Past the Event Horizon

ByBig Pink

Past the Event Horizon

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.

About the author

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

3,926 Comments so far

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on10:58 am - Nov 22, 2013


WHO SOLD LAXEY 5% OF THE COMPANY THE OTHER DAY?

surely there should have been 2 announcements – 1 confirming laxeys increased stake and another confirming someone now has less than 3% of company

Is there ANY possibility this sale was NEW, UN-ISSUED shares direct from the clumpany – and the revenue went to the club (keeping the lights on for another month maybe?) – I don’t think that is likely/possible without AGM resolution, but you never know with this lot.

Thoughts?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:59 am - Nov 22, 2013


Make what you will of Laxeys investment and their plans for Ibrokes.

http://www.thecoplandroad.org/2013/08/laxey-partners-speak-to-cro.html

http://www.thecoplandroad.org/2013/11/colin-kingsnorth-on-laxeys-recent-share.html

However I somewhat doubt that it is a ‘private investment’ and that more money will be thrown at a loss making enterprise.

The deal brokered with Charlie on the extra overs shows it is all about ensuring there is a return or that potnetial losses can be covered in some other fashion

View Comment

EstebanPosted on11:00 am - Nov 22, 2013


Smugas says: (541)
November 22, 2013 at 10:25 am

It may be attempting to defend the indefensible, but I feel you have echoed two of the points I was trying to make: Doncaster only cares about the money; but it cannot only be about money.

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on11:02 am - Nov 22, 2013


MoreCelticParanoia says:
November 22, 2013 at 10:06 am

He started it !

🙂

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on11:04 am - Nov 22, 2013


Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1033)
November 22, 2013 at 10:58 am

Is there ANY possibility this sale was NEW, UN-ISSUED shares direct from the clumpany

If it’s any indication, the share pages say 65.1m shares issued.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:13 am - Nov 22, 2013


Nice big sporting gesture by former Hearts defender Takis Fyssas,now Greece’s team director.
Before the Greece v Romania world cup play-off last week, he noticed that Romania had listed only two keepers instead of the mandatory three. He alerted the Romanians because the FIFA officials missed the error.
Greece won 3-1 in any case, but Fyffas said ” I preferred to qualify on the pitch rather than on paper”.
( From today’s ‘Scotsman’).
Sporting integrity to the nth degree. Fyffas must have picked that up at Tynecastle, or, at least, didn’t lose it during his stint there.

View Comment

Kicker ConspiracyPosted on11:15 am - Nov 22, 2013


Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1033)
November 22, 2013 at 10:58 am

WHO SOLD LAXEY 5% OF THE COMPANY THE OTHER DAY?

surely there should have been 2 announcements – 1 confirming laxeys increased stake and another confirming someone now has less than 3% of company

——————————

Couldn’t it be that the sale was conducted through a third party, making it one transaction comprised of shares belonging to several shareholders each owning less than the number triggering an announcement?

Just guessing.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on11:19 am - Nov 22, 2013


Kicker Conspiracy says: (25)
November 22, 2013 at 11:15 am
0 0 Rate This

Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1033)
November 22, 2013 at 10:58 am

WHO SOLD LAXEY 5% OF THE COMPANY THE OTHER DAY?

surely there should have been 2 announcements – 1 confirming laxeys increased stake and another confirming someone now has less than 3% of company

——————————

Couldn’t it be that the sale was conducted through a third party, making it one transaction comprised of shares belonging to several shareholders each owning less than the number triggering an announcement?

Just guessing.

=======================================

that would be some co-ordinating – volumes suggest market isn’t that liquid, and if someoen was wanting to make such a large purchase, then surely it would have had an increase in the price – as demand was stronger than the available market shares – no?

View Comment

Galling fiverPosted on11:33 am - Nov 22, 2013


I’ve read up a bit on how HMRC have battled with the football creditor rule, but mainly instances where Hector has tried to rule it invalid, and their attempts at scrapping it altogether. But I cant seem to find the actual rules of the rule. Can anyone provide a link?

Probably being a bit thick, but when do the debts of old club stop being added to the pot? Can you add debts under the footballing creditors rule after the date of death(LNS)? If the UTTT finds them guilty and another club successfully sues for lost income and demands compensation under the football creditors rule, are Rory FC double f-cked? If not, how not, ma heids melting.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on11:36 am - Nov 22, 2013


@Smugas

Here’s Phil’s tweet with the Sky edit:

@Pmacgiollabhain

“Should a CVA not be agreed then Hearts will enter liquidation, bringing an end to 139 years of history.” was removed from the Sky piece
4:57pm – 19 Nov 13

View Comment

arabest1Posted on11:53 am - Nov 22, 2013


A point of clarification please. I read somewhere yesterday the claim that Minty claimed to have lost 100 million of his ‘own’ money by pouring it into RFC. Did Murray pick up annual loses for RFC in any of the years he had control? ……and if so is that amount seperated form the ‘official’ debts of RFC (IL) How much of Murray’s 700 million debt mountain is attributed to the profligate spending of RFC, and is it seperated from the Club’s actual debt? I think it is significant as the tax payer had to bail out the bank….ergo the total should be added to the DOS, VAT, PAYE, and probable EBT’S? If you follow? Anyone have a total of the ‘soft loans’ from MIM?

View Comment

Carl31Posted on11:54 am - Nov 22, 2013


RyanGosling says: (102)
November 21, 2013 at 11:59 pm

Carl31, that brings to mind a very very interesting question. I’m not having a go at you at all in the following, just posing the question:
How many on here would agree with Carl that if the new club paid the debts, whether willingly or unwillingly, of the old club that they would then agree that it is the same club?
Because to me, if the premise is that the club and company were not in fact separate in legal terms before the liquidation, a premise I personally don’t see any way around, then whether they pay the debts or not is irrelevant, it is a separate and new entity. Maybe Carl, not to put words in your mouth or anything, what you mean is that you would be far more willing to accept that new Rangers is old Rangers if they did the honourable thing, which is another stance I could easily agree with. But legally and logically, if Rangers Now paid the debts of Rangers Then it would be nothing more than a charitable gesture. And they can’t volunteer to do that anyway because they don’t have the proverbial pot to do the proverbial piss in.

======

RyanGosling, you misunderstand me, probably as I posted from an Android device so would have liked to have put more explanation.

Importantly for this blog, and seeing as this thread is likely to develop more along the lines of OCNC debate, the point I was getting at was that debaters should not become entrenched.

