Good Morning,
A number of years ago I sat and watched while the late David Will, one time chairman of Brechin City, former President of the Scottish Football Association and Vice President of FIFA, peered over the upper rims of his glasses at the assembled board and management of St Johnstone Football Club and proceeded to brand them all as a “shower of thrawn buggers!”.
The reason for the tongue in cheek outburst from Scotland’s highest ranking official from the world of football was the organisation of the centenary dinner celebrating 100 years of the Perth Club— which the club saw fit to hold well outside the centenary year. Will had been invited to speak as a guest at the dinner ( yes Mr Cosgrove I was there ), along with then manager Alex Totten and Craigie Veitch the former sports editor of the Scotsman.
For those who are not familiar with old Scots words, Thrawn can have a couple of meanings which are very similar. If someone is being obstinate, stubborn, uncompromising, perverse or intractable then in auld Scots we say that he or she is being thrawn. Equally, the original meaning has been said to be crooked, twisted, misshapen or deformed. A tree could be thrawn, as could someone’s arm or other part of the body. To be thrawn-leggit was to have a crooked leg.
These meanings then sort of morphed into meanings like difficult or contrary, and so twisted and crooked in that sense, and when David Will called St Johnstone a shower of “thrawn Buggers” he meant that they were being awkward, contrary and perverse in holding a centenary dinner when it wasn’t actually the centenary. He was of course being lighthearted.
That episode came to mind this week when I read the latest statements from Alastair Johnston and Charles Green. Both set out an argument which suits their individual purposes and adopted perspectives, and both perhaps chose to ignore counter argument or salient facts which would obviously derail their logic and train of thought. With the greatest of respect to both men— what a pair of thrawn buggers!!!
In that vein let me recap as to where I think we stand on this September morn in relation to the EBT debate, the question of “Club” and the Independent enquiry into payment outwith contract.
Clearly, all of these issues are closely linked but each stands in its own wee pocket or chapter, and when taken together they serve to make a whole book or paint an overall scene.
The EBT issue has been repeatedly explained on the RTC blog and elsewhere but at the risk of repeating what is already known the fundamentals are as follows:
Employee Benefits Trusts under certain circumstances are or were a perfectly legal business and accounting tool.
However, in order for the trusts to provide substantial tax advantages, any reward, remuneration or compensation they provide to a beneficiary must not form part of their contract of employment or work package. If this rule is not strictly adhered to, then tax is payable on the sums “given” to the employee, with the employer being liable for tax and national insurance contributions of any employee.
It is alleged by HMRC, that a number of persons who were at one time employed by Rangers PLC have received benefits by way of a specific EBT. Further, the benefits which these employees received were clearly related to their contracts of employment and so these payments are liable to tax, together with interest for late payment and penalties for non-declaration and so on.
This is denied by Rangers PLC and by Murray International Holdings, and MIH have instigated and conducted an appeal against the HMRC view, with that appeal being determined by an independent tax tribunal (The FTT). The basis of their argument appears to be that the benefits received by the beneficiaries were nothing to do with MIH or Rangers and that these payments were purely discretionary and at the instance of the trustees of the trusts concerned– none of whom have any connection with Rangers PLC or MIH. Therefore– there is no tax payable.
Against this there seems to be a plethora of evidence which contradicts this stance including a number of side letters or second contracts which show that any payments to these EBT’s were indeed contractual and part of an overall contract of employment “package”– and if that is deemed to be the case then tax, interest and penalties are indeed, and always were, due.
These contracts or side letters then seem to fly in the face of the documentation lodged with the SPL and later the SFA, as both bodies require sight of all contractual documentation relating to players remuneration and their terms and conditions of employment. Contracts have to be in standard form and lodged with the appropriate bodies to ensure that the player is in fact properly registered to play for the team.
Further, the rules of football prohibit any player being paid by a third party, and so payments made to a player by someone other than his employer is a breach of that rule.
It is this issue that the Nimmo Smith Tribunal is to investigate and rule upon.
For their part, Rangers PLC appear to argue that the existence of EBT’s were always declared in the notes of their accounts, and so the footballing authorities should have known that they were in use at the club. More recently, Alastair Johnston has stated that the club did receive a request for clarification from the SFA in 2011 to which the Rangers PLC board responded disclosing documents ( although he does not specify what documents ) over and above the normal documentation sent re player contracts. Johnston has gone on to state that there was no response or follow up whatsoever from the SFA, and the appropriate UEFA licence simply arrived in the post without further ado. He concludes that as a result of the documentation sent, the SFA must have known at that time that the EBT payments were being used for “player compensation” purposes.
Now, AJ argues that if any misdemeanour or breach of rules has occurred it does not merit the much discussed and publicised “stripping of titles” and that any failure on the part of the Rangers PLC board amounts to no more than an oversight or an administrative error which does not justify the ultimate penalty.
Let’s just pause there and remember who and what AJ actually is in life. Alastair Johnston holds the posts of vice-chairman and member of the board of directors of International Management Group, the leading international sports and entertainment group. Now everyone knows that IMG was formed by Mark McCormack and represents sports stars as their agent. However what is less well known is that the majority of IMG’s work comes from broadcasting – not necessarily mainstream broadcasting – but the broadcasting of certain events to mobile phones and so on and in this context the company works with the likes of Vodafone and other major service providers in the sector. Further the company has the rights to market and broadcast the sports activities of a huge number of schools and colleges in the US as well as music channels, entertainment and so on.
I raise this aspect for one very important reason.
That entire industry is based on one thing and one thing only and that is………… a Licensing system. Broadcasters of any sort obtain the rights to broadcast by way of a licence. They licence content, they licence by area and geographical location, they licence for set time periods,they share licences, sell licences, create licences and terminate licences. Without a licence, they can have all the technology in the world, all the necessary content and so on but they are not able to show it, sell it and profit from it. Proper licensing is vital!
Further, they are very precious about licences- and rightly so– because unless they have the licences tightly tied up, others in the same field can attempt to steal their content, their territory and their rights– all of which are valuable assets.
So go back again and look at all AJ’s comments about proper registration of contracts, about proper administration of documents and licence applications for players, UEFA competition and so against the background of him being a grand fromage in a major company whose absolute lifeblood depends upon proper licensing.
Do you remotely believe that the continual and prolonged inability to properly declare all relevent contracts and player documentation to a licensing body ( both SFA and SPL in this instance) can be merely an oversight or an administrative error?
Further, take a look at the accounts for Rangers PLC at least in the year ended 2005, where it is made very clear that the football management side of the business was working extremely closely with the board in all business and contract matters.
