Moving On Time?

ByAndrew Smith

Moving On Time?

Football is indeed a funny old game.
In a year of pandemic misery our national sport has lifted the spirits of a tired and cynical nation.
Dominic Cummings is leaving number 10, the Brexit deal hasn’t been done, lockdown is on the horizon in the West of Scotland, etc. BUT all we want to do is talk about and relive our team finally doing the business.

For once lady luck came down on our side.

If we been the team to miss our last penalty and had the Serbians scored then Serbian Football would be £10million plus better off and it would be their team heading for Hampden and Wembley.

We’d still be in the doldrums and a Pandemic-accelerated financial basket case.

Scotland is now in their first finals since France 1998 and the nation is smiling and talking positively.

There is no doubt that Steve Clarke’s influence has been huge and we all owe him a real debt especially the bean counters at Hampden who must have been hiding behind their settees hiding their eyes through extra time and into the shoot-out.

Scotland is playing more like a club team with a binding spirit rather than a group of individuals who have just met, are there for the match fee and want to stay in their previous cliques.

The dark side is never far away though.
Overconfidence is always an issue when Scotland wins a few games.

Journalists are now filling pages talking about our 9 game unbeaten run and digging up statistics from the past about what 10 in a row would mean.

The fact that since we got humped 4-0 by Russia we’ve been playing second and third level teams rather than the big boys is somehow never mentioned as a counterbalance.

That we have qualified after 2 penalty shoot outs with a statistically unlikely 10 out of 10 consecutive strikes is put down to practicing penalty taking better than Israel and Serbia.

The two games in the next 4 days might extend our run or not – it doesn’t really matter.

We have the big prize for now and qualified against the odds.
Records will show the much higher ranked Norway and Serbia teams will be at home.

Ok we’ll be at home too but playing at Hampden and Wembalee.

Scottish Football on the park has rediscovered and is redefining teamwork.

Nothing else in our game or set up has changed
(That is a discussion for many another day though).

The success of our team is to a great extent serendipitous.

It’s not something anyone in a suit at Hampden has facilitated or can take credit for outside of hiring Mr Clarke who as Chic was telling us yesterday was the obvious candidate.

The right manager, Steve has gathered a promising group of players and with them negotiated a series of testing challenges.
The stark reality is sometimes the recent games have been painful to watch but progress in baby steps has been noticeable and we genuinely played well against the more fancied Serbia.

Teamwork has been our bedrock.

Teamwork that has been missing for a long time in our international set up and I would argue throughout our game behind the scenes.

Yes we lost a silly goal at the death but Serbia is some 15 places above us in the FIFA rankings and on the night we were by far the better side.
The same Serbian team that had just returned from Oslo having taken apart the much-vaunted Norwegian side.

Steve Clarke has been the catalyst that has facilitated the unforeseen move from Scotland being a team of self-interested individuals into one with the team spirit.

Yes Steve We Can Boogie.

The Scottish team has moved on and the future is brighter on the international stage.

I understand too why many previously ardent Scots fans had distanced themselves from the team as a personal protest against The SFA and their actions over the last few years.
I get that.
But listening to Ryan and Andy and Lyndon and Steve was enough to demonstrate that these guys are playing for the country and their folks back home and not the blazers or the system.
I buy into their passion and that alone is enough to bring even the stubbornest fans back aboard.

When Big Pink asked me to write a blog about the future of this site a couple of weeks back I said I would like to lurk for a few weeks and do some digging.

I have lurked and gone even further back too.

Top line is the SFM blog is not what it was but you all know that.

Here is Some Feedback

Bit by bit; imperceptibly over the months and years the site has entrenched into the home of the anger and the facts against what John Clark has come to call “The Big Lie”.
Its about how the authorities dealt with the financial collapse of Rangers and set the scene for a series of mayhemic events since.

It’s a big Scottish football story and a good insight into how the game managed itself

But other things have been happening since and football has broken out.

One of you said just yesterday
“This site has become a single issue site only becoming alive when something IBROX is current”.

That is partially true and is something to address because it diminishes what this site can achieve.

The number of posters has eroded since the RTC days and the number of clubs represented by posters has also diminished. The site was always a little Celtic minded but open and welcoming of all clubs at the same time.

Some of that goodwill leaked away in this summer’s SPFL pantomime season when self-interest and the quest for 10 became a subconscious position for some of your group.

The level of politeness and the moderation on the site has however remained a huge asset and is almost unique.

This openness has led recently to one serial troll reappearing after several previous monikers and he/she/they have been playing games with several well know posters. The resultant “dancing on a head of a pin” conversations are not so much “Monitoring Scottish Football” as “doing people’s heads in” and this episode has not helped.
That being said I wish salmon were as easy to hook as some on here.

I don’t think there are enough Headline Blogs like this one and in the past I’ve been told many new blogs are simply skimmed politely and ignored as the discussion reverts to the ongoing various fall outs of the consequences of the infamous secret 5 way agreement and all that has ensued following that particular monumental administrative cock up.

I well remember too and liked Stunney and his papers every morning and even though most of what is written in the back pages of the red tops is there to fill space it was still fun to read.

At the same time there has been so much going on that would have benefitted from the forensic discussion that SFM posters brought to the party.
The court reporting by John Clark, EasyJambo and others has been quite dogged, incredibly insightful and shown up the media on many an occasion.

As the subjects under discussion on SFM became narrower I think the site stopped attracting new blood and also accelerated the departure of valued posters.

The diminishing site then became easier for serial disrupters to play with and the ever-decreasing circles metaphor has probably become a reality.

Finally, the adverts on the site that appeared, as if by magic, a few years ago do not deliver enough revenue to justify the inconvenience to readers.
I can’t read the site on my phone without clicking into people trying to sell me stuff I have no interest in.

That’s just a summary of my views as someone who values what this site has brought over the years.

Is it Time for a Reboot at SFM?

I’d say yes and here are a few suggestions to get you thinking and to start a discussion ahead of Big P and his monitors taking some decisions.

Scottish Football needs an independent conscience.

Scottish Football will be the stronger for it.

SFM can be a huge part of that.

Not all fans will want to be part of it because many just want to support their teams and that is fair enough but without a fan voice and without real analysis of what is really going on all that will happen is we’ll get more of the same that took us into the football wilderness.

And without the right changes even Steve Clarke will run out of steam one day when the penalty gods favour some other side.

So here are 5 ideas for SFM to consider

1 A Regular Blog
This doesn’t have to be written for us like in the past– it can just be a weekly news pick that we highlight to set a discussion agenda.

2 The Creation of a John Clark Wall where we hold the facts about the run up to and the creation of his “big lie”.
Set it all our logically and leave it alone for a future date.
It won’t go away because the action created issues for everyone involved.
It should be constructed for all fans with no jelly and ice cream flavouring.

This action would makes SFM the experts and place to go to read what really happened, helps get that monkey off everyone’s back and can be revisited every February 14th or when something turns up.
It might throw more light too in why we are rejoicing about Scotland getting a £10M windfall from qualifying while nobody is talking about the £80M court case costs heading our way as a nation.
All out of a secret 5 way construct back in 2012 and good for nobody whoever you support.

