End of the Road for King?

ByTrisidium

End of the Road for King?

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;

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

About the author

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

357 Comments so far

AllyjamboPosted on7:29 am - Jan 18, 2017


neepheidJanuary 17, 2017 at 21:56

To quote Cluster One, Wow!

If the whole article is as honest and revealing as that, and doesn’t veer from the truth, it must be the best mainstream media article written, or broadcast, on ‘Rangers’, and I include both clubs of that name, since Mark Daly’s, ‘The Men Who Sold the Jerseys’! We all believed, and indeed knew, what Martin Hannan has revealed to the print reading world here, but, in this one article, he has jumped to the top of Scottish sports journalism, and has shown he has the guts to, one day, make it as a real journalist! All he needs to do now is to keep up this standard.

Hats off to the man for including himself as a member of the compliant hacks society, and well done to the National for taking a stance that suggests it might be trying to gain a new readership with this, hopefully first, continuing truthful expose of the ‘Rangers saga’ and the Scottish media played in it!

Thanks, Neeps, for posting that. It’s like a light has suddenly been switched on in a room dark for the past five years.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on7:47 am - Jan 18, 2017


Nope.  Impossible.  If Mr Samdison (representing Coral remember) closing remark re separate club and company is correct then by default the club (any club) becomes immortal with death an impossibility and therefore, again by default, “Rangers” must have been ‘relegated’ thus losing his client the case.  Bizarre.

View Comment

NTDEALPosted on8:45 am - Jan 18, 2017


Interesting times at the moment.
Coral’s legal team need only cite Charles Green.He can tell his story and case closed.Not entirely sure of the pursuer’s motives here,be interesting if there was anyone out there who knows Mr Kinloch.
This should not be a difficult case for Coral,they seem to be making very heavy weather of it
Mr Hannan is positioning himself now,he probably now wishes he had done so some time ago.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:34 am - Jan 18, 2017


My own opinion on what’s going on in the Kinloch v Coral case is that Mr Kinloch is trying to get the court to accept that the bet was put on in the understanding that a club playing in a lower league, than it did the season before, has been ‘relegated’. He is, I think, trying to show that colloquially that is how the ordinary punter, and thus, customers of Corals, takes the word to mean. A pretty tenuous case, at the best of times, but maybe he sees this as ‘the best of times’ to bring such a case, with Corals desperate to avoid bringing up the elephant in the room.

Perhaps this is why Mr Sandison brought out Kinloch’s employment history. He has worked as a bookie, and continues to gamble, big. It is almost a certainty that he will have contacts within the industry and could well have information that suggests Corals (any bookie) will not be prepared to alienate thousands of bears by showing the world what that elephant is.

I am sure we all feel we could represent Corals and win the case within the first hour, by merely saying Rangers were liquidated, and therefor, could not be ‘relegated’ under any interpretation of the word, and that the club now playing under that name is a new club that entered the SFL after a vote. It would then leave it to the opposing counsel to try to prove that they are the same club, and that, as we know, would involve metaphysics21.

I think the best Mr Kinloch can hope for is that the court decides that ‘relegated’ is accepted within the gambling/football world as ‘playing in a lower league than previously’, in which case, should the liquidation angle be ignored, he will win his case. While Corals are limiting themselves to the argument that, as Rangers didn’t finish bottom (or lose a play-off) they cannot be classed as having been relegated!

I suspect there will be a willingness to restrict the case to a decision on whether a club has been ‘relegated’ when it finds itself in a lower division purely as a result of entering administration (liquidation being ignored), while the extremely obvious comparison of how Hearts, themselves in administration, were relegated, but only as a result of finishing bottom of the SPL, and that there is absolutely no mechanism for relegation as a result of entering administration.

For the OC/NC debate to be settled in this case (and to win the case as a slam dunk), it is necessary for it to be raised by counsel (Coral’s counsel being the most likely), and I feel we will only get a verdict that:

a) Proves beyond even the most ill-informed argument that Rangers were not relegated.

Or, that,

b) Within the gambling industry (alone) ‘relegated’ is/was at the time accepted as meaning ‘playing in a lower division than the season before’.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:30 am - Jan 18, 2017


From James Doleman’s tweets, so far, it’s clear Coral’s counsel (acting under instruction, obviously) is trying to avoid the elephant in the room, by miles!

QC saying Corals letter to Kinloch states ‘Rangers were demoted not relegated’. 

We all know that they were neither demoted nor relegated. They weren’t even kicked out, and they weren’t voted back in. Sevco were voted into the SFL, and later changed their name to The Rangers FC!

There can be only one reason why the issue of what liquidation means to a football club might not be raised, and that is, Corals do not want to be responsible for raising the matter in court, and to risk being seen as responsible for the ‘death’ of Rangers!

View Comment

Cygnus X2Posted on10:32 am - Jan 18, 2017


Coral’s position is that Rangers were demoted, not relegated.  That does not imply any stance on OC/NC.  That’s a pretty smart place to be to keep their prize money and their blue betting money.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on10:33 am - Jan 18, 2017


It seems crystal clear that Corals don’t really want to win this case. They are now arguing a semantic point  on the distinction (if there is one?)  between relegation and demotion. Desperate stuff indeed.

  James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman Coral’s letter to Kinloch states Rangers were “demoted” not “relegated.” Counsel says that remains their position

But then why go to court at all? Just pay Kinloch off, if you don’t want, presumably for commercial reasons, to deploy the obvious arguments which would surely win them the case.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:36 am - Jan 18, 2017


So far, Corals seem to be trying very hard to make themselves popular with ‘Rangers’ fans! I get the impression they would rather lose the case than risk proving that TRFC are a new club! They see themselves, perhaps, as being caught between that rock and a hard place, and are hoping that Kinloch’s case is too weak to win, rather than to win the case for themselves.

