Enough is enough

Avatar By

A further wee thought on the NOAL promise of further …

Comment on Enough is enough by Allyjambo.

A further wee thought on the NOAL promise of further loans. If I am correct in suggesting that the remaining directors have said ‘No More’, leaving King/NOAL as the sole lender of last resort, might I also suggest that Dave King is the last one any of us would like to rely on to keep such a promise (to keep the lights on), particularly as he’s the only one with a safe bolt hole to run off to (or just not leave) should he decide to renege on his promise? He has, after all, a ready made excuse in the upcoming TOP decision, should it go against him, and other people to paint as the forces of evil, guilty of bringing about the demise of his latest club.

Allyjambo Also Commented

Enough is enough
CLUSTER ONENOVEMBER 19, 2017 at 20:00
UPTHEHOOPSNOVEMBER 19, 2017 at 08:52 40 0 Rate ThisA very interesting first phone call to Radio Clyde last night where a Rangers fan named James made a very impassioned observation of the current Ibrox board. Why were the fans groups prepared to do anything to oust the previous board, but are willing to put up with this one not keeping any of its promises? —————–JIMBONOVEMBER 19, 2017 at 10:58 26 0 Rate ThisYes it’s a strange one Up The Hoops.  Why all this misplaced trust by the bears in their boards of directors.—————-Rangers boss Ally McCoist set to be handed £30m once transfer embargo is liftedRangers chief Charles Green will hand Ally McCoist up to £30m for new signings when their transfer embargo is lifted.20/12/12 http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11781/8342844/Rangers-boss-Ally-McCoist-set-to-be-handed-30m-once-transfer-embargo-is-lifted———They soon seen through charles Green’s bluster,and it was all get rid of the board(but some still believe he bought a football club 140 years old).Then came.£50m! That’s how much King says it will take to rebuild Rangers — and he’ll put up lion’s sharehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2588429/Dave-King-commit-30m-ensure-Rangers-return-Scottish-Premiership.html.———–So very strange indeed
_______________

Two things, I believe, are paramount in this phenomenon of unquestioning belief in Dave King and his board. A board led by a convicted criminal and serial liar.

The first is he is seen as a Real Rangers Man (whatever that might actually mean), as are the rest of his board, and so, apparently, to be trusted to never do anything that might harm ‘the club’.

The second, and this might be where Ernest comes in, along with all the other promoters of the big lie. Almost to a bear, they believe their club cannot die and they can see no reason, therefor, to ‘live within their means’. A football club that cannot die has nothing to fear from an overspending board, indeed, a board that doesn’t overspend has no right to govern such an immortal club and must be expelled from the Blue Room before too much repair work has been done.

In the normal course of life, one might expect people to live by the maxim, ‘once bitten, twice shy’, and not risk losing a second loved entity having watched the first die in very similar circumstances to what we are witnessing now. But give people who already had a superiority complex the veneer of immortality, and all they can see is the need for glory, at all cost, for, in their manipulated minds, their club is a phoenix that will rise again, no matter how often it goes down in flames. To them, insolvency has been normalized (see EB’s posts), and holds no fears. That is what Charles Green, the SFA and SPL, along with the compliant SMSM, have done – removed the fear factor of insolvency, administration and liquidation from Ibrox. It is the loss of the self preservation fear factor, that stopped early man from stepping off a cliff to see what would happen, that has been removed from the psyche of the bears. 

Put another way, an unkind way, perhaps, but zombies (the undead) don’t fear death, and will walk headlong towards obliteration to reach their goal!

Perhaps, currently, a PR guru has decided that there is a need to remind people that a ‘Club’ cannot die, and so has re-ignited the ‘same club’ argument!


Enough is enough
EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 16, 2017 at 21:15
Just a footnote to the transfer of membership. If it was the transfer of membership that made Sevco Scotland “Rangers Football Club”, rather than RFC (2012), then that surely implies that the DNA of RFC, or any other club for that matter, is held within the membership of the SFA.
As far as I’m aware “membership” is just an entry on the register of members of an association, nothing more, nothing less. Membership of an association clearly confers rights and obligations on the entity that holds the membership, such as the right to play in SFA sanctioned football matches.  However, transfer of a membership doesn’t make the transferor the same entity as the transferee.  
Simply put, the transfer of membership from an entity that formerly had a right to play football to a different entity that didn’t previously have a right to play football under SFA auspices, doesn’t alter the fact that there were two different entities.
_________

Or put another way, if the two entities were the same, there would be absolutey no reason to transfer any membership, regardless of the legitimacy of such a transfer.

