Podcast Episode 1


Podcast Episode 1

SFM PodcastOur First podcast features a general discussion involving our own Big Pink and Auldheid.
Since it is the first podcast there is no particular agenda save for a general chat about TSFM, the state of Scottish Football, and some few reminiscences. The chat covers a lot of ground, but establishes the ethos of the blog pretty well.

Topics discussed include FPP, Leadership, Interdependence, Scotland’s self-regard, Coaching and Nurturing of Talent, Redistribution of Income, Rangers, Forgiveness, domestic strife 🙂

The interview was conducted a couple of days before the latest round of Armageddon, when Big Pink and Auldheid felt safe and well 🙂

The link below is to the iTunes store page for our Podcasts.  If you go there, you can subscribe to the podcast (on your PC or iPhone) and new episodes will automatically be sent to you.

Since we have just been approved for a spot on iTunes, the iTunes search side of things may not work properly for a day or so.

rss podcast feed   Subscribe to RSS Feed

iTunes podcast Feed  Subscribe to iTunes Feed

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.

1,849 Comments so far

whispererPosted on11:11 am - Feb 24, 2014

The STV website states

Easdale’s £500,000 loan is being provided on a >>> no-fee, no-interest basis <<<.
Majority shareholders Laxey Partners, who will give the club £1m, stand to make £150,000 from the deal, which will either be given in cash or as shares.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:11 am - Feb 24, 2014

ulyanova says:
February 24, 2014 at 10:48 am

Smugas 10.05

1/ ST’s doesn’t work, just kicks the can – if anything will convince more to go monthly DD which is the last thing they want.
I understood that monthly DD payers paid a Finance Company who had advanced the full price to the club at time of contract. Thus it would make no difference. However I am open to correction.
I wonder what % charge is deducted by the Finance Company and whether in the current financial climate down Ibrox Way they want to secure a charge over some property before paying cash up-front.

I mean they only need to look at what happened to Ticketus and ponder that if the club’s biggest shareholder and a club director want property security for a measly £1.5 million then the finance company will be wanting at least the same where a bigger sum of money is being advanced.

I find it hard though to believe the Finance Company will pay it all up-front – I would have thought that they would have paid in tranches but I just don’t know the answer.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:13 am - Feb 24, 2014

Being that it has been confirmed that two property assests of RIFC are being used as security for loans given by two shareholders does that add weight to the Sons of Struth position that other shareholders may be a bit hacked off.

Even though some say the assets may not be worth much would other shareholders/investors, who are now looking at 27p per share as opposed to the 70p they paid, not have fancied a wee punt in that direction, whereby arrangement fees, interest payment or shares could be gained along with the possibility of default on the loan hovering in the background?

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:24 am - Feb 24, 2014

ecobhoy says:
February 24, 2014 at 9:06 am

TU 40 TD 6
I never worry one way or another about the TU/TD count as they can be cast for many different reasons.

But if any of the TDs cast in relation to my Westthorn post above is because I have made any mistakes in my argument I would love to hear about it as I always retain an open mind and am happy to consider contrary arguments and the information required to back them up.

After all, I trust that all serious posters on this site are here to establish the truth as accurately as possible.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on11:26 am - Feb 24, 2014

Just a further thought.

The Bears are all talking about wanting and needing investment yet here we have the Easdales and Laxey putting money into the club but wanting it back ASAP along with some form of interest and security.

Am I correct in saying that at least some of Laxeys money went into the club and thus onto the park from their early buy-in to the IPO but the bulk of there share ownership have just been trades between shareholders?

IIRC the Easdales buy in came after the IPO therefore none of their money has found its way onto the park as it was all just more horse trading bewtwen shareholders post IPO?

Therefore with the CEO still needing to implement the cuts he has spoken about on numerous occassions, when will the Bears see the investment that they are seeking for, improvements to the team, the scouting system, the stadium, the redevelopment of Edmiston House etc etc etc when the two ‘big players’ seem to be ‘takers’ rather than ‘givers’???

View Comment

martin cPosted on11:31 am - Feb 24, 2014

wrt to the Easdale “fee and no interest” on the half million, to my reading, The LSE announcement, there is no ambiguity, Easdale will pick up a fee for making the facility available. But should RIFC default then there will be no interest paid.

And if it comes to pass a bus depot on the southside of Glasgow!

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on11:39 am - Feb 24, 2014

I have to say, I am totally at a loss to explain the involvement of The Easdale brothers. If taken at face value and the loan is actually interest free and with no management fee, they are effectively losing money on that 500k.

What would prompt a non-Rangers supporting individual to give a company that owns the club, this level of funding? There are many wealthy Blue blood Rangers supporters out there, if they do not pony up why would anyone else?

What does he know that they do not?

Are the Paul Murrays of this world not as wealthy as stated? Are the accusations true, that they do indeed have a deep love for the club but even deeper pockets and arms like dinosaurs?

Alternatively, could just be a simple case of them all being “spivs” and only willing to spend to accumulate, directly or indirectly through the club! Just to be clear, I have no problem with that just as long as they are open about it and it would appear to me that nobody at Rangers since Lawrence Marlborough has been that open (his plan to bring Rangers back to former glory before selling it on) or in it for the good of the club and fans.

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on11:49 am - Feb 24, 2014

50. ecobhoy says:

February 24, 2014 at 11:24 am

TU 40 TD 6
I never worry one way or another about the TU/TD Count……


Unfortunately the rest of your comment negates the start Eco, if you had just posted the above, it would have had a lot more impact!

Just my opinion…..

View Comment

Bryce CurdyPosted on11:58 am - Feb 24, 2014

So is this simply about keeping the light on until Season Ticket time (TU please), in which case what is the medium term strategy? Or is something far more devious taking place (TD please).

View Comment

SmugasPosted on12:00 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Sorry, just on the ST thing.

