Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey

By

I’ve just been catching up with recent posts including those surrounding …

Comment on Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey by Allyjambo.

I’ve just been catching up with recent posts including those surrounding the SFSA and have to say that, as someone who likes to see a ‘Devil’s Advocate’ approach to any debate, I am glad that Goosy Goosy has questioned the integrity of the SFSA. As usual, a Devil’s Advocate has brought an opportunity to the blog to look a bit more in depth at a subject, and though nothing is finalised, both sides of the argument were well put and we may now have a clearer picture of what the organisation is about, or we may not, but my, and I’m sure others, own opinions will have a bit more information on which to form that opinion.

I’ve stated before that I will judge the effectiveness of the SFSA by what they say or do about the biggest ongoing disgrace Scottish football has ever known, but if they choose to do nothing, that doesn’t mean they are useless, or compromised, just that we shall be left to make up our own minds as to whether or not to support them in what they try to do.

In my opinion, if we join them (as individuals) we will be able to, perhaps, influence their policies, if not, we won’t. In the meantime, though, it will be important that we don’t take out eyes off the ball, thinking some better organised outfit is going to sort this great wrong out, and continue as we have always done – keeping this issue at the forefront of Scottish football, constantly looking for a way to find justice!!

Allyjambo Also Commented

Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
ERNIEAUGUST 4, 2017 at 13:02

‘…the reality of liquidation, i.e. one ceases to exist, is the whole bloody point and is intended to be a drastic, non reversible last resort for businesses in distress.’
____________

And it is there, Ernie, that we see the what makes the concept of limited companies, and the insolvency laws surrounding it, acceptable to society. It is also what made it possible for lenders (banks) to lend to football companies (clubs) to a level not backed by their commercial prospects or heritable assets.

Even Bank of Scotland wouldn’t have lent the millions it did to Rangers if it was possible for the club to be seperated from the company in the event of insolvency. The biggest factor in lending way past the value of it’s security and/or commercial prospects to Rangers Football Club plc, was the words ‘football club’. For the bank knew, that under the law, it could have no recourse to shareholders, regardless of how wealthy they were, other than the (unspoken) threat that it would mean the death of the club. They would undoubtedly have believed that the directors would automatically dig deep (as has so often been the case) to keep the club alive, or someone else would. There is no way on earth that any football club would ever have received the level of bank support they all have, if there was ever the remotest possibility that a club could continue past liquidation! It is a nonsensical fantasy, and that is why the argument continues, for there can be no evidence of this continuation, and it is impossible to get people who believe in fantasies to accept the truth, especially when their belief is supported by those who fear the consequences of that truth.


Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
HighlanderAugust 4, 2017 at 07:40

The thing is, Highlander, that not one of those luminaries quoted has ever attempted to explain what it was that caused them to change their mind on the subject. All anyone who supports the myth ever says, is, ‘so and so says they are the same club…!’

Anyway, here’s a wee thought. Why was it that neither Doncaster, nor any member of the SPL, pointed out, prior to the failure of the Rangers CVA, that, according to it’s own rules, a liquidated club carries on regardless? Could it be that that ‘get out your coffin free clause’ was only ever going to be used to the benefit of one club, and if Rangers hadn’t died, no one would have ever thought to introduce it as a lifeline for a corpse?


Launch of SFSA Fans’ Survey
BallyargusAugust 2, 2017 at 17:29

I have written to Ann Budge in the past, and despite receiving a very pleasant acknowledgement of my email from her assistant, I received nothing from the woman herself. Towards the end of last season she issued an update of how things are going at the club and included a mention that she was too busy (club and SPFL business, I think it was) to respond to supporters’ communications.

I’ve written previously of how, in that same update, she said that she was surprised at the supporters affection for the old stand (many supporters were expressing how much it would be missed) in a way that suggested to me that she doesn’t quite ‘get’ football, and what it is that keeps bringing supporters back at a club that is more often starved of success than harvesting trophies.

In short, I doubt she ‘gets’ the issues around Rangers use of EBTs, and views it in a way that she asks herself, ‘will Hearts benefit from any sort of review?’ and, sadly, I’m sure the answer she gets from her business brain is, ‘no’. There are also issues around Hearts’ building of the new stand that might be bringing pressure to bear on her. In the run up to the FFP Euro place shenanigans, she was desperately trying to get agreement to have Hearts first four matches played away from home, along with an agreement to use Murrayfield should Tynecastle not be ready for the first home game (against Aberdeen we now know). Could you imagine what might have happened should Hearts have appealed for that Euro spot at the disadvantage of TRFC? The fixtures hadn’t been announced, so what are the chances that Hearts first home match would have seen TRFC as visitors, and what are the chances of them agreeing to a change of venue?

