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!
easyJambo says: (567)
November 17, 2013 at 10:36 pm
………………..
Thanks for the link….indeed it is a clear no they are not the same…
chancer67 says: (94)
November 17, 2013 at 10:10 pm
Stuart Cosgrove has gone all neutral, hasn’t even been on here for a while. He hasn’t been very critical on OTB either lately. Stuart, are you under orders from above to keep quite, or at least not to rock the boat?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Chancer
May I respectfully disagree
SC has always spoke his mind on football issues whether they favoured or didn’t favour the late RFC the new TRFC or the ongoing CFC. (I don’t use the phrase Old Firm as it died last year)
The idea that he would accept some gag from above is most unlikely
Stuart
You have at least one supporter on here
Exiled Celt says: (795)
November 17, 2013 at 10:20 pm
“But what if the LBC was BEFORE the IPO…”
————————-
I think the defence might be that this initial LBC was not well received. A further version was forwarded later after a denial of the initial receipt was made. I thought I had a copy but need to check.
TSFM says: (553)
November 17, 2013 at 5:25 pm
On the BBC discussion embargo, I am assured (sources in Dundee) that the subject not to be discussed was Scott Gardner’s non-move to Ibrox.
———————————————————————————————————————————————–
Gardiner has been an interesting wee sub-plot. I’m sure one or two bampots would be interested in any developments on that front, TSFM, should they occur. 😀
I would like to make a few suggestions for this forum. I guess most will disagree, but differing views are what we should encourage, not suppress. Even if those differing views are unpopular.That is my own strongly held view. My suggestions are-
1) Get rid of TU/TD. It just discourages honest expression of views, and encourages conformity with groupthink.
2) Please start a specific thread for all posts on the club/company, newco/oldco issues that have completely taken over this forum since the CFC AGM. It is truly doing my head in, seeing the same arguments repeated ad infinitum, or so it seems.
3) Can we PLEASE all accept that people can have different views based on the same facts. There should be space on this forum for a variety of views. I do sense the onset of a worrying fundamentalism here, where certain views are not tolerated, and where certain views have become axioms. That is not healthy. In my opinion.
4) Give Ryan (and any others of his ilk who are not trolls) a break. We are judged by how we treat the stranger in our midst. I really do not like the way he has been treated here over the last few days. And I speak as one who really wants to see “Rangers” playing amateur football on Glasgow Green or Bellahouston (if football is still played in those venues).
And finally. This whole Bremnergate nonsense is just a huge squirrel, in my view, released from its cage by Lawell. Why? Why now? What are we not looking at that we should be looking at as a result? Those are the real questions for this forum right now. In my opinion.
This is the document that triggered my earlier thought. It is dated March 2013 but is actually the full legal opinion provided by Merchant Legal. I’m surmising that following receipt of this opinion a further LBC will have been issued on the back of it.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/142204728/Letter-on-Worthington-Claims-Final
I do have a recollection that there was a denial that the initial LBC had been received and this prompted another LBC to be issued earlier this year.
scapaflow says: (1113)
November 16, 2013 at 7:24 pm
scapaflow says: (1112)
November 16, 2013 at 7:14 pm
i suppose that would be one, slightly mean spirited, way of looking at it. Maybe if the minimum wage had been uprated, instead of being allowed to depreciate, then the campaign wouldn’t be necessary. IIRC in Celtic’s case the board were baulking at the additional £50k or so in revenue costs, which gets lost in the rounding errors when you consider what the talent on the park get paid……
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Indeed.
Among other things… 😎
Such a beautiful compact parenthetical remark from Bishopp.
Thanks to jim larkin at 3:53 🙂
For the avoidance of doubt, Worthington have claimed the following:
“We… would like to confirm that solicitors, acting for the Company and Law Financial, are in a position to provide compelling evidence that Messrs Green and Ahmad received a letter before claim in December 2012, having received previous correspondence, and chose to ignore it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/10016236/Charles-Green-reported-to-Serious-Fraud-Office-by-company-linked-with-Craig-Whyte.html
I have not been able to find any denial from Charles nor Ahmad – if anyone has this, please share……but I believe the defence was that Sevco5088 was not used by him and he gave it back to CW – he never said he knew nothing about not receiving the LBC – in fact IIR did he not claim blackmail by CW and was going to report that to the police – therefore we can assume he had the letter or threat to sue?
For further clarity, next item I found was due to the following reason….
It states: “In the light of recent public admissions by Mr Green, including his admission that he and Mr Ahmad deceived Mr Whyte, a fresh letter before claim is being prepared against The Rangers Football Club Ltd and Messrs Green and Ahmad.”
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Green's+Rangers+takeover+reported+to+Serious+Fraud+cops%3B+FRAUD+SQUAD…-a0327505462
Exiled Celt says: (797)
November 18, 2013 at 12:54 am
For further clarity, next item I found was due to the following reason….
It states: “In the light of recent public admissions by Mr Green, including his admission that he and Mr Ahmad deceived Mr Whyte, a fresh letter before claim is being prepared against The Rangers Football Club Ltd and Messrs Green and Ahmad.”
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Green's+Rangers+takeover+reported+to+Serious+Fraud+cops%3B+FRAUD+SQUAD…-a0327505462
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Gone already????
Fisiani says: (37)
November 16, 2013 at 11:29 pm
Every day the internet and the MSM take their eye off the ball with distractions the spivs siphon another 38,000 pounds a day. They do not have a credit facility and when the money runs out the spivs walk away and will then adding insult to injury and demand rent for the stadium from version 3.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They do have a line of credit as per the accounts (£1.5M?)- otherwise Deloitte would not have signed off the accounts on a going concern basis. Would they?
From Tuesday – 31st July 2012
Chris McLaughlin: Is it an old Rangers? Is it a new Rangers? Do they retain their titles? Do they retain their history? Is it still the same Club?
Stewart Regan: What’s great about football is that it’s all about opinions…
…I think what’s important is that the membership of the Scottish FA has been transferred from an Oldco to a Newco and that’s allowed Rangers to take up a position in Division Three. As far as I’m concerned Rangers have now been accepted. The final piece of the jigsaw will be on Friday when the SPL share transfers across from RANGERS IN ADMINISTRATION to Dundee and a new season starts again.
What people’s personal opinions are, about the past and the future, is down to their interpretation; but as far as we’re concerned, it’s about moving on.
Chris McLaughlin: But surely there should be some clarity – I imagine you are the man to provide it – is this the same club? Do they still have the same history? Is it the same club?
