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.
Just a wee reminder.
If Rangers are the same club then why have they (and their fans) allowed the Football Authorities treat them so shabbily for all the reasons mentioned in posts above that ended up with loss of status and potential earnings from having to play in the lower divisions, playing in all cup games and missing out on europe.
Its not like folks like Whyte, Green and King dislike going head to head with the authorities in the courts to try and prove a point and seek compensation when they feel they are wronged.
The reason they don’t go chasing the footballing authorities is simple.
They know T’Rangers got a fantastic deal for being a new club and its best to keep quiet.
Nick
March 7, 2018 at 12:30
Having read both sides for a number of years debate it to death I don’t believe I’ve witnessed a single person change their view from what they thought originally.
==============================
Well off the top of my head there’s every single newspaper which originally reported their demise. Front page, banner headlines. They seem to have changed their view. So presumably the reporters writing their stuff have changed their minds.
Jim Traynor specifically who initially reported and mourned their death, then subsequently changed his view after being employed by the new club.
Homunculus
I see your point but I think it’s important to differentiate between sensationalist tabloids indulging in contradictory hyperbole and real football fans who’s opinions should actually matter.
In this matter words are proving more powerful than actions in shaping “understanding”. That is why a definitive statement from the football authorities is required.
rob469March 7, 2018 at 13:39
“……………That is why a definitive statement from the football authorities is required.”
My view is were is the justice for Findloch, the guy bet on a club been relegated, he was informed they were not relegated.
The case showed that a new club had been formed and applied for a licence , this would not be required of a same club.
Where is the rule to forfeit from a club, who finishes second, prize money or deny them Europe based on their finish,they would still have the required membership years and accounts.
Setanta would have no right to withhold money from a club if it was rightfully theirs. Setanta said it was a new club and no-one challenged the witholding of the money.
now Findloch reads daily its the same club, his bet therefore has to stand then.
So where is the justice for this man!!
The 10-year coefficient is only for revenue distribution, not seeding. There was some discussion about this on Bert Kassies’ forum, mostly relating to Parma and extra points for European titles. The prevailing view was that UEFA were likely to recognise Parma Calcio as a successor club to the defunct AC Parma. Bert himself raised the argument that having a “big name” in a tournament raises more money when selling tickets and rights.
Nick
I don’t mean the UEFA database Geek got it wrong per se. I mean he has a limited space in a cell to describe a club and the general format of the spreadsheet does not cater for a club to take up two rows, hence other anomalies like Derry City appearing to a be continous although they folded and became ineligible to apply for 3 years and had an application to apply rejected after 2 years when the Phoenix Derry qualIfield.
So do you change the whole database construct or pick a description by which the club in question has historically been recognised? You take the easy way out.
There is a deeper issue here I believe in that clubs go under throughout Europe but I don’t know of any who went under in Rangers circumstances.
They won titles and trophies with other people’s money which they have never repaid. Some of that money came from an over friendly bank that itself had to be bailed out by the tax payer and the other money came more directly from fraudulent use of tax schemes not intended to pay wages. Wages that purchased a quality of player that the Rangers owner said gave them a competitive advantage. The money owed to tax payers ran into many millions yet the trophies that it bought lie untouched.
The problem is exacerbated by the football authorities failing to address the 10 or more years of dishonesty from Ibrox that required said authorities themselves to act dishonestly and when Rangers dishonesty was fully exposed by the Supreme Court, the SFA refused to deal with the consequences justice demanded.
So it’s about a lot more than a cell on a spreadsheet. It’s about restoring honesty and trust to our game and that can ultimately only come internally from our clubs via the SPFL and the SFA . I suspect that is what UEFA might say if it were possible to drag them into the debate.
It would massively help end the never ending debate driven by an underlying anger at all that has happened in the last 17 years, if guys like DBF were to recognise where it is coming from and why and do the right thing and swap the trophies and titles won in a sign of honesty and contrition instead of ongoing defiance. (not DBF btw whose honesty is clear)
Until then the issue will never go away.
Hi Stevo, that’s interesting, do you have any more detail on how the revenue distribution works or a link?
I do understand the commercial argument for “sporting continuity”, it seems it’s only in Scotland where it’s ever really been a contentious issue. We do like an argument over here…
AULDHEIDMARCH 7, 2018 at 14:19
I can certainly see the reasons for the anger, in my opinion any team which spends outwith what’s sustainable is in effect cheating.
I would say though that although all football insolvencies have their own unique elements I don’t believe Rangers are entirely different from your Portsmouths, Hearts, Parmas or Leeds. At the end of the day they all spent more than was sustainable using different methods and then wrote off vast quantities of that debt using CVAs, newcos or other corporate shenanigans.
Rightly or wrongly their titles weren’t stripped and it seems will never be. I guess the interesting “punishment” which could still be levied is fines or bans for some of the executives which are still at the club. I guess we await the compliance officer judgement with interest on that one.
NICKMARCH 7, 2018 at 12:30
As a genuine football fan I’ve always felt my club is more than a legal or corporate entity and is defined more by the fans than whatever businessman is heading things up.
—————————————————————————–
It is hard to argue with that view point given all the emotion and passion that is attached to following football.
However the problem is that fans of the clubs playing out of Ibrox have failed to face up the realities of corporate law and this has been supported by the lack of clarity from the likes of Stewart (let the fans decide) Regan and the clear chopping and changing of views from the SMSM along with the lack of explanation or open and honest debate about such an apparent volte-face.
Even if we dismiss the corporate law side of things then like the recent Wiggins/Sky coverage what about the ‘ethical line’
While one cannot say they talk for all fans of each club, there have been significant fan bodies from teams like Hearts and Dunfermline who have gone out of their way the publicly acknowledge that what went on in the past was far from ideal and that such circumstances should never happen again.
The sense of a near miss and dare I say shame hangs around the clubs as they seek to move forwards in a new direction.
Similarly at Motherwell the Daily Record reported this in relation to John Boyle and Administration
“Boyle still bristles at the thought of that embarrassment. It stings his pride.”
Smaller teams like Gretna of course made a clean break from their corporate past.
However, down Ibrox way the public voice of the fans has come in the form of playing the victim card, crying that ‘big boys did it and ran away’, followed by trying to re-establish superiority and ‘traditional values’ to the cry of No Surrender while joyously remaining deep in other blood. While all the time seeing the same vocal groups welcoming back incompetents and convicted tax dodgers who helped watch their club die when in the Blue Room.
The funny thing is the only person who voiced anything near an apology was Dave King himself. I of course can’t say if you should believe him as his lips were moving at the time.
If the Ibrox club and its fans had shown a bit more dignity and ate a bit of humble pie then I doubt the oldco/newco debate would still be raging on. Other fans would have said ‘well there by the grace of God etc etc’ – ‘If it can happen to them then we should all be very careful’. There may have even been a bit of solidarity and support for the fellow fan on the terracing.
Where T’Rangers fans are today is partially their own fault and that is why at any ground they play at, opposition fans will be singing ‘You’re not Rangers anymore’ and ‘You let you club die’.
Perhaps Regan was right in asking the fans to decide because the emotion and passions tells us the club out of Ibrox is both new and old at the same time.
A new corporate entity with the same unlikable qualities of old.
NICKMARCH 7, 2018 at 12:30
That in itself suggests the debate is not a particularly fruitful one and for the many like myself without a dog in the fight it can come across as typically childish Old Firm (or Glasgow Derby if you prefer) fare. In fact it seems quite mean spirited and childish to continually try to prove to a group of people that the football team which for whatever bizarre reason seems to bring them a lot of joy is somehow “dead” due to insolvency law. As a genuine football fan I’ve always felt my club is more than a legal or corporate entity and is defined more by the fans than whatever businessman is heading things up.
=====================================
I’m afraid I can’t buy the O*d F*rm argument. Celtic did not steal tens of millions from the public purse, and were not liquidated. Unless you approve of what Rangers did maybe you should have a dog in the fight, because they and the authorities have stuck two fingers up to every other club.
http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/uefarankings/revenue/index.html
“These rankings are used solely for the distribution of part of the club revenues.”
