A guest blog by former Celtic & Scotland defender, Jim Craig
“What time is this to come back?”
Dolores McCann (her Mother had been a great fan of foreign films) stood in that classic pose of the wounded woman – up to her full height and chin forward – as she glared at her husband who had just come in the front door. Before he could say a word, she gave him another volley;
“you left the house at half-past-two for a three o’clock kick-off, it only takes you 20 minutes to get to the ground, a match lasts only one-and-a-half hours plus ten minutes for the break and you’ve just walked back in the door at half-past-seven! So where the hell were you?”.
Wayne McCann (his father liked Westerns) tried to calm her down.
“Dolores, you don’t know what it’s like at football matches nowadays ; it has changed out of all recognition; a match goes on for much longer”.
“In what way?” Dolores asked.
“Well, for a start, the players and even the managers can complain about any decision that is given against them. If that happens, the referee then goes and has a word with firstly, the two assistant referees, then the fourth official and gets their comments before he reflects on the situation. If he is still in any doubt that he made the wrong decision then he can ask the guy upstairs sitting in front of a television screen what he thinks. And, of course, all through this, the managers and players of both teams can chip in with their comments. That all adds a fair bit of time to the match”.
“Aye…but turning up at half-past-seven is still a bit over the top…is it no’?”
“Well, no’ really……you see, nowadays you are not allowed to have a drawn game, so if the match is level at the full-time whistle, there is extra time, which takes a minimum of half-an-hour”.
“The time is still no’ matching up!”
“Aye, mibbe so, if that was the end of the match. But if the match is still level at the end of extra-time, then it goes to a penalty shoot-out. I told you…you are not allowed a drawn game”.
“ A penalty shoot-out disnae take long”.
“That might have been the case at one time but because so many keepers were being accused of moving before the ball was kicked, nowadays they are strapped in to a harness which anchors them in the middle of the goal. They can only move when the foot of the guy who is taking the penalty actually touches the ball. So, after each kick, the keeper has to be put back into the harness and it all starts again. And, of course, you get the complaints from the managers and players that the harness wasnae working properly or that the officials who put the harness on didnae put it on right. That all adds up to the time factor”.
“Did you go to the pub?”
“As God is my judge, Dolores, after the match finished, I came straight here”.
“Who won anyway?”
“That’s a difficult question… there was so much noise and kerfuffle both on the pitch and in the stands, nobody was quite sure what the final score was. And the guy who usually does the announcing had gone home. Somebody said that he had a date. Anyway, if you let me turn on the radio, I’ll hear the score there. And Dolores?”
“Yes”
Wayne walked over to the drinks cabinet and took out a couple of glasses. “I don’t suppose you would fancy a wee drink”
We will leave the smooth-talking Wayne to his attempts to mollify Dolores and reflect on the situation. What you have just read is probably the ultimate scenario for those who wish to tamper with the current rules of football. Do I think that the game needs radical changes like that? No but I do think that some change is necessary and in one specific circumstance.
Now, I was a professional footballer for 9 years and in all that time, I can put my hand on my heart and state with complete conviction that I never pulled any other player’s jersey. Did I try to half him in two with a tackle, yes! But no jersey-pulling. And, of course, I was penalised for the challenge.
Today, though, I feel that there is a lot of body-checking and jersey-pulling going on in every match. Very often the referee lets it go and then you get the ridiculous scenario at a corner kick when all those waiting for the ball to come in are pulling and pushing, with the referee watching it and ignoring it. It is a foul, ref!
When the referee decides that an offence has been committed, then the player will be spoken to first. If he does it again, he will be given a yellow-card. The problem is, though, that the offence might possibly have affected the play in the match, whereas the yellow card does not affect the player’s participation.
If the player is daft enough to do it again, then of course he gets another yellow and will be off. Most, however, are sensible and keep the head, so they go unpunished as far as the current match is concerned. What we have to find is a punishment that affects the match in which the transgression occurred. Which means that we have to consider the sin bin.
This works very well in rugby and gives the referee a means to punish an offence a little more harshly – yet more efficiently – than a yellow card but without having to go for the ultimate, drastic – and for many unpalatable – option of the red card. I hope it comes in soon.
easyJamboMarch 21, 2018 at 21:38
‘…we may see a shortened P&L statement for the period up to the end of December within the next 10 days. They will have to provide something of that ilk to the SFA for UEFA Licensing purposes by the end of March anyway.’
_____________
The SFA, eJ, I would imagine, will have to insist on seeing the books, whole and entire, if only to prevent possible embarrassment if, licence awarded, TRFC Ltd were to fold a few months later.
It certainly would not be acceptable for the SFA to base their licensing decision on an ‘if’, as in ‘if TRFC Ltd participate in a UEFA competition (on sporting merit) they will get enough dosh to keep them solvent”
They,it is alleged,( and the Compliance Officer is taking his time investigating the truth of the matter!) have already tried that!
And it, if they did ‘it’, didn’t work because Maribor got in the way.
This time round, I think, the SFA have to be whiter than white, read the runes, and use their common sense.
IIRC
FFP regs insist that any participating club have no more than £5m loss in any 3 seasons.
Would sevco 2012 as a new club having only participated in Euro football for a first season ,not have a 2nd season with any debt amount ,only having to cut all costs to under £5m debt for entry next season .
If so they would only need to satisfy Uefa of their accounts for this season for a license .Although that would not be easy ,would it be impossible .
Re a Euro licence for Rangers next season.
The SFA, through the Rangers friendly media outlets of STV and the Daily Record, let it be known they were entitled to issue a licence last year, but that Rangers would enter a ‘monitoring period’. There was no expansion on what that meant or who would do the monitoring. However, it was almost certainly said in the belief that Rangers would have had a debt for equity swap by the time the next licensing round came up for 2018/2019. However, Rangers haven’t and have increased their debt levels. No matter what verbal gymnastics the SFA try they should not be issuing a licence to Rangers for next season as it stands. If the club who lose out sit back and allow it and say nothing then they deserve all they get.
