Reflections on Goalposts

ByDanish Pastry

Reflections on Goalposts

A recent autumn storm caused the destruction of the metal goal fame in our garden. The small goal with the weather-beaten net had fallen into disuse. But I liked it seeing it there on the grass. I suppose I half-expected, half-hoped, it would be used again. Once, it was a father and son thing and had been constructed carefully from a nice set of plans. At the time, it impressed both son and daughter no end. But that was then, this was now.

One of our trees, blown over by the recent high winds, caused the goal frame’s final demise. As I unscrewed the twisted metal I thought of the hours of innocent fun it had given us. It had been the scene of many goals and not a few great saves. My son, who is soon off to uni, smiled thoughtfully as I mentioned that this was the end of the ‘goalposts of childhood’. Perhaps he knew what I meant.

My own childhood goalposts had been ‘doon the back’. Drawn with chalk on the red brick of the ‘sausage wall’ at one end, and on part of the ‘wash hoose’ at the other. Many a league, Cup and international match was played out between those goals on the Dennistoun dirt. We once put on a parallel version of a historic England v Scotland match while the real match was being played at Wembley. Jim Mone sitting on one of the dykes had a transister radio to his ear. As we played our match he chalked up live score updates on the wall — our Twitter and FaceBook anno 1967. What a day.

We did use a pile of jackets up on the old Dennistoun cricket pitch, but only rarely. Mostly, we played on the red gravel surface at the Finlay Drive entrance. That pitch was fitted with real goalposts — like the ones they had at Hampden. Or so we imagined.

These sentimental memories of receding years accompanied my removal of the ruined metal goal frame. But, as you can imagine, it seemed an almost symbolic act. For fans of Scottish football the ‘goalposts’ that once defined the game of our football childhoods — have not only been moved, they’ve been been twisted and mis-shapen out of all recognition.

The past decades have seen a fundamental change in the way our game is run and governed, at home and abroad. Money is now king and sporting consideration is a luxury we sometimes have to put to one side — or at least, so we’re told.

At the risk of stating the obvious, sport, if it is to mean anything at all, has to be based on clearly defined rules and principles. These rules must be applied equally to all the participants, they are certainly not optional extras. However, to misquote and paraphrase George Orwell, ‘all teams are equal, but some teams are more equal than others’ — at least, when it comes to Scottish football.

The efforts by the SFA to re-interpret rules to fit the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the demise of Rangers FC in 2012 have left most of us scratching our heads. Much of the Scottish media has backed up the SFA’s efforts, something which has added to the general confusion and chaos. In fact, it’s become clear that the death of Rangers, as we knew them, has been such a traumatic event that it must be denied. The authorities and media seem to have been so besotted with one club that its loss is out of the question. And so, it’s been gifted a bizarre kind of immunity from liquidation and death that implies its on-going existence, long after it drew it’s final breath.

This situation has opened the door to a legion of businessmen on the make. They have been allowed to perpetuate the myth, with SFA blessing, that they ‘saved’ Rangers. And their unwavering message is, that they can only succeed if fans keep giving them their hard-earned cash. To those outside the blue bubble it looks like a huge con trick. If the only source of real money in football is the fans, then the Ibrox faithful have been royally fleeced.

How different it could have been if the former club had been allowed a dignified end. A year out of the game would probably have allowed fans to restart a newco of their own. They could have applied for entry into the professional leagues along with the other clubs waiting in line. Chances are they would have been given special dispensation, and walked straight into the bottom tier. Of course, they would have claimed to be the continuation of the spirit of the previous entity — but would anyone have argued against that? How different it could have been if the rules governing the game had been respected. The SFA may even have kept their dignity intact and the press not felt obliged to print half-truths, falsehoods and lies.

You’ve got to wonder why Dunfermline and Hearts fought so desperately to avoid liquidation. After all, the Scottish football authorities now seem intent on convincing us that liquidation has little or no effect on a football club. Even past sins, such as wrongly-registered players are as naught — if, at the time, they were thought to have been registered correctly. By this logic, we have to ask: if a ‘company’ running a ‘club’ bribes a referee, will retrospective action will be taken against the ‘club’. The players and the club, after all, will have done nothing wrong. And since the referee was not known to have been bribed, and not struck off, he was qualified to referee the match in question, at the time. Using the SFA thought process, the result would probably be allowed to stand. Personally, I’m not sure I follow SFA logic. They’ve ‘moved the goalposts’, and (you saw it coming) bent them into an unrecognisable shape.

Which brings me back to our garden. The old metal goal frame is waiting to be driven down to the local re-cycling centre. The twisted metal and worn-out net are useless. Ruined by forces beyond our control. There is no interest in a replacement at present. Perhaps, if we have grandchildren, they will show an interest in football. If they do, I’ll build a new set of goalposts. They’ll be straight and true, the way the goalposts of childhood should be. The way goalposts should always be.

About the author

Danish Pastry author

4,642 Comments so far

StevieBCPosted on7:57 pm - Jan 2, 2014


Adeste Fideles says: (4)
January 2, 2014 at 6:07 pm


**
Two words: league reconstruction.
==============================
‘Absolutely’ !

…you know it’s coming…as ridiculous as that would appear to reasonable folks.

Except this time there will a major, full-on PR campaign co-ordinated with the MSM / SFA / SPFL / MH / TRFC / and assorted ex-players of different clubs, politicians, z-list celebrities etc.

Why would our incompetent / corrupt administrators think it won’t work this time either ?

SAY NO TO SEVCO ! 🙄

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on8:03 pm - Jan 2, 2014


Jim Traynor was clearly cheering on his beloved @@@@@@@

View Comment

scottcPosted on8:04 pm - Jan 2, 2014


StevieBC says: (964)
January 2, 2014 at 7:57 pm

Adeste Fideles says: (4)

**
Two words: league reconstruction.
==============================
‘Absolutely’ !

…you know it’s coming…as ridiculous as that would appear to reasonable folks.

Is there not a three year moratorium on reconstruction or was that only if they got the 12/12( 8/8/8) /we-don’t-really-care-about-the-rest format?

