Since Dave King & Co took over TRFC a year and a few months ago, there have been, almost daily, reports of the imminent demise of the club, or King, or both. At the same time, again on a daily basis, there have been those who proclaimed the imminent ascendancy of the club to the top of the pile.
Up to now I have subscribed to neither theory on the basis that the former was wishful thinking based on very little evidence, and that the latter was something that Santa had passed on just before he disappeared up the chimney.
Not that I am the oracle on these matters. I confidently predicted that a reasonably healthy Rangers would see out the season clinging on to a top six place, and not for a moment did I imagine they would be sitting on the second top rung of the league ladder with half the season behind us.
Of course the notion that the newly promoted Rangers would provide serious competition for Celtic was always fanciful given their resources, and few of us on here would have raised little more than a titter at the very idea that they would; but that imminent demise theory has always had traction – a traction which until now never took hold in my mind.
The reason for that is simple. King & Co had a plan. The plan involved gaining proper control of the company via dis-application of preëmption rights and doing a soft-loan for equity swap (the company already has control of the club), building a consensus among the major shareholders, divesting itself of the onerous contracts, and enlisting as much financial support from the fans as possible before challenging an admittedly financially superior but somewhat mediocre Celtic for the league title.
The latter theory was probably based on the not unreasonable idea that a good manager with mediocre players can realistically overcome superior players with a mediocre manager.
King & Co had a plan.
In the meantime, King & Co would keep TRFC afloat with soft loans which gave them, as creditors, more and more clout come the day that the PLC (RIFC) needed to be ditched along with its shareholders, who had been expertly kept in line via some very good PR control of the MSM.
Three things have gone wrong with that plan;
- King & Co seriously underestimated Mike Ashley’s ego and his capacity for resentment. Consequently, the onerous contracts are here to stay, income streams for the team and manager throttled, and that consensus remains elusive. In its absence, they board can do very little other than posture for fear that Big Mike will drag them into court yet again.
- Compounding the problems caused by the short-fall in income, Celtic became and raised the stakes in the game by hiring a manager of some pedigree – a manager who against the odds, delivered an extra £30m into their kitty by qualifying for the Champions League.
- The tight control of the media appears to be slackening.
In short, I think the board have been guilty of believing their own hype, and underestimating the enormity of the task before them. But doubts are most assuredly creeping into their thoughts. They are running out of time and money.
The stark reality for those on the board who are providing the soft loans at Ibrox is this; they will have to keep providing those loans just to stand still in playing terms. That is a situation that some on the board now see as unsustainable, and they may turn the soft-loan tap off.
How likely is that to happen?
The club (TRFC) owes its parent company (RIFC) something in the region of £26m. The parent company is running a £4.5m structural deficit and owes King & Co around £15m.
the board have been guilty of believing their own hype, and underestimating the enormity of the task before them
I would suggest that the overall position is far worse than it was five years ago and if no major new investor was willing to come forward then, it seems difficult to see why they would do so now.
I will forgive Rangers fans if they say I am painting a bleaker picture than the reality suggests, but even if I am, one thing is clear, the current situation is unsustainable. Even if the soft lenders were to revisit their cash reserves ad infinitum, the club would fall foul of, and be sanctioned by the FIFA Fair Play directives. Something desperately has to change.
Firstly, that consensus. Ashley needs to be coaxed out of the ‘enemy’ camp. He could still be an ally of course, but that will mean King has to go. If King is still there by the end of the season I believe that the current alliance on the board will crumble, the soft loans will dry up, and of course unless a high net worth individual comes along to bail everyone out, the PLC could easily go into administration.
A few months ago, I would have thought that impossible, but maybe not so much now. I doubt there are many Rangers fans who don’t realise that King is the single biggest obstacle to any accord with Ashley, but perhaps more importantly, there are also, finally, some rumblings among the fans and in the media that King’s unequivocal promises of £30m for the team have simply not been honoured.
Douglas Park and others would like to see King gone – and Ashley needs to be coaxed out of the ‘enemy’ camp.
It is rumoured, although we cannot corroborate, that he is unable to get funds out of South Africa (this being part of his plea agreement with his SARS business). It would explain the failure to deliver on the cash promises, but his personal dispute with Ashley makes it unlikely that a solution can be found that involves both, and Park and others are aware of that. If King was as big a Rangers man as he has led us to believe, one would expect that he would be happy to step aside for the good of the club.
My belief is that Douglas Park and others would like to see King gone, and recent press coverage (not Gordon Waddell’s piece in the Sunday Mail but the recent Daily Record piece sniping at King) reinforces my belief that the unity of the current board is falling apart.
But even with King out of the picture, even with a new found boardroom unity including Ashley, the club is still a bucket with a £4.5m per annum hole in it, owing £26m in loans to RIFC. It also has a refurbishment bill for the stadium conservatively estimated at £15m, and a significantly inferior (to Celtic) playing squad and manager.
All this whilst the life is still being choked out of merchandising, the reality that football clubs in the 21st century don’t have lines of credit at the bank, and ST sales are maxed.
The income ceiling has been reached, and that £4.5m annual shortfall can only increase – especially if better players are sourced.
That is the very definition of unsustainable.
In order to meet the expectations of the fans, potential investors in the club won’t get change out of £50m, and of course those investors would be unlikely to see a return on that investment for a considerable period.
So aside from the personality clashes which are hampering the smooth running of the business, the traditional aspirations of Rangers, the size of the fan-base, and the costs of an infrastructure commensurate with that are a problem. These aspirations, in the short-term at least, are also unsustainable. They are the aspirations that saw RFC fail catastrophically, and they will, if nothing changes, do the same for TRFC.
If Dave King jumps or is pushed, the first task for a new board, if it is to succeed will be to build a consensus around survival, not immediate on-field success. PR goals need to be set to manage expectations.
