Peace – Not War

ByTrisidium

Peace – Not War

We normally don’t talk about on-field stuff on SFM, but given the over-optimistic coverage of the prospects of TRFC (particularly in the ESJ © The Clumpany  and DR) it is worth noting that since they beat Celtic on penalties in last year’s Scottish Cup semi final, they have played in four huge games which were real barometers of progress ;

  • Hibs in the Scottish Cup Final: 2-3
  • Celtic in the Premiership: 1-5
  • Aberdeen in the Premiership: 1-2
  • Celtic in the League Cup Semi-Final: 0-1

On each occasion, they have failed the test, not only by failing to get a result, but by being second best in most on-field departments.

The point is not one of wider Schadenfreude, or even an in-depth critique of the abilities of the team or manager, but of how the TRFC board and the MSM, in falsely inflating their side’s prospects, do a disservice to TRFC fans. Aided and abetted it seems by the manager who – even allowing for the positive spin managers need to put on things post defeat – is refusing to accept reality.

We often talk about turnover as the yardstick by which performance can be (roughly) measured. If that were the only yardstick, one would expect TRFC to be right up there with Celtic. But it is more complicated than that. For Celtic and TRFC, there are massive overheads (e.g. stadium costs) that have to be dealt with and taken out of the equation before Glasgow apples can be compared with Aberdeen and Edinburgh varieties.

Even allowing for that it seems pretty clear to me that TRFC have more disposable income (for spending on players and contracts) than Hearts or Aberdeen for example, but the gap is now not as great as raw turnover figures would suggest  – and the margins are probably slim enough that they can be easily blurred by managers at other clubs who have a good grasp of tactics, an eye for a player, and a proper understanding of football psychology.

To compound the problem for TRFC, there are two rather large eggs in the TRFC transfer basket which are now cracked or broken.  A dangerous waste of resources in fact. Whether it was Warburton or King who went to the market for Barton and Kranjčar is irrelevant. More relevant is the reason marquee signings like these were made.

Once a manager is recruited, you stay out of his domain

Yes, Barton’s signature in particular has used a huge chunk of the already scant budget, and that is a real blow to the manager’s planning, but the real problem is that the club has deliberately pushed fan expectations skyward, all of which is counter-intuitive given the rough calculations in the preceding paragraphs. More worryingly for Rangers fans, the board’s own expectations for the playing side are unrealistically high – and given the business expertise contained therein, puzzlingly so.

TRFC is a focal point for tens of thousands of people. The people who run the club are also influential opinion formers and how they set the tone for those thousands is important.

Tub-rattling, dog-whistling, and the WATP mentality have been employed almost exclusively thus far in the ‘journey’. All of which may have rallied the troops and provided a welcome injection of funds, but it also antagonised almost every football fan in the country who wasn’t a Rangers follower. And in view of how those funds (including the £21m IPO) seemingly disappeared into the ether, did it really help the club realise any ambitions going forward?

TRFC are looking up at the north face of a financial Eiger today

I can’t help feeling that had they been replaced with humility, some regret, and gratitude to those who smoothed their path into the leagues, then the view from the club deck would a lot more attractive today than it is.

The journey could have been an expansive one bent on winning friends along the way, clearly differentiating itself from the Murray era, and carrying assurances that the new Rangers would never treat the game in Scotland as shabbily as its predecessor.

Seems intuitively obvious to me that a mission statement like the following would win hearts and minds;

“The latter-day custodians of Rangers have destroyed our club and shamed its traditions of sporting integrity, fair play, and honest endeavour.

“However the ethos and identity of our club will not be allowed to slip into obscurity.

“We will build a club worthy of the traditions of sporting integrity and fair play. It will be open and accessible to people of all colours, creeds and nationalities,

“It will be a long journey, but it is one which we relish, and one which will in time restore Rangers to the upper echelons of the game“

Managing expectations realistically with a ‘we are thankful to keep the Rangers name alive’ would have played better with the bears.

I don’t believe there is a football fan in the world who wouldn’t sign up to that had they found their club in the same circumstances as 2011 Rangers. I don’t believe that Rangers fans are any different either, but the problem is that their moral compass is being calibrated by people whose past records make them least qualified for the task.

Instead of a plan to win Scottish football over, we got boycotts, victim-hood, denial, and that wonderful new oxymoronic idiom, post-liquidation. Really though, it should all have been so different.

Water bills notwithstanding, TRFC are looking up at the north face of a financial Eiger today, but they chose to climb an Eiger instead of a Munro, and they sold false hope and snake oil to the fans on the way.

They have no money with which to recruit players of sufficient quality to challenge at the top. They are facing a massive bill for repairs and maintenance of a stadium that has atrophied under six or seven years of neglect. They have similar infrastructure problems at their training ground. They need to build a scouting infrastructure which currently consists of one man and several local volunteers. Their income from merchandising is non-existent due to a testicles-drawn dispute with Sports Direct. They owe several millions of pounds of soft loans which they cannot convert to equity because of that same dispute, and the people they have gone back to again and again for top-up finance have ever shortening arms and lengthening pockets.

.. we understand the value that Rangers can bring to the to the Scottish game and we want it to be realised.

Miracles of course do happen, perhaps in the shape of a magician manager who can get them access to European cash almost immediately. Unless that comes to pass, there is no way forward for Dave King and his board, other than to make peace immediately with Sports Direct and actually stump up the cash he promised two years ago; cash he promised to bridge the resources gap which is widening by the week.

A widely accepted wisdom in many football boardrooms these days is that the main recruitment priority of any board is an excellent manager. A really good manager can make a team out of ordinary players, but a poor manager will have difficulty sculpting a winning side from even very good players.  So in a club with limited resources, it makes sense to spend a major part of your budget on a very good manager.

Another widely accepted wisdom in boardrooms (even if not always followed) is that once a manager is recruited, you stay out of his domain.

The boardroom at Ibrox is not awash with wisdom it seems. First of all they put their faith in a manager with little or no experience in the game. That may well have worked out with a bit of good fortune, but does anyone really believe, after his disappearing act in the wake of the Cup Final defeat and his absence at the Barton signing conference, that Mark Warburton is master of his own domain?

If not, does the ‘come hither’ curled finger of fate attached to Jimmy Traynor’s hand at last week’s press conference convince you?

I would guess that there are at least half a dozen experienced managers with a track record of success who would relish the challenge of putting TRFC on the map at the opportunity cost of a Barton for example. Instead it seems – if the rumours are true – that Warburton’s autonomy was breached so that said Joey could be hired to boost ST sales.

No group of fans is entitled to expect success. Rangers fans, and Celtic fans, have historically come to expect that very thing. It is understandable to some extent, but it should never be confused with an actual entitlement to success – and that is what the board at Ibrox are selling to the fans in return for their cash – which as we have seen is not being converted to the promised on-field successes.

the ‘come hither’ curled finger of fate attached to Jimmy Traynor’s hand should convince us that Warburton is not his own master

To a large extent, I think some of the online comments in fan sites in the wake of the Celtic match have been sensible and mature. Reality amongst Rangers fans is at last beginning to bite, and that can only be a good thing for TRFC. Rangers fans are beginning to understand that too many liberties have been taken with their loyalty to and love of the jersey. The problem for the fans is that whilst they come to terms with what may be a realistic timetable and roadmap towards success and parity with the top clubs, the current board and their chums in the press are invested in having them believe the opposite.

Already the cheerleaders in the red tops are proclaiming their ‘gulf-denial’ credentials in the hope that enough fans will be convinced of it. The problem is that the fans know the gulf exists – and not only that does exist, but it is unrealistic to expect it not to.

The Level5 effect is wearing off. In the past five years, £21m quid in investment, £6m in loans, and five years worth of ST sales have all come and gone. Will Rangers fans really do those sums, observe that in each of the four milestone matches mentioned at the beginning of this article there is nothing to show for it, and agree that there is nothing to concern them?

