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.
getting a wee bit fed up of posters talking about a Celtic v TRFC Cup Final as if its a fait accompli.
Paying far too little respect to Aberdeen, Dundee United and Inverness, never mind the other Diddy teams, mine included 🙂
cowanpete says: (37)
December 17, 2013 at 2:28 pm
6 0 Rate This
getting a wee bit fed up of posters talking about a Celtic v TRFC Cup Final as if its a fait accompli.
Paying far too little respect to Aberdeen, Dundee United and Inverness, never mind the other Diddy teams, mine included
+++++++++++++++++
As long as they both stay in what’s the chances of the draw keeping them apart through to the final?
chancer67 says: (110)
December 16, 2013 at 7:21 pm
Another teaser that I’ve been trying to solve is,if Sevco are indeed a continuation of RFC then why didn’t they compete in the 2012/13 champions league qualifiers…
——————————————————————————–
I have read claims by some Rangers supporters…ahem… that Rangers were refused a European licence for that particular year because they failed to produce audited accounts for the previous year and fell foul of the three year accounts rule.
Inventive if nothing else…
ernie says: (28)
December 17, 2013 at 2:45 pm
‘…As long as they both stay in what’s the chances of the draw keeping them apart through to the final?’
———-
They would surely never try to fix that, would they? Not that I think matters of principle mean much in this game these days, but they surely must be aware of the howls of disbelieving protest that would go up all round the country?
Really puts them in a bit of a bind, eh?
Cash Flow Chaos – The Must Have Xmas Board Game :
Score extra weeks in business and avoid administration to reach the end of the season – so you can strip the assets in the summer when no-one is looking. Extra weeks are awarded for creative ducking and diving:
• Get the SFA to cough up the Semi Final fee before Xmas
• Win the third tier asap and put STs on sale immediately
• Sell a key player to a Lebanese non-league team no-one has ever heard of
• Think of a new word for “debenture” and sell sell sell
• Sell a key player to a South African non-league team no-one has ever heard of
• Ensure honest mistakes to get a cup replay in every round and a penalty in extra time
• Sell a key player to an Indonesian non-league team no-one has ever heard of
• Deploy your red-joker cards to best effect
• Feed the MSM daily press releases about transfer targets
Points are lost for sensible cost cutting, resetting realistic expectations or telling the unpleasant truth.
The winner is the first to cash in the assets in the summer and escape without trace. The loser is the well known face left to explain why they told so many porkies before seeking police protection.
john clarke says: (1443)
December 17, 2013 at 3:03 pm
They would surely never try to fix that, would they?
—————————–
Campbell Ogilvie is warming his baws as we speak.
loamfeet says: (58)
December 17, 2013 at 3:14 pm
Campbell Ogilvie is warming his baws as we speak.
=============
Not quite right- he’s got one in the oven and one in the freezer, both at the same time. And please don’t try this at home, folks, you have to be the world’s greatest football administrator to pull off that kind of stunt.
Carl31 says: (111)
December 17, 2013 at 12:32 pm
15
1
Rate This
Quantcast
Auldheid,
Ive found your recent posts interesting and agree that the SFA will find themselves in a sticky position should Rangers win or be runners up in the SC prior to achieving 3 years audited accounts. My initial thoughts are that the club has so much more to worry about before anything like that might come about.
I’m puzzled that you refer to ‘RIFC’ though. I’d have thought it would be the club, TRFC, that would be licensed? Maybe just a typo?
My view for clarity is that RIFC is a holding company that holds controlling interest in TRFC, which is the club, which in turn allegedly owns and operates a Rangers FC (which has not been properly and fully defined in this context at any point).
UEFA and the SFA would not be concerned with the eligibility of either RIFC or Rangers FC, but would be concerned with the football club:
Section 3.1.1 of SFA Club Licensing…
-The Licence Applicant may only be a football club, that is the legal entity fully responsible for the football team participating in national and international competitions and which is the legal entity member of the Scottish Football Association (Full or Associate Member). The licence applicant is responsible for the fulfillment of the club licensing criteria.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/PartThree-UEFAClubLicensing/03%20The%20Club%20as%20Licence%20Applicant%20and%20Licence%20(2).pdf
This is old school and I’m sure you are familiar with this (grannies and eggs and all that), I know, but it clears up what might be considered new. or old, or a continuation, or whatever, should TRFC/Rangers win or be runners up in the SC prior to achieving 3 years audited accounts. This ‘transfer of membership’ wheeze seems to have got by any protests or complaints as to why Sevco Scotland Ltd, as they were at the time, from clubs that may have been further up the queue for new entry into Association football in Scotland. I think it will get the SFA and Rangers nowhere re UEFA licensing.
