In the Service of Fools

ByAuldheid

In the Service of Fools

Given the recent heightened focus on the refereeing standards in Scotland, I was asked to update a previous blog from 2010 that included suggestions for changing the way refereeing is managed in Scotland .

Having had a look at original my thoughts are “ here we are again”, for the very same reasons the blog was penned in 2010.

Why?

Because the refereeing issue is in my view connected to a lack of proper financial controls that create moral hazard, where one party can act with reckless abandon (see Rangers latest accounts), but other parties, as happened in 2012 are left to face the consequences.

So I’ll just repeat the suggestions made then but with an added comment on the proposed use of VAR, and how that and proper financial controls can save Scottish football from itself. First the Referee Service

Note the word “service” for this is the way that much of what the SFA do should be viewed. The SFA provide a number of services to the clubs who play in Scotland. They should not be seen as their masters but their servants. Or in modern terms the clubs in their professional leagues are the customers and the SFA the service providers. This change of attitude would allow competition to provide such services to enter the scene and so improve them.

This would be a huge cultural change but it has to start somewhere and here we are again under starters orders IF supporters act to bring the change about by calling their clubs to account for allowing the past to repeat itself today  as a result of the notorious  sporting integrity breaking Five Way Agreement, that UEFA never clapped eyes on where our game became a franchise and clubs where stores that changed from Mr Noodles to Nachos but were still the same because they sold food. 

Anyway!

The Referee Service

This would be split with the SFA doing the recruitment, training and match appointments (having taken the nature of the game to be officiated into account). However the monitoring and evaluation would be the province of the customer, using referees or ex refs from anywhere to mark to a standard set by the customer. This spilt of responsibilities would prevent any one person being in a position to exert his own influence on referees as a result of being part of the appointment and evaluation process. It would safeguard the SFA from the kind of suspicion that led to the referees’ strike and lead to a higher standard of referee because the customer would be setting the standard not the supplier (as happens everywhere in business but football) If it did not, it would free the SPL/SL to hire their own referees from wherever they could get them. A bit of competition never did anybody any harm and that includes our referees who, if they reached higher standards, would be in more demand outside Scotland.

Here is the addition brought on by the introduction of VAR which is just another service. Use this “here we go again” opportunity to put the VAR service AND the refereeing it watches over out to tender. The VAR supplier is also the referee monitor service to the leagues and the SFA become trainers and developers at lower levels of professional referees and work with the VAR service under a contract that rewards both parties.  

The Licensing Service

This needs to be calibrated to meet the financial position of Scottish clubs.  The principles in UEFA FFP that stipulate what is to be treated as allowable income and allowable debt continue,  but regulating controls to prevent clubs going bust or acting in a reckless financial manner need introduced. Points deduction is no deterrent if such recklessness creates huge points gap at end of season when the CL money is at stake. Nor is the threat of losing all won by that recklessness a deterrent, when the nature of how it was won is downplayed then ignored and airbrushed from football history.

If survival depends on access to CL geld then referees , as matters continue to stand will come under the kind of scrutiny that unless addressed,  leads to an ever growing suspicion,  because here we bloody well are again,  that our game is bent .

Worse it leads to thinking that the clubs like it that way but ignore that their supporters do not and will continue to ignore until supporters vote with their feet.

In short the Licensing Service that is supposed to protect the financial well being of Scottish clubs has failed. It perpetuates a moral hazard almost by design that caused Rangers demise in 2012  and that failure and how it was dealt with under the 5 Way Agreement has undermined the integrity of our game, causing increased scrutiny of referee decisions and if not dealt with this time will eventually kill football in Scotland as a sport.

VAR however if introduced as a professional service on lines suggested should encourage more prudent financial behaviour in future by making reckless behaviour so risky it will stop and with it the moral hazard it creates.

About the author

Auldheid author

Celtic fan from Glasgow living mostly in Spain. A contributor to several websites, discussion groups and blogs, and a member of the Resolution 12 Celtic shareholders' group. Committed to sporting integrity, good governance, and the idea that football is interdependent. We all need each other in the game.

821 Comments so far

normanbatesmumfcPosted on12:41 pm - Nov 24, 2021


Fixtures to kick of December;

Hibernian v The Rangers
Celtic V Hearts

I wonder which referees the SFA can rely on to be a safe pair of hands and get the results they want? Step-up loyal brothers Beaton and Madden.

Incredibly this will be Madden’s 4th Celtic fixture this season (match week 15). They’ve given up trying to even hide it now!!

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:01 pm - Nov 24, 2021


Cluster One 23rd November 2021 At 22:28
”..Douglas park stepped down the same week, also in the news’
%%%%%%%%%%%
Thanks for that, Cluster One.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on2:56 pm - Nov 24, 2021


Corrupt official 24th November 2021 @ 0217hrs &

bect67 24th November 2021 @ 1022hrs &

Corrupt official 24th November 2021 @ 1212hrs
::
::
TRFC just don’t get it. They were widely pilloried for ‘banning’ Sutton & Lennon the last time.

BT (the host broadcaster, don’t forget) reportedly complained to UEFA about TRFC’s actions. So what do they do? They do it again!