View Comment

Pat ByrnePosted on10:38 am - Jan 18, 2017


James Doleman‏ @jamesdolemanCounsel for Coral suggests company has always said “Rangers were not relegated from the Scottish Premier League.”
“I disagree” witness says
19mJames Doleman‏ @jamesdolemanCoral’s letter to Kinloch states Rangers were “demoted” not “relegated.” Counsel says that remains their position
Corals trying to skirt round OC/NC issue, strange way to tackle this and definately a dangerous strategy, also using LSM Ruling to back up their interpretation!

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on10:54 am - Jan 18, 2017


The article in the National is available on their website with no paywall or such and it is worth reading. In five years time we will discover that Craig Whyte is no a billionaire and suspect that Charles of Normandy is in it for the money.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:57 am - Jan 18, 2017


Transitive verbs!!!

FFS I am now hoping Kinloch wins and walks out of court with his pockets full.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:08 am - Jan 18, 2017


I wonder if Coral realise that, if they lose this case, they could justifiably be held to be cheats, having deliberately welched on a bet. Or, at least, I’d hope the gambling community would see it this way, and that the punters would walk away as a result!

View Comment

normanbatesmumfcPosted on11:25 am - Jan 18, 2017


What a shame the bold Mr Kinloch had not staked £10,000 instead of £100. I wonder how quick Coral’s would be in shining their flashlights on the elephant in the room if the liability was £25m!!!

If Coral’s are really so afraid of losing the blue pound, I suggest the green pound should boycott them in their droves for failing to use the truth to win their case, in order to avoid upsetting the knuckle draggers

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:31 am - Jan 18, 2017


Am I the only one who wonders why it is that what the newspapers say is being used as fact, and going unchallenged? This seems to be accepted without the ridicule such nonsense cries out for, and yet neither side has introduced anyone, or institution, that might be deemed expert, or even competent, to decide such a thing! Everyone in the courtroom is just as knowledgeable on the subject as every single hack who has ever written a word on the matter! Why not just ask them if Rangers were relegated?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:33 am - Jan 18, 2017


The whole point is that Kinloch knew that if he had asked for odds for a bet with the wording of  Rangers not playing in the SPL the following season, or similar,  that would have perhaps sent alarm bells ringing at the Coral HQ.

His use of the word relegation brought the bet in’under the radar’ and silly (even unexpected by Kinloch) odds were given over the phone from HQ without much thought being given to the issue given league position, status as a Scottish institution, national treasure etc.

The definition of relegation is of course important and I see merit in the argument that you can be relegated by means other than a poor points total at the end of a season. However as was discussed in court ‘the club’ was denied membership of the SPL and then had to apply for membership of both SFA and SFL. The five way agreement shows there were two entities claiming to be ‘the club’ at the same time. 
Surely the question must be asked which club was it that Kinloch bet on?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:41 am - Jan 18, 2017


normanbatesmumfcJanuary 18, 2017 at 11:25 
What a shame the bold Mr Kinloch had not staked £10,000 instead of £100. I wonder how quick Coral’s would be in shining their flashlights on the elephant in the room if the liability was £25m!!!
If Coral’s are really so afraid of losing the blue pound, I suggest the green pound should boycott them in their droves for failing to use the truth to win their case, in order to avoid upsetting the knuckle draggers
____________________

Why only the green pound? And any boycott shouldn’t just happen because of their effort to avoid the elephant in the room! Should Corals lose, they will have been shown to have welched on a bet, and have only paid out because the punter had the will, and wherewithal, to take them to court. Who in their right mind would want to place a bet with them after that?

I genuinely hope that if they do lose the case, their regular punters will see it this way, too, and take their custom elsewhere.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:42 am - Jan 18, 2017


Could someone refresh my memory of the SPL rules in season 2011-2012?

Didn’t the team with the least points at season-end (and that wasn’t RFC, sportsfans, it was Dunfermline!) get relegated?

There was only one relegation place that season?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:46 am - Jan 18, 2017


I note Kinloch’s QC keeps bringing up  ‘its the same club’ argument.

Difficult to see how Coral can avoid having to confront this head on being there is plenty evidence mentioning relegation in the SMSM and the examples of teams being ‘relegated’ elsewhere for matters outwith poor sporting performance is persuasive.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:50 am - Jan 18, 2017


Another ‘defence’ for Corals might be to ask how it came about that, on their first game of the season as an SFL club (v Brechin), there were two ‘Rangers’ in existence? Which one is Mr Kinloch claiming was relegated, the one that never kicked a ball again, or the one that was voted into the SFL?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:54 am - Jan 18, 2017


AJ,

I see it the other way. If Coral are going to pay out on this one I can see every punter, especially the informed ones, lining up to place bets with them.

On slip:  “I think it’ll be a white Chistmas.” 

Claim:  Christmas in Alaska that is, or Siberia, just in case it doesn’t snow in Alaska and I run the risk of losing the bet, or better still the moon since you can’t check if it snowed or not so better just pay out anyway.

This is nonsense!  I get that Coral seem to think they can win and not develop said elephant but are they willing to ignore said elephant completely and lose? Why go to court then?    

View Comment

tangoedPosted on11:56 am - Jan 18, 2017


From twitter,don’t know if true or not,

The Clumpany Retweeted GXM ‏@GXMcAleese 12m12 minutes ago
@TheClumpany i assume everyone knows Coral recently merged with SPFL sponsor Ladbrokes? Maybe explains the reluctance to use the ‘L’ word?

View Comment

neepheidPosted on12:01 pm - Jan 18, 2017


http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/ladbrokes-and-coral-merger-to-be-completed-tuesday/2185052/#newsArchiveTabs=last7DaysNews

Ladbrokes Coral merger to be completed Tuesday
 By Bill Barber 7:55PM 31 OCT 2016 TWO of the most famous names in British betting officially join forces on Tuesday when Ladbrokes Coral plc begins trading on the London Stock Exchange, the latest seismic change in the betting industry.
More than 16 months since the Racing Post revealed the two bookmakers were in talks to bring their two businesses together, the £2.3 billion merger will finally complete.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:02 pm - Jan 18, 2017


TANGOEDJANUARY 18, 2017 at 11:56

Seems to be the case from late last year from web searches. Therefore my post re Doncaster and the SPFL being tainted was even more correct than I thought!!

