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 on3:44 pm - May 2, 2014


The James Forrest purported move to Everton is a strange one with them taking on McGeady recently. Similar type players but good business by Celtic if they get near the £7m reported fee..

View Comment

BroadswordcallingdannybhoyPosted on3:47 pm - May 2, 2014


highfibre says:
May 2, 2014 at 3:42 pm
============================

I did not expect there to be a serious answer to my flippancy.
But you’re right.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on3:49 pm - May 2, 2014


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

“Funny how quickly some folk are turned off this issue when facts/interpretation are presented that goes against their preferred view,..”
——————————————-
Perhaps but equally your line of argument may open up further perspectives.

For reasons not entirely clear you appear to be championing the opinion that Rangers Football Club in some way survived liquidation (to summarise briefly). However this outlook is contradicted elsewhere, for instance in the LNS inquiry findings, an extract of which appears below. As you will read, a certain measure of leniency was afforded Rangers Football Club when sanctions were being considered for their copious rule infringements due to the stress this would cause their creditors. Effectively, the ethereal entity that was Rangers Football Club did not exist in sufficient substance to allow it to absorb the impact it rightfully deserved to shoulder. So the club attracts leniency as it is effectively extinct. Yet at the same time it is to be considered undiminished.

Quite how much leniency was advanced is a matter for continuing debate. To wish to benefit from different interpretations of the same circumstances strikes me as contemptible.

“[108] Given the seriousness, extent and duration of the non-disclosure, we have concluded that
nothing less than a substantial financial penalty on Oldco will suffice. Although we are well
aware that, as Oldco is in liquidation with an apparently massive deficiency for creditors (even
leaving aside a possible reversal of the Tax Tribunal decision on appeal), in practice any fine is
likely to be substantially irrecoverable and to the extent that it is recovered the cost will be borne
by the creditors of Oldco, we nevertheless think it essential to mark the seriousness of the
contraventions with a large financial penalty. Since Issues 1 to 3 relate to a single course of
conduct, a single overall fine is appropriate. Taking into account these considerations, we have
decided to impose a fine of £250,000 on Oldco.”

View Comment

SmugasPosted on3:49 pm - May 2, 2014


Thirdmanrunning.

No, the business, the assets, the staircases, the tea lady, the ‘suspensive’ bittie of paper with RFC at the top at 6 Parkgardens , the tops, the physio table, the history, the scarves and the entitlement all continued. But the debt didn’t. Glad to help.

Could I just say, tiresome though it is that once again this is the core issue to the entire affair so I am reticent to support its banishment to another thread.

For the record, once again, in my opinion the ethereal entity, the brand, the trading name, the cloudy thing whatever you wish to call it cannot die, as long as you have a support base willing to follow it. Legally, it can, and it did. If you cannot accept that liquidation does this then you are a large risk of pulling the same stunt again – in fact why wouldn’t you?, a risk that is too great to the sporting event to which you wish to be attached and partake in.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on3:53 pm - May 2, 2014


Thirdmanrunning

You kind of have that the wrong way round.

For TUPE purposes, if the business transfers from A to B then so do the employees who are employed in that business (not the other way round).

In fact for TUPE to apply there does not even have to be a business transfer between A and B. In one case, BusCO A did a certain bus route (let’s say Route 66). The local authority took it away from BusCO A and awarded it to BusCO B. That was deemed to be a sufficient moevement of an economic activity/undertaking for TUPE to apply. So the clippie and drivers on Route 66 TUPE’d over to BusCO B.

So by Burghbhoy’s analysis (if I have him right) a bus route is an entity that survives distinct from the legal person that holds it.

Burghbhoy – have I understood?

View Comment

Billy BoycePosted on3:55 pm - May 2, 2014


would you Adam and Eve it?

http://i62.tinypic.com/1zbw574.png

View Comment

wottpiPosted on4:13 pm - May 2, 2014


y4rmy says:
May 2, 2014 at 2:08 pm

Agree, I think the tax returns will all be in order.
However also wouldn’t be surprised that because of the past HMRC are monitoring the situation.
After all they would be pretty foolish having publicly stated they were happy to see a football operation rising from the ashes of the oldco they helped kill off to allow history to repeat itself

View Comment

bluPosted on4:19 pm - May 2, 2014


“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.”

Burghbhoy, you don’t know that TUPE occurred. What you do know is that some people who were employed by RFC are now employed by (probably) TRFC Ltd. There may even have been some interim employment with SEVCO 5088 along the way. You also know that some people who were employed by RFC had their contracts broken when that company failed – they went and got jobs elsewhere despite Mr Green offering a view that he’d bought their contracts and that they had no option but to transfer to the new company. See you in OCNC thread soon.

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on4:22 pm - May 2, 2014


@BILLY BOYCE Brilliant…

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on4:23 pm - May 2, 2014


Blu – I certainly am not fighting Burghbhoy’s corner here but there is no doubt that aTUPE transfer did occur.

TUPE is completely irrelevant to any oldclub/newclub debate.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:27 pm - May 2, 2014


StevieBC says:
May 2, 2014 at 3:39 pm
‘…So, with the recent rumblings about a cushy number becoming available at UEFA…’
———-
I think it’s actually a FIFA spot that is to be filled by one of the Home nations, the difference this time being that it’s not just the Home nations who will decide which candidate from any of the HNs will be elected.
If CO is allowed even to put himself forward as a candidate it would be a disgrace.

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on4:30 pm - May 2, 2014


Mr Green bought players’ contracts, he bought history, he bought the loyalty of the fans (for a while), he bought CW’s trust for £2 (although i suspect £1), he bought the investors with promises of moonbeams, he bought enough time to get out before the fan was hit, he then bought a chateau.

The next person who comes into the rangers #3 frey will buy the same and I suspect he may airbrush the admins and liquidations and rangers#2 from said history, because you can do that you know…

Rangers need to buy into a proper stable future realising they are no ‘THE people’…

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on4:34 pm - May 2, 2014


Imran back in court on Tuesday

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27251815

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on4:35 pm - May 2, 2014


IamRangers still in the hunt… http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27251815

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on4:37 pm - May 2, 2014


@EASYJAMBO Snap… 😀

View Comment

y4rmyPosted on4:41 pm - May 2, 2014


Imran back in court on Tuesday
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27251815

We predicted this when the RIFC accounts appeared, so I’m surprised it hasn’t happened sooner. The difference this time is that Ahmad now has hard evidence that his potential award is in jeopardy.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on4:42 pm - May 2, 2014


easyJambo says:
May 2, 2014 at 4:34 pm

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water….