Wance Again, Totally Preposterous.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on3:29 pm - Nov 24, 2021


Jingso.Jimsie 24th November 2021 At 14:56

Exactly why I raised the financial aspect of it JJ. The cost of several stewards strategically placed around the broadcast area, is easily outmatched by the broadcast income/brand awareness etc etc.
Clearly Sevco’s actions are about nurturing some other aspect of their income streams.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on3:35 pm - Nov 24, 2021


normanbatesmumfc 24th November 2021 At 12:41

I wonder which referees the SFA can rely on to be a safe pair of hands and get the results they want?

A lesson in how to get fast-track promotion through the refereeing ranks.

https://twitter.com/OwenJamesBrown/status/1463512862408728578?s=20

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on3:56 pm - Nov 24, 2021


Corrupt official 24th November 2021 @ 1529hrs –

On the previous occasion when Sutton was denied accreditation, I wondered what message that sent to UEFA as regards security & safety for players, officials & media persons within the ground & surrounds: a ground where an opposition player was assaulted after the match by a TRFC player.

The longer that TRFC is allowed to ‘cancel’ Sutton, the more dangerous it becomes for him, not just at football stadia, but in his everyday life.

Won’t Allow That Person, perhaps?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:07 pm - Nov 24, 2021


Corrupt official 24th November 2021 At 15:29
‘..Clearly Sevco’s actions are about nurturing some other aspect of their income streams.’
%%%%%%%%%%%%

Well, Corrupt Official, the Governance bodies of Scottish Football made forsworn liars and cheats of themselves in pandering to Team 12/ CG’s Sevco5088/(curiously becoming SevcoScotland) and then to RIFC plc ,in accommodating the publication of a factually untrue Prospectus.

Could we now realistically expect that those ‘Governance’ bodies have either any desire or capacity to challenge RIFC plc in anything that that organisation does?

I think not, since the lack of integrity is so generalised across our clubs.

Likewise, the BBC finds itself in a position of self-inflicted weakness versus RIFC plc because it itself continues to propagate an untruth, and must expect its hand to be bitten contemptuously by the beast which it feeds.

If the BBC were to revisit the stupid, stupid ill-founded ‘policy’ of trying to make a distinction between the Rangers Football Club that, like other football clubs, lost its right to play in Scottish Football and some mythical holding company that had held the share in the SPL, then perhaps things might get sorted.

Rangers Football Club of 1872 is in Liquidation: that is an incontrovertible fact
The Rangers Football Club Ltd was newly created in 2012.
Thee is no one ignorant of those facts, and for anyone in the BBC to try to pretend otherwise is truly monstrous.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on4:27 pm - Nov 24, 2021


Jingso.Jimsie 24th November 2021 At 15:56

Indeed !….
Equally, as this as cited by Sevco as a “Security concern” this MUST involve liasons with external Ibrox authorities. For e.g. the league and association wrt the safety of players on the park, and the polis, wrt upholding the laws of the land. the players union as well as the broadcasters themselves wrt staff safety.
Who amongst these external agencies and authorities not only agrees with Sevco, but stands idly by and permits the situation to stand.
In the end up, if the safety of a pundit in an area of the stadium subject to additional measures and ID pass security is not only problematic, but cannot be overcome, then Sevco are publicly stating, “No-one is safe in here”.
But not a dickie bird uttered by these externals with a vested interest…..It is shameful.

View Comment

bect67Posted on5:21 pm - Nov 24, 2021


Co, JC and j.j

You are all of course right in your indignation. It will be interesting to see what Sutton’s take on the ‘security ban’ will be. The incidents are becoming increasingly embarrassing for TRFC, who will be the PR losers (notwithstanding our useless football authorities?), and in the broadcasting world – particularly with BT, who seem to ‘have CS’s back’.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on7:48 pm - Nov 24, 2021


bect67 24th November 2021 At 17:21

Co, JC and j.j

You are all of course right in your indignation. It will be interesting to see what Sutton’s take on the ‘security ban’ will be.

Sutton’s take……….

https://twitter.com/chris_sutton73/status/1463559310261239812?s=20

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on7:53 pm - Nov 24, 2021


While watching an old episode of ‘Poirot’ this afternoon, having a cup of coffee with Mrs C, an advert popped up.

It was for The London Mint Office , touting a ‘gold commemorative coin’ celebrating Elvis Presley.

The London Mint Office was incorporated as ‘FathomRealm Ltd’ in November 1997, changed its name to ‘The Crown Collections Ltd’ in December 1997, and again changed its name on 28 June 2007, to ‘The London Mint Office’

Now, Section 54 of the Companies Act 2006 has this to say about company names:
” 54. Names suggesting connection with government or public authority
(1)The approval of the Secretary of State is required for a company to be registered under this Act by a name that would be likely to give the impression that the company is connected with—
(a)Her Majesty’s Government, any part of the Scottish administration , the Welsh Assembly Government or Her Majesty’s Government in Northern Ireland,
(b)a local authority, or
(c)any public authority specified for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Secretary of State…”

I’m not particularly gullible [ !?] but before the whole rottenness in Scottish Football alerted me to the fact that not everything in business is as it seems, I think I might well have thought that ‘The London Mint Office’ was in some way PART of The Royal Mint and that in dealing with it, one would be dealing in effect with a government department..

It appears not to be, but is only a private business that acts as a distributor of the stuff made by the Royal Mint ( and other national Mints).

BUT I can easily see that the Secretary Of State may justifiably give his approval to use of the name ‘The London Mint Office’.

