On the Old Club vs New Club (OCNC) debate, the SFA’s silence has been arguably the most damaging factor with respect to the future of the game. Of course people get frustrated when there is a deliberate policy of silence on the part of the SFA which results in the endless cycle of arguments being trotted out again and again with no resolution or closure possible.
The irony (it’s only irony if you assume that the SFA have gone to great lengths to create the conditions for the unbroken history status of the new club) is that the mealy-mouthed attitude they have adopted has actually polarised opinion in a far more serious and irreconcilable way than had they just made a clear statement when Sevco were handed SFA membership. A bit of leadership, with a decision either way at that time would have spiked a lot of OCNC guns very early on, but as history shows, they were afraid of a backlash from wherever it came.
I am now convinced that Scottish Football has passed the Event Horizon and is broken beyond the possibility of any repair that might have taken it back to its pre-2010 condition. Rangers fans will never – no matter what any eventual pronouncement from Hampden may be – accept that their next trophy will be their first. The trouble is that no-one else – again despite anything from Hampden – will cast them as anything else other than a new club who were given a free passage into the higher echelons of the game. Furthermore, they will forever force that down the throats of Rangers fans whenever and wherever they play. A recipe for discord, threats of violence, actual violence, and a general ramping up of the sectarian gas that we had all hoped, only a year or so ago, was to be set to an all-time low peep.
There is a saying in politics that we get the government we deserve. It works both ways though, and the SFA will get the audience it deserves. In actual fact it is the one it has actively sought over the last couple of years, for they have tacitly (and even perhaps explicitly) admitted that Scottish Football is a dish best served garnished with sectarianism. They have effectively told us that without it, the game cannot flourish, and they stick to that fallacy even although the empirical evidence of the past year indicates otherwise.
That belief is an intellectual black-hole they have now thrust the game into. They have effectively said that only two clubs actually matter in Scottish football. The crazy thing is that to put their plans into action they have successfully persuaded enough of the other clubs to jump into the chasm and hence vote themselves into irrelevance and permanent semi-obscurity.
That belief is also shared by the majority in the MSM, who despite their lofty, self-righteous and ostensibly anti-sectarian stance, have done everything they can to stir the hornet’s nest in the interests of greater sales.
Act as an unpaid wing of a PR company, check nothing, ask nothing, help to create unrest, and then tut-tut away indignantly like Monty Python Pepperpots when people take them to task.
Consequently the victims of all the wrongdoing (creditors and clubs) walk away without any redress or compensation for the loss of income and opportunity (and history) – stripped of any pride and dignity since they do so in the full knowledge of what has happened. But even as they wipe away the sand kicked in their faces, those clubs still insist on the loyalty of their own fanbases, the same fans whose trust they have betrayed with their meek acceptance of the new, old order.
The kinder interpretation of the impotence of the clubs is that they want to avoid the hassle and move on, the more cynical view that they are interested only in money, not people. In either case, sporting integrity, in the words of Lord Traynor of Winhall (Airdrie, not Vermont), is “crap”.
The question is; which constituency of 21st century Scotland subscribes to that 17th century paradigm?
Sadly, this massive hoax, this gigantic insult to our collective intelligence, is working. Many will leave the game – many already have in view of the spineless absence of intervention from their own clubs – but many, many more will stay and support the charade.
If you doubt my prediction, ask yourself how many tickets will be unsold the first time the New Rangers play Celtic at Parkhead? That my friends will be final imprimatur of authenticity on just exactly who New Rangers are, no matter the proclamations of both sides of the OCNC argument.
The Sevco forum last night – every one of them should hang their heads in Shame.
They are an affront to decency. Not one challenged the sicko, but they’ll take his cash.
That lot deserve each other.
Has any1 complained to our tax funded broadcaster?
A – La – Tam Cowan
Hearts CVA approved with an 87% vote 😀
Still needs the shareholder vote to go their way. Meeting at 12 noon. Should be a formality given the numbers from the Creditors vote.
Edit: I should add that the agreement is conditional on UBIG’s shares being obtained. As UBIG has just gone into administration themselves they will need hold their own Creditors meeting before the shares can be handed over as part of the CVA. That meeting is not expected to be held before mid January.
Congratulations.
Good luck going forward and securing your club’s future.
With regard to the rangers forum gig,I did notice that initially at least the former SFA maestro chose not to engage in a smile at the paedophile joke but then ,sensing the reaction from the audience and the top table, broke into a broad grin.Mr Smith had the opportunity to rebuke the contributor for the remark but……..he didn’t.
Mr Smith could have said, we as a football club,have an opportunity to rebrand our club,and move away from the ugliness of our past with all its unsavoury connotations but…….he didn’t.
On a more general point I thought the performance of the rebels to be altogether lacklustre and half-hearted and I also felt as the event progressed a certain uneasiness in Mr McColl.
I wonder why?
Angus
Being as I do not wish to watch the Youtube videos, can someone transcribe what was said with regard to paedophiles, please, with an objective summary of the top-table reaction?
————————————————————————————————————
A Rangers supporter made a dig at Celtic based on historical events.
The reaction was muted.
Paraphrasing
“What I would say about the scouting system and would everyone agree, that Celtic are behind more youngsters than we have ever been”
Tasteful, No.
Crime of the century from a guy who had had a couple of drinks, No.
As far as this blog goes, I’d term it as a “squirrel” and see issues like Jack Irvine (Mediahouse) alleged renumeration, Ticketus (Joe Oliver) and what was said about Green’s involvement as being more worthy of attention and closer to the remit of TSFM.
So after last night’s YouTube car crash we now have even clearer sight of the protagonists going into the AGM (should it actually happen).
In the Blue corner we have the Spivs and Shysters who appear to control enough votes to put the final stages of Operation BleedEmDry into operation.
And in the BluerThanBlue corner we have yesterdays Gers Men, most of them up to their eyeballs in complicity with former regmes, none of them putting up their own hard-earned and all of them appealing to the lowest common denominator with the Ibrox loyal.
Faced with these alternatives, I know what I would want as an outcome. End it all completely, and do some urban regeneration for the Ibrox area. You can never have enough supermarkets… 👿
The question is, what would Rangers fans want to happen now? Would you trust any of these people to run your club?
Honestly, all this fighting about OCNC? The decent Gers fans would be far better served by the current entity being annihilated and a real fresh start organised.
The fact that we still don’t hear any of them shouting this from the rooftops?
Sorry guys, what happens next is what you deserve.
Zilch says: (114)
November 29, 2013 at 10:38 am
========================================
You make a good point Zilch, if this was happening to any club I was associated with I’d be screaming for it to be wound up, get rid of both the spivs and brogues, and have a fan led club.
