Since I have lost my voice this week to the Armageddon virus, we decided to do a mini, written version of TWM for your pleasure….
In Armageddon Lala Land (© S. Regan), it’s all falling apart in a major borefest.
The explosive first thirteen minutes of the match involving the two top teams in the country were just a dream from which we all sadly awoke – although in my experience one usually gets roused from a dream just as the good bit begins!
Meanwhile nobody in Airdrie, Alloa, Annan, Brechin, Cowdenbeath, Dundee, Forfar, Greenock, Kirkcaldy, Montrose, Peterhead, or East Kilbride noticed anything exciting about the playoffs – and to make matters worse, folk in Cowdenbeath & EK, Forfar & Peterhead, Brechin & Alloa and Dundee & Falkirk have more of this trouser-removal process to endure later this week.
The facts, despite the SFA, SPFL and MSM trying to undersell our game here in Scotland, tell a different story. The playoff system – after close finishes in all the leagues, top and bottom, is pure drama.
There will be tears and laughter in unequal measure of course. Already, Raith Rovers, the great love of our old friend the late Turnbull Hutton have joined Ayr United and Stenhousemuir in relegation. The same fate may yet befall two from Inverness, Motherwell and Hamilton in the top league. The Blue Brazil themselves, Cowdenbeath could face banishment from the SPFL altogether if they cannot beat the upwardly East Kilbride next week.
The truth is, that keeping expectations in a realistic check, the game in Scotland is in better shape than it has been for decades. The delusional, acquisitional David Murray-led charge to financial oblivion has ended. Clubs, well most of them anyway, are living within their means. Thankfully the banks, enablers of the financial doping of the last thirty years, are now playing the role of limiting the excesses of overspending that clubs previously enjoyed.
Doubts over the distribution of the available income streams aside, there is level playing field on which Scottish clubs play, and over the last few years, a host of clubs, including Inverness, Ross County, St Mirren, Kilmarnock and St Johnstone have achieved historic successes. Aberdeen have re-emerged as the second most consistent side in the country after several years of consistency that only Champions Celtic have bettered.
In fact the quality of attacking play – if not defending- on show at Pittodrie on Friday evening would have graced any top flight game in England. It is now to Celtic and Aberdeen as well as our other clubs in European competition, Rangers and St Johnstone, to demonstrate that Scottish football may well be the poor relations in the UK, but is no backwater hangout for hillbillies and banjo players
Celtic’s dominance of course is the elephant in the room. It’s a big cuddly green and white elephant of course if you are a Celtic fan, but phase two of post Armageddon Scotland will hopefully involve a meaningful challenge at the very top over the next few years.
Craig Whyte
Whisky Baron?
The Craig Whyte trial continued in Glasgow last week. The former Rangers chairman faces charges including one of ‘pretending’ to have funds to facilitate the ‘purchase’ of ‘Rangers’.
Things the court has heard from testimony up to now include;
- the claim that Ex-Rangers chief executive Martin Bain got a £360k bonus for the sale of the club,
- that Gary Withey, Craig Whyte’s lawyer through the acquisition of Rangers, thought that Whyte was a member of the Whyte & McKay Whisky company!
- that Ally McCoist had a contract with a substantial payoff clause if he was not chosen to succeed Walter Smith.
- Rangers already owed £6m to Ticketus at the time Whyte took over
- that David Murray had a deal with Lloyds: If he sold Rangers by a certain date, he would be able to regain ownership of MIM
Gary Withey, told the court that he thought Murray was desperate to get the deal over the line, that Murray’s team didn’t care where Whyte’s money had come from, and that in his opinion they knew that the deal was financed via Ticketus – this after the court had heard from other witnesses that Lloyd’s bank had threatened to withdraw Rangers’ credit and finance facilities if the board blocked the sale.
Significantly for matters outwith the confines of the case – and this has been incredibly under-reported by the main stream media – David Murray also told the court earlier that he had used EBT’s in order to get better players for Rangers than they could otherwise afford, re-igniting social media exchanges over the validity of William Nimmo-Smith’s report into Rangers use of EBT’s.
You may remember that Nimmo-Smith himself considered that Rangers had gained no sporting advantage by their use of the scheme – a conclusion diametrically at variance with Murray’s – the man who operated the scheme to achieve exactly that end.
Nimmo-Smith – Doubts?
If Murray is telling the truth, then it puts Nimmo-Smith’s conclusions in doubt. And even if you leave aside for the moment the amended and extremely creative terms of reference set by Neil Doncaster which effectively excluded the already known to be unlawful DoS EBTs from Nimmo-Smith’s team, the SPL has been shown up as a bit a joke.
Who knew?
Another sensational piece of info the court heard, which again has gone almost completely unreported, was that in an email from Mike McGill of Murray Group, dated 17 March 2011, he says “the (wee tax) case only recently went from a potential liability and had not “crystallised” until recently” – this long before a Euro licence was awarded to Rangers on the basis, according to Stewart Regan, that the bill had “not crystallised” when the licence was awarded.
It may be that that the laws of unintended consequences will prove to be more significant to football than the matter of Craig Whyte’s guilt or innocence.
All of the information on the case is what was said in court. None of it is to be taken as fact. That will be for the courts to decide. What is being reported is what witnesses have said in court. Also, there is a lot of hysteria, a lot of speculation going on in social media and the mainstream media over court proceedings.
Speculating on the innocence or guilt of a defendant, or the honesty of a witness is most definitely contempt of court territory. For obvious legal reasons, SFM wishes to stay on the right side of the law and avoid unnecessary problems with the courts.
But we also want to ensure that we are not party to contaminating people with speculation that may lead a defendant to be being mistakenly convicted or acquitted.
The purpose of a trial is establishing the facts of a case, not to merely validate so-called information or inferences that have been drawn before any legal process has begun. So we are asking everyone at SFM therefore to refrain from posting anything that implies guilt or innocence, truthfulness or untruthfulness, or anything which repeats unsubstantiated rumour.
We may think we know a lot, but it may well be the case as the trial progresses that we discover we knew less than we thought – so please keep that in mind when you post.
The news that it seems likely Clint Hill will not be offered a new contract at Rangers saddens me a little. Hill has been a consistent performer this year, playing with an energy, honesty and assuredness that was way in excess of many of his teammates and opponents alike. Hill is clearly not ready to retire, and I hope that he gets another year of football.
It will be interesting to see how many of the players who have been in the headlines this year will be leaving Scottish football. Hill looks to be gone, as does Emerson Hyndman. Will the likes of Moussa Dembele, Kieran Tierney, Scott Sinclair, Barrie McKay, Niall McGinn. A fair chance that some of them will. The challenge for our game is to keep a flow of that kind of talent ongoing. The more successful we are at that, the less resigned we will have to be about losing them.
