A consortium led by David Low has been in talks with Sir Tom Farmer seeking to purchase Hibernian Football Club. The story has been embargoed for a few weeks, but David agreed to speak to TSFM to give us an exclusive interview and provide us with information about his intentions for the Edinburgh club.
Highlights of the interview include the similarities and differences between the Hibs situation and the one he found at Celtic Pak in 1994; how Scottish Football’s “new level playing field” as Low calls it has created an opportunity for a club like Hibs to be the main challenger to Celtic for honours; the contrast of his consortium’s approach to that of the recent debacle at Ibrox; the role of the fans at every level of the club; the future of Allan Stubbs and Leanne Dempster; and the journey back to the Premiership.
Low is frank about his reputation as a well-known Celtic fan, but highlights his Hibbee credentials and his affection for the club, eschewing the “I was always a Hibbee” line taken by so many people seeking to ingratiate themselves with the locals at various clubs.
Certainly, the experience and finance rolling around Low’s consortium is something that any club could do with, but the fans are crucial to their involvement and interest.
He says he won’t go ahead with the purchase unless the fans are behind them.
“Fans have never been so powerful as they are today, especially with the advent of social media like TSFM”
“We have seen in recent years what a body of fans are capable of when they re together”
“We want to have that togetherness at Hibs, because the only way forward is to have trust between the boardroom and the fans, you only have to look at the levels of distrust between board and fans at Rangers to see that it is a recipe for disaster”
GoosyGoosy says:
September 2, 2014 at 12:06 am
13 2 Rate This
=====================================
I used to work with a Stirling Albion fan who was convinced there was bias in equal measure towards the O*d F*rm. That is until they played each other, when he was equally convinced the bias was towards Rangers. He wasn’t right of course, because no-one can ever be right in arguments about bias, they can simply have a view. My view is Scotland is as capable of bias as any other nation, but I can’t prove it happens. I do love the media view on it all though, which is that not only is there no bias in Scottish football, but also Scottish Referees and the footballing authorities are genetically incapable of showing bias of any kind.
Some chaps on the LSE site suggesting the share trade could stem from Craig Mather. They say he had 1.8m. Could he have been locked in until 1 September?
Is it just from the school of hard knock(er)s?
Is this something or nothing?
There is normally a bid price and an ask price.
Share Price: 24.75 Bid: 0.00 Ask: 0.00 Change: 0.00 (0.00%)
Before it gets really serious again, I noticed Keith Jackson tweeted that Dave King was now ‘on the dance floor’. Dance suggestions?
I’ll thrown in the foxtrot 🙂
I’ve just logged in to catch up on the last 2 days and read the PL piece.
He was wearing his club hat.
I don’t think there is to much in the piece to get excited about…as a CEO he was merely outlining the financial landscape his club finds itself
Was it a coincidence that Celtic get knocked out of the CL and have made no significant signings? When he provides this piece.
In reality a CEO of a PLC is entitled to make a case to explain the difficult trading conditions.
One of the contributing factors was the liquidation of rangers…I say contributing as reducing ST by £100…circa £3 million is an internal decision.
If as one poster suggested they are not a stand alone business…then would not be a worthy CEO…but I don’t see that in his comments and do think he is a worthy CEO.
The reality is to win the SPFL the prize money is small…therefore your expenditure should be tailored to that…after all we expect a certain other 2 year old club to live within its means…we are no different.
As for wanting the 2 year old club in the top tier…he might think it…he might wish it…but he dare not say it…for a CEO of a PLC to openly state the need for something considered by many as toxic…would be commercial suicide.
Bawsman says:
September 2, 2014 at 8:06 am
1 0 Rate This
Is this something or nothing?
There is normally a bid price and an ask price.
Share Price: 24.75 Bid: 0.00 Ask: 0.00 Change: 0.00 (0.00%)
———-
Those figures are there now Bawsman. 26p ask / 23.50 bid.
Bawsman were did you get that info from?
You almost started a hare running 😆
It would have suggested suspension 😯
There is speculation in one newspaper that the 1.8m (x2) shares are the result of an ‘investor’ moving his shares between accounts. Here, also, there is speculation that the two trades may be either half of the same transaction. It’s very easy to believe that either of those things might be the truth, but my question would be, why are there no other instances of BOTH halves of a trade being recorded?
Bawsman
If it’s the LSE site you’re talking about, it usually takes until about 8:10 before the software works out where it is and settles down.
Not that I look that much, of course.
John Clark re. insolvency events:
The guidance from the SPFL on second insolvency events is this,”If the OWNER (my caps)of the Club had administrators appointed within the last 5 years, then the points penalty is 25.”
In the event of admin in 2014/15 I would think that the TRFC/RIFC line would be that the Club found new owners since 2012. I wouldn’t want to mis-characterise you but I wonder if a sceptic like yourself might conclude that the rule had been written for situations such as the one RIFC/TRFC appear to be facing.
I see that James McArthur moved from Wigan to Palace for £7M yesterday.
Will any of that go to Hamilton Accies as a sell on profit fee?
blu says:
September 2, 2014 at 9:10 am
2
0
Rate This
John Clark re. insolvency events:
The guidance from the SPFL on second insolvency events is this,”If the OWNER (my caps)of the Club had administrators appointed within the last 5 years, then the points penalty is 25.”
