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

TSFMPosted on11:10 pm - Nov 7, 2013


Angus1983 says: (1222)

November 7, 2013 at 10:13 pm (Edit)

On occasion the blog tips too far towards Celtic-mindedness and I just canna resist trying to tip it back towards neutrality, that’s all.
___________________________________________________________________________

Tipping it into stupidity is worse. You can always debate partisanship. You can’t argue with daft.

In that case we won’t be able to resist moderating it out.

You have basically just admitted to deliberately trolling – and wearing that as a badge of honour.

Grow up – or if you want to do stand up, or be at the top of the bill somewhere, there are opportunities available. Just not here.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on11:18 pm - Nov 7, 2013


SouthernExile says: (147)
November 7, 2013 at 10:22 pm

I disagree with you.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on11:28 pm - Nov 7, 2013


In the interests of balance, you will find a video of Celtic’s Chairman speaking here.

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/celtic/230081-celtic-will-sell-victor-wanyama-if-the-right-offer-comes-along/

It’s on STV, so is not a stage managed production like the one of Mr Somers on Rangers TV I posted above. Unless you think that STV are painting the Celtic Chairman in the best possible light. Bearing in mind that STV and Rangers have a special arrangement.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/28/stv-group-rangers

Someone else can find a video of the Celtic Chairman on their own TV station and post that if they think that would provide more balance.

View Comment

willmacufreePosted on11:29 pm - Nov 7, 2013


TSFM says: November 7, 2013 at 11:10 pm

Afraid I’m not following you there. Tomorrow’s a new day.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on11:36 pm - Nov 7, 2013


willmacufree says: (222)
November 7, 2013 at 11:29 pm

Tomorrow’s a new day.

__________________________
Thank goodness because it’s been like Groundhog Day today 😉

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:45 pm - Nov 7, 2013


Any arrest, home or abroad, club or national team is one too many.
Fans of many other sports seem to manage to have a good time and a drink without going battling with the Polis.
The situation has greatly improved but there are still enough idiots out there to drag us all into the mire.

As a side issue it doesn’t seem to me to be a major task that when large groups of fans congregate in a city’s square a few sober heids could organise a wee clean up squad and get folks to deposit all their empties and other debris in a central location as opposed to leaving the whole place lookng like a tip.
After all if impressive huge banners and colourful flip card displays can be organised then keeping a guest city or town as tidy as possible shouldn’t be beyond any of us.
Rant on litter louts over!!

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on11:47 pm - Nov 7, 2013


jean7brodie says: (343)
November 7, 2013 at 11:36 pm
1 0 Rate This

willmacufree says: (222)
November 7, 2013 at 11:29 pm

Tomorrow’s a new day.

__________________________
Thank goodness because it’s been like Groundhog Day today
%%%%%%%
You can say that again! Deja vu all over again!!!!
I’ll get me coat.

View Comment

auchinstarryPosted on11:56 pm - Nov 7, 2013


A fortnight ago in Glasgow we witnessed Ajax fans ripping out seats and hurling them and other objects onto the trackside at Celtic Park. The whole situation was verging on a riot. It is IMO without doubt a credit to Police Scotland and the Stewards who handled it very well. The Dutch fans came with a reputation for violence as witnessed in the AC Milan match. The Police managed to defuse a potentially serious incident with minimal arrests made.
Credit where and when it is due. I understand some supporters grievances with Police activities in recent times. Some of this criticism is justified. These guys on crowd and Public order duty act on instructions. On this ocassion they got it right.
Contrast this with the police tactics employed in Amsterdam. The film of the young guy being beaten up by what is plain clothes Dutch policemen is sickening and degrading. And I can confidently say these guys were Plain clothes Police because uniformed Police and stewards are standing by watching. If the victim of this assault has done something to merit arrest, then arrest him. Beating up young men in the street is summary justice, unacceptable in a Modern society. If for instance that unfortunate young guy had been a Muslim beaten by the Police, then Amsterdam would be a dangerous place tonight. But he is only a football fan from another Country, so in their eyes it is acceptable.
Something about this whole episode stinks. The violence in Glasgow, the banner in Amsterdam, the crowd trouble involving both sets of supporters. Unsavoury and unwelcome.
Nobody wins. The supporters lose part of their reputation. They in some cases lose their liberty, their cash, and their blood. The Dutch Police have also damaged their reputation, if they had one to begin with.

View Comment

john clarkePosted on1:06 am - Nov 8, 2013


auchinstarry says: (100)
November 7, 2013 at 11:56 pm
‘..Contrast this with the police tactics employed in Amsterdam.’
————
You can forget Van der Valk! ( ‘Eye Level’ was a great wee tune, though!)

But reflect on how perverted Amsterdam is.

Not surprising that their police officers are perverted thugs as well. And stupid. Plain clothes, and trying to arrest people?

I’m an auld man, but I would have attempted to deck any aggressive feckin dutchman who tried to armlock me in the street.

And not feel any need to apologise.

( Eh, Amsterdam is in Holland, isn’t it?)

View Comment

WhulliePosted on2:22 am - Nov 8, 2013


http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/scotland/scotfoot/scotfoot_20131107-1810a.mp3

Well aware that this has been mentioned but no link posted although I am still catching up so one may have been posted in the interim.

I have found and listened to Radio Scotland’s podcast from last night and found Keith Jackson’s input to be fair, impartial and reasonable. Until……….the 28th minute where he does actually draw direct comparisons betweens events in Manchester and Amsterdam.

I am paraphrasing here but he talks of it “almost being as easy to get to Amsterdam for Celtic fans as it was for Rangers fans to get to Manchester, and we saw what went on down there. Rangers are still recovering from it. Similar scenes. Shameful scenes. Appalling scenes…………and this, this is up there. From the video clips we’ve seen, Police being attacked, in much the same way as officers were attacked in Manchester. Appalling scenes.”

Make of it what you will.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/scotfoot

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on6:58 am - Nov 8, 2013


A year ago I would have been going nuts at Keith Jackson for comparing the two events – however we all know that he is marching to a different drummer – the guy with the drumsticks is Jack Irvine and his crew.

We all suspected before our paranoia was questionable – now we know we were not paranoid enough.

I will repeat a little story I told first on RTC for those not familiar with my personal Manchester story.