View Comment

neepheidPosted on8:06 pm - Jan 2, 2014


http://www.bdo.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/118993/Rangers-Creditors-Report-15-November-2013.PDF

BDO report november 2013-First time I’ve seen this- apologies if posted already

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on8:13 pm - Jan 2, 2014


scottc says: (406)
January 2, 2014 at 8:04 pm

StevieBC says: (964)
January 2, 2014 at 7:57 pm

Adeste Fideles says: (4)

**
Two words: league reconstruction.
==============================
‘Absolutely’ !

…you know it’s coming…as ridiculous as that would appear to reasonable folks.

Is there not a three year moratorium on reconstruction or was that only if they got the 12/12( 8/8/8) /we-don’t-really-care-about-the-rest format?
=====================================
Honestly have no idea scottc.

But we have learned over the last couple of years that when it comes to rules and regulations at the SFA / SPFL, they are regarded more as ‘optional guidelines’… 😉

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on8:15 pm - Jan 2, 2014


GoosyGoosy says: (496)
January 2, 2014 at 7:01 pm
Spot on.
I couldn’t agree more.
Corporate arrogance at its worst.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on8:27 pm - Jan 2, 2014


Thanks for the link.

This part is quite intriguing.

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

However, due to the highly sensitive nature of certain aspects of these investigations,
we consider that it is not appropriate to provide full details in respect of our investigations to
date in this circular. In particular, we are not in a position to comment in detail upon the following matters:

• The litigation commenced by the former Joint Administrators against Collyer Bristow
(“the CB litigation”, which has been mentioned briefly in the Administrators’ previous
reports to creditors);

• The events leading up to the administration and the conduct of the former Joint
Administrators;

• The conduct of the Company’s directors prior to the administration; and

• The appeal by HMRC in respect of the Employee Benefit Trust (“EBT”) decision.

View Comment

FisianiPosted on8:29 pm - Jan 2, 2014


The Rangrs bingo game rules are simple.
Choose the date when The Rangers administration is announced.
My pick is May 22nd 2014

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on8:39 pm - Jan 2, 2014


Fisiani says: (56)
January 2, 2014 at 8:29 pm
Administration isn’t a given for TRFC IMO.
If GW can cut costs sufficiently and Season Ticket prices are increased substantially then they should be ok-just
However the austerity will need to be brutal- some trimming won’t suffice.

View Comment

Bryce CurdyPosted on8:43 pm - Jan 2, 2014


Ecobhoy 6:01 pm

I agree with most of your post. Mackenzie representing the SPL presented a case that can at best be described as inept and at worst as corrupt. I agree that as a result LNS et al would have struggled to justify so called title stripping (a more accurate description would be reversal of results a la Spartans and the inevitable consequences). In saying that, I do not accept that LNS et al had no choice other than to accept ‘the Bryson interpretation’. I have copied and pasted below part of my article from CQN magazine published shortly following the verdict. I also question LNS et al’s claim that no sporting advantage was gained; I disagree and don’t understand the need in any case to express any opinion. I also was perplexed by the panel’s claim that the improper registration was deliberate but somehow at the same time not dishonest. LNS et al may have had little wriggle room, but I do not accept that they were not part of the stitch up. My suspicion is that the consequences of a club playing numerous ineligible players in European consequences for over a decade were simply unpalatable to the establishment.

My thoughts on ‘the Byson interpretation’ from CQN magazine:

The report did not state who cited Mr Bryson.
It did not state why an important member of the potential appellate body was cited.
It did not state who held the equivalent role to Mr Bryson at the SPL.
It did not explain why that individual was not cited.
It did not state why the SFA interpretation was not stated in any relevant rules.
It did not explain why consistency between SPL and SFA regulations trumped either individual body’s regulations.
It did not explain why the panel chose to prefer an interpretation that appeared to defy natural justice and common sense over one that did not.
It did not explain why the panel chose to prefer an unwritten and seemingly ad hoc interpretation that appeared to defy natural justice and common sense over a clearly written and unambiguous rule that did not.
It did not explain why, in an investigation into SPL player eligibility, the panel chose to prefer the SFA unwritten and seemingly ad hoc regulation that appeared to defy natural justice and common sense over the SPL clearly written and unambiguous rule that did not.
No precedents were cited; none have been since to the best of my knowledge.
Perhaps most importantly of all, it did not explain why, given the information in the public domain, the head of SFA regulations (Mr Bryson) or indeed the SFA President and former ‘Rangers’ secretary for much of the period in question (Campbell Ogilvie) did not seek to clarify the status of then current ‘Rangers’ players?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:48 pm - Jan 2, 2014


neepheid says: (968)
January 2, 2014 at 8:06 pm
‘…BDO report november 2013..’
——————–
Well spotted, neepheid. I don’t think I’ve seen any mention of it already and wasn’t even looking for it yet, so would probably have missed it altogether.
Nice to read that there are still ‘highly sensitive’ aspects of BDO’s investigations still being sensitively investigated.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on8:51 pm - Jan 2, 2014


I genuinely can’t see how they do it.

For the 13 month period there was a £14m trading loss.

Income from Gate Receipts and Hospitality was £13,224,000

Assuming a 50% increase in that, that’s basically all ticketing including hospitality packages, then that brings in £6,612,000.

The rest of the income comes from

Sponsorship and advertising £819,000
Retail £1,60,000
Broadcasting rights £778,000
Commercial £974,000
Other operating income £1,705,000.

If we assume some sort of increases in those, and i’m just making a number up, let’s say the income can increase to £8,000,000.

That still leaves a deficit of £6,000,000 to come from cost cutting, just to make it into a break even business.

That’s assuming they can get to the next load of season tickets being sold, and the fans will wear the increases in costs, whilst seeing the cuts being made at the same time. The numbers just don’t work for me.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on9:03 pm - Jan 2, 2014


I’m pretty certain that the Liquidation Committee (let’s be honest, HMRC) will be keen for these sensitive issues to be fully investigated by the Liquidator.

In particular

• The events leading up to the administration and the conduct of the former Joint
Administrators;

• The conduct of the Company’s directors prior to the administration; and

• The appeal by HMRC in respect of the Employee Benefit Trust (“EBT”) decision.

As discussed previously. Liquidation is not just about realising assets and dividing up the proceeds. It is about investigating what happened and who was responsible.

“Malcolm leads the firms’ National Contentious Insolvency Team, this team is dedicated to recovering assets through litigation, cross border investigations and uncovering fraud. “

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on9:07 pm - Jan 2, 2014


Sorry for so many posts in quick succession.

