I think everyone on SFM knew that when the new club won its first trophy, whatever that trophy was, the old “same club” mantra would surface. Over the years, and since the nature of the debate is in the “santa exists” ballpark, we have largely discouraged discussion of it.
On the “old club” side, that reluctance to debate is largely because there is little value in arguing the toss with someone who either ;
- knows the idea is preposterous, but won’t admit it for whatever reason; or
- has been lied to by the person at (a) above and can’t be bothered to look at the facts for themselves.
On the “new club” side, the discouragement to discuss is mainly because we are in the main already equipped with the facts, and there seems little need to go over them again and again.
So why republish stevensanph’s blog and Hirsute Pursuit’s response from almost a decade ago?
Well firstly because it is an excellent piece of forensic scrutiny cutting through the fog which had begun to be induced by the MSM merely weeks after they had unanimously heralded the death of the old club.
Secondly because it was written as a response to the (at the time very unpopular) decision we made on SFM to close down the debate on the subject (for the reason stated above.
And lastly because the course of the truth – even if it is only shifted by a few degrees – can get completely lost as time goes by. Consequently, there are possibly many who take sides because of a leap of faith. This is a course-correction that demonstrates the absence of any need to do so.
So here then is a reprise of stevensanph’s remarks from 2013, on his own blog.
The Newco/Oldco debate has been ended over on TSFM, with the deletion of the excellent post from HirsutePursuit marking the end. While some think we need to keep reinforcing the message that its a totally new club, others are bored of the subject, so I can’t blame TSFM for wanting to move on.
Personally – I have read all the arguments – I am yet to be shown any factual proof that Green’s Gers are the old club. People will, and can believe whatever they want. For Rangers fans who want to believe its the same club, then, as long as they are happy, then fine. However, on paper, and in law, its a new club, and thats all that I care about!
TSFM posters wanting to continue the debate can do so below following on from HP’s excellent deleted post!
TSFM
This blog, as far as I have been concerned, is widely regarded as a forum for people who wish to highlight the inequalities and skewed reporting of the issues within the Scottish football arena. If it is not, perhaps you can make it clear what you see as its purpose.
Perhaps the biggest ever story within the Scottish game has been the circumstances surrounding the demise of Rangers Football Club. It is a multi-layered story and one that that is still moving. In many ways, it may be a story that is only just beginning.
Central to the debate (that should be completely on-topic) for this blog, is whether or not the authorities (at all levels) have acted in an equitable manner and whether or not the “free press” have given life to events in a truthful and balanced way.
With absolute regard to these matters, there is a fundamental issue surrounding the status of the club incorporated in 2012 and currently playing in the 3rd division of the Scottish Football League.
If you genuinely believe that the club incorporated in 2012 are the same club as was founded in 1872/1873 then you have every right to be outraged at the behaviour of the footballing authorities. You will probably accept that UEFA were right to “ban” the club from European competitions because of its holding company’s insolvency event; but feel completely persecuted by your fellow Scottish clubs who demoted your team to the arse-end of the game. You will see this “demotion” as a punishment far too severe for the actions of the rogue ex-owner of the club’s former “holding company”. To compound matters, you will see the LNS enquiry as just another opportunity for the clubs who have already revelled in meting out a severe punishment, to have another fly-kick. You would, no doubt, believe that whatever the previous owner of the club’s “holding company” did in terms of player payments, the trophies were won fairly by the club on the field of play and can never be taken away. You will be – in the main – satisfied with the narrative of the “free press” in referring to your club as the same entity as played in the SPL.
All of the attitudes and beliefs rely 100% on the tenet of a “club” existing as a separate entity from the legal entity (“company”) responsible for a football team.
If you genuinely believe that the club incorporated in 2012 are a different club as was founded in 1872/1873 then you will still have every right to be outraged at the behaviour of the footballing authorities. UEFA would rightly refuse European Club Licence for the new club – if one was applied for – as the new club do not meet the criteria; but you will feel completely let down by the self-serving nature of the SPL and the weakness shown by the SFA in attempting to place the new club in the top tier of Scottish football. You will see the new club’s fast-track acceptance into the SFL as without precedent and their award of full member status (of the SFA) as against existing rules. You will wonder how – when the members of the SFL voted to give them associate membership as new club – the SFL executive list them on their website as the old club. As the old club had ceased footballing activities in June, there should have been no SFA membership or SPL share to transfer in August. Since the old club is no more, you will not recognise any punishment for the actions of the rogue ex-owner of the club. You will see the LNS enquiry as an opportunity for some sort of justice in relation to years of outrageous cheating by the now dead club. You will think that trophies and prize-money were stolen from clubs who played by the rules. You will think that a correction of results is simply a consequence of the old club being found guilty of cheating. You will probably think that the LNS enquiry has nothing to do with the new club; but may wonder if the enquiry orders the repayment of the old club’s prize-money, would this create a new “football debt” that has to be repaid by the new club to continue using the old club’s SFA membership? You will be aghast at the apparent repeated mis-reporting of the situation by the “free press”.
All of the attitudes and beliefs rely 100% on the tenet of a “club” being the legal entity (“company”) responsible for a football team.
You may feel that these positions are “just a matter of opinion” and do not ultimately matter.
I disagree. The indeterminate status of the club incorporated in 2012 is a huge sore in the Scottish football landscape. This is the biggest story that just cannot go away. If the schism created by this sense of injustice is not resolved, Scottish football will implode. Attitudes may already be too entrenched; but that should not stop us trying to find a way forward.
The principal difficulty (again totally on topic) is that it appears – from both sides of the debate) -that people in positions of power within the game have made decisions that cannot be justified by their rules and articles of association.
We can – as you wish us to – stop talking about the status of the club incorporated in 2012, or we can continue to argue our respective positions as a crucial factor in this controversy.
In my view we can only hold the SFA, SPL and SFL to account if we insist that a definitive answer to all of the important questions are given.
The status of the club incorporated in 2012 is – in my view – a simple matter of fact. It is only because it is being considered to be a matter of opinion that we are where we are.
The Origins of the concept of a football club having an owner from whom it can be separated and its subsequent misuse by the SPL/SFA in 2012.
The following are taken from a well informed contributor to SFM who points out that pre 2005 no such concept existed in SPL rules and the meaning subsequently applied by LNS and The 5 Way Agreement is a danger to the fundamental integrity of the Scottish football industry and its member clubs.
The very short version of what follows is this:
The SPL articles state that its definitions and expressions need to be given the meanings as described in the Companies Act 2006.
The Companies Act 2006 says that an “undertaking” is “a body corporate” i.e. a company.
