Podcast Episode 3 – David Low

Avatar 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

Avatar

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

RyanGosling

RyanGoslingPosted on10:33 pm - May 1, 2014


Next time the question is raised regarding the lack of engagement from Rangers fans on this forum, journey back to today’s mocking posts of parody song titles poking fun at Rangers and “A Rangers’ fan lament”. Humorous as these may be, ask yourself if you were a Rangers fan visiting the site if such posts would make you feel welcome.

Goodness knows Rangers do enough harm to themselves these days, and the analytical posts which appear on this forum are informing, intelligent and absolutely not anti-Rangers in any way. The parodies and glee at Rangers’ self inflicted troubles are what make this forum, at times, a fairly exclusive place.

View Comment

Avatar

burghbhoyPosted on10:44 pm - May 1, 2014


StevieBC says:
May 1, 2014 at 10:24 pm

How’s the match ticket/match programme for a contender for most reliable indication?!
http://tiny.cc/5ia7ex

Also to note
– The wording of the 5WA says “Rangers FC”.
– The wording of that Duff and Phelps letter to the SPL requiring players then registered to Old Rangers to be borrowed by sevco for the game says “in order for these players to be able to play for Sevco Scotland Limited trading as The Rangers Football Club” (difficult to squeeze that on the match ticket!)

View Comment

Avatar

thirdmanrunningPosted on10:52 pm - May 1, 2014


RyanGosling says:
May 1, 2014 at 10:33 pm

Yes Ryan – but the forum/blog also is moderated to avoid the same level of glee when Rangers lose a football game.

What’s been posted over the last few days could be seen as banter, good natured, quite satirical humour.

Yes, you might see that as making it exclusive, or un-inclusive – but it’s hard to find anywhere else where the ‘hatred’ and ‘bile’ is absent, and there’s the occasional witty gag or two.

View Comment

Avatar

GoosyGoosyPosted on10:59 pm - May 1, 2014


RyanGosling says:

May 1, 2014 at 10:33 pm
The parodies and glee at Rangers’ self inflicted troubles are what make this forum, at times, a fairly exclusive place.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
You are spot on with that point

I have contributed my fair share of this type of post There is a thin line between commenting on situations or people you genuinely believe unworthy and offending decent people who think otherwise.Its all in how you word your post
…………….
Being right is never a good excuse for giving offense
So for anything I posted that was coated in gleeful language I apologise to you and fellow Bears

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on11:07 pm - May 1, 2014


RyanGosling says:
May 1, 2014 at 10:33 pm

Point well made but surely you have to admit the Apocalypse Then, Apocalypse Now and Apocalypse Forever one was funny?

The problem is that when everything goes quiet down Govan way the forum often strays into banal territory, favourite biscuits and fish puns etc.

Get us back on track with your views of the Review, the ongoing situation re King, the Vanguard bears etc.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on11:10 pm - May 1, 2014


ScotsExpat says:
May 1, 2014 at 3:16 pm
Being in the US, I am limited to the amount of SMSM I can get hold of. Up till now, I have made do with podcasts from BBC Scot, but recently started dl’ing the Clyde SSB…
———

@Expat
This link for Clyde live works for me outside the UK on iPhone / iPad:

http://www.radiofeeds.co.uk/iphone_player/aac.asp?URL=139&stream=2

I usually settle for the podcast though since the ads have been removed. Nice.

View Comment

RyanGosling

RyanGoslingPosted on11:12 pm - May 1, 2014


Great post Goosy Goosy.

I haven’t found anything posted in this vein offensive really, I just am aware that the issue of the participation of Rangers fans has been raised in the past. I can look through the glee to an extent, but I know fellow fans who would just dismiss this forum on anti rangers grounds on reading such posts.

Further I must confess that when I read the first post today (absolutely not having a go at the person who posted it, it was reasonably amusing) regarding parody songs, I thought “here we go”, anticipating lots of reaction, laughing faces and yes I’ll say it again, glee. I was not wrong in my prediction. Again, I will say I’m not having a pop at anyone, but I do know that such things are what will turn off even more sensible minded reasonable Rangers fans who will enjoy the intelligent and revealing posts here but be turned off to the extent of avoiding the site because of the number of posts revelling in Rangers’ downfall. Such posts do not make Rangers fans feel like they would be a welcome part of this community.

I realise I’m hammering home a minor point here in the midst of a lot of more serious issues for Rangers, but this is not a squirrel; I’d be remiss if I didn’t bring this up given the many times it has been stated that we want more rangers can engagement here.

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on11:13 pm - May 1, 2014


burghbhoy says:
May 1, 2014 at 10:08 pm
10 1 Rate This

A question regarding the bizarre narrative surrounding that Brechin game in 2012 (for HirsutePursuit in particular but any boffin may step up!…)

If Sevco were already (as the rulebook seems to suggest) SFA registered members from July 13th when accepted into the SFL, why the need for the “conditional membership” fudge, urgently cooked up to cover the Brechin game?
============================================
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/SFAHandbook/09Articles.pdf

10.3 Each club in full or associate membership shall in its Official Return register its ground and playing field dimensions and no such club shall remove to another ground without first obtaining the consent of the Board. Any club in full or associate membership wishing to make any alteration to its name, its registered ground or its playing field dimensions must first obtain the prior written consent of the Board. No club in registered membership shall adopt in whole or in part the name of a club in full or associate membership without the prior consent of the Board.

Had the FULL membership remained with the old club for the Brechin game, the SFA board would have been forced to pass a resolution permitting the new club use of the Rangers FC brand. This would have confirmed beyond any doubt that the two clubs were separate entities.

Since Sevco were in registered membership the FULL membership held by Rangers at the time, was a block to the new club’s use of the name- if no permission was sought under Article 10.3..

Allowing Sevco to use the FULL membership on a conditional basis meant that the board did not have to make a decision on Article 10.3.

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on11:14 pm - May 1, 2014


Once again I find myself agreeing with RyanGosling. I think this forum would be a better place if we refrained from the kind of mockery that is simply intended as an insult.

View Comment

RyanGosling

RyanGoslingPosted on11:14 pm - May 1, 2014


Wottpi- yes, the apocalypse one was pretty damn funny.

View Comment

RyanGosling

RyanGoslingPosted on11:28 pm - May 1, 2014


Sorry, your other questions wottpi:

1) the review I thought was good, covered the main points as we expected. I don’t know why it took 120 days unless it was because a lot of the points raised have had work commenced on addressing them. If nothing else, it’s nice to see that at board level people are waking up to how screwed we are.

2) Mr King- very simply, pay up or shut up. If you want control buy the shares. If you don’t keep your mouth shut. If you’re trying to force the company into administration to pick up the assets cheap then that’s your business, but at least be honest about your intentions. You’re happy to shoot your mouth off publicly on a regular basis, so do everyone a favour and come clean about your real motives.

3) The Vanguard Bears. Further to my points above, and disregarding any other issues I may have with that particular group, they are at least putting their money where their mouths are, which is about the first time you can say that about a Rangers group in this whole saga.

