The following post comes about as a result of the research and work put in by Auldheid.
He has drafted the submission to FIFA detailed below after closely looking at their rules, and taking on board the points contained in the Glasnost “Golden Rule” blog. TSFM has attached the blog’s name to the report since the overwhelming – but not unanimous – view of our readership is that the SFA and the SPL have again gotten themselves into an almighty and embarrassingly amateur fankle over this issue.
We believe that tens of thousands of football fans will be lost to the game if the outcome of the LNS enquiry is not perceived to be commensurate with the scope and extent of the rule breaking that LNS found had taken place. In view of this, we believe that we have to do what we can to explore all possibilities for justice for those who love the game so much and yet are utterly disillusioned by recent events.
LNS is not being questioned here. He has found that RFC were guilty as charged by the SPL.
What is being questioned is the SFA’s crucial – and seemingly conflicted – role in the LNS enquiry, as is the effectiveness of LNS’s recommended sanction as either a deterrent or an upholder of sporting integrity.
It came to our notice last week that FIFA have created a web site at
https://www.bkms-system.net/bkwebanon/report/clientInfo?cin=6fifa61&language=eng
that tells us that FIFA have implemented a regulatory framework which is intended to ensure that all statutory rules, rules of conduct and internal guidelines of FIFA are respected and complied with.
In support of that regulatory framework FIFA have set up the above site as a reporting mechanism by means of which inappropriate behaviour and infringements of the pertinent regulations may be reported.
FIFA say that their jurisdiction encompasses misconduct that (1) relates to match manipulation; (2) occurs in or affects more than one confederation, so that it cannot adequately be addressed by a single confederation; or (3) would ordinarily be addressed by a confederation or association, but, under the particular facts at issue, has not been or is unlikely to be dealt with appropriately at that level.
Discussions arising from the previous blog on TSFM, “Gilt Edged Justice”, which was published after Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) ruled on the registration of Rangers players who had contractual side letters that were not disclosed to the SFA as part of their registration, suggest that there may be possible unfortunate consequences for football arising from the evidence presented by the SFA to the LNS enquiry that informed its findings on registration and consequent eligibility. There is also a question of the propriety of the SFA providing evidence on an issue which could have had a negative impact on them had it been found that they had failed to carrying out their registration duties with due rigour over a period of ten years when the existence of EBTs was known to officials within the SFA.
On the basis that the LNS findings require that registration rules be clarified by FIFA and rewritten globally if necessary to remove any ambiguity and under clause 3 above, this appears to be an issue that the FIFA should examine and that the SFA cannot address.
The following report has therefore been submitted by TSFM on behalf of its readers to FIFA drawing on the content and debate following the “Gilt Edged Justice” blog in respect of the possible footballing consequences of the LNS enquiry.
The hope is that by speaking for so many supporters, FIFA will give the TSFM submission some weight, but individuals are free of course to make their own points in their own way. We await acknowledgement of the submission.
The report Submitted to FIFA is as follows;
This report was prepared on behalf of the 10,000-strong readership of The Scottish Football Monitor at http://scottishfootballmonitor.wordpress.com/
It is our belief that FIFA general rules of conduct were breached by the SFA and their employees in both creating and then advising The Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) enquiry into the non disclosure of full payment information to the Scottish Football Association (SFA) by Rangers F.C during a period of player registration over 10 years from 2000.We believe that although the issue has been addressed by the SFA the particular facts at issue suggest that it has not been dealt with appropriately and we therefore ask FIFA to investigate. The facts at issue are that the process and advice given failed to uphold sporting integrity, and that a conflict of interest was at play.
We believe the advice provided and the enquiry set up, where SFA both advised and is the appellant body, breaches not only the integrity the registration rules were intended to uphold, but also totally undermines the integrity of the SFA in breach of General Conduct rules 1, 2 and 4. (See below.)
1. Firstly we believe that the advice supplied to LNS that an incorrectly registered player was eligible to play as long as the registration was accepted by the SFA however unwittingly, undermines the intent of the SPL/SFA rules on player registration and so undermines the integrity of football in three ways.
• It incentivises clubs to apply for a player to be registered even if they know that the conditions of registration are not satisfied, in the hope that the application will somehow ‘slip through the net’ and be granted anyway (in which case it will be valid until revoked).
• A club which discovers that it has made an error in its application is incentivized to say nothing and to ‘let sleeping dogs lie’ – because it would be in a better position by not confessing its mistake.
• And most importantly, it incentivises fraud. By deliberately concealing relevant information, a club can ensure that a player who does not satisfy the registration conditions is treated as being eligible – and therefore allowed to play – for as long as a period as possible (potentially his entire spell with the club). Then, if the club is no longer around when the deception is finally discovered, imposing meaningful sanctions may be impossible.
2. Secondly we believe the process followed was inappropriate due to a Conflict of Interest. Had the LNS enquiry not ruled on the basis of advice supplied by The SFA, they and those persons advising the LNS enquiry, could have been subjected to censure and the SFA to potential compensation claims had LNS found that the players were indeed ineligible to play and results then been annulled as was SFA practice when an ineligible player played.
3. Finally we contend that a law should not be applied according to its literal meaning if to do so would lead to an absurdity or a manifest injustice or in this case loss of football integrity.
See http://glasnostandapairofstrikers.wordpress.com/2013/03/07/gilt-edged-justice/4. We therefore ask FIFA to investigate both the process used and advice given to Lord Nimmo Smith to satisfy themselves that FIFA’s intentions with regard to upholding the integrity of football under FIFA rules have not been seriously damaged by the LNS findings and also to reassure Scottish football supporters that the integrity of our game has not been sacrificed by the very authority in whose care it has been placed to promote the short term cause of commercialism to the games long term detriment.
General Rules of Conduct (These are taken from the FIFA web site itself and can be found as part of completing the submission process)
1. Persons bound by this Code are expected to be aware of the importance of their duties and concomitant obligations and responsibilities.
2. Persons bound by this Code are obliged to respect all applicable laws and regulations as well as FIFA’s regulatory framework to the extent applicable to them.
3. N/A
4. Persons bound by this Code may not abuse their position in any way, especially to take advantage of their position for private aims or gains.
5th March. Charles Green.
Quote:
Green said: “Sectarian singing, or any form of race or religious discrimination, is not acceptable. I know Rangers have made great strides but my position is very clear – anybody who is identified will be banned for life. There will be no appeals.
Andy says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 18:14
Can he provide a list of the people who have received this sanction. I think we have a right to know the names of the people Charles has banned from supporting Rangers for “Sectarian singing, or any form of race or religious discrimination” with no right of appeal.
I’m surprised there hasn’t been reporting on this happening.
It looks to me like Charles is working hard on his exit strategy.