Possibly my fault for the loose terminology. Yes a finance company can buy the ST (so pays up front to the club) and then collects ticket value plus interest from the supporter, or pays discount to the club for the ticket as well thus scoring on both sides. I believe firms like Ticketus may follow this course of action. Good luck with one!

There is a half way house though whereby the club can collect face value ST dues via standing order so without the need for a middle man, or cash up front. A lot of golf clubs used to do this although increasingly the middle man option is now used there too to match their subs to their times of highest expenditure over the summer.

Just to throw a curve ball by the way. Has anyone considered that Eco might actually be pjz with massive split personality issues? 😈

View Comment

Hoopy 7Posted on12:06 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Good Afternoon.
So wonga type loan in place.
Would I be correct in stating that edmiston house and the Albion car park were bought after RIFC took over Sevco.
If so this makes them the only two properties that could be pledged against the loan as there is still a question mark over the ownership of Ibrox and Murray Park. As you know I think CW does have a claim.

Short termism rarely works as a long term business strategy and time will tell. No point in putting a sticking plaster on a broken leg.

Why don’t all of us with children at primary school ask them the following arithmetical question.

If you spend £2.4 million per month and you are losing £1 million per month how long will £1.5 million last if you continue to spend at the same rate?
I would bet that any primary 7 kid would give you the answer within seconds.
It really is a no brainer.

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on12:08 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Now that TRFC have sufficient working capital to see them past the next payday, rumoured to be next Thursday 27 February, may I again remind blog contributors (thanks again to Slimshady61!) that audited accounts are due to be lodged at Companies House by Friday 28 February…?
As Slim mentioned, the only possible reason for the delay, to us mere “outsider” beancounters, is that Deloittes cannot and will not sign off because of the “going concern” issues surrounding TRFC.
Based on all knowledge to hand, this £1.5m advance/loan/facility/paydayloan would appear to cover a maximum of two months operations, until the fabled ST cash starts to flood in (?)
My current audit guidelines in this area require that the next TWELVE months, i.e commencing 28 February 2014, form the basis of any “going concern” review”.
Unless Mr G Wallace has access to “that witch” referred to earlier, I simply cannot see any sign-off on this basis.
So…set your diaries/calendars for early next week, when all will be revealed as to “successful” filing at Companies House…or otherwise!

PS…but is non-filing part of the Spivs’ “cunning plan”….?

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on12:10 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Smugas says:

February 24, 2014 at 12:00 pm

Has anyone considered that Eco might actually be pjz with massive split personality issues?


Not sure about that Smugas, Eco seems like a “onesie” sort of guy….. Especially with Pjz…..

View Comment

SmugasPosted on12:17 pm - Feb 24, 2014


View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on1:07 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Ecobhoy, i never gave you a thumbs down but you have made a mistake in forgetting about the Time Travel element. The bears have been managing to do this quite successfully in dragging the past into the future. It wouldn’t surprise me if they had “beemed back” to the Westhorn site and seen it for themselves and would know you are talking absoloute rubbish. They have seen the future also, and know that the Albion Car Park will be the depot for the International Galactic Space Station on 2115. The Ogilvie-Easedale Centre, will be a hub for Inter-Galactic space travel specialising in off-galaxy tax accounts as well as incorporating The White Stadium, home of Greens Rangers. I tell yeh, yeh need to listen tae these guys……….sort yersel oot Eco……before yeh get left behind…..

View Comment

aenmac75Posted on1:26 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant 2m
Lunch break at Rangers upper tier tax tribunal. No witnesses will be called. HMRC have spent morning picking apart initial majority decision

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on2:00 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Grant Russell
HMRC’s QC has argued the majority decision may have been in “error of law” in some cases when deciding which evidence to use and its effect.


is the whole basis of an appeal to the UTT not based on an “error of law”

i.e. no new evidence, no surprise new witness, just a review of the law as it was applied to the the original hearing?

View Comment

Bryce CurdyPosted on2:31 pm - Feb 24, 2014

To put things into perspective interest on the Laxey facility is the equivalent of 500 of next season’s season tickets at £300 a pop, the combined facility itself is the equivalent of 5000 season tickets.

View Comment

ulyanovaPosted on2:41 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Ecobhoy 11.11

Re season tickets on monthly direct debits.

My understanding of the process is that the individual supporter enters into an agreement with a finance company (clubs have arranged the provider) to repay the cost of the season ticket plus interest over the period. The company would then submit the cost of the ticket to the club. I would not have thought there would be any need to retain a proportion as, even if the club is unable to complete the season or dishonours season tickets after administration, their contract is with the fan and would be enforceable.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on2:52 pm - Feb 24, 2014


· Acquisition of the Albion car park and Edmiston House for future ventures to enhance match day experience in January 2013

Given the potential for misinterpretation of RNS announcements, should that have perhaps read ‘adventures’.

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on2:57 pm - Feb 24, 2014

For the arithmetically challenged like me………..

How can a 1.5 million loan see them safe until ST sales? The repayment is scheduled for Sept, but 1.5 is a drop in the ocean of the money it will need to survive the next 3 to 4 months surely…………

In the below article…….

“The money loaned to Rangers will now tide them over until season-ticket renewal fees start arriving at the end of the season”

Or did I miss something?


