Here we go again

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?

This entry was posted in Blogs by Trisidium. Bookmark the permalink.
Tom Byrne

About Trisidium

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

1,142 thoughts on “Here we go again


  1. It would have been interesting to see what call a referee doing a Rangers game in the scottish league would have made on the Roofe incident last night.. Also interesting when you view the predictions of the DR writers on their view of the outcome of the game (blue tinted glasses anyone). Of course the various fan websites had it all down to the referee not controlling the game and shame on the Czech team for playing keep a way as they sat on a two goal lead. The alleged incident of racial abuse can not be overlooked as there is no place for racism in any walk of life. There are instances of getting in a player’s ear (Brown vs Morelos) to distract him for performing at his best and you walk a fine line in that area as well as some comments could be misinterpreted.

    We have now passed the Ides of March and still no report or punishment for the Covid 5. Is the idea to delay, delay, delay and hopefully people will have forgotten.

    trued.


  2. Vernallen, the Covid 5 have been cited, but will be dealt with on 25 March I believe. We joked on here that they must know Tavernier will be fit by then so they can do without Patterson!


  3. John Clark 19th March 11.09

    Whilst the red card for Kemar Roofe was totally justified your talk of a “sine die” suspension for the player is a total over reaction to what was a dangerous, ill judged but ultimately accidental collision. Take another look and you’ll see the player doesn’t take his eyes off the ball, even for a split second.

    Statement from the club.

    https://www.rangers.co.uk/Article/club-statement-190321/3V4qEF786N7Oj0dEskpfld


  4. Nawlite

    If that’s the case suspension will probably only cover remainder of scheduled games. How fortunate they are.


  5. Vernallen 19th March 2021 At 17:19
    ‘.. How fortunate they are.’

    Nawlite 19th March 2021 At 13:22
    ‘..Vernallen, the Covid 5 have been cited,..’
    ++++++++++++++++
    Were we ever given an expanation for the unconscionably long it took for the CO to cite them?

    There may be a perfectly simple explanation, such as the CO being either too run off his feet or too incompetent or some such.

    But the SFA and its history of misuse of its powers and procedures have given us enough reason to be instantly suspicious of ANYTHING they do that however remotely might help TRFC!


  6. John Clark 19th March 2021 At 19:16

    I’ve mentioned this before, but I think Rangers missed a huge PR opportunity. The league was pretty much in the bag by the time of the event. Suspending the players themselves would not only have been great PR for them, but would have made the SFA job a box ticking exercise. Instead we are left to quite rightly wonder why the SFA have taken so long while Rangers continue to play the players.


  7. I think the events at Ibrox have highlighted that UEFA have a few things to sort out:
    1. They can’t have the situation of players covering their mouths whilst abusing other players. A presumption of a “beyond the pale” comment having been made might stamp it out.
    2. The incident in the tunnel. If any truth that the away dressing room was locked when it shouldn’t have been and this contributed to players being assaulted, the fault will lie with TRFC. No idea how UEFA would view this.
    3. Roofe challenge. This was dangerously reckless and I don’t think that intent comes into it (just because he didn’t mean it doesn’t mean he gets free licence to do it again). I would probably cause serious mayhem if put into a F1 car – I can guarantee I wouldn’t be allowed back on the track. Question for UEFA will be whether their schedule of penalties for yellow and red cards is sufficient to cover such a dangerously reckless challenge. I doubt it notwithstanding the lesson they should have learned from Harald Schumacher in 1982.


  8. apologies, (big pink and all); albeit I have a sick note – the dog ate my covid jag….

    it’s good to be off the bench. I must admit, I haven’t been tuning in for a long while. no excuses. t’internet is dreadful. as is deflection.


  9. Parks on the field supporting manager in the aftermath of “he, I said”, perhaps he was having a word in Gerrard’s ear. Thank you Steven for losing us some valuable EL money and watch what you say as we don’t need a fine from UEFA. Oh, and thanks for not getting me another trip to some exotic stadium on the club’s dime.


  10. The Nations game between UKraine and Switzerland due to be played last November was cancelled and not rescheduled, because on the day of the match, the entire Ukrainian delegation was placed in quarantine by the health authorities of the Canton of Lucerne.
    Ukraine appealed.
    CAS today dismissed that appeal, and upheld the UEFA decision that Ukraine should forfeit the match 3-0 in favour of Switzerand,

    Interestingly, the “CAS Panel emphasized that, rather than being at fault, the UAF was an unfortunate victim of the COVID-19 pandemic and decided not to order it to pay any costs in favour of UEFA and/or SFA”[Swiss FA]
    Something there that the SFA/SPFL might possibly mull over, having caused the kind of headless chicken fcuk-up they did with their stupid rigidity of thought and/or mindless panic?


  11. wokingcelt
    Question for UEFA
    What kind of fine will the club from ibrox be given two players sent off alledged altercations after game, police now involved.


  12. Cluster One 19th March 2021 At 23:0

    wokingcelt
    Question for UEFA

    What kind of fine will the club from ibrox be given two players sent off alledged altercations after game, police now involved.

    As the complaint was made via the Embassy in London, I don't think it would be unreasonable if it was requested that Scot squad are kept far away from the investigation, and Engerlunder plod take the reigns. It may even save the tax-payer millions in compo pay-outs.


  13. The superiority attitude of Rangers on display in Barry Ferguson’s column today, ” the league title is back where it belongs”. This from an individual who shamed himself while on international duty for Scotland, received a lucrative EBT, and, when there was indications the tax man might be calling declared bankruptcy and transferred assets to his wife ..If the league title is deemed to be theirs forever why bother with league play.


