Podcast Episode 2 – Stuart Cosgrove

SFM PodcastOur latest podcast features Big Pink chatting to Stuart Cosgrove.
The discussion focuses on the role and impact of social media in sport, but also includes Fair Play, Leadership, Interdependence, Rangers, Celtic, St. Johnstone, Forgiveness – and Bruce Springsteen!

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.

Subscribe to RSS Feed

Subscribe to iTunes Feed

This entry was posted in General by Trisidium. Bookmark the permalink.
Tom Byrne

About Trisidium

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.

308 thoughts on “Podcast Episode 2 – Stuart Cosgrove


  1. Having terrible trouble logging in and checking for comments for the last few days.
    Many thanks to JC for a very informative report on yesterday’s hearing.
    Keep up the good work.


  2. Can someone in TSFM update us on the site issues over the past two days?
    Is the site the subject of a DOS attack or is there a merely techie explanation?


  3. moo ‏@moo_ted 9m
    IA going over the auditors statement of accounts from last year.
    Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
    moo ‏@moo_ted 12m
    IA arguing that they are continually making losses month on month .trying to prove insolvency.
    Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
    moo ‏@moo_ted 13m
    In CoS now. Lord Tyre asking why there’s no accounts .
    Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
    moo ‏@moo_ted 3h
    Right.. Edinburgh bound. What to do ? UTTT or Court of Session ?
    Expand Reply Retweet Favorite More
    moo ‏@moo_ted 14h
    @Stephenswan right I’ll see you there. Make yourself known ..;-)


  4. TSFM is dead slow and stop today. Taken ages to sign in for catch-up.

    Jean, get yer clock out and see how long it takes to sign in 😀


  5. Not had a chance to listen to the podcast yet. I will get to it later.

    Similar difficulty with access for me. TSFM has indicated that significant traffic from the Far East (Tollcross? Leith even?) was a likely root cause. Since others will likely be experiencing similar difficulty I think I’ll fill my boots in the absence of many other posters.

    Thanks Peter Jung for the audio. I listened to about an hours conversation between Imran Ahmad and Craig Whyte last night, with Stockbridge chipping in occasionally. Some of the chat and document signing about an hour in has interesting connotations that seem to be a little clearer with the passage of time and might become more so in due course. Mentions of Rivzi may rekindle some Far Eastern interest.

    The securing of the new loans on Ibrox (Albion) car park and Edmiston house could be one of two things. Either it is a hemming in of the Ibrox site which might make it less viable in a property transaction or it might be the final amalgamation of the whole site. The car park and Edmiston House areas from the air make up a fair portion of the Ibrox footprint; nearly as big as the stadium itself. If Whyte does have claim on the stadium then the amalgamation with the other areas will provide a tidy bit of land in an area that could have development in the future. Rangers might decide to relocate at some point and if so the holder of title to the land will have a nice wee pension fund. Conversely, the removal of these areas from the footprint might severely restrict both operational and developmental potential. The car park charges £5 per motor. I’m not sure how many vehicles it could accommodate but if it were say 1,000, that is about £125,000 a year. Not a great return but it might pay the interest on any loan until a redevelopment opportunity arose.

    The rumour of an impending arrestment of Rangers funds might be a motive behind the crisis loan. There seem to be a lot of ‘co-incidences’ arising currently. Difficult to say if there is an element of control involved. It really is a perfect storm if you throw in the UTT for good measure. I think certain PR firms will be working overtime and may have resorted to extraordinary means to quell the discontent.

    I’ve filled my unforgiving minute with sixty seconds of distance run. Baton being passed to next grasping hand.


  6. ❓ have I been sacked as clock-watcher 😉 meant to be in Edinburgh today, but due to unforeseen and all that I’m not 😥 hopefully we’ll get updates from ‘our guys’ 😉 log in problems seem to be sorted now 😆


  7. I believe the Albion Car Park was necessary for RFC to be granted an operating licence by GCC when the Club Deck was constructed. GCC sanctioned the increased capacity of Ibrox on the proviso that the club provided a certain amount of additional parking. That was why the Albion Car Park came into existence.

    The danger now is, if the Albion Car Park were secured and put to other use, then that would affect the authorised capacity of the stadium. If Sandy Easdale gets his hands on the Albion Car Park then, by default, he has any new Rangers-Men type owner(s) by the short and curlies.


  8. TSFM- you need to get these site access problems sorted, urgently. The site is currently unusable.


  9. moo ‏@moo_ted 1m
    Mr Summers for RIFC now arguing their case. Saying its contractually Inept and should be thrown out.

    Lord Tyre suggesting it might not be reasonable to grant the IA motion as it may put them into Insolvency.

    IMO Lord Tyre is leaning towards RIFC !

    Court has adjourned for 5 mins to allow a call to IA be made. Lord Tyre wants to make a decision before lunch. So hopefully back soon.

    Lord Tyre has refused the motion. And granted expenses to RIFC .

    __________________

    Grant Russell ‏@STVGrant 26m

    Lord Tyre satisfied case to answer but says insufficient evidence that Rangers’ finances have deteriorated to point of near insolvency.

    Ahmad v The Rangers FC Ltd will be heard in April. Lord Tyre says no evidence to suggest any debt arising from that wouldn’t be satisfied.


  10. neepheid says:
    February 25, 2014 at 12:57 pm

    TSFM- you need to get these site access problems sorted, urgently. The site is currently unusable.
    ===========================================================================
    It was terrible for most of yesterday and is as bad today – looks like a DoS attack. Only other thing which is a poss is the Podcast because when there was probs recently was that not at the time of the first podcast?

    My memory could be playing up on that though.

    However if it is a DoS attack then obviously we are annoying someone – I wonder who 😈


  11. TSFM ‏@TheSFMonitor 8m
    Site in some distress at the moment. Another DOS attack I’m afraid. Hopefully there is enough on the Podcast to keep us going:-)
    More later.


