History, Neighbours and Made Up News

Avatar ByFinloch

History, Neighbours and Made Up News

Or, a story of how and why Mr Lawwell consigned resolution 12 to the deepest grass;
by Finloch


“It’s about history and being neighbours”, young Elisabeth said to her mum.

And it has to be done for tomorrow, Elisabeth said.

“I’m supposed to ask in an in-person interview about what life was like where an older neighbour grew up and what was life like when the neighbour was my age.

It’s not my fault that we’re new here and haven’t spoken to our old, next door neighbour yet and don’t even know his name.

“I’ve an idea her mother said, why don’t you make it up.

Pretend you’re asking him questions and then write down the answers you think he’d give”.

“It’s supposed to be true”, Elisabeth said. “It’s for News”.

“They’ll never know”, her mother said. “Just make it up.

The real news is always made up anyway”.

 

publicLibraryI was lucky enough to catch Ali Smith at the Edinburgh Book Festival.

I was part of a very diverse audience and unusually for this kind of event nobody in the sold-out Charlotte Square tent had a Scooby about what she was going to share with us.

Most would have been expecting a reading or two from her recent short story collection, Public Library, about the cynical, thoughtless and almost silent and unpublicised demise of Libraries up and down our land.

Our libraries.

Our land.

Ali is always value for money though and was amazing, reading from her as yet unpublished “Autumn” book, the first she said of a four-book series.

As I listened to her, I was also thinking and juggling around at the back of my mind about what I was going to write for this blog, having been asked for my thoughts, as a non-involved, non-Celtic supporter, on how I see the Resolution 12 situation.

 

Well Ali’s words stung like a bee and proved quite inspirational. The wisdom and clarity in her new books is highly relevant to all of us who care about Scottish Football and Resolution 12 including Mr Lawwell, Mr Doncaster, Mr Regan, Mr Petrie and us too – the real stakeholders.

 

Ali also shared with us a Bernard Maclaverty insight from when he once visited a school as part of (I think) a Scottish creative writing initiative and in the course of his talk asked some youngsters,

“What is fiction” ?

Someone put their hand up and said “Please Sir, it’s made up truth”.

 

Near the end Ali also got to talking about post Brexit Britain and used the chaos to ask the bigger question.

“Why do we never seem to have real debates about anything and why in any “debate” we might see or read that there never seems to be room for to-ing and fro-ing on points because everyone seems to have already made their minds up and just wants to maintain their status quos, achieve their own personal agendas or to steamroller us all to their point of view”.

 

“People in power seem to be genuinely scared of honest debates”, she said.

She asked how without more real discussions and insightful and open minded debates can any of us (and the debaters themselves too) learn because without that we will just get more of what we’ve had.

And that’s not good enough.

 

So thanks Ali I’m going to combine these three things from your hour along with two personal career experiences and review Mr Lawwell and his company’s reaction to the bona fide Resolution 12 raised by some of his shareholders a few years ago.

(My career experiences were as the head of a small, and treated as unimportant, company that was part of a worldwide group of companies run (badly) out of the US; and my time as head of a trade association that had two very dominant and troublesome members).

 

My Five Insights to review Resolution 12 are.

  1. Some people think  “made up news is fine” and feed us all with it all the time.
  2. Don’t expect real discussions or debates about anything in your club. No two way dialogues, except from those about money once a year.
  3. “Made up Truths” become gospel not to be challenged.
  4. The people running the club know they are smarter and more important than any of their minority or remote stakeholders.
  5. All decisions that really matter in football or indeed in any business are pre-agreed and never discussed in the open.

So now to what I think of Resolution 12.

My starting point is to say this. It is wrong to see or to discuss Mr Lawwell and Resolution 12 as being about the awarding of a license – or the boardroom processes since The Requisitioners first raised it.

Sadly, I’d suggest Requisition 12 was history before it was even raised.

In the late Murray days at Ibrox and in the early Whyte ownership period there had been rumours, and I’m certain deep and meaningful business discussions between the heads of the SFA and SPL and their key committee members.

You can be sure that the SFA, SPL, Celtic and others were all watching the post Murray Rangers situation closely, and the new regime at Ibrox and related financial stuff would have been the talk of the exclusive football steamies.

Despite what some Celtic fans believe, the reality has always been that while Rangers may have dominated (just) all things SFA and SPL, nothing was ever done without the knowledge of and input from the green side of the Old Firm business model.

Sadly, I’d suggest Requisition 12 was history before it was even raised.

Scotland’s unique, idiosyncratic, religio-political old firm business model was not just about driving the individual Glasgow teams to their leviathan duopoly in Scottish football. We all knew (because we were told so) that it was also the commercial bedrock of the business that is Scottish Football.

And yes, for a while David Murray thought his club was bigger than the Old Firm, but he and his ego had moved on when all this stuff happened.

Put simply, Regan who was quite new, was convinced at the time – and still is absolutely certain – that the SFA and Scottish Football needed a dominant Celtic and Rangers, and he also personally needed and needs the support of their CEO’s.

Doncaster too was convinced that the SPL needed Celtic and Rangers arch rivalry with all it entails, delivering TV monies and maximizing his bonuses. He too also personally required and requires the support of the Old Firm CEO’s.

Lawwell the astute numbers man, under a constant watchful eye from Dublin, needed Rangers to ensure his business plan did not develop un-fillable black holes.

And yes, for a while David Murray thought his club was bigger than the Old Firm, but he and his ego had moved on when all this stuff happened.

Importantly, Peter was also one of a small influential football group who effectively controlled the actions of Regan and Doncaster. Nothing strategic would ever have been done by either of them without his involvement and input. That doesn’t mean he necessarily knew all the detail about  Craig’s UEFA license shenanigans but he’d have had his suspicions.

And you know something, – at a squeeze I think he and Desmond might have thought keeping a Rangers team alive (for its future dependable revenue streams) was maybe even worth one season’s lost Champions League status.

There is no doubt in my mind that in 2011 Peter and the Celtic Board were worried but supportive of and committed to keeping the Rangers company alive.

Looking back I don’t know when Lawwell and Desmond actually discovered de facto that Rangers should not have been awarded the license.

Was it before it was awarded?

Was it after by which time it was too late anyway?

Those would be two good questions to ask them.

I’d suggest that by the time they knew for sure it was too late, but I could be wrong.

Anyway history shows that pretty quickly after McCoist failed in Europe, Lawwell committed his club to the complex and complicated secret Five-Way Agreement and all it entailed.

Celtic were senior signed-up members of the attempt to help protect and leverage the future blue revenue streams into the SPL then the SPL 2 then the bottom level.

It was all about the blue pound.

It was all about the blue pound into the future.

It was all about the blue pound into the future being central in the business model at Celtic that needed (then and now) a blue pound generating Rangers.

We all know now that compromise was somehow reached ahead of the Brechin cup tie in the summer of 2012.

Many – in fact most of –  Scottish football fans were glad that football had once again broken out, having become fed up with all the politics, and were glad to return to talking about players and stuff.

Football gossip is after all more comfortable than finding out we’d all been cheated for years.

Not all fans were ready to “Move-on” however.

Some, like many of us on this site and others like it wanted to dig deeper and examine just what happened and who did what.

Some wanted Celtic as the most wronged club to do and say more about Sporting Integrity.

Some wanted to rub their old rivals into the dirt.

Some wanted a full and frank review because they believed that without Sporting Integrity we would make the same mistakes in the future.

I’d be one of these fans.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Celtic shareholders who pieced together the jigsaw that led to Resolution 12, correctly identified that their club were illegally denied a place in the Champions League and denied substantial revenues.

Fair play to them.

If  I was a Celtic shareholder I personally would have wanted to know why my board had not pursued these significant revenues that were due to my company.

It was and is a big deal.

No it was and is a huge deal.

It remains an open sore and everyone involved seems to have ducked any blame.

I applaud those Requisitioner Shareholders for how they have gone about the process, and I have a huge respect for everything they have done on behalf of Celtic and fans of all Scottish clubs.

However in my opinion it was always doomed to failure because of the simple fact that their own club, having been an integral part of the whole murky “Armageddon” process, had already moved on into the new world they had helped to forge, and did not and could not look back.

So Resolution 12 was treated politely but cleverly by the club in the finest traditions of Sir Humphrey.

They did not want to fight their shareholders corner then and I’d suggest still don’t – and wont.

 

So going back to my five points earlier.