The SFA in particular fulfills a licencing function– a function which is so important that without passing the tests laid down, any club of no matter what size simply cannot play or participate in the sole sphere it is designed to participate and play in. There are strict rules about licences, and a duty on the SFA as well as Rangers PLC to make sure that all of the conditions that must be fulfilled in order to gain a licence have in fact been met. It is not a process that should be left to chance or a process that any major organisation would leave to a junior member of staff or without there being a company defined process and procedure to ensure that the applications and compliance issues are properly dealt with.
Further, if you think about how a footballer player signs for a club– the negotiations, the transfer fee, the personal terms, the contracts, the agents commission and so on, you will realise that a player signing and the terms of his contract – or contracts for that matter – cannot simply come about by accident and outwith the boards knowledge or consent.
In short, it is impossible. It is also impossible, in my respectful opinion, to proceed on a decade long process of administrative errors involving the repeated failure to disclose secondary contracts or side letters. As someone once said to me, there comes a point where a continued and continual series of repeated errors or omissions starts to look suspiciously like a plan!
However, if we were to take AJ’s comments at face value, and accept that there were repeated failures on the part of the Rangers Board by accident, then to be honest there would be every right for shareholders and investors to hold the Directors liable for such negligence. Directors regularly and properly insure themselves against such claims– so I wonder if AJ has paid his insurance premiums?
Further, if he as Chairman presided over such mismanagement, then no doubt his time at IMG is limited as I doubt such an organisation could afford to have such a dunderheid permanently ensconced in a senior managerial position.
However, AJ appears to be a positively straightforward chap when compared to Mr Green.
He of course is on record as saying that if the proposed CVA were to be rejected and the club forced into liquidation then the club dies, the history dies, and so on and so forth– but of course that was yesterday or the week before or even the week or months before that. That was the message that Mr Green wanted to convey at that time in the hope that HMRC would buckle down and accept the proposals.
Now, Mr Green seeks to sing a different tune, and recently latched on to Lord Nimmo Smith’s comments about the “club” being a continuing entity and capable of transfer from one owner to the next. He muses that if that is the case then the “club” may well in fact still be a member of the SPL and the SFA as no matter what happened to Rangers PLC, Rangers FC are ” a continuing entity” and therefore should not be forced to apply to rejoin any body which it was always a member of– such as the SPL and the SFA. Of course this then means that all the history and so on remains– despite what he himself said earlier!
Now of course, Charles makes for a good soundbite and is mad keen to ensure that as many Rangers fans as possible take up shares in “the club” when he offers them for sale.
Yet there is the problem,– shares in what are being offered for sale? According to Charles– and following his logic— he can offer as many shares in the Rangers Football Club Ltd for sale as he wants — but that company will not actually be Rangers FC– will it? If Rangers PLC was not actually Rangers FC– then what was it that David Murray was offering for sale all those years ago? Or could it be that Charles has just got it plain wrong?
You see for some reason he did not quote Lord Nimmo Smith in full– especially that part where the learned judge gave a brief description of his interpretation of the law of clubs.
For example Charles chooses not to comment on this sentence from the learned judge:
“This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise. So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator.”
Earlier, Nimmo Smith said this:
“While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time.”
So let’s pause there.
A club is an undertaking— in other words any type of loose arrangement involving a group of people with a common purpose. If a club is not an incorporated club ( a limited company ) then to be anything other than a loose idea of a few folk getting together for a common purpose such as a holiday or a meal or to read a book or anything else– then of course it should have a formal constitution and a set of rules for its members.
So– where is the constitution for Rangers Football Club? Where are its rules of admission which says who can join? Are there certain rules that preclude you from joining? Is there a set limit on how many members there can be at any one time? Who are the officers of this club?
At the current time, Mr Green seems to be very keen on everything British and everything of a loyal and royal nature. So here is a quote from the pages of the Royal Yachting Association of Great Britain on the legal status of unincorporated clubs and so on.
“Since an unincorporated club has no legal status, it is incapable itself of owning property or being party to a contract. It is therefore standard practice to appoint trustees, who are usually required in the rules to comply with committee instructions, to hold the property (whether freehold land and buildings, yachts or a long leasehold of a reservoir) on behalf of the club members.”
Eh going by that statement – Rangers FC never owned Ibrox or Murray Park– and indeed can never own Ibrox and Murray Park. Someone had to be the trustee.
Further, it can never have been granted a licence to play football— you can’t grant a right to a non legal entity or to a body which has no legal status. You cannot accept a licensing application from a body which has no legal status. You cannot be employed by a body with no legal status.
Rangers FC has no constitution, no legal persona, is not allowed to own property ( heritable, moveable or intellectual), can’t enter into contracts and so on.
In short, Rangers FC is a body with no legal status– it does not exist and has never existed— unless it is to be found within the confines of Rangers PLC which everyone now recognises is in Administration and will soon be liquidated.
Still don’t believe me?
Ok here is a recent release by the Scottish legal commission setting out changes that they want to make to the law so that “clubs” can gain some legal status:
“In Scotland, and indeed throughout the United Kingdom, unincorporated associations are not recognised as entities separate from their members. Consequently, such organisations cannot carry out acts such as entering into contracts, owning property or engaging employees. The lack of legal personality can also give rise to unfortunate, and perhaps unforeseen, repercussions for members. For example, it is possible that, under the current law, a member of an unincorporated association could, by virtue of that membership alone, find himself or herself personally liable in delict to a third party injured at an event organised by the association. Further difficulties relating to this area of the law are set out in our Discussion Paper on Unincorporated Associations (DP 140) which was published at the end of 2008.
Our Report recommends a simple regime, with the minimum of administrative burdens, to ensure that associations and clubs are recognised as legal entities. Separate legal personality will be accorded to associations which satisfy certain conditions. The main conditions are that the association has at least two members; that its objects do not include making a profit for its members; and that it has a constitution containing certain minimum specified provisions. These provisions are: the association’s name; its purpose; membership criteria; the procedure for the election or appointment of those managing it; the powers and duties of its office-bearers; the rules for distributing its assets if it is dissolved; and the procedure for amending its constitution. Many associations will already have constitutions which contain these provisions but, for those which do not, we anticipate that style constitutions will be made available, free of charge, on the websites of organisations such as the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations”
Maybe Charles should seek some advice from the Scottish Council on Voluntary organisations? And perhaps he should note that part about not making a profit for members too!
Then again, as Lord Nimmo Smith has said the actual status of a club and who or what a club is depends on individual circumstances. So with regard to Rangers, let’s look at who would know– for example, who did Charles get “Rangers” from? Duff and Phelps of course — so what do they say?
Well they have stuck to their guns because in each and every report that they have issued to the court, the shareholders and the creditors they have included the following definition:
| Rangers / the Company / the Club | The Rangers Football Club Plc (In Administration), Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow, G51 2XD (Company number SC004276); |
Now that doesn’t really help Charles does it.
