Beware the angry Shareholders — they might just demand an answer!

Bybroganrogantrevinoandhogan

Beware the angry Shareholders — they might just demand an answer!

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!

 

About the author

broganrogantrevinoandhogan author

Boot wearing football, sport & total nonsense fan-- Gourmet, Bon Viveur and eedgit! - Oh and I write a bit occasionally!

4,365 Comments so far

Tif FinnPosted on12:34 pm - Nov 3, 2013


There actually is a way to make Rangers sustainable.

However it is the same way as it was for the previous club.

Win the top league and get through the qualifying stages of the CL and into the Group Stages.

Do that every year, otherwise you run at a loss, probably a minimum of £10m.

There is nothing new in that, it was the previous clubs business model. Here’s a tip though, you really need a manager capable of actually achieving it.

View Comment

Greenock JackPosted on12:45 pm - Nov 3, 2013


upthehoops
Paul Murray has talked of the need for the club to change the way it has been run and adopt a sustainable model. Anything else will lead to large problems.
It would be a board making these decisions, not the general support or the manager.
Part of the board would probably include someone representing the support but at this level the need for change in direction is accepted.

It’s a major project that needs investment and patience.
It’s hugely challanging but if the right people are in place, money raised and the message put accross to the support, it is doable.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on12:55 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Greenock Jack says:

========================================

A fair point, however Paul Murray is not on the board and is not a major shareholder (though he claims to represent people who are major shareholders).

The real power at Ibrox just now is in the hands of the Easdale’s. They own or control something like 32% of the PLC (if you include Green’s shares and that seems sensible). They also control the board of both the PLC and the club.

There may obviously be someone pulling their strings, but that really isn’t the point. The point is that Paul Murray can talk all he wants, just now he has no power whatsoever to actually do anything.

View Comment

Sugar DaddyPosted on12:57 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Greenock Jack
“..at this level the need for change is accepted.”

Not sure what you mean by this. If its board level, where is the massive cost cutting plan? Getting rid of non football playing staff is not enough by a long way. If you mean the fans, I would respectfully disagree. What I hear from my TRFC pals is only “we’ll be back soon” type messages. There is dissatisfaction with the board but no realisation or acceptance of what is required to live within means.

This is the legacy of the debt fuelled Murray years & a remains a huge hindrance to future development.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on1:01 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Greenock Jack says: (125)
November 3, 2013 at 12:45 pm

It’s a major project that needs investment and patience.
It’s hugely challanging but if the right people are in place, money raised and the message put accross to the support, it is doable.
+++++
You are quite right, Jack, it can be done (or, rather, could have been done ) . In fact I could have done it myself, given £20m in the bank on 31 December last. There would probably still be £20m in the bank right now, McCoist would be back on “Question of Sport”, and a few players would be back in the SPL, kicking folk for some other clubs. The trouble is, if I did that I would NEED to live in a castle, and I mean one with a moat and a drawbridge.

As regards Paul Murray and the “right people”- where were they (and their money) last summer?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:06 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Greenock Jack says: (124)

November 3, 2013 at 12:04 pm

This from The Herald article caught my eye.

” King, indeed, believes two rights issues will be required to ensure Rangers eventually return to the top flight in a strong enough state to meet supporter expectations.

Here is a tip in terms of building a new future. How about reducing the supporter’s expectation levels because no one can meet the cost of fuelling them?

CG “sold” Rangers on the basis of high expectations. He sold a pup and not even a thoroughbred one at that.

Rangers have been a myth for years, a myth powered by illusions of grandeur given the appearance of reality by the likes of Jim Traynor – Myth Creator General.

To quote John Reid (although the context was different) “those days have gone”. But the marketing and PR folk, indeed some in Scottish football, cannot afford for that illusion to be shattered for fear of crowd reduction and relegation to the Normalcy League where the rest of Scottish football play. The thing is supporters of clubs in the Normalcy League no longer have any truck with myths or believers in them now that the smoke and mirrors have been revealed for all to see.

The awakening at RIFC is underway though, but folk do not like to be awakened from what they see as a dream but others a nightmare. There will be a bit more wailing and woeing before reality finally bites.

When it does, then and only then, will the foundation of a sustainable future have been laid for a return to normalcy.

View Comment

Greenock JackPosted on1:07 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Tif
A fair point, however Paul Murray is not on the board and is not a major shareholder (though he claims to represent people who are major shareholders).

The real power at Ibrox just now is in the hands of the Easdale’s. They own or control something like 32% of the PLC (if you include Green’s shares and that seems sensible). They also control the board of both the PLC and the club.

There may obviously be someone pulling their strings, but that really isn’t the point. The point is that Paul Murray can talk all he wants, just now he has no power whatsoever to actually do anything.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Take the individual out of it and you have two large groups of shareholders looking for control of the boardroom beyond the AGM. Whoever does the talking, the only way forward is with a credible board who adpot the principles of good goverance and transparency.

Spivs won’t deliver on this.
The other group, with the institutions at the fore want to protect their investment even if that means further investment or a diluted stake.

View Comment

Greenock JackPosted on1:14 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Auldheid
How about reducing the supporter’s expectation levels because no one can meet the cost of fuelling them ?
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I’d agree with that.
A realitic vision needs to be layed out and bought into.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on1:17 pm - Nov 3, 2013


There have been some extremely important moments and decisions in this story.

From the point of view of the current club probably the main one was the failure to be allowed straight into the top tier, or at worst spending one season in the second tier.

The whole assumption was a debt free club in the SPL (as was), charging SPL prices, with SPL level sponsorship, SPL media income, SPL prize money with at least Europa league income.

