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

wottpiPosted on11:19 pm - Dec 17, 2013


If the spivs had it in the bag why the delay in the AGM?
Can’t see what difference the new placemen have made in a couple of weeks.
Should have called the Murray’s bluff earlier unless you really wanted to control the date of the meeting.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on11:30 pm - Dec 17, 2013


Chris (Fury) Graham is no different to Mark (Grand Master Suck) Dingwall. Part of the Rangers’ fans problem, not the solution. They both helped facilitate the death of the previous club, and are doing the same with this one.

One is as self aggrandizing as the other. They have both got it stunningly wrong.

It’s not like they weren’t told.

View Comment

taxman comethPosted on11:35 pm - Dec 17, 2013


upthehoops says: (734)
December 17, 2013 at 9:05 pm
25 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 there is no boardroom battle this was all smoke and mirrors, they were supposedly led by a guy who didn’t want any part of running the club

to what end I don’t know but nothing is what it appears to be

premature gloating I think

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on11:50 pm - Dec 17, 2013


An opinion
—–Public offer by the Spivs this week to vote for one Representative of the Requisitioners onto the Board in exchange for an end to the war between shareholders and customers
—– Requisitioners accept this offer as they are clueless at dealing with Spivs
——Representative resigns on the day he is presented with TRFC Administration
A decision made
at a prior meeting he was not invited to

Admin will be announced when TRFC has a big enough lead to ensure promotion

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on12:07 am - Dec 18, 2013


GoosyGoosy says: (490)
December 17, 2013 at 11:50 pm

How many points deduction, though? Old club 25 pts, new club 15?

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on12:10 am - Dec 18, 2013


Winning the third tier of Scottish senior football, whilst losing £1m a month and no business plan to improve that would be a tremendous result.

Do you really think they can pull that off, even with a 15/25 point deduction.

Must be some sort of record.

View Comment

weejie boardPosted on12:43 am - Dec 18, 2013


One does not simply walk into Ibrox.

The requisitioners’ original plan must surely have been to generate negative publicity about the current board, to create empathetic links with the supporters groups, and most importantly to lobby the institutional investors hard in order to persuade them that the the new kids on the block would provide better future value to those investors than the current board. We can all see how that last one worked out. One of the investors even “switched sides” back to the board (assuming it had any intention of ever voting with the supporters in the first place), albeit it did produce a very handy piece of PR in meeting with some of the supporters .

So, the most important aspect of the first plan, to get investors behind them, has failed (and was always going to, the requisitioners probably had very little idea of what they were actually up against). So what is left to them? The investors are looking for future gains – if those future gains are diminished then they will part with their shares much more readily. But how to go about doing that? By means of what has always been the biggest factor since the HMRC elephant in the room was brusquely shooed out – the supporters. If the supporters were to boycott the buying of season tickets, the purchasing of merchandise, or contributing in other ways to the income of the spivs, the spivs will, on a purely cost/benefit basis, sell up for less and thus allow the requisitioners an opportunity to gain control.

This is what the requisitioners are most probably doing now. They’re getting under the skin of the board, formenting rebellion. Even the hint of a future boycott, the potential loss of future income, is enough to put the fear into moneymen. But what a perilous route this is to take, what a fine line between the board/investors caving in and the whole company caving in. The requisitioners must know this, that they must irritate the board and the company enough to open cracks in the consortium without creating a situation where the income is so adversely affected in reality that the company sinks.

It is indeed a very fine line to walk. But in the absence of a benevolent investor with “off the radar wealth” (two coming along in 5 years would just be too much to ask for, don’t you think 😉 ), what else can they do?

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on12:55 am - Dec 18, 2013


OH NO! Havent they suffered enough?

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/footb…ox-legal-fight

Quote:
It could be another damaging blow to Rangers, who are already gripped by infighting ahead of tomorrow night’s AGM. The club are also running short of cash and if Alexander was to win his fight then it could well push them over the edge – as the alleged loss of earnings runs into a significant six-figure sum.

View Comment

ForresDeePosted on1:00 am - Dec 18, 2013


Paulsatim,

Your links broken.

So here it is here 🙂

http://dexpr.es/18xEASi

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on1:02 am - Dec 18, 2013


Cheers Forres!! 😳

View Comment

LUGOSI99Posted on1:10 am - Dec 18, 2013


I’ve only just looked at the Evening Times and while I smiled at the front page headline, “EX-RANGERS STAR RINO IN MATCH FIX PROBE” my jaw dropped when I turned to the back page, “THE BOYS IN BLUE ARE GERS’ FUTURE”. Leaving aside the question of whether the C.I.D. wear a uniform or not methinks whoever came up with this headline is due credit for wit, honesty and bravery. I hope that the author of the article does not need to publicly distance himself from the headline to avoid any flaming torch bearers turning up.

View Comment

killiemadPosted on6:08 am - Dec 18, 2013


I just watched another example of the lack of leadership for the average Rangers supporter. I do feel a little sorry for them. (Then they start talking…)

But Lee McCulloch was on Sky Sports News and said “…as captain, you’ve just got to hope things turn out ok”.