  14. I know it’s a small thing, but I see the press happily reporting SG’s quotes about standing toe to toe with Glen Kamara. That’s not right though, is it? I’m pretty sure standing toe to toe with someone means you’re fighting AGAINST someone. Surely he means standing side by side with Glen Kamara. I knew the SMSM were bad, but now they don’t even correct incorrect language?


  15. @ Vernallen – I think that is BF playing to his audience (and not someone who identifies as a fan of BF I haven’t read it). But you touch on an important point which is what is the purpose of a football club. If it’s only purpose is to win all the time then it is setting itself up for failure as sport doesn’t work that way. There needs to be something more that sets it apart and attracts fans whether winning or not. Historically this was local community identity – not sure how that works now on a global basis, maybe that’s why the terms fans, customers and consumers are increasingly interchanged.


  16. As a Chartered Accountant I should know the answer to this, but not having practised for a few years I am a bit rusty…
    Looking at the accounts of Celtic plc and TRFC I can see that both capitalise player acquisition costs and amortise over the length of contract subject to impairment reviews. That all makes sense to me. But I see that TRFC have also capitalised their “Brand” and state that this has an indefinite life (why they didn’t just say “evergreen” I don’t know…). What I can’t get my head around is that TRFC doesn’t have a track record of generating profits, so how can the carrying value be justified? What am I missing?


  17. wokingcelt 20th March 2021 At 15:58
    What I can’t get my head around is that TRFC doesn’t have a track record of generating profits, so how can the carrying value be justified? What am I missing?
    ……………………….
    At the start of the season they claimed the squad was worth over £100million, i would expect that they have added another £100million onto that now.


  18. Workingcelt — March 20th –15:46

    There have been some great sports dynasties on this side of the ocean and they have had great support during their runs. I don’t recall any member of these teams stepping up with such a claim as BF did today. Perhaps, this down to the franchise system employed by the various leagues and the difficulty ensuring you can retain the players that built said dynasties. Many of these athletes come to enjoy free agency in some form during their career and offer their services to the highest bidder.

    On the accounting side an old adage comes to mind, “figures lie and liars figure” Creative accounting at its best.


  19. Wokingcelt 20th March 2021 At 15:58
    ‘…TRFC doesn’t have a track record of generating profits, so how can the carrying value be justified? What am I missing?’
    +++++++++++
    Wokingcelt, Nice one!

    What is being spoken of is NOT the capitalisation of the ‘brand equity’ of TRFC.

    What is happening is a continuation of the ‘continuity Rangers’ myth.

    RIFC plc falsely claims to be the holding company of the ‘Rangers of 1872 ‘( which may indeed have been ‘the most successful club in the world’ but which entered Liquidation in 2012 and is still there, its huge debts to the taxpayer and other creditors unpaid, and not able to participate in Scottish Football]

    The truth is that RIFC plc is the holding company of quite a different football club.

    That club is the not yet 9 years old TRFC, which has no tremendously significant record of sporting achievement to speak of, so their brand name has not been particularly enhanced.

    So the effort has continually to be made to sell the lie that investment in RIFC plc is worthwhile because TRFC is the same brand name as RFC plc!
    Deceit, pure and simple.

    Or perhaps, impure and devious.
    The world and his wife knows -and Walter Smith and Graham Sourness and James Taylor (God bless him,] know that SevcoScotland/TRFC never was, is not ,and never can be RFC of 1872!

    And that as a brand name, TRFC is not so much famous as notorious , lie as they might.


  20. Nawlite 20th March 2021 At 13:24
    ‘..I knew the SMSM were bad, but now they don’t even correct incorrect language?’
    ++++++++++
    Ooohhh!

    Don’t get me started on the grammatical, linguistic, interviewing skills of our BBC Scotland current affairs /news presenters, never mind football hacks!

    Honest to God!

    They are(I assume] graduates of some university or other?

    But by the Lord Harry, I swear that they wouldn’t have [ or as Michael bloody Stewart would say ‘ wouldn’t ‘of’!] passed the bloody ‘quali’ of former years in the then much eulogised Scottish education system when that exam separated ‘senior secondary from ‘junior secondary’.

    I listen to them every day: the Kaye Adams, the Mhairi Stewarts, the rugby guy, the sweetie wife, and the assorted rag-tag-and bobble -tail.

    And I think: God help us, if that is the best that BBC Radio Scotland can provide.

    We know of course that in matters football, it provides support for the Big lie!
    And for as long as it does, it will not be criticised in any way!


  21. Nawlite 20th March 2021 At 13:24

    I guess it is too much for the media to highlight the fact that Gerrard publicly backed Luis Suarez when he was guilty of racism. As always everything is very selective to the advantage of Rangers.


  22. Upthehoops 21st March 2021 At 11:04

    It was a nice touch by Scott Brown before kick off to embrace Glen Kamara. Of course you will be more than aware of his response to the racial abuse aimed at Shay Logan by his then Celtic teammate Aleksander Tonev. Here it is:

    We all stick by him. We know he didn’t say it, so I think that’s the main thing and all the lads in the dressing-room believe him. I don’t think he needs to explain himself. We all believe him. He says he didn’t do it and we stand by him.”

    “We know Aleksandar doesn’t come in and lie. He talks to everyone in that changing room, so we have no problem.”

    Enough hypocrisy to go round when something like this happens. Trying to score points here is pretty poor, in my opinion. That’s where I’ll leave it as this is a very contentious issue that’s not exclusive to any one club.


  23. Not sure I see the hypocrisy you talk about, IAP. In both the Kamara and Logan cases, it’s team mates and managers believing what a friend/colleague/team mate has told them based solely on their perceived knowledge of his character. Surely, when the exchange hasn’t been heard, that’s all anyone can base their views on? (Unless, of course, you’re the SFA and take the word of one party over the other for a reason they failed to explain as far as I know).

