Peace – Not War

ByTrisidium

Peace – Not War

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the author

Trisidium administrator

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

1,368 Comments so far

upthehoopsPosted on12:44 pm - Nov 13, 2016


i see a number of references online today quoting Kris Boyd as saying “Scotland Pay Price For Kicking Gers Out of Premier League”. Apart from the fact Rangers were liquidated and ceased to be a member of the league, how many final stages did Scotland qualify for during Rangers EBT years?. 

View Comment

dom16Posted on2:51 pm - Nov 13, 2016


Interesting Twitter exchange between Neil Cameron of the Herald and various others on the Boyd article. Sadly quickly descends ibto the usual child abuse and your company is only x years old as well garbage. Cameron at least recognises that Rangers weren’t demoted 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on3:30 pm - Nov 13, 2016


Andrew Dickson has tweeted this morning: ” ……..We were told categorically by D&P the club (not company) will NOT lose its history in a Newco”
Yes, Andrew, and I was told that Santa was for real!
Someone was clearly worried enough to ask D&P ( !), because no one of any intelligence could seriously  believe that a brand new club can in any sense buy the historic achievements of a club that went out of sporting existence?
Was Dickson so gullible as to believe assurances that Charles Green simply bought Rangers FC out of Administration and  that all that had happened was that RFC simply changed hands, in the same way as, say, Hearts, or any other club that avoided Liquidation??
Is he mentally incapable of seeing the sharp distinction between coming damaged but alive out of Administration, and being feckin well Liquidated and dead? Can he seriously be so stupid as to think we could seriously believe that he could be so stupid, any more than we believe that the arch-cheat himself was a mere ‘dupe’ in the biggest betrayal of trust ever seen in Scottish Football??
The knowledge that TRFC is living a lie is undoubtedly gnawing at the vitals of both the RIFC and the TRFC boards. They know that their whole enterprise is fundamentally flawed.And they also know that they are actually powerless in the face of that truth.
Weak, bleating appeals to ‘assurances’ by anybody that a club that lost its entitlement to a share in the SFA  is the same club as a newly formed  club that had to apply from the beginning for a place in a league in order to become entitled to a share in the SFA ,are a sign of desperate attempts at self-exculpation..

View Comment

wottpiPosted on5:20 pm - Nov 13, 2016


I note that Stewart Regan has been in post since then end of July 2010.
Therefore it is hard to put any blame in his direction for the lack of quality re the current national squad.
However when he took up his post the current U21 squad would have been 14 or there about.
I see no progress being made there.
I cannot say that I know what is happening with the younger ages groups but would guess it is much of ‘the same old same old’ given the merry go round of performance directors and the likes.
If football these days is a business then this CEO must be failing to deliver on one of his KPIs – that being to help  in the overall process of developing players capabable of putting in a decent shift in a blue shirt.
By any measuring stick man is a failure and we seriously need a dynamic leader at the head of our FA to take our game forward.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on6:24 pm - Nov 13, 2016


Although on a Celtic blog the author points out why it is more important that the other clubs hold the SFA to account for their approach to club licensing and FFP with TRFC’s business model being based on UEFA money.
 Celtic should also make their position clear on Wednesday although so far no sign they are prepared to address the issues raised, the main being:
 Exactly why was the UEFA licence granted in 2011 and
did the SFA interpret the rules as UEFA intended?
Do the rules need clarifying?
http://videocelts.com/2016/11/blogs/latest-news/stewart-regans-crucial-public-errors-over-resolution-12/

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on7:02 pm - Nov 13, 2016


Update

http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/doubt-remains-rangers-uefa-licence/

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:09 pm - Nov 13, 2016


WOTTPINOVEMBER 13, 2016 at 17:20  By any measuring stick man is a failure and we seriously need a dynamic leader at the head of our FA to take our game forward.

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

Regan was supposed to be that leader when he was appointed, although it is clear he is NOT that leader. I seriously believe there should be an independent public inquiry into how the SFA is run, but I would not trust the Scottish Government to do it. They are aligned with the same principles as Regan, a position they made clear in 2012. 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:03 pm - Nov 13, 2016


Confirmation of Thursday’s appearance of Craig Whyte at the CoS

LORD GLENNIE
Thursday 17th November
By Order at 9.00am
P1140/15 Note: HMA for Order re failure to comply re Craig Whyte

View Comment

TheClumpanyPosted on9:17 pm - Nov 13, 2016


Good Evening.
I am so excited at working out how Scotland can win the World Cup, that I just have to take the rare step of sharing it directly with TSFM members! [Warning: may contain satirical comment about disgraceful governance by the SFA…] 
https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/2016/11/13/scotland-how-to-win-the-world-cup/

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:25 pm - Nov 13, 2016


easyJamboNovember 13, 2016 at 21:03
‘..Confirmation of Thursday’s appearance..’
______
Aye, I had a wee check myself earlier this evening,eJ.
I should be able to attend to see the perhaps disappointing end.

View Comment

wildwoodPosted on11:46 pm - Nov 13, 2016


There’s definitely something afoot.
Boyd’s article today blasting of the SFA for the most ignorant of reasons – i.e. Those of the most ill informed of all. (you would think that someone as close to the epicentre of it all with his £215K of EBT would have at least taken it upon himself to learn something about it all.
Followed by Keith’s very ill advised crosshairs / laser targeting on an SFA badge on a blazer graphic, supporting an article that will apparently name and shame the Blazers at the SFA that need to be taken out.
A concerted level 5 effort. All very admirable and all that.
But what’s the underlying benefit for Sevco? Are they hoping to have the old guard out before something that they have past knowledge of will require some action?
its all very suspect if you ask me

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:13 am - Nov 14, 2016


The Sports Integrity Initiative have republished their report.
 
http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/doubt-remains-rangers-uefa-licence/
 It is less accusatory than the pulled version but nevertheless raises issues that should be dealt with to try and breathe some life into the idea that rules are for complying with not circumventing.
 it brings out that the SFA appear to be justifying granting the licence on two separate grounds, the first in 2011 that the liability was potential at 31st March, the second and it only surfaced this year,is that it wasn’t potential but HMRC had agreed to postpone collection until after Takeover. (For this to be valid such an agreement had to be in writing and predate 31st March 2011)
 One other little point of detail not covered is that the SFA should have been supplied with the tax demand letter of 20th May 2011 when it arrived and if they were AT ANY TIME IN 2011 then why did they not start asking questions then, based on its contents and why in March 2012 did they not provide it to the SPL lawyers? 
 (link to come)
It was after all about ebts with side letters, the very thing the SPL were about to investigate.
Its bad enough feeling that you have been cheated for over ten years watching football but for that enormity of that cheating to be covered up and nothing done about it, particularly by Celtic who have the facts, puts me right off football.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:21 am - Nov 14, 2016


Here is a link to the 20th May 2011 HMRC letter accompanying the tax bill.
It should have been provided to the SFA in 2011 by RFC to comply with FFP and if it was then why was it not actioned in 2011 and why not handed to SPL in 2012?
The answer may lie in its contents.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9WUFuaG5JeFlmYXc/view?usp=sharing

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:01 am - Nov 14, 2016


For those interested the Conclusions arising from Res12 activity were sent to signatories over a week ago.
What they were told is now at
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/20th-century-football-rivalries-wont-survive/comment-page-31/#comment-2960393
Since Celtic are primarily affected only the link is provided but it should be of interest to supporters of all clubs.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:08 am - Nov 14, 2016


WILDWOODNOVEMBER 13, 2016 at 23:46
=============================

I’ve just had a read at Keith Jackson’s so called hard hitting article and it reminded me of an old phrase ‘full of p*sh and wind’. It is just another regurgitation of what many people have been saying for decades about the blazer culture at the SFA. Who on earth are these ‘independent professionals’ he wants to replace them? Also, he is part of a media which aligns itself with the notion Scottish football can’t ever be good without a strong club from Ibrox. If that is the media demand who on earth could ever hope to run the Scottish game independently! 