Lord Nimmo Smith has ignored this definition and instead accepted (or created) an alternative meaning for “undertaking” (as used in Article 2) which is fundamental to the concept of being able to separate Club from Company.
The principle of Club and company being distinct entities was expressly stated in the commissions terms of reference.
Lord Nimmo Smith has accepted the terms of reference as “facts”.
The SPL articles and rules apply to Clubs and to their “owners & operators”.
LNS asserts that the Club “Rangers FC” was owned & operated by Rangers Football Club plc.
He asserts that the Club “Rangers FC” transferred from Rangers Football Club plc to Sevco Scotland Ltd.
The Club (if found guilty) is still liable for the alleged breaches of SPL rules, even though the Club is no longer a member of the SPL.
He asserts that Sevco Scotland Ltd – as the new owner & operator of the Club – have a material interest in his commissions findings.
However…
Instead of his accepting LNS logic that allows the ethereal Club to be transferred between companies, the truth is – read in conjunction with the Companies Act 2006 – Article 2 really says that the Club is the “body corporate”. The Club is the Company.
The Club is Rangers Football Club plc. That Club is in liquidation.
Since Sevco Scotland Ltd did not purchase Rangers Football Club plc, Sevco Scotland did not buy the Club.
*On the simple basis of Sevco Scotland’s purchase of Rangers FC’s assets, the Commission cannot legally apply sanctions that would fall to Sevco Scotland for remedy.
This issue should have been fairly straightforward. We need to understand why it is not.
It is surprising to me that an experienced high court judge accepted the commission’s terms of reference without first checking its validity. It would be interesting to understand if the statement of reasons was really his own thoughts or a re-hash of the SPL legal advice that framed the commissions work.
It does not surprise me that the SPL have framed the commission in the way that they have. The “transferable Club” logic was first used to unsuccessfully argue that Newco should have Oldco’s share in the SPL. They are acting in their own commercial interest. Sporting Integrity has never been high on their agenda. We know what they are about.
It is hugely disappointing – but perhaps not surprising – that the SFA have not stepped in to clarify matters. Conflicted and/or incompetent probably best sums up its contribution.
Longer version.
The SPL – essentially as a trade association – will correctly do what they can to maximise revenue for their members. It falls to the SFA – as the game’s regulators – to ensure that the SPL’s existing procedures, articles and rules are adhered to.
It is almost without dispute that the SPL have not functioned well in following protocol. The SFA have been incredibly weak in insisting that they do so. In fact the SFA – by being party to the 5-way agreement – are themselves seemingly complicit in going off-plan. Again, regardless of your own beliefs and agenda, the SPL (by their actions) and the SFA (by their inactions) are not TRUSTED to act as fair brokers.
Lord Nimmo Smith is due to reconvene his enquiry in just over a week’s time. When writing my previous (and quickly deleted) post earlier in the week, my mind was already moving towards (what I consider to be) the insurmountable difficulty the retired High Court judge will face in steering his commission to a logical conclusion.
In football parlance, I fear that the SPL have given him a “hospital pass” that will eventually leave him just as damaged as the game. I had already prepared an outline of why I think his enquiry will ultimately flounder; but, wonder if this topic too will fall foul of the new censorship policy on this blog.
As I think Lord Nimmo Smith’s remit is an important point that needs discussion – and out of respect to those people who have supported this blog as the spiritual successor of RTC – I will attempt to post my thoughts here first. If this post gets removed or doesn’t get past moderation, I’ll do as TSFM (Big Pink?) suggested earlier and find another, more open, forum to engage in.
I apologise in advance for the length of this post; but the points, I think, are fairly straightforward. Please do bear with me.
We should probably start at the SPL Press Release of 12th September 2012:
Independent Commission Preliminary Hearing
The Commission has considered all the preliminary issues raised in the list submitted by Newco and points raised in letters from solicitors acting for Newco and for Oldco. It has decided:
1. The Commission will proceed with its inquiry in the terms of the Notice of Commission and will now set a date for a hearing and give directions.
2. Oldco and Rangers FC, who are named in the Issues contained in the Notice of Commission and alleged to have been in breach of SPL rules, will continue to have the right to appear and be represented at all hearings of the Commission and to make such submissions as they think fit.
3. Newco, as the current owner and operator of Rangers FC, although not alleged by the SPL to have committed any breach of SPL Rules, will also have the right to appear and be represented at all hearings of the Commission and to make such submissions as it thinks fit.
4. Written reasons for this decision will be made available in due course.
Further to the decision made today the Commission make the following procedural orders:
1. We set a date for a hearing to commence on Tuesday 13 November 2012 with continuations from day to day as may be required until Friday 16 November 2012. We will also allocate Tuesday 20 and Wednesday 21 November 2012 as additional dates should any further continuation be required.
2. We direct that the solicitors for The Scottish Premier League Limited lodge any documents, additional to those already lodged, together with an outline argument and a list of witnesses by 4 pm on Friday 19 October 2012.
3. We direct that Oldco, Newco or any other person claiming an interest and wishing to appear and be represented at the hearing give intimation to that effect and lodge any documents together with an outline argument and a list of witnesses, all by 4 pm on Thursday 1 November 2012.
4. We direct that intimation of the aforesaid decision and of these directions be made to the solicitors for Oldco and Newco.
No further comment will be made.
Couple of points worth noting:
1. The Commission will proceed with its inquiry in the terms of the Notice of Commission and will now set a date for a hearing and give directions.
2. Oldco and Rangers FC, who are named in the Issues contained in the Notice of Commission and alleged to have been in breach of SPL rules
So it is clear here that Oldco and Rangers FC have, in the terms of the Notice of Commission, been described as separate entities. It is important to realise that this distinction is made before the commission has had any opportunity to consider the circumstances.
This is a non-negotiable “fact” – as supplied by the SPL – that LNS either accepts or stands aside. He has chosen to accept it.
This “fact” was later given reasoning by way of the Commission’s Statement of Reasons and carried the names of the Commission members:
History
[3] Rangers Football Club was founded in 1872 as an association football club. It was incorporated in 1899 as The Rangers Football Club Limited. In recent years the company’s name was changed to The Rangers Football Club Plc, and it is now called RFC 2012 Plc (in administration). In line with the terminology used in the correspondence between the parties, we shall refer to this company as “Oldco”.
[4] The SPL was incorporated in 1998. Its share capital consists of sixteen shares of £1 each, of which twelve have been issued. Oldco was one of the founding members of the SPL, and remained a member until 3 August 2012 when the members of the SPL approved the registration of a transfer of its share in the SPL to The Dundee Football Club Limited. Each of the twelve members owns and operates an association football club which plays in the Scottish Premier League (“the League”). The club owned and operated by Oldco played in the League from 1998 until 2012 under the name of Rangers Football Club (“Rangers FC”).
