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.
UPTHEHOOPSAPRIL 3, 2018 at 07:17
I see hibs are down as N/A ,wonder why and also ICT have been refused one .
UPTHEHOOPS
just seen this
Richard Wilson @timomouse5m
Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, in the column “last Licence review” every Premiership club shows a date in 2017. It’s updating some lower league clubs who were reviewed on facilities in Feb.
Tony
Yes.
Its based on last review in April 2017. Next review is 2018 date not specified. The question is IF UEFA were not happy with accounts submitted last year (as rumoured) on what basis was a Silver awarded under finance? We need transparency here.
The worrying aspect is that Club Licensing appears to be as useful as a chocolate fireguard as responsibilities currently lie.
Should the SFA who have lost all trust be the Licensor & are all clubs assessed to same criteria? Do the clubs know that the process is even handed?
How?
Anyone on Twitter fancy wasting their time pulling Chris McLaughlin up on his comment in this BBC Online article? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43617936
His opening paragraph reads “It’s a reporter’s job to mine truth and honesty from the most delicate and awkward of situations. Even in the entertainment business, it’s a rule that stands.”
I know the argument is that they are in fact the furthest thing from ‘reporters’, but how can they even write stuff like this knowing what they are ignoring?
Nawlite,
I would have more respect for Robinson’s sanguine reaction to the “penalty” decision if it hadn’t come on the back of his reaction to the Cifre kick.
He didn’t respond with the old,”the player gave the ref a decision to make” in that situation.
Messrs. Beckham and Brown gave Refs a decision to make, which they did.
Referees work to a game management agenda, where they make decisions not always based on the rules, but on what makes the game more “interesting”.
This extrapolates into decisions that make league competition more “interesting”.
AULDHEID
let’s be honest,eufa should be doing the ffp test not home nations
THOMTHETHIM
APRIL 3, 2018 at 15:15
…Referees work to a game management agenda, where they make decisions not always based on the rules, but on what makes the game more “interesting”…
—————————————————————-
I understand the principle of what you’ve written, but not the practice.
Referees & their assistants aren’t there to elevate the entertainment value: they’re there to apply the Laws equitably to both teams.
As soon as ‘game management’ is involved, neutrality is brought into question, as decisions move from being made on an objective basis (Foul? Yes — whistle/play advantage if possible) to a subjective basis (Foul? Yes — whistle/play advantage if possible/ignore) to make the game ‘more interesting’.
I also think it’s beyond the ability of most referees to balance out their subjectivity over ninety minutes so that both teams are treated the same (or that one team is not treated detrimentally).
Off to don my flame-retardant coveralls…
JINGSO.JIMSIEAPRIL 3, 2018 at 16:26
I believe that is exactly how it turns out and it poses questions on a refs objectivity.
This is without questioning his neutrality, which is not always a given.
Anyone who watches football regularly will have noticed, what shall we say, inconsistencies within a game.
One of the obvious examples of game management is the accepted norm of not booking a player in the opening minutes.
This is generally described as, “the ref keeping his cards in his pocket”.
I believe the standard of refereeing, which tolerates over robust tackling, because the fans “love it”, is a main reason why Scottish teams generally struggle when they leave home shores.
Foreign refs don’t tolerate it and as a result, players are more skillful, dafe in the knowledge that they are not going to get clattered.
*safe in the knowledge.
John Clark
Hi John.
Re the “offer” from King.
You are right about the notification to make an offer.
This perhaps clears it up and gives a timescale.
“As has been made clear, the Panel review process has been exhausted and the TABhas ruled that you must announce an offer in compliance with Rule 9 of the Code by12 April 2017, being the deadline which the TAB has set (and, therefore, inaccordance with the Code, publish an offer document and formally make the offernot more than 28 days after that announcement) …”
That was lifted from Lord Bannatyne’s written decision.
It appears we are back at the movies – 28 days Later
Coincidentally, a film about a zombie apocalypse
Phils latest.
It seems the Takeover Panel may not have been impressed by Mr Kings advert:
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/04/03/when-intentions-arent-enough-any-more/
FINNMCCOOLAPRIL 3, 2018 at 18:07
John ClarkHi John.Re the “offer” from King.
—————
For such a case to go all the way i have been having a look at Court of Session Opinions.
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/court-of-session
There is still nothing published.Although it does state
Not all opinions are published. Generally, only decisions which involve a matter of principle, a particular point of general public importance or are delivered after a substantial hearing of evidence, will be contained in a written Opinion. The reasoning for procedural and routine decisions, or those involving the sentencing of convicted persons, is usually only announced orally. Where a decision is in the form of a written Opinion, it will be published on this website unless, in the view of the judge, there are exceptional circumstances requiring such publication to be restricted.
Although i did think the king case would be of general public importance
Phil’s latest echoes what has been discussed on here
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/04/03/when-intentions-arent-enough-any-more/
finnmccoolApril 3, 2018 at 18:07
John ClarkHi John.Re the “offer” from King.You are right about the notification to make an offer.This perhaps clears it up and gives a timescale.“As has been made clear, the Panel review process has been exhausted and the TABhas ruled that you must announce an offer in compliance with Rule 9 of the Code by12 April 2017, being the deadline which the TAB has set (and, therefore, inaccordance with the Code, publish an offer document and formally make the offernot more than 28 days after that announcement) …”That was lifted from Lord Bannatyne’s written decision.It appears we are back at the movies – 28 days LaterCoincidentally, a film about a zombie apocalypse
_____________________________
I bet even the RIFC board can’t be certain that King will formally make the offer by the time the 28 days are up, though they will be as sure as we are that he will use every one of the 28 days before any offer is made.
