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

PortbhoyPosted on10:58 am - Nov 10, 2016


Meanwhile on a lighter note,  “wee” Joey’s still no’ a happy budgie. ..

https://i.imgflip.com/1dwhux.jpg  🙂 

View Comment

PortbhoyPosted on12:23 pm - Nov 10, 2016


Neepheid @ 0915 this morning,
John James has just been on twitter, saying that the payoff for Barton is one million. He’s putting an article up on his site later.
John James has just been on twitter, saying that the payoff for Barton is one million. He’s putting an article up on his site later.That’s still a very good deal for RIFC, in my opinion.
john james ‏@sitonfence 45m45 minutes ago BARTON PAYMENT IS £1m. DETAILS IN ARTICLE TO FOLLOW.

Hi Neepheid,  
Here is the article, ..

https://johnjamessite.com/

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on12:25 pm - Nov 10, 2016


Re the Barton pay-off – Sometimes there is a tendency on this site just to take a one sided view of all events at Ibrox.  Despite what I heard last night, I don’t actually know anymore than any other poster about what negotiations there have been.  However there is a commonly held view that Barton would seek to screw Rangers for the maximum out of the remainder of his contract, if the club wants him to leave.

It is certainly true that Rangers do want him off the pay bill. But taking an opposite view for a moment, what if Barton realises he made a mistake in coming to Ibrox and he equally wishes to leave and seek to play elsewhere.  Would that not be reason enough for a mutually agreeable settlement between the parties?

If I was on the Rangers Board I would not be wanting to agree a £1M plus payment now, only to see Barton walk into a new club on 1st January.  If it happened, then Barton would effectively have been paid double for his time at Ibrox in addition to picking up a pay check at a new club, despite the possibility that he himself was just as keen to make the split.

Sure, Barton could sit tight and see out his contract, but that would mean him travelling to and staying in Glasgow for the next 18 months, training with the youths and with his appearances limited to Development League games. Is that what he really wants at this stage in his career?  I don’t think so.  On balance, I do think a compromise agreement with a limited pay off would be the likely outcome.

View Comment

DunderheidPosted on12:41 pm - Nov 10, 2016


Shameless re-post: getting it out there.

Feel free to share with friends and fellow fans …

Petition to have SFA respond to ‘allegations of impropriety’:

https://www.change.org/p/the-scottish-football-association-the-sfa-has-to-respond-to-allegations-of-impropriety-concerning-the-issue-of-uefa-licences?recruiter=55501414&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on12:59 pm - Nov 10, 2016


Phil’s latest.
http://linkis.com/ie/iRydi

View Comment

neepheidPosted on1:30 pm - Nov 10, 2016


easyJamboNovember 10, 2016 at 12:25       7 Votes 
Re the Barton pay-off – Sometimes there is a tendency on this site just to take a one sided view of all events at Ibrox.  Despite what I heard last night, I don’t actually know anymore than any other poster about what negotiations there have been.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I totally agree. We will never get the facts from either party, so it’s just a matter of choosing the version that you feel is most likely to be true. I would be surprised if RIFC could afford a million pound payoff. On the other hand, I can’t see why Barton would settle for less, but a lot will depend on what offers Barton has had from England.
And you’re correct about the one sided view. We all see what we want to see at times.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on2:19 pm - Nov 10, 2016


CrownSTbhoy
The link in question is to Google cache where the original SII remains after being removed by the author.
It was removed as I understand it to revise some parts so they pass legal muster and replace one graphic with another more relevant.
I understand it is the authors intent to republish but from what was in the original and from what can be gleaned from UEFA’s responses to the Res12 lawyer,  Regan has questions to answer on what exact basis was the UEFA licence granted in 2011 (there are two reasons in the SII report either of which put the SFA in the collusion dock unless they can clarify why they shouldn’t be) and why exactly did the SFA excuse themselves from Commissioning LNS and how far a distance did they maintain and did they reveal all that they knew about side letters and ebts in the lead up to the investigation launched by Harper Mcleod on behalf of the then  SPL.
So the linkage between Res12 which is primarily a Celtic shareholder concern but has wider implications for honest governance and the possible misdirection of LNS by the SFA make what happened in 2011 and 2012 a matter of concern for supporters of all clubs who value honest governance that believes in integrity.
To that end the more who sign up to the petition on E Tims at
https://www.change.org/p/the-scottish-football-association-the-sfa-has-to-respond-to-allegations-of-impropriety-concerning-the-issue-of-uefa-licences?recruiter=158907509&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=share_twitter_responsive
the better and the more supporters who approach their own clubs demanding the truth (a stranger in a strange land nowadays, where lies rule the landscape) the more likely we will get that governance rather an accepting it’s counterfeit deceitful alternative which has become common currency.
I understand SII will republish their report and that the separate Conclusions arrived at and disseminated to Celtic shareholders and the club as a result of Res12  lawyers writing to SFA and UEFA, will also be made public before the Celtic AGM.
They complement or support what was in the SII which came from a different base than Res12, which was driven by the same desire for honest governance but not from a Celtic source.
Joey Barton is the talk of today’s JJ  steamie but that affair only impacts on one club, an honest SFA impacts on all clubs even the one with Joey Barton problems.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:40 pm - Nov 10, 2016


AuldheidNovember 10, 2016 at 14:19
“…….Joey Barton is the talk of today’s JJ steamie but that affair only impacts on one club, an honest SFA impacts on all clubs even the one with Joey Barton problems.”
________
Aye, and a DIShonest SFA has a worse impact on all levels of football governance. 19
You’re quite, quite right to remind us that ,bad as the misdeeds of one rotten Football club owner may have been, the rottenness at the very heart of Scottish football governance is infinitely worse, and it is imperative that it be  tackled and sorted.
The onus is absolutely on the SFA to show that we are wrong, if they can. It is their behaviour  that has made us so distrustful of them as not to believe any story they give us unless backed up by incontrovertible evidence that we can assess for ourselves.
Smart pseudo-lawyer talk will not cut the mustard.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:44 pm - Nov 10, 2016


From John James’ site;
“…
ADDENDUM
1. It was the club doctor who signed [Barton] off with stress…”
================================================

Looks like TRFC was gubbed from the start then.
And now the club doctor is placed in a professional dilemma.

He might not have delivered on the park, but Barton has certainly played a blinder off it…

And another example of shockingly inept management from the Blue Room is there for all to see.

