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.
When’s the WUO due to hit? It’s very difficult keeping up 😉 and will it hit the club or the company? When will we be told the LNS decision? Are the SFA keeping up or they at a complete loss too 🙂 and last but not least is RTC’s appearance here somewhat significant oh I really, really hope so 🙂 🙂
dreddybhoy says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 19:17
My understanding is that Rangers hold a conditional membership of the SFA. Terms of transfer have been agreed (as in the 5-way agreement) but those terms are yet to be satisfied.
I may be wrong, happy to be corrected, but I believe it is conditional membership of the SFA and associate membership of the SFL.
beatipacificiscotia says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 19:27
4 0 Rate This
dreddybhoy says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 19:17
My understanding is that Rangers hold a conditional membership of the SFA. Terms of transfer have been agreed (as in the 5-way agreement) but those terms are yet to be satisfied.
I may be wrong, happy to be corrected, but I believe it is conditional membership of the SFA and associate membership of the SFL.
=================================================
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10252
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19120224
beatipacificiscotia says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 19:27
1 0 Rate This
dreddybhoy says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 19:17
My understanding is that Rangers hold a conditional membership of the SFA. Terms of transfer have been agreed (as in the 5-way agreement) but those terms are yet to be satisfied.
I may be wrong, happy to be corrected, but I believe it is conditional membership of the SFA and associate membership of the SFL.
======
I don’t think that’s correct. The old RFC membership was a full membership, with no conditions, and that full membership was transferred to Sevco. So far as I’m aware, there is no such thing as a conditional membership in the SFA rulebook. Of course every membership of every organisation is conditional in the sense that if you break the rules, then membership may be terminated. But the TRFC membership of the SFA is any more conditional than anyone else’s, so far as I know.
As regards the five way agreement, since the terms are secret, we simply don’t know what sanctions are built into that agreement for non-compliance. Given the competence of the individuals involved in the negotiations on behalf of the “authorities”, I’m guessing none.
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 18:59
5 0 Rate This
easyJambo says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 18:42
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Thanks easyJambo.
A company with nearly four per cent of the present incarnation have four execs with past links to Close Brothers. Is that better?
————
Nice to see the blog once again using the legal-financial jargon of past times. Ma heid’s spinnin after reading about the twin Murrays and TM-01’s. What a good influence RTC is 🙂
What exactly is the significance of the Close Brothers mentioned above? I did notice the article about the amusingly-named pie-mortgage. Did Whyte and the club actually receive £2m from this company? And is there anything wrong with them getting involved with Green’s Rangers?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-owner-craig-whyte-sold-1117744
Sorry about the link above, it worked a minute ago, now it directs to a more current news story … very odd. I must have come across a cached version.
Danish Pastry says: Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 19:47
———————-
As far as I know the catering facilities were upgraded while Whyte was there. It was one of the few promises he kept (along with fixing the big screens). Of course, he didn’t use his own money, but borrowed it from Close.
There is nothing unusual or surprising that Close’s security was taken on by the newco.
The alternatives would have been Close having first call on the assets of the club in administration, thus taking more than £1.5M of Green’s purchase price, or alternatively having Close rip out the newly installed equipment.
If it was the former then D&P may have insisted on a higher price. If it was the latter, then Green would have had to re-install new kit at a cost to him. Carrying on the lease (with security) was the pragmatic option.
HP says
Thanks for the link to the SFA site explaining the membership fiasco.
Reading it again now just reminds you just how shocking it was to give the newco permission to play in the cup. Why do that? No other team would be helped in any way to be ready to play a Cup tie.
It wasn’t enough to come up with the 5 way agreement to save the club in the league structure, they also had to find a way to allow them to play in the cup with a pretend membership. Participation in the cup was not a necessary factor to allow them to exist, only to presumably have a good chance at winning it and getting lots of dosh.
Utterly disgraceful. Presumably the stooges were just as peeved as the supporters when they were put out.
I know its old news, but read it again now and share in the horror of reliving the shame of our football authorities and their quest to preserve and enrich the newco.
Captain Haddock says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 20:29
0 0 Rate This
HP says
Thanks for the link to the SFA site explaining the membership fiasco.
Reading it again now just reminds you just how shocking it was to give the newco permission to play in the cup. Why do that? No other team would be helped in any way to be ready to play a Cup tie.
It wasn’t enough to come up with the 5 way agreement to save the club in the league structure, they also had to find a way to allow them to play in the cup with a pretend membership. Participation in the cup was not a necessary factor to allow them to exist, only to presumably have a good chance at winning it and getting lots of dosh.
Utterly disgraceful. Presumably the stooges were just as peeved as the supporters when they were put out.
I know its old news, but read it again now and share in the horror of reliving the shame of our football authorities and their quest to preserve and enrich the newco.
=============================
On that note. I believe these are new (less exacting) regulations for obtaining a National Club Licence.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/Part2:National/Part2Sect8_Legal,Admin,FinanceandCodesofPractice%20Criteria.pdf
easyJambo says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 20:09
1 0 Rate This
Danish Pastry says: Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 19:47
———————-
As far as I know the catering facilities were upgraded while Whyte was there. It was one of the few promises he kept (along with fixing the big screens). Of course, he didn’t use his own money …
————-
Thanks easyjambo. So Close are involved presumably to get something for the money they coughed up, but Ticketus are left on the doorstep. After all this time it still seems inconceivable, but the common wisdom is that they are not involved, have blown £20m plus, and Craig Whyte is grinning like a Cheshire cat in Monaco insisting he’s done nothing wrong. If they do get him in court it will be a case worth following.