There are so many characters along with twists and turns that you forget what might be around the next corner.

All we need now is Charles and Craig to turn up.

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on4:45 pm - May 2, 2014


@WOTTPI I have always thought Charlie boy would return, if there’s a buck to be made the spiverati cannot help themselves… Deja-vu again.

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on4:48 pm - May 2, 2014


Y4RMY It could be the Death Knell… The fat lady is definitely warming up.

View Comment

burghbhoyPosted on4:48 pm - May 2, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
May 2, 2014 at 2:32 pm
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.

I think we are in broad agreement here.

Yes, TUPE is an aspect of the law focused on employment, and in doing so, touches on employers, and the status of employers, football clubs being included within that bracket.

I agree that the business/undertaking entity the law recognises in this context is not a “separate legal entity” (recalling LNS re. the “Club” as defined within the SPL/SPFL rulebook). The legislation provides legal basis for the position that the business (whether that be a leisure centre, a restaurant, or a football club) is an entity it itself, that can be transferred to a new legal entity – whether at incorporation, or in the case of “newco-ing” – and retain its identity. That is why I think it provides an interesting new dimension to this dicussion, a different legal angle by which to approach it at least.

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

Which, evidently, can include the instance of a football club transferring to a new legal entity, whether in the case of incorporation, or the newco scenario post-insolvency. I acknowledge this is only one aspect to this discussion, albeit a legal one.

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.

I wonder what you mean by “actually exist”.
Recall that the legislation defines the entity in question as being an “organised grouping of resources”, which in the context of the football club would be stadium, players, intellectual property/emblems etc, all of are tangible. I suppose it’s like questioning whether a theme park “actually exists”, or a restaurant. I’d say so, but again I’m not quite sure the context in which you are referring.

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on4:58 pm - May 2, 2014


Well I am guessing now the rangers will be -25 pts at some point next season.. Gives the fans another excuse to associate their hardships with the SFA unduly punishing them. Harsh..!!!

I wonder if with hindsight today may have been seen to be a missed opportunity…

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on5:13 pm - May 2, 2014


Burghbhoy – I don’t think we are in agreement at all to be honest.

What I have pointed out is that according to TUPE a bus route can be an entity/undertaking for TUPE. It exists as such (as an entity or undertaking) only for the purposes of TUPE – it has no other existence for any other purpose – that is what I mean by saying “actually exists” – I mean something more than a conceptual existence (which is what an undertaking is in TUPE). An “undertaking” under TUPE is only a definition – not a real thing.

Now of course I am not saying the bus route does not exist any more than I could say that a theme park does not exist but you have to distinguish between those things that people would call the theme park (rides,kiosks etc) and what the TUPE Regs would define as the economic organisation/grouping of resources etc of the theme park. The latter has no existence outside of TUPE.

Imaginary numbers have no existence outside of maths – they have an existence inside maths – but we still use them in the real world. We write them down on paper and use them.

Anyway – that is me for the night. Pub calls.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on5:40 pm - May 2, 2014


JimBhoy says:
May 2, 2014 at 4:58 pm

1

0

Rate This

Well I am guessing now the rangers will be -25 pts at some point next season.. Gives the fans another excuse to associate their hardships with the SFA unduly punishing them. Harsh..!!!

I wonder if with hindsight today may have been seen to be a missed opportunity…

_____________________________________________________

Couple of possibilities at play:
(i) SFA or SPFL left GW in no doubt that in the event of insolvency, promotion would be blocked and other sanctions would follow. GW decided that admin later with points deduction after promotion becomes the least worst option, vs possibly having to resit League 1 immediately.
(ii) a deal was done. GW knows that admin this season – especially with promotion assured – would leave the SFA leadership very exposed. So he agreed to kick this down the line in exchange for subsequent concessions when it does happen
(iii) GW has worked out that possibility of a points deduction next season rather than this season gives him possible leverage over King and the fans. If he can make it through the close season then the threat of admin and resulting failure to be promoted to their rightful place is a weapon that can be used to extract cash and bring teh bears into line, and which would allow him to blame King and the ST boycott for any administration and failure to progress up the league subsequently.
(iv) IA/CG are still pulling the strings behind teh scenes and they are waiting for IA to ringfence his £500K before they pull the plug. IA gets his £500K set aside. Then admin is called. Easedales get the secured properties. RIFC shareholders get the rest of the assets. Meanwhile King and TRFC fans get to spend the close season trying to put humpty dumpty back together again.
(v) The plan is now liquidation. So points deductions don’t matter. Lower leagues (at best) is where they will be playing next.

I am favouring (ii)/(iii) on present form.

View Comment

HaywirePosted on5:43 pm - May 2, 2014


Campbellsmoney/Burghbhoy/and others,
I do not wish to labour the point, and I certainly do not wish to be banished to the wastelands of OC/NC, but please tell me what actual published evidence is there that the staff of the previous lot transferred to the new lot through TUPE?

View Comment

burghbhoyPosted on5:45 pm - May 2, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
May 2, 2014 at 5:13 pm
What I have pointed out is that according to TUPE a bus route can be an entity/undertaking for TUPE. It exists as such (as an entity or undertaking) only for the purposes of TUPE – it has no other existence for any other purpose – that is what I mean by saying “actually exists” – I mean something more than a conceptual existence (which is what an undertaking is in TUPE). An “undertaking” under TUPE is only a definition – not a real thing.

I’m finding this conversation somewhat surreal.

Your claim that a business – like a restaurant, a bus service, a football club, a theme park – exists only for the purposes of TUPE, and “has no other existence for any other purpose” seems positively bizarre. I’ve used a bus service, visited a theme park, dined at a restaurant, these are entities comprised of constituent parts interacting – no doubt – but to somehow deny they exist on that basis is, erm.. existentially concerning at the least, given we are all entities comprised of constituent parts!