There should never be a situation where one could not accept the another’s position under any circumstance – if that occurs, then there is no debate. To coin a phrase, there would be no arguing with them.
If anyone’s position on this OCNC debate has become entrenched, then any contribution by that debater that puts their view could be called Mantra or Dogma.

I would argue that mine has not. There are circumstances where I would accept they are the same club – circumstances that you seem to misunderstand or I havent made clear.

For me to accept a decision that they are in fact the same club, they must contest under the law a claim that they must pay creditor debt(s) on the basis that they aren’t the same club, i.e. Newco Rangers must defend a claim against them (a claim based on them being the same club, and thus liable for the debts), with the defence being that they are not the same club.

If they then lose – I will accept them as the same club.

Simple willing payment to creditor(s) doesn’t cover it. That would mean the claim was uncontested and thus untested under the law. A settlement out of court doesn’t cover it, since it too would mean the claim was uncontested and untested under the law (also the current club could simply volunteer a sum of money to some small creditors up to what could be afforded, and would be on the basis that they are a nice generous bunch running the club – using that as a justification they are the same club is absurd, a point you make above). Similarly, paying off some non-football debts voluntarily, such as the infamous face-painter, doesn’t cover it.

The reason it has to be tested under the law is this: The football authorities are simply organising an activity in a civil society. They can effectively say what they want so long as they don’t contravene the law of the land (to me this explains the origin of the recognisable entity without legal personality view of a ‘club’ which was non-existent prior to the Rangers insolvency. That this ‘sidestep by means of re-definition’ move is comparable in principle to the attempted avoidance of tax in the BTC, redefining contractual wages as something else, is no COincidence [wink wink]).

In order for a claim that they are the same club to be just and proper it must be tested under the law of the land, not just footballing administrators rules or their interpretation at the time. The football authorities are conflicted to say the least. Their interpretations of their own rules are of the strangest seen, such as the Bryson Interpretation. Many posters here and elsewhere have demonstrated this. They have also been shown up at times as incompetent and unable to properly implement their own rules (thinking for example of how Mr McBride argued Mr Lennon’s case on a ban, and tore the SFA to shreds on their own rules – or of when Old Rangers proved the SFA were acting beyond their own powers).

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on11:54 am - Nov 22, 2013


If a hedge fund is the following, then how in the name o’ the wee man are they — Laxey — going to generate high returns from a football club, particularly one in such dire straits?

Definition of ‘Hedge Fund’

An aggressively managed portfolio of investments that uses advanced investment strategies such as leveraged, long, short and derivative positions in both domestic and international markets with the goal of generating high returns (either in an absolute sense or over a specified market benchmark).

Legally, hedge funds are most often set up as private investment partnerships that are open to a limited number of investors and require a very large initial minimum investment. Investments in hedge funds are illiquid as they often require investors keep their money in the fund for at least one year.

View Comment

No1 BobPosted on11:55 am - Nov 22, 2013


A company’s brokers are there to ensure that a market place exists to trade the company’s shares and this includes those times when there is no immediate buyer.

I stand to be corrected, but the shares that were purchased by Laxey could have been sitting on the brokers books for some time while the broker looked for a purchaser.

I think that the shares belonged to Charles Green. The sale of his shares was announced with some fanfare but there was no announcement of a large purchase around that time. Green and Laxey did announce the transfer of 700k odd shares from one to the other around this time.

View Comment

FinlochPosted on11:56 am - Nov 22, 2013


Hedge funds don’t do losing money intentionally.
They do like inside knowledge and generally know the real odds better than any flapper track bookie.
The Laxey purchase should be analysed in the business pages not commented on by the churnos.

Craig and Charlie have circled the wagons and their plan is easing into execution mode.

A wee message to whoever at the SFA was the driving force individual behind the 5 way agreement….
i.e whose “great idea”it was…

You played right into their hands!

View Comment

FIFAPosted on11:56 am - Nov 22, 2013


Re all the shares being traded this week ,have the traded the shredders for printers over Govan way.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:57 am - Nov 22, 2013


DP,

Yes I recall that bit – but I assume the inference was that Jack Irvine had phoned Sky and said no liquidation will not mean the end of Hearts history?

Questions
Would Sky not have asked why not?
Would Sky not have asked and you are…..and you’re calling why…?

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on12:04 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Carl31 says: (98)
November 22, 2013 at 11:54 am

=======================================

I would be prepared to give the New Club some slack in claiming to be the Old Club if they made arrangements to pay the debts back in full (no haggling/deals done, no complaining about sly kicks, full contrition that they have broken the trust of the fans and footballing authorities and they make plans to repay those who lost out and to promise not to undertake such schemes again)

It wouldn’t make them the Old Club, but I wouldn’t have a problem with them claiming to be – as football fans are emotional beings and it would be an emotional link to the past.

Even though it’s academic, I wouldn’t expect them to benefit in anyway from being the old club – i.e. if there were UEFA co-efficient points still attributed to the old club that could enhance new clubs uefa standing.

On that note, as i posted a week or so ago, many folk may or may not know that both Hibs and Hearts are Newcos.

OK, Hibs went out of business before teh SFL was formed (they forgot to attend a meeting to form the league and with no football to play and Celtic stealing all their players, they ceased trading – a few years later a newco was born, but claiming to be the original)

Hearts went bust in the early 1900’s owing about £1400, the newco formed and repaid the old co debts – but again, claiming to be dated from the original club formation.

Of course, neither of these clubs had any history of note before they died/were reborn – so all the history is with the newco, but newco’s they are

ho hum

View Comment

Kicker ConspiracyPosted on12:06 pm - Nov 22, 2013


No1 Bob says: (55)
November 22, 2013 at 11:55 am

A company’s brokers are there to ensure that a market place exists to trade the company’s shares and this includes those times when there is no immediate buyer.

I stand to be corrected, but the shares that were purchased by Laxey could have been sitting on the brokers books for some time while the broker looked for a purchaser.

I think that the shares belonged to Charles Green. The sale of his shares was announced with some fanfare but there was no announcement of a large purchase around that time. Green and Laxey did announce the transfer of 700k odd shares from one to the other around this time.

—————————————
Yeah that’s the kind of thing I was trying to get at earlier:

Kicker Conspiracy says: (25)
November 22, 2013 at 11:15 am

Couldn’t it be that the sale was conducted through a third party, making it one transaction comprised of shares belonging to several shareholders each owning less than the number triggering an announcement?

Just guessing.

I remember a post the other day explaining how transactions are buffered like that.