Stewart Regan: The share of the club transfers across from the Oldco to the Newco. When a share transfers, as far as we’re concerned, membership of that share is transferred. All other issues, as far as I’m concerned, are for people to debate. That’s not really one that we really need to get involved in or worry about at this stage.http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19068235
=========================
How does the above, then square with the BBC Trust adjudication (from April/May 2013 – issued June 2013) which stated:
The Committee noted, however, that the administrators of Rangers Football Club plc, its liquidators and those representing the Scottish football authorities had taken a common approach when explaining how the football club had been affected by this process. The Committee believed that these groups had made clear that in their view the club was a separate entity from these two companies and that its operations were unaffected by either its previous owner being placed into administration or its sale to a new company. http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2013/apr_may.pdf
How is it, when the Chief Executive has stated on Camera that the “New Club” question is one that is “for people to debate” – the BBC Trust believed that the “those representing the Scottish football authorities” had taken a firm view that the club could be considered to be a separate entity from the company that was a member of the SFA?
Who at the SFA, did the BBC Trust ask?
neepheid says: (904)
November 18, 2013 at 12:42 am
‘….3) Can we PLEASE all accept that people can have different views based on the same facts. .’
——-
Absolutely!
Provided that there is agreement on what the facts are!
And therein lies the problem.
it is a fact that RFC is in liquidation.
it is a fact that RFC as a football club legally does not live.
It is a fact that the SFA illicitly granted SFA membership to a new club, variously named.
It is a fact that that new club could not by any stretch of the imagination be entitled to the honours of a dead club.
it is a fact that the connection between influential members of the SFA Board and the dead club involved a degree of lying complicity in the whole failure to disclose EBT-earnings
It is a fact that these facts have been ignored, down-played, glossed over by a highly complicit ( hi, jack, how’re your editors behaving themselves? toeing the line, what?) have been supported and encouraged in this monstrous fiction by the MSM.
Once these and other facts are acknowledged, then I think we can talk about different interpretations and viewpoints.
The mere passage of time does not wipe out the lies and deceit.
peterjung says: (46)
November 18, 2013 at 1:12 am
Gone already –> – not sure what you are referring to as the newspaper link works ok for me. If not working for you here it is in full
CHARLES Green has been reported to the Serious Fraud Office by the company fighting Craig Whyte’s legal battle for control of Rangers.
The Worthington Group, who Whyte holds shares in, released a statement to the Stock Exchange yesterday effectively declaring open warfare on Green and his partner Imran Ahmad.
The statement refers to Green’s “admission that he and Mr Ahmad deceived Mr Whyte” during the takeover last year.
It adds: “Information has been discovered relating to the conduct of Mr Charles Green and Mr Imran Ahmad.
“This has today been reported to the Serious Fraud Office.”
Green quit Rangers last week after being confronted over his links to Whyte. He wants to sell his shareholding to Greenock bus tycoon James Easdale.
The Yorkshireman – who led the consortium who bought the assets of the liquidated old co Rangers in June – is now the subject of an investigation commissioned by the Rangers board over claims of secret dealings with Whyte. Green has confirmed Whyte’s allegation they colluded to buy the club from administrators Duff & Phelps.
But he claimed he was just stringing Whyte along in order to “shaft” him later.
Worthington Group have bought 26 per cent of Law Financial – a firm Whyte set up ahead of his legal battle. It is likely to focus on the ownership of Sevco 5088 and whether they were used to buy Rangers’ assets.
Rangers yesterday denied Sevco had been used by Green to buy the club.
Worthington’s letter to the Stock Exchange would appear to refute this and lay claim to the club and Green and Ahmad’s shares. It states: “In the light of recent public admissions by Mr Green, including his admission that he and Mr Ahmad deceived Mr Whyte, a fresh letter before claim is being prepared against The Rangers Football Club Ltd and Messrs Green and Ahmad.”
The Serious Fraud Office last night declined to comment.
chancer67 says: (94)
November 17, 2013 at 8:47 am
If the Charlotte tweets are genuine about Tom English being in MH’s pocket,then as far as i’m concerned he is just another lickspittle for the cause and i wont believe another word he speaks or writes.
I also note that S. Cosgrove has been sidelined in favour of Jackson and English, is this the BBC trying to pander to the Sevconian entity,because this is not an impartial take on the situation, and it is a sad state of affairs when the national broadcaster is afraid to have a fair and balanced debate on the new/old club debacle.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Agreed it was a terrible Sportsound without the Michael ‘s Stewart and Cosgrove giving honest opinions outside of the Old Firm bubble and proper insight into the football and the commercial side of it.
Speirs needs to sort out the use of words _ eg. “yes (eek!) they’re technically a new club. I have spoken to insolvency experts who know about this stuff”.
There is nothing “technical” about it. They are a new club. I could go on about TE and Jackson but it’s been done already.
I’m not sure how to do the quote reply but in respose to Neepheid 12.42.
1 I was happy to get my first TU but even happier to get the first TD as I must
have ruffled some feathers or pricked a conscience, but I’ll sit on the fence.
2 Surely the non mentioning of the new co as old co is just waving the white flag?
I live in England and I’m constantly trying to explain to people that the club in League 1
is not the same one that was in the SPL. TSFM lurkers and contributors know
that to be the case but we surely we must keep repeating the truth until it is accepted
as the mainstream view.
3 100% agree. But… 😮
4 Yes.
As for Rory Bremner, I think that the timing of PL’s comment post SFA appointment
says a lot. No-one at CFC PLC had really put their head over the parapet post RFC
(IL) until an SFA board member (how did that happen?) wearing his club hat lets an
off the cuff one-liner slip.
Slip of the tongue my a*se, as Jim Royle would say.
TC NR1
ps If someone can advise me how to top post/quote message it would be much appreciated
The Cat NR1 says: (1)
November 17, 2013 at 11:32 pm
‘…Is it a calculated poking
of a stick in the hornets nest knowing that there is full protective clothing
in place?..’
——-
What you call ‘full protective clothing’ is ,I think, no more than an indication that there are many members of the SFA who have been, and still are ,deeply troubled about the appalling situation they have all been landed in through the utterly transparent and illicit efforts of some of the SFA board and the officers of the Board to ram through under threat, and more or less clandestinely, illicit, unprecedented measures to save a defaulting, rogue, unapologetic debt-avoiding, lying club from the penalties, sporting and otherwise, that their crimes called for.
Because Peter Lawwell is not a one-man band.
He knows he has the support of every decent member of the SFA in trying to lance the boil, get rid of the poison, and get the SFA back to acting on principles of fairness and equity .
There are all kinds of practical, quasi-legal, and PR and public safety and UEFA issues to be dealt with.
So it is ‘softly softly catchee monkey’ time.
UTT tribunal decision to come. BDO /Police Scotland investigations to be completed. Collyer B case to be resolved. Interpol baddies to be questioned , French chateaux to be stormed, Monaco hideouts to be raided , etc etc etc.
