“Anyone read Michael Grant’s article in The Times? Only saw a pull-quote but the headline is about not everyone cheering for Celtic to European success since the financial windfall will put them too far ahead of the other clubs. It’s that old UEFA distribution thingy. Auldheid had a sensible alternative a while back.”
Thanks Danish Pastry for giving Big Pink the opportunity to nudge me (over a coffee I paid for – so how’s that for redistribution of income? 🙂 ) to blog again on the issue of redistribution of UEFA money whilst he was advocating gate sharing as an alternative.
I recall the redistribution debate being discussed on the first TSFM podcast Episode 1-01 of 9th Feb 2014 which can be found here:
https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/scottish-football-monitor/id817766886?mt=2
Listening to it again (I used “View in I Tunes”) I heard many of the recent comments on the previous blog being made in that podcast at or around:
9.58: The interdependent nature of the business of football. Why it is different from normal business.
10.50: Celtic/Rangers leaving the Scottish League making it immediately more competitive.
11.30: Clubs as a community resource (like museums or libraries not run for profit, providing a community service and staying solvent).
12.48: People have to let go of the notions that they have held about the nature of football and recognise it is a totally interdependent business.
13.55: Changing the Champions League format to European and Regional Leagues and raising the standard of all, not dropping standards of one to bring about competiveness.
25.50: A rethink at the top level with NEW thinking about redistribution of income using Champions League money.
27.50: The human dilemma.
So rather than repeat what was said originally and very well developed in the comments on the Michael Grant article on the previous blog, I thought I would look at what I think is the greatest barrier to change which was the last item above – the human dilemma. *
Modern football reminds me of a description of a scene from hell where a visitor looks into one room and sees an emaciated group around a table on which is set a large pot full of stew. They cannot eat because their arms have been set straight at the elbow and elongated so that they cannot get a spoon in their mouths. It is a miserable place. Then the visitor goes upstairs and enters a similar room with occupants similarly handicapped, but where everyone is well fed and contented. “How can this be?” he asks his guide. “Well downstairs all their energies are spent in the nigh impossible task of feeding their insatiable hunger, whilst up here they simply feed each other.”
The analogy is bent a little but not broken in the sense that there are fat and emaciated folk in the football version of the lower room but it is not a healthy place as the fat can themselves become emaciated over time (see Liverpool and even Man Utd) but, generally speaking, self-interest or rather what is perceived as self-interest, holds sway.
Human nature that causes the human dilemma is well reflected in normal business where dog eats dog, then eats the food of the dog it ate if it comes out top dog. Football however cannot exist on a dog eat dog basis because it is interdependent as a business. Dog eating dog is bad for business because over a period of time even the top dog will die of starvation.
Now without abusing the dog metaphor any further and risk attracting dog’s abuse, why is it that something which should be as self-evident as looking after each other is good for business, be such a hard sell?
I said in the podcast around 12.48 that folk need to let go of the notions they have clung on to about football, but why is that so difficult?
Perhaps the resistance to that change can be found, at least in the case of Celtic, who at present are asked in the current debate to make a sacrifice for others, either in the form of gate sharing or giving up some Champion Leagues winnings (if/when they qualify) can be found in the genesis of the club and the memory of that genesis passed from generation to generation.
Everyone knows that the original purpose that Brother Walfrid had for Celtic was to feed the poor in the East End of Glasgow and many of that poor had come from Ireland to be strangers in a strange land.
As a Calton man born in the Gallowgate, as was my grandfather (my dad was found under a cabbage in Well St) I’ve never really identified much with the Irish context of Celtic’s history, although I do recognise its importance to many supporters with Irish family ties, but that dimension adds a further layer to the human dilemma.
Think of it, you form a football club to raise money to feed yourself because you live in an environment where welcome mats are in short supply. That money raised is YOUR money. Your life depends on it as does your family’s as well as your close neighbour (usually in the same close). How prepared are you to share what income you have had to raise yourself with others who you believe have been less than charitable towards you?
Add that folk memory to the human selfish trait of wanting what you spend on football spent on meeting your own desire, which is to make you happy watching an entertaining and successful team on the park and you get an idea of where the resistance to a more equitable sharing comes from and how deep it goes.
I use Celtic here because they are my club and part of my life experience and I have no idea if other clubs experience that added layer of resistance to sharing, if indeed they are in position to share. But if we are ever to be able to introduce gate sharing or what I see as the easier alternative of redistribution of UEFA geld because in not coming direct from supporters pockets it has less of the Celtic folk memory layer to overcome, then those who will be asked to make a sacrifice have to be given the confidence that the aim is not to impoverish them (and the Celtic community memory of poverty and fighting it is as strong today in the form of The Celtic Foundation, The Kano Foundation and the numerous charity events organised by supporters and prominent blogs) but to enrich their neighbours, but doing so in such a way that they enrich themselves. That is the challenge.
In the upper room in the earlier hellish description, the occupiers present the ultimate example of charity in that in feeding each other they feed themselves.
- PS the podcast covers other issues that some 18 months later might still be of interest.
DCK quoted by Scott McDermott in the Sunday Mail:
“I have some experience of lengthy, complex litigation and I think this will run for quite a few years.”
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dave-king-warns-rangers-fans-6433753
He probably said it without a hint of irony…
I don’t know if anyone has posted this, so just in case
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13716072.Rangers_chairman_has_multi_million_claim_on___18m_oldco_creditors_pot_rejected/
RANGERS chairman Dave King has had a claim for millions from the £18 million club oldco creditors pot thrown out by liquidators.
The South African businessman had claimed he was owed £20 million over an investment in the club 15 years ago, when Sir David Murray was owner. If he had succeeded it would have made him the third biggest creditor of the in-liquidation former operating company.
But the Herald understands the liquidators BDO have rejected his claim as an unsecured creditor – potentially raising the amount available to others stung by the oldco collapse.
Mr King revealed moves on Thursday to try and pay off the oldco creditors and revive the oldco, RFC 2012 plc, which is in the process of being liquidated after former owner Craig Whyte presided over its descent into administration in February, 2012.
It is a move that could potentially see the club having to come up with as much as £78 million to pay off creditors.
One insolvency expert has said that even if creditors agreed to a settlement, it would only result in the oldco either being dissolved or placed back into the hands of the previous owner, Craig Whyte.
When Mr King ploughed the money into the club, a new £53 million share issue had been made to improve the playing squad and develop a strong youth policy through a new academy. Some of the new cash also went towards lowering the club’s then £40m debt.
Of that, £20m was described as new money from Mr King, invested through his Ben Nevis Holdings firm. Mr King became a non-executive director at Ibrox.
