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

Avatar

essexbeancounterPosted on7:26 am - Apr 11, 2014


StevieBC says:

April 10, 2014 at 9:12 pm
====================================================
Stevie…you have PM!

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:30 am - Apr 11, 2014


In case anyone missed it here is the mindset of a Daily Record Journalist re fans discussing the Ibrox accounts. Quite a disgusting statement in my view.

Amazed at number of twitter accountants who follow Celtic and Rangers. Folk who live off Wonga but can dissect a balance sheet nae bother.— Michael Gannon (@MichaelGannon) April 10, 2014

View Comment

Avatar

essexbeancounterPosted on7:44 am - Apr 11, 2014


scapaflow says:

April 10, 2014 at 9:39 pm

StevieBC says:
April 10, 2014 at 9:12 pm

A marketer in charge of ICAS kinda says it all really.
======================================================================
Scapa…he is actually a schoolteacher…!

View Comment

Avatar

essexbeancounterPosted on7:47 am - Apr 11, 2014


scapaflow says:

April 10, 2014 at 9:39 pm

========================================================================
Scapa…you have PM

View Comment

Avatar

twopandaPosted on7:59 am - Apr 11, 2014


Blanket MSM smokescreen yesterday – extraordinary
Why do bears put up with this?
Not done them any good in over 3 years

View Comment

Avatar

manandboyPosted on8:25 am - Apr 11, 2014


Auldheid says:April 11, 2014 at 12:40 am
Paulmac2
There ongoing silence on their plans to tackle the consequences of past poor governance and future proofing is puzzling.
Even a statement that they are aware of serious issues of trust and honesty besetting the game that they intend to address would be a start.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Have those in charge at Ibrox and Hampden had a Road to Damascus conversion experience recently?

Might I suggest, Auldheid, that it’s already too late for ‘issues of trust and honesty’.

The shocks, surprises and headlines of the future
are being created today behind the scenes and in complete secrecy.

Their silence is a sign that they are busy.
That includes being busy about things they wish to keep secret.
Like finding the cash to pay their bills – if indeed TRFC’s bills are being paid.

The awarding of the 2 cup semis to Ibrox is significant not only in itself
but also as a pointer to what else the SFA might do to support TRFC financially.

I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised if ‘ The ongoing silence on their plans to tackle the consequences of past poor governance and future proofing’ continues well into the future.

As for the implications for Scottish Football in an Independent Scotland . . . . .

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on8:53 am - Apr 11, 2014


twopanda says:
April 11, 2014 at 7:59 am
3 0 Rate This

Blanket MSM smokescreen yesterday – extraordinary
Why do bears put up with this?
Not done them any good in over 3 years.
————-

Judging by the latest phone-ins and some stuff on other forums there is a now a larger mass of critical voices — especially with reference to the financial benefits accrued by AM. Hardly a scientific study, but to TRFC fans credit (seldom-used phrase), the true reality continues to hit home. The blindly loyal will probably remain so, no matter what, though. But at least those of a rational mindset appear to be finally wising up.

I’ve also noticed more of those getting through who were disappointed with the lack of a youth-based newco from the off. What Hearts have achieved this year with youth, after a faltering start, has been hugely impressive and probably hasn’t gone unnoticed. You never know, the Big-time-Charlie mentality of AM and his ilk may finally be seen for what it is, down Ibrox way.

View Comment

Avatar

Galling fiverPosted on9:23 am - Apr 11, 2014


Funny how Big Minty’s accounts and RIFC ‘s come out at the same time, probably just a coincidence, and this is not all smoke and mirrors amongst friends.

View Comment

Avatar

FIFAPosted on9:38 am - Apr 11, 2014


Galling fiver
And both make for bad news

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on9:52 am - Apr 11, 2014


Regarding RIFC’s “promise” not to call up the intercompany balance.

Although we haven’t seen this “promise”, I would be very surprised if whatever it is (it is described as a “written representation”) will actually be legally binding on RIFC. It is much more likely to be an expression of current intention on the part of RIFC.

These are sometimes known as “comfort letters” and are wonderful pieces of paper.

In this case, it may well say something like this:- “The board of RIFC do not currently intend to seek repayment of the intercompany balance within the next 12 months.

This allows a party such as TRFC to proceed as though the debt is now not repayable within 12 months but allows RIFC to call up the debt within 12 months anyway should they consider that circumstances have changed since the time that they expressed their “current intention”.

So everybody wins – what’s not to like?

View Comment

Avatar

tomtomPosted on9:57 am - Apr 11, 2014


Brenda says:
April 11, 2014 at 7:10 am
15 1 Rate This

DP the caller did insinuate that BFDJ was still on the payroll because of his defence of all things ibrox but as you say there was no denial, but I think it was with that particular caller that mr Delahunt had to tell both the caller and BFDJ to ‘stop shouting’ and the ‘legned’ is chastised on a regular basis to stop banging the desk with his fist?? By fellow ‘pundits’
========================
As he works for Rangers TV I don’t think it’s unfair to suggest he’s on the payroll.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:04 am - Apr 11, 2014


CM,

as we’ve debated many times, it just intrigued me that when they have an opportunity IN FOOTBALLING TERMS of an admin for free (since the points deduction would have no effect) in an environment when, one would have thought, they were desperate to cut costs by breaking contracts, along comes a letter of comfort saying precisely the opposite.

The letter was required for Delloitte to sign off. No question.

Otherwise, as has been saud before, it makes no sense!

