Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ?

Avatar ByBig Pink

Podcast Episode 5 – Hibs Takeover ?

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”


powered by podcast garden

Podcast Download Link

ITunes Link

 

About the author

Avatar

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

2,528 Comments so far

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on8:23 am - Sep 4, 2014


John Clark says:
September 3, 2014 at 10:50 pm

The Board itself has now itself said there is the possibility of insolvency, whereas their strongest argument in the previous hearing was that there were investors who would see them all right;and that the NOMAD was quite happy; and that Easdale was only talking about fragile ‘relationships’ not ‘fragile finances’.

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

I think the Easdale Camp have moved on since then with Jackson’s Q&A today: ‘SANDY EASDALE admits the cash position inside Rangers is becoming desperate.’

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on8:27 am - Sep 4, 2014


Wild thought but maybe the £2.72m mentioned in the recent financials as being currently unavailable and held back by Rangers Retail Ltd is the agreed sum for the Stadium Rebranding? Buying strips to pay for the renaming of your beloved stadium!!

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on8:40 am - Sep 4, 2014


What truly and irrevocable marks Jackson out as an addictive succulent lamb eater IMO is this one bit from his PR sit-down with Easdale.

KJ: But you hold the proxy for Blue Pitch and Margarita and they are as toxic as Green…

SE: Yes, which is unfair as they have never done anything apart from put money into the club. So that’s harsh.

KJ: But Blue Pitch and Margarita got their money back. The accusation is that Rangers is a gravy train and these people have clambered on board to fill their pockets.

SE: That might be the perception but Blue Pitch and Margarita haven’t received any money form the club, directly or indirectly. The only people who have had money are those on salaries and obviously bonuses which were in people’s contracts.

That was all before I came along. I don’t receive any money. That’s all I can say.

So Blue Pitch and Margarita are simply philantrophists who have given millions to Rangers and asked for nothing and haven’t received a penny of their money back. Oh Really ❓

Perhaps if Jackson had asked Easdale to actually identify who Blue Pitch and Margarita are and if he had then I might be prepared to believe his answer. If these mystery offshore investors are such paragons of virtue then their identities should be postered all over Ibrox to allow the Bears to pay due homage to them.

Could Blue Pitch and Margarita be recipients of largesse from onerous contracts perhaps held by associated companies? We don’t know because Jackson failed to ask the question and just accepted what he was told which amounts to the square root of nothing.

The Q&A sessions are basically boring because anything of interest appears to have happened before Easdale’s arrival and since then he has been involved in good deeds by working for nothing and ploughing his money into a basket case. I gave up counting the number of times that was repeated btw 😆

View Comment

Avatar

16 Sodium AtomsPosted on9:01 am - Sep 4, 2014


Keith Jackson paints a picture in words.

“KJ: But Blue Pitch and Margarita got their money back. The accusation is that Rangers is a gravy train and these people have clambered on board to fill their pockets”

Why would you fill your pockets from a gravy train, that would just make a horible mess.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on9:02 am - Sep 4, 2014


Paulmac2 says:
September 4, 2014 at 8:07 am

The naming rights for a pound?

If there is no trigger date Eco then one has to ask WTF is going on?
=========================================
Ah but I’m convinced it isn’t the naming rights for a pound. The £1 only buys the right to be sole purchaser of the naming rights at some future point – dated or undated – for a sum which may be fixed or not.

And it doesn’t even mean that Ashley will be buying Rangers or Ibrox or even renaming it. It means he can sell his £1 right to any new purchaser of Rangers/Ibrox for a tidy sum. And if nobody buys it well he’s lost a quid 🙁

The real story here is why Green sold him this very valuable chip for £1. What other parts of the jigsaw connect to this piece? That’s what a real journo would be puzzling over – however we got Jackson quite simply because it’s common knowledge IMO that he’s either incapable of any investigative journalism or doesn’t want to see his succulent lamb rations cut to the bone.

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on9:05 am - Sep 4, 2014


ecobhoy says:
September 4, 2014 at 7:56 am

I think Ashley’s £1 has only bought him the sole right to purchase the naming rights and it reads to me that there is actually another figure which requires to be paid before he can actually change the name of the stadium.

=============================
That’s how I read it too. I would love to know the price agreed between Green and Ashley- I’m guessing low!

It’s looking as if Ashley is the man in the driving seat here. The share offer is ony necessary because the Rangers Retail cash is under lock and key, with Ashley holding the key. The Rangers Retail setup is the sweetheart deal of all time, giving Ashley total control over the finances. Rangers don’t see a penny from their retail operations without Ashley’s approval. Since retail is the only sizeable profit centre in the RIFC empire, that gives Ashley tremendous leverage.

I’m guessing that Ashley will effectively gain control after the share offer, either through it, or more likely as “saviour” after the issue flops. Assuming, of course, that he doesn’t control it already, and has controlled it from day one.

Ashley has a strong interest in keeping the show on the road, since his Rangers Retail deal won’t look so clever without a team in blue playing at Ibrox.

Just one question- if this naming rights option was granted before the IPO, surely it should have been mentioned in the prospectus, or if granted after the IPO, notified to the market?

View Comment

Avatar

ptd1978Posted on9:07 am - Sep 4, 2014


I have a feeling that Friday might be a bit if a damp squib. I doubt it’s possible to argue that they already have that money set aside at the auditor’s request, or that such an arrestment would be enough to sink the company.
You have to give RIFC lawyers credit, that earn their cash coming up with new and inventive arguments that put RIFC’s interests ahead of perceived natural justice. I’m at a loss as to what they can argue on Friday beyond shouting that everything is just not fair.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on9:15 am - Sep 4, 2014


hector says:
September 4, 2014 at 8:22 am

Sorry to be the be the bearer of more bad news for Rangers fans on this forum but things are a lot worse at Ibrox than they seem. The Easdale/Jackson story is a smoke and mirrors job to take the fans minds off something else.
======================================
Funny you should mention Sons of Struth because I’ve been watching their recent tales on SportsDirect and arena naming and was trying to figure what was going on. Whatever it is it looks to me that SoS has spooked someone and that’s why we’ve got the Naming story coming out.

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on9:19 am - Sep 4, 2014


Why Me, Why Here, Why Now ?