The whole truth will eventually emerge.
I admire your optimism, JC, but I hae ma doubts.
John Clarke. Yes I think you’ve elucidated my point there perfectly.
PL is inside the glasshouse throwing a small stone and waiting for the
MPs with the large catapaults in their back pockets to pull him over.
Every oak tree needs a small acorn from which to grow. Is this the
acorn?
TC
john clarke says: (1368)
November 18, 2013 at 2:01 am.’
——-
Because Peter Lawwell is not a one-man band.
He knows he has the support of every decent member of the SFA in trying to lance the boil, get rid of the poison, and get the SFA back to acting on principles of fairness and equity .
There are all kinds of practical, quasi-legal, and PR and public safety and UEFA issues to be dealt with.
______________________________________________________________________________
Can’t disagree with any of that. Except of course there are 41 clubs who will distrust his motives, with good cause in my opinion.
neepheid says: (904)
November 18, 2013 at 12:42 am
9
4
Rate This
I would like to make a few suggestions for this forum. I guess most will disagree, but differing views are what we should encourage, not suppress. Even if those differing views are unpopular.That is my own strongly held view. My suggestions are-
1) Get rid of TU/TD. It just discourages honest expression of views, and encourages conformity with groupthink.
2) Please start a specific thread for all posts on the club/company, newco/oldco issues that have completely taken over this forum since the CFC AGM. It is truly doing my head in, seeing the same arguments repeated ad infinitum, or so it seems.
3) Can we PLEASE all accept that people can have different views based on the same facts. There should be space on this forum for a variety of views. I do sense the onset of a worrying fundamentalism here, where certain views are not tolerated, and where certain views have become axioms. That is not healthy. In my opinion.
4) Give Ryan (and any others of his ilk who are not trolls) a break. We are judged by how we treat the stranger in our midst. I really do not like the way he has been treated here over the last few days. And I speak as one who really wants to see “Rangers” playing amateur football on Glasgow Green or Bellahouston (if football is still played in those venues).
And finally. This whole Bremnergate nonsense is just a huge squirrel, in my view, released from its cage by Lawell. Why? Why now? What are we not looking at that we should be looking at as a result? Those are the real questions for this forum right now. In my opinion.
___________________________________________
Agree with all of this except:
1) Get rid of TU/TD. It just discourages honest expression of views, and encourages conformity with groupthink.
I think we should keep them:
I would say to everyone : Don’t take the TU/TDs too seriously and be put off by TDs. Rudyard Kipling summed it up beautifully: – “if you can meet with triumph and disaster and treat those too imposters just the same” . And elsewhere in the same poem: “If all men count with you, but none too much!”
If somebody bothers to give you a TD, they read your piece, were challenged by it and reacted! See that as a good thing.
I think the TU/TD count shows that there are real people out there reading stuff, and helps to guage when a chord has been struck or a nerve twinged.
If we think of TSFM as like BBC Question time , or Brian Taylor’s big debate on Radio shortbread, then the TU/TD on TSFM is equivalent to the audience noise (cheers or boos) that form an integral part of the programme offering and also show that there is a real debate in front of a live audience… not a succession of stage managed rehearsed press releases. This is a valuable component that we should not cast aside to cheaply I feel. As long as people don’t take dissent to heart, all is well.
Whenever there are spates of unwarranted TDs, whether because JI is trolling or a decent sort like Ryan is being given a hard time, the defence mechanisms kick in, and affirmation follows on.
TU/TD should go. We know by now the posters we read and who have something to say on this.
Re. The timing/content of Lawwel’s remarks. This was Celtics ANNUALgeneral meeting. The clue’s in the name. It was the first time in a year that PL was asked questions directly by fans in front of a live audience. He has form for off the cuff remarks of an amusing (imo) nature (eg oldco’s jelavic transfer) and that is all I think this is. “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”
This idea that PL is some Machiavellian, eminence gris is to give credence to the whining of certain fans that the demise of OldGers was all some Opus Dei/Celtic backed plot rather than their own mismanagement. The SMSM have swallowed this hook line and sinker by all of a sudden starting to refer to PL as the “most powerful man in Scottish football” When did that become a title? And by implication it suggests undemocratic and undue influence being wielded by Celtic and Lawwell. No evidence of that in a post-OF world that I have seen.
TU/TD should stay. There are thousans of people who dont comment on here – this simple option gives them an interaction they wouldnt have otherwise.
its fine with me if anyone holds opinion that the current Rangers are ‘the same club’.
but it has to be accepted that this ignores things like company law, insolvency law, the football governing bodies own rules and logic.
the SFA could have simply stated at any time since feb 2012 that a club continues through insolvency.
this principle would then also have set fans of dafc or hmfc at ease.
but no such statement came.
giving a current club a degree of recognition or status in how its regarded is not the same as it being the same club.
I see Neil Lennon has an interview in the MSM quoting about Rangers returning etc, etc
Neil, NEIL! Is this truly your thinking, or have you went all ‘Tom English’ on us?? 🙁
Quck edit It would be unfair to be overcritical of Neil as he’s suffered most at the hands of those nice, gentle fans of the Govan club (Is that an ok description Ryan?)
Re Tom English, Sportsound over the weekend, and the suggestion by Charlotte he may have been in the pocket of the Whyte regime PR people.
Not knowing T.E personally I can only judge him from his writings and his TV and radio work. One continuing observation I have of him is that he has a real trust of officialdom in any story, at least at the outset. When Whyte entered the scene T.E was happy to run with the £10M transfer warchest story, and any suggestion that Whyte was not the real deal was the fantasy of us bampots. Likewise with his views on the Amsterdam trouble, and only yesterday telling people on Twitter that the Celtic Board believe the SFA acted correctly over Rangers 2011 Euro Licence (he really hasn’t kept up to speed on that one). All in all unless the SFA come out and say Rangers are a new club, T.E will happily peddle the line they are still the same.
T.E reminds me of a guy I worked with two decades ago, who was a lot older than me. He was a devout Tory voter, placed his utmost trust in the authorities, and would not hear any suggestion of wrong doing or criticism of the police or armed forces. Then his garage was broken into, and he had a large number of items stolen, as the garage was used for his hobby of doing up older cars. He called the police who attended the crime scene. In the garage at the time was his latest pet project, and without even getting to any details of the theft, the police started to quiz him about the road worthiness and tax status of the vehicle in the garage. He was appalled that such an upstanding citizen as himself should be questioned in this way, but that’s what sometimes happens when you put yourself and the authorities on such a pedestal.