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on10:28 am - Nov 14, 2016


UPTHEHOOPS

NOVEMBER 14, 2016 at 07:08

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

I wonder if we’re being ‘prepped’ (squirrel-baited) for a ‘Warburton for Scotland/Robertson for SFA CEO’ blitz in the media? 

The chances to use the ‘unsettled/departing manager’ line to part-explain TRFC’s season would be too good to miss…

(Incidentally, I think the SFA CEO job, whoever is post-holder, is a poisoned chalice, unless the appointee has absolute cast- iron guarantees that changes can be made without having to be voted through the committee system that currently prevails.)

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:56 am - Nov 14, 2016


AuldheidNovember 14, 2016 at 01:01 
For those interested the Conclusions arising from Res12 activity were sent to signatories over a week ago. What they were told is now athttp://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/20th-century-football-rivalries-wont-survive/comment-page-31/#comment-2960393 Since Celtic are primarily affected only the link is provided but it should be of interest to supporters of all clubs.
_____________________________-

The information provided by Auldheid in that link would be manna from heaven to an honest media. Keith Jackson might find it a bit of a wheeze to blast the SFA at this time of another failure for Scotland (I’ve not read it, so maybe I’ve got it a bit wrong), but here, right here, is a story that would get rid of those he wants rid of, if only he had the basic honesty required to do his job properly. 

If Jackson, or any other ‘journalist’, genuinely feels it’s time for a clear out at Hampden, with some new model put in it’s place, then publishing a precis of Auldheid’s Conclusion would certainly set the ball rolling! A ball that would have more chance of success than any puff piece we are ever likely to see from Scotland’s hacks.

They won’t, for they are all cowards and worse!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:01 pm - Nov 14, 2016


http://podcast.sfm.scot/e/twm-002/

I’ve just re-listened to the David Low interview. I’m sure everyone has now had a chance to listen to it, so I will make the point I wanted to make a few days ago, but refrained from making as I didn’t want to spoil it for those who hadn’t yet listened.

As we know, David Low is not only a businessman, but is a businessman inside Scottish football. He knows what he’s talking about in the business of football. He will, almost certainly, have discussed the goings on at Ibrox, and, in particular, the financial aspects, with other business people and, in all probability, one or two people with links, past and present, to the TRFC/RIFC boardrooms.

He will also be very careful not to say anything in such a public forum that might, one day, come back to make him look stupid or vindictive.

So his opinions of the financial situation at TRFC is worth taking account of. What’s more, I doubt he came by his opinion by reading this site or any others, it is purely his (very) professional opinion.

Importantly, and this is what I took as very pertinent from the very candid interview, there is nothing he says that contradicts anything that has been said here, and elsewhere on the net, by us bampots regarding the club’s finances and it’s accounts. This interview gives credence to what has been said here on the subject of TRFC’s current finances and it’s accounts. I’m sure most people will have recognised that, but I feel it’s a very important element of the interview, and worth highlighting.

He basically tells us; TRFC are in a mess financially; their only ‘plan’ seems to be to ditch pre-emption rights and issue shares to clear the loans; he gave no indication that this is a good plan, in fact, he highlighted a few problems!

David Low will have chosen his words carefully. They could/will have been said by many a poster on here, and by the likes of PMGB, James Forrest and John James. He didn’t make any jokes at TRFC’s expense so I’ll leave Clumps name off the list 19

The link to the podcast is at the top of this post, well worth a second listen. Anyone who hasn’t listened to it, do so now 04

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:24 pm - Nov 14, 2016


Just posted the following tweet to Keith Jackson. I’ll let you know if he responds.

It’s a simple question, though his answer might not be simple to produce, though most likely dismissive/insulting.

‘@tedermeatballs If you genuinely want rid of Regan and co, why not publish a precis of Auldheid’s Res 12 Conclusion?’

View Comment

FinlochPosted on2:41 pm - Nov 14, 2016


JAMES FORRESTNOVEMBER 14, 2016 at 14:03  Regan has failed at the SFA, turning our national association into a corrupt joke. It’s scandalous he’s remained in post for this long, to be honest … but the media has no right calling for his head when they’ve helped keep him there this long.
http://thecelticblog.com/2016/11/blogs/stewart-regan-deserves-to-be-sacked-but-it-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-national-team/
………………………………………………………………….
A good article James making some good points but Regan is well protected.
He was never off piste.
Your club were well represented in the various SFA committees who agreed the stuff you mention that he should be sacked for.
Complicity abounded back then and probably linked all the SPL chairmen although I’d agree a select few were the drivers.
Protectionism will be their mantra today and they will close ranks and want us all to “Move Along”.

Interesting times with Resolution 12 on the agenda.
Good luck to the Requisitioners at the Celtic AGM, you are battling for us all.

View Comment

TrisidiumPosted on3:06 pm - Nov 14, 2016


View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on3:14 pm - Nov 14, 2016


ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 14, 2016 at 12:24  
Just posted the following tweet to Keith Jackson. I’ll let you know if he responds.
   ——————————————————————————————————–
   Well done AJ….Oh they should be gone, No doubt about it, and the SMSM have all the ammunition to do it.
Res12
LNS
The 5 way agreement
Sevco 5088
Pinsent Mason
David Murray
Campbell Ogilvie
Secret hotel meetings
Armageddon
Civil unrest
Breaking their own rules
King fit and proper
Same club myth, or should it be mirth
Turnbull Hutton’s words
TOG report
Sports Integrity Initiative
To name but a few……. Reasons the don’t want to mention
Do they think these issues will just fade away if new faces are put in to warm some seats? 
I smell fear

View Comment

The_SteedPosted on3:49 pm - Nov 14, 2016


With all the stuff that has been going on over the last week, there are two things I can’t get my head around;