They would be considered a new club. Any continuation can not be a continuation of the legal entity, and could not legally have the responsibility for the tax dodging of the previous club laid at their feet.
The SFA might try it on – pleading a case of some sort for Rangers, but I cant see any mileage in it.
================================
I have got into the habit of using RIFC to embrace all of the constituent parts that make up the football club now playing at Ibrox.
From that perspective my point is that UEFA under Article 12 have deemed they (i.e TRFC or RIFC or Sevco) do not have the necessary length of membership of their national association i.e. 3 years, to be allowed into a UEFA competition.
(Note the criteria is 3 years membership NOT mean having 3 years audited accounts – a common misperception that has taken on the” a cockroach is invulnerable to a nuclear strike” legend that keeps it alive no mater how many times it is nuked by quoting Article 12 😉 )
But we are agreed, no matter what the SFA may say, UEFA will have the final say. They HAVE been asked to clarify if Art 12 will prevail over Art 15, but refused to do so, saying each case will be treated on its merits.
However in terms of expectation management in simple terms of will RIFC/TRFC/Sevco even be allowed to be considered for Europe under Art 15 should the situation arise, the SFA should be seeking a ruling from UEFA now.
So too should the folk at Ibrox to keep them on budget (hah).
How folk translate what UEFA decide to suit their OC/NC perspective is up to them, but I suggest it would make the SFA’s OC/NC three monkey’s stance, a tad difficult to justify in terms of upholding the UEFA principles articulated in Article 12..
Carntyne says: (96)
December 17, 2013 at 2:55 pm
5
0
Rate This
Quantcast
chancer67 says: (110)
December 16, 2013 at 7:21 pm
Another teaser that I’ve been trying to solve is,if Sevco are indeed a continuation of RFC then why didn’t they compete in the 2012/13 champions league qualifiers…
——————————————————————————–
I have read claims by some Rangers supporters…ahem… that Rangers were refused a European licence for that particular year because they failed to produce audited accounts for the previous year and fell foul of the three year accounts rule.
Inventive if nothing else…
===================================
Actually more true than they would like as I posted yesterday.
The fact is that Rangers were not granted a UEFA licence in 2012 for Europa League because they could not produce the ONE years previous annual accounts ratified by an AGM under Article 47 of UEFA FFP.
SEVCO/TRFC/RIFC whatever you call the team now playing at Ibrox were not granted a licence because they failed to meet the conditions of Article 12 i.e. 3 years membership of the SFA.
Quite how UEFA can say RIFC do not have the required 3 years membership but SFA say, well nothing actually, is the question the SFA will continue to dodge for as long as it takes to stop it being asked.
Entry via the SC before the 3 years are up, if it happens, will require a decision to be made by UEFA.
Is this application via Article 15 coming from RIFC/TRFC/Sevco who are exiled for 3 years because of Art 12 or Rangers in which case do they meet the criteria for admission as set out in the Annex to art 15..
RIFC/TRFC/Sevco can probably meet the criteria required by Art 15 but only by being treated as a different club from Rangers by UEFA.
Diablogic intit?
Auldheid says: (1103)
December 17, 2013 at 3:22 pm
Note the criteria is 3 years membership NOT mean having 3 years audited accounts – a common misperception that has taken on the” a cockroach is invulnerable to a nuclear strike” legend that keeps it alive no mater how many times it is nuked by quoting Article 12″
Was this very problem not the main driver for the Sevco Friendly Accomplices’ determination to transfer the dead cheating clubs membership, circumventing this possible hiccup?
Cowanpete,
As a complete and utter Diddy myself please do not misconstrue my post re sevco doing great things in the cup. They are long odds outsiders no question. My point was that I would hate to think those odds were artificially shortened in any way, and against a background of football’s equivalent of a lemming crossed with an addict one could irresponsibly infer that to do so was a means to an end. My second point was to say that as long as ogilvie, regan and Doncaster remain invincible I am quite understanding why one would come to that conclusion.
http://www.lse.co.uk/ShareTrades.asp?shareprice=RFC&share=rangers_int
Shares being offloaded like the skitters. – but still no drop in value !?
Why is there no drop in value?
Alain Baxter – stripped of a bronze medal he won at the Salt Lake 2002 Winter Olympics for using a Vicks nasal spray that he bought in the USA. He didn’t know it contained different ingredients from the UK versions (who would?)
RFCIL – Lord Nimmo Smith ruled that “the board of directors sanctioned the making of payments under the side-letter arrangements without taking any legal or accountancy advice to justify the non-disclosure”.
Who gained the sporting advantage out of these two examples?
