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”.
I 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Ali is always value for money though and was amazing, reading from her as yet unpublished “Autumn” book, the first she said of a four-book series.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.
- Some people think “made up news is fine” and feed us all with it all the time.
- Don’t expect real discussions or debates about anything in your club. No two way dialogues, except from those about money once a year.
- “Made up Truths” become gospel not to be challenged.
- The people running the club know they are smarter and more important than any of their minority or remote stakeholders.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. - 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. - 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. - 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.
NAWLITESEPTEMBER 16, 2016 at 23:02
History tab is still there Nawlite
http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50121/profile/history/index.html
and John, I’m afraid you and Andrew are too late with the Third Lanark idea
http://www.thirdlanarkafc.com/thirds.html
Mr W may take a wee while to tells us about those micro positives as he stormed out of the blue room presser after being asked about agent barton he seems to be losing the plot just now.
HOMUNCULUSSEPTEMBER 17, 2016 at 10:45
The SFA Membership created to cover the gap between the transfer of SPL membership to Dundee , was a “conditional” SFA Membership described by the late Paul McConville as “ultra vires.”
Now had the normal avenue for introducing a new club into Scottish football been followed, then on being accepted into the bottom tier of SFL, TRFC had 14 days to apply for Associate Membership of the SFA but did not because they would then have to wait 5 years for that to become a Full SFA Membership.
That of course would have made it impossible to sell a continuity narrative and I suspect that being treated as the same club was a commercial imperative CG insisted on or the deal was off.
So TRFC applied to SFA to have the SFA Membership of the defunct RFC transferred to TRFC under the 5 Way Agreement giving the illusion of continuity.
The SFA have never said the current club/company playing out of Ibrox are the same club as RFC, but UEFA have stated unequivocally that RFC were ineligible to play in Europe in 2012 because no accounts provided and overdue tax (including wtc bill) and that TRFC were also ineligible to play because UEFA do not recognise the mythical continuity narrative and to them TRFC are a new club/company whose SFA Membership started in August 2012 and did not confer eligibility for a UEFA licence until 3 years membership of SFA had been satisfied.
In short UEFA do not see the transfer of SFA Membership as valid in terms of protecting the integrity of their competition.
The latter is the authorative position of UEFA, bearing the signature of the Head of Club Licensing, an authority no Web site or indeed any other party pronouncing on the matter can claim.
And for the record the above information was volunteered by UEFA and never at any time in any of the correspondence with the SFA then UEFA did the question of RFC continuity get raised.
That would have been stupid, given that SFA accountability was the objective and any question not related to that would have given SFA and UEFA a way out, but then again it suits the SFA for the matter to be portrayed as a “West of Scotland problem” rather than the need to establish if regulations are fit for purpose and were properly observed.
scottcSeptember 17, 2016 at 18:53
‘.. John, I’m afraid you and Andrew are too late with the Third Lanark idea .’
_______
Thanks for that, scottc. I had no idea that the memory lived on in such a truthful and honourable way.
If only CG had been encouraged to face up to truth by the SFA, how much better for us and for TRFC and for Sporting Integrity the last 4 years would have been!
scottc
September 17, 2016 at 18:53
_____________________________
Scott, is that an old page from UEFA? When I log in to UEFA.com and search for Rangers FC, I find only the profile page and it has no History tab attached.
STEVIEBC
SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 at 15:16 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
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Some alleged comments on the bust up include
“Fenian B” and “Orange B” were part of the verbal fisticuffs
Also alleged Barton said
“My son is older than this club”
Some dates to scrawl on the calendar
http://www.theoffshoregame.net/financial-transparency-fans-despite-football-authorities/
shug
September 17, 2016 at 17:31
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
——————————————————————-
The DR had the headline all sorted for him see above.
However, as usual, the DR could not even get that right!
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2012-13/SFA_HANDBOOK_53-136_Articles_of_Association.pdf
It is always worth remembering that Sevco Scotland were admitted to the Scottish Football League on 13th July 2012
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18813407
As such, Sevco Scotland automatically became a member of the SFA. At that time the new club held the single class of “registered” member of the SFA.
.
Rangers FC remained a member of the SPL until 3rd August 2012.
http://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spl-press-release–share-transfer-approved-2012-08-03/
Until that time, Rangers FC held the dual classes of “registered” and “full” membership of the SFA.
.
When the SFA agreed to transfer Rangers SFA membership to Sevco at the beginning of August, it was simply one element of the membership (the status of being a “full” member) that was transferred.
.
Sevco had, by that time, been an SFA member in their own right for three weeks.
.
Both clubs existed simultaneously in the eyes of the SFA between 13th July 2012 and 3rd August 2012.
No, it is from yesterday. If you do a search then you are correct, only the Profile page is displayed but when you click the team name, the full history (of the original club) is there.
The old club are in the process of being liquidated FACT .
You see things keep cropping up that cement the fact that the club now playing from Ibrokes in blue are a 4 year old club .
And when or if the 4yr old club qualify for european compitition the will of course be granted a licence to compete in said competition ,if they were the old club then they would of course NOT be granted the licence as the old club to my knowledge owes in excess of £20 million in unpaid social taxes
The WTC over £5m
PAYE over £15m
They can keep blowing smoke (you know where ) all they want but the truth will always out .
Yet UEFA’s official website shows all the history of the old club being attributed to the club formed in 2012, along with this season’s fixtures and results etc. How do you reconcile this inconsistency?
It seems that every time we get a glimmer of hope about the truth finally emerging from an official source, that truth is contradicted by the very same source! It’s almost as if they are minded to pay lip sevice to the truth before snapping back into the default mode of all football authorities, be it FIFA, UEFA, or the SFA – money is more important than everything else – including integrity.
http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/club=50121/profile/index.html
HIGHLANDER
when you click that link look at top right of page,it says ranking 269,click that and it says dundee utd are at 269 the rangers arent on the rankings
HIRSUTEPURSUIT
SEPTEMBER 18, 2016 at 00:37
It is always worth remembering that Sevco Scotland were admitted to the Scottish Football League on 13th July 2012http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18813407
As such, Sevco Scotland automatically became a member of the SFA. At that time the new club held the single class of “registered” member of the SFA.
———————————————————–
The late Mr. McConville thought otherwise.
http://www.scotzine.com/2012/07/the-legal-aspect-of-rangers-and-the-sfa-membership/
The regulations were later changed on the creation of the SPFL.