View Comment

bobcobbPosted on4:00 pm - Nov 10, 2016


Finally got round to listening to the podcast. Always great to hear Jim Spence and the interview with David Low was very thought provoking. I’m surprised there has not been more discussion on some of the points raised?

Well done guys – a great broadcast and one that puts our MSM to shame.

View Comment

CrownStBhoyPosted on4:02 pm - Nov 10, 2016


Much appreciated update Auldheid thanks.
I did notice some discrepancies in the SII report but nonetheless as CO indicated a very worthy read placing much documentary evidence of misdeeds in one place.
I’m feeling evermore confident the SFA will be held to account though to what degree I’m unsure but if it is just to be certain of an admission of guilt and that such events will never again be allowed to take place it may suffice.
The ‘Cadete affair’ sticks in my throat to this day so this time there must be definitive evidence of change in the present state of ambiguity within articles/rules and governance so that a ‘Bryson interpretation’ can never again be tolerated and a ‘president Ogilvie type’ not ever allowed to wield so much personal power.
This, as you say, would benefit all clubs and provide some sway of conviction to supporters of, at last, some proper governance within the SFA (although I have to say to see is to believe).
I have signed the petition and posted the link to twitter and facebook; I urge all likeminded who have such accounts to do so.
Finally, may I proffer a personal thanks to you and all your fellow requisitioners for your relentless enthusiasm and resourcefulness in your pursuit; let’s hope the Celtic AGM is as enlightening in the most very positive of ways.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:13 pm - Nov 10, 2016


STEVIEBC

NOVEMBER 10, 2016 at 15:44        

From John James’ site;“…

ADDENDUM1. It was the club doctor who signed [Barton] off with stress…

================================================
Looks like TRFC was gubbed from the start then.

And now the club doctor is placed in a professional dilemma.
———————————————————————

From my (admittedly very limited) knowledge of football players’ contracts, the first port of call for any medical assistance/diagnosis, barring emergency treatment, is usually mandated to be the club doctor (probably for insurance purposes). 

Had Barton gone to his own doctor, he may well have been in breach of contract.

I fail to see why the doctor would be placed in any dilemna: the Hippocratic Oath is ranked above WATP, even at Ibrox.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on4:27 pm - Nov 10, 2016


Jingo,

If the club doctor signed him off then ‘the club’ leaked the story.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:41 pm - Nov 10, 2016


SMUGAS —

There were two parties to whatever occurred between doctor & patient: the RIFC/TRFC organisation(s) & Barton & his advisors.

One of them leaked. I don’t know which one. It’s an industry driven & riven by gossip.

I don’t know the organisational responsibilities within RIFC/TRFC & to whom the medic directly reports (HR or Warburton, for example, but surely not Level Sinko!). I also don’t know how ‘secure’ Barton’s side is. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:29 pm - Nov 10, 2016


BBC have announced that Barton has left the building (or is it sinking ship?) and also published one of his tweets that confirms it. No mention of severance package, just a note that neither party is commenting.

So, whatever the deal, a lot of money has gone down the pan for the sake of a handful of games and ST sales of, probably, the equivalent cost in wages/severance. I’d say the problems he (or rank bad management) has caused outweighs any benefit. A great many bampots predicted this while the SMSM were hailing his signing as a coup. You’d think they’d have learned after 5 years of getting it wrong, but we can be sure the jingoistic approach to TRFC spin will continue.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on6:39 pm - Nov 10, 2016


We have added the auction for the signed Hibs’ 1991 Skol Cup team ball. Apologies to the Jambos out there 🙂

http://www.sfmonitor.org/shop/hibernian-fc-autographed-matchball/

There is a wee widget at the top of the sidebar, and a menu item which we will keep on during the auction – which is to raise some cash for kids in Edinburgh at Christmas. Every penny raised will go directly to Cody’s Toy Box, the charity headed by an eight-year-old Edinburgh boy with a great deal of compassion for others less fortunate than himself.

Anyone who is not interested in the auction, but wishes to donate, can do so at

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/codystoybox

where you can find out about Cody and his hopes for others.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:18 pm - Nov 10, 2016


easyJamboNovember 10, 2016 at 12:25 i 19 Votes
Re the Barton pay-off – Sometimes there is a tendency on this site just to take a one sided view of all events at Ibrox. Despite what I heard last night, I don’t actually know anymore than any other poster about what negotiations there have been. However there is a commonly held view that Barton would seek to screw Rangers for the maximum out of the remainder of his contract, if the club wants him to leave.
It is certainly true that Rangers do want him off the pay bill. But taking an opposite view for a moment, what if Barton realises he made a mistake in coming to Ibrox and he equally wishes to leave and seek to play elsewhere. Would that not be reason enough for a mutually agreeable settlement between the parties?
—————————
Sometimes there is a tendency on this site just to take a one sided view of all events at Ibrox.
sometimes there is justification for this.
—————————
However there is a commonly held view that Barton would seek to screw Rangers for the maximum out of the remainder of his contract, if the club wants him to leave.
Ally wanted the maximum out of the remainder of his contract,and the rangers wanted him off the wage bill.If Barton realises he made a mistake in coming to Ibrox and he equally wishes to leave and seek to play elsewhere. Would that not be reason enough for a mutually agreeable settlement between the parties?Ally would have sat tight in his garden until BT came calling and there was then a mutually agreeable settlement between the parties?
——————
Both would have sat tight i believe until another job offer came along,in Ally’s case it did and he settled for an agreement. Maybe joey will do the same until a nother job offer comes up and he has to go for an agreement.
Hope you can see where i’m coming from

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on8:43 pm - Nov 10, 2016


On the Barton payoff. I am very much with EJ. JB is on around £14-£15k per week, not the £20k+ of fable. 

That makes around £1.5m for the contract. By January, he will already have earned £375k of that, so apart from the fact that I have two sources who agree with EJ’s man, it’s hard to see how there’s anything in it for TRFC to pay him £1m.

My information is that £250k netto was on the table to go now. That would make his gross take about £850k for playing eight times. – or to put it another way, nearly 60% of his total contract for 25% of the stretch.

That is lucrative enough to sew his lips up I would have thought.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on8:56 pm - Nov 10, 2016


The DR providing a full, free advert / article for TRFC’s latest commercial deal.

On the face of it, it looks like a step in the right direction and a new revenue stream for the Ibrox club.