 

  1. Mr Lawwell et al did not want to establish the real truth, which they already knew. Hey had already signed up to what had been reported, moved the club on and spent his personal bonuses along the way no doubt.
  2. Mr Lawwell et al did not want a real debate because he and his small team had already done what they believed at the time to be right for the club they were paid to manage.
    Nothing more to say.
    And yes he could mumble agreement that Sporting Integrity is important when cornered but between us chaps it wouldn’t ever have filled the yawning gaps in the stands at Celtic Park without a Rangers counterbalance.
  3. Rangers are now back and the Old Firm is once again dominating Scottish Football.
    The truth at Celtic Park is we need each other and season book sales and TV revenues are up proving my point all along.
  4. We tolerate the intellectual end of our support, just, but they are hard work and you’d think they own the club.
    We even quite enjoy some of their stuff sometimes as long as its not too political but  we have a business to run and quite frankly sometimes they just don’t get it. They should realise the SFA and the SPFL are there to do a job for us and we keep them on a short enough leash.
  5. We will always be grateful to Fergus for what he did. We benefited at the time from the fan’s money and now run a very successful shareholder liaison programme. Once a year we have an AGM and try to manage the reality of running a business while having to hear from people who would prefer us to regress to what we were in the 1880s. Shareholders are fine but this club is a business and must be run as such.

 

My Five Insights sum up the position and stance of the Celtic Board.

I don’t know what will happen to Resolution 12.

The club never wanted it because they are a business and see the world differently from the group of fans who see themselves as the Celtic soul.

I applaud these Celtic fans.

Celtic does not deserve you.

About the author

Avatar

Finloch author

Finloch has been a member of SFM since it's inception. A Hearts fan, he also penned the blog, Look Back to Look Forward

1,353 Comments so far

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on11:25 pm - Sep 14, 2016


Have we done something wrong? 🙁

View Comment

Avatar

FinlochPosted on12:07 am - Sep 15, 2016


Scapa
Good to hear from you again.
I’ve missed your comments alongside those of Danish, Red Lichtie, Essex and many others who I see as long term friends.
We need to find better ways of holding and expanding our community.
We could really be a power for good.

View Comment

tayred

tayredPosted on8:34 am - Sep 15, 2016


God its quiet!

Ok, how do we fix it folks? Gate sharing, squad sizes, minimum number of Scottish players, requirement to play at least 3 under-21’s in every match, all money raised in the game goes into a massive (well ok medium sized Sankey plant pot) and divided in a way to specifically promote/stimulate proper competition, Chico has to play for one club a week randomly selected by Richard Gordon, one player each week from each club has to play dressed as the mascot – Partick should be happy with that, imagine that fella charging in on goal!

Discuss… and if that doesn’t work I’ll say something controversial about Celtic – that usually works! 15

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on8:38 am - Sep 15, 2016


I refer to my email ofSeptember 11, 2016 at 22:41
This is the reply I received from Andrew Smith. Make of it what you will
Andrew Smith <Andrew.smith@scotlandonsunday.com>To john clarkSep 12 at 2:39 PM
John, this Rangers were given the SFA membership of the old Rangers. That was offered to the liquidated Gretna (they became Gretna 2008 because they wanted to show a break with the Miles Brookson era because they were so angered by his using their team as a toy). In England, Coventry City were liquidated in 2013 – their FA ‘golden share’ was passed to Otium – the Sevco of that liquidation – and Coventry carry on representing the ‘old’ Coventry.
Happens all the time in football. A team is a cause, movement, not simply a business. You can call that horse if you like, but I choose to see this Rangers as torchbearers for a club that started in 1987 because I don’t see this Coventry as nothing to do with the Coventry City that existed pre-liquidation. Same with Luton Town, another liquidated club. It traces its history to the late 1900s; I and most of the football world have no great problems with that.
There seems to be this thing on Celtic forums that UEFA have said this Rangers is a new club. They simply repeated the terminology that was put to them in the wild goose-chasing exercise by the Resolution 12 guys. If you go on the UEFA website and look for Rangers profile page – which includes this season’s results in the Premiership – why in the right hand corner, is there a little icon of a Cup Winners’ Cup? Why is there a UEFA Cup on Fiorentina’s page when the Fiorentina that won it entered liquidation in 2002?
Equally, why did UEFA make this Rangers pay the last installments of Nikica Jelavic transfer to the pre-liquidated Rangers? To many, and I think you are probably one, that liquidated club is no more anything to do with the current Rangers than the old Airdrieonians. Yet by UEFA asking this Rangers to pay the football debts of the old Rangers – the governing body hate those debts but are far more lax with other debts, hence the gave Ateltico Madrid a licence to beat Celtic in 2011 despite a £150m tax debt they boasted about – UEFA establish a link that, it would seem, many Scottish football supporters will have no truck with. As I wrote in my report, go on, fill your boots with that stance. My stance, and that of many others, is that this Rangers, a new version of an old club, Rangers Mark II, if you like, can have its lineage traced to the late 1900s, and build on that lineage. I do that with all liquidated footballs club so I’m not going to start making an exception of Rangers. That would leave me guilty of double-standards…which is what the Rangers deniers seek to argue is at work with the football playing activities at Ibrox. I don’t see that, sorry, but I have no issue with you seeing things differently.
All the best
Andrew

Johnston Press plc Registered in Scotland no. SC015382Registered Office:Orchard Brae House, 30 Queensferry Road, Edinburgh EH4 2HS

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on9:08 am - Sep 15, 2016


JOHN CLARK
coventry(ccfc holdings )where liquidated in august 2014,while in admin the golden share was passed on

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on9:54 am - Sep 15, 2016


Tony,

As it was with Rangers I believe.  See Lord Hodge’s holiday snaps for details. 

Joking apart I’ve always been interested in this Rangers Membership.  Was it “the Rangers Membership” or was it the Membership thingy (what is a membership?) previously held and vacated by Rangers and passed onto a new entrant who happen to also be called Rangers?  Its the old golf club scenario isn’t it.  I take on Old Jock’s membership.  Does it remain Old Jock’s Membership even though I have it?

Fair play to Andrew for coming back with that reposte (which I assume he was ok that you publicise).   I don’t accept it obviously and one cannot ignore a certain blinkeredness in, for instance, the Jelavic example he cites but overall Ive no truc with someone who will at least back up what he believes.  Interesting to see if his principles follow through if results don’t go as planned.  I recall Alan Sugar’s memoirs telling of his time at Spurs where, in his view, the fans might as well have been shouting “You f….. idiot Sugar, that’s another £30m you’ve p…… up our wall.”

((Interesting couple of examples he chooses btw.  A certain familiarity to them….but that probably justifiable paranoia on my part.  I’m ok with that))

What it shows is a football reporter absolutely imbibed in the football culture typical particularly of the noughties that we absolutely have to be as good as we can be (again no objection from me) but to hell with taking either responsibility for it or indeed paying towards it!    

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:21 am - Sep 15, 2016


sorry, just one minor teensyweensy point indicative of the confusion. “Late 1900’s?” 06  Did he not read his handout properly?

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:24 am - Sep 15, 2016


My post of  08.38 refers:
I replied to Smith as follows:
AndrewThank you for the reply.As I said, individuals may choose what they like to believe.But the fact remains that there is at present RFC(IL) and TRFC Ltd. They cannot both be the Rangers that were so successful over 140 years: merely asserting that they are cannot make it so!I’m sorry that you cannot, or choose not to, to see that.I shall continue to slate the SMSM for misrepresenting the facts, and the SFA for perverting the Sport by countenancing a fiction.Otherwise, the best to you.
John

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on10:32 am - Sep 15, 2016


SMUGAS
aye 1987 ?

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on10:54 am - Sep 15, 2016


JOHN CLARKSEPTEMBER 15, 2016 at 10:24

I would have followed up questioning his assertion that many fans appear happy to accept the myth that T’Rangers are Rangers.
Did he not hear the chants of Your Not Rangers Any More being sung at the weekend.
The same chant will be sung at Premiership grounds throughout the land this season.
The same term is used on many a social media forum by supporters of all clubs
Many fans, in do not accept the automatic link.
For many it is not just a casual jibe, it is their belief, supported by the SMSM ( and the likes of Walter Smith and Richard Gough) in 2012 that the old club died.

Even the SPL and the old club’s legal representatives argued in court about the dates the club ceased to exist.

The mention of other liquidated teams around the globe where different financial situations, different associations and different legal systems lead to different outcomes goes nowhere near explaining how exactly the Scottish Football authorities managed the Rangers situation with regard to the rules available to them at the time.

If someone would just come out and say ‘yes we did what we did because it was Rangers and our belief is that the Scottish game as a whole needs a club playing out of Ibrox’  then maybe we could all move on.

Until that time many people will just see a situation where one team cheated their way to titles and cups, shat on the taxpayer and got off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. 