As the season draws to a close, we still have promotion and relegation playoff battles to enjoy. There is the unresolved matter of ‘Invincible’ status for Celtic in their as yet unbeaten league campaign. We also have a proper showpiece finale to the season in two weeks as Aberdeen and Celtic go head to head in pursuit of the Scottish Cup.
In a few weeks, the transfer window will pique our interest as the off-field wars will be waged – with the added fun of the phantom journos in the MSM bringing us phantom stories of phantom Messis and Ronaldos headed for a hover-pitch near you – and the new season will immediately bring European drama to the door.
Who knows? Maybe the close season will see some proper football administrators brought in to replace the architects of Armageddon, tartan style. Sadly that sounds awfully like a Moonbeam.
easyJamboMay 21, 2017 at 11:03
…The breach of Company Law alleged is that RFC’s funds were used to fund the purchase of the club. There are arguments still to be had whether or not that was the case, or simply that Whyte as the controlling shareholder had the authority to make the arrangements that saw RFC raise funds (from Ticketus) to pay their own debt (to Lloyds via Wavetower).
__________________________
This, I think, is the nub of the matter, for it matters not that the seller of a business is less than honest in the sale, if the buyer has paid for the business in a fraudulent manner, then he has committed fraud. What the crown will no doubt try to prove is that Whyte acted fraudulently, how they do that will become clearer in the next week. I expect that one or more of the last 8 crown witnesses will have nothing to do with either party, but will be ‘expert witnesses’ through whom the AD will try to explain how, in this case, the business was purchased in a fraudulent manner, even if using the future income/ticket sales (which may be viewed differently from using profits) of a company to purchase that company is not necessarily illegal.
Whether found guilty or not, the apparent duping of Whyte will be left to him to take to a civil court, where he may be able to use the evidence presented at his trial to prove his case against the seller. Unless, of course, the crown/police hear evidence that points to some illegality by any other party caught up in the case, and decide to pursue it. Either way, if Whyte is proven to have committed fraud, it won’t get him off the hook.
woodsteinMay 21, 2017 at 11:53
From Mills and ReeveWhat is financial assistance?“Currently it is unlawful for a company or any of its subsidiaries to give any financial assistance, for the purpose of the purchase of its own shares or any shares in its holding company. This is only an issue where shares are being acquired, not assets. The type of assistance prohibited can take a variety of forms: from the straightforward provision of a loan or payment of fees to the granting of security over the company’s assets or the giving of a guarantee. Unfortunately, exactly what constitutes financial assistance is not clear. There are severe penalties for breach, namely a fine for the company and fines and/or criminal liability for directors” Was this financial assistance?“Most of the capital used by Glazer to purchase Manchester United came in the form of loans, the majority of which were secured against the club’s assets, incurring interest payments of over £60 million per annum”
____________________________
The Glazers purchase of MU has been at the back of my mind while we’ve been discussing all this, I knew there’d been a stink about how they’d financed their deal, but couldn’t remember how they’d done it. I do think there is one glaring difference, though, in that the Glazers borrowed the money, they didn’t sell anything that belonged to the club/company. I do believe, though I may be wrong, that the stink includes the fact that, eventually, the loan will be repaid by the club, not the Glazers. This will seem to us mere mortals as immoral, but is probably not illegal or fraudulent. Again, what Whyte has done may not be illegal or fraudulent, but the crown appear to believe that they can prove it was. In all these fancy deals (not just in football), I am sure there’s a point that is often almost crossed that would mean one party has acted fraudulently, and may depend on just how clever one’s lawyers are to prevent that crossing. It’s a bit like EBTs, they might not have been illegal, in themselves, but it depends how they were operated whether or not they broke the law
Homunculus May 21, 2017 at 11:36
EASYJAMBO MAY 21, 2017 at 11:03 ===============================
Thanks for that, a good summary.
Can I just add that whilst as you say “Wavetower at that point owed RFC £16m …” I believe Wavetower were also owed a similar amount by the club, as Wavetower had actually bought the debt from Lloyds using the money they borrowed.
=====================
Yes. If Wavetower had its own funds to pay off Lloyds, then RFC would indeed have owed Wavetower the £18M they previously owed to Lloyds. If RFC then handed over the £16m to Wavetower, then the net position would have been RFC being due £2m to Wavetower plus approx 40% of future ST money to Ticketus for 3 seasons. However RFC actually loaned the money to Wavetower, which clouds the issue further, although the net position between RFC and Wavetower should have been the same £2m.
There was some evidence heard that as part of the SPA, Wavetower would eventually write off the sum (£18m) due to them by the club, but that again was predicated on Wavetower paying off Lloyds from its own resources. Findlay tried to argue that for RFC it was better to owe the ST revenues to Ticketus than have to pay down the debt to Lloyds by £1m a year plus interest on the loan balance.
CL group participation was estimated by SDM to earn the club £20m a year which would balance the books and allow some debt reduction. Alastair Johnston’s Board had actually prepared a business plan with projections of CL income in each of the next three seasons. Lloyds described the plan as “not a supportable strategy” in an email to the RFC Board. However, it could be argued that Whyte had the same strategy, but was thwarted by McCoist and his team on “a day trip to Malmo”.
Testing smileys testing
yes they seem to be working ok. Carry on.
ALLYJAMBOMAY 21, 2017 at 12:15
I do think there is one glaring difference, though, in that the Glazers borrowed the money, they didn’t sell anything that belonged to the club/company. I do believe, though I may be wrong, that the stink includes the fact that, eventually, the loan will be repaid by the club, not the Glazers.
———————-
Did Mr Murray not get a loan to buy the ibrox club.And was it Mr Murray who repaid that loan or was it the club?
Now that the league season is over and we know that Aberdeen, Rangers and St Johnstone have been given spots in the Europa league what do the Hearts fans think of the situation. In particular with regards the FFP rules.
Do you expect your club to do anything, to approach the SFA (or UEFA) with regards the position. Or would you be happy enough just to let it go and get on with preparing for next season.
HomunculusMay 21, 2017 at 18:53
I have been thinking long and hard about that, and will do a post within the next couple of days as I won’t have the opportunity to write, what will be a long post, for the next couple of days.
Financial Fair Play compliance is not a matter for the SFA.
http://www.uefa.com/community/news/newsid=2064391.html
A wee bit of a biased post from me.
Firstly, well done to the few Hearts fans who waited behind at Celtic Park today to deliver applause during the celebrations. Yes, that did actually happen and perhaps they thought a team going unbeaten for an entire league season was a feat worth recognising. I see countless social media posts from England saying how easy it is to do that in Scotland, yet I have never witnessed it in my lifetime. My Father, God rest him, never witnessed it in his lifetime either. My Grandfather, God rest him, never witnessed it either. That is simply because it is not an easy thing to do at all.
