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

ulyanovaPosted on4:55 pm - Aug 11, 2014


ecobhoy says:
August 11, 2014 at 3:40 pm
5 1 Rate This

In order to serve a ban the player must be included in the 25 man squad. The manager still lists his team and substitutes, but cannot list the banned player.
It is much clearer during the competition proper where 25 man squads are listed pre group stage and pre-knock out phase. During the qualifying rounds UEFA must receive a 25 man squad a week prior to each round. Berezowski was not listed in the squad for St Pats but was for Celtic. Thus he did not serve his ban.
Using the Champions League final 2012 as an example Chelsea had John Terry, Branislav Ivanovic and Raul Meireles suspended. They were not restricted to 4 substitutes.

View Comment

ekt1m

ekt1mPosted on4:57 pm - Aug 11, 2014


Danish Pastry at 4.37pm. As to what would happen if it were Man Utd or Barca or A.C Milan, I’d hope and pray that the outcome would be the same, If not then there is no hope for any of us.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on4:58 pm - Aug 11, 2014


ecobhoy says:
August 11, 2014 at 4:44 pm
=================================

As one who vividly remembers the Rapid Vienna fiasco in 1984 I can recall widespread claims that Celtic should just refuse to play the game and withdraw from the tournament. UEFA stated at the time that a refusal to play the tie would result in a complete ban from European football. There has been no indication yet from UEFA that Celtic demanding to swap with Legia would result in similar action. Not that they will make such a demand of course.

If this situation has provoked enough of a sense of injustice across Europe then national associations should lobby UEFA to get some leeway into the rule. As it stands though it’s clear cut, and in my view to change it on an ad-hoc basis now just because of this instance would be a huge injustice in itself. I am sure most clubs will simply think to keep their paperwork in order, follow the rules, and one day maybe get the break Celtic have had. It really is time Legia Warsaw looked inwardly on this one. []

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on5:55 pm - Aug 11, 2014


(I gave my views on the Legia thingy earlier and have nothing more to add).
Instead, can I solicit a bit of help from number crunchers ( or folk who are good at arithmetic and interest rate calculations)?

There was a reference earlier to Sanjeev Verma and his connection with the otherwise anonymous shareholders of RIFC plc, and his connection with Just Cashflow plc.

Out of interest,I looked at Just Cashflow’s web site, and there’s this little line:
“With interest rates from just 0.05% per day you could borrow £100,000 for just £50 a day – it’s up to you.”
Now, I’m jiggered if I can work out what total compound interest would be on £100,000 at 0.05% per day, for, say, 30 days? I’ve no idea how to apply the formula for daily compound interest.Would the APR thingy be like the Wonga figure?

View Comment

Avatar

gc58Posted on6:08 pm - Aug 11, 2014


John Clark @ 5.55pm

John in answer to your question I think the interest charged would be £1510.93.

100000 * (1.0005)^30
then subtract 100000

I hope this helps.

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on6:17 pm - Aug 11, 2014


Loan Daily Rate No of Days Total Repayable
£100,000.00 0.05% 365 £120,015.94
£100,000.00 0.05% 30 £101,510.93

The formula (for total repayable) in excel is =A2*POWER((1+B2),C2)

where
A2 = Loan value
B2 = Daily rate of interest
C2 = No of days

EDIT: gc58 – apologies, hadn’t spotted that you had already answered

View Comment

Avatar

rabtdogPosted on6:27 pm - Aug 11, 2014


haven’t been here for a while… popped in … hibs podcast eh? oh, all the comments are about celtic •and• despite bollixing up their UCL qualifier and getting through on an administrative technicality, someone up there is talking about a ‘dark agenda agin the club’ (paraphrase)…
/pops out
/exasperated

View Comment

Avatar

Kicker ConspiracyPosted on6:40 pm - Aug 11, 2014


Bill1903 says:
August 11, 2014 at 3:29 pm

“It is a great disappointment that we’ve got Hearts, Hibs and Rangers in the Scottish Championship, but this is the league we’ve got for the season ahead…”

Stuart Milne talking from his wallet rather than his head!! 😳

———————————————————————–

If he was that bothered I’m sure an application to be relegated would have been looked upon favourably.

View Comment

Avatar

nawlitePosted on6:54 pm - Aug 11, 2014


Rabtdog, it’s a fair point, but that has always been the way with the set up of the forum. The comments always stray quite significantly from the topic of the blog, sometimes because – as in this case – something topical appears in the news and people want to talk about it. There’s not much point just complaining about that, what would you like to discuss about the Hibs takeover? It’s definitely interesting, but I’m not sure what I could say/ask about it until we know if the purchase will go ahead. Others might have more questions/insight – presumably you?

View Comment

Broadswordcallingdannybhoy

BroadswordcallingdannybhoyPosted on6:57 pm - Aug 11, 2014


Having watched their team being pumped 4-1 then 2-0, Celtic and their fans (of which I am one) are expected now to ignore this lucky lifeline.

I say NO! We’ve been punished enough!!

View Comment

Bam Potter

Bam PotterPosted on7:20 pm - Aug 11, 2014


ecobhoy @ 3.40pm:

“A player carrying a ban from a previous UEFA game can be part of that 25 strong squad however to work that ban off – as I understand it – they have to be included in the 18 players – selected from the 25 – who go on the match sheet for a game but obviously they can’t play. If they ain’t on the match sheet then they don’t reduce their ban.”

This is inaccurate. The player must be included in the registered squad (which comprises up to 25 senior players, plus any number of youth players who have been at the club for at least two years) to work off his ban. He should not be named in the 18-player match day squad, as he cannot play in the match. No vacancy need be left in the match day squad.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on8:28 pm - Aug 11, 2014


Interesting list of candidates from Rangers cyberspace on potential McCoist replacements. Some of them suggest financial reality has yet to hit!

The two Laudrup Brothers
Sir Alex getting the chance to manage his boyhood heroes
Walter Smith
Billy Davies
Neil Warnock
Christian Nerlinger
Terry Butcher
Jimmy Calderwood
alex McLeish
Stuart McCall
Derek McInnes
Ian Holloway
Arthur Numan
Ronald De Boer
Henning Berg

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on9:16 pm - Aug 11, 2014


gc58
Hirsute Pursuit
—-
Many thanks, guys. You agree, so it must be right. Top of the class: one of you can sharpen the pencils and the other can clean the board. 🙂
I was wondering what it might cost the other Board to borrow to cover the away-game weeks from such as Just Cash Flow.

View Comment

helpmaboab

helpmaboabPosted on9:31 pm - Aug 11, 2014


Rabtdog at:6:27pm
I thought that’s what this forum was about.ie topical discussion.No?
You’re welcome to pop in more often of course.You learn something every day.

