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

nawlitePosted on1:29 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Been lurking for a while – Merry Xmas, Happy New year and all that!!

Question to those (including Phil) talking about Wallace’s cost-cutting and next season’s ST increase being enough to allow RFC* to just about ‘survive’. Surely this doesn’t factor in the fact that the spiv investors are still in control and looking to bleed RFC* dry of any money that comes into the club?

After all, last year’s £22m IPO and ST money has already been used both to keep RFC* in existence to date and (presumably) to line the pockets of the spiv investors. With no IPO £22m this year, will ST money alone be enough to keep RFC* in existence and line the pockets of the spiv investors?

If not (as I assume) what will the spiv investors do but pull the money out quicker thereby hastening the demise of RFC*.

I don’t get why some think austerity and higher prices will keep RFC* going through next season? Help.

View Comment

Para HandyPosted on1:45 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Thanks all for the responses to my player contract question, based on those my current assumption is that the term “footballing debts” does not apply to players (which I find strange).

IMHO This makes a pre-pack CVA more likely if significant cuts are needed to the wage bill (taking it perhaps past the 50% likelihood) before the end of the season to allow the club/company/team to continue trading.

I would imagine that if they can sell 25,000 season tickets for next season, they would be able to assemble a squad more than capable of challenging for the Championship even with Hearts, Dundee and Dunfermline in the mix (with apologies to other clubs who may also think themselves in with a chance at it).

The bigger question I have, is whether a club would be allowed promotion if it were to suffer an insolvency event during a season (assuming that it can also leave administration prior to the season end or start of the subsequent season). 😯

I wonder if Auldheid or Hirsute have scanned the rules to see if such an eventuality is covered ❓

View Comment

tomtomPosted on1:50 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Allyjambo says: (756)
January 7, 2014 at 1:28 pm
0 0 Rate This

ernie says: (35)

January 7, 2014 at 1:15 pm

Cheers Ernie. That would seem to suggest that an administration wouldn’t save much, or any, money by making players/coaches redundant as those effected would have the same claim within the CVA as the spivs/RIFC.
==================
However, that’s all they would have – a claim. Getting shot of the high earners might cause problems further down the line but in the short term it would decrease their outgoings considerably. If the holding company have the required level of debt to control the admin they could simply agree a pence in the pound settlement.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on2:02 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Allyjambo says: (756)
January 7, 2014 at 1:28 pm
0 0 Rate This

ernie says: (35)

January 7, 2014 at 1:15 pm

Cheers Ernie. That would seem to suggest that an administration wouldn’t save much, or any, money by making players/coaches redundant as those effected would have the same claim within the CVA as the spivs/RIFC.

———————————————————

could be a huge saving

given that TRFC Ltds largest debt is to RIFC PLC, so long as RIFC PLC are in control of 75% of the debt they control admin/CVA

so, TRFC Ltd run out of money, they ask RIFC plc for more, RIFC plc have no more to give and decide to ask for the money they had loaned TRFC ltd back – this puts TRFC ltd into admin

D&P return to the scene (ahahahahaha – oh wouldn’t that be funny!) and this time do what SHOULD have been done

Massive cuts – manager and backroom team 1st to go and most of the 1st team squad too – they all receive the absolute minimum they are entitled to under redundancy laws (i believe this is capped at £13,500 – but not sure under an admin, i thought admins could breach employment contracts within 2 weeks of being appointed without compensation?)

Anyway, all these players will be added to creditor pile

TRFC owed RIFC plc £17M as of June 30th (accounts) that could well be £23M now – so, sacked players would need to claim about £7M in order to breach the 25% of debt level to block RIFC rail roading the CVA proposal

CVA proposal will consist of swapping the title of the properties to RIFC for writing off the debt, 0p in £ offered to all other creditors

Players get nothing, RIFC now have the property assets – Ibrox, MP, Albion car park, Edmiston house

TRFC will be in a tied lease – 50+ years at £xM per annum, Albion carpark money will go to RIFC plc not TRFC ltd (in fact, Albion and Edmiston might already be owned by RIFC not TRFC)

RIFC plc already have the merchandising deal with SD

So, TRFC ltd will be “sold” to the brogues and RIFC will become RIP.C – Rangers Investments Property Company plc)

In a few years, this will be sold to a proper property company and the spivs get their pay off.

