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

TheClumpanyPosted on8:28 am - Nov 30, 2016


For me, the fascinating things about today’s UEFA/Sevco story are that
* it’s in a newspaper at all* an SFA source spoke about it
I wonder who is behind putting the story out there? The SFA trying to managing what could be a very uncomfortable situation come the end of the season?
They certainly won’t want to be blamed if Sevco’s overspending sees them barred from Europe. 
Sevco will be apoplectic. Which is nice
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-only-able-play-europe-9360873

View Comment

TheClumpanyPosted on8:33 am - Nov 30, 2016


…and those of us with an interest in Resolution 12 will marvel at the sight of the SFA taking an interest in the detail of whether an Ibrox-based entity should get a UEFA licence…

View Comment

melbournedeePosted on9:52 am - Nov 30, 2016


Rangers v Sports Direct court case adjourned until March 2017
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/14936483.Mike_Ashley_attacks_Rangers_in___1m_wrangle_over_club_s_merchandise/?ref=mr&lp=1
MIKE Ashley has accused Rangers of making “incorrect and spurious” claims about contract breaches in a bid to regain control of the club’s lucrative name, trademarks, crests and badges.
Sports Direct, the firm owned by the billionaire, has claimed Rangers chairman Dave King encouraged a supporter boycott which was used as a reason to support the termination of an intellectual property rights deal with the Ashley-controlled Rangers Retail in May.
And it accuses the club of breach of contract by refusing to withdraw the “wrongful purported termination notice” and seeking to prevent kit manufacturers Puma from producing this season’s merchandise.

The row over intellectual property rights is part of Mike Ashley’s bid to regain control of the trademarks in an action lodged at the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice where the Sports Direct boss Mr Ashley, who has a near nine per cent share in the club, aims to sue Rangers for up to £1 million.
An application to continue with the claim was due to take place on Thursday, but the case has been adjourned and is not expected to be listed until March next year.
Rangers say they are defending the claim and they intend to dispute Sports Direct’s move to bring “derivative proceedings” on Rangers Retail’s behalf.
Rangers Retail was unveiled in 2012 as a merchandising joint venture between Rangers FC and Sports Direct by then chief executive Charles Green.
 But the Ibrox board, which is believed to receive just 4p in every pound spent on Rangers merchandise from the deal, withdrew its exclusive licence to exploit club-related trademarks and logos including the club name, Ibrox, The Gers, the famous RFC Scroll crest and the Ready logo.
It was believed that meant kit which contained the protected logos could not be sold.

The court hearing would determine whether the Mike Ashley-controlled Rangers Retail should be allowed to continue such proceedings.
The club, which wrote to Rangers Retail and Sports Direct asking them to “cease and desist” over subsequent sales of kit, says that it will resist any financial claim.
Mr Ashley, who also owns Newcastle United, is seeking to force the club to confirm that the intellectual property agreement remains in effect.
It was revealed that Rangers, in wanting to terminate the agreement, had claimed that there had been contract breaches including a failure to tackle and resolve a supporter boycott which had been in place since at least January, 2015. This resulted in a failure to produce annual profits of £4 to £5 million.
The Sports Direct claim said: “In particular, Mr King, on behalf of The Rangers Football Club Ltd, has repeatedly encouraged the supporters boycott – set up as a protest over the raw deal they felt the club was getting out of Rangers Retail.”

Sports Direct supported its allegation by quoting Mr King’s update to supporters published on the official Rangers website in February, which alleged that Ashley-controlled firm had made “threats”, had attempted to “bully the club and me” and had put in place “poor commercial and business practices that the club has been forced to endure”.
The Mike Ashley firm also insisted that the IP agreement imposes “no express obligation… to communicate with potential customers” and that there was no obligation to make any particular profits.
In a statement, Sports Direct said: “The allegations of breaches were spurious and were apparently made for the collateral purpose of forcing a commercial renegotiation of the IP agreement and the constitutional arrangements of the company.”

It claims that Rangers Retail has “suffered loss and damage and will continued to suffer loss and damage” if TRFCL “continues to publicise the purported termination and communicate it to suppliers”.
And the claim alleges that Mr King and/or Paul Murray are in a position of “actual conflict” between their duties as directors of Rangers Retail and their interests as club directors.
 

View Comment

billyj1Posted on9:54 am - Nov 30, 2016


Test

View Comment

The_SteedPosted on10:33 am - Nov 30, 2016


With regards to the story in the Daily Ranger, the cynic in me would say that the nub of the story is in the line “UEFA would grant dispensation”.

For that read: “The SFA will obviously grant dispensation for the mighty Rangers to regain their deserved place in Europe, but those rascals at UEFA might block it”

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on10:58 am - Nov 30, 2016


WRT to the UEFA “dispensation”, The Daily makes no mention of which clubs have received it previously, and on what grounds. (anybody know?)  I am sure there may be many exceptions to the rules, such as natural disasters, or some other unforeseen expenditures brought about after players have been contracted, Stadium repair, war, currency collapse, unpaid transfer fee from buying club  , etc, ……….
    But signing unaffordable players in an effort to win a larger pot, to pay for said players? ……….That would be a helluva “dispensation”
    It’s what killed Rangers(I.L.) dontcha know. 
…… ps. The Hootsman reporting that Sevco have lost £18.9m over the 3 year period.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:35 am - Nov 30, 2016


CORRUPT OFFICIALNOVEMBER 30, 2016 at 10:58

CO, here is a link to the 2015 UEFA FFP Regs

http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/Tech/uefaorg/General/02/26/77/91/2267791_DOWNLOAD.pdf

The upshot is that everything needs to be done through the member association, i.e the SFA communicating with UEFA and requesting any Exceptions.

Given that the vast majority of SFA member clubs are struggling financially and striving to break even at best and with the main Euro contenders seeking to adhere to FFP principles, it seems madness for a regulatory and ruling authority to have the potential to reward the one club who has publicly acknowledged they are spending millions beyond its income.

As has been said above surely any club that potentially ends up missing out at the expense of T’Rangers should be screaming to the rooftops and seeking an explanation.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on11:41 am - Nov 30, 2016


Bearing in mind it’s a rolling 3 year period, so that won’t just be a problem this season. Even if Rangers get close to breaking even, and that is a bit of a stretch, their historic losses will have an effect for another season or two.

It is likely that they will be looking for such a dispensation for three seasons including this one.

Lauding losses of only £3.5m seems more ludicrous the more one thinks about it. 

