The recent revelations of a potential winding up order being served on Rangers Newco certainly does have a sense of “deja vu all over again” for the average reader of this blog.
It reminds me of an episode of the excellent Western series Alias Smith & Jones. The episode was called The Posse That Wouldn’t Quit. In the story, the eponymous anti-heroes were being tracked by a particularly dogged group of law-men whom they just couldn’t shake off – and they spent the entire episode trying to do just that. In a famous quote, Thaddeus Jones, worn out from running, says to Joshua Smith, “We’ve got to get out of this business!”
The SFM has been trying since its inception to widen the scope and remit of the discussion and debate on the blog. Unsuccessfully. Like the posse that wouldn’t quit, Rangers are refusing to go away as a story. With the latest revelations, I confided in my fellow mods that perhaps we too should get out of this business. I suspect that, even if we did, this story would doggedly trail our paths until it wears us all down.
The fact that the latest episode of the Rangers saga has sparked off debate on this blog may even confirm the notion subscribed to by Rangers fans that TSFM is obsessed with their club. However even they must agree that the situation with regard to Rangers would be of interest to anyone with a stake in Scottish Football; and that they themselves must be concerned by the pattern of events which started over a decade ago and saw the old club fall into decline on a trajectory which ended in liquidation.
But let me enter into a wee discussion which doesn’t merely trot out the notion of damage done to others or sins against the greater good, but which enters the realm of the damage done to one of the great institutions of world sport, Rangers themselves.
David Murray was regarded by Rangers fans as a hero. His bluster, hubris and (as some see it) arrogant contempt for his competitors afforded him a status as a champion of the cause as long as it was underpinned by on-field success.
The huge pot of goodwill he possessed was filled and topped-up by a dripping tap of GIRUY-ness for many years beyond the loss of total ascendency that his spending (in pursuit of European success) had achieved, and only began to bottom out around the time the club was sold to Craig Whyte. In retrospect, it can be seen that the damage that was done to the club’s reputation by the Murray ethos (not so much a Rangers ethos as a Thatcherite one) and reckless financial practice is now well known.
Notwithstanding the massive blemish on its character due to its employment policies, the (pre-Murray) Rangers ethos portrayed a particularly Scottish, perhaps even Presbyterian stoicism. It was that of a conservative, establishment orientated, God-fearing and law-abiding institution that played by the rules. It was of a club that would pay its dues, applied thrift and honesty in its business dealings, and was first to congratulate rivals on successes (witness the quiet dignity of John Lawrence at the foot of the aircraft steps with an outstretched hand to Bob Kelly when Celtic returned from Lisbon).
If Murray had dug a hole for that Rangers, Craig Whyte set himself up to fill it in. No neo-bourgeois shirking of responsibilities and duty to the public for him; his signature was more pre-war ghetto, hiding behind the couch until the rent man moved along to the next door. Whyte just didn’t pay any bills and with-held money that was due to be passed along to the treasury to fund the ever more diminished public purse. Where Murray’s Rangers had been regarded by the establishment and others as merely distasteful, Whyte’s was now regarded as a circus act, and almost every day of his tenure brought more bizarre and ridiculous news which had Rangers fans cringing, the rest laughing up their sleeve, and Bill Struth birling in his grave.
The pattern was now developing in plain sight. Murray promised Rangers fans he would only sell to someone who could take the club on, but he sold it – for a pound – to a guy whose reputation did not survive the most cursory of inspection. Whyte protested that season tickets had not been sold in advance, that he used his own money to buy the club. Both complete fabrications. Yet until the very end of Whyte’s time with the club, he, like Murray still, was regarded as hero by a fan-base which badly wanted to believe that the approaching car-crash could be avoided.
Enter Charles Green. Having been bitten twice already, the fans’ first instincts were to be suspicious of his motives. Yet in one of history’s greatest ironic turnarounds, he saw off the challenge of real Rangers-minded folk (like John Brown and Paul Murray) and their warnings, and by appealing to what many regard as the baser instincts of the fan-base became the third hero to emerge in the boardroom in as many years. The irony of course is that Green himself shouldn’t really pass any kind of Rangers sniff-test; personal, sporting, business or cultural; and yet there he is the spokesman for 140 years of the aspirations of a quarter of the country’s fans.
To be fair though, what else could Rangers fans do? Green had managed (and shame on the administration process and football authorities for this) to pick up the assets of the club for less (nett) than Craig Whyte and still maintained a presence in the major leagues.
If they hadn’t backed him only the certainty of doom lay before them. It was Green’s way or the highway in other words – and speaking of words, his sounded mighty fine. But do the real Rangers minded people really buy into it all?
First consider McCoist. I do not challenge his credentials as a Rangers minded man, and his compelling need to be an effective if often ineloquent spokesman for the fans. However, according to James Traynor (who was then acting as an unofficial PR advisor to the Rangers manager), McCoist was ready to walk in July (no pun intended) because he did not trust Green. The story was deliberately leaked, to undermine Green, by both Traynor and McCoist. McCoist also refused for a long period of time to endorse the uptake of season books by Rangers fans, even went as far as to say he couldn’t recommend it.
So what changed? Was it a Damascene conversion to the ways of Green, or was it the 250,000 shares in the new venture that he acquired. Nothing improper or unethical – but is it idealism? Is it fighting for the cause?
Now think Traynor. I realise that can be unpleasant, but bear with me.
Firstly, when he wrote that story on McCoist’s resignation, (and later backed it up on radio claiming he had spoken to Ally before printing the story), he was helping McCoist to twist Green’s arm a little. Now, and I’m guessing that Charles didn’t take this view when he saw the story in question, Green thinks that Traynor is a “media visionary”?
Traynor also very publicly, in a Daily Record leader, took the “New Club line” and was simultaneously contemptuous of Green.
What happened to change both their minds about each other? Could it have been (for Green) the PR success of having JT on board and close enough to control, and (for Traynor) an escape route for a man who had lost the battle with own internal social media demons?
Or, given both McCoist’s and Traynor’s past allegiance to David Murray, is it something else altogether?
Whatever it is, both Traynor and McCoist have started to sing from a totally different hymn sheet to Charles Green since the winding up order story became public. McCoist’s expert étude in equivocation at last Friday’s press conference would have had the Porter in Macbeth slamming down the portcullis (now there’s an irony). He carefully distanced himself from his chairman and ensured that his hands are clean. Traynor has been telling one story, “we have an agreement on the bill”, and Green another, “we are not paying it”.
And what of Walter Smith? At first, very anti-Charles Green, he even talked about Green’s “new club”. Then a period of silence followed by his being co-opted to the board and a “same club” statement. Now in the face of the damaging WUP story, more silence. Hardly a stamp of approval on Green’s credentials is it?
