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.
wottpi says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 20:22
Delayed ‘get out’ on the anniversary just popped up on the recent trades for RIFC.
Date Time Trade Prc Volume Buy/Sell Bid Ask Value
14-Feb-13 13:53:47 75.00 100,000 Sell* 79.00 80.00 75.00k
——
Also, someone else sold 5 shares for £3.96 today. Not sure if I can take much more of this big business.
(why do most of the trade lists show “Sell” for entries, with only the occasional “Buy”. Is that because the sale is instigated by the seller, i.e. he offers his shares for sale?)
Forgive my excitement, I know its only a short term deal, but, Armageddon……..I’m lovin it!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21500866
paranoidmotherwellfan says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 21:48
Hopefully will get some bums on seats
Hope so, a calculated gamble given the increment in prize money for finishing 2nd is almost £1m. Should put a few hundred extra at least on tomorrow night, that Champions League is over-rated anyway!!!
angus1983 says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 21:47
I’m with you, it is as clear as mud.
Presumably when someone is selling, someone else is buying?
Some people have said the smaller ones are just dealers throwing shares around the place.
However larger ones like £75k worth must be someone doing a bit of real trading.
Could do with a bit of expert help here!!
The main thing is that the price will settle down to something that is below the 70p place price, so what do the institutional investors do then?
Early on folks said they would use their loses to off-set tax on other gains.
paranoidmotherwellfan says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 21:56
1 0 i
Rate This
Hope so, a calculated gamble given the increment in prize money for finishing 2nd is almost £1m. Should put a few hundred extra at least on tomorrow night, that Champions League is over-rated anyway!!!
_________________________________________________________________________
your excitement is tangible – and that’s a great wee shot in the arm for the game, as well as for your club
That is truly great news for ‘Well fans, and Scottish football in general. Faddy is a wonderfully gifted individual who will have us talking about the beautiful game in no time. I hope all the weans in Motherwell and surrounding area start greetin to their maw to get to Fir Park.
Thanks, it is. He’ll be well short of sharpness, but still more than enough ability to shine at this level. There is a link to the TRFC situation, James is so highly thought of by us because he was the beacon of hope during our dark days of Administration, and the money we got when he was sold allowed us to emerge from the other side with our unbroken history intact. And that was an administration like 99.9% of others, whereby costs were cut to the bone, unfortunately people lost their jobs, and the owner took a personal hit believed to be around £8m to allow the best deal for the other creditors. Compare and contrast with the D&P led shambles of the past 12 months.
neepheid says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 19:31
0 0 Rate This
—————————–
I am happy to acknowledge that Rangers Football Club are playing football in SFL3 this season. I am happy also to acknowledge that Rangers Football Club played in the SPL last year. This is easy for me really, because I recognise that Rangers Football Club is a brand name that has been bought & sold. This year, the Rangers FC brand is owned by TRFC Ltd. Last year the brand was owned by TRFC plc.
The club you consider to have survived liquidation is, to my mind, a manifestation of common brand loyalty.
No-one thinks the Rangers brand was extinguished when the original club ceased to operate. The brand continues with the new club. Simple really, because the new club bought the brand.
How the fans choose to show their support for the historic brand is, in some respects, a matter for them.
But…
If the fans cannot acknowledge that the brand they support now belongs to a different club, they will always feel aggrieved by the perceived injustice of a “demotion” to the bottom of Scottish football.
In reality The Rangers Football Club Ltd – as a new club using the newly purchased Rangers FC brand name – was granted a hugely advantageous “entry” into SFL3.
I honestly believe that it is only when the truth can be acknowledged by Rangers fans, that there can be recognition & thanks for the enormous efforts that were made to keep their brand alive.
Psychologically, it’s a big ask for them; but if we all choose to accept the most obvious of lies, where does it end?
ACo owns assets and uses these to carry out its business. It becomes insolvent, is in debt to creditors that it cant afford, and so can no longer carry on. BCo comes along – if BCo wants the full company, it can buy it, but will be liable for that full company’s debts (CW).
Alternatively it can buy some or all of the constituent assets of the business, and then reform those constituent assets into its own business, but not be liable for the companys debts (CG). Often these new businesses appear no different because they are just about the same assets, set up in a similar way to do a similar thing.
It cant happen both ways – a business cannot carry on completely and totally as before whilst losing all responsibility to pay its debts to its creditors. It necessarily must set the assets up slightly differently – to avoid falling foul of legislation on ‘phoenixing’.
The continuing club theory holds that a ‘club’ in this sense is something which continues unaffected by such events. I agree that ‘something’ continues, which the fans are entitled to call ‘their club’ if they so wish. I simply take the view that they must ignore company law, insolvency law and the applicable football administrative rules to do so.
If it were my club? Who knows? Maybe I’d move onto different ground and argue otherwise, but I doubt it. I would know I wouldn’t be right.
“For me it is arrogance to assume, that had RFC not acted in that way, then CFC would be the main or only beneficiaries.”
__________________________
Come on scapaflow, FFS this is what I call fuzzy thinking. If the Rangers weren’t the League winners it invariably was Celtic who won the title, this is not arragance but a fact – that is if you .
As dryhope says “If we set a precedent that cheating results in no one winning – the game is finished”.
Remember this, For ‘The Rangers’ preventing Celtic, amongst others, from winning the title is rated as highly as winning the title themselves. Whether this is achieved by cheating is academic as far as they are concerned.
So Scapaflow, your wish that the titles that are to be stripped are not awarded would suit The Rangers very nicely and prove that cheating does pay, thank you very much. .