However, a poster on another Forum who is very close to the Resolution 12 action made some very interesting comments the other day, two of which are paraphrased below:
1. UEFA were asking very difficult questions of the SFA last year but Rangers elimination to Progres put that to bed.
2. Other Scottish clubs are asking the SFA at various meetings why they have to abide by the rules to get a licence and Rangers don’t.
ICEMAN63MARCH 22, 2018 at 00:00
. Since then, the possibility of another insolvency at Ibrox has always seemed plausible. Since King got his claws in, I have always felt insolvency is only a matter of time.The staggering stupidity of the last three years in taking on a club with a debt of around 6 million and through gross incompetence and utter waste transform it into a debt of over twenty million is dumbfounding, given the recent history at Ibrox. I genuinely cannot understand it. The budget places them in debt that can’t be sustained, yet can never make them remotely competitive with Celtic. They are burning millions in a battle for second place, and the rewards simply do not compute for the risks taken.
Short of something left field, or the mythical sugar daddy, I am lost as to how they progress.
———————
It looked to me anyway as an All in. Take the gamble,increase the wage bill with loan players they just can’t afford.The last throw of the dice with no plan B. They need to win something,a cup or a place in europe just to keep the fans on board and then another gamble with more higher caliber of players they just can’t afford to see how far they can get in europe.
If the gamble this year does not come off(no cup or european place) Just how are they going to sell next season to the fans?
Roll up,roll up get your ST with a slight increase,Murty is replaced by Jimmy Nicoll a real rangers man who uncover some gems from murray park and some lower league loans.
Ally and Green had the journey and everyone is against us and SPL players they could not afford.
Warbuton had the magic hat and the youth thing he was connected with and “Highly rated”add a bit of Davie weir as a legend.and the DK speel.
Pedro had the unknown and was a bullfighter who could bring in exotic sounding names to add to the best team in the league (his words not mine)
All had a pitch and even a Level pitch above most clubs to sell them season tickets.
I just can’t wait to see this sale pitch.Will it be the same old,same old? will the fans buy into that or something from left field.
JOCKYBHOYMARCH 21, 2018 at 20:15
I’m swear I am not chasing you down nick but you are rather leading with your chin:
Haha, that’s okay Jocky I have a strong chin if nothing else.
In terms of your point I would strongly disagree that they were in better shape after the Charles Green IPO, perhaps on paper that gave the illusion of financial strength but as has been proven the reality was that all that money & their other assets were in the hands of asset strippers. The Zeus boys & Ashley only had one intention which was to make as much money as possible from the club which they achieved.
Regardless of what you think of their current major shareholders’ competence or integrity it seems pretty clear their motivations aren’t financial as it’s fairly obvious they will (as they stated from the outset) lose money in the venture.
Much is made of Dave King’s involvement and he is a character alright, loves litigation, dubious past, fond of a grandiose statement. What’s undeniable though is that he’s put money in (quantum admittedly unclear) and there is no evidence of him ever taking money out. This puts him in a different bracket to Green and co when it comes to a football club at least.
Their other shareholders are a different kettle of fish entirely, Park’s business turns over 3/4 of a billion quid a year generating 20 mill + profit even after his family’s generous renumeration. John Bennett is a man I knew in the past professionally (years ago, I have no inside info) and who is highly respected, he is the sort of calibre of exec who Celtic routinely place in boardroom positions. Taylor’s CV is very impressive as well, I know less of the other guys but when you have big hitters like that involved it seems implausible (although given the twists so far clearly not impossible) that the club is headed toward another insolvency event.
These guys are ploughing their own money into their hobby, they appear so far to be doing so in a sustainable manner relative to their wealth. Their main problem is that many of their club’s fans will never stop asking them to pay more to fund their hobby, that pressure won’t go away ever and if they ever fall into that trap it won’t end well./
Will they catch Celtic unless entry requirements to UEFA competition change drastically? No.
Will they suffer an insolvency event? Even less likely in my opinion.
You may be right Nick, that the present levels of debt and ongoing deficit are comfortably within the financial parameters of the board at Ibrox.
If I were a Rangers fan, the following would make me more concerned than you appear to be.
Why did these individuals not buy from Murray?
Why did these individuals not buy from Duff and Phelps?
Why did they get into bed with King, a proven liar and convicted criminal, if they had access to the necessary funding?
Why did they not simply buy King out at the outset of the TOP investigation and offer the 20p per share offer themselves?
Why did they choose to go to an unconventional high interest lender giving over a vast amount of security for a sum as seemingly trifling as 3 million?
For me, the Phil narrative has, in the bigger picture, not every detail, matched the subsequent events over the last 7 years since I started reading it.
Your assertions here seem a bit like wishful thinking.
NICKMARCH 22, 2018 at 08:44
ICEMAN63MARCH 22, 2018 at 10:16
I think the other thing to consider is that these folks have no particular skills in terms of running a football club. Anyone who was previously involved in the Oldco seemed to just let SDM get on with it. Indeed Alastair Johnston is on record saying he simply expected SDM to provide more money when it was required even when all the signs were the club was in distress.
The same of course can be said for the likes of Ann Budge but at least she seems to making a half decent fist of things. (Cathro was a gamble but it didn’t pay off)
For all the plaudits given by Nick to Park, Bennett & Taylor T’Rangers boardroom seems to be all adrift. Nobody seems to have taken a leadership on the ground in Glasgow and Stewart Robertson seems to be working with one hand tied behind his back.
I said long ago that T’Rangers and their fans, and indeed Scottish football would have been better served by being led by someone like Park perhaps re-modeling and re-branding the club.