In the meantime SFM should broaden the discussion on other areas like the dropping of the pyramid, the secrecy inherent at the SFA, SPFL and their JRG, Strict Liability, etc. etc. etc.

3 The return of likes for posts that are good or if you agree but with a difference.
I occasionally post on another site which is free to read for anyone but if you want to post or like another post you have to be registered and all likes show the name of the person who has posted.

4 A consideration for different threads at the same time.

5 No ads.
Sponsorship is fine and banner ads for sponsors too but no commercial links that wheech you off to pastures unknown.

Evolution rather than Revolution

I look forward to the debate and to working with Big Pink and his team.
As chair of the largest Scottish group of fans the SFSA (If you’re not a member please join) I know that the only certainty is that fans will never agree about everything or sometimes even anything.

The tribal and competitive nature of football sets us against each other and causes divisions and disagreements that can become entrenched.
Some would say that is part of the fun of it all.

That being said we do generally agree and care deeply about the following.
We want vision, leadership and most of all fairness and transparency.

All alien words in our game as is.

OK Scotland has qualified for a major championship but our game is still locked in a self-interest framed self-imposed wrestling hold and the fact is that escape will never happen without change.

SFM and SFSA can both be part of that.

About the author

Andrew Smith subscriber

452 Comments so far

Cluster OnePosted on3:55 pm - Dec 11, 2020

John Clark 10th December 2020 at 22:49



Rate This

Cluster One 10th December 2020 at 18:19

‘..Another court date.’

This caught my eye and thoughts on another court date.

Soon BDO will take over as liquidator of Rangers Football Club PLC (RFC PLC). This will bring to an end the involvement of the administrators, Duff and Phelps (D+P) and will open up for BDO the possibility of various steps to be taken in the interests of creditors.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on4:34 pm - Dec 11, 2020

11 Dec 2020 Statement of capital following an allotment of shares on 10 December 2020
Is it a share issue every month to keep the lights on?

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on6:20 pm - Dec 11, 2020

You would imagine their opponents  , especially in Europe , would be looking at the state of their finances and the fact they are behind in social taxes , and wondering why they are being allowed to buy players and deprive others of prize money .

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:14 pm - Dec 11, 2020

I wonder whether it is Club 1872 Projects Community Interest Company that has bought 1,375,000 shares for £275K?

That would bring their percentage of the total to 8.78%

29952838 divided by


 x 100% = 8.7840328347%

making Club 1872 the 4th largest shareholder.

[If my figures are wrong, blame my first maths teacher at secondary school!]

Is there any legal mechanism that could prevent King selling just such proportion of his holding that would make Club 1872 the single largest shareholder? Would the present Board have powers to prevent a sale to any body that King wanted to sell his shares to? Could RIFC plc compulsorily purchase them back?


View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:26 pm - Dec 11, 2020

Cluster One 11th December 2020 at 15:55

‘..This will bring to an end the involvement of the administrators, Duff and Phelps (D P)..’


It has to be remembered that Lord Hodge had a wee query or so to be answered before he felt able to discharge the Administrators as having met all their legal requirements in the sense that they had done their duty under the law and had not infringed  any actual law. 

However, whether they had fully lived up to the norms of their professional body by, for example, arbitrarily selecting CG as the chosen purchaser of assets without giving  the other failed bidders ( Walter’s consortium, or  Mr Ng or Bill the trucker, for example) a chance to bid might be another question.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:33 am - Dec 12, 2020

Griffith -v- P ( in my inbox today)

Here's a wee 'contempt of court' case, where a wee wumman , with no record of criminality, is sent to the pokey for 12 months, no messing about.

Neutral Citation Number: [2020] EWCA Civ 1675 Case No: B4/2020/1805 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

Judgment published on 11-12-2020 02:08 PM GMT

Of course, I make no comparison between 'forging a Court order' and flagrantly disobeying  a Court order. Not complying with an order to do something ( King) is not in the same category as forging a Court Order thereby interfering with the administration of justice(the wee wumman)

But still…some folk seem to be dealt with extraordinarily leniently for giving two fingers to the Court while other folk……

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:58 am - Dec 12, 2020
The liquidator of Oldco Rangers has launched a £29million court case against administrators Duff & Phelps over their refusal to sell Ibrox stadium.

BDO says the stadium – and the club’s training complex, corporate brand and players – should have been cashed in and the money put towards the multi-million pound mountain of debt.

The case is to be heard in Scotland’s highest civil court in May next year and will point back to February 14, 2012, when Duff & Phelps were appointed administrators of the club after it fell into financial ruin during the ownership of Craig Whyte.
Something we spoke about the other day, good of the SMSM to catch up.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:35 am - Dec 12, 2020

‘John Clark 11th December 2020 at 20:14

I wonder whether it is Club 1872 Projects Community Interest Company that has bought 1,375,000 shares for £275K?…


[If my figures are wrong, blame my first maths teacher at secondary school!]’


According to the PDF attached to the first entry in the above link, it’s 13,750,000 (thirteen million, seven hundred & fifty thousand) shares that have been issued. At 20p each, that’s £2.75m.

What could that be needed for?

Working capital?

Deferred wages?

Transfer payment(s)?


Something else? 


View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:44 am - Dec 12, 2020

Jingso.Jimsie 12th December 2020 at 11:35

".. it's 13,750,000 (thirteen million, seven hundred & fifty thousand) shares that have been issued. At 20p each, that's £2.75m.2


Ha ha, Jingo, that makes me a bit like Eric Morecambe-right figures but wrong order! Thanks for that correction.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:54 am - Dec 12, 2020

Lausanne, 11 December 2020 – The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)

“…the 2020/21 UEFA Nations League match between Switzerland and Ukraine, that was scheduled to be played in Lucerne on 17 November 2020, was declared forfeited 3-0 by Ukraine.”

Ukraine has appealed to CAS against that decision, asking that the match be re-scheduled  or decided by UEFA drawing lots!

(The Ukrainians had been put into mandatory Covid-19 quarantine and couldn’t field a team. Any hope there for St Mirren?)

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on12:33 pm - Dec 12, 2020

Cluster One 12th December 2020 at 09:58

…BDO says the stadium – and the club’s training complex, corporate brand and players – should have been cashed in and the money put towards the multi-million pound mountain of debt…


I realise that the link is to a DR article, so accuracy is highly questionable, but IIRC;

– Murray Park wasn't sellable due to a 'joint arrangement' with Sport Scotland?

– in 2012 there were doubts about the stadium and who actually had "ra deeds" – but presumably it WAS sellable initially?

– the IP / brand was sellable.  Is that now generating a revenue stream for Charles Green today? (Only guessing).

– don't know about the players though.  If D&P tried to sell them, could they have just refused to leave and walk away for nothing – like Macgregor and Naismith, (IIRC?).


View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on2:55 pm - Dec 12, 2020

StevieBC 12th December 2020 at 12:33
It will be nine years since the death of rangers that BDO will have their day in court. The debenture holders and creditors will be cheering them on i would expect.
2010 Murray did a u-turn on the sale at £33mill when Andrew Ellis and Chris Akers tried to buy it.

A representative from Rangers Unite asked the board “What would you see as an exit price?” Imran replied that he believed on a bad day the club was worth £50 million.July 2012

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on6:59 pm - Dec 12, 2020

StevieBC 12th December 2020 at 12:33

'.. If D&P tried to sell them, could they have just refused to leave and walk away for nothing ..'