Now, I am not suggesting that that’s how it would have worked out, but it wouldn’t take much to put that fear into someone’s head while looking down the barrel of a £12m plus investment going wrong!

Football people, that’s you and me, couldn’t understand why Ann Budge didn’t go for that Euro spot, but to me the reason was most likely one of money. Hearts were more likely to lose money (a home gate maximum of around 12,000) than make any; and unlikely to progress with such an unsettled squad. So Mrs Budge had little incentive, of the kind she understands, to battle it out with the SFA and their favoured club.

I have never been of the opinion that Ann Budge (or Leanne Dempster) was going to be ‘good’ for Scottish football, any more than any other new arrival on the scene might be. I do, though, think she will be good for Hearts, and is only going to use her position at the SPFL to ensure that Hearts are fairly represented in everything that goes on there. If she thinks TRFC are being benefitted at Hearts, and every other club’s, disadvantage, then she will act, I am certain of that, but she is not going to do any more than anyone else to right old wrongs that won’t benefit Hearts now!

These are all my own thoughts, and I don’t know the woman any better than anyone else on here, but my cynicism towards the people who run our game, and towards all those incredibly successful business people, like Ann Budge, knows no bounds.


Recent Comments by Allyjambo

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Big PinkJanuary 2, 2018 at 13:54 
AJI suspect the TDs are not from SFM folk (remember the ratings are available to all manner of trolls). It is a disgusting world-view if made in earnest. A shocking way to score a point if not.
_________________-

I didn’t, for a moment, suspect they were from anyone who posts here, even the more prolific troll posters are better than that, I am sure. 

For some time now I have had the feeling that there is someone, or some people, coming on here and just TDing a number of posts without bothering to read their content, either out of malice or as some sort of concerted effort on behalf of people with reason to dislike our message. It really is quite strange how, suddenly, a number of posts receive one, two or occasionally three thumbs down in very short order, and often posts like uth’s, that could offend no one, receive these petty TDs as a result. 

I can honestly say that I have never read anything from our regular, or occasional, posters that might suggest they would TD anything relating to that terrible day. I include, of course, all supporters of Celtic and RFC/TRFC who have, over the years, made their arguments on SFM. My experience of Celtic supporters talking of that day is one that leaves me certain in the knowledge that only the basest of their support (and we all have them) were not badly effected by the disaster and in full sympathy with the deceased, their families and the wider Rangers support. 

I can still remember that night, sitting in the Queens Arms in Edinburgh, watching the death count rising on the TV, waiting for one of our mates we knew was at the game, getting more and more nervous until he appeared. It had a lasting effect on me.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
upthehoopsJanuary 2, 2018 at 08:52 29 2
Rate This
On this day in 1971, the Ibrox disaster happened during a Rangers v Celtic game at Ibrox. 66 fans died in a crush. Some of us remember that day, some of us may even have been there, while some of us would not even be on this earth at the time. We are all football fans. Nobody should go to a football match and never return home. Rest in Peace.
_____________

Wow! I know we are not meant to put much store on the thumbs up or down, but two people have given thumbs down to this post! Who on earth could find fault with a post respecting the dead from the Ibrox disaster?

It kind of confirms my belief that there are people coming onto this site who don’t read the posts, but are assigned with the task of creating the appearance that there is some disagreement with posts that mostly criticise Rangers(IL) and TRFC and hit the TD button without thought.

Alternatively, of course, it could just be that others, like myself, have difficulty hitting the correct symbol on tablets or mobile phones, I certainly hope that is the case here.

Thanks to Upthehoops for reminding us of that sad day, something we should do every year as a mark of respect for those who died on Scottish football’s worst day.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
DarkbeforedawnJanuary 2, 2018 at 03:48 
Stevie BC, the issue with declaring himself bankrupt is it stops him holding any director role in a company in the UK and possibly South Africa. I can’t see him doing that “for the sake of the club”. I think like Murray before him he likes the limelight. He knows very well the best option for the club would be resign as any acting party in the club and still provide the soft loans. It would take all scrutiny away from the club and could leave the chairman role to someone more respected such as Alistair Johnston. That would stop the risk of the TOP ruling having such a huge impact on the club. It’s the selfless and obvious choice to make and he could still be seen as the saviour from abroad saving the club through loans, but he wouldn’t get the same exposure he so much craves. His defiance is what will lead to his downfall and his selfishness could lead lead to the downfall of the club.
_______________________

DBD, though I used your above post to highlight the impossibility of separating club from company, I have to agree, to some extent, with the thrust of the post. While I am not sure that by declaring himself bankrupt that King could escape the wrath of the TOP and CoS, he isn’t going to do anything for the benefit of your club if it doesn’t benefit him, or save him, at the same time.

