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.
“RIFC could sell the CLUB or it could sell the club but keep the stadium/MP and lease it to the CLUB”
NTHM
Not so so sure about the above strategy. There is major work required at Ibrox.
It has a huge problem with asbestos. The cost alone of removing and disposing of this asbestos will come to a couple of million I suggest. The cost of refurbishing the rest of the stadium will run into millions more. There is no possibility of another IPO so where does the funds come from.
Hardly from one game a fortnight!
I still don’t see any reason why they would “strip titles” as it has come to be emotionally referred to.
Simply reverse the results where an ineligible player was played and if that results in a points deduction which means Rangers did not gain enough points to win the league that year then so bit. That is not “stripping titles”, it is amending the results of specific games and re-calculating the points totals.
And also, who would lodge any appeal, or take the matter to Court. I doubt that BDO would, so who else would be competent to.
I no expert by any means
BUT
If I remember correctly … Did one of the more enlightened posters on here not state that …
IF
A company is set up AND wound up within a 12 months period
No Books/Accounts need be lodged ? Aye/Naw ?
Could this be the Time Scale they are working to ?
Just a thought
No Books/Accounts/Records would be Pure Dead Brilliant (or standard practice for Sevco)
dentarthurdent42 says:
Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 22:53
I’ve wondered who would actually be able to take it to court. I know CG said they would fight it and the Rangers fighting fund have said it would be used to fight it. newco also had a QC at the enquiry (not exactly sure why). Can’t imagine BDO are interested. Would the Fighting fund itself be able to mount a court action?
Andrew Woods says:
Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 20:42
Could Mr Charles be clearing the football liabilities, at knock down prices, with a view to selling out soon to more TRFC orientated people ? Negotiate a deal now rather than factor in the full amounts at any potential future sale negotiation ?
___________________________________________________________________________
I asked a very similar question on here about 3 months ago but no one took me up on it. The presence of Sir Cardigan on the board is what gives me the impression that the man with the big hands has had this in mind since the start.
Yes CG is in this to make his dough and get out, but he obviously has to pass the baton to someone…stands to reason it will be rangers orientated people who take it. It’s what happens from there on in that will establish the level of success the new club will have in terms of growth and stability.
Will they appoint a Lawwell type on a big wage to make sure any expenditure relates to their income? Will the bears be able to accept a long period of not being ‘THE PEOPLE’ while the suits build up the business? Or will old spending habits start to surface again?
I suppose that will depend on the amount of credit they are afforded….
In the same way David Murray, as a sensible business man, had to face up to ‘external pressures’ to end the sectarian signng policy, T’Rangers sorting out the footballing debts is partially down to the statements coming out of the RV camp.
“We have assured them we will not raise any dispute with FIFA which could have potentially blocked their participation in future European competitions.
To me the implication is pretty clear that had this issue not been resolved RV would hounded them across Europe/World to get their money and may have been poised in the starting blocks to take such action.
Paying up is a sensible move by Charles in terms of clearing away hurdles to being welcomed back into Europe – if they ever get to that stage.
I see Mr Green’s spindoctors have got him repeating the mantra that Rangers were ‘pushed down four divisions’ due to Craig Whyte making one ‘misdemeanour’.
Notwithstanding that Rangers are dead and it is in fact a new club called ‘The Rangers’ which has a place in SFL3.
Notwithstanding that SFL3 is actually only three divisions down from the SPL.
To describe the outrageous theft of tens of millions of pounds from the public purse and from the old clubs many creditors as a ‘misdemeanour’ which means ‘an action that is bad or wrong, but not in a serious way’, must be the understatement of the century.
Bet you any money he starts describing the old club deliberately failing to properly register all offshore payments to its players over a ten year period as a mere ‘administrative error’.
Sevco debt payments – Uefa; Financial Fair Play – that’s it. They had to pay up. Unlike the SFA, Uefa have rules which are adhered to
Interesting contribution from a source who wishes to remain anonymous.
___________________________________________________________________
Having just read the supposed redistribution figures as provided by Neil Doncaster in his proposal for the new league structure I ask that the football monitor tries to ask more questions regarding this proposal. Mainly what happens to the parachute payments, the settlement fee, the Rangers TV money and current sponsorship money for the first division.
Looking at the figures, as far as I can tell there is an extra £2.5 million in prize money on offer to clubs below the top 12 however by some coincidence the totals of the settlement fee, Rangers TV deal and parachute payments add up to around £2.5 million, if previous newspaper reports are to be believed which state the totals as follows:
Setllement fee- £1 million
Rangers TV deal- Around £1.3 million
Parachute payments- £250k
The report then states that provision has been made that further monies made available by the SPL(which I presume are already known) will be split with the first £900k going to the second eight. I believe a large chunk of that money will go to those finishing in the top four then the next £200k to be shared evenly to the bottom 18 and finally the next £900k to be split between the top eight.
If the previous fees I stated are to be rescinded in this new league then the only extra that the teams outside the top 12 stand to make are about £450(presuming that the bottom 4 in the championship 8 split about £250 from the added £900k). However this £450k is probably not far off the sponsorship money that the current first division receives and the SPL would then inherit in this new league system.
