Everything Has Changed

ByTrisidium

Everything Has Changed

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.

About the author

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

4,442 Comments so far

tomtomPosted on9:53 am - Feb 20, 2013


beatipacificiscotia says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 09:31

nowoldandgrumpy says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 09:05

beatipacificiscotia on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 08:54
——-
So if I only commit one type illegitimate act and no matter how often I knowingly commit that illegal act, it is only one wrong act and I should not face the full level of punishment?

Really?

++++++++++++++++++++

Yes, really. I’ve give you an example. I buy a greasy burger van and decide to sell some burgers. I sell 100 a day for a week, good business. I find out I should have a licence to sell hot food, but I don’t. Have I committed 700 offences for the 700 burgers? Or the single offence of not having a licence?

———————————-

Apples and Oranges.

If I sell food from an unlicensed van then I am commiting one offence. If I knowlingly sell burgers made from dodgy meat to 100 customers I will be charged with 100 counts of endangering public health. Rangers knowlingly concealed the evidence. To conceal the real terms and conditions of the contracts should be a different offence from actually playing players whilst improperly registered. There should be two separate charges. Whether there is or not I don’t know but in the circumstances of your burger van there would have been.

View Comment

jockybhoyPosted on9:54 am - Feb 20, 2013


Auldheid (@Auldheid) says: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 17:13

“I would not see it as a punishment but as a thank you award to the other clubs for providing the competition that enabled my club access to such riches. Without them where would we be?”
Surely it would be a thank you for them being poor competition? After all if they were good competitors maybe we’d have other teams in the Champignons’ League?

As I have posted time and again, I appreciate that Celtic as a club(/company) have greater revenue than others and I am 100% in favour of more equitable splits of prize/TV money, but this looks like some sort of windfall tax and seems to be treating Celtic as a special case. I don’t think that’s how rules should work. As a matter of personal philosophy I feel that if one group gets singled out for negative treatment they end up resenting it and there are problems down the line.

View Comment

stevensanphPosted on9:56 am - Feb 20, 2013


tomtomaswell:
Didn’t he pay just $1 for the ‘history’?!

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:05 am - Feb 20, 2013


It is all so familiar!!

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-257179948.html

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/bain-ducks-whyte-hook-1103855

tick toc – tick toc

View Comment

thebasharmilestegPosted on10:05 am - Feb 20, 2013


My view for what it’s worth on the stripping and potential re-award of titles.

Every Cup Final Rangers won should be awarded to the runner up.

In the first season in which Rangers fielded inelligible players – award the title to the runner up (presumably Celtic).

Thereafter, strip the titles and make no award.

From the second season of cheating onwards there are just to many variables and this gets worse with each succeeding season. For instance if it is assumed that Rangers would have been relegated at the end of the first season, then whoever would have been relegated would have stayed up. So there is a different mix of teams and games in the that season. In each subsequent season the theoretical make-up of the the SPL gets more removed from the actual. From that point onwards its a fantasy football league, and a fantasy title if it’s re-awarded.

But if titles are stripped I’m sure our football authorities will make no re-award due to their innate fear of the “public order” factor.

View Comment

jockybhoyPosted on10:29 am - Feb 20, 2013


So the Chairman of NewGers has been asked to step down following a couple of complaints to the board about his personal life by an unspecified fan – what’s the gen guys?

Did I miss something interesting? A smoking gun?

Is this a whole new set of fan empowerment whereby fans can force serious change at the upper reaches of marble staircases, oak-pannelled boardrooms in what were previously unassailable ivory towers?

That’s gotta be worth a “Wow, just wow” Shirley?

View Comment

tilhotdogsbarkPosted on10:30 am - Feb 20, 2013


thebasharmilesteg says:

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 10:05

Thereafter, strip the titles and make no award.

————————————

I do understand your argument about any retrospective adjustment to the results in the first season of cheating could have resulted in Rangers being relegated and therefore clouds the issue.

But the fact remains they were not relegated, they started every season in the SPL- you are introducing the fantasy when none exists.

Why should the loser retrospectively be awarded the title the first time the cheat acts, but subsequent losers miss out merely because the cheat has done it before- but was not caught?

View Comment

TartawulverPosted on10:32 am - Feb 20, 2013


From the Mail’s hatchet job on Murray
One report on Tuesday claimed Charles Green had threatened to quit unless Murray was removed, but sources insist this is not a power struggle between the outspoken chief executive – who is also the club’s largest shareholder – and the media-shy chairman.
——————————
Another PR coup to follow on from the Orlit story, the Traynor / Whyte cosy-up news, and the ‘ranting Matilda’ tour of Oz, added to a long list.

Murray has been seriously tarred and feathered in that article – “concerns were raised about his suitability for the role”; “complaints from supporters about Murray’s personal conduct”; “disquiet among senior figures at the club about where and when Murray has been discussing club business”; “dismayed by certain details”. Good job it’s nothing as serious as a power struggle then.

Murray has been very publicly humiliated in that article. “It remains to be seen if he will go quietly”. It does indeed.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:33 am - Feb 20, 2013


angus1983 says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 09:49

I asked whether the “Not Proven” verdict was available to LNS. If it is, would anyone be surprised if that was returned?
———————————————————————————————————-

The LNS enquiry is not being conducted under the criminal law of Scotland and therefore the Not Proven verdict is not available to it.

View Comment

rantinrobinPosted on10:34 am - Feb 20, 2013


Malcolm Murray asked to leave in interests of club?
Concerns about his personal conduct?

Dear ,dear I wonder who could have written that?