I think the end of the season will see significant changes at Ibrox. The permutations of what happens next at Ibrox are too many to mention, but all of them, other than the sugar daddy or a healthy dose of realism lead us back to 2012. Of that I have no doubt.
That realism needs to include a willingness to dispense with a preoccupation over the possibility that Celtic will have a record-breaking run of league victories. It also needs to recognise that the old traditions of Rangers, where they were expected to be the top dogs in the league, are gone – perhaps forever.
And a sugar-daddy? Yes, there admirable individuals in boardrooms all over the country who constantly go into their own pockets to pay bills and keep the doors open and the lights on at their clubs.
However, the amounts required to make Rangers a top team are way in excess of what anyone outside of Stamford Bridge or the Etihad can manage. Stewart Milne doesn’t do it at Aberdeen. Dermot Desmond doesn’t do it at Celtic. And why should they?
What Rangers fans should be asking is, “Why would anyone?”
I earnestly hope that the current Rangers survive. Scottish football needs them as much as it need any other club. We all regret the demise of Third Lanark and Gretna. We feared for Hearts and Dunfermline before they emerged successfully from administration. All of our clubs add colour and sparkle to the game, so the loss of any of them is sad. And whatever side you are on in the OCNC argument, no one can deny that tens of thousands of fans are emotionally invested in Rangers’ future, and that they are well placed – financially in the long-term – to compete at the top.
ot
Re the 15/25 pts deduction argumnet. We are fast approachig the date when that becomes a moot point. As i understand it you only get a 25 point penalty if you suffer your second admin event in the space of 5 years. So if the current version of rangers avoid going in to administration before Feb 14th( or 15th? can’t quite remember) then it’ll be a 15 point penalty regardless of the OC/NC debate.
CHARLIE_KELLYJANUARY 16, 2017 at 08:51
Re the 15/25 pts deduction argumnet. We are fast approachig the date when that becomes a moot point. As i understand it you only get a 25 point penalty if you suffer your second admin event in the space of 5 years. So if the current version of rangers avoid going in to administration before Feb 14th( or 15th? can’t quite remember) then it’ll be a 15 point penalty regardless of the OC/NC debate.
______________
Good point, Charlie.
I just wonder, could this be what they are holding on for? If I remember correctly, it was stated in the accounts that more funding would be required in March, so might that have been a ready-made excuse for administration in, or before, March, but after the points deduction question deadline?
Assuming a proper administration, TRFC might be forced to offload (maybe even before the window closes to create some income) their better players and then struggle to even beat the bottom 2 clubs. A 15 point deduction would keep them above the relegation mix, but 25 would, as things stand, put them in bottom spot. They just wouldn’t dare try to win the OC/NC argument if they hit admin before the dates you mention!
As I understand it, Celtic are withholding some £350,000 of the Hogmany ticket cash until TRFC stump up for their fans’ lavy wrecking. This might be enough to tip the balance (even the cost of the damage might be enough) if the coffers are so close to empty.
We can be pretty sure that the prediction that funding would be required in March would see them down to the wire by February, perhaps even January. I suspect that there would have been a lot of wishful thinking involved in the cash projections (with transfer window sales included), with everything having to fall perfectly into place to reach, and pass, crisis point! Joey Barton, and now the fine plumbing work by the fans, might well mean the coffers are already at that crisis point.
If, as PMGB is telling us, King and his main boardroom supporters are not attending Blue Room meetings, I wonder if that leaves those who are in attendance impotent, not having the necessary powers to pay-up to Celtic to release the ticket money or to take other steps to keep the wolves from the door!
It would surely have been in character for King to have assured those board members that he would be ready to input cash to see the club through to the March funding (and, indeed, that he had that funding all set up) and then, at the point the promised extra money is required, just cut himself off from Ibrox! Pretty much standard practice of a conman, I’d have thought.
Another thought on the 15/25 point penalty deadline date. Could the pertinent date not actually be the date the club exited administration, and not the date they entered it? To me, that would make more sense, as a club/business could be in administration for any time up to a year. In the case of TRFC/RFC that is an entirely moot point, as we know RFC never exited administration, and so another great debat would be opened, should TRFC enter administration at any time after 14 Febuary 2017!
ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 16, 2017 at 09:51
I think the “additional funding” before March, will be to settle the first round of quarterlies. Those old fashioned floodlights and under-soil heating doesn’t run on fresh air. If that is the case, it will be instantly spent.
A points deduction does them no favours either, dropping them out of the top 6 and a lucrative £50 a pop Glasgow derby.
I don’t see there is any choice, other than cough, or write off.
Much will depend on the March litigation, and I believe, Works 802 waiting in the wings over the WiFi. Undoubtedly they will have a reasonable estimate of worst case costs.
Some of the “lenders” may be comfortable with the situation, having a better grasp of the sums involved, but I think it would be a reasonable assumption, that some may be cursing ever getting involved in the first place, and looking to minimise their loss.
Underneath all the subterfuge, there is only one cold reality. They are either in an affordable situation (via personal loans) or they are not.
If not, I don’t envisage any further losses, via loans in March.
CORRUPT OFFICIALJANUARY 16, 2017 at 10:32
CO, if there is an Admin event coming soon, would I be right in thinking that noone would be getting paid at the moment as The Rangers could not be seen to pick and chose which bills to pay for fear of showing favouritism? Not sure though.
AJ
Hence my earlier comment re post CVA entrance ‘events.’
I’m guessing “What happens to a post liquidation club if it suffers another one within or outwith 5 years” is not a scenario that the rule writers foresaw being asked. In fact pre 2012 they would have laughed in your face for asking it. And they would have been correct to laugh. Had they gathered their senses enough to answer at all they would have asked “so what would have been the the point of getting a CVA then?”