The bottom line is Tom English and others should remove certain people within the SFA from their pedestal and start treating them with a healthy suspicion, or at least be more inquisitive of their motives. One day he may have to admit the bampots were right.
On the question of TD/TU just thought I would throw in my tuppence worth.
Personally – despite occasionally being deluged by TDs often from fellow Celtic fans because of some of my opinions – I think they should stay. They give genuine lurkers a way of ‘commenting’ on a post and a stake in a debate and often are a first step for them to actually begin the process of perhaps asking questions on here and then going on to express their own opinions.
I usually express strong and very direct views but – like everyone else – I get it wrong sometimes and the TDs can be a sign that my argument might be flawed or being misconstrued and worthy of re-examining.
Of course there are those who use the mechanism in a cynical and organised way – often with a seeming group dynamic – to peddle their own agenda or attack a poster with a contrary opinion to their own. But hey ho that’s life and what football is all about. If you don’t have passion and strong opinions then find something else to do with your time and energy.
If people don’t like TU/TD then don’t use them and don’t pay any attention to them – it really is that simple. And I would suggest that if anyone has a burning objection to them then they should explain their reasoning rather than issue a one line demand asking for them to be removed.
Of course there are those who write statements using phrases and issues to garner a high TU count. That’s fine if that’s what floats your boat but it doesn’t take long to spot those repeatedly using tabloid-style rhetoric without a trace of a considered contribution. Indeed they could comfortably grace the pages of our tabloids which in the Rangers saga also infects the so-called ‘quality’ and papers of record.
jockybhoy says: (261)
November 18, 2013 at 4:17 am
“TU/TD should stay. There are thousans of people who dont comment on here – this simple option gives them an interaction they wouldnt have otherwise.”
=================================================================
Totally agree Jockybhoy. The only guy I personally know to speak face to face about TSFM has been on here and RTC for probably as long as me. He has never posted, but is an enthusiastic fan of the site. He uses the TU/TD facility. It would be a shame to take that from him in my opinion
ecobhoy says: (2049)
November 18, 2013 at 7:28 am
“Of course there are those who write statements using phrases and issues to garner a high TU count. That’s fine if that’s what floats your boat but it doesn’t take long to spot those repeatedly using tabloid-style rhetoric without a trace of a considered contribution. Indeed they could comfortably grace the pages of our tabloids which in the Rangers saga also infects the so-called ‘qualitity’ and papers of record.”
——————————————————————————————————————
Really Ecobhoy??? Who are these people? I demand to know! 😈
Personally, I find if I’ve had a lot of TD’s helpful, it lets me know if I’ve been getting carried away and starting to talk a lot of ‘Basile Boli’s’ and need to be reigned in a bit, which is sometimes the case I admit.
Occasionally getting my posts removed helps too. I can get carried away as I said.
HirsutePursuit says: (434)
November 18, 2013 at 1:20 am
Chris McLaughlin: But surely there should be some clarity – I imagine you are the man to provide it – is this the same club? Do they still have the same history? Is it the same club?
Stewart Regan: The share of the club transfers across from the Oldco to the Newco. When a share transfers, as far as we’re concerned, membership of that share is transferred. All other issues, as far as I’m concerned, are for people to debate. That’s not really one that we really need to get involved in or worry about at this stage.
……………………………..
There is the answer….how do you transfer membership to and from the same club? Chris should have followed up with that question.
And not wanting to get involved…in a clubs existence….says it all really!
I receive TRFC official emails, trying to part me with cash for various things (I suspect a colleague signed me up for humour, although conspiracy theories are welcome. 🙂 ).
Anyway, in my Inbox this morning is an email advising that the Season 13/14 catalogue is now available should I wish to purchase TRFC-related items for Christmas.
At the foot of the email is this wee small print …
—
Rangers.co.uk
To unsubscribe, please follow this link: Unsubscribe
The Rangers Football Club plc, registered in Scotland with number SC004276
registered office Ibrox Stadium, 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow, G51 2XD
—
TRFC plc? SC004276?
Really?
Angus1983 says: (1234)
November 18, 2013 at 8:51 am
0 0 Rate This
I receive TRFC official emails, trying to part me with cash for various things (I suspect a colleague signed me up for humour, although conspiracy theories are welcome. ).
Anyway, in my Inbox this morning is an email advising that the Season 13/14 catalogue is now available should I wish to purchase TRFC-related items for Christmas.
At the foot of the email is this wee small print …
—
Rangers.co.uk
To unsubscribe, please follow this link: Unsubscribe
The Rangers Football Club plc, registered in Scotland with number SC004276
registered office Ibrox Stadium, 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow, G51 2XD
—
TRFC plc? SC004276?
================================
Trade description complaint anyone?
jimlarkin says: (635)
November 18, 2013 at 9:00 am
0 0 Rate This
Angus1983 says: (1234)
November 18, 2013 at 8:51 am
0 0 Rate This
I receive TRFC official emails, trying to part me with cash for various things (I suspect a colleague
signed me up for humour, although conspiracy theories are welcome. ).
Anyway, in my Inbox this morning is an email advising that the Season 13/14 catalogue is now
available should I wish to purchase TRFC-related items for Christmas.
At the foot of the email is this wee small print …
—
Rangers.co.uk
To unsubscribe, please follow this link: Unsubscribe
The Rangers Football Club plc, registered in Scotland with number SC004276
registered office Ibrox Stadium, 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow, G51 2XD
—
TRFC plc? SC004276?
================================
Trade description complaint anyone?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Trading whilst insolvent? 😯
yakutsuki says: (140)
November 18, 2013 at 7:05 am
——————————————-
What he said was that he missed the games against Rangers.
Much the same way as I miss my mum.
Sometimes I meet a dear old woman in the street who reminds me of her and that’s nice, but fundamentally my mum is as dead as Rangers and nothing, not even a nice old woman who reminds me of her, can change that fact.
I’ve moved on, it’s time the Bears and their myriad supporters in the press and media did the same.
54 (ways to leave your mother) – with apologies to Paul Simon
ecobhoy says: (2049)
November 18, 2013 at 7:28 am
And I would suggest that if anyone has a burning objection to them then they should explain their reasoning rather than issue a one line demand asking for them to be removed.
_________________
Fair comment, and guilty as charged. The no doubt flawed logic behind my request was that some lurkers may be deterred from posting controversial, or non-mainstream views because they do not relish being on the wrong end of trial by public opinion. You, and others, make the point that many people who visit this forum, but do not post, get a sense of involvement from the TU-TD system. That is a good point, and one which hadn’t occurred to me. There is clearly a lot of support for the voting buttons, and if that is the majority view, then so be it.
Fair point JockyBhoy, although the opportunity was there twelve months ago to
make a similar remark. I was really wondering whether being within the SFA hierarchy
reduces PL’s vulnerability (and by extension that of CFC) in these situations.
