Is it time for the Sin Bin?

ByGuest Blogger

Is it time for the Sin Bin?

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.

About the author

Guest Blogger author

Guest Bloggers are drawn from SFM members and beyond. The opinions in Guest Blogs are not necessarily shared or endorsed by SFM. If you would like to submit a guest blog to SFM, let us know.

2,363 Comments so far

jimboPosted on1:10 am - Mar 30, 2018


Auldeid,  Do you think its possible that the SFa past or present is accountable?  Without Government intervention?  That is horrible to think of.  Even if they had the guts or integrity.  But where or when will these people be taken to aqccount?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:26 am - Mar 30, 2018


Jimbo

Its happening now. Its just so slow its not noticeable.

View Comment

jimboPosted on2:37 am - Mar 30, 2018


Oh God I hope you are right.   Let Easter Commence.

View Comment

fan of footballPosted on7:14 am - Mar 30, 2018


DARKBEFOREDAWNMARCH 29, 2018 at 18:13
And therein LIES the problem with the BIG LIE .
The peepil want all the trinkets but none of the debts 
dignity/ˈdɪɡnɪti/nounthe state or quality of being worthy of honour or respect.

The above was a word nearly worn out by many at the old club 

Today I suspect they couldn’t spell the word 
 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:37 am - Mar 30, 2018


upthehoopsMarch 29, 2018 at 23:26 
WOTTPIMARCH 29, 2018 at 22:51===========I’m sure Mrs Budge knows fine well the influence the SFA can have on licence applications, but she avoided that like the plague in the answer I read. She has been magnificent for your club, but the notion she would be a breath of fresh air in terms of governance bolted long ago. Likewise with Ms Dempster across the other side of Edinburgh. The fact remains that Celtic are the only club to publicly question how the SFA govern the game. Yet clubs like Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen are massive clubs in Scottish terms. Why are they so scared to speak out? They all have very intelligent people on board.
______________________________-

While I agree with the sentiment of your post, I think it worth pointing out that, on here, at least, very few, if any, Hearts supporters promoted the notion that Ann Budge would be a breath of fresh air to Scottish football. I certainly never bought into the idea that she, or any other woman, would make the kind of difference to our game we all seek, just because she’s a woman. In fact, I might suggest that it’s Ann Budge’s ability to stay dispassionate, and not get carried away with the footballing side of the football business, that has enabled her to focus on what has to be done at Hearts to progress as a viable business.

I’d imagine Leanne Dempster brings a similar focus to Hibs, by concentrating on the financial and business side, and only becoming passionate about football on match days.

One day a woman might make that difference to Scottish football and introduce a spirit of sporting integrity, but it won’t be because she’s a woman, it’ll be because she loves the game above all else, and is focussed entirely on the sport of football!

View Comment

torrejohnbhoyPosted on7:43 am - Mar 30, 2018


Morning all.
Just seen RIFC share thingy.I may be wrong but I don’t see how this constitutes an offer from King.It just seems to be old info regurgitated.Ashley is still listed as a shareholder etc.
I’ve had a quick look at the Takeover Panel website for the info suggested on the RIFC statement.All I can find is this.Doesn’t seem to be current.

OFFEREE: Rangers International Football Club plc (See Note 9 below)
Offer period commenced: 11:39 13-Mar-20171p ordinary
ISIN: GB00B90T9Z75NSI: 81,478,201
OFFEROR: Mr David Cunningham KingOfferor identified: 11:39 13-Mar-2017
Rule 2.6 deadline: N/A
Disclosure of dealings and positions in this offeror is not required

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:56 am - Mar 30, 2018


torrejohnbhoyMarch 30, 2018 at 07:43 
Morning all.Just seen RIFC share thingy.I may be wrong but I don’t see how this constitutes an offer from King.It just seems to be old info regurgitated.Ashley is still listed as a shareholder etc.I’ve had a quick look at the Takeover Panel website for the info suggested on the RIFC statement.All I can find is this.Doesn’t seem to be current.OFFEREE: Rangers International Football Club plc (See Note 9 below)Offer period commenced: 11:39 13-Mar-20171p ordinaryISIN: GB00B90T9Z75NSI: 81,478,201OFFEROR: Mr David Cunningham KingOfferor identified: 11:39 13-Mar-2017Rule 2.6 deadline: N/ADisclosure of dealings and positions in this offeror is not required
________________________

I think that notification was posted here some time ago, and relates to the TOP order, itself. The only date I can find on it is 27 March 2017, a year ago, so it isn’t anything that’s been issued since the CoS rejection of King’s appeal. I think the document is titled ‘Rule 8 Opening Position Disclosure’, and is basically the starting point from which the TOP have declared the concert party’s holding to be in excess of 30%.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:02 am - Mar 30, 2018


Something I think worth looking for on any document relating to the TOP order and/or a possible offer from King is that it will, almost certainly, include the offer price, for, no matter how complicated the document wording might be, it’s not an offer to buy without stating the price he is offering.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:21 am - Mar 30, 2018


ALLYJAMBOMARCH 30, 2018 at 09:56
I think that notification was posted here some time ago, and relates to the TOP order, itself. The only date I can find on it is 27 March 2017, a year ago, so it isn’t anything that’s been issued since the CoS rejection of King’s appeal. I think the document is titled ‘Rule 8 Opening Position Disclosure’, and is basically the starting point from which the TOP have declared the concert party’s holding to be in excess of 30%
Was this just posted again last night? and if so. Why?

