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

AOBPosted on11:33 pm - Dec 13, 2016


Anyway.. was at Pittodrie tonight and I think that referee needs a few evening games in the Highland League.
There was most certainly enough light to play the game; I could see the plooks on folks’ faces 200 metres away. And I’m sure they could see mine.
Maybe they need a new stadium – and an understanding manager of an opposition club?
Just saying.

View Comment

SouthernExilePosted on11:55 pm - Dec 13, 2016


Dear SFM

i note that you are increasingly using the sfm Twitter account to broadcast your political views on world events entirely unconnected with Scottish football. 

May I respectfully suggest that this is contrary to the spirit of the blog and an abuse of your position. 

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on12:05 am - Dec 14, 2016


Wrt the child abuse investigations, some clubs(mine included)  have put their hands up and confessed to sacking individuals in their employ , but not necessarily informing the authorities of their actions . How widespread was this back in the day (as the hipsters say). Was it the case of a quiet word with Plod that all was dealt with and no requirement of their assistance ? Would it not be helpful for all clubs, professional or other, to let us know of their historical experiences in preventing child abuse and the actions they took to achieve this ? Not being a Christian, it doesn’t bother me that Christians are implicated in this, in the same way that it doesn’t bother me that Muslims in Middle England seem to be heavily involved in the same thing . Bad people do this, regardless of their religion, colour , creed or even sex . The impression I am getting from the Scottish coverage is that CofE and CofS are above and beyond this kind of sinning ,ie the Establishment has clean hands . That might well be true, but I wouldn’t believe it just because they say so . 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:31 am - Dec 14, 2016


Far be it from me to give aid and helpful advice to men for whom I have nothing but contempt, but I simply cannot refrain from asking: has Board of the new clubknown as TRFC got absolutely no idea of how to turn a negative story into some semblance of positive PR? Especially when it could be done without too much untruth (possibly a new thing for them!) and without hostility and anger?
A simple, straightforward statement that they are looking long-term at stadium rehabilitation and improvement,and are emplying respected surveyors and contractors on preliminary survey and costing work,and that the local authority and safety folk have satisfied themselves that all is safe and well blahblah blah, as the club forges ahead in its bid to blah blah blah, and how grateful ythey are for the patience and understanding of those who blah blah blah. ( J. Traynor- I won’t even copyright that!)

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on1:39 am - Dec 14, 2016


JC

For your delectation –

http://www.strine.org.uk/Dict.html

Gets you through the night. We can do the “Y”s tmurra. Y not ?

View Comment

NTDEALPosted on10:11 am - Dec 14, 2016


Southern Exile;23.55,Dec 13
I too have raised the issue of the political posturing in the name of this site on Twitter,this was a few months back,I did not receive a response,I would hope that you do.
Tax;do we really want to go there,justs ends up political disagreements,hopefully matters will be far more straight forward subsequent to the Court of Session decision and the(hopefully) failed appeal at the Supreme Court.
I have just read Mr. Mac Giolla Bhain’s latest;if his blogs on the stadium repairs are correct then this really is a remarkable story.I admire his bravery,no anonimity.As was mentioned earlier someone in the MSM really should grasp this and run with it,either to prove it accurate or otherwise;this need not be an anti TRFC type report,but it is,potentially big,big news.Again fair play to Phil for sticking to his guns,he seems so adamant about this……
As an aside;is there a law against these awful mannequin challenges,if not why not?That me being political?
Anyway,hibernation resumes.
Happy Christmas 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:05 am - Dec 14, 2016


paddy malarkey
December 14 2016 at 01.39
“…JC..for your delectation.”
____________________
Tha 
Fair dinkum,mate. I’ve just been accessing the link.Very entertaining.Ta.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:11 am - Dec 14, 2016


paddy malarkey
December 14 2016 at 01.39
“…JC..for your delectation.”
____________________

Fair dinkum,mate. I’ve just been accessing the link.Very entertaining.Ta.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on11:33 am - Dec 14, 2016


As far as I am aware this blog is built on the original Rangers Tax Case, though it has much wider interests now.

One of the regular topics of discussion is in relation to whether a club which has outstanding tax bills should be given a licence to play in Europe. Whether it is corrupt of a national association, knowing that the tax was outstanding, to still grant that licence. 

It seems that clubs and players not paying the right amount of tax have had a direct effect on the Scottish game, by allowing clubs to field players they otherwise could not afford.

Is there any particular reason that some people now think the blog should not be discussing tax issues. maybe I have picked that up wrong.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on11:35 am - Dec 14, 2016


NTDEALDECEMBER 14, 2016 at 10:11
     A sensible approach for the SFA to take would be first to establish if netting is to be erected. Then it is either an issue or not. If netting is going up there is an issue.    If it is to be erected, either for inspection, or remedial work purposes, then Crumbledome should be closed and Hampden offered, until the inspection or works completed. 
   Given the financial health of Sevco, if it is for works to be completed, this is most likely to be reactive, and not pro-active works. I know there is a short break in fixtures coming up, but it would appear it can’t wait until the closed season proper. This suggests a critical situation.
   With a 50,000 capacity any risk, is too great a risk, or as my auld granny would say, “If there’s any doubt, there’s nae doubt”.
It should be as safe as it possibly can be. ….Or are we to have another “Independent” inquiry?
   My guess would be for inspection purposes…..After all, any “lenders” will want to know how much they need to lend on top of the March top-up, and maybe more importantly……if there would be any point lending in March.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on12:09 pm - Dec 14, 2016


Someone might be able to clarify this for me, just a bit confused.

I was under the impression that Dave King (through a trust) controlled around 16% of RIFC PLC. The fact they are not listed, and don’t update the website doesn’t help keeping up to date.

However Dave King is now listed as a Person with Significant Control at the PLC, as is John Bennett.

A PSC is defined as follows

A PSC is someone in your company who:
owns more than 25% of the company’s sharesholds more than 25% of the company’s voting rightsholds the right to appoint or remove the majority of directorshas the right to, or actually exercises significant influence or controlholds the right to exercise or actually exercises significant control over a trust or company that meets any of the other 4 conditions.

That would suggest that he has substantially more control of the shares in the company than I had previously believed. Indeed between the two of them they would appear to control at least half of the shares.