    It will be interesting to see how UEFA deal with it, given that the Slavia player has denied it and his team mates/colleagues/management have believed/backed what he has said.


  24. Nawlite 21st March 2021 At 13:06

    That’s a fair point, hypocrisy is possibly not the best word to use so I’ll stick to selective. In this situation it’s pretty common for players/clubs to back their own and believe they were either victims/or not guilty of the accusations.

    We could all point to examples where this has happened and selectively exclude using ones that could potentially undermine an argument.


  25. 16 250 000 shares in RIFC plc issued from 19 March 2021 according to Companies House.
    Total shares now in issue 357 291 872.


  26. Morelos finally scores against Celtic. Is this another record for Rangers to proclaim, the longest time for a Rangers striker to score against Celtic. Does this now increase his value in the transfer market. The title was wrapped up, no pressure on anyone and he manages a tap in.

    Hugh Keevins saying Celtic should follow the structural model possessed by their biggest rivals. Would that be the one where the former team known as Rangers stiffed close to 300 creditors, or, is it the one following the mantra of the previous team in spending money they don’t have, living on loans from the directors, or continuing to issue confetti like shares, as John Clark points out earlier. The amount of total shares is unbelievable, what are they worth,


  27. Incredibleadamspark 21st March 2021 At 12:27

    Celtic were absolutely panned by the media for backing Tonev. Yet even though a court could not possibly have found him guilty on the evidence available, the SFA contrived to do just that!

    Kamara was clearly abused in my view, and if it can actually be proven then it is to be hoped the punishment fits the crime. Having said that if Rangers have locked Slavia out the dressing room in order to attack a player in front of UEFA witnesses as is alleged, there might just be a significant punishment coming Rangers way for that too. I think this has a got a bit to run, and thankfully it will not be dealt with by the Scottish media or the SFA.


  28. Further to my post of 18.34, I forgot to mention that the ‘Investor information’ page on TRFC’s website has not yet been updated to show any changes in directors’ shareholdings.

    If Club 1872 has not been a buyer, their percentage holding will be down a little at 4.534% from 4.75%

    The price[ paid up] per share was £0.2 , that is, 20p, raising a few bob for current expenditure.

    I wonder if the Gibson chap might have been buyer? If he bought the lot, his holding would now be 11.54%, making him the third largest shareholder after King (18.66%) and Park(14.7%)
    (But please feel free to check my figure-work!}


  29. @Vernallen – an issue with the Scottish football media is a (complete) lack of financial literacy. You would think that with the financial meltdowns across Scottish football over past 20 years that they would learn some lessons.
    I think it was Cluster One who made an earlier reference to a report that the TRFC squad was worth £100m. Firstly I would like to see a breakdown of that valuation. Secondly I would like to understand who the buyers are (no buyer, no sales price). And thirdly unless you are looking to sell the players (were some players being touted?) the number means nothing.
    The transfer market across Europe is bandjaxed at this time. Real Madrid and Barcelona have deep seated problems, the French league has lost TV money and EPL clubs (outside of Manchester) are all looking at cost base. For me it makes no sense whatsoever for any Scottish team to keep hold of a high value player where that value drops daily as his contract runs down – so it made complete sense for Celtic to sell Frimpong for a large amount of money when it was clear he wouldn’t sign a new contract.
    It will be an interesting summer to see who spends what (net) in Scotland. It will also be interesting to see how long before limited funds leads to that well known condition known as “frustrated manager syndrome”.


  30. Upthehoops 21st March 2021 At 22:01
    ‘..Kamara was clearly abused in my view, and if it can actually be proven..’
    +++++++++++++
    I watched and listened to the pre-match discussion on the Sky Sport ‘Now’ feckin app [or whatever] and I think Burke and McFadden and the girl presenter had the alleged offender convicted and sentenced in a way that might expose them to a civil suit for defamation!

    Have we not seen splendid examples of how the LAW works?

    It doesn’t matter a tuppenny toss that ‘we KNOW he done it’:! If you say on TV that ‘he done it’ without being able to PROVE that ‘he done it’, you can find yourself in court on the wrong end of a substantial damages claim!

    (As the Lord Advocate and Chief Constable have found themselves recently!)

    If I were a lawyer I think I might be advising the ‘accused’ to requisition a recording of that ‘trial and guilty verdict by TV’ with a view to bringing a potentially lucrative defamation action against Burke, McFadden and Sky TV!

    We may have our suspicions. But the minute we assert something as a statement of fact, we’d better make sure we have proof!

    I speak as being indirectly/remotely a ‘victim’ of racist/religious abuse myself in this country, and of having been directly viewed with suspicion/hostility in an Australian hospital because I chatted to the ‘first nations ‘ mother of a wee girl with whom my 3 year old granddaughter was happily playing in the kids’ playroom, while her other new-born daughter and my new-born granddaughter were fighting for their lives in intensive care.
    And, in the interests of truth, I have to say that I was annoyed at the fatuous stupidity of the commentator who has bought into the ’55 titles’ lie.


  31. workingcelt march 2st 23:05

    I think signs of frustrated manager syndrome might be simmering> Recent story had Gerrard mention a number of approaches but he had no intention of moving. Could this be a sign of a lack of funds come the summer and no more spending, live with what you have from the board.


  32. Vernallen 21st March 21.51

    Did it not occur to you that one of the reasons there was no pressure yesterday was due to the crucial goals scored by Alfredo Morelos at Aberdeen, Hibernian & Livingston in the month of January.
    Nine points instead of two.


