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

vernallenPosted on5:44 pm - May 12, 2021


$43.000 (plus) in share issues, is this to cover the SG’s bonus for being named manager of the year. At least there’s another trophy for the spacious trophy case at Ibrox.
Does the DR not understand the idea of promoting Scottish football, or is the idea only to promote Rangers. The article today about Red Star on the road to possibly topping the world record of the Celtic’s invincible season is rather a slap in the face. If it was a Ranger’s team on the world record, I’m sure nothing would have been said.
It will be interesting to go back to the numerous articles about all the records Rangers were on target for and see what was actually achieved.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:14 pm - May 12, 2021


Just in the passing, last Friday’s witnesses in the BDO action were Hart ( continuing from Thursday), Andrew McKinlay, and Rod McKenzie. There was no business on Monday. Yesterday’s witnesses were Dickson, Walder [ a D&P guy giving his evidence from California], and today it was Neil Doncaster (SPFL] ,Gordon Stewart ( ‘Save Rangers’ campaign) and then back again to Walder.
I have my usual scribbled notes from each day. Interesting enough , but the Lord knows when I’ll get them typed up! (Other matters have to be attended to).
I might get an hour for tomorrow’s morning session and maybe an hour in the afternoon. But Mrs C hasn’t quite the same interest as I have!

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:36 pm - May 12, 2021


Nawlite 12th May 2021 At 12:47
‘…Anything like this, where the 2 clubs appear to be working in tandem to better their joint position’
++++++++++++++++++=
Speaking entirely theoretically, hypothetically and in the absolute abstract, there is nothing in itself morally wrong businesses getting together to help each other make more money. [ human legislation might of course have to think of preventing or limiting unfair competition, or cartels and such like, but generally businesses in the same field tend to form associations to help protect and further their common interests]

But there WOULD be something shockingly wrong in business A deciding to protect business B from the consequences of B’s criminal behaviour, and something ridiculous about so doing when that criminal behaviour of B resulted in financial loss to A itself.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:36 pm - May 12, 2021


https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19295479.rangers-icon-ally-mccoist-axed-experts-alternative-cost-cutting-strategy-clubs-financial-collapse/
………………………………………
This will keep them going JC until you get the notes typed up

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:20 pm - May 12, 2021


Cluster One 12th May 2021 At 22:36
‘This will keep them going JC until you get the notes typed up’
++++++++++++++++
Anyone like Martyn Williams who believes that a football club that ceased to a shareholder in either of the leagues of what is now the SPFL and lost its membership of the SFA did not cease to exist is a fool. Best not to read anything he has to say!

The only football club playing out of Ibrox Stadium is a new club created in 2012, and admitted into Scottish Football AS a new club for the first time in 2012 and then admitted into membership of the SFA.

To say anything other is just rubbish, and Williams should be embarrassed to come out with such stupidities.
It s an incontrovertible fact that RFC of 1872 ,like Gretna, lost its membership of Scottish Football, and like Gretna exists no more as a football club except as living in the land of Legal Liquidation sooner or later to disappear even from the pages of the Companies House records, when it dissolved.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:52 am - May 13, 2021


Some further notes:
BDO v RFC 2012 (IL)
FRIDAY 7 May 2021
(continuation of Mr Hart’s evidence this is put on the blog on the same basis as my previous posts)

Lord Tyre: MrMcBrearty?

Mr McBrearty QC: Mr Hart, I’d like you to look at Vol 2,Page 2721.This is Simon Shipperlees day-book in which he recorded that redundancies were discussed. “PJC raised redundancies” Yesterday Shipperlee said “ JG (Jacqui Gourlay) ..difficult as no” parameters Q then what sevices to cut FITC” See the line after that, ‘PH’ was a reference to you as saying easy to identify cuts. It looks on 29 February like the Rangers staff were asking what services to cut.Does that accord with your recollection?
H: ….what cuts [ ed: did not hear him clearly]
QC: The cuts that were easy to identify are the list of 12.
H:….That’s possible
QC: No further questions.
Lord Tyre: Mr Young?
Mr Young QC: Mr Hart, you had read the statement you signed?
H:…Yes.
QC: If we look at vol 2 of the Joint Bundle , page 328, top half first. You’ll see the heading ‘Club staff only’. Who would have prepared a document such as this?
H:….This prticular one I don’t know. …ultimately douments would bbe signed off by David or Paul.
QC: It’s a relatively standard document?
H: The format would be standard , in Administrrations most procedures are identical.
QC: The bottom half “.Q. “Will there be any staff redundncies?”Is that normal in Administrations?
H: Yes, after questions about whether being paid.
The Joint Bundle page 1183: an email you sent to the Joint Administrators on 19 February:”I’m starting on the basis that we start this week on redundancies and headcounting and reduction proposals” What do you do?
H: We have our data on costs etc then consult to put life into the abstract data, on a consulttion basis.
QC: Do you deal with Heads of departments individually?
H: Normally we start with a general meeting , and then meet people individually
QC On Page 1184 see the reply you got from Paul Clark. He gives you his view, he’s been speaking to Sandy “Wider held view that Jacqui could take Ally’s job leaving Ally to run the football.” How did you relate to this.
H: A slow process, general meetings with senior people, over the course of two weeks we get a general feel for how things are run.
QC:Right. Can you look at Para 5 of your statement ,page 705 of the witness bundle. To put it in context, this is a meeting you had with Irene Munro-a note of that meeting in Joint Bundle2 page 1463. First, who is writing?
H:…….It’s my writing, I think.
QC: page 1462- in the left-hand margin , a reference to Irene Munro?
H:….Yes.
QC: Then ‘income generation’ ideas
H: Yes.
QC: Page 1463, zoom in, essential cost cutting including possible redundancies?
H:….Yes, we were constntly interested in cutting costs while incresing revenue.
QC: page 1464 , Donna McLellan , references to match-day cost reductions
H:…that ws consistent with our approach.
QC: We have a period of 19/20February where you talk about redundancies to 29 February. What was happening in that gap?
H:…In the early stages one is trying to get control, then gather data on costs and looking t every aspect of the business.Throughout that period there is a constant look at cost cutting and income generation.
QC: page 715 of the statement bundle,near the end of 28 Feb 2012 last sentence “ the fact remains that…operate safely “ Who said that?
H:……That view is based on an assessment of what was required for running football matches. I would be responsible, meeting with Police, ambulance, ticketing nd the other people needed to operate if we continued to trade.
QC: Was there any drop-off in fans?
H: The opposite, in fact.
QC: The Joint Bundle, p.2587, top of the page:can you read the names?
H:….Yes.
QC: Taken from the summer of 2011: on the left-hand side you see 3 names – Irene Munro, Claire Dale, Carol Paterson; in the middle, Sinclair, Ally McCoist, Raymond Farrelly; below that, on the left, Donna McLellan, centre Raymond Farrelly, right-hand Alan McTavish: then Jacqui Gourlay, ? McCaskill , Ken Olverman, Claire Riggs.
One of the propositions is that the Administrators should have been more ‘brutal’.In your general view could you have operated without ome of these individuals?
H:.. the majority of them, Olverman, Gourlay, Riggs .. without them it would have been difficult.
QC: It might be suggested that these people could have been released in 2012 and that Administration staff could have picked up and managed?
H:…I think it would have been impossible.
QC. Thank you, Mr Hart. No more questions.
Lord Tyre: Mr Mc Brearty
Mr McB QC: Mr Hart, you were asked about the gap between 19th and 29th February
H:…Yes.
QC: There was also a gap between ? And ? and 19th and 20th, when you were ‘unconsciously’ working..
H:… It…..
QC: It was on the 29th February that you identified specific staff to be made redundant?
H:…Yes
QC: And we heard from Simon Shipperlee that playing staff wouod be redundant by 24th February, and you did not have a list of non-playing staff?
H:…Yes.[ed: didn’t catch it]
QC:About staff that were needed toensure match-day operations?
H:..Yes
QC…..taken to the ‘organigram’>
H:…Yes.
QC: It would have been difficult to operate without those staff?
H: to continue as normal, yes.
QC: But in the circumstances of Administration..
H: I meant, to continue to the end of the season, as close to normal as possible.
QC:.. There were senior members of staff that might have been… [ed: lost what was said]
H:… {ed: I did not hear what was said]
QC: The ‘events’ department was large? You would have been able to make some redundancies?
H:……..[ ed: didn’t hear]

QC: The numbers necessary to make match-days work-police, fire, ambulance-what is their involvement ?
H: They would attend meetings ..
SC: These are all external people?
H:….There are also members of staff.
QC:…all zero hours contract staff?
H:……..[ed: missed it]
QC:…The focus was on continuing football operation?
H:…yes, to continue to trade and operate.
QC: There were plenty of departments where none of the staff was required for matches?
H: There were supporter liaison, ticketing, stewarding, the operation of the structures, purchases..
QC: You didn’t need to have the Charity Foundation?
H: I can’t recall the specific circumstances of every division or about the Charity Foundation, we were trying to attract purchasers, there were about 30 potential purchasers
QC: It was fairly basic: restructuring , lowering the cost-base, not trying to maintin thngs in exactly th same form?
H: ..to maintain in a format that would be attractive ; to offer for sale a functining footbaall club, to preserve the assets to rescue the club in a CVA.
QC: If you make the Charity Foundation redundant a new purchaser would have been ble to set it up again?
H:..It was not my responsibility to guess what a new purchaser would do.
QC: So what was ..{ed: did not hear]
H: To continue to trade……and find a buyer.
QC: The scouting department and other departments, a decision ws mde to save costs?
H: Cost-cutting was not to damage the possibility of a sale.
QC: That’s wrong.The extent of cutting was what we saw on 29 th February.Do you agree?
H:…The decision was to ..strategy to cost cut while not damaging the buusiness
QC: No positive decision ws made until 29 February. Do you agree?
H: I didn’t ultimately make the decision.The Administrators did.I was asked to look for sensible cost-cutting measures.
QC: I’m not sure whther you agree with me or not?
H: I didn’t make the decision.
QC: No further questions.
Lord Tyre: Thank you, Mr Hart.You can switch off now.