View Comment

angus1983Posted on10:44 am - Feb 20, 2013


ecobhoy says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 10:33

The LNS enquiry is not being conducted under the criminal law of Scotland and therefore the Not Proven verdict is not available to it.
——

Neither was the charge of bringing the game into disrepute brought against Mr Green at the start of the season by the SFA.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2566&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=10715

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on10:50 am - Feb 20, 2013


beatipacificiscotia on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 09:31
1 7 Rate This
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 09:05

beatipacificiscotia on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 08:54
——-
So if I only commit one type illegitimate act and no matter how often I knowingly commit that illegal act, it is only one wrong act and I should not face the full level of punishment?

Really?

++++++++++++++++++++

Yes, really. I’ve give you an example. I buy a greasy burger van and decide to sell some burgers. I sell 100 a day for a week, good business. I find out I should have a licence to sell hot food, but I don’t. Have I committed 700 offences for the 700 burgers? Or the single offence of not having a licence?

You many think that I should have known better, or maybe I did know better, but if I don’t admit it you can’t prove it.
———-

You would be fined for the number of days that you opened your van for selling your greasy burgers without the proper paperwork.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:05 am - Feb 20, 2013


On transfer of membership.

I was on the waiting list for the local golf club. Old Jimmy died. I got his membership. It was transferred to me because I was top of the list. I had waited my turn to be top of the list, and had been previously understanding when another potential member was placed ahead of me in the list, something to do with a risk to public order. They also had a recently deceased member’s membership place transferred to them. I am now a happy member. At no point did I, have I or will I ever become old Jimmy (god bless his tartan socks).

Its been discussed on here before that this was the risk of being scared to clarify the old club new club debate (and apologies in advance Mr Pink as I know you don’t want us to go there). Two clubs currently exist as has been said many times. This floaty cloudy thing, 11 men in blue etc etc that was is and always will be. At some point however, the formal being that is sevco/newco/rangersco needs to be acknowledged, whether its filling in forms, entering competitions or indeed having medals pinned to them having won same. The current feeling seems to be that if we call it a duck, teach it to swim, give it feathers and eventually introduce it to an orange and some brandy poeople will just accept it is a duck.

As a concept that’s fine, but I’ve just been drawn to play with Old Jimmy in a fourball and I’m none too pleased about it I can tell you!

Oh and on titles – IF GUILTY strip as a consequence, fine (or worse) as a punishment. My moneys increasingly on not proven right enough.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:08 am - Feb 20, 2013


It would appear that Malcolm Murray has three options.

1 He just accepts what appears to be the smear attack on his character and slinks of into the wild blue yonder. Thus leading people to assume the smear is either true or he just wants an easy life.
2.He admits he has a ‘problem’ and publicly apologies for any repercussions this has had on the club he loves.
3.He says it is all BS and fights back to clear his name.

Interesting times down Ibrox way.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:10 am - Feb 20, 2013


There is no doubt the wolves are out for Malcolm Murray. Apparently damaging personal allegations starting to be posted on the Darkside about him.

Seems as though his detractors are gambling on him going quietly but I think they may have misjudged the internet frenzy factor which may well force him to defend his reputation. Murray may resign but with frank interviews to clear his character which I would judge to be of extreme importance to him,

So if he goes then the parting shots could be very damaging although he may well walk away in silence because he loves his club deeply.

I see from media reports that this issue came up at the latest board meeting and apparently at two previous ones. I therefore wonder at the wisdom of Green recently announcing that, in a UK Plc first, board meetings were going to be televised on Rangers TV.

It certainly would have had peak viewing figures of Dallas proportions and might even have revealed who shot Malcolm Murray. I wonder how much pressure Board members may have felt faced with being televised on their Murray deliberations.

And what about the follow-up? Were poorly performing players going to be arraigned and harangued in front of future Board meetings and asked to confess their failings to the viewing bears who could decide their fate. A lot of pointers could be gleaned from North Korean State TV who are quite good at these public spectacles which would certainly be better viewing than some of the on-field performances in SFL3.

And what does Zeus Capital feel about Murray, apparently regarded as their ‘man’, being removed from the scene? Many, many questions but can the structured media leaks that will flow be trusted?

On past form I have no doubt as to the answer.

View Comment

bobcobb74Posted on11:11 am - Feb 20, 2013


So what exactly has Malcolm Murray done? I suspect that the answer to that may well be “his duty.” Barcabhoy posted recently about how Murray had a duty to shareholders and it would appear that he is being hung out to dry because he has attempted to meet his obligations. Has he asked Charles where this much vaunted £22m is, perchance? Or asked him to comply with rules and regulations by not exaggerating potential returns on investments or making up stories about commercial partnerships?

One could argue that Murray is the only man of importance at Rangers who has both the personal integrity and business acumen necessary to make a success of this new enterprise. It is also eerily reminicent of the Whyte era when any director who attempted to find out what was going on was forced out. I am beginning to think that the Sevco train is about to hit the buffers sooner than I originally thought.

“Who is in charge of the clattering train?
The axles creak and the couplings strain,
and the pace is hot and the points are near,
and sleep hath deadened the driver’s ear,
and the signals flash through the night in vain.
For death is in charge of the clattering train.”

View Comment

broganrogantrevinoandhoganPosted on11:23 am - Feb 20, 2013


Good Morning.

Interesting events concerning Malcolm Murray and interesting discussion about proper sanctions to be imposed by a governing body in the event of wrongdoing being uncovered and proven.

Yet this is not a local phenomenon as exactly how a governing body behaves in the face of seismic revelations may well be a very hot topic in coming months– and it may be that the SFA will need to stand up and be counted– a job which it might just not be equipped for going by recent events.

Whilst not absolutely on all fours with this morning’s news and discussions, there are striking similarities and comparisons to be made with our little local difficulties when considered with the events I discuss here.

http://wp.me/p1G95H-od

The Whitehouse Plumbers, Humpty Dumpty, Senator George McGovern and a trip to the Doctors and the Lawyers!

