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.
Celtic AGM from Celticrumours twitter feed
Q2 – From @Auldheid about Res 12
Michael Nicholson – Club continue to work with #Res12 people on various matters. Over 4 yrs club have written to SFA on behalf of Res12 #ticagm
Following conclusion of court proceedings club wrote to @ScottishFA asking for a review but were refused #Res12 SFA have referred license matter to compliance officer and club and Res12 welcome this
HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 15, 2017 at 12:20 8 0 Rate This
From the Celtic AGM, as reported by the BBC
And so it goes on.
Living in England I used to be quite miffed that I could never get to the AGM. However after moving back to Scotland in 2013, and keen to see/hear the response to Resolution 12 I duly made my way that year only to hear that the resolution had been adjourned.
Anticipating some further update this year I had fully intended going once more but thought the better of it. Good decision.
FFS what is the hold up now?
I forget how long ago it was since the whole Rangers scam was declared illegal, all the various documents were released, the SFA refused an inquiry and palmed it off to the compliance officer.
Every time I think that the campaign for justice has moved a couple of steps forward it lurches back 10.
I’d be interested to find out from the guys in the know where they are with the possibility of seeking a Judicial Review. I know it was funded to the stage of finding out whether or not it was a goer, but we have heard nothing for several weeks. Are they waiting to see the outcome of compliance officer’s investigations into the 2011 Licence submissions?
After following a couple of twitter links I came across this post on the Hibees Bounce forum, which I believe was made by Tracy Smith, one of the supporters representatives on the Hibs Board.
The post, from a couple of days ago, raises a number of questions about the information that the club (Rod Petrie?) has about what went on in 2011/12 and the Hibs Board to come out in favour of “moving on”.
There is also a petition that has been started seeking more information from the Hibs Board, that I, as a Jambo, have already signed.
https://www.change.org/p/ceo-hibernian-football-club-release-information-related-to-rangers-football-club-2012
Here is the question posed and the answer given by Tracy on the thread below:
http://www.hibeesbounce.com/showthread.php?124106-Questions-for-fans-rep&p=1596197&viewfull=1#post1596197
Rangers administrator sues law and police chiefs for £9m
https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1402281-ex-rangers-administrator-sues-police-chief-for-9m/
————-
Oh Dear.
A BBC report on today’s proceedings at the CoS re David Whitehouse v Police Scotland and the Lord Advocate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-42003889
I didn’t go along to the CoS today for what was always going to be a short hearing, but I will attend what I can of the planned four day substantive hearing.
Here is the statement in full from Celtic with regard to Resolution 12 adjourned at 2013 AGM and the response to it.
Statement re Resolution 12 (2013 AGM) at Celtic 2017 AGM.
In the past year the Club has continued to work with shareholder representatives to seek to achieve a satisfactory solution to the concerns raised by both the board and shareholders regarding issues of football governance. Shareholders raised their initial concerns via Resolution 12 from our AGM in 2013, relating to Scottish FA licensing procedures in 2011. At that meeting a vote was taken to adjourn the resolution indefinitely to allow further enquiries to be made of the SFA and if necessary UEFA.
Having raised the matter with the Scottish FA in 2011 and 2012, the Club had received assurances as to the process followed. Following the concerns raised by shareholders, over the last four years the Club has continued to work with shareholder representatives to seek further clarification on various matters, and the matter was, and continues to be reviewed, by the Board on a regular basis.
Over those four years, the Club has corresponded with the Scottish FA, and independent solicitors instructed by the shareholders have also corresponded with the Scottish FA, providing them with information for consideration and asked further questions regarding governance procedures. The responses received thus far did not address the concerns raised.
At the same time, court proceedings which related to the issues raised in correspondence were progressing in the Scottish courts. The Club and shareholders agreed to await the outcome of those proceedings.
Following the conclusion of those court proceedings, the Club called upon the Scottish FA to hold an independent review of all matters, including the licensing processes followed in 2011, which are of importance to the governance of football in Scotland. The SPFL also called for a review.
Regrettably, the SFA declined to hold such a review. The Club remains of the view that an independent review established by the Scottish FA and SPFL presents the best opportunity to allow lessons to be learned and recommendations made to ensure effective governance moving forward so that such events cannot happen again.
However, the Board and shareholders welcomed the SFA’s decision to refer the specific issue of UEFA licensing procedures in season 2011/2012 to the SFA Compliance Officer for him to review.
The Club awaits the outcome of that review with keen interest and will review matters with shareholder representatives at that stage.
The Board will take appropriate steps to promote and protect the interests of the Club and will continue to work closely with the shareholders’ representatives.
In response, I would like to say:
Thank you Michael for stating where matters now stand.
As a spokesperson for all shareholders who supported Resolution 12, I would like to say that we strongly share Celtic’s disappointment at the SFA declining to hold an independent enquiry.
However, supporters of many clubs, not just Celtic, see the SFA Compliance Officer investigation as a step towards restoring integrity and a degree of trust in the proper governance of Scottish football
I would like to add that as
First: A Football supporter and lover of the game in Scotland.
Second: A Celtic football supporter who loves the way we play the game – on and off the park
and
Third: A Celtic shareholder
That I hope this great opportunity towards restoring trust in football governance will not be spurned by those responsible for its safekeeping.
=================
Interesting that Hibernian fans share the same concerns and if they want further reason to then it is in this Compliance Officer investigation because of what it would prove if properly done a based on the evidence presented to them by Celtic which will be bolstered by all the correspondence between the Res12 lawyers, the SFA and UEFA.