  33. John

    Two sides to every coin indeed.

    Although I agree with most folks that Kamara was indeed racially abused, I believe that it will be easier for UEFA to prove what happened in the tunnel post match (especially if the ref was within range). Some may disagree.

    In addition, most intriguing to me is whether ‘Gerro’ will be asked to shed any light on ‘tunnelgate’ (Slavia apparently claim he witnessed the kerfuffle) – in the interest of transparency and honesty ye ken.

    Anyhoo, whatever happens to Slavia on the racial abuse issue, I feel the home side will be in deep **** with UEFA regarding subsequent events (and don’t forget their on field indiscipline aspect – finishing with 9 men).

    Aside from this, I still cannot grasp how an almost 9 year old club can amass 55 league titles in that number of seasons, although I must admit that just over six titles per season is some achievement – especially as they weren’t in the top division for 4 (?) of them!

    Could be as many as 11 per season then.


  34. Upthehoops 21st March 2021 At 22:01

    To use the Rangers manager supporting one of his players who has allegedly been racially abused as a point scoring exercise about media bias is really poor. Not only was the manufactured outrage quite disingenuous it was also demonstrably incorrect.

    A while later the Celtic captain would be in the exact same situation as the one Gerrard found himself in. The media praised both men whilst offering no ‘selective’ advantage to either club.


  35. 3.25m could be used to pay bonuses for winning the league although I think the total figure for this achievement maybe higher than that , it could go to pay off the Close loan which according to the last published accounts was still owing and attracting interest , it could go some way to pay off King’s loan of 5m and the 400k interest pa , there’s also the memorial walls claim , the deferred wages , the deferred taxes and a few outstanding transfer fees to be taken into account, then there is Mr Ashley waiting in the shadows awaiting his settlement.
    For all the hype in the SMSM about the quality of the Ibrox outfit I doubt it will have much impact elsewhere when it comes to raising funds once the transfer window opens.
    It all becomes another balancing act for survival , they need the CL money to get out of the hole they have dug for themselves and they need to add to the squad in order to qualify for the group stages yet will probably have to sell anyone they can in order to stay afloat.
    Winning the SPL means very little in performance indicators and losing to Slavia Prague while exposing themselves as hammer throwers won’t fool anyone they are a team of high value talent.
    The one thing in their favour is the season tickets should sell out and they won’t hesitate to raise the prices and squeeze the blue pound til it’s dry.
    There may also be a large upsurge in sales of mandarin tops but with their new found drive against racism they may want to drop that item ………. or maybe not.
    As for Kamaragate it will prove very difficult to prove he was racially abused if Kudela continues to deny it which he no doubt will. Covering his mouth does suggest he was trying to hide his words and I think the abuse did occur but that in itself isn’t enough to convict.


  36. albertz11 22nd march 7:32
    Well spotted, however does not explain the not scoring in previous games versus Celtic. Ranger fans were keen to make noise about it and tied to their magical 55. With his ability to score against other clubs, you would have thought it would have happened sooner. Perhaps a certain Mr. Brown had something to say about it.




  37. I think Stevie Gee gets good advice about his career moves from his PR folk and his business entourage. I’m also surprised, though not pleasantly so, that he has punched above his weight, as has his team this year. A quick exit may be the smart political move, but one thing common amongst sport people is that they tend to test themselves to destruction. Maybe because of the necessary self-belief they all possess.
    Celtic stumbling on 10IAR twice is a fact which I submit backs that theory up.
    Rangers effort this year has been monumental. No doubt about that. My guess is that SG will have advisors suggesting a quick exit to leave the Win Jansen legacy. But his own competitive instinct will see him stay to try to repeat the feat.
    Next season, a revitalised Rangers will compete with a New Celtic, a New Aberdeen, a returning Hearts, and filled stands.
    Covid will also become a financial leveller, hurting big salaried clubs more than those at the modest end of the scale.
    If nothing else, the events of this year have made next years competition all the more interesting. All to play for.


  38. @ Big Pink – agree on the self-belief and testing to destruction point. You could also look at Juventus this season (looking unlikely to achieve 10IAR) and any number of boxers who went back into the ring when already beaten by Old Father Time.
    Jumping ship is fine if you have somewhere to land. First time round Lennon resigned with a pretty strong cv but the offers didn’t come – when the offer is there a hasty (undignified but understandable) exit is pretty much par for the course (Rodgers to Leicester is but one example).
    I don’t share your confidence yet with regards to full stadiums next season but we can hope that some normality will return.


  39. Vernallen 23rd March 00.42

    Whilst it is true that Alfredo Morelos missed several opportunities to score versus Celtic throughout the years, it would be remiss of me if i didn’t mention the part the goalkeepers played in this. Gordon & Forster in particular were instrumental in prolonging this unwanted record.
    It is of course now a moot point and joins a plethora of other subjects that provided so many with great entertainment during the past decade but are now consigned to the trash can of history.


  40. Is it sweaty bum time in the SFA offices Countdown to March 25th and supposedly decision time on the Covid 5. Oh to be a fly on the wall.. tick tock


  41. DD says:” One of Fergus McCann’s tenets was that the Club would be run professionally and that we should never return to the position he inherited where the entire existence of Celtic could be jeopardised by mis-management and unacceptable levels of indebtedness”
    As happened, I believe, to the cheating SDM’s club.


  42. A response to one of my letters to Govt re the ‘shameful’ weekend. Pretty standard imo and doesn’t really cover the specific issues I raised, but I guess it’s as good as I’ll get. The last para re the recent derby weekend is disappointing. I guess the Armadale street parade I linked to on here the other day and just the one murder don’t matter that much!