Now of course I am not saying the bus route does not exist any more than I could say that a theme park does not exist but you have to distinguish between those things that people would call the theme park (rides,kiosks etc) and what the TUPE Regs would define as the economic organisation/grouping of resources etc of the theme park. The latter has no existence outside of TUPE.

You’ve contradicted yourself it seems there. You refer to “the theme park” as any entity people would recognise, albeit comprised of constituent parts (like most entities are), and then go on to say that entity has no existence outside of TUPE. Doesn’t add up to me.

Imaginary numbers have no existence outside of maths – they have an existence inside maths – but we still use them in the real world. We write them down on paper and use them. Anyway – that is me for the night. Pub calls.

The existence or otherwise of imaginary numbers? Shrikes. You’re right. Time to call it a day…

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on5:51 pm - May 2, 2014


So much for the harbingers of doom wrt there foprecast of empty stands at the cup final:

Jim Spence ‏@bbcjimspence 11m

Ticket sales for @dundeeunitedfc now at 24.300 for the cup final. With @St_Johnstone_FC now at well over 14.000 it’s looking very healthy.

Armageddon’s looking better every day. 😉

View Comment

Palacio67Posted on5:53 pm - May 2, 2014


valentinesclown says:
May 2, 2014 at 2:39 pm
27 1 Rate This
——————————————-
You missed ‘Investment’. 😆

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on6:07 pm - May 2, 2014


Burghbhoy, I know you are trying to shoehorn the meaning of undertaking from TUPE regulations into your understanding of the LNS decision; but it is of no relevance whatsoever.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/143090374/Spl-Handbook-2008-09-10-Feb-09-Current

2. In these Articles:-

2006 Act means the Companies Act 2006 including any statutory modificationor re-enactments thereof for the time being in force;

Act means the Companies Act 1985 including any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof for the time being in force;

….

4 Unless the context otherwise requires, words or expressions contained in these Articles bear the same meaning as in the Act but excluding any statutory modification thereof not in force when these Articles or the relevant parts thereof are adopted.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/38/crossheading/meaning-of-undertaking-and-related-expressions

(1)In the Companies Acts“undertaking” means—
(a)a body corporate or partnership, or
(b)an unincorporated association carrying on a trade or business, with or without a view to profit.

As I've pointed out many, many times previously, the articles of the SFA, SFL and SPL were all written so that they applied equally to a "Club" which is an unincorporated association as well as a "Club" which is a body corporate.

The Rangers Football Club plc (now RFC 2012 plc) was, of course, the relevant undertaking as described by the Companies Act definition.

The LNS enquiry accepted the terms of reference that contained the false premise that a "Club" is some ethereal entity that has no recognisable form; but in truth, this construction is not borne out by a proper examination of the regulations. No-one disputed the Doncaster fiction, simply because it suited all parties (for entirely commercial reasons) to pretend that the "Club" was an asset that could be sold on out of the dying company.

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on6:14 pm - May 2, 2014


As The Yanks would say… “what’s going down?”

Right on cue we have a new poster stirring the Old Club / New Club discussion (this time hidden behind the TUPE transfer), he brings some good points to the table but I always find it strange when someone obviously educated in the relevant subject matter suddenly appears stage right.

My 5-Whys kicks in once more…..

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on6:16 pm - May 2, 2014


For those the Gods wish to destroy they first make a club and a holding company. 😉

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on6:17 pm - May 2, 2014


I have had a feeling that, in the event TRFC don’t go into administration during this season, and it now looks very likely they won’t (although I do acknowledge they still could do), but they do go into it within, say, the month of May (pay day perhaps), that it might indicate that the SFA/SPFL have actually all grown a pair (suspensive*, of course) and let them know they would not stand for it (administration this season). I suggest this, not because I believe those burrowed in Hampden would ever dream of ‘doing the right thing’, but because a club, winning a league by such a huge margin, then going into a much predicted insolvency event where the only stated penalty is meaningless, would create a controversy that would melt even their brass necks. A club, either a new one suffering an insolvency event within two years of it’s beginning, or one that has existed for 140+ years and suffering it’s second insolvency event within two years, and in both cases winning two league titles and promotions in this two years, must surely be seen as bringing the game into disrepute, at the very least. I have a sneaking suspicion that the powers that be have had a word with Wallace and co and let them know that, regardless of it’s timing, any administration would lead to a 25 point penalty next season and perhaps something even more draconian if they don’t see this season out.

This, I think, could be the only reason, if things are as bad as most believe, that they haven’t already gone into administration, because not to, just doesn’t make sense. Now, with the Imran news meaning they might well be advised to go into administration before the hearing as not to would mean Imran’s £500,000+ could be removed from the pot that they, the board and their masters, would wish to share, administration becomes even more likely. Administration, 9.00am Tuesday morning, anyone?

Please be assured I am not backing Regan, Doncaster et al, but I do think that, even they, must have a breaking point and realise that this just can’t be allowed to go on unchecked.

*A suspensive condition is a condition which (as the name suggests) suspends rights and obligations until the uncertain future event occurs.

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on6:18 pm - May 2, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:

May 2, 2014 at 5:13 pm
Anyway – that is me for the night. Pub calls.
======================================================================
CM…the pub at 5.13pm…I take it you are no longer in Samoa?
Remember me…?…you stood me up on Valentines Day evening…I had to lurk on this site for a few sweet nothings in my ear…and all I got was John Clark(e) rambling about his Shakingspear…again!

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on6:40 pm - May 2, 2014


Haywire says:
May 2, 2014 at 5:43 pm
………………………….
None….Charles Green stated he had bought the players contracts…without agreement?

Charlie Green…what a guy…the 100 meter school sprint champion in flip flops..

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on6:44 pm - May 2, 2014


I have clearly missed a page….why has the…TUPE… dilemma suddenly raised its head? and why for that matter has it suddenly become a heated debate?

View Comment

Silent PartnerPosted on6:52 pm - May 2, 2014


@Madbhoy 6.14 p.m.

Totally agree. It depresses me that some posters genuinely believe that, however tortuous the arguments, a case van be made that what has happened over the last two years can be explained through a proper interpretation of the rules of both the footballing governing bodies and the employment laws of the land.