Sandy’s Q&A looks like a very desperate attempt to position himself as a good guy before events accelerate and pleas of innocence become drowned out by the wailing and gnashing of teeth as many bears undergo brutal reality realignment. It stinks of Jack Irvine.

Hence Green is a baddie, Ashley is a baddie, King is an inactive baddie, my unnamed mates at Blue Pitch and Margarita are goodies. And of course, me and my brother are gooder than goodies.

The problem the Easdales have is that they are known names, known faces and can’t easily vacate the scene of the crime. They are the perfect patsies for the mystery spivs. The Easdales will be remembered for their role long after the English and other foreigners are vague memories. They may have entered with good or bad intentions – I’m really undecided on thhat – but they are in danger of being the face of the second Rangers liquidation forever. They will be spoken of with the same affection as Craig Whyte – another local patsy with feet of clay.

View Comment

Avatar

ulyanovaPosted on9:20 am - Sep 4, 2014


Mike Ashley would appear to have bought his shares at the time of the 70p share issue.

Could the 1p naming rights contract be a quid pro quo? 😎 😎

View Comment

Avatar

rhapsodyinbluePosted on9:27 am - Sep 4, 2014


My late father took me for the first time to Ibrox in the 1950’s to see Rangers play Clyde. Rangers won 2-0 and Sammy Baird scored. I still have vivid memories of that night,the floodlights,the spectacle, I was hooked.

Little did I think almost 60 years later those vivid memories of my schoolboy years has been replaced by a feeling of helplessness.

I am a token shareholder and the letter that dropped through my mailbox the day after the announcement was a further dagger to my heart.More sticking plaster.

The only thing they want is money to remove them, they ain’t going to get it. Sometimes I think another Admin event is needed,then I remember what happened last time time. I am beginning to lose hope.

Is there a way out?

From Murray,to Whyte,to Green and now Ashley, where will it all end?

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on9:29 am - Sep 4, 2014


neepheid says:
September 4, 2014 at 9:05 am

I’m guessing that Ashley will effectively gain control after the share offer, either through it, or more likely as “saviour” after the issue flops. Assuming, of course, that he doesn’t control it already, and has controlled it from day one.
====================================================================
But surely the SFA won’t go back on their decision not to allow him to own more than 10% of Rangers and no direct involvement in running it 🙄

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on9:49 am - Sep 4, 2014


neepheid says:
September 4, 2014 at 9:05 am
I’m guessing that Ashley will effectively gain control after the share offer, either through it, or more likely as “saviour” after the issue flops. Assuming, of course, that he doesn’t control it already, and has controlled it from day one.
=========================================================
Supporters of Ashley and his cash should remember that he is not only hated in Newcastle – but that they are no further on as a football team – certainly no where near euro-millions – largely because of their selling policy. You heard it hear first – Mike Ashley is no-one’s sugar daddy. Be careful what you wish for.

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on9:59 am - Sep 4, 2014


Still no AIM announcement following the 1.8M share transfer.
Is MA the new favourite in the purchaser betting stakes?

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on10:03 am - Sep 4, 2014


ecobhoy says:
September 4, 2014 at 9:29 am
2 0 Rate This

neepheid says:
September 4, 2014 at 9:05 am

But surely the SFA won’t go back on their decision not to allow him to own more than 10% of Rangers and no direct involvement in running it 🙄
+++++++++++++++++++++
That’s where a reliable front man comes in handy. Charles Green must be getting bored with Normandy and horses by now. And in the most amazing revelation of the week, a totally scientific Daily Record poll indicates that he is the fans’ second choice of owner behind Dave King, and more than three times as popular as Ashley. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on10:19 am - Sep 4, 2014


An article from March 2013 on the naming rights for Ibrox- looks like “scoop” Jackson and the Record are stirring up some very old news for whatever reason.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2287742/Rangers-agree-sell-Ibrox-naming-rights-Sports-Direct.html#ixzz3CKs8UBo4

View Comment

Avatar

hectorPosted on10:22 am - Sep 4, 2014


@ Eco Not sure if the SoS have spooked anyone by getting a hint of the renaming deal but the way the story has been released and the route of its release smells of a PR stunt.Phil is hinting on twitter that the Rangers fans don’t know half of what Charles and his wee pal have done to the club. I also wonder if the naming rights deal was one of the onerous contracts we hear so much about but never get to see.If the Rangers retail cash that the board is unable to access is the true price of the naming rights then the Easdale exclusive could be to soften up the fans before Ashley gets his banners out of the closet and goes ahead. We live in strange times. 😆

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on10:35 am - Sep 4, 2014


Carry On Mr Ashley

Anyone relying on the 10% ownership rule to restrict Ashley’s manoeuvres is living in a fool’s paradise:

· He could shift his NUFC or RIFC shares to a family member or trusted lieutenant or some off-shore vehicle at any moment

· We don’t know who controls Blue Pitch and Margarita – it could be Ashley, King, Whyte, Green, foreign spivs or me. Is the Lebanese lawyer a panto red herring.

· If the SFA know who controls Blue Pitch and Margarita they are keeping it conveniently quiet – they’ve probably been fobbed of with “assurances”

· The SFA have proven that rules are there to be broken – for the benefit of the fabric of society.

· There is an infinitesimal chance of The Rangers meeting NUFC in any UEFA competition in the next decade.

View Comment

Avatar

y4rmyPosted on10:38 am - Sep 4, 2014


An article from March 2013 on the naming rights for Ibrox- looks like “scoop” Jackson and the Record are stirring up some very old news for whatever reason.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2287742/Rangers-agree-sell-Ibrox-naming-rights-Sports-Direct.html#ixzz3CKs8UBo4

From the article:

“The deal is, due to Rangers’ lowly rank in the Scottish football pyramid following their demotion to the fourth tier, worth considerably less than £1million to club.”

Considerably less than £10 in fact.

