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

GoosyGoosyPosted on9:35 pm - Dec 2, 2013


Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1043)

December 2, 2013 at 2:00 pm
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I honestly can’t see this as a sustainable business. Owning Ibrox and renting it back to “the club” doesn’t look like a long term income stream so the spivs will want their cash sooner rather than later.
I reckon once the well is empty they’ll sell on for a nominal amount but retain some contractual interests.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Nope
There`s still money to be made at Ibrox
Plough up the pitch
Plant top quality irish spuds
Make Huddle Crisps
Sell them at Parkhead for £5 a bag
That way
Spivs make money forever
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
TRFC morph into Huddle Crisps
Eaten every week by Celtic fans
Much better than getting humped four times a year

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:37 pm - Dec 2, 2013


A Rangers fan I spoke to last week asked the question ‘if David Murray is worth £450M, I simply can’t understand why he allowed any of this to happen’. Oh dear!

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on9:44 pm - Dec 2, 2013


UTH
I bet if he applied to get on mastermind ,his specialist subject would be the SMSM 1988 to 2013

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on9:52 pm - Dec 2, 2013


Portsmouth CVA approved.

http://companyrescue.blogspot.com.es/2010/06/portsmouth-cva-approved-but-only-just.html

The Leeds United situation was summed up on CQN, and has been linked on here before. For completeness I attach it again

http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=8535

So there we have it. Palace, Portsmouth and Leeds never went into liquidation as CVA’s were agreed in all cases.

The thing is , while lots of supporters saw new club/old club as not the most important issue. The most important issue for lots was that Murray has never been brought to account, and there was no appropriate outcome for in excess of a decade of deception, tax evasion and outright cheating of every other club in Scotland.

Thats changed though for a lot who felt that way.

The lies, the spin, the arrogance, the complete absence of shame, the refusal to properly apologise, the sociopathic behaviour blaming others for the disgraceful behaviour of Murray and subsequent Rangers boards. All of this has led those who were ambivalent about new club / old club to become disgusted and to join those who always took the view it was a key issue.

The Rangers situation has been a series of self inflicted events. New club / old club is just one more.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:52 pm - Dec 2, 2013


http://www.change.or…f-hull-city-afc

A petition against the rebranding of Hull City FC. Please sign and show solidarity with people just like us.

View Comment

oldbhoy99Posted on9:53 pm - Dec 2, 2013


Allyjambo on December 2, 2013 at 8:59 pm says:

——————

Fair enough AJ, you make a well reasoned argument, I can see the benefit of replies helping to keep minds focused etc.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on9:55 pm - Dec 2, 2013


Look, stop messing with my head. Was I liquidated or was I not?

Yours sincerely

Mr C Palace
Selhurst park
Engerlund

View Comment

causaludendiPosted on10:00 pm - Dec 2, 2013


upthehoops says: (692)
December 2, 2013 at 9:37 pm
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

And right there is the intrerfacing moment between chapstick and tack!

Some folk cannot, will not it seems, countanence the fact that this has been the longest running conjurer’s trick yet known.

Rational, intelligent people seem to leave their objectivity in the changing rooms when it comes to their team – I include myself here as I’ve been guilty of it in the past.

I’ve recently come to the conclusion that there is something primal within us that means the OCNC / WATP / supremacist issues will NEVER be resolved. An animalistic desire to be the domnineering Alpha which cannot be overcome.

Please note, I am NOT suggesting or inferring that ANY football fan is an animal. I am postulating that there is something deeply rooted in the physcological make up of humans that we have little control over.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on10:00 pm - Dec 2, 2013


Tif Finn says: (946)
December 2, 2013 at 12:37 pm
22 0 Rate This

Comedy genius
————-

Yes, you can’t even see he’s reading the scripted message 🙂

Amazingly, it’s still on archive over there. Ally’s £10m … whatever happened to that?

http://www.rangerstv.tv/viewfree.php?it=10751&c=News&r=236678734985

View Comment

oldbhoy99Posted on10:01 pm - Dec 2, 2013


Danish Pastry on December 2, 2013 at 9:23 pm says:

———-

I fully agree Danish, the myth is essential to the asset value. It was the myth that sold the season books, filled the stadium and found sevco on our tv screens almost every week. In terms of spivs extracting their pound of flesh, the myth has been all important.

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on10:03 pm - Dec 2, 2013


nowoldandgrumpy says: (747)

December 2, 2013 at 8:21 pm

Beginning to think Bryce is Doncaster.

————————————

Well you have the employer correct at least…..

View Comment

bryce9aPosted on10:13 pm - Dec 2, 2013


Am I allowed to post again yet? 😕 Edit: Yes it seems so 🙂

I tried to make a post earlier which had quite a few companycheck links in so maybe that was why it hit the skids, so to speak.
Edit: number of links within posts is restricted.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on10:14 pm - Dec 2, 2013


bryce9a says: (71)
December 2, 2013 at 10:13 pm
0 0 Rate This

Am I allowed to post again yet? 😕

———————
if you must….what deflection have you got now?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:33 pm - Dec 2, 2013


bryce9a says: (71) December 2, 2013 at 10:13 pm

I think there is a limit of three hyperlinks in a post, or it will be sent for moderation.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on10:39 pm - Dec 2, 2013


easyJambo says: (597)
December 2, 2013 at 10:33 pm
0 0 Rate This

bryce9a says: (71) December 2, 2013 at 10:13 pm

I think there is a limit of three hyperlinks in a post, or it will be sent for moderation.
———–

Limitless hypersquirrels though …

View Comment

bryce9aPosted on10:42 pm - Dec 2, 2013


Thanks Easyjambo. I wasn’t aware of that.

View Comment

duplesisPosted on10:48 pm - Dec 2, 2013


@barcabhoy at 9:52pm

You’re correct about Plymouth – now run by a new corporate entity, the old company was not in fact liquidated (at least not yet.) Leeds were in fact liquidated though, and didn’t agree a CVA.

The original Plymouth Argyle company was The Plymouth Argyle Football Company Limited, formed in 1910 and with company number 0110819. It is not trading, and is overdue to lodge accounts and Returns. It may be subject to a strike off application in due course, but that hasn’t happened yet.

Plymouth Argyle’s assets were bought by Green Pligrim Ltd, formed 2011, company number 07796376, which subsequently changed it’s name to Plymouth Argyle Football Club Limited. This company now runs the club.