Supporters supremo Drew Robertonsaid fans are “extremely concerned” after it was revealed a £1.5million loan has been secured against Edmiston House, a three-storey building behind the Copland Road stand, and Albion car park.
Rangers today confirmed a deal to borrow the cash from football board chairman Sandy Easdale and investment group Laxey Partners.
Easdale has stepped in to offer up a £500,000 sum on a no-fee and no-interest basis, while Laxey Partners will lend the club £1million.
Both loans are repayable by September 1.
And Laxey Partners, the club’s single-biggest shareholder with an 11.64% stake, stand to make a £150,000 profit on their part of the deal.
Mr Roberton, Rangers Supporters’ Association chief, said: “I find this latest move very strange. If the money is coming from existing investors, why does it have to be secured against Edmiston House and Albion car park?
“I could understand if the money was coming from a bank, but these are investors who are meant to have the club’s interest at heart.
“It is extremely concerning. I sincerely hope Rangers repay the loan by September 1 and retain the car park and Edmiston House.”
Isle of Man-based hedge fund Laxey Partners may opt to take repayment in the form of fresh shares, but that would require shareholder backing at an AGM.
The money loaned to Rangers will now tide them over until season-ticket renewal fees start arriving at the end of the season.
A club statement said: “The board of Rangers is pleased to announce that it has entered into two secured short-term credit facilities for an aggregate of up to £1.5m.”

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolisPosted on2:59 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Afternoon everyone,

For basic background information here are links to some of the copious HMRC guidance published on Appeals to the First & Upper Tier Tax Tribunals

1. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/agents/compliance/appeals.htm

2. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/artgmanual/ARTG8000.htm

3. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/artgmanual/ARTG8600.htm

Every day’s a school day, ❗ 🙄

View Comment

Long Time LurkerPosted on3:15 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Not The Huddle Malcontent on February 24, 2014 at 2:00 pm

Hopefully with a health dose of Aberdeen Asset Management v HMRC thrown in.

By the way, are we all Hector now?

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolisPosted on3:17 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Exiled Celt says:
February 24, 2014 at 2:57 pm

Mr Robertson either has a fabulously rhetorical sense of irony or he was born yesterday, under a gooseberry bush with dew behind his ears.

And he’s The Rangers’“Supporters supremo” 🙄

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on3:20 pm - Feb 24, 2014

upthehoops says:
February 22, 2014 at 12:21 pm
Just getting to this for various reasons.

I speak as a layman, you clearly have knowledge of insolvency law. My view is laws are in place to protect innocent people, which in this case are the creditors and the taxpayers. If an insolvency process is governed by a court then surely it is not too much to ask the court ensures the creditors get the best possible deal by having effective oversight. If the police witness a man being beaten up in the street by four other men, I would expect the police to act and protect the victim, whether or not he actually complains about it. What has the court done to protect the creditors? Is there no process to step in and ask why something is being sold way below its value and why? If there isn’t there certainly should be.

In terms of you being ‘proud’ of the Scottish insolvency system, well carry on. This particular case has been nothing short of a public disgrace, and it’s not just football fans who think so. Why have a process that can be so openly gerrymandered to make a small number of people very rich? That’s not much to be proud of if you ask me, but clearly what most people believe to be right and decent matters not a jot to the establishment.

…………and apologies on my part for taking so long to get back to you.

You raise a lot of interesting points in a short post – I think we may be veering off into the world of jurisprudence rather than simply insolvency however – but I will try to explain what I think and I why I think like that.

Firstly – what has happened / what will happen in RIFC and TRFC is not part of the insolvency process in RFC 2012 (in liquidation). To the extent that there are AIM/IPO/directors’ duties (or other) issues in either or both of those companies, that is simply not a matter for the liquidators of RFC 2012.

Secondly – The role of the courts

In civil (as opposed to criminal) matters the courts will by and large deal with what is put before them. I suspect that in most civil matters, this is because the view is taken that the parties who are litigating are likely to be the best parties to argue their own cases. So, if for example, a party fails to provide to the court authority for a proposition that would assist their case, they have only themselves to blame (or their legal advisors) for failing to do so. Its not up to the court to assist a pursuer or defender in a court action by scurrying around and trying to find out the law for the relevant parties. However, courts will, if the parties are arguing down entirely the wrong line, step in and correct them.

In insolvency matters, as I have said before, the insolvency is run for the benefit of the creditors. The law therefore allows creditors the right to intervene and request the court’s assistance in matters. I mentioned earlier paragraph 74 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986. That provision allows a creditor to request the Court to intervene in an insolvency process if an administrator is acting in such a way as to unfairly harm the interests of a creditor. As I have mentioned before, if a creditor chooses not to avail himself of his rights, it is not for society as a whole to intervene.

The way the “law” regulates matters is by giving interested parties (but not the world at large) the right to intervene in the process to protect their own rights. Whether they choose to do so or not is up to them. Why should the State fund the protection of private law rights?

You have to remember that most transactions in insolvency are never brought before a court (and rightly so). Administrators are routinely selling businesses and assets without any court looking at the transaction at all. It is only when a creditor contests such a sale that it will be brought before a court. To have court intervention in all insolvencies would substantially increase the costs and would lead to delays at which, particularly in insolvency situations when we are often trying to sell going concern businesses, could damage the process considerably. To give you an example of what I mean by this, there has been talk recently of changing the law relating to how pre-packs are conducted. One of the suggestions was that in advance of a pre-pack deal being signed, that the administrator had to seek the blessing of either a court or the creditors. To do so could delay a pre-pack transaction by weeks and such proposals were almost universally condemned because a two week delay (and the uncertainty attached to a court outcome) would mean that the number of pre-packs that were attempted might be substantially reduced. While we may all take the view that not all pre-packs are a good thing, pre packs have been responsible for saving a substantial number of businesses and in consequence, a substantial number of jobs. The problem with pre-packs is that they have a stain on their character (even when they achieve an extremely beneficial social outcome and many jobs are saved). It is my own view that that stain is undeserved. I think that there have been far more “good” pre packs than “bad” pre packs. The Insolvency Service statistics on this would I think back up my view.

Even in the “bad” pre-packs, creditors have remedies – notably paragraph 74.

Thirdly – The link/crossover/confusion between civil and criminal matters

It seems to me that you are starting from the presumption that because the price obtained on the sale “appears” low, that something must have been up and therefore that Something Must Be Done.