Putting an ‘H’ in one’s moniker does not always gain one credibility. Eventually your slip shows. BurghbHoy09 is repeating some old arguments. Fair enough, but I genuinely thought we had got beyond this stage.

Substance over form

For the record, I don’t get too worked up about the existence of the current Rangers. For as long as they continue to pay their bills, I have no objection to their sporting progress.

Just don’t consider yourself the same club, you’re not.

When you can’t pay the bills, you should be treated as fairly as all other clubs have been. New or old.

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on6:58 pm - May 2, 2014


I commented yesterday on the United for All initiative to raise funds for fans struggling to afford tickets/transport to the cup final. Things are moving along nicely – link below but the following worth quoting directly…

“An appeal to raise funds to help cash-strapped fans attend the Scottish Cup Final has raised more than £20,000.”
“Fans of clubs including Dundee FC, St Johnstone, Celtic, Dunfermline and Aberdeen have all contributed.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-27253390

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on7:01 pm - May 2, 2014


Silent Partner says:
May 2, 2014 at 6:52 pm
…………………………
I agree

However…I have yet to find anyone who can explain …WHY the same club had to change their name and WHY the same club had to transfer its membership?

Anyhow moving on…the suggestion the SFA have been in discussions with those at Ibrox about delaying/preventing admin leads to another puzzle…what is there to gain for both?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:17 pm - May 2, 2014


Paulmac2 says:
May 2, 2014 at 7:01 pm

Good WHYs PM2.

In answer to your last question, there was mention/rumour that people from Hampden had had words with GW, or others, regarding administration. There was, I believe, a quote from Regan? that should TRFC fall into administration a 25 point penalty would be imposed.

I put forward the possibility the other day that it might be that the SFA or SPFL have put a word in GW’s ear that an administration this season would, perhaps, result in the penalty being applied next season, this in an effort to stave off the ludicrous situation whereby TRFC could win their league while going into admin without a meaningful penalty. In a nutshell, mere speculation 🙄 I’ve expanded that speculation today because it seems more pertinent today, the penultimate day of the Division 1 season, than the on-going OCNC debate .

I doubt there is anything to be ‘gained’ by either party, but the SFA/SPFL bods might wish to avoid the embarrassment of league winners going into administration.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on7:22 pm - May 2, 2014


easyJambo says:
May 2, 2014 at 4:34 pm
‘.Imran back in court on Tuesday’
———
I wonder where in Court? I haven’t found details in the Rolls of Court, and I’d sure like to be there even if only for a 2- minute ruling!

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on7:47 pm - May 2, 2014


burghbhoy says:
May 2, 2014 at 4:48 pm

TUPE is an aspect of the law focused on employment, and in doing so, touches on employers, and the status of employers, football clubs being included within that bracket.
—————————————————————————-
I have little interest in the topic under discussion and haven’t been reading the posts but the above statement caught my eye because a football club which is either a Ltd company or PLC isn’t an employer.

The ’employer’ in the case of Ibrox football players and other staff was oldco in the shape of the PLC now being liquidated. The employer wasn’t Rangers Football Club for the simple reason that the ‘club’ couldn’t deduct tax and NI from the employees because it wasn’t a legal entity and it still isn’t. The legal responsibility for remitting NI & Tax to HMRC is the responsibility of the employer which was oldco and is now newco.

To take another slant on things – what name is on the various insurance policies in force at Ibrox and, in particular, the liability cover for employees and the public. I would be very surprised if it was in the name of the ‘club’ because as we all know it isn’t a legal entity.

Of course if it was then Hector would be quids in because he could claim back all the money that is owed to HM Treasury by oldco from the ‘club’. But as the club isn’t a legal entity the taxpayers and all the other creditors just have to whistle for their cash.

The contract of employment for staff would have been in the name of oldco and they would have been amended to newco following the purchase of the Rangers business and assets from D&P or, at least, that’s what should have happened although some very funny things happen down Ibrox way so who knows?

It also must be remembered that the sale of the Rangers business and assets to newco had to be agreed by oldco as per D&P as administrators and also Sevco 5088. Nowhere does it say that the agreement of Rangers as a ‘club’ was legally required for this transaction and it wasn’t.

If any employee is sitting with a contract of employent naming ‘Rangers Football Club’ or ‘The Rangers Football Club’ as their employer then if they were summarily dismissed, even on a whim, they couldn’t secure legal redress under the terms of the ‘contract’ against the ‘club’ as it isn’t a legal entity so the contract means nothing. Of course the player’s lawyer would argue, successfully in my opinion, that the actual employer was The Rangers Football Club Ltd as they collected the NI and tax from the player’s wages.

Interestingly the name of the Proprietor shown on the rating valuation rolls for Ibrox Stadium is ‘Rangers Football Club Ltd’ which doesn’t actually exist and I don’t think has ever existed. I won’t even go anywhere near what the title deeds say 😆 However as usual there always seems to be problems with Rangers paperwork.

And it continues at the Auchenhowie training ground where the proprietor is shown on the offical valuation records as Sevco Scotland Ltd. You would have thought they might have managed to update the records as the name Sevco Scotland Lts ceased to exist on 31 July 2012. One could assume that the proprietor should be shown as The Rangers Football Club Ltd but I have learnt to make no assumptions when it comes to what Rangers is up to with its paperwork 😆

I have absolutely no problem with ordinary supporters believing in their hearts that their club still exists but I have no time for the devious manoeuvres of some who try to create a legal framework for their fiction.

And I don’t even have a problem with them – just as long as they pay the tax and creditors because if the club is the same legal entity then it has legal obligations which must be met. Of course we all know they won’t be because the old ‘club’ is dead although the burial service by BDO has yet to be completed.

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on7:48 pm - May 2, 2014


Sorry this is now a bit off topic but I’m only just getting the chance to get back to a couple of people who’d been good enough to respond to my comments last night.