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on10:01 pm - Aug 11, 2014


http://t.co/ACJZuEf8a7 I hope those investor folk listened to the expert chap. #RIFC— Phil MacGiollaBhain (@Pmacgiollabhain) August 11, 2014

Phil rebumping his story from a while ago with a potentially interesting note

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on10:15 pm - Aug 11, 2014


Quite surprised at the Guardian muddying the waters over the Legia Warsaw case by wrongly and sloppily using the UEFA decision on the Decrecen v Litex Lovech Europa League game as a comparator

The Guardian states:

Uefa have dealt with a case like this before. Back in 2010 Debrecen were fined for fielding an ineligible player against Litex Lovech. Uefa decided against imposing a 3-0 defeat upon Debrecen as they had “no interest in fielding this player for the last three minutes of additional time, when the score was so clearly in its favour”.

Well for a start we are dealing in the Celtic v LW case with a suspended player and in the case cited by the Guardian it was an ineligible player. So the cases aren’t the same and also Celtic made no complaint with UEFA taking the initiative off its own back.

In the Decrecen v Litex Lovech game the latter club brought the complaint and asked for a 3-0 winning result awarded to them. The basis for the complaint was that the Decrecen late substitute’s name hadn’t been entered on the squad list required to be presented before the game commenced thus making him ineligible

A look at the UEFA Rules clearly shows that cases involving ‘ineligible’ and ‘suspended’ players are treated very differently. Why oh why don’t these reporters check things?

2 A match is declared forfeit if a player who has been suspended following a
disciplinary decision participates in the match.

3 A match may be declared forfeit if a player who is ineligible under the regulations
of the competition concerned participates in the match, as long as the opposing team files a protest.

I think the rules make it clear that we are dealing with chalk and cheese. Use a suspended player and the match will be declared forfeit. Use an ineligible player and the match may be declared forfeit if the opposing team files a protest.

In the case of Decrecen v Litex Lovech UEFA decline to declare the match forfeit and instead fined Decrecen £15,000.

View Comment

Avatar

ptd1978Posted on10:46 pm - Aug 11, 2014


Phil’s latest on Ally’s summoning to the boardroom is confusing me. If Wallace and Nash are in the precarious position of knowing Ally must go, but not being able to afford to release him, why let yesterday’s charade happen?
Was it staged to drive home the state if finances to some other board members?
Was it staged to try to draw out suspected boardroom supporters of Super Ally?
Was it a necessary HR step in giving him his jotters? If so why did Nash intervene after the match. He could have given McCoist enough rope to hang himself. If he stepped in out of concern for McGregor, then fair play to him, but it may have been an expensive move.
In a week were the PR machine is desperately trying to break the ST strike by pretending to send Olive branches to The King over the water and encouraging the SMSM to threaten Rangers fans with a return of Charles Green, a rift with McCoist would seem unwise unless there was a genuine chance to boot him.

View Comment

Avatar

ptd1978Posted on11:09 pm - Aug 11, 2014


Re the Legia Warsaw – Celtic tie. As a neutral it’s a bit disappointing to see suggestions that LW were trying to gain an advantage in some way. Thus far no one has put forward a theory that makes any sense and that would justify bringing on a player known to be suspended when the tie was completely won without him.
Similarly, Celtic are completely blameless in this, but would be mad to consider any overture to swap positions or play a one off match. The open letter was a classless move and based entirely on money. LW have not been ejected from Europe, they remain in the European competition. It is the difference in revenue which will impact them and which doubtless motivated their open letter. If the revenue difference between European competitions was the same as 30 years ago, LW would have shrugged and got on with it. There wouldn’t even be a need to fire the person responsible for making the mistake. I feel sympathy for them because I believe it was a genuine admin error. If I thought they were at it, I would feel no sympathy. That’s how it works. Celtic got lucky again. They have no responsibility to LW just because they got pumped twice. It’s up to them to take advantage now, or risk being ejected from European competitions, 3 times in a season (if once is unlucky and twice is careless, three times looks reckless).
On the same subject, what would have happened if the first leg had been a LW 3-0 win?

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on11:10 pm - Aug 11, 2014


Ptd

Said it before, will say it again. If the pantomime just is an internal affair essentially setting leech against leech then they can do what they like. Similarly, if it’s two leeches inviting another lemming to the party then more fool him, but it remains his concern.

If however the timing is for all our benefit, the whole too big to fail victim malarkey again then we’re right back to fear or favour again.

Still at least we cleared out the corrupt officials from last time. What? Oh!

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on11:13 pm - Aug 11, 2014


For the absence of doubt and the apparent sensitivity on the subject my post referred to PTD’s ref the Ibrox saga and not Legia-gate!!!

View Comment

ekt1m

ekt1mPosted on11:50 pm - Aug 11, 2014


PTD1978 at 11.09pm. Perhaps someone who can paste a link of Uefa’s rules on forfeiture of a tie when the awarding of a 3-0 win does not overturn a score would help to finally put this to bed, It appears that some posters are not up to speed on what happens next. My tuppence worth is that the offending side still forfeits the tie.

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on12:29 am - Aug 12, 2014


The various Rangers factions; fans, board and shareholders, are fighting over RFC 1986-2012. The £50m Global brand that sought to move to the EPL.

That club and that free-credit environment no longer exists. But they just don’t get it – none of them.

New RFC was never worth £50m, is not a global brand name and will not compete in England any time soon.

The current share price is the correct share price. The business needs to slash costs and needs at least £10m in new money. No one wants to invest.

The club has run out of money and board are seeking to raise £4m worth of Elastoplast which won’t resolve the structural and attitudinal problems.

They are in chaos and could go bust again – unless they find a buyer. Admin is an option, but it’s more likely that the club will be put up for sale again this season.

To turn it around (and my information is that Daniel Stewart feel the club is on a collision course with the buffers) would be no small feat.

History repeats itself far too often, and in the Rangers MkII saga, we are seeing the mistakes of 2011 being played out again.

We have come once more to the point of no return for TRFC – a point that needn’t have been arrived at had the lessons of Murray and Whyte been heeded.

Two years ago they could have put in place a structure which would almost certainly ensured survival, but the irresistible need to return to the moonbeams era, coupled with a staggering refusal to accept that wrongdoing occurred, has put paid to that.

Football fans are delusional and blindly partisan at the best of times. Rangers fans are in danger of becoming institutionally delusional.

There are some signs that a healthy scepticism is breaking out, but with the MSM assault on the fans’ wallets, we can but hope that the outbreak is not contained.

There are decent people – tens of thousands of them – who have dug deep and often to try to keep that club afloat.

It gives me no pleasure to see them being taken for mugs by the assortment of false prophets, badge kissers and spivs who have assembled in Govan over the past few decades.

