This headline is a quote by George Washington, but it is also friendly advice to Keith Jackson of the Daily Record in response to his ‘exclusive’ today on the reasons Derek McInnes turned down Rangers.
May I begin by drawing people’s attention to two statements by the same organisation on what was essentially the same subject matter:
Aberdeen FC Statement 14th June 2017:
https://www.afc.co.uk/2017/06/14/club-statement-management-team/
“The club can confirm that early this afternoon Sunderland FC agreed to meet all the contractual obligations for both Derek McInnes and Tony Docherty and they have, reluctantly, been granted permission to speak with both of them about the vacant managerial position at Sunderland.
Aberdeen FC will be making no further comment at this moment in time.”
Aberdeen FC Statement 5th December 2017
https://www.afc.co.uk/2017/12/05/club-statement-18/
“Aberdeen Football Club has announced this evening that Rangers have contacted the Club asking for permission to speak to Derek McInnes and that permission has been refused.”
It is clear from the first statement there are contractual obligations that, when met, mean the club must allow their manager the option of dialogue with interested parties, however reluctant the club may be.
Although money is not mentioned, contractual obligations can only relate to the commitments on either side to terminate the agreement and these are usually financial. In the case of an interested suitor, it would be expected of them to pay this on behalf of the employee.
There is no mention of contractual obligations in the club statement on 5th December, from which one can only infer that Rangers either refused, or were in no position to meet, the financial commitments required. Aberdeen FC therefore exercised their right to refuse permission to speak to McInnes, a position they are perfectly entitled to maintain until such time as Rangers agree to meet all contractual obligations, just as Sunderland did.
The story for the press to pursue is obvious yet Keith Jackson wants to have us believe that the McInnes decision -and ultimately it was his decision – has nothing to do with money. Jackson even suggested that an offer of £1m up-front was on the table in a piece that was published on Wednesday:
In it, Jackson states;
“Dons chairman Stewart Milne made his hardball position clear last night after booting out an official approach from the Ibrox club – and turning down a cheque for £1 million in compensation.”
I’m not entirely sure what Mr Jackson means by an ‘official’ approach, I would have thought ‘formal’ to be more apposite but it’s a moot point in the grand scheme of things. Fact is, Jackson didn’t think long and hard enough about this statement because it contains not one, or two, but three glaring inaccuracies.
- Mr Milne did not ‘boot out’ any approach – official, formal or otherwise. If Rangers had met the necessary contractual obligations then Aberdeen FC could not have refused McInnes the opportunity to speak to Rangers – that would have been a breach of contract on the club’s part and McInnes could sue.
- Mr Milne is not ’playing hardball’. Playing hardball is about getting what you want. Mr Milne already has what he wants. He doesn’t need to play hardball – it is Rangers who, if they cannot afford the compensation or wish to alter the terms of the compensation, would need to attempt to play hardball. Jackson has this the wrong way around – a common failing when trying to justify a lie and pursue a biased narrative.
- I don’t dispute that Rangers offered to pay £1 million in compensation, but I do not believe for one millisecond that it would be paid in a single instalment either by cheque, cash or bank transfer because the audited accounts published last month prove that such a commitment would not be possible. A shortfall of £4m was required in soft loans to see out the current season, with monies required immediately, and a further £3.2m after June 18. Furthermore, these figures did not consider the additional cost of a change of management at the club/holding company/engine room subsidiary/call it what you will.
It’s rather telling that Mr Jackson makes no mention of this £1m cheque in his ‘exclusive’ today. Instead, he offers another inaccuracy. He says’;
“When Milne made it clear he was unwilling to grant the move his blessing – and that McInnes would have to rip up his contract to pursue a return to Ibrox – the ex-Rangers player was boxed into a corner.”
Mr Milne is in no position to grant a move, whether with his blessing or otherwise. There is a binding contract in place and only if contractual obligations are met then – as is glaringly obvious from the Aberdeen Club Statement of 14th June – Mr Milne would have to, albeit reluctantly, allow the manager to speak to the other club, just as he did in the case of Sunderland. He cannot box his manager into a corner. There is no decision for Mr Milne to make if the requisite compensation is agreed to be paid in full to terminate the manager’s contract with Aberdeen FC.
More plausibly, Rangers could box McInnes into a corner. The job is his if he wants it, but he will have to resign his position to take it because Rangers won’t meet the contractual obligations. Once again Jackson has it the wrong way around because he is lying and pursuing a biased narrative.
Any reasonably minded follower of Scottish football knows why McInnes is not going to Rangers. It’s all about the money – or the lack of it – and no amount of lying or high-level fantasy by award winning journalists will alter that prosaic fact.
Sorry, my last is a mess and the site won’t let me fix it.
You can get the details at the link obviously.
Oh the blog has deleted it, never mind.
Can I just give my simple take on on the PSC situation.
The new rules were introduced on 6th April 2016, and there has to be an annual declaration.
Since 6th April 2016 one person has resigned as a director and two people have joined the board.
The PLC has reported that one person no longer has significant control, and two people now have significant control.
I’m not saying that King has not sold his shares, or that Johnson has not bought them, or that Johnson has not bought or taken control of 25% of the shares in the PLC.