1. Why would Monsieur Barton have to get an agreement with the SFA/ FA regarding the payment of monies owed to him unless TRFC are in financial dire straits?  The only logical conclusion is that Barton’s representatives think there is a genuine risk that TRFC won’t have the cash to pay – which given that it’s allegedly around £250k should be setting alarm bells ringing all over the place!
NOTE: I suppose that this could all be rubbish – although I think that the agreement has been verified outwith the SMSM which would give it much more credence

2. The HMRC letter reproduced earlier in this thread detailing the side letters to Flo and De Boer basically spells out how Rangers gained a Sporting Advantage.  Again, the only logical conclusion is thus (if we assume that each player is identical);
– I have a budget of £3million for wages, and I want to sign two players that will cost me £1.5 million each
– However, if I use an EBT, then they only cost me £1 million each
– So, I set up the EBTs and then go and sign a third player which costs me £1 million = Job done
– Meanwhile, my competitor sticks to the (tax) rules and only signs the two players
How in the name of the wee man is that not a Sporting Advantage?
Even if the extra £1 million means I didn’t sign an extra player, but was spent on the running costs of the Club, it’s still a Sporting Advantage because it means that I can spend money which I should not legally have…
NOTE: I might not have grasped the intricacies of Tax Law and what actually happened, but I *think* this is a reasonable summary…

View Comment

SmugasPosted on3:58 pm - Nov 14, 2016


Finloch,

I agree with you to a point.  The clubs were clearly complicit at the very least in ensuring A Rangers survived and, to a greater or lessor extent (since I’ve never been convinced that all clubs were made aware of the full implications of what was being proposed if indeed they were briefed at all) in ensuring or at least not challenging that THE Rangers survived.  I’ve said before that on the basis of commerciality I agreed with certain actions to ensure fans weren’t lost to the overall game completely that A Rangers entering at the appropriate level, suitably chastened, was probably the correct response*.  This should have been done on all of the other senior clubs’ terms however.  The common parody is that Green was gambling when every club knew exactly what he had in his hand and yet somehow, via the 5WA, we are all led to believe that we still blinked first.  As the Clumpany would so eloquently put it, that’s pure pish!

But regardless of the palatability of the above compromise enforced on the game, what would happen in everyday business, something I’ve seen happen at the sharp end time and again, is that as an inevitable consequence of the clusterf&ck the CEO would be given two press releases.  One for him to sign and return for immediate release saying he’d resigned for entirely personal reasons, time with the family and we all wish him well ya de ya or a second which he didn’t get the opportunity to sign saying he’d been sacked for reasons that would be leaked once the press department made them up to be released in 15 minutes time.  The choice was his (and indeed specific in this particular case, as the choice should have been to Ogilvie some 12 months previously).  Notice at no point do I give any consideration to whether or not the issue was Regan’s fault.  That totally misses the point.  In the commercial world that doesn’t even apply.  There’s a sword there.  You have the choice of falling on it or being thrown.  Up to you.

Integrity can be a harsh mistress.  It wasn’t simply lost to the game.  The actions of Regan and co meant they had to make the physical effort to drag it kicking and screaming to the window before throwing it out.  That is unforgiveable and whilst he now deserves everything he gets, I still suspect that it won’t be enough to save the game long term.    

*  In case that’s overly cryptic for anyone my feeling was and remains that a club called Rangers playing in blue that looked the same and indeed was the same in every respect apart from the entry in the SFA club register should have been afforded access to the 3rd division in August 2012 with the previous club (per the register) stripped of titles won whilst fielding ineligible players.  I said then and repeat now that in my opinion that would not have lost one fan from the game in the long term.  I do however concede that it does not necessarily follow that we would have subsequently beaten Lithuania, eh Kriss! 22

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:02 pm - Nov 14, 2016


I suppose the Scotland team’s failure – again – provides a useful distraction for the SMSM as they criticise Hampden – rather than obediently paste ever more desperate, positive ‘stories’ about the Ibrox club.

It is laughable that someone like Jackson thinks that his ‘hard hitting’ opinions on the SFA have any credibility.
The collective, SMSM sports community has failed Scottish football just like the SFA – and probably for a much longer period !

Don’t think any reasonable fan would believe that any significant change would be effected with a new Scotland manager and/or SFA CEO.

I think Strachan will choose to leave anyway – but the fans / Bampots know that the SFA desperately needs a comprehensive shake up from top to bottom if Scotland is ever going to qualify for a tournament again.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:36 pm - Nov 14, 2016


The_SteedNovember 14, 2016 at 15:49

If I remember correctly, LNS explained away the ‘no sporting advantage’ nonsense by saying Sir Screwalot, knight of the pound table, would have provided the money to pay for the players contracts, anyway! We, of course, know that to be utter BS, as does the whole world now, for the man never had any of the money he supposedly pumped into Rangers in the first place. He moved into dodgy tax schemes and creative registration because he didn’t have the money to keep up that veneer of great wealth (although, as is the way of the world of ‘business’, he came out much richer than he went in, unlike the MIH pension fund)!

LNS accepted all evidence that went unchallenged by the SPL, as the truth (as he was bound to do), and didn’t/couldn’t question any of the witnesses on their statements. I’m sure he knew/suspected Murray was a charlatan, but because Murray’s wealth was never brought into question at the tribunal, LNS accepted that he was so wealthy that money was no object to him and he would/could have signed those, or similarly expensive, players for Rangers at the drop of a hat.

The ludicrous nature of the ‘no sporting advantage’ statement raised nothing other than smug smiles in the SMSM, instead of the questions that should have been asked! That is how they (the SFA etc) thought they would get away with it! They have so far, but the questions are still being asked in places other than the SMSM.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on4:56 pm - Nov 14, 2016


Steed,

One minor but quite important detail in your queries.  SDM openly boasted that the ill fated EBT scheme did not save RFC a cent.  It didn’t, per your example, create a surplus sufficient to purchase the extra player #3.  He made no secret that ‘the savings’ were simply offered to players 1 & 2 in additional earnings further reinforcing the point that it was the quality of player purchased that was otherwise unaffordable.  The impact was primarily on player quality.  The knock on effect of player quality was results.  Results attracted fans.  Bums on seats then permitted the additional squad depth that you refer to.

It is a fine distinction I accept but one that SDM was quite adamant on.  A view that damned Oldco and LNS equally.  