Salary in the bank – Check
Bonus in the bank – Check
Exit ASAP by selling 1p shares for a profit – A work in progress
Total mess left behind – why does he care?
How long before they wake up and smell the coffee?
smartbhoy says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 16:18
——————————————————————————–
Well said that man. Let’s all try and keep an open mind regards criticism of our own clubs.
Totally agree with you about PMG being the worst culprit too. All the backslapping is boak inducing. A wee bit of criticism can only be healthy if fact based surely?
wottpi 1831
I seem to remember that many of those who bought ‘Penny Shares’ are prevented from selling them for six months (or was it 12 months?) from the launch just before Christmas 2012. I recall that when I had the info available, I worked out that they could sell towards the end of May this year …. just after the end of the season. I was a bit confused about how much they paid for the preferential ‘Penny Shares’ – 50p or 70p? I’m sure someone will know and clarify.
greenockjack says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 17:41
3 2 Rate This
I´ve heard it mentioned on here that if CG were to get sacked as CEO then his 12 month lock-in period on his shares would suddenly end.
Please can someone who has the relevant expertise or has done the research tell me if this is true ?
If it were accompanied by a link with a list of causes for the lock-in period to be discontinued all the better.
I seem to remember a possible 6 month extension to this 12 months which was easier to get around with said conditions printed in the prospectus.
=====
Who exactly will be willing to buy them?
I don’t think that selling the shares in the PLC is the point.
In my view it is more likely that they will either.
1, Sell the club (ltd co) and rent the properties to the new owner, earning from the rental income, with the assets available to secure other things against.
or
2, Sell the club, and also sell the properties, then liquidate the PLC, dividing up the proceeds.
This would have been much easier if the club was still in the SPL obviously. Or still had a lot of the big name players. Though i suspect the plan was to cash in on them anyway.
Bearing in mind that Charles Green owns something like 8% of the business. So he will effectively make.
1, 8% of what they sell the club for, plus still own 8% of the properties and get a dividend from that as rents are paid. Plus a salary if he chose to still run the business.
or
2, 8% of the full liquidation amount when all assets are sold.
Selling the shares would only work if there was a buyer for them. What they are currently trading at really isn’t the point. It’s how much someone is actually willing to pay. Though for the likes of Green all he has to do is sell them for more than a penny. I just think there is a better way for them.
chipm0nk says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 19:18
0 0 Rate This
I don’t think that selling the shares in the PLC is the point.
In my view it is more likely that they will either.
1, Sell the club (ltd co) and rent the properties to the new owner, earning from the rental income, with the assets available to secure other things against.
or
2, Sell the club, and also sell the properties, then liquidate the PLC, dividing up the proceeds.
This would have been much easier if the club was still in the SPL obviously. Or still had a lot of the big name players. Though i suspect the plan was to cash in on them anyway.
Bearing in mind that Charles Green owns something like 8% of the business. So he will effectively make.
1, 8% of what they sell the club for, plus still own 8% of the properties and get a dividend from that as rents are paid. Plus a salary if he chose to still run the business.
or
2, 8% of the full liquidation amount when all assets are sold.
Selling the shares would only work if there was a buyer for them. What they are currently trading at really isn’t the point. It’s how much someone is actually willing to pay. Though for the likes of Green all he has to do is sell them for more than a penny. I just think there is a better way for them.
======
again the point stands, sell to who
you sell the club by selling the shares
despite what the msm say
dreddybhoy says:
Who exactly will be willing to buy them?
#############
Imran’s mum?
As a slight diversion from the current discussions, I’ve been having another wee look at average match attendances this year as opposed to last. Things still seem to be holding up rather well.
Big winners (numerically), not surprisingly are Queens Park, Dundee and Ross County. Altogether a little over half the clubs have seen an increase in their average home gate. Celtic are still showing as the biggest loser but they have at least had a magnificent Champions League run as well. Funnily enough, despite all the world records, Rangers home crowd is, on average 662 less than it was last year.
dreddybhoy says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 19:25
==============================
Sorry I was differentiating between the shares in the PLC and the shares in the Ltd company, which are not actually publicly traded and owned 100% by the PLC.
I believe the Ltd company will be sold whole. It could be to a new version of The Blue Knights. Who would come in, save the club and get hero status without being involved in administration / liquidation / dramatic cost cutting etc.
I actually suspect that sale is already agreed, and Whyte / Green are just doing the dirty work with regard the liquidation, getting rid of the debt etc.
See my last re options on how the shareholders in the PLC could benefit from this.
It is of course only a hypothesis and could be total nonsense.
exfallhoose2012 says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 18:50
wottpi 1831
I seem to remember that many of those who bought ‘Penny Shares’ are prevented from selling them for six months (or was it 12 months?) from the launch just before Christmas 2012. I recall that when I had the info available, I worked out that they could sell towards the end of May this year …. just after the end of the season. I was a bit confused about how much they paid for the preferential ‘Penny Shares’ – 50p or 70p? I’m sure someone will know and clarify.
————————————————————————————————————————
The Directors, Ally and Imran Ahmad are locked-in for 12 months and hold 12.76 per cent. of the Enlarged Share Capital after flotation.
The Company and Cenkos Securities have entered into orderly market agreements with certain other Shareholders holding, upon Admission, 16,375,000 Ordinary Shares (representing 22.60 per cent. of the Enlarged Share Capital (assuming subscription in full of the Offer Shares) for a period of six months from Admission. The percentage will be a bit lower because the fans didn’t take up all of their Offer shares but I’ve never worked it out. I think the Institutional Investors are probably the ones locked-in for the 6 months but I don’t know.
I don’t have my main laptop with me with detailed breakdown but from memory/some notes on cloud there were 19 million TRFC Ltd shares issued at 1p each which were swapped 1 for 1 for Rangers International shares. Up until 31/08 approx 25 million shares were issued for £7.7 million which works out at 30p a share. Then from 31/08 8 million shares were issued for £5.5 million which works out at 45p a share.
Then we have the flotation and we know the fans mostly paid 70p a share but I’ve never bothered working out the supposed price paid by the institutional investors as I’m not sure it would mean much – cynic that I am.
I’m sure I’ve missed some chunks but that gives you a rough idea of share prices. Although there were some poor souls who bought £2 million TRFCL shares at £1 a time = they are down 30p a share at the moment. However I’m sure Charlies shares only cost him 1p a time so he is bound to make a profit whereas some others might have difficulties finding a buyer.
chipm0nk says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 19:35
dreddybhoy says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 19:25
==============================
Sorry I was differentiating between the shares in the PLC and the shares in the Ltd company, which are not actually publicly traded and owned 100% by the PLC.
———————————————————————————————————–
My understanding is that the TRFCL shares have all been swapped on a 1 for 1 basis for Rangers International shares which are sellable unless they are subject to restriction.
ecobhoy says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 20:04
I’m not really sure what you are saying, or if we are disagreeing.
