John Clark Meets “The SFA”

Regular posters and contributors to the SFM may remember that in October last year I wrote to Mr McRae, President of the SFA.

I posted the text of my letter on 28th October

I had not received a reply or acknowledgement by 12th December, so I sent a reminder. I received a reply to that reminder, dated 16 December 2015, in which Mr McRae apologised for not having responded to my previous letter, and invited me to come and see him. We arranged that I should visit him at Hampden on 19 January 2016 at 2.00 p.m.

Following the meeting, I wrote a summary of the conversation. I emailed that summary to Mr Darryl Broadfoot, Head of Communications, asking him to check whether my recollections were accurate, because I was my intention to post the summary on SFM.

I have not had a reply and I think I have waited a fair enough time, so, here is the summary of an approximately 45 minute conversation.

I should first make it clear that Mr McRae said that he had no recollection of airing any of the views recorded in my letter as attributed to him. I should also say that I made it clear that while I contribute to SFM, I was not there as ‘officially representing’ SFM, although what I would say broadly reflected the view of many.


“Note of informal meeting between me, and Alan McRae, President of the SFA, with Darryl Broadfoot, Press Officer, at Hampden park, 2.00 pm Tuesday, 19th January.

Background: I had written to Mr McRae in October 2015, to ask whether Mr McRae had really (as had been reported to me) aired the following opinions:

  1. that Rangers FC were not Liquidated
  2. that Rangers FC were put down to the third Division
  3. that Rangers FC were bought by Charles Green and that the team currently playing out of Ibrox Stadium and calling itself The Rangers Football Club Ltd is one and the same as the club known as Rangers Football Club, which is currently in Liquidation.

Mr McRae, through Mr Broadfoot, went through the points one by one.

On point one, there was no difficulty in agreeing that RFC had been Liquidated. That was accepted as a matter of fact.

On point two, I argued that;

  • Mr Green’s new club had had to apply for league and SFA membership, and were therefore admitted as a new club to Scottish Football and allowed into SFL Third Division.
  • They had as an emergency measure been granted conditional membership, and had had to seek the Administrators’ and Football Authorities’ agreement to the use of certain RFC (IL) players who had decided to sign on with the new club in order to play their first game as a new club.
  • They were ‘put in ‘the Third Division as a new club, not as an existing club being relegated.

Mr McRae, through Mr Broadfoot, argued that ‘put in’ and ‘admitted to’ are pretty much the same thing, and that the legal advice obtained was that Mr Green’s new club was not a new club, and the Authorities were stuck with that.

I referred to the 5-way Agreement, and made the point that two entities other than league or SFA representatives were signatories to that agreement: RFC (IL) and Mr Green’s new club. The two could not be one.

Mr Broadfoot said that was a matter of opinion.

I said that it was rather a matter of fact.

Likewise, on the third point, there was disagreement.

Mr Broadfoot, for Mr McRae, argued that Charles Green bought the club (and Mr McRae personally added ‘and the “goodwill”’).

I pointed out that Mr Green had NOT bought the club out of Administration, as had happened with other clubs, but merely had bought the assets of a former club that was NOT able to bought out of administration and was consequently Liquidated.

Mr Broadfoot said that Celtic and Rangers supporters might continue to disagree but that could only be expected.

I pointed out that this was not at all a Celtic-Rangers supporters’ issue, and that the Scottish Football Monitor, for instance, represented the views of supporters of many clubs. I further made the point that many sports administrative bodies had come under the spotlight in current times and people were naturally concerned that the governance of football should be above suspicion: and that substantial numbers feel that the Football Authorities have been at fault, in permitting a new club to claim to be an old club and pretend to the honours and titles etc etc.

Reference was made in the passing to some allegations that had been made that certain evidence relating to the Discounted Option Scheme had been withheld from the LNS commission, which occasioned Lord Nimmo Smith to be misled; and to the apparent negligent performance of the SFA administration under the previous President, who, both on account of his personal knowledge of the use of the DOS by Sir David Murray, and as a subsequent recipient of an EBT, might reasonably have been expected to ensure a thorough and diligent examination of the information provided by clubs about payments to players.

Mr Broadfoot ruled out discussion of the first of these matters because ‘there was no evidence’, and the second matter was also ruled out because, he asserted, the previous president is a man of the highest integrity.

I replied that work was in hand to provide evidence, and that the question of negligent performance of duties was not a question of ‘personal integrity’.

Mr Broadfoot opined that the future would show whether Scottish Football supporters were really concerned about the old club/new club debate, if huge numbers turned their backs on the game.

I replied that a sport based on a false proposition, on what could be seen as a lie, no matter on what pragmatic reasons, would certainly wither if and when people thought the sport could be rigged.

As the meeting drew to a close, I was asked if, coming from Edinburgh, I was a Hibs or Hearts supporter, or perhaps a Celtic supporter? And whether I was going to tonight’s (Celtic were playing that evening at home) game?

I replied that as my name suggests, I was of Irish extraction and perhaps conclusions could be drawn from that. Also that I would not be going to tonight’s game, and that my interest in the present matter was rather more academic and objective than partisan.

The meeting ended cordially at about “


I think I can say that Mr Broadfoot, opening the meeting, explained that

“for the purposes of this meeting, I am the SFA.”

Mr McRae’s personal contribution to the conversation was therefore very little more than mentioned above, Mr Broadfoot doing most of the talking.

I will say further that I spoke to BP, and consulted one or two other posters before I went to the meeting, in order to make sure that my general understanding both of the principal events of the ‘saga’ and of the thrust of most of SFM’s contributors, who are drawn from supporters of many clubs, was sufficiently sound.

I give it as my opinion that I may have been invited to a personal meeting only because it might have been thought in some quarters that I was in possession of an electronic recording of what I told Mr McRae that he was reported as having said.

And, finally, I declare here that my note of the meeting was written within two hours of the meeting, and reflects the substance of the conversation. It is exactly the note I sent by email to Broadfoot, except that I corrected a typo in the spelling of Darryll (I had ‘Caryll’), have omitted my own surname, and changed references to myself from the third person to the first person.



1,392 thoughts on “John Clark Meets “The SFA”

  1. as someone who has been a bit critical of jonjames in the past I would thoroughly recommend anyone to read his latest re Boadfoot.  Essentially what I said above but poot much beter than wot I sed!

    Btw in my opinion Macrae = simple patsy.  Nothing more.

  2. Fisiani 26th January 2016 at 11:38 pm
    ‘……so far it seems to be working…’
    “Seems” is the operative word,Fisiani.
    There is not a club chairman who is sitting totally at ease with the ‘situation’.
    All, all, all of them know in their hearts, that they have collectively allowed themselves to be led by the nose, or by the wallet, into disavowing the very idea of honest Sport governance.
    No single one of them has yet had  the courage to say ‘NO’ to the debasement of Sport by the ready acceptance of cheating by the very folk who should be preventing cheating, the very folk they elect or appoint to office to ensure proper governance and effective administration( Ha!)
    Each of them is looking fearfully around. Probably afraid of each other, afraid to rock their own particular boat.
    So, no two of them , or three of them, or enough of them to constitute a quorum for an EGM  chave the will at the moment to  get together to sort out this whole mess in the only legitimate way it can be sorted.
    And that way is as blindingly obvious now as it was in 2012: recognition that RFC 1873, ’99,or whatever, is dead, football honours attainment-wise, effectively murdered by SDM , although the immediate assassin was CW.
    And recognition that, whichever of Sevco5088 or Sevco Scotland is the rightful owner of the ‘assets’ and whichever of them may have ‘ownership’ of RIFC plc and TRFC, is the owner only of a newish club, quite, quite distinct from the still existing ( albeit in the limbo of Liquidation) RFC of ’73, or ’99, or of  John Greig, Wullie Henderson, George Young, or Wullie Woodburn….
    Nothing can be more plain or obvious.
    And our club owners and chairmen and CEOs, humble or exalted, know that keeping the heads down and trying to ride out the storm is not an honourable option. And, perhaps more tellingly, is the option that will see the slow death of their businesses.
    People have other ways of spending their money than on a rigged, cheating, sport.
    In my opinion.