View Comment

fan of footballPosted on5:49 pm - Nov 14, 2016


Re the EBT farce 
I remember the duped one being interviewed on TV after he had won the first decision on the EBTs 
His face was not of a man vindicated and knowing that the truth prevailed ,no his was a face of a certain amount of relief but .
IIRC correctly his words were something along the lines of ,there are no winners in this .
That was a very strange reaction from the winner of the verdict .
For what it’s worth ,here’s my take on his reaction and it is only my opinion and I have no evidence at all to back up my accertion .
I know this site prides itself on backing up posts and asking tough questions of any poster who states things as fact ,that though is not what I am doing here at all .
My guess was that most if not all the player EBTs with side letters were confirmed as being tax avoidance and the only one’s that went on to appeal were the one’s for directors ex managers and MIH execs (or one’s were there were no existing side letters )
So IMO the writing was on the wall from the very start regards the football side of things .
Am I right in thinking that the LNS inquiry went on the assumption that ALL EBTs were legal .
Am I right in thinking that the scope of the enquiry was shifted to leave out the DOS yrs 
Am I right in thinking that there was a passage in the LNS verdict that says that the EBTs decision will not be revisited after the LNS decision .
Now if my guess was correct and certain peepil (knowing this to be the case ) wanted to ensure their way prevailed over all else .Would it make sense for them to ensure the above .
who knows ?
Maybe we will find out in the final outcome 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on5:49 pm - Nov 14, 2016


Allyjambo November 14, 2016 at 16:36
=====================
From time to time it is worth revisiting the actual text of the the various tribunal decisions.  Here is what LNS actually said about the (lack of) competitive advantage:

[105] It seems appropriate in the first place to consider whether such breach by non-disclosure conferred any competitive advantage on Rangers FC. Given that we have held that Rangers FC did not breach Rule D1.11 by playing ineligible players, it did not secure any direct competitive advantage in that respect. If the breach of the rules by non-disclosure of the side-letters conferred any competitive advantage, that could only have been an indirect one. Although it is clear to us from Mr Odam’s evidence that Oldco’s failure to disclose the side-letters to the SPL and the SFA was at least partly motivated by a wish not to risk prejudicing the tax advantages of the EBT scheme, we are unable to reach the conclusion that this led to any competitive advantage. There was no evidence before us as to whether any other members of the SPL used similar EBT schemes, or the effect of their doing so. Moreover, we have received no evidence from which we could possibly say that Oldco could not or would not have entered into the EBT arrangements with players if it had been required to comply with the requirement to disclose the arrangements as part of the players’ full financial entitlement or as giving rise to payment to players. It is entirely possible that the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed to the SPL and SFA without prejudicing the argument – accepted by the majority of the Tax Tribunal at paragraph 232 of their decision – that such arrangements, resulting in loans made to the players, did not give rise to payments absolutely or unreservedly held for or to the order of the individual players. On that basis, the EBT arrangements could have been disclosed as contractual arrangements giving rise to a facility for the player to receive loans, and there would have been no breach of the disclosure rules.
[106] We therefore proceed on the basis that the breach of the rules relating to disclosure did not give rise to any sporting advantage, direct or indirect. We do not therefore propose to consider those sanctions which are of a sporting nature.

And here is some text relating to Murray’s evidence to the FTTT

Mr Black [SDM] did not consider the Trust as a means of tax avoidance, but rather as a means of retaining and rewarding loyal employees. So far as Rangers was concerned it enabled the Club to attract players who would not otherwise have been obtainable.

From the above you can see that LNS chose to rely on some of the findings from the FTTT to justify his reasoning, but chose to ignore other evidence to the FTTT that did not fit with his decision.

View Comment

fan of footballPosted on6:05 pm - Nov 14, 2016


EASYJAMBONOVEMBER 14, 2016 at 17:49
Oh what a tangled web we weave ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
202020202020

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:28 pm - Nov 14, 2016


Phil McG suggesting the WiFi company may be ready to court again. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on6:55 pm - Nov 14, 2016


easyJamboNovember 14, 2016 at 17:49

Thanks for that, EJ, I knew I could rely on you to produce the correct wording for those, like me, who tend to rely on our failing memories, though I am sure there was a passage that seemed to suggest something similar to what I described, ie, no sporting advantage was gained because Murray had the money to plough in if the EBT scheme was not available.

Regardless, what we see in your post is an example, in my opinion, of a man paid handsomely to come up with some way out of the mess the SFA and SPL had been put into by Rangers, without leaving them in a position of no choice but to remove titles.

View Comment

The_SteedPosted on7:16 pm - Nov 14, 2016


Smugas – thanks for the clarification…

Gads, I think that’s even more galling than the scenario I envisaged 13

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:20 pm - Nov 14, 2016


upthehoopsNovember 14, 2016 at 18:28 
Phil McG suggesting the WiFi company may be ready to court again. 
_____________________________

And, according to PMGB, they are not alone in their desire to make monies owed secure. Hardly surprising with so many stories about player settlements, guaranteed payments, more and more loans for working capital, Stadium repairs, and then there’s the most recent accounts… Without the knowledge to be sure of my ground here, I’d suggest that the accounts alone, with the ‘going concern’ matter especially relevant, must give any creditor grounds to have disputed funds attached until their case is heard.

Phil’s also put up a little post that almost reads like a Clumpany ESJ micky take, except it’s, allegedly, no joke!

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:36 pm - Nov 14, 2016


ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 14, 2016 at 19:20  
And, according to PMGB, they are not alone in their desire to make monies owed secure. Hardly surprising with so many stories about player settlements, guaranteed payments, more and more loans for working capital, Stadium repairs, and then there’s the most recent accounts… Without the knowledge to be sure of my ground here, I’d suggest that the accounts alone, with the ‘going concern’ matter especially relevant, must give any creditor grounds to have disputed funds attached until their case is heard.

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

Wasn’t it a similar case with the accounts when Imran Ahmad failed to get money ring fenced? 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:59 pm - Nov 14, 2016


Sections of the media are calling for Regan to step down.(4 years to late)
Is this Level5 trying to get rid of Mr Regan before some bad news comes down the line?
And has Mr Regan released any statement about todays articles?

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on8:04 pm - Nov 14, 2016


ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 14, 2016 at 19:20
     “Without the knowledge to be sure of my ground here, I’d suggest that the accounts alone, with the ‘going concern’ matter especially relevant, must give any creditor grounds to have disputed funds attached until their case is heard.”
     ——————————————————————————————————————————–
Ally I’m sure a different approach will be needed this time, as Sevco’s inability to cover the invoice was used unsuccessfully the last time. Sevco merely told the sheriff they would “tap it” off the shareholders if the invoice was good. 
    To me that is just an admission that they didn’t have it, or there would be no need for the tap. 
   Seems to be, as you point out, an awful lot of people hanging on these shareholders promises.

http://stv.tv/news/west-central/1339205-rangers-wi-fi-providers-fail-to-have-300000-arrested-from-club/

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on8:28 pm - Nov 14, 2016


upthehoopsNovember 14, 2016 at 19:36 
ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 14, 2016 at 19:20   And, according to PMGB, they are not alone in their desire to make monies owed secure. Hardly surprising with so many stories about player settlements, guaranteed payments, more and more loans for working capital, Stadium repairs, and then there’s the most recent accounts… Without the knowledge to be sure of my ground here, I’d suggest that the accounts alone, with the ‘going concern’ matter especially relevant, must give any creditor grounds to have disputed funds attached until their case is heard.
==============================
Wasn’t it a similar case with the accounts when Imran Ahmad failed to get money ring fenced? 
______________________

No doubt they were similar, but we are further on down the road and TRFC/RIFC continue to make losses with no sign of a recovery, unless the plan (if it can be called that) to get into Europe can be considered a good one! The mess is even messier than it was before with expensive court cases piling up and no mention in the accounts of monies already set aside in case they are lost. Indeed, unless I’m mistaken, no mention in the accounts of the case in point as a contingent liability. 

