As Celtic prepare to take on one of the Champions league big boys again, a warning to the commentators and pundits.
Like most Scots, I was sad to see Celtic so comprehensively thumped by PSG and Bayern recently. But something about those nights made me angry as well.
Not the players, their effort, or even the schoolboy defending. Not the semi-ritualistic way these games are presented on TV or the ludicrous hype that is generated by the media.
I blame Celtic for their own failings and the executive branch of Scottish football for facilitating that failure. And I think it is the result of a long-term strategy that has clearly failed.
What offends me is the casual referencing of the weakness of the game and players in Scotland as a key reason why Celtic struggle against the best teams, and the implicit suggestion that if only their domestic opponents were more skillful, Celtic’s Champions League training friendlies schedule, aka the SPFL Premiership, might prepare them better for these big games.
Pat Bonner said it outright in his commentary of the Bayern game. The weakness of the SPFL is the problem. Several others made the point that Celtic defenders never get the chance to play against top strikers in their own league and are, therefore, somehow unable to cope with it when they do. Others claim that Celtic are so used to being in possession of the ball and winning games easily at home, that when they face a top-quality opponent, they are suddenly caught like a rabbit in headlights without the faintest clue what to do.
I don’t know enough about the tactics of modern football, or the language used to describe systems of play, to critique that in footballing terms, but I do have a reasonable grasp of what constitutes bullshit. And so much of what our journalists, TV commentators, and pundits say, on occasions like this, is, definitely, it.
I blame Celtic for their own failings and the executive branch of Scottish football for facilitating that failure. And I think it is the result of a long-term strategy that has clearly failed.
Here’s how I think it went. Professional football in Scotland looks like it has been organised around a single goal. To generate Scottish success in the Champions League. A good way to achieve that is to ensure that Scottish teams get plenty exposure to that league. The best way to ensure that is to make sure that the same team, or teams, gain regular entry into it. The way to make that happen is to organise the league such that it is unthinkable that any other team could win it.
How might you do that without making it obvious what your intentions are?
Well, first, you lay the financial ground. Allow teams to keep their home gate receipts. That way, clubs are kept in their place, the big two stay big, the middle six to eight, not so big, and the rest, remain almost irrelevant.
To further entrench the financial status quo, you need to ensure that income from domestic sources (particularly TV money) is kept low enough to stop any other club paying for a team above their station, but not so low that mid-sized clubs go out of business.
It is our fault because we are not brave enough. Not brave enough to stand up to the powers running our game and put a stop to this madness.
Next, you would have to ensure that the rules stay in place long enough for the plan to work. Give the two big clubs the right of veto over rule changes. The masterminds of the plan have to be kept in office for as long as possible and committee members must be carefully selected. A generous portion of executives from the big two, and a fair sprinkling of others too afraid of their own clubs going to the wall to bother about grand generation-long master-plans, should guarantee no one rocks the boat too much. Allow a rogue committee member to challenge things every now and again to make it look good for the punters, safe in the knowledge that no permanent damage can be done to the plan.
But what if something unexpected happened to one of the big clubs? That could be tricky, right? The whole plan could be put in jeopardy. On the other hand, what is there to worry about when you have ensured that the decision makers are either on message or too concerned about their own teams’ survival to get in the way of a stitch up. Sure, we lost a few years, but it’ll soon get back on track.
Journalists would get wind of this surely, or even be able to work it out for themselves, right? Well, in a profession that seems to have lost most of its towering intellects to be replaced by either agenda driven zealots or barely literate fan bloggers (like me, I suppose), we might be asking a little too much of them. In any case, the overwhelming coverage of the big two in the national media and the simple fact that promoting Celtic and Rangers sells advertising space means that they are, more or less, complicit, even if they don’t always realise it.
I hope this sounds like the ramblings of a mad conspiracy theorist, but if any of the above rings true (and it does to me), then there might just be some truth on it.
Pat Bonner and those other pundits and commentators are right of course. Celtic’s failure against the big teams is the fault of the rest of Scottish football. Our players and teams aren’t good enough. But fault is a convoluted thing. It is not our fault because we are not good enough. It is our fault because we are not brave enough. Not brave enough to stand up to the powers running our game and put a stop to this madness.
I have absolutely no evidence that there is such a master-plan, or that anyone at the SFA or SPFL has even considered any of these points or the consequences that might flow from them. I even have serious doubts that any of the current leadership have the intellectual capacity to dream up such a Machiavellian plot, let alone execute it. But one thing I do know is that Scottish football is not in a healthy place. Not even a Celtic victory tonight, even if they gave some of their CL win bonus to Kilmarnock, you know, for giving them such a good run out on Saturday, would fix it.
How glorious would it be for the other Scottish teams to be credited for Celtic’s CL victories (especially the big ones)? I imagine the words would get stuck in plenty of throats. Celtic win CL games despite Scottish Football and lose them because of it. That, in a nutshell, is where we are right now. All that is likely to change any time soon is that Rangers will join them again. Something has to change, if only because my TV won’t survive another shoe being thrown at it when some Celtic minded blowhard tells the world that my team is partly to blame for Celtic’s defence not being good enough to stop Neymar or Lewandowski.
This article was first published in the unofficial Dundee Fans Forum https://www.thedarkblues.co.uk/news/scottish-football/enough-is-enough-r542/ on 23 October 2017. Reproduced, in slightly amended form, with their kind permission.
RIFC Accounts.
As one would expect from the most successfulest club anywhere anytime-
totally professional and not susceptible to a smidgeon of criticism.
Well I say that but I’ve still to read it.
However even a quick scan leads to an abrupt halt at Page 36.
Seemingly a Key Assumption, short term, is to finish in what is described as “top-3 of the SPFL Premeriership”. Once you’ve reassured yourself that you haven’t misread this nor have you always been mistaken as to the spelling of Premiership you can read the remainder of the Key Assumption which is “qualify for Europa League participitation”.
I expected the numbers to be made up but I didn’t expect that they would make up words as well.
Apologies if posted earlier, …..
https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2017/11/Rangers-Reports-and-Accounts-2017.pdf
jimbo November 3, 2017 at 21:40
I remember reading an article a couple of years ago about the number of players playing in the top two leagues in Scotland who were trained at Lennoxtown – Celtic’s youth academy. It was around 30+. This was over and above the players out on loan from Celtic.