I am just saying that you do not need to own or control 25% of the PLC to be a person with significant control. It looks to me as if they have simply been registered because they joined the board. Likewise with Gilligan, because he left it
luster OneDecember 16, 2017 at 12:43
ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 16, 2017 at 11:5220 Rate ThisHomunculusDecember 16, 2017 at 11:35You are, of course, correct, but I was looking at the worst case scenario from a moral? perspective. I say ‘moral’ for there can be little doubt that there is some shenanigans afoot! But the King consortium owns 30%+ of the shares, hence the CoT involvement, so Johnston might have bought out King and gained control of some of the others’ shares.Whatever it is that’s afoot, they don’t seem to be in a hurry to announce it, as they would if it was a genuinely positive development.In any event, Johnston has got control of more than 25% of the shares (25.01%?), and the only obvious immediate benefit would be if he’s bought out Dave King.—————–If johnston has bought out king? was king not the one who got the accounts signed off by claiming he could get the money or the loans that are required to keep the lights on to see out the season.Who comes up with the loans now? also did phil not mention campbell Dallas this week made an unexpected visit to ibrox?whatever is going on something is afoot.but then maybe not as the smsm would be all over it
____________________
Being a bit of a pessimist, I was looking at the best case scenario for TRFC
, and was assuming King would leave his loans in place, because he’s such an honourable chap, and that Johnston was maybe fronting a consortium of American Bears who would cover the £7.2m yet to be lent and then provide the next £30m towards TRFC’s challenge to Celtic.
On the other hand, it could just be more flim flam and movement of the deck chairs.
Also worth a thought – they’ve just had an AGM, and no mention of upcoming/imminent board room changes! Maybe it’s quite normal for a company’s board to omit such soon to happen significant changes from an AGM, maybe it happens all the time at well run companies…
Not taking sides here but I’m really pleased to see Gary Mackay Steven getting a hat trick today. He seems a very nice person and the fall into the River Kelvin after a night out must have been a very scary episode. Totally out of character to be in that state. Good to see he has moved on.
By my calculations it is now 105 days since the SFA announced the Compliance Officer would investigate the awarding of a European Licence to Rangers in 2011. I simply don’t believe what is a relatively straightforward matter to establish should take so long. How long is acceptable – another six months? A year?
The longer this takes it smacks of a cover up.
UTH @ 16:15
I posed a semi-rhetorical question a few weeks ago, wondering about the CO’s terms of reference and to whom he is required to report his findings.
I also wonder what he must (or should) do if he finds that the person (or persons/committee) to whom he is expected to report is implicated in any wrong-doing he might find.
If, for example, he is expected to report to (his boss) the CEO or the President, yet he finds either (or both) to have been negligent (or worse), who should he tell?
The outcome of the the SFA Compliance Officer’s investigation into the the SFA‘s award of Rangers European Licence in 2011 is a foregone conclusion. It is like turkeys voting for Christmas, or the football authorities in their infinite wisdom allowing Rangers to investigate themselves in the matter of links between Craig Whyte and Charles Green a few years ago.
Anybody waiting for justice best not hold their breath.
The football authorities and club chairmen only see pound signs. Those club officials and football authorities are all expendable. Unlike fans, when one leaves, he is immediately replaced.
Only when the penny finally drops and those officials realise that the real investors in our game, the fans, are leaving permanently in their droves, will it dawn on them the damage they have perpetrated on our national sport. Unfortunately it will be too late by then. “We did what we did for the good of the game” will ring hollow in empty stadia.
Highlander. I see no evidence of fans leaving in their droves because of the cheating scandal. I really do wish fans would “walk away”. But as I’ve stated before, the media have done a grand job and there is no groundswell of opinion to encourage supporters to take a stance.
I don’t go any more and I won’t be back but unfortunately, even on this forum I get the impression the majority of posters go to the games.
there really is no appetite for the fight.
it saddens me deeply that the beautiful game is so corrupt in this country, but it is a matter of fact that supporters now, as with the supporters of the past just accept that rangers get decisions in their favour both on and off the park.
BOPSTER
DECEMBER 16, 2017 at 19:10
I agree with every single word you just posted. However, you’ve stopped going to matches and I’ve withdrawn all financial support from my club too. There will inevitably come a time when the trickle becomes a flood. The mainstream media is living on borrowed time as more and more information is dissected and disseminated through the agenda and PR-free internet. Keep the faith – it will eventually happen.
BOPSTERDECEMBER 16, 2017 at 19:10
I see no evidence of fans leaving in their droves because of the cheating scandal. I really do wish fans would “walk away”
—————–
I believe many fans now wait on the compliance officer decision.If it is not what they expect the fans will walk away,many may not return and some may even give their ticket to family and friends to see out the season(and a big bite me to celtic,i’m giving my ticket away what are you going to do? i’m not renewing it anyway if you don’t stand up for me and the celtic fans.
It will all come down to season ticket renewal if celtic don’t do anything
i know this post points a finger at celtic but they are my club and i can’t point the finger at anyone else as i don’t give them my money.that is for other fans to point
Not going to talk about the game in detail, and only saw the goals of the TRFC game today.
But I was highly impressed with the 2 kicked St. Johnstone goals: they wouldn’t look out of place in La Liga.
Good to see some high quality finishing from other Scottish teams that I haven’t watched in a while.
[And to be fair, the TRFC goal today was also well taken.]
This Armageddon continues to throw up many positives in Scottish football!
Faint echoes of perhaps false memories were disturbing the Saturday night peaceful perusal of what was being said on the blog.
You know the kind of thing where you’re not sure whether what has come into your mind is new information, or just a recollection of what has already been mentioned, discussed, and dismissed as of no relevance or interest.
(I feel sure, but can’t quote chapter and verse, that Barry James Scott of the Hong-Kong connection has been discussed on here before, at some length)
But since I could not remember who or what he was, is, and may always be, I keyed in something like “who is barry james scott of hong-kong”.