Hirsute – that’s interesting. Until now we’ve had the club vs company distinction. Now we have club vs brand. From what you are saying the brand is a commodity that can be bought and sold. I get it from a fan perspective but from a company perspective are there not implications re “Goodwill”? Can a brand be shifted on free of previous indiscretions?
bailemeanach says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 22:40
0 0 Rate This
Hirsute – that’s interesting. Until now we’ve had the club vs company distinction. Now we have club vs brand. From what you are saying the brand is a commodity that can be bought and sold. I get it from a fan perspective but from a company perspective are there not implications re “Goodwill”? Can a brand be shifted on free of previous indiscretions?
————————————————-
http://mg.co.uk/about-mg/history-heritage/
Parson St. Bhoy says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 20:48
10 0 Rate This
Handshake banking?
—————————————————————————————————————-
Gavin Masterton there ‘s a name.
Wee scenario from the middle 90’s.
Gavin’s phone rings and Gavin answered “Hello Hello”
“Hi Gavin, David her can you lend me even more millions”
“Nae bother David I will just add it to the loads and loads of millions you already owe the Bank. Who will I make it out to? MIH or your wee club”
David “Whatever leave it up to you pal”
All other SPL clubs (apart from the bunnet’s team) “Hi Gavin are we all still ok with our overdraft”
Gavin ” well not really have to tighten up on that”
SPL clubs “why”
Gavin “Got to help wee govan team win trophies as owed some money from them
A few years later (early oo’s) Gavin calls David “Hi David moving away from bank going to build football stadia, can you provide any steel”
David “Nae bother pal”
Funny how things stink and corruption stinks even more at the highest level.
Mr Cummings got stung through Operation Hornet yet gavin sems to have pulled off a bigger sting scott free. So far..
Parson St. Bhoy says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 20:48
11 0 Rate This
Handshake banking?
http://scottishlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/media-investigation-reveals-bank-of.html
BANK HANDS EX-BOSS £12 MILLION WITH 35 YEARS BEFORE HE PAYS A PENNY
FEBRUARY 3 2013 The Mail on Sunday
By Andrew Picken
THE Bank of Scotland agreed a £12 million loan deal to a company owned by its former managing director which allows it to skip repayments for the next 35 years …
—————–
Now there’s a novelty, someone involved in football getting a loan that doesn’t really have to be paid back in his lifetime 😀
peterjung1 says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 14:40
Can someone please help me out here and clarify one thing:
• UEFA Licence requirements state that before a club can participate in any UEFA competition then they must be able to present three years of audited accounts – yes?
—————————————————————-
No > I posted this yesterday.
A club has to be a member of its parent association for three years. Here is my reading based on the SFA statement at
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10252
which is that The Rangers gained membership to SFA 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.
I’d like to see McFadden back playing in Scotland, but is there not a rule against playing for three different clubs in the same season?
Carl31 (@C4rl31) says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 22:31
The primary responsibility of administrators is to save The Company, they do that by paying it’s debts or by agreeing a CVA with it’s creditors. If they fail to do that then The Company will have it’s assets liquidated to pay the creditors and it will be wound up.
Once the CVA has failed then the administrators responsibility is to get the best result for The Creditors, The Company is dead and the administrator is no longer responsible for saving it. They can’t, it’s dead.
There is no point at which The Business (as carried out by the company) should be a consideration in and of itself. It is The Company first, and on failure to save that The Creditors.
This is exactly what Duff and Phelps did not do. Their motivation all along seems to have been to try to keep The Business going. Every action they took seems to have been aimed at achieving that. Nothing they did seems to have been to get the best result for The Creditors. They knew all along there was no way to save The Company, there was never going to be a CVA and the business model with the players and contracts they had was unsustainable.
Hirsute, yes a very high profile example
The internet appears to be awash with self help guides for scam artists, judging by my cursory 5min google search on “liquidation goodwill” but I’m a bit naive on these matters!
Can your good self or other contrinutors square up the following with the recent events at rangers
_______________________________________________________
“Is phoenixism legal and if so what is the process?”
Yes, phoenixism is legal – provided the rules are observed and the liquidator maximises the interests of creditors, the business assets can be sold to a “connected party”. In this event the liquidator must satisfy himself that he/she has
•Obtained the best possible value for the assets. Having typically advertised the assets for sale in the media and or on the internet.
•Ensured the creditors interests are not compromised, by investigating the conduct of the directors prior to the liquidation.
•Confirmed that the trading name of the new company is not the same or similar to the liquidated company.
(Although this restriction on re-use of a trade name can be lifted if the court agrees).
__________________________________________________________________________
Apologies I’m a bit out of my depth with this stuff
Senior says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 22:35
Fuzzy thinking, I don’t think so, no. My point is that the additional money that Rangers were able to spend thanks to their little wheeze, distorted the entire league, indeed the entire Scottish game. It is simply impossible to unpick all the consequences. I’m arguing that whether people like it or not, the entire game was corrupted by the actions of one club.
Letting the titles lie unallocated will serve both as a testament to the wrong doing, the servile ineffectiveness of the governing bodies, and as a permnament reminder to never let it happen again.
Ignore last post please,
liquidators are just warming up!
D-oh
David Murray bought the club for 6 million in November 1988. He bought Lawrence Marlborough’s shareholding – and, with it, control of the club.
So you can buy a club and sell a club. The club and company are one and the same.
wottpi says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 12:10
Neepheid
Spanishcelt
I make running costs this year around £22m and Income £15M based on historical data and info from Prospectus and published ticket info. They had £4m in the bank to start with so should be £3M short this season
(£15-£22)+£4) and £10m (£3 + (£15-£22) the end of next if they do not cut costs or draw on IPO money.
The licensing process should clarify their position.