Forelock tugging is, apparently, in their DNA.
Anybody got the number for Dyno-rod ,they are all heading for the plug hole at the same time,new world record drain blockage.
Don’t really wish to run with the “youngsters” squirrel tbh. I see it as serious a remark (at what is essentially a gentleman’s evening) as Lawell’s, and that is in no way way to belittle the issues involved. What I would say is that presumably the ex honcho at the SFA should have had the presence of mind to say – heh, this is being televised (I assume he knew? and I assume he knew it wouldn’t just be the loyal looking in?), I’d better do something to make me look good. That he didn’t is still understandable. To do so would have been to risk the wrath of the blow-hards, especially if suitably “refreshed”. In that situation, I wouldn’t have expected much else (save perhaps for artifical contrition for the camera). But it does give an insight into the the mind of a man that we all used to pay handsomely to make exactly these judgement calls when the time was most certainly appropriate. Shirked responsibility then. Still shirking it now.
Greenock Jack says: (212)
November 29, 2013 at 10:35 am
—
Decent people don’t make jokes about that subject because one victim is one too many.
Even a lot of less-than-decent people would restrain themselves from making jokes about it on the day a man was sentenced to life for murdering an innocent neighbour because a mob accused the victim of being a paedophile and acted as judge and jury, without knowing any facts.
Greenock Jack says: (212)
November 29, 2013 at 10:35 am
Tasteful, No.
Crime of the century from a guy who had had a couple of drinks, No.
———————————-
It was a joke based on ignorance and I would have expected the reaction that was displayed, so nothing nuclear there. It’s simply as some have noted, pathetic and the trivializing of a serious subject. I also thought at first it should not be something we should be talking about on the blog as there are more important things to concentrate on.
But as a measurement of the credentials of the next Rangers Management Team, the joke and the reaction spoke volumes.
I think the exercise also gave us an overall view of how some (not sure how representative they are of the majority) of the influential Rangers support and Management Team see the events, I actually think most of those guys believe that Rangers have been hard done by and that they, “The Club”, have done nothing wrong.
And I think it blew the Club versus Company question right out of the window with regular comments about how the fans “own this club” or how money was being “taken out of the club”. If money has been taken out of the club then the club is the business, if the club is the business then the last club failed and is in the process of being placed out of existence. Either that or these guys just displayed a complete misunderstanding of how business operates by claiming the current management team have a responsibility to do what’s best for the club and fans………erm…..well…. actually, they don’t. They do what is best for the people who own the shares in the business. That means sometimes not doing what is best for the fans, this ensuring the business of playing football can be achieved long term.
Greenock Jack – you are absolutely right, there should be no reason to give such people the oxygen of publicity, byut equallty it does speak volumes as to how “obsessed” certain people are with the issue of child abuse – a subject no right-thinking person would consdier as a topic for humour. What a shame the board of Rory Bremner FC didn’t think to distance itself from this type of filth.
Still I appreciate your new-found focus on non-sciuridael stories and look forward to more relevant posting from you in the future, given the drew attention to Celtic/Co-op story on the Daily Heil’s website, You obviously thought the story had some sort of merit, but on the most cursory examination of the story by posters on here you immediately distanced yourself from it by admitting there wasn’t a single actual quote pertaining to Celtic. Maybe read beyond the headline next time, huh?
FIFA says: (427)
November 29, 2013 at 10:56 am
I can assure you we will ensure the drains are clear and they can pass through with the rest of the sh*t. 😀
In direct comparison to the jibe made last week by Peter Lawell, this one made last night was more inappropriate. More tasteless and just about sums up the Standard of what WATP actually stands for.
I wonder if the Scottish Press/Media will see fit to report it. Or much more importantly actually comment on it.
I wont haud ma breath.
Schoolboy Errors of those in Thrall.
Anyone remember playing schoolboy playground football?
I’m talking about later than the days of the ‘swarm’ formation – when a swarm of kids would simply chase a ball around a bit of tarmac hoping to get a kick. A bit later than that when some form of attention was paid to at least the basics of the rules.
Remember when, if one of the wrong type of player was involved, the rules may have been liable to change at a moments notice because the relevant rule didn’t suit.
Some of my memories of early days of playing at school playtime saw a number of occasions when the best fighter basically changed the rules.
New rules: the bully (or if it was their baw) could insist on a change of rules at any time. The best games were where every wean wanted to play by the rules.
The SFA have, over the last couple of seasons, decided that these rules of theirs shouldnt apply.
They have ignored them, sidestepped them and reinterpreted them – all for the benefit of one team.
This was because the unavoidable result of the proper application of their own rules in line with the law of the land was that Rangers ended when they went bust.
Just as the playground bully decides that the rules only apply when it suits or doesnt overly inconvenience him, the SFA have decided that their own rules arent fully applicable.
‘These rules cant be right, because if we did apply them, it would be the end of Rangers’ – I guess has crossed their mind on more than one occasion.
The new club is fortunate that it is now involved in Association football at all.
I hope Scottish Football can deliver itself somehow from the malign influence of those atop the SFA.
Anyway, back on track.
Could those who did endure the car crash tele last night expand on the “Joe Oliver” name. I don’t recall that one? Was he the Ibrox chef?
I do not think that the potential board of a PLC, and a high profile one at that, laughing at paedophile “humour” is a trivial thing, or a mere distraction.
It goes to the fundamental character of the individuals concerned. It harks back to the defence of Hugh Dallas, when he was sacked for paedophile and anti catholic “humour” because it was “only a joke”.
This is not off topic, the forum is about Scottish Football in the round, not just on-park and the type of people running our clubs and institutions is of vital importance.
It’s quite clever to use the idea that “this issue is just a distraction from the main topic of this forum”. However to me it is a more important issue than whether or not the board of a PLC are entitled to have a legitimate contract with a recognised firm of Public Relations experts. They are, they are running the business and can contract that work to whoever they want, it is their decision to make.
The potential board of a publicly listed company laughing at paedophile “humour” in a public forum, one which they themselves made public, is a huge issue. It is not just a side show or a distraction. It is much more of an issue than who they choose to do their PR work for them.
Smugas
I see it as serious a remark (at what is essentially a gentleman’s evening) as Lawell’s
—————————————————
Can’t agree, had it came from the top table then it would be different.
Esteban
Humour is subjective and often in ‘bad taste’, everyone on here has laughed at jokes that would be perceived by some as in ‘bad taste’. I don’t think TSFM is here to make rulings on supporters jibes.
Let’s move on.
GJ
Sorry, you cannot seriously be suggesting that Lawell’s is worse?