Tony, indeed it does, but it still gives all the details of the deceased club’s history on the same page as current fixtures and results, thus wrongly implying the new club is entitled to the titles, trophies and history of the deceased club and that there is an unbroken timeline.
HIGHLANDER
i know mate,it’s weird,i’m sure i read somewhere that an outside agency deals with their webpage,strange if true
I seem to recall SFM setting up a separate old club / new club thread for the discussion to continue, yet it seems that every second post on here is yet more evidence that Rangers are a new club. Is there really any point to this?! Everyone here holds the same view and anyone looking in must have seen the points being made by now. It’s like a broken record.
JINGSO.JIMSIESEPTEMBER 18, 2016 at 11:29
http://www.scotzine.com/2012/07/the-legal-aspect-of-rangers-and-the-sfa-membership/
The regulations were later changed on the creation of the SPFL.
Membership of the SPL automatically confers SFA membership. Membership of the SFL does not.
=============================================
Part of the point I was making, and an important one to remember when dealing with this issue, especially where revisionists are concerned.
It is the rules which applied at the time which are important, not the rules as they stand now. It is one league (and company) now, with four divisions and the same rules for everyone.
It was previously two different leagues and two different companies. Rangers left one league because they went into liquidation, they lost their share in the company at that point. Another club got their share, that is how it worked at that time.
The new club then joined an entirely different league. Albeit with the same governing body.
To clarify the share bit, this comes from the original articles of the SPL, which would subsequently have been altered due to the size of the league.
SHARE CAPITAL
5. The authorised Share Capital of the Company at the date of adoption of these Articles is £16 divided into 16 Shares of £1 each.
6. A Share may only be issued, allotted, transferred to or held by a person who is the owner and operator of a Club and if a Member shall cease to be the owner and operator of a Club then such Member shall cease to be entitled to hold a Share.
RYANGOSLINGSEPTEMBER 18, 2016 at 11:48
“It’s like a broken record.”
————————————————————————————————–
Indeed Ryan….But so too is the mythical narrative of the SMSM.
It is important though.
If the SFA never concocted a new club for T’Rangers fans, via the rigging of the LNS debacle, then fans of the old club would STILL be seeking heap plenty answers from men with forked tongue.
At the moment, fans of the old club are the only fans in Scotland who do not wish to accept what happened. It’s almost like they don’t care what was going on in their name.
Without a new club taking to the field v Brechin, I think it may have been a very long season in the bunker under the blue driven siege, while the rest of the game carried on without them.
Creating the new club, almost instantly vastly reduced the numbers seeking answers. They were bought off using fools gold.
That fools gold now has more iron-oxide covering it than the deteriorating roofs, but it done the trick at the time.
The same questions remain though….Why was Rangers(I.L.) permitted to field improperly registered players and spend money they never had for so long, and who and why the massive and undoub tedly super expensive cover-up?
Yeah it is important, because without the big lie, the whole of Scottish fitba would probably be singing from the same hymn-sheet.
CO
I suspect the accounts for 2016 will show a further loss, for the fourth successive year. It is entirely possible that the 2017 accounts will show even more losses, if the club gets that far.
5 years in existence, spending more than you are earning in every one of them.
Financial fair play, it’s a joke.
Interesting times ahead. Both JJ and PMG say their sources indicate TRFC are now desperately short of the folding stuff. Just a disagreement over timing. JJ reckons they will be running on empty at the end of October and PMG says end of December. Either way things aren’t good. If JJ is right then they don’t even get to the AGM.
Both also mention Brian Kennedy back on the scene kicking the tyres and possibly speaking to Mike Ashley. Derek Lambias will certainly know the true running costs of Auchenhowie and what is in the Ibrox Condition Report.
BK seems to be a serious businessman, I’ve seen estimates of his net worth up to £350m, but whatever the true figure his wealth seems to be based on serial (legitimate) successful businesses. I don’t see him putting a penny into TRFC without doing proper due diligence of the kind carried out by Bill Miller in 2012. And I can’t imagine he won’t find a whole host of familiar problems.
Wikipedia says BK was born in Edinburgh and previously looked at buying Hibs. Is there any truth in this? Does he have an emotional connection to any team, Rangers or otherwise?
The problem for Rangers is that each time they find themselves in this hole it is that little bit deeper than the time before. The only way someone reputable is going to take over is by buying for a pound and running on a break-even sustainable basis
In the sort term I think we can expect:
1. Joey Barton to be dismissed for “gross misconduct” and no pay-off. JB will sue, but good luck with that matey.
2. The Blame Game will start. Negative press stories will start to circulate about Mark Warburton. Don’t want the fans turning on the chancers in the Blue Room.
So we are left with three options:
1. DCK pulls a rabbit from a hat
2. BK or A N Other legitimate operator comes in to run things on a sustainable basis
3. There is an insolvency event mid season. Possibly with a pre-pack CVA lined up. Points deduction will be on the basis of a first insolvency event whilst everyone continues to insist that ………… (Insert your own punchline)
Place your bets now.
TINCKS
Points deduction will be on the basis of a first insolvency event………..
this is where doncasters same club will fall apart,if same club then it will be 25 points i think for 2nd admin
oh what a tangled web we weave
Ryan, I hold my hands up to being one of the worst offenders in that respect. In my defence, if even one new person looking in learns the truth about the big lie, then that is a degree of success. What is abundantly clear is that they’re not going to learn the truth from our woeful mainstream media – the very same media who told us back in 2012, in unison, that the old club had died, but then miraculously resurrected that dead club without a word of explanation.
I have no issue if you or anyone else wants to skip past my posts without reading them. I’m sure the mods are big enough and ugly enough to decide for themselves whether posts should be moved to a different thread, or indeed deleted.
Re the speculation about Brian Kennedy becoming involved at Ibrox. He won’t have made his fortune by throwing good money after bad and I doubt very much he would be the sugar daddy that the David Murray years have led most of the current Rangers support to demand. He is not going to make a bank give Rangers credit facilities unless he gives a personal guarantee. He might manage to get them a stock market listing if King is punted but even if a share issue raised £20m it would only kick the can down the road for a while. If he gets a good look under the bonnet he might run a mile.
Someone, at some point, is going to have to point out to the Rangers support the exact level of austerity that is required to ensure it ceases to be a loss making business year after year.
What debt would force an entity into administration, and which entity do people think it would be.