He became at the time the club’s second-biggest shareholder through his stake in Murray Sports, Rangers’ parent company.
When The Herald revealed details of his claim last year, he stood to gain at least £3m as one of the main unsecured creditors.
But questions were raised in some circles over how a Rangers oldco investor who had received shares in return could qualify as an unsecured creditor. Oldco shareholders will not expect to see a penny in any creditors pot payout as secured and unsecured creditors have to be paid off first.
The Herald understands that Mr King has accepted the position of the oldco liquidators BDO and there has been no challenge.
Over three years ago, Mr King said he was to mount a legal challenge against former Rangers owner Sir David Murray over the investment.
Mr King’s announcement of a legal challenge came amid allegations he made on the basis of non-disclosure by former Rangers owner Sir David Murray over the club’s true financial position in 2000 when he made his investment.
Mr King said at the time that any benefit he made from the claim would be fully reinvested into the restructured football club.
He said at the time: “I seem to be one of the few people who actually invested cash into the club.”
Sir David has previously insisted to the Herald that no financial information was withheld from Mr King and that during his time as chairman he had not made any complaints.
Mr King declined to comment on whether he would continue to mount the legal challenge against Sir David or on the position with the liquidators.
He said at the time: “I seem to be one of the few people who actually invested cash into the club.”
Unfortunately it was the South African people’s cash Dave.
Again, sorry if this has been posted before, BDO explained the Law Financial Limited (LFL) claim in their creditors update earlier this month.
http://www.bdo.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1354092/RFC-2012-Plc-update-to-creditors-02-09-15.pdf
LFL is a 100% owned subsidiary of Worthington Group Limited. The Joint Liquidators note that Craig Whyte is a former director of LFL.
LFL is claiming that, as a result of certain undisclosed agreements entered into on or around April 2013, it has acquired from Wavetower Limited (‘Wavetower’), the debenture formerly held by Lloyds Bank Plc, which was acquired by Wavetower at the time of the acquisition of the club by Mr Whyte.
LFL asserts that this grants it a first charge secured interest over the realisations in the liquidation, in priority to all unsecured creditors. LFL further suggests that its claim is for c£25m.
Celtic will still doubtless win the league. There are 9pts yet to play for v the Dons (two of those games in Glasgow) and, in extremis, the board would doubtless sign off on the purchase of a few new players in Jan if the title looked seriously in doubt.
That said, should a miracle happen then what would McInnes do? Abandon some serious European experience in Jul-Aug 2014 & 2015 and walk away from UCL qualifiers? Repeat the Aberdeen feat with another Scottish club? One still in a financial mess, the other under a glass ceiling? Or would he bump up his salary by an order of magnitude and have another crack at England?
Meanwhile, this may be the best ‘cycle’ of Dons improvement for a long time – Skovdahl and Calderwood took their sides into Europe; McInnes has a chance – only a chance – of surpassing that.
‘He became at the time the club’s second-biggest shareholder through his stake in Murray Sports, Rangers’ parent company’
So did the Football Club have a parent company AND a holding company? Is this possible?
Carfins Finest says:
Member:
September 13, 2015 at 1:42 pm
That’s one of the things I’ve always found strange about King’s claim in the liquidation.
He wasn’t a creditor, he was a shareholder and he wasn’t even a shareholder in the club he was a shareholder in a company which in turn owned shares in the club.
Strictly speaking his claim to have been the only person to invest in the club isn’t true either. He invested in Murray Sports which in turn owned 65% of Rangers shares.
Some rather startling claims now being made by the Rangers blogger John James.
https://rangerssupportersloyal.wordpress.com/2015/09/13/defending-the-ninja/comment-page-1/#comment-2885
If anyone has booked accommodation for the evening of Perth Meeting, can you contact me please?
bigpink@sfm.scot
upthehoops says:
Member:
September 13, 2015 at 2:29 pm
God knows, Govan is long overdue some regeneration. However, now that the shipyard is, for the moment at least, safe, the prospects for large scale regeneration have diminished. There is a project in the works for around £130 million in public realm improvements for the area. This is new cycle pathways and the like, along with a new bridge between Govan & Partick.
As welcome as this is, I’m sceptical that it will kick start any larger rgen plans, certainly in the completed by 2022 time-scale, but we shall see.
(As someone who started out in Govan boats, built in the mid-70s by the likes of Reid & Airlie, I am delighted that the shipyard has had a reprieve, but, I’m uncertain about its long term future)
Edit
Skull no longer splitting
Big Pink, do you think the Perth thing will go ahead? I need to find a babysitter, but wont bother if we can’t make the numbers.
I was looking forward to it and thought
you would get the numbers no problem. Here’s hoping…
John Clark says:
Member:
September 13, 2015 at 12:39 am (Edit)
King in the Sunday Herald:
“They would want to see the criminal case run because of the ability to get evidence. I don’t think it could possibly be resolved in two years. I would say it would be closer to five years than two.”
If it is shown that Rangers have been the victims of criminality, King believes there will be conversations to be had with the Scottish football authorities over the way the club was ordered to begin again in the old Third Division.
“I think that would be awkward due to the way Rangers were dealt with by the authorities in terms of the initial relegation,” he said. “That could possibly come up as an issue again.”
And other such guff!
Having a go at our Football Authorities who sold their feckin souls AND the integrity of our game to try to keep a ‘Rangers’ alive!
Biting the hand that feeds you is not in it!
And, of course,as with all men of no principle, our football authorities personnel get the punishment they deserve- the scorn and contempt of the
contemptible people they pandered to.
I love it!
====================
Imagine if SFA/SPFL countersued for undermining sporting integrity for ten years of ebt use to the detriment of the game, where the SFA have evidence that not supplying authority (HMRC in this case) of side letters was a deliberate decision rather than a massive administration oversight and then hiding evidence of the crime from investigations by the SFA and SPL in 2012?
What if RFC committed fraud in 2011?
People in glass houses etc.
As usual, I’m not sure that DCK has thought things through before engaging his mouth. SFA/SPFL followed their rules as far as removing RFC from the league etc was concerned (admission of TRFC is another matter). They went into admin, deducted 10 pts, liquidation – exit association/league.
Of course, if Mr K wants to take it to court to recover all that lost money then the OC/NC argument would need to be aired in a legal setting.
So that’s not going to happen.
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer:
September 13, 2015 at 11:13 pm
John Clark says:
Member:
September 13, 2015 at 12:39 am (Edit)
King in the Sunday Herald:
“They would want to see the criminal case run because of the ability to get evidence. I don’t think it could possibly be resolved in two years. I would say it would be closer to five years than two.”