Rangers fans will no doubt call us obsessed to produce an article like this – about them. But football is uniquely interdependent – we all need each other. It is a game where we benefit from the traditions, the colour and the fanaticism of rivals. The fact is that we understand the value that Rangers can bring to the to the Scottish game and we want it to be realised.

Sadly though, the current people in charge at the club are people who revel in making war on fellow clubs and business partners as well as the national broadcaster and BT Sport. They have also failed to deliver on promises of investment and success to their own fans, and escaped press scrutiny of that failure. Whilst they are there, we see only division in Scottish football with no coming together possible for generations.

I believe that the vast majority of fans who love Rangers, like the rest of us, have had enough of a war on too many fronts to count. It’s time to make peace – with everyone. Football in this country can’t be fixed until that happens.

About the author

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

1,368 Comments so far

upthehoopsPosted on9:04 pm - Nov 20, 2016


Interesting latest article from Phil McG. 

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-grail-knights-of-planet-fitba-go-forth/

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:11 pm - Nov 20, 2016


sunnyjimNovember 20, 2016 at 19:21
“….They hadn’t done so for at least 11 years, and any plausible deniability they had for the WTC/DOS scheme had evaporated with the 26 Nov 2010 HMRC letter”
_____________
I just love that word  ‘evaporated….’  in your excellent post,sunnyjim.
It sort of makes me think  wistfully of ‘insubstantial essences’, ‘manifestations’, the ‘what-it’s-all-aboutnesses’ of court-room advocates trying to argue that death is life, and that TRFC is really and truly RFC(IL) , without the millions of pounds of tax debt, and a string of shabby side-letters.

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on9:42 pm - Nov 20, 2016


Still no sign of John James ?????

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on9:55 pm - Nov 20, 2016


It’s an interesting point. HMRC did not, in the end, push forward on the fraud allegation.
The potential fraud alluded to was, I believe, around the denial of the existence of side letters showing that the DOS payments made wrt the WTC were contractual.
We should look at the elements of fraud under common law:
http://www.police-information.co.uk/legislation/legislationindexsco.html#fraud

Fraud
Source: Common Law 
There is no succinct definition to embrace all the criminal forms of cheating. However, if the following three elements are present in a cheat the crime of fraud is complete.
FalsehoodFalse representations by words, or writing or conduct.
FraudIntention to deceive or defraud
Wilful ImpositionThe cheat designed has been successful to extent of gaining benefit or advantage, or of prejudicing or tending to prejudice the interests of another person.

You might wonder which of the three element was so weak that a prosecution was not pursued. Was there another reason?
In denying that side letters existed, was there a false representation? If, so did it have the intention to deceive? If so, did the deception result in a benefit or advantage?
Personally, it always seemed odd that having discovered the side letters, no further thought seems to have been given to prosecuting those involved. That said, with the ultimate demise of the club and minds concentrated on the BTC, they may simply have decided that there were bigger fish to fry.
Regardless of HMRC’s position on the side letters, it is also worth wondering if denying that an overdue payable was present on 31st March was a Falsehood? If so, was that Falsehood intended to deceive? If so, did the deception result in an advantage to the club? 
Have Police Scotland given any indication that the 2011/12 Euro license application is of interest? Has any interested party (say a shareholder group of a club that may have been unfairly disadvantaged) asked the police to investigate?
The question over the status of the WTC at 31st March is not simply an academic exercise.
To be clear, I am making no allegation of fraud. I am simply asking if the known facts justify a proper investigation by the police.

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on10:54 pm - Nov 20, 2016


UPTHEHOOPSNOVEMBER 20, 2016 at 21:04  Interesting latest article from Phil McG. 
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-grail-knights-of-planet-fitba-go-forth/
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
If Phil is on the money
Level 5 is behind a coordinated SMSM campaign to replace Regan because he has decided to treat TRFC like any other club 
I wonder why TRFC think Regan is past his sell buy date?
Could it be connected to the BDO appeal?

Could the SFA have been pressured by Celtic to issue a statement that LNS needs to be revisited in the event  that BDO either abandon the appeal or lose the appeal?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:30 am - Nov 21, 2016


SunnyJiM

History will show that regardless of what was said in March 2011 porkies were told to UEFA in June and September 2011 and the SFA should have spotted the difference in the June submission from the March one and alerted UEFA or asked questions.
As regards the September porkies the SFA’s tone  is hardly an exhortation to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Hirsute Pursuit.
The relevance of not admitting the existence of side letters in 2005 is that such a failure, either fraudulent or negligence, was enough to allow pursuit of payment outside the normal 6 year time frame. The extended limit case was solid enough on negligence grounds so no  need to try and prove fraud.
That does not mean there was no fraud.

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on7:40 am - Nov 21, 2016


CHRISTYBOYNOVEMBER 20, 2016 at 21:42
Still no sign of John James ?????
——————————————-
Im not surprised really.
Theres a reason a lot of bloggers are anonymous and i think he made a mistake collecting his award in person.
No need to put himself at risk from the mad elements of the Rangers support.
  

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on10:03 am - Nov 21, 2016


New podcast now out;

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on10:37 am - Nov 21, 2016


GOOSYGOOSY

NOVEMBER 20, 2016 at 22:54       If Phil is on the moneyLevel 5 is behind a coordinated SMSM campaign to replace Regan because he has decided to treat TRFC like any other club 

I wonder why TRFC think Regan is past his sell buy date?
————————–

There’s an element of ‘mutually assured destruction’ between the SFA & RIFC/TRFC. What we’ve got at the moment is an uneasy peace (or truce?) with light skirmishing between the parties.

I’m wondering if someone, somewhere in Regan’s future (FIFA/UEFA?) has had a quiet word & told him that the Association is greater than any member, past or present. RIFC/TRFC have to be brought to heel for the good (or perhaps even the continued existence) of the pro game in Scotland.

RIFC/TRFC have either been directly advised of this or it’s it’s been leaked by a pro-TRFC person at the SFA.

If the RFC2012(IL)/RIFC/TRFC aggregation attempt to ‘crash & burn’ the SFA (and the SPFL, collaterally), then Regan will be unemployable & his place in sporting history assured.

Regan’s only trump card here is the well-worn ‘King of Dupes’ which he could borrow from the immaculate SDM. It’s the timing of playing that card that makes this fascinating.

So will Regan throw RIFC/TRFC/RFC2012(IL) under the bus?

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on11:20 am - Nov 21, 2016


JohnJames back in da house !!!!

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on11:29 am - Nov 21, 2016


JINGSO.JIMSIENOVEMBER 21, 2016 at 10:37
        “So will Regan throw RIFC/TRFC/RFC2012(IL) under the bus?
   ————————————————————————————
   In the face of possible damages claims from Euro clubs, have UEFA threatened to throw the SFA under the same bus?
I don’t think it would be unfair to suggest that UEFA may well have had a quiet word with the SFA, (possibly through intermediaries) that if this matter escapes Scottish borders, then they (UEFA), will be applying their rules without fear or favour.  
   As in most chain reactions of corruption, the trick is to take the bolt-crops to the link below you.
  