In the event of admin in 2014/15 I would think that the TRFC/RIFC line would be that the Club found new owners since 2012. I wouldn’t want to mis-characterise you but I wonder if a sceptic like yourself might conclude that the rule had been written for situations such as the one RIFC/TRFC appear to be facing.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
And that brings us back round again to how they define “club”.
Paulmac2 says:
September 2, 2014 at 8:19 am
I think someone better get excited soon about the ‘financial landscape’ the club has allegedly put itself in. Although IIRC the annual turnover has increased in the years since the death of the ‘Old Firm’ so I really am confused about what financial message is emanating from Parkhead.
And I’m even more puzzled by a message that only seems to see a solution in Rangers returning to the top flight especially when that remains problematic and even if it comes to pass it may never be the team it was for a considerable period.
I want to know whether the club has abandoned its ‘buy well-develop-sell high’ strategy and whether we have forsaken any hope of reaching the CL Group Stage because everything unfolding at the club – which began long before this season – seems to point in that direction.
I honestly don’t know and wonder what your conclusion is?
Of course he has that right. But where is a detailed explanation of the difficult trading conditions. PL isn’t daft and knows that his ‘message’ would appear as Celtic needs Rangers to survive and from perusing many Celtic sites the fans seem to think that as well and that’s most definitely the view on the Darkside.
Is it really only the absence of Rangers which have created ‘difficult trading conditions?’
I also take exception to no mention of the unprecedented worldwide financial and economic collapse which has adversely impacted on wages and still does and for many families – struggling to pay the mortgage, buy food and heat their homes on static/declining wages – has pushed STs into the luxury item category.
Quite simply and I take the evidence from my eyes – no doubt someone can provide the ‘offishal’ figures – although I have given up accepting these figures for any club in terms of the number of bodies actually watching a game: Numbers in attendance at Parkhead have been dropping and this was happening before the death of Rangers.
Of course there are some people who will only help pack Parkhead to see the Rangers being beaten but if our financial success is to rest on them then we have cause to worry IMO.
I believe dropping the ST by £100 was implemented quite simply because the club – correctly in my opinion – thought the incentive might retain financially hard-pressed ST holders rather than STs who missed Rangers.
I’m not at all clear what is meant by that although I would agree that PL has previously been a ‘worthy CEO’. However things have been changing – not just the absence of Rangers – internally at the club IMO and that desperately needs addressed in terms of spotting potential players and who actually signs them and takes responsibility for that decision.
The support really does need a detailed explanation as to why we are now appraently pursuing different directions and why what appeared to be the previous plans – which now appear to be in disarray – have been dropped and if so exactly what the new model is to be.
IMO the press puffs issued by PL were a mistake and have created both animosity and ominous foreboding for the future in many Celtic supporters.
If our expenditure is to be tailored to win the SPFL then we better get started spending on new players because a helluva high proportion of the present squad don’t appear to be either fit for purpose or care whether we win or lose. We have to accept that we might not be even good enough just now to win the SPFL. And if our highlight of the season is restricted to the League Flag then what will the attendance settle at?
As to Rangers I couldn’t give a stuff whether it lives within its means or not, in a general sense, although I do care if its financial spending results in cheating or breach of football regulations. If Rangers continue to spend as it has been for decades then in the absence of sugar daddies it will continually go bust.
It really is that simple and celtic should never get into that swamp with them because we ARE Different! And if we intend changing that then there won’t be many left supporting the club.
Well either PL has committed commercial suicide IMO or the Celtic support is in the grip of a mass hallucination. I still can’t figure out what he was actually trying to do but it has backfired with serious consequences for Celtic and possibly Scottish Football.
He really has to clear the air with real answers and a clear plan for the future and cut-out the PR waffle which has created his mess. I think he’s a big enough guy to do so and I still think he’s the right guy to handle the finances and running of the club but like lots of things at Parkhead – tempus fugit.
The Cat NR1 says:
September 2, 2014 at 9:43 am
===========================
The Cat, one last observation before we head for the OCNC bin – I guess that you and I believe that RFC went into liquidation and that that club is no more. The carefully crafted SPFL wording allows RIFC/TRFC and, most importantly, Rangers supporters to argue for Continuity Rangers without insisting on a 25 point penalty should an insolvency event occur before February 2017.
McCarthur: Hamilton get 10% of sell on i read.
It is the club who receive the points penalty…not the owner.
andygraham.66 says:
September 2, 2014 at 9:57 am
1
0
Rate This
McCarthur: Hamilton get 10% of sell on i read.
//////////////////////////////////////////////
A nice windfall. Clubs developing talent like Dundee Utd, Falkirk and Hamilton are bringing more money into the game than those at the top charged with getting sponsorship sorted out.
blu says:
September 2, 2014 at 9:53 am
I think the wording is to cover the situation where a holding company goes into administration. If it’s the same club and 2 different owners, whether a holding company or sole owner, fall into administration, then it’s still a second administration event for the club.
