Good Evening,
Whilst it is understandable that the continuing events at Ibrox remain a hot topic among all Scottish Football Fans — especially given the views of some sections of the press on such events– the never ending rush down the marble staircase is certainly not the only show in town.
The other morning we were treated to the “scoop” that Alistair Johnstone is afraid that Craig Whyte– the once proclaimed Multi Billionaire from Motherwell- may well still be pulling all the strings at Ibrox! This is a fear which is shared by those who walk the corridors of Hampden Park as they, too, are terrified of the prospect of Whyte returning in some shape or form and coming back to haunt them, especially as he has been deemed unfit and proper, banned sine die, and generally ridiculed for his past actions.
However, the Hampden jackets know fine well that their realm only stretches so far and that if by means of the proper application of company law, contract or some other piece of paper Whyte controls the shareholding of the self proclaimed “parent company” to the football club then they are in a fix. In fact, I will wager that they just would not know how to deal with such a situation as after all RIFC PLC neither holds a licence to play football nor is a member of the SFA and so, on the face of it, who owns it has nothing to do with them.
At this juncture, no one in authority knows who Blue Pitch Holdings are and, strangely, no one in authority knows who Margarita Holdings are either! Yet these two “holdings” whoever they may be, may well hold all the power down Govan way…… with the SFA completely powerless to find out who they are let alone get into any dialogue with them. All the SFA can do is talk to the appointed Directors and officers of The Rangers Football Club Ltd.
This, is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Meanwhile, they will have no difficulty in finding out who the new shareholders of Dunfermline Athletic are. Those shareholders will come from the fanbase and will be clearly registered at Companies House, with the result that ultimately those fans/shareholders will appoint Directors who will then attend meetings and speak and opine on their behalf and in essence be the ” Voice of Dunfermline” at Hampden.
Perhaps, similar will follow from Heart of Midlothian?
However, those at Hampden — if they have any sense at all– will be most wary of events happening in the east end of Glasgow come November.
In the middle of the month, Celtic PLC will hold its AGM and amidst the items on the agenda is the fan driven notion that the Club— through its Directors—- should go further in holding the SFA to account and enquire into the granting of club licences, and in particular how it granted Rangers a club licence that allowed entry to the Champions League in 2011 when the small tax case was outstanding.
The Celtic board have deemed this motion as “Unnecessary” and in support of that contention have released documentation showing that they raised this very issue with the SFA on behalf of the shareholders and fans. Further– and here is the rub— The Directors reveal that they were not satisfied with the SFA response and have disclosed that they took the matter further and wrote to UEFA.
Ultimately, UEFA also provided a reply, which backed the SFA approach and which Celtic had little option but to accept in the absence of admissible contradicting evidence..
It is on this basis, that Peter Lawell and Co say the AGM motion is not necessary. Note that saying that the motion is not necessary, is not at all the same thing as saying that what the motion seeks to achieve is not necessary or does not have the support of the board!
There will be those at Hampden who severely hope that the Celtic Board are successful in voting this measure down as obviously they deem their original reply sufficient and would like to end the discussion there.
However, my own view, is that whether the motion is successful or not, there are those within the SFA who will recognise there is trouble staring them in the face here. Real Trouble!
Let’s recap for a moment and draw some threads together.
Celtic’s past Chairman, Dr John Reid, said only a couple of years ago that the SFA was clearly not fit for purpose. He did so in the context of events surrounding Neil Lennon and other matters, but was unshakably robust in his condemnation of an institutionalised uselessness which he saw pervaded the Hampden ranks.
Prior to that, Henry McLeish produced a report which stated that he too had concerns about the Governance of Scottish Football and called for openness and transparency.
In the intervening period, we have seen Mr David Longmuir, former Chief Executive of the Scottish Football League, find himelf without a position following reconstruction– and this partly as a result of club chairmen being apparently kept in the dark about his payment, bonuses and expenes. I understand that there was considerable anger from some at the way in which they had been treated by Mr Longmuir.
Then there is Mr Campbell Ogilvie, El Presidente, who himself benefited from a Rangers EBT and who held sway at Ibrox during a period of time when Rangers– by their own admission— made unlawful and illegal payments to three high profile players in breach of tax laws and SFA/SPL rules. It is these breaches and the consequent Wee Tax Bill which has caused all the angst among Celtic fans and has lead to the highly regulated legal step of tabling a motion at the club’s AGM.
Basically, the position seems to be, that as at the due date when the appropriate documents and declarations were made for a Euro Licence by Rangers for 2011, the wee tax bill was outstanding and due. If it was overdue, then the SFA could not and should not have granted them a licence……. and potentially Celtic should then have been put forward as Scotland’s representatives in the Champion’s League.
However, that did not happen, and Ranger’s were granted a licence– something that the Celtic Directors clearly felt was not correct.
They may have disagreed with the awarding of the licence because there were those at Rangers at the time who declared that a payment to account had been made to the tax office– allegedly £500,000– and that they had entered into an agreement to make payment of the balance by instalments. Had that been so, then all would have been hunky dory and no more would have been said.
Alas, however, no such payment appears to have been made at all, and no such agreement was entered into and so, on that basis, the tax bill was overdue and outstanding as at 30th June in terms of Article 66 and as such no Euro Licence should have been granted.
However, the argument does not end there.
Auldheid, has posted frequently on these pages about the ins and outs of the licensing provisions and the mechanism and so I will leave that detail to him as he is far more expert in these areas than me.
Now, one of the SFA functions is to have an auditor– someone who can check books, contracts, paper work and so on, and it is part of the SFA licensing function to be satisfied that all the paperwork is of course correct and in proper fashion before they issue any licence.
In this case, it is alleged that the SFA did not perform their function properly.
In relation to the wee tax case, it is said that either they did not make sufficient enquiry of Rangers re the payment to account or the agreement which they were told was in place. At the time it was mooted in the press that no such agreement was in place as at the relevant date ( June 30th ) and a simple check with the revenue would have shown the truth of the matter.
Yet, for whatever reason, no such check appears to have been made, and if you recall a Radio Scotland interview with Alistair Johnstone, Rangers submitted the forms, the SFA replied with one or two enquiries about the BIG tax case which were answered, and thereafter the Licence appears to have simply dropped through the letter box without further ado.
You will also recall that the existence of the wee tax case became known BEFORE Craig Whyte bought David Murray’s shareholding in May 2011. In fact it was the subject of News Paper headlines weeks before the deal was completed, and so the fact that there was a wee tax bill was well and truly in the public domain.
When it came to filling in the appropriate forms,either, the SFA were mislead by those then at Rangers with regard to that tax bill, OR, they simply failed to do the requisite checks and make reasonable enquiries before they issued the licence.
However, the uncomfortable fact also remains, that one of the chaps who must have been in the know re the admittedly unlawful and offending side letters, contracts and payments to the three players concerned was Campbell Ogilivie who was on the Rangers Board at the relevant time when the contracts and irregular payments were made under the Discount Options Scheme from 1999 to 2002/3. Indeed he may even have initiated the first payment to Craig Moore in 1999. I reiterate that no one has ever contested that this was an unlawful scheme, and the irregular payments and paperwork are not denied in relation to that scheme.
There are Celtic shareholders who believe, rightly or wrongly, that when it came to the granting of the Euro Licence, the SFA did not play them fair on this occasion and that the wheels within Hampden were oiled in such a way that Rangers were favoured and Celtic were disadvantaged. It is a point that looks to have already been considered by the Celtic Directors in 2011, with the result that they concluded that they should formally write to the SFA and seek clarification.
