Here we go again

ByTrisidium

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?

About the author

Trisidium administrator

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

1,142 Comments so far

Corrupt officialPosted on10:50 am - Mar 27, 2021


Upthehoops 26th March 2021 At 20:55

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.
.
The establishment need a flag waving establishment club UTH. It doesn’t have to be a real club. Anything will do. I will suggest it rises above bias. It’s possible to believe that the SFA and a Sevco re-hash of a club once called Rangers could hold sway over the sports pages, but we have seen that the sway is also held over a much broader, and more powerful spectrum than they can ever hope to reach.
The sums involved in the original deceptions are staggering, but the continued costs to the legal system and compo pay-out system(with more in the pipeline) are beyond belief……..Hardly a dickie-bird uttered. That comes from a level above Klaxon Jack it in son’s paygrade. Other, more powerful forces are at play.
.
Vernallen 27th March 2021 At 00:57

If Alex McLeish believes players will influence the Celtic board on a management appointment, he has lost touch with reality.
.
Maybe in his experience of managing and job hunting he is correct. : )

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:40 pm - Mar 27, 2021


Well, I don’t know about anybody else, but that was a great game of football between Dundee and Dunfermline!
5 goals, with two really brilliant ones, some super saves, 100 % effort all round and plenty of good skill, nearly perfect refereeing, and sportsmanship all round.
As a neutral, I would have paid full whack for that entertainment any week of the year.

View Comment

vernallenPosted on10:00 pm - Mar 27, 2021


We still have the word Invincible being attached to the Rangers season. I believe it would be correct to loosely apply it to their as yet undefeated league campaign, but, to use in comparison to Celtic’s invincible season is wrong an more than somewhat lazy on the part of journalists. A league cup defeat would be cause to remove the term invincible from any story. The need to be constantly to have your name attached to a feat accomplished by another club is pandering to the lowest level. To have accomplished the treble in an undefeated season is truly remarkable, to have an undefeated league season (to date) is remarkable, but the overall season still has a blip on it and there may be more to come. The comparison in regards to points total, goals scored, etc is a little tedious as well.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:25 pm - Mar 27, 2021


Vernallen 27th March 2021 At 22:00
‘..The need to be constantly to have your name attached to a feat accomplished by another club ..’
++++++++++++++++++++++
Remember, Vernallen, that what we have is a club desperately living on a lie.

And supported in that lie by lying journalists.

They lied to the Market that they are the RFC of 1872. They now simply have to keep on lying, untruth being part of their genetic make-up.
As do the lying journalists.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on10:22 am - Mar 28, 2021


Albertz11 26th March 2021 At 10:28

UTH 26th March 07.25.

Tax evasion?

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

Big difference UTH.
++++++++++++++++

Semantics. What Rangers did was ruled to be illegal. The fact so many Rangers fans think it was actually okay is quite incredible. They can claim to be the same club if they want. They can spout as much as they like about 55 titles. However, a court ruled that they illegally cheated the public purse out of tens of millions in order to give them a better chance against opponents who did not cheat the public purse. A lot of the 55 titles were won on the back of that tax cheating. What a stain on the history that they claim was never broken. Ironically the so called 55th title was celebrated with another huge illegal event, with zero consideration for others and a massive sense of entitlement, just like the tax cheating.

American businesswoman Leona Mindy Roberts Helmsley once said “We don’t pay taxes; only the little people pay taxes”. I always think of that whenever the arrogance over Rangers tax cheating rears its head. Only in Scotland.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on10:29 am - Mar 28, 2021


Vernallen 27th March 22.00

I don’t believe a loss in a cup competition affects the invincible status of any club, which may or may not include Rangers FC depending on the post split results
Arsenal lost in both cup competitions in 03/04 and are still referred to as the “invincibles” are they not?

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on10:42 am - Mar 28, 2021


UTH 28th March 10.22.

Not semantics at all UTH.
As you are well aware there is a difference between the two and as you, unintentionally i’m sure, chose the incorrect term i simply corrected it.
Surely one of the aims of the blog was to challenge any untruths and as your use of “tax evasion” and not “tax avoidance” falls into this category i am entitled to point this out.

View Comment

bect67Posted on12:22 pm - Mar 28, 2021


Vernallen

Make no mistake, should the outfit from Govania go undefeated in the league campaign, it will be reported as emulating Celtic’s invincible (in all domestic competitions) season – implying, to the less informed, that this somehow would be ‘on a par’!

Just in case any of the SMSM are of a mind to cancel ( very fashionable in some areas of society these days) any of my club’s achievements, may I remind anyone with a short memory that Celtic won the European Cup in 1967 and are the only Scottish team to complete 91AR – TWICE.

Finally, a SEVCO supporting member of my (extended!) family came to visit the other day – triumphantly sporting an orange top emblazoned with RFC. I had a normal t-shirt on, but then changed into my quadruple treble top and sat beside him! Nuff said! He wiz ragin! – especially when my son took a foti!

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on3:29 pm - Mar 28, 2021


Seriously folks. Invincible. Who gives a toss what they report. It’s Semantic Sunday after all. Invincible/not, evasion/avoidance.

Albertz’s Arsenal comparison is correct IMO, but the two achievements (if the latter is achieved) are apples and peaches. Both are outstanding achievements, ‘though one doesn’t emulate the other.