They would have had to rely on King accepting only 20p for his shares. If they paid any more than that the offer they would have to make would be based on that new, higher rate. It could have ended up costing them a lot more than the potential 11m that King has to find
NickMarch 22, 2018 at 08:44
Regardless of what you think of their current major shareholders’ competence or integrity it seems pretty clear their motivations aren’t financial as it’s fairly obvious they will (as they stated from the outset) lose money in the venture. Much is made of Dave King’s involvement and he is a character alright, loves litigation, dubious past, fond of a grandiose statement. What’s undeniable though is that he’s put money in (quantum admittedly unclear) and there is no evidence of him ever taking money out. This puts him in a different bracket to Green and co when it comes to a football club at least.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Much of what you write is contrary to the facts. It appears the objective is to initiate a different narrative regarding events at Ibrox in the way a PR type might attempt.
For example, in the post you made above you seek to paint King as having honest intentions and dismiss his criminality in the business world as being the behaviour of a “character”.
From what we know of the funds King has lent to RIFC it is common knowledge that some of it was borrowed from another Director(s). It is therefore not undeniable that he has put money in at all. It was, as usual, other peoples money. He has also secured loans to the club from a family trust over which he has no control (but this depends on who he is talking to at the time), so not his money either?
Here’s a crazy idea.
If TRFC does – eventually – hit the buffers, and there is no last minute cash injection, and no stoopid, RRM billionaire to jet in;
If 2012 was all about saving ‘Rangers post-liquidation’, [and was supported explicitly by the SFA and SPL/SPFL and implicity by virtually all other senior clubs], for the good of Scottish football…
and nothing seems to have changed significantly at Hampden since…
then logically, IMO, ‘Scottish football’ has to step in to finance a TRFC v2.
If the Hampden d!ddies believed that a Rangers must exist in 2012, then a Rangers must exist in 2018+.
And to save their salaries and perks at Hampden, it follow follows that the blazers would become the de facto, bankers of last resort ?
Apart from the obvious conflict of interest and ethical questions, I’m sure that this would also break every rule in the Hampden rule books / guidelines.
…but they do have previous for doing just that.
Everything that has happened since 2012 and everything that has been uncovered even before that date has been nothing less than then a massive learning experience for an awful lot of people especially me. I would posit (c. JJ) that the internet bampots as a whole are far more well informed and strongly networked than 2012. If the runes are to be believed re an insolvency event and another 5 Way Agreement was attempted then imho that really would be armageddon for Scottish football.
PMGB doesn’t need my support but for what it’s worth it should be remembered that perfection does not require perfection.
RE: SFA
I see from Phil’s latest that he is getting the run-around from the SFA PR dept so there is absolutely no chance of us mere mortals getting an answer to a simple question such as when will the CO be publishing the results of his investigation which started in Sept 2017 ?
NAEGREETINMARCH 22, 2018 at 16:03
10
0 Rate This
RE: SFA
I see from Phil’s latest that he is getting the run-around from the SFA
——————
What We Do.
• Respected and Trusted to Lead
———
The transparency part has gone missing.Or am i looking at the wrong part?
This looks interesting:
From the Rolls of Court
Tuesday 1st May 2018
Procedure Roll (4 days)
A184/16 The Rangers Football Club Ltd v Charles Green &c
Trying to get some money back??
And Kenny Mac moves on quickly from the chaps talking about how close Hearts came to folding, 70-30 chance of going bust!
JOHN CLARKMARCH 22, 2018 at 19:01
A184/16 The Rangers Football Club Ltd v Charles Green &c
Trying to get some money back??
————
March 22,2012 On this day
how strange
JOHN CLARKMARCH 22, 2018 at 19:01
3
0 Rate This
This looks interesting:
From the Rolls of Court
Tuesday 1st May 2018Procedure Roll (4 days)A184/16 The Rangers Football Club Ltd v Charles Green &c
————–
Also…..picture.
Doing anything this May John?
Apologies for an earlier typo. Should have read “excellence does not require perfection “
JC, will that be BDO acting for TRFC(IL) then?
Mark Warburton claims Celtic are going backwards.
The sacked rangers manager
————-
Are the SMSM now going with sacked and not resigned anymore? who told them to change the narrative and why.
sorry the above should read March 22, 2015 and not 2012
nawlite March 22, 2018 at 19:50
JC, will that be BDO acting for TRFC(IL) then?
=======================
Naw, it’s the Newco v its former directors
I think the entry ‘A184/16’ in the Rolls indicates that it’s an appeal, or in connection with an appeal against an earlier decision in a lower Court. Usually, the first-named party is the one making the appeal. So the case on 1st May would seem to be TRFC Ltd appealing against a decision that went against them in some matter to do with CG.
I have trawled through the ‘judgments’ lists, and the only cases I see mentioning CG are the cases concerning his claim to have his legal costs paid- but they were against RIFC plc. I don’t see any case where the other party was TRFC Ltd. Not to say there isn’t one, of course. But one way or the other , I can’t think what the present business might be.
Reading up on what ‘Procedural Roll’ might mean, I learn that the party who enrols the motion should give an estimate of the time the business may take. In this case, the estimate seems to be 4 days. That would indicate that the business might be real business in terms of arguing a case, not just some procedural matter.(I may be entirely wrong, of course)
But leaving that aside, can I come back to mention a wee niggle that’s been niggling me on and off for a while.
Going through the judgments stuff, I had another read at the judgment in CG’s legal expenses appeal.
the link to the judgment is :http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=6eaf36a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7
And I found the source of the niggle (ha ha, I nearly put ‘Nile’).