  3. EdinMan’s post is a timely reminder that the view of “re-born” clubs can be just as skewed in England than it is in Scotland.
    If it is mentioned at all, this appears to be the common perception of Bradford City’s financial woes in 1983:
    “…the club chairman Bob Martin had to call in the official receivers. The club was saved by former chairman Stafford Heginbotham and former board member Jack Tordoff…”
    Sir Joseph Canley – sitting as a high court judge, had a very different perspective.
    “The stand had been built about 1909 by the Bradford City Association Football Club (1908) Ltd. In 1983 that company had become hopelessly insolvent and was wound up. The football ground in 1983, including the stand, was taken over by a new club with a new chairman and a new board of directors. This club, called the Bradford City Association Football Club (1983) Ltd is the first defendant in these actions and has to be distinguished from the 1908 Club. I shall sometimes refer to the 1908 Club as the old club and the 1983 Club as the new club.”
    If EdinMan wishes to cite England’s system, it is also worth pointing out what the FA say about a transfer of membership:
    “(g) Transfer of MembershipCouncil may use the following criteria, and any other conditions in Council’s absolute discretion, in deciding whether to approve the transfer of membership by a Full Member Club or an Associate Member Club:(i) the shareholders or members of the existing Full Member Club or Associate Member Club have voted to agree the transfer of the membership to the proposed future member;(ii) all Football Creditors of the existing Full Member Club or Associate Member Club must be fully satisfied;(iii) all other creditors of the existing Full Member Club or Associate Member Club must be satisfied and evidenced as such;(iv) the proposed future Full Member Club or Associate Member Club must provide financial forecasts showing their ability to fund the Full Member Club or Associate Member Club for the next 12 months or to the end of the season following transfer (whichever is the longer);(v) evidence of funding sources will be required; and(vi) where the proposed future Full Member Club or Associate Member Club is a company, then it shall be formed and registered in England and Wales under the Act.”
    You will note the FA rules distinguish between “existing Full Member Club” and “future Full Member Club”
    You will also note the expression “where the proposed future Full Member Club or Associate Member Club is a company
    What a strange concept, a club can be a company. It will never catch on !!!14

  4. Its funny.  In Economics 101 the prisoners dilemma example always started – There are two criminal suspects in adjacent interview rooms…

    How much more more fun would the question be that begins  “You’ve got 40 untrusting, disgusted, misled, previously unnoticed chairmen gathered in the lavvie prior to a committee meeting…”

    Thanks again John 

  5. John Clark 26th January 2016 at 11:58 pm #
    easyJambo 26th January 2016 at 5:31 pm See you in Court tomorrow, by any chance?
    Sorry. Dentist appointment at 9am. 

    Maybe see you Friday if Green’s legal fees hearing is still going ahead.

    I’m also looking for confirmation of the next Fraudco hearing which was originally scheduled for 1st February.  

  6. Flocculent Apoidea 27th January 2016 at 12:41 am
    ‘….Did Mr Broadfoot, at any point, attempt to drink a gottle of geer as Mr McRae spoke?  ‘
    To be scrupulously fair, knowing that Mr McRae  had assumed office as President only 6 months or so ago, I could understand ( even though he has been in the SFA for quite a lot of years) that he might not have immediate, hands-on knowledge of what his predecessor-in-office might have been involved in.
    And I was quite happy to accept that he was happy to accept that what Darrryl said reflected what he was happy should be reflected.
    Of course, that makes what Darryl said carry the authority of the President of the SFA.
    One of the cleverest TV comedy shows was ‘Yes, Minister’.
    And some of the best ‘Midsomer Murders’ episodes were based on the theme of the servant out-mastering his masters.
    One thinks of Ernie Walker..

  7. One thought about the alleged “legal opinion”.
    Mr Doncaster has invested a great deal of his own credibility in the same Club myth. Indeed I believe he set the scene when questioning why people would make a distinction between a newco and a CVA.
    LNS gave (at least repeated) a view of the meaning of the word ” Club ” as he applied to the articles and rules of the SPL.
    Whether the SFA agree or not with the definition is in some ways moot. The LNS definition applies only to the documents of the SPL. It has no bearing on what the SFA would consider to be one of its member clubs or how anyone would define an association football club in general.
    The SPL definition simply  does not fit nor does it apply to the real life meaning of a football club.
    My guess is that some within the SFA are privately unhappy about the SPL definition; but simply have no power to intervene in something that does not apply to its own articles and/or rules and are therefore “stuck” with the fallout.
    We may simply be asking the wrong question. We should not ask, are they the same Club? Which allows some wriggle room in terms of which definition is used.
    Instead we should ask the SFA, is The Rangers Football Club PLC the same member club as The Rangers Football Club Ltd? What does legal opinion say on that question?

  8. I am gutted, I really am. I have been a ‘pledger’, almost since day dot re my teams travails, and, for me, this was a way someone who couldn’t make the commitment of buying a season ticket, (purely for family/work commitments)  could demonstrate a way of personally demonstrating my commitment to my club, and by definition, my commitment to Scottish fitba. 20 Quid a month. My club was saved from extinction, oh yeah, let’s get technical, liquidation, by our fans determination to do the ‘ right thing’, acknowledge our failings, take on the chin our mistakes, but do the right thing.

    apparently, now, all we have to wait for is for ‘other’ fans walking away, that will then determine whether or not what has gone before is right or wrong. Oh., oh oh. I am genuinely upset. I will write to my club, with not a threat to withdraw my (financial) support, but rather with a question; ‘ why should I bother,?

  9. As far as I can tell, no SMSM outlet has mentioned John’s scoop – yet anyway – and not even by the supposed ‘impartial’ BBC.
    And no comment as far as I can tell from Hampden – yet anyway – but mibbees informal feedback will be fed to a friendly hack.
     If they/Broadfoot does respond I’m sure it could be a laughable ad hominem attack on John’s memory or note taking…but I know whose version of events I would believe.

    But probably the SFA will simply ignore the high level of comment and interest in John’s reporting.

    (I assume the SFA has not since contacted John ?)

    And I suppose it will be ‘batten down the hatches’ again at Hampden…but this time with both Macrae and Broadfoot placed in the bunker as well!

  10. Jm15,  that’s quite an upsetting post, can you explain more please?

  11. John, a belated but hearty, “Well done”. I’ll look forward to talking to you about this at the next SFM gathering.

  12. As many others have pointed out the SFA clearly see this as a Celtic v Rangers issue. That comes over loud and clear via the transcript of John’s meeting. So if they believe that is the case, why are they coming down firmly on the side of Rangers and their supporters? Aren’t they supposed to represent all clubs and their supporters, and ergo not take sides? Imagine the media outrage in England were this happening. It wouldn’t stop until heads had rolled at the FA. In Scotland the media simply join the circle of wagons and pull together ever tighter.  