Looking at PMGB’s piece today, I have to admit I was somewhat bemused by the detailed description given in the announcement of how King intends to fund his offer. I cannot imagine it is the norm to include such detail of how you would be funding such an offer, as all the shareholders (and it’s to them that he is issuing this advert) and TOP/FSA would normally only be concerned to ensure the funds are lodged in an appropriate escrow account (although the authorities may seek clarification of the source of the funds, but not so publicly). Whether the offeror has to sell shares, his house or Aunt Agatha’s jewellery, to fund it, or if he has it all lying in an account at Bank of Scotland, it makes no difference (that I can see). So why give out so much information on something, I am sure, he would normally prefer to keep out of the public gaze? Why make it clear to the SA Treasury that you intend taking some £11m out of South Africa? This is, after all, a man who usually does such things completely under the radar.
It’s almost as though he’s setting up a situation, a plan to fail, while hoping he can convince some, if not all, of the bears that his intentions were real, but those ‘haters’ got in the way…again!
Take Over Panel has announced new members. One of whom is Mr Mark Armour, presently a non-executive director of….. Tesco. ?
“It’s almost as though he’s setting up a situation, a plan to fail, …”
My thoughts exactly AJ. My niggle, as ever, is – what is his end game? I cannot believe he is still in the game unless he is raking money out somewhere! Or unless he believes there is a big payday around the corners. It all looks pretty grim but what are we not seeing?
ARMCHAIRSUPPORTER
I wrote a response to “Nick’s” tribute to the financial acumen of Dave King and other members of the Blue Room (which would have been a glowing report from DBD but from a Hibs fan, it was remarkable), but it ended up in moderation and then the moment passed. The thrust of it still seems relevant today though.
He cited King’s “undeniable” input of money into The Rangers and “there is no evidence of him ever taking money out.” He went on to say “This puts him in a different bracket to Green and co when it comes to a football club” but I would say it puts him squarely in the same bracket as David Murray – who claimed for years he was putting his own money in and not taking money out, but his various subsidiaries had well-paid contracts and he himself was the recipient of a “loan”.
Murray reminded me of Thenardier from Les Mis…
Master of the house, keeper of the zoo
Ready to relieve ’em of a sou or two
Watering the wine, making up the weight
Pickin’ up their knick-knacks when they can’t see straight
Everybody loves a landlord
Everybody’s bosom friend
I do whatever pleases
Jesus! Won’t I bleed ’em in the end!
King has of course put £20m into the previous incarnation of Rangers – but so far this time he’s only bought shares (happy to be corrected), which doesn’t help the club per se, and is being forced to buy more (again his money not directly helping “the club”).
King doesn’t strike me as sentimental but I think he does hold a grudge – I had a business disagreement with a half South African/ half Scot 15-odd years ago, and I can promise you no-one holds a grudge longer than that combo – my view, based on no hard facts is that King’s end game ends up with him “in the black and out of the red, he doesn’t really care that the club is dead” as Jim Bowen might have said.
What’s the only thing that would recoup King’s outlay? Either taking over then selling the whole thing as a going concern (which needs either major and ongoing investment or huge belt tightening and giving up the expectation of silverware) or it all going belly-up and him somehow left with “ra deeds” when the music stops.
It’s a cliffhanger and we’re in the front row with popcorn…
JOCKYBHOYAPRIL 4, 2018 at 09:07
Thanks Jockybhoy – outstanding response. You even managed to get my favourite musical and my favourite TV show in there!
armchairsupporterApril 4, 2018 at 01:06
“It’s almost as though he’s setting up a situation, a plan to fail, …”My thoughts exactly AJ. My niggle, as ever, is – what is his end game? I cannot believe he is still in the game unless he is raking money out somewhere! Or unless he believes there is a big payday around the corners. It all looks pretty grim but what are we not seeing?
___________________________
I’m not so sure his ‘endgame’ is to make money, not now, at least.
While I am sure he originally saw it as a great opportunity to make a killing, or as a conduit, at least, for some of the wealth SARS is watching for, I think things have gone so pear shaped that he’d now just be glad to get out with some of his ‘investment’ and ‘reputation’ intact. He stands to lose over £3m if enough shareholders accept this forced upon him offer, that’s £3m gone and no advantage gained, in fact, it’ll mean he’ll have a greater share of a mouldy pie! Furthermore, it will make him the out and out power within the Blue Room, and surely not all there will welcome that – as anything other than an excuse to say, ‘there you go, Dave, it’s all yours!’
I am sure, too, that many bears, including some of those in the SMSM, will believe that this £11m dividend is coming to ‘Rangers’, regardless of how the offer pans out, meaning, in the worst case scenario, around £7m will coming into the club’s coffers, but even if it did, and it would most likely come in the shape of more loans, that would only fund this coming season, and be nowhere near enough to bring a meaningful challenge to Celtic, so next season they would need a similar amount, then the next…and is he going to throw even more money after bad?
I’d suggest this, though; if King really does intend to cough up, then he really is a bluenosed philanthropist – or the Takeover Panel has genuine teeth, wants to use them, and has got him running scared!