  12. alex thomson ‏@alextomo · 2h
    Doing terror and Syria today but just to say follow @stvgrant and The Scottish Football Monitor for life inside the UTTT hearing.


  13. I noted this quote from the Evening Times interview with Wallace,

    “It’s not [£1.5m to pay the wages for the next three months], it’s a facility to use against our operating costs, as they are defrayed by our ability to generate income and that income coming in.”

    I tried Google translate but even that couldn’t understand it…

    Any of our finance experts able to explain what he is saying here?

    #gobbledegook


  14. Sorry but past 2 days site virtually impossible to log into.
    Feels as if we are back to the old days of trying to get on the internet without broadband. Have had to give up several times as it has taken so long
    Good luck in sorting things out if it is something attacking site


  15. Para Handy says:
    February 25, 2014 at 2:34 pm
    0 0 Rate This

    I noted this quote from the Evening Times interview with Wallace,

    “It’s not [£1.5m to pay the wages for the next three months], it’s a facility to use against our operating costs, as they are defrayed by our ability to generate income and that income coming in.”

    I tried Google translate but even that couldn’t understand it…
    =========
    It doesn’t actually mean anything (which explains why Google translate can’t handle it) , but these Z-list business types think this sort of crap sounds good. This is the sort of meaningless businesspeak that drove me demented in my last few years at work.

    My already low opinion of Wallace has just gone down another few notches, for what it’s worth,.


  16. Ahmad v The Rangers FC Ltd will be heard in April. Lord Tyre says no evidence to suggest any debt arising from that wouldn’t be satisfied.

    Never mind the wages, could this be the real reason for the urgency in getting the Wonga loans in? So they could prove today that there’s money come April and the judge wouldn’t, therefore, ring fence £750k that they need now?


  17. neepheid says:
    February 25, 2014 at 2:51 pm

    It still drives me nuts.

    There is a tendency to lump everyone at Rangers in a box marked Spiv. It’s just as lazy in its way, as the journalism we often complain about.

    Neither Mr Wallace nor Mr Nash have any real experience of companies in this sort of situation. The result today has given them a bit of breathing space, but the underlying issues remain un-resolved, the short term sticking plaster, has also introduced fresh infection. The only “Change” Messers Wallace & Nash have actually “Managed” to accomplish is for the worse.

    If Matt McGinn were around today, he wouldn’t be singing about Who Would be a Fitba Referee, but about Who Would be a Rangers Executive


  18. TSFM, Have just spent a very pleasant hour listening to Stuart Cosgrave and Big Pink on the podcast. I recommend it to all posters. Looking forward to the next one. On the possible DOS of the blog, it took me 40 minutes to gain access. Fingers crossed it gets fixed.


  19. South0fThe Border says:
    February 25, 2014 at 1:11 pm

    Lord Tyre suggesting it might not be reasonable to grant the IA motion as it may put them into Insolvency.

    Lord Tyre satisfied case to answer but says insufficient evidence that Rangers’ finances have deteriorated to point of near insolvency.

    ——————————————————————————————————————————————-

    Is this some sort of quantum theory of finance?

    So Lord Tyre can only know if the club is dead if he can see the accounts.
    But he can’t look at the accounts because they don’t exist.
    So he cannot know if they are about to go bust.
    But if funds are frozen they might go bust.
    So he better not let funds be frozen in case that makes them go bust.
    Of course it was the possibility (probability) of them going bust that brought them into the courtrooom today, soooo….

    Schroedinger’s cat has got nuffink on this.


  20. According to the chap who tweets under the moniker “Moo”, the biggest laugh in court today was when the Sevco lawyer stated, “Rangers are one of biggest brands in world”. Lord Tyre retorted, “It didn’t stop them being liquidated”.

    I wonder if our beloved media will dare to report the judge’s remarks in tomorrow’s rags?


  21. Sorry for the hyperlink to the English football League Financial Fair Play (EFL FFP) Rules that I posted at 5:45 pm on 24 February 2014 which becomes “corrupted” every time I “cut ‘n’ paste” it from the EFL website. I’ve tried to “repair” it several times with no success so apologies for the length of the remainder of this post.

    Financial Fair Play in The Football League Posted on:25.04.2012

    Introduction

    Following two years of detailed discussions, The Football League and its clubs have agreed a Financial Fair Play framework that will operate in all three of its divisions from the beginning of the 2012/13 season. It aims to reduce the levels of losses being incurred at some clubs and, over time, establish a league of financially self-sustaining professional football clubs.

    The decision to adopt Financial Fair Play regulations follows a strategic review by The Football League Board which identified the state of club finances as the organisation’s greatest challenge. During this process, each division has been given the flexibility to determine its own Fair Play regulations, given that clubs of different sizes face differing financial challenges.

    In the Championship, clubs have agreed to introduce a break even approach based on the UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. Whilst in League 1 and League 2, clubs will implement the Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP) that has been in use in the latter division since 2004/05. The SCMP broadly limits spending on total player wages to a proportion of each club’s turnover.

    How will it work?

    The Championship

    Financial Fair Play in the Championship will see the introduction of a breakeven model based on UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. It will require clubs to stay within pre-defined limits on losses and shareholder equity investment that will reduce significantly over the next five seasons.

    The new system will require clubs to provide annual accounts to The Football League by December 1 every year, covering the previous season/financial year. Using this information a ‘Fair Play Result’ will be determined for each club that will equate to the club’s profit/loss for the year, excluding investment in specific areas of club infrastructure or losses in certain extraordinary circumstances.

    In order to comply with the Financial Fair Play regulations each club is required to demonstrate a Fair Play Result that is either:

    a) nil or greater.
    or:
    b) A loss of less than the permitted level of acceptable deviation and shareholder equity investment for the season in question.

    The permitted level of acceptable deviation and shareholder equity investment will reduce over time from £4m and £8m respectively in 2011/12 to £2m and £3m by 2015/16.

    The Football League will establish a Financial Fair Play Panel, led by its Chairman, to consider any challenges by clubs to the determination of the Fair Play Result.