Rangers fans would be right to be suspicious of any non-Rangers people extrapolating from this story to their own version of Armageddon, but shouldn’t they also reserve some of that scepticism for Green and Traynor (neither are Rangers men, and both with only a financial interest in the club) when they say “all is well” whilst the real Rangers man (McCoist) is only willing to say “as far as I have been told everything is well”
As a Celtic fan, it may be a fair charge to say that I don’t have Rangers best interests at heart, but I do not wish for their extinction, nor do I believe that one should ignore a quarter of the potential audience for our national game. Never thought I’d hear myself say this, but apart from one (admittedly mightily significant) character defect, I can look at the Rangers of Struth and Simon, Gillick and Morton, Henderson and Baxter, and Waddell and Lawrence (and God help me even Jock Wallace) with fondness and a degree of nostalgia.
I suspect most Rangers fans are deeply unhappy about how profoundly their club has changed. To be fair, my own club no longer enchants me in the manner of old. As sport has undergone globalisation, everything has changed. Our relationship to our clubs has altered, the business models have shifted, and the aspirations of clubs is different from that of a generation ago. It has turned most football clubs into different propositions from the institutions people of my generation grew up supporting, but Rangers are virtually unrecognisable.
The challenge right now for Rangers fans is this. How much more damage will be done to the club’s legacy before this saga comes to an end?
And by then will it be too late to do anything about it?
Most people on this blog know my views about the name of Green’s club. I really don’t give a damn because for me it is not important. I do know, like Craig Whyte said, that in the fullness of time there will be a team called Rangers, playing football in a blue strip at Ibrox, and in the top division in the country.
I understand that this may be controversial to many of our contributors, but I hope that this incarnation of Rangers is closer to that of Lawrence and Simon than to Murray and Souness.
beatipacificiscotia says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 09:55
“On administration and beyond”. So presumably, if it was a balanced piece it went into detail on how the CVA was rejected by HMRC and as a direct result liquidation was the only option left open.
beatipacificiscotia says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 13:03
————————————————————————————————————-
Ach, ye get used to it….although I recognise the knee-jerk reaction you describe.
“I am in the smallest room of the house. I have your review in front of me. Soon it will be behind me.” ― George Bernard Shaw.
There was no indication of how the expenses for the floatation were paid (assuming they have been). I don’t have access to the Prospectus at the moment but I’m sure that it was stated that the costs would be borne by RIFC.
I would anticipate that Cenkos would have received a fixed fee, plus a commission on any amount handled by them and that the money they passed onto RIFC would be net of that commission.
torrejohnbhoy says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 08:14
4 1 Rate This
http://www.scotzine.com/2013/02/what-will-charles-green-give-up-for-lent/
____________
did you notice the embedded youtube in the comments section
with all Charlies lies in it 🙂
dentarthurdent42 says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 15:52
Yes, they glossed over a few details, though liquidation was mentioned a few times. If they had failed to mention the “L” word then it would have been ridiculous. I stick by what I wrote. As an official Rangers production, it wasn’t too bad.
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 15:55
Or as Kenneth Williams once said about critics, “They are like eunuchs in the harem. They see it done every night, but they can’t do it themselves.”
beatipacificiscotia says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 16:19
The bottom line is that if it was about the year since administration, then the business which went into administration still exists, it is being liquidated because it could not agree a survival package with it’s creditors.
It changed it’s name during the course of the year, but it still exists. It did not “Rise” in any way shape or form.
What you paid to watch may have been a slick production, it may have been well made, it may even have appealed to the fans, I am more than happy to take your word for that, but it was also based on a false premise. Post administration they did not rise, they failed to come out of it and are being liquidated.
scapaflow14 says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 14:51
15 0 Rate This
Some football journos still have a love for the game. Jim Spence is on a day off. How’s he spending it? Commentating by tweet on a Junior Cup tie!
———
Nice link. Very interesting tweets too. Back to basics, value-for-money football:
@bbcjimspence
Just home from Lochee Utd 1 Auchinleck 3 . £5 entry, 50 p tea, 80 p chips. Day out £6.30p. #valueformoney
dentarthurdent42 says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 16:27
I don’t need the history lesson. I’m am very much in the new company = new club camp and anything other than that is fantasy and fairy stories. However, there is a club called Rangers playing at Ibrox and that looked unlikely at one stage. As I said, judge it for what it is.
I didn’t pay to watch, you can find it on Youtube. I would recommend a look.
Did Gordon Smith on radio scotland just say players wages were only 40% of turnover when he was there ??
beatipacificiscotia says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 18:02
0 3 Rate This
dentarthurdent42 says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 16:27
I didn’t pay to watch, you can find it on Youtube. I would recommend a look.
======
therein lies Green’s problem even fans who have swallowed the club didn’t die lie won’t pay 99p to watch a video, a fairytale though it is
imagine 500m worldwide fanbase at 99p a time
On bbc radio Scotland tonight
Speirsy,Gordon Smith and Tom English are in the studio with Kenny MacIntyre!!
3 ‘Rangers’ men and a token neutral
Nothing changes sadly
Andy Aye I think so. Mans an idiot. I thought no one at the club knew anything about what was going on and they were all endlessly duped. Now hes a finance expert!
bill1903 says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 18:15
1 0 Rate This
On bbc radio Scotland tonight
Speirsy,Gordon Smith and Tom English are in the studio with Kenny MacIntyre!!
3 ‘Rangers’ men and a token neutral
Nothing changes sadly
——
So either English or MacIntyre is a Rangers man?
ianagain says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 18:19
0 0 Rate This
Andy Aye I think so. Mans an idiot. I thought no one at the club knew anything about what was going on and they were all endlessly duped. Now hes a finance expert!
_____________
how has he got the gigs that he has had
he comes across as a moron any time i have heard him on radio or tv
The number of TD’s being accumulated by beatipacificiscotia for saying something mildly positive about the TRFC video strikes me as ridiculous.
I won’t be watching the video personally, but I freely acknowledge that that is more to with the contents of my head rather than anything to do with the video. On the other hand, not having watched it, I won’t be criticising it, or criticising anyone else for watching it.
Can’t we just give a little more space on this forum to views that deviate from the majority view?
neep – as you know, it’s been a feature here since the start. Many are simply anti-RFC/TRFC and that’s just the way it is. I’m sure scotia realises this, and hopefully doesn’t get put off.
Fortunately, there are also many who will read and acknowledge any reasonably-put views, whichever side of the situation they lean towards. Such readers may not be so inclined to express themselves via TU/TD buttons.
Andy says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 18:22
Ianagain says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 18:19
Andy Aye I think so. Mans an idiot. I thought no one at the club knew anything about what was going on and they were all endlessly duped. Now hes a finance expert!
_____________
how has he got the gigs that he has had
he comes across as a moron any time i have heard him on radio or tv
_____________________________________________________________________
Yes heard Gordon (I know nothing) Smith’s comment re wages being 40% of turnover. What I thought I heard him say was that that wasn’t so much of a problem it was the other costs that were ridiculous or over the top.