It’s all deflection, another squirrel on the loose. And all as a consequence of an absence of humility, the WATP mentality gone off the rails.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:32 pm - Mar 28, 2021


So there I am pottering about the kitchen preparing some vegetables for later on, listening ( in spite of the pain her strident voice causes me) to the general chat about tonight’s Israel game.
The last guest was Alec McLeish.
And guess what?
Jane’Absolutely’ gets his views on the prospects for tonight, and then, straight out of the blue [as it were] but no doubt scripted in advance, gives McLeish the opportunity to propagandise by getting him to talk about TRFC’s wonderful year and come out with the untruth that TRFC has won the 55th title.

I confess I never ‘liked ‘McLeish .
I now have no more time for him, or for anything he has to say, than I have for BBC Controller Scotland and the other broadcasters who have been cowed into becoming propagators of, and propagandists for ,the myth that TRFC is RFC of 1872.
Thankfully, I’m not likely ever to meet any of them in person: I would be scrubbing myself for months to get rid of the moral contagion.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on4:39 pm - Mar 28, 2021


We could be doing with somebody of this calibre tonight . From The Guardian .
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/mar/26/steve-archibald-barcelona-tottenham-terry-venables-diego-maradona-scotland

View Comment

vernallenPosted on8:25 pm - Mar 28, 2021


Albertz11 28th march 10:29

Enjoy the verbal sparring but surely a loss in any competition in the league calendar year puts a dent in the term invincible. as for Arsenal and there claim to this accolade does this not come from the English press who forever live in the land of the world cup of 1966 and believe they are the best league in the world despite English shortcomings in any major international tournaments. If not for the obscene television money foisted on them, how many of the teams in the top tier survive.

Bect67 28 March 12:22
Would have enjoyed photos of the occasion.

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on9:17 pm - Mar 28, 2021


Might be the only team (ever) to go invincible in a title race with no red cards given against them and no penalties conceded. Some achievement and with no pressure been shown or felt, you would think someone had their back covered in that department.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on9:31 pm - Mar 28, 2021


Vernallen 28th March 20.25

Does “a loss in any competition” apply to domestic football only?. If not then the “invincibles” of 2016/17 were found to be far from it.

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on10:37 pm - Mar 28, 2021


Going unbeaten through a league campaign is more common than I had realised (and in Europe the frequency seems to have increased in recent times, although this is almost certainly impacted by the increase in national leagues Eastern Europe, Balkans, etc). Steaua Bucharest actually did three unbeaten leagues campaigns on the bounce in the 80s (as did Lincoln Red Imps in 2009-12…).
Of course Arsenal were not the original “ Invincibles” as this term was coined for Preston North End who were unbeaten in season 1888-89, also winning the FA Cup that season (there was no League Cup to play for) so unbeaten through the season. As noted by Albertz11 Arsenal did not win the Cups in 03-04 so a pale imitation of the original Invincibles according to many.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on9:51 am - Mar 29, 2021


I see RTC back on Twitter on same day as Sun comments on Mr McCann and his EBT bill of £700,000 having an effect on his divorce proceedings. Article actually states club went into administration followed by liquidation. Also stated Newco formed and had to enter third Div . Always good to here from RTC.

View Comment

Buteo ButeoPosted on10:14 am - Mar 29, 2021


Albertz11 26th March 2021 At 10:28

UTH 26th March 07.25.

Tax evasion?

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

Big difference UTH.

Tax evasion means concealing income or information from tax authorities — and it’s illegal. Tax avoidance means legally reducing your taxable income.
It was tax evasion so illegal

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on11:17 am - Mar 29, 2021


Every player whos income went throught SFA was tax evasion
“Tax evasion is when you use illegal practices to avoid paying tax. This could include not reporting all of your income, not filing a tax return, hiding taxable assets from HMRC or using fake offshore accounts.”

Income hidden and side letters confirmed it, so taxable income was hidden and would be hidden on their tax returns.

View Comment

vernallenPosted on1:36 pm - Mar 29, 2021


See where the DR is at it again outlining the money Rangers may garner from a Champions League run. I thought there was another Scottish team who has an avenue to the same pot of money (although it may be difficult), still they have the opportunity. The $46 million could go along way to covering the losses incurred in recent years and maybe paying back some of the outstanding loans. Hopefully their directors don’t see the $46 million as a given and spend it today.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on1:37 pm - Mar 29, 2021


Everyone at Ibrox knew what they were involved in.
The players had indemnity letters…… Why?
Their true remunerations were not declared on their registration papers……Why?
The maj shareholder, Minty, lied when asked if side letters existed…….Why?
The club itself, shredded incriminating documentation………Why?
Dishonest claims were submitted on Euro license application(s)……..Why?
The president of the SFA, Campbell Ogilvie, mislead Billy Nimmo Smith……..Why?
Being pedantic about terminology makes it no less abhorrent. Rangers suffered the ultimate consequence of their deceit and fraudulent acts…..Liquidation !
Their victims are still seeking redress through the legal system.
It’s quite simple when one sticks to the facts and ignores the fiction.
A new club entered the league system, and changed it’s name to a Rangersy sounding one.
The original Rangers was wound up and no longer exists, other than on court papers.
Currently, two clubs called “Rangers” are in the court systems awaiting judgements on quite distinct and separate matters.