Ok so, lets ignore Craig Whyte because everyone knows that he was a diddy— let’s go to folk that are far more sensible– how about the Board of Rangers PLC before Craig Whyte– what did they have to say:
Well, here is a statement from May 2011 which seems to set out who and what the then Directors thought amounted to the club– and let’s face it– they should know!
“Further to today’s statement from Wavetower Limited (“the acquirer”), the Independent Board Committee of The Rangers Football Club plc (“the club”), comprising Alastair Johnston, Martin Bain, John Greig, John McClelland and Donald McIntyre, (”IBC”) would like to make the following statement:
“In recent weeks the IBC has been engaged with the acquirer and has secured an enhanced financial commitment from Wavetower for future investment into the club. The decision on the sale and purchase of the majority shareholding in the club firmly and ultimately rests between Murray MHL Limited (“MHL”) and Lloyds Banking Group (“LBG”).
“Although the IBC has no power to block the transaction, following its enquiries, the IBC and Wavetower have differing views on the future revenue generation and cash requirements of the club and the IBC is concerned about a lack of clarity on how future cash requirements would be met, particularly any liability arising from the outstanding HMRC case.
“Wavetower is purchasing MHL’s 85% shareholding in the club for £1 and the club’s indebtedness with LBG is to be assigned to Wavetower. This share transaction would ordinarily trigger a requirement on Wavetower under Rule Nine of The Takeover Code for a mandatory offer to be made to the other shareholders.
“Given this transaction structure and following discussions with the Takeover Panel, the IBC considers there to be no purpose in the acquirer making such an offer to acquire all other shareholdings at effectively nil value per share. Accordingly the IBC has agreed that the offer period for the club will now end.
“In agreeing that no offer should be made to all shareholders the IBC has insisted that the acquirer issues a document to all shareholders setting out the full terms of the transaction, comprehensive details on the acquirer and the sources of its funding and giving firm commitments to agreed future investment in the club.
“The IBC is committed to ensure that the transaction and future investment and funding proposals should be transparent to all the shareholders and supporters of the club”
Ah— that doesn’t really help Charles Green’s current argument either does it?
So here we are, on the cusp of the FTT ruling, with a share offering in the offing, and SPL enquiry scheduled for November and no doubt Mark Daly and the Panorama team beavering away in the background getting ready for another documentary.
The decision of the FTT may reveal yet more of what the bold AJ describes as “Administrative errors” by way of failing to administer EBT’s properly so resulting in a massive tax bill, and the SPL enquiry may reveal further “Administrative errors” in failing to properly record player contracts for a decade, with the result that players were never properly registered in the first place and so were illegal players during championship winning games.
Yet all that is history and in the past.
Today’s Rangers has a new hero, a new commander– even though who he works for is a closely guarded secret and remains a mystery to most of us who may be interested to find out who Charles Green really is and who he represents. He seems to attack certain quarters then retreat, antagonise and appease, and has a habit of constantly contradicting himself when it suits.
In the interim he reminds me of the most famous creation of the American writer Timothy Zahn who brought about a revival in the fortunes of the Star Wars franchise, bringing it widespread attention for the first time in years. He did this by creating a new villain to follow in the footsteps of the administratively challenged and ultimately vanquished Darth Vader.
Zahn describes this new villain’s command style as considerably different from that of Darth Vader and other typical Imperial commanders; instead of punishing failure and dissent, he promotes creativity among his crew and accepts ideas from subordinates. He is a tactical genius who has made extensive study of military intelligence and art, and is willing to retreat instead of making a stand in a losing battle.
His full name and his true origins are only known to a few select individuals of the Empire and the New Republic.
To quote Wikipedia:
“His name is ………… reminiscent of the old Scots word meaning Twisted ot Crooked.
The character’s name is……….. Thrawn.
I suspect that we are about to see some pretty Thrawn statements from a shower of Thrawn buggers as the late David Will would have said!
isnibs says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 17:33
6 0 Rate This
I dont think anyone has picked up on this.
This is from the seperate page set up for corsica.
===========
It was a subsidiary of Gulf Finance House, Gulf Finance House Capital, who tried to buy Leeds.
Officers »
Sharia Board Position
Abdullah Bin Suleiman Al Manea
Chairman
Fareed Mohammed Hadi
Executive Member and General Secretary
Nizam Mohammed Saleh Yaacoubi
Executive Member
Abdulaziz Khalifa Al Qassar
Member
Board of Directors Position
Essam Yousef Janahi
Executive Chairman
Ahmed Al Mutawa
Vice Chairman
Abdullah Ali Al Hamli
Member
Azzam Al Flaij
Member
Mosbah Saif Al Mutairy
Member
Management Position
Mohammad H. Al Nusuf
Deputy CEO – Placement
Haider Majali
Chief Strategy Officer
Chandan Gupta
Chief Financial Officer
Hisham Al Rayes
Acting Chief Executive Officer
View all
Major Shareholders
Name Country
Bahrain Islamic Bank
Bahrain
pau1mart1n says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 18:41
Nice one campbell, we’re all delighted that your first priority is meeting charles.
your PR talents are limitless.
great to have you back.
===========
I haven’t listened to CO but from what I am reading he appears to be touting himself for a job at Ibrox.
JAMES TRAYNOR
Associate Editor, Sport, of the Daily Record who is recognised
as the one of the most influential voices in Scottish football. As
well as breaking major exclusives and giving his forthright
views on the game, Jim presents Radio Scotland’s Your Call and
Paper Talk shows and also appears on Sportsound.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“who is recognised as the one of the most influential voices in Scottish football”
Jim. Who, exactly, recognises this?
Well, I think Gary Mullen is Freddie Mercury. I’ve seen both live, and admittedly Mullen isn’t a patch on Fred – but now that Fred is Ded, I believe Gary Mullen is him. I can’t bear to live life without the real Queen.
You’ll never tell me otherwise, because it’s the truth. Anyone who says it isn’t is just a hater.
(Next week: Paul Rodgers is Freddie Mercury.)
goosygoosy says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 17:21
Agrajag
Are you seriously suggesting that Ticketus invested £24.5m of Client money in a club being sold for £1 and very likely to be liquidated without checking the implications of their contract under Scots Law ?
Seriously?
Are you saying that Octopus Investments are THAT incompetent?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Actually I would find that VERY easy to believe. How many times have English lawyers gone to the High Court in London to block some newspaper publishing something and completely forgotten that Scotland has a different legal system?
I would be willing to bet that a fair proportion of English law graduates don’t find that out (or at least don’t register it) until they start to practice.
if you don’t like tribute acts is it gigotry?
angus1983 says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 19:31
0 0 Rate This
Well, I think Gary Mullen is Freddie Mercury. I’ve seen both live,
and admittedly Mullen isn’t a patch on Fred – but now that Fred is Ded, I believe Gary Mullen is him. I can’t bear to live life without the real Queen.