Kind of a light bulb moment in terms of how Coral as approaching the case?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on12:08 pm - Jan 18, 2017


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 33s33 seconds ago Williams report “,Rangers were not relegated in any sense of the word.’ Fox says they played in a lower division in the subsequent season

Did “They?”

And if they weren’t relegated in ANY sense of the word how exactly did an entity called Rangers end up in the 3rd Div exactly.

View Comment

tangoedPosted on12:09 pm - Jan 18, 2017


NEEPHEID
JANUARY 18, 2017 at 12:01

WOTTPIJANUARY 18, 2017 at 12:02

So it’s true,i wonder if Level 5 are having any influence.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:11 pm - Jan 18, 2017


SmugasJanuary 18, 2017 at 11:54 
AJ,
I see it the other way. If Coral are going to pay out on this one I can see every punter, especially the informed ones, lining up to place bets with them.
On slip:  “I think it’ll be a white Chistmas.” 
Claim:  Christmas in Alaska that is, or Siberia, just in case it doesn’t snow in Alaska and I run the risk of losing the bet, or better still the moon since you can’t check if it snowed or not so better just pay out anyway.
This is nonsense!  I get that Coral seem to think they can win and not develop said elephant but are they willing to ignore said elephant completely and lose? Why go to court then
_________________________

Perhaps because they didn’t believe Kinloch would take it all they way, and once the case had received publicity, had no choice but to go to court or risk lots of similar claims! Even with a mainly spurious claims it might cumulatively cost them more than £250,000. So, go to court and win it without harming TRFC, and hold back the ‘truth’ unless counsel deems it necessary?

Perhaps, just perhaps, they might change their tactics if they feel things aren’t going their way!   

View Comment

FinlochPosted on12:36 pm - Jan 18, 2017


The answer is really simple.
One season there was a team playing in Scotland’s top football league called Rangers.
The very next season there was no team in the top league called Rangers but they were instead playing in the bottom Scottish league 4 levels down.
Same ground, same manager, same colours and the 5 star badge too.
Rangers were relegated.
Proof of that is everywhere – 
Their fans see both as the same team for emotional and trophy cabinet reasons and thought the relegation was an almost unbearable punishment.
The SFA and the SPL see them as the same team for commercial purposes and thought the 4 year wait was commercial madness when it came to selling media rights to people like bookmakers.
Even the bookmakers who are all over our sport have all categorised them as the same team and welcomed back the Old Firm betting surges.
As I said really simple.

Don’t let company law, a few players deciding not to tupe over and walking away instead, years of systemic skulduggery and cheating and unpaid tax and other bills to help fund the very particular union this particular club and its supporters purport to value so highly.
Don’t let the league rules about the relegation process and procedures either – they were not followed.
And don’t mention two rangers signatures on a secret 5 way agreement – a document so secret its not been discussed in this particular courtroom.
An absolute bug Gers muddle.

Only in Scotland.

Big thanks to James Doleman for great entertainment.

View Comment

nawlitePosted on12:51 pm - Jan 18, 2017


Wait for the (then) SPFL witness (they ARE coming!), who will confirm Rangers were NOT relegated, but rather, a Newco was admitted.
They won’t settle the ‘same club’ issue as they will say old Rangers lost the right to membership because the old COMPANY was put into liquidation.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:09 pm - Jan 18, 2017


AllyjamboJanuary 18, 2017 at 12:11
‘..Perhaps, just perhaps, they might change their tactics if they feel things aren’t going their way!  ‘
__________
The Ladbrokes  sponsorship deal with the SPFL was a 2-season deal, ending this current 2016/17 season.
There could clearly be  nothing in the deal tthat could legally prevent Ladbrokes protecting itself against allegedly dodgy bets by using the Truth of things as its defence in a court case. No ‘agreement’ of that kind could ever be legally enforceable.
Ladbrokes might conceivably have been anxious about the need to avoid losing 500 million potential customers, as well as the ‘goodwill’ of the SPFL, and they might hope that the SPFL will feel obliged to live up to their own lying behaviour and be prepared to give evidence to support the view that ‘Rangers’ were not relegated, but were demoted. It would be nice to see Regan and/or Doncaster swearing on a Bible that they were telling the truth, the whole truth….
But, of course, having begun proceedings, a now huge , worldwide Ladbrokes Coral Group plc cannot run the risk of being seen to welch. They have to win- and bugger the consequences for their sponsorship of piddling Scottish , dishonest, Football.
They will, if they have to, insist that RFC died and was not relegated whether for football playing performance or for disciplinary reasons, because they were not in existence either to kick a ball or get into trouble.
But aren’t JD’s tweets great fun?
If I didn’t know better, I would say it makes the ‘Law’ look a right a.se, as learned men on both sides so far skirt around the big elephant dung-heap that the Scottish Football Authorities deposited on the 6th Floor at Hampden and which, , it would appear now to be confessed, our SMSM editors forced their hacks to ignore.
That we should have been so held ,and for so long ,in contempt by the guardians of our game and the guardians of  democracy , freedom of speech, truth and honour is appalling.
It would be infinitely worse if our legal system also were to treat us with contempt on behalf of a cheating sports governance body and a cheating, dishonoured and mercifully now dead club.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:23 pm - Jan 18, 2017


Must be the heat or something, but I thought I heard some ethereal entity’s voice from a billabong in deepest Queensland laugh cynically and say something like ‘I wouldn’t be surprised, mate!’ as he waltzed his matilda while being kettled by Strat.. no, Queensland’s, finest.

View Comment

Mark CPosted on1:27 pm - Jan 18, 2017


I have to disagree with those saying Coral are deliberately losing this because of the blue pound.  That is spurious nonsense.  

The QC is not married to Corals and would never take a case on with the view of losing it or taking such a direction from a client that would threaten him to lose it.   He has a duty in the court and also needs to protect his own reputation.