I’ve had a look at the Administrators’ report in the Plymouth Argyle Administration case (this was lodged 19th March 2012, and can be downloaed from companies house for £1)

The report confirms that there was a sale of the business from the oldco to the newco on 31/10/11 (6.17.) It also confirms that it was a condition of that sale that the “golden share” in the league be transferred to the newco, and that this happened (7.1 and 7.2)

The report does also confirm at para 9.1.2 that the expectation is that the Plymouth oldco will now be wound up by HMRC, however.

Crystal Palace have had numerous newcos. Most recently, they were a company called Crystal Palace FC (2000)Ltd (which itself replaced a company called Crystal Palace FC (1986) Ltd, which was dissolved.)
Crystal Palace FC (2000) Ltd, company number 03951645, does not trade, and is overdue with its accounts and returns. Sooner or later it will be struck off.

Crystal Palace are now operated by CPFC Ltd, formed 2010, with company number 07270793. Again the oldco in the crystal palace case managed to obtain a CVA (in the case of the 201o newco’ing at least, I’m not sure about the 2000 newco’ing.)

So far as Leeds is concerned, CQN isn’t an authoritative source!

The Leeds company was The Leeds United Association Football Club Ltd, formed in 1920 with company number 00170600.

The current Leeds Utd company is Leeds United Football Club Ltd, formed in 2007 with company number 06233875.

The 2007 company bought the assets from the 1920 company whilst the 1920 company was in administration. The “golden share” of the 1920 was amongst those assets, and was allowed to be transferred even though the 1920 had not at the time agreed an unopposed CVA.

A check on Companies House, will show that the 1920 Leeds company then went into liquidation in 2008.

The final administrator’s report in relation to the Leeds oldco can again be downloaded from CH for £1. It confirms that the proposed CVA was the subject of an abort notice on 16/7/2007 (para 3.3 of the report.) Despite what CQN said, Leeds didn’t get a CVA (I think Mr Brennan may have based his blog on what is a slightly misleading wikipaedia entry, but I’m guessing.)

Other clubs whose operating companies became insolvent and didn’t obtain a CVA include Rotherham, and Luton.

Rotherham were ROTHERHAM UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED(THE) Company No. 00158654, Date of Incorporation: 09/09/1919. They entered Admin in 2006 and I believe transferred their assets to a newco then -ROTHERHAM UNITED FC LIMITED Company No. 05764000 albeit with oldco agreeing a CVA at that time.

In any event, and more importantly for the present discussion though they subsequently went into Administration for the second time in 2008 and this time were unable to agree a CVA:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/rotherham_utd/7543195.stm

but the league allowed the “golden share” to transfer on imposition of footballing penalties to a newco. The 1919 company was dissolved on 07/06/2011. The 2006 company was liquidated on 07/02/09.

Rotherham are now ROTHERHAM UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB (RUFC) LIMITED Company No. 06550400, Date of Incorporation: 01/04/2008

when Luton went into Admin in 2007, the outcome was liquidation after an asset/business sale to the Luton Town Football Club 2020 Ltd, without any CVA.

From Companies House, Luton Town Football Club Ltd (04977080) went in to Administration in November 2007, and then liquidation in November 2008.

Luton Town Football Club 2020 Ltd (06133975) was incorporated in March 2007 (its name at that time was Tayvin 375 Limited – name changed to the current one on 8th January 2008)

[edit – I don’t know about Portsmouth. I thought the position was as you stated, but given Robert Coyle’s post below I’ve edited that part out]

View Comment

Robert CoylePosted on10:49 pm - Dec 2, 2013


Barcabhoy says: (308)
December 2, 2013 at 9:52 pm

Perhaps you could explain this,looks if it was dissolved this year,

Age 101 years (Incorporation date 27/07/1912)

PORTSMOUTH FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
00123460

Company Status Company is dissolved
SIC Code 93110
Business Activity Operation of sports facilities
SIC Code 93110
Business Activity Operation of sports facilities
Company Number 00123460
Type Private limited with Share Capital
Country of Registration GB
Previous Name PORTSMOUTH FOOTBALL COMPANY,LIMITED(THE)
Date Changed 23/01/1989

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/00123460/PORTSMOUTH-FOOTBALL-CLUB-LIMITED/company-summary

Here’s the new club,

PORTSMOUTH COMMUNITY FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
07940335

Age 1 years (Incorporation date 07/02/2012)

http://companycheck.co.uk/company/07940335/PORTSMOUTH-COMMUNITY-FOOTBALL-CLUB-LIMITED/company-summary
———————————————————
bryce9a apoligies if im pinching your thunder…….

View Comment

Tic 6709Posted on11:14 pm - Dec 2, 2013


No amount of diversion can alter the fact that Rangers(IL) are dead.Life support has been switched off and they are breathing their last.
BDO will be in charge of the funeral arrangements.

View Comment

fergussingsthebluesPosted on11:14 pm - Dec 2, 2013


Succulently said by bryce9a below, couldn’t have braised it better myself!
===================================================
bryce9a says:
December 2, 2013 at 12:18 pm

For me the rules are clear-cut in this respect.

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

Exactly, bryce9a, the rules ARE clear cut! Your old team were cheats and Tax Evaders!

Your old team DIED in disgrace!!

Your NEW team are just over 1 year old. They are still a DISGRACE! You still support them! Good luck with that. It must hurt!

We know the truth! Your P$£ssing against the wind here!

View Comment

causaludendiPosted on11:31 pm - Dec 2, 2013


causaludendi says: (84)
December 2, 2013 at 8:16 pm

As a footnote, I would like to point out that RFC(IL) & Leeds Utd / Coventry City / Portsmouth et al are incomparable. They are governed by different assosciations and, as such, are subject to different rules / laws (stop sniggering). Would a Sherrif accept legal precedent from outwith his judiciary?

View Comment

bryce9aPosted on11:32 pm - Dec 2, 2013


Robert,

Thanks for posting, but just for your information, you’ve posted Company 1 and Company 4, but two companies (one dead, the other dying) held the assets between those!

Company 2: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/03747237 Portsmouth City Football Club Ltd
(held the assets from 1999 to 2010)
Company 3: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/07264768 Portsmouth Football Club (2010) Ltd
(held the assets from 2010 to 2012)

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on12:00 am - Dec 3, 2013


duplesis says: (68)
December 2, 2013 at 10:48 pm
…………………………..

So in short the Club is the Company…cheers…

View Comment

fergussingsthebluesPosted on12:06 am - Dec 3, 2013


bryce9a says: (73)
December 2, 2013 at 11:32 pm

Robert,

Thanks for posting, but just for your information, you’ve posted Company 1 and Company 4, but two companies (one dead, the other dying) held the assets between those!