View Comment

scottcPosted on10:25 am - Mar 30, 2018


ALLYJAMBO
MARCH 30, 2018 at 09:56

torrejohnbhoyMarch 30, 2018 at 07:43 Morning all.Ju … T9Z75NSI: 81,478,201OFFEROR: Mr David Cunningham KingOfferor identified: 11:39 13-Mar-2017Rule 2.6 deadline: N/ADisclosure of dealings and positions in this offeror is not required________________________
I think that notification was posted here some time ago, and relates to the TOP order, itself. The only date I can find on it is 27 March 2017, a year ago, so it isn’t anything that’s been issued since the CoS rejection of King’s appeal. I think the document is titled ‘Rule 8 Opening Position Disclosure’, and is basically the starting point from which the TOP have declared the concert party’s holding to be in excess of 30%.

Don’t know AJ. It also includes a link to the Close Brothers loan arrangement, (which is interestingly not described as an overdraft). I think this IS the opening part of the TOP-required offer. The link to the MASH shares is explained by the need to identify the shareholders at the start of the process
“… including details of the number of relevant securities in issue, when the offer period commenced and when any offeror was first identified. “
I do note that the shares held by the currently ‘excluded’ shareholders have NOT been listed and wonder if that might be another court case to come, if he tries to exclude them from the offer

https://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/shareholder-centre/circulars-admission-document/

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:48 am - Mar 30, 2018


Cluster OneMarch 30, 2018 at 10:21 
ALLYJAMBOMARCH 30, 2018 at 09:56I think that notification was posted here some time ago, and relates to the TOP order, itself. The only date I can find on it is 27 March 2017, a year ago, so it isn’t anything that’s been issued since the CoS rejection of King’s appeal. I think the document is titled ‘Rule 8 Opening Position Disclosure’, and is basically the starting point from which the TOP have declared the concert party’s holding to be in excess of 30%Was this just posted again last night? and if so. Why?
_________________

Not got a clue why, or where, it was posted, CO, but regardless, it doesn’t state an offer price, therefor is not an offer document, nor a notification that one has been made. It also carries the date 27 Mar 2017, so unless that is a typo…

I noticed a post over on PMGB’s site that appears to relate to the same notification as this one, but the link didn’t work. I suspect that someone has just been looking at the RIFC plc site for anything about the King offer and came across this and thought it might mean an offer has been made.

Something else to factor in, though, is that if King does make an offer (assuming it’s not now too late), for once, the SMSM will beat the bampots with the news, for they will be well prepped with a puff piece that explains why it proves TRFC are a big club08, and Celtic had better watch out21

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:55 am - Mar 30, 2018


scottcMarch 30, 2018 at 10:25 
ALLYJAMBOMARCH 30, 2018 at 09:56torrejohnbhoyMarch 30, 2018 at 07:43 Morning all.Ju … T9Z75NSI: 81,478,201OFFEROR: Mr David Cunningham KingOfferor identified: 11:39 13-Mar-2017Rule 2.6 deadline: N/ADisclosure of dealings and positions in this offeror is not required________________________I think that notification was posted here some time ago, and relates to the TOP order, itself. The only date I can find on it is 27 March 2017, a year ago, so it isn’t anything that’s been issued since the CoS rejection of King’s appeal. I think the document is titled ‘Rule 8 Opening Position Disclosure’, and is basically the starting point from which the TOP have declared the concert party’s holding to be in excess of 30%. Don’t know AJ. It also includes a link to the Close Brothers loan arrangement, (which is interestingly not described as an overdraft). I think this IS the opening part of the TOP-required offer. The link to the MASH shares is explained by the need to identify the shareholders at the start of the process“… including details of the number of relevant securities in issue, when the offer period commenced and when any offeror was first identified. “I do note that the shares held by the currently ‘excluded’ shareholders have NOT been listed and wonder if that might be another court case to come, if he tries to exclude them from the offerhttps://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/shareholder-centre/circulars-admission-document/
______________________

I wouldn’t claim to have all that great a memory, but I am certain I saw this document, either here or elsewhere, some time ago, and that a similar discussion transpired over whether or not it meant King was going ahead with the offer. Perhaps EJ will be along in a bit and confirm one way or the other. 

In the meantime, I very much doubt that any offer, or notification that an offer is about to be made, would not be accompanies by all the fanfare of a new Rangers Training Centre (RTC) world class breakfast21

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on11:06 am - Mar 30, 2018


ALLYJAMBOMARCH 30, 2018 at 10:48
0
0 Rate This
———————
Thanks for reply

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:27 am - Mar 30, 2018


If the date in those documents is really a typo, it’s bought DCK another week (at least!)…

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:31 am - Mar 30, 2018


Last from me on the T’Ranger euro licence thingy from me just now.

I thought it was interesting to note from those posters who have pulled out the conditions re what is allowed re financial arrangements for the licencing process that ‘gifts’ with no conditions attached were allowed but the issuing of loan and equity swap type arrangements were more complicated and possibly not allowed.

If you will recall earlier this year Hearts accounts revealed they received £2.5m donation from an unnamed benefactor, no strings attached.

It may be co-incidence given the Hearts fan ownership model or it could be that Ms Budge is fully in control of her brief and was making sure that any additional monies coming into the club would not fall foul of Uefa regulations.

In relation to T’Rangers I still think we need to know what accounts are being used /required in terms of the licence application.

If it is those of TRFC Ltd then what will show up on their books is a single debt to the Plc who I believe own 100% of the shares on the Ltd. Therefore there is no issue with equity swaps etc because the ownership of the Ltd is not affected by anything currently going on at the Plc.