Anyway I believe that these questions should be asked as I wouldn’t trust Doncaster as far as I could throw and I believe that these numbers have been fudged to support his proposal whilst the status quo remains.
Subject: 12-12-18 league
From The Herald. It would appear that guys at Ibrox have been told to ‘Play Nice’ The ‘Real’ players in this charade are not happy pixies.
Friday 22 February 2013
MALCOLM Murray will continue as the chairman of Rangers after peace broke out in the Ibrox boardroom yesterday.
Murray seemed certain to be on the way out after being asked to resign by the rest of the board last week following concerns about his personal conduct and complaints by supporters. But Murray was not prepared to stand down and meetings yesterday involving senior club figures resulted in a pulling back by all the parties and an amicable resolution being reached.
The intention is now that Murray will continue in his role and that the rest of the board will also remain unchanged for the foreseeable future. It remains to be seen if friction between Murray and chief executive Charles Green will lead to wounds being reopened in the future.
“Everyone involved worked and talked through the issues and everyone has a desire to move forward for the sake of the club,” one source said last night.
Another source last night told Herald Sport that figures in the City had put pressure on to halt the dispute. Murray is regarded by London-based businessmen as a viable figure at the club and they privately called for an end to the public squabbling which they feared was destabilising the club.
A City businessman said last night: “Everyone has been told that for the sake of the club this sniping must stop. The issue must be parked for the moment and they must work together.”
Martin Hutchison (@Squire_67) says:
Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 23:22
Andrew Woods says:
Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 20:42
Will they appoint a Lawwell type on a big wage to make sure any expenditure relates to their income? Will the bears be able to accept a long period of not being ‘THE PEOPLE’ while the suits build up the business? Or will old spending habits start to surface again?
============================================================
While us Celtic fans have never held supremacist views like those across the city, the scenario you describe is what we endured for years as the board ensured the club got its house in order. This was not without pain as the less tolerant among our support at times roundly abused Lawwell for what they saw as parsimony while the big spending continued at Ibrox, even until 2010. I never could understand why some of our fans somehow thought the board were sitting on a fortune they would not release to the Manager. However, in the end I think everyone now understands the policy the board pursued was the right one, and the rewards are now being reaped.
As for ‘THE PEOPLE’, so many of them have been reared in the Murray years and simply don’t know much other than Rangers being top of the tree more often than Celtic no matter the cost incurred. Given the ill-feeling that will still be festering by the time they reach the top league, there will be demands for perceived vengeance, and that will cost money. I believe at some point in the future the new Rangers will have incurred so much debt they will face similar issues to the old one.
When TRFC eventually reach the top division,whatever that may be,They seem to forget there is one major obstacle barring their way to the Champions League.
Celtic.
Do they think that CFC are going to give up the possibility of CL entry easily?.
Since Celtic were re-structured,they’ve consistently out performed TRFC off the field.Most seasons CFCs turnover outstripped Rangers and will continue to due so.Celtic already have the structure in place that TRFC will struggle to match unless major investment is found.
Rangers,as we now know,only managed to compete by spending vast amounts of money they didn’t have.They couldn’t win the league using only their earnings before and I don’t see how,for the forseeable future,they can win it again.
If Scotland is reduced to only one CL place then CG may be a very old man before he hears the CL anthem at Ibrox.(He could offer it to EUFA for the final I suppose.Seems to be the in thing at the moment).
Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 07:18
From The Herald.
MALCOLM Murray will continue as the chairman of Rangers after peace broke out in the Ibrox boardroom yesterday.
Murray seemed certain to be on the way out after being asked to resign by the rest of the board last week following concerns about his personal conduct and complaints by supporters. But Murray was not prepared to stand down
——————————————
Interesting…from a position yesterday where it looked as if Murray was damaged goods and going to have to slope off with the stigma of having committed some kind of unspecified discretion, today we find that he (and his friends higher up the chain it would appear) called Green’s bluster and bluff. So now we have the prospect of Green having to sit at future meetings with Murray with a permanent stain of egg on his face – please Rangers TV stream these meeting live and unedited. It would appear his attempt to humiliate Murray has backfired rather spectacularly.
Green has been very, very quiet since his tour of the underside of the globe, and he doesn’t seem to be a man at ease with keeping his own counsel. How long can he stay silent I wonder?
So, can we now make jokes about Malcolm Murray being a blabbermouth jakey with a drink problem heading up The Rangers operation?
That seemed to be how he was portrayed in yesterdays media, but now, it’s a big love in, nothing to see here, just a minor misunderstanding!
More importantly will Green keep his promise to quit if MM stays ? After all hes a straight talking no nonsense never tell a lie kind of blunt Yorkshire chap.
Morning 🙂 405 …….. Weird goings on, it makes you wonder what MM came back at CG etc with for them to have such a complete change of heart 🙂 very very strange goings on ….All quiet, no demands for names, no rallying speeches, no ‘promises’ and more importantly no strip or stripping talk 🙂 🙂 have a good day all let’s hope for some positive news today for the majority of us 🙂
Any significance from Bloomberg – Next earnings anouncement today? or is normal business?
