Podcast Episode 3 – David Low

ByTrisidium

Podcast Episode 3 – David Low

davidLowDavid Low

represents a highly significant component of the history of Celtic FC and consequently a highly significant component of how Scottish Football has panned out in the last 20 years.

As Fergus McCann’s Aide-de-Camp, Low was instrumental in helping him formulate and implement the plans which ultimately allowed control of the club to be wrested from the Kelly and White families. Low also helped McCann to rebuild and regenerate Celtic as a modern football club.

His views are unsurprisingly Celtic-centred, and this interview reveals his ambition for the club to ultimately leave Scottish Football behind. That may or may not be at odds with many of our readers, but the stark analysis of the realities facing football in this country may resonate.

Podcast LogoHe provides a window on the pragmatism of the likes of McCann, Celtic and many other clubs in respect of the demise of Rangers. He pours scorn on Dave King’s vision of a cash-rich Rangers future, and provides little comfort for those who seek succour for our failing national sport, believing that Scotland will find it impossible to emerge from the football backwater in an increasingly global industry.

Agree or not with Low’s prognosis, it is difficult to deny his compelling analysis of our place in the football world.

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.

3,066 Comments so far

JimBhoyPosted on1:11 pm - Apr 29, 2014


I think I read recently that DK still hadn’t cover a few years’ tax returns and the boys at SARS were getting ready to take action…I am sure he enjoys his liberty and believe he will not invest anything significant (He probably legally cannot) in any investment opportunity outwith SA and i cannot see him come back to live in Scotland, when he is over he can’t get back to SA quick enough..Again still not sure of his overall goal except self promotion…

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on1:16 pm - Apr 29, 2014


pau1mart1n says:
April 29, 2014 at 9:56 am

so to sum up
no bank debt – licence issued.
some bank debt – licence issued.
lots of bank debt – licence issued
Found to be cheating on an industrial scale – licence issued
Huge street corner debt at Wonga rates – licence issued
Owned and run by Robert Mugabe – licence issued
Openly admit money laundering – licence issued
The list is endless
………….

I ‘ve said it before…the SFA will accept…agree and assist them no matter what they do or say….it is as corrupt as it gets…the SFA know they can do whatever they like and nobody…absolutely nobody can do a damn thing to stop them!
………………

View Comment

futbolPosted on1:16 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Paulmac2 says:
April 29, 2014 at 12:37 am

We can now assume why the SFA were so keen to announce the venues for the Scottish Cup semi finals….so far in advance…

The early notification that credit and debit cards would be an issue…and the possibility of cash flow issues…there would need to be revenue generated as a lump sum..around April…

It suggests to me that someone at the SFA was given a heads up that cash would be needed…around March/April…the cup final was to far away…cue the unexplainable decision to award both semi finals to Ibrox?

Is it unreasonable to assume that a private meeting between both would have been discussed to agree what was needed?

———————

I believe someone posted on here around that time saying that the SFA was in lockdown (some sort of uber-lockdown, as opposed to one about the biscuit tin).

2+2=?

View Comment

GiovanniPosted on1:18 pm - Apr 29, 2014


JimBhoy says:
April 29, 2014 at 1:11 pm

I believe the references to “clever Dave” still having issues with SARS come from a Bill McMurdo piece earlier in the year in which he made reference to South African media sources. Unfortunately there don’t appear to be any mention in any major South African news outlet. I wonder where Mr McMurdo got his information.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on1:35 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Nice to see ScotRail supporting the Scottish Cup final transport. Long time since I’ve heard of a football special.

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on1:45 pm - Apr 29, 2014


@FUTBOL ‘Lockdown’ or ‘Meltdown’ ?

View Comment

scottcPosted on1:46 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Para Handy says:
April 29, 2014 at 10:03 am

One would have to assume that the business plan within the 127 Day Review takes into account the UEFA FFP rules when it targets European football?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27041079

FFP won’t be a problem, Para Handy, because they base it on published accounts and according to those, Rangers made a £1.1m profit last year. They also revalued the properties as being worth £79.2m (MP and Ibrox only) but only ‘booked’ a ~£42m portion of the new value, so they have lots of ‘wiggle room’ and will shift more of that ‘value’ on to the balance sheet each year to show recurrign profits.

View Comment

TaysiderPosted on1:52 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Re the attitude of the SFA, is it possible they are concerned that if the worst case outcome were to arise for TRFC, that there is no doubt that it will be viewed as self inflicted rather than the result of being kicked when they were down (even if the price is a nine team Championship for part of next season)?

View Comment

McCaig`s TowerPosted on1:53 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Some quick comments on that Telegraph article.

1. It appears to confirm that a penalty for a TRFC insolvency would be 25 points, thus suggesting that not only TRFC is the “same” club in some sense, but that the argument that a new insolvency would be the first under the new rules has been rebutted. This has implications for Dunfermline, Dundee and LIvingston (for another few months).

2. It appears to confirm that the SPFL will adopt a “common-sense” approach to interpreting their rules in the case of defining when the end of the season is). I previously highlighted a possible anomaly in that whereas the end of the season is defined as the date of the last League Match or otherwise as determined by the Board, the play-off matches commence before the season has technically ended (as there are still Premiership matches to be played). However there remains the possibility of a club which qualifies for the play-off suffering an insolvency event, which, had it happened a week earlier, would have denied them that play-off place.

3. There is a suggestion that Hearts have to be out of admin or they will suffer another points penalty. This contrasts with the situation at East End Park. From memory we went into admin in March, approved the CVA in July, (had that horrendous hiccup in October) but did not finally come out of admin in December. Bryan Jackson told us that because we had agreement in principle then no further sanctions would be levied, despite us technically being in administration at the start of the season. Admittedly that situation overlapped the old rules and the new rules.

4 “From whence”. Yeuch. No need for “from” there, Shirley?

View Comment

gherrybhoy57Posted on2:17 pm - Apr 29, 2014


The valuations of Ibrox and MP which have appeared in various documents emanating from the Blue Room since SDM took control of Oldco have always struck me as odd, to say the least.
The stadium is situated in Ibrox,not the most salubrious area of Glasgow. It has a listed frontage which must be retained in any redevelopment of the site. High quality residential development is out of the question and I struggle to envisage a Tesco or Asda behind that wonderful facade. The most valuable use of the property is as a football stadium, occupied by an incarnation of Rangers paying a rent of £2-£3m per annum. Given the risks involved in running such a football club, no investor would accept a yield of less than 10%, which gives a MAXIMUM value of £30m. If a higher value is required, then the rent payable would have to rise commensurately. Not good news for those running the football club.
The value attributed to MP seems to be on the basis of fully serviced residential development land, including full planning permission. I don’t believe MP fulfils these criteria.
It ill behoves a plc to play fast and loose with property valuations, especially since there have been recent transactions involving the same assets at vastly different prices.