It’s amazing that the Third Secret of …….sorry, the five -way agreement is still secret given that the people who drew up the agreement are but representatives of the clubs that constitute the SFL/SPL/SFA. It is beyond my capabilities to understand how these club representatives (SPL/PFA/SFA) are able to keep all clubs in the dark regarding the five-way sleigh-of-hand!
BTW, the reason it is still secret is because they, Sevco, have not fulfilled the terms of the conditional membership why else would it still be secret.
Shame on them and on the clubs who apparently accept this sham.
Senior @ 20:54
Well said! Why the silence? Fear? Something more sinister? or are they ‘keeping their powder dry?’ Green has been way too quiet 🙂 🙂 not bumping his gums with all sorts of inane claptrap 🙂
Easyjambo…..
Duff& Phelps reported a net loss of over £600,000 on catering during their tenure at Ibrox
(£388,973 Food & Beverages Sales under Income column £991,155 Catering/Food and Beverage under Expenditure column.You’ll be familiar with the numbers on Paul’s PieGate blog, because you made a fine contribution to it.
Azure’s contract (catering & cleaning) was renewed by Whyte and worth a seven-figure sum to the Rangers bottom line.
Why the loss?
(I’ll stay away from the potential Commonwealth Games Fund contribution)
I posted earlier about possible urgent work needed at Ibrox, and also the possibility of renting Hampden, heard since then that Hampden itself will be closing for major work to do with Commonwealth Games.
A couple of my bear friends, with some inside knowledge of Ibrox, have told me that the ground needs pipework and elecrical cables replaced (remember one game postponed because of burst pipes) Both work in these fields and say work is “minor” and will only take weeks not months, so no need to play elswhere.
But we all know of the asbestos there, so can any of the guys with engineering knowledge on here give an opinion on if they start pulling at old pipework and cables, will this disturb the asbestos? (my friends say as no structural work asbestos is not a problem) Are they correct?
Brenda
Rest asured, the WUO is wending its way along slowly but surely.
We have not heard the last of Orlit 🙂
Foreign men had a dream
To hire a legal team
They’d had no money, in [Charles Green] they’d decided to trust
But still they pursued
And The Rangers were sued
54 days later
Sevco went bust
(to the tune of “Sue Charles G”)
timalloy67 says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 21:26
But we all know of the asbestos there, so can any of the guys with engineering knowledge on here give an opinion on if they start pulling at old pipework and cables, will this disturb the asbestos? (my friends say as no structural work asbestos is not a problem) Are they correct?
————————————–
Asbestos will usually relate to structural work because that’s where there is a requirement for fire protection. Drainage is unlikely to have any such requirement, unless it passes through a fire compartment wall or floor. Electrics too will only tend to have had any specific asbestos boarding use where there was a specific fire risk meaning that wires etc had to be enclosed, but it has also been used in electrical insulation. Quite often, though, old pipes / cables may have been run behind asbestos sheeting, and that can be a further hidden danger.
Bartin Main retweeted
16m
No Pasaran @NCCMick
Sevco move SFL reserve game to Ibrokes on Tuesday & are charging the goons £5 at gate,3 weeks without first team game at ibokes hitting hard
Senior says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 18:50
So it will be 2016 before Sevco Scotland, sorry, Rangers, have 3yrs of accounts, and can play European football.
______________________________________
That’s provided the 3 year accounts are in order – a big ask given the swamp they are manoeuvring in at present.
The rule states categorically that a club “must be a member for three consecutive years”
Associate membership does not fulfil this condition. Of course this applies to only 99.9% of organisations and the rules and regulations therein.
The clock has not started ticking yet! – or, then again maybe it has.
—————————
My reading of the SFA statement is The Rangers gained membership on 3rd August 2012. So they will have three years membership by 3 Aug 2015 which is the season, if they climb the leagues successfully, on which they will enter the SPL.
Assuming they then gain a UEFA competition position by the end of that season i.e in 2016 the earliest they fall under the UEFA Club Licensing will be in the spring of 2016 by which time the necessary three years of SFA membership will have elapsed to make them eligible to be considered for the award of a club licence.
To get that they need to provide either the last years audited accounts or depending on their date interim accounts covering the most recent six months.
Three years past accounts are NOT required for UEFA licencing at each annual cycle UEFA are only interested in the current and in some cases future financial position to stop clubs going belly up during a UEFA competition.
So with a fair wind (did I just say that) The Rangers could be playing in a UEFA competition in season 2016/17. That would be an astonishing achievment (words used by Darryl King to describe Rangers third title win. I’m being ironic in my use of the word.
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 21:42
___________________________________
For what it is worth, I think you have the UEFA qualification for Sevco nailed down. I agree with you entirely.
Being eligible to play in European competition and actually having a team to do so are very seperate requirements. TRFC may well climb the leagues in succesive seasons if they remain solvent, although I very much doubt it so their best chance will be to qualify through the Scottish Cup. As for CL football they need to be runners up in the top league at least to compete in Europes premier competition and i cannot see this happening for at least 10 – 12 years. Thats how far behind I think they are in playing terms.
HirsutePursuit says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 20:36
Been waiting for you to turn up. Can you check back my earlier posts on the licencing process?