I cannot, however, see how the Secretary of State could have knowingly given his approval to use of the name ‘The Rangers Football Club’, a name deliberately chosen try to indicate that TRFC was continuity ‘Rangers’ that the Rangers of 1872 still existed unless he had been badly misinformed.
Or perhaps his approval wasn’t even sought??
I think I’ll ask Kwasi Kwarteng, just to be sure, though.

View Comment

bect67Posted on8:38 pm - Nov 24, 2021


Co

He certainly has got the Follow Followers’ knickers in a twist if these contributions to their forum are anything to go by:-

“Sutton constantly damages our brand” (well actually – they’re making a pretty thorough job of that by ‘shooting themselves in the foot’ with each ban)

“I take satisfaction from the fact that he will never set foot in Ibrox again” (ur ye sure aboot that dear Sevcoite? BT might jist hiv a ( financial) say in that)

Everyone anyone (except Sutton and Celtic supporters) as they say!

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:38 pm - Nov 24, 2021


My post of 19.53 above refers.
Gremlins or what?
My reference to section 54 of the Companies act 2006 , most of you will realise, was wholly the wrong one [I was carried away by the ‘The Mint’, and having memories of Minty ( or some such aberration)
The appropriate sections are sections 66 and 67.
It seems to me that calling a new company created in 2012 ‘The Rangers Football Club would be prohibited under the Act because there was/is an existing ‘The Rangers Football Club, born in 1872 and presently in Liquidation since 2012.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:32 pm - Nov 24, 2021


Interesting judgment in my inbox, with some vague relationship to English Football:
This is the Judge’s introduction to the case

“This is a libel action which arises out of the publication of a book with the title ‘Putin’s
People’, and the sub-title ‘How the KGB Took Back Russia and Then Took on the West’
(“the Book”). The author is Catherine Belton (“the author”) and the publisher is William
Collins, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers Limited. The Book was published
electronically on 2 April 2020, in audiobook on 11 April 2020 and in hard copy on 16 April
2020. The paperback edition came out on 15 April 2021.
2. The front dust cover includes a quote from the author of Moneyland which says: “This is
the Putin Book that we’ve been waiting for”.
3. On 22 March 2021 the claim form was issued and served seeking damages, an injunction
and related relief in defamation. The particulars of claim were served at the same time.
The defendants are the publisher and the author.
4. The claimant, Roman Abramovich, describes himself as “a successful Israeli-Russian
entrepreneur and businessman” who has “a very substantial reputation in this jurisdiction,
where he has been widely known since 2003 as the owner of Chelsea Football Club”. The
claimant complains that he has been defamed by the publication in the Book of the words
identified in 26 specific passages of the Book. These 26 passages are set out in the Annex
to this judgment (and the numbered passages referred to below are to the numbered
passages in the Annex).
5…..
6..
7…
8..
9. The trial of the preliminary issues took place on 28 July 2021.
10. This judgment concerns that trial and only relates to the meaning of the passages
complained of in the Book. The defendants have not yet been required to file a defence
and so no substantive defences have been raised. The court is not, at this stage, adjudicating on any issue concerning the Book other than meaning (and the other preliminary issues identified in paragraph 6 above). Specifically, the court is not determining whether allegations made in the Book about the claimant or anyone else are true”

The case is:Neutral Citation Number: [2021] EWHC 3154 (QB)
Case No: QB/2021/001025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Date: 24/11/2021
……

When the actual ‘defamation’ trial comes around, it should be fascinating.
I think I will buy the book (by an ICIJ journalist , based on the Panama Papers)

View Comment

vernallenPosted on10:49 pm - Nov 24, 2021


There can’t be many people left in Scotland for the TRFC to have a go at. SFA and cinch, BT and Chris Sutton, BBC ( who kind of fawn all over them in a distant manner), etal. Someone in the boardroom has to take a stand and tell fellow members that this is not a good road to be on. Sooner or later the worm will turn and they will be in need of friends for support in some area or dispute. Not too many hands will be offered to help. Surely there is leadership somewhere in the board of directors. They could start be pointing out that the Sparta team they meet tomorrow night is not the same as the one involved in last year’s competition and some decorum might not go amiss in the stadium.

View Comment

normanbatesmumfcPosted on9:27 am - Nov 25, 2021


I see Hibs had 2 players sent off late in their game last night. I wonder who they might be playing next in the league???

Answers on a postcard to…..

View Comment

MenacePosted on9:43 am - Nov 25, 2021


Although I’ve stated this previously I think it warrants repeating

If ANY club fails to meet its sponsorship obligations their payments from those sponsors should be immediately withheld by the SFA/SPFL until it is resolved eg BBC, Cinch, BT, etc.

This would be so that if the sponsors are to subsequently claim against the SFA/SPFL those monies would be used, if not then all the other clubs will end up paying for the problem of another club

I would go even further and make it part of the rules that if any club fails to intentionally meet sponsors contractual obligations without going through proper and due process then they immediately lose their proportion of said income

Maybe then some clubs will think twice before blatantly flaunting contractual agreements

View Comment

MenacePosted on9:53 am - Nov 25, 2021


On a separate subject, I was watching the BBC news last night with my wife when she commented that the studio that they were presenting from looked different from normal. Indeed it had red and blue background. Low and behold it was because they were presenting from Pacific Quay in Glasgow ! The normal London studio had a neutral colour. Are the BBC, especially in Scotland, so Union biased that they feel they have to push their brand at every opportunity ? Imagine the outcry if the background had been green and white ! PS I support neither Celtic or Rangers so this isn’t whataboutery just a view about the supposedly neutral BBC

View Comment

bect67Posted on10:44 am - Nov 25, 2021


“Rangers fans stage UEFA protest …with anti-racism banner”

We Are The Pharisees (Hypocrites) – Football Scotland

normanbatesmumfc:-
St Johnstone (A) – Sat 27 Nov?