However, we now have the prospect of those same directors having to go back to Hampden and say ” Sorry, but I am forced to bring this up by my shareholders. I have a legal duty to them to enquire further”. Even if the motion is refused, the point has been made– there are shareholders who are demanding answers– just as shareholders of other clubs demand answers about the ever so secret 5 way agreement and other matters which have hitherto been not for public consumption.
The SFA have nothing to fear of course as they can simply repeat their previous answers,demonstrate that all was above board, and rest easy in their beds.
Except that answer did not satisfy the Celtic Directors on a previous occasion as they decided to take the matter to UEFA, and it would appear that some Celtic shareholders remain dissatisfied with the known stance of the SFA and so they want the Directors of the club to delve further. Without wishing to point out the obvious, if it turns out that the 2011 Licensing process was somehow fudged and not conducted rigorously or that those at Hampden were in any way economical with the truth or omitted certain details from the previous explanation, or covered up a failure in procedures—- well such omissions have a habit of becoming public these days whether that be through the internet or otherwise.
The point here is that the actions of Hampden officials are coming under organised, legal and planned corporate scrutiny over which they have no control. The Blazer and club mentality that was once so widespread within the governing bodies is under increasing attack and is being rendered a thing of the past.
In short, the move by Celtic shareholders, is making it plain that they will demand proper corporate governance from their club in ensuring that any alleged failure in corporate governance by the SFA or SPFL is properly investigated and reported on.
Of course, if it turns out that the 2011 Licensing process was somehow fudged and not conducted properly for whatever reason, then it could be argued that Celtic were disadvantaged in monetary terms along with other clubs who may have been awarded Europa League licences, then the consequences could be cataclysmic. Hence a tendency to circle the wagons rather than admit to failures in the process that need addressing.
It is this reluctance to come out and accept that the licensing process appears to have failed, say at what point the process failed and what needs to be done to address those failures that in many ways has driven the resolution. It is clear to all that something is amiss but the SFA will not admit it, probably from fear of the consequences of doing so? Perhaps some form of indemnity, a lessons learned enquiry with no prejudice might help?
It would come as no surprise to me at all if there were those at Hampden who live in dreaded fear of admitting that their processes were flawed and that a grave mistake was made. Under these circumstances, there may well be those at Hampden who simply wish that Celtic and their fans would just go away!
Good post Brth and excellent comments from Barcabhoy.
The canard that Celtic had been complicit in the licence issue has of course previously been laid to rest.
As for Rangers (RIP), whilst tax on the DOS scheme was due, no one has shown incontrovertible evidence that it was overdue at 30 June 2011 just as no one has shown whether the late Rangers did pay £500,000 on account. Perhaps BDO’s report will eventually furnish some evidence for or against.
As for Campbell Ogilvie perhaps the better answer is that the clubs prefer to leave him twisting in the wind pending Insolvency 2? No point in appointing a new guy with that about to happen for such a cataclysmic event will surely mean heads have to roll at Hampden.
Meanwhile have little doubt that the MSM will make hay with Celtic’s AGM, portraying it as a rebellion by the muppets, as JimLarkin likes to term them/us, against an unprincipled board.
broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:
“…….The point here is that the actions of Hampden officials are coming under organised, legal and planned corporate scrutiny over which they have no control…….”
—–
A very good point.
There is not an utterance from the SFA-and SPFL- that can now be taken at face value.
Because we know that the rotten apples are still in the barrel.
We know now to expect spin, obfuscation, and, indeed, downright untruths as a matter of course.
We know also that sports writers such as Stuart Bathgate of the ‘Scotsman’ are willing , compliant and insidious purveyors of spin, as for example , in Bathgate simply quoting Lee McCulloch’s “.. It was our first game after we came out of Administration” observation [ in the interview he had with him and reported on in today’s ‘Scotsman’], without any corrective note to the effect that that club did NOT come out of Administration].
Chick we know to be less than objective, and objectionable on that ground.
But there are many like him, no less lacking in objectivity for all that they write for the broadsheets, and indeed, deserving of greater censure than those who write for the scurrilous red tops.
Bad cess to them all: internet bampottery is having the same effect on Scottish sports journalists as TW3 had on dodgy car insurance companies ( Fire Auto and Marine-Emil Savundra, anybody?), namely, showing them up as little more than mere duplicating machines operated by propagandists of the greatest sporting lie and cover up since Jorge Cadete’s registration question.
And we know how that ended!
slimshady61 says: (272)
October 19, 2013 at 3:54 pm
Good post Brth and excellent comments from Barcabhoy.
The canard that Celtic had been complicit in the licence issue has of course previously been laid to rest.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Perhaps for you it has, but for many it is neither a canard nor has it been laid to rest. []
Good Afternoon:
The purpose of the main article is to highlight the stance being taken by Celtic fans through a formal legal process and to highlight why they have concerns over Governance on this issue. It is important that fans of all clubs, know that they can challenge poor governance and HOW to challenge that governance when necessary.
The motion before the Celtic AGM may carry or it may not– much will depend on the Celtic Board’s attitude. However, that board and all the shareholders should actually look into this matter in depth before the AGM and then proceed from there with the benefit of a full understanding of the facts ( as they are known ) and why some fans view the whole thing as suspicious.
Consider the following.
4.16 As noted in the Proposals, the Club submitted a licence application to the SFA for both national
and UEFA licences prior to the 31 March 2012 deadline. However both licence applications were
refused by the licensing committee of the SFA due principally to the fact that because of the
Company‟s insolvency it could not complete its annual, audited accounts for the year to 30 June
2011. In addition, in breach of UEFA licensing regulations, the Company had overdue sums due ( as at 30th June-My insertion ) to other football clubs and overdue PAYE/NIC amounts, which had arisen as a consequence of the Company‟s insolvent position.
The above paragraph comes from the Duff & Phelps report into the administration of Rangers PLC and it clearly highlights the importance of 30th June date when it comes to Licensing matters.. If there are sums outstanding to clubs or taxes as at that date then you cannot get a licence.
However, if the club concerned— and note that the onus is on the applicant club — can PROVE — and note the onus to prove— that they have negotiated away any debts or agreed a time to pay arrangement or whatever, then under those circumstances the licence will be granted and remain in place.
So, there are two stages to the application. 1 make the application as a qualifying club by 31st March and 2 all the financials have to be right as at 30th June — and if there is anything irregular as at that date you have to prove that you have addressed it and it is under control by agreement with the creditor.
Having submitted their evidence to the SFA in terms of Rule 66, it is then the SFA who make the submission to UEFA ( on behalf of Rangers ) seeking their approval and authorisation of the licence showing that all the provisions have been met.
Now, note, that it was only in September 2011 that UEFA said that they were so satisfied — and that at that time they were so absolutely satisfied with whatever the SFA had sent them, that they wanted only a simple update going forward that there was no change in the situation, and dispensed with the need for a full financial update from the club.
Rule 67 reads as follows:
The licensee must promptly notify the licensor in writing about any significant
changes including, but not limited to, subsequent events of major economic
importance until at least the end of the licence season.
The information prepared by management must include a description of the
nature of the event or condition and an estimate of its financial effect, or a
statement (with supporting reasons) that such an estimate cannot be made.
So, let’s recap what appears to have gone on here.
The Wee Tax Bill appears to have raised its head as early as November 2010, when David Murray was still in control of Rangers PLC, and by March of the following year Rangers were advised to pay the bill in full by 31st March– the first key licensing date.
No payment was made by that date, and so the application for a UEFA licence was made in the knowledge that there was an HMRC claim outstanding.