The ‘plan’ in itself is not just highly speculative, but to give a reasonable chance of making sufficient money (ignoring the awkwardness of three other clubs trying to stop them getting there) to spark a meaningful recovery, they will surely have to spend to strengthen the squad in the summer! In fact, that lone business ‘plan’ is so speculative in itself that it must surely indicate a company in dire straits.

Assuming PMGB’s information is accurate, I’m sure the litigant would not be returning to a court they left chastened a while ago unless they felt things at Ibrox had gone demonstrably downhill since!

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:56 pm - Nov 14, 2016


Corrupt officialNovember 14, 2016 at 20:04
‘…Sevco merely told the sheriff they would “tap it” off the shareholders if the invoice was good. To me that is just an admission that they didn’t have it, or there would be no need for the tap. ‘
__________
 I’m not at all any kind of expert in these matters, Corrupt official. 

However, and although it annoys the hell out of  me, I think it is probably the case that the Sheriff had to be convinced ( perhaps not in open court, but in his chambers) by some kind of evidence presented by Counsel for the impoverished club ( a QC  who would risk being censured if there were any hanky-panky on his part!) that if push came to shove, the money to pay the wi-fi people would be found.

Just what the sheriff would consider was an acceptable assurance is a matter for the Sheriff. But he would need to consider the possibility that his decision in the case might actually trigger a collapse , leaving wi-fi worse off.

Any other way of looking at it might , God spare us, move us into wildly speculative territory about the impartiality of our judges.

And that would never do, in a sophisticated, democratic , rule-of-law nation, in which ,even in trivial matters of sports governance, Integrity is king.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on10:16 pm - Nov 14, 2016


   No expert myself John, and I take your point regarding the impartiality of our judiciary. Maybe I could have worded it better. 
 My point really was that Sevco admitted they would need a loan to settle the invoice, and that 802 Works assertion was therefore correct.
    I don’t see that the Sheriff has to consider any impact on Sevco’s ongoing business situation. They have already stated they could get a loan, so they would b e unaffected by an arrest. 
   802 works may be affected without one.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on10:37 pm - Nov 14, 2016


I really enjoy doing The Weekly Monitor, and #3 was really great fun to do. Paul Kane is a real gent – as is our old friend Stuart Cosgrove. Over 1200 downloads already which is great.

http://podcast.sfm.scot/e/twm-episode-3/

Stuart’s new book. “Young Soul Rebels” is on sale now at all good stockist 🙂 Including Amazon

The match ball is now up at £150 too, so not a bad day all round

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:41 pm - Nov 14, 2016


FinlochNovember 14, 2016 at 14:41
‘…Good luck to the Requisitioners at the Celtic AGM, you are battling for us all.’
________
I echo those sentiments, Finloch.
I mentioned the other day that what we now have is a situation that has moved from a sort of internal ‘football dispute’ over the interpretation of ‘football rules’ into being  questions of
whether the allegation that Celtic plc was criminally and knowingly done out of serious monies by the limited company (the SFA),of which it is a shareholder, could be at all true
and whether that plc, for reasons as yet unexplained to its own shareholders, was and is  entitled to refuse to have that allegation investigated on behalf of its shareholders.
I hope that the Requisitioners (of whom, I have to make clear, I am not one, except in spirit) are given straight answers, without any Lawwellite prevarication or Bankier-like chairmanspeak crap.
And I regret that I have not the financial means to fund ( if need be) any shareholder approach to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal service to have a possible crime investigated.
The point being that it is Scottish Football governance, not Celtic plc,  that has to be seen to be clean. My view , previously stated, is simply that not even Celtic plc, the ‘innocent’ victim of an alleged crime, can be permitted to say, in effect,  ‘Ach, nevermind, we don’t mind, so why should you?’
The Board of Celtic plc has fiduciary responsibilities to even the least of its shareholders. They are not allowed simply to say ‘ ach, never mind, we’re quite happy to ignore the fact that we may have been  cheated out of millions’. It is not in their gift to dismiss out of hand the possibility that they may have been the victims of a criminal conspiracy.
And they certainly cannot cite some UEFA ‘time-barred’ clause to get them off the hook!
In my opinion.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:41 pm - Nov 14, 2016


Could I suggest that

1, The business posting trading losses for the fourth consecutive year of it’s four year existence. 

2, The directors admitting they had to provide further loans in October to keep trading.

3, The directors admitting that they will have to put even more loans early next year to see the season out.

4, The business looking at a fifth consecutive year of trading losses.

5, The directors suggesting that the next year may see further trading losses.

6, There being no credit or overdraft facilities and the business working on a cash basis, with little or no cash in the bank.

May be enough reason to suggest to a Sheriff that there is a reasonable prospect that creditors may struggle to get paid.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:22 pm - Nov 14, 2016


Ah naw but Europe but.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on11:25 pm - Nov 14, 2016


BIG PINKNOVEMBER 14, 2016 at 22:37
    Enjoyable to listen to as well bud. You are doing a fine job. 04

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:35 pm - Nov 14, 2016


HomunculusNovember 14, 2016 at 22:41
‘…Could I suggest that………..may be enough reason to suggest to a Sheriff that there is a reasonable prospect that creditors may struggle to get paid.’
_____
And I would make that suggestion myself, of course.As I would have done in the Ahmad scenario as well.
Our Courts are open. Any member of the public can wander in at will and sit there and see ( and depending on the speaking voice of whoever happens to be speaking, might actually hear!)what goes on. [Take it from me, the mumbling, stumbling articulation of some leaves a lot to be desired]
The trouble arises when,on a plea of commercial confidentiality, the Court decides that counsel will be heard in Chambers. So joe public doesn’t get to hear what the judge is being presented with. But, of course,counsel for both parties does.
And one has to assume that counsel for, say, wi-fi, hears the ‘evidence’ that persuades the judge .
And, of course, has a right to challenge the judgment that is made.
I have learned over the past couple, three?four? years that the law has almost absolutely nothing to do with ‘truth’, except in the most abstruse, metaphysical notion of ‘truth’.
If you produce to me a piece of paper on which someone has signed that he will pay £x to somebody else, when called upon to do so, it is not for me to say that he won’t, and that it is all pretendy buls.it. I, as a judge, can’t call the someone in and interrogate him as to his means and capacities or whatever.
So, if some lying bast.rd signs a bit of paper saying, “oh, yes, if my friends ask me for £x, I’ll happily provide £x” it is not for the judge to say ‘ show me your bank balance, and swear before me that you will pay.’
He will simply have before him a piece of paper, vouched for by the QC , who will be presumed to have satisfied himself of the  ‘truth’ that the lying basta.d of a client has told him!
And, even  bearing in mind all kinds of stuff about , say, Fairbairn, and ‘magic circles’ and things of that kind, it would be a very rash ( or very, very all square kind of QC) who knowingly put untruths before the Court.
Again, in my opinion.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:08 am - Nov 15, 2016


If the WiFi company or indeed another creditor attempts to ring fence money in a court it is almost certain the defence will be that Directors are willing to fund any shortfalls, therefore any ring fencing is unnecessary. As has been said this can’t be a forum to question the impartiality of Judges, but I would like to see courts demand more of a ‘bond’ towards such a promise. Surely a court has a right to ask for a written commitment from said directors if it is clear the current financial state does pose a threat to the creditor receiving settlement in full. Alternatively, why does the court not rule that if Directors are truly willing to fund the shortfall, they will ring fence the money and the Directors can pick up the shortfall now. I am no legal expert, but I would have more faith in a system that did not appear to accept there are no issues just because the Rangers board say there are no issues. Even to a layman like me, the accounts clearly say there ARE issues.  

