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
JIMBO
JANUARY 19, 2017 at 21:25
Stevie, you may well be right. But why would a lawyer under oath (I presume) say otherwise at the highest court in the land?
==============================
I have no idea.
But if the SFA has a different definition of ‘a club’ to that of e.g. UEFA, then how can the FFP rules be implemented consistently across all leagues ?
…unless I’m just being thick and missing something simple…
StevieBCJanuary 19, 2017 at 21:13
JIMBO JANUARY 19, 2017 at 20:30
CO, in your litany of the status of Rangers at the time, remember what McKenzie said today: McKenzie on definition of a club;
“We choose to define our rules based on clubs having an existence…that’s not the way FIFA operate.”…============================Off the top of my head…
That quote – and from a lawyer – just doesn’t make sense, IMO.
The SFA is – I believe – an affiliated member of FIFA (& UEFA). As such, the SFA must comply with FIFA & UEFA rules & regulations. To ignore them could jeopardise Scottish participation in their sanctioned competitions. i.e. it’s not for the SFA to make unilateral decisions about something as fundamental about the definition of a ‘club’.
If every national FA had leeway to choose how they operate whilst under the umbrella of FIFA / UEFA, then there would be chaos.
I would doubt very much that FIFA or UEFA would condone local deviations – unless the SFA had obtained prior, special dispensation about how they defined a club ? [And a dispensation which I believe the SFA has neither requested nor obtained.]
=================================
Steve/Jimbo
This is where the whole matter becomes nonsensical. if that is indeed what McKenzie meant (as opposed to what he said)
Here are the relevant SFA and SPFL rules on the matter of who has final say on what constitutes a club as far as UEFA are concerned. 3 b seems to apply with CAS at 3c being the final arbiter. UEFA clearly see TRFC as a NEW club under a club/company construct. The relative word being “new” as in not the same. (CAS is where TRFC should take their case if they insist on being the same club (along with a note confirming they have enough funds set aside to pay of the tax owed ).
THE SCOTTISH FA AND ITS MEMBERSHIP
From SFA HANDBOOK 2014/15
http://scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2014-15/Handbook%202014-15..pdf
3. The Scottish FA
The Scottish FA is a member of FIFA and UEFA. Accordingly, it is itself obliged to:-
(a) observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance
with the principles of fair play;
(b) comply with the statutes, regulations, directives, codes and decisions and the
International Match Calendar of FIFA, UEFA and the Court of Arbitration for
Sport, and the Laws of the Game;
(c) recognise and submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport as
specified in the relevant provisions of the FIFA Statutes and the UEFA Statutes;
(d) use its best endeavours, to the extent legally permissible, to procure that in the
final instance any dispute arising under these Articles (and which is referred to
it) is determined by arbitration pursuant to Article 99; and
(e) use its best endeavours to ensure that the leagues, clubs, players, officials,
matches and Players’ Agents under its jurisdiction (through their statutes,
licences, regulations or any other written document) acknowledge and accept
all the above mentioned obligations and agree to be bound by and observe
these Articles.
Duties of SFA Members.
5. Obligations and Duties of Members
5.1 All members shall:-
(a) observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance
with the rules of fair play;
(b) be subject to and shall comply with these Articles and any statutes,
regulations, directives, codes, decisions and International Match Calendar
promulgated by the Board, the Professional Game Board, the Non-
Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel Protocol, a Committee or subcommittee,FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport;
(c) recognise and submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport
as specified in the relevant provisions of the FIFA Statutes and the UEFA
Statutes;
(d) respect the Laws of the Game;
(e) refrain from engaging in any activity, practice or conduct which would
constitute an offence under sections 1, 2 or 6 of the Bribery Act 2010; and
(f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good
Faith
Articles of Association of The Scottish Professional Football League Limited (Company Number SC175364)
http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__articlesofassociationofthescottishprofessionalfootballleaguelimitedasat1january2015_1420461960.pdf
SCOTTISH FA ARTICLES Applicable to SPFL.
191. Nothing in these (SPFL) Articles shall relieve any Member of the Company from its obligations as a full member club of the Scottish FA to comply with the applicable articles of association of the Scottish FA for so long as such Member remains a member of the Scottish FA.
192. Each Member shall in so far as it is lawfully able and permitted by the exercise of its voting powers to do so procure that the Company observes and complies with all relevant articles of association of the Scottish FA applicable to it
To sum up if UEFA have made it quite clear they regard The Rangers Football Club as a “new club/company” what is the positon of the SFA and SPFL under UEFA’s jurisdiction?
The same club narrative was always going to run into the fair play principles of UEFA simply because the idea that unpaid debt can be used to buy titles and gain the consequent rewards using unfair means is wrong, especially if football registration rules were not followed to enable the footballing “success”. It is a self inflicted would that continues to fester.
Funnily enough the SFA have a definition of a club as a licence applicant that I will post next in their Club Licensing rules (the one where a clue to how the SFA see an applicant for a licence (national or club) being in the title.
Jean/ Stevie, I wouldn’t trust McKenzie as far as I could throw him. I pointed out right away that he lied about Rangers football club (with a capital C) being sold. They weren’t, they were in liquidation. The assets were sold. I think it was JC who later said he used ‘sleight of hand’ , he was being too kind.
Jean you come closest to the truth, ‘because he wanted to’. Because he is a lawyer we expect a higher level of truthfulness. How naïve are we?
Although this is a civil case, I can’t help but thinking how many criminals come to court and say ‘it’s a fair cop guv’ guilty as charged. Even under oath they lie their heads off.
The amount of lying by avoidance these past three days was staggering.
The point in the following is it comes from the SFA web site and demonstrates how the UEFA jurisdiction covered in SFA Articles (see the previous comment) is covered by the SFA. It would be interesting to hear from SFA lawyers on what grounds any Scottish club member of the SFA is exempt.
Extracts from The SFA National and UEFA Club Licensing Manual. 2017
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/2015/Scottish-FA-Club-Licensing-Manual-2017.pdf
1.6 Objectives
The stated objectives of the UEFA Club Licensing system are set out in Article 2 of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations. In a national context these are –
a) to further promote and continuously improve on all aspects of football at SPFL (Premiership) level and
to give continued priority to the training and care of young players in every SPFL (Premiership) club;
b) to ensure that an SPFL (Premiership) club has an adequate level of management and organisation;
c) to ensure that clubs’ sporting infrastructure provide all players, spectators and media representatives
with suitable, well equipped and safe facilities;
d) to improve the economic and financial capability of the clubs, increasing their transparency and
credibility;
e) to place the necessary importance on the protection of creditors by ensuring that clubs settle their
liabilities with employees, social/tax authorities and other clubs punctually;
f) to introduce more discipline and rationality in club football finances;
g) to encourage clubs to operate on the basis of their own revenues and to encourage responsible
spending for the long-term benefit of football
h) to ensure that any UEFA Licence awarded by the Scottish FA does not put at risk the smooth running
of any UEFA competition;
i) to develop benchmarking information for SPFL (Premiership) clubs which will allow a comparison with
other clubs throughout Europe.
SECTION 3
THE CLUB AS LICENCE APPLICANT AND THE UEFA LICENCE
3.1 Definition of Licence Applicant
3.1.1 – The Licence Applicant may only be a football club, that is the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity full member of the Scottish Football Association. The licence applicant is responsible for the fulfilment of the club licensing criteria.
This membership must have been in place at the start of the licence season for a minimum period of three consecutive years. Any alteration to the club’s legal form or legal group structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name or club colours, or transferring stakeholdings between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition is deemed as an interruption of membership within the meaning of this provision.
The UEFA administration may grant exceptions on the non-applicability of the above three-year rule in case of change of legal form or legal group structure of the licence applicant on a case-by-case basis. These exceptions are granted to the individual club that applies for a UEFA Licence. An exception is granted for a period of one season; under specific circumstances, this period may be extended. A renewal of the exception is possible upon a new request. Refer to Annex I B (§1,2, 4-8) of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations for more details on the process. (no such application was made/approved from 2012 to 2015 based on UEFA Traverso response))
On the club/company relationship at page 90 presumably RIFC and TRFC have a written contract that complies (as must RFC with MIH previously if the same construct existed then. )
UEFA REF
A 45
CRITERIA
Written Contract with a football company
DEFINITION
Refers to instances where the licence applicant has a contractual relationship with a Full Member of the
Scottish FA.