Now I’m not saying that it is completely altruistic on Celtic’s part. Let’s call it a happy consequence. The main aim is of course to train players to come through to the first team. But it does cost Celtic a fortune to run the academy. I tried to post a photograph of the academy on here but failed. Take my word for it, there are hundreds of boys and girls in it and dozens of coaches and other staff. Celtic rarely, if ever, get any credit for this contribution towards Scottish Football.
==========================
I watch a lot of academy football, and talk to various coaches and scouts, so I’m aware a a number of issues surrounding it
It is certainly not altuistic on Celtic’s part. It also does cost Celtic a fortune to run their academy (from which they ultimately benefit). However I do have issues with the scale of Celtic’s activities in the acquisition of academy age kids.
If you look at the photo above then you will see that there are around 160 kids at Lennoxtown. Club Academy Scotland covers the age groups from U11-U17, (six age groups as U17 is a dual age band of U16 & U17). Most clubs who run academies, including Hearts, operate with squad sizes of around 18 at each age group, meaning around 108 kids all told.
Celtic has been extremely active in hoovering up the best of the talent around the other academies for years and, to be fair, do pay for it. What generally happens with the best kids at other academies is that Celtic effectively pay “compensation” fees to the clubs and incentive payments to the parents and youngsters themselves (usually “in trust”) for the top youngsters, before they sign a professional contract with their current clubs.
The result is that Celtic is particularly bloated at U16/U17 level and could probably field three teams. They are entered in the CAS U17 league, but also play an U16 side in another set-up.
You may ask what is wrong with that approach. I would say that it is not unreasonable for Celtic to have the best player in Scotland for each position, at each age group. My concern is that they are acquiring the best two or three players in Scotland for each position, particularly at the older age groups. Celtic’s approach ensures that they have a much higher probability of already having the top talent on their books, who are capable of making the step up to the Development and First team squads, to the detriment of other clubs.
That to my mind is anti-competitive and, consequently, Celtic is actually stifling competition at youth age groups, simply by their financial clout.
If Dorrans’ signing was after the accounts cut-off, then I can only see Cardoso, Pena, Herrera, Candeias and Morelos signing for a fee according to TransferMarket. Their fees listed there total only £7,380m not the c£10m shown in the accounts. Anyone any ideas?
From the Penniless Chairman’s Report:
“The deficit funding that had been identified as necessary………was again provided by Directors and other supporters of the Club on an interest free basis. The intention of the loans advanced is such that they can be converted to equity when future share issues are undertaken. Hence,for purposes of analysing the annual financial statements for the year under review, these loans are considered by the Directors to be quasi equity.”
Are the other directors absolutely bonkers?
Or have they been tipped the wink that the Court will decided NOT to make an order obliging King to obey the TAB’s instruction, or be held in contempt?
Surely until that little matter has been settled there can be no prospect of further share issues.
Even were King to stand down immediately, the Takeover panel would surely have to consider either getting the other members of the ‘concert’ party to make the offer or simply declaring that there can be no public market whatsoever in TRFC plc shares.
To make interest free loans on the basis that you will in return get a big lot of shares in the future seems to me the height of folly, when there is even the slightest risk that the company who owes you the money might never be allowed to make a public offer.
nawlite November 3, 2017 at 22:39
If Dorrans’ signing was after the accounts cut-off, then I can only see Cardoso, Pena, Herrera, Candeias and Morelos signing for a fee according to TransferMarket. Their fees listed there total only £7,380m not the c£10m shown in the accounts. Anyone any ideas?
==========================
I think the answer is in Melbourndee’s post about additions to intangible assets having been £10.33m over the last year.
The costs of acquiring a player, plus his contract (wages) for the period of his contract, are recorded as “intangible assets”, e.g. if a player is bought for £1.5m, and is paid £500k a year for 3 years, then that player represents an intangible asset of £3m in the accounts (£1.5m + 3 x £500k).
As his contract runs down, the intangible asset value is “amortised” (reduced) by £1m a year, for each of the three years, leaving a zero value at the end of his contract. If he signs a new contract you start again. If he is transferred then the fee received is recorded as income and the remaining value of his contract is written off as an asset.
The significant increase in the last financial year means that the “amortisation” charge will be higher in future years, as the contracts and asset values are written down. The amortisation figure was only £1.595m this year, but could be £3m-£4m next year.
NAWLITENOVEMBER 3, 2017 at 22:39
If Dorrans’ signing was after the accounts cut-off, then I can only see Cardoso, Pena, Herrera, Candeias and Morelos signing for a fee according to TransferMarket. Their fees listed there total only £7,380m not the c£10m shown in the accounts. Anyone any ideas?
—————————————————————————————————————–
Joe Garner signed after last year’s accounts so would have been included in the c£10m.
Also:
“The costs associated with acquiring players’ registrations, or extending their contracts, including agents’ fees, are capitalised and amortised, in equal instalments, over the period of the respective players’ contracts.”
EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 3, 2017 at 23:00 The costs of acquiring a player, plus his contract (wages) for the period of his contract, are recorded as “intangible assets”, e.g. if a player is bought for £1.5m, and is paid £500k a year for 3 years, then that player represents an intangible asset of £3m in the accounts (£1.5m + 3 x £500k).
——————————————————————————————————————Easy,
The future wages for the player won’t be included in the intangibles figure, only any “up front costs” that need to be paid to secure the contract, then amortised over the life of the contract or written off when the player leaves the club (e.g. Garner, whose remaining value will need to be charged to next year’s accounts).
The accounts specifically mention agents fees and I would expect sign-on bonuses would also be included.
Wages would be charged to the income statement as earned/paid.
melbournedeeNovember 3, 2017 at 22:04
Acquisition and sale of player registrations Those are the transfers that have occurred since 30th June. I think the one player purchased was Dorrans. The movement in intangible assets does show that £10m was spent on new players over the year to 30th June.
11. INTANGIBLE ASSETS Player Registrations £’000
Cost or valuation at 1 July 2016 3,695 Additions 10,330 Disposals (1,930) At 30 June 2017 12,095
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m sure we can all agree that was money well spent.
Like others the committment by New Oasis to provide funding jumped out of the page to me.
As did Dave’s statement that “Rangers finished a distant third”. Where the eff was Traynor on this one. I would have deleted “distant” from the flowing prose. It may show faux humility but the Bears don’t need to have abject failure pushed in their faces by the Leader.
Interesting that the accounts have been signed off by Dave King and the Auditors on 26th October.