Now we know the wages at T’Rangers have been cut but there is no evidence that major cuts have been made elsewhere.
Therefore if Craigie boy needed 14m PAYE/NI/VAT to pay the bills when having SPL season Ticket income and that still saw them going bust. What evidence is there Charles has got these other costs under control?
Andy says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 18:11
Did Gordon Smith on radio scotland just say players wages were only 40% of turnover when he was there ??
…………………………………………………………………………………
Of course they were,, the problem was the other 40% of turnover being paid out as “loans”
beatipacificiscotia says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 18:02
However, there is a club called Rangers playing at Ibrox and that looked unlikely at one stage.
==========================
Most people on RTC believed there was always going to be a club wearing blue, calling themselves Rangers and playing at Ibrox. That’s certainly my recollection.
That doesn’t change my point though. Rangers, as was, didn’t “rise”. They failed to agree a CVA and are currently going through the liquidation process.
The new owners of the new club may well have made a nice feel good propaganda piece implying the contrary. It may even have been well made as you have told us, however all it is doing is re-writing history and trying to alter facts. As I said, propaganda.
I’m glad you enjoyed it, and I’m sure loads of Rangers fans felt better having watched it. However the reality is that all things like that do is reinforce their denial.
Just going through the posts tonight and it’s apparent again that when any posts that are remotely pro-Rangers cause agitation and commotion with some people. It can come across like their unwelcome on this site when it should actually be welcomed.
While we’re on the subject, I cringed at chipsandblog post – “if you separated the political movement at TRFC from the football fans, you would be lucky to get 10,000 fans a week.” I mean……seriously? Surprisingly, posters agreed with this.
Then “The Rising” production was criticised because they technically didn’t rise?
dentarthurdent42 says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 19:46
“I’m glad you enjoyed it, and I’m sure loads of Rangers fans felt better having watched it. However the reality is that all things like that do is reinforce their denial.”
———–
There’s always talk of Rangers fans being in denial? I believe the so-called denial that keeps getting mentioned is actually due to the MSM coverage and,therefore, not limited to RFC fans.
I would also say, it’s not so much denial but more lack of accurate information. Ultimately, people think they are an denial because they continue to support a team called Rangers and call them by that name. What else are they to do? They just want to support their football team and get back to going out on a Saturday with family or friends to watch the match, just like they’ve always done.
There’s no avoiding the bad aspects of RFC but I think you expect too much of your average football fan.
why call it the rising if they technically didnt rise
shield2012 says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 19:50
—————————————————
its all gone a bit quiet, the devil makes work for idle thumbs
Andy says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 20:03
0 0 Rate This
why call it the rising if they technically didnt rise
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It was foretold… 37 years ago…
http://ring.cdandlp.com/emfbern/photo_grande/114873571.jpg
Is that Charles’ big right hand…
…grasping at straws perhaps?
apologies if already posted – why would TRFC want the wage cut to start immediately?
Rangers keeper can’t deal with wage cut
By: Scott Burns
UNHAPPY Rangers keeper Neil Alexander looks set to leave Rangers at the end of the season – after Ibrox chiefs asked him to take a wage cut of more than 50 per cent.
As things stand, the Ibrox No 1 will reluctantly leave the Third Division leaders when his current deal expires in the summer.
The former Scotland keeper, who will play against Clyde today, was desperate to stay with the Light Blues but has been left fuming with the way his contract negotiations have been handled.
The 34-year-old was initially offered a new 12-month deal on around £10,000-a-week but that was turned down because he wanted a two-year contract, the same as fellow veteran and club captain Lee McCulloch recently penned.
Alexander was stunned when Rangers returned with a final take-it-or-leave-it offer, still for one season but less than half of what the club initially tabled.
The Ibrox club also want the new contract to kick in right away – meaning Alexander would also need to take a substantial cut for the rest of this season.
Rangers boss Ally McCoist wants the keeper to stay, but he hasn’t been involved in the financial negotiations, leaving that to the club’s powerbrokers. ( pawnbrokers, shirley?)
The Govan giants have also turned up the heat on Alexander by offering a pre-contract to Kilmarnock shot-stopper Cammy Bell.
That deal still has to be finalised, but Rangers are confident they can get Bell In on a fraction of the money that Alexander is currently earning.
Bell’s representatives also denied claims from Killie boss Kenny Shiels that Championship side Ipswich Town had made an approach to sign the keeper on a pre-contract.
Alexander is unhappy with the situation, especially after all the loyalty he feels he has shown to the club.
He was one of the players who remained when the club went into administration and the likes of then first choice keeper Allan McGregor decided to jump ship for Turkish side Besiktas.
Alexander could have left on a free transfer in the last two windows, but decided to stick around to help the club rise back up the ranks.
The experienced keeper joined Rangers from Ipswich Town in 2008 and has made more than 80 appearances, including the 2008 UEFA Cup Final defeat to Zenit St Petersburg, and has picked up every top-flight domestic medal in the last five years.
Alexander now plans to play out his contract and then leave – unless Ibrox chiefs agree to get back round the table.
http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/378049/Rangers-keeper-can-t-deal-with-wage-cut
I have no gripe with Rangers fans and if they choose to follow the club playing out of Ibrox then that’s fine. I have Rangers supporting friends, and they continue to support the club currently playing out of Ibrox.
I completely understand why they do so.
It doesn’t bother me that they support that club.
What does bother me is the jettison of millions of pounds of debt, owed to the likes of the treasury right down to newsagents and face painters.
Hard working small businesses left out of pocket. That’s not right.
All well and good boycotting Dundee United, how’s about stumping up to the real victims of oldco? Tens of millions of pounds witheld from the public purse. Aside from the local suppliers and services, theres the ludicrous spectacle of an armed forces circus within Ibrox on a day of solumn remembrance. Armed forces that were starved of funding due to tax avoidance (and rangers are merely a drop in the ocean)
The old club vs new club thing has been done to death, what riles me is the absolute lack of acknowledgement of immoral fiscal wrongdoing
Re the goalies at prtetendygers. Ones massively overpaid. The other one is not coming his agent says its mince. Same old MSM.
shield2012 says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 20:01
Ultimately, people think they are an denial because they continue to support a team called Rangers and call them by that name.
============================
No, supporting a team calling itself Rangers is not the issue. They have every right to do that, no issue with that at all.
Claiming it is the same one as is being liquidated is denial.
Talking about it “rising” after administration is denial.
Funny old day.
I watched a bit of a stream from Broadwood, great Glasgow derby of times past. After the first goal there was a very loud choral rendition of one of those songs. I admit I lost the will to see anymore, even though I was enjoying watching Clyde give it a go.