MINIMUM UEFA REQUIREMENT
Any such contract must stipulate the following as a minimum –
a) The football company must comply with the applicable statutes, regulations, directives and
decisions of FIFA, UEFA, the Scottish FA and the Scottish Professional Football League.
b) The football company must not further assign its right to participate in a competition at
national or international level.
c) The right of this football company to participate in such a competition ceases to apply if the
assigning club’s membership of the association ceases.
d) If the football company is put into bankruptcy or enters liquidation, this is deemed to be an
interruption of membership or contractual relationship within the meaning of UEFA Article
12. For the sake of clarity, should the licence have already been granted to the football
company, then it cannot be transferred from the football company to the full member.
e) The Scottish FA reserves the right to approve the name under which the football company
participates in the national competitions.
f) The football company must, at the request of the competent national arbitration tribunal
or CAS, provide views, information, and documents on matters regarding the football
company’s participation in the national and/or international competition.
The contract of assignment and any amendment to it must be approved by the Scottish FA
and the Scottish Professional Football League.
CLUB DOCUMENTS
Contract and written
agreement of the Scottish
FA and Scottish Professional
Football League
jimboJanuary 19, 2017 at 22:19
The amount of lying by avoidance these past three days was staggering.
=====================
More like four and a half years Jimbo. Its what happens when you put lawyers in charge of companies, they think what is legally defensible rather than what is right.
Auldheid, the rules are plain to see. I was just pointing out that the self proclaimed top expert in football rules in Scotland has a different interpretation as to what constitutes a ‘club’. Not just him but the organisation he represents.
If the Scottish football authorities are at odds with EUFA it won’t be the first time.
Run out of time there.
The SFA duped UEFA in the granting of Rangers license in 2011. UEFA only found out about this, I think, due to Res.12. UEFA rules were trampled all over the place but only discovered retrospectively. What has happened? Other than embarrassing UEFA, SFA, RANGERS? Nothing.
If UEFA were precious about their rules they would have jumped on the RES.12 accusations/ questions. They are cowards and crooks like most of the football industry.
The question of what constitutes a football club is small fry to them.
Just a quick comment about the “relegation” of Rangers.
I thought that the most fascinating input today was when Rod McKenzie (the SPL’s legal representative and “prosecutor” in the LNS commission) said:
I have made this point on numerous occasions, but it is worth saying again…
To avoid disputes, if a formal document needs to give a specific meaning to a word or expression it will be included in the definitions section of that document. When that word or expression is used with a capital letter, it is taken to have that specific meaning. If the word is used with lower case it can be taken to have the general everyday meaning.
So, when Mr McKenzie felt it necessary to clarify the point, he was stepping away from the idea that the “association football club” – as one would naturally take that to mean – was sold.
“The Club, with a capital C” to which he is referring comes from the 2012 interpretation of the SPL’s articles and rules. That interpretation results in the specially created Rangers FC franchise.
If he had said “The Rangers FC franchise had been sold to Sevco Scotland ltd”, who could argue?
Further to that point, it is worth noting that the “The Club, with a capital C” only came into existence in 2005.
2005 was the first time that “The Club, with a capital C” was defined in the SPL’s documents.
At https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC175364/filing-history?page=5
Compare the articles dated 7th February 2005 and those of 7th September 2005
The earlier articles have no specific definition for “Club” or “Football Club” – though Article 2 (page 4) does define a “Scottish Premier League Club” as:
Article 4 is also helpful:
On the same page of the link I have provided, you can see the annual return – 8th June 2005 – which has the full list of the members of the Company.
Remember only football clubs can hold shares.
On page 17, you will find the shareholder name of… RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB PLC
So, according to the SPL articles the normal everyday meaning of “football club” must be a company – which, for SPL clubs, were those companies which held a share in the SPL.
Nothing in the later articles gave a different meaning to a “club” or “football club”.
I just think Mr McKenzie has given the game away with his intervention.
“The Club, with a capital C, had been sold to Sevco Scotland ltd.”
Without giving the “capital C” caveat, he could only have truthfully answered:
“The club, with a lowercase c, is in liquidation.”
Oh what a tangled web we weive ……
Nothing in this farce surprises me anymore. 3 days in court for ,in many peoples opinion was a slam dunk case .
Everyone and their granny knows that Ragers 1872 failed to exit admin,even the MSM to a man (and I use that term loosely )admits the club went INTO admin but never have I saw or heard of the date the club exited it .
The CLUB died pure and simple fact . The old Ragers supporters may not want to hear it but that does not and never will alter the fact .
The clubs ,press ,SPFL ,SFA and even the bookies will tell themselves that the myth is for the overall good of our game ,in reality it,s good for them all as they all have a vested interest in keeping the myth alive .
Can someone explain to me why Coral didn’t just go to the SPFL or SFA and obtain the relevant documents that will surley show the Club no longer exists .(oh that’s right they are just 2 of the bodies that have spent 4yrs aiding the myth)
The secret 5 way agreement is IMO where all the bodies lie ,so much so that the SPFL lawyer refused to go into the detail of that subject .
IMO the real reason for the emphasis and agenda being set against the definition of the word relegated, is most likely to cover all their backs from a creditor of the old club turning rogue and using a Corals loss as a basis to claim an old clubs debt from the new club .
As if I were a creditor of the old club ,that’s exactly what I would do .
Straight on the phone to the lawyer .
FAN OF FOOTBALL
JANUARY 20, 2017 at 07:22
Oh what a tangled web we weive ……Nothing in this farce surprises me anymore. 3 days in court for ,in many peoples opinion was a slam dunk case .Everyone and their granny knows that Ragers 1872 failed to exit admin …
================================
Rangers did not fail to exit administration. Every company which goes into administration has to exit it one way or another. The liquidation process is ongoing and rangers still exists, however they have exited administration.
http://www.recoveryandturnaround.co.uk/news/how-long-does-administration-last/
Here, we explain a little more about what the different exit routes are when it comes to the administration procedure:
CVA / handing back to the director
In this instance, the company would be handed back to directors and shareholders, with the objective of the procedure having been fully achieved, but ensuring that the creditors have paid off the relevant money as without this, the process cannot be completed and ‘wrapped up’.
If there is an instance in which the company can satisfy all of its debts in full, the administrator will propose a simple CVA as a mechanism through which all debts can be payed and the administration can be exited. Once this mechanism is in place, directors relinquish control.
Liquidation
If there remain to be assets to realise at a company, or debts to settle, this can be done through the process of liquidation. Without the need to make expensive court applications to remain in place, liquidation provides a time and money-saving option for the company in question.
Dissolution
After the administrator has carried out the relevant work, one option may be to dissolve the company which in turn rids the company of the need to complete the further insolvency process of liquidation. This will usually occur where asset realisation is complete and, in that instance, there is no need for further investigation. Alternatively, this may happen if there is no money to distribute to creditors and, indeed, no hope of further recoveries.
In this situation, the dissolution of a company may be sought by the administrator, closing the company and having it removed from the company record.
So to tie the posts of HP @ 00.39 and Homunculus @ 09.21 together what the SPFL lawyer is saying is the Club was one of the assets that was sold from the old insolvent club to the new solvent club. The new solvent club was told by majority to piss off by SPL members with only 1 member, the old insolvent club voting in favour and one other (Kilmarnock) woosing it altogether.
Glad that’s cleared up. I completely see now why Mr Mackenzie described the failure of the other Clubs, sorry, clubs to understand it as “bizarre.”
Accepting the limitations of twitter and live reporting however I would still question Mr Mackenzie’s view that the “business” was sold to Sevco Scotland. Like “club” and “Club” “Business” also has a very specific meaning. I would suggest Mr Mackenzie’s Club, (HP’s franchise if you prefer) is just an asset, not a business per se else the SPL members would not have had any grounds to reject Green’s club on.