View Comment

jockybhoyPosted on12:06 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Danish Pastry says: (1711) November 22, 2013 at 11:54 am
If a hedge fund is the following, then how in the name o’ the wee man are they — Laxey — going to generate high returns from a football club, particularly one in such dire straits?

I think you should be looking more at “activist shareholders” – although one man’s activist shareholder could be another man’s carpetbagger…

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:15 pm - Nov 22, 2013


I should maybe say that Kingsnorth (of Laxey Partners) said in August of his purchase of shares then that
“..
“This is a personal investment so nothing to do with our business of managing money for clients.”
It’s unlikely that their more recent purchase is on any different grounds. This is their money-not any clients’, I would say.

View Comment

rougvielovesthejunglePosted on12:20 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1034)
November 22, 2013 at 10:58 am

WHO SOLD LAXEY 5% OF THE COMPANY THE OTHER DAY?

surely there should have been 2 announcements – 1 confirming laxeys increased stake and another confirming someone now has less than 3% of company

Is there ANY possibility this sale was NEW, UN-ISSUED shares direct from the clumpany – and the revenue went to the club (keeping the lights on for another month maybe?) – I don’t think that is likely/possible without AGM resolution, but you never know with this lot.

====================

I was thinking this too.
I’m also thinking this is another example of how limp our MSM are.
Surely to christ some journalist out there should have discovered and put into print who actually sold these shares to Laxey’s?

Get on the case Ally, the Peepil deserve to know!

View Comment

Galling fiverPosted on12:24 pm - Nov 22, 2013


ooPs. Football creditors act does not apply to Scotland according to Mr Wilson of The Herald. So if the newclub have paid footballing debts it was as part of the 5way Charlie never signed. Sorry away back to sleep now. You never seen me, barking, wrong tree.

View Comment

redetinPosted on12:24 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Kicker Conspiracy says: (26)
November 22, 2013 at 12:06 pm

No1 Bob says: (55)
November 22, 2013 at 11:55 am
A company’s brokers are there to ensure that a market place exists to trade the company’s shares and this includes those times when there is no immediate buyer.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Usually, a broker does not hold shares. He charges a fee on every buy or sell that he arranges.

A trader on the other hand risks money on shares he holds. He makes his money on the difference between buy (ask) and sell (bid) price.

View Comment

manandboyPosted on12:40 pm - Nov 22, 2013


schneeb says: (65)
November 22, 2013 at 10:13 am
manandboy says: (328)
November 22, 2013 at 7:56 am
Thought for the day:
Will the sharks give the man in blue preferential treatment ?
———————————————-
I suspect the shark will leave a carcass and a blue strip for the next shark that passes !
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Thanks Schneeb, 10/10.

View Comment

beatipacificiscotiaPosted on12:41 pm - Nov 22, 2013


22 November 2013

Rangers International Football Club plc

(“Rangers” or the “Company”)

Appointment of Chairman

The Board of Rangers has appointed David Somers as permanent non-executive Chairman, having previously been independent non-executive director and acting chairman

In accordance with Rangers’ Articles of Association Mr Somers will remain subject to re-appointment by an ordinary resolution at the upcoming Annual General Meeting of the Company on Thursday 19 December 2013.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on1:08 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Test

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on1:16 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Galling fiver says:

==========================

The football creditors rule is an English thing as far I am aware. It doesn’t exist in Scotland.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on1:23 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Tif Finn says: (882)
November 22, 2013 at 1:16 pm

Correct. I think a key driver for the 5 way agreement was the fact that there is no football creditor rule here. Therefore, the 5 way was necessary to ensure that the football creditors got at least most of their money, and to thereby make the licence transfer more palatable.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on1:23 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Danish Pastry says:

===========================

The returns don’t have to come from footballing.

Remember they are buying shares (for their client) in a PLC which happens to own a football club. It could just as easily sell that club or invest in other areas, or even liquidate at a profit.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on1:27 pm - Nov 22, 2013


scapaflow says:

=============================

Indeed, it became perfectly clear that the other football clubs would not just welcome a new club in.

So a mechanism to pay them by a, the SFA holding onto money that the creditors of the old club should have got and b, the new club taking on specific debts had to be found.

The fact that it shafted every other creditor is clearly of no consequence to Old Rangers, New Rangers, The SFA etc.

View Comment

Galling fiverPosted on1:34 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Can’t sleep, on shifts, this is like the quandary of how the snowplough driver gets to his work in the morning. If the football creditors act is not valid in Scotland, and Charlie never signed the five way, why are the SFA allowed to ask for money for the twisted LNS ruling but the newsagent still gets bumped for the jazz mags? If Charlie was fibbing, which I doubt 😀 , how legal is the 5way, and why did Rapid aaaacchhtooo Vienna get squared up etc. I need this answered, counting :slamb: , a technique suggested by a previous poster is not working.

View Comment

seminalPosted on1:39 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Laxey rightly think that Sevco is potentially a £60m turnover club.

Unfortunately for them they have not yet worked out that it will cost £80m a year to realise that turnover.

They won’t be the first and they won’t be the last.

View Comment

GeronimosCadillacPosted on1:42 pm - Nov 22, 2013


john clarke says: (1384)
November 22, 2013 at 12:15 pm

I should maybe say that Kingsnorth (of Laxey Partners) said in August of his purchase of shares then that
“..
“This is a personal investment so nothing to do with our business of managing money for clients.”
It’s unlikely that their more recent purchase is on any different grounds. This is their money-not any clients’, I would say.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tsk Tsk John – I’m afraid you have broken the first rule of the Internet Bampots International code and that is to never, ever, ever, ever believe an asset stripping Spiv. You’re too honest for yir ain’ guid.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on1:47 pm - Nov 22, 2013


We may not know where the new Laxley shares came from for quite sometime. It could be Mr Green, it could be some investors below the notifiable limit cashing in, hell it could even be Mr McCoist!

What is clear, is that as predicted on here a few weeks ago, the Requistioners scheme is a dead duck.

What’s not clear is what happens next. A return to the market looks unlikely, as that would dilute the current shareholding and anyway, I doubt many of the fans are in any mood to put in more cash.

Sale and lease back looks attractive, but…

Suppose for the sake of argument folk are right, and the TRFC LTD accounts have been loaded up with internal debt. So RIFC “buys” Ibrox and Murray Park, clearing the debt, with a little extra for working capital. You are then left with a Football business, whose only assets would be the player registrations, set against a massive cost base, including a hefty chunk of change for the rental of Murray Park and Ibrox.