The only debt I am aware the PLC holds is to shareholders and directors. Would those people really want to be seen as placing the club into administration. Would they be willing to see their money lost through that administration.
As far as I am concerned if there are no innocent creditors bumped of their cash (including me, the taxpayer) then it really isn’t a huge issue.
Though why would they take a points hit when the directors could just forgive the debt and lose their money that way.
Forgive me if I have missed some advantage to this administration, or is it the Ashley contract. That would be an interesting case when he accuses them of a contrived insolvency based on no substantial external debt and designed purely to breach a contact with him.
HOMUNCULUSSEPTEMBER 18, 2016 at 13:10
CO
I suspect the accounts for 2016 will show a further loss, for the fourth successive year. It is entirely possible that the 2017 accounts will show even more losses, if the club gets that far.
5 years in existence, spending more than you are earning in every one of them.
Financial fair play, it’s a joke.
————————————————————————————————————-
Maybe in Scotland, but not for UEFA and any dreams of European fitba it’s not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CiGUMQZUgU
I’d be very worried if Mr Kennedy gets involved. just ask supporters of Stockport County.
i would expect he would just be interested in the real estate.
spliting ground from club and just selling the club on.
Homunculus,
Agree that at present there is little or none in the way of external debt. This is all about cash flow. When bills can no longer be paid option one or two has to happen in order to keep the show on the road.
DCK pulling a rabbit out of a hat can take several potential forms. Sale and leaseback of assets. An external credit line (probably in the Wonga market). Disapplication of pre-emption rights with some current shareholders putting in money in return for diluting others out of existence. All off these kick the can further down the road.
Being taken over by a serious business person and run on a sustainable basis should be every Bear’s preferred option. But they saw off Bill Miller and Mike Ashley.
If neither a sustainable take-over nor rabbit form a hat materialise then when the cash runs out they will be trading whilst insolvent. The current directors and officers of TRFC and RIFC might be comfortably off by my standards but as far as I am aware most live within the jurisdiction of the UK courts and are not so wealthy that they would wish to incur the personal liabilities that go with insolvent trading.
Another advantage of an insolvency event is that an administrator can put in place an austerity programme very swiftly. An insolvency event in itself does not necessarily preclude options one and two at a later date.
TINCKS
SEPTEMBER 18, 2016 at 13:17
Tincks, Brian Kennedy was reported to be a Hibernian supporter during the 2012 insolvency, as far as I can recall.
Is john kennedy the answer or do Celtic need to bring in Robert McAlpine to sort out their defence and lastly how long before chris sutton says brendan rodgers is ronny 2.Just asking like guys.
Ryan
Previously you could argue, as Stewart Regan once did, that it was up to the fans to decide if Rangers 1872/3 is the same club as was formed in 2012. In the context of club allegiances, it doesn’t really matter to me if fans of the new club treat it as if it was the original.
.
Through the fans, many of us believe that the spirit of the old club lives on in the new. However, we also accept that the spirit is ethereal, it has no real substance.
.
In many ways we may not think it matters much, if the new club is confused with old – but recent developments have brought the matter into focus once more.
.
It is entirely possible that the current incarnation may follow the example of its predecessor and run out of cash. It may not – but it is a real possibility. It may, this time, happen mid-season.
.
If we accept that a football club is separate from the corporate body from which it operates, what is to stop a new entity purchasing the IP, property and other assets, and just leaving the bad bits behind? Do we really want a league structure that gives reckless owners a get-out-of-jail-free card? Do we really think that if, sometime before Christmas, the SPFL and SFA memberships are transferred to a new company in an insolvency situation, the new entity should pick up the points gained by the current club and simply finish the season?
.
This is the reality that the continuity myth presents. Is this not worthy of discussion?
.
One last thing. The new seeding structures to be adopted by UEFA are likely to include a benefit for clubs that have a European trophy in their history. Now, if we are saying that a club’s history is really something that can be purchased as part of a liquidation sale, it means that the current Rangers can claim a sporting advantage – should it ever qualify for a European competition – that would have gone to the original club, winners of the Cup Winners Cup in 1972, if it still existed.
RYANGOSLINGSEPTEMBER 18, 2016 at 11:48
Ryan, I appreciate where you are coming from. Like HP above I don’t think anyone has a problem with fans believing in the ethereal entity.
However make no mistake it is not the fans who broke the record re the Oldco/Newco debate – it was the lack of definitive explanations from the footballing authorities.
Rangers were liquidated, they stiffed their creditors but they apparently live on unharmed.
If it were that simple why have so many other clubs in the UK even bothered with the hassle of administration?
The football authorities, as UK companies and busineses know they cannot sanction such behaviour.
Regan’s let the fans decide argument is just spineless. Doncaster’s comments are the exact opposite from the position taken by his lawyers in a court of law. I.e the argument re the date the club ceased to exist.
While there are inconstancies with how other clubs have been treated and viewed the debate will drag on endlessly.
HOMUNCULUS
SEPTEMBER 18, 2016 at 13:37
What debt would force an entity into administration, and which entity do people think it would be.?
The only debt I am aware the PLC holds is to shareholders and directors. Would those people really want to be seen as placing the club into administration. Would they be willing to see their money lost through that administration.
As far as I am concerned if there are no innocent creditors bumped of their cash (including me, the taxpayer) then it really isn’t a huge issue.
Though why would they take a points hit when the directors could just forgive the debt and lose their money that way.
Forgive me if I have missed some advantage to this administration, or is it the Ashley contract. That would be an interesting case when he accuses them of a contrived insolvency based on no substantial external debt and designed purely to breach a contact with him.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Since Directors cannot trade insolvently without being made personally liable
They have limited choices:
They can give TRFC more loans from their personal wealth
Or
Appeal for loans from fans
Or
Dilute the share capital up to the maximum currently permitted by previous board resolutions. These shares would have to be offered to existing shareholders before being offered to 3rd parties
Or
Borrow short term at Wonga rates
Or
Sell any saleable assets
Or
Declare an insolvency
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Current Directors who lent real money to TRFC are between a rock and a hard place
If they are unwilling to lend any more money for working capital and can`t find money elsewhere they become Creditors in an insolvency where the best they can expect is a pence in the pound return from a CVA or liquidation
IMO
TRFC are heading towards a liquidation sale of Ibrox and MP with prospective asset buyers in pole position to buy as cheaply as possible and then rent the assets back to anyone prepared to start a new club
If the Directors wait until an Administrator/Liquidator is appointed they have lost control of events
I suspect it is the prospect of liquidation that is driving TRFC Directors towards selling assets to Brian Kennedy while the business is still a going concern
That way they can negotiate the annual leasing charge in conjunction with negotiating the price of the assets
However
Even if they sell off the assets the best they can hope for is to get some or possibly all of their loans repaid. I can`t see BK throwing his money down the drain so if he did get involved it would simply be to buy the assets cheap and rent them back to whoever ran the new club. Unless the new owners had lots of money to burn they would be obliged to introduce severe austerity to avoid another cash crisis
PS. Busy time coming up workwise so will be watching but may not be contributing as often.
