Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ?

By

Redlichtie says: September 7, 2014 at 9:12 pm ecobhoy says: September 7, 2014 …

Comment on Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ? by ecobhoy.

redlichtie says:
September 7, 2014 at 9:12 pm
ecobhoy says:
September 7, 2014 at 7:38 pm

Wallace may indeed be an honourable man and if he is IMO he made a terribly poor decision when he took the job at Ibrox and couldn’t have realised what he was walking into.
=========================================
If Wallace was unable to discern what he was walking into then IMHO he is not up to much as a CEO.
===============================
I would agree with you on that and didn’t mean to imply otherwise. I was more commenting on whether he was ‘honourable’ or not and for me the jury is still out on that one mainly because I don’t have conclusive evidence one way or t’other.

But I firmly believe if he knew what he was walking into and carried on regardless then it goes beyond being an idiot and crosses IMO the boundary of ‘honourable’ behaviour.

A cardinal rule in buying shares is not to listen solely to those trying to sell you a once in a lifetime wealth-creation opportunities but to DYOR – Do Your Own Research.

A cursory look at the Rangers investment opportunity, media and bampot coverage – never mind talking to trusted City professionals – would have sent me running for the hills.

So do the likes of Wallace live in a ‘bubble’ at the top of an ivory tower? It certainly appears so – and that’s if he is an honourable man. You only have to look at the p*ash regurgitated by Neil Patey when he is wheeled out of his crypt to pontificate on Rangers 🙄

However perhaps the PR job I love best is this one: http://www.trustnet.com/News/394239/hargreave-why-im-investing-in-rangers-football-club/

Anyone wanting to know why DYOR is so important should read this and remember that this guy – Marlborough’s Giles Hargreave (the names might trigger a memory in some) – is apparently an expert in his field – even more so than poor old Neil Patey.

However what Mr Hargreave doesn’t mention is his deep knowledge of investing in football when he was involved with ENIC which coincidentally was involved with Rangers and didn’t that turn out well 🙁

I wrote about it back in January 2013 and – leaving modesty aside – I think it’s a good read and informative and a piece of history that shouldn’t be forgotten: http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/past-links-between-enic-and-rangers-2nd-biggest-shareholder-by-ecojon/

So maybe Wallace is indeed an honourable man who has stumbled into a living nightmare. It would appear Mr Hargreave has apparently managed to do it at least twice that we know of where Rangers is concerned 😯

ecobhoy Also Commented

Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ?
scapaflow says:
September 8, 2014 at 11:26 am
ecobhoy says:
September 8, 2014 at 11:13 am

I see no future for Rangers. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no sign of the Rangers support coming together anytime soon, let alone a coming together around a baggage free entity.
=========================================
I would disagree that McMurdo represents ‘a significant constituency within the Rangers support’. What he does represent IMO is virtually all of the hard core Loyalist-religious fanatics in the Rangers support.

However IMO that is a tiny and decreasing proportion of the overall Rangers support although it’s clear that that support has many other divisions within it.

However the best hope that I see for a future Rangers – if not bagage-free club then a least a baggage-lite version – lies with those who haven’t become entrenched in the bitter civil war currently playing out to seize power and dominance. I’m talking about those who are scunnered by what they see happening and see no end to it any time soon.

Because they are very much individuals there is little chance of them coming together IMO before this current circus collapses and then it will still be a long and very difficult road for them to achieve a baggage-free club and it may well be impossible especially if they find other things to occupy their time and energy.

That could open the doors to a real disaster dependant on what faction ultimately manages to seize control of a Rangers-rump. If that comes to pass the club involved might not be able to compete other than the lower leagues although it’s a hard one to call with too many variables and unknowns.

But however it develops I would guess the support will be smaller but more hard core so that could bring its own problems and if Scotland becomes independent then it may well become a rallying-point and last bastion for disaffected Loyalists.

We are entering uncharted and potentially very dangers waters and those who are gleeful about the imminent destruction of the current Rangers should remember the dangers which could be just over the horizon in a later version.


Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ?
neepheid says:
September 8, 2014 at 10:43 am

Just read McMurdo’s blog, which Scapa has linked to. I’ve always had issues with tripe for breakfast. What caught my eye, though, was the entry below, an article by Kenny S, entitled “We Need A Billionaire – A Fan Speaks Out”

I commend the article to anyone who believes that the mindset of the Ibrox fans is changing. Oh no it isn’t.
===================================================
I think tbf to Bears who are interested in football that any examination of the pro-Board McMurdo rants on a variety of topics reveal a very fixed and unchangeable vision that is deeply entrenched in Loyalism.

He is entitled to his views as long as they remain within the law and so are the adherents who have joined him. The State Aid campaign against Celtic was conceived by a small cadre of posters on McMurdo’s Blog and is run by an Ulster Scot. It is no surprise to me that the campaign has been enthusiastically adopted by the Vanguard Bears.

However McMurdo’s has dropped from any mainstream influence within the Rangers Support over the last few years mainly because he is viewed as a mouthpiece for the PR output spouted by the merry-go-round of succeeding Rangers Boards.

All I would agree with you on this one is that the mindset of those who inhabit McMurdo’s blog and similar most certainly isn’t changing but hardening. However this is an inevitable consequence of any group which has lost its influence over the mainstream.

You have to look beyond extrapolating the claims of any particular group – because it might suit the argument you are making even unconsciously – to applying to the wider support.

And it’s crucial to understand that most ordinary Bears don’t belong to any organised group. They just go along for the football. But they are the ones who are waking-up and the evidence is clear to see. They have quite literally walked away.