Blu
It’s the club who receive the penalty…therefore if they insist on continuity then it is 25 points.
blu says:
September 2, 2014 at 9:53 am
0
0
Rate This
The Cat NR1 says:
September 2, 2014 at 9:43 am
===========================
The Cat, one last observation before we head for the OCNC bin – I guess that you and I believe that RFC went into liquidation and that that club is no more. The carefully crafted SPFL wording allows RIFC/TRFC and, most importantly, Rangers supporters to argue for Continuity Rangers without insisting on a 25 point penalty should an insolvency event occur before February 2017.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Carefully crafted? Say no more. 😉
IIRC the SPFL rules now allow the football business to be transferred from corporate entity A to corporate entity B and for the Management Board (or whatever it is called)of the SPFL to exercise discretion as the division in which that footballing entity will play its football. Clearly if there is to be a mid-season switch, it would be easier to justify that any such footballing entity stays exactly where it is (purely for the benefit of the rest of the footballing community – to minimise disruption etc etc etc of course).
It’s Not The Board
Sad to see that the MSM are misleading the bears into beleiving that the Board are to blame for the plight of The RAmgers and that the first priority is getting rid of the Board. When will the bears think for themselves and realise that the Board are just hired hands and that expending effort on the Board is perfect deflection from the real villians – the spiv owners. But then, if the bears were able to think for themselves then they would not be so far down this slippery slope. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Maybe that can be the motto of The Third Rangers.
scottc says:
September 2, 2014 at 8:59 am
why are there no other instances of BOTH halves of a trade being recorded?
===============================
I know a little of how things are supposed to work but haven’t a clue about how it’s actually practised by those who make a fortune out of it by relieving the gullible of their life savings.
It seems to me that, in simple terms, both halves of a trade are usually recorded and I think that it’s the size of this one that makes its stand-out.
And then smaller bundles of shares can be aggregated to fulfill a larger trade so it becomes impossible from the information published to identify the individual constituents of both sides of the trade.
Tranches of shares can also be moved about for all sorts of reasons which I’m sure fully meets the AIM Regulations 😆
Of course nothing I have said should be taken to apply to the two transactions reported which I have no doubt are strictly kosher.
16 Sodium Atoms says:
September 1, 2014 at 9:38 pm
In short someone has positioned themself to up their holding by 10% (the 5% today and the other 5% they can buy).
============================================
There will be a cut-off date though after which purchasing shares on the open market don’t provide any entitlement to purchase offer shares.
But then does that mean that if the seller has qualified for offer shares and applies for them he can then sell his original shares and replace them with shares approx 5p a time cheaper.
Obviously there is a dilution factor involved in terms of % shareholding held to be factored in as well.
Crisis, What Crisis ?
I’ve been away for the a few days and am just catching up – so forgive me if this has already been said – but calm down dear – calm down. Because, according to Mr JAckson, the only crisis at Ibrox is the toe-to-toe between Ashley and King over who gets o write the biggest chequwe to propel The Rangers back to where they belong. So just calm down, Hans Christian Jackson has the inside story – and there is no story – it’s business as usual.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/keith-jackson-rangers-need-life-saving-4142492
btw – I also love the way the DR is offering fans polls on the way forward – which baord member to fire – which sugar daddy to select – genius – pure cruel, heartless, patronizing genius.
So nobody in and nobody out down Govan way.
Not surprising being that having announced the Open Offer on Friday everyone and their uncle would have been offering a pittance even if they were interested in the likes of Lee Wallace and Lewis McLeod. Therefore if any cheeky low bids were made before last night they could be turned down with ease.
Which makes the timing of the Open Offer interesting.
IMHO the board clearly need the money but a few days delay on the Open Offer until today would have left the possibility of selling the two above and others at reasonable fees if there was no sign of panic.
I believe a few youngsters have gone out on loan but other than that Mr McCoist has his squad – as is.
Therefore, despite what Phil Mac has said about touting players earlier in the year, I think the board are either comfortable with the playing squad or are just bluffing it out.
Looking at the performances to date and having seen the way Hearts are playing McCoist will need to keep everyone they have at present to have a shout of being in the Championship top two.
Therefore I believe the board are happy they have the sale of the minimum 15m shares in the bag and that they can continue with the existing squad for another few months.
I think Wallace and Nash have enough experience to know what is required on the park and getting rid of Lee Wallace and the likes of McLeod would be a grave error.
I hear all the talk of administration but continue to believe there is always going to be someone willing to put in the odd million here and there to make sure T’Rangers get back into the Premiership.
Once there it is a different story and I would wager that CEO Wallace and Nash may take their leave when on a high being that when back in the top division the ‘club’ will be in huge debt to the Plc and running costs will only increase if the aim is pursuit of Euro Millions even if there is slightly more income from season tickets, sponsorship etc.
Sorry, broken promise on final comment on this:
=======================================================
Allyjambo says:
September 2, 2014 at 10:06 am
I think the wording is to cover the situation where a holding company goes into administration. If it’s the same club and 2 different owners, whether a holding company or sole owner, fall into administration, then it’s still a second administration event for the club.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’d originally interpreted it as an effort to apply a second sanction and to be clear what it was – in the Dundee case the SFL applied a sanction on the hoof for the second admin. I also thought that it would present TRFC with an interesting dilemma should they enter admin – 15 points or 25 points? However, I posted a quote from the SPFL on this earlier and I think it suggests that their interpretation is that it is possible to distinguish different owners from the one club. So, if the former owners of HMV bought TRFC and the Club was put into admin within 5 years of the HMV admin, it would mean a 25 point penalty.