Ultimately this matter of integrity and trust will be settled by supporters of football in Scotland and not by the guilty parties.
easyJamboNovember 15, 2017 at 18:00
‘…I didn’t go along to the CoS today..’
______________
I had another engagement , otherwise I might have toddled along.
Was a date fixed for the substantive hearing, do you know? I hope it’s into the new Year, because I’ll be in Pennsylvania over Christmas and till 8th January.
A deathly silence descended on the Sportsound studio tonight when Kris Commons pointed out that Rangers simply don’t have the money to attract a Manager who would require a large salary as well as compensation to buy out his contract. There was then a further moment when Chris McLaughlin was giving an update on today’s Celtic AGM. Peter Lawwell had said he believed the Europa League is going to be expanded, to which McLaughlin said ‘…this expansion will of course benefit Scottish teams other than just Celtic and…eh…well…eh, just Celtic I suppose’.
HomunculusNovember 15, 2017 at 12:20
That was last years AGM and this year#s statement, (I know, I know 4 friggin years) I’ve posted above.
AuldheidNovember 15, 2017 at 19:05
‘…Here is the statement in full from Celtic with regard to Resolution 12 ..’
__________________
Looking at the Celtic plc website, Auldheid, I don’t see any reference in the the AGM agenda to the possibility of there being a statement about ‘progress’ on the res 12 issue.
What prompted the statement, and how was it received?
And is the Board really taking the matter seriously, or just taking the proverbial? Four years is a long time to wait before taking strong action to establish whether shareholders were bilked out of a few million quid by the SFA!
Anyone else know why Arthur Numan was given some column inches in todays papers?
Numan has hailed Dick Advocaat for dragging rangers into the modern era.
—-
Is being dragged into the modern era putting then onto the road to liquidation?
—–
And Numan who was signed by DA from PSV for £4.5 million said DA revolutioned-ised ibrox.
he signed players like Van Bronckorst,Andrei kanchelskis, and Claudio Rayna.
————
What AN does not add was that he himself was signed with an EBT £510,000 . Dutch full-back arrived at Rangers from PSV Eindhoven in 1998 for £4.5million. Played 118 times.
Andrei Kanchelskis £145,000 . Russian winger arrived from Fiorentina in 1998 for £5.5million.
And Dick Advocaat £1.5million . Rangers manager from 1998-2002. Spent almost £74million to win five trophies, including two titles.
Yes £74 million not to dragg rangers into the modern era.But £74 million to slide them towards Liquidation.
After the way they behaved during the administration, and most importantly ignoring the best interests of the creditors when the CVA was rejected. Selling Charles Green the assets at such a ridiculously low price, just to ensure A Rangers were able to play out of Ibrox. It kind of sticks in the craw that one of them is having the audacity to sue anyone.
easyJambo November 15, 2017 at 17:48
The BBC Scotland report:
“Four months later, the company’s business and assets were sold to a consortium led by Charles Green for £5.5m.”
Perhaps our friends at Pacific Quay could explain that for the sake of us simple mortals who are under the impression it was merely the surviving assets that Charles de Normande acquired.
John ClarkNovember 15, 2017 at 19:39 9 0 i Rate This
AuldheidNovember 15, 2017 at 19:05‘…Here is the statement in full from Celtic with regard to Resolution 12 ..’__________________Looking at the Celtic plc website, Auldheid, I don’t see any reference in the the AGM agenda to the possibility of there being a statement about ‘progress’ on the res 12 issue.
What prompted the statement, and how was it received?
And is the Board really taking the matter seriously, or just taking the proverbial? Four years is a long time to wait before taking strong action to establish whether shareholders were bilked out of a few million quid by the SFA!
================
Its there JC, but you are not the only one who missed it.
It wasn’t named but it was covered.
“Shareholders were then invited to ask questions, with a variety of issues raised, including an update following the club’s call for the SFA to conduct an independent review into Scottish football and its licensing procedures. The SFA Compliance Officer is currently conducting an investigation into the granting of UEFA licences specific to the 2011/12 season, and the club are awaiting the results of that investigation.”
If you follow this from KDS it might answer your other questions.
http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=30636888&t=9124931
Billy BoyceNovember 15, 2017 at 20:56
‘…Perhaps our friends at Pacific Quay could explain that for the sake of us simple mortals who are under the impression it was merely the surviving assets that Charles de Normande acquired.’
____________
They cannot, because they are thirled to the Big Lie that Rangers Football Club was kind of bought ,or brought,out of Administration’ like Hearts was.
It wasn’t. It was put into Liquidation and when that process is finally completed, it will be dissolved.
That BIG LIE is the most damnably wicked evidence of the extent to which our SMSM sports hacks (and their editors) are like wee pieces of saft s’ite on the shoes of real journalists, and that our game is corrupt at its very core.
Billy Boyce November 15, 2017 at 20:56
easyJambo November 15, 2017 at 17:48 The BBC Scotland report:
“Four months later, the company’s business and assets were sold to a consortium led by Charles Green for £5.5m.”
Perhaps our friends at Pacific Quay could explain that for the sake of us simple mortals who are under the impression it was merely the surviving assets that Charles de Normande acquired.
=========================
To be fair to the Beeb, it was D&P that first pedalled that line in the CVA proposal dated 29th May 2012.
In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged to purchase the business and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have been agreed in advance and are confidential.
At least some legal minds have correctly described the “sale” in court proceedings as being the sale of “a basket of assets” and a “trading style”. As only selected assets and liabilities were acquired and no shares, it could hardly be described as buying a “business” as a going concern.