The press, at this time, are full of the stories about Craig Whyte taking over, his Billionaire status and eventually the old board raising questions about both him and the deal. Further, the press announce that the big tax case is not the only issue with HMRC and the wee tax case becomes public.
As I understand it, on 11th May there is a meeting between HMRC and Rangers PLC and the revenue say that they want the money in respect of the wee tax case as there has been correspondence on this in the past and the matter cannot drift. They also indicate that they would be willing to enter into an agreement and would consider a payment to account. This meeting is attended by Donald McIntyre, Stephen Clancy and David Grier.
On 20th May HMRC take a key step. They have received no payment to account and have not entered into any formal time to pay arrangement re the debt and so they issue formal determinations demanding the money. Rangers later claim in court that they did not see this letter, and try to appeal on the basis that by this time Donald McIntyre has been suspended from his post as the club is now under the control of Craig Whyte.
The Court reject this argument completely, but the importance of the court hearing is that the date of the determination is established in court, and it is clear that there are those within Ibrox who know of the existence of the determination.
At that date ( 20th May ) HMRC are making it clear the account is overdue.
Between 20th May and 30th June, Rangers continue to make proposals to HMRC however three things are absolutely key here:
1. Whatever those proposals were, they were all rejected by HMRC and at no time did the two parties enter into a formal time to pay arrangement as would be normal in such circumstances.
2. At no time did Rangers make any payment to account in respect of the debt.
3. Crucially, at no time did HMRC halt enforcement or collection action as they would normally do when a time to pay arrangement has been agreed and partly implemented.
Within, 3 months HMRC would grow weary of what they saw as worthless Rangers proposals,and would be demanding full financial disclosure of the up to date financial position of Rangers PLC and were threatening a petition for liquidation in respect of the overdue sums stated in the determination of 20th May. In short, HMRC suspected Rangers PLC was Insolvent by September – or at worst October- 2011.
Contrast that with the UEFA position.
1. The sum was known about and not paid as at 31st March.
2. The sum was known about, determined or demanded by 30th June– and was neither paid nor the subject of a time to pay arrangement which would have halted the enforcement and collection by HMRC as at that date.
3. Yet, Rangers were granted a licence by the SFA who then later submitted a report to UEFA saying that everything was hunky dory in terms of rule 66.
That could only be possible if Rangers declared there was nothing outstanding, or that there was a bill to be paid but that they had entered into a time to pay arrangement etc — remember this is something they have to PROVE.
Now, for those who have pointed out that HMRC will not discuss a tax case with a third party I would like to point out that I know that full well.
However, third parties, such as banks, investors, potential investors and so on regularly seek clarification of a company’s position with the revenue as a matter of course. All the SFA had to do was ask Rangers for a copy of the correspondence setting out the time to pay agreement and an acknowledgement from HMRC that they had received a payment to account…. OR….. have Rangers PLC provide them with a mandate which authorised HMRC to discuss the up to date position with the SFA and to disclose the necessary paperwork which would prove the position.
Either route would have sufficed, and either route is perfectly common.
However, none of that happened, and whatever the SFA submitted to UEFA, the result was that UEFA were so absolutely satisfied that they did not need any more assurances about Rangers financial position as they looked 100% OK.
The SFA notified Rangers of UEFA’s position in September 2011.
Contrast that with the revenue who took exactly the opposite view and who demanded an up to date financial statement to prove that Rangers were not bust at more or less exactly the same time!!
So how did UEFA reach such a diametrically opposed conclusion to the revenue?
That is the 64,000 dollar question because as at 30th June there was no agreement ( It would later turn out that there had never been any agreement ) and it appears that not a single penny of that bill was ever paid.
Of course Rangers were knocked out of the Champions League and the Europa league by 24th August 2011, and so by the time UEFA said that everything was ok, the matter was completely academic!
However, the tale takes a twist later in the year because when it comes to satisfying the further requirements of UEFA in terms of rule 67 by way of a wee short letter signed by Craig Whyte, it appears that what the SFA are told is that Rangers have paid £500k to account and that the balance is subject to “ongoing discussions” .
I would venture that “Ongoing Discussions” are somewhat different to a time to pay AGREEMENT.
Now, here is where this gets really strange.
Stewart Regan, who of course formerly held a twitter account, seems to have stated that the reason Rangers obtained a Euro Licence for 2011 was because the wee tax case had not crystallised by the key dates and that any potential debt was, at that time, the subject of “ongoing discussions”.
Regrettably, Stewart appears to have the facts wrong as the debt crystallised as at 20th May 2011 and
the discussions were meaningless as they did not constitute an agreement prior to 30Th June.
Not only that, in the strangest turn of events, according to Charlotte Fakes, Regan prepared a statement in early December 2011, saying that the reason Rangers received a licence was because the debt had not crystallised at at the key dates and they did not look at the matter again because of the ongoing discussions!
If they didn’t look at it again how did Rangers PROVE anything to the SFA in terms of rule 66 and how did the SFA investigate anything– and make no mistake they are under a duty to satisfy themselves that all is ok and above board— BEFORE making any submission to UEFA?
Besides “ongoing discussions” cannot be a ground for granting a licence.
However, again according to Charlotte, Regan had the good sense to have this announcement checked before making it public– and he had it checked by sending it to Rangers for checking????
The result ( according to Charlotte ) was that Rangers did not want any such statement released as it would only highlight that the tax bill was still outstanding and that they had still not paid a penny towards it. Besides, if you are to accept Charlotte’s e-mails, such a statement WOULD ONLY CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR THE SFA!!!!
Now, just how could that be? Problems for the SFA??
The upshot of that exchange appears to be that for some reason, a dinner date was arranged to discuss various matters on 20th December 2011 and in attendance would be someone from the Rangers side….. and Mr Regan….. and Mr Ogilvie!!
Now, just what is that all about?
In short, just what did the SFA say to UEFA between March 31st and the end of the season or the date when Rangers PLC were placed in Administration? How did they explain a club’s insolvency when they had previously made what appears to be a satisfactory rule 66 report?
How did they report on the wee tax bill and when did they themselves determine the wee tax bill became crystallised? How did they monitor the whole situation in licensing terms when it was abundantly clear that there was an ongoing issue regarding tax quite separately to the big tax case.
As I have said, Celtic have raised the issue before, and appear not to be satisfied with the answers. However, the shareholders are begging them to reopen the issue as there are more questions than answers in the public domain and if there is no confidence in the licensing administration process– and there isn’t– this then affects all clubs.
The answers that seem to have come from Stewart Regan so far simply do not wash and do not stand scrutiny when compared to the stance taken by HMRC who are crucial in this situation, as for Rangers to get a licence they have to have been able to say that they have HMRC on board— and the revenue not only never say that– they say the exact opposite.
As always, I am indebted to the valuable and painstaking research into this matter which has been undertaken by Auldheid, as the argument set out above all comes from research prepared by the Auld one.
Finally, congratulations to Dunfermline on taking to the field today as a fan owned team, and as has been pointed out elsewhere, isn’t it fantastic that Dundee Utd Fas have taken up every single available ticket for Pittodrie!
The timeline as per the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-20417847
1999: Rangers open a discounted option scheme (DOS) specifically for payments to Tore Andre Flo and Ronald de Boer.
2001: Rangers begin making payments through an Employee Benefit Trust (EBT), which was set up by Murray International Holdings (MIH).
2002: Sir David Murray quits as Rangers chairman but continues as owner.
2003: Rangers close the DOS scheme.
2004: Murray returns as chairman after MIH heavily underwrote a £57m share issue after the club’s debts hit £74m.
2006: The club’s annual report reveals a £9.2m “contribution to employee trusts”, the high point of the payments. The sum was included in staff costs of £28m.