Have read at this
“[4] The Rangers Football Club plc (“Oldco”) was placed in administration on 14 February 2012. In May 2012 Sevco 5088 Limited, a company of which the reclaimer was the only director, paid the joint administrators £200,000 for an “exclusivity” option to purchase the assets. A proposed sale agreement was concluded subject to approval of a creditors voluntary arrangement (“CVA”), which was not forthcoming.
[5] On 14 June 2012 the administrators sold the business and assets of the company to Sevco Scotland Limited, incorporated on 29 May 2012 (“Newco”). ”
So, as apparently the sole director of Sevco5088 Green paid £200,000 for ‘exclusivity’ on condition that a CVA was not achieved.
A CVA was not achieved. So Sevco 5088 had exclusivity. Not SevcoScotland, nor any one else either.
Were the Administrators , having told the world that , a CVA failing, Sevco5088 had exclusivity, free to hand the exclusivity to a quite different company which hadn’t actually paid for the privilege , and not advise the world that the assets were up for anyone to bid for?
And if they were free to do so, where did the stuff about ‘novation’ come from? If the assets were sold to SevcoScotland, there would have been no need of a ‘novation’.
It’s easy for the mind (or at least my mind) to go round in circles and not even be sure that there’s anything in the middle. So I’m not sure that I should have that wee niggle.
Of course, the Administrators were innocent of any wrong-doing.
But there’s that wee feeling that there might just be something in Henderson and Jones claim.
ps: one of the things RIFC plc were angered at was the ‘onerous contracts’ that CG signed before he got off his mark. I haven’t seen anything in the way of legal action by TRFC Ltd to seek compensation from him.
Maybe it’s that that the 1st May will be about?
I look forward to it.
( and I’ve just read eJ’s post!)
John Clark March 22, 2018 at 21:58
======================
According to a glossary of Scottish Legal Terms:-
Procedure Roll Hearing: The name given to a hearing on legal issues in an action in the Court of Session similar to a Debate in a Sheriff Court action.
The action is referenced in the club’s accounts with regard to a loss of earnings.
easyJamboMarch 22, 2018 at 23:01
‘…The action is referenced in the club’s accounts with regard to a loss of earnings.’
____________
You’re a star, eJ.
It’s coming back to me now. Can you remember seeing notice of the 2016 action in the Rolls of court? I can’t remember whether I was even looking at the Rolls then!
John Clark March 22, 2018 at 23:16
easyJamboMarch 22, 2018 at 23:01 ‘…The action is referenced in the club’s accounts with regard to a loss of earnings.’
____________
You’re a star, eJ. It’s coming back to me now. Can you remember seeing notice of the 2016 action in the Rolls of court? I can’t remember whether I was even looking at the Rolls then!
==========================
I certainly had a note of the court reference with Lord Brailsford hearing the start of the case. I can’t recall attending any hearings though.
I’m sure it was about the stadium naming rights and other similar deals, primarily involving Ashley, so I’m not sure how much of the original claim will remain after the SD settlement over the retail deal, as all the outstanding litigation between the parties was halted.
John Clark
March 22, 2018 at 21:58
——————————————————-
easyJambo
March 23, 2018 at 00:41
———————————————————-
Last two posts on my screen no other posts since ,
you two have chased everyone away?
I put a comment on this morning, edited it to change the spacing/returns on it and got told it was barred as “spam”, despite the initial post being OK. Dropped a note to admin but no response so far…
O/T to all the legal stuff,
But is it just me or is it utterly wrong that two teams of EBT recipients , ‘managed’ by two EBT recipients are taking part in a ‘charity’ match at Ibrox this weekend?
Especially when the ‘charity’ to benefit is primarily Rangers Youth Development.
There is something inherently unsavoury about this event and surely charity watchdogs and the like must give it the maximum scrutiny.
This article by James Forrest is a pretty accurate record of the unhealthy relationship that exists between Hampden and Ibrox and how damaging it has been to all clubs (including the ones based at Ibrox).
https://thecelticblog.com/2018/03/blogs/the-hampden-ibrox-alliance-has-already-endangered-our-game-it-must-not-be-allowed-to-do-so-again/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
ROUGVIELOVESTHEJUNGLE
MARCH 23, 2018 at 16:01
…
But is it just me or is it utterly wrong that two teams of EBT recipients , ‘managed’ by two EBT recipients are taking part in a ‘charity’ match at Ibrox this weekend?Especially when the ‘charity’ to benefit is primarily Rangers Youth Development.
There is something inherently unsavoury about this event and surely charity watchdogs and the like must give it the maximum scrutiny.
===========================
Yes, ROUGVIELOVESTHEJUNGLE.
IIRC, Rangers was criticised by the Charity Commission watchdog for its behaviour?
And with tickets ranging from £6 to £12 – let’s say a reasonable average of £10 – and perhaps [?] conservative crowd of 40K.
£400K and maybe with bits and bobs added: £500K revenue for the match.
[I’m assuming that food etc. is not included in Charity match revenue.]
So let’s suggest £500K total revenue for the charity match.
Less TRFC’s ‘expenses’ of course.
I’m sure the trustworthy King will do everything in his power to minimise these deductions.
Then net revenue to be split between the Charity and the Rangers Development Ltd.
[50/50, 75/25, 25/75, 10/90…?]
I’ll take a wild guess: iro £25K will be deposited in the Charity bank account …eventually.
Or 5% of guesstimated revenue.
AuldheidMarch 23, 2018 at 16:56
__________________________________________
Thanks for that Auldheid. Great article.
STEVIEBCMARCH 23, 2018 at 17:47
Yes, ROUGVIELOVESTHEJUNGLE.IIRC, Rangers was criticised by the Charity Commission watchdog for its behaviour?
—————
I believe it was Rangers charity criticised over AC Milan cash.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/rangers-charity-criticised-over-ac-milan-cash-1-3031799
THE CHARITIES watchdog has criticised the Rangers Charity Foundation after it was revealed that cash collected from a fundraising football match went to the club instead.