If he is refusing to go down the liquidation route, then he is clearly not confident of what will come back on it and a good QC never introduces something if they feel the back fire is sufficiently strong enough to wreck their case.

As for Coral and chasing the blue pound by refusing to say it publicly.

https://twitter.com/Coral/status/815173793954009092

View Comment

PortbhoyPosted on1:32 pm - Jan 18, 2017


John Clark @ 13.23,
But aren’t JD’s tweets great fun?
If I didn’t know better, I would say it makes the ‘Law’ look a right a.se, as learned men on both sides so far skirt around the big elephant dung-heap that the Scottish Football Authorities deposited on the 6th Floor at Hampden.
… Hilarious !!!!!

View Comment

tangoedPosted on1:51 pm - Jan 18, 2017


James Doleman @jamesdoleman
Sandison suggests company that owned the Rangers football team sold it to another company in 2012 which was denied membership of SPL ltd
——————————
Notice he did,nt say Club.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on1:54 pm - Jan 18, 2017


I don’t buy that MarkC.

Sandison has nothing to lose by introducing, even mentioning, the ‘L’word.  If the judge goes with it, as I personally think he should (if he is given the chance of course) then he wins his case that you say no QC would set out to lose.  If the judge goes with the company/club nonsense and rejects the ‘L’ move (having been presented with the chance to do so) then the Blue Pound will be all over Coral/Ladbrokes for proving their point.  Strikes me he is in a no lose situation but still seems to be doing a great job of doing so.

For the absence of doubt if clubs are the ethereal unconnected thingies then absolutely Rangers were demoted, relegated, pushed, shoved, punished and any other word you wish to use.

View Comment

Mark CPosted on2:06 pm - Jan 18, 2017


SMUGAS, do you believe the QC would have looked at that angle before turning up to court ?  If so, do you believe he then took instruction from Corals not to use it ?  As that appears to be the accusation here.

I see it as being 1 of 2 options.

1)  He is still to produce it, so he is just building up to it.  Which is very possible.

2)  He looked at it, and felt, for whatever reason that if he did introduce it, that QC Poole would have came back with stuff he didnt want out in the open so chose to go a different route.  Perhaps Doncaster’ quote on TV or more in depth look at the witnesses in the ASA case.

View Comment

Charlie_KellyPosted on2:12 pm - Jan 18, 2017


Someone earlier on bemoaned the fact that the punter hadn’t stuck ten grand on this bet as opposed to only £100 because the winnings would have been £25 million.
I think i am correct in saying that most bookies have a “maximum payout” (on football bets anyway) of £250,000 so I suspect this is the reason Mr Kinloch staked £100 and not £50 or £500 or £10,000 etc.. because (at odds of 2500/1) a £100 pound stake would trigger the maximum payout. So there would really be no sense in betting anymore than £100 at those odds because the most the bookie will pay out is £250,000.
The reason for having a “maximum” payout is really to protect against accumulator bets or (in the case of casinos) bets on the roulette wheel where the punter just doubles his stake with every losing bet until he eventually wins. But I believe it applies across the board to all bets placed in betting shops. I’m sure the really high rollers could negotiate a bigger payout if they wanted to stake huge sums in the first place but for your run of the mill high street betting chain the maximum payout is £250,000.

View Comment

nawlitePosted on2:34 pm - Jan 18, 2017


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 10m10 minutes ago Fox says Rangers “Lost its rights [to play] as the SPL had voted them out of the league.””Under their rules?” counsel asks”Yes” he replies

Surely that’s simply an untrue statement made under oath in court. Does the fact that Sandison doesn’t challenge that statement mean he doesn’t know it’s not true?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on2:39 pm - Jan 18, 2017


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 27s28 seconds agoClaire describes size of bookmakers, gives 32 Red as an example of a small one

Ouch – one in the nuts for the worlds most successful club!!

View Comment

wottpiPosted on2:47 pm - Jan 18, 2017


MARK C

JANUARY 18, 2017 at 13:27

However a QC can be guided by his client on how he is to conduct his case.

If a client doesn’t want something raised then the QC is under no obligation to the court to go down that path.

The fact that the pursuer has raised the same club argument and the Coral QC hasn’t slam dunked it based on the legal position on liquidation, the right to hold membership, the metaphysics argument etc, does seem a bit strange.

I am no supporter of conspiracies but one wonders why the different club issue hasn’t been raised, as yet, given we are in a court of law and not a jumped up chin-wag of a hearing.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:52 pm - Jan 18, 2017


nawliteJanuary 18, 2017 at 14:34
‘…..Surely that’s simply an untrue statement made under oath in court. DOes the fact that Sandison doesn’t challenge that statement mean he doesn’t know it’s not true.’
_________
Everybody who can read knows that no one ‘voted’ RFC out of Scottish Football.

Sandison knows that.

The whole Court knows that the football club that held  a share in the then SPL and in the SFA , lost entitlement to those  share s not on any ‘vote’ , but as a consequence of  being liquidated.
And not ‘honourably’ liquidated having tried to do its level best to meet it debts and pay its creditors, but ignominiously liquidated, as a direct result of  the cheating actions of,first, Sir ( and here, I spit) David Murray, and then Craig Whyte.

What Sandison does or does not do would not surprise me.
Not his job to do ought but earn his fee, and try to win for his client, with due regard to the dignity of the Law, of course.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:11 pm - Jan 18, 2017


“James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 1m1 minute ago
“QC now shows Clare a printout of an article from Coral’s website Rangers are back in the big time..After being relegated.”
_________
get out of that, Coral! You have to tell the truth: there was no Rangers to be relegated!

View Comment

wottpiPosted on3:14 pm - Jan 18, 2017


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 2m2 minutes ago
QC now shows Clare a printout of an article from Coral’s website Rangers are back in the big time..After being relegated.”

I like the cut of Ms Poole’s jib.
Quoting someone’s preposterous statements back to them is always a winner in my book.