==========================
I don’t think King has a clue what he’s talking about. Haven’t four or five people already appeared in court charged with serious offences? Can the Crown really take another five years to bring these matters to trial? That would be outrageous in my opinion. Could someone with knowledge of such matters let us know whether King is talking rubbish, as I strongly suspect), or can it really take 5 years from first court appearance to full trial in Scotland?
And wouldn’t it be nice if the worshipping journalists could get off their knees long enough to ask the question themselves? That’s their job, isn’t it?
@neepheid maybe he’s expecting people to be not readily forthcoming with evidence requested 😉 after all RFC(IL) have previous for this even when being run by court appointed officials (D&P).
I don’t have the background to know but I can’t see the court case taking 5 years to prepare and run but there are already suggestions that there will be an awful lot of evidence to be presented. That plus the possible ramifications, which may require civil cases, depending on the outcome could see the pantomime still run for some time yet. The pantomime is the omnishambles regarding the assets and who owns what not the legal process which is to be taken seriously.
Danish Pastry says:
Blog Writer:
September 12, 2015 at 11:32 pm
======================================================
After a period of rather neo-jingoistic (my phrase) coverage of the first world war some historians are now challenging the narrative that there was no choice. Douglas Newton’s “Darkest Days” is only one of several in this line but an easier read than most. The rather right wing (but very erudite) Niall Ferguson is one who thinks Britain’s involvement in that war was a mistake and that the war and some of the disasters that followed it need not have happened.
@neepheid and tykebhoy
Notwithstanding the possibility that DCK is just talking out of his hole …..
…. fraud cases are among the most complex cases to prosecute. Whilst RFC related cases will not be at Polly Peck/Mirror Group levels, these cases can be extremely lengthy, rely on a lot of expert testimony to help interpret the mountains of (very dry) detailed physical evidence, and thoroughly confuse juries.
If convictions are secured then the process will drag on further through the ensuing civil cases and appeals.
That said, I suspect that it’s more straightforward than that and that King put that 2-5 year timeline out there because it’s suitably far out to avoid awkward questions now, and creates a large enough window for him to say “things have changed” when it doesn’t actually pan out as he said [if TRFC still exist in 2-5 years and/or DK is still involved]. As a result he’ll never be held to account for these latest haverings.
Will UEFA accept this omnishambles if by whatever rout they qualify for one of their competitions, I would not be surprised if they are looking in on the unfolding legal actions and have their people try and understand what the future might hold for anyone accepting a part in the pantomime
neepheid says:
Member:
September 14, 2015 at 9:13 am
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer:
September 13, 2015 at 11:13 pm
John Clark says:
Member:
September 13, 2015 at 12:39 am (Edit)
King in the Sunday Herald:
“They would want to see the criminal case run because of the ability to get evidence. I don’t think it could possibly be resolved in two years. I would say it would be closer to five years than two.”
——————————–
Rangers could be fighting to get rid of Craig Whyte for another 10 years, warns former Ibrox chief Charles Green
GREEN fears that “delusional” former owner Whyte will continue with his threats to sue the club over claims he still owns the assets for another decade.
CHARLES GREEN last night claimed Rangers could spend the next 10 years trying to get rid of former owner Craig Whyte.
————————–
So charles had it down for 10 years(don’t click the link if you don’t have to)
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-could-fighting-rid-craig-1925351
@ yourhavingalaugh
I could be proved wrong but I suspect UEFA are taking very little notice at all about the Omnishambles and will accept TRFC so long as the SFA grant a licence. Of course the SFA may be a little more cautious courtesy of Auldheid et al’s work on the back of Resolution 12 (Celtic AGM) and UEFA being aware might not as readily accept the SFA submission ………..
upthehoops says:
Member:
September 13, 2015 at 2:29 pm
‘..Some rather startling claims now being made by the Rangers blogger John James.’
____________
At least,uth, he’s making some attempt to puzzle out what the devil King may be up to!’
The blog was very quiet yesterday evening, so I spent some time googling like mad to try to get to grips with the practicalities of ‘de-liquidisation’, a concept which I had never even heard of or thought possible.
I didn’t get very far. I learned only that a Court can sist a liquidation on application by the Liquidator, a creditor, or a ‘contributory'( someone who might have to contribute to the assets)’..on proof to the satisfaction of the court that all proceedings in the winding up ought to be stayed or sisted, make an order staying or sisting the proceedings, either altogether or for a limited time, on such terms and conditions as the court thinks fit.” ( sect 147 of the Insolvency Act 1986)
Couldn’t find anything that explained what kind of grounds an application would have to be based upon, and what kind of proof the Court would be satisfied with!
I tried to find the two cases the woman expert (in the TV interview posted on the blog the other day)mentioned, to see if they might have given some example.
I could find only ‘Apollo Engineering v James Scott Ltd’-but the reference wasn’t to the sisting of Apollo’s liquidation, but to the question of whether a director who couldn’t afford legal representation could be allowed to present his case personally in Court..
But I learned from that, that even a dissolved entity can be brought back to life as a legal person so that someone might pursue a claim against the insurer of the liquidated company! ( At least, that’s what I could make of it)
So, I’m not much further forward: King is neither creditor, nor Liquidator, nor ‘contributory’, so he personally couldn’t make an application to the Courts for sisting the liquidation of RFC(IL).
He presumably thinks he could persuade the Liquidator to do. But that would mean he would have to convince the Liquidator that he was able to pay the creditors more in the pound than the liquidation process would pay.
And, of course, if he was able to do that, and an application was made and the Court was satisfied,then the corpse might be taken out of Liquidation, out of Administration and restored, free of debt, to the rightful owner whose club it was that went into Administration, Mr CW.(That would save CW the bother of proving that the alleged switcheroo had occurred)
Mr CW would then have a club-but no ground and no team.
What happens then?
Would RIFC buy the club from CW, and bribe, bully, harass the SFA and SPFL into ‘transferring’ the membership that TRFC has of each organisation?
Or would CW argue that since, retrospectively, there was no Administration and no liquidation, the ‘status quo ante’ should be restored?
Or would the whole thing be such a bloody mess that Regan and Doncaster would go hang themselves?
There surely must be some legals on here who could sketch in the legal practicalities, and some SFA/SPFL guys who could begin to tease out the football practicalities.
Or has King’s obsessive desire to get his supposed ‘investment’ back so powerful that he has lost his marbles, and his utterances are to be ignored as irrational?
But, whatever, we must watch out very carefully for dirty work by our Football Governance people.
I am informed that sisting a liquidation is a very rare event and a couple of insolvency practitioners of my acquaintance have never even dealt with one, and know of few. Apparently, these rarely happen without creditors being settled in full plus interest.