He must be related to Churchill.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:40 am - Dec 18, 2013


Tif Finn says: (1031)
December 17, 2013 at 11:30 pm
==============================
I do not know Chris Graham, but judging by his TV appearances and his Internet musings he appears to me to be someone who believes he is far more intelligent than he actually is. It has not helped that the media, especially STV, have offered him a platform and it is easy to see how that could go to a persons head. Frankly, some of the things he says, especially on Twitter, should be an embarrassment to him, but he rolls on regardless.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:45 am - Dec 18, 2013


GoosyGoosy says: (490)
December 17, 2013 at 11:11 pm
34 1 Rate This

Have I missed something?
Shareholders buy shares to make a profit. They don’t buy shares for any other reason.
======================================
Those grand sounding ‘institutional investors’ did not buy into the Ibrox club for any emotional reason. When some Celtic fans are critical of Dermot Desmond I always say careful what you wish for.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:50 am - Dec 18, 2013


weejie board says: (5)
December 17, 2013 at 11:00 pm
=====================================
Don’t disagree with anything that you say, but if they cared that much they would get the cash to get the current incumbents out the door, like Fergus McCann did at Celtic. Into the bargain, they keep publicly stating the amount of money that will roll into Rangers once they get control, so it really wouldn’t be a financial gamble. Simples – or do the requisitioners just talk p*sh?

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:02 am - Dec 18, 2013


Headlines from the Daily Record online sports section. I decided that whatever intelligence I have should not be insulted by clicking any of the links.
======================================
‘Rangers chief executive Graham Wallace says board supports Ally McCoist’s decision to give share proxy to supporters’

‘Paul Murray hails vote giveaway as he says club and fans must come first’

‘Rangers boss lauded by club’s legion of fans’

‘Former Rangers star Rino Gattuso ‘shocked’ as he is investigated over alleged involvement in match-fixing’

‘Sports Hotline on Celtic fans’ frustration’

View Comment

EstebanPosted on7:39 am - Dec 18, 2013


If, as the SMSM insist (to stop angry bears from bothering to turn up), it’s all a fait accompli, will the incumbents begin to refer to themselves as the Proxy Bears?

View Comment

FisianiPosted on8:03 am - Dec 18, 2013


How many spivs does it take to change a lightbulb?
Ten. One to change it and 9 to take $10,000 for watching.

View Comment

Night TerrorPosted on8:51 am - Dec 18, 2013


Tif Finn says: (1031)
December 18, 2013 at 12:10 am

Winning the third tier of Scottish senior football, whilst losing £1m a month and no business plan to improve that would be a tremendous result.

Do you really think they can pull that off, even with a 15/25 point deduction.

The idea that the Ibrox Xlub is bound for administration again, and that this somehow suits people in charge, has me perplexed.

The main benefit of administration is that you can rid yourself of debt that is strangling the business, but the Ibrox Xlub (typo the first time, but I like it) has no debt, as they are always proud to tell everyone.

The second benefit of admin is that you can shed a lot of staff or reduce their terms, but as that didn’t happen last time, and seemed a quite definite approach to keep the fans turning up, I’m not sure why it would happen in the event of a second unfortunate insolvency event.

Can anyone make the case for why admin would be beneficial to the Ibrox Xlub?

View Comment

Night TerrorPosted on8:54 am - Dec 18, 2013


Someone asked why The Requisitioners didn’t just buy the shares to get control of the company.

Three things occur – that they don’t have the money, they don’t want to spend the money on something that will not benefit the company, and that they don’t want to reward those who obtained the shares in the first place through whatever arrangements facilitated it. There were an awful lot of penny shares issued, after all.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:03 am - Dec 18, 2013


Night Terror says: (381)
December 18, 2013 at 8:54 am

Someone asked why The Requisitioners didn’t just buy the shares to get control of the company.

Three things occur – that they don’t have the money, they don’t want to spend the money on something that will not benefit the company, and that they don’t want to reward those who obtained the shares in the first place through whatever arrangements facilitated it. There were an awful lot of penny shares issued, after all.
===========================
Fair enough, but to still expect to gain control of the company with no shares is just plain daft!

View Comment

wottpiPosted on9:03 am - Dec 18, 2013


If, as reported the AGM is a settled affair, will we see the Institutional Investors that were supposidly behind the Requisitioners start dumping their shares for what ever they can get as soon as the lock in ends?
Maybe by say 2:30 tomorrow?
If they can get out today even better?

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on9:05 am - Dec 18, 2013


ernie says:
December 17, 2013 at 10:23 pm

However, we all need to treat this seriously and if that means that only sevco get off with it then so be it.
——
Ernie – the first part of that, and your overall sentiment, is entirely correct.

The second part shows why Scottish fitba, like Katie Morag’s bedroom, is an absolute midden.

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on9:10 am - Dec 18, 2013


Anyone for a last minute injunction to stop the AGM ?

Paul Murray, “If it has been leaked it can only have come from one of two places. Capita, who are collating the votes, or the Rangers board itself. Either way this is very unprofessional and we will be looking into it with our legal team in the morning.”

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on9:11 am - Dec 18, 2013


jimlarkin says: (699)
December 17, 2013 at 5:10 pm
19 3 Rate This

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?
============================================
Two possible reasons. The demand is equal to the supply or the price is actually pre-agreed.