View Comment

Angel GabrielPosted on3:30 pm - Mar 29, 2021


Good afternoon all.
I’ve not been on here for months, but received an email about funding ( I’ve donated small amounts before) so thought I would click in .
Glad I did . Sanity prevails.

My auld Da goes into a nursing home this afternoon, 91 years young, dementia and it’s impact has now brought on the need for some respite care at best , which might be permanent.
My mum (88) , the carers , myself and my sister have faced up to the the harsh reality , that he now needs 24 hr professional care .

My da would only shake his head in disbelief at the on going nonsense of 55 .

If only he was fit enough in mind , I could have offered my acknowledgment that what he’s been saying for decades is true. I often argued it wasn’t.

Celtic & Rangers ( old or new) only care about themselves and each other.
Two cheeks of the same arse , so to speak.
His opinion was broadly based on how they managed to be wasteful with young talent rather than nourish it .
It was always about money, and being the 2 bully’s in a wee school playground. His love is for the game rather than a team. Any game. Pass, move , challenge, compete . Expose full backs, and central defenders. Skin them with skill or pace , you get my drift. He stopped coaching beyond 14 year olds because the appearance of scouts on the touch line gave parents delusions of wonga or grandeur. The team became about the individual, in some parents eyes.
He seldom backed a favourite at the horses, a wee look at the parade ring would tell him if a horse was fit or ready. Scouts phoned him for an opinion on many young players.
He’s got an eye for both . Potential in players and in horses.

If only I could explain he was right about the Old Firm.The web of deceit that’s been sown . How it still exists when one , literally passed away is a thing of wonder.
55 or Santa coming down everyone’s chimney is roughly along the same lines .
Celtic and every other club are complicit in this nonsense.
If there was any justice ( don’t laugh) within the game, LNS wouldn’t have been a sham , it would have been the catalyst for change.
The latest judgement , a while back, not to send the European licence issue to the court of arbitration for sport, because the “ implications are to severe “ sums up the shit show that masquerades as sport.
It takes me back to a line in the 1st autobiography I ever read .
Bill Shankly stated that football in Scotland was dominated by politics , which came before the actual game itself.
Much like my dad , Shankly loved the game. The people that payed into watch from the Kop etc , were just as important as the players to Shankly .
Privilege was the word he used to describe to the players what it meant, to play in front of fanatical fans . They mattered.
Jock Stein said similar. Without fans , football is nothing.
The sad thing is , some folk believe it still is sport . Then again, for some, who control the game, sport never really mattered.
It’s all about a share price. It’s about some warped supremacy. It’s about power & privilege.
The beautiful game ?
Where’s the next World Cup ?
I think it’s Junior fitba now for me , at least it’s still got it’s soul .

Take care folks .

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on4:02 pm - Mar 29, 2021


Angel Gabriel
Welcome. Fair old swishing about with that sword of yours. We could use it😊
Excellent contribution which is pretty much I think where most of us are at.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on5:18 pm - Mar 29, 2021


Any news anywhere of the outcome of the Ibrox 5 investigation ? Nothing on the SFA Disciplinary Updates page .

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on6:43 pm - Mar 29, 2021


A wee bit disappointed that Martin O’Neill in briefly mentioning RFC’s success and the relativities between Celtic and RFC of 1872 at tht time, did not take the opportunity of reminding the world of Scottish football that RFC 1872 cheated the taxman and lied to the SPL and SFA for a decade or more about what they were paying their players, in case that info reached the taxman!

Jane ‘Absolutely’ offered McLeish a wee platform to spout pis* about the 55 yesterday: no danger of Kenny McIntyre inviting MON to say anything about SDM’s ta evasion!

[Sportsound five or ten mins ago]

View Comment

Angel GabrielPosted on8:29 pm - Mar 29, 2021


John Clarke 18.43pm

Martin is only following a trend that he’s kept for years regards EBT’s . He’s always maintained to the media, that the games were won & lost on the park.

I’m always suspicious that he’s towing the line of Celtics major shareholder who, avoids any contentious comments about the RFC implosion like the plague.
On the subject of EBT’s my mind was drawn back to the peculiar circumstances of Arthur Newman , who signed for RFC in 1998, and left in 2003.
When contract negotiations were made public, Newman’s agent declared that RFC had only offered half the salary that his then contract was worth.
A press release ( I used to read the papers then ) by RFC disputed what the agent had said.
RFC insisted they offered him the same wages.
I remember thinking this was a strange difference of opinion.
This was when we were blissfully unaware that a certain club decided to cook the books , dodge tax and not follow the proper registration guidelines for player contracts.
Did RFC offer the half his wage and promise that the difference would be supplied by an EBT ?
Was Newman on the list of EBT recipients ?

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on8:58 pm - Mar 29, 2021


In answer to my question –
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/19196217.rangers-five-players-wait-covid-punishment-hearing-breach-government-rules/
A wee birdy told me that there was a concerted effort by high heid yins to scupper the enquiry ,the conclusions and the punishments . Or just made representations .

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:32 pm - Mar 29, 2021


Angel Gabriel 29th March 2021 At 20:29
‘.Was Newman on the list of EBT recipients ?’
++++++++++++
This guy was!
“Arthur Numan, £510,000: Dutch full-back arrived at Rangers from PSV Eindhoven in 1998 for £4.5million. Played 118 times.”