The stench is almost unbearable but can be detected without employing a nasal spray.
Scottish football need a strong de-congestant.
Auldheid
IMO this was the real reason of the rushed reconstruction ,as associate members ,I believe the rule was a minimum of 5 yrs before Sevco qualified for a full membership .
Reconstruction did away with this rule and Sevco 2012 were given a full membership 4 yrs earlier .
As I have said too many times ,I wish the SFA and peepil running our game would stop kicking Sevco 2012 when they are down as it always leads to the rest of the clubs being shafted .
Bryan Swanson @skysports_bryan 29m
Former Rangers owner Craig Whyte will find out judgement in appeal hearing tomorrow after £17.6m defeat to Ticketus in April.
Increasingly I think the SFA need to be challenged in a court of law so all these little favours can be aired under oath and forensic cross examination. Maybe it needs to be the fans who get together and orchestrate this – rather than the clubs who appear reticent for whatever reasons.
“We the undersigned as paying customers of football clubs governed by the Scottish Football Association (SFA) allege that the SFA’s inconsistent and spurious interpretation of its rules, allied with unexplained and unusual amendment of its rules have prejudiced our ability to gain enjoyment of fair sporting competition from our purchase of season tickets – enjoyment of fair sporting competition being the sole purpose for such purchase. We hereby claim a full refund of the cost of season ticket purchases and reasonable incidental expenses from the SFA for the 2011/212 and 2012/2013 football seasons”
There must be an ambitious young law firm out there willing to take that one on pro bono.
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes2 15m
The votes are in. Paul Murray is set for a place on the Rangers board just in time to fight Craig Whyte’s legal claim. #AGM #Irony
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes2 7m
Brain Stockbridge will make way after a Stock Exchange announcement at 7am on Friday. His seat on the board will be taken by Paul Murray.
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes2 6m
Craig Whyte has won his Ticketus appeal. He is now ready to fund his legal claim over Rangers assets.
Another new low in BBC broadcasting tonight on Sportsound – “A Rangers special to cheer up Rangers fans” quote Kenny Macintyre. Enough to make you boag. Bursting into print to the BBC
nowoldandgrumpy says: (752)
December 17, 2013 at 5:45 pm
10 0 Rate This
Bryan Swanson @skysports_bryan 29m
Former Rangers owner Craig Whyte will find out judgement in appeal hearing tomorrow after £17.6m defeat to Ticketus in April.
———
Well, here’s another nice mess he’s gotten himself into. And all to keep Ibrox open. Why isn’t he lauded as a kind of hero?
My take on the Scottish Cup draw is whether it was made legitimately or not, the SFA must have been delighted with the outcome.
Amongst other things, what these 6th floor blazer wearing buffoons must fear is any cup tie between Sevco and Celtic or Aberdeen. As with Celtic, Aberdeen fans never really got on too well with the old club that played out of Govan and I don’t suspect they’ll be too enamoured with the current outfit.
The 5th round draw was a dream for the SFA. Potentially Sevco could have faced both clubs in this years Cup and then the SFA and Sevco would truly have discovered what the rest of Scottish football thinks of them. These are the two clubs the SFA want Sevco to avoid at all costs. Get one of them out at this stage, keep the winner apart from them and hope Sevco don’t get to the final.
I wonder what odds Ian Black will give me on that!
My lot, Ayr, have star player up on a betting charge.
If he bet against them then he needs binned.(morally)
However, he does not deserve to be given anything more than Black got. Had he been first caught though he should have got three years
Reilly1926 says: (209)
December 17, 2013 at 6:47 pm
9 1 Rate This
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes2 15m
The votes are in. Paul Murray is set for a place on the Rangers board just in time to fight Craig Whyte’s legal claim. #AGM #Irony
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes2 7m
Brain Stockbridge will make way after a Stock Exchange announcement at 7am on Friday. His seat on the board will be taken by Paul Murray.
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes2 6m
Craig Whyte has won his Ticketus appeal. He is now ready to fund his legal claim over Rangers assets.
———
Wasn’t nr 2 supposed to be a fake Fakes?
Reilly1926 says: (209)
December 17, 2013 at 6:47 pm
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes2 15m
The votes are in. Paul Murray is set for a place on the Rangers board just in time to fight Craig Whyte’s legal claim. #AGM #Irony
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes2 7m
Brain Stockbridge will make way after a Stock Exchange announcement at 7am on Friday. His seat on the board will be taken by Paul Murray.
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes2 6m
Craig Whyte has won his Ticketus appeal. He is now ready to fund his legal claim over Rangers assets.