I’ve just been reading the judgment in the Ticketus v Whyte case at
https://www.scribd.com/document/136013092/Ticketus-v-Whyte-Judgment-HC12F03282
which I think I first read away back in 2013.
To be honest, I think at that time I must have merely skimmed it without getting into it in any kind of intelligent way, perhaps thinking that it bore little relevance to my main interest- the Murray EBT business.
Having read it again with some care, I think I now see one or two things a little more clearly,or in slightly better perspective.
Looking forward to attending Court tomorrow-without a pen, pencil or scrap of paper in my possession!
HirsutePursuitMay 21, 2017 at 21:33
‘…Non-compliance with the regulations does not mean that a club will be excluded automatically, but there will be no exceptions.’
________-
I know the point you are making is that its for the UEFA CFCB to determine whether a club is in breach of the FFP rules and, if so, what sanctions are to be imposed.
But I’m separately struck by the Brysonesque sentence : ‘Non-compliance with the regulations does not mean that a club will be excluded automatically, but there will be no exceptions ‘
What, I wonder, does that actually mean? No exceptions to what? To exclusion? Or to any punishment? Or that every club found to be non-compliant will be punished,but some clubs more than others?
Allyjambo
May 21, 2017 at 11:54
“how they do that will become clearer in the next week”————————————————————–
And as Auldheid said last month, perhaps “the universe is unfolding as it should.”
JC
My interpretation is that every case of FFP noncompliance will be considered by the CFCB.
In other words, local associations (such as the SFA) cannot ‘approve’ or waive through a dodgy application as FFP compliant. Or conversely, to refuse a licence on FFP grounds. The SFA has no locus in the actual decision making.
The SFA will gather the initial paperwork – but the decision on FFP is made by the CFCB.
As a directly affected party I would assume that Hearts will make a representation to UEFA’s CFCB if it is the club’s interest to do so.
Of course, the competition may have already begun by the time the initial decision is reached.
For that reason, I think any sporting sanctions against the current iteration of Rangers are unlikely to commence before season 2018/19
Financial sanctions could be immediate.
HirsutePursuitMay 21, 2017 at 23:11
‘..As a directly affected party I would assume that Hearts will make a representation to UEFA’s CFCB if it is the club’s interest to do so.’
___________
Well, Celtic did not think it was ‘in their interest’ to challenge the loss of at least a few million quid by the (apparently) mendacious awarding of a UEFA competition licence to a club that was in debt in the matter of social taxes!
Is there any reason to think that Hearts would want to rock the cosy SFA boat by asking awkward questions?Any more than Celtic did?
I suspect that Anne Budge, like Dermot, will just accept that that is the way of Scottish Football; bugger all to do with sport or truth or any kind of integrity, but of making MONEY by milking the ‘fans’.
And acquiescing by their silence in the quiet corruption of our nationl sport.
It gars me grief.In spades, as a character in Damon Runyon’s short stories might have said.
Good news – Live tweeting from the court is back on.
On whether or not Hearts will challenge any decision to award a UEFA licence to TRFC.
I will be very surprised if Hearts do make a challenge, but also very disappointed. While I am sure both Hearts and Aberdeen made a deliberate attempt to fire a shot across the SFA’s bows with their FFP compliance statements in their respective accounts, I suspect they had little hope of it being any more than a gesture, or done with the ultimately false hope that it might encourage the SFA to do it’s job properly, for once where an Ibrox club was concerned, rather than an indication that they (Hearts and Aberdeen) were prepared to act unilateraly.
Looking at Hearts and any value to them in raising the matter, I think we have to consider the following. This is just my thoughts and I have absolutely no inside information, Derbyshire not being a hotbed of ‘in the know’ Hearts supporters, nor do I agree with any decision not to pursue justice, whatever the reason behind it.
a) In my opinion, before any club challenges the granting of a licence to TRFC, they must have the support of a number of other Premiership clubs, and have no doubt that that support will be total. There may well have been discussions amongst the top clubs about this, but we don’t know that there has been, nor do we know if an agreement was reached to support such a challenge, but a lone voice would easily be twisted, especially by our media, into self-interest, with, as we know would be the case, TRFC painted as the innocent victims.
b) For all we know, the SFA may well have reacted to Hearts and Aberdeen’s FFP statements by making it clear they will allow no challenge to any decision they might make in granting a Euro licence to anyone, perhaps even using Hearts request for help from the game’s governors in the construction of the new stand, by scheduling Hearts last three games away from home and giving them away matches until September next season, as an ‘encouragement’ to comply. This is obviously complete conjecture on my part, but who would doubt the SFA, with the conivance of the SPFL, would use such tactics to protect TRFC?
c) Do Hearts really want to qualify for Europe this year? I am not so sure, or at least not so sure now, because:
i) They are in 5th place and missing out on automatic qualification because they have been extremely poor in the second half of the season.
ii) Last season, despite a much better second half to the season than this one, they performed poorly in Europe.
iii) I’m certain the head coach and his team would prefer more time during the close season to prepare for next season than would be the case with an almost certain to be doomed trip to some European backwater.
iv) The Tynecastle redevelopment means only three stands would be in use should Hearts compete in the initial stages of the Europa Cup reducing any potential profit to a probable loss.
v) In my opinion, Hearts rush to sign new players in time for the start of Euro qualification this season led to some poor signings, they can’t afford to do that again next
d) I believe Ann Budge is first and foremost a businesswoman, she will weigh up the pros and cons of any action before acting, and make a pragmatic decision based on what she believes to be best for Hearts. If she believes there could be more problems created by mounting a challenge than there are potential benefits from European competition, then Hearts will remain silent on the matter.
e) The pressure that would be put on Hearts, or any club, to do well in Europe if they only qualified as a result of an appeal they, themselves, made to the exclusion of another club, would be immense, and the ridicule that would surely follow would be extremely hard to bear. Imagine the pressure Ian Cathro, in particular, would be put under; it could well end his future as a coach in senior football! With that in mind, it might well be more appropriate if any challenge was made by all, or a number of, the Premiership clubs, excluding Hearts, to remove the claim of ‘self interest’ bound to be pushed by both TRFC and the SMSM. I am not, however, suggesting that other clubs should make this effort on Hearts part, just highlighting the problems for a club going it alone, particularly when that club is the sole potential beneficiary, against a club that has the might of the SFA and the SMSM behind it.
f) Lastly, despite my lack of contact with fellow Hearts supporters, I get the feeling, mainly from a lack of enthusiasm (and that’s putting it mildly) from Jambos on social media, the desire for European football next season, just isn’t there.