Can anyone shed any light on this, is it old news and I have simply missed it.  

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:22 pm - Dec 14, 2016


CORRUPT OFFICIAL
DECEMBER 14, 2016 at 11:35

I feel people are grasping at straws here to have the T’Rangers operation closed down.

We have had everything from the Tax case, Res 12, Ashley, stealing Water and now Roofs.

In pure engineering terms any issues  with the roofs and how do deal with them should be deal with in a logical manner with due consideration given to risk assessments and health and safety issues.

I understand the suspicions with regard to what the T’Ranger board may or may not do in this circumstance. However the calls for closure of the stadium appears to me to be nothing more than a knee jerk reaction.

How many buildings do you pass in a city centre on a daily basis where construction or repairs/maintenance/inspections are being carried out via scaffolding and protective netting?

Are we saying that all such streets should be closed immediately to the thousands of passing pedestrians and vehicles?

I am sure a good deal of work can be undertaken safely at Ibrox on the 13 days in every fortnight the stadium is not full. 

As discussed, if Phil or JJ have detailed info then why have they not sought the input from a structural engineer to give an appraisal of the situation and provide a commentary similar to ‘Rugger Guy’ and the accounts. That would give me some comfort with regard the level of problem and what may or may not be appropriate and reasonable action.

If the situation was critical with the level of  hazard of endangering lives and Phil and JJ have rock solid proof that there is danger of imminent collapse then it is not a time for pussy footing around with little teasers in their blogs, firing questions to press officers and talking about ‘a developing story’.

If the roofs are in such a hazardous condition we appear to have a situation where a baby in a pram is stuck on a railway track with a train fast approaching and observers in supposed possession of knowledge of the imminent danger are whispering ‘get off the line’.

 

View Comment

SmugasPosted on12:23 pm - Dec 14, 2016


Surely the Chairmanship would construe “ability to control” no?  (Its not a prerequisite in so far as the chair is there to chair not control) but I don’t mind the inference personally. 

Equally I assume its the PSC of RIFC that you have listed?  The chairman/majority shareholder of RIFC would undoubtedly be a PSC of TRFC. 

View Comment

MercDocPosted on12:40 pm - Dec 14, 2016


OT but worth a mention I noticed Malky MacKay, could get the ‘Scottish Football Association’s new Performance Director’ and ‘Show Racism the Red Card’ have wished him well. Then why does Clare Haughey (MSP) think it’s not a good idea and ‘sends out the wrong signal’. Obviously people can’t change and don’t deserve a second chance, is that the ‘right signal to send out’? I hope she wasn’t wearing her Unison Convenor hat, when she made those comments. I would feel she probably wouldn’t be the right person to represent you, if you where in that situation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-38314905

View Comment

NTDEALPosted on12:40 pm - Dec 14, 2016


Homunculus,
there seemed to be a general discussion on taxation ongoing that was descending into political argument.
That is all I was commenting on.

View Comment

bluPosted on1:02 pm - Dec 14, 2016


SmugasDecember 14, 2016 at 12:23 Surely the Chairmanship would construe “ability to control” no?  (Its not a prerequisite in so far as the chair is there to chair not control) but I don’t mind the inference personally. 
Equally I assume its the PSC of RIFC that you have listed?  The chairman/majority shareholder of RIFC would undoubtedly be a PSC of TRFC. 

Smugas, There is no CS01 currently lodged for TRFC. Surely Mr DC King couldn’t declare that he was a PSC of TRFC? He hasn’t, of course. Mr Ashley checked that one out.
A reason for the declaration in respect of RIFC could be that those named as PSC have provided loans – Park x2, King, Gilligan and P Murray. I may have missed Paul Murray as being in that category but he’s listed on the Confirmation Statement submitted to Companies House by RIFC.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on1:40 pm - Dec 14, 2016


NTDEAL
DECEMBER 14, 2016 at 10:11

As an aside;is there a law against these awful mannequin challenges,if not why not?That me being political?…
===========================

In fact the SFA is trying to copyright ‘Mannequin Challenge’.

The blazers claim they dreamed this up as an effective national football team tactic – to guarantee failure to qualify for any tournament ever again!

True story…mibbees…

I’ll freeze in front of my jacket.  09

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on1:56 pm - Dec 14, 2016


BLU
DECEMBER 14, 2016 at 13:02

Thanks, that makes sense, so basically they are people who have significant control over the business not because of their shareholding but in their position as a director. 

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on2:18 pm - Dec 14, 2016


WOTTPIDECEMBER 14, 2016 at 12:22
    ”
I feel people are grasping at straws here to have the T’Rangers operation closed down.
We have had everything from the Tax case, Res 12, Ashley, stealing Water and now Roofs.”
   —————————————————————————————————————————-
  Two of those examples are really the sins of old Rangers, and perfectly valid. 
I agree that work can be safely carried out while a structure continues to function as required, but remember, Phil et al, are basically only confirming the words of DCK.
   Similar allegations arose spanning both Rangers’ , back to Craig Whyte’s stewardship, where he was apparently told that “He couldn’t paint rust”.  
   Admittedly a lot of pointers towards the safe functionality of the roof are circumstantial, but they are circumstances that demand clarification. 
   With 50,000 bodies underneath them, it is not too much to ask. Who wants to visit a stadium that might be safe, mebbe no? As an aside, there is nothing showing on the planning department website, since the 2014 Commonwealth games. 
   
   

View Comment

bluPosted on2:25 pm - Dec 14, 2016


Homunculus –
 
i)   An individual who holds more than 25% of shares in the company

ii)  An individual who holds more than 25% of voting rights in the company

iii) An individual who holds the right to appoint or remove the majority of the board of directors of the company
Or
 The following conditions apply only in limited circumstances and are explained in Statutory Guidance –available here.
iv) An individual who has the right to exercise, or actually exercises, significant influence or control over the company.
You would consider this where an individual does not meet one of conditions (i) to (iii) but does exercise ‘significant influence or control’ over the company. The statutory guidance sets out principles and situations where an individual would be a PSC.

View Comment

GiovanniPosted on2:36 pm - Dec 14, 2016


There seems to be a school of thought that since there appears to be no move to add netting before the Christmas Eve game against ICT then it cannot be a safety issue. However, if the stories about the holding company being skint are true then maybe they need the additional revenue that the home game against Celtic brings to fund the scaffolding and installation of netting.