What then? You could sell the football business, though who in their right mind would buy it? However, suppose for the sake of argument you found a buyer, they would be faced with the same problems, huge cost base, that is not covered by the likely revenue stream. No physical assets to borrow against, no physical assets to attract market investors, and a customer base, deeply divided, unhappy, and unlikely to be able to raise much cash. There’s little choice but to swing the axe, RiFC get told, sorry we can’t use Murray Park, which probably entails penalty charges. The staff and player costs are reduced, which results in lower performance on the park and the downward spiral begins, as more and more customers discover the art of walking away.

Within a couple years Rangers go the way of Third Lanark. So what I hear you say, RIFC are left with some potentially valuable physical assets. Are they though? Whatever book value is assigned to an asset, its only really worth what someone will pay for it. These assets would come with some chunky operational risks. Murray Park is on land that is not designated as available for commercial or housing use. the land swap deal has been done with the Rugby Club, so that option is gone. I suppose you could lease it to the SFA as a Football Academy, I wouldn’t put it past the SFA to go for that. You are still left with Ibrox, a football ground with no team in a not particularly attractive part of Glasgow. Housing? Casino? Car Park? Supposing you have a cunning plan, how are you going to round up enough Glasgow Councillors willing to commit political suicide by voting through the planning application? If you did how can you be sure that whatever you build won’t be made of a material similar to that used in cars on American cop shows?

The current controlling interests, will I’m sure have a plan, I’m just buggered if I can see it!

View Comment

manandboyPosted on1:53 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Carl31 says: (98)
November 22, 2013 at 11:54 am
Importantly for this blog, and seeing as this thread is likely to develop more along the lines of OCNC debate, the point I was getting at was that debaters should not become entrenched.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Not ‘entrenched’ – just standing one’s ground before the Law.

There’s not a judge in the land who would not uphold the Law of Insolvency in the OCNC ‘debate’.

RFC Ltd. is in liquidation. That is according to the law of the land.

If insisting on that is called ‘entrenched’ – which it isn’t – then so be it but only within the limits of one’s own personal view and choice of inappropriate words.

If entrenched was the right word,

we would then have to say that every judge was ‘entrenched’ for upholding the law.

Let’s recap –

Before the RFC (IA) CVA, everyone, especially those inside Ibrox, was quite clear about the legal consequences of the CVA failing, viz., liquidation, the end of Rangers. Gone.

After the CVA was rejected, the law remained the same,

but then the Govanites defiance DNA kicked in.

That DNA is about power, including, in the face of the Law – when it doesn’t suit.

It was the rejection by Ibrox of the Law of the United Kingdom in this matter of liquidation

which was the turning point

and marked the beginning of everything since.

The old Rangers crest carried the motto ‘Ready’,

but in reality, they were never ‘ready’ to obey the law

and that continues to this day.

Others have joined them, notably Stewart Regan,

who has excelled himself in his uptake

of the Ibrox belief system of being above the law.

WATP is just the first 4 words of

‘ We are the People who are above the Law. ‘

This is what everyone connected to Ibrox believes.

Everyone else disagrees.

Hence the impasse.

But entrenched ?

Entrenched is ‘ No Surrender ‘

Everyone else is simply standing fast against the lawlessness

which is part and parcel of the Ibrox culture.

View Comment

GeronimosCadillacPosted on1:54 pm - Nov 22, 2013


scapaflow says: (1131)
November 22, 2013 at 1:47 pm

The current controlling interests, will I’m sure have a plan, I’m just buggered if I can see it!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sir Dave King?

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on1:57 pm - Nov 22, 2013


GeronimosCadillac says: (73)
November 22, 2013 at 1:54 pm

On the face of it Dave King looks a logical solution. However, there was a time when he could have dropped the required change and not really noticed, but he has had a severe hair cut courtesy of SARS, and I’m not sure he can really afford it now.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on1:58 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Galling fiver says: (28)
November 22, 2013 at 1:34 pm

I gave that a thumbs up just for the links from snowploughs through creditor law to jazz mags. Brilliant.

View Comment

No1 BobPosted on2:00 pm - Nov 22, 2013


redetin says: (253)
November 22, 2013 at 12:24 pm

http://www.danielstewart.co.uk/Home/Our_services/Institutional_Broking/default.aspx

Daniel Stewart offers a wide range of services to it’s clients including ‘Equity Research, Sales, Sales Trading and Trading.’ I suggest that they will usually have a number of RIFC Plc shares on their books.

View Comment

seminalPosted on2:00 pm - Nov 22, 2013


With all this talk of new club, old club, escaping debts, assets put beyond creditors, and all sanctioned by the authorities and now precedent, I wonder if the SFA has ever considered the unintended consequences of their actions? (rhetorical question).

If a Scottish club can now escape debts without much in the way of any sanction, sporting or otherwise, then surely it would be foolish for anyone to offer credit to such an institution.

If Hibs/Aberdeen/Dundee Utd/Whoever wants to purchase a player for £1m or £2m (in itself not a bad thing as the debt would largely be met by, say, an increase in £100k turnover and their would be a sell on value of at least if not more). But who would lend such a club this money now? Would Rapid Vienna? Perhaps because football creditors seem to be offered greater protection but Lloyds Bank certainly wouldn’t. RV would rather sell to a club in Norway, Denmark or Holland and would probably take less to do so.

And for all other day to day expenditure would have to be paid in cash if credit becomes unavailable bringing with it all the associated business issues with cashflow. A real headache.

In my view the flow of credit into Scottish football will dry up and long term this will be the greatest harm caused by the SFAs wanton disregard for the rules.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on2:37 pm - Nov 22, 2013


seminal says: (12)
November 22, 2013 at 2:00 pm

Good points, though it should come as no surprise that a decision making process, where fear is a key component, leads to very poor decisions, encumbered with unintended consequences.