…
[33] It is now necessary to quote some of the provisions of the Articles of the SPL. Article 2 contains definitions which, so far as relevant are:
“Club means the undertaking of an association football club which is, for the time being, entitled, in accordance with the Rules, to participate in the League
…
Company means The Scottish Premier League Limited
…
League means the combination of Clubs known as the Scottish Premier League operated by the Company in accordance with the Rules
…
Rules mean the Rules for the time being of the League
…
Share means a share of the Company and Share Capital and Shareholding”.
…
[37] It is also necessary to quote certain of the Rules. Rule I1 provides definitions of various terms in the Rules. Of these, we refer to the following:
Club means an association football club, other than a Candidate Club, which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League and, except where the context otherwise requires, includes the owner and operator of such club
…
[46] It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule I1 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club. Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated. While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time. In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise. So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator. It is the Club, not its owner and operator, which plays in the League. Under Rule A7.1.1 the Club is bound to comply with all relevant rules. The Rules clearly contemplate the imposition of sanctions upon a Club, in distinction to a sanction imposed upon the owner or operator. That power must continue to apply even if the owner and operator at the time of breach of the Rules has ceased to be a member of the SPL and its undertaking has been transferred to another owner and operator. While there can be no question of subjecting the new owner and operator to sanctions, there are sanctions which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which are capable of affecting the Club as a continuing entity (even though not an entity with legal personality), and which thus might affect the interest of the new owner and operator in it. For these reasons we reject the arguments advanced in paragraphs 2 and 6 of the list of preliminary issues.
Here we were introduced to a few new ideas:
1. That SPL members “own and operate” association football clubs
2. That “Rangers Football Club” was “owned and operated” by Oldco (Rangers Football Club plc).
3. Club means the undertaking of an association football club
4. An “undertaking” is “a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. “
5. “A Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. “
6. “A Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.”
So, the principle, by which Lord Nimmo Smith, purports to connect Oldco and Newco is by the alleged transference of a non-corporate entity between the two owners and operators of the “Club”. The Club is the non-corporate entity he identified as the “undertaking” referred to in Article 2.
However, this is where he gets into some very serious difficulty. It is very strange that – when quoting the relevant articles – the retired High Court Judge did not notice or think the following did not have a part to play.
2. In these Articles:-
2006 Act means the Companies Act 2006 including any statutory modification or re-enactments thereof for the time being in force;
…
4. Unless the context otherwise requires, words or expressions contained in these Articles bear the same meaning as in the 2006 Act but excluding any statutory modification thereof not in force when these Articles or the relevant parts thereof are adopted.
The SPL articles make specific reference to the Companies Act 2006. Specifically “words or expressions contained in these Articles bear the same meaning as in the 2006 Act”
So when the articles refer to “undertaking” we must refer to the 2006 Act to check what meaning we should apply. If we do so, we find:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/1161
1161Meaning of “undertaking” and related expressions
(1)In the Companies Acts “undertaking” means—
__(a)a body corporate or partnership, or
__(b)an unincorporated association carrying on a trade or business, with or without a view to profit.
(2)In the Companies Acts references to shares—
__(a)in relation to an undertaking with capital but no share capital, are to rights to share in the capital of the undertaking; and
__(b)in relation to an undertaking without capital, are to interests—
____(i)conferring any right to share in the profits or liability to contribute to the losses of the undertaking, or
____(ii)giving rise to an obligation to contribute to the debts or expenses of the undertaking in the event of a winding up.
(3)Other expressions appropriate to companies shall be construed, in relation to an undertaking which is not a company, as references to the corresponding persons, officers, documents or organs, as the case may be, appropriate to undertakings of that description.
This is subject to provision in any specific context providing for the translation of such expressions.
(4)References in the Companies Acts to “fellow subsidiary undertakings” are to undertakings which are subsidiary undertakings of the same parent undertaking but are not parent undertakings or subsidiary undertakings of each other.
(5)In the Companies Acts “group undertaking”, in relation to an undertaking, means an undertaking which is—
__(a)a parent undertaking or subsidiary undertaking of that undertaking, or
__(b)a subsidiary undertaking of any parent undertaking of that undertaking.
Everything that LNS uses to connect Newco to Oldco relies on a Club being a non-corporate entity. Without that interpretation, his original acceptance of the commissions remit would look very foolish. In my opinion, the commission’s statement of Reasons were always poorly framed
Using the 2006 Act – as it appears it is bound to do – I cannot see how any interpretation of “undertaking” can be used in the context of the SPL articles, other than “a body corporate”.
If I am correct and the correct interpretation of an undertaking in this context is “body corporate”, SPL Article 2, specifically (and quite clearly) states that a Club is the company. Since the Club that played in the SPL is in liquidation and the current version of Rangers has never been a member of the SPL, any attempt to sanction the new club for the sins of the old will be laughed out of court.
The real question – for me at least – is why has this ridiculous proposition has been put forward in the first place? Perhaps we can assume that the SPL chose to frame the commission’s remit in this way for purely commercial reasons; but, more worryingly, why have the SFA allowed it to progress?
https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/phs.covid.19/viz/COVID-19DailyDashboard_15960160643010/Overview
a spike in cases in Glasgow and North Lanarkshire giving those areas double (pro rata) the rest of the country.
It’s quite common that symptoms can take 1-2 weeks to appear after transmission occurs
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19331308.rangers-administrator-said-fans-bid-club-akin-herding-cats/
…………………
A Rangers administrator said fans’ attempts to be involved in the purchase of Rangers were “akin to herding cats” and had referred to one supporters’ representative as a “c*ck”.
David Whitehouse of Duff and Phelps spoke out as liquidators of the club business accused him of giving no consideration to Ibrox or the training ground Murray Park being bought by a fan trust.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19331325.rangers-administrator-admits-inappropriate-talks-craig-whyte-described-like-lads-pub/
…………………
FORMER Rangers administrator David Whitehouse admitted that some conversation with controversial former owner Craig Whyte were not appropriate after being accused of treating one meeting “like lads in the pub”.
He has joined Duff and Phelps colleague Paul Clark in denying they had lost control while Mr Whyte had control of the selling of the club after its financial collapse.
The begging bowl is being held out once again by “The Scotsman”.
Today we have this:
“ With the exponential increase in unverified claims and inaccurate news made available through social media in the last decades, it is vital the public can find sources of news they can trust”.
So says Mr Sam Shedden (“ engagement” editor) in his piece on page 2
Yes, it is, Mr Shedden, I couldn’t agree with you more!