Sandison better think about the oldco/newco argument now as his clients main witness has just raised it!!

View Comment

bluPosted on3:21 pm - Jan 18, 2017


Kinloch about to be done on the old, “You didn’t read the small print you didn’t know existed” rule.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:34 pm - Jan 18, 2017


ALLYJAMBO
JANUARY 18, 2017 at 07:29 
neepheid
January 17, 2017 at 21:56

To quote Cluster One, Wow!
If the whole article is as honest and revealing as that, and doesn’t veer from the truth, it must be the best mainstream media article written, or broadcast, on ‘Rangers’, and I include both clubs of that name, since Mark Daly’s, ‘The Men Who Sold the Jerseys’!…
===================================
Maybe I’m just more cynical than you AJ ?

I started to read the ‘National’ article, and was pleasantly surprised as it appeared to be a ‘mea culpa’, validating what the Bampots have said for years: the SMSM does not want to antagonise its main customer demographic – even if it means avoiding the painful truth.

However, the writer Martin Hannan finishes the article with a variant of the defence: “…but we were only following orders…” 
OK, for self-preservation there has to be ‘some’ sympathy with that stance – and especially when you consider how Mark Daly, Jim Spence, the Falkirk [?] ground announcer, etc. were viciously targeted by TRFC fans for not sticking to the TRFC script. 

However, IMO there is a convenient – and glaring – omission from that Hannan article.
It’s one thing to avoid reporting accurately and/or honestly for commercial or even safety reasons.
But, it’s quite another thing when the SMSM enthusiastically and continuously copy/pastes PR nonsense on a regular basis – and very noticeably without any comment or balance provided by the named ‘author’.
[And this also applies to TV & radio sports coverage.]

The SMSM is a fully subservient cheerleader for TRFC, and the Bampots know this as fact.  
I would speculate that this is a significant, contributing factor to the rapidly declining newspaper sales in Scotland in recent years.
An occasional, half-decent article in the SMSM is not going to improve the image of the SMSM sports ‘journalists’.

Looks like Martin Hannan has simply produced his own PR to try and differentiate himself from the rest of the lamb-munchers.
Don’t think so…   15

View Comment

jimboPosted on3:49 pm - Jan 18, 2017


Can’t understand all these questions which, to me, have no bearing on the case.  The size of the betting industry, how many shops, the odds etc.  The core reason they are there is – were Rangers relegated or not?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on4:00 pm - Jan 18, 2017


Corals report (on which their decision not to pay out was founded) based “information received.” Interesting.  What if the information was from, say, Doncaster, that they were “demoted, not relegated” could Coral counter sue if actually neither was provable.  There seems to be an awful lot of spare £250k’s floating around in this story! 

View Comment

jimboPosted on4:09 pm - Jan 18, 2017


No chance the case can be finished today, well there’s a surprise, what a bunch of time wasters.  A few moments ago they were talking about the odds of being struck by lightning, the odds of Leicester winning the EPL.  They skirt about the real elephant in the room and it’s relatively easy.  A liquidated entity, no longer in business, no longer operating, cannot be relegated or demoted.  The new club had to apply to join Div.3.  What’s difficult about that?  They have been using the term ‘common sense’ they should try using some.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:11 pm - Jan 18, 2017


StevieBCJanuary 18, 2017 at 15:34
‘..An occasional, half-decent article in the SMSM is not going to improve the image of the SMSM sports ‘journalists’..’
_________
Well, we now have someone who appears to have  gone a wee bit beyond even English, and Daly, and Spence and one or two  other relatively ‘good guys’, in explicitly saying that editorial/ proprietor pressure had been brought to bear on the basic football hacks.

( I surmise, though, that in many cases, no such pressure was required: they happily did what they could for the dead club, except preserve its dignity and honour by a decent and honest burial , choosing instead to go into la-la- land zombie fantasy)

Who knows, other hacks might now be emboldened to tell their feckin editors/SDM golf companions/pillars of the Scottish establishment/ BBC Scotland directors and other such odds and sods to take a flying freefall from any structurally questionable football stand of their acquaintance.

We can but hope.

But the baddies are on the run, unquestionably.

And they will be nailed.
Sooner, now, perhaps, than we might have hoped for.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on4:35 pm - Jan 18, 2017


It is entirely possible that Coral are so confident of winning, on the basis that Rangers were not relegated, whatever they lead as evidence, that they have instructed Counsel not to lead the argument with regards liquidation. 

The bottom line is the question “were they relegated?” not “was it possible for them to be relegated?” or “what happened to Rangers?” or “could a club in second place be relegated?” or “if a team was relegated from the SPL which SFL division did it go into?” or “was another club actually relegated into the SFL that year?” or “which division of the SFL did Rangers enter?” … etc. The question is “were Rangers relegated?” The answer is no.

I believe they are trying to basically win without having to play their big cards, thus not alienating a group of customers.

If the Court of Session rules, as I expect it will, that Rangers were not relegated then it doesn’t matter to Coral how they got to that decision. The less they speak of liquidation etc the less likely the Judge is to make comment on that argument. Mr Kinloch’s side are hardly going to bring it up as it does their position no good whatsoever. 

I would image if they instructed Counsel not to use certain lines he would have advised them of the risks involved, and the likelihood of them winning in either scenario.

Please also remember that these things are much less adversarial than people imagine, and a few chats will have been had whilst walking to and fro in the big hall in Parliament House.  

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:37 pm - Jan 18, 2017


StevieBCJanuary 18, 2017 at 15:34
‘..An occasional, half-decent article in the SMSM is not going to improve the image of the SMSM sports ‘journalists’..’
_________
Well, we now have someone who appears to have  gone a wee bit beyond even English, and Daly, and Spence and one or two  other relatively ‘good guys’, in explicitly saying that editorial/ proprietor pressure had been brought to bear on the basic footbal hacks.
( I surmise, though, that in many cases, no such pressure was required: they happily did what they could for the dead club, except preserve its dignity and honour by a decent and honest burial , choosing instead to go into la-la- land zombie fantasy)
Who knows, other hacks might now be emboldened to tell their feckin editors/SDM golf companions/pillars of the Scottish establishment/ BBC Scotland directors and other such odds and sods to take a flying freefall from any structurally questionable football stand of their acquaintance.
We can but hope.
But the baddies are on the run, unquestionably.
And they will be nailed.
Sooner, now, perhaps, than we might have hoped for.