The worm may yet turn, but I fear it will be Rangers MKIII before that can have any effect.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:19 am - Aug 12, 2014


Big Pink says:
August 12, 2014 at 12:29 am
‘.. We have come to the point of no return for TRFC – a point that needn’t have been arrived at had the lessons of Murray and Whyte been heeded.’
——
And a point that would NOT have been reached IF certain personnel in the SFA had been properly and honestly attending to their duties to Scottish Football as a whole.

Instead, those personnel, having personally benefited from an arrangement under which a club cheated the whole of Scottish football,chose to be derelict in their duty to guard the integrity of the game. Chose to remain silent about side-letters and untaxed payments etc etc.

And thus allowed the shocking regime of cheating, by a KNIGHT of the Realm of the UK, to take place.A regime that exulted in the accumulation of wholly unmerited honours and titles to the gratification of a man so up his own hubristic arse as to be bordering on madness.
And, worse, a man so liberal in feeding succulent lamb to our hacks that scarce a one of them ever challenged him, or said a critical word about him, or questioned how he could spend 10 for every 5

Or questioned the disgraceful and morally repugnant capitulation to falsehood and deceit of the Football Authorities.

The dirty, evil, cheating mentality of a SDM is one thing. The readiness of the complicit authorities to refuse to deal with that cheating in the way it ought to have been dealt with is on a different scale of evil.
And the readiness of our football hacks to refuse to investigate that evil is on an even more wickedly corrupt plane.
In my opinion.
The survival or death of the illegitimate TRFC is not actually the main focus. It looks as if it will die. What we have to watch is how our Football authorities will deal with that death.
And we watch, because we know already that they are men of no integrity.
And that, I regret to say, is where we are.In Scottish Football.
I know it, you know it, the hacks know it, and the SFA and SPFL board members know it.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:08 am - Aug 12, 2014


John Clark says:
August 12, 2014 at 1:19 am
=============================
Even to this day MSM hacks generally won’t criticise David Murray. I don’t call him ‘Sir’ David because I don’t have to. There are some notable exceptions, but the rush to accommodate Murray’s twisted logic after the UTT result suggests the lamb is still as succulent as ever. Muddying the waters rather than dealing in hard facts is their strategy of course, with the aim being to ‘prove’ there was an institutional plot against Rangers, organised by people who in days gone by would have been told their place in Scottish society and accepted it.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:20 am - Aug 12, 2014


ecobhoy says:
August 11, 2014 at 10:15 pm

Quite surprised at the Guardian muddying the waters over the Legia Warsaw case by wrongly and sloppily using the UEFA decision on the Decrecen v Litex Lovech Europa League game as a comparator
===============================

I’m not surprised at all. In general the media aim seems to be to create the illusion UEFA have used discretionary powers to favour Celtic even though they lost the tie heavily. That isn’t true, but a lie repeated often enough…

View Comment

Matty Roth

Matty RothPosted on7:45 am - Aug 12, 2014


oddjob says:
August 11, 2014 at 4:07 pm
5 0 Rate This

Scott says
August 11 @ 4pm

I think that such a list was suggested to the “powers” a number of years ago and there was a great stushie about it.

Ultimately I think the suggestion was killed off.

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

I seem to recall this too Oddjob

I think they have a scheme in England whereby Referees must declare their teams and they are not requested to referee in games involving those sides.

Someone with better English Football knowledge will no doubt be able to correct me on that.

Of course just because the SFA don’t believe their referees are subject to the sort of failings of human nature that the rest of the world population are.. there is nothing to stop someone from creating their own database of refs and attempting to gather.

It could then be used to analyse just how frequently people are asked to referee a game involving (or affecting) their own team.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on7:53 am - Aug 12, 2014


upthehoops says:
August 12, 2014 at 7:20 am
3 1 Rate This
——–

To be honest, there are nuances in the meanings of ‘ineligible’ and ‘suspended’ that aren’t completely obvious, in a football context. Well, they weren’t to me.

What I’ve gleaned from this discussion (I think!) is that UEFA view them differently when it comes to certain sanctions and punishments, and with not a lot of wiggle room for SFA-esque, on-the-hoof rule interpretations.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on7:55 am - Aug 12, 2014


upthehoops says:
August 12, 2014 at 7:08 am

Muddying the waters rather than dealing in hard facts is their strategy of course, with the aim being to ‘prove’ there was an institutional plot against Rangers, organised by people who in days gone by would have been told their place in Scottish society and accepted it.
=============================================================
Ah indeed – just as well these people went on to organise and are on the road to building a fairer and more inclusive society in Scotland with the assistance of all people of good will and an open mind.

They truly have broken free of their shackles and the oppressive yoke – or should that be joke – that their betters know better 😆

PS: Shades of Joe Hill are running through my mind as I sit here and sing that awesome trade union anthem. A good start to the day.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on8:19 am - Aug 12, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
August 12, 2014 at 7:53 am

What I’ve gleaned from this discussion (I think!) is that UEFA view them differently when it comes to certain sanctions and punishments, and with not a lot of wiggle room for SFA-esque, on-the-hoof rule interpretations.
=================================================
I have never really looked closely at UEFA rules before and so far have been impressed with the clarity achieved with so few ‘plain-English’ words.

It doesn’t really matter where you stand wrt to the LW situation – one thing is apparent and that’s that the UEFA position is crystal clear and appears to have been uniformly applied in previous cases.

I accept the fears expressed by some people that the ‘bigger’ teams would somehow be allowed to escape the normal punishment for a similar transgression.

However I can’t help but wonder if the very clarity and simplicity of the UEFA rules intentionally leaves no wiggle-room so that the big-boys can’t hire top lawyers to muddy the waters and exert enough pressure to walk free.

In a sense that provides UEFA with a real shield and I hope it remains in place. In comparism the Scottish rule books allows anything that our Hampden suits want to allow at any given time to fit their secret gatherings.

Their day is coming although it might take the destruction of Scottish Football to see that day dawn. I hope not and I believe football fans have the ability to save Scottish Football and clear out the Hampden stables of its braying donkeys.

But all Scottish clubs have to waken-up as well and play their part in dragging the bureaucracy into the modern age where the paying customers are genuinely consulted and listened to. And if their suggestions are discarded then we need an explanation as to why so that we can then ‘test’ the ability of the football administrators by monitoring results.

At the moment everything possible is done to keep us in the dark and hide their ‘mistakes’ when an open examination of them is what is desperately needed – not to find scapegoats but to find better solutions.

The game needs transparency first and foremost. I think of the 5-way Agreement which has turned into a running sore of corruption because of the secrecy involved which automatically fuelled the suspicion of partiality.

I doubt if we will ever get to the bottom of that Agreement until all the main players have long-departed the scene with their pensions and pay-offs secured and no doubt glowing references.

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on8:44 am - Aug 12, 2014


Matty Roth says:
August 12, 2014 at 7:45 am

oddjob says:
August 11, 2014 at 4:07 pm

Scott says
August 11 @ 4pm

I think that such a list was suggested to the “powers” a number of years ago and there was a great stushie about it.