Carl31 says: (103)
November 29, 2013 at 11:17 am
Just as the playground bully decides that the rules only apply when it suits or doesnt overly inconvenience him, the SFA have decided that their own rules arent fully applicable.
‘These rules cant be right, because if we did apply them, it would be the end of Rangers’ – I guess has crossed their mind on more than one occasion.
————————-
That post brought back some memories, this one in particular.
One day we were playing with jumpers (as we called them then) on the ground as posts and this boy decided that he had scored when it was clearly well outside of the jumper, well after a brief argument with anyone that was within 100 yards of him, he decided it should have been a goal and the jumpers were not as wide apart as he thinks they should have been. So he lifted one and moved it about 3 feet, then walked away happy that we were now playing by his rules.
I’d love to say he was a Rangers fan just to make that story fit into the narrative but unfortunately I couldn’t tell what team (if any) he supported you as mostly we didn’t know at that age and there were not as many replica shirts worn….. Maybe not a bad thing!
The Hearts CVA is expected to see them avoid £20 Million of debts and – as I understand it – 200 unsecured (non-Lithuanian) creditors receiving absolutely nothing.
Any thoughts on whether this will be greeted with a similar moral outrage that met Rangers’ oldco liquidation?
Or will Hearts’ guilt be white-washed with fawning references to them “satisfying” creditors, a grossly misleading term employed by a certain high profile blogger, if I recall, to draw hollow (and inaccurate, thought that’s not relevant) contrasts between the Leeds ‘CVA’ scenario and the Rangers situation.
Before commenting, consider I owe you £10, and declare “it’s 1 quid or nothing”.
If you cut your losses & “volunteer” to take the one pound, is my moral culpability diminished?
Also, I’m not diminishing any moral responsibility of Rangers. I’m simply observing whether consistency and rationality will be employed in the application of moral outrage for non-repayment of debts.
A false-distinction often exists between liquidation scenarios and CVA scenarios. To me, this is yet another example to go with Dunfermline.
Danish Pastry says: (1730)
November 29, 2013 at 8:23 am
19 0 i
Rate This
gunnerb says: (6)
November 28, 2013 at 11:22 pm
30 0 Rate This
“Towards the end there was the predictable fall out over the Judean Palestinians Front”
———-
Was that the comment about ‘our anthem(s)’ answered by Paul Murray in a stuttering kind of way? I guessed it was some kind oblique reference to certain musical renditions. If so, then I’m afraid the political banners at the Milan game played right into the hands of people like this.
———————————————————————————-
Hi DP, no the reference to the JPF was in relation to one particular individual asking for unity of the support under one banner rather than the schisms of RST/Vanguard/Sons of..etc. and the subsequent shouting down and arguing that ensued. (see Monty Python Holy Grail for context)
cheers
Edit…I just realised it should be the judean popular front so I can understand the confusion I may have inadvertently caused. Apologies to the group
GJ,
Don’t know why my edit function isn’t working. I was going to add (and I think this is maybe what you mean in your ‘top table’ qualification) that I’m in absolute agreement with your reply to Esteban.
My point still stands though. Smith, I assume, was fully aware that the event was being televised to a wider audience than just bluenose TV (sorry I don’t know what their official channel’s called).
Greenock Jack says: (213)
November 29, 2013 at 11:27 am
Think the point here is you cant stop the man in the street making such jibes, but for the “top table”, who had started the meeting asking for all to be “dignified”, to then laugh/snigger at the comment is the issues.
auchinstarry says: (113)
November 29, 2013 at 11:16 am
In direct comparison to the jibe made last week by Peter Lawell, this one made last night was more inappropriate. More tasteless and just about sums up the Standard of what WATP actually stands for.
I wonder if the Scottish Press/Media will see fit to report it. Or much more importantly actually comment on it. I wont haud ma breath.
——
I don’t think there’s much worth commenting on. The remark was made by a fan who evidently considered himself quite the wit. The subject of his humour is currently taboo, yes, but that’s not a sin or Jerry Sadowitz (the man who exposed Jimmy Savile back in 1987 and was ignored) would be out of business.
Those who found Lawwell’s comment amusing should at least appreciate the right of “the other side” to also make a joke at such an event.
The reason the Rory Bremner comment was reported on was that it came from the top table at an AGM, not from a self-congratulating bear at a love-in.
GunnerB
In the interests of accuracy…..it was Life of Brian.
Bryce.
Seriously?
The oldclub/newclub thing…
It seems fairly clear that a different set of individuals could have done exactly what Charles Green did, buy the assets on the cheap, then launch a football club playing at Ibrox. Had these people been Qataris with loose change of £100 million, say, and aimed the club at a completely different constituency (British Asians across Central Scotland and Northern England for example) then there would have been no chance the team would have been recognised as “Rangers” even though in business terms and structural terms it would be identical to the organisation at Ibrox today, resources and professional management notwithstanding*.
However, the only person who managed to cobble together the cash to buy the assets had a plan. That plan involved a continuation of “Rangers” in spirit even if not in fact. Given that the Scottish football authorities gave every indication of thinking that Scottish football was a basket case without four Old Firm games to sell to television every season (never mind the revolving door between the SFA and Ibrox over the years, creating a conflict of interest for key individuals who should have gone on gardening leave a long time ago, at the very least), then the owner of the assets and the authorities were quite happy to pay lip service to the idea that “the club” had continued.
The thing is, the only way “Rangers” will survive in whatever form is with the support of the fans and the fans won’t lend their support unless they think they’re backing “Rangers”. That leaves a gap of understanding too wide to cross. “Rangers” fans believe that the club still exists; others with an interest in Scottish football point out, correctly in my view, that Rangers went into liquidation last year.
Had an investor taken a risk of course, come out and said to the fans, ‘The Rangers are the heirs of Rangers FC as was. The Rangers were founded in 2012 but we go forward with the same stadium, the same colours and respect for the achievements of the old Rangers FC. Please join us on this journey,’ or words to that effect, it may have worked – and killed off the oldclub/newclub nonsense forever. Instead Green & Co, with the connivance of the SFA and SPL, tried to play us all for mugs. That’s why the matter won’t rest. “Rangers” supporters have to buy into a lie to keep the club going, everyone else feels that a posse of charlatans is taking advantage. How can this ever go away or be resolved?
* At least an annual Glasgow Mela at Ibrox would be fun.
As i said before, that ”forum” was an utter embarrassment.
A guy apologising coz he’s got an english wife who influenced his accent, but he’s scottish, is a season book holder [to watch Sevco] and has a Rangers ”room” in his chateau, in England.
He’s had meetings and dealings with Lexey’s and Ticketus / Octopus.