Company 2: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/03747237 Portsmouth City Football Club Ltd
(held the assets from 1999 to 2010)
Company 3: http://companycheck.co.uk/company/07264768 Portsmouth Football Club (2010) Ltd
(held the assets from 2010 to 2012)
======================================================

bryce9a, thanks for posting, but just for your information, Portsmouth may be very interesting to some, but we’re only interested in one DEAD CLUB.

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwnnnnnn!

p.s. I find it funny that Ogilvie has came out today and condemned one eejit who threw a flare on the Falkirk pitch on saturday, yet failed to hear the banned songs from Ra Peepil! Poor old Campbell must be going deaf? Or is it selective hearing?

View Comment

andyPosted on12:07 am - Dec 3, 2013


Tif Finn says: (946)
December 2, 2013 at 11:35 am
10 1 Rate This

David Leggat (a twisted mentalist) on why Jim McColl may have backed off.

http://davidleggat-leggoland.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-threats-to-jim-mccoll.html
Paul Murray was able to lift the lid on the influence the disgraced Charles Green is still exerting with shareholders in the background and the power Green continues to exert over those with a stake in Rangers.

With that Charles Green active influence now known to extend to more than merely handing the proxy for his shares to the Easdales, the spectre of money-grabbing, greedy Green and his power, now hovers over the Annual General Meeting.

______________

compare this buffoon from a year ago :mrgreen:

_________________________________

This was something I predicted would happen when I wrote my blog explaining why it was that, after opposing the Charles Green led takeover, I had now become convinced, after much research and spending almost two hours with Imran Ahmad and Green, they were good news for Rangers.

Friday, 21 December 2012

THE ENEMY WITHIN

EVEN the enemy within could not stop the Rangers share issue being a right rip snorting roaring success with Rangers supporters showing their faith.

Those fans, between the ones who bought their £500-a-pop share packages as individuals and those who made their contribution through the excellent and well organised Rangers Supporters Trust scheme, contributed and astonishing £5.25M to the total £22.25M raised by Charles Green, Imran Ahmad and Brian Stockbridge.

Just call them Rangers very own Three Musketeers – and no need for d’Artagnan.

However, it is well to ponder and wonder just how much more the contributions made by loyal and true blue Rangers supporters woulod have amounted had it not been for the enemy within.

The enemy within? I hear you ask Just who are these people? And what did they do?, is what you are now, no doubt, wondering. Unfortunately I cannot provide full answers to all of those questions for they all hide behind a nom de guerre, ashamed or afraid – or perhaps both – to allow real Rangers men and woman to know their identities.

But I can tell you what it was they did. They attempted to poison the well of the share issue to supporters which chief executive Charles Green, financial director Brian Stockbridge and commercial director Imran Ahmad worked so hard on, in order that many more New Gallant Pioneers could share a stake in this exciting Rebirth of the Blues.

And how they did these so-called Rangers supporters go about doing this?

They did it in a well orchestrated, organised, carefully calibrated and vicious on-line smear campaign designed as a scare story to frighten off Rangers supporters who wanted to buy into Charles Green, Brian Stockbridge and Imran Ahmad’s dream of inviting real Rangers men and women to join them and become the New Gallant Pioneers.

And it worked. Though only to a certain extent. For it did not scare off all the Rangers supporters who could afford the £500-a-pop individual share price and whose faith in the new Rangers regime saw an astonishing £5M pour into the Ibrox coffers. It did not scare off those who could only manage to chip in a £125-a-pop investment through the excellent Rangers Supporters Trust for a contribution which totalled £250,000.

But how many fans were scared off by the smear campaign? How much money has been lost to Rangers by the on-line slurs and lies? Not just from those who were thinking of making their investment through the FSA regulated Rangers Supporters Trust, but also those who might have taken up the individual share offer?

That is something which is hard to quantify, but there are those inside Ibrox who put the figure at around a cool £2M.

If they are right, then what has happened is simply that a hate campaign by Rangers supporters, based on lies and smears, has cost Rangers £2M.

No wonder one of the Three Musketeers was at first, bewildered, before finally expressing his anger and disgust when the full import of what had happened became obvious. They expected the sort of attacks on the Stock Exchange, which were made by Celtic bigots trying to scupper the share issue and even had a wry wee smile at their desperation.

But what they did not expect was for the Rangers share issue to be under attack by an enemy from within.

It is not something which will be forgotten and it is something which I believe the Three Musketeers will find hard to forgive. Though they may feel the need to summon a d’Artagnan to finish off the enemy within for them.

But the bottom line is that even without the extra £2M which may well have flowed into the Ibrox coffers had it not been for an on line hate campaign, the Three Musketeers have done a great job. To the tune of £22.25M.

FINALLY….

ALASTAIR JOHNSTON was the most prominent of the band of 26,000 small shareholders when Duff and Phelps drove Rangers into Liquidation who has invested again, this time through the Rangers Supporters Trust.

AJ, former Rangers chairman and all round good guy, also made his intention known to head off the enemy within whose vile scare stories were a blatant attempt to scupper the operation to give money to Rangers.

Therefore, when another all round good guy, financial director Brian Stockbridge heard AJ was going to be in town next weekend for the N’erday he immediately invited him to be Rangers guest for the game against Queens Park at Hampden on Saturday December 29th.

A nice touch!

View Comment

causaludendiPosted on12:18 am - Dec 3, 2013


enough is enough says: (60)
December 2, 2013 at 11:56 pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well said that man! The point I was trying to make the other day.

But hey, lets admire the scenery and the, oh so pretty wildlife.

View Comment

paulonotiniPosted on12:31 am - Dec 3, 2013


So Bryce this is my 2nd request,where is the definitive SFA statement confirming new club is exact same as RFCplc 2012(IL)

View Comment

paulonotiniPosted on12:42 am - Dec 3, 2013


easy jambo

With regard to Hearts insolvency in 1905 I’m sure I read on HMRC kickback that at the time there was 2 options,liquidation akin to a CVA & pay debts & club can continue,or liquidate fully similar to old RFC.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:52 am - Dec 3, 2013


bryce9a, Duplesis (good to see you back btw)
I’m slightly confused by your references to English clubs.

As I understand your position (please correct me if I’m wrong) you think the English Newco is the same club as the OldCo because the Football League allowed the OldCo’s “golden share” to be transferred to the NewCo.

Now, if the SPL had allowed Rangers share to be transferred to Sevco, I could see where you’re going with that argument. But the SPL “golden share” was not transferred.

Your argument seems to confirm that Sevco’s Rangers are indeed a new club. I’m sure that’s not what you intended; but does seem to be the logical conclusion.