The infrastructure, including the wage bill was put together on that basis, and with a cash injection from an IPO it would probably be quite healthy just now. Particularly given the substantially lower player wage bill. In fact with the IPO money players could have been brought in, or the people in charge could have siphoned more out.

The reason the new club is in the current mess, or at least part of the reason, is that none of that happened. That was because of fan power, people just wouldn’t wear it. That is something the Rangers fans could learn from.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:20 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Greenock Jack says: (127)

November 3, 2013 at 1:14 pm

I made the same point to a well known blogger on Rangers media in terms of matching income and expenditure. His response was on the lines of “well ok, but gates will drop”.

I said they probably would but it was that or no Rangers in any form to follow. That was a few months ago, when the idea would have been dismissed.

I think the emerging reality will start to change minds, a prequisite for addressing the problem.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on1:22 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Greenock Jack says:

===================================

I don’t think you can really “Take the individual out of it”, who they are and what their agenda is forms an integral part of the equation.

However even if you do, that doesn’t make everything totally simple. One side will take control of the boardroom, however that does not make the other set of shareholders go away. They still have their rights and are still entitled for their best interests to be taken into account. For example they may not want their shareholding diluted by a share issue. Or they may requisition their own EGM to get someone on the board.

Something I asked the other night. If someone owns or controls a certain percentage of the shares are they automatically entitled to representation at board level.

In short, Paul Murray getting control of the board would be the start of things, not the end.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on1:52 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Greenock Jack says: (127)
November 3, 2013 at 12:45 pm
==========================
Are you sure? From my vantage point the supporters will accept nothing other than dominance over Celtic most of the time. Remember a lot of fans who were around pre-1986 have gone, and much of the current fan base have been reared on the bank funded Murray era. I will generalise and you can take issue with me if you please, but the majority of the Rangers fans just don’t get it. We only need to recall the recent hysteria over Dave King, who was being regarded as an Abramovich type who was going to throw tens of millions towards getting Celtic back to their rightful place in the natural order. Why else is there so much anger when a Journalist tells the truth that King has criminal convictions in South Africa for tax evasion? It’s because they see the Abramovich type dream as maybe not happening.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on2:08 pm - Nov 3, 2013


upthehoops says:

=====================

Can I just point out that Abramovitch actually lent money to Chelsea, albeit interest free as far as I am aware. He has subsequently converted that to equity.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on2:17 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Tif Finn says: (670)
November 3, 2013 at 1:22 pm

Something I asked the other night. If someone owns or controls a certain percentage of the shares are they automatically entitled to representation at board level.
+++++++++++++
There is no direct link between shareholding and places on the board, except that if you control enough shares you can call an EGM, sack the current Board, and put your own directors in place. In theory that requires 51% of the shares, but in practice, in a public company with a range of shareholders, 30% is usually sufficient to control the company. I believe the Easdales reckon that they have over 30% of votes, assuming that Green’s shares are in their pocket.

So Paul Murray and friends can huff and puff all they like, but they can’t currently carry the day if it comes to a vote- well so it seems to me, anyway. They need to put those very short arms into those very deep pockets and find the readies to pay off the spivs, or the institutions, or whoever. Now these Blue Knights seem to throw their money about “like a man wi’ nae airms” as my old mother used to put it. So this really can’t end well.

I found Ryan’s comment the other day quite touching- that if he had a billion pounds, he would throw £100m away to save his beloved “Gers”. Of course that attitude is precisely why Ryan doesn’t have a billion pounds. Billionaires play games with other people’s money- they are very careful with their own.

Nobody bar Green’s mob would copper up last summer, when the whole shooting match was up for grabs for short of £10m. What makes anyone think that the same people who wouldn’t pay £10m 18 months ago are willing to pay much more now? And Green’s mob (whoever they might be) are going to want much, much more than £10m to walk away.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on2:21 pm - Nov 3, 2013


neepheid says: (885)
November 3, 2013 at 1:01 pm

14

0

Rate This

Greenock Jack says: (125)
November 3, 2013 at 12:45 pm

______________________________________________

The trouble is, if I did that I would NEED to live in a castle, and I mean one with a moat and a drawbridge.

______________________________________________

And this is the point.
The bunnet did not get an easy ride at Celtic when doing what was right for that club at that time.
But at no point was his life actually threatened as far as I am aware.

It would be poetic if the unacceptable knuckle dragging minority element of the TRFC support – the element that was pandered to by Charles Green in his charade to fleece the debt free re-incarnation to the max – actually came to be seen for what it is – as the main reason why the cloned club has regressed to the perilous predicament in which it finds itself. If the decent fans could see that ridding themselves of this baggage – and taking the medicine of austerity and humility that goes along with that for a time while rebuilding, was the only way to any meaningful re-emergence (not survival, that bird has already flown, but re-emergence), and make this the priority, that would be the Damascus moment.

Not holding my breath.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on2:25 pm - Nov 3, 2013


neepheid says:

======================

From the PLC website

As announced on 20 September 2013, Alexander Easdale, in addition to the 2,842,957 Ordinary Shares held directly by him, has voting rights over 12,641,338 Ordinary Share (representing 19.42% of the issued share capital of the Company) pursuant to the terms of proxy agreements entered into with other shareholders, including Blue Pitch and Margarita, which remain in place until further notice. As a result, including the Ordinary Shares held directly by Mr Easdale, being 2,842,957 Ordinary Shares representing 4.37% of the issued share capital of the Company, Mr Easdale has voting rights over, in aggregate, 15,484,295 Ordinary Shares representing 23.79% of the issued share capital of the Company. As announced on 20 September 2013, while Blue Pitch and Margarita hold directly 4,000,000 Ordinary Shares and 2,600,000 Ordinary Shares respectively, they have disposed of the voting rights over such Ordinary Shares to Alexander Easdale pursuant to the terms of the proxy agreements.

and

Charles Green 5,071,629 7.79%

so

If we add in Green’s shares it would appear that Sandy Easdale owns, or controls, 31.58% of the PLC.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on2:31 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Given that we know who has given Sandy Easdale his power base, does anyone know who Paul Murray claims to have as supporters of his bid for power.