The point of all of this is that the wording of the rules is still lax.
John Clark says:
September 1, 2014 at 10:54 pm
What I find puzzling is why it is not clear that one entry is a ‘sale’ and the other a ‘buy’, although the fact that they both occurred at precisely the same time would suggest that. Other entries are shown as ‘buy’ or ‘sale’.
================================================
I haven’t seen anyone mention this but apologise if it has been previously.
As I understand it the ‘buy’ or ‘sell’ label is determined automatically by the computer software looking at the price achieved against the ‘Bid’ and ‘Ask’ prices. When it is exactly on the mid-point of the spread between them the software doesn’t know whether it is a ‘buy’ or a ‘sell’ and therefore can’t record either.
Probably the only easy way – for non-insiders – to know is whether the trade triggers an AIM announcement or not.
blu says:
September 2, 2014 at 11:07 am
The point of all of this is that the wording of the rules is still lax.
***********************************************************
Yes isn’t it funny.
The lawyers like nothing better than clear cut lines sometimes and then at other times, when it suits their purpose, they are more than happy with a bit of gobbledygook to allow open interpretation.
Surely given all the talent at the SPFL they could have said what they actually mean.
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/letham-gives-rangers-extra-time-to-repay-1million-loan-178673n.25212709
———————————————————————-
At a guess it looks as though he’ll be wanting the dosh rather than shares.
ecobhoy says:
September 2, 2014 at 11:15 am
2 0 Rate This
——–
‘More time to come up with the money,’ sounds a little embarrassing.
Expresses a bit of the, ‘We don’t have it now because the dog ate my credit card,’ excuse.
I know of a former employee at Ibrox, who was made redundant very recently and had to accept being paid their redundancy money in instalments. (Times seem to be hard)
They are now fully paid up thankfully.(and glad to be out of there)
Currently, Keef’s “Who would you prefer to be in charge at Rangers” poll stands at:
The current board – 9%
Mike Ashley – 6%
Dave King – 44%
Charles Green – 23%
Someone else – 17%
Charles Green – 23%. Seriously? I suspect that some voters aren’t “Real Rangurz Men”
Well that’s weird. I popped back to check on how my post yesterday was received and the only record relating to was ecobhoy referring to it in a subsequent post. Anyone know what happened to “jockybhoy says: September 1, 2014 at 3:35 pm”?
Am happy to repost, I have a copy :o) but would like to know if I fell foul of something before doing so…
mcfc says:
September 2, 2014 at 10:51 am
Keef = pseudonym for Phil Space.
mcfc says:
September 2, 2014 at 10:51 am
8
0
Rate This
Crisis, What Crisis ?
I’ve been away for the a few days and am just catching up – so forgive me if this has already been said – but calm down dear – calm down. Because, according to Mr JAckson, the only crisis at Ibrox is the toe-to-toe between Ashley and King over who gets o write the biggest chequwe to propel The Rangers back to where they belong. So just calm down, Hans Christian Jackson has the inside story – and there is no story – it’s business as usual.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/keith-jackson-rangers-need-life-saving-4142492
btw – I also love the way the DR is offering fans polls on the way forward – which baord member to fire – which sugar daddy to select – genius – pure cruel, heartless, patronizing genius.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
It reminds me of the Monty Python merchant banker sketch (later redone for Comic Relief with Stephen Fry, Bob Geldof and Midge Ure)
http://www.montypython.net/scripts/merchant.php
The memorable line “I don’t suppose you could give me a list of their names and addresses could you?” seems strangely familiar from elsewhere too.
I also understand that a rich Nigerian is trying to contact people to help shift a fortune out of the country. Perhaps the Daily Record could help him to find a few West of Scotland based “people” to help him out.
The Rangers nil? Who missed the penalty? says:
September 2, 2014 at 11:54 am
8
0
Rate This
Currently, Keef’s “Who would you prefer to be in charge at Rangers” poll stands at:
The current board – 9%
Mike Ashley – 6%
Dave King – 44%
Charles Green – 23%
Someone else – 17%
Charles Green – 23%. Seriously? I suspect that some voters aren’t “Real Rangurz Men”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Why is Campbell Ogilvie being snubbed? The bestest football administrator in the whole widest world. Or is he the mysterious someone else. We demand to know the name(s) of Someone Else. :slamb: :slamb: :slamb:
Para Handy says:
September 2, 2014 at 11:16 am
It would be appreciated if the CFC fans would stop using the PL statement as the starting point to discuss the club’s overall strategy.
How CFC choose to cut there cloth is not the issue here.
Thanks in advance…
========================================
I would have thought that the best starting point to discuss the overall strategy of any club was to examine fairly far-reaching statements made by their CEO which IMO have to be accepted as the position of the Board and especially so if the club is a PLC.
As a Celtic supporter I have tried not to make this a Celtic-centric issue as I genuinely believe what has emerged in the last couple of days could have enormous consequences for Scottish Football as a whole.
There is also the perception that changes are being made in what was understood to be key Celtic goals – not on the footballing field of course 😉
A lot of these changes could be not only detrimental to Celtic IMO but also to Scottish Football in terms of the coefficient and the Euro cash trickled-down to other domestic clubs.