View Comment

Avatar

burghbhoyPosted on11:36 pm - May 1, 2014


HirsutePursuit says:
May 1, 2014 at 11:13 pm
“Allowing Sevco to use the FULL membership on a conditional basis meant that the board did not have to make a decision on Article 10.3.”

The problem i see with that interpretation is that the brechin conditional membership was NOT the original RFC full membership being borrowed, it was a new one pulled out of the sky!

From the 5-way agreement

Completion
2.6 The SFA, the SPL, RFC and Sevco hereby agree that the transfer of the RFC Membership to Sevco is wholly suspensive and conditional on the transfer of the RFC Share to Dundee FC being registered by the SPL no later than midnight on 3rd August 2012.
….
3.1 The SFA will enter into an Agreement to approve the transfer of the RFC Membership toSevco (“the Application Agreement”) on the same date as this Agreement and shall take whatever steps are necessary to effect such transfer immediately on Completion.

“Wholly suspensive” is a pretty emphatic indication that membership wasnt changing hands until 6 days after the Brechin game, when the Share would eventually transfer.

3.3 Pending Completion, the SFA confirm it has granted Sevco conditional Full Membershipof the SFA to facilitate the playing of matches by Rangers FC for the period until midnight on 3rd August 2012.

Again, this brechin membership applies “pending” completion, in contrast to the transfer of the original Full membership which only takes place “on Completion”.

It seems to read clearly to me that the two are different though both, somehow, permit Rangers FC to play matches. Bizarre.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on11:36 pm - May 1, 2014


BURGHBHOY says: May 1, 2014 at 10:44 pm
StevieBC says: May 1, 2014 at 10:24 pm

How’s the match ticket/match programme for a contender for most reliable indication?!…
===================================
Thanks for that BB, but the publicly available info. was discounted at the time.
It’s the team sheet details which are significant: but I’m guessing we will never find out.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on11:41 pm - May 1, 2014


RyanGosling says:
May 1, 2014 at 10:33 pm
27 7 Rate This

Next time the question is raised regarding the lack of engagement from Rangers fans on this forum, journey back to today’s mocking posts …..
———–

It probably is part of the reason so few of your fellow fans post. That said, this blog is moderated quite a bit to cut out the worst excesses. I have a feeling, though, that many of your fellow supporters do read TSFM even though they don’t feel any desire to contribute. After all, there’s not been much reliable information coming out of Ibrox for years, and the media, with few exceptions, has been either been intimidated into silence or willingly taken part in the denial of liquidation.

As several posters have pointed out, the failure to accept the reality of liquidation is hindering any proper attempt to create a viable newco. As long as the current myth is clung to any number of patter merchants will continue to find Ibrox a happy hunting ground to line their pockets. That people now find the whole pantomime amusing is unavoidable, I’m afraid.

View Comment

Avatar

EKBhoyPosted on11:42 pm - May 1, 2014


RyanGosling says:

The Rangers support are victims of David Murray and the SMSM propaganda and in that regard what sympathy folk have is with individual Rangers fans they work with and knock about with.

The institution of Rangers and the ‘win at (literally) all costs’ mentality is unfathomable for those who actually like to watch a good game of football. In my travels around the UK for years when folk know I am from Glasgow no-one (sensible white collar types ) has a good word to say about the boys in Royal Blue. Anecdotal stuff , I know but, if Rangers cannot have a route and branch reform then for most folk with no Rangers sympathies then the league would be better off without them.

I personally will not be attending the first home game versus Rangers (if it ever transpires) on the grounds of personal safety and the inability of my legs to shift quick enough to get out of trouble.

The SMSM economic ties to Rangers and the bilge and nonsense that they will promote to keep the Rangers fans, well, interested in Rangers is something, quite frankly we can all do without.

There is no-one in the current Rangers scene with any presence to lead you chaps into a better place.

View Comment

justshatered

justshateredPosted on11:49 pm - May 1, 2014


I see there was another debate yesterday regarding the club from Govan and its status.
Like most I’ve recently been amused by the media discussion regarding the finances of ‘The Rangers’.

It looks like this tightrope is becoming ever more difficult to balance on for our beleaguered media.
After every paper and media outlet in the land declared that RFC had died during the summer of 2012 a complete about turn occurred and it was a ‘holding company’ that had died but not the club. It was the club that entered administration and was deducted points in February 2012. Given their use of the courts, if the administrators had found this to be untrue then I’m sure they would have raised a legal action.
They didn’t. I wonder why that was?

When the CVA for the club failed, and it was for the club, all tangible assets were sold to a new company. The club itself could not be sold because it was the club that owned the debt.

We are now led to believe that the holding company was the entity that died yet no one seems to be able to put a name to this company. In reality the company that owned RFC was named The Rangers Group, formerly known as Wavetower, and that company is still alive and well.

When the assets were sold players had the opportunity to TUPE over to the new company. Now if the players must have a contract with the club, as per the rules and the club was still hale and hearty, why would the players need to TUPE over?
I’m sure I don’t know.
History seems to be the main thrust over the continuation politics. Now when Dave King said in early 2012 that he feared a failure of a CVA, Charles Green went on TV to saying that failure to achieve a CVA would mean an end to the history.
Was he correct?
I don’t know.

It seems that ‘The Rangers’ didn’t want the debt that went with the old club.
They did, regardless of how history is now written, want a place in the top league.
When that failed to materialise they expected to only fall one division.
They wanted and expected to keep all of the players of the old club even if it was just to sell them in the early months however several players decided not to TUPE over.

In conclusion, if a club does not own players, does not trade financially with other clubs through the buying and selling of players or register them with the authorities, if it does not trade with local businesses, if it does not pay TAX and NI, and if it does not have season ticket holders because that would be a financial transaction that it doesn’t do how can it possibly claim to have a history of 140 years?
How can it claim to have won leagues and trophies if it did not own the players that played on the park and pay their wages?
Surely it was the dreaded ‘holding company’ that won the honours?
All of the above add up to what history is.
That is what defines a club. It is the characters who played for the club, it is the tough managers that the club had, it is the memorable days and nights where fans come together in a common cause and drive their respective teams forward sometimes to victory and sometimes to fall agonisingly short.

It is often said that fans are the club and that is true because it is their money that keep any club alive.