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on2:17 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Tartanwulver says:
April 26, 2014 at 9:22 pm
34 0 i
Rate This

PhilMacGiollaBhain says:
April 26, 2014 at 3:12 pm

No his [Wallace] level of dissatisfaction was no Am Dram act-he realized he had been sold a pup.
——————————————–
How is it that people who get themselves into such significant positions in this saga seem to do so without having checked out the things that everyone on here knows? Do they seriously take what they’re told over a business lunch as gospel and put their career as an honest business person at risk on the basis of someone’s sales pitch, without asking around? That level of naivety (if that’s what it is) in in itself pretty damning on someone’s business record.
__________________________________

There must be a phd in psychology here for someone more intelligent than me, but to me it seems there are a large proportion of people who live in a bubble – call it cognitive dissonance/denial/head in the sand whatever – who simply cannot accept the reality that The Rangers really have been taken to the cleaners by spivs, Green, Whyte etc. and that Murray was the biggest one of all.

The bubble is populated not just by the Rangers minded, but many impartial reasonable people who haven’t woken up to the fact that the Scottish media, BBC, STV, Herald et al are riddled with succulent lamb PR churnalists and so write off most of the insights from sites like this (if they are even aware of them) as bitter internet bampot “Rangers haters” believing that while there is a problem things are not as bad as the “Rangers haters” claim.

It’s a classic case of where taking the middle ground between two sides doesn’t actually lead to a reasonable / accurate position.

The most intelligent and otherwise competent of people are perfectly capable of being duped via their own denial that their current belief system isn’t exactly accurate. It’s not an IQ thing.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on2:19 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Re pre-packs.

It is possible to do a pre-pack that does not include all of the assets of the insolvent company. It is even possible to do two pre-pack sales (some assets to X and some to Y) but that would be even more difficult to justify for an administrator than even the justification that has to be shown when carrying out a straightforward pre-pack sale.

View Comment

Call Me Nae IdeaPosted on2:54 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Smugas, thanks for the reply.

Is it possible that HMRC have been watching since January and may now be about to step in?

We’ve had copious posts and tweets saying TRFC have no money yet they have soldiered on. The non-payment of tax for a few months would no doubt give them some wiggle room to keep going for a time along with the semis money and the loans.

Maybe the club really is a zombie and only a headshot will stop it?

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on3:04 pm - Apr 29, 2014


JimBhoy says:
April 29, 2014 at 1:11 pm

I think I read recently that DK still hadn’t cover a few years’ tax returns and the boys at SARS were getting ready to take action…I am sure he enjoys his liberty and believe he will not invest anything significant (He probably legally cannot) in any investment opportunity outwith SA.
======================================
My understanding of his situation is a bit different in that I believe what SARS set out to achieve was the repatriation of profits which were earned in South Africa but which had been ‘moved’ abroad to set up a new without tax having been paid to SARS.

I don’t know enough about South African financial regulation as to what restrictions might apply to money earned and taxed in South Africa being invested abroad.

But if there was money that had previously been invested abroad which wasn’t taxable under South African tax laws then that might provide a ‘pot’ for an investment. But again I don’t know how SARS would view that situation.

We really need an international tax expert to give us the definitive answers I reckon. Even the irrepressible Mr Patey might not be able to give his usual thumbs-up to this one 😆

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on3:11 pm - Apr 29, 2014


gherrybhoy57 says:
April 29, 2014 at 2:17 pm

4

0

Rate This

The valuations of Ibrox and MP which have appeared in various documents emanating from the Blue Room since SDM took control of Oldco have always struck me as odd, to say the least.
The stadium is situated in Ibrox,not the most salubrious area of Glasgow. It has a listed frontage which must be retained in any redevelopment of the site. High quality residential development is out of the question and I struggle to envisage a Tesco or Asda behind that wonderful facade. The most valuable use of the property is as a football stadium, occupied by an incarnation of Rangers paying a rent of £2-£3m per annum. Given the risks involved in running such a football club, no investor would accept a yield of less than 10%, which gives a MAXIMUM value of £30m. If a higher value is required, then the rent payable would have to rise commensurately. Not good news for those running the football club.
The value attributed to MP seems to be on the basis of fully serviced residential development land, including full planning permission. I don’t believe MP fulfils these criteria.
It ill behoves a plc to play fast and loose with property valuations, especially since there have been recent transactions involving the same assets at vastly different prices.

__________________________________________________________

It is however not unreasonable to take an alternative view of the valuation on the balance sheet.
If TRFC as a football club needed to build a stadium from scratch to accommodate 40,000 fans – without which it could not carry on its normall business – and such a thing were not readily available, what would such an undertaking cost?
This – minus wear and tear/ scuff marks – represents the potential value of this asset to the solvent trading plc, and it is legitimate and legal to represent it as such.
It can be valued at the size of the black hole in the finances that would have resulted were it not available for the unhindered enjoyment of the plc.
Its value to anyone else only becomes pertinent in the event of a sale, or in the event of insolvency.
Such is the nature of valuation.
A hot ball of gristle encased in pastry at 4pm on a cold Saturday afternoon in Parkhead has a book value of about £3.
A much better Scotch pie 400yds away in the farmfoods freezer – as one of a pack of 10, has a book value of about 1/10th as much.
No one would quibble with the valuation of the £3 pie. Nevertheless 20 minutes after the fulltime whistle has blown, if unsold, it will probably be given away for free.

The value of any asset is what someone would pay for it, even if that person is the current owner. Clubs of similar following to TRFC have paid many tens of millions to develop or replace stadia similar to Ibrox.

View Comment

burghbhoyPosted on3:20 pm - Apr 29, 2014


BroganRoganTrevinoHogan
April 29, 2014 at 7:05 am,

A very thought-provoking analysis, but I must say I think your attack on LNS’ explanation of what a “football club” consists of is misguided.

1. Leaving the specific case of Sevco to one side, We can all agree that a football club, whatever it is, is an entity that can/does span distinct legal/structural/organisation forms – history allows us no other choice, after our clubs start life as an unincorporated association, and *continue* to exist as an entity after incorporation adopting the limited company model ie. spanning the two different forms.

2. For this reason, the rulebooks of Football associations/leagues don’t restrict a club’s existence to “X legal entity”, or “X unincorporated association”, as they must allow for continuity of their competitors (member clubs) between these forms. Thus we have the requirement for a “transfer of membership” allowance, which is utilised at incorporation to transfer the unincorporated association’s membership to the new legal entity – ensuring continuity in the eyes of the association of their competitior (member club).

3. Does this concept that football gives us of an entity existing – the football club – that can span different organisational/legal forms, and maintain it’s identity, have any legal basis?

Yes. Clearly. Consider TUPE law, the regulations of which apply to… (quoting from the statute book):

“3. 1(a) a transfer of an undertaking, business or part of an undertaking or business situated
immediately before the transfer in the United Kingdom to another person where there is a
transfer of an economic entity which retains its identity; …..”

“(2) In this regulation “economic entity” means an organised grouping of resources which has the
objective of pursuing an economic activity, whether or not that activity is central or ancillary.”

Now these entities being referred to are *distinct* from companies/particular legal forms, they transfer between them after all. Yet we have an entity that is recognised by law as “retaining its identity”. This isnt a fiction, or something that – quoting you – “stands in the “illogical and legally impractical” corner with the dunce’s hat squarely on its head.” It’s the Law of the Land.