Mr McBrearty : The next two witnesses, m’Lord ,are Andrew McKinlay and Rod McKenzie.
Lord Tyre: We”go into paractice mode while things get set up.
[Practice mode for about 10 minutes) At 11.10.
Lord Tyre: Good morning, Mr McKinlay. [ usual words about being alone, phone in silent,etc and Oath administered]
Mr McBrearty QC: established the witness’ name, age, addree and occupation. And then,
Mr McKinlay, will you look at thee witness statement by you on the screen?
Is that your statement?
McK: Yes.
QC: No further questions.
Lord Tyre: Mr Young?
Mr Young QC: You started work at the SFA in 2012? Have you any football regulatory experience?
McK: No
QC: You made a comment that there was no great rush to cut costs. Did you have any specifiic knowledge of that?
McK: No.
QC:.. Paras 4.2 to 4.3 -here you are setting out permutations of final position of the club?
McK: I was asked how low Rangers could finish in the division.
QC: Did someone give you information
McK: I can’t recall-I may have looked up the internet
QC: You have had subsequent experience of Administration with Hearts?
McK: Yes
QC: ..Hearts in the SPL went into Administration in 2013
McK: Yes.
QC: Do you know how many redundancies of players there were?
McK: Five.
QC: Were they voluntary/involuntary?
McK: I don’t know.
QC: size of the squad?
McK; I don’t know.
QC: the way you describe the normal hacking, cutting costs, were Hearts making significant cuts of ofice staff at that time?
McK: {ed; I missed the answer]
QC; .. Hearts went into Administration at the end of the season?
McK: Yes.
QC: Rangers still had games to play?
McK: Yes
QC: Any problems with the Hearts’ share?
McK: I wouldn’t think so, bbecause it was a CVA
QC: One of the propositions is that ….Is it correct that the SPL requires under 19s and over 19 teams to play?
McK: it’s not bothered aboout under 19s.

[ to be continued..]

View Comment

LurkioPosted on10:50 am - May 13, 2021


Highlander 12th May 2021 At 11:07
Nawlite 12th May 2021 At 12:47

I am an infrequent visitor to this site, mainly because the discussion is partisan and rooted in events of 10 years ago, so your posts are a welcome diversion.

The structure of the leagues, playoffs and the entry of colt teams are topical issues that should generate much more discussion than they do.

At least the pyramid play-off issue appears to have been resolved for the moment with Kelty now having the opportunity to play Brechin for a place in League 2, but not before the SPFL argued the case, on behalf of Brechin, in front of an arbitration tribunal.

The league structure has been a thorny issue since Covid curtailed the leagues last season. In my opinion it was a lost opportunity lost to fully integrate the pyramid leagues in terms of promotion / relegation. One of the options was to include colt teams in addition to the HL and LL champions, but that was rejected by the SPFL clubs last summer.

A more recent approach by Celtic and Rangers to enter colt teams directly into League 2, by way of a financial inducement, was also rejected by the L1 and L2 clubs who fear an expanded league and possible relegation from the SPFL. I do however, believe that proposal might have gained more traction if the L1 and L2 clubs had not just received six figure sums in grants from the Scottish Government.

So now we have the Lowland League apparently making an approach to both Celtic and Rangers, inviting their “colt teams” to participate in the LL next season, although restricted by way of no promotion/relegation, all for a fee of £25,000 each.

If I’ve understood the proposals correctly the results between the colt sides and the rest of the league will count towards promotion and relegation for the other league teams so, with that, all sporting integrity has gone out the window. It is a slap in the face to all the clubs in the LL’s feeder leagues, the EOSFL, WOSFL and SOSFL who were denied the opportunity to progress up the pyramid. The three tier 6 leagues were united in their opposition to the arrangement and issued a joint statement to that effect.

In an indicative vote the Lowland League sides voted 12-5 in favour of the proposals with one abstention. Bonnyrigg, Bo’ness, Civil Service Strollers, Dalbeattie and one other voted against, while Kelty abstained claiming that they didn’t have enough time to consult with their members, which they are currently undertaking. Kelty may well end up voting against when the decision and associated rule changes are revisited at the LL AGM at the end of the month. It is worth noting that Kelty, Bonnyrigg and Bo’ness are the last three sides to progress up through the pyramid form the EOSFL to the LL. They all recognised the need to start at the bottom when entering the SFA’s pyramid, as former Junior sides.

I fully support those clubs and their reasons for opposing the short circuiting of the pyramid, although I have no problem with colt teams from any club entering the pyramid at its lowest level.

My questions for George Fraser, president of the LL, are why the approach to Celtic and Rangers (and only them) was made and who initially prompted such an approach to the LL Board. I can’t believe that the LL Board would generate and make such an offer from within, as they have always been viewed as fully ingrained in the meritocracy of the pyramid. I can only speculate that this offer is a precursor to the colt sides being included in the restructuring/expansion of the lower SPFL leagues envisaged in new proposals written by Rangers, which have yet to be made public. The aim being that the new structure would be in place from season 2022/23.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on12:20 pm - May 13, 2021


Rangers statement 13th May.

https://www.rangers.co.uk/Article/club-statement-130521/1glg97x0CkSyzYqtHE2yeg?fbclid=IwAR0o86mmJ6gfZ3k-eiZ-lJRo8oEn487WOGSp9sYBeYp9-DGsMnOAj1BglTA

Club make their position clear.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:46 pm - May 13, 2021


Lurkio 13th May 2021 At 10:50

” If I’ve understood the proposals correctly the results between the colt sides and the rest of the league will count towards promotion and relegation for the other league teams so, with that, all sporting integrity has gone out the window. ”
+++++++++++++++++
We share that point of principle, I’m happy to say. If there is no real ‘competition’ with something at stake for both parties in a football match, there is no guarantee of true sporting /team endeavour. There could be scope for all kinds of unsporting jiggery-pokery to influence the final positions in the league.
And Scottish Football is already under a cloud of suspicion about its understanding of the words ‘sporting integrity’

View Comment

incredibleadamsparkPosted on8:09 pm - May 13, 2021


The police, the justice secretary and now Rangers have all spoken out about the planned march by the Union Bears. It’s good to see such a clear message across the board from everyone about this. Hopefully anyone thinking of taking part will now have got the message.

View Comment

borussiabeefburgPosted on9:24 pm - May 13, 2021


I’m glad that the issue of Colt sides has been raised again on here, previously it appeared posters were generally in favour so it’s pleasing to see contrary views with which I agree.

Arguments against have been well covered by Lurkio, Nawlite and Highlander, and I would add a few more.

A point made by backers of the colts centres on future provision of Scottish international footballers, with them selectively pointing to other countries who appear to successfully operate such a system. This is demonstrable drivel, easily shot down with facts, figures and dates. In any case, when did it become the job of the lower leagues, this time the Lowland League, to produce international talent for the SFA? Or more specifically, in this case, the Glasgow two.

Going down through the leagues, Scotland has a range of clubs with much larger numbers attending games than most European leagues, even considering our relatively small population. It’s something that is rarely publicised or mentioned by the media.

Denmark, as an example, has a second tier average which was less than Queen of the South averaged in 2019-20. Slovakia’s second level average, at 269, is lower than any club at our fourth tier. East Fife averaged the same as Finland’s second division: 824. Next door, Ireland’s top level average was 2910; our second tier averaged 3023. All these countries have populations similar to Scotland’s number.

Poland has a population approximately six times bigger than Scotland, and averaged 1990 at second level (roughly the same as Raith Rovers).

The point: why alienate these successful and popular lower reaches of Scottish football, where fans attend for the love of their game and connection to their community, where to a club the colt proposal has been rejected? For the Lowland League colt proposal is simply a Trojan Horse for introduction of this type of side into League Two. And even then, it appears that of the eleven clubs who have supported the proposal in the Lowland League, a number have taken their position despite supporters’ wishes.

The proposal, which may be changed, suggests the OF colt sides should be playing at the same time as the senior clubs, while outlining pie in the sky dreams of television contracts: can’t understand why they haven’t seen the issue with that.

Finally, these colt sides will not be second string outfits. The Ibrox Managing Director Stewart Robertson, and Crain Mulholland, Academy Head, have stated this, planning for their reserves to be playing fixtures against other UK and European second sides, as they have since they withdrew from the Reserve League in Scotland. There will be no crowd appeal for 2002 born OF players facing Gretna 2008.

View Comment

vernallenPosted on1:21 am - May 14, 2021


The latest Ranger’s statement regarding Saturday’s planned events ring a little hollow even for them. A 150 year old institution that has been placed in liqudation in 2012, claiming a world record 55th title for a club/team/whatever formed under questionable circumstances in the same year, etc. The only part that rings true is the statement surrounding the 10 year journey. Also asking their fans to stay safe and sensible is a little strange considering the messaging on some of the fans’ blogs. The pictures of George Square don’t do anything to allay concerns about Saturday. Hopefully the police will show some gumption rather than acting as paid escorts.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on7:05 am - May 14, 2021


Vernallen 14th May 01.21.

Can i ask what exactly you mean by ” Hopefully the police will show some gumption rather than acting as paid escorts”?. What practical steps do you expect the police to take?.

View Comment

WestcoasterPosted on7:37 am - May 14, 2021


A11 – ‘Club make their position clear’

While it is a step forward that a statement has been made ahead of Saturday why didn’t they categorically tell fans not to congregate and not to participate in any marches? The ‘if possible’ further undermines the whole release.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on11:17 am - May 14, 2021


John Clark 13th May 2021 At 09:52
……………………………
Thanks JC
……………………………….
H: ..to maintain in a format that would be attractive ; to offer for sale a functining footbaall club, to preserve the assets to rescue the club in a CVA.
……………………………………….
QC: Any problems with the Hearts’ share?
McK: I wouldn’t think so, bbecause it was a CVA
………………………………………..
Brilliant

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on11:32 am - May 14, 2021


Albertz11 13th May 2021 At 12:20
…………….When was the last time the ibrox club released a statement and never tried to drop in 150 years or 55 or history? The desperation to include these key words is laughable.

View Comment

bect67Posted on12:09 pm - May 14, 2021


Albertz11 @ 7.05

In answer to your question, I fully expect them to be taking the same steps they’ve been taking i.e. acting as paid escorts for the marauding ‘followers’ (mildest word I can think of at this point) around about the 12th July during the lifetime of RFC (1872-2012) and Sevco (2012 -).

IMHO there will be ‘anti-social’ scenes similar to those of a few weeks ago, minimal arrests and little real condemnation from police and the football authorities.

The celebrations will also be portrayed as ‘mainly peaceful’ by a compliant SMSM.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on1:19 pm - May 14, 2021


https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19298491.scots-football-chief-criticises-ex-rangers-administrators-handling-clubs-financial-implosion/
……………………………………….
SCOTTISH football chief Neil Doncaster said that the way administrators handled cutting costs when Rangers went into financial meltdown was “different from the usual practice”.