[no doubt he’s had a meal at Gordon Ramsey’s cafe as well] ?
Regarding the rest of the forum – all businessmen, who obviously are ignorant of business law.
”Charles Green bought the club” !
Administration was mentioned, but glossed over
. . .Liquidation was never mentioned Once. Liquidation must mean something in the business world.
Ally Mccoist has been duped by Charles Green as was Walter, to sell season tickets!
We know and Ally knows his wages are a bit excessive for the division and Ally himself admits that.
Ally is a great guy, a Rangers Fan, the Club Manager and a major shareholder!
No shit, Sherlock.
Gordon Smith said that when Peter Lawwell made his remark about a bid for Hooper from an unknown Team in an unknown universe, Gordon was Livid. Gordon suggested that they [Rangers – before they went bust], should ‘fight back’ otherwise they would be portrayed as Liars.
[Glib and Shameless Liars DK or just unreliable and economical with the truth CW]
Ironically they are ALL Liars – Lying to themselves – as Rangers are Dead and waiting to be buried, but they refuse to believe it.
– they are all in denial. It is A NEW CLUB and a new Company.
They’re still in-fighting about what happened and who was to blame.
They would be better starting Rangers mark 3 and actually admitting it is A NEW CLUB.
That is the only way they will ever get to a situation where they want to be – regarding a football club and not a business.
Unbelievable denial of the Truth !!! Ask Dave King, the fine upstanding citizen that he is.
He said – if the CVA fails then Rangers are Dead.
The CVA failed!
While I’m on one of my rare posting visits to this site, two more things:
1. I see from my Twitter timeline that some Celtic fans want to bin Neil Lennon. I actually agree – not because of the Milan result and not because of this season’s CL performance. Celtic will pretty much win the Premier every season from here on in and get into the CL prelims. Sometimes they’ll reach the group stage. Sometimes they’ll do well in the group stage and get to the last 16. At the current level of funding and TV income, last 16 is a major achievement, but the margins of luck and sheer amount of focus required to get there simply can’t be done every season. In that sense, Lennon had already reached his glass ceiling with the club. Maybe it is time he had a go in the Premier down south.
2. Does anyone else think this place sometimes feel like Python’s Four Yorkshiremen sketch, except with Celtic supporters? The administration of Scottish football is in a woeful and probably corrupt state. Scottish football is a tadpole in a puddle however – we just talk about it a lot.
Bryce
Really? Poor effort.
If I was a Rangers supporter i wouldn’t be giving a flying —k whether fans of other clubs, think its a new club, an old club, or, a dead club. I would be concerned with who was actually going to take the current set up forward, and how & where the finance was coming from.
Part of Rangers current problem is that so many of the articulate, educated fans are concentrating on relatively trivial issues, and are ignoring the steepening downward spiral the current set up is in. They seem to be more interested in being part of the problem rather than being part of the solution.
Smugas says: (572)
November 29, 2013 at 11:39 am
0 0 i
Rate This
GunnerB
In the interests of accuracy…..it was Life of Brian.
————————————————————————————-
Indeed it was Smugas, thanks for the correction I thought my face couldn’t get any redder after the original faux pas. Sorry DP.
bryce9a says: (48)
November 29, 2013 at 11:36 am
—
Liquidation and CVA are different ways to exit administration.
What is different about them is that one allows you to cut your cloth and continue in business (Dunfermline, Dundee, Livi, Motherwell), and the other does not (Airdrieonians, Gretna, Rangers).
With reference to your point about morals, a business could quite easily find itself unable to pay its bills to suppliers because its customers have failed to pay invoices. Even companies that are very careful about the customers they do business with can experience this and, sometimes, customers who can afford to pay are very slow and reluctant to pay because they develop an ‘easy-come, easy-go’ attitude.
In that scenario, a company that has done all it can to get paid a fair rate for a good product or service might, with deep sorrow, have to offer its suppliers pennies in the pound.
Others are vultures.
scapaflow says: (1208)
November 29, 2013 at 12:06 pm
Bryce
If I was a Rangers supporter i wouldn’t be giving a flying —k whether fans of other clubs, think its a new club, an old club, or, a dead club. I would be concerned with who was actually going to take the current set up forward, and how & where the finance was coming from.
Part of Rangers current problem is that so many of the articulate, educated fans are concentrating on relatively trivial issues, and are ignoring the steepening downward spiral the current set up is in. They seem to be more interested in being part of the problem rather than being part of the solution.
++++++++++++++++
I engage in the OCNC discussion because there is a discussion, one that interests me, it’s not an evangelical crusade trying to “convince” folk but more an intellectual (relative to other fitba chat) indulgence to a serial-procrastinator, that happens to dove-tail nicely with my love for Rangers Football Club!
Regarding the spivs, there is no discussion, just a dire need to root them out. I make my feelings very clear on social media etc to any infuriating fellow-Bears being seduced by Irvine spin, but other than that, it’s preaching to the converted.
My geography and personal circumstances prevent me having a more active real-world role in bringing about the right outcomes, otherwise I would do what I could to contribute ‘on the front-line’ so to speak.
Aw diddums, poor Bryce…..no one likes us we don’t care….but it appears you do
Take it as a back handed compliment that fans are happy to have a go at the entity that was RFC and it’s new tribute act yet let the trials and tribulations of “lesser” clubs like Dundee, DAFC, Livingston and Hearts pass without the moral outrage
maybe if these clubs had crowed about the titles and trophies they had achieved – WHILST CHEATING
maybe if these clubs had wilfully withheld social taxes to pay players
maybe if these clubs had intentionally withheld contractual documentation on player renumeration
then maybe we’d be keen to give them the abuse they deserve.
the CVA rules are morally wrong IMO, but they ARE the rules of the land, whichever way you slice it, Hearts look like they have agreed a settlement with their creditors. (personally, i think it is wrong but until it’s changed, what can i do)
RFC did NOT agree that settlement with it’s creditors – and therefore they have been put to sleep.
Thems the breaks.
bryce9a says: (49)
November 29, 2013 at 12:27 pm
—
Was there no one whose “love for Rangers Football Club” was strong enough to step in before the spivs? If not, why not?
If I remember correctly the vast bulk of the money owed by Hearts was to the people who actually owned Hearts as well. So the people losing out in the main are the people who owned and operated the club.
That does not excuse the losses to small business and the tax man, that is unfortunate and should never have happened.
However what it is not is a group of people walking away from debt, whilst maintaining their own assets. The biggest losers in this situation are the Hearts owners themselves.