4. Did the SPL rules LNS was tasked with ruling on (and of course the SPFL rules now) make reference to these entities referred to in point 3 in their description of what comprised a club?

Of course they did. The SPL/SPFL definitions describe:
– “Club” refers to the “undertaking of an association football club”, which is “owned and operated” by the…
– “Member”, which refers to the “holder of a Share” and must be a…
– “Person”, a term referring to a “natural person, corporate or unincorporated body”.

It’s clear from these that the “corporate” body is the “Member”, leaving us to understand “undertaking” as the entity referred to in point 3, or to reach for a dictionary definition of the word, the noun meaning; “A task that is taken on; an enterprise:”

5. You refer to this concept of the football club as being “like a fog… no distinct shape or boundary, substance or form, nor any set of individuals who are ultimately responsible for its conduct or integrity.”

I disagree. Just as TUPE law identifies it’s company-spanning entity as being “an organised grouping of resources which has the
objective of pursuing an economic activity”, I’d also say a football club has material, “touchable” existence in the form of the components that comprise it, whether that be people, property of emblems that together define it’s identifiable existence.

An existence that logic, football law, and legal sense all permit, even proscribe, can span/transfer between particular legal/organisational forms like legal entities.

I’d welcome yours, and others, thoughts on these 5 points i’ve raised.

View Comment

gherrybhoy57Posted on3:27 pm - Apr 29, 2014


ResinLapDog @ 3.11pm

Point taken. Yes there is a difference between Open Market Value and Book Value. That’s why folk say that accountants know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on3:50 pm - Apr 29, 2014


If a club in Administration is allowed promotion the ba’ really is up on the slates.

The reason for going into Administration in this case is because their expenditure on Players is waaaay out of kilter with their league opponents.

They have won leagues with players they cannot afford, it is financial doping, and they HAVE been obtaining a sporting advantage.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on3:52 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Burghbhoy

You say – “We can all agree that a football club, whatever it is, is an entity that can/does span distinct legal/structural/organisation forms”

I am sorry – but no we can’t.

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on3:56 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Don’t be swayed from the target though, the target is Campbell Ogilvie and the SFA, The Rangers are but cannon fodder.

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on4:02 pm - Apr 29, 2014


JimBhoy says:
I think I read recently that DK still hadn’t cover a few years’ tax returns and the boys at SARS were getting ready to take action…I am sure he enjoys his liberty and believe he will not invest anything significant (He probably legally cannot) in any investment opportunity outwith SA and i cannot see him come back to live in Scotland, when he is over he can’t get back to SA quick enough..Again still not sure of his overall goal except self promotion…
==========================================================================
Jimbhoy…may I refer you and other bloggers to the post by Slimshady61 of a few weeks ago, which, in summary, stated that any identifiable onshore assets of King will more than likely have been ring-fenced by SARS in settlement of outstanding penalties and fines and more importantly, due to SA rand foreign exchange fluctuations and controls over the last year or so, King’s net wealth, in onshore South African terms, has probably been reduced to the point where he may not even be able to renew his own season ticket.
This would appear to be in addition to some 12 years tax returns still outstanding, if we are to believe media reports, to which you correctly alluded to in your post.
PS…apologies to Slimshady61 if I have misrepresented his post.

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on4:11 pm - Apr 29, 2014


futbol says:

April 29, 2014 at 1:16 pm
Paulmac2 says:
April 29, 2014 at 12:37 am

We can now assume why the SFA were so keen to announce the venues for the Scottish Cup semi finals….so far in advance…

The early notification that credit and debit cards would be an issue…and the possibility of cash flow issues…there would need to be revenue generated as a lump sum..around April…

It suggests to me that someone at the SFA was given a heads up that cash would be needed…around March/April…the cup final was to far away…cue the unexplainable decision to award both semi finals to Ibrox?

Is it unreasonable to assume that a private meeting between both would have been discussed to agree what was needed?

———————

I believe someone posted on here around that time saying that the SFA was in lockdown (some sort of uber-lockdown, as opposed to one about the biscuit tin).

2+2=?
================================================================
2+2=5 (beans)…anyway…cannot speak for the contents of the biscuit tin!

View Comment

burghbhoyPosted on4:17 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
April 29, 2014 at 3:52 pm
Replying to your post…
“You say – “We can all agree that a football club, whatever it is, is an entity that can/does span distinct legal/structural/organisation forms”

I am sorry – but no we can’t.”

That claim of mine was based on the assumption that we believe our club’s are entities (obviously not in the particular sense of “legal entity”) that pre-dated their incorporation date.

eg. Celtic FC: an entity that exists today, was founded in 1888, but only incorporated 1897 ie. an entity that spans distinct “legal/structural/organisation forms” (unincorporated association and limited company).

So is Celtic FC – referring specifically in this context to the entity that spans those forms – not a football club in your view? Really?

It would seem bizarre to claim so from my perspective, as that would logically mean the football club founded in 1888, called Celtic, was an entity that no longer existed, but if that’s your position than so be it.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on4:23 pm - Apr 29, 2014


burghbhoy says:
April 29, 2014 at 3:20 pm
4 0 Rate This

… Consider TUPE law, the regulations of which apply to… (quoting from the statute book):

“3. 1(a) a transfer of an undertaking, business or part of an undertaking or business situated
immediately before the transfer in the United Kingdom to another person where there is a
transfer of an economic entity which retains its identity; …..”

“(2) In this regulation “economic entity” means an organised grouping of resources which has the
objective of pursuing an economic activity, whether or not that activity is central or ancillary.”

… Just as TUPE law identifies it’s company-spanning entity as being “an organised grouping of resources which has the
objective of pursuing an economic activity”…
———-

Just a brief question or two: hasn’t the economic entity you describe been consigned to liquidation? If not, which economic entity is being liquidated?
How can you transfer something that is being liquidated, essentially bringing it out of liquidation? That’s why the players became free agents, surely?

View Comment

scottcPosted on4:32 pm - Apr 29, 2014


burghbhoy says:
April 29, 2014 at 3:20 pm

“3. 1(a) a transfer of an undertaking, business or part of an undertaking or business situated
immediately before the transfer in the United Kingdom to another person where there is a
transfer of an economic entity which retains its identity; …..”

“(2) In this regulation “economic entity” means an organised grouping of resources which has the
objective of pursuing an economic activity, whether or not that activity is central or ancillary.”

I think you are confusing a legal entity and an economic entity. I recently outsourced a stores function at a large multi-national. The ‘economic entity’ was that stores function and all the people who worked in stores. They TUPE’d across to the legal entity that was the acquiring company but the stores function in itself, whilst readily identifiable as an economic entity, had NO legal persona.

In the same way a club has legal persona as an unicorporated body (through its office bearers/committee) or as an incorporated body. There is no other type of ‘club’ and the latter is not really a club in a legal sense, regardless of what it might call itself.

View Comment

y4rmyPosted on4:50 pm - Apr 29, 2014


If a club in Administration is allowed promotion the ba’ really is up on the slates.