However in the corporate and financial sense the fans are virtually an irrelevance.
To me, it seems one of the biggest ironies in this shambles, is the fact that people who often mentioned RFC going to ‘the next level’ and being a ‘global corporate brand’ during the nineties now shy away from financial and corporate speak.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:57 pm - May 1, 2014


RyanGosling says:
May 1, 2014 at 10:33 pm
‘…ask yourself if you were a Rangers fan visiting the site if such posts would make you feel welcome. ‘
————
That’s maybe the wrong question to ask, Ryan.
It should not be a case of people feeling they should only post if their post is going to be ‘welcomed’.
The blog is here essentially because people thought, think, on the basis of ‘evidence’ that:
1. RFC(IL) cheated and, worse, that the Football Authorities ,negligently or otherwise, did not, as they could have and should have, spot that cheating, or, having discovered it, deal with it properly. And were not seriously questioned by the sports press ( who would not have been murdered, as real journalists have been, for trying to establish and report on the truth).
2. the Football authorities panicked themselves into submitting to the disgraceful demands of a charlatan ‘entrepreneur’ to accept a brand new creation as the same being that was languishing in liquidation, making all kinds of accommodations rather than doing him for many ‘crimes’ of bringing the game into disrepute’.
3. the Football authorities in effect rigged their own disciplinary procedures to ensure that RFC was not expelled ( and therefore not be able to have membership ‘transferred’)
These are the charges. And one would expect that concerned RFC fans would be right in there, refuting on some kind of intellectual, reasoned basis, these charges.
The fact that the Football Authorities cannot do so should not impede them. If truth is on their side, they do not need to feel ‘welcome’. Indeed, they should relish the task of demonstrating that they have the right of it!
But they do need to be reasonably polite. As you yourself invariably are.And thank you for it. 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on12:01 am - May 2, 2014


RyanGosling says:
May 1, 2014 at 11:28 pm

Good stuff Ryan.

While you like the review with regard to how screwed up things are, what is your thoughts on how the board is going to get you out of the mire?

While you have advocated a ‘steady steady wins the race’ approach Wallace still seems to have a few Minty Moonbeams ideas.

IMHO, plenty talk of what has gone before but no real plan for how to move forward.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on12:13 am - May 2, 2014


RyanGosling says:
May 1, 2014 at 10:33 pm

Next time the question is raised regarding the lack of engagement from Rangers fans on this forum, journey back to today’s mocking posts …..
———————————
You may well have a point but then I look at the vicious attacks launched on the Darkside against thinking Bears and quite understand why they feel unable to contribute on their own sites.

Any real Rangers supporter who thinks that TSFM is a problem area should be evangelising on the sites I am talking about and see how they are treated by their fellow fans.

But they won’t and tbh I don’t blame them because ordinary Rangers football fans don’t want the bile and hassle entailed and these are the ones who will walk away because their life doesn’r revolve around bigotry.

View Comment

Avatar

EKBhoyPosted on12:25 am - May 2, 2014


Ladies and Gents
The whole unholy mess of Rangers would have been solved by people / peppill , accepting personal responsibility and apologising and being honest. The culprits are in order:
– Sir David Murray
– Mr Craig Whyte
– Mr Stewart Regan

Any Rangers director , after Whyte are economic vandals (so is Whyte!)… apologies as follows would have sufficed for me:

SDM : ” I wish to apologies the Rangers fans and the rest of Scottish football, I now realise that I authorised a business plan with the benefit of hindsight which was over-optimistic and has resulted in a risk to continuation of professional at Ibrox. I now realise that I should have tempered my desire and ambition for trophies for a more responsible attitude to the well being of the game as a whole. I now appreciate that I was wrong in my approach and I will be withdrawing from professional sport.”

Craig Whyte : ” I am sorry for my actions and I apologise to the wider community of Scottish football”

Stewart Regan “Scottish football is run on trust and we are bitterly disappointed in the actions of the Rangers Board under Sir David Murray and Craig Whyte. All the clubs understand the strict economic straight-jacket the wider game is under and the clubs and their directors have a responsibility to not only themselves but to the wider league. Our view is that an original member club should not be removed from the Scottish football map because of the actions of a few men, who we can confirm are sine die from attending a Scottish football match , nevertheless any official involvement.

Moving forward, we accept Rangers apology to the wider game and we will re-instate them to the lowest league.

Due to the un-precedent nature of Rangers behaviour the new club will be unable to claim the trophies of the previous club until a period of 5 years, where they can apply for a review.

We appeal for the good of the sport that everyone accepts the current position and moves on, with a willingness to build a positive future.”

I would have happily accepted the above (last para needs polishing!), still, this requires leadership, which the SFA cannot provide as they are infiltrated by the brothers (Dallas evidence) and equate money = Rangers.

Gosh getting late.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on12:26 am - May 2, 2014


RyanGosling says:
May 1, 2014 at 11:12 pm

I’m not having a pop at anyone, but I do know that such things are what will turn off even more sensible minded reasonable Rangers fans who will enjoy the intelligent and revealing posts here but be turned off to the extent of avoiding the site because of the number of posts revelling in Rangers’ downfall.

I refer to my previous post and will reiterate that these sensible Rangers posters aren’t just missing from here but also virtually totally absent on the Darkside. I would be interested as to your explanation/thoughts on that issue.

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:30 am - May 2, 2014


burghbhoy says:
May 1, 2014 at 11:36 pm
============================================
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/SFAHandbook/09Articles.pdf

The granting of FULL membership to Sevco was done on the basis of a transfer of membership under Article 16

PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OF MEMBERSHIP
16. It is not permissible for a member to transfer directly or indirectly its membership of the Association to another member or to any other entity and any such transfer or attempt to effect such a transfer is prohibited save as otherwise provided in this Article 16. Any member desirous of transferring its membership to another entity within its own administrative group for the purpose of internal solvent reconstruction must apply to the Board for permission to effect such transfer, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Any other application for transfer of membership will be reviewed by the Board which will have complete discretion to reject or to grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.

So the Board had absolute power to TRANSFER an existing FULL membership “on such terms and conditions as the Board may think fit.”.

But… did they have power to GRANT a new FULL membership – even on a conditional basis? Article 6 seems pretty clear on this:

APPLICATION & FEES
6. Clubs or associations undertaking to promote Association Football according to the Laws of the Game as settled by the International Football Association Board and the Articles and other rules of the Association may be admitted as registered members, associate members or full members, subject to the provisions of Articles 6.1 to 6.6.

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.

6.2 A club or association desiring to qualify for full membership of the Association must first be admitted as an associate member. A club cannot be admitted as an associate member unless it meets, and commits to continuous compliance with the Membership Criteria and amendments thereto as shall be promulgated by the Board from time to time in connection with the membership of the Association.

Article 6 precludes the conditional FULL membership from being a new one?
“A club or association desiring to qualify for full membership of the Association must first be admitted as an associate member.”

Would Sevco have even qualified for a new ASSOCIATE membership?
“A club cannot be admitted as an associate member unless it meets, and commits to continuous compliance with the Membership Criteria and amendments thereto as shall be promulgated by the Board from time to time in connection with the membership of the Association.”

Allowing that transfer of FULL membership to be made on a conditional basis (before being made permanent by the conditions of the 5WA being met) was certainly within the board’s gift.

Granting a new FULL membership to Sevco – even on a conditional basis – was not.

View Comment

Avatar

AquinasPosted on12:35 am - May 2, 2014


Goosy Goosy-Gossling/Campbell,

Naw, Im not holding any branch to Sevco fans until they admit SDM fkd them over and they cheated, and we are all! The People, and they repent their anti Catholic policy, and they stop not paying their bills, and they stop singing up to their knees in my blood.
Am I unreasonable?