Therefore is Ms Budge correct to focus on the issue being one of how the Ltd at Ibrox are viewed in terms of how they intend to manage the one (large) debt to the Plc.

If the Plc says it doesn’t intend to call in that debt, which is currently under the €30m allowed then are they in the clear?

Just some thoughts.

Anyway best wishes to all and happy holidays to those who are having a break at this time of year.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:43 am - Mar 30, 2018


Jingso.JimsieMarch 30, 2018 at 11:27
‘..If the date in those documents is really a typo..’
_______________________
Over the past year I’ve been dipping in and out of the “Disclosure Table”

http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/disclosure/disclosure-table  

which is updated daily on working days. ( you need to scroll down a few pages )

The entry relating to RIFC plc and Dave King has not changed in that time.

The investor page on the deceitfully named ‘Rangers Football Club’ website  simply shows the ( unconnected) information about the February loan arrangement.

So nothing relating to any current action by King to comply with the Court Order has been reported.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:11 pm - Mar 30, 2018


wottpiMarch 30, 2018 at 11:31

If it is those of TRFC Ltd then what will show up on their books is a single debt to the Plc who I believe own 100% of the shares on the Ltd. Therefore there is no issue with equity swaps etc because the ownership of the Ltd is not affected by anything currently going on at the Plc.
____________________

But isn’t it the equity swops that hold out some hope of compliance? Isn’t that what the equity swop is all about? Remember, too, that the Close Brothers loan was made directly to TRFC. Regardless, though, it matters not who lends the club the money, it’s the total debt, married to the continuous large losses of TRFC, that will determine compliance with FFP.

I don’t understand the complexities of UEFA’s FFP, but I very much doubt that hiving off the loans to the parent company, while still owing the parent company that total debt, will be a factor in allowing TRFC to pass examination, for every other club would use the same subterfuge, and FFP would be unmanageable, and a complete waste of time (it might well be already, but I doubt UEFA are going to allow such an obvious loop-hole).

I don’t think the real problem is whether or not TRFC fulfil the FFP requirements (for all I know, they might just scrape inside the mark), but the fact that we do not trust those running TRFC to be honest, nor the SFA to act with complete honesty and integrity when assessing their Euro Licence application, and that we cannot be sure that UEFA will endeavour to ensure both TRFC and the SFA act honourably in the matter, is what gives us most cause for our distrust of that club’s right to participate in European competition next season!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:17 pm - Mar 30, 2018


John ClarkMarch 30, 2018 at 11:43 
Jingso.JimsieMarch 30, 2018 at 11:27‘..If the date in those documents is really a typo..’_______________________Over the past year I’ve been dipping in and out of the “Disclosure Table”http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/disclosure/disclosure-table which is updated daily on working days. ( you need to scroll down a few pages )The entry relating to RIFC plc and Dave King has not changed in that time.The investor page on the deceitfully named ‘Rangers Football Club’ website simply shows the ( unconnected) information about the February loan arrangement.So nothing relating to any current action by King to comply with the Court Order has been reported.
_______________________

Good man, John. I was certain I’d read these documents before, and that they were nothing more than a notification, to the club, that the action was being taken, and, no doubt, confirmation/disclosure of King’s shareholding.

Phew, zeese leetle grey cells, zay are still werking09

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on12:48 pm - Mar 30, 2018


WOTTPIMARCH 30, 2018 at 11:31

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

I think the one thing we all agree on is that they will get a licence for next season. Whether they are genuinely entitled to one is another matter, but I am sure the SFA will work hard with Rangers to come up with whatever weasel words are required. However, big hitters from the legal world who are part of Resolution 12 are convinced UEFA were asking very awkward questions of the SFA last season, so the get out clause may be for the SFA to say that they did all they could should UEFA intervene.

Please forgive me for being of the view that SFA would do anything at all to help Rangers. I do not believe they would do the same for all other clubs. I think  the last six years backs my view, therefore I simply don’t trust anything that happens now, which means transparency in the future is even more vital if they genuinely want fans to get onside.  It should not be too difficult to summarise in a few bullet points what criteria clubs need to meet to qualify, but that might be an almighty own goal for them. Of course, it would be so much simpler if the Rangers board just operated within their means then we wouldn’t even need to ask what the SFA were up to. 

Happy Easter to you too. 

View Comment

joes11Posted on1:24 pm - Mar 30, 2018


AllyjamboMarch 30, 2018 at 12:11
I don’t think the real problem is whether or not TRFC fulfil the FFP requirements ………………but the fact that we do not trust those running TRFC to be honest, nor the SFA to act with complete honesty and integrity when assessing their Euro Licence application, and that we cannot be sure that UEFA will endeavour to ensure both TRFC and the SFA act honourably in the matter, is what gives us most cause for our distrust of that club’s right to participate in European competition next season!
…………………………………………
I think that comment is spot on!
I also think that this is one reason why the 2012 licencing issues are so important; because, unless the SFA faces and addresses these issues of historical fact, how can anyone have any confidence in the SFA’s present or future actions?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:27 pm - Mar 30, 2018


AllyjamboMarch 30, 2018 at 12:11
‘..the fact that we do not trust those running TRFC to be honest, nor the SFA to act with complete honesty and integrity when assessing their Euro Licence application, and that we cannot be sure that UEFA will endeavour to ensure both TRFC and the SFA act honourably in the matter, is what gives us most cause for our distrust ..’
_____________
And the fact that we do not trust is based on actual experience of the deceit ( ‘corruption’ as Turnbull Hutton called it) practised on us already and continuing to be practised on us by the parties concerned!