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on12:19 pm - Nov 30, 2016


WOTTPINOVEMBER 30, 2016 at 11:35
      “CO, here is a link to the 2015 UEFA FFP Regs”
    ——————————————————————————–
    Thanks WOTTPI. It will take a bit of reading, and I will do my best to get through it. Not getting Res 11 passed, and the debt for equity avenue closed off on the balance sheets, is looking like a bigger boot in the Donegals than I imagined. 
   Swapping debt for worthless shares could have wiped millions of debt from the balance sheet, not by new money, but by the mere swipe of a pen…..It’s a funny old game accountancy !……And I don’t mean funny ha ha. 
   I hope clubs are letting their feelings be known, and also letting their fans know they have let them be known. Why should mis-placed ill-feeling be allowed to rise in their ranks?….Get it out there !
   This never made the Daily for nothing. 
   They need to destroy the Sevco myth of, “Only Euro income can save us” 
   Spending a penny less than they earn, is the only thing that will save them…….The same as every other fecking club has to do !

View Comment

AmFearLiathMòrPosted on1:28 pm - Nov 30, 2016


I suspect the ‘special dispensation given to other clubs’ that has been mentioned has more to do with the exceptional provisions in the FFP regulations.  These are to do with ‘Debt From Long Term Projects’, such as funding of new stadiums, building of academy locations etc.
I mean, don’t quote me on this, as I may be wrong, but I can’t see UEFA regarding ‘We Are The Peepul’ or ‘We Need To Catch Celtic’ as qualifying under these terms.

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on1:37 pm - Nov 30, 2016


Corrupt officialNovember 30, 2016 at 10:58     
WRT to the UEFA “dispensation”, The Daily makes no mention of which clubs have received it previously, and on what grounds. (anybody know?)

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

Yes RFC 2012 Plc (In liquidation) (formerly Rangers Football Club Plc) on the grounds of blatant cheating and porkies.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on5:57 pm - Nov 30, 2016


Ha ha.  Actually BD there is a serious point in there.  Whilst I acknowledge the FFP rules have tightened and changed the principle is the same.  If dispensations were available in 2011 why the need to cover up the overdue payable? The exemption given now is essentially that if losses are made they must be covered.  Well CW acknowledged the losses, indeed he publicly acknowledged the WTC by reducing his bid. He then came in with, supposedly, his own money to cover them.  You’d have thought the SFA would have been shouting about that from the rafters to cover their own asses re the licence issue.  Unless they knew something of course, but then I thought discussions didn’t begin till September October time….

View Comment

fan of footballPosted on8:06 pm - Nov 30, 2016


I would assume that king would welcome being refused a European license as it will keep the survival myth (BIG LIE ) alive for another season .
If they are ever granted a Euro license the first question I and all the other SPFL clubs should ask is …..
How can a club that owes over £20m in PAYE /NIC are granted a Euro license 
We ,of course all know the answer to that one but I would love hearing the grinding of the cogs and sprockets of the Sevconions in trying to square that little circle . 

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on9:43 pm - Nov 30, 2016


 
Do TRFC qualify under UEFA rules?
 An SFA spokesman stated:
“I suspect that UEFA would grant them special dispensation because there have been instances of other clubs, in similar circumstances being allowed to participate.”
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
What the SFA spokesman didn’t say was that UEFA do not deal direct with clubs but indirectly via the Association
Meaning
The application goes from TRFC to the SFA and after discussion from the SFA to UEFA
And
Any queries raised by UEFA are passed to the SFA who discuss them with TRFC and then reply to UEFA
And
Approval or rejection of the application goes from UEFA to the SFA and onwards to TRFC
What all this means in practice is that
In private
The SFA and TRFC need to put their heads together and come up with a few lies that enable the SFA to rubberstamp the application for special dispensation
While in Public
The SFA pretend it`s nothing to do with them
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 Nauseating

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on10:13 pm - Nov 30, 2016


Perhaps this planted story about TRFC and UEFA in the SMSM is academic – wrt next season anyway ?

My immediate take on the ‘SFA source’ quote, was that it maybe came from Level42 ?
To put pressure on the SFA to rubber stamp any UEFA communication coming from TRFC.  
The implication being that this is a challenge directed at the SFA to come out publicly now to deny this quote, and to state that the SFA would not automatically support a TRFC ‘dispensation’ to the FPP rules.
Cue rage and threats from the bears.  
…but the SFA would probably keep quiet anyway: non-denial = acquiescence ?

But with a resounding defeat tonight, possibly followed by a home loss to Aberdeen – resulting in a drop to 4th place – would cause much frothing at the mouth at Ibrox…and the immediate focus for TRFC would revert to the manager and the quality of the playing squad at his disposal, IMO.
 

View Comment

tonyPosted on11:24 pm - Nov 30, 2016


@AgentScotIand: I understand Mark Warburton has offered his resignation as Rangers manager following defeat to Hearts #Rangers #RangersFC #SPFL #warburton

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:55 am - Dec 1, 2016


goosygoosyNovember 30, 2016 at 21:43 17 Votes 
  Do TRFC qualify under UEFA rules?  An SFA spokesman stated:“I suspect that UEFA would grant them special dispensation because there have been instances of other clubs, in similar circumstances being allowed to participate.”,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,What the SFA spokesman didn’t say was that UEFA do not deal direct with clubs but indirectly via the Association Meaning The application goes from TRFC to the SFA and after discussion from the SFA to UEFA And Any queries raised by UEFA are passed to the SFA who discuss them with TRFC and then reply to UEFA And Approval or rejection of the application goes from UEFA to the SFA and onwards to TRFC What all this means in practice is that In private The SFA and TRFC need to put their heads together and come up with a few lies that enable the SFA to rubberstamp the application for special dispensation While in Public The SFA pretend it`s nothing to do with them ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,  Nauseating
=================
Surely not, why that would be like lightning striking twice with what happened in 2011 becoming abundantly clear before licenses are dished out for next season.
All the evidence is already in, its about it being used.
Of course it wasn’t TRFC/RIFC  who lied in 2011, that was RFC, but it is still the same SFA still trying to pretend its nothing to do with them, just like club monitoring is UEFAs responsibility when a licence is granted at 31st March and SFA, according to Mr Regan are done with the process after 31st March
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9YktGc0kwWjJCY1E/view?usp=sharing
Sounds well and good until you find out UEFA don’t know who to monitor until the end of May!  
STV talk of exposing a myth that TRFC will be refused entry to UEFA competition on account of failing to break even/highdebt and they are right to demonstrate it will not be automatic, but not to suggest sanctions which would include exclusion would be another season away.
The Giannina FC case in 2013 is interesting in that The Greek FA did not grant a licence because of overdue payables to the taxman and the club appealed, The Greek FA granted licence on appeal but alerted UEFA of their concerns near the end of May 2013.
That gave UEFA the chance to investigate the situation and as a result (the club had overdue payables as UEFA define them ) a licence was refused. That wasn’t a sanction, it was a consequence of applying the rules as UEFA intend, not as a national association might interpret them.
The STV Article is interesting in that under  What do UEFA’s rules say? it says
” In a nutshell, regulations are in place to deter clubs from running up significant financial losses.
This is done for two reasons. First, to try to protect teams from themselves. Secondly, to ensure competition is not distorted by clubs being able to run up huge debt while continuing to use that debt to fund football success.
Clubs are allowed to post a maximum aggregate loss over every three-year “monitoring period” of €5m (£4.25m at today’s rates). 
Failure to contain losses to under this amount can result in sanctions, with some exceptions.”
I have no idea why UEFA would  abandon the purpose of FFP nor why they would not see it their duty to protect TRFC/RIFC from itself and would risk their own competition being distorted by clubs using debt to pay more expensive  title winning players that adds to the debt  that stops a club meeting the FFP break even  rules!
I suspect the article
http://stv.tv/sport/football/1374309-explained-will-rangers-need-approval-to-play-in-europe/?utm_content=buffer2431e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