I prefer and enjoy head to head with the ‘Sheep’ I dont like them, they dislike ‘us’ but there is no hate! Or cheating!

TRFC are more than welcome here, but do not! suggest its ‘our’ fault they are not Involved enough.

Dont get me started! 😈

View Comment

Avatar

youtawknabootPosted on12:36 am - May 2, 2014


May I say that this site just gets better & better !!
looooong time lurker..small time contributor..copywrite licence holder 🙂
…and now tonight, a very very pwoud subscriber !!

View Comment

Avatar

AquinasPosted on12:40 am - May 2, 2014


PS.
And RFC former Dir.pays his EBT ‘Loan’ back.

Dont Start Me On Poor TRFC Fans.

View Comment

Avatar

burghbhoyPosted on1:20 am - May 2, 2014


HirsutePursuit says:
May 2, 2014 at 12:30 am

Once again your reading of the rulebook seems comprehensive but the fact remains, which you havent attempt to refute, that the 5WA clearly describes a situation where:

– the transfer of Oldco’s Full membership was “wholly suspensive and conditional on the transfer of the RFC Share to Dundee FC being registered by the SPL” (which only occurred after the whole brechin game/conditional membership scenario had already played out)

– The description of “the SFA confirm it has granted Sevco conditional Full Membership of the SFA to facilitate the playing of matches by Rangers FC” jars against your interpretation. If they’d actually been referring to a conditional transfer of the oldco membership, they’d have surely stated that or something like it, rather than leaving “full membership of the SFA” being granted generic and without reference to the oldco.

I do not reject your points regarding the rulebook, but given the wording of the 5WA I’d lean towards the explanation that sees the capacity for discretion being stretched by the SFA in order to cover the anomalous Brechin situation.

View Comment

Avatar

twopandaPosted on2:20 am - May 2, 2014


Guys
By contorting `rules` `interpretations` & get-out clauses [ink was still wet]
They could transfer` a `new` membership to a Cockatoo in the Amazon.
The time-line was broken.
– It’s quite simple.
😉

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on2:35 am - May 2, 2014


RyanGosling says:
May 1, 2014 at 10:33 pm

Next time the question is raised regarding the lack of engagement from Rangers fans on this forum, journey back to today’s mocking posts …..

________________________________________________

Ryan,
I suggest that some of those decent Rangers fans may also need to develop something more of an epidermis. I cite the Ibrox BBC ban as supporting evidence.

I think it was Harper Lee’s Atticus Finch who said (paraphrasing) ‘to know a man you must walk a mile in his moccasins’. If TRFC fans in general exhibited the same level of respect and sensitivity towards fans of other clubs to which they themselves feel entitled as a matter of course, I might feel that their sensibilities were being unduly impugned here. Present company excepted, they don’t, and – frankly – they aren’t!
See – If anyone wants to wade into Caley’s humping at the weekend, (which I did not enjoy) it is fair game. Fill yer boots!
Within this forum there has been debate on Butcher and Hibs nosediving that I am sure some of the fans of that club didn’t relish.
Hearts have been racked here on a great many occasions.
And when it comes to Celtic… well if you put any 2 Celtic fans in a locked room you are guaranteed that at least 3 diammetrically opposed opinions will be the result.
This site is not some Celtic love in.
And nor is it a TRFC/RFCIL hatefest.
But your club(s) and the stewardship have affected ours adversely for a great deal of time. So until you lot either finally get your shit together, or else fall of the planet and stop being disruptive element in the smooth running of the sport as a whole, you better expect to be the subject of scrutiny. And some of it will be pointed. And some of it will be deservedly so. And some of it may stray into parody. This is not unhealthy.
We stumped up for our season tickets same as you did.
We didn’t suffer the ignomy of liquidation. But if we had we wouldn’t try and pretend otherwise. Nor would we be allowed to.
And nor did we breeze our way into European qualification on the back of other peoples money. Our flags are still under wraps. Out passports unstamped.
Our players don’t stay in 5 star hotels before matches. They cadge free coffee at local cafes after narrowly losing league cup finals.
Rangers fans are suffering, we accept that.
But your club, along with the SFA made this mess on their own without help or counsel from us.
And yet we all have to deal with the legacy of the failed medical experiment that was Frankenstein Rangers revival by licence transplant.
Fans of TRFC will enjoy our sympathy and fellowship nevertheless. More in common that dividing us.
But it would help enormously if TRFC fans – like you do Ryan – showed more willingness to take their share collective responsibility for the basket case in which we have all ended up as a sport. Not the armageddon that was predicted. Just a kafkaesque governance that resulted from the attempts of a dodgy regulator to put one over on its paying customers in pursuit of a vested interest.

And I can’t abide this cherry picking from TRFC fans: ‘ 9 in a row? – yes please’ , ‘Tax avoidance – illegal tax evasion? No thanks. That wisnae us. Some bigger boys did it and ran away. ‘
Its table d’hote or nothing, guys! Live with it. And there is so much of it hidden under Ibrox carpet now that noses are scraping the ceiling.

As you say, some of the reason that TRFC fans do not engage here as much as we would like is because they will find banter that disagrees with them. But that is ‘only an excuse’ I contend.
A larger part of the reason that TRFC fans do not engage here as much as we would like – I feel – is because they unavoidably encounter uncomfortable truths that they would rather ignore, and which the :slamb: and footballing authorities, along with those who would variously seek to both run and undermine the Ibrox enterprise conspire to make it easy for them to avoid, in pursuit of their own dubious agendas.

I may be wrong here.
I invite you to challenge me on this.
And I afford you a great deal of respect and esteem, whatever.

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on3:09 am - May 2, 2014


burghbhoy says:
May 2, 2014 at 1:20 am
====================================
I don’t quite understand why you think the “suspensive and conditional” nature of the agreement to transfer the RFC membership to Sevco would automatically preclude that transfer being made on a conditional basis before the completion date – when the contract conditions have been met.

As far as I can tell the 5WA makes no specific reference to whether the conditional FULL membership was new or the existing RFC membership.

You appear to be presuming it was a new membership because the 5WA makes no reference to it being issued as part of the discretion available to the board via Article 16. My point is that it is only Article 16 which gave the board any discretion to work with.

It also (going back to my original point) explains the lack of reference to Article 10.3. Without a conditional transfer being in effect, board approval would have been required to allow Sevco use the Rangers name for the Brechin game. The lack of any such approval being sought or promised in the 5WA points to the fact that the transfer of the full membership had already been made – albeit on a conditional basis.

As a slight aside, I should point out that there are a number of things in the 5WA I find difficult to square with reality. For example:

Sevco will become, following on the transfer to it of the full membership of RFC in the SFA, on Completion (defined below) the operator of Rangers FC within the Third Division of the Scottish Football League.