That threw me back to have another read at Lady Stacey's judgment in 

"The Rangers Football Club Ltd (Formerly Sevco Scotland Ltd)  v   1)  Professional Footballers Association Scotland      2) R F C 2012 Plc (In Liquidation)    [UKEATS/0038/13/SM] "

Like many other people, Lady Stacey seemed to use language inconsistently.

In para 5, she records  "..The claim arises from the sale of Rangers Football Club by the second respondent to the first respondent in June 2012. ..'

And later she seems to have forgotten she had used the 'the sale of Rangers Football Club' and began to talk about 'assets' being purchased:

Para 43 ……"He was also entitled to refer, in the circumstances of this case, to the “disintegration” of Rangers. It is hard to see why that should be thought to be offensive, when as the EJ commented, there was much comment in the media at the time using such terms. In any event, the first respondent had purchased assets from the administrators and so any reference to “disintegration” was not pejorative of them. It did not seem to me to be pejorative of anybody"

It is beyond my comprehension how this notion that CG had  bought the football club whole and entire was ever swallowed by anyone, when it is so evidently untrue. If he had done so, there would have been no need for the creation of SevcoScotland/TRFC Ltd, no hassle with Transfers under TUPE, no need new contracts to be signed by anyone then employed at Ibrox……

And for journalists and others to have allowed themselves to be cowed into not openly declaring that RFC of 1872 ceased to exist and was not bought and brought out of Administration is a shocking indictment of their integrity.

In my opinion; 

and we have been singularly ill-served  at many levels since the cheating by SDM first began.

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on7:47 pm - Dec 12, 2020

TUPE or not TUPE
The rags before the myth and the realisation the end was nigh

” However, on the advice of their union, PFA Scotland, numerous players have rejected the opportunity to transfer their contracts from Rangers to Sevco. ”

The union believe players could leave for free and Wishart tonight raised the prospect of legal action should any who wish to do so be prevented from leaving Ibrox by the football authorities.

In a statement, Wishart said: “Should the players wish to transfer across to the newco, TUPE ensures that they do so on their existing contractual terms.

“Equally TUPE affords every employee the statutory right to object to the transfer; employers cannot select which parts of TUPE they wish to apply.

“If a player wishes to object to being transferred his contract of employment would immediately come to an end leaving him with no contract, no dismissal and no right to compensation from either oldco or newco.

“Both the club and the player are then free from their contractual obligations.”

Some within the football authorities believe any player exercising their right to leave could be subject to a test case that could involve FIFA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport given that they will still be registered to Rangers with the SPL.



View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on12:18 am - Dec 13, 2020

bigboab1916 12th December 2020 at 19:47

From that article –


Green is poised to push ahead with a £5.5million deal to buy the club's assets and form a new club, which would need to apply for membership of the Scottish Premier League and be excluded from Europe for three years.


No journalist put his/her name to it , but I think that was the general way of thinking about the situation at the time .

View Comment

TimtimPosted on1:40 am - Dec 13, 2020

I have come to the conclusion that the general way of thinking about the situation now is that Craig Whyte simply unplugged Rangers* and Charles Green plugged them back in again.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on1:10 pm - Dec 13, 2020

Cluster One 12th December 2020 at 09:58

Something we spoke about years ago.

As soon as the CVA was rejected all focus should have been on maximising the return for the creditors, that clearly did not happen and they continued on as before, to seek as much continuity as possible between the old club and the new, to retain the assets and sell them on at a fractions of what they were worth. 

The assets were sold way under price and the release of negative goodwill in the first set of account (about £20m if I remember) is just admitting that.,a%20fraction%20of%20their%20worth.

  • Negative goodwill (NGW) refers to a bargain purchase amount of money paid when a company acquires another company or its assets.
  • Negative goodwill indicates that the selling party is in a distressed state and must unload its assets for a fraction of their worth. 
  • Negative goodwill nearly always favors the buyer. 
  • Buying parties must declare negative goodwill on their income statements.
  • Negative goodwill is the opposite of goodwill, where one company pays a premium for another company's assets. 
  • Goodwill/negative goodwill reporting falls under generally accepted accounting standards (GAAP).
View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:02 pm - Dec 13, 2020

Homunculus 13th December 2020 at 13:10

'..the release of negative goodwill in the first set of account (about £20m if I remember) is just admitting that.'


I think that's the first time I've really understood the concept of 'negative goodwill', Homunculus, and I'm grateful for your explanation.

One thing that still puzzles me is why, it seems, none of the other bidders to purchase the club to keep it going as a 'going concern' did not squeal at the time about the arbitrary selection of Green as the 'preferred' one who could pick up the assets cheap, while the club went into liquidation?

Why Green? why did the Administrators think that would best for them, for the creditors? A short bidding war for the assets would surely have raised at least a few tens of thousands more for the creditors.

I really hope BDO are a cut above the FCA when it comes to getting  right into things so that we can be assured that there's no nice wee '(un) gentlemanly agreement' to mask any failures in duty or any professional incompetence   by the Administrators in how the Administration was conducted.

The whole feckin saga has just about destroyed any belief I may have had in anything to do with 'Financial regulation' or the legal framework in which the business and commercial worlds operate.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:16 pm - Dec 13, 2020

I'm with Stevie G – not an elbow , more of a forearm smash .

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:43 pm - Dec 13, 2020

John Clark 13th December 2020 at 14:02
I really hope BDO are a cut above the FCA when it comes to getting right into things
They waited this long to get the administrators to court. May have got there sooner if the administrators had not been arrested. I think i remember BDO had to wait until all that was cleared up first.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:02 am - Dec 14, 2020

Cluster One 13th December 2020 at 22:43

‘.. I think i remember BDO had to wait until all that was cleared up first…’


I think you remember correctly.

We had all the f ‘arse’ of perhaps one of the most incompetently handled [even down to basic clerical work such as making sure that everybody , including the judge, was literally reading from the same page] criminal prosecutions that the Scottish Courts have ever seen, to get through first!

As I’ve said before, and not being a lawyer, I sat there wondering ( by no means asserting as a fact!)whether any  case for a prosecution could ever have been so badly put, so poorly prepared for, so ill-researched and so half-heartedly presented(as it seemed to me)as to suggest that the Prosecution had no great desire to secure anything other than that the Judge would toss the whole thing out!

Believe me, I was embarrassed for the Advocate-Deputy!

If he had had a good, or reasonable case, he buggered it up.

If he had had an unwinnable case, it was a nonsense to bring it. 

That’s what I, ‘unlearned’ in the law [God, how they love the historic crap, ‘one of Her Majesty’s Counsel, learned in the law’!] and being just a Joe Bloggs sitting in the public seats of a Courtroom thought, and think.

The ‘saga’ has maybe opened a wee lid on a number of things that may be needing looked at: for instance, settlements out of court , or abandonment of criminal charges, that mean that the rest of us don’t get to hear the whole truth. 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:47 am - Dec 14, 2020

And the Celtic plc AGM is tomorrow [sheesh, it's this morning! as Mrs C has just let me know by a rabbit- foot thumping on the floor above!], so, quickly, what can we expect re Res 12/now 11?