If the former then it is someone who believes the share value will drop and is getting out while the going is good. Or it is someone who is still making a tidy profit having not paid the asking price at the time the shares were acquired.

If the latter could it be Mr Charles finally fulfilling his agreement with Laxey although why they would be listed in small chunks I do not know. The lock-in is over and the agreement published on the lse http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail.html?announcementId=11604587 did say that the shares would be “transferred soon after. No lse notification that Laxey have passed another threshold which the Green shares would certainly take them past.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on9:13 am - Dec 18, 2013


upthehoops says: (739)
December 18, 2013 at 9:03 am

Night Terror says: (381)
December 18, 2013 at 8:54 am

The question is really why did no person with a full dose of Rangerness come forward and blow Green out of the water by paying £6m or £7m for the assests and go along with HMRC and liquidate the oldco.

They had the chance to make a fresh new start but blew it. And therein lies the problem they now face.

Their desire to hang on to outdated ‘traditions’ and ‘history’ clouded their judgement.

Green, like any good conman spotted that weakness within the fans and, even though everyone else could see he changed his tune from one week to the next, played it for all it was worth and yet again they fell for it big time.

View Comment

GeordieJagPosted on9:16 am - Dec 18, 2013


Night Terror says: (381)
December 18, 2013 at 8:54 am
5 0 Rate This

Someone asked why The Requisitioners didn’t just buy the shares to get control of the company.

Three things occur – that they don’t have the money, they don’t want to spend the money on something that will not benefit the company, and that they don’t want to reward those who obtained the shares in the first place through whatever arrangements facilitated it. There were an awful lot of penny shares issued, after all.
______________
A fourth option is that even at around 35 pence a pop, they think the business is grossly overvalued.

View Comment

Night TerrorPosted on9:22 am - Dec 18, 2013


@wottpi
Can’t argue with that as an account of what happened, but it doesn’t really help or explain the current situation.

Most companies, offered investment (as opposed to share buying) would jump at that offer if it was a choice between that and admin. Your shares aren’t worth much in admin.

I see it as just another aspect of the current board & owners holding the club/company to ransom, and the requisitioners being unwilling to pay it. I would have some sympathy if I wasn’t enjoying the show so much.

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on9:24 am - Dec 18, 2013


I love a good abbreviated headline in the morning. This from http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Sport/Football/Scottish+League+One/Rangers

Rangers agm: Former chairman Alastair Johnston prays for an end to Ibrox… Daily Record 08:47

View Comment

andygraham.66Posted on9:41 am - Dec 18, 2013


The DR have done a piece today where one hack has changed the words to “we didn’t start the fire” adding in all the shady characters of the last three years. The point of it all once you reach the end is to highlight how McCoist stands as as a beacon above all of these fly-by-nights

McCoist is the shadiest spiv of them all, the hooded claw if you like

Sadly few bears see this,the most abuse he has taken these last 18 months was over failure on the park last year when in fact it should be over the fact that he convinced fans each guy who has appeared is not only worthy of a digestive with their tea but also someone to trust. Also, of course his wages and share price buy in, a whopping 69p short of the 70 those fans he asked to trust Chuck, paid.

View Comment

Araminta Moonbeam QCPosted on9:43 am - Dec 18, 2013


Just seen a tweet saying Whyte has lost v Ticketus at High Court. He’ll be needing to flog Ibrox now, eh?

View Comment

neepheidPosted on10:04 am - Dec 18, 2013


I understand that Whyte has until 3rd January to lodge an appeal against the High Court decision. He must surely be running out of cash to fund all this litigation?

Assuming he doesn’t appeal, he now needs to turn his attention to enforcing his claim to Ibrox. There is nothing more dangerous than a wounded animal, and I don’t think Whyte is the type to just go quietly. We might be in for a flurry of new audio clips. I want to hear the ones involving Sir David Murray- those must be absolute dynamite.

View Comment

saskya1888Posted on10:11 am - Dec 18, 2013


It seems that anything goes now just to keep The Rangers in the news.
Surely to god we don’t have to suffer another 2 years of this torturous bull before they are “back in their rightful place”?

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on10:31 am - Dec 18, 2013


saskya1888 on December 18, 2013 at 10:11 am
$$$$$.
Not if CW gets started!!!

View Comment

100BJDPosted on10:36 am - Dec 18, 2013


Madbhoy24941 says: (337)

December 17, 2013 at 9:50 pm

32

7

Rate This

Quantcast

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.
———————————————————————————————————————————————

The difference here is that Moffat has not been charged with betting AGAINST his own team whereas Black did…seven times. The SFA have only got to spend a couple of days on players twitter and facebook accounts and there will be no league football in Scotland. £5 accumulators with his mates on twitter are not quite in the same league as the other SFA rules that have got blown away.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on11:06 am - Dec 18, 2013


Who would have thought that the SFA treading gentle around Sevco and the horde would have come back to bite them…

so, what to do, what to do

Do they hammer a lower league player for betting on matches (a slightly lesser crime than black who bet against his own team…in games which he participated) which would open them up to (further) accusations of bias

or do they let him off with a slap on the wrists…..undermining the laws of the game further and providing no deterrent effect whatsoever – confirming they are unfit to govern the game.