This is where I think one has to be careful to distinguish between those matters that fall within the ambit of the civil law and those that fall within the ambit of the criminal law. Neither an administrator nor a liquidator is there to enforce the criminal law. They do however have duties to liaise with various criminal law enforcement agencies if the situation requires it.

Just because an asset is sold in any insolvency at a much lower price than the value at which the asset appeared in the accounts of the insolvent entity prior to its insolvency is of no surprise to anyone. In fact it is the invariable norm.

Take the example of Hearts just now. As far as I can see, the offer to the creditors arising out of the FoH/Ann Budge proposal is about £2.5m (anything that is coming in will go to Lithuania) – virtually nil to any other creditor. In return for the proposal that is put forward by FoH, FoH will get control of substantial assets that have (I would suggest) a far greater “market” value than the amount that is being paid. Is there anything necessarily untoward about that? Let us say that I have some clients who might be interested in the assets. Let us be charitable and say that they are Hearts supporters. Let us say that they wish to offer £5m and that that would give a better return to creditors (perhaps only to Lithuanian creditors) but nonetheless still a better return to creditors. If they were now to stick their oar into the process, it could easily derail the FoH/Ann Budge proposals. Given the speed with which things move in Lithuania, it could put things back months (much to the detriment of the continuation of football at Tynecastle). So, my client may decide not to bid. Creditors are worse off but is there anything untoward in the process at all? Clearly if my clients submitted a bid which was better in all respects (and the level of cash is not necessarily the only relevant factor here) if the administrator refused to accept it, is there a crime or an actionable wrong?

My point in going off on that tangent was to show that the simple amount of cash paid relative to the value of assets is not something from which you can draw any inferences.

However, if you feel that there was something “queer” about the bidding process, that, I would suggest runs more into the world of criminal law. As I say, that is not a matter for a liquidator or administrator to enforce.

It really is a truism, but assets are only worth what someone is prepared to pay for them. No one outside the process can actually be certain what bids were received and what conditions may have been attached to those bids. What we have to go on are either media reports (and we know how trustworthy they are) or statements from the protagonists themselves (which will be self-serving).

My recollection of the monies being offered by TBK at the time was that in cash terms (other than cash that would be generated from business operations going forward) the sums were actually lower than those ultimately paid. I may be wrong. Galling and surprising though it may seem, the offer that was accepted may in fact have been the highest bid actually received that could have been accepted. As I say those of us who were not privy to the process and discussions on the inside can only surmise as to the thinking and motivations of those involved.

To recap, it is not for the State (acting through its courts or any other agency) to intervene in what are essentially private law commercial bargains entered into by one party (the insolvent estate acting on behalf of the creditors) and a purchaser, if the creditors do not request the assistance of the courts in such intervention.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:22 pm - Feb 24, 2014

“The principal amounts of the Facilities are repayable no later than 1 September 2014 from a variety of potential sources.”

While the payment of the premium to Laxeys will be in cash, or shares, at Laxeys discretion, the repayment of the premiums, in each case, is even less clear – ‘from a variety of potential sources’. A bit of a change from the announcement a few days ago where it was made out that repayment would be made in full by shares in RIFC. Could mean that by 1 September they have to fork out £1.650m to clear this debt, with neither lender interested in shares.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on3:28 pm - Feb 24, 2014

so, the new “facilities” are secured on the car park and edmiston house (the wee hoose?)

could it be because the £2.5M facility referred to in the accounts was already secured on the Big Hoose?

that just leaves Murray moses mcneil cooper auchenhowie floodplain Park to be tied up before an “extraordinary event” occurs


View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on3:37 pm - Feb 24, 2014

neepheid says:
February 24, 2014 at 8:25 am



Rate This

So the interest payment is £150,000 for a 6 month loan of £1million? What is the APR on that? Approaching 30% surely? Desperate stuff.

30% minimum. Assumes all money is front loaded on 1st March and repaid 1st september. If capital release is staged and repayemnts happen between now and 1st september, APR becomes stratospheric.

But the real sweetner is the share deal and teh security which de-risks it completely and throws an upside to anyone keen to try and get a controlling interest.
At todays market cap (£18m roughly) this deal potentially gives Easdale and Laxey another 8% of the share equity. But its got a doozy of a no lose clause: If the share price halves between now and 1st september at any point, they’ll get 16% of the equity instead of the 8%. Much better than buying shares today therefore!
Whereas If the share price doubles, they can immediately sell the shares they get come 1st sept and pocket a tidy profit on top of the interest they have already earned.

And if the whole business tanks, they take over the carpark and MP via the floating charge (Guessing that Ibrox is not worth having, tbh).

You know what – even I’d put money in on those terms. Lets not mess around here – I’d mortgage my house to get the money to put in those terms!!!

View Comment

peterjungPosted on3:41 pm - Feb 24, 2014

After some renewed interest in some audio of Charles Green originally posted by Charlotte Fakeover I have spliced and uploaded the other piece of audio I have as follows:

Originally posted by Charlotte Fakeover in 13 parts it apparently is a conversation between Craig White, Imran Ahmed and Brian Stockbridge dated as 2012-05-31.

IMPORTANT CAVEAT – I am missing two of the original files uploaded by Charlotte – Part 3 and Part 5. In the uploaded spliced audio the sections that are missing are indicated by an audio tone between the splices.

I tried several times to upload the audio to Soundcloud but for some reason it failed each time so I have put a video file on Youtube for now.

I do not know if this adds anything to the debate but I thought some may have in interest in reviewing this conversation in the light of what has transpired between when it was originally posted by Charlotte Fakeover and now. Beware… even with the missing parts it is around 125mins long. Craig Whyte and Imran Ahmed are mostly clear but some of the conversation of Brian Stockbridge is a little difficult to hear clearly against the background noise.