Majority of my family supported RFC-NIL and so most of the males all went down to Manchester – one of my nephews was on parole at the time and was heavily warned by my brother in law to stay out of trouble. At 2pm (5 hours before the TV broke down) he and his pals became aware that the situation was getting downright hostile and left to drive back to Carlisle to watch it there in a pub rather than stay in Manchester. He told stories of robbing, shoplifting and fighting going on that was widespread enough in Manchester for a young man in his mid 20s – who had already been on the other side of the law enough times to be street wise – to get scared since he knew what was coming.

It means that the lie spread by SMSM that the TV break down was the catalyst – and by inference the English organisers fault is rubbish.

My other relatives never saw the game – none of them had tickets – all of them came home shaken with horrific stories. None of them saw Chelsea fans either.

Keith and his pals made sure nothing was ever printed that Jack had not approved – we know that – so the coverage was limited for sure!

FYI – when Ajax played Manchester City last year there were more arrests than the other day. Hmmm!

However Keith can deflect all he wants – and others can too – we al know the agenda with the current regime at Media House. The games a bogey – thanks to Charlotte for confirming our suspicions, we know the routine. It won’t work anymore – but won’t stop them trying I suppose!

The quicker we all get rid of all of this baggage from the past – whether at the DR, BBC the SFA or SPFL offices – the quicker we can all move on.

Apologies to Slimshady and Redlichtie but I will steal their phrases for now……

54 attempts to deflect – 0 will work

Scotland needs a good spring cleaning!

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on7:17 am - Nov 8, 2013


Exiled Celt says: (770)
November 8, 2013 at 6:58 am
##########
Jack’s been very busy deflecting from the car crash at Govan. He’s tried to push the comparison via his stooges (paid and unpaid). His biggest problem is social media. He’s so far off the pace, he should get some PR advice.

View Comment

yakutsukiPosted on7:21 am - Nov 8, 2013


Angus1983 says: (1222)
November 7, 2013 at 10:13 pm
————————————————————————————————————————————————-
So Angus, you’re an Aberdeen fan that thinks every time you attack Celtic, their fans or both, you give a sense of equilibrium to the blog. Right? How very noble of you to police the blog like that, and of course, it’s nothing personal at all. Oh no, no way, cos you’re too old (mature) for that. All in the name of fair play, eh?

Maybe the mods should limit the amount of Celtic fans posting here. Would you feel better then?

View Comment

yakutsukiPosted on7:37 am - Nov 8, 2013


auchinstarry says: (100)
November 7, 2013 at 11:56 pm
——————————————————————————
Amsterdam police have done similar for years now. I witnessed a group of fans having a wee kickabout a few years ago, cue baton charge! OTT doesn’t begin to describe it.

I witnessed Ajax fans run onto the track and throw stone after stone at us in ’82. The cops? They laughed.

If someone is beating me up with sticks/stones, I’m not going to just stand there and shout “Queensbury rules chaps!” I would use whatever I could to defend myself if I couldn’t get out of the situation.

A wee reality check needed re this weeks events and the police action/inaction.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:42 am - Nov 8, 2013


Angus1983 says: (1222)
November 7, 2013 at 10:13 pm
I don’t particularly like Celtic, right enough – because they’re not my team and the whole OF favoritism thing got on my goat (sheep?)
===================================
I get amazed at the way fans of provincial clubs see everything in such a black and white manner. As a Celtic fan I find it laughable that my club is perceived to be benefiting from favoritism. From the SFA? I’d say no club in history has been as selectively badly treated by the SFA as Celtic have been over the years. From the media? Don’t make me laugh. Since the dawn of the Murray era at Ibrox some of the media have been complicit in some of the most blatant anti-Celtic agenda’s imaginable. Thanks to the wonders of the Internet we have also seen how agencies working against Celtic actively work with the media to try and get the club negative coverage.

Your club may be receiving no favoritism, but it is not suffering from any deliberate agenda’s either.

View Comment

Tic 6709Posted on8:05 am - Nov 8, 2013


Angus has had quite a bit of stick lately.
Deserved, no. I like many others on here have seen many posts that have a dig at Celtic.
He does it to wind people up,so what ?
He has every right to comment on here,he has also posted some very insightful observations on the game we all love,followed by a wee dig, again so what ?.
We give plenty out , and I think we should also be big enough to take it.

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on8:07 am - Nov 8, 2013


Well said Tic 6709 🙂

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:22 am - Nov 8, 2013


Tic 6709 says: (531)
November 8, 2013 at 8:05 am
==============================
Yes, everyone should be able to take stick, but if Angus wants to dish it out he must first be sure of his facts. Two weeks ago he persisted with a spurious story that Charlie Mulgrew had not been booked for a goal celebration v Aberdeen when a Dons player had in the same game. It was a nonsense started by Craig Brown who should have known better, and the SFA confirmed in response to media calls that Mulgrew was booked. I witnessed the booking taking place so it was no surprise to me.

View Comment

TSFMPosted on8:50 am - Nov 8, 2013


Tic 6709 says: (531)
November 8, 2013 at 8:05 am

Angus has had quite a bit of stick lately.
Deserved, no. I like many others on here have seen many posts that have a dig at Celtic.
He does it to wind people up,so what ?
_________________________________________________________________

Because this isn’t the place to be winding people up. Quite the opposite, and it worries me that you think its okay to do so.
I agree that people should be a little less sensitive than they are sometimes – particularly some of the Celtic fans on here, but someone who is deliberately winding others up is, well , trolling.

From a personal point of view as a mod, there is a whole lot more work involved if people decide to indulge themselves in that way. I’d rather not be bogged down in that.

Can I ask that any further discussion on this matter takes place on the comment moderation thread.

View Comment

beatipacificiscotiaPosted on8:50 am - Nov 8, 2013


Tic 6709 says: (531)
November 8, 2013 at 8:05 am

I think there generally mixed feelings of dread and anticipation, with a sprinkling of frustration, that has led to this site to be more like “gossip at the Steamie” than a place for Insight and Analysis. There is far too much “he said, she said” and bickering for my liking. All the attention on Greenock Jack has been sad, pointless. Some of the regular posters on here are getting a bit over-sensitive. I think everyone needs to take a breath and calm down.