But I remain sceptical. I just don’t see the benefit of calling in administrators (assuming they can keep creditors under control via soft loans per the promises of the accounts of course). In that situation, from experience, it is almost always HMRC who eventually pull the trigger and that doesn’t happen until the money truly runs out a la Whyte. If the soft loaners don’t fancy it why exactly does a new investor think its going to be any different for him?
In the longer run more needs to come in than goes out soft loans and delayed maintenance do not alter that fact they only mask underlying conditions and indeed might exacerbate them.
If the stadium was in good condition and expectations were realistic and if there were no unsustainable debt and if there were untapped income streams and if there were no court cases then there should be a sustainable club in Govan, however these conditions do no pertain and any one of the issues might be sufficient to break the camel’s back.
Generating goodwill should not be expensive but every move TRFC and its supporters makes seems to be designed to do the opposite and indeed the internecine warfare seems merely to go from phase to phase rather than ending. This includes a season ticket boycott beng used to starve previous regimes of funds as well as all the sectarianism.
TRFC was a golden opportunity to put away the old baggage but that was a choice not only missed but deliberately avoided. That will not come without cost
all some or none of the above might or might not be an exclusive.
CHRISTYBOYJANUARY 16, 2017 at 11:33
CORRUPT OFFICIALJANUARY 16, 2017 at 10:32
CO, if there is an Admin event coming soon, would I be right in thinking that noone would be getting paid at the moment as The Rangers could not be seen to pick and chose which bills to pay for fear of showing favouritism? Not sure though.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
I’m not sure how that works either Chris, but as it stands I assume they are solvent, albeit “loan” dependent.
As Tris points out they are currently in an unsustainable situation. It would be foolhardy and wreckless for the lenders NOT to know the projected figures, or how long they can sustain the financial assistance.
They may choose to stick, or twist, on the litigation. Who knows? (King is rather adept at can-kicking court cases), But Euro entry is not a gimme, nor do they have anything like a competitive team. The pot for 2nd, 3rd, or 4th in the league is piddly for their needs, and the immediate future only presents a home drawn Scottish cup run to look forward to.
To lob in more loans in March, if the forecasts out-strip how long they can sustain the assistance for would be…..
Errrrr… Mental
Ditching Murray Park for development would help them a lot, but that would affect future player recruitment (even loanees), and probably result in gate reduction, resulting from stunted expectations.
Crumbledome upkeep is by far their greatest cash burn concern longer term, and I doubt even that would be sustainable with mid table (or worse) falling gates.
They either form a collective sugar daddy, and of that I am not convinced they are able, or find one quick.
How quick?………Pre-March loans does seem a reasonable stab.
“….And whatever side you are on in the OCNC argument, no one can deny that tens of thousands of fans are emotionally invested in Rangers’ future..”
_________
I think as a matter of fact that there can be no ’emotional investment in ‘Rangers” future.
The Rangers of our fathers and grandfathers is dead as a football club.It has no future.
Those who were emotionally attached to that ‘most successful club in the world’ ( give or take the element of sports cheating that underpinned some of its successes) have had to enter a world of fantasy, and ignore stark legal, commercial and sports realities in order to transfer their ‘attachment’ to a completely different legal and sporting and commercial entity.
In this, of course, they were ‘helped’ by the Football Authorities by their deceitful and, frankly ridiculous 5-Way Agreement ( signed by those acting for the actual Liquidated club and, simultaneously, by those acting for the 2012-created club that now tries to pretend to be that Liquidated club by claiming ( but only where there might be ‘entitlements’ while carefully refusing to accept ‘obligations’)
Basically, we do not need a wholly spurious and corruptly founded club which continues to lie about its origins in Scottish Football.
We will accept a club that admits that it was created in 2012, was admitted into Scottish Football as a new club, admits openly to the market-place and to the world in general that it is NOT the Rangers of 1872 and that it consequently has no title to the honours genuinely won by that old club, and when it is officially shown in the record books of Scottish Football as having no actual football history going back before 2012.
And we will ,perhaps, be ready to accept a grovelling apology from , yes, the liars in Scottish Football governance and in the SMSM ( but not from the ‘duped’ knight who so cynically cheated us all).
Murray Park development is one of those over the hill and far away type of things the planning problems might be formidable and at the very least extremely expensive and time consuming to resolve-and with no guarantee of success. There might also be conditions on the deal when the land was bought at restricted use value whereby if say housing development was allowed then the original seller would get some or all of that increased value.
So it might be that the value would be as is as a football club training ground and sports facility. The other Club which could use such a thing has already got a new one of its own so do not need it unless it was purchased for their youth teams….
My posting during the day is not indicative of great age but of working from home on my own behalf (ok I admit I am also pensioned up )
My earlier post seemed to hang in the ether when the new blog was posted.
Had I known it was coming then I could have saved a lot of time as my post covered much of what Tris has said.
The running costs of Ibrox and Murray Park are high, twas always thus and will continue to be so. These costs have to be met before anyone even considers the product on the pitch. A good deal of the money coming in at present goes straight back out without touching the sides.
The Bears have done a fine job in supporting their club and I do not see that stopping this season or by the time renewals come along.
However, I do expect a lot of questions to be asked given the first piece of silverware for this season is in the Parkhead trophy cabinet, the league title is going nowhere else other than the east end of Glasgow and yesterday’s friendly showed T’Rangers are nowhere near ready for a push towards Euro glory.
A bumpy performance in the Cup and the possibility of Aberdeen and/or Hearts putting in a good second half to the season could bring all manner of discontent.
I hear it often said that the Budge plan at Hearts could come of the rails if the product on the pitch isn’t what is expected and fans start turning away or failing to support the club financially, so why is the same scenario not applicable to T’Rangers.
That being said I still see admin being a while off, unless a creditor or two gets nervous or a litigant wins a hefty case.
