Guest Blog by Auldheid
When helping write up the previous blog on the matter of the (mis) commissioning by Harper Macleod, lawyers to the then SPL and current SPFL, of the Lord Nimmo Smith’s investigation into side letters arising from EBTs issued by Rangers FC from July 1999 (https://sfmarchive.privateland.net/an-honest-game-convince-us/ ) .
I had it in mind that only the SFA had something to hide as a result of their President Campbell Ogilvie being fully aware of the history and distinction between the two illegal Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT ) ebts of wee tax case fame not declared to Harper Macleod and the more widely known Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust (MGMRT) Big Tax Case ebts which were declared and on which LNS focussed after (wrongly)treating both types as regular.
The idea that I think most bought into in terms of the registration matters LNS investigated was that no one in football except players with side letters had participated in those schemes and that football authority, both SFA and SPL were unaware of them until their existence became public in Feb 2012. This is when the Sun first published a side letter and the possibility of mis-registration was raised, notably on Celtic Quick News then more widely particularly following an interview between Alex Thomson of Ch4 News and Hugh Adam an ex Rangers Director.
However when you think of the world of Scottish football where players socialise with each other and with journalists, then it does seem stretching it a bit to think that no one in football authority ever heard any gossip or had any enquiry and decided not to investigate the matter before 2012.
Well Rangers Administrators Duff and Phelps thought so and their lawyers Biggart Bailie asked Harper Mcleod in March 2012 why the SPL had not investigated a lot earlier on the basis that
- There had been entries every year since 2000 in Rangers Annual Accounts of sums of money being placed in employee benefit trusts
- HMRC had written to the SPL at some unknown point in the past to ask about the existence of side letters in players’ contracts.
The first argument on annual accounts was one made once public awareness of ebts widened but it was dismissed on the grounds that no one knew much about ebts in those early years and in any case properly administered ones, which they would have been presumed to have been, did not have side letters.
However it does seem likely that having written to MIH/Rangers in 2005 to enquire about the existence of side letters to De Boer and Flo (which MIH/Rangers denied holding even though they did) HMRC would have written to the SFA or SPL sometime after 2005 whenever they first became aware of side letters in players contracts with regards to the MGRT ebts of Big Tax Case fame..
That the SPL had been contacted two or three years previous to 2012 by HMRC was confirmed at a SPL Board meeting in March 2012 as a result of a question being asked by Celtic, who were unaware in 2012 that such an HMRC enquiry had been made in 2009 or 2010. It is possible of course that the connection to misregistration was not made then by the SPL executive asked, but had it been history could have been so different.
How that HMRC enquiry and what it contained was handled by the SPL executive perhaps explains not only why the SPL were so keen to take the lead on the investigation but why they were unaware of the different types of ebts at play, the enquiry in 2009/2010 presumably relating only to the MGMRT type.
The motivation of the SPL executive can be read into their advice to the SPL Board on 23rd February 2012 to instruct an immediate inspection and investigation of the financial records of Rangers with respect to the ebt payments under SPL Rule F1 and under Section G of the Rules on the basis that such an inspection and investigation might reveal prima facie evidence of a breach of SPL Rules independently of any Administrator decision or the outcome of the FTT.
The SPL Board were further advised that taking the lead on such grounds would also go some way to forestalling any attempt by the SFA to include any dependency on the outcome of either Rangers Administration (which they entered on 14th February) or the result of the FTT, (which came in November 2012.)
The desire and benefits of delinking what was at heart a registration enquiry from the much more serious use of tax evasion methods to pay players was obviously not lost on those giving the advice.
In fact in directing LNS in the way the SPL did (possibly unaware that tax evasion had already occurred with Flo and De Boer) it avoided focus on the real and still unresolved issue, were players paid by unfair means from 1999 from which sporting advantage would naturally accrue with no need for proof that it had. You cannot say this had not been thought through in the advice given.
It was also the SPL’ stance that matters concerning player payments had traditionally been considered to be for leagues.
The narrative emerging here is one of the two football authorities keeping from public gaze what individuals in both, if not the whole organisations corporately, knew about the history of ebts; the SFA knowing the history of both types from 1999/2000 onwards and the SPL possibly only knowing something of the MGMRT ebts and side letters from 2009/10 as a result of HMRC asking them questions.
Thus it suited the SFA that the SPL take the lead as much as it suited the SPL to do so but for different reasons. The SFA to keep the existence of the wee tax case ebts hidden from public view and LNS scrutiny and the SPL to avoid answering any “when did they know and why did they not act” questions.
Also if the SPL were indeed unaware of the two distinct types of ebts at play (and they may indeed have been), it explains why they never picked up that the earlier illegal ebts were missed/concealed from them by Rangers Administrators.
Perhaps the SPL and SFA were aware of the benefits to them of focusing only on the registration aspect. This could be presented as an administrative error (which LNS basically decided) rather than the possible illegal nature of the big tax case ebts after the FTT (and which might still arise from the UTT) which would present both with much more difficult and unwelcome consequences to manage and certainly would have changed the nature of the investigation from the outset had the full evidence been provided.
However unless the questions put to the SPFL in the previous blog are answered, we will never know who did what and why, but we at least will know that the LNS Investigation and its findings were a sham from the outset and should be set aside.
Perhaps BDO who are investigating the role and behaviour of Duff and Phelps according to the latest report on their work should be asking Duff and Phelps about the circumstances surrounding the concealment of vital evidence from the LNS Commission?
Och why not?
To the BDO partner investigating. Dated 9th June by web site e mail
“ I see that BDO are carrying out a probe into the conduct of administrators Duff & Phelps. Does that cover the failure to supply SPL with full documentation requested to investigate side letters in 2012?
See http://www.tsfm.net/an-honest-game-convince-us/ for background. Missing evidence is available. ”
PS: I did try to ascertain if HMRC did indeed write to the SPL and when, but they were unable to confirm or deny that they had. The enquiry and response follow. The question on who is responsible for HMRC policy in respect of collection of tax from football clubs was not given but probably due more to an oversight than any attempt to stop the question being answered.
Danish Pastry says:
June 26, 2014 at 1:22 pm
Where does the profit come from that the investors require?
===========================
exactly – people (the) talk about the Premiership as if it is the land of milk and honey – but not if you habitually spend £10mil/yr more than you earn. Let’s be clear – 61 days after the 127 day review, there is precious little evidence of action on the items GW presented as essential for the future well being of the clumpany. Many of them were achievable in stages but stage 1 has failed to materialize.
meaningful reduction in headcount? No
Assets sold? No
Squad reduced below 50? No
Executive remuneration reduced? No
MP moth-balled? No
Any 127-day actions mentioned since 26th Apr? No
Whether GW is caught in the headlights of financial meltdown or emasculated by warring shareholders, the net effect is the same. My guess is GW is hoping for an excuse to jump ship – where’s Brian with that camera-phone when you need him ?