OT – but curious language to use 🙂
We are hoping to get someone from the REs 12 group to come along to the Perth Meeting. Sadly Auldheid is jetting out to his European mainland home and won’t be back in time
John,
I have always been of the opinion that King’s motivation in getting involved in this is the £20m he lost through his investment.
I really don’t think Rangers’ welfare is his main motivation at all.
John James’s claims though (conjecture though they might be) put some “how to achieve that” flesh on the bones of that motivation.
King also has one thing in common with many other players who have left the scene clutching fistfuls of £1m notes – he doesn’t live here.
A few senior people at two clubs have privately expressed doubts about King’s ability to control the club from such a remote base. Perhaps it is the remoteness that is his priority, and not the day to day running of a football club.
I also think that John James’s claims are gaining some traction amongst Rangers fans. The only thing sticking a finger into the dam right now is the new management team.
This time next year, that won’t be enough.
Big Pink says:
Moderator:
September 14, 2015 at 12:04 pm
OT – but curious language to use
————————————————–
This is the problem with twitter. This was where the story came from:-
Big Pink says:
Moderator:
September 14, 2015 at 12:25 pm
The only issue I have with this type of conjecture is that, much as the media describe King as the major shareholder (which he is) they say it as if he is the majority shareholder, which he isn’t. Far from it, from memory he owns about 16%, through a trust.
So how would he get a large chunk of his money back through things like property deals.
Sorry if I am missing something here but he can’t exactly get it through large dividends, as all the other shareholders would get the same. If he takes a large salary that is going to be fairly obvious as it would have to be reflected in the accounts.
If he does it through side contracts taking money from the club then again that would have to be reflected somewhere in the accounts.
I just don’t see how it would work.
Big Pink says:
Moderator:
September 14, 2015 at 6:31 pm
Please investigate the ads folks. Increases our revenue – and you never know, you might just get a bargain!
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Does simply clicking on an ad generate income for SFM, or do I then have to make a purchase or a further inquiry via the clicked link?
Its Not A Fragile Plan Its a Poisoned Pill.
There is a reasonably well balanced article in the Herald in terms of the economics it covers
http://m.heraldscotland.com/sport/13717543.Resurgent_Rangers_can_aid_Celtic_s_flawed_financial_plan_by_securing_a_Premiership_place/?ref=twtrec
But it was this part on that which caught my attention and hence the Title above.
” Still, should Rangers maintain their current run, win the second tier title and clinch promotion it will make Celtic’s commendable efforts to live within their means far easier than they are at the moment.
Depending on success in the transfer market and relying on qualification for the lucrative Champions League group stages in order to break even is, in the unprecedented circumstances, understandable. But it remains a fragile economic plan.
I have argued in the past for a wider sharing of CL money amongst others clubs because without them there would not be champions, but I’m moving towards the lot being divided up because of the effect of CL qualifying failure on Celtic (I support them so I want what I think is best for them).
The recent failure has just become another rod for the media and supporters to beat the club with. It is divisive and fails to recognise what a poisoned pill the CL has become for Scottish clubs.
We all know it killed Rangers, yet is that the pill Scottish football is going to be asked to swallow again only this time it might be Celtic or Aberdeen that dies?
Celtic are already on a slow path of decline because of the economics of Scottish football and its limited supporter base.
I don’t like it and it is understandable why Celtic supporters are so keen on CL qualification, not just for the 6 games but the money that means the club might (and it all depends on the player) be able to hold on to the guys mentioned in the article and so reduce the churn rate.
The policy of buy low and sell high might work to keep the books balanced but it leads to unacceptable churn and a cycle of lower levels of performance as a result that stop supporters being entertained and is that not supposed to be the point of football?
Maybe a wee session called ” Scottish Football- What is the Point?” could be covered at Perth by the guests?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34237693
Credit where it’s due. Tom English talks about the benefits of a resurgent Aberdeen providing a real challenge to Celtic and DOESN’T mention TRFC* once!! Could any other writer have resisted the urge to say at least “In the absence of Rangers, blah blah.”
Well done, Tom.
In the Herald article above
http://m.heraldscotland.com/sport/13717543.Resurgent_Rangers_can_aid_Celtic_s_flawed_financial_plan_by_securing_a_Premiership_place/?ref=twtrec
It ends with
” Their fans, though many would not openly admit it, would relish the prospect of doing battle with the opponents they love to hate and, deep down, have missed the presence of during these last three years. ”
That is a sweeping statement that certainly does not reflect my views. I don’t miss the poison one bit and if our game can only be sold on toxic grounds is it no wonder it is dying?
However the main reason I would not want TRFC as opposition is that I simply do not trust them as currently constituted to play the game fairly.
Worse I do not trust the SFA to fairly police the playing of the game fairly.
When RFC failed to fully register players (regardless of the nature of the ebts used) they cheated the game. No amount of SFA slight of hand to twist rules to suit will convince supporters of other clubs, never mind Celtic, that cheating Scottish football did not take place. It did and trust was destroyed.
There is evidence that concealment of side letters was deliberate as far back as 2005 and there is plenty of evidence that in 2011 and 2012 other evidence, that would have produced a different result had it been made available AS REQUIRED, took place under a negligent or compliant SFA.
If CL money is a poisoned pill the breaking of trust by RFC and then the SFA and SPL in 2012 is a slow killing cancer and until that is addressed, I for one certainly do not relish watching a game (in general terms) that I know, based on the evidence and failure or reluctance to is use it to restore trust, is not worth my financial or emotional investment.
Auldheid says:
Blog Writer:
September 14, 2015 at 1:03 pm
Its Not A Fragile Plan Its a Poisoned Pill.
There is a reasonably well balanced article in the Herald in terms of the economics it covers
http://m.heraldscotland.com/sport/13717543.Resurgent_Rangers_can_aid_Celtic_s_flawed_financial_plan_by_securing_a_Premiership_place/?ref=twtrec
____________________________________________________
Had a look at the comments and there is the inevitable OC/NC stuff.
Even those fighting the good fight are acknowledging that Rangers were VOTED OUT of the SPL.
AAAAAAAARRRRGGGHHHHHH!
Auldheid @ 1.23pm
Maybe we could all have a whip round and actually pay for them to come, win unfairly and rub our proverbial noses in it, like we did the last time for 8+ years.
Good luck marketing that to (my) kids
Big Pink says:
September 14, 2015 at 12:25 pm
The thing about King and their like is that they hate being seen to loose money.
Look at his dispute with Gary Player.