The chief executive of the Scottish Professional Football League questioned the transparency of the administrators of the collapsed business Paul Clark and David Whitehouse of Duff and Phelps and said he expected them to have sold or at least tried to sell any players of value after the club financially imploded nine years ago.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:22 pm - May 14, 2021


I had the access number for today’s ‘virtual’ hearing in the BDO v RFC 2012 plc[IL] case. I phoned the phone number and put in the access code when prompted by the automatic voice, and got the message ‘the host hasn’t joined, please hold”. The ‘holding musak’ came on, with regular ‘please continue to hold’ reminders. By considerably later I had lost patience, and turned to other things, intermittently dialling up again.
I eventually phoned the Court about 20 minutes ago to ask whether the hearing had taken place. The clerk of court was in a ‘meeting’ but if I phoned back later after 4.00 I should get an answer.
Now, the ‘meeting’ might turn out to be the afternoon hearing, at which of course the clerk would be present..
If that turns out to be the case, then either the ‘virtual’ arrangements got buggered up ( and there’s no method of letting listeners know) or the public access facility was withdrawn.
However , it is possible , I suppose, that the session had to be postponed for some reason or another.
Perhaps I shall find out before 4.30.
Communications???

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:47 pm - May 14, 2021


I had the access number for today’s ‘virtual’ hearing in the BDO v RFC 2012 plc[IL], phoned the phone number and put in the access code when prompted by the automatic voice, and got the message ‘the host hasn’t joined, please hold” The ‘holding musak’ came on, with regular ‘please continue to hold’ reminders. By considerably later I had lost patience, and turned to other things, intermittently dialling up again.
I eventually phoned the Court about 20 minutes ago to ask whether the hearing had taken place. The clerk of court was in a ‘meeting’ but if I phoned back later after 4.00 I should get an answer.
Now, the ‘meeting’ might turn out to be the afternoon hearing at which of course the clerk would be present..
If that turns out to be the case, then either the ‘virtual’ arrangements got buggered up ( and there’s no method of letting listeners know) or the public access facility was withdrawn.
However , it is possible , I suppose, that the session had to be postponed for some reason or another.
Perhaps I shall find out before 4.30.
Communications???

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on2:50 pm - May 14, 2021


@ClusterOne 13:19
Is this another sign of Neil Doncaster’s incompetence?
“and said he expected them to have sold or at least tried to sell any players of value”
How many transfer windows were open between the 12th February and the rejection of the CVA in May? I don’t think many clubs paya transfer fee in advance for a transfer at the next window.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on3:49 pm - May 14, 2021


Tykebhoy @1450:

I believe that clubs may apply to the SFA/UEFA to obtain permission to conduct transfer business, outside of mandated windows, in certain circumstances. Administration appears to be one such event where player sales would raise funds towards keeping the club/company trading (and, by extension, playing). Better to allow a mid-season transfer than a club going bust…

Doncaster’s point was that there was no attempt by RFC/D&P to sell players.

Indeed, they tried to sign one!

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on4:02 pm - May 14, 2021


Thanks JJ but surely there is no compulsion on the buying club’s FA to allow them to register a player outwith the transfer window for that FA. You can sign a free agent at anytime but not a player registered with another FA.

Agreed there was no attempt to offload any players by tearing up contracts which the Admin would have permitted. Also agreed the SPL prevented them signing Daniel Cousin who was a free agent.

View Comment

stifflersmomPosted on7:13 pm - May 14, 2021


Evening.

The ‘continuation’ of ‘Level 3’ in Glasgow isn’t exactly news. More so if that’s all you’ve ever known. After all, that’s where it all started.

I have missed you lot and I hope you are all well.

Big P – I’ll catch up on my subs!

View Comment

vernallenPosted on8:13 pm - May 14, 2021


Albertz11 May 14th/2021/7:05

Rather than forming what looked to be a protective wall around the crowd which appeared to be the extent of their action during the last gathering of fans, why not pullout some not wearing masks, not exercising social distancing, or any exhibiting signs of enjoying too many spirits and let them spend the night as guest of he police. Perhaps they could also look into any government regulations that allow for ticketing and fines. The issue involving liquor consumption should be a no brainer.

View Comment

stifflersmomPosted on8:26 pm - May 14, 2021


Well, here’s a dichotomy…

…..you can only leave or enter a Level 3 area for a permitted reason such as going to work

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:46 pm - May 14, 2021


Geez, I’m well ahent o’masel
I refer now to my post of 13th May 2021 At 09:52 and give a continuation of my notes of the hearing on Friday 7th May: again without comment, or conscious bias, but with some degree of certainty that the ‘official’ record will not in any important point differ from what I have recorded.
You need no lectures from me about the need to wait until all the evidence has been led and challenged before it is possible to arrive at any assessment, and there’s a long way to go, apparently.
We resume after the break for the transcriber

QC: No more questions, Mr McKinlay. Thank You.
Lord Tyre: Thank you Mr McKinlay, You’re free to switch off…..
.. Is Mr McKenzie ready?
Voice : he’s been on stand-by since 12 o’clock.
Lord Tyre: We’ll go into practice mode .
At 12.27:
Mr McKenzie sworn in.
Mr McBrearty confirmed the witness’s his age, address, and occupation, then:
QC: Mr McKenzie You see on the screen a witness statement in your name. Is it yours?
McKen: Yes.
QC: Look at the supplementary statement on p.811. Is it yours?
McKen: Yes.
QC: Are you content with them?
McKen: Yes.
QC: No further questions.
Lord Tyre: Mr Young?
Mr Young, QC: If we look at section3 of your statement, a conversation with Gary Withey in October, about the question that a newco might possibly take over Rangers presenting dificulties?
McKen: No. I had two conversations with Mr Withey.
[ed: my phone went on hold for a couple of minutes for some technical reason It became live again and I heard this:-
…a member ceased to be entitled to hold that share once he ceased to be the owner of the club. It was the holding of the share that entitled the company to operate the club?

McKen: It was the holding of the share that entitled the company to operate the club.
QC: In the Joint Bundle, vol, para 1009: Would you look at Article 6 , p 1015? what does this mean?
McKen: it the case that a member who ceases to own or operate a club loses entitlement to a share.
QC: The selling company ceases to hold the share?
McKen: Yes. If you sell all the assets you no longer have a club.
QC: If the selling company holds on to the share what can the SPL do?
McKen: Back then there was no provision, and we began to think of this, whether the share could be forfeit. It wasn’t necessary to come to a conclusion.
QC: How can a purchasing club get a share?
McKen: It can apply to the Board- the transferring company can apply to the Board to transfer the share to the new company. It was necessary to get the consent of the Board in the case of a promotion, eh.., eh..,eh….Except in the circumstances of a promotion you had to get the consent of the Board to transfer.
QC: First of all, were there any criteria by which permission would be granted, or just a general..?
McKeN: Let me see the …
QC: Para 19 [ed: or maybe ‘1a’ – my scribble could be either]
McKen: [ed: didn’t catch it]
QC: What would happen if transfer was refused?

McKen: I don’t think the Articles contained any provision.. I thought it was just at the discretion of the Board , except for Article 13 provisions.
QC: “ the Board shall refuse..”?
McKen: The ‘consent of the Board’ became the consent of the members on 20 May 2012.
QC: What was the background to that?
McKen: You’d need to ask the members. There were many different public views expressed about whether transfer should take place, questions of in what context the Directors could exercise their discretion, questions as to whether the discretionary powers would be wider if the club/members had the discretion. So eleven out of the 12 voted in favour of the amendment.
QC: Can we look now at your first written statement, par 4.1.4? In the post-Administration period , at a meeting on 16 February, you were told that all fixture obligations would be fulfilled. Was that a note you had?
McKen: I don’t have my notes. That’s my recollection.
QC: Take it from me , we have a note, to the effect that Mr C could not give you an assurance that they could continue to the end of the season.
McKen: It doesn’t. We had questions in the same context as other Administrations, about players, and the plan for exiting the Administration.
QC: In section 5 of your statement , reference to ‘Penalties/Sanctions’ to do with the EBT investigation. This event was prior to the Administration?
McKen: Yes. But I sholud say that the SFA had carried out its own investigation.
QC: Was the the SPL investigation carried out in March wider than that of the SFA?
McKen: Yes, in the the sense that the alleged payments had not been made: we were interested in the 2010/2011 previous year.
QC: This is the start of the SPL beginning to act as a Regulator in the EBT proceedings?
McKen: But we knew that HMRC were investigating.
QC: So in March you sked for documentation for information?
McKen: We were asking the club: the fact that its owner was in Administration is neither here nor there.
QC: Once the club was owned by SevcoScotland …. the 55-Way agreement?
McKen: Sevco agreed to accept liability for sanctions , except those in respect of Whyte, although we did not receive [ ed; that is the word I wrote clearly enough, but perhaps ‘perceive’ was said/or meant] that it itself was a disciplinary party.
QC: Are all clubs required to comply with SPL rules and FIFA etc rules?
McKen: Yes.
QC: If a club is in breach of a UEFA or SFA article is that being in breach of SPL rules?
McKen: Yes. There were times when the SFA and SPL were both seeking documents.
QC [ addressing the Judge] M’Lord, would this be a good time to break..
Lord Tyre: Very well. We’ll adjourn to give the transcriber a break and comfort break for others.
( 1.45, for about 10 mins)

[ to be continued, entirely at the discretion of Mrs C, who has what are trivial matters to me ,such as ‘ new kitchen’ on her mind. I am, in justice and love, required to accommodate her desires, though they may differ from mine! Most of you will understand, I’m sure]

View Comment

vernallenPosted on10:49 pm - May 14, 2021


Some Ranger records are that aren’t doted on in the press
-most share issues in the past years
-most times leading the league in posting major losses
-most share issues converted to loans
highest accumulated losses in past 10 years ( am being generous here and didn’t want to include the years prior to liquidation)
-non stop mention of dubious 55th title
-most court cases in past ten years

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:43 pm - May 14, 2021


And just afore I go to bed , I looked back on my post of 22.46 this evening, and remembered that Gary Withey is dead.
And reflected: Only those connected with him in business related to what we call ‘the saga’ about the death of an honourable and successful football club, a death caused by the most blatant cheating of the taxman and of every other club in Scottish football, may KNOW whether he was any kind of lying cheat.

Of course, if they did, they sure as hell will not say so, in self-preservation mode.
Honest to God!
What are they like? Seriously?
Film image? ” The Wild Bunch’- bad guys thrashing about in their badness knowing their badness and exulting in it.
And again, honest to God!
And as old Sam Pepys said, ‘so to bed’.