This evening I read a tweet about a police presence at Celtic Park today with ID checks and the like. I’ve no idea who they were looking for, but if it was football related I wonder why there wasn’t a similar presence at Broadwood to weed out similar ‘undesirables’. I’m led to believe people were turned away from CP and won’t be allowed back.
I’m not sure if I’m indulging in whataboutery here, but perhaps it’s time for points deductions and matches behind closed doors if this nonsense is to be stopped?. Mr Ogilvie, Mr Regan, Mr Doncaster, Mr Longmuir – how about it?
16 February 2013
The CRO exclusive: TOMOINTERVIEW
By Bill McMurdo | CRO Editor-at-large
Editor’s note: Alex Thomson had become a bit of a white whale among the Rangers blogging and podcasting communities. We’d all tried to track him down, take him up on his offer to talk to us at any time, and all been knocked back at some point in the dialogue, with us here at the CRO casualties on that list.
That said, he put it out there in a series of tweets a couple weeks back that it was Rangers supporters who had always backed out at the last. Knowing that not to be the case, I went for it again, and after two weeks of emails, offers to online chats for Channel 4 productions, and five layers of bureaucracy, I’m happy to say Alex spent nearly an hour on the phone with Bill on Friday, talking about a wide range of topics in the Rangers story.
We’ll have more followup and reaction to his interview over the coming days, and hope to bring you audio from it as well on an upcoming CROpod. My sincere thanks to Alex for finally coming on. Hope you guys enjoy it. -Shane
With the perfectly understandable cries of thousands of Rangers fans ringing in my ears to string up Channel 4’s Alex Thomson, I tried to stay calm and interview the man who speaks so much about our club.
Some of the things he said were quite surprising, others more predictable but, just as I expected would be the case, Tomo was unflinching in his insistence that he is right to make Rangers a big part of his time and schedule.
When confronted by what is the biggest question Gers fans wanted asked of Thomson, Why is he so interested in Rangers?, he said, “It doesn’t make any sense, I know, and it doesn’t make much more sense to people in the news room.”
He likened his obsession with the Rangers story to his previous journalistic crusades over the Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre and his notorious reporting on Bloody Sunday – something unlikely to endear him to many Rangers fans.
He likened himself to a dog with a bone in regards to stories he perceives as important, working until, “things are cleared up to the people who matter most, which are the victims.”
“I know Rangers fans, a lot of them, hate what I’ve done. A lot of them think I’ve got an agenda. I have no agenda,” he continued. “I hope to God we’re on the way out (of the Rangers story), and that we can leave all that behind and I can leave all this behind.
“That, if there is an agenda, is it.”
When pressed as to why he was so obsessive about matters Rangers he said he prefers the word “thorough” but clearly believes there is justification for his pursuing the story to the last.
Some may admire such dedication to his profession but there are many Rangers fans who will see this appeal by Thomson to journalistic ideals as merely a cover story for a dose of Rangersitis. In short, Tomo has a bad dose of Rangers obsession which he is trying desperately to conceal.
As expected, Thomson cited the draw of the big story as a reason for getting involved with Rangers and it is hard to argue the case. Rangers going under was a big story, as was the run-up to this through the final tortured years of the Murray era through to the Whyte takeover.
Thomson spoke of Rangers in terms any fan would have been proud of, to be honest, referring to the club’s “world-beating success” and saying Rangers were one of the biggest teams in the world, before adding with a chuckle, “And by the way, I do believe its history is firmly intact. I don’t want to get in that argument.” Certainly a statement that may blot his copy book with his Celtic-supporting acolytes.
It appeared to me that Thomson was keen to stress how much he admired Rangers and the club’s fans. He thanked CRO for the opportunity to tell his side of things direct to Rangers supporters.
In his opinion, he is a victim of “Shoot the messenger” syndrome, claiming Rangers fans hate him because he tells them stuff that’s hard for them to hear. I pointed out that this was not the case – that Rangers fans didn’t dislike him for saying what was hard to take but that he was disliked because of how he was perceived to be part of the Rangers-hating network in the media.
I also asked him how he responded to the notion that he was a “useful idiot” for those with an anti-Rangers bias. Surprisingly he didn’t shoot this notion down but admitted that the anti-Rangers bloggers he is so often associated with have a definite agenda.
Thomson went on to say: “There’s some truth in the fact that a number of the bloggers out there – and Phil Mac Giolla Bhain is absolutely one of them – have a blatantly anti-Rangers regime. There is no doubt about that in my mind.”
In referring to Mac Giolla Bhain’s book Downfall, Thomson pointed out he had written in his foreword that, “I do not share this man’s hatred of Rangers.”
As I do with other perceived haters of RFC, I pressed Alex Thomson to categorically deny his hatred of Rangers. His response was emphatic: “Hatred for Rangers? Of course not. Rangers and Celtic are one of the most glorious things about British football.” He went on to speak in glowing terms of the great noise made by Rangers fans on match days.
If Alex Thomson is a Rangers hater, then he does a pretty good job of masking it. But I’ll get to that in due course.
One thing I wanted to quiz Thomson about was something I picked up from a Rangers forum – i.e. Thomson’s fondness for referring to the “succulent lamb” phrase and culture made famous by our new Head of Communications, Jim Traynor.
I quizzed Thomson about the new “succulent lamb” culture in Scottish football, as pointed out by one or two posters on the forum, i.e. that dished out now by Celtic CEO Peter Lawwell. I asked Thomson what he thought of this culture where, instead of journos being afraid to ask David Murray probing questions or print anything negative about Rangers, they now had the same sickening compliance to the wishes of Peter Lawwell.
I also accused him of being part of this deferential media pack in not wanting to probe stories involving Celtic FC.
Thomson was quick to condemn Scottish journos – and rightly so – for their meek deference to Peter Lawwell: “It only underlines the point that everyone’s been making, Rangers fans as much as anybody, that we need a media – and you need a media – that’s going to ask the questions.” However, he wouldn’t accept his own guilt in not investigating good stories about Celtic.
I pointed out to Thomson there was a great story about a cover up at Celtic Park, particularly in light of a highly-publicised ongoing police operation taking place right now, and also reminded him of the big story involving Celtic’s majority shareholder and a certain nursing homes group which is a national scandal.
Such matters do not seem to interest our intrepid reporter whose dog-with-a-bone approach to the Rangers story is so all-consuming!
According to Tomo, the story is Rangers, and in a funny kind of way, he’s not wrong. He’s only saying what we all say: It’s all about The Rangers. Can’t argue with that…
Tomo is very clear about what he wants for Rangers. When I accused him of having a go at the club he refuted it outright, saying, “I want the best for Rangers. I want Rangers to succeed.” He also said he wanted to watch Rangers-Celtic games again.
On the matter of the infamous Dalek jibe, something Rangers fans demanded answers on, Thomson reiterated his story that the Dalek comment was in relation to a Twitter conversation he was having about wasps.