Ultimately I think the suggestion was killed off.

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

I seem to recall this too Oddjob

I’d love to know what Dougie McDonald had against Motherwell. ❗

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on8:44 am - Aug 12, 2014


ecobhoy says:
August 12, 2014 at 8:19 am
2 0 Rate This

I have never really looked closely at UEFA rules before and so far have been impressed with the clarity achieved with so few ‘plain-English’ words …
——–

Yes, they seem to make unequivocal judgements, and no amount of bawbaggery will sway them.

I can understand why the specific case had/has the Poles flummoxed, though, especially if foreign languages isn’t their strong point.

Bereszynski was suspended, though not ineligible to be included in the squad; although he was ineligible to play due to being suspended he could only work off his suspension by being eligible for the squad, though not as an eligible substitute, even though he happened to be on the bench. It is quite simple.

Hope you’re right about the days of the Secret Society at Hampden being numbered.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on9:00 am - Aug 12, 2014


Big Pink says:
August 12, 2014 at 12:29 am

Two years ago they could have put in place a structure which would almost certainly ensured survival, but the irresistible need to return to the moonbeams era, coupled with a staggering refusal to accept that wrongdoing occurred, has put paid to that.
==============================================================
A really good piece BP!

Only comment I would make is that I don’t think ordinary Bears – who are into football more than following the baggage train – ever stood a chance of being able to put that alternative structure in place.

The purchase of Rangers was planned years in advance and I doubt if all our efforts to date to unravel the threads of the conspiracy have even scratched the surface.

What eventually happened in May/June 2012 was always going to happen IMO although I think the original quick in-and-out smash and grab turned into a much longer term scam when those behind the scenes realised what a dripping roast the Ibrox support could be if played the right way.

And part of that was the seductive moonbeam lure that they could get back to their Rightful Place. Very powerful ju ju for a fanbase reeling under a severe psychological onslaught which threatened to destroy everything they held dear.

As to the pathological inability to accept any wrongdoing exhibited by the fans. Well everyone connected with the club has fed that illusion as did the whole of the SMSM and the various fan groups in pursuit of their own agendas which always seem to centre on getting a blue blazer. The actions/inactions of the SFA and SPL also fed the fantasy although such is the power of the lie that many Bears see them as an enemy.

So, in essence, I don’t think the time was right two years ago to build on the genuine wish of decent fans to go to SFL3 and work their way back built mainly on developing their youngsters.

It needed these years of mayhem for a large section of the fan base to stop blindly following the old ways and false prophets hailed as true Rangers Men. And more importantly is the growing ability to question why things happened which was previously missing.

Personally I think another liquidation is essential but not necessarily inevitable. But if it doesn’t happen soon then this saga could stagger on for a few years but if that happens liquidation will become inevitable and the prospect of another resurrection more tenuous.

I think it really does hinge on Wallace and Somers – although I don’t know for a fact who actually pulls their strings. If they decide the club can’t be saved – even if that requires another Liquidation – and decide to walk then the club will collapse in disarray IMO.

As to what, if anything, comes next I haven’t a clue but could see an endless round of smaller and smaller bottom-feeding predators slowly turn Rangers into no more than dust and memories.

During that process there is a real opportunity for a hard core group of Rangers fans to actually start afresh with a new club. But dangers lie ahead on that road because that hard-core might not be football fans but those who carry the baggage.

So I suppose that I probably feel that Wallace and Somers offers the best bet not just for Rangers and Scottish Football but for the health of Scottish Society. Hopefully we won’t have that much longer before we see which fork in the road is followed.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on9:23 am - Aug 12, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
August 12, 2014 at 8:44 am
ecobhoy says:
August 12, 2014 at 8:19 am

I have never really looked closely at UEFA rules before and so far have been impressed with the clarity achieved with so few ‘plain-English’ words …
——————————–
I can understand why the specific case had/has the Poles flummoxed, though, especially if foreign languages isn’t their strong point.
——————————————-
@Danish – ah but the UEFA disciplinary rules deals with that as well 😆

Article 78 Authoritative text

If there is any discrepancy in the interpretation of the English, French or German versions of these regulations, the English text shall prevail.

Britannia still rules the waves or should that be waives the rules ❓ 🙄

View Comment

valentinesclown

valentinesclownPosted on9:35 am - Aug 12, 2014


They are not rangers anymore.
I do not need SMSM anymore (thanks to internet bambots)
The SFA cannot be trusted anymore
Without all of the above we would have a sport for ever more.

View Comment

justshatered

justshateredPosted on10:12 am - Aug 12, 2014


John Clark says:
August 12, 2014 at 1:19 am

The figures simply do not stack up and that is basic arithmetic.
There is now a cataclysm approaching which will make 2012 seem like a tea party.
If ‘The Rangers’ run out of cash mid-season then there will be no administration, because there has to be money there to fund one, no the club will simply cease to exist. At this point the SFA and possibly the SPFL will attempt to force a continuity Rangers on the league. In other words they will attempt to find a new owner to buy the assets again while trying to tell everyone that it is yet again the same club. This will cause utter chaos within the league. Fans will not accept it and clubs will yet again be petitioned to stand firm by their own fans.

People talking about a Members Voluntary Liquidation should remember the key word is “Liquidation” which means back to the bottom and starting again. Only this time, with the pyramid structure now in place, there is no safety net for the new entity.
The bigger problem is that this could possibly be all happening mid-season. So all of the clubs in that division are simply supposed to not only allow a new club into the league but also allow that club to pick up the points gained by the previous entity.

Once again an entity bearing the name Rangers will attempt to haul everyone into the crypt with it only this time we all know there will be no Armageddon because that scare story has been well and truly laid to rest.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:29 am - Aug 12, 2014


Campbellsmoney and other legal types.

What would be the key timescales in the scenario justshattered lays out above? Presumably the operator of the club that holds the membership is currently TRFC which in turn is owned by RIFC. Presumably RIFC could sell the membership, player contracts and bus tomorrow to a new owner and operator, and then go on to liquidate the shell? which may, or may not involve first retaining and then ‘redistributing’ any assets they hold out of the sale? Property assets for instance? Gratuitous alienation is presumably less of a problem when there is no commercial debt that we know of, albeit creditor pressure must be building. Just thinking aloud – and to be clear, no intention of going down the club/company road (to hell) 😀

Can ‘a club’ whether viable or not be sold before a sh!t storm (copywrite phil) hits?

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on10:31 am - Aug 12, 2014


Well I see the Darkside have launched a petition to the Rangers Board to get rid of McCoist which I have undernoted.

The frenzy being whipped-up I would assume is PR-driven to ensure that the manager does the ‘right-thing’ and falls on his sword in true Rangers-style.