I fully believe TRFC should not be granted a Europen licence, I would be fully behind my club challenging the decision (if it is indeed made) to grant them a European licence, but I am not sure that Hearts actually want to qualify in their stead, and I am not sure that I would want it either, due to the team’s overlong poor performance and the pressure it would bring to rebuild too quickly. If, on the other hand, TRFC were denied a licence, and Hearts were not granted a place in Europe either, I don’t think I’d complain!
Allyjambo May 22, 2017 at 10:51
==================
You are correct to note that there appears little appetite among Hearts fans to pressurise the club to do anything about it. I think that is mainly to do with the way the club is performing on the field and that European football would just be an unwelcome distraction at this time. There are others who are just resigned to there being no value in challenging the decision because that’s just the way that Scottish Football works and that nothing that Hearts do will change things.
Personally, I think that is completely the wrong approach and sends out the wrong message to the club (and FOH) which you’d hope would embrace values like “without fear or favour”, “good faith”, “sporting integrity” and “open and transparent”. I have asked two directors of the club about the award of the licence and the closest I came to getting a view on Hearts position was a laugh, a knowing smile, a pause and a “no comment”. I’ve no idea whether I can translate the “no comment” as Hearts have done something, but the response is acceptable / unacceptable / confidential, or whether Ann Budge has decided not to pursue the matter.
Without the backing of a body of supporters it is now difficult to force the club to say or do something publicly. Oddly, I did have a chance to speak to a third director and a senior employee of the club on Friday, as I was at the same event as them, but given the responses I had received previously, I chose not to.
EASYJAMBOMAY 22, 2017 at 11:18
Like you, I would like to see our club take what might be seen as an active role in cleaning up Scottish football, by giving the SFA a bloody nose over a ridiculous decision they appear to have made. Unfortunately, I can see so many business reasons for doing nothing, with little or no tangible football benefits, that I can’t see Ann Budge challenging the SFA decision any more than the chair of any other club would do.
On a rather more regrettable note, the response you received from those Hearts directors makes you wonder what ‘fan ownership’ is really about, if that is the manner in which a member of a board, supposedly dedicated to moving towards that end, would deal with a question from a supporter such as youself! Disappointing, at the very least.
EASYJAMBO/ ALLYJAMBO/ JOHN CLARK
A good and detailed discussion around whether Hearts or anyone else will take up a Financial Fair Play stance.
Thanks.
John Clark’s sentence also sums it up.
“I suspect that Anne Budge, like Dermot, will just accept that that is the way of Scottish Football; bugger all to do with sport or truth or any kind of integrity, but of making MONEY by milking the ‘fans’”.
I believe pragmatism will prevail.
Hearts need the ridiculous and premature pressure of The UEFA mid-summer qualifiers like a hole in the head. And no club in Scotland seems to be able make money out of this stage of the competition anyway.
Desmond and Dermot are happy because Celtic are all too aware they need a strong-ish Rangers to maintain their side of the ongoing recruitment stitch-up and keep their stadium full. A Rangers in Europe will allow for headlines that keep up the pastiche of “Old Firm” rivalry in all the red tops and help sell the myth and the season books.
The SFA will continue to look after their own and allowing Rangers in will not be challenged by any of the chairmen.
One of the mysteries of it all to me is everyone of our chairmen seems to be remarkably relaxed by the current over spending programme by the Ibrox club.
Nobody seems to be aware that it is deeply unsustainable intrinsically wrong and ultimately non viable.
Plus ca change
“Nothing to see here, move on please”.
Re Whyte Trial – from JD’s tweets to-day , a shortage of readies seems to be to-day’s theme – 1st witness needed a tap off Sir Craigy to pay his rent , then next up “troubled” Dundas & Wilson as per wiki – I wonder if they got stiffed when MIH went under? The more you read , the more you wonder about this case .
NAEGREETINMAY 22, 2017 at 13:28
Re Whyte Trial – from JD’s tweets to-day , a shortage of readies seems to be to-day’s theme – 1st witness needed a tap off Sir Craigy to pay his rent , then next up “troubled” Dundas & Wilson as per wiki – I wonder if they got stiffed when MIH went under? The more you read , the more you wonder about this case
————————————————————————————————–
They appear on the creditors list as being owed £24,027.84 NG
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/revealed-the-276-victims-owed-cash-1118614
CO @ 13.46 22 May – thanks for that link – interesting reading & always good to get a reminder of the car crash that RFC was .
But I was wondering if D&W got a double whammy when Murray’s Charlotte Sq empire went tits up if they were a creditor then too ? Anyway , not important I suppose but you can’t help notice how little (Scottish) attention is given to financial travails of the “great & good” of the Scottish financial + legal world . Still , there is an appearance of (Sir) Fred to look forward to in the coming weeks & a look under the rock that is/was RBS (still waiting for results of an HBOS inquiry also) .
Did Celtic miss a world record points gap by 1 point? If so, how popular is Alex Schalk going to be now?
It seems that Hearts, in addition to building a new larger stand are also considering “Safe Standing”.
Another example of a football team in Scotland giving the fans what they want and trying to improve the game.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39997063
ALLYJAMBO
MAY 22, 2017 at 10:51
…
I fully believe TRFC should not be granted a Europen licence…
============================================
I think most non-TRFC fans would agree with that sentiment AJ.
And whilst we don’t know all the details, there is growing suspicion / allegations / disillusionment around the whole Euro licence process.
If the SFA does grant a Euro licence to TRFC, then in the interests of transparency, the SFA should simply and clearly explain how it came to its decision.
That seems like a perfectly valid, reasonable and non-threatening request / expectation…which a proper journalist could put to Regan ?
StevieBC
May 22, 2017 at 15:27
“which a proper journalist could put to Regan ?”
———————————————————————————-
hen’s teeth come to mind
If sevco 2012 is the same club as rangers 1872 then how can they be given a Euro licence when they owe over £20m in PAYE/NIC from CWs time in charge
bustingtheBIGLIE fc
From the people who brought you Armageddon.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/scottish-premiership-crowd-study-shows-9261053
Scottish Premiership crowd study shows attendances are up at SEVEN clubs
Celtic – 54,989.
Rangers – 48,553.
Hearts – 16,311.
Aberdeen – 13,737.
Dundee – 6,854.
Kilmarnock – 5,362.
St Johnstone – 4,474.
Ross County – 4,355.
Inverness – 4,149.
Motherwell – 4,045.
Partick Thistle – 3,509.
Hamilton – 1,887.
Total Premiership attendance so far: 980,409
Average Premiership attendance: 12,900
It seems that John Gilligan, of WATP fame I believe, has resigned from the RIFC PLC board.
All very amicable according to the official statement, from Dave King as usual.