I don’t know exactly how revenue distribution will work from next season onwards, but in this season’s Europa League, clubs knocked out in the qualifying rounds received a fixed amount per round. Only sides making it through to the group stages received a sum of money which included a variable share based on the value of their home television market. So it is likely that next season a club would have to make it through to the group stages for the new 10-year coefficient to become relevant.
Nick
March 7, 2018 at 14:32
================================
I think two issues are being conflated here. Paying to run the club with money stolen from the taxpayer, and concealing contracts from the authorities, simply to hide the contractual nature of certain payments.
Both happened but as far as I am aware only one should lead to points deductions.
In games where a player is fielded and discovered to be inelligible then the result is changed to a 3-0 defeat. Well it does for everyone else. It can be for relatively minor offences, if I recall correctly Spartans fielded an ineligible player but it was a fairly minor infringement of the rules, as opposed to deliberate and systematic cheating over several years. They were thrown out of the Scottish cup.
People are simply asking that be done in Rangers case, that results be changed if an ineligible player was used. That the league position reflects those changes.
Wottpi I think that is an excellent post, and echoes an awful lot of my own views. I felt we were our own worst enemy in 2012 for our playing the victim card and refusal to accept we did anything wrong. The outrage at the SFA in particular was extremely misplaced and instead of looking inwards at the way the club had been run we blamed every single external group, person or club. Personally I am embarassed by what happened and was extremely so at the time. A bit of dignity would have gone a long long way to helping bridge gaps and move on. I even accept there will always be an ‘asterix’ so to speak against the titles won during the EBT years and whilst I disagree with most on here when it comes to the stripping of the titles, I believe an achnoledgment of wrong doing is the least that could be done.
I wonder if we had came out at the time and apologised for the Murray years and the mess we had caused, accepted that we have to take our punishment and move forward with dignity would things have been different? I doubt the OC/NC debate would even be ongoing. Instead we put up a shield of defiance and refused to accept we were to blame. We let crooks back in to the club desperate for someone to invest money again to make us competative to ‘stick it up to the SPL clubs’. We should have been using these years in the lower league to develop youngsters, build a sustainable business model and bridge gaps and make friends in the process. A missed opportunity if ever there was one.
DARKBEFOREDAWNMARCH 7, 2018 at 15:51
We should have been using these years in the lower league to develop youngsters, build a sustainable business model and bridge gaps and make friends in the process. A missed opportunity if ever there was one.
===========================================
Had that happened from 2012 onwards just think how much cash in reserve there may have been when the top league was reached. All Rangers had to do was make sure they had the best players needed for the division they were in, with a good manager in place. The crowds would still have turned up. Paying thousands a week to players like Ian Black and Kevin Kyle to name but two was like throwing £20 notes into a bonfire IMO.
NickMarch 7, 2018 at 12:30
ROB469 MARCH 7, 2018 at 11:23I think the SFA and SPFL have been fairly clearly that they view Rangers as the same club throughout but I do agree the debate has become circular and entrenched. Having read both sides for a number of years debate it to death I don’t believe I’ve witnessed a single person change their view from what they thought originally.That in itself suggests the debate is not a particularly fruitful one and for the many like myself without a dog in the fight it can come across as typically childish Old Firm (or Glasgow Derby if you prefer) fare. In fact it seems quite mean spirited and childish to continually try to prove to a group of people that the football team which for whatever bizarre reason seems to bring them a lot of joy is somehow “dead” due to insolvency law. As a genuine football fan I’ve always felt my club is more than a legal or corporate entity and is defined more by the fans than whatever businessman is heading things up. Perhaps it would be easier to have a reasonable and informed debate on governance issues and how to prevent our major clubs suffering insolvency events if we parked the tit for tat Old v New club debate and agreed that both sides will always disagree? Certainly it may make the debate more interesting for those turned off by hearing the same old arguments?Just a thought.
_____________________
Nick, try as hard as you can, but you won’t be able to find a statement from The SFA saying TRFC are the same cub as RFC. They just chose to chicken out of the issue with a statement from Regan saying that he would leave it to the supporters to decide. Can you think why he might not be prepared to make a categorical statement to support a view that he clearly wished to be the case?
While people may never change their view on the matter, most of us here believe it would be wrong to let it lie, for that is exactly what the deniers want to happen, and it is never right, under any circumstances, for a lie to be allowed to become the truth – no matter how many people are fed up hearing the argument. There would be no need for us to keep repeating the truth if the SMSM had made an unbiased examination of it, or if the SFA had actually made a statement on the matter backed up by hard facts that included the position within the law.
As a genuine football fan, I witnessed my club almost go the same way as Rangers, and I initially looked at what was being said about their insolvency event in the hope that I would find some comfort and a belief in my club continuing should they fail to reach a CVA. I can honestly say that I never read one argument, from anyone, that gave me that hope, for none of it was based on fact or law, just wishful thinking backed up by conflicted officials and a compliant media.
I’d like to know, though, how you think we can have ‘reasonable and informed debate on governance issues and how to prevent our major clubs suffering insolvency events’ if we ignore the biggest such insolvency event ever to hit Scottish football, and the governance, or lack of governance, issues that surround it. Good governance can never come about by ignoring the bad governance issues that brought the need to seek ‘good governance’ in the first place. And how can we possibly prevent our major clubs suffering insolvency events if we allow the misconception that ‘a club can never die’ to prevail? Clearly, TRFC and their supporters have bought into that lie, and regardless of how they end up, they are clearly sailing close to the wind in terms of insolvency, and that has to be partly, at least, due to their acceptance of the immortal club myth!
In the end, though, anyone turned off by the ‘same old arguments’ can either introduce a new, fact based, argument, or remain turned off until they see a discussion that captures their imagination.
Nick
Did Leeds etc fail to disclose the full remuneration they were paying players to play for them? Did Portsmouth? Did they lie to the tax authorities to enable them to pay their players an attractive wage?
Did they lie to obtain and retain a UEFA licence to enable them to continue earning the benefits of their non disclosures? (If Comp Off is thorough then then this should become an accepted fact).
That is what makes Rangers case different and worse because they breached the trust other member clubs placed on them to act honestly and on the face of it the only difference between past and present behaviour is scale. It’s only £20m of debt to build current team to be paid for from the income the current team will bring in next season.
I think Rangers insolvency is unique for those reasons and it is the failure to recognise the full betrayal of our game and football authority attempts as presenting it as one long administrations error, that fuels the debate which is only another symptom of a refusal to tackle the cause as well as the pure defiance and anger aimed at anyone who points out they cheated.
DarkbeforedawnMarch 7, 2018 at 15:51
Wottpi I think that is an excellent post, and echoes an awful lot of my own views. I felt we were our own worst enemy in 2012 for our playing the victim card and refusal to accept we did anything wrong. The outrage at the SFA in particular was extremely misplaced and instead of looking inwards at the way the club had been run we blamed every single external group, person or club. Personally I am embarassed by what happened and was extremely so at the time. A bit of dignity would have gone a long long way to helping bridge gaps and move on. I even accept there will always be an ‘asterix’ so to speak against the titles won during the EBT years and whilst I disagree with most on here when it comes to the stripping of the titles, I believe an achnoledgment of wrong doing is the least that could be done.I wonder if we had came out at the time and apologised for the Murray years and the mess we had caused, accepted that we have to take our punishment and move forward with dignity would things have been different? I doubt the OC/NC debate would even be ongoing. Instead we put up a shield of defiance and refused to accept we were to blame. We let crooks back in to the club desperate for someone to invest money again to make us competative to ‘stick it up to the SPL clubs’. We should have been using these years in the lower league to develop youngsters, build a sustainable business model and bridge gaps and make friends in the process. A missed opportunity if ever there was one.
__________________
That, too, was an excellent post, DBD, probably the best you have written. Possibly one of the best written by a Rangers supporter on the subject, too, as it shows a good level of awareness of what your club did, very rarely shown by supporters of your club.