I don’t imagine it will be Richard Hughes, Imran Ahmad (or his mum) or anyone else associated with Zeus.

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on3:04 pm - Nov 3, 2013


neepheid says: (886)
November 3, 2013 at 2:17 pm
6 0 Rate This

Tif Finn says: (670)
November 3, 2013 at 1:22 pm

Something I asked the other night. If someone owns or controls a certain percentage of the shares are they automatically entitled to representation at board level.
+++++++++++++
There is no direct link between shareholding and places on the board, except that if you control enough shares you can call an EGM, sack the current Board, and put your own directors in place. In theory that requires 51% of the shares, but in practice, in a public company with a range of shareholders, 30% is usually sufficient to control the company. I believe the Easdales reckon that they have over 30% of votes, assuming that Green’s shares are in their pocket.

So Paul Murray and friends can huff and puff all they like, but they can’t currently carry the day if it comes to a vote- well so it seems to me, anyway. They need to put those very short arms into those very deep pockets and find the readies to pay off the spivs, or the institutions, or whoever. Now these Blue Knights seem to throw their money about “like a man wi’ nae airms” as my old mother used to put it. So this really can’t end well.

I found Ryan’s comment the other day quite touching- that if he had a billion pounds, he would throw £100m away to save his beloved “Gers”. Of course that attitude is precisely why Ryan doesn’t have a billion pounds. Billionaires play games with other people’s money- they are very careful with their own.

Nobody bar Green’s mob would copper up last summer, when the whole shooting match was up for grabs for short of £10m. What makes anyone think that the same people who wouldn’t pay £10m 18 months ago are willing to pay much more now? And Green’s mob (whoever they might be) are going to want much, much more than £10m to walk away.
==================================================================

good post, but i have to question the £10million figure to buy the dead body.

“green” – “paid” £5.5million did he not, and included in that, was the potential for Sevco to get various amounts back – for example the cash that deadco were “due” for finishing second in the SPL and also the money that came in from any transfer fees (before Sevco later discovered they were not actually entitled to any transfer fees as the players contracts were null and void because the original employer had gone out of business, as the players were employed by the business/company and not the “club” as the “club” doesn’t really “exsist” as such under scottish law).

View Comment

ekt1mPosted on3:09 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Barcabhoy at 10.45am. Just read Barca’s illuminating post on the present cashwise car crash that await’s TRFC. It really shines a light on their problems. Chapeau, Barca.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on3:28 pm - Nov 3, 2013


jimlarkin says:

=====================

What they paid for the assets is largely irrelevant. They clearly got them for a totally nonsensical figure.

What is important is what they would sell their shares for.

Green for example has 5,071,629, and the current trading price is about 48p. However again that is pretty meaningless. They will get what someone is willing to pay.

However that’s when you get back to the asset strippers classic scenario. If you can find a business where you can buy the shares for say £5m, but is trading at a loss, but you know that it holds assets of £25m, you simply buy the business, cease trading and sell off the assets.

Basically if they think they can dispose of the assets then that must be the starting point for anyone buying them out. Otherwise why not just sell those assets and liquidate the business.

View Comment

andyPosted on3:29 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Tif Finn says: (673)
November 3, 2013 at 2:31 pm
4 0 Rate This

Given that we know who has given Sandy Easdale his power base, does anyone know who Paul Murray claims to have as supporters of his bid for power.

I don’t imagine it will be Richard Hughes, Imran Ahmad (or his mum) or anyone else associated with Zeus.
_____________
Murray and McColls supporters are the ones who signed the requisitioner form

View Comment

Reilly1926Posted on3:40 pm - Nov 3, 2013


jimlarkin says: (593)

November 3, 2013 at 3:04 pm
good post, but i have to question the £10million figure to buy the dead body.

“green” – “paid” £5.5million did he not, and included in that, was the potential for Sevco to get various amounts back – for example the cash that deadco were “due” for finishing second in the SPL and also the money that came in from any transfer fees (before Sevco later discovered they were not actually entitled to any transfer fees as the players contracts were null and void because the original employer had gone out of business, as the players were employed by the business/company and not the “club” as the “club” doesn’t really “exsist” as such under scottish law).
===================

Am I not right in saying that Mr Charles and his gang actually loaned the £5.5m to TRFC that paid off Duff & Phelps and other legal fees ? So they didn’t pay an actual thin dime for what they got. Jeezo why did Jim McColl, Paul Murray and other Rangers minded people not get involved at that point ?

View Comment

andyPosted on3:45 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Reilly1926 says: (170)
November 3, 2013 at 3:40 pm
0 0 Rate This

jimlarkin says: (593)

November 3, 2013 at 3:04 pm
good post, but i have to question the £10million figure to buy the dead body.