Key Statistics for RFC
Current P/E Ratio (ttm) –
Estimated P/E(-) –
Relative P/E vs. UKX –
Earnings Per Share (ttm) –
Est. EPS –
Est. PEG Ratio –
Market Cap (M GBP) 51.75
Shares Outstanding (M) 65.10
30 Day Average Volume 23,333
Price/Book (mrq) –
Price/Sale (ttm) –
Dividend Indicated Gross Yield -%
Cash Dividend –
Last Dividend
5 Year Dividend Growth –
Next Earnings Announcement 02/22/2013
wottpi says:
Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 23:24
“We have assured them we will not raise any dispute with FIFA which could have potentially blocked their participation in future European competitions.
——
I wonder how they intended to do that? The debt was owed by old Rangers.
Would the 5-way agreement be binding enough to make TRFC legally responsible for RFC(IL)’s football debts?
ianagain says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 08:57
Beat me to it.
Whileit didn’t come from the horses mouth possibly another one to chalk up on the ‘things that never happened’ board.
Never mind its Friday and the strip/kit sponsorship deal was going to be signed off and announced this week – wasn’t it?
ianagain says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 09:07
Any significance from Bloomberg – Next earnings anouncement today? or is normal business?
———————————————————————————————-
You get that info on the more in-depth financial sites every day for listed companies. Not a lot on Rangers Interntional as it is a new company.
I think the announcement of the 6 month figures is still a couple of week away.
It doesn’t matter it was splashed all over the newspapers from a source in Ibrox. He was accused of some (unidentified) dubious personal conduct – it can’t get much worse than that, Huge damage has been done to his name.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 08:49
So, can we now make jokes about Malcolm Murray being a blabbermouth jakey with a drink problem heading up The Rangers operation?
That seemed to be how he was portrayed in yesterdays media, but now, it’s a big love in, nothing to see here, just a minor misunderstanding!
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Nope
I reckon when MM got slagged by the Spivs his best friend reached for his Cardigan
ianagain says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 08:57
More importantly will Green keep his promise to quit if MM stays ? After all hes a straight talking no nonsense never tell a lie kind of blunt Yorkshire chap.
——
Indeed. Mr Charles Green – your bluff has been loudly called. What you gonna do?
This below from the Daily Record (19 Feb) … with “a source close to the club” being quoted. The quote would lead you to believe that this anonymous source was present at the board meeting in question. Hello, Mr Murray yourself?
“There has been simmering bad blood between the pair for some time but the situation exploded at the first meeting of the new board when Green announced he could no longer work with Murray.
In fact, he went further by delivering an ultimatum, warning he would walk away from his position unless Murray was removed from office.
Green’s address shocked the recently-appointed non-executive directors Ian Hart, Philip Cartmell and Bryan Smart.”
—
torrejohnbhoy says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 08:09
CG may be a very old man before he hears the CL anthem at Ibrox.(He could offer it to EUFA for the final I suppose.
——————————————————————
Not if he doesn’t carry-out the repairs that are required 🙂
No news on Orlit payment?
Senior says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 09:20
It doesn’t matter it was splashed all over the newspapers from a source in Ibrox. He was accused of some (unidentified) dubious personal conduct – it can’t get much worse than that, Huge damage has been done to his name.
——————————-
Today’s Record repeats ” allegations emerging of misconduct from Murray and of other behavioural problems”. So although Green appears to have been slapped down, Murray has come out of it with his alleged ‘problems’ just left to the imagination, and as he can’t really argue against something so vague, the damage is likely to linger.
angus1983 says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 09:21
And you forgot the the article then supported goosygoosy’s thoughts on Sir Cardigan being that while he wasn’t at the meeting he was the one reported as urging Green to reconsider.
Perhaps Green was given the old hair dryer treatment?
I’m siding witht he view that it seems as though the Non-execs and the City have maybe backed the ‘Rangers man’.
I asked the other day what side Jim Traynor would end up on? Has anyone heard from the PR man during this mini crisis? Out of his depth perhaps? Slag of the chairman and a club legend or slag of the saviour of the club?
Interesting times but ones which fans of the Ibrox club may look back at and thank the day they dodged a bullet.
Time will tell.
Indeed not just the DR it was spead far and wide
Rangers chairman Malcolm Murray nearing Ibrox exit The Scotsman 11:39 Thu, 21 Feb 2013
Interim chair proposed as pressure mounts on Murray The Scottish Herald 03:10 Thu, 21 Feb 2013
Your time is up! Murray urged to quit as Rangers chief after… Daily Mail 00:25 Wed, 20 Feb 2013
Green Threatens To Leave Rangers SportsBusiness Daily 00:08 Wed, 20 Feb 2013
Charles Green: Overthrow Malcolm Murray or I leave The Scotsman 10:53 Tue, 19 Feb 2013
Rumour Mill: Charles Green | Kenny Shiels | Andy Driver The Scotsman 10:10 Tue, 19 Feb 2013
I think it’s pretty obvious what’s happening here. The man with the big hands has been found out, instructed the pit bull to leak some nonsense about MM being a disgrace and it backfired spectacularly. Now he’s tieing up some loose ends (paying some debts) and will be out before the end of next week. I think it’s a certainty. Traynor will be ousted aswell.