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on10:50 am - Nov 25, 2021


normanbatesmufc 25th Nov 09.27

I wonder who they might be playing next in the league???
……………………………………………………………………………

St Johnstone.

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on10:54 am - Nov 25, 2021


Menace 25th Nov 09.43

If ANY club fails to meet its sponsorship obligations their payments from those sponsors should be immediately withheld by the SFA/SPFL until it is resolved eg BBC, Cinch, BT, etc.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….

What obligations are Rangers not complying with ?

View Comment

bect67Posted on11:22 am - Nov 25, 2021


Just given myself a ‘riddy’!

Football Scotland is the source of the quote – NOT the WATP comment!

Apologies to all for confusion

View Comment

bect67Posted on3:20 pm - Nov 25, 2021


“What obligations are Rangers (Newco for clarification by me) not complying with”?

Maybe just a few minor moral ones in terms of the ‘common good’* of the rest of Scottish clubs! They are very, very angry peepul (has Oldco been legally liquidated yet?).

It should be noted that the current Govan ‘outfit’, totally lacking in remorse and contrition for historical, egregious actions by the club it (wrongly) claims to be, has not shaken off the ‘shackles’ of its predecessor – certainly in terms of its perceived superiority (we’ll ‘shaft’ ye if we want).

It’s no’ oor problem if future sponsorship deals are in jeopardy – so deal wi’ it!

They have won ONE (league) trophy and declare themselves all mighty, and the most powerful, and successful, Scottish club which can ride roughshod over others. Their ‘modus operandi’ is also known as The Divine Right of H***.

‘I’m all right Jack’

To me, their self-centredness and irresponsible behaviour is just another ‘nail in the coffin’ of PR garbage such as:-

Everyone anyone (whit a farcical ‘motto’!)

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on4:09 pm - Nov 25, 2021


betc67 25th Nov

So none then.

If the SPFL have signed a sponsorship deal with cinch, whilst knowing that Rangers would be unable to fulfil many of their rights due to a pre-existing contract then who is at fault?.

Your anger should be directed at the incompetents who are in positions of power within the game who signed this deal and not a club who are not only abiding by Scots law but also the SPFL’s own rules.

View Comment

normanbatesmumfcPosted on4:34 pm - Nov 25, 2021


I would imagine the BT contract with UEFA has sections covering their operations and staff access to the stadiums hosting the games.

Both BT and UEFA need to stand up to The Rangers and tell them to close all the sections of the ground where they fear they cannot guarantee the safety of BT staff/pundits.

View Comment

bect67Posted on5:17 pm - Nov 25, 2021


None then (?) Please elaborate

Gimme a break RC!

As a matter of interest, how old is this arrogant Everyone anyone lot? Would you answer that for the blog please?

You get credibility score depending on your answer.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on5:39 pm - Nov 25, 2021


Albertz11 25th November 2021 At 16:09
I was unaware that there had been a resolution of this in RIFC/TRFC’s favour . Link please ?

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on5:51 pm - Nov 25, 2021


Albertz11 25th November 2021 At 16:09
Your anger should be directed at the incompetents who are in positions of power within the game who signed this deal and not a club who are not only abiding by Scots law but also the SPFL’s own rules.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The problem you have Albertz11, is that those incompetents who are in positions of power within the game are the very same incompetents who are the root source of the big lie that your old club survived liquidation.

See how it works? See double standards?

As for your reference to Scots law, that really is the height of irony.

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on5:51 pm - Nov 25, 2021


Albertz11 25th November 2021 At 16:09

Maybe playing devils advocate here but if there was a pre-existing contractual arrangement causing issues and notified to the spfl with supporting evidence then we can’t blame the member club.

Is this not the situation Alberzt11 ?

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on6:39 pm - Nov 25, 2021


Hi guys and gals, long time no see. Hope you are all well and in fine fettle. A quick question : I noticed on BT Sport the Rangers badge was blue and gold in colour when advertising the game tonight. Has this been changed or does it not matter regarding this? Just thought I’d ask.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on8:52 pm - Nov 25, 2021


Maybe they’ve picked a fight with someone not obliged to show their badge ? It couldn’t be the other way round , could it ?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:19 pm - Nov 25, 2021


paddy malarkey 25th November 2021 At 17:39
‘..I was unaware that there had been a resolution of this in RIFC/TRFC’s favour . Link please ?’
%%%%%%%%
From the judgment of the Inner House of 20 October 2021:
” 1. The SFA reclaim (appeal) the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, dated 23 August
2021. He granted an interim interdict which prohibits the SFA from appointing an arbitral
tribunal in a dispute between the Scottish Professional Football League and Rangers,
without having first issued a Secretary’s Notice to the petitioners. The issue is whether the
petitioners have a prima facie case based upon the SFA’s Articles of Association.

( ie, Park’s of Hamilton claimed to be a party in the dispute)

“The Lord Ordinary held that the petitioners’ averments did disclose a prima facie case
that they were parties with an interest in the dispute. They could not be categorised merely
as persons who were interested in the outcome. They had a direct patrimonial interest. ”

“There is at least a prima facie case. It is impossible to find fault in the Lord Ordinary’s
approach. The reclaiming motion must be refused.”