View Comment

Avatar

GoosyGoosyPosted on10:38 am - Sep 4, 2014


hector says:
September 4, 2014 at 10:22 am
2 0 Rate This

@ Eco Not sure if the SoS have spooked anyone by getting a hint of the renaming deal but the way the story has been released and the route of its release smells of a PR stunt.Phil is hinting on twitter that the Rangers fans don’t know half of what Charles and his wee pal have done to the club. I also wonder if the naming rights deal was one of the onerous contracts we hear so much about but never get to see.If the Rangers retail cash that the board is unable to access is the true price of the naming rights then the Easdale exclusive could be to soften up the fans before Ashley gets his banners out of the closet and goes ahead. We live in strange times
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Forget about Stadium naming rights
If you`re a Spiv familiar with onerous contracts, the obvious ploy is to sell and leaseback the brand name “Rangers Football Club” Any failure to pay the rent eg through Admin or Liquidation would be a breach of the lease agreement and the name could no longer be used

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on10:40 am - Sep 4, 2014


neepheid says:
September 4, 2014 at 10:19 am

An article from March 2013 on the naming rights for Ibrox- looks like “scoop” Jackson and the Record are stirring up some very old news for whatever reason
=========================================================

IIRC the story was carried eveywhere at the time but the price when mentioned was £1 million. Green said at that stage that visuals and presentations were going to be created and shown to the fans to get their input to make sure they were onboard.

I am sure however that fans didn’t think it was a done deal and that they would have a say in it before pen was put to paper.

Afaik that never ever happened and it disappeared into the sunset with the Dallas Cowboys and so many other Green claims and no more was ever heard about it.

But a few days ago it was resurrected on various Bear fan sites coupled with a story that 120 pieces of SportsDirect signage had been delivered to Ibrox. That appears to have set hares running anew although we still have no real answers as to what has actually gone down.

View Comment

Avatar

jockybhoyPosted on10:45 am - Sep 4, 2014


BT sponsoring Murrayfield for £20m was a few months ago, but that might have moved the issue up the agenda for anyone looing for someting, anything, that NewGers might be able to monetise.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on10:45 am - Sep 4, 2014


neepheid says:
September 4, 2014 at 10:03 am

And in the most amazing revelation of the week, a totally scientific Daily Record poll indicates that he is the fans’ second choice of owner behind Dave King, and more than three times as popular as Ashley. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

——————————————————
Well the Green Vote does need a candidate after-all and who better than Big Haunds whose a much better laugh than the Easdales 😉

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on10:45 am - Sep 4, 2014


GoosyGoosy says:
September 4, 2014 at 10:38 am
sell and leaseback the brand name “Rangers Football Club”
=======================================
GG – yes property is just so last year – but charging through the nose to call themselves some variant of “Rangers” no matter where they play – now that is real money for nothing and your chicks for free. 🙂

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on10:56 am - Sep 4, 2014


Rhapsody, Ryan,

Heaven help me, I never thought I’d say this to the fans of any team but your best hope may be for Mike Ashley to end up in control.

Selling shirts is the one guaranteed cash cow for any club. In this case seemingly handed on a plate to MA long ago. So MA seems to be one individual with an incentive to keep the show on the road.

If MA ends up in the driving seat the cost cutting will be brutal.

He is a proper hard nosed businessman. Ironically that could see rangers finally being run on a sustainable basis. £1 in for every £1 out. That’s how he rolls at Newcastle.

But, this is just one possible scenario like others speculated on here. We are all just making our best educated guesses.

I honestly have no more clue than anyone else what the future holds for your team. It could be grim and terminal. But I really hope that something works out for you. A sustainable club run by people who care (the fans) playing for the pleasure of the competition. How good would that be?

It’s a long shot but fingers crossed.

View Comment

Avatar

16 Sodium AtomsPosted on10:59 am - Sep 4, 2014


rhapsodyinblue says:
September 4, 2014 at 9:27 am

I wouldn’t hold my hope out on an administration getting rid of the people who either own or run Rangers. Firstly it would have to happen, and there is no certainty that it will. Secondly if it is TRFC then it wouldn’t change who owns or controls RIFC PLC which is the important thing. In fact if RIFC are the only creditor then they would either get all of the assets or anything raised in a CVA, which they would have to agree to anyway.

I believe that the owners of RIFC are in total control of both any process which may occur. They are both owners of TRFC and the major creditor. They will do what they want.

And if as a group they can get over 75% (through the current share offer) then they have total control by being able to put any special resolution forward and voting it through themselves. Ironically the people not buying their avaiable share will make that easier as a, it will dilute their own holding and b, the other shareholders will be able to pick those shares up. In fact it’s a double dunt effect, you have less and they have more.

As I have said previously there may be some interesting special resolutions at the next AGM, in relation to both pre-emption and ownership of assets.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on11:03 am - Sep 4, 2014


rhapsodyinblue says:
September 4, 2014 at 9:27 am

It won’t end well.

The good news for you, is that I remain convinced that a Rangers will survive.

However, I am increasingly of the view that the continuing Rangers, will be renting facilities, and, will as a consequence, struggle to raise finance from the market, or even engage in sensible borrowing. Attendances will probably stabalise at early-mid 1980s levels, with consequences for team development etc.

At best, i think you are looking at mid-table performers, with a propensity to yoyo between the premiership and the championship.

Whatever else the future may be, it won’t be Orange

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on11:05 am - Sep 4, 2014


mcfc says:

September 4, 2014 at 10:45 am

“some variant of “Rangers” no matter where they play – now that is real money for nothing and your chicks for free. :-)”

Ah, subtle reference to “Dire Straits” 😛 Very apt.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on11:06 am - Sep 4, 2014


Morning all.
I seem to recall a discussion here a few months back wrt onerous contracts.Someone put forward the idea that Green had retained the Brand rights.Is this one of the contracts that would survive liquidation?.
If Ashley has control of Retail and naming rights then why should he bail TRFC out?.
He can control the profitable side off the business without investing another penny.Let some other smuck try and turn TRFC into a sustainable business.If they’re successful,Ashley will make even more money as merchandising sales increase.
Downside is anyone taking over TRFC will have to do so knowing a couple of important revenue streams are not available to them.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on11:09 am - Sep 4, 2014


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
September 4, 2014 at 11:06 am

If it was me, it was based on a comment from Mr Green early doors that he had bought them.

View Comment

Avatar

redlichtiePosted on11:13 am - Sep 4, 2014


If Mike Ashley has secured the naming rights (but without any trigger date) for just one pound that is a really neat piece of business.

He has effectively sterilised one of the major potential sources of future revenue for RIFC/TRFC.