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on1:01 am - May 15, 2021


John Clark 14th May 2021 At 22:46

EDIT
“QC: Once the club was owned by SevcoScotland …. the 55-Way agreement?”

This made me chuckle JC. Maybe there are indeed more parties involved in the subterfuge than we thought. Regardless thanks for your courtside reporting , it’s fascinating to read and imagine some witnesses squirming with terminology.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:15 am - May 15, 2021


Gunnerb 15th May 2021 At 01:01
‘…the 55-Way agreement?’
++++++++++++
Ha ha, Gunnerb, that was a genuine mis-type. When, if, I post a continuation, I shall be obliged to point out the [obvious] error.
[As an unconnected but interesting point, very often the QCs use the phrase ” You can take it from me” when a witness seems not to know a particular fact mentioned . For example, the QC might ask ” do you know that such and such was said by so and so?” and if the witness says he doesn’t, the QC will say ” You can take it from me that it was said”
I wonder if that phrase originated in the Courts and then found its way into everyday use as a quasi- sworn oath?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:42 pm - May 15, 2021


Referring to my post of 14th May 2021 At 22:46, I continue my report of the BDO v RFC 2012 plc [IL]- Rod McKenzie’s evidence : I pick up from the morning break:

[“QC [ addressing the Judge] M’Lord, would this be a good time to break..
Lord Tyre: Very well. We’ll adjourn to give the transcriber a break and comfort break for others.]
( @ 1.45, for about 10 mins)
On resumption:
QC: Let’s look at the Joint Bundle, p.1824. That’s an estimate of the clubs’ fees……under the ‘UEFA’ column: there’s a standard amount, and the rest is made up by reference to the positions at the end of the league.
McKen: Made up by UEFA solidarity payments… divided equally ( with less for club 8 because of their more limited youth work)
QC: The final tranche, no set date for payent of final amount due: there are advances in August, payment on account because the Broadcasters pay……typically about 5 payments in the season. Final payment not made till October?
McKen: Yes
QC: The Joint Bundle 4120: a letter from you to the Administrators in relation to sums due to RFC. The position the SPL were in was that they couldn’t fund 2011/2012?
McKen: Yes. The Rangers Football Club plc(In Administration) was considered to be in anticipatory breach of contract with the SPL which would follow 2012/13.
QC: Look at the last paragraph.’ anticipated the SPL will suffer loss if Rangers..’? I take it you were satisfied that you had proper legal basis for that letter.
McKen: Yes.
QC: We know that because of the 5-Way Agreement that Sevco had rights to that money. They did not claim it. What happened to it?
McKen: It was distributed..
QC: Was there any furth correspondence on this subject?
McKen: I have a recollection os sending something to Simon Shipperlee, but I haven’t found it.
QC: even after the 5-way agreement Rangers did not participate in the..?
Mcken: I can’t remember if we expressly discharged the plc. We discharged Sevco of any further claim.
QC: In this letter, the loss is being anticipated because Ranger not be participating in 2012/2013. That fact did not change?
McKen: the share that the plc had was transferred to Dundee, so the plc was no longer in breach of contract.
QC: Did you write to say there would be no loss after all, it had fallen away?
McKen: I don’t recollect ever doing so.
QC: Youth development: in 2011/2012 there ws an under 19 league, can’t remember when it changed from 21.
McKen: [ed: if he replied I missed it, but the Qc may simply have continued without pause]
QC: Was it part of the criteria that clubs had to follow the directions of the regulator?
McKen: There was [ ed: lost what he said]
QC: In the Supplementary Bundle, p 424, the context p.423 at the bottom, membership criteria, over the page , 25.5 one of the criteria ‘implement requirement of youth..’ Would under 20 league be considered ‘youth’?
McKen: No.
QC: Under 19, that would be mandatory. If Rangers had been able to continue would they have had to participate in an under 19 league?
McKen: I can’t answer. When clubs suffered an insolvency event clubs could ask. I can’t remember whether asked us in respect of the rest of the 2011’2012 season. But if the Administrators had asked it’s possible that it would have been granted.
QC: [ ed; missed it]
McKen: Discretionary…. to do whatever to have clubs….[ed: missed the tail end]
QC: On ‘leaseback’:, the SPL rules, Supplementary Bundle p 423 So we see 8.2.52-must be a registered ground, .8.2.53 club must own its registered ground or have other..’ -If one wants approval of ‘right of occupancy’ of a ground they have to apply by March of the year?
McKen: Yes
QC: there’s power to excuse late applications and to allow any form of tenure?
McK: Yes. But the Board has set out the sort of criteria and considerations..
QC: a non-exhaustive list of factors set out…1.3.35
McKen: That’s what applied in 2012/2013. The rule that you’re referring to was not really drafted with the position of a club such as Rangers applying for approval; but for clubs up from promotion. If a club such as Rangers was at risk, the rule would apply, but these guidelines were not there.
QC: If a club has a lease of a ground, does it have to be approved every year?
McKen: If it carries on for a year, that’s approved. But the Board does have an interest in the standard lease.
QC: What are those?
McKen: The standard lease will say “ ..in the event of a breach of lease the landlord will be able to terminate.” Those provisions are not compatible for football. We look for a lease where even if there is a breach it can’t be brought to an end, to ensure that fixtures can be fulfilled.
QC: Any other?
McKen: Can I look at the letter?……’right of occupation to continue throughout whole of the season, provision to allow European fixtures to be played…’
QC: I can see at the end that the list is not exhaustive. But as a matter of practice, what other consideration…..?
McKen: The provisions of the following paragraph. ….I should say this is all based on the experience of the SPL over 12, 14 years..
QC: bear with me a moment…….. Mr McKenzie: you’ve just said 12 years experience: is there a history of clubs being refused approval by the SPL?
MCKen: Yes. Falkirk FC in 2003 . Motherwell was at the bottom and Falkirk were champions. The question was whether Falkirk’s basis of tenure were satisfactory, they were not . Falkirk appealed to the SFA, the SPL won and Falkirk were refused promotion.
But Gretna was of more significance.
QC: Thank you, Mr McKenzie. No further questions.

Lord Tyre: Mr McBrearty?
Mr McBrearty: No re-examination.

Lord Tyre: Thank you Mr McKenzie: you’re free now to switch off and leave us….. That’s us for the day? We’ll adjourn then until Tuesday 3.30 pm to 5.00 pm, and then 5.00 pm to 7.00 pm.

That’s the last bit of that Friday’s hearing.
I have my notes of Tuesday 11th, Wednesday 12th and Thursday 13th ( such as they are] still to decipher. I forgot to phone back to the Court yesterday afternoon, so I don’t know whether a hearing took place. There is no Hearing on Monday 17th, so I might get some time to get what I have into typescript.

View Comment

incredibleadamsparkPosted on5:53 pm - May 15, 2021


Disgraceful scenes in Glasgow today. The rangers fans who ignored the advice of police, politicians and the club have acted in such a selfish way it’s beyond embarrassing.

They’ve put themselves at risk, the public and the police who have to be there to try and control this mess. Glasgow remains in level 3 and this behaviour helps no one. Any Rangers fan involved in this should be ashamed of themselves.

View Comment

vernallenPosted on7:50 pm - May 15, 2021


Some truly shocking photos of Ranger fans embarrassing themselves and the clubs leaders. The fans seems to understand 55 but don’t get the safe and sensible part. Does safe not mean hanging from light fixtures, sitting atop the gates to the stadium ( how did they mange to get that close to begin with), gathering en mass without masks, less than six feet apart, and all this while the city is in level 3 lockdown. It takes the virus about two weeks to surface in anyone affected, so a further surge in Glasgow should be expected. Where I live we had a demonstration recently with a couple of hundred people gathering with no mask, etc. They planned another demonstration today, apparently along with others throughout the world against masking and distancing, the provincial government wasted no time in getting an injunction against such displays. We are in a complete lockdown and the government takes their duty in protecting their citizens seriously. Is the SNP governing Scotland, or, is RFC/Sevco.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:27 pm - May 15, 2021


Vernallen 15th May 2021 At 19:50
‘…Is the SNP governing Scotland, or, is RFC/Sevco.’
++++++++++++++++++++
On the very evident evidence so far, the answer has to be that the Holyrood government cannot trust Police Scotland to enforce the ‘Law’ if Police Scotland does not agree that the law should apply to those to whom it considers it ought not to apply!
One remembers how easily and readily it was to cavalry charge one end of the pitch, and on another occasion to ‘kettle’ one lot of fans in the east end of Glasgow.

Professor Jason Leitch this very afternoon reminded us that Covid 19 kills! Kills, ffs.
And it has long ago been established that deliberately infecting folk with, for example, the AIDS disease is a crime.

Freedom is freedom, certainly: but, just as bogusly shouting ‘Fire’ in a packed cinema is NOT an expression of free speech but a hugely irresponsible and dangerous act, so is a flagrant breach of serious public health regulations designed to protect the populace from a killer disease.

I do sincerely hope that none of the [fair do’s!] relatively justifiable celebrants of premier league title number one contracts Covid.
I hope even more fervently that none of them infects anyone that I know and care about.
If any of the ‘celebrants’ are themselves infected ?… well, of course, it would be tragic that their stupidity had that result.
But a self-inflicted illness caused by wilful stupidity?

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on10:16 am - May 16, 2021


Lawbreaking on an industrial scale overseen by Police Scotland. Chief Superintendent Sutherland should be sacked forthwith as clearly either incompetent in role or complicit in this disgrace. Justice Secretary Yousaf must also be sacked – to say the gatherings were “selfish and irresponsible” but make no reference to the fact that they were illegal, maybe because it’s his responsibility to maintain law and order!!!
So what will TRFC do? Fans are easily identifiable – ban them for life?
What will SPL and SFA do? I cannot think of any good reason why TRFC would not be charged with bringing the game into disrepute – unable/unwilling to have fan free access to the stadium and their manager posing for selfies! All the while putting lives at risk.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on10:23 am - May 16, 2021


Dear SFA,

Here’s an idea.

The Scottish Government has kiboshed the attendance of a few hundred fans at Hampden for your showpiece event, the Cup Final.

Why don’t you just abandon the idea of having the match in a stadium & use ‘jumpers for goalposts’ & play the game in Kenmure St., Edmiston Dr. or George Sq.? There are apparently no difficulties in having a crowd at these locations. Police Scotland & the Scottish Government may even assist you as you flout regulations.

Yours in fitba’.