is a bit of a fudge that will give The Lawman plenty to mislead fellow bears with rather than tell them that the TRFC/RIFC business plan is fundamentally flawed.
Its the same one that saw RFC liquidated and prevented other better financially managed clubs getting a bite at UEFA money.
What is the definition of insanity again?

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:10 am - Dec 1, 2016


AULDHEIDDECEMBER 1, 2016 at 00:55
======================

You really wonder what was behind this sudden outbreak of transparency within the Scottish media yesterday. Speaking about Rangers and FPP had previously been like a vampire reacting to a cross to them.  On reflection IMO it has been nothing other than an exercise to show how the SFA are going to put Rangers forward, no matter what, and how they are going to do it. Obviously the bampots have been getting above their station again. I can only hope Mrs Budge and Mr Milne will not be as easily convinced as the Daily Record and STV were.  

View Comment

zam1Posted on8:45 am - Dec 1, 2016


Simple fact is ;

If Aberdeen , Hearts , St Johnstone or any other Scottish club allow this to happen, where they loss money to a new club who has, season after season financially doped there club then they DESERVE all they get. If these clubs fans allow it, then they deserve all they get.
This is not rocket science, every person/fan in the country can see it.
 

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:56 am - Dec 1, 2016


In a way this E Tims article tells supporters of Celtic and other clubs what they are up against.
 You would imagine that 5 years after bending/ breaking the rules the SFA would not attempt the same again,but this is Scottish football backed by Scottish media.
 http://etims.net/?p=10440
 It’s not the first time the SFA have used STV to try and change what UEFA intend.
 It’s not a given a licence will be refused to TRFC (who might not qualify) but it’s not a shoo in by any manner of means.

 

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on1:21 pm - Dec 1, 2016


AULDHEIDDECEMBER 1, 2016 at 10:56

I think it’s really imperative now that Celtic deal with Resoloution 12. The SFA cannot be trusted to oversee anything and I can see how The Rangers will attempt to put them in a tight spot and look out for them as they did before. 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on3:07 pm - Dec 1, 2016


Craig’s Whyte’s criminal hearing has been continued for a further three weeks until 22 Dec, this time back at Edinburgh High Court.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:52 pm - Dec 1, 2016


TONY
NOVEMBER 30, 2016 at 23:24  
@AgentScotIand: I understand Mark Warburton has offered his resignation as Rangers manager following defeat to Hearts #Rangers #RangersFC #SPFL #warburton
===================================

If true, would maybe make sense for the Board to wait until after Aberdeen game to decide whether to accept ?

Can’t really afford a replacement manager.
Weir could step in – but surely he is at least partially responsible for the poor TRFC displays to date – especially in defence ?
So what would he bring new to the team ?

A new manager would also want funds in January – you would think ?

View Comment

tonyPosted on5:08 pm - Dec 1, 2016


STEVIEBC
if the tweet was true i would imagine davie weir will take the job till may/june,but then again he might want to do walking away too

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on6:41 pm - Dec 1, 2016


STEVIEBCDECEMBER 1, 2016 at 16:52
STEVIEBCDECEMBER 1, 2016 at 16:52
    It’s way too soon to play the “escape goat” card. Recent history shows it will be after the Glesga derby. and should have the gardens looking lovely by Easter.  21

View Comment

tonyPosted on6:42 pm - Dec 1, 2016


good piece from james forrest 
http://thecelticblog.com/2016/12/blogs/sevcos-european-license-issue-hurtles-them-towards-extinction/

View Comment

tonyPosted on7:02 pm - Dec 1, 2016


and again from e-tims
http://etims.net/?p=10440

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:25 pm - Dec 1, 2016


TONYDECEMBER 1, 2016 at 18:42   
good piece from james forrest http://thecelticblog.com/2016/12/blogs/sevcos-european-license-issue-hurtles-them-towards-extinction/

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

In that piece James Forrest says ‘STV can spin this whatever way they want’. It seems increasingly more like to me STV are spinning the way some other organisation wants. Whether we like it or not the mainstream media can still soothe a lot of people into a certain way of thinking.  

View Comment

tonyPosted on7:30 pm - Dec 1, 2016


UPTHEHOOPS
and the fans of the new club have still not learned not to trust them

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:25 pm - Dec 1, 2016


STEVIEBCDECEMBER 1, 2016 at 16:52       8 Votes 
TONYNOVEMBER 30, 2016 at 23:24  @AgentScotIand: I understand Mark Warburton has offered his resignation as Rangers manager following defeat to Hearts #Rangers #RangersFC #SPFL #warburton===================================
If true, would maybe make sense for the Board to wait until after Aberdeen game to decide whether to accept ?
Can’t really afford a replacement manager.Weir could step in – but surely he is at least partially responsible for the poor TRFC displays to date – especially in defence ?So what would he bring new to the team ?
A new manager would also want funds in January – you would think ?
————————–
Some fans already saying don’t give MW money to spend in the january transfer window(By now you would have expected the fans to know there is no money to spend in january.) They needed loans in Oct and need more loans to see out the season.just what is it these fans don’t get?.
To pay off Mark Warburton would take money.
To get a new manager,say a good manager still in a job would cost them money.Even a good manager not employed at the moment would cost them money(in wages )
To get a good manager he would want a transfer budget.Again that will cost money.
How could they sell players in jan that has cost a manager his job, how many ibrox players have any sell on value?if this would be a way of giving a new manager funds. Even if to get a new manager by jan he would have just a short time to try and sell before he buy’s.
Even say getting a new manager in (or a real rangers man) and say trying to shift some  half season books for christmas gifts. the money is just not there.
I believe they will have to stick with Mr Warburton for the rest of the season. If he walks they will be more financially fecked than they are now

View Comment

tonyPosted on8:34 pm - Dec 1, 2016


CLUSTER ONE
just what is it these fans don’t get?.
i asked one yesterday if he wanted warburton gone,he said yes,i asked who would replace him with no money in the kitty and he said “we’ll see who gets sacked from the EPL in january some mid tabled guy would love to manage us”i just burst out laughing.