With that and the retail contract he is certainly holding a lot of nice cards.

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on11:19 am - Sep 4, 2014


redlichtie says:
September 4, 2014 at 11:13 am

Scottish football has a strong Arbroath 😆

View Comment

Avatar

jockybhoyPosted on11:39 am - Sep 4, 2014


@16 Sodium Atoms: “Secondly if it is TRFC then it wouldn’t change who owns or controls RIFC PLC which is the important thing. In fact if RIFC are the only creditor then they would either get all of the assets or anything raised in a CVA, which they would have to agree to anyway.”

I would bet my house on HMRC being stiffed again, whether it’s VAT or wages, I don’t know but in either case, I really think it unlikely that RIFC would be the only creditor, and given what happened before, I am fairly sure HMRC won’t rollover re. choice of administrator this time.

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on11:47 am - Sep 4, 2014


woodstein says:
September 4, 2014 at 11:05 am
Ah, subtle reference to “Dire Straits” 😛 Very apt.
=====================================
cheers – always nice to be appreciated – and disturbing to see someone else has a similar sense of humour 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on11:51 am - Sep 4, 2014


scapaflow says:
September 4, 2014 at 11:09 am
0 0 Rate This

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
September 4, 2014 at 11:06 am

If it was me, it was based on a comment from Mr Green early doors that he had bought them.
—————————————
A quick squint at the record interviews says Ashley can’t buy them out as he’d goover the 10% threshhold.The way I read it he was declaring hewoudn’t be buying any more but making it look like he would if it wasn’t for those pesky rules.
The brand is everything.If you control that you don’t need to own the team.If,as looks likely Rangers 2 hits the skids,anyone trying to start No3 would have to either buy Ashley out or pay him royalties just to call the new club Rangers.Call it anything else and it doesn’t work.
He could of course,in the event of the share issue failing,lend them a few bob(with Ibrox as security?) which may see them through a couple of months and maybe another issue.He could end up owning the lot for buttons.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on11:59 am - Sep 4, 2014


I was also thinking of administration and the possibility of a CVA.Is it possible that other creditors are approaching 25% of debts.If the spivs want to control an administration they’ll not want the possibility of a CVA being voted down.
We know about Letham andthe Easdale loans.Phil has reported other creditors north of 600k.Stick in maybe VAT/PAYE etc then the total rises.
You’d think Letham,Easdale would vote with the spivs but why take the chance.

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on12:01 pm - Sep 4, 2014


Bampottery Sells Out

Remember when you were a teenager and your favourite underground, indy band that only you had discovered and appreciated went mainstream – then suddenly everyone knew about them and many were overnight experts and you weren’t “special” anymore. The bears may be suffering anaphylactic shock over recent revelations – but spare a thought for us long-term bampots who have nothing “special” of their own to bampot about anymore.

Now everyone’s got a pet theory – but almost by definition – none of them end well.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on12:08 pm - Sep 4, 2014


mcfc says:
September 4, 2014 at 12:01 pm

🙂 the situation at Rangers reminds me of the old mainframe game Adventure, (which spawned the Zork series no graphics just text), players often found themselves lost “in a maze of twisty passages all alike”, no matter which way you turned, you were lost in a maze of twisty passages all alike.

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on12:10 pm - Sep 4, 2014


scapaflow says:
September 4, 2014 at 12:08 pm
===============================
lol

View Comment

Avatar

16 Sodium AtomsPosted on12:11 pm - Sep 4, 2014


jockybhoy says:
September 4, 2014 at 11:39 am

If RIFC are owed £16m by TRFC and it’s likely to be more than that just now, then they would be able to block any attempt at a CVA. I believe as 100% shareholder they could also do that.

If they wanted to push a CVA through then other creditors would need at over £5m (and would have to act together) to block that CVA.

However I remain at a loss as to why they (for the purposes of this the same people own and operate both the holding and subsidiary companies) would want to seek administration and hand control over to someone else. Surely they can achieve what they want anyway. Unless of course they want to use administration try to get rid of some of the contracts.

I suppose they could place the subsidiary into administration in an attepmt to try to force someone into offering to buy it. With the threat being if no-one does then it would simply be liquidated.

View Comment

Avatar

South0fThe BorderPosted on12:23 pm - Sep 4, 2014


Phil’s latest:
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-name-game/#more-5040

Ashley stitched Charlie up when he provided some of the £2.5 credit line so Deloittes could provide the going concern for the accounts. They had to pay Ashley’s legal fees as well to try and break the contract – £400k to the lawyers! The deal lasts for 5 years once it starts. And most of the board have only found out in the last 48 hours!

Hinting that Charlie has the brand and image rights – which would survive liquidation.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on12:26 pm - Sep 4, 2014


From KDS:
Phils come out with the details:

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-name-game/#more-5040

Apparently the deal kicks in for 5 years when they rename. Also they had to pay his legal fees in trying to get the contract ripped up – more like £400k. All to do with the £2.5m line of credit they needed for Deloittes to sign off the going concern on the first set of accounts.

He’s also hinting the Charlie owns the image/brand rights and if anyone wants to use them at anytime they have to pay him for the privilege.

View Comment

Avatar

CastofthousandsPosted on12:31 pm - Sep 4, 2014


rhapsodyinblue says:
September 4, 2014 at 9:27 am

“Is there a way out?”
—————————
Generally it is best to retrace your steps. There are no obvious glimpses of daylight despite SoS earnest efforts to unsettle the current status quo. So how did we get to this point?

David Murray seen Rangers as a useful addendum to his accruing business empire since it brought with it access to many influential supporters. He spent more than he could afford and when the financial music stopped he was left marooned. To isolate himself from potential liabilities of club ownership he made a disposal in a disreputable direction. This is the root of all the current woes.

It could be legitimately argued that Rangers fans would never have accepted the cost cutting that would have been required to make the club financially viable back in 2008. That is a discussion for another universe. It did not happen and as a result events spiralled out of control.

There are three elements that make rangers uniquely vulnerable to their current predicament in my opinion.

1. The profligacy/misfortune of its beknighted previous owner and the financial vulnerability this gifted to the club.
2. The obstinacy of a support that has at its heart a mantra of ‘surrender! No’; which provided a target rich environment for bottom feeders.
3. Large pieces of real estate in areas that might be viewed at some point in the future as lucrative.