“After years of tireless effort, lobbying, and campaigning to turn Rangers’ fortunes around, John has taken the decision to step down knowing that much of what was required post regime change has already been achieved and that the outstanding requirements have been clearly identified by the board, who have the necessary action plans in place.”
HOMUNCULUS
MAY 22, 2017 at 20:35
…
“[DCK said] John has taken the decision to step down knowing that much of what was required post regime change has already been achieved…”
==========================
So, that’s job well done then at RIFC / TRFC ?
King probably informed Gilligan that “he knew” much had been achieved…so it must be true.
But I suppose having a stand-up, shouting match with your own fans during a game didn’t help…
Although the prohibition on live tweeting has been lifted by Lady Stacey, the normal ban on non-accredited journalists taking notes is still in force.
I sat all day in Court 4 but can’t really add anything to supplement JD’s tweets.
I think I took some comfort from the fact that that my understanding of what the alleged fraud charge relates to seems to be the Crown’s understanding, namely, that something was sold by someone who at the time did not own that something.
JOHN CLARK
MAY 22, 2017 at 20:56
===============================
I don’t see how that can be possible JC.
Rangers sold their season tickets to Ticketus, as they had done before apparently.
HOMUNCULUSMAY 22, 2017 at 20:35 2 Votes
It seems that John Gilligan, of WATP fame I believe, has resigned from the RIFC PLC board.
—————-
Was he one of the original three bears?
CLUSTER ONE
MAY 22, 2017 at 21:11
==============================
As I understand it the “Three Bears” are the people who formed the concert party with Dave King in order to buy over 30% of the PLC but not follow the takeover rules.
Again as I understand it they were Douglas Park, George Letham and George Taylor. Gilligan was brought in to sit on the board of the PLC.
HOMUNCULUSMAY 22, 2017 at 21:19
thanks for clarification
John Clark May 22, 2017 at 20:56
I think I took some comfort from the fact that that my understanding of what the alleged fraud charge relates to seems to be the Crown’s understanding, namely, that something was sold by someone who at the time did not own that something.
=======================
Going by the tweets today the Crown was still working towards proving both charges. First that Whyte pretended to have funds (the Fraud) and second that he used the clubs assets to purchase the club (Financial Assistance).
As has been said above, and at the preliminary hearings, you need to be able to demonstrate that the victim of a fraud ends up doing something they wouldn’t otherwise have done. Findlay has previously tried to show that SDM and Lloyds were intent on the deal going through no matter what, so no fraud was committed. With regard to the Financial Assistance charge, Findlay seems to be exploring a line that Whyte owned the assets when he sold them to Ticketus, (the day after the deal was signed).
Mclean’s position re the commitments in the SPA seems very much to be that they were all legally binding. Findlay has sought to challenge that premise with previous witnesses. Maybe he will do the same tomorrow. It might an interesting battle of lawyer v lawyer, with Lady Stacey having the casting vote.
I would have liked to have understood McLean’s claims re legal privilege at the start of his evidence. Was he still seeking to protect his client (Murray Group)? I could understand it if he chose not to answer questions from the defence, but I would have thought that he would be happy to answer the Crown’s questions in an effort to implicate Whyte. The whole issue may have further to run tomorrow once Findlay gets his turn to ask the questions, but will he get the answers he is looking for?.
EASYJAMBO
MAY 22, 2017 at 21:41
I would have liked to have understood McLean’s claims re legal privilege at the start of his evidence. Was he still seeking to protect his client (Murray Group)? I could understand it if he chose not to answer questions from the defence, but I would have thought that he would be happy to answer the Crown’s questions in an effort to implicate Whyte. The whole issue may have further to run tomorrow once Findlay gets his turn to ask the questions, but will he get the answers he is looking for?
===========================
The witness will have been precognosced by the defence EJ, Findlay already knows what answers he will give to specific questions.
He won’t ask those questions if the answers don’t suit him. Though to be fair to him his plan may also be to maneuver the witness into a position where the only answer he can give suits Findlay’s defence strategy.
Homunculus May 22, 2017 at 21:49
The witness will have been precognosced by the defence EJ, Findlay already knows what answers he will give to specific questions.
He won’t ask those questions if the answers don’t suit him. Though to be fair to him his plan may also be to maneuver the witness into a position where the only answer he can give suits Findlay’s defence strategy.
=======================
I’m aware of that, but the people that need to hear the answers to Findlay’s questions are those on the jury. If McLean seeks to claim privilege to avoid answering some of those questions, then I can see Lady Stacey intervening to ensure that the jury hears both sides arguments.
As I alluded to in the earlier post, Findlay has already rehearsed his arguments on the interpretation of the SPA with other witnesses, e.g. is an “intention” to do something a legally binding commitment? Similarly if he has 12 months to implement an obligation and he hasn’t done so after 9 months, has be failed to meet the obligation?
Apologies in advance for a blatant Celtic comment but maybe allowable in recognition of their invincible achievement this season
,,,,,,,,,,,
Has anybody noticed that Kris Commons seems to have completely turned around the negative media image he acquired in the latter part of the Delia reign ?
If so much credit is also due to his good lady Lisa who seems to have put in a power of work on the Charity side during his 6 yrs at Celtic Park
HomunculusMay 22, 2017 at 21:00
‘..I don’t see how that can be possible JC.’
_________
Homunculus, I have PMd you. In fact I PMd you several times tonight since reading your post, but my clumsy fingers deleted them.I’ve only just now managed not to hit the wrong key!
easyJambo
May 22, 2017 at 21:41
“the Crown was still working towards proving both charges. First that Whyte pretended to have funds (the Fraud)
and second that he used the clubs assets to purchase the club (Financial Assistance).”
“Findlay has previously tried to show that SDM and Lloyds were intent on the deal going through no matter what, so no fraud was committed.
With regard to the Financial Assistance charge, Findlay seems to be exploring a line that Whyte owned the assets when he sold them to Ticketus, (the day after the deal was signed). “
—————————————————————————-
I see the same as you say above.
Clauses 6 to 6.14.2
Purchaser Warranties And Undertakings
Having read these, and, if they were “intended to be legally binding”.
I would have replied no deal.
TWM 17 Now available
This week, former Celtic player Jim Craig speaks about his emotions amidst the 50th anniversary celebrations of Celtic’s 1967 European Cup triumph, about how it helped define him and his team mates, and Scottish football itself.
There is a round up of the resolved promotion and relegation issues, and a look at warring managers and players.
James Doleman also joins the show again to chat about developments in the Craig Whyte trial, now in its fifth week
easyJamboMay 22, 2017 at 22:03
As I alluded to in the earlier post, Findlay has already rehearsed his arguments on the interpretation of the SPA with other witnesses, e.g. is an “intention” to do something a legally binding commitment? Similarly if he has 12 months to implement an obligation and he hasn’t done so after 9 months, has be failed to meet the obligation?