Scapa
I don’t wish to jump the gun re LNS, but on balance I am in agreement with you. In practical terms there are too many incalculable permutations
And the permanent reminder of wrongdoing would be a fitting legacy
@pau1888: http://t.co/zZnIjeTy And there it is sevco. rangers go under.
Is that FIFA on the banned list also?
Daily Record says Green told the board he will quit unless Malcolm Murray is ousted.
Must be a serious fallout
I dont really have any issues with a rangers fan still insisting that the club is the same club/history intact etc.
I dont believe they are factually correct but i can sympathise with the position they are in.
If celtic had died, commercially, back in 1994 would that have stopped us fans that believing celtic were more than a company? No, it would not. In many ways the problems of the club at that time brought home to roost the passion we had for the club and insolvancy rules be damned we would not have given up what was our heritage because a bank said so.
I see the same things at rangers now… well its almost the same thing…actually its nothing like the same thing…in fact nothing much changed at all
Celtic ran up debts that were not sustainable with their current business model. IE the fans were not turning up. They were but they were not going inside. They were opposed to the idea this was the best they could expect from the “owners”. They would not accept the “owners” right to run their club with no questions asked. They forced the issue. They forced throught the change necessary to save their club and see it prosper.
Rangers ran up debts that were not sustainable. They relied on csh injections from wealthy business men when the football bubble seemed invincible. Laterly they relied on DM ability to borrow from BoS to do as he pleased. Im no financial whizz but i remember CQN saying from around 2004 maybe before that there was something rotten in denmark.
In the end DM ignored his own board, ignored the private detective report that said CW had no real money and ignored the sapart of the same report that CW had a history withholding tax at creditors expense. He sold for £1 if you believe the media…how generous how benevolant. Except DM did not sell for anything near £1. If i could have bought rangers for £1 ignoring my own biases, i would have seen that as the most sensible business deal i woud ever come accross. Ok Mooby, on one hand we have a £1 scrtchcard that can win up to £50k or take the gamble on a fotball stadium that can attract 50000 people paying £25 a ticket every second week?
Lost my way a bit here, so lets get down to the teaching moment. IF you do not learn from the mistakes of the past you are doomed to repeat them.
I dont have any clue who said that first (BRTH help me out?). I know its true though. Balls to Bones. I Know this. If i teach my kids one thing, its this. Mistakes are ok. Mistakes are good. Mistakes are necessary but what do you need to do with them? Has seaseme street done an episode on this?
CG may do everything he says he will at rangers. I have no reson to doubt him other than similar claims made by people in his position before.
The press may tell you he is “rangers fergus mccan” but will ignore that Fergus let celtic fans purchase shares in the club at the same price he bought them. Cg got shares at 1p in 70.
500m fans, Man U want us, The world outraged at how we have been treated. Best balance sheet in scottish football, institutional investors. I will tell you everyone’s names, some of their names. Total transparancy, fund managers in control of the investments so no individual names, . No links between CW, well some links, he intoduced me to D&P. dont deal with ticketus but have heard of octopus as have some of my friends who are potentially threatening a winding up order against us for not paying a bill…which we dispute…make sure we dispute this one.
Someone unkind, may accuse the person who made the above statements of being “moonstruck” a symptom of which is talking in “moombeams”
My point which i now see i should have made 9 paragraphs ago is this: Scottish football needed to punish rangers for what happened. If it did not then what would rangers have learned? They would be doomed to repeat their mistakes.
What have rangers learned?
They’re not are they?
You’re kidding me…?
Well i told my kids how this ends!,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/feb/19/margaret-hodge-tax-avoidance-treasury-loss
Margaret Hodge, the former Labour minister, said rich businessmen designing the schemes were “running rings” around HMRC.
Hodge said HMRC only knows about 46% of tax avoidance schemes, and that if HMRC does track down a scheme that breaks the rules the promoter calls in barristers to plead that it had a “reasonable excuse” for not disclosing the scheme in order to escape a fine.
At the hearing she named QCs Jonathan Peacock, Rex Bretten, Andrew Thornhill and Giles Goodfellow as “the guys who prostitute themselves to these schemes”.
peterjung1 says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 14:40
Can someone please help me out here and clarify one thing:
• UEFA Licence requirements state that before a club can participate in any UEFA competition then they must be able to present three years of audited accounts – yes?
—————————————————————-
No > I posted this yesterday.
A club has to be a member of its parent association for three years. Here is my reading based on the SFA statement at
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10252
Thanks Auldheid for the clarification. So this then begs the questions why there has been so much reporting of the alleged need for 3 years audited accounts…..
However, this still means that going straight into the SPL was NOT possible?
As was going to SFL1 and then getting promotion to SPL within one year?
Presumably they would have to be in SFL1 for three years to meet the membership criteria?
Or I am missing something?
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 00:37
Link /source?
peterjung1 says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 01:14
There was a lot of confusion between licensing and membership criteria.and the former to be used depended on where Rangers would end up SPL or SFL.
You are right that they could not have got a club licence for the SPL on two counts. One as a new club in UEFA;s eyes the did not have 3 years membership to even enter the process, but this got confused by the need to provide a set of audited accounts for the year leading up to the licence. Thus they were not eligible for consideration under the 3 year association membership ruling but would have failed on account of not having audited accounts.
Quite how the SFA thought they could get around this latter hurdle with an SPL parachute I do not know unless they wanted to apply for an exception on Rangers behalf..
Having ruled out the SPL, the licensing rules to apply were National Club Licensing and three years accounts are required to be provided when a club is being licensed but because the same underlying principles apply the 3 years accounts rule became the easy to understand reason for Rangers not being granted entry into UEFA competition.