View Comment

FinlochPosted on9:47 am - Nov 8, 2013


A sequence of Five Friday questions about the links Mr Somers has with our colourful crew of asset strippers.
The answers will cut through the usual nonsense in the press briefings and maybe even give the MSM and the blue club fans an insight ahead of the first December date when the magical midas like transformation of penny shares will occur.

Who appointed Somers to his current Chairman role?
Who of the colourful players in this tale has he been linked to historically and where?
Who is he linked to now and where and how?
Who is he now actually working “for” and I don’t mean the PLC?
What is his real mandate when he is not interviewing CEO candidates?

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on9:49 am - Nov 8, 2013


Daily Record doing the 6 degrees of separation thing. Maybe not as many as 6.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/revealed-new-ibrox-chairman-business-2689081

RANGERS’ new chairman has business links to controversial former Ibrox figures Craig Whyte and Charles Green.

Millionaire fund manager David Somers, 65, was unveiled as the new man at the club’s helm yesterday, and announced his intention to take Rangers “back to the very top of Scottish football where they belong”.

Rangers released a statement praising his “considerable experience in matters of corporate governance” and claimed he would “provide stability” while building a “unified” board.

Today we can reveal Somers is connected through a network of firms to the men who brought the club to its knees last year.

As well as his new role at Ibrox, the businessman is a director of London finance firm AllenbridgeEpic Investment Advisers Limited.

In 2011, AllenbridgeEpic sold their retail division, Allenbridge Group, to London finance giant Close Brothers. Last year, Craig Whyte sold £2million of future earnings from matchday catering at Ibrox to Close Brothers to pay for the lease of kitchen equipment.

There is another link between the finance firm and Whyte.

One of the board members of Close Brothers is Ray Greenshields, who is also chairman of Octopus VCT3, who own Ticketus.

Whyte funded his takeover of Rangers by selling off future season tickets to Ticketus.

Last year, Allenbridge Group confirmed that they had invested some of their clients’ money in Octopus, a move that left wealthy investors exposed to the Ticketus debacle.

Green meanwhile struck a £30million “tax efficient ­investment” deal in 2000 with Close Brothers through his own financial services company, Kingsbridge Holdings.

Married dad of three Somers lives in a £1.3million farmhouse in East Sussex with wife Carol.

Yesterday he released a statement on the Rangers website stating: “It is a huge honour and ­privilege to be appointed acting chairman and non-executive director of Rangers Football Club.

“I know from my visits to Ibrox Stadium – including a number of Champions League games I attended in the past – that the club has a tremendous fan base.

“Ally McCoist has the players performing well on the pitch so my task now is to strengthen the board to the level that Rangers Football Club deserves.

“This 141-year-old institution is on the road to recovery and I will do everything in my power to help take this great club back to the very top of Scottish football where it belongs.

“Ally McCoist and his squad have enjoyed a positive start to the season and we are in a terrific position at the top of the league.

“I appreciate some supporters have been unhappy with events at the club in recent weeks and months.

“However, I have taken the position of acting chairman and non-executive director as I believe this club has a bright future and we can achieve great things if we all work together for the good of Rangers.

“It should not be about individuals, it is the club that is important and I hope everyone with Rangers’ best interests at heart can work together in order to take us forward.”

Rangers announced yesterday that their long awaited annual general meeting (AGM) will take place on December 19.

The club reported a £14million operating loss for the 13 months to June.

They were due to hold their AGM last month but it was delayed after a group of shareholders seeking boardroom changes were granted an interim interdict at the Court of Session.

That group want former chairman Malcolm Murray as well as Paul Murray, Scott Murdoch and Alex Wilson appointed as directors – proposals that must be on the AGM agenda following the court decision.

View Comment

jockybhoyPosted on10:22 am - Nov 8, 2013


As Celtic fan (apologies Angus :mrgreen: ) it is clear that Dutch hoolies were co-ordinated and looking for trouble, as they appear to have been for most teams visits to Amsterdam (Man City for example). There were also obviously Ajax fans in the stadium with an animosity to Celtic (those banners don’t pop up out of nowhere) and it will be interesting to see what, if anything, UEFA does about that.

Apparently in Glasgow Celtic fans got ahold of an Ajax banner (how? I don’t know, but it seems unlikely it was left on a bus) and flew it upside down in the stadium which it has been implied that may have kicked off the unruly scenes at Celtic Park. It seems Ajax fans were intent on recriprocating.

The idea of a snatch squad of plain clothes police hoiking out a fan or two out of a bigger group with impunity seems to be unlikely – as far as the fans are concerned they could be hoolies taking him down a back alley to the kicking of his life, so in those circumstances I would expect any fans to protect themsleves and their mate/s.

However.

There are no excuses for throwing missiles at police or at trams full of Dutch citizens going about their business. And I agree that that those scenes, the distress caused and the damage left behind are a disgrace and I am embarassed that that gets associated with my country and my club. When I went to see Celtic play in Milan in the last 16 under WGS there was mess and a lot of drunkenness, but good natured singing and everyone hung out in front of the Duomo and in that massive posh arcade (it was raining hard). That was well received by the Milanese (one of ther fans, an old boy with his daughter, swapped scarves with me at the event. I still have it.

I was when I was in business in Paris the night before Scotland played (and won) a tremendous game against France. I have no idea how many fans were outside the Auld Alliance pub that night, probably thousand+, but I had a great night drinking with most of them. I did take exception to a blow up “hand” with FTP written on it, but also I was embarassed that “Tartan Army” crushed some poor b~gger’s car by simply walking over the top of it countless times. By the time I went back to my hotel the roof of the car was flat to the doors. Seriously, who thinks that kind of behaviour is acceptable?

Whenever fans of any team, of any sport, travel they should remember they are guests in that other city or country and ambassadors for our own. I know it’s a) obvious and b) unlikely but hey, that’s the way some of us were brought up.

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on10:24 am - Nov 8, 2013


Can any one provide the average duration for each chairman they have had over the last year and a bit?

Just need to know so I don’t forget to say cheerio before he goes!

This is beyond farcical.

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on11:07 am - Nov 8, 2013


Condemnation of hooligan behaviour and biased media reporting is not mutually exclusive – it is possible to do both without contradiction.