“green” – “paid” £5.5million did he not, and included in that, was the potential for Sevco to get various amounts back – for example the cash that deadco were “due” for finishing second in the SPL and also the money that came in from any transfer fees (before Sevco later discovered they were not actually entitled to any transfer fees as the players contracts were null and void because the original employer had gone out of business, as the players were employed by the business/company and not the “club” as the “club” doesn’t really “exsist” as such under scottish law).
===================

Am I not right in saying that Mr Charles and his gang actually loaned the £5.5m to TRFC that paid off Duff & Phelps and other legal fees ? So they didn’t pay an actual thin dime for what they got. Jeezo why did Jim McColl, Paul Murray and other Rangers minded people not get involved at that point ?
______________
it was too late duff and duffer had it stitched up that only green could buy after the failed CVA

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on3:59 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Barcabhoy says: (258)
November 3, 2013 at 10:45 am

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-director-dave-king-sells-1089231

The link above reveals his vineyard was sold at a distressed price.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Barca. I don’t believe that sale went through.

http://www.iol.co.za/business/companies/quoin-rock-destroyed-1.1356469

http://www.bdlive.co.za/companies/2012/08/18/liquidated-quoin-rock-estate-sold-for-r85m

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on4:20 pm - Nov 3, 2013


andy says: (267)
November 3, 2013 at 3:29 pm
1 0 Rate This

Murray and McColls supporters are the ones who signed the requisitioner form

===================================

Paul Murray, Malcolm Murray, Colin Howell, Ian Cormack, John Graham, Lynchwood Nominees Limited, Hargreaves Lansdown Nominees Limited, Rock (Nominees) Limited, Redmayne (Nominees) Limited, Bank of New York (Nominees) Limited, Lion Nominees Limited dated 27 September 2013, and from Singer Nominees Limited dated 30 September 2013, (“Notices”) together representing 5.03 per cent of the voting rights of the Company (“Notifying Shareholders”).

There must be more than that surely. That’s just the bare 5% they need.

View Comment

iceman63Posted on4:29 pm - Nov 3, 2013


I must take issue with Barca’ s claimvthat Jack deflects rather than debates. We have indeed encountered many such individuals on here. Steerpike springs to mind. Jack does engage and attempts to hold his side of the argunent. The odds are , sadly for him , stacked against him.
All he has are vague hints and platitudes from Rangers suposed investors and a hope that a culture of entitlement and deluded expectations can be changed overnight whilst sensible individuals are given time and space and some more of OPM to right the ship at the third attempt.
He also faces a blog full of those who have no particular attachment to Rangers and are generally somewhere between indifferent and actively hostile to their fate, and who have the far stronger arguments and previous and current events to sustain their view.
I think Jack is overly optimistic and unrealustic but I don’ t see any malice nor deflection in his input.

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on4:43 pm - Nov 3, 2013


InterestingIy, Wendy Appelbaum (who tried to buy Dave King’s vineyard), is the daughter of Donald Gordon, who owns, amongst other things, the Braehead shopping centre through Liberty International (no connection). Donald Gordon used to work at Kessel Feinstein (now Grant Thornton).

I’m not suggesting anything *, but merely pointing out that it’s a small world, isn’t it?

* really I’m not.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on4:51 pm - Nov 3, 2013


And also

Blue Pitch and Margarita own just over 10% between them, about 10.13%

However the proxies Sandy Easdale holds come to 19.42%.

Who owns the other 9.29%. People would appear to be disinterested in about half of the proxy vote which Sandy Easdale holds.

What is so special about BPH and MH that people are desperate to find out who might be behind them, whilst ignoring the others. In fact the website does not even identify who else has given Sandy Easdale their proxy, far less identify the people behind them.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on5:28 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Tif Finn says: (676)
November 3, 2013 at 2:08 pm
10 0 Rate This
Can I just point out that Abramovitch actually lent money to Chelsea, albeit interest free as far as I am aware. He has subsequently converted that to equity.
==================================
I understand that, and I believe the Man City owners have only lent money as well. This is what makes the Rangers support vision of King even more baffling. King does not come near those two in the wealth stakes yet there are many who believe he is going to fund Rangers the way a bank previously did. Baffling, truly baffling.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on5:35 pm - Nov 3, 2013


upthehoops says:

==========================

If I remember correctly the Man City trillionaires also did a debt for equity swap at about the same time.

Your point however is a good one. Do supporters really believe that Dave King, Jim McColl or anyone else are actually going to gift money to a football club. At the most they might underwrite or actually buy into a new share issue. They may even provide loans on favourable terms, but that is about it.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on5:46 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Tif Finn says: (677)
November 3, 2013 at 5:35 pm
=======================
Exactly, but when newspapers were happy to print guff that David Murray spent £12M of his own readies on Tore Andre Flo, and tens of millions more on others, it;s going to take them time to condition themselves to think any other way.

Out of interest I’d love to know just how much liquid cash of his own Murray actually had in those days.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on5:49 pm - Nov 3, 2013


iceman63 says: (297)
November 3, 2013 at 4:29 pm

18

2

Rate This
____________________________________________

I don’ t see any malice nor deflection in his input…

____________________________

Agreed. And that makes his input meaningful and very welcome here imo.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on6:45 pm - Nov 3, 2013


highfibre says:

=========================

It s entirely possible that they will own them outright before the AGM takes place. Is his “tie in” not up early to mid December.

View Comment

Greenock JackPosted on8:04 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Auldheid
I made the same point to a well known blogger on Rangers media in terms of matching income and expenditure. His response was on the lines of “well ok, but gates will drop”.

I said they probably would but it was that or no Rangers in any form to follow. That was a few months ago, when the idea would have been dismissed.

I think the emerging reality will start to change minds, a prequisite for addressing the problem.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Time to do it was at the beginning of last season, when with all due respect, the inevitable teething problems wouldn’t have stopped the club getting promotion. However the spivs are only interested in things that will lead to them making more money in the short term.

