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.
Sevco…………….”Aaaaaargh…We need more help !”
SFA………………”It’s too risky, The Bampots have us pinned down”
Sevco……………”Ah FFS!…….We’ll get somebody in with a bigger pair if you don’t”
Latest from TOG
http://www.theoffshoregame.net/sfa-admits-it-did-know-about-rangers-unlawful-tax-avoidance-scheme-at-time-of-nimmo-smith-inquiry/
Happy to see this put to bed now and joy for the posters on here who put alot of work into refuting the claims
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14908257.Celtic_paid_three_times_market_value_for_land_at_centre_of__State_Aid__allegations/?ref=twtrec
A LAND sale which sparked complaints to Europe that Scotland’s biggest council had broken the law over favourable deals with Celtic FC actually saw the club pay three times over the market odds, it has emerged. In a highly unusual move, Glasgow City Council has published details of the transaction with Celtic as well as the findings from independent evaluators.
AOB November 16, 2016 at 01:52
=======================
Looking at the AFC accounts, their turnover is split into six categories:
(Amounts in £000’s)
* Gate Receipts………………………………£4,023
* Sponsorship & Advertising………………£1,803
* Broadcasting Rights……………………..£2,322
* Commercial………………………………..£4,678
* UEFA Solidarity and Prize Money……..£552
* Other Operating Revenue………………….£38
If your retail sales are not included in “Commercial”, then where are the accounted for?
There is a reference in the “Strategic Report” which states “Other Operating Charges rose slightly from £5.730 million to £5.906 million due to our continued commercial success in increasing club shop and hospitality sales”.
My reading of the above would suggest that the “Commercial” figure includes the revenue from both both the Club Shop (retail) and Hospitality, particularly when the costs of the shop and providing the hospitality are described in terms of “commercial success”.
I think that different clubs classify their income streams under different headings, with some grouping gates receipts and hospitality sales as “Match Day Income”. Others include their Sponsorship and Retail operations under “Merchandising”. Some include Advertising under Commercial income.
e.g. Hearts only use four Categories.
* Match day
* Income from football authorities
* Commercial
* Other Income
I guess what I’m saying is that you have to take care that you are comparing like for like, when you express views on the relative financial performance of different clubs.
From Celtic’s AGM this morning:
Celtic Underground @celticrumours
Club will meet #Res12 people next week to discuss outcome of UEFA feedback. This is a very important matter of governance #TicAGM
…. and from the Record:
Bankier says in the past 12 months, independent solicitors have provided the SFA and UEFA with information, there are concerns over how the bodies have responded, Bankier says it’s a matter of football governance.
SFA Role in JB departure
There`s something puzzling about the idea that the SFA will ensure JB gets paid in full if TRFC use an Administration event to renege on his staged tax free payments
And it`s this
How can the SFA underwrite a tax free payment without obtaining a ruling from HMRC?
Or put another way
How can JB prove to HMRC that any payment he received from the SFA was Netto?
Think about it
TRFC would have to set aside the gross figure owed to JB plus the tax and NI due in order to demonstrate to HMRC that the payment was Netto
But
If an insolvency event took place before JB had been paid in full.
Contracts are nullified for employees with fewer than 2yrs service. So JB would be off the payroll and he would be a Creditor for monies due under his termination agreement
But these monies are Netto (allegedly)
So the SFA could be liable for the gross amount. They would then have to remit the tax element to the Administrator (or HMRC) and the balance to JB
And
JB would need written proof (for HMRC) that the SFA had remitted his tax due to the Administrator (or HMRC)
It sounds messy, time consuming(with HMRC involvement) and something the SFA would be uncomfortable about agreeing to.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
So why the SFA would get involved in such a mess?
Here’s an idea
What if JB was getting paid Netto all along. Perhaps through some (still legal) EBT type arrangement?
If so
Did the SFA receive full details of JBs Contract of Employment when he joined TRFC a few months ago?
and
Did JB have a confidential side letter from TRFC?
Which
JB showed to the SFA during the recent negotiations?
And
Made the SFA so mad at TRFC for withholding information that they took JBs side and unilaterally agreed to underwrite any shortfall caused by an insolvency event?
If so
It might explain why the MSM en masse have turned on the SFA
ESAYJAMBO at 11.29.
You are, of course, correct. I was, however, extremely pished last night.
With all the MSM goings on over the last week, I will be absolutely amazed if we don’t see Sir Walter of No Surname’s moniker being bandied about as a successor to Regan, despite his only administrative position to date being an absolute balls-up.
easyJamboNovember 16, 2016 at 12:14
‘….Bankier says it’s a matter of football governance.’
_______
That suggests to me that he’s desperate NOT to get the police involved in what seems to me ,prima facie,a potentially serious conspiracy to defraud.
If that is so, I think he is failing in his duty as chairman of a plc, as representing a club that is a member of what I believe must be considered a suspect organisation, and as an ordinary citizen.