The brogues will run TRFC ltd – an immediate appeal for funds – ST renewals, RFFF cash, maybe even an IPO in the mythical club

but the costs of running the show AND paying rent – with reduced income due to loss of car park, merchandise sales, the new club will keep it’s league place, but will struggle on in much reduced circumstances

For all we know, this deal is already in place and it’s simply a case of waiting until current cash runs out – and maybe getting a little closer to the end of the season – to ensure promotion is in the bag before the 15 point deduction.

Brogues get their club, bears get to go on a new journey – the austerity trail – Spivs get their money, institutional investors now see a return on their initial investment as the property company now has no outgoings and a tidy rent – not to mention an on book asset worth about £30M

Everyone happy – especially the scottish football fans who will enjoy watching TRFC with a squad fill of teenagers and old dogs on their way down struggle in the chmpionship/SPL to crowds of 20k max.

View Comment

scottcPosted on2:13 pm - Jan 7, 2014


I see the RIFC share price has started heading south again on relatively light trading. Genuinely three for a pound now (with change)

http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=RFC

Share Price: 32.25

View Comment

scottcPosted on2:15 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1091)
January 7, 2014 at 2:02 pm

Got to agree that this is how things will pan out. Administration, if and when it comes, will purely be a vehicle to effect the property transfer.

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on2:27 pm - Jan 7, 2014


I’ve been wondering about what players think about all this and also how to find a way to get over the frustration and anger we feel about the MSM and football authorities.

In England we have The Secret Footballer making comments and giving an insight into what really happens in clubs. Is there a Scottish Secret Footballer willing to give that same insight?

I’m assuming that we must have some professional footballers amongst our lurkers – what do they think and can they anonymously share their and others’ views?

Just what do players feel about what has happened over the past few years? Do they also see some bias in decision-making? Are they also amazed/outraged at the TRFC budget in the lower divisions? Surely this must be detrimental to some of their hopes and dreams of progress and promotion?

I then started musing about the recent demonstration by Brazilian footballers as part of the Common Sense FC with fans also making a similar gesture.

http://www.itn.co.uk/World/90213/sit-down-football-protest–brazilian-players-sit-on-pitch
http://www.supersport.com/football/brazil/news/131112/Brazilian_players_set_to_protest_again

This protest was aimed at fixture congestion, a demand for more transparency in club finances including the introduction of financial fair play rules and more representation on decision-making bodies such as clubs and federations.

Most of this struck a chord with me.

Is a Common Sense FC approach including players and fans possible in Scotland? Common Sense Scotland?

Scottish Football needs a unified approach to our game in the years ahead.

TSFM Mods – could we offer a Scottish Secret Footballer a place for a regular column?

View Comment

Galling fiverPosted on2:58 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Would they have let go of some of the more prominent youth players like cole and hemming if they were going into admin2 to loose some earners?

Granted the D&P style admin last time was a world first, using the “to f@ck with the rule book” method, and keep the high earners. Who knows ? Sevco vouchers may trend with the cost of buses and taxis on the West Coast (crossed arms and fingers splayed), oh! sorry fares are up already.

Replenishing funds or getting ready for the big push. They need a quid to get it, and plenty more to loose on it, but I’m sure the brogues will reimburse them, when things look a bit more sellable.

Murray & Co, our hero, Dallas cowboy, Ron/Reg , back to base. Secret investors ma hoop.