My difficulty is that I cannot see that “ The Scotsman” is entitled to be counted among ‘sources of news that can be trusted’.
For, in the very same edition of the newspaper in which you speak of ‘trust’, there are several instances of the propagation of a ludicrous sporting untruth, namely, that the Rangers Football Club founded in 1872 somehow did not lose its entitlement to participate in Scottish football when it HAD to surrender its share in the SPL on entering Liquidation, and in consequence ,lost its membership of the SFA! -an untruth so manifestly untrue as to be laughable if it were not such a pernicious and perverted untruth.
The propagation of that untruth is further compounded by propagation of the untruth that The Rangers Football Club that was founded and admitted into Scottish Football in 2012 and is managed currently by Steven Gerrard , is somehow 140-odd years old and has a history of sporting success stretching back that far!
Thus we have Andy Newport on page 61 : “ Demand to see Steven Gerrard’s team back in action …is soaring on the back of a 55th Scottish championship”, and quoting without comment other propagandists of untruth “…It’s been our job to do what we’ve done-deliver 55….” , and
“ Let’s do 56 and celebrate 150 … winning 56 in the 150th year will be enormously important.”
“The Scotsman”, rather than beg for money to help it survive in the pretence that it cares for truth, should take a right good hard look at itself , man-up , and show a fraction of the courage that real journalists show in risking death in pursuit of truth ,as opposed to the shameful cowardice shown by ‘he Scotsman’ in reporting truth in a matter of mere ‘Sport’
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/SDI-v-Rangers-judgment.pdf
…………………..
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 27 May 2021
So what is expected to happen now with SDI v Rangers (IL).
Will damages be paid out anytime soon. Is there another court date due. I only ask as I know this case will not be recorded/discussed by our msm.
Lurkio 27th May 2021 At 12:07
Cluster One 27th May 2021 At 23:06
+++++++++++
Thanks for the link, gentlemen.
Huge legal costs already and only a 2-1 majority? Worth a punt at an appeal to the Supreme Court (UK)?
The observation at para 24 of the judgment is, I think, quite telling. Says it all , really, in my opinion.
mine of a few mins ago: slip of the keyboard not para 24 but para 14!
For them as missed it –
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57286385
The shambles that is the Celtic Football Club just now is astounding. Their fans laughed at Dave King’s comments re: tumbling like a pack of cards is coming back to haunt them. Somebody had to be asleep at the wheel in the protracted negotiations with Eddie Howe, or, they were leading the fans and media on regarding the level of interest. This is a multi million pound business and the action of lack thereof from the board is highly questionable. Who was in charge, surely not the self proclaimed football wizard and CEO whose departure can’t come soon enough, is the major shareholder behind the snafu, as John Brown roared at one point, who are these people. The mainstream media have a buffet table full of leads to follow and provide more misery for Celtic fans. Of course this may require some serious work on their part but I’m sure they will gleefully cover this from every angle and with every pundit with a link to Ibrox providing their two cents worth. Celtic need their PR people out in front of this with an honest and sincere explanation. Does the report of the backroom staff not wanting to relocate have anything to do with the George Square demonstrations.
I wonder what those of you who have read the SDI Retail judgment make of this ;
Paragraph 61 : “Rangers pointed out that it was “fortunate” that the Judge was available to consider the issue, but did not rely upon the fact that the Judge was interpreting his own order in the context of his own judgments, and rightly so. Apart from the fact that the objective nature of the exercise forbids that subjective consideration (not least because the proper interpretation cannot depend in the slightest on whether or not the judge who made the order is the judge interpreting it),..”
What do I make of it?
What other than that Counsel for ‘Rangers’ may have been acting the goat, sort of sneakily making implications without the balls to come out with what he was implying.
I may, of course, be entirely wrong .
But I was cheered by the fact that the Court slapped the idea down. [I would privately hope that the Master of the Rolls would be having a word in the ear…]
valentinesclown 28th May 2021 At 10:52
………………..
Get back to me next year
Vernallen 28th May 2021 At 22:53
‘..Does the report of the backroom staff not wanting to relocate have anything to do with the George Square demonstrations.’
++++++++++++
That’s a possibility , of course, and not to be discounted.
But more importantly, in my view, is the question of what does Howe’s dependence on his backroom staff say about him?
A leader who can’t lead if he’s out of his comfort zone?
A leader so dependent on his subordinates as not to see himself capable of finding equally good other subordinates?
A vacillating ditherer, unable to solve a problem and arrive at a conclusion without stringing people along ?
What the hell kind of ‘manager’ is he?
And who in hell on the Celtic board authorised that farcical recruitment exercise and allowed it to continue for so long, with a candidate who, in the end, proved himself [in my opinion] to be a temporiser, a weakling not in charge of himself , with half-heartedness and no discernible sense of commitment?
All other things being equal, guys like Callum Davidson and John Hughes have more oomph about them than the Howes of this world.
John Clark May 28th 2021 22:53
Some very interesting and valid points raised in your comments. If only someone on the board had the wherewithal to raise those points or are they all cowed and enjoy the perks of being a board member with little to do. Shareholders might want to raise the question if the board has actually filled their duties and obligations in a forthright manner. Based on the last few months it would appear that any sense of fulfilling their responsibilities have gone out the window. Then again this board appears to give the shareholders a cold shoulder when questions are raised. Perhaps the Resolution group might want to take a shot.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19337681.rangers-lose-right-2-8m-merchandise-income-due-mike-ashley-legal-block/
………………………………………..
Rangers loses right to £2.8m of merchandise income due to Mike Ashley legal block
RANGERS have lost the right to take legal action to force the receipt of two years income from its own branded merchandise worth millions after Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct won a legal block.
The Ibrox club launched a legal bid last year to get back more than £2.8m it says it is owed through its merchandise deal with sports firm Hummel in a row over replica shirt sales
Test.
I’ve struggled to post the last couple of days for some reason. Test.
I agree with JC on whether Howe would have the appetite for Celtic. Whilst huge questions over board during the process, I think Celtic may have dodged a bullet with Howe.
I do think home grown talent gets overlooked for the exotic and or big name (who will ALWAYS see Scotland as a stepping stone). There are two obvious talented and hungry Scottish managers who should be given full consideration in Ross and Davidson – sorry Hibs and Saints fans!
A bit of deckchair moving from UEFA ?
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/sport/19338150.uefa-scrap-away-goals-rule-european-club-competitions/
@Paddy Malarkey – whilst it’s hard to argue with UEFAs logic based on goals being scored, travel being easier, refs better, etc what this does is make it harder for the little guys to knock out Goliath. A surprise 2-0 at home would put the pressure on (especially defensively) for the big boys. Downgrading away goals on balance favours the favourite as it becomes two equal games.