Note – if anyone has the missing Part 3 and Part 5 and if they can upload it somewhere I will happily splice all the parts together to make a new complete audio file.


View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolisPosted on3:59 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Resin_lab_dog says: February 24, 2014 at 3:37 pm

You know what – even I’d put money in on those terms. Lets not mess around here – I’d mortgage my house to get the money to put in those terms!!!

Is that the price of your personal integrity then ❓

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:04 pm - Feb 24, 2014

‘PR churnalism’
Another example that ‘copy/paste journalism’ is not restricted to Scottish football… 🙂

“[Michelle] Mone, said to be worth £50million…” [Daily Mail just yesterday.]


View Comment

AuldheidPosted on4:06 pm - Feb 24, 2014

You must wonder what, if anything, the SFA make of this current dash for cash and more crucially will make of it all as they embark on the latest round of annual club licensing.

When I say embark, the ship left port a month or two ago, but decisions on whom to grant a licence have to be made by 31st May.
Now this is not UEFA FFP but National Club FFP because The Rangers are not in the SPFL premiership.


Nevertheless they will have to apply for a licence and submit financial data as part of that process which should be well underway to decide by 31st May..

Now this time last year the IPO proceeds will have provided a veneer of sustainability (or at least not going belly up before the end of this season) but that veneer has been long stripped away like one coat of varnish exposed to Nitromors.

So where does that put the SFA licensing now? What questions are THEY asking RIFC that would enable the SFA, if they were asked to guarantee other clubs and The Rangers supporters that the position will not be the same this time next year but with the possibility of no other credible sources of revenue putting them belly up in Feb 2015?

I have said before that The Rangers support should not be making up their minds on whether to buy a ticket to watch their team (they no more “invest” in RIFC when they do that than I invest in the Odeon chain when I pay to watch a movie) based on assurances from Ally McCoist, Gordon Wallace or Walter Smith (should he be wheeled out to gull the gullible.)

Surely if licensing has a purpose that purpose has to do more than award bronze, silver or Gold status to clubs but also to guarantee that whatever status is granted, it is done so based on hard evidence of what is, as opposed to what was or dreams of what might become?

Yet the game stumbles from one crisis to another in the hope that if no one mentions it, the SFA might escape responsibility for not having any responsibility.

No business, no industry, could survive on the basis that Scottish Football manages/governs itself. In a industry that is totally interdependent, self interest rules the day, or rather ruins the day.

Bill Shankly once said that football is a form of socialism, well it might have been when there was some semblance of sporting integrity, but today commercialism has turned it into an example of the worst excesses of capitalism, where ironically the workers have become the bosses. I mean £300k a WEEKto pay a player?

This excess makes it even more important that licensing is applied with much more rigour than it has been and particularly in terms of the well being of Scottish football to The Rangers.

The SFA, had they the gonads, should be warning RIFC that unless they produce the business plan AND evidence to back up the figures AND a verifiable n action plan to make sure things happen as planned, the SFA will refuse a licence to play next season 2014/15.
Refusal is not something they normally do but it is within the rules.

If I were a Rangers supporter I would be welcoming such a threat and indeed asking why the SFA are so reluctant to use the powers they have to provide the answers and guarantees they seek .

Tough love Campbell, tough love.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on4:09 pm - Feb 24, 2014

peterjung on February 24, 2014 at 3:41 pm
2 0 Rate This

Nice one Peter, will listen to this again.

Have you checked the SoundClick guidelines? These places usually have limits on file size and duration.

View Comment

BigGavPosted on4:09 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Resin_lab_dog says:
February 24, 2014 at 3:37 pm

But the real sweetner is the share deal and teh security which de-risks it completely and throws an upside to anyone keen to try and get a controlling interest.
At todays market cap (£18m roughly) this deal potentially gives Easdale and Laxey another 8% of the share equity. But its got a doozy of a no lose clause: If the share price halves between now and 1st september at any point, they’ll get 16% of the equity instead of the 8%.

It’s only the interest (the ‘premium’) that is convertible to shares, not the principal, and it only applies to Laxey, not Easdale.

The premium on the Laxey Facility is payable in cash or, at Laxey’s discretion, in ordinary shares of 1p each, at any point between the date of the facility agreement and the first anniversary of the date of the facility agreement.

The number of ordinary shares of 1p each which may be issued will be calculated using the lower of either 26.5 pence, being the mid-market closing price of the company’s shares on 21 February 2014, or the lowest price at which any equity fundraising is carried out prior to the first anniversary of the date of the Laxey Facility agreement.

Thus the amount (£150k) is only equivalent to 0.8%, not 8%.
Also, a lower conversion price only applies if further equity fundraising has been carried out within the next year at a lower figure; other drops in the share price don’t affect it.

Nevertheless, it’s still a very good deal for Laxey – they can’t lose, really.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on4:26 pm - Feb 24, 2014

BigGav says:
February 24, 2014 at 4:09 pm



Rate This

Resin_lab_dog says:
February 24, 2014 at 3:37 pm



missed that.
Stand corrected.
Not quite as much a one sided bet as I initially interpreted.
Less fishy.

View Comment

bobferrisPosted on4:55 pm - Feb 24, 2014

This made me chuckle. A 3-3 draw against one of the country’s tiniest clubs is surely befitting of such bombastic music. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn3j59ybGss

View Comment

AyeRightNawPosted on4:58 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Mmm. 20 posts in 2 hours on today of all days. Can only assume it’s just me having a hard time loading the site as I haven’t seen anything from the mods or on twitter to suggest there’s a problem.

View Comment

Para HandyPosted on4:59 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Question for our insolvency experts.

Now that Laxey-Easdales have provided a loan to RIFC secured on Edmiston Rd and Albion St (owned by RIFC), if RIFC suffers an admin and/or insolvency event and default on the loan, do they walk away with them?