View Comment

casper999Posted on3:04 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Share price made me chuckle, with all things sevconian , thay love to change the name , sevco =The rangers etc, wouldnt it be great if they changed shares to ………………..wait for it “Sports socks 3 for a pound”

Sorry, couldnt help it . 🙂

View Comment

wottpiPosted on3:14 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Looks like we are getting down the basics now.
I am sure many people see conspiracies here there and everywhere.
I am sure many people will be happy to see the new club go under for the first time 🙂

However forget the SFA, SPFL, Uefa, ECA, the MSM, the law suits, the ASA etc etc – it is all going to come down to the pounds shillings and pence.
Phil Mac is right in that a lot depends on how many fans they can get to buy season tickets at increased prices.
Richard Wilson in the Herald is correct that both Wallace and McCoist have to do a tricky balancing act to reduce costs but keep the product on the park to a standard that keeps the fans parting with their cash. (However it is just another puff piece softening up the fans for cuts and price hikes and trying to show a degree of unity between CEO and manager – Where have we heard that before).

What it really comes down to is can the new club alter its mind set to be like every other club, or indeed most sporting organisations in the country where it is very much a hand to mouth existence.

Given their dominance over the domestic game and the possibility of Euro cash Celtic perhaps have more leeway than others. However they did not get to where they are today by not watching the pounds, shillings and pence.

Down Ibrox way they need to adapt to being also-rans scraping around for cash.

The questions are,

Can those in charge maintain a postive cash flow situation while managing that change and keeping everyone on-side?

Do those who are REALLY in charge give a flying feck about whether or not a football club is successful being that there is no obvious profit or return to be made in the medium term? Will they cut and run as soon as they have bled the beast dry?

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on3:18 pm - Jan 7, 2014


First time – here goes.

Counting of votes at CVA meetings is not as straightforward as might have been implied by some of the posts above or the media.

There is a 75% rule but there is also a quirk relating to votes exercised by parties who are not “connected” with the company itself.

A parent company is obviously “connected” to its subsidiary.

The position is that in order for a CVA to be approved (and thus become binding on all creditors) 75% in value of the creditors who vote, must vote in favour. However, in order to stop parties who are connected with the company steamrollering through CVAs against the wishes of “unconnected” creditors, a CVA resolution will be invalid if more than 50% in value of the creditors who vote, and who are unconnected with the company, vote against the CVA. (Rule 1.16A of the Insolvency (Scotland) Rules 1986).

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on3:22 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Spivs in a Poke

The flaw I see in the leaseback plan is that at some stage, to cash out, the spivs need to sell their property company to a “real property company” with a sitting tenant that is a husk of a football club and with dubious property redevelopment potential if that tenant – the only possible tenant – does not survive.

Let’s remember that post Admin the The Rangers would have zero property assets, little to zero merchandise income, no squad, no manager, no backroom staff, hefty rent, little prospect of promotion and a material chance of relegation. My guess is that the spivs will arrange Admin after ST time so the first year of The Rangers may include honouring STs sold pre-Admin for zero money (caveat emptor) or asking fans to buy a second ST for the season.

Remember that each £1m/year of rent/repair will cost the revenue from 5,500 STs at current prices (after VAT). So just to open the doors may cost 15,000 season tickets before a single player has been signed.

There may be real property companies out there willing to take a punt on those odds – but they’d have to be particularly optimistic.

When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. To my mind that means that the current spivs own a pig in a poke and that there is no obvious champagne moment for them.

PS

Bears – caveat emptor – will an ST bought before the season starts survive Admin. Pay-as-you-go could be a wise move.

Could the “real property company” be an IPO to the only investors optimistic enough to believe in a glorious future for The Rangers – the bears – roll up, roll up for the great Ibrox IPO.

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on3:40 pm - Jan 7, 2014


casper999 says:
January 7, 2014 at 3:04 pm

… thay love to change the name , sevco =The rangers etc, wouldnt it be great if they changed shares to … wait for it “Sports socks 3 for a pound”
——

I was thinking TSFM’s plural “Rangers Football Clubs” this morning would be an excellent name for the Ibrox-based collective of companies and clubs but, given the current share price, “Sports Socks FC” is even better. 🙂