The ability to avoid the need for historical accounts see “exceptional dispensation” under 8.12 looks new to me but so too does this Item on Transparency
2.6 Confidentiality and Transparency
The Scottish FA guarantees the clubs full confidentiality as regards all non-public information disclosed during the Licensing Process.
However and without prejudice to the foregoing generality, each club hereby expressly consents to the Scottish FA notifying the club’s respective league body of any failure to obtain a licence and the reasons for that failure.
Furthermore, the financial information as detailed in Section 8.12 (*) of Part 2 of this Manual with the exception of the net debt information will be made freely available to members of the public via the Scottish FA website.
The Scottish FA also reserves the right to disclose any award decision at any time. Subject to the disclosure to the club’s respective league body referred to above, the reasons for such decisions however will remain confidential. The Licensing Administration will adhere to the following guidelines:
The Scottish FA has concluded a confidentiality agreement with each club. This will be updated as and when necessary;
Members of the Licensing Committee, the Appellate Tribunal and any other individual engaged by the Licensor in the Licensing process must sign a confidentiality agreement before starting his or her tasks. Licensing Administration employees are subject to confidentiality provisions in terms of their employment contracts;
The level at which an award is presented to a club (overall and under each criteria heading) will be made available for general consumption via the Scottish FA website.
I see this as the SFA covering themselves by publishing what clubs tell them about (*)
Wages (Total Payroll Costs)
£
£
£
Wages to Turnover Ratio
%
%
%
Profit or Loss for Period
£
£
£
Net Assets at Period End
If IPO income is not part of turnover the profit or loss figures should be interesting.
Great to see RTC back
Just in time for LNS and who knows what other developments approaching
Timothy & Co @mdkster Protected account
FTC/19/2013 HMRC v The former Rangers Football Club Plc (now RFC 2012 – in liquidation) http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/tribunals/tax-and-chancery-upper-tribunal-/hearings-register.pdf …
Expand Reply Favorite
rangerstaxcase says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 21:59
Cheers. I’m grateful to the earlier reference to UEFA rules re three years for making me check out the situation.
The next hurdle for SFA and The Rangers will be negotiating National Club Licensing Rules for award of a licence for next season.
The exceptional dispensation allows the historical element to be hurdled but surely an update on the projections used to grant a licence last August is something all of football, especially The Rangers supporters and msm should be demanding in the interests of transparency and trust restoration?
Great to see RTC back in action.
If I may pose a question.
What’s the chances of an interview with, perhaps, Tomo, to explore the reasons for the recent silence? and also I’d be interested to know if there is a projected launch date for a certain book some of us are anticipating? Allowing for the fact that a final chapter seems to be as elusive as an end to the Die Hard series.
RTC!
Welcome back old boy!
This will put the wind up ’em!
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 22:26
1 0 Rate This
rangerstaxcase says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 21:59
Cheers. I’m grateful to the earlier reference to UEFA rules re three years for making me check out the situation.
The next hurdle for SFA and The Rangers will be negotiating National Club Licensing Rules for award of a licence for next season.
The exceptional dispensation allows the historical element to be hurdled but surely an update on the projections used to grant a licence last August is something all of football, especially The Rangers supporters and msm should be demanding in the interests of transparency and trust restoration?
========================
Auldheid.
As far as I am aware, Sevco’s Rangers don’t have a Club Licence. It could not be transferred from the old club alongside the SFA membership. The recent rule changes (special dispensation) will allow them to get the award at the next round; but under the previous rules which apply to this season – requiring 3 years accounts – the new club simply didn’t qualify.
I’d need to double-check; but I’m pretty sure the the SFA rules say that a club which has had its licence suspended will be referred for disciplinary action after 6 months if the problem that caused the suspension has not been rectified. The disciplinary process can result in the club’s SFA membership being suspended – which would obviously result in their removal from whichever league they were playing.
However, I don’t think there is any rule in place for a club which has never actually held a club licence.
Robert Coyle says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 22:25
Is there any reason why MIH are not listed as the respondent? Why is this now RFC(IL)?
Why all the welcomes back for that bampot!?
99% of what he says is crap!!
HirsutePursuit says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 22:56
Cheers. In the SFA statement re membership I took this as the equivalent info sought to enable them to gain a licence as well. They surely must have had some criteria applied to satisfy the SFA they were sound financially?
” The Scottish FA has received all necessary information and documentation from Sevco Scotland Ltd, including details of the company structure, shareholders, financial projections and business plan.”
Now they are an SFL club trading in the SFL they are imo as subject to licencing requirements as any club. The exceptional dispensation gets around the 3 years history rules but not the licensing process itself again imo.
Even if just to cover themselves against an angry mob the SFA will want an update on what was provided last August. If The Rangers are to be excused having to follow the licencing process football has a right to know why. The SFA surely have to satisfy themselves that the club is being run on a financially sound basis and this is what licensing aims to confirm.
However this is why I raised the question because I saw wriggle room to avoid key questions being asked and sensitive information entering the public arena.
Frankly if the SFA allow a dispensation we might as well shut up shop and roll over since the rules clearly would only apply when it suits the suits.
easyJambo,
further to my enquiry above,( Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 21:23) I note that the list of creditors of old Rangers includes the following:
Azure Support Services, Macclesfield £523,949.71.
my memory of last year is and correct me if i am wrong
we will never go bust
we will never be liquidated, the wealthy rangers fans would never allow our club to die.