Thank feck some might say, but think it best to explain ones potential abscene as oppose to thinking the site is losing people.
Keep plugging away.
GOOSYGOOSYSEPTEMBER 18, 2016 at 21:07
Since Directors cannot trade insolvently without being made personally liableThey have limited choices:
Dilute the share capital up to the maximum currently permitted by previous board resolutions. These shares would have to be offered to existing shareholders before being offered to 3rd parties
———————
Would an EGM have to be called for this?
And does there have to be about a months notice?
Or could the previous board resolutions be changed at an AGM?
And would it have to be a majority vote to permit a dilution of share capital?
As I think I have said on here or elsewhere, this is my mother site. But I often feel overwhelmed by the deep posts on here, out of my depth.
The johnjames site on the other hand I feel I have voice, probably because of the diversity in topics etc.
It is his first birthday tomorrow as a blogger, and he walks hand in hand with us. I know several of TSFM posters are visitors to his site. Why not pop in and say hello tomorrow? The guy puts up at least one lengthy article per day, the work involved in that! Then the Moderation!
Give the guy a wee hands up.
CLUSTER ONESEPTEMBER 18, 2016 at 22:02 5 Votes
GOOSYGOOSYSEPTEMBER 18, 2016 at 21:07Since Directors cannot trade insolvently without being made personally liableThey have limited choices:Dilute the share capital up to the maximum currently permitted by previous board resolutions. These shares would have to be offered to existing shareholders before being offered to 3rd parties———————Would an EGM have to be called for this?And does there have to be about a months notice?Or could the previous board resolutions be changed at an AGM?And would it have to be a majority vote to permit a dilution of share capital?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I could be wrong but I think an EGM is only needed when a shareholder vote is required to do something the board does not have authority to do
In this case I think the Board already have authority to dilute shares up to the limit permitted either by a previous AGM majority vote resolution or under the terms of the initial IPO
From memory I think there are about 40m RIFC ” unissued shares” which could be released for sale to existing shareholders without requiring an EGM
However those Board Directors who already own shares would be forced to take up their personal pro rata allocation to avoid diluting their existing holding. If the terms of their loan contract enables them to convert their loan into new shares they could theoretically maintain their %holding without dilution
BUT
This would mean the money raised would be reduced by the amount of their loans
From the standpoint of Directors unwilling to lose any more money this option may only raise £2m to £3m in cash so it isn`t a solution
Just to be absolutely clear, the articles I quoted from were from 2012.
.
Unfortunately, we can’t have that conversation with Paul; but, (as I quoted earlier and Paul quoted in the article you referenced) the SFA’s Article 6.2 clearly stated:
“A club or association shall be admitted as a registered member automatically by reason of its being admitted as a member of an Affiliated Association or an Affiliated National Association, or in the case of a club through membership of or participation in an association, league or other combination of clubs formed in terms of Article 18”
.
I think, and this is from memory only, that Paul could have been referring to “full” membership status. In this regard, he may have interpreted Scottish Premier League Article 95…
“Nothing in these Articles shall relieve any Member of the Company from its obligations as a full member club of the Scottish FA to comply with the applicable articles of association of the Scottish FA for so long as such Member remains a member of the Scottish FA. Each Member shall in so far as it is lawfully able and permitted by the exercise of its voting powers to do so procure that the Company observes and complies with all relevant articles of association of the Scottish FA applicable to it.”
…to mean that membership of the SPL automatically conferred “Full” membership of the SFA. It did not.
.
There was, I think, an assumption that all SPL clubs would be “full” SFA members – they were, after all, meant to be the top professional clubs in Scotland.
The SFL, on the other hand, were set up to accept clubs from lower leagues who were not already “full” or “associate” SFA members.
.
Paul may have been confused by the Scottish Football League article 16…
“REGISTRATION WITH SFA A CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIP
A Member or Associate Member who is not already a full or associate member of the Scottish Football Association must make application to become a full or associate member of the Scottish Football Association (as the case may be) within fourteen (14) days of being admitted to membership of the League failing which its membership of the League will lapse, and in the event that the application is unsuccessful, its membership will lapse upon that decision being intimated to the League.”
…which is clear that “full” or “associate” SFA membership is a condition of its league membership – but must be granted by the SFA separately. What it does NOT say is that clubs accepted to play in the league are not registered members of the SFA – as per its Article 6.2
.
As I said, I remember the idea being raised briefly at the time – that SPL membership could offer prospective clubs a different relationship with the SFA than they would get through membership of the SFL; but, from what I saw then and now, it just wasn’t so.
.
If only we could ask Paul today, how he came to make that statement back in 2012.
GOOSYGOOSYSEPTEMBER 19, 2016 at 00:28
From the standpoint of Directors unwilling to lose any more money this option may only raise £2m to £3m in cash so it isn`t a solution
——————–Thanks for reply. As you say They have limited choices
HIRSUTEPURSUITSEPTEMBER 18, 2016 at 19:42 It is entirely possible that the current incarnation may follow the example of its predecessor and run out of cash. It may not – but it is a real possibility. It may, this time, happen mid-season..If we accept that a football club is separate from the corporate body from which it operates, what is to stop a new entity purchasing the IP, property and other assets, and just leaving the bad bits behind? Do we really want a league structure that gives reckless owners a get-out-of-jail-free card? Do we really think that if, sometime before Christmas, the SPFL and SFA memberships are transferred to a new company in an insolvency situation, the new entity should pick up the points gained by the current club and simply finish the season?