    23 March 2021
    Dear xxxxxx,
    Thank you for your recent correspondence with the Scottish Government about the behaviour of some Rangers supporters earlier this month. Unfortunately due to the very high volume of letters received on this subject, it is not possible to give you a personal reply, but I hope you find the following useful.
    The behaviour which we saw over the weekend of 6 and 7 March was disgraceful and the Scottish
    Government utterly condemns the minority of individuals who chose to completely disregard the
    coronavirus regulations, putting both the wider community and police officers at risk.
    Rangers Football Club was asked to put out messages to persuade fans not to go out celebrating and encourage those who did gather in large numbers to return home but did not do so. It was very clear that the messaging from the club did not persuade their fans to celebrate safely and responsibly. TheScottish Government and Police Scotland discussed these issues with the club ahead of the game.
    The club was robustly reminded of its obligations at those meetings but did not agree to ask
    supporters not to gather. Ultimately though, as the First Minister said in her statement to Parliament on 9 March, “those at fault are those who breached the rules.”
    The policing operation was consistent with Police Scotland’s approach throughout this pandemic to
    maintain public safety and minimise disorder, disruption and damage to property. Where large
    numbers of people gather at an unplanned event such as this the police use established crowd control to keep the public safe and manage those who are refusing to disperse. There were 28
    arrests and seven people were issued with fixed penalty notices or will be the subject of a report to the Procurator Fiscal.
    The Scottish Government welcomed the referral by the Chief Constable of the Policing response to the Independent Advisory Group chaired by John Scott QC and looks forward to seeing its views on the policing response in due course.
    Enforcement of the Covid regulations on mass gatherings are an operational matter for Police
    Scotland, and the Scottish Government cannot (by law) direct Police Scotland in their approach. The Scottish Government will work with football clubs, local authorities and Police Scotland to ensure we do everything we can to persuade people that none of these scenes are repeated as the football season continues.
    With the support of both clubs, the SFA and SPFL in giving clear and unambiguous messages, the
    Old Firm match on 21 March passed off with no repeat of the scenes of the weekend of 6/7 March,
    and as Assistant Chief Constable Bernard Higgins said: “I’d like to thank the vast majority of fans from both clubs who took responsibility to prevent the spread of coronavirus by staying at home and not gathering at Celtic Park or anywhere else”, along with confirmation that there had been no arrests.
    Yours sincerely
    Michael Jackson
    POLICE : Finance and Efficiency


  43. Congratulation to Brora.

    Not played for 10 weeks. Part time. Members of tier 5= .

    Hearts

    Full time. 3rd (?) biggest team historically. 3rd (?) biggest budget.

    The most embarrassing/worst result in our history.

    HS


  44. Nawlite 23rd March 2021 At 18:43

    I had to despair when I read the report from the QC that Police Scotland paid to investigate how they managed the Rangers fans gatherings spoke of ‘human rights’, in the rather predictable summation that Police Scotland did just fine over that weekend. I particularly despaired at the thought that the human rights of everyone else who had their Covid risk increased by these gatherings means nothing, I also took it as confirmation that if for example Rangers win the Scottish Cup, then the same gatherings will be permitted regardless of the Covid laws in place.


  45. Higgy’s Shoes 23rd March 2021 At 22:09

    We’ve all had embarrassing/worst results in our history. Doesn’t make it any easier when it happens to the team we support, but the way we all feel when it does happen is what makes us football fans. At least you will be watching top flight football again next season.


  46. Paddy Malarkey 24th March 2021 At 12:29
    “.A bad result for a former supremo ”
    ++++++++++++++
    From the FIFA report:
    “.This vicious circle saw three of them (Blatter, Grondona and Valcke) signing the amendment contracts of the others and approving the respective extraordinary bonuses, while the fourth (Kattner) was in charge of implementing the payment of such bonuses (as well as of keeping the matter “off the books”, by not reflecting the bonuses in the Fifa financial statements and NOT REPORTING them to the Fifa auditors).”
    ++++++++++
    Well, well, well!
    That ‘non-reporting’ has a familiar ring to it, does it not?
    Oh, that the US soccer/the FBI had had an interest in Scottish football!
    Are there any Sepp Blatters and his fellow rippers-off in our wee Scottish Football world, I wonder?


  47. John Clark 24th March 2021 At 13:13
    Scottish football now has some American owners so never say never !


  48. Something for the SFA/SPFL to bear in mind when complaints regarding referee’s performances come to light. A senior NHL official has been advised that he will never work another game as a comment he made regarding calling a penalty during a game was picked up by a live microphone, The incident occurred Tuesday night and the announcement regarding his termination came today. The league didn’t want the integrity of the game to be compromised. Now that’s a way league officials should be acting, not taking almost 6 weeks to decide the outcome of the Covid 5.


  49. Paddy Malarkey 24th March 2021 At 20:28
    ‘.Make of this what you will ..'(and link)
    ++++++++++++
    As the single biggest untruth ever facilitated and endorsed by any sports “governance body” and supported by a rotten corrupted “sports” press….

    I give you, from the ‘ ‘rse’s mouth:

    “IN March 2022, Rangers Football Club will celebrate the monumental milestone of the club’s 150th anniversary.”

    In reality and Truth, a football club whose application for membership of a Scottish Professional Football Club was ,reluctantly enough, granted in 2012, and whose membership of the SFA dates from that same year ,
    will be FALSELY CLAIMING to be 150 years old.