You have to sell it as a positive and I think you might be surprised at how many of the support would see the need for and buy into a new model. Therafter, you have to make it work in reasonably quicktime and that takes you into the unpredictable world of football. Is there a risk of supporters losing patience ? Of course.

I see the actual DK vision as being investment levels that will give Rangers the opportunity to become competitive again in the SPFL1 (short-term) and for infrastructure to be put in place so as the club can get to a sustainable level of income & expenditure as soon as possible.

Theory is easy and the problem with planning business matters in football is the unpredictable, ie. the results, with CL qualifiers being the best current example. Can I ask you what happens to the Celtic business model if you don’t qualify for the CL group stages (shop window) in the next two seasons ?

View Comment

sickofitallPosted on8:15 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Test

View Comment

Reilly1926Posted on8:25 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Greenock Jack says: (128)

November 3, 2013 at 8:04 pm
Theory is easy and the problem with planning business matters in football is the unpredictable, ie. the results, with CL qualifiers being the best current example. Can I ask you what happens to the Celtic business model if you don’t qualify for the CL group stages (shop window) in the next two seasons ?
==========================
It was talked about out loud Jack that had Celtic not qualified for this year’s CL group we would have HAD to have sold a player to balance the books. The books have to be balanced. This is the lesson learned from the RFC(IL) fiasco.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on8:34 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Greenock Jack says:

======================

Actually Celtic are very much nearer to breaking even based on getting to the group stages of the Europa League.

I think it might still be a case of losing a million or two but nowhere near the same problems as Rangers would have, even competing in the SPFL premiership.

The reasons are quite simple and have been gone over before. The Nike deal is worth £5m a year, Celtic’s average gate (paying customers) is higher, and Celtic make more net profit from merchandising. All pretty much “free money” i.e. with no particular overhead.

Celtic did not have the same reliance on CL football as Rangers had. That is not to say that there wasn’t a reliance on non-domestic football at all, it just wasn’t as important in the sense of breaking even.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on8:35 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Reilly1926 says:

==================

We had already sold the players if I remember correctly.

Wanyama, Hooper and Wilson are all in this years accounts unless I have read thing wrong.

View Comment

Greenock JackPosted on8:58 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Tif
I’m not saying the current respective situations for the two clubs are comparable.
More that football’s unpredictability can make business planning very difficult, especially if at a higher level. However, the guaranteed SPFL title for Celtic must make the FD at Parkhead sleep easier.

Interesting that they decided to invest some of the resulting income into a counter measure against supporter complacency in the League with the three figure reduction in the ST price. Can’t be said they aren’t pro-active, but prices will go back up when Rangers return to the top tier.

View Comment

justshateredPosted on9:02 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Greenock Jack says: (128)
November 3, 2013 at 8:04 pm

If Celtic don’t qualify for the group stages of the Champions League the players are sold.
Ki was last year. Wanyama, Hooper, and Wilson were this year.
In Celtic’s favour they still have assets to sell such as Forster, Lustig, and Matthews to keep the wolf from the door if the group stages are not reach.

That is a far cry from a club with few players people want, who are already paying over the odds, and have no exposure in which to show them in a good light.
This is the main difference; Celtic have a shop window to display their wears in. The shop and window were purchased through years of cost cutting.
‘The Rangers’ do not have a shop to display anything in and very little to display in any case.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on9:03 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Greenock Jack says: (129)
November 3, 2013 at 8:58 pm

….but prices will go back up when Rangers return to the top tier.

—————————————————————————————

Naughty but predictable statement GJ.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on9:06 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Greenock Jack says:

===========================

It’s a one off discount, so there’s no way of knowing if there will be something similar next year or in future years.

View Comment

Reilly1926Posted on9:07 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Tif Finn says: (680)

November 3, 2013 at 8:35 pm

2

0

Rate This

Quantcast

Reilly1926 says:

==================

We had already sold the players if I remember correctly.

Wanyama, Hooper and Wilson are all in this years accounts unless I have read thing wrong.
=================

They weren’t “balance the books” transfers. Offers we couldn’t turn down.

View Comment

ParmaHamsterPosted on9:08 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Greenock Jack says: (129)

November 3, 2013 at 8:58 pm

Interesting that they decided to invest some of the resulting income into a counter measure against supporter complacency in the League with the three figure reduction in the ST price. Can’t be said they aren’t pro-active, but prices will go back up when Rangers return to the top tier.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1. Which “Rangers” are you referring to? The current tribute act or the one that is coming in their wake?

2. The reduction in season ticket price came mainly as a result of the protests that ensued when the PLC charged the same price for home matches against Dundee as they would have against RFC (Deid), not simply as a counter-measure against complacency.

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on9:09 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Tif Finn says: (680)
November 3, 2013 at 2:25 pm
If we add in Green’s shares it would appear that Sandy Easdale owns, or controls, 31.58% of the PLC.
&&&&&&&&&&&
If you add in Mr Easdale’s stare, which can freeze the piss in a rottweiler’s bladder,he pretty much has it wrapped up.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on9:10 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Reilly1926 says:

==========================

I was replying to you saying that if Celtic had not qualified for the CL group stages then a player would have to be sold. I don’t think that’s the case as they had already made a very substantial sum on transfer income.

View Comment

iceman63Posted on9:17 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Oh well seems Barca was right and I was wrong about Jack. Classic deflection tonight. Disappointed in him really. Not even debating the tosh he has chosen to unleash tonight..Barca proving much wiser than myself I fear.