He truly twists and turns like a twisty turny thing, AJ. And perhaps you’re right, he’s making this up as he goes along to try and get the least worst outcome. I never really saw him as a chess master, 3 moves ahead of everyone else. But I do still think he would have walked away much earlier if there was no income in it for him. Maybe it’s always been about laundering money through a ‘legitimate’ business outside South Africa.
A wee scenario, of a totally imaginary kind.
A man has a large wad of money that he needs/desires to get out of a country with strict exchange control laws. He’s previously had no bother slipping cash out ‘under the radar’, but is now very much on the radar and this money is known, by all, to be coming to him sometime soon.
At the same time, in another country, the very one he wants that money to arrive in, he has a court order enforcing him to carry out a rather large financial transaction. He hatches a plan to create a situation where the two countries’ authorities put their heads together and allow him to transfer this very large amount of money to enable him to fulfil his legal duty in the target country for his money.
The two countries involved may, or may not, play ball, but it is worth a try in his world, and might even give him a sense of satisfaction in using the authorities in this way.
As is very often the case when people need to move money they shouldn’t be moving, they are quite prepared to take a rather large hit on how much they will end up with, but a plan that could end up with no hit, only expenses, now there’s a good one.
I know we berate the SMSM for various inaccuracies and click bait stuff to entertain the Bears but today’s ‘Rumours’ section in the Scotsman has to take the biscuit for encouraging our Celtic minded friends to open the article.
“Wolves eye Celtic Star”
When did Dundee player Scott Bain who has only played 3 games for the Hoops on loan become a Celtic Star?
wottpiApril 4, 2018 at 10:33
I know we berate the SMSM for various inaccuracies and click bait stuff to entertain the Bears but today’s ‘Rumours’ section in the Scotsman has to take the biscuit for encouraging our Celtic minded friends to open the article.“Wolves eye Celtic Star”When did Dundee player Scott Bain who has only played 3 games for the Hoops on loan become a Celtic Star?
________________________
Very good point, WOTTPI. Write a headline of ‘Wolves eye on loan Dundee player’ and most Dundee supporters who see the headline, and one or two Celtic supporters (aware it’s probably Bain), will click on the bait. On the other hand, publish a headline that suggests a Celtic player is interesting the club at the top of the English Championship – there’s any number of their players that a club like Wolves would be interested in that might cause consternation amongst the Celtic support – and get a barrage of clicks.
Clever PR, which sits well with the MSM of today, and* dishonest even if not an out and out lie (but it could be classed as such when taken in the context it is written – he may be a Celtic ‘star’ when playing a game for them, but he is definitely not a Celtic player, or star, when it comes to his transferability, or any article about any interest a club might show in him).
A small point in the decent of our media, but a fine example of the loss of News outlets in our country.
* I’ve written ‘and’ not ‘but’ because PR and dishonest sit together so well.
It looks like King isn’t scheduled to receive his dividend until 23rd April.
http://www.sharenet.co.za/free/sens/disp_news.phtml?tdate=20180403163900&seq=68&scheme=default
easyJamboApril 4, 2018 at 11:18
It looks like King isn’t scheduled to receive his dividend until 23rd April.http://www.sharenet.co.za/free/sens/disp_news.phtml?tdate=20180403163900&seq=68&scheme=default
______________________
That is actually quite well timed for King. I doubt many people (other than peepul) would expect he is going to make his offer before (or much before) his 28 days are up, and this actually gives him an excuse for his own tardiness, one he will no doubt use when explaining himself to the TOP.
I’m assuming King does have that 28 days to irrevocably make the offer, and if this is correct, isn’t it amazing how this has been timed, almost to perfection, by King – or is it just another example of last minute luck that seems to keep TRFC afloat?
Looking back at the Offer “advertisment”, the dividend funding was stated as being ZAR 217,904,049 which converted to £13,074,842.90 at the exchange rates on the publication date (16.667 ZAR to the £1).
That calculation is based on the dividend being paid “gross” at 300 cents per share, rather than net of the SA dividend tax of 20% which would reduce it to 240 cents, raising ZAR 174m or £10.9m.
You don’t think that the “Laird” of Castlemilk could be avoiding paying his taxes, surely not!
I think that people assuming that Dave King has some sort of master plan in which he makes a killing have fallen for the propaganda that he is some sort of genius businessman.
From what I can see any money he has made has been through lying, cheating and stealing.
My own belief is that he is one of the victims of his own press and he actually thought he could take over at Ibrox, turn the whole thing round, put the club “back where it belonged” and make a fortune in the process.
A sensible investor (if such existed in this scenario) would have employed competent professionals who knew how to run a football club and let them get on with it. The board should contain people with expertise in different fields who formulate strategies in those fields, supported by people who implement those strategies on a daily basis.
Dave King is now just reacting to situations which he created and making it up as he goes along.
He is not the Messiah …
What does this suggest?
http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=30822099&t=11033511
Auldheid April 4, 2018 at 13:30
What does this suggest?
http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=30822099&t=11033511
=============================
It suggests the poster probably read my posts above. LOL
R.I.P. Ray Wilkins
While talking financial matters I note that last nights results put Aberdeen in second spot with 62 points. Hibs are pressing close in fourth with 58 points only one point behind T’Rangers in third with 59.