    Absurdly so, given that in the papers and documents in the hands variously of D&P, BDO , the SPFL and the SFA will be copies of
    the letter to the Administrators from the SPL asking for the surrender of RIFC plc’s share certificate and

    copies of CG’s application to have his SevcoScotland admitted as a new club into the SPL/SFL, and

    copies of the letter refusing such admission into the SPL, and

    copies of correspondence relating to the desperate attempts by Mr Longmuir (was it?) to get them into even the lowest division :

    not to mention a copy of the admission into SFA membership of the new club as a new club at a certain date in 2012, after a period of conditional membership as ‘Club 12’

    Honest to God, you really couldn’t keep up with barstewards who can lie so unashamedly in face of he evidence!

    The four honest young lads of 1872 will be turning in their graves at the deceit practiced in their HONOURABLE names by those who care not a whit about personal honour and integrity never mind the concept of Sporting Integrity .
    [ Traditionally, of course, bad guys in general ,do not trust each other, or other baddies, so each white-collar baddie tends to keep bits and pieces in reserve to help him out of any potential future difficulty, being never sure that necessary shredding/deletion may have been carried out]

    The lie is so bloody blatantly ridiculous that , as said before, I think I am more annoyed at being thought stupid enough to believe it than I am at the intention to lie!!


  50. Paddy M, we all know that they protesteth too much. Between the 150th and the recent constant ’55’, they’re just trying too hard, which gives away their fear. They all remember crying when they lost the club so they have to shout loud to drown out that memory.


  51. Vernallen 24th March 2021 At 22:12
    ‘..A senior NHL official has been advised that he will never work another game as a comment he made regarding calling a penalty during a game was picked up by a live microphone,’
    +++++++++++++++++++++++
    Geez, Vernallen, you had me going for minute there, trying to remember whether our Highland league had ‘National’ in its title!!
    You mde me google and I see this :

    “During Tuesday night’s game between the Nashville Predators and Detroit Red Wings, referee Tim Peel was caught on a hot mic discussing a tripping penalty he called with a fellow official. Peel admitted that the action he called a penalty for “wasn’t much” but said he “wanted to get a f—ing penalty against Nashville.”
    What a relief, that it wasn’t a Scottish football referee!
    What a scandal that would be here! Nearly as bad as would have been a BBC radio sports editor making sure that anyone employed under him would not be of a differing religious background!
    Would never have happened. Eh? Whit?

    [Incidentally, I see the obituary of Alastair Alexander in today’s ‘The Scotsman’.
    I note that in respect of his football commentator function, he ‘took his original inspiration from the great Peter Thomson.’
    Being inspired by Peter Thomson ?
    Not a particularly valuable recommendation, I would say.]


  52. Nawlite 24th March 2021 At 22:51
    ‘..They all remember crying when they lost the club so they have to shout loud to drown out that memory.’
    +++++++++++++
    Yes.
    They KNEW , as did Traynor and the other football hacks, that Liquidation meant the same for them as it had meant for Gretna and Third Lanark et al.

    They knew of the huge efforts Hearts had made to avoid the death sentence of being liquidated, because liquidation of a football club meant the end of its history: it would be forever a club that had ceased to live , except in the fond memory of its supporters.
    Baffled, disoriented, world upside down, the RFC of 1872 supporters fell prey to the likes of CG and his successors and happily swallowed the most absurd nonsense.
    I have some sympathy on an emotional level.
    But for the sport’s governance body to help create the nonsense and further propagate a fundamental untruth is simply unacceptable.
    It’s an act worse than if that body’s officers were accepting ( like some in FIFA] personal backhanders!


  53. John Clark 24th march 22:58

    There is only one city in the NHL that comes close to encountering something close to your religious reference. The city is in a province with a strong French background and to be on the coaching staff of that team it is a huge bonus to be either French or fluently bi-lingual. They have had unilingual coaching staffs but the tenure has been short-lived. There no overt preferences based on religion in the workings of this league.


  54. Picking up on Vernallen’s point on swiftness of process. I can’t for the life of me understand why a professional game is run in such an amateur fashion in Scotland, particularly when it comes to disciplinary matters and a level playing field. To take just one area as an example can anyone explain to me the reasoning behind the dispensing of penalties:
    “Aberdeen pub night-out” – occurred on 1st August, dealt with on 28th August.
    Bolingoli trip to Spain – came to light on 10/11th August, dealt with on 28th August.
    Edmundson party breach – on 1st November, dealt with on 19th November.
    Rangers COVID 5 – came to light on 17th/18th February, to be dealt with 25th March.

    All of the above points, at best to an organisation that is not fit for purpose. In each case rules were clear and were breached (the Aberdeen players may have had some ignorance over the rules in thinking they could socialise together but ignorance is not a defence). There are no excuses for this shambolic and shameful administration of our game.


  55. You may remember I complained to BBC Scotland a couple of weeks back about their 6.30pm Scottish News introduction talking about TRFC’s recovery from relegation to win the league. They have now responded admitting that their report was inaccurate. The pertinent quotes are…..
    “In introducing Chris McLaughlin’s report on the return of Rangers FC, over the last decade, to be the newly-crowned Scottish Premiership champions, news presenter Laura Miller said:
    “We’ll look at the club’s journey from financial collapse and relegation back to the top of the Scottish game.”
    This was an introduction intended to succinctly summarise Rangers’ journey back to the pinnacle of Scottish football.
    We acknowledge, however, that it was inaccurate to refer to Rangers’ “relegation” as the club were not relegated from the Scottish Premiership following their financial collapse but, rather, sought and gained admission to the Scottish League in Division Three.”