View Comment

buddy_hollyPosted on9:18 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Reilly1926 says: (171)
November 3, 2013 at 8:25 pm
15 0 Rate This

Greenock Jack says: (128)

November 3, 2013 at 8:04 pm
Theory is easy and the problem with planning business matters in football is the unpredictable, ie. the results, with CL qualifiers being the best current example. Can I ask you what happens to the Celtic business model if you don’t qualify for the CL group stages (shop window) in the next two seasons ?
==========================
It was talked about out loud Jack that had Celtic not qualified for this year’s CL group we would have HAD to have sold a player to balance the books. The books have to be balanced. This is the lesson learned from the RFC(IL) fiasco.
==========================
Very much agree that celtic year to year make decisions based first on the continued existence of the club and second on the spend required to put the best team on the pitch.

For the record so do inverness, ross county, aberdeen, dundee united, hibs, st johnstone, partick thistle, st mirren, motherwell.

I am not as sure about kilmarnock.

and obviously hearts are in their position because their owner did not prioritise the continued existence of the club.

Many other scottish clubs do this too, down to east stirlingshire, spartans and so on.

Year to year celtic sign contracts, like stokes now to reinvest in players already there and players to come in , while also knowing without the income the contracts may not be renewed, the players brought in may be on lower wages, possibly of lower quality.

Again, for all scottish clubs that is no difference, a good cup run to hampden may bring in £500,000 that is ten percent of turnover for most SPFL clubs.

Buddy

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on9:21 pm - Nov 3, 2013


iceman63 says: (298)
November 3, 2013 at 9:17 pm
Well said. Disappointment yes. Surprise no.

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on9:34 pm - Nov 3, 2013


jean7brodie says: (335)
November 3, 2013 at 9:03 pm
11 0 Rate This
Greenock Jack says: (129)
November 3, 2013 at 8:58 pm
….but prices will go back up when Rangers return to the top tier.
—————————————————————————————
Naughty but predictable statement GJ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And inaccurate. Prices will go up. ‘Rangers’ may come up. But it will not be a return.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on9:47 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Greenock Jack 8.24

The mindset before start of this season was not ready to accept what it is more likely to next one. It was too ready to cling to the CG sales pitch.

Celtic’s model has depended on player sale at least since McGeady saved the bacon.

This season although not needed Wanyama Hooper and Wilson provided extra income.

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on9:49 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Jack’s back!!!

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on9:49 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Lord Wobbly says: (954)
November 3, 2013 at 9:34 pm

That was my point LW. Obviously I did not articulate it very well. 😳

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on9:55 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Just not getting it. From RM:
Even Juventus got back to the top quiicker than we will, and they were guilty of something.
###
Sad

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on9:57 pm - Nov 3, 2013


davythelotion says:

=========================

I know you are saying that in a facetious manner however things like that really are a factor.

It’s all very well talking about ignoring who the individuals concerned are but that doesn’t really work, on at least a couple of levels.

Firstly there seems to be an assumption that people with a certain amount of money don’t actually just make stupid mistakes in business. It happens all the time, wealthy men who run businesses make bad decisions and that hurts their business.

Secondly there is a certain type of “personality” who do things a certain way and who expect to get things their own way because they always have. They are not necessarily interested in the niceties of the boardroom.

I really think this is something that people don’t think about because it has happened so gradually, but the current situation is that the Easdale Brothers control 32% of the Rangers shares and the board of both the PLC and the club. If anyone had said that just a few years ago people would have thought it wasn’t possible.

View Comment

SpivcoPosted on9:59 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Interesting to read about King supplying a letter from the SARS, the tax authority which convicted him on 41 charges of tax evasion, claiming he was a fit and proper person to run a football club! I seem to remember that he/his advisors forged a letter from SARS previously, claiming he had settled with them.

Old dog – same tricks.

View Comment

Greenock JackPosted on10:06 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Iceman
I only touched on Celtic (one sentence in a long post asking re cashflow unpredictability), received various ‘defensive responses’ and replied to a couple.

I said the respective situations were not comparable but answered a post and went on re. unpredictability making it difficult to plan.
Mentioned that a guaranteed title makes it easier, which is true.
That Celtic after a fall in attendance in 12/13 made the board give a three figure ST discount, which is true.
This I said wouldn’t be the case when Rangers were playing in the top tier again, which I believe reflects in a big way the reason why crowds went down at Parkhead 12/13. You don’t have to agree but if not then why ?

Tif then told me that it was a ‘one-off”, I hadn’t known that.

Some of you guys need to read that exchange through once again !
I hardly mention Celtic and the sirens go off, I reply with my views (not even controversial) and I’m persona non-grata.

It’s what I’d expect from a Celtic messageboard.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on10:17 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Greenock Jack says:

============================

You asked a question about Celtic and received answers.

I don’t see what was defensive about that. It was people specifically answering the question you asked, why is that an issue.

View Comment

manandboyPosted on10:26 pm - Nov 3, 2013


There are 42 clubs in the SPFL.

They all have certain things in common – elementary, my dear Watson.

But there is one club that is different from the rest.

One club which has particular baggage that the rest don’t carry

And one club which seems to cause more trouble than all the other clubs put together.

Now, if the cause of the bother was one of the elements they have in common,

then every club would cause problems to the rest..

But that’s not how it is.

Only one club has been described as ‘ a permanent embarassment and an occasional disgrace ‘.

Only one club makes the front pages of national newspapers for reasons that don’t involve kicking a ball.

Ok, ok, you’re fed up with this – ‘what’s the point’, I hear you say.

Now we come to the hard bit.

This is the part where we stray close to the stuff that must not be written about

and is not written about anywhere in the Scottish media

except among the internet ‘journalistas’.

Because it cannot be admitted.