My understanding is that shares in the Ltd company were swapped for shares in the PLC, so the people who owned the Ltd Company then owned the PLC. Subsequently there was an IPO, more shares were issued and those people then became part owners.
However the PLC now owns all of the shares in the Ltd company (it swapped it’s own shares for them), the limited company is wholly owned by the PLC (the holding company) so now the PLC can sell all of those shares if it wants, effectively selling the club to a new buyer. The shares in the limited company are not publicly traded and have no value per se, other than what someone is willing to pay for them.
However the assets, stadium, training ground etc, are owned by the PLC. So even if it sells the trading arm it can keep the properties.
Is that not the case.
chipm0nk says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 19:35
I believe the Ltd company will be sold whole. It could be to a new version of The Blue Knights. Who would come in, save the club and get hero status without being involved in administration / liquidation / dramatic cost cutting etc.
————————————————————————————————————————-
The one thing that has never happened at RFC(IL) or TRFC is dramatic cost cutting.
It is the first thing any new owner not wishing to lose the thick end of £33,000 per day should do.
tick ,tock,tick,tock
Kings, that stv video was watched through my fingers. Surel even Mr. Green cant sustain this momentum of garbage much longer.
Kings! I of course meant Jings! My scots translator is on the blink!
Murray is Whyte who his Green, and they have went to too much trouble to hold onto the assets and keep them at an affordable price to sell up to a non brogued businessman/ real spiv. This is all script. Or BDO are looking to raise money from the brand, so they are burning it. What next, an asbestos report from the new facilities man.
It really is a disgrace, if it gets any worse who knows, the fans might even plead for SDM to come back. After all, the papers, a judge and the website says he won all them cases and didnae spen at much.
chipm0nk says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 20:13
However the PLC now owns all of the shares in the Ltd company (it swapped it’s own shares for them), the limited company is wholly owned by the PLC (the holding company) so now the PLC can sell all of those shares if it wants, effectively selling the club to a new buyer. The shares in the limited company are not publicly traded and have no value per se, other than what someone is willing to pay for them.
——————————————————————————————-
The Plc can’t sell any shares belonging to the shareholders although it can issue new shares but that’s another story and can be ignored for the present. When TRFCL was set up the original consortium members invested to buy Rangers from D&P and I reckon most of them got 1p shares which were subsequently swapped for RIFC Plc ones. Other investors also came in before the flotation and paid various prices for shares in TRFCL and again these were swapped for RIFC Plc ones. Then we had the flotation made up of an institutional placement and an offer to fans.
Green said today he can be voted out by shareholders but that’s easier said than done as the shareholding structure was deliberately designed so that no one had overall control. Alliances can be formed between shareholders but when they are anonymous this can be difficult. But he could be removed by the Board whose vote isn’t based on shareholding.
So anyone wanting to buy the club has to buy shares from a number of shareholders – the board could recommend a potential buyer to shareholders but it can’t force them and it all comes down to the price a potential purchase is offering.
As to what a potential purchaser would buy – well that’s a good question. I cannot see the PLC relinquishing Ibrox and Murray Park as that can always be rented to whoever runs the football club and I have no doubt that TRFCL if not already renting will do so soon by paying the rent, from their cash generated by ST and walk-up ticket sales and other income streams, to the Holding Company.
But you have raised an interesting point and that is if the TRFCL shares have all been swapped after the original subscriber shares were split then there would still need to be I think a £1 subscriber share left in TRFCL. There were originally 2 x £1 such shares from memory and it appeared both belonged to Green but there were areas I couldn’t quite understand which emerged when the change of name took place. But I’ll check the Companies House documentation because the time limit has now expired by which any change in shareholding would need to be reported to Companies House.
The problem for a clearer understanding of what is happening financially is that we don’t have any full accounts for anyone yet and won’t have for a while.
Sugar Daddy says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 20:16
They didn’t have to when the players walked away, and couldn’t really as they were arguing that everyone would be entitled to “TUPE” over. So the costs did start to drop dramatically.
They have started to pay people off now, but that’s on an individual basis.
The administrators should have done it, then they would have raised some money for a potential CVA (or to pay out in liquidation) and at the same time cut the wage bill. I think the assumption was that whatever happened the team (old or new) would be in the SPL and that either the players would stay, or could be sold off to earn money for the club, rather than waste it on the pesky creditors who wanted paid, which would have happened if the administrators had sold them. It would have been cash in the bank, both in fees coming in and savings in wages.
What I really meant though was that the eventual owners, which I think was already decided, would not have to be involved in any of that. They could ride in on white chargers when all the dirty work had been done and save the day. They could then build things back up from scratch, taking the fans along with them.
I really think that the SPL rejecting the new club, and the SFL rejecting them into the 1st division was huge and totally unexpected. By everyone including the authorities. To a certain extent it has been a case of making it up as you go along since then.
It’s one thing to buy the shares….but who owns the assets..ie the stadium and training facility? Once you have the shares…how much might the rent cost per game…per month?
Sugar Daddy says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 20:16
chipm0nk says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 19:35
I believe the Ltd company will be sold whole. It could be to a new version of The Blue Knights. Who would come in, save the club and get hero status without being involved in administration / liquidation / dramatic cost cutting etc.
————————————————————————————————————————-
The one thing that has never happened at RFC(IL) or TRFC is dramatic cost cutting.
It is the first thing any new owner not wishing to lose the thick end of £33,000 per day should do.
————————————————————————–
Sugar Daddy,
Mentioned this yesterday.
The Blue Knights.Mr Ng.Miller etc all walked away.Basically nothing has changed.Charlie could sell TRFC for £1(plus one from his own pocket) tomorrow.
Whoever buys this basket case will have to subsidise them to the tune of circa £10m p.a.,just to get them back to the top division.If/when they get there,they’re going to find CFC challenging them for the one,it seems CL spot.CFC already have the finances,sponsorship etc in place and will have had for several years.
In my opinion,which will probably be wrong.nothing unusual in that,TRFC will need a minimum of £10m p.a. at current expenditure just to reach the top division.Once there they will need at least another £20m to build a team capable of challenging CFC for the CL place.
That’s £50m minimum,with no guarantees.
If there are investors out there willing to put this sort of cash into Rangers with no promise of a return,then good luck to them.I wish them all the best.It will be an emotional investment and if it happens then the investors should be applauded.
Before folk start mentioning the Blue Knights,etc as possible owners of what may turn out to be a 3rd RFC,remember this:
If Muff & Flaps had handled this administration correctly(alleged there’s a problem or 2),
then Kennedy,Murray,Blue Knights whoever could have had the whole lot for around £6m cash.