More of the same waffle? denial, let's move on? 10IAR ? we're behind you , Neil, ?- and untruth as before?

I hope I have the techy skills to hear/view the proceedings. If I can be bothered to listen to the cant.(That's a letter A in there, btw!)

I will not be lied to: not by wife, sons, brother, best friends, Boris, Nicola or anybody else; and the curse of Cromwell on any Celtic Board that lies to me, even if I am nothing but a tuppence ha'penny shareholder with no power.

 On which high-flown note of moral indignation I take my leave of you.broken heart


View Comment

StevieBCPosted on11:41 am - Dec 14, 2020

The SFA, SPFL and the clubs have acknowledged – numerous times publicly – that they need fans inside the stadiums.

The fans have generally helped out with paying for ST renewals, PPV, merchandise – and during a financially challenging period for all.

Now, the same fans – taxpayers – will no doubt be funding the proposed 'bailout' offered by the Scottish government.

So, with all this financial support to the game…

now would seem like an opportune time for the Hampden blazers to radically change their attitude to fan involvement, feedback and complaints?

A generic e-mail address which doesn't even generate an autoreply is not acceptable – and never was – for fans to 'try' and communicate with the SFA and SPFL.

View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on12:54 pm - Dec 14, 2020

The PLC have made their FINAL decision…..Resolution 11 voted down

97.18 per cent vote against the resolution.


Or you could say that they have simply answered the above blog post title



Can those Celtic fans who are unconditionally attached to this issue, continue to support the club ?


View Comment

paraniodbyexperiencePosted on1:13 pm - Dec 14, 2020

Mr Denier (RC)

You do not understand the resolution and the outcome of the vote and the FACT the PLC are taking it further. 

Go back to your klan this is not finished ……unlike your former club now in LIQUIDATION.



View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on1:50 pm - Dec 14, 2020


I understand that over 97% is quite a sizable percentage and that Mr.Bankier was always likely to talk in appeasing but ultimately meaningless woolly phrases.

"…There’s no firm timetable, but we can assure our shareholders we will provide an update when we possibly can…."

I have a couple of bridges to sell to anyone interested.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:58 pm - Dec 14, 2020

paraniodbyexperience 14th December 2020 at 13:13

'.. the FACT the PLC are taking it further. '



 I'm not as happy as I would have been if Celtic had  gone for the jugular in 2012 and publicly challenged the award of a UEFA competitions licence to CW's club, seeking police investigation of possible criminal conspiracy[as they ought to have done] 

It's too late to do so now.

But I'm reasonably content that Bankier's statement is a kick in the shooglies for some of the liars in football governance at that time.

Those prime  liars will live out the rest of their despicable lives knowing that they are seen to be such even by those for the sake of whom they made liars of themselves.

May they never prosper

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:02 pm - Dec 14, 2020

John Clark 13th December 2020 at 14:02


One thing that still puzzles me is why, it seems, none of the other bidders to purchase the club to keep it going as a 'going concern' did not squeal at the time about the arbitrary selection of Green as the 'preferred' one who could pick up the assets cheap, while the club went into liquidation?

Why Green? why did the Administrators think that would best for them, for the creditors? A short bidding war for the assets would surely have raised at least a few tens of thousands more for the creditors.


Absolutely none of that was a factor in the administrator's decision making from what I can see. The creditors were irrelevant. 

They were working towards a pre-determined outcome involving Whyte and Green, There may have been a bit of improvisation when the CVA was rejected and Whyte was no longer required but other than that I firmly believe it was a pre-determined outcome. Let's wait and see what is determined by the ongoing proceedings. 

Remember the sale did not go ahead with the preferred bidder / chosen one. The assets were sold to another company with a very similar name, Sevco Scotland Ltd. No-one seems to ever have answered the question, when was that agreed. I believe novation requires all parties to agree to it. 

The aim was a CVA, a debt free Rangers, still the same club, still in the top division of the league etc.

When that was rejected and liquidation (ongoing) started there was a wee bit of the truth, then the re-writing of history, then where we are now. 


View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on3:05 pm - Dec 14, 2020


I think it fairly obvious that D&P (C, W and Grier) were baically in, on what was largely, a pre-determined outcome.

The authorities have managed to F**k up what was to be fair, an extremely complex case, so badly that the focus is on them, although it'll be Joe Punter who has to pay for it.

You go back to the issue of conflict involving Grier. How they could come up with there not being any was crazy.


View Comment

John ClarkPosted on5:13 pm - Dec 14, 2020

Homunculus 14th December 2020 at 14:02

'..No-one seems to ever have answered the question, when was that agreed.'


I am put in mind of the Charlottes Fakes  tape of a drink-taken CG on the phone telling/reminding CW '..You are Sevco…'

As you rightly say, no one has ever seen anything that shows that D&P were authorised by Sevco5088 to sell to any other purchaser than Sevco5088.

The whole truth of the entire disgraceful 'saga' will sooner or later come to light, perhaps when some at least of the wretched individuals involved have, like RFC of 1872 itself, died the death. 

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on6:26 pm - Dec 14, 2020

reasonablechap 14th December 2020 at 13:50

Is one of them the Chinvat Bridge , perchance ?

More share movement at RIFC – looks like 50,000 @ 20p .

14 Dec 2020Statement of capital following an allotment of shares on 14 December 2020

  • GBP 3,410,418.72

View PDF Statement of capital following an allotment of shares on 14 December 2020

  • GBP 3,410,418.72

– link opens in a new window – 3 pages(3 pages)

Sorry , for some reason can't post the link .

View Comment

TimtimPosted on7:06 pm - Dec 14, 2020

Probably the smallest ever issue (will check) to raise 10k . It looks like every time a bill comes in they issue some shares to whoever sends the latest cheque . Money too tight to mention , definitely maybe. This isn’t investment this is drip feeding life support medication. Nobody on the Board is giving one penny more than is necessary .

They should however progress further in the europa league after being drawn against Antwerp who are on a par with Standard Liege as a mid table Belgian outfit. 

PS – smallest issue by a long smallest raised 1m
PPS – always the possibility the previous bill from 4 days ago was 10k short from Honest Mistake PLC , all sorted now the cheques in the post

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:01 pm - Dec 14, 2020

Timtim 14th December 2020 at 19:06

'…This isn’t investment this is drip feeding life support medication.'


That gave me a laugh, Timtin. I clicked on the 'thumbs up' thumb. Extraordinarily, instead of adding to the 6 already there, my click seemed not only not to make it 7, but to reduce the 6 to zero!

Sorry about that.

Some kind of glitch, I expect, unless I've been banned from clicking ,up or down!heart


View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:04 pm - Dec 14, 2020

Homunculus 14th December 2020 at 14:02
No-one seems to ever have answered the question, when was that agreed. I believe novation requires all parties to agree to it.

But it emerged last night Mr Green may yet face a challenge in his attempts to purchase the business and assets, with three other “newco” offers expected
Paul Clark, of administrators Duff & Phelps, said there was a full “fall-back plan and that is the sale of business and assets to the Charles Green consortium” and added: “There is no avenue for anyone else to come in at this stage.”

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:34 pm - Dec 14, 2020

John Clark 14th December 2020 at 17:13

I think BDO's £29m civil action against the administrator is more likely to bring out more of the truth than a botched criminal action by Crown Office as reported to them by Police Scotland.