    On another note, if the survival of Rangers and their trophy record is so important to the SFA, then where does it end? I am sure it is a complete co-incidence, but Rangers seem very confident they will be in the Champions League in 2 years. It is factored into transfer bids they make as a future bonus, and spoken of in every interview with a friendly journalist.  Indeed, their latest signings from Accrington Stanley are on record as saying it is a factor in them joining the club.  Please note for the record I’m not suggesting the SFA have offered them any guarantees on that count, but it will be great for Rangers to know it appears to be a shared ambition.  

  13. John Clark,
    I’ve just caught up with your blog post and subsequent comments and I want to add my heartfelt thanks to those of our other SFM supporters.

    I also congratulate you on an achievement in gaining personal access to the SFA Chairman that I never thought possible, and doubt will ever happen again.

    I find the crass behaviour of the SFA PR Pi$h Merchant, Daryll Broadfoot in arrogantly and condescendently dismissing the points you put to him cogently and politely utterly boak inducing.

    I must also compliment you for calmly sticking to the facts of the matter so as to deny the SFA any opportunity to brand you a bampot or a hater.

    Keep up your good work, you set an example for all of us to follow. Bunnett duly doffed.

  14. Big Pink,

    Given the obvious SMSM omerta, has thought been given to SFM issuing a Press Release to our national and regional papers; TV channels and SPFL and SFA Member clubs asking them to call for the release of the legal opinion cited by the SFA’s Head of Communications?

    Please also outline in your response, the case for and against SFM taking such action?

  15. As an “obsessed” reader of this site, I just have to comment by saying how overwhelmed I am with the commitment seen by our most proactive contributors. It really is a comfort to know that so many people are dedicated to seeking the truth and spending their time sharing their information and hard work with us all.

    One thing – if I may add, that has always stuck in my mind, is that way back when the new club were starting in the bottom league was it not officially printed somewhere that the team playing was called “The Rangers” ?

    If this is the case, then surely at that point in time, the ‘powers that be’ (lower case ‘p’ !) had openly accepted that this is, in fact, a new club ?!…… When and under what circumstances was the decision made to suddenly change this to “Rangers” ?

  16. Given the obvious SMSM omerta, has thought been given to SFM issuing a Press Release to our national and regional papers; TV channels and SPFL and SFA Member clubs asking them to call for the release of the legal opinion cited by the SFA’s Head of Communications?

    Given their penchant for churnalism, it might even get printed 🙂

  17. HirsutePursuit at 12:57 am
    Great find HP…
    However, I’m more interested in this….. “(iii) all OTHER (my emphasis) creditors of the existing Full Member Club or Associate Member Club must be satisfied and evidenced as such;”

    A condition of the transfer of the licence to a new club or a continuity club would be based on paying ones debts….. even the face painter…..
    Now that would be honourable……………….18

  18. Fisiani 26th January 2016 at 11:38 pm # The strategy is clear.  assume that most people will tire of old club/new club eventually or already have. ignore the ‘obsessed haters’ who are all blogging but have no authority. one positive comment can negate or equate to twenty negative ones. appeal and appeal and appeal to drag out decisions till most have forgotten what they represented. so far it seems to be working. Let’s assume that a financial miracle occurs and this incarnation of a Rangers enters the Premiership in August. The Aberdeen programme should read ” We welcome the visitors to their first ever match at Pittodrie. The Celtic programme should read “We welcome the visitors to their first ever visit to Celtic Park. We either play along with the same club myth or we do not.
    Agree totally with this but not holding my breath on the programme statements!! Our clubs, through their silence, are complicit.

  19. Smugas 27th January 2016 at 12:26 am # – That’s a great summary of the OC/NC debate, and the question you pose is ,to me, one of the most interesting aspects of this never-ending story- why is this technicality of such overwhelming importance to the Bears?
    You would think that they have all they could ever have asked for -same strip, same badge, same name, same ground, levered into the Scottish league at the expense of others, thanks to the cunning and ingenuity of the world’s greatest football administrator. But, no, they have to have this “world’s most successful club” garbage to complete the set. That is the start and finish of it, that’s what get’s them worked up.
    I mentioned Middlesbrough yesterday- their fans have what they feared they were about to lose- a senior football team playing in Middlesbrough, called Middlesbrough, and playing in the old colours. Do they care about legal continuity? They couldn’t care less.
    I see Bradford mentioned above by Hirsute Pursuit. I worked with a lot of Bradford fans. Do they care about legal continuity? Not at all, they have their team playing at Valley Parade, and they didn’t end up in the amateur leagues like Bradford Park Avenue. Job done, as far as they are concerned.
    There is a very special mindset at Ibrox. I’m no psychologist, so I won’t even try to analyse it, but they certainly have this overwhelming need to be able to strut around in  “Billy Big Baws” fashion, proclaiming their total superiority. That’s what lies behind their truly pitiful “5 stars” schtick, and the fact that they proclaim themselves as more “successful” than Bayern or Barcelona or Real Madrid. It’s laughable- but also very sad. What kind of deep insecurity lies behind that? If they could just let go of that sort of nonsense, then I’m sure that they could have a positive role in Scottish football going forward. But so long as it’s all strutting around, and total supremacy at any price, then I honestly don’t see any place for them anywhere. At least, not any place where they’re welcome. 

  20. For anyone not paying attention a couple of interesting things happening over the last 24hrs.

    Phil Mac’s latest post that was related to a loan player heading homewards is apparently not available on his site. ‘Developing Story’ as the man himself would say?

    The Herald today has published an apology re a recent Graham Spiers article where it was alleged an Ibrox Directors liking for certain songs and the willingness of the board to tackle bigotry was questioned but already Spiers seems to have an issue about the manner in which the apology was worded.