There is little that further talks with the Res 12 people will resolve:neith Celtic plc nor the Res 12 people have the legal clout or skills , which is the only way that something like the full truth will be discovered. The days of simply accepting what the SFA say are over; and as said before, it is not in the gift of the Celtic board to dismiss the loss of potential millions as not being worth the trouble of serious investigation by the legal authorities.
Football Governance,we have learned, can no longer be left purely to ‘football’ people.
( I’m away to try to learn whether a private individual can report what he thinks may have been a crime to the Police /Procurator Fiscal)
GOOSYGOOSYNOVEMBER 16, 2016 at 12:35
“How can JB prove to HMRC that any payment he received from the SFA was Netto?”
————————————————————————————————-
GG I can’t be 100%, But I had always assumed that due to the international nature of a footballers work, crossing varying jurisdictions and percentage deductions, (even differing tax year spans), that ALL football players negotiated their earnings “net” and it was down to the employing club, to calculate upwards, as to what his gross should be to arrive at the net payment. They(the club) then pay the difference to HMRC in the respective country/jurisdiction.
i.e. Players are only interested in the bottom line, and the club has to do whatever it takes to legally comply with achieving the “netto”
At least that would appear to make sense to me, due to the complex variations mentioned above. I think its fair to say that every club should know the tax situations in their own countries, but to the players and agents, maybe not so much.
Net payment would be the wording in the contract, and gross payment, the responsibility of the club.
Having never set eyes on a player contract, it is just an assumption.
GOOSYGOOSY
NOVEMBER 16, 2016 at 12:35
———————————–
CORRUPT OFFICIAL
NOVEMBER 16, 2016 at 14:30
::
Are you suggesting that TRFC didn’t employ Barton as an individual on normal PAYE terms, but as a self-employed contractor or a stand-a-lone company & undertook to pay his income tax & NI?
Is that a common practice in the higher echelons of the game?
Just as an aside, is this a newish expression in the world of work?
“..We will be closed on Thursday 17th November for our annual staff engagement day. We will re-open at 9am on 18th November.” ( From the website of the Office of the Public Guardian (Scotland) http://www.publicguardian-scotland.gov.uk/general/news/2016/11/16/office-closure
I think I can guess what it is meant to mean, but really ,it could mean a whole lot of things!
GOOSYGOOSY
NOVEMBER 16, 2016 at 12:35
…
So why the SFA would get involved in such a mess?Here’s an ideaWhat if JB was getting paid Netto all along. Perhaps through some (still legal) EBT type arrangement?If soDid the SFA receive full details of JBs Contract of Employment when he joined TRFC a few months ago?andDid JB have a confidential side letter from TRFC?…
====================================
Dear God, no! Not another tax case/side letter: my head would explode !
Agreed though, that it seems rather strange that a governing body would get involved in a member’s operational activities.
Will TRFC also approach the SFA to provide assurances for payments to any Water Supplier as well ?
Has a precedent been set for other clubs to request this facility from the SFA ?
These co-ordinated attacks from the SMSM are pathetic, and shows them up as the spineless cowards they have become.
They ‘looked the other way’ over the last 4+ years wrt RFC/TRFC matters – but then now have a go because we have, [and still have], a crap national football team ?
Don’t think this is the only motivating factor to target Regan either.
Maybe Barton will be a future source of details of dodgy goings-on at both Ibrox and Hampden ?
JINGSO.JIMSIENOVEMBER 16, 2016 at 15:53
“Are you suggesting that TRFC didn’t employ Barton as an individual on normal PAYE terms, but as a self-employed contractor or a stand-a-lone company & undertook to pay his income tax & NI?
Is that a common practice in the higher echelons of the game?”
—————————————————————————————————————————
Not exactly, as I don’t know the nature of his contract. But I do recall reading something a while back saying that agents negotiated contracts on a net basis. i.e. The players take home pay.
I can understand how this would make sense as it couldn’t be expected that agents are familiar with tax obligations in different countries, and he could easily be signing his client up to a stinking deal, compared to a lower gross pay, but with fewer reductions in a different jurisdiction.
Say a player signs a UK contract from January to December. In the UK this would spread annual earnings across two tax years, either side of April, Other countries differ. I just saw it as a more straight-forward way to negotiate a complex matter.
I say “Take home pay”, but that could easily be into his (the player) company or whatever.
I imagine the player contract would obviously stipulate the players earnings were net, or the grossed-up total.
“Rangers Tax-Case Retweeted
alex thomson @alextomo 1h1 hour ago
Time for an external inquiry into Scottish football governance?”
STEVIEBC
now he is in to it,surely getting beat by england didn’t instigate this? methinks level5 are working somewhere in the background to deflect from incoming bad news,just my views of course
I always felt both Regan and Ogilvie for that matter were sacrificial lambs (how appropriate) to be tossed aside once their roles were completed.
GCC has released details of the sale of land and valuations that suggest that Celtic paid over the odds for it despite the “State Aid” allegations
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14908257.Celtic_paid_three_times_market_value_for_land_at_centre_of__State_Aid__allegations/
Headline from the DR /GAVIN MCCAFFERTY ;
“Ally McCoist reckons Scottish football needs to turn to Sir Alex Ferguson and Walter Smith”
=====================================
I reckon McCoist needs to return to raking the leaves.