This is not a club being liquidated, walking away from debts and claiming to still exist. This is a club who, admittedly through their own fault, got into dreadful financial problems. The club is going to survive, because the fans are willing to put the money in to save it from liquidation. However the original owners of the club are also losing everything they put in. They are paying the price for the mistakes they made.
Esteban says: (39)
November 29, 2013 at 12:19 pm
That’s nice of you to imagine a scenario where a business may get a CVA and retain a relatively clean conscience. However, the jist of my point was in relation to moral outrage (or what I suspect will be the, quite justified, absence of it) directed at Heart of Midlothian, so unless you are saying that was an instance of an angelic CVA, it’s irrelevant to my argument really.
Do you have thoughts on the need for moral outrage at Hearts, as there justifiably was for Rangers?
bryce9a says: (48) November 29, 2013 at 11:36 am
The Hearts CVA is expected to see them avoid £20 Million of debts and – as I understand it – 200 unsecured (non-Lithuanian) creditors receiving absolutely nothing.
Any thoughts on whether this will be greeted with a similar moral outrage that met Rangers’ oldco liquidation?
Or will Hearts’ guilt be white-washed with fawning references to them “satisfying” creditors, a grossly misleading term employed by a certain high profile blogger, if I recall, to draw hollow (and inaccurate, thought that’s not relevant) contrasts between the Leeds ‘CVA’ scenario and the Rangers situation.
Before commenting, consider I owe you £10, and declare “it’s 1 quid or nothing”.
If you cut your losses & “volunteer” to take the one pound, is my moral culpability diminished?
Also, I’m not diminishing any moral responsibility of Rangers. I’m simply observing whether consistency and rationality will be employed in the application of moral outrage for non-repayment of debts.
—————————————————-
I do not think Hearts will receive the same level of outrage as that accorded to Rangers(IL) for the following reasons..
HMRC voted against Hearts CVA as they did in Rangers case. The only significant difference in the vote was the scale of the debt due to HMRC, meaning that Hearts CVA was approved and that of Rangers(IL) failed.
I am on record here and elsewhere as being embarrassed and saddened by what happened to Hearts. I have readily accepted that Hearts were guilty of financial doping since the late 90s, when Hearts indebtedness to BoS increased significantly under Chris Robinson and continued under Romanov and his Bank. To that extent Hearts cup wins in 1998 and 2006 could be considered tainted, with 2012 less so as UBIG had already stopped funding the club some months previously.
Hearts supporters in general have accepted that the club is ultimately responsible for the debts accrued under successive Boards, and not sought to seek any artificial separation of the football club and the company in an effort to distance themselves from the past mismanagement. Hearts have not demanded any special treatment with regard to any sanctions applied by the football authorities. There have been no claims about being treated badly by other clubs. The management team has acted with dignity throughout and accepted the situation they have found themselves on the pitch with effectively an U21 side facing relegation. (a fate that will be accepted without rancour in the knowledge that the club avoided liquidation)
With regard to the creditors, the biggest losers in Hearts case are the investors and depositors in Ukio Bankas plus the Lithuanian Taxpayers as part of a depositors guarantee scheme. It seems that Romanov, like Murray, Whyte and Green all had an inclination to spend other peoples money.
Football creditors will be refunded outside the CVA, despite there being no legal requirement to do so. Personally I would rather that a distribution was made to all unsecured creditors rather than specifically targeting a single group. It may be that the SFA and/or SPFL have put pressure on FoH to make that choice.
Hearts fans have managed to get the different fans groupings together and to function with a single voice and purpose to the extent that the FoH membership scheme will mean fan ownership going forward.
I think that the vast majority of Hearts fans will view today as the first step in rebuilding their pride in a club that did fail its creditors, but fully accepted the responsibility and the consequences of doing so.
Compare and contrast if you wish.
Scapa @ 12:06
If I was a Rangers supporter i wouldn’t be giving a flying —k whether fans of other clubs, think its a new club, an old club, or, a dead club. I would be concerned with who was actually going to take the current set up forward, and how & where the finance was coming from.
Part of Rangers current problem is that so many of the articulate, educated fans are concentrating on relatively trivial issues, and are ignoring the steepening downward spiral the current set up is in. They seem to be more interested in being part of the problem rather than being part of the solution.
—————————————————————————————————
Generally, I have to agree although there are those who know fine well and better than people on here what is happening and how events could develop. However in the public domain they won’t push these issues with full force or detail because of politics and perception (on various levels).
In part, this is why Irvine is so valuable to the spivs.
He distracts, deflects and helps set the local agenda, which in Glasgow is like taking candy from a baby. When the support are off on a wild goose chase, it effects the whole food chain and creates complacency at levels that should be doing better in efforts to get rid of the spivs.
Over a long period of time this is very damaging.
bryce9a says: (50)
November 29, 2013 at 12:36 pm
—
No need for patronising language. Rather than the situation at Hearts, my answer was an attempt to address this comment in your earlier post in which you appeared to me not to be talking about Hearts specifically but, with the use of plurals, about CVAs in general: “A false-distinction often exists between liquidation scenarios and CVA scenarios.”
The rules around CVAs are undoubtedly exploited by the unscrupulous, but the scrupulous still deserve the chance to make amends as much as they can, in my opinion.
Tif Finn says: (907)
November 29, 2013 at 12:36 pm
Thanks Tif Finn. I’m glad you agree with me that the losses to small businesses and the tax man are worthy of moral outrage directed at Hearts.
One problem…
“However the original owners of the club are also losing everything they put in. They are paying the price for the mistakes they made.”
You realise those “original owners” are insolvent themselves owing huge amounts to their creditors? Hearts waving goodbye to £20 million quid means a large chunk of that NOT going to service UBIG/UKIO’s creditors, who we’ve no reason to presume are anything but innocent victims in this, when it otherwise should have done.
A little less morally-neutral than the “owners” merely having their fingers burnt, I think you’ll agree.
bryce9a says: (50)
November 29, 2013 at 12:36 pm
0 0 Rate This
Esteban says: (39)
November 29, 2013 at 12:19 pm
That’s nice of you to imagine a scenario where a business may get a CVA and retain a relatively clean conscience. However, the jist of my point was in relation to moral outrage (or what I suspect will be the, quite justified, absence of it) at Heart of Midlothian, so unless you are saying that was an instance of an angelic CVA, it’s irrelevant to my argument really.
Do you have thoughts on the need for moral outrage at Hearts, as there justifiably was for Rangers?