JJ

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on10:34 am - May 16, 2021


Where to start with those ‘celebrations’ in Glasgow yesterday.

Probably the best place to start would be the lead up to the Celtic v Rangers game at Celtic Park in March. Both the Scottish Government and Police Scotland were very forcible in their views that if there was a risk of fans gathering that the game would be cancelled. If anyone did try and gather then they would be met with Police action. The crucial difference of course is that they had their preferred position of being able to blame both sides. The gatherings in Glasgow yesterday have been openly planned online for weeks, even to the extent that people were travelling into Scotland to take part. The Government and Police could just as easily have issued the same warnings with the threat of a game cancellation. Instead, while the rest of Glasgow was told to remain in level 3 restrictions at very short notice, they allowed one section of Scottish Society to do as it pleased, and when the riot gear was finally donned the horse had well and truly bolted.

It truly beggars belief that a Government with such a high level of public support is not willing to face up to this issue. They are treating the rest of society with contempt. Streets are taken over in many towns and ‘decorated’ and no-one in authority bats an eyelid while the taxpayer picks up the bill.

Celebrating success is a natural phenomenon for any group of football fans. Angrily ramming it down the throats of the nation is not though, and again if the authorities and media had not been so accommodating to the ridiculous notion that a club illegally withholding tens of millions in tax was some kind of victim then that anger might not have festered for so long.

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on10:36 am - May 16, 2021


I’ve just watched footage of yesterday’s joyous ‘celebrations’ involving fighting, rioting and the large-scale ignoring of covid regulations for totally selfish and entirely unnecessary reasons.

The clean-up and impact on Glasgow’s hospitals will be similar in magnitude to what Manchester ‘enjoyed’ in 2008.

What struck me wasn’t just Police Scotland’s apparent impotence in dealing with what were highly predictable events, but the mass hysteria caused by the winning of a league title which is claimed to be their fifty-fifth. I don’t recall celebrations on this scale for titles 54 or 53 for example.

It can’t even be claimed that the decade-long gap between top-league titles triggered a march to the city centre because there’s no way that there was this amount of celebrating when Rangers stopped Celtic’s previous ten-in-a-row.

I wonder what other seismic event might they be airbrushing out of history with their over-the-top references to title 55 and 150 years of history.

Clearly that history has been doctored to exclude inconvenient facts such as liquidation, although the current club shares many likenesses with its defunct predecessor, since both are a permanent embarrassment and an occasional disgrace. This is why they can forget the notion of ever receiving an invite to the EPL or Atlantic League etc.

For those who think yesterday’s events were just the natural and understandable consequences of over-exuberance following over-indulgence, we don’t let people off with drink-driving, domestic abuse, rape or murder just because they were intoxicated.

I trust Police Scotland will be using every resource at its disposal to identify and charge the knuckle-dragging neanderthals that seemed to make up a substantial swathe of the throng. They only need to look at widespread footage on social media and coverage within the media in general for evidence.

View Comment

bect67Posted on11:19 am - May 16, 2021


UTH @ 10.34

“they allowed one section of Scottish Society to do as it pleased”

That, I’m afraid has been the case throughout the history of Sevco (in whatever guise it has gone under), and will basically never change. The ‘Divine Right of H*** (aka WATP) will prevail. (cf the Irish Tricolour controversy, where the football authorities tried, unsuccessfully, to ban the flying of same at Celtic Park in the 1950s).
Will there be a stripping of their first ever title -Nah! (tongue in cheek here!)

There will no doubt be token protestations (!) and threats about the marauders’ behaviours – but little action from Scottish Government, Police Scotland , SFA. Oh, wait a minute there were a several (?) arrests! So …TRFC will be depicted as powerless innocents by the SMSM, and will not, in all likelihood, be held accountable for misbehaviour by their supporters.

No doubt, there will be a moralistic quote from from Sevco that they tried all in their power to prevent the unlawful actions. Aye right!

Finally – “the horse had well and truly bolted”

Would that be King Billy’s by any chance?

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on12:08 pm - May 16, 2021


It is worth pointing out amidst yesterdays scenes that there are many very decent people who support Rangers who will be appalled at what happened. Over the years I personally have known very many decent Rangers fans so some of the generalisations going around on social media are uncalled for.

However, there is an unlanced boil within a section of the Rangers support that the club ignored when it took the moral high ground on racism and discrimination a few weeks back. They were absolutely right to support Glen Kamara the way they did, but some humility would not have gone amiss. Something was always going to happen which would expose their ‘anyone, everyone’ stance, which is at clear odds with the views of a significant element among their support.

It is not the time for any more summits or committees. The SNP Government have to address specific issues as they arise without muddying the waters. People say Nicola Sturgeon is a great leader, but she has cowered away from this issue twice now. I also hope that the Directors of my club are ready to tell her where to go if she goes down her preferred route of roping us into this.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on1:13 pm - May 16, 2021


I can no longer update my comment at 12:08, so I think it is only fair that I acknowledge the hard hitting statement from Nicola Sturgeon which certainly does not miss.

View Comment

vernallenPosted on2:11 pm - May 16, 2021


Will the media be scouring the world looking for comments on the disgusting display by Ranger wannabe fans yesterday. They seem very keen on following this avenue when its a positive story about their team. It will be interesting to see if they drum up any reaction from their favorite foreign newspapers. Any true Ranger fan who took part in yesterday’s displays should be sitting down and be doing some serious soul searching about how they and Scotland are portrayed. Will they have another whip around to alleviate the cost of clean up in George Square. Perhaps the club, in a show of good faith, could have another share issue dedicated to the cost of the clean up. They seem to have them with great frequency for most matters financial.

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on3:30 pm - May 16, 2021


I have just read again the statement from Chief Superintendent Sutherland. His incompetence is not in doubt. He said that due to the peaceful nature of the gathering in the afternoon they decided to escort them to George Square. So not only were his police officers facilitating an illegal gathering they failed to learn any lessons from the last “gathering” and allowed an action replay but this time the mob probably felt they were allowed to do as they pleased as the police joined in last time. And for the avoidance of doubt he and his colleagues were happy to turn a blind eye to the repeated hate crimes that even our First Minister has referenced.
We now have Police Scotland trying to look tough after the fact with statement of future arrests – yeah right.

View Comment

WestcoasterPosted on3:47 pm - May 16, 2021


Rangers’ twitter account has been very active today. Regrettably there is no sign of any contrition regarding yesterday’s appalling scenes.

View Comment

bect67Posted on4:39 pm - May 16, 2021


Westcoaster

There WILL be no contrition from the Sevcorati – it’s not in the DNA ye ken.

View Comment

WestcoasterPosted on5:56 pm - May 16, 2021


Bect67 – contrition was probably optimistic on my part but I hope they are under pressure to at least issue a statement ‘condemning the actions of a minority……blah blah…’. Personally I think their Managing Director should be hauled in to explain the pre-game statement which was an open invitation to what transpired.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:24 pm - May 16, 2021


https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19306184.rangers-fc-brand-not-valued-sold-nothing/
…………………………………..
RANGERS administrators did not get a proper valuation of the club before selling the business assets for just £5.5m to the Charles Green’s Sevco consortium, it has emerged.

While some within Duff and Phelps, the company responsible for guiding the club through its financial implosion, were pushing for a brand valuation, it has emerged it was dropped in a matter of days with one manager saying it had been considered “a waste of money”.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:30 pm - May 16, 2021


tykebhoy 14th May 2021 At 14:50
……………………………
Special dispensation for clubs in administration, players can be sold outwith the transfer window

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:04 pm - May 16, 2021


John Clark 15th May 2021 At 13:42
………………………..
Thanks again JC

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:11 pm - May 16, 2021


Westcoaster 16th May 2021 At 15:47

3

0

Rate This

Rangers’ twitter account has been very active today
……………………………….
i’m Blocked;-)

View Comment

vernallenPosted on10:43 pm - May 16, 2021


One of the Rangers fan sites directs people to an ugly scene in Vancouver a number of years ago when celebrations got out of hand. Vancouver, like Rangers had just won a conference championship and the right to advance to the finals. The similarity between Rangers and Vancouver is that it was the first championship for either team and led to displays of joy. The primary difference between the two incidents was the size of the crowds, the intent of the crowds, no mention of sectarian incidents, and minimal damage in Vancouver. The most glaring difference was there was no pandemic to worry about, and no lock down measures in place. Attitudes of some Ranger fans toward the press, the government, the police indicate a true lack of understanding the problems that may carry forward from their little jollies.

View Comment

Sergio BiscuitsPosted on8:57 am - May 17, 2021


A video has appeared on social media ( since taken down) showing Sevco players singing a song containing the words ‘F… the pope’ as an add-on, during their title ‘celebrations’.
Not a peep on any Scottish media platform so far which is surprising, isn’t it?

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on10:02 am - May 17, 2021


Sergio Biscuits 17th May 2021 At 08:57

The video is still freely available. It certainly sounds like some people in the room are uttering those words. Interestingly the fan who originally posted it on Instagram got pelters from other Rangers fans and removed it. Some Rangers fans say it is doctored but offer no evidence. Here is a link for those with Twitter.

https://twitter.com/SNDigitalNews/status/1394053497994293248

View Comment

vernallenPosted on2:33 pm - May 17, 2021


So in the space of a few weeks we have reports of undignified behavior emanating from Ibrox without the media digging into the reports. The incident at the end of the Scottish Cup game, the incident involving Scott Brown in the tunnel, and the latest as referenced in the above posts. Not only ignored by the media but the SFA as well. Strangely enough the SFA President, Rod Petrie, emerged from hibernation to condemn the actions of Rangers supporters on the weekend. Where was he a couple of weeks ago when a similar scenario played out. Any form of action from the SFA could have possibly prevented or diluted the actions on the weekend. I’m not sure of Scottish law, but in North America the injured policemen would have no problem attracting lawyers to launch civil suits to cover cost of injuries, lost wages, and the mental effects of being attacked.

View Comment

TimtimPosted on4:15 pm - May 17, 2021


Various videos of this incident exist taken from different angles so it is unlikely they were all doctored .
We all know the kulture of that place and as Terry Butcher explained how players get caught up in it , his marriage to a Catholic didn’t deter him from joining in the “banter” . This is a club* who employ an ex DUP spokesperson as their PR agent and brought out an orange top specifically to pander to the bigot element . Let’s not forget their Directors who were singing the famine song and Stewart Robertson who described the Billy Boys as a catchy tune . A fish rots from the head and this Cod awful club* needs to be dealt with.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on5:29 pm - May 17, 2021


This is part of my report of the BDO v RFC 2012 plc (IL] hearing on Tuesday 11th May. As ever, I’ve tried to record accurately and without embellishment or comment.