View Comment

scottcPosted on8:54 pm - Dec 1, 2016


TONYNOVEMBER 30, 2016 at 23:24 @AgentScotIand: I understand Mark Warburton has offered his resignation as Rangers manager following defeat to Hearts #Rangers #RangersFC #SPFL #warburton===================================

It’s a fake account Tony. The L in Scotland is a capital ‘i’

View Comment

tonyPosted on9:03 pm - Dec 1, 2016


SCOTTC
cheers mate,someone tweeted it on my TL,slow news day 04

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:10 pm - Dec 1, 2016


TONYDECEMBER 1, 2016 at 20:34
“we’ll see who gets sacked from the EPL in january some mid tabled guy.
————–
Follow up question’s could have gone like this. How much money would a mid table manager from the EPL be on compared to what MW is on just now? How much money would a mid table ex manager be looking for to begin with for a transfer budget to turn a club around and try and get second place in the SPFL? How much money would it cost for a mid table ex ELP manager to bring in his own back room staff.
How much would it cost to get Mr warburton gone?
If they could give you a round figure for all the above.You could then ask if they see were the problem lies.

View Comment

tonyPosted on10:21 pm - Dec 1, 2016


CLUSTER ONE
why i burst out laughing 

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:57 am - Dec 2, 2016


Today’s Herald is carrying yet another interview with Graeme Souness bemoaning the lack of cash at Ibrox, and waxing lyrical abut the level of player he signed compared to now.  How long is this type of stuff going to be peddled? From 1986 to 2011 Rangers were only able to fund success using an unlimited credit line from a Scottish owned bank, followed by a tax avoidance scheme which has been ruled illegal pending appeal. With neither option now available, the true position is plain to see. Those days are never coming back, and the sooner Souness and his like minded media chums realise it the better for all concerned. I am sure many Rangers fans already realise it.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on12:08 pm - Dec 2, 2016


Does anyone know if the Sports Direct V DK Court Case scheduled for yesterday and today was cancelled or rescheduled?

View Comment

GiovanniPosted on12:31 pm - Dec 2, 2016


According to James Doleman’s Twitter feed:
Hearing in case of Sports Direct v Rangers International Football Club postponed until March next year.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on2:59 pm - Dec 2, 2016


Worth a read, I think.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/scotland/38178077

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:53 pm - Dec 2, 2016


Re: Souness’ insights / stating the bleedin’ obvious in his latest SMSM ‘interview’.

It’s a shame.
Although as a player he could be brutal, nobody could deny that Souness was a winner, and his medals won reflect that.
He was one of the best players in recent Scottish football history.

[But with the revelations over the last few years, his RFC managerial achievements have undoubtedly been sullied.]

Now though, whenever I see his coupon I think; EBT, dodgy, chasing more money still !
That maybe unfair, but you would think that he ‘should’ be aware that he is tarnishing his image further, every time he speaks absolute b*llox in support of TRFC.

And did he actually get paid for this latest ‘interview’ ?
I think we should be told !  16

View Comment

andyPosted on4:45 pm - Dec 2, 2016


from the herald article
 and sale of the club by David Murray to Craig Whyte for a quid when a quick google search would have thrown up some doubts about the supposed billionaire who lived in Monaco
.______
did no one at the herald google him before copy and pasting the press releases that he was a real rangers man with money to burn

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:16 pm - Dec 2, 2016


Derek McIness cranked up the heat on rangers by insisting spending power makes them favourites for second place.McInnes believes their ability to outspend his club and the jambos in next month’s transfer window should give warbs a huge advantage.he said rangers have the opportunity and strength to do more in january than others.
December 2 2016.
Mark Warburton is targeting a january loan move for an overseas midfielder.Rangers chief Dave king made it clear at last weeks AGM he won’t splash cash next month. But he will let boss warburton add one temporary transfer after Niko Kranjcar was crocked and joey barton axed.
December 2 2016.
Do the SMSM journalist’s ever speak to each other? (yes it was two different stories in the same paper).
Should someone tell Mr McIness what Dave king said at last weeks AGM, he may then not make them favourites for second place06

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:44 pm - Dec 2, 2016


PADDY MALARKEYDECEMBER 2, 2016 at 14:59       4 Votes 
Worth a read, I think.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/scotland/38178077
For the Scottish game, there are interesting considerations, not least because some clubs may have to decide about the worth of maintaining their academy if it is no longer among the elite group – most likely to be no more than 16 – or if running a development set-up and taking or borrowing players from other academies may be a better scenario.
——————————
Have we not heard this before from a Mr McCoist?
the American market is ripe for plucking bargains, and taking the best talents from the American Academies,if something ever happened to murray park.
My memory may be wrong here but when i read the article the first thing that came into my head was Ally saying something along those lines when they were playing the American Academies

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on6:56 pm - Dec 2, 2016


CLUSTER ONEDECEMBER 2, 2016 at 18:16

    “Mark Warburton is targeting a january loan move for an overseas midfielder”
   ———————————————————————————————————————————-
   Would it be unfair to suggest that they can say this with authority, because the UK market is pretty much closed to them? 
What I’m saying is that the facts of JB’s departure, will be known, to those who make it their business to know. The training ground is a playground of “heated debates” and skirmishes
   Would a UK club seriously consider lending a player into those conditions, just to get him game time?.
    Neither is their “development” reputation much to write home about. In fact some players on the books could be said to be un-developing with every passing game, and it would not be unreasonable to suggest the lending club may get a player returned, who is actually worse off for his experience.
   It is also common knowledge their their scouting prowess is limited to an internet search, but maybe, just maybe, there will be someone of limited knowledge of the circus further afield, who make not be savvy to the full situation, and possibly agree to an arrangement. 
    Therefore Sevco can pretty much say with confidence, the next face arriving will be from overseas….He, whoever he may be, can easily be billed as “The One”.
   

View Comment

theoldcoursePosted on6:56 pm - Dec 2, 2016


On my regular trawl of news websites I came upon this today. I had to have a wee chuckle with my 18yr old malt whilst reading it.
https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/bhs-liquidation-proceedings-begin-ending-88-history-145500980.html

I quote the first few lines

“British retail chain BHS has officially entered liquidation, after falling into administration earlier in the year.
The news marks the official end of the iconic company’s 88-year history in the UK.
While a company, or parts of a company, can still be bought and saved from administration, the liquidation of assets means the firm will now be dissolved and the money used to pay back BHS’s creditors.”