So the day’s events must have been:
– Pedro Caixinha turns up to take training as usual in the morning
– Dave King signs off the accounts followed by the auditors
– Pedro Caixinha summoned to Ibrox to learn that he has been terminated as Rangers manager
– Too late to change the accounts, so no mention of the payouts due to Pedro and his team, no addition to he future funding requirements to be provided by NOAL and other investors.
Very convenient.
AndrakNovember 2, 2017 at 16:48
————-
“You might be right, but what a miserable self defeating outlook to have. And what a dull place we leave to our children”.
That’s one way of putting it I suppose. An alternative would be realism, and a preference for doing something practical and effective and not just bleating about perceived injustice.
Admittedly, the power and influence lies with the clubs in this, not you or I.
As I said previously, I was in Spain in 1982 to watch a great, really great, Scotland team and again in Italy in 1990. You’re right, I watched the great Celtic teams of the late 60’s and early 70’s. I would very much like to see those days again.
When Bayern played Celtic the other night, they were without 5 regular first team players, and replaced them with about £100M worth of internationals from their squad. That’s the reality. What do PSG have in reserve for the next match?
Given that financial reality, what chance do we have of winning the CL? Away ye go.
Dundee currently have a very promising young full back in Cammy Kerr, and a potentially international class centre back / centre midfield player in Kerr Waddell and El Bakhtouie and Wighton up front. EBT / Sky Sports McCann is not really my hero,but fair play to him. DFC might have to go down to come up again stronger, as Hearts did, but that is the way to go if need be. If the Americans persevere with him, maybe Dundee will have a team that can beat Progres Niederkorn in the Europa League qualifying in a couple of years. That is the test of how good we are.
Celtic had, in my opinion, Gordon, Tierney, Brown, Forrest and Griffiths the other night who could match and trouble Bayern, which is not at all bad.
“If Poland, Chile, Belgium, Portugal, and of course Iceland, can produce world class talent, then why can’t we”.
See above.
Paradoxically given our engineered disadvantage in European club competition, the current Scotland team could be very strong. Nawlight I think outlined a team earlier on with the Celtic players in there, although he skillfully avoided the centre back issue. Maybe Waddell and O’Dea?
In my opinion, Celtic need to buy young, promising players and develop them. So do Dundee. I would like to see a strong, competitive SPFL where those young talents are challenged regularly to learn their weaknesses and improve to manage them. If we can do that, which will require better coaching than recent results in European competition would suggest we have, perhaps along the lines of what Iceland or Slovenia have been doing recently, then we can get there.
Forget UEFA. They are not interested. Celtic will continue to dominate Scottish football for years, but the other SPFL teams should be able to beat Progress Niederkorn, Birkirkara et al.
That should be Dundee FC’s goal. Celtic can only beat what’s in front of us.
What it is , this wonderful SFM!
Instead of PR p.sh,we get an awareness , an insight, with here and there a correction or further explanation, or a variant interpretation, and a recall of events and reminders of precise details in support.
In other words, we get here what we do not get, and never ever have got from the SMSM in respect of the ‘saga’:
a genuine attempt to get beneath the bluster and the cant to try to find the objective truth.
How many a) sports journalists
b) ‘business’ journalists
will make any observation tomorrow that might suggest that RIFC plc might just possibly be a financial basket case of a company?
Or will raise a question about NOAL possibly being actually in King’s control, if it is lending money interest free to help save that company?
Damned few!
( and they’re no’ a’ deid!)
melbournedeeNovember 3, 2017 at 23:31
EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 3, 2017 at 23:00 The costs of acquiring a player, plus his contract (wages) for the period of his contract, are recorded as “intangible assets”, e.g. if a player is bought for £1.5m, and is paid £500k a year for 3 years, then that player represents an intangible asset of £3m in the accounts (£1.5m + 3 x £500k). ——————————————————————————————————————Easy,
The future wages for the player won’t be included in the intangibles figure, only any “up front costs” that need to be paid to secure the contract, then amortised over the life of the contract or written off when the player leaves the club (e.g. Garner, whose remaining value will need to be charged to next year’s accounts).
The accounts specifically mention agents fees and I would expect sign-on bonuses would also be included.
Wages would be charged to the income statement as earned/paid.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Having been advisor to three football clubs that is also my understanding of the accounting.
The funniest thing I did see was a big dispute over agents fees from one manager where he expected them to pay but they refused and took it out of his dough. Boy was he a grumpy git from that point on.
NAEGREETIN
NOVEMBER 3, 2017 at 15:47
==========================
Forgive me but I really don’t know what you mean.
I have looked at his blog and can’t see anything there.
Message to DK : It just ain’t workin’ old chap.
Message to SFA : Cowards.
Bogs DolloxNovember 4, 2017 at 00:08
‘..The funniest thing I did see was a big dispute over agents fees from one manager where he expected them to pay but they refused and took it out of his dough. Boy was he a grumpy git from that point on.’
______
You’ve just reminded me that I spent a good couple of hours the other day discovering that ‘agents’ are no longer ‘agents’ but ‘Intermediaries’, and that they have to pony up £250 every year to get their ‘licence’ but no longer have to sit and pass an exam, and that they have to submit details of their contract with a player or with a club…to the SFA..
I had no idea that all that kind of ‘agent’ stuff had changed in 2015.
And, following the path of pursuit of knowledge [made so much easier by the wonderful Internet!], I discovered ,prompted by the news item of Tierney’s 6-year contract, that Celtic had disbursed a total of £877,321 to 37 ‘intermediaries’ in the most recent accounting period.
An average of £23,711 each.
Among these was Pierre van Hoojdoink.[and I mention that in fun, because my son’s claim to football fame is that when he played with an Edinburgh club in one match v Whitehill Welfare he played against the guy in that team who had been up against Pierre!]
If anyone is interested, the link
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/Documents/Intermediaries/IntermediaryTransactions2016-2017.pdf
is interesting.
melbournedee & Bogs Dollox
————————–
Well you live and learn, I’ve always understood that the players contracts were included, not just the acquisition costs, as part of the intangible asset.
I guess that it makes sense to treat a player’s wage as being the cost associated with maintaining him as an asset, just like repairing the roof of a stand.
Especially pertinent EJ because did I not read the net -£7.5m future cash flow assumed a balanced transfer position I.e player purchases should equal player sales?
easyJamboNovember 4, 2017 at 00:47
melbournedee & Bogs Dollox ————————– Well you live and learn, I’ve always understood that the players contracts were included, not just the acquisition costs, as part of the intangible asset.