View Comment

rantinrobinPosted on11:25 am - Feb 20, 2013


Extract from an article in Telegraph, Roddy Forsyth, 4th July 2012

Rangers hopes of reprieve in SPL vote sunk by ‘arrogant’ Malcolm Murray
A presentation by the Rangers chairman, Malcolm Murray – described as “a disgrace” by one of those present – sank the last hopes of the newco club making a return to the Scottish Premier League at Hampden Park on Wednesday.

Own goal: one SPL chairman said of Malcolm Murray: “The arrogance was unbelievable. The atmosphere hardened immediately. Charles Green conducted himself well enough but the Rangers chairman was arrogant and dogmatic.”

The expectation beforehand within the SPL – shared by the Scottish Football Association – was that the outcome would be another deferral, leaving it to the Scottish Football League clubs to accept Rangers into their ranks and sparing the top division chairmen from a decision they did not want to make.
There were also some who hoped that Rangers would be able to make sufficient case – coupled with a clear and evident change of attitude – for their admission to the SPL.
However – and not for the first time in this saga – Rangers utterly misread the mood of the other SPL clubs. The faux pas occurred despite the fact that Rangers had been briefed at a meeting on Sunday attended by two other SPL chairmen and a vice-chairman, who stressed the need for humility.
Murray, in blazer and club tie, arrived at the gathering on Wednesday with the frontman for the Sevco consortium, Charles Green – who did not sport the club’s uniform – and Ally McCoist, the Ibrox manager. A presentation brochure was distributed to the delegates.
The back page featured a photograph of a Rangers title win with the words “We Are Rangers” emblazoned across it.

“The arrogance was unbelievable,” said one chairman. “The atmosphere hardened immediately. Charles Green conducted himself well enough but the Rangers chairman was arrogant and dogmatic.”
Another who was present told The Daily Telegraph: “Some people in the room wanted a reason
to make a case for Rangers but the standard of the presentation was woeful.
“Ally and Charles Green were not always on the same page but that was not damaging. The chairman was another matter entirely and the brochure was substandard – you could have easily knocked something better together given half an hour. It makes you wonder what kind of management team they have.”

Well there you go.Nice to look at the archives isn’t it.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:31 am - Feb 20, 2013


ecobhoy says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 10:33

The LNS enquiry is not being conducted under the criminal law of Scotland and therefore the Not Proven verdict is not available to it.
——
angus1983 says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 10:44

Neither was the charge of bringing the game into disrepute brought against Mr Green at the start of the season by the SFA.

————————————————————————————————————-

You asked a question I provided an answer in good faith – if you don’t accept it fine. I am not here to waste my time debating the cowardice and partiality diplayed by the SFA in interpreting their own rule book as it has been done to death.

View Comment

ismellafixPosted on11:33 am - Feb 20, 2013


“So if he goes then the parting shots could be very damaging although he may well walk away in silence because he loves his club deeply”.

Surely if he is unhappy at the shenanigans of the chief fabulist and loves the club, then the last thing he should do is walk away quietly.

He should be dragged away kicking and screaming warnings to all who will listen and try to bring about some sensible governance of this new entity.

View Comment

badgerbhoyPosted on11:46 am - Feb 20, 2013


Malcolm Murray has been asked to step down as Rangers chairman after concerns were raised about his suitability for the role.

————————————————————————————————————————

You’d think that these concerns would have been raised before he was appointed.

View Comment

kilbowiekeltPosted on11:49 am - Feb 20, 2013


I go shoplifting every day for ten years & when I am eventually arrested & charged, I admit to having committed the offence 5000 times.
I am sure I wlll be looked on sympathetically when I tell the judge that I have only commotted ONE offence….Shoplifting.
I am hoping he will understand, though some of these guys can be very unreasonable.

View Comment

angus1983Posted on11:51 am - Feb 20, 2013


ecobhoy says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 11:31

You asked a question I provided an answer in good faith – if you don’t accept it fine. I am not here to waste my time debating the cowardice and partiality diplayed by the SFA in interpreting their own rule book as it has been done to death.

—–

No probs. I’m sorry you think it’s a waste of time. Of course you’re correct in saying that LNS is not operating under Criminal Law.

There is precedent for a football governing body returning “Not Proven” verdicts (the most recent of which was rightly ridiculed at the time), so to say a verdict applied by the SFA is “not available” to an SPL enquiry appears to me to be wide of the mark.

Given that “not proven” offers the easiest way out for all concerned, I’m increasingly expecting that to be the outcome of LNS.

Mr Green would take it as an exoneration (as he did with his own NP verdict last year), everyone else would consider Rangers as good as guilty, and no-one would have to throw any sanctions into the Oldco/Newco/Rangers mire. No titles would be “stripped”.

This therefore offers the path of least resistance, and such a path is well trodden by the authorities.

View Comment

prohibbyPosted on11:53 am - Feb 20, 2013


wottpi says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 00:27
I notice a lot of talk about title stripping has been going on.
Given many a poster’s dissapointment at the FTTT result can we just let LNS provide us with a verdict before getting carried away with potential punishments.
_________________
Fair point wottpi, however, I don’t think there is any harm in letting the powers that be know of the intensity of feeling and disgust that is building up at the prospect of a possible whitewash or untoward leniency in dealing with what seems, very much, a prima facie case of prolonged and systematic cheating.

I also think the intensity of feeling and disgust that is evident in the posts on here is in danger of loosing impact by some fans harping on about the rights of their club(s) to be awarded what they see as rightfully theirs. Would our voice not be more difficult to dismiss or ignore if we say with a united and dignified voice that we, the fans of all clubs, are united in our demands for justice. We do so without self interest or seeking advancement in any way for the clubs we support.

The alternative, I fear, will look like posturing for a carve up, in some ways reminscent of the major powers carve up of Eastern Europe after WWII.