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on10:05 am - Apr 11, 2014


Auldheid says:
April 11, 2014 at 12:40 am

Even a statement that they are aware of serious issues of trust and honesty besetting the game that they intend to address would be a start.
=================
You will never see such a statement from the football authorities, because in their own minds they have done a great job in safeguarding the game. Clearly, the clubs agree with that assessment, need I mention the re-election of Ogilvie unopposed, and the massive bonuses and pay rises dished out to Doncaster and Regan. The clubs are the people they have to satisfy, and those people are very satisfied indeed, on any objective assessment. The SFA/SPFL couldn’t care less what the fans think, and neither do the clubs. The strategic objective of all those involved is to keep a “Rangers” alive until they can get it into the top league. Any tactics in support of that objective are considered justifiable.

That is a bleak assessment of the current state of Scottish football, I’m afraid, but it is entirely supported by the available evidence, and not least by the content of the latest podcast.

View Comment

Avatar

BrendaPosted on10:16 am - Apr 11, 2014


Tomtom @ 9.57am

Don’t watch that particular channel 😉 but cheers for the heads up 😉

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on10:20 am - Apr 11, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
April 11, 2014 at 9:52 am
Regarding RIFC’s “promise” not to call up the intercompany balance….

Smugas says:
April 11, 2014 at 10:04 am
……along comes a letter of comfort saying precisely the opposite. The letter was required for Delloitte to sign off. No question.

———————————————————————————————————
I think that the date of Deloitte’s sign off is important (31/3/14). Almost certainly they were awaiting the letter of comfort. Does that date not also tie in with a requirement to file accounts with the SFA?

I suspect that the RIFC Board were over a barrel on this one.

What is even more important, as CM notes, the LOC may well have a ‘get out’ clause if there is a material change in circumstances e.g. a season ticket boycott.

And when does it run to anyway? One year from 30 June 2013 or one year from 31 March 2014?

What is deemed to be the ‘date of report’ from which the LOC runs?

Guess our MSM will clear that up later today at TRFC press conference. I mean, it is crucial to the survival of TRFC and the integrity of the SPFL after all.

Scottish football needs clarity now more than ever.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:32 am - Apr 11, 2014


Have to be honest Red Lichtie. I don’t think one year from the 31st March 2014 concerns them in the slightest at the moment. Getting to June 30th first will be a start. Eeking out £8m of ST’s if total uptake whilst burning 1.2m per month does not a 12 month horizon make!

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on10:57 am - Apr 11, 2014


Smugas says:

April 11, 2014 at 10:04 am

1

0

Rate This

CM,

as we’ve debated many times, it just intrigued me that when they have an opportunity IN FOOTBALLING TERMS of an admin for free (since the points deduction would have no effect) in an environment when, one would have thought, they were desperate to cut costs by breaking contracts, along comes a letter of comfort saying precisely the opposite.

The letter was required for Delloitte to sign off. No question.

Otherwise, as has been saud before, it makes no sense!
—————————————————————-
I agree – if football was what was driving the thinking, then now – before the end of the season is the time to do an administration – provided they get out of administration before the new season starts.

But as I have said before, the mere fact of going into administration does not shed debt. It is what happens during the administration that matters. Yes, a company in administration can breach a contract and often that seems to be pain free for the company in administration but that is not necessarily the case. A claim for damages in that scenario will arise and it will be an an unsecured claim in the administration (along with all the other pre-administration unsecured creditors (e.g. HMRC and RIFC)). What then has to happen is either liquidation or a CVA (the other possibility – exiting administration without a CVA does not make any sense as the breach of contract claims then have to be met in full (and no debt shedding has been achieved)). So, its either a business and asset sale to a newco (but even then there may be a difficulty under TUPE in respect of player contracts that were terminated by the administrator if they were terminated with a view to making the business more saleable by reducing the wage bill – this is a very complex area); or its a CVA and a CVA that means that RIFC’s debt is shredded as well.

For quite some time, my difficulty in analysing this situation has been because I think that the agendas of those who are driving this thing will not necessarily accord with the agendas of those who normally come along and ask for advice in these situations. Ordinarily in a massive insolvency situation such as this, the shareholder value is nil and therefore their interests can be disregarded. However my suspicion is that certain shareholders are not going to let it proceed the way it should proceed and that they may, by virtue of interests in certain contracts enetered into by TRFC, be benefitting as contractual counterparties as well as by virtue of direct shareholding interest (payoffs to directors, odd loans, inhouse contracts etc).

It should never have got to this stage. In the real world, the plug would have been pulled sometime ago. I can only surmise that it has been kept alive because there was still blood to be sucked.

Oh and the 12 month period for the RIFC “promise” is stated to be from the date of the report – so I read that as being from March this year – not from the date of the accounts (i.e. June 2013).

View Comment

Avatar

61patrickPosted on11:40 am - Apr 11, 2014


If you just think for a moment that McCoist is Dave Kings man (always has been) on the inside,and his job is to run them into the ground,so that King can pick them up for a pittance.
Hmmmmmmmmm.
makes sense to me.

View Comment

normanbatesmumfc

normanbatesmumfcPosted on12:00 pm - Apr 11, 2014


Smugas says:
April 11, 2014 at 10:32 am
Have to be honest Red Lichtie. I don’t think one year from the 31st March 2014 concerns them in the slightest at the moment. Getting to June 30th first will be a start. Eeking out £8m of ST’s if total uptake whilst burning 1.2m per month does not a 12 month horizon make!
————————————————————————————————————————————
especially when you have a minimum of £1.5m to pay back and 3 months without any football, (walk up income, corporate hospitality and the Hezb”ally” piefest.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on12:09 pm - Apr 11, 2014


CM,

Interesting. So the leech could jump off and retire to his chateaux, but instead you think it will await a further (emotionally enforced) transfusion.
Surely that would rule out any big number injections since the real world investors would see through that plan a mile off? And secondly, the virtual corpse on which the leech has hitched a ride can’t stagger on forever. The transfusion is supposed to promise bigger and better things. It doesn’t work if the hungry leech is still there and the recipient has more holes than a cheese grater!