Presumably they were pals when Player was given cash to pay off a business debt in 1999. (I would have thought Player had plenty but there you go, maybe it was a cash flow issue).
Anyway you have millions and you give a pal a large wad. You say it is a loan – he says it was a ‘gift’ type arrangement and Kings gets to accompany Player on his travels as a form of repayment.
In 2002 King faces the SARS charges but allegedly keeps the Player ‘debt’ under the mattress as some form of security and then looks for settlement once the SARS case is over.
Meanwhile despite going along with this wheeze and possibly not having made any cash repayments on the ‘loan’ Player lets King Caddy for him at the 2008 Masters. So one has to assume they must have still been pals of some sorts.
These guys are out of my league but it looks to me that money reigns over friendship, honour, dignity and indeed rational thinking.
Therefore I would not be surprised if the £20m investment in Rangers was a linked to some tax inefficiency dodge and the current plan is to try and wangle what he can out of the dead body or the zombie off-shoot.
Is there any evidence of King actually being anyway interested in the Ibrox club from leaving these shores in 1976 to becoming a NED in 2002 other than a photo of him holding a 9 in a row scarf in a New York Street in (apparently) the year 2000
A leopard doesn’t change its spots and all that.
Does anyone know
Why . . .
Is Dave King not being ‘investigated’ for his behaviour in driving the RIFCPLC share price down, so he could purchase those shares far cheaper?
Also,
(Dave King said he was ‘interviewed’ by Police Scotland.
When ‘Oldco’ were found to have shredded evidence relating to players’ Loans and Tax payments due to HMRC)
Is it possible that there is still ‘a case to answer’ on that issue?
(Just a Yes or No will suffice, to avoid any MOD involvement)
Smugas on September 14, 2015 at 1:42 pm
Auldheid @ 1.23pm
Maybe we could all have a whip round and actually pay for them to come, win unfairly and rub our proverbial noses in it, like we did the last time for 8+ years.
Good luck marketing that to (my) kids
========
Indeed which is precisely why my second post was made.
Our game doesn’t need tweaking it needs tearing down and rebuilding to face modern challenges.
Who guards the guards?
Resurgent Rangers
Celtic’s flawed financial plan.
Really.
Rangers have had three accounting periods. So far there are audited accounts for two of them.
In the first they had income of £19m and costs of £33m. Let’s ignore nonsense like release of negative good will and just call it operating losses of about £14m.
In the second they had income of £25m and costs of £34m. So let’s call that operating losses of £9m.
So in their first two periods they had trading losses of £23m and I think most people expect more losses in their third period. Let’s just call it £30m lost in their first three years of business, just to have a figure.
In 2013 Celtic posted operating profits of around £10m and in 2014 operating profits of around £11m. Totaling around £21m profit, as compared to rangers £23m losses. So Celtic’s performance was around £44m better over that period.
If we allow for Celtic having operating losses this year of around £4m that is still around £17m profit over the three years as opposed to potentially £30m losses for Rangers.
I for one am releived that Resurgent Rangers are going to help solve Celtic’s flawed financial plan. Think how much better the club will be doing when that happens.
Durrant
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/1328707-durrant-its-still-glasgow-rangers-but-i-support-kings-oldco-plans/?
“Nothing in my eyes has changed, it’s still Gasgow Rangers”
Why didn’t,t the journalist ask
What’s the difference between Administration and Liquidation?
Auldheid @ 3.37pm
Its probably a debate for another day (or symposium 😆 ) but I know from speaking to some RFC supporting pals that there is actually a key and controversial point hidden within my jibe re our all supporting/financing the comeback . Namely, would RFC still have won the trophies with the lesser teams that no EBT alchemy and full SFA disclosure would have implied? I know from speaking to them about this previously that they genuinely believe they would have won certainly a healthy proportion of them, hence their struggle to accept the other clubs’ supporters distrust of them, preferring to put it down to good old Rangers hating instead.
Not a point I wish to particularly debate, since its got cul de sac written all over it, but I’m aware that the view exists.
Jim Larkin,
Without reading the article my follow up would have been, “so why do it?”
But having read it: (durrant) “But I think Mr King had lots of memories and I’m sure he’ll try to revive some of the things that happened.”
Some of the things. SOME of the things. Just a wee bit selective there then Ian. And I’m trying really hard to avoid the particular irony of the use of the word “revive.”
Big Pink says:
August 28, 2015 at 11:45 pm
…Unfortunately I still have no tangible progress to report on premises, but I feel sure that we will have something to say about that early next week when Tris returns from his sojourn.
………………………………
Any news??
From the BBC Scotland webshite
“Former Rangers director Imran Ahmad has said he will remain overseas and not co-operate with an investigation into the sale of the club’s assets in 2012.”
Is this possible – does the “Club” have assets ??????
I wonder if Imran Ahmad knows where the skeletons are buried re his reluctance to help with the current investigations
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34245039#
“I firmly believe Police Scotland have their own agenda and are deeply emotionally connected to Rangers Football Club. In my view Police Scotland have a clear conflict of interest.”
Now that is a pretty strong accusation to make, notwithstanding the other references to religious bigotry among his other quotes in the article.
The rest of the article from BBC Scotland
some controversial statements from Mr Ahmad (not his Maw)
Imran Ahmad will not co-operate with Rangers fraud probe
25 minutes ago
From the section Glasgow & West Scotland
Imran AhmadImage copyrightSNS
Image caption
Imran Ahmad is a former commercial director of Rangers
Former Rangers director Imran Ahmad has said he will remain overseas and not co-operate with an investigation into the sale of the club’s assets in 2012.
Mr Ahmad spoke out after four other men were charged over the deal.
He accused police of being “emotionally connected” to Rangers and described the club as “a religion built on religious bigotry”. He also said he would not get a fair trial anywhere in Scotland.
Police Scotland, the Crown Office and Rangers all declined to comment.
A Crown Office spokesman said: “As proceedings are live for the purposes of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 it would be inappropriate to comment.”
A police spokeswoman also said that “it would be inappropriate to comment” and this was “a live inquiry”.
A spokesman for Rangers declined to comment.
Ahmad, the club’s former commercial director, left Rangers in controversial circumstances in 2013 and later reached an out-of-court settlement with the club.
Charles Green Craig WhyteImage copyrightPA
Image caption
Charles Green (left) and Craig Whyte have already been charged over their involvement with Rangers
He arrived with Charles Green, who led a consortium which purchased the club’s assets following administration and liquidation.
That asset purchase in 2012 has been the focus of a police investigation.
Earlier this month, four men appeared in court to face charges over the alleged fraudulent acquisition of the assets.