=======================================
Given what has already been allowed by the authorities, nothing would be a shock.
upthehoopsSeptember 19, 2016 at 07:07 3 Votes
HIRSUTEPURSUITSEPTEMBER 18, 2016 at 19:42 It is entirely possible that the current incarnation may follow the example of its predecessor and run out of cash. It may not – but it is a real possibility. It may, this time, happen mid-season..If we accept that a football club is separate from the corporate body from which it operates, what is to stop a new entity purchasing the IP, property and other assets, and just leaving the bad bits behind? Do we really want a league structure that gives reckless owners a get-out-of-jail-free card? Do we really think that if, sometime before Christmas, the SPFL and SFA memberships are transferred to a new company in an insolvency situation, the new entity should pick up the points gained by the current club and simply finish the season?
=======================================
Given what has already been allowed by the authorities, nothing would be a shock.
===========================================================================
A new entity couldn’t pick up all the points, since there would be an automatic points deduction as soon as the original member had an insolvency event. I can’t remember whether the current penalty is 10 or 15 points.
I’m also unsure as to the current rules on the transfer of SFA membership. When RFC went under, the rule was that membership couldn’t be transferred, but the SFA Board could override the rule. Hence the 5 Way Agreement stitch-up.
I’ll check the current rules later and post again. However the clear purpose of the rules as they stood at July 2012 was to prevent the kind of thing that happened with the RFC membership, but with the usual get-out clause “just in case”.
Mr Barton at Ibrox this morning:
I thought it interesting that Mr Barton decided to turn up for a meeting today at Ibrox in what I would describe as casual attire. Would a suit and club tie not have been more appropriate considering the manner of the meeting. I would add that in previous times turning up in that attire would have been unacceptable with the former regime who inhabited Ibrox.
HP
These two links cover Paul McConvilles’s thinking and have a look at PM.
http://www.scotzine.com/2012/07/the-legal-aspect-of-rangers-and-the-sfa-membership/
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/the-brechin-ultimatum-did-sfa-botch-rangers-fcs-membership-are-any-rfc-players-registered/
Wow, the really deep stuff that I still make a point of coming in here for! Jimbo, that’s not to belittle JJ’s efforts. He makes no secret of his utter contempt for the authorities and ‘simply’ broadcasts at every opportunity what was done in their (RFC’s) name, as opposed to getting dragged into the exact nuts and bolts of how it was done. His site is all the better for that in my opinion and apparently its not without pretty serious feedback on the matter for him as one would expect. That’s different to us understanding on here the ‘why’s and hows’ which is just as relevant though since that bit was supposedly done in our name.
Anyway, Just wanted to add to my thoughts on here re the potential Kennedy takeover. Firstly I can’t see how he could purchase the required %age given the outlay required with no payback. That in itself ignores the nuts and bolts of how he could do it around pre-emption rights, majority bids etc especially if the existing board didn’t play ball although I’d question how they possibly could resist. It would be out of character for Kennedy to put it mildly. The only route I could see would be to use his backing to secure another share offer (which surely the institutions would body swerve (unless a euro/englandshire restructure was in the offing)) leaving only the fans to decide if they wished to prop up their continuing dream. It would be up to them if they wished to fund:
1/ a repayment to Kennedy, in the same way that Green’s consortium achieved;
2/ a continuation of the existing ’55’, super buses and all that with the downside being that it requires £7m estimated each year.
3/ the club (don’t start) they could and should have had built on proper sustainable foundations which requires a complete change in outlook and operation imho.
I will be surprised if they go down the administration route as I see no benefit with only directors loans that we are aware of as debt which would appear to be toast anyway. (Worth mentioning here that JJ believes that King has withdrawn his, the so called Hong Kong debt, but is not speculating publicly who has taken over the mantle since I doubt there was £6m simply lying around spare).
I will be totally astonished if they go down the liquidation route. Kennedy’s task will be hard enough utilising ‘premiership’ exposure. It would be nigh on impossible without major root and branch overhaul to achieve it as well as beginning the journey again. It would be interesting to take a straw poll of clubs appetite for it as well.
My hunch, assuming King and Murray want/need out, would be a combination of the above – Kennedy with Ashley on side to keep the lights on now and to run a share offer. Lashings of ‘2’ above in the prospectus to “secure the dream” but the eventual level of funds raised to determine firstly how much Kennedy can immediately get back. I would strongly encourage the bear investors to be absolutely clear on this point. More fool them if they don’t but equally I completely understand why Kennedy would want it set up that way. It is business after all (pause for ironic effect).
looks like joey barton has been giving a 3 week holiday…i mean suspension
I checked the points deduction rule in the case of a mid-season insolvency event. An immediate 15 point deduction, and another 5 points at the start of the following season.
From what I’ve seen, the current Ibrox team don’t have 15 points to play with- that could mean relegation.
Yet another very good reason to avoid administration at all costs. I agree with Smugas, a planned administration achieves nothing. But where will the money to keep the lights on come from, if not from Kennedy? The 3 Bears? Haven’t they suffered enough? King’s children’s inheritance? I don’t think so.
Looks like the fans will have to dig very deep, if Kennedy really is just a tyre kicker.
I think an unplanned administration at this point could end the “journey” once and for all. Unless the rest of Scottish football chips in via emergency funding from the SFA/SPFL. Now that would not surprise me in the slightest.
Hence my interest in the alleged ‘takeover’ of the directors loan. Two points are key here. a/ who now holds the paper debt and what is their intention. There is less than zero chance somebody wanted it to pile them straight into admin that’s for sure. Not without the mother of all post-CVA recovery plans and once again you’re back to the old hoary chestnut as to whether the aforementioned plan could reinvigorate RFC and simultaneously repay the investment required. Nothing tells me it could, 2016 accounts notwithstanding.
Secondly and related to the first, you’ll have to explain in simple terms that if you’ve just put £6m into the club that’s already gone from an operating perspective. It might as well be in Joey and Kranjcar’s hipper, because, well, it is! Its not new money but to the fans it will be spun as such (if rumours are true of course). The new money that arrived takes the effective cash at hand figure from -6m to 0. If King has successfully withdrawn ‘his’ investment (and repaid the Hong Kong debt as alleged) all that’s happened is their cash balance is back to -6m again. Nothing changes on the field, just the finger on the red button has changed.
And finally, as a separate point, that assumes that all of the Hong Kong money was King’s (I believe differently) and that if he has withdrawn it as alleged that he has sent it back to them for the repayment plus interest they would have been expecting.