The option of a share issue to existing shareholders still stands, more soft loans are an option both from the board and their cohorts and Club 1872. Early renewal money will help keep any wolves from the door until at least the end of this season.
The reliance on youngsters on loan to shore up the side, where summer signings have not been successful or have ended up injured, just highlights the how close to the wire the club is being run.
If the status quo continues then I do not foresee anything different re the summer transfer window. Cheap deals, loans, no marquee signing and no obvious talent coming through the academy.
It is by August of next season that T’Rangers fans will either be beelin or settling themselves in for the reality of a long season a la the main body of the Kirk that focuses on hoping for second spot, a cup run and for the select few a possible run in European qualifying rounds.
How the money matters pan out after that, then who knows as the current model is still unsustainable.
John ClarkJanuary 16, 2017 at 13:1
We will accept a club that admits that it was created in 2012, was admitted into Scottish Football as a new club, admits openly to the market-place and to the world in general that it is NOT the Rangers of 1872 and that it consequently has no title to the honours genuinely won by that old club, and when it is officially shown in the record books of Scottish Football as having no actual football history going back before 2012.
————————————————————————————————-
I agree we would accept all of the above and Scottish Football could then, to coin a phrase Move On.
No fan of the Ibrox club is going to IMO agree to any of the above. The smsm if they backed all of the above would have to all resign from their posts for their disgraceful reporting over the last 5 years, again IMO not going to happen. It makes sense for the board to want King removed as then as mentioned Mr Ashley may cone to some amicable agreement regarding the merchandise. Again King likely to leave of his own accord, not likely. The Ibrox fans look upon him as the RRM/saviour of the club so what if King left?. How would the club and the smsm publish/portray this as a positive move to appease the Ibrox fans? They only want King as he is a RRM so what next, who would they be willing to follow, surely you can only be gullible for so long (you would think). I would not want to be in their place but it is kind of self inflicted to a point as they really to an extent still believe the famous traditional saying of WATP and they believe they should be at the top of Scottish Football, and I mean the top, not challenging Celtic as that has been drip fed into them since history began (or more factually correct since Celtic began).
Time is not on their side, it is on my side and every other football fan’s side (outwith Ibrox) and we can wait, but patience and lack of success to the Govan club is not the terms their fans want to accept. Some say OCNC is tiresome blah blah but IMO this has been the most important issue from the day of liquidation, they were never told in the cold light of day (apart from 1 day) from the smsm, pundits and the SFA that their club died. This is why to a certain extent we are where we are today as the Ibrox club and fans state terms like going for 55 and we are the most successful club in the world. Which enforces in their minds that the are special people and superior to all others in Scotland. Their club died. If they had accepted that they would not have been ripped of so easily concerning their money. King is not the man to lead the club forward, he is a criminal, fact.
Just wondering if Dave King, or at least his acolyte Murray, turned up at the match in Leipzig yesterday. I imagine he would have been there, as, according to months of well sourced factual rumours, Red Bull were desperate to finance the club that one of their current stable were playing in a top European match. A match, according to all those well informed bears, that had been arranged specifically as an opportunity for both sides, TRFC and RB, to get together to thrash out, or to celebrate, the marrying of a bad tasting drink with a bad taste football club!
Now, just maybe, Red Bull are interested in buying TRFC, but surely, if this match was arranged, in any way, as a sideshow of such a deal, all the top RIFC directors, in particular those who make the deals, would have been joining their RB counterparts at Europe’s match of the day!
“It is rumoured, although we cannot corroborate, that he is unable to get funds out of South Africa (this being part of his plea agreement with his SARS business).”
South Africa has rather complicated exchange controls, designed to ensure the majority of money made in the country stays in the country.
IF DCK wishes to remain an SA resident, it seems that, as an individual, he can transfer 11m Rand out of the country each year (1m ZAR as a personal allowance & 10m ZAR as a Foreign Investment Allowance), which is about £670000. He could also become a Financial Emigrant & be allowed to remove larger sums, but with punitive restrictions. (The foregoing assumes that he is in good standing with the tax authorities, of course.)
£670k PA is certainly helpful, but it’s not a solution.
https://www.resbank.co.za/RegulationAndSupervision/FinancialSurveillanceAndExchangeControl/FAQs/Pages/Individuals.aspx
Over on twitter there has been some exchanges over Keith Jackson’s ludicrous piece suggesting there exists an ‘unwritten rule’ between Celtic and ‘Rangers’ that the tab for any damage caused by away fans would be picked up by the home club. Now there may have existed some kind of ‘gentleman’s agreement’ in the past, but surely all agreements, real or unreal (unwritten), would have expired with the liquidation of one party. Now, whatever way Jackson chooses to view the OC/NC debate, all contracts, deals etc have to be made between corporate bodies, and the corporate body that was Rangers FC is definitely now, under any stretch if any stretched imagination, being liquidated.
So, just who does he think arranged a new ‘unwritten rule’ between Celtic and RIFC/TRFC, and when does he think it came about? I am sure he is in a position to be told by one of his contacts/masters at Ibrox/Level5 just exactly when and by whom this ‘rule’ came about and will share it presently.
Alternatively, an ‘unwritten’ rule might be the kind of rule that an ‘ethereal’ Celtic might enter into with an ‘ethereal’ Rangers, because none of them actually exist in the real world.
More seriously, and as an example of why Jackson’s ‘unwritten rule’ would be so stupid, someone on twitter made the point I paraphrase; if that rule does exists, what’s to stop either set of supporters deliberately setting out to cause damage to their hated rivals stadium that would cost many tens of thousands of pounds to repair! Indeed, it might actually encourage such vandalism!
Of course, Jackson has written this piece, not to discourage headcase supporters from vandalism, nor to point out how those thick bears have cost their club money it can’t afford! No, he’s chosen to write an article that somehow rubbishes Celtic for wanting TRFC to pay the money the real rules, and common sense, say they must pay!
ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 16, 2017 at 17:43
Who needs unwritten rules, when there are written ones? Page 74..H40
http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__rulesofthespflasat01_jan_17current_1483611871.pdf
Scottish investigative journalism at its best.
ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 16, 2017 at 17:43 7 Votes
Over on twitter there has been some exchanges over Keith Jackson’s ludicrous piece suggesting there exists an ‘unwritten rule’ between Celtic and ‘Rangers’
——–
this unwritten rule may have come about after this(link provided) but that rule must have ended in 2012.
compare and contrast same situation but different headlines.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12700261.Ibrox_ban_on_Celtic_fans/
AJ/CO
There is no such ‘unwritten rule’. One wonders; to what lengths will Jackson go to be seen to be on the Bears’ side?
More stunning investigative industry making a story standup. “Corroboration? Nae worries. I’ve seen the unwritten rule!”
Clearly some halfwit at Level 5, recognising a kindred spirit, passed on that gem.
Even clearer, Keith most certainly would have checked the existence of said unwritten rule with Celtic ….. No wait …….
Anyway..Anyone know how Albert kinloch got on?
I think it’s tomorrow Cluster One.
Thanks Big pink
Surely the idea of the club whose supporters did the damage paying for it is the only sensible option to take.
It is clearly the best way to try to minimise the actions of the hard of thinking.
There are some idiots who support Celtic, and every other club I would imagine. If they are visiting another stadium here are the two obvious options.
1, Your own team will have to pay the bill if you decide to indulge in mindless vandalism.
2, Your opponents will have to pay the bill if you decide to indulge in mindless vandalism.
Seriously, which is the more likely to discourage that sort of behaviour.
Rather aptly it’s a “no brainer” if you ask me.
In other thoughts, I see that one of the people charged with the vandalism of the Celtic last year was a serving Police Officer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-23271493
“Samuel Johnstone, 28, allegedly carried out the offence and a sectarian breach of the peace at the ground on 29 April 2012.”
I cannot help but cast my mind back to an earlier Daily Record story
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/toilets-destroyed-celtic-park-police-8807634
“Toilets destroyed at Celtic Park as police praise both sets of fans
PHOTOS show extensive damage in away end of the stadium as Police Scotland release statement hailing supporters’ behaviour at first Old Firm league clash in four years.”
Very well put Tris, and no more than I would expect from a reasonable man like yourself.
There is still a major problem with a sense of entitlement though, and to paraphrase from the article by Gordon Waddell yesterday ‘why do some people think Rangers are a national treasure?’ Such a thing would be something that the nation views as a shared, cultural asset. I have no doubt that there are many within the Scottish establishment who do view Rangers this way. Just what advantages do they perceive this status should bring? I have been asking myself this many times over the past two weeks, every time I see calls for Rangers to ‘splash the cash’. Given that they have no money, and no bank will extend them credit, just where do they think the money should come from?
JOHN CLARKJANUARY 16, 2017 at 13:16
We will accept a club that admits that it was created in 2012, was admitted into Scottish Football as a new club, admits openly to the market-place and to the world in general that it is NOT the Rangers of 1872 and that it consequently has no title to the honours genuinely won by that old club, and when it is officially shown in the record books of Scottish Football as having no actual football history going back before 2012.
This is EXACTLY what I want and have been saying since the SPFL punished the old history on their website. I would wish them luck in the future if only they could stop the pathetic attempts at re-writing the past.
CHRISTYBOYJANUARY 16, 2017 at 11:33 8 Votes
CORRUPT OFFICIALJANUARY 16, 2017 at 10:32
CO, if there is an Admin event coming soon, would I be right in thinking that noone would be getting paid at the moment as The Rangers could not be seen to pick and chose which bills to pay for fear of showing favouritism? Not sure though.
——————–
This got me thinking…i know,i know
If celtic don’t get paid for the damage to toilets..what is the next step
1. Do the SPFL get involved and would there be sanctions or punishment for non payment?
2.Do celtic take the ibrox club to court for non payment?
3.If it does go to court(a big if)and the ibrox club can’t pay. would they be pushed into Administration by celtic?
Big PinkJanuary 16, 2017 at 18:55
AJ/CO
There is no such ‘unwritten rule’. One wonders; to what lengths will Jackson go to be seen to be on the Bears’ side?
More stunning investigative industry making a story standup. “Corroboration? Nae worries. I’ve seen the unwritten rule!”
Clearly some halfwit at Level 5, recognising a kindred spirit, passed on that gem.
Even clearer, Keith most certainly would have checked the existence of said unwritten rule with Celtic ….. No wait …….
_______________________
It was not just for a laugh that I set ‘unwritten’ (in this case) with ‘ethereal’ (a Clumps description of a separate Rangers, if I recall correctly), but to highlight yet another nonsense that this everlasting attempt to keep ‘Rangers’ alive creates. It surprises me not that there was no such unwritten rule, and even if there had been, I cannot see a situation where Celtic would wish to reinstate it with a club, so full of hate for everyone (but especially Celtic), and with a support so hell-bent on revenge! Just how could Celtic hope to break even on such a ‘rule’, written or unwritten? Even the comparison of the quality of, say, the toilets would show Celtic to be on a loser on any comparative type of damage.
There is so much that is unreal about this ‘Rangers’ Saga, and not least the role played by such unreal characters such as Keith Jackson, Sports Reporter!
And as you so rightly point out, he clearly didn’t check with Celtic, but then they have no links with Level5, which just goes to show how nonsensical Jackson’s claims to not be Traynor’s/Level5’s lapdog are!
CLUSTER ONE
JANUARY 16, 2017 at 19:50
==============================
In circumstances such as those it would often, if not always, be the creditor who would move for administration.
Once the debt is established the creditor should simply pay it. If they do not then the debtor can move to have the company would up in order for their debt to be paid. If the creditor then places itself into administration any winding up is then automatically put on hold.