There is more here if you have the time to read
http://www.celticunderground.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=916:club-licensing-whats-the-point&catid=47:season-2011-2012&Itemid=83
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 01:56
…There is more here if you have the time to read
http://www.celticunderground.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=916:club-licensing-whats-the-point&catid=47:season-2011-2012&Itemid=83
Thanks again… excellent article……
nowoldandgrumpy says: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 00:37
Daily Record says Green told the board he will quit unless Malcolm Murray is ousted…
======================
Haven’t read the story – but assuming this is true, which when Charlie is concerned everything has to be taken with the proverbial ‘bucket’ of salt…
The law of the jungle states (?) that if a CEO threatens to resign if the Chairman is not ousted is rather unusual – and if true – means that the CEO himself is on borrowed time.
Personally, I don’t buy it as reported.
The DR – I believe – has not always reported accurately in the past… 🙄
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 23:13
————————————————-
wottpi says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 12:10
Neepheid
Spanishcelt
I make running costs this year around £22m and Income £15M based on historical data and info from Prospectus and published ticket info. They had £4m in the bank to start with so should be £3M short this season
(£15-£22)+£4) and £10m (£3 + (£15-£22) the end of next if they do not cut costs or draw on IPO money.
—————————————————-
Do the running costs include a potential bill to Orkit [£400,000] and stadia repairs? It does look like money is too tight to mention.
Are CG and AMc not due bonus payments of c £300,000 if TRFC get promotion? Okay may be put on hold if league construction does not play out in the Club’s favour.
Without a credit line (if that position is still true) I cannot see another option other than dipping into the IPO proceeds to balance the books.
Re the CG ,MM rumoured fall out .
I think Guidi reported on it last week then there was a rumour of MM looking for a meet with DD over at CP .
All hearsay I know but could the two be connected . Could MM have discovered something amiss re the share issue .
The date for the money to have been counted has not long passed and again rumours were abound about the final figure . If these rumours have any substance this could turn sour very quickly and no matter what your club allegiances ,if £5.5m of football fans money has been swallowed up with no benefit to the football club then that can only be bad for our game .
I am no fan of the club in it’s present form but it will no doubt have a bearing on the next entity .
Green and Murray fall out.
http://bit.ly/Xq3iL1
Whilst the paper says that Green appointed Murray I think he was placed in position to look after someone elses investment. Who could this be? My opinion.
StevieBC says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 05:43
……………………………………………………
If true it is strikingly similar to the old Rangers under Craig Whyte who ousted directors who had the dangerous position of finding out what he was up to…
Or it could just be JT feeding his mince to friends at the Record..
Has his removal been reported to Companies House?
Why would Cenkos be ordering CG and MM to have talks to sort it out?
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 08:46
Why would Cenkos be ordering CG and MM to have talks to sort it out?
====
This seems very odd indeed. Working to someone elses instructions? Octopus?
Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 08:16
Green and Murray fall out.
,,,,,,,,,,,,
Nope
We are dealing with a Spiv and a Gentleman
Spivs never tell the whole truth
Gentlemen never use the gutter press
So this story was leaked by Green for a reason
He is either looking for an excuse to get out and if so will exit fairly soon
Or the Spiv Directors have decided to force out Murray
Its that simple
goosygoosy says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 08:56
Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 08:16
Green and Murray fall out.
,,,,,,,,,,,,
Nope
We are dealing with a Spiv and a Gentleman
Spivs never tell the whole truth
Gentlemen never use the gutter press
So this story was leaked by Green for a reason
He is either looking for an excuse to get out and if so will exit fairly soon
Or the Spiv Directors have decided to force out Murray
Its that simple
===========
I understand what you are saying but why would Green put Murray in place initially?
Long Time Lurker says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 06:27
10 0 i
Rate This
Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 23:13
————————————————-
wottpi says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 12:10
Neepheid
Spanishcelt
I make running costs this year around £22m and Income £15M based on historical data and info from Prospectus and published ticket info. They had £4m in the bank to start with so should be £3M short this season
(£15-£22)+£4) and £10m (£3 + (£15-£22) the end of next if they do not cut costs or draw on IPO money.
—————————————————-
The trouble with the £4m in the bank to start with is that that money had to come from somewhere.
Similarly the Orlit invoice points to Charles putting some pre-acquisition costs onto the clubs accounts.
Like Craig Whyte these guys never put their hand in their own pocket to buy the assets and then finance the club until the season ticket money came in. (other than Ahmad and Stockbriodge who were rewarded well for short term loans of small amounts).
In other words at some point people will be wanting their cash back.
Let us not forget that Ticketus were wanting their money pretty quick which lead to Whyte throwing in another season’s tickets as he couldn’t pay.
It all looks tight put I am guessing its a rob Peter to pay Paul exercise in the hope they can last long enough to get to the SPL with full season ticket prices etc.
Wottpi
The share issue money and its accessability is key to their solvency. Remove it or diminish the reported amount to any marked degree and their future looks grim without real cost cutting and ticket price rises.
Long Time Lurker
I did not include the Orlt £400k specifically yet. There is a bit of leeway in the figures to leave it out without changing the likely outcome.
They can survive ok with the share income as reported with a wage bill under control but with a squad better than any in SFL3 and SFL2. Would need to spend more to win SFL1 but they need to get the footballing departments act together with old Wattie doing the scouting. He has a good nose for the kind of player that makes a difference.
He just needs to stop looking down it at what they can now afford
Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 09:02
Don’t know the man from Adam but guessing Malcolm Murray was appointed as a ‘safe pair of hands’ being a businessman and pension fund manager with a long time love for the club but no connection to the old regime.
As reported in the BBC in June last year
“I was hooked from that moment on and, as a supporter and season ticket holder, I have been – like all Rangers fans – utterly appalled by what has happened to the club.