However my numbers of a wee while ago also explain why there is no way I can see them getting rid of McCoist. Never mind what it would cost, he must be their only chance to keep the fans onside and buying tickets etc, particularly if there are the swingeing cuts some people expect.

He has done it before when they were really struggling.

I’ll shut up now.

View Comment

buddy_hollyPosted on9:19 pm - Jan 2, 2014


neepheid says: (968)
January 2, 2014 at 8:06 pm
5 0 Rate This

http://www.bdo.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/118993/Rangers-Creditors-Report-15-November-2013.PDF

BDO report november 2013-First time I’ve seen this- apologies if posted already

neepheid,

Just catching up from hogmanay, I had not seen that report here (or elsewhere).

Well done for your actions in fishing it out.

I did not realise that doucment was publicly accessible , as the previous report is too!

Interesting reading though!

Will be interesting if the reserved matters will come along to much.

Buddy

View Comment

justpedylanPosted on9:24 pm - Jan 2, 2014


Adeste Fideles says: (4)

Tif Finn says: (1152)
January 2, 2014 at 4:55 pm
8 0 Rate This

I just don’t see any facility for “fast tracking” any team. The rules are there and have been agreed by the teams who now form the league. Now one league with four divisions. One set of rules.

**

Two words: league reconstruction.
_________________________________
Two more words : Sporting Merit. It was used to fast track Fiorentina after their demotions after bankruptcy.

Frankly if our corrupt authorities can get away with it they will.

View Comment

chancer67Posted on9:26 pm - Jan 2, 2014


Attendance at Easter Road given as 20,106 with 3,840 away fans, Spew Keevins wont be happy.

View Comment

buddy_hollyPosted on9:29 pm - Jan 2, 2014


Tif Finn says: (1159)
January 2, 2014 at 9:07 pm
2 0 Rate This

Sorry for so many posts in quick succession.

However my numbers of a wee while ago also explain why there is no way I can see them getting rid of McCoist. Never mind what it would cost, he must be their only chance to keep the fans onside and buying tickets etc, particularly if there are the swingeing cuts some people expect.

He has done it before when they were really struggling.

I’ll shut up now.

Tif Finn,

keep going all good posts…

With mccoist on £800,000 and a long contract, it will not be cheap to sell him off. Maybe he will do walking away and forego all costs??? doubtful i know.

However £800,000 per year is £15,000 per week.

On the basis that most SPFL championshup players are on aout £500 per week (using falkirk as my basis) , the room is there to build a reasonable team, if not at least a reasoable spine. Especially as many out of contract players have always wanted to play for rangers.

Far fetched I realise but more likely than Graham Wallace making swingeing cuts to the playing staff.

Buddy

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:45 pm - Jan 2, 2014


chancer67 says: (113)
January 2, 2014 at 9:26 pm
3 0 Rate This

Attendance at Easter Road given as 20,106 with 3,840 away fans, Spew Keevins wont be happy.
———–

Brilliant. Biggest crowd since 1994, and what a match. Credit to struggling Hearts for making a match of it, but Hibs could have hit 5.

Scottish football is dying by the way. Aye, right.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:48 pm - Jan 2, 2014


Thoroughly enjoyed the Edinburgh derby. Two committed teams and a cracking atmosphere, with the biggest crowd at Easter Road in twenty years. Hibs deserved it IMO, but a young Hearts team defended like their lives depended on it.

Armageddon my erchie!

Edit: Just how would fast tracking Rangers have improved the spectacle tonight? I’d really love to know!

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:07 pm - Jan 2, 2014


Bryce Curdy says: (21)
January 2, 2014 at 8:43 pm
======================================
You must bear in mind that there isn’t a transcript of the hearing and various evidential documents weren’t provided and neither were statements by the Counsel.

It’s easy to critise these factors and others but we have to remember the climate of the time in which there was a great deal of fear regarding personal safety issues which obviously was taken seriously.

OK to the Q & A:

Q: The report did not state who cited Mr Bryson.
A: The SPL was responsible for the investigation and the preparatory work through the solicitors employed by them and I believe the witnesses to be called in support of the SPL case. Obviously witnesses for ‘Rangers’ would be their own resposibility.

Q: It did not state why an important member of the potential appellate body was cited.
A: the simple answer usually is because it’s thought they have evidence worth giving. If you are referring to CO it would seem to be a logical choice to me as he certainly has a personal knowledge that few others actually have. Whether he would be ‘helpful’ is open question IMO but sometimes even hostile witnesses are called to get their ‘story’ on the record. This type of tactic would be discussed between the SPL staff involved, their Counsel and solicitors as part of deciding which witnesses should be called.

Q: It did not state who held the equivalent role to Mr Bryson at the SPL.
A: I didn’t think that there was an equivalent role.

Q: It did not explain why that individual was not cited.
A: See above. But if such an position exists at the SPL then he may well have given evidence – we just don’t know.

Q: It did not state why the SFA interpretation was not stated in any relevant rules.
A: I’m not actually clear what is meant here but will assume you are referring to the Bryson Definition. It might be annoying but rule books can never cover every single situation which might arise and rule books are invariably designed to provide sufficient leeway for an organisation to create a new rule to cover a specific situation and also to make its own interpretation of an existing rule/s.

Q: It did not explain why consistency between SPL and SFA regulations trumped either individual body’s regulations.
A: Again I am not really clear in what you state. SPL Counsel at first argued a counter-case to that presented by Bryson but then actually withdrew from the SPL line and accepted that the Bryson Definition could be held to be correct. You must always remember that the objectives of the SPL and SFA as organisations vary widely.

Q: It did not explain why the panel chose to prefer an interpretation that appeared to defy natural justice and common sense over one that did not.
A: One of the ways to achieve natural justice is to ensure that ineligible players aren’t allowed to participate under the applicable rules as this would affect Sporting Integrity. Therefore if the SPL agrees with the SFA interpretation, with no dissenting from Rangers, there is no legal room for the LNS members to make a contrary decision.

Q: It did not explain why the panel chose to prefer an unwritten and seemingly ad hoc interpretation that appeared to defy natural justice and common sense over a clearly written and unambiguous rule that did not.
A: We don’t know whether the Bryson Definition is unwritten or not and we also don’t know whether it was an ad-hoc decision. The failure of the SPL to establish these points is probably their most serious failure before LNS. Therefore it’s not really feasible to put your theory against the rule although if you read Rod McKenzie on the issue (SPL Counsel) he starts off with what appears to be a clear and unambiguous rule and ditches it in favoiur of Bryson’s position.