2009: Murray announces he is to step down as Rangers chairman. Alastair Johnston is named as his successor.
2010: 27 April – Rangers confirm they are under investigation by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) over offshore payments to players from 2001. Rangers say they will “robustly” defend the case on the basis of expert tax advice.
2010: 16 May – Rangers refuse to comment on reports that the final bill could hit £50m.
December – EBTs are outlawed under new legislation.
2011: 1 April – Rangers announce a £2.8m tax liability over an issue relating to 1999-2003 (the DOS). Johnston admits the big tax case could leave Rangers with a bill they cannot afford to pay.
==================================
So on 1st April 2011 Rangers admit to the tax liability of £2.8m. The question is, when were they actually notified about it.
The only thing being that this can be done at Celtic via the fan shareholders. All clubs are not PLCs, and as such, do not necessarily have fan shareholders. bravo for the Celtic fans though for asking the questions of their board. Other teams may have to rely on pressuring thier boards.
No argument there, you and I both know that’s true.
My point was that it was no big deal for Glenn Gibbons to mention the ‘short history’ of RIFC plc, since there can be no doubt whatsoever about the shortness of their history. The real breakthrough will come when ‘short history’ and ‘club’ appear in the same sentence. Remember what happened to Jim Spence.
SFTB says: (2)
October 19, 2013 at 12:44 am
‘….The rules that were seen to be perfectly adequate to deal with administration events at Livingston, Motherwell and Dundee could have been implemented. The rules governing liquidation events at Third Lanark, Airdrieonians, and Gretna could have been applied equally here with the result that a new club would have to have been created…’
——–
With you all the way, SFTB, but I need to add that a new club was indeed created, but a huge fiction that it was not a new club was also created’.
A fiction ( ‘lie’ is a better word) constructed by duplicitous SFA officials, wholly believed in and supported by a biased/fearful/pig ignorant press and BBC, and relentlessly foisted on us all.
To be lighthearted for a moment. Glen Gibbons has shot up in my estimation not only because of this morning’s article in itself, but because he got the name of the ‘Mary Celeste’ correct! Careful journalist that he is!
I do not disagree at all, john clarke, but I remain puzzled as to why a secretive deal was necessary and why the SFA/SPL etc; did not clarify their views when the Ibrox men tried to misrepresent it as continuity.
As I stated, I cannot see this as a sin of omission, they were complicit in commissioning a fiction.
slimshady61 says: (272)
October 19, 2013 at 3:54 pm
As for Campbell Ogilvie perhaps the better answer is that the clubs prefer to leave him twisting in the wind pending Insolvency 2? No point in appointing a new guy with that about to happen for such a cataclysmic event will surely mean heads have to roll at Hampden.
+++++++
Swinging in the wind? I wish somebody would leave me swinging in the wind on £60k a year for a job I can’t do because I’m “conflicted”. And I’ll let you have a confident forecast. If another insolvency occurs at Ibrox, no heads will roll at Hampden, in fact the SFA will succeed in avoiding armageddon by ensuring that a team called “Rangers” continues to play at Ibrox in as high a level of Scottish football as possible. Sick, isn’t it?
In other news
Didn’t hear Chic Young on radio Scotland today(hopefully a little holiday after his breakdown this week)
Sadly Jangles on now with English/Spiers and McIntyre 😕
john clarke says: (1268)
October 19, 2013 at 4:02 pm
We know also that sports writers such as Stuart Bathgate of the ‘Scotsman’ are willing , compliant and insidious purveyors of spin, as for example , in Bathgate simply quoting Lee McCulloch’s “.. It was our first game after we came out of Administration” observation …
——
I noticed that one as well, John.
Next step on the journey is evidently to deny that liquidation ever happened. Rangers went into administration, then they came out of it – obvious to everyone really, isn’t it? Otherwise why would there still be Rangers, still playing at Ibrox under Super Ally?
Things are quiet enough on the liquidation front that it can be swept under the carpet. I imagine on the day it’s finalised it’ll merit no more than a small piece on page 94.
A little bit Orwellian, Mr Bathgate. As a journalist at a respected organ, you should know better – simply quoting McCulloch’s press conference, or press release, spouting is not an excuse. You could have corrected him, or added the correction in your piece. You should not have let it pass, because it’s a basic untruth.
Only one sent off for Brechin today, I see (and that in stoppage time, to preclude any last-minute equaliser, I surmise).
Notable also that every outfield Rangers player that wasn’t substituted received a yellow card. Just the one each, mind.
I am having computer problems today but what happened to my post around late afternoon today? I saw it with about 14 likes and now – poof! Disappeared. Just like the Rangers directors!
Bill1903 says: (6)
October 19, 2013 at 5:41 pm
In other news
Didn’t hear Chic Young on radio Scotland today(hopefully a little holiday after his breakdown this week)
Sadly Jangles on now with English/Spiers and McIntyre
====================================================
He wasn’t on yesterday either, Bill.
I don’t wish to see anyone losing their jobs, or being suspended, but after all his efforts to get Danny Lennon sacked I would have no sympathy for Young if that was the case!
Hopefully The BBC have investigated his contribution to the debate, and have finally decided enough is enough.
If he’s “Missing in Action” for other reasons, then I will apologise. I sincerely hope he’s had a good talking to and told to get the gardening gloves out for a few weeks.
FIFA says: (390)
October 19, 2013 at 12:03 pm
14 0 Rate This
————
Strange non-statement today from one of the brothers, pre-match. Odd timing. Well and truely sitting on the fence. Supports no group. Too weird.
So Spiers paid his way into Ibrox for 20 years pre-journalism days.
But recently denied having been a Rangers supports (which he had said he was for years)
Try to remember your position Graham.
Danish Pastry says: (1585)
October 19, 2013 at 6:14 pm
FIFA says: (390)
October 19, 2013 at 12:03 pm
————
Strange non-statement today from one of the brothers, pre-match. Odd timing. Well and truely sitting on the fence. Supports no group. Too weird.
==============================================
DP, Brother Easdale was only the messenger. The Author was General JI.
It was a very cute non-statement.
From my view, it looks like the trenches in the Battleground Positions are now being reinforced, and the ammunition is being stocked up for a long and bloody fight. Hand Bags at the ready!
Bill1903 says: (6)
October 19, 2013 at 5:41 pm
Sadly Jangles on now with English/Spiers and McIntyre
=============
Fairs fair I thought that was truthful and, dare I say it, balanced even honest tonight. I’ve never taken much notice of Jackson before but found him actually quite likeable tonight. Took Spiers’ radar jibe quite well.
Roughly 10 days behind the TSFM info curve right enough.
They picked apart the ownership situation pretty well with another heads up to the bears that there’s a rights issue on their kids christmas’s coming right up so be ‘aye ready’ with more cash. Was desperate for the conversation to move onto fixed asset disposals but heh, there’s always next week! Still think its most likely to be delivered as “buy the shares or it could be tesco time”. Leaseback will be a last resort for both sides.
Greenock Jack says: (77)
October 18, 2013 at 10:00 pm
Echoboy
SMSM (football) are out of their depth. MSM are today generally tools of the powerful via agents with a decreasing number of noteable exceptions. Real investigative journalists are being slowly marginalised and certainly not encouraged. Budgets are down and this effects investigative reporting
The Easdales, nor Irvine on their behalf seem to want to say anything. They may want a break in silence to co-incide with an announcement about new board member(s), so as to avoid questions on the past few days. I agree that there is a pile of questions that The Easdales need to answer but I doubt that they’ll be easy to pin down for journalists or fan groups. Nearer any AGM, they’ll have to come forth a little more.