I guess that it makes sense to treat a player’s wage as being the cost associated with maintaining him as an asset, just like repairing the roof of a stand.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The asset being acquired by paying a transfer fee is the player registration not the player.
Excerpts from The Business Review
The previous football management team resigned during the season, resulting in Pedro Caixinha and his team joining in March. This allowed the new manager to assess the football squad towards the end of last season, and enabled the Club to move quickly during this summer’s transfer window to invest in the manager’s targets. An element of that investment is reflected in these financial statements, and the balance will fall into next year’s results.
Returning to the SPFL Premiership and finishing third enabled a welcome return to European football for the Club going into season 2017/18. With the first tie taking place on 29 June 2017, the financial statements have been prepared for the 2016/17 season up to 28 June 2017. This allows a proper reflection of the 2016/17 season in the 2016/17 results.
With the Club having returned to European football, it is important that it operates within the boundaries of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play regulations. We are pleased that this set of results allows us to comply with those.
Revenue for the year was £29.2m, an overall increase of £7.0m from the previous year. An increase in the average home league attendance from 44,359 to 48,893 drove an increase in gate receipts and hospitality. Season ticket income rose by £4.0m and hospitality receipts rose by £0.7m. We had one extra home league game compared to the previous year, and the same number of home cup games, meaning that not participating in the Challenge Cup was replaced by home draws in the other two domestic cups. Reaching the two cup semi-finals, as opposed to the Scottish Cup final in the previous year, meant that cup ticket revenues were down £0.5m. An increase in broadcast and media income of £1.6m reflects a higher distribution from the SPFL of £1.3m and prize monies from the cups. Sponsorship income for the year increased significantly to £1.5m.
Operating expenses excluding amortisation of players’ registrations increased by £7.1m compared to the comparative year, to £31.3m. This demonstrates the Board’s commitment to reinvest any additional revenues back into the Club. Football staff costs increased by £4.0m as the Club returned to the Premiership. Non-football staff costs increased by £0.3m. The majority of the balance of the increase in other operating expenses is driven by one extra home game in the year, and a higher cost in playing higher-risk and higher-attended matches.
The operational earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) remained at a loss of £0.1m, meaning the Club is again close to break-even at a trading level. However, the Operating Loss for the year increased to £6.3m, largely as a result of non-recurring costs.
There was a net loss on disposal of players of £0.4m which relates to players released from their contracts or sold. Finance costs were £37k against a previous year cost of £15k reflecting interest charges incurred on finance leases. £1.0m of other finance costs reflects the amortisation of loans under the effective interest rate method, which is a non-cash item.
The overall net loss for the year was £6.7m compared to a loss of £3.3m for the previous year.
Further interest-free investor loans of £5.9m have been advanced to the Club in order to provide working capital facilities to support the Club through the low point in its annual operating cash cycle.
ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 3, 2017 at 19:03 ANDRAKNOVEMBER 3, 2017 at 15:27Allyjambo, I might agree with your point that gate sharing won’t resolve the problem and maybe isn’t even a critical change in the grand scheme of things. If it is right, I think it is because there may be other more innovative ways of redistributing the wealth in the game. I really like what Corrupt Official said earlier about a membership tax, based on (effectively) ability to pay – hope I’m not misquoting you, CO.
—————————————————————————————————
No misquotes Ally. It wouldn’t have to be a crippling “tax” with circa 200K plus, in attendance weekly, paying around £20 a pop. 1% would only raise around £40K per match-day, but over the course of a season soon accumulate. Similar to my auld grannies menage, but with higher attendance clubs receiving less back than they deposit, and lower attending clubs returning more than they deposit.
Nuts and bolts could be added, such as minimum attendance figure cut-offs for membership, because lets be honest. Too many Scottish clubs are as good as they are ever going to, or want to be.
That is not intended as a slur on them, as they are what they want to be. Who am I to argue with that. The fact is they do not need more money to be that.
Its a case of if you can’t beat them, join them… Be professional.
Throwing money at amateurs, no matter how well intended they may be, will not make them that.
In actual fact, it may be a hindrance to them ever acting professionally.
This would not be a cure-all, for our country’s woes, but I believe a whole raft of measures need to be undertaken in a planned, and phased development programme, including mergers and ground shares. Not to mention a definitive criteria of what professional actually constitutes.
At the moment, it seems to consist only of, “Been around for ages”.
But first, we need an association we can trust to deliver, and can deliver trust.
Cutting to the chase with the Rangers accounts. Earlier this year the SFA used two compliant media outlets (Daily Record and STV) to justify Rangers being given a European licence to play this season. The ‘source’ speaking to both outlets said they would now be subject to UEFA break even monitoring, but nothing has improved at all. So my questions are :
1. Will Rangers now be refused a licence for season 2018-2019 given their financial situation is even worse?
OR
2. The SFA would actually have to inform UEFA Rangers don’t meet the criteria therefore Rangers will be given a licence a licence no matter what, and always will be given one no matter what?
Hello, is that BBC sports desk. Hi, this is the front door reception. I’ve got a delivery for a Mr R Wilson. It appears to be a pig holding a make up bag?
melbournedeeNovember 3, 2017 at 23:53
Interesting that the accounts have been signed off by Dave King and the Auditors on 26th October.So the day’s events must have been:– Pedro Caixinha turns up to take training as usual in the morning– Dave King signs off the accounts followed by the auditors– Pedro Caixinha summoned to Ibrox to learn that he has been terminated as Rangers manager– Too late to change the accounts, so no mention of the payouts due to Pedro and his team, no addition to he future funding requirements to be provided by NOAL and other investors.Very convenient.
____________________________
Funnily enough, Melbourne, I wrote something at the time of the sacking along the lines of; the publishing of the accounts will be delayed while the auditors come up with a way to include the effect of the sacking in their report with minimal damage to the club’s future prospects. It would appear Dodgy Dave found a way around that!
So, it would also appear that the borrowing requirements have just taken a bounce upwards, though I would suspect that it won’t be the only bounce as the financial year progresses.
There is a subtle change in the description of NOAL in this year’s accounts.
2017 – “New Oasis Asset Limited is a company in which the Group Chairman, Mr D King and his immediate family are interested.”
2016 – “New Oasis Asset Limited is a company controlled by the Group Chairman, Mr D King.”