Does anyone have a copy of the proposed draft 5WA that I think came from Charlotte originally? I’d be interested to see how it stacked up against Mr Mackenzie’s testimony yesterday.
Fundamentally, in the circumstances he describes there is no reason for it to be confidential, not as long as all parties in agreeing to the granting of a Membership to sevco were acting in accordance with their own agreed mandates. If the final 5WA is sort of naughty (hence the confidentiality) I suspect someone, specifically those representing the clubs, were not acting on members instructions. If the 5WA is the downright bilge dwelling artefact our worst suspicions suspect then it also includes reference essentially indemnifying the new club to LNS. That’s a big step from the other clubs “requesting assurances” from sevco (that obviously weren’t given but I’m intrigued what those assurance could have been) in return for an unauthorised access to division 1.
CHRISTYBOY
JANUARY 19, 2017 at 13:45
Totally honest, I’m getting a bit pissed off with all this jinking around the word liquidation and that Coral seem to be only going half pelt to get a win here. I know it’s not over but if you go to court and handicap your own team from the start by trying not to offend anyone what exactly are you trying to do ? I take it their QC will be acting under instruction? It’s like they will be happy to win but not at all costs . I understand they don’t want to lose business but you’ve got to fight your own corner surely. Nearly five years down the line and the MSM won’t acknowledge it and now our Judicial system won’t even discuss it. Dearie me, we’re in deeper trouble than I thought.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
What I also found puzzling was the notion of Kinloch spending upwards of £20k on lawyers in order to get Coral into court
It begs the question
Are Coral in court because Kinloch was no longer prepared to settle simply for £250k?
i.e.
Did Kinloch pre-warn Coral in writing that if they refused to settle before he started incurring legal costs he would not settle out of court unless he was also paid for legal costs incurred to date?
And Coral gambled he was bluffing?
SmugasJanuary 20, 2017 at 11:08
If this link doesn’t work let me know and I’ll try a different format:
http://www.sfmonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/164607084-5-Way-Agreement-As-issued-to-all-parties-for-signature-1.pdf
bordersdonJanuary 19, 2017 at 20:58
A wee bit of reflection guys! This site is obsessed with the imminent (or not) demise of the new club (obsession with stealing water or crumbling big hoose closing it down, running out of money etc etc). There is no doubt now in my mind that they will stagger through and we will (in a few years) if nothing changes be back to a duopoly rather than the monopoly that we have now. If we are seriously interested in improving football in Scotland we need to think seriously about redistribution of resources.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree.
The old club/new club debate has never interested me. What interests me is how a “Rangers” came to be playing in SFL3 in season 2012/13, when simple application of the rules would have had a well qualified club like Spartans filling the vacancy arising from the demise of RFC. The key to that piece of sleight of hand is, of course, the 5 Way Agreement.
The other issue that is of vital importance is the future of Scottish football. As Borderdon points out, it is now over 30 years since the title went to a club other than Celtic or Rangers.
For at least ten of those years, the title was fraudulently acquired by Rangers, using improperly registered players who were in effect being paid “boot money” on the side. Before Scottish football moves on, something has to be done about that. You can’t keep a clean beast in a clarty byre, my farmer uncle used to say. So before we move to a shiny new world of a clean sport, transparently run, the stable has to be thoroughly cleaned.
That will mean a lot of change of personnel at Hampden, a proper inquiry (no judges please) into the “cheating years” (all of them this time) and genuine sanctions.
Then we need to look fundamentally at a setup which results in the top title being the preserve of a duopoly, or even monopoly.
The main reason that Celtic fans are resistant to any change in the way money is distributed is a deep desire to get to ten in a row, just to stick it to the team at Ibrox. If justice were to be done, and the titles from the cheating years removed from the record, I think the Celtic support would be a lot more amenable to the introduction of a different distribution model. Or maybe I’m just dreaming?
Anyway, I agree with Bordersdon that something must be done to spread the money more evenly. But how can that be done? Split the gate money somehow? Spread the TV money more evenly? I don’t have the answers, but I do know something needs to be done. The status quo is surely not an option, if we want a healthy, competitive sport.
The Rangers @ 11.20
Much obliged.
I must admit, I am not surprised in the way the Kinloch case has gone as I never expected the OC/NC debate to be moved on by anything said in court. I did hope, though, that the ‘relegation’ issue would be properly debated, and answered, with the obvious and correct ‘Rangers were not relegated’ outcome. Sadly, even the world’s record holding mind on SPL rules was unable to answer that one.
A civil court of law is not a place where the truth comes out. It is a place where cases are won, or lost, where arguments are presented and counter argued, but if there is something both sides don’t want to argue over, then it will not be raised, even if it is, as in this case, a slam dunk of a winner. If liquidation had been discussed, then Kinloch would, almost certainly, have lost the case, so, unless he was only there to end the OC/NC debate, forever, his counsel was never going to raise it, and, we must assume, for whatever the reason, Corals had clearly instructed their QC not to raise it either. Even the judge, whether he knows the ‘truth’ of the matter, or not, cannot force the issue to be debated.
There will, I am certain, have been a great many cases before this one where issues that could have won a case have been avoided to prevent an even bigger problem for one, or both, of the parties involved.
It seems to me that this whole case has been ‘argued’ without either side producing evidence, or even a statement of fact, that Rangers were either relegated, or not! It is easy to understand why the Kinloch counsel have been unable to do this (because Rangers died), while the only reason for the defence not to, is that they are under instruction not to raise the ‘elephant in the room’, even obliquely, so they had to introduce this nonsense of demotion instead! Which, I would have thought, should have raised the debate of ‘what’s the difference between ‘relegation’ and ‘demotion’?’
What has surprised me is that Kinloch’s counsel didn’t make more of Corals post liquidation use of the word ‘relegation’, or ‘relegated’, in their advertising. To say that it was someone else who produced the advertising is nonsense, for they are totally responsible for what appears, in their own shop windows, to encourage the punter to place a bet on the subject of that advertising!
Quite simply, if Corals didn’t believe Rangers were ‘relegated’ they should have returned the posters etc to the agency and refused to pay them. To me, while not making one difference to the ongoing debate, this would have been the nearest ‘evidence’ to a Kinloch slam dunk!
Smugas
January 20, 2017 at 11:42
Also the above.
I’m not buying this redistribution of resources argument for a second. Has it occurred to anyone that the reason Celtic are dominant just now (and that their historical rivals went bust and their offshoot is a distant second) is because for the last 20 years or so the people in charge at Celtic have consistently made good decisions. Not all of the time but regularly enough for it to have a serious impact on the clubs long term development. Has any other club in Scotland had people in charge for such a long spell making good decisions on a regular basis? I’d say the answer is a resounding “No” So why would handing over even more money to the likes of Vladimir Romanov, Stewart Gilmour, the Marr brothers, Chris Robinson etc…. over the last 20 years, Why on earth does anyone think that would have resulted in a better league than the one we have now?
This is always what happens in any sort of “redistribution” argument. It is just assumed that the “haves” have it because of some underhanded scheme and the “Have nots” don’t have it due to the system being rigged against them. But more often than not its down to your own decisions and your own actions. People who are good with money and make good decisions with it tend to accumulate more of it.
I’m all for a more equal split of the TV money but the idea of taking gate money off of teams or just confiscating resources from them for the good of clubs that have been run terribly, is genuinely a line in the sand for me.
If the people in charge of Scottish football just now (and some of the clubs) were in charge of the Sahara desert then in 5 years time we’d have a shortage of sand such is their incompetence! So why on earth would a club like Celtic agree to give them “one thin dime” as Fergus McCann would say.
In fact I would bet anyone out there right now that if Anne Budge and the folk in charge at Tyenecaslte remain in place for the next ten years then HMFC will enjoy their most successful decade in living memory in terms of league position and commercial income and playing in Europe. There’s an element of luck involved in winning cups so they might not repeat Romanov’s two cups in 6 years but I wouldn’t bet against it. Anyway the point is that if you get competent business people in charge of your club and allow them to do their job then everything else will follow.