View Comment

jockybhoyPosted on11:54 am - Feb 20, 2013


Rantinrobin – I would have thought that arrogant and dogmatic were pre-requisites for the job of NewGers Chairman. I also don’t see why his wearing of the Gers management uniform is an issue, after all weren’t messgae oboards inundated with complaints when McCoist wasn’t suitable attired on the touchline?

But joking aside, I don’t see this as the problem: why would a “fan” need to have reported this to the board, Green (no love lost for Murray it seems) and cheeky chubby, sorry, cheeky chappie McCoist were both present. There is something that smells around here, and its not newly polished brown brogues!

View Comment

Martin Hutchison (@Squire_67)Posted on11:54 am - Feb 20, 2013


ismellafix says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 11:33

“Surely if he is unhappy at the shenanigans of the chief fabulist and loves the club, then the last thing he should do is walk away quietly.

He should be dragged away kicking and screaming warnings to all who will listen and try to bring about some sensible governance of this new entity.”

_____________________________________________________________________________

It all comes back to this issue of fear for your own personal safety. It seems to me that even if there are dodgy goings on at the top of the marble staircase behind the golden gates, goings on that would upset the bears in the extreme, then they would STILL see speaking about them to any ‘enemies’ as a bigger crime than anything a spiv can muster.

It’s all about perception to these people, in-club politics being kept in house is the prime objective.

All that said MM may be brave enough to do what he thinks is right a-la Hugh Adam (R.I.P)

View Comment

beatipacificiscotiaPosted on12:00 pm - Feb 20, 2013


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 09:51

beatipacificiscotia says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 09:31
0 2 Rate Down
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 09:05

beatipacificiscotia on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 08:54
——-
So if I only commit one type illegitimate act and no matter how often I knowingly commit that illegal act, it is only one wrong act and I should not face the full level of punishment?

Really?

++++++++++++++++++++

Yes, really. I’ve give you an example. I buy a greasy burger van and decide to sell some burgers. I sell 100 a day for a week, good business. I find out I should have a licence to sell hot food, but I don’t. Have I committed 700 offences for the 700 burgers? Or the single offence of not having a licence?

You many think that I should have known better, or maybe I did know better, but if I don’t admit it you can’t prove it.

==========================

i shoot one person dead on monday
1 on tuesday
1 on wednesday
175 on thursday

have i committed a single offence?

++++++++++++++++++++

No, you have committed 178 murders, but only one gun licensing offence (assuming the gun is unlicensed).

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on12:06 pm - Feb 20, 2013


ismellafix says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 11:33

Surely if he is unhappy at the shenanigans of the chief fabulist and loves the club, then the last thing he should do is walk away quietly.

He should be dragged away kicking and screaming warnings to all who will listen and try to bring about some sensible governance of this new entity.
——————————————————————————-

I think you have to look at time scales here as it appeared he would have been left in place until the summer and then gone quietly possibly citing health reasons and indeed the early Darkside comments yesterday – out of the blue so to speak – raised health issues although no one could provide details or evidence. The Record and Scotsman stories undoubtedly turned the heat up.

He is the guy who has been there from the very start, apparently at the behest of Zeus who put the original deal together, as chairman of TRFCL and then RIFC Plc. An ordinary supporter might kick and scream warnings but Murray has the knowlege and access to do it quietly and with much more potential devastation.

He will not be playing to the Bears or the Media but ensuring that if there is anything that affects the probity and governance of the company that it is reported to the relevant authorities. That duty isn’t just a professional one but a legal one.

I have no knowlege as to whether Mr Murray has any concern about the company or not but his previous business record would reinforce my opinion that if anything is bothering him then he will not shirk from the task. However he won’t damage his City reputation by conducting a public shouting and screaming match with other Board members.

As to the DT article of 4th July 2012 – I remember at the time it seemed an odd article and struck me as deflecting blame, for the decision, away from the club chairmen onto the ‘arrogance’ of Murray whom I have never seen act in that way.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:13 pm - Feb 20, 2013


badgerbhoy says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 11:46

Malcolm Murray has been asked to step down as Rangers chairman after concerns were raised about his suitability for the role.

————————————————————————————————————————

You’d think that these concerns would have been raised before he was appointed.

——————————————————————————————————————

Well exactly. If he was on board to assist the IPO then all the money from the institutional investors were supposidly secured well before the public launch.

The prospectus shows he was ‘appointed’ on 7 December 2012.

“Under a letter of appointment dated 7 December 2012 (but to be effective on
Admission), the Company appointed Malcolm Murray as a Non-Executive Director of
the Company for a salary of £60,000 per annum and all reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses reasonably and properly incurred.
The agreement is terminable by the Company or Mr Murray on 1 months’ notice.
Standard confidentiality provisions also apply following the date of this letter. The
agreement is governed by Scots law.”

Therefore why not put someone else up beforehand or allow him to have a wee stint then resign for personal reasons.

Note the confidentiality provision – so we may not hear from MM himself but people close to him.

View Comment

readceltPosted on12:17 pm - Feb 20, 2013


Re the Murray situation.

From the Herald.

‘There have long been rumours of tension between Murray and Green, but it was concerns about Murray’s private life that led to the request he stand down.’

Now, that statement could mean anything but when you put it in the context of ‘suporter complaints’ it puts me in mind of a lyric from an Ian Dury song, something about rock and roll.

Of course, this could all be a way of subtely painting the ex chairman as a loose cannon with a particular problem but if you were going to do a hatchet job on someone, they usually arent that subtle.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/rangers-chairman-asked-to-leave-in-best-interests-of-club.20274928

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on12:18 pm - Feb 20, 2013


ecobhoy says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 11:31

You asked a question I provided an answer in good faith – if you don’t accept it fine. I am not here to waste my time debating the cowardice and partiality displayed by the SFA in interpreting their own rule book as it has been done to death.

—————————————————————-

angus1983 says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 11:51

No probs. I’m sorry you think it’s a waste of time. Of course you’re correct in saying that LNS is not operating under Criminal Law.