“Tuesday 11 May 2021
Court of Session.
BDO v RFC 2012 p(IL)
[ I was unable to ‘attend’ the hearing until 1.40 pm and when I dialled at that time I heard the following:]

“..look at the note itself, the note of the Petition…right… [ed: I didn’t identify the voice]
Another voice which I did not recognise said after a few seconds “ I haven’t got that.”
Lord Tyre: .Maybe …could Mr Alexander [ ed: the Clerk of Court] be given document sharing privileges?
A third voice said “ I have this document on a separate I-pad..
Lord Tyre: I got my copy in that way… is that a possible way of doing that?
Voice: I’m trying now..
Lord Tyre: Mr Dickson if you stay for a moment , we’ll go into practice mode.
( 1.50, back in session)
QC: Mr Dickson, I’m sorry for thaat deay If we look at some tables, the very last Tabe first, heded ‘Marketable Playing Staff’- a couple o defenders , Naismith and Wallace, identified. Above that, the up-to-date Table, 24 names player redundancies Broadfoot, apac, Boccnegri , Terry….Do I understand that you agreed aall those defenders ought to be made redundant?
D: Yes.
Effectively, you’re clearing out all defenders of the squad?
D: Yes
QC: Your position is that you have no problem with all defenders being made redundant or put on sale?
D: Yes.
QC: Bartley, how about him -on loan to Rangers?
D: He was not our employee, you couldn’t make him redundant.
QC: Strikers up for sale are mentioned, Naismith , Lafferty and, up the Table, Healy. My understanding is that Healy was to be made redundant along with [ed: missed the name] , a Youth player? The only strikers left would be Little, Hemmings, Burrows. Is that the appropriate number for another season?
D: No.
QC: If we look at Bundle 1, p.2762 front age, p.2764 , do you agree that Little whose contract was coming to an end at the end of 2012 you would be reliant on him re-signing or you would be down to two?
D: Yes
QC: What would the fans’ reactions be, at being left, effectively, with a youth team?
D:They wouldn’t be very happy, but under the circumstances, well…
QC: They would wish a solution to retain as many top players as possible?
D: Yes
QC: And the players, would they have preferred wage-cuts rather than redundancies?
D: Yes
Bundle Vol 2, p.1141-this is the Rangers team sheet for 18 April 2012. The only players identified by Christie as being retained are Kirkwood, Hemmings and [ed: I missed the third name],there were six up for sale and nine for redundancy. Do you still think that Mr Christie’s redundancy approach was a sensible way forward?
D:From a financial perspective, yes..
QC: But you didn’t look up the cost-benefit analysis so you wouldn’t know?
D: Given the knowledge of what the players were earning I’ve got a good knowledge..
QC: But you’re not really, not having seen the cost analysis report?
D: Yes, I can still comment.
QC: At para 3.1 you say in the Transfer window there was a proposal for redundancies- who arranged valuation profiles for players’ Agents?

D: I may have contacted one or two agents.
QC: And you saw their valuations?
D: Yes.
QC: Jelavic was sold in that window?
D: Yes.
QC: p.5303 ( of vol 1).yes. So, you’ll see a letter from a France club, addressed for your and Ali Russell’s attention , with the ‘best and last offer’ for Edu, 1 million euro. We know this transfer didn’t go through: was the offer withdrawn or not accepted?
D: I can’t remember.
QC: Would you have been part of the process?
D: probably not.
QC: .your hands on involvement-p.2101, in Bundle 4: Neil Murray to you. …who is Neil Murray?..
D: The Chief Scout.
QC: Neil Murray giving you some update , ‘Matt McKay, D. Healy “ some calls to a League 1 club”
McKay, Broadfoot and Healy were not moved in that window.?
D: not ..
QC: When players go on loan, who will pay their wages?
D: Normally the club that borrows.
QC: [ed: missed the question]
D: Normally a proportion of their wages.
QC: Is it correct that when a club sells a player , quite often the trasfer fee is paid over a period of time, sometimes a year?
D: Correct
QC:Is it the norm that the selling club will pay the Agent’s fee?
D: yes
QC: normal 10%?
D: Anything between 5 and ten per cent.
QC: What sort of deductions from monies coming to Rangers …do players sometimes view contractual arrangements about money?
D: Yes
QC and the previous club also?
D: Yes.
QC: Para 6.6 of your main statement- here you had discussion with Simon Shipperlee about buying outwith the window. If there’s an agreement outwith the normal window is it the norm for payment not to be made until the registration window?
D: No, it’s not the norm.
QC: What’s the normal time for payment?- the contract date or the registration date?
D: Outwith the window?
QC: Yes.
D: (ed: didn’t hear the short reply]
QC: Have you ever been in the situation when a player at Rangers has been outwith the transfer window?
D: Not to my knowledge.
QC: Is the existence , the presence and level of a buy-out clause easy to know?
D: [ed: missed that reply]
QC: Is Naismith the only player with a buy-out clause that an offer was received for?
D: As far as I know.
QC: You talk about a pro-active approach to buy-out clauses . Why would that be [ed: missed the question]
D: [ed: and missed the response]
QC: Ashworth of WBA says putting a player up for sale takes the initiative out of the seller’s hands?
D: It normally does.
QC: Matt McKay wasn’t interested in Russia?No matter what Rangers wanted, the player has control?
D: If a player won’t go, he won’t go.
QC: interest in a Chinese club-to buy or go on loan? Why didn’t he go? Look at p.374, last ten lines, the note in handwriting, your name at the top: next to Guoyan “ fraudulent offer”. Any recollection?
D: No.

Lord Tyre: I think we’ll take a break now. Its 14.24.Let’s resume at 25 to 3.

On resumption,
QC: At para 6.21 in your statement : John Fleck I think was on loan to Blackpool. You had discussions, but Blackpool were not interested?
D: Yes.
QC: This was a pro-active move in trying to sell?
D: I can’t remember where the initial contact came from.It may have been the secretary at Blackpool who contacted me.
QC: How could you not sell him to a third club?
D: His loan couldn’t be cancelled.
QC: So the earliest would be the opening of the next window.
D: Yes
QC: Almeria?
D: [ed: didn’t catch his answer]
QC: Naismith. At p. 6.23 of your statement I think you talk about Ally McCoist ‘might express an opinion’, but down to the Administrators. Look at .4383, 4384. There is an offer there from WBA for £1.5 M sent on to yourself…There is clear advice from Simon Shipperlee that the offer would be rejected. Was that your point of view?
D: Yes.
QC: At para 6.2 of your statement you say “ I was surprised that the offer of £1.7M was not accepted by the Administrators”
Your email on p.4009 “ Simon, just to flag up.: 4% would have to be deducted? That’s another reason for non-acceptance” How do you square that with your ‘surprise’?
D: I don’t know the answer.’
QC: You were in a position to give advice. It was an important matter-you were telling the Administrators ..
D: I wasn’t giving advice.
QC: Yet you were giving advice not to accept it?
D: I can’t remember what the context with the managers was
QC: para 6.26: You’ve gone back to £1.7M and Robert was a good offer and should have been accepted.
D: I don’t know. I can’t recall at that time.
QC : If Rangers sold for over £1.9M , 20% would go to Kilmarnock. I don’t see whether you made the Administrators aware of that?
D: I can’t recall.
Lord Tyre: Some clarification on ‘solidarity payments’- 5% to other former club, yes?
[ ed: there seemed to be agreement with the judge’s point]
QC: para 6.28 Naismith could have blocked the move, but you say that that would have surprised you because he had already agreed personal terms. Did you know?
D: No
QC: It is not WBA’s view that personal terms had been agreed.
D: I had only general knowledge of the transfer
QC: So you have no evidential basis?
D: No
QC: Would WBA be in breach?
D: Yes
QC: Turning to non-playing staff , at Murray Park and Ibrox: At paras 2.1-2.3 what you say there is that you looked back at former headcounts in the previous era. Look at Joint Bundle Vol 1, p 195, the heading ‘Board Meeting February 2010’ and look at the minute on p. 197- “ ‘Financial Director’s report’ Martin Bain,, every stone turned to increase revenue and reduce costs.” Were there in Murray’s time significant efforts made?
D: yes.
QC: Was it towards the end of Murray’s time that there were redundancies??
D: Some, but not significant.

QC: Let’s look at Mr Christie’s document on Non-Player redundancies’ First, the names of individuals who ought to be made redundant. Have you seen this document before?
D: I don’t think so, no.
QC: But you set out a Table, without names. Had you been asked.?
D: No
QC: You would be the line manager for the management team?
D: Not really.
QC: Joint Bundle 1 p 1.87 [ ed: that’s what my scribble says, but I suspect I made a hames of the numbers] “ Organisation structure overview 2011” Your name is there. The people you were responsible for are there.. McCoist, Sinclair, Yeats, Farrelly…
D: Not McCoist, the others yes.
QC: The Table at the back of the note, the Football Management section. What Christie is suggesting is that six people should go- Ally McCoist .. (What would be the fans’ reaction to that?
D: I don’t’ think that would go down well )
QC: (continuing) ….. Stewart, goalkeeper…Look at those you are responsible for, the Table “Youth Development” Christie suggests five- Kirkwood, Sinclair, Wilson …[ ed: if the other names were mentioned I missed them]……. Would you have supported the Joint Administrators if they proposed redundancies?
D: I don’t know.
QC: The Scouts- separate ..but your responsibility
D: They reported into the management
QC: Community Coaching?
D: That ran courses in a commercial operation
QC: Was the whole of the Community Coaching staff to go ?
D: Yes
QC: Did you agree they were appropriate ?
D: There would have to be a cost-benefit analysis.
QC: Under “ Press Office” there is ‘Sandy Jardine, Club Protocol Head’ What would be made of it if Jardine were to be made redundant?
D: the same as for the Manager.
QC: and would you have agreed with redundancy?
D: No.
QC: And the medical people-Yeats and…..if the Administrators made them redundant…?
D: I can’t remember
QC: Joint Bundle vol 2 , p 2721, top half . This is a note that Simon Shipperlee took of a meeting on 29 February 2012 about redundancies Do you recall a meeting about redundancies?
D: Yes
QC: The result of it is on p. 2338… the lower email , an email from Jacquie Gourlay to Peter Hart
“ the proposals have the buy-in of …” You and the other Heads of departments agreed the redundancies
D: I recall the meeting, not the outcome, the list
QC: The one name under your control was Farrelly and later another…How do you square the two?
D: I haven’t commented on the list
QC: Let’s have it back up on the screen….Do you agree that the bulk of the names ought to have been made redundant? Para .5 of your statement “ .. to be brutal… scope for some staff..” what you told the Joint Administrators…. two people. What you told Christie…more people.
Mr McBrearty: Don’t answer that!