CHARLIE_KELLYJANUARY 20, 2017 at 13:09
Must be hell having to run a club on only millions of pounds a year! I’d wager there are many clubs in Scotland “Better run” than Celtic, but when you have a fan base of a few hundred it makes no odds how well you are run. Scottish football isn’t Celtic and whatever form of RFC/TRFC we happen to have. It isn’t even the gruesome twosome plus Aberdeen & Hearts, or the Dundee clubs, or Edinburgh clubs or……
Most of us aren’t talking about redistribution simply to get stuck in about Celtic. We are wanting redistribution so the game entire can flourish. That doesn’t mean so my club can win the SPFL every year – god imagine how dull that would be year in year out – it mean s develop the game so we the spectators (customers if you will) get to view a decent sporting (important phrase that) contest full of skill and entertainment.
A couple of points for clarity on the ongoing court discussions.
The CVA was never mentioned by anyone while I was in court. The only event of 14 June 2012 mentioned was the sale of the business and assets by the administrators. Anyone who didn’t know the background, could reasonably assume from what was said/not said in court that a CVA wasn’t even attempted, far less failed.
Professor Vaughan Williams was asked about his own betting habits given that he considered himself well versed in betting odds. He described his occasional bets on Norwich City as a “hobby” then posed a question to the court (perhaps rhetorical) whether his bet on Trump to become president was different He had done various bits of work in relation to the US election and admitted make a bet on Trump because he thought that the odds on offer represented good value.
TAYRED
so what would you suggest?gate money aint going to happen,celtic are a bigger brand than aberdeen just like nike are a bigger brand than umbro,so what’s your suggestion?
Yes Tayred but my argument is that your assumption is flawed because it is based on the false premise that clubs would be better run if only they had more money and specifically more money at Celtic’s expense.
If you have a look at english football over the last 20 years – There has never been more money in the game yet there has also never been more clubs going in to administration or suffering from serious financial worries.
For example: I don’t know what Dundee FC’s turnover was in the early 00’s but for the sake of argument let’s just say it was £5 million. Now they clearly overspent on guys like Cannigia, Ravenelli etc… They were bringing in £5 million and spending £10 million.
Your argument is that “well if they’d had more money then they could afford those players and the league is better over all”. Where as my point is that if they’d had £10 million then they’d have been spending £20 million instead with the same end result of 3 administration events in 10 years.
Tony – I honestly have no idea! But if I was being employed full time to run and develop the game in Scotland I sure would be trying to come up with something other than a desperate rush to get things back to “where they belong”.
I understand the reticence of Celtic fans to give up some of their hard earned cash, but it is also important that the accept that they can only maintain that position by standing on the shoulders of the rest of the league. If Scottish football collapses, Celtic will collapse too. If Scottish football was to improve, and I think we all agree that it most certainly can, then Celtic would reap the benefit of that when they go on their European adventures.
Charlie – no, you misunderstand me (or more likely my scribbling was inaccurate!). My main disagreement was with your claim that Celtic stand alone as well run clubs. I’d almost guarantee you Celtic is not the best run club in Scotland, but given their healthy finances mistakes are easily recovered (for smaller clubs one mistake and it could be curtains).
But, surely you would agree if we make the huge assumption that clubs were all equally well run (I know, but give me some rope to hang myself on please), then a fairer distribution of funds would lead to improvements in the game, in the facilities and in the “product” presented to the fans? A decent association to oversee all this is an absolute requirement – and there we have a big problem.
GOOSYGOOSYJANUARY 20, 2017 at 11:19
I know what you mean. I’m more astounded of forehead ( Copyright ?) than ever about this case and the refusal – and I cant think of any other word- to press their case and indeed question what McKenzie was saying. He was talkin’ complete rubbish and getting away with it. And they all knew he was. But none of them would question it fearing they inadvertantly let something slip. Well that’s how it looked to me from the excellent tweets from Mr Doleman . I would not be surprised if Mr Kinloch has not already been seen leaving Borrheid Travel with a black bag of travel brochures in one hand and a pina colada in the other.And leaving a holiday in Tenerife as a tip for our “Rules Expert” would only be good manners.
TAYRED
no celtic fan will pay £500 for a season book if it was shared by clubs who bring at most 200 fans to celtic park,clubs in scotland recieve money due to celtics involvement in europe,the sky and BT deals are ridiculous when you consider what EPL gets thats the SFA/SPFL fault,and as for the rush to get back i and many others hope there is no going back.in spain barca and real dominate but smaller clubs like seville always seem to get to euro finals,maybe look inward at aberdeen and ask if it could be run better,if i was in your shoes i’d get shot of mcinnes,half decent manager with your squad could make a big difference,giving him more cash aint the answer,these are just my opinions though and not an argument just the way i feel
GOOSYGOOSY
JANUARY 20, 2017 at 11:19
…
What I also found puzzling was the notion of Kinloch spending upwards of £20k on lawyers in order to get Coral into courtIt begs the questionAre Coral in court because Kinloch was no longer prepared to settle simply for £250k?i.e.Did Kinloch pre-warn Coral in writing that if they refused to settle before he started incurring legal costs he would not settle out of court unless he was also paid for legal costs incurred to date? And Coral gambled he was bluffing?
==============================
1) Good point GG.
Think you could be correct.
But, would these ‘no win no fee’ ambulance-chaser type lawyers take on this case ?
Not much preparation required, and publicity for the lawyer is guaranteed ?
2) Re: the alleged GBP 6M ‘bid’ for McKay from Leipzig.
IF true, then McKay’s agent should be rubbing his hands together in glee.
McKay is in a tremendous bargaining position to screw TRFC into the ground !
If he digs his heels in, TRFC will surely blink first ?
And if a bid doesn’t transpire, then he will be away in the summer anyway – with just 12 months remaining on his TRFC contract.
Aye Tony, no argument that Aberdeen haven’t been overly well run. But thats not the point. The non-Celtic clubs could and indeed should argue, that they are not given the money from Celtics involvement in Europe, they earn it. I believe despite the dubious nature of the SFA and UEFA you still have to compete in a national league to gain entry to any Euro competition. No league, no Champions League – its an unavoidable truth I’m afraid. A strong league will give you more chance of progressing in the CL, a weak league – well lets not get into John Collins territory again eh 😉
As for only 200 fans turning up to Celtic park – let me ask you this. If Celtic went to Dens Park or anywhere else you care to mention twice and year and got a doing year after year would you turn up to watch? Its long been noted that the Celtic crowds were diminishing over the last few years. Some put that down to the lack of a certain team, some put it down to Deila, many put it down to the games just being dull one sided affairs. Despite aberden getting a regular doing, there are always a few comments on here about how they are looking forward to Aberdeen turning up, cos at least they don’t (usually) park the bus. Now, if its boring for Celtic fans watching the inevitable victory, can you understand why most away fans just can’t bring themselves to pay up to travel to Celtic park? Its amazing the 200 you disparage do make the effort to turn up quite frankly!
Are Celtic fans really happy with that? The games against Celtic are so one sided that they are no longer of interest to everyone else? Fans just write off the 4 games a year as inevitable losses, lets just keep the score down tho eh lads, we might even scrape the odd draw if we keep it tight?
That to me is an indicator of a very sick game, one that’s crying out for attention. Money is part of the answer, a significant part, but not by itself. But it will take action from all clubs before anything can be done, and ultimately Celtic would have to surrender claim to some of the cash, but probably not alone – others in the Top 6 may lose out too.
Celtic may derive income from PLAYING in Scottish fitba’, but how much of it actually COMES from Scottish fitba’? …Not a lot.
The only readies flying around for distribution is purse money. Is there any need to win purses on top of a league or trophy win?. A cup final has already brought in extra gates, and doing well in the league is also reflected in gates.
Take the money from the purses for even distribution. It’s not much, but that IS the money in Scottish fitba.
A cup or flag is enough. The honour in fact, is everything….Shame it has been de-valued by events, and a history for purchase attitude.