Taking each in turn; you are where you are concerning Murray’s legacy but he seems to have achieved his spotless rehabilitation despite having torn and stained the very fabric of society. Should this sin threaten to revisit him then perhaps more strenuous efforts would be made to cleanse the current Ibrox set up. All these business connections whose locus lies at the heart of Ibrox surely could act as a confederacy to frustrate spiv efforts or at least garner information and advice on the best way ahead.

I’ve never been a big fan of the idea that rangers fans need don sackcloth and ashes in order to attain redemption. I don’t think an individual’s dignity should be bartered in that manner. However the blind allegiance needs to be challenged whatever the perceived cost. It is just the way it is. Time has moved on. There is an independence referendum in a few weeks. Nothing is forever. Change is inevitable.

Ibrox may not appear prime real estate but it is close enough to the city centre to make it potentially so in the fullness of time. Land developers speculate, it is in their nature. It may be that Govan and its environs is destined forever to be working class residential and that land values will never markedly appreciate. However given a long enough time scale this outlook will not hold. If Rangers supporters were prepared to give up Ibrox, hopefully to the financial benefit of the club, it might free them from one particular potential liability. These are the things the spivs are interested in and if undying allegiance is pledged for the stadium then its rental value merely increases. The club after all is an ephemeral cloudy thing that wafts through the hearts of its supporters so why allow yourself to be blackmailed on any principle whatsoever. The commercial value of the training ground land is easier to justify.

Separately, Mike Ashley has control of NUFC which in many ways has a similar mindset to RFC. NUFC supporters are diehards and proclaim support of their football club to be an article of faith. I would be a bit wary of an owner that seems in my opinion not to aim at the sun drenched heights of men’s spirits.

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on12:37 pm - Sep 4, 2014


EasyJambo says

August 30. 2014 @ 12.03 pm

Given what philmacgiollabhain is saying this morning, EasyJambo, you may have hit the nail on the head.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on12:37 pm - Sep 4, 2014


Castofthousands says:
September 4, 2014 at 12:31 pm

On the land issue, whatever the result of the indyref, shipbuilding in Govan probably has no long term future. Whoever governs Scotland, would undoubtedly throw huge amounts of investment Govan’s way. So yes, if you were taking a 20 year + view, then the land at Ibrox could generate a healthy return.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on12:53 pm - Sep 4, 2014


What helpful chaps those Duff & Phelps lads have turned out to be! Just how Charles became preferred bidder and got that bargain-basement job lot must be quite a story. Didn’t Imran say CG would be like a child in a sweet shop?

Where were the ‘real Rangers men’ at the time? And are BDO watching all this?

View Comment

Bawsman

BawsmanPosted on12:59 pm - Sep 4, 2014


scapaflow says:
September 4, 2014 at 12:37 pm
=====================
Why would huge amounts of money be thrown Govan’s way?
Successive governments have not been generous with cash for regional development – anywhere.

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on1:00 pm - Sep 4, 2014


I hear rumours that When Saturday Comes is to launch a Scottish edition re-branded as When Friday Comes. http://www.wsc.co.uk/

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on1:09 pm - Sep 4, 2014


Bawsman says:
September 4, 2014 at 12:59 pm

Not so sure about that. However, Govan is as iconic as Ravenscraig, )and lots of people made a good living out of stripping that carcass. 😉 )

http://www.ravenscraig.co.uk/

So I standby prediction that Govan regeneration would be in proportion to Ravenscraig.

View Comment

Avatar

Kicker ConspiracyPosted on1:32 pm - Sep 4, 2014


mcfc says:
September 4, 2014 at 1:00 pm

I hear rumours that When Saturday Comes is to launch a Scottish edition re-branded as When Friday Comes.

————————————–

Wish it was true.

Used to like this:

http://www.wsc.co.uk/the-archive/100-Fan-culture/1367-reverting-to-type-the-absolute-game

View Comment

Matty Roth

Matty RothPosted on1:54 pm - Sep 4, 2014


rhapsodyinblue says:
September 4, 2014 at 9:27 am
45 2 Rate This

My late father took me for the first time to Ibrox in the 1950′s to see Rangers play Clyde. Rangers won 2-0 and Sammy Baird scored. I still have vivid memories of that night,the floodlights,the spectacle, I was hooked.

Little did I think almost 60 years later those vivid memories of my schoolboy years has been replaced by a feeling of helplessness.

I am a token shareholder and the letter that dropped through my mailbox the day after the announcement was a further dagger to my heart.More sticking plaster.

The only thing they want is money to remove them, they ain’t going to get it. Sometimes I think another Admin event is needed,then I remember what happened last time time. I am beginning to lose hope.

Is there a way out?

From Murray,to Whyte,to Green and now Ashley, where will it all end?

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

Rhaps,

It must be horrible but I can imagine the decline to some extent as my own team has gone through a long period of utter dross both on and off the park – it happens and maybe of us diddy fans are much better equipped to cope with hard times I suspect.

Its important for fans to realise the true cause and source of the problems before solutions can be found – unfortunately some of the Rangers fans, perhaps just high profile ones with blogs or newspapers to sell, have insisted on visiting the blame on about everyone else they can find.

This is very unhelpful for real Rangers fans who need a clear head to think through and identify the real sources of the problems.

Ultimately I expect Rangers to be saved by a popular fans movement, one that is focused on acting with open eyes, honesty and a steely determination to hold an undeviating course. I can’t see exactly what this course of action should be but I’d expect much more fan involvement and while wealthy fans may be included in that, their purpose should be to lend their business skills not their money. I say that because endless searches for sugar daddy’s to fund the team don’t help the long term future of the club, or the ability to face up to realities all other clubs do.

Some combination of the below would long term work IMO:
– stop providing any further income to the spivs, even if this means strangling the club
– leave out the investment of other people’s money as much as possible.
– get fans on board with a fan ownership scheme, even if its aim is only partial ownership
– wealthy fans are of course welcome but the business plan cannot be to simply spend their money then look for more
– remove the spivs
– put in place a real board
– forget football glories for 3 or 4 years and focus on bringing all costs under control

HOWEVER! the short-medium term problems with the current clumpany are far more complex to unravel. It feels like the only way to rest back control would be to force the clumpany onto the rocks. Its sad, painful but I can’t see any other way, the disgusting frauds who took control of the club have sunk their talons in well and truly.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on2:00 pm - Sep 4, 2014


Matty Roth says:
September 4, 2014 at 1:54 pm

Some good sense here. But.