What i found refreshing today though was listening to SSB podcast this morning as I walked the dog….fraser wishart going on about how the rules were clear, no need for them to be restated, players were aware and it was pretty simple stuff…..pundits agreeing that there was no ambiguity……but, wheres Ally saying they don’t know the rules, it’s not clear, we all need to sit down and discuss it?

Moffats crimes are minor compared to Blacks, the SFA cannot justifiably give him an equivalent or harsher punishment. – however, for the good of the game they really should.

But, if they do, I hope he takes them all the way over it – and i hope someone loses their job over it.

SFA – unfit for purpose. They HAVE to go.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:07 am - Dec 18, 2013


wottpi says: (1330)
December 18, 2013 at 9:13 am

upthehoops says: (739)
December 18, 2013 at 9:03 am

Night Terror says: (381)
December 18, 2013 at 8:54 am

The question is really why did no person with a full dose of Rangerness come forward and blow Green out of the water by paying £6m or £7m for the assests and go along with HMRC and liquidate the oldco.

====================
3 reasons

I genuinely wonder if it is because those with true rangersness feared that they could never sell the liquidated but not dead routine in the same dead pan double glazing salesman way that the completely unemotional, unconnected Charlie managed.

Secondly, since it was going to go to liquidation anyway so they might as well get it cheap – it is after all being liquidated. Charlie then stole the march on them and slipped in a wee lock-down guarantee. The scamp.

Finally, the Whyte Green Axis is proven. I’ve never been surer that there wasn’t a separate Murray times three axis – call it the brogues, the establishment, whatever – in the background who were promised the club once the spivs had had their fun (and debt free in the SPL no doubt). They just didn’t bank on the skill-set of the particular spivs in question. They will get it back (well it might have had another administration first and the balance sheet will be easier calculated than before, none of those pesky property revaluations to deal with) but get it back they will. And it’ll still be losing money. Oh, and it’ll want feeding, big time!

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on11:13 am - Dec 18, 2013


Was Moffat one of those on Ally’s list of hundreds ?

And is the this the result of the SFA working down that list ?

View Comment

EstebanPosted on11:27 am - Dec 18, 2013


Another option for the Brogue Males would be to say they have realised Sevco isn’t the club they loved and that they will set up a new club that will be a genuinely new embodiment of the old, old club and that Sevco is a sham. They can trot out the old ‘we were duped’ line.

If they are going to have to rent a ground and beg the bears to rally round, they might as well start now and save some time. Yes, they would have to start in their genuine “rightful place”, the Jackie Scarlett Cup and what not, but at least any cash they raise won’t just line the pockets of the Proxy Bears.

If I had been a fan of Rangers, I think I would view this ‘FC United of Manchester’ scenario as the least bad outcome. FC United of Manchester were only founded in 2005 and are already at level seven of the complicated England and Wales pyramid. It has been a success.

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on11:32 am - Dec 18, 2013


Esteban says: (57)
December 18, 2013 at 11:27 am

————————————————————————————————————————————–
Esteban – it had crossed my mind that if the Gang of Four had been elected (quiet at the back) then they might have tried that one – as in “oh my golly gosh – look at the state of these accounts and these contracts, what a disgrace we’ve been raped and pillaged and we now have no honourable choice but to start afresh. . . .”

View Comment

EstebanPosted on11:38 am - Dec 18, 2013


m.c.f.c. says: (48)
December 18, 2013 at 11:32 am

Yes, and if they now have to leave with nothing, they might still say that. They might feel they have nothing to lose. They might be right.

I have honestly never understood why people like Paul Murray (who must be in the know) appear so attached to Sevco.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:43 am - Dec 18, 2013


Esteban,

I do believe that’s the armageddon to which Regan was really referring.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on11:43 am - Dec 18, 2013


I see Wee Craigy Whyte has lost his appeal and has to hand over £17.6M to Ticketus….

however, isn’t the great internet bampot conspiracy that Ticketus are behind Stockbridge/Imran/Zeus and are already getting paid via various means

so, what does this really mean?

Have ticketus been getting cash back via other routes?
Or does craigy now move to claim teh proeprty assets (via Wavetower) and pass them onto Ticketus – and will that satisfy the debt?

Or, is craigy about to be declared a bankrupt and Charlie Green has really duped him and pocketed the assets for his own gain?

it’s getting hard to keep up.

View Comment

erniePosted on11:43 am - Dec 18, 2013


Angus1983 says: (1295)
December 18, 2013 at 9:05 am
5 0 Rate This

ernie says:
December 17, 2013 at 10:23 pm

However, we all need to treat this seriously and if that means that only sevco get off with it then so be it.
——
Ernie – the first part of that, and your overall sentiment, is entirely correct.

The second part shows why Scottish fitba, like Katie Morag’s bedroom, is an absolute midden.
=================================
Quite right Angus. I admit to being somewhat contentious but, in my defence (Lots of TD’s!!) it was meant to leave a lot unsaid for the sake of brevity. Like most of us I’m disgusted by the whole charade around the treatment of sevco versus others. My somewhat altruistic point remains that we shouldn’t go down to their level. I live in hope that it will all come out in the wash although I suspect it will be too little too late.
Anyway, i hope the punting Ayr Utd man gets treated fairly.