Allyjambo says:
June 26, 2014 at 1:39 pm
with bite marks on your shoulder…
======================================
It must look like a stonking teenage love bite by now – we need to see photos ! ! !
Auldheid says:
June 26, 2014 at 12:31 pm
7 0 Rate This
Hirsute Pursuit
Ally Jambo
It was rule D1. 11 that LNS used as an “in” to undermine D1. 13 aided and abetted by Bryson ‘ s law.
Have a look at The Decision. Do a find on D1.11 and see how it is used. It was not part of the original SPL statement probably because D1.13 was so clear.
I’d do so myself but am on mobile and I could not do it cut and paste justice.
Apart from this aspect LNS also got it wrong by conflating two types of ebts and was able to do so because evidence of the difference was not supplied.
How much more is needed to remove this blatant contempt for supporters from the scene?
================================================
I believe that the Bryson “interpretation” is no such thing. Sandy Bryson simply outlined what typically happens when a player’s registration documents are found to be defective.
In practice, the club wants the player to be registered, the player wants to be registered. The SFA recognise that the forms are defective; but take no action to de-register the player – as long as the forms are corrected within a specified period.
The consequences of a player playing under defective registration is a matter for the rules and regulations of the competition in which he plays. This is why I believe the SPL Rule D1.13 refers to both registration AND eligibility.
The SPL rule was written specifically with the “custom and practice” of the SFA registration procedures in mind. The SPL knew, when their rule D1.13 was written, that a player’s registration would not be revoked retrospectively – so specifically added the point regarding eligibility.
Sandy Bryson gave, I believe, an honest account of how the the SFA registration process operates. He gave, as far as I know, no view on the SPL eligibility criteria.
Mr McKenzie (under direction from Neil Doncaster) is much more culpable in his acceptance that eligibility is a consequence of registration. This is not what D1.13 says or even infers.
This is the point that is wrong.
“…a condition of registration was broken and the player automatically became ineligible to play in terms of SPL Rule D1.11.”
He should simply have said; “…a condition of registration and also of eligibility in terms of SPL Rule D1.11 was broken.”
A trialist can play in official matches. He is eligible; but not registered.
Someone serving a disciplinary ban should not play. Remains registered; but not eligible.
Someone registered incorrectly should not play. Remains registered; but not eligible.
Being registered does not automatically confer eligibility.
Did Mr McKenzie ever make this point?
mcfc says:
June 26, 2014 at 1:41 pm
As ever, everything Wallace needs to do (and no doubt wants to do) is thwarted by the facts:-
if he sells/closes MP – connection to old club is reduced so income stream drops.
if he sacks AM – same as above, though might please some supporters.
if he reduces the playing squad including high paid ‘Rangers’ quality’ players – income stream drops.
Every solution creates a problem, perhaps a smaller problem, but still an insurmountable problem. Without the trappings of Rangersness, ST sales diminish, without ST sales, the need to get rid of the trappings increases…without ST sales, without austerity…a share issue becomes even less attractive, and so the cycle continues. Rangersness is again killing a club from Ibrox.
Allyjambo says:
June 26, 2014 at 2:18 pm
Rangersness is again killing a club from Ibrox.
=================================
There should be a health warning on the ST books – Beware Rangersness Kills
Allyjambo says:
June 26, 2014 at 2:18 pm
Rangersness is again killing a club from Ibrox.
=================================
More seriously, the 50% ST strike now makes all your points more acute – because anything the board do to upset the masses will have an immediate impact on gate revenue. Green had the sense to tell the masses what they wanted to hear before ST time – no matter how ridiculous: Dallas Cowboys, EPL, half a billion bears. Once he had their cash he could do as he pleased for ten months before rolling out another load of snake oil before the next ST harvest.
But those were the good old days. Those were the fat years.
HirsutePursuit says:
June 26, 2014 at 2:15 pm
I think I get what you mean, though you seem to have a better understanding than most of what goes on in the SFA offices regarding registration. Undoubtedly, though, whatever direction we come from, the end result is the same – the LNS decision was reached through deceit. Bryson may well have been an innocent pawn in this deception, and what is described is more of a method of ‘getting around’ the rules where it would otherwise cause great problems from minor errors. Bryson may well have described the expediency that the SFA employ rather than an interpretation of the rules, for unless I am very mistaken, there is nowhere in the rules that comes close to saying what Bryson described to be able to class it as an interpretation.
SPL rule D1.13 leaves no room for expediency, and isn’t about registration anyway. It leaves no doubt that, if a players registration is wrong, at the date of registration, then the player is ineligible. There is also the fact that all this led to Rangers making prohibited payments. The ‘Bryson interpretation’ doesn’t lead to a get out for Rangers, it is in fact, a damning indictment of the SFA.
Hoopy Boxers
There is no truth in the runour that Graham Wallace is wearing hoopy boxer shorts in the hope of engineering a temporary, embarrassing and unacceptable public lapse in Rangersness leading to his rapid departure as CEO – regarded by all as a figure of buffoonery rather than spivery – absolutely no truth at all – none !
Suarez judgement in full – http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/y=2014/m=6/news=luis-suarez-suspended-for-nine-matches-and-banned-for-four-months-from-2386354.html
mcfc says:
June 26, 2014 at 1:41 pm
Graham Wallace is wading through cement at the moment while trying to save the current entity at Ibrox.
That is his primary job target at the moment-just to keep the club/company breathing.
Not easy…
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
June 26, 2014 at 3:22 pm
Graham Wallace is wading through cement at the moment while trying to save the current entity at Ibrox.
============================
If we give him the benefit of the doubt, that is one hell of a task for an honest man and not one he’ll get much thanks for from those he helps, if he does manage it.
mcfc says:
June 26, 2014 at 3:18 pm
Suarez judgement in full – http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/y=2014/m=6/news=luis-suarez-suspended-for-nine-matches-and-banned-for-four-months-from-2386354.html
==============================
BBC quoting he has 3 days to appeal.
So, if he lodges his appeal – say just over an hour before the Colombia game kick-off on Saturday – is he not then eligible to play, pending the hearing ?
If not and – in the highly unlikely event – an appeal panel finds Suarez’ conduct ‘inconclusive’, he would have been already ‘punished’ by missing the Colombia game ?
[Good decision by FIFA though – and hope they don’t water down the ruling later.]
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/28023882
StevieBC says:
June 26, 2014 at 3:44 pm
mcfc says:
June 26, 2014 at 3:18 pm
Suarez judgement in full – http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/y=2014/m=6/news=luis-suarez-suspended-for-nine-matches-and-banned-for-four-months-from-2386354.html
==============================
BBC quoting he has 3 days to appeal.