Or another way to look at it – Hearts went into administration, got a CVA, came out of administration. Was there any need to transfer Hearts membership? And as we both know, and the whole football world knows, there wasn’t, because Hearts live on. Rangers linger on, dying slowly, TRFC were lucky to have RFC’s membership transfered to them. The legitimacy of that transfer is as nothing when judged against the fact Rangers died.


Enough is enough
On the awaited Lord Bannatyne TOP decision.

How ironic, in a most ludicrous way, would it be if a man, who only escaped forty odd jail sentences because he had the wherewithal to pay tens of millions of pounds in fines and unpaid taxes, should then escape the full might of the law because he doesn’t (allegedly) have circa eleven million pounds at his disposal?

I do have a sneaking suspicion, though, that we are about to witness another Rangers Tax Case type saga, that ends up with the only decision that made sense all along, but kills off, in an irreversible way, one more avenue – and all it’s loopholes – for King style shysters to make a killing at the expense of unwitting investors.


Recent Comments by Allyjambo

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Big PinkJanuary 2, 2018 at 13:54 
AJI suspect the TDs are not from SFM folk (remember the ratings are available to all manner of trolls). It is a disgusting world-view if made in earnest. A shocking way to score a point if not.
_________________-

I didn’t, for a moment, suspect they were from anyone who posts here, even the more prolific troll posters are better than that, I am sure. 

For some time now I have had the feeling that there is someone, or some people, coming on here and just TDing a number of posts without bothering to read their content, either out of malice or as some sort of concerted effort on behalf of people with reason to dislike our message. It really is quite strange how, suddenly, a number of posts receive one, two or occasionally three thumbs down in very short order, and often posts like uth’s, that could offend no one, receive these petty TDs as a result. 

I can honestly say that I have never read anything from our regular, or occasional, posters that might suggest they would TD anything relating to that terrible day. I include, of course, all supporters of Celtic and RFC/TRFC who have, over the years, made their arguments on SFM. My experience of Celtic supporters talking of that day is one that leaves me certain in the knowledge that only the basest of their support (and we all have them) were not badly effected by the disaster and in full sympathy with the deceased, their families and the wider Rangers support. 

I can still remember that night, sitting in the Queens Arms in Edinburgh, watching the death count rising on the TV, waiting for one of our mates we knew was at the game, getting more and more nervous until he appeared. It had a lasting effect on me.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
upthehoopsJanuary 2, 2018 at 08:52 29 2
Rate This
On this day in 1971, the Ibrox disaster happened during a Rangers v Celtic game at Ibrox. 66 fans died in a crush. Some of us remember that day, some of us may even have been there, while some of us would not even be on this earth at the time. We are all football fans. Nobody should go to a football match and never return home. Rest in Peace.
_____________

Wow! I know we are not meant to put much store on the thumbs up or down, but two people have given thumbs down to this post! Who on earth could find fault with a post respecting the dead from the Ibrox disaster?

It kind of confirms my belief that there are people coming onto this site who don’t read the posts, but are assigned with the task of creating the appearance that there is some disagreement with posts that mostly criticise Rangers(IL) and TRFC and hit the TD button without thought.

Alternatively, of course, it could just be that others, like myself, have difficulty hitting the correct symbol on tablets or mobile phones, I certainly hope that is the case here.

Thanks to Upthehoops for reminding us of that sad day, something we should do every year as a mark of respect for those who died on Scottish football’s worst day.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
DarkbeforedawnJanuary 2, 2018 at 03:48 
Stevie BC, the issue with declaring himself bankrupt is it stops him holding any director role in a company in the UK and possibly South Africa. I can’t see him doing that “for the sake of the club”. I think like Murray before him he likes the limelight. He knows very well the best option for the club would be resign as any acting party in the club and still provide the soft loans. It would take all scrutiny away from the club and could leave the chairman role to someone more respected such as Alistair Johnston. That would stop the risk of the TOP ruling having such a huge impact on the club. It’s the selfless and obvious choice to make and he could still be seen as the saviour from abroad saving the club through loans, but he wouldn’t get the same exposure he so much craves. His defiance is what will lead to his downfall and his selfishness could lead lead to the downfall of the club.
_______________________

DBD, though I used your above post to highlight the impossibility of separating club from company, I have to agree, to some extent, with the thrust of the post. While I am not sure that by declaring himself bankrupt that King could escape the wrath of the TOP and CoS, he isn’t going to do anything for the benefit of your club if it doesn’t benefit him, or save him, at the same time.