——————————————————————-

I did not say it was a waste of time and there are no doubt many who still wish to debate the issue which is their right. I actually said it was a waste of my time as I believe the matter has been done to death. I may well be wrong but I retain the right to voice my opinion and also not to be misquoted.

View Comment

Reilly1926Posted on12:18 pm - Feb 20, 2013


This press witch-hunt of Murray is really quite sad. I wonder if he’s been asking far too many questions about what’s going on at Ibrox behind the scenes. Why there have been so few board meetings. Of course Mr Charles has been far too busy on his crusades around the globe for such mundane matters. (If you were cynical it’s as though he’s keeping well out of the way – A sort of avoidance tactic)

The whole thing smacks of Whytey trying to push, the meddlesome, John McClelland out the door last year.

View Comment

AllyJamboPosted on12:23 pm - Feb 20, 2013


wottpi says:

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 12:13

‘the Company appointed Malcolm Murray as a Non-Executive Director of
the Company for a salary of £60,000 per annum and all reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses reasonably and properly incurred.’
_______________________________

Well that’s the first £60,000 a year saved. Right then, who’s next? 😉

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on12:28 pm - Feb 20, 2013


beatipacificiscotia says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 12:00

++++++++++++++++++++

No, you have committed 178 murders, but only one gun licensing offence (assuming the gun is unlicensed).

————————————–

the gun wasn’t unlicensed…

View Comment

angus1983Posted on12:30 pm - Feb 20, 2013


ecobhoy says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 12:18

“I am not here to waste my time …”

“I did not say it was a waste of time …”

——

Fair enough. I wasn’t intentionally misquoting you – I would argue that “waste of my time” isn’t appreciably removed from “waste of time” in this context, being that both expressions are subjective. This level of semantics is worthy of Mr Green, and – if you want to be that pedantic – then I didn’t ask you to debate the partiality or otherwise of the SFA in the first place.

I haven’t seen a lot of debate on the issue of whether “Not Proven” may be the outcome of LNS myself.

Never mind. Let’s just forget that and move along.

The kit deal. It was all sorted in September last year …

“Rangers chief Charles Green set to announce strip deal with giants adidas
21 Sep 2012 Daily Record

THE German manufacturers will replace Umbro in producing the Ibrox club’s kit from next season.

RANGERS are on the brink of sealing a deal with strip manufacturing giants adidas to produce the Ibrox club’s kit from next season.

Chief executive Charles Green and director Imran Ahmad revealed to fans in Canada that the club hopes to announce the partnership with the German giants, who will take over from Umbro, next week.

Green and Ahmad are on a whistle-stop tour of four cities – Toronto, New York, Orlando and Houston – in four days to speak to North American supporters’ groups and discuss commercial and sporting partnerships – including a potential link-up with NFL giants Dallas Cowboys.

Ahmad told fans in Toronto: “Fingers crossed we will sign with adidas this week.

“They said to me we’ve lost Liverpool and Real Madrid, Rangers will be the biggest club we have. We would have spots in adidas stores in North America. There are massive brand development opportunities.”

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on12:30 pm - Feb 20, 2013


wottpi says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 11:08

I doubt he’s at that stage of life he needs a job or a reference from his last employer so it will be interesting to see what he does.!

View Comment

iamacantPosted on12:31 pm - Feb 20, 2013


wottpi says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 12:13
0 0 i
Rate This
badgerbhoy says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 11:46

Malcolm Murray has been asked to step down as Rangers chairman after concerns were raised about his suitability for the role.

————————————————————————————————————————

You’d think that these concerns would have been raised before he was appointed.

——————————————————————————————————————

Well exactly. If he was on board to assist the IPO then all the money from the institutional investors were supposidly secured well before the public launch.

The prospectus shows he was ‘appointed’ on 7 December 2012.

“Under a letter of appointment dated 7 December 2012 (but to be effective on
Admission), the Company appointed Malcolm Murray as a Non-Executive Director of
the Company for a salary of £60,000 per annum and all reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses reasonably and properly incurred.
The agreement is terminable by the Company or Mr Murray on 1 months’ notice.
Standard confidentiality provisions also apply following the date of this letter. The
agreement is governed by Scots law.”

Therefore why not put someone else up beforehand or allow him to have a wee stint then resign for personal reasons.

Note the confidentiality provision – so we may not hear from MM himself but people close to him.

——————————————————————————————————————–

Remember when RFC(IL) fans were screaming at the SPL/SFA/SFL about due diligence on Craig Whyte? Shirley Mr Green and his “billionaire backers” must have did the same with Mr Murray because if they did, I’m sure his “personal life” would have come up on the radar. If he didn’t do due diligence, why not? Any of the MSM care to ask the question?

Or am I being cynical?

View Comment

tilhotdogsbarkPosted on12:37 pm - Feb 20, 2013


Just heard that Dundee and Barry Smith have parted company, yet another casualty of the fiasco during the close season. Shame.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:39 pm - Feb 20, 2013


allyjambo says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 12:23

I thought I read somewhere that the Plc had to have four non exec’s, so there are still four in place

But of course they need a chairman.

Now of course Charles can act at Chairman and CEO and take the £60k for his additional troubles, so not much cost saving there 🙂 .

View Comment

SeniorPosted on12:45 pm - Feb 20, 2013


If, As we are led to believe that Malcolm Murray is a man of integrity and probity then look out Traynor and Ibrox. This is a serious charge to be made against such a well thought of person.
To question a person’s personal conduct in the media, with no back-up facts is a highly risky business. If his business acumen was questioned,well, that is a different matter altogether.

Possibly a new World record in the offing – Traynor to get the sack after only a month in the job? .