Wokingcelt 29th May 2021 At 22:55
‘.. Downgrading away goals on balance favours the favourite as it becomes two equal games.’
++++++++++++++
The notion of handicapping in horse-racing has always puzzled me. Never really understood it.
If I have a fast horse and bet you that it will beat your horse , why should I allow you to say that my horse should carry extra weight?
You might respond that it makes the competition fair.
But how , I ask, is it then a meaningful sporting competition?
If factors other than the fact that my horse runs faster than yours are given any place, what price sporting competition?
In 1965 I was in my twenties, and thought then that the ‘away goals ‘rule was nonsense and that it introduced a notion of ‘handicapping’ that was foreign to the sport, however much it was customary in ‘sports’ such as golf and horse racing.
The whole point of sport as sport is genuine competition, not artificially arranged ‘equality’ in competition? Am I right, or a meringue?
If I remember correctly the away goals rule was introduced to encourage the away team to attack more and try to score rather than simply “park the bus “ .
My gripe with the rule was that when the tie was even it continued into extra time , giving the away team a clear advantage .
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19338512.revealed-secret-taxman-gameplan-liquidate-rangers/?ref=ebln?c=i38rp6
……………………
THE taxman had a secret gameplan to push Rangers towards liquidation weeks before its financial implosion so there could be a full investigation over the non-payment of millions of pounds in tax, it has emerged.
Details of HM Revenue & Customs’s role as the club financially collapsed show how they wanted to avoid having the business remain under the control of Craig Whyte, whose nine month tenure of the club led to it falling into administration in 2012.
Cluster One 30th May 2021 At 09:55
‘…The taxman had a secret gameplan …’
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“…….as the club financially collapsed..”
Truth will out, won’t it, even subconsciously!
The Herald knows, the entire SMSM including the BBC knows, the SFA and the members of the SPFL know, and the man in the pub knows that it was RFC of 1872 that died the death of Liquidation, not some ‘holding company’.
The ridiculous lie that TRFC is the angers Football Club is an assault on reason and truth that is truly as shameful as it it is ludicrous.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57299624
So Henry McLeish is to be involved (again) in yet another review of Scottish Football. What is the point? Personally I wouldn’t care if I never heard a thing from this man again. To clarify, I do not wish any ill will on him, I just think it’s time to recognise he has nothing to offer.
Any review of the game which does not address the criminality, fraud and corruption in the game is of lesser value than a chocolate fireguard.
They will have the MSM inside of course. McLeish will be open to a payday -despite the fact that his last report was ignored.
Just another day at Hampden.
Big Pink 30th May 2021 At 22:06
Same old , same old . Maybe them and such as them believe that we’ve forgotten that McLeish has already produced a report that was widely ignored , especially by themselves . They need to pay for an independant investigation into the whole of Scottish football , including the professional referees’ set up and training , the incompetence and corruption across the board , the bowling club management , the secrecy and the favouritism . It should not have been set up for the benefit of the two biggest clubs to the detriment of others . We have to share the available income more equitably among the surviving clubs . We also have to improve the product by , among other things , getting rid of plastic pitches in the top division at least .
Test
@JC – I’ve no argument with your purity of sport point. However the European competitions are already rigged in favour of the big clubs/big countries. Why should performances in prior years (and of other clubs in your country and not just your own) secure direct/earlier entry? Why have seedlings? Removing away goals on balance helps the bigger clubs.
Then again I have felt for many years that UEFA have adopted a Strictly Come Dancing/X-Factor format with cannon fodder for comedy value whilst we get to the final 8 that you could have picked at the outset.
Re the fairly and widespread and rather negative, reporting around Ange Postecoglu’s lack of UEFA Pro Licence as an obstacle to coming to Celtic ..
…could someone please remind me of the similar hysterical drama surrounding Gerro’ s(lack of ?) qualifications before taking over at Sevco – and any major issues that caused?
I’m trying to recall what, if any, qualifications he had.
I appreciate that no one in the honest, intrepid media is trying to undermine CFC’;s attempts to appoint him.
Big Pink 30th May 2021 At 22:06
Any review of the game which does not address the criminality, fraud and corruption in the game is of lesser value than a chocolate fireguard. They will have the MSM inside of course. McLeish will be open to a payday -despite the fact that his last report was ignored. Just another day at Hampden.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Absolutely spot on. In 2017 the SFA had a chance to get everything out in the open then move on from it, although some heads may have rolled. Instead they didn’t want to ‘rake over old coals’. Well, those old coals still seem to be burning.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57304063
Will Eddie Howe ever be approached again for a top level management job. I believe there is enough blame to go around for both parties involved in this farce. It’s like something out of the old movie, The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight. Other reports indicate a memorandum of agreement was in place but apparently looked like a piece of swiss cheese with many opportunities to back out. Who crafted such an agreement, surely a club with the resources of Celtic could afford a lawyer skilled enough to produce a document that was leak proof. As for Howe if he had a back up plan it will be interesting to see if, when and where he lands.
Vernallen 31st May 2021 At 22:45
Today’s Daily Record are reporting that part of Eddie Howe’s decision was based on Peter Lawell’s house being attacked. I have no idea if that is true, but if it is then that has to be a worry. However, the other thing springing to mind is it might just have been a convenient thing to add for a man who never really wanted to move to Scotland? I guess we’ll never really know because all any media outlet has to say is ‘we understand that…’, or ‘sources close to…, and they can then say what they want. This of course gives some leeway to people who want to maliciously attack or defend an individual or club. That is why I no longer buy newspapers – at times they are no better than the crap you read on social media. Some of what they print is probably taken from social media.
UTH
Simply put,that ‘guff’ is just part of the historic anti-Celtic narrative and agenda – present since CFC’s founding in 1888.
Academics such as Tom Devine are deluding themselves if they think that this has disappeared.
It is alive and thriving.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57313879
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57315647
Wrt the share issue to fans, looks like Club1872 are no longer picking up the slack and are sticking to the deal to buy King’s shares, and there is a lack of staunchness among the directors in funding the defecit. I can envisage fans having to choose between the two, and opine that Club1872 will haemorrhage members..
Everyone , Everyone with at least £500 to spare after other outgoings? Looks a wee bit less than inclusive to me.
Is this share offer (!) earmarked for Big Mike?
Wonder if he’ll seek to ‘ringfence’ it (tongue considerably in cheek – but who knows!?)?
Paddy Malarkey 1st June 2021 At 12:45
‘..https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/57315647‘
++++++++++++++++==
From the link you provided.
