Reflections on Goalposts


Slimshady61 says: January 28, 2014 at 3:53 pm But really the …

Comment on Reflections on Goalposts by ecobhoy.

slimshady61 says:
January 28, 2014 at 3:53 pm

But really the only sub-terranean movement that interests me is the final twitchings of the cadaver of Rangers Football Club plc (In Liquidation).
Funnily enough I know a pretty deep mineshaft not far from Parkhead 😆

Only problem is that the capping slab is 2.5 x 2.5 metres square and 700mm thick – still I’m sure we can levitate it.

ecobhoy Also Commented

Reflections on Goalposts
GeronimosCadillac says:
January 29, 2014 at 9:14 pm
Giovanni says:
January 29, 2014 at 7:11 pm

In respect of the re-emergence of Mr Whyte and his claim on the RIFC/TRFC assets I remembered a statement, which at the time I thought rather unusual, in the IPO Prospectus by Messrs DM Hall.

“ We have not had the opportunity of inspecting the Title Deeds of the subjects under valuation and, for the purposes of our valuation, we have assumed that the subjects are held under Title which is the equivalent of Heritable Ownership (formerly Feudal) unless otherwise stated as being subject to a Lease. We have further assumed that the properties are free from encumbrances, restrictions or outgoings of an onerous nature which would have a material impact on the value.”

I realise they’d only been asked to do a “desk top” valuation as they’d carried out an earlier full valuation but surely, under the circumstances, they’d have said “show us the deeds”?

NB. For the avoidance of doubt I am not that Giovanni. Nor am I in anyway connected with him
It is a loosely worded statement and I recall commenting on that at the time.

Instead of DM Hall stating they had made a series of “assumptions” they could have asked their client for confirmation and then they could have written something more convincing like ” RIFC have confirmed to us that they own the properties outright and there are no incumberences etc” instead of saying “we haven’t checked anything and you know what we didn’t even bother to ask”
I remember a way back 2011 maybe that there was a lot of talk that the ground at Auchenhowie was actually on a very long lease from Kelvinside Academy to Rangers. I dismissed it at the time because I couldn’t believe that Murray would spend £14 million or whatever building Murray Park if he didn’t own the actual land.

And it flitted back into my head the first time I read the DM Hall report but again I didn’t do anything as there was so much else going on. Maybe the Bear Land ‘Experts’ could check things out 😥

Now defo off to my scratcher

Reflections on Goalposts
Auldheid says:
January 29, 2014 at 7:30 pm


Brownfield/Greenfield. The lad is tenacious.
Lennox Castle Hospital was Brownfield: Tale of Two Planning Decisions on One Site
He might be tenacious but he doesn’t have a scoobie about planning 😆

What has to be remembered is that he is now accepting that the Celtic site is designated Greenfield. Originally his argument was it was housebuilding land so worth a fortune but sold cheap to Celtic as part of a corrupt plot carried out by Celtic and Glasgow Health Board.

I think he now realises having read or heard about my posts that he’s Xmas-crackered on that argument so now he’s off on another tangent. He’s made basic mistake after basic mistake and is either an idiot or a liar or a combination of both.

I’ll do a post tomorrow and now a bit more demolition work. But I had to laugh when I came in there and had a quick look at his site. He doesn’t seem to realise that on a large site like Lennox Castle you can have a number of different land uses.

As usual he displays the Bear ignorance of history because the area started off as agricultural land and was then bought by a toff who built the Castle and created an estate by landscaping the grounds and also creating extensive parklands.

Then the estate was sold to the NHS who built Lennox Castle Hospital there and when that closed circa 2000 the vast majority of the hospital buildings were demolished by the Health Board for sdafety and security reasons. The staff accomodation wan’t demolished and neither – if I remember correctly – were some lodge houses.

So there has been an ever-changing scenario of different uses and planning consents going on there for a helluva long time. And it’s still happening. But for him to think that a ‘brownfield’ site can’t be turned over to Greenbelt is quite wierd. He seems to be losing the plot but watched the game had a few pints and I’m heading to bed 😉

Reflections on Goalposts
blu says:
January 29, 2014 at 2:03 pm
ecobhoy says:
January 29, 2014 at 1:28 pm
ecobhoy, I’m sure you’re right about pzj but I think you’re being very kind to Giovanni the convicted fraudster with the lively imagination. If he was any good at it he’d have joined the gang in Govan.
Used to love Giovanni’s capers – he could brighten the dullest of days. Total loon ball but amusing with it.

Recent Comments by ecobhoy

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Insolvency events

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

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

In particular I look at:

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

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

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

Perhaps the SPFL are thinking ahead ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About the author