I have been receiving quite a bit of unflattering mail about the “agenda” being pursued on this blog. Depending on the correspondent, that is defined as either denying people their civil right to gloat, hiding the “truth” that people of the RC faith are welcomed and encouraged to come to Ibrox, or indulging in Chamberlain-style appeasement with the banning of the “H” word and other incontrovertible rights-to-insult.
The objection to moderation of any sort appears to be at the root of these diatribes. Our position here in terms of moderation is clear. There is no “agenda” other than a desire not to be chasing up posts containing the rantings and ravings of partisan types who “demand” their right to be heard no matter how objectionable it might be to those hear it. We are not here to service a conduit for conspiracy theories based in Masonic Lodges or the Vatican. There are plenty of places where people can indulge in that kind of stuff, but the moderators here are just not interested. The administration of the site takes around four hours per day. That’s a long time trawling through posts which often set out deliberately to insult, abuse or otherwise cause offence – mildly or otherwise.
Our view is that the blog will only have cross-club support if we stick to what we can substantiate by fact or reasonably infer from the way things proceed. Further, we feel that if we are to gain credibility as an alternative source of news and comment to the MSM, that we need to cut down on the fansite type comments. There is no dignity (a word often used here) in calling the Rangers manager or their fans names. We need to maintain higher standards of impartiality than football fansites, because we know that a united fan base can actually make a difference as RTC did when the SPL chairmen were gearing up for a parachute for the new Rangers. OT discussions are fine, and often amusing, but they shouldn’t become the main reason to come here.
The requirement to have a WordPress account before posting here is not in any way draconian. It is designed to make people accountable for what they post whilst still maintaining anonymity, and therefore being exempt from moderation. Those who don’t like it are not being compelled to carry out any instruction – they only need go to a place where they don’t feel so constrained.
If the main issue of this blog becomes how the blog is being administered – or how the moderation policy is affecting the human rights of posters, we may as well just pack up now.
There have never been any objections to the suggested posting rules on here. We assume that people who post are reasonably intelligent. Therefore it seems fair to assume that those who have ignored the suggested posting rules did so deliberately. If that doesn’t happen, moderation is just not required.
If what we are trying to do fails because of our posting framework, then we will be blamed. We are certain though, that we can have no credibility if we indulge ourselves in conspiracy theories and constant references to anachronistic organisations, the Scottish school system, and the leanings of referees.
There is real corruption in Scottish football. It is based not on religious rivalries but on greed and acquisitiveness. The only thing that matters is that we identify that corruption and help put an end to it.
Our job is to ask questions and not jump to our own conclusions about the answers. That will divide us as surely as the realisation of the depth of the corruption united us. To be totally united as fans, we need to have more Rangers fans on here. Therefore we need to create an atmosphere that they can be comfortable with. Is that the case right now? The anger for RFC’s mismanagement and abuse of the game in Scotland is real, but we need to look forward if we are truly committed to ensuring that what happened to Rangers can’t happen again.
We’re not gonna throw the toys out of the pram here. If anyone else would like to run the blog under those circumstances of zero moderation, we will be happy to hand over the domain. There is no “agenda” – we will be happy to hand the work over to others.
The initial posting which proposed the change to WordPress logins received over 130 TUs and only three TDs. Subsequently the post advising of the changes got around 100 TUs and 100 TDs. It seems that minds are not entirely made up.
To get some closure on this once and for all, we have added a poll below to end on Saturday at 1700 where you can decide whether you want to go along with our original plan in terms of login and moderation. We obviously recommend that you vote “Yes”
redlichtie says:
September 23, 2012 at 12:59
They have made their feelings known, now I might not agree with it as you might not. However these are guys expert in law.
I said before I liked Paul’s Scots Law Thoughts as a blog, why? The reason is he does not dismiss inconvenient truths, in fact he analyses them and tries to reconcile them with the evidence, he does not just sweep them aside.
The fact is guys we have one Law Lord and 2 QC’s who have come to the conclusion we are the same club, who am I or you to contest their findings.
Brenda or wee Brenda,
Do you accept that Brechin, East Fife and Falkirk should not have been drawn against Rangers as the rules are applied.The rule book for the cups clearly state Rangers should have been seeded and not entered the competition at thise stages.
Rules are rules.
davis58 says:
September 23, 2012 at 13:15
=================================
So why did the football registration have to be transferred to Rangers. If Rangers already held it there was no need to transfer it. Surely it only had to be transferred it if was a separate and new entity.