—> after liquidation
We had better get into the spl or else ( p.s. we hate you all )
We had better get into SFL1 ( we hate you all )
We want to be in division 3 ( we hate you all)
We are in division 3, were we wanted to be ( we hate you all )
We have been punished to much ( we hate you all )
Maybe Murray Park should be turned into an Educational establishment to help the masses.We can see a massive need for education.
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 23:20
The thing about the Club Licence is that it depends almost entirely on historical financial information.
Just because that financial information did not exist, I don’t think that the SFA will have taken it upon themselves to consider the minutiae of Sevco’s initial business plan. It is much more likely that they have asked for simple expenditure budgets and income projections under a few general headings. But I’d be really surprised if the figures provided to the SFA last August are ever referenced against the real world figures.
Sevco will apply for a National Club Licence for next season – based on this season’s trading. They will request, and no doubt be granted, dispensation on the requirement for 3 years accounts – and will most probably be granted a National Club Licence at Entry Level.
At least – with the new financial dispensation – the SFA have had the decency to change the rules to suit Sevco, rather than just ignoring the rules to suit Sevco. 😉 🙂
to be honest SFA should stand for Sevco Football association.
The care not one jot for any other club. They will change the rules to suit one club, they will even change the league structure.
The President happens to be an EBT member who has governed the two highest dEBTed clubs in Scotland and yet he feels he can ignore the fan base of Scotland whilst he amends the rules to suit his historical preferences. A disgrace.
Long Time Lurker says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 23:05
4 0 Rate This
Robert Coyle says:
Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 22:25
Is there any reason why MIH are not listed as the respondent? Why is this now RFC(IL)?
==========================
Because at the FTT(T):
http://www.financeandtaxtribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j6851/TC02372.pdf
Page 28-29
HMRC’s position with relation to Rangers, starts with Mr Thornhill’s concession that the payments into the sub-trusts were contractual benefits. This does not apply to bonuses paid to employees of the other Murray Group Companies.
chipsandblog says: Monday, February 18, 2013 at 00:09
to be honest SFA should stand for Sevco Football association…
==========
You’re on a roll tonight c&b with your last couple of posts. 😉
The Sevco Football Association indeed – how did we all miss this obvious clue? !
Has Ogilvie resigned yet? The disgrace at the SFA continues…
chipsandblog says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 00:09
“The President happens to be an EBT member who has governed the two highest dEBTed clubs in Scotland”
For me, a very important point. Is there any other sports governing body where the ‘chief executive’ is literally in the debt of a member club? This is unprecedented and wholly unacceptable.
The fact that the Scottish media (and I don’t restrict this to sports media) haven’t hounded Campbell Ogilvie out of his position as a result of this conflict is one of the most telling facets of this story.
For goodness sake, they chased a transport minister out of a job because he failed to prevent snow falling!
Stranger still, with all the discussion ref league reconstruction the SMSM consider C.O. to be a valid player in this upheaval?
As chipsandblogs states, this is “The President …. who has governed the two highest dEBTed clubs in Scotland” is now in charge of the Scottish game and the MSM aren’t in the least bit curious about this?
Worse still, he is the head of the appellate body for the LNS decision!? And yet ……. not a single, solitary question from the SMSM as to his probity in this role?
Seems there may still be plenty of succulent lamb to go around.
Perhaps not ‘everything has changed’?
chipsandblog says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 00:09
to be honest SFA should stand for Sevco Football association.
The care not one jot for any other club. They will change the rules to suit one club, they will even change the league structure.
The President happens to be an EBT member who has governed the two highest dEBTed clubs in Scotland and yet he feels he can ignore the fan base of Scotland whilst he amends the rules to suit his historical preferences. A disgrace.
==========================================================================
To be fair if Celtic had gone under whilst in the SPL I reckon they would have been helped in the same way Rangers have by both the SPL and SFA.
I hear what you say about El Presidente (as my old man used to call Ernie Walker) and he and the club chairmen ignore the fans at their own cost.
Long Time Lurker says: Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 23:05
Robert Coyle says: Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 22:25
Is there any reason why MIH are not listed as the respondent? Why is this now RFC(IL)?
===========================
All the MIH companies are listed separately.
Murray Group Holdings Ltd – FTC/15/2013
Murray Group Management Ltd – FTC/16/2013
Premier Property Group Ltd – FTC/17/2013
GM Mining Ltd – FTC/18/2013
RFC 2012 – FTC/19/2013.
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says: Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 23:55
easyJambo,
further to my enquiry above,( Sunday, February 17, 2013 at 21:23) I note that the list of creditors of old Rangers includes the following:
Azure Support Services, Macclesfield £523,949.71.
=========================
I’m afraid I don’t have any answers. There were people better qualified to answer to the “piegate” mystery than me on Paul McConville’s blog. i.e. “Mick”.
Personally, I don’t think that the piegate questions really have much relevance in the bigger scheme of things at RIFC. It is more of an issue for BDO. If Close are still involved in financing RIFC I don’t think they are a major player.
easyJambo says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 01:17
—————————————————————
Again, thanks for your indulgence, eJ. I agree its small potatoes but £500.000 could have paid a lot of small creditors. Instead, Close get their money out because their pals of wee Craig and (-S)DM.
Reading about Betts, Primary Asset Management,LM Logistics and Sherri Ellis gave me a wee bit of nostalga. here are the links for those interested.