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:58 pm - Dec 2, 2016


ANDYDECEMBER 2, 2016 at 16:45       7 Votes 
from the herald article and sale of the club by David Murray to Craig Whyte for a quid when a quick google search would have thrown up some doubts about the supposed billionaire who lived in Monaco.______did no one at the herald google him before copy and pasting the press releases that he was a real rangers man with money to burn
———————–
I’m sure i have read the SMSM were told he was a  billionaire. So that is what they printed

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:12 pm - Dec 2, 2016


If TRFC loses at home tomorrow against Aberdeen, and drop to 4th in the league…

…would it not be only fair for ‘Wee Stevie in IT’ to get his turn as TRFC manager ?

Heard he’s really good on the “Football Manager” video game – as well as scouting for TRFC – according to McCoist…allegedly. 
09

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:28 pm - Dec 2, 2016


CORRUPT OFFICIALDECEMBER 2, 2016 at 18:56

One of the reasons MW may be reticent to name the player may be a concern that the bampots and supporters of other clubs might be willing to mark the player’s cards wrt TRFC, rather than him being poached by another club .

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:50 pm - Dec 2, 2016


Could this be the mystery man ?

http://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2016/11/28/could-raul-meireles-be-the-perfect-joey-barton-replacement-at-ra/

View Comment

misterlightbulbjokePosted on9:58 pm - Dec 2, 2016


Just read through the Craig Whyte charge sheet there. Such an odd case.
I would ask this question: If a man burgled a house, stole a telly and then footage emerged of the home
owner helping the burglar put said telly into the back of his car, wouldn’t that change the facts of the matter?
Just how willing were Ticketus to be deceived? “You would like to sell me £20 million pounds worth of Rangers season books
Mr Whyte? Do you own Rangers Football Club?” Not a difficult or lengthy question to ask and of course at the time Mr Whyte’s answer would have  had to have been no.
Craig Whyte’s trial is a charade, that’s why it’s behind closed doors I suspect.
Ticketus was an Enterprise Investment Scheme(EIS). It’s sole reason for existing was to purchase Rangers Season Books.
How could it come into existence unless Rangers , at that time owned by MHG, agreed to do a deal? How could it attract investors money unless David Murray’s Rangers had okayed it?

EIS was the government’s way of attracting investors money into schemes slightly to risky for normal funding. An example might be a farmer who suspects there is oil beneath his land, unable to raise cash through conventional methods to do some exploratory drilling the farmer sets up an EIS, attract investors and the gamble the investors take is somewhat mitigated by the tax breaks given to investors. I’m on unsafe ground herewith regards to the exact nature of the tax reclaimable on a failed scheme but do believe that if an investor were to “lose” say £18 million then about £8 million could be claimed back in two different tax categories.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on10:14 pm - Dec 2, 2016


PADDY MALARKEYDECEMBER 2, 2016 at 19:28
CORRUPT OFFICIALDECEMBER 2, 2016 at 18:56
One of the reasons MW may be reticent to name the player may be a concern that the bampots and supporters of other clubs might be willing to mark the player’s cards wrt TRFC, rather than him being poached by another club
   ————————————————————————————————————————
   You may have a point Paddy. Warbs has already said 3 or 4 other clubs (with nae money?) are also interested, so each will be aware of the others approaches. 
   He also stated that if it does come down to money, they have no chance. 
  In summary, he might as well have said that he is looking for an experienced internationalist midfield goal scoring General to boss the game…………..For nothing !……….Aye they’re ten a penny !
   The obvious follow up question should have been, “You mean somebody nobody else wants to pay for?” 
“Aw Shucks !” (Looks at his own brogues and kicks invisible stone)
Just a thought, but maybe there is some sort of difficulty in moving funds around the UK?

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on11:22 pm - Dec 2, 2016


There seems to be an awful lot of animosity towards Mr Warburton on here.

As far as I can see, he has gone about his job reasonably, and while a lot of people have issues with his statements in the press, given the number of questions he is given it’s only likely that he will get more publicity than some other managers.

He has never publicly demanded big transfer budgets, he has never claimed that we are the people. He is mocked on this forum in a manner that I think is a little harsh. While there may have been pundits who claimed Rangers would challenge Celtic this year, it is not my experience of Rangers fans to share that expectation. Should we lose the next few games….so be it. We are recently promoted and doing far better than a lot of other recently promoted teams have done. If anyone bought the “chairman’s” overspend nonsense then they are entitled to suffer. 

As for the rumours of financial trouble / FFP etc, there is a perfectly viable business there and if the people in charge cannot realise that potential, that is their responsibility. Given the trials we have had in recent years, if we fail, I personally will accept it. We’ve had every chance to fix it and if it goes tits up then so be it. 

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on12:09 am - Dec 3, 2016


RYANGOSLING DECEMBER 2, 2016 at 23:22
There seems to be an awful lot of animosity towards Mr Warburton on here.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Totally agree Ryan
When SFM find themselves in agreement with some of the wilder comments on TRFC internet sites it is obvious that something is seriously wrong
As far as I recall the only time there was commonality between the majority of posters on TRFC sites and the majority of SFM posters was in the desire to see the Hampden elite sacked albeit the reasons were different
I reckon MW has done an above average job with meagre resources in the short time he has been at Ibrox
If he leaves, he is most unlikely to be followed by someone able win the SPL title with the same meagre resources
The reality is that the prospect of another club catching Celtic depends on what Celtic do, not what the other club does
Aberdeen is living proof of that
Despite Celtic being mismanaged under, Delia and Aberdeen playing extremely well they were still unable to win the league
MW is on a hiding to nothing
Like his predecessors and successors he is very likely to win nothing
But it will be better than a hiding

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on12:34 am - Dec 3, 2016


RyanGoslingDecember 2, 2016 at 23:22  
There seems to be an awful lot of animosity towards Mr Warburton on here.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You willfully misunderstand Ryan. What some people are reacting against is the way he has been build up in the Scottish Media. When in fact he was a youth team coach at Watford and was bagged after overspending at League 2 to League 1 Top team Brentford!
He isn’t a good manager – ask the Rangers Board?

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:57 am - Dec 3, 2016


With all that has happened / been revealed by the Internet Bampots in the last 5 years…

…I sincerely hope that the next admin/liquidation event at Ibrox results in the final/permanent extinction of the club/company…for the good of Scottish Football.

Absolutely!

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:51 am - Dec 3, 2016


GOOSYGOOSYDECEMBER 3, 2016 at 00:09  
RYANGOSLING DECEMBER 2, 2016 at 23:22There seems to be an awful lot of animosity towards Mr Warburton on here.

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

Personally I feel no animosity towards him, just annoyance at the way he is portrayed by the media, which is at complete odds with his actual achievements in the game.  He is a far less successful coach than Ronny Deila, and I’m taking about before Deila came to Scotland. Yet who was lauded as the hero, and who was derided as a dud? Again, not Mark Warburton’s fault, but it is going to get peoples backs up. 