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:01 pm - Nov 21, 2016


Meanwhile, exceedingly disappointed in the Celtic Board’s  reluctant concession that in the matter of the Res 12 question  ‘there may be governance issues’  and further buggering about with further meetings with the Requisitioners, I have emailed the following to their Communications chap:
Dear Mr Taylor,
…….at the 2013 AGM the Board tried to fob off the requisitioners of Resolution 12 that was on the agenda at that meeting, by adjourning discussion to a later date; and then adopted deceitful delaying tactics in the hope that the possibility of their being able to lodge any kind of complaint with UEFA would be negatived by the ‘time-bar’ rules of UEFA.
It seemed abundantly clear from the lack of action since then that the Board was not at all interested in exploring the possibility that their shareholders had been bilked of several millions of pounds by the highly questionable granting of a UEFA licence to an unentitled club.
I gather that at last week’s AGM the Board, three years on, got as far as now to admit that there might be a ‘football governance’ issue .
That is simply not good enough: the Res 12 issue is now far more serious than a mere internal-to-football matter.
There is a very strong prima facie case that the SFA my have corruptly abused their power by aiding a tax-defaulting club (in serious financial trouble at the time) to cheat its way into a money-making opportunity, to try to save its skin regardless of truth.
Neither the Celtic Board nor the ‘Requisitioners’ have legal powers enough to investigate that allegation on their own.And, of course, the SFA, as the body against which the allegation is made, would have a vested interest in blocking any investigation.
In these circumstances, I believe that the Celtic Board have a statutory DUTY to their shareholders to take matters to the police, request a thorough police investigation into a possible conspiracy to defraud those shareholders, co-operate fully with the police in that investigation, and look for a subsequent referral to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service of the findings of such investigation.
OR show some very convincing and legally acceptable reasons why their duty as Directors does not lie in that direction.
The SFA may or may not be ‘guilty as charged’
But it not for them OR the Celtic Board to decide that question as if it were a mere ‘football governance’ issue rather than an issue touching on criminality.
I would ask you, please, to pass this emailed letter to your Company Secretary, Mr Michael Nicholson, with a request that he present it to the Board at an early date.
Yours sincerely,
(me, own proper name and address)

View Comment

normanbatesmumfcPosted on1:32 pm - Nov 21, 2016


John ClarkNovember 21, 2016 at 12:01

“In these circumstances, I believe that the Celtic Board have a statutory DUTY to their shareholders to take matters to the police, request a thorough police investigation into a possible conspiracy to defraud those shareholders, co-operate fully with the police in that investigation, and look for a subsequent referral to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service of the findings of such investigation”
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
John, maybe the board know fine well the police investigation would not be thorough and no such referral to Crown Office or PFS would be forthcoming. I certainly wouldn’t trust the (Scottish) police, to investigate this fiasco and come up with the full unadulterated truth.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:33 pm - Nov 21, 2016


CORRUPT OFFICIAL
NOVEMBER 21, 2016 at 11:29 …
JINGSO.JIMSIE
NOVEMBER 21, 2016 at 10:37…
So will Regan throw RIFC/TRFC/RFC2012(IL) under the bus
========================================

Honestly can’t see Regan suddenly becoming assertive and taking any decisive action: worst case scenario he is punted with a large pay-off ?

We can speculate – as we happily do 22 – about what is happening behind the scenes.
The only clear action seems to be the co-ordinated SMSM attack on the SFA and on Regan personally.
Why has this happened – and why now ?

Is it just a warning ‘shot across the bows’ from TRFC to the blazers ?
Is it the start of a concerted effort by TRFC to get shot of Regan ?
Interestingly, I haven’t seen any other club managers / chairmen come out in support of Regan – or the SFA, [unless I have missed that ?]

Getting rid of Regan could be a step in the right direction.
But, if he is simply replaced with another nodding donkey for all things Ibrox, then tangible progress throughout the Scottish game will be further delayed, IMO.
The clubs have to listen to the fans and look at restructuring the whole SFA set-up.

Getting rid of Regan could be a catalyst for radical change at Hampden.
…but I won’t hold my breath…  09

View Comment

sunnyjimPosted on3:39 pm - Nov 21, 2016


Cluster One
The exasperation in that comment from HMRC 20 May letter jumps out.
I know what I think about the club’s intent but I still try to apply a wee bit of critical thinking.

View Comment

sunnyjimPosted on3:50 pm - Nov 21, 2016


Auldheid
At the same time as the SFA were overlooking these club March & June inconsistencies & then misleading Uefa, they were also working back channels to facilitate the Five Way Agreement.
Truly, a House of Cards.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:23 pm - Nov 21, 2016


Extracted from Chris Jack’s copy/paste today;

“…External finance is still required at Ibrox and the passing of Resolution 11 would pave the way for a new share issue.
For supporters, that could be significant as it would allow Club 1872, who recently became the fifth largest stakeholders at Ibrox, to increase their shareholding by investing directly into Rangers…”
======================================================

No mention of GBP 30M, “overinvestment”, transfer dealings, etc.

Seems like the main purpose of the AGM – as instructed to the SMSM – is to facilitate further, external funding.

And will King and the TRFC MD Stewart Robertson be attending ?

View Comment

Carfins FinestPosted on4:40 pm - Nov 21, 2016


‘For supporters, that could be significant as it would allow Club 1872, who recently became the fifth largest stakeholders at Ibrox, to increase their shareholding by investing directly into Rangers…”
====================
And that as they say would be Check Mate. The fans doomed to  be forking out to GASL for eternity under the threat of their Club being closed down. No receivership, No Liquidation. Straight to closure.New shares sold ad hoc to Club 1872 when GASL needs a couple of bob. This is not investing. This is donating. This could spell the end IMHO.

View Comment

NTDEALPosted on4:48 pm - Nov 21, 2016


John Clark,
Between yourself and various others JC,I have looked on as the critisism of the Celtic Board has been cranked up relative to the so called res 12 issues.
I suspect your email will fall on deaf ears(for want of a better phrase)
This issue is not about Celtic,its about the governance of Scottish football.Celtic,if they have any sense will not go solo out on a limb to nail the SFA for allowing their biggest rivals into europe when maybe they should not have done so.This would be the PR suicide to end them all.Every single club in Scotland should be making their own enquiries here,it affects them all.Without other clubs support,,Celtic will not make too much noise.Neither is in their make up to do so.
They said little or nothing in relation to the State Aid farce when they were being accused of effective criminality,it all went through the proper channels,and they were eventually vindicated.Res 12 remains an ongoing matter.None of us know exactly what is going on behind the scenes,but whatever it is,Celtic are not about to shout about from the rooftops.
Celtic could easily point out to their critics,the tiny proportion of shareholders holding a grievance in relation to their handling of this,they have’nt. They could point out that there is clearly no appetite elsewhere in scottish football to pursue this,they have’nt.They could point to the most recent petition,doing the rounds whose signatories amount to around 7% of Celtics season ticket holders,again they have’nt.
They are not ignoring it,when they maybe have many reasons why they could kick it into the long grass,for good.
Celtic have played an absolute blinder on and off the pitch this season,thats plain,where ever your loyalties are.
I just feel it is unfare to take such a critical line/tone with them,when they have effectively been landed with this 

View Comment

sunnyjimPosted on5:00 pm - Nov 21, 2016


So if I have this right…

Rangers fans have a Resolution 11

&

Celtic Fans have a Resolution 12

Two cheeks of the same ****? 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on5:22 pm - Nov 21, 2016


For those who have been following the saga of Worthington / Law Financial / Sevco 5088, an RNS was issued to the AIM market  today which could mean the end for Worthington and the Law Financial claims against RFC 2012 (IL) and TRFC.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/WRN/13041957.html

Worthington Group plc (“the Company” or “Worthington”)
21st November 2016
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Update
Further to its recent announcements, the Company provides the following update.
 
At the hearing at the High Court today, The Pension Protection Fund (“PPF”) decided to reject the principal terms of Worthington’s proposed Company Voluntary Arrangement (“CVA”) and therefore the High Court issued a winding up order against the Company.
 
The Company will be seeking a Judicial Review of the decision of the PPF, and the Company is in the process of lodging the required documentation to initiate this process. In the event that the Judicial Review is successful, the PPF will be required to accept the principal terms of the CVA and the Company would then be in a position to exit liquidation via its proposed CVA.
 