It seems that pressurising McCoist to walk away is the only way to get him ootra door without a pay-off which the club can’t afford especially as his assistants would need a golden cheerio as well.

I never thought the day would come that that I would see another Ibrox Icon roasted in the way that the current manager is being crisped.

Despite his increasingly obvious failings as a manager he was meeting all the tick-boxes with the back-to-back promotions and being a poster boy for ST and AIM share sales. But he was never trusted by Green because McCoist believes himself to be a True Rangers Man in the best sense and Green knew that.

The Green view was carried into the new Board where seeming allies of Green and his initial shareholder consortia in Sevco 5088 retain a strong and possible majority influence.

But I think the skids were well and truly placed under McCoist when he exhibited a fairly lukewarm response to the urgings of Somers and Wallace to get STs sold this season.

And then the Hearts result has sent a gawd almighty tremor through the Ibrox Board at the prospect that not only will they not get out of the Chapionship at the first time of asking but that a string of defeats will see not only the now huge numbers of walk-up punters disappearing like snaw affa dyke but even STs might throw in the towel.

That kind of collapse in income would almost certainly mean that Rangers couldn’t make it to its next agm to effect rule changes for a BIG share offer and makes the possibility of a mini £4 million share even more unlikely. The only hope is loans which mean property has to be sold or used as security which will further turn the screw in terms of fans walking.

This is a deadly game being played. Personally I believe McCoist is strong enough as a person to survive the onslaught and he has the advantage of lots of SMSM friends. More importantly he is deeply entwined with other Rangers Men.

They know McCoist can never make it as a Premiership manager but he will be taken care of if they win control of the club and they haven’t given up that idea – not by a long chalk.

But if even a small % of Phil’s report on the recent Ibrox Board Meeting is correct it’s easy to draw the conclusion that McCoist is being fitted-up for the sack with no pay-off on the grounds of his alleged personal behaviour after the Hearts game. We know the Ibrox spivs have previous with this tactic.

Of course they dodn’t actually want to have to sack McCoist but just to see him go ‘for the good of the club’ always to be welcome at Ibrox and perhaps – after a few years – to be allowed back as a greeter and meeter. Yes I do foresee a lot of tears ahead but who will have the last laugh is as yet unclear IMO.

So it will be fascinating to see how the pendulum swings on this one and who wins the prize and whether that ‘prize’ is actually worth having. However these are decisions for Rangers fans to make IMO and one things for sure is it promises to be a battle with many casualties and gore and not a lot will be left standing at the end of it.

UNDERNOTE (petition on change.com)

Dear Mr Graham Wallace & board members,

We the fans/supporters of Rangers Football Club who have signed this petition ask that you accept the resignation of/reach mutual termination with/remove, the manager Mr Alistair McCoist with immediate effect.

It is with a heavy heart that we issue this letter/petition to you and we are keen to avoid fans demonstrations as we are sure you are too. No one person is bigger than the club and it is now evident (if it hasn’t been for quite some time) to those of us signing this letter/petition that Mr McCoist is incapable of carrying out the job required of his position. His position as manager among the support is now untenable. We would like to thank Mr McCoist for everything he has done with the interests of Rangers Football Club and it’s supporters at heart.

We recommend that an interim manager of experience be brought into the club until the end of the season to lead the club to winning the Championship and the Petrofac Cup. This will allow the club time to establish who is the best candidate to manage the team in the longer term and to arrange that persons (+ their management teams) appointment. Further to this we recommend that a scouting team be brought to the club immediately to identify free agents for the 2015-2016 season to help the new manager and our club succeed in the Premiership.

We understand that financial constraints may make what we ask of you difficult however we firmly believe that the loss of aspirations and subsequent revenues by continuing the status quo will be far more costly to the club in the near future. We urge the board to act swiftly and professionally.

View Comment

Avatar

jw hardinPosted on10:31 am - Aug 12, 2014


Re difference between UEFA rules and SFA rules – could it not be that one is based on Civil Law and the other on Common Law which has, I believe, more room for interpretation.

I’m no lawyer but one could illuminate.

View Comment

Bill1903

Bill1903Posted on10:34 am - Aug 12, 2014


Someone needs to start an Alistair must stay petition 😀

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on10:37 am - Aug 12, 2014


justshatered says:
August 12, 2014 at 10:12 am
6 0 Rate This
——-

In that event, will we see The Even Bluer Knights turn up? (With hands firmly in trooser pockets as last time?)

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on10:44 am - Aug 12, 2014


jw hardin says:
August 12, 2014 at 10:31 am

Re difference between UEFA rules and SFA rules – could it not be that one is based on Civil Law and the other on Common Law which has, I believe, more room for interpretation. I’m no lawyer but one could illuminate.
—————————————–
I’m no lawyer either but my take is that one is based on transparency and clarity and the other is an unopened book in a smoke-filled room where secret deals are hatched and no explanations provided to the paying public.

Sometimes the simple answers are the ones which are correct and until the Scottish Footballing Authorities are forced to change their ways the fans will continue to be treated like idiots who have no right to question or receive answers.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:45 am - Aug 12, 2014


To be absolutely fair to McCoist I always felt the reason that he stayed for the roller coaster of the last two years was simply that he didn’t feel there was anyone better for the role. Technically, hell yes, but for the overall role of cheerleader, fence sitter, 5 star hotel organiser, financial gravity defy-er etc he was probably correct in that assessment. His problem now is that that phase is complete and there are several other candidates more capable for the job now in hand (budgets allowing).

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:47 am - Aug 12, 2014


ecobhoy says:
August 12, 2014 at 10:44 am

jw hardin says:
August 12, 2014 at 10:31 am

Re difference between UEFA rules and SFA rules – could it not be that one is based on Civil Law and the other on Common Law which has, I believe, more room for interpretation. I’m no lawyer but one could illuminate.
—————————————–
I’m no lawyer either but my take is that one is based on transparency and clarity and the other is an unopened book in a smoke-filled room where secret deals are hatched and no explanations provided to the paying public.

Sometimes the simple answers are the ones which are correct and until the Scottish Footballing Authorities are forced to change their ways the fans will continue to be treated like idiots who have no right to question or receive answers.
————————–
Same view but different. This is what happens when one starts with the premise of ‘this is the answer we want now how can we amend the question to get it?’

View Comment

Avatar

mungoboyPosted on10:49 am - Aug 12, 2014


JW,
We are not talking ‘laws’ when it comes to UEFA and SFA rules.
The ‘A’ is the important part.
It’s an ‘Association’ which is made up of members who draw up rules which all members have to adhere to.
There is no room for interpretation.
This is the position which Legia foolishly find themselves in.