As to Law Lords (and he isn’t) always getting things right. If I recall a Court of Session ruling recently overturned, or at least set aside, a football ruling given by a (former) Judge. So they don’t always agree, in spite of them being experts. In fact a QC gave a ruling, a Judge upheld it on appeal, and the Court of Session rejected it.
Another wee specious argument.
As it happens, I am more than happy to accept that they are the same club, or accept that they aren’t. Just so long as it is a definitive and it is agreed. If Rangers are the same club, fine, accept it and accept any sanctions imposed. Was that not the point of the 5 way agreement – that Rangers rejected. To identify them as the same club, and accept the sanctions they were due. Mr Green really didn’t like that idea.
They want to be the same club when it suits (history and cash owed) but a different club when it doesn’t (sanctions for breaking the rules and cash owed to others). That is what I think is most unacceptable to people. It has to be one or the other. Feck, I’ll even let you choose, just stick to the one.
am i the only one that thinks that had the spl/sfa dealt with the problems promptly and as per the rules … rfc would had been found guilt on all counts … 0-3 scorelines in all matches and relegated to sfl-div1 ?? ayes / naws ??
exiledcelt says:
September 23, 2012 at 05:15
19
0
Rate This
http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?s=afab68c58de4ba4ad028b8f289614fca&showtopic=238931&st=0
Yep – he is an idiot officially!
————————————————————————————————————————
The thing is, he isn’t an idiot, he knows exactly what he is doing.
He is however dangerous and needs pulled up by someone.
With regard to Chuckles making an Initial Public Offering on the Alternative Investment Market, cannae see it. Prior to application, all candidate companies must appoint a NOMAD (Nominated Adviser) to guide them through the process. This is ensure that all regulatory compliances are met and that the candidate company and all office bearers are ‘fit and proper’.
Now, it has to be said that not all NOMAD’s, who are AIM approved, are the sort of guys you would like to administer the supporters club funds, but if the prospectus offered by Chuckles passes the minimum requirements, I’ll be a monkeys uncle!
Audited accounts, financial statements, business projections, sustainability modelling, the list goes on.
As other posters have noted, even if an offering is made, who in their right mind would consider investing in a business that does not have troubles to seek, and may not even be in existence in the not too distant future?
I have been enjoying the recent shennanigans with regard to Guidi, Traynor, the MSM, banners and all that malarkey, but settle down, the big picture is about to start. Enjoy.
davis58
Why would a 3rd division team be seeded? Or does the rule book actually state SPL clubs and Rangers are to be seeded regardless of which league they play in?
Davis58. As you say rules is rules and should be adhered to at all times. As above if the Rangers is still Rangers and nothing else changed then the deduction of points should have been given foe being a club in administration at the start of the season.Am I Ccorrect?
davis58
?? If they made up their minds or clarification was given by ruling bodies whether they were new or oldco rules could be applied …… I just want them to pay their dues and admit to cheating, I’m fed up with their ‘woe is me’ attitude they are cheats and no-one can be bothered with their lies and cover-ups any longer.
Sorry another test
Rangers fans were in fact a minority, that is without doubt.
In the SPL Rangers’ home match average attendance was less than Celtic’s, on average about 4,000 a game if memory serves. Add in the attendances for the other clubs and Rangers are a minority, and it’s not even a close thing.
The bottom line is that rules were bent and then broken to suit and appease the minority.
davis58 says:
Rules is rules, Rules are rules?
If the correct rules were applied from the beginning, without fear or favour, there would be no ‘new’ rangers. FACT.
The club/company is a myth orchestrated by all those who did not apply the rules, you know it, we know it, and more importantly we will never let you forget it.
Liquidation = The end.
Simples.
Go go go Palacio well said 🙂
Palacio67 says:
September 23, 2012 at 14:02
That scenario only applies if you disregard Lord Nimmos and 2 QC’s arguments that suggest the club is not the company.
So are you going to disregard his opinions regards the dual contracts?
Palacio67 says:
September 23, 2012 at 14:02
If the correct rules were applied from the beginning, without fear or favour, there would be no ‘new’ rangers. FACT.
Acyually I am considering this at the moment, if we are the same club, as Nimmo suggests, then the cup games are invalid, so do Brechin, Falkirk, East Fife complain. However more importantly how do the other things like membership transfer etc hold up?
davis58 says:
September 23, 2012 at 14:18
That scenario only applies if you disregard Lord Nimmos and 2 QC’s arguments that suggest the club is not the company.
==========================
Their ruling holds, for the purposes of their hearing.
Here’s another quote, it’s from a letter Duff and Phelps sent out.
“Dear Shareholder of The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. (the “Club”)”
That’s from the Court appointed administrator, to the shareholders of the business in administration. Everything they do is answerable to the Court.