If you:
1. Take “Rangers FC” to be the club
2. Take completion to be the date when the SFA membership transfer became unconditional (3rd August)
3. Take Sevco to have become the owners of the club on Completion

Who played Brechin on the 27th July???

The club that played Brechin was (in SPL terms) owned and operated by Sevco; but (according to this agreement), Sevco did not become the owner and operator of Ranger FC until 6 days later.

“Rangers FC” is no more than the trading name and the 5WA is as much about allowing the transfer of that trading name between two clubs as it is about allowing the transfer of a membership.

View Comment

helpmaboab

helpmaboabPosted on8:00 am - May 2, 2014


Justshatered At:1149pm

Bullseye!

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on8:07 am - May 2, 2014


So many significant matches in the SPFL Championship this weekend. You’d think at least one of them would merit the status of a live broadcast.

Are you awake SPFL? Why not make one of the matches a live event on your youtube channel? It’s not difficult.

WARNING
The following is not for bears of a sensitive disposition:

What special qualities does a club have to possess to merit live broadcast status among matches outside the top tier?

A) Financially solvent and be part of a match of special significance

B) Be teetering on the brink of financial collapse with an outrageously unsustainable business model and little chance of avoiding administration

C) Be currently boycotting a main broadcaster

Answers on the back of an EBT or €100 note to:
More Sevco TV
Crossbar Challenge House,
P.O. Box 2012
1 Easy Street,
Dubai

Judging and prizes are discretionary. Don’t expect to hear from us again.

View Comment

Avatar

twopandaPosted on8:29 am - May 2, 2014


Today`s the day then – admin day or not
Not convinced about admin being their choice
[Until we hear of the mad dash across the M8 this morning 😉 ]

If they go back to the CoS pleading insolvency after blowing 67m
They`ll throw the book at them
As for tails between their legs – they`ll be lucky to keep both

And then what
Presumably a pre-pack needs to demonstrate a `going concern`
Good luck with that

View Comment

Avatar

Madbhoy24941Posted on8:55 am - May 2, 2014


twopanda says:
May 2, 2014 at 8:29 am

Today`s the day then – admin day or not

———————————————————

Not, definitely not, 1000 times not…. A cast iron NOT!

View Comment

Avatar

burghbhoyPosted on9:00 am - May 2, 2014


HirsutePursuit says:
May 2, 2014 at 3:09 am
I don’t quite understand why you think the “suspensive and conditional” nature of the agreement to transfer the RFC membership to Sevco would automatically preclude that transfer being made on a conditional basis before the completion date – when the contract conditions have been met.

Very simply, because of the specific wording contained within the Agreement that, and I quote

“the transfer of the RFC Membership to Sevco is WHOLLY SUSPENSIVE [my emphasis] and conditional on the transfer of the RFC Share to Dundee FC being registered by the SPL”

…which we know didn’t occur until after the disputed Brechin “conditional” membership had been granted, and used, to play the Ramsdens Tie.

Clearly we’re not going to reach agreement here, but I’d certainly say that, given an understanding of the word “suspensive” ie. deferred/postponed, the language employed within that sentence speaks for itself.

Rushed now but I’ll consider your other question later on.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on9:06 am - May 2, 2014


burghbhoy says:
May 2, 2014 at 9:00 am
1 0 Rate This
———

Which version of the 5WA are you quoting from @burghbhoy? Charlotte’s?

View Comment

normanbatesmumfc

normanbatesmumfcPosted on9:29 am - May 2, 2014


rougvielovesthejungle says:

May 1, 2014 at 7:03 pm

27

1

Rate This

A bit off topic but rather than listening to Radio Shortbread MW or digital, we should really have FM on tonight.

The theme tonight is songs you associate with football teams.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
“I’ve got 99 problems but a pitch aint one”

View Comment

Avatar

twopandaPosted on9:40 am - May 2, 2014


So Sevco5088 lives on – to fight another day
Interesting all the combined Ibrox expensive legal efforts to strike sevco5088 not succeeding
[sic] solid defence
Wonder who signed the strike-off suspension paperwork
LaVert the sole director?

– A Double Sword of Damocles perchance

Well, we`ll just have to wait until the full 120 day [300k] Comprehensive `Review` is published
– detailing the comprehensive review of the 30 day [600k] Pinset Mason`s independent Inquiry`s Findings.

That`ll clear things up – Won`t it 😉

View Comment

Avatar

South0fThe BorderPosted on9:47 am - May 2, 2014


twopanda says:
May 2, 2014 at 8:29 am

Today`s the day then – admin day or not

_____________________________________

I am not an insolvency practitioner so am very open to correction. If someone was going to petition the court for the appointment of an administrator then I would have thought that they would have already done that by now. A similar company that ran a football club that had financial difficulties, had a creditor (HMRC) apply to the court in Edinburgh on 13th February 2012, but wasn’t officially in administration until 14th February 2014 when the court appointed the administrator.

Not sure if the same applies in Scotland, but down here a company or its directors (not a creditor) can apply for a court to appoint an administrator without petitioning the court – but inform the court which can be done by fax at any time. The administration is deemed to start when the fax is sent/received even though it may not be processed until the next working day. So they could submit a fax before 16:45 tomorrow (before the end of the final match of the season) and we wouldn’t know about it until sometime the next working day – Tuesday 6th.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on9:51 am - May 2, 2014


Madbhoy24941 says:
May 2, 2014 at 8:55 am
2 0 Rate This

twopanda says:
May 2, 2014 at 8:29 am

Today`s the day then – admin day or not

———————————————————

Not, definitely not, 1000 times not…. A cast iron NOT!
—————————-
A question for our resident legal department:
If(and I don’t know) TRFC don’t go into administration today,do they have to wait until Monday or can they enter administration over the weekend?.
Tomorrow is their last game of season.Any points deduction would then be applicable for next season.
If admin is not applied for by closing time at the CoS does this mean no action can be taken until Monday or is the court open over the weekend?.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on9:54 am - May 2, 2014


Seems Southoftheborder was sorta answering my question as I was typing it.
Ah well. 😳

View Comment

Avatar

twopandaPosted on9:58 am - May 2, 2014


South0fThe Border says:
May 2, 2014 at 9:47 am

Yep;-)

But here in Scotland the formula somewhat differs for that lot in that it involves high speed motorway races to get there before other creditors such as HMRC – to ensure your admin of choice – it’s a sort of custom & practice 😉

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on10:02 am - May 2, 2014


You can do an administration appointment over the weekend. Just as Southoftheborder says. Just make sure the transmission report is timed at 16.44 on Saturday I guess (or maybe wait and see the ref play 63 minutes of injury time if he gets the heads up that the fax machine has jammed).

😀

I don’t see it happening by the way.

View Comment

Avatar

pau1mart1nPosted on10:06 am - May 2, 2014


is the fax machine a bit dodgy (like the sfa one on transfer deadline day) though ?

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on10:13 am - May 2, 2014


Its much easier for the directors to do an administration application than for creditors (except floating charge creditors). Other creditors tend to go down the liquidation route. If a creditor presents a petition to wind up a debtor company, then the ability of the directors to go down the administration route is constrained.