View Comment

cowanpetePosted on11:46 am - Dec 18, 2013


This sickens me.
Celtic postponed an SPFL match so they could extend their winter break.
Only so they could disappear to Turkey and play two friendlies in some mid-season “tournament”. [ I suggested something like this would happen in my original post 2 weeks ago…]
Talk about pishing over the already-low reputation of scottish football.
Kilmarnock FC should be ashamed that they agreed to postpone the fixture.
And the SPFL should be ashamed of themselves allowing clubs to postpone fixtures during the season.
Next up – Celtic propose to move the Scottish Cup Final to Dublin or Boston?
Aye, bring on the TDs.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on12:04 pm - Dec 18, 2013


cowanpete says: (38)
December 18, 2013 at 11:46 am
==========================
It’s the rules, so live with it. If you’re looking for something to sicken you try and look at the rule breaking that has gone on this past year, and none of it involves Celtic

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on12:15 pm - Dec 18, 2013


upthehoops says: (740)
December 18, 2013 at 12:04 pm
2 2 Rate Up

cowanpete says: (38)
December 18, 2013 at 11:46 am
==========================
It’s the rules, so live with it. If you’re looking for something to sicken you try and look at the rule breaking that has gone on this past year, and none of it involves Celtic

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

UTH

it is the rules……so fair enough eh?

of course, Celtic are within their RIGHTS to do it, but it doesn’t make it right.

Celtic are on a collision course this year to pi55 off as many of its fans as it can it would seem

the whole green Brigade fiasco, cancelling fixtures at (reasonably) short notice – after folk may have already made travel/accommodation plans, a poor attempt at competing in the CL with late and inadequate signings (on the back of a record year of sales too)

And it is the second time it has been done this year – with a league game in august against st mirren put on the back burner so they could paly liverpool in Dublin.

But, they are the rules – maybe not good cusomter relations, but within the rules.

my point is the rules suck big time….initially, this was a one off as a friendly had already been arranged and the league started earlier than normal – so , it was meant ot be a one off where a game could be cancelled to play a “pre season” (clue in the title) friendly match

then it appears to have become ok on an ongoing basis – and now we have winter breaks too.

it makes a mockery of the league and is a hassle to fans.

play your preseason glamour ties before the league starts, give the league some respect and play the fixtures, if you want glamour friendlies in the winter, have a winter break – god knows the fans, families and pitches need a rest anyway.

Alternatively, bin playing in the league altogether and become a footballing harlem Globe trotters – as that is the way it’s going.

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on12:27 pm - Dec 18, 2013


So as I understand it, in April the judge (High Court master) agreed with Ticketus that Whyte could not put up a reasonable defence against their claim for £17mil and so he made a summary judgement in favour of Ticketus. That is, Whyte you’ve lost the case before you start – don’t waste our time – pay up. Whyte has just lost his appeal to over turn that summary judgement and now has one more chance to appeal. If he wins the second appeal he gets to contest the Ticketus claim in court giving evidence, under oath, about his takeover of Rangers and no doubt the duping of David Murray.

Personally, I would love to hear that. But, is Craig of sound mind ? My guess is he would lose the £17mil anyway and run a very high risk of getting himself banged up for perjury – not to mention enraging the masses all over again – but boy could he drag down some big names if he chose to – just imagine the witnesses he would call to give evidence – under oath.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on12:33 pm - Dec 18, 2013


Tom English having a wee online chat about tomorrows AGM – NOW

http://www.scotsman.com/webchats

View Comment

weejie boardPosted on12:43 pm - Dec 18, 2013


upthehoops says:
Fair enough, but to still expect to gain control of the company with no shares is just plain daft!
=========================

Whether the requisitioners actually have enough money to gain control of the shares, and thus the boardroom, is unknown to most except themselves. However if they do have enough money, they must be very nervous indeed about actually investing that money. Even if the current consortium were to be happy enough with the offered price to sell them sufficient shares to take control, the requisitioners could be walking into a huge heap of trouble and could well even lose the money they’ve just invested. They don’t currently know exactly how bad a state the company is in, and how it will be left when the consortium packs up and leaves. If liquidation takes place, they lose it all. No wonder they haven’t ploughed their money in yet.

This is why they have been trying, unsuccessfully, to persuade institutional investors to back representation of at least one of their number on the board. They need to have a look at those books, and I mean a very good look. If this doesn’t happen, they can’t take the gamble to invest. They’ve been trying to get representation on the board, and thus have access, without taking the risk of adequate share ownership.

Which makes tomorrow interesting. Several commentators have suggested that as a PR sop, the consortium will vote one of the requisitioners onto the board. Very unlikely in my opinion. They don’t want any of these guys in the door. I expect business as usual tomorrow, with some PR sops being delivered, but not that particular one.

View Comment

ShooperbPosted on12:44 pm - Dec 18, 2013


It seems a low profile story at the moment, given the other shenanigans that are occupying the headlines, but I can’t help butI think that if the story of Alexander going through the courts to claim his ‘increase in wage after Mcgregor leaves’ contract shortfall is true, then this could rapidly turn into something more substantial?