At the same, 32 games played, point last season T’Rangers were on 55 points, nine behind the Dons and six ahead of St Johnstone.
Aberdeen have clearly slipped a few points on last season at this stage but Hibs most probably present more of a challenge during the run in than St Johnstone.
The recently published unaudited half yearly accounts seems to suggest that additional expenditure on the first team squad currently results in about one point per £1m spend. (The spend is probably more once you take account of the January window)
At today’s standing and based on such a simple formula then at least another £12m is required in the Ibrox coffers to even get close to Celtic. 🙂
Great spot EJ. In ordinary circumstances, you would assume that it would all turn out right. In these particular circumstances, with these particular players, that would not be a safe assumption
easyJamboApril 4, 2018 at 13:39
The quick and the dead slow.
Could big Liar find a way around any overseas investment restrictions, simply by re-domiciling RIFC PLC to South Africa?
It looks like
But,but the money is there,i just need a while longer and i’m not getting it.I did try
Are we to believe that king will spend north of £10 million buying shares.Then look at the club and say feck i now have to come up with more millions just to keep it going?
Something not sitting right
I have read somewhere that there is a rumour that King has health issues.
[Probably on here or on CQN.]
Anyways, could that be the ultimate get-out?
Find a friendly doctor who can support your claims that all this legal wrangling has compounded your health issues – and you are now going to permanently retire to your SA residence, and never do business in the UK again ?
[King is 63 this August.]
Corrupt officialApril 4, 2018 at 18:11
——-
I don’t know, but it would be absolutely hilarious if he re-domiciled TRFC to South Africa.
HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 4, 2018 at 13:21 41 0 Rate This
No he’s not the messiah, Homunculus, he’s a very naughty boy.
Now, I know that and you know that, some judges in SA seemed to know that at one time, yet he still seems to be able to continue to work on the edge of corporate law, supported by people here and in SA. He always seem to find a way out. That is not implying any kind of brilliance on his part just a blatant disregard for normal rules and expectations. I think King is comfortable inhabiting a business world which is always on the edge of legal and far from the edge of decent.
armchairsupporterApril 4, 2018 at 23:46Homunculus, …………………..he’s a very naughty boy.
Yep he certainly is that.
King is doing here exactly what he was doing in South Africa over a decade ago. Appeal every decision, stall, claim he has no money and don’t comply with anything until he absolutely has to.
https://www.fin24.com/Business/Dave-King-richest-in-SA-State-20060803
Remember the days when I would read back on here about lunchtime. Many good posts from Auldheid & JC in the early hours. Now when I’m sleepless there is nothing. oh well!
HELPUMOOTAPRIL 5, 2018 at 01:12
King is doing here exactly what he was doing in South Africa over a decade ago. Appeal every decision, stall, claim he has no money and don’t comply with anything until he absolutely has to.https://www.fin24.com/Business/Dave-King-richest-in-SA-State-20060803
———————————————————————————————–
And claiming a ‘favourable settlement’ again…..despite all evidence to the contrary!
The ToP ‘relented’, my a*se.
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
I live 12,000 miles from Scotland in God’s Own Country aka New Zealand and am unaware of the ramifications of Scots Law What happens when there is contempt of court Is it a toothless charge or does it result in jail time or does it not apply to people with a connection to Ibrox. are King’s details given to customs Is he free to give a two fingered salute to justice. Can he be extradited.
armchairsupporterApril 4, 2018 at 23:46
HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 4, 2018 at 13:21 41 0 Rate ThisNo he’s not the messiah, Homunculus, he’s a very naughty boy.Now, I know that and you know that, some judges in SA seemed to know that at one time, yet he still seems to be able to continue to work on the edge of corporate law, supported by people here and in SA. He always seem to find a way out. That is not implying any kind of brilliance on his part just a blatant disregard for normal rules and expectations. I think King is comfortable inhabiting a business world which is always on the edge of legal and far from the edge of decent.
_____________________________
Pretty accurate, I think, Armchair.
Intelligence and integrity are not qualities that are a prerequisite of success, while cunning, instinct and a lack of scruples are a definite advantage. As for honesty, well, that’s a rather big disadvantage.
The people who inhabit this edge of legal business world are cunning, and totally lacking in scruples, with an instinct to recognise a mug*, or group of mugs. They are also intelligent enough to use these non-qualities to their advantage.
They will always have a plan, some will work, some won’t, but are they clever enough to learn from their mistakes? More importantly, are they clever enough to know that a cunning plan that works once, might not work twice?
I think, though, that it is inaccurate to describe what they do as planning as they are more accurately described as schemers, whose plans are designed to leave them (and perhaps an associate) as the main beneficiary, benefitting way above the proportion of their own stake or risk.
* I’m not suggesting that everyone duped by such people are a mugs, just that that’s how they’ll view them.
In a previous post I was careful not to name names. If you recognise someone…feel free to substitute their names, in your own mind, though
FisianiApril 5, 2018 at 07:56
I live 12,000 miles from Scotland in God’s Own Country aka New Zealand and am unaware of the ramifications of Scots Law What happens when there is contempt of court Is it a toothless charge or does it result in jail time or does it not apply to people with a connection to Ibrox. are King’s details given to customs Is he free to give a two fingered salute to justice. Can he be extradited.