That said, however, King’s ‘ownership’ of the NOAL Trust was established in court to the judge’s satisfaction, and I doubt that he would get away with making further loans to RIFC plc through it or any other hidden avenue, once declared bankrupt. Indeed, despite my limited knowledge of bankruptcy laws, I am certain that King (or anyone else) can’t just announce bankruptcy and clear themselves of all fiscal responsibilities, they have to prove they have no money to meet their debts, and as far as we know, King doesn’t have any – and if he had, the court would make sure the funds in his NOAL Trust would be used to meet them, as far as possible, with, I am sure, an investigation into what other (disguised)investments he holds. One thing’s for sure, he would not be allowed to ‘lend’ any money to RIFC/TRFC, and, if he does, indeed, have substantial debts, his creditors might well force the return of his existing RIFC loans to meet his debts.

One thing’s for sure, the law will not allow someone to avoid the consequences of breaking the laws and regulations of the land by availing one’s self of the laws of bankruptcy! While a little tax cheating scrote like Barry Ferguson might get away with transferring his assets to his wife, just prior to receiving his tax bill, King and his money are already on the court’s radar and I doubt that even his Masonic connections would be enough to let him get away with further fraudulent behaviour.

Something I am sure of, and has to be considered before wondering if bankruptcy is a way out for both/either King or RIFC, and that is – you have to have debts that you demonstrably can’t meet before you can petition for bankruptcy. Unless King has very substantial debts, that outweigh, at least, the funds held in the NOAL Trust, then he has no grounds to declare himself bankrupt.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
DarkbeforedawnJanuary 2, 2018 at 03:48 
Stevie BC, the issue with declaring himself bankrupt is it stops him holding any director role in a company in the UK and possibly South Africa. I can’t see him doing that “for the sake of the club”. I think like Murray before him he likes the limelight. He knows very well the best option for the club would be resign as any acting party in the club and still provide the soft loans. It would take all scrutiny away from the club and could leave the chairman role to someone more respected such as Alistair Johnston. That would stop the risk of the TOP ruling having such a huge impact on the club. It’s the selfless and obvious choice to make and he could still be seen as the saviour from abroad saving the club through loans, but he wouldn’t get the same exposure he so much craves. His defiance is what will lead to his downfall and his selfishness could lead lead to the downfall of the club.
_________________

Hi, DBD, and a Happy New Year to you.

While your recent posts have been pretty good, showing a realistic approach to what’s happening at your club, might I ask how it could be that the chairman of RIFC’s selfishness, and I presume you include his dishonesty in that, could lead to your club’s downfall, if, as you’ve previously claimed, the club is separate from the company? Surely, in your belief structure, it would only be the company, TRFC Ltd, that would ‘fall down’, and the club would just sit around, responsible for none of the inherent financial chicanery of the ‘overspend our way to success’ ethos that permeates at Ibrox, until some new ‘football company’ is set up to carry the can again!

I know it’s a bit early in the year to reintroduce the OC/NC debate, but I am wondering if you’ve, perhaps, come to realise that the idea that a football club can, for some skewed reason, escape the consequences of it’s own greed, is pretty ludicrous?


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
ODDJOBJANUARY 1, 2018 at 13:42
Allyjambo,Thanks.I also suspect that the assignation of ” ra deeds” would provoke an angry response in some quarters
___________

And I suspect that the assignation of ‘ra deeds’, should it ever come to pass, might well be the last throw of the dice! What’s more, once any assets are used as security, it reduces the amount the current lenders are likely to get in the event of liquidation. It may well be that the directors, who are now refusing to give more loans, have, rather than reached the end of their free funds, decided that the lending has reached a level greater than, or close to, the total value of the group’s assets.

It’s one thing lending without security when in a position to ensure there is enough in the pot to, more or less, cover the amount of the loans, it’s an altogether different thing once someone else gets that security!

Whatever the accounts give as a value for the fixed and current assets, the directors will all have a very good idea of the realisable value of those assets (particularly the heritable asset value), and should total creditors begin to outstrip that value, they may well begin to wonder if it’s time to call in the administrators. Granting security over some of the heritable assets would only hasten the moment for unpleasant decisions.

If PMGB is correct in saying King is looking out for loans secured on the club’s heritable assets, then I am certain that the rest of the directors would carry out proper due diligence on the potential lenders before granting any security. Not that they have any dodgy characters in their midst, or anything, just that they are canny businessmen.


About the author