View Comment

rougvielovesthejunglePosted on8:40 am - Dec 3, 2016


Completely agree Upthehoops.

Is there another country in the world that would have awarded him manager of the year last season?

Hopefully his managerial/tactical credentials take another battering this afternoon! (despite me feeling no animosity towards him of course 19)

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:28 am - Dec 3, 2016


MISTERLIGHTBULBJOKE
DECEMBER 2, 2016 at 21:58    

Just how willing were Ticketus to be deceived? “You would like to sell me £20 million pounds worth of Rangers season booksMr Whyte? Do you own Rangers Football Club?” Not a difficult or lengthy question to ask and of course at the time Mr Whyte’s answer would have  had to have been no.

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

That’s not how it would work though.

They agreed to him getting the money if he “owned Rangers”. Murray agreed to sell him an 85% shareholding when he provided proof of funds. A lawyers escrow account was used to facilitate the deal. The lawyer told Murray the funds were available, Murray sold him the shares, the lawyer told Ticketus he had the shares, the funds were released. If I understand it correctly the money, or most of it, went straight to Lloyds to buy the debt from them (along with the floating charge). 

I didn’t own my house when I secured a mortgage against it. It didn’t stop me buying the house and using it to secure the borrowing. 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:35 am - Dec 3, 2016


RYANGOSLINGDECEMBER 2, 2016 at 23:22
While there may have been pundits who claimed Rangers would challenge Celtic this year, it is not my experience of Rangers fans to share that expectation.
———————
While RYAN you may know many ibrox fans who share your thoughts that they could not challenge celtic this year. Many fans did believe they could “Going for 55″. Maybe even the ibrox board believed it with their  season ticket renewal advertisment cards the players held,”Be there when it happens”

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:07 am - Dec 3, 2016


misterlightbulbjoke December 2, 2016 at 21:58 
Just read through the Craig Whyte charge sheet there. Such an odd case. I would ask this question: If a man burgled a house, stole a telly and then footage emerged of the home owner helping the burglar put said telly into the back of his car, wouldn’t that change the facts of the matter? Just how willing were Ticketus to be deceived? “You would like to sell me £20 million pounds worth of Rangers season books Mr Whyte? Do you own Rangers Football Club?” Not a difficult or lengthy question to ask and of course at the time Mr Whyte’s answer would have  had to have been no.
Craig Whyte’s trial is a charade, that’s why it’s behind closed doors I suspect.
Ticketus was an Enterprise Investment Scheme(EIS). It’s sole reason for existing was to purchase Rangers Season Books. How could it come into existence unless Rangers , at that time owned by MHG, agreed to do a deal? How could it attract investors money unless David Murray’s Rangers had okayed it?
EIS was the government’s way of attracting investors money into schemes slightly to risky for normal funding. An example might be a farmer who suspects there is oil beneath his land, unable to raise cash through conventional methods to do some exploratory drilling the farmer sets up an EIS, attract investors and the gamble the investors take is somewhat mitigated by the tax breaks given to investors. I’m on unsafe ground herewith regards to the exact nature of the tax reclaimable on a failed scheme but do believe that if an investor were to “lose” say £18 million then about £8 million could be claimed back in two different tax categories.
====================================
Homunculus has already explained the timing issue about funding and purchasing assets, but the Ticketus deal remains very much a live one as far as the criminal trial is concerned, so is probably best avoided as a topic for discussion on the Blog for the time being.

The current hearings are not being held behind closed doors.  They are open to the public but have restrictions on reporting what is discussed in court.  Those restrictions will be lifted on conclusion of any trial and everything that was heard in court can then be discussed freely.

If you are looking for a dodgy EIS scheme, then you should maybe look at RIFC itself.  The newco holding vehicle was the preferred route for the investors at the time as it qualified for both EIS and VCT reliefs, rather than investing directly into a Sevco Scotland / TRFC share issue.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on10:20 am - Dec 3, 2016


From having a look at the “Warburton  must go” and “don’t give the guy and penny to spend” type posts on T”Rangers boards I think a few disparaging comments on SFM are the least of his worries.

My view. A decent guy with genuinely good ideas about the game but despite the league position not really showing much in the team management stakes.
Needs to focus on the job in hand as opposed to putting the footballing world to rights.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:17 am - Dec 3, 2016


RyanGoslingDecember 2, 2016 at 23:22

There seems to be an awful lot of animosity towards Mr Warburton on here.
As far as I can see, he has gone about his job reasonably, and while a lot of people have issues with his statements in the press, given the number of questions he is given it’s only likely that he will get more publicity than some other managers.
He has never publicly demanded big transfer budgets, he has never claimed that we are the people. He is mocked on this forum in a manner that I think is a little harsh. While there may have been pundits who claimed Rangers would challenge Celtic this year, it is not my experience of Rangers fans to share that expectation. Should we lose the next few games….so be it. We are recently promoted and doing far better than a lot of other recently promoted teams have done. If anyone bought the “chairman’s” overspend nonsense then they are entitled to suffer. 
As for the rumours of financial trouble / FFP etc, there is a perfectly viable business there and if the people in charge cannot realise that potential, that is their responsibility. Given the trials we have had in recent years, if we fail, I personally will accept it. We’ve had every chance to fix it and if it goes tits up then so be it. 
____________________________

Mark Warburton might get a fair bit of stick on this site, but he makes statements that, well, deserve that stick. But, ‘animosity’? I think not. In fact, many of us would be sad to see him go, as his prowess as a manager doesn’t appear to match his ability to speak and act in a contradictory fashion.

He may well, as the manager of a club trying to be a once mighty (in Scottish terms) club, be under greater pressure from the media and his club’s support than most other managers, but that is what happens when a new, inexperienced, entity pretends to be what it’s not. The pressure to be ‘big’ brings problems that are mostly self-inflicted.

As a ‘city trader’ I’m sure he will have learned the importance of keeping track of what he said, in, apparently, the pressure cooker of the money and commodity markets. It’s a pity, for him, that he has forgotten to do that since becoming your club’s manager, as he seems to, quite often, say one thing (from which he, and his club, receive the maximum publicity they seek) then, either by action or words, do or say the opposite when it suits! Example of that was when he, most respectfully (yeh that’ll be right), criticised Robbie Neilson/Hearts for signing so many new players after promotion; then bingo – he does exactly the same, though at much greater cost and, it could be said, with a much poorer result!

His after match comments, too, leave a lot to be desired, but we’ll forgive him that (though happily mock him when he goes too far, like he did on Wednesday) as most managers face similar problems when quizzed soon after losing, or even winning, an important game, and often say things that they might regret in the cold light of day.