Ecobhoy at 12:26 said 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.” Its a fair question Ecobhoy. Part of my answer is wrapped up in my original post this evening. There are certain third rails on Rangers fan forums – you mention them, you die. You will be called “Timmy” and banned. And abused beyond that. So say that happens and you decide you want to go elsewhere to discuss / debate the issues around your club. You come onto TSFM and see non stop ridicule of your club and enjoyment at your plight. That, therefore, is the choice facing the “sensible Rangers posters”. Abuse / shut down on Rangers sites or mockery here. (Please note that I have been clear previously that I do not consider this site anti Rangers and that I am only talking about occasional lapses into “mockery” etc). My guess is that most of these people just give up and don’t post anywhere. Which is a loss to both communities, wouldn’t you agree?

Aquinas at 12:35 – it sounds to me like in your view Rangers fans are welcome here to you as long as they meet your conditions (admitting cheating, repenting of sins etc.). No other fan has to meet conditions to be welcome here by you (as far as I know). And this informs the “exclusive” comment I made earlier on regarding the way this community sometimes feels.

Resin_Lab_Dog at 2:35 (mate you need to sleep occasionally!!) – I’m not trying to say that banter should be outlawed here or anything of the sort. If anyone wanted to wade into Caley’s humping at the weekend it is fair game, as it should be. My point was that if Rangers got a humping, hell if Rangers step out of line on or off the field to the slightest degree, a large portion of the community lambasts them with a specially reserve venom and takes great pleasure in it, much more than any other team would get. As I have said, much of this is self inflicted, but while posts wading into a Caley humping would do it with a degree of consideration (and often comment to that effect) of the Caley fans in our midst, no such consideration would be given to the Rangers fans in our midst. (Fans? Greenock Jack seems to have gone AWOL, does that mean I should just have said “the Rangers fan in our midst”?!)

In addition Resin, I don’t disagree with the later points you make around Rangers’ many examples of less than stellar behaviour and the requirement of their fans to take their share of collective responsibility. I wholly agree with that statement by the way and thought it was well put.

Finally, I will draw attention to the fact that you said “a larger part of the reason that TRFC fans do not engage here as much as we would like” – see you said you would like a greater engagement of TRFC fans here. I also would like this. To that end, last night I raised a couple of points as to what I felt may be the drivers behind that lack of engagement. The community can disagree with my views, alter the behaviour in an attempt to engage any Rangers lurkers, or be happy with things as they are. I am one small part of this community and made my point; it is up to you all how you choose to receive it. And I thank those who have come back to me on it, agreeing or disagreeing, its all valuable.

Of course, any Rangers fan participating here must, and should expect, to read uncomfortable truths about their team (which largely won’t be defended as they are beyond defence), and a good deal of ribbing as a result. Which is all fine and I wouldn’t dare suggest it shouldn’t happen, I just think it should be done with a degree of respect. Providing, of course, that such respect is returned to the community by any Rangers fan contributing.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on7:51 pm - May 2, 2014


Paulmac2 says:
May 2, 2014 at 6:44 pm
9 0 Rate This

I have clearly missed a page….why has the…TUPE… dilemma suddenly raised its head? and why for that matter has it suddenly become a heated debate?
———-

Bonkers beckons for this latest round of tortured semantics.

Nice try though.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:08 pm - May 2, 2014


ecobhoy says:
May 2, 2014 at 7:47 pm
‘….I won’t even go anywhere near what the title deeds say ‘
—————–
This is what the Ibrox title deeds said last September when I paid my couple of pounds to get a pdf copy. Beyond this little excerpt there are 33 pages of turgid legal stuff going back to 18-oatcake or near enough.
I don’t know enough about these matters to know whether anyone else’s legal claims on property ( mortgagor, secured money-lender, floating- chargy- kind of things would be shown as ‘burdens’ in the title deeds to a property). Probably not. But in any event, I don’t see anything in the 33 pages to suggest that CW or Cg or anyone else might have a claim in default of repayment of any loan or other arrangement with the property as security.
I haven’t thought it worth while trying to get a more recent update than September

” Registers Direct-Land Register: View Title
GLA 210958
Search Summary
Date 13/09/2013
Sasine search Sheet: 6071

B. Proprietorship Section

Title No. date of reg. Proprietor Consideration date of entry

1 15/06/12 Sevco Scotland Ltd Implementation of 14/06/12
incorporated under the agreement
Companies Acts( Company
number 425159) and having
its registered office at
Capella, 60 York St, Glasgow
G2 8JX

Note: The above company is now known as The Rangers Football Club Ltd.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on8:10 pm - May 2, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
May 2, 2014 at 7:51 pm
Paulmac2 says:
May 2, 2014 at 6:44 pm

I have clearly missed a page….why has the…TUPE… dilemma suddenly raised its head? and why for that matter has it suddenly become a heated debate?
———-
Bonkers beckons for this latest round of tortured semantics. Nice try though.
=====================
It always raises it’s head usually from a new poster or at least a poster with a new moniker when the heat gets turned-up at Ibrox 😆

I have ignored the the topic until just now as I was certain it would be moved to the Bonkers Thread but sadly it wasn’t. However I have said my piece and will not be indulging further in the debate as there are much more interesting things to be looking at.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on8:22 pm - May 2, 2014


John Clark says: May 2, 2014 at 7:22 pm

easyJambo says:
May 2, 2014 at 4:34 pm
‘.Imran back in court on Tuesday’
———
I wonder where in Court? I haven’t found details in the Rolls of Court, and I’d sure like to be there even if only for a 2- minute ruling!
=================================
I would have liked to have gone along myself but I’m tied up with invigilation duties for the SQA exams on Tuesday.

View Comment

loamfeetPosted on8:23 pm - May 2, 2014


I don’t know. Given the bent of the argument shouldn’t we set up a Dualism vs Monism thread?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on8:27 pm - May 2, 2014


It’s in the Rolls now.

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/current-business/court-rolls/court-roll?id=c9806da6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

LORD
STARRED MOTION
4hrs
CA131/13 Imran Ahmad v The Rangers Football Club Ltd
———————–
I don’t know which judge will be hearing it though. With 4 hours allocated I’d guess that it will start in the morning. It should make interesting listening as you may get some info on the current finances and ST sales, then again maybe not.