As far as I know, the SFA has not yet fixed any date for an Arbitration Tribunal which will be notified to Park’s of Hamilton as a party with rights of representation?

In my own opinion, TRFC were playing silly buggers in not letting the SPFL/SFA see the contract they supposedly had with Park’s of Hamilton that pre-dated the SPFL contract with cinch. Much hoo-haha and expense would have been avoided!
(I am sure I am not alone in wondering whether that was to gain time in order to find evidence of such pre-dating)
But, as it stands, IF there was such a contract then Park’s of Hamilton have to be notified of any Arbitration Tribunal that is set up.
Simples.
And it shows how badly, how very badly, both the SPFL and the SFA function as any kind of governance bodies, having lost any kind of moral authority because of their creation of the running sore of the 5-Way Agreement and the abandonment of any kind of integrity that that brought about!
Honest to God!
Have a read at the judgment of the 20 October on this link:
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/court-of-session

You’ll have to scroll down to RECLAIMING MOTION BY PARK’S OF HAMILTON (HOLDINGS) LIMITED AGAINST THE SCOTTISH FOOTBALL ASSOCIATON LIMITED AND ANOTHER FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on11:03 pm - Nov 25, 2021


John Clark 25th November 2021 At 22:19
That’s where I thought it rested .

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:04 pm - Nov 25, 2021


Menace 25th November 2021 At 09:53
‘.. the supposedly neutral BBC’
%%%%%%%%

The supposedly neutral BBC (Scotland) and the UK BBC Trust (now happily mouldering in its grave) was NOT neutral in its Sport department under Peter Thomson.

In more recent times it has again and again demonstrated its lack of ‘neutrality’ by ridiculously obeying the order ,from the BBC Trust on high, to broadcast continuing support for a lie as blatantly ridiculous as any that ever emanated from the ‘Reich Broadcasting Corporation’ which was controlled by him who had no b.lls!

There are , of course, good men and women in BBC Scotland.
But they have to fear for their jobs if they depart from the official line, if they even were to suggest that it might be worth discussing on air questions such as ‘what was the holding company of Rangers FC of 1872 in 2012? Who were the directors of that ‘holding company’ and who were the directors of the company that was ‘held?’

We know that it was Rangers FC of 1872 that held the share in the then SPL in virtue of which it was a member of the SFA. We know that it lost that share AND its membership of the SFA when it entered Liquidation.
Can we have a discussion on BBC Radio Scotland about that?

Pantomime time reply: ” Oh, no we can’t!”
And BBC impartiality goes right out of the window!

Really, the whole thing is a malign pantomime, in which vice triumphs over virtue, lies win over truth, and dishonour is honoured-
and at our expense, who pay our licence fee!
Gott strafe the BBC ( Schottland)

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:16 pm - Nov 25, 2021


paddy malarkey 25th November 2021 At 23:03
‘..That’s where I thought it rested .’
%%%%
I guessed as much, pm, and was happy to support your point.

View Comment

dom16Posted on9:05 am - Nov 26, 2021


@John Clark

Re your libel case in London

Private Eye have been reporting in this fir a while. Their view was that Abramovich is using financial muscle to bring the publishers to heel. This is not a comment on the strength of his case more the bonkers works of English libel courts and their role in enabling very wealthy individuals to control events.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:55 am - Nov 26, 2021


Has there been any indication that the Scottish Government is proposing to introduce an Independent Regulator of football, inthe way that the ‘ English’ gov intends to do?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on5:58 pm - Nov 26, 2021


John Clark 17th November 2021 At 21:53
QC: In advance you knew the fans didn’t want an asset sale to Sevco.
Mr C: The final structure was put in place for a deliverable outcome. We decided near the end of the season that the actual sale to Sevco was either going to be a CVA or asset sale. It was only when we knew that a CVA was not going to proceed [that] we decided on an asset sale.
………………………
Paul clark of Duff & phelps said there was a full “fall back plan and that is the sale of the business ans assets to the Charles Green consortium” and added “There is no avenue for anyone else to come in at this stage.” June 13, 2012.
…….
Also known as “The fall Back plan”

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:13 pm - Nov 26, 2021


https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13061560.rangers-football-club-born-1872-died-2012/
……………….
The fall back plan.
sorry to late to add to last post.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on7:18 pm - Nov 26, 2021


14 000 000 shares @25p issued by RIFC plc on 23 November 2021, reported by Companies House today.
Total now in issue 422 000 000

Statement of capital now GBP 4,229,388.57

View Comment

LurkioPosted on8:25 pm - Nov 26, 2021


JC – if the going price for a share in RIFC is now 25p, then the 422m shares would value the company at £105m. That values the club at £10m more than Celtic’s market capitalisation based on today’s share price.

View Comment

TimtimPosted on8:41 pm - Nov 26, 2021


3.5m was suggested to be the monthly shortfall , do we expect to see this every month til the new ST are in or some big sales in the Jan window? Interesting to see the new price of 25p rather than the usual 20p is this because club 1872/ new investors raised an issue as to why they had to pay more or is it to create a higher paper value for the company* overall in order to appear solvent . One thing it may do is increase the asking price for King’s shares

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on9:11 pm - Nov 26, 2021


Timrim 26th Nov 20.40

£3.5 million per month?. Can i ask where this figure comes from?