I think the change is a bit late for TOP purposes and is further evidence of King’s mendacity.
I’m sure that Lord Bannatyne would also be interested to know that NOAL is prepared to underwrite a further £7.2m of additional funding over the next two seasons.
Homunc @00.41 4 Nov
No big deal , JJ is bad mouthing you in comments sectn in his blog y’day @ 2.52 Nov 3
The club board say their forecast calculations are “critically dependent on the football performance for the current season and next season, including the participation in European football competition”.
We are then back to a situation when Mr whyte and Mr McCoist needed european football.
just how did that fair again?
I wonder how Ann Budge feels about being classed alongside a convicted criminal. This Daily Record article seems to see her side by side with Dave King! Might have been a better, and more meaningful article if they’d compared both club’s most recent balance sheets and accounts, and noted which one carried a repeated ‘going concern’ qualification! Still, squirrels can be seen as cute and cuddly, so maybe Mrs Budge likes to be a ‘squirrel’
I wonder, though, why this was published a full week after the match referred to, and less than 24 hours, sorry, 12 hours, after the release of a certain club’s rather pitiful report and accounts!
TRFC’s PR Department have issued the following:
“Dave King and Ann Budge watched their teams clash at Murrayfield on the eve of the clocks going back at last week. And how the pair must wish they could turn back to a time when they could do no wrong at their clubs. Not so long ago they were hailed as the saviours for rescuing Rangers and Hearts from despised previous regimes. Now serious questions are being asked of their stewardships. The crowns the King of Rangers and Queen of Hearts are slipping as they face a struggle to prove to supporters that they are the right people to take their clubs forward Such a scenario would have seemed inconceivable when Budge but put a rescue package together and saved Hearts from the dangers of extinction in May 2014. After riding to the rescue of administration-hit Hearts after the chaos of Vladimir Romanov, Budge was the darling of the Gorgie faithful. And less than a year later King swept into power when shareholders voted overwhelmingly in his favour at an EGM lasting just 13 minutes. It put an end to a succession of ruinous regimes from Craig Whyte to Charles Green and more recently the presence of Mike Ashley after renegotiating the controversial retail deal that was crippling the club. But both Budge and King are now realising that the past, regardless of the enormity of their actions, doesn’t count for much in the fickle world of football. Yet surely they more than most deserve to be cut some slack The fact they are trailing their respective city rivals has increased the pressure with both also losing their opening derby fixture of the season. Pedro Caixinha’s disastrous seven-month stint in charge at Ibrox has left South African King and his board under serious pressure to get the next appointment right. And yet under caretaker boss Graeme Murty they still had enough to swat Hearts aside with a 3-1 victory at Murrayfield last week. That turned up the heat on Budge and her decision to hand Craig Levein, another who played a key role at the start of the Hearts rebuild in his previous role as director of football, a three-year deal. Levein was vital in piecing together a blueprint for Budge and it worked well under Robbie Neilson but fell apart following the failed Ian Cathro experiment, for which Levein took full blame. The club’s recruitment has come under real scrutiny and off the park the continued delayed of the opening of the new stand with tomorrow’s game against Kilmarnock supposed to be the grand unveiling. History will always show that King and Budge did more than most for their clubs when they needed it most but what they do now is going to be critical to their legacy. Supporters are losing patience with what they are seeing on the park and they need to show they can take Rangers and Hearts to the next level. Jambos supporters depositing money into the Foundation of Hearts account are now looking for more for their standing order. King’s return to Scotland from South Africa has certainly been eventful after watching that woeful Betfred Cup semi-final defeat to Motherwell and dismal draw at home to Kilmarnock which proved the final straw for Caixinha. At least Murty got a reaction and the win at Murrayfield meant back to back defeats for the men in maroon after they were well beaten at Easter Road in the derby. Rangers and Hearts don’t meet again until February next year at Ibrox. What happens between now and then is going to be crucial for their club owners.” http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-chairman-dave-king-hearts-11462416
Penniless, and able to pledge over £7m to a loss making business, to then get that money paid back to you in shares in that loss making business.
The definition of penniless seems to have changed quite a bit.
HomunculusNovember 4, 2017 at 10:33
Penniless, and able to pledge over £7m to a loss making business, to then get that money paid back to you in shares in that loss making business.The definition of penniless seems to have changed quite a bit.
________________
Unfortunately, Hom, I doubt his Lordship can take this rather public development into his considerations. It might, however, depending on his determination, give a good case for an appeal should his decision not suit the Take Over Panel!
ALLYJAMBO
NOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 10:42
===============================
Good point. Though is he actually making a determination on whether the offer has to be made or not. I thought his job was just to decide how to enforce it.
I see from the notes to the accounts that TRFC now owe the holding company over £47m, if I am reading that correctly (Note 12) that for me is the reality of the losses as it takes into account not only the loans provided by the Directors and their associates (to the PLC) it also includes the other money supplied by the PLC to the trading company, so things like money from the share issue.
£47m trading losses over such a short period is pretty impressive going.
Here’s another thought, just conjecture, if Dave King was for example banned as a Director in the UK do people think he would still put the £7m in that the club needs just to keep trading this year and next. Subsidiary to that, does that £7m include a transfer “war chest” I would be surprised if it did. So what is a new manager going to be offered to strengthen the squad, whatever he can bring in from sales?
Last point, if they have sorted out the retailing and paid off Mike Ashley, why are they predicting similar trading losses this season and next. Surely if their retail deal brings in a lot of profit then their losses would drop.
ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 10:10 1 0 Rate This
I wonder how Ann Budge feels about being classed alongside a convicted criminal. This Daily Record article seems to see her side by side with Dave King!
——————–
if you lie down with dogs, you will catch fleas
Here’s a wee thought, while some of the soft loans are intended to be ‘repaid’ by way of shares, should the necessary motion be passed, will that be what NOAL are also looking to receive, or will they be looking for their full ‘quantum’ from the proceeds of shares sold to the gullible ‘investors’? Either way, there’s going to have to be a very successful share issue to leave much in the way of working capital for the club! In fact, I’d see it as possible that, should NOAL demand repayment rather than equity, the actual proceeds won’t be enough to pay their loans in full.
Of course, King’s battle with the TOP might mean shelving the share issue, regardless of how the AGM vote goes, until he’s fulfilled whatever requirement he is set by the CoS. Even if he avoids the full impact of the TOP ruling, they might go for an appeal, which would only drag things out, creating ever more uncertainty. We don’t know the impact on TRFC/RIFC should the ruling go against King, nor the effect an appeal might have, but uncertainty is always an enemy in business, especially for a distressed business!