They were 62-year-old Mr Green and 44-year-old Craig Whyte, who had bought the club from former owner Sir David Murray in 2011 and was at the helm during its financial collapse the following year.
Two other insolvency practitioners were also charged over the deal.
They were David Whitehouse, 50, and Paul Clark, 51, who worked for Duff and Phelps and acted as joint administrators for Rangers during the 2012 insolvency.
Following the court appearances, Mr Ahmad emailed the BBC to say that his legal representatives had contacted the Crown Office in a bid to ascertain if he would face any charges.
He said he was initially prepared to return to the UK from overseas, where he has been working.
‘Safe passage’
Mr Ahmad said: “I was promised a letter by the Crown…by close of business 4 September 2015 which would also confirm that I would not be arrested at UK border control or by Police Scotland and could attend court on the 29 September 2015 to answer the warrant petition which I wanted to fully cooperate with.”
Mr Ahmad continued: “A few days ago, the Crown reneged on their promise to provide me with a safe passage letter.
“My legal team and I have grave concerns about a defendant in this case being able to receive a fair trial anywhere in Scotland let alone Glasgow.
“Every social media site in Scotland has presumed all the defendants to be guilty before a trial has even taken place or for that matter before individuals have even been indicted.”
Mr Ahmad said that he had recently “received death threats by phone and online”.
He described Rangers fans as “a tribe”, adding: “What the rest of the world will never understand unless they experience it first hand is that Rangers Football Club is a religion, in itself, built on centuries of religious bigotry.”
The former director also accused Police Scotland of being “an establishment institution which itself is deeply rooted and immersed in Rangers Football Club’s history for well over 140 years”.
Mr Ahmad said: “I firmly believe Police Scotland have their own agenda and are deeply emotionally connected to Rangers Football Club. In my view Police Scotland have a clear conflict of interest.”
He added: “I have decided not to attend the Crown’s ‘invite’ warrant on the 29 September 2015 and will remain overseas until the trial is over when I will return to the UK.”
Threats of more arrests in the FIFA ‘probe’
(I’m guessing no one from UEFA could be a possibility)?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/14/lynch-more-arrests-expected-fifa-corruption-probe/?
neepheid on September 14, 2015 at 9.13am queried the opinion of the (seeming) Official Spokesperson for New Oasis Asset Limited, a company 100% owned by the Family Trust of Dave King, and the owners of 14.57% of the shares in Rangers International Football Club plc, when he is quoted as referring to “the criminal case” and that he didn’t “think it could possibly be resolved in two years. I would say it would be closer to five years than two.”
neepheid is correct to query such a view.
Before discussing possible timescales am I the only one who cannot understand why Mr King is constantly treated as and referred to as the driving force of anything and everything down Edmiston Drive way when he doesn’t own any shares? New Oasis Asset Limited do but they are owned by a Family Trust which if it is to serve any purpose at all must be at arms length from and beyond the control of “Dave King”. Talking of which I am all in favour of informality at the right time and in the right place but is the Trust really designed in official documentation as that of “Dave” King?
Anyway, “Dave” referred to “the criminal case” but did not say which one or if he was aware that there is more than one.
As I posted on 1st September persons who appeared in Court in mid November 2014; say, Craig Whyte, Gary Withey, David Grier, Paul Clark and David Whitehouse, would be diarising mid September as being of interest. Since then the Crown have applied to the Sheriff Court for an extension to the time within which an Indictment had to be served and this was granted with the time bar being extended by three months. Apropos of nothing it was granted by Sheriff Sean Murphy Q.C. No room for allegations of bias there.
The fact Messrs. Whyte, Clark and Whitehouse have again appeared in Court, this time accompanied by Mr Green, does not affect the time scales applicable to the earlier appearances. Things will be clearer by 17th December this year when Indictments should have been served and a Preliminary Hearing fixed for the following month. There is always the possibility of further extension or adjournment but only on good grounds and certainly not in the timescales envisaged by “Dave”. There is the possibility of the Crown or any of the Accused seeking to have matters conjoined. There is an equal possibility that the last thing some of the Accused would wish is to have is the case against them conjoined with one or more of the others.
Mr Green might be able to enjoy this Christmas but I doubt if the others will.
Based on numbers, we have decided to go ahead with the Perth Symposium on Thursday 22nd October.
There is now an update on the Roadshow page
http://www.sfmonitor.org/sfm-roadshow/
with details of the event and stuff.
Paypal only for this I am afraid, although if people are especially horrified by that, please email me directly (bigpink@sfm.scot) and we can work something out.
The PayPal payment will show up on your account being paid to Mean City Media (which is the new limited company name).
One person who hails from Dunfermline has asked if anyone wants a lift. Contact me so I can hook you up.
Edit
Break even point is actually around 18 tickets. Fixed costs are £256.80 (which includes room hire and food for four guests). Break even is that number divided by the difference in the price of a ticket (£23.90 net of PayPal) and the cost of the food (£10.20). All prices inc VAT. God I must be bored 🙂
Currently, we have sold the equivalent of 16 tickets (which represents only 13 attendees). We are a bit disappointed by and concerned at the tickets sales compared to earlier indications. Hopefully it will pick up soon.
Tickets will be emailed to everyone a week before the event. You will be able to either print it off or display it on your ‘phone.
Please investigate the ads folks. Increases our revenue – and you never know, you might just get a bargain!
Just a thought which occurred out of the blue (pun intended).
If Dave King did manage to come up with tens of millions of pounds and pay off Rangers debts, then manage to convince the World that it should not be liquidated after all and have the club resurrected who would actually own it. Would it be the original shareholders.
If he then decided to “move the assets” back to Rangers from Sevco who would have to agree to that and how much would they charge for said assets. Would it be the £5m they paid originally, the £25m based on the release of negative goodwill, what they are valued at in the books or would they have an independent valuation done. It’s not like the current shareholders (Mike Ashley and the Easadales for example) would just want to give them away and fold the business they own substantial percentages of.
Does Dave King genuinely believe that owning 16% of Sevco means that he can just do what he wants with that company and with Rangers. That he can resurrect Rangers, take that away from the shareholders who owned it when it went into liquidation and transfer the assets from Sevco into that club.
Or, and I’m going out on a limb here, is he just talking nonsense.
Smugas
Interesting perspective in the sense that like in not finding non existing WMDs it cannot be proved they did not exist.
A huge invented cul de sac.
Evidence to the contrary like SDM’S testimony to the FTT about why RFC used ebts or the spend in 2007/08 to get access to CL money to finance the spend would be discounted as it suggests they are flying a kite.
With regard to using future CL income to buy players to win titles to finance the spend look no further than Jelavic.