Absolutely.
StevieBCNovember 16, 2016 at 20:01
Headline from the DR /GAVIN MCCAFFERTY ;
“Ally McCoist reckons Scottish football needs to turn to Sir Alex Ferguson and Walter Smith”=====================================
I reckon McCoist needs to return to raking the leaves.
Absolutely.
___________________-
Ally McCoist, now there’s an ex-manager who could spot a good player and was a tactical genius to boot! Won two league titles on the trot and only had to outspend every other team in each league by the power of…double figures at least!
Do these ‘journalists’ really think his opinion is of any value what so ever? No of course they don’t, they just want/need everything they write to have a ‘Rangers’ angle! Why don’t they just write about TRFC then and who they think should fill the boots of the current incumbent? Or the liquidated club? There’s interesting connections to the SFA at both of them, and much bigger stories than mere speculation over who might fill a position that isn’t even empty (just like at Ibrox)!
Can I just ask.
Is this the same Walter Smith who quit as Scotland manager during a qualifying campaign (Euro 2008) to take the job as Rangers manager. Not because he was pushed, because he chose to leave.
Oh and the SFA threatened to sue him for breach of contract and threatened to sue Rangers for inducement to breach contract.
Is that the Walter Smith we should be getting in to take the Scotland job.
STEVIEBC
I reckon Ally sees it as an employment opportunity for himself if he can get WS installed at Hampden.
Can’t see any other jobs in coaching otherwise.
HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 16, 2016 at 21:29 6 Votes
Can I just ask.
———————–
Is this the same Walter Smith who quit as Scotland manager during a qualifying campaign (Euro 2008) to take the job as Rangers manager.
Did the SFA ever get compensation from rangers for walter leaving the scotland job? or was any compensation deducted from prize winnings?
Can anyone confirm if the Res 12 issue was raised on the floor at the Celtic AGM?
It doesn’t seem to feature in the Scotsman’s bullet points.
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/celtic/everything-you-need-to-know-about-celtic-s-agm-1-4291441
wottpiNovember 16, 2016 at 23:31
‘..Can anyone confirm if the Res 12 issue was raised on the floor at the Celtic AGM?’
_______
wottpi, see easyjambo’s post of 12.14 this morning.
I think wottpi is asking if it was minuted as part of the agm or an accomadation was reached privately.
Cluster1.
im sure I recall in the blogosphere a twitter exchange with, possibly, broadfoot where he claimed the settlement for smith being poached was all available in the accounts but when pressed couldn’t show exactly where. My ever hazy memory is possibly unfair on the man but, you know what, I no longer care!!!
Can I just ask.
Is this the same Walter Smith who quit as Scotland manager during a qualifying campaign (Euro 2008) to take the job as Rangers manager. Not because he was pushed, because he chose to leave.
Oh and the SFA threatened to sue him for breach of contract and threatened to sue Rangers for inducement to breach contract.
Is that the Walter Smith we should be getting in to take the Scotland job.
====================
Yes, and it is the same Walter Smith whose success during both Ibrox stints was built on financial doping and an illegal tax avoidance scheme. During his second spell there it was well known two tax bills were coming down the pipe but the unsustainable spending continued to the point that only Champions League Group qualification would be enough to keep the club alive. Despite all this shallow minded journalists refer to him as ‘Sir’ Walter. In a way I wish he had actually been given a Knighthood because it would have been as hollow and insulting as the one given to his paymaster at Ibrox. Make no mistake, they tried.
Oh…and I almost forgot. Walter Smith was yesterday advocating that TRFC, who have no money other than borrowed funds to keep the lights on, need to spend money they don’t have to compete!
Meanwhile, in the land of the three wise monkeys, the national (publicly-funded and completely impartial) broadcaster leads with the good news that season ticket prices have fallen …
I’m sure the board at Ibrox, who have already announced they had to find millions in October to keep the club afloat, who have admitted they will have to put more in early next year and who are obviously predicting losses for the year just love Mr Smith’s latest proclamation. That must really help in managing the supports’ expectations.
To be fair on the man, at least he realised the club had died and had the honesty to say it publicly.
John ClarkNovember 16, 2016 at 23:37 4 Votes
wottpiNovember 16, 2016 at 23:31 ‘..Can anyone confirm if the Res 12 issue was raised on the floor at the Celtic AGM?’ _______ wottpi, see easyjambo’s post of 12.14 this morning.
================================
After voting had taken place on all resolutions minuted,the meeting moved on to taking questions from the floor.Just before this began,Ian Bankier read out the statement wottpi referred to above,stating that the board,res 12 guys would meet next week,this was a matter of corporate governance etc.
No one questioned this.
HOMUNCULUSNOVEMBER 17, 2016 at 08:31
” That must really help in managing the supports’ expectations.
—————————————————————————–
Half season books to sell, and Christmas stockings needing filled…..I’d say that managing fans expectations was exactly what he was doing……….Just not in the way you expect.