BDO have taken their time, presumably investigated the matter properly and think they have enough to take the matter to the civil Courts. I would be surprised if they don't instruct top civil lawyers to carry out the action on their behalf. 

Bearing in mind BDO have probably already spent a lot of the money they have brought in, another £29m would be a nice wee addition to the pot.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:58 pm - Dec 14, 2020

paddy malarkey 14th December 2020 at 18:2

"..Is one of them the Chinvat Bridge , perchance ?."


The nearest "bridges to 'Paradise'"(!) that I remember, pm,  were those over the railway line that ran up from R'glen that crossed first  London Road and then the  Gallowgate ,behind the Celtic end of Celtic Park football stadium! 

Parkhead Station , I suppose, might be thought of as leading to Celtic Park, but there wasn't a bridge-the line went underground beneath Springfield road!( It was shown in timetables as the station for Celtic Park)

I enjoyed that reference to Chivat- I knew nothing of Zoroastrianism- for reminding me of  that great scene in the 'Indiana Jones and the last crusade' movie,  where our hero steps out into the void in an act of faith and an 'unseen' bridge supports him as he crosses! 

Might there be more to the reasonable chap's merchandise? broken heart


View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:52 pm - Dec 14, 2020

Homunculus 14th December 2020 at 22:34

"…I would be surprised if they don't instruct top civil lawyers to carry out the action on their behalf."


I'm  pretty sure, Homunculus, that they must already have scouted around for, and instructed, the best QCs in the field of disputed 'Administrations'; and I would not be at all surprised if they have gone south and found an English QC ( if such an one is entitled to appear in a Scottish Court on a matter of UK civil legislation?)

[I think there must be some understanding in the higher levels of the legal profession that accepting a hopeless brief, or even a brief that , while having  some merit ,  has  no realistic chance of ultimate success, simply to get the fees, is a no-no. 

There must be some honourable [and feckin competent!] lawyers and advocates and QCs !

Even although the 'saga' suggests the contrary.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:23 am - Dec 15, 2020

Cluster One 14th December 2020 at 22:04

'…Paul Clark, of administrators Duff & Phelps,..'


Whatever about the D&P chap, he at least laughed when I told him my favourite joke:

Christmas time, customer in the off-licence-' two  bottles of Bells, three bottles of voddy, some baccardi, couple o' dozen cans Tennents 'Special'  , some IrnBru and tonic..'

The guy that serves him remarks, 'aye, expensive time, Christmas, eh?'

'Aye', says the customer, 'if it wisnae for the weans, we widnae bother!'

I was in France when I first heard that joke, and I totally collapsed in laughter.

( Ok, suit yersels: I thought it was funny)

View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on7:13 am - Dec 15, 2020

John Clark    @    14th December 2020 at 13:58

 I’m not as happy as I would have been if Celtic had  gone for the jugular in 2012 and publicly challenged the award of a UEFA competitions licence to CW’s club, seeking police investigation of possible criminal conspiracy[as they ought to have done] 

It’s too late to do so now.

But I’m reasonably content that Bankier’s statement is a kick in the shooglies for some of the liars in football governance at that time.



So you are putting your trust into a group who have previously been consigned to your black book of dishonesty !

Quite a leap in faith,… Seems you have lessened the charge to somewhere in the vicinity of careless oversight. …..or in other words, you are moving-on regards the part the PLC have played so you can still support the club on the park.


Bankier’s statement is to appease and kick the can out of sight, period. Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to make an offer for that bridge I’m selling.

View Comment

bect67Posted on4:14 pm - Dec 15, 2020

"…(Sevco) Managing Director says Celtic being awarded title left sour taste …" Adam Miller – HITC

If CFC were not legitimate winners, as Stewpot  and many deluded followers of the 8 year old club would have us believe, what's the big deal about stopping 10IAR?




View Comment

John ClarkPosted on5:07 pm - Dec 15, 2020

reasonablechap 15th December 2020 at 07:13

"…regards the part the PLC have played .."


Just to be absolutely clear: Celtic plc played no 'part' in the suspected irregular granting of a UEFA licence to CW's club. If there were irregularities, or even crime, Celtic plc were victims!

My charge  against them is that they failed to act in the way I would have wished them to act  when  information began to accumulate, information  which clearly suggested at least that not all that was done in respect of checking entitlement to that licence was properly done.

However, I do live in the real world!

I recognise that it is not for Celtic plc to 'police' the Governance of Scottish Football, or interrogate 'suspect' clubs, or single-handedly try to root out any generalised corruption that there may.

I recognise that there is no law that says that a football club  which thinks it  may have been wronged, or swindled, MUST tackle the wrongdoer or swindler  seek independent investigation, even if that were to it cause it further damage of any sort. 

I recognise that the Board of a PLC may have a view about what is 'best for the company ' that differs from mine. 

My view was/is that there were indications enough that there had been some hanky-panky by RFC of 1872 perhaps with the collaboration of the SFA, and certainly helped by, the inefficiency/incompetence of SFA officers: hanky-panky aimed at misleading The Licensing authority.

Given the scale of the cheating by Rangers of 1872  which was becoming common knowledge in 2012, I personally would have wished Celtic plc to have screamed aloud for thorough investigation by a body outwith Scottish Football.

I very much regret that the Board did not and does not believe that getting difficult situations investigated and properly resolved is 'the best for the Company', and chose instead to temporise for years , possibly lying a bit to the Res12 requisitioners, hoping that the issue would disappear.

I am not proud of the Board: I think they lacked moral conviction and/or courage.

Having said that, I must repeat that to my mind Bankier's statement came as close to damning the SFA as it could without him opening himself up to legal action by the SFA!

The passage of time will ,of course, see the present Board members removed in the ordinary way.

However, unlike RFC of 1872, Celtic FC will not die [unless of course Covid-19 causes the death of professional football altogether] and perhaps future Board members may have a different moral compass.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on5:12 pm - Dec 15, 2020

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on5:16 pm - Dec 15, 2020

View Comment

TimtimPosted on7:34 pm - Dec 15, 2020

"we need to start moving one or two players a year. It won't be a big turnover in the squad but that is something we need to do" 

"While player trading is the important fourth pillar to our model, we have not got ourselves in a position where we have to sell to validate the model. That's not the case."

So they need to sell but they don't need to sell , nothing like a clear and concise statement . In the meantime loans will come from Douglas Park and John Bennet even though neither of them would give that commitment to the auditors in writing . They could of asked club 1872 to loan them money or even to buy shares but apparently they would rather that cash was sent to Dave King . One club member asked that very question on twitter earlier but the club requested the issue wasn't dragged into the  public domain. Maybe Park and Bennet are prepared to bail out the club* or at least keep them afloat in the off chance they will one day turn a profit but they certainly won't bail out King , that's what the mugs at club 1872 are for. The one outcome of all this is that club 1872 won't be able to provide any finance to the club* for the next 3 years .Even before today's decision Morelos was already the most red carded player in the histories of either Rangers* clubs. I hope they aren't reliant on a big offer from an unfit,overweight, off form, petulant thug to save their bahookeys .Actually…….. I hope they are.  

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on8:40 pm - Dec 15, 2020

2 days and 2 quite differently received / reported AGM’s.