    What counts towards the Fair Play Result?

    The Fair Play Result is based on the club’s profit or loss before tax with the exception of:

    • Investment in Youth Development (as defined in the Elite Player Performance Plan)
    • The profit affecting element of the purchase, sale and depreciation of fixed assets excluding players (e.g. a club’s stadium)
    • Investment in a club’s Community Scheme
    • Promotion related bonus payments

    A club is also entitled to apply to the Financial Fair Play Panel to have certain exceptional items excluded from the Financial Fair Play Result in a particular year. Such as (but not limited to):

    • Career ending injury costs
    • Bad debts from other clubs
    • Losses sustained from a major sponsor defaulting

    The timetable for implementation

    As with UEFA’s Financial Fair Play regulations, The Football League will phase in its Financial Fair Play framework for Championship clubs. This is outlined below.

    Season 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 onwards
    Acceptable deviation £4 m £4 m £3 m £3 m £2 m
    Shareholder equity investment £8 m £6 m £5 m £3 m £3 m
    Total Permitted Allowances £12 m £10 m £8 m £6 m £5 m

    The first reporting period will be the current season (2011/12) – with the first set of accounts due to be submitted on 1st December 2012.

    Sanctions

    Failure to stay within the defined limits will lead to the imposition of sanctions. However, there will be no sanctions implemented during the first two seasons (2012/13 and 2013/14) in order to give clubs a sensible period of transition.

    From the 2014/15 season, sanctions will be introduced that will differ depending on whether the club ultimately remained in the Championship, was promoted to the Premier League or was relegated to League 1.

    i. Sanctions for clubs remaining in the Championship

    Clubs that fail to comply with the Financial Fair Play regulations (from December 1st 2014) will be subject to a transfer embargo. This embargo will come in to force ahead of the subsequent transfer window beginning on January 1, 2015.

    The embargo will remain in place until the club is able to lodge financial information that demonstrates that it meets the Financial Fair Play regulations (either for the previous reporting period or a future reporting period).

    ii. Sanctions for clubs promoted to the Premier League

    Clubs promoted to the Premier League will be required to provide Financial Fair Play information for their promotion season by December 1. Any club found to have breached Financial Fair Play regulations will be required to pay a ‘Fair Play Tax’ on the excess by which the club failed to fulfil the Fair Play requirement, ranging from 1% on the first £100,000 to 100% on anything over £10m.

    The Fair Play Tax will be applied at the following thresholds:

    (a) 01% of the excess between £1 and £100,000;
    (b) 20% of the excess between £100,001 and £500,000;
    (c) 40% of the excess between £500,001 and £1,000,000;
    (d) 60% of the excess between £1,000,001 and £5,000,000;
    (e) 80% of the excess between £5,000,001 and £10,000,000; and
    (f) 100% of the excess over £10,000,000

    Any proceeds will be distributed equally amongst clubs that have complied with the Financial Fair Play regulations for the season in question.

    The Football League is currently in the process of consulting with the Premier League regarding the implementation of these Financial Fair Play regulations.

    iii. Sanctions for clubs relegated to League 1

    Clubs relegated to League 1 will not be entitled to any payout derived from the Fair Play Tax and will be required to comply with the FFP rules in operation in that division.

    Transition arrangements for clubs relegated from the Premier League

    Clubs relegated from the Premier League will not be subject to sanctions in their first season in the Championship as long as they have met their financial obligations under Premier League regulations. They would, however, be subject to the potential of a Fair Play Tax if they achieved promotion in their first season in the Championship whilst not complying with the FFP regulations.

    League 1 and League 2

    League 1 and League 2, clubs have chosen to implement the Salary Cost Management Protocol (SCMP) first used in League 2 in 2004/05, although it will operate at different thresholds in each division.

    The SCMP broadly limits spending on total player wages to a proportion of each club’s turnover, with clubs providing budgetary information to The League at the beginning of the season that is updated as the campaign progresses.

    Any club that is deemed to have breached the permitted spending threshold will be subject to a transfer embargo. Wherever possible, The League will seek to tackle the issue ‘at source’ by refusing player registrations that take clubs beyond the threshold.

    At the beginning of the current season, League 2 clubs reduced the permitted spending threshold to 55% from 60% and this figure will continue to be operated next season.

    League 1 clubs are currently operating a ‘pilot’ of the SCMP with clubs complying with a 75% threshold but with no sanctions being applicable this season. This threshold will reduce to 65% in 2012/13 and 60% in 2013/14 with sanctions (transfer embargoes) being applicable in both seasons.

    I’m interested to know if the club that you support would have a problem in complying with SPFL FFP Rules similar to these and what you think of the principles and effect of the Sanctions.


  22. scapaflow says:
    February 25, 2014 at 3:11 pm

    “There is a tendency to lump everyone at Rangers in a box marked Spiv.”
    ————————–
    I’m not sure that this is the case with Wallace. A lot of posters seemed to give him the benefit of the doubt and thought he would bring about the fiscal prudence that the clumpany required. It has taken a couple of months for GW’s reputation to erodes, in stark contrast to those of CW and CG which were questioned from the start. The jury’s just coming back in on GW and judging by their expressions, the verdict may not be in his favour. Certainly the quote from the Evening Times posted by Para handy does not smack of corporate clarity.


  23. Zilch says:
    February 25, 2014 at 3:19 pm
    “So Lord Tyre can only know if the club is dead if he can see the accounts.
    But he can’t look at the accounts because they don’t exist….”

    The accounts are required to be lodged with Companies House on Friday. Are those accounts and and the auditors statement, including relevant post balance sheet events, really not available for the court?


  24. South0fThe Border says: February 25, 2014 at 1:11 pm
    Zilch says: February 25, 2014 at 3:19 pm
    Dumfoonert says: February 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm

    Would those of you on twitter ask @moo if

    1. What did Mr Somers and /or the lawyer for RIFC plc say when asked “Why no accounts?”

    2. Lord Tyre asked Mr Somers and /or the lawyer for RIFC plc if the first Audited Accounts and Return of TRFC Ltd would be submitted to Companies House and HMRC on or before 27 February 2014 and if so, what was the company’s reply?