“Those responsible for bringing the club to its knees should start by apologising to supporters who have been left to face the consequences.
“It is my firm intention to ensure high standards of transparency and probity are adopted and the club will be managed with a prudent long-term strategy avoiding the fiefdoms and excesses of the past.
“With that approach, I am sure that Rangers can look forward to better days.”
My guess is that in seeking transparency and probity Murray’s first hurdle has been Charles and his mates.
Who will do ‘walking away’ first?
iceman; scapaflow
I remain firmly of the opinion that any stripped titles remain unallocated. The permanent reminder that Rangers officially cheated for five titles stains the name on every other title they ever achieved, legally or not.
On the subject of prize money…I take the point. If money is ever recovered (ahem) perhaps that should be divided equally amogst the rest of the league that were cheated rather than assuming this team would have been 2nd, 3rd , 4th whatever. It will be a moot point I suspect.
Followers of this blog, will know I have been poking a stick at Malcolm Murray for a number of weeks. He cannot view Greens showboating as anything other than deeply embarrassing. Yet he has said nothing publicly.
He has not cautioned investors or potential investors to disregard, or even be wary of, Green’s claims that the value of Rangers will rise from £45 million to £500 million in only 5 years. For someone with Murray’s business history, these claims are scandalous, and his silence does him no credit.
We are all aware of football fans spending a disproportionate percentage of their income on their club. However in general that relates to eating into their weekly or monthly earnings to attend matches. The risk now is that someone might use life savings or remortgage to put in a much more substantial sum, on the promise of earning 12 times their money in only 5 years.
Malcolm Murray, cannot and should not have this on his conscience. He needs to distance himself from the wild claims made by Green. He needs to make it clear that there is no prospect whatsoever of these types of increases in shareholder value unless the club was playing in the Champions League and the English Premier League .
Green achieved nothing on any front for Rangers, until McCoist came out and endorsed the season ticket sales campaign. I would be absolutely astonished if there wasn’t a 3 way conversation between Malcolm Murray, McCoist and Walter Smith on what to do about the “Green Problem”
Green will know his and is getting his retaliation in first
Auldheid says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 09:44
Wottpi
The share issue money and its accessability is key to their solvency. Remove it or diminish the reported amount to any marked degree and their future looks grim without real cost cutting and ticket price rises.
—————————————————————————————————————————–
As discussed yesterday it is not easy to see where cost cutting can be achieved. Everyone who transferred over will have Tuped contracts. It is only the likes of Alexander and those on short term deals who can be dumped, but you still have to replace them thus the wage bill stays in the same ball park. The number of injuries has show the current squad is not robust so additional numbers wouldn’t go amiss.The youngesters are all being signed up on longer term deals so thats them on the payroll unless the gamble pays of and someone comes looking to buy them for ‘big money’.
With full operations ongoing at Ibrox and Murray Park they still need to pay all the costs associated with that. Maybe they can makes cuts somewhere but the biggies are still the security, utlitly bills and council tax etc.
As opposed to cost cutting they are going to put monies into projects that will require additional running costs and no immediate return in terms of income to investment. They may bear fruit in the future but hwo long will that be.
Ticket prices can go up for Div 2 next seaon but how much will the Bears be willing to pay since it is still third tier.
For me it is all a bit tight and I can see the share issue money (if it does existin in hard cash) being burned up. If they pull of the balancing act them fair play to them but I don’t see any safety net this time if they fall.
First Juve and now Wales.
Have training ground – will hire.
What for the Moses/Cooper leisure and theme park- weddings, birthday parties and bar mitzvahs 🙂
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/charles-green-says-world-cup-1717114
killiemad says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 09:48
……………………………………………………
As a Celtic fan I agree with you, you cannot re-alocate to other clubs.
I for 1 would not wish to accept a title or a cup trophy based on the winner having cheated.
On the finances, yep there is a claim against the SPL for monies lost…and the SPL in turn have a claim against the Old Rangers for monies given.
killiemad says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 09:48
I remain firmly of the opinion that any stripped titles remain unallocated. The permanent reminder that Rangers officially cheated for five titles stains the name on every other title they ever achieved, legally or not.
======================================
ok, but they were cheating for 10 years….so what about those years where they didn’t win the title? do the teams who were robbed of 2nd place and a shot at the CL not get any recognition?
Simply enough, they cheated
the results should be overturned and the league adjusted to reflect them finishing last in each of those 10 years
everyone should be bumped up a place – and if that means Celtic have 10 in a row, then so be it.
But that is NOT a punishment, that is simply a consequence.
Next, we need to look at how much money the SPL rewarded them with for their finishing place….that money needs to be handed back……not a punishment, a consequence
I would hope UEFA also looked at the CL/EL money the received and ask for it back as well.
then the club/company/ethereal entity needs to be fined or suspended/expelled for it’s actions
the 5 titles awarded to celtic can have a little * next to them stating that Celtic were the runners up and were awarded the title due to an unprecedented level of cheating by RFC – as a celtic fan, i can live with that * next to our title explaining the wrong doing that season – it’ll serve as a reminder for all the cheating that went on that year and how it proved fruitless
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 10:07
Lets not start adding * next to titles that just starts another argument about how many you put on the jerseys above the badge 🙂
wottpi says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 10:03
First Juve and now Wales.
Have training ground – will hire.
What for the Moses/Cooper leisure and theme park- weddings, birthday parties and bar mitzvahs
———————————————————————
Wonder how Ex scotland Manager walter feels about that?
Or Scotland “legend” McCoist
I wonder how Davie Cooper would feel about that, he played for Scotland against Wales the night Stein died……knowing Cooper, he’d be delighted.