Drat these grasping suppliers / contractors who insist on cash up front.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on4:27 pm - Dec 14, 2016


The roof.

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-scottish-government-responds-on-ibrox-roof-issue/

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on5:43 pm - Dec 14, 2016


Kudos to Phil!

An official govt response lifts his scoop well above any accusation of ‘Internet Bampottery’…and you would think the SMSM cant ignore this anymore?

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on6:02 pm - Dec 14, 2016


STEVIEBCDECEMBER 14, 2016 at 17:43
Kudos to Phil!
An official govt response lifts his scoop well above any accusation of ‘Internet Bampottery’…and you would think the SMSM cant ignore this anymore?
    —————————————————————————————————————————-
    You would think so Stevie. They never tired of telling us how “Lateral movement” could result in a turned ankle. 

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on6:50 pm - Dec 14, 2016


“All you can do as a [football] club is be honest…”

Admirable words.

Except they came from the manager of TRFC!  01

Looks like he has finally been afflicted with rangersitis.

Read more at: http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/rangers-boss-urges-teenager-billy-gilmour-to-resist-chelsea-1-4317832

View Comment

Charlie_KellyPosted on6:51 pm - Dec 14, 2016


Some absolutely world class handwringing & pearl clutching going on just now on Radio Scotland over the SFA’s appointment of Malky McKay. They haven’t said what McKay actually said or texted in the first place. Does anyone know what he actually said in the first place?
According to Graham Spiers he was “sent for re-education” which to me, conjures images of Malcolm Mcdowell’s re-education scene in the film ‘A clockwork Orange’.
Seriously though, what did he actually say/do ?

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on7:22 pm - Dec 14, 2016


CHARLIE_KELLYDECEMBER 14, 2016 at 18:51
   His texts are revealed here.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2730307/Malky-Mackay-Iain-Moody-investigated-FA-sexist-racist-homophobic-text-messages-time-Cardiff.html

View Comment

tonyPosted on7:23 pm - Dec 14, 2016


CHARLIE_KELLY

On the arrival of South Korean international Kim Bo-Kyung:’Fkn chinkys. Fk it. There’s enough dogs in Cardiff for us all to go around.’Related Articles’We made a mistake but we are not dinosaurs’
19 Dec 2014Kick It Our chair accuses English football of ‘condoning’ racism
21 Aug 2014FA investigates Mackay and Moody’s ‘sexist and racist’ texts
21 Aug 2014Moody resigns as Palace sporting director
21 Aug 2014Mackay v Tan: The eight transfers which started row
21 Aug 2014Cardiff to sue Palace over ‘spygate’ row
21 Aug 2014On Phil Smith, football agent:
‘Go on, fat Phil. Nothing like a Jew that sees money slipping through his fingers’
On a list of transfer targets:
‘Not many white faces amongst that lot but worth considering.’
On a player’s female agent:
‘I hope she’s looking after your needs. I bet you’d love a bounce on her falsies.’
On an official at another club:
‘He’s a snake, a gay snake. Not to be trusted’
…and sent to members of Cardiff’s staff
A picture entitled Black Monopoly – where every square was a “Go to Jail” square

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:03 pm - Dec 14, 2016


STEVIEBCDECEMBER 14, 2016 at 17:43   
Kudos to Phil!
An official govt response lifts his scoop well above any accusation of ‘Internet Bampottery’…and you would think the SMSM cant ignore this anymore?

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

Can we take it that the Government responding is confirmation there IS an issue with the Ibrox roofs then? It’s just the actual scale of the issue that needs to be confirmed.  Also, now that the Government has responded, what on earth is stopping the mainstream at least trying to take a look under the bonnet on this one? Or do they simply not want to ask a question they won’t like the answer to?

View Comment

misterlightbulbjokePosted on8:29 pm - Dec 14, 2016


I saw the article in today’s Daily Record and despaired about football in small countries as long as UEFA control football.
The article was pointing out that in the near future the Scottish champions would have to play 4 qualifiers for the Champions League group stages. On the subject of the qualifiers themselves I can say as a Celtic fan I find them demeaning, clubs like Celtic, Ajax etc are made to dance in their underpants in front of bored tv executives just like Alan Partridge in his worst recurring nightmare.

Thought struck me though, in our super sensitive politically correct times when all must be treated as equal, how do UEFA get away with allowing 4 English teams straight in and yet the Scots jump through hoops. Is that not some form of discrimination on the grounds of nationality? Here’s what article 18 of the EU treaty on the subject says:
Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) was introduced to prohibit ‘any discrimination on grounds of nationality’ so that all nationals and EU citizenscould be treated equally within the scope of the Treaties.

Here’s what super fair UEFA say about their own attitude to discrimination:
The campaign against discrimination, not just in and around football, but in European society as a whole, is a key tenet of UEFA’s social responsibility programme.
The European governing body believes the power of football can be used to tackle such issues as racism, homophobia, discrimination against ethnic minorities and institutional discrimination such as under-representation of women, or lack of diversity. To this end, UEFA has forged partnerships with the following anti-discrimination organisations:

Lack of diversity? How many nations are represented in the last 16 of the Champions league?

View Comment

bordersdonPosted on9:38 pm - Dec 14, 2016


misterlightbulbjokeDecember 14, 2016 at 20:29   Lack of diversity? How many nations are represented in the last 16 of the Champions league?
==============================================
Portugal have managed 2! Jist sayin!

View Comment

wottpiPosted on9:44 pm - Dec 14, 2016


Good for Phil to get some form of response from the Scottish Government.

However, how much they know and how much they are ‘monitoring’ the situation is still unknown.

I would guess the SG official responding is just repeating what he was told when he spoke to Glasgow City Council for their comment on the matter.

The response looks like pure ‘Sir Humphrey’ to me (giving may age away) and batting the ‘issue’ back to Glasgow City Council. 

‘Regular dialogue’ – very vague. Regular could be daily or it could be annual when the safety certificate needs renewed. Who knows.

We are still no further forward than were were six months ago.

i.e Yes, there is an ‘issue’ with the roofs. Yes the board acknowledges that maintenance is required at the stadium. However it doesn’t seem to be falling down and it is business as usual with near on full houses every second week and for the foreseeable future.