You’ll never tell me otherwise, because it’s the truth. Anyone who says it isn’t is just a hater.
(Next week: Paul Rodgers is Freddie Mercury.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paul Rodgers may have kept bad company. He may even have tried to muddy the waters. But I can assure you that he will never, ever be anyone other than Paul Rodgers. Cue tons of sobs.
Conclusion
[63] I conclude that the legal nature of the rights which Ticketus has in the Ibrox stadium, the season tickets for that stadium and the proceeds of future sales of the season tickets are purely personal contractual rights. In relation to the second alternative direction I refer the administrators to my discussion in paragraphs [38] to [62] above.
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSOH55.html
Excellent, Pau1 Mart1n, best one liner today
Lord Wobbly says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 19:28
JAMES TRAYNOR
Associate Editor, Sport, of the Daily Record who is recognised
as the one of the most influential voices in Scottish football. As
well as breaking major exclusives and giving his forthright
views on the game, Jim presents Radio Scotland’s Your Call and
Paper Talk shows and also appears on Sportsound.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“who is recognised as the one of the most influential voices in Scottish football”
Jim. Who, exactly, recognises this?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mrs Traynor
johnboy5088 says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 18:30
1 0 Rate This
TallBoy Poppy at 17:25:
Are you talking about an Eatt Kilbride forklift firm and a notorious Danish conman?
I always had my suspicions about that.
Funnily enough, the conman (Bjorn Stiedl) also had significant dealings with Collyer Bristow, I believe.
So significant that they could lead to Collyer Bristow going bust if they lose a current court case.
Small world, isn’t it?
———–
He could have had a chat with Whyte along the way:
“Assets connected to Mr Stiedl were traced by SFO investigators to a British Virgin Islands offshore trust holding deposits in a bank in Jersey. Mr Stiedl insisted that his total assets were actually only worth £300,000 – an assertion which the SFO did not accept. The SFO made it clear that they were prepared to litigate in the British Virgin Islands in order to demonstrate that the trust was a front for Mr Stiedl.”
johnboy5088 says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 18:30
5 0 Rate This
TallBoy Poppy at 17:25:
…. a notorious Danish conman … Funnily enough, the conman (Bjorn Stiedl) also had significant dealings with Collyer Bristow, I believe.
————–
That was an interesting name (Bjorn Stiedl). Quite a character apparently. Funny his name comes up in this connection. Stiedl is in the clink over here I believe. I notice he’s been linked with another character in this drama by TallBoy Poppy. Was this the case they were involved in?
—————–
R v Bjorn Stiedl and Paul Baxendale-Walker
The defendants were charged in November 2000 with defrauding the pension fund of the Balfron Group, a now defunct manufacturing business, of £2.1 million. Stiedl had acquired control of the pension fund (Clarion Group Retirement and Dependants Benefit Scheme). Baxendale-Walker is a solicitor who was engaged by Stiedl. A trial at Southwark Crown Court is to be arranged.
(On 27 June 2002, proceedings against Baxendale-Walker were stayed).
Investigation conducted with the Surrey Police.
——————-
Brenda,
Lovvin it….. Are you single?
davis58 says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 15:24
I have never really understood the pathetic Elvis or My Granny analogies. The flaw in your argument is if all Elvis’s fans turn up and agree he is Elvis, too them he is, At the end of the day if I believe that Rangers are still Rangers playing at Ibrox in the same strip and with 5 stars (History), then they are Rangers to me! What you consider them to be is of absolutely no interest to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dear Davis58…
What you have expressed above is known in common parlance as………denial…
Whilst denial can be the comfort blanket many need to deal with a huge loss….it is an unhealthy emotional safety net…which long term will do more damage than good..
The facts….whilst hard to accept…are just that…facts!
There is an old saying….if it looks like a Duck…walks like a Duck..and Quacks like a Duck…the chances are its a Duck! Unless of course you are Sevconians…in which case it’s a horse..cos they say so!
I am the governor of the Bank of England…and if enough of you agree that I am…then its free tenners all round!
bangordub says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 20:20
Brenda,
Lovvin it….. Are you single?
————-
Steady. lol
midcalderan says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 20:37
😉
Lord Wobbly says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 19:38
Paul Rodgers may have kept bad company. He may even have tried to muddy the waters. But I can assure you that he will never, ever be anyone other than Paul Rodgers. Cue tons of sobs.
——
Koss Off, Wobbly! 🙂
Do you think him pretending to be Fred was just to get some cash in, then? Hmm. The Queen story is unfortunately looking more and more like TRFC … 🙂
Perhaps the next thing will be “Rangers FC featuring Ally McCoist”.
P.S. I think paulmac2 is the Governor of the Bank of England.
So, £94m owed by Oldco – as confirmed by Diddy Bros.
Hasn’t that just given advance notice of FTT result?
bangordub says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 20:20
3 0 Rate This
Brenda,
Lovvin it….. Are you single?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tsk! This would never have happened in our day! Isn’t that right Rab? 😉
Jacmclure:
The great memories I have had in following this club will never die , no matter how many people preach at me on this blog.
That is just the way I feel.
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Quite right.That’s how it should be.No one can take away your memories.You’re a fan and nothing can change the good or bad times you’ve experienced along the way.
That’s not the debate.No one can own your memories,they’re yours.In your heart your club is the same.I understand the emotional tie.Every football fan understands.
However,as you cannot trade your emotions,your personal history,if you like,by the same token,you must accept that you cannot trade your clubs history.
The club you started supporting,founded in 1872 is about to die.That does not change your memories.It wouldn’t change mine if my club were in the same predicament.
Fans know how you feel.In your heart,RFC still continue.
As far as the law,rules,etc go though and that’s where we are,RFC 1872 will die in the next couple of weeks.No sentimental arguement will change this.RFC 1872 are to all intents and purposes,dead.
TRFC are a new club,taking over from RFC 1872.I’m sure they’ll provide you with many more memories,good and bad.
I’m sure most football fans will empathise with you.no fan would like to see their club die.That’s the emotional tie.
Unfortunately,cash,not emotion pays the bills.RFC(IA) embarked on a spend,spend policy,using cash they did not have.
That’s why they will die.
Ironically,CG is basing his only remaining cash raising opportunity,on the very emotion you are,quite rightly talking about.He is betting that the RFC fans will let their heart rule their heads and buy his worthless(and probably non voting)shares.
I’d have thought,though,that after being ripped off by Murray,then Whyte,caution would have been the order of the day.
If you’re not careful,memories may be all you’re left with.