Q: It did not explain why, in an investigation into SPL player eligibility, the panel chose to prefer the SFA unwritten and seemingly ad hoc regulation that appeared to defy natural justice and common sense over the SPL clearly written and unambiguous rule that did not.
A: This is becoming a little circular but when all parties at a hearing agree on something, like the interpretation of a rule on player eligibility, then a decision by LNS to rule the opposite would most likely be overturned at Appeal.

Q: No precedents were cited; none have been since to the best of my knowledge.
A: I would have thought most precedents would have been contained in the statements by Counsel but from memory there were other precedents mentioned although I would require to look at the two separeate Hearings was it? What certainly wasn’t mentioned that I can see is detailed mention of other previous cases where players were ruled to be ineligible and action taken against them or their club.

Q: Perhaps most importantly of all, it did not explain why, given the information in the public domain, the head of SFA regulations (Mr Bryson) or indeed the SFA President and former ‘Rangers’ secretary for much of the period in question (Campbell Ogilvie) did not seek to clarify the status of then current ‘Rangers’ players?.

A: Tbh I don’t think it was the role of CO to do as you suggest and if he did it would be difficult for him to defend himself against being even more conflicted than he appears to be. The decision had been made to clarify the status of the Rangers players through LNS and it was too late to jump ship on that one. Wrt to Bryson we don’t know when the SPL learnt of his definition and/or whether anyone else at the SFA was aware of it pre-LNS. Always worth remembering that just because info is in the public domain doesn’t make it correct and even if it is it deserves in a serious issue like this to be ‘tested’ and not just accepted on common-sense grounds which often differ widely depending or personal prejudice and perception,

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on10:13 pm - Jan 2, 2014


Dozy Doncaster’s comments on Fit And Proper Person was worrying A fingers in the ears ‘la la la la la la la’ type of thing. Enter stage left The Liar King.They wouldn’t recognise integrity if it came gift wrapped from an old guy in a red suit and sporting a big white beard.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on10:14 pm - Jan 2, 2014


Well played both sides in the Edinburgh New Year Derby, and I include the teams and the support in that.

Speaking as a neutral I thought it was an excellent spectacle, and a good advert for Scottish football shown live on Sky Sports. I really hope a good few people outside of Scotland watched that.

A great turnout of passionate supporters really getting behind their teams, brilliant effort from both sides who fought to the last kick of a ball. Football is at it’s best when a league game has the feel of a cup tie.

Great night for Armageddon, Fan-Tastic.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on10:16 pm - Jan 2, 2014


“biggest crowd at Easter Road in 20 years” : that is really deserving of a wow just wow!

And to capitalise on this significant, positive PR you would think that the SPFL CEO, the SFA CEO – and even the SFA President – would be all over the SMSM on Friday, talking up the Scottish game and what a great advert the Edinburgh derby is for Scottish football.

Anything less from the main administrative figures would appear like dereliction of duty… (I know 🙁 )

View Comment

Reilly1926Posted on10:25 pm - Jan 2, 2014


Fisiani says: (56)

January 2, 2014 at 8:29 pm

The Rangrs bingo game rules are simple.
Choose the date when The Rangers administration is announced.
My pick is May 22nd 2014
===================
By now Doncaster will have been asked the question of the points deduction when they fall into administration. Once they are leading their league by this amount plus 10 points I would expect it then.

My Bingo guess is 17th March.

One thing’s for sure if it’s going to happen it will be this season. They would have no chance of gaining promotion into the top tier if it happened next season.

Well done Hibs tonight. A great turnout also.

View Comment

justshateredPosted on10:42 pm - Jan 2, 2014


There was talk a few months ago of a rule change being debated that a team in administration could not be promoted. Does anyone know if the debate went ahead?

It has always seemed strange to me that a club with a flawed business model, and that can’t pay its way, should be rewarded by promotion, gaining more revenue while claiming it can’t pay it’s creditors.

View Comment

Bryce CurdyPosted on10:46 pm - Jan 2, 2014


ecobhoy 10:07 pm – I’m a huge fan of yours on this site, but with the definite exception of your reference to ‘fear regarding personal safety’ and the possible exception of your response to my point regarding Mr Bryson’s equivalent at the SPL (although I do find it hard to believe that nobody within that organisation held that role / responsibility) I am utterly unmoved by your responses to my other points. While recognising that Mackenzie’s arguments were feeble, I still cannot accept that the LNS panel was forced into some sort of corner; they had some flexibility.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:50 pm - Jan 2, 2014


ecobhoy says: (2143)

January 2, 2014 at 10:07 pm

I think your consistent point which I understand, hard to take as it is, about the outcome of the LNS Commission , is that it could only arrive at the decision it did given the evidence and arguments presented to it by SPL Counsel and the SFA, no matter how bizarre.

It surely follows by the same ;logic that the SPL could only prepare their case on the evidence supplied to it by Rangers administrators Duff and Phelps and that if that evidence was withheld that must have been in Rangers possession and which Campbell Ogilvie knew about and it were presented, the SPFL would have no option but to put aside the LNS Commission and review matters in light of what any of the new evidence presented?

Basically if Rangers cheated the SPL by withholding important info, then the LNS Commission has to be set aside or reconvened?

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on10:53 pm - Jan 2, 2014


Found this interesting:

D. Forensic IT and Accounting
Partner 2.00 hours, £1,398.00
Manager/Director 184.75 hours, £82,513.50
Assistant Manager 166.50 hours, £59,515.00
Senior Executive 233.75 hours, £78,762.50

587.00 hours, £222,189.00
Average hourly rate £378.52

http://www.bdo.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/118993/Rangers-Creditors-Report-15-November-2013.PDF
Page 8

With almost 600 hours of “forensic” activity in this 4 month period alone it looks like BDO are deadly serious in preparing a legal case. I wonder what matters have grabbed their attention and are racking up the costs?

View Comment

indy14Posted on10:59 pm - Jan 2, 2014


I’ll go for my birthday the 29th March If I remember my B’day was eventful back in 2010/2011…anyone?