View Comment

readceltPosted on12:45 pm - Feb 20, 2013


Andrew Woods says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 12:18
2 0 i
Rate This

This press witch-hunt of Murray is really quite sad. I wonder if he’s been asking far too many questions about what’s going on at Ibrox behind the scenes. Why there have been so few board meetings. Of course Mr Charles has been far too busy on his crusades around the globe for such mundane matters. (If you were cynical it’s as though he’s keeping well out of the way – A sort of avoidance tactic)

The whole thing smacks of Whytey trying to push, the meddlesome, John McClelland out the door last year.

—————————————

I know we all want to believe its a conspiracy but it could be as simple as they guys is a letch or a jakey, i guess time will tell

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on12:47 pm - Feb 20, 2013


Anyone on the blog with full access to Companies House documents?

RIFC have lodged an SH01 form, but it doesn’t appear in the list of documents I can see on the Webcheck facility.

An SH01 form may give a clue to how the shares have been allocated and whether cash or some other consideration is the means of payment, price paid etc.

View Comment

beatipacificiscotiaPosted on12:52 pm - Feb 20, 2013


angus1983 says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 09:49

Angus1983 – hit the nail on the head. It is a licensing issue. The LNS investigation is looking at whether Rangers players over the period were properly registered. It is not an investigation into whether Rangers cheated in 100’s of games and won titles and prizemoney they were not entitled to.

The decision to not include EBT loans in the contract paperwork was, by necessity, a single one. If you don’t include it the first time, you cannot then include it for future seasons. If I represented Rangers at the hearing I would be arguing this point – you cannot have my client hung, drawn and quartered for a single administrative error.

All matches will become 0-3. Any fine may be substantial and possibly 7-figures. I’ve seen posts suggesting reclaiming league money and champions league money running in to £10’s of millions, and membership terminition. That would be ridiculous and will never happen. Only Rangers-hating fantasists would believe that a possibility.

Titles stripped and re-allocated, slap on the wrist fine, jobs a goodun.

View Comment

scapaflow14Posted on12:53 pm - Feb 20, 2013


wottpi says:

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 12:39

Actually the Corporate Governance Code is very clear that one person should not hold the roles of Chairman and CEO

“A.2.1 The roles of chairman and chief executive should not be exercised by the same individual. The division of responsibilities between the chairman and chief executive should be clearly established, set out in writing and agreed by the board.”

He should be independent

“B.1.1. The board should identify in the annual report each non-executive director it considers to bendependent. The board should determine whether the director is independent in character and
judgement and whether there are relationships or circumstances which are likely to affect, or could appear to affect, the director’s judgement. The board should state its reasons if it determines that a director is independent notwithstanding the existence of relationships or circumstances which may appear relevant to its determination, including if the director:

 has been an employee of the company or group within the last five years;
 has, or has had within the last three years, a material business relationship with the company either directly, or as a partner, shareholder, director or senior employee of a body that has such a relationship with the company;
 has received or receives additional remuneration from the company apart from a director’s fee, participates in the company’s share option or a performance-related pay scheme, or is a member of the company’s pension scheme;
 has close family ties with any of the company’s advisers, directors or senior employees;
 holds cross-directorships or has significant links with other directors through involvement
in other companies or bodies;
 represents a significant shareholder; or
 has served on the board for more than nine years from the date of their first election.”

View Comment

scapaflow14Posted on12:58 pm - Feb 20, 2013


Further point, I would suggest that in relation to the duties expected of a non-exec in a company like Rangers, I would suggest that Sir Walter d’EBT is, like John Greig before him, far, far out of his depth.

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on1:00 pm - Feb 20, 2013


tilhotdogsbark says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 12:37

The poor guy would likely still be in a job if he hadn’t been thrown in the deepend at the last minute and had remained where he was in SFL1.

View Comment

broadswordcallingdannybhoyPosted on1:01 pm - Feb 20, 2013


Murray being kicked out?
Corporate Governance?

If only there was a Channel 4 journalist who took an interest in such things …

View Comment

scapaflow14Posted on1:04 pm - Feb 20, 2013


looks like 10000 shares sold lunchtime at 78p

View Comment

justpedylanPosted on1:08 pm - Feb 20, 2013


From the Herald.

‘There have long been rumours of tension between Murray and Green, but it was concerns about Murray’s private life that led to the request he stand down.’
___________________________________________

He missed a lodge meeting?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on1:08 pm - Feb 20, 2013


scapaflow14 says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 12:53

Point taken but you assume that they want to play by the rules 🙂

View Comment

AllyJamboPosted on1:09 pm - Feb 20, 2013


readcelt says:

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 12:45

‘I know we all want to believe its a conspiracy but it could be as simple as they guys is a letch or a jakey, i guess time will tell’

___________

In which case it would have made him ideal for Green’s purposes. I doubt Green could care less about a colleagues character, as long as he works to the same (lack of) ethics, and doesn’t rock the boat. I think we can all be certain that Green only wants rid of Murray because he’s not buying into the ‘Green Revolution’ or asking the wrong questions and is ready to spill the beans (or already has to TRFC connected people).

View Comment

bogsdolloxPosted on1:11 pm - Feb 20, 2013


bailemeanach says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 23:04

neepheid says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 22:15

HirsutePursuit says:
Tuesday, February 19, 2013 at 22:12

Thanks for a very clear explanation- I stand corrected
________________________________________________________________

A great advert for this blog – people listen to each other and acknowledge that they may have held an incorrect opinion
==========================================================================

I’m not easily impressed but like you I was impressed by that exchange.

Very interesting point from HP regarding the changing of the rules regarding the transfer of SFA membership and the timing of it. It would be even more interesting to establish who proposed it. Is it only the member clubs who can propose changes?

This is probably my stupidest question to date but hell I’m not shy. Are SFA Board/AGM minutes publicly available? If not, can someone with a conscience please leak them. Cheers Ears.