Very obligingly, the old internet came up with the report of a court case in the Special Administrative region of Hong-Kong.
“Hong Kong Case Law Judicial opinions in English and Chinese from Hong Kong”
” BARRY J. SCOTT alias BARRY JAMES SCOTT
FRANZ JOSEF ADICK v. GROSVENOR INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD”
Now I cannot, and emphatically declare that I do not, assert that the Barry James Scott mentioned is the Barry James Scott from Ayrshire who is a life-long supporter of a now dead football club, who in recent times loaned some money to a struggling 5-year-old club, and has become a director of that struggling club.
But I found the court case interesting, in that it is about the kind of scam-types that we all have an interest in,
The kind of property development guys who assure a client that the documents he is signing are standard stuff, been checked by the lawyers, quite safe to sign, when it may not be at all safe to sign!
( And I keep thinking of that pin-stripe-suited, silver-haired ,Del-boy-trying-to-be-Etonian witness of a financier who borrowed a couple of grand from Craig Whyte, to pay his feckin office rent )
Reading court judgments is not everybody’s bag, of course, but if you are interested the link is
https://www.hongkongcaselaw.com/category/barry-j-scott-alias-barry-james-scott/
And I do repeat: I do not say that the Barry J.Scott alias Barry James Scott who was involved in the court case cited above is the same Barry James Scott , d.o.b 1975, who is a director and ‘person of significant control’ on the Board of RIFC plc.
Just to cheer you up on a Saturday night. The most inspirational sports theme of all time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cVrjFlt4hI
StevieBCDecember 16, 2017 at 22:51
‘…..This Armageddon continues to throw up many positives in Scottish football!’
_____________
But, sadly, StevieBC, the valiant efforts of the healthy body cannot, ultimately, disguise the cancerous lesions of deceit and rottenness at its very core.
For as long as TRFC Ltd are treated as being entitled to the name, honour, and sporting achievements of the once proud RFC(IL) the cancer will eat away at body of Scottish football, so horribly raddled by the abandonment of Sporting Integrity.
What’s the point of sport, if it is fixed?
How meaningless is honest sporting endeavour, when there is no honesty in its administrative bodies?
We all for several generations half-believed that ‘the Ref’ was ‘biased’. It is par for the course to be ready to believe that refs are blind, stupid, biased, bought and paid for, incompetent,and so on.
But most of us did not seriously believe that our Football authorities would ever so prostitute themselves as they have done in manufacturing the Big Lie.
Even Farry would not have gone that far(ry).
There is a deep, deep malaise, that simply has to be excised.By the re-assertion of Truth.
The bullet has to be bitten, by the hollow men, who have turned our fundamentally clean sport into a charade.
What’s the point?
DunderheidDecember 16, 2017 at 17:09
‘..If, for example, he is expected to report to (his boss) the CEO or the President, yet he finds either (or both) to have been negligent (or worse), who should he tell?’
_____________
His brief will not be wide enough to look at what the SFA did.
He has been asked to look at what RFC did.
And he will be able to say,after careful investigation, that the information supplied by RFC was, by an oversight on the part of some junior functionary, not as complete as it ought properly to have been; and that there was no question of deliberate misinformation.
He will not question the internal checking mechanisms that the SFA had. Come on, it’s a gentlemen’s club! We trust each other! If a club tells us, we have no reason to doubt what they tell!
Alternatively ,the CO might find that there was a blameworthy inexactness in what Rangers said, deserving of a slap on the wrist.
But that no blame attaches to the SFA for failing to perceive that inexactness.
God Almighty, there is no way the CO is authorised to do anything else but acquit the SFA of any blame.
They would not have referred the matter to him otherwise.
They would not have dared.
No, in their fearful but aggressively defiant way,they simply refuse to have a truly independent review of their actions.
But, of course, we know the truth.
The SFA lied.
As that bloody wee irritating Russian animal says: ‘Simples:
jimboDecember 16, 2017 at 23:04
‘…The most inspirational sports theme of all time.’
___________
Aye, jimbo.
And how hollow it rings when we think of Scottish Football!
Ruined not by individual cheats like the Lance Armstrongs of cycling or Russian (or whatever) drug cheats, but by the very Governance body!
Bopster,
You are bang on the money wrt the MSM successfully burying the cheating to mitigate its effect on continued fan participation in the sport.
The trouble is that the truth is in the public arena -albeit with a lower profile than the lie – and there is no way to effectively combat that truth save to give the argument publicity.
Consequently, the unchallenged truth will inevitably damage the future of the sport, because it will eventually become perceived as a bent sport. And unless the authorities face the consequences of the cheating and the lying and the cover-up, it will eventually kill football altogether
Blessed are the truth seekers in fact ?
John C
So true about the sport being killed by the authorities.
No matter how corrupt RFC were, the sport could have survived the reputational damage imposed by a rogue club. Impossible to survive damage imposed by rogue governance.
I note that Cluster One picked up on my initiative and passed it off as his own. Second hand news at the SFM. It was ever thus.
——————
Sorry..i picked it up from twitter the day before i posted it.
David Low@Heavidor
Strange manoeuvrings down Ibrox way, usually a precursor of something more dramatic. Some Yuletide action likely. pic.twitter.com/puGg9tIc073:13 am – 15 Dec 2017 from Manhattan, NY
———–
I don’t believe i passed it off as my own just something that may have gone unnoticed.