Once again, CG playing to the crowd…..not long now before the wheels come off the bus…he has promised accounts (unaudited) in 2 weeks, renaming, shirt sponsors, kit sponsors….LNS is due out too according to him, WUO from angry creditors and fall outs with chairmen with resignation threats……all ending pretty soon.
wottpi says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 10:14
0 0 Rate This
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 10:07
Lets not start adding * next to titles that just starts another argument about how many you put on the jerseys above the badge
—————————————-
would be hilarious if celtic put 5 * on their strip to indicate the 5 “stolen” titles!!!
a bit like Juve (cheating scum) and their 30 on the pitch slogan under their badge, celtic could have 5 titles stolen under their badge!
there would be war!!
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 10:07
Once again, CG playing to the crowd…..not long now before the wheels come off the bus…he has promised accounts (unaudited) in 2 weeks, renaming, shirt sponsors, kit sponsors….LNS is due out too according to him, WUO from angry creditors and fall outs with chairmen with resignation threats……all ending pretty soon.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Yes was going to wait until tomorrow to ask Brenda if she could bring out her clock for counting down the time to and then past the announcement for the shirt and kit sponsorship deals.
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/celtic/214554-financial-distribution-model-for-scottish-league-reconstruction-revealed/
The team finishing top of Scotland’s second tier stands to make at least £319,000 more than present under plans to restructure the country’s football leagues.
The financial distribution model for the 12-12-18 plan has been revealed by Kilmarnock in a document released to supporters, as the SPL and SFL attempt to push forward their proposal in time for next season.
It shows the teams finishing in the top two positions in the top flight will stand to lose a near-combined £1m, sides finishing third to eighth taking a small hit, and teams from places nine to 24 in the country standing to make more cash.
It is not yet clear whether the bulk of finance will be allocated to clubs based on their positions in the top two leagues at the end of the first phase of the season, or on their final placings at the end of the campaign.
Teams from positions 25 to 42 under the new system stand to make no additional money than at present. The winner of the “National League”, would make £54,000, the same amount the team currently finishing fifth in the Second Division earns.
Provision is made in the proposals for any additional revenue made by the league to be redistributed in three stages.
The first extra £900,000 made by the league would be given to the clubs participating in the “Play-off 8” league, with the winners gaining an additional £200,000 and the bottom club adding £25,000 to their total.
The next £200,000 made over and above the initial £900,000 would be distributed evenly amongst the bottom 18 clubs, with each gaining an additional £11,100.
If a further £900,000 is made, it will be divided between the “Premiership 8”, with the season winners adding £200,000 and the team finishing eighth gaining £25,000.
The current SPL stands to surrender a total of £1,309,000 in total prize money, with £1,751,000 reallocated to the nation’s next 12 clubs.
FINANCIAL DISTRIBUTION BREAKDOWN
New model
The proposal shown by Kilmarnock highlights two possible distribution amounts, presumably based on discussions currently being held over TV and sponsorship deals. The percentages remain the same.
This example uses the current SPL prize pot of £17,965,000 per season.
Premiership
1 £2,405,000 (-£315,000)
2 £1,718,000 (-£682,000)
3 £1,460,000 (-£60,000)
4 £1,289,000 (-£71,000)
5 £1,203,000 (-£77,000)
6 £1,117,000 (-£83,000)
7 £1,057,000 (-£63,000)
8 £1,005,000 (-£35,000)
9 £988,000 (+£28,000)
10 £902,000 (+£22,000)
11 £816,000 (+£16,000)
12 £730,000 (+£10,000)
Championship
13 £387,000 (+£319,000)
14 £344,000 (+£277,000)
15 £301,000 (+£235,000)
16 £258,000 (+£193,000)
17 £241,000 (+£177,000)
18 £189,000 (+£121,000)
19 £172,000 (+£111,000)
20 £155,000 (+£95,000)
21 £137,000 (+£78,000)
22 £120,000 (+£63,000)
23 £103,000 (+£47,000)
24 £86,000 (+£31,000)
National League
25 £54,000
26 £53,000
27 £51,000
28 £50,000
29 £49,000
30 £48,000
31 £47,000
32 £45,000
33 £44,000
34 £43,000
35 £42,000
36 £40,000
37 £39,000
38 £38,000
39 £37,000
40 £36,000
41 £34,000
42 £33,000
ADDITIONAL REVENUES
The first £900,000 made will be distributed as follows amongst “Championship 8” clubs at the end of phase two.
1 £200,000
2 £175,000
3 £150,000
4 £125,000
5 £100,000
6 £75,000
7 £50,000
8 £25,000
The next £200,000 made in additional to the base distribution would be distributed amongst “National League” clubs on an even basis, with each club making £11,100 more.
The next £900,000 made will be distributed as follows amongst “Premiership 8” clubs at the end of phase two.
1 £200,000
2 £175,000
3 £150,000
4 £125,000
5 £100,000
6 £75,000
7 £50,000
8 £25,000
For every £1,000,000 made over and above this amount, it will be distributed based on league positions as follows.
1 £134,000
2 £96,000
3 £81,000
4 £72,000
5 £67,000
6 £62,000
7 £59,000
8 £56,000
9 £55,000
10 £50,000
11 £45,000
12 £41,000
13 £22,000
14 £19,000
15 £17,000
16 £14,000
17 £13,000
18 £11,000
19 £10,000
20 £9,000
21 £8,000
22 £7,000
23 £6,000
24 £5,000
25 £3,000
26 £3,000
27 £3,000
28 £3,000
29 £3,000
30 £3,000
31 £3,000
32 £3,000
33 £2,000
34 £2,000
35 £2,000
36 £2,000
37 £2,000
38 £2,000
39 £2,000
40 £2,000
41 £2,000
42 £2,000
Poor Bill Jnr has upset the peepil.