So, if you are a creditor, and you think a debtor may be looking at an administration, get a winding up petition presented as soon as possible. That way, the directors will maybe pay you off so that they can proceed with their own choice of administrator. On the other hand, you might end up getting nothing anyway (having incurred the additional cost of winding up).

If in doubt – see a solicitor. Its never to early to see your solicitor.

😛

View Comment

Para Handy

Para HandyPosted on10:22 am - May 2, 2014


It would appear that lazy “journalism” is not restricted to the SMSM…

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/manchester-united-transfers-danny-welbeck-7063281

View Comment

Avatar

twopandaPosted on10:31 am - May 2, 2014


Last week
Two `tales from the tabs` – `Exclusives`: Ground-breaking seekers of truth break the news

• Plod asked to investigate; &
• Shareholder eventually allowed to inspect contracts

Now
No more `tales from the tabs`
Follow ups not their Forte
They`re really rubbish aren`t they :slamb:

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on11:37 am - May 2, 2014


No big rumours at this stage with regard to non payment of bills, tax etc therefore no Admin IMHO.

Next phase is a charm offensive and debunking DK’s plans to try and make sure the season ticket money starts to roll in.

The Vanguard Bears questions from yesterday could have come from the board itself, so that will be their next move. Supported by comments like those of Alan McKenzie the other day (funny how these things all happened at the same time!!) there will be more challenges for King to put up or shut up.

The club/company can limp on for a good bit longer yet.
I even believe that with a bit of support CEO Wallace can get things on the straight and narrow but the reality is (as it always has been and DK is right on that point) they will still need millions extra, from somewhere, above normal income levels per annum if they wish to challenge at the top level. However as more clubs are cutting their cloth the gap is perhaps not as wide as some people think, or want it to be, albeit Celtic will still be a good few furlongs off in the distance.

The challenge is trying to keep the stadium as full as possible when the product on the park isn’t that good and, if you do escape the championship, 2nd spot is perhaps all you are fighting for.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on11:55 am - May 2, 2014


Oh and just a wee thought.
3800 season tickets at £400 a pop = £1.52m which will be just the right amount to pay back the Easdale and Laxey facilites.
Based on 38k St holders that is 10% of the income stream heading south without touching the sides – Ouch!!

View Comment

Avatar

burghbhoyPosted on12:21 pm - May 2, 2014


HirsutePursuit says:
May 2, 2014 at 3:09 am
As a slight aside, I should point out that there are a number of things in the 5WA I find difficult to square with reality. For example:

“Sevco will become, following on the transfer to it of the full membership of RFC in the SFA, on Completion (defined below) the operator of Rangers FC within the Third Division of the Scottish Football League.”

If you:
1. Take “Rangers FC” to be the club
2. Take completion to be the date when the SFA membership transfer became unconditional (3rd August)
3. Take Sevco to have become the owners of the club on Completion

Who played Brechin on the 27th July???

As I interpret it, the Membership is in effect a certificate of authorisation that entitles the holder to be, in the eyes of the SFA, “X member club”. In this case the SFA have clarified in correspondence that the oldco full membership is (back then, and indeed today) in the name of “Rangers FC”.

Whilst we don’t agree on whether the conditional Brechin membership was a new one, or the old one borrowed for a few days, it matters not as it ALSO authorised the holder to be, in the eyes of the SFA, Rangers FC. (As the passage you quoted clarified). Therefore you have your answer to the question of who played Brechin, at least in the governing body’s eyes.

HirsutePursuit says:
“Rangers FC” is no more than the trading name and the 5WA is as much about allowing the transfer of that trading name between two clubs as it is about allowing the transfer of a membership.

The terms of the Agreement actually defines “Rangers FC” as follows

“Rangers FC: means an association football club operated by RFC which played in the Scottish Premier League during season 2011/12 and previously”

Whatever Rangers FC is, it is in the context of this Agreement an entity distinct from the companies between which it is being exchanged, whether that be a trading name, or as defined in TUPE Law, the business/undertaking (the “organised grouping of resources”), an entity which “retains its identity” despite the transfer between corporate bodies. Take your pick I suppose, the SFA kindly don’t tell us!

View Comment

Avatar

Screwtop ThompsonPosted on12:22 pm - May 2, 2014


wottpi says:
May 2, 2014 at 11:37 am

The club/company can limp on for a good bit longer yet.
I even believe that with a bit of support CEO Wallace can get things on the straight and narrow but the reality is (as it always has been and DK is right on that point) they will still need millions extra, from somewhere, above normal income levels per annum if they wish to challenge at the top level. However as more clubs are cutting their cloth the gap is perhaps not as wide as some people think, or want it to be, albeit Celtic will still be a good few furlongs off in the distance.

The challenge is trying to keep the stadium as full as possible when the product on the park isn’t that good and, if you do escape the championship, 2nd spot is perhaps all you are fighting for.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I agree that the clumpany can stagger on for a bit yet, perhaps until about 16th May or thereabouts but I disagree that Wallace can get things on the straight and narrow without trimming the player wage bill to around £3M and cutting costs of around £4m elsewhere.

A good place to start would be to raise/borrow £5M to enable the players, coaches and managers contracts to be paid up. This could be cobbled together from donations/loans from rich super fans and emotionally involved normal fans as it will SAVE the club once and for all and always and forever etc.

Close Murray Park and train at say Glasgow Green (I believe Kilmarnock are moving out of there and if the facilities were good enough for a Premiership side then even a soon to be down on its luck Chamionship side should be able to cope) . I wonder if this kind of detail is in the 128 day review?

One would also suspect the 128 day review to have considered Administration and perhaps even Liquidation to demonstrate in retrospect that they were always trying to protect shareholder interests. The SFA may have been sounded out about this option and how well it would fit within existing rules!! If this option is the chosen one I expect a full rebellion by all clubs to bar them from entry.

Scottish Football does not need a weak financial basket case of a club. Things are downsizing nicely and the inflationary bubble previously caused by Rangers debt spree is deflating gently back to a size where clubs can find their level and compete more evenly. Only Celtic are experiencing the predicted doomsday scenario and the response by some at the helm of that club is to cry Armaggeddinoutahere!!

View Comment

Avatar

twopandaPosted on1:08 pm - May 2, 2014


Our Goldfish have applied for SFA Membership
Apparently all they require is no debt – so they automatically qualify 😉

View Comment

Avatar

burghbhoyPosted on1:11 pm - May 2, 2014


Funny how quickly some folk are turned off this issue when facts/interpretation are presented that goes against their preferred view, such as the TUPE legislation regarding the “business” entity that, the law tells us, was transferred in 2012: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/246/regulation/3/made

I appreciate those open to discussion, rather than to sniping about it.