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on1:28 pm - Mar 30, 2018


Radio Scotland currently giving it large on the Australia cricket scandal. We all know how important cricket is in Scotland so it’s a vital issue for the national broadcaster to give air time to. If only there was a Scottish parallel to draw comparisons with. Credit to the Cricket Board down under though for not ducking the issue.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on3:29 pm - Mar 30, 2018


JOHN CLARK

MARCH 30, 2018 at 11:43

Jingso.Jimsie

March 30, 2018 at 11:27

‘..If the date in those documents is really a typo…’

_______________________

Over the past year I’ve been dipping in and out of the “Disclosure Table”
http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/disclosure/disclosure-table  
which is updated daily on working days. ( you need to scroll down a few pages )

The entry relating to RIFC plc and Dave King has not changed in that time.
—————————————-

Thanks for that. Happy to be corrected.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:19 pm - Mar 30, 2018


Please tell me this can’t be true! Well, actually, I hope it is.

Vaporized Rangers!

‘Get your Rangers vaporizer here!’

From twitter:

Rangers Football Club‏Verified account @RangersFCFollow Follow @RangersFC More #RangersFC has announced a partnership with Scottish e-cigarette retailer Vaporized for the coming season.

View Comment

pau1mart1nPosted on4:31 pm - Mar 30, 2018


DK “Stewart, create a smokescreen.”

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on5:14 pm - Mar 30, 2018


Rangers Managing Director Stewart Robertson said “We are delighted to welcome Vaporized to our portfolio of partners and sponsors.”

Vaporized will become the official vaping partner of Rangers with a Vaporized store planned for the Club Deck in the main concourse next season. An official Rangers range of e-liquids will also be launched then.

Vaporized Manufacturing and Compliance Director, Doug Mutter commented, “We’re delighted to announce our partnership with Rangers, allowing vaping in the stadium concourses to help fans stay on their path to freedom.”

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on5:22 pm - Mar 30, 2018


Will the Official range of e-liquids come with it’s own Liquidator ?
I just couldn’t resist.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on5:31 pm - Mar 30, 2018


Lets just stub out all the jokes now and leave that to twitter.
Ps page keeps jumping back to the top.Is it just me or is anyone else having same problem?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:03 pm - Mar 30, 2018


I can assure everyone that the “Offer documents” on the Rangers website were those that were posted over a year ago in response to the TAB report, which was published in March 2017.  

That was perhaps a point in time at which King did consider complying, before doing nothing, leading to the TOP going down the CoS route to enforce compliance

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on6:45 pm - Mar 30, 2018


Aren’t these vaping machines banned in public places ? 

View Comment

fishnishPosted on6:57 pm - Mar 30, 2018


paddy malarkey
Aren’t these vaping machines banned in public places ? 
……………………………………………………………..
10
Teee hee heee

Best yet!
That there would be heed paid to rules/laws/conventions…

Lovin’ it!

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:05 pm - Mar 30, 2018


FISHNISHMARCH 30, 2018 at 18:57
Don’t get too carried away . I’m a non-smoker and don’t know the rules on their usage but I’ve seen people being taken to task in pubs, on public transport and even in a football stadium (if you can call Hampden that ) for vaping .

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on7:14 pm - Mar 30, 2018


I think that Celtic Park has a vaping area.
As always, I’m open to correction.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on7:16 pm - Mar 30, 2018


Friday, 30 March 2018, 18:30
by Rangers Football Club

RANGERS International Football Club PLC unaudited trading results for the six months to 31 December 2017.

The results for the six months to 31 December 2017 represent an encouraging financial performance, allowing for having two fewer home cup games compared to the same period last year.

Revenue for the period was £19.4m, an overall increase of £3.1m over the comparative period. This was a result of three main factors:-

enhanced attendances, increasing ticketing and hospitality revenue, despite the two fewer games;

a new retail deal which has generated increased revenue for the six months;

an increase in sponsorship and commercial revenues.

Operating expenses excluding amortisation of players’ registrations increased by £3.5m compared to the comparative period.  The main driver of this was the investment made by the Club in the playing squad and football department, encompassing scouting, recruitment and performance analysis.

Alongside this, there has been a marked increase in matchday activity spend. Hopefully fans are seeing the benefit of new initiatives around the Fan Zones, Family Stand and on-pitch entertainment, as well as ongoing refurbishment around the concourses and wider Stadium.

The net impact of these factors is that the operating result reduced, from a profit of £0.3m in the comparative period, to a loss of £1.1m. Given the investment detailed above, the Board is comfortable with this planned level of loss reported, and are satisfied that the results for the full year will continue to have the Club on a sure financial footing.

During the period the Club posted a gain on the sale of player registrations amounting to £1.2m.

At the period end, a total of £17.7m of investor loans have been provided interest-free to the Group. The amortisation of the loans using the effective interest rate method resulted in other non-operating charges amounting to £0.8m. Subsequent to the period end, new short-term external funding has been secured providing the Club with greater financial flexibility.

As a result of the above, the Club posted an overall loss for the period of £0.9m.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:35 pm - Mar 30, 2018


With the absence of speculation to the contrary , I assume that TRFC made payroll this month ? 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on7:41 pm - Mar 30, 2018


PADDY MALARKEY
MARCH 30, 2018 at 19:35
================================

I imagine the substantial “overdraft” helped.