  21. Do you people even bother to research properly? Or are you blinded by bitterness to the extent you choose to “ignore” certain facts because those facts destroy your never ending obsession? If you had bothered to check out these facts you could have saved this totally embarrassing trip to the SFA,who must shake their heads in utter bewilderment at you.
    Rangers Football Club changed ownership while the oldco was still in administration,at NO time did RFC cease to be. The SFA explained this fully but as i said,for some reason you have chosen to “ignore” this.
    “Agreement on transfer of membership.
    Friday, 27 July 2012
    Joint statement on behalf of The Scottish FA, The Scottish Premier League, The Scottish Football League and Sevco Scotland Ltd. We are pleased to confirm that agreement has been reached on all outstanding points relating to the transfer of the Scottish FA membership between Rangers FC (In Administration), and Sevco Scotland Ltd, who will be the new owners of The Rangers Football Club. There were a number of complex and challenging issues involved but, primarily, the Scottish FA had to be satisfied that the new owners of Rangers would operate in the best interests of the club, its fans and Scottish football in general.”
    New OWNERS of Rangers Football Club..and while still in adminstration. RFC at NO time ceased to exist. And while i disagree with some fellow Gers fans who say we were relegated,we were certainly voted OUT the league. Of course this alone could have been the death knell for Rangers,leaving the club with nowhere to play,fortunately,the SFL were not so blinded by bitterness and accomodated us in their league,indeed i remember this heart warming congratulations from the SFL CE David Longmuir printed in our matchday programme on the occassion of the club’s 140 years celebration.
    “On behalf of everyone at the Scottish Football League I would like to add my sincere congratulations to Rangers on Achieving this magnificant milestone in the club’s history.
    Rangers have brought great honour and distinction to Scottish football throughout these 140 years and the club has risen to every challenge it has faced. … There is something rather poignant that after 140 years the club is once again a member of the organisation it helped found in 1890 and we are honoured and proud to have Rangers in the league.
    To everyone involved in the club and its remarkable and loyal fans Happy Anniversary.”
    As stated above,the club’s corporate structure changed,and once again if you had bothered to research properly you would have known this. I wonder why you didn’t? The Advertising Standards Authority reply to those sad individuals (some of whom i suspect are on here) once again proved the above.
    “We consulted with UEFA, which explained that its rules allowed for the recognition of the “sporting continuity” of a club’s match record, even if that club’s corporate structure had changed. We also consulted with the SFA, which confirmed that its definition of a football “club” varied depending on context, and could sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club’s corporate owner. The SFA further pointed out that, following RFC’s transfer to a new corporate owner, Newco did not take a new membership of the Scottish FA but rather that the previous membership was transferred across to them so they could continue as the same member of the Scottish FA. We considered that consumers would understand that the claim in question related to the football club rather than to its owner and operator and we therefore concluded that it was not misleading for the ad to make reference to RFC’s history, which was separate to that of Newco.”
    And the European Club Assoc. also confirmed all of the above.
    “However, Rangers are permitted to hold associate membership, which holds no voting rights, as they are one of the founder members of the ECA. The organisation considers the club’s history to be continuous regardless of the change of company.”
    Founding members in 2008…not bad for a club formed in 2012 eh. I’m afraid tour peeing at the moon with this not to mention looking rather obsessed/foolish. And of course none of the above is unprecedented,numerous clubs have changed corporate structures yet remained the same club’s,a successful cva is not prerequisite to retaining a club’s status,a common error you all seem guilty of.
    And to finish off,and because i know it will have some of you banging your heads against wall’s in frustration,i thought you would all be delighted to hear that UEFA have now upgraded Rangers current squad..on the so called “old Rangers” page,and have Rangers last match listed as 2015..not 2012…again on the “old Rangers” page. (UEFA do not list lower league matches but they do list SC matches). UEFA will be reporting on Rangers as normal once the club return’s to the top league,hopefully next season,as UEFA stated “We consulted with UEFA, which explained that its rules allowed for the recognition of the “sporting continuity” of a club’s match record, even if that club’s corporate structure had changed.”
    Time to give this ridiculous crusade up,your doomed to failure,and appear out your depths when it comes to the facts of this matter. Simply WANTING something to be true,regardless of facts,won’t work. I could get a million people to sign a petition saying in our opinion the Moon was made of green cheese,but guess what,the Royal Astronomical Society,NASA and ROSCOSMOS would all say we are talking mince and it’s THEY who’s opinion counts. Just like it’s the SFA,SPFL and UEFA’s opinion that counts here..not some fans of other clubs who refuse to accept facts and move on.
    (and btw you can all fluster in your droves to “dislike” this entry but again,it matters not a jot,on the contrary,it entirely proves my point,that this is nothing to do with facts and everything to do with bitterness/jealousy).

  22. Not even a sniff of the biggest newsworthy event in Scotland yesterday in our complicit press. Mr. McRae sitting on “I am the SFA” Darryl Broadfoots knee, is telling but unsurprising.
    i have asked (on newspaper comments) why this story (which has social media buzzing) is ignored?
    my posts were, of course, deleted.
    Scary eh?

  23. ICTFC Press Release : 27th January 2016


    Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC are pleased to say that we are happy with the outcome of Saturday’s Pay What You Can initiative for our home match against Partick Thistle.

    Both home and away fans attending the game were given the opportunity to pay what they felt able to afford, which saw a rise in the expected attendance.

    3556 supporters, including 358 visitors, took in the match which finished honours even…gaining ICTFC a point which keeps us in the top half of the league table.  This was an increase of just over 800 fans from a comparable match in December 2014; the last time the two clubs met on a Saturday at 3pm in the Highland capital.

    Commercial Manager Iain Auld said: “We first trialled the ‘Pay What You Can’ initiative in January last year for a midweek fixture versus St Johnstone and the confidence gained from the fan’s response to that lead to the decision to run it again this year; and to do so for a Saturday 3pm match.”

    “The numbers still have to be fully analysed and we’ll also seek feedback from those attending for the first time and those who attend less regularly before drawing any definitive conclusions on where we go from here.  However, the data from this, and other initiatives, will allow us to better understand how many more Caley Thistle fans are out there just now and how much they are willing to pay. We’ll run that information alongside what we know of existing fans and then look to see what we can do to increase attendances on a more regular basis without jeopardising the club’s financial position.”

  24. Neepheid,

    Exactly!  Their list of demands seems to start and finish (bearing in mind, as you say, they had already got everything else they wanted; colours, names, songbook etc) with “tell us we didn’t go bust.”  Well somebody did!

    My point (hidden as always) was simply that had a true administrator stood up to them and said “Colours – yup, names- yup, songbook – eh wink wink, Tell you you didn’t go bust – Naw! but by the way your club obviously spiritually continues – if you listen nobody is actually saying its extinct as such, look at Middlesborough, – 11 men in blue ya de da take it or leave it”  how many I wonder would have left?

    Yes I would have raised an eyebrow at the phoenix issues but I accept that the laws the law.  I’ve said my piece about a name change, but again if thems the rules then thems the rules notwithstanding my previous point that if thems really are the rules (for all) then there’s still a massive big flashing sign for the next Romanov to come along for his bit of history (sorry E/AJ) and that surprises me.  

    Finally, on a tangent, and I’m conscious that I now seem to be becoming JJ’s cheer leader in chief I did want to copy over this question to him and answer given on his site last night.  I thought it captured the point perfectly and succinctly.

      Q (Paul).  One detail I am not clear on however (if I am reading your piece correctly). What was the purpose/motivation to rename RFC PLC to Rangers 2012 Ltd after the CVA was rejected since under any name it was then destined to be liquidated?

    Answer given (JJ)  To perpetrate the lie that TRFC was RFC, and that RFC 2012 was irrelevant as it was just a repository for debts.

    Credit where its due and all that! 

  25. John Clark 27th January 2016 at 12:49 am #Fisiani 26th January 2016 at 11:38 pm‘……so far it seems to be working…’________“Seems” is the operative word,Fisiani. There is not a club chairman who is sitting totally at ease with the ‘situation’.All, all, all of them know in their hearts, that they have collectively allowed themselves to be led by the nose, or by the wallet, into disavowing the very idea of honest Sport governance. No single one of them has yet had  the courage to say ‘NO’ to the debasement of Sport by the ready acceptance of cheating by the very folk who should be preventing cheating, the very folk they elect or appoint to office to ensure proper governance and effective administration( Ha!) Each of them is looking fearfully around. Probably afraid of each other, afraid to rock their own particular boat. So, no two of them , or three of them, or enough of them to constitute a quorum for an EGM  chave the will at the moment to  get together to sort out this whole mess in the only legitimate way it can be sorted.
    If what you say is the case John (and I’m not sure there is any evidence to support it) it is a truly pathetic position. These guys (and girls) should be leading and not being led. They are collectively responsible! My fear is that they are happy to go along with the “sit it out and it will go away” strategy. Hope not but the signs are not good.