After events in Glasgow when Ajax visited a couple of weeks ago, it was as predictable as rain in November that there would be some trouble in the return leg, simply because significant factions of Ajax fans were hell bent on ensuring this.

What I find odd – or I would find odd if I did not know that the Scottish media is hopelessly biased – is that there was no mention of this in the media prior to the game, no comment on the likelihood that these headbangers would be rallying themselves for the return visit.

In a previous post I referred to the trouble that occurred in the Rangers-Feyenoord UEFA tie back in 2002. In the aftermath the Scottish media was full of lurid reports as to how there was a gang of neo nazi mental cases waiting on the Rangers supporters brave enough to venture over for the return leg. Perhaps these reports were justified, if a touch hyperbolic, and motivated by a desire to exonerate Rangers fans in advance for any violence occurring.

But to my mind, the lack of any media commentary as to the seeming inevitability of outbreaks of violence in Amsterdam speaks volumes, as it would point to the root cause of it and there is a desire for contamination. It also seems odd that the Scottish media would not seek to protect the good reputation of Scottish fans abroad.

I have now gone completely off the radar paranoid, but give what we have seen of Jack’s MO –(dirt about our rivals, use of freelance photographers to harass sheriff officers – I would honestly not be surprised if these “plain clothes police officers” could be linked back to him.

How much would it cost to bung a few agent provocateur ICF casuals? There just seems to be no lengths they will not go to, or depths they will not sink to

View Comment

Galling fiverPosted on11:34 am - Nov 8, 2013


Travelling to Euro games without a ticket should be stopped, its been a growing trend for some time and a disgrace/incident waiting to happen. There is no need , Amsterdam is there all year round, I’ve checked. Stay at home and give your local supporters club a visit, I know it would be welcomed.

I also think it is unfair to criticise foreign policing methods on anything other than their handling of the game itself. Dutch polis know their fans are trouble so they followed them to Glasgow and worked with our polis to try and combat the premeditated hooligan element, which is part of the chess game for these chaps. But police in Amsterdam couldn’t just concentrate on the well being of Celtic fans attending the match, which I am sure they are better at than our own mob, they also had to cope with almost 10,000? other punters, with no ticket, mostly visiting areas of the city which requires strict policing at the best of times. That distraction will not end well for someone following the club solely to attend the match, which should be the overwhelming majority of travellers, not minority.

Billy Connolly once commented on his discomfort at being represented by “singing shortbread tin” type overly Scottish people, I’ve felt like that about football fan invasions for quite some time now.

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on11:48 am - Nov 8, 2013


Tif…

On the 6 degrees of . . . ”theme”

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/in-footballs-six-degrees-of-kevin-bacon-how-close-is-charles-green-to-craig-whyte-an-earley-answer/

(Maybe he’s been chosen as he doesn’t live in Scotland/Glasgow
Andi it’s his chance to give his pension one final top-up, before retiring to a nice chateau and vineyard)

View Comment

Reilly1926Posted on12:05 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Galling fiver says: (8)

November 8, 2013 at 11:34 am

Celtic fans have been travelling en masse with ticket or no ticket since Lisbon and probably before that and you want them stopped because of one trip to Amsterdam where the local “polis” kicked some of our fans stupid.

While the sight of Celtic Fans hurling bottles at a train/tram didn’t exactly fill me with pride the videos of a plain clothed policeman repeatedly kneeing a Celtic Fan whilst his colleagues held him will live me for many a long year. I hope this thug not only loses his job but is also brought before a Dutch court of law.

As for being embarrassed by ours and other team travelling support. I totally disagree. One of my proudest moments following my Team was to see 80,000 Celtic Fans (The vast majority without a ticket) soaking up the atmosphere in Seville. It was a joy to behold.

I think if there was an independent inquest into what happened in Amsterdam the local police would come out of it looking rather poorly.

View Comment

GeronimosCadillacPosted on12:25 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Re the Amsterdam stramash.

1. The use of plain clothes police as snatch squads in a public order situation is inflammatory.

2. Any football fan attacked for no reason is entitled to defend themself either from other fans or the police. The police are assumed to have the monopoly on violence in these situations but if they exercise their power illegally then the must face the consequences of their actions. It is not acceptable to bottle innocent Dutch people in trams.

3. I have spoken to someone who was in the square who insists there were Feynoord and other fans present. No other mention has been made of that on here. The person I spoke to has no reason to lie.

4. Ajax clearly have a big hooligan problem and UEFA should ban their fans from travelling in Europe.

View Comment

Mr AndersonPosted on12:35 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Ajax were fined 10,000 euros for a banner “Against modern football” during their match against Man City:

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/jan/18/uefa-fines-ajax-banners

I wonder how much their fine will be for the most recent banner?

View Comment

jockybhoyPosted on12:45 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Interesting pic Mr Anderson – and I hope my post remembering the good atmosphere in Milan underlines the point made by Reilly1926 – Celtic fans have been travelling en masse for decades with no bother, it seems most times foreign teams play Ajax, it kicks off. Hmmmm.

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on12:49 pm - Nov 8, 2013


jimlarkin says: (60)
November 8, 2013 at 11:48 am
Tif…

On the 6 degrees of . . . ”theme”

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/in-footballs-six-degrees-of-kevin-bacon-how-close-is-charles-green-to-craig-whyte-an-earley-answer/

(Maybe he’s been chosen as he doesn’t live in Scotland/Glasgow
Andi it’s his chance to give his pension one final top-up, before retiring to a nice chateau and vineyard)
………………………….
That’s ok…I am a 2 minute drive from East Sussex…you never know I might just bump into the fellow!

View Comment

bluPosted on1:04 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Mr Anderson says: (6)
November 8, 2013 at 12:35 pm
jockybhoy says: (249)
November 8, 2013 at 12:45 pm
========================================================
The banner referred to in the Guardian article of January this year was no more offensive (although less clever) than the four horsemen banners displayed at Celtic Park. One focused on real life trillionaires corrupting football world-wide through chucking massive amounts of money at playthings, the other laughing at a rival’s demise following that club’s stewardship by mere billionaires.