Another wee thought, does the fact that the full £4m loan has been promised from NOAL indicate that the rest of the consortium, as PMGB indicated recently, have all said ‘No More!’ In light of the court case, I would have thought the last thing King would want to do would be to so very publicly pledge money he claimed in court not to have by way of his sole defence to the TOP findings and penalty!
I had another look at the accounts for things that look markedly different from the previous year. One such figure was future liabilities for player registration payables (within Note 17).
If I understand it correctly, TRFC has future payables of £7.1m compared to £1.2m in 2016. That suggest that the players signed in the summer were acquired largely on phased payments, and may largely reflect the need for funding over the next two seasons.
EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 3, 2017 at 21:15 18 0 Rate This
………………. an explanation of “non recurring items” of £3m
Looks like they paid a hefty fee to get out of the Retail deal.
————–
And just where did that money come from?
HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 10:57
I see from the notes to the accounts that TRFC now owe the holding company over £47m, if I am reading that correctly (Note 12) that for me is the reality of the losses as it takes into account not only the loans provided by the Directors and their associates (to the PLC) it also includes the other money supplied by the PLC to the trading company, so things like money from the share issue.
£47m trading losses over such a short period is pretty impressive going.
——————-
So that is what the going for 55 was all about.Going for 55 million in Loans
Cluster OneNovember 4, 2017 at 11:12
ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 10:10 1 0 Rate ThisI wonder how Ann Budge feels about being classed alongside a convicted criminal. This Daily Record article seems to see her side by side with Dave King!——————–if you lie down with dogs, you will catch fleas
_________________
I doubt she has ‘laid down’ (biblically or non-biblically
) with King any more than any other club chairperson has done, but I do get your point. I doubt that she will be the last football club chairperson to be linked in this way with King as the SMSM/TRFC PR people seek a high profile squirrel, and, as I’m sure you agree, they’ll only have themselves to blame.
But it really was a very poor attempt at a squirrel, comparing a club that has made great strides in the past five years, with glitches along the way, with one that has gone from crisis to crisis and has just issued a report and accounts that show the crises to be deepening! In fact, a decent article would have been one that compares the two chairpersons’ positions and how close they’ve come to fulfilling their promises to their respective clubs’ supporters. One, who didn’t promise any more than hard work and survival, to one who promised the world…
In fact, if Hearts supporters had been told five years ago that our club would be sitting mid-table, with a brand new stand just built, in November 2017, we’d have been cock-a-hoop, TRFC haven’t even come close to fulfilling the promises of just a few months ago!
Now that would have been a good comparative article for the SMSM to produce, good journalism, too. Just not a very good squirrel.
ALLYJAMBO
NOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 11:15
===============================
They could have had a share issue any time they wanted, it was voted through at the last AGM. If I remember correctly it was for 80m shares. If they sold those for 25p each that would raise £20m minus any expenses. If I remember correctly a similar number was voted through the previous year.
As it stands a share issue would cover the existing debt, plus a wee bit left over. Which wouldn’t be enough to cover the predicted losses for this season.
Talk of a share issue is simply to give the support some hope. The money is already spent, it would not be to improve the business.
CLUSTER ONE
NOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 11:30
=============================
I predict they will reach that figure before they win their first SPFL Premiership title.
On the assumption that the loans to the PLC are to be provided to the club then they should pretty much reach it by the end of next season.
That’s if TRFC is not liquidated before then.
EASYJAMBO
NOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 11:22
If I understand it correctly, TRFC has future payables of £7.1m compared to £1.2m in 2016. That suggest that the players signed in the summer were acquired largely on phased payments, and may largely reflect the need for funding over the next two seasons.
=======================================
So, spending money they don’t have, building up debt, in order to win football matches.
It’s so mad it just might work.
Homunculus
You have mail.
ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 11:33
I’m sure you agree, they’ll only have themselves to blame….Agreed.
————–
Budge but put a rescue package together and saved Hearts from the dangers of extinction in May 2014. After riding to the rescue of administration-hit Hearts after the chaos of Vladimir Romanov
——
just what is this extinction the TRFC’s PR Department are talking about? is it Liquidation perhaps?
HomunculusNovember 4, 2017 at 11:34
I agree, however I think the stumbling block was the pre-emption rights, meaning that the shares would have to be offered to all existing shareholders on an equal basis and not to the select few – the board, who seek to strengthen their hold on the club. It still would have made more sense to have issued those shares rather than increase the loans; though, as you say, it would have removed the ‘safety blanket’ of the potential for a future share issue. It might also have failed!
LOL genius
So someone wrote a post, which JJ himself moderated. That person then decided to re-write it (4 minutes later) but re-posted it using a different name, which JJ also moderated.
Aye right, that’s from the school of revision where you make a fool of yourself on the internet then say it wasn’t actually you it was your “right hand man” “The Mensch”.
Does he actually read this stuff before he writes it. Today he is talking about Dave King looking for a NOMAD and an exchange. I was under the impression that a Nominated Adviser was something required for the AIM market. The one RIFC PLC was previously listed on. Why would they be looking for a NOMAD if they were considering a different exchange. Unlike JJ I am happy to be corrected if that is not the case.
Cluster OneNovember 4, 2017 at 11:41
ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 11:33I’m sure you agree, they’ll only have themselves to blame….Agreed.————–Budge but put a rescue package together and saved Hearts from the dangers of extinction in May 2014. After riding to the rescue of administration-hit Hearts after the chaos of Vladimir Romanov——just what is this extinction the TRFC’s PR Department are talking about? is it Liquidation perhaps?
________________________
It is, of course, that very thing, but they fail to mention RFC’s extinction by way of comparison (in an article comparing Hearts with TRFC). Oh silly me, TRFC haven’t been in administration, so that comparison doesn’t exist! Maybe the writer of the article was aware of that.
ALLYJAMBO
NOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 11:45
=============================
They already control the board and would have been offered the same amount of shares (proportionately) so there was no way to dilute them. If other people would have been willing to put money in the that would surely only have been a good thing.
They would have maintained their control but with other people taking some of the financial strain away. Therefore they themselves would have had to put less cash in. The status quoe re control but with new (free) money.