To be honest i’d like to see the club changing it’s tactics if this happens. If the aggressive patter stops and there are some real attempts to build bridges, which let’s face it was never going to be the case with Green at the helm, then i’d be all for giving them the chance to do so. It’s getting really old listening to all this WATP pish coming from the club, so if they change their tune am willing to leave them be as the country will be in a much safer place.
Call me a dreamer.
Just a further thought.
In days gone by you would have expected to see Green’s mug all over the back pages shouting to the rooftops that he had sorted out the footballing debts and with all parties happy it was time to move forward and look ahead to better times, bigger crowds, Champions League etc.
However yesterday & today hardly a peep with only one wee quote given as far as I can see.
Green told STV on Thursday: “We don’t owe any more money or any more apologies to anyone.”
wottpi says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 09:37
I’m siding with the view that it seems as though the Non-execs and the City have maybe backed the ‘Rangers man’.
——
It certainly looks that way. Perhaps Mr Green thought that he had achieved instant membership of the Grand Old WATP Club by being the most outspoken on a range of “Rangers-minded” issues and fronting up a cash-gathering exercise.
It could be that he’s finding out that he didn’t. This latest seems to have reduced him to pawn status, and he’s going to lose some serious face if he doesn’t now leave.
upthehoops says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 07:42
While us Celtic fans have never held supremacist views like those across the city, the scenario you describe is what we endured for years as the board ensured the club got its house in order. This was not without pain as the less tolerant among our support at times roundly abused Lawwell for what they saw as parsimony while the big spending continued at Ibrox, even until 2010. I never could understand why some of our fans somehow thought the board were sitting on a fortune they would not release to the Manager. However, in the end I think everyone now understands the policy the board pursued was the right one, and the rewards are now being reaped.
As for ‘THE PEOPLE’, so many of them have been reared in the Murray years and simply don’t know much other than Rangers being top of the tree more often than Celtic no matter the cost incurred. Given the ill-feeling that will still be festering by the time they reach the top league, there will be demands for perceived vengeance, and that will cost money. I believe at some point in the future the new Rangers will have incurred so much debt they will face similar issues to the old one.
___________________________________________________________________________
I’ve got to admit I was in the ‘speculate to accumulate’ camp for a while myself. I just thought that it wasn’t completely necessary to have zero debt, a few million in the red was no big deal. Looking back now it was only though frustration mainly due to the ‘Willo Flood’ window.
And yeah you’re right, I don’t know of any Celtic fan (possibly a few dimwits on Twitter) who moan about not spending millions on a player these days. The last 3 seasons have shown we as a club were right to take the route we did, and it has worked magnificently.
As you say though, it will take a lot longer for the bears to come to terms with working to a strict budget. Maybe i’m being cynical but I just don’t see them standing for it if and when they get back ot the top flight.
Moral of the story….Peter Lawwell rules the world.
allyjambo says: Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 19:49
I can think of three possibilities for this, though there might be dozens:-
3) Something is/was on the horizon that made him realise he’d better sort it out, ie a possible warning from MM, now heeded, that he made out that all footballing debts had been settled (in the IPO document? Can’t remember if he stated that catagorically) and that AIM will be coming down on him like a ton of bricks! Or something else along similar lines!
Aren’t we coming up to 6 months reporting figures? One of the hassles that OldGers avoided for the past few years was having to publish accounts but the NewGers needs to.
So, might it not be as simple as Murray “having right a go” at Green for publicly declaring that there are no football debts, a “mistruth” that would have been exposed in any upcoming published accounts and might be in breach of stock market rules? Maybe it’s a bit of panicky housecleaning to ensure that what has been published is, retrospectively, the truth?
Makes sense of a few odd things recently…
On debt – Email from AIM “Just gonnae no” seems to have done the trick
On JT – as if he would ever take a side!
Seriously, and in the absence of anything meaningful down Edminston Drive where apparently they’re all chums again, on the footballing side we should take more heed of Big Pink’s entry on behalf of the anonymous poster. Seemingly well informed bloggers elsewhere have always said the restructure was to formally tie in the Rangers TV deal and little to do with ‘the good of fitba’. I am old enough to realise that that would always be the case, but would like a structure that was firstly commercial, secondly sustainable and thirdly for the good of all, as opposed to the good of two. There is a fairly detailed layout of the figures in that post that basically says (if I interpret it correctly) that div 1 (old) will in reality see no great benefit on the present. I would like to think that this was made clear before any vote!
Just as an aside btw I notice the entry suggests the 900k additional distribution goes firstly to the middle 8. My reading of the killie sourced version a while back was that this first 900k went to the play off 8 which I read as the bottom of the three 8’s. Anyone like to enlighten me.
Another wee thought.
There was talk of Green being unhappy with the MM Sky piece on the Anniversary of Adminstration.