    I’m glad I (and others probably) forced them to acknowledge the fact that that specific part of the ‘victim lie’ is nonsense. For me, it is very important to have that acknowledged publicly because it is a supporting part of the ‘survival lie’ and needs to be called out. While it’s good that they have acknowledged the lie in their reporting, they have ignored my request that they apologise for the inaccuracy in a future 6.30pm news broadcast, so I have gone back to them asking them again to do so. After all, it was that large audience of a flagship broadcast that they lied to so I feel it is only right that they set the facts straight to that same audience. If they refuse to do so, I will then refer the matter to Ofcom who will see my argument as fair.
    As John Clark knows, the BBC admission mirrors the same admission I wrought out of the SPF in March 2015 when they stated “Had Rangers Oldco been able to agree a CVA with its creditors, then it should have been able to emerge from administration (as did Hearts and Dunfermline) without further sporting sanctions. However, a CVA was rejected by Oldco’s creditors. This led to Oldco being liquidated. Newco applied for membership of the SFL and was granted associate membership but on condition it started in SFL Division Three. Newco bought the assets of Oldco from the administrations and took Rangers FC into the SFL. Rangers FC were not relegated from the SPL.”
    SO I have 2 official (?) bodies confirming Rangers were not relegated. Now I just need to work out a way of getting similar to admit that it was the liquidation of the club and not the (separate, bah!) company that caused them to start afresh in tier 3.


  56. Nawlite 25th March 2021 At 13:28
    ‘..You may remember I complained to BBC Scotland a couple of weeks back about their 6.30pm Scottish News introduction talking about TRFC’s recovery from relegation to win the league. They have now responded admitting that their report was inaccurate. .’
    +++++++++++++++++++++++
    Very well done, Nawlite, to have wrung that admission of ‘inaccuracy’ from the scaredy-cats at Pacific Quay!

    But, as you say, their lying propaganda about TRFC being RFC of 1872 is still there in this:

    ‘…We acknowledge, however, that it was inaccurate to refer to Rangers’ “relegation” as the club were not relegated from the Scottish Premiership following their financial collapse but, rather, sought and gained admission to the Scottish League in Division Three.”

    They simply refuse to acknowledge the truth that RFC of 1872 actually lost its entitlement to be part of Scottish Football by entering liquidation and that it was a brand new creation , not the liquidated RFC of 1872, that was allowed to buy a share in the SPFL and qualify for membership of the SFA.

    There is perversity there , a deliberate intention to lie, in the minds of those at Pacific Quay, because no intelligent rational being could possibly deny the fact of the Liquidation of RFC of 1872 or the fact that SevcoScotland had to apply for membership as a new football club!

    People of that mindset have no legitimate place in publicly funded broadcasting, as being venal, cowardly, fearful, prejudiced people ready to sell their souls in a matter of Sport!
    What would they do in really serious matters?
    Why, what else but sell out Truth if that saved their miserable skins and/or lined their pockets. Ja wohl!

    May those at BBC Scotland who are liquidation deniers and propagandists of ‘the same club’ nonsense never enjoy peace of mind , as being the minor ‘Judases’ [ is that a word? but you know what I mean] that they are.


  57. John Clark 25th March 2021 At 23:33
    Nawlite 25th March 2021 At 13:28

    I remember the report you are talking about that spoke of Rangers ‘relegation’. I used to write to BBC complaints but gave up because the establishment, of which BBC is very much part, are hard to beat.

    On a podcast recently Archie Macpherson once again referred to BBC bias against Celtic during his time there, and how Jock Stein reacted to it. No doubt anyone complaining then would be labelled paranoid as they are now, but just because you are paranoid does not mean they’re not out to get you. Going back to the original point someone in BBC determined that the word ‘Relegation’ was to be used regarding Rangers and the presenter was only delivering what someone who clearly has a personal agenda approved suitable for broadcast. I suspect a very pro-Rangers man who works in the background at BBC was behind it.

    In 2012 I said to my friend that the liquidation of Rangers meant there was no longer any hiding place for their friends in the media. How naïve could I have been, and I should already have seen the warning signs given that people who condemned tax evasion on the front pages were demanding it be overlooked on the back pages.


  58. UTH 26th March 07.25.

    Tax evasion?

    Tax avoidance as was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2017.

    Big difference UTH.


  59. John C, UTH, there is no doubt in my mind that people at BBC Scotland are choosing to propagate the Big Lie, both from a personal point of view and to keep the Rangers fans onside. Even the quotes I posted where they admit they lied about relegation read like they were written by a TRFC fan – “This was an introduction intended to succinctly summarise Rangers’ journey BACK TO THE PINNACLE OF SCOTTISH FOOTBALL.”

    Of course, it was not at all intended to succinctly summarise the relevant events but was instead intended to place the relegation lie there in support of the Big Lie. The rest of their response to my complaint regurgitated the ‘BBC Trust says…’ response that I and many other posters have received before. I didn’t ask them to comment on the Big Lie though admit I did slag them off for being wedded to it. As you say, UTH, it is difficult to provide clear enough evidence to change their mind on the Big Lie, but I will continue to search for ways.

    In my case, they HAD to accept they were wrong due to their having previously reportedly accurately on the Bookmaker case. I am now wondering if using their accurate report on the death of Rangers in 2012 and specifically complaining about their new stance of reporting it as the same club might bear some fruit for me.


  60. To day, while reading about the investigation into Boris Johnson’s alleged ‘fag’ at Eton ,David Cameron, I learned that there there is such a thing as the “Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act” . (Cameron is alleged to have ‘engaged in unregistered consultant lobbying’]

    For some reason my mind turned idly to the representations supposedly made by certain MSPs in the Scottish Parliament on behalf of the tax-defaulting FC plc in 2012.
    I idly wondered whether any such supposed representations could be considered as ‘lobbying’ by ‘unregistered persons’ under the Act.
    Sadly, I saw that the Act was passed only in 2014 so I suppose it wouldn’t apply to anything that happened in 2012.