The response from the council’s Chief Exec will be the one that will tell the story IMHO.

To be honest it is all getting into Jeremy Kyle lie detector territory where one person believes the test when it says their partner has been cheating but says the test is wrong when they are found out as well.

On one hand folks were praising the council for playing with a ‘straight bat’ in relation to the state aid land deal shenanigans but suddenly the same organisation is a parcel of rogues putting everyone’s lives at risk.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on12:12 am - Dec 15, 2016


From CQN
   “LIQUIDATORS of Rangers FC has written to the club’s creditors to advise that the Supreme Court will hear their appeal in the co-called Big Tax Case on 15 and 16 March 2017, CQN understands.

http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/supreme-court-sets-the-dates-for-bdos-big-tax-case-appeal/ 

   Don’t panic !….I won’t be posting so much when my flu clears up. 14

View Comment

iceman63Posted on4:17 am - Dec 15, 2016


We owe a lot to Phil. His is still the only book to be published on the demise of Rangers. He is still the only regular blogger left who has the courage not to hide behind anonymity, and while he is sometimes a bit off, or a bit hyperbolic in his style, he does still produce scoops that no other named individual is prepared to publish.
There was, on this site, considerable “sniffiness” or “lack of sniffability” about Phil’s fiddling on the roof exclusive. The missive from the Scottish Government shows that, at the very least, the issue is real, is live and is being monitored.
Shamefully, this admission is once again being ignored by the SMSM- in its entirety. Were this any other club, we can imagine the hysteria, and righteous indignation and possibly hyperbolic response that our tabloid press, and tabloid TV and radio would make of such a revelation. I suspect continued silence from the relevant council and club would be condemned utterly and there would be a wholly justified demand that all relevant documentation, from surveyors, to contracts, to proposals for remedial work, to guarantees of public safety to be placed in the public domain, immediately as a matter of urgency, but with the Ibrox outfit, even with something as potentially serious as this situation with a potentially unsafe roof, we get nada.
We truly are appallingly misserved by the culture of antijournalism amongst journalists in Scotland. They are failing in their basic function in a democratic society. The fourth estate is, to all intents and purposes, now only extant at all in Scotland, online.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:17 am - Dec 15, 2016


CORRUPT OFFICIALDECEMBER 15, 2016 at 00:12       4 Votes 
From CQN   “LIQUIDATORS of Rangers FC has written to the club’s creditors to advise that the Supreme Court will hear their appeal in the co-called Big Tax Case on 15 and 16 March 2017, CQN understands.
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/supreme-court-sets-the-dates-for-bdos-big-tax-case-appeal/ 
===============
sports Direct v rangers march 2017 also.So next march may not be a good time for anything ibrox related.I  can see a few journalists in the SMSM booking holidays away for march next year

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:04 am - Dec 15, 2016


ICEMAN63DECEMBER 15, 2016 at 04:17

One of Ann Budge’s first announcements after taking over Hearts was that the ground, in particular the old stand, had been neglected and needed remedial and safety work carried out. From memory there was no great detail, other than that the work was urgent and costly and required before a safety certificate could be issued. So, at least, the supporters were made aware of the issues and assured the work would be carried out and the timescale involved. I am sure, too, that there was an element of ‘we are having to spend much of the money we have available on non-football related matters, please be patient and don’t expect much in the way of player signings.’ This is, of course, not the kind of message anyone at Ibrox has ever been prepared to put out!

It was a voluntary statement, and not in response to long term rumours, but one that supporters might justifiably expect, even if there is no actual danger to life or limb.

Regardless of what the truth is about the Ibrox roofs, I am sure King and co don’t want to advertise the fact that any half-season ticket sales will be more likely to finance roof repairs than to fund any transfer window signing spree by Mark Warburton, or, indeed, stave off any offloading of players.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on10:26 am - Dec 15, 2016


CLUSTER ONEDECEMBER 15, 2016 at 07:17
 
     “sports Direct v rangers march 2017 also.So next march may not be a good time for anything ibrox related.I can see a few journalists in the SMSM booking holidays away for march next year”
       —————————————————————————————————————————–
   Although unrelated, they do share some of the company directors involved, who coincidentally, will also have spent all the money, and hoping to come into some large bags of cash in the same month. 
   Challenging times, what with those home draws in the SFA jurisdiction cup, and possible stadium safety issues to which the Scottish government have been made aware. 
   Still,…. It’s nice to still be challenging for something eh. 

View Comment

bobcobbPosted on11:09 am - Dec 15, 2016


While not wanting to go on and on about the Ibrox roof, can I seek clarification on something? Am I correct in saying that Phil’s original scoop was not that the roof was about to fall on people’s heads; rather it was the claim that TRFC had redacted the inspection report they submitted to the council to misrepresent the true condition of the roof? If this is true than that is a serious breach of H&S law and the board of directors at TRFC could be held vicariously liable in the event on an accident.
As to the issue of netting. I work as a HSE Adviser and I find it highly dubious that any netting will be erected for the sole reason of catching falling debris during a match in order to protect spectators. It is more likely that if netting is being erected it is merely part of wider maintenance work taking place. You must bear in mind that netting does not eliminate the hazard; it merely mitigates the risk of harm being caused by the hazard (in the same way a safety harness does not prevent a fall from height; it reduces the risk of harm by preventing the fallen worker from hitting the ground after a fall has occurred. The distinction is subtle, but an an important one).
Anyway, my point is that there is no way I would sign off any structure as safe for public use if the only protection offered was netting as this does not deal with the hazard. Netting also only offers one layer of defence from harm; most protective systems (even temporary ones) have two or more back-ups. 
I’m no expert on the situation at Ibrox; just thought I would chuck in a few HSE principles one must consider when risk assessing any situation or structure. Netting – regardless of the strength – just doesn’t cut it in this instance. If any does appear, it will be as a result of scheduled maintenance work. In my opinion, of course.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:47 am - Dec 15, 2016


ALLYJAMBO
DECEMBER 15, 2016 at 10:04

My last word on the roofs issue

I am afraid we really are getting this one ‘arse over tit’ and if one is mentioning statements from Anne Budge then one has to go back and look what DCK has said in the past.