[ed: There followed a discussion between the Judge and the QCs: the objection seemed to be that the wtness was being asked a question based on a false comparison]
Lord Tyre: I’ll allow the question, subject to competence and relevance.
QC: (to Dickson) You identified two people for redundancy to the Joint Administrators. , and to Christie, more. What was your view on which was more important
D: In the context of the time, somewhere in the middle.
QC: Let’s imagine 74 redundancies…would you have been willing to stay in your job.
D: it was a difficult time for everybody. I don’t know if I can answer that.
QC: I understand that morale was low. Do you agree that those who were not being made redundant might not wish to stay on? Could the club have continued if there were so many?
D: That depends on the numbers.
QC:Do you have a feel for what the fans would think of non-playing staff redundancies?
D: Fans are more concerned with what happens on the park, not behind the scenes.
QC: Coming back to your first statement, the section that starts at 9.1, SPL clubs fees. Look at 9.14 your conclusion, expressing a view of the Administrators being really a view of the law?
D: I agree that it is a legal matter..
C: The Rangers Youth Development Limited section, para 11 of your principal statement . RYD company you were a Director, along with Sandy Jardine Joint Bundle vol 5 p.2975 and company secret..
[ ed: my phone went ‘on hold’ at this point. I did not consciously do that, but I had picked it up and might accidentally ( I wouldn’t know how to do it deliberately!) put it on hold myself? A few minutes passed and then..)
QC’s voice “ …£250 000 loan…Can you recall that conversation?
D: It rings some bells.
QC: Did someone give you a satisfactory explanation for releasing monies to Sevco?
[ed: there was silence for a space, then the QC’s voice
QC: Just a couple of points : the fans’ attitude to redundancies , do you agree that fans also have to be kept aboard, supporting the club?
D: Yes indeed.
QC: The effect of cuts on future revenue generation ?
D: Yes.
QC: Fans have previously expressed dissatisfaction, by way of boycott?
D: Yes.
QC: Thank you Mr Dickson, no more questions.
Lord Tyre: Mr McBrearty?
McBrearty QC: Thank you, m’Lord. Mr Dickson, if we look at Vol 2, p 184, the email from Ian Blair to Paul Clark: “ to seek clarification….Daniel Cousins registration. On 13 February received contract consequent upon the sale ofJelavic to Everton..” and Vol 5,p.2161 from you to McLaughlin copied to Simon Shipperlee Petition for Judicial review..
D: that was in relation to the SFA hearing ,… the registration embargo. The club took that to Judicial Review..
QC: Do you understand why you were asked?
D: [ed: missed the response]
QC: What was the impact of the embargo? You would wish to paint a pessimistic view?
D: Yes
QC: Numbers….left 17,……….36 that it was necessary to play with under 17 ,and under 20 matches.
D: yes
QC: How have the present squad fared?
D: Very well.
QC: Another document to look at: minute of the Board 13 August 2010, list of Directors, and in attendance Mr Smith
D: Yes
QC: He was quite good.
D: Yes
QC: Smith “ we now have 15….hoping to take it to 18”?
D:There have been times when the squad was as low as that
QC: Grant Adam.. criminal charges .Were you asked questions?
D: No
QC: Bartley?….Were you asked about that?
D: [ed: missed any response]
QC: p.3303 ..contract between Rangers and Bartley, following page, 5 August 2011 to 30 June 2012.” he could just return to Arsenal “
D: He was a Rangers employee we were paying his full wages”
QC: And let’s imagine Naismith and better players had been sold, you would not have been happy with that? If a weaker team had continued would the fans have supported it to avoid Administration and going into the third division? Is there a distinction between ordinary ‘gripes’ and the serious business of supporting the club?
D: Yes,that’s valid.
The Joint Bundle vol 4 p 101 [ed: not sure I got that reference right] – Neil Murray to you “ No real update as such”, but some details re Kirkwood and Healy. He been in touch with other clubs….it doesn’t look as though NM is making a big effort?
D: No
QC: Mr Young asked you about ‘pro-active’ approach: where a player has a buy-out clause, and the Agent could make enquiries, which of the two procedures would be better?
D: ..if the Administrators [ed: missed the next few words] …Agents might, I suppose, be incentivised.
QC: Let’s narrow it down to Naismith. We know that WBA made an offer. If the Administrators had appointed an Agent, would that have been better?
D: [ ed: I have no note of a reply]
QC: Was it your job to decide whether to sell Naismith or not? Spreadsheet 36- at the very top, Heading “Player Schedule 22 February 2012” If we go down to Row 10-Steven Naismith , in columns across the top……to the right Col A-J 20% of transfer fee of £1.9 million, and reference to Kilmarnock.
D: Yes
QC: Mr Young asked whether you ever told the Administrators about the 20%. Do you know whether they would have known?
D: I think the HR department pulled that together for them
QC: “ somewhere in the middle” of the list of redundancies?
D: Yes
QC: The Joint Bundle, Vol 1 2721: the intention was to make redundancies the following day, and JG’s (Jacqui Gourlay) list of 12 : “ PJC raised redundancies” and JG’s “ difficult with no parameters” “start with easy to identify cuts”. Do you recall that you said that there would have to have been a discussion with the Administrators if the question had been about keeping the club operating during Administration
[ed: There were then some short exchanges which I couldn’t follow relating to Naismith’s personal terms]
QC: Thank you, Mr Dickson. No more questions.
Lord Tyre: Thank you Mr Dickson. You’re free to switch off now…… We’ll adjourn now till 5 o’clock
[Court rose]

View Comment

TimtimPosted on7:34 pm - May 17, 2021


Tremendous account of proceedings JC , thank you for all the time you spend to give us an insight.

View Comment

TimtimPosted on7:50 pm - May 17, 2021


Just to return to Sweet Carolinegate , I have listened a few times now and some people are responding Do do doo but others are definitely saying FTP. The claims that the video is doctored by the club* are nonsense as it was a live feed and more than one video exists. By claiming it has been doctored they are also admitting that the FTP does get said which is a bit of a shoot yourself in the foot moment for them.
If this was after a Uefa tie then Uefa could exclude them from competition as it also happened within the confines of the stadium, I don’t think they have the authority to act as it was a domestic tie. After the display at George Square I can’t imagine any club in Europe will want them or their supporters as visitors.
If it is left to the authorities in this country then excuses will be made or ineffective punishment of junior players as scapegoats will be expected.
It really is time we stopped ignoring this vile discrimination , it is incredibly damaging to our society and the hatred that it breeds destroys many lives.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:54 pm - May 17, 2021


Where were the statue guardians when Glasgow needed them ?

View Comment

vernallenPosted on10:50 pm - May 17, 2021


So Barry Ferguson is confused by the fans reaction on Saturday and doesn’t understand why. If he had been following reports on the pandemic he should have grasped the fact that such an alcohol fueled demonstration would only lead to trouble. After all didn’t they pull the same stunt a few weeks earlier with little or no consequence. As someone who acts as a “club spokesman” on numerous issues and with his iconic standing with the fans, couldn’t he have issued a statement regarding the folly of such acts. Maybe a statement from him would have carried a little more weight than the official statement issued by the club.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:51 pm - May 17, 2021


My post of 17th May 2021 at 17:29 refers.
I found a space of time after my other duties were completed this evening to type up a further page or two of my notes of the hearing on Tuesday 11 May. Here they are, such as they are.

“Tuesday 11 May 2021.
BDO v RFC 2012 plc (IL)
Continuation at 5.00 pm of today’s Hearing ,which began at 1.00 pm today.

Lord Tyre: That’s us . Good evening Mr Walder, or good morning where you are? [then followed Lord Tyre’s questions about the witness being alone, not likely to be disturbed , cell phone on silent, and the administration of the Oath]
Mr McBrearty: Mr Walder, your full name please? Walder: Charles Walder. Address? California. [ ed: hence the 5.00 pm session!]
QC: you’re one of the Duff and Phelps Administration team?
W: Yes
QC: You were involved in the bidding process?
W: Yes
QC: And the CVA or sale of assets?
W: yes.
QC: Your position ?
W: I’m an Associate.
QC; Were you the only person at first?
W: Not necessarily, there were others on the team.
QC: Jimmy Saunders, Sarah Bell ?
W: Yes.
QC They were primarily involved in the sale?
W: How do you mean?
QC; well, Simon Shipperlee on this aspect, Sarah Bell on that?
W: They were on the sale.
QC: They were more senior to you?
W: No.
QC: You say you were not senior?
W: Yes.
QC: Mr Walder, I’m going to ask you as a matter of fact what was done, no apportioning of blame, you follow?
W: yes
QC: Is it part of an Administrator’s function to get the best arrangement he can for the creditors as a whole ?
W: Yes
QC: The primary objective is to rescue the company as a whole?
W: I wouldn’t necessarily recall that
QC: To achieve a CVA rather than Liquidation?
W: I don’t recall.
QC: Would you agree that …[ed: I missed the end of the question; Walder’s link from California was not of the best]
W: [ ed: missed his reply]
QC: Do you remember the “outcomes statements”?
W: Yes
QC: Do you agree that … [ed: missed it]
W: [ed; I missed the response]
QC: When we come to look at ‘outcomes’, there were three bids, and the outcome of Liquidation?
W: I would agree we would prepare scenarios.
QC: Liquidation was always an outcome?
W: Not sure I follow..?
QC: …(?) sense: If bid A is better than bid B and bid C but is still not as good as Liquidation, then consideration would have to be given to Liquidation?
W: Yes .
QC: Or an alternative strategy ?
W: That depends , what other strategy..
QC: Well, to go back to the bidder and seek more?
W: Potentially
QC: If an Administrator is trying to save the company?
W: Perhaps at high level..
QC: It’s better to have more bidders than fewer?
W: That depends on the bidders
QC: The Administrators will not necessarily know that they are getting the whole story?
W: Can you explain?
QC: The bidders will play their cards close to their chests?
W: Yes, interested parties could do that
QC: You were dealing in this case with reasonably sophisticated commercial bidders?
W: It depends what you mean by reasonably sophisticated bidder.
QC: You would have ‘joke’ bids and so on, but you would have bidders who knew what they were doing?
W: Yes, some.
QC: The bid that was successful was Sevco?
W: Yes.
QC: The amount?
W: I don’t recall the precise figure.
QC: It was £5.5 million… it was broken down thus: £1.75 M for..[ed:I missed that!], £1.55M for heritable properties, £2.749 M for player contracts, £1.00 for a share in the SPL, £1.00 for SFA membership.. [ ed: these figures were rattled off, and I missed at least one, I think]
[ ed: I missed the next couple of exchanges ]
QC: So, not a race upwards to get to £5.5?
W: I could not comment.
QC: Your statement set out various levels of bids?
W: In my witness statement ,yes. But circumstances were changing regularly, so it it’s hard to say. The headline figures not ..
QC: Higher bids falling, lower bid accepted ?
W: With some of the bids that would be the case. I don’t recall a bid smaller than £5.5 M.
QC: There was an indicative bid of £25M from Bill Miller, £25 from the Blue Knights, £10M from the Singapore Consortium, Kennedy’s bid at £5M the only one below?