It is quite amazing, that almost 8 months down the line, there has not been a single word of criticism, not a single rebuke, and absolutely no mention of any form of sanction, from those who are laughingly supposed to run our game, on the club formerly known as RFC(IA), for the disgrace and havoc they have brought on Scottish football
Which is hardly surprising, when you consider Stooges Inc offered Green a deal to make it all go away, and avoid any form of in depth investigation, an investigation which will show just how complicit they are in this whole mess
I have no doubts, that Stooges Inc have seen all of the evidence, and know that there will be no hiding place for them, RFC(IA) or Green
Green for his part, having had his masterplan thwarted, will try (and probably succeed) in dragging those charged with running our game into the gutter alongside himself and the Peepil’s Republic of Sevconia
The clock is ticking for all of them
bangordub
Lol I’m a happily married mum of 3 just counting the hours 😉 ………… 175 🙂 🙂
angus1983 says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 20:41
1 0 Rate This
Lord Wobbly says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 19:38
Paul Rodgers may have kept bad company. He may even have
tried to muddy the waters. But I can assure you that he will never,
ever be anyone other than Paul Rodgers. Cue tons of sobs.
——
Koss Off, Wobbly!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paul Kossoff. Heartbreaker.
Brenda says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 20:59
Lovin it !
expectinrain says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 18:21
You eulogise a romantic vision of what constituted your club and to be honest, if the shoe was on the other foot, I would probably be clutching at the same straws. However, Rangers FC is gone and T’Rangers FC have taken their place.
It’s time for fans of the new club to build their own legacy and leave the old club behind. It’s not coming back, however difficult that may be for some to accept.
Althetim says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 21:09
Yes! But when, or if, those fans ‘build their own legacy’ this will be their deciding to take back the club (leaving Green or whoever it is by then with a business which will come to no longer be the club). What is gone is a legal vehicle which was, for a long time, their club – but the club is something else, and they could rebuild it.
As it goes, I’m not a Rangers fan – far from it, in fact; but the argument should hold as true for those who are as for heartfelt fans of any club.
Althetim says Monday, October 1, 2012 at 21:09
———————————————————–
i have to respectfully disagree
to all intents and purposes a club is its fans ~ you can remove money,status or the ground but somehow the club remains and i submit that it remains due to the collective purpose and memories of the fans
take away the fans and you have nothing
one thing that is surprising me is how Sevco are able to continue trading now all their season ticket money is in, i mean they are a new company with no credit history, and would find it difficult to get any credit from a maintsream bank, maybe the cashflow forecast they have done shows they need to do a share issue to get enough cash to walk away with a profit, and also why the rush to get a sponsorship deal with adidas.
Maybe too simple (and apologies if anyone has posted already) but the fact that the figure £94million has been announced, is that giving us a ‘wee’ hint at the FTT result ???
Any word from the SFA on this latest ‘revelation’? SSB was totally amazing tonight …….. No big fat l__s I mean dawwell and mr ‘hope’ were posted missing 😉
Ok. Searched and found loads on Stiedl’s links to many of the characters in this. Really odd that he could dupe Collyer Bristow since Stiedl already had a long track record of shady dealing dating back to the early 1990s. I remember the scandal over here but didn’t register his name. He siphoned off more than £30 million from failing companies between 1991-93. It must be a coincidence that Collyer Bristow not only got involved with Stiedl but also with Whyte.
This article is probably old hat to you sleuths …
http://www.thelawyer.com/collyer-bristow-defiant-in-face-off-with-rangers-administrators/1012373.article
… but this post in the comments section about Gary Withey was an eye-opener:
“Lesley Palmer | 15-May-2012 9:20 pm
Mr Withey does seem to have been remarkably unlucky in his football connections.
In 1998 he was Company Secretary at another football club – Crystal Palace. For those who may not remember Palace were bought by a local businessman Mark Goldberg who promised great things and lots of money and it all collapsed very shortly afterwards in a lot of recriminations and unpaid bills as well as some very dubious goings on.
Palace slid into administration and Mr Goldberg and another director received bans from acting as directors (Mr Goldberg’s has still not run out).
Due to the other Director contesting his ban we are lucky to have the whole sorry saga set out in the law reports
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2003/2843.html
I was particularly interested to note the Judge’s comments regarding a minute drawn up by Mr Withey relating to an amended contract which seems to have been accepted by him as not having been done correctly. Really one would think after such an encounter that Mr Withey would have been particulrly careful not to have got drawn into anything that could be misconstrued in the future – it seems he did not learn.”
doontheslope says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 16:12
Rate This
Do not ban davis58. Educate him.
Davis58, take a thin block of wood, hammer a 12″ nail through it then place it on a sofa, pointy nail side up.
Meditate while staring at it. Tell yourself it is not a nail. Convince yourself that it is in fact, a delicious, creamed fondant. Take as long as you need until, through transcendantal meditation, you are utterly certain that it is not a nail, but a tasty piece of confectionary.
Then sit on it.
Let us know how you get on.
========================================================================
Doontheslope…a million thanks!
Just come in from a dreary tax lecture…I needed that laugh!
PS Mrs Beancounter is not too happy with the biscuit crumbs all over the kitchen wall(s)…but hey, it was worth it for the laugh!
When rangers go into admin this season how many points will they be deducted 10 for a clubs first administration or 25 (or whatever it is) for a second administration.
That should soon clear up the same club nonsense.
SSB was totally amazing tonight …….. No big fat l__s I mean dawwell and mr ‘hope’ were posted missing.
Can you explain how it was amazing, usually any decent comment is fobbed off with half truths, or simply they are cut off.
The arrogance continues unabated. Everyone agrees that RFC(IA) fans are huge cash cow. They realise that turning up in numbers raises a lot of cash. What they dont realise it seems is that any gate receipts for a cup match at any ground is split evenly between the two clubs after deduction of costs.So not turning up at an away tie costs their own club money too.
http://www.vanguardbears.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=290:unified-supporters-platform-calls-for-boycott
The BBC page on Campbell Ogilvie seems remarkably lacking in context:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19789342y
Who conducted this interview?
What was the purpose of it?
Was this interview broadcast today on BBC Scotland or Radio Scotland?
If so, does anyone have a link to the footage or audio?
A strange, contextless post by the BBC imho…
expectinrain says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 21:25
============================
They can’t take back their club, it’s dead. I genuinely underdstand the pain Rangers FC fans are experiencing and they have my condolences, but nothing alters the fact that Rangers FC (1872 version) is dead. I was in a state of panic prior to the arrival of “The Bunnet” in 1994.
Rangers FC will live long in the memory of those who loved it, just as we all have fond memories of times gone by now consigned to history. We have to move on.
I’m not a Rangers fan either, as it happens…..
Anyway, it’s Two & a Half Men time. I enjoyed the craic and civilised exchange of opinions.
I had never read an Administrators’ report before coming the RTC party but I thought it a little odd that D&P’s Final Report made no mention of the investigations into possible conflict of interest, especially as their previous report (Progress Report to Creditors, 24 August 2012) included the following:
“Conflict of Interest
10.4 The Joint Administrators have provided a report to the Court of Session regarding Duff & Phelps’ prior involvement with the Company and detailing the Joint Administrators’ conflict review procedures which were undertaken prior to the Administration. A similar report has also been provided to the Joint Administrators’ regulatory body, the IPA.”