The analogy I would give would be if a chain of shoe shops called “Brown Brogues” was heading into liquidation. Another chain of shoe shops called “Brothel Creepers” then offered to buy only the 20 stores that were profitable, their staff, and the “Brown Brogues” brand from the administrators. The rest of the “Brown Brogues” shops were consigned to closure. “Brothel Creepers” wanted to run their new shops under the same “Brown Brogues” brand name in order to attract the same customers, but also to siphon off the profits then progressively replacing “Brown Brogues” products with “Brothel Creepers”. Does that now make the business “Brown Brogues” or “Brothel Creepers”?
EASYJAMBO
NOVEMBER 15, 2017 at 22:53
In the event that either this CVA is not approved, or the other Conditions of the loan are not satisfied or waived by 23 July 2012, Sevco is contractually obliged to purchase the business and assets of the Company for £5,500,000 by 30 July 2012. All further terms of that sale have been agreed in advance and are confidential.
====================================
Was it Sevco 5088 Ltd or Sevco Scotland Ltd though. The contract was with the former but they sold the assets to the latter. With nothing to show why the right / obligation to do it moved from one to the other.
Sevco 5088 Ltd still exists, with that name. Sevco Scotland is now called The Rangers Football Club Ltd.
And the chancers who orchestrated this are suing people.
Homunculus November 15, 2017 at 23:09
Was it Sevco 5088 Ltd or Sevco Scotland Ltd though. The contract was with the former but they sold the assets to the latter. With nothing to show why the right / obligation to do it moved from one to the other.
Sevco 5088 Ltd still exists, with that name. Sevco Scotland is now called The Rangers Football Club Ltd.
And the chancers who orchestrated this are suing people.
============================
In that document dated 29 May 2012 it was Sevco 5088.
Offer of Loan to Company
4.17 Following the extensive marketing of the Company and the extensive sale process, an offer was made by Sevco 5088 Limited (“Sevco” to make a loan on certain terms (explained below) in conjunction with the purchase by Sevco of the Group Shares.
The name Sevco Scotland first appeared in a document dated 20 June 2012, submitted to the Court of Session by D&P, outlining the results of the Creditors meeting which voted on the CVA Proposal.
The next creditors report dated 10 July 2012 continued to use Sevco Scotland and contained the following statement:
The continuation of trading operations enabled the Joint Administrators to put the CVA Proposal to the creditors of the Company and after the CVA Proposal was rejected by creditors, the Joint Administrators were able to secure a going concern sale of the business, history and assets of the Company to Sevco
I hope that the respondents (Police and the Lord Advocate), in the latest CoS case, will present evidence of such a change to the “buyer” of the assets, potentially being illegal and therefore worthy of police investigation of D&P’s actions in relation to that transaction and other activities during the administration period.
There are several anomalies in that creditors report that don’t stand up to scrutiny.
How on God’s green earth could the business be conceivably described as ‘a going concern’ when that business was in debt to the tune of many millions of pounds and was mired in the process of insolvency which would ultimately result in liquidation?
Notwithstanding that, the statement clearly states that the Administrators secured the sale of the history of the Company. How awkward for those who tell us that company and club were separate, since it is obvious that only the history of the company was preserved, not the history of the club.
easyJambo
November 15, 2017 at 23:41
I hope that the respondents (Police and the Lord Advocate), in the latest CoS case, will present evidence of such a change to the “buyer” of the assets, potentially being illegal and therefore worthy of police investigation of D&P’s actions in relation to that transaction and other activities during the administration period.
=======================================
I would find it extraordinary that they hadn’t already done so. For the administrator to make a contractual obligation to sell the assets to one company, then to sell them to an entirely different company, there has to be something like a deed of novation to justify that. Particularly when it was such a “sweet deal”. They sold assets at a price which later generated a “negative goodwill” figure in the audited accounts of the buyer. That is effectively them, and their auditor claiming that the assets were worth c£20m more than the price they paid for them.
For me the Sevco 5088 / Sevco Scotland / c£5.5m / c£20m negative goodwill thing is the most glaringly corrupt part of the whole mess. It’s not even based on secret tapes or leaked memos. It’s all there for anyone to look at should they choose to. We have been talking about it for years.
Now who would one call as a witness re the initial contract / novation of the obligation to another party. A representative of Sevco 5088 one would have thought. One who is already claiming they lost out when this happened perhaps.
Contrary to the CVA Proposal of 29th May 2012, the “business and assets” were sold to Sevco Scotland, as noted by Homunculus & others. The assets were listed as follows.
4.11 The assets of the Company, listed at Schedule 6, currently consist of:
Ibrox; Murray Park; The other heritable properties and leasehold interests of the Company; The Player Contracts; The SFA Membership; The Company‘s share in the SPL; The Goodwill and intellectual property rights; Stock, plant and equipment and cash at bank; Amounts owed to the Company (other than the Player Transfer Fees); The High Court Proceedings; and The Player Transfer Fees.
Nowhere in the CVA are the terms trophies and titles mentioned.
How is it that:
(1) The silverware and other artifacts in the trophy room were sold without any value being considered.
(2) I would imagine that the selling of “titles” would be forbidden. How is it that footballing authorities have allowed their titles to be sold or passed on to another entity.
Consulting my Wee Red Book, I see that the re-named Airdrieonians honours only start in 2003. Airdrie United didn’t claim the titles and trophies of the 1878-2002 club, nor of Clydebank. I wonder where the trophies of the two defunct clubs ended up?
Has there been any official comment or discussion on the selling of titles to Sevco Scotland, or is this buried in the 5-way agreement?
Ernie B.
“I must return you from spurious analogy to simple reality,do the rules enable a membership transfer,if no then you have a case,if yes then you have a delusion.”