Unfortunately, their partner company is having similar, financial challenges as a newly formed company;

“…Sportlobster launched in 2013 and has yet to book revenues.
The company noted operating losses in the 2015 year to December narrowed to £4.38million, down from a £6.53m operating loss in 2014…”

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on9:05 pm - Nov 10, 2016


Don`t understand why posters on here can`t figure out the detail of Joeys payoff
Its been done to death elsewhere
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 
 2 hours ago, 1ClubMan72 said:
When we should be counting the £ pounds we go & waste a million on Barton paying him what seems to be around £12500 per game.
The worst thing is he was poor, rubbish, ineffectual in most of these games, waste of the fans money
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 1 hour ago, TheLoudenTavernier said:
That’s a few times I’ve seen you mentioning £12500 a game.
I’d love to know how you’ve figured that one out.
 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
1 hour ago 1ClubMan72 said
Its quite easy I took £1million from a post in Barton thread, divided it by 8 = £12500
On a reported £20,000 a week since July and will be paid up until  January.
 Played 8 games for us.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  1 hour ago, TheLoudenTavernier said:
How does that work out to £12,500 a game?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,   
  1 hour ago, 1ClubMan72 said
Take it up with the 1million poster
I’m only the divide by 8 poster
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  1 hour ago, TheLoudenTavernier said:
Not that I’m saying you’re shite at maths or anything.
It’s just that you seem to be off the mark by about 55 grand.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  1 hour ago, 1ClubMan72 said
Well that’s even worse than I thought, that’s our money, the fans money
 wasted on 8 games & he was crap
   ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 
1 hour ago, TheLoudenTavernier said:
 I can’t make my mind up if there’s a joke here that I’m missing or if you have numbers dyslexia   
For what it’s worth, I believe it’s around £67,500 per game.
He got nowhere near a million from us. Not unless he was pushing 40 grand a week
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 1 hour ago, 1ClubMan72 said
Like I wrote before take it up with the £1million pound poster, that’s his gig not mine.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
1 hour ago, TheLoudenTavernier said:
That’s on you, no other poster.
Either you’ve accidentally dropped a zero every single time you’ve posted that on this forum or you should sue your old maths teacher.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:39 pm - Nov 10, 2016


last from me On the Barton payoff.I Won’t post a link.
Scottish Premiership: Rangers terminate Joey Barton contractAfter mounting speculation over recent days, Rangers have terminated Joey Barton’s contract.
———————
The headline makes it sound as if the rangers were the big guns and terminated Joey Barton’s contract.
Until you read further down.
Rangers and Joey Barton have agreed to terminate his contract with immediate effect.
funny how a headline can miss out an agreement

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:56 pm - Nov 10, 2016


Big Pink  November 10, 2016 at 20:43
====================
I hadn’t appreciated that the £250K was “netto”.  That being the case, then it could cost the club as much as £455K when grossed up at Barton’s marginal tax rate of 45%. 

I’m not sure if employers’ NICs would apply to such a termination payment, but if it did, it would add another £63K to the bill, at the current 13.8%.

Of course the tax and NIC could be avoided if a lawful EBT scheme was used ………… oh wait!

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on10:03 pm - Nov 10, 2016


Re: ‘Sportlobster’
A piece of useless information: learn something everything day here.
From wikipedia, so must be true. 22

“Lobsters, like snails and spiders, have blue blood…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobster#Ecology

‘Real Rangers Lobsters’ ?  
I’ll get ma creel !

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on10:57 pm - Nov 10, 2016


BIG PINKNOVEMBER 10, 2016 at 20:43

——————————————

Interesting BP. I know from your background you will have better contacts than most of us, so happy to accept your view as very informed. 

On a completely different note, and nothing to do with you, I am very unhappy at how the media aligned with Rangers over this affair. Barton was previously hailed by many of them as a key reason why Rangers would be Champions this season. They are beyond pathetic.

View Comment

FinlochPosted on8:22 am - Nov 11, 2016


Just heard the Joey Barton closure piece on BBC Radio Shortbread as part of the 8 am news.

…. “Joey Barton career with Rangers is over after the club terminated his contract.

Not … “Joey Barton is leaving Rangers after his agents agreed a termination package with the club”.

We deserve more from our publicly funded broadcaster than spoon-fed spin designed to slant the news.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:03 am - Nov 11, 2016


FINLOCHNOVEMBER 11, 2016 at 08:22  
Just heard the Joey Barton closure piece on BBC Radio Shortbread as part of the 8 am news.
…. “Joey Barton career with Rangers is over after the club terminated his contract.
Not … “Joey Barton is leaving Rangers after his agents agreed a termination package with the club”.
We deserve more from our publicly funded broadcaster than spoon-fed spin designed to slant the news.

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

The Tom English article on Barton on the BBC website pretty much tells it as it is. However, as for the how the BBC report on Rangers in general that is a different story. 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37595305

Edit – look at this tweet from a Herald journalist. Would he have dared describe Barton in this way when he was still at Ibrox?

Neil CameronVerified account
‏@NeilCameron5
Mark Warburton talks all the time about Scottish football needing money. But no comment about wasting money on a violent ex-offender.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:05 am - Nov 11, 2016


FinlochNovember 11, 2016 at 08:22
‘…We deserve more from our publicly funded broadcaster than spoon-fed spin designed to slant the news.’
________
We surely do, and we have the right to demand it, from the BBC.
But even in relation to privately-owned newspapers such as the ‘dying Scotsman’ ( may its end be swift and painful for its proprietors, editorial staff, and football hacks) we ought to be able to expect something better and more objective than they have given us since day one of the ‘saga’.
The ‘ Scotsman’ today has :
[5-column wide, two-line headline “Rangers finally bring  the curtain down on sorry Barton soap opera” and Andy Newport , (mouth full of succulent lamb, perhaps) introduces his piece with:
‘Rangers finally pulled the plug on Joey Barton’s ill-fated stint at Ibrox…’
The inherent bias in that and other media reports matches demonstrates clearly that our SMSM have  seen their duty as lying (!) in protecting first the dead Rangers, and now, the new club masquerading as the dead club.
Cheating football clubs are one thing. ‘Journalists’ who follow a party line are a turgid disgrace to themselves and a mocking insult to real journalists who are prepared to put their very lives on the line in the noble task of reporting Truth.

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on9:32 am - Nov 11, 2016


FINLOCHNOVEMBER 11, 2016 at 08:22

Absoloutely. His career is football. It’s not finished yet.  The Rangers was just one big coffee infused, 18 hole round of crazy golf with a few spin games thrown in to let him see a bit of the country. You could never say his time at The Rangers was a career.