So, if he lodges his appeal – say just over an hour before the Colombia game kick-off on Saturday – is he not then eligible to play, pending the hearing ?
If not and – in the highly unlikely event – an appeal panel finds Suarez’ conduct ‘inconclusive’, he would have been already ‘punished’ by missing the Colombia game ?
[Good decision by FIFA though – and hope they don’t water down the ruling later.]
————————————————————————————————————————–
Agree with the international part of the punishment but doubt Liverpool will let it lie.
Can’t see John Henry taking this on the chin.
Wouldn’t be surprised if it gets messily legal.
HP
Cock up or conspiracy? If the latter by whom? SPL or SFA or both?
When you see the pressure the SPL Board were put under by their legal advisers to accept the LNS Decision quickly ( and I hope that will come out in public) then Doncaster did it with a Bryson in the LNS office.
It looks like SPL Board were duped into saying nothing about the LNS Decision because they actually never said anything official.
I’ll be making this point to my clubs representative on the SPL Board at the time.
StevieBC says:
June 26, 2014 at 3:44 pm
already ‘punished’ by missing the Colombia game ?
===================================
It seems that FIFA have done the right thing – a reasonable outcome. I can’t see the appeal process allowing him to play Colombia – just too sensitive. Uruguay should get a grip and send him home today to avoid speculation. IMO they’ve done themselves and their country no favours at all in their reaction to the whole affair. Believe it or not I have an Anglo-Uruguayan friend. He is embarrassed and outraged by Suarez’s behaviour. But I also have a Liverpool fan friend who can’t see the difference between biting and a dangerous tackle – red card at most – draw your own conclusions.
FIFA Article 124 Effects of appeal
1. An appeal results in the case being reviewed by the Appeal Committee.
2. The appeal does not have a suspensive effect except with regard to orders to
pay a sum of money..
Looks like he wont be playing even under appeal.
Phil Mac Giolla Bhain
Who is paying him and to what end?
His paymasters must think they can make more keeping a weakened construct going than they will get if it collapses and they are left with an empty Big Hoose.
Perhaps our land valuers could provide an estimate of what the investors might get for land in easy travelling distance of Glasgow right off the motorway. Is there a tip off point when the cost of wading through concrete outweighs the benefit of putting the concrete to better use?
Quite a few people explaining away Suarez’s behaviour, but on-one explaining how The Rangers will keep the lights on until May next year – sans-admin. Don’t the bears do Excel.?
mcfc says:
June 26, 2014 at 3:33 pm
3 0 Rate This
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
June 26, 2014 at 3:22 pm
Graham Wallace is wading through cement at the moment while trying to save the current entity at Ibrox.
============================
If we give him the benefit of the doubt, that is one hell of a task for an honest man and not one he’ll get much thanks for from those he helps, if he does manage it.
———–
I must admit, Wallace is a huge puzzle to me. A sizable bonus over and above an already decent wage — while preaching austerity — it rings a bit hollow. You can understand why the SoS see him as yet another snout in the trough. I doubt very much he’ll lose out even if the club he is ostensibly trying to save goes doon the lavy.
61patrick says:
June 26, 2014 at 4:26 pm
FIFA Article 124 Effects of appeal
1. An appeal results in the case being reviewed by the Appeal Committee.
2. The appeal does not have a suspensive effect except with regard to orders to
pay a sum of money..
Looks like he wont be playing even under appeal.
=======================================
Thanks for that clarification 61patrick : don’t think Uruguay will take this quietly though.
Kicker Conspiracy says:
June 26, 2014 at 4:04 pm
…
Agree with the international part of the punishment but doubt Liverpool will let it lie.
Can’t see John Henry taking this on the chin.
Wouldn’t be surprised if it gets messily legal.
==================================
With Suarez having secured a greatly enhanced contract last season – I wonder if Liverpool negotiated / inserted another clause specifically about ‘repeat behaviour’ – i.e. any lengthy ban means you don’t get paid a bean ?
StevieBC says:
June 26, 2014 at 4:53 pm
With Suarez having secured a greatly enhanced contract last season – I wonder if Liverpool negotiated / inserted another clause specifically about ‘repeat behaviour’ – i.e. any lengthy ban means you don’t get paid a bean ?
—————————————————————————
That would explain his miserable coupon after the game.
How would he manage to scrape together enough to pay his 65 grand fine?
StevieBC says:
June 26, 2014 at 4:53 pm
With Suarez having secured a greatly enhanced contract last season – I wonder if Liverpool negotiated / inserted another clause specifically about ‘repeat behaviour’ – i.e. any lengthy ban means you don’t get paid a bean ?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Even if they do Luis may just call in Bryson to sort it out from him!!
Danish Pastry says:
June 26, 2014 at 4:51 pm
I must admit, Wallace is a huge puzzle to me. A sizable bonus over and above an already decent wage — while preaching austerity — it rings a bit hollow. You can understand why the SoS see him as yet another snout in the trough. I doubt very much he’ll lose out even if the club he is ostensibly trying to save goes doon the lavy.
_
Puzzle for sure DP
Me being me – I think stuff coming out at the moment from competing PR camps.
What happened to the PolPot Aficionado? 😉
Definitely stuff coming from PR camps.
From a new Twitter account – Inside man @insiderman2
South0fThe Border says:
June 26, 2014 at 6:36 pm
Definitely stuff coming from PR camps.
=============================
Well I’m convinced – totally credible source – well balanced – not at all partisan – take back all me comments about financial Armageddon – The Rangers are in rude good heath and safe hands – DK pumping in his own money – move along – nothing to see here – what’s the Afrikaans word for gullible
liggelowiges
Afrikaans for gullible
mcfc says:
June 26, 2014 at 2:44 pm
20
0
Rate This
Allyjambo says:
June 26, 2014 at 2:18 pm
Rangersness is again killing a club from Ibrox.
=================================
More seriously, the 50% ST strike now makes all your points more acute – because anything the board do to upset the masses will have an immediate impact on gate revenue. Green had the sense to tell the masses what they wanted to hear before ST time – no matter how ridiculous: Dallas Cowboys, EPL, half a billion bears. Once he had their cash he could do as he pleased for ten months before rolling out another load of snake oil before the next ST harvest.
But those were the good old days. Those were the fat years.
___________________________________________________________
I think we can get a sense of the prognosis from the ‘walk up’ numbers in the early part of the season.
There are legitimate reasons for bears to be suspicious of Wallace, even if (as I do) they think he might represent the best chance of digging them back out of the hole they jumped into, after they had paid Charles Green to dig it for them, fill in on top of them and then clear off with the shovel. So there are good reasons for wise heads to pay at the gate. For one thing, it will mitigate any losses in the event the club does fold.