    [Unconnectedly, I don’t know what to make of the story of Major-General Nick Welch, except that he perhaps did not attend the right school, and folk were ready to blow the whistle.
    I can think of number of folk in Scottish Football governance circles who deserve longer jail sentences for their breach of the trust put in them than that handed out to the Major-General for a ‘personal’ crime.}


  61. Nawlite 26th March 2021 At 13:47
    John Clark 26th March 2021 At 17:42

    At the risk of going over old ground, I believe the BBC Trust ruling which is constantly referred to was made based on information provided by the SFA. It also ignored the absolute fact that there was no separate club and holding company at the time of liquidation. I think that says it all! As I say though, going over old ground, but that won’t stop while the Scottish media continue to spin downright lies.


  62. Upthehoops 26th March 2021 At 18:58
    ‘..I believe the BBC Trust ruling which is constantly referred to was made based on information provided by the SFA. ‘
    “”””””””””””””””””””””””””
    As with the RES 12 issue , so with ‘Big Lie’ issue:
    the Res12 matter raised issues of the possible complicity of the SFA in a financial swizzle with a cash-strapped club. Who decided that there should not be an independent investigation? The SFA. Is anything to be made of that refusal? It looks suspicious.

    For a view on whether RFC plc ceased to be entitled to participate in Scottish Football on entering Liquidation, who was asked ? Why, none other than the very body that allegedly CREATED the BIG LIE that TRFC is RFC of 1872. Can anything be made of that? It looks suspicious.
    And the mere passage of time does nothing to lessen the suspicion.


  63. John Clark 26th March 2021 At 19:42

    Again, this is old ground, but it has never been satisfactorily answered and I doubt if it ever will be. Many people think simple commercialism drove decisions but as one brought up in the West of Scotland and still living there I simply can’t accept that there was no bias at play either. There is a natural order in the minds of many influential people and that has been especially evident again these past few weeks. Rangers will always be viewed as the head of that natural order no matter what. Even if it costs the taxpayer tens of millions. Quite why the Celtic Board are willing to accept that is another matter. Ironically the only person to effectively state Celtic were not prepared to sit at the back of the bus was John Reid, who was disliked by much of the support. How I wish he had been around today to call out the appalling discrimination applied by the Scottish Government in terms of Covid Breaches in Scottish football.


  64. Two items in the news today struck a chord with me. Firstly the teacher in a Batley grammar school in England being placed in fear of his life for displaying an image/caricature of the Islamic religious figure Mohammed and secondly that Fox news channel in America are being sued for defamation by Dominion (the voting machine manufacturer used in the presidential elections in the USA). There is an attempt to prevent the teacher in question from disagreeing with a minority faction who are trying to impose their opinion/will on the secular majority who refuse to accept the writings of the Koran as the absolute truth on the matter. I see an obvious parallel in Scottish professional football. Dominion are suing Fox for repeatedly calling into question the accuracy and integrity of the devices supplied to various states for counting of votes. Dominion to their credit are standing up for their reputation and calling out Fox and others as purveyors of lies, and of fanning the flames of distrust by giving air to ‘alternative fact’ propagandists on a regular basis. Unfortunately in this second instance I see no parallel.


  65. Upthehoops 26th March 2021 At 20:55
    ‘..Many people think simple commercialism drove decisions but as one brought up in the West of Scotland and still living there I simply can’t accept that there was no bias at play either.’
    +++++++++++++++++++
    Well, at the very least, extraordinary measures were taken , secretly, and lies were made up, whatever the principal motivation.
    Perhaps more importantly, we used to look to the ‘serious MSM’ to try to ferret out the lies of ‘business’.

    But here in this wee country, the MSM are propagandists of the lie that TRFC is Rangers of 1872.

    The fact that liars support the lie is evidence only of perversity of mind, not that the lie is the truth.

    Old Galileo could chuckle to himself. He had unassailable facts, that no Pope, Emperor, King or resident on the south bank of the Clyde could refute.
    We can chuckle likewise when we say ‘RFC of 1872’ ceased to exist as a football club participating in Scottish professional football.
    And we know that those in football governance KNOW that they are liars, because they were the very ones who turfed them out of membership of the SFA when the SPL called in their share in that company!
    At the end of the day, and at the end of their lives, that knowledge is and will be their punishment.
    They are/will be a cause of shame to their seed breed and generation.
    And for what? selling their professional and personal integrity for the sake of preserving the memory of a defunct football club by denying its death!
    Honest to God, you couldny make it up!


  66. Since Sevco/Rangers aren’t playing this week, I see the rumor mill has opened with what will no doubt a continuing saga of major clubs interested in their players. Seems it starts up about this time every year but I don’t recall them concluding any major transactions, outgoing that is. Whose name will come up next.
    If Alex McLeish believes players will influence the Celtic board on a management appointment, he has lost touch with reality. Its hard to believe the board would take a major decision like this based on whether the candidate was liked or not. Were Ranger players consulted about Pedro, Warburton, etc.


  67. I was amused to read in the ‘Scotsman’ this morning a moan about someone claiming “credit for others’ work” in the field of politics.
    You might share my amusement when I say that the moaner is none other than a non-executive Director of Celtic plc.
    Brian Wilson is the moaner. Yes the self-same Wilson who has nothing to say about the most blatant example ever of people in the field of Sport claiming credit for the work of others, that example being TRFC which as a nearly 9-year-old football club lies about its sporting history!
    [ ‘The Scotsman’ today, page 21, ‘Scottish Perspective’ ]

Comments are closed.