    3. Was there any discussion of a deferral of a decision pending timely submission of Audited (or unaudited) Accounts, and if so what did this cover?


  25. Castofthousands says:
    February 25, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    “Spivs” tend to be very good at what they do, making money from distressed assets. Mr Wallace, increasingly looks to be simply a mediocre chap, very much out of his depth.

    Still as you say, time will tell


  26. Billy Boyce says:
    February 25, 2014 at 3:19 pm
    ———————————————————————-
    Rangers are one of the biggest brands in the world who are scared that a £500k arrestment will lead to their insolvency, but they can’t prove it, so ask us to take them at their word that it will, well it might, but it won’t cos we’re big, see?
    —————————————————————–
    scapaflow says:
    February 25, 2014 at 4:12 pm
    Castofthousands says:
    February 25, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    “Spivs” tend to be very good at what they do, making money from distressed assets. Mr Wallace, increasingly looks to be simply a mediocre chap, very much out of his depth.

    Still as you say, time will tell
    ———————————————————-
    Dripping roast – in which case Mr Wallace remains, or jam now, right now and don’t spare the cream – in which case Mr Wallace will join a long and distinguished list of duped patsies.


  27. Excellent podcast! Thanks to all concerned in the production.


  28. I loved the podcast and could have listed to another hour easily. Cosgrove is always a great listen and comes across as nothing but a real St Johnstone and real football fan.

    I would love to see someone like him, well actually him, at the top of the SFA. Someone with no Rangers or Celtic bias, who is intelligent, has a business brain and an understanding of the modern media and of what our product is actually worth.

    Instead, quite unbelievably, we still have the tainted Ogilvie, Regan and Doncaster, who actually got a huge pay rise. Aye, unbelievable…


  29. sannoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolis says:
    February 25, 2014 at 4:09 pm
    2 0 Rate This

    South0fThe Border says: February 25, 2014 at 1:11 pm
    Zilch says: February 25, 2014 at 3:19 pm
    Dumfoonert says: February 25, 2014 at 3:41 pm

    Would those of you on twitter ask @moo if

    1. What did Mr Somers and /or the lawyer for RIFC plc say when asked “Why no accounts?”

    2. Lord Tyre asked Mr Somers and /or the lawyer for RIFC plc if the first Audited Accounts and Return of TRFC Ltd would be submitted to Companies House and HMRC on or before 27 February 2014 and if so, what was the company’s reply?

    3. Was there any discussion of a deferral of a decision pending timely submission of Audited (or unaudited) Accounts, and if so what did this cover?
    ====================

    Can Ahmed go back to court if the accounts are shown to be in a poor state on Friday, or if and when published?


  30. Hi Eco

    Sorry I have not replied to your earlier question regaeding the Laxey/Chico non dilution agreement although I have been very busy and had difficulty accessing the site. I copy the following from the ITV website on 13th August 2013-:

    The group behind a purchase of two million Rangers shares claims it will not have any involvement in running the club.
    Laxey Partners Limited increased its stake in Rangers International Football Club plc on Monday by buying more than two million shares for around £840,000.
    The purchase, held on behalf of the firm by nominee shareholders Credit Suisse, saw Laxey’s stake in Rangers rise to around 4.99% of the company’s issued capital.
    It is not yet known who sold the stake to Laxey Partners, which is an Isle of Man-registered hedge fund.
    The firm, which is led by investment bankers Colin Kingsworth and Andrew Pegge, is believed to have paid £1m for one million shares as an initial investor in the newco Rangers last October.
    Mr Kingsnorth stated that his firm was not in talks with any of the separate factions vying for control of the club.
    He told STV: “We have not been in discussions with any of the various groups at Rangers but are keen to see the club stabilise. We won’t have any involvement in appointment of people or management.
    “We invested money in the club when it was needed and before it listed on the stock exchange. All the infighting and EGMs (extraordinary general meetings) need to end so the club can get on and run itself properly with the right financial support.”
    As part of the deal, the group entered into an agreement to guarantee its shareholding is not diluted. It ensured if the share flotation price was lower than the £1 paid by Laxey, it would receive additional equity in Rangers International to ensure its stake was not devalued.
    It is understood that as a result of Rangers International’s 70p opening stock market flotation price, former Rangers chief executive Charles Green has agreed to transfer a chunk of his 7.7% shareholding in the company to Laxey.
    In a previous announcement to the London Stock Exchange, Rangers confirmed 714,285 shares owned by Mr Green would be transferred to Laxey in December this year, when his 12 month lock-in agreement over selling his shares expires.
    On Tuesday, in the notification to the exchange about its increased shareholding, Laxey Partners noted that its 4.99% holding in Rangers was its current position and did not include the shares due to be transferred to it from Mr Green.
    Mr Green purchased five million shares in Rangers at 1p each as part of an agreement entered into on October 31 last year. This came days after the deal with Laxey, which was dated October 19, 2012.

    The answer to your point about stock exchange rules means that this agreement was of a personal and pre IPO agreement between Laxey and Green. I just love the phrase ” We won’t have any involvement in appointment of people or management……………..so not true as it turned out ref Mr Somers etc.

    PS You are certainly handing out a good kicking to the bears “land experts”……it is cruel to watch…..ah well……… maybe just a bit!

    regards


  31. Welcome to the old place 🙂
    Will get us back home as soon as possible, but in the meantime I hope this is an acceptable fix.

    I’m a bit irked because we were really chuffed to get Stuart Cosgrove sat down with BP – and the problems have arisen just as the Podcast was published. I urge everyone to have a listen as I think many of the points raised were worthy of discussion here.

    Auldheid has a new post which will be published soon – I hope this isn’t information overload 🙂

    Keep you all posted.