One of the biggest problem the Ranger’s support has, is that the myriad of factions, hate each other only slightly less than they dislike everyone else. Getting a united fans group to stay together looks a positively Herculean task.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on2:15 pm - Sep 4, 2014


South0fThe Border says:
September 4, 2014 at 12:23 pm
‘.. And most of the board have only found out in the last 48 hours!’
——-
This I find almost incredible!
I’m no business-type, but surely all members of a Board have access to all financial information relating to their company, especially information about what the company actually owns and has control of? How could detailed information about the ‘naming rights’ have been kept hidden up until 48 hours ago?

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on2:15 pm - Sep 4, 2014


If what PMGB has suggested today is true, then I think that the rebranding of £1brox will pale into insignificance if the rights to the use of the Rangers badge have indeed been sold off and are generating funds for a third party.

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on2:16 pm - Sep 4, 2014


Correction
My post at 12.37pm today should read

EasyJambo says

August 30. 2014. @ 12.18 pm (not 12.03)

My apologies

View Comment

Avatar

rhapsodyinbluePosted on2:31 pm - Sep 4, 2014


Thanks to Castofthousands September 4, 2014 at 12:31 pm

and

Matty Roth, September 4, 2014 at 1:54 pm

for you considered and thoughtful replies. I think you may be correct it may take drastic steps to regain control. I already see things that were the holy grail and not being discussed now actually being given an airing, and with this latest news being the final straw it may open the minds more.

Certainly in my view I would rather take the club to the brink than see it limp on in its present state with people who see us as cash cow.

I have not been to a game this season nor have my friends and I will not return until they have gone.

Thanks for treating my question as a football fan.

That said I do not give credence to any information to the character named Phil, a truly obsessed individual, whose only raison d’etre is to dance on our grave.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on2:37 pm - Sep 4, 2014


easyJambo says:
September 4, 2014 at 2:15 pm
4 0 Rate This

If what PMGB has suggested today is true, then I think that the rebranding of £1brox will pale into insignificance if the rights to the use of the Rangers badge have indeed been sold off and are generating funds for a third party.
——————————-
Something that stuck out at me when I think,Sevco Scotland became TRFC(it may also have been when 5088 became Scotland) was a part of the statement saying “certain assets were transferred”.
I thought at the time that this implied that not all assets were transferred to Sevco Scotland/TRFC.
I think this could be when the brand name was seperated from the club.

If all this is true then what do we have at present:
1.The spivs own Ibrox,etc through owning TRFC
2.Charlie may own the Rangers brand.
3.Ashley owns the merchandising and the stadium renaming rights.

Not a lot left for any prospective buyer.

View Comment

Avatar

jockybhoyPosted on2:38 pm - Sep 4, 2014


@16 Sodium atoms: “I suppose they could place the subsidiary into administration in an attepmt to try to force someone into offering to buy it. With the threat being if no-one does then it would simply be liquidated” – if it got to that stage, surely the “real fans” would step in? That’s perhaps the end game – the spivs keep the assets, the “real fans” buy rRangers and have to pay the spivs to let them use various assets – stadium, training ground, badge (!).

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on2:44 pm - Sep 4, 2014


rhapsodyinblue says:
September 4, 2014 at 2:31 pm

Ignoring the message because you can’t stand the messenger, illustrates the basic problem within the Ranger’s support, far better than I ever could :mrgreen:

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on2:50 pm - Sep 4, 2014


Cold Turkey

It looks like Rangers fans, from reasonable to odious alike, are facing a tough choice with little room for misinterpretation now that the spivs parasitic hold at Ibrox is becoming crystal clear. You can either, keep your addiction to the brand formerly known as Rangers and pay your dealer accordingly for evermore, or make a clean break, forge a new identity and make new friends under a new brand.

Inevitably some will see the light and some of these will not have the fortitude to reach the light. But those who don’t kick the habit are in for a very low quality life for a very long time to come. I’m told that cold turkey is hell, but the alternative is scarcely better – and it’s much longer.

View Comment

Avatar

Paulmac2Posted on2:55 pm - Sep 4, 2014


MCFC AT 10.38AM

I believe the owner of Charlton is being investigated by UEFA for the very same scam…his wife is the owner of Standard Liege and his son the owner of a German league club…

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on3:12 pm - Sep 4, 2014


Paulmac2 says:
September 4, 2014 at 2:55 pm

I believe the owner of Charlton is being investigated by UEFA for the very same scam…his wife is the owner of Standard Liege and his son the owner of a German league club…
======================================
Paul – I assume Mr Ashley will make arrangements that satisfy any UEFA investigation – he’s had plenty of time to prepare and he’s no mug.

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on3:16 pm - Sep 4, 2014


scapaflow says:
September 4, 2014 at 2:44 pm

rhapsodyinblue says:
September 4, 2014 at 2:31 pm

Ignoring the message because you can’t stand the messenger, illustrates the basic problem within the Ranger’s support, far better than I ever could :mrgreen:
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Downfall ring any bells?
A factual timeline account of the demise of RFC (IL), that was dismissed as a work of fiction without having been read, purely on the basis of who wrote it. CG sussed that mindset out very quickly and took full advantage.

The SMSM had been dining on succulent lamb for years and making a reasonable living from it, but CG wanted to own the whole sheep farm, where the real money was to be made from fleecing those who only wanted to hear about moonbeams.
:slamb: :mrgreen: :slamb:

I assume that Mike Ashley will be putting the Sports Direct hoverpitch plan on hold now the naming rights story has been mentioned in the MSM.

View Comment

yourhavingalaugh

yourhavingalaughPosted on3:19 pm - Sep 4, 2014


Just what are the highly paid custodians of our game actually getting paid for,the time has long passed when they should have stepped in and asked the questions that all rangers fan’s are entitled to know the answers to ,but still they bury their highly paid in the money trough. Thisridiculous treatment of the rangers fan’s must stop now

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on3:19 pm - Sep 4, 2014


Before we all get caught-up in conjecture let’s look at what RIFC declared to AIM about the ownership of registered trade marks and past and current Rangers club emblems.