Perhaps it was the other way around?
The piece was probably pre-recorded and normally Green would have fronted it.
However because he was away travelling first class around the world to meet up with half a dozern ex-pat Bears, the media shy Murray had to be put up in front of the cameras.
What chance Green was told he had more important and urgent matters to be getting on with closer to home?
ecobhoy says:
Thursday, February 21, 2013 at 21:56
So no mention of the debt to Hearts! It was only half a million, chicken feed really. Seriously, though, does that not constitute misrepresentation? I seem to remember, too, reports of Green stating ALL the football debts had been cleared, probably for the benefit of his sychophantic followers and not to mislead potential investors, but I am certain he did, I even remember discussing it on the Hearts fans’ forum, perhaps before the IPO, state that he had repaid ALL Scottish football creditors. If that is the case, more blatant lies! And obvious lies that the MSM should be highlighting, which merely serves to highlight how they continue to avoid obvious questions that might upset TRFC fans.
To be fair AJ the questions were in JT (whilst at the DR) copy that he put to CG for approval. I mean, what more could he do?
Big Pink says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 02:56
12 1 Rate This
Interesting contribution from a source who wishes to remain anonymous.
___________________________________________________________________
Having just read the supposed redistribution figures as provided by Neil Doncaster in his proposal for the new league structure I ask that the football monitor tries to ask more questions regarding this proposal. Mainly what happens to the parachute payments, the settlement fee, the Rangers TV money and current sponsorship money for the first division.
Looking at the figures, as far as I can tell there is an extra £2.5 million in prize money on offer to clubs below the top 12 however by some coincidence the totals of the settlement fee, Rangers TV deal and parachute payments add up to around £2.5 million, if previous newspaper reports are to be believed which state the totals as follows:
=======================================================================
1st off, the figures proposed suggest there is only £1.8M extra being paid the the next 12 clubs. Not £2.5M
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)
The Rangers TV deal is a compelte red herring IMO – and short term thinking at best – that TV deal is new money, only introduced when TRFC went into SFL3 and it will stop when TRFC leave the SFL – no doubt in 3 years if they live up to their potential and replace Ally. 🙂
So previously all SFL clubs weould have received about £1M (settlement fee) and 1 club received a parachute payment of 250k
that one club now won’t receive the parachute payment of 250k, but instead they will receive and extra 10k for finishing 12th in SPL and then providing they finish in top 5 of SFL1, they would receive the equivlaent money in prize money – so they would be no worse off really
that then leaves an extra 800k (1.8M new prize money less the £1M settlemeny money) to be split amongst the rest of the league
So, everyone in SFL1 is up, the relegated team breaks even – if in top 5, indeed, winning the league sees them £140k up!
Yeah, there is a bit of rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic about the numbers, but then again, there is only so much external money being put into the game by TV and sponsorship
The top end loses out and it is creating a more equitable distribution – and it hugely benefits the smaller clubs
It’s a good start, but still some way to go I would say.
I think we all agree that Yorkie went East to pacify the backers,Meanwhile MM was saying,possibly to the wrong people, that he was fed up with the nutterisms being spewed from Yorkie.The word got back and battle commenced.The city know MM,and they most certainly know of the rest of the board.I think that Yorkie was told that the city could drive the share price down and write it off as a tax loss,what would that do to Yorkie’s plans?Is that scenario feasable.?
I think Green has seriously misjudged the mettle of Malcolm Murray and the heavyweight backing he has in the City. There are interesting variations between the original Record exclusive and the Blue Room counter-attack delivered in the Herald.
Jackson placed the explosive confrontation at the first Ranger International Board meeting exactly a week ago with Green allegedly threatening to quit if Murray didn’t go. Jackson said Green’s threat shocked non-executive directors Ian Hart, Philip Cartmell and Bryan Smart. Fellow non-executive director Walter Smith wasn’t present but Jackon claims he was later understood to have urged Green to reconsider.
Interestingly there was no mention of Murray having any personal ‘problems’ but the cause was given as long-running differences in position between Green and Murray which had developed into ‘vicious, spiteful in-fighting’.
Wilson’s Herald piece on Wednesday describes a very different lamb pie by stating it was a ‘board decision to ask Murray to step down’ and revealed their reason as: ‘Concerns about Murray’s private life’. An un-named source backed Green by revealing: ‘The board supported the view that Charles’ sole interest was the club’ and then had a side-swipe at the ‘crude and distorted’ Jackson exclusive.
By yesterday Wilson was on a roll and all but declared Murray’s demise by the end of the day. More detail was given on the Murray ‘personal’ allegations with the news that the issue had been raised at two previous Board meetings to the one last Friday which I thought was the FIRST Board meeting of RIFC Plc. Does this mean that the matter was discussed at Board meetings of TRFCL or some other, as yet unknown, company?
I assume Wilson is on day-off at the Herald today as the story has been passed to: Michael Grant and Hugh MacDonald. The tone is more akin to the original Record exclusive with a small fig-leaf for Wilson’s two pieces in the comment: ‘Murray seemed certain to be on the way out after being asked to resign by the rest of the board last week following concerns about his personal conduct and complaints by supporters’.