Can’t be bothered chasing squirrels back several pages…. But IIRC, in reality did the rules allow Dundee to take the DEID club’s membership of the top division…?
They did. 🙂
So ye’re right, Ernie. There WAS a membership transfer.
Then the Scottish fitba authorities spurned all their “rules” and let an iffy new club into the bottom division despite it having no history or three years worth of accounts.
It’s a funnily corrupt old game…
AllyjamboNovember 16, 2017 at 13:08
Hi Ernest,
Not sure if this is your first day of posting on SFM, but if it is, welcome.
———————————————————————
Well he is certainly providing a deflection from debate on the non event that was yesterday’s AGM where certain things were kicked in to the long grass (or at least down the road again)!
Homunculus November 16, 2017 at 12:33
Can you tell me when this has happened in Scotland. Where someone has a “de facto or unofficial preferred creditor status”.
I know that there rules in England about this and that HMRC have been fighting against them. However as I understood it that wan’t the case in Scotland.
Always happy to learn.
=====================
Sadly the unofficial preferred creditor status of football debts is alive and flourishing in Scotland and is sanctioned by the SFA and SPFL.
Despite Hearts unsecured creditors agreeing a CVA, the football authorities insisted that Hearts meet the debts to the football creditors, in full, or risk further sanctions.
Hearts had to settle debts of approximately £535k when they came out of administration in 2014.
From Hearts CVA proposal
The proposal, if accepted, will enable the Company to continue as a going concern and retain its memberships. The rules of the SPFL and SFA require members to fulfil their contractual and financial obligations to their contracted players in the absence of which sanctions may be imposed including suspension or expulsion hence the requirement for any purchaser of the Club to satisfy the “football debt” (this being the sums due by the Club in respect of contractual wages to players, and any sums due to other football clubs), by payment in full or at an agreed compromise amount.
Given that there is a large body of opinion that suggests that this apparent preferential treatment of certain creditors is illegal, I’m surprised that no one has challenged the SFA and SPFL’s rules in a court of law.
Yes, the SFA and SPFL are allowed to set their own rules, but when you already have creditors agreeing to a 0p in the £1 CVA, it seems incongruous that clubs should still be required to settle the same debts, in full, while other similarly ranked creditors get nothing.
EB, you state that the SFA’s rules allowed them discretion to transfer the membership. Just for clarity – is your reason for doing so purely to clarify for others on here that the SFA did not break their rules in allowing the transfer? I.e. a warning not to claim the SFA breached their rules?
Or is your reason for stating it an argument that the transfer of membership allows the current ‘Rangers’ to claim that it is the same entity as the ‘Rangers’ currently in liquidation?
At a time of good news from one particular Glasgow club or bad news from another, a squirrel often raises it’s ignoble head…as others have so ably intimated.
Reminds me of the old Saturday results,all the English divisions and now two women’s leagues and then Taraaa the Scottish Premiership lol
The Cost of Football
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41482931
Memory is a stranger,history is for fools,and man is a tool in the hands of the great god almighty.
——-
Roger Waters _Amused to death.
Often comes to mind when you see an OC/NC debate.
how it was reported at the time.
Scottish Football League rules clearly state that new clubs must gain SFA membership within 14 days of being accepted into their organisation – which means that business must be concluded by Friday.“For clarity, we have not signed any agreement yet and therefore believe the SFA’s statement to be premature,” said Murray
It could be that Murray is merely showboating for the benefit of a disgruntled support. With the SFA refusing to bend on this issue, though, either the embargo will be accepted as a condition of membership or Sevco will not play football next season.
———–
Sometimes it was reported as a conditional membership or a Temporary membership all part of a 5 way agreement.
sometimes i think the mods let the OC/NC debate go ahead just to keep us on our toes.
As ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 16, 2017 at 13:08 say’s I always enjoy when someone comes on and opens up very old dscussions, particularly over the old club/new club debate, I feel it’s good for new readers to be reminded of it, or to read it free from SMSM grovelling Rangersness.
Link from above http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9418724/Rangers-in-crisis-Sevco-have-until-Friday-to-gain-SFA-membership-and-play-football-next-season.html
——————-
Sorry for the SMSM grovelling Rangersness.
Manager Ally McCoist also weighed in with an ill-judged rant which will almost certainly lead to an extended touchline ban and a fine.
“We have had meetings with the SFA all week to discuss membership but I had to leave the final meeting as I could not support the sanctions they were trying to impose.
“The decision has already been taken to place Rangers in Division 3 and we have accepted that, along with many more punishments. However, operating with an embargo on an already depleted first-team squad – even with a window to sign players – will make the task ahead an extremely difficult one.
“It is important to remember we have already had a 10-point deduction from the SPL, lost our Champions League place for finishing second last season, had a £160,000 fine, been refused entry to the SPL, been relegated to Division 3 and lost the majority of our first team squad. Yet still the governing body has chosen to impose further sanctions.”
Of course, the 10-point penalty, like the exile from European competition, are not punishments: they merely represent the consequences of falling into administration.
Similarly, newco Rangers have not been penalised by beginning life in the Third Division: indeed, no other completely new club would have been allowed to enter the bottom tier.
It is also true that no other new club would have been even considered for membership of the SPL. Again, their failure to have the oldco’s membership share transferred is not a punitive measure.
Equally, the £160,000 fine resulted from the inability or unwillingness [or both] of discredited owner Craig Whyte to pay taxes or any other bills which the club ran up during his tenure.
Likewise, players, most of whom gave up 75 per cent of their salaries for three months in a vain attempt to save the old club, are not punishing Sevco by refusing to transfer their contracts to the new company and exercising their right to find alternative employment.