DBF 15.51
As I ended my earlier post on presenting evidence – you are clearly an honest man and Ill add with integrity.
More of your ilk need to take over the running of Rangers.
An interesting post from PMGB in which, amongst other things, he makes mention of fears amongst the 3bears that this intended share issue might cause them a serious problem with the Takeover Panel. It reminded me of my own thoughts from a while ago, I think I may have posted on it, that should King either not make his offer, not have to make the offer, or escape having to follow through with his offer if it doesn’t have the required uptake, then the 3bears increasing their shareholding might very well put them into the same trouble with the TOP as King is currently in. Phil suggests they may be having problems with the idea of the debt for equity swap, which, I think, might very well give them over 30% of the equity, or close to it, even without King in the mix. Imagine if they had to make an offer to King for his shares, probably at whatever price the striking price of the issue is set at!
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/03/07/operating-losses-and-klansplaining/
WOTTPI 14.57
You echo much of my thinking and DBF’s response is the first blue shoot of recovery Ive seen in this long battle to obtain governance that acts with integrity (something not confined to football).
On that point and your reference to lack of clarity from SFA. I think SFA under Regan went well beyond that in 2016 and I blogged about it on SFM.
https://www.sfm.scot/who-is-conning-whom/
They just didnt clarify, they went out of their way to obfuscate and cover up what UEFA ruled and the end game here has to be total SFA reform where transparency and accountability, that make clarity a natural consequence, has to be introduced.
Regan has gone, Broadfoot has gone but the mindset that lack of transparency and accountability enables still previals.
This is about changing the ethos of Scottish football, which is actually a spiritual battle, so Regan, whilst wrong in saying there would be a physical Armageddon if Rangers disappeared, was right in that in the way it has been handled , the SFA have produced another type of Armageddon altogether and a much more meaningful one if truth prevails over People of the Lie.
June 2012 Dr Henry Jekyll
In the story, published before the initial verdict on the big tax case, King admitted that if Rangers lost then the club would have “probably gained some competitive advantage” and would owe the “Scottish footballing public an apology”.
Here’s what he said in June 2012 just after the SPL ruled Rangers had a case to answer over the alleged use of dual contracts.
King said: “I think we should be sorry – and I certainly am sorry. We owe both the Rangers fans and the Scottish footballing public an apology. Some of the representations made have betrayed more of a victim status. But I think somebody needs to apologise.
“Clearly, that is not for Charles Green to do. But I am happy to say I believe we should be saying sorry and I think there is something to be sorry about.
“And as a former director when these things were going on, I am minded to do so. With regard to EBTs, I was on the board so I take some responsibility. And I follow the logic of the argument that if we lose the tax case then we probably gained some competitive advantage.
“I believe, on behalf of myself and most board members who were with me, we should apologise for that. The Murray Group might not say that because it might be tantamount to admitting it.
“But I am happy to say it as a director of the club. It is absolutely appropriate for the previous regime to be sorry.”
Insisting there was no deliberate attempt to gain a competitive advantage from the use of EBTs, King added: “No one on the board when I was there would have had any intention of gaining an advantage.
“But I can understand the perception out there now.
“And the way Rangers have treated the authorities – instead of having a conversation with them around reparation – has been regrettable. One of the things I would have looked at as part of a consortium is to try and fund them so that they could make some sort of commercial reparation to the other clubs.
“But let’s do it in a way whereby it is seen to have happened and we come out of it strongly.”
To be continued—-
NOV 2015 Mr Edward Hyde
DAVE KING last night threatened to haul the rest of Scottish football into court if they try to strip Rangers of their titles.
The Ibrox chairman fired a stern warning to the SFA and SPFL that he’ll do whatever it takes to defend the club’s history.
And he also vowed to come after other clubs and will seek to rewrite their history – if the game’s bosses choose to open this can of worms.
Record Sport understands that would put Hearts in the firing line, as Gers would attempt to have their Scottish Cup Final wins over Gretna in 2006 and Hibs in 2012 wiped off the history books, using the argument that they too claimed success based on a regime of reckless spending that forced the club into administration.
The prospect of Hearts’ greatest derby result – the 5-1 Cup Final thrashing of Hibs – being erased from the records would horrify Jambos fans who still love nothing more than to rub their rivals noses in that scoreline.
It’s believed that Rangers are alarmed by the fact the SPFL Board held a conference call last Friday to discuss the ramifications of HMRC last week winning their appeal against a favourable verdict for Rangers in the big tax case, over their use of tax-avoiding Employee Benefit Trusts to pay players.
That ruling sparked renewed calls from many fans and former Celtic star Darren O’Dea for the Ibrox club to be stripped of their success during that period.
But now King has warned that any move to go back and rewrite history will have far-reaching consequences for the rest of the game.
His statement, however, is in stark contrast to what he said back in 2012,Yesterday he said: “It is disappointing that a debate has re-emerged around the subject of Rangers’ history.
“It must be especially frustrating for the supporters who again find individuals within the structures of Scottish football unfairly targeting the club.
“As the one individual who was a major shareholder and director throughout the period that gave rise to the HMRC dispute, and again find myself in a similar capacity, I believe I am uniquely positioned to make three important observations.
“First, irrespective of the final outcome of the tax appeal (which might take several more years) the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group.
“Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the club.
“The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team.
“Certain players may not have signed for the club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch.
“We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn’t want to sign under different financial circumstances.
Lord Nimmo Smith has fully and finally dealt with the legitimacy of the continuity of the club’s history. There is no more to be debated on that issue.
“Finally, it is extraordinary that representatives of other Scottish clubs – who admit the damage done to Scottish football by Rangers’ removal from the Premier League – should even wish to re-engage with this issue.
“It is time those individuals, who represent other clubs, recognise their legal and fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and shareholders rather than submit to the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans to whom attacking Rangers is more important than the wellbeing of their own clubs.
“This is a misguided attempt (that will ultimately fail) to rewrite history and defeat Rangers off the park when their teams could not do so on the park at the time. The history of many other clubs would have to be rewritten if this illogical argument was to be consistently applied.
“Having reviewed documentation that has become available to me I believe that Rangers was harshly and, in some instances, unfairly treated in the period leading up to demotion from the Premier League
“However, that is now history and I have publicly stated, with the full support of the recently installed board, that we wish to put the past behind us and move on in partnership with all clubs in Scotland to improve and restore the image and quality of Scottish football. This will benefit all clubs.
“For the avoidance of doubt, however, I wish to make one point clear. If the history of our club comes under attack we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football.”
woodsteinMarch 7, 2018 at 17:15
Dave King speak with forked tongue. There’s a surprise.
It would be interesting to see the documentation that became available to him that made him believe Rangers were harshly treated. It sounds like the stuff he obtained from Charlotte Fakeovers and if it shows harsh treatment then it would be good to see it aired in public in the interests of balance.
On his argument that investors would have ponied up to meet the shortfall that following the normal taxation of wages route would have created, the point is they did not follow the normal route and as a result owed huge amounts of overdue tax.
UEFA do not entertain arguments about whether that tax provided sporting advantage or not, they simply will not allow a club to play in their competition against other clubs who paid there taxes in a proper way and so had no overdue payables.
There is an argument Rangers had overdue tax from 2001 and should have not been granted a license, in any year since except of course no one in football governance actually knew the full extent of what they were doing (up to 2009 anyway when HMRC visited Hampden)
UEFA don’t ask a hypothetical questions, as in would you have paid proper tax had you realised you weren’t doing so?.
They do recognise that a club that accepts they did owe tax up to the end of the year previous to the licensing cycle, but pay it before the cut off date at the end of March when the granting part of the cycle begins, does not have overdue payables, but after that UEFA’s line is you are operating outside of the financial constraints that your competitors have by law to observe, so under the principles of FAIR play you will not get a licence.
In effect on Planet Fitbaw King’s argument is spurious and suggests he does not understand the concept of fairness.
Last word on that “we would have funded the shortfall anyway” argument. It is the old prove a negative con trick. Prove you don’t have weapons of mass destruction and we will not bomb the crap out of you.