Whilst the Directors are considering what other options, if any, are available to the Company, the outcome of the review is considered, at this stage, to be key to the future of the Company. 
A further announcement will be made as soon as the Judicial Review application has been made.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on5:33 pm - Nov 21, 2016


STEVIEBCNOVEMBER 21, 2016 at 16:23       2 Votes 
Extracted from Chris Jack’s copy/paste today;
“…External finance is still required at Ibrox and the passing of Resolution 11 would pave the way for a new share issue.For supporters, that could be significant as it would allow Club 1872, who recently became the fifth largest stakeholders at Ibrox, to increase their shareholding by investing directly into Rangers…”
—————————
Don’t they need 75% majority vote to achieve this? they did not manage it at the last AGM, so what makes CJ so sure it will be passed this time

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on6:18 pm - Nov 21, 2016


Cluster One November 21, 2016 at 17:33
Don’t they need 75% majority vote to achieve this? they did not manage it at the last AGM, so what makes CJ so sure it will be passed this time
==========================
Last Year’s result for the same resolution.
For – 41,532,646 (73.8%) Against – 14,719,907 (26.2%)
Total votes cast on the Resolution was 56,252,553. This represents 69.0% of the Company’s issued share capital.
——————————
They were just 656K short of getting 75% last time round.  That could easily be turned around should someone with 1% of the club changing their vote to support the resolution, or if the club could get more shareholders to actually vote.

In the past year Club 1872 (RF & RST) has bought just over 500K shares themselves. If they have come from shareholders who voted “no” last time or indeed from shareholders who didn’t vote at all, then it might be enough to swing the vote in their favour.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on6:36 pm - Nov 21, 2016


Club 1972 have had a poll of the members and they will be backing all of the resolutions.

Personally I think that resolution 11 will be passed and the pre-emption rights dis-applied. It will be interesting how Mike Ashley reacts to that as it could potentially lead to his holding dropping to under to under 5%. It will also be interesting to see just how much of the loans are converted to equity.

As an aside 871 people cast a vote in the poll. This suggests to me that either there was an extremely poor response, or it is nowhere near as big as we were led to believe. 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:49 pm - Nov 21, 2016


EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 21, 2016 at 18:18
————-
HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 21, 2016 at 18:36
—————-
 the last AGM had the feel good factor about it.
king, i just picked up the phone and the £5mill is there to pay off Ashley. the kids inheritance money was also in the wings ready to overinvest etc. bla.bla.bla
All good news.and yet they still could not get the vote.
This time the bears know there is no money and the £5mill was just another loan to pay off a loan.
If the board can swing it round then we know where the magic hat has gone

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:58 pm - Nov 21, 2016


EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 21, 2016 at 18:18   In the past year Club 1872 (RF & RST) has bought just over 500K shares themselves. If they have come from shareholders who voted “no” last time or indeed from shareholders who didn’t vote at all, then it might be enough to swing the vote in their favour.If they have come from shareholders who voted “no”or from shareholders who didn’t vote at all last time or indeed from shareholders who didn’t vote at all,If these are the only one’s selling.what they should be asking is if it was the ones that voted no. why are they selling their shares?

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on6:59 pm - Nov 21, 2016


CLUSTER ONE
NOVEMBER 21, 2016 at 18:49

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

I think two things will swing it.

The Club 1872 holding is a bit higher than it was before (as the previous entities). If the shares were bought from people who voted against the special resolution then it has a double dunt effect.

They seem to be getting the message out more (certainly on social media) that it is important for people to actually use their vote. Some will do it by proxying their vote to either Club 1872 or the board themselves. 

Just a gut feeling but I think they will do enough to get it over the line. If that happens best of luck to them, that is how democracy works. 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:11 pm - Nov 21, 2016


EASYJAMBO
HOMUNCULUS
Thanks for replies.
In a way i also believe they will do enough to get it over the line. If that happens It will be interesting how Mike Ashley reacts to that. especially with a court case coming in Dec,might make him a bit more determined to get a result 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on7:17 pm - Nov 21, 2016


NTDEALNovember 21, 2016 at 16:48
‘…This issue is not about Celtic,its about the governance of Scottish football.’
______
Well, NTDEAL,my point is that  an alleged piece of jiggerypokery by  the ‘governing body ‘of Scottish football which costs a plc millions of pounds is no longer a matter of simple football governance, but is potentially criminal, and as such the Board of a plc ( whether of a football club or any other business) has a duty to have that jiggery-pokery investigated by the authorities empowered to investigate alleged crime.

And this is not a question of partisan loyalties, but of trying to get what some people believe is deep-rooted corruption uprooted from our game.

To be afraid of falling out with your business colleagues over some administrative error or minor inconvenience or small financial loss is one thing.

Not to discharge your fiduciary duties as the Board of a plc which MAY have been deliberately bilked of millions of pounds is quite something else!

The Chairman of a non-plc was ready, in former times, to challenge the ‘Governance’ people in a dispute which did not involve any possible aspect of ‘criminality’, challenge even to the point of withdrawing from the league.

I think the currrent plc Board should be prepared to do its duty as a Board in these very different circumstances, where allegations of  possible criminal misdirection of funds are being made.

The matter cannot be resolved ‘in-house’.

In my opinion.

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on7:19 pm - Nov 21, 2016


Homunculus
I think that a vote where a person can buy votes to the extent of their willingness to spend is the opposite of democracy.
There is an expression among the theologians which is applied  to those who cannot be convinced of the true state of affairs apposite to the devotees of the Glib one, Invincible Ignorance. There seems to be a lot of it about in some of the people who are.
Remember the old Tammany Hall cynicism of vote early vote often.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on7:34 pm - Nov 21, 2016


normanbatesmumfcNovember 21, 2016 at 13:32
‘… maybe the board know fine well the police investigation would not be thorough and no such referral to Crown Office or PFS would be forthcoming. .’
____________
Now, that is an argument which some people might find valid.
I couldn’t possibly comment, except to say that if it is even suspected that the Police would not do their duty, it’s all the more reason for the Celtic Board to get steamed in and force the issue.
More than ‘sporting’integrity may be  involved in what the Res 12 issue throws up.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on7:38 pm - Nov 21, 2016


Evening all.
Interesting wee twitter debate earlier wrt a hypothetical insolvency event at TRFC and what the penalty would be.
If a new club,then 15 points but if the same club then 25.
The problem for the SFA(maybe why Regan’s a target) is that if they don’t administer a 25 point penalty then how do they explain 15 without admitting TRFC are new,something they have refused to do for over 4 years.If they did go for 25,they would then face the wrath of the TRFC fans who believe that,although they’re the same club,it should be 15 points because the club wasn’t liquidated last time,just the company!
Their refusal to apply the rules last time and then be a willing accomplice in a plot to lie to every football fan in Scotland has left them between a rock & a hard place.There’s no way out.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:39 pm - Nov 21, 2016


BFBPUZZLEDNOVEMBER 21, 2016 at 19:19       Rate This 
HomunculusI think that a vote where a person can buy votes to the extent of their willingness to spend is the opposite of democracy.
——–
A bit OT but this just popped into my head.. in the 60’s and 70’s it was known if a pop single was bought in certain outlets, that pop single had a good chance of making it high up the charts,a person or person’s could in a way buy chart places. it was called manipulation. not a true reflection of how the public viewed the song.And it may not be a true reflection of what the bears want,but they will be stuck with it.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on8:00 pm - Nov 21, 2016


Sunnyjim @ 15.50

you’re 12 months out.  The licence issue that is the subject of Res12 was spring/summer 2011 at the time of Whyte ‘s takeover.  The admin, liquidation and Sevco resurrection were all 2012.

JC

re Celtics involvement re Res12 I don’t think you can discount the view that if Celtic challenged the licence issue either in 2011 (as it directly affected them) or in 2012 if the September decision was deferred then they would be perfectly entitled to believe that that would be the end for their competitor across the city causing much larger longer lasting consequences for their balance sheet than a single ‘demotion’ from CL to UEFA.  

Not saying I agree with the view but I’d certainly see where they were coming from and, personally, wouldn’t be surprised if that was the most accurate explanation for their otherwise inexplicable inactivity to date.  