Looks to me as though the Herald may perhap have been contacted on Murray’s behalf over the tabloid nature of its output and decided to pull-back because I suspect they haven’t a scrap of evidence to substantiate the many allegations and ‘facts’ which their stories contained.
I would have thought that given their seemingly unrivalled access to the Rangers Boardroom they would stand-by their impeccable source and demand the directors to stand firm with their decision to remove a chairman, of a major Scottish institution, revealed in their own newspaper to be deeply flawed.
I will assume their silence indicates that succulent lamb lives on and I wonder how long it will be before one of their ace reporters is again played like a trumpet in the Blue Room with no backing for low bum notes.
Re my comments yesterday the final score was Corporate Governance 1 Louden Governance 0 in a tightly fought match. The winning goal was scored by the dogged corporate centre forward Murray in what turned out to be an acrimonius affair with both Green and the hatchet man Trayner booked. Good result for Corporate!
I should knwo by now not to read the man with the wee white bricks while drinking my coffee. He’s still peddalling the line that the Chairman has to go for “personal”reasons. In truth both the Chairman and the CEO have been damaged by this, though the CEO is probably the more wounded of the two. It will take a few months to shake out, but I expect one of them will have to go.
An early indication will be whether, and how quickly, Mr Green returns to delivering his stand up routine.
Its not unheard of that one director of a company shrouds something from another. An example would be how CW kept directors in the dark about various things.
I speculate that CG was giving the impression that the footballing debts were paid – and not just giving the impression to the media, but also internally.
I further speculate that he was found out by someone, who then informed MM, or maybe MM looked for himself (maybe the HMFC situation saw them requesting some form of early settlement of payment, which prompted MM to look into that side of things in CG’s absence), who found that what they had been led to believe had been paid, hadn’t actually been paid.
There followed some sort of arrangement to pay RV and to pay HMFC.
On the falling out and making up… CGs clout is no as big as his mooth.
is it not the case that the hearts money, whilst being a debt, it was not overdue….they had an agreed schedule for it to be paid
I know that they should still say there was an outstanding debt, but it was not overdue
Humble Pie says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 00:20
…..Bet you any money he starts describing the old club deliberately failing to properly register all offshore payments to its players over a ten year period as a mere ‘administrative error’.
=====================================================
Did Alastair Johnston not already beat him to it?
Carl31 (@C4rl31) says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 11:10
“Its not unheard of that one director of a company shrouds something from another. An example would be how CW kept directors in the dark about various things.”
I suppose one man’s shrouding, is another’s gross misconduct, followed by here’s your P45 and don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
Seriously, how long would an employee last if they had been saying they had paid invoices, while “shrouding” the fact that they had not?
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 11:16
is it not the case that the hearts money, whilst being a debt, it was not overdue….they had an agreed schedule for it to be paid
I know that they should still say there was an outstanding debt, but it was not overdue
——————————————————————————————————————
You’re correct – it was a debt: not overdue but apparently not separately declared in the Flotation Prospectus.
The flurry of debt being paid off in public yesterday, LNS?, reconstruction? MM/AIM spat? Has confused me.
Was it to gain favour with LNS punishment?
Gain favour with those voting on reconstruction?
AIM rules being adhered to in retrospect?
Rapid Vienna (aaaaccchhhttttt…. tttoooooo ) story seemed to merge into the mix of it all, the club/company wording exchange, and the threat of UEFA intervention. ( ignored by MSM).
But what confuses me is, there has been a long and detailed discussion on here WRT the WUO yet more dosh than the “Orlit invoices” was parted with yesterday?
Someone put me right, what just happened?
Galling fiver says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 11:41
I wouldn’t be surprised if all these things tie up.
Interim Financial figures are going to have to be reported soon.
The Chairman, CEO and Finance Director may all have to put in their tuppence worth.
The footballing debts and the Orlit invoices appear to be historical debts or obligations.
With a succesful IPO there is no reason why these could not be paid.
Murray has perhaps been putting pressure on Green to sort it out so that they don’t have to go to the City with unneccesary external debt showing up on the balance sheet.
Playing early for Wallace also gets that off the balance sheet.
Now T’Rangers may be right to dispute the amount invoiced by Orlit but given it was for pre acuistition services and to cover the payroll way back in June, maybe again Murray has been shocked that it has not been resolved and that mention of a WOU got into the press.
The error of Green not paying off one of his supposed friends has then given the club a problem they could do without. For a new supposidly cash rich company talk of WOUs at this early stage doesn’t look good.
As discussed above perhaps that’s the reason Green was packed off to the other side of the world to sort it out. Either that or Murray has called him out for taking his eye of the ball.
Regardless it is clear that someone has their eye on Green and my guess is he won’t be a happy chappy.
WOTTPI Thank you. So the story about what was in the bank was pish?
@LawTop20: Although Oldco’s contract with the SPL was terminated in August 2012, obligations arising out of such contract could continue
@LawTop20: Rule A7.2 holds the answer to the issue of enforcing rights against a club for the period of a membership with the SPL. It is clear.