View Comment

PortbhoyPosted on11:24 am - Nov 11, 2016


Last word on wee Joey, …
Traynor couldn’t get wee joey, so ‘e brought in the 12co, secret weapon …… 😉
https://i.imgflip.com/1dywqk.jpg&nbsp;

View Comment

PortbhoyPosted on11:52 am - Nov 11, 2016


Apologies, … hope this link works !

https://i.imgflip.com/1dyzyu.jpg

View Comment

bluPosted on11:59 am - Nov 11, 2016


STEVIEBCNOVEMBER 10, 2016 at 20:56 
The DR providing a full, free advert / article for TRFC’s latest commercial deal.
On the face of it, it looks like a step in the right direction and a new revenue stream for the Ibrox club.
Unfortunately, their partner company is having similar, financial challenges as a newly formed company;
“…Sportlobster launched in 2013 and has yet to book revenues.The company noted operating losses in the 2015 year to December narrowed to £4.38million, down from a £6.53m operating loss in 2014…”

Stevie, there must be something in the air – the people involved in lending money to the holding company that owns Sportslobster are not unfamiliar with BDO administration services.

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on12:45 pm - Nov 11, 2016


https://www.change.org/p/the-scottish-football-association-the-sfa-has-to-respond-to-allegations-of-impropriety-concerning-the-issue-of-uefa-licences

View Comment

TheClumpanyPosted on12:46 pm - Nov 11, 2016


Good Afternoon.
Just a quick plug for my latest offering which is about how the Sports Integrity Initiative report is a timely reminder of the need to keep our eye on the ball re Resolution 12 and the LNS sham!
Not that the fine citizens of TSFM need any reminder of course!
Keep up the good work! 

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:27 pm - Nov 11, 2016


Interesting snippet in Phil’s latest wrt Barton’s negotiated departure from Ibrox.

He is implying that the SFA was involved – and in the event of non-payment to Barton, the SFA would withhold monies due to TRFC.

If this is correct, does that mean that the SFA has now increased its deference – and potential risks – wrt TRFC ?

By providing assistance, is the SFA unwittingly validating the Bampots’ belief that RIFC/TRFC is running on fumes ? 

Is the SFA now the de facto ‘guarantor’ for RIFC/TRFC’s commercial dealings ?

Is this outwith the remit / authority of the SFA hierarchy ? [I know…]

Will the SFA extend this facility to other clubs ?
[IIRC, the SFA helped out clubs in financial distress in the past – Queen of the South ? – to complete fixtures. Publicly, TRFC is not in financial distress – according to the SMSM anyway.]

And as Phil suggests, there is a real story here for the churnalists to follow up – if they could be bothered.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:23 pm - Nov 11, 2016


StevieBCNovember 11, 2016 at 15:27

It is in his blogs like this one that I feel inclined to accept most of PMGB’s posts at face value. He continually challenges the hacks, and TRFC, to check what he writes and to prove him wrong. They never accept his challenge, or, at least, never publish what they discover.

Phil has given them many an opportunity to discredit him, yet no one has dared to try.

In truth, I would see nothing wrong with the SFA helping out a member club in this way, as long as they ensured the club could not register any more players without first depositing with them an amount sufficient to pay the Barton (in this case) settlement in full. Without such a deposit, the SFA would be enabling them to sign players they could not afford, and the SFA would know it, and be a part of it, thus cheating their other member clubs! I would suggest, too, that any revenue from player sales should first go to making this deposit before any new players are signed!

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:42 pm - Nov 11, 2016


ALLYJAMBO
NOVEMBER 11, 2016 at 16:23
StevieBC
November 11, 2016 at 15:27

In truth, I would see nothing wrong with the SFA helping out a member club in this way..”
===============================================
On the face of it, yes of course – the SFA should help out member clubs.

However, I believe [?] the SFA has only helped clubs financially in the past to complete their fixture list against other member clubs.  Mutually beneficial.
This involvement with Barton appears to be the SFA indirectly assisting TRFC cash flow, in their normal business operations.

Also, if it’s true then why the SFA secrecy ?
And as you mention, what are the full conditions attached ?
Can TRFC buy any players before the Barton debt is cleared, or even take players on loan, etc. ?

It doesn’t help the SFA if nobody trusts them to start with !

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:15 pm - Nov 11, 2016


StevieBCNovember 11, 2016 at 16:42 
ALLYJAMBO NOVEMBER 11, 2016 at 16:23 StevieBC November 11, 2016 at 15:27…In truth, I would see nothing wrong with the SFA helping out a member club in this way..”===============================================On the face of it, yes of course – the SFA should help out member clubs.
However, I believe [?] the SFA has only helped clubs financially in the past to complete their fixture list against other member clubs.  Mutually beneficial. This involvement with Barton appears to be the SFA indirectly assisting TRFC cash flow, in their normal business operations.
Also, if it’s true then why the SFA secrecy ? And as you mention, what are the full conditions attached ? Can TRFC buy any players before the Barton debt is cleared, or even take players on loan, etc. ?
It doesn’t help the SFA if nobody trusts them to start with !
_____________________________-

I think in these cases there has to be conditions attached, very strong conditions, for, as I say, the SFA would be facilitating cheating! It becomes far more important in this case (assuming PMGB’s information is accurate) as it is taking place well before the transfer window.

In the event the SFA have bailed out TRFC then should the club sell any players, the rest of the league should keep an eye on what they then do with any fees and be ready to question the SFA should new signings appear. Another aspect of this would be, not only have the SFA bailed TRFC out, they have helped them get a very expensive player off their books, so it’s not only the guarantee of Barton’s pay-off that needs critical analysis, but the facilitating of this wage savings that many other clubs, I’m sure, might welcome!