View Comment

jimboPosted on4:50 pm - Jan 18, 2017


At last they begin to approach, somewhat cautiously, the meaty bit “a team called Rangers were playing in the lower leagues”

And then they adjourn.01

Well done James Doleman.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:56 pm - Jan 18, 2017


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman 15m15 minutes ago ‘Ms Poole tells court she will try and hurry up. Judge responds she should not as he does not want people saying in future he rushed her.’
——
Oh, how very like Judge Bannatyne.
Scrupulously covering all the angles, to make sure that the square is perfectly formed, with none of the wee masonry bricks out of line and that everything is pukka and all square.
I would not expect less of him.   

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on5:10 pm - Jan 18, 2017


And it’s now just after 3.00 a.m here, and the time has just flown by, so absorbing has James Doleman’s reporting been.
I can truthfully say that no Fat Yak has been harmed by me, while I enjoyed reading JD’s twitter reports: each was swallied painlessly, as the humidity percentage increased a percentage or so.
Off to bed now to sleep the sleep of an untroubled football conscience!19

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on5:27 pm - Jan 18, 2017


John
Bigsbee, who is currently holidaying an hour or so away from you in the Gold Coast, tells me that Fat Yak is a blend of Tennents Lager and Tartan Special, with a nose of India Pale Ale.

Indestructible, and unable to come to any harm whatsoever I would have thought ?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:15 pm - Jan 18, 2017


Allyjambo
January 18, 2017 at 07:29
21 Votes

neepheidJanuary 17, 2017 at 21:56
To quote Cluster One, Wow!
———–
Thanks, Neeps, for posting that. It’s like a light has suddenly been switched on in a room dark for the past five years.
——————
Did anyone catch the DR report today on the Coral v Mr Kinloch?
Liquidation and started a new was mentioned but i never caught the journalists name.
It’s like a light has suddenly been switched on in a room dark for the past five years.
wonder how Mr jackson feels reading that piece in the DR.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:22 pm - Jan 18, 2017


I’ve just read a an interesting Twitter debate between Graham Spiers and some Rangers fans. The nub of Spiers argument is Rangers could have afforded Moussa Dembelle in the summer given they could afford to pay Barton and Kranjcar. They just need to get their recruitment right he says. Spiers is an intelligent man, so I’m sure he can work out that a club needing loans in October just to meet keep the lights on should be signing a far cheaper level of player than those he mentions. Rangers could NOT afford to make the signings they did in the Summer, and simply refuse to live within their means. It would really help if journalists like Spiers acknowledged that. 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:31 pm - Jan 18, 2017


Allyjambo
January 18, 2017 at 10:36
10 Votes

So far, Corals seem to be trying very hard to make themselves popular with ‘Rangers’ fans! I get the impression they would rather lose the case
——————-
i kind of get that impression also. Look at it this way.
If Coral win and it’s stated TRFC is a new club which gained entry into the fourth tier of scottish football.But the last 5 years Coral and other bookmakers have been promoting rangers as the same club.
Anyone who has placed a bet with the assumption that rangers are still the same rangers of old as has been promoted by said bookmakers, well their bets should be null and void. As the bookmaker has been taking your bet on a false declaration that rangers of now is the same club as rangers of then.
—————

Allyjambo

January 18, 2017 at 11:08

12 Votes

I wonder if Coral realise that, if they lose this case, they could justifiably be held to be cheats,
——-
and if they win they could also justifiable be called cheats. Taking honest bets for a false narative

View Comment

Charlie_KellyPosted on6:39 pm - Jan 18, 2017


I think the point still stands that rangers “in theory” could have got Dembele. I think Spiers wider point is, If you’re going to blow money then you might as well blow it on someone good as opposed to a couple of washed up 30somethings.
I think though that the big selling points for Dembele moving to Celtic was the prospect of Champions League football (or worst case scenario Europa league) and also Brendan Rodgers’s track record in developing young talent and also Celtic’s record as a club of bringing in players who have then gone on to play in the EPL in recent years. Wanyama, Forster, Van Dijk etc…
None of these factors existed at ibrox during the summer. So yes Spiers is correct in the sense that if you look at the transfer fee paid for Garner and the combined wages of Barton/Krancjar then yes in theory rangers could have afforded Dembele. But being able to afford someone and being able to attract him are two different things.

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on7:06 pm - Jan 18, 2017


Interesting discussion about SFA and SPFL’s Boards, including CEO/COOs action re league reconstruction, financial distribution models, TV deals and Club Academy proposals now on BBC Sportsound.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:09 pm - Jan 18, 2017


CHARLIE_KELLYJANUARY 18, 2017 at 18:39

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

We’ll have to disagree Charlie. It’s like someone going out and blowing the mortgage money on a weekend bender knowing fine well the mortgage is due in a couple of weeks. Rangers could not have afforded to sign Dembelle, or indeed the players they did sign.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:14 pm - Jan 18, 2017


SANNOFFYMESSSOITIZZJANUARY 18, 2017 at 19:06   
Interesting discussion about SFA and SPFL’s Boards, including CEO/COOs action re league reconstruction, financial distribution models, TV deals and Club Academy proposals now on BBC Sportsound.