I guess it comes down to this. Can the problem (in my silly example – the holes) provide part of the solution – the bigger and better things i.e. the results?

In Div 2 clearly yes. In a potentially SPL invaded Div 1, possibly not. And they (the bears) will see that pretty quickly!

Actually come to think of it that is probably what the leech is banking on!

View Comment

Avatar

JimBhoyPosted on12:45 pm - Apr 11, 2014


“The accounts also reveal that severance pay totalling £468,000 had been paid to directors who had left the club since June 30, namely Craig Mather and Brian Stockbridge.”

— What was Jabba’s JT’s title? Shirley he got a wedge to move on… It pays to fail at the gers….

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on12:57 pm - Apr 11, 2014


Just to recap on the numbers:

In their debut season in Division 3, TRFC claimed 38,000 ST sales had raised £8M.

For this season they kept prices on hold and claimed 36,000 ST sales. That should have raised around £7.6M.

They have increased ST prices by 15%-25% (average 18%) for next season. If they somehow manage to retain the 36,000 STs, then that should raise around £8.9M.

The £1.5M in loans that they took out to see them through this season are due to be repaid in July and September. That will leave them with £7.4M, i.e. less revenue than they have had in either of the last two seasons.

The cash burn rate from the last interim accounts was £1.2M per month and there have been no significant changes since the period end date of 31/12/13..

The bottom line is that they haven’t a hope in hell of lasting another six months without a massive cash injection, mass redundancies, extraordinary transfer revenue, loans repaid by non-cash means, or a combination of these activities. Until they face up to the fundamental issue that for every fiver they earn, they will spend a tenner, then this will be a recurring theme.

Graham Wallace’s 120 day review is up within the next week. Unless it addresses the points in the paragraph above they WILL go bust.

View Comment

Avatar

Dropped BatonPosted on1:24 pm - Apr 11, 2014


Just read this on BBC Sport – UEFA stamping their authority on the Chelsea / Athletico on-loan goalkeeper scenario:

“The integrity of sporting competition is a fundamental principle”

One to rememberer for any future communication with UEFA on the Rangers situation, I think.

View Comment

Avatar

indy14Posted on1:26 pm - Apr 11, 2014


upthehoops says:
April 11, 2014 at 7:30 am
40 2 i
Rate This

I would suggest the comment by this “hack” says far more about him that it does about us, he clearly fears for his future, and rightly so.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on1:43 pm - Apr 11, 2014


essexbeancounter says:
April 11, 2014 at 7:44 am

Really, well, um, gosh, what next? A cobbler running the Law Society?

View Comment

Avatar

ptd1978Posted on1:46 pm - Apr 11, 2014


Can RIFC afford to let TRFC go into Administration?
They have this £16m odd debt that will guarantee them the ability to control an admin, but the purpose of the admin would have to be to cut costs. To do this other people have to get stiffed and they will have claims that have to be met with cash. Even a 10p in the pound deal would mean RIFC would struggle to find to cash to pay the players and the manager they need to jettison. Then there’s the loans that need repaid and any other sundry outstanding tax bills, and invoices. A 10p in the pound deal would mean RIFC takes a haircut that would send its investors into a blind fury. In fact anything that isn’t near £1 in the £1 would be a serious issue for Laxey and co.
The bottom line is, because of the bottom line, TRFC needs ST money before RIFC will permit an administration.

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on2:00 pm - Apr 11, 2014


Smugas says:

April 11, 2014 at 12:09 pm

………Surely that would rule out any big number injections since the real world investors would see through that plan a mile off?………………
—————————————————–
I am not sure how many “real world investors” there were last time round either.

While I appreciate that many fund managers want a balanced portfolio – some high risk investments, some low risk investments and some medium risk investments, it always seemed astonishing to me that anyone who wanted to keep their job would have suggested investing client money/pension fund money or whatever other funds they managed, in the RIFC share issue.

Football share issues are rarely a good bet. This one was transparently a shocker from the outset.

Leads me to conclude (as I think others have surmised) that the (much vaunted at the time) “institutional investors” were not parties that would normally be described in that way by the financial press – which may explain why nobody even yet really understands who is behind the ownership of large tranches of the shareholdings – and which leads me back to my earlier comment about the agendas of certain large shareholders not necessarily being the agendas that you would expect from parties whose only interests are shareholdings. Having a controlling interest in a PLC’s shareholding allows you to manipulate things so that money can be extracted by you in ways that are not available to minority shareholders – if you control the board, they will do as you request. Pay offs, favourable contracts, odd loans etc, all of which can allow funds to exit the company in a way that seems to be in accordance with contracts and so has a veneer of respectability . Once the chosen party has received the funds they can then be redirected back to the controlling shareholders. That is what “control” means.