If there are alot of walk ups in the first quarter, austerity might work and they are in with a shout. But if the walk ups don’t make up for the non renewals, its light oot at the big house. Then those who DID renew will be looking not so clever.
The way to really hurt TRFC is to not renew and not pay at the gate.
Be interesting to see how many land in that camp – especially given the mince that Ally will no doubt be serving up to them!
Auldheid says:
June 26, 2014 at 12:32 am
‘…It was a Contracts and Payments matter covered by SPL rules and should have stayed with them..’
———–
I wonder ( rather idly,as an auld pensioner not particularly well off) whether
a) TSFM the blog ( unincorporated entity?) would have any ‘locus ‘standi’ sufficient enough to be entitled to seek Counsel’s opinion on whether the SFA was seriously derelict in its duty to exercise its own ordinary and sufficient administrative and legal powers
b) and if so,whether, TSFM- the- blog could consider finding/raising sufficient funds to cover the costs of obtaining such opinion?
I realise of course that when it comes to ‘the Law’ questions of moral right and wrong are irrelevant: the question is only ‘what does the Law say’.
But we all know that some dirty work was done at the crossroads.
And if there is any way that that dirty work can be seen to be also in breach of ‘the Law’ ( dereliction of duty, failure to exercise proper and appropriate powers, referring ,on false and specious ‘legal’ grounds, matters to other quasi-legal jurisdictions which properly ought to have been dealt with in terms of ordinary administrative powers…..
At the very least, it would be very interesting to get a top-notch legal opinion on the subject.If I had the means, I’d fund the task of getting such an opinion.
I feel in my bones that we have to excise once and for all the cancerous growth deep in the bowels of the SFA.
A Ray of Hope to lighten the gloom at TRFC
……………….
For the first time in decades a cash business is operating in Govan. One that presents limitless opportunities to people who hate Hector and HMG
Who are these people?
Think about it
You live in a place where rewards are great if you break the law But personal safety is an issue
You yearn for a home in a far off land where the government doesnt maim or kill you if you step out of line
Your big problem is getting your ill gotten cash into this civilised country run by dumplings who havent done a real job in their lives
( a bit like yourself………. apart from the dumpling bit)
Along comes a new football club supported by 50k gullible fans who are so annoyed at their Board and the viabilty of uppity rivals across the city that most of them decide to pay at the gate
Is this a problem or an opportunity?
Well
In UK Spivland its a problem
But
In a war torn wreck of a country in the Middle East its an opportunity just begging to be taken up
Its a wonderful situation for some imaginative thinking
A bizarre combination
A UK Government that kow tows to people who despise them while simultaneously persecuting honest citizens
Its a wonderful chance to export dirty cash
Watch this space
The bottom Feeders are approaching
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The Ray of Hope?
Well these guys need the football operation to continue until they have got all their money into the UK
So
They wont be voting for liquidation until that job is done
Tbat ought to be good news to the faithful
Resin_lab_dog says:
June 26, 2014 at 9:00 pm
Hard to disagree with your analysis.
It is quite astounding just how much of Ranger’s current predicament is directly attributable to the actions of a large section of the ranger’s support.
Firstly, had it not been for the fans behavior when rangers Mk I died, then, in all likelihood, the boards of the SFA and SPL would have gotten away with their squalid little plan. Instead, their behavior united everyone else’ s customers and Division 3 with all the concomitant financial issues was the result.
Secondly, they lapped up the obvious tosh from Big Hands, thereby allowing Big Hands and his mates to not just fill their pockets, but also to ensure that those pockets would be re-filled on a regular basis.
Thirdly, they are now doing their level best to sabotage the best, perhaps only, chance Rangers have at long term survival.
It’s a great pity that so many of the stars of the old Carry on films are no longer with us, as they would have been the ideal casting pool for Phil’s film. Sid James as Big Hands, Jim Dale as Mr McCoist, Charles Hawtrey (the clown who hated everyone) as Little Chris,
scapaflow says:
June 26, 2014 at 11:42 pm
“It’s a great pity that so many of the stars of the old Carry on films are no longer with us, as they would have been the ideal casting pool for Phil’s film. Sid James as Big Hands, Jim Dale as Mr McCoist, Charles Hawtrey (the clown who hated everyone) as Little Chris”
I think Babs Windsor would have done a passable job as both McCoist and Durrant….oh dear naughty step for me again.
scapaflow says:
June 26, 2014 at 11:42 pm
‘.It’s a great pity that so many of the stars of the old Carry on films are no longer with us, as they would have been the ideal casting pool for Phil’s film. Sid James as Big Hands, Jim Dale as Mr McCoist, Charles Hawtrey (the clown who hated everyone) as Little Chris, ‘
———-
Yes, but we do have to remember that the real film would not be a slap- and- tickle comedy.
No, it would be about the tragedy of how the coming to grief of a hubristic, arrogant, corruptly influential, part-of-the-fabric-of-society sporting (Ha!) entity occasioned the deepest and most malignant and perverse corruption of the sport of Association Football in this country that ever there was.
There is no fun or pleasure to be got in viewing the ‘dramatis personae’ as merely good for a laugh.
They are baddies, who did bad things.
To all of us. And apparently seem to exult in their badness.
I’m afraid I’ve got to add my token protest to the last few posts.
What would you have had us done differently? Not in hindsight, but at the time? I’ve felt pretty powerless to be honest, for the last many years. In hindsight buying shares (I didn’t ) seems foolish, but then Rangers fans are frequently chastised for not doing enough to get behind their club.
We’ve been screwed, for a long time. And I don’t see that much of it can really be laid at the door of the fans. We are caught in a quandary of whether to back the “team” or protest, knowing the damage it may cause, and this has been the case for quite some time.
RyanGosling says:
June 27, 2014 at 12:40 am
I’m afraid I’ve got to add my token protest to the last few posts.
What would you have had us done differently?
============================================
Maybe not in your case but in the case of a large number trying to blame others for what happened does not need hindsight to say that could have been approached differently. Especially blaming the SFA when the people in charge did so much to try and ensure the newco went straight in at the highest level. For that they are branded ‘Rangers haters’ which is beyond me, it really is.
RyanGosling says:
June 27, 2014 at 12:40 am
I’m afraid I’ve got to add my token protest to the last few posts.
What would you have had us done differently? Not in hindsight, but at the time? I’ve felt pretty powerless to be honest, for the last many years. In hindsight buying shares (I didn’t ) seems foolish, but then Rangers fans are frequently chastised for not doing enough to get behind their club.
We’ve been screwed, for a long time. And I don’t see that much of it can really be laid at the door of the fans. We are caught in a quandary of whether to back the “team” or protest, knowing the damage it may cause, and this has been the case for quite some time.