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:20 pm - Nov 11, 2016


ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 11, 2016 at 16:23       7 Votes 
StevieBCNovember 11, 2016 at 15:27
It is in his blogs like this one that I feel inclined to accept most of PMGB’s posts at face value. He continually challenges the hacks, and TRFC, to check what he writes and to prove him wrong. They never accept his challenge, or, at least, never publish what they discover.
Phil has given them many an opportunity to discredit him, yet no one has dared to try.
In truth, I would see nothing wrong with the SFA helping out a member club in this way, as long as they ensured the club could not register any more players without first depositing with them an amount sufficient to pay the Barton (in this case) settlement in full. Without such a deposit, the SFA would be enabling them to sign players they could not afford, and the SFA would know it, and be a part of it, thus cheating their other member clubs! I would suggest, too, that any revenue from player sales should first go to making this deposit before any new players are signed!
—————-
The SFA have already helped out a member club by not collecting an amount due and just deducting money due from prize money owed.Thus enabling said club to sign players they maybe could not have afforded if money owed was collected when due.
———–
Without such a deposit, the SFA would be enabling them to sign players they could not afford,
the SFA have previous

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:18 pm - Nov 11, 2016


SFA would be enabling them to sign players they could not afford, and the SFA would know it, and be a part of it, thus cheating their other member clubs!
Madjid Bougherra 11

View Comment

neepheidPosted on7:39 pm - Nov 11, 2016


I would be interested to know the process involved in the SFA guaranteeing the debts of a member club, hypothetically of course. Would Regan have the power to do this on his own? Surely not. This would be decided at Board level, I would assume. I would love to be a fly on the wall at these Board meetings. Can every other member of the SFA anticipate similar treatment?
But why no charge over the assets, to protect the position of the SFA as guarantor, in the event of a default by the member? Standard commercial practice, surely?
If this goes wrong, as it very well could in the event of insolvency, then the SFA will end up looking very foolish indeed. They could end up paying off Barton, with no means of recovery from the insolvent member.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:00 pm - Nov 11, 2016


neepheidNovember 11, 2016 at 19:39

Neeps,

From what PMGB has posted, the SFA have not guaranteed the payment, ie given a guarantee to make the payment from their own funds in the event of a default, they have, instead, agreed to make the payment from the club’s prize/TV money at the end of the season. Presumably that will mean TRFC do not receive any of the staged payments and will only receive the balance of monies due at the season’s end. If my reading of the situation is correct, the SFA are not acting as guarantor but have merely agreed to divert monies that will become due to TRFC to Joey Barton.

I do wonder, though, if the SFA have been approached by TRFC to bail them out in this way, if the SFA and SPFL are taking a closer look at the club’s viability to see the season out.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on9:08 pm - Nov 11, 2016


AllyjamboNovember 11, 2016 at 21:00
___________________________________________________
Excuse my ignorance AJ, but is this allowed in ‘the rules’?01

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:22 pm - Nov 11, 2016


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37595305

In a very wordy critique of the Barton exit, Tom English manages to avoid imparting any blame on the club, or to question what made TRFC think they could handle Barton, with the exception of the following paragraph. 

‘There was no chance of Barton and Rangers finding peace. The club couldn’t handle the player – a costly embarrassment – and the player couldn’t handle the environment he thought he was going to lord it over.’

Apparently, according to this ‘leading journalist’, Barton should have known better than to come to Scotland with the attitude that everyone, except those at TRFC, knew he had! At no time does English question the wisdom of signing Joey Barton, or point out that everybody outside the Ibrox bubble, and that bubble includes the SMSM, predicted this would most likely happen.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:25 pm - Nov 11, 2016


jean7brodieNovember 11, 2016 at 21:08 
AllyjamboNovember 11, 2016 at 21:00 ___________________________________________________ Excuse my ignorance AJ, but is this allowed in ‘the rules’?
____________

Jean, Jean, Jean, don’t you know the rules are flexible around Govan?

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on9:26 pm - Nov 11, 2016


Jean7brodie

against the rules? I’ll say! Such an arrangement is financial assistance by helping out cash flow when cash flow difficulties are potentially critical to their ability to trade whilst solvent.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on9:36 pm - Nov 11, 2016


ALLYJAMBO
NOVEMBER 11, 2016 at 21:25
jean7brodie
November 11, 2016 at 21:08 
Excuse my ignorance AJ, but is this allowed in ‘the rules’?
____________
Jean, Jean, Jean, don’t you know the rules are flexible around Govan?

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

Yes, they’re more like ‘guidelines’ than actual rules…    15

View Comment

nawlitePosted on10:04 pm - Nov 11, 2016


Never mind the SFA being involved, I was surprised that the PFA hadn’t made any comment so I emailed them yesterday…
“I am surprised that the PFA has made no comment on the shocking treatment received by Joey Barton from his employer, Rangers FC.
I readily acknowledge that no one knows the detail of the original falling out that led to his initial suspension, but I would have thought that the PFA would have to be seen to be supporting a player being treated this badly.
From the regular extension of his suspension; through the ‘welcome’ back with accompanying reports that he would be training with the youths. to the most regrettable incident when his medical situation was leaked to the press, it seems clear to an outsider that he is being treated unfairly and I thought that was what the PFA was there to prevent. 
I admit, however, to being unaware of your procedures, so perhaps you can clarify. Do you only become involved or comment on a case if a player requests your support? If so, that seems a particularly reactive approach for an organisation formed with the wellbeing of players in mind.
I look forward to hearing from you.”
…and received this response today……
“Many thanks for getting in touch.  We always represent and support our members strongly within the football industry. As a football fan, you will be well aware that most of our work goes unnoticed and behind the scenes therefore doesn’t reach the public domain. It is wrong to assume from any lack of media stories that we are not involved in supporting our members, no matter what the issue; defending players’ rights is what we do.  You will note from today’s media release that the player and club have reached agreement and have stated that nothing further will be said. Due to confidentiality it would therefore be entirely inappropriate for us to comment publically on any matter unless given clear and direct instructions from our member to do so.
 Kind regards, Fraser Wishart
Doesn’t say much, but implies they were involved.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on10:16 pm - Nov 11, 2016


Sir Alex, if only on a part-time basis ?

…or even entice the Iceland manager who took them to the Euro’s – Lars Lagerback – out of retirement ?
[His surname would be readily acceptable by the Tartan Army as well !]

Something radical is required, and a starting point could be to avoid the usual suspects on the managerial carousel.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:38 pm - Nov 11, 2016


jean7brodieNovember 11, 2016 at 21:08
AllyjamboNovember 11, 2016 at 21:00
___________________________________________________
Excuse my ignorance AJ, but is this allowed in ‘the rules’?
____________
On this occasion, I think there is provision, at least in the SPFL “offset” rule.

If the club defaulted on a payment to Barton, then he could be deemed a football creditor and paid from future sums due to be paid to the club.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:42 pm - Nov 11, 2016


bluNovember 11, 2016 at 11:59
‘… there must be something in the air – the people involved in lending money to the holding company that owns Sportslobster are not unfamiliar with BDO administration services.”
______
I think this may be one for eJ!