We are talking about those unique characteristics of the difficult club

which, unless they are eliminated from the Scottish game

and the Scottish culture

will continue to reproduce the same difficulties, year in, year out, ad infinitum.

Not a prospect that fills most of the population with glee, I suspect.

And no amount of fictional financial compensation is somehow able to persuade us

that the grief, mayhem and corruption in every part of the game due to this one club will be worth it.

The bottom line is that Scotland and Scottish Football needs independence

not only, depending on one’s point of view, from the history between Scotland and England

but also from the history that has come to Scotland from Northern Ireland

and which has found a focus and a home in that corner of Glasgow

called Ibrox.

Independence from NI – the sooner , the better.

Independence from the UK – it’s the voters choice.

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on10:29 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Tif Finn says: (684)
November 3, 2013 at 9:57 pm
0 0 Rate This

davythelotion says:

=========================

I know you are saying that in a facetious manner however things like that really are a factor.
%%%%%%
Nothing facetious about it, business is business for some people. DK went to the garage and left. Jack has been banging on about how PM has a small shareholding, the Easdales have promises to buy and proxies ‘gifted’ by CG.
Jack is employed by the Easdsles, he’s also contracted to RIFC, but who’s really working for who?

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on10:30 pm - Nov 3, 2013


When Rangers supporters talk about Celtic’s crowds, they never acknowledge Celtic have the 2nd highest total home attendance so far this season in the UK . Only Man Utd have more. Celtic fans have paid a small fortune to watch the club this season.
Rangers by comparison have played to a much smaller total home attendance, and the cost to Rangers fans has been nowhere close that which Celtic fans have contributed

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on10:33 pm - Nov 3, 2013


GJ: “…a Celtic messageboard.”

———————————————–
Grow up mate. Look around – you and WATP have p*ssed EVERYBODY off. I’m no Celtic fan.

This forum is for all and allows constructive debate. Try that on the heads in the sand forum your pals inhabit.

Scottish football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

Reilly1926Posted on10:33 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Greenock Jack:

Had liquidation not happened to Rangers and everything went on as before then attendances at both Celtic and RFC(IL) would have fallen due to the economic climate. What we’ve witnessed over the last season and a half is Sevco fans turning up in defiance and Celtic fans choosing which games to go to due to CL fixtures and the financial implications that these extra games involve.

In all honesty I’ve come to the opinion that Sevco will never be in the position that RFC(IL) were once in. They have to live in the real world with no Murray, Masterton or EBTs. The only hope for Sevco is that Celtic’s ambitions are dragged down to a level that Sevco can compete with. If this happens then the Celtic Fans will have revolted in a way that RFC(IL) fans could only have dreamt of.

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on10:34 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Barcabhoy says: (259)
November 3, 2013 at 10:30 pm
######
Is this only because sevco keep cancelling home ties, for absolutely excellent reasons, and are therefore not able to count thousands of attendees?
After all, PM & DMcC told the assembled brains trust that sevco were comparable to man utd.

View Comment

Greenock JackPosted on10:35 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Tif
The issue for me is that I’m accused by a crowd of deflecting, being naughty and all the rest of it, it wasn’t the case.

I’ll leave it there.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on10:41 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Barcabhoy says:

=======================

The view most of my friends who are season ticket holders at Celtic Park are taking is that they are effectively getting the 3 home games in the CL group stage for free. The discount they got on their season ticket is effectively paying for those games.

I think you might be being unfair though, yes Celtic have had the CL qualifiers (3 home) and the group stage matches (another 3 home) so 6 European home games, so far, with the possibility of further games in the CL or EL. However from a Rangers perspective they have had the Ramsden’s cup games, and earlier rounds of the two domestic cups to contend with.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on10:44 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Greenock Jack says:

========================

Thing is, you then go on to imply this is a “Celtic Message Board”.

Do you think that people claiming to support other clubs are lying. Do you really think that it’s Celtic, or Rangers and that’s the only options.

View Comment

fergussingsthebluesPosted on10:46 pm - Nov 3, 2013


upthehoops says:
November 3, 2013 at 5:46 pm

Tif Finn says: (677)
November 3, 2013 at 5:35 pm
=======================
Exactly, but when newspapers were happy to print guff that David Murray spent £12M of his own readies on Tore Andre Flo, and tens of millions more on others, it;s going to take them time to condition themselves to think any other way.

Out of interest I’d love to know just how much liquid cash of his own Murray actually had in those days.

===================================================

upthehoops, it’s because he had none! He spent everyone else’s! Particularly from RBS Customers.

Why would a “Billionaire” also be a recipient of the famous EBT’s for a few grand when he was already incredibly wealthy?

I mean, Murray was the guy who went through with this dodgy scheme on the say so of Baxendale-Walker. I presume he saw it as a way of saving a fortune in taxes which he could then re-invest in making sure that for every £5 Celtic spent, he could spend £10? Celtic get Andy Payton and Martin Hayes, yet Murray can entice half the England team to his club (Woods, Stevens, Steven, Hateley, Butcher, as well as Mikhailichenko and Kuznetsov from Russia)

The irony was, they got to the last stages of the Champions League in 1992. It wasn’t then as it is now. There were no semi finals then. There were 2 groups with 4 teams in each. The winners of each group played each other in the final. Marseille won the final that year, topping Rangers group. It later emerged that president Bernard Tapie had been found guily of match fixing that season, as well as other misdemeanours. This led Murray to shout from the rooftops that Rangers were cheated and should have been in the final instead. Oh the irony! Imagine Football Clubs cheating other clubs 21 years ago! Tut Tut!!