View Comment

scottcPosted on10:59 pm - Jan 2, 2014


Tif Finn says: (1160)

That’s assuming they can get to the next load of season tickets being sold, and the fans will wear the increases in costs, whilst seeing the cuts being made at the same time. The numbers just don’t work for me.

It’s certainly a worry 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

View Comment

scottcPosted on11:01 pm - Jan 2, 2014


indy14 says: (11)
January 2, 2014 at 10:59 pm
0 0 Rate This

I’ll go for my birthday the 29th March If I remember my B’day was eventful back in 2010/2011…anyone?

SNAP on the birthday!

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:19 pm - Jan 2, 2014


Tellingly only 2 hours spent on it by the partner. Suggests its fairly black and white, one way or the other.

My bingo entry is similar but I’m still in the no admin camp overall. Would expect to see title won +26pts, then admin to clear the decks, the bench and a few coaching posts, one in particular!

On reconstruction, I firmly believe we’re all now seeing the rejected middle-8 proposal now for what it truly was. Acceleration by another name,

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on11:25 pm - Jan 2, 2014


Smugas says: (661)
January 2, 2014 at 11:19 pm

Acceleration by another name,

—————————————–

Depression quickly setting in 🙁

View Comment

SmugasPosted on11:42 pm - Jan 2, 2014


It just fits too well as a coincidence Jean that’s all.

Business Plan to SFA says they can glory on for two years max being pretendy gers assuming the institutions fund the working capital (loss) and the fans basically pay off the spivs (so they thought). Suddenly in steps the authorities with a magical plan to see RFCnew playing SPL opposition within 18 months.

Maybe it was just a coincidence after all. 😀

View Comment

ptd1978Posted on11:51 pm - Jan 2, 2014


Celtics attendance figures for the last two games certainly shouldn’t be used to pretend they need (some version of) Rangers.
What they do show though is rather obvious. If you put a game on telly, some folk will stay in and watch it instead of braving the cold and wet. The only mystery about it is why Celtic home games don’t get televised more often when the last 2 games show they are gaining a significant financial advantage through the current arrangement of having the vast majority of their away games shown.
It takes a special “I was there” kind of game to be shown on TV and not have gate receipts suffer. It’s got nothing to do with Rangers old or new. Frankly Celtic are better off without any fans who left cos the Rangers games are gone.

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on11:52 pm - Jan 2, 2014


With regard to the report by BDO ( and thanks to neepheid for drawing our attention to it),I find the following extract from paragraph 4 interesting :

“..Given the level of the potential EBT claim, the Company remains as a defendant to the process,
but the costs are currently being funded by a third party. The cost to the liquidation estate in
adopting this approach is therefore minimal. ”

I assume the third party referred to here is MGH as joint appellants but why should they be concerned with bearing the costs of a liquidated entity? I think they have a much better chance of winning the appeal in cases that don’t involve any failure to register payments with third parties such as the SFA. Are the EBT arrangements so inextricably linked? I thought I read here that the Judge hearing the appeal had indicated they would be treated separately? In any case seems to me an absurd position for MHG to agree to fund the appeal in its entirety

http://www.bdo.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/118993/Rangers-Creditors-Report-15-November-2013.PDF

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on11:55 pm - Jan 2, 2014


I hear the BDO report is out and the only titbit of news is SPFL not pursuing sevco for player registration fine on oldco – £250k

OLDCO punished with £250k fine because CLUB did not register players properly – players and clubs are registered at SFA not companies.
Newco, despite being the same club are not picking up the fine because they are a NEWCO

So, did SPFL punish the club for registration issues or the company – who are not responsible for registration issues.

and if it’s the club, why aren’t the SAME club paying that fine for their earlier crimes?

Ah, it’s the cake and eat it Sevco clumpany situation, move along!

View Comment

GoosyGoosyPosted on12:02 am - Jan 3, 2014


td1978 says: (116)

January 2, 2014 at 11:51 pm
Frankly Celtic are better off without any fans who left cos the Rangers games are gone.
,,,,,,,,,,,
If thats why they left
they aint coming back
cos Rangers are deid

View Comment

BrendaPosted on12:07 am - Jan 3, 2014


Did Moshni ‘unbelievably’ in more ways than one get a second yellow in the tunnel at full time??

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on12:27 am - Jan 3, 2014


For what it’s worth, I believe the LNS commission reached the only decisions it was able to make.

The question for LNS is not in regard to the reasoning behind their decision. What they should answer, is why the commission’s choices were deliberately restricted because they chose to adopt an adversarial system. Rather than seeking the truth by properly examining the evidence, the commission bound themselves to the evidence as it was presented and automatically accepted all matters that were agreed by the allegedly “competing” parties.

Had they conducted proceedings on an Inquisitorial basis, the personal (and professional) burden of gathering evidence and questioning witnesses independently would almost certainly have led them to quite different conclusions. You may think they knew that before they started…

Mr Green really did protest too much. In reality, there was very little that Rangers (old & new) did not get in relation to their preferred outcome and, of course, this corresponded very well with what was required by the SPL’s commercial imperative.

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on12:30 am - Jan 3, 2014


No chance of a fast tracking or another league reconstruction.
Us bampots won’t allow it and our clubs know it

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:54 am - Jan 3, 2014


HirsutePursuit says: (465)

January 3, 2014 at 12:27 am

2

0

Rate This

Quantcast

For what it’s worth, I believe the LNS commission reached the only decisions it was able to make.

Agreed but with this amendment.

For what it’s worth, I believe the LNS Commission, as it was commissioned, reached the only decisions it was able to make.

View Comment

nickmcguinnessPosted on1:12 am - Jan 3, 2014


It looks like CharlotteFakes has popped up again on Twitter as @RangersInter
And as a present we have a full list of SevcoScotland shareholders who transferred their holdings to TRIFC PLC.
We are invited to join the dots . . .
http://www.scribd.com/doc/195231558/TRFCL-to-RIFC-Share-Exchange-Agreement

View Comment

FisianiPosted on1:13 am - Jan 3, 2014


All this talk of fast tracking is just chatter to fill radio shows and newspapers. It keeps the myth alive of a Rangers surviving and triumphing. It makes the Bears read the papers and listen to the radio.It brings them hope when there should be despair. A poster above claimed the BDO report was out and was harmless- nonsense. They need to live on myth and legend for there is no money and that is king. There will still be MSM talk of fabulous riches and intended signbings of superstars right up till the baillifs knock on the doors.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on1:36 am - Jan 3, 2014


Auldheid says: (1123)
January 3, 2014 at 12:54 am
1 0 Rate This

I don’t believe LNS was formally commissioned on the basis that they must adopt an adversarial approach. It was apparently a choice made by the commission itself to construct its “enquiry” in this way.