You cannot prove something that isn’t there.
Its a con trick from a con man.
WOTTPIMARCH 7, 2018 at 14:57
The funny thing is the only person who voiced anything near an apology was Dave King himself. I of course can’t say if you should believe him as his lips were moving at the time.
—————
I believe i have an article with Malcolm Murray who had a stab at it, (an apology that is)when i come across it i will post
DARKBEFOREDAWNMARCH 7, 2018 at 15:51
14
1 Rate This
Wottpi I think that is an excellent post, and echoes an awful lot of my own views. I felt we were our own worst enemy in 2012 for our playing the victim card and refusal to accept we did anything wrong. The outrage at the SFA in particular was extremely misplaced and instead of looking inwards at the way the club had been run we blamed every single external group, person or club. Personally I am embarassed by what happened and was extremely so at the time. A bit of dignity would have gone a long long way to helping bridge gaps and move on. I even accept there will always be an ‘asterix’ so to speak against the titles won during the EBT years and whilst I disagree with most on here when it comes to the stripping of the titles, I believe an achnoledgment of wrong doing is the least that could be done.
I wonder if we had came out at the time and apologised for the Murray years and the mess we had caused, accepted that we have to take our punishment and move forward with dignity would things have been different? I doubt the OC/NC debate would even be ongoing. Instead we put up a shield of defiance and refused to accept we were to blame. We let crooks back in to the club desperate for someone to invest money again to make us competative to ‘stick it up to the SPL clubs’. We should have been using these years in the lower league to develop youngsters, build a sustainable business model and bridge gaps and make friends in the process. A missed opportunity if ever there was one.
————–
That is a good post. Playing the victim card sold a hell of a lot of season tickets for the lower leagues,
When charles Green seen there was no money to be made when accepting the previous club did wrong and the shame the ibrox fans had to endure when facing up to this fact it was so much easier to blame everyone else, rally the troops and sell season tickets.
I must say he knew his audiance and how to string them along. he was good at what he knew and what he knew was how to make money, he used the ibrox fans grief to get them to part with their money.
Maybe the ibrox fans should not have expressed there outrage at the SFA in particular at the time but they should now for it was them who allowed the ibrox fans to be conned by spives into believing they follow the same club.
Maybe the ibrox fans could not face the shame of what their club did and they now just can’t face the shame they have been strung along.
After being conned these last 6 years, how could they now face the shame of admitting it’s a new club
Ps A lot of great posts on the blog today and i’m trying hard to catch up.
Keep up the great work. SFM the place to go
Celtic Football Club@CelticFC7h? The renewal window for 2018/19 #CelticFC Season Tickets is scheduled to open week commencing April 2, with the deadline to renew for the season on May 11.
—————
Will the compliance officer report be out before then?
That is 7 yes 7 months now
CLUSTER ONEMARCH 7, 2018 at 18:47
0
1 Rate This
Ps A lot of great posts on the blog today and i’m trying hard to catch up.Keep up the great work. SFM the place to go
————-
One thumb down for that post? SFM the place to go, i take it someone disagrees but has taken the time to come onto SFM and do a thumb down, very strange
Ally/Auldheid thank you. I’m not going to say the majority as I know it is not true, but there are certainly a large number of fans I know who share similar opinion to my own. Unfortunately the vast majority only care about beating Celtic and are completely blinkered to the s**tstorms that constantly come our way. If we lose on Sunday, the answer on most Rangers forums will be spend more money. That’s why the fans were so quite to take to Green.
Which brings me onto ClusterOnes post. I don’t think Green was the first person to invent the idea of an asset transfer maintaining continuity as one of the proposed bidders – an American who’s name I have forgotten – proposed the exact same idea before Green came onto the scene. A billionaire with a successful history, who ironically the fans chased away for not being ‘Rangers minded’
Kennedy also said in a later interview that this was his fall back if a CVA was rejected. The fact of the matter is these two proper businessmen could have adopted the same approach and I think the club would have been in a far better place. Instead Green came out of left field without the slightest bit of scrutiny from the SFA whatsoever. A quick look at his past history in football showed how much of a charlatan he was, and at first all the fans called him out. Within a couple of days of ‘warchests’, ‘champions league’ and ‘rangersitis’ and he was welcomed with open arms!! Not a single bit of scrutiny by the SFA, no due diligence, no questioning his intentions. And when King took over, it was exactly the same story again! How many more crooks need to come in and damage both the club and the Scottish game before the SFA intervene?
Talk about not learning from the past and making the same mistakes continuously. Rangers get into serious debts by allowing one of the dodgiest businessmen in Scottish history run the club as an ego trip for 20 years and as long as he was winning, no-one was asking questions. Once he’d done his damage, he sells to an asset stripper who again promises the moon. Bloggers had sussed him out before he even bought the club, and his own board!!! Warned about him, but again promises of war chests and European success allowed him to walz in with no scrutiny. Closely followed by Green, Ashley (who you only have to ask any Newcastle fan their opinion on him) who was going to sell Newcastle and use Rangers as a way to get his sponsor Sports Direct into the Champions League (again no-one questioned the fact all advertising for the CL is not up to the clubs participating in it). If this was a comedy caper movie and the next man on the scene was – 1. A tax evader 2. A member of the previous boards under Murray and Whyte. And 3. A convicted criminal – you would laugh and call it too far fetched!
CLUSTER ONEMARCH 7, 2018 at 19:02
11
0 Rate This
Celtic Football Club@CelticFC7h The renewal window for 2018/19 #CelticFC Season Tickets is scheduled to open week commencing April 2, with the deadline to renew for the season on May 11.—————Will the compliance officer report be out before then?That is 7 yes 7 months now
====%=% ==
If I were on the Celtic Board or indeed the board of other clubs I would be asking the SFA how they can ask supporters to buy ST’s to watch a game whose honesty is on trial.
Or I’d have to give assurances to supporters that clubs are satisfied that no wrongdoing took place or it did but they can guarantee it cannot happen again.
woodsteinMarch 7, 2018 at 17:23
I wonder if anyone else gets the same feeling I got when reading that, that it was the words of someone somewhat deranged, or unhinged, basically claiming to have it within his power to wreak havoc on those who would sully his club’s name.
Your naming of the pieces, Woodstein, of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, could not be more appropriate.
DARKBEFOREDAWNMARCH 7, 2018 at 15:51
Thanks for your kind words and I know there are more like you out there.
However probably not enough.
(Speaking of which haven’t seen our old pal Ryan on hear for a while. Hope he is OK)
I also appreciate the magnitude of the problem fans groups or RRM had in trying to get an ‘in’ the same way as Ann Budge did at Hearts. where it was a smaller club and smaller sums of money involved.
That being said with a bit of co-ordination and effort it is hard to see (if it was all apparently done by the book) why Green’s bid wasn’t blown out of the a waterby folk who really cared for the club.
Way back in the RTC days I said many a time that the club had an opportunity to make itself fit for purpose in the 21st century.
I even recall saying they could have had a year out to regroup or been invited to play in the cup competitions only until the club truly found its feet again.
If the five way agreement could be cobbled together then anything was possible.
Unfortunately, we can’t change history and I am afraid that the fact that a series of chancers have been cheered down Edmiston Drive (and as you say other potential saviours lambasted) shows how much work there is to be done to change a deep mindset of shouting a lot but not really paying attention to what is really going on.
Keep fighting the good fight with those liked minded fellows and you may get what you seek one day.
I always thought there was something funny with the fact Green’s offer was accepted over Kennedy’s. Whilst clearly not fraudulent as the courts have found out, I recon there was definitely an element of ‘old pals’ involved – Whytes administrators and a link to some on Greens consortium. I often wonder how different things would have been under Kennedy. The liquidation/asset sale would have happened regardless but the last 6 years would certainly have been different.