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

I lost interest after Stewart Gilmour bemoaned the fact there is a not a strong Rangers, then gave Peter Lawwell a good kicking. Have a debate by all means, but acknowledge the honest clubs and acknowledge those who cheated the public purse out of millions, and cheated the game. Was Gilmour happy during the years Murray cheated his club? Sportsound knew what they were doing tonight. The show is a disgrace. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:28 pm - Jan 18, 2017


StevieBCJanuary 18, 2017 at 15:34 
ALLYJAMBO JANUARY 18, 2017 at 07:29  neepheid January 17, 2017 at 21:56
To quote Cluster One, Wow! If the whole article is as honest and revealing as that, and doesn’t veer from the truth, it must be the best mainstream media article written, or broadcast, on ‘Rangers’, and I include both clubs of that name, since Mark Daly’s, ‘The Men Who Sold the Jerseys’!…===================================Maybe I’m just more cynical than you AJ ?
I started to read the ‘National’ article, and was pleasantly surprised as it appeared to be a ‘mea culpa’, validating what the Bampots have said for years: the SMSM does not want to antagonise its main customer demographic – even if it means avoiding the painful truth.
However, the writer Martin Hannan finishes the article with a variant of the defence: “…but we were only following orders…” OK, for self-preservation there has to be ‘some’ sympathy with that stance – and especially when you consider how Mark Daly, Jim Spence, the Falkirk [?] ground announcer, etc. were viciously targeted by TRFC fans for not sticking to the TRFC script. 
However, IMO there is a convenient – and glaring – omission from that Hannan article. It’s one thing to avoid reporting accurately and/or honestly for commercial or even safety reasons. But, it’s quite another thing when the SMSM enthusiastically and continuously copy/pastes PR nonsense on a regular basis – and very noticeably without any comment or balance provided by the named ‘author’. [And this also applies to TV & radio sports coverage.]
The SMSM is a fully subservient cheerleader for TRFC, and the Bampots know this as fact.   I would speculate that this is a significant, contributing factor to the rapidly declining newspaper sales in Scotland in recent years. An occasional, half-decent article in the SMSM is not going to improve the image of the SMSM sports ‘journalists’.
Looks like Martin Hannan has simply produced his own PR to try and differentiate himself from the rest of the lamb-munchers. Don’t think so…  
___________________________________-
I’m afraid, Stevie, that having had a chance to read the full article, I have to agree with you; though I had suspected this might be the case anyway. Maybe he’s doing no more than putting himself in pole position should the BTC appeal fail, while trying to make The National appear so much more honest than the rest!

Yeh, Leveson said newspapers must not go out of their way to find, and report, the truth!

‘They cannot repeat hearsay’ he says, well what are all these (football) gossip columns about, Mr Hannan? Gossip! Hearsay! Aren’t they the same thing?

Have newspapers stopped using the words, ‘a Record (or National, Sun…) source said’?

Post Leveson, is every word the newspapers print verified and truthful? Or has nothing much changed, they (the newspapers) just like to give the impression they have, while using the Leveson findings as an excuse not to dig too deeply whenever it suits?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:30 pm - Jan 18, 2017


James Doleman ‏@jamesdoleman Coral’s letter to Kinloch states Rangers were “demoted” not “relegated.” Counsel says that remains their position
———————————
Vaughan Williams says he wrote his report based based on documentation. Counsel notes report has wrong date for Rangers liquidation
——————
Anyone else get the impression half the court don’t know what they are talking about.Or maybe it will all come out in the wash tomorrow

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:54 pm - Jan 18, 2017


Cluster OneJanuary 18, 2017 at 18:31

Allyjambo
January 18, 2017 at 11:08
12 Votes
I wonder if Coral realise that, if they lose this case, they could justifiably be held to be cheats,——-and if they win they could also justifiable be called cheats. Taking honest bets for a false narative
_________________________________

Not really, Mr Kinloch made the bet, they accepted it. If Mr Kinloch didn’t realise that the only way to be relegated was to finish bottom of the league (perhaps as the result of a points deduction), then that’s tough! I believe (not into horses or any form of gambling, so not sure) that most bookies pay out on a first past the post basis, if I backed a horse, knowing that the favourite was likely to be disqualified, would I not be disappointed if the horse I backed came in second and then I went to collect my winnings? I might feel cheated, but at least I’d know that I’d been right for most of my life to avoid visits to the bookies15

I agree, though, Corals have left themselves open for criticism should they win the case as they have, apparently, been advertising/quoting TRFC as if they are Rangers! And there, perhaps, is another reason why they want to avoid winning by showing TRFC are a new club! For if they do, they might very well find themselves back in court – one way the angry bears could seek revenge for being the bookie that ‘killed’ Rangers, would be to lead the way to the courts – suing Corals for misrepresentation!

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:12 pm - Jan 18, 2017


Was having another read of The National 
http://www.thenational.scot/sport/15027253.Opinion__The_National_is_on_the_ball_for_sporting_justice/?c=q3fvfo

And this stuck out..those who were intimidated and bullied by a Rangers that did everything it could to put a lid on scandals; 

was the scandals EBT’s….who knows

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on8:16 pm - Jan 18, 2017


Another entertaining day in court.

James Doleman is doing a grand job with the live tweets so I don’t have much to add to what he has said.  James’ success has been notable in that his follower count has gone up from 17k to 20k in the last two days.

As many have pointed out, all parties are dancing round the NC arguments.   Kinloch’s expert witness John Fox admitted to me yesterday that he is a big Rangers fan, so his views on continuity wasn’t a surprise.

I think Coral’s witnesses were both well aware of the Oldco/Newco situation.  Simon Clare referred to the club as “New Rangers” at one point before dropping the “New” elsewhere in his testimony.  Professor Leighton Vaughan Williams also referred to “some sort of Rangers” starting season 2012/13 in Division 3.

Tomorrow might even be more enlightening. Coral’s last witness is called “McKenzie”.  James Doleman thought the witness was an SFA employee.  I’m wondering if it will be Rod McKenzie the SPFL’s lawyer, who has featured in the various commissions and possibly the 5WA.  If it is indeed Rod, then I’d expect him to back Neil Doncaster’s continuity position.  If it isn’t Rod then it should still be interesting all the same.  

Mr McKenzie will be the  last witness, then it will be oral summing up by both QC’s, then an unspecified wait for Lord Bannatyne’s decision (probably a few weeks).  I can only make the first hour of tomorrow’s proceedings, but James is hopeful of being there once again.