Clearly Mr King hasn’t put in the full £4m he promised yet, though. 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on7:44 pm - Mar 30, 2018


PAU1MART1N
MARCH 30, 2018 at 16:31

DK “Stewart, create a smokescreen.”
====================================

And later the same day the interim results are released.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on7:51 pm - Mar 30, 2018


And now this

https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2018/03/RIFC-Mandatory-Offer-Announcement.pdf

2. Summary of the Offer
Under the Offer, further terms of which are set out in Appendix I of this announcement and which will be set
out in full in the Offer Document, RIFC Shareholders will receive
20.0 pence in cash for each RIFC Share
The Offer values the entire issued and to be issued share capital of RIFC at approximately £16.296 million.
The Offer will extend to all RIFC Shares, which are not held by members of the Concert Party and any
further RIFC shares, which are issued or unconditionally allotted whilst the Offer remains open for
acceptance.
RIFC Shares will be acquired fully paid and free from all liens, charges, equitable interests, encumbrances,
rights of pre-emption and other third-party rights or interests together with all rights attaching thereto,
including without limitation the right to receive all dividends and other distributions (if any) announced,
declared, made or paid thereafter.
Laird reserves the right to reduce the Offer consideration by the amount of any dividend (or other
distribution) which is paid or becomes payable by RIFC to the holders of RIFC Shares.
The Offer is conditional only upon Laird having received acceptances in respect of shares which, together
with shares acquired or agreed to be acquired before or during the Offer, will result in Laird and any person
acting in concert with it holding shares carrying more than 50 per cent of the voting rights then normally
exercisable at a general meeting of RIFC. Full details of the condition to which the Offer is subject and
certain further terms of the Offer are set out in Appendix I of this Announcement.

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

Sorry that’s a mess, I won’t have time to fix it.

A big day for the club and Dave King.

View Comment

NickPosted on7:54 pm - Mar 30, 2018


Looks like Mr King is not quite as pecunious as his lawyer had us believe.  My reading of this is he’s funding it from dividends being paid to his trust in April.  The only obvious source for the dividends is Micromega and the sum involved would be about 60% of their annual profits based on last year.  Looks like he’s in it for the long haul. 

https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2018/03/RIFC-Mandatory-Offer-Announcement.pdf

View Comment

nawlitePosted on8:36 pm - Mar 30, 2018


Surprised that DCK is going ahead with the offer. Will this interest the judge to whom his claim of having nae money was made?
There was some talk of him needing to provide the required £xxm upfront. I take it there is no indication of this in the offer, so is it safe to assume this was an incorrect assumption on ‘our’ part? 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:40 pm - Mar 30, 2018


Friday, 30 March 2018, 20:25
by Rangers Football Club

DAVE KING has released the following statement:

Supporters will be aware of the Takeover Panel’s ruling last year that I must make an offer to the non- concert party minority shareholders of the Rangers International Football Club PLC. I have defended this ruling on the basis that any offer should not come from me but should be made by one of my trust companies.

The Takeover Panel has relented to my request for which I am grateful. I confirm that It will be announced today that one of my trust companies will now proceed and shall within a short period make a fully funded offer in compliance with the normal requirements of the Takeover Panel.
=================================

LOL, aye right Dave, that’s what you were arguing about, whether it had to be you personally who made the offer rather than one of your trust funds.

There was me thinking you didn’t want to make the offer at all, were claiming it wasn’t a concert party and saying you were skint. 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:45 pm - Mar 30, 2018


My post at ‘John Clark March 30, 2018 at 11:43’ refers.
I swear thatwhen I posted that post, there was no link  to the offer on the investor page of ‘Rangers Football Club’.
They had  deadline of ‘no later than noon’ and obviously waited till the last minute! Bar stewards!19

View Comment

Cygnus X-1Posted on8:50 pm - Mar 30, 2018


So DCK complies, with the demand of the TOP, and as a result, is duty bound to offer every shareholder the 20p value, as it takes him over the 29.9% shareholding?
Am I reading that correctly, or is it now his “trust fund” that becomes a large shareholder, providing the offer is taken up, which clearly shareholders would be mad not to?
And ultimately, what does he get for all “his money” and isn’t he left holding the baby, when the music stops?

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:09 pm - Mar 30, 2018


CYGNUS X-1
MARCH 30, 2018 at 20:50
===============================

From what I can see it’s another King trust (Laird) which is making the offer. Happy to be corrected.

So that would mean NOAL will hold 14.75% and Laird will hold whatever is taken up.

I don’t think there is any way King will be able to argue that he is the beneficial owner of the total both hold. Not after his “I am not NOAL” nonsense was put to one side. 

He has even described Laird as ” … one of my trust companies”

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:10 pm - Mar 30, 2018


enhanced attendances, increasing ticketing and hospitality revenue, despite the two fewer games;
—————–
Was this two fewer home cup games? and if it was who made the draw? As Ally would say “who are these people” did they not get the memo hot ball comes out first12

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:13 pm - Mar 30, 2018


Why did i say last Friday that i do miss statement o’clock on a Friday01

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:14 pm - Mar 30, 2018


When I came on to the blog this evening, I was intrigued by the ‘vaping’ deal announcement.

I fiddled about on the Companies House webpage. 

A company called ‘Vaporized Ltd’ was incorporated in Scotland SC525641) in February 2016.

It changed its name to ‘Triple A Valor’ in February 2018.

One its four shareholder founding members became a director on 19 January 2018.His name is Amar Ahmed (year of birth 1981)

It would be an extraordinary coincidence if it were this company that has done the deal  with TRFC/RIFC plc, because  of course, a chap called Imran Ahmed is a much wanted former director of RIFC plc. 