I would have thought it relevant to the administration process and the creditors for them to provide some sort of update, even if just to say that there is nothing new to say. I can’t believe that they would be so modest not to have mentioned it if they had been given the all clear. Does this lend credibility to previous suggestions from other posters (sorry, can’t remember who said what) that the whole issue is now sub judice and will any of this come out in the wash if/when they apply to Lord Hodge for the winding-up order?
Do any of our resident professionals have any links into the IPA’s disciplinary body that could shed any light from that direction?
Apologies if this has already been covered but this blog has found it’s feet in recent days and it’s getting hard to keep fully up to speed.
parttimearab says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 21:36
“take away the fans and you have nothing”
=================================
take away the money and you have nothing.
expectinrain says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 21:25
Yes but, as I’ve said before, why would anyone want to hold on to a club with such a tainted history? Would you?
chris shields (@chrisshields10) says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 21:44
0 0 Rate This
The arrogance continues unabated. Everyone agrees that RFC(IA) fans are huge cash cow. They realise that turning up in numbers raises a lot of cash. What they dont realise it seems is that any gate receipts for a cup match at any ground is split evenly between the two clubs after deduction of costs.So not turning up at an away tie costs their own club money too.
http://www.vanguardbears.co.uk/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=290:unified-supporters-
platform-calls-for-boycott
~~~~~~~~~~~~
But in their tiny minds, all that matters is hurting other clubs.
Remember that these are the same people that bang on about Rangers haters. I could stand face to face with these people, pointing out the irony of this, with any number of visual aids, and they still wouldn’t get it.
spanishcelt says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 21:42
If Rfc* are still Rfc* then they are still in administration and would be subject to a 10 pt penalty
for starting the season in administration
As they have not been given the 10 pt penalty then the SFA consider they are not Rfc*
but a NEW club
Just found the audio on the Sportsound podcast:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/scotfoot
Still don’t understand – why today, apparently out of the blue?
I run my own business and if I had an employee that couldn’t do his job for the last 6months he would be asked to resign or made redundant .
highlandjaggy says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 21:57
I run my own business and if I had an employee that couldn’t do his job for the last 6months he would be asked to resign or made redundant
=========================================================================
…even if he was a “great administrator”…?
For those Rangers fans who argue that EBTs were legal, therefore Rangers have no case to answer:
Rangers Tax-Case @rangerstaxcase 56m
Campbell Ogilvie joins Murray & AJ in attempting to distract
from truth by misstating the facts. The way RFC ran EBTs was
never legal.
For the avoidance of doubt…
“The way RFC ran EBTs was never legal.”
“…never legal”
“…never”
blackadder2 says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 21:39
============================
I don’t think there is any doubt they will need a fairly substantial cash injection at some point during the season.
Shares or asset sale seems the only likely way to do it. Who is going to provide decent sponsorship money to an SFL3 team with no European exposure.
Essexbeancounter
Want another laugh?
Campbell Ogilvie was an employee at Ibrox from 1978 to 2005. (Would that be 27 years?)
He then became Operations Director away down at Gorgie for three years, while keeping up his 3505 shares in Rangers. So impressed were Hearts that they made him Managing Director.
He became treasurer of the SFA while Gordon Smith was on the board there. Such was his prowess that he became President when George Peat retired. A year later he admitted to being paid via EBTs while he was at Rangers ASWELL as while he was treasurer at the SFA.
Lets just repeat that, Campbell Ogilvie recieved payment from Rangers while he was the Treasurer of the SFA.
He subsequently admitted that he was behind the moves for league reconstuction but denied it had anything to do with getting Rangers* back into the SPL.
Campbell Ogilvie says there is no conflict of interest.
Another guy that needs to sit on a creamed fondant.
Hi,
I’m new to this site but was a lurker on the Rangers Tax Case website. I’m a protestant Celtic fan (much to the disgust of some of my work colleagues) and like to think in fairly impartial.
Just a couple of points…..firstly there is this on-going argument between The Rangers Football Club and the rest of the Scottish football family regarding whether RFC is dead or not. Ranger’s fans will never concede to anyone that they are supporting a new club! This is just fact, how can you expect them to concede that when they are still blaming everyone for their current plight. You even have a manager and Director stating that they will never give up their trophies and arousing the minority of maniacs out there with their defiance and disturbing lack of reality. Has anyone told Ally or Charles that it’s not up to them if the trophies are taken off them?
Secondly…..Rangers fans are going on about the attendances at Ibrox but they are still missing the point. 45,000 ish fans paying half the usual price and some free tickets thrown in there too for good measure is equal to a half full stadium. I find it incredible that the Rangers fans fail to grasp the basics here……Ibrox will take substantial funds to operate and maintain, revenue is down, ticket sales VALUE is significantly down, no European football and still paying excessively high wages for the division they are playing in…….can’t they see the writing on the wall?
I’m friends with a lot of Rangers fans and some are just wind up merchants who will defend their team to all who dare to educate them on the facts that is just there way but deep most of them will be worried about what the future holds and where they will be in the next few years.
I for one am not going to waste my time and energy worrying if there fans believe they are supporting a new club or not because it is clear that it is the same old mob supporting the team and the same lack of direct action from the club owners to stamp out the hatred, which in my eyes makes them the same as before……….still Scotland’s Shame.
Lord Wobbly says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 22:07
==============================
Absolutely, the mantra that “EBTs were perfectly legal” is meaningless.
Only if you didn’t deliberately abuse the system.
Rangers did, in a pre-determined manner, for years.
looking at the final report by Duff and Duffer, they are to receive £400k for completing the CVA, document, easy money, they could have simply drawn a man thumbing his nose to the readers of it, as there was never any possibility of it being accepted. Would be good if the creditors rejected it, but unfortunately not likely. Lets hope they get their commupance at some point.
Brenda says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 21:40
Maybe too simple (and apologies if anyone has posted already) but the fact that the figure £94million has been announced, is that giving us a ‘wee’ hint at the FTT result ???
=======================
In the context of the report it is just the amount that HMRC lodged as a claim for what they were owed. That then gave them that proportion of the vote for a CVA.
I’m not saying the FTT has not but that figure being in the final report does not confirm anything either way.
blackadder2 @ 21:44
Sorry it wasn’t amazing I was being sarcastic 🙂 it was even more pants than usual because we didn’t have the usual suspects lying through their teeth and sniggering at callers because they don’t know how to answer their questions……therefore no comedic value ( they’re pathetic) B_O_R_I _N_G ….Roger (not got a scooby) Hannah and Alan Moore???? Barrel and scraping come to mind!!!
chris shields (@chrisshields10) says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 21:44
http://www.vanguardbears.co.uk/index.php?
option=com_content&view=article&id=290:unified-supporters-
platform-calls-for-boycott
,,,,,,,,,,,,
United front calling for an away boycott if Sevco get drawn against an SPL club in the next round of the League cup
What`s really interesting about this boycott is the implicit assumption that Sevco will not be drawn away to Celtic in the next round
,
How do they know that?