If I remember correctly HMRC moved for winding up several times in relation to HMFC. Hearts were able to keep paying the bills and the winding up never happened. Eventually when they couldn’t they were forced to place themselves into administration in order to prevent being wound up.
CLUSTER ONEJANUARY 16, 2017 at 18:55
Anyway..Anyone know how Albert kinloch got on?
———————————————-
BIG PINKJANUARY 16, 2017 at 19:01
————————————————–
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2Sp-iyXgAA791n.jpg
CLUSTER ONEJANUARY 16, 2017 at 19:50 This got me thinking…i know,i know If celtic don’t get paid for the damage to toilets..what is the next step1. Do the SPFL get involved and would there be sanctions or punishment for non payment?2.Do celtic take the ibrox club to court for non payment?
====================================
Personally I hope Celtic sell the tickets for the next game directly to Rangers fans. This is not a fanciful notion. A number of teams in the league do this. Proof of identify and address required for each ticket sold. It seems clear that Rangers are going to withhold some money no matter what, even though they have offered no evidence of vandalism. Alternatively Celtic could demand the ticket money in full up front from Rangers, or no tickets will be sold. Perhaps by that time there will be other reasons for doing that anyway.
HOMUNCULUSJANUARY 16, 2017 at 20:20 Rate This
CLUSTER ONEJANUARY 16, 2017 at 19:50==============================
In circumstances such as those it would often, if not always, be the creditor who would move for administration.
Once the debt is established the creditor should simply pay it.
—- If they do not then the debtor can move to have the company would up in order for their debt to be paid. If the creditor then places itself into administration any winding up is then automatically put on hold.
——————————-
Once the debt is established the creditor should simply pay it.
The debt has been established and is not being paid.
————————
If they do not then the debtor can move to have the company wound up in order for their debt to be paid.
that is what i (in a strange way)was asking,could celtic have the company wound up for non payment?
thanks for reply
HOMUNCULUSJANUARY 16, 2017 at 20:20
so if the ibrox club can’t pay the bill they could be forced to put themselves into administration in order to prevent being wound up.
Am i getting that right?
CLUSTER ONE
JANUARY 16, 2017 at 20:30
==============================
I think you would also have to show that the company can’t pay the debt, rather than they simply won’t. If they can then there are other remedies.
Bearing in mind most people or businesses simply want paid what is owed to them, when the payment is due.
CLUSTER ONE
JANUARY 16, 2017 at 20:37
===========================
See my last, that is my understanding.
Bearing in mind that a company which cannot pay it bills as they fall due is insolvent. The real type of insolvent.
UPTHEHOOPSJANUARY 16, 2017 at 20:27
)
Personally I hope Celtic sell the tickets for the next game directly to the Rangers fans.
———————
How much of a loss would that cost the ibrox club? celtic would charge admin and handling charges(i know now that is costly
CLUSTER ONEJANUARY 16, 2017 at 19:50
“If celtic don’t get paid for the damage to toilets..what is the next step”
—————————————————————————————
C1, The following rule, H41 states it goes to a commission and judicial panel.
However I would suggest CFC, after 4 months of asking for the costs to be settled have already (sometime in the interim), involved the SPFL. Bearing in mind the SPFL themselves had to deduct an unpaid fine from Sevco’s prize money, suggests they have set a precedent of sorts.
It could be said that the headlines should have read, “Celtic save Sevco thousands in court costs” ….Or are they just supposed to let Sevco off?
Again, it could be argued that Celtic did them an additional favour wrt European entry, by preventing them having any outstanding football debts. (at least to Celtic)
As BP points out…..It’s not difficult to follow the footprints in the snow, as to the source of the story.
I hope Celtic don’t sell the tickets directly to the Rangers support.
Rangers could then argue that it was not their fans buying the tickets, just people who Celtic decided to sell them to. So why should they be held responsible for a transaction they had no part in.
If the fans behaved a certain way, acted a certain way, caused damage how could Rangers be held responsible.
There are fans of every club in Scotland who frequent this site. I’d have a hard time believing that any of you would be happy with a rule/gentlemans agreement that stated that your club would pick up the tab for damage done to your clubs stadium by visiting fans. It simply beggars belief that anyone could think any club in Scotland would agree to that.
The whole point of making the visiting team pick up the bill is that it may give some of the morons who engage in this type of mindless vandalism, pause for thought if they know its only their own club they are harming financially. Its meant to be a deterrent for fans doing it in the first place. Its only an issue for visiting fans as even the biggest morons tend not to vandalise their own teams stadium!
Keith Jackson is an idiot but he’s not THAT big an idiot. He knows fine well there has never been an agreement between Celtic/rangers for the home team to pay for damage caused by the away team.
This is just another example of shoddy journalism and an attempt by the MSM to muddy the waters in order to protect their favourite club and try to drag Celtic in to this.
Rangers fans wrecked the toilets at Celtic park. They also filmed it and they shared it far and wide on social media. Celtic fans left scented candles in the toilets at ibrox, filmed it and shared it on social media. One act is clear vandalism & criminal behaviour. The other is good natured banter but of course this completely flies in the face of the MSM narrative of “they are both as bad as each other” so if the evidence clearly shows one side behaving worse then the evidence needs to be changed/ignored/twisted in order to fit the narrative.
CORRUPT OFFICIALJANUARY 16, 2017 at 20:46
————————————————————————————— C1, The following rule, H41 states it goes to a commission and judicial panel.
—————-
As celtic have produced a cost for the damage and will have invoices, pictures even video of the damage been created and can be held over to a commission and judicial panel.
If all the ibrox club can produce is but ibrox sustained some damage. with no proof.
please let it go to a commission and judicial panel.
Where is everyone today?