Incidentally, perhaps you should be looking at how the FA regard the transfer of FA membership:
http://www.thefa.com/~/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/rules-of-the-association/2013-14/rules-of-the-association.ashx

PROVISIONS RELATING TO CLUBS
2

(e) Notifiable Changes
A Club shall not alter its constitution or make a material change to its financial structure without prior notification to The Association or if not a Full or Associate Member Club then the Parent Association of the Club. Any new entity shall be deemed, for the purposes of playing status in a Competition, to be a new Club.

For the purposes of this Rule, an alteration in constitution or material change in financial structure shall include such as winding-up of a Club, incorporation of an unincorporated Club, an agreement by which all the assets and goodwill of the Club are sold or transferred, entry into compulsory or voluntary liquidation, the convening of a meeting of creditors or the appointment of a receiver, administrative receiver, manager or administrator or if the Club ceases for any reason to carry on business or becomes a Parent Undertaking or Subsidiary Undertaking.

AFFILIATION OF CLUBS
3

(g) Transfer of Membership
Council may use the following criteria, and any other conditions in Council’s absolute discretion, in deciding whether to approve the transfer of membership by a Full Member Club or an Associate Member Club:
(i) the shareholders or members of the existing Full Member Club or Associate Member Club have voted to agree the transfer of the membership to the proposed future member;
(ii) all Football Creditors of the existing Full Member Club or Associate Member Club must be fully satisfied;
(iii) all other creditors of the existing Full Member Club or Associate Member Club must be satisfied and evidenced as such;
(iv) the proposed future Full Member Club or Associate Member Club must provide financial forecasts showing their ability to fund the Full Member Club or Associate Member Club for the next 12 months or to the end of the season following transfer (whichever is the longer);
(v) evidence of funding sources will be required; and
(vi) where the proposed future Full Member Club or Associate Member Club is a company, then it shall be formed and registered in England and Wales under the Act.

I think that the position in England is clear enough. A transfer of FA membership creates a new member club. No different from the position in Scotland.

Is this the point you were trying to make??

View Comment

paulonotiniPosted on1:11 am - Dec 3, 2013


And Bryce,
I know you don’t want to go here,but who actually played Brechin on 29/7/12 with a brand new conditional SFA membership especially when old clubs membership never transferred till 3/8/12.
And SevcoScotland never changed name to TRFCL till 31/7/12.
So Sevco is very appropriate.
There is a clear break in membership

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:22 am - Dec 3, 2013


causaludendi says: (86)
December 2, 2013 at 10:00 pm
‘…I am postulating that there is something deeply rooted in the physcological make up of humans that we have little control over…’
———-
a) former generations used to call it the effects of ‘original’ sin
b) rooted in Lucifer’s ‘non serviam’ – I will not obey’= my way or no way
c) but we are still under no absolute compulsion to do ‘wrong’- we still are free to choose between good and evil.
That’s why we condemn the Hitlers and the Stalins and the Maos and the (whoever): they CHOSE to act the way they did. Otherwise, why blame them, if they were biologically, DNA, culturally, socially forced to do what the rest of us think was ‘evil’?
I have just finished my re-read of the FTTT decision.
There is no way that Mr that or Mr this or Mr Black or Mr Blue or Mr Scarlett etc can be let off on any ground of ‘compulsion’, that they did not exercise any freedom of will, that they ‘had’ to implement a tax evasion policy, that they were not morally free to resist, it was their genes, their genomes, their pre-determined particles of cosmic dust what made them do it..etc etc…
No, like the rest of us, they chose freely to do what they did.
And what they did was lie. Both morally and, in terms of the law of the land, guiltily.
Absolutely, and no question.

View Comment

duplesisPosted on3:48 am - Dec 3, 2013


@HirsutePursuit at 12:52am

I can’t speak for Bryce, but all I was doing was setting out the factual position about some of the clubs which had been referred to in earlier posts. There’s a great deal of misinformation posted about Leeds, for example. I mentioned Rotherham and Luton because they are other clear examples of clubs which didn’t manage to exit administration by way of a CVA (i.e. Leeds isn’t some sort of anomaly.)

For what its worth though, no I don’t see transfer of the golden share in itself as what’s important. Rather like the SPL share, it’s simply a precondition of being able to play in the particular League(s) concerned. The golden share has to be given up by a club if promoted to the EPL or relegated to the Conference (reg 4.1) (in the same was as the SPL share was given up on relegation), so logically the holding of the share itself can’t define the club – if it did then the club would cease to be the club on promotion/relegation from the Football League.

Given the emphasis in the administration reports on the transfer of the golden share, I’d assumed that it such a transfer brought with it FA Membership transfer though.

From the FA rules you quote, that’s not the case. Clearly the importance of the transfer of the golden share in these cases was purely financial – the likes of Leeds wouldn’t have been viable if it had to play in the Conference, I suppose. Even if Leeds successfully applied for a new Football League Membership, they would have started in Division 2, I think, which again wouldn’t have been desirable for the new owners.

I don’t read the FA rules in the same way as you though. If the result of a transfer of membership between companies was for all purposes that the recipient company became a new club, there would be no point in having a rule which allowed such a transfer. The new company might as well just make an application for new membership.

The reference to a new entity being a new club in 2(e) is specifically qualified by the phrase “for the purposes of playing status within a competition.” I’m not sure of how this was applied in practice to the various clubs being discussed (and the phrase “playing status” isn’t defined), but I think what it may mean is that the club loses the benefit of any seeding and such like it might have otherwise have had within a competition.

View Comment

causaludendiPosted on3:49 am - Dec 3, 2013


john clarke says: (1410)
December 3, 2013 at 1:22 am
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Evening / morning JC 🙂

Yup, totally agree, we are all individuals who possess freewill. All (wo)men have the ability to observe, evaluate and pass judgement. Therefore they know the difference between good and bad, right and wrong – depending on their own moral and ethical code.

What I’m alluding to though is the inability of rational, intelligent men (and personally, I’ve only encountered males) to be objective. Perfectly illustrated to me the other evening by a guy I work with spitting through clenched teeth “I’ll back my team to the hilt, no matter what!” This is a guy in a senior supervisory role, normally calm, thoughtful and intelligent. And yet by his own admission cannot be objective when it comes to Rory Bremner FC.

To me that signals there are elements of this affair that shall never be resolved. For that mindset cannot be changed. I believe this is the mindset of El Presidente & his cronies whereby they can never admit to having made a mistake as it smacks of weakness.

(EDIT: that’s not to say that I haven’t met females who lack objectivity, just not WRT this pantomime!)