The game between Rangers Legends and the AC Milan Glorie was played after the Ibrox side entered administration, with a fundraising dinner included.
However, complaints were lodged after it transpired that nearly £200,000 went directly to the club, and not the charity.
The Scottish Charity Regulator ruled that the decision to allocate the sum to the club ‘constituted misconduct’ but decided not to take action against those involved.
The report details the involvement of three trustees of the Foundation, all of whom were employed by, or held senior roles at Ibrox.
———–
I wonder if the three Trustees are still employed? and if they are i hope lessons have been learned
StevieBCMarch 23, 2018 at 17:47
‘…IIRC, Rangers was criticised by the Charity Commission watchdog for its behaviour?’
_______________
Yes, StevieBC, the Scottish Charities Regulator gave the trustee a wee slap on the pinkie, and let him off with a wee caution, on the basis that everybody meant well and some money was raised that would not otherwise have been raised.
But, as I posted a wee while ago, the objects of both the charities involved in the ‘legends’ game were re-drafted and are now are so wide that, it seems to me, all of the money raised ( less the dosh they have to pay the legends) can in effect go into TRFC Ltd’s coffers.
JOHN CLARK
MARCH 23, 2018 at 18:20
…
it seems to me, all of the money raised ( less the dosh they have to pay the legends) can in effect go into TRFC Ltd’s coffers.
=================================
I could be wrong here JC, but I thought that the players themselves weren’t paid as such, but had expenses paid, [flights/hotels], and maybe received a gift for turning up – like a nice watch?
The point being, of course, that a payment of cash would have to be declared by the players… and some ex-RFC players who received EBT’s don’t really know about tax?
For a charity match, can anybody confirm how players are currently rewarded?
Mibbees I’m being too cynical, but I don’t believe they would turn up to Ibrox on Saturday for nothing.
There was once the use of a charity logo without permission.
As i said earlier let us hope that the folk down ibrox way have learned what not to do and what to do when a charity is involved
Club 1872 statement on a meeting with Dave King
http://club1872.co.uk/news/club-1872-meeting-with-dave-king/
The watchdog acknowledged that the agreement to forego the cash was widely publicised and many people may have bought tickets in order to benefit the club.
Laura Anderson, the regulator’s head of enforcement, said other football charities should take note of the findings.
“This case has generated considerable interest and while it features its own particular circumstances, the issues it highlights are straightforward governance issues common to many of the concerns we receive about charities,” she said.
“It’s therefore essential that charities generally reflect on the key lessons in the inquiry report.
“What this case has highlighted, however, is the potential conflict of interest that may exist between charities and professional football clubs.
“This is a matter that we are considering with a view to working with relevant bodies to highlight key governance issues they may wish to examine.”
But the watchdog said it will not be taking action against individual trustees of the charity foundation.
Two new trustees have since been appointed and the foundation has sought independent legal advice on how to improve its governance, the regulator said.
——————–
Two new trustees have since been appointed and the foundation has sought independent legal advice on how to improve its governance, the regulator said.
So everything should be all good.
EASYJAMBOMARCH 23, 2018 at 18:42
5
0 Rate This
Club 1872 statement on a meeting with Dave King
2) Despite being the second largest shareholder currently, members will be aware that a number of individuals have large loans in place with RIFC. These loans will shortly be converted to equity through share issues. This will mean that in order to maintain our position, Club 1872 will need to invest significant funds into Rangers over a number of share issues – most likely running into millions of pounds.
We have also raised over half a million pounds for the upcoming share issue.
————
With only half a million raised and the need for millions of pounds to be raised to maintain there positiont. Which is no one near the board,that seat on the board is a long way off.
Ps. I do miss a Friday night statement o’clock from ibrox
If the “Internet Bampots” are to be believed, then Rangers are in financial distress once again.
Assuming the best case scenario, and they implode again (
), I wonder who the fans will blame? I’m not sure they could blame anyone outside of Ibrox as it has been the awful financial mismanagement of the Club that has brought them to the alleged brink.
If only there was a convenient way of shifting the blame onto someone else… Any takers for a surprisingly candid outcome to the CO investigation into the UEFA licence in which Rangers are actually punished – which in turn causes them to implode. A complicit SMSM then tells everyone that it was Celtic’s fault for instigating the investigation…
Cue “social unrest” and the fun and games start all over again to shoehorn Rangers III back into the league setup.
Nah – it would never happen, would it?
EASYJAMBOMARCH 23, 2018 at 18:42
The organisation has to show that it can invest in the club on the same basis as the other major shareholders.
So a loan is an investment and also an overdraft ?
Under 21’s managed a 1-1 draw with a 90th minute goal away to Andorra . The future looks bright ?
I’m financially illiterate to the point of embarrassment, but my need to have a clear picture overcomes my embarrassment:
am I correct in thinking that the ‘upcoming’ share offering , because pre-emption rights have been dis-applied, will be made only to selected shareholders, and the Regulatory bodies don’t need to be told, or asked for permission?
and that each of the big lenders will get as many million 1p shares as would add up to the value of their loans, and the loans will be deemed to have been repaid by that transaction?
and that all the other shareholders, if they are not offered an opportunity to buy more shares on the same basis will see their per centage holdings reduced?
And that Club 1872 is desperately seeking a few million in case they are offered the chance to buy 1p shares for 1p so that they can keep the same percentage share of the total shares in issue?
If the Board is free NOT to offer shares @1p to Club 1872, but strikes a higher price, say 26p, Club 1872 would be need a helluva lot more cash to be able to buy enough to keep up their percentage share of the total?
Is that the way it works, or am I just more dense than I thought?