—————–
Or was it Ally’s rangersness?…more punishments,been relegated.
———-
sorry for long post
theredpillNovember 16, 2017 at 17:20
‘…The Cost of Football http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41482931
Thanks for posting that, trp.
Two general questions for someone, anyone, to answer:
what’s in an Aberdeen pie that makes it the most expensive in any Scottish football ground?
more importantly, what does Aberdeen FC get from the concessionaire ( assuming the ‘pie stall’ is not run by an in-house unit?)
JOHN CLARK
NOVEMBER 16, 2017 at 18:55
…what’s in an Aberdeen pie that makes it the most expensive in any Scottish football ground?…
=======================
Meat ?
John Clark
The Aberdeen pie stuck out for me too.
THEREDPILLNOVEMBER 16, 2017 at 17:20 3 0 Rate This
Reminds me of the old Saturday results,all the English divisions and now two women’s leagues and then Taraaa the Scottish Premiership lolThe Cost of Footballhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41482931
—————
Then all that time of waiting to see one team beat your coupon
————
Rangers£660 Dearest season ticket. Wonder if after another increase for next season will they be renewed for next season if this season is another disaster
JOHN CLARKNOVEMBER 16, 2017 at 18:55…what’s in an Aberdeen pie that makes it the most expensive in any Scottish football ground?…
..ok i will get my coat
Lamb
Cluster OneNovember 16, 2017 at 19:50
‘lamb.’
_________
In reference to a related collective noun used by some naughty people to describe Aberdeen FC supporters?
or as a reference to the Chairman of that football club, who appears to be as ready to get us all to ‘move on’ as any eater of succulent lamb?
An e-mail trail has appeared on Twitter tonight. It shows HMRC writing to Rangers in 2011 asking why they were signing Lee Wallace when a large tax debt owed to HMRC, with no structure presented for repayment. Included in the e-mail trail is Craig Whyte stating ‘it is not for Celtic supporting HMRC employees to get annoyed with Rangers for signing players’.
Was this one of the original Charlotte Fakes e-mails? I can’t remember.
JOHN CLARKNOVEMBER 16, 2017 at 20:11
I never thought of that one
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.
upthehoops November 16, 2017 at 20:55
An e-mail trail has appeared on Twitter tonight. It shows HMRC writing to Rangers in 2011 asking why they were signing Lee Wallace when a large tax debt owed to HMRC, with no structure presented for repayment. Included in the e-mail trail is Craig Whyte stating ‘it is not for Celtic supporting HMRC employees to get annoyed with Rangers for signing players’.
Was this one of the original Charlotte Fakes e-mails? I can’t remember.
============================
I believe it was. I have a copy as have the Res 12 guys.
EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 16, 2017 at 21:25 I believe it was. I have a copy as have the Res 12 guys.
==========================
Cheers E.J.
EASYJAMBO
NOVEMBER 16, 2017 at 21:15
=================================
I’m simpler than that.
If it’s the same club why would you have to transfer the membership.
It’s the same club, it’s already a member.
It might be going to the wire whether or not Hearts will get a safety certificate for Sunday’s game against Partick, but it’s looking good from the inside.
EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 16, 2017 at 22:12
================
The new stand is very well worked into the fabric of the existing stadium, although I imagine underneath will be a big earner as well with all the new hospitality facilities etc.
upthehoops November 16, 2017 at 22:23 EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 16, 2017 at 22:12
================
The new stand is very well worked into the fabric of the existing stadium, although I imagine underneath will be a big earner as well with all the new hospitality facilities etc.
============================
The hospitality units aren’t scheduled to be fully operational until after the winter break.
easyJamboNovember 16, 2017 at 22:12
‘..It might be going to the wire whether or not Hearts will get a safety certificate for Sunday’s game..’
________________
I will be very pleased for you , eJ, and for AllyJambo and the general run of Hearts supporters if you make it.
But it won’t be the end of the world if you don’t, just an inconvenience and a bit of extra expense.
Fingers crossed!
I see we have a new poster with old memes.
To paraphrase Chewin’ The Fat:
I Smell Steerpike.
On relatively quiet nights on the blog, I like to shift my wee 59p(approx.) unit of Asda’s Bell’s to one side while I have a wee read at this or that aspect of Scottish Football.
This evening I had a wee look at Article 10.8 of the Articles of Association of the SFA.
The version of the Articles that comes up is the version as amended in June 2011.( I think something may have been happening round about then).
But I think that Art 10.8 is probably the same as it was before then.
Article 10.8 is the one that says that if a club is changing hands, it has to send a certificate to the SFA saying that it has investigated the provenance of whoever is going to get control of the club.
That certificate has to be signed by someone authorised by the Board.
But the Board of RFC(IA) were not legally able to function as a Board.
So, who signed the certificate when(as the Big Lie would like us to believe) ‘RFC’ changed hands?
Pound to a penny there was no certificate from anyone saying that CG’s provenance had been investigated.
And why not?
Why, for what reason other than it was NOT control of RFC that was changing hands!
Charles was only the owner of some real estate that a former professional football club had used( and ‘owner’ of the registrations of some only of those football players who were freed from their contracts with the RFC(IA) club, and were free to sign with any other club, new or old.
He was most certainly not taking control of an existing club: he had to found a new one, and get it into membership of a league!
That is, there was no change of control of an existing club.
The existing club was headed for the slow, but inevitable death of dissolution when the Liquidation process is completed.
So there was no way that Article 10.8 had to be invoked.
It would be interesting to see whether Whitehouse and Clark(e?) [and I canny be arsed checking the spelling] had signed a certificate saying they had ‘investigated’ the bold Charles’ provenance.