Edit: Surely ‘…but we’ll be playing in Europe next year’ wouldn’t be accepted by a court anywhere?

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:32 am - Nov 15, 2016


JOHN CLARK
NOVEMBER 14, 2016 at 23:35
================================

The issue is not when a member of the public, or a businessman, or a captain of industry says something. It is when a QC says something. I believe they are known as an Officer of the Court and that makes what they say different to what anyone else says.

Preposterous, I know but I believe that is the way the system works. 

View Comment

NTDEALPosted on9:02 am - Nov 15, 2016


Lawyers and QCs/advocates etc have have very specific and wide ranging responseabilities to the Courts,none of which are preposterous

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on9:04 am - Nov 15, 2016


Morning all.
Just catching up.
I see the DR this morning have a wee piece on the upcoming Celtic & TRFC AGMs.
With Phils report that the WiFi Company may be ready to try again to get their cash ring fenced & at least one other large creditor was wanting paid,I thought this wee snippet from the DR piece was interesting,even just for the fact that the DR published it in the 1st place:
“Sadly though,we don’t hold out much hope this year on hearing why Rangers have been stealing the local church’s water supply and therefore saving cash on the water bill.
That’s despite some heavy hitters reporting to the contrary.”

    

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on9:24 am - Nov 15, 2016


For anyone interested here’s the link to the DR article:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-agm-2016-you-need-9257965

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on9:25 am - Nov 15, 2016


                         I suppose at the end of the day many of us see that what has happened at the new club has happened before and still after all these years, there are still creditors not getting paid. There have been so many promises over the years, we’ll do this and we’ll do that. Its just bluster and the amount of money that has poured into that club over the last four years has been incredible and yet people are still not getting paid whilst trying to make a living, doing expensive work and upgrades and most likely being found short themselves. How can the behaviour of this club be any different when you have two directors still in place from the last disaster, with the same philosophy, giving punters the same jargon and yes, the creditors are still not being paid. Has any move been made with regards payment  to the WiFi guys since there last appearance? Well, they’re back at court so whatever promises were made last time, surely they wont rub this time !!!! But I wont hold my breath. So, can anyone tell me. What has changed ?
                      

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on10:05 am - Nov 15, 2016


The Record says without any qualifiers mibbes aye mibbes naw that Rangers have been stealing water from the Local Church- that is a very definitive and large statement.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:16 am - Nov 15, 2016


NTDEAL
NOVEMBER 15, 2016 at 09:02

Lawyers and QCs/advocates etc have have very specific and wide ranging responseabilities to the Courts,none of which are preposterous
====================================

I think that a Court merely accepting the word of an Officer of the Court, without ever looking behind it and seeking some form of verification is a preposterous position to take. 

I am basing that on a definition of preposterous being “contrary to reason or common sense; utterly absurd or ridiculous.”

It is particularly preposterous in Scotland where we have a system which is heavily based on corroboration. 

I say that absolutely respecting your right to have an opinion totally contrary to mine. 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:25 am - Nov 15, 2016


bfbpuzzledNovember 15, 2016 at 10:05
‘..The Record says without any qualifiers mibbes aye mibbes naw that Rangers have been stealing water from the Local Church- that is a very definitive and large statement.’
_______
Another law-suiut on the stocks, perhaps? What a sublime irony that would be!19

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:30 am - Nov 15, 2016


“In layman’s terms, the board are asking shareholders to vote to allow them the power to issue shares for cash that don’t need to be offered to existing shareholders first – thus theoretically opening the door for external investment at Ibrox.”

I think the use of “theoretical” is at best generous. Who is going to see this as a decent “investment” other than anyone with an emotional attachment. 

What it really means is that they can disapply pre-emption rights, allowing them to take as much money as they want from Club1872 for the next 12 months. They don’t have to worry about only allocating shares to Club1872 proportionate to it’s existing holding. So any funds sitting in Club1872’s bank account can be transferred to the PLC.

So the fans money can come in, with the shares being allocated to “friendly faces” being controlled by someone who also sits on the main board. I have no issue with that if the fans don’t, it’s their money, they can do what they want with it. Just tell them the truth about it. 

They can also allocate shares to themselves, cancelling out existing debt, with no new money going into the PLC. At the same time diluting the holding of those they say as unfriendly. 

It will be interesting to see how that is reported if it happens. One suspects “Successful Share Issue raises £15m”, not mentioning that £14m is debt being cleared, so no actual money coming in.  

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:35 am - Nov 15, 2016


BFBPUZZLEDNOVEMBER 15, 2016 at 10:05 
The Record says without any qualifiers mibbes aye mibbes naw that Rangers have been stealing water from the Local Church- that is a very definitive and large statement.
_________________

I have to admit that, on first reading that part of the article, I took it to be a sarcastic dig at the bampots who broke the water story, but on second reading, I’d say that if it was meant to be that sarcastic dig, the writer made a complete hash of it as it certainly reads like he means it! Sadly, I reckon it is more likely he made a hash of his intended sarcasm than it is an indication he knows of, or believes there to be, any substance to the story.

It’s in the DR, so if he believed there to be any substance, he certainly wouldn’t be brave enough to be the first hack to acknowledge it, or, at least, be allowed to be!

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:14 am - Nov 15, 2016


Homunculus,

Probably fair to say the two are interconnected as well.  Converting the existing loans to ‘board friendly’ equity will also have the effect of diluting further the shares received for club1815 (other military references are available) for their much needed fresh funding inwards.  Like you, that is fine by me as long as it’s all above board.  The 3bear/Hong Kong block absolutely deserve recognition and reward for their generous efforts.  Just so long as it’s not used in a cynical blocking manoeuvre where the common fan literally loses out once again.

View Comment

bordersdonPosted on11:21 am - Nov 15, 2016


AllyjamboNovember 15, 2016 at 10:35
——————————————————–
Certainly a sarcastic dig. And in this case a well (oops) deserved one in my view. Too many people are too eager to believe even the most outrageous story about the new club from whatever the source. The figures quoted in the water rumour were indeed unbelievable and only serve to discredit sites like this in the eyes of many.