CORRUPT OFFICIALJANUARY 20, 2017 at 15:25
Absolutely, but the two cannot be separated. Not unless you want to go cap in hand to the EPL, and that move just ain’t going to happen. Or the oft touted Atlantic league or whatever its called, doubt that will happen either.
So what do you do? Alas from Celtic fans here its appears to be nothing, I’ll be happy to be be proved wrong, but it seems you are perfectly happy with it all?? Would be a sad state of affairs given the aims of this site.
With the attention in D.C., I suppose today could be a good day to issue any bad news, at 5pm on a Friday as well…?
ChristyboyJanuary 20, 2017 at 13:52
GOOSYGOOSYJANUARY 20, 2017 at 11:19
I know what you mean. I’m more astounded of forehead ( Copyright ?) than ever about this case and the refusal – and I cant think of any other word- to press their case and indeed question what McKenzie was saying. He was talkin’ complete rubbish and getting away with it. And they all knew he was. But none of them would question it fearing they inadvertantly let something slip. Well that’s how it looked to me from the excellent tweets from Mr Doleman . I would not be surprised if Mr Kinloch has not already been seen leaving Borrheid Travel with a black bag of travel brochures in one hand and a pina colada in the other.And leaving a holiday in Tenerife as a tip for our “Rules Expert” would only be good manners.
______________________________
And who was going to press and question what Mr McKenzie said? Certainly not Mr Kinloch’s counsel, they would be perfectly happy for him to avoid anything that might damage their case; and, as he was a defence witness, Corals’ lawyers already knew what he was going to say, and were happy with it, or they wouldn’t have put him in the stand.
The longer the case went on, the more I became convinced that Kinloch knew, from his inside knowledge, and possibly friends/contacts inside Corals (or similarly structured bookies), just how desperate Corals were not to use the so obvious facts of Rangers liquidation in open court, or any other forum, for that matter, for fear of the consequences. I’d suggest that Kinloch must have been very confident that Corals were not going to use the slam dunk of the true effect of liquidation on Rangers in their defence, to take the case all the way to court.
Something else to consider. Mr Kinloch will not have been the only punter to bet on Rangers relegation, but he is the only one prepared to challenge a bookie all the way to court. Should he win, the gambling industry might have a lot more than £250,000 to pay out. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Corals are, in effect, representing the big gambling companies in this case, not wanting to have a court rule that ‘relegation’ took place, but, at the same time, not wanting the fallout from using the obvious defence.
Whatever the reason, it is obvious Corals feel the need to not pay out on this bet, and so have been prepared to go to court to defend their position, while, at the same time, are not prepared to even attempt to win the case by using the liquidation of Rangers as their defence. Now, even if that wasn’t the slam dunk we all see it as, why wouldn’t they at least try it?
I think the biggest mystery surrounds their use of McKenzie as their expert witness, when he’s not even prepared to state that Rangers weren’t relegated, or to explain what relegation means. Surely, in saying that even he can’t define relegation, he leaves it open for Kinloch’s team to say that ‘relegation’ does have a much wider meaning than Corals are claiming, and so that general meaning can be encapsulated in the bet!
Taryed – I’m happy to meet on the common ground of an equal share of TV money. The TV deal should be spread more evenly IMHO.
The problem is that the broadcasters want the Celtic “away” fixture one week and the rangers “away” fixture the next with the odd Dundee & Edinburgh derbies flung in. That’s fair enough from the broadcasters point of view and on the face of it, it doesn’t prevent a 12-way split of the TV money. The broadcasters choose what games to show but they don’t decide how the money is divided up. So theres’s nothing stopping the SPFL from splitting the money 12 ways.
The main objection is that the teams who feature more on TV are the ones who are inconvenienced the most and their supporters are the ones who are inconvenienced most. The easiest way to solve that is to feature all teams as equally as possible and I personally wouldn’t have a problem with that but I know for a fact that SKY & BT wouldn’t pay as much money for a deal that stipulates they must show Patrick Thistle’s away games as often as they show Celtic/rangers away games.
So how do we square that circle?
My only solution is that we should scrap the “prize money” aspect of the TV deal. As things stand you get more money for finishing 1st than 2nd and it’s tiered all the way down to 12th. The TV money is split in to 3 pots with 33% paid evenly to all 12 clubs. Another 33% paid pro-rata to clubs based on how often they are on TV. The final 33% is paid out depending on where you finish in the table.
So what I would propose is that we split the TV money in half with 50% of it split evenly between the 12 clubs and the other 50% paid out on a pro-rata basis based how often teams are on TV.
I don’t really see why the team in 1st should get more than the team in 12th (just for coming 1st) as this only makes the first place team stronger and increases the financial gap. But I think its only fair that if a club if featured 15-20 times then that club should get more than a club featured a handful of times.
Charlie – One thing I would add to your mix is that is neither Celtic or Rangers ever get home games broadcast (other than the games between the two of course).
That means they never suffer a loss of income from those that prefer to stay at home to watch the game – and there are many reasons for people choosing to watch from the sofa – the weather, the saving of hard earned cash, time, family…..
Personally, I would split the TV money equally to all clubs. Its a league of X teams, not just the 2 that the TV companies are fixated upon. You can’t blame them for doing that, its a simple audience figure thing for them. Plus, the TV money is pitiful, hardly worth arguing over for a big Champions League team 😉
A couple of further thoughts on Mr. Kinloch’s claim:
I’ve always thought that it was the responsibility of the punter to know both the rules of the competition/event he was gambling on & also to know (or at least, be aware of) the bookmaker’s operational policies. Mr. Kinloch’s wide experience of gambling, on both sides of the counter, was laid bare in court. He’s no ‘mug punter’.
I wonder if he’s been very cute & tried to claim on his wager on one of the ‘Club 12’ days, when there was dubiety about whether Dunfermline would remain in the SPL (and not take up the one relegation place, despite finishing bottom) or Dundee would additionally be promoted from SFL Div.1. Is there a timeline anywhere on line?
I also wonder why Coral didn’t just tell him that his wager didn’t conform to their T&Cs (due to force majeure or some other get-out clause which they all have) & refund his stake?
AllyjamboJanuary 20, 2017 at 12:30
‘…….Sadly, even the world’s record holding mind on SPL rules was unable to answer that one..’
________
Correction, aJ, if I may be so bold: McKenzie was not ‘unable’ to answer. He was determinedly unwilling to be hit by the baseball bat ( cf “The Untouchables”) or crucify himself by telling the truth.
The guy who wrote ‘Gulliver’s travels’, has a brilliant observation to make about ( some, at least) lawyers :
“Lawyers Are: Those whose interests and abilities lie in perverting, confounding and eluding the law.
— Jonathan Swift.”
We allknow from our experience of the ‘saga’ that in Scottish football governance there has been plenty of ‘perverting’, not only of law, but of truth.
What is it that makes so many ‘ordinary’ folk, husbands, fathers of children, ‘respectable’, possibly likeable, good neighbours , guys that you would in other circumstances enjoy having a pint with, persist in lying to maintain a fantasy, as ‘fantastic’ as the denial of a four-year-old grandchild who , mouth and cheeks ringed by forbidden chocolate, and holding a bit of a ‘Timtam’ biscuit in her hand, denies any raid on the fridge. ( Aye, chocolate biscuits have to be kept in the fridge, and I’m told Mars bars are not quite the same here in Queensland because they have to build in some extra non-melting-in -the heat kind of a thing).
The truth is SO obvious.
And yet we have had the nonsense we have just had in the Kinloch case, where all kinds of men and women ‘learned in the law’ choose to avoid the plain and obvious truth that a punter who bet that ‘Rangers’ would be relegated lost his bet because ‘Rangers’ were not relegated, could not be relegated but died the death of Liquidation. And choose instead to go down the utterly irrelevant path of arguing about what ‘relegation’means.
There is unquestionably a dirty wee rottenness somewhere in the system.
No Fat Yaks have been ill-treated this evening, but I have accepted one or two 150 lashes.