Are we to disregard the fact that they clearly identify the PLC and the Club as the same thing.
davis58 says:
September 23, 2012 at 14:15
Yes, sorry I did misunderstand you, my point is that the football authorities (SPL, SFA) had one terrible decision to make; do we eject the largest club …
========================
LOL, aye right.
Largest by what measure. Is it attendances, number of season ticket holders, turnover.
By what measure are you saying “largest”.
Could it be debt level.
Actually I did say they probably would do the same for Celtic.
Come on is that the best you can do?
Agrajag says:
September 23, 2012 at 14:23
Yes I said in an earlier post that we now have the governing bodies disagreeing with Rangers actual status. SFL, clearly agree Rangers are a continuation, look at their website, now SPL are saying the same thing, so where do the SFA stand?
davis58 says:
September 23, 2012 at 14:28
Actually I did say they probably would do the same for Celtic.
Come on is that the best you can do?
==========================
If that is at me, it’s you who described Rangers (prior to their death) as the largest team in Scotland.
Can you explain on what basis they were the largest team in Scotland, is it on season ticket sales, average home attendance, turnover, debt level.
It’s a fairly simple question.
You can answer the “Dear Shareholder of The Rangers Football Club P.L.C. (the “Club”)” description as well if you want.
Or ignore both.
Agrajag says:
September 23, 2012 at 14:35
We have 5 stars on our jerseys.
davis58 says:
September 23, 2012 at 14:32
Agrajag says:
September 23, 2012 at 14:23
Yes I said in an earlier post that we now have the governing bodies disagreeing with Rangers actual status. SFL, clearly agree Rangers are a continuation, look at their website, now SPL are saying the same thing, so where do the SFA stand?
===================================
OK, I’ll go with that.
So presumably they will accept any sanctions, subject to the normal rights of appeal obviously.
And will pay any debts.
When do Ticketus get their money for the season tickets sold. It’s the same club, they paid for those tickets, they are entitled to them.
When does the country get it’s £50m or so tax etc.
davis58 says:
September 23, 2012 at 14:37
Agrajag says:
September 23, 2012 at 14:35
We have 5 stars on our jerseys.
============================
And that make you larger how.
Agrajag says:
You seem to be missing the point the Club and Company are separate entities, the debt was left behind,
davis58
Please explain
to me what the 5 stars mean?
And they are on the way off the jersey pretty soon me thinks…. 🙂
HirsuitPursuit says:
September 23, 2012 at 13:07
HP, your forensic analysis is truly impressive and raises a couple of questions:
1. Would LN have been aware of this and, if so…well, that raises many other questions
2. How does one inform LN that he may be incorrect?
davis58 @ 14:44
Lol oh that old chestnut lmao
exiledcelt says:
September 23, 2012 at 10:47
However we all know many of the 35,000 ST holders are kids who won’t be buying shares and many of the adults bought STs due to the price and cannot afford 600 quid more………..
………………………………………………
The main point about the 35.000 S.T. holders is that a good number of them are families
where Mum, Dad and two or three kids have season tickets.
So if you take into account OAP’s, fans on benefits who can just about manage to buy a season ticket then go each week, multiple tickets in one families, debenture holders already lost something like 7k, previous shareholders who saw their shares meaningless because they found out they bought a share in a company that runs the club and not the club itself etc,etc, etc,etc,,,,,,,, then you are down to probably less than10.000 who would even consider buying, and they will need to convince the wife that a 5 or 600 quid share in a company running a football club is more important than the kids winter shoes, Santa, or next years family holiday.
If they raise more than 6 or 7 million from the fans it will be a miracle.
Hey I would not be to premature, you thought we were dead, got that wrong didn’t you.
Anyway I cannot be bothered with puerile nonsense like this so good night.
davis58 says:
September 23, 2012 at 14:44
0 0 Rate This
Agrajag says:
You seem to be missing the point the Club and Company are separate entities, the debt was left behind,
==================================
Not according to EUFA & the SFA 🙂
davis58 says:
September 23, 2012 at 14:56
Hey I would not be to premature, you thought we were dead, got that wrong didn’t you.
Anyway I cannot be bothered with puerile nonsense like this so good night.
===============================
There’s the real face.
And a good night to you too.
davis58 says:
September 23, 2012 at 14:56
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dead? Perhaps not yet.
Dying? Put it this way, Florence Nightingale herself would have written you off by now.
davis58,
The reason you have 5 stars on your jersey is because nobody wants to sponsor new strips,you are still wearing a mixture of old kit,biggest club my arse. Why did you not reply to the post that said if you are the same club you should be deducted 25 points for REMAINING in administration.