View Comment

Avatar

twopandaPosted on2:04 pm - Apr 11, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
April 11, 2014 at 8:53 am
Judging by the latest phone-ins and some stuff on other forums there is a now a larger mass of critical voices — especially with reference to the financial benefits accrued by AM. Hardly a scientific study, but to TRFC fans credit (seldom-used phrase), the true reality continues to hit home. The blindly loyal will probably remain so, no matter what, though. But at least those of a rational mindset appear to be finally wising up.
I’ve also noticed more of those getting through who were disappointed with the lack of a youth-based newco from the off. What Hearts have achieved this year with youth, after a faltering start, has been hugely impressive and probably hasn’t gone unnoticed. You never know, the Big-time-Charlie mentality of AM and his ilk may finally be seen for what it is, down Ibrox way.
——

Exactly DP –
A fresh start was oft positively discussed on RTC.
They could have worked up with youth in the lower leagues consolidating a real financial future.

To be fair many bears at the time would have gone with that substantive rebuilding from the roots.
– but it was never given the chance – hijacked by spivs on the make – supported by a MSM PR

You never know – they may get a second chance to get it right 😉

View Comment

Avatar

JimBhoyPosted on2:18 pm - Apr 11, 2014


http://vanguardbears.co.uk/to-build-or-not-to-build.html
VB uncovering more of the Corrupt Celtic and GCC collusion…What next Celtic getting cheaper loans than the rangers… “Squirrel !!!”

View Comment

Avatar

indy14Posted on2:28 pm - Apr 11, 2014


JimBhoy says:
April 11, 2014 at 2:18 pm
0 0 i
Rate This

It’s time for Bhoy, ECOBHOY!

View Comment

Avatar

JimBhoyPosted on2:30 pm - Apr 11, 2014


@Twopanda
I hear much more of where the bears are looking for a sugar daddy and little of lets take our time and build a solid foundation. They want to quickly erase the past couple of years and get back to their traditional ways and rightful place at the top table, fawned upon by their obedient MSM lapdogs.

View Comment

Avatar

JimBhoyPosted on2:31 pm - Apr 11, 2014


@Indy14 Actually was my first thought when i read the story… 🙂 Eco rocks, not the first time I have said that.. 😆

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoia

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on2:40 pm - Apr 11, 2014


JimBhoy says:
April 11, 2014 at 2:18 pm
1 0 i
Rate This

http://vanguardbears.co.uk/to-build-or-not-to-build.html
VB uncovering more of the Corrupt Celtic and GCC collusion…What next Celtic getting cheaper loans than the rangers… “Squirrel !!!”
———————————————-

Using tax avoidance schemes to sign players you could otherwise not afford = no sporting advantage

Building a temporary ticket office = crime of the century! 😛 😛

View Comment

Avatar

indy14Posted on2:45 pm - Apr 11, 2014


@JimBhoy, it’s funny to read Eco’s respectful demolition of those lunatics.
Why didn’t they try as hard to investigate the goings on of their own clubs demise? It is strange, it shows a mentality of “they’re as bad as us, no really” and a confirmation bias unequaled in society.

View Comment

Avatar

JimBhoyPosted on2:48 pm - Apr 11, 2014


The Celtic GCC land deals, contamination lies and tesco bank etc – I find these stories soooo funny.. Really smacks of desperation. Bears desperately trying to find a wee chink of hope.

As a Celtic fan I have always disliked the ‘they are as bad as each other’ claims that we have seen for many years. Celtic have a bad element minority as do most clubs but to mirror that with rangers is down right ridiculous. Rangers are the only club that have ‘rangers haters’ supporting rangers, by definition anyone who says something less than positive about the rangers…I believe the phrase is being less used these days as fans are actually questioning things now, maybe the vast majority of rangers fans are rangers haters by definition now… It’s taken a while..!!

View Comment

Avatar

JimBhoyPosted on2:49 pm - Apr 11, 2014


@INDY14 you are in my head today fella…!!! 😆

I sat on my last post a few mins and didn’t read yours til after i posted it.

View Comment

Avatar

JimBhoyPosted on2:57 pm - Apr 11, 2014


Sounds like the rangers may have their second choice goalie in tomorrow, 90/1 for a Utd 5-0 win, obviously that assumes elbows misses his 3 obligatory pens…Kidding apart I am looking forward to a good game..

Apparently the dons fans for the other semi plan a sticker campaign, rumours that this is to hold the stand up are not true I am sure..A rangers spokesman intimated that this is actually part of the yearly maintenance schedule and asks fans if they have any unwanted used chewing gum to contact the club.

View Comment

Avatar

ulyanovaPosted on2:58 pm - Apr 11, 2014


Dropped Baton says:
April 11, 2014 at 1:24 pm
13 0 Rate This

Just read this on BBC Sport – UEFA stamping their authority on the Chelsea / Athletico on-loan goalkeeper scenario:

“The integrity of sporting competition is a fundamental principle”

One to rememberer for any future communication with UEFA on the Rangers situation, I think.
———————————————————————————————————————–
But, interestingly this statement appears to contradict what UEFA said regarding Bangura playing/not playing against Celtic.
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/soccer-dirty-tackle/uefa-voids-clause-that-would-prevent-atletico-s-thibaut-courtois-from-playing-against-chelsea-in-champions-league-semifinals-105815930.html

So don’t expect them to follow any precedent.

View Comment

Avatar

indy14Posted on3:06 pm - Apr 11, 2014


@JimBhoy, it’s good to talk 😀

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on3:29 pm - Apr 11, 2014


indy14 says:
April 11, 2014 at 1:26 pm
6 0 Rate This

I would suggest the comment by this “hack” says far more about him that it does about us, he clearly fears for his future, and rightly so.
==================================
It was demeaning and patronising. Was he trying to imply you have to be a C.A to understand the Rangers accounts showed one almighty mess? Worse still was he implying that Journalists are somehow qualified to understand while your average Twitter user hasn’t got a clue and is an unintelligent layabout requiring pay day loans to survive?