===========================
Any moral outrage directed at Hearts will be muted because, although they got themselves into the mess, they have not threatened all and sundry with dire consequences if they are not treated as a special case. I think that, to a certain extent, we all agree that the opprobrium directed at RFC is a direct consequence of their WATP, supremacist attitude during the past two years. Attitudes may have been softer if a degree of contrition had been shown but that’s not the Rangers way. You have previously said that you are from England. Now I don’t know how long you have spent up here (or if in fact you actually still live here) but I don’t think that you are old enough to truly understand the depth of feeling that Rangers bring to the table. Do you understand the meaning of WATP/No Surrender in the context that it is used up here. If so, do you subscribe to it?
Everything that is aimed at RFC is as a result of their own doing. Stop looking for parallels with other clubs. They don’t exist. RFC are a one off.
Bryce, Bryce, Bryce
Moral outrage. Where to begin.
There are two main sources for the moral outrage directed against Rangers, (there’s also moral outrage directed against other clubs & the football authorities because of Rangers).
Firstly, it stems in part from the deliberate pillaging of the tax payer that went on under Mr Murray and Mr Whyte. This will begin to dissipate I think once the UTT result is in, especially if the result follows the AAM case.
Secondly, it stems from the actions of a very large section of Rangers fans, Ranger’s employees and management. That outrage won’t be disappating until there are genuine apologies made. That march on Hampden, and the “Who are these people” moment from Mr McCoist destroyed what sympathy there was for Rangers. It was a childish performance of catastrophic proportions, and until Ranger’s in all its forms deals with it, you won’t be allowed to move on.
The Hearts shareholders meeting has now given 100% approval to the CVA proposals.
There are three stages still to go through.
1. Secure UBIG’s shares (requires a UBIG creditors meeting (likely to be in January), at which Ukio will be their largest creditor)
2. Sale and Purchase agreement drawn up
3. Complete the deal with all the legal niceties including sign off to the end of administration at the Court of Session.
It will probably take until the beginning of February before Hearts can exit Administration
easyJambo says: (591)
November 29, 2013 at 1:01 pm
EJ
Have the Hearts fans marched on Hampden?
Have they compiled a list of enemies and vowed revenge?
Has the Hearts management threatened the authoritiies?
Has the Hearts management whipped up the support?
Or
Have the Hearts fans behaved with a dignity some others can only dream of?
jockybhoy says: (277)
November 29, 2013 at 11:08 am
…….still I appreciate your new-found focus on non-sciuridael
============================================================================
Jockybhoy, despite the enormous gravity surrounding the subject matter of your succinct post, does this “”sciuridael” count as a proper word in Scrabble?
Every day a school day!
Given that the 87% of creditors who accepted the CVA and the 100% of shareholders who approved is will be pretty much the same people this latest stage is hardly surprising.
For the same or similar reasons I don’t imagine much in the way of issues for the next stages. It should really just be a matter of time now and Hearts as a football club will be saved by it’s support.
As I understand it they will then be pretty much a fan owned club, with a fresh start. Albeit they have had to lose top players and will probably be starting a league lower with a young squad.
Let’s hope the new owners have learned from the mistakes of the old and can take the club forward in a sustainable manner.
In brief response to a couple of posters who replied…
My intent is being confused. I’m not saying folk should feel the same way to Hearts as they do to Rangers – I’ve no doubt there are a whole litany of reasons why posters on here despise Rangers Football Club, but that’s not relevant to my point. Nor am I saying the too sagas have played out identically.
I was referring specifically to the moral outrage directed at Rangers for depriving creditors of their dues.
As I stated earlier, Hearts CVA looks like seeing them avoid £20 Million of debts and, I gather, deprive 200 unsecured (non-Lithuanian) creditors of even a penny of what they are owed.
I don’t want to see fawning references to “creditors were satisfied” being used to deflect what should be deserved condemnation for a financial train-wreck and the damage it causes, as Rangers quite rightly received.
easyJambo says: (590)
November 29, 2013 at 12:39 pm
If I had a clappy handies smiley on this forum I would be using it, just about now.
bryce9a says: (52)
November 29, 2013 at 1:09 pm
A fair enough response as far as it goes, but until Rangers deals with the larger issues, Rangers will be stuck in the past.
Bryce,
If there is such a thing as a ‘genuine’ train wreck as opposed to a massively self inflicted, completely unnessecary, avoidable and needless train wreck then yes, again we appear to agree.
bryce9a says: (48)
Bryce, this looks very much like whataboutery but I’ll bite anyway. You’re comparing two different insolvency events, one is designed to provide an opportunity for a company to trade out of a difficult situation and the other means that the company folds completely. Maybe we should compare the administration processes of the two clubs?
I’ll do my best to provide a brief resume of the Hearts Administration and you can cover the Rangers one?
In relation to the Hearts Administration, BDO seems to be managing the process in a fairly transparent professional manner – costs were slashed, people paid off. I guess that people won’t be outraged that over 80% of the Hearts debt to multiple Lithuanian entities created by the owner will not be paid in full. Around a quarter of the creditors were in for sums of around £100 or less, and whilst it is unacceptable that the NHS and British Red cross have lost even these small amounts of money, they’ll survive. The mid range creditors – comms, utilities, agents etc. will also cope. FOH will be required pay football debts I suppose, and that is immoral.
And then there is the matter of how the club and fans reacted the insolvency event – Hearts seem to have accepted the fact that they were in a mess and that they will be lucky to get out of it. Fans have paid money out of their own pockets to buy shares, have continued to turn out in numbers to support a team full of kids, which is inevitably struggling, and have signed mandates to commit to monthly payments (should the CVA be successful) to sustain the club in the years ahead. This last in addition to buying season books or paying walk up gate money.
I don’t think there will be the same moral outrage, among those who have any interest in these matters, in the Hearts case as there was in the Rangers situation.
The main difference between the administration process Hearts went through and the one which Rangers went through was whether or not it was a proper administration, aimed to achieve legitimate ends.
Bryan Jackson did what he could to save the club, by deep cuts right from the start and re-adjusting the businesses finances. A proper administration like we have seen before at club’s like Motherwell. Bryan Jacksos has (almost) managed to save the club, and at the same time has hopefully made it viable going forward. He would not be doing what he is doing unless he thought that was at least possible.
Rangers chose to appoint Duff and Phelps, who tried to bring in a striker and add to the wage bill. There was no proper administration process, there was a pre-determined plan. To shed debt but stay in the SPL, through corruption. Even when the CVA failed and he club died the same people tried to get the new club into the top league, which was at best bizarre. The Scottish football authorities tried to help them at every stage, even bullying their own members to try to force this travesty through.
Whether one finds the concept of administration distasteful or not, Hearts had one. Overseen by a proper administrator who specialises in the field as it relates to football in this country. It was carried out in a professional and proper manager.
Rangers had a sham, presided over by liars and cheats, with a pre-determined outcome.