The reason for going into Administration in this case is because their expenditure on Players is waaaay out of kilter with their league opponents.

They have won leagues with players they cannot afford, it is financial doping, and they HAVE been obtaining a sporting advantage.

It’s worth remembering that there never used to be any punishment for entering administration. In fact, Leicester City went into admin in October 2002 with 30m+ debts which were wiped out, and were then promoted to the EPL that same season! The outrage this provoked led directly to the 10 point deduction rule being introduced.

You can still be promoted while in administration, but as regards relegation the application of the points penalty depends on how many points you finish on. If you go into admin before the 4th Thursday in March the deduction is applied immediately. However, if you go into admin after this date and get relegated anyway the points deduction is applied in the following season. I can only speculate why there are different rules for promotion and relegation.

In my opinion, the penalty should be more onerous both North and South of the border.

View Comment

PW1874Posted on4:52 pm - Apr 29, 2014


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27210616?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

McCoist’s comments on player wages seem in stark contrast to Mr Wallace and his 120 Day Review.

The Review version

The Club acquired a number of players in Summer 2013 that, based on financial forecasts, it should have known that it could not afford.

The first team squad has the second highest wage bill in Scottish football for a team currently playing in the third tier. The total player wage cost is well in excess of the level it should be primarily due to generous and poorly structured contracts that were awarded to some players when they joined the Club.

The McCoist version (BBC Website)

McCoist, who will hold talks with Wallace over his transfer budget for their Championship campaign next season, added: “And I probably should mention that I am totally against any indication that the players have the money.

“One or two people have wrongly questioned players coming in and money being spent.

“Just to put the record completely straight on that, we didn’t spend any money at all on the players, the budget came down, the wages in relation to turnover at the club is probably the envy of any club in world football.

“So although some of the money has gone on players’ wages, it is a very small fraction of where the money has gone.

“It (the ratio) is maybe 27/ 28%. I think the lowest in the Championship last year was 53 or 54% so that would give you the indication that the players’ budget should be well within the overall turnover and is within the overall turnover.

“So, I refute the players taking any stick at all on it, plus the fact that it wasn’t myself who offered the players the contracts.”

Mr Wallace really could be doing with a little more help, maybe his chit-chat with the Super One over next season’s war chest will iron out these difficulties.

View Comment

twopandaPosted on5:05 pm - Apr 29, 2014


McCoist `stunned` re; 67m …..(Various) – [as if..]
So `wisnae him` either
What`s his %
& didn’t he get 1m shares @ a penny or something – and supported CG with fans on STs?

PR TWADDLE! :slamb:

View Comment

scottcPosted on5:06 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Mr McC “It (the ratio) is maybe 27/ 28%. I think the lowest in the Championship last year was 53 or 54% so that would give you the indication that the players’ budget should be well within the overall turnover and is within the overall turnover.”

I’m sure we would find that the 53/54% was for wages for the entire operation, in the same way that TRFC’s is 99.5%. The 27/28%, of course, is just ‘first team’ wages. They do have a way with words

View Comment

BroguesRoguesAndILikeThePoguesPosted on5:06 pm - Apr 29, 2014


OT
hi all,
i found out today that the last few of my posts have been held in moderation due to referring to some of the major players in the trfc/rifc shambles by other than their correct names.
It has never been my intention to call the integrity of this site into question and when we consider what we are all up against regarding the truth about scottish football and the accompanying lack of transparency and down right disregard for the rules, integrity must be upheld if we are to continue to enhance the reputation of the site in general.
There is nowhere else for followers of the game to go to get an unbiased and open discussion of the good and the bad in the game. The only vested interest that there has ever been on this site from its birth with the sad demise of rtc has been to strive for integrity and to maintain what is left of the dignity of scottish football.
I will do my utmost to promote the good name of this site and the many true fans who contribute and moderate without fear or favour.

View Comment

y4rmyPosted on5:22 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Mr McC “It (the ratio) is maybe 27/ 28%. I think the lowest in the Championship last year was 53 or 54% so that would give you the indication that the players’ budget should be well within the overall turnover and is within the overall turnover.”

I’m sure we would find that the 53/54% was for wages for the entire operation, in the same way that TRFC’s is 99.5%. The 27/28%, of course, is just ‘first team’ wages. They do have a way with words

I wonder what the coaching staff wages to turnover ratio is: perhaps another World Record?

View Comment

TonyPosted on5:23 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Another load of guff fed to a succulent SMSM. :slamb: the old saying ‘big boys did it and ran away’ springs to mind. 😆

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on5:28 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Silence of the succulent lamb (or knackered radio)?.
I am not sure if where I live may cause a poor reception on my radio but when I listen to SSB (which is not very often I may add, but it really can be comedy gold on it’s day).
My radio seems to go silent (maybe loss of power I thought) but it only happens when callers ask certain questions. Questions like:
1. If a team playing at Ibrox enters administration followed by liquidation and another team is formed playing at Ibrox and if they go into administration then why is this their second administration?
2. Who owns Ibrox and Murray Park?
3 Who are Blue Pitch Holdings and Margarita Holdings?
4. Settled tax in SA concerning Mr King,can someone explain?
Quite a reasonable questions IMO, but if any are asked my radio goes silent. Now if this happened back in my dad’s days we would have got the back of the tranny and ensured that all valves were working and none lose. But this is the age of digital Radio?? so why the silence? I also hear a lot of interference and undecipherable language/noise from the pundits when these questions are asked. Baffled as I have been, my partner explained that noise could be removed with a large spoon of benylin. Apparently this gets rid of coughs and other splutterings.
Thankfully these type of calls do not happen often, but has anyone else encountered similar problems on their radio with these or other questions?

View Comment

ShooperbPosted on5:31 pm - Apr 29, 2014


scottc says:

April 29, 2014 at 5:06 pm

3

0

Rate This

Mr McC “It (the ratio) is maybe 27/ 28%. I think the lowest in the Championship last year was 53 or 54% so that would give you the indication that the players’ budget should be well within the overall turnover and is within the overall turnover.”

I’m sure we would find that the 53/54% was for wages for the entire operation, in the same way that TRFC’s is 99.5%. The 27/28%, of course, is just ‘first team’ wages. They do have a way with words

I read it slightly differently, although reached a conclusion that wasn’t too far removed from your own – I took it that his 27/28% was meant as a percentage of the 70 million raised over the last 2 years (IPO money etc included), NOT of normal annual turnover. That would mean around 10 million+ a year on first team wages from a club with a normal annual turnover of around 18/19 million. Given that Wallace, Black and McCulloch alone hoover up around 2 million in basic between them, then it’s not so fanciful.

Must admit that I was surprised to see figures of £7000 a week quoted as being saved when Cribari eventually leaves. Really? £7000 a week for a VERY average player, and they wonder where the money has gone? And that’s before we get to the inbuilt increases.