View Comment

joes11Posted on11:40 am - Nov 15, 2016


bordersdonNovember 15, 2016 at 11:21 
AllyjamboNovember 15, 2016 at 10:35 ——————————————————– Certainly a sarcastic dig. And in this case a well (oops) deserved one in my view. Too many people are too eager to believe even the most outrageous story about the new club from whatever the source. The figures quoted in the water rumour were indeed unbelievable and only serve to discredit sites like this in the eyes of many.
………………………………………………………………………………………………….
I am not sure that this site would be discredited because a particular poster quoted unbelievable figures. Any reasonably intelligent person coming on to this site should view it similarly to any other – there are many posters highlighting what they think is worthy of consideration; but readers have to exercise their own judgement on the value and likely truth of each one – just as you have clearly and rightly done.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:21 pm - Nov 15, 2016


BORDERSDONNOVEMBER 15, 2016 at 11: 
AllyjamboNovember 15, 2016 at 10:35——————————————————–Certainly a sarcastic dig. And in this case a well (oops) deserved one in my view. Too many people are too eager to believe even the most outrageous story about the new club from whatever the source. The figures quoted in the water rumour were indeed unbelievable and only serve to discredit sites like this in the eyes of many.
______________

I am sure it was meant to be sarcastic, but was a pitiful attempt and I can only presume the writer took advice from the award winning sports writer at the DR 09 

We all know about the water story and just how ridiculous some of the claims were, but no ‘journalist’ should assume everyone who will read his article will know the back story, so any use of sarcasm needs to be obvious sarcasm or the peice becomes misleading or just downright stupid!

While much that was written about the water story was way over the top, it has to be said that many posters on here pointed that fact out while making the point that it could only involve TRFC for such stories to be considered believable.       

View Comment

bordersdonPosted on2:02 pm - Nov 15, 2016


AllyjamboNovember 15, 2016 at 12:21
———————————————–
I suppose that the basic point I was making is that the water story was only one example (albeit an extreme one but there have been many others) of a “revelation” without any substance about things down Ibrox way being accepted by some as fact to feed a hunger that hopes the new club will suffer an insolvency event sooner rather that later.
Clearly things are not good but my own view is that they will limp on. Any club that can sell the number of SB’s that the new club can must surely, if ran properly, survive (I wish my club could sell a third of what they do in SBs). Of course they don’t want to just survive but want to get back to their “rightful place” NOW. I still think they will survive though and if they were to do so as a new club making new history without a leg up from the powers that be then I do not have a problem with that apart the inevitability that we would soon be back to a duopoly instead of the current monopoly. But that’s another story…………..

View Comment

andyPosted on2:12 pm - Nov 15, 2016


definitely a sarcastic swipe the author of the piece in the record  is a  rangers blogger 
Alan ClarkFreelance Sports Journalist
Edinburgh, City of Edinburgh, United KingdomWriting and EditingCurrentScottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail Ltd,WATP Magazine

Content Editor and WriterCopland Road OrganizationNovember 2012 – December 2015 (3 years 2 months)

Features Editor and WriterWATP MagazineOctober 2013 – Present (3 years 2 months)Articles for the no.1 unofficial Rangers magazine. Experience has included aspects like interviews, player profiles, opinion pieces and ghost-writing columns. To date, I have interviewed; Michael Mols, Gordon Smith, Lee McCulloch, Fraser Aird, Marco Negri, Steven Simonsen, Darren McGregor, Gordon Reid (wheelchair tennis), Vladimir Weiss, Andy Halliday and Rob Kiernan.

In the last five years I have also written for a number of websites and blogs.

View Comment

NTDEALPosted on2:13 pm - Nov 15, 2016


Homunculus;Nov 15th 10.16
As you say,agree to differ,I cannot,as an officer of the court accept your innaccuracies

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:48 pm - Nov 15, 2016


andyNovember 15, 2016 at 14:12
‘….definitely a sarcastic swipe the author of the piece in the record is a rangers blogger, Alan Clark…..’
_________
He’s surely been around long enough to know better than to leave an  untrue and perhaps slanderous statement, intended as a gibe at the gullibility of others, free-standing without inverted commas or smileys or anything to suggest he was being a comedian and that the statement is untrue.

It might lead to a cash-desperate Board looking for a few bob in damages!

View Comment

AOBPosted on5:27 pm - Nov 15, 2016


Apologies for a bit of a change of subject here.
I have been studying the June 2016 financial accounts of Aberdeen and thought I’d compare some income statistics with The Rangers accounts for the same period. I now better understand why King and Co are so keen to do anything they can to ditch their merchandise and sponsorship deals.
Gate receipts at Ibrox were £17m and at AFC £4M. So the basic idea that TRFC is four times bigger than AFC can be deemed a truism on that income line alone. AFC had £300k more broadcasting income at £2.3M versus £2M.
However, the sponsors and advertisers at AFC paid £1.8M for the privilege, whereas TRFC received just £663k. Similar story in 2015 too, so definite scope for the Ibrox club to do better there.
Commercial income is a real eyeopener however. TRFC earned £233k (the famous onerous contracts?) and AFC a whopping £4.7M. AFC do have a large and successfull commercial department but one would suppose that TRFC should be able to far exceed that if they had any sort of skills in that area.
AFC have scope to increase gate income by a few million although RFC may have topped out there. That makes the commercial income very important indeed and probably worth fighting over.
Finally, AFC need turnover of c£12M just to cover their fairly fixed costs / keep the lights on. They can only do it because of their Commercial Dept, and never will from gate receipts and prize money alone.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on6:52 pm - Nov 15, 2016


Why would AFC’s tv revenue at 500k (2.3m – 1.8m) be 35% of RFC’s (2m – 633k)?  Cup run with old firm semi included?  Genuinely interested.  AFC have always had, and largely squandered imho, good corporate income through ‘oil boxes’ and such like.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on8:58 pm - Nov 15, 2016


Well away from current topics here, but I’ve just returned from Wemberlee and,after a quick scroll through, get the impression that the game v England is not to be discussed .So, a couple of notes from your foreign correspondent –
Alan McRae put in an appearance and looked just like his photo
the bars and licensed grocers around the ground stopped selling alcohol about 6.30 meaning we could see the game unvarnished
the chant “Jimmy Savile, he’s one of your own” chanted at the English fans(once we were behind ) – what’s  that all about ?
next to no coverage of the fighting among West Ham and Millwall fans ,especially behind Joe Hart’s goal in the second half 
the number of people tripping because the stadium has put added seats (two each side) on the stairways -totally unmarked and protruding halfway into the row like wee footrests . A lot of Scottish fans left early but there was still congestion on the narrowed stairways
England are no world-beaters,not much better than us                                                                                               referees appear to be trying to make elite competitions non-contact games

As you were. 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:07 pm - Nov 15, 2016


AOB November 15, 2016 at 17:27
====================
The largest single element of the differential in commercial income was that Aberdeen earned £2M+ for finishing 2nd in the Premier League, while Rangers earned just over £470K for winning the Championship.  The other major factor appears to be that Aberdeen also include their Retail income under the Commercial heading.  We are all aware of the issues that TRFC have had with RRL (much of it down to boycotts and the like).