__________________________
Something we have to consider is: at what point does not fulfilling a contract become fraud? For I’m sure that if every case of an unfulfilled contract was to be considered fraud, our criminal courts would have been overwhelmed with cases many, many years ago. Clearly, in most cases, the failure by, say, a purchaser of a business to carry out something he contracted to do as a condition of the purchase would end up in a civil court, taken there by the vendor of the business, not by the Crown, and not facing criminal charges. This would be the case even if the ‘intention’ was indeed ‘legally binding’.
I’d imagine that the crown will try to show that the accused had no intention of ever meeting those contractual commitments, deliberately deceived the seller, and so (I’d imagine) committed fraud, while the defence will try to counter that by showing the sellers were merely carrying out a window dressing exercise to cover their part in ‘Rangers Downfall’, and that both parties knew this. If the sellers were aware that the purchaser didn’t have the wherewithal to finance the conditions of the sale, then there could have been no deception, and so no fraud under the charges relating to this part of the case.
The Financial Assistance charge will, probably, be easier to prove as being fraudulent, if it was indeed fraudulent, as this will be a more factual matter, rather than trying to decide what was in people’s minds or what they knew. It will also be, I’d imagine, the more serious charge, carrying the highest potential sentence, and the one the crown are most anxious to win.
As I suggested in a previous post, before the crown can prove Whyte guilty of anything, they must first prove that a crime did, in fact, take place – the difference between a broken/unfulfilled contract and an act of fraud!
Allyjambo
May 23, 2017 at 11:01 The Financial Assistance charge will, probably, be easier to prove as being fraudulent.
It will also be, I’d imagine, the more serious charge, carrying the highest potential sentence
———————————————————————————–
I need some help here.
Reading the Indictment there are 2 separate charges.
1 Fraud
2 Assistance
As I understand it:-
Assistance is not fraud, it is a specific offence under the Companies Act 2006
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both);
(b)on summary conviction—
(i)in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);
Fraud
Under Fraud Act 2006
(3) A person who is guilty of fraud is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12
months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding
10 years or to a fine (or to both).
Am I missing something?
The Fraud Act 2006 does not apply in Scotland.
If anyone is interested Phil Mac has a slightly different take on John Gilligan’s departure that the official …
“After years of tireless effort, lobbying, and campaigning to turn Rangers’ fortunes around, John has taken the decision to step down knowing that much of what was required post regime change has already been achieved and that the outstanding requirements have been clearly identified by the board, who have the necessary action plans in place.”
I have no inside information or special knowledge so I can only really go on experience and best judgement. I know which version I believe to be nearer the truth.
woodsteinMay 23, 2017 at 16:50
Am I missing something?
_________________
Not got a clue, but I am basing my post in the belief that it is easier to prove fraud where financial transactions are concerned than in the case of whether or not unmet conditions in a contract constitute fraud. Whether or not ‘Financial Assistance’ is, in itself, illegal in every case may not be what has to be decided but, rather like EBTs, the case will hinge on how it was used/timed to facilitate the purchase; and/or, did Whyte have the right to carry out the transaction in the first place, and did he, alone, sign all the documentation, and, if he did, did he have the right to do so?
Homunculus
May 23, 2017 at 17:13
The Fraud Act 2006 does not apply in Scotland.
————————————————————
Thanks for that , I should have remembered that only section 10(1) of the Fraud Act 2006 applies in Scotland, and more importantly most of the Fraud Act repealed parts of the Theft Act 1968 which also did not apply in Scotland.
Memory malfunction.
Some more on Fraud offences in Scotland
https://www.fraudadvisorypanel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Criminal-fraud-in-Scotland-4th-edition-December2015.pdf
678 Assistance for acquisition of shares in public company
(1)Where a person is acquiring or proposing to acquire shares in a public company, it is not lawful for that company, or a company that is a subsidiary of that company, to give financial assistance directly or indirectly for the purpose of the acquisition before or at the same time as the acquisition takes place.
(2)Subsection (1) does not prohibit a company from giving financial assistance for the acquisition of shares in it or its holding company if—
(a)the company’s principal purpose in giving the assistance is not to give it for the purpose of any such acquisition, or
(b)the giving of the assistance for that purpose is only an incidental part of some larger purpose of the company,
and the assistance is given in good faith in the interests of the company.
(3)Where—
(a)a person has acquired shares in a company, and
(b)a liability has been incurred (by that or another person) for the purpose of the acquisition,
it is not lawful for that company, or a company that is a subsidiary of that company, to give financial assistance directly or indirectly for the purpose of reducing or discharging the liability if, at the time the assistance is given, the company in which the shares were acquired is a public company.
==========================================
680 Prohibited financial assistance an offence
(1)If a company contravenes section 678(1) or (3) or section 679(1) or (3) (prohibited financial assistance) an offence is committed by—
(a)the company, and
(b)every officer of the company who is in default.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine (or both);
(b)on summary conviction—
(i)in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);
(ii)in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).
——————————————————————————-
Whyte bought his shares from Murray for £1, so it can’t be that so it has to another part of the SPA. It can only be the loan from Rangers to Wavetower, as that was used to fund part of the deal.
The only way that could have happened was for Rangers to sell the season tickets, get the money from Ticketus then give that money to Wavetower.
Ergo financial assistance in financing the SPA, as opposed to buying the shares. The “liability occurred” as part of the sale.
Maximum two years on indictment, so an automatic 50% off. If convicted max a year in an open prison, getting out at weekends in the last few months.
Very very sad what happened in Manchester. Love that city and it’s people. So many happy memories at Belle Vue. God bless them all.
As it is the end of season and no new sponsor for the shirts of trfc,and none on the horizon (we would have heard about it by now). With no new sponsor and no new shirts to sell there is not a lot of money coming in to ibrox just now.when would the payment be made for all unsold stock from last season?
not alot of money coming in but alot of money going out
It seems that Club 1872 are still thinking of themselves as a supporters group rather than a Ltd Co (a Community Interest Company if memory serves) which owns 6% of a PLC, has around 9,000 paying members funding it monthly and is reputed to have something in the region of £1m sitting in it’s bank account.
They really need to consider their public statements a bit more.
“A succession of pundits – none of whom have ever succeeded in management – have lined up to attack Pedro almost from day one of his arrival in Scotland. They have been ably assisted by sections of the Scottish press who appear to be totally unable to put their own allegiances or petty disagreements with our club to one side. From the xenophobic ramblings of ex-Celtic player, Charlie Nicholas to the lowest common denominator nonsense of Chris Sutton, these so called experts have been quick to criticise Pedro despite him inheriting a squad which had unperformed over the past season and which he has not yet had any opportunity to revamp.”