  32. Just listening to sportsound and listening to yet more trademark nonsense from Chick Young.

    Irony is wasted on Mr Young.
    Tonight he was bemoaning the astonishing amount (circa 600k) that Imran Ahmad has the audacity to be claiming of his beloved Sevco.

    We’ll excuse me Chick, but not too long ago that just equated to about 6 or 7 good nights out with your mate Campbell!


  33. moo ‏@moo_ted 13m

    @justabhoy1 2/2 to have seen them. 2. No he didn’t. 3. No they didn’t. Hope this is of help to him.
    View conversation

    Reply
    Retweet
    Favorited

    moo ‏@moo_ted 14m

    @justabhoy1 no mate I’m not on that . Pass this to him. 1. LT didn’t pursue the lack of accounts he just said it would have been helpful 1/2
    View conversation
    ————————————————————-
    —————————————————————

    annoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolis says:
    Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 16:09


  34. moo ‏@moo_ted 5m

    @justabhoy1 2/2 affidavit had been issued late on Friday. Somers only worked on it Sat morn & Sun night.

    Details
    moo ‏@moo_ted 6m

    @justabhoy1 just looking back my notes. Mr Somers when Q about lack of accounts , said they have not had enough time to prepare as the 1/2

    annoffymesssoitizzhizzemdyfonedrapolis says:
    Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 16:09


  35. Listened to some of the podcast last night and one point Stuart Cosgrove mentioned struck me.

    He – perhaps understandably – was more tactful when discussing the woeful MSM coverage of the Rangers saga to date. IIRC, he also stated that the public might not be aware of the ‘differentiation’ amongst MSM journalists.

    Since getting hooked on RTC, then TSFM, I was expecting / hoping that eventually one of the MSM journalists – especially a print media journalist – would ‘break ranks’ and start reporting the truth wrt RFC/TRFC.

    I have been particularly underwhelmed by the BBC coverage, [Daly’s input notwithstanding].
    We have had a very limited few, decent articles by e.g. Gibbons, English, and even Spiers.

    But with the level of online Bampottery discussion and interest, there is clear proof that there is a gap in the Scottish football reporting market which the MSM has so far chosen not to plug.

    Of course there are commercial / advertising / demographic reasons for certain newspaper titles to carry on with the PR copy/paste output – but I would have thought that at least one paper would take a punt – to further differentiate itself from its competitors – by ignoring PR puff pieces. All the print media is in decline anyway, so why not ?


  36. Good podcast with BP & Stuart Cosgrave.

    Cosgrove is always worth listening to and I’m impressed that he still harbours so much resentment toward Gretna and Livingston.

    He made an interesting point about the anonymity of the bloggers on here. I know there are issues about security etc but it would be a brave step to post under their own names. What do others think? Is it just a non starter?


  37. bogsdollox says:
    Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 20:23
    4 0 Rate This
    He made an interesting point about the anonymity of the bloggers on here. I know there are issues about security etc but it would be a brave step to post under their own names. What do others think? Is it just a non starter?

    ———————————

    It’s got to be a non starter bd . Dog-whistling and the impending implosion makes it so . There will permarage off the radar in the coming weeks/months . Definitely not a time to be sticking one’s head above the parapet .


  38. Finally sussed out why I couldn’t listen to the podcast, all I was getting was an xml error and a load of code, it’s something within Google Chrome as I can hear the podcast fine in Firefox. I do have an RSS feed tagged onto Chrome so I guess I need to play around with it a while…..


  39. It would be a brave bampot who would be critical of the team playing at Ibrox without anonymity.
    I would have thought Stuart would have realised the repercussions.
    Very much enjoyed the blog though


  40. bogsdollox says:
    Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 20:23
    7 0 Rate This
    Good podcast with BP & Stuart Cosgrave.

    He made an interesting point about the anonymity of the bloggers on here. I know there are issues about security etc but it would be a brave step to post under their own names. What do others think? Is it just a non starter?
    ———————————————————————————————-
    Not sure that it makes much difference.
    Most names would be meaningless and would tell you little about the poster – often the pseudonyms tell you more about the poster than their real name would!

    And yes imo security is a major issue for some.

    Nothing wrong with anonymity if it’s not abused.


  41. bogsdollox says:
    Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 20:23
    7 0 Rate This
    Good podcast with BP & Stuart Cosgrave.

    Cosgrove is always worth listening to and I’m impressed that he still harbours so much resentment toward Gretna and Livingston.

    He made an interesting point about the anonymity of the bloggers on here. I know there are issues about security etc but it would be a brave step to post under their own names. What do others think? Is it just a non starter?

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

    I’d have been tempted to say we could all use our own names and have some safety by facing things in numbers, and after all we should not need to be in fear of using our names. If any untoward or threatening behaviour ensues then we can in theory all stand tall, stand together and report what is needed to the appropriate authorities etc etc

    But when you put this in the context of the recent, cynical and very carefully time DOS attacks being funded by someone, somewhere with an agenda and little or no scruples about how to purse it, well does anyone really want to take the risk?


  42. john clarke says:
    Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 21:18
    5 0 Rate This

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

    Nicely details summary John very much appreciated, please come them coming if you have the time and inclination to do so!

    Don’t worry about the double post (quadruple!!) it happens to us all at some point – site difficulties, slow response time etc etc

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

    TSFM – you have my sympathy with the DOS attack and performance issues, it may take time to restore everything to normality but everyone here will wait patiently I believe. The blog is worth it!


  43. John C
    Apologies for not having extended the mods’ thanks for your updates on the UTT. Your reports have been concise, informative and entertaining.
    I would have said so yesterday, but I’ve been a bit busy 🙁


  44. With regard to SC’s opinion of our anonymity. The mods had a meeting last week where that very thing was discussed. I don’t think that BP’s identity is all that secret anyway, and considering that he has volunteered to do the Podcast interviews, it is probably inevitable that any anonymity that attaches there won’t survive scrutiny. However each individual mod will make his or her own mind up in that regard.