========================================================
I see the page has already gone – that was quick ❗
I think Ally is obviously needed to sell STs and was given the all-clear IMO to walk-away from actually voting against the Board. No doubt we will get some tortuous explanation from him in the not too distant future but I very much doubt he was given the nod until after the proxy votes were known.
The guy Lacks Moral Fibre and LMF should be stamped on his discharge papers in red ❗
Wonder how the supporters feel that their vote isn’t worth a toss – might have been a ploy to sicken them by releasing the news now and hope they don’t bother to turn up at the agm. Might actually ensure that they turn-up in an angry mood of course.
BBC ran the proxy vote story on the tea-time news but it seemed to be a complete success for the incumbent board with no mention of the CF claim that Stockbridge is on the way out to be replaced by Paul Murray.
Remind me, Cw was appealing against ticketus holding him personally liable for the wavetower loan wasn’t he. I assume the inference is if he’s not having to watch his back for them (not to mention keeping any assets he has out of sight) he is able to come full frontal after CG and sevco Scotland, is that right?
Danish Pastry says: (1803)
December 17, 2013 at 7:09 pm
Wasn’t nr 2 supposed to be a fake Fakes?
===============================================
You may well be right but a lovely series of tweets – especially if you have a sense of humour 😆
Eco,
Also need to always remember we never quite got to the bottom of Miss Charlotte and her agenda either. Funnily enough I could never decide between CG and P M given the amount of bluff and counter bluff going on.
ecobhoy says: (2078)
December 17, 2013 at 7:19 pm
I think Ally is obviously needed to sell STs and was given the all-clear IMO to walk-away from actually voting against the Board. No doubt we will get some tortuous explanation from him in the not too distant future but I very much doubt he was given the nod until after the proxy votes were known.
The guy Lacks Moral Fibre and LMF should be stamped on his discharge papers in red
==================
It’s pretty clear what the sleekit one has been up to. You would like to think that the hordes will see right through the charade but in all likelihood we know they won’t.
Charlotte fake or not makes no sense to have P Murray on the board.
I have yet to meet one Sevco fan that thinks anything of him.
The fans I have spoken to all want M Murray.They think he’s a real Sevco man. Muppets.
m.c.f.c. says: (44)
December 17, 2013 at 12:50 pm
10 3 Rate This
Carl31 says: (110)
December 17, 2013 at 12:32 pm
My view for clarity is that RIFC is a holding company that holds controlling interest in TRFC, which is the club, which in turn allegedly owns and operates a Rangers FC (which has not been properly and fully defined in this context at any point).
===========================================================================
Carl – the shifting sands of the club, company, holding company, legal entity charade will continue until it is assessed in a court of law subject to public scrutiny and appeal – rather than by some quango or conflicted officers of the law paid to interpret the swiss-cheese rules of what is after all only a glorified commercial trade association for the benefit of said money making enterprise. BTW – how does the following factor into your thinking:
Business Overview
Rangers International Football Club plc is a football club based in Glasgow, Scotland.
http://www.rangersinternationalfootballclub.com/shareholder-centre/business-overview
====================================================================================
Actually this is technically correct.
“…includes the owner and operator of such club.”
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/ScottishFAPublications2013-14/Articles%20of%20Association.pdf
Is RIFC plc the “owner and operator” of TRFC Ltd?
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11419096
Since the SFA’s new definition of a club includes its “owner and operator” – and that is exactly how RIFC plc described itself in its statement to the stock exchange – we should acknowledge that RIFC plc are recognised by the SFA as a component of the member club The Rangers Football Club Ltd
OT
WRT Paul McConville’s sad passing, many TSFMers have suggested that we could make a donation to Paul’s family via the blog – and already £100 has been pledged to that end. It has also been suggested that Paul’s family may prefer to have any donations sent to a charity of their choice.
I will sound them out about that through a mutual friend and get back to everyone with any result. If anyone wishes to make a donation, you can do so via the Donate to TSFM button, but make sure that you leave a message with Paul’s name so that we can be sure your money ends up where you intended.
ecobhoy says: (2079)
December 17, 2013 at 7:22 pm
1 0 Rate This
Danish Pastry says: (1803)
December 17, 2013 at 7:09 pm
Wasn’t nr 2 supposed to be a fake Fakes?
===============================================
You may well be right but a lovely series of tweets – especially if you have a sense of humour
——–
Indeed. For some odd reason I thought Laurel and Hardy theme music as I read those 🙂
Perhaps someone is trying to entice Charlotte out to play?
I’m hearing that the BBC are reporting the current Rangers board have already secured enough votes to ensue that none of them lose their place, and that the Murrays etc look as if they will not have enough to join them.