As a Hibs man, Kennedy would not have been ruled by a love of Rangers but by his head. The fans would not have taken to him as he wouldn’t have been flashing the cheque book. McCoist would have been dropped sooner as a ‘club legend’ wouldn’t have been spared the awful results and the lack of dignity he showed in the media. But if you look at the money Rangers squandered since 2012 and think that with a team of academy players and the few senior pros that stayed on we could have achieved the same result. We may have had three years in the championship instead of 2 but the club would almost certainly still be in the SPFL now but on a far better footing and a lot more friends along the way.
The SFA didn’t help matters either with the shambolic delay of the transfer embargo which led to the likes of Black, Templeton and Sandaza.
Darkbeforedawn March 7, 2018 at 20:45
The SFA didn’t help matters either with the shambolic delay of the transfer embargo which led to the likes of Black, Templeton and Sandaza.
========================
The delay in imposing the transfer embargo was the Oldco’s own doing, by taking the decision of then SFA’s appelate tribunal to the Court of Session for judicial review, where they got it (surprisingly) ruled as ultra vires by Lord Glennie. It was ultimately imposed on the Newco, and accepted, as part of the 5-way stitch up.
Incidentally, it led to Lord Carloway (now Lord President of the CoS) stepping down from the SFA’s Judicial Panel list. The SFA should have further sanctioned the Oldco for taking it to court in the first place, but bottled that decision.
ALLYJAMBOMARCH 7, 2018 at 19:57
14
0 Rate This
woodsteinMarch 7, 2018 at 17:23
I wonder if anyone else gets the same feeling I got when reading that, that it was the words of someone somewhat deranged, or unhinged, basically claiming to have it within his power to wreak havoc on those who would sully his club’s name.
————–
And not even a charge of bringing the game into disrepute
The whole appeal was crazy. “We’re punishing you for deliberately running up irresponsible debts buying players you can’t afford”.
“No we’re appealing, we want to be able to spend even more money on players we can’t afford”.
“Ow, okay then. But you can only binge spend until the end of this transfer window so get your move on and make sure they are as irresponsible as possible”
Fascinating coverage of the Select Committee on doping in sport and specific criticism of Team Sky.
Well worth listening to the Radio 5 Cycle podcast on it. Only 30 mins. This idea of ethical lines will never catch on.
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/bespoke-weekly/id1130914003?mt=2&i=1000404968918
DARKBEFOREDAWNMARCH 7, 2018 at 19:47
Which brings me onto ClusterOnes post. I don’t think Green was the first person to invent the idea of an asset transfer maintaining continuity as one of the proposed bidders – an American who’s name I have forgotten – proposed the exact same idea before Green came onto the scene. A billionaire with a successful history, who ironically the fans chased away for not being ‘Rangers minded’
—————
Bill Miller had the incubator idea i don’t believe it was the same idea as CG
Ah Bill Miller, that was it! Thanks. His was similar albeit sold differently to the media – separating the assets from the holding company and trying to get a CVA from for the holding company that at that stage would have been a shell without any assets. I don’t believe a CVA would have passed then either so would have ultimately had the same end result.
DARKBEFOREDAWNMARCH 7, 2018 at 19:47
A quick look at his past history in football showed how much of a charlatan he was, and at first all the fans called him out. Within a couple of days of ‘warchests’, ‘champions league’ and ‘rangersitis’ and he was welcomed with open arms!!
————
You have a good memory of many things, a lot of ibrox fans don’t. I just don’t understand how easily they want to forget these things,or how easily they can be fooled into being made to forget these things.It’s as if if we don’t talk about it it never happened.
It is as if they have to be continuously fed good old glory years stories and past adventures.Talk about the good times talk of ‘warchests’, ‘champions league’ and ‘rangersitis’in the past and more to come of ‘warchests’, ‘champions league’ and ‘rangersitis in the future and if the ibrox fans are talking about that then they are not asking questions about anything else
DARKBEFOREDAWNMARCH 7, 2018 at 21:48
I don’t believe a CVA would have passed then either so would have ultimately had the same end result.
———–
But he had the money to build and may have not played the victim card, well why would he
CLUSTER ONEMARCH 7, 2018 at 21:53 0 0 Rate This ———–But he had the money to build and may have not played the victim card, well why would he
————
see my comment above on Kennedy – I think Miller would have been the same. That’s what the club needs is someone to run it by the head and not by the heart. It’s not palpable to the fans but it’s the medicine we need if we are not to suffer the same again. Fergus McCann was never the most popular with the ‘buscuit tin’ mentally by jeez just look at why playing the long game has done for Celtic.
Thank everybody, some great posts tonight. Even DBD is on a roll tonight. There may be hope for Scottish football yet,
DarkbeforedawnMarch 7, 2018 at 19:47
‘…an American who’s name I have forgotten – proposed the exact same idea before Green came onto the scene.”
_________
Bill Miller, the ‘incubator’ man.
https://www.vavel.com/en/football/2012/05/03/glasgow-rangers/154078.html
(and note that D&P did not spell out what would happen if there were no CVA, canny lads/sharp cookies that they were)
EASYJAMBOMARCH 7, 2018 at 21:11
The delay in imposing the transfer embargo was the Oldco’s own doing, by taking the decision of then SFA’s appelate tribunal to the Court of Session for judicial review, where they got it (surprisingly) ruled as ultra vires by Lord Glennie. It was ultimately imposed on the Newco, and accepted, as part of the 5-way stitch up.
——————-
The explicit punishments stated in the SFA’s rule 66 are a maximum £100,000 fine, suspension or expulsion from participation in the game, ejection from the Scottish Cup or termination of membership.The independent three-man SFA disciplinary panel had considered ending Rangers’ membership, saying they viewed the offence second only to match-fixing in terms of seriousness, but decided a transfer ban was more appropriate.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9298583/Rangers-risk-fresh-sanctions-after-wnning-transfer-embargo-ruling.html
JOHN CLARKMARCH 7, 2018 at 22:10
Bill Miller, the ‘incubator’ man.https://www.vavel.com/en/football/2012/05/03/glasgow-rangers/154078.html(and note that D&P did not spell out what would happen if there were no CVA, canny lads/sharp cookies that they were)
———–
Note his statement.
A statement from Miller read: “It is a great honour and privilege to have the opportunity to buy Rangers Football Club. I respect the club as one of the world’s great sporting institutions and one of the UK’s most venerable football clubs. What Rangers, which includes supporters, players, staff and anyone with the club at heart, have been put through, particularly in recent months, is a travesty and from what I can see they have been badly let down by a number of individuals. “This will not happen on my look should I become the custodian of this great club. Under my stewardship, Rangers will be managed with fiscal discipline such that the club not only conforms to UEFA Financial Fair Play regulations but also such that Rangers will never have to suffer this kind of anguish again. From now on, Rangers will live within its means – no excuses. I have fought hard to try to offer Rangers a fresh start and I hope all Rangers fans will continue to rally round the club as we endeavour to leave behind this distressing chapter in the club’s history. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we have worked hard to ensure that there is no loss of history, no loss of tradition and no liquidation of Rangers Football Club. I wouldn’t have it any other way.”
Thanks for all replies tonight
Bill Miller’s bid …. from the Creditors Report
Offer 1 – Party 1
5.4 A sale of the Company‟s business and assets for £25m. No CVA proposal required.
Offer 1 – Bill Miller
5.21 Following further negotiation Mr Miller declared himself to be the only individual remaining from Party one and subsequently lodged an offer of £10m for a purchase of the Company’s business, history and assets. There was no requirement for a CVA.
5.34 Bill Miller‟s offer and Offer 3 were the offers which delivered the best return to creditors; however on 23 April 2012 the SFA published its disciplinary hearing outcome imposing the Transfer Embargo. As this sanction was later shown by the Court of Session to be unlawful, it was unexpected and it therefore caused a further delay to the process whilst the prospective purchasers considered the implications. Bill Miller asked for further time to consider his position.
5.36 Following further discussions and analysis of the remaining offers, the Joint Administrators concluded that Bill Miller‟s offer provided the best return to the Company‟s creditors and was most likely to proceed to completion. On 3 May 2012 he was announced as the preferred bidder, but with no exclusivity arrangement
Final Sale Process
5.39 On the May Bank Holiday weekend, following dialogue with the SFA and the SPL it became apparent that Mr Miller was considering the withdrawal of his offer. As such, a draft SPA was sent to Party 4 and Sevco. An SPA was not sent to Party 2/3 as it had not indicated that it would consider submitting any offer other than in conjunction with a CVA.