And we shouldn’t forget the prestige that comes from any Scottish club advancing in Europe which could help raise sponsorship and TV interest and therefore bring more money into the game.
I believe all of these issues are of much wider importance than how Celtic might cut its cloth. Celtic has a track record in recent times of living within its means but it would appear that major changes in how that is achieved are underway.
And even more important is the impression given that Celtic requires to be playing Rangers to be financially viable. I believe that attitude/culture is something of direct relevance affecting at least all Premiership teams.
Obviously if this topic is of no interest to some then that’s fine but it does interest others and I hope it would be of relevance to non-Celtic football fans although I fully realise that it shouldn’t become just a discussion about Celtic as there are other fan sites more suited for that.
The one thing I hoped was that no matter what else was achieved that the bigotry which fuelled the ‘Old Firm’ could be consigned to the dustbin of history even though Rangers might once again play in the top flight.
It sends shivers down my spine to think that my club apparently requires a return to being a commercial success based on tainted money. And it seems to prove that our alternative models have failed and are being discarded.
I could be wrong about that but we need explanations which haven’t been given IMO and that of many others. But it is far too simplistic to talk about this as just how Celtic ‘cuts their cloth’.
The Cat NR1 says:
September 2, 2014 at 12:39 pm
I also understand that a rich Nigerian is trying to contact people to help shift a fortune out of the country. Perhaps the Daily Record could help him to find a few West of Scotland based “people” to help him out.
=====================================================================
Surely you mean a rich South African 😆
And he already has plenty in the WoS happy to help relieve him of his money as long as they don’t need to open the books.
Apologies if previous comment on the Lawell statement was too Celtic-centric. I also accept some of the arguments about Lawell being given a hard time, perhaps disproportionately.
OK. So let’s broaden the discussion.
The current entity playing out of Ibrox is doing a pretty good impersonation of the dying swan – what do we (the Scottish Football community) do?
Well, we could sit back and hope that the football authorities have learned their lesson from last time, have grown a pair, and will stand up for sporting integrity if the situation arises.
Or we can note that the characters that masterminded the previous attempt to convince us that liquidation was only for the little people are all still there, totally unrepentant, quite happy to bleed the game of any integrity it has left in the name of the bottom line – ignoring all the evidence that Armageddon never happened.
Now, as then, we have to worry that our own clubs may be infected by the poisonous belief that Scottish football somehow needs a strong Rangers. This is true at just about all clubs, not just Celtic. There are a few noble exceptions.
We need our club representatives, i.e. ALL of our clubs, to know that we value the integrity of our competitions more than the short term success of our clubs.
Winning the league only matters if you know it wasn’t rigged. Admittedly, this might be an entirely novel concept for many of those that run Scottish Football, and I would be wrong to ignore the fact that my club has previously benefitted from aspects of that rigging. It has to stop.
There is no need to wait for Armageddon II.
As I said yesterday, I would find it completely unacceptable to find my team losing to any team that was blatantly cheating the system, living wildly ouside its means and, yes, gaining an illegitimate sporting advantage by doing so.
That is the situation we find in the Championship this year and in the two lower divisions over the previous two seasons.
So how does it / did it feel to get gubbed by the team that no one could afford?
Did receipt of the “Blue Pound” soften the blow? Did it help write off a season where you knew from the outset that your team had no realistic chance of winning the title?
How does it feel to be a Jambo or a Hibbee or a fan of any of the other teams currently up against a club that has taken a kamikaze approach to reaching the top flight?
I know that there have been previous instances of this kind of business model. The point is, they have always ended badly and we need to eradicate it from the game in order to ensure its long term survival.
Fans of the game in Scotland need to apply pressure on their respective clubs to (a) resist future attempts to fast track any team to the top, and (b) support development of fit for purpose financial fair play rules that stop this happening again.
The first part is easy. Just say no.
The second part requires a major overhaul and development of a new ethos. Culture change is never easy, but it is absolutely essential if the game is to survive as a real sport.
ecobhoy says:
September 2, 2014 at 12:58 pm
0
0
Rate This
The Cat NR1 says:
September 2, 2014 at 12:39 pm
I also understand that a rich Nigerian is trying to contact people to help shift a fortune out of the country. Perhaps the Daily Record could help him to find a few West of Scotland based “people” to help him out.
=====================================================================
Surely you mean a rich South African 😆
And he already has plenty in the WoS happy to help relieve him of his money as long as they don’t need to open the books.
//////////////////////////////////
Perhaps they are one and the same after all?
A Nigerian Prince could just as easily be a South African King.
ecobhoy says:
September 2, 2014 at 12:53 pm
‘.. But it is far too simplistic to talk about this as just how Celtic ‘cuts their cloth’.’
—–
Absolutely right.
Simply by referencing TRFC in his discourse on where his own club is at, PL brought his remarks out of the immediate, internal Celtic context.
If he were only just the CEO of that club, that would in itself have been a daft thing to do.
But as he is also on the SFA main board,his remarks must inevitably be examined for any indication that he was not speaking only as a club CEO, but perhaps flying kites for the SFA as part of what I at least believe must be their increasingly concerned planning to get TRFC into the top division.