@LawTop20: It is also clear that Rangers FC is a continuing recognisable entity and subject to sanctions [although it is lacking legal personality].
@LawTop20: If the allegations are proven, sanctions could only be imposed on Rangers FC as the Club has agreed to follow the Rules of the SPL.
—–
Can anyone comment on this for a layman please.
Galling fiver says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 11:41
2 0 Rate This
But what confuses me is, there has been a long and detailed discussion on here WRT the WUO yet more dosh than the “Orlit invoices” was parted with yesterday?
—————————————-
yeah, this would suggest they had enough money in the bank…..Phil suggested they didn’t (well, he suggested they didn’t raise 22.5M and that not all the money was in the bank and that if estimates were correct they had less than 500k in the bank – so it was pretty much a guess, he hadn’t seen a bank statement)
However, they have clearly paid off a lot more than that – and more importantly, they did it without any real pressure to do so.
So, the orlit debacle comes down to a “won’t pay” rather than a “can’t pay”
Now, why WON’T they pay it?
Orlit are at it?
or
Orlit and CG are at it and Malcolm Murray intervened to stop payment – leading to Orlit threatening a WUO
Could well be that Orlit was one of many avenues that CG & co was extracting money from the club and MM put a stop to it.
Orlit might have a genuine grievance as CG said it would be paid as part of their agreement – hence their seriousness in raising a WUO
But an interesting turn of events in light of folk proclaiming they didn’t have that money in the bank or raise that much in the share offering.
Also the SH01 forms lodged the other day seem to back up that they DID get that much cash in.
Thanks, list of posters to look out for amended.
allyjambo says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 10:31
===============================================
Re. outstanding debts – This may be reminiscent of the Clinton, “I did not have sexual relations with this woman” comment but probably not a lie from Charles Green’s perspective. Assume semantics and prettying up the prospectus. In Hearts case the debt became due when the Summer 2013 instalment was to be paid.
Share price still hovering around the 79p mark with around 6200 shares traded. It’s been a comparatively busy couple of days for the issue, straws in the wind and all that….
So if MM is staying, is CG going as he threatened? I don’t go there, but what are the RFC* fans saying about this on their sites? Anyone know?
Also, Phil, if you’re looking in, what is your take now on the Orlit thing, given that payments to RV anf HMFC seem to suggest that money isn’t the issue? What was your ‘more still to come’? Is it more akin to the scam issue suggested by NTHM above?
blu says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 12:21
“This may be reminiscent of the Clinton, “I did not have sexual relations with this woman” comment but probably not a lie from Charles Green’s perspective. Assume semantics and prettying up the prospectus.”
I seem to be on irregular verb patrol today 🙂
I suppose one man’s “prettied up” prospectus is another man’s false prospectus, which can lead to all sorts of problems, including being locked locked up with one’s own chamber pot.
I can’t help wondering if the Chairman has been having one or two conversations of this sort with Mr Green.
Thanks. There is no doubt that yesterday was all about money, as is this whole charade. I know RIFC’s model does not work outside SPL/CL. It was the trigger for yesterdays activity that intrigues me most. I like the “Orlit syphon” theory, trouble downt pit defo.
scapaflow14 says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 12:33
blu says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 12:21
“This may be reminiscent of the Clinton, “I did not have sexual relations with this woman” comment but probably not a lie from Charles Green’s perspective. Assume semantics and prettying up the prospectus.”
I seem to be on irregular verb patrol today
I suppose one man’s “prettied up” prospectus is another man’s false prospectus, which can lead to all sorts of problems, including being locked locked up with one’s own chamber pot.
I can’t help wondering if the Chairman has been having one or two conversations of this sort with Mr Green.
=============================================================
Will AIM or shareholders call him on it? I suspect not.
blu says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 12:41
With all due respect old bean, it’s precisely that sort of “it’s only an offence if we get caught” thinking that got Rangers into this mess in the first place
Plus ca change and all that
Is CG doing one of his famous roadshows at Ibrox tonight? Ah, more greenbeams to brighten our weekend.
wonder if he’ll announce kit/shirt sponsor?
can we expect anything more probing that
what school did you go to
when is the linfield game
never mind who makes or sponsors the strip – what shade of orange is it?
On reading back, I may sound a bit disrespectful of posters who put more positive content into the discussion than I do. Its easy to take stuff as gospel from folk, who seem to know a lot more than they let on.
It would be a laugh if he did announce a shirt sponsor in the Louden given his utterance that the announcement would be made at the time of greatest impact 😀
scapaflow14 says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 12:50
0 0 i
Rate This
blu says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 12:41
With all due respect old bean, it’s precisely that sort of “it’s only an offence if we get caught” thinking that got Rangers into this mess in the first place
Plus ca change and all that
=======================================================
I’ll take the, “with all due respect” comment with good grace. Read my posts again if you can be bothered. I offered an opinion on what I believe is likely to happen. Green won’t be called for any IPO prospectus mis-representation. What I didn’t say was that prettying up an IPO prospectus or bending the truth to suit was right. If Charles Green has deliberately misled investors let him suffer the consequences.