================
And thats the point Ryan. It has been going on for years. The SFA passed up the chance to remove the cancerous growth within the hallowed halls of Ibrox by removing the ability for the spivs to milk the fans over and over again. By allowing the rules to be implemented to the letter then TRFC would have started life at entry level to the league and would not be seen by spivs as the cash cow it has become. The holy grail(s) of European Football and competeing with Celtic would have been to far in the distance and the fans would have turned off. Even now if you look at how much Celtic have recieved from a run to the last 16 of the CL this money is only 50% of what TRFC needs on an annual basis. Thats after building a team to get there. No, I am afraid that CL for TRFC is a big fat squirel employed to keep the myth of ‘big team from Ibrox’ at the front of the fans minds to allow for cash extraction by the incumbents of the Blue Room for the forseeable future.If the SFA/SPL had applied the rules without fear or favour the TRFC may have been in a much lower division but I believe they would be Spiv free and with the loyal fans backing would be on the way up the divisions with a far better product.
RyanGosling says:
June 27, 2014 at 12:40 am
9 10 Rate This
… What would you have had us done differently? Not in hindsight, but at the time? I’ve felt pretty powerless to be honest, for the last many years …
————
To be fair, in 2012 there was a choreographed choir of PR spokesmen working to influence the Ibrox faithful. With the SFA rubber-stamping it all, the tabloids bigging up Green & co, and Ibrox’ internal PR machine in overdrive — cleverly manipulating media, forums and the fans’ ‘spokesmen’ — it must have been difficult for your average football fan (as opposed to the more hardcore, flag-waving, England shirt-wearing union triumphalists) to know what to do.
With most accurate sources of information appearing to be ‘Celtic-supporting bampots’ it was easy for the ubiquitous fans’ spokesmen to dismiss these sources as Rangers-haters ‘who dislike us because WATP’. Naive as I was, I asked Mark Dingwall on a Facebook page at the time if they had heard of RTC, since I thought it contained important information (I had discovered RTC via a mention by Stuart Cosgrove on OtB). Dingwall’s response was: ‘Church of Rome.’ Case closed. Blinkers on.
In reality you can place blame for Ibrox fans’ confusion on any number of factors. But all of us should still retain common sense independent thinking. As some former Rangers-supporting family members told to me recently: ‘Rangers are dead to us.’ Although their engagement with the club was minimal they have not bought into the debt-dumping newco.
Many decent fans like yourself notwithstanding, there is a stigma attached to TRFC that will accompany it well into the future. There appear to be many bridges yet to cross before the current entity is anywhere near the financial reality that is Scottish football.
Still not too late, though, for the SoS (for example) to agitate for the creation of a Rangers United or Rangers of Glasgow. A fan-built club enterprise like that might yet capture the imagination of disaffected fans. There is still a ‘window of opportunity’ as they say. I imagine the rest of Scottish football might be inclined to recognize a club like that as the genuine ‘New Rangers’, with some claim to the sporting legacy of the now demised institution, too.
RyanGosling says:
June 27, 2014 at 12:40 am
While it’s perfectly understandable that the RFC support knew nothing about David Murray’s cheating ways, and how they were leading your club to oblivion, the attitude of the supporters, and their demands for success (especially over Celtic) allowed no room for any lowering of ‘standards’ in any effort to reduce costs. That attitude, the WATP ideology, encompassed the belief of immortality which in turn created blindness. The huge support, instead of being an advantage, was a lead weight around the club that could only be sustained by glory.
What has happened at Hearts has often been used to compare that which happened at Ibrox, but we know that there is no earthly chance that an Ann Budge (or even an Andy Budge) would ever have been acceptable to the bears as she only looked for survival and not for glory or a return to the club’s ‘rightful place’.
But regardless of what went before, it was the supporters and their WATP attitude that made it possible for Green to be successful. It was they who helped create the ‘fear factor’ around the halls of Hampden. It was their desire to follow anyone who told them they were better than everyone else that made them fall in love with Green. It was 140 years of believing themselves, as individuals, to be better than everyone else, just because they supported Rangers. It was being who, and what, they were that brought them to where they are today. It may well be that the majority, and it’s not actually that big a majority, of supporters don’t deserve what has happened to them, although they all stayed silent and were just as happy to retain the illegitimate titles they ‘won’ as the less savoury of their numbers, and the club of the ‘majority’ would not have been the successful Rangers of the past without that unsavoury minority turning up week after week to sing their vile songs.
If the club that was Rangers, together with the decent majority of it’s supporters, had put their hands up and said, ‘yes, we cheated and deserve whatever the appropriate punishment is’, then, I’m sure, we would all agree that they don’t deserve what has happened to their club. Instead that majority were happy to stand by in silence and let the ‘minority’ march and threaten all and sundry to preserve those titles.
Ryan and others,
First of all I don’t think its fair to criticise the fan base for not stopping the Murray Bus. They were winning. What were they supposed to do – say no no no we don’t want this? No chance.
I think the piece of the jigsaw that is missing is how ‘all things Rangers’ would react if the club started to struggle (in a footballing sense). At the moment they have continued to win albeit at a lower level. They have continued to sign players with relative impunity (despite the so called ban) and of a standard above that of their direct competitors. That has allowed them to continue the myth since for every Ryan to whom “Rangers may be dead” there’s another tub thumping UJ wearing numpty willing to fill his boots for the ride.
Now I’m not for one second wishing that RFC would be unfairly handicapped – since that would place me straight into the Rangers Haters camp. What I will say though is that there appeared to be a very strong case for them to be fairly handicapped that didn’t quite materialise, which as others have stated is where a lot of the collective suspicion and outright animosity has stemmed from.
However (there had to be a however!). Regardless of any help from within that Sevco may have received, Sevco also had to do their bit. On the plus side they had to turn up in their thousands which to their eternal credit they did and I’m betting will continue to do. On the downside to maintain the myth (and it is a matter of opinion how much this influenced the plus side) they had to continue the cash bonfire. Now, to be blunt, they had it. It was their money to do with what they pleased, and the rest is history. All along, those of us, even those who had accepted LNS, SPL and all the rest as the same
sh!t off a different shovel took the view (and by view I mean incredibly well researched methodology backed up by massive collective experience) that the model didn’t work. That if the myth were to continue then it would need cash. No-one appeared to be willing to simply donate more to the bonfire. Equally no-one appeared to be willing to come up with a balderick esque cunning plan for sustainability, hence no normal investor looking for return at present is looking near it. So you have the current stand off (with the greedy board, generous fans squabble thrown in for good measure). But as Phil keeps saying the stand off in itself needs cash. The status quo is not an option. There is no time (or at least no cash) for the creation to draw breath and to decide what’s next.