View Comment

arabest1Posted on1:16 pm - Nov 8, 2013


upthehoops says: (628)
November 8, 2013 at 7:42 am
53 30 Rate This

Angus1983 says: (1222)
November 7, 2013 at 10:13 pm
I don’t particularly like Celtic, right enough – because they’re not my team and the whole OF favoritism thing got on my goat (sheep?)
===================================
I get amazed at the way fans of provincial clubs see everything in such a black and white manner. As a Celtic fan I find it laughable that my club is perceived to be benefiting from favoritism. From the SFA? I’d say no club in history has been as selectively badly treated by the SFA as Celtic have been over the years. From the media? Don’t make me laugh. Since the dawn of the Murray era at Ibrox some of the media have been complicit in some of the most blatant anti-Celtic agenda’s imaginable. Thanks to the wonders of the Internet we have also seen how agencies working against Celtic actively work with the media to try and get the club negative coverage.

Your club may be receiving no favoritism, but it is not suffering from any deliberate agenda’s either

—————————————————————–

Celtic’s power and influence in Scottish Football is beyond reasonable argument, but as always power and influence will attempt to mask itself. For the rest of us listening to Celtic fans complain about bias from all quarters, without at least acknowleging the position of privilage they occupy is much like reading a thread on Rangers Media about how everyone is out to get them. I distinctly remember Billy McNeil recalling how he grew up believing everyone was out to get Celtic, until………he managed Aberdeen and began to understand just what everyone else was up against. Alex Ferguson once remarked to get a draw in Glasgow his team need to win 2-0.

TFSM preventing this forum from descending into a place where Celtic fans believe their own (hugely sucessful) siege mentality propaganda in a whirlwind of mutual reassurance should not be equated with trolling. As you frequently point out there are no shortage of other forums for that particular dynamic.

Let the thumbs down commence!

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on1:22 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Tif Finn says: (715)
November 7, 2013 at 9:57 pm
fergussingstheblues says:
=====================================
Just how many shares are the Easdales or their backers going to buy prior to the AGM.
As you say, if the people who got the shares for 1p sell them for 2p then they have doubled their money.
Let’s make it 10p, just for the sake or argument. They have multiplied their money ten times (check that for me please Gav).
It would also make the equivalent market capitalization roughly £6.5m (if all of the shares were 10p). So at that price, if the Easdales wanted to control 52% of the business they would need another 20%. At 10p that would mean one fifth of £6.5m, or around £1.3m.
At those prices, getting control of Rangers would not be that expensive. Particularly considering the alleged value of the assets the business holds. There has to be a distinct possibility that the control of Rangers will have changed substantially prior to the AGM taking place.
=================================================================

I think we may have it. …

Just before the AGM and announced at that same meeting the Easdales, for a relatively small outlay, will acquire a controlling interest in RIFC with the various spivs getting a pay-off for passing over their shares. Not full ‘market value’ but a big uplift on their investment. All legal and above board.

They can even make the same offer to other ‘institutional’ and fan shareholders but many/most will decline due to the likely huge loss that would be crystallised. Fans would probably want to stay onboard with ‘Rangers’ anyway.

The Easdales, and the rump of shareholders, will then or very shortly thereafter effectively own a property company with a couple of assets in Ibrokes, the Albion car park and MP – and a loss making subsidiary in TRFC.

The spivs are gone, they will cry, and as good Rangers men they will offer TRFC to other good Rangers men to ‘save’ for a token sum and a continued lease of Ibrokes and the car park. MP will be sold off.

CW, CG et al may have harboured some fears over the reaction to doing this but I suspect that the Easdales are made of sterner stuff.

They may even retain a small holding in TRFC so that they can be part of the great future for the club and bask in the esteem with which good Rangers men are held.

Scottish Football needs BDO to step up to the plate before this gets too far along the line to unwind.

View Comment

Galling fiverPosted on1:25 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Couldn’t disagree with any of that Reilly.

If we get a Turkish mob next year should 4:1 ratio of ticketless fans turn up there?

Seville was one of those moments, because it was just that, a magical moment. Like Lisbon. Everyone turning up made it so.

Its becoming the done thing. IMO its getting excessive in nature and in danger of backfiring if not reigned in. Its a matter of time till the fans become sitting ducks in some of the more hostile cities.

View Comment

BigGavPosted on1:54 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Over the last 9 years, I have watched Celtic in Barcelona, Villarreal (twice) and Lisbon, and never saw even a hint of violence, so the Amsterdam incidents are clearly an exception.

When Celtic played Villarreal in 2004, the home fans turned and applauded the Celtic fans after the match, and there has been a bond of friendship ever since, with Villarreal even having a supporters club named after Celtic.
(If you ever watch a Villarreal home match on TV, you will normally see a big Celtic banner behind one of the goals.)

When Celtic visited the town again in 2008, many Villarreal fans wore both sets of colours, and before the match both sets of fans mingled and marched to the stadium behind a brass band, under a banner “90 minutes of rivalry, a lifetime of friendship”.

Compare and contrast with fans of another Glasgow team, who sang sectarian songs and attacked the Villarreal team bus when they were there.

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on1:57 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Brenda – need a favour – need to borrow the clock/calendar

Still waiting for Greenock Jack’s post of his opinion regarding the new chairman David Somer’s appointment………….unless he has been banned sine die on request by himself as per TSFM’s post!

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on2:10 pm - Nov 8, 2013


arabest1 says: (400)
November 8, 2013 at 1:16 pm
==========================
I am willing to be persuaded, so let me know what clubs in Scotland in addition to Celtic have had the following happen to them:

1. Threatened with complete ground closure on the basis the SFA didn’t like a flag flown at the ground.
2. The SFA twice clearing their Chief Executive of deliberately failing to register a player, with an independent hearing establishing that is exactly what indeed happened.
3. A Referee lying to their Manager, with the Head of Refereeing continuing the lie live on Radio the next day, despite already knowing it is a lie.
4. Re point 3, despite the Referee admitting the lie, no punishment is applied to the Referee by the SFA
5. Having to get a QC involved as the SFA are trying to punish their Manager outwith their own procedures
6. Having their Manager banned for four games, while three other perpetrators from the opposing club in the same game walk laughing from Hampden with virtually no punishment at all

I could write more, but the above are 6 factual events. Over to you now to tell me all the similar instances applied by the SFA to other clubs.