(And BTW to my knowledge Anne Budge has not provided any detailed plans with regard to how works will be undertaken on the new stand while the old stand is still operational and how the safety of fans will be secured – the only quote I can find is that safety certificates will be obtained. If that approach is good enough for Ms Budge and Jambos then why not T’Rangers?)

The following is from DCK’s Q&A with fans and is dated 22 June 2016 at 14:00

The stadium itself requires significant maintenance work, much of which will go unseen, but will include a major overhaul of the roofs of the Broomloan, Copland and Sandy Jardine stands.

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/dave-king-response-4/
Therefore clear evidence that the T’Rangers board communicated with fans and the general public, via their website, that ‘major’ roof maintenance was required.

Due to fears over the extent of the maintenance and the potential safety issues it was reported in the National that the SAG were happy and that a safety certificate was issued. I am sure that Martin Hannan approached the Glasgow City Council in a similar manner to Phil Mac re questions about what was going on.
 
http://www.thenational.scot/news/14904022.Ibrox_issued_with_safety_certificate_after_roof_confusion/

Eariler in February 2016 DCK made a statement that included the following

The stadium and its surrounds were severely neglected by prior Boards that were intent on massive cost-cutting measures.
Further significant investment is required at Ibrox and the board is presently considering a programme of work to ensure that it is returned to its status as one of the best and most iconic stadiums in Britain.
Given the scale of what is required this will take some time to complete.

 

The above appears to me to be acknowledging the scale of the task and a  reasonably structured approach to stadium maintenance and the releasing of information to fans / public /press at regular intervals throughout the year.

JJ then started talking about the Woolgar Hunter report following Martin Hannan’s piece in the National. The point being that it was rumoured that the roof was in a poorer state than perhaps was first thought. DCK had already used the term ‘major overhaul’ therefore that to me points to relatively substantial works.

Where exactly is the ‘exclusive’ over and above what has already been publicly admitted by the T’Rangers Board.

It all seems to revolve around a suspicion that the SAG are having the wool pulled over their eyes along with figures of £10m and the need for long term decanting to Hampden seemingly plucked from thin air.

Regardless of what has been written the roofs recently they are not apparently in an imminent state of collapse, there is long term evidence of board recognizing major maintenance (of some sort) is required and they  have publicly admitted to looking to a programme of works.

The recent talk of scaffolding and netting all appear to be in line with preparation for works that would be seen as ‘external’ to the structures.

The real story may actually be more about whether or not T’Rangers have enough cash to do what they need to do regarding the roofs but for now, despite the general lack of trust of DCK and some of his board, I do not believe for one minute  the likes of the Parks and Robertson would dare mess with serious safety issues and peoples lives.

Can you image the impact on a bus hire operator such a Parks of Hamilton if it was proven their directors played fast and loose with Health & Safety?? Frankly the man and his family would be out of business in a very short space of time.

At the end of the day either the repairs will be undertaken as planned and on satisfactory completion that will be adequate for the authorities to continue to issue safety certificates
or
the club will run out of money for the required level of repairs  and if this leaves the situation unresolved then there may be a need to close the stadium at some point in the future through failure to obtain a safety certificate.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:51 am - Dec 15, 2016


The northern Queensland sun has made me disinclined to get into anything like full reasoning mode, but I need to say well done to PMcG. Now that he has obtained a reply (however bland) from a Ministerial department acknowledging that there is a “roof” issue at Ibrox, neither TRFC nor Glasgow City Council can afford to take any
risk whatsoever without being seen to be blameworthy if anyone gets injured through fabric-of-stadium defects.
On the cost of scaffolding, I can only relate a little story from my first-hand experience.
There is a relatively upmarket housing development quite near my normal bus stop. There is a grade 1 listed 19th century building on the site. It is in the shape of a Roman/Greek temple (without a columned portico).It’s not very big, floor area about,say,5×4 metres, height about 5 or 6 metres.
Planning permission was granted on condition that thisbuilding be taken down carefully stone by stone and re-assembled exactly as it was, but elsewhere on the site.This would occasion the loss of three house plots ( and the homes that were to have been built would have been priced around 500k each).
Appropriate scaffolding was erected, and in a matter of a couple weeks or so, a couple of guys had the roof off.Or at least, the triangular shape  bit,  down to the flat bit that would have been the ceiling. And then work stopped.I learned (how else but by chatting to the odd guy on the site at the gate that gives out on the main road, near my bus stop) that the builders had hit  problem, something to do with the ceiling being one single piece of stone.
Now,I’ve no clear idea what kind of problem that would cause.But work was  suspend for about 16 weeks while arguments went on with city council planners,Historic  scotland, and the developer.
Meanwhile, the scaffolding remained in situ- at £6k per week!
Now, if that was an ordinary rental charge for scaffolding to roof height round a small, single-storey building,what must be the scaffolding/ cherry-picker/suspended platform costs of providing safe working access to allow sructural examination and repair to a stadium roof?

Finally, We called in at a bottle shop yesterday evening to buy a crate (24 345ml bottles of “150 Lashes” pale ale A $88.00).The chap who served us as speaking enthusiastically about a visit to Edinburgh he had made – to Tynecastle! With his real Rangers mate.
I felt  an impish delight in asking solicitously how his friend had taken the liquidation and death of the old RFC.
And I enjoyed introducing that QC quote, about it not being possible 

 to revivify a corpse by tearing up the death certificate!