Could this be the latest piece of spivery to continue the fleecing of the lambs?

View Comment

briggsbhoyPosted on5:03 pm - Feb 24, 2014

I’m finding it hard getting into the site properly and it takes ages for pages to refresh, anybody experiencing the same ?

View Comment

Para HandyPosted on5:05 pm - Feb 24, 2014

AyeRightNaw says:
February 24, 2014 at 4:58 pm
1 0 Rate This

Mmm. 20 posts in 2 hours on today of all days. Can only assume it’s just me having a hard time loading the site as I haven’t seen anything from the mods or on twitter to suggest there’s a problem.
No, me too AyeRight. Ages to load and get between pages.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on5:10 pm - Feb 24, 2014

What’s to stop RIFC loaning the cash to TRFC at a 30% premium over the same 6 months,thus stripping the club of another £150k?.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on5:11 pm - Feb 24, 2014

AyeRightNaw says:
February 24, 2014 at 4:58 pm

briggsbhoy says:
February 24, 2014 at 5:03 pm

Having loads of problems with access too. ❓

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on5:12 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Para Handy says:
February 24, 2014 at 4:59 pm
1 0 i
Rate This

Question for our insolvency experts.

Now that Laxey-Easdales have provided a loan to RIFC secured on Edmiston Rd and Albion St (owned by RIFC), if RIFC suffers an admin and/or insolvency event and default on the loan, do they walk away with them?



On an insolvency – the administrator or liquidator will sell the assets and use the proceeds to repay the secured debt.

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolisPosted on5:20 pm - Feb 24, 2014

AyeRightNaw says: February 24, 2014 at 4:58 pm
Mmm. 20 posts in 2 hours on today of all days. Can only assume it’s just me having a hard time loading the site as I haven’t seen anything from the mods or on twitter to suggest there’s a problem.
Para Handy says: February 24, 2014 at 5:05 pm
No, me too AyeRight. Ages to load and get between pages.
Me too. It’s been a problem since at least 10:00 am today. 😕

View Comment

AyeRightNawPosted on5:21 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Yep same issue – see my post just before your one.

View Comment

Tic 6709Posted on5:22 pm - Feb 24, 2014

24. briggsbhoy says:

February 24, 2014 at 5:03 pm

I’m finding it hard getting into the site properly and it takes ages for pages to refresh, anybody experiencing the same ?
Same here,still, not too bad,some of my clothes came back into fashion while I was waiting.

View Comment

iamacantPosted on5:28 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Been getting a few timed out connections all day. Site is still slooooooooooww

C’mon mods, fix it. I had tae work my lunch hour today instead of catching up 😆

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolisPosted on5:45 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Auldheid says: February 24, 2014 at 4:06 pm

There has been much speculation on TSFM regarding the likelihood of “clubs” whose legal personailty (i.e. for professional “clubs” the limited company that owns and operates the “club”) entering administration, how (two of these) administrations were conducted to avoid liquidation.

Now you would think that after the three recent high profile administrations of professional Scottish football “clubs” that the SPFL and the SFA would have updated their Rules & Articles of Association to at least minimise the risk to the SPFL, SFA and its “member clubs”.

After all, efforts at prevention by a EUFA & FIFA approved Governing Body are surely healthier for our game than treatment after “member clubs ” have been infected by financial mismanagement.

Well according to the current SPFL and SFA Rules & Articles of Association
no such safeguards have been agreed by their “member clubs”. 🙄

Contrast this approach with the specific Financial Fair Play Rules adopted by the 3 divisions of the English Football League and how they have tied the sanctions for failure to comply to re-distribution of income to other “clubs” in the same EFL division.


Is any one involved with SPFL “clubs” Supporters Associations, Fan Board members etc aware of any discussions with the SPFL and/or SFA regarding the adoption of similar FFP rules.

💡 Should ths be a future “Campaign” for TSFM. ❓

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on5:46 pm - Feb 24, 2014

New AT blog

Rangers court battle: what next for Ibrox?

And so the lawyers have gathered in Edinburgh and the so-called Rangers big tax case begins another round.

Like everything to do with Glasgow football the mere mention of this excites a certain degree of comment shall we say?

24 rangers g w Rangers court battle: what next for Ibrox?

So in the spirit of setting out for us all what is actually going on, here goes. This is largely from HMRC and the Courts and Tribunals Service.

The current appeal was lodged by HMRC against the previous majority tribunal verdict.

It runs from 24 February until 21 March in Edinburgh, or at least that is the time set aside. It is an appeal on points of law so at present it appears no witnesses will be called.

Should either party wish to appeal after this to the high court on points of law and only on points of law, that may be granted to the high court.

So whatever happens this is not necessarily the end of it should either party wish to appeal.

Read more: Red, Whyte and blue: the Rangers saga continues

In brief HMRC say the Employment Benefit Trusts (EBTs) used by Rangers under former owner Sir David Murray were a way of avoiding income tax.

Sir David Murray contends they were lawful and he won by majority which is now under appeal on points of law.

The case matters greatly to HMRC because of the precedent at stake.

HMRC contends that EBTs were used by more than 5000 companies across these islands including not a few large football clubs in England.

So for HMRC there is a great deal more to it than Rangers. RFC simply happens to be the test case. Football and football fans would do well to see this reality for what it is.

So the implications for that across companies in UK PLC are obvious and wide. It. Is. Not. About. Rangers. Or at least insofar as trying to reframe UK tax law is concerned.

Read more: Rangers FC: the taxman ain’t walking away

However in footballing terms it very much is of course, about Rangers. At stake the very governance of the game in Scotland.

The eventual issue of whether or not what used to be one of the biggest clubs in football cheated its way to silverware year after year, remains an open question.

This is a major problem stretching far beyond the gates of Ibrox. The implications for the Scottish Football Association (SFA) should not be lost on anyone.