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on6:12 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Yep
The PR plan supported by all the Spivs is cooking nicely
Here’s why
……An RIFC Director has publicly linked fragile finances to Admin
……The need for a massive uptake in ST else has been declared by the CEO
……The nonsense demand of the Big Spiv have been rejected
……The Chairman has declared total support for the CEO
The licence for next season has arrived safely at Ibrox
……The 25 pt penalty for any Admin after Friday has been slipped into the public arena
……The MSM and the Bears are baying for GW
……The feckless PR Guru and upcoming Interim CEO is offstage
So the scene is set for a torrid 3 days
……….The MSM will legitimately encourage the idea that the least worse Admin date is this Friday. Otherwise all clubs will suffer a second Armageddon
All we need now is something to light the blue touch paper that drives a green wooden stake through the heart
An event that causes Wallace to lay down his sword and limp off into the sunset
(Limping because he got paid in cash)
,,,,,,,,,,,
Here’s some suggestions for the catalytic event
It could be
AIM suspend trading in RIFC shares
Or
HMRC knock on the door with a final demand
Or
The Big Spiv declare he has signed up 20k ST holders
Or
CO admits his guilt and resigns (This is a long shot)
We will find out soon enough
The rest is predictable
GW resigns this ensures he is not responsible for the Admin announcement
The feckless PR Guru is appointed Interim CEO
This Patsy steps forward and announces Admin .He hastily adds that he can`t say much more as he is only just been appointed
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The only issue that could delay Admin beyond Friday is the SPFL moving the end of the season backwards to accommodate the Spivs.
This will push Admin back until 16 May
But it will not stop it happening

View Comment

wottpiPosted on6:32 pm - Apr 29, 2014


I hear from clips on the radio McCoist is still claiming they lost £30-£40m worth of players.
If that was the case why were these players not sold in the January 2012 transfer window or indeed anytime before then to resolve the financial mess the club found themselves in.

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on6:38 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Sounds like Ally who sits down with a cuppa with Waldo often would prefer to sit down with a Rooibos with DK..

Ally needs a new team at Ibrox because the wage bill has come down you know. When he uses that phrase he is of course talking about rangers (IL)..

If Rangers sacked Ally this week then hit the Admin button.. Where would he stand with regards his redundancy payment? Minimum redundancy paid by the Govt?

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on6:40 pm - Apr 29, 2014


WOTTPI and they had a £100m stadium that was sold for less than £5m apparently..

View Comment

burghbhoyPosted on6:42 pm - Apr 29, 2014


scottc says:
April 29, 2014 at 4:32 pm

I think you are confusing a legal entity and an economic entity. I recently outsourced a stores function at a large multi-national. The ‘economic entity’ was that stores function and all the people who worked in stores. They TUPE’d across to the legal entity that was the acquiring company but the stores function in itself, whilst readily identifiable as an economic entity, had NO legal persona.

In the same way a club has legal persona as an unicorporated body (through its office bearers/committee) or as an incorporated body. There is no other type of ‘club’ and the latter is not really a club in a legal sense, regardless of what it might call itself.

I’m not aware of confusion on my part between the legal entity (a company, partnership etc), and – employing the distinction contained within the TUPE law – the “undertaking, business” which is an “economic entity”, and can be transferred between legal entities as defined above. Indeed my argument above was based on the very distinction between the two.

I’ve not claimed that this “economic entity” has in its own right legal persona, as you put it, in the sense that it can enter into contracts, assume obligations/liabilities etc. I accept that distinction, as LNS did when he explained the football club does not have legal personality separate from it’s owner and operator ie. the company. So again, I don’t see there is any confusion in that sense.

When you say an incorporated football club is “not really a club in a legal sense”, you are referring to an unincorporated association and of course in that respect, it’s not. And therefore, in that same “legal sense” you employ, it follows that Sevco cannot be claimed to be a new club. It’s a new company, which everyone agrees on anyway, so that’s a context not really relevant to the discussion as I would see it.

If I could ask you a question, it is do you think a football club is an entity that continues in existence during the process of incorporation?

If so, can you define the nature of that continuing entity if it is not the “undertaking, business… economic entity” referred to in the TUPE legislation? (That also can be transferred between companies as well during in the process of incorporation, as the law describes).

View Comment

wottpiPosted on6:54 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Celtic fan just ripped the SSB lot a new one.
Great fun if you get a chance to listen at about 40-45m ins into the prog.

Best moment along the lines of Keevins saying that the caller was trying to get at McCoist by his queries re performance, his salary, the cost of the squad v the division they are in etc etc.

‘Naw’ says the bold caller says ‘I’m getting at youz lot for never asking these questions to McCoists face’

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on6:59 pm - Apr 29, 2014


burghbhoy says:
April 29, 2014 at 4:17 pm
========================
http://www.tsfm.net/bonkers-ocnc-thread/comment-page-1/#comment-8246

Regardless of the definition of “Club” for SPL purposes – always remembering that TRFC Ltd were never a member of that august body – logic cannot allow us to conflate two entities (whatever their form) if they exist separately within the same timeline:

“3. When Sevco Scotland was admitted to the SFL on 13th July 2012, it automatically became a registered member club of the SFA. At this time, The Rangers Football Club plc was technically still a registered AND a full member club of the SFA. The separate clubs co-existed for 2-3 weeks.

It was only when The Rangers Football Club plc transferred its SPL share to Dundee FC on 3rd August 2012, that it ceased to be a registered member club of the SFA.

It was only when the SFA full membership was transferred to Sevco Scotland that The Rangers Football Club plc ceased to be a full member club of the SFA.”

The SPL may have considered the “Club” to be the Rangers FC brand – but, for the most part, that doesn’t really matter. For SFA & UEFA purposes, a club is the entity holding membership of the national association. The club currently holding full membership of the SFA playing out of Ibrox Stadium, TRFC Ltd (previously Sevco Scotland Ltd), is clearly not the same entity as what is now known as RFC 2012 plc (IL).

You simply cannot get past the fact that Sevco were a member club of the SFA (through membership of the SFL) AT THE SAME TIME as Rangers were a member club of the SFA (through membership of the SPL).

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:03 pm - Apr 29, 2014


GoosyGoosy says:
April 29, 2014 at 6:12 pm

Yep
The PR plan supported by all the Spivs is cooking nicely
Here’s why…
==============
Again, GG this reads as perfectly plausible, [except the bit about Ogilvie resigning of course !]

And the suggestion that the new PR becomes Interim CEO is interesting. Do they still have the oxymoronic, very expensive ‘cost-cutting’ guru who Wallace brought in? I could see either one taking the interim role to add confusion, buy time, and allows another round of ‘blame game’ on the previous CEO.
Deja vu – all over again…

And have you followed up your own prediction and taken a short position in TRIFC shares…? 😉

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on7:14 pm - Apr 29, 2014


No,no,no,no,no!!!!! They are a different club, it cannot possibly be a second admin. If you start off from the wrong place who knows where we’ll end up…. No! 25 points might seem big enough for people to be swayed and forget what this has all been about, that they’ve suffered enough. Let’s all just get on with it. Well I’m sorry, that just isn’t on. We’ve already seen the laws of the game totally disregarded and a team without any moral conscience regarding its predecessor club or it’s creditors, being allowed to brazingly tell everyone that they are the same club, with the same history whilst giving everyone the vicky and we are meant to go along with this and accept a 25 point penalty? As I’ve said, if you start off in the wrong place who knows where it will go. Just ask the SFA!!!