Bear in mind chaps Campbell Ogilvie –
Did not have an EBT
Well he did, but it was very little,
The price of a night out.
£95,000
Well according to his good mate Chic Young.
Jean7brodie on Monday, October 1, 2012 at 21:53 4 0 Rate This
expectinrain says: Monday, October 1, 2012 at 21:25
Yes but, as I’ve said before, why would anyone want to hold on to a club with such a tainted history? Would you?
–——-
Indeed not! But the principle remains: if fans are ultimately what make a club, then liquidation of a business does not end the club’s existence.
Fans of a club where the business has been mismanaged to the point of losing integrity can look to try again.
Jabba’s articles are becoming more more desperate, a sure sign that he knows the game is almost up
He is firing a single shot musket at an enemy armed with a chain gun, and he knows there will be only one winner
How long before he deserts yet again, and tells us that he was the man who exclusively revealed the truth
Justice must be done in regard to cheating that has happened at Ibrox. Rangers fans have been cheated too, of their club; what choices they make now will determine what the club now becomes.
For the rest of us, we have the luxury of a little distance. Are we going to make the kind of choices that will make such failures less likely in the future? Will we demand transparency from every club about the business owners, financial affairs and so on? Or will we just br glad it wasn’t us this time, and hope it’s not next time either?
Courage, mes braves- let’s build a better game.
Danish Pastry: Thanks for posting those links, a good read. I’m sure some of the more forensic minded posters will find it interesting.
I don’t know anything about how those courts work. I was quite intrigued to read the part where the allegation is made that Withey had faked Whyte’s signature, I would have thought the Judge would have wanted something like that verified. Isn’t that a serious crime? The Judge just dismissed it as too costly and says it is the bane of those kinds of courts!? Is it really that common in in business?
davis58 says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 15:24
“I have never really understood the pathetic Elvis or My Granny analogies…..” I was in Govan today and passed the gates of ‘Disgracedland’.
.
doontheslope says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 22:13
39 0 i
Rate This
Essexbeancounter
Want another laugh?
Campbell Ogilvie was an employee at Ibrox from 1978 to 2005. (Would that be 27 years?)
He then became Operations Director away down at Gorgie for three years, while keeping up his 3505 shares in Rangers. So impressed were Hearts that they made him Managing Director.
He became treasurer of the SFA while Gordon Smith was on the board there. Such was his prowess that he became President when George Peat retired. A year later he admitted to being paid via EBTs while he was at Rangers ASWELL as while he was treasurer at the SFA.
Lets just repeat that, Campbell Ogilvie recieved payment from Rangers while he was the Treasurer of the SFA.
He subsequently admitted that he was behind the moves for league reconstuction but denied it had anything to do with getting Rangers* back into the SPL.
Campbell Ogilvie says there is no conflict of interest.
Another guy that needs to sit on a creamed fondant.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Doon – you’ve said nothing we don’t already know but chronicling it the way you have really brings home the impact CO has had on this whole story. Not an originator or driver but a facilitator throughout. The oil without which the scam wouldn’t work.
One question then – why did he leave RFC ?
OK, another one if you can – are HMFC implicated in some way ?
thereek says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 23:19
———————————————————
He was systematically side-lined by Martin Bain.
177 🙂 and I bid you goodnight. 🙂 I wonder what exciting news we’ll hear tomorrow ………..just as an important game kicks off in Moscow!!!!
thereek
As Essexbeancounter mentioned earlier, Campbell Ogilvie was “the world’s greatest administrator”.
A lie – just like “wealth off the radar”, “hover pitches, casinos”, “cancer shop/unit”.
A lie put out there – like the visual of him distributing cup medals – to convince everyone that this is a man of integrity and a consumate professional.
Remember that gem when Alex Thompson appeared on Scottish Radio and pointed out the – in huge capital letters – CONFLICT OF INTEREST? Remember the faux indignation?
– How dare you. I’ve known Campbell for many years and can assure you his integrity cannot be questioned!
– I agree, Campbell’s integrity is not up for debate.
– Campbell Ogilvie is a man of honour. Blah blah blah…
What utter shoite! He was/is either a liar and a cheat and a co-conspirator OR the worst administrator in the world who shouldn’t have been allowed anywhere near the canteen petty cash at the SFA.
I have long since come to the conclusion that a very simple way of finding out who is guilty in terms of corruption in Scottish football, is to look at who supported CO’s rise to power, and who presently support him staying in place.
geordiejag says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 21:51
‘.. I can’t believe that they would be so modest not to have mentioned it if they had been given the all clear. .’
—
I think you may have misunderstood matters. There was no ‘investigation’ into whether D&P were ‘conflicted’.
They were appointed Administrators by Lord Hodge at CW’s request.
Lord Hodge subsequently learned from the BBC documentary that CW had been advised by a chap who later became an employee of D&P.
He very properly called upon D&P to submit a report explaining to him how they were not ‘conflicted’ as a company, in acting as administrators for someone who might have been a former client whom they had advised on financial matters.
He has still to pronounce his view of their report.
Their application to him to have ‘Administration’ status ended may or may not be granted, depending on whether LH thinks they were at the madam or not!
doontheslope says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 00:24
—————————————————-
Doontheslope, I agree that Ogilvie is holed below the water-line and should have resigned a
long time ago. but what about the possibility that Murray needed someone who wasn’t quite
as adept at the paperwork?
There’s been some interesting speculation here on how SDM might still be pulling the strings or has mapped out the strategy for deceiving all and sundry to resurrect RFC after dumping debt.
The interpretation of how this all happened does seem at least possible, and might fit with what we are led to believe is SDM’s mindset of a risk taking but thorough strategist.
What puzzles me though in this is how SDM planned to unveil his victory if he had succeeded. Would he have been able to keep it all quiet, and martyr his personal role for the good of the resurrected club? I don’t think he could do that, the man’s vanity couldn’t keep that secret too long, and the paper trail might eventually lead back to him anyway. If he had openly announced how he had done it, how would that have been received by the authorities? The public? The bears? Too many legal repurcussions I would hope.
That’s the puzzle for me now, neither option offered SDM the chance to take on the saviour role or to rescue parts of a reputation or fortune, and the plan has now failed beyond repair, thanks to RTC and the SFL rebels. So why do it?
Vanity? The risk taker mindset? Criminal short termism with no thought of consequences?