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/did-rangers-mortgage-their-season-ticket-income-for-four-years-and-is-it-all-spent/
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/floating-charges-and-rangers/
By a wierd quirk of timing, it may become a little more prescient:
[URL=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/12/60045224.jpg/][IMG]http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/4034/60045224.jpg[/IMG][/URL]
easyJambo says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 01:17
—————————————————————
Thanks for your indulgence. I agree its small potatoes but £500.000 could have paid a lot of small
creditors. Instead, Close get their money out because their pals of wee Craig and (-S)DM
Reading about Betts, Primary Asset Management,LM Logistics and Sherri Ellis gave me a wee bit of nostalga. here are the links for those interested.
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/did-rangers-mortgage-their-season-ticket-income-for-four-years-and-is-it-all-spent/
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/floating-charges-and-rangers/
The rain is chucking it down here in sub-tropical Brisbane at 2.36 p.m (Monday).
I have to say that I am beginning to be a little concerned at the excessively long-time it is taking for Lord Hodge to say anything about his view on any report he got from D&P on why they thought they were not conflicted.Have I missed anything? Did he get a report? Has he indicated that he’s happy with it (and them)?
Likewise, what the hell is holding up LNS’s report? Why are the SPL who commissioned the investigation not trying to get the ‘verdict’ hurried along?
One would have thought that they would be desperate to get the matter settled one way or the other, for their own sake.
Just how long can it take to discover whether or not all payments to players that shoud have been declared under football rules were in fact declared, never mind whether the payments were legitimate under tax legislation?
I think the SPL should ask for some kind of interim report from LNS , or push for an early date of decision.
I do not want to lose faith in the integrity of LH or of LNS, even though I have no faith in the SFA and little faith in the SPL.
Seen an image of today’s DR front page online:
“Gers Cops: It Was A Crime” by Keith McLeod.
Article inside quotes a ‘legal expert’. Not sure if this is the Record repackaging old news again or a genuine update on the criminal investigation into Whyte’s takeover. Article indicates enough evidence gathered to suggest a crime committed.
john clarke says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 05:00
I do not want to lose faith in the integrity of LH or of LNS, even though I have no faith in the SFA and little faith in the SPL.
============================================================
I personally see no issue in asking the question whether the Scottish Establishment are willing to take the final step. I see no evidence so far that they are. Without fan power the newco would most likely be playing in the SPL.
I don’t believe there will be any shockwaves from the LNS verdict. Even if guilty the established position which has been stealthily peddled in the media for months is that title stripping is a step too far.
I ask you if anyone, even as distinguished as a High Court Judge, would have the stomach to apply sanctions of such mammoth proportions against Scotland’s Establishment Club, old or new?
Danish Pastry on Monday, February 18, 2013 at 07:04
If there is evidence of a crime re the sale of RFC to TGEF let’s hope that the recording function on his smart phone was working 🙂
I once read an interesting article, regarding the various investigations Silvio Berlusconi has had to defend over the years … and how he has always managed to wriggle out of very serious criminal and civil charges.
The writer’s argument, concentrated on the inordinate amount of time it took for the accusations to be brought before the courts. He paraphrased an old latin proverb – “The truth only suffers from delay” (veritas odit moras) – I only hope the RFC inquiry didn’t read the same article.
Hursuit Pursuit @ 00:26
If you were to take that wee extract from the FTT decision and stand it on its own– would HMRC be arguing that because these are contractual benefits- simply paid to someone– whether that be a third party trust or not– then tax is payable on those payments irrespective of who the beneficiary was?
If so, then that I think is a different argument to the reasoning reached by the majority in the decision who focused,I think, on the concession that the trusts were prima facile bona ride trusts and that the loans from the trusts were genuine loans- and of course loans are not salary and at therefore not taxable!
However, if the. Revenue attack the very source of the payments to the trusts by saying that any payments to the trusts or anyone else for whatever reason were contractually part of the players remuneration package, then even if the trusts were properly set up and were proper legal entities (I.E not shams) then there is a good argument to say that tax should be paid on those payments.
I don’t think the majorityicked up on that argument and were blinded by the concessions that there were proper trusts and de facto loans from those trusts– all of which would be irrelevant if the above argument holds water.
Personally, I would have a reserve position anyway which is that the whole scheme– trusts,loans and all were a sham anyway!
Interesting discussion over the last couple of pages.
BRTH
Should LNS find Rangers guilty , it’s hard to see how title stripping could be avoided. The SFA have recent precedent with Spartans, who were thrown out of the Scottish Cup for missing off one of the two dates required on a players contract.
The SFA deemed he was illegally registered and should not have played in the tie in question, awarding the tie to Spartans opponents
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15672375
Contrast and compare with what has already been admitted by Thornhill at the FTT. The SPL claimed there was a Prima Facie case against Rangers, therefore we have to assume they have much of the information made available to the FTT, Martin Bains shredder not withstanding.
Should LNS find that Rangers played illegally registered players over an extended period, then title stripping should only be the start of the disciplinary process. Lifetime bans from involvement in football should be handed down to anyone involved in this over an extended timescale.
upthehoops on Monday, February 18, 2013 at 07:12
I still believe that LNS will deliver a fair and independent judgement, as if he does not – why would he risk his reputation over this matter?
We also have had publication of the FTT decision.