I really don’t believe that anyone did any risk/issue analysis around this. It was a case of “Oh Christ, we’re fecked what do we do? This will get us to the start of the season, we’ll worry about everything else later. Good one Neil, whew, thanks”

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on2:43 pm - Nov 22, 2013


scapaflow says: (1131)
November 22, 2013 at 1:47 pm

The current controlling interests, will I’m sure have a plan, I’m just buggered if I can see it!
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

The plan as we know is to strip the carcase bare and sell on the bones for the maximum amount it will fetch
I dont buy this idea of Spivs renting Ibrox to a new new club
Much more likely is that they will squeeze the maximum rent out of any suckers mad enough to fund a new new club and then immediately sell on the assets to some repected property business
Meanwhile
Make no mistake
Hedge funds are near the bottom of the food chain. They have only one interest and its making short term money
I wouldnt be a bit surprised if they “paid” for this holding with an equivalent holding in a newly created”TRFC” fund with some innocuous name
It would be a neat way of consolidating the holdings of submerged Spivs so that they can declare 11% support for the Easdales
We may yet see PM&Co withdrawing the request for an AGM in return for a prisoners seat on the Spiv Board
If that happens its the beginning of the end

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on2:48 pm - Nov 22, 2013


GoosyGoosy says: (477)
November 22, 2013 at 2:43

“We may yet see PM&Co withdrawing the request for an AGM in return for a prisoners seat on the Spiv Board”

If PM&Co go for that then they really are stupid, and will quickly learn that responsibility without power is the prerogative of the crapped upon down through the ages.

They can’t withdraw a request for an AGM, RIFC are required to have one, they can withdraw their motion, but why would the management give them anything?

In any event, your scenario, while plausible, doesn’t deal with the fundamental problems at the heart of both the football and non-football businesses.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on3:00 pm - Nov 22, 2013


The Rangers supporters have failed dismally to reach the 100,000 E Petition signature level to have the HMRC handling of their investigation into Rangers and alleged leaks from Hector considered a contender for a debate in the House of Commons.

The Rangers petition closed today with only a paltry 41,290 signatures from their 500 million claimed worldwide support. This was despite a massive effort by posters on virtually every Rangers website, bloggers and even Rangers players tweeting to urge the fans to sign the online petition after it was officially backed by the club.

When the petition started late last November it quickly attracted signatures and within weeks was surging towards its 100,000 target with +35K Signatures in just a few weeks and it looked as though the 100K target would soon be reached.

However by December the House of Commons became aware of various methods which were being used to inflate the signature count and which were being promoted on certain Rangers websites.

They included using anonymiser and duplicate email accounts letting Bears vote more than once which isn’t allowed. Children’s names were also being used and those of friends and relatives often without their knowledge. Bizarrely even the names of pets were being submitted.

After the relevant House of Commons department investigated the various abuses which were being trumpeted and encouraged on some Rangers fan sites it would appear that the flood of signatures flowed to an absolute trickle with only a few thousand being added from mid December 2013 until the petition closed today.

It really is quite an eye-opener as to what the core support of Rangers might actually be compared to the much bruited fantasy 500,000.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on3:04 pm - Nov 22, 2013


ecobhoy says: (2051)
November 22, 2013 at 3:00 pm

So the core sup[port doesn’t extend much beyond those who currently buy season tickets?

View Comment

No1 BobPosted on3:07 pm - Nov 22, 2013


http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/5612-mccoists-hopes-for-stability

This is what the fans have been waiting for!

Ally has endorsed the new Chairman and CEO!

Their saved!!!

View Comment

wottpiPosted on3:11 pm - Nov 22, 2013


scapaflow says: (1132)
November 22, 2013 at 1:47 pm

Scapa like you I have to wonder what the game is.

Nobody connected with the board has any historical interest in a football club playing out of Ibrox.
The Easdales may say they have but I’d take that with a pinch of salt.
It is therefore hard to see why someone would take on a role like the Thompsons at Dundee Utd and plough in cash for the love of the football club, community etc etc

Other than the CEO no-one appears to have any experience of running a football club nor have they come out showing any particular passion for the game as a whole.

Graham Wallace better than anyone knows that you can throw £1b at a football club and still only gain a modicum of success a la Man City – one league, one cup and a non descript euro record.

And of course the SPFL is not the EPL so there is limited kudos in owning (even part of ) a lower division Scottish Club.
A sleeping giant like Leeds may be a far better shout if you were actually interested and passionate about football or even get involved at Celtic to try an improve on recent Euro performances.

The footballing side of the opepration club is down £14m within one year and nothing looks like it is happening to stop more money flying out the door.

To build a team that is capable of competing with the current domestic Top Dog then additional millions are going to be required. To gain European success that add more millions.

Fans have shown they only believe the club is worth their season tickets and £5m.
The £5m IPO cash only represents £138 for each of the 38,000 season ticket holders who are paying reduced rates.

What investors, who have no particular interest in football or Rangers, are going plough money in with no obvious or forseeable return?

I keep going back to the simple principles of the Dragon’s Den.
Investors want a return (and usually PDQ) or if it is more of a punt then some form of security on the money they hand over. Either that or it is a hefty percentage of ownership so they can influence what happens at the end of the day and get out intact or with minimal damage when the doo-doo hits the air circualting machine.

I just can’t see where the return is going to come from being everyone and their uncle is saying that the football club is needing more money just to keep afloat, never mind moving up the leagues and paying out dividends.

The more the investors are separated from Glasgow the more they won’t give a hoot about flogging the sacred turf and marble stair case. (Middle of the Irish Sea seems nice and remote as you have to make an effort to get there :-)). As long as they have the land at Ibrox and Murray Park they are sitting on something of value. For those type of people it is just business.

If they hand the footballing side over to ‘Rangers men’ (and recoup some cash via rent) but they end up being unable to make a go of it then who would blame the money men for evicting their tennents and selling the land on.

If the club is died once and for all then who is really going to be around to complain if its flats, hotels or Tesco etc down Govan way.

Therefore-
Even if there is success on the park I can’t see it being of a level that delivers a return.
I can’t see any Rangers men opening the cheque book to purchase shares to give a return.

That is why the sell and lease back looks the most attractive. Rent from the mug who takes on the football club and then sit on a land bank, which if all goes to plan could be sold at some point.
There will always be a buyer for land somewhere.

The only other option is hoping for some middle eastern sugar daddy to come along and buys you out when the price is right- but how risky is that? Especially for a retired Hedge Fund manager like Laxey’s Colin Kingsnorth as it is a ‘private investment’?

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on3:16 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Are T’Rangers shareholders in receipt of the required AGM paperwork? Is there not a statutory duty to have this one month before the AGM?

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on3:16 pm - Nov 22, 2013


No1 Bob says: (57)
November 22, 2013 at 3:07 pm
0 0 Rate This

“http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/5612-mccoists-hopes-for-stability

This is what the fans have been waiting for!

Ally has endorsed the new Chairman and CEO!

Their “……fecked!!!