5.40 On 8 May 2012 Mr Miller withdrew his offer.
I say this not having read every post in detail.
There was never going to be a CVA for Rangers. HMRC were always going to reject it.
They had over 25% of the debt. Nothing to do with the EBTs. Rangers did not pay the “wee tax bill” as they had agreed to do. Rangers did not pay TAX, NI and VAT, which they were due to pay. That gave HMRC over 25% of the debt.
There were loads of hints of how HMRC viewed this, like arresting bank accounts and sending Sheriff’s Officers in. Like their previous rejections of CVAs for other clubs who had stolen tax money they collected.
It wasn’t going to happen. Rangers were going into liquidation from the moment they went into administration.
Homunculus, not often I agree with you 100% on a post but that is spot on my view at the time. HMRC would never have accepted less than 100% of the money owed. To do so would have meant open season for every single club who had ran up a debt to them, far less those they saw as fraudulently robbing them for 10 years. It would have effectively made the big tax case (at that time not even at the first appeal) meaningless. It was far, far bigger than just football to them. Whilst a football club can always start again/continue (delete as to applicable to your view point), larger businesses cannot so to have capitulated on this instance would have set a precedent that would have made the money lost to Rangers pale into insignificance. It was a narrative so obvious that I could not for the life of me understand why the media (at this point who were not shy in changing stance on the matter on a daily basis) did not call it out. Green, Miller, Kennedy, King. It didn’t matter who was left holding the reigns, the outcome was always going to be the same.
Compare
Mr Miller said: “It is a great honour and privilege to have the opportunity to buy Rangers Football Club. I respect the club as one of the world’s great sporting institutions and one of the UK’s most venerable football clubs.
“What Rangers, which includes supporters, players, staff and anyone with the club at heart, have been put through, particularly in recent months, is a travesty and from what I can see they have been badly let down by a number of individuals. This will not happen on my watch should I become the custodian of this great club.
“Under my stewardship, Rangers will be managed with fiscal discipline such that the club not only conforms to UEFA Financial Fair Play regulations but also such that Rangers will never have to suffer this kind of anguish again. From now on, Rangers will live within its means – no excuses.”
He added: “I have fought hard to try and offer Rangers a fresh start and I hope all Rangers fans will continue to rally round the club as we endeavour to leave behind this distressing chapter in the club’s history.
“Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we have worked hard to ensure that there is no loss of history, no loss of tradition and no liquidation of Rangers Football Club. I wouldn’t have it any other way.”
In a statement from Duff & Phelps said: “We are delighted to announce that today we have received an unconditional bid for the business and assets of Rangers Football Club plc from Mr Bill Miller, which has been accepted and he is now the preferred bidder.
“Mr Miller now proposes to complete his transaction by the end of the season.”
And contrast
American businessman Bill Miller has withdrawn his bid for Rangers after he heard the message from “supporters and fans loud and clear – ‘Yank go home!”.
The American tow truck tycoon has said that following work over the Bank Holiday weekend with the Rangers administrators, the team manager Ally McCoist and Scottish Premier League bosses he’s decided not to pursue his interest.
In a statement he said:
By late Monday night, it became clear to me that preliminary information, discussions and analysis were, unfortunately, more optimistic than reality.
Having no intention of negatively affecting the potential outcome of the club’s future and after hearing the message from Rangers supporters and fans loud and clear (“Yank go home!”), I notified the administrators today that I have withdrawn my bid for Rangers and will not be moving forward.I am deeply disappointed as I had considered the opportunity to bid for one of the most historic football clubs in the world, an honor and a privilege.
DarkbeforedawnMarch 7, 2018 at 22:00
CLUSTER ONEMARCH 7, 2018 at 21:53 0 0 Rate This ———–But he had the money to build and may have not played the victim card, well why would h
It’s not palpable to the fans but it’s the medicine we need if we are not to suffer the same again.
===================
I’ve posted this before because I think it represents what is actually happening one nano second after another. You may have read it but I think you might take hope from it.
On Pain Kahlil Gibran
Your pain is the breaking of the shell that encloses your understanding. Even as the stone of the fruit must break, that its heart may stand in the sun, so must you know pain. And could you keep your heart in wonder at the daily miracles of your life, your pain would not seem less wondrous than your joy; And you would accept the seasons of your heart, even as you have always accepted the seasons that pass over your fields. And you would watch with serenity through the winters of your grief.
Much of your pain is self-chosen.
It is the bitter potion by which the physician within you heals your sick self.
Therefore trust the physician, and drink his remedy in silence and tranquillity: For his hand, though heavy and hard, is guided by the tender hand of the Unseen, And the cup he brings, though it burn your lips, has been fashioned of the clay which the Potter has moistened with His own sacred tears.
PS The “Unseen” is not a Fenian
It seems, at least to the Express, that David Murray is interested in investing in Rangers.
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/928693/EXCLUSIVE-Rangers-Sir-David-Murray-Scottish-Premiership/amp?__twitter_impression=true
Is there some big news event coming up that requires an element of deflection?
Oh so cynical EJ… but that’s a square of the bingo card ticked!
A RRM keen to invest.
And timing is good.
Phil’s latest explains that the Close Leasing deal doesn’t even get TRFC to the end of the season – and another significant shortfall needs covering.
(Which, IMO, reinforces TRFC’s desperation to seek external money.)
If CFC draws or loses at Ibrox, then it’s meh.
League is won anyway, and this would just be embarrassing.
Nothing more, IMO.
If TRFC wins, then the SMSM will be screaming “Rangers are back where they belonging…!”
Aye right.
But, if TRFC gets humped again say 1-5, then there will be much gnashing of teeth and foaming of the mouth.
And a bad time to be trying to attract advance payments for discounted packages, as Phil suggests they are considering in the Blue Room.
So, despite what Sounes spouts about a TRFC win being good for Scottish football…
A right good humping at home would be the best outcome for Scottish football.
It just might help to accelerate the demise of the dodgy Ibrox club / company.
It was mooted, perhaps tongue in cheek, on the old RTC blog that Murray had planned this from the very start. That Murray would come back on board. That tens of millions of debt would have been dumped, Rangers would still be playing out of Ibrox and the exact same Board would be back in place.
If this is allowed to happen I will personally go to my nearest Worshipful Temple and prostrate myself on its hallowed ground in sheer awe at what they have achieved. Murray being allowed back on the Board would transform this tawdry, shabby feast for vultures into a magnificent work of corporate art, in my opinion, one step down from Bill Struth himself breezing through the Blue Room door and parking his boney arse on the big chair.
This story surely has to be a squirrel.
EASYJAMBOMARCH 8, 2018 at 00:36
It seems, at least to the Express, that David Murray is interested in investing in Rangers.
https://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/928693/EXCLUSIVE-Rangers-Sir-David-Murray-Scottish-Premiership/amp?__twitter_impression=true
Is there some big news event coming up that requires an element of deflection?
===================
I see the article is lauding Murray for the big spending days of yesteryear, including the record signing of Tore Andre Flo. Perhaps those in charge of the Bank of Scotland at the time should be the ones getting a mention, not Murray. It really is a good job there are no major Scottish owned banks these days, subject to certain influences.
As for Murray coming back, no-one at the SFA would stop him, and the media would roll out the red carpet. In fact I doubt they would stop anyone who might help to get Rangers to the top of the pile, no matter how stained their background was.
‘Sir’ David. If anyone shows the honours system up to be the prejudiced, often corrupt sham that it is then Murray is at the head of the queue.