Interestingly I note his newspaper is making 25 Journalists redundant. It’s never good to see anyone lose their job, but he and other hacks like him should lose their sense of superiority and quickly realise they could not lace the boots of many of the people who choose to comment via social media.

View Comment

Avatar

essexbeancounterPosted on3:49 pm - Apr 11, 2014


upthehoops says:

April 11, 2014 at 3:29 pm
indy14 says:
April 11, 2014 at 1:26 pm
6 0 Rate This

I would suggest the comment by this “hack” says far more about him that it does about us, he clearly fears for his future, and rightly so.
==================================
It was demeaning and patronising. Was he trying to imply you have to be a C.A to understand the Rangers accounts showed one almighty mess? Worse still was he implying that Journalists are somehow qualified to understand while your average Twitter user hasn’t got a clue and is an unintelligent layabout requiring pay day loans to survive?

Interestingly I note his newspaper is making 25 Journalists redundant. It’s never good to see anyone lose their job, but he and other hacks like him should lose their sense of superiority and quickly realise they could not lace the boots of many of the people who choose to comment via social media.
======================================================================
UTH…I could not agree more, hence my comments of yesterday when I both looked forward to and subsequently thoroughly enjoyed the comments and insights of the so called “non-professionals” as regards these accounts.
Again bloggers, many thanks for the comments.

View Comment

Avatar

ptd1978Posted on4:15 pm - Apr 11, 2014


indy14
Sickening comments. Might be worth reminding his employers that the next time they choose to get worked up about someone’s comments, they’ll be throwing stones in a very brittle glass house unless this guy gets his jotters.

View Comment

Avatar

CastofthousandsPosted on4:48 pm - Apr 11, 2014


upthehoops says:
April 11, 2014 at 3:29 pm

“It was demeaning and patronising. Was he trying to imply you have to be a C.A to understand the Rangers accounts showed one almighty mess?”
——————————-
I think what Michael Gannon was trying to say was that he is not allowed to comment on the TRFCL accounts lest he should draw attention to them. EJ’s far from inexpert analysis illustrates that a layman can make a critical assessment of a piece of potentially complex documentation and arrive at some basic conclusions that provide the necessary insight to allow judgements to be made. Gannon seems to be playing the Scooby Doo card by telling the pesky kids that they will get frightened if the go anywhere near the haunted accounts.

This tactic might have some impact on the many people that wouldn’t feel too confident in delving into a complex document but with every deployment its effectiveness wanes.

View Comment

Avatar

No1 BobPosted on5:02 pm - Apr 11, 2014


And talking of journalist leaving their employment I see that Hugh Keevins has written his final piece for the Record.

I won’t miss him.

View Comment

Avatar

South0fThe BorderPosted on5:05 pm - Apr 11, 2014


So the 120 day review is delayed!

Alasdair Lamont ‏@BBCAlLamont 11m
Dave King saying today Rangers board review won’t be published until after season ticket renewal period and now urging fans not to renew.
DK: due to this extreme act of bad faith I believe that it is vital that fans now withhold season ticket money from this board
DK adds that David Somers has told him board’s intention was always to publish review after ST renewal period.
Goes on to say details of trust scheme for ST money will soon be available. He and Richard Gough to be the trustees. More soon across BBC.

View Comment

Avatar

indy14Posted on5:07 pm - Apr 11, 2014


hahhaha King is Back! “Don’r buy the season books, they board have lied they don’t deserve trust!”

SUPER! things may move along a bit quickly now……”excellent” (Rubs his hands ala Monty Burns)

View Comment

Avatar

FinlochPosted on5:14 pm - Apr 11, 2014


First a comment on something that was posted earlier
…….. “Interestingly I note his newspaper is making 25 Journalists redundant”………….

25 staff maybe – and I am sorry for anyone who loses their job.
But 25 journalists?
They don’t have that many and absolutely none who work on the sports desk!
Now a wee thought on Mr Regan.

I was driving last night just before 7 pm and heard Mr Regan on Radio Shortbread.
He was being given a very easy time and was glowing in the success of the Scottish Women’s Team after yesterdays 3 – 1 result and praising their coach in his usual wooden way.
The girls deserve praise and are doing great.
Today I also read our senior team have reached the giddy heights of 22 in world rankings.
So well done Stewart?
I don’t think he will be remembered for any of the good stuff that might happen.
Instead he will be remembered for helping one member with a European licence at the expense of other members and then the very secret 5 way agreement – also at the expense of other members (although very, very diddy ones in Lowspeak).
And for facilitating and finagling a hole bunch of related stuff that will be recognised as just plain wrong.
Good luck to The Arabs tomorrow from all fans proud to be seen as diddys.

View Comment

Avatar

andyPosted on5:16 pm - Apr 11, 2014


Statement by Dave King

The Rangers board and I issued separate public statements following our meeting last month. I made one correction to the Rangers’ statement but the Rangers board saw no cause to correct my statement. The board recommitted to issue the business review within the original 120 day deadline and, importantly, committed that the fans will have access to this review prior to advancing funds by way of season ticket renewals. Despite strong reservations from fan groups I asked the fans to give the board time to honour this commitment. Part of my motivation was that any public company board is bound to act in good faith and that breach of such a share price sensitive commitment would be an ethical, moral, and probably criminal breach.