TAYRED
JANUARY 20, 2017 at 16:05
===============================
I would be surprised if the teams in the top division would want to split the money evenly between all of the teams in the league. There isn’t a huge TV deal and if the money is split 42 ways then I would imagine the top division clubs would all miss out and not just those whose games are televised most often.
On the other hand, I imagine the teams in the championship, division one and division two would be very interested.
That’s very much a guess though, I don’t actually have the figures.
HOMUNCULUSJANUARY 20, 2017 at 16:23
No, I can’t see that ever happening. A per league weighting maybe, but within each league it should be evenly spread.
TAYRED
JANUARY 20, 2017 at 16:37
===============================
There is only one senior league in Scottish football, the Scottish Professional Football League.
It is made up of four divisions.
If you want the TV money split amongst every team in the league then it will be split 42 ways.
As I said I think most of the teams in the top division would baulk at that idea.
As I understand it the current of TV money split is basically the prize money teams receive. So the higher a team finishes in the division / league the greater the cut of the TV money. Based on a figure of say £21m under your system everyone would get say £500,000, which would be an absolute boon for the teams in the lower divisions.
However every premiership side would lose a substantial amount, given that the lowest team currently gets around a million pounds. If we assume Rangers and Aberdeen are second and third this year they would be losing out on around £1.5m and £1.25m respectively.
Tayred
I couldn’t agree more.
Credit for bringing the subject to the fore. Like you I believe there has to be a significantly more equitable split of revenue in order to rebuild the game. I think that the difficulties of finding a formula which takes into account relative infrastructure overheads is often used as an excuse for dismissing the whole thing out of hand.
The subjective view of how individual clubs are run make no difference to the principle involved, and few clubs would sell any season tickets at all if they had no opposition.
The debate is not very much different in my view, to the Rangers affair in that at its core it’s the good of the sport pitted against narrower, financial interests.
The first step for me is to find a consensus on the principle, and then do the work on the appropriate mechanism.
The real problem here is that the incentive to fix the game in Scotland is strangled as long as some of our clubs – and there are more than two involved – look enviously southward.
In respect of the distribution of money, I don’t think anyone would say gate-sharing is the way forward, but a more even distribution of the league income would be better – lest we forget the carve up that used to be in place for 1st and 2nd, where there was a couple of hundred thousand difference in prize money, and then a drop off of about a million to 3rd place!
AnFearLiathMor
Yes. I would say some form of gate sharing IS the way forward. What form it takes is another thing of course?
HOMUNCULUSJANUARY 20, 2017 at 09:21
Thanks for the reply ,every day is a school day .
I believe that the vehicle that CW used to buy the old club was wavetower and as wavetower carried on for a few years after 2012 and indeed survived a few attempts to have then wound up (and may still be alive under a new guise )that would only leave one incorporated company /club that got landed with option 2 on your list .
as Jim Royale would say
same club my A**E
BIG PINKJANUARY 20, 2017 at 17:27
Tayred
I couldn’t agree more.
===================================
If the TV income is spread evenly across the league several of the top division clubs will struggle really badly. A loss of revenue of somewhere between £500k and £2m would be a disaster for them. Particularly bearing in mind that this is prize money, so not the same costs involved than normal turnover like merchandising etc.
Like I said it would be a boon for the lower divisions, however do people really think it would make the top division more competitive. I don’t see it myself.
FAN OF FOOTBALL
JANUARY 20, 2017 at 17:32
==============================
Wavetower is indeed still alive and is called The Rangers FC Group Ltd.
Re. the distribution of money,
https://stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/aberdeen/214573-what-the-new-scottish-league-financial-model-means-for-your-clubs-finances/
Documents showing the proposed financial distribution model for a reconstructed Scottish football league have been revealed.
Under the plans, the top two clubs in the country would give up a total of £1m each season in prize money, with over £1.7m being added to the prize pot for teams participating in the present First Division, which would become known as the Championship with two sides added.
The winners of the second tier would benefit from an extra £318,000 as opposed to at present, which would equate to just over half of the amount the team finishing 12th in the first tier.
—————–
Sorry if the reconstructed leagues and better distribution of money has already been posted. I’m just catching up and i remembered that celtic would lose out on some cash but lower clubs would gain
jimboJanuary 19, 2017 at 22:56 22 Votes
Run out of time there.
The SFA duped UEFA in the granting of Rangers license in 2011. UEFA only found out about this, I think, due to Res.12. UEFA rules were trampled all over the place but only discovered retrospectively. What has happened? Other than embarrassing UEFA, SFA, RANGERS? Nothing.
If UEFA were precious about their rules they would have jumped on the RES.12 accusations/ questions. They are cowards and crooks like most of the football industry.
The question of what constitutes a football club is small fry to them.
==============================
I think UEFA are quite happy with their rules and their power to apply them for their competitions. Whether they are happy for a national association to plough their own road when it comes to domestic competition they will leave with the national association.
In spite of SFA saying nothing on the OC/NC issue their rules comply with UEFA FFP and when it comes to licensing the club playing in a club/company construct from, Ibrox, UEFA will and tellingly HAVE applied their rules and do not recognise TRFC/RIFC’s membership of the SFA began before Aug 2012. Had they not done so they would have been applying severe sanctions on TRFC/RIFC for RFC’s licensing behaviour in 2011 with the SFA not escaping criticism.
As regards Res12 and UEFA not being willing to jump on it you could take the Traverso response as meaning you guys as shareholders in Celtic have taken the matter as far as you can but it is up to Celtic to bring a case to us if they think one exists. They certainly did not address the points made to them but came up with reasons not to, but left door open.
The ball is now firmly on on the edge of the penalty area and its a matter of Celtic either shooting direct for goal or going indirect and they should be making up their mind which way to go before the ref in the shape of the CW trials blows his whistle.
This is a kind of putting the record straight post without it having any impact on the belief that LNS was not provided with all the relevant information to prevent him dealing with the REBT DOS wtc ebts and MGMRT BTC ebts as being continuous. It is rather an explanation how that came about.
Harper MacLeod asked RFC Administrators to supply all documentation relating to ALL ebts WITH side letters from July 1999.
The start date that LNS was asked to consider the position from when the requested information was eventually provided by Duff and Phelps was 23 November 2000. This was governed by the earliest side letter that was provided which was for Tore Andre Flo, but somehow the De Boer side letter of 30 Aug 2000 that related to the (by 2012) irregular DOS ebts AND the HMRC letters of 2011 explaining the nature of both ebts were not provided.
There is a popular belief that this was done to keep those irregular ebts from LNS scrutiny but what has always been a source of puzzlement is if that was the case, why was the Flo letter of 23 November that related to a DOS ebt provided if the desire was only to look at BTC ebts??
Perhaps the answer is that who ever provided that letter thought it related to the BTC ebts because in fact as well as being paid in 2000 and 2001 via the DOS scheme Flo was paid under the MGMRT scheme AFTER he left RFC in August 2002.
Why that is so was raised at the FTT with no convincing answer provided, (although the idea it was an inducement to leave is hard to dismiss, but the facts are Flo was paid a total of £1,155,731 from the DOS ebt in 2000 and 2001 and a further three payments of £800,000, £250,000 and £250,000 from the MGMRT scheme in 2003, 2004, 2005 when at Sunderland.
That Flo was on the list of BTC Determinations would have been known in 2012 so chances are those providing the side letter thought it related to the BTC and provided it on that basis. HMCL were likely to take the same view, especially if the HMRC documentation that referred to both the Flo and De Boer DOS ebts and the basis on which the liability was conceded was kept from them. This tends to put HMCL as innocent parties in the sense that they asked for everything and could hardly be faulted if what they requested was not supplied and so thought that the Flo letter related to a MGMRT ebt. Puzzle solved.
However it remains the case that Campbell Ogilvie knew there were two schemes at play in 2012 having initiated the DOS scheme and being a beneficiary of the MGMRT (BTC) ebts and it would be astonishing if in April 2012 he did not know the true irregular nature of the DOS wtc ebts given the public interest in them from August 2011 iro the UEFA licence.