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:21 am - Dec 3, 2013


enough is enough says: (60)
December 2, 2013 at 11:56 pm
================================
In terms of the songbook among the Rangers support it appears that whatever PR is in place is working very well. It is undeniable that the issue has been discussed in the media in the past, and it is equally undeniable it is now completely ignored. There has been much media focus on Celtic fans these past few weeks and while I acknowledge their right to report, the lack of objectivity in the reporting is as noticeable as their ignoring of what is clearly still a significant sectarian problem among Rangers fans. Someone is doing their job very well, but it would be impossible without a compliant media in the first place. If that was not the case it would not matter who the PR people were, as all the media would do is report the truth without fear or favour.

View Comment

andygraham.66Posted on7:40 am - Dec 3, 2013


This blog post has now lasted 12 days, 12 days of argument and counter argument, a small example of what is probably taking place up and down the country in pubs, clubs and homes (possibly not as detailed).

Whilst this has been going on, those arguing new club have felt slightly annoyed that the others just can’t get it.

Those arguing old club have not even realised that 12 days at £38,000 a day has disappeared from the ever decreasing pot.

I’ve oft said in pub/club/house arguments, the Spivs would probably have not been able to achieve what they have done at any other football club, not because the support is so much more stupid or more gullible than others but because they cling to the belief that someone, anyone, will provide what they have taken for granted for nigh on 30 years, supremacy on the field, and in their own minds, without the need to finance this themselves.

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on7:52 am - Dec 3, 2013


Assuming Bryce is right. (And charles green, jim traynor, the msm, ally mccoist and jim spence, to name but a few, are all wrong).This would mean that any club in Scotland can walk away from £46+M debts and continue on with no liabilities. Like changing an overcoat.
This would mean:
Dunfermline & Hearts have been very poorly advised if they sign up to a CVA which costs anything at all.
Owning a football club has become risk free, you effectively only operate on the ‘money out’ side of the balance sheet. As soon as ‘money in’ is required you throw away your old coat with all the bills in the pocket and put on a nice new one. (Or, you take the old coat to the cleaners!).
How could any responsible business justify extending credit (whether it be a newspaper or face paint) to a business that is not required to pay it’s way?
Who, in their right mind, would invest in what is effectively a ‘reverse ponzi’?

View Comment

FinlochPosted on8:00 am - Dec 3, 2013


Every poster who rises to the numbered one’s Bait is one less dealing with the stuff that makes this blog unique.

View Comment

TSFMPosted on8:44 am - Dec 3, 2013


Finloch
You are correct. The primary focus of this blog is not the OCNC debate, however compelling it may be to some.

Restoring the dignity to our sport is far more important, and as someone has recently observed, we are it seems at odds with just about all of our clubs on that one.

As long as we focus on OCNC, less of our attention is concentrated on putting pressure on those who run our clubs to clean the game up properly. In my view it is no coincidence that the SFA have maintained an ambiguous opacity on OCNC. Perhaps OCNC is the biggest squirrel of all, and if you don’t accept that, sit back and hear the howls of protest that it should be characterised thusly 🙁

View Comment

causaludendiPosted on8:46 am - Dec 3, 2013


Well worth remembering. Oldco newco.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1RTdzBzRpgU

(Don’t know if it’ll work?!)

View Comment

bryce9aPosted on8:47 am - Dec 3, 2013


HirsutePursuit says: (459)
December 3, 2013 at 12:52 am

Whether the English newcos are, in the terms of the FA/Football League, “new member clubs” or not is not the point for me.

Regardless of that status, they raise important points for the ‘new club’ side to consider….

1. That a football club dealing with insolvency by an asset sale to a newco is not some kind of malevolent plot cooked up in desperation by the scot fitba authorities to save their beloved Rangers, because it’s been standard practice south of the border.

2. When comparing the Rangers newco saga to the English newco scenarios (even including thosewhere CVAs were not achieved like Leeds/Luton/Rotherham/Bournemouth) it is clear that the RFC newco (being forced to compete 3 tiers lower than oldco) was treated far more harshly RELATIVE to the English cases, undermining the notion Rangers “got off lightly” as is often put forward.

3. The steadfast refusal of “club=company” advocates to avoid any recognition that the English newco scenarios result in NEW CLUBS, despite that being the logical implication of their principle to any situation where oldco sells assets to a newco, is telling evidence of the pure absurdity – in any wider context – of the principle they use to condemn Rangers.

4. Regardless of official status, the English newcos appear to be universally perceived – among rival fans in England – to be the same football clubs continuing. This makes a sham of the notion that Rangers fans are uniquely daft/blinkered in believing their club to have survived, when such a view of a newco club seems to be the standard view in England of fans who, presumably, are not all daft.

Personally, I think the English newcos I’ve listed are the same clubs and I have no qualms considering them as such.

I don’t think there’s been 4 different and separate Portsmouth FC’s in the last 20 years. Or 4 different and separate C Palaces, or that Leeds United today are a club that wasn’t in existence 10 years ago.

I wouldn’t say that makes me some kind of freak, I’d imagine the vast majority would share those views if not committed to a position they have taken with regards Rangers.

But as I’ve shown above, I don’t even need to hold that they are the same clubs in order to show their mere existence casts a very unflattering spotlight on some of the points made against Rangers and the scottish football authorities during this saga. That’s why certain folk often don’t like talking about them or wish to deny they even exist.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on9:02 am - Dec 3, 2013


IIRC until this season, the SFA year book included membership date, that date is no longer published. Could it be because, shock, horror, the date for T’Rangers would be 2012?

Enquiring minds want to know! 😆

View Comment

Para HandyPosted on9:07 am - Dec 3, 2013


How to stop the use of flares at football seems to be the latest issue. In my opinion the easiest and quickest way to stop it would be for the referee, as soon as he is made aware of the flare and it’s origin, to award a penalty against the team whose “supporters” set it off. If it happens before the match or during half time then do it after kick off and if after full time, it carries over to the next match…

This could also be used if supporters start to wreck seats, etc.

Sorry if o/t.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on9:09 am - Dec 3, 2013


Bryce

You say that Rangers were treated more harshly than other clubs south of the border? As far as I am aware, those clubs did not systematically over a period of years, evade taxes. Don’t bother protesting that this is still unproven, I am specifically referring to the admitted Wee Tax Case, and the mis-appropriation of payroll tax receipts which should have been handed over to HMRC, but were instead illegally diverted to fund the club.

No doubt you will respond with your usual crap about a big boy doing it and running away, along with your absurd notion that an asset transfer wiped the sin away. I have looked at the SFA org chart, Mr Ogilvy has not yet created the post of SFA Sin Eater.