Action is required by Sevco. No action is required from anyone else, including the authorities other than to play it by the book.
Time will tell.
Smugas says:
June 27, 2014 at 10:26 am
First of all I don’t think its fair to criticise the fan base for not stopping the Murray Bus. They were winning. What were they supposed to do – say no no no we don’t want this? No chance.
The EX rangers chairman (who has now passed away, and just now i can’t remember his name )who did tell the support the spending can’t go on or they will go bankrupt, Told the fans and Murray and the media. And he was chastised.
RyanGosling says:
June 27, 2014 at 12:40 am
————————————————————————————
Ryan
Rangers were killed by the Four Way Agreement to look the other way.
Murray, the media, the SFA and the fans.
Blinded by moonbeams,emboldened by hubris, but the truth was out there.
My first piece on the impending financial collapse was January 2009.
Cluster One says:
June 27, 2014 at 10:45 am
The EX rangers chairman (who has now passed away, and just now i can’t remember his name )
Director Hugh Adam’s
It’s 10 years now I since I twigged there were major issues for the Rangers connection to Murray.
As soon as the £50 Million share offer was ignored and he transferred the £50 Million debt into his company I knew the ba’ was on the slates.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-14880473
Bawsman says:
June 27, 2014 at 11:34 am
Rangers should have become insolvent in 2005.
However they benefited from a rather magical uplift in asset values.
This allowed for more borrowing.
They would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for those pesky Lehman Brothers…
John Clark says:
June 27, 2014 at 12:23 am
A tragi-comedy then, which describes most of the carry on films 😉 The best way to render a bully powerless, is to make him/her a laughing stock.
Ryan
You miss the point. The deep rooted “we are the people culture” is a huge part of the problem, Green played that culture superbly, so has Mr King. The current board gives the occasional nod to it, but, their austerity message doesn’t fit with the “worlds best”, “world record breaking” supremacist claptrap that so much of the support hunger for.
I don’t think Rangers fans get just how defining a moment that march on Hampden was. The rest of planet fitba is fed up with their nonsense, and won’t put up with it anymore. I suspect the rest of the country is too,
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
June 27, 2014 at 11:43 am
================================
Very true Phil, trading whilst insolvent if realistic asset values were used at the time.
Ibrox, in not very attractive area of Glasgow, valued circa £110 Million
Tynecastle, in very sought after central Edinburgh, valued at £25 Million
That just reeks.
Dream The Impossible Dream
Trying to rebuild new Rangers in the image of old Rangers as most fans remember them (9 in a row, £10 for £5, hover pitch etc) was like trying to rebuild the economy after the banking crash in the image of the economy in the feverish, bubbly, CDO-hubris days running up to the banking crash. Totally impossible AND exactly the wrong thing to do for long term sanity.
But CG sold the bears the impossible dream and took them for a ride. Can you blame the fans for joining in. Well can you blame the American who didn’t have a job, never had a job, with no income, no assets, no prospects for taking on a $500,000 mortgage in a bad part of town then being shocked when the bank foreclosed on him for missing payments and finding his house was close to worthless in a collapsing market. If takes two to make a con: the cold-hearted conman and the willing mark blinded by dreaming the impossible dream.
MCFC says
June 27. 2014 @ 12.24
Dream the impossible dream
To continue the ” tilting at windmills” theme, would it be too much to hope that the supporters of all other clubs actually get out and show that support? Let’s see a full house at Fir Park when the Accord come calling, for example. In my view, that would be the best way to help empower individual clubs, coupled with Eddiegoldtop”s sponsorship drive.
If The Rangers want to spend their way into oblivion, so be it, but the showing of a really powerful fan base at the other clubs would go a long way to prevent another abuse of power by those ” in charge”
Let’s fight ” the unbeatable foe” through football, not through the courts.
Re last post , Accord should read Accies
http://bitemangame.com/
MCFC
Hang on, there’s a step in between. The con man was not selling a dream to a willing mark. The con man was riding a wave of completely misplaced optimism that a liquidated thing rode on. Optimism fed by a media (again blameless, they just sell chip wrappers) but inexplicably also by the authorities who for whatever reason decided they wished to save the ethereal thing (careful!) with which I agree, but then also pretend it was the original legal thing sans debt when they knew fine well they neither could have, nor should have.
Which brings me onto my second point for Oddjob’s windmills. I would love to see full houses all round, I really would. Combined with the onset of smugas junior’s regular attendance I enjoyed last season more than any I can think of in the last 15 years (results helped of course). But I still need clarity on my SPL club’s position on all of this. Coming out in force just to spite the authorities and their establishment club is all very well – but not if my club had every opportunity to at least highlight the establishment-ness, if not to weaken or break it altogether. The three monkeys position for me has been self defeating, Armageddon or not.
RyanGosling says:
June 27, 2014 at 12:40 am
23 37 Rate This
I’m afraid I’ve got to add my token protest to the last few posts.
What would you have had us done differently? Not in hindsight, but at the time? I’ve felt pretty powerless to be honest, for the last many years. In hindsight buying shares (I didn’t ) seems foolish, but then Rangers fans are frequently chastised for not doing enough to get behind their club.
We’ve been screwed, for a long time. And I don’t see that much of it can really be laid at the door of the fans. We are caught in a quandary of whether to back the “team” or protest, knowing the damage it may cause, and this has been the case for quite some time.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How about the fans realising they had been sold a pup by Murray and then Whyte?
As you said screwed twice so why did they go in with blinkers to let it happen again when all could see what was happening. By the time it came to supporting the team for the 2012/2013 it was too late.
Admittedly Green came out of left field due to the Duff & Duffers handling of the administration but unlike Hearts and Dunfermline there was no early call or action way back in Feb 2012 to try and have the paying customers get involved and influence the outcome of the administration/liquidation process.
Therefore way back when:-
How about the fans using the fighting fund to form the basis of fan ownership?
How about fans using the above fund and appealing for further donations to get behind the likes of Paul Murray & Brian Kennedy or even Sir Cardigan & McColl to outgun the Big Handed Yorkshireman?
How about fans not telling our American Cousins their help wasn’t needed before the guys even had a chance to look at the books?
I appreciate that given the large fan base it is difficult bring everyone together but the choice of ‘fan chiefs’ or allowing people to pose a ‘chiefs’ was a disaster. So to mix the metaphors the sheep mentality of following poor quality leaders, both fans and club management, just ended up being yet another disaster.
Smugas says:
June 27, 2014 at 1:16 pm
Hang on, there’s a step in between.
================================
Can’t disagree – and don’t want to labour the analogy – but in the early days of the bank crisis there was an awful lot of experts, media, professionals, potiticians and central bankers trying to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative in a very similar way – until no one could hear them anymore because the true extent of the negatives was visible to anyone who cared (dared) to look.