Anyone have further details on this.
Tif Finn says: (1022)
December 17, 2013 at 7:48 pm
1 0 Rate This
I’m hearing that the BBC are reporting the current Rangers board have already secured enough votes to ensue that none of them lose their place, and that the Murrays etc look as if they will not have enough to join them.
Anyone have further details on this.
———-
It’s all over twitter from the Beeb. But who told the Beeb?
Presumably someone has access to the count of the proxies / postal vote and has leaked it to the BBC.
Tif Finn says: (1023)
December 17, 2013 at 7:54 pm
Presumably someone has access to the count of the proxies / postal vote and has leaked it to the BBC.
======================================================
I would have thought this should have been announced on AIM before being released anywhere else.
If the CW story is true
Anyone else think that Ticketus have maybe got their money back already .
the timing of all this is very interesting IMO
Eco
you are thinking of normal business practice ,we are talking about the peepil here 🙄 😯 🙄
OK, my bold predictions…..
there are some bold claims regarding Victory tonight…..i still think there is a few twist and turns to come (or at least smoke and mirrors)
my predictions are….
Stockbridge will be voted out……he will keep his £200k bonus, he will get a GENEROUS severance package and will be free to sell his shares…of course
None of the gang of 4 will be voted in……which is a shame, maybe they’ll vote one on as a sacrificial lamb…they do like their lamb. I expect the 1 to be voted on to be made a fool of at every turn and will be held to blame when he leaves/gets sacked
McCoist will be sacked for his insubordination in voting against the board. His salary has not yet been cut, so he will receive his full 1 year severance package and of course, can sell his shares.
This will spark FURTHER outrage amongst the hordes who will call for boycotts of matches (which they won’t observe as they have already bought season tickets) they will call for the SFA to do something, will blame Peter Lawell, there will be bear on bear action and Sports Direct will be boycotted – they will make up hate lists and threaten sponsors of the club/sfa/spfl and will write to their MP and urge Dave King to save us – it will be hilarious
McCoists severance package coupled with loss of walk up match day income and Stockbridges bonus/severance deal will accelerate administration. Probably in January
RIFC will take assets for debt – leaving TRFC without a stadium, training ground, car park or edmiston house – but will see them with a water tight, binding full repairing and insurance lease deal for, oh, 20 years minimum
TRFC will be sold to the brogues for £1 and the CVA will pass (as the only creditor – RIFC – will take assets instead and disaster averted.)
They should still secure promotion as it will only be a 15 point deduction for the new club and they will end up in the championship next year……all ready for the big push
the spivs will then cash out and sell the property owning RIFC PLC to a “proper” property company and exit stage left
this summer will see teh Brogues trying to float the homeless TRFC and the bears not really buying into it.
20 years of comedy gold for Celtic fans everywhere shall follow……
merry christmas everyone, well, almost everyone.
I don’t think you actually get leaked information on AIM before the leak gets out.
I assume any release of results to AIM will be post the AGM when the official announcements are made.
Thinking about the forthcoming first annual general meeting of RIFC and their loss making subsidiary TRFC, could we speculate how many officials of the SFA will be in attendance;
1. As supporters and/or investors in the clumpany
2. As representatives of a governing body who should be keeping a keen eye on all the shenanigans afoot
I dare say 1. will outnumber 2.
Sevco FC have the governing body they deserve.
The rest of Scottish football sadly doesn’t.
I’ve just noticed that each of the resolutions at the first AGM of RIFC plc will be voted on by poll, rather than show of hands.So Ally needn’t have given his voting rights to the EK lot.Wonder did he know that?
‘The meeting will consider the 14 Resolutions set out in the Notice of AGM, each of which will be subject to a vote by Poll, which will be verified by Capita Registrars Limited. The result of these Resolutions will be released to the London Stock Exchange by no later than 7am on 20 December 2013.’
(from ‘ FE Investegate’ today.)
This court ruling due tomorrow – Craigie v Ticketus …. what is its significance? I lost the plot on the various court cases and rumours of court cases many moons ago. It came as a surprise to me to see it mentioned on SkySport headlines.
exfallhoose2012 says: (30)
December 17, 2013 at 9:00 pm
0 0 Rate This
This court ruling due tomorrow – Craigie v Ticketus …. what is its significance? I lost the plot on the various court cases and rumours of court cases many moons ago. It came as a surprise to me to see it mentioned on SkySport headlines.
=====
I would say none – why sue someone who doesn’t have the money
I just saw someone on Twitter asking a fairly simple question that’s been asked before, but it’s a pertinent one. Why did the requistioners simply not just buy shares if they want control?