Hately was also in the press at that time saying that he was offered big bucks not to play against Marseille in the penultimate group match, when a win would have seen Rangers top the group with one game left. “It was a friend of a friend, who had got in touch via certain routes, basically asking me not to play,” claimed Hateley. “He was not an agent I knew, but another agent had given him the number. It was a French-speaking person, offering me large sums of money not to play against Marseille.”

Funningly enough, Hateley was banned from the match against Marseille anyway, after being sent off in the previous game against Brugge! Is that ordering off on Youtube anywhere? Was it a soft one?

Imaging telling the story that you were offered money to miss an important game, but end being banned from it anyway because you got a red card in the previous game!

What I also found funny was that although Bernie and Marseille were found guilty by UEFA, were they stripped of their Champions League Title? The answer is NO they were not! Ring any bells with a certain team in Scotland?

Anyway, for Murray to take out an EBT for himself, given all his “Wealth”, well it just seems a bit greedy?

And, just to finish, there are a lot of old BBC employees going to court just now over their past sins. I know Murray’s past is not associated with what they did, but the fact is that “time” should not be a factor in bringing someone before a Court of Law, whether they are young or old, or whether the crime was committed 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years ago!

It seems to me that he is somehow being protected. Given all the accusations of defrauding the TaxPayer, Why? What’s the Big secret? We demand to know! (copyright McCoist)

We couldn’t see enough of his interviews on telly when he was in his pomp! Where is he now?

Maybe his little puppet Jack can arrange a Q&A session? Succulent Lamb sandwiches can be provided as well as fine French Wine!

It’s also funny that Craig Whyte has recorded, and informed the World via The Internet, all of his most important meetings about Rangers. Has anyone ever heard any of his recordings about buying Rangers for a Quid from David? No, neither have I? I still think these two are in the background of this current Pantomine.

Justice in Britain stinks! You can get 3 months in jail for stealing a bottle of water in a riot. You can also defraud the Taxpayer of Millions, and yet get rewarded with a few million quid and a Chateux in France for shuffling a few bits of paper around!

I just don’t get it?

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on10:48 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Greenock Jack says: (131)
November 3, 2013 at 10:35 pm

You are right. I shouldn’t have described you as naughty when you said:

“….when Rangers return to the top tier.”

I should have said you were delusional.

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on10:49 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Tif Finn says: (685)
November 3, 2013 at 10:41 pm

=======

The numbers only include 2 home games in the Group stages. My point is Celtic fans have turned out in much bigger numbers and paid much more money.

View Comment

TailothebankPosted on10:50 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Greenock Jack,
Hang on in there !
This forum needs more Rangers fans prepared to come on and openly discuss the issues of the day..I for one want to hear views and opinions from all angles ..even though i may disagree with many of them.

View Comment

CarntynePosted on10:53 pm - Nov 3, 2013


jean7brodie says: (337)
November 3, 2013 at 9:03 pm

23

2

Rate This

Greenock Jack says: (129)
November 3, 2013 at 8:58 pm

….but prices will go back up when Rangers return to the top tier.

—————————————————————————————

Naughty but predictable statement GJ.
_________________________________

IF they return to the top tier.

Remarks made by King, Paul Murray and others in the last couple of weeks have made it clear a return to the top flight is far from certain in the short term, and possibly even in the long term also.

View Comment

slimshady61Posted on10:55 pm - Nov 3, 2013


jimlarkin says: (593)
November 3, 2013 at 11:52 am
——————————————
It so happens there is a large delegation of Scottish businessmen and politicians in China at the moment, including Alex Salmond. In your opinion is Lawwell busy arranging the outcome of the independence referendum as well?

China is one of the fastest growing areas in terms of promoting world football, it is natural that those in Scottish football who see an opportunity to advance their product would take this opportunity to do so. That the delegation includes representatives of the SPFL and the country’s leading club, one with a worldwide reputation, is hardly surprising. It would be more surprising if they weren’t there.

As for the main gist of the discussion tonight, if you accept that Rangers is dead, then it all makes sense. That’s why the requisitioners invested nothing in the newco in 2012 – there will never be another football club to compare with Glasgow Rangers, no not one and there never will be one. Rangers is dead. It is fiscally not possible to build a new “Rangers” – if the club currently usurping that name wants to survive, it needs to cut its cloth, dump the excess players, the useless manager and the millstone that is Ibrox.

Otherwise there will be another administration event in Edmiston Drive. No team called Rangers will play in the top league at any point in the future.

As for the troll, Jack has spent all of his time on here predicting doom and gloom for the rest of Scottish football because of the fate of his beloved Gers. The facts say otherwise – you can’t deny the facts Jack, just live with them. Rangers denied the facts and died as a result..

View Comment

Greenock JackPosted on10:59 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Reading the last few comments, I can see the precise details of what was mentioned in the relevant ‘deflecting’ posts isn’t really that important. It’s obvious that there is an underlying feeling of anger that makes this blog next to impossible for a Rangers supporter, unless he says what people want to hear.

Quite apart from all the financial questions, this brings to the fore another issue that will be difficult to heal. The anger and hatred that has been sown during these past couple of years amongst both sides of the debate. Now I know this is an emotive issue and therefore probably difficult to have constructive coversation but I’d just like to mention it as being a real problem when Rangers are in SPFL1.

On the Rangers side, interestingly it was DK that said that the club needed to show more humility.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on11:02 pm - Nov 3, 2013


Carntyne says: (90)
November 3, 2013 at 10:53 pm

Don’t understand your comment Carntyne. ❓
The operative word is ‘return’ not ‘if’ or ‘when’.

View Comment

Comments are closed.