View Comment

bluPosted on12:01 pm - Dec 15, 2016


wottpiDecember 15, 2016 at 11:47
Exactly the right balance wottpi. All/any future questioning as regards fan safety at Ibrox should be coming from those with the closest interest – Club 1872.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on3:55 pm - Dec 15, 2016


Club 1872 has made a statement today……… (not about the roof though)

That they have terminated their agreement with Lionbrand, who had been supplying replica merchandise without Rangers IP.  I don’t think that it is much of a surprise given the influence that the club has over Club 1872

The agreement that the Club 1872 working group had with Lionbrand has come to end with the election of the new Board. Club 1872 would like to thank Lionbrand and those purchasing its products for the donations received to date.
Going forward, monies raised by Lionbrand will be used for other purposes and will not be donated to Club 1872.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:07 pm - Dec 15, 2016


JOHN CLARKDECEMBER 15, 2016 at 11:51
here is a relatively upmarket housing development quite near my normal bus stop. There is a grade 1 listed 19th century building on the site. It is in the shape of a Roman/Greek temple (without a columned portico).It’s not very big, floor area about,say,5×4 metres, height about 5 or 6 metres.Planning permission was granted on condition that thisbuilding be taken down carefully stone by stone and re-assembled exactly as it was, but elsewhere on the site.This would occasion the loss of three house plots ( and the homes that were to have been built would have been priced around 500k each).Appropriate scaffolding was erected, and in a matter of a couple weeks or so, a couple of guys had the roof off.Or at least, the triangular shape bit, down to the flat bit that would have been the ceiling. And then work stopped.
———————-
For a moment i thought you were going to say work stopped as they found asbestos.Now  The recent talk of scaffolding and netting all appear to be in line with preparation for works that would be seen as ‘external’ to the structures.To be carried out during the winter break.But what if the contractors find asbestos? This work that was to take just a couple of weeks could take more than a couple of weeks. As John has said.
Meanwhile, the scaffolding remained in situ- at £6k per week!Now, if that was an ordinary rental charge for scaffolding to roof height round a small, single-storey building,what must be the scaffolding/ cherry-picker/suspended platform costs of providing safe working access to allow sructural examination and repair to a stadium roof?
If the work to be carried out is not as simple as a straight forward repair job the cost could be much more if asbestos is found

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on6:47 pm - Dec 15, 2016


Asbestos is a racing certainty on buildings the age of the Ibrox main stand, negotiations over the listed building are also likely to be fraught. I believe that the main stand is listed as so shall anything within its curtilage- curtilage is not defined in the statutes but via a set of court decisions, this may very well mean that the entire stadium is included in the listing-it would be hard to argue against all of the stands being included in the curtilage. I have had many long hours of joy arguing with planners over these kinds of issues even when their claims were clearly outwith the intentions of a listing.  These issues only ever send costs upward.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:14 pm - Dec 15, 2016


BFBPUZZLEDDECEMBER 15, 2016 at 18:47
These issues only ever send costs upward.
———————
WOTTPIDECEMBER 15, 2016 at 11:47
At the end of the day either the repairs will be undertaken as planned and on satisfactory completion that will be adequate for the authorities to continue to issue safety certificatesorthe club will run out of money for the required level of repairs and if this leaves the situation unresolved then there may be a need to close the stadium at some point in the future through failure to obtain a safety certificate.
———————
the repairs will be undertaken as planned.
Maybe repairs were to be undertaken as planned and the price may have been agreed if the repairs were to get the go ahead,but if any asbestos is found and has to be removed first this will not be in the planned cost.
As you say The real story may actually be more about whether or not T’Rangers have enough cash to do what they need to do regarding the roofs.
the DCK statements don’t really go into any detail about what work on the roofs has to be undertaken, just major overhaul.How much is major and how much will it cost and how long will it take.

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on7:37 pm - Dec 15, 2016


If asbestos is. “Racing certainty” as BFBPuzzled suggests, and I have no reason to doubt him, then this will almost certainly have been included in any planning for work being done. 

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:42 pm - Dec 15, 2016


…and about them roofs / rooves…

Still silence from TRFC, whilst the Bampots are developing their structural knowledge on a daily basis.

But, if RIFC/TRFC is as rooked as we believe – and assuming no other monies arrive shortly from offshore sources – then spending money on major maintenance would not be King’s first choice.  It is maybe imperative that the Blue Room keeps a focus on the squad, and to ensure 2nd place and perhaps a Cup final or win ?

If the ‘planned works’ start on the roofs;
– they could take longer to complete, e.g. due to weather and/or finding other items needing fixing / replacing ?
– there could be a risk of an extended, partial stadium closure [?] until all works have been completed and inspected
– there could be a risk – perhaps – that TRFC just doesn’t have the cash to complete any ‘unforseen costs’

If your cash reserves are dwindling sharply, then an alternative solution could become an appealing, short-term fix.
Like renting Hampden.
But then, if allowed, would TRFC ever have the funds to refurbish – and return to – Ibrox ?

Mibbees King will threaten the blazers: we have no cash, can’t fix Ibrox – so let us rent Hampden, or else the SFA will be responsible for killing off TRFC…and that’s ‘not good for the Scottish game’.

If TRFC is scrabbling about in January to secure freebie / loan players, then spending significant amounts of their limited cash for H&S reasons would be painful for them.  Unless the contractor(s) foolishly provide credit terms ?  15 

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on7:45 pm - Dec 15, 2016


BFBPUZZLED

DECEMBER 15, 2016 at 18:47        

Asbestos is a racing certainty on buildings the age of the Ibrox main stand, negotiations over the listed building are also likely to be fraught.
————————————-

The three edifices mentioned by DCK are the Sandy Jardine, Copland Road & Broomloan stands. The main stand has never (to my knowledge) been mentioned as requiring structural repairs.

I also note that there’s a subtle revision of history going on in discussions about Ibrox: apparently it’s become the first all-seater stadium in Scotland, despite Kilbowie & Pittodrie being converted before it.

Anurra wurrrlt rekkid furra peepul!

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:53 pm - Dec 15, 2016


RYANGOSLINGDECEMBER 15, 2016 at 19:37
thanks for clarification.
major overhaul at what cost and what timeframe for completion, and do T’Rangers have enough cash to do what they need to do regarding the roofs.and do they have enough cash if any unplanned problems crop up and the repairs take longer than antisipated, will it be ok for fans to attend games while repairs are taking place Is more a question i.and i  believe fans want the board to answer

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on8:05 pm - Dec 15, 2016


I’m afraid I don’t sit on the Board Cluster One so can’t answer all of those questions. 

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:12 pm - Dec 15, 2016


So it appears the appeal date for the big tax case has finally been set for March next year. I suppose it would be better not to confidently predict the outcome either way given all that has happened so far. I imagine some people at Hampden will be hoping, possibly even praying (if they’re that way inclined), for a specific outcome mind you. 