Re the CF tweets, how would he/she/it know the court decision which will take place tomorrow?
I will guess that Paul Murray will be invited onto the board, this will keep some happy and he will be trollied out come ST time.
A show of hands was never really an option.
The people there were likely to have a small proportion of the voting rights. Any show of hands would be pretty much meaningless.
I don’t imagine the representatives of the “institutional investors” would be sitting amongst the general support.
upthehoops says: (731)
December 17, 2013 at 9:05 pm
0 0 Rate This
I just saw someone on Twitter asking a fairly simple question that’s been asked before, but it’s a pertinent one. Why did the requistioners simply not just buy shares if they want control?
===============
Because that would involve parting with some of their own money? I’m sure that the current majority shareholders would be delighted to sell- at the right price.
neepheid says: (932)
December 17, 2013 at 9:10 pm
Because that would involve parting with some of their own money? I’m sure that the current majority shareholders would be delighted to sell- at the right price.
==============================
However, if the club is the international behemoth the requisitioners assure us it is, then they would soon make their money back and then some!
Three shares for a pound though. It’s better than sports socks 😆
nowoldandgrumpy says: (753)
December 17, 2013 at 9:07 pm
1 0 Rate This
Re the CF tweets, how would he/she/it know the court decision which will take place tomorrow?
I will guess that Paul Murray will be invited onto the board, this will keep some happy and he will be trollied out come ST time.
———-
That @CharlotteFakes2 account has now morphed into @PaulMurrayGroup.
Perhaps it’s Mr Irvine himself having a wee chuckle? Whatever, it appears to be a spoof account.
So the AGM is over before it started. Those of us hoping for a bit of a pantomime down Govan way will be disappointed.
UTH, the answer is clear. The requistioners didn’t have, have never had and will never have the money. There was one chance to get their hands on Rangers business and assets and Chuckie beat them to it.
They have, in a SSB cliche, been playing catch-up ever since.
There may be some crumbs of comfort for them if Stockbridge departs but McColl, Murray et al look mighty stupid right now.
Neepheid, there is no football strategy other than throw some cash at McCoist for players to keep the ST money coming in. If they wanted a strategy they would have hired someone to make it work with a carefully planned, progressive expenditure as they went up the leagues. They gave rookie Ally some cash told him to phone some agents and get some, any, players in and put 11 on the park. Not once but twice!
This is not about football, its about money. Money from emotionally engaged consumers who don’t want to let go of their favourite brand. Once they have squeezed all the cash they can, they are going to leg it with the title deeds and send the football club a large rent bill every spring.
Will the spivs screw over the bears one last time?
Oh yes they will!
Tif Finn says: (1025)
December 17, 2013 at 9:08 pm
‘..A show of hands was never really an option.’
—–
My experience is very limited, of course,and only to the AGM s of one club. The procedure adopted there is for the Chair to introduce the resolution, discuss the Board’s reasons/views, allow debate/questions from the floor , call for a show of hands for/against, and then get the Company Secretary to read out the proxy vote totals ( for, against, and votes not cast) and their relative percentages.
Everybody present knows, of course, that the combined shares of all the small shareholders will be dwarfed by the sometimes millions of shares held by the big boys, but there is nevertheless something quite soundly democratic in seeing several hundred people publicly declaring themselves for or against a motion.
And it’s good fun, too.
Voting by ballot box for more than one or two motions is very time-consuming. Voting for 14 motions will take ages!
Unless, of course, now that the BBC has published the result, nobody turns up.
Was the BBC partial to the present board,I wonder, and doing them a favour by broadcasting the ‘leaked’ info?
I think the requisitioners should ask a hard question about what can easily be seen as an attempt by the BBC to help one party at the expense of another.
john clarke says: (1445)
December 17, 2013 at 9:35 pm
3 0 Rate This
And then the BBC announce they will show the Sevco cup game live, probably just a coincidence. 🙄
Just had a quick look at Chris Graham’s Twitter timeline. Goodness me the staff at his local bookies must do high 5’s when they see him entering the premises. Has that lad ever got even near a correct prediction ?
My favourite was Donald Muir on the board of the old club.
There was a vote on whether he should stay on, the people on the floor voted overwhelmingly against it.
He was voted on by about 90 odd percent.
The reality is for most of these things the Chair probably already knows who has won. If the show of hands supports that then they can just say “carried” if they want. If not then they can consider the proxy votes.
I know it’s a legal requirement but for a football club, or it’s holding company, is it really much more than a spectacle for the fans / shareholders to feel they are involved in the process. As discussed here before. the actual decisions are probably made in advance, by the people with the real power.