Meanwhile smaller clubs in financial bother will simply be left to fail and others will given relatively severe punishments and consequences for minor misdemeanors such as missing signatures, poorly completed team sheets and bringing on an ineligible sub for the last three minutes when winning a game with ease.

View Comment

Avatar

mungoboyPosted on11:08 am - Sep 15, 2016


Just finished reading an excellent football related book.
It’s about the history of two teams, deadly rivals in their country’s top division.
Seems one of them is looked upon as the ‘establishment’ team  and had referees in their pocket and biased towards them.
They also paid the media to promote them in a good light and at the same time put out negative stories about the rival team.
Then there was the famous incident when their rival announced they were signing a top striker only to see said star striker turn up at the other place and sign for the establishment team the next day. Still causes rancour, even today.
Even the country’s FA held up player registrations preventing them playing for their rivals.
Oh, and there was also a famous incident where senior Police Officers came into the rival teams dressing room when they were playing each other and, allegedly, explained how things were going to go… Or else.
I’d highly recommend the book.
It’s by Sid Lowe and called ‘Fear and Loathing in La Liga — Barcelona Vs Real Madrid’.
And we thought we’d invented it!!

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on11:12 am - Sep 15, 2016


Re Andrew Smith`s reply, as I recall, the last Jelavic instalment was due to be paid to RFC(IL) , and was collected by BDO on behalf of the 276 creditors of that entity.
It was not money due to TRFC.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on11:28 am - Sep 15, 2016


ODDJOBSEPTEMBER 15, 2016 at 11:12

Correct (assuming you trust the DR reporting- maybe Andrew Smith knows something we don’t)

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-receive-1m-sale-nikica-2849016

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on11:38 am - Sep 15, 2016


Like Andrew Smith, I have no problem believing that TRFC are one and the same as RFC – if they accept responsibility for the debts RFC incurred. Then they can;

·        Pay the debt as agreed with creditors, 

·        Take the history,

·        Be the same club.

There is a natural justice attached to that, and it saddens me that people like Andrew Smith can bodyswerve those issues whilst relying on tenuous and half- accurate legalities involving membership transfers, foreign exemplars, and plainly inaccurate nonsense on Res 12 laced with sarcastic, negative rhetoric that leaves you in no doubt what he thinks of honest people seeking answers.

Also, I think his tone is patronising and condescending – but in no way adds to the debate in any meaningful way. It merely sings from same hymn-sheet as Jackson, Cooney, Broadfoot and the rest.

Liquidation of an organisation is a consequence of the catastrophic failure of that organisation to sustain itself, because the methods it used to enrich itself eventually bankrupted it.

It is fundamentally corrupt and immoral to claim the fruits of the success brought about by the very instrument of its death.

Sadly, our game, and our media, are fine with that corruption and immorality. That is why the shoehorn method of narrative fitting is employed on a daily basis. I never believed that Andrew Smith owned a shoehorn.

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on11:47 am - Sep 15, 2016


Wottpi,
Thanks.
I’m sure,  regardless of the DR report, that the sale of the player would have been recorded in the accounts of RFC, and the instalments due from Everton entered as credits. 
When BDO became controllers of those accounts, they rightly, in my opinion, collected any monies as they became available, regardless of any UEFA rules.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on11:52 am - Sep 15, 2016


I think, but I’m sure the site will keep me right – was it not the deferred purchase instalment of Jelavic from Rapid Vienna that Smith refers to ie. it was the infamous ‘footballing debt,’  ALL of which had to be squared prior to any transfer of memberships (as well as that pesky wee small print about solvency, obviously).  DUtd supporters in particular may want to interject on that particular point here…

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on12:17 pm - Sep 15, 2016


Smugas,
You are correct, that payment had to be made by Sevco, to achieve the transfer of the licence.
Charles Green also had to apply, I think to company’s house to change the name to TRFC. He also would have had to apply to HMRC, for a new VAT registration number, as the business was not transferred as a going concern, and tax was still outstanding.

View Comment

Avatar

Bogs DolloxPosted on12:30 pm - Sep 15, 2016


tayredSeptember 15, 2016 at 08:34      
God its quiet!
Ok, how do we fix it folks? Gate sharing, squad sizes, minimum number of Scottish players, requirement to play at least 3 under-21’s in every match, all money raised in the game goes into a massive (well ok medium sized Sankey plant pot) and divided in a way to specifically promote/stimulate proper competition, Chico has to play for one club a week randomly selected by Richard Gordon, one player each week from each club has to play dressed as the mascot – Partick should be happy with that, imagine that fella charging in on goal!
Discuss… and if that doesn’t work I’ll say something controversial about Celtic – that usually works! 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
All of the things you suggest and more are needed to create a more competitive league. No team benefits from a one horse race, not even Celtic as evidenced by the poor performance on Tuesday night. But none of these things are up for discussion.

I get the sense that the other teams are hanging on to see what restructuring happens in England and Europe and are resigned to CFC & TRFC leaving so that they can benefit from a more competitive league.

As regards the coaching set up etc. We would be as well scrapping it. After many years of structured coaching and youth development we are actually worse than in the days when there were fewer coaches. We are literally over coached by guys who weren’t very good when they played.

The U20 set up is a waste of money and does not prepare young players to step up to the next level.

We need money invested in properly restablishing schools football where teams compete against each other and coaching is kept to a minimum, apart from technical skills where it is an embarrassment to watch football professionals in Scotland who cannot even trap a bag of cement.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on12:32 pm - Sep 15, 2016


As did all other footballing debts outstanding AT THE TIME OF SUPPOSED TRANSFER (as opposed to reapplication) if Mr Smith is to be believed. This is where the griminess of the affair post administration is most muddied, since an experienced liquidation operator like Whyte and Green would have known exactly which bills needed paying and which didn’t for the process that they knew they were carrying out and which he subsequently described to the court earlier this year. Its almost as if they were being guided as to the alternative ‘benefits’ of paying certain ones over others?

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on12:45 pm - Sep 15, 2016


John Clark

September 15, 2016 at 08:38

Happens all the time in football. A team is a cause, movement, not simply a business. You can call that horse if you like, but I choose to see this Rangers as torchbearers for a club that started in 1987 because I don’t see this Coventry as nothing to do with the Coventry City that existed pre-liquidation. Same with Luton Town, another liquidated club. It traces its history to the late 1900s; I and most of the football world have no great problems with that.

Re Andrew smith’s comments.  It is possible to take issue with parts but overall I think they are mostly reasonable.

I find the use of “this Rangers” in the quote above to be quite telling.  Without saying it directly he is clearly acknowledging a break in the continuity of Rangers.

When it comes to the OC/NC debate I have been consistent all along.  Legally this is a new Rangers, to think anything else is to defy the law, common sense and basic reality.  Emotionally is it the torchbearer of Rangers and its traditions.  Absolutely.

This Rangers is going for its first Scottish title.  It is also going for the 55th title for a team that represents Rangers and all it stands for.

Like Andrew I recognise Luton and Coventry as “continuity” teams.  The key being that when you talk to their supporters all but the most hard of thinking openly acknowledge the break in their lineage.

When big business and the EFA combined to stiff Wimbledon by allowing the “franchise” to be moved to Milton Keynes, AFC Wimbledon rose from the ashes to take their place in the non-league structure.  Are they Wimbledon FC, of course not.  Are they universally recognised as continuity Wimbledon, you bet.  So much so that a while back MK Dons handed over the FA cup replica which now sits in its rightful place in South London.

For me the story is not so much OC/NC but Reagan, Doncaster, 5WA, EBT’s, LNS, lack of FFP rules and regs, DCK as fit and proper (really, really) and the complicity of all the clubs in this, (with a few noble exceptions such as Turnbull Hutton).  Not forgetting the biggie, BoS and the David Murray years, not just Rangers but the whole shooting match of that arrangement is to me the great untold story of corrupt business practice that never came out after the banking crisis.  Fred Goodwin must look at David Murray’s knighthood and think WTF.

View Comment

Avatar

Bogs DolloxPosted on12:58 pm - Sep 15, 2016


TincksSeptember 15, 2016 at 12:45        

For me the story is not so much OC/NC but Reagan, Doncaster, 5WA, EBT’s, LNS, lack of FFP rules and regs, DCK as fit and proper (really, really) and the complicity of all the clubs in this, (with a few noble exceptions such as Turnbull Hutton).  Not forgetting the biggie, BoS and the David Murray years, not just Rangers but the whole shooting match of that arrangement is to me the great untold story of corrupt business practice that never came out after the banking crisis.  Fred Goodwin must look at David Murray’s knighthood and think WTF.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I couldn’t agree more and that should be our focus. Not the sterile debate about Deadco/Sevco which at its best is an emotional exercise that puts TRFC fans off getting involved in questioning the role of those you have listed in killing their club.