In the overall scheme of things it doesn’t change any of the facts of the situation,
but it may be the means through which those only “informed” through MSM
become party to the debate. Widening access to the facts will in the end undermine
the continuation of the big lie in the MSM. At least I hope that to be the case, or
am I being ridiculously naïve?
The Cat NR1
jockybhoy says: (261)
November 18, 2013 at 4:17 am
Quantcast
Re. The timing/content of Lawwel’s remarks. This was Celtics ANNUALgeneral meeting. The clue’s in the name. It was the first time in a year that PL was asked questions directly by fans in front of a live audience. He has form for off the cuff remarks of an amusing (imo) nature (eg oldco’s jelavic transfer) and that is all I think this is. “sometimes a cigar is just a cigar”
Angus1983 says: (1234)
November 18, 2013 at 8:51 am
7 0 Rate This
I receive TRFC official emails, trying to part me with cash for various things (I suspect a colleague signed me up for humour, although conspiracy theories are welcome. ).
Anyway, in my Inbox this morning is an email advising that the Season 13/14 catalogue is now available should I wish to purchase TRFC-related items for Christmas.
At the foot of the email is this wee small print …
—
Rangers.co.uk
To unsubscribe, please follow this link: Unsubscribe
The Rangers Football Club plc, registered in Scotland with number SC004276
registered office Ibrox Stadium, 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow, G51 2XD
—
TRFC plc? SC004276?
Really?
————–
Illusion or reality?
I’m sure Rene Descartes said something about this type of thing, or was it something I dreamt?
The Dream of the Blue Turtlenecks?
Slim
What he said was that he missed the games against Rangers.
Much the same way as I miss my mum.
Sometimes I meet a dear old woman in the street who reminds me of her and that’s nice, but fundamentally my mum is as dead as Rangers and nothing, not even a nice old woman who reminds me of her, can change that fact.
I’ve moved on, it’s time the Bears and their myriad supporters in the press and media did the same.
54 (ways to leave your mother) – with apologies to Paul Simon
=============================================================
“The to-ing and fro-ing with Rangers is always exciting. You also miss the competitiveness and, of course, the game because it’s one of the greatest derbies. There is always drama and energy in these games.”
Neil Lennon
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/rumour-mill-celtic-rangers-scotland-1-3192100
“is always”
“It’s one of”
[]
There should be something in the Companies Act 2006 that covers a
misrepresentation of company status. It’s not something that I’ve come
across in practice though, so I can’t give an off the top of head answer.
Being in an email signature, it would appear to be more than just a one-off
error as it would have been sent to multiple recipients. The corporate
governance within the RIFC PLC group does appear to be somewhat less
than worthy of five stars.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/contents
——————————–
Angus1983 says: (1234)
November 18, 2013 at 8:51 am
I receive TRFC official emails, trying to part me with cash for various things (I suspect a colleague signed me up for humour, although conspiracy theories are welcome. 🙂 ).
Anyway, in my Inbox this morning is an email advising that the Season 13/14 catalogue is now available should I wish to purchase TRFC-related items for Christmas.
At the foot of the email is this wee small print …
—
Rangers.co.uk
To unsubscribe, please follow this link: Unsubscribe
The Rangers Football Club plc, registered in Scotland with number SC004276
registered office Ibrox Stadium, 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow, G51 2XD
—
TRFC plc? SC004276?
Really?
Danish Pastry.
Illusion or reality?
I’m sure Rene Descartes said something about this type of thing, or was it something I dreamt?
The Dream of the Blue Turtlenecks
======================
I get it Danish,do you have the album ? I seen him in Frankfurt on this tour .
Brilliant live.
Part of the Neil Lennon interview is here:
http://www1.skysports.com/watch/tv-shows/goals-on-sunday/news/9029244/fraser-forster-neil-lennon-salutes-goalkeeper-on-goals-on-sunday
Pretty diplomatic answer to a non-controversial question by two sane pundits.
I think this betrays a lack of attention to detail that we kind of expect. It (or IT?) doesn’t matter to the long term aim of stripping the money from the company and the fanbase so little things like this slip by un-noticed by those in nominal charge.
Tic 6709 says: (556)
November 18, 2013 at 10:07 am
1 0 Rate This
Danish Pastry.
Illusion or reality?
I’m sure Rene Descartes said something about this type of thing, or was it something I dreamt?
The Dream of the Blue Turtlenecks
======================
I get it Danish,do you have the album ? I seen him in Frankfurt on this tour .
Brilliant live.
———–
Only on vinyl. All my vinyls have been packed since the late ’80s. My then girlfriend and I sort of took each our records when we split. She had loads of Lou Reed and very eclectic stuff. They’ve become a time capsule that I’ve not touched in decades.
Funny them not changing the company number on the email footer. Probably an oversight, but surreal all the same.
John
I admire your optimism, but, If I may, riddle me this? Mr Lawell and Mr Riley were in the perfect positions to cast small stones, or even put bloody great spanners in the works, when all this nonsense started. They, in common with everyone else connected with the SFA, did sweet SFA.
Why the hell should I believe they will do anything now?
(have broken my wrist, so grumpier than usual
)
As has been said by many before who can blame fans from wanting to believe that their club has an unbroken history.
At the end of the day the team plays in the same colours in the same ground with the same manager and some of the same players.
However the judgement on whether or not they are the same club or a new club is not a decision for fans to make. Neither is it one for the MSM. One can argue that despite what corporate law says, the decision isn’t even one for the courts.
In my view the final decision on how the ‘club’ should be viewed should come from the footballing authorities.
As has been posted above Regan appeared to act as Teflon Dan when quizzed.
The precidents are all there to see, Third Lanark, Gretna, Airdrie and Dunfermline and Hearts going hell for leather to get a CVA as opposed to face liquidation.
How T’Rangers were treated in the cup competitions indicate that they are a new club in the eyes of the authorities.
For me the real question is why is no-one from the SFA willing to come out and tell us what their decision is and how it was justified.
Why do they fear being open, transparent and possibly having their actions questioned by their ‘customers’.
Cowards one and all.
Angus1983 says: (1234)
November 18, 2013 at 8:51 am
14 0 Rate This
I receive TRFC official emails, trying to part me with cash for various things (I suspect a colleague signed me up for humour, although conspiracy theories are welcome. 🙂 ).
Anyway, in my Inbox this morning is an email advising that the Season 13/14 catalogue is now available should I wish to purchase TRFC-related items for Christmas.