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on9:24 am - Dec 3, 2013


I don’t like telling/asking others not to do something just because I have decided that this is important to me, mainly because I am often wrong and that individuals should have the right to do what they want in this respect.

So I have just decided to share my thoughts and leave the action upto others.

Until Bryce answers the simple questions that have been put to him instead of selecting only the ones that suit his agenda, I will not read or respond to further posts from him. I love a good debate but you cannot achieve that when valid points stated and subsequent questions posed, go unanswered.

View Comment

Matteo GalyPosted on9:25 am - Dec 3, 2013


We seem to be going over old ground again with Bryce and his two new sidekicks, time to give it a rest.
The FA and the SFA are two completely different bodies, with their own rules ( when they can be bothered sticking to them ). What happens in England, Italy, Hungary etc has absolutely no relevance with regards to events here.
You have to take your hat off to Charles Green. Not only did he invent the same club scenario (after telling the truth initially) purely to get the gullible onside and take their money, but he’s got them frantically trying to justify this invention instead of questioning it.
I bet he couldn’t believe his luck how easy it was. A gullible fan base, a cowardly SFA and a compliant MSM, who’ll lap up everything you tell them and even forget when you contradict yourself! Just talk mince and laugh all the way to the bank!

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on9:26 am - Dec 3, 2013


Para Handy says: (19)

December 3, 2013 at 9:07 am
———————————

Not a good idea in the environment we currently operate in, there are idiots out there that would see this as an opportunity to influence results. I don’t believe this is the best solution.

View Comment

joburgt1mPosted on9:33 am - Dec 3, 2013


I have now got to the stage where, whenever i read a post that contains the words, Leeds, Crystal, Portsmouth, Barcelona, England, Italy etc, I stop and skip to the next post.
Different Football Associations from Scotland with different rules (UEFA and FIFA tell us to sort out our own crap), different countries with different laws.
We can engage with Bryce and co all we want to, but they are living in a wee blue dream world and farting against the thunder that is the rest of Scottish footballs fans disgust at the situation SDM created.
Roll on the AGM.

View Comment

bryce9aPosted on9:43 am - Dec 3, 2013


Madbhoy,

List 4 or 5 questions you think are particular ‘stoaters’ that, as you perceive, i have been avoiding, and ill happily answer them when i get the chance. I enjoy the discussion but, contrary to belief/humourous remarks, this isn’t my day job and smart phones are rubbish for making substantial posts when you are out of the office.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on9:49 am - Dec 3, 2013


Bryce

i don’t pay too much attention to English Football, especially the lower reaches of it.

Whether these clubs are new or not, is not of primary concern to me as a FOOTBALL fan as they have not conned my team/league out of trophies/cash/transfer targets/memorable days out.

I don’t know the fans of these clubs, I don’t know their rivals – what they say/think about the matter is irrelevant to me.

However, if they did not exit administration via a CVA and were liquidated owing creditors (including Hector) monies and they then had a membership/licence from the old club transferred to them – then as far as I am concerned they ARE new clubs. If they are claiming honours of the old club – then they should not and it is up to the football fans in that league to deal with that through their own clubs/association.

As far as I am concerned – they are new clubs. Simples.

Onto Sevco, they have cheated and conned their way to success – at a direct cost of my club. I interact with the undead supporters daily and I hear “54 Titles” on a weekly basis. I hear WATP, i hear the famine song and I am subject to the poppy facism.

It is disgusting that you are trying to defend a club who trod over all sporting rules, who evaded taxes, who stiffed creditors and who STILL continue to proclaim to be “the people”

Your, like those english clubs, as far as I am concerned are new entities. Disgustingly trading of a history that is not theirs. It shames the Scottish game that it is being tolerated – and it shames the sevco support that they show no remorse at all. The game is better without you.

View Comment

SquigglePosted on9:50 am - Dec 3, 2013


bryce9a on December 3, 2013 at 9:43 am

Madbhoy,

Please don’t. For so many reasons.

View Comment

FIFAPosted on9:55 am - Dec 3, 2013


Bryce9a
Maybe if you spent less time in the archives floor and more in the office ,but if C.O. has ok it for you to be in there ,carry on ,by the way what floor is office 9a on ,any chance I can pop in for a coffee and I will give you a hand to move your desk top down to the archive room ,shocking you are having to use that wee hand held device and have us wait on the next update from yourself and get Mr Regan to give you a hand as he cant have much to do this weather.

View Comment

bluPosted on10:04 am - Dec 3, 2013


NTHM, there’s no reasoning with the Pooter. Why waste energy?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:05 am - Dec 3, 2013


I seriously question the value of contuinuing with this, but I’ll try.

We’ve all got to move on apparently, so, on that basis my question looking to the future is this:

What is to stop another club creating a situation that titles are artificially ‘won’ to add to a historic collection if liquidation, as opposed to a positive adminsitration result (and I know to all creditors that term in itself is insulting), is to mean a continuation of ‘the club’ in any case? I ask this from the perspective that the situation you appear to describe has absolutely no downside risk whatsoever.

View Comment

BigGavPosted on10:16 am - Dec 3, 2013


davythelotion says:
December 3, 2013 at 7:52 am

Owning a football club has become risk free
============

Not for the shareholders of RFC(IL), it wasn’t.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on10:20 am - Dec 3, 2013


blu says: (463)
December 3, 2013 at 10:04 am
2 0 Rate This

NTHM, there’s no reasoning with the Pooter. Why waste energy?

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

i know, i know – i should no better. But i’m hoping any berz looking in, clinging to his arguments, might get a better understanding of the outrage felt by scottish fans.

not what is just legally correct, not just what the football authorities might let pass without comment, but what is also morally right/wrong.

maybe if the ber can appreciate the wrong their club has done and acknowledge it, apologise and address it, then there might be room for the “emotional” entity that is RFC to return to the game

View Comment

paulonotiniPosted on10:40 am - Dec 3, 2013


paulonotini on December 2, 2013 at 7:40 pm
 40 1 Rate This

Bryce
Can you show us a categorical statement from SFA where they confirm current RFC is exact same club as the one pre-liquidation.
I think you may find they are unable to do that for fear of any potential claims creditors of RFC 2012plc may make.

………………..

paulonotini on December 3, 2013 at 12:31 am
 24 1 Rate This

So Bryce this is my 2nd request,where is the definitive SFA statement confirming new club is exact same as RFCplc 2012(IL)

………………….

3rd Request

Bryce

1) You still haven’t shown a link where governing body SFA confirm current club TRFCL is exact same as the club pre-liquidation.
I think you’ll find there is no such confirmation.
Think Stewart Regan summed it up when he said “I’ll leave that for others to debate”

2) And what of the status of the entity who played Brechin named as Sevco Scotland with a conditional SFA membership?