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on3:08 pm - Sep 15, 2016


Tincks/Bogs Dollox

I should say that, despite the mild outrage in my previous comment, I agree that OCNC is not something to get too upset about.

My outrage is far less to do with the question itself and more to do with a measure of self-conceit on my part that anyone expects my intelligence to enter stasis whenever the subject is discussed.

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on3:28 pm - Sep 15, 2016


BP,

Spot on.  For me OC/NC matters in that it stands as exhibit one of why the MSM is not fit for purpose.  The liquidation denial that goes on is because they cannot front up to all the other issues, in particular the titles that were won with the playing field tilted very steeply in one direction.

Jackson et al are psychologically unable to face up to “break in continuity” of Rangers and all the implications which flow from that.

View Comment

DustinBreaks

DustinBreaksPosted on3:54 pm - Sep 15, 2016


Sorry, just back to lurking and appreciate the conversation has moved on a little but wanted to add my tuppence worth to strict liability.  I think in theory it is a good idea and would be a brave move.  Well, a brave move within an association that could in itself be brave.
Taking away the suggestion of opposing fans sabotaging rivals or whatever, I have absolutely no confidence that Strict Liability would be dealt with in any sort of manner that would discourage or eradicate behaviour.  Only to continue to simmer hostility and resentment within the game.
Remember that the laws would be applied by an organisation(s) that watched 40k fans sing sectarian songs at a final then claim it was a fantastic occasion.  Organisation(s) that have had no comment to make on a team posing with a Sectarian band on a pitch.  Organisation(s) that have had nothing to say on a Club’s director (albeit short lived) racist and homophobic sketches.
Just three examples and all three should have seen that club in the dock.
Then take saturday.
2 disgusting effigies and 2 completely out of order banners.
versus
The songbook we have heard throughout the journey
Sickening child abuse chants and banners (SOS spokesman was on twitter defending then the other night!)
Large scale vandalism

The retribution of those events would be an evening up exercise and while I feel that the vandalism is far worse, both clubs would have ended with the same punishment for fear of upsetting the other half of fans.  Can you imagine the number of statements we would have got????
At no point in recent years has anyone been brave enough to take suitable, fair punishment against a serial offending club.  I would suspect that would continue while other clubs suffer the full force of those laws.

View Comment

Avatar

HighlanderPosted on4:13 pm - Sep 15, 2016


Andrew Smith’s response is so slanted, I’m almost tempted to ask which school he went to. 22 He chooses to ignore significant facts which don’t suit his argument, replacing them with irrelevant facts (ie Coventry & Fiorentina), as if they somehow enhance his case.

When Rangers Football Club incorporated in 1899, what had up to that point solely been a club, became a company. The club wasn’t consumed, subsumed, engulfed, taken over, or replaced by a company, nor did it sit alongside one. The club became a company. The club and company were one legal entity from that day forward. Club was company, company was club. It’s really not that difficult to understand. And there wasn’t a holding company in sight until the events of 2012 prompted someone’s fertile imagination to invent one!
 

Part of the reason for incorporation was to free the club’s directors and office bearers from personal liabilities that they had hitherto been personally responsible for on behalf of the club. It would have been utter folly for future boards of directors to reverse that policy and encumber themselves with potentially onerous liabilities, such as those the club ended up with in 2012 when it died a self-inflicted, ignominious death. Furthermore, if such a maniacal decision had been taken to separate club and company at any point in the intervening 113 years, there would be documentary evidence to prove it – and you can bet your bottom dollar that evidence would have been made very, very public long before now.
 

Similarly, when Jim Traynor had his miraculous Damascene conversion, he assured us he’d seen the legal documents that proved the old club was still alive and kicking, I’d wager he was referring to the legal watertightness of the five-way agreement, including plans to treat the new club as if it was the old one, rather than a legal decision which specified that Rangers Football club somehow survived liquidation. Even a buffoon of Traynor’s proportions must realise the important distinction between being treated as – and actually being the same club.
 

Of course Traynor could put the entire matter to bed by providing sight of the legal evidence he claims to have been party to – and no, I don’t mean via the new club’s in-house solicitors – it would have to be independently verified. Regan and Doncaster have previously pointed out that what they did following Rangers demise was done for the good of Scottish football as a whole, to prevent civil unrest amongst the Rangers support and to avoid financial Armageddon. Why would they use these reasons to explain their actions if it was a simple matter of fact that they’d followed the laws, rules and regulations and Rangers Football Club (the club) had indeed legally survived? They too could put the matter to bed for once and for all by providing independent scrutiny of legal documentation – but they won’t because they know, just as I do, just as Jim Traynor does, and just as Andrew Smith does, that the club known as Rangers currently plying its trade in the Scottish Premiership is legally not the same club as the one which went into liquidation in 2012.   
 

The fundamental flaw in the continuity myth I’ve just described above regarding incorporation is one which the history rewriting flat-earthers rarely respond to, because they know it’s impossible to argue against without resorting to introducing the airy-fairy, ‘metaphysical club’ sort of thinking which several learned judges laughed out of court recently.
 

LNS and the Scottish football authorities have each argued that a club can be viewed differently, according to context. Well yes, indeed, I can be viewed as having a sunning likeness to the imagined offspring of Brad Pitt and Beyonce – but only in the context of being viewed through milky cataracts, in a darkened room whilst wearing a blindfold! Similarly, it’s easy to argue black is white and vice versa, in context. If I paint the entire interior of my house white, including white gloss over the window panes, then my otherwise white house will appear black once nightfall arrives. The point I’m labouring to make is that you can make any ridiculous argument you choose provided you introduce contentious context. That does not change the fact that, legally, Rangers Football Club is in liquidation, which is the business world’s mortuary slab. No amount of semantics from Andrew Smith, or anyone else, can change that.     

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on4:15 pm - Sep 15, 2016


DUSTINBREAKSSEPTEMBER 15, 2016 at 15:54

The whole point of strict liability is that is should be like a nuclear deterrent and take the power away from the footballing authorities and place it with the silent majority.

Fines are a waste of time so it has to be closed doors at the very least and ideally, IMHO points deductions.

Having the community singers and the bannermen be the cause of points reduction that see offender’s clubs sitting mid table or lower would soon have decent minded fans speaking up and telling the idiots to take a hike.

I have no doubt in my mind that with a cumulative penalty system the main problem issues surrounding Celtic & T’Rangers could be resolved in a matter weeks.

The football authorities may not be brave enough to take matters not their own hands  but my guess is that the silent majority are, if push came to shove.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on4:35 pm - Sep 15, 2016


Just on another tack entirely, I was in in email correspondence with Companies House recently.I have received a reply   today:
This is the immediately relevant part:
“…….Turning now you your enquiry, I have checked the company website and can confirm that there are definitely irregularities. Firstly, I note that the company name is not shown in full (the word “limited” has been omitted) in the company information given at the bottom of each page. In addition I agree that the listed board of directors does not tie in with the details shown on our records.
As such, I can confirm that I have today written to the company, explaining the issues and asking for their comments and for them to correct the errors. This will hopefully result in the website being updated shortly with the correct information. ”
I like public records to be accurate, and I hope I have done the slipshod company some service in having Companies House ask them to look at the accuracy of their webpage details.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on5:34 pm - Sep 15, 2016


JOHN CLARKSEPTEMBER 15, 2016 at 08:38       11 Votes 
I refer to my email ofSeptember 11, 2016 at 22:41This is the reply I received from Andrew Smith. Make of it what you will.

John, this Rangers were given the SFA membership of the old Rangers. That was offered to the liquidated Gretna (they became Gretna 2008 because they wanted to show a break with the Miles Brookson era because they were so angered by his using —-their team as a toy.
—————–
Is Andrew saying the Gretna fans wanted to show a break because Miles Brookson because he was using their club as a toy?
And that the rangers fans are happy to say it is a continuation even though their club cheated their way to titles and cups, shat on the taxpayer and got off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.and they are fine with that.as long as it is called a continuation.
IS THAT WHAT HE IS SAYING?
if it is he needs to put down the glue

View Comment

tayred

tayredPosted on5:40 pm - Sep 15, 2016


Dustin is correct, strict liability in the hands of the SFA would no doubt be an unmitigated disaster with certain clubs escaping punishment while a wee sweary word from the stand at Ochilview would no doubt lead to Stenny being expelled from all cups of the next decade. In my view strict liability has to be put in place, and control of it has to be handed to some board completely autonomous from the SFA.

It would work if done properly, without fear or favour. As Wottpi says it would probably work bloody fast. Doing nothing is no longer an option, and nobody else has come up with any other alternatives – the clubs, the SFA and the SPFL will not police themselves so someone else will have to do it for them.