With WS admitting the bank were running Rangers they somehow found £4m on instalments to sign Jelavic in 2010.
He contributed greatly to the title win in 2011 but had the second €4m tranche from CL participation the previous season not arrived in June 2011 to let them pay Rapid Vienna a due instalment they could not have kept the UEFA licence for 2011/12. They won the 2011 title with money they could not be sure of having (Unless of course they were pretty sure 😉 )
That is how they operated. Bought players with other people’s money and stiffed those other people. DK still thinks that model which killed them is the way to go.
The whole concept and principle of points deduction for administration is based on the argument -pay what other clubs have to THEN use balance to finance the football. If other clubs are following that principle and you are not its cheating and unless those principles are accepted and understood then there is no point to a game because sporting merit has been undermined.
What is frightening is that the concept of understanding and applying the principle seems beyond your friends. Like selling a charity flag to a Merchant Banker.
easyJambo says:
Member:
September 14, 2015 at 5:30 pm
I wonder if Imran Ahmad knows where the skeletons are buried re his reluctance to help with the current investigations
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34245039#
============================================================
Imran’s played an absolute blinder (for himself & his “mates”) there.
I’ll say no more, lest I impinge on legalistic matters.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13719346.UEFA_raps__reckless__Scottish_FA_over_claims_sectarianism_just_part_of_the_national_game/
oooft
Funnily enough I don’t recall im rans problem with institutionalised establishment when he was using it to bludgeon all before him. What goes around…..
Ps. Cheers auld heid. I just wish when frequenting the boozer I could remember and eloquently present a fraction of wot u just said!
STV News
Former Rangers director Imran Ahmad has said he will remain overseas and not co-operate with an investigation into the sale of the club’s assets in 2012.
AND THAT WAS IT.
Nothing that Mr Ahmad also said that he had recently “received death threats by phone and online”.
He described Rangers fans as “a tribe”, adding: “What the rest of the world will never understand unless they experience it first hand is that Rangers Football Club is a religion, in itself, built on centuries of religious bigotry.”
Will the later part of what he said be printed in the SMSM?
HOW WILL THEY DEFLECT AWAY FROM THAT STATEMENT?
Homunculus says:
Member:
September 14, 2015 at 6:34 pm
I’m guessing it is just a way to get crowd numbers up even higher.
After all, come the glorious day when the oldco is resurrected, the previous ‘seat for life’ debenture holders will want their pitches back but may find they have to sit on some incumbents knees!!
wottpi says:
Member:
September 14, 2015 at 8:47 pm
I take your point, however him effectively saying that it’s a new club can’t have gone down well.
I can see no other natural conclusion from what he said.
As a businessman if there is no economic reason for spending tens of millions of pounds, money you don’t need to spend, then why do it. Particularly on a loss making business.
If it is to stop other people saying they are a new club then you are at the very least accepting that as a legitimate argument.
Why mention it at all. We all know it isn’t going to happen and that if anyone else had said it they would be getting attacked by the support for treachery.
It’s almost like he is trying to turn them against him. The question is, why would he want to do that. Or, is it to get them onside for a rights issue. Green had plenty of stuff in his prospectus which simply never seemed to happen.
Just out of interest this is what Green said he was going to use the money from the IPO for.
After the Ahmad and UEFA criticisms of TRFC/the SFA, I checked the SFA website to see if they had issued a strong, unequivocal statement, confirming that sectarianism has no place whatsoever in Scottish football, at all – period.
So, in the absence of such statement 🙄 I did notice the following in the SFA ‘News’ section ;
“McRae and Platini discuss 2020 vision at UEFA HQ
Thursday, 27 August 2015…”
Lots of talk about development and equality objectives, which is of course good.
But no mention of the SFA 2020 Vision’s 4th Pillar ;
“Respected and Trusted to Lead”
Arguably the most important Pillar, and a pre-requisite to effectively deliver on the other objectives ?
That Pillar has yet to be erected at Hampden… 😕
IA’s comments are genuinely fascinating, but in the interests of the credibility of this site we should all acknowledge that he is hardly the most reliable of witnesses. Just saying.
Bayview Gold says:
Member:
September 14, 2015 at 7:44
‘..oooft..!’
_________
Braiden doesn’t quote any sources for his piece? Why is what presumably is not a very recent matter appearing now?
Mischief-making?
Gery Braiden of the Herald has provided me with the UEFA source for his piece reports.It’s a six-monthly digest of disciplinary. The salient pages are pages 52 and 53 or thereabouts, but you should read all the report about Ajax’s appeal and cross-appeal.
Braiden says the report has just recently been published.
http://www.uefa.org/MultimediaFiles/Download/OfficialDocument/uefaorg/UEFACompDisCases/02/12/48/82/2124882_DOWNLOAD.pdf
Bryce Curdy says:
Member:
September 14, 2015 at 9:20 pm
IA’s comments are genuinely fascinating, but in the interests of the credibility of this site we should all acknowledge that he is hardly the most reliable of witnesses. Just saying.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The problem is that King, Green, Murray (take your pick) and Whyte are all struggling on that front. Does Ahmed have any criminal convictions by the way? Just saying- I genuinely don’t know.
Homunculus says:
Member:
September 14, 2015 at 9:05 pm
‘…If it is to stop other people saying they are a new club then you are at the very least accepting that as a legitimate argument.
Why mention it at all. We all know it isn’t going to happen and that if anyone else had said it they would be getting attacked by the support for treachery.’
_________
Trying to be as objective and unpartizan ( damned American spelling!)as I can possibly be, bearing in mind that I have consistently taken the view that the big offence was that the cheating of SDM and RFC (IL) was, in my opinion, winked at and nodded through, and then, when it’s existence could no longer be denied, was not appropriately dealt with by the expulsion of RFC from Scottish Football, I find something attractive in the idea that the Administration and Liquidation could be annulled, the creditors paid in full, and RFC’s cheating properly dealt with at last, by immediate, if belated,expulsion.
Thus restoring some sense of integrity into our sport, and some trust in our sport’s governance.
If there were to be collateral damage to a great many chancers who, in their various ways have tried to con Scottish football and take the pi.s out of the rest of us with their ‘continuity’ lie, I would take that as a bonus.
And as a double bonus if the resignations/sackings of certain individuals was also to be a consequence.
I don’t suppose that fanciful notion of mine is any more fanciful than King’s. Neither is likely to become reality! 😀
John Clark says:
Member:
September 14, 2015 at 10:13 pm
==============================================
Thanks for the source!
Getting confused yet again !
So King jets in, and proclaims that TRFC is “comfortably funded for the next 6 months”, which is a surprise to most Bampots – and Phil quickly quotes a source who unsurprisingly debunks this statement.