1 club is relatively well run off the field, but not on it.

1 club is relatively recklessly run off the field, but is delivering consistent results on the field.

I think I know the answer for CFC – but the cost would make Lawwell’s eyes water.

CFC has to swoop for Gerrard – and his entire backroom staff – immediately.

…and that could guarantee 10IAR as well.  enlightened

View Comment

reasonablechapPosted on5:54 am - Dec 16, 2020

 John Clark @ 15th December 2020 at 17:07

...I very much regret that the Board did not and does not believe that getting difficult situations investigated and properly resolved is ‘the best for the Company’, and chose instead to temporise for years , possibly lying a bit to the Res12 requisitioners, hoping that the issue would disappear.

I am not proud of the Board: I think they lacked moral conviction and/or courage.

Having said that, I must repeat that to my mind Bankier’s statement came as close to damning the SFA as it could without him opening himself up to legal action by the SFA!…



Thanks for the reply !

It only further points to a staggering level of double standards regarding the importance you repeatedly place on the importance of honesty and the invective that is subsequently dished out to liars. It simply isn’t credible to preach so loudly, then when your own lot are “lying a bit“, attempt to mitigate.

How can anyone emotionally or otherwise invested in Res.12 continue to put money into a PLC whose ‘interest’ is the polar opposite and are prepared to patronise and ly to fans/shareholders ? 

This isn’t about white lies and fingers crossed behind backs (which I use to illustrate the novel concept of “lying a bit). According to you John, it’s about a PLC lying to shareholders……. Yet, you seem to reluctantly accept Bankier’s statement because it nearly dams the SFA! ….Bankier must have been reading up on some of Charles Green’s methods to get fans onside. 

The PLC have got rid of it, as they always intended to do  and the Chairman is simply selling appeasement. It comes in an empty box with the instruction, not to be opened until 2099. 

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on10:33 am - Dec 16, 2020

Competition watchdog to probe Rangers and retailers over replica kits

By Henry Saker-Clark, PA City Reporter

1 hour ago

The UK competition watchdog has launched an investigation into Rangers FC and sportswear retailers over the price of replica football kits.

On Wednesday, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) confirmed it has opened an initial inquiry into potential “anti-competitive behaviour”.

It said it is probing Rangers and Hummel, which manufactures the club’s kit, as well as retailers Greaves Sports and JD Sports.

The investigation process, which is expected to take six months, will look into suspected breaches of competition law, it said.

The regulator said: “At this stage the CMA believes that it has reasonable grounds to suspect one or more breaches of competition law.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on11:50 am - Dec 16, 2020

Interesting to read that our old DR friend – Keef – has been directed to have a pop at King and his proposed share sale to Club1872.

Even more interesting is the claim that RIFC had previously offered direct, new shares to Club1872 – but the offer was declined.

IF that is true, then it does raise questions about Club1872’s impartiality and the quality of advice given to its paying members. 

Does this cross over into FCA regulations territory and the provision of financial / investment advice?

Anyway, don’t think King will be smiling about this latest development.  broken heart

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on1:31 pm - Dec 16, 2020

‘Timtim 15th December 2020 at 19:34

“we need to start moving one or two players a year. It won’t be a big turnover in the squad but that is something we need to do”…’ 


This begs the question: who (in the straitened circumstances that most clubs find themselves in) will be in the market with the required multi-millions for TRFC’s transfer magnets? 

There are big price-tickets on:

A twenty-nine year-old full back who was a dud in England & has no international experience.

A twenty-eight year-old full back.

A twenty-seven year-old centre back with documented heart problems.

A vanity midfielder relying on his father’s name.

…and then there’s El Huffalo. Scoring rate, discipline & demeanour all count against him.

Then you’ve got:

Two mid-twenties midfielders who aren’t guaranteed a start.

Two twenty-eight year-old midfielders who aren’t guaranteed a start.

Most of the others are relatively worthless due to age. TRFC’s first team squad has players aged 38(x2), 33, 32 & 35.

There’s a song in Lionel Bart’s ‘Oliver’ entitled ‘Who Will Buy?’ Well, who will?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:00 pm - Dec 16, 2020

reasonablechap 16th December 2020 at 05:54

'.This isn’t about white lies and fingers crossed behind backs "



It's about my personal disagreement as a shareholder with a decision taken by the Board of Celtic plc on a matter of Board policy ,in respect of whether the Board  should pursue a former member club of the SPL and/or the Governance body of Scottish football on suspicion of having defrauded Celtic plc of some millions of pounds.

What you may have to say, RC, as a defender of the former member club [ iniquitous on account of its decade of cheating which was the cause of it becoming a former member club] and as a supporter of the propaganda  that TRFC is somehow or other  that self-same former cheating club, is irrelevant to that disagreement

My dispute with the Celtic Board is of no concern of yours: you have no locus in that matter (except perhaps to be very glad on behalf of some possibly quite anxious people) that the Celtic Board chose not to have the suspected fraud seriously investigated or referred to the Police. 

Whatever my entitled view of how they arrived at that decision,  the Celtic Board

did not cheat and lie to Scottish Football

did not cheat  hundreds of individual creditors for a decade,

did not rip off the taxpayer to the tune of several tens of millions of pounds,

and does not falsely market itself to potential investors as being the holding company of an eight year old football club miraculously about to celebrate its 150th anniversary, claiming to be the most successful club in the world!

The Celtic board failed to do as I would wish them to have done.

In not doing what I wished, however, they did no harm to anyone else and they broke no law. They have caused me and others some disappointment because they did not share the view that were serious questions to ask about the integrity of the Sport in the matter of the ' 5-Way Agreement' , questions reinforced by the Licence issue, coming into the light at about the same time.

It is conceivable, perhaps, that they might very much share that view, but decided that securing a conviction in Scotland of persons in football accused of crimes related to their functions in football management/governance might be impossible, and that any attempt to do so would be a waste of shareholders' monies amounting to more in total than what  they might have gained had Celtic rather than RFC of 1872 been awarded the UEFA licence!

They might also have been reluctant , in a spirit of Marist charity, to see people go to jail! 





View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:16 pm - Dec 16, 2020

J.J agreed: and who knows the full impact of covid on transfer fees – and the duration of any depressed transfer market.

I didn't read the full RIFC Annual Report or the full AGM notes, so may have missed it, but;

It makes sense for Robertson to state that a couple of players need selling each year: seems to have worked OK for CFC in recent years.

But, for a cash strapped club in the middle of a pandemic with few, young sellable stars in the squad – you'd think Robertson would be shouting loud about cost cutting…

except TRFC is desperate to stop 10IAR.

TRFC should be focused on short-term cost-cutting measures to counter the immediate Going Concern risks.

To state the bleedin' obvious.  indecision

Choosing to focus on winning the SPL title rather than focusing on survival is RIFC's choice to make.

…as our incompetent SFA blazers look on gormlessly… again.

If Robertson had an improved governance body as he claims to want, then the SFA would be asking searching questions of TRFC long before now.