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on5:52 pm - Sep 15, 2016


just hearing joey barton sent packing from training after bust up…….oops

View Comment

tayred

tayredPosted on5:55 pm - Sep 15, 2016


CLUSTER ONESEPTEMBER 15, 2016 at 17:34  Is Andrew saying the Gretna fans wanted to show a break because Miles Brookson because he was using their club as a toy?And that the rangers fans are happy to say it is a continuation even though their club cheated their way to titles and cups, shat on the taxpayer and got off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.and they are fine with that.as long as it is called a continuation.IS THAT WHAT HE IS SAYING?if it is he needs to put down the glue
————————————————–
Incredible ain’t it. Gretna fans embarrassed because one man spent his own personal fortune to finance the unsustainable – nothing illegal, just irresponsible. Meanwhile the TRFC fans are perfectly happy that the tax payer and various companies, including face painters were fleeced to finance their little ego trips. The SMSM and SFA apparently are perfectly happy for that to be the case, nothing to see here, move along please…

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on6:31 pm - Sep 15, 2016


TAYREDSEPTEMBER 15, 2016 at 17:55
You explained it much better than me

View Comment

Avatar

The Rangers nil? Who missed the penalty?Posted on7:18 pm - Sep 15, 2016


HighlanderSeptember 15, 2016 at 16:13
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant, Highlander.
Chapeau, sir!!

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:37 pm - Sep 15, 2016


HIGHLANDERSEPTEMBER 15, 2016 at 16:13
THE RANGERS NIL? WHO MISSED THE PENALTY?SEPTEMBER 15, 2016 at 19:18       2 Votes 
HighlanderSeptember 15, 2016 at 16:13Brilliant, absolutely brilliant, Highlander.Chapeau, sir!!
———-
I second that..Brilliant, absolutely brilliant, Highlander.

View Comment

shug

shugPosted on8:00 pm - Sep 15, 2016


Guys I think I have to point out that the face painter lass Susan Thomson says that she was given what she was due by fans as was Glencairn glass although the owner still thinks that rangers will pay him and he will donate the money to charity and there were some other small businesses that seemingly were reimbursed by fans just saying like.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on8:42 pm - Sep 15, 2016


WOTTPISEPTEMBER 15, 2016 at 16:15  
The whole point of strict liability is that is should be like a nuclear deterrent and take the power away from the footballing authorities and place it with the silent majority.
Fines are a waste of time so it has to be closed doors at the very least and ideally, IMHO points deductions.
Having the community singers and the bannermen be the cause of points reduction that see offender’s clubs sitting mid table or lower would soon have decent minded fans speaking up and telling the idiots to take a hike.
I have no doubt in my mind that with a cumulative penalty system the main problem issues surrounding Celtic & T’Rangers could be resolved in a matter weeks.
The football authorities may not be brave enough to take matters not their own hands  but my guess is that the silent majority are, if push came to shove.

=======================

Oh for an ideal world WOTTPI. I will simply repeat my view that it won’t work in Scotland, due to the inherent bias in many areas of our society.  Evening up the score is more important to most in authority rather than facing up to the scale of the problem and dealing with each individual club on a completely separate basis.  I include the Scottish Government in that. We could go on about it forever, but in my view Strict Liability in Scotland would just become an opportunity for punishments to be doled out in the same arbitrary manner everything else within our game is dealt with.  It would be manna for the media, especially if points deductions were involved. 

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on8:45 pm - Sep 15, 2016


HighlanderSeptember 15, 2016 at 16:13
______________________________________
Utterly brilliant post. Thanks.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on8:51 pm - Sep 15, 2016


Warburton has spoketh

“I have been told it’s part of the culture but I can’t understand it. Before Saturday I heard talkSPORT say ‘Good start to the season, unbeaten, things are shaping up well’. 

“The Scottish version of it was – ‘just drawn with Kilmarnock, disaster’. It’s two completely different perspectives.

oh Mark, Mark, Mark.  I think that’s a wee fib isn’t it.  You see we all know there’s no way the Scottish version of Talksport would have bothered to mention Kilmarnock.

View Comment

shug

shugPosted on9:25 pm - Sep 15, 2016


Bit of a wee shock in the inter game at the moment.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on9:26 pm - Sep 15, 2016


   I was reading today that CFC were preparing an invoice to Sevco for the damages for the vandalism sustained. Accompanied by the condition that if it was not reimbursed prior to the next game, the sum, in the region of £100K, would be deducted from the ticket allocation of the next match (hogmany) 
    It kind of rounded with the nuttiness of the statements, and the new club’s,  new fan club’s calls, for a boycott on allocating Celtic their share of tickets.  
    Now it is widely reported that since Tuesday, Joey Barnet has been persona non-grata around their parts.
    Did they discover on Monday that a boycott couldn’t happen, and was not a kick-the-can contender , over the impending, unbudgetted,  hunner grand bill.   They would need to find the money from somewhere else. 
      It could of course be, that Barton is just the kind of jerk we assume him to be.
Both are funny !  21

View Comment

shug

shugPosted on10:00 pm - Sep 15, 2016


Well well inter beaten at home by hapoel.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:30 pm - Sep 15, 2016


And Andrew Smith’s reply to my reply to him:

Andrew Smith <Andrew.smith@scotlandonsunday.com>To john clarkSep 12 at 5:51 PM
” Hi john, thanks for your reply and taking on absolutely non of the issues. Rangers as as continuous as Coventry. No more or no less, and the FA had no problems with a membership transfer to say so. You can choose to ignore everything I say, but why do so after writing to me? I’m not particularly fussed what you think – I didn’t write to you, you wrote me to…for reasons I cannot fathom.
The clubs that are formed from remnants of liquidated clubs regularly take on their whole being – including history. It is a quirk of football that I did not create, but have no issue with. Arsenal’s history starts with a club that had a different name, different ground, in a different area, with a different corporate structure and with different supporters to the Arsenal we know presently. In this Trigger’s broom world of football; it is one and the same as present day Arsenal. If I am wrong about Coventry, Luton, Fiorentina, or this Rangers Cup Winners’ Cup recognition by UEFA tell me so. And why. The fact you do not take me on in any of these matters suggest you don’t have a counter argument.
I can’t treat Rangers in the here and now any differently from the Rangers of 2012 because I don’t think Tony Mowbray manages a different Coventry from Steven Pressley did a few years back. I’m not a hypocrite.”
and it ends there, with no no sign off or best wishes.

______

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on10:52 pm - Sep 15, 2016


Highlander
September 15, 2016 at 16:13
 
“The club became a company. The club and company were one legal entity from that day forward. Club was company, company was club”
 
“Part of the reason for incorporation was to free the club’s directors and office bearers from personal liabilities that they had hitherto been personally responsible for on behalf of the club”
 
————————————————————————————–
 
Exactly what I was taught when studying at the Central College of Commerce and Distribution Glasgow,  between  1972  – 1974.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on11:17 pm - Sep 15, 2016


JOHN CLARKSEPTEMBER 15, 2016 at 22:30

Oh dear!!

I fear Mr Smith is in for a bit of a shock re what may drop into his inbox.

If you are going to challenge someone then you better have your facts and stories straight.

Can I suggest a side forum to collate evidence to show where he has gone wrong? 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on11:55 pm - Sep 15, 2016


No, personally I’m quite happy to consider the new club, Rangers mk11 I think he called it, with their lineage beginning in the late 1900’s.  I’d say he’s pretty much spot on there.  

So, a journalist with selective reasoning and an inability to even accurately cut and paste a cheat sheet that’s been clearly fed to him.  Excuse me if I don’t add this to the “Things I learned today” pile

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on12:12 am - Sep 16, 2016


John Clark
September 15, 2016 at 22:30
 
wottpi
September 15, 2016 at 23:17
 
“I fear Mr Smith is in for a bit of a shock re what may drop into his inbox”
————————————
 Mr Smith
“Rangers as as continuous as Coventry. No more or no less, and the FA had no problems with a membership transfer to say so.”

Did they really?

The Footy Law Blog

Why has the Football League transferred an asset of Coventry City Football Club Ltd (the “golden share” in the Football League Ltd) to Otium Entertainment Group Ltd before awaiting the outcome of the legal process?
Why does the Football League refer to a “preferred bidder” when talking about a company heading towards liquidation, bearing in mind that liquidation is about the closure of a company rather than its sale? Bearing in mind the implication behind the immediately preceding question, on what basis have the Football League decided to allow Otium Entertainment Group Ltd to be given a “golden share” in the Football League Ltd, to operate a club called Coventry City Football Club?
 