At the foot of the email is this wee small print …
—
Rangers.co.uk
To unsubscribe, please follow this link: Unsubscribe
The Rangers Football Club plc, registered in Scotland with number SC004276
registered office Ibrox Stadium, 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow, G51 2XD
—
TRFC plc? SC004276?
Really?
===================
Angus,
I do hope that you have done the correct thing and notified the liquidators of said company.
Apologies if this has been posted previously and I am happy to be enlightened if I’m wrong.
A simple question for Tom English, Keith Jackson, Hugh Keevins et al. As things stand at the moment if Dunfermline or Hearts win the Scottish cup this season they will be eligible to play in the Europa League. If TRFC win the Scottish Cup they won’t be. Why not? What’s the difference?
Well 12 months ago the IPO was still being pitched and there are sensitivities around this which could have gone legal. I think also that the farcical levels have added the the humour of the situation, hence the er humour. There was much comment at that time and earlier about why the Celtic hierarchy weren’t trying to panel OldGers/NewGers as much as some would like and the thinking was this was partly to avoid potential confrontation, possibly violence, at a difficult time. This thinking was backed by the fact that Celtic did question certain aspects behind the scenes but were seemingly stonewalled by the SPL/SFA (and this has been born out in subequent releases). Also as I indicated previously I do think that Celtic are happy to be one of the group and do not throw their weight about unduly (tinhat on, also purely my opinion/hope – btw does anyone know who’s idea was the OF veto and the circumstances for its adoption?), thankfully the clubs (and their comlanies!) have been fairly unanimous on most of these issues.
I exchanged correspondence with Peter Lawwell at the start of last season – explaining why my mate and I weren’t renewing our season books that year was down to personal circumstances, not related to the demise of OldGers, but saying I applauded the board’s stance/s on that situation. He replied saying he understood, thanking us for our support and that they were fairly happy with the way they had managed the situation.
If anything Cat Nr1 I would say involvement in the SFA makes life more difficult for Lawwell (hence his “recuse himself” comments in relation to passing judgement on NewGers’ chairman) and the Bears/SMSM will be on him like white on rice on any perceived partiality (eg Rory comment) when in fact it has been Celtic that have mostly been on “the fuzzy end of the lollipop” (c. Wilder/Diamond) from the SFA for the last generation…
As regards the “Rangers name”
I used to work with some companies who had registered trademarks. If they didn’t defend their trademark they could fall into generic usage and they would lose a vaulable asset – my view is that Rangers 2013 are taking every measure, short of actually doing anything legal to try and assume the trademark which was previously owned by Rangers 1872. It’s like squatters rights – if you have been there long enough you get to keep it.
If they can go to court and show that everyone accepts, or at least no-one objects, to them taking over the mantle of OldGers, it then becomes true… Hence my constant use of OldGers/NewGers as they are in my view two separate entities.
Greenock Jack says: (166)
November 18, 2013 at 9:48 am
================================================
I agree with Jack on this Slim. Neil was quoted speaking about “When they return.” Which makes it a lot different from your analogy.
If we don’t try to keep an open mind, and just cherry pick the bits that suit us, we may end up like the SMSM.
Angus1983 says: (1234)
November 18, 2013 at 8:51 am
Good spot Angus, it would seem that someone at Edmiston Drive isn’t confused. From Companies House:
Rufus Otis and Hugo says: (7)
November 18, 2013 at 10:45 am
6 0 Rate This
Apologies if this has been posted previously and I am happy to be enlightened if I’m wrong.
A simple question for Tom English, Keith Jackson, Hugh Keevins et al. As things stand at the moment if Dunfermline or Hearts win the Scottish cup this season they will be eligible to play in the Europa League. If TRFC win the Scottish Cup they won’t be. Why not? What’s the difference?
============================================
They would ”answer” that by calling you a Rangers obsessed idiot, who is talking mince, as out of the teams you mentioned – only Rangers [we know it’s Sevco], can realistically win the Scottish cup.
And they would end their argument at that, as you would be a Rangers hater who can’t move on !
Same old, same old.
The Cat NR1 says: (5)
November 18, 2013 at 1:45 am
Try this link for info on using the quote function: http://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_blockquote.asp
blu says: (435)
November 18, 2013 at 11:17 am
0 0 Rate This
Angus1983 says: (1234)
November 18, 2013 at 8:51 am
Good spot Angus, it would seem that someone at Edmiston Drive isn’t confused. From Companies House:
Name & Registered Office:
RFC 2012 P.L.C.
Company No. SC004276
Number of Cases: 2
To obtain details of the practitioner click on the appropriate case type description.
Case Number: 2 (of 2 cases)
Case Type: Compulsory Liquidation
Order to Wind Up: 31/10/2012
Petition Date: 31/10/2012
Practitioner Release: 31/10/2012
Case Number: 1 (of 2 cases)
Case Type: IN ADMINISTRATION
Admin. Start Date: 14/02/2012
Admin. End Date: 31/10/2012
=====================================
I’m confused. What’ stone significance of these posts?
What is the “2 cases”, that CH (companies house) mention ?
jockybhoy says: (263)
November 18, 2013 at 11:06 am
7 0 Rate This
As regards the “Rangers name”
I used to work with some companies who had registered trademarks. If they didn’t defend their trademark they could fall into generic usage and they would lose a vaulable asset – my view is that Rangers 2013 are taking every measure, short of actually doing anything legal to try and assume the trademark which was previously owned by Rangers 1872. It’s like squatters rights – if you have been there long enough you get to keep it.
++++++++++++++++
I was under the impression that Green bought all the intellectual property rights of “Old Rangers” as part of the sale agreement with Duff and Phelps. Or did I just imagine that?
more from charlotte
Charlies Chuckles @CharliesChuckle 11h
@CharlotteFakes @PeterAdamSmith Taxing matters. Charlies big mistake to follow shortly. EIS status at risk.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/184955632/Taxing-Matters … #HMRC
Charlies Chuckles @CharliesChuckle 29m
Still looks like an unauthorised return of share capital to me. Note the EIS excuse
1. http://www.scribd.com/doc/185060576/Return-of-Capital …
2. http://www.scribd.com/doc/185061573/Refunds …
Reply Retweet Favorite More View summary
Charlies Chuckles @CharliesChuckle 23m
Compare and contrast.
1. Draft announcement (blacklined)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/185069208/…ay-2013-Drafts …
2. Official Statement.
http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulator…pendent_Review …
Reply Retweet Favorite More View summary
Charlies Chuckles @CharliesChuckle 17m
Confirmation that the key players in the Pinsent Masons Inquiry remained silent.
http://i.imgur.com/v7V9FyZ.jpg
Good point about the IPO. I can see how that fits into it.