PS good to see you back Ecobhoy

View Comment

Avatar

jw hardinPosted on10:55 am - Aug 12, 2014


Found a link…

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/07/economist-explains-10

What is the difference between common and civil law?
Jul 16th 2013, 23:50 by S.B.
Timekeeper

ROYALISTS are eagerly awaiting the birth of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s first child. If a girl, she will be the first daughter to be able to accede to the throne ahead of any younger brothers. That is thanks to a law enacted in 2011 that changed the rules of royal succession. The previous law that sons took precedence over older sisters was never written down, but was instead part of English common law, the basis of the country’s legal system. But just what is common law, and how does it differ from the civil-law system used in some other countries?

Common law is a peculiarly English development. Before the Norman conquest, different rules and customs applied in different regions of the country. But after 1066 monarchs began to unite both the country and its laws using the king’s court. Justices created a common law by drawing on customs across the country and rulings by monarchs. These rules developed organically and were rarely written down. By contrast, European rulers drew on Roman law, and in particular a compilation of rules issued by the emperor Justinian in the 6th century that was rediscovered in 11th-century Italy. With the Enlightenment of the 18th century, rulers in various continental countries sought to produce comprehensive legal codes.

Today the difference between common and civil legal traditions lies in the main source of law. Although common-law systems make extensive use of statutes, judicial cases are regarded as the most important source of law, which gives judges an active role in developing rules. For example, the elements needed to prove the crime of murder are contained in case law rather than defined by statute. To ensure consistency, courts abide by precedents set by higher courts examining the same issue. In civil-law systems, by contrast, codes and statutes are designed to cover all eventualities and judges have a more limited role of applying the law to the case in hand. Past judgments are no more than loose guides. When it comes to court cases, judges in civil-law systems tend towards being investigators, while their peers in common-law systems act as arbiters between parties that present their arguments.

Civil-law systems are more widespread than common-law systems: the CIA World Factbook puts the numbers at 150 and 80 countries respectively. Common-law systems are found only in countries that are former English colonies or have been influenced by the Anglo-Saxon tradition, such as Australia, India, Canada and the United States. Legal minds in civil-law jurisdictions like to think that their system is more stable and fairer than common-law systems, because laws are stated explicitly and are easier to discern. But English lawyers take pride in the flexibility of their system, because it can quickly adapt to circumstance without the need for Parliament to enact legislation. In reality, many systems are now a mixture of the two traditions, giving them the best of both legal worlds.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on11:08 am - Aug 12, 2014


Bill1903 says:
August 12, 2014 at 10:34 am

Someone needs to start an Alistair must stay petition 😀
==============================================================

Presumably McCoist will soon be innocently demanding – in a threatening manner 🙄 – of the MSM;

“Who are these people who signed the petition ? The real ‘Rangers’ fans have a right to know…”

View Comment

Avatar

coineanachantaighePosted on11:12 am - Aug 12, 2014


Danish Pastry says:
August 11, 2014 at 4:14 pm
====================================

Re the Legia thing: There may be a case to amend the rules (though care has to be taken not to leave exploitable loopholes) but while the season is in progress the existing rules must be followed.

My own club has been adversely affected in the past by the willingness of a football body to change the rules during a season so I’m very much of the opinion rules should be followed and any changes should be made between seasons and only apply to a new season. And of course they should be made for genuine football reasons and not just to placate one particular club or clubs.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on11:21 am - Aug 12, 2014


Smugas says:
August 12, 2014 at 10:45 am

To be absolutely fair to McCoist I always felt the reason that he stayed for the roller coaster of the last two years was simply that he didn’t feel there was anyone better for the role. Technically, hell yes, but for the overall role of cheerleader, fence sitter, 5 star hotel organiser, financial gravity defy-er etc he was probably correct in that assessment. His problem now is that that phase is complete and there are several other candidates more capable for the job now in hand (budgets allowing).
===========================================================================

I think few football managers could have carried the off-field burdens that McCoist did. I believe he was the glue that stopped the fans disintegrating back in 2012. In retrospect that may not have been the best long-term solution but hindsight is always perfect as we all know.

Whatever – he did it and I have no doubt he would be privvy to all sorts of Blue Knight plans to ‘rescue’ the club and return it to its rightful owners and place. It’s easy to laugh at these notions but people are entitled to their beliefs in my book even if I think they are crazy.

McCoist is of a different era when Rangers was a different club from the shadow it is now and I believe that even McCoist must come to realise there’s actually no way back.

OK so he stays for the money but I genuinely believe it’s more than that. I believe the tipping-point will be reached if he becomes certain that there is no Blue Knight ‘rescue’ ever going to happen.

He will be deeply hurt by the fan abuse from Rangers supporters but I believe he can handle that as long as he thinks his club – as was – can survive.

I think most outsiders fully realise that the old days and the old club are gone forever but McCoist is still wedded to that past for the time being. But the desperate financial requirements of the new Board means that acrimonious divorce proceedings are already underway IMO.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on11:22 am - Aug 12, 2014


ecobhoy says:
August 12, 2014 at 9:23 am
10 0 Rate This

… Britannia still rules the waves or should that be waives the rules
——–

Haha, droll on the waives.

View Comment

Avatar

mungoboyPosted on11:35 am - Aug 12, 2014


It seems that Phil’s latest piece about Sunday night’s Ibrox board meeting and the alleged McCoist outburst in public has been removed from his site.
Raw nerves being touched and m’Learned Friends instructed?

View Comment

Avatar

Tic 6709Posted on11:40 am - Aug 12, 2014


vmungoboy says:

August 12, 2014 at 11:35 am

It seems that Phil’s latest piece about Sunday night’s Ibrox board meeting and the alleged McCoist outburst in public has been removed from his site.
Raw nerves being touched and m’Learned Friends instructed
======================
I’ve just read it again,on his site.

View Comment

Avatar

mungoboyPosted on11:44 am - Aug 12, 2014


Tic,
Oops!
Senior moment. Mea Culpa. Got the headings mixed up.
As you all were, chaps.

View Comment

Avatar

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on12:03 pm - Aug 12, 2014


mungoboy says:
August 12, 2014 at 11:35 am
2 0 Rate This

It seems that Phil’s latest piece about Sunday night’s Ibrox board meeting and the alleged McCoist outburst in public has been removed from his site.
Raw nerves being touched and m’Learned Friends instructed?
—————————————————————

Oh dear…

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on12:09 pm - Aug 12, 2014


mungoboy says:
August 12, 2014 at 11:44 am

Oops! Senior moment. Mea Culpa. Got the headings mixed up. As you all were, chaps.
======================================
I have to say I was amazed when I read it yesterday as it is dynamite material. IMO the info has got to have come from someone at the meeting because of the detail given.

It paints a total shambles of a company on the financial edge and if Phil had got it wrong then I’m sure there would have been a very swift legal response which seems not to have happened which gives total credibility to the info provided.

View Comment

Avatar

CastofthousandsPosted on12:14 pm - Aug 12, 2014


The interview with David Low highlighted three things for me.