They see no hope in the current financial model and I think that really is a first for Rangers’ supporters especially wrt to the numbers who have walked. They may come back – who knows and it remains to be seen what might re-energise them.

However I think it’s too late to save this current reincarnation and IMO that’s no bad thing because it gives more hope that the football fans might end-up with a real voice and influence over a future Rangers and that would be progress IMO.


Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ?

What was not made public, however, was a subsequent meeting on Friday in London between Ashley’s people and the Rangers board.

Another exclusive by Jackson? Not really as Sons of Struth ran the story 4 days earlier on Friday 5 September:

Sons of Struth
5 September

Passed Ibrox today and wondered where our directors had got to.

London apparently meeting representatives of Sports Direct. Hope they negotiated ripping up two onerous contracts.

Sandy joined them later before flying home from City Airport on the 6.10 with his close “advisor” Jack Irvine.


Recent Comments by ecobhoy

Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
jimmci says:
April 24, 2015 at 1:50 pm

And why did we not get the panel’s reasoning together with the decision last night?
———————————————-

Simples ❗ The Decision was the easy bit 😆 The explanation to sell it was the hard bit and despite a nightshift they appear to have fluffed their lines AGAIN 🙄


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Allyjambo says:
April 24, 2015 at 2:18 pm

Might I suggest that SD’s main interest in this meeting was to put the RIFC board straight on some matters regarding the security over the IP and just how watertight it is, rather than to discuss funding or any ‘amicable’ discussion how best to move the club forward!
———————————————————-
You might be right but would SD want the club suffering another Insolvency Event? Perhaps they were asking for the second loan tranche of £5 million which the new board apparently rejected on taking control.

I have undernoted a reply I made to parttimearab last night which may have been missed but may also be relevant.

3. Insolvency events

(i) The inability of the Company to pay its debts as they fall due within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”);
(ii) The issue of an application for an administration order or a notice of intention to appoint an administrator in relation to the Company;
(iii) The passing of a resolution or order for the Company’s winding-up, dissolution, administration or reorganisation;
(iv) The declaration of a moratorium in relation to any of the Company’s indebtedness;
(v) The making of any arrangement or any proposal for any arrangement with any of the Company’s creditors; and
(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

Now I haven’t a clue whether that has anything to do with the SPFL Rule Change. But it’s clear that there could be various stages in an Insolvency Event and perhaps the rule change is to cover all eventualities which might not have been previously defined in the Rule Book.

In particular I look at:

(vi) The appointment of a liquidator, receiver, administrator, supervisor or other similar officer in respect of any of the Company’s assets.

And I think of the various charges which have been placed on Rangers assets wrt the £5 million loan. I have previously posted that the contracts wrt a Default Event could see the assets pass to SportsDirect without any court hearing and SD also already has the power to appoint a Receiver to deal with any of the assets that pass to it via a loan default event.

Now that might not ultimately lead to a full-blown Insolvency depending on what SD actually decide to do with Rangers. But looking at the above I wonder whether with the SPFL rule change that just taking control of the assets is enough to be classed as an Insolvency Event under SPFL Rules?

Perhaps the SPFL are thinking ahead ?

But does the rule take effect immediately or from the new season?

It seems that if it is immediate and Rangers suffers an Insolvency Event then that would be an automatic 25 points this season and 15 next season. Assuming it is able to survive death a second time.


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Resin_lab_dog says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:10 pm
ecobhoy says:
April 24, 2015 at 12:00 pm
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am
________________________________________________

From what I saw, all criticisms emanating from ICTFC was directed towards the SFA machinery and not towards CFC. Similarly, I have seen no evidence of any criticism of ICTFC being put forward by CFC. I see that fact as quite telling.

Celtic were quite entitled to make all the statements they made and had the boot been on the other foot, in the circumstances I am sure KC at ICTFC would have done likewise.

Similarly, had the situtaions been reversed w.r.t. the foul, I would have expected CFC to back their player robsutly in the same way that ICTFC did.

This is about governance of the sport, not internecine disagreements between member clubs – for which I am yet to see any cause advanced from either party.
——————————————-
Couldn’t agree more!


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
blu says:
April 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

My view is that Celtic played this one wrong (only in the public nature of it)and it was easy for media outlets to infer cause and effect in the Celtic/Compliance Officer actions.
———————————————–
There is some merit in your view IMO. However there’s a balancing act to be achieved which requires an answer to what the officials saw, didn’t see, or decided or didn’t decide on Sunday.

All I heard in the ground, leaving the ground, on the train, in the pub, was real anger and disbelief at the decision which worsened with the TV replays.

I do think Celtic fans were due an explanation and tbf to Celtic I doubt if they could have forseen what an absolute hash the SFA would make of it. Obviously the SMSM has ridden to the rescue of the SFA so what’s new about that?

But we’re still awaiting the answers requested. Will we get them? Not without keeping the pressure on the SFA on all fronts where Hampden’s dark secrets exist.


Did Stewart Regan Ken Then Wit We Ken Noo?
Gabby says:
April 24, 2015 at 10:18 am

If Celtic really, really felt they needed to send a letter, then this is the type of thing they should have sent…
———————————————
I disagree as the letter you suggest goes way beyond the immediate point which is simply: ‘Please explain how the decision was arrived at’. I say decision because when Celic sent the letter it seemed there had been no decision reached but that the incident had been ‘missed’ by all officials.

Once the SFA provide that info then Celtic can make a decision as to if and how it should proceed with the matter.

My credo in a situation like this is not to give any leeway to a slippery character or room for manoeuvre. Ask the straight simple question and take it from there once the basic position is established.

Never jump fences too soon and never ever jump fences you don’t need to especially if you don’t know what lies in wait on the other side.


About the author