As much as 2010 was widely reputed to be the season of honest mistakes, 2016 may become known as the season of Jam tomorrow.
Possibly the best article ever written by a sports hack at the Herald, certainly the best I’ve read! Is the dam breaking, or has someone just made a mistake in not realising what they have actually written? Anyway, I think it deserves a link and the hits for an otherwise undeserving rag!
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14909678.Celtic_board_to_talk_to_shareholders_over_UEFA_rejection_of_Rangers_Euro_licence_probe/?ref=mr&lp=1
It is, I think, the first member of the SMSM to publish the following, unabridged, mention of what Mr Traverso actually said! (My bold writing)
‘And Mr Traverso said that the insolvency meant that the “new club/company” was “ineligible” anyway to participate in UEFA competitions for three seasons so “there is clearly no need for UEFA to investigate this matter any further…”. But solicitors for the shareholders have told UEFA questioned the time-bar and said the governing body should investigate as they believe the events raised questions about whether the football authorities’ licensing and monitoring regime is sufficiently robust.’
I don’t know, though if this story only appears in the online version, can anyone verify it is in the paper copy?
SMUGASNOVEMBER 17, 2016 at 00:24 9 Votes
Cluster1.
im sure I recall in the blogosphere a twitter exchange with, possibly, broadfoot where he claimed the settlement for smith being poached was all available in the accounts but when pressed couldn’t show exactly where. My ever hazy memory is possibly unfair on the man but, you know what, I no longer care!!!
—————
That is entirely up to you.But i believe we all should care. If compensation was not collected, that is money lost to the game,and again bad governance of the game by the SFA again
ALLYJAMBONOVEMBER 17, 2016 at 09:37
There is no sign of that article in my paper edition this morning. There is a brief article about the GCC statement on State Aid which is, as usual, implicitly critical of Celtic, but seems fair enough otherwise.
WOTTPINOVEMBER 16, 2016 at 23:31 4 Votes
Can anyone confirm if the Res 12 issue was raised on the floor at the Celtic AGM?It doesn’t seem to feature in the Scotsman’s bullet points.http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/celtic/everything-you-need-to-know-about-celtic-s-agm-1-4291441
———————————————–
hope this helps
Cluster1,
Sorry you misunderstand me. I absolutely agree the issue is critical especially if compensation was not forthcoming, not chased and then subsequently ‘carpeted’ which I’m sure was the base premise of the twitter exchange I refer to (tbc I don’t do twitter so I’d have picked it up off here). What no longer bothers me is if I’m being grossly unfair to Mr Broadfoot! Once again it was a question that should have taken precisely 30 seconds top answer with a reference to item abc in accounts xyz. But they didn’t instead asking us to trust them as to why not. Let me guess. Commercial privilege.
CLUSTER ONENOVEMBER 17, 2016 at 11:09
Thanks Cluster.
As you may have guessed my implication was, if the Res 12 matter was openly discussed in the presence of all and sundry why did the Scotsman decide not to include such an important accusation against the sport’s ruling body in the ‘everything’ we needed to know about the Celtic AGM.
However, as posted by Allyjambo above, nice to see at least the Herald has reported on the issue.
As one of the posters on the Herald site says if the SFA have nothing to hide then now, especially given the increasing press coverage of the matter why don’t they nip it in the bud straight away by publishing their views and evidence and save us all a lot of time and bother?
Cluster OneNovember 17, 2016 at 11:09
‘…hope this helps’
______
Isn’t that a different Resolution 12 ( co-incidentally number 12 on yesterday’s list) not immediately connected with the res 12 of 2013’s AGM about the licence?
And, I should have said, Court was attended dutifully this morning.
Lord Glennie looked sternly menacing, or perhaps menacingly stern, as he addressed ‘those at the back of the court’ [ i.e yours truly, one polis, and two other folk, one of whom , although writing shorthand with professional ease, was probably a lawyer and not an SMSM hack -she looked far too honest] and reminded them in appropriate judge’s language that reporting restrictions applied.
And that, sadly, brings my opportunities of attending Court to an end. I shall be in sunnier climes at the end of this month , well before any other ‘saga’-related business is scheduled for hearing in a Scottish court.
Allyjambo at 09.37.
Aj, like you, I hope that UEFA included the ‘new club/company’ to show that they see TRFC* as a new club, but I do worry that writing it as ‘new club/company’ with that stroke leaves it open to interpretation as ‘new club or new company’. The Rangers page on UEFA’s website still shows the current results alongside the old history, despite my correcting them twice.
Certainly, TRFC* fans I see posting read ‘new club/company’ as not decisive that UEFA is calling it out as a new club.
I don’t see the letter as clear cut as many others do, but I hope I’m wrong. Liquidation is a just punishment for being unable to pay anything to your creditors and the loss of previous history is part of liquidation. For any authorities to allow continuation is just wrong.
AllyjamboNovember 17, 2016 at 09:37
I don’t know, though if this story only appears in the online version, can anyone verify it is in the paper copy?
—————————————————————————-
Would need to check but pretty sure it was.