W: I don’t recall.

Geez, in the olden days, I would write, put my paper in the out tray, and the wonderful Greta of the typing pool would get one of the expert typists to produce a flawless typescript before outgoing mail time. Doing that wee bit that I’ve just done took me damned near an hour and a bit. Admittedly, I canny read my own writing , but still.

I’m away in to join Mrs C watching the Pact, is it?

View Comment

wokingceltPosted on8:37 am - May 18, 2021


With regard to the video posted of TRFC celebrating at Ibrox. Leaving aside what was sang (not that I’m ignoring it), isn’t Glasgow under level 3 restrictions? Are not indoor gatherings of this number against the law? Is what on show in accordance with SPL COVID protocols for maintaining bubbles and social distancing?
Has the SFA/SPL asked TRFC for an explanation?
If Hibs or St Johnstone play out similar scenes next week do we think reactions would be as muted?

View Comment

The Rangers nil? Who missed the penalty?Posted on9:09 am - May 18, 2021


Here’s a link to a “First of its kind”, “Doesn’t miss them and hit the wall” article by Andrew Smith in the Scotsman.

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/rangers/rangers-the-superiority-syndrome-and-anti-catholic-bigotry-why-it-cannot-go-unchallenged-any-more-3240210

Wilson does let himself down a tad with the “on the back of Rangers’ 2012 liquidation and rise through the leagues” nonsense, but otherwise has produced a unique, and very welcome offering from a Scottish mainstream media outlet, which will undoubtedly garner howls of derision and condemnation from The People Who Are.

Has a pebble just been launched into the pool?

Let’s hope so.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:05 am - May 18, 2021


The Rangers Nil? Who Missed The Penalty? 18th May 2021 At 09:09

re the link to Andrew Smith’s article.

I have the print copy of today’s ” The Scotsman” open before me.
Smith says this ” we in the media have all been enablers in allowing a corrosive sense of entitlement to be brewed.”
Not the least of that ‘enabling’ has been the SMSM’s ridiculous denial that RFC of 1872 was liquidated every bit as much as any other Scottish club that was liquidated and ceased to be entitled to participate in Scottish Football.
Had the SSM , including Smith, been brave enough to tell the simple truth that was told on day one ” the end of 140 years of history”, the reality might have been accepted.
If the SFA and SPFL would now say that CG’s Sevco/TRFC is not RFC of 1872, sanity might be restored, and Truth re-introduced into Scottish Football. No one is entitled to propagate untruth, least of all ‘journalists’

View Comment

TimtimPosted on10:22 am - May 18, 2021


“We are aware of a video circulating on social media. It is evident that this video was shared with an adjoining narrative which attempts to discredit our players and the reputation of Rangers Football Club. ”
This is from the official statement
https://www.rangers.co.uk/Article/club-statement-170521-2/7eHCUpQg2cNNifjgXyaE71
They now cannot claim the phrase FTP wasn’t in the video , they can only claim it was dubbed in later.
Unfortunately it was a live feed , unless the company De Lorean was used then it isn’t possible to do.
The onus is now on them to produce the original video which leads to another problem , that video lasts for approx 20 minutes and may produce even more incriminating evidence.
Here is a link to a previous incident https://twitter.com/1888JT/status/1011134538314141696
It involves a man of the catholic faith and a number of men married to people of the catholic faith. I hope today some of the people in that dressing room like Jermaine Defoe also reflect on their behaviour and the culture they have become immersed in . No more soundbites like anyone everyone , no more PR promises like we will send fans for therapy (zero so far) , time to ditch that orange top , sack their DUP PR guru, and get rid of those fans and players who revel in this illness. The SFA also need to act but as it’s now end of season I expect the silence to be deafening from all quarters.

View Comment

The Rangers nil? Who missed the penalty?Posted on10:48 am - May 18, 2021


John Clark 18th May 2021 At 10:05
I agree wholeheartedly, John, that the media’s propogation of the continuity/victim lies lie at the very heart of the emboldenment of The Rangers’ supporters, and should be vigorously condemned – hence my “Wilson does let himself down a tad with the “on the back of Rangers’ 2012 liquidation and rise through the leagues” nonsense” comment, but that shouldn’t prevent me from congratulating him on publicly calling out anti-catholic, anti-Irish racism in absolute terms for the first time (that I’m aware of) in a mainstream publication and, just as significantly, without recourse to the nauseating equivalency that would normally accompany it.

Disclaimer: No coin-sides or posterior cheeks were harmed in the production of this post!

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on5:17 pm - May 18, 2021


John Clark 17th May 2021 At 17:29
…………….
Thanks JC for all your hard work and time.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on5:20 pm - May 18, 2021


wokingcelt 18th May 2021 At 08:37
Are not indoor gatherings of this number against the law? Is what on show in accordance with SPL COVID protocols for maintaining bubbles and social distancing?
Has the SFA/SPL asked TRFC for an explanation?
…………………………………
I expect this will be the only punishment of that day and will consist of we sent them a letter.Sending a letter worked the last time.

View Comment

vernallenPosted on10:46 pm - May 18, 2021


The sense of entitlement that emanates from Ibrox is beyond the pale. I’m sure that the Ibrox board, or somebody in charge, knew full well what regulations were in place in regards to gatherings in Glasgow. The nerve it took to write a letter requesting the admission of 10,000 people to their grounds is shameful based on the current climate and pandemic. Perhaps they left that submission so late hoping that a Rangers supporting government flunky might approve it. Apparently they have no shame and a lack of common sense. God forbid they win any more titles or cups as they will be looking to have the rule book re-written based on their plans for the game.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on11:18 pm - May 18, 2021


Taken from the blog above and originally written in 2013. Sadly in some ways, I think these comments have stood the test of time.

“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.

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.”

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on11:52 pm - May 18, 2021


I believe the tail is wagging the dog over by and that the letter to admitt 10000 invited guests to the game was under instructions that if the SFA caved in to this thinly disguised threat, then it would have been a GIRUY Celtic we win a title and we decide if fans can get in, not an SNP run Gov, or Police Scotland, but us the Peepul.

The message in Scotland as in other countries is clear, people are dying and the country is attempting to get back on it’s feet without bams running around having square gos and smashing up the city and likely spreading the disease and perhaps leading to a longer lock down.
We dont do pandering to people when the country has a pandemic and financial crisis looming, we listen and try to do whats right for all the country and it’s people, the disease does not discriminate and through the actions of these loons more people have to suffer.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:23 am - May 19, 2021


I am absolutely gobsmacked that Rangers actually expected they should be allowed fans into Ibrox to see the trophy presentation. Had some of their fans not caused the trouble they did then I doubt if we would ever have known about this. If it is an attempt to lay blame at the feet of the Government post-event then it is even worse.

The simple fact is crowds on that level have not been allowed into a Scottish football ground since March 2020. That is only one restriction the public have had to put up with and it doesn’t even come close to the impact there has been on people who have not been allowed to visit family or attend funerals to name but two things. On a general scale many fans of all clubs have paid out for season tickets in the full knowledge they would never get in to see a game. Yet here we have Rangers having the temerity to ask the Government to make a special case just for them and their fans. It beggars belief but certainly fits in with the sense of entitlement and supremacy which has been so evident yet again these past few days.

I have an alternative idea. Rangers could simply have, for the past few weeks, drummed into their fans regularly and publicly that large gatherings are not allowed yet, either inside or outside a stadium. Their fans could have accepted that in the full knowledge that gathering in itself is against the law as it stands, never mind the violent thuggery, racism and sectarianism some of them also chose to indulge in. When the time allowed they could have had the biggest party in Ibrox they wanted, but that wouldn’t be showing the rest of Scotland who is really in charge, and who decides when or when not laws are adhered to. It’s sickening.

Edit: Some people are claiming they actually wanted to let 10,000 fans into Ibrox on five separate occasions! If true, where on earth do you go with that?

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on10:46 am - May 19, 2021


I note the PA reports that the TRFC MD wrote a letter to a ‘senior Scottish Government official’ to request a concession from COVID regulations allow 10k fans into Ibrox on Saturday (and perhaps on subsequent days as well).

I haven’t seen any mention that the SFA or SPFL were copied into the letter sent by Mr. Robertson. Were they, or did TRFC try to circumvent the (supposed) governing bodies?

Where are Maxwell & Doncaster? They should be front & centre here. They’ve pandered to Robertson, Park & Gerrard. This is what they reap. They’re being made to look like idiots (again & again & again).

Time for one of my favourite quotes attributed to Churchill: ‘An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.’ Maxie & Doncy can see the eyes glinting, the jaws opening & closing & the teeth flashing…

View Comment

incredibleadamsparkPosted on12:09 pm - May 19, 2021


Upthehoops 19th May 2021 At 08:23

It’s a rare occasion but I agree 100% with you on this. At first I thought the messaging was sufficient from Rangers but agree they should’ve done much, much more on this. I assumed fans would take individual responsibility and act accordingly.

Utterly undefendable behaviour on so many levels by the Rangers fans who took part in this. Not every Rangers fan is guilty of racism, sectarianism (a paramedic doing her job was allegedly subjected to this because of her green uniform), violence or antisocial behaviour.

I’m not sure what the consequences are here, certainly large numbers of arrests for starters, but I’d make Rangers play behind closed doors for their first 5 home games of next season because of the actions of their supporters. Don’t think that’s possible, or likely, but the events that day were a complete disgrace.

And all this as Glasgow struggles with the pandemic. Every single one of those Rangers fans made that choice to travel and ignore social distancing rules on an epic scale. They should be ashamed of themselves.

View Comment

Comments are closed.