======================================================================
Let me try and simplify this even more. Sports journos are sports journos because they failed to cut-it as news journos let alone investigative reporters. They have been left with the Rangers story for the last few years quite simply because they don’t have the brain cells to be able to deal with the complex financial and legal issues invoved and this allows them and their editors a get-out clause for their failure to actualy address, let alone ask and deal with, the very serious issues involved.
It would appear the Easdales aren’t providing answers and JI only wants to peddle his Alice in Wonderland version of reailty – but journos with integrity (yea even sport reporters) – should quite simply be asking the critical questions and if they get a ‘No Comment’ response then that should be printed as a refusal to reply ❗
You say that nearer an AGM the Easdales will ‘have to come forth a little more’. Why do we have to wait ❓
What we want to know now is:
Do the Easdales know who actually owns the Blue Pitch and Margarita shares and any other mystery overseas proxies that they ‘currently’ control ❓
If the Easdales don’t know should they be casting a vote based on mystery shareholdings as they claim to be Rangers supporters ❓
What is the Easdale blueprint for saving Rangers from another financial collapse and turning Ibrox into a financially viable business ❓
Some SMSM apologists claim that the journos have asked the questions but answers haven’t been supplied – and this isn’t aimed at the Easdales in isolation. But if the questions have been asked and ignored then why haven’t the public been informed as I truly believe they might want to be made aware of this ❓
Personally I don’t believe the questions have ever been asked because the journalists involved are either craven cowards or are marching to an agenda which has nothing to do with integrity and a wish to print the truth.
They are an absolute disgrace and should hang their head in shame that they claim to be members of the same profession as all those thousands of brave men and women who are tortured and murdered every single year throughout the world whose only ‘crime’ was to try and bring the truth out into the open.
And what do we have in Scotland ❓ Wee Chick and other babbling idiots – it makes me boak ❗
ecobhoy says: (2018)
October 19, 2013 at 6:46 pm
But if the questions have been asked and ignored then why haven’t the public been informed as I truly believe they might want to be made aware of this
======================================
And this doesn’t just apply to journalists but club boards too!
Sorry to hitch my chip onto your bandwagon Eco .
Carry on
BRTH 1619
Just superb!……very educational…what a shocking tale!
There is NO WAY these guys at the helm in the SFA can be allowed to stain situ
Tif Finn says: (566)
October 19, 2013 at 6:25 pm
3 1 Rate This
So Spiers paid his way into Ibrox for 20 years pre-journalism days.
But recently denied having been a Rangers supports (which he had said he was for years)
Try to remember your position Graham.
———–
Isn’t his position that he is not a supporter anymore? I thought he was pretty forthright tonight on Sportsound Extra.
It didn’t take some of us that long to turn our back on the Ibrox chorus though. Maybe Graham was up in the main stand and didn’t hear it? Those of us who were taken along to the main enclosure as kids heard all the songs that ended in FTP and saw the mini Orange Walk, banner and all, in the middle of the enclosure. As soon as I was old enough to understand what this all actually meant was the moment my interest in Glasgow club football was replaced by other stuff.
In my decades of foreign exile I honestly — and naively — thought this was all gone and that the former club was a football club only, before its demise. How wrong was I?
English and Spiers, and even Jackson were hitting the right notes tonight, especially surrounding King’s ‘fit-and-proper’ credentials. Who knows, perhaps they’ll one day advocate harsh punishment on clubs whose fans engage in unacceptable singing and chanting? Closed-door matches and points deductions could solve this nonsense sooner rather than later. Journalists worth their salt might even shame the SFA into taking such action!
Smugas says: (451)
October 19, 2013 at 6:52 pm
ecobhoy says: (2018)
October 19, 2013 at 6:46 pm
But if the questions have been asked and ignored then why haven’t the public been informed as I truly believe they might want to be made aware of this
======================================
And this doesn’t just apply to journalists but club boards too! Sorry to hitch my chip onto your bandwagon Eco .
———————————————————————————
Feel free as I have a lot of pulling power 😀
However there is a major difference between club boards and journalists. Club Boards will often be justified in keeping some business matters confidential but that can seldom be acceptable wrt journalists whose whole raison d’etre is to seek out the facts and print the truth to the wider public.
fergussingstheblues says: (50)
October 19, 2013 at 6:38 pm
Danish Pastry says: (1585)
October 19, 2013 at 6:14 pm
FIFA says: (390)
October 19, 2013 at 12:03 pm
————
Strange non-statement today from one of the brothers, pre-match. Odd timing. Well and truely sitting on the fence. Supports no group. Too weird.
==============================================
DP, Brother Easdale was only the messenger. The Author was General JI.
It was a very cute non-statement.
From my view, it looks like the trenches in the Battleground Positions are now being reinforced, and the ammunition is being stocked up for a long and bloody fight. Hand Bags at the ready!
=======================================================
Just an additional observation. In 1066, The French came over from Normandy and conquered England. They built castles, and generally made the Island a better place over time, although a bit rough handed in the way they did it.
Step forward to 2011 – 2013. A bunch of British Suits conquer a Stronghold in Govan. The place is on it’s knee’s, given “The liquidation” death sentence.
The Suits successfully set about stripping The Stronghold clean, although a bit rough handed in the way they did it. Did they generally make the stronghold a better place?
No, they hot-footed it over to France and BOUGHT their own Castles. Irony, you couldn’t make it up!
PR Gems
“I have no desire to criticise any individual or group and believe the constant tit-for-tat that we have seen recently is damaging the club.”
A press statement was today issued that stated that an individual did not speak publically to the media – ok – he speaks privately to the media – and the media speak to the media – but not to publish except if it suits them to plant a story.
Ok – So the constant tit for tat comes from the media – [that aren`t publically spoken to].
Ergo – So there is no need for an individual to become embroiled 😉
This is in the best interests of Rangers
Blimey
Greenock Jack says: (78)
October 19, 2013 at 12:10 pm
6 14 Rate This
Tailothebank
I asked BB if the email was ever made public.
Had it been, I’d have thought it would have already featured on TSFM.
If CQN had the alleged email, I would be interested to know why they didn’t make efforts to make it public beyond CQN.
—————
The email was made public and , as is often the case , it was pulled when the SFA Lawyers got heavy. Why they would be embarrassed by an SFA official circulating a comment ridiculing Celtic is anyones guess. The fact that this official felt comfortable sending it to a group that included the current SFA president and the SFA president at the time it was sent, tells you all you need to know about the prevailing culture
Angus1983 says: (1176)
October 19, 2013 at 6:02 pm
17 3 Rate This
Only one sent off for Brechin today, I see (and that in stoppage time, to preclude any last-minute equaliser, I surmise).
Notable also that every outfield Sevco player that wasn’t substituted received a yellow card. Just the one each, mind.
*********************************************
Fixed that for you !
As chuckles says – call a spade – a spade !
Slimshady61 says:
…The canard that Celtic had been complicit in the licence issue has of course previously been laid to rest.
_________________________________________________________________________________
At the risk of sounding flippant, How can we be sure it was a canard? 😕 Perhaps it was more a case of Celtic ducking 🙄 the licence issue a l’órange, to cover the fact that succulent lamb is often served with bright green mint sauce ? :
Aye, Jim, but they are called Rangers, y’know.
Meanwhile, on a similar pedantic theme:
fergussingstheblues says:
October 19, 2013 at 7:41 pm
Just an additional observation. In 1066, The French came over from Normandy and conquered Britain.