Personally I believe they either didn’t want to, or couldn’t for some reason, have a share issue. It may even have suited them for the pre-emption resolution to fail at that time. Then blame that on not having the share issue.
Interesting comparison from an Aberdeen site for those debating “the good of Scottish Football”
“…with 47m burned getting from Div4 to 1 and another 125m (this figure keeps changing) debt dumped there are now approaching 4 new Kingsfords (that’s the new proposed stadium and training ground) p!553d up a wall…”
Hmm, although the long article was mostly cut and paste from the RIFC accounts, it looks like the Herald was not prepared to, or just plain unable to, polish the turd that is RIFC’s accounts! They even mention the problem of the TOP case.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15640863.Rangers_and_the_mounting___20_million_loan_debt_needed_to_remain_a_going_concern/?ref=mrb&lp=1
Forgive my ignorance but I wouldn’t mind people’s thoughts on this. Dave King talked about getting away from Sports Direct and getting a new retail deal. To me this reads like the new retail deal is with Sports Direct. If that was a short term thing surely that would have been mentioned. Note 4 looks more like an out of Court settlement to me, with Rangers paying Sports Direct to stop the ongoing Court cases.
4. NON-RECURRING ITEMS
On 21 June 2017, the Group entered into a new retail operations, distribution and IP license agreement with SDI Retail Services Limited (replacing all existing agreements)and a deed of settlement and release in respect of all ongoing litigation and claims. In connection with these arrangements and the termination of the existing contracts, The Rangers Football Club Limited (TRFCL) incurred a non-recurring cost as shown and various dividend payments were agreed in respect of Rangers Retail Limited which have and will result in dividend payments to TRFCL. All of the litigation to which members of the Group and SDIR and its connected persons were party was dismissed between the members of the Group and SDIR and its connected persons on a no expenses due to or by basis.Going forward, the payments to TRFCL under the new license agreement will be significantly higher than under the previous agreements.
HOMUNCULUS
NOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 11:52
LOL genius
“I note with interest that bitter little prick Humunculus is making a cunning stunt of himself on SFM yet again…”
================================
Chapeau H !
I think that could be a back-handed compliment.
It’s worse to be ignored and all that…
HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 11:52
————-
Do you have a passport?
CLUSTER ONE
NOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 14:35
===============================
I don’t need one, it’s unlikely anyone will find me here in my cave high in the Himalayas.
D’oh I’ll need to move again. I’ve given the paramilitary organisations and hit-men a clue where I am.
I’ll need to tell the team of Mancunian Ninjas to be specially vigilant till I can make the arrangements.
Oh and do you mind posing as me for a bit, just in case they get here early. Then they will horrifically murder you by mistake. A real mate would do that for me.
The continuation myth continues on page 10 of the 2017 RIFC plc Annual Report & Accounts (and no doubt elsewhere) with the intentional omission of The and Ltd from the title of (the “Club”)
Strategic Report
About Rangers International Football Club plc (the “Company”, “RIFC”, “RIFC plc“, and including its Subsidiaries, the “Group”), and Rangers Football Club (the “Club”)
Lying to their own supporters and “investors” (sic) is no surprise, but still shameful.
Although RIFC is the holding company, it doesn’t require to produce separate accounts to cover its own activities. There is, however, a one-liner that shows that RIFC actually lost over £1m in its own right.
“The Parent Company is exempt from disclosing a company-only income statement. Its loss for the year was £1,061,000 (2016 – £353,000).”
Looking at previous years, the loss was £581k in 2015, £516k in 2014 and £332k in 2013. I know their directors don’t receive emoluments, but I wonder what “expenses” they incurred in the last year that doubled RIFC’s losses.
In addition to Homunculus’ earlier post regarding SDI Retail deal
4. NON-RECURRING ITEMS
In the prior year, non-recurring costs relate to sums paid to the SPFL to settle the fine imposed on The Rangers Football Club plc (“Oldco”).
I run a business, all be it, a small one, and every single month, the most important question I ask is, do I have enough money to pay the bills, staff salaries etc. I always need to know, that no matter what variables, challenges and problems arise, that the bottom line, the bills are covered.
This basic law of economics, appears never to have mattered, nor apparently ever been considered down Ibrox way, by successive boards in the old and the new club. Over two decades, it seems no one has ever asked the question, “do we have enough money in the bank to pay the bills”.
The latest set accounts from RIFC are utterly horrific, but given the above, completely unsurprising. It is an insolvent business, because they cannot pay the bills, that they have accrued.
Why does this happen? Why are the Directors of this business unable to balance the books, remain within budget, and live within their means? What’s the psychology and culture within this business that the most basic task of keeping the lights on, seems to be to difficult for it to achieve?
As I say to my Wife quite often, when she’s using her credit card, you can’t buy things, unless you have the money to pay for it. Businesses and companies, which fail to understand and adhere to this basic principle, are guaranteed to end up failing. Spending more than you earn is unsustainable, and the destination of RIFC PLC is easily determined and forecastable. They are guaranteed to go under.
That they have form for this, that Scottish Football has been here before, and we all know what happened the last time( even though many are in denial) it’s insane, completely insane that we’re witnessing it all over again
Instutional dishonesty coupled with instutional stupidity, the hallmark of Rangers…
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/11/04/rugger-guy-analyses-rifc-2017-acccounts/
EASYJAMBO
NOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 16:36
=============================
First class travel to and from South Africa can’t be cheap.
HomunculusNovember 4, 2017 at 17:17
EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 16:36=============================First class travel to and from South Africa can’t be cheap.
____________________
Legal representation isn’t cheap either. Presumably not every expense can be put on TRFC’s tab.
https://johnjamessite.com/
Does The Old Lady of Edmiston Drive Have Bats In Her Belfry?https://johnjamessite.com/2017/11/04/does-the-old-lady-of-edmiston-drive-have-bats-in-her-belfry/
SANNOFFYMESSSOITIZZ
NOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 17:40
==================================
That’s the one where he talks about getting a NOMAD and also about picking an exchange.
“Which leads to my next point. Does King honestly believe that he can find a NOMAD and an exchange …”
If they are looking for a NOMAD then they would be trying to trade on AIM, the market where their shares were suspended and they were de-listed from. After their NOMAD had resigned. Or am I wrong in thinking that use of a Nominated Adviser relates specifically to AIM.
ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 17:36 ____________________
Legal representation isn’t cheap either. Presumably not every expense can be put on TRFC’s tab.