And that certainly justifies this blog’s interest.
ecobhoy says:
September 2, 2014 at 12:53 pm
17 0 Rate This
Para Handy says:
September 2, 2014 at 11:16 am
It would be appreciated if the CFC fans would stop using the PL statement as the starting point to discuss the club’s overall strategy.
How CFC choose to cut there cloth is not the issue here.
Thanks in advance…
========================================
I would have thought that the best starting point to discuss the overall strategy of any club was to examine fairly far-reaching statements made by their CEO which IMO have to be accepted as the position of the Board and especially so if the club is a PLC.
As a Celtic supporter I have tried not to make this a Celtic-centric issue as I genuinely believe what has emerged in the last couple of days could have enormous consequences for Scottish Football as a whole.
There is also the perception that changes are being made in what was understood to be key Celtic goals – not on the footballing field of course 😉
A lot of these changes could be not only detrimental to Celtic IMO but also to Scottish Football in terms of the coefficient and the Euro cash trickled-down to other domestic clubs.
And we shouldn’t forget the prestige that comes from any Scottish club advancing in Europe which could help raise sponsorship and TV interest and therefore bring more money into the game.
I believe all of these issues are of much wider importance than how Celtic might cut its cloth. Celtic has a track record in recent times of living within its means but it would appear that major changes in how that is achieved are underway.
And even more important is the impression given that Celtic requires to be playing Rangers to be financially viable. I believe that attitude/culture is something of direct relevance affecting at least all Premiership teams.
Obviously if this topic is of no interest to some then that’s fine but it does interest others and I hope it would be of relevance to non-Celtic football fans although I fully realise that it shouldn’t become just a discussion about Celtic as there are other fan sites more suited for that.
The one thing I hoped was that no matter what else was achieved that the bigotry which fuelled the ‘Old Firm’ could be consigned to the dustbin of history even though Rangers might once again play in the top flight.
It sends shivers down my spine to think that my club apparently requires a return to being a commercial success based on tainted money. And it seems to prove that our alternative models have failed and are being discarded.
I could be wrong about that but we need explanations which haven’t been given IMO and that of many others. But it is far too simplistic to talk about this as just how Celtic ‘cuts their cloth’.
================================================
I couldn’t agree more EB.
On the one hand, as a supported of a diddy club its perhaps not my concern how Celtic go about their business and how PL engages with his fans.
But if what I take him to have meant is right, then what he suggested goes much further than Celtic cutting their cloth – it hints at a strategy and an aspiration for Scottish Football that is FAR from my own.
And if Peter Lawell believes Rangers at the top is essential for Scottish Football then I can only assume other Club Chairmen do as well.
No club should be more important than the game itself, and by no means should our game be planning its long term future on 1 or 2 particular clubs being the only 2 that both dominate the game and financially support it.
IMO there has got to be another way, to increase competition over all and bring fans back to all clubs. And that is what they should all be pursuing, not a return to what existed before.
What worries me is do any club chairmen share that view or are they all content to get back to the days when Rangers existed and battled out with Celtic for every single trophy.
If so, why on earth do they think anyone bothers to follow the game.
More Phil.
Strange when the sale of two players could bring in some much-needed moolah — and wage savings — an unwillingness to sell. If I was owed money by the club I’d be slightly peeved.
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/another-difficult-week-at-ibrox/#respond
ecobhoy says:
September 2, 2014 at 11:15 am
‘At a guess it looks as though he’ll be wanting the dosh rather than shares.’
________________________________
At another guess it looks as though they’ve said, ‘George, if you can’t wait another three weeks you will be joining the list of creditors and offered a proportion of your £1m in a CVA. Wait the two weeks, and if we’re lucky, you might get it all back. Or, I could put it another way!’
At which point the Easdales put their arms around his shoulders.
‘George, would you like to be known, forever more, as the man who cost the club 25 (or 15?) points and promotion to the Premier League?’
However it was put, it looks very like he wasn’t getting all his money back if he wasn’t prepared to wait. I’m sure, in the circumstances, he’ll realise that there’s only a slim chance he’ll see all his money either way, and it’s not everybody who wants to own a car park 😯 , so why not look like an even more loyal bear and magnanimously do your bit for the club? Then, if it still goes pear-shaped, you remain a ‘true blue hero’, while still having the chance of becoming a ‘Rangers’ legend’ if things work out OK.
Danish Pastry says:
September 2, 2014 at 5:39 pm
It looks to me as, if the bids were genuine, that they weren’t high enough to make a meaningful difference and not worth blowing the illusion that they, at least, believe they will survive; illusion being such an important component of TRFC’s existence. There is also the possibility, though I can’t imagine what, that there is some advantage to the spivs in holding onto these assets unless a certain figure was met.
We must also remember that saving a football club is not the most important aim of at least one faction inside TRFC.
Allyjambo says:
September 2, 2014 at 6:00 pm
Is the point not that if they are so up against it, taking a smaller cash sum or incremental fees for Wallace and Mcleod isn’t really going to make that much difference. It might have scraped another few weeks of the timetable for money running out but not much more than that.
If there is indeed interest in those players then they can be kept and see if their sale is required in January.
Therefore the boards are confident they will get the £3.6m in via the Offer or the show really is about to hit the buffers.