The two are not even remotely analogous.
bryce9a says: (52)
November 29, 2013 at 11:36 am
…
“Before commenting, consider I owe you £10, and declare “it’s 1 quid or nothing”.
If you cut your losses & “volunteer” to take the one pound, is my moral culpability diminished?”
I cannot afford the £10, plain and simple. here’s my best offer in the current market. Its a quid and I continue as legally the same entity/company, or I get liquidated, cease to be, and you get nothing.
If the £10 is owed to HMRC, they would take account of whether you’d been at it, to arrive at owing the £10.
Scapa
I don’t think this blog has paid much attention to the Hearts situation, where the circumstances have been very different. Tbh I doubt you’ll ever see such an intensive and longrunning soap opera as is happening at Ibrox.
We know that RTC helped start a bandwagon that grew and became an important factor in how events panned out. What that did (whatever your opinion on what ly behind it) was inevitably create a posinous confrontational atmosphere between the Rangers support and the rest of Scottish football.
I don’t think it realistic to expect a support that is cornered and fearing for the clubs existence to act in a rational, businesslike or forgiving way to their rivals, especially when this was further exploited by the likes of Irvine and Green.
You also have to consider the counter arguments to some of the points that arise and it’s often ends in a shade of grey, opposed to black or white. Blanket refusal to listen just helps illustrate the situation.
I note that last night Paul Murray said that he hoped those responsible will held accountable and that monies recovered go to pay the creditors.
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl/hearts-list-of-creditors-in-full-1-3024802
A little over £4m will be owed to creditors excluding the ‘parents’ and ‘football’ creditors. Roughly half of that is to HMRC
Bryce
Perhaps the fact you are not in Scotland explains the emotional distance between your stance and other posters.
Speaking for myself, but with the feeling many others will agree, is what makes the difference between the Hearts and Rangers situation is that Rangers have willfully cheated the other clubs.
Note willfully. They admitted so in the wee tax case when evidence of willfully concealing side letters from HMRC was presented to them.
Had the bill been of big tax case proportions they may have gone the appeal road, except they were caught bang to rights cheating and did not wish to incur further penalties.
Do you accept that your club through its custodians cheated the rest of our game and are you prepared to give up all that was won through that cheating?
Until the Rangers support at large accept responsibility for what was done in their name and agree to hand back the ill gotten gains because the dignity and integrity they claim demands it, all the intellectual and sophisticated debate in the world will make no difference in addressing the issue.
In fact it only delays the healing of our game and what makes it worse is our national association under Campbell Ogilvie are helping to hold the wound open.
Greenock Jack says: (215)
November 29, 2013 at 1:41 pm
I agree with much of that, and paul murray’s comment was about the only positive I took from the meeting.
I don’t think you can blame RTC. If you were to look at the RTC blog, you would see that the vast majority of posters were quite happy to see new Rangers start in what was then division one. That view was maintained right up until the march on Hampden, that really was a game changer.
While I have some sympathy for the argument about the reaction of ordinary fans, that cannot hold for senior employees of the club, who must have known that their actions would have a massive influence.
Bryce.
Dry your eyes.
Do you think the Scottish football authorities would have moved heaven and earth to keep Hearts in Scottish football if liquidation has struck them, in the same way it did in G51? Hearts have been honest, open and truthful about their predicament and asked for noone’s help in dealing with, save their own support. No shaministration, no IPO’s, no “charity matches”. All their own fault arriving there, all their own work getting out of it. And not a Doomcaster in sight spouting peesh about ”armageddon” without Hearts.
Now take your whataboutery elsewhere.
easyJambo says: (591)
November 29, 2013 at 12:39 pm
Well said easy, Bryce can argue all he likes but the Hearts situation has been so different in approach and so has the attitude of the Hearts support.
Greenock Jack says: (215)
November 29, 2013 at 1:41 pm
We know that RTC helped start a bandwagon that grew and became an important factor in how events panned out. What that did (whatever your opinion on what ly behind it) was inevitably create a posinous confrontational atmosphere between the Rangers support and the rest of Scottish football.
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
At the risk of sounding like my almost-teenage daughter – OMG!
Are you really trying to blame RTC for creating the poisonous atmosphere between Gers fans and the rest of Scottish football?
Really?
Please take a moment to consider the implications of what you just said.
scapaflow says: (1212)
November 29, 2013 at 1:51 pm
—
Sorry, but the division one thing does not tally with my recollection of RTC at all.
Greenock Jack
RTC grew an expectation that Rangers would be found guilty of cheating the tax payer and Scottish Football.
The FTT reached a decision that provided relief from that charge, possibly temporary, but I suggest it was the FTT decision that created the poison because it gave Rangers fans something to be angry about i.e of being falsely accused and proved innocent.
I’m afraid innocence is the last attribute that can be applied to this situation and until such times as guilt is faced and admitted the chances of any kind of reconciliation are zilch.
Watched the fans forum clips.
Could say plenty but best summed up by saying the timing was perfect.
It is pantomime season afterall.
500 folk in the room and nobody asking why people (other than GersMen Sugar Daddies and one of them at the top table is keeping his hands firmly in his pockets) would want to put money into a loss making club with no obvious opportunity for a return.
I assumed he meant Ken Olver
Jack’s been a very busy squirrel these past few days! Anyone would think that there’s something to the requisitioners’ concerns about the ipo.
Isn’t there tax implications in buying shares for 1p that were valued at £1?
Supporters appear to have been shivved by the spivs twice!
Scapa @ 1:51
I only said that the RTC blog helped start the bandwagon, I thought that generally accepted.
Personally I think there is another story or debate to be had regarding how it started and developed but for another time.
With Duff and Phelps in charge, that left football people who whether it be a post match interview or an address to the support, tend to be partisan and go with what they think will go down well and/or act to their own advantage..
davey
You have to have something to show for the 40K p/mth. 🙄
Zilch
Take a moment and read what I typed with more care, I wasn’t attributing blame.
Greenock Jack says: (216)
November 29, 2013 at 2:11 pm
“I only said that the RTC blog helped start the bandwagon, I thought that generally accepted.”
—
No you did not. You didn’t “only” say that. You immediately went on to say the “bandwagon” grew and “inevitably” created “a posinous confrontational atmosphere between the Rangers support and the rest of Scottish football”.
Auldheid
RTC grew an expectation that Rangers would be found guilty of cheating the tax payer and Scottish Football.
The FTT reached a decision that provided relief from that charge, possibly temporary, but I suggest it was the FTT decision that created the poison because it gave Rangers fans something to be angry about i.e of being falsely accused and proved innocent.
I’m afraid innocence is the last attribute that can be applied to this situation and until such times as guilt is faced and admitted the chances of any kind of reconciliation are zilch.