Taxman, 9.05 pm
I suppose if the judgement went against Craigie, he would be forced to declare his assets. If he did so honestly then we would know whether or not he still had any financial interest in the old or new clubs. If he declares that he has no money, then this would clear up some issues. If he claimed that he was (I)broke and Ticketus had reason to disbelieve him then Ticketus might go after him with vigor, would not be persuaded to stand back and shut up the way others have.
But we have approached ‘the light’ many times in the past and a darkness invariably descends to obfuscate.
andygraham.66 says: (81)
December 17, 2013 at 7:09 pm
My lot, Ayr, have star player up on a betting charge.
However, he does not deserve to be given anything more than Black got. Had he been first caught though he should have got three years
———————-
I disagree, just because someone else was basically “let off”, that does not make it right to allow others to do the same. As my mum used to say “2 wrongs don’t make a right”. If he is indeed guilty of betting against his own team, hit him hard, no excuses.
Maybe then we can show just exactly how ridiculous Black’s punishment was for the acts he committed.
Just seen the stock picture of the Ayr United player on BBC. Am I the only one to notice the irony of their shirt sponsor??
If we want to rid the game of gambling, we have to stop taking the betting companies’ cash as sponsors. Simples!!
andygraham.66 says: (81)
December 17, 2013 at 7:09 pm
My lot, Ayr, have star player up on a betting charge.
============================
andygraham……whats teh story?
what is he charged with? is it a series of bets – how many? betting on or against his own team? was he or wasn’t he playing?
will be very interesting to see how his punishment varies from another lower division player. If at all.
I have more info. (He is on my Facebook)
6 bets on Ayr, 150 Scottish total.
He never bet against Ayr, always backed
He was shopped by someone off of a rangers site who had taken offence to the fact he was a Celtic fan. He had made a comment to an ex Ayr player on twitter about a bet and this troll shopped him
I agree with the original poster re two wrongs don’t make a right but a precedent has been set, wrongly, and there is no need surely for another case of bias towards the establishment club.
If, and it’s an if still, he hasn’t bet against Ayr, it just can’t be worse that Black’s. In fact given the leniency of the Black punishment there really isn’t a lot of room to play with to make it within that level and a slap on the wrist and that shows the hypocrisy of the original decision
Cheers – should be an interesting day in “court” Hope he has Fraser Wishart all lined up with the appeal
Reilly1926 says: (211)
December 17, 2013 at 9:48 pm
6 0 Rate This
Just had a quick look at Chris Graham’s Twitter timeline. Goodness me the staff at his local bookies must do high 5′s when they see him entering the premises. Has that lad ever got even near a correct prediction ?
=======================================
Not so much a prediction, but a declaration of ‘no dark clouds over Ibrox’ just makes him look plain daft 😆
Not a bad first goal for Sunderland, well played Ki Sung Yueng.
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1067)
December 17, 2013 at 10:13 pm
From what I heard on STV he’s not a Union member. Could be wrong though.
andygraham.66 says: (82)
December 17, 2013 at 10:09 pm
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1067)
December 17, 2013 at 10:13 pm
Ally, is he on your list? We should be told for the sake of transparency of course
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/236971-ally-mccoist-ive-a-list-of-over-100-footballers-who-bet-on-their-own-team/
andygraham. You’re right that a precedent has been set and I do sympathise with Ayr and their fans if they lose the services of a player. However, we all need to treat this seriously and if that means that only sevco get off with it then so be it. Are we really going to stoop to their level in this or any other issue of integrity and decent behaviour? I hear stories that betting like this is rife across our game, if so then let’s start life bans now and get rid of it.
btw, can we look forward to Mark Roberts regaling us with stories of lads having a wee punt and his list of offenders across the leagues? Probably not.
andygraham.66 says: (82)
December 17, 2013 at 10:09 pm
============================
I agree totally that the Michael Moffat case is certainly no worse than that of Ian Black, and in a fair world his punishment certainly shouldn’t be, especially as he does not appear to have ever actually bet on Ayr to lose. However, we don’t live in a fair world, as evidenced recently by the Nadir Cifti case against the Referee. Compare his treatment and punishment to that of Bougherra two years ago. Compare the four game ban for Neil Lennon in the same game compared to McCoist laughing as he walked free from Hampden, beside of course Bougherra and Diouf, who also laughed as they went without punishment. Do not be at all surprised if Michael Moffat receives a worse punishment than Ian Black did.
Will be more surprised if he doesnt get harsher sentence.
Maybe a statement from Campbell too.