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on7:19 pm - Apr 29, 2014


wottpi says:
April 29, 2014 at 6:32 pm

6

0

Rate This

I hear from clips on the radio McCoist is still claiming they lost £30-£40m worth of players.
If that was the case why were these players not sold in the January 2012 transfer window or indeed anytime before then to resolve the financial mess the club found themselves in.

_____________________________________________________

…Too easy! They weren’t sold because there’s only 1 idiot daft enough to pay anything like that for them… and he wasn’t in a position to!

Now Ally himslef would happily have paid £30-£40m (only OPM!) for that bunch, so that is what they are worth (see my previous comment re valuation @3.11pm. Involving hot gristle encased in pastry as an example 😆 !)

AMc neatly and 😳 unintentionally summarises the underlying cause of one of of TRFCs biggest financial problems with this statement (doh!): Clueless manager, with no idea of players values, being allowed to sign freely on inflated contracts. (OPM again)

I believe GW said something similar! 😈

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on7:31 pm - Apr 29, 2014


burghbhoy says:
April 29, 2014 at 6:42 pm
==================================================================
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/SFAHandbook/09Articles.pdf

Just in case you have any doubt:

“registered member” shall mean a club or association which has been admitted as a registered member of the Association in accordance with the provisions of Article 6.1 and the expression “registered membership” shall be construed accordingly;

6.1 A club or association shall be admitted as a registered member automatically by reason of its being admitted as a member of an Affiliated Association or an Affiliated National Association, or in the case of a club through membership of or participation in an association, league or other combination of clubs formed in terms of Article 79 and in the case of an association by being formed in terms of Article 79 provided it is not already an associate or full member. A registered member shall not be a member of more than one Affiliated Association or more than one Affiliated National Association. A registered member may apply at any time to become an associate member.

“’registered member’ shall mean a club…”

“A club… …shall be admitted as a registered member automatically… …through membership of or participation in an association, league or other combination of clubs formed in terms of Article 79”

“A registered member shall not be a member of more than one Affiliated Association or more than one Affiliated National Association.”

View Comment

y4rmyPosted on7:32 pm - Apr 29, 2014


And the suggestion that the new PR becomes Interim CEO is interesting. Do they still have the oxymoronic, very expensive ‘cost-cutting’ guru who Wallace brought in?

Philip Nash! Remember him? The financial whizzkid employed as a consultant by Wallace in January to cut costs drastically.

Not much sign of any costs being cut yet, but a new cost was added in March in the form of a new permanent Company Secretary: one Philip Nash. 😕

View Comment

sixtaesevenPosted on7:37 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Ally McCoist:
“If you lose in the region of £35m to £45m worth of players (due to administration) and don’t buy to replace them you are going to struggle to compete at the level you once were.”

Primo:
Liquidation is spelt “l-i-q-u-i-d-a-t-i-o-n” not “a-d-m-i-n-i-s-t-r-a-t-i-o-n”.

Secondo:
The £40m worth of players did not prevent catastrophic losses to Maribor and Malmo that accelerated the descent into the eventual “l-i-q-u-i-d-a-t-i-o-n” of RFC.

Tertio:
Do you honestly think anybody believes a single word that comes out your mouth, honestly?

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on8:05 pm - Apr 29, 2014


The internet is a wonderful thing.

For the benefit of burghbhoy I went on to the SFA website today to find two news items from 2012. I knew the exact dates and, since the SFA news items go back to 2004 it should have been easy enough to find them.

Strangely, the items seem to have been removed. I wonder why…hmmn

Anyway, web.archive.com is (as always) my friend.

Any thoughts on why the SFA would want these statements removed from their website?

https://web.archive.org/web/20120809051852/http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10287

https://web.archive.org/web/20120809051844/http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10252

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on8:20 pm - Apr 29, 2014


A few minutes googling revealed some interesting if perhaps inconsequential things about Mr Dave King.

Firstly, some people still think he may face charges for Insider trading related to his company Ben Nevis and the use of offshore trusts to hide ownership of the company (and therefore liability for the tax if I understand it). Sound familiar?

http://www.iol.co.za/business/opinion/king-still-on-the-hook-for-insider-trading-1.1575272#.U1_4mK1dV-Y

Secondly, I note he also has previous for reporting individuals or groups to the relevant authorities for claimed fraudulent behaviour. That might seem a bit cheeky if you aren’t white than white yourself.

http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a1/5721b4c5d6831310VgnVCM10000077d4ea9bRCRD/NPA-confirms-second-probe-against-Hofmeyr-20110717

Lastly, I hadn’t spotted that Oscar Pistorius’s defence lawyer is one and the same as Mr King’s defence lawyer during the hard fought multi-year tax case brought against him.

http://www.sabc.co.za/news/f1/0ee956804317fde0bffdff019b337d38/PROFILE:-Barry-Roux,-Oscar's-legal-hope-20140228

View Comment

burghbhoyPosted on8:22 pm - Apr 29, 2014


HirsuitPursuit

They are both still there mate…

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=3218&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10287
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2986&newsID=10252&newsCategoryID=1

View Comment

twopandaPosted on8:23 pm - Apr 29, 2014


More MSM pants to be nailed –
Lots of repeating – `signings` / `transfers` / `strengthen squad` …………….. MSM Mince
Yeah sure – lot with no cash will sign new players with 3 months of the close season ahead
That’s always assuming a wee trip to the CoS doesn’t interrupt the spending spree
I mean really – give us a break
:slamb:

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on8:44 pm - Apr 29, 2014


burghbhoy says:

April 29, 2014 at 8:22 pm

HirsuitPursuit

They are both still there mate…

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=3218&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10287
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2986&newsID=10252&newsCategoryID=

————————————–

You found them pretty quickly……

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on8:48 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Burghbhoy says:
April 29, 2014 at 8:22 pm
0 0 Rate This

HirsuitPursuit

They are both still there mate…

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=3218&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10287
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2986&newsID=10252&newsCategoryID=1
===============================================
Well done Darryll! On overtime tonight.

In your hurry to put them back one has gone in the wrong place and dozens of other news items have disappeared. Good work though to act so quickly.

Now this is intriguing. Hmnnn

View Comment

bailemeanachPosted on8:50 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Matty Roth says:

April 29, 2014 at 8:20 pm

Matty, I also noted that about Barry Roux a couple of weeks ago as I’ve been intrigued by the Pistorious case. He has a formidable reputation. It will be interesting to see how this case pans out, given the savaging that Nel gave the accused. Any links to court proceedings re the King case? I wonder what influence Roux had in negotiating the “settlement”?

View Comment

burghbhoyPosted on8:51 pm - Apr 29, 2014


HirusitPursuit

Your interpretation of the fudge that went on during Summer 2012 is nuanced, and correct by the way. No real dispute there. But one association’s botched management of what, in other contexts outwith this sevco farce, is in principle a straightforward transfer of membership does not, looking back, contradict any of the 5 points i set out in reply to BRTH.