———————————————————————————————————–
Didn’t the FTT verdict come later in the year ?
Just dared to listen to the start of part2 of the forum. Not sure if there was a problem with my YouTube feed but after someone asked, what I suspect to be the most leading question of the night ie what are the requisitioners plans to meet the DK estimate of £50m being required to reach ‘the top’? A pretty good question and one, that if my feed was correct, they totally ignored and merely looked to each other for guidance. Could anyone confirm this was, or wasn’t, the case. It’s about 1.56 mins into the podcast. The strange thing was, the audience didn’t react at all and seemed happy to move on (there’s that saying again) to the next question. If they weren’t prepared for such a question (and let’s face it, they should have been), it either means they don’t want the bears to know their plans, coz they aint gonna like them, or they just don’t have any!
Greenock Jack says: (215)
November 29, 2013 at 1:41 pm
Scapa
I don’t think this blog has paid much attention to the Hearts situation, where the circumstances have been very different. Tbh I doubt you’ll ever see such an intensive and longrunning soap opera as is happening at Ibrox.
We know that RTC helped start a bandwagon that grew and became an important factor in how events panned out. What that did (whatever your opinion on what ly behind it) was inevitably create a posinous confrontational atmosphere between the Rangers support and the rest of Scottish football.
I don’t think it realistic to expect a support that is cornered and fearing for the clubs existence to act in a rational, businesslike or forgiving way to their rivals, especially when this was further exploited by the likes of Irvine and Green.
You also have to consider the counter arguments to some of the points that arise and it’s often ends in a shade of grey, opposed to black or white. Blanket refusal to listen just helps illustrate the situation.
I note that last night Paul Murray said that he hoped those responsible will held accountable and that monies recovered go to pay the creditors
—————–
If I may.
your para 1
I have had little interest in the Hearts situation for the following reason. It struck me as odd when they turned up with half the Lithuanian national team and consistently beat my own. Transpires they did it by paying through the nose for players they couldn’t afford. Common sense tells me that ends in debt and experience tells me that ends in the I owe you £10, here’s my last £1 situation described above. That the soap opera continues at Ibrox is simply because gravity is being defied, and worse than that, does not appear to be being defied using fair and just means. That plucks my curiosity strangely.
your para 2
No, no and thrice no. RTC, through whatever means (and for balance I still question the legality of that incidentally) plucked that curiosity further in so far as common football speak was filled with words like receivership and warrants and MSM speak was filled with war chests, UEFA finals and helicopter sundays. On surprisingly little research I read up on RTC and continued at that time, however naively, to read the MSM. I have said on here before that my support of RTC was simply that having read RTC’s version (which seemed to somehow connect back to my own common sense reaction mentioned above) he/she would then very, very accurately forecast how the MSM would spin it. On your final point in that para – did RTC create the poisonous confrontational attitudes? Really?
your para 3.
Completely agree. I would however expect a modicum of contrition and curiosity to say “How did we get here?” I also agree that there are leeches in society like Green, Whyte and I’m sorry, I’d add Paul Murray to that list too. It is unfortunate that they can lead the uninformed astray. It is less unfortunate if the uninformed put their fingers in their ears and go nah nah nah nah. Time and time again.
your para 4.
Some issues have been gray I accept, some surprisingly so. Some have been absolutely categorically unquestionably more black than a black thing in the dark, but have been described to us by an unbiased, independent media as either not worth bothering about, more white than anything really or even we accept it looks bad (ie. slightly dark, but definitely not black no siree) but can you not just ignore that for the common good of….well just one team actually, the ones with their fingers in your till (and their ears).
your para 5.
Should I assume that Paul Murray was referring to the £100m that they had two years ago, but don’t appear to have now? If there’s illegality then he’s absolutely right. If he’s just in the huff cos he was promised the ball and didn’t get it then tough.
Auldheid says: (1060)
November 29, 2013 at 1:44 pm
Do you accept that your club through its custodians cheated the rest of our game and are you prepared to give up all that was won through that cheating?
Until the Rangers support at large accept responsibility for what was done in their name and agree to hand back the ill gotten gains because the dignity and integrity they claim demands it, all the intellectual and sophisticated debate in the world will make no difference in addressing the issue.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I accept any rule-breaking that is established, and burden the individuals responsible for that rule-breaking with the entirety of the guilt – nothing else would be logical, let alone fair. Not the fans. Not the players. But those executives whose decisions instigated the rule-breaking. I’d look very carefully at whether there was intent to rule-break, or if incompetence was at the root of it, in deciding upon the severity of any penalty.
Yes, the “club” bears some of that responsibility indirectly, as the directors were custodians/representatives of the club, but the guilt departed the club when the individuals ceased to represent the club. Again, nothing else seems rational.
I did not agree with handing back titles.
I wouldn’t expect Wiggins/Froome/the Sky Cycling Team to hand over their yellow jerseys (won honestly by blood, sweat, athletic prowess and skill) just because the company Directors, operating the Sky Cycling Team, had been running a tax scheme that broke UCI rules/possibly the law of the land.
Perhaps Wiggins/Froome wouldn’t even have been at the Sky Team if not for those salaries, fuelled by the company’s tax scheme, was not in place. It still wouldn’t detract from the sporting achievement of the Team, themselves, who had earned their success by virtue of their own sporting merits.
I’d expect the individuals responsible to be held to account, punishments applied that were proportionate and had least effect on those not responsible for instigating any rule-breaking. But stripping sporting honours, won by the Sports’ team not morally accountable for their owners actions? No, not fair, for that is punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty – unjust by definition.
That is the reasoning I use to justify my position with regards Rangers Football Club and stripping of honours.
bryce9a says: (52)
November 29, 2013 at 1:09 pm
In brief response to a couple of posters who replied…
My intent is being confused. I’m not saying folk should feel the same way to Hearts as they do to Rangers – I’ve no doubt there are a whole litany of reasons why posters on here despise Rangers Football Club, but that’s not relevant to my point. Nor am I saying the too sagas have played out identically.
I was referring specifically to the moral outrage directed at Rangers for depriving creditors of their dues.
———————————————————————————————————————————————
The outrage being expressed by fans of other clubs (for there are such rare creatures) isn’t simply because of RFC RIP “depriving creditors of there dues”. You must see that. Surely ?
The posts preceding mine elucidate the very great differences in the whole RFC RIP crash and the HMFC administration. They just are not alike in ANY respect. So why would anyone get so upset about HMFC ?
Mad Vlad stiffed himself with his crazy spending. Unlike Murray – who never lost a penny of HIS money.
Keep on trolling.