None of this would seem likely. So, its back to follow the money, but where is the profit? Seems like more good money down the drain, and this time it would be some of SDMs money, and he doesn’t seem to do that.
Captain Haddock says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 00:42
‘..What puzzles me though in this is how SDM planned to unveil his victory if he had succeeded..’
—
I share your puzzlement. There would be nothing in it for SDM. He was happy just to get out from under, using an asset stripper ( and perhaps assisting him in a fraud) to get MIH clear of a very pressing debt.
His major concern now, perhaps, and allegedly, is to avoid going to jail for conspiracy to cheat the taxman, or at least to avoid having to pay a lot of back tax.
I think I’ll stick with the more straightforward script: practised asset stripper and his associates will make money, as will the consortium under the bluff Yorkshireman.
And within a season or two, there will be no football played at Ibrox stadium, which will be sold on for re-development.
I referred previously ( seems a lifetime ago!) to the essay by Lord Macaulay about the visitor from New Zealand in future years ‘sketching the ruins of St Paul’s’.
There may well be sketches of a derelict, condemned, weed-overgrown, bleak, asbestos-toxic stadium.
http://www.scotzine.com/2012/10/94-million-reasons-why-the-quintessential-british-club-is-no-more/
john clarke says:
Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 00:34
Its no surprise either that the administrators have not followed up on their statement to the media that they were going to take action against the BBC over the allegations made in Mark Daley’s second documentary on the club, over knowledge of the Ticketus deal.
What happens on 11 October if Lord Hodge has not returned his thoughts on the conflict issue – does the administration continue?
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/campbell-ogilvie-seeks-rangers-talks-and-says-i-ve-not-been-doing-my-job-properly-1-2558355
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/ogilvie-eager-to-make-voice-heard-after-awkward-period.19039445
doontheslope says:
Monday, October 1, 2012 at 22:13
Essexbeancounter
Want another laugh?
Campbell Ogilvie was an employee at Ibrox from 1978 to 2005. (Would that be 27 years?)
He then became Operations Director away down at Gorgie for three years, while keeping up his 3505 shares in Rangers. So impressed were Hearts that they made him Managing Director.
He became treasurer of the SFA while Gordon Smith was on the board there. Such was his prowess that he became President when George Peat retired. A year later he admitted to being paid via EBTs while he was at Rangers ASWELL as while he was treasurer at the SFA.
Lets just repeat that, Campbell Ogilvie recieved payment from Rangers while he was the Treasurer of the SFA.
He subsequently admitted that he was behind the moves for league reconstuction but denied it had anything to do with getting Rangers* back into the SPL.
Campbell Ogilvie says there is no conflict of interest.
Another guy that needs to sit on a creamed fondant.
==========================================================================
Doontheslope…great…you got my day off to a good “laugh”…laugh?…in any other context the stench of corruption would be overpowering!
Even for his CEO, remember him, Mr Regan, to refer to him as “conflicted”, and both remain in post, is simply beyond belief.
Again the Scottish MSM is aware of these facts, and facts they are, not mere myths put out by “internet bampots”…and what questions, probing or otherwise, do the ask?
Leggat RTC / Daily Record blog today
Tuesday, 2 October 2012
RECORD EDITOR’S SHOCK OFFER TO RANGERS TAX CASE
DAILY RECORD editor Allan Rennie wants to meet the anonymous Celtic supporters behind the controversial Rangers Tax Case blog.
And it seems he may even be on the brink of offering them a blog on the Daily Record web site, while promising to preserve their anonymity.
It is all there to see in the latest communications between Allan Pussy Rennie and the Rangers Tax Case bloggers, one of whom is believed by many to be shamed lawyer Paul McConville.
McConville was hit by a Law Society ban earlier this year which ruled that he can only be allowed to continue to practice under the supervision of the Law Society.
He was previously a partner in a Glasgow City centre law firm which was involved in complaints from clients over compensation payments, a story which was covered extensively by Scottish newspapers, including the Daily Record.
Now comes this latest outrage from Allan Rennie whose failure to stand up to Celtic when they banned veteran sports writer Hugh Keevins for writing critically about Peter Lawwell, earned him the derisive nickname of Pussy among Record reporters.
Then that Pussy Rennie cave-in to Peter Lawwell was followed by the rotten Record editor allowing columnist and BBC Radio Scotland show host, Tam Cowan, to write a column defending BBC Scotland’s recent two appalling attacks on Rangers and manager Ally McCoist, one of them on the show Cowan co-hosts with self confessed football hooligan Stuart Cosgrove.
But his latest display of poor judgement has now put him on the same sort of collision course with newly militant Rangers supporters as the one which forced Sun editor, Andy Halfwit Harries into a u-turn over his plans to serialise Philmacgiollabhain’s book.
And it could lead to an organised boycott of the Daily Record by Rangers supporters. Any boycott would leave Pussy Rennie with a lot of explaining to do to the Record money men.
My information is that there is fury on the Record editorial floor over the way Pussy Rennie has performed since taking over as editor earlier this year.
Celtic’s all powerful chief executive Peter Lawwell banned Hugh Keevins and Pussy Rennie did nothing.
Under-fire Scotland manager Craig Levein banned Record reporters and once again Pussy Rennie did nothing.
Rangers were disgracefully attacked by BBC Scotland and Pussy Rennie allowed Tam Cowan free rein in the Record to defend his employers.
Now Pussy Rennie’s obsession with Twitter and his plan to meet and maybe even employ the Celtic fans behind the Rangers Tax Case blog, while preserving their anonymity, could be the last straw and lead to journalists revolting against their out-of-his-depth editor.
A man they see as having been promoted way beyond his extremely limited ability.
Journalists at the Record also see the fact that Pussy Rennie has gone on to Twitter and begged the anonymous Celtic men behind the controversial Rangers Tax Case blog to meet him as just another example of a middle aged man who does not fully understand the dangers and implications of Twitter conversations.
There is outrage that Pussy Rennie has even gone public and on the record on his Twitter account and admitted that he is willing to collude with the cowards behind the Rangers Tax Case blow and keep the identities secret.
He has also hinted, again on Twitter, that he may offer them a chance to peddle their anti Rangers propaganda on the Daily Record’s own official web site.
But now the cat is out of the bag and Allan Pussy Rennie is about to learn just how foolish he is being. Almost as crazy as Andy Halfwit Harries was.
And we all know how badly that turned out for the Scottish Sun and Halfwit Harries.
This latest piece of editorial mismanagement at the highest level inside the Record could now turn out even worse for the Daily Record and its Twitter obsessed editor, Allan Pussy Rennie.
Which is a shame. For the Daily Record has led the way in the Rangers story, right from the moment it exposed Craig Whyte’s shady dealings.
But that was before Allan Pussy Rennie became editor.
Sorry, forgot the link
http://leggoland2.blogspot.co.uk/
wear wellies if you venture on 😉