View Comment

neepheidPosted on10:42 am - Dec 3, 2013


Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1046)
December 3, 2013 at 10:20 am

maybe if the ber can appreciate the wrong their club has done and acknowledge it, apologise and address it, then there might be room for the “emotional” entity that is RFC to return to the game
========
Please don’t hold your breath while waiting for an apology from “ra peepil”. You have more chance of watching me score a hat trick for Clyde in a Champions League final.

It is important to understand that they have this unique take on the word “dignity”. To them it means never ever admit you are wrong, and most certainly never, ever, ever apologise to anyone. Somewhere in their upbringing, the words dignity and arrogance get interchanged. It is really very difficult to engage in effective debate with people who speak a different language.

View Comment

steph1895Posted on10:47 am - Dec 3, 2013


I don’t think it is a stretch to believe that current supporters of the team that plays out of Ibrox are the same team their forefathers supported, because we all have emotional ties to our clubs, from the umbilical cord to the grave, no matter what happens.
If you remember about 20 years ago, a young woman in the US split boiling coffee on herself and suffered minor burns, or at least not life threatening burns.
She sued a large fast food chain for millions of dollars because her “ambulance chasing” litigating lawyer “argued” that the polystyrene cup did not have a warning label denoting hot contents.
We all know now that all fast food chains have warning labels on thier hot beverages!!
What is not widely known is that the settlement received of millions of dollars went mainly to the litigator because of the hard work he/she put in bringing the claim in.
The actual claimant got a very small percentage, which probably covered her next cup of coffee!!
What Charles Green has done has paid an ambulance chasing lawyer to drive a coach and horses through the SFA rules to have an opinion brought in the “court of Rangers public opinion” to argue that the club is the same and survives an insolvency event (why the change from liquidation??) ad finitum.
Quite clever really because the spineless SFA won’t comment and hope and pray that nothing happens. Just by saying nothing agrees with this opinion, whilst the majority take it as a compliant poodle, too spineless to tell the truth.
Being a devils advocate, if I was a Rangers fan (emotional one), I would be telling the board of my club to sue the SFA for loss of potential earnings, defamation and illegal practices, outwith the scope of the SFA.
It is very strange that this potential lawsuit has never been approached by fan groups, put to the Requistioners, or highlighted in the MSM – Why not you may ask??
For my tenpenneth; the court of public opinion is not a court of law, so any lawsuit at best is deemed to fail, and probably why it hasn’t been brought OR the truth of the matter is that the old/same club argument was just a way of getting 40K fans to buy into the newco on the pretence that nothing has changed, except the debt.
Lobby your local MP, write to the papers about this apparent injustice OR start asking really pertinent questions that does not include “what school did you go to”??
🙄 🙄

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on11:24 am - Dec 3, 2013


Squiggle says: (120)

December 3, 2013 at 9:50 am

bryce9a on December 3, 2013 at 9:43 am

Madbhoy,

Please don’t. For so many reasons.

———————————–

Thanks but as I no longer read them, I will not have to take your advice…. good as it is, I am sure 🙂

View Comment

FIFAPosted on11:30 am - Dec 3, 2013


Oh Dear
Are we going to have the first trade below 40p today

View Comment

willmacufreePosted on11:47 am - Dec 3, 2013


Taking a leaf out of Goosey’s book, I predict that when people can no longer deny that limited liability club is company is club, they will switch the emphasis to Team. It’s not the club that wins games they will tell us, it’s the team on the pitch. Right, so maybe the club’s dead, but the team lives on the same as every other team. Sure players have died, retired, been transferred, but that’s the same for all teams.

At last they’ll have something that’s true for every club that operates a team that consists of players on the park. But don’t anybody mention unregistered contracts.

View Comment

TorquemadaPosted on11:51 am - Dec 3, 2013


steph1895 on December 3, 2013 at 10:47 am 5 0 Rate This
I don’t think it is a stretch to believe that current supporters of the team that plays out of Ibrox are the same team their forefathers supported, because we all have emotional ties to our clubs…

In the memorable words of one KDS poster:

Different turd, same flies!

View Comment

bluPosted on11:51 am - Dec 3, 2013


FIFA says: (435)
December 3, 2013 at 11:30 am
Oh Dear
Are we going to have the first trade below 40p today

20-Nov-13 saw 28,243 shares traded at £0.397878.

View Comment

cowanpetePosted on12:00 pm - Dec 3, 2013


OT again but if nothing else I’m stubborn.

Could you really see any other Grown-Up League permitting a team to postpone a match so they could have their own wee Winter Break? In Spain, or in Germany, or in England?
I seriously doubt it.
Not blaming Killie or Celtic for taking advantage of the SPFL “rules” but am I the only one who thinks this sends a signal about where the SPFL perceives itself to be? Namely on a par with Ireland, or Luxembourg, or Iceland. Wee leagues that are an irrelevance to most football supporters. This is where scottish football is heading thanks to the incompetent administrators who control it.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on12:09 pm - Dec 3, 2013


cowanpete says: (35)
December 3, 2013 at 12:00 pm
0 1 Rate This

OT again but if nothing else I’m stubborn.

Could you really see any other Grown-Up League permitting a team to postpone a match so they could have their own wee Winter Break? In Spain, or in Germany, or in England?
I seriously doubt it.
Not blaming Killie or Celtic for taking advantage of the SPFL “rules” but am I the only one who thinks this sends a signal about where the SPFL perceives itself to be? Namely on a par with Ireland, or Luxembourg, or Iceland. Wee leagues that are an irrelevance to most football supporters. This is where scottish football is heading thanks to the incompetent administrators who control it.

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

i agree, i think this kinda tarting lends support that the scottish league, for the next 5 years at least, should move to summer football.

lets face it, world cups and european championships are currently beyond us

lets use summer football to give the fans and clubs some better weather to watch the game, play glamour winter friendlies/preseasons when other leagues are shut down for winter and use the summer to fill the BT/Sky schedule and get huge coverage and access to sponsorship

might also give our clubs in europe a leg up as they’ll be midseason when playing euro qualifiers

we’ve nothing to lose and can always change back if we think it is hampering our world cup participation or is damaging the clubs/league/fans

View Comment

bluPosted on12:22 pm - Dec 3, 2013


cowanpete says: (35)
December 3, 2013 at 12:00 pm
OT again but if nothing else I’m stubborn.