Just to keep the pot boiling –
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/06/17/why-rangers-fc-continues-even-in-newco-and-why-this-is-no-use-to-ceo-green/
AULDHEIDSEPTEMBER 19, 2016 at 10:36 3 Votes
HPThese two links cover Paul McConvilles’s thinking and have a look at PM.http://www.scotzine.com/2012/07/the-legal-aspect-of-rangers-and-the-sfa-membership/ https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/the-brechin-ultimatum-did-sfa-botch-rangers-fcs-membership-are-any-rfc-players-registered/
================================================
Auldheid,
The nub of the matter is whether or not Sevco Scotland automatically became a registered member of the SFA when accepted into the SFL on 13th July 2012 – and Rangers FC remained a registered member of the SFA via its membership of the SPL until the the transfer of its “full” membership to Sevco and the transfer of its SPL share to Dundee on 3rd August 2012.
.
Simply put, it cannot be the same club, if during this time the SFA recognised them as separate member clubs.
.
In his piece, Paul stated,
…but I cannot find anything that supports the proposition that the SFA differentiated (in relation to “registered” membership) between clubs within the SPL and the SFL.
.
Paul presents the idea as if it was explicitly stated within Article 6.2. It is not.
.
.
Paul’s piece was interesting and raised several very pertinent questions – primarily, was Sevco eligible to play Brechin in the Ramsden Cup? He felt the award of a “conditional” SFA membership was potentially “ultra vires” – i.e. outwith the power of the board to make the award of a membership category that did not exist. If the club was not a member of the SFA, he suggests it was not eligible to participate in an SFA sanctioned competition.
.
My view at the time (and still today) is that Sevco had automatically became a “registered” SFA member on the 13th July and the condition of being accepted as a member of the SFL was simply that the club should apply for “full” or “associate” SFA membership within 14 days. Sevco met that condition by applying for a transfer of Rangers FC’s “full” membership within the 14 day period. It did not have to be accepted as a “full” or “associate” member within 14 days – it simply had to have made the application. There is no prescribed timescale, that I am aware of, within which the SFA had to make a decision. Theoretically, that decision could have been postponed until the next SFA AGM – during the following close season.
.
The real issue – why the SFA board had to give approval to allow the Brechin game to go ahead – is this,
The real issue is that the Board had to give its approval before Sevco Scotland (the new “registered” member) could take to the field and call itself Rangers. Because, at the time, there was another “full” member club called Rangers.
.
The “conditional” membership was a useful squirrel for the SFA, in that the few people who noticed Article 10.7, got drowned out in the noise of the outrage of those who thought the SFA Board had corruptly created a new class of membership for the benefit of Sevco.
.
The “conditional” membership was no such thing. What is was, was an agreement to transfer the class of “full” SFA membership – but conditional on some conditions being met. Those conditions – as we now know – were set out in the infamous 5WA.
.
Paul, mistakenly I believe, thought that the only membership class that could have applied to Sevco was a made up, pretendy thing.
.
From my interpretation, the only class of SFA membership that Sevco held when it played Brechin, was the “registered” SFA membership that it got on the 13th July. The “full” membership was transferred on the 3rd August.
.
I don’t see why Sevco could not have played Brechin simply as a “registered” member of the SFA. I also, btw, think that it was wholly within the Boards power (Article 10.7) to allow Sevco Scotland to use the name Rangers as they took the field.
.
Of course, if the SFA had overtly announced that it had decided under article 10.7 to allow Sevco to play with the name Rangers, it would have highlighted the fact that they recognised both clubs simultaneous existence.
.
As always I am very happy to be corrected in any of this.
On a Kennedy takeover, I would tend to agree that he will not purchase a majority shareholding at a price suitable to the current shareholders. There is, however, one thing that he and the board could do. They could sell him a majority shareholding in TRFC Ltd, if he wanted it. Just a thought
Problem with the stands at Ibrox you say?
“Nothing to see here” says the man on the level
What about that Section 89 Building warrant lodged with the Glasgow City council?
https://publicaccess.glasgow.gov.uk/online-applications/scottishBuildingWarrantDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=ODLE5LEX09500
here’s the guidance notes for applying for a Section 89
https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=12988&p=0
“The plans should include the type of seats (if any)which are to be used….”
HirsutePursuit
From previous post, Mr Mc Conville’s conclusion .
Conclusion
As I have written before, history matters to football fans. Winning more trophies than your rivals allows you to crow over them and maintains feelings of superiority. It would hurt Rangers fans to lose the history.
The mantra that it was the company that had failed, not the club, was repeated ad nauseam. However, as I have suggested, perhaps that was right all along. Football treats the existence of a football club differently from how corporate law treats businesses.
However, we have the ironic situation where Mr Green is making statements, as I posted at the head of the article, consistent with this being an entirely “new” Rangers under his ownership. It is most likely that, touching on the points I made recently, he has seen the risks to Rangers from the alleged misdeeds of Messrs Whyte and Murray, and has decided that he needs to “kill off” the old Rangers to protect the new, and his consortium’s investment from possible contamination.
Mr Green is attempting to face both ways at once like Janus, the Roman god. He impliedly proclaims to the SFA and SPL that it is a new club; as long as we ignore the playing in oldco’s stadium, players, strip colour, fan base and name. At the same time, to keep the loyal Rangers FC fans interested in buying season tickets and supporting the club, he needs to maintain that he is fighting for the club, and its history. The only problem is he has to maintain the two contrary positions in full public view at the same time.
We come back to where I was in my last piece on this issue. If Rangers FC is willing to pay the price for its misdeeds, then it gets to keep its history. If it wants instead to be a new entity confusingly enough called “Rangers” but without any baggage from the past, then it cannot claim the history either.
Mr Green – what’s it gonna be boy, yes or no?
SCAPAFLOWSEPTEMBER 19, 2016 at 13:51
A previous warrant was secured in April and expired on Saturday 23rd, which happened to be the last home game of last season. Might this one just be connected to the Armed Forces Day event?
Blu
Possibly, do they use temporary seating for Forces day?
SCAPAFLOWSEPTEMBER 19, 2016 at 14:26
Tried to add:
How about the SFA holding an Armed Forces Day as part of Scottish Cup Final? A bit like the Lawn Tennis Association does at Wimbledon, thereby detoxifying the whole issue?
SCAPAFLOWSEPTEMBER 19, 2016 at 14:26
SCAPA, I’ve no idea, it just looks like a routine process. A quick search shows that similar applications have been made for Firhill, Hampden, Celtic Park and Ibrox in the past.