  26. John Clark 27th January 2016 at 1:23 am 
    To be scrupulously fair, knowing that Mr McRae  had assumed office as President only 6 months or so ago, I could understand ( even though he has been in the SFA for quite a lot of years) that he might not have immediate, hands-on knowledge of what his predecessor-in-office might have been involved in.

    John, he was vice-president whilst the president, RCO, was ‘conflicted’. I think you’re being over-generous.

  27. Rocoe64

    Thank you for your contribution.  Welcome aboard.

    Can I ask, on the basis that you emphasise that “at no point did the (I’m assuming your) club cease to be” on what basis could a club (and that’s any club) ever “cease to be?” 

  28. Roscoe64 27th January 2016 at 11:03 am #
    Interesting post, but could you just clarify one point for me. You say ” And while i disagree with some fellow Gers fans who say we were relegated,we were certainly voted OUT the league.”
    Could you please provide a link to a report of the meeting at which RFC were voted out of the league? I must have missed that one.

  29. Roscoe64,

    Glad you popped in, and I am sure we are all happy to hear what you have to say. However the opening gambit, presupposing that any disagreement with your position is based on bitterness and a wholesale character defect on the part of fans of every club in Scotland (including your on club) is really just an ad hominem attack on our views.

    We all hope you will stay and argue your case, but we can’t continue to allow you the same leeway to insult everyone on the board in future.

    Anyone responding to Roscoe64 – please bear tha in mind if and when you reply.

  30. Roscoe64 27th January 2016 at 11:03 am

    So that’s two long posts in two days re the oldco/newco debate.

    Appreciate your arguments but the same questions still remain.

    If it was the same club (the one who finished 2nd in the SPL in season 2011/2012) why did the footballing authorities deem there was a need for a vote, of any kind, to remain in the SPL for season 2012/2013?
    (The 2nd place still stands as the required points deduction had been made for going into administration and no other footballing rules were broken that would result in demotion or any further punishment being dealt out to a member club)

    If it was the same club why did the footballing authorities not allow the club take up their rightful place in the UEFA Champions League third round qualifiers for season 2013/2013?

    If it was the same club why did the footballing authorities not allow the club to enter the 2012/2013 domestic Cup competitions at the appropriate stage based on the previous seasons 2nd place SPL finish? 

    If the club was the same club then why was there a need for the SFA to transfer anything, as suggested in the header of the article that is quoted?

    If the football club was so sure it was a continuing entity and treated so poorly and uniquely by the footballing authorities why has there been no legal challenge made by anyone at the club in the intervening time period?

    I appreciate that there is frustration on both sides of the argument.

    However can we agree that the matter could be cleared up once an for all by a definitive statement from the footballing authorities and publication of the 5 way agreement along with earlier drafts and an open and transparent explanation of the rationale behind it?

  31. Roscoe a couple of questions for you –

    “New OWNERS of Rangers Football Club..and while still in administration. RFC at NO time ceased to exist” – so why did Rangers RIP lose their place in the top league ?

    You refer to the “new owners” of Rangers – who were the old owners of Rangers ?

    Edit – 3rd question – why did Green “buy” the history ?

    Cheers in advance.

  32. Wottpi
    imagine,if you can ,someone on death row,as the years roll on the belief that the sentence will be changed must grow and will keep growing until the fateful day arrives,then the disbelief kicks in,until the fateful day arrives we are always going to have people shaking the mix of words hoping that they empty out in a favourable way as is happening with the latest new blogger,it ain’t going to change mate,believe me,shake away,if it gives you comfort but the outcome will still be terminal.

  33. Why were so many players allowed to walk away for free? Their registrations were cancelled because their employer no longer existed. That is why !
    Even the money due on Jelavic’s transfer’ to Everton was collected by BDO.

  34. STV report on this morning’s proceedings at the CoS.

    Mike Ashley has failed in a court bid to permanently block any future attempts by Rangers to prevent him from voting at general meetings.
    The Ibrox club tried to put a resolution to shareholders at their annual meeting in November to prevent any shareholder with an interest in another football club from having a say.
    Ashley, who is a near 9% shareholder at Rangers through MASH Holdings Limited, also holds a majority stake in Newcastle United.
    The Court of Session prevented the club from putting that matter to a vote in November.
    MASH Holdings then returned to the court on Wednesday seeking an order stopping Rangers from being able to raise the matter again at any future meetings.
    But Lord Tyre said it would not be legally correct to allow the request to be granted, stating his decision last year only applied to the relevant AGM.
    He ruled that if MASH Holdings wanted to stop such resolutions being put before shareholders, the company would have to instigate fresh legal proceedings.
    MASH Holdings will only be able to instigate such an action if they receive future notice from Rangers that the matter was to be considered at a shareholder meeting.

    I take the above to mean, not that Ashley failed in his argument, but only that he would have to seek a new ruling each time the club sought to curtail his voting rights.

  35. neepheid 27th January 2016 at 11:33 am
    Roscoe64 27th January 2016 at 11:03 am  Interesting post, but could you just clarify one point for me. You say ” And while i disagree with some fellow Gers fans who say we were relegated,we were certainly voted OUT the league.”Could you please provide a link to a report of the meeting at which RFC were voted out of the league? I must have missed that one.
    Roscoe64, If memory serves correctly, RFC were never “voted out the league”. In fact Charles Green and his new club Sevco Scotland made an application to join the SPL. This was unsuccessful with the votes cast as 10 against, 1 abstention, (Kilmarnock) and 1 for (RFC).
    This I further evidence that RFC and Sevco as separate clubs existed at the same time. Had the vote been 10 for and 1 abstention only, then it may have “suggested” RFC could be Sevco. But it was not the case. 

  36. In other news a defender has failed in his attempt to convince the ref that given its 5 minutes in and the fact its still nil nil suggests that he should just blow his whistle for full time now and that the striker should just give up trying.  The referee instead courted controversy by suggesting that the striker was welcome to strike for the next 85 minutes or so and the defender was welcome to defend. 

    STV Headline (at 3.05).  Defenders team fail to win match.  More to follow.07

  37. I suspect Roscoe64 and EdinMan (if there is indeed a distinction – the comments are so similar in intention) are unlikely to be posting much again, if ever, unless under a different guise; my fear is a more than considerable hint of the ‘I am’ man recently encountered by Mr Clark.
    May I also, albeit belatedly, congratulate the said JC on his exceptional effort as well as all other posters and indeed the entire SFM fraternity without whom I’d be even more in the dark than wot I am!

  38. whilst Rosco’s squirrel is the usual regurgitation of confused hearsay and made up stuff from no legal standing whatsoever, it is worth keeping in mind that both Duff & Phelps and BDO are legality bound (by the constraints of Company Law) to deal with facts.

    The facts are that RFC2012 (In Liquidation) formerly Rangers FC PLC 1872 was the Company and the Club. They were ‘synonymous’ on incorporation. *Rangers FC 1872 own Article’s of Association confirm this.
    Both BDO and D&P refer to Club and Company being synonymous…… as did the new *Rangers PLC in its notifications to the Stock Exchange when it was listed.
    End of argument…….

    BDO also helpfully point to a number of areas in which it cannot disassemble the facts. 