Some will say, it had to be thus. The commission simply could not have accepted such flawed terms of reference if the members had personal and professional responsibility for examining its logic against the accepted norms of the time. Acting as judges instead of inquisitors meant that they simply had to adjudicate on a debating contest rather than seek out the truth.

Some will say that from the very start the commission members would have understood the part they were expected to play. Some will say they played their part like seasoned pros.

View Comment

buddy_hollyPosted on2:24 am - Jan 3, 2014


nickmcguinness says: (154)
January 3, 2014 at 1:12 am
7 0 Rate This

It looks like CharlotteFakes has popped up again on Twitter as @RangersInter
And as a present we have a full list of SevcoScotland shareholders who transferred their holdings to TRIFC PLC.
We are invited to join the dots . . .
http://www.scribd.com/doc/195231558/TRFCL-to-RIFC-Share-Exchange-Agreement

Very interesting set of information, but why release now!!

Lots of interesting people on the list.

Would it be too far to state that as a minimum the investors in TRFC who had their allotment into RIFC are fundamentally those in charge of the spivvery?

These give 33 million shares in RIFC, there is 66 million in circulation and 100 million in theory to be issued, another 33 million RIFC shares remained unissued.

Buddy

View Comment

buddy_hollyPosted on2:32 am - Jan 3, 2014


The Rab C. Nesbitt special tonight at 10 pm BBC1 had the following quote while recruiting his merry men.

Rab C: Can you live with being a cuckold?
Merry Man:I was a rangers supporter during the craig whyte era, i am used to being gangbanged .

Note :A Cuckold historically referred to a husband with an adulterous wife and is still often used with this meaning.

Not bad…

Not as good as the musical chairs in the Ibrox Board Room to decide chairman, that was superb!

Buddy

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on8:14 am - Jan 3, 2014


Saw a link to this SPFL survey on another forum. Supposed to part of a business project by a university student. Might be of interest:

https://strathbusiness.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_domrKGWbmuqWM9D

PS Apologies if this is old news. I don’t think I’ve seen it before though

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on8:48 am - Jan 3, 2014


Person Of The Year.

Article from 200%
We get a wee mention :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

http://twohundredpercent.net/?p=25177

View Comment

aenmac75Posted on8:55 am - Jan 3, 2014


http://www.scribd.com/doc/195231558/TRFCL-to-RIFC-Share-Exchange-Agreement

RangersNews @RangersInter

havn’t seen this before. appologies if posted already. no doubt it has.

View Comment

helpmaboabPosted on9:09 am - Jan 3, 2014


Post Airdrie match in the Evening Times -McCoist, whose side stayed 14 points clear at the top of the table, said the stadium atmosphere was not suitable for “women and children”.
He’s right. Mohsni,Black,McCulloch .Not a pretty sight.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:14 am - Jan 3, 2014


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says: (1152)
January 3, 2014 at 8:48 am
‘…..Article from 200%….’
———-
When you read that article, It really strikes home just how much ‘sensitive investigation’ must be going on by the BDO team.
It will be a wonder if conspiracy charges are not ultimately brought against a number of individuals, and contempt of court charges against a couple of barra-boys known by an assortment of contemptuous names.
I look forward to the day.

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on9:33 am - Jan 3, 2014


Andrew Dallas referee

Does anybody know, if any “investigation” is being carried out, regarding the apparent yellow card he issued to Ian Black – yet, did not include the booking in his match report?

View Comment

justbecauseyoureparanoidPosted on9:55 am - Jan 3, 2014


jimlarkin says: (736)
January 3, 2014 at 9:33 am

Take a wild guess ! 🙄

View Comment

normanbatesmumfcPosted on10:15 am - Jan 3, 2014


Re. the 120 days required to “review” the business and resurface with a new vision for the future. I may be well off the mark here but previous experience led me to consider;

Could this be a few weeks sorting out the plan and a required 90 day statutory consultation period where 50+ employees are to be made redundant. I believe this requirement still exists, although “redundancy” might be difficult with a view to continuing the business, as it’s the job that’s being made redundant not the employee.

Happy to be corrected though.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on10:34 am - Jan 3, 2014


HP 12.54

I’m not talking about their approach, I’m talking about the restrictions within which any approach had to operate.

In short witheld evidence stopped it being looked at even although it had the following constituent elements.
1. It involved ebts as defined by the Commission.
2.It involved side letters hidden from the SFA.
3. It involved side letters deliberately concealed from HMRC when HMRC asked specifically if they existed.
4.The ebts in question were found to be tax evasion by an FTT, a UTT and a CoS or irregular to use the same term as LNS did.

We know that D&P were chastised for not supplying all the information requested that should have included documents refering to the above containing words like fraudulent and negligent as well as information showing who at Rangers was responsible for taking them on the ebt road.

Had the documents been provided it is difficult to see no matter what approach was taken how LNS could have reached the conclusions he did. In fact it is difficult to see how breaking registration rules is the charge that would have been brought.

Think no LNS and FTT had found for HMRC, what would the charges have been then concerning a club breaking tax laws to pay players more than their opponents could, all else being equal.

It is a lot more serious than not filling in the forms properly or not supplying required information.

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on10:40 am - Jan 3, 2014


Auldheid says: (1124)
January 3, 2014 at 10:34 am

Whitewash then, Whitewash now, surely not a Whitewash forever.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on10:40 am - Jan 3, 2014


john clarke says: (1485)
January 3, 2014 at 9:14 am
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says: (1152)
January 3, 2014 at 8:48 am
‘…..Article from 200%….’
———-
When you read that article, It really strikes home just how much ‘sensitive investigation’ must be going on by the BDO team.
It will be a wonder if conspiracy charges are not ultimately brought against a number of individuals, and contempt of court charges against a couple of barra-boys known by an assortment of contemptuous names.
I look forward to the day.
========================================
I was thinking when I read the BDO report – which I missed when published so thanks to the poster maybe neepheid or auldheid – that I would hate to be one of the people so obviously caught in the BDO crosshairs. At some stage the weak among them or those with most to lose professionally – and that doesn’t include spivs – will roll over and shop those further up the chain or be looking at jail time.