They knew the future cash flow problems and even if they bought the newco for £1,the cash flow problems still remain.
ecobhoy says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 21:10
0
0
Rate This
chipm0nk says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 20:13
However the PLC now owns all of the shares in the Ltd company (it swapped it’s own shares for them), the limited company is wholly owned by the PLC (the holding company) so now the PLC can sell all of those shares if it wants, effectively selling the club to a new buyer. The shares in the limited company are not publicly traded and have no value per se, other than what someone is willing to pay for them.
——————————————————————————————-
The Plc can’t sell any shares belonging to the shareholders although it can issue new shares but that’s another story and can be ignored for the present.
===============================
I don’t mean they can sell the shareholders’ shares in the PLC.
I mean they can sell their own shares in the Ltd company.
Maybe that’s the problem and I am misunderstanding. As far as I am aware loads of people own shares in the PLC. However the PLC owns all of the shares in the Ltd co.
Are Rangers FC Ltd not a wholly owned subsidiary of Rangers International FC PLC. Is Rangers International FC PLC not the holding company for Rangers FC Ltd. In which case it could sell the shares in Rangers FC Ltd, the trading arm, but keep all of the assets and rent them out to the same business. Or sell everything and liquidate the PLC.
Again, sorry if my understanding is wrong, or I’m not explaining myself properly.
scottc says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 19:28
As a slight diversion from the current discussions, I’ve been having another wee look at average match attendances
=======================================================
As my own diversion I have been having a wee look to see if I can spot Fleetfoot Green at Worksop Town FC – no luck so far but I think I have spotted where he gets his attendance record fixation – amongst many others – from.
Worksop Town played in the Midland League. In the 1907–08 season, in notable FA Cup run, the club reached the First Round Proper (the equivalent of the modern day competition’s Third Round), and were drawn away against Chelsea. Although losing 9–1, the game drew an attendance of 70,184, a club record which still stands today.
Record busting Rangers will be buying another history soon I reckon 🙂 And to think that Green’s old school sprint records still stand to this day. I wonder if he flew spitfires in the Boer War as well 🙂
As I said, the way to exit with some money for shares, or selling on the company or however they are going to do it is still a work in progress.
Here is a post that was on a Paul McConville blog from last year
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/10/19/imran-ahmad-of-rangers-the-portfolio-of-his-former-co-allenby-capital-by-100bjd/
100bjd
October 20, 2012 at 9:23 am
Neil,
There is no AIM rule regarding lockin. What happens is that your NOMAD (nominated advisor) usually presses the shareholder to sign a lock in covenant to encourage new investors that the funding investors do not sell out the deal leaving the new investors high and dry. Watch what the prospectus says for your answer. Even if you sign the lock in covenant you can still beat the system. An excellent example was the Chic inspired Panceltica which bombed big time. However the major winners were Chic’s man Paul Fraser who was paid $12m dividend cash on floatation and then sold his 14% share, despite a lock in, because of a life threatening disease. Thankfully Paul recovered his health and he is now an exceedingly rich man unlike all the other normal punters who lost everything. These boys know how to play the game…..its their game!
The Panceltica thing has been mentioned on various forums, blogs Private Eye etc from early on in the takeover saga and the warning was that is that it seemed to bomb pretty quickly
Here are some links – floated one year down the pan the next
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/markets/marketreport/2787264/Panceltica-shows-its-metal-by-aiming-sky-high.html
Green gets a mention as Deputy Chairman and even mentions it was not the best time to float (like just before Christmas)??!!
http://www.building.co.uk/news/finance/panceltica-faces-takeover-after-qatar-housing-debacle/3139499.article
torrejohnbhoy says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 21:18
0 0 Rate This
—————————–
No one walked away. All part of the plan.
Excellent article on CQN – well worth the read:
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/
Newco, the Record and the police
08th April 2013
It’s not often CQN quotes the Daily Record, so hold onto your bonnets……….
Most of us have been watching the old media/new media for years. Actual news is now well and truly in the domain of the new media but when it comes to some matters, the authority of the old media seems to be greater than the new.
Think back to those scenes at Inverness last year when Jelly ‘n’ Ice Cream was given its first outing. That reaction came after the Daily Record put their weight behind the notion that many of us had been saying for weeks/months/years, that Rangers were going out of business. It wasn’t actual news, everyone had heard the same stories many times, but when the Record went on-record, the remaining doubters were convinced.
Viewed through this prism, when today’s Record raises the spectre of police and liquidator action, even the most sceptical must know things are serious. This morning they urge Newco’s chairman Malcolm Murray to:
“Tell the stock market his board understands the explosive nature of Whyte’s claims and that they are on top of their duties. He should order his own investigation, hire independent accountants and lawyers to examine all evidence, while co-operating in full with the police and with liquidators BDO.
“That’s the kind of decisive action Murray should be taking this morning and I suspect it’s precisely what he wants to do. But if he does not emerge at some point today or tomorrow then it means he is being undermined by his fellow directors who have baulked when implored by him to do the right thing.
“His allies – if any – should go with him because if they share his concerns but fail to act upon them they too risk massive reputational damage. Maybe even worse than that if the police become involved. That’s how serious the situation has become”.
The allegations made by Craig Whyte last week are more serious than any charge previously levelled at a football club board in Scotland, infinitely more serious than what has been alleged about Craig Whyte, Sir David Murray or Campbell Ogilvie. They have, of course, come from a man who has been shown to be liberal with his use of facts, but they have been made about Green, who has admitted he tells people what they want to hear in order to get his way.
The Record have also realised the consequences of Green and Whyte colluding during the administration process:
“Green was eventually allowed to pick up the club’s assets for the paltry figure of £5.5m. A deal agreed with Duff and Phelps which excluded rival bids from any other party.
This was as unfathomable agreement that may have cost creditors millions – and which was triggered the second Green’s group stumped up enough money to secure preferred bidder status.
Now it has been further claimed that in order to help scramble that deposit together, Whyte dumped £137,500 into an account belonging to Ahmad’s mother.
Again, this will be of great interest to the authorities because, essentially, this was the very moment Green and his backers were given a clean run at picking up a £50m business for a pittance.”
Newco’s independent non-executive directors, including the chairman, are in a difficult position. If they were not previously aware of the collusion between Green and Whyte they may be of a mind to resign, but as non-execs, it was their job to look after the interests of stakeholders before the smelly stuff lands, which they have clearly failed to do.
Scottish football has had a troublesome couple of years as it prepared for and dealt with the consequences of the liquidation of Rangers. Unless Whyte’s claims can be proven to be without foundation, and unless BDO take a kind view of Charles Green’s agreement with Craig Whyte, the months ahead will at least provide some finality. Stewart Gilmour at St Mirren will have a great deal to think about ahead of his board meeting on Wednesday.
Just think, without so many people backing Charles Green the ‘Rangers’ brand could be in the hands of Brian Kennedy right now! If you see someone preaching the gospel according to Charles Green, don’t try to undermine their faith.