But I suspect that even those barra boys were not sharp enough to think of that.
( Even if they were, of course,it wouldn’t count for anything except as an indication of their attitude: Sevco Scotland did not become the new owners of RFC!)
And so I reach for my 50-pence-plus unit of alcohol, and head off to bed wishing I was a MSP capable of inappropriate behaviour!
FOUND A PIC.
I am going to ask one question which has been asked many times before on here. Why did Hearts and Dunfermline (the two most recent examples) fight tooth and nail to avoid liquidation?
On the point of the the above two examples, as soon as the fans of those clubs realised the predicament they were in, they did everything and a bit more to avoid liquidation. Rangers fans sat back in the expectation it would not be allowed to happen to them because they were special. Many politicians and media people tried hard to make them a special case but the law of the land can’t be changed on the hoof. That is why I will never buy into ‘you have got to feel sorry for Rangers fans’. Sometimes in life you reap what you sow. The club, fans, and the wider establishment were all in it together from 1986 onwards. In 2011 they reaped a bitter harvest.
CLUSTER ONENOVEMBER 17, 2017 at 07:18
Can i ask where you got that from?
Christyboy November 17, 2017 at 13:23
CLUSTER ONENOVEMBER 17, 2017 at 07:18
Can i ask where you got that from?
======================
It’s a screenshot from a Wiki page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rangers_F.C._chairmen
Christyboy
November 17, 2017 at 13:23
With acknowledgement to CLUSTER ONE NOVEMBER 17, 2017 at 07:18
———————————————————————————–
I found it here:
List of Rangers F.C. chairmen WikipediA
Snap
easyJambo
November 17, 2017 at 14:05
A timely reminder about what ‘our’ SFA is supposed to be doing for our national game.
[Extracted from the SFA website: my bold & emoji added.]
==============
“Scottish FA
The Scottish FA exists to promote, foster and develop the game at all levels in this country.
Founded in 1873, Scottish football’s governing body has recently undergone the most radical changes in its history, enabling us to lead the game into a new era. The launch of our strategic plan
Scotland United: A 2020 Vision outlines the vision, values and goals that underpin the organisation and its many facets.
The plan encompasses four strategic pillars:
• Perform and Win
• Strong Quality Growth
• Better financial returns
• Respected and Trusted to Lead
…”
==============
The reason for this timely reminder ?
Well, Regan doesn’t add much value to Scottish football to justify his 6 figure salary, IMO, but you would think he would at least be ahead of the game – in terms of business jargon, big picture planning, blue sky thinking…and general ‘BS business speak’ ?
Well, recently I read this article which made me laugh…and then sigh.
“Here’s a Totally Unoriginal Name for Your Strategic Initiative: ‘Vision 2020’
Eye doctors are dismayed as their slogan for a project to prevent blindness becomes a global business cliche…”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/are-you-having-visions-just-wait-until-the-year-2020-1509909647
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.
Any minute now…….will it be Leicester, will it be Leeds…….
On a serious note though, the Dunfermline situation is an interesting case in point at an otherwise quiet time. It is clear, and we thought patently obvious
, why a senior club would “fight tooth and nail” to try to avoid liquidation since the requirement to seek entry for any ‘recreation’ is too cataclysmic a shift from the old operating model of any club operating at a senior level. Hearts clearly didn’t fancy being in division 1 too much, nor did Hibs. Utd and Caley are finding the same and Falkirk just seem to be hopelessly addicted. Would division 4 have been any more palatable? Of course not.
But Dunfermline were already at Division 3 (old money). Liquidation (and whether its creation, recreative, phoenixy incubatory whateverness) only implies the drop of one more division when, I assume, they have already faced biting the part time bullet.
Really what I’m saying is for clubs falling to that level does this magical new rebrand franchisey liquidation thingimijig have merit? Merit that didn’t exist before?
Owing tax is not cheating.
——
Is owing tax and signing players when you know that tax is owed cheating?
HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 17, 2017 at 15:05
It’s stretching it a lot. Hearts administration was dealt with by a professional and an expert in his field. Rangers administration was a disgrace, from start to finish.
—————
When you try and sign a player when the club is in Administration disgrace, from start to finish.
Thanks to everyone who replied to CHRISTYBOYNOVEMBER 17, 2017 at 13:23
I thought they were a bit harsh on Radio Clyde tonight regarding the new stand at Tynecastle. it seems it will be a last minute decision whether it gets the safety certificate in time for Sundays game v PT. Hugh Keevins was kind of blaming Ms. Budge for forgetting to order the seats! I’m sure that would be the role of the contractors.
It’s not unusual for one off type projects to over run in terms of time scales and budgets. It’s not exactly an off the shelf order that’s been done been before.
It will be worth it in the long run. What’s another week?
jimboNovember 17, 2017 at 21:39
I thought they were a bit harsh on Radio Clyde tonight regarding the new stand at Tynecastle. it seems it will be a last minute decision whether it gets the safety certificate in time for Sundays game v PT. Hugh Keevins was kind of blaming Ms. Budge for forgetting to order the seats! I’m sure that would be the role of the contractors. It’s not unusual for one off type projects to over run in terms of time scales and budgets. It’s not exactly an off the shelf order that’s been done been before. It will be worth it in the long run. What’s another week?
———————————————————————-
Aye but feel sorry for PT being messed about surely!!!