So why even make such a public statement, if King is simply going to be shown up in due course – again – as a li…erm, being economical with the truth ?
Is it to reassure the SFA that TRFC can see out the season ?
Is it a desperate negotiating ploy ‘to fool’ Ashley that King actually has finance – and options ?
I just don’t get it… 😕
angusmac says:
Member:
September 14, 2015 at 4:56 pm
Big Pink says:
August 28, 2015 at 11:45 pm
…Unfortunately I still have no tangible progress to report on premises, but I feel sure that we will have something to say about that early next week when Tris returns from his sojourn.
………………………………
Any news??
__________________________________________________________
A lot of irons in the fire, and we’ve had more than our share of false dawns in the past few months (The Emirates thing still rankles).
We were offered a space (through the auspices of a blog member) at a football ground for a very low rent, but the facilities were not ideal. That one is still on the back burner. Finding somewhere suitable from a facilities and geographical pov is proving difficult. Cost is also a problem – especially if you get the geography right – but we don’t want to agree to something in haste.
It has put our content plans back a bit, but intermim arrangements (my garage) are in place for a resumption of the podcasts.
Thing is, our budget for rent is pretty much what we raised in donations recently, so going above that is really not an option.
It has been frustrating – particularly since work commitments have marginalised Tris’s role a bit recently and I’m spinning several plates at once.
Realistically, I think November is when we should expect to be settled in somewhere.
In fact if anyone would like to volunteer some help in areas like assisting the hunt for premises, contacting fan websites to build relationships – or even help organise the Perth thing (liaising with St J. and guests, Glasgow bus numbers etc.), please get in touch.
It might have been a quiet evening, but lots of thoughtful stuff posted on various subjects for a catch-up read.
That UEFA link section you posted (John C) really was a double ouch for the collective authorities, on top of IA’s extended rant. Bravo UEFA (not a common phrase).
I’m guessing Dave King is now somewhere between frustrating enigma and embarrasing uncle for those who hing oan tae his every utterance for some sign of the Warchest. My inner conspiracy theorist tells me he’s complaining about the treatment of the former club becuase he’s worried about any sanctions that might befall the renamed Sevco club.
PS @coineanachantaighe, cheers, obviously not a subject for the blog but appreciated your post. The parallels between the Stop the War movement pre-Iraq, and the peace movements before the Great War are stunning. I drove my two teens by the lovely backroads from Dumfries to Ayr this summer. At a remote junction in the middle of nowhere there was a war memorial set in a beautiful location. I parked and went over. I tried to explain that there’s hardly a town without one of these, and that an unusually high percentage of Scots died in the conflict. I’m not sure they knew that the soldiers remains were not returned and that these places with the names were as close as families would get to the victims. Nothing glorious about these memorials. Just sombre and sad.
Wow………….He disny miss with this 😯
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34245039
StevieBC says:
September 14, 2015 at 9:11 pm
“Respected and Trusted to Lead”
Arguably the most important Pillar, and a pre-requisite to effectively deliver on the other objectives ?
That Pillar has yet to be erected at Hampden
——————————————-
There are a number of erections within the confines of Hampden but that is unfortunately, not one of them!
I’m truly aghast at what I’ve just stumbled across on the official Daily Record website:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/record-fc-rangers-zombie-sevco-6445015
Jungle Jim says:
September 15, 2015 at 11:36 am
————————————–
It’s clearly labelled ‘opinion’, so it isn’t even masquerading as some kind of news. Strange, though is that it includes a headline which includes'”zombie, Sevco, g_lib & s_hameless”, and gives advice on what to search for online if you want to find evidence of the lamb-munching off-the-radar brigade…is it a counterintuitively devious anti-Sevco piece?
Ahmad is correct that Rangers is a religion or perhaps more accurately a sect and his claims on the basis of their theology is correct. There is a founding myth, a history and a kind of resurrection. The promised land is the Champions League and it is there that salvation is found. Any sign of heterodoxy is subject to discipline via the blogosphere Sanhedrin up to and including death threats. There are hymns exclusive to the adherents which they sing lustily in their temple and others.
The current situation has been based on what Bonhoeffer called cheap grace from which he said only led to perdition.
Dave King, the current prophet, is as trustworthy as L. Ron Hubbard but that fits into the recent ethos of the cult so, as the man says, it goes
Tartanwulver says:
September 15, 2015 at 12:29 pm
————————————–
It’s clearly labelled ‘opinion’, so it isn’t even masquerading as some kind of news
________________________
My favourite bit was the part about relying on the “same old discredited sources”.
Coming from a piece in the Daily Record that is truly off the radar 😆
Danish Pastry says:
September 15, 2015 at 7:48 am
………….
PS @coineanachantaighe, cheers, obviously not a subject for the blog but appreciated your post. The parallels between the Stop the War movement pre-Iraq, and the peace movements before the Great War are stunning. I drove my two teens by the lovely backroads from Dumfries to Ayr this summer. At a remote junction in the middle of nowhere there was a war memorial set in a beautiful location. I parked and went over. I tried to explain that there’s hardly a town without one of these, and that an unusually high percentage of Scots died in the conflict. I’m not sure they knew that the soldiers remains were not returned and that these places with the names were as close as families would get to the victims. Nothing glorious about these memorials. Just sombre and sad.
…………………………………………………………….
Agreed, Danish, not a topic for the Blog, but it does put the petty but vicious bickering over the carcase into some sort of relief.
However, the key thing to note about war memorials comes from the word itself – ‘memorial’. The names of those on a memorial are there to be remembered, not just by their families and friends, but by all of us. We all owe such a debt to those men and women, whatever the reasons for their sacrifice, that we must never forget.
‘We will remember them’
I just felt I had to put that comment in, but don’t panic lads and lassies, I’m back on topic!
Jungle Jim says:
Member:
September 15, 2015 at 11:36 am
I’m truly aghast at what I’ve just stumbled across on the official Daily Record website:
—————————————
I gave up reading less than half way through those spewings of hatred, jealousy and bitterness. If any Celtic fan buys into that rag, hell mend them. The bitterness is usually controlled to a degree, but it seems that it’s all just too much for Jonathan – oh dear.
Jungle Jim et. al.
The article in the DR is their on line blog which appears occasionally. It is not written by any of their staff but a guest fan (blogger). They are given much more freedom to let rip. I have seen one’s by Celtic writers with much the same type of tone.
Not sticking up for the rag but just putting it in context.
Assuming you came across it on NewsNow, If the article title begins:
Rangers FC Record,
or
Celtic FC Record,
It’s a bolg.