Is there any other league in the world where a player from 1 club can be ‘Gifted’ to another. There now has to be a strong possibility tat the young player from Hamilton Acas. that was ‘gifted’ to TRFC will have to return if the cash cannot be found to pay for him. This is not a loan move. This was acclaimed as a full on transfer of a player but how can that be if NO money changes hands and the player has to return to the original club. Even more curious when you factor in that a director of the gifting club is also a director of the receiving club which is in serious financial position. Even that is against the rules of the game and seems to be just ignored. Rules for some but not for others again.
Carfin’s Finest
I think you’re a bit too caught up in some of the admittedly entertaining “Sevco” conspiracy stuff which kicks around.
They do not share a director with Hamilton Accies (from memory Douglas Park owns around 0.75% of Accies and has done for many years) and although the structure of that deal isn’t public it’s fair to say Hamilton are a generally well run side (bizarre phishing incidents aside) and they will have ensured a deal which suited them.
One of the sad things about the 2012 Rangers omnishambles is stuff like this, completely innocent Scottish football clubs being unfairly maligned.
I don’t doubt Murray would be welcomed back with open arms and a whole load of media spin. In fact I would bet Bernie Maydoff would be welcomed with a kings fanfare were he to take over.
DARKBEFOREDAWNMARCH 7, 2018 at 21:16
The whole appeal was crazy. “We’re punishing you for deliberately running up irresponsible debts buying players you can’t afford”.“No we’re appealing, we want to be able to spend even more money on players we can’t afford”.
“Ow, okay then. But you can only binge spend until the end of this transfer window so get your move on and make sure they are as irresponsible as possible”
_____________
For accuracy’s sake; Rangers/TRFC were not punished for ‘running up irresponsible debts…’ or for entering administration, the penalty, ultimately passed on to TRFC, was for non-payment of Income Tax and National Insurance under Whyte. The penalty for entering administration was a 15 point deduction. While it may have seemed harsh to impose these penalties on the new club, and, in reallity, unjustified, I believe that, despite the protests, Green was happy to accept anything that tied his new club to the Rangers of the past.
Just a wee thought on those transferred penalties. If TRFC was the same club, why no points deduction, at the start of their first season? Did all involved in the stitch up consider a points deduction to be a bit too risky for TRFC’s meteoric return to their ‘rightful place’, so they were prepared to accept the monetary penalties, but a points deduction was just too much to bear, regardless of how it could be used in the same club argument!
That non-imposition of the mandatory points deduction for entering administration blows the same club argument out the water, and particularly the ‘relegated’ nonsense, for any club gaining a CVA, and so not liquidated, would still receive the points deduction even in the event of relegation!
I don’t think this anomally has ever been raised before, but if someone could point to any reason, other than not being the same ‘Rangers’ that entered administration, why the points deduction was not imposed, I’d like to read it. Or has my ancient memory failed me, and TRFC were, in fact, deducted the 15 points in the same manner Hearts were?
AJ, we were deducted points when we wen’t into administration on 14th February. I don’t believe the heavier penalties of 15 points and 5 carried on to the following season came into effect until after 2012.
Halliday again banging on about the Old Firm, Sounness crawling out of the woodwork to bleat about a ‘Rangers’ victory being ‘good for Scottish Football’: welcome to the ‘Scotsman’ ‘sports’ pages.
Anything to try to legitimise the myth, or pretend that what an EBT-recipient has to say about ‘the good of Scottish Football” is any more worth listening to than what Wiggins might have to say about the good of Scottish cycling!
DarkbeforedawnMarch 8, 2018 at 10:12
AJ, we were deducted points when we wen’t into administration on 14th February. I don’t believe the heavier penalties of 15 points and 5 carried on to the following season came into effect until after 2012.
________________
Thanks for the update, DBD. As I said, my rather ancient memory just isn’t what it used to be.
ohn ClarkMarch 8, 2018 at 10:18
Halliday again banging on about the Old Firm, Sounness crawling out of the woodwork to bleat about a ‘Rangers’ victory being ‘good for Scottish Football’: welcome to the ‘Scotsman’ ‘sports’ pages.Anything to try to legitimise the myth, or pretend that what an EBT-recipient has to say about ‘the good of Scottish Football” is any more worth listening to than what Wiggins might have to say about the good of Scottish cycling!
____________________
To be honest, JC, it’s quite surprising how ‘Sir’ Bradley Wiggins is getting so much less support and excuse making from the establishment than either Rangers or ‘Sir’ David Murray and his cheating band have received since their 10 years of known cheating was uncovered. Clearly, the national disappointment at one particular flawed hero has, by being honestly reported without fear or favour, quickly turned to a suitable level of anger at a cheat who has embarrassed the sporting fraternity of a country that sees itself as too dignified to ever cheat; or, at least, to be caught cheating.
Wiggins can take some comfort, though, from the thought that, should he receive the support from the sporting authorities and the national press that Rangers did/do, he will suffer not much more than an uncomfortable period but be allowed to keep all ‘honours’ won ‘on the track and road (field)’!
Perhaps Charles Green has already bought an off the shelf company called Sevco (England) Ltd and is ready to get the cycling authorities to recognise his new ‘The Sir Bradley Wiggins’ as one and the same as the Sir Bradley Wiggins whose history he’s just bought!
I noticed in the Murray return story a reference to liquidationof the club . Surely some mistake there .
AllyjamboMarch 8, 2018 at 11:05
‘………Clearly, the national disappointment at one particular flawed hero has, by being honestly reported without fear or favour, quickly turned to a suitable level of anger at a cheat..’
__________________________
It had to detected first, of course, before it could be honestly reported.
The detection of cheating is something that our SFA most signally failed in ( whether collusively or not on the part of one or more members of that body) in the case of SDM’s large-scale flouting of rules.
The cart-wheeling somersaults they performed, and continue to persist in, to avoid both the full truth emerging about the nature and extent of that cheating and the imposition of the only just sporting penalty were a disgusting manifestation of the corruption of our sport as a sport.
In the matter of forms of cheating other than lying (in the hope of avoiding penalties for fielding ineligible players) about how players are paid , namely , doping, the English FA are far, far more diligent in pursuing a regular programmes of drug-testing.
Today, for example, we note that West Ham have been fined £30,000,not for any actual doping offence, but because on three occasions they ‘ breached the FA’s “whereabouts” system, where for example a player’s address had been registered and the house number digits transposed”.
The FA has a reasonably acceptable programme of random selection of players for drug testing, and insists on knowing at any given time the current address of players.
The SFA has no comparable programme ( and Regan tried to blame that on a cut in funding!)
A really, really shoddy bunch of perversely-minded, clench-jawed, incompetents prepared to run the sport into desperate trouble rather than open itself to independent, outside scrutiny.
7 months on, and no one in office , not the acting CEO, not the rest of the Board, not one club in the SPFL, has as much as raised an eyebrow at the CO’s lack of urgency in his examination of the processes followed that resulted in the sliding of substantial sums of money to an unentitled club.
An utterly disgraceful situation.
Off topic, but what is the point on the thumbs up and thumbs down on this site? I never use it and I must say it seems there are folk that just log in purely to thumbs down every post regardless of the topic!
Helpumoot
March 8, 2018 at 01:52
It was mooted, perhaps tongue in cheek, on the old RTC blog that Murray had planned this from the very start. That Murray would come back on board. That tens of millions of debt would have been dumped, Rangers would still be playing out of Ibrox and the exact same Board would be back in place. If this is allowed to happen …
=============================================
That would only have worked if Rangers had obtained a CVA and survived. All of the rest would have fallen into place.
They didn’t.
Maybe someone should have told Craig Whyte that he would have to pay the “wee tax case” money and keep up to date with Tax, NI and VAT, that under no circumstances could HMRC be allowed to control the CVA and exit from the administration process.
I suspect the new club isn’t making the same mistake.
Perhaps the most worrying aspect for Rangers fans is not the NC/OC debate or the dubious nature of their claimed titles, but rather the fact that the same individuals who oversaw the collapse and bankruptcy of the club are now running the new club. Messrs King, Miller, Dickson and Johnstone ought to have been banned sine die following their gross mismanagement of the previous entity. They are currently running the new entity with the same reckless disregard for basic solvency.