Chairman Douglas Park said: “Rangers has been here for 150 years and it’s vital that we future-proof the next 150 years. By widening the ownership to a broader base of like-minded supporters and shareholders, we feel it helps put the club on an even stronger footing going forward.”
Nothing like losing an expensive court case to make one whistle even louder to drown out the truth, eh, what?
Honest to God how can they live with themselves?
When your board resort to lies and especially members who run businesses and understand how not paying debts will be the end of your business, then you know that TheRangers new club fans are just as stupid as the old club fans, fools and their money as they say.
“Chairman Douglas Park said: “Rangers has been here for 150 years and it’s vital that we future-proof the next 150 years. By widening the ownership to a broader base of like-minded supporters and shareholders, we feel it helps put the club on an even stronger footing going forward.”
Someone need to put this wee soul out of his misery, its only the company give us your £500.00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpImJxXg7K0
“Here we go again”
The latest rattle of the collecting tin through Tifosy equity crowdfunding is an interesting turn of events.
The company in its infancy just 3 yrs old has yet to make a profit and has not got Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs looking over their shoulder just yet . The Risk Warning attached to their profile was interesting enough
“Investing in equity crowdfunding and early stage businesses involves high risks, which may include long-term investment horizons, illiquidity, lack of income and potential dilution. Any investor needs to be in the position to afford a total loss of capital invested.”
They do say birds of a feather flock together and this has all the hallmarks of a match made in heaven.
Usually when funding is required it is limited to the closed shop of Directors so they can keep their shareholding percentages in control territory. When the buttons are short they have looked to their charitable arm of Club* 1872 . It is most unusual to have to ask the public to contribute , maybe even an act of desperation . There has to be a limit to how much they are willing to spend and any idea that the failed euro super league would expand to include them in a super league 2 is now a distant dream .
The old saying of the way to make a small fortune in football is to start with a large one may well be playing out here. King wants his loan back , Ashley is waiting to collect a significant amount and if it’s all down to negotiating the minefield of CL qualification to reach the group stages then that’s a lot of pressure . It all feels a bit deja vu
Another addition to their outstanding record of “world” records, another share issue. Its not that long ago that a board member indicated that within 12–18 months they would be financially stable. Considering the debt they racked up over the last few years and that sooner or later some large bills maybe landing on their desk, I would be reluctant to give them 500 pounds as an investment. It appears that they are pinning their hopes on CL money to cut into the accumulated debts. That sounds an awful lot like what happened back in 2011 — 2012.
Vernallen 1st June 2021 At 19:29
Just as well it’s a new club or UEFA may have been keen to slap fiscal probity into them as a repeat offender .
On a lighter (?) note…
Just watched a penalty shootout in a crucial match the Irish Premiereship (Cliftonville v Crusaders), where the tenth penalty was deemed to have been missed, which makes one wonder about the role of the goal line assistant. This would have made the score 5-5. Cliftonville won 5-4.
I asked myself “What did he not see”?
The guy was in line, 2 yards away, and apparently didn’t see that the ball was, even to my admittedly fading eyes, about 2 feet over the line, having come down off the crossbar! I know this kind of error happens, but Jeezo…
Even the ref. with a clear view must,I would assert, have seen this.
I wasn’t basically interested in who won the match, but am ‘ragin’ about the all-round incompetency and injustice!
Rangers to use 6.75 million share to bulletproof the next 150 years. At 45.000 per annum, based on their figures, its not much in the way of bullet-proofing, and, that doesn’t allow for any inflation. Love their math solutions
Bect67 31st May 11.32
Steven Gerrard had both his Uefa A & B Licences and had already started his Pro Licence when arriving at Ibrox in 2018.
Vernallen 31st May 22.35
I have no doubt that EH will be considered for future appointments when & wherever they arise. Why wouldn’t he?.
Paddy Malarkey 1st June 12.36
Club 1872 is at present haemeroghing members due to recent decisions made by a few people in positions of power
I see the managerial merry-go-round is in full pelt across England. Numerous PL clubs looking for managers – could get interesting if clubs look north…
“Rangers is a modern, pioneering football club” says the statement.
Indeed, yes, very pioneering;
the first “club 12”
the first club to have ‘provisional’ membership in the SFA as SevcoScotland ,
the first new club to try to get away with claiming in 2012 to be 140 years old and to falsely claim sporting successes that were actually won by a club that went into Liquidation in 2012 and is still in Liquidation;
the first club to have so compromised the Scottish Football authorities in their dealings with it as to raise serious questions about the integrity of Sporting competition in 2012 and since;
Very pioneering.
Does anyone have a theory why the media are so indifferent to the fact that the original Rangers cheated HMRC out of so much money?
Do they think the so called ‘relegation’ was sufficient punishment, even though a court ruled ‘Rangers’ were not relegated? I just don’t understand, because the same media are very critical of major companies like Amazon and Starbucks LEGALLY not paying enough tax (in their view). So why is it that that special rules seemingly have to be introduced for ‘Rangers’?
I am sick of it all, especially because we are having ’55’, and ‘150 years’ rammed down our throat by ‘Rangers’ and the media every day. What WOULD ‘Rangers’ have to do to cause media outrage?
Rant over.
Upthehoops 2nd June 2021 At 20:12
‘… What WOULD ‘Rangers’ have to do to cause media outrage?’
+++++++++++
That’s an easy one, uth:
if the Ibrox boards admitted openly
that Rangers of 1872 died the death of Liquidation
that CG did not buy Rangers of 1872 and its place in the SPL , but just some of the assets of a defunct club, and had to apply for a share in a football league in order to get his new creation membership of the SFA
that TRFC has not won more than one premier league title ,
then, by the Lord Harry, would we see some real media outrage as truth was told!
lbertz11 2nd June 2021 At 08:10
2
1
Rate Up
Paddy Malarkey 1st June 12.36
Club 1872 is at present haemeroghing members due to recent decisions made by a few people in positions of power
…………………………..
I read that, a few emails going around and one or two unhappy people
So another SFA farce – Brechin are not being allowed to join the Lowland league but have to play in the Highland league.
Surely as a precondition of a club going up in the pyramid system, clubs coming down must be allowed to enter the place that becomes vacant – unless it’s geographically impractical eg far north highland club wouldn’t enter the lowland league as costs for all clubs would then significantly increase
Why aren’t these conditions in place so the lower leagues don’t have the ability to reject teams coming down ?
Or am I missing something ?
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19346156.judge-starts-same-club-debate-experts-argue-whether-rangers-fans-support-another-team/?ref=twtrec
………………………………….
A JUDGE entered into a debate over the value of the Rangers brand as he questioned an expert over whether he had underestimated the importance of the club name.