This is going to be a long-running saga but I am actually beginning to believe that BDO are going to do a number on the guilty and HMRC are sending a ‘message’ that if their employees are physically threatened and a misguided so-called PR expert tries to expose their identity in a down-market tabloid then fur is going to fly as surely as night follows day.

View Comment

aenmac75Posted on10:45 am - Jan 3, 2014


test

edit: previous comment in moderation:

here it is without the c&p

RangersNews ‏@RangersInter 25m
Re: previous shareholders list. Initial observations below. Whilst Brian Stockbridge is still be content to (cont) http://tl.gd/n_1rvcl4k

View Comment

incredibleadamsparkPosted on10:50 am - Jan 3, 2014


The recent media discussions about how much Rangers are missed from the top flight, possible fast tracking or league reconstruction is a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. There was a group of journalists who were practically embedded at Ibrox. I’m pretty sure Keith Jackson was on the rafting trip in America. White water rafting with Glasgow Rangers sounds like something even Alan Partridge would think twice about pitching. It’s embarrassing. I wonder if McCoist got sacked or walked away (I know, I know), if that would change the media perspective somewhat. He’s the missing like between the old and new and his usefulness in that area is probably more important than his questionable managerial ability.

It was a wee while ago but the discussions on Murray Park were interesting. Some people viewed it as a failure but I think it’s been pretty successful in producing players who were good enough for the first team squad. The failure was Smith and then McCoist showed absolutely no desire to play these youngsters. Murray Park produced, off the top of my head, Smith, Wilson, Hutton, Burke, Adam, McCabe, Ness, Little, McCormack, Shinnie and Fleck. Only one on that list could be considered a regular and he was sold for £8m to Spurs and there are six full internationals on that list. At the time they had teams and benches stuffed with bought players and more signings sitting in the stand. Why invest time and money in a youth system if you’re not going to use it properly. The Rangers way since Murray took over and look what’s happened.

View Comment

tomtomPosted on10:54 am - Jan 3, 2014


Bawsman says: (243)
January 3, 2014 at 10:40 am
0 0 Rate This

Auldheid says: (1124)
January 3, 2014 at 10:34 am

Whitewash then, Whitewash now, surely not a Whitewash forever.
===============================

As any homeowner will tell you whitewash doesn’t last forever. It gets dirty again through time – eventually you have to cover it up again, and again, and again. However one poor coat will lead to cracks in the plaster, exposing the bare brickwork underneath. The internet bampots are superb at spotting cracks 😎

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on11:13 am - Jan 3, 2014


buddy_holly says: (135)
January 3, 2014 at 2:24 am
nickmcguinness says: (154)
January 3, 2014 at 1:12 am

It looks like CharlotteFakes has popped up again on Twitter as @RangersInter And as a present we have a full list of SevcoScotland shareholders who transferred their holdings to TRIFC PLC. We are invited to join the dots . . . http://www.scribd.com/doc/195231558/TRFCL-to-RIFC-Share-Exchange-Agreement
============================================================
Very interesting set of information, but why release now!! Lots of interesting people on the list.
Would it be too far to state that as a minimum the investors in TRFC who had their allotment into RIFC are fundamentally those in charge of the spivvery? These give 33 million shares in RIFC, there is 66 million in circulation and 100 million in theory to be issued, another 33 million RIFC shares remained unissued.
—————————————————————————————–
We have more or less been aware of the vast bulk of this info for some time but the new slant is the connection between the mainly offshore geographic locations and when she asks us to ‘join the dots’ that is what she is referring to.

So there are nuggets in the latest info but we still don’t have a clue who actually owns Rangers – all we really have for definite is the location of where the offshore holding companies of the mystery investors are managed from.

The BIG question is why are these mystery investors still hanging about – what financial booty is left to be pillaged at Ibrox? There is no doubt in my mind this has nothing to do with football but just hard cash and the longer the Bears are prepared to swallow the fairytales then the more cash they will be fleeced for.

I hate generalising about any group of people but I see barely a flicker of understanding as to what is happening at Ibrox within the remaining support and can only believe that thinking Bears have walked away some time ago and are waiting for the inevitable end to this period of slapstick comedy and panto farce down Ibrox Way.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on11:39 am - Jan 3, 2014


Some musings…..

On Super Salary’s wage cut……it’s clear that he is being paid far too much, but yet it’s also too expensive to sack him….what to do, what to do

His pay cut hasn’t gone through yet….

Is it possible he is working his years notice? Someone might have said at the start of the season, sorry Ally, your contract is not being renewed, you are being given 1 years notice as we can’t afford it.

Salary makes noises about wanting a wage cut, the board not acting upon it and in the summer, he walks away without his pay off – the pay cut never happens – he has his years salary, walks away ona point of principle due to boardroom mismanagement, still retains his shares and is clean to return under a new boardroom/owner after the TRFC admin/sale event and the spivs have eaten their fill.

View Comment

BrendaPosted on11:53 am - Jan 3, 2014


Super salary???? Not a good atmosphere for women and children???? What is this guy on, at least 3/4 of his team should not have still been on the park 😕 Black’s booking?? Will this one count? Surely Dallas jnr must be asked for an explanation for his ‘slight’ omission on his report? Or is that part of the 5 way agreement too?? Same old same old 😥

View Comment

themightyflashPosted on11:56 am - Jan 3, 2014


Just popped in to wish you all a happy and prosperous New Year.

I still regularly have a lurk here and am always pleased to see you have never given up highlighting the wrongs that still exist in Scottish Football today.

I lose more of my love for the game the longer this farce, overseen by the SFA and unreported by the MSM, more each day, sadly.

Being in a reflective, philosophical state at this time of year got me thinking.

Do you think some of the theories discussed on RTC/TSFM have ever shown the spiv another avenue of spivery the may not have thought of exploring till they saw it here?

The first step towards vice is to shroud innocent actions in mystery, and whoever likes to conceal something sooner or later has reason to conceal it. Jean-Jacques Rousseau

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on12:06 pm - Jan 3, 2014


m.c.f.c.