View Comment

BrendaPosted on2:12 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Exiled Celt @ 1.57 pm

Anything to help 😆 can we even begin to imagine that the penny is starting to drop even with GJ???? After all the ‘new guy’ at the ‘new co’ has (allegedly) some historical links with ‘you know who’ and his ‘pal’ 😉 oh dear 😆

View Comment

ZilchPosted on2:20 pm - Nov 8, 2013


blu says: (423)
November 8, 2013 at 1:04 pm

The banner referred to in the Guardian article of January this year was no more offensive (although less clever) than the four horsemen banners displayed at Celtic Park. One focused on real life trillionaires corrupting football world-wide through chucking massive amounts of money at playthings, the other laughing at a rival’s demise following that club’s stewardship by mere billionaires.
——————————————————————————————————————————————–

I think I disagree Blu.

The Ajax banner in January shows a racist stereotype of a rich Arab Sheik. I think this is more likely to have provoked UEFA’s ire than the words below it. I could be wrong though – UEFA are weird and inconsistent on so many things.

The Ajax Banner this week was a crude dig at perceived Irish heritage at Celtic. The first word on this banner is used in a racist and derogatary sense against a section of the community here and elsewhere. Don’t really want to delve too deeply into this as we rapidly go off topic, but I think you get the picture.

The 4 horseman banners were topical and showed Neil Lennon, Hector, Death and CW as the 4 harbingers of doom. Not racist. Not sectarian.

I think there is a fundamental difference.

View Comment

Blindsummit63Posted on2:20 pm - Nov 8, 2013


My apologies to the many great Celtic supporters on here who I have the greatest respect for, but you will never convince me and other “diddy” team supporters that Celtic are victims, with the rest of us as somehow beneficiaries. This will very easily turn into a tit for tat listing of whataboutery that will totally derail this forum.

I think the more relevant topic, and one that should occupy us, is the total random inconsistency and incompetence of the SFA and their “compliance” people.

If rules and standards were consistently and fairly applied then we wouldn’t even be needing to have such a conversation. So let’s keep up the pressure where it belongs. On our compromised and hopeless governing authorities, rather than tearing each other apart.

View Comment

ZilchPosted on2:27 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Double post – sorry!

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on2:28 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Agree Blindsummit63 – the fact that we all can name many incidents where the SFA or SPFL have failed to provide the obligatory justice as being seen to be done means that they are not fit for office. End of story!

This blog is about shaming them and their media lapdogs – once we get that sorted we can get back to discussing what we should be discussing – football!

View Comment

bluPosted on2:53 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Zilch says: (101)
November 8, 2013 at 2:20 pm
==============================
Zilch, thanks for your response – as courteous and direct as ever. I see what you mean on the banner directed at Man City’s owners but there were others aimed at Chelsea and the Red Bull clubs and the Man City owner is Arabic. The link to the Guardian was presumably to point to another example of Ajax fans behaving badly (apologies to Mr Anderson November 8, 2013 at 12:35 pm if it wasn’t) but my interpretation of the banner after reading the whole article was that it was a wider swipe from fans of a smaller club, in a smaller league at the mega clubs. Given that discussion has been about the events surrounding Wednesday, it was a mistake on my part to not mention the Fenian one at the Amsterdam Arena – it was sectarian, although I’d wonder whether the people holding it up were intending to do more than wind up the Celtic fans. Anyway, the UEFA Lunny should be on to it either way. You’ve had my comment on the Four Horsemen one.

View Comment

ZilchPosted on3:08 pm - Nov 8, 2013


blu says: (425)
November 8, 2013 at 2:53 pm
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Hopefully not too direct. I know I am guilty of that sometimes.

I think it is OK to have a go at other fans, within reason. The rivalry is part of the entertainment for many – I suppose purists only want to see the football.

I remember the England fans unfurling a large Rangers banner when they came to Hampden one time – it was a well-crafted wind up.

I don’t have any objection to banners berating the state of football financing in the modern game – I believe it is killing the sport in many ways.

But there are lines that should not be strayed over and penalties to be paid when it happens. The Celtic banner criticising UEFA was not only over one of those lines it was just stupid and crude. I’m sure the guys running the club must tear their hair out when they see fans behaving like that.

View Comment

jockybhoyPosted on3:22 pm - Nov 8, 2013


blu says:

it was sectarian, although I’d wonder whether the people holding it up were intending to do more than wind up the Celtic fans

What is a sectarian banner at a football ground if NOT to wind up the opposition fans. Ditto certain songs.

Clearly given the shared heritage between OldGers and Holland (De Boer, Ricksen, Advocaat et al, goodness even the officially sanctioned “orange” shirts) fans in the Netherlands are more than aware of the implications of such a banner. It was what it was.

As for the “sheikh” banner – if thay had made reference to Qatar, if they had made reference to ownership, perhaps there’s a defence, but no, as zilch says a cartoon “stereotype” of a rich “arab”/muslim? was flown. Remember the Netherlands ain’t all chilled dopeheads. From the Washington Post:

“Netherlands | Party for Freedom
Geert Wilders, the towheaded founder of the Netherlands’ Party for Freedom, has called for a ban on the Koran — which he likens to “Mein Kampf” — the burka and Halal food….The foundation of the West is under attack everywhere.”

View Comment

bluPosted on3:22 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Zilch says: (102)
November 8, 2013 at 3:08 pm
The Celtic banner criticising UEFA was not only over one of those lines it was just stupid and crude. I’m sure the guys running the club must tear their hair out when they see fans behaving like that.
==============================================================================
There’s no doubt that Peter Lawwell and John Reid were unhappy at the sight of that banner. I’m not keen on the element of politics/football mix at any of Ibrox, Celtic Park or the Nou Camp but even if the Green Brigade banner had read, “UEFA is corrupt” Celtic would have still been fined for it. Membership of that organisation comes at a price and not challenging the natural order is part of that price.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on3:25 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Blindsummit63 says: (67)
November 8, 2013 at 2:20 pm

My apologies to the many great Celtic supporters on here who I have the greatest respect for, but you will never convince me and other “diddy” team supporters that Celtic are victims, with the rest of us as somehow beneficiaries.

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

Who actually said that.

My opinion is that for years one club was the beneficiary, and everyone else (including Celtic) were victims of that favouritism.

I have never thought, or hopefully given the impression that any other club benefited from favouritism, to Celtic’s (or anyone else’s) detriment.