==========================================
Good point, however if you ask the Rangers support Dave King saw Ashley off and sent him away with a flea in his ear.
Which doesn’t really tally with how it is reflected in the audited accounts.
Homunculus November 4, 2017 at 17:51You appear to be correct about NOMADS http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nominatedadvisor.asp
In case The Lying King is lurking, here’s some advice for His Glibness. No that there’s any chance of anyone accepting him given the Takeover Panel application to the Court of Session.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/companies-and-advisors/aim/for-companies/choosing/advisor.htm
A surprisingly accurate report of the salient parts of the RIFC plc Consolidated Accounts and Reports for the year to 28 June 2017 from BBC Sport Scotland. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41869400
HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 14:48
————-
Sorry
washing my hair that day
CLUSTER ONE
NOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 19:08
=============================
Fair do’s, do you mind if I just say it’s you, even if it is really me.
More shameful PR Pish from Gary Ralston in yesterday’s The Daily Rager.http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-losses-double-after-ibrox-11463684
Losses at Rangers have more than doubled to £6.7 million after they cut Sports Direct loose from the club.
Ibrox accounts released tonight show chairman Dave King and his board forked out £3 million to free themselves from their onerous deal with Mike Ashley five years early.
Rangers could sever all ties with the controversial sports retailer at the end of the season, but they’ve had to take a short term hit for long term gain.
Rangers are expected to negotiate a new and more lucrative retail deal next summer that will earn them substantially more than the seven pence in a pound they were handed under the contract set up by the previous discredited board.
The severance package to Sports Direct, along with stadium and infrastructure costs and the devaluation of players, account for the bulk of the losses to June 30.
Rangers lost £3.3 million the year before on turnover of £22.2 million, but turnover has increased this time to £29.2 million with record season book sales and an increase of 55 per cent in non-ticket revenues.
Exceptional items apart, Rangers insist they are almost operating at break even but they are still being propped up by their moneymen directors.
The latest accounts take in some, but not all, of the costs of Pedro Caixinha’s summer re-build, but the Rangers board and fans must dig deep again to provide finance for their incoming boss after the Portuguese was sacked 10 days ago.
The accounts also show a seven figure interest payment due on the soft loans provided by King and his board members, including Douglas Park and The Three Bears, but Rangers insist this is a paper charge as a result of new accountancy standards.
They maintain all loans provided by King and Co are, and will remain, interest free.
King said: “The board and executive again have had to work extremely hard over the last year to deal with a wide range of issues and we will continue to do so in what remains a very challenging operating environment.
“During the year under review I am pleased to say the board secured an extremely favourable outcome to the long-running litigation with Sports Direct and the club will benefit enormously from that outcome.
“Rangers supporters are aware of the difficulties that have been overcome and of the challenges in front of us but their loyalty, which has been a true constant, means we cannot fall short of or fail to reach our shared objectives.
“Rangers must regain a dominant position at home and compete meaningfully again in Europe but neither goal will be reached without the backing of our supporters. All our work and diligence is for them.”
Rangers have confirmed their agm will take place at the Clyde Auditorium on November 30.
SANNOFFYMESSSOITIZZ
NOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 18:55 A surprisingly accurate report of the salient parts of the RIFC plc Consolidated Accounts and Reports for the year to 28 June 2017 from BBC Sport Scotland. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41869400
—————————————————-
“Rangers paid a £3m sum to release themselves from a retail contract with Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct.”
Did they,
This is what the relevant note actually says.
On 21 June 2017, the Group entered into a new retail operations, distribution and IP license agreement with SDI Retail Services Limited (replacing all existing agreements) and a deed of settlement and release in respect of all ongoing litigation and claims. In connection with these arrangements and the termination of the existing contracts,The Rangers Football Club Limited (TRFCL) incurred a non-recurring cost as shown and various dividend payments were agreed in respect of Rangers Retail Limited which have and will result in dividend payments to TRFCL. All of the litigation to which members of the Group and SDIR and its connected persons were party was dismissed between the members of the Group and SDIR and its connected persons on a no expenses due to or by basis.Going forward, the payments to TRFCL under the new license agreement will be significantly higher than under the previous agreements.
That to me reads like they have paid to have the deal altered and to settle all ongoing litigation between themselves and Sports Direct. Not quite the same.
HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 19:10
————-
We are all Cluster One
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
NOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 20:31
==========================
That’s my take, the others have said they are not putting more money in and King will have to do his bit for the rest of this season and next.
He is the one who takes all of the plaudits for “saving Rangers” after all. He is the one who is the chairman (of the PLC).
He is the one who speaks for the club (while he doesn’t actually sit on it’s board).
It very much looks like, as you say, enough is enough.
Not bad for someone who has declared himself penniless in the Court of Session.
CYGNUS X-1NOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 16:51
Thanks for all the great posts and pointers to information.
Things are hotting up again. (I know I only seem to get involved in the discussion when things are getting exciting.)
Great to see ‘Rugger Chap’ has been on Phil’s site – always good to read his take on the numbers.
The herald piece was dynamite (thanks to ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 12:20 for the link) – if they are printing that, I think we must be nearly there … surely!
Also, some hilarious posts regarding JJ vs HOMUNCULUS(HOMUNCULUS NOVEMBER 4, 2017 at 14:48.)
JJ really lets himself down – I took him off my favourites list about 6 months ago. Although he was a good go-to for the emerging story, I always found him a bit arrogant, aggressive and often downright offensive. It’s a shame really. I don’t think he has to have so much hate for the world. I don’t think humility and civility would adversely affect his following. Unless, of course, he is seeking to adopt the “no one likes us, we don’t care” approach.
Anyway, a lot of the things I thought when I saw the Rangers Statement and Accounts have already been said. So many things stand out. What strikes me most is – it takes a glib and shameless liar to simultaneously argue that he is penniless and therefore unable to fulfil the obligations set by the Take Over Panel while asserting he has access to the millions required to maintain the business as a going concern.
Surely this company is trading whilst insolvent. The fact that the herald’s piece does not hold back suggests we may be reaching a seminal moment in this sorry saga Shades of 2012?
Je suis Homunculus!
“Failure to secure additional funding would result in the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt as to the group’s ability to continue as a going concern …”
Surely, while this level of uncertainty might be comfortable for the company’s own directors surely SFA and SPFL require a rather more certainty since the risk is not only to the company but to every other team in the league and cup competitions.
(I know, I’m like buses – totally unreliable and then two posts come at once!)