From the recent accounts –

At the time of preparation, the forecast identified that the Group would require £7.5m by way of debt or equity funding by
the end of season 2021/22.
The first tranche of funding is required from investors before the end of December 2021.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:46 pm - Nov 26, 2021


Timtim 26th November 2021 At 20:41
‘… is this because club 1872……’
%%%%%%%%%
We don’t yet know who the purchaser/purchasers of the 14M new shares is/are.

And I don’t know whether the Board ( under the authority of the ‘disapplication of pre-emption rights’ affirmative vote at the RIFC plc AGM ) has complete discretion as to whom they will sell shares?

Would Club 1872 have been offered any new shares, or would the gutsy big shareholders carve out the lot among their few selves, at least partly to pour water on any kind possibility of Club 1872 ever having a percentage large enough to reasonably ask for a seat on the Board?
Whatever about that kind of thing, those buying the shares before they knew whether TRFC might not exit the Europa league thingy certainly took a personal gamble.

May it spectacularly backfire on them, is what I would say, in the fullness of time.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on6:28 am - Nov 27, 2021


TRFC’s spat with the SPFL is a strange one…

Cinch branding within Ibrox is deemed (by TRFC) to be contrary to an existing contract with Parks of Hamilton.

Parks of Hamilton is a company involved in the sale and leasing of motor vehicles and a private bus hire business.

Cinch, of course, is an online car sales business and part of the British Car Auction group that also owns the webuyanycar.com brand.

You can see why Parks of Hamilton may not be happy to see advertising from one of its competitors in and around the stadium.

As I understand it, Parks of Hamilton claim to have an exclusivity contract with TRFC that precludes the display of branding from businesses involved in the motor trade.

It is strange therefore to see advertising for Central Car Auctions and its sister brand justsoldmycar.com within the Ibrox stands.

Perhaps Parks of Hamilton have a stake in Central Car Auctions?

If not, it appears somewhat contradictory to state that cinch branding is forbidden when branding from an almost identical company has been allowed.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:44 pm - Nov 27, 2021


“A newspaper industry chief and Conservative councillor has hit out at planned new legislation that “could criminalise public interest journalism” ”

The person in question, would you believe, is none other than that defender of truth and the public interest , the former editor of ‘The Scotsman’ and present Unionist councillor on Edinburgh City Council, John McLellan.

The true measure of his interest in truth and public interest can, I believe, be gauged from the fact that, in a political piece in today’s print edition of that newspaper, he makes an incidental reference to “….Rangers were relegated to the third division”

Says it all, eh, what, what??
I can’t quite find the word that begins with an ‘H’ and is sometimes preceded by ‘nauseating’

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:25 pm - Nov 27, 2021


HirsutePursuit 27th November 2021 At 06:28
‘…Perhaps Parks of Hamilton have a stake in Central Car Auctions?’
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
I’ve tried to check up on that, HP

The last return to Companies House which gave details of the shareholders of Central Car Auctions was in June 2016: at that time there was only one shareholder- Jonathan C Miller, who owned the entire 1000 shares.
No notification of any change in shareholding has been recorded by CH since then, so presumably there has been no change in share ownership.

So ‘Park’s of Hamilton’, and ‘Park’s of Hamilton(Holdings) Ltd’, have NO connection with Central car auctions.
Likewise , Jonathan C Miller/Central Car Auctions is not a shareholder in either of the Park’s companies ( Douglas Ross and Graham hold the lot between them)

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on4:18 pm - Nov 27, 2021


Although somebody appears to be paying 25p per share , the indicative share price on the JP Jenkins site is 19p .

Rangers International Football Club Plc RFC
19.00 16 0.00 GBX Traditional GB00B90T9Z75 SC437060 1.00

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:38 pm - Nov 27, 2021


John Clark 26th November 2021 At 11:55

Has there been any indication that the Scottish Government is proposing to introduce an Independent Regulator of football, in the way that the ‘ English’ gov intends to do?

+++++++++++++++++++

I’m not sure this is something I’d welcome. In principle yes, but there is no way the Scottish Government could be trusted with something like this. Let’s not forget they tried to get HMRC to write off the previous Rangers illegally obtained tax gains. Not exactly a good starting point for an ‘independent’ regulator. Let’s be honest here. The ground rule is that one side is as bad as the other, and sod the rest. I can see why that annoys fans of all the other clubs, but neither do I have any time whatsoever for any of them who subscribe to that view. Rangers (IL) cheated the state out of tens of millions of pounds. Celtic didn’t and never have. Why so many people fail to acknowledge that is pathetic. It is not ‘two cheeks’ or whatever they want to call it. One side illegally cheated, and one didn’t. End of.

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on9:32 pm - Nov 27, 2021


gunnerb 25th November 2021 At 17:51
2 0 Rate This

Albertz11 25th November 2021 At 16:09

Maybe playing devils advocate here but if there was a pre-existing contractual arrangement causing issues and notified to the spfl with supporting evidence then we can’t blame the member club.

Is this not the situation Alberzt11 ?