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-big-tax-case-who-6767682

I’m sorry I looked at that list, to see the names of BBC Sportsounds Rangers Former Players fan club-McCann, Dodds ,Thomson…..
To be fair to them, they’ve been very loyal in supporting the Big Lie myth!

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:42 pm - Mar 29, 2021


My post of 21.32 this evening refers:
With appropriate acknowledgment I take this from a 2018 article at http://www.talkingbaws.com/2018/01/arthur-numan-says-rangers-offered-80-wage-cut-stay-club/
“Arthur Numan Says Rangers Offered Him 80% Wage Cut to Stay at the Club

Arthur Numan has revealed Rangers tried to stop him from retiring – but only offered him a deal which would amount to an 80% cut to his weekly wages.

The former Holland international moved to Ibrox in the summer of 1998 under manager Dick Advocaat, and went on to prove himself as one of the club’s all-time best left-backs before retiring after the victorious 2003 Scottish Cup Final.

Notoriously fit and healthy, Numan was 33 when he decided to hang-up his boots and could’ve easily managed another couple of years in the Scottish Premiership.

And in an interview with Open Goal and Simon Ferry, Numan has confirmed the club’s hierarchy tried to keep him at the club for the 2003/04 season – but the drop in salary just wasn’t appealing.

He said: “I was discussing another contract in the January with Martin Bain in the Dubai training camp and they offered me a contract but I thought they were taking the mickey.

“Before that I had spoke to them and I said ‘I know the situation with the club but I’m happy and I’ve always been treated well’ and I wanted to take a wage cut of 40%. But they offered me a contract that I think was 80% less.

“It didn’t feel good to accept that offer so unfortunately I had to leave. I had five great seasons and I had the best time of my career in Scotland.

“We won the Scottish Cup 1-0 thanks to Lorenzo’s header and it was a fantastic end to the season and for me because it was my last game for Rangers.

“I came to Rangers and won the treble and then after five years I won the treble again and it was brilliant.

“The sponsors Tennants made a banner for me ‘Thank you for the memories’ and when I held it and at that time it was strange because it was last game but I thought I would take my time before making a decision for the future.

“I had offers from PSV Eindhoven, Feyenoord, from one or two English clubs and Spanish clubs but I thought I would take my time to make a decision because also in the July my daughter was born.

“I had an offer to join LA Galaxy from 18-months but I said ‘no I can’t do it I need to stay with my wife’.

“Then I thought I’ve got enough. I seen all the teams preparing themselves for pre-season and I thought I don’t want this anymore.

“Then I announced my retirement and it came as a surprise becasue they all expect me to play for another year or two.

“When I thought back on it when I was holding the banner ‘Thank you for the memories’ I didn’t know it was going to be my last game – it’s as if it was fate.

“My last two games of my career I won the league, the Scottish Cup and the treble so you can’t ask for more.

“When I got the chance to sign for Rangers I didn’t know what to expect here. But it says a lot that after I left I spent another seven years staying here.”

The writer of the article adds :’ Of course, Rangers didn’t hit serious financial trouble until around 2011, but perhaps Numan’s anecdote shows that the belt needed tightening way before that’
…….”

View Comment

vernallenPosted on10:52 pm - Mar 29, 2021


Albertz11 28th March 21:31

It maybe time to re-define what the term invincible refers to when it comes to football. As you state does it only apply to domestic leagues and to hell with European competitions. If any of the teams lost in any of the competitions the term invincible should not apply. However going a full league season undefeated has merit and should be acknowledged. If winning a treble, going undefeated, should merit extra attention due to the fact one off games can provide a slippery slope. Perhaps the journalists that keep throwing the term around could dig into a dictionary, old school, or google the definition of invincible. Based on the quality of writing from some of them it may be a job too far.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on11:05 pm - Mar 29, 2021


The SFA issued a notice of complaint against the 5 ibrox players The covid 5.
Aprinciple hearing date was set for March 25, 2021.
It has gone very quite on it.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on11:46 pm - Mar 29, 2021


Cluster One 29th March 23.05.

Will be announced tomorrow (Tuesday) CO.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on11:59 pm - Mar 29, 2021


https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/ex-gers-chief-charles-green-23817200
Ex-Rangers FC chief Charles Green asked to testify in £56.8m claim that Ibrox should’ve been sold off

Green set to appear in a court case brought by liquidators BDO who allege iconic stadium should’ve been sold to pay off debts.
Former Rangers chief executive Charles Green is being asked to give evidence in a £56.8 million action brought by a financial firm over claims Ibrox should have been sold to pay off debt.

Green is being called in by the club’s former administrators, David Whitehouse and Paul Clark, over allegations they should’ve sold off the stadium and other assets while in control of the club.

Rangers’ liquidator, BDO, have mounted the case against the pair, claiming the lack of an asset sale left less cash to split among creditors.

Lawyers acting for Whitehouse and Clark have asked Green to give evidence at the Court of Session.

Andrew Young QC told judge Lord Tyre on Monday that solicitors are awaiting for a response from Green, who is believed to live in France.
…………….
May the 4 2021 looks like a good day in court. Will you be there JC?

