests otherwise.
Fixed that for him, as i believe that is what he was trying to get at.
Re the Liverpool friendly at Murrayfield. Whilst I think it’s a poor show to bring such an “international “ up here, a precedent has already been set by both Celtic and Hearts playing football at this rugby ground.
I was just saying to the wife as we flew abroad…the wings have gone, the tails buckled, the pilots dead and the landing gears a distant memory. I fear this may “hamper” our arrival.
Billy Boyce 28th July 2019 at 16:10
John Clark 28th July 2019 at 15:35
Is that piece by Ewing Grahame genuine? Sorry, John, I forgot to include the link: [to The Herald article]…
==================
Curiously, I had read the same article – but in The ET – and was also rather surprised at its (almost) reasonable accuracy.
But, The ET article does not credit it to Ewing Grahame, or even to "Evening Times Sports Online".
In fact, nobody is credited as being the author.
For such a lengthy and detailed article – and which is sure to attract attention – one would expect the author to ensure he was accredited?
Is there a whiff of an 'unnamed freelancer' involved here…?
https://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/17799929.sports-direct-verdict-analysis-court-ruling-heaps-pressure-rangers-39-european-push/
Ex Ludo 28th July 2019 at 16:53
Re the Liverpool friendly at Murrayfield. Whilst I think it’s a poor show to bring such an “international “ up here, a precedent has already been set by both Celtic and Hearts playing football at this rugby ground.
==========================
Today's attendance was 65,442, the biggest crowd for a football match in Scotland since 1989.
I think there will be more games at the home of Scottish rugby in future seasons.
It wouldn't surprise me if there were more TRFC supporters at Murray Park , sorry Murrayfield , than were at Ibrox today . Reflected glory us better rhan none at all .
With the ongoing conversation about the pros and cons of football fixtures taking place at Murrayfield purely for financial considerations, and bearing in mind that, presumably, part of SFM's remit is to argue for parity between all 42 senior clubs, is it appropriate to broaden the discussion to our two best supported clubs being allowed to play potentially lucrative friendlies after the SPFL Premiership season has begun, thus pandering to those club’s finances while disturbing and distorting the early-season tables and statistics for the after-thoughts?
Easyjambo@20.57
That’s 15,000 more than Hampden. You can see their motivation.
A 65K crowd for a friendly?
That's impressive.
And with tickets, pies and Bovril, merchandise, etc.
that's mibbees a conservative c.£1M+ which could/should have been recirculated within the Scottish football economy.
Any SMSM 'journalist' want to get a comment from the increasingly cash strapped SFA?