Lord Tyre entered into a ‘same club’ court discussion as experts argued whether fans would happily have supported a team similar to Rangers but under a different name such as the Glasgow Blues.
Cluster One 3rd June 2021 At 19:53
Your link to the ‘Herald’ piece brought to mind my views on the ‘same club’ fiction.
Tomorrow I will (barring unforeseen events such as my sudden death or not enough pennies to buy the essential recorded delivery stamp)- post a letter to the Master of the Rolls anent the ( English) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) published judgment in the SDI Retail v Rangers action.
Here is what I have written:
“..The Rt Hon the Master of the Rolls,
Royal Courts of Justice,
Strand,
London WC2 2LL
“Dear (then in manuscript , fountain pen, auld man’s shaky hand) Master of the Rolls,
On 27 May 2021 the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) issued a judgment in a particular case .
I had ,and have, no personal ‘interest’ in the case, being neither a party to the litigation nor a witness nor in any respect legally affected by the actual judgment; nor do I wish to comment on, far less query, the Court’s decision.
However, I am concerned that there is a factual error implicit in the ‘background’ section of the written judgment as published in ‘BAILLII’ which, although it does not bear on the matter in the litigation or on the Court’s decision, ought to be corrected.
The judgment I refer to is [2021] EWCA Civ 790 Case no A4/2020/0329 , published on 27 May 2021 and the error is to be found in the short summary of the background to the case, thus
“ .. The background
5.Rangers operates Glasgow Rangers Football Club (“the Club”), having acquired its business and assets on 14 June 2012 from the interim liquidators of the previous corporate owner.”
That sentence is, I believe, misleading. It suggests that the ‘ Rangers’ in this litigation operates the Rangers Football Club that was founded in 1872, as if the latter had not entered liquidation but had simply been brought out of Administration by the purchaser of the ‘business and assets’
That is very far from being the case.
Rangers Football Club (of 1872 foundation) when it entered Liquidation was obliged under the Articles of Association of the then Scottish Premier League (the “SPL”) to surrender its share in that company. In consequence, it was no longer a member of a recognised football league, and therefore under the Articles of Association of the Scottish Football Association (“the SFA”),lost its entitlement to membership of that association.
It thereby ceased to be a football club eligible to participate in Scottish professional football.
The purchaser of the assets ( not all of them, as it happens) used as his purchase vehicle a company set up expressly for the purpose, Sevco5088 Ltd, incorporated on 29 March 2012.
We are told that by a deed of novation a short time later, the assets were transferred to the ownership of SevcoScotland Ltd , incorporated on 29 May 2012.
Now, in order to become a football club recognised by the SFA, SevcoScotland had to become a shareholder in a recognised football league.
To this end it applied to the SPL to try to buy a share in that company, but was refused.
It then applied to the Scottish Football League. It was eventually accepted into that league as a new club, starting in the bottomost place in the lowest division of that league.
Only then was it admitted as a new club into membership of the SFA .
The Rangers Football Club of 1872 foundation ( which for some reason was renamed as RFC 2012 plc on 31 July 2012),is still in liquidation, its huge debts still unpaid.
It therefore follows that the club (named The Rangers Football Club) being operated by the ‘Rangers’ that was a party in the litigation to which I have referred, is not, and cannot possibly be, the Rangers Football Club of 1872.
I believe that the doubtlessly unintentionally misleading sentence in the written judgment should be re-written to reflect that truth.
I have written to you because I understand that as Master of the Rolls you have general oversight of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) and would naturally wish to ensure that, as far as possible, written judgments emanating from ‘your’ Courts should be free of statements that are unintentionally misleading or incomplete in relation even to peripheral matters that do not bear on the legal matters in dispute.
Yours sincerely and with utmost respect,
me.”
Cluster One 3rd June 2021 At 19:53
A JUDGE entered into a debate over the value of the Rangers brand as he questioned an expert over whether he had underestimated the importance of the club name.
Lord Tyre entered into a ‘same club’ court discussion as experts argued whether fans would happily have supported a team similar to Rangers but under a different name such as the Glasgow Blues.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The second sentence is the crux of the matter, and why the SFA, SPFL, and the mainstream media had to go down the road of claiming that the Rangers currently playing, are the Rangers who were liquidated. The idea that a football club is essentially just an idea in itself certainly is a novel one. I still think at some point a court case will arrive where the same club argument is going to be seriously tested. However, as we can see with the media ignoring the court ruling that Rangers were not relegated, they would ignore whatever the court ruled anyway if it didn’t suit their narrative.
ANY other Scottish ‘club’ we would not have to put up with this in my opinion. It would have been put to bed years ago whether their fans liked it or not. Here is my partisan contribution. Consider the absolute outrage towards Celtic for the Dubai trip, from the Government, media, other fans and general public. It was way beyond what could be deemed a proportionate response. In light of that does anyone seriously think if Celtic had stiffed HMRC for tens of millions and had been liquidated that all those groups would accept them being able to pretend nothing had changed, claiming their history since 1888, and not even saying the theft of unpaid tax was wrong, never mind actually apologising for it? Would a ‘Celtic’ even exist?
My post of 3rd June 2021 At 22:44 refers:
I did not die suddenly overnight and I found I had enough cash for recorded delivery so my letter to the
Master of the Rolls was posted early this afternoon.
[ I had to consult Debrett’s Guide to Etiquette to find out how to address him.
For anyone remotely interested the present master is Sir Geoffrey Vos, appointed on 11 January 2021. The Master is second in seniority in England and Wales only to the Lord Chief Justice. and the office of Master of the Rolls goes back to at least 1286, and probably much further back. One lives and learns!]
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/SC437060/filing-history
Another debt for equity swap this time for just 70k
Timtim 20.29
Somebody is keeping the auditors happy by raising funds to pay bills as they become due. The latter part is required practice, the former smacks of a business teetering on the edge. They are hoping for a huge cash influx but StevieG may repeat the SuperAlly experience and if UEFA get wise that Champions League money is required to keep them afloat then they might torpedo it anyway.
Companies House , RIFC plc page
“04 Jun 2021 Statement of capital following an allotment of shares on 4 June 2021
GBP 3,910,088.57”
previous statement of capital
“1 May 2021 Statement of capital following an allotment of shares on 7 May 2021
GBP 3,906,588.57”
If this is the share issue from which they are hoping to raise £6 million before the pre-registration period ends on 11 June they have a way to go.
I get the feeling that the RIFC plc Board tend to open their mouth and let their belly rumble more in desperate hope than in well-founded expectation!