BLUSEPTEMBER 19, 2016 at 14:46
ta
“How about the SFA holding an Armed Forces Day as part of Scottish Cup Final? A bit like the Lawn Tennis Association does at Wimbledon, thereby detoxifying the whole issue?”
Or even an NHS day? A junior doctor’s day, a Learning Difficulties day, homelessness day, international refugee day etc etc. All as much if not more deserving but probably not as they might be deemed to be a political statement. As of course is Armed Forces Day. Nothing to do with fitba.
Yesterday evenings exchange on Rangers finances between Goosy and Cluster One got my mind wandering into some idle conjecture.
Just suppose that you are a businessman living in a land far away. In short order you are hit with a double whammy. Your tax affairs fall apart in the land far away and cost you tens of millions. Meanwhile in the homeland a sporting institution that you invested in goes belly up costing you another £20m.
A few years later, with the aid of mostly other peoples money you take control of the next iteration of that sporting institution which remains “a loss making business without a credit line from a bank”.
Share issues are not going to work and “Other People”, having already been burned are never going to part with more money. which leaves the “Wonga” money markets.
This sporting institution receives a massive cash injection from customers every summer but this will never be enough to make it all the way through the year.
Mid season the sporting institution urgently needs £5m. A Wonga lender in an Eastern Land steps up with the full amount. “25% interest and you can pay us back next summer when the cash comes in”.
Now let’s suppose the leader of this sporting institution was the disguised source of the Wonga loan and beneficiary of the interest. Make sure that the loss making enterprise needs a Wonga loan every mid-season and you can repeat the trick year after year.
Just idle musings. Probably nothing in it.
TONY
SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 at 11:18
looks like joey barton has been giving a 3 week holiday…i mean suspension
==================================================
So, he will be away from Ibrox for 4 weeks in total.
Don’t know if he is automatically docked his pay, [typically there is a limit of 2 weeks pay for fines IIRC ?].
So, best case for TRFC cash-flow is that Barton has helpfully freed up c.GBP 80K+
Also, Barton is 34 years old.
I believe he missed pre-season.
Even if he keeps himself fit for the next 3 weeks, he won’t be match fit for a good bit longer.
And that’s even if he can force his way back into the team – whilst assuming that both Warburton and the Board want to retain his expensive services.
A 34 year old, with his history, jeopardising a GBP20K a week contract in the SPFL is just crazy.
Could be his last big payday.
Celtic have just announced their annual results to the Sock Exchange. I’ll have a read through the statement and see if anything sticks out
Financial Highlights
· Group revenue increased by 1.8% to £52.0m
· Operating expenses increased by 7.3% to £57.1m
· Exceptional costs of £1.7m (2015: £0.7m)
· Gain on sale of player registrations of £12.6m (2015: £6.8m)
· Profit before taxation of £0.5m (2015: loss of £3.9m)
· Year-end net cash at bank of £3.6m (2015: £4.7m)
· Investment in football personnel of £8.8m (2015: £9.4m)
On a quick skim read of Celtic’s accounts, they are much as expected with turnover on a par with the previous year (both without CL revenue).
Simply put, Celtic make a profit with CL revenue. They break even with EL revenue and a decent surplus on transfer dealings (2015/16). They lose money with EL revenue and a smaller surplus on transfers (2014/15).
On the point of comparing Retail revenue with that, potentially, available to Rangers (without a boycott), Celtic helpfully state that Revenue was £12.577M while costs were £7.826M.
TINCKS
SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 at 15:23…
Mid season the sporting institution urgently needs £5m. A Wonga lender in an Eastern Land steps up with the full amount. “25% interest and you can pay us back next summer when the cash comes in”.
Now let’s suppose the leader of this sporting institution was the disguised source of the Wonga loan and beneficiary of the interest. Make sure that the loss making enterprise needs a Wonga loan every mid-season and you can repeat the trick year after year.
Just idle musings. Probably nothing in it.
==============================
On the face of it, that looks like a wheeze – especially if you have the spare cash and getting b*gger all return from simply banking it.
If RIFC was still a plc, then the obvious conflict of interest would have to be declared, and this might not be acceptable.
As a private company, the conflict of interest remains of course, and a declaration of the source of the loan should still be shared with the other shareholders.
If a director was hiding himself as the source of funds, I guess that would constitute a failure of Anti-Money Laundering regulations, i.e. RIFC/TRFC has not confirmed the true source of the loan.
But, as a private company I suppose a dodgy director could exploit any ‘leeway’ – as opposed to a plc and the requirement to issue honest, public statements to the stock exchange for any material developments.
IMO, King is only at Ibrox to make money, pay for his UK flights and expenses – and any money he does still have will be nowhere near the club, directly or indirectly.
easyJamboSeptember 19, 2016 at 15:25
“Celtic have just announced their annual results to the Sock Exchange. I’ll have a read through the statement and see if anything sticks out ”
If there are any holes in the Sock then a toe would probably stick out ! Darn it .
HirsutePursuitSeptember 19, 2016 at 13:13
My view at the time (and still today) is that Sevco had automatically became a “registered” SFA member on the 13th July and the condition of being accepted as a member of the SFL was simply that the club should apply for “full” or “associate” SFA membership within 14 days.
====================
That is precisely the conclusion that I came to at the time. As soon as Sevco were voted in to the SFL, then under the rules in force at the time, they automatically became a member of the SFA. RFC remained a member of the SFA until their membership was transferred to Sevco (on 1 August?), when the 5WA was signed off.
Is it just my imagination, or were some of the players for Sevco against Brechin technically on loan from RFC?
NEEPHEIDSEPTEMBER 19, 2016 at 16:01
“Is it just my imagination, or were some of the players for Sevco against Brechin technically on loan from RFC?”
———————————————————————————————————————————–
I think you may be referring to the letter from Duff & Phelps Neeps, which granted permission for Rangers(I.L.) registered players, to take to the field for Sevco Scotland.
I’m sure somebody could post a copy.
Ernie
Perfectly respectable point of view. However, I suspect things like Armed Forces Day are here to stay. A lot of people in the military love their football, they do not by any means all support Rangers. So if there is going to be some sort of Armed Forces Day, then why not make it inclusive rather than exclusive?