By the way,your debt has not been left behind,only the money. The debt you owe Scottish football is following you like a mugger on a dark street.
I would suggest that the success of any IPO would be dependent on league reconstruction to bump Sevco up to SPL2 or equivalent. Bears aren’t going to part with their cash and watch Green & Co jump ship. They wouldn’t be so daft, would they?
Sugar Daddy says:
September 23, 2012 at 15:13
I would suggest that the success of any IPO would be dependent on league reconstruction to bump Sevco up to SPL2 or equivalent. Bears aren’t going to part with their cash and watch Green & Co jump ship. They wouldn’t be so daft, would they?
========================
They weren’t the last time, when the money probably would have gone into the club, to remove debt and put them on a much sounder financial footing.
Maybe if they had backed their club then they wouldn’t have had to keep on … no wait, that can’t be right. It can’t actually be that Rangers’ fans weren’t actually willing to support Rangers in their time of need.
Thanks TSFM, Let’s see if this works! I just booked a flight to London imiately before trying to get through the wordpress thingy-so I hope it’s actually me that gets going rather the koala.:)
Success, as thrilling as Aberdeen’s late equaliser.
re Dual Contracts investigation. Is the panel looking at SFA administration of contracts as well what RFC(IA/PL) submitted? Rather hope they are, could be interesting.
davis58
Revert to type lol you really can’t help yourselves can you?
Brenda and Agrajag
This blog is supposed to be at least attempting to be above others, erudite and forensic.
When you make comments like, – “There’s the face!” and “Revert to type lol you really can’t help yourselves can you?” – You should have given factual, demonstrable evidence for your claims against davis58. You didnt.
Let me help.
Davis58, you cant make comments like, “We’ve still got 5 stars on our strips”, then accuse anyone else of being puerile. A bairn wi a biscuit erse would notice that at fifty paces.
While it is incumbent of all Celtic fans on here to look beyond their prejudices, to hear the other, it surely also means that Sevco fans must admit when their argument is shown to be a poor one – and that is going to happen alot on here.
Well argued, Agrajag. Davis58, pick up the dummy and get back in here.
Doontheslope .??
When he was asked questions he couldn’t answer (davis58) he either didn’t answer or bailed out calling the discussion puerile nonsense. I was asking him pertinent questions about his comments nothing more nothing less……… He knew he was beat he reverted to type, he showed the real face ????
In total agreement, Brenda. But the thought just struck me that it is going to be difficult to find ‘Rangers’ guys putting forward good argument on here because, well, for the most part, they are wrong.
As it has always been (on RTC too) they can’t accept they have done anything wrong so you won’t get a decent, honest discussion EVER sadly.
davis58 says:
September 23, 2012 at 13:46
The real problem is not that people are unwilling to accept inconvenient truths. It is that people want to accept only the part of the truth that suits them. That is where the MSM are letting
everyone down.
Yes and that is why I come on here. I do not contribute to the site, however I do get educated on points I could never raise else where. The problem just now is it is a very delicate situation on Rangers forums. If I was to ask questions I would be savaged and likely banned.
I do believe that if you are genuine, which I think you are, you could recruit many more Rangers fans because be have frankly no were else to ask questions.
“””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””””
Therein lies lies the problem.
The MSM have an agenda driven by money and their own personal allegiances.
Unless you march to the beat of the drum being pounded by the lowest common denominator the mob will turn on you.
The problem with the blind Follow Follow mentality arises when the leaders are heading for the edge of the cliff. The followers are hypnotized by the beat of the drum and if anyone cries ‘look out’ they are traitors or worse.
davis58 says:
September 23, 2012 at 14:44
You seem to be missing the point the Club and Company are separate entities, the debt was left behind,
——–
Folks – can we cut Davis58 a little slack? He’s said on more than one occasion that he comes here to get an insight that he can’t get on any RFC-based forums.
Of course he’s a Rangers supporter, and he is bound to see the best he can in RFC. Give the guy a break, let him get involved in discussions and suggest points without baiting him until he pops a fuse. It doesn’t do anyone any favours.
Davis58 – the quote at the top of my post here, allied to your other comments concerning Nimmo Smith’s assertion that the Club continues. How do you square those two points of view? Who incurred that debt, by spending on what, and why should it be left behind?
Do you see the Company as some kind of benefactor, a Company which isn’t actually Rangers, which can die and leave the next kindly Uncle with a clean sheet to take over?
Do you believe that financial transactions (inc. debts) are the responsibility of the Company, whilst the Club is just a repository for history and stuff like that?