Equally – Sir David Murray and Paul Baxendale-Walker (the stuck-off solicitor and pornographer who brought the EBT concept to the club) could very well turn out to be the greatest financial wizards of modern Scottish football. Right now, in law, they most certainly are. We know why they did it because they said so.

Read more: Craig Whyte’s lawyers send Letter Before Action

Here’s Andrew Thornhill, the lawyer representing the Murray Group, on the final day of the previous tribunal hearing: “Because the whole point of the remuneration trust was it enabled the club to take on players that it otherwise couldn’t afforded (sic) to pay if it had to pay the grossed up wage.

“This was Sir David Murray’s way of putting it. It was a way of getting hold of players you otherwise couldn’t afford.

“So the last thing the club would do is say to a player: now, if you don’t like having remuneration trust we will pay you gross instead. It just couldn’t afford to do it. It wasn’t an option.”

They recruited players they otherwise couldn’t afford.

Yet, in a ruling which raised many an eyebrow, an Independent Commission in Glasgow said that buying players you cannot otherwise afford who then go on to win you silverware year after year, is not buying sporting advantage.

Read more: You couldn’t make it up: Rangers ban the BBCa>

But what if buying those players was unlawful? Is tax law one thing and football law something other? If HMRC win, this is where the questions will pile up.

And what of dear old Campbell Ogilvie, the key Rangers finance official whilst all this was happening and recipient of an EBT himself. He remains SFA President even though that organisation describes him as “heavily conflicted”.

Yet still no hint of standing aside or gardening leave until this matter is settled. It’s not the way things happen round Hampden way. And again – what if it does turn out to have been unlawful?

So that is why it all matters. That is why it is not over. That is why there has never been a final verdict.

And that is why Rangers – rightly – made that clear to their fans when the previous tribunal reported.

View Comment

BangordubPosted on5:47 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Tommo is back on the case: http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/rangers-court-battle/7273
Unequivocal on Ogilvies position.

View Comment

twopandaPosted on5:52 pm - Feb 24, 2014

As an idea to make money
Why not
Take over a floor of the Art Galleries or a public Glasgow Building
Have a permanent Exhibition on this complete embarrassing mess – Call it the Ibrox Show
Exhibits, Waxworks of the nutters and spivs, Audio and Film shows
Guided tours of Chateaux via Skype
Have a special MSM crap room
Hey Presto – A new Tourist attraction for the City
Any more ideas? – SFA? 😉

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on5:53 pm - Feb 24, 2014

I see Alex T has brought the conflicted Mr Ogilvie back into the limelight.


View Comment

neepheidPosted on6:03 pm - Feb 24, 2014

From James Forrest


View Comment

AuldheidPosted on6:04 pm - Feb 24, 2014

The Select Committee on Football in England have run out of patience with the FA and want leglslation introduced.


Now why can Scotland not do that, independent or united?

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on6:11 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Do you think McCoist is genuinely daft or just acting daft…?

“I will have a better idea of what we have for next year’s budgets in terms of players coming in after Graham has completed his 120-day review.”

Graham’s reply should be…’ YOU dont need to worry about next seasons budget Ally!’

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on6:15 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Smugas says:
February 24, 2014 at 12:00 pm

Just to throw a curve ball by the way. Has anyone considered that Eco might actually be pjz with massive split personality issues? 😈
Well I suppose that would all depend on the state of mind of the person who thinks that might be the case 🙄

View Comment

wottpiPosted on6:25 pm - Feb 24, 2014


I see Guidi is up to his usual approach.

Shout down fans and callers for not having any facts to back up their comments and accusations but totally failing to come up with any of his own or even a hint that he may be trying to get any by investigating the dodgy dealings down Govan way.

What a waste of space.

Far better if he took the Alan Rough pundit’s role of admiting you know nothing as opposed to pretending you have some ‘inside’ info.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on6:25 pm - Feb 24, 2014

sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolis says:

February 24, 2014 at 5:45 pm

The contrast between what has been done in England re financial fair play and here is quite marked.

I reckon too many of our clubs (or is it just the one?) fear the scrutiny such a change enforces and simply do not welcome it.

On second thoughts it is just the one and they are being protected.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on6:31 pm - Feb 24, 2014

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:

February 24, 2014 at 5:10 pm

What’s to stop RIFC loaning the cash to TRFC at a 30% premium over the same 6 months,thus stripping the club of another £150k?.
And as a private company there’s probably no requirement for them to make internal loan details public, until next years TRFC accounts are published!

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on6:31 pm - Feb 24, 2014

STV saying A.McCleish had a flat bought for him and cash for his EBT.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on6:50 pm - Feb 24, 2014

The new podcast with Stuart Cosgrove is now available on iTunes and RSS. You can get to it via the Podcasts page on the main menu or by clicking the Subscribe link on the sidebar.

TSFM is this evening working on a new blog that Auldheid has prepared. News of that later.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on6:50 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Madbhoy24941 says:
February 24, 2014 at 11:49 am
ecobhoy says:
February 24, 2014 at 11:24 am
I never worry one way or another about the TU/TD Count……
Unfortunately the rest of your comment negates the start Eco, if you had just posted the above, it would have had a lot more impact! Just my opinion…..
We are all entitled to our opinions no matter what they are as long as they remain within the ethos of the blog. I didn’t make the comment you refer to for the purpose of making an ‘impact’ however. It was merely to set the scene for the request which followed and I note you haven’t addressed that aspect of my post.

Indeed if I had just made the comment as you suggest it would have been unecessary and a waste of time because I don’t actually care about TU/TD counts. On this occasion I had a specific reason for mentioning them which is explained in the rest of my post which you felt I shouldn’t have made.