‘Ahmed’ may, of course, be as common a surname as MacDonald or Smith, but it is not impossible that Amar  is related to our Imran, perhaps a son or nephew?

(Companies House records appear not to be fully up to date, so you have to look up ‘Triple A Valor’ to get these details. There are a couple of other ‘Vaporized ‘ companies , in York and Middlesborough- maybe it’s one of those franchise-y kind of names, and it may be one of those with which the vaping deal has been done.)

And now, to empty the washing-machine..

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:36 pm - Mar 30, 2018


I would be alarmed at those figures.  The increase in debt from £15.9m to £17.7m is more than I expected. (They only announced a further £300k dated 22 Nov 2017 when the full year TRFC accounts were published in the middle of December).

So that is £1.8m to 31 December, plus £3m(?) from Close since year end that we know about.  It’s a tad more than the £4m funding requirement forecast at the AGM, and we are still 3 months away from year end.

View Comment

Cygnus X-1Posted on9:48 pm - Mar 30, 2018


HOMUNCULUSMARCH 30, 2018 at 21:09
Thanks Homunculus, I thought that.

By God, it does make the mind boggle, that by the various shareholding vehicles, DCK has control over, just how much, he will have to stump up, to gain control over a business, that requires, vast sums, to upgrade the stadium, put a competitive team on the park, to challenge Celtic, impose some kind of financial rigour, to stop the hemorrhaging of money, and all the other things required, to keep the most expectant support happy?

Wonder if in his quieter moments he considers if it is all worth it?

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:50 pm - Mar 30, 2018


EASYJAMBO
MARCH 30, 2018 at 21:36
============================

I had thought the debt would be c£20m by the end of the Financial Year.

If we include the subsidiary (TRFC) debt along with the “soft loans” it would appear to be more than that already.

Am I not right in saying the plan is to pay Close with season ticket income. Which would mean there would be £20m soft loans by end June, but >£3m was also already spent to pay-off that debt. Causing issues for next season.

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on10:01 pm - Mar 30, 2018


Just a couple of points. So even with the £3 million from Close, they still posted a loss? Is that right? Also, with Laird being in South Africa would that not cause problems for DK moving money from there? 

View Comment

Aurellio ZenPosted on10:04 pm - Mar 30, 2018


Long and weary since I last posted although a faithful kibitzer since the dawn of RTC. 
Every now and then a question occurs to me but the slick crew who inhabit here usually have the answer up before I can frame it. 
One has occurred though, if laird is an offshore trust and with DK’s previous I would expect that would be the case, would that not leave Rangers with an invisible and unaccountable owner of a big chunk of them?
Back behind the chair- “ they also serve who only stand and kibitz “ as Damon Milton would probably have said. 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:10 pm - Mar 30, 2018


Christyboy March 30, 2018 at 22:01
Just a couple of points. So even with the £3 million from Close, they still posted a loss? Is that right? Also, with Laird being in South Africa would that not cause problems for DK moving money from there? 
======================
The Close deal only happened in February, so hasn’t hit the accounts as yet.

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on10:20 pm - Mar 30, 2018


EASYJAMBOMARCH 30, 2018 at 22:10

Ahh. Ok EJ, of course. Thank you. I need to keep up .

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:51 pm - Mar 30, 2018


HomunculusMarch 30, 2018 at 21:09
‘…I don’t think there is any way King will be able to argue that he is the beneficial owner of the total both hold. Not after his “I am not NOAL” nonsense was put to one side.’
__________________________
If he does argue that he will be in control of the additional shares, it’s only the shareholders who might be interested in so far as it affects voting rights: that is, it would be an internal matter which would be easily resolved by King getting the Trust to nominate him as their nominee ( or rather, by the Trust ‘voluntarily’ asking him would he mind very much being their nominee, and voting for them?)

I doubt if the Court would be at all interested in checking whether he had lied to it ,given that he will have complied with its order.

And the Takeover Panel will just breathe a sigh of relief that an awkward person has been brought to heel, and their authority to insist on fair share dealings for all shareholders ultimately upheld.

They will in due course make a statement to let the city world know that their precedent-setting use of Section 955 resulted in triumph, and will give the same kind of detail as they previously gave about the couple of ‘cold shoulder’ cases.

In the hope that any other would-be Kings will be deterred

I hope, though, that  the Panel will seek an amendment to Section 955 that will make it clear that the Court, once satisfied, after hearing the case, that the ‘accused’ has not complied with the Panel’s order, MUST (not ‘may’) make an order that the accused comply, and that compliance cannot be effected by a third party on his behalf.

View Comment

melbournedeePosted on10:58 pm - Mar 30, 2018


CHRISTYBOYMARCH 30, 2018 at 22:01 Just a couple of points. So even with the £3 million from Close, they still posted a loss? Is that right?
——————————————————————————————————————
Getting a loan doesn’t reduce your losses, it is needed to top up the bank account as a consequence of the loss (and other cash flows such as capital/player spending).

View Comment

finnmccoolPosted on11:13 pm - Mar 30, 2018


John Clark
King has not made an offer to buy the shares.
The document states quite clearly that it is an “advertisement” and that a prospectus will follow “in due course”.
I think it’s called “kicking the can”.
I don’t believe that we will ever see a prospectus.
Even the name of the company/trust – Laird – seems to me to be a self aggrandising title.
Has he complied with the Court Order? I don’t think so!

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on11:38 pm - Mar 30, 2018


MELBOURNEDEEMARCH 30, 2018 at 22:58

Thanks for that. And now eating away into next year’s pot. 