All the shares of company number 08675336 ( i.e Sportlobster Ltd) were, at 18/06/16, held by Sportlobster S.A ( which may be a South African company?)

And Sportlobster Holdings Ltd ( company number 09793514( which seemed to have had some directors in common with Sportlobster Ltd) went into Administration on 30/09/16.

Is there any connection in all of this with anyone connected with RIFC/TRFC?

The notes to the accounts of Sportlobster Ltd ( i.e. company 08675336) have this wee gem:

“1.2,  For the year ended 31.12.15 the company made a loss…of £4.027,137…..The company has received confirmation from an investor in its ultimate parent…of its intention to provide support….Therefore the directors consider it appropriate to prepare financial statements on a going concern basis.”

Isn’t it simply feckin stupid that no one seems empowered to check and verify what is said?

Or am I the stupid one for being simply  financially literate or for not having the kind of feral cunning that guys like the guys we abominate seem to have?

I mean a company losing millions can continue to operate on the basis of an unverified readiness of some unknown ‘investor’ to offer ‘support’?

( And I wonder, incidentally, how many people in the Indian government knew in advance of the plan to get non-taxpayers and/or moneylaunderers  to run in a panic to the banks to get their stashes of 1000 rupee notes changed into real money , when that note was suddenly declared invalid? An absolutely wizard wheeze, I have to say)

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on10:57 pm - Nov 11, 2016


easyJamboNovember 11, 2016 at 22:38
_____________________________________________
010101 I don’t understand! Do you mean taken out of whatever they earn and passed to him before they get it?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:01 pm - Nov 11, 2016


nawliteNovember 11, 2016 at 22:04
‘..I was surprised that the PFA hadn’t made any comment so I emailed them yesterday…’
______
Well done on that initiative, nawlite.
And well done the PFA for being sensitive to the need to keep its own good name free from suspicion and/or mistrust.
And if I remember correctly, Fraser Urquart behaved brilliantly as union rep when the horse-loving charlatan thought he had legal title to hold the players’ of the club that went into Liquidation to their contracts with that dead footballing entity! 
That was a right belter to old Charles’ midriff, and led to the farce of him having to get the Administrators to sanction the loan of players, to let the Brechin game  ‘legally’ take place. And pointed up the extraordinarily administrative deceit practiced by our Football governance people.
Geez, the field day that an honest SMSM could have had with that whole blatantly in-your-face deceitful, lying farce.
And ought to have had!

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on11:13 pm - Nov 11, 2016


jean7brodie  November 11, 2016 at 22:57  easyJamboNovember 11, 2016 at 22:38 _____________________________________________
I don’t understand! Do you mean taken out of whatever they earn and passed to him before they get it?
===================
Exactly that.  If a club defaults on a “football” payment, then the person or club due to receive the payment can request that the SPFL pays the debt from money due to the defaulting club e.g. from end of season merit payments.

That is the way that the £250K LNS fine plus interest/costs was finally settled.

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on11:21 pm - Nov 11, 2016


STEVIEBCNOVEMBER 11, 2016 at 22:16       1 Vote 
Sir Alex, if only on a part-time basis ?
—————————————————-
Hi STEVIEBC

Its been said many times but Scottish football seems to lack direction from the highest level. The report produced by Henry McLeish has been to a large part ignored by vested interests. Something needs to change at the governance level to accept and recognise that fans want their ball back. I really don’t see what is so scary about listening to hundreds and thousands of people who actually invest financially/emotionally and in terms of time given freely, physically. The SFA should ask for a notional truce and allow supporters groups from all the Scottish clubs…and I dont mean supporters direct , to nominate a person ;just one from each club ,given equal weight and allow them to have some input into the future direction of football development in Scotland.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on11:22 pm - Nov 11, 2016


John Clark November 11, 2016 at 22:42  ______ I think this may be one for eJ!
All the shares of company number 08675336 ( i.e Sportlobster Ltd) were, at 18/06/16, held by Sportlobster S.A ( which may be a South African company?)
========================
S.A. after a company name translated from various languages means “Society Anonymous” or Limited, PLC or Incorporated in UK speak.

Various countries and their jurisdictions use it including France Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, Mexico, Brazil, amongst others

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on11:26 pm - Nov 11, 2016


EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 11, 2016 at 23:13       If a club defaults on a “football” payment, then the person or club due to receive the payment can request that the SPFL pays the debt from money due to the defaulting club e.g. from end of season merit payments.
That is the way that the £250K LNS fine plus interest/costs was finally settled.
_________________________________________________________________
That’s an eyeopener EJ, I didn’t realise that the SFA had such control over contractual arrangements made by the SPFL.I can understand the LNS fine as I think that was a direct penalty imposed by the SPL.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:50 pm - Nov 11, 2016


AllyjamboNovember 11, 2016 at 21:22
‘..Tom English manages to avoid imparting any blame on the club..’
______
English used to be a print journalist, with the ( fairly regular few bob from the BBC for his punditry). Now he is ( it would seem) more or less exclusively a BBC hack.
So,Aj, what d’you expect?
Our publicly funded broadcaster has clearly demonstrated that it was in the past, is now, and ( until it is dealt its death blow in Scotland!) will remain the very antithesis of the golden ideal of BBC impartiality in matters of football reporting.
English is  taking geld from the public broadcaster which was happy with the likes of Traynor and Young, and, currently, Macintyre and Wilson, none of whom, in my humble opinion, could or can be considered as being impartial or neutral, because they simply will not acknowledge the truth of the fact that TRFC are not, and cannot possibly be, the RFC of their childhood. That makes anything they have to say about ‘Rangers’ instantly suspect.
So,what’s a guy to do, except toe the party line?
And I’m afraid our Tom knows both where his toe and the line are. ( Mind you, if he secretly reads SFM ,he might wish his toe was in contact with my fundament.19)

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on11:58 pm - Nov 11, 2016


JC – I just had a quick look at the accounts for Sportlobster Ltd. Here’s what I found with 10 minutes research.

The ultimate parent is Sportlobster Holdings Ltd (SHL).