Could you really see any other Grown-Up League permitting a team to postpone a match so they could have their own wee Winter Break? In Spain, or in Germany, or in England?
I seriously doubt it.
Not blaming Killie or Celtic for taking advantage of the SPFL “rules” but am I the only one who thinks this sends a signal about where the SPFL perceives itself to be? Namely on a par with Ireland, or Luxembourg, or Iceland. Wee leagues that are an irrelevance to most football supporters. This is where scottish football is heading thanks to the incompetent administrators who control it.

Cowanpete, agree with you in part, they should do it properly and have a fixed break mid-January for 2/3 weeks. I guess that cashflow is an issue for clubs but the SPFL can support them with advance league placement payouts. Just about every other league in Europe manages this.

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on12:24 pm - Dec 3, 2013


cowanpete says: (35)

December 3, 2013 at 12:00 pm

Could you really see any other Grown-Up League permitting a team to postpone a match so they could have their own wee Winter Break? In Spain, or in Germany, or in England?

Not blaming Killie or Celtic for taking advantage of the SPFL “rules” but am I the only one who thinks this sends a signal about where the SPFL perceives itself to be? Namely on a par with Ireland, or Luxembourg, or Iceland. Wee leagues that are an irrelevance to most football supporters. This is where scottish football is heading thanks to the incompetent administrators who control it.

————————————

Firstly, I think you are being unfair on the other leagues mentioned. Maybe they do not have the best quality teams compared to Spain or England but that does not mean it is not competative and good for the fans, it also doesn’t follow that they have poor administrators.

Secondly, it’s in the rules and if the rules are apllied then I have no problem, no matter how stupid those rules may be. It’s when the rules only apply to certain teams then I have a problem.

Winter breaks are never a bad thing, I am in the “summer football” camp so feel all teams should have a break around this time of year. I am sure the other teams would also like to do this but are maybe restricted by costs due to midweek games not pulling in as much fans as weekend games.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on12:39 pm - Dec 3, 2013


willmacufree says: (244)
December 3, 2013 at 11:47 am

I know the line that you’re coming from but joking apart such a distinction would actually be helpful.

Part of the problem in all of this has been the use of the word club to describe everything from brand, ethereal being to unassociated body of voluntary undertakers or did I pick that up wrong?

No, serious point. No-one is questioning that the brand is alive and kicking. The followers are slowly, ever so slowly realising that such an ill founded brand needs feeding right enough, but alive and most certainly kicking. I believe that this is the distinction you are trying to make, in amongst the tongue in cheek digs about when is a team on the park not the same as the other team on the park (Insert answers here – not you Brycie) when you use the word team. That would then allow the SFA to make the definitive statement on ‘the club’, BDO could sign their forms, pick up the cheque and go home.

Only they didn’t, did they!

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on12:39 pm - Dec 3, 2013


today’s scottish football news

Sevco fan – throws flare onto Falkirk’s pitch.
the flare causes fire damage to the artificial pitch.
Thousands of pounds worth of damage.

SFA compliance officer – Vincent Lunny
to Punish Falkirk !!!!!!!!!

WTF ?

View Comment

cosmichaggisPosted on12:44 pm - Dec 3, 2013


cowanpete says: (35)

December 3, 2013 at 12:00 pm

Could you really see any other Grown-Up League permitting a team to postpone a match so they could have their own wee Winter Break? In Spain, or in Germany, or in England?

Not blaming Killie or Celtic for taking advantage of the SPFL “rules” but am I the only one who thinks this sends a signal about where the SPFL perceives itself to be? Namely on a par with Ireland, or Luxembourg, or Iceland. Wee leagues that are an irrelevance to most football supporters. This is where scottish football is heading thanks to the incompetent administrators who control
======================================================

I agree with cowanpete. It is however in the SPFL rules no matter how badly it looks or appears. It allows certain clubs to have a loosely termed “break” as apposed to arranging a healthy financial friendly. I am also an advocate of summer football and this vagueness around a winter “break” is ludicrous. You either shut the league down for a scheduled break for all teams or not, and this mushy vague only lends itself to criticism from cynics like me which leads me on to another point of agreeing with Kenny Shiels last night on sportsound. He stated that the choosing of Ibrox and Celtic Park as the venues for the semis so early is just scratching the backs of the Celtic and Sevco. The cynic in me is already thinking that the old SFA cold ball/hot ball routine for Sevco and Celtic in the Cup draw will continue until the final. Look out for lots more sending offs and penalties in the next few rounds in the Sevco matches. All the hype from the MSM in the last few days is already alluding to this, just getting us ready for the inevitable – yawn!

View Comment

SmugasPosted on12:44 pm - Dec 3, 2013


Why, what were they singing?

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on12:49 pm - Dec 3, 2013


Smugas says: (593)
December 3, 2013 at 12:44 pm
0 0 Rate This

Why, what were they singing?

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

did you mean – singeing 🙄

View Comment

SmugasPosted on12:56 pm - Dec 3, 2013


Singe when they’re winning, they only singe when they…….

Actually I’m expecting Lunny’s charge to be deliberate theft (of the flare), misuse of property and handling stolen goods? Apparently he doesn’t do singing.

Joking apart I’m all for a fairly draconian penalty for the flares (although I agree I don’t think the penalty idea above would work, too open to abuse). Clearly dangerous to all involved. Out them now.

EDIT: Just on the winter break thing. I don’t actually see what the problem is tbh. If celtic want to have one then fine. If they want to use it to play somewhere else, then still fine as long as no-one is put out by the rearrangement. I would however suggest that moving a saturday afternoon tie against Killie to say a Tuesday night is less of an issue for those teams than it would be for say Ross County. I would therefore recommend caution were any actual incentives being offered for agreeing to such a switch – that would create a separate can of worms. Not open it, but certainly put it there with the key beside it. (That’s right kids, a key!!!)

View Comment

auchinstarryPosted on1:02 pm - Dec 3, 2013


Some posters are still attempting to give medication to the already deceased. Let the nurses in Hospital ward 9A do their job.

View Comment

bluPosted on1:06 pm - Dec 3, 2013


jimlarkin says: (673)
December 3, 2013 at 12:39 pm
today’s scottish football news Sevco fan – throws flare onto Falkirk’s pitch.
the flare causes fire damage to the artificial pitch. Thousands of pounds worth of damage.
SFA compliance officer – Vincent Lunny to Punish Falkirk !!!!!!!!!
WTF ?

Jim, where’s this coming from? I’ve seen reports that the SFA has written to all six clubs involved in matches where flares were on display at the weekend, nothing specifically saying that the Compliance Officer has decided to punish Falkirk.

View Comment

Comments are closed.