“Sutton, who still appears be haunted by the memory of Helicopter Sunday, has been one of the worst offenders. A man who was an abject failure as a manager and is an even worse pundit, has been given free rein on both BT Sport and on the pages of the Daily Record to wage a witless campaign to undermine our new manager. If this is the best the media can do for commentary on our game then it is in a worse state than anyone feared.”
In other matters it appears Mr Caixinha has sent out a list of players who are available to leave the club. With suggested fees which would secure their services (if personal terms can be agreed.) It seems he is looking for something like £2m for Barrie McKay, £1.25m for James Tavernier, £400,000 or so for Martyn Waghorn. Several players are available free on the basis that someone else is willing to pick up their wages.
I’m assuming he has discussed these matters with the players and their agents because it really is entirely up to them whether they want to go somewhere or not.
Just another wee thing, on considered statements and personal attacks. It seems John James, that champion of free speech (in spite of his occasional plagiarism, well I suppose it is free if you steal it) has taken offence to James Doleman.
It seems Mr James (I know that’s not his real name) in addition to homophobic leanings and political intolerance is also not a fan of the Muslim faith.
From his latest.
“Going forward Mr. Doleman’s tweets and even mention of his name will be proscribed on this site. I have no time for hard-left loonies with Islamic leanings”.
Maybe he should read stuff like this before decrying an entire people, I believe something like 25% of the World’s population are Muslim.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/manchester-bombing-muslim-taxi-driver-saf-ismail-trips-rescue-teens-daughter-arena-ariana-grande-a7752656.html
HOMUNCULUSMAY 24, 2017 at 12:26
What will be interesting is, whether the above is true or not, the mood in the Ibrox dressing room if those named have not been moved on over the summer 🙂
We all know clubs that have had to deal with the odd wage thief hanging around like a bad smell but not around eight folks who are maybe sitting on decent money they may not get elsewhere.
wottpiMay 24, 2017 at 13:50
I think it’s probably true that, in some cases, at least, these ‘wage thieves’ were re-signed on big contracts because the SMSM had, at the behest of L5, bummed them up to such a high level that for TRFC to have let them leave, the ST sales repercussions would have been at a level the club couldn’t have afforded. Basically, the club couldn’t afford to keep them, and it couldn’t afford to let them go (at least, not without some very unrealistic fee).
Homunculus, as I think you’ll know, the structure they created for for Club 1872 included a group company called Supporters’ Statement Limited. This probably unnecessary structure seems to have been intended to separate and protect the core business from any nasty fallout from a Generation Z millennial’s version of the Millbank rapid attack and rebuttal unit. The insipid statement you copied will be scoffed at by many and lauded by a number of fed up Rangers fans but will make absolutely no difference to anything. It was presumably authorised by a combination of the recently appointed Club 1872 directors and the company Secretary of Rangers International Football Club. As to who wrote it… well it does seem to be in a style that a previous TRFC director of very limited tenure was familiar with.
From DR today: [my highlighting]
“Rangers ‘agreed’ to replay 1972 Cup Winners Cup final after pitch invasion says Dynamo Moscow legend
…
“And the Scots agreed to it because they were going to lose a lot of money with their European ban.”
…
“Everyone remembers what happened after the game, but people forget the Rangers fans invaded the pitch five times. They invaded the pitch for the first time at 1-0.”
“Their fans all had mad eyes, it was a scary sight. They tried to set fire to the stadium. They fought with the police and there was casualties.”
“When they ran onto the park at the end of the match, they tried to rip the shirts of us. I just ran until I got back to the dressing room.”
…
===============================
I was aware that the cup was presented in the toilets, [ok the dressing room], but I was not aware of 5 pitch invasions.
If that was to happen today, I guess the game would be abandoned, with the opposition awarded a 3-0 win ?
And it seems that the Rangers fans of ’72 have passed on some of their behaviours to their offspring.
“…set fire to the stadium…” ?
Where have I read that phrase before ?
They are certainly rattling through the witness list today with Maclean, Fleming Gillespie, Holmes, Townsend and Berti so far. All helped by Findlay not having any questions for Holmes or Townsend.
By my calculations, the Crown has only one witness left to call from the 8 he had to call at the end of last week..
Re the Whyte Trial – it is emerging neither of the chief protaganists (buyer + seller) had any money – the only people with real money seem to be Ticketus,Lloyds & the Rangers supporters who all get stiffed (apart from Lloyds) by the buyer & seller .
They always say it is better in business to use someone else’s money – Whyte & Murray are certainly firm believers in this philosophy .
Someone has miscounted
James Doleman @jamesdoleman
Advocate Depute says he only has two witnesses left, one is Mr Horne, the other is overseas returning on Tuesday
ALLYJAMBOMAY 24, 2017 at 14:16
Indeed I think that will be the case with a few of them as there was reports of improved/extended deals for the like of Tavernier (to 2019), Forrester (2019), Garner, 2019, Keirnan 2018
O’Halloran, Windass and Crooks were signed on four year deals in 2016!!
It is all very well trying to move on average players if they can get the same cash elsewhere but I have a feeling some of these guys have found their level and it may be they won’t get the weekly wage they are on at Ibrox elsewhere.
Young men though, so the gamble is that they will seek playing time elsewhere, if not welcome at Ibrox, as opposed to the cash.
Given Hearts disastrous recruitment policy we cannot decry anyone else. However other than the stubborn Osh my guess is we should be able to ship out the players that are now considered excess to requirements as they will be just as well off elsewhere.
Rangers give English clubs price list for available players as Pedro Caixinha gets set for Ibrox fire sale
Winger Barrie McKay is the most expensive name on the list with Rangers inviting bids of £2m for the 22-year-old who broke into the Scotland squad 12 months ago.
But even that is a huge drop in the valuation that Warburton placed on McKay’s shoulders during the January transfer window
when a price tag of £6m was discussed
after the Englishman was informed of interest from German outfit Red Bull Leipzig.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
eh?
Warburton is not on record as placing a price tag of £6m on the sale of BM to RBL.The MSM were the people who “informed MW” about RBL interest after the story had fulfilled its purpose a few days later. As I recall he dismissed it out of hand. Nor did MW put any valuation on BM during the January window
The £6m fee was “discussed” by the MSM among themselves and printed without approaching either TRFC or RBL
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Fake News
WOTTPIMAY 24, 2017 at 13:50 8 Votes
HOMUNCULUSMAY 24, 2017 at 12:26
In other matters it appears Mr Caixinha has sent out a list of players who are available to leave the club. With suggested fees which would secure their services (if personal terms can be agreed.) It seems he is looking for something like £2m for Barrie McKay, £1.25m for James Tavernier, £400,000 or so for Martyn Waghorn. Several players are available free on the basis that someone else is willing to pick up their wages. I’m assuming he has discussed these matters with the players and their agents because it really is entirely up to them whether they want to go somewhere or not.What will be interesting is, whether the above is true or not, the mood in the Ibrox dressing room if those named have not been moved on over the summer
—————————
It seems Mr Caixinha after a few games looking at these players,he does not have the ability or the know how to improve these players.(for players who looked on their way out of a club to have a new manager transform them look no further than BR)
Or maybe Mr Caixinha has had a good look and can see no way of improving these players.If he can’t improve them and wants them out the door why play them? Who is going to buy at the price the ibrox club is asking?
the mood in the Ibrox dressing room of those named for sale and who may not get a game and who may not even get a move with the price trfc are asking will be interesting.All that and almost a full new team to bed in in a short space of time.