If my memory is correct LNS said that he would not hae taken on thie dual contracts equiry unless he was granted total independence. I may be wrong but I believe that he said that he would report his findings publicly without any reference to the SPL.
Sorry for typos above— on a bus!!!
Really surprised at front page of the record and the crown office or police will be raging at any info being leaked to the press!
However,that being said if there is an active investigation which looks as if it is going to end up in a formal police report to the crown office with a view to prosecution– and clearly that hasn’t happened yet– I think Lord Hodge will sit on any conflict of interests report or decision as a criminal investigation which essentially looks at the same evidence or where there is a possibility of the evidence overlapping takes precedence– and he will not want to write any decision which may prejudice or affect any such criminal proceedings.
john clarke says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 05:00
“I do not want to lose faith in the integrity of LH or of LNS, even though I have no faith in the SFA and little faith in the SPL.”
Unlike your good self I have no confidence in Scots Law. It’s corrupt.
cf
The Magic Circle
Shirley McKie fingerprint case
Lockerbie
Hollie Greig Scandal
Willie McRae Murder.
barcabhoy says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 08:40
Should LNS find Rangers guilty , it’s hard to see how title stripping could be applied. The SFA have recent precedent with Spartans, who were thrown out of the Scottish Cup for missing off one of the two dates required on a players contract.
The SFA deemed he was illegally registered and should not have played in the tie in question, awarding the tie to Spartans opponents. As a further punishment they also denied them entry into the third tier of Scottish football when a vacancy arose and chose instead to allow an interloper to take their place.
——————————————————————-
Fixed that for you 😀
“Hello, hello engine room. Quick, make smoke lots of smoke. As much as you can.”
“Aye aye Cap’n.”
jw hardin says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 08:58
Unlike your good self I have no confidence in Scots Law. It’s corrupt.
cf
The Magic Circle
Shirley McKie fingerprint case
Lockerbie
Hollie Greig Scandal
Willie McRae Murder.
“”””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Honest mistakes surely.
john clarke says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 05:00
Good point – one would assume that, as nothing has been published about the outcome of the clarification sought by Lord Hodge, that this is somehow linked to the BDO investigation and other “legal” process, but not guaranteed that this is happening.
Perhaps one route to go down is to approach your local MP ask them to seek an answer on your behalf (or maybe just contact George Galloway, as he has been stymied in the past week or so on the topic of TRFC). If my memory serves me correctly, you’re quite a good letter writer, so you should do just fine!
Typical daily record, quoting two very reliable sources???????????
A legal expert said……………………………………
and
A fraud expert said:………………………………………………….
A five year old makes up better stories to get attention.
‘a legal expert’ and ‘a fraud expert’ could be the same person 🙂
So Charlie wants everyone to believe he wants to run the football club….properly!
And yet he has had to go to asia to employ the services of a firm to find investors? at a hefty cost.
A firm that coincidently have managed to find people who have links to previous creditors Close Brothers…
A firm that coincidently have managed to find people who have links to Ticketus…
A firm that has links to Green…Green who has links to Craig Whyte and Davie Murray..
How many other previous creditors are amongst the investors…
Both of whom had links to Craig Whyte…
This is all being played out in front of us and any one with eyes…
We have Bomber Brown being threatened to keep his mouth shut….we still don’t know who owns Ibrox…
And yet the SEVCO fans continue to believe he is the real deal and not 1 Scottish MSM journo has the balls to investigate this…
CORRUPTION AT ITS BEST….
Old story perhaps but noted this on the BBC news site this morning.
Man Utd global fans 659m?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21478857.
The figure seems to have been linked to their IPO.
Rebuttal
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2012/06/07/manchester-united-659-million-people-can%E2%80%99t-be-wrong-can-they-070601/
With the rest of the world supporting Rangers then how do Barcelona and Real Madrid get a look in?
In 2010 Rangers didn’t even get a look in in terms of strip sales.
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/08/31/revealed-the-worlds-best-selling-club-football-shirts-310802/
With Celtic given a mention of them being the top Scottish club by strip sales in the more detailed article which includes the sales period when Rangers were in the Uefa Cup Final.
http://www.sportingintelligence.com/2010/08/31/exclusive-manchester-united-lead-global-shirt-sales-list-liverpool-chase-as-england’s-second-best-310805/
Interesting other case in the scheduling notice (http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/tribunals/tax-and-chancery-upper-tribunal-/hearings-register.pdf)
FTC/56/2012 Scottish Football League v HMRC
Date of Receipt: 17 July 2012
Hearing date: 11 March 2013 @ 10: 00 am
@ First Tier Tribunal
Chamber George House 126
George Street Edinburgh
EH2 4HH
Hearing type: Substantive
Wonder what that’s about….
Hirsute Pursuit
Thanks again for checking and confirming for me anyway that The Rangers will be subject to the National Club Licence process (NCL) but there has to be a question aboutwhat info the SFA use in order to satisfy themselves and the footballing public that The Rangers will be a going concern with no liquidity problems over the rest of this season and the next.
The NCL process allows the SFA to give themselves and the public to examine in close detail the key financial info that is needed in order for a licence to be granted.
If the IPO money is not reported in turnover and the total wage bill is in the £14.5m bracket then the wage to turnover ratio will be dangerously high and certainly above the 33% that CG is proclaiming.
The SFA also will publish this data which will give the TSFM finance guys something to chew over.