And of course, with regards to their views on the permanence or otherwise of Liquidation they are probably as ‘dumbfoonert’ as the rest of us!

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:04 pm - Nov 21, 2016


BFBPUZZLED
NOVEMBER 21, 2016 at 19:19

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

Given the context of it being a vote on a resolution of a PLC I think democratic is an apt description.

People’s willingness to spend money investing in that PLC surely entitles them to a say in how the PLC operates, commensurate with that investment.

At the opposite end of the spectrum I hold precisely no shares in the PLC, I expect no say whatsoever in how it operates. I thank the lord* for that. 

With regards the invincible ignorance, I think some of it is actually vincible. The information is there, they choose not to see it. You could say their nescience is a personal choice. You could, I would never even consider such a thing.  

(*By the lord I am of course referring to the ruler of the universe’s cat. Which may or may not exist)

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on9:18 pm - Nov 21, 2016


Was there not a wheen of votes disqualified from voting at last year’s RIFC AGM ? If so, what would be their status at this one ? If not, what was the disqualification of voting rights about .

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:42 pm - Nov 21, 2016


PADDY MALARKEY
NOVEMBER 21, 2016 at 21:18

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

If I remember correctly it was to do with identifying the beneficial owner of the shares. 

“Currently 8,500,000 of the Company’s Ordinary Shares (c. 10.4%) are subject to restrictions affecting the right to vote the affected shares, the right to receive payments or distributions in respect of the affected shares and the right to transfer the affected shares”.

1. Blue Pitch Holdings (4,000,000),

2. Putney Holdings Limited (700,000),

3. ATP Investments Limited (2,600,000); and

4. Norne Anstalt (1,200,000)

I have no idea if that will be the case for this years AGM.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:43 pm - Nov 21, 2016


SmugasNovember 21, 2016 at 20:00
‘…I don’t think you can discount the view that if Celtic challenged the licence issue either in 2011 (as it directly affected them) or in 2012 if the September decision was deferred then they would be perfectly entitled to believe that that would be the end for their competitor across the city causing much larger longer lasting consequences for their balance sheet than a single ‘demotion’ from CL to UEFA.’
_____________
Some longer-term posters may remember that I strongly opposed the idea that Celtic had any more obligation to lead a charge against the ‘5-way agreement’ than any other club,  arguing instead  that that would just allow the legitimate concerns to be seen as just a Celtic/Rangers fans’ rivalry ( as indeed a certain Professor explained it to about 60 foreign students as being)  and would invite moronic violent reaction from, well, morons.
I had,and have,  no wish to have Celtic heroically die for sporting integrity, while most of the rest of the clubs were happy to allow themselves to be bullied into accepting the Big Lie and its consequentials.
But when I studied the findings of the Requistioners, and other external people, I made a sharp distinction.There is an allegation, however imprecise, that large sums of money were put in the way of a club that was absolutely not entitled to them, by the SFA which, in order to do so, had to at the very least dissemble if not blatantly lie.
And I cannot find it in my heart to allow Celtic plc to dodge that issue.If a crime was committed, it’s got to be nailed.And there is now not even the ‘excuse’ ,that there was then, that  to have the matter referred to the Police will affect the existence of TRFC,and therefore gate receipts at Celtic Park.
I say to Celtic plc Board: you may have been diddled out of millions. You have a duty to establish the facts, on behalf of your shareholders. Since diddling of that kind ( if it is proved that it happened) would be a crime, and since you are not equipped to investigate potential criminal acts, you must refer the matter to the Police.
Get on with it.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:46 pm - Nov 21, 2016


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/793

793 Notice by company requiring information about interests in its shares

(1)A public company may give notice under this section to any person whom the company knows or has reasonable cause to believe—
(a)to be interested in the company’s shares, or
(b)to have been so interested at any time during the three years immediately preceding the date on which the notice is issued.
(2)The notice may require the person—
(a)to confirm that fact or (as the case may be) to state whether or not it is the case, and
(b)if he holds, or has during that time held, any such interest, to give such further information as may be required in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(3)The notice may require the person to whom it is addressed to give particulars of his own present or past interest in the company’s shares (held by him at any time during the three year period mentioned in subsection (1)(b)).
(4)The notice may require the person to whom it is addressed, where—
(a)his interest is a present interest and another interest in the shares subsists, or
(b)another interest in the shares subsisted during that three year period at a time when his interest subsisted,
to give, so far as lies within his knowledge, such particulars with respect to that other interest as may be required by the notice.
(5)The particulars referred to in subsections (3) and (4) include—
(a)the identity of persons interested in the shares in question, and
(b)whether persons interested in the same shares are or were parties to—
(i)an agreement to which section 824 applies (certain share acquisition agreements), or
(ii)an agreement or arrangement relating to the exercise of any rights conferred by the holding of the shares.
(6)The notice may require the person to whom it is addressed, where his interest is a past interest, to give (so far as lies within his knowledge) particulars of the identity of the person who held that interest immediately upon his ceasing to hold it.
(7)The information required by the notice must be given within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:58 pm - Nov 21, 2016


HomunculusNovember 21, 2016 at 21:46
HomunculusNovember 21, 2016 at 21:42
‘..I have no idea if that will be the case for this years AGM.’
_______
Yes,Homunculus, and you will have noticed that the RIFC official site under  “investor, Share Information”  bears no dates whatsoever, to show whether it is up-to-date and the ‘restricted’ shareholders mentioned therein still are restricted, or whether any of them have since last year now provided the information tht would cause the restiction to be lifted.

A pretty shoddy approach to the issuing of information in the run-up to an AGM, not to show what date the info relates to!
Or is it legally the case that what appears on a company’s website at any given time is actually the case( give or take minor or inconsequential changes )?

I suppose a potential investor who might be misled by an out-of-date website, which he had no reason to believe was anything other than the current state of things, would have redress to the Courts?

View Comment

sunnyjimPosted on11:48 pm - Nov 21, 2016


Smugas 

Thanks.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:00 am - Nov 22, 2016


Paradisebhoy, I’ve just PMd you, belatedly, with apologies.

View Comment

bluPosted on8:48 am - Nov 22, 2016


TJB @ NOVEMBER 21, 2016 at 19:38

The lower quote is from Iain Blair, Company Secretary of the SPFL in December 2013. My reading of the this at the  time was that the SPFL updated its rules to ensure that clubs would not escape sanction because they changed owners. The choice of a five year period mirroring rules on individuals being banned from being directors for a period of five years post-insolvency events (in the SFA rules). Bearing in mind that RFC was only the latest in a list that had had some insolvency event, this seemed logical. I don’t understand how TRFC can continue to burn money and not go bust, but it does seem to manage. I would think though that 12th February 2017 is heavily circled on the wall calendar at 150 Edmiston Drive.

Interesting wee twitter debate earlier wrt a hypothetical insolvency event at TRFC and what the penalty would be.If a new club,then 15 points but if the same club then 25.

The question is whether an Insolvency Event occurred in the last 5 years of a type which results in a deduction of points in terms of these Rules.  If the answer is yes, e.g. if the owner of the Club had administrators appointed within the last 5 years, then the points penalty is 25.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:10 am - Nov 22, 2016


bluNovember 22, 2016 at 08:48
‘..If the answer is yes, e.g. if the owner of the Club had administrators appointed within the last 5 years, then the points penalty is 25. @
_____
To be consistent, I have to say that the owner of TRFC has not suffered an insolvency event.If or when TRFC Ltd,created in 2012 and accepted as a new applicant into the then SFL, suffers an insolvency event, it will be its first such event.
The corollary of that, of course, is the self evident truth that TRFC are NOT the RFC that went into the really big insolvency event-Liquidation; and that they are therefore not entitled either to market themselves as the ‘Rangers’ of old or to claim the sportinghonours and titles of ‘Rangers’ of old.
The price of avoiding a possible 15 points deduction would necessarily be public acknowledgment that TRFC is currently living the BIG LIE, and having their sporting record reckoned as  beginning only from 2012. And, of course,  a public apology from all who deliberately manufactured that BIG LIE, and those who continued to propagate over the last 4 years.