I followed up on this commitment with the board after the recent announcement on season ticket renewals. The Chairman has advised me that the board will now only issue the review at the end of the season ticket renewal period and it will consequently not be timeously made available to fans. Disturbingly, the Chairman has advised me that the true intention of the board had always been to delay issuing the review until funds had been largely collected.

I apologise to all fans for wasting time by lending credibility to the boards false representations. I was wrong to give them the benefit of the doubt. At least we now can no longer have any uncertainty about governance at the club.

It is common cause that the club is not a going concern without access to the season ticket loan from the fans. It is also common cause that the season ticket money will only provide partial relief in advance of a more permanent recapitalisation. I have hitherto urged restraint in dealing with the board, however due to this extreme act of bad faith I believe that it is vital that fans now withhold season ticket money from this board and similarly refuse to support the club by way of the purchase of replica kit or any other retail product.

An announcement will shortly be made providing details of a bank account that season ticket money can be paid into as an interim measure. The specific terms and conditions of this account will be made available to fans, including the basis on which funds will be advanced to the club and the basis on which funds will be returned to fans. As a minimum, the board must provide the club property as security against the season ticket money.

I recognise that fans will have anxiety about “betraying” the club and the risk of loss of a cherished seat at Ibrox. However, the time has come when the trade-off is a potential loss of a seat against the loss of the club. That would be the real betrayal. This board has lost its right to be dealt with on a good faith basis.

Richard Gough has agreed to join me as a custodian of the bank account that will be established and fan groups can nominate additional members.

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on5:29 pm - Apr 11, 2014


andy says:
April 11, 2014 at 5:16 pm

Statement by Dave King

Part of my motivation was that any public company board is bound to act in good faith and that breach of such a share price sensitive commitment would be an ethical, moral, and probably criminal breach…
=======================================
Did King really issue that sentence ?!

He really is something else, or maybe he has the memory span of a goldfish ?

But whatever happens, you just know it’s going to end in a bad way for TRFC if King is the best they can come up with.

Popcorn on standby! 🙄

View Comment

Avatar

twopandaPosted on5:39 pm - Apr 11, 2014


Didn`t they mention said 120 day review in their `signed-off` `Accounts`?

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on6:00 pm - Apr 11, 2014


It’s getting serious now. The Board have already warned that any disruption to ST cash flow makes their “going concern” assumption meaningless. If Laxey and the rest want out, King has just given them the perfect exit strategy. This is becoming more trouble than it’s worth for the PLC. The shareholders’ interests are clearly best served by an early disposal of TRFC, with their £16m debt repaid by transfer of the properties. I can’t see any other way out of this now.

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on6:07 pm - Apr 11, 2014


No1 Bob says:
April 11, 2014 at 5:02 pm

17

0

Rate This

‘And talking of JOURNALISTS leaving their employment I see that HUGH KEEVINS…’

___________________________________

Are we having a game of ‘spot the non sequitur’ now? Far too easy!

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins FinestPosted on6:15 pm - Apr 11, 2014


It now seems that DK knows who holds the deeds and is confident that the current board cannot offer them for security or sell them off. Interesting few days ahead in the ongoing saga.

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on6:17 pm - Apr 11, 2014


Carfins Finest says:
April 11, 2014 at 6:15 pm
—————————————–
Good to see you back CF.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on6:18 pm - Apr 11, 2014


And so the King has returned (after a very short absence).

We ‘Rangers haters’, who are so despised by the MSM and the guys down Ibrox way, can only watch and be amazed, while the ‘Rangers lovers’ continue to do more harm to their beloved club than we could ever do. While there’s no doubt that what King says regarding the current and previous TRFC boards is accurate and quite shocking, his action is both late and bemusing in terms of someone who’s only motivation is to ‘save’ the club. While I’m sure he wants to run the club, it looks more and more, to me, that he is only interested in saving it if he does end up running it. A case of, ‘if I can’t have it, nobody can!’

Dare I say, while ignoring the politics of the episode?
It is looking more and more like the days of Thatcher v Scargill; Scargill had truth and right on his side, while Thatcher held all the aces. The aces won. Scargill lost. And the industry he fought for (right or wrong) was lost too. King might not be much of a similarity to Scargill, but the various components of the TRFC board form a pretty good copy of Thatcher.

King is, apparently, fighting a ‘win or bust’ fight using a war of attrition against the board by saying, ‘if you don’t give me what I want, I will hold back the life-blood of the club!’ This while he knows the people who run the club represent people who have invested millions and want more than their investment back, while not giving a monkey’s about the football side of the business. Both sides want the opposite of each other, but only one side holds anything of substance. There appears no middle ground. And with King continually failing to even say he’ll personally put up money, and merely saying he’ll ‘front’ yet another Ibrox share issue, there’s no guarantee of saving the club even if he should win the war.

It more and more looks like a bust or bust scenario!

An attempt to draw a comparison with what was happening at my club, Hearts, as administration loomed.
The then board asked the supporters to support them by buying shares in the club to see it through to the end of the season. The fans responded and the club still, by the skin of it’s teeth, survives, because the life blood continued long enough for the FoH to get involved. Imagine, though, if a King had come along, persuaded the supporters not to back the share issue, while not prepared to put up the money himself. What chance of a Hearts survival then? In my opinion, none!

View Comment

Avatar

MartinPosted on6:23 pm - Apr 11, 2014


With Dave King’s latest statement to the press advancing the idea of withholding season ticket money or at least parking it in an account ring fenced and guarded by Dave King himself and Richard Gough. There is much for would be season ticket holders to think about.

Mr King has it seems been motivated in making his latest announcement by an act of ‘bad faith’ from the current Rangers board, an understanding that season ticket monies would not be sought till after the results of the ‘120 day’ review were made available has been cast aside.