The one thing i would disagree with you on is your following contention…

For SFA & UEFA purposes, a club is the entity holding membership of the national association. The club currently holding full membership of the SFA playing out of Ibrox Stadium, TRFC Ltd (previously Sevco Scotland Ltd), is clearly not the same entity as what is now known as RFC 2012 plc (IL).

By that logic of “new holder of membership = new club”, you would have to say that every transfer of membership between different entities, including that which takes place at incorporation between an unincorporated association and the new company, results in a new club.

Was The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Limited a “new club”? It was a new, distinct legal entity in the same sense Sevco could be seen, so the absurdity can’t be side-stepped with any vague “but the club became a company” notions which, as Campbellsmoney has shown, is nonsense from a legal perspective.

View Comment

davythelotionPosted on9:11 pm - Apr 29, 2014


broganrogantrevinoandhogan says:
April 29, 2014 at 9:40 am
======
It’s common practice for hacks to run a story based on a ‘source’ which is the hack’s own interpretation of the situation. The benefit of this is that the target, in this case the SFA, is either forced to deny the gist, or confirm, or make no comment. The ‘no comment’ is the hack’s ideal response. He is now free to write whatever he likes.
The SFA have no position on sevco’s administration.
Ewan has written a wish list.
Scottish hacks are beholden to the people who currently wear SDM’s cast-offs.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:28 pm - Apr 29, 2014


burghbhoy says:
April 29, 2014 at 8:51 pm
2 1

Was The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Limited a “new club”? It was a new, distinct legal entity in the same sense Sevco could be seen, so the absurdity can’t be side-stepped with any vague “but the club became a company” notions which, as Campbellsmoney has shown, is nonsense from a legal perspective.
———-

Are you forgetting the liquidation of RFC? Comparing the incorporation of Celtic FC to the creation Sevco is lacking one very big ingredient — RFC, which had been consigned to history via liquidation. Celtic evolved and continues to; Rangers evolved, though self-destructed two years ago. End of. TRFC is the renamed Sevco company, is it not?

View Comment

Night TerrorPosted on9:35 pm - Apr 29, 2014


@burghbhoy et al

There is a special place for your fascinating Old Club/New Club debates.

http://www.tsfm.net/bonkers-ocnc-thread/

Let me know when you have it sorted.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on9:37 pm - Apr 29, 2014


burghbhoy says:
April 29, 2014 at 8:51 pm
0 0 Rate This

Was The Celtic Football and Athletic Company Limited a “new club”? It was a new, distinct legal entity in the same sense Sevco could be seen, so the absurdity can’t be side-stepped with any vague “but the club became a company” notions which, as Campbellsmoney has shown, is nonsense from a legal perspective.
========================
The club did indeed become a company.

Was there any time when the unincorporated body held membership of the SFL at the same time as the incorporated body? If so that would have given those two entities distinct memberships of the SFA and would create a “new club” scenario.

The transfer of the level of membership (FULL) is a bit of a red herring. The key to this debate is when each club became and ceased to be REGISTERED member clubs of the SFA.

As an aside, your use of “undertaking” in an earlier post, by the way, is wrong. The SPLs articles will tell you that you can find the correct interpretation within the Companies Act.

Do you think the 2012 undertaking as defined by the Companies Act is the same as the 2014 version?

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on9:49 pm - Apr 29, 2014


bailemeanach says:
April 29, 2014 at 8:50 pm
3 0 Rate This

Matty Roth says:

April 29, 2014 at 8:20 pm

Matty, I also noted that about Barry Roux a couple of weeks ago as I’ve been intrigued by the Pistorious case. He has a formidable reputation. It will be interesting to see how this case pans out, given the savaging that Nel gave the accused. Any links to court proceedings re the King case? I wonder what influence Roux had in negotiating the “settlement”?

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

I’m probably not the best t’internet researcher but I haven’t seen anything that really detailed much of what went on in the court regarding the tax case. I’m sure its out there though.

I did find this which was gave an interesting perspective when compared to our own press coverage of DK.

http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/columnists/2014/03/30/the-last-word-sars-prepares-king-for-rangers-battle

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on9:51 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Just as well Regan was satisfied !!! Hate to think what could have happened if he hadn’t so vigilantly ensured that Green & BPH & Margarita didn’t have the best interests of Rangers their fans and Scottish football at heart.

From the SFA Website

Stewart Regan, Chief Executive of the Scottish FA: “We are pleased for everyone involved in this process, and indeed the whole of Scottish football, that a conclusion has been reached.

“There were a number of complex and challenging issues involved but, primarily, the Scottish FA had to be satisfied that the new owners of Rangers would operate in the best interests of the club, its fans and Scottish football in general.”

View Comment

neepheidPosted on10:00 pm - Apr 29, 2014


HirsutePursuit says:
April 29, 2014 at 9:37 pm

The club did indeed become a company.
=================
No it didn’t. A company was formed, which then took over all the assets and business of the club. There is simply no process under which a club can “incorporate”. This was argued out on here weeks ago. There is no essential identity between the members of the club, and the shareholders of the company. This was clearly demonstrated when someone (maybe you) posted the original articles of association of CFC Ltd.

Anyway, I agree with NightTerror. The whole debate is a pointless and circular exercise in semantics which will never be resolved, because the word “club” is used to mean different things by different people. If my contribution is shunted to the “bonkers” thread, I will consider that an example of excellent moderation.

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on10:07 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Stumbled over this too,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19376352

Was this just plain wrong or has all the chatter since about the mysterious blue pitch holdings investors been nonsense?

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on10:15 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Scottish football needs to know if Arbroath are still the same club they were at formation.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on10:15 pm - Apr 29, 2014


HirsutePursuit says:
April 29, 2014 at 8:48 pm

17

0

Rate This

Burghbhoy says:
April 29, 2014 at 8:22 pm
0 0 Rate This

HirsuitPursuit

They are both still there mate…

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=3218&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10287
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2986&newsID=10252&newsCategoryID=1
===============================================
Well done Darryll! On overtime tonight.

In your hurry to put them back one has gone in the wrong place and dozens of other news items have disappeared. Good work though to act so quickly.

Now this is intriguing. Hmnnn

____________________________________________________________

I caught some of BBC Shortbread driving home ce soir and caught Jim Spence (not surprising) and Britney of all people (Hi Graham!) talking sense on DK and the whole TRFC shenanigans. They attacked :slamb: soft soap treatment of the anointed one, before they moved on to DUFCs entirely reasonable railing at the SFAs mercenary failure to think of the future of the game by ensuring not enough concession tickets were available for the SFA cup final, and instead trying to milk the wee bairns for £35 a pop. I have to say that given the success of family friendly league cup final – wonderful occasion – a credit to the sport btw – its not surprising that the SFA saw fit to sail a different tack. If an SFA cup final w/o the OF was a success this would not suit the agenda at all, no siree.
But to be fair, Shortbread did a no’ bad job on both topics.
Credit where it is due, for once.

Chico was out sick, I can only presume. (if not before, then certainly afterwards, sans doubt!)