Fixed that for you. Mr McCoist is an increasingly busted flush with the fans, I don’t think his endorsement is worth much now, and will soon be seen as a liability.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on3:29 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Eeramacaroonbar says: (45)
November 22, 2013 at 7:40 am
12 0 Rate This

HirsutePursuit says: (437)
November 21, 2013 at 11:33 pm

————————————————————————————————————

I tried to get an answer from you yesterday Hirsuite at 9:40am. I think this is important in moving the new/same club debate forward. STVGrant has been adamant it’s the same club. He has to jump through intellectual hoops to get there, but I was wondering if you could come back on his contention that Sevco Scotland were given conditional use of the existing (RFC in liquidation) membership that Friday night before the Brechin game.
===============================================================
What he says is true – as I understand what I have seen of the 5-way-agreement. However, he either doesn’t understand the membership rules of the SFA or is being just a tad disingenuous.

Sevco Scotland were given conditional use of Rangers’ FULL membership prior to the Brechin game. This was not strictly necessary for the game to go ahead – as Sevco already had registered membership status of the SFA through their membership of the SFL and only had to make an application for FULL or ASSOCIATE SFA membership to be eligible to take part in the competition.

THERE WAS NO PRE-DETERMINED TIME LIMIT ON WHEN THE SFA HAD TO MAKE A DECISION ON SEVCO SCOTLAND’S APPLICATION FOR FULL MEMBERSHIP.
See SFA Article 6.1 and SFL Article 16 below…

However, as Rangers FC were still members of the SPL (and SFA), the provisional transfer of FULL membership was necessary to allow the new team to call themselves “Rangers” in their first game.
See SFA Article 10.3 below

My impression is that the SFA were concerned that Mr Green was in a position to play silly buggers with the SPL’s share transfer to Dundee. As the right to use the “Rangers” name was tied up with FULL membership held by the old club, it gave the SFA enough leverage to ensure that the SPL share got transferred.

I repeat.
Had the FULL membership of the old club not been provisionally transferred, the new club could not have called themselves Rangers when they played Brechin.

But never forget, the transfer of FULL membership was a transfer between two existing and distinct member clubs of the SFA. They never were, and never will be, the same member club.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/143196212/SFA-Articles-of-Association-2009

6.1 A club or association shall be admitted as a registered member automatically by reason of its being admitted as a member of an Affiliated Association or an Affiliated National Association, or in the case of a club through membership of or participation in an association, league or other combination of clubs formed in terms of Article 79 and in the case of an association by being formed in terms of Article 79 provided it is not already an associate or full member. A registered member shall not be a member of more than one Affiliated Association or more than one Affiliated National Association. A registered member may apply at any time to become an associate member.

10.3 Each club in full or associate membership shall in its Official Return register its ground and playing field dimensions and no such club shall remove to another ground without first obtaining the consent of the Board. Any club in full or associate membership wishing to make any alteration to its name, its registered ground or its playing field dimensions must first obtain the prior written consent of the Board. No club in registered membership shall adopt in whole or in part the name of a club in full or associate membership without the prior consent of the Board.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/186293515/SFL-Constitution-Rules

16. REGISTRATION WITH SFA A CONDITION OF MEMBERSHIP
A Member or Associate Member who is not already a full or associate member of the Scottish Football Association must make application to become a full or associate member of the Scottish Football Association (as the case may be) within fourteen (14) days of being admitted to membership of the League failing which its membership of the League will lapse, and in the event that the application is unsuccessful, its membership will lapse upon that decision being intimated to the League.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on3:29 pm - Nov 22, 2013


wottpi says: (1280)
November 22, 2013 at 3:11 pm

It is a puzzle.

Final point on the Requistioners and the AGM, if it was me, I would want to humiliate PM&Co, demonstrating once and for all that the “King over the water” is powerless, with the current set up the only show in town.

Of course,if Mr Whyte is the man behind the curtain, his well known personal animus against Mr Paul Murray will doubtless play a part in the proceedings.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on3:45 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1035) November 22, 2013 at 12:04 pm

On that note, as i posted a week or so ago, many folk may or may not know that both Hibs and Hearts are Newcos.

OK, Hibs went out of business before teh SFL was formed (they forgot to attend a meeting to form the league and with no football to play and Celtic stealing all their players, they ceased trading – a few years later a newco was born, but claiming to be the original)

Hearts went bust in the early 1900′s owing about £1400, the newco formed and repaid the old co debts – but again, claiming to be dated from the original club formation.

Of course, neither of these clubs had any history of note before they died/were reborn – so all the history is with the newco, but newco’s they are
================================
NTHM

You are correct that both Hibs and Hearts are newcos, but both do have “history of note” prior to their rebirth.

Hearts are quite open about their demise in 1905 and it is documented as part of their history on the official website. Prior to 1905 Hearts had won the League twice and the cup three times.
http://www.heartsfc.co.uk/articles/20070416/1904-1914_2241543_1011739

Hibs actually folded in February 1891, didn’t participate in the league at all for two seasons in 1891/92 or 1892/93, before a reformed club joined (and won) the 2nd Division in its first year of operation in 1893/94 (although weren’t promoted for some reason). Do you have a source for this “non attendance at a meeting”? Prior to folding, Hibs had won the cup in 1887 (a success that is attributed by some as the start of their downfall when many of their players were recruited by a newly formed Glasgow club the following year).

This link gives some of the background and quotes from books by Hibs historians
http://www.scottishleague.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=452
========================================
I don’t know what the insolvency or football rules were in 1891 or 1905. Hibs were just a members club at the time while Hearts were incorporated (in 1903).

However, I am comfortable with the position of Hearts new owner having paid ALL the debts of the oldco as justifying their claim to the earlier history.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on3:48 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Interesting. A valued friend has just texted me. He is what is termed on here a decent bear. I’ll simply let him speak for himself.

“All we can do now is start losing on the park, and that’s the last thing that’s going to happen”

So right, on so many different levels!!!

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:54 pm - Nov 22, 2013


scapaflow says: (1137)
November 22, 2013 at 3:29 pm

wottpi says: (1280)
November 22, 2013 at 3:11 pm

It is a puzzle.

Final point on the Requistioners and the AGM, if it was me, I would want to humiliate PM&Co, demonstrating once and for all that the “King over the water” is powerless, with the current set up the only show in town.