They still haven’t got a meaningful handle on their PR:
Robertson says “..investing in the new Edmiston House multi-purpose venue, developments at Ibrox Stadium, the acceleration of Rangers’ digital transformation strategy and the club’s international expansion”. Meaningless guff of the ‘jam tomorrow’ kind!
Sporting director Ross Wilson says it is a “wonderful opportunity” to become part of a club “heading in a positive direction”.
What a stupidly insulting remark to have made!
Insulting to the many, many fans who are not shareholders. There are reputed to be 5 million Rangers fans ( or was it 5 hundred million?). I don’t know how many fans actually are shareholders , but clearly there will be a substantial number who are not.
Are they not ‘part’ of the club?
Do you have to be ‘monied ‘ to be part of TRFC? Have £500 to ‘invest’, as if you were as rich as an Insolvency Practitioner or a QC or a bus transport entrepreneur or a Gauteng-based whatever, before you can be ‘part’?
Dearie me!
The GBP 3,910,088.57 is a bit of a squirrel , it’s referring to the nominal value of the “company”if shares are valued at their nominal value of 1p .
The latest injection is nothing to do with the share issue they hope to raise 6.75m from it is just another debt for equity swap with someone as yet unknown paying a 70k loan and getting 350k shares in return .
I think P McGh has speculated that this(6.75m) maybe to pay off the Dave King loan (or the larger of his 2 loans) that is roughly the same amount.
King’s cold shoulder is still active and as a significant shareholder it is having a detrimental affect on their ability to borrow at competitive rates and until club1872 get rid of him his involvement even from the sidelines isn’t helping.
The feelgood factor at the club* has never been higher so this is the perfect time to shake the collecting tin however those fans have never been keen to invest in previous issues at their former club*
This share issue has costs associated with it and by going public it suggests the Directors may be tapped out.
Ashley,Close,Memorial Walls,outstanding transfers and HMRC are all sizeable creditors that haven’t gone away.
John Clark 4th June 23.09.
The recent share issue you refer to is not a part of the share offering made to supporters on 01/06.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjlMnwYO4_A
The EH project has the potential to be a key revenue generator for many years/decades to come.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAVDrZ4rPmI
The developments both to the interior and footprint of Ibrox Stadium are long overdue and had been neglected by previous boards.
The improvements to the digital output are striking both in terms of quality & content, allied to a new relationship with fans media, which is innovative and is the future for many clubs.
I also find the comments by RW no different to when Season Tickets (44,000) &MyGers (30,000) packages were being sold.
As an aside John, can i ask what has happened to your court reports ?
Timtim 5th June 11.57.
Leaving aside the parts of your post that are purely speculative can you let me know what are the “costs associated” with the share offering?, offering not issue. By limiting the amount to £ 6.75 million, then no expensive prospectus is required.
Albertz11 5th June 2021 At 16:01
“..As an aside John, can i ask what has happened to your court reports ?”
++++++++++++
Yes. There was no way I could ‘attend’ every , or even many, hearings, I’m afraid. I have notes still to type up of some days when I was free to listen without interruption, and of course there have been a number of days when there was no hearing. I listened all day on Thursday, but to tell the truth the evidence sessions of the ‘valuers’ was difficult to take notes of because their responses were very long-winded , and I kind of lost the thread of their responses.
There wasAlbertz11 5th June 2021 At 16:01
“..As an aside John, can i ask what has happened to your court reports ?”
++++++++++++
Yes, of course.
Sadly, there was and is no way I could ‘attend’ every , or even many, hearings, I’m afraid.
I have notes still to type up of some days when I was free to listen without interruption, and of course there have been a number of days when there was no hearing.
I listened all day on Tuesday and Wednesday last but to tell the truth I found the evidence sessions of the ‘valuers’ tedious and it was difficult to take notes because their responses tended to be long-winded , and I sometimes kind of lost the thread of their responses where they were explaining their methodologies. There was one interesting exchange which was reported in the Press in what I would call a spiced- up , lower-end SMSM hack kind of way.
Perhaps the hack’s hearing is better than mine!
@Albertz11
Tifosy are not organising this share offering for free therefore there are costs associated with it , to put a figure on that would be speculative so I will refrain from doing so .
I’m sure the potential of EH to be a key revenue generator for years /decades to come will cover it if your speculation is correct.
@Albertz11 – thanks for sharing. I watched the EH promo. Three observations/comments:
1. 150 years of history. Leaving aside old/new club for a moment, I am curious as to how they/you would present the Murray years. Trophy-laden splendour or debt laden, underpayment of taxes and incomplete football returns?
2. As someone from an Irish Catholic upbringing how do you think they may represent the many, many years of discrimination and racial abuse that the “club” practiced and encouraged during this 150 years? I may have missed it in the past (and if so I apologise) but I am not aware of any statement of apology ever.
3. Forgive my cynicism (and I apply this to all clubs and businesses that I see in my day job looking to raise money) but the EH development looks like a facility (funded by fans through a share offer after which each fan will be inconsequential) to allow the company to then extract more money from said shareholders/fans.
Regards
John Clark 5th June 19.28
Thank you for the reply John.
Thought you might like this letter which appeared in Thursday’s Independent.
“So Boris Johnson has postponed his honeymoon for 2 weeks.
That will give him a fortnight to find somebody to pay for it”
HS
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19352917.administrators-fire-17-5m-insolvent-rangers-valuable-players-went-less-1m/
………………………………………………
FORMER administrators or Rangers have come under fire over how they handled the insolvent club as analysis revealed that their most valuable players worth £17.5m ended up leaving for less than £1m.
It has further emerged that Craig Whyte would not sell their most valuable player for £6m, £500,000 less than the whole club’s assets in administration was sold to the Charles Green-fronted Sevco consortium, it has emerged.
https://kilmarnockfc.co.uk/news/club-statement-remarks-by-kyle-lafferty/
……………………….
Good statement.
And a wee dig i hope at the friday night statements of other clubs, who just can’t wait to make statements public.
upthehoops 4th June 2021 At 15:52
The second sentence is the crux of the matter, and why the SFA, SPFL, and the mainstream media had to go down the road of claiming that the Rangers currently playing, are the Rangers who were liquidated.
………………………………………..
Only 250 season tickets sold to follow a new club showed us that. Green, the SFA and THE SFL and the SPL were facing a black hole
John Clark 5th June 2021 At 19:28
…………………………
Thanks JC Look forward to anything you get to report on hearings
wokingcelt 5th June 2021 At 20:39
5
1
Rate This
@Albertz11 – thanks for sharing. I watched the EH promo.
………………………………………..
The large share issue to get these projects running i believe. But happy to be corrected. what happens if the offer is not met, the projects shelved?