Re: the question about selling TRFC Ltd.
=================================
For those who have better knowledge than myself…and apologies if this was covered before now.
Off the top of my head, does this scenario not lend itself to a split between a Real Estate Investment Trust, [REIT], and a separate operating company ?
So the valuable property assets are held in the tax efficient REIT, and Charlie and pals or whoever extracts 80%/90% (?) of profits per annum as per REIT regulations.
The basket case of the operating company, i.e. the club, can be spun off to real bluenoses.
Everyone happy ?
Mibbees aye / mibbees naw ?
Graham Spiers @GrahamSpiers 1h
N Patey:“Technically its a new club – it couldn’t be sold as a going concern, its assets were sold off. But in spirit its the same Rangers.”
………………………..
Neil Patey in shockeroony confession…’technically…it’s a new club’
The Spivs own almost all the shares in RIFC.
They will not exit until they have milked TRFC dry. Thats why they`re here after all
Its all so predictable
Spivs are creatures of habit. The tried and tested scams get repeated over and over again
I wouldn`t be a bit surprised if the cashpiie was maximised along the following lines
RIFC negotiate a discounted loan from offshore Spivs that is worth a lot less than a floating charge over the assets
Tax is not paid until a winding up order is threatened
Creditors don`t get paid
.Essential repairs to Ibrox get delayed
Huge porkies are told concurrent with STs being issued
RIFC collect ST cash and liquidate before the first set of accounts need to be released
TRFC are forced into administration by HMRC
RIFC liquidate and divide up the cash to shareholders
Offshore Spivs get the assets from the Liquidator and rent the Stadium to genuine Bears
Saddest of all will be the response of the SFL/SPL/SFA.
They will bend over backwards to smooth the Spivsexit for the good of Scottish football
Long Time Lurker says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 21:45
How much of that did the Daily Record simply lift from places like this and run past their lawyers and accountants before publishing.
To be fair though, as someone said earlier if that actually gets things more out there into the public domain then fair do’s.
torrejohnbhoy says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 21:18
1 0 Rate This
chipm0nk says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 21:11
In agreement, Torrejohnbhoy. The football company is a basket case until somebody starts cost cutting, heavily.
Its not as if there isn’t a template to follow. Livi skooshed up the leagues to find their level with Div 1 standard players, ditto Gretna. QOTS have done well on £300k and beat TRFC at Ibrox.
Taking Chipmonk’s point of making up as they go along after getting placed in Div 3, management are taking £2m+ a year in salary & bonuses whilst on course for a £10m+ loss (who do they think they are, bankers?) yet their strategy of continuing to recruit more expensive players than they need (cf Cammy Bell, poss John Daly) justs burns cash quicker.
Why?
They have either made a monumental miscalculation on cash flow or they’re going to sell the footie club and keep the properties (Chipmonk option 1?)
Green has to cost cut or Bluer Knights 2 will have to do it assuming they avoid administration.
Its only way they can survive.
How about a challenge: Exactly thirty words to sum it all up because I’ve lost the facking place!! 🙂
paulmac2 says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 22:03
Graham Spiers @GrahamSpiers 1h
N Patey:“Technically its a new club – it couldn’t be sold as a going concern, its assets were sold off. But in spirit its the same Rangers.”
………………………..
Neil Patey in shockeroony confession…’technically…it’s a new club’
=================================
“technically” is PR bollockspeak for “actually”
As in
Technically Rangers failed to get a CVA and is being liquidated.
WTF does anything the Record or Paul Brennan have to say about the Duffers/Chaz/MBB deal have to do with St Mirren BoD and Stewart Gilmour?
Answers on a postcard please I asked the author of the piece, but I’m sure he will be adopting his usual deaf, dumb and blind approach to questions that do not end in an HH.
jean7brodie says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 22:12
Exactly thirty words …
——
Chancer chases glory, spends non-existent cash. Series of bigger chancers smell money, wear smiley masks, run various fiddles to extract maximum swag from gullible fans. Lies exposed. Ends in tears.
🙂
I am more outraged by Paul Brennan’s continued obfuscation and misinformation than I am my own Chairman’s behaviour.
Lest we forgot this is the same hypocrite who seethed last season at the thought of 11-1 passsing, lest any of those pesky diddies get their hands on “Celtic’s Money” (tm-cqn).
angus1983 says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 22:24
Thanks, now understand all goings on. Good to see last three words. Hope to see more summaries, all the big words and terms are mince to me.Bring it on!
chipm0nk says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 21:19
Re: TRFCL
From memory there were originally two £1 subscriber shares in Sevco Scotland held by Charles Green which was renamed TRFCL. The members of the original consortium raised the money to buy the relevant assets from D&P and were issued with shares from TRFCL which were then swapped for RIFC Plc shares. The original shares would be subdivided to create the other shares.
I think a Ltd company must have at least one £1 share to comply with regulations. The question is how many actual shares are left in TRFCL and who holds them. there are three directors – the 2 Amigos – Green, his friend Imran Ahmad and Brian Stockbridge who is finance director of the PLC.
I will have access to my computer probably tomorrow and can check some of the paperwork and will also have a look at Companies House but can’t be gassed tonight. But as I said in my earlier post you raise a valid point as to what shares are left in TRFCL and who actually holds them.
angus1983 says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 22:24
You have passed, top marks. Others have failed!!
Graham Spiers @GrahamSpiers 1h
N Patey:“Technically its a new club – it couldn’t be sold as a going concern, its assets were sold off. But in spirit its the same Rangers.”
============
Something like transubstantiation?
St Mirren are the laughing stock of Scottish football. Last year they allowed the fox into the chicken coup when a potential purchaser was left alone in their boardroom with the company’s confidential documentation.
In the past few weeks, their chairman’s head has been turned by Charles Green whispering flattering words in his eardrum.
Today they have issued a nonsensical statement as to why they are voting against the reconstruction proposal including the oft cited “it didn’t work in Austria/Switzerland” routine.
Why does anyone in Scottish football give a fig about other countries? In England they like a league where teams play each other twice, does that mean we should adopt that? We need to do what’s best for Scottish football but Gilmour, at a time when his team have been rightly feted for winning the League Cup has shot himself in the foot.
It’s so bad it’s embarrassing. CE you spent much of last year (wrongly) criticising Peter Lawwell’s silence, yet there was not one whit of an apology from you when your conspiracy theories were proved as off the mark as a shot from Sebo.
Now your chairman has been seen canoodling with a man who freely admits to lying to get his own way. Have you no shame?
If ultimately we are forced down an SPL2 route it is to be hoped St Mirren are not invited into either. They can join their chums TRFC in the SFL.
Re the League Reconstruction.