NAWLITE
NOVEMBER 17, 2016 at 13:41 Liquidation is a just punishment for being unable to pay anything to your creditors and the loss of previous history is part of liquidation.
====================================
I beg to differ, liquidation is not a punishment, it is a process.
It is the process by which a defunct business is brought to an end and any assets it had disposed of. Often the assets are sold and the proceeds distributed amongst the creditors.
There is no “punishment” involved. In spite of many Rangers supporters saying the club was punished enough.
The new TOG story yesterday is a pretty significant development in the quest to expose the corruption at the SFA.
http://tiny.cc/210zgy
The SFA are now ignoring TOG requests for clarification on the letter they may or may not have regarding HMRC’s position with respect to RFC’s overdue payables.
On one hand they told TOG that they did had a letter showing that Rangers had time to pay the Wee Tax Case (the unlawful DOS scheme). Implicit in this is that the SFA knew the DOS EBT scheme to be unlawful, however, they withheld that information from the Nimmo-Smith inquiry.
If they say now (to answer the charge that they misled Nimmo-Smithy) that they in fact did don’t have that letter, then they have removed the major plank in their defence of their handling of the licence issue.
In other words, either a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer pretty much damns them on one or either of these cases (or both).
Understandable that heads are in the sand over this, but in a perfect storm, even the sand can be whipped up and blown away. The news that Celtic may have implied that they think the licence situation raises question about governance of the game, may mean their is no hiding place for Stuart Regan.
I would say that is significant.
nawliteNovember 17, 2016 at 13:41
Allyjambo at 09.37.Aj, like you, I hope that UEFA included the ‘new club/company’ to show that they see TRFC* as a new club, but I do worry that writing it as ‘new club/company’ with that stroke leaves it open to interpretation as ‘new club or new company’. The Rangers page on UEFA’s website still shows the current results alongside the old history, despite my correcting them twice.Certainly, TRFC* fans I see posting read ‘new club/company’ as not decisive that UEFA is calling it out as a new club.I don’t see the letter as clear cut as many others do, but I hope I’m wrong. Liquidation is a just punishment for being unable to pay anything to your creditors and the loss of previous history is part of liquidation. For any authorities to allow continuation is just wrong.
__________________________
I too expect the wilfully ignorant to try to convince us all that the ‘stroke’ somehow means ‘or’ or something else that doesn’t exist in the English language, but, quite simply, if it meant anything other than club and company are one and the same, Mr Treviso would have made that perfectly clear. After all, if the ‘club’ still existed, or if he meant ‘the company that ran the club’, he would have called it clear as day and then explained why no punishment could befall the still existing club, that wasn’t a limited company, but was incorporated in…and so on, and so on!
As to the error on the website: the website will undoubtedly be administered by people far removed from UEFA’s decision making processes and rely almost entirely on information from the various FAs and clubs themselves. UEFA, and Mr Treviso, have made it clear they only get involved with actions initiated by the various FAs and member clubs, so, unless someone from their members contacts them and says, ‘there’s a mistake…’ they will do nothing to ensure the correct information is on their website! It will not become a problem to them until such time as TRFC qualify for a UEFA tournament, and may never do if there are no RFC points remaining to add to the new club’s at that time.
It never ceases to amaze me how people can imagine an institution like UEFA, or FIFA, that can’t prevent people syphoning off millions for their own benefit, could even be bothered worrying about the figures shown, for the benefit of the supporters, on their website without a complaint/enquiry from a member association or club!
One match suspension for Joey.
Disciplinary outcome | Joseph BartonThursday, 17 November 2016
A Disciplinary Tribunal convened today in accordance with the Judicial Panel Protocol to consider the following case:
Alleged Party in Breach: Joseph Barton
Disciplinary Rule allegedly breached:
Disciplinary Rule 31: In that between 1st July and 15th September 2016, both dates inclusive, you placed 44 bets upon football matches, and accordingly gambled upon football matches in contravention of Disciplinary Rule 31.
Outcome: Breach admitted
Sanction: One-match immediate suspension
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2566&newsCategoryID=1&newsID=16640
Afternoon all,
Been a while since I have had a look in.
Still the charade continues I see.
However down here in the big smoke there is a rumour, just a rumour mind gathering pace that an individual who has previously provided a soft loan has decided they will no longer continue to do so as their commitment has not been matched by a certain individual, so much so they are likely to seek repayment of said loan pretty soon.
Oh for an AGM…
Hearts published their accounts to 30 June 2016 earlier today. As a Hearts fan they make pretty good reading. Turnover up by £2.9M to just shy of £10M, (partly due to retail and catering being brought in house). The bottom line profit was £636K as opposed to a loss of £888K for the previous season.
Those figures do not include donations from the Foundation of Hearts, which amounted to £1.498M plus a bequest of £108K in the last year. The FOH funds are now being directed to help fund the new stand.
FOH has now donated a total of £4.05M directly to the club for working capital purposes (a good proportion of that has actually been saved as cash reserves over the last two years). The additional FOH funding towards the new stand (£3M target) should reach £875K by the end of this week when the October donations are handed over.