_______________________-
Contempt of Court is not a toothless charge, and carries a penalty of up to two years imprisonment, a fine, or both. It is a criminal offence so, regardless of the penalty issued, the offender is deemed to have committed a criminal offence, and would therefore be classed as a criminal under Scots Law.
If King fails to comply with the court order, he will be in contempt of court and subject to a warrant for his arrest on return to Scotland (UK), but, from what I have read, would not be subject to extradition.
As King’s case was not heard in a criminal court he would probably escape jail-time, perhaps with the proviso that he complies with the order, but he will have added to his woes with a criminal record and still having to fork out potential millions. One thing, though, that might be taken into account that is not in King’s favour, is the magnitude of the order should he continue to not comply. It’s unlikely that a court would see the maximum fine (not been able to find out what it is) as sufficient to discourage contempt of court when the order concerns millions of pounds, so a prison sentence might become more probable, but this is just my own, not very knowledgeable, supposition.
Failure to comply with the order would not be a wise move by King, particularly if he intends returning to the UK, even for a visit.
The TOP Disclosure table has been updated for RIFC. The original date from 2017 remains but the offeror has been changed to Laird.
OFFEREE: Rangers International Football Club plc (See Note 9 below)
Offer period commenced: 11:39 13-Mar-2017
1p ordinary
ISIN: GB00B90T9Z75
NSI: 81,478,201
OFFEROR: Laird Investments (Proprietary) Limited
Offeror identified: 11:39 13-Mar-2017
Rule 2.6 deadline: N/A
Disclosure of dealings and positions in this offeror is not required
easyJamboApril 5, 2018 at 10:58
It would appear, then, that the TOP are happy to accept King’s proposed offer, and are proceeding in the expectation he intends to fulfil it.
Does anyone know if King is obliged to make an offer for the BPH/Margarita shares who had their voting rights suspended?
By my calculations if he does then they combined with the Easdales will take him over the 50% and he’ll have to go through with the purchase costing 3-4 million pounds. I guess the assumption is he then uses the remaining 6 million to contribute to the share issue (or maybe that just goes on wine).
I think the one thing it does prove is that whatever else he may be King is committed now and is here for the long term as I can’t see anyone making him whole on his investment to date in the short to medium term. I’d suggest that investors having significant skin in the game in the form of what we assume is a reasonable chunk of his personal wealth would make a prudent rather than reckless strategy more likely in the coming years.
We may finally be nearing a stage where all SPFL clubs are run on a sustainable basis for the first time in a couple of decades. This is one area where our game is substantially ahead of our counterparts down south where reckless spending which even makes the Charles Green era up here look tame is rife.
Letter to shareholders.
https://media.rangers.co.uk/uploads/2018/04/Letter-to-shareholders-4-April-18.4918441364_1.pdf
From the letter:
The Offer Announcement is expected to be followed by an offer document (the “Offer Document”) by no later than 26th April 2018, which will also be sent to all shareholders. Ahead of the posting of the Offer Document, the Independent Directors wish to draw your attention to two important points in the Offer Announcement.
* Section 6 – Financing the Offer, which is commented upon above.
* The Offer Price – The price of the Offer is at 20p per share which is a discount of c. 27% to the indicative RIFC closing mid-market share price on the JP Jenkins matched bargain platform over the preceding 3 business months before the Offer was made.
Here’s a wee thought.
RIFC/TRFC’s accounts stated that participation in European competition proper was necessary for them to continue as a going concern on at least two of the next few seasons. I wonder if King’s repeated delays are to take him as close to the point where he can be sure of TRFC’s qualification for Europe, or not, for next season as he can be! By that, I mean, if TRFC win through to the Scottish Cup Final, and win their next couple of league matches, then they are pretty certain to, at least, be in the qualifying rounds of the Europa League. Lose a couple of games, and go out of the Cup, and their chances are in jeopardy, especially if Motherwell win against Aberdeen.
Imagine having to fork out some £4m for shares in a company that had already fallen at one of it’s many hurdles on the road to solvency!
Of course, such a Machiavellian plan is perhaps somewhat far fetched, but I do wonder if continued defeats just might have some bearing on the arrival of King’s dividend proceeds in whatever account the TOP require it to be in in preparation for the share offer!
Nick April 5, 2018 at 11:50
——————————-
Ye. He is obliged to make an offer for the “frozen” shares which amount to 10.4%. Sandy Easdale owns 6.45% himself, so between them that would take the concert party over the 50% threshold which would make the offer unconditional.
At the base level, the cost to King would be around the £3m mark. However I’d expect him to get acceptances for up to 25% of the shares, so the potential cost could be over £4m.
If he does get acceptances for 25%, then his personal holding would go to around 40%, not too far away from gaining outright personal control by himself. That target could maybe achieved by conversion of his loans, or he might use some cash to buy out one or more of the 3 Bears to get himself to the 50% mark.
One potential issue is that Beaufort Securities, which is (was?) the nominee company behind BPH, Margarita, etc., and the Easdales, is currently in Administration, so dealing in clients’ holdings are restricted, at the moment.
You could be right that he is now committed to the long term. However, I’m not sure if that is by design, or was forced upon him by TOP.
Rangers is still some distance away from being run on a sustainable basis, so we will have to disagree on that one.
I thought I’d have a go of making sense of the paragraph below lifted from the LNS inquiry which found Rangers not guilty of using ineligible players.