Are League titles awarded to the Club, or to the Company? Who benefits from League payouts according to League position – the Club, or the Company? Presumably, the Club doesn’t have a separate bank account, so these will be paid to the Company, right? Does that mean the Company e.g. won the League? If that Company dies, what happens to those titles? Are they transferred magically to the Club? Which then transfers them magically to another Company?
Who do the players play for – the Club or the Company? Who pays their wages?
Nimmo Smith has opened a right old bag of snakes here.
doontheslope says:
September 23, 2012 at 16:20
In total agreement, Brenda. But the thought just struck me that it is going to be difficult to find ‘Rangers’ guys putting forward good argument on here because, well, for the most part, they are wrong.
=======================
I see people who either are or claim to be Rangers fans on here making perfectly good arguments. I don’t always agree with their interpretation, but they argue the point well.
In instances like that I am happy to discuss the issue with them, or to agree to disagree. We can all see things differently.
I’m not happy however to listen to specious arguments or regurgitated propaganda and myths. Whatever “side” it comes from.
Rangers fans can argue that there is a continuation of “the club” and put forward a reasonable argument. Other people can put forward a a valid argument that it is a new business and a new club. Unfortunately the footballing authorities seem to have supported both position. For example by “transferring” the membership.
I think what annoys most people is the apparent attempt by Sevco to have both things true at the same time, whichever suits. Charles Green claims to be the same club, but refuses a deal which allows that, but at the same time carries forward the possibility of sanctions. That makes no sense.
Like I said earlier, I am happy either way, so long as it’s one or the other. Be Rangers if you want, but accept your sanctions and debts. Or don’t be Rangers, and have a fresh start, but don’t make claims to previous glories.
Agrajag @ 17:02
Explained beautifully 🙂
I must admit I’m disappointed by davis58. His responses were I thought treated fairly but when his arguments started to run aground he resorted to an approach that just undermined his other points.
This IS a big mess and Rangers fans have been let down by their previous owners. It is however now apparent that the success of those years was based on a tax dodge that allowed Rangers to field better, and more, players than a legitimate operation could ever have funded.
One point I fail to see noted is that this approach caused other Scottish clubs to themselves over-reach but without the secret funding that effectively came from the use of EBTs.
Rangers for many years thus not only enjoyed undeserved success but placed strains on the financial structures of other clubs as they strove to keep up.
It is almost a miracle that more clubs did not go bust as a result of this financial doping. Certainly many were weakened by having to sell top players, some to Rangers which just made the imbalance worse.
With clubs now competing on a relatively level playing field in the Premier League it would not surprise me to see far healthier finances as clubs now work within their means.
Roll on the Nimmo report and FTT announcement and perhaps this terrible blight on the Scottish game can finally be dealt with.
Brenda says:
September 23, 2012 at 16:25
2 0 Rate This
As it has always been (on RTC too) they can’t accept they have done anything wrong so you won’t get a decent, honest discussion EVER sadly.
———–
Brenda, I think davis88 is honestly seeking answers. He probably feels a ‘ganging up’ on him. I’m nor sure he’s thought it through yet. It’s good he didn’t turn up when it was all jelly and ice cream 🙂
Fans are at different stages in their understandng of the events and not everyone has accepted – or is willing to accept – that things are really that bad.
Helping people steeped in a blinkered sub-culture to see reason can be a very slow process. But branding all Gers fans as reverting to type isn’t going to help davis88 (who geninely seems to be seeking some answers) or any others, find the bit of enlightenment they’re looking for.
redlichtie says:
September 23, 2012 at 17:18
=======================
Sorry but I cannot accept that Rangers were to blame for other people overspending.
I accept that they got an unfair advantage by under-paying their tax, fair enough.
However it was up to every other club to decide how much they spent. If they spent too much on trying to compete then that is no-one’s fault but their own.
If Celtic bowed to pressure from the fans, and spent too much money, money that they could not afford, then it is no-one else’s fault. Every person and every business must take responsibility for their own actions. Celtic could have chosen not to compete at that level (albeit an unfair one) and worked to their own budgets. Getting whatever success they could actually afford. Maybe even bringing young players through rather than trying to buy success.
Blaming others for your own mistakes is not the way to go.
Agrajag @ 17:02
Like I said earlier, I am happy either way, so long as it’s one or the other. Be Rangers if you want, but accept your sanctions and debts. Or don’t be Rangers, and have a fresh start, but don’t make claims to previous glories.