Ps. incase i forget
hat tip to a friend who sent a text saying i was mentioned on the JJ blog.
and hat tip to
Alex McLaughlan
@alexmclaughlan Replying to @AitkensDrum@Heavidor
gov.uk/government/new…
4:33 am – 15 Dec 2017
for the link
I see JJ posted his blog Companies house Bombshell on December 16, 2017
The TD are up early
DUNDERHEIDDECEMBER 16, 2017 at 17:09
UTH @ 16:15
I posed a semi-rhetorical question a few weeks ago, wondering about the CO’s terms of reference and to whom he is required to report his findings.
I also wonder what he must (or should) do if he finds that the person (or persons/committee) to whom he is expected to report is implicated in any wrong-doing he might find.
If, for example, he is expected to report to (his boss) the CEO or the President, yet he finds either (or both) to have been negligent (or worse), who should he tell?
===========================
Therein lies the problem. It took Fergus McCann an eternity to expose Jim Farry. Not one but two internal SFA investigations found Farry innocent. The independent investigation McCann managed to get was halted by the QC acting on behalf of the SFA. The SFA are in much deeper this time IMO. Can they dig themselves out of a very deep hole? My view is Celtic have so much factual info on this the SFA simply don’t know which way to turn.
Cluster OneDecember 17, 2017 at 07:36
I note that Cluster One picked up on my initiative and passed it off as his own. Second hand news at the SFM. It was ever thus.——————Sorry..i picked it up from twitter the day before i posted it.David Low@HeavidorStrange manoeuvrings down Ibrox way, usually a precursor of something more dramatic. Some Yuletide action likely. pic.twitter.com/puGg9tIc073:13 am – 15 Dec 2017 from Manhattan, NY———–I don’t believe i passed it off as my own just something that may have gone unnoticed.
_________________
You certainly didn’t pass it off as your own, and I’d read it already online, probably in the tweet you referred to (or a retweet), some time before I read it here or on JJ’s site, so it was made public knowledge by someone who doesn’t care who is first with the news. I didn’t post anything about it here, when I first read it, because I couldn’t get my head around it and didn’t have a clue about it’s significance (as is probably obvious from my posts on the matter
).
But see if you’d claimed it as an exclusive, it would have been the naughty step for you, lad
, and no television between 12.30 and 2.30 today as a reminder that it doesn’t matter who breaks the news first, it’s getting the facts out there that is the purpose of this blog.
I still can’t see why anyone, including the arch plagiarist, thinks that Johnston and Scott now own or control 50% or more of RIFC PLC. Surely that would be fairly big news.
Even if it was true, how does anyone then leap to the conclusion that Dave King sold his shares to Johnston, or gave him control of the voting rights.
Again, I’m not saying it didn’t happen, I have no idea. I just haven’t seen any evidence either way.
On the arch plagiarist. I see he has picked up on the fact that Gilligan was removed and Scott added in today’s exclusive. He must have been too desperate to publish his nonsense yesterday to notice those fairly significant facts. Not one mention of them yesterday, but plenty today.
Maybe he picked up on one of the comments to yesterday’s conjecture.
“This may just be RIFC doing a bit of Companies House housekeeping. On the same day Johnston became a PSC so did Barry Scott. Also, John Gilligan ceased to be a PSC that day. RIFC may just be adopting a belt and braces approach and naming all directors as PSCs. I think these three are the only board level changes since the introduction of the PSC register.”
Not one word of the above is exclusive.
….says the man who had the audacity to “borrow SFM’s editorial article for the good of his readers” (ie our current blog in its entirety) just a matter of days ago.
I’d wager “borrowed” means stolen without permission, although the mods might confirm that permission was indeed sought and granted and a suitable donation made to this site. It’s just yet another example of the blatant double standards he employs. You couldn’t mark his neck with a blowtorch.
A good read from yesterday’s Guardian (and not in the sports section).
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/15/manchester-city-football-group-ferran-soriano
Highlander,
Wasn’t aware that anyone had reproduced Concomitant’s article elsewhere. Nobody asked either, but it’s not a problem for us.
As we’ve said, it’s not a contest. ?
I blame the Jambos on here for that result today. I heard from a reliable source that two of them were up early at Tynecastle this morning pouring oil all over the pitch!
Sorry Jimbo it wasn’t me. I’m in an Amsterdam pub watching it on tv.
Congratulations to Hearts and their fans who saved the club. They deserved a result like this and achieved with youth given a chance. No excuses Celtic were never allowed to play by a determined, resolute and at times fluent opposition.
Easyjambo in a pub in Amsterdam watching football? Aye right!
Btw, my ‘reliable source’ was a Hibee so might be rubbish.
Hearts were by far the better team today. More effort, more commitment, never let Celtic play their own game.
Congratulations on a well deserved win.
HoM beat CFC at Tynie and TRFC fans are beeling . Scottish fitba’
I never usually join in the football banter on SFM, but today I will – to give Celtic this warning. Your magnificent record is in danger of being equalled! Only 63 to go
If it was in my gift I’d dedicate today’s result to all the supporters of clubs that only win occasional trophies, or have never won a major trophy in their history. This is what football is about to most of us. We wait and wait for that great and unexpected result, but when it comes, the world belongs to us!
It is results like today that bring into stark focus how Rangers’ cheating didn’t just deprive Celtic of trophies, it deprived so many supporters, of so many clubs, the opportunity for days like this!
Today was actually an example of what makes football such a great game, when it’s played honestly, the game always wins, regardless of how much money is spent to build a team, or how brilliant one team’s players are compared to the other.