Of course we are now finding out that CFC PLC were acting in camera
on the UEFA license issue and that rocking the boat had no benefit
at that time. It does appear that the gloves may now be off to a certain
extent and we may be approaching a Spartacus moment. However,
after the way Jim Spence was treated it will take several big hitters
to be second/third and fourth in the I’m Spartacus line. How many
will it take though?
I can visualise Graham Chapman walking on set as The Colonel
and shouting. “Stop this. It’s getting rather too silly” There certainly
are many Pythonesque elements to the farce and Life of Brian also
springs to mind at times.
jimlarkin says: (637)
November 18, 2013 at 11:29 am
===================================
Jim, there’s no real significance, just poor administration by TRFC. The company number they are using in current communications is that of the liquidated RFC 2012 P.L.C. The two cases are 1. Admin, 2 Liquidation.
I agree with earlier comments that the SFA have responsibility to make a clear statement on the relationship of the team currently playing out of Ibrox and the team that played there previously.
However, it is my strong opinion that the current senior officers of the SFA have demonstrated a partiality that renders them unfit to hold the positions they occupy, and I would have no faith in any determination they made on the matter (irrespective of the orientation of their outcome). JC is on the money on this – we need a clear out at the SFA BEFORE any of this can ever be sorted out.
I also agree that it is OK for people to hold whatever opinion they come to through their own analysis of a situation.
However, choosing to express your opinion in a forum implicitly means that you are prepared to have it analysed and to receive feedback on its validity from others participating in that forum.
When we have a group of people expressing an opinion that flies in the face of demonstrable facts and that they are prepared to openly acknowledge involves possibly not making sense, and being necessary so that they can have their cake and eat it – how should one react?
My opinion on this matter is no more important than anyone else’s. I am happy with that.
I am also comforted by the fact that my opinion is not contradicted by the available facts and that I have no expectation of gaining any tangible benefit for me or my team by adhering to this position. I do acknowledge that there is an intangible benefit to me in that my opinion confirms the complete demise of a former competitor who cheated over a sustained period to the detriment of my club and every other club in the sport.
History, in this matter, has occurred and cannot be undone. We have a collective responsibility to ensure that it is recorded fairly and without prejudice.
testing
jimlarkin says: (637)
November 18, 2013 at 11:24 am
Rufus Otis and Hugo says: (7)
November 18, 2013 at 10:45 am
6 0 Rate This
Apologies if this has been posted previously and I am happy to be enlightened if I’m wrong.
A simple question for Tom English, Keith Jackson, Hugh Keevins et al. As things stand at the moment if Dunfermline or Hearts win the Scottish cup this season they will be eligible to play in the Europa League. If TRFC win the Scottish Cup they won’t be. Why not? What’s the difference?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
TRFC winning the SC before the three year continuing membership of the SFA as TRFC, which is required by Art 12 of UFA FFP, would be the SFA’s worst nightmare.
It would invoke another UEFA Article that allow for an exception to be made if a club that is not subject to UEFA FFP licensing standards (only the top tier SPFL clubs are) to be granted entry.
The Article is:
Article 15 – 1
If a club qualifies for a UEFA club competition on sporting merit but has not undergone any licensing process at all or has undergone a licensing process which is lesser/not equivalent to the one applicable for top division clubs, because it belongs to a division other than the top division, the UEFA member association of the club concerned may – on behalf of such a club – request an extraordinary application of the club licensing system in accordance with Annex IV. 2 Based on such an extraordinary application, UEFA may grant special permission to the club to enter the corresponding UEFA club competition subject to the relevant UEFA club competition regulations. Such an extraordinary application applies only to the specific club and for the season in question.
ANNEX IV: Extraordinary application of the club licensing system
1. The UEFA administration defines the necessary deadlines and the minimum criteria for the extraordinary application of the club licensing system as specified in Article 15(1) and communicates them to the UEFA member associations at the latest by 31 August of the year preceding the licence season.
2. UEFA member associations must notify the UEFA administration of such extraordinary application requests in writing and stating the name of the club concerned by the deadline communicated by the UEFA administration.
3. The UEFA member associations are responsible for submitting the criteria to the club concerned for the assessment for the extraordinary procedure at national level. They must also take immediate action with the club concerned to prepare for the extraordinary procedure.
4. The club concerned must provide the necessary documentary proof to the licensor that will assess the club against the fixed minimum standards and forward the following documentation in one of the UEFA official languages to the UEFA administration by the deadline communicated by the latter:
a) a written request to apply for special permission to enter the corresponding UEFA club competition;
b) a recommendation by the licensor based on its assessment (including the dates and names of the persons having assessed the club);
c) all documentary evidence provided by the club and the licensor as requested by the UEFA administration; d) any other documents requested by the UEFA administration during the extraordinary procedure.
5. The UEFA administration bases its decision on the documentation received and grants special permission to enter the UEFA club competitions if all the set criteria are fulfilled and if the club ultimately qualifies on sporting merit. The decision will be communicated to the UEFA member association, which has to forward it to the club concerned.
6. If such a club is eliminated on sporting merit during this extraordinary procedure, the UEFA member association concerned has to notify the UEFA administration immediately, and this procedure is immediately terminated, without further decision. Such a terminated procedure cannot be restarted at a later stage.
7. Appeals can be lodged against decisions made by the UEFA administration in writing before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in accordance with the relevant provisions laid down in the UEFA Statutes.
You can see the SFA’s dilemma at 4b . My guess is they would probably discuss pros and cons with UEFA first to see if UEFA were happy to consider a case, but my judgement is that UEFA would be unhappy about allowing TRFC under its current state of flux and with a wage to turnover ratio way in excess of FFP recommendations, not to mention the doubts about them being an on going concern next season, into their competition.
They would also be unhappy about a club who were excluded for three years under Article 12 finding a way back into Europe before the three year membership requirement had been satisfied. Especially given the circumstances causing Article 12 to come into play – massive amounts of social tax evaded either by use of an illegal tax device (the DOS one) or not handing over the tax NI collected from employees and (if the UTT finds for HMRC) an even higher amount of evaded tax under the loan EBTs.