=========================================================================
Therein lies the problem for this poor schizophrenic club and it’s supporters
No one will be totally honest with them about their true status
On the one hand they are being told that they are the same club, with its history and traditions intact, and will be subject to any penalties that may come their from their time under previous owners
On the other hand, they are told that they are effectively a new club having had to apply for entry to the SFA and SFL, but they will still be liable for any penalties as they are really a continuation of the old club
Between them, the SFA/SPL/SFL/ Sevco lead by Green and the MSM have created a shambles out of their handling of the situation
My own view, is that they are a brand new club, with no history, and can’t be punished for something they did not do
However, if they insist they are the same old club, then they need to man up and take whatever is coming to them
The time has come for them to stop morphing between whichever identity suits the argument they are having at the time
DP @17:20
I think you are being a tad kind to he/she, I don’t think they want enlightenment at all, they just want to get away with all transgressions………… They have until now! and I feel are rather bewildered by all this honesty that’s being requested from them. They have to (as discussed by others today) decide whether they want to be oldco and pay the debt and admit to the cheating or be NEWCO and kiss all that goodbye, they can’t chop and change when it suits them!!! Poor diddums.
campsiejoe says:
September 23, 2012 at 17:33
===========================
I agree.
The Scottish football authorities have by their mismanagement only succeeded in making matters worse. Which was a good trick for a situation which could hardly have been worse.
Had they dealt with it properly from the start then we might not be where we are just now.
One looks back at Gretna, didn’t take that long to sort out. Was there a fundamental difference to what happened to them. Debt, administration, inability to clear debt, liquidation. No CVA, no continuation of the existing entity.
What’s the difference between the situations.
Danish Pastry says:
September 23, 2012 at 17:20
DP, fully agree and hope to have more Rangers fans join the debate. The problem as others have indicated is just how bad the problem now is for them and how traumatic the endgame may really be.
Whether the ‘Club’ and ‘owner and operator’ are one or not, Nimmo’s approach has been set out rationally in terms of the rules that Newco/Sevco signed up to.
This places the ‘Club’ (and by obvious linkage the owner and operator) in the direct firing line.
Rather than boycotting proceedings Newco/Sevcos should be in there showing some humility and playing on the “big boy did it and ran away”/”we have come in to rescue a Scottish institution when no-one else would” argument and thus seek to have some mitigation of what is heading for a catastrophic verdict for their interests.
The potential of this happening alone must surely blow any IPO opportunity out of the water.
Hirsuitepursuit 23 September 2012 13:07
Hirsuite, your dissemblance of this interesting/curious part of the EBT panel terms of reference is much appreciated. I didn’t do a ‘forensic’ on it like yourself but was struck by the lack of legal entity within a club described by Lord Nimmo. I’m sure a definition in a link in the the judicial panel protocol blog states that all and sundry become bound by the articles of association when a club signs up; managers, agents, directors et al. As such these affiliated members can be hauled up in front of the judicial panel if they are found to have breached the rules in some way (CG’s disrepute charge illustrates this). So separating the owning company from the club seems on my superficial and your more considered interpretation to be irrational.
(New paragraph)
How could an experienced legal mind with direct assistance from the governing bodies concerned have created this anomally?
Newco have been invited to have representation at the hearings on the explicit ground that the outcome may affect them materially. I took this to be a linkage created in perhaps the five way agreement. I read Oldco and Newco as two distinct things.
Has his Lordship’s SPL/SFA advisers ‘duped’ him? If you can search out the definition so readily (I do not undersetimate your diligence or that of other valuable contributors) then would his Lordship not have taken a squint at the definitions himself rather than just accept an advisers word, given that it is such a critical definition. The terms seem a wee bit too meticulous for this to be a mere oversight. Is this plot thickener of a variety in the upper echelons of that already observed? There are so many shady corners in this drama that one is fearful an assailant could be upon you at any moment.
Perhaps word will leak back to his Lordship of the possible conflict here and for the sake of his reputation he will feel obliged to provide clarification, even if only to the legal representatives of the interested parties, whom I’m surprised did not pick up on this themselves. Maybe we don’t have the full picture here and there is more to this than can be easily explained in the published outline we have only yesterday become aware of.
Us it churlish to want more rangers fans on this blog. I think it’s hard to go from bu11sh1t reporting to any analysis. Aclimitisation will take time. Not that I’m of the opinion everything posted on this blog is agenda free. Debate brings out truth. Lets start the debate.
Agrajag says:
September 23, 2012 at 17:27
redlichtie says:
September 23, 2012 at 17:18
=======================
Sorry but I cannot accept that Rangers were to blame for other people overspending.
I accept that they got an unfair advantage by under-paying their tax, fair enough.
However it was up to every other club to decide how much they spent. If they spent too much on trying to compete then that is no-one’s fault but their own.