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on9:59 pm - Nov 27, 2021


gunnerb 27th November 2021 At 21:32
It may be that a club expects its word to be believed without supporting evidence, because of who they perceive themselves to be?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:22 pm - Nov 27, 2021


upthehoops 27th November 2021 At 20:38
‘..I’m not sure this is something I’d welcome. In principle yes, but there is no way the Scottish Government could be trusted with something like this…’
%%%%%%
I know what you mean, uth.
Alex Salmond did his own political party no favours whatsoever with his intervention in the shameful tax evasion of a knight of the realm to try to save RFC of 1872 from ignominious death by Liquidation!
Elsie McSelfie [and credit to whoever it was who coined that name]has to live and cope with the perception that the SNP at that time was thirled to the Unionist ‘save Rangers’ cause!
A strange position!

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:26 am - Nov 28, 2021


‘paddy malarkey 27th November 2021 At 16:18

Although somebody appears to be paying 25p per share , the indicative share price on the JP Jenkins site is 19p .

Rangers International Football Club Plc RFC
19.00 16 0.00 GBX Traditional GB00B90T9Z75 SC437060 1.00’
::
::
The price shown on JP Jenkins is for second-hand shares. Whoever bought the 14m at 25p from RIFC got brand-new ones!

View Comment

TimtimPosted on12:42 pm - Nov 28, 2021


Is there a difference in value between 2nd hand shares and new shares ? I doubt it. The 19p on JPJ is what they traded for on the open market although this can also be easily manipulated if a group of investors decide to “paint the tape” by trading back and forth between themselves at ever higher or lower prices . They are limited to the emotional investor as no big money will invest without the proper regulations and safeguards that a NOMAD and a proper trading platform brings. If Park and Co wanted to bring some company* respectability back they would bring in a NOMAD and rejoin the AIM market however they are too far down the rabbit hole to want that type of regulation . I have heard that Park’s family are not happy with their inheritance being squandered on this vanity project . I suspect that having put so much into the pot he has little option but to go all in and hope for the CL payday that may help him recoup some of his stake.

View Comment

dom16Posted on2:13 pm - Nov 28, 2021


Re the football regulator issue.

I had some concerns about the interference of government in a sport but this piece from David Conn was quite helpful https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/nov/25/crouch-review-a-genuine-landmark-for-football-with-possibility-of-real-change

I’m pretty confident the football authorities are going to screw things up all by themselves. The English championship being a case in point of rogue clubs spending more than they can afford. Though they do seem to be cracking the whip there so maybe hope for the future.

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on2:28 pm - Nov 28, 2021


paddy malarkey 27th November 2021 At 21:59
EDIT

It may be that a club expects its word to be believed without supporting evidence

Thanks for the reply paddy malarkey, a cynical but understandable suspicion . I reposted in the belief that Albertz11 might have missed my query but for such a regular contributor not to respond is puzzling and disappointing.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:39 pm - Nov 28, 2021


Timtim 28th November 2021 At 12:42
‘… I suspect that having put so much into the pot he has little option but to go all in and hope for the CL payday..’
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
The remarkable thing about the recent shares purchase is that it was made before the Sparta Prague match , the result of which might conceivably have been a defeat for TRFC.

I’m not a gambler myself, but doesn’t that show a recklessness bordering on lunacy? Anyone in his right mind would surely have waited for the result so as to have a better idea of what TRFC’s finances /further prospects would be?
Was the need for immediate cash so great that the Board had to have it by 23 November?

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on4:13 pm - Nov 28, 2021


gunnerb 28th Nov 14.28.

Not guilty gunnerb.

I replied the next day (26th 13.36) but as every post is placed in moderation, sometime for several days like this one, it makes it impossible to have a back & forth conversation.

I would ask BP that this makes it on to the blog as way of explanation.
Thankyou.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on7:16 pm - Nov 28, 2021


‘Timtim 28th November 2021 At 12:42

Is there a difference in value between 2nd hand shares and new shares ? ‘
::
::
It was a joke, obviously a poor one!.

JP Jenkins run a platform matching buyers & sellers of already-issued shares, hence the ‘second-hand’ comment.

The 14m shares bought for 25p on 23.11.21 were ‘new’ shares issued by RIFC & not previously sold. They didn’t really exist until point of sale & were created especially for this purchaser.

Incidentally, according to the ‘RIFC’ page on JP Jenkins’ website, there have been no trades, even at the bargaintastic price of 19p, since a flurry of activity in late April this year.

https://jpjenkins.com/company/rangers-international-football-club-plc/

View Comment

bect67Posted on7:38 pm - Nov 28, 2021


Gunnerb @ 14.28

re your unanswered query.

Par for the course when ‘cornered’ I’m afraid.

However, if you ask him nicely to make a late night phone call to those in the know, you may (?) get a response.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:18 pm - Nov 28, 2021


dom16 28th November 2021 At 14:13
‘..I had some concerns about the interference of government in a sport..’
%%%%%%%%%%
Yes, so had I, and I think I’m still not too sure that, apart from matters of public safety and health, ‘Sport’ is any business of democratic governments!

Mind you, if there had been Regulator in place in 2012, perhaps the dirty work of the 5-Way Agreement might not have happened, and the truth that RFC of 1872 no longer were entitled to a place in Scottish Football would have been INSISTED upon ,and false claims made in the market that the club had not been liquidated would have been pointed as being based on untruth.
D’ye think?
It will be interesting to see how any English legislation is framed and what statutory powers any Regulator will have, and also what both UEFA and FIFA might have to say about the concept of Government ‘interference’ in Sport.