A balance being struck at Ibrox, between the desperate need for Club 1872 cash, which has not been forthcoming, to keep the lights on, hence the press release today, whilst seeking to maintain an appearance that this is simply a normal part of the fans investment programme, hence the accompanying , frankly impenetrable, and almost certainly spurious, rationale for the cash to be raised now.
Club 1872 has a membership of less than 10,000 now. I think that is half the number of contributors it had at its peak. This might explain the inability to raise a further million. Possibly many contributing bears were not too happy with earlier purchase of Ashley shares, where 1 million of fan money went straight to Ashley ‘s pocket.
I will note that Phil told us weeks ago that this possible source of cash had come up short, so no surprised for us that this plea for cash was released now.
We appear to be at a stage of a genuine cash crisis at Ibrox. Enough from the loan to cover wages, and tax liabilities, to keep the show on the road, but with all other invoices being put on back burner for as long as possible.
The half-time report on the new boys in the Scotland game sounds pretty disappointing and dispiriting, with a lot of comment on how the new fellows appear not to be as driven as Dodds and Willie think they ought to be.
JOHN CLARKMARCH 23, 2018 at 20:41
2
0 Rate This
I’m financially illiterate to the point of embarrassment, but my need to have a clear picture overcomes my embarrassment:
Is that the way it works, or am I just more dense than I thought?
——————-
This may help JC.
https://thecelticblog.com/2018/03/blogs/the-long-con-begins-as-club-1872-demands-money-from-its-members-in-a-most-shocking-way/
Cluster OneMarch 23, 2018 at 20:58
‘…This may help JC.
________
Thank you, C1.
I’ve just read the first sentence of JF’s piece and notice that he seems to have missed the fact that Blair ceased being a director of Club 1872- Companies House pge shows
“06 Nov 2017 Termination of appointment of James Don Blair as a director on 4 November 2017 ”
I’ll carry on reading , and see if I can get a proper handle on things share-wise
This is a Q&A JC.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/15898584.Rangers_Q_A__Club_1872_on___1million_share_issue_fundraising_drive__Ashley_share_purchase__board_representation_and_fan_ownership/?utm_content=buffer30052&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
—————–
directors Laura Fawkes, Euan Macfarlane and Bruce Taylor
BT: I think it needs to be clear that Rangers fans investing through Club 1872 are not like any other investor. They are committed in a way that they can’t actually withdraw, so they can only go forward and commit more money, they can’t take the money they have put in back out again.
that they can’t actually withdraw…..That does not sound good
C1,
Yes, I think I’m of the same opinion as JF, the same general understanding that the wide boys in RIFC have pulled a very fast one on innocent football fans who have more trust than sense, and perhaps even less of a grasp of things than I have!
The Board of Club 1872 really ought to have insisted on a binding agreement that a) they will get a seat on the Board and b) that they get the right to purchase shares at the same price as the lenders, whatever that may be.
As it is, they have been shafted right royally ( with Blair no longer on the Board of Club 1872, the RIFC plc Board can say ‘ nothing to do with us’ if Club 1872’s shareholding is deleted, and tell any discontented folk to take it up with the Club 1872 Board.
There’s another aspect to this.
There is not ( or was not a few minutes ago) a cheap about any ‘upcoming’ share offer on the ‘investor page’ on the ‘RFC’ official website.
For an entity as close to RIFC plc to be able to
have a meeting with the Chairman of RIFC plc,
be given privy information about an ‘upcoming’ share offer which those shareholders might not be given the opportunity of buying, resulting in dilution of their holdings , would seem to me to be a breach of market regulation..
It puts one lot of shareholders in possession of share information that has not been communicated to the market generally, or to the other shareholders.
In which Regulator’s territory would that fall? The FCA?The Stock Exchange? Companies House? The Takeover Panel? (So many regulators, yet bad guys can still rip off ordinary folk)
Cluster OneMarch 23, 2018 at 21:35
This is a Q&A JC. http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/15898584.Rangers_Q_A__Club_1872_on___1million_share_issue_fundraising_drive__Ashley_share_purchase__board_representation_and_fan_ownership/?utm_content=buffer30052&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer —————– directors Laura Fawkes, Euan Macfarlane and Bruce Taylor BT: I think it needs to be clear that Rangers fans investing through Club 1872 are not like any other investor. They are committed in a way that they can’t actually withdraw, so they can only go forward and commit more money, they can’t take the money they have put in back out again. that they can’t actually withdraw…..That does not sound good
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not really, I pay monthly into the Well Society and never expect to see it again. It’s like a club membership fee.
Just come off two hour skype to the granweans in Oz.
I notice my post of 21.58 has not one, but two, obvious typos:
“if Club 1872’s shareholding is deleted, ” : well ,’diluted’ is what I meant to type, of course.
And ‘cheap’ should have been ‘cheep’, the noise that them two bloody budgies in my son’s house made all during that skype!
Hello pals. I forgive you. Dark before Dawn, get back on here mate.
Last night, I thought was Saturday night. So I went down to hear BPs band. But it was Friday.! At least Lenny was in, (The drummer) I might make it tomorrow night, I’ll let you know.
In the meantime, where’s AJ?
Club 1872 currently has around 7,300 members and is bringing in £40,000 a month.
https://fourladshadadream.wordpress.com/2018/02/27/one-to-one-with-club1872/
ICEMAN63MARCH 23, 2018 at 20:44
We appear to be at a stage of a genuine cash crisis at Ibrox. Enough from the loan to cover wages, and tax liabilities, to keep the show on the road, but with all other invoices being put on back burner for as long as possible.