View Comment

TailothebankPosted on8:44 pm - May 2, 2014


Resin L D : 5.40. :
You absolutely got it spot on..good analysis …they will kick the can down the road as long as they can . Although I still ‘hae ma doots’..I am delighted if this is because as you say the SFA has said
‘ no way Jose’ ….to admin right now or you stay where you are in league 3

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:49 pm - May 2, 2014


easyJambo says:
May 2, 2014 at 8:27 pm
——-
Thanks, ej. I missed that (unless it just appeared since I posted). I’ve emailed the webteam@scotcourts address asking for details of court number and time etc. and asking whether it is ‘in private’ . But if I don’t hear on Monday, I’ll trot along anyhow and find out.

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on9:05 pm - May 2, 2014


RyanGosling says:
May 2, 2014 at 7:48 pm
17 3 Rate This

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

Please keep posting Ryan.

And if you feel the need to pull someone up or pull up the forum as a whole, all the better for this forum.

You know you’ll be challenged at times but you also know you’ll meet a great deal of honesty and folks here will admit when they may have have misjudged or overstepped a line somewhere.

Maybe controversial with some folk but:

Scottish Football needs strong REAL* Rangers fans.

*Honest, fair minded football fans. Who are, and know whey are, just like the rest of us.

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on9:16 pm - May 2, 2014


There’s been a lot of OCNC debate today. Hard to fathom where its all coming from at this point or more importantly why.

However, despite some forceful arguments I haven’t seen much new or informative tbh.

Although I have to say my understanding of TUPE is much clearer, thanks largely to the precise (as always) words of CampbellsMoney.

I think on a day with more worthy or important topics to debate a few would have been dispatched to the relevant thread, but its been quite quiet otherwise so I guess its added nicely to the discussion today.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on9:26 pm - May 2, 2014


RyanGosling says:
May 2, 2014 at 7:48 pm

Sorry this is now a bit off topic but I’m only just getting the chance to get back to a couple of people who’d been good enough to respond to my comments last night.

Ecobhoy at 12:26 said 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.
===============================================
I have a lot of thoughts on that issue but the moderation policy on TSFM wouldn’t allow them to be aired and I should make it clear that I agree with that policy.

Suffice to say that the root of the problem lies not in football IMO but in cultural and historical influences and as I have often made clear previously I don’t regard this as exclusively a Rangers problem although I do believe things have deteriorated in the last couple of years because of the financial shambles which has caught-up with and overtaken Ibrox coming at the same time as sections of the NI population feel they are under attack.

Some believe their way of life is dying and that’s creating a lot of angst and subsequent reaction and even the independence referendum, partly because of an accident of timing, is also putting pressure on the ‘totems’ held by particular groups.

But these are huge and complex societal issues way beyond the scope of football to resolve although footie will remain enmeshed because it provides a fertile recruiting ground for youngsters who can be fired-up and pointed in certain directions by older ‘political’ heads who have their own agendas to pursue which have nothing to do with football..

Day and daily I see vicious attacks and language repeatedly used on Darkside sites which totally eclipses any comments or banter I have seen on here. Being a football supporter has never been a place for shrinking violets and you have to be able to dish it out and take it or sit and home and play patience..

I believe we all have to try and retain a perspective where we instinctively recognise that football is just a game at the end of the day and win, lose or draw it shouldn’t create hatred or lead to physical assault or even the threat of such.

For me those that cross the line have no real interest if football and only use it as an excuse for their violent tendencies or twisted and often paranoid beliefs. And on that basis I hope that even though few Bears post here that those who lurk consider the many discussions and debates which take place here and how they affect rangers and Scottish Football.

I am a great believer that Education is the key to understanding and from that progress can be achieved. But it doesn’t happen overnight and many Bears are emotionally too raw and actually bewildered by what’s happening to their club to engage in debate on here. But I hope slowly they will come but it must be their decision although we must keep the door open and the WELCOME mat out.

And I don’t need any confessions or apologies for the past – it’s enough for me to know that a poster genuinely wants to change Scottish Football for the better and that that change must be built on Sporting Integrity where every team is treated equally under the rules and that full transparency is created at Hampden with fans given meaningful access; their questions answered and concerns taken on board and dealt with and not ignored as currently happens.

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on9:28 pm - May 2, 2014


Matty Roth, thanks for your first post, appreciated and understood.

As to your second post and the resurgence of the OC/NC, TUPE etc debate, I think everyone has missed the most vital question in the whole debacle. That question of course being, why did John Clarke’s E not TUPE over to John Clark? Are they the same person or should all John Clark’s posts, or all of John Clarke’s posts, be disregarded?

Scottish football needs a strong John Clark. Or a strong John Clarke.

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on9:39 pm - May 2, 2014


Ecobhoy firstly I’d be interested to hear the views you alluded to so if acceptable then please to PM me, if it’s not appropriate for the public blog.

Secondly I’m not sue we are talking about the same group of people. I was referring to a group of people, Rangers fans who are educated, sensible and tolerant, bewildered and disgusted by what has befallen the club, who would quite possibly be open to being here were it not for what I referred to as a certain glee held by many members of the community at the downfall of rangers. I believe you are referring to a much different group, a sizeable minority of rangers fans / substantial portion of match day attendees / majority of online rangers forums fans who hold views and attitudes which are not compatible with this site or modern life. Correct me if I’m wrong. But I do believe these are two very distinct groups among the Rangers support.

View Comment

TartanwulverPosted on9:40 pm - May 2, 2014


Allyjambo says:
May 2, 2014 at 7:17 pm

There was, I believe, a quote from Regan? that should TRFC fall into administration a 25 point penalty would be imposed…I put forward the possibility the other day that it might be that the SFA or SPFL have put a word in GW’s ear…in an effort to stave off the ludicrous situation whereby TRFC could win their league while going into admin without a meaningful penalty
—————————————————-
If so, then maybe we do now have an example of the authorities’ discretion being used to the right thing. (Phrase coined, correct me if I’m wrong, by Allyjambo a few days ago)

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on9:43 pm - May 2, 2014


JohnBhoy says:
May 2, 2014 at 8:41 pm
ecobhoy says:
May 2, 2014 at 9:26 pm

I have a lot of thoughts on that issue but the moderation policy on TSFM wouldn’t allow them to be aired and I should make it clear that I agree with that policy.
=========================================

@JohnBhoy – I should say that my comment on the moderation policy doesn’t refer in any way to your post but only to the moderation policy as I understand it in relation to the totally different subject I was referring to.