I think it’s worth noting what the Rangers AIM Prospectus states wrt trade marks and 3rd-party intellectual property rights. It shows no support for rumours that Green has bought the rights and if he has then I think AIM should have something to say.

As part of its media strategy, RFCL acquired the registered trade marks “Broxi Bear”, “Rangers”, “Rangers News”, “Rangers Travel”, “The Gers” and the current and previous Club emblems from RFC 2012 plc pursuant to the APA

As I have previously stated there are deadlock provisions in the Rangers Retail Ltd joint-venture company agreement which if unresolved allows SportsDirect to buy-out the Rangers shareholding at the set price of 50% of Rangers Retail profits for the previous 12 months. There does not appear to be a corresponding right for Rangers to buy-out SportsDirect.

If SportsDirect exercises its buy-out option then it:

Agrees to procure that a royalty according to a formula is paid by Rangers Retail to RFCL in consideration for rights under an intellectual property licence agreement relating to the grant of an exclusive worldwide licence of certain intellectual property rights of RFCL to Rangers Retail in return for Rangers Retail producing kit and branded products (at cost price plus 10 per cent.) (the “IP Licence Agreement”).

My reading of that is that SportsDirect can cut drop Rangers from Rangers Retail Ltd which becomes a wholly-owned subsidiary of SportsDirect which also has an exclusive world-wide licence on certain TRFC IP Rights to enable it to produce kit and branded products. The formula for arriving at the ‘royalty’ payments isn’t disclosed.

However it means IMO that Rangers can’t get any other supplier to produce kit and branded products – this appears to be a worldwide monopoly which would be held by SportsDirect if SportsDirect buy-out Rangers.

And there could be an interesting sting in the tail should there be any problem over who owns IP rights:

Under the IP Licence Agreement RFCL agrees to indemnify Rangers Retail against loss arising out of a third-party intellectual property claims in respect of RFCL’s intellectual property rights.

In turn, Rangers Retail agrees to indemnify RFCL against loss arising out of similar third-party claims in respect of intellectual property rights other than RFCL’s rights.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on3:22 pm - Sep 4, 2014


rhapsodyinblue says:
September 4, 2014 at 2:31 pm
‘..the character named Phil, a truly obsessed individual, whose only raison d’etre is to dance on our grave.’
———
That’s maybe just a tad harsh,rhapsodyin blue.
PmcG is a freelance journalist who,( like RTC), spotted a ‘football’ story, or the possibility of a story, that seemed to be being deliberately ignored by other professional journalists out of fear of, or exaggerated admiration for, a man perceived to be powerful and influential not only in the world of Scottish Football, but in the mainstream of industry and business.

He may not have been motivated solely by pure, abstract devotion to unearthing the facts, and may indeed have enjoyed and be enjoying the fact that his professional news-hound instinct has helped reveal facts relating to the cause of death of a football club which he did not hold in any kind of esteem.

But his prime motivation was to get at the facts.

If other journalists better disposed to the club in question had begun, long ago, to ask questions insistently, the immense difficulties that SDM brought upon the club might have been clocked by the support, and some kind of action initiated, with helpful press support, to prevent the calamity which befell the club.
I think we all know that there are few things more galling than that an ‘enemy’ should triumph. And one of those things is that blindly ‘loyal’ friends should have sold the pass through self-interest/self-protection.
The ‘baddies’ in the play include the bulk of the SMSM sports journalists and editors , now tarnished forever as men who would sell their souls for a mess of potage, never mind succulent lamb. Their deficiencies as ‘newshounds’ led to the RFC support sleepwalking into the nightmare of the sale for £1, and the monstrous regime of CW, and the whole subsequent sorry and continuing saga.
Phil appears to work at his sources, and tries to figure out the angles.He might not always get at anything like the complete truth- perhaps even no one on the RIFC board even knows the complete truth.
But if there had been a ‘Rangers’ RTC-type, or a ‘Rangers’ Phil , the RFC support might have been more effectively mobilised to thwart CW, and would certainly have been better placed to challenge Green and all the others in TRFC/RIFC plc since.

View Comment

Avatar

16 Sodium AtomsPosted on3:23 pm - Sep 4, 2014


scapaflow says:
September 4, 2014 at 2:44 pm

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

Unfortunately that has been a bit of a theme for quite some time. If the message is bad then the messenger is a Rangers hater.

When people warned about Whyte they were Rangers haters, when people warned about Green they were Rangers haters, retrospectively because people had let Whyte take over they were Rangers haters, the authorities should not have let it happen, when people warned that a CVA would not be granted they were Rangers haters, when people said there was no chance of the new club going straight into the SPL they were rangers haters …

If the message is one which they do not like then it comes from a Rangers hater.

(For Rangers hater you can replace a variety of insults, normally based on a particular religion. Whether the person is actually a member of that religion seems to be irrelevant).

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on3:24 pm - Sep 4, 2014


I’m having one of those deja vu moments…again!

As has so often happened in the Rangers Saga, just when things begin to get that bit clearer, somebody appears and muddies it all up again. As has so often happened, yesterday was all doom and gloom for TRFC, even from their own mouths, then today a story that includes bad news for the club re naming rights also holds out hope that Mike Ashley is a serious player in the future of TRFC. To add to the deja vu-ness, Ashley is not a whiter than white knight. He’s not likable and has a history of upsetting his club’s fans and needs the connivance of the SFA to be able to participate in the club’s ownership. He’s already deeply involved in what could well be some of PMGB’s onerous contracts, but he does have money, so hope is at hand. The King Across the Water is again being mentioned, with that fabled gift of £30m, which the award winning journalist continues to push as King’s own money, despite King always saying it would be money he raised (other peoples’ money). By reporting it thus, Jackson manages to give the impression the King money’s lying there waiting to pay all those creditors at the drop of a hat, but it takes time, at least weeks, that TRFC don’t appear to have, to raise even £4m.

All this deja vu of mixed messages makes me think that I’ll be having more deja vu sometime soon, because I get the feeling there’s something, not yet in the public domain, that will allow TRFC to limp along for a while yet. Though not in a particularly good news way for the bears. I do have this feeling that Charles Green still has a big hand to play in producing much more deja vu.