View Comment

weejoePosted on8:16 pm - Jan 18, 2017


AJ this could bring the whole shooting match down. Starting with Brechin City who advertised a game against Sevco Scotland Ltd as v Rangers. What about SFA SPL SFL and SPFL selling matches to Sky, BT and BBC on the Myth that TRFC was the same as Rangers FC incorporated in 1899. Interesting times ahead, maybe.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:26 pm - Jan 18, 2017


ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 18, 2017 at 19:54       1 Vote 
Cluster OneJanuary 18, 2017 at 18:31
——————-
misrepresentation!
the word i was looking for;-) (put down in a way i wanted to.And much better than i could have)
———
lets say someone lived in scotland and had the odd flutter on an old firm game. That someone moved abroad and too busy to keep up with scottish football. That someone gets of a plane after years being away, walks into a bookmakers and on screen and promotion “old firm” kicks off soon.
That someone grabs a pen puts money on a gers win only to watch them get beat 4-1.”what the hell happened there he say’s to someone, an old firm game and i always bet gers to win. 
Then the guy next to him says but that is not the old firm and then explains what happened.
misrepresentation! is what the guy is now thinking or i have been duped is what he is thinking

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on8:33 pm - Jan 18, 2017


The very fact that this Coral/punter thing has come to court must be worriesome for the true believers..after all ,as Finloch pointed out earlier, there is more than enough ‘evidence’ to support the plaintiff. I am all in for Kinloch here…pay the man or `fess up.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:37 pm - Jan 18, 2017


Ps AJ if the horse in front gets disqualified, and your horse finished  second, you are on a winner, the result would show that the first horse won but was disqualified, and the second horse is now the winner. And even if you had money on the disqualified, horse if it was first past the post you are still a winner as most bookies pay first past the post.
You have been right for most of my life to avoid visits to the bookies;-)

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on8:55 pm - Jan 18, 2017


Cluster OneJanuary 18, 2017 at 20:37 
Ps AJ if the horse in front gets disqualified, and your horse finished  second, you are on a winner, the result would show that the first horse won but was disqualified, and the second horse is now the winner. And even if you had money on the disqualified, horse if it was first past the post you are still a winner as most bookies pay first past the post. You have been right for most of my life to avoid visits to the bookies;-)
____________________________

Thanks for the update, Cluster, still, I hope it demonstrates how a great many people place a bet without fully understanding what it is they’re betting on. Doesn’t mean they’ve been cheated, or even misled. This guy Kinloch is no beginner, and, if he didn’t know the difference between going bust and being relegated, then it’s his misunderstanding of football, and nothing to do with the bookies.  – at the time he put on the bet, at least. Since then, Corals have acted as though Rangers were relegated, and maybe that’s what’s encouraged the punter to, well, give it a punt21

PS I spent an enjoyable evening at the dogs in Manchester in the summer, a freezing night and got soaked. It took a couple of bets before I knew what I was doing, though I think I didn’t ever get to know what I was doing03 and went to claim my winnings a couple of times only to be politely told I hadn’t won a thing! It seemed odd, but sometimes I seemed to win when I thought I hadn’t!

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:02 pm - Jan 18, 2017


ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 18, 2017 at 20:55
I seemed to win when I thought I hadn’t!
——————
After today Coral or Mr Kinloch could be saying that22

View Comment

SmugasPosted on9:03 pm - Jan 18, 2017


Au contraire.  If neither the organiser of the race nor the horse that came second are willing to call out the cheetah (see what I did there) for the ultra fast but ultimately ineligible cat that he is then the first ‘horse’ past the post, that being the funny spotty one wearing the ill fitting horse mask and when questioned answering only miaow, wins and everyone else can p!ss off.  

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on9:30 pm - Jan 18, 2017


Upthehoops,
What I found interesting about the comments of Hamilton’s Les Gray and St. Mirren’s Stewart Gilmour was (amongst other things) their

1.  deference to the whims of the clubs with the most fans and their acceptance that they are dependent upon them for scraps from the table. 

2. admission that the CEOs of the SFA and SPFL have little or no authority to “manage” without the permission of their respective boards members, especially Peter Lawwell and Rod Petrie.

3.  neither was willing to state that Rangers (IL) was in liquidation, using variations on the phrase “the Rangers situation” and “and we all know how that ended” etc.

4.  there is a chasm between the SPFL and SFA Boards, the latter of which is controlled by the former

That the malaise in football governance is finally being exposed is progress, but Club Chairman have no intention of changing it. 

Time for an independent regulator as envisaged by Auldheid to be set up, but has the Scottish Government got the gumption for that? I hae ma doots!

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:04 pm - Jan 18, 2017


UPTHEHOOPS
JANUARY 18, 2017 at 18:22
==========================================

Could Rangers have afforded Dembele (or more accurately his registration).

The answer to that is indeed yes. His registration was bought by Celtic based on a development fee as I understand it. It was as low as it was because he moved from England to Scotland. I believe Celtic did a similar thing with Joe Ledley for a similar amount. Even assuming Rangers could have paid the £500k compensation that is to entirely miss the point.

Buying a player’s registration is meaningless if you cannot agree a contract with the player. In situations like this it is that contract which is important, that is how you secure the player. He has all of the power and you are dealing with him and his agent, not the other club. They basically have no say in the matter.

So what did Celtic offer, and I’m going to make assumptions here, so apologies for that.

A really good salary (probably tens of thousands a week), a signing on fee (six figure sum?), champions league football, working under a manager proven at the top level of football, playing in front of big crowds and training at a state of the art facility with top level coaches and support staff, the likelihood of putting a few winners medals in the cabinet, playing in the “shop window” with the prospects of even better contracts later. 

So, could Rangers have afforded to pay the compensation to get Dembele, maybe. Could they have convinced Dembele to sign a contract with them, I think that’s a tad less likely. 

View Comment

Comments are closed.