If fans feel strongly on their clubs position they should follow the bear: organize, campaign, pay-as-you-go and withdraw your hard-earned if you don’t like the response. At an early stage of my career a shrewd old guy who’d been around the block a few times told me “if you’re not prepared to stand-up, walk away and never look back, then you are not negotiating, you’re just p*ssing about”. I’ve found it very good advice.
Danish Pastry says:
June 26, 2014 at 4:51 pm
32 0 i
Rate This
mcfc says:
June 26, 2014 at 3:33 pm
3 0 Rate This
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
June 26, 2014 at 3:22 pm
Graham Wallace is wading through cement at the moment while trying to save the current entity at Ibrox.
============================
If we give him the benefit of the doubt, that is one hell of a task for an honest man and not one he’ll get much thanks for from those he helps, if he does manage it.
———–
I must admit, Wallace is a huge puzzle to me. A sizable bonus over and above an already decent wage — while preaching austerity — it rings a bit hollow. You can understand why the SoS see him as yet another snout in the trough. I doubt very much he’ll lose out even if the club he is ostensibly trying to save goes doon the lavy.
_________________________________________
That’s the world we live in though. It’s everywhere. We have a current Secretary of State for Work in Pensions berating the unemployed as croungers and benefit cheats while he claims £39 back from the taxpayer for breakfast.
scapaflow says:
June 27, 2014 at 11:45 am
In fairness I should add that it is not just a large section of the Rangers support who don’t get just how defining a moment the march on Hampden was. The boards of the SFA and the SPL didn’t get it either. Unfortunately for all concerned, the current boards of the SFA and the SPFL also don’t get it, hence their business as usual and to hell with the paying customers attitude. .
It is unfair to blame the support for the moonbeam years, but, once the clattering train came to an abrupt stop, the support made choices. It is, I think, perfectly fair to point out that almost every one of those choices has been damaging to Rangers Mk II.
I am off down to Hampden to hand a letter in… Unfortunately it’s just some boy’s football registration forms but if I see any of our football leaders I will ask them politely to P*ss Off at their earliest convenience….
Actually a good qn for CO would be along the lines of how could he keep shares in rangers (even though transferred to his wife) whilst working at Hearts.. It’s no allowed but those SFA rules are as pliable as putty FOR SOME.
With Boyd now ‘back’, the contradictions between our fiscal view and what RFC* actually does are starting to get a bit too silly and annoying for me. I realise there’s a real need to sign players that help prolong the ‘same, big, Rangers’ myth. With the MSM more than happy to report such signings as ‘returns’ and most fans delighted that with Miller and Boyd upfront ‘again’ it’s back to the good old days when ‘Rangers’ were on top, where does the fact that they can still go out and buy these players leave us when we are continually self talking that they’re running on empty, that Wallace knows the need for austerity etc?
It seems that every time something like this happens, we communally decide that it’s a last, desperate gamble to convince fans to buy season tickets. I really don’t get how purchases like these can live alongside e.g. Phil’s view that Wallace is driving genuine austerity; that they have list of players to get out the door at a price (at any price?); that MP has to go/be mothballed etc etc etc etc.
Sorry, I’m frustrated because I can’t make any sense of it all, yet RFC* seem to be impervious to any financial problems and continue to act like the old Rangers. How can I reconcile our view of their reality with the apparent reality that there are no problems? Help!!
Bawsman says:
June 27, 2014 at 12:15 pm
The uplift in the value of Murray Park was also questionable…
nawlite says:
June 27, 2014 at 2:27 pm
Help!!
===================================================
All just opinions and theories that will be tested by time. A shareholder or two may stump up a couple of £mil now and then to stretch the time line and frustrate the impatient. But to my mind the business model is deeply flawed and there is only one direction of travel. What comes out of Ibrox is designed to sway those who want to be swayed and have money to handover. I’ve heard nothing over two years that has swayed me to think they have a half decent plan to get out of a very big hole.
Only time will tell – but don’t bet against gravity unless you have some very good inside information.
Or to quote BB KIng:
Same old story, same old song
Goes alright till it goes all wrong
Now you’re going, then you’re gone
Same old story, same old song
One hand will take, one hand will give
That’s all we know and that’s how we live
One day hello, next day goodbye
And everyone just stays high
nawlite says:
June 27, 2014 at 2:27 pm
2 0 Rate This
With Boyd now ‘back’, the contradictions between our fiscal view and what RFC* actually does are starting to get a bit too silly and annoying for me.
—————————————————————————————————————————
KB was signed on the same terms as Kenny Miller.
£2k pwk rising to £2.5 pwk with bonuses.
If unavailable due to injury he is on £1,000 per week.
He was offered better terms at Aberdeen and much much better terms from a club in France.
As I wrote on my site yesterday-he signed for the jersey.
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
June 27, 2014 at 3:12 pm
He was offered better terms at Aberdeen and much much better terms from a club in France.
=====================================================
Fair do’s – a Rangers man on the payroll prepared to sacrifice his own finances for the cause. The evidence suggests he’s one of a dying breed.
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
June 27, 2014 at 3:12 pm
Given the calibre of these two players those wages seem reasonable.
The only problem is that it is still another £4k/week or potential £200k/annum on the wage bill and we have still to see any great signs of cost cutting.
Therefore while the likes of Little have not had their contracts renewed Boyd and Miller and possibly more to come will just keep the wage bill, at best on an even keel.
Without major restructuring the sums still don’t add up – do they?
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
June 27, 2014 at 3:12 pm
Dont forget, KB is not short of a bob or two as he was awarded a substantial sum for his spell in Turkey
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/former-rangers-star-kris-boyd-1852475
He also had his £215k EBT while employed by RFC(IL)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18148818
wottpi says:
June 27, 2014 at 3:26 pm
Without major restructuring the sums still don’t add up – do they?
———————————————————————————————————————-
No they don’t.
what a sad panto – the crowd can’t even be arsed to shout back “Oh yes they do” 🙂
Thanks for the responses, guys, but that’s kind of my point – they keep happily adding to the outgoings (Boyd, Miller, McGregor, Nerlinger) as if there’s nothing to worry about, yet don’t appear to do anything to cut other bits of cloth. There’s no way our assumptions could be wrong and they actually have a different reality we don’t see, could there? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t doubt the in depth work done here on their assumed finances and Phil’s sources confirming they’re in trouble, but how are they managing to make it look as if there’s no problem?