Another thing if Mr Caixinha can’t improve players that the ibrox club value at some in the millions how will he improve players bought for less trying to bed in to almost a new team?
there are going to have to be some quick miracles worked down ibrox way this summer
GOOSYGOOSYMAY 24, 2017 at 17:04
‘…Fake News’
_______
So what’s new when it comes to reports on TRFC? Isn’t that Level5’s purpose in life?
Spoke to a fellow fan today and the conversation came around to the craig whyte trial.
He asked if i was following the trial and i said i was, I had been following the JD tweets on twitter,and looking at a few sites and trying to piece together all the relevant information. times,dates and people involved.
“Me to” he said.But have you asked any ibrox fans if they have been following? “I have” he said, and most have replied not really, read a couple of bit’s in the paper.
He said of the ibrox fans he had asked most are subdued with a response and are either here nor there with the trial.
So i thought i would give it a try and asked a couple of ibrox fans if they were following the craig whyte trial.
I got much the same low level interest from them about it.
yet all pronounced guilty as sin when he was arrested and justice and other buzz words.
Maybe they are just keeping a low profile now with each days new news and don’t really want to talk about it.
What i’m trying to ask is has anyone else had this low level response from ibrox fans to the craig whyte trial or what is the reaction from the ibrox fan’s sites about the trial
CLUSTER ONE
MAY 24, 2017 at 17:47
——————————————-
Which players will Pedro pick to play in the Europa League Qualifiers commencing on June 29?
Players who’ve been told they’re no longer required?
A team of free-agents (and thus not subject to transfer-window restrictions) assembled in haste?
Mr. Findlay’s ‘day trip to Malmo’ may well be a precursor to next season’s ‘run in Europe’
JINGSO.JIMSIE
MAY 24, 2017 at 19:41
…
Mr. Findlay’s ‘day trip to Malmo’ may well be a precursor to next season’s ‘run in Europe’
================================
Yes, it seems that TRFC regards the Europa Cup as a welcome distraction, and another source of much needed revenue.
I think the average bear accepts that next season – at the very least – is already written off, in terms of winning the league.
So, a good run in Europe will help to ease their frustrations.
But getting knocked out – e.g. by a ‘diddy team’ from Scandinavia – in the qualifying rounds just won’t be tolerated, IMO.
Money doesn’t seem to be a problem at Auchenhowie, as three ex players have been recruited as new Academy coaches.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40037955
EASYJAMBOMAY 24, 2017 at 20:22 Rate This
Money doesn’t seem to be a problem at Auchenhowie, as three ex players have been recruited as new Academy coaches.http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40037955
———————-
All on part-time coaching roles
“We are changing the structure slightly,” former Scotland player Murty, 42, told Rangers’ website. “What we want to achieve and what we have always tried to strive for is having the best coaching programme in the country, working with the best players and run by the best coaches in the country, and I am really excited that I am going to be a part of that, to mould it and to hopefully move it forward.
What we want to achieve and what we have always tried to strive for is having the best coaching programe in the country,
Has Peter Lovenkrands done any coaching before?
Has Andy Little,who came through Rangers’ ranks and was most recently at Stirling Albion.done any coaching before?
Has Thirty-year-old Brian Gilmour, a former Rangers youth player who has been with Ayr United in recent years,done any coaching before?
Stephen Wright 45, has previously coached with Rangers.
———————
Is this the best coaching programe.Part time coaches?
————-
working with the best players and run by the best coaches in the country,
These best players are all up for sale just now are they not.And will the players they can afford be the best players in the country?
How can part time coaches be the best coaches in the country?
————-
What we want to achieve and what we have always tried to strive for is having the best coaching programe in the country,
–
the last 5 years have not been very successful in that department then
What a heartwarming programme tonight, tears in my eyes throughout.
CLUSTER ONEMAY 24, 2017 at 21:07
The more they talk ‘big time’, the smaller, and more desperate, they sound. An explanation of why they think hiring three part-time assistant coaches is more beneficial to their set up than one, or more, full-time assistants, would surely have provided a better ‘feel-good’ story than continuing with the ‘to be the best’ claims that are so patently untrue. They are striving to survive, that’s all, and hoping that one out of three part-time assistant coaches might be half decent.
They haven’t even started to get to grips with the reality of their situation, have they?
Watched the ropey league final earlier and was struck by the parallels of fifty years ago. A cynical win at all costs approach against a free flowing attacking game. On this occasion the professional pragmatic approach was triumphant and in view of events outside of football then this may be viewed as righteous,however this Ajax team really impressed me considering their age. Kept together they may yet reflect the glories of earlier incarnations and reignite a love of the game for everyone.Congratulations to Manchester United and looking forward to watching Ajax next year.
I find the Ibrox “fire sale” stjuff in the press quite astonishing.
The plan, apparently, is to sell or give away around a dozen of the current first team squad. Some of the prices quoted in the Record look optimistic, to say the least, but it is the Record after all.
Anyway, let’s assume that the unwanted dozen all go, and fees of a couple of million are received. What then? Well you obviously have to recruit 10 or 12 players, who presumably have to be better than those they are replacing. Between 5 and 10 million seems a reasonable estimate of what this rebuilding might cost. There aren’t that many free agents like Ryan Jack around, and if they are any good, there will be competition for them.
And doesn”t Pedro have to put out a team in a Europa qualifier on 29th June? How is he supposed to do that? Seems an obvious question, but totally ignored by the Record. The question of where the money to build a new squad is to come from is also ignored, but then I guess Dave King has already answered that one- he will spend the season ticket money on new players. And then what?
No doubt Ibrox will be full for that early Europa qualifier, which will bring in maybe a million pounds net, but that fixture just reeks of danger. An exit at that stage, and they are surely in big, big trouble financially. Unless King has a sudden attack of generosity, of course.
Talking of King, have the Takeover Panel applied for a court order from the Court of Session yet? Maybe those are “ex parte” proceedings, but I would still have expected a statement from the TOP by now.