It seems to me that the St Mirren Board has hit the nail on the head, the current proposal is dumb and splitting the league and introducing zero points (to the second tier) part way through the season is breathtakingly stupid. No one with a brain is operating such a crackpot scheme anywhere …….. poppycock is as good as description as any.
I believe that the real deal is an SPL2 as the full time professional teams will want to do their own thing; I suspect the monies shelled out on Longmuir and a few pals to the SFL is small beer and in some ways they would be better off focusing their efforts on the smaller community clubs …… who I suspect will NEVER vote for a pyramid system. I believe that the SPL will allow more money to filter down but that this will be dependent on a pyramid to breath life into the lower reaches of the league. Stand-off will emerge , hence SPL2.
Re Green
There is clearly a power struggle going on and Green looks like a man working his ticket, how offensive can Charles take this, he does require to be publicly slapped down by Malcolm Murray and Walter needs to find his voice.
If this slapping does not happen then Green is left with the only option of rocking the boat even more, still umpteen faiths and colours left to insult, as well as the professional competency of his colleagues.
The fiasco will be sold up before the Accounts are due , when are they due?
Just seen a little bit of the Chas Green interview on STV.
To be fair he was asked some difficult questions and he seemed under a bit of pressure.
Now lets hope that the media continue to probe and question the rest of the nonsense he spouts.
Indeed if they had put the previous owners under such scrutiny then perhaps the old club would still be ‘alive and kicking’.
Perhaps Green had got to the point that he thought he could say absolutely anything and never be questioned. Now he knows different however I think the adulation has gone to his head and he is addicted to it. So it will probably only be a matter of time before he errupts again like an Icelandic volcano.
Hey slim,
you may have missed it, but I did, and still do, apologise for my misplaced statements and insinuations regarding PL. It would be helpful if you did likewise regarding SMFC.
ecobhoy says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 22:44
The thing is, RIFC PLC describe themselves as a “holding company” in their original release on the AIM Market.
I was under the impression that a holding company held the shares in another company, or companies. As such I inferred that Rangers FC Ltd still existed (it was the club) and that RIFC PLC owned it. I don’t see how they could describe themselves as it’s holding company otherwise.
=====================================
http://www.digitallook.com/news/rns/20576061-4004376/RFC-Admission_to_AIM_and_First_Day_of_Dealings_html
19 December 2012
Embargoed for 07:00
Rangers International Football Club plc
(“Rangers” or the “Club”)
Admission to AIM and First Day of Dealings
Rangers International Football Club plc (AIM:RFC), the holding company for the Scottish football club ‘Rangers’, is pleased to announce that dealings will commence today at 08:00 in its Ordinary Shares following its admission to the AIM market of the London Stock Exchange under the ticker RFC.
…
=======================================
So it was entirely possible for RIFC PLC to sell Rangers FC Ltd as a going concern, but still own assets like the Stadium and Training Ground, which it could then rent out to the Ltd company.
Alternatively it could sell the Ltd company and the assets (to the same or different people), liquidate and split up the proceeds.
Alternatively Rangers (the club) is not a Ltd company (which doesn’t really make the PLC a holding company, but put that to one side as you say) and exists in and of itself as a legal entity, owned by the PLC. The above would still apply, it could be sold as a going concern etc.
angus1983 says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 15:37
FFS – I don’t dislike Celtic any more than the next non-Celtic fan.
In any case, why would this perceived (but non-existent) dislike of Celtic water down any points I might like to make? Are Celtic supporters unwilling to accept an outsider criticising Celtic? Does this outsider status automatically dilute what they say?
It seems to me that we often wonder why Rangers fans don’t listen to the “facts” about their club. Perhaps they are of a similar mindset – beleiving that comments coming from people who obviously dislike their club are simply watered down.
FFS.
===========================================================================
I would suggest Celtic fans will be regarded as having an agenda by Rangers fans, but the argument and evidence of Rangers wrongdoing over the last ten years from the RangersTaxCase blog, Phil Mac Giolla Bhain, Phil McConville, on here, plus others, should have convinced even the simplest Zombie fan.
I have yet to see any such evidence from you regarding your dislike of Celtic.
I have no dislike whatsoever of any club in Scottish football, excepting Rangers, and that’s for very good reason.
I see all the other clubs as sporting rivals, and have no reason for disliking them.
There’s much talk about Ibrox and how valuable an asset it is. There is potentially a huge problem with asbestos at Ibrox and so its value in turn must be greatly diminished as a result of the well known danger that asbestos poses.
Any type of refurbishment that involves the disturbance of this asbestos will incur huge expense. Maintenance/refurbishment can only be delayed for so long before the relevant authorities are forced to act..Also the stadium manager must carry out a regular safety inspection and declare that the edifice is fit for purpose. Failure to report obvious defects places the manager in a very precarious position! Watch out for a regular turnover of stadium managers.
Big Pink says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 11:09
DR definitely “after” CG
========================
What will James Traynor make of this?
He won’t be best pleased with his old colleagues!
Re CG
I realise that the general belief/worry is that he and his ilk have a master plan and that every twist and turn has a reason but, perhaps along the Occams Razor conclusion, he and one or two others just aren’t as clever as they and some among us think.
It is apparent that at the very least there is a falling out amongst chancers. I proposed on RTC long ago that all has and is not going to plan. If they were all financial wizards we would have either heard of them or things would be flowing much smoother.
I suspect that along the way they have referenced this and RTC when faced with problems and are winging it. What has helped them majorly is authority and media reticence towards negative reaction to the original rfc. The Whyte reporting in the media recently mentioned that CG was terrified of the Media scrutiny. Even I, not being a betting man, would wager he cannot believe how easy it has been to ramble on and fool the fans without any in depth questioning.
If/when it all goes to court with TRfc being in limbo regards ownership and legitimacy how will fans claim continued history and authorities hold a place in the leagues. It looks to be heading down this route.
Slim,
I would be rightly concerned if my chairman was ‘canoodling’ and ‘deal-making’ with Mr Charles, so I would be delighted if you could provide me some evidence of such behaviour so that I could act on it. I find the accusations than Mr Brennan has been feeding us are completely without foundation and smear on SMFC. Yes Mr Gilmour, like most Chairman/CEO’s, made some mistakes last year regarding the attempted deployment of the parachute, but I feel he has learned some lessons and has handled this issue openly and as well as can be expected.
CG contacted SMFC requesting tickets and hospitality for the Celtic game, we rightly accepted his request. What course of action would yourself and Paul Brennan have SMFC take here? And I’m the one accused of peddling conspiracy theories? 🙄
I think we all, myself included undoubtedly, made some confident predictions on RTC that failed to materialise. I even seem to remember your good self stating that there would not be a team playing in blue at Ibrokes this season and warning us of the impeding ‘StRangers’ merger that never happened. Most of us also got it wrong regarding Nimmo and the FTT, to pretend anyone has had a crystal ball over this scandal is as off target as the Sebo shots you mention.