Apart from Mr Kings obvious displeasure there is no evidence any actual agreements being breached.

Naturally given the events of the last few years the discerning or sceptical voices among the Rangers support might feel a certain degree of agreement with the King viewpoint and plan of action.

The thought that Mr King’s doubtful suitability as a focus or lead figure must surely have given cause for introspection.

When Mr King refers to ‘an ethical, moral and probably criminal breach’ we get the idea that we are listening to a man that knows from personal experience exactly what he is talking about.

The problem for Rangers fans is, if you don’t support the board and you can’t in all conscience support Mr King. What exactly are you left with?

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins FinestPosted on6:29 pm - Apr 11, 2014


jean7brodie says:

April 11, 2014 at 6:17 pm

2

0

Rate This

Carfins Finest says:
April 11, 2014 at 6:15 pm
—————————————–
Good to see you back CF
——————————-
Very kind of you Jean. Thankyou.

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on6:38 pm - Apr 11, 2014


My guess:

Waldo uses Kings ST boycott to justify swingeing cuts on and off the park.
All players placed up for sale and sold/given to anyone who will pay them a wage.
Stands closed if necessary. Massed redundancies. Threaten to make the first team part time if the ST renewals target isn’t reached, and share offer subscribed to. Threaten the bears with a 10 year route back to the top challenging Celtic, rather than the 5 years its going to take if they get the renewals.

View Comment

Avatar

fara1968Posted on6:41 pm - Apr 11, 2014


Please correct me if my thinking is a bit naive in the world of business.
If no ST are sold will the owners of the assets not just turn around and say, ok you have backed us into a corner. If we cannot make money out of being a football club we will make money via the assets in another way.

View Comment

Avatar

bailemeanachPosted on6:49 pm - Apr 11, 2014


I’m interested in the choice of Richard Gough. I would be surprised if this has been an impromptu pact formed today, so King must have set wheels in motion already.

Gough seems an obvious choice, as a successful skipper in the 9 in a row days, when many honours were won (fairly or not). But there is also the South Africa connection – Gough grew up there. I believe he is US based now, but do any bampots know of any business connections between these 2 characters?

View Comment

RyanGosling

RyanGoslingPosted on6:51 pm - Apr 11, 2014


Martin,

“The problem for Rangers fans is, if you don’t support the board and you can’t in all conscience support Mr King. What exactly are you left with?”

A very pertinent question. From my point of view, at this point there is very little that can be done. You can say what you’d like to happen but there is very little you could do to actually make it happen. Consider the options.

A fans group tries to raise money to become the majority shareholder, thereby driving the price up by bulk buying shares and even if by some strange miracle enough was raised, it would exhaust all funds and not solve the cash crisis. It would also be a very slow process and in all likelihood the company would be well bust even before a million quid was raised.

Withhold season ticket money. Company goes bust. No brainer. Best case scenario is probably starting again in division three I don’t think that would happen, I think it would be game over this time.

Which leaves the last option of cross your fingers, put your fingers in your ears and your hands over your eyes and hope for the best. I know that will sound very defeatist but at this point really, outside of the mythical sugar daddy, what else is there to do?

When the SFA bent over backwards to allow a Rangers back into the senior league setup, a team should have been built that not only spent within their means but turned a substantial profit while progressing through the lower divisions. That chance was not taken, and it fear will not be presented again.

View Comment

Avatar

No1 BobPosted on7:00 pm - Apr 11, 2014


bailemeanach says:
April 11, 2014 at 6:49 pm

“I am a personal friend of Dave King I and would like to see him do something”

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/gough-backs-his-good-pal-to-steer-gers-up-leagues-123257n.20980987

View Comment

Avatar

bailemeanachPosted on7:07 pm - Apr 11, 2014


Cheers No1 Bob

“not in it for a fast buck” – quite right if he did indeed throw 20m of his hard-earned down a bottomless pit, but I’d wager his eye may well be on a “fast buck” this time around

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on7:09 pm - Apr 11, 2014


Didn’t take long for Rangers to respond.

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/6741-club-statement

“The Board of Rangers Football Club notes with astonishment the statement issued this afternoon by Dave King.

In his statement Mr King makes a number of untrue allegations against the Chairman and the Board of Rangers Football Club alleging bad faith and false representation. The Chairman and the Board refute all such allegations in the strongest terms and have referred Mr King’s statement to the Club’s legal advisors.

Mr King clearly has elected to ignore the Board’s previous public statement following the Board’s meeting with him. In this statement, which was reviewed with him prior to issue, the Board stated that it will issue the results of the business review prior to the season ticket renewal window ending. This position remains unchanged and Mr King is well aware of this having sought personal confirmation on this matter from the Chairman as recently as yesterday. The business review period has not yet even ended, as Mr King is well aware, however he has elected to make yet another public statement to serve his own purposes.

When the Board met Mr King a few weeks ago, he made it clear that he did not want to put another penny into the Club and would prefer to see the Club using other investors’ money. The Board was therefore surprised, but gave him the benefit of the doubt when, a few days later, Mr King made media comments about a willingness to invest his money into the Club. This is an easy statement to make to the media but is contrary to what he told the whole Board.

It is extremely disappointing that Mr King should consider it appropriate to issue this latest statement, clearly designed to unsettle and mislead Rangers fans, on the eve of an important Scottish Cup semi-final match. For someone who claims to have the interests of Rangers at heart and as an ex-director, King’s untrue comments are nothing short of disgraceful.”