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on3:28 pm - Sep 4, 2014


rhapsodyinblue says:
September 4, 2014 at 2:31 pm

That said I do not give credence to any information to the character named Phil, a truly obsessed individual, whose only raison d’etre is to dance on our grave.
+++++++++++++++++++++

And there, in a nutshell, is why the Ibrox support will remain in the dark, easy pickings for the vultures and carrion crows currently circling the stadium. If your only acceptable source of information is the Ibrox PR machine or its apologists in the print and broadcast media, then prepare to be led by the nose up whichever garden path suits the money men best.Ignoring the output of someone who has a good track record of accuracy and some good sources, just because you dislike him, is self-defeating, to say the least. Nobody says you should like him, but you and your fellow fans really do need to pay proper attention, if you want to save your club.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on3:32 pm - Sep 4, 2014


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
September 4, 2014 at 2:37 pm

Something that stuck out at me when I think,Sevco Scotland became TRFC(it may also have been when 5088 became Scotland) was a part of the statement saying “certain assets were transferred”. I thought at the time that this implied that not all assets were transferred to Sevco Scotland/TRFC.

I think this could be when the brand name was seperated from the club.
===============================================================
I have just done a post above which shows that AIM was told that the brand is owned by TRFCL. If that isn’t the case then even AIM will be forced to act and the police would need to be called-in.

Like everything connected with this saga there’s little certainty about anything and it’s little wonder that Rangers is in such financial disarray.

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on3:38 pm - Sep 4, 2014


ecobhoy says:
September 4, 2014 at 3:19 pm
As part of its media strategy, RFCL acquired the registered trade marks “Broxi Bear”, “Rangers”, “Rangers News”, “Rangers Travel”, “The Gers” and the current and previous Club emblems from RFC 2012 plc pursuant to the APA
========================================================
eco – As I think I commented at the time, that’s an odd list of trademarks and what is missing is more interesting than what is there. No “Ibrox” . “Ibrox Stadium” “Rangers Football Club”, “The Bears” etc etc. Could Green own any IP not specifically listed in the prospectus – remember “I bought the history”.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on3:57 pm - Sep 4, 2014


neepheid says:
September 4, 2014 at 3:28 pm
rhapsodyinblue says:
September 4, 2014 at 2:31 pm

That said I do not give credence to any information to the character named Phil, a truly obsessed individual, whose only raison d’etre is to dance on our grave.
+++++++++++++++++++++

And there, in a nutshell, is why the Ibrox support will remain in the dark, easy pickings for the vultures and carrion crows currently circling the stadium. If your only acceptable source of information is the Ibrox PR machine or its apologists in the print and broadcast media, then prepare to be led by the nose up whichever garden path suits the money men best.Ignoring the output of someone who has a good track record of accuracy and some good sources, just because you dislike him, is self-defeating, to say the least. Nobody says you should like him, but you and your fellow fans really do need to pay proper attention, if you want to save your club.
===============================================

If Celtic was in this state I would listen to the Devil if I thought it would save my club. Sadly IMO the rapper seems to belong to that segment of Rangers support which is destroying its own club although I can only guess at his/her motive.

Phil like any journalist is heavily reliant on his sources and it appears to me that – given the deep divisions even within the Blue Room – he calls it right on a reasonable number of occasions.

In my experience the people best-equipped to get at the truth in a wide variety of spheres are usually very obsessed and I unashamedly place myself in that category and wear my obsession as a badge of honour.

As to his only raison d’etre being to dance on Rangers grave I find that a very strange view given how supportive he has been of the current Rangers CEO and chairman and his incessantly attempts to persuade Bears that Rangers must live within its means and get rid of the spivs if it is to survive.

However perhaps you represent the spiv faction of Rangers and I can assure you that Phil will be joined by thousands of decent Bears who want to dance on that grave.

However mounting personal attacks on fellow posters reveals much about you and your agenda IMO and I’ll leave you to it. Good Luck – you’ll need it 😆

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on4:02 pm - Sep 4, 2014


ecobhoy says:
September 4, 2014 at 3:32 pm

I wonder how it sits with the AIM authorities that RIFC forgot to mention in the IPO prospectus that the Ibrox naming rights had already been sold? If they can get away with ‘omissions’ (maybe they can’t/won’t) then they can get away with most things.

‘As part of its media strategy, RFCL acquired the registered trade marks “Broxi Bear”, “Rangers”, “Rangers News”, “Rangers Travel”, “The Gers” and the current and previous Club emblems from RFC 2012 plc pursuant to the APA’

Is it possible that ‘acquired’ doesn’t actually mean ‘owned’, but could maybe be construed to mean ‘has the use of’ or ‘the right to use’? They don’t actually state that TRFC ‘own’ the trade marks etc.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on4:04 pm - Sep 4, 2014


mcfc says:
September 4, 2014 at 3:38 pm
ecobhoy says:
September 4, 2014 at 3:19 pm

As part of its media strategy, RFCL acquired the registered trade marks “Broxi Bear”, “Rangers”, “Rangers News”, “Rangers Travel”, “The Gers” and the current and previous Club emblems from RFC 2012 plc pursuant to the APA
========================================================
eco – As I think I commented at the time, that’s an odd list of trademarks and what is missing is more interesting than what is there. No “Ibrox” . “Ibrox Stadium” “Rangers Football Club”, “The Bears” etc etc. Could Green own any IP not specifically listed in the prospectus – remember “I bought the history”.
==========================================================

Fair point and as soon as I saw it I remembered you raising the issue previously. I had meant to check the trademarks you mention but – well you know how it goes.

It could be that various individuals could hold rights as I seem to remember that there was a kerfuffle quite some time ago over the slogan ‘Follow Follow’ which DM apparently tried to claim but was unsuccessful as someone had held it and had been using it for quite some time.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on4:20 pm - Sep 4, 2014


ecobhoy says:
September 4, 2014 at 4:04 pm
Allyjambo says:
September 4, 2014 at 4:02 pm

Rangers Football club mark registration

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK0002291539A

Ibrox mark registration

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/tmcase/Results/1/UK00002226627

Both are with TRFCL at Edmiston drive.

View Comment

Comments are closed.