[87] Mr McKenzie explained to us that SPL Rule D1.13 had hitherto been understood to mean that if, at the time of registration, a document was not lodged as required, the consequence was that a condition of registration was broken and the player automatically became ineligible to play in terms of SPL Rule D1.11. He accepted however that there was scope for a different construction of the rule, to the effect that, as the lodging of the document in question was a condition of registration, the registration of the player would be liable to revocation, with the consequence that the player would thereafter become ineligible to play. He accepted that no provision of the Rules enabled the Board of the SPL retrospectively to terminate the registration of the player.
So here’s what I’ve got. “had hitherto been understood”, well that’s easy, that translates as “until it involved ra Bearz”. Moving on. I see it like this. Imagine that in order for footballers in Scotland to be properly registered and eligible to play clubs had to do the following simple thing, they had to hand in 3 pieces of A4 size paper, one white, one purple and one yellow. All the Scottish teams except Rangers handed in all 3, Rangers deliberately kept the purple one too themselves.
What the ruling seems to be saying when it states “as the lodging of the document in question was a condition of registration , the registration of the player would be liable to revocation, with the consequence that the player would thereafter become ineligible to play.He accepted that no provision of the rules of the SPL enabled the board to retrospectively terminate the registration of the player”.
So what they are saying is that in order for players(in this case) to become ineligible a formal ripping up of the 3 pieces of paper must be carried out by the SPL authorities(liable to revocation), however, as Rangers had “cleverly” withheld the purple one the process couldn’t take place until Rangers handed over the purple one and the registration rules only kicked in properly at the exact moment they did so.Therefore during the period Rangers where at it the rule bearers did not have the tools necessary to punish Rangers and at the point they were given them they could only use them from then on, by which time Rangers were compliant, having handed in all 3 bits. My right?
I note one of the campaigners re historic sexual abuse in football Michelle Gray has advised the SFA report into this issue will be published imminently. This is a huge test for the SFA and is probably the most important governance issue facing our game right now even allowing for the conversation around financial governance.
I genuinely think that a whitewash and failure to properly reform the game in a way that ensures our children’s safety will be the final straw for many and will lead to the end of the SFA in it’s current form.
https://twitter.com/michellegray75/status/981650995502551041
I suspect even if your average football fan is apathetic to the intricacies of financial fair play they will sit up and take notice if they think their children’s safety is at risk. A defining moment at a very early stage in the incoming CEO’s reign awaits.
JIMBOAPRIL 5, 2018 at 03:5411 16
Yep, nostalgia is not what it was, Jimbo.
misterlightbulbjokeApril 5, 2018 at 13:17
——————-
I think that is their reasoning, but only white and yellow ones would normally be submitted as other clubs did not use purple ones. The SPL, they say, could not act until a rule breach was found to have occurred, (the existence but non-submission of purple pages was discovered at RFC), but as there was no rule explicitly authorising retrospective ineligibility, that could only occur “thereafter”.
Doncaster tried the same ruse when he said initially that there was no rule that permitted Sevco to be relegated to SFL 1, it had to be the SPL or nothing.
In both cases it could and should have been argued by the SPL, MacKenzie in the case of LNS, that such rules were unnecessary as the intent of the existing rules was clear and the interpretation being offered was clearly contrary to that.
HOMUNCULUSAPRIL 4, 2018 at 13:21
My own belief is that he is one of the victims of his own press and he actually thought he could take over at Ibrox, turn the whole thing round, put the club “back where it belonged” and make a fortune in the process.
============================
It didn’t help when a large number of journalists, many of whom really should have known better, decided to laud him as Rangers Fergus McCann. Apart from that being insulting to an honest businessman like McCann, it was sheer laziness on their part. The Celtic that McCann took over in 1994 had a huge well of untapped commercial opportunities which McCann exploited to an almost ruthless extent, and he did it in the face of incredible media hostility. That side of ‘Rangers’ had already been maxed out under David Murray, and also to an extent by Charles Green who shifted a lot of snake oil to Corporate stakeholders during his share issue. King was never going to turn around Rangers as McCann did with Celtic. I believe the fact they make huge losses year on year and are dependant on soft loans to survive backs my point. I also think the fact McCann could attract the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England to the Celtic Board, as well as a genuine billionaire who is still around Celtic in the present day also highlights the difference.
Thanks for the help Macfurgly. In my post the 3 pieces of paper are just a metaphor whose job is to try and untangle the web that’s been woven.
D1.11. He accepted however that there was scope for a different construction of the rule, to the effect that, as the lodging of the document in question was a condition of registration, the registration of the player would be liable to revocation, with the consequence that the player would thereafter become ineligible to play. He accepted that no provision of the Rules enabled the Board of the SPL retrospectively to terminate the registration of the player.
If you read the part in bold you can see that it’s like they are saying that in order for a player to be deemed ineligible there has to be a “ceremony of ineligibility rendered”. It also seems to be the case that they are saying that unless the ceremony has certain criteria met then it is not in itself legitimate.Think of a case where perhaps that in order for a player to be deemed ineligible he has to literally have his contract put through the SPL “special shredding machine” but if there is no contract to shed the player cannot be deemed ineligible.