Presumably, if the decision were to go his way, that’s more money pouring out of the TRFC coffers, and if it doesn’t, then I’m assuming it’s because TRFC will have offered the defence of ‘We’re not that Rangers, or rather, we are sometimes, but on this occasion definitely not, no sirree.’

Whilst I’m in scattergun mode, I also noticed that the BBC story on Craig Whyte losing the ticketus case seems to suggest that he used the money to buy the club? Seriously, he got 17.5 million in debt over one pound? Blimey, and I thought Wonga were bad?!?

View Comment

andygraham.66Posted on12:55 pm - Dec 18, 2013


The interesting point in that Tom English chat is the fact that one of the requistioners knows who blue pitch and the pizza topping are so why does Paul Murray not just ask his namesake

Award for best online name in it goes to mark from Dingwall

View Comment

EstebanPosted on1:02 pm - Dec 18, 2013


Sevco share price down 0.50 to 34.50.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:10 pm - Dec 18, 2013


normanbatesmumfc says: (49)
and ferguslayedthe blues.
December 17, 2013 at 4:08 pm
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?
=============================================
I doubt avoiding the impact of failing to meet UEFA rules was a prime driver which was keeping Rangers alive in Scottish football for fear of losing a large section of the paying customers.

Licensing and Membership are terms often used interchangeably as if they are the same thing when they do not and it can cause confusion.

On Licensing:
UEFA set the standard for national associations and insist that teams in top tiers of leagues meet UEFA FFP standards to be eligible to play in UEFA competitions. The rules and criteria are specifically set out on UEFA FFP 2012 (an update on 2010).

Clubs in lower tiers however have to abide by the standard the national association deems necessary. In Scotland it is called National Club Licensing. Like UEFA licensing it has rules and criteria although a bit less rigorous in degree and scope than UEFA FFP.

Whilst clubs cannot play in a UEFA competition without meeting the licensing standard, there is more discretion under National Club licensing with a number of levels from Gold down to Entry Level. The idea is that standards are set, criteria to verify standards against are set out and if a club fails to meet the Entry standard it is given time to comply, but ultimately, at the discretion of the Licensing Board, a licence could be refused leading to cessation of playing.

However a club would have to behead at least 10 referees and not be contrite to suffer that fate. I exaggerate but in short football, in Scotland anyway, wants to keep football clubs alive, otherwise there is no one to play against.

On SFA Membership
Now had the normal course of events taken place new “Rangers“who had no SPL place or SPL share , it having gone to Dundee, would have become an Associate Members of the SFL and had 14 days to thereafter to apply for Associate Membership of the SFA (and after 5 years been able to apply for full membership, except reconstruction has changed that.)

What happened is that Article 14 of SFA Articles came into play which, whilst it prohibits a transfer of membership nevertheless allows any other application for transfer of membership to be reviewed by the SFA Board which will have complete discretion to reject or grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.

I reckon that it was this complete power of discretion that gave the SFA the authority not only to enable a transfer by allowing D&P or C Greene to apply for one, but to also set up the 5 way agreement. They could of course have said apply as a new club for Associate SFA Membership after joining the SFL, but the transfer and 5 way agreement discussions probably took place earlier against a background of staying in the SPL. Nevertheless that is what could have happened had SFA not been intent on keeping Rangers alive and I can understand why that would be their priority.

UEFA have no such concerns in terms of UEFA competitions. They say you can be a member of your national association, but if you fail OUR licencing criteria which does not recognise a transfer of membership and is there to protect the integrity of UEFA competitions, you are not allowed to play in a UEFA football competition.

Ironically Both UEFA and SFA have the same aim which is to protect the game they are charged with governing..

The difference is UEFA think this can best be done by removing cheating, the SFA think our game can only be saved by indulging in it.

View Comment

iamacantPosted on1:11 pm - Dec 18, 2013


Araminta Moonbeam QC says: (25)
December 18, 2013 at 9:43 am

Just seen a tweet saying Whyte has lost v Ticketus at High Court. He’ll be needing to flog Ibrox now, eh?
————————————————————————————————————————————-

I wonder if we’ll see a new flurry of documents and taped conversations from her ladyship?

View Comment

FinlochPosted on1:14 pm - Dec 18, 2013


I’ve just been on the Scotsman web discussion hosted by Tom English.
Been there for about 40 mins.
I’d say he is working to a very narrow brief and none of the questions he accepts and then answers are big picture stuff.
I’d say it was a waste of everyone’s time.

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on1:19 pm - Dec 18, 2013


andygraham.66 says: (84)
December 18, 2013 at 9:41 am
The DR have done a piece today where one hack has changed the words to “we didn’t start the fire” adding in all the shady characters of the last three years. The point of it all once you reach the end is to highlight how McCoist stands as as a beacon above all of these fly-by-nights
______________________________________________

No DR hack is capable of having an original thought –

http://celticparanoia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/we-didnt-pay-our-taxes-by-billy-nowell.html

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on1:34 pm - Dec 18, 2013


wottpi says: (1330)
December 18, 2013 at 9:03 am

If, as reported the AGM is a settled affair, will we see the Institutional Investors that were supposidly behind the Requisitioners start dumping their shares for what ever they can get as soon as the lock in ends? Maybe by say 2:30 tomorrow? If they can get out today even better?
=================================================================
My understanding is that the institutional investors who purchased their shares at the RIFC Plc flotation were only locked-in for 6 months which passed back in June.