View Comment

bordersdonPosted on12:04 pm - Nov 22, 2016


John ClarkNovember 22, 2016 at 11
To be consistent, I have to say that the owner of TRFC has not suffered an insolvency event.If or when TRFC Ltd,created in 2012 and accepted as a new applicant into the then SFL, suffers an insolvency event, it will be its first such event. The corollary of that, of course, is the self evident truth that TRFC are NOT the RFC that went into the really big insolvency event-Liquidation; and that they are therefore not entitled either to market themselves as the ‘Rangers’ of old or to claim the sporting honours and titles of ‘Rangers’ of old. The price of avoiding a possible 15 points deduction would necessarily be public acknowledgment that TRFC is currently living the BIG LIE, and having their sporting record reckoned as  beginning only from 2012. And, of course,  a public apology from all who deliberately manufactured that BIG LIE, and those who continued to propagate over the last 4 years.
———————————————————————————————————-
Absolutely, I agree 100%. What an interesting scenario that would be. SFA, SPFL, all our clubs, SEVCO supporters, SMSM etc, etc all trying to get round that one. As it stands -15 would put them on 8 and -25 on -2 which would be very risky. Love to see it just for the fun but I still think they will limp on.

View Comment

bluPosted on12:18 pm - Nov 22, 2016


JOHN CLARKNOVEMBER 22, 2016 at 11:10
John, I agree with you about the legal status of the two companies/clubs but the rule appears to constructed as a catch-all to scoop up serial company folders phoenixing with impunity.   

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:42 pm - Nov 22, 2016


I note Phil Mac has no long ago re-tweeted a link to his blog calming that Traynor had a meeting with a select few of the MSM,  having said the other day he was relying on a reliable source for the info and some of the named party denying such a meeting took place.

Surely he would not re-tweet the link if he was not certain that such a meeting took place?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on12:44 pm - Nov 22, 2016


That’s how I read it too Blu.  The second time round ‘rule’ was as a catch all for a situation when ‘a club’ suffered an event and then didn’t improve on its financial performance sufficient that the new owner (who one would assume has not suffered a previous event given, under normal circumstances, its relative infancy) suffered a second event.

But I maintain then and now that the rules were not written with a situation of a club surviving liquidation in mind.  That is not due to incompetence on the part of the writer. Rather it demonstrates that he/she had a common grounding in circumstantial abstract theories like gravity, tides and the earth actually being round.

And joking apart, if they make it to the relevant anniversary day (I’m not sure if 12th Feb was just the first in a series of ‘events’) then despite the fact that it is the 5 year exemption that is key, that will not stop the onrush of ‘same club headlines’ that would emerge should such a scenario occur.

But like most, I’d still expect an ‘uneventful’ continuation to be the order of the day, once they have the bears and their wallets suitably and emotionally locked in.   

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:00 pm - Nov 22, 2016


bluNovember 22, 2016 at 12:18
‘… I agree with you about the legal status of the two companies/clubs but the rule appears to constructed as a catch-all to scoop up serial company folders phoenixing with impunity.  ‘
__________
I don’t doubt that that was the intention blu.
But The SFA would have a difficult time trying to hold a new legal entity guilty of having suffered  an insolvency event which occurred at a time when it did not legally exist!
Even the ‘blackmailing’ of Charles Green into paying  the ‘footballing debts’ of the liquidated company as the purchase price for the BIG LIE and the moral integrity of ‘Football Governance’ ( may its black soul disappear into the black hole of eternity!) was challengeable in law.( Probably the only serious weakness that Green displayed was when he yielded to that ‘blackmail’- or was it extortion?)
It is hard to escape the conclusion that as well as lacking in integrity, our Football Governance people are lacking the savvy to be effective baddies!

View Comment

bluPosted on1:16 pm - Nov 22, 2016


SMUGASNOVEMBER 22, 2016 at 12:44
JOHN CLARKNOVEMBER 22, 2016 at 13:00
As Torrejohnbhoy said earlier, it could present as something of an interesting dilemma for some should there be an insolvency event before Feb 12/13th 2017. TRFC has lasted this long though and I think they’ll continue to struggle on. Without getting into an OC/NC debate, they’re struggling in just the same way as any number of clubs who went into administration (Dundee, Dunfermline etc.) did, and will do for a number of years. 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:02 pm - Nov 22, 2016


BLU
NOVEMBER 22, 2016 at 13:16
============================================

Part of the administration process is the administrator looking at the business and deciding whether it is actually viable going forward. If so what changes need to be made in order to give the business a reasonable chance of survival. That could mean a fundamental restructuring, getting rid of highly paid players etc.

Take a look at Hearts to see what should happen. It can be a painful process but it is essential for the business moving forward. The first team squad was cut, a new owner came in with a plan on how to finance the club on a sustainable basis, she got the support onside with that plan, a CVA was obtained. That is a really good example of it being done properly. 

It’s not just a case of “can we get a CVA”, it’s if we do can the business actually survive and move forward with the changes the administrators puts in place.

That did no happen at Rangers. Likewise not getting into the debate, the club failed to get out of administration and is being liquidated. The club is making the same mistakes all over again. Spending money it does not have and running up debt. 

The problem now is that the club is running at a loss. It has done every year and is continuing to do so. What is happening at Rangers is not analogous to what happened to other clubs in recent years, other than Gretna. 

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on2:06 pm - Nov 22, 2016


Cluster One
November 21, 2016 at 19:39
“A bit OT but this just popped into my head.. in the 60’s and 70’s “
————————————————————–
Something similar , Payola
http://performingsongwriter.com/alan-freed-payola-scandal/
 

View Comment

scottcPosted on3:35 pm - Nov 22, 2016


WUO in for Worthington

Kinda connected

http://www.shareprophets.com/views/25417/worthington-winding-up-order-issued-fan-shit-hits-the

Oh dear, oh dear, this really does look like it is game over for old mother Worthington (WRN). It had been looking to get a Creditors Voluntary Agreement aways so that the grateful taxpayer, viz The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) got to fund its gaping deficit, and a share of future profits went to other – mainly related party – creditors but 90% of profits outside litigation winnings where it was 50% – would go to shareholders. Of course 90% of ZERO is ZERO but the pretence was there. However..
The PFF opposed the CVA as a major creditor and thus the High Court yesterday issued a winding up order against the Company. Quite right! Worthington’s directors and its army of deranged shareholders have repeatedly claimed that the businesses this “conglomerate” owns are worth tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds. In which case why the hell should the PFF have to pick up the tab for the pension deficit and indeed why should creditors who rank ahead of shareholders have to take cents in the imaginary dollar?
A full winding up will have two outcomes:
1. If Worthington and its deranged supporters are correct then the pension liability will be cleared, other liabilities will be settled in full and there will be enough left for a massive payout for investors.
OR
2. The assets are not worth a row of beans, the PFF will still be on the hook, creditors won;t be getting their imaginary pence in the imaginary pound and shareholders will get nothing other than a lesson in basic principles of investing.
Naturally I’d bet you a season ticket to Banstead Athletic that the outcome is 2. And Worthington (still yet to file its accounts for the years to September 30th 2014, 2015 and 2016) knows this too. And that is why it now says it is seeking a Judicial Review of the High Court Ruling.
Put it this way, if it loses that review this is unlikely to be the last time that certain folks find themselves in a Court Room.
– See more at: http://www.shareprophets.com/views/25417/worthington-winding-up-order-issued-fan-shit-hits-the#sthash.wO6g7Jou.dpuf

View Comment

tonyPosted on3:54 pm - Nov 22, 2016


All this 15 points or 25 points stuff to think about and I can’t still see how king and Murray are directors of a new business when I thought it was 5 years after an insolvency 

View Comment

tonyPosted on4:03 pm - Nov 22, 2016


@TracingAgent: The IP Address of the person who sent threatening email to @sitonfence is a Hampden Park address…..just saying.  Surely not 

View Comment

bluPosted on4:15 pm - Nov 22, 2016


HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 22, 2016 at 14:02

Homunculus, I value the punctiliousness of those such as you and JC, but I didn’t say that RFC didn’t go into liquidation. I did say that the sequence of events since 2012 for the teams playing at Ibrox were similar to such as Dunfermline and Dundee – a long hard struggle, which looks likely to continue for some time – you’ve illustrated why. The Hearts situation is somewhat different and testimony to those who lined up things in anticipation of Vlad’s implosion – it would have been so much more difficult for Bryan Jackson without them. I don’t think that either Dunfermline or Dundee had that springboard and Gretna FC 2008 certainly didn’t. 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on5:42 pm - Nov 22, 2016


BLU
NOVEMBER 22, 2016 at 16:15
==========================

The point is, Hearts, Dumfermline and Dundee all actually went through a proper administration process. They went through the pain that entails.