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on3:49 pm - Jan 7, 2014


m.c.f.c. says: (107)
January 7, 2014 at 3:22 pm

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

that is why I think the spivs will remain in charge of RIFC plc for a few years after teh sale off of TRFC – in order to let things settle and TRFC to find their level

if things settle and bears rally to the cause – they can sell it onto a property company

if it looks like it’s all going downhill – they can sell for a small amount to the bears and let them have it

but remember, the spivs can’t lose – as essentially, they have already got all this for nothing and in the past 18 months have extracted all they can – and then some – they are already up on the deal and have a huge emotional carrot dangling in front of fans of the brand, brogues, MSM cheerleaders etc

they can’t lose – the only thing in question is HOW MUCH they will WIN

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on3:50 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Angus1983 says: (1315)
January 7, 2014 at 3:40 pm

I was thinking TSFM’s plural “Rangers Football Clubs” this morning would be an excellent name for the Ibrox-based collective of companies and clubs but, given the current share price, “Sports Socks FC” is even better. 🙂

===================================================================================
They’re in a basket next to the door at Sports Direct – no refunds mind !

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on4:00 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1092)
January 7, 2014 at 3:49 pm

they can’t lose – the only thing in question is HOW MUCH they will WIN
====================================================================================
The spivs could hang around and milk The Rangers for a few years – maybe even give them mates-rates for a while to give them a chance – but that is just not their style at all – they were in this for a one night stand not wedding bells and babies.

If they could cash out today by destroying the football they would do it in an instant without a second thought – fanx ta-ra – see you round.

View Comment

100BJDPosted on4:02 pm - Jan 7, 2014


PhilMacGiollaBhain says: (249)

January 6, 2014 at 7:46 pm

29

1

Rate This

Quantcast

sickofitall says: (206)
January 6, 2014 at 7:11 pm
I haven’t seen that.
However I do know that there are several meetings scheduled for this week with budget cuts on the agenda.
Ideally GW would want the payroll bill-at the end of this month-to be smaller.
Not easy-but doable
———————————————————————————————————————————————
Not so doable Phil……………he is going to have to go through the timing/ consultancy element of a redundancy programme
The statutory redundancy notice periods are:
at least 1 week’s notice if employed between 1 month and 2 years
1 week’s notice for each year if employed between 2 and 12 years
12 weeks’ notice if employed for 12 years or more
The statutory consultation periods are:
20 to 99 redundancies – the consultation must start at least 30 days before any dismissals take effect
100 or more redundancies – the consultation must start at least 45 days before any dismissals take effect

Plus he is going to have to fund the one off reconstructuring/redundancy costs! So not at all doable for me in the short term. ….so a tough gig for Mr Wallace.

View Comment

No1 BobPosted on4:03 pm - Jan 7, 2014


With regard to earlier conversations re Rangers Retail Limited I noticed the following on the Company Check website:

“There are no Companies House accounts downloads on record for RANGERS RETAIL LIMITED. Accounts are due to be submitted on or before 31/01/2014.”

Should be an interesting read.

View Comment

GiovanniPosted on4:05 pm - Jan 7, 2014


wottpi says:
January 7, 2014 at 3:14 pm
Do those who are REALLY in charge give a flying feck about whether or not a football club is successful being that there is no obvious profit or return to be made in the medium term? Will they cut and run as soon as they have bled the beast dry?
————-
Got it in one. There is no long term return in supporting a football team. Watch for Brian Stockbridge leaving, that’s the sign that the spivs, who are in control, are about to pull the plug.

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on4:16 pm - Jan 7, 2014


No1 Bob says: (83)
January 7, 2014 at 4:03 pm

“There are no Companies House accounts downloads on record for RANGERS RETAIL LIMITED. Accounts are due to be submitted on or before 31/01/2014.”

Should be an interesting read.
====================================================================================
Bob – Don’t hold your breath . . . .

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on4:25 pm - Jan 7, 2014


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-25641219

Christopher Hay cleared of Neil Lennon Twitter ‘threat’

View Comment

100BJDPosted on4:30 pm - Jan 7, 2014


No1 Bob says: (83)

January 7, 2014 at 11:33 am

6

0

Rate This

Quantcast

ecobhoy says: (2185)
January 7, 2014 at 10:50 am

Rangers Retail Limited was set up 13/07/2012 when Charles Green was in full money raising mode attracting the initial investors into the Great Gers Project.