View Comment

NickPosted on12:26 am - Mar 31, 2018


John Clark

There are 39,561 Ahmeds on Companies House.  Charles Green’s “little friend” was called “Ahmad” (there are a few thousand of them too).
Other than that you may be onto something….

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:26 am - Mar 31, 2018


NickMarch 31, 2018 at 00:26
‘..There are 39,561 Ahmeds on Companies House. Charles Green’s “little friend” was called “Ahmad” (there are a few thousand of them too).Other than that you may be onto something….’
_______________
Of course.

First, there is Imran Ahmed, former director of whatever the hell the new club was called at the time.

Second, there is a person named ‘Ahmed’ who is a director of a Scottish company. It may be the company that has just made a commercial deal with RIFC plc.

Third, only one of the 39,561 Ahmeds  who is a director of the company that may have made the deal with RIFC plc

Fourth, there has never been any agreement, even among those most immediately affected, as to how non-English -language should be spelled in the English language.

I think I am in fact on to something.19

And happy Easter to you.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:38 am - Mar 31, 2018


easyJamboMarch 30, 2018 at 22:10 
Christyboy March 30, 2018 at 22:01Just a couple of points. So even with the £3 million from Close, they still posted a loss? Is that right? Also, with Laird being in South Africa would that not cause problems for DK moving money from there? ======================The Close deal only happened in February, so hasn’t hit the accounts as yet.
______________________________

And, I think I am correct in saying, loans don’t prevent losses being made, they only fund them.

Your point on Laird being an SA trust is interesting if it’s capital is all held in SA (and maybe more interesting to the SA authorities if it’s not). It may be that the delay in complying is down to King negotiating with the SA authorities to allow the use of these funds, or it may be a ploy by King to appeal to the TOP, and the bears, ‘look, I tried to comply, but the nasty SA Exchange Control regulations have prevented me getting the money into the UK to ante up!’

In my complete ignorance of such things, it does seem strange that king requested the court to allow NOAL, a Guernsey based trust, I believe, to buy the shares, but is instead using a South African based trust, with potential exchange control problems, to fund his compliance.

View Comment

saskya1888Posted on7:45 am - Mar 31, 2018


FINNMCCOOLMARCH 30, 2018 at 23:1
This is the state of play as I see it too.
No offer has been made so he has not complied at all. Surely this will be seem for exactly what it is – a typical blatant two fingered response to the laws of the land. It is so infuriating that our media will try to pass this off as compliance when it is clearly as elementary an attempt at obfuscation as I have ever seen. Will this be seen for what it actually is ? Will it be seen as compliance? 

View Comment

fan of footballPosted on8:13 am - Mar 31, 2018


So let me get this right 
DK is caught bang to rights in an e-mail going over the 30% threshold 
DK then tells the court he’s skint and asks if NOAL can make the offer instead 
The court say ,ok dave no problem 
Then a completely different trust (LIARed)09 appears to make the offer 

Well that all seems over and above board ,what could possibly go wrong ?

Could Laird be the result of DK statement in RIFC last year accounts that HE/NOAL would fund the shortfall .

Looks to me ,as if DK is just adding another LAIRed of skullduggery to this whole debacle 

View Comment

iceman63Posted on8:22 am - Mar 31, 2018


Two things that would be astonishing in the King statement, were it not King.
The first is his blatant lie that he had sought merely to let the TOP allow his trust fund and not him personally to fund the deal. The TOP had OK’d this prior to any hearing and his defence was that he was not in control of the Trust fund and could not order it to comply, and that he lacked the personal wealth to comply. This exists as a matter of public record and yet King frankly contradicts this.
The Second is the sudden emergence of a previously unrevealed fund, Lairds, to finance the deal. One wonders how many such funds, and in what questionable territories does King actually hold a controlling interest, and whether the South African Revenue were lied to as to his financial assets, when they calculated the amount for King to repay unpaid taxes and penalties.
Whether this order complies with the court ruling, I have absolutely no idea. It may be  that the TOP’s sole function is protecting shareholders and they don’t have any locus in the source of funding, or it may well be that as this third party has not been previously mentioned as a source, the offer is invalid, or it may well not comply fully once the full offer has been posted. Long way to run on this one, I suspect. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on8:59 am - Mar 31, 2018


finnmccoolMarch 30, 2018 at 23:13 
John ClarkKing has not made an offer to buy the shares.The document states quite clearly that it is an “advertisement” and that a prospectus will follow “in due course”.I think it’s called “kicking the can”.I don’t believe that we will ever see a prospectus.Even the name of the company/trust – Laird – seems to me to be a self aggrandising title.Has he complied with the Court Order? I don’t think so!
__________________

Jings crivens, that’s a good spot, and makes me wonder if King has complied, as surely the order was for King to have made the offer by yesterday!

As to your ‘kicking the can’, well I was thinking about that in the shower, yes we Jambos do wash21, and, unaware of the fact that it was just an advertisement, but factoring in the change of ‘offeror’ from NOAL to Laird, and wondered if this was all a ruse from King to kick that can. This does seem very King-like!

View Comment

NickPosted on9:11 am - Mar 31, 2018


John Clark

Can we just play this scenario you are considering through so I can clarify it in my mind.
Is your suggestion that Imran Ahmad (former director of the club who made a small fortune from them in a slightly dubious manner) has set up a Scottish vaping company, spelt his name incorrectly on Companies House and has decided to spend his company’s money investing back into Scottish Football?

It’s certainly an interesting hypothesis, what do you think his motivation is?