Then there is the TJN report of last November that suggests the SFA admitted to having in their possession in 2011 one of the HMRC documents of May 2011 that revealed the nature of DOS ebts and did nothing to instigate an enquiry then or put HMLC and so LNS right when the latter was being commissioned to investigate after Hugh Adams forced SFA and SPL to act in March 2012.
As I said the above does not change the perception that LNS was a set up, just suggests a cock up in the way they went about it.
Had they only stuck to the July 1999 date rather than use the Flo letter date who would have known something wasn’t right?
On redistribution of football income/wealth why should football the most self interested of industries defy human nature and think that spreading wealth is good for everyone?
Answer is it is self evident that a failure to do so reduces the illusion of competition to a level that reduces any idea football is a sport way past breaking point.
The argument is the wealth winning club supporters will tire of regularly handing out gubbings and walk away, but Brendan Rodgers arrival has put that notion on hold in Scotland anyway.
What makes Celtic top dog for the foreseeable future is CL money. That introduces a differential that no other clubs can match over a season.
For that to change UEFA (not Celtic) should be arguing with the so called big clubs that the concentration of wealth is damaging their domestic leagues and argue that the prize money be reduced and redistribute in a controlled manner as solidarity payments.
Solidarity payments already exist but the balance is wrong and as long as the few clubs and their supporters are content with gubbing the many and being paid well to do so it is unlikely to happen.
TAYREDJANUARY 20, 2017 at 15:32
CORRUPT OFFICIALJANUARY 20, 2017 at 15:25
Celtic may derive income from PLAYING in Scottish fitba’, but how much of it actually COMES from Scottish fitba’? …Not a lot.Absolutely, but the two cannot be separated. Not unless you want to go cap in hand to the EPL, and that move just ain’t going to happen. Or the oft touted Atlantic league or whatever its called, doubt that will happen either.
So what do you do? Alas from Celtic fans here its appears to be nothing, I’ll be happy to be be proved wrong, but it seems you are perfectly happy with it all?? Would be a sad state of affairs given the aims of this site.
————————————————————————————————————————–
I never said I was happy with it, but voiced my unhappiness at the money in the Scottish game. Morally, that is the only money that can be distributed evenly. through-out every “Professional” club.
I accept that Celtic need Scottish clubs to compete with, but Celtic’s success, or failure, is down to them as an individual club.
What some folk are asking for is a share of the financial successes. Does anybody want to chip in to help with the financial losses?, The transfers that didn’t quite work out The sponsorship deal that never materialised to completion, despite the costs involved in the legals, travel, time, and VIP presentations. The investment in a Euro campaign that flopped. Stadium improvements cost money, and happen in the away end too you know.
I would actually advocate giving the income from visitors, to the visiting club, but should just my club do that, or should it be reciprocated?…Then smaller clubs would lose out, but it would be fair if gate distribution enters the fray..
Peter Lawell’s passport gathers many stamps, as he furthers Celtics ambitions. Other than gravy train soirees, how many stamps do the SFA gain, broadcasting interest and generating appeal and with it, income to Scottish fitba? Look at the state of the coverage, even within Scotland, The SMSM, the broadcasters…Rank amateurs the lot of them. Has everybody forgotten Barry Hearn’s recommendations?
For what Celtic get financially from the Scottish game, they already provide quality x a hundred-fold back into it, As do other clubs incidentally. But how high a percentage of clubs can honestly say they bring more into the sport than they take out ?.
There are too many amateurs in the professional game, for the professional game’s spend capacity. I don’t mean to be disparaging by saying this, but if you are amateur, then be amateur.
Before carving up resources, it needs to be decided, at what level is a club professional enough…To be included. What are the parameters at the moment? What actually constitutes “Professional” in the SPFL title? What do we want “professional” to mean?
To be professional you need to run a business, and that involves attracting customers. generate profit. Stop the buses heading to Glasgow and Edinburgh. Put bums on seats. That is how you attract a larger slice of the pie.
Many don’t want their club to change or grow, (which is fine by me). but want a bigger slice just to enable it to remain the same…. How does that help, other than stunt the ambitions of those that do?
If you’re not part of the solution….You’re part of……?
Sevco get pounders for spending more than they themselves generate, but are they the ONLY club in Scotland that does this?……. I doubt it
Personally I have found the whole Coral court case rather depressing. It is yet another indication of how far the Establishment, including the football authorities, will go to protect ‘Rangers’. I am no lawyer but the Judge could very easily have been put behind the 8-ball by Coral’s QC. Rod McKenzie could have been destroyed by the Judge had the right case been pressed.
The real worry is it is a clear indication of what we face if the Supreme Court rule once and for all that Rangers EBT’s were illegal. I would be amazed if the verbal gymnastics to somehow say there was no sporting advantage are not being practiced every day right now.
Well, on that topic UTH the (draft) 5WA presumably straight from the pen of rules supreme Mr Mackenzie does throw up this little nugget,
section 5 point2
“…on completion the SFL shall accept the transfer of the SPL Player Regustrations from the SPL to be SFL Player Registrations as if Rangers FC had been relegated from the SPL to the SFL…”
For the absence of doubt “Rangers FC” as opposed to “RFC” in terms of the agreement are the Club, not the club.
lying C…
“…on completion the SFL shall accept the transfer of the SPL Player Regustrations from the SPL to be SFL Player Registrations as if Rangers FC had been relegated from the SPL to the SFL…”
Two little words, “As if”
AS IF…..
….. Our Chairmen would provide input into and sign off to a man stuff like the 5 way agreement.
….. Our Chairmen would all keep quiet on the way the “survival” and succession was finagled then and since.
….. Our Chairmen would avoid serious discussions and repercussions on how a non qualifying club took the top spot in the Scottish UEFA competitions qualifying list instead of and to the financial detriment of other clubs including for some their very own clubs.
As if indeed.
A podcast called Final Furlong discussing, in the last 15 minutes, the Kinloch v Carol case. Praising James Doleman for his tweets, then going on to show they just didn’t understand what the case was about. They seem to think that Corals are trying to get out of paying up purely on the grounds that Kinloch had no right in placing the bet. They seem completely unaware that the question is/was, ‘were Rangers actually relegated?’ It’s only at the end of the discussion that a female voice mentions the ‘relegation/demotion’ argument, but they are still clearly completely unaware of the OC/NC debate and what it means to the case, or rather, what not mentioning it in court means to the case.
This podcast is a clear indication of just how unaware those outside of Scottish football are of what’s gone on with Rangers and even that they went bust!
For those interested, they discuss it during the last 15 minutes of this:
https://soundcloud.com/emmet-kennedy/weekend-review-non-trier-rules-kamikaze-jockey-coral-court-case
Back on about that podcast.
Though they find the whole case to be nothing more than a joke, they are clearly unaware of what the case was about and just how ridiculous it really was, with both sides trying to avoid that elephant in the room. One because it would lose them the case, and the other because it would mean that they ‘killed Rangers’, nearly five years after the actual death of the club!
Just goes to show how effective the media’s truth avoidance efforts have been for those who don’t follow Scottish football online! I do hope James Doleman is aware of this podcast and contacts Final Furlong to make them more aware of what’s going on. They seem very impressed by his efforts, and rightly so, so may give more credence to what he tells them than a whole host of random bampots!
My belated thanks to James for his continuing efforts.
Putting TRFC’s progress to the next round of the Scottish cup and the Coral court case together, made me wonder what odds Corals (or any bookie) might give on a TRFC home draw in the next round, and how it might compare with the odds given for any other club. Bearing in mind, of course, that the odds should be exactly the same!
SMUGASJANUARY 21, 2017 at 08:09
Well, on that topic UTH the (draft) 5WA presumably straight from the pen of rules supreme Mr Mackenzie does throw up this little nugget
======================
Could a shareholder of a Scottish club force the SFA to make the 5WA public through the court?
Interesting tweet from a bear called Gregco5088, who seems to have done Keith Jackson’s job for him, or rather shown him how to do it!