——
No they didn’t. They never conquered Britain.
http://willievass.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/191013-Brechin-City-v-Rangers/G00003zAPW4BbBVw/I0000.W4mbyeCd_A/C00003cSEmSnc7rM
4 Sevco players celebrating amongst fans – no bookings. Regardless of this game it has also been apparent that this rule has been relaxed during several SPFL games this season and has only been enforced consistently when Celtic score. Look at Balde’s booking at Killie – he wasn’t even in among the fans – stood on advertising board.
This is not a matter of debate. There is visual, documented and blatant evidence of the rules being applied unfairly.
Lightweight compared to the rest of the corruption that has gone before but, as I say unequivocal proof of bias. Hope the club speak out
BB..8.17
Thanks for the insight on why this didn’t go further at the time
I know that you know that this is a serious issue..as you would not have posted the link and raised it very publicly earlier today otherwise …
From my tiny little vantage point on proceedings..this ,on top of all the other obvious serious misdemeanours apparently perpetrated by the heirachy ,..just further illustrates what can only be described as an excellent insight into the disgusting behaviour and culture in the senior ranks of that organisation ..An organisation that for many years i and many others around Scotland apparently mistakenly trusted .
and that still we are all paying for ????????
oh Dear!
The CFC AGM proposal chaps should blast full steam ahead !
Still no reply as to why my post was pulled. Kinda ironic given this site strives for transparency in football governance.
Sevco really do have no shame.
I caught a breathless BBC Scotland report on the 7 goal thriller at Glebe Park. John Daly, Nicky Law and David Templeton on the scoresheet etc.
SPL players plying their trade in the 3rd Division.
Is this the only way Ally can win, paying £8m a year in SPL wages to win the title?
thirdmanrunning says: (98)
October 19, 2013 at 9:21pm
Is this the only way Ally can win, paying £8m a year in SPL wages to win the title?
+++++++
In short, yes. I would love to see him manage a team in a lower division with a budget on the same planet as the other teams. The outcome would undoubtedly be relegation- in my opinion.
http://www.scribd.com/anorangecount/documents
This link has just appeared on KDS. I don’t remember some of these documents, allegedly posted by Gary Withey. Apologies if this has appeared before.
1. fergussingstheblues says: (51)
October 19, 2013 at 7:41 pm
Just an additional observation. In 1066, The French came over from Normandy and conquered Britain.
——————-
Angus just beat me to it, I think you will find it was a conquest of England. Not sure what deals were done with Scotland but I believe something was agreed that prevented an battle between them and both the warring factions of England and France. School was a long, long time ago…..
Sandy Easdale said today in a statement issued during the Brechin game: “In recent days there have been suggestions that I speak publicly to the media about my family’s involvement with Rangers Football Club.
“At this stage I do not think getting embroiled in incessant speculation is in the best interests of Rangers. I have no desire to criticise any individual or group and believe the constant tit for tat that we have seen recently is damaging the club.
“I am a committed investor and fan and want nothing other than to see Rangers continue its progress back to the top of Scottish football. As far as I am are concerned there is a business plan in place and I am certain the directors will do everything to ensure that it continues to be implemented.”
Wrt the business plan in place at Ibrox that the ‘directors’ will be doing everything to see is implemented don’t you think it’s a bit incestuous and slightly disingenuous not to mention that there are only two directors left in place and one is an Easdale.
However let’s ignore such minor facts and ask, without getting involved in any tit-for-tat, how exactly the plan will staunch the financial meltdown at Ibrox and prevent another insolvency. Perhaps fellow rangers suppoirters might like to hear the views of the Easdale family on this issue in view of the powerful and pivotal position they claim to hold in shares held and proxies given.
Oh btw do you actually know who actually owns the shares in Blue Pitch and Margarita and other mystery overseas-based shareholdings which you family apparently have been granted proxies over.
And don’t you think that you have a duty as a Rangers supporter to tell your fellow fans exactly what conditions have been placed on the proxy votes that you will be wielding at any agm on behalf of these faceless people and their hidden agenda which might, for all anyone might know, is at odds with the business plan you have mentioned.
There is also the slight problem that many people believe that Craig Whyte might actually control the shares held by Blue Pitch and Margarita and I would like to think that if that were the case and you were aware of it that you would feel it is your duty to inform your fellow fans of the facts.
It might also be worth hearing from you as to why TRFCL has still to provide the missing details in the incomplete Annual Return supplied to Companies House wrt shareholding details after being asked to do so by Companies House. What could possibly be the problem in revealing exactly who the shareholders actually are in Rangers ❓
I totally agree that it is counter-productive to get involved in tit-for-tat speculation but surely you must understand that providing transparency for the fans doesn’t fall into that category and smacks of an unsavoury code of Omerta and if this has been advised by your PR advisors then perhaps you should be considering the advice given as silence can often be misconstrued especially when there are serious and valid questions which require to be answered.
neepheid says: (854)
October 19, 2013 at 9:32 pm
This link has just appeared on KDS. I don’t remember some of these documents, allegedly posted by Gary Withey. Apologies if this has appeared before.
======================================
Old Charlotte stuff, attempt methinks by one or other legal team to stir it pre the Collyer Brystow case due in England very soon.
All of the 3 remaining directors on either of the two clumpanies TRFC or RIFC boards were found MIA/AWOL at The Hedges…..
http://willievass.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/191013-Brechin-City-v-Rangers/G00003zAPW4BbBVw/I00001rdGCjrivUo/C00003cSEmSnc7rM
Madbhoy24941 says: (295)
October 19, 2013 at 9:49 pm
0
0
Rate This
Quantcast
1. fergussingstheblues says: (51)
October 19, 2013 at 7:41 pm
Just an additional observation. In 1066, The French came over from Normandy and conquered Britain.
——————-
Angus just beat me to it, I think you will find it was a conquest of England. Not sure what deals were done with Scotland but I believe something was agreed that prevented an battle between them and both the warring factions of England and France. School was a long, long time ago…..
===========================================================
On a roll tonight.
Normans were given almost all of Fife without a punch up. Hence my unknown name.
Lots of juicy tantalising leaks
But not enough to put any of these spiv-chancers in jail for criminal fraud
Wonder why that is…………..
OT …
Madbhoy24941 says: (295)
October 19, 2013 at 9:49 pm
… I think you will find it was a conquest of England. Not sure what deals were done with Scotland but I believe something was agreed that prevented an battle between them and both the warring factions of England and France. School was a long, long time ago…..
——
William defeated Malcolm in battle several years after becoming English king (of a coagulating Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria), and a secret agreement was struck at Hampden, er, Abernethy … nobody really knows what it was about but Malcolm, whilst retaining his Kingdom, agreed to be “William’s man” (oo-er missus). The Treaty of Abernethy led to future claims on Scotland by Edward Longshanks, who was a git.
As for Wales, the Normans briefly took control there but were soon thrown out again. It was a conquest of the Anglo-Saxons, really – and pretty much justified seeing as Harold had been bit of a chancer proclaiming himself King after agreeing to support William (original title = “the Bastard”, as they forgot to tell us at school) in the first place.
Eeramacaroonbar says: (30)
October 19, 2013 at 8:58 pm
Well said pal.
So what can we do now to eliminate this bias?
Angus1983 says: (1178)
October 19, 2013 at 8:56 pm
The weren’t even French, but were of Norse stock.
It seems from the reactions to the Easdale statement the Rangers’ support are still missing the point.
Yes you may be able to get people off the board at the AGM, however you cannot get them out of the PLC. They will still be shareholders and will still own the PLC that wholly owns your club. Oh and legally the new board put in place will be obliged to look after their interests for them, it is their business after all. The board, any board, is only there to run it … for them.