This Coral court case about RFC’s “relegation” or not in 2012 is getting pretty interesting if James Doleman’s tweets are anything to go by.
It looks like (to me anyway) that Coral will have to establish that RFC were not relegated but in fact liquidated/placed in liquidation and that the club calling itself “rangers” in Div3 in the 2012/13 season was a totally different club. It’s either that or pay out £250,000.
The gentleman has also just pointed out that Coral still use the term “old firm” in their marketing literature for Celtic-Rangers games this season. i.e. Coral think it’s the same club but he also has an email from Corals stating that its a different club!
So what’s it to be Corals?
Remember, Charlie, that Coral also stated recently that Kenny Miller had scored for all three OF clubs
I laughed out loud at this:
“James Doleman @jamesdoleman 5m5 minutes ago Sandison raises “Blogs by the gentleman with the Irish name” suggests “he is not friendly to Rangers.”
__
Whatever can you mean, Mr Sandison?
Isn’t there a gentleman on the TRFC board with an Irish name? He doesn’t spell it in it’s original irish language form (Mac Giollagain) . Is the spelling of one’s Irish name an indication that one is either ‘friendly’ or ‘not friendly’ to a entity claiming to be ‘Rangers’?
What a fud!
That kind of remark makes me almost wish that Kinloch will win , and collect his dosh.
(Almost, but not quite!)
Coral must insist on the legal and commercial and footballing truth: ‘Rangers’ were not relegated. They were liquidated, and ceased to be a participating member of the Scottish professional footballing community.
Let’s hope we get some of the liars called as witnesses.
I do wish I was there!
Is anyone else worried that, financially, it might suit Coral to lose this case? After all, they would then only lose £250k whereas if they are deemed to have proven that it is a new club, the subsequent boycott could cost them more.
I know the court has to rule on the truth, but it can only rule on what both parties put in front of it and, as we saw with Mackenzie at LNS, the party we think might want the truth proven, may not!!
How might one prove that the old submarine that sunk is not the new submarine? Check to see if it floats? Just thinking aloud.
nawlite. I made that very point the other day. And they don’t have to pay out 250k to achieve it(not stirring the pot) either. The guy is looking at a 0 payout. Anything to the positive is good for him.
James Doleman’s coverage is fascinating but I was blown away with this one.
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/821338392986316800
He quoted LNS in support of his case, but clearly he knew more than LNS EVER did.
Council for Corals appear to be going down the “If you can’t attack his argument then attack his character” route.
All the questions to Mr Kinloch have been about his employment history, his gambling history, what blogs he reads etc…. What does any of this have to do with rangers being relegated or not being relegated in 2012? I’d have thought that an “objection” to that line of questioning would be in order or have I been watching too much TV ?
CHARLIE_KELLYJANUARY 17, 2017 at 13:32
Council for Corals appear to be going down the “If you can’t attack his argument then attack his character” route.All the questions to Mr Kinloch have been about his employment history, his gambling history, what blogs he reads etc…. What does any of this have to do with rangers being relegated or not being relegated in 2012? I’d have thought that an “objection” to that line of questioning would be in order or have I been watching too much TV ?
————————————————————————————————–
Maybe he’s leading up to a “Perry Mason” moment!
I thought this was the most revealing post (although we rely on James for context obviously).
I
I don’t gamble, don’t even understand it, but I’d give you pretty strong odds that no one outwith the realms of bampot forums would offer the throwaway phrase “Scottish Institution” as above. That’s not a cheap dig at Rangers, its an observation that his defence, clearly built from here and elsewhere does not lend itself to that of your idle pensioner taking a simple punt.
I think what Kinloch is trying to establish is that he, an innocent in such matters, placed a bet on the understanding that Rangers would be removed from the top tier, and then a ‘Rangers’ (accepted by the world as the real Rangers) would be playing in a lower league, and, therefor, relegated. I think, in this scenario, it is important for him to establish he is that run of the mill punter, and not someone who would know the difference between what he imagines to be the case and how a bookie would take it to be. Hence the questions by the defence regarding his previous employment, and their efforts to show he knew what he was doing.
Either that, or he is actually a Celtic fan who has made a nice wedge or two from poker, who just wants to force Corals’ defence to prove that RFC were not relegated, but liquidated!
I’d suggest his only chance of winning the case is if Corals, as has been suggested already, decide they don’t want to win by proving the OC/NC debate, and are trying to show his claim is spurious and the bet was placed by a man knowledgeable enough that they could not be held to have cheated him!
I’m sitting here at half-past midnight in Birkdale, Queensland, not able to go to bed because I’m following James D’s tweetsl
How I wish I were there!
Has “insider” talk reached Corals’ ears, that the judge will not be ruling on quasi meta-physical fitba jurisdiction, so don’t even go there? Find some other reason.
Counsel for Coral now getting to the crux of the matter. Suggesting relegation from top tier would then go into the first division, not the third..
I think Albert Kinloch v Coral Racing Ltd t/a Coral may fairly be regarded as 2017’s On Hearing The First Cuckoo Of Spring. Must be a climate change thing.
It will be interesting to see where it goes but I note some well kent names feature in the dramatis personae.
Everyone will have had some work; decorating, landscaping etc, done about the house and if the quality of workmanship is high an enquiry is often made about a contact number for the tradesman involved.
It looks as if Coral asked Sports Direct and Mike Ashley for a contact number for Craig Sandison QC.
From memory Mr Sandison did not miss and hit the wall in Mike Ashley’s ultimately unsuccessful Judicial Review against the SFA. This was the case with the Punch and Judy routine involving metaphysics, football jurisprudence and clubs as philosophical ideas. Mr Sandison at one point made the submission “The club is not an ethereal entity…”
Whatever your view of Mr Sandison’s approach, then or today, he is still Mr Ashley’s go-to guy for the Rangers (PanGalactic or elsewise) / Sports Direct case in London in March.