More important though is that if it is true observed behaviour changes that behaviour, if the SFA know their rules and the application of them are being observed in public view then they might be a little less likely to indulge in the kind of obsfuscating behaviour they indulged in last summer.
At least they have made it legal not to ask for historical accounts but not said what takes their place but will make public what they are told.
NCL is something all supporters and any msm readers should be watching closely as it is the detailed way in which the SFA can police clubs and make them behave.
barcabhoy says: Monday, February 18, 2013 at 08:40
——————————————-
There was another example earlier this season in the Youth cup. Note the difference in attitude of the guilty party (Annan) to that shown thus far by TRFC
Gym Trainer says: Monday, February 18, 2013 at 10:25
Interesting other case in the scheduling notice (http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/tribunals/tax-and-chancery-upper-tribunal-/hearings-register.pdf)
FTC/56/2012 Scottish Football League v HMRC
=======================
It’s an appeal on whether on not medals and flags should be subject to VAT
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/212681-scottish-football-league-locked-in-12000-tax-dispute-with-hmrc/
easyJambo says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 10:35
Thanks for sharing that eJ
A refreshing change
Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 08:39
5 0 Rate This
=================
The “sham” argument was never made at the FTT(T) – which is interesting in itself.
HMRC are probably taking a wider view of this case than most of us. If they won against RFC/MIH on the basis that their sub-trust loans were a sham, they would win only on the particular circumstances of this case. It may then be difficult to use as a general precedent for the plethora of outstanding cases they are sitting on – even where the circumstances seem broadly similar.
I think they are looking for a more wide-reaching judgement.
Heidi Poon did not disagreed that the Loans from the Rangers sub-trusts could fit into existing legislation. Legislation exists that accurately describes the nature of the loans from the players sub-trusts. Therefore the loans were not described as sham transactions.
What she said – and what I believe HMRC are arguing – is that where there is a conflict between PAYE/NICs legislation and other legislation (in this case for employee based loans), the rules for PAYE/NICs should always take primacy.
The conflict arises because PAYE/NICs legislation is framed to take a complete series of transactions together HMRC are empowered to make a tax assessment on the basis of the over all “reality”. The legislation covering employee based loans is limited to the transactions specific to the loans.
The majority took the view that HMRC could not take a over-reaching view of the nature of the EBT scheme if that meant they had to disregard existing legislation which would otherwise apply to a part of that scheme. The minority insists that HMRC do have that power.
The majority cited several previous cases in support of their view – although none that they were legally bound by. The minority was also able to rely on previous judgements – including from a higher court that (if the UTT agree are fully applicable) should be binding.
easyJambo says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 10:35
There was another example earlier this season in the Youth cup. Note the difference in attitude of the guilty party (Annan) to that shown thus far by TRFC
==============================
TRFC will never, ever hold their hands up to anything. That is not “the Rangers way”. And that sort of attitude is what passes for “dignity” down Ibrox way.
any word of what CHARITY/CHARITIES are to “benefit” from the sevco handout of their share of the recent game -v-dundee utd, which was boycotted ?
can mr cosgrove or mr spence please investtigate?
Auldheid says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 10:26
If the IPO money is not reported in turnover and the total wage bill is in the £14.5m bracket then the wage to turnover ratio will be dangerously high and certainly above the 33% that CG is proclaiming.
……………………………………………………………………………………..
If the total wage bill is in the 14.5m bracket then even in the future, with spl ticketing pricing but no european football then they still would not be over the 30 or 33% of turnover Green states.
This then means that the current standard of player/squad is as good as it gets and they will never achieve c.l. football with the players and management the currently have.
Any new decent manager replacing Ally will want a decent package for him and his backroom team and funds to develop/ bring in his own players.
They can never be consistently successful with that level of wages, with good management they may finish second and then there will be the drop off through lack of trophies and failing to challenge which in turn will reduce the money available for wages and so forth.
The only way a Rangers team can hope to win the spl and progress in europe is by going back into debt.
If the total wage bill is in the 14.5m bracket then even in the future, with spl ticketing pricing but no european football then they still would not be over the 30 or 33% of turnover Green states.
……………
Meant to say the WOULD BE OVER THE 30%!!
jimlarkin says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 10:55
“It has been decided by the board that any proceeds from gate receipts due to the Club will be donated to the Prince and Princess of Wales Hospice Brick by Brick Appeal and Erskine charities via the Rangers Charity Foundation.”
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/204497-rangers-reject-request-from-dundee-united-to-keep-cup-cash/
To be fair to Charles the Brick by Brick Appeal was a chosen charity before the cup tie was announced so it would be totally daft not to follow through with passing on the cash as the Rangers Charity Foundation has pledged to raise £100k.
http://www.rangerscharity.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=484&Itemid=71
Also from Oct 2012
http://www.ppwh.org.uk/fundraising/news/rangers-charity-partnership.html
What can you say.
I suppose all those loan players from Newcastle,Central Coast Mariners etc are now surplus to requirements.
“Rangers will this week reveal they’ve agreed a 2 year youth exchange programme with Juventus”.
The plan involves Juventus sending players from their youth squad to Glasgow on loan, with Rangers youngsters being given the chance to train in Turin to aid their development. Juventus will have the option to sign up any players who impress. The agreement was reached during the Italian side’s visit to Murray Park last week.
I’m sure Juve are salivating at the prospect of signing the next generation of Sevco wonderkids.They’ll probably close all their academies worldwide.
I don’t know how CG does it!