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on2:15 am - Mar 30, 2021


Cluster One 29th March 2021 At 23:59

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/ex-gers-chief-charles-green-23817200
Ex-Rangers FC chief Charles Green asked to testify in £56.8m claim that Ibrox should’ve been sold off
.
Paul was so far ahead of the game.

https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/?s=gratuitous+alienation

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:01 am - Mar 30, 2021


I don’t think the notion Ibrox should have been sold off is wrong at all, although the court will decide. A Rangers was always going to be playing and I am sure there are many companies who would have been willing to buy it then lease it to the newco. The taxpayer was well and truly shafted.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:58 am - Mar 30, 2021


Cluster One 29th March 2021 At 23:59
‘..May the 4 2021 looks like a good day in court. Will you be there JC?’
+++++++++++++++++++++
If the Courts are open again, Cluster One, I’ll be there: wouldn’t miss it for the world!

It would be very nice to see the Charlie boy in the witness box.
I don’t know if he can be compelled to attend to give evidence? It would be exciting times for all involved in the Administration and the SAP and 5-Way Agreements, especially if Charlie is nursing any kind of wee grudge against anyone who might have profited a bit more than he did

[BDO have played a very long game very ,very carefully.
I wish I knew whether in such a case, there is scope for D&P (the company, not Whitehouse and Clark) to negotiate a deal and settle the matter out of court(without admission of ‘guilt,’] rather than see it going the distance?
Is it theoretically possible that all the money owed to all the creditors including HMRC could be won, the creditors all being paid what is outstanding to them, all costs of BDO paid, and RFC of 1872 brought out of Administration!
What entertainment that would give us! It really would make an absolute farce of Scottish Football Governance.]

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:04 pm - Mar 30, 2021


Upthehoops 30th March 2021 At 08:0
‘..I don’t think the notion Ibrox should have been sold off is wrong at all,’
++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree.
The Administrators’ job was to do all that they could to save the club as a going concern.

They did not do so. The Administration failed because the Administrators failed to find a buyer prepared to take on the debt.
The Administrators’ duty was then to maximise the value of the assets .
BDO would argue , it seems, that the Administrators failed in their duty to do so.
And, I would argue, the Administrators subsequently played a part in the construction of the ‘5-way Agreement’ with the Football authorities under which the nonsensical lie was created that somehow they HAD found a buyer for the club!
One does not need to be a lawyer to see that BDO would seem to have an arguable case, more power to their elbow.
That whole mess occasioned (ultimately) by SDM has so blighted Scottish Football and needs to be faced up to.
[And on the matter of cheating, if the Celtic Board think even for a minute of hiring that sports cheat Thierry Henri as their coach, they will in my opinion, show themselves even more clearly as being of the SDM cast of mind]

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on3:13 pm - Mar 30, 2021


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56580699

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on4:10 pm - Mar 30, 2021


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56580699

So that makes it a total of 34 matches missed with 10 suspended for the two breaches of the covid- 19 rules by Rangers players.

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on4:12 pm - Mar 30, 2021


@ Paddy Malarkey – thanks for sharing. It begs the question what took them so long. Six or seven weeks since all five were banged to rights by Police Scotland, fixed penalties issued and not disputed. It’s almost as though the SFA seek out opportunities to demonstrate their lack of competence (or worse). Now imagine if this involved five first team players who had been allowed to play through a tight title race, including a game against closest rivals? Fergus smoked out Jim Farry many years ago and yet, and yet… compare and contrast with how the NHL acted as referenced by Vernallen.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on4:28 pm - Mar 30, 2021


Looks to me like a managed outcome – they will all be available for latter rounds of the Scottish Cup and , of course , the final League game v Aberdeen at Ibrox .

View Comment

LurkioPosted on8:35 pm - Mar 30, 2021


Lots of comings and goings in the lower league pyramid (tier 5 and below) over the last few days.

The Highland League declared Brora as champions on a PPG basis, despite only playing 3 games this season (a couple of teams hadn’t played any).

The Lowland League declared Kelty as champions on a PPG basis having played 13 (of 32) games despite having previously agreed to Null & Void the league if less than 50% of games had been played.

Despite the apparent madness in those decisions there is some means to be had. Declaring champion clubs is the only way that the LL and HL could put teams forward to the SPFL play-off. Now the focus will switch to the SPFL. Will they put club 42 up for the play-off in a curtailed 22 game season (potentially Brechin or Albion Rovers) or will they again ignore their obligations to the pyramid? Alternatively there is the prospect of reconstruction, with or without Colt teams and and admit Brora and Kelty directly. Anything to save Brechin for a second season, perhaps?

Further down the pyramid at tier 6, the WOSFL has been declared Null & Void, as has the SOSFL. The EOSFL hasn’t declared their hand as yet in the hope that their top side might get directly admitted to an expanded LL. The top side in the EOSFL on PPG is currently Jeanfield Swifts, just ahead of Tranent. Both sides are licensed so would meet the entry criteria for the LL.

Finally, following a meeting of the SFA’s Pyramid Working Group earlier today, decisions have apparently been taken to facilitate the Highland League’s adoption of three feeder leagues, the North Caledonian League, the North Region Juniors and a newly established Midland League (predominately Tayside junior sides). All three leagues would be joining the pyramid structure.

If it goes ahead, then it will create a single structure for all semi-pro football in Scotland. It’s taken a long time, but it looks as if its just about within reach. Such a move would also mark the end for Junior football with all its history, which would be sad in many ways, but has been on the cards for a few years now.

Now the difficult bit begins to sort out reconstruction, league catchment areas, play-offs, promotion/relegation, finances, licensing requirements etc.