He admitted the Dalek slur is sick in relation to the Ibrox Diasaster and said: “I can remember as a ten year old listening to what used to be Radio Two 1500M and I was a kid. I was playing with my toys in the front room and I remember it was a horrible January day; it was getting dark and this news came through and I still remember that.” Thomson dismissed as absurd the idea that he would mock anybody involved in the Disaster and cited his coverage of Hillsborough as evidence. He also referred to his doorstepping of Kelvin MacKenzie as a good thing – maybe not the ideal way to buttress his case, to say the least.
Thomson was also adamant in his denial that his reporting has in any way further wound up the already tension-filled environment of Scottish football, and pressed as to whether he feels that he’s become part of the story, Alex responded, “I don’t think I’ve become a big part of the story. It’s certainly not a good thing for a journalist to become a big part or any part of any story and I don’t intend to be that.”
He went on to reference his part in Downfall again by saying, “It was always going to be a difficult decision with Phil’s book. I wish he’d written the book very much with the factual content, as is there and is not disputed, as that’s what mattered, and not shown the kind of agenda that he has in that book against Rangers.”
He went to say the pack of online individuals leading the charge against Rangers “were right. By and large, they were right,” before adding, “Of course they were agenda driven. They don’t like Rangers. But the difficulty for all of us here, the important thing for all of us here, is they were factually right.”
He was quick to distance himself from comments from these very bloggers that Rangers were guilty in the EBT case, however, saying, “I’ve never said that, and if anybody has been foolish enough to say that Rangers were ‘guilty’ on the EBT matters I think they’d be in a degree of – legal challenges.”
Another surprise – and one I am sure Rangers fans will happily search the internet to disprove – was Tomo’s statement that “I have never met Stuart Cosgrove.” Although Tomo was on an Off The Ball programme with Stuart once, he is adamant he has never met his Channel 4 colleague Cosgrove in the flesh.
I wanted to know if Cosgrove and Channel 4 lawyer Dominic Harrison – a big Celtic fan – had any input to Tomo’s “crusade” against the Gers. Thomson was indignant that he could be swayed on a personal level by these men in terms of an agenda from Channel 4. Rangers fans may be shocked but comforted to hear these words from Tomo:
“The idea that there is or there could be any kind of agenda that’s specifically about Rangers because we’re anti-Rangers is the very opposite of what seems to be the obvious truth. We are pro-Rangers.”
Again, Tomo stated his desire to see Rangers progress. “I want Rangers back in the SPL as fast as possible; I want them back in the Champions League or the European Cup as I prefer to call it, as fast as possible. I think that’s good for everybody and it’s good for Scottish football.”
Thomson did state the need for the club to be run properly and admitted that it seemed to be under the present regime. According to him, “The Rangers support is absolutely phenomenal, and it would be good to do a Channel 4 write up just on that itself. What other club playing in fourth tier football and getting whatever you guys are getting – 40, 50-thousand at Ibrox every other week – it’s phenomenal.” When I asked him why his stories on Rangers weren’t about such positives he said he includes positive comments in his pieces. Maybe I missed them…
Alex continued, “I want to see Rangers completely and utterly exonerated from the tax case and from the Lord Nimmo Smith thing.”
Referring to his involvement in the Rangers story, Alex Thomson gave a big hint that it could soon be a thing of the past when he said: “My work is probably pretty much done here anyway.”
Tomo signed off with the statement: “I have had virtually no abuse from any Rangers fan I have ever met.”
I’ll leave it to others to comment on some of the things the controversial Thomson said in our interview. I do plan on giving my take on the whole Alex Thomson thing within the coming days.
Bill can be found on Twitter at @WilliamMcMurdo and via email: bmcmurdo@thecoplandroad.org
Danish, I couldn’t think of 4 more impotent individuals
sad state of affairs
Danish
When I was about 8 or 9 I reckon used to go to get taken to Clyde by one of the directors. Your right those games were massive then. (Thats 51 years ago btw)
dentarthurdent42 says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 20:56
shield2012 says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 20:01
Ultimately, people think they are an denial because they continue to support a team called Rangers and call them by that name.
============================
No, supporting a team calling itself Rangers is not the issue. They have every right to do that, no issue with that at all.
Claiming it is the same one as is being liquidated is denial.
Talking about it “rising” after administration is denial.
———————-
The team they supported did rise after administration. They supported Rangers and they still support Rangers. Whether the company or club were officially liquidated doesn’t matter to football fans. What does matter, to football fans, is that the club they’ve always supported is still around. And it is.
All the other aspects related to this are important and should certainly be discussed on this site but please stop trying to get normal football fans to somehow change the name of the team they support or accuse them of being in denial because they still support the same team.
It’s an argument that will go nowhere fast.
I agree.very sad at Broadwood Danish.very sad.It is a blight upon our game and one which the football authorities and the Police must address.
Shield
See my earlier post
if the club that they’ve always supported is still around
then are the debts still around?
That’s always been the issue for me
I couldn’t give a toss what name you give to the club. But somebody please step up and stump up, otherwise shut it down
shield2012 says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 21:25
The team they supported did rise after administration. They supported Rangers and they still support Rangers. Whether the company or club were officially liquidated doesn’t matter to football fans. What does matter, to football fans, is that the club they’ve always supported is still around. And it is.
All the other aspects related to this are important and should certainly be discussed on this site but please stop trying to get normal football fans to somehow change the name of the team they support or accuse them of being in denial because they still support the same team.
It’s an argument that will go nowhere fast.
==================================
The “company or club” wasn’t liquidated, it still exists. It is in the process of being liquidated, that could take months or years. It will not be a fast process.
I’m not “trying to get normal football fans” to think, believe or do anything. People are repeating things which simply aren’t true and I feel no reason to either believe or accept them.
Rangers did not rise after administration, they failed to agree a CVA and are being liquidated. No matter how many times people deny that it isn’t going to change.
Like I have said, if people want to support Rangers, the club playing at Ibrox, great that’s their choice. However refusing to accept that Rangers did not rise from administration, quite the reverse they failed to get out of it and are being liquidated is simply denial. It is attempting to re-write history and deny events took place.
Same club, same history…
Why not same debts?
You can;t just ditch the bad bits, take it or leave it
Sounds like ‘Tomo’ was a bit intimidated by Mcmurdo and his mob
Acknowledging that this post will most likely get removed, it is the oldclub/newclub debate that allows different people to believe that:
A. The new Rangers Football Club were unduly favourably treated by the SFA/SPL/SFL when the attempt was made to shoehorn them into the SPL or the back-up option of SFL1. Even allowing them such an easy passage to SFL3 – as they began their life in Scottish football – broke a number of rules. The LNS enquiry has got nothing to do with the new club. The fans who supported the club formed in 1872/73 and incorporated in 1899 are simply deluding themselves into believing that the club formed and incorporated in 2012 are one and the same.
or
B. Rangers Football Club were unfairly disadvantaged by the SFA/SPL/SFL when demoted to the bottom of Scottish football. The possible adverse consequences of the LNS enquiry would be further unjust punishments on the club. Their club was purchased from the administrators of the old company and continues within the company formally known as Sevco Scotland Ltd.