Do betting slips have an alternate thread for OC/NC?
Judging from James Doleman’s tweets, counsel for Corals is trying very hard not to mention liquidation, saying, ‘club lost permission to play in SPL’. How on earth does any club ‘lose permission to play’? Rangers did, however, lose the right to play in the SPL, by virtue of it’s falling into liquidation.
Oh, I love it! All kinds of stuff coming back to haunt people!
” James Doleman @jamesdoleman 12m12 minutes ago Court shown a quote from Ally McCoist in which he thanks the SFL.for allowing Rangers in ”
The applicant new club were ‘allowed in’. Not ‘in but relegated’, but ALLOWED IN ( as a new club).
At half past one in the morning, I have to yield to Mrs C’s entreaties ( expressed in the kind of imperious language that has “NOW!” added on , forcefully) that I should come to bed.
Fair do’s, we’ve been up since 6.30 this morning, and it’s now about 1.40 a.m on Wednesday.
never one to refuse a lady……… I have, like the rest of ye, to obey, or ma tea’s oot.
JOHN CLARKJANUARY 17, 2017 at 15:39
lol. Night night John. Don’t let they big Aussie buggers bite
James Doleman @jamesdoleman 4m4 minutes ago
Kinloch “I don’t understand the legal technicalities but Rangers are Rangers.”
Surely that is the one that opens the door for Coral to put the thing to bed?
oopsie
A good piece from J.F. 20 mins ago, …
http://thecelticblog.com/2017/01/blogs/celtic-fans-can-counter-media-lies-only-celtic-can-stop-them-outright/
2 QC’S arguing about the rules of football and the meaning of relegation,but not one of them smart enough to go to the football authorities and ask the question,were rangers relegated?.Simple stuff being made to look difficult.
TANGOEDJANUARY 17, 2017 at 16:27
Well indeed. Of course they could have issued a citation to the likes of Doncaster and Regan to give their definitions on relegation and what happened to Rangers/T’Rangers but the purser would surely argue they are tainted by association being both SFA and SPFL (along with some member clubs) rely on bookies sponsorship cash. 🙂
Yes. And so presented with the gaping open goal with all of the defenders on the ground waving a white flag and holding a big flashy sign with “The goal is here” Coral bizarrely follow up with
Interesting court case.
IMO, the average chap on the street would back the punter to collect the payout: the bookie has been ‘sloppy’ and that’s their doing.
This Mr. Kinloch is a shrewd chap as well: as we all intensely debated the imminent demise of Rangers on the RTC site on a daily basis…none of us was smart enough to place a similar bet, and multiple times, with multiple wordings !
Can see the guy getting hee-haw, with a wishy-washy summing up which keeps TRFC’s ‘RFC status’ ambiguous.
Is the Sandison acting for Coral Craig R.K. Sandison QC?
Not being a Twitterer…
Thank you Mr Doleman.
Well that was a fun day in court.
I can’t really add much to what James Doleman has tweeted, so please refer to his timeline for detail of what was said.
Albert Kinloch was quite a character and was in the witness box for the best part of four and a half hours, with more to come tomorrow. He was comfortable facing questions from Ms Poole, his own QC, but less so and more argumentative when cross-examined by Mr Sandison for Coral. Some of Kinloch’s one liners were quite funny
Kinloch’s arguments rely on the continuation line, and while Sandison initially made little headway, he started to introduce the the newco element towards the end of the day, even going through the LNS “reasons” document, from Sept 2012 (despite the same document being quoted by Ms Poole as evidence re the ethereal club).
I honestly don’t know how it will play out. There is £250,000 + legal costs on the line, so it is well worth winning.
One moment that might get a chuckle from JC was when Sandison started to take Kinloch through the timeline of Rangers takeover, administration and liquidation. When 6th May 2011 came up as the date that SDM sold the club Lord Bannatyne, unusually for him, smiled broadly together with a knowing smirk to himself, then looked up to the ceiling as he gathered himself and resumed his normal quizzical scowl.
I should add that on my way out of court I saw a guy who looked familiar sitting on a bench in the corridor. He said hello and asked why I was in Court. I then realised who it was. None other than David Grier, so I had a a five minute chat with him about his latest action against Police Scotland and HMA, and some reflections on what had gone on previously in the fraudco case. He suggested that I should try and get a copy of the previous judgement in the D&P action against the Police and HMA. I think JJ posted extracts from it a couple of months ago. There will be further hearings to come in his case.
Anyone happy that we managed to have a grown up court room discussion re sevco this afternoon really want to stay off Radio Scotland just now.
Looking at JD tweets this evening. To me it looks as if Mr Kinloch has more or less suggested the SMSM say relegated,Coral still market it as the old firm.
now let’s see what you have got.
should be very interesting in court tomorrow.
Ps well done @jamesdoleman
There is a very interesting article (in my opinion, anyway) by Martin Hannan in this morning’s “National”. Here is a link to the articlle- http://www.thenational.scot/sport/15027253.Opinion__The_National_is_on_the_ball_for_sporting_justice/?c=q3fvfo
You may need to register to read the article, so here are a couple of extracts.
On the forthcoming Supreme Court decision-
On the way journalists have handled the “Rangers” issue since 2012-
NEEPHEIDJANUARY 17, 2017 at 21:56
We were silenced……wow!
Looks like Mr Kinloch has made it to the front page of the Record. As has the phrase “entering Liquidation” and “Mr Green…buying the assets ” (and notably only the assets, not the business). Why the need for media accuracy now I wonder?
SMUGASJANUARY 18, 2017 at 00:14
Looks like Mr Kinloch has made it to the front page of the Record. As has the phrase “entering Liquidation” and “Mr Green…buying the assets ” (and notably only the assets, not the business). Why the need for media accuracy now I wonder?
———————————————————————————————————————————-
Maybe they smell death.