As to TRFC being a perfectly viable business! When did that happen?

A football club, often described as the perfect way for a man with a big fortune to turn it into a small fortune, has never been seen as a viable business, let alone a new one based on deceit and lies. Even clubs that can return a small profit couldn’t be described as ‘viable’ businesses as disaster is always just around the corner. I seem to remember even the ‘World’s most successful football club’ turned out to be the most ‘unviable’ club in Scottish football history!

That said, Mark Warburton has been put under more pressure than most managers (but nothing like Ronnie Deila), but that is due to the totally unrealistic expectations rather than to ‘Rangers are too big a club for him’ as many bears are apt to claim. The pressure is brought by the fact he is employed by a club that acts like a big club, but isn’t! It is just a new club with a big support. Or, if you’d prefer, the remnants of a big club that failed disastrously – with a big support.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on1:15 pm - Dec 3, 2016


Any coincidence that the Daily Record have printed a story that Ally McCoist has a company with assets of around £3.5m.

This coming hot on the heels of the story that he caused resolution 11 to fail, almost single handedly if the stories are to believed.

Is someone trying to cause friction between him and the fans. Perhaps making him the latest pantomime villain.

View Comment

misterlightbulbjokePosted on1:31 pm - Dec 3, 2016


Homonculus thanks for your reply. Isn’t there a problem in your mortgage analogy , in that you haven’t been charged with a crime, Craig Whyte has. Your mortgage analogy is closer to what the Glazers done at Man Utd, they used the security of the club against the debt taken on to buy it.
I take heed also of Easyjambo’s warning around live proceedings and thanks for the info around press restrictions.No one else find it odd that the press in a free society can’t report on what is after all a minor fraud case?I’m sure there might be a perfectly good explanation, I’m all ears if anybody’s got it.
Getting back to the Ticketus , their investors, they’re a magnificently sanguine bunch are they not? Lost £20 odd million pounds and didn’t even reach for the phone to call a lawyer. Given that somehow Collyer Bristow’s insurance company was willing to pay out £25 mill without as much as a squeak of protest I’d have thought Ticketus investors might have wanted to have words with Octopus Investments who oversaw the fund about their diligence procedures.
Mighty convenient that £25 million pay out at Collyer Bristow. Potless Paul Murray was denied the right to have a share issue in a company that no-one in their right mind was willing to touch with a bargepole.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:03 pm - Dec 3, 2016


MISTERLIGHTBULBJOKE
DECEMBER 3, 2016 at 13:31  
Homonculus thanks for your reply. Isn’t there a problem in your mortgage analogy , in that you haven’t been charged with a crime, Craig Whyte has. Your mortgage analogy is closer to what the Glazers done at Man Utd, they used the security of the club against the debt taken on to buy it.

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

I disagree, however let’s just ignore the analogy. It doesn’t change that your description of events is in my opinion at best misleading.

“You would like to sell me £20 million pounds worth of Rangers season books Mr Whyte? Do you own Rangers Football Club?” Not a difficult or lengthy question to ask and of course at the time Mr Whyte’s answer would have had to have been no.”

The deal would have been done via a lawyers escrow account with the funds released when Whyte had satisfied the conditions placed by Ticketus.

You scenario suggests that he said “Yes I own Rangers” and they gave him millions of pounds on the strength of that.

As Ally Jambo suggests I will leave it at that.

View Comment

misterlightbulbjokePosted on8:02 pm - Dec 3, 2016


In comments I’ve made on here regarding my own confusion around the Ticketus deal,replies have asserted that the Ticketus deal was legit in the sense that Ticketus did nothing wrong.However , here’s more confusion as far as I’m concerned, here’s a clip from today’s Daily Record: 
On Thursday Whyte appeared at the High Court in Glasgowto hear further arguments in his case.
The 45 yr old is facing two charges in connection with the takeover of the Ibrox club-oneof fraud and another under the Companies Act.
The latter “financial assistance” charge is when the cash, assets or wealth of a company is used to fund a takeover of a business.
Look at the part in bold, Whyte is charged with using the assets of a company to purchase its shares, here’s my question:
Why aren’t Ticketus charged with the same offence? Clearly they are involved in a conspiracy, no?
The Ticketus deal and the person behind it is so obvious but I won’t say it on here.

View Comment

PortbhoyPosted on8:06 pm - Dec 3, 2016


N.B., To whom it may concern.

http://thecelticblog.com/2016/12/blogs/our-title-challengers-are-a-mix-of-the-gutless-and-the-clueless/

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:00 pm - Dec 3, 2016


misterlightbulbjoke December 3, 2016 at 20:02
==========================
I think that your confusion would be better served by taking some time to familiarise yourself with the judgement made in the case of Ticketus v Whyte & Others, at the Chancery Division, published on 5 Apr 2013.  The document has already been made public so there is nothing to prevent you reading it, although it remains best not to offer opinions on the actions of anyone named, in light of the current fraud proceedings. 

A copy of the judgement can be found on Mike Farrell’s (from STV) Scribd account. (probably best to download a copy and save it for future reference when/if a criminal trial gets underway)
https://www.scribd.com/document/136013092/Ticketus-v-Whyte-Judgment-HC12F03282

The document will give you the background and a timeline to the “Ticketus deal”.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:14 pm - Dec 3, 2016


EASYJAMBO
DECEMBER 3, 2016 at 21:00

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

Maitland Chambers have summarised the matter.

http://www.maitlandchambers.com/information/recent-cases/Ticketus-LLP-Ors-v-Craig-Whyte-Ors-2013

Ticketus LLP & Ors v Craig Whyte & Ors (2013)

Summary

When answering a questionnaire as part of a due diligence exercise prior to entering into a series of contracts, a defendant was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation when he stated that he had not been disqualified as a director, knowing that answer to be false. Alternatively, he was reckless and negligent in failing to check the accuracy of the answers.

Facts

The claimants (T) applied for summary judgment against the first defendant (D1). D1 had instigated the takeover of Rangers Football Club Plc. D2 was the bid vehicle. D3 was D2’s sole shareholder and was a company owned by D1. T were ticket agents. T’s fund management company (O) entered into negotiations with the defendants for a ticketing agreement. T then entered into a series of agreements with Rangers for the purchase of over £17 million of season tickets. The defendants executed deeds of guarantee and indemnity in T’s favour. O’s due diligence exercise, prior to the transactions, included a director’s questionnaire. In his response to the questionnaire D1 stated that he had never been disqualified as a director. Nine months later Rangers went into administration. D1 later admitted that he had been disqualified as a director for seven years and had settled proceedings against him for misfeasance and breach of duty. T brought claims under the guarantee and an additional claim against D1 for fraudulent misrepresentation. T’s summary judgment application against D1 related to the misrepresentation claim only. D1 submitted that his solicitors had prepared the answers to the questionnaire and it had been intended for O’s use, accordingly T could not rely upon it. He further asserted that he had been unaware of T’s identity at the relevant time.