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on8:25 pm - Dec 15, 2016


…and about them roofs / rooves…Still silence from TRFC, whilst the Bampots are developing their structural knowledge on a daily basis.But, if RIFC/TRFC is as rooked as we believe – and assuming no other monies arrive shortly from offshore sources – then spending money on major maintenance would not be King’s first choice.  It is maybe imperative that the Blue Room keeps a focus on the squad, and to ensure 2nd place and perhaps a Cup final or win ?If the ‘planned works’ start on the roofs;- they could take longer to complete, e.g. due to weather and/or finding other items needing fixing / replacing ?- there could be a risk of an extended, partial stadium closure [?] until all works have been completed and inspected- there could be a risk – perhaps – that TRFC just doesn’t have the cash to complete any ‘unforseen costs’If your cash reserves are dwindling sharply, then an alternative solution could become an appealing, short-term fix.Like renting Hampden.But then, if allowed, would TRFC ever have the funds to refurbish – and return to – Ibrox ?Mibbees King will threaten the blazers: we have no cash, can’t fix Ibrox – so let us rent Hampden, or else the SFA will be responsible for killing off TRFC…and that’s ‘not good for the Scottish game’.If TRFC is scrabbling about in January to secure freebie / loan players, then spending significant amounts of their limited cash for H&S reasons would be painful for them.  Unless the contractor(s) foolishly provide credit terms ?  15 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:50 pm - Dec 15, 2016


STEVIEBCDECEMBER 15, 2016 at 20:25  If the ‘planned works’ start on the roofs;- they could take longer to complete, e.g. due to weather and/or finding other items needing fixing / replacing ?- there could be a risk of an extended, partial stadium closure [?] until all works have been completed and inspected- there could be a risk – perhaps – that TRFC just doesn’t have the cash to complete any ‘unforseen costs’If your cash reserves are dwindling sharply, then an alternative solution could become an appealing, short-term fix.Like renting Hampden.But then, if allowed, would TRFC ever have the funds to refurbish – and return to – Ibrox ?
————————-
Put down in a way that i wanted to say and much better than i could have.
Transparency from the board and not just major overhaul of roofs would be a help to relieve any fans of such questions

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:51 pm - Dec 15, 2016


UPTHEHOOPS
DECEMBER 15, 2016 at 20:12
================================

I predict that the Supreme Court will uphold the decision of The Court of Session and find in favour of HMRC.

They will find that Lord Carloway (the most senior Judge in Scotland) and his colleagues were correct in finding that the tax was due, as the payments were just that, payments. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on8:51 pm - Dec 15, 2016


wottpiDecember 15, 2016 at 11:47

My post was an attempt to find another reason for RIFC’s silence on the roof repairs rather than that they were covering up the seriousness of the damage and, perhaps, trying to get away with merely ‘protecting’ the public by installing nets. The reason I suggested for their silence was that (unlike at Hearts when they announced that they were spending money, lots (for Hearts) of money, on repair work to the old stand) they, RIFC, didn’t want to draw attention to the fact that whatever money they might glean from half-season ticket sales would go towards this unavoidable expense. According to PMGB’s timescale the nets will be appearing after the optimum time for these sales.  In my opinion, the mentions of these repairs appeared in the accounts and a long contrived Q&A PR exercise, and, without the internet bampots they could well have been overlooked and forgotten about by now, certainly by those bears who are anxious to sign up for the journey now their club is in clear second place.

From memory, the Hearts announcement about the repairs to the old stand made it clear that the work was of a temporary nature, as, one way or another, the stand wasn’t going to be around for long. As yet, there has been no word from Ibrox as to whether or not the work will be of a temporary or permanent nature, with only a requirement for proper maintenance in the foreseeable future. I am sure that the club would like everyone to believe that the £500,000 they said was required to carry out all the repairs to Ibrox would see the work completed for many a long year, but I’d suggest that, as the regular maintenance was not carried out because the costs were prohibitive, and it’s generally recognised that regular maintenance is cheaper than repairing years of deterioration, that that sum could only possibly represent the cost of temporary repairs.

As to comparing the Ibrox situation with the building of Hearts new stand. I would not expect RIFC to give out details of how the work would be carried out, merely to give an indication of the extent of the work and the anticipated outcome, ie permanent or temporary. I wouldn’t expect anyone at Ibrox to have the technical knowledge to explain, in any worthwhile way, how the work would be carried out, any more than Ann Budge would be a worthwhile source of how the new Hearts’ stand can be built safely around the existing structure. I believe Ann Budge’s expertise (and so an area where her understanding of things is of value) is in computers, while Dave King’s is in…well, convincing people that apples are oranges and worth a hefty punt21

PS If Ann Budge told me that she has been given convincing evidence that there will be no danger to the public during the building of the new stand, I would believe that she believes it to be true. On the other hand, if Dave King was to say similar about the roofs at Ibrox, I would believe that he would like me to believe that he believes there is no danger to the public!

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:58 pm - Dec 15, 2016


CLUSTER ONE
DECEMBER 15, 2016 at 19:53
================================

Given the last several sets of accounts produced by RIFC PLC (for the group) I think it is reasonable to say that they do not have the money to pay for repairs to the roofs, or anything else.

They actually don’t have any money in reserve and are having to borrow money just to keep operating.

If repairs are required they will need either loans, a rights issue, or sale of assets. The loans will have to come from people who are emotionally attached to the club. If not they will be at hugely onerous terms and will require security.

View Comment

ParadisebhoyPosted on9:19 pm - Dec 15, 2016


I’m not an engineer but I would imagine that a fully-laden stand is more vulnerable to failure than an empty one and more so if the load was in synchronised movement. 
                                                                                                If the Celtic fans start a “Let’s all do the Huddle” or The Rangers fans “Do the Bouncy” the stresses will be enormous and possibly catastrophic. 
In 1971 I was working as a part-time barman in a pub in Rutherglen and I witnessed the aftermath of the Ibrox Disaster. Initially,guys came into the pub blissfully unaware of the tragedy. This was before mobile phones ,of course, and the owner of the pub placed the office phone on the bar and ordered that nobody was to get a drink until they phoned home.
                                                               Later on , men who had actually seen the carnage or had narrowly escaped injury started to come in . The devastated look on their faces haunts me to this day. 
It’s  only a game of football surely it can wait.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on9:43 pm - Dec 15, 2016


https://stv.tv/sport/football/1375807-regan-mackay-is-exactly-what-we-re-looking-for-in-key-role/?utm_content=bufferdb21f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The photo in the STV link above shows;

– Regan, a thoroughly discredited, derided individual amongst supporters of most Scottish clubs

– Mackay, a somewhat ‘controversial’ choice for the poisoned chalice that is the SFA Performance Director role, [3 in 2 years]

– they are holding up a rather insipid, Scottish top 

– they are standing in the crappy national stadium which was built to accommodate another sport – and whose most infuriating fault is the vast distance between the seats and the action !