View Comment

normanbatesmumfc

normanbatesmumfcPosted on1:14 pm - May 2, 2014


wottpi says:

May 2, 2014 at 11:55 am
Rate This
Oh and just a wee thought.
3800 season tickets at £400 a pop = £1.52m which will be just the right amount to pay back the Easdale and Laxey facilites.
Based on 38k St holders that is 10% of the income stream heading south without touching the sides – Ouch!!
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Have you forgotten the VAT.
Let’s hope those nice chaps with their fingers in the till at Ibrox haven’t
😉

View Comment

Avatar

ptd1978Posted on1:29 pm - May 2, 2014


Just a thought. If Wallace doesn’t pull the trigger (or would flush be more appropriate) until after the end of this season.
If (and it’s still a pretty big if) another admin leads to another liquidation, the new regional league system will be in place. There will be no automatic reason why third Rangers should need to start again in League Two to avoid financial collapse. Hopefully a big number of football clubs would think a stint in the regional leagues might do the supporters of Ibrox club number three some good.

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on1:32 pm - May 2, 2014


burghbhoy says:
May 2, 2014 at 1:11 pm
0 3 Rate This

Funny how quickly some folk are turned off this issue when facts/interpretation are presented that goes against their preferred view, such as the TUPE legislation regarding the “business” entity that, the law tells us, was transferred in 2012: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/246/regulation/3/made

I appreciate those open to discussion, rather than to sniping about it.

While I agree with much of your argument the sniping is because it should not be on this Blog thread but this one http://www.tsfm.net/bonkers-ocnc-thread/ If you continue your argument on this one then the moderators will eventually remove your posts

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on1:33 pm - May 2, 2014


Burghbhoy – what are you saying about TUPE? Apologies but I am not following your specific point about TUPE.

View Comment

Avatar

theoldcoursePosted on1:36 pm - May 2, 2014


re. alternative training facilities should Murray Park be sold off. Is Celtics old site at Barrowfield not available 🙂

In all seriousness though I’m sure there would be no end of suitable facilities available if it became necessary. I’m sure my old Alma Mater maintains the Garscube Sports plaza along the Bearsden Road and outwith Glasgow there are excellent facilities at Stirling University.

View Comment

Avatar

burghbhoyPosted on1:55 pm - May 2, 2014


Campbellsmoney,

I summed it up in the third point I put in reply to BRTH… http://www.tsfm.net/podcast-3/comment-page-34/#comment-19203

burghbhoy says:
April 29, 2014 at 3:20 pm
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 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/246/regulation/3/made):

“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”.

In a nutshell:
1. TUPE law recognises an entity (the “business”/”undertaking”/”economic entity” as they refer to it) that is distinct, and separable from the legal entity and “retains its identity” despite a transfer between legal entities.
2. The Regulations only apply (ie. a TUPE will only occur) in instances where such an entity has been transferred, called a “Relevant Transfer” in the regs.
3. The Rangers/Sevco newco scenario was evidently a “Relevant Transfer”, as a TUPE occurred in that instance, and therefore that business entity – whatever you wish to call it – did indeed transfer to newco, in the eyes of the law at least.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on1:56 pm - May 2, 2014


Screwtop Thompson says:
May 2, 2014 at 12:22 pm

Have long pointed out that going back to the SDM the running costs without the football team have always been around £14m and upwards per annum. Therefore I agree with you that costs need to be cut.

However you provide Wallace with the required solution in terms of what cuts need to be made.
Excluding the IPO monies they brought in £35.2 million over the period covered in the review. Given there will be a bit more income to add given the cup run prize money etc then you could say that even at their lowest they brought in around, lets call it, £19m a year.

The recurring costs for the run of the mill operations is around £40m in the review, so while you can add on costs for the four months of this years they are not too far apart on income and outgoings.

Lets then say £12m for the running costs and £7m for the football operation would still make the envy of all clubs bar one.

It really is doable if the shareholders do have a desire to run a football team because in the above there is no return for investors.

Obviously as you say there would be costs involved re trying to offload high earners and maintenance of stadium etc but with the required desire, realism, austerity and some imaginative funding it can be done.

It will not be easy by any means but it is all possible.

The main issue is that what will such measures leave on the park and how will the paying customers react. If the fans still are blinded by minty moonbeams and the board follow that path again, then I agree with you they are surely doomed.

Similarly if the shareholders feel they are not getting a return and decide to become a property company its a whole new ball game.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on1:59 pm - May 2, 2014


normanbatesmumfc says:
May 2, 2014 at 1:14 pm

Have you forgotten the VAT.
Let’s hope those nice chaps with their fingers in the till at Ibrox haven’t

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Double Ouch!! (or 20% more ouch to be accurate) 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

Galling fiverPosted on2:02 pm - May 2, 2014


I don’t mind it really, at least HP’s getting a kip this time. Last one? Was a bit of a night owl.

They were given every assistance possible to continue, I don’t even mind that. But this rewriting of history stuff should be kept for those who need to believe. If you need that history to continue, then don’t be pointing fingers again when it repeats itself. Change the record and add something to the future you currently trail by many years.

View Comment

Avatar

y4rmyPosted on2:08 pm - May 2, 2014


Have you forgotten the VAT.
Let’s hope those nice chaps with their fingers in the till at Ibrox haven’t

There were some rumours about this a few days ago (Phil MacG?). Frankly I’d be astonished if it were true given both the history of the old club and Sandy Easdale’s personal…um…experience.

Even with a restricted ST uptake (if that is indeed the case), there should be enough to pay the taxman. I’d be less comfortable if I were a supplier (excluding the Stockbridge specials, of course).

View Comment

Avatar

Shyster Flywheel ShysterPosted on2:12 pm - May 2, 2014


Lessons learned. Where there no Lessons Learned. It is totally unbelievable that nothing was learned from 2012. It appeared to be: carry on as usual but in SFL Div 3. Were there redundancies? Were assets sold? Were there pay cuts? I never saw any.

When you compare TRFC in insolvency with Motherwell, Dundee, Livingston, Hearts, etc. in administration it’s one rule for the rich and another for the also-rans. I expect we will see the same bending-over-backwards from the SPFL/SFA hierarchy as we saw in 2012.

I suspect paths will be smoothed again to those of least resistance.

Flywheel

View Comment

Avatar

Palacio67Posted on2:19 pm - May 2, 2014


The lengths some will go to just to convince themselves that Liquidation is no big deal. 🙄

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on2:32 pm - May 2, 2014


Burghbhoy – thanks for that.

What TUPE does, is of course limited to the field of employment law. It does not recognise the “undertaking” that transfers as a separate legal entity at all.

What TUPE says is that if an “undertaking” is transferred from legal entity A to legal entity B (most obviously of course this occurs on the sale of a business by A to B), then the rights that the employees employed in that “undertaking” are transferred so taht teh employees are in teh same position vis a vis B (their new employer) as they were vis a vis A (their old employer).

The rights are not exercisable or enforceable as against the “undertaking” (which is not a legal entity”) but are rather against the legal entity that owns the “undertaking”.

Is your point that there exists, in UK law, a specific example whereby the law recognises the idea that an entity (which is not a legal person) can survive being transferred between legal persons?