One of the initial investors was Mick Ashley who put in £1,500,000 for his 3,000,000 shares.

I’ve always wondered if there is a link between this investment into Sevco 5088 and the agreement with Sports Direct to sell football tops to the bears.
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
Iam sure you are bang on the money with your suggested link..

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on4:30 pm - Jan 7, 2014


m.c.f.c. says: (110)
January 7, 2014 at 4:00 pm
3 0 Rate This

Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1092)
January 7, 2014 at 3:49 pm

they can’t lose – the only thing in question is HOW MUCH they will WIN
====================================================================================
The spivs could hang around and milk The Rangers for a few years – maybe even give them mates-rates for a while to give them a chance – but that is just not their style at all – they were in this for a one night stand not wedding bells and babies.

If they could cash out today by destroying the football they would do it in an instant without a second thought – fanx ta-ra – see you round.

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

they’ve already done quite nicely from them….so they could walk now, anythign now is icing on the cake

obviously a sevco that survives and pays rent to RIFC will mean more cream later – and will give them a saleable asset, but that is not worth much right now if they were to try and bail out with sevco in poor health

so, separate the troublesome TRFC from RIFC plc, let that settle down, and sell it on.

Once TRFC is sold and has a fixed lease to RIFC, then there is no long term marriage anymore, they can essentially walk away and look for buyers, if TRFC remain in good health, there shouldbe a few buyers, if they die, then they wait until the brogues start again and want somewhere to play football – ok, they might have to take a lesser deal, but better than nothing – especially when even 1p is a profit on the deal.

View Comment

youcantbuyhistoryPosted on4:36 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Always wondered why the ramsden cup final date was placed so close to the end of the season ,im sure there was no intention to hinder the sevconian side as it now looks probable a weaker side will be fielded ,or as discussed on here was it to aid them with a much needed cash injection added of course to the ibrox staging of 2 scottish cup semi finals. Nice work if you can get it especially as predicted the begging bowl will be in full view.

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on4:54 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1093)
January 7, 2014 at 4:30 pm

so, separate the troublesome TRFC from RIFC plc, let that settle down, and sell it on.
================================================================================
I think we are disagreeing about the prospects of Rangers after Admin and hence the value of the assets to a real property company. I see the Rangers’ business model as a lead balloon from the start. The paying customers would desert en masse leaving the dynamics of a diddy club with MASSIVE overheads. So without a sugar daddy, fiscal discipline, fantastic player development, a genius manager and fans interested only in paying top whack for lower league football the next Admin event would never be far away.

I remember reading an analysis of Arnhem (A Bridge Too Far). After the event it was concluded that the mission depended on five crucial objectives – each of which had only a 50-50 chance of success. So a 1 in 32 chance of mission success. I’d give The Rangers similar odds of sustainable success.

View Comment

andygraham.66Posted on4:56 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Whyte appealing ticketus again acc to sky

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on5:04 pm - Jan 7, 2014


andygraham.66 says: (94)
January 7, 2014 at 4:56 pm

Whyte appealing ticketus again acc to sky
====================================================================================
Extreme Woolie Thinking by Unnamed Sky Hack

Ticketus provided funds for Mr Whyte to buy the club from Sir David Murray for £1 in May 2011 under a deal which would see it paid back from the sale of future season tickets.

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/9105759/spfl-former-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-has-appealed-against-an-order-for-17m-damages

View Comment

wottpiPosted on5:07 pm - Jan 7, 2014


As said above little trading but the shares are still heading down.
A few more points and the Market Capitalisation will drop below £20m.