Now just the playing side to sort out. 🙂
Paulmac2November 17, 2016 at 15:29
Afternoon all,
Been a while since I have had a look in. Still the charade continues I see. However down here in the big smoke there is a rumour, just a rumour mind gathering pace that an individual who has previously provided a soft loan has decided they will no longer continue to do so as their commitment has not been matched by a certain individual, so much so they are likely to seek repayment of said loan pretty soon. Oh for an AGM…
___________________________
As you make clear, it is just a rumour, but, whether or not it is ‘real’, it does give us an insight into the fragility of these ‘soft’ loans. RRMs they may be, one and all, but they’ve made that commitment on the strength of promises from, supposedly, the biggest RRM of them all. Even if true, it might be nothing more than an attempt to force King’s hand, but what might happen if his hand doesn’t hold any folding stuff?
Big PinkNovember 17, 2016 at 14:13
‘….The news that Celtic may have implied that they think the licence situation raises question about governance of the game, may mean their is no hiding place for Stuart Regan.
I would say that is significant.’
_______
It really is time for an external, but trusted, body to get to grips with this.
Celtic plc have dragged their feet literally for years.
When it first emerged (in Resolution 12 of the 2013 Celtic AGM) that there was possibly some substance in the allegation that RFC had been wrongly given a licence , the Celtic board ought to have got their legal people to thoroughly check out the facts. £x millions possibly lost to shareholders by jiggery-pokery? ANY plc Board would have been in there in a flash, and would rightly have felt obliged to get right in there to grub out the truth.
Had the Celtic Board done so, and had satisfied themselves that the SFA had NOT acted improperly, we might have believed them when they said so.
But now that they are uttering weasel words (again) about the possibility that there are questions ‘about the governance of the game’, they are clearly unable to convince themselves that there is nothing in the Res 12 issue.
And yet they refuse to face up to the possibility that criminal investigation action might be required.
As I said the other day, there is a clear prima facie case that the SFA may have worked a flanker in cahoots with RFC. That is not ‘football governance’ behaviour but could well be seen as criminal conspiracy behaviour.
And Celtic plc should have the integrity and guts to have a full investigation undertaken, calling on the services of Police Scotland. ( No, I will not say a word..)
Anything else would allow us to conclude justifiably that Celtic are no more interested in truth, or the financial well-being of their shareholders, than was the cheating SDM (who, I see today, is shamelessly making a public appearance in a sports environment)
In which case, every ill-word used against that cheat and any cheats in the SFA could be used equally well against them.
And the game is well and truly a bogey.
Naw lite
Nope the / between club and company is being used to promote the Pharisee addiction to the minutiae at expense of the whole.
Traverso’s reply is straight from Article 12 of UEFA FFP which defines a CLUB applying for a UEFA licence as either
A club operating the legal entity as a club on its own
Or
A company operating a club with whom it has a contractual relationship to do so and which club has a membership of its national association (over 3 years old)
This is to reflect the different constructs that clubs/companies take in European football.
So even if RFC were a club under the first or even under the second, to UEFA they were a CLUB applying for a licence.
Now TRFC are a CLUB operated by RIFC in UEFA’S eyes under the second, which makes them a club/ company but the key item is not the /.
The key item is that they are NEW.
It’s the old magician trick of deflecting attention.
Now why do UEFA go to the bother of defining the nature of an applicant? Well one good reason might be to stop a club leaving all its debts with the operating company and carrying on as same club which is what Article 12 is there to prevent.
I think Southampton tried the holding company ploy in England to escape some sanction to be told on yer bike.
A bit more attention to the intent of rules than the words used to convey that intent would make interpretation so much simpler.
Big Pink 14.13
Are you saying it’s a snooker?
JOHN CLARK
NOVEMBER 17, 2016 at 11:43
…
And that, sadly, brings my opportunities of attending Court to an end. I shall be in sunnier climes at the end of this month…
==========================================
JC…did you get your holiday dates approved in advance by SFM ?
Your court reporting is appreciated by the Bampots, and you probably deserve / need a break from the courtroom tedium ?!
What’s the point in having a zero-tolerance policy when breaching it brings only a slap on the wrist?
Big PinkNovember 17, 2016 at 14:13‘….The news that Celtic may have implied that they think the licence situation raises question about governance of the game, may mean their is no hiding place for Stuart Regan. I would say that is significant.’
Yes, but as I’ve been at pains to say all along it should not be enough now for the clubs to simply use Regan as the fall guy (and more fool him for not seeing this coming incidentally) to say OK, lets sack him and then all move on and mind and not trip on the lumpy carpets. That was the correct response in 2012 – for shere ineptitude in allowing the present debacle to take root if nothing else (at least if nothing else at that time would stick). It would simply be shallow appeasement now, playing to the crowd and inappropriate for what has subsequently happened particularly in so far as it was so widely predicted and predictable.
A comparable is difficult but it would be like Capone’s lawyer post tax conviction saying yes, yes, we realise you’re fully aware of all the murders, racketeering and so forth, and we acknowledge that you have us on the tax situation, but on the basis that our previous tax returns were correct to the best of your knowledge (not ours obviously) can’t we just let bygones be bygones and pay a fine or something. To which of course Judge Bryson would reply…..