Having known you for so long on Paul’s site I think I fully understand and appreciate your brand of humour 😉

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on9:43 pm - May 2, 2014


RyanGosling says:
May 2, 2014 at 9:28 pm
3 0 Rate This

Matty Roth, thanks for your first post, appreciated and understood.

As to your second post and the resurgence of the OC/NC, TUPE etc debate, I think everyone has missed the most vital question in the whole debacle. That question of course being, why did John Clarke’s E not TUPE over to John Clark? Are they the same person or should all John Clark’s posts, or all of John Clarke’s posts, be disregarded?

Scottish football needs a strong John Clark. Or a strong John Clarke.

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

My understanding was that “E” decided to tear up his(or her) contract and find a new master.

Presumably JC was a harsh and forbidding master to this poor, unwanted extra letter.

Hard to think really when you read the depth of heart, modesty and intelligence in his posts.

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on9:47 pm - May 2, 2014


RyanGosling says:
May 2, 2014 at 7:48 pm

24

3

Rate This

_______________________________________________

Can’t argue with what you say. Well put.

I am interested in:
“hell if Rangers step out of line on or off the field to the slightest degree, a large portion of the community lambasts them with a specially reserve venom and takes great pleasure in it, much more than any other team would get. (As I have said, much of this is self inflicted)”

I think this is fair comment, and interesting.

Firstly, I think some of the ‘venom’ you sense is born out of a general disgruntlement that many people feel that the Ibrox club were untouchable and got away with too much for too long.
Its payback plain and simple. Its also counterproductive. But I can also understand it.

I remember being really angry once watching Caley getting pumped by Rangers 4-1 while RFC were in administration, while in the midst of a tax dispute that I consider meant they were effectively enjoying a state subsidy, at a time of severe cuts in public sector services. Your guys were getting paid 10x what my team were, and there I was as a taxpayer, effectively therefore paying both sets of wages. My sense from the Rangers fans at that time was one of indignance, defiance and total self absorption. And there was still every chance that they would manage to evade consequences, let alone punishment. I did not wish your club well that day, I do not mind telling you.
Because I actually felt like I was being personally cheated in real time and in broad daylight by every person who pulled on a light blue shirt that day, without even being afforded the dignity of them acknowledging or even considering the possibility that I might possibly have any reasonable cause to feel this way.
That was then and this is now.
The Ibrox club cheated. But they haven’t got away with it.
And there is a sense of relief among the fans of other clubs that they didn’t.
I know that can come across as venom. But it is best for all that they didn’t get away with it. Any anger I felt has subsided long ago.
I wish there was some way that your club could ‘not be allowed to get away with it’ that did not involve pain and heartache to decent fans like you Ryan. But ‘not being allowed get away with it’ is still important.

The past is there. It cannot be rewritten however people try. We all need to move on together and focus on what lies ahead.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:48 pm - May 2, 2014


RyanGosling says:
May 2, 2014 at 9:28 pm
‘,why did John Clarke’s E not TUPE over to John Clark?’
——–
As my name-baiter ,and Shakespoke- hater, Essexbeancounter, would not say, the question for the ‘e’ was “TUPE or not TUPE”.
It decided it was a free agent if the entity it was employed in was dissolved and a new entity set up. Happily, though, the ethereal reality that was in John Clarke floated effortlessly to inhabit John Clark. And all of its posting history, courtesy of a wee four-way agreement between RTC, TSFM, the old John Clarke and the new John Clarke , was preserved. 😀

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on9:50 pm - May 2, 2014


I don’t know Matty. I’ve noticed a difference has come over John since the E left. It’s hard to say what the difference is, but I think the E was a major part of our esteemed colleagues personality. I for one will laugh heartily if someone starts posting here under the name of E claiming to be the real John Clarke.

John- it’s Friday night silliness, nothing more. Keep up the good work.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:52 pm - May 2, 2014


the new John Clark!

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on9:54 pm - May 2, 2014


Resin lab dog- agree with every word. I understand the points you made regarding that match and all I can say is that if the roles were reversed I would feel the same as you did.

John Clark- brilliant mate!

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on10:00 pm - May 2, 2014


RyanGosling says:
May 2, 2014 at 9:39 pm
0 0 Rate This

Ecobhoy firstly I’d be interested to hear the views you alluded to so if acceptable then please to PM me, if it’s not appropriate for the public blog.

Secondly I’m not sue we are talking about the same group of people. I was referring to a group of people, Rangers fans who are educated, sensible and tolerant, bewildered and disgusted by what has befallen the club, who would quite possibly be open to being here were it not for what I referred to as a certain glee held by many members of the community at the downfall of rangers. I believe you are referring to a much different group, a sizeable minority of rangers fans / substantial portion of match day attendees / majority of online rangers forums fans who hold views and attitudes which are not compatible with this site or modern life. Correct me if I’m wrong. But I do believe these are two very distinct groups among the Rangers support.

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

You mention (almost euphamistically) “glee” of some posts on the site. I can see why and have no problem particularly with your description of what you see before you (and how you interpret and feel about it) but I do wonder…

IF at some point if we a few more souls like yourself were brave enough to step into the bright light. To ignore the silly, rebut the incorrect, acknowledge the insightful, whatever, just make a reasoned and not dogmatic contribution…

Well this blog would be both a more fascinating and also an increasingly unique place IMO.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:04 pm - May 2, 2014


Tartanwulver says:
May 2, 2014 at 9:40 pm

“If so, then maybe we do now have an example of the authorities’ discretion being used to do the right thing. (Phrase coined, correct me if I’m wrong, by Allyjambo a few days ago)”
_________________________________
I did in fact use that phrase, TW, but qualified it with the doubt that that was their motivation (if indeed my speculation was correct 🙄 ). I suggested any motivation would more likely be a saving of face (their own). I would, however, be delighted to be both right and wrong; ‘right’ that the football authorities have taken steps to ensure TRFC don’t go into administration while winning the division title and promotion; and ‘wrong’ that they did it for purely self-serving reasons. We live in hope 🙂

View Comment

occamPosted on10:05 pm - May 2, 2014


‘I am a great believer that Education is the key to understanding’

TRUTH will out – no hiding place!