Held

(1) In order to succeed in their application under CPR Pt 24 T had to show that D1 had no real prospect of successfully defending the misrepresentation claim and there was no other compelling reason why the case should be disposed of at trial, FG Wilson (Engineering) Ltd v John Holt & Co (Liverpool) Ltd [2012] EWHC 2477 (Comm), [2013] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 223 applied and Three Rivers DC v Bank of England (No.3) (Summary Judgment) [2001] UKHL 16, [2003] 2 A.C. 1 followed (see paras 10-11 of judgment). (2) It was fanciful to suggest that D1 was unaware of O acting as agent for T. T’s involvement was completely clear from the documents emailed between the parties. Even if the statements made in the questionnaire were understood by D1 to be made to O, T, as the ultimate counterparties to the ticketing agreements, were plainly persons to whom it was intended or expected that the information would be passed. The questionnaire was plainly intended to be an important document. The heading on the first page described it as such, and directed D1 to answer all questions “truthfully and without omission”. The clear and unequivocal evidence from four members of O’s investment committee was that if they had known of D1’s history, they would not have authorised the transactions. That evidence had not been subjected to cross-examination, but overall it was clear that the questionnaire was an important part of the diligence process. D1’s claim that the answers to the questionnaire were compiled by his solicitor was a surprising one, as a considerable number of the questions could not have been answered without his direct input. Director’s disqualifications did not remain registered at Companies House after the period of disqualification had expired, and there was no searchable public record of accusations of fraud, deception and misfeasance. It followed that when the questionnaire was answered, the information requested was not in the public domain. Even if D1 had left completion of the questionnaire to his solicitors and sent it without checking the contents, he adopted the answers by sending it to O without any reservation about its content or its status (paras 35, 40-41, 46-51). (3) In a claim for deceit it was not necessary to establish that the defendant positively knew statements were false. It sufficed that D1 suspected that his statement might not be accurate or that he neglected to enquire into its accuracy. In the case of negligent misrepresentation, the burden was on D1 under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 s.2(1) to demonstrate that he had reasonable grounds to believe, and did believe up to the time the contract was made, that the facts represented were true. The inescapable conclusion on the evidence was that D1 knew his answers to the questions were false. Even if that was wrong, he was reckless about whether the answers were accurate, and provided them not caring whether they were true. Alternatively, he was negligent in failing to check the accuracy of the questionnaire before passing it on and had failed to discharge the evidential burden on him under s.2(1) (paras 42, 53-54). (4) It would not be right to require T’s claim to go to trial simply to permit D1 the luxury of cross-examining T’s witnesses in the hope that something would turn up. Judgment was therefore entered in T’s favour for £17,683,338 plus interest. The court directed an enquiry into the expenses incurred by T in seeking to enforce their rights under the agreements (para.67). Application granted

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:33 pm - Dec 3, 2016


Apologies, I said “As Ally Jambo suggests I will leave it at that”.

I should have said “As EasyJambo suggests I will leave it at that”.

No offence intended to either of you, indeed you could potentially both take it as a compliment. Being mistaken for the other. 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:39 pm - Dec 3, 2016


Homunculus December 3, 2016 at 21:14 
EASYJAMBO DECEMBER 3, 2016 at 21:00
====================================
Maitland Chambers have summarised the matter.
http://www.maitlandchambers.com/information/recent-cases/Ticketus-LLP-Ors-v-Craig-Whyte-Ors-2013
Ticketus LLP & Ors v Craig Whyte & Ors (2013)
==========================
I’ve seen that summary, but it didn’t really offer the level of detail in the full judgement, that might have satisfied misterlightbulbjoke’s curiosity, i.e. discussions with Ticketus had begun as far back as October 2010 and would not take effect until after the acquisition. 

on 28th October 2010 the Investment Committee considered the proposed transaction for the first time and gave approval in principle to the purchase of £20million worth of season tickets with completion following the acquisition of Rangers by Mr Whyte and two fellow promoters.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:51 pm - Dec 3, 2016


EASYJAMBO
DECEMBER 3, 2016 at 21:39
===========================

Fair point.

I just thought some people like to read the “Cliff Notes” on a subject. However as you say that doesn’t really provide the sort of detail required to cover the chap’s question.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:09 pm - Dec 3, 2016


I know that the SFA and Referees take a lot of criticism for their interpretation of the rules, but there was a cracker from today’s Junior Cup replay between Bo’ness United and Blantyre Vics, when the referee clearly didn’t know the rules of the competition.

Here is a sequence of tweets from the timeline of the Bo’ness club.
Bo’ness United ‏@bonessunited 6h6 hours ago
* Latest: Bo’ness 2 @BlantyreVicsJFC 2
* FT @bonessunited 2 @BlantyreVicsJFC 2 Move into penalties
* Extra Time – When I thought it was straight to penalties
* Bad light could see this game being abandoned
* Extra Time HT: @bonessunited 2 @BlantyreVicsJFC 2
* For the 3rd time the game is stopped to discuss and now we have penalties half way through the 2nd half of extra time
* Penalties Bo’ness 3 Blantyre 4 Not the last we will hear about this match. All the best to Blantyre in the next round

I think this game will end up having to be replayed as it should have gone straight to penalties after the 90 minutes.  Bo’ness could reasonably claim that the extra time played affected their choice of penalty takers and their state of mind, but it seems ridiculous that the referee is not familiar with something as basic as when to go to a penalty shoot out. I think the Juniors have all but done away with extra time in their cup competitions.

I was also reminded that back in 1971/72, during Rangers run to the Cup Winners Cup,  a referee’s incorrect decision initially cost them a match on penalties to Sporting Lisbon, only for them to be reinstated as they had actually won the tie on away goals, so a penalty shoot out hadn’t been required.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:23 am - Dec 4, 2016


Going back to Rangers potentially needing a European Licence next year. Is it seriously the case that the SFA will be able to heavily influence this to the extent UEFA won’t look under the bonnet? Surely dependency on European football itself to get to break even point should be the biggest red flag ever regarding compliance with financial fair play? Should the case not be that a club is financially robust without the need for European income? It’s all rather depressing and it is now as clear as day that the media stories last week were a plant to attempt to justify why they will be put forward. 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on12:23 pm - Dec 4, 2016


UPTHEHOOPS
DECEMBER 4, 2016 at 08:23
===============================

Celtic are not a break even business without either substantial European income or significant return on the sale of players’ registrations.

Domestic income, including sponsorship, merchandising etc is not enough to cover the level of expense the club has.

View Comment

Comments are closed.