    The origins of anonymity on the internet are not really to do with secrets anyway. I think that the use of nicknames have been with us as a hangover from the precursor to ‘net chat, CB radio. Of course, as Stuart said in the blog, the RTC situation is rather different from those of us at TSFM.

    It is however a very interesting subject for discussion – a discussion which we should be having.


  45. Really appreciate if people would take the time to rate the Podcasts on iTunes. No publicity is bad publicity etc. !!!


  46. Fairplay to Aberdeen. Scottish football needs a strong Scottish football. Blood the kids Lennie.

    Assumed it was some for of dirty tricks attack on the TSFM site. They don’t like it up ’em Captain…


  47. Anonymity- an interesting topic.

    It doesn’t bother me, because I’m just some old guy living a very private retired life away from my native Glasgow. So my name isn’t really going to tell anyone anything. However if I was 40 years old, still living in Glasgow, working in a large office in the city, and had a young family to consider, then I would probably not feel so relaxed about revealing all, so to speak.

    I think that removing the right to anonymity could only inhibit debate, and would probably reduce the number of posters willing to stick their necks out. Let’s not forget the days of printed newspapers, when many letters were published as “name and address supplied”. Maybe they still are, I haven’t bought a paper in over 10 years.

    If we want people to feel free to post views that might be controversial, at least to one part or other of the great West of Scotland divide, then I feel that confidentiality should be retained. Some will argue that everyone should have the courage of their convictions. Well maybe so, but not everyone is courageous, and even those who are often have others to think about.

    Also, some people have jobs that would make it uncomfortable or even impossible to post under their own name, for example senior police officers, HMRC officials, just to name the most obvious.

    In a perfect world full of perfect people, we could all express ourselves without having to think about consequences. That would be great and it’s something to aspire to. But sadly it’s not the world many have to live in right now.

    So I vote for the retention of anonymity. Of course anyone can post under their own name if they want to, and some do currently. However we all have different circumstances, and so I feel that it should remain a personal choice.


  48. john clarke says:
    Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 21:18

    ————————–
    Good stuff John.

    I had been bemused by HMRC’s tactic as accepting the EBT scheme was not in itself a sham but now understand that they were in fact relying on showing that it was the operation of the scheme that was in fact defective. This was a fairly subtle distinction for me as I thought the whole thing was sham. However I can see that by accepting the trust scheme to be legal they could then concentrate on how it was operated as an apparent vehicle for remuneration without getting bogged down in minutia.

    Although such a subtle distinction could easily bypass me it seems that HMRC are assertive that the panel of judges should have been more insightful.


  49. It is a bit sad though that there is still a need for anonymity.

    Agreed, that the risks are probably less than the early days of RTC – because now the bears accept that their club/company has major long-term problems.

    But all it takes is one drunk, dafty bear to cause a problem online.
    If you have a Linkedin account for example, there is a risk that someone could randomly send a malicious email to your employer. You might be OK though if your surname is e.g. Smith !

    Since the NSA / GCHQ revelations I have grown increasingly uncomfortable about a lack of privacy on the internet so last year I deleted my Linkedin account, changed my name on Facebook etc. [For what it’s worth.]

    Despite all that, I would still probably choose to err on the side of caution and retain anonymity here.


  50. neepheid says:
    Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 22:48
    ====================================================
    I wasn’t thinking about the posters losing their anonymity. Just the blog writers!

    I think it would be good if there were some who were willing to write under their own names but I fully understand the reasons why they may not wish to. I suppose what irkes me is that a site that wants to talk about issues in Scottish football has to do it anonymously through fear of being bullied etc. and that sticks in my craw.


  51. Obviously others are having the same problem I did in logging in. I had to revert to an old name rather than my usual Castofthousands label. I did eventually manage to stumble across the login process but it was more by luck than logic.

    I wonder what other posters would be contributing if they could log in?

    ===============
    Zilch says:
    Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 15:19

    “Is this some sort of quantum theory of finance? ”
    ———————–
    Your succinct paragraph following the above headline was a piece of philosophical artistry. What can be deduced from the brief twitter exchange referring to Ahmad’s court action is that PMcG was on the ball concerning finance. It looks as if the good ship Titanic II passed within a whisker of an icy impact and is still navigating treacherous waters. I’m sure crew and passengers will be at emergency muster stations.

    ================
    Billy Boyce says:
    Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 11:42

    “I believe the Albion Car Park was necessary for RFC to be granted an operating licence by GCC when the Club Deck was constructed. ”
    ————————
    If true then the separation of this asset from the football stadium could be real stumbling block. If they’re all in it together then it represents an amalgamation of assets. If they’re at loggerheads then this would make the stadium difficult to operate as a going concern if this particular spanner were placed in the works. Its like a game of chess.

    King’s pawn to Knight’s pawn 2?

    ===============
    y4rmy says:
    Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 14:41

    “And granted expenses to RIFC…Yet another windfall!”
    ———————–
    You’re really getting the hang of this PR stuff.

    This could indeed be portrayed as a ‘victory from the jaws of defeat moment’. With no TSFM to offer a counterpoint the succulent lamb could be sizzling away as we read.

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

    bogsdollox says:
    Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 20:23

    “He made an interesting point about the anonymity of the bloggers on here. I know there are issues about security etc but it would be a brave step to post under their own names. What do others think? Is it just a non starter?”
    ————————–
    I think it’s less of a non-starter than it might have been previously. The Bears are wisening up so I don’t think they could be so easily whipped up into a mindless frenzy. We have however seen how PR companies can target individuals (PMcG). If a p[articular poster were making particularly insightful observations could they be individually targeted in a similar way. Would a poster be concerned about making informed comments in case he attracts the unwanted attentions of a professional PR organisation. Could investigations be made or smears concocted that might even appear in the press. I’d like to think this is just paranoia but its not is it? Its quite plausible. In fact given what we have witnessed so far you would be surprised if it weren’t tried.