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on3:27 pm - Nov 8, 2013


My post above summed up what I thought this blog was about….

This blog is about shaming them and their media lapdogs – once we get that sorted we can get back to discussing what we should be discussing – football!

Seems I am wrong – it is about reporting posts to the moderator to get them banned or taken off

Been a contributor for a long time – since RTC and since inception of TSFM.

Going to take some time away now since I am unsure if I want to continue on a blog where I thought debate was allowed with no hidden agendas or back room shenanigans going on to mute peoples voices. As long as their posts were reasonable I thought we had the freedom to speak as we thought and if other thought otherwise, they were more than free to counter with different viewpoints – not just report them to the moderators!

Apologies – but ticked off by this juvenile behavior!

View Comment

Mr AndersonPosted on3:31 pm - Nov 8, 2013


@blu

Yes my intent was to highlight Ajax’s previous on the banner front, I happen to think the F** B*** is far more worthy of heavy punishment.

Additionally, I found it strange that in STV’s reporting they stated that the banner was not part of the match report and therefore UEFA wont be taking action:
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/celtic/247586-uefa-say-no-reports-of-offensive-incidents-during-ajax-v-celtic-match/
Also as some form of perverse balance they seemed to offer up the nugget that they wouldn’t be taking action against the “sectarian chanting” aimed at Frank de Boer. I may be wrong and fans at the match can correct me, but I understood the chant relating to Mr de Boer suggested that one brother missed a penalty and the other was – well rhymes with frank.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on3:35 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Zilch says: (102)

November 8, 2013 at 2:20 pm

If my memory serves me right UEFA are going to have to be consistent on their approach to the use of the word “Fenian”.

When an original complaint was made about the Billy Boys song because of the words “up to our knees in fenian blood” UEFA decided no action was necessary in April 2006.

http://www.uefa.org/disciplinary/news/newsid=413514.html

However there was a further review by UEFA as a result of an intervention by FARE and it was decided that “fenian” was synonymous with Catholic which made The Billy Boys song sectarian as it offered violence to a particular religion.

http://www.worldsoccer.com/news/rangers-face-new-sectarian-charge
and also
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/5064472.stm for a bit of background.

Thus, if UEFA are consistent the banner flaunts their rules on sectarian grounds.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on3:43 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Re my previous here is a bit more on FARE and Rangers response.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/13218273

View Comment

bluPosted on3:51 pm - Nov 8, 2013


jockybhoy says: (250)
November 8, 2013 at 3:22 pm
=====================================
Jocky, I’m happy to offer an opinion and it’s laid out above but I doubt we’ll get to a definitive answer on the motivations, sectarian or otherwise, of Wednesday’s banner holders or the one at the Man City game. The fact is we all saw a banner that had sectarian content. UEFA should deal with that. I’ll not respond to your reference to the far right in Holland.

It’s interesting how this discussion has progressed from the point of Angus’ little intervention. We’ve moved 180 degrees from the first response, maybe time to leave it?

View Comment

Carfins FinestPosted on4:08 pm - Nov 8, 2013


UEFA has opened disciplinary proceedings… http://fb.me/2vP870gOF

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on4:12 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Yeah, crikey. Wish I’d kept my mouth shut now! 🙂

Apologies to all for consequent temporary derailment.

This was an interesting piece on banners, which seems relevant to the current conversation:
http://www.scotzine.com/2012/09/zombie-banner-and-whataboutery-is-football-banter-no-more/

(That “no bloodstained poppies on our hoops” one did make me snigger a little, in a Viz sort of way.)

View Comment

TSFMPosted on5:13 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Posting this on the main blog since the original point was made here. As the mod on duty yesterday, I implied that Greenock Jack had asked to be banned and then shortly afterwards had come back on to have a go at Celtic fans in response to the original (and incorrect) reports concerning the violence in Amsterdam.

In fact, Jack’s request was several days old, and a victim of the mail problems we have had since the weekend. My sincere apologies to Jack for the misrepresentation of his position, and for the implication that he had been in cahoots with MH. I hope Jack will forgive my knee-jerk reaction and continue to favour us with his views and insight.

No such apologies to Keith Jackson, who I believe spoke to MH less than an hour before his appearance on SS on Thursday.

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on5:16 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Angus1983
Why the snide asides?

View Comment

neepheidPosted on5:22 pm - Nov 8, 2013


There have been some suggestions on here that someone might acquire a majority stake in RIFC “on the sly” before the AGM. That just cannot happen. Anyone wanting to hold more than 30% of the shares in RIFC would have to offer to buy the shares of each and every shareholder. In other words a formal takeover bid. Even apart from the cost of the shares, that would be expensive in terms of fees to the boys in the City, and it certainly wouldn’t be quick- think months, not weeks.

Personally, I see the AGM (if it takes place) as the end game for this chapter. How exactly it will end I don’t know, but this much is certain- the money has nearly run out.

View Comment

ZilchPosted on5:41 pm - Nov 8, 2013


blu says: (429)
November 8, 2013 at 3:22 pm

[partial edit – would like to focus on this point] but even if the Green Brigade banner had read, “UEFA is corrupt” Celtic would have still been fined for it. Membership of that organisation comes at a price and not challenging the natural order is part of that price.
———————————————————————————————————————————————
I think you might be right – and this is where I believe there is a right to free speech that UEFA have no moral right to inhibit. Question would be – could they enforce such a decision? I fear the answer is yes. Hope I am / we are wrong!

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on6:03 pm - Nov 8, 2013


If TRFC was unable to complete this season’s fixtures ?
—————————————————————————–

neepheid says: (895)
November 8, 2013 at 5:22 pm

Personally, I see the AGM (if it takes place) as the end game for this chapter. How exactly it will end I don’t know, but this much is certain- the money has nearly run out.
============================
I will also be surprised if the AGM actually happens.

And whilst we have speculated on the dwindling cash reserves – and taking into account the TRFC self-declared ‘April’ critical point – what would happen if TRFC was simply unable to fulfill its fixtures for this season ?

IMO, there seems to be an assumption that if there is indeed an insolvency event at TRFC, then the club will see out its fixtures until April / May (?).

From the accounts we are led to believe that there is GBP2.5M [?] available credit to TRFC, [from whom we don’t know]. If the AGM does happen and there is a regime change, then potentially there ‘could’ be new investment in TRFC, [from whom we don’t know].