Allyjambo says:
September 2, 2014 at 6:00 pm
1 0 Rate This
———
Indeed, if correct. The thought that occurred to me was that they perhaps didn’t want the money and are already steering for the rocks, or a sandbank.
Dear oh Dear
Rangers chair David Somers thinks £2,500 a day is ‘poor’ remuneration for his role 🙄
And here was me thinking the Ibrox Board had a ‘reality’ problem but now I’m beginning to wonder if it might have more to do with sanity or the lack of it.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-chairman-david-somers-sparks-4149755
Do you think it is correct for the SFA to approach UEFA to give Celtic time to bring in another signing?
What do other clubs think about this move considering Celtic already have an enormous advantage in finance and playing squad already?
rhapsodyinblue says:
September 2, 2014 at 6:39 pm
0 0 Rate This
Do you think it is correct for the SFA to approach UEFA to give Celtic time to bring in another signing?
What do other clubs think about this move considering Celtic already have an enormous advantage in finance and playing squad already?
———–
Why not? Have any rules been broken?
rhapsodyinblue says: September 2, 2014 at 6:39 pm
——————-
I have no problem with the SFA asking for dispensation on Celtic’s behalf, but it’s nothing to do with their financial status or the quality of their squad.
I would hope that they would do the same for any other Scottish club in a similar deadline situation.
What I would have problems with would be UEFA allowing the request for dispensation if the rules on deadline signings are clear. (as it was re Legia’s suspended player)
We have also seen Scottish two clubs fined by UEFA today for displays of the Palestinian flag at their home games.
You may or may not agree with the rules, but if they are clear, then I have no issue with them being enforced without fear or favour.
Any clubs who are unhappy with the application of the letter of the rules should be lobbying the SFA to request that the rules are changed.
I have been missing the late Paul McConvilles site but it is nice to drop in here and see a few old regulars like mcfc old eco and steerpike still posting.
I agree,as long as the rules are for all.
rhapsodyinblue says:
September 2, 2014 at 6:39 pm
Do you think it is correct for the SFA to approach UEFA to give Celtic time to bring in another signing?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Definitely Not
Why should the SFA break the habit of a lifetime?
And anyway
Theres enough Tumshies at Parkhead
rhapsodyinblue says:
September 2, 2014 at 6:39 pm
Do you think it is correct for the SFA to approach UEFA to give Celtic time to bring in another signing?
What do other clubs think about this move considering Celtic already have an enormous advantage in finance and playing squad already?
==============================================================
It would appear that the rules allow appeals to be made in situations where the paperwork isn’t completed before the deadline. If any other clubs are unhappy about the rules then they have the right to raise the issue and moving for a change in the rules.
The actual details seem a bit sketchy so far so it’s impossible to make an informed judgement. However it seems clear that Uefa regard the transfer as having been completed and that the only real problem is whether he will make the Euro Cup squad list deadline.
There is an argument that he could legitimately be placed on the squad list but if the appeal failed that would leave Celtic a man down in terms of choice which may well be a risk worth taking.
Fifa apparently becomes involved because they operate the online registration system and the argument appears to be that the although the download started before the deadline that it wasn’t completed before it. Apparently paperwork was asked to confirm cancellation of an old loan deal although the details are still vague.
At the end of the day I expect the rules to be followed and if the appeal process goes against Celtic then so be it. We should have got the paperwork done earlier but then there is a bit of excuse in view of the carfuffle over Scepovic.
In any case come January he will be elgibible for Europe once Celtic have got through the group stage 😆
hector says:
September 2, 2014 at 6:59 pm
I have been missing the late Paul McConvilles site but it is nice to drop in here and see a few old regulars like mcfc old eco and steerpike still posting.
========================================
Hey less of that ageist crap 😎
And it’s nice to see steerpike? Time you had a wee lie down 👿
Danish Pastry says:
September 2, 2014 at 5:39 pm
More Phil.
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/another-difficult-week-at-ibrox/#respond
=================================================
If Phil’s info is correct that the share offer is shaping up as a major flop with the major shareholders, then sh*t will be hitting fans very soon – safe houses will be in great demand – cunning exit plans will be tested to destruction – and creative writing courses will be attended to update CVs.
There must be a clever French phrase for “I told you so, but you’re still not listening, even as it happens.”
easyJambo says:
September 2, 2014 at 6:53 pm
2 0 Rate This
rhapsodyinblue says: September 2, 2014 at 6:39 pm
——————-
We have also seen Scottish two clubs fined by UEFA today for displays of the Palestinian flag at their home games.
You may or may not agree with the rules, but if they are clear, then I have no issue with them being enforced without fear or favour.
Any clubs who are unhappy with the application of the letter of the rules should be lobbying the SFA to request that the rules are changed.
http://willievass.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/300814-Rangers-v-QoS/G0000yYtF8kEQYrg/I0000xNCGqRumzA0/C0000DwY1ciUOXqU
anyone know what the rules are on political banners at domestic games
easyJambo says:
September 2, 2014 at 6:53 pm
———————————-
Fascinating piece on football in Palestine at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_national_football_team
mcfc says:
September 2, 2014 at 7:35 pm
2 0 Rate This
If Phil’s info is correct that the share offer is shaping up as a major flop with the major shareholders, then sh*t will be hitting fans very soon – safe houses will be in great demand – cunning exit plans will be tested to destruction – and creative writing course will be attended to update CVs.