If genuine, and the guy’s clearly a bear so motivation to spoof this is unlikely to be there, then it exposes Jackson for the liar he is! Still, we can be pretty certain that a great many bears will take it as proof that everyone at the DR is a ‘Rangers’ hater
Basically, the guy has emailed RB Leipzig pretending to be a sports writer, and asked them if there is any truth in Jackson’s Barry McKay transfer to Leipzig story. Guess the reply!
https://twitter.com/Gregco5088/status/822458066763390976
ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 21, 2017 at 15:51
Putting TRFC’s progress to the next round of the Scottish cup and the Coral court case together, made me wonder what odds Corals (or any bookie) might give on a TRFC home draw in the next round, and how it might compare with the odds given for any other club. Bearing in mind, of course, that the odds should be exactly the same!
————————————
I’ve just read a similar post on another forum. I find it hard to go down the road of the draw being rigged (not saying you think it is BTW). There is simply too many people you would need to involve. That aside, it is incredible for one club to get so many home ties, especially given the financial benefit it brings them.
ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 21, 2017 at 16:08
Interesting tweet from a bear called Gregco5088, who seems to have done Keith Jackson’s job for him, or rather shown him how to do it!
If genuine, and the guy’s clearly a bear so motivation to spoof this is unlikely to be there, then it exposes Jackson for the liar he is! Still, we can be pretty certain that a great many bears will take it as proof that everyone at the DR is a ‘Rangers’ hater
Basically, the guy has emailed RB Leipzig pretending to be a sports writer, and asked them if there is any truth in Jackson’s Barry McKay transfer to Leipzig story. Guess the reply!
==============================
On Sky today the match director followed MacKay around like he was Messi. There was an inordinate amount of focus on him. I guess the word is out he is for sale, and some friendly media outlets are doing what they can to boost the price.
Just heard on R Scotland there 190 fans travelled from Stranraer to Aberdeen today. Nine hour return road trip to watch your team get a likely gubbing. That’s dedication!
upthehoopsJanuary 21, 2017 at 16:11
ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 21, 2017 at 15:51 Putting TRFC’s progress to the next round of the Scottish cup and the Coral court case together, made me wonder what odds Corals (or any bookie) might give on a TRFC home draw in the next round, and how it might compare with the odds given for any other club. Bearing in mind, of course, that the odds should be exactly the same!
————————————
I’ve just read a similar post on another forum. I find it hard to go down the road of the draw being rigged (not saying you think it is BTW). There is simply too many people you would need to involve. That aside, it is incredible for one club to get so many home ties, especially given the financial benefit it brings them.
_______________________________________-
I am of an open mind on the matter of rigged draws (though the logical side of my brain says it’s virtually impossible), there’s been far too many examples of far more serious issues that have seen incredible results and even a company refusing to use a slam dunk defence in court to save it £250,000 and costs should it’s ultimately farcical defence not prevail, for anything not to be possible when an Ibrox club is involved. I agree, though, with so many people involved it does seem impossible for the draw to be rigged, but is every bookie in Scotland so confident that they would give them the same odds as, say, Hibs, for a home draw?
Corals may have been reluctant to use the ‘slam dunk’ evidence of liquidation for reasons other than being accused of killing the continuity myth.How many bets have been struck since Sevco were admitted to the scottish professional leagues under the guise of TRFC. How many people may bring future cases against Corals complaining of being misled by the bookie to believe that they were betting on Rangers when they were in fact betting on the ersatz version. An earlier post today highlights the fact that even sporting site podcasts outside of Scotland seem to be unaware of the true facts. Coral wilfully displayed promotional material encouraging its customer base to believe that this was Rangers as was, back in the big time following relegation.They benefited from any turnover due to this advertising and as far as I am concerned should lose this case.I have no idea of the liabilities for them outside of this case regarding the specifics of a Rangers relegation but if they were to win the case by mentioning the unmentionable then it may open them up to even further and perhaps more expensive litigation.
..tangled web an` aw.
GUNNERB, it’s not just Coral who are at risk. Every football club who have advertised a match against TRFC Ltd as if it was versus RFC 2012 (il) could find themselves being caught up in the ‘tangled web’. I would include the SFA,SFL and SPFL in this as the relevant governing bodies who failed to correct the false impression that TRFC was the same club as the the original club to play out of Ibrox.
That’s a lot of potential fraud cases when taken over four and a bit years.
UPTHEHOOPSJANUARY 21, 2017 at 16:21
On Sky today the match director followed MacKay around like he was Messi. There was an inordinate amount of focus on him. I guess the word is out he is for sale, and some friendly media outlets are doing what they can to boost the price.
———————-
Was in my Local today and both an English game and scottish game were on tv. After about 5 min after kick off i and a friend did notice the camera was stuck on one player. Friend said he wished he had a stop watch to record how much air time one player was getting as everytime he looked at the scottish game one player was on screen. We left with about 5 min to go in the first half.And had a chat about the inordinate amount of focus on one player(as you say as if he was Mess)
UTH @ 16.53
at a guess the shareholder would be directed via his club since, by default, they signed the thing. It’s one of my hunches why it would still be confidential. Because of the time constraints I wonder if on blinking and (needlessly in my opinion) giving Green the upper hand that Doncaster, Regan or Longmuir had to go maverick without mandate to close what they perceived as a deal.
GUNNERBJANUARY 21, 2017 at 19:19 said something similar in an early post……misrepresentation! is the word you are looking for
1) Corals
Wonder what odds they’d give for an insolvency event at TRFC Ltd. during 2017?
Or would they simply refuse to take the bet?
2) Alleged fixed draws.
Over the years I thought it was just an urban myth or running joke, e.g. to keep RFC and CFC apart until a cup final.
More recently, the seemingly significant, statistical deviation which is the run of home cup games for TRFC does raise an eyebrow.
And then Sepp Blatter is quoted last year;
“…Blatter explained how a ‘blind’ draw could be fixed, saying, “Balls are put in the freezer before the draw, at the slightest touch you can tell if the balls are hot or cold…”
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/jun/14/sepp-blatter-european-competition-draw-was-rigged-by-cooling-balls
(OK, a caveat must be that Blatter is not exactly renowned for his honesty.)
CLUSTER ONEJANUARY 21, 2017 at 20:58
GUNNERBJANUARY 21, 2017 at 19:19 said something similar in an early post……misrepresentation! is the word you are looking for
————————————-
Thanks Cluster One.
Funny wee article in the Express. The writer, Lindsay Herron, has got all his ‘Rovers’ mixed up. Apparently Celtic are playing Raith Rovers today. Michael Dunlop the Albion Rovers player has switched allegiances to his Fife cousins.
I don’t know anything about Lindsay Herron, maybe a journo. based in deepest London who thinks Scotland is too small to have two clubs with the word Rovers in their name. To be fair they are both in the highlights on Sunday, so maybe understandable. An easy mistake.
Raith-Rovers-captain-Michael-Dunlop-hoping-upset-Celtic-Scottish-Cup-News-Gossip
———————————–
Sorry, link didn’t work but you can find it on Celtic News Now.
jimboJanuary 22, 2017 at 05:58
‘.. The writer, Lindsay Herron, has got all his ‘Rovers’ mixed up…’
___________
I’ve just (at 5.11 pm Brisbane time) read Herron’s article.
To be scrupulously fair and honest even to a ‘Myth’ peddler, I think the headline with ‘Raith’ would have been some ignorant sod of an editor’s mistake.The text of the article clearly talks about Albion Rovers.
Herron may be a Myth propagandiser, but I’m pretty sure he’s knocked about the Scottish football scene long enough to know which team is which ( except that he thinks TRFC are RFC(IL)!)
Further to my post earlier, re Barrie Hearns’ recommendations and lower league income, Gordon Waddell hits a few nails on the head in this article. ..I have to confess, I never thought I would ever provide a link to this paper.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/spfl-blundered-failing-lure-fans-9667115.amp
@ CORRUPT OFFICIAL:
Waddell’s article is welcome, but too late.
We’ve all got 20:20 vision in hindsight (or, as our American friends might say, ‘We’re all Monday morning quarterbacks’).
Why didn’t he float his ideas in the autumn, when they may have been able to be implemented? I’m sure it would have been relatively easy to get access to SPL officials as a ‘top football journo'”!