========================
Rangers know the country they operate in, and as we have already seen it is perfectly acceptable in a moral sense for them to default on anything they choose. When I say that I mean acceptable in a moral sense to the media, and to a host of Scottish and Westminster Government figures. Let’s face it, if HMRC had not had enough of the debt last time liquidation wouldn’t even have happened. It didn’t stop the then Scottish First Minister trying to get HMRC stopped in their tracks though. It’s actually quite incredible that someone who depends on taxes coming in to run the country was trying to excuse an organisation for illegally withholding them, while lauding them as ‘part of the fabric of Scottish society’. As the years go on it just becomes more and more incredible what he tried to do, and what many other politicians from various parties also supported.
BOGS DOLLOXMARCH 23, 2018 at 23:00
Not really, I pay monthly into the Well Society and never expect to see it again. It’s like a club membership fee.
———————
Does that monthly payment increase BD?
———–
They are committed in a way that they can’t actually withdraw, so they can only go forward and commit more money
——-
That part reads as if if they go forward they have to commit more money (does the ordinary fan have that)and if they don’t they the club guys will get the blame for anything that goes wrong.
ie they never kept up the monthly increase so we.
could not buy players.
we could not fix the stadium
we could not pay the bills
Or am i getting this wrong?
The 1p is just the nominal value of the shares. They will not be offered to anyone at that price. Other than that though, John, yes, that’s about it
Morning all.
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised at the latest begging/threatening letter issued by Club1872.
Surely though,someone,somewhere should advise them that giving an unsecured loan to a business,already so heavily in debt that it has had to take out a secured loan with a wonga type business lender is not a sensible idea.To explain that it’s money that will be converted to equity at an undetermined date in the future is nonsense.
What Club 1872 should be doing is banking its cash & informing the club that it will take part in any future share issue if terms are acceptable.If,as seems likely,the business collapses,then members could have their “investment” returned.this protects them & allows for a future cash injection into the club.It also gives them more bargaining power wrt the coveted seat on the board.
Common sense says just handing King & Co cash is plain stupid.
As an aside.Do we agree that the TOP/Cos ruling means King has until Friday to pony up,or is there another timescale in play.If he doesn’t,could TRFC face real problems wrt ST sales.i.e. Card transaction processing & credit sales for fans who pay by instalments.If a lot of fans pay this way & it’s not available,then early take up may not reach the required amount to see TRFC over the summer & will obviously impact on attendances next season.
scottcMarch 24, 2018 at 11:09
‘..The 1p is just the nominal value of the shares. They will not be offered to anyone at that price. ‘
_____________________
Thanks, scottc.
But that raises the question of how they will determine the price, so that the lenders will get a sufficient number of new shares to give them a greater overall percentage, or will they just say ‘you’ve got whatever number of shares that at whatever price the market will determine at any given timewill repay the loan?’
If I had loaned £100 , then @ 1p , I would need 10 000 shares whereas if the price is @20p, I would only need 500, or if the price were higher, even fewer. Which wouldn’t mean much in terms of increased overall percentage.
How will it work?
TORREJOHNBHOYMARCH 24, 2018 at 11:20
From AJ i think i remember.
No time frame wasn’t specified today, but I think the takeover code indicates 30 days to make the offer and 28 days to finalise it (pay up).
TORREJOHNBHOYMARCH 24, 2018 at 11:20
Morning all.I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised at the latest begging/threatening letter issued by Club1872.
=====================
King has them where he wants them. In my view he has persuaded them everything that has happened is just a huge conspiracy instigated by the haters. If they really want to help their club they could do a lot worse than speak to the Foundation of Hearts people. They rallied round their club with their hard earned cash but in return expected good governance from a board room free of shysters, and they now have both. Club 1872 on the other seem delighted with poor governance AND a boardroom containing shysters, to the extent they are willing to effectively pour their money into a black hole with their eyes screwed shut and their fingers stuck in their ears.
John Clark:
Thanks for the heads up on Blair; that one had escaped my notice. His influence with the organisation still gives him the control he needs.
King might well try the same after next week.On the bigger issue, I did a follow up piece today.
https://thecelticblog.com/2018/03/blogs/some-on-sevcos-fan-forums-have-completely-missed-the-point-of-the-club-1872-long-con/
Some of their fans seem almost determined to miss the point here.
Keep up the good work, all of you. This site is one of the few that digs into the fine detail and makes it easy for the rest of us to grasp.
Earlier in the week I did a lengthy piece on the whole Sevco-SFA nexus. I lauded Phil copiously in it, but you guys certainly deserve a mention as well.
Keep on keeping on.
In order to maintain a percentage shareholding (which is the important thing rather than the number of shares) then the shareholder has to buy the commensurate amount.
So to make things simple lets assume they issue about 80m shares that doubles the number (as near as makes no difference)
Club1872 currently hold 8.7m shares so they would have to buy a further 8.7m.
If the shares are sold at say 25p that means they will need to come up with about £2.2m, just to stay in exactly the position they are in just now. They will have no more say, no more influence.
The above numbers are rounded and guesstimates but I think it gives a decent idea of what we are talking about.
As an aside, Dave King has now given lie to any pretence that this fan group is anything even remotely like independent.
A reply came in today [from the Active Scotland Division of the Population Health Directorate] to my letter of 11th March to the Minister for Public Health and Sport ( about getting the Compliance officer to get his finger out) :
” Dear………..,
Thank you…….
While funding from the Scottish Government through sportscotland to the Scottish FA largely supports grassroots participation, the issue you refer to remain the responsibility of the football authorities.
Please contact the Scottish FA at info@scottishfa.co.uk to seek further information.”
No surprises there, and certainly no interest in discussing the point at which taxpayers might legitimately expect some public accountability from a private company that gets millions in public funding.
Ministers are accountable for the content of letters sent out in their name, so let my cry be ‘ Aileen Campbell MSP must go’
( I’ll fire of a wee email to Mr Putin ,see if I can get a few roubles to fund a campaign!)