Yet for all the negativity…the playing surface looks quite good.  14

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on11:12 pm - Dec 15, 2016


£500,000 will not buy major refurbishment on 3 roofs of the scale of a stadium.
The main stand may not be part of any forthcoming works and I believe it’s roof is newer than the rest however if it has been neglected for many years then unavoidable costs will be on the way.
The point about Lord Carloway is well made -he has marked the Supreme Court’s card with his actions.
There should be a viable club at Ibrox but the holes which SDM started digging and which continue to deepen may be too deep to climb from.

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on12:51 am - Dec 16, 2016


upthehoops
December 15, 2016 at 20:12
So it appears the appeal date for the big tax case has finally been set for March next year 
—————————————————————————————————–
Why are so many “cases” being set for March next year?
Even article 50!
Just curious?

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on2:00 am - Dec 16, 2016


JINGSO.JIMSIEDECEMBER 15, 2016 at 19:45

My mate Dunky was the joiner at Kilbowie Park . You could also watch the game from the Club with a pint in your hand before the legislation changed to outlaw this . After that, the curtains were drawn and two of Strathclyde’s finest would stand at the windows to ensure that nobody could see out . I may be making this bit up, but I vaguely remember tables, chairs and umbrellas behind the goal at the Club end during a match .

View Comment

PortbhoyPosted on6:28 am - Dec 16, 2016


Hi B.P. Tris.,
It’s just a wee  thing, ….. ah know it’s early, ..

Well, …. it’s re. this new word roofs, … it keeps appearing in the forum this weather, which is contrary  to all I’ve been taught as a youngster,  … so before I serve  a resist and desist order, …. please let  your (usually) well informed and learned contributors, know, … the correct spelling is, … ROOVES.
19 22

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on9:30 am - Dec 16, 2016


Portbhoy,

Roofs is the plural of roof in all varieties of English. Rooves is an old secondary form, and it still appears occasionally by analogy with other irregular plurals such as hooves, but it is not common enough to be considered standard.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:52 am - Dec 16, 2016


Thank you lads, I’ve been more than a little concerned about the plural of roof and now you’ve sorted it out for me…oh no! Wait a minute21

View Comment

DunderheidPosted on10:28 am - Dec 16, 2016


Woof woof …

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on11:49 am - Dec 16, 2016


RyanGosling
December 16, 2016 at 09:30
Correct  04
—————————–

Just for you and completely off topic:-
http://screenrant.com/avatar-2-3-4-release-date-delay-2017-james-cameron/  06

View Comment

PortbhoyPosted on2:55 pm - Dec 16, 2016


RYANGOSLINGDECEMBER 16, 2016  
Portbhoy,
Roofs is the plural of roof in all varieties of English. Rooves is an old secondary form, and it still appears occasionally by analogy with other irregular plurals such as hooves, but it is not common enough to be considered standard.
Ryan, 
Mind noo, …. ah’m a veteran pensioner !!!  19

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:13 pm - Dec 16, 2016


Just read this curious DR article about Queens Park, and the 1 pound a week contracts, with the screaming headline;
[my highlighting]

“Queen’s Park break 150 years of amateur tradition and now face HMRC crackdown”
“…
The grand amateurs of Scottish football could face an HMRC crackdown after handing out £1-a-week professional deals to players.

We [DR] have been investigating the failure of the SPFL…

SNP MSP James Dornan, whose Cathcart constituency covers Hampden, expressed his concern as Holyrood prepares to debate the issue of good governance across the national game next week…”
============================================

QP stated they have not had any discussions with HMRC in last 8 years.
Fraser Wishart – the CEO of PFA – hasn’t mentioned this in the SMSM before now, [unless I missed it].

The word ‘investigating’ blew Ralston’s cover: it made me immediately suspicious !

Of course, respecting minimum wage regulations is a must, but what have the SPFL / SFA / MSM / Fraser Wishart been doing all this time ?

And the other snippet which caught my eye: the lawyers who drew up these – presumably void [?] – contracts are the same as the SFA’s – Harper Macleod LLP.

Mmmmm…  09

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on6:03 pm - Dec 16, 2016


Every time I write roofs a wee nagging voice says maybe it should be rooves perhaps since the roofs in question are a wee bit archaic the older form should be used. Note to self make no 17th century references at this point. 

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on9:15 pm - Dec 16, 2016


Keep hold of your hooves there BFBPuzzled. 

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on1:30 am - Dec 17, 2016


In my patois –

a hoof up the park
two hoofs up the park 
he’s ripping the lead aff the roof
he’s ripping the lead aff the roofs

Yeez need Maryhill tae teach yeez how tae write(and spracken) the English .

View Comment

PortbhoyPosted on11:06 am - Dec 17, 2016


Heh Paddy, 
ah know Mary, …. 
a luvley woman so she is !!

View Comment

tonyPosted on11:41 am - Dec 17, 2016


phil’s latest 
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/a-tale-of-two-meetings/

View Comment

tonyPosted on11:50 am - Dec 17, 2016


anyone read this 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:33 pm - Dec 17, 2016


tonyDecember 17, 2016 at 11:50

Very interesting, Tony, but a bit too long for my level of concentration and, to be honest, over my head09

I more or less skim read it, hovering over any reference to Rangers (sic) and King and it paints neither of those parties in anything other than a bad light. I am not sure, though, in the end it is anything more than someone’s/some people’s version of events that doesn’t carry much weight or is even something we can consider the undoubted truth about the events. It does, however, lend weight to JJ’s claims about King buying the CF material illegally! Perhaps, if nothing else comes out of this, he, King, will face criminal charges, and have the opportunity to clear his name from such a vile calumny!

I hope EJ or another of our more analytical posters will take the time to dissect it and give us their opinion on what it says.

View Comment

Comments are closed.