View Comment

TimtimPosted on3:44 pm - Dec 16, 2020

Jingso.Jimsie @ 13:31

I wonder how many of them have release clauses built into their contracts as is the norm these days . I still believe Morelos has one (according to his agent) and it's not that high .The ridiculous valuations placed on him were aimed at appeasing creditors and attempting to attract investment rather than a serious attempt to sell him at those prices. When you buy an asset on credit then once that asset is sold the credit has to be re-paid and as most of their recent acquisitions still have outstanding payments then the amount of profit available will be limited. Gerrard and his backroom team may generate some compensation if he were to leave but again when you see what Rodgers cost and he has a far better CV then it won't be a great amount. I believe coaching badges are a necessity at EPL level which is another hurdle in the way. 



View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:20 pm - Dec 16, 2020

redlichtie 16th December 2020 at 10:33
It said it is probing Rangers and Hummel, which manufactures the club’s kit,?
I thought that was now castore.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on7:33 pm - Dec 16, 2020

‘Cluster One 16th December 2020 at 19:20

redlichtie 16th December 2020 at 10:33
It said it is probing Rangers and Hummel, which manufactures the club’s kit,?
I thought that was now castore.’


It is.

It looks like someone with the initials MJWA has decided that a couple of organisations played fast & loose with an exclusivity agreement that he (or his companies) held concerning the retailing of previous seasons’ replica kits & has involved the regulatory authorities.

‘You can check out, but you can never leave…’

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:45 pm - Dec 16, 2020

StevieBC 16th December 2020 at 11:50



Rate This

Interesting to read that our old DR friend – Keef – has been directed to have a pop at King and his proposed share sale to Club1872.

Even more interesting is the claim that RIFC had previously offered direct, new shares to Club1872 – but the offer was declined.
also thinking forward to potential future issues over the next two or three years. We don’t want to come out of this one thinking we have done a great job and put £1million into Rangers and don’t have money in the pot for the next one. Jan 26, 2018.

Maybe they had nothing left in the pot.
Bruce Taylor: That is quite important because there will be future share issues and this is not just about raising capital on one occasion. It is about, as Rangers improve and the value of Rangers increases, there will be a need to subscribe more and invest more.

We, as Club 1872, need to be a strong position to support each one of those share campaigns. We want to protect our members’ investments and donations and show our members that we can do that. That is an important part of Club 1872
Maybe they don’t think the club has improved enough.
This time, we have an opportunity to spend £1million again but the difference being is that it goes directly into the club. We are looking to take Club 1872 from being a fans group to major investors so that when the call comes, and they will do through various share issues, we will be there and be ready to invest and step up in the same way as any of the current investors.

Maybe they thought it was not the best time to step in.
What we are talking about at Club 1872 is becoming part of the decision making process at the club.
Maybe they did not want to be part of the decision making.
LF: The long-term goal has always been 25 per cent, plus one share. I think that supporters understand that fan representation and fan investment go hand in hand so those are our two key goals.

Maybe they moved the goal posts.
It is quite frustrating, as Club 1872, to see people say that because this is that vehicle. Particularly over the next couple of years, there is very likely to be another share issue further down the line and when that happens the organisation has to be ready to put the money in. But the fans have to want to do it as well.

Maybe they were just not ready to put the money in.

View Comment

TimtimPosted on7:54 pm - Dec 16, 2020

Reading between the lines it looks like King and the other board members did not leave on the best of terms , in fact they sound very much like they have been stabbed in the back . As we know our 4th estate ensure that all stories are cleared for publication before they hit the print button so this is as good as an official board room release. King has effectively emptied the piggy bank of club 1872 and given them a controlling hand in the blue room ( if all goes to plan) . Park and Co may have been relying on that income to cover any shortfall that he and Bennet couldn't fund but I doubt very much they would want the fans to have any degree of power in the running of the business and would have kept their shareholding in single percentage figures and out of the board room. As the (potential) largest shareholders that will be impossible.

It may just be coincidence that Robertson has warned of player sales before reminding everyone that they are so well backed financially that they really don't have to sell anyone. Park and Bennet may not be so keen to keep filling up the tank when they no longer have control of the steering wheel especially when the replacement driver only has a provisional licence. Winter transfer market is for approx 4 weeks in January but as already pointed out by jj it is a buyers market and any deals done will be by instalment and may not raise significant amounts of immediate liquidity. The other news today that there may be new issues regarding old retail deals cannot have gone down well. I just wonder if Dave King had a degree of responsibility there as well.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:42 pm - Dec 16, 2020

Timtim 16th December 2020 at 19:54

Clearly the King is dead for Keith.

He has changed sides to the one on which his bread is now buttered.

To be fair on the current board, King's move was a bit off, even for him. He is trying to milk the fans for all he can, the board are not happy about that because that was an integral part of their plan.

They are never going to raise the full amount, certainly not quickly, but I believe he has said they can buy his shares in tranches so he could be getting regular payments from them for quite some time. 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:01 pm - Dec 16, 2020

Homunculus 16th December 2020 at 20:42′

“.To be fair on the current board, King’s move was a bit off, even for him.”


In fairness to King (choke, choke!) his prime motivation has ever been to try to get his original (according to him) £20M investment back

I suspect that he daily spits blood with rage when he thinks of SDM escaping virtually blame free in all quarters and with his personal monies scarcely affected, while others like King himself took a hit.

If it was his idea, or if he bought into the idea, of  a fans’ organisation in the shape of a ‘Community Interest Company’ to which he could progressively  sell his shares in such numbers as would eventually  give that ‘Community Interest Company a blocking share of 25% 1 in RIFC plc,  it wasn’t a bad idea.

It could be ( and seems to have been) easily sold to fans as both as a mark of his ‘concern’ lest another SDM or a Whyte ended up with a majority shareholding that could impose its will without reference to any or all other shareholders, and as the means by which loyal fans could spike the guns of any cabal that might wish to take TRFC down a road or roads that the fans would not welcome. 

There is little doubt in my mind that King doesn’t give a monkey’s toss about anyone but himself, but glibly and shamelessly uses his undoubted Machiavellian skills to serve his own ends, first, last and all the time while deploying all the canting vocabulary of ‘loyalty’ and ‘participation’ and ‘commitment’  as has been used by generations of  snake-oil salesmen.

Perhaps the other major investors might begin to worry about the ‘fans on the board’ possibility and what that might mean for them personally as shareholders as opposed to ‘fans’, and decide to get the hell out of a wholly phoney set-up that instead of making them profits,  keeps demanding that they spend the money they have made from their own honest businesses.
King might have started a trend!


View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:44 pm - Dec 16, 2020

Well, and well away from football entirely, can I say that  the governance body of the sport of Badminton doesn’t mess about when it comes to sports cheating.

I cite this from an email in my inbox, which has a CAS Media Release 


“On the basis of the evidence put forward by the parties and by an independent expert, the CAS Panel found the athlete’s assertion of intentional spiking during the 2019 African Badminton World Championships devoid of supporting evidence thereby falling short of a cogent explanation as to how the prohibited substance entered her body.

Having failed to meet the requisite burden of proof, the Panel rejected Ms. Foo Kune’s theory of sabotage and imposed a two-year period of ineligibility. The results obtained by Kate Jessica Foo Kune during the 2019 African Badminton World Championships remain disqualified.”

Interesting that the ‘burden of proof ‘ is on the accused!

Very ‘Napoleonic Code’ sounding,  and that I have to say kind of jars with me.