There are not many who would (for the moment at least) deny TRFC Ltd the legal right to use the Rangers FC brand. They bought the assets – including the intellectual property – from Duff & Phelps. But the brand is not the club. The club was the body which formed the brand. The body which formed the Rangers FC brand was formed in 1872/73 and incorporated in 1899.
If those who believe Rangers (the club not just the brand) miraculously survived liquidation, called for their club to pay off its debts the remainder might have some sympathy for the supernatural continuation theory. The fact that they don’t is the festering sore that will not heal.
why on earth didn’t he just remind them the daleks story was a figment of their somewhat limited imagination ?
he does seem happy to swallow their nonsense a bit too readily.
Hirsute,
Thanks for the response. I appreciate it is still an important talking point for a lot of folk. From my perspective the debt, especially the tax and NIC, are the big story
shield2012 says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 21:25
4 22 Rate This
It’s an argument that will go nowhere fast.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rangers fans may never accept that their club died, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be reminded. If they are allowed to perpetuate the myth of an unbroken timeline then people will start to forget the damage the club’s actions caused. And that must never be allowed to happen.
bailemeanach says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 23:01
0 1 Rate This
Hirsute,
Thanks for the response. I appreciate it is still an important talking point for a lot of folk. From my perspective the debt, especially the tax and NIC, are the big story
================================
But would it be if the SFA/SPL/SFL & Charles Green simply stated that the club currently playing in SFL3 is a different club from the one that played in the SPL last season?
If, like Airdrie, the new club simply acknowledged the history of the former club without claiming to “own” it, would that make a difference to your view?
Shield if you support Rangers, it is Rangers 2012. What i have always been surprised about is that not 1 single Rangers fan ever has apologised about their policy of not playing some Scottish players because ‘they were not good enough’. I have known many decent rangers fans who did not see any issue with the old clubs history. Until Rangers fans acknowledge their wrong doing, they will never be accepted in Scotland.
I should add that I haven’t watched ‘Rising’ but I have absolutely no problem with the title. They’ve got to rise from somewhere. It’s the starting point they need to be reminded of. That and the generosity shown by Scottish football in allowing them to start higher up the ladder than they really ought to have.
Hirsute, my position in a nutshell is that if there is any connection whatsoever between old and new, then there should be a responsibility to pay debts. Shameful if you can come along, debt free, and use a popular brand to take money off people without paying debts incurred by that same brand. Apologies for being simplistic, but I did work for 15 years for the same bank that bankrolled oldco
If the Alexander story is true then I can see how Charles might pull it off. He was stingy at the last transfer window when he only allowed Ally to sign Templeton.
No he is looking to cut the wages of a ‘loyal’ but high earning Tuped player, despite Ally being reported earlier in the week that he wanted Alexander and Cammy Bell for next season.
Then we had Ally saying T’Rangers were in talks with Bell but he was not involved. Now it is reported Ally is not involved in the Alexander renegotiation.
Fair play to Charles if he is trying to cut costs and run a tight ship.
The first question is with all this money in the bank, why do they need to renegotiate Alexanders deal. Surely one who was so loyal when others walked desereves better.
The second question is what quality is he going to attract on low wages and how quick will it take for the young upcoming talent to realise they will be able to move down south for a better wage?
Third question, will T’Rangers fans put up with a club run on a sustainable model but that may not be competing for any thing for a good number of years.
bill1903 says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 22:02
Sounds like ‘Tomo’ was a bit intimidated by Mcmurdo and his mob
—————————————————————————————————————————–
I’m sorry, bill – I very much doubt that….although I’m sure ‘Mcmurdo and his mob’ would like to think that they could. It’s certainly the case that many journalists who have to earn their living in Scotland are, and understandably so, given the depths to which some Rangers fans will go to
frighten them off.
Traynor called him a ‘blogger’, in a deliberate attempt to align him with Paul & Phil. I have bad news for Mr Green, Mr Murray and Mr Whyte – nothing could be further from the truth.
If anybody is in any doubt as to what kind of kind of journalist he is they should look out how he and his researchers worked out who shot who, and where from, during Bloody Sunday: a forensic analysis calculating trajectories using a combination of Army radio chatter matched to stereo recordings of events in real time. That’s investigative journalism at it’s finest. Compare and contrast with the propagandists McMurdo and Traynor.
Any decent Rangers supporter who wants to stop ‘shooting the messenger’ and find out who destroyed their club, why and how, should ignore the paid-for poodles of the Rangers media machine and put their faith in the words of one of the finest and respected journalists this country has.
They’re lucky to have him on their side. Hell mend them if they don’t…..they will be looking at Rangers Mk III if they allow Green to “have a Whytey”.
A straw in the wind perhaps. ‘The Rising’ ahem! Strikes me as the first attempt at conciliation, must be applauded.
chipsandblog says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 23:22
“What i have always been surprised about is that not 1 single Rangers fan ever has apologised about their policy of not playing some Scottish players because ‘they were not good enough’.”
———————————————————————————————————–
Why should fans apologise on behalf of the club?
Should British people individually now all apologise to Indians, Indiginous Autralians and Southern Africans for the behaviours of the former governments?
No. And I’d tend to discount such an apology too.
It’s down to the club. It might have been there were some fans who were happy to follow a club like that, some of those fans were even in a position to enforce certain club policies but, do you really think those are either the sorts of people who would apologise for anything or even that they should be believed if they so did?
No. Don’t look to the fans to apologise – look to them to set a decent example of how fans should behave towards the rest of the footballing fraternity. We for our part, would be best suited to not judging our fellow fans by an impossible standard which, when they fail to achieve, we somehow hold up as being proof that they are still villains.
For the most part, most of them are just following a football team. The further vilified and unfairly judged, the more entrenched and self-defensive will be their mentality.
“For the most part, most of them are just following a football team. The further vilified and unfairly judged, the more entrenched and self-defensive will be their mentality.”
If that’s possible!
Can anyone tell me who produced the Rangers video? Thereby may lie a tale(or not)
bailemeanach says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 23:31
1 0 Rate This
Hirsute, my position in a nutshell is that if there is any connection whatsoever between old and new, then there should be a responsibility to pay debts. Shameful if you can come along, debt free, and use a popular brand to take money off people without paying debts incurred by that same brand. Apologies for being simplistic, but I did work for 15 years for the same bank that bankrolled oldco
————————————————-
I respect your view & truthfully have much sympathy with it.