DarkbeforedawnMarch 8, 2018 at 12:17
Off topic, but what is the point on the thumbs up and thumbs down on this site? I never use it and I must say it seems there are folk that just log in purely to thumbs down every post regardless of the topic!
______________
I tend to look on a thumbs down as a sign that I’m getting on someone’s nerves, someone who doesn’t like the general thrust of the blog. It’s good to know that people who don’t like what we say are reading what we say
Of course, I am sure that, like today, there’s quite often one or two (or maybe one with two sign ins) people who are just TDing every post, without reading it first, hence the almost instant 2 TDs of today for even the most uncontroversial of posts.
So everything is actually OK then…..from insider.co.uk
“Five reasons why Scottish football is in good health
Celtic, Rangers, Aberdeen, Kilmarnock and the like are showing the game north of the border – despite generating a relative pittance in broadcasting income – is in good shape, according to football finance expert Kieran MaGuire
The financial health of Scottish football
The national team might be something that is not generating many positive stories, but the state of Scottish professional football is in reasonable health.
Despite generating a relative pittance in broadcasting income compared to England, Scottish clubs are mainly living within their means.
Only a handful of clubs have submitted full sets of accounts to Companies House to date, but they do provide a barometer as to the financial strength of the game in Scotland.
Income
There’s clearly a disparity between the rich and the poor. Celtic, buoyed by UEFA payouts of €32 million, made £18 for every £1 earned by Kilmarnock. Yet Kilmarnock had a good year in 2016/17, as their income was up 28% in the season, partially due to higher gate receipts as the return of Rangers to the Scottish Premiership helped boost attendances for the clubs who hosted them.
In addition, UEFA gave Scottish football a handout of £4million in what is called ‘solidarity payments’ on the back of Celtic qualifying for the Champions League group stages. This money is split between the other clubs in the Premiership.
Costs
The main costs for a football club are player related, and the key one is wages. Individual wages are a private matter, but it is possible to determine a rough average of earnings for players.
With an average wage of nearly £27,000 a week, it is no surprise that Celtic were so successful domestically last season. Whilst their players earn far more than those at other Scottish clubs, they still lag behind the English Premier League, where wages average in excess of £45,000 a week.
What is encouraging is that clubs seem to have a handle on wages, as the key performance indicator used within the game is wages as a proportion of income.
The above shows that Scottish clubs are paying out on average £53 in wages for every £100 of income they generate. This compares to £67 in the Premier League, and £101 in the car crash that is the English Championship, where club owners throw money at players in a desperate attempt to gain promotion and access to the lucrative £2.7 billion a year TV monies.
Profits
Profits are income less costs, and here the result, whilst a little mixed, show that small clubs can still survive.
Kilmarnock’s profits on such a small turnover are astounding. The club has shown that by managing itself prudently as a business and not trying to live beyond its means can ensure both survival in the Scottish Premiership and a happy bank manager.
Rangers losses are disappointing, but they do have some mitigation in that 2016/17 was their first season back in the Premiership and being Rangers, the club was involved in a legal dispute with Mike Ashley that cost the club £3 million as a one off cost.
Player signings
Fans love to see their club being linked with new exciting players, but these usually come at a cost.
The two Glasgow clubs dominate the Scottish transfer market, and this also explains why their wage bills are so high, as when you sign a player in a million pound or more deal he expects to be paid in line with the transfer fee.
Kilmarnock fans might have to wait for a while before they hold a party for a new big signing though, the Ayrshire club have not paid a fee for a player for at least five years. Despite such relative poverty in terms of income, wages and transfer fees, they still managed to defeat Celtic recently 1-0 at Rugby Park, which shows that money cannot buy everything.
University of Liverpool’s Kieran MaGuire is a chartered accountant who has been involved in financial education since 1989. He specialises in blending digital technology with teaching and has won the UK’s best finance lecturer award”
https://www.insider.co.uk/special-reports/scottish-football-clubs-celtic-rangers-12149778?utm_source=business_insider_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=EM_DailyRecord_Nletter_Business_News_smallteaser_Text_Story1&utm_campaign=daily_newsletter&ptnr_mid=6710911&ptnr_rid=492780&icid=EM_BusinessInsider_Nletter
Couple of things I noted :
“With an average wage of nearly £27,000 a week, it is no surprise that Celtic were so successful domestically last season” – sporting advantage from being able to pay more to players? Really?
“Profits are income less costs” – goodness, who could such a comment be directed at?
Scottish Football clearly needs maroon-tinted glasses when looking at football finances.
A day late update on the petition to Celtic to get a statement from the SFA on the Compliance Officer Investigation into UEFA licence of 2011.
Dear John PaulIt is nearly 6 months since the SFA announced that their Compliance Officer would investigate the circumstances surrounding the granting of the UEFA Licence to Rangers FC in April 2011 following revelations in court in June 2017, that Rangers FC had accepted that they owed HMRC £2.8million relating to tax that should have been paid well before 31 December 2010. A revelation that the SFA were supplied with by Celtic shareholders in July 2015 but found no cause to investigate.One of the founding principles of the Judicial Panel Protocol is that the process will deal with cases expeditiously and six months of silence regarding both the process and progress on it calls into question the integrity of the protocol itself and raises serious questions about the honesty of football governance in Scotland and so the game itself, that a “without fear or favour” investigation would dispel. In short – Scottish football is on trial.In order to address the SFA silence and encourage honesty, I established an online petition for supporters of all clubs to sign, that at Sunday 4th March after one week attracted 3115 signatures.It asked Celtic, as a member club of the SFA with shareholders whose shareholding would have been most affected by that decision in 2011, to lead and ask the SFA to provide an explanation of •where matters currently stand in the JPP process,•when the total JPP process, including investigation and any referral to a JPP Tribunal, will be concluded
I attach a copy of the on-line petition for reference along with a link to it for verification.
I would appreciate it if you would now pass this request to Celtic CEO Peter Lawell, acting solely in the capacity of a communication channel, to pass on the petition results to the SFA, to make them aware of the wide interest across the club support spectrum in the Compliance Officer investigation in order to encourage the SFA in furtherance of their stated vision to be a trusted and transparent organisation, to provide the general information requested in a statement on their web site.
I’m sure there are people who are earnestly trying to steer the blog away from criticism of TRFC/RIFC using TD’s .
On the idea that the return of an old Knight (SDM) is part of a master plan.
There are differing possibilities because there were different options open from 2011 to summer 2012.
When CW took over in May 2011 he only stopped paying VAT & PAYE in Sept 2011 whilst already playing fast and loose with payment of the wtc bill.
The club he took over had already had a licence granted and you can take it as a fact that HMRC were prepared to wait for results in Europe before deciding what action to take iro collecting the wtc. The SOs called on 10 Aug 2011 a week after RFC lost to Malmo in CL qualifier and a fortnight before Maribor slammed the UEFA door shut.
So it is quite possible the idea was to pay the wtc liability from CL geld with the first tranche arriving in Oct 2011.
There would have been no need in Sept 2011 to stop paying PAYE/ VAT or just wait until October.
That suggests CW was going to hang in there had Ally not screwed up.
Then in 2012 you have SFA trying to strong arm RFC into the SPL, a plan that Turnbull Hutton criticised and supporters of other clubs made sure their club rejected.
So they go down the divisions of the SFL until a place is found and this is what the 5 Way reflects.
I think, because of placement in bottom division of SFL,, but have no proof, that Green insisted on transfer of SFA membership to create illusion of continuity,otherwise he was offski and that indemnity he got from Doncaster was part of the deal that SEVCO would not be sanctioned for behaviour of RFC, which makes sense as long as SEVCO don’t then pretend to be RFC.
I’m not sure SDM planned any of that because if he had such foresight he would simply have bought a winning lottery ticket for a few weeks and paid off the debts.
No I think SDM wanted out. Cgaf about the mess he was abandoning and left a carcass in the water that attracted a succession of sharks who have been well fed before DK muscled in.
SDM should be tried for crimes against Scottish football by a Judicial Panel as CW was, but he is a knight of the realm and they don’t do justice.