    “SPL Prize Money 2011/12 Season
    A number of creditors and shareholders have asked us to clarify how the SPL prize money due to the Company for finishing second in the 2011/12 season was dealt with. We can advise that the right to this prize money was sold to Newco as part of the business and assets of the Company. Subsequently, to gain entry into the Football League, both Newco and the Company agreed to waive any rights to this money, which was retained by the SPL.”

    LNS ‘Commission’ (a Commission led by SDM neighbour and friend, that was paid to give an opinion) also states:
    [45] Paragraphs 2 and 6 of the list of preliminary issues advance essentially the same argument, which is that on 14 June 2012, when the business and assets of Oldco were purchased and transferred to Newco, Rangers FC ceased to be a Club as defined in the Rules, and is accordingly not subject to the jurisdiction of the SPL, and thus of this Commission, in relation to any breach or breaches of the Rules committed in the period prior to that date. The SPL disputes that Rangers FC ceased to be a Club on 14 June 2012, and argues that the relevant date is 3 August 2012; but in our view nothing turns on the exact date, as all the breaches alleged in the Notice of Commission relate to a period before the earlier of these two dates.

    I have no issue with *Rangers fans claiming continuity (spiritually or otherwise). Its their belief. They are entitled to it. What is not acceptable is for anyone to deride this site for the debate they encourage.

    …………..Some ‘folk’ just won’t accept cheating or manipulation of the truth!

  39. CrownStBhoyi did notice a shared typographical quirk. i wonder if i was alone.

  40. Is it just me, or do recent interventions on this forum (welcome, of course)  raising an issue which has hardly surfaced on here for a long time as a live debate, indicate that “someone” sees the necessity of putting markers down pending an imminent event which might resurrect the whole OC/NC  argument as a live issue? 
    Or to put it more clearly, is this a precursor to an insolvency event? Maybe King feels that he has now seen off Ashley, so he has a clear path to start all over again, newnewco, another IPO, shares all round for the inner circle, Real Rangers Men in total control, fans groups 100% behind him, etc, etc.
    In that scenario, a forum like this might be seen as a minor obstruction, trying to generate opposition to the continuity theory, so a bit of softening up required? And it’s not just here, by the way, on the wider internet  there seems to be a lot of renewed heat around the OC/NC issue.
    Or am I getting too cynical in my old age?

  41. EdinMan and Roscoe64

    Thanks for your contributions, both of which have some merit.  My challenge to both of you is to define the status of any club playing out of Ibrox between July 13 2012 and August 3 2012.

  42. Gers fan here in peace, was directed to this site from JJ’s blog site.  Have been lifelong bear but never one to go along with the herd mentality of most of our fan forums.  I can see the logic in the new club debate from most of the posters on this site, but my thoughts mirror Alex Thomson whereby we are spiritually still the same club and that’s what really matters – not the company number at the bottom of rangers letterhead papers. 

  43. Bryce Curdy 27th January 2016 at 1:33 pm #EdinMan and Roscoe64
    Thanks for your contributions, both of which have some merit.  My challenge to both of you is to define the status of any club playing out of Ibrox between July 13 2012 and August 3 2012.

    Was it not “whitewater rafting in Idaho with Super Ally”? or was that Summer 2013?

  44. I was just thinking about that meeting with John Clark.  If I was McCrae I would be totally embarrassed.  Imagine being the President of an organisation, sitting like a dummy allowing a mere press officer to effectively host the meeting.  Yesterday I thought maybe it was because he was not up to speed with all that went on at the time (2012).  But I’ve since learned that he was the Vice President at the time.  So why rely on Broadfoot?

    And now it is in the public domain how weak he is.  Rather humiliating.  This on the back of the shambolic EK tie.   Heads should roll or at least a resignation.  McCrae’s and Broadfoot’s would be a start.  However blowtorches and necks spring to mind.

  45. Friendly bear, welcome aboard.

    I can only speak for myself but I see no problem in viewing The Rangers as the spiritual heirs to Rangers.

    Keep posting.

  46. Thank you for the welcome Jimbo.  I for one cannot wait for us to get promoted and halt your team’s inexorable climb to match our 54 titles 03

  47. Friendly Bear, welcome, and I say the same to our other recent (slightly angrier) TRFC* fan visitors. It’s hard to treat both sorts of fans the same because in life generally it’s much easier to like those who are like us (in this case, those who agree with us). However, it’s important that we debate the arguments of those fans who believe what they see/read – it might be that they’ve simply never seen some of the counter arguments we know about. For me, what would be really interesting is if Roscoe and Edinman stuck around long enough to give us their thoughts on the points already raised in response to their same club position.
    For me, Friendly Bear, I think your compromise that acceptance of the old club’s liquidation with old club fans happy to see the new entity as a repository for their ongoing support is probably the only way forward. Unfortunately, that doesn’t appeal to a large number of fans for whom the whole idea of adding to the 54 titles so they can stay ahead of CFC and, indeed, all other clubs in the world (!) is all that matters.

  48. The same club debate will rumble on for a long time, there is not avoiding that.  We so easily become entrenched in our viewpoints! Eventually, folk will get bored of it and it will be a foot note of history.  There are exciting times ahead for Scottish football with Rangers battling against resurgent Dons, Hearts and possibly even Hibs again for 2nd place.  Hopefully, there will be a lot more football and a lot less legal chatter at that point!

  49. friendlybear
    are you saying that you know this is a new club ? or do you think if one day you win the  premier league it will be 55?

  50. friendlybear 27th January 2016 at 2:08 pm # Gers fan here in peace, was directed to this site from JJ’s blog site.  Have been lifelong bear but never one to go along with the herd mentality of most of our fan forums.  I can see the logic in the new club debate from most of the posters on this site, but my thoughts mirror Alex Thomson whereby we are spiritually still the same club and that’s what really matters –
    Welcome friendlybear.
    As a Hearts fan who saw his club nearly implode/explode the way Rangers did I can empathise with your point of view. I would certainly be of the same mind if it was HMFC , “my” club. They’d still be the same club , playing in the same stadium and I’d still see the same bunch of mates I’ve known for 40 years at Tynecastle. Spiritually.
    As you can probably gather I have no connection to Glasgow or any  leaning  either way to Celtic or Rangers (honestly) but as a long time lurker and infrequent poster I find it amazing that the media in Scotland are so fixated about the newco debate. By fixated , I mean their collective and complete unwillingness to talk about the facts of what happened to Rangers. On the very rare occasion that it happens the wrath of Rangers fans is brought down upon them as though God himself has been offended. It’s a strange one for  me – devotees  of historical fact are denounced as Rangers haters , as being “obsessed” when , really all we’re asking for is that the facts of Rangers demise are accurately and honestly reported. Sure , spiritually , Rangers will remain unchanged in the eyes of their fans (and in reality , in the eyes of most non Rangers fans too in my opinion ).
    But that doesn’t mean that things are the same.

    I look forward to more input from Bears fans, yourself too.

  51. I agree Friendly Bear.  Right up to the moment the latest Sugar Daddy ‘does a Mileson’ grabs a trophy or two, sheds the debt (as it turns out there wasn’t any sugar, just sh!te) and then claims that spiritually its all the same thing in the end, apart from the debt obviously.  There I see problems! And not just for the re-emergent club but for the poor sods that were beaten into 2nd, 3rd etc. But that’s not Rangers fault per se.  In fact, I am actually slightly surprised that King hasn’t tried it himself yet!  