It is shameful and embarrassing that after RFC went into liquidation (all the papers published this event on the actual day it occurred) that they are considered or portrayed as the same club by the SFA and the smsm. This would not occur in any other country as there is no team that have such a biased smsm backing them as well as a compliant SFA and we can all guess why. It IMO is not fear, RFC had an absolute embarrassing long term policy of not signing players of a certain religion and our SFA and smsm were well aware of this as it was no secret in fact it was upheld as a tradition of this club. Silence. Shameful does not cover it. There has always IMO been throughout history more members / ex directors of this club in high positions in the SFA than any other club. No balance. I would also add that IMO the smsm has always throughout history had a very unbalanced high number of supporters of this club (although some actually insulted our intelligence by claiming to been supporters of clubs outside Glasgow) embarrassing. Succulent lamb was no surprise it was expected. The traditions of RFC seems to be IMO widespread within our SFA and smsm past and present. Why has there never been an open discussion by SFA and smsm concerning, newco/oldco, Craig Whyte Trial, Dave King’s tax history in SA, Mr King’s fit and proper decision, possible LNS revisit due to new info, SC verdict on ebt’s, soft loans, ongoing concern in accounts, names of investors in new Ibrox club, Takeover Panel , the real role of Mr David Murray in the downfall of RFC, Offshore Game Report and on and on. Shameful but expected. It cannot be fear alone that these issues cannot be addressed in a balanced way. Our SFA and smsm have no shame and will always protect and promote this new club with all it’s traditions and values, which seem to have been carried over from the old club. I will always refer to them as a new club as liquidation actually took place of the CLUB. Shamefully I actually did buy papers on that day,not bought any since I may add.
jimbo November 17, 2017 at 21:39
I thought they were a bit harsh on Radio Clyde tonight regarding the new stand at Tynecastle. it seems it will be a last minute decision whether it gets the safety certificate in time for Sundays game v PT. Hugh Keevins was kind of blaming Ms. Budge for forgetting to order the seats! I’m sure that would be the role of the contractors.
It’s not unusual for one off type projects to over run in terms of time scales and budgets. It’s not exactly an off the shelf order that’s been done been before.
It will be worth it in the long run. What’s another week?
============================
The seats fiasco was the responsibility of Hearts Chief Operating Officer, Stuart Gardiner. His contract wasn’t renewed in the summer, so he effectively paid for that mistake with his job.
However, don’t let anyone tell you that the late ordering of the seats was the only problem. The timescales were overly ambitious from the start. Some might argue, deliberately so, in order to keep ST sales up.
Ann Budge hasn’t helped by setting expectations in recent weeks that hasn’t been delivered.
However, looking at the bigger picture, all the pain in getting there will soon be forgotten once the stand if fully functioning and earning money for the club, and results on the park improve.
Hearts as a club has come a long way since emerging from administration in 2014 and I’m sure that all Hearts fans are grateful for that. The ongoing £125k a month donations from the 8,000 FOH pledgers has been key, with over £6.4m handed over in total to date (including this month’s pledges).
Incidentally, Hearts issued their annual accounts this afternoon and they look pretty healthy, although it will still be another couple of years before the football side will be able to benefit from increased investment.
While the BBC has called the current situation at Tynecastle a ‘saga can I just remind folks that Pacific Quay came in £62m over budget and a year late.
Oh and that’s public cash by BTW.
http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2010/02/bbc-infrastructure-spending-criticised-auditors
Typical media nonsense talking down what is essentially a good news story.
“The club” can never be defined by SFA membership…The club existed before the existence of the SFA. The SFA may very well have granted another club a membership, as a vacancy had arisen, but it was still granted to another club.
It could easily have been the wheeltappers and shunters, or Club biscuits, but in this case it was Sevco Scotland.
As everyone but bare-faced liars know, a few days later Sevco Scotland changed their name. D’Oh
valentinesclownNovember 17, 2017 at 22:10
‘…..after RFC went into liquidation (all the papers published this event on the actual day it occurred) .
_____________
Because all the hacks knew damn fine what being liquidated meant for a football club!They had seen what happened to Airdrieonians and Gretna, and guys like Traynor were old enough to have seen Third Lanark die.Liquidation is death.
Those reports were the last pieces of honest football reporting that any of the hacks did in relation to the saga.And as for honest investigation into a many-layered story of possible corruption of SFA officials, club managers, former managers, …. not a hint of any investigative journalism. But plenty of cut and paste PR stuff.
It is the fact that those hacks allowed themselves ( perhaps in some cases, only too eagerly, eh, Chick?) to be pulled back into line by unseen hands, and immediately fell to making journalistic whores or rent boys of themselves by beginning to lie, and to support the lies propagated by others,that condemns them to the eighth circle of Dante’s Hell.
But I have said often enough that in so far as the print media are concerned, their spreading of untruths is not at our immediate cash expense, and we know that we can expect something less than objective, balanced reporting when we buy a newspaper.
It’s when the BBC guys get free rein to join in, in the propagation of sports untruths, that we have to worry.
There seemed to be an editorial policy that the question of the effects of Liquidation were never to be discussed; that the Liquidation word should be avoided; that any reference to SDM as an arch-cheat and the possibility that there might have been people in the SFA well aware of his cheating; or that the LNS inquiry might have been deliberately under-informed of relevant facts; or that a fool of a man was allowed to introduce a literally fantastic view of when a player was or was not to be deemed to be ineligible……and so on and on and on.
Again , thee seemd to be a policy aimed at furthering the Big Lie by giving player after player airtime to declare that the players won their titles and honours on the pitch,and to ensure that only those former Celtic players were allowed on the radio who were prepared to swear on a stack of bibles that there was nothing like the ‘Old Firm’ and how much the world and his wife loved it, and how Scottish football needed a strong Rangers, and so on and on and on.