From Mr McMurdo;
Does Thomson Hate Rangers?
Posted on February 18, 2013
Alex Thomson is not a Rangers-hater.
That is my opinion and I stand by it. It is also the opinion of bluenoses I trust and whose advice I value.
It is not, however, the opinion of thousands of Rangers supporters.
I am perfectly fine with that.
In a sense, it doesn’t really matter. How Alex Thomson feels about Rangers is not the issue. The fact is, he is a clear and present danger to Rangers Football Club precisely because he writes stuff that is anti-Rangers.
As a Rangers blogger, I will defend my club against him and anyone else who has a go at the Gers.
But in another sense, whether or not Thomson is a Rangers-hater is important. And I have personal reasons myself for attaching importance to this distinction.
On this blog I frequently have a go at Celtic and certain factions of the Celtic support. I know it annoys the Celtic-minded and I get great pleasure from that, I admit.
I won’t lie about it and I certainly couldn’t say anything remotely about Celtic what Alex Thomson said about Rangers. I don’t want Celtic to succeed or do well in any competition.
But I don’t hate Celtic and I certainly don’t hate Celtic fans.
Yes, I hate certain things connected with Celtic e.g. the glorification of terrorism and the club’s historic inability to accept defeat gracefully.
I have respect for some of Celtic’s footballing achievements and some ex-players. I have lots of Celtic-supporting friends.
I was not raised by my parents to hate people on account of their religion, race or football allegiance. Bigotry had no place in my upbringing.
For me, being a Ranger is not a licence to hate but is about being better than those who hate.
I know that many Celtic fans think I hate them and their club and that no matter how many times I say otherwise, they won’t believe me. That is why I know how Alex Thomson feels when he says ad nauseum he doesn’t hate Rangers.
My take on Thomson is simple. I don’t think he hates Rangers but I think he finds Rangers fans to be a pain in the backside.
And, although I don’t hate Celtic, I totally understand Celtic fans regarding me as an enemy of their club. I am happy to be an enemy of things connected with Celtic that to me are damaging both to Rangers and Scottish football in general i.e. the Blofeldesque dealings of Peter Lawwell and the club’s need for “clarification” over every footballing reverse.
My best defence is that it’s banter. Maybe I’ll grow out of it one day. But until then, I’ll enjoy having a pop at Celtic. Hate-free, of course.
I think it is important to make the distinction between Rangers-haters and those who dislike and/or are critical of the club for one compelling reason:
Should Charles Green succeed in his mission to take Rangers out of Scottish football into a wider footballing arena, we simply cannot take the mentality we have in Scotland with us. In the wider world we will encounter criticism and hostility and it won’t always be from a place of hate.
For many Rangers fans, life is black and white and the world is divided between bluenoses and Rangers-haters. But in the wider world, believe it or not, there are people who never give Rangers a thought. Hard to believe I know, but true nonetheless.
It’s important that if we encounter criticism or flak as a football club we don’t immediately brand everyone who gives us it as a Rangers-hater. I myself bandy this term about and I do think there are Rangers-haters out there who must be confronted rigorously.
But it is important that we don’t descend into paranoia and see the whole world is against us. It isn’t. Rangers have many friends throughout the footballing world. It’s not true that no-one likes us.
Over the past few months a worrying mindset has crept into the Rangers support. It has produced a culture of blame – “It’s everybody else’s fault.”
I think some people have actually convinced themselves that Rangers’ troubles are entirely the fault of anti-Rangers bloggers like Rangers Tax Case and Phil Of The Many Names.
Let’s not EVER forget who crippled our club.
Both of them wore Rangers blazers and ties.
Now, if your definition of a Rangers-hater is someone who has damaged the club, you don’t even have to go very far to find them.
———————————————————-
Speaking of hate and bigotry, I am glad to see the Green Brigade are not being spared the attentions of FOCUS, the police unit tasked with monitoring football-related crime and violence.
This should be good news to Rangers supporters, who often complain that it is just them who are targeted by the police.
EVERY football fan, regardless of club affiliation, should support efforts to stamp out sectarianism and violence from our game.
Just in case Celtic fans think I am having a go, I am aware that FOCUS are also showing a keen interest in thuggery among certain Rangers fans.
Even-handedness is all we can ask for from our police force and every football fan should be in favour of law and order.
spanishcelt says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 11:34
Auldheid says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 10:26
http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=307:rangers-accounts-published&catid=1:articles&Itemid=67
Rangers turnover in 2010 – last accounts with SPL and Euro Football = £56.3m
£14.5m = 25.7% of turnover
Rangers turnover in 2009 – last accounts SPL football only = £39.7m
£14.5m = 36.5% of turnover
Therefore only sightly over the 33% mark.
Remember the current wages for the players only is being reported as being £6m to £7.5m. one a squad of 25 thats around £5k a week average which is pretty healthy.
Therefore you could get ‘twice’ the squad for the 33% of say £40m turnover – a 25 man squad on £10k a week.
When it is written down like that you are going to get a decent squad for the domestic campaigns but perhaps not for Euro success. However that doesn’t not take account of reserve and youth teams. So it is all aboput how you cut your cake.
If Charles can keep them going to get into the SPL and get a full stadum of season ticket holders paying top dollar then the 33% thing is all possible and that would be a sustainably well run club.
The question is will the cash run out before they get to that stage being current annual turnover looks like it is only around £20m max, minus the IPO cash.