View Comment

vernallenPosted on10:44 pm - Mar 30, 2021


Now that the CL maybe a place too far for Scottish teams with the proposed changes looking to be accepted, the term “sporting integrity” now surfaces in the Scottish media. Where was the use of that term during the EBT years and the ensuing fall-out, i.e. potential administration, liquidation, and the current magical financial on goings at one club.

The SFA certainly took their time in getting the suspensions in place. Certainly helped with player coverage due to injury situation Then Rangers have the cheek to state we will review and advise. Who writes the rules.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on11:57 pm - Mar 30, 2021


Upthehoops 30th March 2021 At 08:0
‘..I don’t think the notion Ibrox should have been sold off is wrong at all,’
++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree.
The Administrators’ job was to do all that they could to save the club as a going concern.

They did not do so. The Administration failed because the Administrators failed to find a buyer prepared to take on the debt.
…………………………………….
D Murray rejected £33mill from Andrew Ellis for the whole thing in june 2010.
………
From 2003 The exercise increased the accounting value of the property from pounds 85mill to pounds 120mill a surplus increased by a further pounds 4mill by the elimination of depreciation.
……….
Green was later to value it at 80mill after an outlay of £5.5mill.
……………………
From BDO report Dec 10 2020
The joint liquidators had sought detailed explanations regarding certain aspects of the strategy implemented by the joint administrators during the administration. A substantive responce to our requests was not received and we continue to liaise closely with the committee in considering the further actions in relation to these investigations.
……
The administrators trying to get a new player signed when the club had just entered administration will not help them one bit

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:06 pm - Mar 31, 2021


Interesting little football-related judgment yesterday.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/FAPL-and-SIS-v-Lord-Chancellor-judgment.pdf

Briefly, the English FA and a company called SIS won a private prosecution against guys who ran a big illicit TV screening scam of Premier league matches through a network of 250 odd pubs. Guys were jailed for 4 years fraud and breach of copyright.
The FA and SIS were awarded costs, but only the costs as from the date of commencement of proceedings.
They were denied other costs ( of £87,050.33 and £78,846.30 respectively] on the basis that these were costs or expenses incurred before the commencement of the criminal proceedings.
They appealed, and won.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on5:08 pm - Mar 31, 2021


Slavia crank it up a bit .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56595234

View Comment

vernallenPosted on10:33 pm - Mar 31, 2021


The complaints from Scottish media that their English counterparts downplay the Scottish game as second rate, certainly isn’t helped by comments surrounding the appointment of a new Celtic manager. Almost every name brought forward is mentioned as a blockbuster showdown with Gerrard. Don’t they realize there are other teams involved and this is a slap in the face to them. You only have to pit your wits against Gerrard and the other teams are only there to make up the league.
Some interesting comments on some Rangers site in regard to finances. One of the most telling is the use of the recent share offering is to cover current on going expenses and not to be used for the Ranger’s museum.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on9:29 am - Apr 1, 2021


Vernallen 31st March 22.33

Given that it was season 1984/85 when one of the non Old Firm teams last won the league title is it not understandable why some journalists think this way?.
Why is it “telling” that money raised from the upcoming share issue (not offer) is being used to cover “on going expenses” as opposed to the museum?.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on10:36 am - Apr 1, 2021


The share issue as mentioned in my previous post was for 11,000,000 shares to be issued at a value of £2,200,000.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:15 am - Apr 1, 2021


Per Companies House,
RIFC plc : another Share issue from 30 March 2021, 11 000 000 @20p , bringing total shares in issue to
368,291,872……..

Running low on the readies…..?

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on11:40 am - Apr 1, 2021


John Clark 1st April 11.15

In 2015 Dave King said that investors, including himself, would cover any shortfall in the finances.

The the last set of accounts intimated that a sum of £8.8 million would be required by way of debt or equity funding until the end of season 20/21.

Therefore this latest tranche of money can’t possibly come as a surprise to anybody surely?.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:43 pm - Apr 1, 2021


Vernallen 31st March 2021 At 22:33
‘..One of the most telling is the use of the recent share offering is to cover current on going expenses and not to be used for the Ranger’s museum.’

Albertz11 1st April 2021 At 10:36
‘…The share issue as mentioned in my previous post was for 11,000,000 shares to be issued at a value of £2,200,000.’
+++++++++++++++++++++++
were you both referring to the same share issue of 30 March? or was Vernallen referring to the previous one on 19 March?

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on1:17 pm - Apr 1, 2021


Geegs rewarded .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56604689

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on2:14 pm - Apr 1, 2021


John Clark 1st April 12.43

I was referring to the 30th March issue John.

Paddy Malarkey 1st April 13.17

Richly deserved imo. Both he and Steve Davis set a standard and level of professionalism that should be a lesson to others in the game.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on5:06 pm - Apr 1, 2021


Looking at Companies House , it appears that RIFC has raised quite a bit internally since the revered Mr King left town .
Sept 30 , 2020 – GBP 3,028,819.82
Nov 1 ,2020 – GBP 3,221,969.12
Nov 17 , 2020 – GBP 3,272,418.72
Dec 10 , 2020 – GBP 3,409,918.72
Dec 14 , 2020 – GBP 3,410,418.72
March 19 , 2021 – GBP 3,572,918.72
March 30,2021 – GBP 3,682,918.72
Don’t you just love those wee 1872’s ?
By my calculations , that’s £23,599,382.54 raised in little over six months . A whole lot of staunchness going on , if so .