I have serious doubts that there is any significant amount of locked-in shares unless it is connected with the original investors in Sevco 5088 via Sevco Scotland via TRFCL and thence to RIFC Plc. Basically the punters who got the 1p shares.

Sadly because Rangers have been allowed to escape providing a full Annual Return for TRFCL by Companies House in breach of the law IMO then it is impossible to establish the truth.

Much is said about the mysterious Margarita Trust but what everyone seems to forget – including the fearless and intrepid Scottish journos – is that the minutes of the TRFCL Board Meeting dated 31 October 2012 show that the 2.8 million shares involved had been transferred and registered in the name of ATP Investmentrs Ltd.

This is a piece of info that would have been revealed in the ‘missing’ full Annual Return for TRFCL along with many other gems no doubt.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on1:39 pm - Dec 18, 2013


BBC are reporting on the Whyte v Ticketus result

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-25429575

Ex Rangers owner Craig Whyte loses £17m Ticketus appeal

Former Rangers owner Craig Whyte has lost an appeal over a court ruling that he must pay £17.6m to a ticketing firm.

Ticketus provided funds for Mr Whyte to buy the club under a deal which would see it paid back from ticket sales.

When Rangers entered administration the deal was terminated.

Ticketus then sued Mr Whyte, claiming he had not disclosed details such as a previous disqualification from serving as a director. Mr Whyte’s appeal against the ruling has been rejected.

Ticketus provided nearly £27m to help Mr Whyte purchase Rangers more than two years ago.

The agreement was later terminated when the club entered administration in February 2012.

Ticketus said Mr Whyte fraudulently or negligently made representations which induced the company to enter into agreements related to the sale or purchase of Rangers season tickets, and claimed damages.

The firm sought £17.6m – the value of what it invested. The £9m difference was made up by the profit Ticketus expected to make if the club was successful in meeting season ticket sales targets.

In April a High Court master ruled against Mr Whyte prior to a trial after Ticketus argued that the former Rangers boss had “no real prospect” of mounting a successful defence.

The master ordered Mr Whyte to pay £17.6m.

Lawyers for Mr Whyte appealed and argued that the master’s decision to grant a “summary judgment” had been unfair.

They said the case should be allowed to go to trial and said Mr Whyte had a “realistic” defence.

Deputy High Court Judge David Halpern QC heard evidence and legal argument at the High Court in London in November before rejecting Mr Whyte’s appeal on Wednesday.

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

As previously noted by someone, he actually paid £1 to buy the club. The Ticketus money was used to buy it’s debt (with floating charge) from Lloyds.

The former made him Rangers’ owner, the latter made him it’s major creditor. A position not too different to the RIFC / TRFC relationship.

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on1:42 pm - Dec 18, 2013


Will TRFC fans return to away ground when they get to the top league, thus bringing back the millions of pounds they spent before?

Apparently many of them at RM will, in a continued effort to make friends on their “journey”:

“I’m going to love every fucken moment of going to Tannadice and pumping them, going to Pittodrie, full of pure poison and putting them back in their place, going to Easter road, full of hate and shutting the bastards up. Fucken love it. ”

🙄

View Comment

Galling fiverPosted on1:44 pm - Dec 18, 2013


NTHM

I like to have a look back at the big picture from timt to time, to try and differentiate what is, and what is not part of the script devised long ago by the Oldclub.

We all know, that our hero was hand picked to take a fall and get operation dump the debt off and running, are we to believe he is to walk away with nothing, or worse, he is to walk away with a £17M debt and like it. I suspect that £17M debt will disappear if it ever existed and CraigyBhoy will have to settle for what he was promised from day one. I suspect he feels duped by the level of heat he actually encountered and therefore feels he should be getting more out the deal. Or maybe he is in a way, since he owns a firm racking up fees in court, I think. But what ever his original role and bonus was, I suspect he’s done, with only some smoke and mirrors to be added to the cause.

I am looking forward to the UTTT, as I believe that is as close to a reality that cannot be manipulated as we are going to get, that’s why Minty is gone, Rangers are gone and CO is still here. If that also fails to deliver on a nuclear scale, its time to move on, to another sport in another country. I’m fussy who gets my hard earned contributions.

New Chairman on Friday, what odds will I get on that?

View Comment

hamemadesoupPosted on2:02 pm - Dec 18, 2013


Esteban says: (59)
December 18, 2013 at 1:02 pm
2 0 Rate This

Sevco share price down 0.50 to 34.50

———————————

The AGM and winter break will ensure the plummet continues .

10p a share by Burn’s night ?