There have been some gushing pieces on Rangers and their replacement team over 140+2 years but surely none with the level of gushery that this piece has
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/mobile/rangers/the-lure-of-history-can-be-spur-for-mccoist-men-142824n.22719849
(the word gushery possibly does not exist but can exist to describe Matt Lindsay’s view of the Govan team)
Exiled Celt says: (798)
November 18, 2013 at 1:35 am
November 18, 2013 at 1:12 am
Gone already –> – not sure what you are referring to as the newspaper link works ok for me. If not working for you here it is in full
________________________________________________________
Cheers EC….was getting a continuous 404 not found error from the link
Charlies Chuckles @CharliesChuckle 1h
Still looks like an unauthorised return of share capital to me. Note the EIS excuse
1. http://www.scribd.com/doc/185060576/Return-of-Capital …
2. http://www.scribd.com/doc/185061573/Refunds …
andygraham.66 says: (69)
November 18, 2013 at 12:18 pm
There have been some gushing pieces on Rangers and their replacement team over 140+2 years but surely none with the level of gushery that this piece has
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/mobile/rangers/the-lure-of-history-can-be-spur-for-mccoist-men-142824n.22719849
(the word gushery possibly does not exist but can exist to describe Matt Lindsay’s view of the Govan team)
_______________________________________________________________________________
I read this article earlier on another forum…..I assumed it was a spoof…..it really does beggar belief….
Sorry to be uber-pedantic but RFC 2012 PLC is in liquidation rather than liquidated.
BDO has it on life support for the time being at HMRC’s behest.
I hadn’t realised that the company number was wrong on Angus 1983’s original
post as well as the Ltd/PLC error. If that is an example of the way that the
organisation is being run, it is hardly a surprise that money is being haemorrhaged
to such an extent as shown in the RIFC PLC accounts. One has to ask whether
any system of internal controls is even in place let alone being adequately operated.
I wonder what the auditors included in their report to management on that subject?
Perhaps CF can let us know.
The Companies House company details listing shows the following at the moment.
I doubt any of the entries will change for quite a while. You can see at the bottom
that the name on Angus1983’s email was changed on 31/07/2012, so how many
emails have gone out with the incorrect company information since then?
It must be approaching another world record.
Name & Registered Office: Company No.: SC004276
RFC 2012 P.L.C.
4 ATLANTIC QUAY
70 YORK STREET
GLASGOW
G2 8JX
Date of Incorporation: 27/05/1899
Country of Origin: United Kingdom
Status: Liquidation
——————————————————————————–
Company Type: Public Limited Company
Nature Of Business (SIC):
93120 – Activities of sport clubs
——————————————————————————–
Accounting Reference Date: 30/06
Last Accounts Made Up To: 30/06/2010 (GROUP)
Next Accounts Due: 31/12/2011 OVERDUE
Last Return Made Up To: 27/01/2012
Next Return Due: 24/02/2013 OVERDUE
——————————————————————————–
Mortgage: Number of Charges: 14 ( 4 outstanding / 10 satisfied / 0 part satisfied )
Last members list: 27/01/2012
Last Bulk Shareholders List: 27/01/2011
——————————————————————————–
Previous Names
Date of Change: Previous Name:
31/07/2012 THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB P.L.C.
andygraham.66 says: (69)
November 18, 2013 at 12:18 pm
There have been some gushing pieces on Rangers and their replacement team over 140+2 years but surely none with the level of gushery that this piece has
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/mobile/rangers/the-lure-of-history-can-be-spur-for-mccoist-men-142824n.22719849
(the word gushery possibly does not exist but can exist to describe Matt Lindsay’s view of the Govan team)
——————————
He actually says that if newclub sets this world record, the news will “resound around the world”. Need anybody say more.
Auldheid says: (1021)
November 18, 2013 at 12:09 pm
=======================================
Auldheid, there you go applying logic, common sense and straightforward interpretation of the rules as written, and in spirit. You should know by now that that gets us nowhere. LNS and the FTT being just two examples of departure from all sense.
On the other hand, the great scam didn’t work out as expected in footballing terms so there may be some hope of a fair outcome. Continuing on the point of fans influence, I’d also like to praise the efforts of Celtic fan shareholders to hold the Board and majority shareholders to account at the recent AGM. This activisim is a lesson for small shareholders in all listed companies,never mind just football clubs. The fans may not get what they want immediately but I’d guess that the directors’ future leadership and management of the company will be influenced by the pressure applied. This level of vigilance and scrutiny would benefit all football clubs whether private, listed or membership.
The Cat NR1 says: (7)
November 18, 2013 at 12:24 pm
===========================
Thanks, I think we’ll call it getting the facts right rather than pedanticism.
@CharliesChuckle
A new guise for Charlotte (acknowledgement to KDS)
Please, please tell me that is a spoof article. These bits are stoaters.
“They have, after all, got a world record 54 national titles to their name. No other football club has won as many domestic Trebles – seven to be precise – as they have.
A “Perfect Season” would sit very well alongside the many other accomplishments they have achieved since they were founded back in 1872.”
:slamb: :slamb:
“Rangers will win SPFL League One at a canter. They are already 11 points clear of their nearest contenders Dunfermline” may be true, but an awkward insolvency event could throw a wee spanner
in the works. Mind you, a fifteen point handicap should be overcome even if proper administrators make proper cuts to the playing budget in the event of that coming to pass.
He even managed to get something negative about Celtic in there too. Jack must be very proud.
:slamb: :slamb: Gushery should be added to the TSFM dictionary forthwith. An excellent addition to the succulent lamb subsection. :slamb: :slamb: Nice one andygraham.
Scapa @10:18am
The difference now could be that PL is being held hostage by a simple jibe which in a Normal Society would be seen as such. This unfortunately is not a Normal Society here in Scotland. It still reeks of sectarianism, bigotry and yes, downright hatred. This condition alas, is not confined to Sevco.
If he is called to answer any questions posed by The SFA, I am certain, beyond doubt, there will be a few dead pidgeons.
The comments page in the DR today is an indicator of the level of this hatred towards him. I would be surprised if anybody from Sevco was going to be daft enough to call him out. They know if they do the consequences would not be to their liking.
We can talk till the Coo’s come home about The Newclub/Old club argument.
One thing is entirely obvious. The Culture of the previous club is thriving.
willmacufree says: (231)
November 18, 2013 at 12:39 pm
8
0
Rate This
Quantcast
andygraham.66 says: (69)
November 18, 2013 at 12:18 pm
There have been some gushing pieces on Rangers and their replacement team over 140+2 years but surely none with the level of gushery that this piece has
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/mobile/rangers/the-lure-of-history-can-be-spur-for-mccoist-men-142824n.22719849
(the word gushery possibly does not exist but can exist to describe Matt Lindsay’s view of the Govan team)
——————————
He actually says that if newclub sets this world record, the news will “resound around the world”. Need anybody say more.
________________________________________________
500 million fans worldwide would make a fairly sizeable noise celebrating such a noteworthy achievement.
Would that in itself not be another world record, for the largest celebration of a third tier title triumph?
policeandthieves says: (10)
November 18, 2013 at 12:51 pm
2 0 Rate This
@CharliesChuckle
A new guise for Charlotte (acknowledgement to KDS)
———-
Thanks, it’s all go. Just screen-grabbed every doc on my iPad … before they vanish.