Strachan to stay:
Scottish FA statement on Gordon Strachan. http://scotfa.co/statement
Auldheid, that’s a really good, clear explanation of the use of the / and why UEFA chose to present it that way. Just a shame that people who have already bought the lie that it was only the company that was liquidated can choose to read the letter as one or t’other i.e. “UEFA say it’s a new company and I already knew that”.
StevieBCNovember 17, 2016 at 16:29
‘..you probably deserve / need a break from the courtroom tedium ?!’
_________
Actually, StevieBC, it’s not tedium that’s the problem: the three problems are:
first, the fact that even in a smallish courtroom, when everybody who speaks speaks at an ordinary conversational level of volume, and sometimes at a fair rate of knots, and always (apart from the judge)with his back to you, it can be very difficult to hear most of them! (That’s why Donald Findlay QC in particular is such a joy! He speaks with deliberation, unflappable, and loudly enough to be heard comfortably. Even the best of the others I have seen are guilty of either speaking too softly, or , if loud enough,too rapidly);
second, there is always a lot of referencing to other cases ( with which judge and counsel are so familiar with that a kind of shorthand reference like ‘ in Smith against Jones the view was that..’ is enough for them, when we in the public benches don’t have a clue what the point being referenced is about
third, the ‘court processes’ jargon : ‘are you seeking reclaim of the motion’ and such like ( I’m not even sure that that is a real example but you know what I mean)
So, you have to listen and concentrate quite hard.
And when you know that can’t do any kind of report in case you go to jail, interest can flag a little…
JOHN CLARKNOVEMBER 17, 2016 at 11:28 5 Votes
Cluster OneNovember 17, 2016 at 11:09‘…hope this helps’______Isn’t that a different Resolution 12 ( co-incidentally number 12 on yesterday’s list) not immediately connected with the res 12 of 2013’s AGM about the licence?
———————–
I THINK YOU ARE CORRECT JOHN.
I should really wait until i have woke up before posting,not use to posting at that time in the morning.
sorry for late reply, darn christmas shopping
Nawlite
Proof that a lie gets halfway around the world whilst the truth is just waking up.
Perhaps the simplicity of their interpretation is as appealing as the consequences.
Booooo. Yellow card for whoever mentioned Christmas and a theatrical Collumesq final warning for putting the word “shopping” after it. Booo I say (and humbug)
SMUGASNOVEMBER 17, 2016 at 19:39
THAT’S ME ON NAUGHTY STEP.
———————-
JOHN CLARKNOVEMBER 17, 2016 at 11:43
17 Votes
And, I should have said, Court was attended dutifully this morning.
—————–
I forgot to ask. John did you hear of anything from the event that you could not attend today, that would have cost you £25 to attend
It now appears that RFC provided proof to the SFA in May 2011 that they owed money to HMRC for fraudulently activity associated with the Wee Tax Case
This is contained in the May 20 Tax demand letter from HMRC to RFC
It begs the question
Why did the SFA permit RFC to continue in the CL when they had been given written evidence that they did not meet the financial requirement of being up to date with social taxes?
To the extent that RFC provided this letter to the SFA in time for them to act properly it seems that RFC are in the clear. It is the SFA not RFC who have been culpable
The SFA must be fearful that if UEFA now accept this letter as evidence of corporate mismanagement then they have no hiding place
It seems UEFA aren’t particularly desperate to pursue this issue and probably wouldn`t do so if the Res 12 people and the principal loser Celtic are willing to drop the matter
However
If the Res 12 people continue to press for action UEFA might see the adverse publicity as something that could be quickly mitigated by instructing the SFA to commission a genuinely independent investigation into corporate governance
With the Level5 inspired SMSM demanding heads roll at Hampden it’s most unlikely that TRFC will help the SFA to defend their 2011 actions
So what’s the solution for the SFA?
IMO
The SFA will long ago have told UEFA that they believe the real issue underlying the actions of the Requisitioners is title stripping.
Whether or not this is true is immaterial.
What matters is that title stripping is the only concession the SFA can make to get this issue to go away
Therefore
I suspect the SFA letter sent to the Requisitioners was intended to send a signal that title stripping is back on the agenda if the Res 12 issue is dropped
A simple statement that binds the non-title stripping decision by LNS to BDO winning its appeal at the Supreme Court might suffice i.e. LNS will be recalled to reconsider this aspect if BDO lose their appeal
It has the merit of kicking the can down the road and putting off the day when angry TRFC fans once again march on Hampden
It also has the advantage of securing a commitment from the Requisitioners now in exchange for something that might not happen in the future but if it did could be blurred with a legal judgement from the highest court in the land
IF
Something along these lines is being considered
And
Celtic will be aware of it and will drop a heavy hint to the Requisitioners when they meet them next week
Re Resolution 12. Let’s never forget when Whyte took over Rangers we were told he was a billionaire and was the answer to all their financial problems. Just pause and think about how Rangers fans and the media would have reacted to no Euro licence being awarded against that background.