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on5:37 pm - Apr 1, 2021


I always find it interesting when players get towards the end of their playing careers and it becomes a fairly public commercial assessment of the club as to how much longer to commit to the player. Always that fear that the legs will suddenly “give up” and the club left with paying for an extra expensive cheerleader.
I am curious as to game time for both Brown and Davies next season. Less obvious with GKs but reflexes and reach also drop off, sometimes alarmingly.
No room for nostalgia- just ask anyone who played for Fergie!

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on6:07 pm - Apr 1, 2021


Regarding the recent share issues at RIFC
Stuart Gibson has increased his shareholding from 7.33% to 10.86% and becomes the third highest shareholder at the club.
The total number of shares he currently holds has increased from 25.000.000 to 40.000.000 which amounts to an investment of £3 million.

Paddy Malarkey 17.06.

Not quite what the figures represent Paddy.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:31 pm - Apr 1, 2021


Is it not about a year ago we had Tampergate ? Manipulation of brakes ? I can remember a man being charged with an offence but can’t remember or find any outcome .

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on8:57 pm - Apr 1, 2021


Albertz11 1st April 2021 At 18:07
What do they represent then . I just copied and pasted from Companies House . Just bare figures with no background info . Or are you referring to the wee 18.72’s ?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:31 pm - Apr 1, 2021


Following ‘Off the Ball’ last weekend when the sea-shanty TRFC fan Nathan was given a guest spot to plug his wares, an old rugby player 9who now hosts a kind-of-a- news-current-affairs programme on BBC Radio Scotland0 had another TRFC fan on this evening to plug his new ‘rap’- and ,in it ,the big untruth about the ’55’.

Honest to God.
What are they like ,from top down to the sports hacks and others in their disregard for sporting truth and honesty?

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on10:08 pm - Apr 1, 2021


Paddy Malarkey 1st April 19.31.

The figures are from the number of allotted shares after each share issue and not the amounts raised. The most recent (30/03) saw 11,000,000 new shares issued at 20p each raising £2.200,000. The number of allotted shares then increases accordingly from 357291872 to 368219872.
As i said previously Stuart Gibson has increased his % shareholding as have George Taylor, George Lethem and John Bennett.

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on10:46 pm - Apr 1, 2021


Never watched any of the Scotland games lost interest in the SFA.
A Rangers musuem that stopped collecting arifacts 2012
Buying worthless shares to date among a board and best buds in a club that is in debt is strange logic, when do you stop digging or when does UEFA wake up and tell clubs FFP is in force, you either have the readies or you do not, and Therangers borrowing from each other and without a credit line it is clear they do not have the readies.
Radio shows and SMS media is best ignored gave up on all the imposters and that includes Celtic ones if they spout the same club lie and myth.

View Comment

vernallenPosted on1:45 am - Apr 2, 2021


Albertz11 April 1sr/21/9:29

I believe, if I understood correctly, Club 1872 believed some of the funds raised where to go to the museum fund and appeared to be quite surprised when Stewart Robertson advised that wasn’t the case. What appears to be telling is 7 share issues since last September and the amount of funds raised which seems to be well in excess of the 8.8 million quoted to see out the year. It does not present a case of a club/company in robust financial health with repeated trips to the financial well. The closeness of the amount of shares issued in each case I would think quite a coincidence as well. I understand shares are issued on a sometimes regular basis and think it would be difficult to find a similar situation in other businesses.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:07 am - Apr 2, 2021


https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19205631.judge-ruling-opens-door-criminal-action-prosecutors-police-malicious-rangers-fraud-probe/

Judge ruling opens door for criminal action against prosecutors and police over malicious Rangers fraud probe.

I am astounded that even for the media in this country there has not been far more pressure put on the authorities over this. What on earth were Police and Prosecutors trying to achieve and what was the motive behind it? I guess I’ve probably answered my own question because the media might not want to constantly ask a question they might not like the answer to.

My personal view is that it doesn’t matter how important a certain football club is perceived to be by the media and others with influence, when innocent people could have been jailed and the Scottish taxpayer is out of pocket by tens of millions then we are entitled to answers.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on10:37 am - Apr 2, 2021


Vernallen 2nd April 01.45

As i’m not a member of Club 1872 i have limited knowledge of how they operate. I do believe that monies raised are split 47.5% each between buying shares and Club1872 projects, which could cover the museum to be included in the new build on the site of the former Edmiston House
The figure of £8.8 million was included in the annual accounts dated 17/11. If you include the share issues from and including that date, then a total of just over £9.2 million has been raised.
The club are fortunate to have such a loyal group of investors willing to back the club financially.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on12:35 pm - Apr 2, 2021


Albertz11 1st April 2021 At 22:08
I took the figures to be the value of the transaction . I’m not suggesting that the club raised all that money in cash , merely that they printed more shares and bought them among themselves to the value of £23,599,382.54 . The reasons and mechanisms would probably not be public knowledge .

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on1:03 pm - Apr 2, 2021


Paddy Malarkey 2nd April 12.35

As i said previously the figures are NOT the value of the transactions.

They are the total number of allotted shares after each share issue.

As of 31/03 RIFC have a total of 368,291.872 ordinary shares.