Glad to see you still posting, always enjoy reading your posts even if I don’t agree with them. And thanks for your praise for our Cup win, I have also been greatly impressed by Celtic and Neil Lennon at home and abroad this season, In fact as I always support Scottish teams in Europe( A situation which will unfortunately change if Sevco ever make their way in), I found myself celebrating the Barcelona win wildly with a bunch of Cypriot Sammy fans whilst on holiday. I think we can safely say Armageddon has been fantastic for both our clubs! 🙂
Stewart Gilmour said tonight on RadioShortbread (http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/scotfoot) he believes Sevco will enter the SPL in two years. I do not see any appetite at all for a leg-up, reconstruction or not. Can they possibly survive another two years in their current guise?
I see that the STV boy Chris Graham is saying that he has spoken to Neil Patey today and that Neil confirms to him that TRFC are not a new club. Contrary to what he told Britney. I have a feeling that Neil is one of those weak willed people you come across in life who agree with the last person they speak to. He doesn’t have the courage of his conviction and shouldn’t be asked his opinion anymore.
Far from being a lauging stock, I know I’m biased, but I though Stewart Gilmour was remarkably honest and articulate on the wireless tonight.
One of the most interesting points he raised was that he has only know of the ’11-1 lockdown’ for the last three weeks. He rightly says this should be the first thing to change regardless of any reconstruction, I agree with him entirely and would like to see other clubs commit to it’s removal asap.
Also a good segment at the end of Sportsound on PakiGate with SRTRC.
MMmm? BTVPL!
The CE says:
Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 00:12
Stewart Gilmour said tonight on RadioShortbread (http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/scotfoot) he believes Sevco will enter the SPL in two years. I do not see any appetite at all for a leg-up, reconstruction or not. Can they possibly survive another two years in their current guise?
……………………………………………………………
In their current guise who knows…but he is certain they will? is promotion a certainty…is he happy the people in charge will pass a fit and proper test…is he happy at the current state of affairs regarding the overt dishonesty and questionable methods being displayed by the club is certain will be in the SPL in 2 years?
More disturbing than the silence of Charlie’s fellow Board members, IMO, is the continued silence of the SFA.
Granted, nobody knows whether Charlie or Craigie is telling the ‘truth’, (or fewer fibs), but everyone must accept that there are now serious doubts around the creation of TRFC – and around Charlie’s probity when dealing with the SFA last summer.
Continued silence from Hampden simply reinforces – yet again – the public perception that the football authorities condone any misbehaviour by only one club in Scotland.
But then again, Ogilvie is still SFA President so public perception doesn’t seem to be a concern at Hampden.
The SFA continues to be a disgrace for Scottish football.
Forgot to add :
Charlie should very publicly be summoned to Hampden for a chat with Regan.
Nothing of consequence maybe discussed or admitted by Charlie – but the very fact he has to pay a visit to the SFA to ‘answer their concerns’ would be a start.
I have received a promotional e-mail from The Rangers, which contains a few items worthy of comment.
Firstly, it offers a family package for the upcoming Clyde game for 35 pounds (2 adults plus 2 kids). One strange thing is it refers to this as an ‘Easter themed activity’. Maybe someone is working from the wrong calendar at Ibrox? The other strange thing is that this offer is explicitly not available online. It seems like a measure designed to generate ready cash.
Clearly, tomorrow’s match against Linfield is another measure to boost the coffers. I’m sure fans of both clubs will be showing racism the red card at that one.
Finally, the promotional e-mail signs off with the line Rangers Then. Rangers Now. Rangers Forever. No further comment on that one needed I think.
So where it all stands in my heid:
IIRC last year when CG was drummimg up investors, The rangers deal was billed as a “land grab” (can’t remember where I read that and google is not my friend). As it’s played out it now appears that the heritable properties of the rangers are owned by the PLC. The ltd company is responsible for operations of the football club. According to the accounts, the ltd club is not yet paying rent for the use of ibrox.
Now where I get all fuzzy is a couple of the assumptions on here. As far as I can see at the moment, the club (the ltd company) only has value if it owns the property. As a going concern, trading at a £1m/mth loss, the business has no inherent value at the moment. If the club would later be forced to rent the stadium, then this loss would increase. Can the business even be sold on as a going concern in it’s infancy?
So then there’s the property itself, wherein lies the true value of the company at the moment, and which was used as part of the valuation for the company during floatation. The property itself only has value (in my mind) if there is a business willing to operate from the premises (to pay rent). Or if the property is multi use, or their is a high demand for property in that area where the property could be leveled and redeveloped as something else. From what I’ve read there isn’t much demand for commercial or residential development property down govan way at the moment.
So we’re back to the situation where there needs to be a viable business at Ibrox.
So what’s CG’s exit strategy (where he actually makes some money???). I think when he got into this deal he genuinely believed that he’d be back in the SPL toot sweet to start challenging for that european money. As it now appears, by the end of season 2013/14, the business will have burnt through 40m (from ST and floatations sponsors etc) or however much. The business will be no closer to profitability. Thence the property itself will have little value, a closed a circle.
SO how does he extricate himself from this? His shares have no value as the property has no value.
What’s in this for whytey? How does he extract value, in any form, from an unprofitable entity? I think whyte stayed in the background as long as he did waiting for a window where he could grab a payday. As that window has pretty much evaporated, I think he’s now just pandering for shares while he still has something over CG, because once CG is gone, his chances of extricating anything from the ashes will be nil.
My prediction. CG will give up the ghost. I think he now realises he’s in way over his head.He has drawn down a pretty substantial salary for his years effort, and a bonus I presume for winning the league etc. He will now exit stage left, either by forcing the board to oust him, or if that fails, standing down at the AGM in august (I think?). Whyte will run out of steam when finally someone explains that there is no value to be extracted and all he’s doing is p***ing in the wind. TRFC will go wallop again (as all non profitable businesses inevitably do) only this time they won’t be rescued as the institutional investors won’t part with the heritable property without a payday, and won’t accept a massive loss, and can’t be shed in the same way that previous debt was because they are not creditors. And therefore the club will have no value as it is not a profitable enterprise. My heid hurts
http://youtu.be/UT9FiR-z2Xo
Interesting call from Jim in Gartcosh on SSB last night….interesting if even just for the fact that he seems to be that rare species of Rangers minded contributors who do not keep their head permanently buried in the sand….
The response of course….predictably lame…and no doubt deliberately missing the entire point of the call….
Corky the Clown (DJ) – at the end even says that Charles Green says “there is no truth in this whatsoever”…eh no…Derek…that is the point….he has confirmed pretty much everything that Whyte has claimed….