Why did the Football League deem it appropriate and necessary to ignore both its and the FAs rules and regulations when agreeing to the ground share with Northampton Town? Why has the Football League overturned its own position that the ground-sharing agreement was “entirely conditional on the Club ultimately exiting administration”, bearing in mind that Coventry City Football Club Ltd is still in administration?
 
The link below should take you to a post on  Coventry City  Mr Smith, you might find it very similar to our own little mess in Scotland.
 
http://footylaw.co.uk/tag/coventry-city-football-club/

View Comment

Avatar

naegreetinPosted on9:43 am - Sep 16, 2016


Re : Joey Barton – Corrupt Official @ 21.26 on 15 Sept

If rumours are correct JB banned from Auchenhowie until next week for the “altercation” with Halliday – shouldn’t think JB is bothered , it will give him more time to prepare for a Q&A session with Henry Winter in London to puff his (JB’s) new book on eve of 21 Sept – as a Times+ subscriber I was offered the opportunity to purchase tickets (£20) for this event which has subsequently sold out I noticed . I couldn’t imagine a worst waste of time & money & I have sent an email to the Times expressing surprise that they are involved in the promotion of a book for a convicted criminal (2 x sentences for serious assault + a prison term) .
I’m with Corrupt Official – the guy is a jerk .

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:16 pm - Sep 16, 2016


News coming out that Barton had a bust up with Warburton as well.

If true…then that would explain him being sent home.

But…Barton has dropped himself in it by contacting the media to discuss it, and was quoted saying that the handling of the situation “was very strange”.

Having a verbal rammy with a fellow player – no big deal.
Having a verbal rammy with the boss – and in front of the players – is a big deal, and Warbuton’s authority is being challenged.

If Warbs gets shot of Barton, then he has protected his authority.
It might be a popular decision amongst the bears as well ?
The Board might not be displeased either – as it will save a fair few quid for the ‘leccy bills at Ibrox.

Guess the legal types could be poring over Barton’s contract to be able to fire him without a payoff ?

Interesting though, as it shows a squad who don’t seem to be pulling together – and an inexperienced  manager facing his first real crisis at his new club ?
 

View Comment

Avatar

tamjartmarquezPosted on3:51 pm - Sep 16, 2016


http://findagraveinscotland.com/grave/famousGrave/125630
Don’t know how i stumbled across this article, and how factual it actually is. But cheating sure as hell isn’t dignified. Some of the spelling is iffy, and has a hint of the Bears Den about it, but some is worthy of the Clumps.
After finally winning  Scottish Cup again after 25 years “The long wait was over, and the music hall jokes all stopped, Rangers had finally won the Scottish cup again.” 
Some of the later anecdotes are just bonkers, but the coincident birth of Celtic paranoia and the sepia tinted birth of the peepil, moved me to tears. 

 William “Bill” Struth, was born in Milnathort, Kinrossshire in 1875, although a stonemason by trade,he was well known, as a professional middle-distance runner. Although a very accomplished and skilled athlete, he was not above “improving” his chances when allowed to. He once told the story of how when competing in one particular race, he “accidentally” moved his handicap marker 5 yards down the track, and won the race. He then promptly collected and cashed the winners check, then left the town very quickly before anybody found out.
…..
No player at Rangers, during the Struth era, ever doubted who the boss was, William Struth was a strict disciplinarian, and a man, who believed firmly in respect for authority. To the dismay of many players, he demanded they wear a suit, collar, tie and bowler hats to training, instead of the common cloth cap. He believed that this gave the players the mentality, that they were important, and that they were part of something above simple entertainment. His obsession with the dress code, also extended into the dressing room. The importance of freshly washed and Ironed jerseys, along spotless white shorts, and correctly dimensioned stocking tops, were held in high regard. It is noticeable in 20’s and 30’s, that when ever Rangers took the field, all the players had their socks pulled up, and their jerseys tucked in to their shorts. This smart professional appearance and attitude was demanded from Struth, for when his Rangers team took to the field, they did so not only as ambassadors of Rangers, but also of Bill Struth himself.
Another part of the Struth legend has it, that the manager, would watch from the window of his house, at 193 Copland Road, as the players arrived on the underground for training. Anyone, who had dared to walk down the street, committing the serious crimes in his eyes, of having his hands in his pockets, or not wearing their bowler hat, would find that Mr Struth, had seen him, and had telephoned the ground, to insist that he walk down the street again, this time with his hands, by his sides, and their hat on their head.

The Birth Of Celtic’s Paranoia
The complete domination of Scottish football, by Bill Struth and his Rangers team, was such that many people started to wonder what was the secret of their success, Chief amongst them was long time Celtic manager, Willie Maley.Maleys failure to match Struth, both on and off the park, would lead him to make various ludicrous comments to the press, questioning the impartiality of match officials, the Scottish league and the SFA.

View Comment

valentinesclown

valentinesclownPosted on4:58 pm - Sep 16, 2016


Latest from  JJ October money runs out???

https://t.co/Yp9PkChybS

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on7:20 pm - Sep 16, 2016


tamjartmarquezSeptember 16, 2016 at 15:51
‘.. Although a very accomplished and skilled athlete, he was not above “improving” his chances when allowed to..’
_______
‘Strewth! There was a cheat at the top of the marble staircase in those days as well! My word!Here was me thinking SDM was a one-off!

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on7:51 pm - Sep 16, 2016


I see rumours (mainly on the JJ site)  that Brian Kennedy (remember him? ) may be willing to bankroll Ibrox in return for 51% of the equity and the departure of King.
There are a few problems with that. Presumably Kennedy would have to buy out King and the 3 Bears (remember them?) to get to 51%. Price could be an issue.  Plus King’s (allegedly) stubborn nature. Would he depart under a cloud? Or prefer to collapse the whole show, while finger-pointing in every direction? Or he could even open his warchest1414
Kennedy would no doubt be happy to work constructively with Ashley, which could solve a few problems. But Kennedy is not a “Real Rangers Man”, so would the King loyalists buy into him or prefer to fight another guerrilla war on King’s behalf?
However it does seem that yet again a large cash injection is needed urgently to keep the lights on at Ibrox. Which makes the summer’s high wage player signings seem utter madness. Is simple arithmetic a lost art at Ibrox? What on earth were they thinking? Does King have any plan at all?

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on8:36 pm - Sep 16, 2016


NEEPHEIDSEPTEMBER 16, 2016 at 19:51 
I see rumours (mainly on the JJ site)  that Brian Kennedy (remember him? ) may be willing to bankroll Ibrox in return for 51% of the equity and the departure of King…
============================
Yes, saw that NH, but Kennedy comes across as a perennial tyre-kicker wrt buying the Ibrox outfit.
But it hasn’t harmed his public profile.

Kennedy couldn’t do a deal when Duff & Duffer were supposedly trying to sell a new club in the bottom division.
Debts aside, can’t imagine that the current shareholders would sell for anything other than a decent profit – as the club is in the top league now, and much closer to securing some European revenues.
[But the risk is that yet another ‘Rangers’ would be looking for/demanding favours to secure a slot in the bottom league.]

But the JJ quotes from the TRFC MD do seem to validate a general consensus that TRFC/RIFC needs further, external cash to see out this season. 

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on9:12 pm - Sep 16, 2016


Re JJ’s assertions re Kennedy and T”Rangers.
Let’s remember what McCann said in those BBC interviews. Don’t make bad deals. Don’t pay £10m for a player who is worth £5.
Kennedy had his chance to pick up the basket of assets in the cheap and didn’t see the value in the deal. I doubt their is any more value now for the money that is most likely needed.

I know Easy Jambo and JJ have maybe crossed swords previously and I stand ready to be corrected but the other day JJ estimated Celtic’s season ticket income to be in the region of £13m based on previous accounts.

If it is like for like for like down Govan way then to my mind that covers either the running costs or the potential age bill of £12m.

It does not cover both. Nor does it cover the admitted maintenance issues and the possibility of losing court cases.

Cash flow is soon  going to be an issue at some point unless the RRM keep providing the funds.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on9:37 pm - Sep 16, 2016


StevieBCSeptember 16, 2016 at 20:36
‘…[But the risk is that yet another ‘Rangers’ would be looking for/demanding favours to secure a slot in the bottom league.]
_____
StevieBC,  I would suggest that the risk for those who believe in Integrity in Sport is rather that ‘yet another ‘Rangers’ ‘ would be quickly nodded in to the top division without even having to ask!

There would be little point in the ‘Authorities’ pretending to apply any ‘rules’.

They just need to defend the proposition which  they de facto advanced 4 years ago, and steadfastly maintain, that Liquidation does not mean anything in the world of professional Football, and that a new club can be considered to be in every respect (except debtor liabilities) the  old club whose clothes and name it steals.Even when that club was a sporting cheat, ripping off its sister clubs by falsehood after falsehood.