The major shareholder in SHL was Daman Investments PSC which is based in Dubai.
https://www.daman.ae/

SHL owned 100% of Sportloster S.A. (SSA) who in turn owned 100% of Sportlobster Ltd. (SLL).  SHL just happened to go into administration on 30 September this year.  An Administrators Proposal (BDO) has been published by Companies House.  It seems that a purchaser, Constellation Sports Limited (CSL), was assigned the shares for £1 and the debt for £35K.  The debt relates to £4.735M owed by SLL to SHL.

See 1.2 and 5.2  of the administrators proposal.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09793514/filing-history

CSL is a newly incorporated company on 27 September, so it looks very much like a pre-pack admin.  Its only director is Sumit Metha, an Indian whose address is give as the UAE. Metha is a director of Daman.

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on12:30 am - Nov 12, 2016


Correct me if I am wrong EJ but withh Sportsshellfish arrangements is it that a parent is declared insolvent due to debts owed from a subsidary? How can such an incestuous arrangement be legal..does the debtor subsidary not have to declare insolvency first as not being able to meet the debt? Probably accountancy 101 but hey-ho.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on12:34 am - Nov 12, 2016


Correction to my previous post ……….. Constellation Sports Ltd has two directors, not one.  Sumit Metha as above and Andrew Meikle, who is based in London.  Meikle is also a director of Sportlobster Ltd.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on1:26 am - Nov 12, 2016


gunnerb  November 12, 2016 at 00:30  
Correct me if I am wrong EJ but withh Sportsshellfish arrangements is it that a parent is declared insolvent due to debts owed from a subsidary? How can such an incestuous arrangement be legal..does the debtor subsidary not have to declare insolvency first as not being able to meet the debt? Probably accountancy 101 but hey-ho.
========================
I’m not an accountant, so there are many things about insolvency law that I don’t understand.

Going by the Administrators proposal for SHL, it looks like Daman effectively bought the SLL debt to SHL of £4.3M for £35K.
 
However there was another unsecured debt of £333,333 owed by SSA to another of SHL’s shareholders Delfro Limited (I think this is a BVI based shell(fish) 🙂 company).  The administrators anticipate a deficiency of £317,544,  before their costs are factored in, so it looks as if Delfro will get nothing.

In effect it looks to my untrained eye that the pre-pack or “Accelerated M&A” as it is described in the proposal, has shafted Delfro and left the other companies in the group pretty well intact under the direct ownership of Daman.

I don’t know the legalities of what has gone on.  I would have thought that Delfro’s shareholding in SHL would have been enough to block the pre-pack if they were minded to do so.
==================
In a Rangers scenario, my interpretation of the above would be akin to King setting up a new Kingco Ltd with himself and Paul Murray as directors, doing a voluntary administration of RIFC, Kingco buying the shares of RIFC for £1 and agree that the £18M of TRFC debts due to RIFC would be assigned to Kingco for £1690.  The unsecured creditors of RIFC would get nothing back of their £12.9M loans (to date). 

View Comment

SmugasPosted on7:59 am - Nov 12, 2016


Usually in that situation the supposed shaftee in Delfro takes the view that there is no value in the SSL debt hence allowing the shaftor (Daman) to proceed unchallenged.  So although it looks as though Daman gets 4m for 35k (almost certainly BDO’s costs) all he is buying is a (in Delfro’s eyes) a worthless promise.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on9:06 am - Nov 12, 2016


AllyjamboNovember 11, 2016 at 21:00   
neepheidNovember 11, 2016 at 19:39
Neeps,
From what PMGB has posted, the SFA have not guaranteed the payment, ie given a guarantee to make the payment from their own funds in the event of a default, they have, instead, agreed to make the payment from the club’s prize/TV money at the end of the season. Presumably that will mean TRFC do not receive any of the staged payments and will only receive the balance of monies due at the season’s end.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ally, that’s all well and good assuming no insolvency event mid season. However if such an event occurred, a few questions arise.
Would any prize or TV money be due? Surely the prize money is from the SPFL, not the SFA? And if a club can’t complete its fixtures, surely nothing is due anyway?
If prize money was due, wouldn’t an administrator be duty bound to claim from the SFA/SPFL what was due on behalf of all creditors? Can anyone remember what happened to RFC’s 2011/12 prize money? Was it retained against football debts, or paid over to Duff and Phelps?
As I understand the arrangement, any guarantee is simply between the SFA and the player. But the payoff terms are between the club and the player. So the SFA are unilaterally intervening to facilitate a member club paying off a contract which a member club freely entered into. On what basis? Surely this is entirely a matter for the club?
The club must have a business plan for the season, just like every other club, which involves paying the players’ wages for the season. The default position is that the club keeps the player on the books and carries on paying him. So why are the SFA involved at all? The decision to pay off the player is a commercial one for the club. They are not obliged to pay him off.
I simply do not believe that the SFA would intervene in the way suggested on behalf of any other member club. Especially since this all just comes down to rank bad management by the club.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:14 am - Nov 12, 2016


JOHN CLARK
NOVEMBER 11, 2016 at 23:01 And if I remember correctly, Fraser Urquart behaved brilliantly as union rep when the horse-loving charlatan thought he had legal title to hold the players’ of the club that went into Liquidation to their contracts with that dead footballing entity! 

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

Quite honestly JC I don’t think anyone involved ever believed that TUPE would force a human being to work for a brand new legal entity just because they were contracted to the one which went into liquidation. TUPE is there to protect the rights of the individual in circumstances like this, not the failed or new company.

In my opinion this was only ever fabricated to support the victim and continuity myths.

We will have the same players, therefore it’s the same club.

Oh no they have all conspired against us and the players have all been stolen.

We have lost £30m worth of assets.

That is now embedded as part of the victim mentality.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on9:27 am - Nov 12, 2016


Without looking back was there not a stooshie in 2012 because the SPL prize monies (season 11-12) were included in the famous ‘basket of assets’ which they argued should be included because they were also ‘being forced’ to take on the footballing debts (Jelavic, DUtd ticket proceeds etc).  Could be wrong but I’m sure I recall the net effect was to increase the value of the basket overall?