It’s all a moot point of course, we all know that the rules quite clearly state that “in order for a player to be deemed eligible to play in official matches ALL THE TERMS AMD SERVICES OF HIS CONTRACT MUST BE PRESENTED TO THE AUTHORITIES! The minute the Law Lords called them emoluments and not loans it was an open and shut case.
misterlightbulbjokeApril 5, 2018 at 17:32
“It’s all a moot point of course, we all know that the rules quite clearly state that “in order for a player to be deemed eligible to play in official matches ALL THE TERMS AMD SERVICES OF HIS CONTRACT MUST BE PRESENTED TO THE AUTHORITIES! The minute the Law Lords called them emoluments and not loans it was an open and shut case”.
———–
Absolutely, and this is derived from UEFA to prevent hidden payments, brown envelopes, questionable ownership of assets and money laundering for example.
So, for that reason alone, LNS’s report must now be put aside.
NICK
APRIL 5, 2018 at 13:42
I note one of the campaigners re historic sexual abuse in football Michelle Gray has advised the SFA report into this issue will be published imminently. This is a huge test for the SFA and is probably the most important governance issue facing our game right now even allowing for the conversation around financial governance…
========================================
Agreed, and unfortunately the idiots at Hampden have proved time and time again that they are unfit to deal with ‘mere’ football administration and governance.
So, I fully expect their handling of this sensitive subject to be inept, at best.
Re the share issue.
If most sell and Mr king is stuck with a load of shares in a company that runs a loss making club.
1. Could king now try and sell his shares?
2. How long would he have to wait until he could sell his shares?
3.Would he not bother as the shares he holds are not worth a lot
4. would this be a way for king to hold club 1872 to account? ie i have all these shares and you Club 1872 have been buying shares so that you can own the club(no laughing at the back)
so step forward with your cash and i will sell at such and such a price(nice profit for me)you will also get a fan rep on the board.
And if you do not step forward i can blame Club 1872 if the club goes down the tubes
NICKAPRIL 5, 2018 at 13:42
18
1 Rate This
I note one of the campaigners re historic sexual abuse in football Michelle Gray has advised the SFA report into this issue will be published imminently. This is a huge test for the SFA and is probably the most important governance issue facing our game right now even allowing for the conversation around financial governance.
—————
Do you have a timeframe of when the SFA began to look at this issue to where they are now that the SFA report into this issue will be published imminently. ?
Cluster OneApril 5, 2018 at 19:10
‘….a timeframe of when the SFA began to look at this issue to where they are now that the SFA report into this issue will be published imminently. ?’
______________________
From the ‘National’
“14th December 2016
SFA to hold an independent inquiry into sexual abuse of young players
SCOTLAND’S football sex abuse scandal will be the subject of an independent inquiry, the Scottish Football Association said yesterday.”
Coming up to 16 months since date of announcement in an enquiry with lots and lots of witnesses and parents, and club officials and footballers and coaches etc etc to be interviewed etc etc.
That’s a not unreasonable time for this kind of really fundamental and sensitive enquiry to take.
6 months plus to look at what one club said on its application for a UEFA licence about how it met all the criteria and compare what was claimed with what were the known facts, incontrovertible facts, seems to be excessive and indicate a reluctance to investigate or, having investigated and found that lies were told, an extreme reluctance to report.
Of course,the nature and scale of the evil of sexual abuse that required the SFA to undertake that investigation is immeasurably far greater and worse than any lying ,by a football club and/or Sports Governance body ,which may have cost another club a few million quid and the Scottish game to be seen by a great many people as being corrupt.
Nevertheless, the CO must not be allowed to fiddle and faddle about any longer ( not that the Compliance Officer would be involved to any extent in running the sexual abuse enquiry)
If RFC(IL) were guilty of lying, and if the SFA were complicit in any lying, they’re not to get off the hook because attention has now been focussed on other individuals or seven worse structural governance failures.
When share offers are not your top priority.
Ewan Murray ✔ @mrewanmurray
The chairman of Glasgow Rangers is currently having a look around the media centre in company of Gary Player.
19:06 – 5 Apr 2018
We can just about guarantee that that will NOT happen. He will convert the existing loans to shares probably, but not if he can get away with not doing so. He is looking for new money to ‘invest’ in the share offer, not more of his own or of his family trust
CLUSTER ONEAPRIL 5, 2018 at 19:03
All very interesting scenarios Cluster One. I wonder how long it would take for sling to get his money back via Club1872? Probably too long for a sheister like King. I just can’t see him having the patience or long-term strategy.
JOHN CLARKAPRIL 5, 2018 at 20:04
———
Thanks JC.
In a way i wanted to write it down,but much better than i could have
scottcApril 5, 2018 at 20:13
NICKAPRIL 5, 2018 at 11:50…I guess the assumption is he then uses the remaining 6 million to contribute to the share issue … We can just about guarantee that that will NOT happen. He will convert the existing loans to shares probably, but not if he can get away with not doing so. He is looking for new money to ‘invest’ in the share offer, not more of his own or of his family trust
___________________________
I think it was just yesterday that I suggested that TRFC supporters and sympathisers would be pushing that very idea, that a man who might be about to purchase more share in a football club purely because he has been forced to by the might of the law, would then be intent on sinking even more millions into a club that continuously makes a loss, year on year.
He fought tooth and nail to dodge his legal duty, but now some are, apparently, of the belief that he will wave bye bye to a further £6m, that will merely keep the lights on for, at most, one season more before he has to find a similar amount to see out the next.