After all, they were supported in that proposition by the refusal of the majority of clubs to challenge it, and by the wholehearted eagerness of some clubs to help propound it for their own particular reasons.

Can a leopard change its spots…?

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on10:09 pm - Sep 16, 2016


JOHN CLARKSEPTEMBER 16, 2016 at 21:37
      “would be quickly nodded in to the top division without even having to ask! There would be little point in the ‘Authorities’ pretending to apply any ‘rules’.”
     —————————————————————————————————————————–
   John, Even if we were to discount all the dishonest acts, if Sevco go to the wall, I doubt that neither the Jokers who currently parade themselves as the SFA, OR the systems they are charged to enforce will survive.  
   Angry fans and bullhorns, will not  make the mistake of marching on Hampden when it was shut again.
   I would think a fan-forced vote of no confidence would be successful
   Any third Rangers would need to wait until that was sorted out, and new bodies in place.  Then the new folk can decide what to do with them….Folk who have no need to cover up their own prior involvement
    It may be a blessing in disguise. 

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:22 pm - Sep 16, 2016


I sent a reply to Andrew Smith earlier this evening, as follows:
To Andrew SmithToday at 18:13Andrew,It’s not that I have no counter argument to offer, just that if you can cite Coventry and Arsenal as being at all relevant to the discussion, you would appear not to have done any research!Arsenal has the same company number as it had on incorporation on 26th April 1910. It has never been liquidated. That’s the fundamental point. It was a club with company number 109244 which changed ground, changed its name, changed its internal business structure, and it is a club with company number 109244 that is still Arsenal.
Rangers Football Club when it was incorporated on 27th May 1899 had company number SC004276, and when it was liquidated , it was liquidated with company number SC004276!
Charles Green’s new creation SevcoScotland was incorporated on 29th May 2012 with Company Number SC425159, changed its name to The Rangers Football ClubL td on 31st July 2012 and continues with the same company number , SC 425159. It is not in any sense the same as RFC(IL).It did not ‘inherit’ ‘Rangers’ share, but had to apply as a new football club for membership of a league, and then of the SFA. It was given the share that had become available when RFC was liquidated.
In the case of Coventry,it was not ‘CCFC’ that held the FA share, but Coventry City FC( Holdings) Ltd- and it was ‘CCFC’,claiming to be the authorised football club, that was liquidated. [That ‘s quite a complicated story, and requires some serious reading because the Coventry City Council was involved, as well as a number of other bodies, but it’s worth taking the trouble.Indeed, I have written to the club to ask for its ‘history’ page on its official website to be properly updated]
Foreign clubs are, of course, foreign clubs, and I don’t pretend to know how insolvency law operates in foreign countries.(I suspect that since you were prepared to cite Arsenal to support your position, you’re not likely to have done any more research than I into that subject!
I’ll leave it that.Cheers,JC

And his reply:
Andrew Smith <Andrew.smith@scotlandonsunday.com>To john clarkToday at 18:48
Hi John, don’t leave it there. Arsenal trace their history to Woolich Arsenal…which existed before 1910. My point was that clubs change all sorts of structures. Hibernian claim a Scottish Cup from 1887 – yet they went out of business in 1892 and didn’t play for a year. You have agreed that Coventry City was liquidated – go look up the Daily Mail report of the time. When HMRC voted against a CVA for rangers they said their actions were no impediment to the club continuing as a “going concern”. These case forever lead us back to the question of what a football club is and, within football, a football club is not perceived as a purely business concept. One business model of the club going bust doesn’t end that club’s timeline to so many. I am one of those. This current Rangers isn’t the same Rangers as the 2012, but I am willing to see the two as wedded to one another. You know fine well the point I am making. If a country estate went into liquidation and I bought it, I could still relate the history even though it wasn’t in my family or had nothing to do with me. That history would still be embedded in the country estate with a different owner and a a different company number. The history didn’t die.
You either don’t know or don’t get your football history. This Rangers could have had the old Rangers share transferred to it – in the same way that Coventry City’s share was transferred . It was all about governing body approval. The then SPL didn’t give it to Rangers, the FA and Greg Dyke waved the newco Coventry on.
I fully accept you are unwilling to see this new Rangers as an extension of the old Rangers but the point I would make is that it is perfectly in keeping with football’s way for authorities and observers to do so.
All the best
Andrew
And my reply to that:
To Andrew SmithToday at 21:03
Thanks again for your reply.I know, of course, what you mean: the emotional investment in RFC has been transferred to TRFC. But the titles and honours that were won by RFC can not legitimately be shown in official records as having been won by TRFC.RFC’s capacity to compete in Scottish football ceased entirely on Liquidation.
If you and I were to put a few bob together, with some life-long supporters of Third Lanark, and set up a club , called it Third Lanark, successfully applied for some kind of league place, and ran about with red shirts and white shorts on, and festooned our club-house with real Third Lanark memorabilia etc etc, we might enjoy ourselves ( and I watched Third Lanark at Cathkin in the late ‘fifties) immensely, wallowing in nostalgia.
But never in a million years could we claim the actual history of that club.Or rather, claim we might try, but sure as hell , while people smiled benevolently on our nostalgia kick, the authorities would pretty soon tell us where to get off.
RFC may not die in the hearts and souls of ‘Rangers ‘ fans, in the way that my mum and dad have not died to me. They are dead, I know. They cannot now actually do anything to add to all the stuff they did, but in my heart the stuff they did and the people they were live on. But I cannot claim their pensions!
You and I are clearly not going to agree; and there is probably no way the ‘Authorities’ will ever now have the bottle to take on the grieving fans and do the right thing. They chose , as ‘guardians’ of the Integrity of the game as a sport, to prostitute themselves for a whole lot of unworthy reasons, mostly to do with money. They are probably venal enough at heart not to worry about that.
But as far as I am able, I will not let them forget what they did.
Meanwhile,let me hope that you maintain the high calibre of your match reports.Cheers,
JC

View Comment

Avatar

nawlitePosted on11:02 pm - Sep 16, 2016


JC,
I don’t think you’re going to get any further with Andrew Smith, but to be honest, I don’t think you need to. He has already in his first reply talked about ‘this’ Rangers being different to the old Rangers and in his latest reply he acknowledges freely that “This current Rangers isn’t the same Rangers as the 2012” (sic).
It is clear that he knows the facts of liquidation and that it is indeed a new club. We are of exactly the same mind and are – like him – quite happy that the fans of Old Rangers have a new entity to support, so I’m not sure why he feels the need to argue with you.
The only difference is that he believes the historic trophies won by the Old club can be claimed by the new one, either because they transferred with the golden share, or because they belong to the ethereal body supported by the fans. He sees this as being supported by UEFA, which to be fair is the perception given by their Rangers FC page on their website.
Interestingly, the ‘History’ tab was removed from Rangers FC’s page after some of us contacted UEFA after the Res12 letter. If you look at Celtic or AC Milan you will see a Domestic, History and Profile tab. Rangers does not, listing only a Profile tab. Regrettably that Profile tab conflates the new club’s current fixtures with a summary of the old club’s historic record on the right hand side. This includes e.g. biggest European win etc as it does for all clubs with a European history.
I believe this is an oversight from when the History tab was removed. I believe that whoever removed the History tab simply did not realise that some of the historic information was duplicated on the Profile tab, so I have contacted UEFA today asking them to remove these irrelevant records from the new club’s profile.
Anyone registered with UEFA.com can do the same, please.

View Comment

Ballyargus

BallyargusPosted on11:07 pm - Sep 16, 2016


John Clark at 22.22.
The only thing that can be said for Andrew Smith is that he has the decency to reply to your emails. As far as I can remember most if not all of the recipients of your queries don’t have the common courtesy to even acknowledge their receipt.
Keep up the good work which always makes interesting reading.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:31 am - Sep 17, 2016


nawliteSeptember 16, 2016 at 23:02
“…so I have contacted UEFA today asking them to remove these irrelevant records from the new club’s profile”
_____
Good.It seems to me to be axiomatic that if one perceives there to be untruth, one has the right to point out the the perceived untruth.At the very least that lets people know that they will be challenged, and cannot just assume that they can get away with any old s.ite

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:55 am - Sep 17, 2016


BallyargusSeptember 16, 2016 at 23:07
‘.. As far as I can remember most if not all of the recipients of your queries don’t have the common courtesy to even acknowledge their receipt.’
__
I certainly acknowledge Andrew Smith’s readiness to engage, and thank him for it.
But I would need to trawl through my ‘sent’ emails and written letters before I could say for sure how many had not been acknowledged.
The important thing is that one writes. Someone reads what one has written, and then chooses whether to respond or not.
And one can take it from there.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on2:52 am - Sep 17, 2016


JOHN CLARKSEPTEMBER 16, 2016 at 22:22
Well done to Andrew Smith for entering into a dialogue.