Galling Fiver
We are all speculating, no one on here really knows with absolute certainty whats going on with Rangers. However, the serious side to this is the worry that maybe the board of Rangers International didn’t know with absolute certainty either. (My reason for saying that is that I can’t believe that Malcolm Murray would knowingly let a prospectus go out that wasn’t enitirely truthful)
If I were are a Rangers fan. or worse yet a shareholder, that would terrify me.
Both Rapid and Hearts paid. I wonder if Celtic have been paid the 40k owed? We must assume so by the “debt free” claims. Does anyone think the MSM will ask CG n co this the next time they talk about having paid their football debts?? No, I didn’t think so. 🙂
blu says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 12:41
It’s Friday or tongue in cheek day. I agree he won’t get called on it, (which is why i gave you a TU), but that is not the point. So far in terms of public behaviour, since that seems to be the topic de jour for the last couple of days, the only difference I can see between Mr Whyte and Mr Green is their shoe size.
Events may prove me wrong, but the consequences for Rangers, and it has to be said for Scottish Football in general, if this all goes pear shaped again, will be nasty.
Shirt sponsor time check 🙂 CG is now 409 hrs late with the announcement could this be another jackanory story? Surely not 😉
nawlite says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 12:29
So if MM is staying, is CG going as he threatened? I don’t go there, but what are the RFC* fans saying about this on their sites? Anyone know?
——
They were completely and entirely ignoring that aspect of it earlier today. Such things just don’t seem to register on their radar, which seems fine-tuned to much more important things like sniffing out a suspected Timmy poster on the thread (thought it was CFC fans who were supposed to be paranoid? 🙂 ).
One of the more lucid guys had this to say:
“IMO what happens in the boardroom should stay in the boardroom. Everyone at some point in life has not agreed with their bosses decisions but you talk to them and find a common ground to work to.
What bothers me is how these stories are leaking to the press.”
He has a fair point there. The “source close to the Ibrox board” could be one of several people, depending on motive – and depending on whether they are the actual source or just a conduit.
angus1983 says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 13:32
He has a fair point there. The “source close to the Ibrox board” could be one of several people, epending on motive – and depending on whether they are the actual source or just a conduit……or an intended figurehead for a future purchasing consortium of the club.
Fixed that for you – but can’t for the life of me work out how to do bold!
For the absence of doubt I am not misquoting him OK!
jockybhoy says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 10:00
As I said, there could be dozens of possible reasons why he’s paid these debts now rather than holding onto a substancial amount of cash, we will probably never know the real reason why. I would imagine, though, unless he is genuinely here to build a new Rangers, he’d have held onto every pound he could to boost his final pot unless there was real pressure to pay. I think the main thing is; it’s further confirmation of his lying business practice, and he’s not afraid – or totally unaware of how ridiculous it makes him appear – to be found out. We still await just one member of the MSM to ask him why he’s previously stated these debts to be paid! A supplementary question, from a genuine journalist, would then be; ‘were you, therefore, deliberately lying when you made these statements, or did you genuinely believe the debts has been paid, and are, in fact, just plain stupid?’
ecobhoy says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 11:26
Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 11:16
is it not the case that the hearts money, whilst being a debt, it was not overdue….they had an agreed schedule for it to be paid
I know that they should still say there was an outstanding debt, but it was not overdue
——————————————————————————————————————
You’re correct – it was a debt: not overdue but apparently not separately declared in the Flotation Prospectus.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
With the 6 month accounts due out soon the auditors will be in preparing them. I’m wondering if they picked up the debt discrepancy and made representations to the Board to get it sorted.
During my research trip to RM, I came across a thread in which the wisdom of having Mr Traynor on board is discussed. “He may be a berk, but he’s OUR berk” is the general opinion.
One of Mr Traynor’s since-deleted official club website pieces is reproduced here for anyone who’s interested:
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=247740&st=20#entry1060821332
In it, Mr Traynor has this to say:
“But why is it that so many continue to write or broadcast that this club is a new club when it is the owners who are new? Is it a lack of basic intelligence or is it something more sinister?”
Perhaps he’s referring to the following quote from a sports journalist at a popular newspaper on 13 June 2012. The author’s name escapes me for now:
“No matter how Charles Green attempts to dress it up, a newco equals a new club. When the CVA was thrown out Rangers as we know them died.”
Shirley the RFC* fans must know what JT said about the death of the club. Why don’t any of them ask him why he said it and if he stands by it?
That would be a fun Q&A!!
bogsdollox says:
Friday, February 22, 2013 at 13:59
………………………………………
We have the auditors in at the moment….
They wouldn’t make a representation to the board….to the FD or the company’s accountant or both maybe…
Asking for clarification, explanation or correction of documents is normal practice…without a satisfactory resolution to such discrepences will result in the auditors highlighting this in their audit report…
Such as a statement of revenue including invoices showing as paid…when they haven’t been…thus giving a false trading account through the books…which can have an impact on share price…
You can imagine the temptation to show a profit instead of a loss!