Jings, isn’t this Armageddon thingy great? Thanks Stewart and Neil
ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 17, 2017 at 09:09
and no television between 12.30 and 2.30 today as a reminder that it doesn’t matter who breaks the news first, it’s getting the facts out there that is the purpose of this blog.
—————-
With the naughty step out of reach the television was viewed between 12.30 and 2.30. Next time i’ll take the naughty step.
I have been punished enough
Information required please.
Was watching Hearts play CFC off the park this morning, and it looked like a rather slippery surface.
I think it was Andy Walker (?) commentating who said;
“It’s a day for long studs.”
I do remember using nylon / rubber / steel studs in my youth…but I thought players nowadays only wear ‘moldies’ – or fixed ‘bladed’ boots?
Do players still wear screw-ins, or is Walker just woefully out of touch ?
From our friends at Wiki:
Depending on the type of surface, kind of sport and even the wearer’s position or role in the game, different cuts of boot and particularly stud arrangements are available. For hard pitches, amateur participants may wear a sneaker shoe or a plastic-stud boot (known as a “moulded sole”); in most sports and positions this is adequate, although on a well-grassed or sodden field, screw-in studs are recommended for more grip; these may be metal, rubber or plastic. When playing on this kind of pitch, some players favor using a boot with screw-in studs in their non-dominant (supporting) foot to provide grip, and a boot with short rubber or plastic studs in the dominant (kicking/passing) foot to provide accuracy.
Most folk on Sportsound said Celtic players were wearing the wrong type of boots. (Why didn’t they change them at half time?)
Rangers announce appointment of Barry Scott as a director on the Ibrox boardThe Hong Kong-based businessman has been a lifelong supporter of the Ibrox side and was part of a group of investors that contributed £6.5m in loans to the club last year.
————–
Mr king had to pass the SFA’s fit and proper test. In a statement King said:”The Scottish FA’s process has understandably been a long one given their recent negative experience with some of the previous board members, who were tasked with being custodians of the Club.
The SFA set down guidelines for ‘fit and proper’ requirements but, crucially, the rules state that the board ‘reserve its discretion… after due consideration of all the relevant facts’.
Have the SFA ‘reserved its discretion on this one? after all as Mr king said they did have recent negative experience with some of the previous board members, who were tasked with being custodians of the Club.
Regarding ‘bladed’ boots:
“More recently, moulded soles with specially designed boots known as blades have moulded soles facing in multiple directions, theoretically to maximise grip and minimise ankle injury. Recently, however, “bladed” football boots have faced criticism from some UK sporting bodies for causing potentially serious injuries to players. English football club Manchester United have even banned their players from wearing boots with bladed studs after players like Wayne Rooney and David Beckham suffered repeated metatarsal injuries.”
And guess who gets to play CFC midweek as they try to bounce back at home from their defeat today ? I was hoping that they would play all the youngsters against us ( Ajer , Ralston ,Kouassi ,etc) to let us into the game , but they’ll be girding their loins and champing at the bit for the game now .
Great result for both Hearts and Celtic today let’s hope both can kick on from this to better things.
I thought that the Celtic run would end soon, not today though and definitely not in that manner.
Hopefully Hearts kick on from this and get a bit of consistency. They must get huge confidence from their display today.
I have to go to work tomorrow and face the Hearts fans though, it will be tough !
The Scottish FA’s process has understandably been a long one given their recent negative experience with some of the previous board members, who were tasked with being custodians of the Club.
————-
Which brings me to over £2mill for the CW trial
As mentioned before (I think) Mrs C and I have been a little preoccupied , taken up, variously focused, today as we get ourselves together for a wee Christmas visit to the son in the USA. (Sibling rivalry, or what? “You’ve been to Australia to see them more often than you’ve come to see me!”
)
So, I only intermittently heard the commentary of today’s game, as I fetched and carried and drove hither and thither.
I heard the result.
Now, it’s maybe not a Berwick Rangers or ICT result in its utter improbability, but it’s gey near it!
If it had to be that Celtic lost their unbeaten domestic record, it was entirely appropriate that it was lost to a club that, facing up to the dreadful reality that only by coming out of Administration could it survive , chose to fight to do so, and thus avoid the extinction that Liquidation brings-automatically.
The SFA were not in there, with reassuring words, or arranging ‘nod and wink’ meetings with charlatans and incompetent ‘Administrators’, aimed at fabricating a ridiculous Big Lie, that Liquidation in the case of Hearts would not be the end, and that if anyone bought some bits of Tynecastle real estate , sharked up a few football players, called it a new football club, applied for membership of a league …etc etc… then it would be the very same Heart of Midlothian Football Club.
No, the SFA were quite prepared to let Hearts die, as a consequence of the mismanagement by the Russo/Lithuanian, but were prepared to lie to save ‘Rangers’ from the consequences of the cheating by the knave of the realm known as David Murray!
It is to their great credit that Hearts, severely damaged by its former madcap owner, accepted the consequences of that owner’s actions, and resolved to salvage its honour and good name as best they could, and in so doing earned the goodwill, admiration and respect of other clubs.
In a way that the despicable ,charlatan, asset strippers of RFC(IL), and the present board of the pretendy RFC, did not, and do not.
And their rottenness is but a peccadillo compared with the fundamental deceit of our Sport’s governance body.
In my opinion.
Great post JC., …
Ernie B thread now raised. Please don’t reply to anything in main post. I will post all of Ernest’s stuff to the new thread.
Ta.
Big Pink DECEMBER 18, 2017 at 02:37
Hallelujah.
I shall certainly waste no time visiting the new thread.