Electronic Tims @ETimsNet 1h
Slade to re-release their classic Xmas Single “Oh I wish it could be Rangers International AGM every day!” #SevcoXmas
Nick Eardley @nickeardley 23m
Back page of tomorrow’s @thescotsman #scotpapers pic.twitter.com/G7QtnHuBah
So the Scotsman say 60% vote for board.
Responding to the latest developments, Paul Murray said: “We are surprised to see information of this nature leaked to the BBC.
“This information could only have come from one of two sources – Capita or the Rangers board. We regard this as a serious breach of Stock Market regulations and we intend having our legal team look at the matter on Wednesday morning.
“In the meantime we would urge all Rangers shareholders and fans to ignore this propaganda, turn up on Thursday, cast their votes and ask the questions they want their board to answer.”
Spivs or Brogues?
it’s a great side show…..but, ultimately, neither have any answers on how to address the £14M annual losses
they’ll be potless by the end of January…..the AGM vote hardly matters, but it’s keeping the masses busy chasing their tales.
I only hope HMRC have kept them on a tight reign as I don’t want to end up contributing for the spivs Château in France!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25423601
Rangers: Board of directors wins votes to stay in place
By Alasdair Lamont
Senior football reporter, BBC Scotland
The current Rangers board has won enough support to remain in place, BBC Scotland has learned.
Figures of proxy votes cast on behalf of shareholders indicate chairman David Somers, chief executive Graham Wallace and three directors will be re-elected.
And nominees including former chairman Malcolm Murray do not have enough votes to join the board. The bitter battle for control has been building towards Thursday’s annual general meeting.
In recent months, the club has appointed Somers, Wallace and non-executive director Norman Crighton to join finance director Brian Stockbridge and James Easdale on its plc board.
Shareholders Malcolm Murray, former Rangers director Paul Murray, Scott Murdoch and Alex Wilson have been seeking election to the board.
Indeed, the Murrays, Murdoch and Wilson won a court decision to have their nominations added to the AGM agenda, resulting in the meeting being delayed until 19 December.
After that verdict at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Paul Murray called on Stockbridge and then chief executive Craig Mather to resign.
Mather did resign but Stockbridge has been backed by chairman Somers.
The club reported a £14m operating loss for the 13 months to June after around £22m was raised in a share issue late last year.
Responding to the latest developments, Paul Murray said: “We are surprised to see information of this nature leaked to the BBC.
“This information could only have come from one of two sources – Capita or the Rangers board. We regard this as a serious breach of Stock Market regulations and we intend having our legal team look at the matter on Wednesday morning.
“In the meantime we would urge all Rangers shareholders and fans to ignore this propaganda, turn up on Thursday, cast their votes and ask the questions they want their board to answer.”
On the pitch, Scottish League One leaders Rangers are yet to drop a point in the division so far this season and Ally McCoist’s side have also progressed to the final of the Ramsdens Cup and the fifth round of the Scottish Cup.
upthehoops says:
I just saw someone on Twitter asking a fairly simple question that’s been asked before, but it’s a pertinent one. Why did the requistioners simply not just buy shares if they want control?
==================================
Every decision in life is made on the basis of costs and benefits. The “consortium” now in control have got a fairly good idea of how much money they’re going to make out of this venture – it’s a big amount and a portion of it is very possibly recurring. Therefore the money that any pretender, or group of pretenders, is going to have to come up with to wrest control from them is looking to be a hefty sum indeed if it is to benefit the consortium for the loss of future income.
The consortium also won’t be breaking ranks to sell individual shareholdings, either because all is controlled by the same two or three people, because breaking ranks would likely mean not being permitted to take part in such future nest-feathering ventures, or because certain legal contracts would simply not permit it.
But any venture should have at least a plan B. Or maybe a plan E. Perhaps certain shareholders have been dangled a huge carrot, the outright ownership of their beloved club, as long as they play to the rules in the meantime (and possibly pay a little rental in the future).
All theoretically of course. 🙂
Have I missed something?
Shareholders buy shares to make a profit. They don’t buy shares for any other reason.
Directors are legally responsible to make profits for shareholders. They are not legally responsible to look after the interests of customers
TRFC are owned by RIFC shareholders. They are not owned by TRFC fans. A TRFC fan is just a customer of TRFC .The board of RIFC have no legal obligation to TRFC fans
Any company that acts in the interest of Customers instead of Shareholders will be punished by the market.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
So
All this stuff about RIFC shareholders acting against the interests of TRFC customers is just nonsense
Hope has collided with Reality
For once
A football club is firmly under the control of the market and will be treated accordingly
If customers walk away it goes bust
People are fired
Assets up for sale
Vultures arrive
Purchasers pay the market rate for bits of the carcase
The Customer doesn`t have a say
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
That’s the way it is
And always will be