However if he believes in the existence of  ethereal footballing entities and the truth that is contained within football authority websites, while at the same time not wanting to be a  hypocrite, will he be starting up the campaign the have the SPFL change their website entry for Airdrieonians so it doesn’t have their founding date as 2002?
http://spfl.co.uk/clubs/airdrieonians/
If, as he claims,  Hibs can maintain their history and cup win of 1887 despite going out of business and missing a year why are the poor fans of Airdrie denied their much treasured history including a cup win in season 1923/24?
Or is it one rule for some and one for others?

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:46 am - Sep 17, 2016


JOHN CLARKSEPTEMBER 16, 2016 at 21:37 
I would suggest that the risk for those who believe in Integrity in Sport is rather that ‘yet another ‘Rangers’ ‘ would be quickly nodded in to the top division without even having to ask!

==================================

I agree John. There would be a points deduction and that would be it. If that points deduction shoved them into the relegation zone then there would be emergency league reconstruction. If I recall correctly a rule was introduced four years ago which would allow the SPFL board to decide this time without it going to a vote. I don’t even think they would care if what they did meant there was only 1,000 people in every other ground as long as there was 45,000+ in Ibrox. In fact, that might suit them even better because it might finally mean their cherished dream of Rangers becoming Champions and getting a crack at the CL qualifiers would be far more likely. 

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on8:03 am - Sep 17, 2016


Reading the Andrew Smith replies to John Clark implies to me that the SFA and SPFL have given off the record briefings to the media justifying why Rangers are regarded as the same club.  Why did the people who saved Hearts and Dunfermline fight so hard to avoid liquidation????????????

View Comment

Avatar

fan of footballPosted on8:20 am - Sep 17, 2016


My take on AS appearance is that if JJ latest blog is to be believed then there could soon become a sevco 2 or a ragers 3 .
watch out for more of the same posts as they try their level (5) best to convince the bears that the club never ever dies .
IMO everyone and their granny (media included )knew and accepted that the CLUB had entered admin ,then when it dawned on them that it was never going to exit admin it was too hard a pill for them to swallow .
if as EVERYONE accepted ragers 1872 entered admin on feb 14th 2012 what date did ragers 1872 exit said admin .
answers on a postcard to 
idontbelievetheBIGLIE 

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on9:56 am - Sep 17, 2016


John Clark
Andrew Smith says that when HMRC rejected the CVA they said there was no impediment to RFC continuing as as going concern. It is true that that statement was made, and the content of the statement are also true. However, to continue as a going concern, certain conditions would have to be met.
HMRC Public Notice number 700/9 ,”Transfer of a business as a going concrrn” is an interesting read, particularly paragraphs numbered
2.3.1
And
3.4
These paragraphs demonstrate why RFC did NOT continue as a going concern.
Sorry I can’t post a link.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:58 am - Sep 17, 2016


This Rangers could have had the old Rangers share transferred to it – in the same way that Coventry City’s share was transferred . It was all about governing body approval. The then SPL didn’t give it to Rangers,
———————————-
This Rangers could have had the old Rangers share transferred to it….Why was that Andrew?.
The then SPL didn’t give it to Rangers,….Why was that, Andrew?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:45 am - Sep 17, 2016


Sorry I get confused about these things.

If I remember correctly the SPL and the SFL were different leagues at that time. They were also different companies. This was before the SPL absorbed the SFL and became the SPFL, a new company and a new league. 

Rangers (the SPL club) were liquidated and lost their place in the league and share in the company.

A new club asked to join the SPL, that was rejected and another club got the share, each club in the SPL held one share in the company at that time, if you were relegated (or placed into liquidation) you lost your share and another club got it. Dundee got the 12th share sitting spare if I remember correctly.

Rangers, the new club then applied to join the SFL (a different league and company at that time) and were admitted to it on a majority vote. This was a totally separate legal entity at the time, it was a different company and a different league.

As to the SFA, who control all of Scottish senior football, as I recall they invented a new type of membership to their association as it would have been impossible for Rangers to compete in either league, or cup competitions, without it. It was kind of rueched through or the new club would not have had a league to compete in.

It is always worth remembering that things in 2012 were significantly different to the way they are now. Rangers died, a new club was formed, it was allowed into an entirely different league than the dead club had been in. That’s just one of the bit’s people ignore or twist to suit an agenda. Rangers were not relegated, or demoted, or held onto their share, or anything else like that. That’s because those things simply weren’t an option at the time.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:48 am - Sep 17, 2016


oddjobSeptember 17, 2016 at 09:56
“…when HMRC rejected the CVA they said there was no impediment to RFC continuing as as going concern. It is true that that statement was made, and the content of the statement are also true. However, to continue as a going concern, certain conditions would have to be met..”
_________
I have to say , oddjob, that at the time that statement was made I -as a former civil servant- thought it it was inappropriately made by a relatively  junior officer who had no understanding that the necessary conditions had to be met and had no authority to say that they had been met.
I would not, of course, attribute bad faith to the individual, but witnessing later the wholly ineffectual case presented by HMRC at every hearing of the tax case except( mercifully) the hearing before the inner house of the Court of Session, I formed the impression that HMRC’s heart really wasn’t in it.
Any more than the BBC’s sports hacks and business editors were in the business of thorough and objective investigation and reporting of facts then or now.

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on11:12 am - Sep 17, 2016


John Clark
I have always wondered why HMRC did not pursue the matter through the criminal justice system.
The “big tax” case was already on going in the civil route, but it must have been obvious to the authorities that there was, in 2011/2012, an intention to permanently deprive the revenue of tax which had been collected, and should have been remitted to the Exchequer by RFC.
I often wonder if the seeming reluctance to instruct proceedings was due to the merger of the Inland Revenue and Her Majestys Customs and Excise.
Prior to that event, these two departments had different codes of practice.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on1:44 pm - Sep 17, 2016


   Perhaps Andrew Smith can inform us, if the SFA have any rules in place to safe-guard us being over-run with new madey-uppey “Rangers” teams. …..Maybe then, they could have a “Rangers” play Celtic every week.
    You see it’s not difficult to do what they did…In fact its very easy and anybody could do it ! ………All it requires, is an accepting audience prepared to suspend rational thought…….And a few friends in the “magic circle”
     Naturally, the inquisitive mind of a journalist would not be welcome in the audience, heckling and shouting out “The secret”
     No complimentary tickets for the matinee for them !
     Anyway Andrew. C’mon….Spill the beans……….How did Tommy do it?…Were they bottles of ethereal spirits?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D6KBqgNGDw

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on2:33 pm - Sep 17, 2016


phils latest 
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-nuts-and-bolts-of-regime-change-at-sevco/#more-7959

View Comment

Giovanni

GiovanniPosted on2:48 pm - Sep 17, 2016


I wonder if there is a deliberate typo in Mr MacGiollaBhain’s penultimate sentence is his latest blog. Perhaps the use of “concave” instead of “conclave” was opportunistic as a concave function does have a downward trend.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on3:13 pm - Sep 17, 2016


JOHN CLARKSEPTEMBER 16, 2016 at 22:22

‘This current Rangers isn’t the same Rangers as the 2012, but I am willing to see the two as wedded to one another’

To Andrew Smith:

I have been married twice; I am not either wife (which seems to be what you are suggesting in this, quite ludicrous, nonsense, ie, one of ‘the Rangers is the wife)), though both, my current and ex, are very much alive – I am glad to say.

Quite simple to understand that concept, all you need is a modicum of intelligence, and no paid for agenda to hide the truth!

For the hard of thinking (that includes you, Mr so called journalist) liquidation is liquidation, no semantics can change that! But maybe you can find a way to change that obvious truth without semantics; ha, fecking, ha (first time I’ve ever felt the need to introduce a sweery word to my posts, ya numpty!) Journalist my arse!

Again, well done John Clark, you put the SMSM, every single one of them, to shame.

View Comment

shug

shugPosted on5:31 pm - Sep 17, 2016


Talking about t’rangers I wonder if once he has had a chance to comb through the game today and found all the micro positives Mr W will realise it was never a 0-0 game it was in fact a 3-0 win to t’rangers. I mean they did after all win hands down on possession,shots at goal and corners however shots on target were only slightly better I wonder if they count goal kicks as shots lol. 

1 goal up 23 mins to go man sent off lose 2 goals jeez.
Oh and my team are crap at times beaten at home by Ayr for the love of the wee man 11.

View Comment

Comments are closed.