  52. Confirmation in today’s CoS Roll that Charles Green’s appeal against Lord Doherty’s legal fees decision will go ahead on Friday.

    Friday 29th January
    Summar Roll
    CA196/15 Reclaiming Motion (Lord Doherty) in the cause Charles Green v Rangers International Football Club Plc
    DAC Beachcroft Scotland LLP
    Anderson Strathern LLP

  53. Yes, I agree there is merit in the argument to say that technically we are a new club but I believe there is spiritual continuity and that includes the titles won as well! You have to understand the majority of the fans have or had little or no say in how the club was ran before administration so why should the legacy of the club be damaged by one or two individuals? I know quite a few staunch fellow fans but also some more open-minded ones and none of us would relinquish our claim to our historical titles and results. I do agree that there have been many a rotten apple at or near the running of my club and also the SFA in recent times, and the game can only move forward with more transparency on these points.

  54. Big Pink – any chance you can add/enable the “traffic stats” addon for wordpress – so we can all see how popular – and our detractors ?

    Having moved to a business footing – knowing daily traffic would be key to viewers knowing if this strong vibrant site or not.
    Its a double-edge sword but if we are successful would be nice to know…. some great articles – but counting comments/thumbs very hard to gauge readerships….

  55. Hi friendlybear and welcome to SFM.I have no problem with the ‘spiritual’ argument you put forward as a belief held by yourself and many level headed aquaintances of yours; it’s just that the reaction from a lot of people who claim similar reasoned and logical minds when presented with the actualités of the matter sometimes borders on a hysterical fundamentalism that puzzles me. Claim all the titles you want , sing in praise of your history but don’t ask the rest of us to subscribe to such beliefs . The Rangers FC fans can claim anything they want but have no exclusive right to the truth.
    “facts are chiels that winna ding..”
    Oft quoted here and very apposite.

  56. Friendly bear,

    The fans can spiritually lay claim to the titles in my eyes.  I didn’t say said that they couldn’t.  But my take on history deals in hard facts.  Your “one or two individuals” were Rangers, for better or, as it turned out, very worse.  If you had issues with what they were doing you could always vote them out.  It was the fan’s collective spirit that held those cups aloft for sure.  But it was the cold hard factual ‘club’ that went down in the book and got etched on the side of the pot.  If you are arguing that the spiritual side wins the day, to the mutual exclusion of any pesky wee facts like company history or debt repayment for that matter then fine. Good luck in your league of one, to be won perpetually by whichever club chooses to stretch, embellish and defraud on the back of that spirit the furthest.


  57. friendlybear at 4:35 pm
    Hello friendlybear, I believe this is a website open to all, *subject to conviviality and gentlemanly (occasionally ladies) conduct. Hopefully you can add to the considered debate. 02

    Not wishing to draw you into battle……. (or whataboutery) but out of genuine interest (as I have many ‘Gers fans that on the face of it, appear to think like you) ……..what do you think should/could have been done in regards to the Tax issue should it be found that the players were genuinely using a scheme to evade tax. Financial advantage aside, would you deem that fair? Should titles won be set aside with an asterisk?
    If LNS is reopened/ reconsidered due to the legality would a fair result be setting aside if proven that “cheating” did occur?

  58. Friendly Bear, so are you saying that although you accept “there is merit in the argument” that you are a new club, you still think that new club should be able to add to the other club’s trophy haul, rather than start its own trophy haul?
    If so, I’m not sure of your logic – how does a new club add to something it didn’t achieve?

  59. Isnt it amazing?
    Somebody goes to the bother of copying JCs SFA meeting notes within 24 hrs of them being posted on here
    It warrants barely a mention and fails to gain any traction on SFM
    Then lo and behold
    Two verbose  but angry squirrels  and 2 not verbose but  friendly squirrels appear with similar agendas  i.e. lets talk over and over again about OC/NC
    and not about court cases or the endemic corruption and lying of our governing bodies
    Just like Level 5 did
    And Jack Irvine
    And D&P Corporate HQ
    If we need a break from hammering our corrupt officials
    I would be interested in what is motivating these squirrels

  60. goosygoosy
    and with squirrels you get nuts,all very predictable

  61. John Clark.
    Belated Bunnet.
    I see that Mr Clark’s opus is getting Big Love over on Kerrydale Street (Press Watch Thread; Page 611 et sequitur). And quite rightly too.
    Many points leap out of the page from Mr Clark’s Note.
    “…the legal advice obtained was that Mr Green’s new club was not a new club, and the Authorities were stuck with that.”
    Leaving aside the terminological illogicality (new club not new club?) if this approach were to be universally adopted it would mean an end to Trials, Debates, Proofs and Hearings.
    In every case at least one side, and possibly both sides, be they Prosecution, Accused, Pursuer, Defender, Appellant, Respondent, Applicant et cetera will obtain legal advice that the other side’s position is tenable no matter how tenuous. If the other side didn’t have a position they wouldn’t be there. They would have pled Guilty or allowed Decree to pass against them.
    The notion that anyone obtains legal advice and is “stuck with that” is, as Sir Humphrey Appleby would say, bold, brave and courageous. Or to put it another way; wrong.
    However the point which really leapt out was Darryl Broadfoot’s opening gambit.
    Please tell me that when Mr Broadfoot proclaimed “I AM THE SFA” he did so in “I AM THE LAW” Judge Dredd style.
    Oh, and welcome to our new friends, squirrel or otherwise.

  62. Goosygoosy I can I’m not an agent provocateur paid by Irvine, level 5 or otherwise 🙂 this thread is about John Clark going to visit the SFA and one of the main talking points is the same club debate so it’s not really a squirrel! I decided to come on here because it seems like a good forum for reasoned debate and there is a serious under representation of bears too! 

    A friend of mine is a Cardiff fan whose biggest rivals in the past were Newport. They suffered a serious demise in the late 80s and disappeared as a club. He said the Cardiff fans loved it at the time and revelled in newports misfortune. Howevver, after some time he missed the rivalry and wished things hadn’t turned out that way. 

  63. Looks like Dundee United are holding Hearts to ransom, or is it John Souttar that is being held to ransom, I never quite understood the concept 09 mooted by the Sevco press. Whether or not Hearts manage to sign this promising talent, I hope my club conduct themselves in a seemly manner and don’t resort to tears in the press over how unfair it is for a club to hold onto a player they clearly need to hold onto. Good luck to the lad wherever he plays his football in the future.

  64. FWIT, and despite Friendly’s denial, I tend to side with Goosey here. 
    Fours years in and, IIRC, just Adam and Ryan having  contributed here, we suddenly have two angry bears balanced with two friendly bears who gave popped up to engage with SFM.
    Coincidence following on from JC’s bunker visit?
    Not for me, at this moment in time at any rate.
    Let’s wait and see how the cut of all their jibs develops, as Big DJ would say.
    i really think John has touched some raw nerves here..
    Lets be careful out there, as Sgt Phil Esterhazy used to say re the Blues on Hill St.

  65. Roscoe 64

    I try to avoid the OC/NC discussion. It’s not my club so believe what you like, but RFC were not a bowling club or a rifle club or a rambling club.  They were a “football club”. That is so self evident that to deny it would be delusional.

    So on that basis  –  RFC was a football club playing in the SPL in 2012 when something happened to it. It could no longer operate as a football club in the SPL because it had run out of money. 