Of course, some people are of the belief that RIFC/TRFC are doing rather well on the financial front, and might be considered to be gullible enough to believe that a man like Dave King would suddenly decide it’s time to sink more of his own money into a business that is not only making uncontrolled losses, but also operates in an area famed for turning large fortunes into small ones.
Well as usual I have mucked up. My Vera Lynn posts have been posted to CQN and my BVM posts have been posted here.
I donot know what to say. Except I love them both.
I love Vera Lynn.
If a war happened and I really hope it wouldn’t, I would sign up in a minute. Choices in this order_ Band musician ( I can play Tuba) – finance officer – stretcher bearer – that’s it. I would be rubbish at the front. I cry too easily. Although I think I would look dead handsome on a uniform. Probably better than a Celtic strip which has passed me bye.
easyJamboApril 5, 2018 at 20:09
‘…Ewan Murray ✔ @mrewanmurray..’
_____________________
Not being a golfer myself ,eJ, I couldn’t tell who was Player, and I had trouble associating number 82 with King (looks nothing like the miserable anxious-looking chap that we see in other photos!)
But because we know already of the history between King and Player, I’m happy to accept that King’s desire to
a) be seen as being happy to serve a superior, hero-worshipped sporting figure
or
b) be ‘legitimised’ because a guy like Player accommodates him in worldwide coverage
or
c) be able to tap him for a few bob if need be
is understandable.
It may be a mixture of all three.
But it was the reference to Ewan Murray that I was more interested in.
I could not remember whether I had ever emailed him, in relation to the ‘saga’.
So, back home from York earlier this evening ( two nights in Staycity Aparthotel as an Easter break) and using the laptop rather than the fiddly, what d’ye call it?-tablet) I trawled my ‘sent’ emails.
No. No email from me to him.
However, to my great amusement and enjoyment, in the course of my trawl I came across an email I had sent in which I referred to some of the Charlotte stuff.
It was an email to the guy who was editor at the time of the paper that Spiers wrote for, in July 2013.This was one Magnus Linklater.
In that email I said that there had been, according to an email in the ‘Charlotte Fakes’ stuff, a meeting between a PR guy and the said Spiers, in which Spiers had been ,as it were, chastised by the PR chap for his unacceptable reporting of matters to do with ‘Rangers’.
During the chastisement, the PR chap relates, “I did drop into the conversation that both Gordon and I were in (sic)first name terms with Magnus Linklater, his editor”
My email to the editor also said “You will be able to judge its authenticity by contacting these supposed ‘first name terms’ friends, if indeed you know them.
If it is not a fabrication, of course, I am sure you would not wish to have any ‘first name terms’ friends feel that they could threaten a journalist working for any paper of which you are the editor, simply by using their ‘friendship’ with you as a weapon.
If they thought they could, that would not say an awful lot about you as an editor, would it?”
I got no reply .
That may be the SMSM, heart and soul.
John Clark April 5, 2018 at 23:59
=======================
I don’t mind Ewan Murray for the most part. He has a dry humour when it comes to reporting on football or rugby, but golf is his main subject. It does help that he is a Jambo though. I’ve seen him at a few U20 games and he seems to have his favorites among the Hearts youngsters.
Talking of which, I bumped into Grant Russell at the Oriam this week in his new role as Motherwell’s PR and Media guy. Hearts were playing Motherwell there in a Development League game. He seems to be loving his new job away from the SMSM spotlight and was fully occupied, taking photographs, tweeting and shouting at the ref.
He did ask what legal cases were on the go at the moment, so he hasn’t quite detached himself completely from his recent past.
From a sevco web site
Myself and my wife have had Rangers credit cards issued through MBNA (who are actually Lloyds) for a good few years, it meant that when the card was used a small percentage of the transaction went to the club. MBNA have recently sent out letters saying that they will no longer be issuing Rangers credit cards, I have no idea how much this will affect the club but does anyone know if there are any other banks who issue Rangers credit cards.
Could this be the start of the TOP trouble or just lack of interest
Hmmmmmmmm
So Bobby Madden has been selected to referee the Celtic ‘Rangers’ SC SF. He was selected for the last but one league encounter. Whether he is a deliberate cheat or merely sees what he wants to see because of his well documented allegiances isn’t the point. He should be nowhere near this fixture and is yet another example of SFA corruption/incompetence/two fingers to decent fans of Scottish football. Many will suspect this decision (which would not have been allowed in England) is the authorities once again doing everything in their power to help the Ibrox club. Hard to imagine healthy season ticket sales with an increasingly likely third (or lower) place in the league without the compensation of silverware.
Have SFM contributors considered watermarking their photos and similar images?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Bryce Curdy
I think it’s important to be very careful about repeating malicious internet gossip as fact. Madden has confirmed repeatedly that the Rangers season ticket story was untrue, also the initial story came along with details claiming his father still uses the ticket which is particularly sick given his father is dead.
I don’t think the guy is a very good referee, none of them are great in fact but to smear a guy using his dead relative when he’s battling cancer himself is beneath this site in my opinion. It’s often easy to forget when people are built up into pantomime villains online that they are a human being, I’ve attached a link for context, a quick google search will throw up dozens of others.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/15310455.Getting_to_know_Bobby_Madden__The_cup_final_referee_on_coping_with_cancer__innuendo_and_last_year_s_misbehaviour/