View Comment

cowanpetePosted on2:08 pm - Dec 18, 2013


upthehoops says: (740)
December 18, 2013 at 12:04 pm
cowanpete says: (38)
December 18, 2013 at 11:46 am
==========================
It’s the rules, so live with it. If you’re looking for something to sicken you try and look at the rule breaking that has gone on this past year, and none of it involves Celtic
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
1. I agree with you, it’s the “rules”. One of many rules in Scottish Football which makes no sense.
2. Re this: “try and look at the rule breaking that has gone on this past year” I am glad you are there to advise me what I should and should not be doing with my life. 🙂

It’s my birthday tomorrow so I’m being charitable. I genuinely do look forward to the day when Celtic leave scottish football and move into some other football league / championship / organisation. It’s going to happen, and it will be a good thing for Celtic FC and for scottish football as a whole. I said I was being charitable not necessarily sensible 🙂

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on2:37 pm - Dec 18, 2013


From TopBhoy on CM

OMG, they have no chance!

Originally Posted by Del View Post
Every bear intending to do so should also use their right under the Data Protection Act to have your details removed from the company database.

Bumping our gums will make a statement they might ignore.

When we demand they remove our names, addresses and most importantly bank details from their clutches the only way to tempt us back will be by convincing us by positive actions. No more direct letters, no more season ticket renewals, no more direct emails, no more direct marketing, no more pre recorded messages from players.

By removing your details you are making a real statement. They are relying on you chapping their door again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigster View Post
sounds like a plan mate , is it just a simple phone call or a registered letter ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Del View Post
No idea

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on2:59 pm - Dec 18, 2013


Andy Newport ‏@Andythemod9 6m
On PA wires: Dave King has urged the current Ibrox regime to offer an “olive branch” to fans by inviting rival Paul Murray onto the board.

Andy Newport ‏@Andythemod9 6m
On PA wires: King also says he is eager to return to board role at Ibrox, saying: “Absolutely, absolutely. More than keen.”

=======

So DK still thinks he can waltz back in.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on3:01 pm - Dec 18, 2013


Re the BBC article.

Is it normal practise for a lender to forward their profit on the deal as part of the loan, and then seek repayment of the original sum plus the profit back?

In which case, can I get a mortgage pronto please?

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on3:03 pm - Dec 18, 2013


http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/rangers-cleared-over-most-successful-slogan-1-3238134

Why let truth get in the way of a ”slogan”.

Another member of the establishment does his bit for the establishment team.
Well done there, sir phillip, but you can’t fool us !

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on3:11 pm - Dec 18, 2013


jimlarkin says: (700)
December 18, 2013 at 3:03 pm

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

Fear not – The Four Accountants of the Apocalypse will be along soon enough 🙂

View Comment

EstebanPosted on3:30 pm - Dec 18, 2013


Down again to 34 pence. Wooft.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on4:01 pm - Dec 18, 2013


nowoldandgrumpy says: (756)
December 18, 2013 at 2:59 pm

So DK still thinks he can waltz back in.
==================================
Well, there’s zero chance the SFA will stop him, that’s for sure.

View Comment

scottcPosted on4:14 pm - Dec 18, 2013


cowanpete says: (39)
December 18, 2013 at 11:46 am
115 42 Rate This

This sickens me.
Celtic postponed an SPFL match so they could extend their winter break.
Only so they could disappear to Turkey and play two friendlies in some mid-season “tournament”. [ I suggested something like this would happen in my original post 2 weeks ago…]
Talk about pishing over the already-low reputation of scottish football.
Kilmarnock FC should be ashamed that they agreed to postpone the fixture.
And the SPFL should be ashamed of themselves allowing clubs to postpone fixtures during the season.
Next up – Celtic propose to move the Scottish Cup Final to Dublin or Boston?
Aye, bring on the TDs.

What is the actual rule in play here? I understood that each team was permitted to postpone ONE match in this manner but Celtic already did that when they played Liverpool at the start of the season.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on4:14 pm - Dec 18, 2013


Let me get this right.

The people wanting onto the board are absolutely adamant that it should be a democratic process. So much so that they went to the Court of Session to insist that their names were put forward for the shareholders to vote on.

Now King is saying if Paul Murray is not wanted by the shareholders he should just be invited onto the board anyway.

Quality.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on4:24 pm - Dec 18, 2013


Tif Finn says: (1033)
December 18, 2013 at 4:14 pm

You forget that the nature of the beast is to throw the rule book out when it suits them, forget what you said 5 minutes ago and whistle a different tune every time the wind changes direction.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on4:53 pm - Dec 18, 2013


nowoldandgrumpy says: (756)
December 18, 2013 at 2:59 pm
8 0 Rate This

Andy Newport ‏@Andythemod9 6m
On PA wires: Dave King has urged the current Ibrox regime to offer an “olive branch” to fans by inviting rival Paul Murray onto the board.

Andy Newport ‏@Andythemod9 6m
On PA wires: King also says he is eager to return to board role at Ibrox, saying: “Absolutely, absolutely. More than keen.”

=======

So DK still thinks he can waltz back in.
————

There’s something very Blackadderish about all this. King and Murray resemble Melchett & Darling trying to cajole the men before The Big Push — or as Edmund would say, “Another chance to get your bank book blown to smithereens for (quintessential) Britain.”

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on5:00 pm - Dec 18, 2013


isn’t it time for Celtic FC to assert its claim to be the most successful club in Scotland – and let the courts decide the facts if necessary – rather than tacitly accepting the poorly researched, contradictory nonsense from a mealy-mouthed quango.

Anyone game for a wee bit of mischeif at Park Head ?

View Comment

Comments are closed.