Of course,if Mr Whyte is the man behind the curtain, his well known personal animus against Mr Paul Murray will doubtless play a part in the proceedings.
========================================

But I presume that the Paul Murray camp will have a fairly good idea well before the AGM, [now ?], about their chances of any success at all ?
The consensus seems to be that Murray could be wasting his time – so will he discreetly withdraw the requisition just before the AGM ?
…and probably come up with a suitably distracting excuse for this withdrawal…

And the bonus for Murray would be that he wouldn’t have to spend c.40p to buy a share in order to attend the AGM. 🙂

View Comment

Blindsummit63Posted on4:13 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Hi all. been a bit busy this week so only just catching up.

this “Hedge Fund” that is spoken of? Was this Ally’s war chest for the Sevco v Brechin game????

View Comment

twopandaPosted on4:32 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Ahem…..
A hedge fund backs `The Board`
`The Board` needs support of `Hedge Fund`
Hedge fund must like `The Board`
`The Board` must like the Hedge Fund
McCoist gives backing to `The Board` – brings `stability`
Therefore – by PR Slug logic – `Hedge Fund` brings `stability`- Eh?
.
Twits

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on5:07 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Statement from Campbell Ogilvie
Friday, 22 November 2013

Campbell Ogilvie, Scottish FA President: “This week, the Scottish FA’s Compliance Officer has reviewed comments made by the Celtic Chief Executive, Peter Lawwell, at the club’s Annual General Meeting, after receiving an official letter of complaint from Rangers Football Club.

“The Compliance Officer has informed both clubs that there is no actionable breach of the rules. None the less, I am compelled to convey my disappointment that we find ourselves in this position, as a result of an apparent erosion of mutual respect between two of our oldest rivals.

“At a time when Scottish football faces challenges on many fronts, it is incumbent on our biggest clubs to set the highest standards. In this regard both the comments made, and the subsequent time, effort and resource imposed on our Compliance Officer to deal with the complaint, were wholly unnecessary.”

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on5:14 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Was that a real statement from The Scunner Campbell?!!!

Setting the highest standards??!! Really?

Memo to all journalists everywhere, The Scunner Campbell has opened the door to further questions about standards….please ask some. (Not holding my breath though)

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on5:20 pm - Nov 22, 2013


scapaflow says: (1137)
November 22, 2013 at 3:04 pm

So the core support doesn’t extend much beyond those who currently buy season tickets?
===========================================================
With the amount of cheating being urged re the petition and being generous I would doubt that more than 25-30,000 genuine individual votes were cast which met with the E petition rules.

It fascinates me reading the comments being made in the heady days of November/December last year when all sorts of records were being claimed for the fastest growing petition – yea even on getting petition signatures there were new world records to be claimed and a battle to be won by fair means or foul 😆

But what is even more fascinating is that the Bears organising the E petition were trying to get a parliamentary debate to ‘expose’ the imagined dirty tricks of HMRC in their EBT investigation but they didn’t seem to stop and think for a split second that they were smashing through the rules of Parliamentary democracy to achieve their aim of getting a parliamentary debate. I honestly don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I think about it.

Of course in view of the pitifully low number of signatures actually gathered – inflated by all the scams used – I hope that shows that a lot of Rangers supporters ignored the instructions of some of the petition organisers and only cast their one legitimate vote.

I remain an optimist and remain hopeful that some Bears have wakened-up but as always time will tell.

View Comment

No1 BobPosted on5:24 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Statement from Campbell Ogilvie
Friday, 22 November 2013

Campbell Ogilvie, Scottish FA President: “This week, the Scottish FA’s Compliance Officer has reviewed comments made by the Celtic Chief Executive, Peter Lawwell, at the club’s Annual General Meeting, after receiving an official letter of complaint from Rangers Football Club.

“The Compliance Officer has informed both clubs that there is no actionable breach of the rules. None the less, I am compelled to convey my disappointment that we find ourselves in this position, as a result of an apparent erosion of mutual respect between two of our oldest rivals.

“At a time when Scottish football faces challenges on many fronts, it is incumbent on our biggest clubs to set the highest standards. In this regard both the comments made, and the subsequent time, effort and resource imposed on our Compliance Officer to deal with the complaint, were wholly unnecessary.”

“apparent erosion of mutual respect” How did that happen Campbell?

Remember, it’s RC Ogilvie not C Ogilvie for all the conspiracy theorists that are out there.

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on5:30 pm - Nov 22, 2013


between two of our oldest rivals

Who are these two oldest rivals, Campbell?

If what PL said was untrue would that have been an actionable offence?

View Comment

wottpiPosted on5:32 pm - Nov 22, 2013


So the complaint was made by T’Rrangers against P Lawwell.
There was no Breach of the Rules.
Therefore it is official – we all can call them Rory Bremner FC

View Comment

willmacufreePosted on5:32 pm - Nov 22, 2013


The state of the governing body is the big issue. The SFA, without leadership, accountability or transparency, is widely accepted as unfit for purpose, while rapidly dragging the senior professional game into the pit it (the SFA) is digging in order to perpetuate a myth. The whole shebang needs cleansed. A start has to be made at the top. How to shift the limpet President is the problem.

Was it the SPL Board or SFA Board that appointed RC Ogilvie? He must have a contract of employment with whichever. It’s time for the employer to examine that contract against the many areas where his performance has been notoriously well short of any reasonable executive standard, and therefore in breech (or there’s something wrong with the contract).

I don’t wish to be hounding anybody out of a job, but the SFA head has proved repeatedly that he is singularly unable to provide what the post needs. He has been personally immersed in repeated disasters at RFC, HoM, and now SFA. He has received a dubious payment from a then member club. He has been complicit in bending, twisting and breaking the rules of the organization he heads, and creating new rules on the hoof to suit the member club (and successor) which made him the dubious payment. How can any organisation survive having its senior officer so conflicted?

Maybe now is the time to offer amnesty for truth to all SFA employees, subject to the whole verifiable truth being told. ( A. Bryson’s would be an interesting story.) They could then quietly retire on full pension. Otherwise the open independent investigation route needs to be taken, with the probability of less than honourable discharge to follow.

Having seen the manner of C. Ogilvie’s re-election it’s obvious only fan pressure can bring about his exit. Otherwise we’ll have to wait for him to be impeached, or to pass away in situ. It’s up to the fans.

View Comment

ShooperbPosted on5:33 pm - Nov 22, 2013


seminal says: (12)
November 22, 2013 at 2:00 pm

This is what TRFC and a section of their fans really don't seem to understand. They seem to think that they should have been docked 10 points, and then allowed to carry on as before, having paid, well, no-one – effectively dumping all the debt involved. This, as you have pointed out, would have killed Scottish Football, though not just in terms of signing players

Teams are reliant upon credit to get them through the season – they get their initial cash injection from season tickets, get a little walk up money from day tickets, and once that all runs out, they are mostly reliant on their overdraft and credit to get them through to the end of season,where they get their share of prize/tv money and the next lot of season ticket money, some of which is then used to pay off the overdraft/maintain loans and so it begins again.