At the very least, his rediculous penalty award, then failing to mention in his report he cautioned a player is patent incompetence. He should at a minimum be demoted until he proves he has learned the job.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on12:12 pm - Jan 3, 2014


Bawsman says: (244)
January 3, 2014 at 12:06 pm
1 0 Rate This

m.c.f.c. says: (92)
January 3, 2014 at 12:00 pm

At the very least, his rediculous penalty award, then failing to mention in his report he cautioned a player is patent incompetence. He should at a minimum be demoted until he proves he has learned the job.

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

Demonted? you mean give him a few games in the SPFL Premiership to learn the error of his ways?

he’s reffing in the 3rd tier FFS, back to the juniors for him (though why they should suffer is beyond me)

View Comment

tearsofjoyPosted on12:14 pm - Jan 3, 2014


Tif Finn says: (1160)

January 2, 2014 at 1:58 pm
49
2
Rate This

Quantcast

We don’t really need to ask why McCoist was kept on, it was nothing to do with his ability as a football manager, he had clearly shown a dearth of that.

1, Getting the fans onside behind the regime.

2, Selling season tickets for them

3, Selling shares to the supporters

4, Rabble rousing on an ad hoc basis.

There is a good argument to suggest that purely from a financial point of view (for Green et al) he was a tremendous success.
===================================

If Sevco fans can be convinced to be separated from their hard earned cash so easily by someone like Salary McCoist then things are worse than I thought in the gene pool down Govan way.

I actually think the reason for McCoists retention is much more simple – he lends credence (in Sevco followers eyes, at any rate) to the pretence of continuity of Rangers FC (RIP). Waldo has long since gone , the board are a bunch of no marks with no conection to Rangers/Govan other than an opportunistic thirst for a quick buck. I’ll wager most current directors could walk down Govan and not be recognized.

If Mc Coist is booted out it will be the final nail in the coffin of this pretence.

View Comment

BrendaPosted on12:37 pm - Jan 3, 2014


Find it quite amusing that I have 5 TD’s 😆 is it the refs 😆 I repeat I cannot believe mccoist’s comments last night ……. Wherever the sevconians go there is an ‘atmosphere’ and they usually want to be knee deep in something ❓ don’t worry sooperdooper it’s the norm :mrgreen:

I also will put the timer on when Dallas jnr will be Dealt with ……….. I know I know ‘the twelfth of never’ maybe?

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on12:40 pm - Jan 3, 2014


tearsofjoy says: (37)
January 3, 2014 at 12:14 pm

Mate, there’s a wheen of Rainjurzzz men out there who would give their left nut to step into Ally’s Brogues and probably pay money for the chance to do so. Brown’s, Ferguson’s, Calderwoods, Jeffrey’s and their ilk, all of whom would do a job.

View Comment

ShooperbPosted on12:41 pm - Jan 3, 2014


incredibleadamspark says: (60)
January 3, 2014 at 10:50 am
11 1 i
Rate This

The recent media discussions about how much Rangers are missed from the top flight, possible fast tracking or league reconstruction is a tale told by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. There was a group of journalists who were practically embedded at Ibrox. I’m pretty sure Keith Jackson was on the rafting trip in America. White water rafting with Glasgow Rangers sounds like something even Alan Partridge would think twice about pitching. It’s embarrassing. I wonder if McCoist got sacked or walked away (I know, I know), if that would change the media perspective somewhat. He’s the missing like between the old and new and his usefulness in that area is probably more important than his questionable managerial ability.

It was a wee while ago but the discussions on Murray Park were interesting. Some people viewed it as a failure but I think it’s been pretty successful in producing players who were good enough for the first team squad. The failure was Smith and then McCoist showed absolutely no desire to play these youngsters. Murray Park produced, off the top of my head, Smith, Wilson, Hutton, Burke, Adam, McCabe, Ness, Little, McCormack, Shinnie and Fleck. Only one on that list could be considered a regular and he was sold for £8m to Spurs and there are six full internationals on that list. At the time they had teams and benches stuffed with bought players and more signings sitting in the stand. Why invest time and money in a youth system if you’re not going to use it properly. The Rangers way since Murray took over and look what’s happened.

Nail on the head. I think the Cardigan was just incapable of actually developing a player, hence why he always bought the finished article and ignored the youth set up. You could probably add McGregor to your list.

What people tend to forget about Hutton, McGregor and Adams (the undisputed stars of the youth system) was that they were properly brought through under Paul Le Guen, a coach who, despite the campaign to decry him, could actually develop players. By the time Smith turned up, Hutton was pretty much the finished article, McGregor was getting there, and Adams, despite looking a player under Le Guen as a central playmaker, was promptly moved to play almost as a winger(!), and then punted out on loan when, unsurprisingly, he wasn’t capable of dribbling past players.

Smith was also the manager who was set to punt Barry Ferguson to Dundee, until Advocaat turned up and went ‘Schtop! Schtop!’.

McCoist’s problem is that he has been forced to use youth players with no idea of how to get the best out of them. It’s almost reminiscent of the Rangers team that he played in during the mid 90’s, when there were no tactics, just give the ball to Laudrup or Gazza and hope for the best. This may have worked in the Scotland, where opposition players were prone to filling their pants at the mere mention of their names, but not, strangely, In europe, where they used to get embarrassed time after time.
We’re seeing much the same with TRFC at the moment – reputation is enough 99% of the time, but if they come up against an organised side, then they struggle.

[EDIT] meant to say that Nicky Law, Black, McCulloch etc. are the relative, 3rd tier, ‘big name’ equivalents of Laudrup, Gazza etc.

View Comment

Reilly1926Posted on12:42 pm - Jan 3, 2014


At first I thought this was the work of a “Timposter” but apparently not.
http://www.therangersstandard.co.uk/index.php/articles/current-affairs/304-across-the-great-divide

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on12:43 pm - Jan 3, 2014


Auldheid sir,

As one of the band of upstarts who proxied Canamalar et al my shares, and one who was content to accept your assurances that ‘stuff’ was being done behind the scenes………When do we see an outcome mate?

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on12:53 pm - Jan 3, 2014


Just asking – from whence does the story come that Black’s yellow was not included in the referee’s report?

(EDIT) My bad … I assumed this referred to last night’s game against Airdrie, rather than the Stranraer game the other day! 🙂

View Comment

Comments are closed.