View Comment

puzzlingresultPosted on1:11 pm - Feb 20, 2013


easyJambo says:

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 12:47

The form is for the issue of 7437999 ordinary shares on 19/12/2012 at 70p per share in cash – I assume this is the fans share take up.

View Comment

scapaflow14Posted on1:13 pm - Feb 20, 2013


wottpi says:

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 13:08

In this case they would be very silly not to do so

View Comment

scapaflow14Posted on1:16 pm - Feb 20, 2013


puzzlingresult says:

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 13:11

Around £5.2M?

View Comment

puzzlingresultPosted on1:17 pm - Feb 20, 2013


easyJambo says:

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 12:47

The rest of the SH01 form is more interesting – statement of capital 100 shares issued at 1p and 65,095,956 issued at 70p. Doing the maths suggests proceeds of £45million, which does not appear correct, so the assumption is that some of the shares were not issued for cash. Ticketus anyone?

View Comment

scapaflow14Posted on1:23 pm - Feb 20, 2013


puzzlingresult says:

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 13:17

curiouser and curiouser

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on1:24 pm - Feb 20, 2013


alex thomson‏@alextomo

@Eddiebhoy09 am moving on from the Rangers investigation. Feel that after Nimmo-Smith I’ve done my bit and a lot of other things beckon.

It appears that AT is moving on from looking into matters connected with RFC.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on1:26 pm - Feb 20, 2013


puzzlingresult says: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 13:11

Thanks

The 7M+ shares were definitely the public offer and I would expect that these did go for 70p each.

The 65M shares is the total in issue (33M+ pre IPO in TRFC, 24M+ Placing shares, 7M+ share offer)

The ones of most interest are those in the “Placing”, how much was paid or was there some other consideration and who bought them.

View Comment

thebasharmilestegPosted on1:28 pm - Feb 20, 2013


“a single administrative error.”

Forgetting to date the second signature on a registration form is a single administrative error. Issuing 100 + contracts that were in breach of the rules is multiple offences. Let’s say Rangers issue one EBT, the player concerned plays one game and the “single administrative error” comes to light. The team are punished by having the result changed to a 3-0 defeat and are deducted the 3 points. Two months later the same thing happens with a different player. There is absolutely no way the team can claim that they’ve already been punished as it’s the same administrative error.

Each delinquent contract is a separate offence. If guilty, strip the titles, apply a fine, maybe some people will be judged unfit to continue in football. I’ve already said my piece on re-allocating the titles – it’s fantasy after the first season.

View Comment

goosyPosted on1:28 pm - Feb 20, 2013


Andrew Woods says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 12:18
This press witch-hunt of Murray is really quite sad
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
“Sad “is a serious understatement

This isn`t a juicy scandal with national security implications that some whistle blower has leaked

What we are witnessing is gutter journalists actively cooperating with a bunch of Spivs

The aim is to force a guy with ethics out of a Spiv Company

A company that will only exist until they have milked it dry

This is one step too far for the MSM

View Comment

puzzlingresultPosted on1:30 pm - Feb 20, 2013


easyJambo says:

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 12:47

The SH01’s dated december refer to a share exchange agreement dated 7/12/12 where the shares in rangers football club ltd were swapped for shares in rangers international – number of shares 33,415,100, valued at 70p per share.

A further 24,100,001 were issued on same date for cash at 70p per share.

On 7/12/12 142,856 shares were issued for cash at 70p per share.

On the face of it, it looks like £22m in cash raised

View Comment

slimshady61Posted on1:39 pm - Feb 20, 2013


Whilst we will have to await fuller details on the fall out between TRFC’s Chairman and CEO, a classic boardroom tactic is to denigrate the person you want to leave (in this case the chairman) by allowing unattributable quotes concerning his/her private life to leak into the public domain, via a patsy journalist (@richwilson anyone?) with some clout.

In that way, when the person concerned does eventually speak, it is against a backdrop of “he’s been found out and is having to make the best of a bad job” so his/her words are always judged against that rather being taken for what they might otherwise be, i.e. a statement of fact.

Although it could conceivably have been the work of the new PR guy at TRFC, the deftness of touch suggests it is more likely to have been the work of a competent PR machine such as Media House.

I know absolutely nothing about Malcolm Murray’s private life – the only thing questionable to the best of my knowledge is the company he keeps, particularly at board meetings of TRFC.

More to follow on this; looks like a lot of smoke being created, possibly to distract from the looming fires about to be started by LNS and Orlit?

View Comment

smartie1947Posted on1:57 pm - Feb 20, 2013


Breaking news this am that David Gill is stepping down as Man Utd CEO wef 30/6/13. Rumours rife that he will take up a senior position with the F.A.
It’s the SFA we could do with him joining.
asap !

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on1:59 pm - Feb 20, 2013


puzzlingresult says: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 13:30

If the document only reflects the issue of the 7M+ shares on 19th Dec and tells us of other planned dealings as at 7th Dec 2012 (in the middle of the offer period), then it doesn’t really tell us anything new.

View Comment

scapaflow14Posted on2:01 pm - Feb 20, 2013


puzzlingresult says:

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 13:30

The 33.4M shares figure is very close to the total number shares given in the expected post admission 3% or more holdings table in section B6 of the prospectus

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on2:12 pm - Feb 20, 2013


Brilliant. Charles has no excuse for not delivering something approaching this…

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/spartak-moscow-bank-26m-116167n.20274517

View Comment

ismellafixPosted on2:30 pm - Feb 20, 2013


Breaking news this am that David Gill is stepping down as Man Utd CEO wef 30/6/13. Rumours rife that he will take up a senior position with the F.A.
It’s the SFA we could do with him joining.
asap !
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

What school did you go to? First question on the SFA application form?

