John Clark Meets “The SFA”

Avatar By

Sorry on reading back my rant of 9.39 I realised I’d missed …

Comment on John Clark Meets “The SFA” by Smugas.

Sorry on reading back my rant of 9.39 I realised I’d missed a point re armageddon which was simply that the model employed by ‘the clubs’ throughout this seems to have always been to return matters to where they were and then to have a discussion as to whether it works or not.  This is completely the wrong way around in my opinion.  Topically, this morning, I remember voicing a concern in 2012 that the view seemed to prevail that another Eurpoean bus was coming and it was imperative that at least two clubs were on it – but again no attempt to justify that approach other than a dewy eyed ‘aye been. 

Smugas Also Commented

John Clark Meets “The SFA”
And equally cynically, but regrettably more accurate at the same time; IF IF IF the twitter rumours were true then the much expected statement,

OK, we’re now in the Premiership but we can’t compete against THEM so please give generously……

actually means

….to give us the funds to pay back the debt that we blew (and blew again) to get us here…

which will be quickly follow followed by

…which means we’re skint and we can’t compete against THEM so please give generously….

and repeat, until you’re nauseous.  Or skint. 

John Clark Meets “The SFA”
Good to see Killie being efficient and cutting and pasting RFC’s recent manager change PR statement.

All they had to do was go to the second last paragraph and remove the word “certain” from before “questions” and change the following “au” to a “pho”.

Job done. 07

John Clark Meets “The SFA”
To be fair to Spiers (and I didn’t hear the show) he appears to be saying what has actually happened (see meadow cutting example), as opposed to what we would wish to have happened, or that the blue side would wish either.  Looked at in that way I absolutely agree that Scottish Football does not actually appear to have recognised a ‘Liquidation.’

Now, three issues.  Firstly, do not have the brute ignorance to tell me that it didn’t happen (and Spiers, to be clear, doesn’t, he says its been ignored).  It happened and, collectively, like it or fec’n hate it, our clubs actively chose to  ignore it.

Secondly, would that same rule have applied to anyone other than RFC? (I’ll ignore the obvious comparison with CFC since I’m of the view they simply wouldn’t be facing a comparable liquidation situation).  But would it have applied to the other 40 clubs?  Where’s the cut off line?  Premiership, championship…?  There’s a test case with a HUGE precedent now just waiting to happen. 

Thirdly, the obvious question given the above to Speirs shouldn’t be
“.. are you sure, show your working, No Graham, that’s just plain wrong.”  Remember he didn’t say, unlike some, that it didn’t happen, he said it was ignored.

In my opinion it should be a more considered
“…OK Graham, IF we accept your view is correct what implications do you think it might have for the game, a game that is on its ass anyway*, going forwards?  How should a banker look at a request for funds for instance?  How should a selling club consider a player sale with deferred payments?  How should a club coming a solid second consider the leading club purchasing a ‘luxury’ player on those deferred payments mentioned?  What if said luxury player is your own key player?  What if said player “guarantees” (copyright JJ) CL football, or avoids relegation or wins a play off…?  These questions could and should go on and on.

* Re the ‘ass’ comment the game is clearly refreshed in my view.  But its still not getting the support it requires.  The role of ignoring the liquidation is not clear in that.  I personally could and should have walked away.  I didn’t for the kids sake and now three go where only one (me) went before.  That has been made easier by one cheating club not participating and fuelling an unsustainable arms race.  So in my extensive survey of one household, their exclusion has increased our contribution, not diminished it.  But it still sits uncomfortably with me that my contribution for over ten years was frankly unnecessary as was my club’s participation other than just to provide an opposition.  Armageddon, as we all know, was nothing more than a judgement that if RFC were correctly sanctioned their fans would take the huff and go and support Man City or whoever.  Are you telling me a club with Rangers in the title, perfectly recognisable within phoenixing laws and commonly referred to as Rangers anyway sitting where they are now, and probably better off as they wold have had a fitter leaner unburdened ‘new’ model to work off wouldn’t have received the support it currently does?  Not a chance.  

Recent Comments by Smugas

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In fairness to the pundits.   To a man Tonight (considering the chopped off derby goal) they could not understand why the tele evidence instantly available to anyone with a phone couldn’t be used in that scenario.  

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In simplistic terms, as far as the recipients were concerned, the monies were paid in net.  I.e. as far as they were concerned all tax payable had been deducted and paid. Billy Dodds said as much on the radio as I recall.  What SDM said in one of the hearings was that they took the monies that would otherwise have been deducted and forwarded for tax added it to the payment to the player.  Hence a player who would have received £60 wages and in addition had deducted £40 in cash to give a £100 total from any other club would have received the whole £100 from oldco.  This gave rise to the famous quote about “buying players they couldn’t otherwise afford.”

so the answer to your question is…both!

The reason for the confusion of course is because the players had side letters explaining all this but sssshhhhh, they’re secret.

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
So, square the circle.

1/  King told to make offer.  No guarantee of level of take up especially given that…
2/  Future security of club predicated on King Loan.
3/  King saying he can’t afford to make offer so would presumably have to resign.
4/  Potential that him resigning causes share loss (ignoring imminent dilution).  One would think that might tempt a few more to his offer. 
4/  Also small matter that regardless of whether he resigns or not, whether he offers and whether they take up his offer, the future security of the club is still predicated on his loan.
5/  If he’s not a director can he trust the board with his extended loan, especially given that…
6/  In case you haven’t spotted it this is a loss making business.  Extending that loan doesn’t staunch the flow it simply pours more in the top to be leaked.  Staunching the flow requires more profitable surroundings (a new CL bucket).  But that needs investment and then…..

Ok you get the rest!

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
FWIW I still don’t see any advantage to them in ‘eventing.’  Threatening to ‘event.’  Yes for sure. That’ll get all the Christmas coppers rattling in the buckets  since whilst they may look down their nose at a credible challenge for 2nd it would still be a great result for them and give them European access.  Interestingly of course so does 3rd (4th?).  As clubs like Aberdeen know its actually bloody expensive in relative terms being the plucky loser.  But I fear crowd indifference would kick in.  Aberdeen losing 2000 fans by accepting 3rd is no biggie.  Rangers losing 20,000 is a different barrel of kippers.  

The no-event assumption has two core requirements of course.

1/  All parties keep speaking to each other, ignore individual rationality and act instead for the greater good of the club (don’t start) particularly in view of….
2/  Somebody, somewhere has to pony up to keep the loss making bus on the road else it grinds to a halt in the race to the top.  Shouting and screaming and stamping their foot that its all so unfair unless all the other buses are told to stop too is unlikely to get a sympathetic hearing.  Well, not from the fans anyway…. 

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus @ 12.38

My thoughts exactly.  The AGM stuff to me made sense to a/ get a hold of 1872’s ‘new’ money with zero repayment clause and b/ to tidy up the balance sheet with a view to a euro licence (listed you will recall as essential to the clumpany’s future well being) which will surely be scrutinised like never before.  It makes no sense for the creditors to do it (unless a billionaire has flown in off the radar offering more per share for their quantum than a simple loan repayment would yield i.e. parity*) and it makes even less sense to allow a situation where the creditors can individually decide whether to do so given the fragility of the underlying company(ies).  Particularly given the reputation of some of the principle creditors.  

* parity insofar as they’d get their money back.  It is not enough to promise growth on their shares in some future dream complete with CL soundtrack if achieving said dream is literally costing you money in the meantime in terms of shareholder calls. RBS being the most recent example to spring to mind.  

About the author