And as it stands, Dave King cannot “buy Rangers if he wants”. That would involve the people who currently own it selling it to him.
scapaflow says: (1048)
October 19, 2013 at 10:13 pm
1
0
Rate This
Quantcast
Angus1983 says: (1178)
October 19, 2013 at 8:56 pm
The weren’t even French, but were of Norse stock.
======================================
Well they certainly had Norman names. But I do have fair hair and very fond of saunas (and blonde wimmen)
Does that work?.
scapaflow says: (1048)
October 19, 2013 at 10:13 pm
0 0 Rate This
Angus1983 says: (1178)
October 19, 2013 at 8:56 pm
The weren’t even French, but were of Norse stock.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah. They were a right bunch of cubes.
Sorry.
Til Finn – apologies for finishing off your sentence for the avoidance of any doubt for any peepil who have not gained the exact nature of the situation yet….
…………….selling it to him………………….for a price of their choosing, all of which will go into carrier bags behind the sofa, with not one penny going towards TRFC.
Lord Wobbly says: (930)
October 19, 2013 at 10:21 pm
‘Yeah. They were a right bunch of cubes.”
………/
Lord, luvva duck! That was a quacker! Fit to be on any web-foot.
Knorright enough Nordic mist
Norman=Norseman.
The Vikings just didn’t settle in Dublin (which they established in 841 AD) and the Hebrides.
john clarke says: (1269)
October 19, 2013 at 10:27 pm
1 0 Rate This
Lord Wobbly says: (930)
October 19, 2013 at 10:21 pm
‘Yeah. They were a right bunch of cubes.”
………/
Lord, luvva duck! That was a quacker! Fit to be on any web-foot.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was thinking of changing my name, but apparently usernames cannot be changed. So if anyone is looking for a name, Mallard Wobbly is available.
1ecobhoy says: (2020)
October 19, 2013 at 9:53 pm
Sandy Easdale said today in a statement issued during the Brechin game:
======================
Surely you mean ‘Jack’ Easdale!
Exiled Celt says
====================
Indeed.
Dave King cannot currently “invest” in Rangers. There is simply no mechanism for him to do it.
He could gift it money, but that would be gifting money to the current owners. He could provide it with loans, but that is hardly “investing”.
There’s a lot of talk about King just now, but the bottom line is that he is a convicted fraudster who has no place on the board of a PLC, and there is no way for him to invest money in that PLC.
What am I thinking of, I do apologise.
Sandy Easdale must have been talking about Rangers Football Club Ltd … the club
He isn’t on the board of the PLC which owns it.
To be fair it doesn’t make a huge deal of difference, the PLC owns the shares in the Ltd Co, so it picks the board of the Ltd Co.
Tif Finn says: (568)
Why can`t DK invest in Rangers or any UK Company?
SA is SA and all that………….
Genghis Khan could invest Billions in the UK if he followed the rules
Only asking 😉
Lord Wobbly says: (931)
October 19, 2013 at 10:21 pm
scapaflow says: (1048)
October 19, 2013 at 10:13 pm
0 0 Rate This
Angus1983 says: (1178)
October 19, 2013 at 8:56 pm
The weren’t even French, but were of Norse stock.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah. They were a right bunch of cubes.
Sorry.
======================
How dare you make fun of my antecedent’s.
Bill1903 says: (6)
October 19, 2013 at 5:41 pm
In other news
Didn’t hear Chic Young on radio Scotland today(hopefully a little holiday after his breakdown this week)
===========================================
I also noticed Chick wasn’t on, at least at the parts I listened to. However, in my opinion the BBC would have every right to tell him he will not be back on unless he accepts facts such as Dave King having a criminal conviction in South Africa for tax evasion. It was noticeable tonight on Sportsound Extra when Graham Spiers and Tom English both spoke of Dave King’s conviction that Keith Jackson remained silent, when only last week something else altogether was being protested by said Mr Jackson. Keith was also keen to stress that the subject of Dave King being deemed fit and proper has yet to be placed in front of the SFA.
Did Chick Young completely overstep the mark last week with his nonsense re-Rangers and Dave King? Who knows, but I will leave you with one particularly nauseating remark he made when challenged by Tom English about whether King was suitable for the Rangers board room – ‘…I don’t care, it wasn’t my tax he didn’t pay’. Incredible, but true.
twopanda says:
=====================
You’re correct, sorry that was misleading
He can invest in Rangers PLC if he wants, of course he can. He can buy shares.
The money would go to the person he bought the shares from though and not the PLC.
So, albeit he would be making an investment by buying shares the money wouldn’t be going into the business. Which is really what I meant.
Sorry for expressing that badly.
Tic 6709 says: (473)
October 19, 2013 at 11:05 pm
0 0 Rate This
Lord Wobbly says: (931)
October 19, 2013 at 10:21 pm
scapaflow says: (1048)
October 19, 2013 at 10:13 pm
0 0 Rate This
Angus1983 says: (1178)
October 19, 2013 at 8:56 pm
The weren’t even French, but were of Norse stock.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah. They were a right bunch of cubes.
Sorry.
======================
How dare you make fun of my antecedent’s.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apologies. I didn’t intend to pour hot water on your stock.
Lord Wobbly says: (932)
October 19, 2013 at 11:12 pm
Tic 6709 says: (473)
October 19, 2013 at 11:05 pm
0 0 Rate This
Lord Wobbly says: (931)
October 19, 2013 at 10:21 pm
scapaflow says: (1048)
October 19, 2013 at 10:13 pm
0 0 Rate This
Angus1983 says: (1178)
October 19, 2013 at 8:56 pm
The weren’t even French, but were of Norse stock.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah. They were a right bunch of cubes.
Sorry.
======================
How dare you make fun of my antecedent’s.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apologies. I didn’t intend to pour hot water on your stock
=====================
That’s it, now you’re really in the soup.
Angus1983 says: (1178)
October 19, 2013 at 8:56 pm
—————————
Madbhoy24941 says: (295)
October 19, 2013 at 9:49 pm
School was a long, long time ago…..
————————————
ianagain says: (7)
October 19, 2013 at 10:01 pm
—————————————-
Angus1983 says: (1178)
October 19, 2013 at 10:06 pm
William defeated Malcolm in battle several years after becoming English king (of a coagulating Wessex, Mercia and Northumbria), and a secret agreement was struck at Hampden, er, Abernethy … nobody really knows what it was about but Malcolm, whilst retaining his Kingdom, agreed to be “William’s man” (oo-er missus). The Treaty of Abernethy led to future claims on Scotland by Edward Longshanks, who was a git.
As for Wales, the Normans briefly took control there but were soon thrown out again. It was a conquest of the Anglo-Saxons, really – and pretty much justified seeing as Harold had been bit of a chancer proclaiming himself King after agreeing to support William (original title = “the Bastard”, as they forgot to tell us at school) in the first place.
===========================================
scapaflow says: (1048)
October 19, 2013 at 10:13 pm
========================
Lord Wobbly says: (931)
October 19, 2013 at 10:21 pm
============================
PhilMacGiollaBhain says: (152)
October 19, 2013 at 10:33 pm
==============================
Original post edited, and I’m suitably chastised! Still P$£sing myselfy laughing at some of the replies. My Dad, bless him, used to work for Brown & Poulson who made the Knorr Cubes in Paisley.
Apologies for the “Britain” slip up, I do know that we had our own King back then in 1066, Malcolm the 3rd, who had been King since 1058. He took over the top job after MacBeth was killed in 1057 (via a very brief 5 month spell as King from MacBeths’ Step Son Lulach)
Guess who assasinated Lulach? Yup, Malcom III. !