JimBhoy says:
June 27, 2014 at 2:26 pm
I am off down to Hampden to hand a letter in… Unfortunately it’s just some boy’s football registration forms but if I see any of our football leaders I will ask them politely to P*ss Off at their earliest convenience…
========================================================
Or, you could politely ask at reception if Mr.Bryson is available – just to answer a couple of registration form queries…? 🙄
PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
June 27, 2014 at 3:50 pm
wottpi says:
June 27, 2014 at 3:26 pm
Without major restructuring the sums still don’t add up – do they?
———————————————————————————————————————-
No they don’t.
===================
As a few bampots have alluded to, the strange financial goings on in Govan can only indicate – IMO – that there is a huge chunk of very significant information that we are simply not aware of – and if we were, then we would collectively say: “Ahhhh…now I get it !” Mibbees. 😕
nawlite says:
June 27, 2014 at 4:12 pm
There’s no way our assumptions could be wrong and they actually have a different reality we don’t see, could there?
========================================================
It would be good to discuss and explore an alternative view that all is well and the plan is working. We used to have Steerpike, Liam, deNiall and others here and on Random Thoughts.Towards the end their arguments were getting bizarre but now they seem to have given up the fight completely.
Is there anyone out there who believes all is well at Ibrox? Graham, Philip, David, Sandy, James, Norman come on guys, give us a game.
nawlite says:
June 27, 2014 at 4:12 pm
but how are they managing to make it look as if there’s no problem?
_________________________________________
I think the SMSM have something to do with that. They certainly don’t ask the awkward questions, or if they do, they don’t let us know if they go unanswered. One thing’s for sure, if something had happened to make things better, we’d all have heard about it by now.
Something that seems to have changed is the lack of anti-board PR in the media at the moment. Is that because both sides are now in accord? Or is it because there is now no alternative to the current board, and their masters?
OT
A different First Tier Tribunal has come up with a decision which might be popular with the public.
Judge Anne Scott said:
“We found that the plate looked like a plate of cakes. We were also left with samples of all of these, together with Tunnock’s Snowballs.
We tasted all of them, in moderation, either at the hearing or thereafter.
A Snowball looks like a cake. It is not out of place on a plate full of cakes. A Snowball has the mouth feel of a cake”, she added.
Lees and Tunnock’s insisted their Snowballs should be VAT-free, in the same way as Jaffa Cakes.”…
================================================================================
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-28055633
StevieBC says:
June 27, 2014 at 4:54 pm
You know what? I just wish I’d been sitting eating a snowball (at a table, with a plate and napkin) while reading that post 😀
StevieBC says:
June 27, 2014 at 4:28 pm
We may be over thinking it. Re-structuring a business costs a lot of money. In this case, with apparent onerous contracts, a great deal of money will be required. RIFC simply don’t have a re-structuring fund. If the current board are serious about re-structuring, then a good chunk of any money raised from current shareholders and the city, will be required to finance the restructuring.
In the meantime, the board seem to be trying to do what little they can do. It seems to me that there are 3 questions:
1 Is there a genuine appetite for re-structuring?
2 Do they have sufficient time and resources to tide them over until they can raise new cash?
3. Will they raise sufficient cash to keep the lights on, and, fund the re-structuring?
scapaflow says:
June 27, 2014 at 5:30 pm
StevieBC says:
June 27, 2014 at 4:28 pm
We may be over thinking it…
========================
Whilst above questions are perfectly valid, I am looking at it from a simplistic viewpoint.
In the last 2 years, there has been nothing to indicate austerity / major cost-cutting at TRFC.
There have been different personnel over that time, and we have recently become aware of ‘onerous contracts’.
But nothing – as far as I can tell – has changed that much in terms of reducing the costbase to a sustainable level.
And the running theme has been that the main shareholders of RIFC are only interested in money – and don’t really give a monkey’s about any football team. They would be more interested in e.g. the properties than the team. So why keep funding TRFC for the last 2 years ?
Some info. must be missing, IMO. [Speculation on my part only.]
RyanGosling says:
June 27, 2014 at 12:40 am
23
40
Rate This
I’m afraid I’ve got to add my token protest to the last few posts.
What would you have had us done differently? Not in hindsight, but at the time? I’ve felt pretty powerless to be honest, for the last many years. In hindsight buying shares (I didn’t ) seems foolish, but then Rangers fans are frequently chastised for not doing enough to get behind their club.
We’ve been screwed, for a long time. And I don’t see that much of it can really be laid at the door of the fans. We are caught in a quandary of whether to back the “team” or protest, knowing the damage it may cause, and this has been the case for quite some time.
____________________________________________________
Sorry but its an easy one Ryan.
They could have sought to win friends an influence, instead of lashing out and propogating divisiveness.. (Not you Ryan, but RFC/TRFC fans in general).
RFC cheated DUFC far more than DUFC ever tried it on with RFC.
The attitude of the majority of RFC/TRFC fans shown there was despicable and divisive to the game.
What about the Union bears and their anti BBC protests, after the CW documentary aired?
Not looking too clever now!!
A tirade of abuse and denial was typical response of most (but by no means all) RFC/TRFC fans whenever ANY messenger – well intentioned or otherwise – brought unwelcome news. So no wonder what happened came as a big surprise to RFC fans and no one else!!! What did you expect???
They then proceeded to blame those who had tried to warn them, in a pythonesque twist that leaves many of the pronouncements made by fans and fans groups the time looking frankly surreal, especially with the benefit of hindsight, but even so at the time to those with a less reactionary standpoint than the bulk of Ibrox patrons.
At the same time, sheep like obedience to those who donned a veneer of respectability and ‘Rangeressness’ to mask at best incompetence (Walter Smith as Chairman of the board??? Ally McCoist as a footmall manager on that money with the budget) and at worst something far more sinister (SDM, CG et al…. add Dave King into the mix why not?) and you have a heady mix of self harm behavior.
Rangers fans could and should have stood up to the bullies in their own midst!
Rangers fans could and should now accept the consequences of what happened, learn lessons and move on, instead of trying to have it both ways (keep the history, bin the debt) with the ‘same club’ … ‘rightful place’ …. ”back to where we belong’ fictions.
RFC(IL) ARE where they belong already – consigned to oblivion for reckless behavior and flagrant cheating. And TRFC need to EARN their place at the top table honestly.
This whole episode is a lesson in 1984 newspeak, and a great many TRFC fans have been – and may continue to be – compliant – if not – willing participants in a distopian fantasy that has proved to be both destructive and delusional.
It is a sad fact that RFC and TRFC fans – while absolved from the greatest share of the responsibility for what befell their club – could and should have acted in a way which would have made things far better for everyone, and instead many acted in a way which made things worse.
StevieBC says:
June 27, 2014 at 5:48 pm
There are undoubtedly pieces missing. All I’m saying is that the current board may well have found themselves in zugswang. They need to make a move, but they don’t have the resources to create the space where movement becomes possible.