David Low (Heavidor) on twitter has posted about Barry Scott holding an interest in Workington Reds via Ibrox Park Holdings, a company that he and the guy Ross (I think he’s involved in the Hong Kong based loans) are behind. DL is suggesting this interest breaks the SFA rules over holding shares in two football clubs when on the board of one of them.
I don’t know if the holding in a non-league club would be significant enough to break those rules (especially within the ‘help TRFC at all costs’ mantra at Hampden) but there’s a wee bell ringing that Ibrox Park Holdings was involved in the rumoured attempt to combine TRFC with Workington Reds as an entry into the English League.
Regardless, it does seem strange that Workington Reds should have, as a shareholder, a company with the name ‘Ibrox Park Holdings’, and, in a club with a history of dodgy characters and strange deals, there exists a direct connection from the Ibrox boardroom to Workington Reds!
While I doubt there is any likelihood of this indicating a continuance of TRFC’s attempts to enter the English League, it does raise, I think, questions (though I’m not sure what these questions might be) about the motivation behind Scott’s appointment to the board.
PS I don’t think the David Low on twitter is the same David Low that is kind enough to do SFM podcasts from time to time.
But is Scott on RIFC or TRFC’s board? If its the former then its the same principle as King surely.
AJ
There’s only one David Low. ??
TrisidiumDecember 18, 2017 at 10:12
That clears that up, ta
Lends a bit more gravitas to the tweets I read from David Low @heavidor, which is good to know.
ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 18, 2017 at 09:36
David Low (Heavidor) on twitter has posted about Barry Scott holding an interest in Workington Reds via Ibrox Park Holdings, a company that he and the guy Ross (I think he’s involved in the Hong Kong based loans) are behind. DL is suggesting this interest breaks the SFA rules over holding shares in two football clubs when on the board of one of them.
—-
While I doubt there is any likelihood of this indicating a continuance of TRFC’s attempts to enter the English League, it does raise, I think, questions (though I’m not sure what these questions might be) about the motivation behind Scott’s appointment to the board.
———————–
Sports Direct founder has to pay £7500 after being found guilty at a disciplinary hearing.
After a hearing which lasted four hours at Hampden Pak . Ashley was found to be in breach of the SFA’s disciplinary rule 19.In its full version, the rule reads:Except with the prior written consent of the Board: (a) no club or nominee of a club; and (b) no person, whether absolutely or as a trustee, either alone or in conjunction with one or more associates or solely through an associate or associates (even where such person has no formal interest), who: (i) is a member of a club; or (ii) is involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of a club, or (iii) has any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration or a club, may at the same time either directly or indirectly:- (a) be a member of another club; or (b) be involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of another club; or (c) have any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of another club.
————-
SMUGASDECEMBER 18, 2017 at 10:00
3
0 Rate This
But is Scott on RIFC or TRFC’s board? If its the former then its the same principle as King surely.
——————
Ashley was also cited by the SFA on a second charge, of failing to act in the best interests of football, but the charge was found to be not proven.
————–
All in all was Barry Scott put through the SFA fit and proper?
After all Mr king said they (the SFA) did have recent negative experience with some of the previous board members, who were tasked with being custodians of the ibrox Club.
I see that ‘Ibrox Park Holdings’ has 24.4867545 % of the shares in Workington Association Football Club-just short of enough to be considered a ‘person[or entity] automatically deemed to be a ‘person of significant control’
It is the single biggest shareholder by far ( the next biggest, I think, is 20,000) and most are little dribs and drabs of shares owned by about 300 other shareholders.
But I can’t find a company called “Ibrox Park Holdings” on the Companies House webpages. And Barry James Scott (d.o.b 1975) is listed as a Director of only two companies- RIFC plc and Fitzgerald Lodge Management Co. Ltd.
John C
Might be registered in the far east?
John ClarkDecember 18, 2017 at 12:04
Fitzgerald Lodge Management Co. Ltd.
———————
A Lodge Management co?
I’ve just been catching up with a few things after returning from the “Dam”. I took a look at the latest accounts for Garrion Security Services (handles Rangers security needs) which have recently been lodged with Companies House.
It reports revenue of £726k but the cost of sales is £688k (mainly staff costs as you would expect). The total staff costs is actually £712k. You would expect that would mean that the company was doing ok and posting a small profit, but no. There are also administrative costs of £201k (2016 £157k). That means that the company has actually lost £163k (2016 -£144k). That is over £300k over the last two years.
Like TRFC, Garrion is indebted to RIFC funding (currently £406k) and has the same Emphasis of Matter – Going Concern warning as its parent.
It has only reported one profit in its short history, for year 2014/15, when its income was boosted by the Commonwealth Games.
I assume that Garrion’s “income” is largely fees charged back to TRFC, but neither company’s accounts make that clear. I don’t know the comparative cost of buying in security services, but I can’t see the value in keeping security services in house while the company is consuming significant sums, and if the in-house costs are consistent with those of third party providers.
I am reminded that there was a statement in the 2014 accounts stating “The loss after tax has been driven by bought-in consultancy services to operate the company”. I’m left wondering if the “Administration” charges are now just another means of rewarding the directors who only receive expenses from RIFC. It certainly appears that Garrion only acts as a siphon for funds exiting TRFC.
EASYJAMBODECEMBER 18, 2017 at 17:50
I’m left wondering if the “Administration” charges are now just another means of rewarding the directors who only receive expenses from RIFC. It certainly appears that Garrion only acts as a siphon for funds exiting TRFC.