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on10:10 pm - May 2, 2014


Matty Roth – nail on head! It would improve the equality of the environment and drive the debate no end. If we could get some Rangers fans on here who had enough time on their hands to research and enhance the debate from a different viewpoint, in ways that I can’t, it would enhance the blog immeasurably. And of course the main point in what you said – “reasoned and non dogmatic”. I hope we get there one day. And that is not in any way to belittle the contributions of all the posters here already, who make the site worth visiting day after day, hour after hour.

As an aside, for those who question the worth of the SMSM (sporting) – the only stories I ever read from them are the ones people link to here. Here people post the full story, discuss it, pick holes in it, analyse it, and give everyone the full picture of the story. It’s why I support this site and am so keen to see it reach a wider readership. And to rise above it’s lesser self at times.

View Comment

occamPosted on10:13 pm - May 2, 2014


Ok – so question/challenge to all – in the spirit of Occam – cut to the ‘chase’ – how do we move things forward? – corporately paid hacks will not print whole story or track leads like a ‘hound dog’

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on10:18 pm - May 2, 2014


RyanGosling says:

May 2, 2014 at 9:28 pm
That question of course being, why did John Clarke’s E not TUPE over to John Clark? Are they the same person or should all John Clark’s posts, or all of John Clarke’s posts, be disregarded?

Scottish football needs a strong John Clark. Or a strong John Clarke.
=================================================================
Ryan…if I may re-visit an earlier post of mine and confirm that John Clarke did indeed “TUPE” over to become John Clark. Additionally, he purchased the history of John Clark(e), probably with a loan from Mr Charles Green. He could only borrow from Charles because no club would advance him any funds under an EBT scheme…!

View Comment

RyanGoslingPosted on10:21 pm - May 2, 2014


Essexbeancounter- was the payment by debit card, and if so, did John Clark have to use the assets of John Clarke to secure the facilities?

Seem I don’t mind the fun poking! But seriously, when I do it it’s self deprecating. When you guys do it it’s mean 😆

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on10:28 pm - May 2, 2014


RyanGosling says:
May 2, 2014 at 10:21 pm

1

0

Rate This

Essexbeancounter- was the payment by debit card, and if so, did John Clark have to use the assets of John Clarke to secure the facilities?

Seem I don’t mind the fun poking! But seriously, when I do it it’s self deprecating. When you guys do it it’s mean 😆

_____________________________________

OPM.
By BACS transfer to a friend’s mother’s bank account. 😉

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:29 pm - May 2, 2014


RyanGosling says:

May 2, 2014 at 9:28 pm
That question of course being, why did John Clarke’s E not TUPE over to John Clark? Are they the same person or should all John Clark’s posts, or all of John Clarke’s posts, be disregarded?

I call for a “Fit and proper test” it’s the only way to know for sure 😕

View Comment

JohnBhoyPosted on10:55 pm - May 2, 2014


RIP Sandy Jardine. Like a true blue you stood up for your club to the very end.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:56 pm - May 2, 2014


RyanGosling says:
May 2, 2014 at 9:39 pm

You have a PM

View Comment

Gym TrainerPosted on11:00 pm - May 2, 2014


Cluster One says:
May 2, 2014 at 10:29 pm
I call for a “Fit and proper test” it’s the only way to know for sure 😕

John Clarke then, John Clark now, presumably John Clar forever :mrgreen:

View Comment

paulsatimPosted on11:03 pm - May 2, 2014


O M G!!

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/473767/EXCLUSIVE-Old-Firm-clash-could-be-staged-in-Dubai?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+daily-express-sport-news+%28Daily+Express+%3A%3A+Sport+Feed%29

EXCLUSIVE: Old Firm clash could be staged in Dubai

CELTIC and Rangers have been holding secret talks over the possibility of staging the next Old Firm game abroad.

By: Graham ClarkPublished: Fri, May 2, 2014

celtic, cfc, neil lennon, the hoops, rangers, ally mccoist, mccoist, old firmDUBAI OLD FIRM?: Celtic and Rangers have held secret talks over a possible Old Firm game[GETTY]

The Glasgow giants are considering taking the derby to somewhere such as Dubai in a bid to reduce the chance of crowd trouble after the unacceptable behaviour at last Monday night’s Glasgow Cup Final at Parkhead and incidents at the corresponding youth team fixture last season when it was staged at Partick Thistle’s Firhill.

The most recent debacle saw more than 100 seats wrecked and smoke bombs, flares and bangers set off, with the result that it has already been decreed that the next Glasgow Cup Final between the teams will be held behind closed doors.

But there will be huge logistical difficulties in moving a senior Old Firm clash – not least getting appropriate approval from the football authorities – even if it is an idea that is being seriously mooted at the highest level.

The Glasgow giants are considering taking the derby to somewhere such as Dubai
Officials at Parkhead and Ibrox, aghast at the levels of violence at those youth games, are well aware the senior match is – and always has been – a powderkeg.
*******************************************************************************************************************
Many so-called Gers fans still blame Celtic, at least in part, for their demotion to the lowest tier of senior Scottish football following the Ibrox club’s financial meltdown.
*******************************************************************************************************************
The next Old Firm game in the top flight is still another year or so away, at least, with Rangers having to clamber through a very competitive Championship following successful Third Division and League One campaigns, but Scottish Cup or League Cup clashes before then remain a possibility.

It has been suggested by officials that taking the match out of Scotland when it finally comes around could help diffuse tensions.

But there is an enormous amount of work still to be done before the embryonic plan becomes a done deal.

No one can plan too much without knowing when the game will take place, the SFA and SPFL would have to give permission, the clubs would need to agree, and a host venue would have to be found.

If the game went to Dubai or another venue outside Britain and tickets were strictly vetted, it’s hoped the tie would pass off peacefully, although many will insist that such a move would merely postpone potential problems until the next time they meet in Glasgow.

From the clubs’ point of view, they’d be able to sell the TV rights for the first Old Firm derby for years for a vast fee and would look at cashing in further with a beam-back to Parkhead and Ibrox.

View Comment

Comments are closed.