However, my principle gripe is that very basic rules were simply ignored by the authorities. Since it is legal to do so, I would personally find it difficult to argue that the administrators/liquidators should not be able to sell an insolvent company’s assets to the highest bidder. I can’t advocate following the rules – except the ones I don’t like!
Very often an insolvent company’s most valuable asset is its brand. Most creditors will recognise that selling the dead company’s brand is normally to their (the creditor’s) benefit. So, in principle, I think it is normally morally acceptable to allow a new company to purchase the brand of another (insolvent) company.
The issue for me – and with specific regard to the purchase of the Rangers FC brand – is that I don’t believe that the administrators got anything like a true value for the creditors. The fact that D&P sold the Rangers FC brand for just £1 is something that BDO should be looking at very, very closely.
If the new brand owner can almost immediately sell over 35k season tickets (netting circa £7m) and claim to have raised a further £22m in an IPO on the strength of it , can the true value of that brand be just £1? That, for me, is the most shameful part.
If Sevco (or anyone else) had paid perhaps £15m – £20m for Rangers assets, I could have no problem with that. Getting those assets for £5.5m is, to say the least, difficult to understand.
ianagain says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 00:28
Can anyone tell me who produced the Rangers video? Thereby may lie a tale(or not)
————————————————————————————————-
Strange you should mention that – I too made a request for that info this morning, as there appears not be any production credits. If they’ve nothing to hide then, er, don’t hide it.
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 00:41
Strange you should mention that – I too made a request for that info this morning, as there appears not be any production credits. If they’ve nothing to hide then, er, don’t hide it.
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Who are these people?
The fans have right to know who these people are !!!
There currently exists a fundamental dichotomy which if it remains in place will lead to the permanent state of conflict within Scottish football – at best and at worst its eventual demise.
Rangers fans aided and abetted by the MSM and broadcast media and the silence of the footballing authorities have been peddled and accept a fundamental untruth that the Rangers thay are watching noe is the same rangers that t always has been – this has been enshrined in mythology and in some of the communications and sanctions and responsibilities of the new club – but not in most areas – specifically non football debt and the continuation of the same incorporated club.
The rest of Scottish football’s fans – in their entirety, virtually – do not accept this club as the same one: they point to the liquidated shell currently being run through by BDO as the original entity ( the truth essentially) – and that this new club has not accepted sufficient of the club’s responsibilities and has not exited administration as the same body.
The LNS enquiry has the potential to rip Scottish football apart by its ruling on the actions of the Old Club and handing out sanctions to the New.
I am not talking here about the stripping of titles – but rather the repayment of prize moneys won by Rangers ( a footballing liability which I think under the 5 way agreement Rangers as they curently exist are obliged to accept under the terms of the enquiry) and/or any fines and suspensions imposed.
Rangers will challenge all of these through the civil courts as not to do so could probably accelerate the bankruptcy process of the new club rather dramatically – and I would expect Rangers to win, as there can be no legal liability for the old club’s debts. This will also have the effect of invalidating the transfer ban and so allow Rangers to trade in players this summer .
At that point the governance of the game will have evaporated utterly. Rangers like the old entity last year will have indicated that it has no intention of being bound by any of the game’s own rules and regulations – and that where necessary they will happily invoke the law of the land to override the rules of football. Given the absolute failure of the SFA to implement its own rule book last season when Rangers rode a cart and horses through it by going to the CofS I would expect no challenge to this outrage from the governing bodies again.
There will then be an absolute sense that the cheating of Rangers in the past cannot be dealt with as the old club has died, yet the new club will be allowed to claim that they are a continuing entity. Many fans will simply abandon the game altogether in the face of such clear evading of justice.
Can there be two Rangers existing at the same time, the Newco and the Oldco (yet to be liquidated)? If I had sequestrated myself as John 1 and then asked for a loan or a mortgage in the same name of John 1 six months later, what would the reply have been? It is as simple as that! As an individual, you are never the same again, you’re never looked upon or trusted the same again, so why should the charade be afforded to THE Rangers? The answer lies somewhere in the middle. Despite the protestations of the press, they do overall cater for their core market, which in the West of Scotland is at least 65% WASP, especially in the sports dept. My father-in-law was a typical secondary Oldco fan, in that although his ‘main’ team was Motherwell, he always kept an eye out for the ‘boys in blue’, especially when they played against Celtic! All his dreams came true that Sunday in 2005, watching in my house, when Motherwell beat Celtic 2-1, and Oldco won the league.
In the minds of the MSM, The Rangers cannot be allowed to die, despite the litany of the tax avoidance, the debts, the dogma, the defiance and the physical threats to all that question the moral stance of the new organisation, and that wishes to perceive itself as the same organisation, with its associated ‘history’. They don’t want to recognise the fact that millions of pounds of due tax over 25 years, between Murray and Whyte, have been withheld, squandered, cheated and deliberately avoided, from Oldco, leading to liqudation. This didn’t happen, they were punished by relegation, everyone is against them, everyone is taking fly kicks, Dundee Utd are the Pope’s squalid dream, Peter Lawell is the Anti-Christ and Alistair McCoist has managed to tactically outwit almost every Third Division manager in Scotland, with his brand of attacking and entertaining football.
Please let us all accept that Rangers(1872), love them or loathe them, are deid! Let the new Rangers, with no clarified history, or baggage, progress as far as they can, and in time challenge for the top honours, at this time dominated by Celtic (1888-Present). If the MSM can promote this new beginning, and Newco can also start to distance themselves from their significant extremist element, then hopefully a New Old Firm can in future years establish itself not based on old religious lines but on a city rivalry similar to that of Liverpool, Manchester and Milan.
The McMurdo piece.
Selective cuts carefully stitched in order?
If so AT’s version of the dialogue will be interesting.
Andy says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 18:11
Did Gordon Smith on radio scotland just say players wages were only 40% of turnover when he was there ??
…………………………………………………………………………………
I heard that comment. I found it surprising to say the least that a man who had no idea the club wasn’t paying its taxes was so clued up on another financial aspect of the operation.
If anyone is looking for “agendas” they dont have to look much further than mcmurdo’s interview with thompson. Though the agenda is clearly on the part of the interviewer and not the interviewee. A fourthformer would fail if they handed that in as a project.
What pish.
I too dont think history is broken, but it may need to be revised. I also don’t think its green/sevco’s history to worry over. Tomo.admitted the dalek jibe was sick? He admitted a jibe he didnt make was sick? So we are now into hypothetical apologies for perceived wrongs? Jeezus wept…
beatipacificiscotia says:
Saturday, February 16, 2013 at 16:19
The bottom line is that if it was about the year since administration, then the business which went into administration still exists, it is being liquidated because it could not agree a survival package with it’s creditors.
It changed it’s name during the course of the year, but it still exists. It did not “Rise” in any way shape or form.