Also, re neeps point.  I don’t read much into “the guarantee” other than to say that Barton (correctly given the effective going concern warning without the additional promised funding in spring 2017) has sought protection in the event of an event, so to speak.  Where I think PMG is coming from is that the supposed low figure of wages to January being bandied about wouldn’t require a guarantee, said payment coming before the additional funding is required.  It suggests, to me anyway, that there is a legacy string to the payoff deal which I would guess is to ensure he gets the same or more from his new club else Sevco will be funding the difference.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:32 am - Nov 12, 2016


easyJamboNovember 11, 2016 at 23:58
‘..JC – I just had a quick look at the accounts for Sportlobster Ltd. Here’s what I found with 10 minutes research……’
___
Shows how much I know,and how utterly suspicious I have become -the thought occurred to me that the ‘SA’ might have been an indication that a South Africa company was getting involved in lending money to RIFC and I was ready to see a glib and shameless hand on the controls!
Can we be sure that King is not somewhere involved? Has he not been previously mentioned in connection with one of those web-portal, sports based computer games kinds  of things that people who like that kind of thing sort of like? And that it was not doing well?
Or did I just imagine that, earlier this year, or perhaps last year sometime? Because I seem to remember thinking that maybe the South Africa tax folks might have an interest.
But perhaps I did just imagine it.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:15 am - Nov 12, 2016


NEEPHEID

NOVEMBER 12, 2016 at 09:06
———————————-

Couldn’t it be as simple as Barton’s representatives telling TRFC that if they fail to pay up, they’ll ‘garnish’ (is that the correct term?) any SFA/SPFL monies due, & copying the governing bodies into the correspondence at this early juncture? 

I just can’t see how the SFA/SPFL can reimburse Barton directly. His contract is/was with TRFC. His registration is/was with the SFA.
=====================

This ‘Sportslobster’ deal is all over the media. Frankly, the media finding this headline-worthy is another indicator of how low they’ve sunk & how they’ll print any Level Sinko squirrel scat.

RIFC/TRFC are going to supply content (sorry, ‘exclusive content’) to a website & receive payment based on page hits for advertisers. Even with a reputed 500m fans worldwide (!!!) , how much will that actually make them, realistically? A grand a week, maybe?

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on1:38 pm - Nov 12, 2016


HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 12, 2016 at 09:14  
Oh no they have all conspired against us and the players have all been stolen.
We have lost £30m worth of assets.
That is now embedded as part of the victim mentality.

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

McCoist’s favourite figure was £40m worth of players were lost, and as usual it went completely unchallenged. He also bleated regularly about Jelavic being sold for half his value. Jelavic was a successful player in the Austrian League which will be at least on a par with the Scottish league. He was a successful player with Rangers on a domestic level but IIRC he scored only one goal in Europe for them. Quite how he became a £10m player in McCoist’s eyes while with Rangers is beyond me.  That simply doesn’t happen on the basis of domestic performances alone. 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:11 pm - Nov 12, 2016


HomunculusNovember 12, 2016 at 09:14
‘.Quite honestly JC I don’t think anyone involved ever believed that TUPE would force a human being to work for a brand new legal entity just because they were contracted to the one which went into liquidation.’
______
I think that’s right, of course,  Homunculus. I was trying to give Urquart a wee bit of credit for not believing a word of any claim that the players were still under contract to Green. At least, I never heard him adrgue other than that the playerswhose contracts were with the liquidated club were free to walk away, and not obliged to sign a new contract with a new club.Maybe I’m being too generously minded, but then ,that’s the kind of guy I am!19

View Comment

EKloonPosted on4:05 pm - Nov 12, 2016


Boys and girls, The PFA man is Frazer Wishart, not a clansman from the Black Isle. Ex player of Motherwell and the Deid Club, and no slouch with a cricket ball either in days of yore.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:40 pm - Nov 12, 2016


EKloon November 12, 2016 at 16:05
‘..The PFA man is Frazer Wishart.’
_________
Ha,ha,Ekloon.
I thought there was something not quite right when I wrote “Urquart”.But I think I may have got the ‘Fraser’ right!19

My apologies to both the man himself and the blog readership.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:47 pm - Nov 12, 2016


I have just accessed my ‘JC’ email inbox ( I don’t access it routinely every day) , and note that I have had a reply to my email of 26th October to Companies House ( which, I think, I posted on here round about that date).
I know from replies to previous emails that Companies House is not in any sense a ‘regulatory’ body, but  merely a receptacle, basically, for whatever the board of any company chooses to tell them, as long as the bits of paper arrive on time.
So, I’m not too surprised by this reply, which, I think, is as helpful as Companies House can reasonably be expected to be [ And I’m not being critical of Companies House itself: the fault lies both in Parliament’s unwillingness to get a grip on ‘business’, and in their de facto inability to enact laws against  the resistance of the rich and powerful , who, these days,might not  be the traditional landed gentry and  titled aristocracy( but they are still there, in spades, but are, perhaps, very much larger versions of former cheating football club owners  or glib emigrants to South Africa]
This is the reply, that came in on 10th November.
“Dear Sir THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED – SC425159
Thank you for your email of 26 October 2016
I note your further comments but I am afraid that, as I explained in my previous reply I remain unable to take any action at this time.  The limited company “The Rangers Football Club Limited” does not appear to have done anything in breach of the Companies Act.  If you believe that they are using false advertising you may wish to contact your local trading standards office, although I am unsure as to how far their powers extend.  It may be prudent to seek legal advice to clarify the position of the company and the club in this case.
I am sorry that I cannot give you a more helpful reply.
 
Yours faithfully
 
S.L…
for Registrar of Companies ”
I am , of course, perfectly entitled to ask questions about whether a company is or is not in full compliance with  whatever legislation there may be on the statute book governing company behaviour. And, of course, I am perfectly free under the law to speculate openly, and air my opinions.
What one  may not do is positively assert something to be the case that one cannot prove to be the case.
God forbid that I, or anyone on this blog, would do such a thing!
But one thinks of dear old Galileo Galilei. What was it he said to himself, with a shrug of the shoulder ? ” Eppure si muove”

 

View Comment

EKloonPosted on7:40 am - Nov 13, 2016


Thanks JC. Fraser is correct, but to try to salvage a point, may I play Urquhart?

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:29 am - Nov 13, 2016


JOHN CLARKNOVEMBER 12, 2016 at 23:47
================================

It amazes me just how lax various public bodies appear to have been over this entire affair, Companies House being the latest. In addition, the Advertising Standards Authority and the BBC have almost contorted themselves in order to back up the SFA enforced stance that a new club is the same club.  I really wish publicly funded bodies would treat organisations who have cheated the state out of millions with the contempt they actually deserve.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:10 am - Nov 13, 2016


EKloonNovember 13, 2016 at 07:40
‘..may I play Urquhart?.
______
‘You may think so, of course, but I couldn’t possibly comment!’

View Comment

Comments are closed.