If Celtic bowed to pressure from the fans, and spent too much money, money that they could not afford, then it is no-one else’s fault. Every person and every business must take responsibility for their own actions. Celtic could have chosen not to compete at that level (albeit an unfair one) and worked to their own budgets. Getting whatever success they could actually afford. Maybe even bringing young players through rather than trying to buy success.
Blaming others for your own mistakes is not the way to go.
————————————————————————————————————
I understand exactly what you are saying and in a rational business world this would not happen.
As you say yourself however, clubs bow to pressure from fans. It is also well evidenced that businessmen seem to leave their brains at home when they join football club boards.
Apply that to a situation where the competition is always miles ahead and you are under pressure to compete and you then get bad and stupid decisions made. This is often dressed up as ‘speculate to accumulate’ but in the Scottish football arena the playing field was not level and the other clubs were just throwing money away.
Agrajag says:
September 23, 2012 at 17:02
Rangers fans can argue that there is a continuation of “the club” and put forward a reasonable argument. Other people can put forward a a valid argument that it is a new business and a new club. Unfortunately the footballing authorities seem to have supported both position.
——–
I’m beginning to think that both positions may be tenable in different situations. Nimmo Smith’s Statement makes perfectly good sense – in the context of SPL Rules. However, it does not make any sense in the outside world.
Therefore, is it possible that Rangers FC can be a continuous entity in some respects, whilst being dead and gone, then re-created in others? I think it just may be.
Mr Charles, despite being an objectionable bully, cannot be a stupid man. I’m sure he’s aware of at least the possibility of RFC having such a split personality. He must be, because that’s the line he’s taking. He’s trying to re-position where the split is to suit himself, that’s all.
I phone, apologies for grammar
Agrajag @ 17:40
There are two differences between Sevco and Gretna
The first is that someone was prepared to pay for RFC(IA)
The second and most important, is that RFC(IA) was seen as an organisation, that no matter how heinous its crimes, had to be saved at all costs, and the rules that govern everyone else went out of the window
campsiejoe says:
September 23, 2012 at 17:57
Agrajag @ 17:40
There are two differences between Sevco and Gretna
The first is that someone was prepared to pay for RFC(IA)
The second and most important, is that RFC(IA) was seen as an organisation, that no matter how heinous its crimes, had to be saved at all costs, and the rules that govern everyone else went out of the window
=======================
Agreed, which is the fundamental issue.
They were “the biggest club in Scotland”, “a Scottish institution”, “part of the fabric of society”, “too big to fail”.
So everyone else was supposed to accept stealing and cheating on a massive scale and carry on as if nothing had happened. Let them back into the SPL debt free, with the same stadium and squad. Unencumbered by their debts whilst the other clubs still had theirs.
Thank goodness the fans just said no.
Agrajag 23 September 2012 at 17:30
Agrajag, your comment strikes me as caustic, unkind and unlikely to encourage Davis to participate wholeheatedly in this discussion. Paradoxically I also found your assessment to be succinct, clear, to the point and not entirely lacking in accuracy. Perhaps the Oldco/Newco schizophrenia is proving infectious and liberatinng for me.
I think we should all take a step back boys and girls,if this was davis58’s intention it’s worked,if it was not and he is genuinely looking to join in then he will be welcomed back.We are a wee bit touchy today, slow news day.
davis58,if you read this,expect to get shot down if people disagree with you,it’s not personal until You make it so.
Agrajag 23 September 2012 18:07 (+/- 27 minutes)
Debate is healthy and this is what I’m reading. Arguments among team members can destroy moral very quickly though and I’m sure we would all wish to avoid that.
mullach says:
September 23, 2012 at 18:28
=======================
I’m sure you would agree that part of any debate is asking someone to justify a claim they made. Particularly when it is patently questionable.
Or should one avoid that now. Would you not agree that it is by just accepting things, to the extent that they become received wisdom, that we allow our perceptions and beliefs to be manipulated.
Rangers did not mis-manage RBTs they abused them.
Rangers do owe HMRC money, the tribunal is an appeal.
Rangers did refuse to pay PAYE and NI for a year, Craig Whyte was Rangers.
Rangers are not the victims in this, they are the offenders.
By just accepting things we give them our tacit approval and acceptance. I am not willing to do that.
Quite an interesting piece just posted on CQN regarding advertising and Tennents’ latest logo.
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/
Oh and can I add, I thought
” … not entirely lacking in accuracy.”
Was a lovely way of saying “mostly rubbish”. It’s to your credit. A quality bit of double speak.