There must be a clever French phrase for “I told you so, but you’re still not listening, even as it happens.”
———–
Don’t have a French one but in Danish this works
‘Den der ikke hører må føle.’
(He who won’t listen must feel)
Two for the Price of One
No, not RIFC shares, but world-class numpties. I finally got around to finding the McCoist meltdown video – and it didn’t disappoint – sheer comedy gold. Then as a bonus, Neil Patey pops up with the kind of razor-like financial insights that we’ve come to know a love – “definite difficulties here . . . emergency funding which might not be available . . . cannot totally rule out the possibility of administration”.
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/290070-rangers-will-not-be-able-to-pay-creditors-if-4m-share-offering-fails/
mcfc says:
September 2, 2014 at 7:35 pm
There must be a clever French phrase for “I told you so, but you’re still not listening, even as it happens.”
=============================================
Don’t know what it is in modern French but I’m sure Charlie Bhoy will know the Auld French for it.
I still laugh when I think back to his Auld French ‘bigoterie’ excuse 😆
He really was priceless for providing laughs – obviously as long as you weren’t a Rangers fan of course 😯
As discussed I’m not sure admin is around the corner but of course would be happy if it was.
However if the fans react like those at Hearts and others could that not result in a potential increase in crowd numbers, in defiance, with the monies then used to pay off the creditors. In such circumstances it will be interesting to know who are the creditors that have most to gain from that situation.
Danish Pastry says:
September 2, 2014 at 8:04 am
“Some chaps on the LSE site suggesting the share trade could stem from Craig Mather.”
—————————–
Mather was down for 1.8M shares, purchased at £0.50. The month rollover might indeed mark this as the end of a lock in period. He left the club October last year. This could all be coincidence however.
ecobhoy says:
September 2, 2014 at 7:20 pm
7 0 Rate This
==============================
Mr Angry was the first caller to Radio Clyde tonight to demand why Celtic were asking for rules to be broken in this case after saying ‘rules are rules’ two weeks ago. When the panel explained the situation to him he then chose to mock the club about needing a better broadband connection. A pathetic comment which sadly Jim Delahunt gave some credence to. The bottom line is no rules will be broken for Celtic and Guidetti will only sign if said rules allow.
rhapsodyinblue says:
September 2, 2014 at 6:39 pm
What’s your opinion on the way the SFA/SPFL allowed TRFC to turn a 12 month registration ban into one that was effectively a one month’s ban, the January transfer window? How many players did that allow TRFC to sign? One, two, five… On the other hand, if Celtic have broken the registration rules, especially if they did it deliberately (maybe they’ve been doing it for years), then it might well be considered wrong of the SFA to help them!
Castofthousands says:
September 2, 2014 at 8:01 pm
2 0 Rate This
Danish Pastry says:
September 2, 2014 at 8:04 am
“Some chaps on the LSE site suggesting the share trade could stem from Craig Mather.”
—————————–
Mather was down for 1.8M shares, purchased at £0.50. The month rollover might indeed mark this as the end of a lock in period. He left the club October last year. This could all be coincidence however.
——
Still no indication of who, or what kind of trade apart from ‘n/a’. Makes no sense buying shares at an over price when their value could be further diluted in a few weeks. You’d think it’s someone cashing out, or trying to. But I suppose every trade must have a buyer as well as a seller?
Zilch,
Many thanks for taking the time to articulate many of the points I believe are far more relevant in the PL statement’s impact than the narrowness of it being a statement or an expression of change in CFC’s strategy.
Scottish football is, or rather should be, larger than any individual club. Unfortunately that has not been the case for far too many years and this pre-dates Murray and others.
Campbellsmoney says:
September 2, 2014 at 10:21 am
” Clearly if there is to be a mid-season switch, it would be easier to justify that any such footballing entity stays exactly where it is (purely for the benefit of the rest of the footballing community – to minimise disruption etc etc etc of course).”
————————–
I see your logic clearly. If , as GG has suggested, the share issue is set up to fail then perhaps we can see a way being paved for an ‘event’. As has been mentioned, with season ticket money all now largely collected in there can be none of that inconvenient interjection of supporters calling for sporting integrity. Demotion to a lower league following an insolvency event has also been sidelined from the rules due to the ‘complications’ it might incur.
All we need now is the Celtic Chairman and SFA/SPFL board member to voice his support for any entity unfortunate enough to fulfill all these criteria and it might be credibly construed that there may be something fishy in the wind.
@CoT Once again, an appropriate quote from comedy suggests itself 🙂
I have a question about the Open Offer.
The initial release specified the need for 15m shares to be taken up for the Offer to go forward. Does this 15m mark need to be reached by counting initial entitlements alone (similar to the 75% needed to disapply preemption rights, if a quarter of the shareholders say no then the games a bogey), or will they be allowed to take additional applications into account.
If the latter, it would certainly be possible for a single shareholder to unofficially underwrite such an offer, but would be dangerously close to the naughty step for a couple of reasons.
As I said before, if the board have any knowledge, or even a suspicion of such a move, they would be required to make it public knowledge.
I thought someone on Sportsound said Cadete instead of Guidetti and just for a split second the emotional clock turned back…….As if anyone would ever again deliberately delay the player registration process.