Personally, I think the SFA saying to the military, if service personnel turn up on Cup Final Day in uniform we’ll let them in free, is a much better way for football as whole to mark an “Armed Forces Day”, rather than the perennial PR car crash waiting to happen at Ibrox.
I bet, (know) a lot of serving military types would be quietly delighted to see and an end to the purely Rangers day.
YMMV
HIRSUTEPURSUIT
SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 at 13:13
———————————-
My post at 1129 yesterday was to illustrate that the issue isn’t black or white.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10204
The above link (from 17.07.12) indicates that the SFA were unable to consider membership (either new or transferred) for Sevco Scotland until the SFL awarded them conditional membership. That was discussed at a Special General Meeting on 13.07.12.
This link, from 27.07.12, indicates that agreement on the SFA transfer was reached, not that it was completed on that date.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsID=10252
Interestingly (to me, at least), the second link indicates that Sevco Scotland clearly weren’t RFC or TRFC on that date. It goes on to say that the SFA transfer of membership would be completed by 03.08.12, when the RFC(IA) SPL share would transfer to Dundee.
We’re back to that question again: who played Brechin on 29.07.12?
It was a team that didn’t have a recognised membership of the SFA; they had a ‘conditional’ membership of the governing body & had to have a letter authorising the use of RFC (IA) players who were signed to an SFA member club that was ineligible for the first round of the Challenge Cup.
We’ll probably never know whether Sevco Scotland t/a TRFC were granted full or associate membership of the SFA upon the transfer of membership. Like the 5WA agreement, it’ll (the signatories hope, I’m sure) remain sub rosa.
Having read a little more today, I’d favour the full membership option (from 03.08.12). Why? It’s the easiest, simplest one.
PADDY MALARKEYSEPTEMBER 19, 2016 at 14:19
===========================================
There are so many threads to the continuity myth.
.
We were all trying to catch up with our new perceived reality back then.
.
I had intended to write quite a long piece several months ago around the changes to both the SFA Articles and the SPL Articles in 2005 – which combined have led us to a place where ambiguity reigns.
.
I had written, a very long time ago now, a piece on how in Italian football, history and sporting achievement does not reside with the club – but with what they call “Sporting Title”. If one club is liquidated, another local club can purchase the “Sporting Title” from the Italian football authorities and, subject to paying off the old club’s football debts, effectively claim the history and honours of the original club.
.
I have talked about England, where the idea of continuity is spun around a “Golden Share” in the Football League. Effectively, if a club goes under, the league decides if the new club will be allowed to transfer its FL membership to a new club and take its place in the league. The key is again, the payment of football debts. The leagues rules talk about “existing club” and “prospective club” – recognising they are not one and the same – but the general, informal, narrative is around continuity.
.
In Scotland, up until 2005, the SFA expressly forbade the transfer of its membership in an insolvency event – and so, even if a league membership could be transferred to a new corporate body, the SFA membership absolutely could not. What I wanted to do, was show that the SFA and SPL changes in 2005 were slotted in in such a way that no-one really recognised their significance.
.
The 5WA that we all despise, I think was drawn from a template designed during the original changes in 2005.
.
Had Sevco been accepted into the SPL as a direct replacement for Rangers, the situation would have been almost identical to what happens in England. This, I think, is what the authorities had intended. The challenge for the footballing authorities here are that we are a thrawn lot and simply did not accept the premise. Season Ticket boycotts told the clubs we refused to accept this interpretation of what it meant to be a club.
.
Bizarrely, the SPL then claimed the Italian method as its own. All you have to do is replace the phrase “Sporting Title” with “Club” and the jobs a good’un.
.
So even though the new club had to start at the bottom of the pyramid, the SPL created a narrative – via LNS, under the laughable cover of sporting integrity – that the new club was not a club at all. The new club was simply the new corporate holding vehicle for the original ethereal, eternal, everlasting Club.
.
The SFA Board and members just did as they were told.
.
pfft!
StevieBC/Tincks
The ruse you describe works fine if the underlying company wot you are rusing is profitable. You are just skimming your cream. Where it falls apart is firstly if your investment is blown on an operating cash deficiency since it both temporarily masks said deficiency and it also simultaneously disappears. To continue the dairy theme try skimming the cream off the top of the bottle once there’s no milk underneath it propping it up. And the cows can’t be bothered coming to be milked anymore because you said you already had plenty of your own.
Secondly if you’re in for £20m and you’ve recovered what, £1.25m ‘cream’ seems to be the publicised figure. Even, if again as publicised you’ve laundered the original £5m ‘milk’ that you weren’t even supposed to have surely you’re still £13.75m short. If that’s as complex and blatant as your ruse is could I respectfully suggest a different career path.
JINGSO.JIMSIESEPTEMBER 19, 2016 at 16:48
==========================================
It was much more black and white that was being portrayed. Clyde gave the game away. There was no “conditional” agreement in the SFL’s acceptance on Sevco as a new member.
.
Sevco became a SFL member when Resolution 1 was passed on 13th July 2012. Under SFA Article 6.2 Sevco became a registered SFA member automatically at the same time.
.
The wording of statements are misleading or (at best) ambiguous; but all subsequent references to membership transfer can only be in relation to the “full” SFA membership, still at that time, held by Rangers.
.
I agree with your point on the timing of the “full” membership. I have repeatedly said this occurred on 3rd August.
.
Sevco Scotland (trading as Rangers FC) played Brechin on 29th July.
.
http://www.clydefc.co.uk/news/2012/07/10/4139/#.V-AKNPArK00
The three SFL resolutions were:
STEVIEBC
is he jepordising his career or was he only there till book launch,stranger things have happened in govan
NEEPHEIDSEPTEMBER 19, 2016 at 16:01
________________________
There is a document in the ether purporting to show a list of players – still registered with Rangers – where permission was given for them to play for Sevco.
.
It seems highly unlikely that proper registration procedures were followed at the time
TONY
SEPTEMBER 19, 2016 at 17:36
STEVIEBC is he jepordising his career or was he only there till book launch,stranger things have happened in govan
==========================
Agreed, that could have been a motivating factor for him to join TRFC in the short-term, and to maintain his public profile.
But, by all accounts last season he did play well – even winning Burnley’s player of the year award.
When he does stick to playing football, he can be pretty decent – and a swansong in the SPFL could have suited him fine.
If his heart just isn’t in the game anymore, then he could be angling for a payoff ?
Don’t think he will be playing for TRFC again though, IMO.