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:33 pm - Apr 11, 2014


Did king not say he asked his kids if it was ok to use their inheratance money to invest in the rangers

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on7:40 pm - Apr 11, 2014


easyJambo says:
April 11, 2014 at 7:09 pm

Gloves off, then 😀

“For someone who claims to have the interests of Rangers at heart and as an ex-director, King’s untrue comments are nothing short of disgraceful.”

Well, you know what they say about glib and…

View Comment

Avatar

fara1968Posted on7:43 pm - Apr 11, 2014


Cluster One says:
April 11, 2014 at 7:33 pm
0 0 Rate This

Did king not say he asked his kids if it was ok to use their inheratance money to invest in the rangers
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Who did the kids get their inheritance from? 🙂

Yes sorry for being flippant but other people’s money does seem to be the preferred choice down Govan way 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

TaysiderPosted on7:43 pm - Apr 11, 2014


In The Rangers statement of 15 March:

“Mr King was helpful in outlining the concerns of supporters in relation to communications from the Club and was reassured by plans to announce the results of the business review and trading update in the next few weeks, ahead of the season ticket renewal deadline, as part of the Club’s commitment to improved supporter communication”.

In the latest Rangers statement:

the Board stated that it will issue the results of the business review prior to the season ticket renewal window ending.

The first statement is carefully drafted for wriggle room but gives the impression that the review results will be announced pre the supporters having to make a decision, the latest and I wouldn’t be surprised if the review results were announced an hour before the renewal “window” closes!

People on here have asked before why do you need a 120 day review. It looks to me like the answer was to have an excuse to get the season ticket money in before you actually have to announce something!

View Comment

Avatar

GoosyGoosyPosted on7:58 pm - Apr 11, 2014


Q: Whats the difference between the CEO of TRFC and Dave King ?

A: The CEO of TRFC has no convictions

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on7:58 pm - Apr 11, 2014


Re: the long winded, emotional, relatively pointless ‘Rangers’ statement…is Craig Mather back on the payroll ?!! 😉

View Comment

Campbellsmoney

CampbellsmoneyPosted on8:01 pm - Apr 11, 2014


Mr King made great play of “legally binding statements” having been issued by the Board and so he was content. Presumably he will be issuing an initial writ when the courts are open for business next week. We are still waiting for his writ against Murray Group.

View Comment

Avatar

twopandaPosted on8:07 pm - Apr 11, 2014


“Part of my motivation was that any public company board is bound to act in good faith and that breach of such a share price sensitive commitment would be an ethical, moral, and probably criminal breach.”

“The Chairman and the Board refute all such allegations in the strongest terms and have referred Mr King’s statement to the Club’s legal advisors.”

War Declared
No Mexican Stand-Offs
No Bluffs
Gloves off – bare knuckle hereon
One Winner
One Loser
Bears will choose
Spivs or King

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on8:13 pm - Apr 11, 2014


@indy14 @JimBhoy @MoreCelticParanoia

Re: VB and Celtic’s successful & legitimate Land & Property dealings

I have had my laughs about the nonsense spouted by the self-styled Bear Land ‘Experts’ and their ludicrous claims and deliberate twisting of the truth which has seen them falsely accuse dozens of public servants of corruption in public office.

I trust the appropriate legal action will be taken once the case against Celtic wrt the State Aid is dismissed by the EC.

Recently the VBs have joined the fray and I have to admit being baffled at their obsession with Celtic at a time when Rangers is tearing itself to pieces. What could be more important to a Rangers football supporter at this moment in time than saving their club.

Whether I agree or not with the point of view of different fans groups within the Rangers support in how best to save their club I would have thought that is their priority. I therefore can only believe that the VB trying to damage Celtic rather than concentrating on saving Rangers must have a motivation outwith football.

However, let’s have a look at the VB claim that Celtic didn’t own all of the ground when they had the plans drawn-up for the temporary ticket office and car parking development in May 2013. VB erroneously claim:

‘The Councils planning regulations are quite explicit, “this consent only grants permission to develop on land of which you are the owner”.’

It might be more instructive to look at the full wording of the specific consent for the temporary ticket office and car parking on Planning Application 13/01879/DC granted on 11 November 2013 which states:

‘This consent only grants permission to develop on land of which you are the owner or have obtained the necessary consents from the owners of land or buildings.’

So VB have you asked these mystery owners what they have done to prevent Celtic building on their land? Why don’t you check the history of the land which you will find in the relevant GCC Minute and title deeds. I know the history and could give you the info but why should I? After all your’e the ‘experts’ 😆

I could expand on the paucity and sheer fabrication of the claims but why bother as they are obviously people with no interest in the truth and only in spreading blue-tinted propaganda to mislead their fellow supporters. And for what reason? Is it simply to try and deflect Bears from acting to save their club or is there some political game in play?

Trying to hoodwink Bears, who have enough troubles on their doorstep, really is the pits. What more can I say?

View Comment

Avatar

y4rmyPosted on8:17 pm - Apr 11, 2014


Dave King lecturing the Rangers’ board on ethical, moral, and criminal breaches.

Righto.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on8:18 pm - Apr 11, 2014


twopanda says:
April 11, 2014 at 8:07 pm

The problem is:
If King wins, he still has to find the money to pay off the current ‘owners’, and they aint leaving with buttons. So the first £20m or so he raises (if he’s lucky) does nothing for the club.
If King doesn’t win, then the club is still in dire straits, but even poorer because of King’s actions.
In the end, there might be one winner: but how many losers?

View Comment

Comments are closed.