————-
HOMUNCULUSDECEMBER 17, 2017 at 09:42
Gilligan was removed and Scott added.
“This may just be RIFC doing a bit of Companies House housekeeping. On the same day Johnston became a PSC so did Barry Scott. Also, John Gilligan ceased to be a PSC that day. RIFC may just be adopting a belt and braces approach and naming all directors as PSCs. I think these three are the only board level changes since the introduction of the PSC register.”
———–
GARRION SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED
John Gilligan Director
9 Mar 2015 ⇒ Present
———–
As John Gilligan ceased to be a PSC is he still a director of Garrison security but with little or no control on anything else,except he may hold shares and handy in a voting war?
Mr. Gilligan resigned as a director of Garrion Security on 01.08.17.
Current directors are listed as P. Murray, A Dickson, J. Blair & S. Robertson.
https://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC433635/GARRION-SECURITY-SERVICES-LIMITED/companies-house-data
JINGSO.JIMSIEDECEMBER 18, 2017 at 19:33
———
Thanks for clarification.
So what part if any now does Mr. Gilligan play in the ibrox saga?
ie what is he being paid to do these days?
For those interested in Ibrox Park Holdings, this link may help- http://www.bizdb.co.nz/company/9429033711843/
The link is to a NZ company, Youtap Ltd, which has Ibrox Park Holdings as one of its shareholders, with a Hong Kong address.
Here is a fuller address for Ibrox Park Holdings- https://opencorporates.com/statements/121234211
Ibrox Park Holdings LimitedAddress2nd Floor, 625 Kings Road North PointCountry CodeHK
https://rangers.co.uk/club/investor-centre/board/board-of-directors/
It’s so, so, so indicative of an organisation in chaos when it seems that no one is in any kind of basic control of attending to its public image.
If you have a look at the link above, you will look in vain for any mention of the Barry Scott boy.
A reasonably important bit of market information about an addition to the Board has NOT so far been put on the webpage directed at ‘Investors’.
Lord knows how many potential investors might have been encouraged to invest by the news that a shareholder in a company which is a shareholder in a New Zealand company which is a shareholder in Workington AFC is now a person of ‘significant control’ in RIFC plc!
If companies have a website, I think it should be a Board priority that the site be right up to the minute.
Credit where credit’s due, and acknowledgement of a point of significant interest, JJ has included in his latest blog a communication he received from a reader giving what appears to be an excellent appraisal of the latest round of musical chairs in the Ibrox boardroom. I won’t copy and paste it but recommend reading it, as it does, to my untrained mind, make a lot of sense. It is, if accurate, quite scary, for the bears that is, as it makes the case for me to believe that any one of the current board could, if he so wishes, force the club into administration. Indeed, the writer seems to suggest that this may already have been used to force Alistair Johnston to pony up a loan, and hence his inclusion as a shareholder of significant control. It is also suggested that Gilligan may have been forced off the board because he was unwilling, or unable, to pony up when called upon.
Quite significant, I think, is the possibility/likelihood that every RIFC director is now a major creditor of RIFC, or holds the proxy (Park) of a major creditor. If this is the case, I’d suggest that each one holds the strings of the others, and can pull them at will should they feel it in their advantage to do so. Now, in a loss making company, that can never be a good thing, and could even be worse than a bad thing.
Just remembered, Paul Murray probably isn’t a creditor, as he is only there to have his hairstyle provide a distraction from Dave’s shifty eyes
Allyjambo
December 19, 2017 at 08:07
=====================================
That would be the same JJ who a few days ago was exclusively conjecturing that Johnston had bought King out.
Companies House Bombshell
“This Companies House bombshell has gone largely unreported in the SMSM. Colour me surprised. So how did Johnston acquire his significant control? One could make a cogent case for Johnston buying out King as it kills two birds with one stone”
Then exclusively conjecturing even further
“Is Sir Bribe & Lie behind the Johnston putsch? Will he step up to provide the £7.2m quantum required to keep the lights on? Or is Johnston going it alone with a view to raising this quantum at The Rinse & Dry Share Issue?
Developing story….”
From today’s shot in the dark. The “reader” even says it’s pure conjecture.
“Something happened on/about Nov 15th with respect to Johnston and the rest of the board. Was he told to basically put up or shut up with regards to shareholder loans? Looking back, Gilligan resigned (or was forced out?) from the Board on May 22, just days before the £3M payment to Sports Direct. Was he given an ultimatum to pony up some cash and did he step aside or was he forced out when he refused? And after seeing this back in May, did Johnston succumb to a similar demand in November to retain his board seat? There’s no proof one way or the other, but the circumstantial evidence is persuasive.”
It’s classic conspiracy theory stuff, a series of questions suggesting something, rather than any substantiated statements.
Got a tip that Ibrox Park Holdings Limited is registered in the BVI. Makes sense given Oasis’ provenance.
Always comes back to tax dodging doesn’t it?
Cluster One,
John Gilligan is not a wealthy man at all. He is a manager at Tennents who has a Rangers background and connections. His value to King is that he had the influence as a major player in a shareholders group.
He took the post at Ibrox very much against the advice of his bosses at Tennents, who feared personal and corporate contamination would ensue due to the link to King.
He left after the ToP saga passed its event horizon – and after an ultimatum from Tennents.
He still has influence with fan groups, but no financial clout.
I don’t think there is any significance, in terms of control of Rangers, in the notification of Johnston as a PSC.