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=247588
He dared suggest Alex Thompson is not working for Opus Dei! Reminded me of this classic moment……….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEdb46IrFDk
wottpi @ 10:24
🙂 clock ready if required 🙂 totally last track of everything else so glad to be of service 🙂
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 10:45
————————–
The proposed distribution model is much better that the previous one but I still think the proportion awarded to the top team is still too high..
The distribution model in the EPL is much more equitable. The top team down south earns approx. 1.6 times that of the bottom team. The corresponding figure for the SPL is 3.8 and only reduces to 3.3 under the proposed model.
As the STV article points out it is not clear who will get the 9th to 12th money i.e is it after the split or at the end of the season.
* lost not last 🙂
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 08:46
Why would Cenkos be ordering CG and MM to have talks to sort it out?
====
Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 08:56
This seems very odd indeed. Working to someone elses instructions? Octopus?
===================================================================
Cenkos are the NOMAD for Rangers International and are responsible to AIM and investors to ensure that the AIM rules and regulations are adhered to and that proper governance is exercised. Obviously the NEDS also have legal responsibilities as well.
For a newly launched company to be having such a major boardroom spat must potentially terrify institutional investors who are locked-in for 6 months.
It does raise an interesting point over the reported threat of Green walking unless Murray is removed. Currently Green’s 5+ million share are locked-in for a year as a director. If he resigns does the lock fly-off and allow him to sell his shares?
Ok looks like we are back to Kremlin watching when it comes to dicerning whats going on within the Ibrox bunker.
Mr Murray was clearly brought on board to reassure the fans and other potential investors at a time when Mr Green was viewed with agreat deal of mistrust. I am sure his presence went a long way towards persuading investors to take a punt on Rangers. I am studiously avoiding using the phrase “Institutional Investors” as in this case, I think that is misleading.
There is a qualitative difference between the managers of Institutuion A deciding on behalf of thier clients that Rangers is a good investment opportunity for their clients money, and, clients instructing the mangers to place some of their money in Rangers. I would go so far as to argue that the difference between the two is such, that other investors really deserve to know which it is, as I am sure that the “Institutional Investment” would have encouraged other small investor to take part in the belief that it was the former.
Since then Mr Green has gone out of his way to play to the gallery, (he reminds me of one those great characters from the barras, who would extol the virtues of their tea towels with ever more extravagant claims until the housewives parted with their cash). In recent days we have seen Mr Paul Murray very carefully suggesting that the rhetotic needs to be turned down several notches, bridges need to be built, and an end has to be brought to the culture of victimhood, (I’m prarphrasing here, but stripped of the code that was the gist) In effect, reversing Mr Green’s strategy.
Before coming out so publicly, (all be it very midly), is it likely that Mr Paul Murray would have talked with the Chairman? I think it would, and the Chairman’s appearance on SKY should probably be seen in that light.
Where does this leave us? Possibly at the beginning of a power struggle between the decent Ranger’s men and the men with the wee white bricks. If that is so, then who wins will define not just the culture of this new incarnation of Rangers, but also in large measure the sort of footballing culture we have.
Barca is right to keep poking the Chairman, having disagreements in public may not have been the old Rangers way, but transparency needs to be the only way for the new Rangers. Though the Chairman may be mindful of the end of the Emperor’s New Clothes story, the bit that isn’t talked about, where the wee boy gets torn to bits by the mob for making them all look stupid.
Killiemad.
“I remain firmly of the opinion that any stripped titles remain unallocated. The permanent reminder that Rangers officially cheated for five titles stains the name on every other title they ever achieved, legally or not.”
_______________________________
paulmac
“I for 1 would not wish to accept a title or a cup trophy based on the winner having cheated.”
________________________________
All very well for killiemad to suggest that titles remain unallocated, but if your club was cheated out of seven or eight SPL titles I’m sure you would have a different song to sing. What’s the big deal about awarding the title to the rightful winners anyway. I suspect the reason why some people wish that no unfairly won title is allocated to the rightful winners is because they are afraid how the establishment club will react. It’s called indirect intimidation and it is working.
Paulmac, if you have cheated it is self-evident that you are not the winner.
As someone stated earlier, award three points on a three-nil scoreline to every club that played oldco in those unfortunate seasons. This will not require rocket-science and it will give the staff of the SPL an opportunity to restore some honour to their administration.
Otherwise the cheater has won the day.
easyJambo says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 11:42
2 0 Rate This
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 10:45
————————–
The proposed distribution model is much better that the previous one but I still think the proportion awarded to the top team is still too high..
The distribution model in the EPL is much more equitable. The top team down south earns approx. 1.6 times that of the bottom team. The corresponding figure for the SPL is 3.8 and only reduces to 3.3 under the proposed model.
As the STV article points out it is not clear who will get the 9th to 12th money i.e is it after the split or at the end of the season.
———————————————–
I agree EJ, however, the “top 2” are taking a sizeable hit implementing this new model
I suggest the model is tweaked over a number of years to then gradually reduce the money – making it more equitable over a period of 5 years (rather than a sharp shock)
after that……well, i guess we could look to start gradually sharing UEFA and gate money more equitably!
We might not all remember who was in 2nd Place when Ben Johnson cheated his way to gold (Carl Lewis) – but we all know that the 2nd place became, by default, the 1st placed after Johnson’s disqualification.
Tyler Hamilton, another cyclist found guilty of doping, had his titles re-assigned, but curiously, Lance Armstrong’s titles (according to the UCI) will not be re-assigned.
So, it appears there is precedent at least, for re-assignment or simply voiding of those results.
Whilst I’d like to see the second place team (in all likelihood, Celtic) get those titles. After all, if someone robs you, and the goods are eventually, returned, this is not punishment, but simply reimbursement.