If it transpired that teams could effectively walk away completely from their entire debt, with the only consequence seemingly the loss of 10 points in a football league and other team's fans niggling away with taunts that you're not who you say you are, who in their right mind would offer credit or banking facilities?!?

Had The Rangers been parachuted staight into the SPL, that is precisely what would have happened. But they can't see it. Apparently it was all a conspiracy by the 'unseen fenian hand' to kick them whilst they were down – rather than just the consequences of spending money that you haven't got, with no intention of paying it back.

View Comment

tobyPosted on5:41 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Campbell makes me both laugh and despair with his nonsense statement.
There would had to have been mutual respect for there to be ‘apparent erosion’. Does he just not understand what underpinned Lawwell’s remark or is he just taking the opportunity to enforce the notion of ‘two of our oldest rivals’ – as a proclamation of them being the same Ibrox entity as the one in liquidation ? What a piece of work, he is. Get out of your far too comfy seat Ogilvie, you are a disgrace..the Compliance officer’s time would be far better served on taking you to task on your efforts, both in the SFA and previous positions bringing disrepute on the game.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on5:45 pm - Nov 22, 2013


GeronimosCadillac says: (73)
November 22, 2013 at 1:42 pm
‘..Tsk Tsk John – I’m afraid you have broken the first rule of the Internet Bampots International code and that is to never, ever, ever, ever believe an asset stripping Spiv…’
———–
I WAS going to add that Kingsworth actually looks like the better class of conman, so I should have been more sceptical!

Mind you, there would be no real need for him to lie about it being Laxey Partners’ own purchase if they were only acting as a nominee company for the real shareholders.

It was the fact that they had shares in Ablon, a development company, and were clearly keen on changing the board there to ensure an up-to-date estimate of asset value in the short term, that made me idly wonder whether their interest may indeed lie in looking for a quick asset sale at Ibrox.

If they are supporting the present Board, none of whom appear to be anything other than cynical profit seekers, and are the majority shareholder, they could be pushing at an open door.
Quick profit now with minimum effort as against the tedious, longer-term hassle of running a football club in the hope of future profit?

I think I know what I would choose-and I’m no hard-nosed wide-boy with commercial savvy. ( Stupid, rather than too honest!) 🙂

View Comment

billyj1Posted on5:51 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Campbell, Campbell!! How to fan the flames. A joke is made, TRFC take exception and lodge a complaint, a complaint which unsurprisingly hasn’t seen the light of day. After due consideration Mr Lunny decrees that there is no case to answer. That should have been the end of the matter. As far as I can recall Mr Ogilvie has rarely, if ever passed comments on any previous decision. Why the need now? And what is with this reference to the oldest rivals. They have never played each other at senior level. If however you believe that Newco is a continuation of Oldco should Mr Lunny not have found the complaint upheld and actionable. He daren’t, and fine well you know it.

View Comment

borussiabeefburgPosted on5:53 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Firstly, good article there Big Pink. The new club/old club nonsense, though tiresome to many by now, should have been dealt with a long time ago, and it continues to be a suppurating sore on the Scottish game.

Speaking of oozing pus, CO’s “as a result of an apparent erosion of mutual respect between two of our oldest rival,” is a much, much less accurate summation of a situation than that Rory Bremner comment made by Peter Lawwell.

So, do you think anyone should be raising Ogilvie’s mischievous nonsense with the compliance officer Lunny?

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on6:04 pm - Nov 22, 2013


jockybhoy says: (270)

November 22, 2013 at 10:07 am

I’m just in from work so apologies if I end up posting a few responses to things in a row. Jockybhoy there’s two parts of what you said I’d like to address. I’d be a fool to argue with you that a lot of the financial difficulty reporting by the sources you mentioned was perceived as “anti Rangers” due to the “Celticness” of the delivery vehicle, because it patently was. In hindsight that was of course foolish, but I think it is to be expected that if fans of your greatest rivals start writing things that are negative about your club your first reaction would be to perceive it as an attack. Again, with hindsight that was wrong and it went on far too long – Rangers fans should have realised much sooner that you don’t get that much smoke without a pretty big fire somewhere.

But I stand by my comment about terminal damage being done before anyone knew about it. You’re right that the reporting discussed above did come way before administration and liquidation, but the point I was making was that a large number of EBT payments had been made and the scheme had been run for many years before any of it was reported, so in that sense the damage was done before anyone knew about it. I accept your point that the information was available with time to spare to deal with it, but in terms of incurring a large proportion of the big tax case I think it was done before much was publicly known.

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on6:06 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Just another thought on the surprising utterances by the SFA president. How embarrassing must it be for any club to be lectured on standards by the likes of The Scunner Campbell….

View Comment

Silent PartnerPosted on6:13 pm - Nov 22, 2013


A comment made at a private meeting draws a public comment from Ogilvie.

Wow!

Let’s be clear, Ogilvie has no right to comment from his official capacity. What next? Neil Lennon said something naughty to a mate in the pub!

He just sounds like a fan.

Must be ragin’

Mutual respect indeed 😳

View Comment

ForresDeePosted on6:13 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Well I’m now even more convinced that Sevco are a new club, Ogilvies attempts to say otherwise have only emboldened my view.

I think we are getting to them and the sevconians are getting restless.

Now back to the football, BIG weekend for the Dee coming up!

View Comment

nawlitePosted on6:14 pm - Nov 22, 2013


Doesn’t Scunner’s statement whereby he refers to Celtic and TRFC as “two of our oldest rivals” allow a journalist to specifically ask him to confirm that he sees the new club as old Rangers? If that was his (and the SFA’s) view though, wouldn’t that mean that there WAS a case to answer given that PL implied they were a new club?

Will any journalists ask him?

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on6:20 pm - Nov 22, 2013


A thought on the “Plan”

If one were to take a longish view, one could simply sit on the Ibrox site and wait for the shipyard to finally die. At that point one could cash in on the re-generation money that would be poured in by either an Independent Scottish Government or Westminster. Redeveloping Ibrox, as part of the wider re-generation, would also mitigate some of the risks associated in re-purposing the site.

View Comment

Comments are closed.