Happy Easter and all the best to you and your family btw.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:20 am - Mar 31, 2018


So can we assume these interim Rangers accounts which just about exceed the back of a fag packet in size are going to be used by the SFA to justify their European Licence? Surely far more detail than that is needed.

At the end of the day though we know the SFA would issue the licence anyway. In fact, I honestly believe Rangers are the ONLY Scottish club who are guaranteed a licence no matter what. All other clubs will actually have to justify they comply. 

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on9:21 am - Mar 31, 2018


So Close brothers lend money to an Ibrox club at extortionate interest rates and have some assets as security but King can somehow get access to funds of approx £11 million. Baffling but then again Mr King is a criminal and may not be totally trustworthy. I would take anything he said with a ton of salt.

View Comment

HelpumootPosted on9:27 am - Mar 31, 2018


Rugger Guy’s opinion of the unaudited accounts.

https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/03/30/rugger-guy-looks-at-the-unaudited-interims-of-rifc-2018/

Not quite as optimistic as the SMSM’s coverage. 

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on9:53 am - Mar 31, 2018


The following line is from the BBC online
“Rangers chairman Dave King says one of his trust companies will make an offer for the rest of the club’s shareholding”
Key word there is says. 
Key term form SA judiciary GLIB. 

View Comment

jockybhoyPosted on9:57 am - Mar 31, 2018


I am marvelling at the Machiavellian maneouverings – financial statement (not accounts) released at the last minute coinciding with the advertisement (not offer) of King’s offer to buy shares (through a totally new actor in the proceedings).

The Hootsmon kindly reported the “current” share piece of 27p listed on some brokers site versus the (takeover panel mandated) offer of 20p per share, so why would anyone sell?

The financial statement released is as positive as it could be but in a light breeze crashes down – the value of unsecured loans (let alone total creditors) is more than the “market capitalisation” – looking at the numbers (such as they are) if the Laird approach was tuppence shareholders should sell…

and seruously, the directors are ok with projections to the financial year end? There’s hardly a ball to be kicked until season tix renewal and a bunch of that revenue is already accounted for anyway.

Based on these numbers, they really are, to use the legal vernacular, Carter-Rucked…

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:15 am - Mar 31, 2018


Yes, it really was Statement Good Friday, all doctored to appear to be of the ‘good news’ variety. Not quite rolling their Easter eggs, more a case of spinning them09

Has the bad news contained in the ‘interim accounts’, and the fact that King hasn’t actually made an offer yet, been ‘vaporized’?

View Comment

Hoopy 7Posted on10:33 am - Mar 31, 2018


Good Morning
I haven’t posted for months but continue to read.
Sevco accounts should ensure that they get nowhere near Europe.
Kings statement about buying the share is a a complete con.
Firstly it is not supported by a nomad, it is an advert and not a prospectus.
However the sting is in the tail.
How can a trust buy the shares on the promise of dividends to come from South Africa when the South African authorities will only allow an individual to send 1Million Rand (ZAR) out of the country without a tax certificate and only 10 Million Rand (ZAR) subject to a tax certificate. i.e.. your taxes have to be up to date.
Current exchange rates are 10 Million Rand (ZAR) = £601,859 approximately.
So even if King and his family, and let us assume there are 5 of them, were to get money out it could only amount to £3 Million or so.
Once again King is being duplicitous and treating everyone as if they are idiots.
Let us hope that TOP will see through this even if the gullible bears cannot.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:45 am - Mar 31, 2018


Just pondering over the possible advantage to King, and/or TRFC, of King’s ‘advertisement’ that he, via Laird Trust, is about to make the offer, thus kicking it down the road that wee bit further, if he is, as we suspect, acting in his usual Machiavellian way.

One thing I have come up with is – TRFC need a Euro Licence, and his non-compliance with a legally binding order would surely have thrown their rather tenuous financial statement backed application into extreme difficulties! Maybe that had been made clear to him and the club by an SFA that is having it’s own difficulties with a rather difficult member club! They’ve maybe been told, at last, that they have to get some of their mess sorted out before a licence can be granted. It might not result in them playing in Europe next season if King doesn’t comply with the TOP order before the final EUFA check date, but the hope of TRFC might be it buys them enough time to do the equity swop, get some cash from the share issue, while praying that that sugar daddy comes over the hill.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:57 am - Mar 31, 2018


A few other comments on the accounts.  Revenue up £3m is wiped out by the £3.5m increase in costs, although an increase of £1m in amortisation of player contracts is part of the additional costs.

The increased amortisation is fully offset by the Player trading surplus of £1.175m.  That has to be down to a matter of timing of purchases and sales, ‘i.e. the purchases of Pena, Morales etc., must have been in last years accounts (hence the increased amortisation).  Player sales probably included McKay, Garner and Waghorn while the Dorrans purchase perhaps came in after the financial year end.

I note that Barcabhoy is forecasting anything up to a £7.5m loss for the year based on last year’s performance and the split of home/away games.  I wouldn’t quite go that far, but there will be an increased loss for the second half of the year.

With regard to the notification of a forthcoming offer, its funding via dividends means that King will probably have to pay a fair bit of tax on those dividends to the SA tax authorities. It might be worth checking the Micromega share price when the Jo’burg exchange reopens, to see if the price drops, as the level of dividends is significant. The total dividends in 2017 amounted to ZAR 52.6m. King is proposing a dividend of ZAR 217.9m

The offer document itself, when it is issued, will provide a mini prospectus.  I don’t think there will be too much in the way of new information or detail and, in any event, will be heavily loaded with caveats about forecasts, estimates, ifs, buts and maybes. 

View Comment

Comments are closed.