Mmmmmmmmmmm! That story has a familiar feel to it down Govan Way?
Anyway, thanks for the laughs guys. I think we all need it.
twopanda says: (432)
October 19, 2013 at 11:03 pm
0 0 Rate This
Tif Finn says: (568)
Why can`t DK invest in Rangers or any UK Company?
SA is SA and all that………….
Genghis Khan could invest Billions in the UK if he followed the rules
Only asking
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Which Genghis Khan? The one who (allegedly) killed 1.7m people or the consummate lover?
I guess it all depends on who is doing the reporting!
Isn’t that right Chic?
In the year 1013, exactly 1000 years before Charles Green moved to Normandy, another Englishman — Aethelred the Unready — went into exile in Normandy. He’d had a lot of bother with Vikings too, though with those of the pastry-eating persuasion. In one sense it was a lot of dough that led Charles to Normandy as well. It’s uncanny.
Angus1983 says: (1178)
October 19, 2013 at 8:56 pm
13 3 Rate This
Aye, Jim, but they are called Rangers, y’know.
= to refer to them as Rangers* gives credence to the lie.
The ONLY way to distinguish is to use the ‘sevco’ name – so we know who is being referred to.
The Sevconians are using the – it says Rangers* in the paper and on the news etc, so it must be Rangers.
Lest we fall into their trap !?
jimlarkin says: (558)
October 19, 2013 at 11:28 pm
0 0 Rate This
Angus1983 says: (1178)
October 19, 2013 at 8:56 pm
13 3 Rate This
Aye, Jim, but they are called Rangers, y’know.
= to refer to them as Rangers* gives credence to the lie.
The ONLY way to distinguish is to use the ‘sevco’ name – so we know who is being referred to.
The Sevconians are using the – it says Rangers* in the paper and on the news etc, so it must be
Rangers.
Lest we fall into their trap !?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did you know that The Scotsman has banned the use of the word ‘Sevco’ on its comments facility? True story.
Original post edited, and I’m suitably chastised! Still P$£sing myselfy laughing at some of the replies. My Dad, bless him, used to work for Brown & Poulson who made the Knorr Cubes in Paisley.
Apologies for the “Britain” slip up, I do know that we had our own King back then in 1066, Malcolm the 3rd, who had been King since 1058. He took over the top job after MacBeth was killed in 1057 (via a very brief 5 month spell as King from MacBeths’ Step Son Lulach)
Guess who assasinated Lulach? Yup, Malcom III. !
Mmmmmmmmmmm! That story has a familiar feel to it down Govan Way?
Anyway, thanks for the laughs guys. I think we all need it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is that not similar to the 1690 goings on
The reality is, it was a family feud
The MYTH is that it was ‘about’ religion !
StevenD @stevendoyle75 21m
pic.twitter.com/LhmVm1chX9 panic button for Stockbridge home
https://twitter.com/scotonsunday/status/391663856956624896/photo/1
Danish Pastry says: (1587)
October 19, 2013 at 11:23 pm
In the year 1013, exactly 1000 years before Charles Green moved to Normandy, another Englishman — Aethelred the Unready — went into exile in Normandy. He’d had a lot of bother with Vikings too, though with those of the pastry-eating persuasion. In one sense it was a lot of dough that led Charles to Normandy as well. It’s uncanny.
___
Funnily enough, last time that mansions / chateaux’s were springing up both sides of the English Channel, it co-timed to the French Revolution – where people lost their heads before eating cake – or some such. Need to conflab with my media advisor’s before I can say anymore [publically]
For talking sake say govan club goes into administration shortly. Then what club would be in administration and which club would be in liquidation. How would smsm answer the above.
jimlarkin says: (559)
October 19, 2013 at 11:33 pm
Original post edited, and I’m suitably chastised! Still P$£sing myselfy laughing at some of the replies. My Dad, bless him, used to work for Brown & Poulson who made the Knorr Cubes in Paisley.
Apologies for the “Britain” slip up, I do know that we had our own King back then in 1066, Malcolm the 3rd, who had been King since 1058. He took over the top job after MacBeth was killed in 1057 (via a very brief 5 month spell as King from MacBeths’ Step Son Lulach)
Guess who assasinated Lulach? Yup, Malcom III. !
Mmmmmmmmmmm! That story has a familiar feel to it down Govan Way?
Anyway, thanks for the laughs guys. I think we all need it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is that not similar to the 1690 goings on
The reality is, it was a family feud
The MYTH is that it was ‘about’ religion !
===================================
No, not “about” religion. Similiar to the present day, it was all about Money and Power! Nothing has changed in 2013. Suits are brazingly walking out of Govan with bags stuffed with money, and nobody in authority is challenging them at the “Anything to Declare” barrier!
In fact, Suits are still inside still packing their bags at their leisure, no rush! They seem to know what they’re doing.
Like the 1st Class passengers on Titanic, no need to rush! There will always be a lifeboat for them!
The ones I feel sorry for are the 3rd Class passengers called Sevco Supporters! Just like mushrooms, they’re the ones living in the dark and fed on S$£t!
That said, more fool them for not doing more 2 years ago when they had the chance. World Records for lower league achievements are all very well, but surely they must also have the World Record for being the Most Gullable supporters as well?
Lord Wobbly says: (934)
October 19, 2013 at 11:33 pm
1 1 Rate This
jimlarkin says: (558)
October 19, 2013 at 11:28 pm
0 0 Rate This
Angus1983 says: (1178)
October 19, 2013 at 8:56 pm
13 3 Rate This
Aye, Jim, but they are called Rangers, y’know.
= to refer to them as Rangers* gives credence to the lie.
The ONLY way to distinguish is to use the ‘sevco’ name – so we know who is being referred to.
The Sevconians are using the – it says Rangers* in the paper and on the news etc, so it must be
Rangers.
Lest we fall into their trap !?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did you know that The Scotsman has banned the use of the word ‘Sevco’ on its comments facility? True story.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
It is part of the fabric of Scottish society, that a person’s ‘nickname’ is completely outwith their control.
My son’s nickname – the name he is called by almost everyone outside the home is quite abhorrent to his mother – but there is very little she can do about it – and she has tried!
So my advice to Sevco Scotland Ltd, the name on the new club at Ibrox’s birth certificate, is to relax , be part of the fabric of Scottish Society, and whatever name the rest of the population decide to give you as a nickname,
just accept it and get on with it.
To resent the nickname is simply to demonstrate that you are a pain in the neck – or a pain in whatever part of the anatomy you choose.
In any event, the name Sevco Scotland Ltd, was the name freely chosen by the new club’s owners before they decided to change it so as to make more money out of it, so who can blame anyone who chooses to call the new club ‘Sevco’. That’s their name.
As for the Scotsman, well they can just go and get some bowel irrigation which is a useful remedy for people who are full of sh*te.
Angus1983 says: (1178)
October 19, 2013 at 8:56 pm
16 3 Rate This
Aye, Jim, but they are called Rangers, y’know.
Meanwhile, on a similar pedantic theme:
fergussingstheblues says:
October 19, 2013 at 7:41 pm
Just an additional observation. In 1066, The French came over from Normandy and conquered Britain.
——
No they didn’t. They never conquered Britain.
——————-
We’ll they did and they didn’t, in a manner of speaking.
Robert de Brus, our national champion, scion of the lords of Annandale who got their lands in the the great carve up of the island following the invasion, beat Eduard at Bannockburn and established an independent nation in North Britain. But at least he was our Franco- Norman knight and not their Franco-Norman knight so it depends how you look at it.