Even in the criminal proceedings against people involved in our ‘saga’ there was no expectation that it was for the accused to prove their innocence under the law ,as opposed to the requirement being on the Prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt their guilt!

Whatever my views and opinions and gut feeling, I still would require that charges of breach of rules or legislation be proved by those making the charges.

It is, however,  not acceptable that any Sports Governance body should not investigate serious charges in order to establish whether there may be a case to answer!


View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:18 am - Dec 17, 2020

Timtim 16th December 2020 at 19:54

“..It may just be coincidence that Robertson has warned of player sales before reminding everyone that they are so well backed financially that they really don’t have to sell..’


An almost Ratner-like statement!

Honest to God: as directors of a PLC they are all over the place when it comes to thinking about consistency in their pubic pronouncements ! Have they no one to tell them how not to contradict themselves?

Have they no notion that, as a PLC, their AGM  deliberations are being viewed not just by loyal fans but by guys even more savvy and devious and resourceful in business than they?

Perhaps their man Gibson ( Paisley man?) might already be aiming to increase his shareholding to go for a cheap buy-out? and, ultimately, a transformation of ibrox  into a superbly placed transport logistics centre! That’s his main business, after all!

{we can all be DR/BBC types when it comes to stirring!)broken heart


View Comment

TimtimPosted on12:52 am - Dec 17, 2020

Just noticed tonight’s kit was a bit different than usual, now the Castore badges may have fallen off but that collar is certainly a different design from what I have seen so far this season . Could the retail issues mentioned earlier be having a larger impact than first thought? Are these kits even registered?  No 5 stars either or sponsors.


Steven Gerrard: Rangers' exit on me, says manager after League Cup loss at St  Mirren - BBC Sport

View Comment

MordecaiPosted on6:29 am - Dec 17, 2020

John Clark 17th December 2020 at 00:18


"Whatever my views and opinions and gut feeling, I still would require that charges of breach of rules or legislation be proved by those making the charges."


John, I think this is a very interesting case.  As you say, it jars a little when the burden of proof is placed on the accused rather than the accusers.  However, the way I read this was that there was prima facie evidence of an illegal substance in her body.  She has given an explanation as to how it came to be there.  I think in these circumstances, it is right that she come up with the evidence for that excuse. 

There is a parallel in Scots law if I'm not mistaken.  For example if I were stopped in the street by the polis, searched and they found a big knife on me,  their testimony and production of the knife, is the prima facie evidence that I was carrying an offensive weapon in a public place.   The law as I understand it allows in certain circumstances for someone to be carrying an offensive weapon in public; if it's for a lawful purpose, e.g a police officer's baton or for ceremonial purposes, e.g. a skein dubh (although only dressed in appropriate highland rig) or where there is a reasonable excuse.  If my claim is that I had a reasonable excuse for having the knife on me, the burden of proof, in law, passes to me.  I might explain that I am a butcher and I'm taking the knife home to have it sharpened.  I would then have to gather evidence to prove I was telling the truth.  That evidence would be considered by the Fiscal when considering whether to take proceedings against me although ultimately, it would be for the court to decide whether my excuse was "reasonable."

View Comment

TimtimPosted on9:26 am - Dec 17, 2020

It appears it is the latest retro kit , not sure if it is officially registered but lack of sponsors logo seems strange.

View Comment

normanbatesmumfcPosted on9:50 am - Dec 17, 2020

Nice to see The 2angers squad continuing to self-isolate…………..from silverware.


A lot of excitement for the fans of the remaining 4 teams who I'm sure will all believe they have a chance of winning.  

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on10:09 am - Dec 17, 2020

As this is the Scottish Football Monitor,

well done to the Buddies for their epic, totally unexpected Cup win last night.

Likewise, it's good for the game that Ross County also progressed in the cup with their own big win.

At least one piece of silverware will be leaving Glasgow this season – which is no bad thing at all, IMO.

View Comment

TimtimPosted on11:59 am - Dec 17, 2020

latest update on the shareholding and who lent what

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:20 pm - Dec 17, 2020

Mordecai 17th December 2020 at 06:29

'…However, the way I read this was that there was prima facie evidence of an illegal substance in her body.  She has given an explanation as to how it came to be there."


Thank you for that, Mordecai.

I take the (knife)point you make by your analogy with the offence of carrying an offensive weapon!


View Comment

bordersdonPosted on12:36 pm - Dec 17, 2020

Timtim 17th December 2020 at 11:59


Could you provide a link to the source of that so that it can be more easily read? Ta.

View Comment

TimtimPosted on12:38 pm - Dec 17, 2020

sorry about the quality bordersdon ,I'm struggling to read it as well 

View Comment

normanbatesmumfcPosted on1:53 pm - Dec 17, 2020

So Club (IQ) 18-72 have less than 5% of the shareholding. Does anyone know how many blue pounds they have spent to get there? You have to pity them……like those Russian dancing bears…  

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on2:23 pm - Dec 17, 2020

How to make a small fortune out of being Chairman of a business that operates a football club:

Start with a large fortune & watch it be nibbled away by WATP-induced vanity & hubris.


If Club1872 paid twenty pence for each of their 16,202,838 shares, that’s a minimum of £3,240,567.60. 

I don’t think that all their holdings were bought at that price-point though, with some tranches being more costly.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on2:34 pm - Dec 17, 2020

Update on our migration process. We've decided to provide a forum for fans of all clubs as sub-forums on the new site.

Of course, volunteers for moderation would be good 🙂

Won't be a lot at first (I'll set up the top division clubs and add any by request), but hopefully the seed will grow.

There is an increasing spotlight in off the filed matters. Governance of the game, the continuing shenanigans at Ibrox, and of course the ever-growing disconnect with fans at Parkhead and elsewhere. 

Also, the Covid crisis has set up new challenges for clubs who are already in flux. Often that kind of stuff becomes club-specific, and hopefully the new design will accommodate that.

Still on course for early January. Any suggestions/offers of assistance are welcome.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on2:40 pm - Dec 17, 2020


I believe the recent Ross County result was due to 'quintuple' being a very inelegant use of language

View Comment

normanbatesmumfcPosted on4:38 pm - Dec 17, 2020

Jingso.Jimsie 17th December 2020 at 14:23

If Club1872 paid twenty pence for each of their 16,202,838 shares, that’s a minimum of £3,240,567.60. 

I don’t think that all their holdings were bought at that price-point though, with some tranches being more costly.


Were they not one of the mugs who bought Ashleys holding at 28p?. I also thought they had thrown other money into the pot not used to buy shares, or was this a loan, later converted to confetti, rather than a donation?


If only 30,000 of them had chipped in £200 each, they could have outbid Ol Big Hands Charlie, for the whole shebang. Although to be fair, being the highest bidder might not have carried any weight in the "twilight zone" bidding/sale/purchase process.  

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:09 pm - Dec 17, 2020

Two former administrators of #Rangers have now settled their case against the Crown after admission their arrests in fraud trial were ‘malicious’. It follows another settlement against Police Scotland. It will cost taxpayer many millions of pounds. Others still to settle.
Dec 17, 2020
The ibrox debacle has cost the public millions upon millions and the ibrox club still have no shame about the cost and damage they left in their wake.

View Comment

Leave a Reply