View Comment

TimtimPosted on10:28 pm - Nov 28, 2021


@jj
I did see the joke so maybe my response should have indicated that better
@JC
“Was the need for immediate cash so great that the Board had to have it by 23 November?”
The short answer is Yes , it seems they are only stumping up as required to keep the wolf from the door . Maybe they fear a ring fencing order from Ashley or others . While the additional income from progress in Europe is welcome it doesn’t get them out of jail

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:01 am - Nov 29, 2021


Congratulations to the chap who has had a letter published in ‘The Scotsman” this morning
about the factually incorrect reference to ‘Rangers’ having been ‘relegated to the Third division’ made by former editor and now Tory councillor on Edinburgh city council, John McLellan.
And perhaps a word of encouragement to the ‘letters editor’ and/or the actual Editor who allowed it to be published.
If he/she can educate the football writers and persuade them to desist from referring to TRFC as if it were continuity Rangers winning their umpteenth trophy he would be restoring some kind of truth and integrity to sports reporting.
And perhaps BBC Scotland will be encouraged to man up and do likewise.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:16 am - Nov 29, 2021


Jingso.Jimsie 28th November 2021 At 19:16
‘…Incidentally, according to the ‘RIFC’ page on JP Jenkins’ website,..’
%%%%%%%%%%%%
The whole world of ‘finance’, ‘investment’, ‘shares’ is pretty much a closed book to me. I feel handicapped by my ignorance when I think of the likes of the Whytes and ‘Kings’ and ‘Easdales’ and ‘Parks’ of this world.
If, as I assume, RIFC plc is still using JP Jenkins , why isn’t the share price that was actually paid for the latest issue ( which presumably JP Jenkins brokered) not shown? Is that incompetence, carelessness?
Or did RIFC use another broker?

View Comment

TimtimPosted on10:34 am - Nov 29, 2021


I think JPJ is merely a trading post where buyers are matched with sellers and their price is indicative of the last deal concluded through them . They are the 2nd hand car sales room while RIFC are the factory producing new models , not that a new share is worth more than a 2nd hand share even though it appears to be on paper . Maybe it’s similar to a new car that as soon as you drive it out the showroom it loses 20% of its value . This post was sponsored by Cinch until the Park Motor Group had a tantrum.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on10:39 am - Nov 29, 2021


John Clark 29th November 2021 At 10:16
I don’t think the new share issue needed brokering , but were a direct issue by the club from reserves to selected buyers at a fixed price .

View Comment

WestcoasterPosted on12:59 pm - Nov 29, 2021


Companies House are showing a further 400,000 shares having been issued on the 8th of November. ( the 14,000,000 were issued on the 23rd Nov with that notification being released ahead of the 400,000 notification).

The annual report contained a post closing comment that £8,500,000 of further loans had been made since the 30th June. At the time of the report, contrary to the MSM reports, DCK (Laird) had not been repaid. He was however repaid his £5m shortly afterwards. The 14,000,000 share issue of the 23rd @ 25p equates to £3.5m. One possibility would appear to be that the £8.5m loan was used to provide the cash to repay DCK potentially replacing the loan (at similar terms) with the balance (£3.5m) going into the OPEX pot with that part of the loan now converted into equity.

View Comment

WestcoasterPosted on1:17 pm - Nov 29, 2021


The Rangers* website has not updated their shareholder page. When it does we will be able to see who has “stepped up to the plate” this time. We should also be able to see whether “Club 2012” have purchased any of DCK’s shares as at the moment he is still showing as having 16.4m

View Comment

Albertz11Posted on2:15 pm - Nov 29, 2021


Westcoaster 29th Nov 13.17

Borita Investments Ltd
Perron Investments
John Bennett
George Letham

View Comment

WestcoasterPosted on3:06 pm - Nov 29, 2021


Rangers* has now updates their shareholder page. The 14m shares were bought by:

Julian Wolhart (Borita) 4m new shares
George Letham 4m
John Bennet 2m
John Halsted ( Perron) 4m

DCK and Club 2012s’ totals remain unchanged which, if correct, mean none of DCK’s shares have been sold.

View Comment

TimtimPosted on3:37 pm - Nov 29, 2021


@Westcoaster
The absence of Park’s name is interesting

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on9:54 pm - Nov 29, 2021


I was watching Sportscene there and noticed this on screen .
Watch: Scottish Cup fourth round draw on Sportsscene

View Comment

normanbatesmumfcPosted on10:29 am - Nov 30, 2021


paddy malarkey 29th November 2021 At 21:54

“I was watching Sportscene there and noticed this on screen .
Watch: Scottish Cup fourth round draw on Sportsscene”

I wonder if a team, (so hard up and desperate for cash, it has to have a monthly auction of worthless confetti to its staunch millionaires club just to meet payroll), will get a much needed home tie to help with cash flow????

View Comment

dom16Posted on12:50 pm - Nov 30, 2021


@John Clark

I read yesterday that various clubs are out rubbishing the regulator proposals.

Steve Parrish, Karen Brady and Christian Pursloe have weighed in.

“ Regulators are instruments of government and they are independant [sic] only up to enforcing the current remit which can be changed at any time by a new act of parliament. So Football will be – under this plan controlled by government.”

So not fans then?

The amusing thing is the discussion was about EPL and EFL talking about parachute payments and how they skew the market.

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on2:38 pm - Nov 30, 2021


Albertz11 28th November 2021 At 16:13

Mea culpa

View Comment

Comments are closed.