That said, however, King’s ‘ownership’ of the NOAL Trust was established in court to the judge’s satisfaction, and I doubt that he would get away with making further loans to RIFC plc through it or any other hidden avenue, once declared bankrupt. Indeed, despite my limited knowledge of bankruptcy laws, I am certain that King (or anyone else) can’t just announce bankruptcy and clear themselves of all fiscal responsibilities, they have to prove they have no money to meet their debts, and as far as we know, King doesn’t have any – and if he had, the court would make sure the funds in his NOAL Trust would be used to meet them, as far as possible, with, I am sure, an investigation into what other (disguised)investments he holds. One thing’s for sure, he would not be allowed to ‘lend’ any money to RIFC/TRFC, and, if he does, indeed, have substantial debts, his creditors might well force the return of his existing RIFC loans to meet his debts.

One thing’s for sure, the law will not allow someone to avoid the consequences of breaking the laws and regulations of the land by availing one’s self of the laws of bankruptcy! While a little tax cheating scrote like Barry Ferguson might get away with transferring his assets to his wife, just prior to receiving his tax bill, King and his money are already on the court’s radar and I doubt that even his Masonic connections would be enough to let him get away with further fraudulent behaviour.

Something I am sure of, and has to be considered before wondering if bankruptcy is a way out for both/either King or RIFC, and that is – you have to have debts that you demonstrably can’t meet before you can petition for bankruptcy. Unless King has very substantial debts, that outweigh, at least, the funds held in the NOAL Trust, then he has no grounds to declare himself bankrupt.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
DarkbeforedawnJanuary 2, 2018 at 03:48 
Stevie BC, the issue with declaring himself bankrupt is it stops him holding any director role in a company in the UK and possibly South Africa. I can’t see him doing that “for the sake of the club”. I think like Murray before him he likes the limelight. He knows very well the best option for the club would be resign as any acting party in the club and still provide the soft loans. It would take all scrutiny away from the club and could leave the chairman role to someone more respected such as Alistair Johnston. That would stop the risk of the TOP ruling having such a huge impact on the club. It’s the selfless and obvious choice to make and he could still be seen as the saviour from abroad saving the club through loans, but he wouldn’t get the same exposure he so much craves. His defiance is what will lead to his downfall and his selfishness could lead lead to the downfall of the club.
_________________

Hi, DBD, and a Happy New Year to you.

While your recent posts have been pretty good, showing a realistic approach to what’s happening at your club, might I ask how it could be that the chairman of RIFC’s selfishness, and I presume you include his dishonesty in that, could lead to your club’s downfall, if, as you’ve previously claimed, the club is separate from the company? Surely, in your belief structure, it would only be the company, TRFC Ltd, that would ‘fall down’, and the club would just sit around, responsible for none of the inherent financial chicanery of the ‘overspend our way to success’ ethos that permeates at Ibrox, until some new ‘football company’ is set up to carry the can again!

I know it’s a bit early in the year to reintroduce the OC/NC debate, but I am wondering if you’ve, perhaps, come to realise that the idea that a football club can, for some skewed reason, escape the consequences of it’s own greed, is pretty ludicrous?


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
ODDJOBJANUARY 1, 2018 at 13:42
Allyjambo,Thanks.I also suspect that the assignation of ” ra deeds” would provoke an angry response in some quarters
___________

And I suspect that the assignation of ‘ra deeds’, should it ever come to pass, might well be the last throw of the dice! What’s more, once any assets are used as security, it reduces the amount the current lenders are likely to get in the event of liquidation. It may well be that the directors, who are now refusing to give more loans, have, rather than reached the end of their free funds, decided that the lending has reached a level greater than, or close to, the total value of the group’s assets.

It’s one thing lending without security when in a position to ensure there is enough in the pot to, more or less, cover the amount of the loans, it’s an altogether different thing once someone else gets that security!

Whatever the accounts give as a value for the fixed and current assets, the directors will all have a very good idea of the realisable value of those assets (particularly the heritable asset value), and should total creditors begin to outstrip that value, they may well begin to wonder if it’s time to call in the administrators. Granting security over some of the heritable assets would only hasten the moment for unpleasant decisions.

If PMGB is correct in saying King is looking out for loans secured on the club’s heritable assets, then I am certain that the rest of the directors would carry out proper due diligence on the potential lenders before granting any security. Not that they have any dodgy characters in their midst, or anything, just that they are canny businessmen.


About the author

Avatar