    I’d have no problem losing my anonymity but I don’t have a wife, kids and reputation to protect. If I got a beating in the press or on the streets I could roll with it. I wouldn’t want to volunteer anyone else for such jeopardy however. On balance I’d rather keep the anonymity and risk the potential for diminished credibility. TSFM have obviously accrued credibility with its anonymity intact (See Thomo’s latest blog). I know Stuart Cosgrove wouldn’t be intending it in the manner I am about to characterise it as but it sound like a ‘who are these people’ moment.

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

    TSFM

    You had a bit of video posted a week or so back fron a poster who strives to ignite lively debate. Any chance it could have been ‘trojan horsed’. Posters uploading video contaminated in such a manner might lead to the site being reinfected with each contribution.

    Sheer conjecture by me with limited technical knowledge but thrown in like two bronze coins. nevertheless.


  52. Re the anonymity question.
    I haven’t listened to the podcast yet, but it strikes me that anyone with experience of working in the media raising anonymity as an issue is being a bit rich.
    They quote anonymous “sources” or vague unnamed “spokespersons” with regularity in most of their stories. So what’s good for the goose….

    I’d give it a listen first ….
    TSFM


  53. When you have a newspaper running a banner headline that a judge is a Celtic supporting season ticket holder , then it’s no wonder that many are happier using an anonymous moniker.

    There have been many individuals who have been tasked with making decisions during the course of Rangers deciding to deliberately deceive all Scottish member clubs by not declaring the full nature of the contractual arrangements they had with players.

    Have you ever seen a banner headline in a national newspaper declaring which team any of the following support. They were all in positions of power and decision making during Rangers years of rule breaking.

    George Peat
    Gordon Smith
    Lex Gold
    Campbell Ogilvie
    Lord Nimmo Smith
    David Longmuir
    Jim Ballantyne
    Sandy Bryson

    Not a Celtic supporter in there, and therefore not a banner headline about their supporting tendencies , although almost of them were conflicted due to their support of the rule breaking club.

    And no outraged cry of “who are these people, who do they support……we demand to know”


  54. john clarke on Tuesday, February 25, 2014 at 21:18
    63 0 Rate This
    Today at the UpperTier Tax Tribunal.( Read this only if you are particularly interested: there is nothing particularly exciting ….
    —–
    Great stuff John. Really appreciated. What bother this site is having.

    The issues surrounding Stuart’s chat about anonymity have been mentioned above, though, I felt Phil (‘The Irish Blogger’ — funny that they know his name yet use that anonymous title!) was a little irked by some hidden keyboard heroes recently who were having a go at his reporting.

    I see no reason for the people who run the site to make their identities known. It’s open season on whistleblowers, and anyone who is seen to be aiding them. The stupidity of that attitude was summed up by the open animosity towards RTC, who, in fact, had information useful to RFC fans. I suppose it was the comments by many jelly & ice-screamers and the grave-dancing fraternity that perhaps turned even the Ibrox moderates off the RTC blog — more’s the pity.

    As long as threats and intimidation are aimed at those perceived to be arch-Rangers haters, then anonymity is wise. Stuart mentioned that The Rangers Standard bloggers use their own names, which is to be admired. But are they ever threatened for their opinions? If they faced the same level of nastiness, they might think twice about guarding their identities.

    Terrific listen, as someone said, and hour of Stuart would have been braw. Nice jingle breaks, too, even though it meant a few sentences being faded out.

    Would Mr Hutton be up for it? Maybe he and Stuart discussing football governance? A dynamic duo.


  55. From Richard Wilson in the Herald, interviewing Wallace.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/wallace-still-short-of-trust-after-loan.23534300

    “Rangers’ last set of accounts contained a £2.5m unsecured lending facility from directors. According to Wallace, this has never been drawn against and is no longer in place.”

    I find that interesting. I recall that when the accounts were published, there was speculation that Deloitte’s had insisted on this facility as a condition for signing off the accounts on a “going concern” basis. Now it seems that whatever assurances Deloittes were given were worthless, since the facility turns out to have been “withdrawn” just when it was most needed.

    I can’t imagine Deloittes being happy about this, since it now looks very much as if they were duped. They shouldn’t really be signing off companies as going concerns that very predictably run out of cash 8 months into the next accounting period.


  56. neepheid says:
    Wednesday, February 26, 2014 at 10:36
    16 0 Rate This

    From Richard Wilson in the Herald, interviewing Wallace …
    —-

    That £2.5m did seem almost too good to be true. I wonder which director/directors were responsible? Those who’ve on to new and better chateaux? So, instead of the £2.5m unsecured facility, there’s now two secured for a total of £1.5m?

    “The Laxey Facility” sounds like a movie Michael Caine starred in as Harry Palmer …


  57. I had a brief exchange of posts, I think on RTC’s site, with a BBC journalist about the issue of anonymity – I think this was before Lennon & some prominent Celtic supporters received some post more than explosive than a “thumbs down”, which no pun intended, inflamed the situation.

    I can’t remember the name but as I say, he was a professional journalist. I googled his name and the first three individuals were a murderer in the US, someone else who had committed a serious crime in (coincidentally) Norn Iron and indeed a BBC journalist. I said I had no real indication which one was him. Indeed if he was any of those at all.

    I could use any name on here, my own or more dangerously someone else’s – who is going to monitor that?
    >If it needs an email address that matches – fine easy to set up a free email.
    >If it needs to be a facebook account – easy to do also.
    >Would we be required to provide only business email addresses rather than free services? That’d be unfair to retired or unemployed posters?
    >Or maybe we should all have identity cards and the numbers used for someone to check against…?

    TBH and IMO it’s a cheap criticism – for professional journalists, freelance or employed, their name is their brand. It’s what gets them recognised and because of that recognition, paid. It’s in journalists’ commercal interest to use their real names, they are not doing it out of altruism.

    Gie’s peace on this one.


  58. Neepheid/Danish Pastry: how many of the directors who offered this facility are still in situ? I seem to remember posting something along these lines when there was a high turnover in the boardoom.