1. The clubs were complicit in trying to find a fast track back to respectability for Rangers.

2. Scottish Football authorities were also complicit and have probably went beyond the call of duty.

3. The supporters are a new variable in the football equation that needs to be factored into future calculations.

It is no bad thing that fellow clubs attempted to assist a stricken Rangers at their time of woe. This shows a certain esprit de corps. There was a large slice of self interest involved however since there were no business plan scenarios sans Rangers. As fans and supporters we may have to contain our outrage to our own persona as any clubs we bear allegiance to may not be quite so vehement in their criticism of the shenanigans.

The footballing authorities have been a more cogent target since up till now their actions have been above reproach. Not however because of the wisdom of their foresight but because of the constitution of the sport. The governance model probably does need a shake up and by all accounts that may well be what it has just been given.

Supporters were often the forgotten man/woman in the footballing process. However the events of two years ago have demonstrated to everyone that a collective outrage can be expressed and exercised via social media. This is where David Low’s interview is at its most pertinent. This is such a new phenomena that it will likely not be part of many calculations. By recognising the new assertiveness of supporters he is pointing to a different future.

I think we all need community and a blog like this is an easy way of accessing such. It might even bring a few fans like myself to the point of being supporters (There is a diddy team near by that I might have an implied allegiance to).

You’ve got to accept the reality and take the positives.

View Comment

Avatar

mungoboyPosted on12:20 pm - Aug 12, 2014


Sorry, Phil.
Shoulda gone tae Specsavers!

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on12:35 pm - Aug 12, 2014


What an interesting link I found on Phil’s site to an article by Hugh Macdonald
Chief Sports Writer at The Herald. I have a lot of respect for Hugh as a journo and one of the very few I bother reading.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/king-still-in-play-as-financial-chess-game-rumbles-on.25024715

If he thinks that King is still in the mix or even at the mix then a good source that he trusts has confirmed this – he doesn’t make things up like most of his peers.

View Comment

Avatar

Two three three twoPosted on12:52 pm - Aug 12, 2014


Wouldn’t it be great to have Paul McConville writing on the Legia thing?

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on1:19 pm - Aug 12, 2014


Wee bit of credit in the MSM for TSFM 🙂

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/sport/football/hibs/david-low-on-why-he-is-fronting-bid-to-buy-hibs-1-3506348

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on1:40 pm - Aug 12, 2014


I see the VBs have delivered the 2nd part of their expose. A bit better than the first woefully out-of-date piece although the sectarianism shines through.

But one or two interesting snippets and it may provide enough to wave under Toppings nose and get him to do a podcast for us. I know it’s a big ask but if you don’t ask you don’t get 😎

View Comment

Avatar

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on1:42 pm - Aug 12, 2014


mungoboy says:
August 12, 2014 at 12:20 pm
——————————————————-
No problems

View Comment

Avatar

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on1:50 pm - Aug 12, 2014


ecobhoy says:
August 12, 2014 at 12:09 pm
————————————————-
Indeed.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:54 pm - Aug 12, 2014


BIG Pink
August 12, 2014 at 1.19 pm
‘…Wee bit of credit in the MSM for TSFM :-)’
——-
This shows, perhaps, a welcome realisation that TSFM is not a run-of-the-mill ya-boo semi-literate fanatically bigoted/biased forum, but an extensively read, earnest and fundamentally honest reflector of the very deep concerns we all have for our sport.
A really horrendous, long-lasting episode of sporting corruption was not investigated by the football authorities, and quite possibly deliberately sheltered from full and thorough investigation. And,certainly, CG’s new creation was unbelievably ‘favoured’ in a( for all we know, blood-oathed) secret deal, so conscious were the signatories to that deal of the infamy of what they were subscribing to.
TSFM has been the consistent voice of all kinds of supporters of Scottish Football against the manifold crimes both of commission and omission of the football authorities.
As long as that voice is there, calling for openness , transparency,and restoration of justice and administrative truth, there can be no genuine ‘moving on’ or ‘going forward’.

View Comment

Avatar

Gym TrainerPosted on2:14 pm - Aug 12, 2014


John Clark says:
August 12, 2014 at 1:54 pm

This shows, perhaps, a welcome realisation that TSFM is not a run-of-the-mill ya-boo semi-literate fanatically bigoted/biased forum, but an extensively read, earnest and fundamentally honest reflector of the very deep concerns we all have for our sport.

Or we’ve plumbed the depths so far that we’re as bad as the Hootsmon :mrgreen:

View Comment

ekt1m

ekt1mPosted on2:15 pm - Aug 12, 2014


It’s just been announced that Legia have vowed to take their case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport if they lose tomorrow’s appeal at Uefa. It has a way to go then.

View Comment

Avatar

spiritmanPosted on2:16 pm - Aug 12, 2014


ptd1978 says:
August 11, 2014 at 11:09 pm

“On the same subject, what would have happened if the first leg had been a LW 3-0 win?”

The only similar scenario that I can recall happened in 1992. (Ok i had to google the exact details but here’s the gist of what’s noted on uefa.com) Leeds were drawn against Stuttgart in the Champions League. In the first leg in Germany, Stuttgart won 3-0. In the return match, Leeds Utd won 4-1 meaning Stuttgart went through on away goals. However, it transpired that during the game at Elland Road, Stuttgart had used a substitute which brought their tally of ‘foreign’ players to four. At the time, a maximum of three foreign players was allowed. Therefore the match was forfeited and Leeds awarded a 3-0 win. This made the aggregate score 3-3 and a play off was arranged in the Nou Camp. Leeds went on to win 2-1.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on2:24 pm - Aug 12, 2014


Actually found the VB claims very interesting Eco. Thanks for the heads up – it not being one of my more frequently visited sites.

I found their train of thought a little confusing. A bit like my post earlier – that its a danger when you start with an answer (in this case Obviously Celtic were at it) and then try to find the questions to get to said answer – they seem to stomp all over a couple of interesting snippets to get to the ‘only logical conclusion.’

Firstly yes, Mr Topping seems to have escaped a lot of criticism yet the onset of nuclear winter, described by Doncaster and Regan at the meeting that I recall so riled the SFL Chairmen, seems to have come from him in the first instance.

Secondly yes, a very interesting conflict of opinion regarding the Scottish Cup providers (the SFA) who seemed hell bent on removing the titles and the SFL (re the league cup) who are described as being the opposite. I am immediately drawn to the clarity of the UEFA Legia situation. Were they guilty of something or not? Yes, no. Black, white.

Thirdly, perhaps it is just me but I struggled to follow their description of the chain of events. According to VB the angst of the ‘wily old SFL chairmen’ at the ‘nuclear’ meeting above was at the attempt to force RFC down with nothing to back it up, yet I recall it was the opposite, so delightfully described in Topping’s Email; that the Div 1 escape hatch (sorry I forget the exact term used) was receding presumably as a a result of having nothing to back that plan up either?