FAO Mr Clark,
John,
Seems you’re off down under shortly for some quality time wi’ the weans….. and well deserved too!
Just wanted to give you a heads up re some confusion heading your way.
Not long back from a similar trip and when I went off to find a pint of your favourite Fat Yak, I found that there were some new kids on the block.
You can now have a Wild Yak and a Lazy Yak as well.
Decisions, decisions.
Do what I did and have the whole herd. You know it makes sense.
Have a great trip.
Cluster OneNovember 17, 2016 at 20:12
‘..hear of anything from the event that you could not attend today, that would have cost you £25 to attend/’
______
You mean Lord Drummond-Young’s talk on the Big Tax Case thingy?
I had forgotten about that. It was set for 4.30 for 5.00 pm, with drinks at 6.00 pm so it’s probably not all that long finished!
I don’t know whether the sponsoring firms (The Edinburgh Tax Network in conjunction with Terra Firma Chambers) will give any kind of feedback or summary, but it would be interesting to see whether his Lordship sketched in what he thinks the Supreme Court might see to be the ‘points of law’ they should be looking at, and whether he expressed any view as to the likely outcome.
mungoboyNovember 17, 2016 at 20:32
‘….You can now have a Wild Yak and a Lazy Yak as well.’
_______________
That sounds like a splendid idea, mungoboy. I shall certainly sample them all, perhaps sequentially or all at one time! For comparison purposes, of course.
Thank you for the info.
goosygoosyNovember 17, 2016 at 20:21
‘….Whether or not this is true is immaterial.What matters is that title stripping is the only concession the SFA can make to get this issue to go away’
___________
That may indeed be the kind of thinking of desperate men trying to get themselves off a hook.
But in the cold light of day, they must see that there are only two possibilities. They either show convincing ( incontrovertible, even) evidence that they they behaved at all times honestly and correctly , or they put their hands up and confess to having got things badly wrong, crave pardon, resign, and hope to escape any kind of criminal charges.
I could live with them being able to show that the dark suspicions on the ‘licence’ front that I personally have are ill-founded.But if they cannot…….they’ve simply got to be hunted.
The title stripping from RFC(IL) issue is not as important to me as the public acknowledgment that RFC’s titles belong only to RFC(IL), and never can be claimed by a TRFC that was not even in existence when the titles were obtained (whether honestly or dishonestly).
Although, of course, dishonestly ‘won’ titles are no credit to even a dead club, and it would be a kindness to its memory to quietly erase the claim to them.
Even more cash for the EPL.
Sports – EuropeAP Source: Premier League sells Chinese TV rights for $700mLONDON (AP) — The English Premier League has sold its television rights in China for $700 million in its biggest-ever overseas sale, a person familiar with the deal said on Thursday.
Online video streaming service PPTV sealed a three-year deal from the 2019-20 season, the person told The Associated Press.
The person spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the negotiations are confidential with PPTV, a media division of China’s Suning retail group which also owns Italian club Inter Milan.
PPTV’s 2019-2022 deal is worth more than 10 times the current contract with Super Sports Media Group, which is paying around $20 million a season to air all 380 matches. PPTV also has the live rights for games from Spain’s La Liga in China.
The Premier League has just started a new TV rights cycle, generating around 8.3 billion pounds ($10 billion) from broadcasters globally through 2019. The rights through 2022 have already been sold in the United States to NBC, which signed a $1 billion, six-year deal.
The PPTV deal is the latest big investment in soccer by China, where President Xi Jinping has made improving the Chinese games from the grassroots all the way to the international level a priority.
Manchester City, West Bromwich Albion, Aston Villa, and Wolverhampton Wanderers have received investment from China over the last year.
Congrats to Phil and JJ on wins tonight / unlucky Clumps.
https://twitter.com/Pmacgiollabhain/with_replies
====================================
How can Bampots, routinely denounced as “RFC/TRFC haters” such as RTC and Phil/JJ manage to win national awards for their writing ?
Mibbees they were doing something right…mibbees writing about the truth helps to garner widespread recognition ?!
[Jingle Jangle must be fizzing !
]
JOHN CLARKNOVEMBER 17, 2016 at 21:18
Thanks for reply
Well done Phil and JJ.
Nae luck Clumps.
Goosey Goosey
“Celtic will be aware of it and will drop a heavy hint to the Requisitioners when they meet them next week.”
I hope so because it would tell us we are negotiating the conditions of surrender, a point that was always going to come if our suspicions and conclusions arising from correspondence are true.
Plea bargaining.?
Auldheid/others
At what point does the potential penalty incurred by RFC for having the overdue tax bill slip from being barred for the 2011-12 entry (as would be the case I imagine with the 31st March declaration) and the ‘future’ penalty for 2012-13 (or next qualification, whichever is sooner) as would have applied with the 30th Sept monitoring follow up. Was there a specific date threshold?
Auldheid says …
Big Pink 14.13
Are you saying it’s a snooker?
——–
Rather low brow metaphor AH – but yes, that’s about the size of it?