What you paid to watch may have been a slick production, it may have been well made, it may even have appealed to the fans, I am more than happy to take your word for that, but it was also based on a false premise. Post administration they did not rise, they failed to come out of it and are being liquidated
Rising is what phoenixes do.
The man with the honest face is playng down the Hearts situation. Any Jambos know who’s in the frame to buy the club?
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/top-football-stories/sergejus-fedotovas-says-hearts-in-sale-discussions-1-2796032
Anyone want a bet on when T”Rangers 2013/2014 season tickets are up for sale.
At present if they and Queens Park were to win all their remaining games then T’Rangers will have the title sewn up in 7 games. Any falter by Queens Park and it could be sooner.
If Charles tries to cash in on the fervour of a 55th title 🙂 then that may give a good indication of how the cash flow is going.
iceman63 says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 02:19
Many fans will simply abandon the game altogether in the face of such clear evading of justice.
==============================
If the scenario plays out as you have described it, and I’m not disagreeing with you it’s entirely possible, then that might be just as well.
If the game has become so corrupt and the ruling bodies so ineffectual that one club can just ignore any rule it wants to then the whole thing really has become pointless.
I don’t think they will “abandon the game though”, they may be limited to watching it on television (there’s plenty available), however I can see how they will stop actively supporting the Scottish version.
All because the authorities refused to treat everyone in the same way and enforce their own rules. I tend to agree with your assessment that they are unlikely to start doing it now. It’s still the same people in the same positions, so we have no reason to expect them to act any differently.
It really may have come to the point of “enough is enough”, or probably more accurately “too little is too little”.
Shield, your version of events gives the impression that the fans did not agree with your old clubs flawed history. The fans have been quite vocal to the contrary.
paulmac2 says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 09:50
=============================
I would certainly like the money they stole from me, and you, and every other person in the UK.
Millions of pounds paid to them by others, by employees and by customers, money which belonged to the people of this country which should have been handed over but instead was spent by Rangers.
If you want any claim whatsoever at being the same club then paying that money would be a good start. That and the money you owe suppliers who provided their goods and services in good faith.
Danish Pastry says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 09:41
The man with the honest face is playng down the Hearts situation. Any Jambos know who’s in the frame to buy the club?
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/top-football-stories/sergejus-fedotovas-says-hearts-in-sale-discussions-1-2796032
…………………………………………………….
I don’t think the Hearst fans need worry….it’s the holding Company that has the problem….not the club!
http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/43255613736/crime-and-punishment
A review of Charles Green’s holding court in Sydney in which he managed to incriminate himself, invalidate his club and generally cause a PR headache for the club should the media pick any of it up (not that they would).
The key quote from that meeting is undoubtedly:
“Green: During the summer I was told by other Chairmen that they had no choice to vote us down as their own fans were refusing to buy season tickets – I even offered to pay for the 3,000 season tickets that one club normally sells.”
I’ll let you draw your own conclusions on here regarding whether this is conduct becoming of a fit and proper person to run any association football club.
I started to read McMurdo’s report of the Thomson interview, then realised it wasn’t so much a transcript of the conversation but just McMurdo’s take on what AT said, with the odd quote where it suited him. I have, however, read it now and, surprise, surprise I was right. Perhaps what McMurdo has written is accurate, there’s a first time for everything, they say, but it might be interesting if AT posts his own transcription of the conversation as I’m sure he,too, recorded it. The impression I took was that McMurdo, as usual, wrote his piece in an effort to increase his stock amongst the TRFC faithful, but I may be wrong and AT might confirm what was written. I did find noteworthy what AT said about not wanting to be a part of the story, which might explain why he has limited his sphere of interest and accepts the ‘same club’ claim, it seems to me, also, that McMurdo and his followers would like AT, along with PMG etc, to actually be the main story.
My responses over the past couple of days have been in response to such things like:
“Rangers fans are in denial”
“why are they still referring to Rangers, who are now dead”
Nobody is denying that they are in liquidation and that there is a New Rangers Football Club. Nobody is denying that creditors have been shafted which I find despicable. Yes, Charles Green talks nonsense etc. Yes, they called the new documentary “The Rising”. So what?!
I’m simply stating that it’s pointless trying to be petty and criticising Rangers fans because there not doing this or not saying this. It’s ludicrous because the primary shortcomings of RFC/TRFC?SFA/SPL has got nothing to do with them. The bright ones on here will be able to see that TRFC fans are actually the ones who are being shafted. If you put rivalry aside, you might even feel sorry for them.
We’re all football fans on here. Some knuckles might be closer to the ground than others but come on, we all just want to support our team and enjoy good rivalries.
Richard Wilson (@timomouse) says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 10:28
I’ll let you draw your own conclusions on here regarding whether this is conduct becoming of a fit and proper person to run any association football club.
===============================
Mr Green clearly has the impression that he can say pretty much whatever he wants with little chance of meaningful consequences.
Basically what he allegedly said was that he offered to bribe another chairman in an attempt to rig the vote. I think it is reasonable to infer that in return for paying these season tickets he would get a favourable vote.
So either that is true, which is really just corruption, or it is a lie. Either way … “a fit and proper person” … difficult to see how.
Nothing will happen though, it’s only another example in a long and growing line.
paulmac2 says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 10:28
2 0 Rate This
Danish Pastry says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 09:41
The man with the honest face is playng down the Hearts
situation. Any Jambos know who’s in the frame to buy the club?
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/top-football-stories/
sergejus-fedotovas-says-hearts-in-sale-discussions-1-2796032
…………………………………………………….
I don’t think the Hearst fans need worry….
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OMG! Are you saying that as well as the SFA, we now have to negotiate with the SLA?
(that’s one for older readers)
shield2012 says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 10:42
Nobody is denying that they are in liquidation and that there is a New Rangers Football Club.
=======================
Really, that doesn’t tie in with the story that “the club was owned by a holding company but the club still exists”. (The “holding company” thing was nonsense but that has never gotten in the way)
It doesn’t tie in with celebrating “140 years history” (who celebrates 140 years btw)
It doesn’t tie in with “Rangers, then, now, forever”.
It doesn’t tie in with the banner in the stadium laying claim to league titles and cups.
It doesn’t tie in with “Rangers Rising”
The whole mantra from the club and the majority of the fans is that they survived administration and are rising back “to where they belong”.
You may not be claiming that the company / club is not being liquidated, that is entirely a matter for you. However that is far from nobody denying it is happening. Based the vast bulk of what I have heard and read that is exactly what the majority are claiming.
With the talk of pressure being put on Alexander to accept 50% pay cut immediately, and speculation when 2013/2014 season tickets going on sale. Is money needed elsewhere?
There are very strong rumours going about that the repairs needed at ibrox are more urgent than predicted and must start soon. This could mean Green renting Hampden for next season.
These appear to be two expenses not budgeted for. Interesting to see what pans out…