Rangers didn’t. In fact if I remember correctly after going into administration not only did they not get rid of highly paid players, they actually tried to buy a striker. Again if I remember correctly only a couple of players left, Cellick being one of them I think.

Let’s talk about companies rather than clubs as it is less controversial for some. Rangers International Football Club PLC has never been through an insolvency event. Neither has The Rangers Football Club Ltd. That is simply a fact. They are not suffering the consequences of administration because they are not and never have been in administration. They are simply badly run businesses. 

The previous company did not go through a proper administration by any stretch of the imagination. It is now being properly liquidated though. By a reputable business. 

What Rangers are currently going through is down to nothing but bad management and over-spending. 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:48 pm - Nov 22, 2016


WOODSTEINNOVEMBER 22, 2016 at 14:06       4 Votes 
Cluster OneNovember 21, 2016 at 19:39“A bit OT but this just popped into my head.. in the 60’s and 70’s “————————————————————–Something similar , Payolahttp://performingsongwriter.com/alan-freed-payola-scandal/
————-
Thanks for that very interesting…wonder if it still goes on today in the UK?
AT THE TIME I WAS MORE THINKING OF AN INTERVIEW I SAW WITH Joe Boyd the manager of pink floyd at the time in the early 60’s to get their first single high up the charts04
Today i was thinking about the 75% needed for the vote on shares. Could MA get some kind of court order to stop his shares being diluted this way.And would it be presented at the AGM.
Been thinking quite a lot today so i’m away for a lie down06

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:59 pm - Nov 22, 2016


Re the 15 points but if the same club then 25.
was it not the case that the 5 way agreement made the new club take on the football liabilities and as such if it was to go into Admin within the next 5 years it would be 25. or was it a percentage of their total points gained in the previous season. I’m sure someone had already gone public with what would happen,but i can’t remember who

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:25 pm - Nov 22, 2016


And Re the shares…just found this…..thanks to Clumps
MASH Holdings Limited, who hold 8.92% of the shareholding in Rangers International Football Club plc, had also warned that they would seek an interim interdict to prevent new shares being issued had the vote gone in the board’s favour.
“The company has undertaken that, in the event resolution 10 is passed at the AGM, it will not make any allotment of shares in terms of the proposed resolution 10 without first giving 21 days written notice to MASH,” they said prior to Friday’s meeting.
“The effect of this undertaking is that if the company gave such notice of its intention to MASH, MASH would be able to apply to court before any such allotment was made to seek an interdict preventing such allotment.”
http://stv.tv/news/west-central/1334389-rangers-lose-agm-vote-to-raise-cash-through-issue-of-new-shares/
=============================
could this happen again?

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:48 pm - Nov 22, 2016


If I was a cynical RIFC Director, for the upcoming AGM I would also consider having a few planted questions.

I would have an easy, sympathetic, open question from the floor about finances and external funding needs.

I would also have a caustic question, [mibbees raised by Jim Whyte who must be a shareholder?], and directed at Warburton;

“Mark, how come you are so good ?”

This should encourage the audience to become boisterous and distracted.
Warburton could provide an easy target for their frustrations – and away from the Directors !

15 

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:04 pm - Nov 22, 2016


HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 22, 2016 at 17:42
============================

It has been well documented that Whyte seemed to panic at the notion D & P might not be appointed. It was then as far from being the type of administration we had previously seen at other clubs as it could have been. IMO it is reasonable to ask whether Whyte had been promised ‘Rangers’ would be in the top league the next season.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:15 pm - Nov 22, 2016


UPTHEHOOPS
NOVEMBER 22, 2016 at 20:04
========================================

HMRC played that beautifully.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9081973/Rangers-go-in-to-administration-after-confirmation-of-appointment-at-Court-of-Session.html

The club’s owner, Craig Whyte, posted a Notice of Intent at the Sheriff Court in Edinburgh on Monday, hoping to earn 10 working days’ breathing space while they attempted to put together a Company Voluntary Arrangement, which would allow them to escape administration by paying creditors a fraction of what they are owed.
However, when HMRC appealed yesterday morning for an independent administrator to be appointed, Lord Menzies ruled that Rangers had until 3.30pm to appoint the company of their own choice. 

Whyte then confirmed that Duff and Phelps would be employed to run the club, a task which has clearly proved to be beyond him.

David Grier, a partner in Duff and Phelps, was one of Mr Whyte’s advisors while he sought to assume ownership from Sir David Murray, a fact which has fuelled conspiracy theories concerning the chairman’s original plans for the club.

The company’s statement read: “Duff and Phelps has been engaged by the directors of The Rangers Football Club plc (RFC) to assist its negotiations with HMRC, and possible restructuring options.

“As a result of the inability of RFC to conclude negotiations with HMRC the board of directors have filed a notice of intention to appoint administrators.

“The purpose of this notice is to provide a moratorium against potential creditor actions. Meetings are due to take place with HMRC in relation to the tax position of the company.

“Management remain hopeful that with the assistance of HMRC a consensual and solvent solution can be found. In the meantime RFC is continuing to trade as usual.”

As a consequence of entering administration, Rangers have been hit with an automatic 10-point penalty by the Scottish Premier League, leaving them, trailing leaders Celtic by 14 points.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:21 pm - Nov 22, 2016


The mention of Craig Whyte sent me to the Companies House website, to have a wee look at where Merchant Corporate Recovery plc ( of which the said MBMM was a Director) is at in the Liquidation stakes.

And do you know, it’s about to ‘Dissolved’  on 29th December 2016.

The Liquidators’ final report is worth a read, as giving a basic insight into the world of certain types of ‘business’. 

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/t0anLW2P

This link might take you straight there if you are interested. If it doesn’t, search for Company Number 06805838, and go into Filing History , and you’ll see a reference ( round about September 2016) to the report, and click on the pdf file.

Grant Thornton ( the liquidators) have interesting things to say, such as ” ….most of the information detailed below is based upon details received from the investors and other third parties , as none of the Company’s records have been recovered from the director.”

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:45 pm - Nov 22, 2016


upthehoopsNovember 22, 2016 at 20:04
‘… IMO it is reasonable to ask whether Whyte had been promised ‘Rangers’ would be in the top league the next season.’
____________
Who knows?

But given that even if ‘radar’ Jackson and the SMSM generally didn’t know ( and didn’t bother their ars.s to find out) that Whyte was anything but a  man of any kind of wealth , Whyte himself certainly did!

It’s hard to believe, therefore, that he had any intention whatsoever of trying to keep RFC alive.

He knew that if the BTC was lost, he would in no way be able to keep the club in existence by paying the tax due etc etc. 

So, even if the scallywags assured him that RFC would be ‘looked after’, 10 point deduction notwithstanding, once he had paid the £1 and got SDM off the embarassing hook, he wouldn’t have been interested.