Taking a more prosaic approach, I would suggest leaving the titles as unassigned but clearly indicating the reasons for it to ensure future readers of those statistics that there was only one team, not a division, to blame.
hangerhead
Getting ahead of yourself somewhat ?
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 12:37
That would be the sensible way to do it, and putting in place a 5 year project to deliver a distribution model more in line with the EPL, would probably go along way towards persuading the non spl clubs to vote for it.
Help!
How do you turn off the “Notify me of follow up comments via emal”?
I checked this in error last nght when I made a post and woke up with almost 100 emails n my phone! It is now driving me more than a little mad! Can someone please advise?
slimshady61 says:
Monday, February 18, 2013 at 19:56
HP
The key message from Heidi Poon with which most tax specialists would concur has nothing to do with whether the loans were real loans or not etc; it is simply to say,
“ignore the numerous inserted steps and ask yourself this question –
Messrs Red, White & Blue were each on a contract entitling them £16,900 per week;
what did they receive in total each week?”
If the answer is £16,900, then what they received is a contractual obligation liable to tax and NIC. It matters not what the ultimate source of those monies was since the original source was the employer.
That is the nub of the argument and one which it is more than likely the judge hearing the UTT will consider this autumn
=========================================================================
Correct. My take is that Thornhill took the two lawyers down the wrong track by stressing the legality of the Trusts,loans, structures etc and they bought it. Poon preferred to look at the evidence and what actually happened.
peterjung1 says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 12:45
log on to the blog, and un check the Noify box below the contibute to discussion box
easyJambo says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 11:42
If the top SPL club qualifies for the CL stages I suggest not paying out anything to them but put it in a solidarity fund to help distressed SPL clubs adjust their wage bills to sustainable levels using an agreed wage to normal turnover ratio..
As it stands this would cost Celtic £2.3M a season. If Celtic were to qualify for the CL for the next three years they would take in £15 to £20M for each season and the solidarity fund would be nearly £7M (assuming it was not drawn on of course).If Celtic or whoever fail to qualify they get the £2.3M SPL prize money.
By underpinning the SPL it reduces the risk of too many clubs going belly up and endangering the league and is the sort of measure that could save our game over the next 3 or 4 seasons.
£2.3M hardly buys the kind of player that guarantees taking a club beyond the group stages.
Alternatively the SFA approach UEFA and ask them for a £2.3M solidarity payment to Scottish football in addition to CL prize money because the UEFA CL distribution model contributed and continues to contribute to making our game even more uncompetitive with each passing year.
Senior says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 12:15
All very well for killiemad to suggest that titles remain unallocated, but if your club was cheated out of seven or eight SPL titles I’m sure you would have a different song to sing.
——
I quite agree. Therefore, I look forward to those seven or eight titles being awarded to Aberdeen.
We’ve been through all this before – it wouldn’t be fair to award those titles to anyone else. There are other factors involved, such as your team being on a downer after a beating by a potentially cheating RFC and this hanging over into the next game, or not paying attention in the game before because they have one eye on the visit of Rangers.
Rangers’ name should be left on the trophies but scored through. The record books should say something like “Rangers (title revoked)” with an explanatory note.
If they played illegally registered players, of course.
hangerhead says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 12:38
Tyler Hamilton, another cyclist found guilty of doping, had his titles re-assigned, but curiously, Lance Armstrong’s titles (according to the UCI) will not be re-assigned.
—————————————
why aren’t armstrongs titles being assigned to the runner up? because too many of the people who came behind him have also been guilty of cheating
simply enough…..in the case of cycling, the whole SPORT corrupt and they can’t assign it to someone who is clean.
not a great precedent really
Re: today’s Daily Record article on Green v Murray
When the Daily Record broke the story a couple of weeks ago there was absolutely no mention of the cause of the fall out. Since then our intrepid reporters have had more than enough time to investigate the rift, yet in today’s rag the mystery continues. If the so-called Ibrox insider is so eager enough to alert the hacks to the alleged breakdown then surely the first question to be asked is “What is it all about?”
I’ve no doubt Keith Jackson & Co do know but are keeping silent. I wonder if Mr Traynor is pulling the strings on this exclusive bombshell and telling his old Daily Record sidekick what to say – and what not to say? It will be interesting to see if any other media outlet (dare) publish details of the breakdown or attempt to interview the parties concerned.
Been away for a few days so grateful to the site for allowing me to catch up. Blimey there’s some high brow stuff in there! But thankfully Chris Graham provides some comedy too. Can I expect his balanced panel; Traynor, Hately and John Greig to be on radio this week then? I also loved how his quote then completely proved the point – the complete mirror image to the point he was actually trying to make.
What strikes me in the Killie model (financial distribution post restructure) was to re-emphasise how rediculous the rewards for coming second in the old SPL were especially when a situation existed where the top two were virtually guaranteed (and also holding veto power). I have no particular beef (horse?) with the winners getting a sizeable reward as long as an acknowledgement is built in regarding the potential riches that a win could potentially bring. Looking at it that way, I therefore don’t really follow the logic of the additional distributions (as described) being ranked in order of finishing place other than by perhaps a negligible amount. To be clear this is on the assumption that there is a sizeable enough distinction in the original prize distribution for all clubs to survive and to strive to finish as high as possible. The additional bonus is just that – a recognition of the overall success of the league as contibuted to by the 12-12 -18.
Can I ask though, am I right in thinking the first 900k goes to the bottom 8 of the SPL 1/2. The next 200k goes to the bottom 18, next 900k goes to the top 8 of the SPL1/2 with the following monies being distributed ‘down the line’. What’s the thinking behind missing out the middle 8?