    It was able to put a team on the park until the end of the 2011/12 season but in June 2012 it failed to obtain a CVA which meant that it could not start playing football in the following season because it could no longer afford to do so. Recognition of this fact (which led to entering liquidation) is what governed and allowed what happened next.
    The SPL did not vote RFC out. There was no RFC in the form of the football club that had ended the season TO vote out. To football, RFC had ceased to be a football club because, guess what? It was no longer able to play football! A football club that is not able to play football is not a football club. It’s not anything.

    Thus a gap arose in the SPL for another club to take the place of RFC. Efforts to fill that gap with a direct replacement of RFC (note replacement not RFC itself)  were resisted by fans of other clubs who saw such an event as making a travesty of the game. 
    Everything that happened from June 2012 had one single Prime Cause. RFC had ceased to be a football club playing football because of debt. Just like Third Lanark or Gretna. 
    There were no rules to cover what happened. Just consequences that had to be faced and damage to the game minimised.
    CG bought the place where football had been played by RFC. He even hired some of the same players whilst others, who had been contracted to RFC, were able to find jobs elsewhere because RFC were unable to honour the contracts with them and TUPE meant they did not HAVE to join TRFC. TUPE gave them that right, but the failure of RFC as a football club to honour their contracts that gave them the right to walk away from RFC  without TRFC, who had never employed them, getting paid a transfer fee. They simply were not and never had been in their past TRFC’S to transfer. 

    The 5 way etc was about allowing whoever bought Ibrox the ability to run a football club from there. Transfers of SPL shares, transfers of SFA Membership etc etc are all just deflections from the Prime Cause. RFC as a football club ceased playing football at the end of season 2011/12 because of debt.

    The football club that started to play football at Ibrox from Aug 2012 started debt free because it wasn’t RFC. 

    Twist it, turn it, slice it or dice it, the football club playing football at Ibrox is not the one who ended when season 2011/12 did. Well not to me and I suspect many others, but as I said I’ve no concerns what you and fellow supporters want to believe,  but don’t ask me to believe something that flies in the face of events at the time and which are being rewritten since  to preserve a version of  history that simply did not happen.

  66. TBK to answer your question on the EBT issue, I’ve been in denial about it for a while but on the face of it, it doesn’t look good for the club and I can understand the anger from other fans on this issue. Quite a lot of rangers fans are angry at David Murray using these kinds of schemes with such poor advice. If BDO appeal fails and it’s found that Rangers did break the rules, I do agree the titles shouldn’t stand, however hard that will be to stomach I think that is needed for Scottish football to move on from this.  Would you and other opposition fans be more accepting of rangers keeping their claim to historical titles if we got stripped of the ‘EBT titles?

  67.   Friendly Bear. I have no reason to doubt it, and have one as a brother. We talk fitba often, and his wee puzzled bemused face is always a giggle for me. I think you have probably worn a similar expression at least a couple of times today. 
        You are more than welcome to your “spiritual” club, as he is. I have no issue with that. However not your spiritual titles……..Because the spirits were cheating. 
       I hope you hang around and discuss ways in which we can find ways to recognise, address, and rectify all that these malevolent spirits have done to our game though.   Trust me ! There was nothing “Casper” about the mysterious moving of goalposts, and bumps in the night.
          If you look closely enough you can see the wires, and the SFA sitting in the shadows going “Whooo-ooo-ooo-ooo!” for added effect. They can’t really walk through walls in this dimension you know. It’s just tricks. 
       Switch the light on and you will see them. 
       Disagreement forms a large part of this site as long as it is courteous. Speculation also happens, and remains speculation until such time as it is proven or disproven. The important thing to remember is acceptance of said proof, when it can no longer be argued otherwise.  
       Unfortunately Trolls sometimes wander through, which not only becomes tiresome but is often used to distract. For example, what led you to assume the site was under-represented by your clubs followers, on your first visit here?… Considering there are some very long posts stipulating an argument for same club in this thread, that is some achievement .   

  68. I would like to welcome ALL our new posters, agree with them or not, we are indeed broad church, all comments, within the bounds of decency are welcome. However, I had though that this site had done the oldco/newco to death. Why has it been resurrected, each of us have our own ideas about that. However the main tenet of the Govan team,s faith appears to be the hallowed 54 title world record, if memory serves me correctly, their nearest Scottish rivals have amassed 46 titles, it is unlikely, but not beyond the bounds of possibility, that Celtic will surpass the magical 54, were will leave fans of the Govan club then? I bet they had now wished they had paid their taxes like the rest of us.

  69. Corrupt official. I’ve lurked in here before as I do also on kerrydale street, jambos kickback, afc chat as well. Always interesting to see what other fans are saying about rangers, awhich is usually quite a lot. Haven’t visited in a while here but recently there was a thread on rangers media about John clarks visit to the sea which made me come back for a look. The fact a couple of other bears were posting gave me the courage to do so myself! Simple as that really and I would like to stay on and contribute to debate also if you’ll have me 🙂

  70. friendlybear 27th January 2016 at 8:07 pm .
         I would like to stay on and contribute to debate also if you’ll have me. 
       Site bouncer isn’t really my job FB,  22   

  71. friendlybear 27th January 2016 at 7:48 pm
    “Would you and other opposition fans be more accepting of rangers keeping their claim to historical titles if we got stripped of the ‘EBT titles?”

    Totally missing the point friendlybear. The loss of any titles will be as a consequence of cheating and is not a bargaining point and will be lost from RFC not TRFC. while the rest of scottish football will eventually rectify the record you can still keep your spiritual 54 ..and even possibly add a substantive Petrofac cup to it . I note you seem unwilling to engage regarding the logical questioning of your club status.

  72. Allyjambo 27th January 2016 at 7:29 pm

    If Hearts land Soutar it will hopefully be for a reasonable fee that was agreed via amicable negotiation.

    The matter was discussed on Sportsound and the Charlie Telfer saga (circa £200k via a tribunal) was mentioned as being a fee that United may have in their mind given Soutar has 70 appearances for the club. Of course it has to be remembered that Charlie Telfer’s first team appearances were … ehhh 1. 

    Similarly Hearts let Jason Holt go to T’Rangers for £60k to allow the lad to get a game and he is going down a storm at Ibrox.

    The reported offer of around £100k seems reasonable IMHO but the waters have been well and truly muddied by the sum plucked out of the sky re Charlie Telfer.

  73. friendlybear 27th January 2016 at 7:48 pm #

    Would you and other opposition fans be more accepting of rangers keeping their claim to historical titles if we got stripped of the ‘EBT titles?

    You cannot be “stripped” of that which you never had.

    Neither can you retain a claim to that which you never had.

    This is not about compromise, it is about honesty.

    However if you want to talk about compromise and moving forward here’s a suggestion. Your argument would only hold any water whatsoever if your claim to being the same club also recognised that the tax stolen is also due from the “same club” and the debts owed to other creditors is also due from the “same club”.

    You can have it either way as far as I am concerned. Make the decision and I will not debate it, I will accept what you have decided.

    Be the same club and recognise the debt, accept you owe other people around £100m. Pay back the money you owe.

    Be a new club and don’t have that debt, but don’t claim the titles and trophies either. Move forward accepting reality. The previous club stole all of those millions, but it is not your debt.

    I am a reasonable person, you choose. I will accept either one.

Comments are closed.