James ForrestMarch 24, 2018 at 12:12
‘.John Clark: … His influence with the organisation still gives him the control he needs…’
_________________
I don’t doubt it. Machiavelli isn’t in it!
jimboMarch 24, 2018 at 02:15
Last night, I thought was Saturday night. So I went down to hear BPs band. But it was Friday.! At least Lenny was in, (The drummer) I might make it tomorrow night, I’ll let you know.In the meantime, where’s AJ?
_________________
Here’um, Jimbo, just home from a wee holiday in Egypt. Followed the blog while away but never got round to posting anything, but thanks or your concern. Glad to see you posting again, mate.
It’s interesting and somewhat puzzling to see that Nico Kranjcar has left TRFC on a mutually agreed basis. The report doesn’t tally well with a body on the brink or short of funds unless Nico just wanted out and didn’t care about the financial settlement.
I saw somewhere that Nico Kranjcar had only 3 months left on his contract so he may have decided to leave with say a months salary to try and get a contract elesewhere as a free agent.
UTH
I don’t think Salmond was trying to excuse RFC for their non-payment of tax – nor did I see it as muscling in on HMRC. To me it was a bland soundbite paying lip service to the ‘cultural’ behemoth that was Rangers and to a concern for jobs. It made no impression on HMRC, and I don’t think he expected it to.
Among the list of epithets that have been hurled at Salmond recently owing to his sweetheart deal with RT, one thing we can all be sure of is that Rangers sympathiser is not one of them.
Not an SNP supporter but I don’t think the establishment – other than the football one – was greasing the wheels of the liquidated company at all.
The real issue that you highlight here is that the football authorities have moved heaven and earth to preserve the Rangers brand – and will do so again if necessary – even if it flies in the face of sporting integrity.
Widening the net is not really necessary here. Target the SFA, and justice will eventually come our way.
John Clark March 23, 2018 at 21:08
Cluster OneMarch 23, 2018 at 20:58
‘…This may help JC.
________
Thank you, C1.
I’ve just read the first sentence of JF’s piece and notice that he seems to have missed the fact that Blair ceased being a director of Club 1872- Companies House pge shows “06 Nov 2017 Termination of appointment of James Don Blair as a director on 4 November 2017 ”
I’ll carry on reading , and see if I can get a proper handle on things share-wise
============================
There appears to be a bit of smoke and mirrors going on with Club 1872 (surprise, surprise)
You are right to point out that James Blair stepped down from the Club 1872 board in advance of November’s election of a new board. I think that it was always planned that his appointment would be a short term one.
That said, I can help you share-wise. Club 1872 Limited’s most recent Confirmation Statement (CS01), gives the position as at 3 February 2018. It confirms that there is only a single share in the company, but not who owns it.
For that information, you need to go back to last year’s CS01, as at 3 February 2017. That document also shows that the company has a single share, but on that occasion the shareholder was named. You’ve guessed it …… one James Don Blair.
GUNNERBMARCH 24, 2018 at 17:18
..”puzzling to see that Nico Kranjcar has left TRFC on a mutually agreed basis”
________________
BALLYARGUSMARCH 24, 2018 at 17:35
I saw somewhere that Nico Kranjcar had only 3 months left on his contract so he may have decided to leave with say a months salary to try and get a contract elesewhere as a free agent.
________________________________
Thanks Ballyargus , that makes sense.
easyJamboMarch 24, 2018 at 18:42
‘..There appears to be a bit of smoke and mirrors going on with Club 1872 (surprise, surprise)’
______________________________
Not half!
Presumably the one and only shareholder can outvote any number of non-shareholder directors, so decisions on what happens to Club 1872’s funds are entirely up to Blair as agent for RIFC plc. ( I think Anderson Strathearn were originally nominee shareholder, presumably for Blair/RIFCplc?)
If he says ‘buy shares in RIFC plc’ he cannot be overruled.
Also, I don’t see any ‘memorandum of association’ attached to the ‘model’ Articles, saying what the company’s aims and objectives are. (Such a memorandum should be provide to Companies House, and therefore available to the public at large)
I think that needs looking into.
John Clark March 24, 2018 at 19:16
Also, I don’t see any ‘memorandum of association’ attached to the ‘model’ Articles, saying what the company’s aims and objectives are. (Such a memorandum should be provide to Companies House, and therefore available to the public at large)I think that needs looking into.
======================
Club 1872 Limited is the “holding company” of a number of subsidiary ventures, including Club 1872 Shares Community Interest Company (formerly known as “Rangers First 2014 Community Interest Company”), Club 1872 Projects Community Interest Company and Supporters Voice Limited.
The first named company has the Articles, Objects and Powers you are looking for. I haven’t checked the others.
BIG PINKMARCH 24, 2018 at 18:12
10
0 Rate This
UTH
I don’t think Salmond was trying to excuse RFC for their non-payment of tax – nor did I see it as muscling in on HMRC. To me it was a bland soundbite paying lip service to the ‘cultural’ behemoth that was Rangers.
———————
You have to have cognisance of these things when pursuing public policy.
rangers must continue for the future of scottish football and for the fabric of the country.
———-
That always sticks in my craw.
BIG PINK
MARCH 24, 2018 at 18:12
UTH
I don’t think Salmond was trying to excuse RFC for their non-payment of tax – nor did I see it as muscling in on HMRC. To me it was a bland soundbite paying lip service to the ‘cultural’ behemoth that was Rangers and to a concern for jobs. It made no impression on HMRC, and I don’t think he expected it to.
==================================
He absolutely knew it would make no difference whatsoever.
HMRC are a non ministerial department. Their job is to follow Government policies, it is not to take instruction from the Government in relation to specific cases.
Alex Salmond, as First Minister in Scotland, had no influence over them whatsoever.