View Comment

johnscobiedanPosted on10:20 pm - Apr 29, 2014


this is my first ever post really enjoyed all the blogs and posts have now made a cash donation i feel i can call myself a member of tsfm we must clean up scottish football for all our sakes

View Comment

normanbatesmumfcPosted on10:21 pm - Apr 29, 2014


From the SFA website;
“We are pleased to confirm that agreement has been reached on all outstanding points relating to the transfer of the Scottish FA membership between Rangers FC (In Administration), and Sevco Scotland Ltd, who will be the new owners of The Rangers Football Club.”

How can they be the new owners of something that did not exist? Seeing as Sevco Scotland changed their name to The Rangers Football Club. The two entities could not exist simultaniously. When our National Association cannot even get something as fundemental as this correct, why are we surprised at a their other clusterfeks

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on10:30 pm - Apr 29, 2014


neepheid:
===========================
I asked several weeks ago for anyone to send me a link to the legal definition that precludes a “Club” being a company. No-one did, because the myth that club has some sort of strict legal definition is just that, a myth.

Member and shareholder are absolute synonyms with regards to companies. The words mean exactly the same thing.

The principle difference between a business operating as an association of members and the same business operating as a company, is that the members gain the protection of limited liability in the event of insolvency.

But you have made my point exactly, “…the word “club” is used to mean different things by different people.”

How the SFA regard incorporation is the only thing that matters with regards to football clubs. Is Celtic plc considered (by the SFA) to be the same member club as was founded as an unincorporated association of members. I think the answer is obviously yes.

As they will allow transfer of SFA membership within the same group to be considered as having no interruption to membership, I assume that incorporation is treated in exactly the same way. And always has been.

A transfer of full membership to another club that is already in registered membership of the SFA cannot (IMO) be regarded in the same light.

View Comment

joe millers shortsPosted on10:35 pm - Apr 29, 2014


A new club looking to work its way up the pyramid structure was announced today. Broomhill sports club is a fantastic example of what is good about grassroots football.

Club Announcement                                                                 
 
Glasgow’s New Team
 
Broomhill Sports Club is pleased to announce that we have been accepted as members of the Scottish Lowland Football League.
 
We are establishing a new team that will be called BSC Glasgow.
 
The SLFL is part of the new pyramid system that has been introduced into Scottish Football. This means we will be in the 5th tier of Scottish football below the Premier League and we will gain entry into the Scottish Cup.
 
This new pyramid system represents a historic moment for Scottish Football and Broomhill Sports Club.  We embrace this challenge and hope that you and your children will join us on this journey.
 

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on11:05 pm - Apr 29, 2014


RYANGOSLING says: April 29, 2014 at 10:15 pm 8 1 Rate This

Scottish football needs to know if Arbroath are still the same club they were at formation.
————————————————
Ryan, you are just an Arbroath-hater! 👿

Scottish Football needs to know – are we there yet?

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on11:17 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Doonhamer says:

April 29, 2014 at 8:22 pm

I’m just catching up a bit, and noticed some comments on the valuations of Ibrox and Murray Park.
I won’t drag it out, but could I just give a wee explanation of valuation requirements.
Valuations for accounts purposes (and other purposes) are set out by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Valuation –Professional Standards (Red Book)
The Red Book requires asset for which there is little evidence of market transactions (eg football stadia or training complex) to be valued for accounts purposes on a Depreciated Replacement Cost (DRC) basis = the cost of replacing/rebuilding it on land zoned for a similar purpose in a similar location – depreciated for age and obsolescence (but not specific defects – they are dealt with elsewhere in the accounts)
So as Resin_Lab_Dog says – this is the value to this particular football club, assuming it is to continue as a going concern (its not for the valuer to decide if it is a going concern, that’s for the company directors)
If it becomes insolvent etc then open market value should apply – what would anyone else pay for these assets……………………..if its not a similar business it wont have the DRC value, it then depends what else could it be used for………………………….planning etc
============================================================
Doonhammer…spot on re “Red Book” valuations…was this the same “Red Book” as used by DM Hall & Co in the relevant section(s) of the IPO (remember that lovely little piece of contrived fiction?)

I can but wonder if Deloittes (of going concern machinations) had access to the same “Red Book”.

“Professionals”…don’t you just love them…?

View Comment

ptd1978Posted on11:23 pm - Apr 29, 2014


OT, but something that might be a problem in the future if the SFA are left to organise it without oversight from anybody competent.
How will promotion and relegation work from the regional leagues to League 2?
The performance of just about any team allowed in in the last 20 years suggests it might take a good few years before the top regional teams all come through and find their level in the national league, but what if the vast majority of the teams going down all come from (for example) just the lowland league catchment area? Is that okay, or is there a mechanism for balancing the numbers? I don’t think there should be but one or the other regional leagues could become quite a lonely place.
Also, how do clubs know which league they’re heading to if relegated? Is there a catchment area? Do – for example – East Stirlingshire / St Johnstone / Dundee (if any of them ever drop out of the league) get a choice of heading North or South?
Just curious. ❓

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on11:41 pm - Apr 29, 2014


ptd1978 says:
April 29, 2014 at 11:23 pm

1

0

Rate This

OT, but something that might be a problem in the future if the SFA are left to organise it without oversight from anybody competent.
How will promotion and relegation work from the regional leagues to League 2?
The performance of just about any team allowed in in the last 20 years suggests it might take a good few years before the top regional teams all come through and find their level in the national league, but what if the vast majority of the teams going down all come from (for example) just the lowland league catchment area? Is that okay, or is there a mechanism for balancing the numbers? I don’t think there should be but one or the other regional leagues could become quite a lonely place.
Also, how do clubs know which league they’re heading to if relegated? Is there a catchment area? Do – for example – East Stirlingshire / St Johnstone / Dundee (if any of them ever drop out of the league) get a choice of heading North or South?
Just curious. ❓

___________________________________________

I had too thought about this and the answer is obvious.
Promotion (through winning a regional league) is never automatic.
But relegation (from finishing bottom of league 2) always is.
Therefore every team in the SPFL is nominally assigned to one of the non-league geographical divisions.
Only the champions from whichever one of the leagues the relegated team drops into would be invited into the SPFL in their place.
The champions from the other regional leagues will just have to go round again. In years where no one is relegated into a given regional league, no one can be promoted from it.
Therefore there is still an element of luck in being accepted into the league, but I think the randomness element of this makes it fair nevertheless.
There are variations on this theme that could encompass multiple in/out options, but I think logistically the principle works.
In this way, the leagues would always be balanced.

View Comment

EKBhoyPosted on11:54 pm - Apr 29, 2014


Ladies & gents , it is difficult game determining the exact date ( nevertheless) month of when Rangers 2 will just have enough cash left to pay an administrator.

It is all down to has the most to lose… a bunch of faceless banker types or our neighbours with Ramgersitis… I would suggest the latter .

The entire fiasco is de

View Comment

EKBhoyPosted on12:00 am - Apr 30, 2014


Dumb iPhone, dependent on season book sales. 60 / 40 they will sell enough to start the new season and the story will rumble on with Rangers board relying on the something will turn up strategy

View Comment

Comments are closed.