Of course, the Youngs, the MacIntyres, the Englishes, the Wilsons, the Fergusons, are as entitled as individuals to have personal opinions.
What they are not entitled to do is to use their publicly paid for positions to propagandise on behalf of untruth.
AuldheidNovember 18, 2017 at 00:13
‘…there is the matter of the circumstances that a UEFA licence was applied for and granted in 2011 that is now under SFA Compliance Officer investigation because the evidence that emerged at the Craig Whyte trail contradict the basis on which the SFA were able to justify issuing that licence..’
________________T
There will be many who see this as the SFA investigating itself.
And that , of course, is a ridiculous state of affairs-an organisation being investigator, and potential prosecutor,judge and jury in its own case! Farcical.
As a ‘man in the street’, I still think that there was/is enough of a prima facie case for Celtic plc (as a feckin plc, not as a football club or member of the SFA or anything at all to do with football or sport , but as a matter of fiduciary duty to look after the interests of shareholders) to have gone to the police with a request that police investigations should take place to establish whether in fact an actual crime had been committed.
But I can, extremely reluctantly, accept that Celtic might actually respect and accept UEFA’s desire that problems in football should be resolved by reference to the agreement (not respected by another club, which was not sanctioned for that lack of respect) that such problems should be dealt with by the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and kept out of national Courts.
I think they are being naive- the SFA lied to us all.
That lie cost Celtic and other clubs quite a lot of money.
But we’ll wait and see.
I see we are backing having to explain the reality off the Oldco/Newco situation.
Simple rhetorical question.
If it is the same club then surely Rangers have a solid case against the footballing authorities for them dishing out inappropriate punishments (demotion, non entry to Europe, being place in early rounds of cups, fines etc etc) that no doubt have restricted the clubs access to revenue streams.
However despite strong statements coming out of the Blue Room over recent years about facing down the club’s enemies, none of the boards or shareholders have sought a legal challenge against the footballing authorities.
Not even the likes of King and Ashley who love a day in court.
Even recently when the offer was made to review the handling of the Rangers saga, which would have been able to explain matters once and for all, the club appears to have been very keen to ‘ move on” and pronto!
Why? Because anyone with a modicum of common sense knows the football teams playing out of Ibrox have been treated more than favourably by the footballing authorities.
End of!
I have to retract my previously stated view; namely:
I Smell Steerpike.
I note that at eighteen minutes to two this morning in the first of four-in-a-row posts the question is posed, in relation to EBTs, “…how could they have possibly known?”
The question is based on the premise that “Since it took countless judges countless hearings over countless years…”
No it didn’t.
“Countless judges?” 3+1+3+5=12. Not very “countless”, is it?
Applying the same arithmetic will answer any deep, troubling queries about the number of hearings or years which lead to posting questions in the wee small hours.
The same arithmetic tells us that since about half past nine on Wednesday night our new poster has troubled the Thumbs Down button more than 500 times.
Accordingly, I have appointed my own Commission, whose make up and membership I am not going to disclose; I have framed the terms of reference including what is to be considered and what is not; I have cherrypicked the bits of the Commission’s Report that I like and binned the bits that didn’t suit me and I can say that the outcome, which cannot be the subject of any appeal, or comment unless misquoting fits an agenda, is that my view is now:
I Can Definitely Smell Steerpike.
EB
1/. They did which is why they went to, ahem, regrettable lengths to avoid declaring it on an individual player basis. Danced with the devil and, as happens in that situation, they didn’t just get burnt.
2/. Ah yes. Thank goodness they ticked the informal deal box on the Euro licence application. Thankfully the SFA stepped in and saved them from themselves AND left an audit able paperchain behind them given the seriousness of the situation to all parties concerned.
3/. Funnily enough that’s the defence all the other clubs you mention used/were going to use when their own contract irregularities were exposed.
4/. Nope. Doncaster never ever showed his workings. Thankfully the SFA as a non commercial entity didn’t have this luxury. What? Oh!
But apart from that. Totally agree with what’s left of your 4 posts.
It’s good for SFM to have steer.. oops, EB on now and then to keep us from being lazy, sharpen the old rhetoric, much like practising in front of the mirror prior to facing the wife….what, doesn’t everyone do that? After a career of negotiating, arguing and persuading based on, when I was good, the pertinent facts, knowledge and (I admit) the contract I now find myself more interested in the human nature side of the whole newco scam and other fitba politics. What on earth drives the fans of the old Rangers to behave like this and, as raised earlier, why do the SMSM perpetuate the scam? On the latter, if it’s just because they are fans then that beggars belief even further.
Anyway, part of the argument appears to be that all fans would behave similarly but I dispute this. If Aberdeen went into admin I would expect there to be severe gnashing of teeth and a concerted although completely useless campaign of hate and shame poured on the board, fair enough. I would expect someone to buy them out of admin via a CVA unless the debt risk was dispropotionate such as 5-6 plus times turnover as was the case with RFC. In which case liquidation it is and then I would expect someone to buy the assets, let’s call them sheepco, and apply to re enter the spfl. Given the precedence sheepco would then enter the lowest tier and change their name to, let’s say, FC Aberdeen. In my naivety I always thought such a rebranding had to show some “distance” from the former name but, again, we have a precedence. I, and most other Dons fans, would probably support FCA (unless it was full of spivs, the SMSM keeping us well informed) and on we go. An opportunity to rebuild from scratch. I, we, would never forget our proud history. We would be supporting a new club. Anyone suggesting otherwise would be called out for the fool they are. Simple.
Ernie,
just a thought. Could we not build the stadium and training complex first and THEN welch on the debt?