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on9:20 pm - Nov 15, 2016


When Jock Brown ex Director of Football at Celtic finally wrote his book he revealed that it was standard practice for the post-match lamb munchers attending Parkhead to privately “agree” which negative aspect of the Celtic match would be the main story line on the post-match press reports for their respective rags
The result was irrelevant. What mattered was ensuring nobody stepped out of line and got extra sales because of it. 
It’s quite noticeable this week that the MSM have decided en masse on the same story line
 Hampden needs to be cleaned out of the incompetents who have mismanaged Scottish football for decades. Their reasons are quite different from those penned on SFM. 
Their reasons are irrelevant. Whats significant is that its clearly a   ’s  concert party consensus aimed at making up for the mess the MSM put TRFC in by their inept campaign to run JB out of town with minimal compensation
Phil put his finger on the reason why this latest “agreement” has come to pass
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/joey-and-the-argonauts/#more-8289
This loose agreement between the MSM and TRFC failed miserably
The disgraceful disclosure in the MSM of JBs medical condition for being off work was the final straw
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Is there a lesson here?
Yep 
The MSM might get away with loosely conniving with TRFC Charlatans and Spivs to gloss over the way they skirted business law to milk TRFC for £ms
But
The idea that a loose conspiracy with TRFC can be effective when it breaks employment law has been blown out of the water

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:07 pm - Nov 15, 2016


From an email which came into my inbox yesterday afternoon from a trusted source, I understand that an email has been sent by a reliable source to the Boards of every club in the top two divisions of the SPFL.
In brief summary, the email refers to the Sports Integrity Initiative report, and reminds them that “whether by silence or a more hands on stance, you have been party to the whole malfeasance, and that “you ( the clubs) are the SFA and … are the caretakers of the sport,repeat, the sport, but .. have allowed it to sink to a level where your customers have lost faith in the integrity of the game.”
And calls upon them to  ” change  your stance by demanding the answers to the questions raised by the Sports Integrity Initiative(SII)  and insisting on any action required to undo the wrongs of the past two decades.”
I think I shall follow suit, and send a similar email to the same boards.
If those of us who believe that those clubs were either kept in the dark, or knew damn fine that some kind of fiddle re licences had been worked to try to give SDM’s club the unentitled chance to get a few millions of  CL money, or ( more likely) only became aware of the matter when Res 12 was first moved at the Celtic AGM but have, since then, been too self-interested to speak out and ask questions, demand in sufficient numbers that they ask questions, they at least might have to look to their own interests again, in a different light.
And realise that failure on their  part even to try to establish the objective truth puts them in a very dark place indeed in the eyes of the general run of their support, as men/women who would appear happy to be running businesses as part of an allegedly crooked business association which had  allegedly actually cheated them.

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on11:46 pm - Nov 15, 2016


I remember Eddiegoldtop asking just such questions of his own club board last year? John. He was not rewarded with anything other than faux outrage and a promise to look into it. I believe he withdrew his financial support in disgust.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:07 am - Nov 16, 2016


gunnerbNovember 15, 2016 at 23:46
‘…I remember Eddiegoldtop asking just such questions of his own club board last year? ‘
______
As do I, gunnerb.
I had the purely coincidental pleasure some (longish) time ago of having a brief conversation in the corridor of Parliament House with egt. A hard-headed, practical man of business who,like me [ except that I am very definitely NOT a hard-headed business man , unfortunately] does not like to be practised upon by people who try to cheat, or by those who seem to support cheating.
When one tries to look at things objectively, one cannot but be astounded at what the rotten ownership of RFC(IL) unleashed in the world of Scottish Football.
I think of Paw Broon, and his ‘Jings, crivvens, michty me’ quasi expletive when he encountered strange and unacceptable situations..
We were  lied to. For feckin years by SDM’s RFC.
That lying has led us to a state of absolute conviction that we cannot trust the SMSM.
And that we cannot trust a word of what our Football governance people say.
Where is it all going to end?
Well, if the real bad guys aren’t got rid of, where else but in the death of Scottish Football as any kind of sport that people want to spend their money on. Seriously,  who among us could be are.d being lied to by our clubs and the SFA?
Simples.
And I hope that at tomorrow’s ( geez, look at the time! it’s already tomorrow! and I am being summoned by a siren song from above22) AGM Celtic plc will begin the process of bringing Football governance back on a truthfully sound foundation,by calling for a thorough investigation into the Res 12 matter.

View Comment

AOBPosted on1:52 am - Nov 16, 2016


To SMUGAS and EASYJAMBO regarding money stuff.

SMUGAS. I may be wrong but I think your comments suggest that you were assuming some numbers were part of others (eh!). I think you may have thought that broadcasting and sponsorship were part of the same number. No. 
The broadcasting figures for both clubs were £2m/£2.3m. And then the sponsorship/merchandising numbers (£1.8M for AFC) are completely different. Hope that answers your query.
EASYJAMBO. I agree with you on prize money, which may perhaps confirm that it will add a mill or so if TRFC finish second.
Not too sure about your point  on Retail being part of Commercial though. I take ‘merchandising’ as being the shirt sales (i.e Retail) and as said above, AFC are just over a million ahead of TRFC in that regard. ‘Commercial’  is  not part of that at all and has been a  particular strength for AFC and miles ahead of TRFC.
It may well be the squandered oil money as you suggest, which is just a part of ordinary life in the NE, just as finance is in Edinburgh/Glasgow. But look at Hearts and Hibs commercial income and then look at their ‘Retail/merchandising’ income i.e shirt etc sales and see the difference.
In summary Easy, TRFC win on gate receipts but have a long way to go on other income to match AFC and it is not retail shirt sales and it is not oil sponsors that they need to worry about, it is much more than that.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:06 am - Nov 16, 2016


GOOSYGOOSYNOVEMBER 15, 2016 at 21:20  It’s quite noticeable this week that the MSM have decided en masse on the same story line
====================================================

I’m sure we all agree that story line will be far from the real reason they want change at the SFA. When Rangers were riding high on other peoples money the SFA were not exactly popular with the media, but there was no across the board demands like we have witnessed this week. The world was at one as long as Rangers were at the top. In fact, when Fergus McCann proved Jim Farry wrong and the SFA were forced to apologise to Celtic the SFA received much media sympathy, which was equal in magnitude to the media anger towards McCann.

I am aligned with Phil’s theory that some recent negotiations between TRFC and the SFA have not gone well and there is a need for a more sympathetic ear on the 6th floor at Hampden. If the SFA are indeed party to an agreement to ensure Barton gets his full pay off in the case of TRFC defaulting that may be the final straw for TRFC, therefore the attack dogs have been released.

View Comment

Comments are closed.