Meanwhile…Keevins….obviously on the crack again as he rants about nothing whatsoever to do with anything the caller says….
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/incoming/rangers-chief-charles-green-tells-1819472
CHARLES GREEN has asked Ally McCoist to consider sacking right-hand men Ian Durrant and Kenny McDowall to save his own job.
And we can reveal the astonishing request has plunged Rangers into civil war.
Embattled Ibrox chief executive Green has undermined boss McCoist by axing physio Pip Yeates, chief scout Neil Murray and striker Fran Sandaza in a chaotic two-week purge.
But the Yorkshireman has now gone even further by telling McCoist he believes Durrant and McDowall must also be binned as part of his restructuring plans.
McCoist has been rocked by Green’s request but is almost certain to stand his ground and demand his coaching team stays.
And that could lead to a further deterioration of his relationship with the man who has already branded his team the worst Rangers side in history.
Club insiders believe McCoist was nearing the end of his tether with Green before the outspoken chief floated the idea of knifing his mates in the back.
It is difficult to see how the pair can now repair the damage done to their working relationship.
We can also reveal Green’s admission he teamed up with disgraced former owner Craig Whyte to drive through his Sevco takeover has caused huge unrest in the boardroom and among shareholders.
Chairman Malcolm Murray has yet to comment but a source close to the saga said: “There is a high level of concern about some of the things going on.”
The end of the line for Mr McCoist? Maybe according to KJ at The daily record
”
Rangers chief Charles Green tells Ally McCoist to sack pals to save his own job
9 Apr 2013 07:39
THE Ibrox club has plunged further into crisis after owner Green tells McCoist to bin his right-hand men Ian Durrant and Kenny McDowall.
CHARLES GREEN has asked Ally McCoist to consider sacking right-hand men Ian Durrant and Kenny McDowall to save his own job.
And we can reveal the astonishing request has plunged Rangers into civil war.
Embattled Ibrox chief executive Green has undermined boss McCoist by axing physio Pip Yeates, chief scout Neil Murray and striker Fran Sandaza in a chaotic two-week purge.
But the Yorkshireman has now gone even further by telling McCoist he believes Durrant and McDowall must also be binned as part of his restructuring plans.
McCoist has been rocked by Green’s request but is almost certain to stand his ground and demand his coaching team stays.
And that could lead to a further deterioration of his relationship with the man who has already branded his team the worst Rangers side in history.
Club insiders believe McCoist was nearing the end of his tether with Green before the outspoken chief floated the idea of knifing his mates in the back.
It is difficult to see how the pair can now repair the damage done to their working relationship.
We can also reveal Green’s admission he teamed up with disgraced former owner Craig Whyte to drive through his Sevco takeover has caused huge unrest in the boardroom and among shareholders.
Chairman Malcolm Murray has yet to comment but a source close to the saga said: “There is a high level of concern about some of the things going on.”
“
Perhaps predictably Richard Wilson takes a “nothing to see here move along now boys” approach in The Herald.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/controversy-cannot-continue-as-rangers-build-for-future.20746630
What I find fascinating is that you could not get a cigarette paper between Mr Wilson’s version of events and that being proffered by the man with the wee white bricks
http://davidleggat-leggoland.blogspot.co.uk/
The writing in Mr Wilson’s version is slightly better, but you could be forgiven for thinking that they were written after a joint conversation with the same source 😉
Is Mr Traynor back on the job?
Ally McCoist: ‘How many titles has Green won?’
…………………………………..
Ally having a pop at his boss…it’s starting to get ugly…I wonder if Green’s boss Craigie will step in to calm the situation down
The CE says:
Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 00:36
One of the most interesting points he raised was that he has only know of the ’11-1 lockdown’ for the last three weeks. He rightly says this should be the first thing to change regardless of any reconstruction,
———————————————————————————————-
The Dundee representative pointed out to Gilmour that everyone knew about the 11-1 in January. Gilmour said he must’ve missed that bit-I’m not sure if I believe him.
bill1903 says:
Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 08:23
I came a way from Mr Gilmour’s comments with the feeling that there is a deal to be done here. Change the voting structure, (which really needs to happen), and St Mirren becomes a Yea vote. However, if Mr Doncaster goes for that all eyes will immediately shift to Celtic Park, interesting times, very interesting times indeed.
Carntyne Riddrie (@Riddrie) says:
Monday, April 8, 2013 at 23:24
I have yet to see any such evidence from you regarding your dislike of Celtic.
——
Sigh. Just for you, Mr Riddrie … I hate Celtic. Happy now? Can we move on?
(stage aside: the above line may contain a fib.)
paulmac2 says:
Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 08:16
Ally McCoist: ‘How many titles has Green won?’
…………………………………..
Ally having a pop at his boss…it’s starting to get ugly…I wonder if Green’s boss Craigie will step in to calm the situation down
———————————————
To be fair to CG, and I may be misremembering this, but did he not win something like the All-England Schools 100 yard dash in an all-time record time? And (for older readers) was he not the original model for ‘Alf Tupper’?
TW (@tartanwulver) says:
Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 08:58
Not sure that he realises that his other hero, Alf Garnet, was actually satire though…..
Ok ,We all know that the club Sevco need to make serious cut backs in expenditure,can we have some suggestions where this will come from before we spend all day debating a given.
Thank You
luoanlai says:
Tuesday, April 9, 2013 at 02:52
Finally, the promotional e-mail signs off with the line Rangers Then. Rangers Now. Rangers Forever. No further comment on that one needed I think.
———————————————————————————–
On the other hand…it may be intended as a ‘two fingers up’ type of statement to the rest of us, but it can also be read as quite a brutal self-assessment by Rangers:
A. Rangers Then – aka ‘Rangers FC’, a Scottish premier league football club, many-time champions and cup winners, currently in the process of liquidation.
B. Rangers Now – aka ‘The Rangers FC’, a Scottish third division football club which is the public arm of an AIM listed holding company, winners of one third division championship, currently facing boardroom division and cashflow pressures;
C. Rangers Forever – unknown at present, options range from a scaled down version of B, through liquidation of B and a restart as a third entity C, to being just a memory
Harsh perhaps, the point I am trying to make is that, if there was ever a time for triumphalism, this is most definitely not it. A touch of humility, an offered hand of friendship…sometimes when you are in a weak position you should try to find out who your friends might be, not look everywhere for enemies.
Green: “I’d have sacked Messi for making comments similar to what Sandaza said”
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha….. oh stop, my sides are sore!
The 11-1 voting structure is the only thing that will stop an SPL2 being formed with a selected invite for a certain club being the 1st thing on some peoples agendas.For the time being(say the next 2 seasons i’m content for this particular structure to stay in place.
If the only justice i get to see in this saga is that of the rangers(formally known as sevco) having to fight their way up the leagues in a fair manner then so be it.Some people should be careful what they wish for.