Looking back, after 5 years, isn’t it astonishing that some of the sharp cookies among the RRM at the time were so outsmarted by Whyte? I mean, how could an insignificant, unknown wee punter from Motherwell steal such a march on guys who did actually have wealth enough to stay out of a foreign jail?

But, as said, before, the tawdry, dirty wee doings of those who killed RFC and of those who propagate the myth that somehow it did not die, are of secondary interest relative to the fact that the Football Governance people created the myth that Whitehouse/Clarke were speaking and signing on behalf of the same party to an agreement  that Charles Green was signing on behalf of!

Whitehouse/Clarke and most of  the others are gone and are of no further relevance.

But we are stuck with a Football Governance body of which we are, rightly in my opinion, highly suspicious in respect of two major areas: their granting of a UEFA licence, and the whole hysterical, ‘Armageddon’ response to the death of RFC , which, in my view ,led them further to betray the Integrity of Scottish Football.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:57 am - Nov 23, 2016


HomunculusNovember 22, 2016 at 20:15
‘…..’As a consequence of entering administration,…..’
___________
A very, very important phrase indeed, as being the last time our Football governance people behaved in accordance with their own rules when it came to dealing with RFC. The 10 point deduction was in consequence, not in ‘punishment’.

If only they had had the courage to follow that path of integrity when Liquidation happened , and had simply insisted to Charles Green that Sevcoscotland was a brand new club, and not any ‘continuity’ RFC!

I feel in my very bones that there are those who, even as I speak ,are saying to themselves ” How the hell did we allow ourselves to arrive at this pass? Where we sold the Integrity not only of the sport but of our very selves to the most obvious of chancers, and allowed ourselves so to compromise Scottish Football Governance that no one now believes a word of what we say?”

What were the thanks our Governance people got for their betrayal of any kind of Integrity? Why, what else but abuse from those for the sake of whom they had made liars and cheats of themselves!

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:02 am - Nov 23, 2016


I know I don’t need to lecture this board of all places but it’s worth recalling the logical order of the 2012 admin process.  CW had no option but to declare administration.  Personally I think that was his intention.  No operator, particularly experienced liquidation operators welch on basic taxes and expect to get away with it for very long.  CW was there to crash the bus, a bus no other RRM fancied driving.  

Again, with his experience, he would not have expected a CVA.  And that was before he found out about RFCs particular dealings with HMRC in the ten years previous. 

So whilst there was a logical process it was always odds on to end at liquidation – in Craigspeak a prepack designed to have A, and I specifically highlight again ‘A’ Rangers ready to play in summer 2012.  

To me that is the starting point and personally I believe that the negotiations started in Autumn 2011 for this, that our corrupt little friends get involved.  Whyte (other colours of accomplice are available) had no interest in 10 point penalties and, in truth, no real interest in ‘the’ Rangers continuing.  He had his grubby paws on the sole rights for ‘A’ Rangers continuing and he was more than aware that ‘the’ Rangers continuing had 168m reasons why they couldn’t. 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on11:09 am - Nov 23, 2016


Level5 at Defcon 1 today with the Record’s sensational revelation that Ashley was paying £1 a year rental for the megastore.

I’m sure that it is just coincidence that Rangers have their AGM on Friday. Next Thursday is also the first of a two day hearing of Ashley v TRFC in London about the withdrawal of the IP rights.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/one-quid-year-plus-vat-9314518

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on11:24 am - Nov 23, 2016


EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 23, 2016 at 11:09 
     “Level5 at Defcon 1 today with the Record’s sensational revelation that Ashley was paying £1 a year rental for the megastore.
I’m sure that it is just coincidence that Rangers have their AGM on Friday. Next Thursday is also the first of a two day hearing of Ashley v TRFC in London about the withdrawal of the IP rights.”
       —————————————————————————————————————————–
    EJ, It may be a sign that DCK is having last minute nerves over the res votes, or even because the biggest game of the day does not involve Sevco…Possibly the biggest game of the year in fact. 
   Personally, I am more interested in how any rental negotiations with the SFA may be progressing.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on1:14 pm - Nov 23, 2016


EASYJAMBO
NOVEMBER 23, 2016 at 11:09
====================================

Why would Mike Ashley be renting anything.

Surely it would be Rangers Retail Ltd who rent the Megastore in order to sell the club’s official merchandise.

Rangers themselves own 51% of that joint venture as I understand it. For them to supply that shop at what is effectively a nominal rent would make absolute sense.

“In part four of a lease agreement titled “Rent”, it states: “The tenant ­undertakes to pay the ­landlord if asked only, the annual rent of ONE POUND (£1) together with all the VAT chargeable thereon.”

Who is “the tenant”, I would be surprised if it’s Mike Ashley as the headline states. 

I don’t know what the actual story is here. It’s at best misleading and at worst rabble rousing.

Nothing more than a Level 5 press release to circle the wagons prior to the AGM I would think. Has anyone told Keith Jackson he doesn’t actually work for Jim Traynor any more. 

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on1:51 pm - Nov 23, 2016


The £1 if asked rent is not sensible for the landlord despite owning 49 % of the tenant. If a full rent was charged they would get all of that plus a share of profits. At the peppercorn they get a proportion of the rent back as a share of larger profits
The terms of the lease regarding repairs are not known or are other terms regarding payments of lump sums. Surprisingly the DR is over simplifying things based on incomplete or misunderstood knowledge
Perhaps a megastore in Govan is only worth £1 per annum

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:18 pm - Nov 23, 2016


HOMUNCULUS
NOVEMBER 23, 2016 at 13:14 
EASYJAMBONOVEMBER
23, 2016 at 11:09
====================================

Has anyone told Keith Jackson he doesn’t actually work for Jim Traynor any more. 
====================================

Everyone has indeed told Keef that he no longer works for Traynor.
It’s just that Keef can’t hear…what with his head stuck up Traynor’s…erm, somewhere I couldn’t possibly mention on this site !  

The ‘rent story’, whilst being rather short on detail, could be true – or not – but it seems like a classic / pathetic PR misdirection.

Bampots can smell the BS from a hundred Levels away.

Get the bears frothing at the mouth for the AGM about all things Ashley – whilst King and co. quietly pick their pockets.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:08 pm - Nov 23, 2016


HOMUNCULUS

NOVEMBER 23, 2016 at 13:14     

Why would Mike Ashley be renting anything.
Surely it would be Rangers Retail Ltd who rent the Megastore in order to sell the club’s official merchandise.
Rangers themselves own 51% of that joint venture as I understand it. For them to supply that shop at what is effectively a nominal rent would make absolute sense.
———————————————–

My understanding is that it is nominally a Sports Direct store (as opposed to Rangers Retail), albeit branded as a TRFC Megastore.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on4:23 pm - Nov 23, 2016


Thanks for that.

I hadn’t realised that it was actually a Sports Direct store and as such not part of Rangers Retail.

I also take the point with regards the rent not being appropriate. However would that not really depend on who brought what to the deal. In essence SDI saying we will bring the contacts, the expertise in merchandising etc. You (The Rangers FC) will supply the shop. That may be agreeable to both parties. That’s academic if it’s a Sports Direct shop anyway. 

View Comment

bordersdonPosted on4:32 pm - Nov 23, 2016


HomunculusNovember 23, 2016 at 16:23 
Thanks for that.
I hadn’t realised that it was actually a Sports Direct store and as such not part of Rangers Retail.
I also take the point with regards the rent not being appropriate. However would that not really depend on who brought what to the deal. In essence SDI saying we will bring the contacts, the expertise in merchandising etc. You (The Rangers FC) will supply the shop. That may be agreeable to both parties. That’s academic if it’s a Sports Direct shop anyway. 
===================================================
The copy of the deed states that the lease is between Rangers football Club Ltd (lessor) and Rangers Retail Ltd (lessee) so surely
bfbpuzzled is correct in saying that it makes no sense (acknowledging that full info on other details are not known)?

View Comment

Comments are closed.