    If that facility was removed should there have been an announcement to the stock exchange that something with a material effect on the company’s finances had changed? I am sure shareholders would have been interested in that…


  59. My congratulations and thanks to TSFM, Big Pink and Stuart Cosgrove for producing an excellent podcast, if this standard is maintained, then not only is this blog outdoing the printed media, it is also showing the way for the broadcast media too.

    John Clarke has again shown how reporting should be done, making a dry tax tribunal into a very interesting, and informative, read. I can’t remember the last time I felt someone in the MSM wrote so well. Thanks John, I’m looking forward to your next report.

    neepheid says:

    Wednesday, February 26, 2014 at 10:36

    Totally get your point re how Deloittes should be feeling just now, but doubt they even pay attention to what’s going on, as long as they get paid. Still, no matter how things change, at Ibrox, the more they remain the same. Need a credit facility to get the accounts signed off, they get one they never use, and is withdrawn before the end of the financial year it was required in. Now, two days before a court hearing that could seriously damage/force them into administration, they get another similar facility that leaves the judge with the wriggle-room to say there’s no evidence of imminent insolvency.

    I wonder how much that first credit facility cost, even though, apparently, not used; and will the Laxey facility be similar, with the £150,000 fee payable whether used, in part or in full, or not, giving Laxey a nice little ‘reward’ or recompense for their loss making investment.

    Only conjecture on my part, obviously, but so much is invited by the financial history of this fledgling football club that we can hardly be blamed for indulging ourselves in it.


  60. Danish Pastry says:
    Wednesday, February 26, 2014 at 08:28
    =========================================================

    Re Anonymity – It appears I continue to plough a lone furough on this one.

    RTC was a whistleblower site used by a blogger to place confidential information into the public domain for discussion and analysis. Anonymity was a pre-requiste for that site to protect the identity of the blogger, his sources and from the law. This site doesn’t normally have any of those issues and where it does Anonymity can be used in the same way the MSM does when it needs to protect sources and itself.

    TSFM makes a claim to be a site where all Scottish football fans are welcome but that claim has a weakness because it fails to attract significant numbers of fans of one of the biggest clubs in the country.

    One reason why this is so is because there is a perception, rightly or wrongly, that TSFM has a “Rangers bashing pro Celtic agenda”. Discarding anonymity would deal with that issue. When it is clear to all who the moderators are and what the agenda is then who knows we might get more Rangers posters and maybe even a Rangers mod one day and then TSFM can speak with more authority and credibility against the maladministration of the game by the SFA/SPFL.

    Giving up anonymity is easy for me to write about because it probably won’t affect me much but we shouldn’t give into the bully boys and I suspect that after a time and police intervention where required it would soon calm down. There has been a real change in Police attitudes to internet aggression as the felow Limond found out and that example might just assist the real bampots to reign it in.


  61. My last post has a lot of bold print, sorry, was meant to only be the ‘should’ after deloittes in the first line to neepheid. Drat no edit facility 🙁


  62. Danish Pastry says:

    Wednesday, February 26, 2014 at 12:04

    A strip most suitable for a football association run by clowns. I doubt even Scotland Ladies football team would want to be seen dead in that, though the colour scheme is a tad more suitable for them.


  63. barcabhoy says:
    Wednesday, February 26, 2014 at 04:48

    When you have a newspaper running a banner headline that a judge is a Celtic supporting season ticket holder , then it’s no wonder that many are happier using an anonymous moniker.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    It’s hardly the end of the world or the start of a pogrom when a judge gets named in a newspaper for supporting a football team is it? I do however take your point about the others you list not suffering the same treatment but maybe it’s because we all knew already which team they supported so it was hardly news.

    Judges are public servants and don’t get to be anonymous because they are accountable. I see they were recently they were defending staunchly their practice not to disclose their “interests” (financial and otherwise) in discussions with the Scottish Parliament. I think they should.

    TSFM is part of the media and also acts as a public servant in defending the interests of Scottish football fans. It too should be accountable to that public and not least to the people who fund it.


  64. allyjambo says:
    Wednesday, February 26, 2014 at 12:04
    1 0 Rate This

    My last post has a lot of bold print, sorry, was meant to only be the ‘should’ after deloittes in the first line to neepheid. Drat no edit facility ….

    ———-

    It’s awefool, now we all lock lyke half-nits what duzn’t can grommer and sintox. Never mind the Laxey and Easdale … brang book the edut faculity 😀


  65. bogsdollox says:

    Wednesday, February 26, 2014 at 12:01

    I have to admit, I don’t see how posting the correct, or even pretend correct, names of posters, or main bloggers, on here would encourage more TRFC supporters to contribute, as I wouldn’t believe what like, say, Auldheid says, anymore than I do already, just because he has used his real name. I can’t imagine anyone who takes a different stance from me, or the rest of the blog, is going to believe it, or find it acceptable, just because he (Auldheid) uses his real name. The content generally speaks for itself.

    From my own point of view, I live in England and only know one TRFC fan here and doubt I’d receive much heartache should he read anything I write. On the other hand, my family still live in Scotland, with plenty of bears who might take exception to what I say. I wouldn’t suggest they’d go looking for my son to take it out on him, but if someone was criticising me in a derogatory way in his hearing, over what I’d written, he might be inclined to argue, even though he has absolutely no interest in football (not my fault, honest), not so much over the content of the blog, but no one likes to hear their dad called all sorts of vile names, do they? Not much chance of it happening, I grant you, but I wouldn’t put my family at any risk for anything, and certainly not over a daft game, however strongly I feel about the injustice that’s being carried out before our eyes.

    There may well be a calmer attitude from the more violent section of the TRFC support at present, but should something happen to bring about the end of TRFC, and sites like TSFM are seen by the bears to be culpable, ie helped to put the truth out there, the cry of – ‘Who are these people? We deserve to know their names.’- would almost certainly be heard again!

Comments are closed.