Because if it is then :-

1 TUPE has no wider application or purpose than in the field of employment law; and

2 the “undertaking” that is transferred does not actually exist – either immediately prior to the transfer or immediately after the transfer – it is merely a label to be used for determining whether the TUPE Regs will apply to a specific set of circumstances.

The Sevco purchase was a TUPE transfer – no doubt about that. All that means is that the TUPE Regs applied to the transfer.

View Comment

Avatar

HaywirePosted on2:36 pm - May 2, 2014


burghbhoy says:
May 2, 2014 at 1:55 pm

1. TUPE law recognises an entity (the “business”/”undertaking”/”economic entity” as they refer to it) that is distinct, and separable from the legal entity and “retains its identity” despite a transfer between legal entities.
2. The Regulations only apply (ie. a TUPE will only occur) in instances where such an entity has been transferred, called a “Relevant Transfer” in the regs.
3. The Rangers/Sevco newco scenario was evidently a “Relevant Transfer”, as a TUPE occurred in that instance, and therefore that business entity – whatever you wish to call it – did indeed transfer to newco, in the eyes of the law at least.

BB: I know that it is some time ago that these machinations occurred, and I thought that I had more or less unscrambled them at the time, but just tell me how you know that a TUPE did actually happen. I do recall that there was a considerable amount of discussion at the time because most folk, including, apparently, a certain chap with big hands, were not aware that the regulations were there to protect the employee if he/she so wished, not for the protection of the employer, Was there some sort of legal statement or not?

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on2:39 pm - May 2, 2014


twopanda says:
May 2, 2014 at 8:29 am

33

1

Rate This

Today`s the day then – admin day or not
Not convinced about admin being their choice
[Until we hear of the mad dash across the M8 this morning 😉 ]

If they go back to the CoS pleading insolvency after blowing 67m
They`ll throw the book at them
As for tails between their legs – they`ll be lucky to keep both

And then what
Presumably a pre-pack needs to demonstrate a `going concern`
Good luck with that

________________________________________________
Good point.
Idle speculation, but:

Q. Could it be that there actually are legal incumbrances to an administration?
Is it possible that such an event might render some of the board members past and present liable to individual sanction for failing in their fiduciary duties?
Could this be the reason GW et-al trying to avoid this – to the extent that the Easedale’s were loaning finance to keep the lights on?
Are we correct in our assumptions that hitting the big red button would be as pain free a process for those at the helm past and present as it seems.
What obstacles could be presented to this?

View Comment

valentinesclown

valentinesclownPosted on2:39 pm - May 2, 2014


Palacio67 says:
May 2, 2014 at 2:19 pm
0 0 Rate This

The lengths some will go to just to convince themselves that Liquidation is no big deal.
————————————————————————————————————————-
Other things/words that do not seem to be a big deal in Govan or SMSM when referenced to the Ibrox club.. Terms that somehow means something different from the obvious.
Demotion, settled, taxes, club/company,relegation, deed of novation, sevco 5088, sevco Scotland,tuped, duped, Armageddon, financial fair play, EBT’s, non conflicted, betting and on and on.

If this Ibrox club goes into liquidation, be prepared to here these terms and maybe some new ones again.
Sporting integrity is a term that sits comfortably with me, it is one I understand.
I will be at the Scottish Cup final with 2 of my sons as neutrals and am looking forward to the game. Armageddon, really??

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on2:48 pm - May 2, 2014


Haywire – the transfer to Sevco was a TUPE transfer – there is no doubt. The assets went across, the name went across, the playing of football and selling tickets to watch it is now carried out by the newco – all of that is what goes to determine whether or not there was a transfer for TUPE. It was a TUPE transfer.

CG’s view is irrelevant. AMcC’s view is irrelevant. D+P’s view is irrelevant. The SFA’s view is irrelevant. Indeed whatever the sale agreement says on the subject is irrelevant.
What matters is what happened and what happened is that the economic undertaking carried out by Oldco (playing fiba and charging to let people watch it) was thereafter carried out by Newco. That’s all you need to look at to determine if there was a TUPE transfer.

View Comment

Broadswordcallingdannybhoy

BroadswordcallingdannybhoyPosted on2:54 pm - May 2, 2014


Is the football team a separate entity from the football club?

HeeHee

View Comment

Avatar

JimBhoyPosted on3:11 pm - May 2, 2014


I don’t often venture into same club/new club debate but if rangers are seen as the same club as before in the eyes of UEFA, would they need to pay the tax debts of rangers (IL) to play in European competitions?

View Comment

Avatar

JimBhoyPosted on3:14 pm - May 2, 2014


Should rangers take 3 points at the weekend cue the rags reporting the biggest points haul ever in Scottish football… Another record for Ally’s troops..

View Comment

Sergio Biscuits

Sergio BiscuitsPosted on3:31 pm - May 2, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
May 2, 2014 at 2:48 pm

Yes, there definitely was a TUPE transfer between Rangers and Sevco, which is why MacGregor, Naismith et al were able to walk away without the new club having any say in it.
However, to be pedantic, the assets and name did no go ‘across’, they were bought by Sevco Scotland.

View Comment

Avatar

thirdmanrunningPosted on3:34 pm - May 2, 2014


burghbhoy says:
May 2, 2014 at 1:11 pm

If I read you right, you are saying that when staff employed by RFC ‘TUPED’ across this proves that the ‘business undertaking’ did too. Ergo it’s the same business etc etc?

My understanding is that TUPE is short for Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) and is designed to transfer (an employee or group of employees) to another employer.

Without such regulations your contract of employment relating to your own terms and conditions would be meaningless.

Are you suggesting that the fact that the employees TUPED across means that the business simply continued?

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:39 pm - May 2, 2014


Ogilvie – wild speculation on my part
===========================
Whilst we all have our opinions on the SFA President, we can’t deny that he must be a decent ‘operator’ to get high profile roles at RFC, HMFC and the SFA. He knows how to play the game, [off the field that is 🙄 ]

So, with the recent rumblings about a cushy number becoming available at UEFA…

Could Ogilvie have got his timing spot on ?

TRFC is scheduled for meltdown ‘soon’.
The expectation is that the SFA/SPFL will – again – try to do everything possible to assist the Govan club.
Why would anyone think differently ?

So, what if Ogilvie where to resign ?
He/the SFA could spin it to make it sound like Ogilvie was finally falling on his sword as a gesture of goodwill – so that any assistance given to the Govan club should likewise be accepted by fans in good faith.

So, immediate reaction is some rare, positive feedback for the SFA from the fans.

This action may or may not ultimately help smooth the way for TRFC’s ‘continuation of its journey’.

…and the the final kick in the b*lls would be several months down the line when UEFA announce that they have appointed Ogilvie in a cushy new role, due to his ‘bestest administrator in the world’ experience !

Absolutely, pure, unsubstantiated speculation on my part.
But it sounds good ?
Mibbees aye / naw ?

View Comment

Comments are closed.