And even if the players deferred salaries, but there still wasn’t enough cash left to e.g. compete in the Scottish Cup Final on 17 May – would TRFC, [and its football license], become extinct in senior footballing terms ?

[I know, hypothetical question as I’m sure that ultimately the SFA would do whatever was necessary – for the ‘good of Scottish football’.]

View Comment

willmacufreePosted on6:12 pm - Nov 8, 2013


TSFM says: (549)
November 8, 2013 at 5:13 pm
Well done TSFM. It takes stature to admit to having got it wrong. If only more people would do it.

Heavens, I think you might owe another one to Angus! 😆

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on6:21 pm - Nov 8, 2013


neepheid says:

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

With the usual “I’m no expert” comments.

How difficult would it be for someone to have that rule waived.

And also, it’s not really important who owns the shares, what matter is who controls them.

The position with the Easdales is that they appear to control around 32% just now, if you include Green’s, which I believe he has promised to them.

How possible is it that they could control 51% by the AGM. For example if their backers bought more shares, which were then included in their proxies, which the Easdales already hold.

I think you said yourself 32% gives them effective control, 51% would mean they could just pick the board themselves.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on6:27 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Are people suggesting that blatant sectarianism is OK if it is “only football banter”

Really, is that like the argument in relation to things like “the famine song”.

“Just a bit of banter, a wind up between fans” so that’s OK and people shouldn’t be too sensitive.

View Comment

BrendaPosted on6:41 pm - Nov 8, 2013


No link but Delahunt on SSB just said the advert for CEO at sevco was in the herald TODAY 8/11/13 but the closing date was wednesday 6/11/13 ??????? kinda sums things up brilliantly 😆

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on6:41 pm - Nov 8, 2013


TSFM says: (549)
November 8, 2013 at 5:13 pm
24 0 Rate This

… No such apologies to Keith Jackson, who I believe spoke to MH less than an hour before his appearance on SS on Thursday.
———–

What is your belief based on? Gut instinct or concrete information? You’re being quoted on twitter, I’ve noticed.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on6:45 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Brenda says:

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

That’s interesting, I’m sure I heard the new Chairman say, on radio this morning, that they had already started interviewing top class candidates.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on7:12 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Tif Finn says: (719)
November 8, 2013 at 6:21 pm

Waiving this particular rule can’t be done, (its not an SFA Rule 😉 )

“When a person or group acquires interests in shares carrying 30% or more of the voting rights of a company, they must make a cash offer to all other shareholders at the highest price paid in the 12 months before the offer was announced (30% of the voting rights of a company is treated by the Code as the level at which effective control is obtained).”

http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/the-code/download-code

The rules around takeovers are very strict, and, they are strictly enforced. No get out of jail free cards for wearers of brogues here 😉

View Comment

spanishceltPosted on7:15 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Tif Finn says: (719)
November 8, 2013 at 6:21 pm
2 0 i
Rate This

neepheid says:

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

With the usual “I’m no expert” comments.

How difficult would it be for someone to have that rule waived.

And also, it’s not really important who owns the shares, what matter is who controls them.

The position with the Easdales is that they appear to control around 32% just now, if you include Green’s, which I believe he has promised to them.

How possible is it that they could control 51% by the AGM. For example if their backers bought more shares, which were then included in their proxies, which the Easdales already hold.

I think you said yourself 32% gives them effective control, 51% would mean they could just pick the board themselves.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I think it will be very intersting to find out which way Mr Mcoist votes.
Whichever lot he backs, if they lose the vote then the group he voted against (the winners) will find themselves with a manager who does not have trust in them or back them.
Surely that would make his position very uncertain, to say the least?

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on7:20 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Spanishcelt excellent point and one I have wondered about myself several times. I presume there is a secret ballot though, and if desired Mr McCoist could either not reveal which way he voted or simply lie about which way he voted to the eventual winners – can anyone confirm this?

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on7:23 pm - Nov 8, 2013


RyanGosling says: (83)
November 8, 2013 at 7:20 pm

As an employee, he could simply say that “it would be inappropriate for him to comment, must work with whoever is in charge” blah blah weasel weasel

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on7:28 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Its not really weasel weasel in that situation though is it. Imagine yourself in the same situation, you’re gonna have to carry on working with people and you have to try to make the best of the situation.

I personally think that regardless of performance (cards on the table I actually definitely want him to stay in the job) given the lack of trust in the board, new board old board whatever, any party in overall charge at Ibrox would think long and hard about removing Mr McCoist from his position due to the aforementioned lack of trust and the likely fan backlash.

View Comment

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on7:32 pm - Nov 8, 2013


spanishcelt says: (16)
November 8, 2013 at 7:15 pm
I think it will be very intersting to find out which way Mr Mcoist votes.
Whichever lot he backs, if they lose the vote then the group he voted against (the winners) will find themselves with a manager who absolutely changes his mind in a heartbeat if he’s offered shares/cash/improved contract.

Fixed that for you 😉

View Comment

SouthernExilePosted on7:34 pm - Nov 8, 2013


From the Daily Mash but worth reposting for the sarcasm on the state of journalism:

“BRITAIN is today mourning one of the tiny handful of people in the country who had genuine knowledge and insight about an actual thing.

The death of former BBC political editor John Cole means Britain is now just three or four deaths away from being utterly clueless about everything in the world.

Media analyst Julian Cook said: “Because of John Cole, the people who can remember the resignation of Margaret Thatcher are incredibly well informed about it.

“I think it’s because he got up in the morning, found out what was going on and then told people what he had found out.

“Apparently that’s what journalists used to do before they started hacking phones, making lists and having opinions that absolutely no-one asked for.”

A fine man, RIP.

View Comment

SmartbhoyPosted on7:34 pm - Nov 8, 2013


Just before I’m pounced upon, this is just something I read on twitter and I don’t know if there’s any substance to it. I also don’t know what hotel chain TRFC use.

Allegedly coming straight from a high up member of staff.

The Radisson in Glasgow have been told not to accept any bookings from TRFC from midnight tonight.

If it’s true, are there worries with the state of TRFC/RIFC finances and their ability to pay or could they be behind in payments to the above named hotel and they’re not willing to give them anymore credit?

View Comment

Comments are closed.