When are we going to discuss who was it that done the first draft for RFC being parachuted into the SFL1 ?, Harper McLeod?, SPL?, SFA?, when the SFL wanted nothing to do with it, someone has assumed Guilt before trial, I do believe the SFA/SPL have a lot to answer to, and the quicker we are rid of them at the top the better.
[SFM Edit: Welcome back Blue Sea / Pars Fan. A new name and hopefully a new leaf?]
Agrajag @ 18:38
Rangers are not the victims in this, they are the offenders.
=========================================================================
This is the heart of the matter
The “Establishment” wants all of us to ignore this basic fact, and allow the perpetrators to go free, with no punishments being given
It must not be allowed to happen
Another astonishing crowd at Ibrox today.
One thing the SPL can learn from this, and I hope you all agree, it is most important to get your pricing policy correct.
Rangers have got this spot on, the number of families, youngsters is very encouraging.
They are the very lifeblood of Scottish Football.
The SPL is overpriced, perhaps we can agree on that.
a decent but frustrating comment from Tom English in MSM today. Highlights the skullduggery of sfa and spl and tells us they too have to be investigated re attempting a deal in terms of ebt/dual contracts but cow -tows to sevco again by missing the point that the worst part of the deal was the corruption in trfc continuing while walking away from £millions of debt. Until they get it..the corruption tag cannot ever go away
jmaclure says:
September 23, 2012 at 19:15
1 0 Rate This
Another astonishing crowd at Ibrox today.
One thing the SPL can learn from this, and I hope you all agree, it is most important to get your pricing policy correct.
Rangers have got this spot on, the number of families, youngsters is very encouraging.
They are the very lifeblood of Scottish Football.
The SPL is overpriced, perhaps we can agree on that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Senior football in general is overpriced. Of course this overpricing has come about as a result of overpaying players (isn’t that right Jimmy Hill?!). And overpaying players eventually brought about the decade of cheating that Rangers embarked on. This in turn led clubs to live beyond their means in order to compete. Until some clubs decided enough was enough. Amongst these clubs was Celtic, whose board decided they would no longer break the bank in order to keep pace with the false economy that was Rangers.
There are a good number of economic lessons to be learned from Rangers demise. Ticket pricing is not amongst the most important.
jmaclure says:
September 23, 2012 at 19:15
_____________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________
Of course they’ve got their pricing policy right. Nobody’s dumb enough to think that RFC (or whatever one chooses to call them) would have dared charge SPL prices for Division 3 games. Had Green even considered the idea you’d have been lucky to see 10,000 there today. And you’re right to say that the game has to market itself to families in order to get the kids watching football in the raw, so to speak, rather than WWE Raw on the PS3 or whatever. (Celtic PLC’s blunder over the raising of child season ticket prices is something that should be used to batter Lawwell with as often as possible IMO.) His only problem with that is that the gate income won’t match what’s required to run the whole bangshoot. I believe that the financial summation on all this was previously posted on RTC.
I do have one issue on this though. I listened to most of the first hour of the game at Ibrox today and once again the songbook was given an airing, albeit more muted than at Annan last week. Not exactly what’s wanted to retain said new custom. And given some of the utterances from Green, Ally and co since July, plus ‘unfortunate’ photo opportunities like the tangerine top one, I see nothing to suggest that Green has your version of a family-friendly future in mind.
mullach says:
September 23, 2012 at 17:47
How could an experienced legal mind with direct assistance from the governing bodies concerned have created this anomally?
——
Because he’s not working within a “legal” framework here. He’s working on an alleged breach against SPL Rules. Therefore, he uses the definitions provided in these rules.
This is not a court case – it’s an investigation into an SPL matter.
J Maclure – Not really astonishing. TRFC are the biggest club in the land, after all. It will be astonishing if they keep the attendances up when they go on a run of 3 or 4 poor results (which is likely to happen by the law of averages). Motherwell should be an interesting test, though the players theoretically won’t be “culture shocked” in that one!
Yes, the SPL is overpriced. Now that a greater chance of a competitive league has been reinstated (for whatever reason) then the prices don’t look quite so over the horizon (though they’ve only just come into sight, using high-powered binoculars).
Lord Wobbly says:
September 23, 2012 at 19:40
—————————————————
I think if you look back you will see I have credited the Celtic board by being forward thinking enough by refusing to bow to their fans and overspend as they did in the O’Neil era.
It seems every time I come on here I have to go through a lecture of something or other regarding Rangers wrongdoing.
As it is the Scottish Football monitor I thought it might be important enough to highlight a pricing strategy (even if it is at Ibrox) that is bringing crowds and families and youngsters back to football (Scottish Div 3 football)in impressive numbers. Is that too hard for you to acknowledge?