Seems more likely that with Johnston replacing King on the board, and King being represented by placeman Scott, it puts the company and club out of the way of the imminent collision between King and the ToP.
http://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/history/third-lanark-hi-hi-club-11964110
as a godsend at this financially difficult time in the new clubs existence particularly when it could be hidden from the view of HMRC.
Those of you with fond memories of another Glasgow club might enjoy this reminder of the Hi Hi and its unfortunate demise. Indeed some might see some very clear parallels with a certain othe Glasgow club which met its demise at the hands of crooked parasites. And I do wonder whether the glib and shameless one would view a bag full of tanners and thrupenny bits
If anyone’s seen the Record could I suggest locking Paul Lambert in the same room as Ernst. Reckon they’ll get along just famously.
Completely off topic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tsk2zc41w4E “Angry Chick Young”
Apologies if you have listened to this before:
Just heard it for the first time.
Its from before 2012 and follows a Rangers reversal in Europe (not clear which game)
Has Jabba Traynor got no shame (Rhetorical question)
Listen to Buddha complain about reporters not asking Walter Smith difficult questions.
Oh….and as a bonus listen to wee Chick Young going mental (This, of course, predates Fat Sally’s infamous “Who are these people” rant).
HS
HomunculusDecember 19, 2017 at 09:48
AllyjamboDecember 19, 2017 at 08:07=====================================That would be the same JJ who a few days ago was exclusively conjecturing that Johnston had bought King out.Companies House Bombshell“This Companies House bombshell has gone largely unreported in the SMSM. Colour me surprised. So how did Johnston acquire his significant control? One could make a cogent case for Johnston buying out King as it kills two birds with one stone”Then exclusively conjecturing even further“Is Sir Bribe & Lie behind the Johnston putsch? Will he step up to provide the £7.2m quantum required to keep the lights on? Or is Johnston going it alone with a view to raising this quantum at The Rinse & Dry Share Issue?Developing story….”From today’s shot in the dark. The “reader” even says it’s pure conjecture.“Something happened on/about Nov 15th with respect to Johnston and the rest of the board. Was he told to basically put up or shut up with regards to shareholder loans? Looking back, Gilligan resigned (or was forced out?) from the Board on May 22, just days before the £3M payment to Sports Direct. Was he given an ultimatum to pony up some cash and did he step aside or was he forced out when he refused? And after seeing this back in May, did Johnston succumb to a similar demand in November to retain his board seat? There’s no proof one way or the other, but the circumstantial evidence is persuasive.”It’s classic conspiracy theory stuff, a series of questions suggesting something, rather than any substantiated statements.
______________
I know there is some bad blood between JJ and our site, mostly emanating from his side, but I’m pretty certain the ‘reader’ in this case is not JJ, the writing style is completely different and he admits fallibility. I’d say, however, unless someone can show his understanding of what constitutes ‘significant control’ is wrong, that he’s come up with the best explanation of what’s going on.
The writer makes it clear that, apart from his research into ‘significant control’, he is merely going on circumstantial evidence, and so it is mostly conjecture, but it makes sense to me and is, at least, worth our consideration, unless, as I say, someone can debunk his understanding of what ‘significant control’ means. If he is correct, then each of the directors who have made loans to RIFC have significant control, because in their positions as directors and major creditors, the company (company because it’s RIFC plc) might very well live or die at the whim of one of them. That to me is a very important thing to consider when discussing the club’s future, and, again, if the ‘reader’s’ facts (on significant control) are correct, then it matters not what he says by way of conjecture, or where it was said. What matters is that each member of the board has the power to influence the direction of the club, and a falling out of the board could lead to a loss making business having to raise money to pay back a ‘soft’ loan at rather short notice. The loans in these circumstances aren’t really all that soft, for they are the revolvers that each could hold to the others’ heads in a Mexican Standoff scenario!
I would imagine that the requirement to announce ‘significant control’ is to let other shareholders know that certain individuals have this power.
On conjecture. I’d say there is nothing wrong with conjecture as longs as it’s based on one or more verifiable facts; it is, after all, what we all get involved in on here – taking the known facts and discussing what they might mean and how they affect Scottish football. Even if we get it wrong, hopefully we are making others think about the subject and so not just accept what the SMSM publish, or don’t publish.
Does anyone know if his understanding of ‘significant control’ is correct or not? If it is wrong, then his conjecture is a load of mince, and I have wasted everyone’s time on here.
Everyone else – 
Me –
I wouldn’t worry too much about conjecture. The SMSM have made a living out of it for years. That and blatant lies.
At least we avoid the lies on here (well most of us!)
AJ,
I agree with you and your interpretation. You’re also correct re the current director’s Mexican standoff. In some ways forcing face-saving loans out of them is for the greater good of the club. But it also works the other way; it quickly reveals the skinny dipper when the tide goes out to misuse that particular metaphor. If you’re a lender in those circumstances obviously you don’t want to be the one, or more accurately be seen to be the one, that pulls the trigger first. But there’s a little devil sitting on your shoulder constantly reminding you that if you do you will minimise your losses and you will have some control over the process in so doing. No-one else can see your little devil. But its funny how quickly you convince yourself you can see there’s.
Classic Prisoners Dilemma actually. Fine if everyone keeps schtuum (or in this situation keeps ponying up). But if they don’t….
For the absence of doubt its the logical downside risk to EB’s ‘investing for growth’ theorem.
There is a document, dated today, for RIFC at Companies House described as “Resolution of allotment of securities”. It’s not viewable as yet, so I don’t know if it is just confirmation of the resolutions passed at the AGM, or a precursor to the issue of shares in a DFE swap or to specific investors.
Watch this space.