View Comment

vernallenPosted on3:19 pm - Apr 2, 2021


If you look at the 23,599.382 raised in share offerings since last September, on average, this would come awfully close to the monthly operating costs of the team. What do these loyal group of investors get in return. In this time of a world wide pandemic I would prefer to keep my money closer to home and look for something where I can see a return in the near future, not, hopefully based on CL money down the road.

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on5:21 pm - Apr 2, 2021


Vernallen – if the investors are investing as fans and not looking for a financial return then it makes sense that, if funding monthly operating expense shortfalls that they provide the cash on a monthly basis (as a private company the cost of doing so is minimal on the company). It might give the finance director a few sleepless nights waiting for the cash to arrive, but avoids the risk of money for operations being splurged on a new player.
For me the more interesting point is what does it mean for player transfers in the summer. Do TRFC stick or twist in pursuit of CL money? Without a line of credit how would transfers be funded – Ticketus? A further point which I think affects TRFC more than Celtic next season is not having the preliminary rounds to negotiate. I think both clubs have benefitted in recent years from these rounds by bringing confidence and fitness from winning those matches into the main Europa League competition (I know Celtic bombed this year but I believe other factors played a part).

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on5:58 pm - Apr 2, 2021


Paddy Malarkey 2nd April 2021 At 12:35
‘..I’m not suggesting that the club raised all that money in cash , merely that they printed more shares and bought them among themselves to the value of £23,599,382.54 . ‘
++++++++++++++++++++++
The Companies House pages relating to the recent and previous RIFC plc share issues have the statement
” No shares allotted other than for cash”.

That is, not in exchange for shares in another company or for anything else.

I’m not sure whether it means that the purchaser has to pay the full purchase price up front, or can only part of the price for each share while being liable, of course, for the whole amount if the company calls it in.

A company desperate for cash is not likely to sell shares if that wasn’t going to raise the amount of money needed at the time of sale: I would think there wouldn’t be much point in doing that?

But perhaps someone will tell us if the recent issues were fully paid up?

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on8:03 pm - Apr 2, 2021


Albertz11 2nd April 2021 At 13:03
Ah , got you now . Allocated shares
42,250,000 between 23/9/20 and 30/9/20
19,314,931 on 1/11/20
5,044,960 on 17/11/20
13,750,000 between 18/11/20 and10/12/20
50,000 on 14/12/20
16,250,000 from 19/3/21
11,000,000 on 30/3/21
All @ £0.2 and no shares allocated other than for cash .
That would be 107,659,891 shares yielding £21 531,978.20 ?

View Comment

vernallenPosted on10:49 pm - Apr 2, 2021


Color me surprised. Rangers to appeal Covid 5 suspensions. How long will it take the SFA to hear the appeal, render a decision, etc. I would suspect it may be a helluva lot quicker than the original process. They may add an apology for troubling Rangers with such minor issue. Did Rangers appeal the suspension of the earlier covid violators. Does the appeal allow them to play until a verdict on the appeal is finalized…

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on10:00 am - Apr 3, 2021


@Vernallen – I can only assume TRFC are following appeal process that they are allowed to. I won’t blame them for doing so but for me points to the SFAs processes being not fit for purpose. Suspensions were given for breaching two rules (rule 24, being a breach of Coronavirus rules, and rule 77, not acting in best interest of football). Given that the players were issued with fixed penalty notices by Police Scotland, this should be an open and shut case, with penalties for breaches clearly laid out by the SFA – there should be no room for dispute over the penalties imposed.
If the SFA had not laid out the penalties in advance this is sheer incompetence.
If TRFC is appealing because they can, but with no clear grounds of appeal such an appeal should run the risk of incurring a penalty.
If TRFC look to argue that they had suspended the players that to me is completely irrelevant as the clubs can’t dispense their own justice.

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on11:44 am - Apr 3, 2021


Completely off-topic, but enjoyed the feature on Athletic Bilbao on BBC football page. An approach that feels more sustainable and connected to fans than the two super clubs in Spain.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:53 am - Apr 3, 2021


Vernallen 2nd April 2021 At 22:49
‘.. Does the appeal allow them to play until a verdict on the appeal is finalized…’
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Afraid so, Vernallen!
From the judicial panel protocol:
“Suspension of Determination pending appeal
14.12 Subject to Paragraph 14.10 once a Notice of Appeal has been validly delivered in terms of
the provisions of Section 15, the Determination against which the Notice of Appeal is
submitted shall be suspended until such time as the matter has been heard by the Appellate
Tribunal hearing the appeal, and its Determination has been communicated or delivered to
the Alleged Party in Breach, following which the suspension of the Determination shall end,
unless the Determination of the Appellate Tribunal hearing the appeal provides otherwise”

There appears not to be any scope for considering ‘an appeal’ by a Party against a decision of a ‘Disciplinary Tribunal’ just to be an attempt to act the madam! [although the CO can appeal against too lenient a sentence!]

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on4:02 pm - Apr 3, 2021


Rangers appealing their covid bans seems to me that they are simply gaming the system. Arrogance doesn’t even begin to describe it. They should consider themselves lucky that the SFA and Scottish Govt. conveniently ignored multiple covid breaches by their management and players when they won the league. Then again their fans were given the free run of Glasgow by the Police at the same time, while the rest of us were being told to stay in the house.

One Scotland, many cultures we are told, but one culture is still clearly regarded and treated as superior over all others.

View Comment

Comments are closed.