To reiterate – What followed was a request for anyone who didn’t agree with my argument or evidence on Westthorn and who had given me a TD on it to hopefully explain why they had done so. Often people who don’t post but possibly lurk sometimes don’t want to disagree with a poster for a number of reasons and I was hoping to encourage a dialogue which I see as positive especially if it might be with Bears who hold a contrary view to my own.

I just wanted to ensure that people knew I was keen to establish if there was any counter argument/evidence to my position as I just can’t see one.

I reckon from past discussions on the subject a lot of the TDs will have come from those that think the Bear campaign should be totally ignored and they are entitled to their opinion and they may well be correct.

But my original post began with the Health Warning that I didn’t accept that position as I was specifically wanting to hear the argument of TDers who thought I had got my argument/evidence wrong. Unfortunately I haven’t had a single response so perhaps no one has any problem with my argument 🙂

View Comment

FIFAPosted on6:55 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Is this not Ally’s way of saying ,I know something you dont,everyone and their grannies are scratching their heads looking at the sums and seeing that nothing adds up,but the cheeky chappy just cant help himself like the cat thats got the cream ,one minute he knows nothing and the next ,well ,what skullduggery is going on we will soon find out as he cannot keep his trap shut and be assured it will be skullduggery as they dont do honesty.

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolisPosted on7:07 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Auldheid says: February 24, 2014 at 6:04 pm

Thanks for posting a link to the February 2014 All Party Parliamentary Group for Mutuals (APPGM) Report on football “clubs”. From the first 20 pages of the report I’ve read so far it appears that the APPGM only has juristiction for England. (Is Football / Sport a “devolved matter” for the Scottish Parliament?)

I note that Glasgow Rutherglen MP Tom Greatrex mentions that he’s been a member of the Fulham Supporters Club for the last 10 or 11 years. Nothing like representing your electorate eh Tom?

The report exposes the complacent “neutral” attitude of the FA, EPL & EFL Boards and member clubs to club ownership, whether by fans, spivs or sugar daddies and the lacklustre “encouragement” for club/supporter “engagement”.

The latter appears to relate solely to the FA’s support for clubs to tell their supporters “There, there. Everything will be ok if you just trust your club’s owners.”

NB See RIFC plc / TRFC Ltd Supporter Survey for the current general appraoch to fan engagement as compared to that between Bundeslegia clubs and their Supporters Groups.

What can Supporters Groups in Scotland do to improve these matters in Scotland?

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on7:09 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant · 2m
It was revealed today at the Upper Tier Tax Tribunal that Alex McLeish had a property bought for him through an EBT: http://bit.ly/1ebB1SE

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on7:17 pm - Feb 24, 2014

New Phil blog up….
Phil MacGiollaBhain ‏@Pmacgiollabhain · 40m
“I thought a Hedge Fund was something that posh people used to keep in jar in the kitchen to pay the gardener with.”

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:17 pm - Feb 24, 2014

What a hoot over on Twitter. Grant Russell from STV has been putting on tweets re the days business at the UTTT. An angry bear has demanded to know why Russell is not investigating Celtic’s land deals. Russell responds that there has been some investigation which found little in the way of facts. The angry bear then demanded that Russell ‘go and find the facts’. Good Lord! 😆

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolisPosted on7:23 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Long Time Lurker says: February 24, 2014 at 3:15 pm

……. By the way, are we all Hector now?
Credit where it’s due. I prefer to think that we’re all Heidi and Hector now 😉

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on7:26 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Grant though sticking to his same club stance.

“The company’s assets were subsequently sold to a new company, allowing the club to continue as a functioning member of the Scottish Football Association.” 🙄

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolisPosted on7:37 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Auldheid says: February 24, 2014 at 6:25 pm

It’s a disgrace that organisations responsible for governing football are not willing to take steps to minimise the risk of administration for its member clubs.

Surely the other 41 members of the SPFL, especially those in the 3rd and 4th tiers who operate within their means, must be aware of the EFL FFP Rules and have an interest in discussing / implementing similar rules to avoid another Gretna FC. Such FFP would necessarily have to include “transitional provisions” for member clubs with substantial debt to turnover ratios.

What TF are Stuart Reagan and Neil Doncaster actually doing for their excessive salaries? 😡

PS Please don’t answer that rhetorical question. ❗

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on7:41 pm - Feb 24, 2014

In his latest blog, Phil says-

” Laxey Partners are now in pole position to be the secured creditors in any controlled insolvency.”

There we go again with “controlled insolvency”. Ah well.

Laxey are now secured creditors, as is Mr Easdale it seems (wonder if they have a ranking agreement?). But having a standard security over non-core assets (you can still play football without the car park and a neighbouring office block) securing a £1m loan, is a far cry from having a floating charge (with the attendant right to appoint an administrator) over the whole property and undertaking of a borrower.

So I don’t get what Phil means.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on7:42 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Exiled Celt says:
February 24, 2014 at 7:09 pm
‘Alex McLeish had a property bought for him through an EBT:’
I think we knew that along time ago, EC, as we knew about SDM’s villa purchase in France. Looks like Russell is not up to speed.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on7:48 pm - Feb 24, 2014

john clarke says:
February 24, 2014 at 7:32 pm
Thanks for that JC. Excellent work. I will be there on Thursday but I’m worried that I won’t be able to give as good an account as this.

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolisPosted on7:55 pm - Feb 24, 2014

john clarke says: February 24, 2014 at 7:32 pm


As anticipated your report puts to shame the one from STV’s Grant Russell posted at 7:09 pm on February 24, 2014 by Exiled Celt.

Have a million TUs for your efforts and a good night’s sleep. 😆

View Comment

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on7:55 pm - Feb 24, 2014

Grant has changed the last paragraph of his report.

The company’s assets were subsequently sold to a new company, allowing the club to continue as a functioning member of the Scottish Football Association after the governing body approved a transfer of membership between the two.

View Comment

Leave a Reply