Finally, was the £15.9m estimated loss to the game considered by some an acceptable figure, if the titles were retained? That seems to be how they interpret the situation?

I look forward to the “to be continued”

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on2:36 pm - Aug 12, 2014


ekt1m says:
August 12, 2014 at 2:15 pm
‘..t’s just been announced that Legia have vowed to take their case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport if they lose tomorrow’s appeal at Uefa. It has a way to go then.’
——-
And the story is of interest in India.

“From the Indian News Service
If turned down by UEFA, Legia Warsaw to appeal to CAS
London, Aug 12 IANS | 46 minutes ago

Polish football club Legia Warsaw has vowed to take its appeal against its Champions League ouster to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in Switzerland should UEFA reject their plea.

Legia beat Celtic 6-1 over two legs in the UEFA third qualifying round but were then punished for fielding the ineligible Bartosz Bereszynski and thrown out of the competition, according to Daily Mail.

That result was then replaced by a 3-0 win for Celtic in accordance with UEFA regulations.

The Polish club’s appeal will be heard by UEFA Wednesday with a decision expected on Thursday or Friday.

Legia are hoping their punishment would be “scaled down” or “nullified”.

The situation took an even uglier term when news came out Monday that Marta Ostrowska, blamed for making the administrative error which led to Legia being booted out, has received death threats from her club’s own fans.

“There have been occasions where someone called the club and asked for my address,” Ostrowska was quoted as saying by Daily Record.

“There have been threats. I’ve been told it would be better for me and my family to spend a few days outside of Warsaw.”

(Posted on 12-08-2014)

View Comment

Avatar

GoosyGoosyPosted on2:42 pm - Aug 12, 2014


ecobhoy says:
August 12, 2014 at 10:31 am
26 1 Rate This

Well I see the Darkside have launched a petition to the Rangers Board to get rid of McCoist which I have undernoted.

The frenzy being whipped-up I would assume is PR-driven to ensure that the manager does the ‘right-thing’ and falls on his sword in true Rangers-style.

It seems that pressurising McCoist to walk away is the only way to get him ootra door without a pay-off which the club can’t afford especially as his assistants would need a golden cheerio as well.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Surely McCoist knew he was a poor Mgr in the run up to the RFC Administration and Liquidation?
Which makes me wonder
What if one of the onerous contracts is the Managers salary and termination package?
What if
Ally was only persuaded to take the Sevco job by a moonbeams contract from Green who knew full well he wouldnt be around to pick up the pieces ?
eg
An £800k pa salary
1m freebie shares guaranteed to be repurchased by RIFC at a handsome profit
Plus a terminal bonus payable on achieving entry to the SPL?
Think about it
If it was going to cost RIFC over £2m to sack Ally then the cost could plunge RIFC into Administration

View Comment

Bill1903

Bill1903Posted on2:51 pm - Aug 12, 2014


Latest stuff from the vanguard bears

http://www.vanguardbears.co.uk/judges-jury-and-executioners.html

I’m not sure if it’s all been available before. I’d certainly not seen Topping’s letter of doom

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on2:55 pm - Aug 12, 2014


GoosyGoosy says:
August 12, 2014 at 2:42 pm

I hear what you say but Sevco Scotland/TRFC inherited McCoist’s contract and the amount payable may well have been a bit of a shock to Green when he discovered the details.

McCoist Tuped over and kept his terms and conditions which explains why he didn’t want to walk-away no doubt 😀

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on3:00 pm - Aug 12, 2014


ecobhoy says:
August 12, 2014 at 12:35 pm
‘…..If he thinks that King is still in the mix or even at the mix then a good source that he trusts has confirmed this.’
——–
Yes, that’s all very well,but I’d prefer if our journos would try to go straight to King himself for comment. It’s so much better if a reporter can say: “We asked Mr X for comment but he refused. However, a source known to be close to him said such and such or handed out this press release…” or some such.
A phone call or two to South Africa is surely affordable to the Herald, even in these straitened times. 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on3:11 pm - Aug 12, 2014


Bill1903 says:
August 12, 2014 at 2:51 pm
0 0 Rate This

Latest stuff from the vanguard bears

http://www.vanguardbears.co.uk/judges-jury-and-executioners.html

I’m not sure if it’s all been available before. I’d certainly not seen Topping’s letter of doom.
———-

‘Nuclear winter’, that’s a new one for Armageddon.

The author sees conflicts of interest … though not in the position of Ogilvie in the whole mess.

Looks to me that ‘it wisnae us’ has entered a new and more elaborate phase.

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on3:12 pm - Aug 12, 2014


ekt1m says:
August 12, 2014 at 2:15 pm

Going to CAS would be the proper way to deal with their issue, rather than emotional pleading to all and sundry.

Funny how UEFA are perfectly content for their decisions to be scrutinised by CAS, while the SFA, with the unbelievable support of the clubs, continues to deny the CAS route to Scottish Football.

Its a funny old world :mrgreen:

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on3:22 pm - Aug 12, 2014


Smugas says:
August 12, 2014 at 2:24 pm

The problem with everything which purports to be a serious piece of investigation by anyone on the Darkside invariably founders on their habitual cherrypicking of only ‘facts’ which support their narrative and ignoring/dismissing everything else. It usually leads to some wierd ‘disconnects’.

Still if bits of the info are accurate it comes from someone at the meeting and VB are careful not to list the full attendees but only those who presumably are regarded as ‘Haters’.

So the real trick will be working out whose identity they are trying to protect. I would start looking for anyone with a previous Rangers ‘history’ or possibly for someone looking for a job 😆 We could ask McCoist to Demand the names of course but perhaps we will need to be quick to get the request in before he departs for postures new.

The VBs just don’t seem to be clear where they are going with it all and depending on how many instalments have yet to come it may take some time to see if they have anything useful that expands our understanding.

Really what I want to know is what proof Rangers had in terms of ‘conduct’ issues which could be legally actionable by them against football admin Board Members and Officials. There is one possible minor revelation there but it’s hardly actionable and if that’s the best of it then it will be a very boring tale.

Then there is the claim that those at the meeting had had knoweledge of the EBTs for years. If they can say what exactly that knowledge is then it might mean something. If it was the cryptic references meant to hide the EBTs which wasn’t picked-up by the footballing authorities then it means nothing and perhaps that’s why they choose not to state what their ‘evidence’ is.

Still it might detract some Bears from other slightly more important issues currently affecting Rangers although I think McCoist is more newsworthy than a very badly written and disjointed narrative despite 2 or 3 small nuggets worth noting.

Yip I never knew that Topping was Father of Armageddon and that’s why I thought he might be a good bet for a podcast.

View Comment

Comments are closed.