View Comment

jockybhoyPosted on2:47 pm - Feb 20, 2013


So does no-one know what these accusations against Murray are? They must be serious to risk further hits to the shareprice based on ousting the Chairman at a very sensitive time. Also the innuendo and rumour that the MSM are just regurgitating as informed comment is nothing short of oa frickin’ disgrace…

View Comment

Galling fiverPosted on3:01 pm - Feb 20, 2013


Disgrace yes, part of the plan? maybee’s aye. But if the presentation we seen on here was drawn up by his mittens. IMHO he’s had it coming, decent guy trapped in a spivfest or not, I seem to remember the handout thingy can only be described as a WATP on a mission statement.

Anyway, he never gave us much mileage, give the job to Bomber (the pies) for keeping schtum.

View Comment

rougvielovesthejunglePosted on3:05 pm - Feb 20, 2013


Unlike the worlds greatest football administrator, Mr Gill is not indEBTed to the lands establishment club.

Clearly his CV will not meet the grade!

View Comment

angus1983Posted on3:08 pm - Feb 20, 2013


jockybhoy says:
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 14:47

So does no-one know what these accusations against Murray are?
——

A source close to the club said: “Right now they are limping on together but Charles is a like a dog with a bone and Malcolm knows his position is under threat.

“In fact, Malcolm would have walked away by now had it been any other post at any other business.

“It’s only because of his love for the club that he’s prepared to dig his heels in and stand his ground. He feels a sense of duty.

“The situation is unstable and the whole episode is very embarrassing for the club at a time when Rangers should be moving forward together towards stability.

“This vicious, spiteful in-fighting does not reflect well on anyone.”

In sharp contrast to the extroverted Green, Murray has kept a low profile since joining the club, speaking in public only occasionally.

It’s understood he further angered Green last week by appearing on Sky TV to discuss the anniversary of the onset of administration.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on3:12 pm - Feb 20, 2013


“It’s understood he further angered Green last week by appearing on Sky TV to discuss the anniversary of the onset of administration.”

whilst at the same time, the club made a TV show about it

hmmmm, it’s obviously not that – or did Malcolm say anything that wasn’t “on message”

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on3:21 pm - Feb 20, 2013


jockybhoy says:

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at 14:47

There is some discussion on Follow Follow on the accusations – I don’t kow if there is a thread on any of the other Rangers discussion boards.

The acusation that was being discussed was personal and I would not want to repeat it in a public place.

View Comment

Carl31 (@C4rl31)Posted on3:30 pm - Feb 20, 2013


How many Rangers title awards might be in question?

Apols if this has been covered before…
In terms of Rangers name being removed from any title winners roll, there might be less at stake than is commonly considered. There are limits to what the SPLIC will look at…

The SPLIC remit, from the decision dated 12/9/12 and commonly referred to as the ground rules, will inter alia look at player eligibility, but not for the full period where breach of the rules may have occurred. The remit is to investigate possible breach of rules as set out in the SPL Notice of Commission dated 01/08/12. It is in 4 chapters that reflect changes in SPL rules over the period. Player eligibility is only to be considered in chapter 3.
The total period under investigation is 23/11/00 to sale of the club, with a gap period between 22 May 2011 and 15 March 2012.

Chapter 1 covers period 23/11/2000 to 21/05/2002
Chapter 2 covers period 22/05/2002 to 22/05/2005
Chapter 3 covers period 23/05/2005 to 03/05/2011
Chapter 4 covers period 15/03/2012 onwards.

Player eligibility is a consideration of the SPLIC only in chapter 3 – period 23/05/2005 to 03/05/2011. It will look at improper player payments declarations, but not player eligibility, in the first three chapters. Chapter 4 looks at only charges around failure to comply with information requests.

The chapter 3 period is the longest period chronologically, but Rangers claimed only three SPL titles in the period. They claimed the SPL title in season 04/05, but the last game of that season was played on the 22/05/2005 – one day before the beginning of the chapter 3 period.
Another question raised in my mind by the dates/chapters above is this: What was the specific wording of the SPL rules during these periods? Any of us with the inclination can go and look up the SPL rules in place now, but I would expect that, in the interests of justice and fairness, the SPLIC will apply the rules that were in place at the relevant times. If the 4 chapters reflect changes in SPL rules over the period, what were the specific changes to the relevant words and phrases used? What did the relevant sections of the rules say at the relevant times?

SDM – “In December 2010, as a result of legislation changes introduced by HMRC, EBTs were rendered tax inefficient. Thereafter the club made no further contributions to EBTs.”

Given that SDM has stated that EBTs became tax inefficient in Dec 2010, and practice of paying players by this method ceased, the 2010/11 SPL may be in doubt, but maybe not. My point is that it is not ‘clearly’ in doubt. It depends. A question may remain over what was declared to the football authorities for the second part of the 2010/11 season – after EBTs ceased, were the SPL/SFA informed at that time of all payments to players, thus making players eligibility a non-issue? If so, that particular title might only be in doubt depending on which players were fielded up to Dec 2010. I guess it might depend on the players involved, and how many times they might have played, and the relevant game(s) result. As a reminder, the 2010/11 SPL was decided on the last day.

Also, the SPLIC is looking at “Specified Players” as set out in the Notice of Commission. It will be limited to possible rule breaches regarding only these players. It is important to remember that these “Specified Players” listed won’t necessarily be the same list of players Mark Daly has information on, or the same specified players in the FTT decision. Not all information in the public domain now has necessarily been looked at by the SPLIC. The remit of the SPLIC, IMO, is limited and has narrower scope than much blogosphere commentary generally assumes.

The prize money for various placings achieved, including topping the table, remain in question, and much of the points made here will be included in issues covered in the aftermath – which would be knock on effects of any decision re UEFA qualification and representation, etc. However, the issues looked at by the SPLIC (which are set out in the SPL Notice of Commission mentioned above) will be far narrower.

Has anyone seen a copy of the specific wording of the Notice of Commission, since that would clearly set out the ‘Issues’ and list the ‘Specified Players’?

View Comment

Leave a Reply