Just saying like 🙂

View Comment

bobferrisPosted on5:08 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Always wondered why the ramsden cup final date was placed so close to the end of the season ,im sure there was no intention to hinder the sevconian side as it now looks probable a weaker side will be fielded ,or as discussed on here was it to aid them with a much needed cash injection added of course to the ibrox staging of 2 scottish cup semi finals. Nice work if you can get it especially as predicted the begging bowl will be in full view.
——————————–
The last two Ramsdens Finals have taken place near the end of the season.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on5:10 pm - Jan 7, 2014


SFA’s ‘Scotland Supporters Club’
==========================
Had a periodical check of the SFA website, and saw the advert for above membership renewals.
If I’ve got it right: for ma, da & 2 weans they want GBP 150 upfront – if paid after 17th of this month.
For that payment, it appears you get a hat, t-shirt, and the privilege of buying more stuff, including match tickets.

I was curious.
Some folks here have stated they have given up their ST for their own club because of e.g. the corrupt SFA, the tacit approval of the member clubs, the re-election of Ogilvie unopposed etc.

Has anyone here given up their SSC membership in protest at the SFA ?
Does anyone have knowledge of the membership numbers: has it risen or fallen in the last couple of years ?

I would typically buy Scotland merchandise for my family, but just haven’t in the last few years – and I don’t think I’ll be putting anything into the SFA coffers until / unless there is radical change at Hampden.

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on5:33 pm - Jan 7, 2014


100BJD says: (122)
January 7, 2014 at 4:02 pm
Many thanks.
That is technical info I wasn’t in possession of.
That is tough apropos timescale.
Austerity through insolvency then?
Certainly an Administrator would have the power to chainsaw budgets very quickly.
I have asked Senor Auldheid to come up with a spreadsheet on what he things is the current state of play apropos Sevco finances when he has time.
I have started to hear some minor chatter-nothing more-about invoices being paid late, but is understandable given their situation.

View Comment

youcantbuyhistoryPosted on5:50 pm - Jan 7, 2014


bobferris says: (165)
January 7, 2014 at 5:08 pm
1 0 Rate This

Always wondered why the ramsden cup final date was placed so close to the end of the season ,im sure there was no intention to hinder the sevconian side as it now looks probable a weaker side will be fielded ,or as discussed on here was it to aid them with a much needed cash injection added of course to the ibrox staging of 2 scottish cup semi finals. Nice work if you can get it especially as predicted the begging bowl will be in full view.
——————————–
The last two Ramsdens Finals have taken place near the end of the season.
…………….thanks bob my mistake,off now to check the price of raith rovers on odds checker although as tipsters go if I bet them Dallas will get the refs gig.

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on5:51 pm - Jan 7, 2014


StevieBC says: (969)
January 7, 2014 at 5:10 pm
7 0 Rate This

SFA’s ‘Scotland Supporters Club’
==========================
Had a periodical check of the SFA website, and saw the advert for above membership renewals.
If I’ve got it right: for ma, da & 2 weans they want GBP 150 upfront – if paid after 17th of this month.
For that payment, it appears you get a hat, t-shirt, and the privilege of buying more stuff, including match tickets.

Edit..

*****
It is a bee in my Bunnet that so many of my fellow supporters, who have been vociferous in their condemnation of the SFA, clamoured for tickets for last season’s Scottish Cup Final.

For their trouble, they had the privilege of cheering as CO handed over the trophy to Scott Brown.

What a chance they missed to boycott the Final and draw attention to the corrupt SFA.

View Comment

vivitronPosted on6:37 pm - Jan 7, 2014


ThomTheThim says: (7)
January 7, 2014 at 5:51 pm
10 0 Rate This

It is a bee in my Bunnet that so many of my fellow supporters, who have been vociferous in their condemnation of the SFA, clamoured for tickets for last season’s Scottish Cup Final.

For their trouble, they had the privilege of cheering as CO handed over the trophy to Scott Brown.

What a chance they missed to boycott the Final and draw attention to the corrupt SFA.

I enjoyed the cup final and had a great day out.

If I had boycotted it my long-departed Gran might have said I was “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” or maybe “cutting off my nose to spite my face”.

Despite all the shenanigans discussed at length on here I continue to support my team because I enjoy going to the fitba’

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on6:46 pm - Jan 7, 2014


vivitron says: (12)
January 7, 2014 at 6:37 pm

******
There is no answer to that.

It would have involved a sacrifice, but it would have made a very telling point.

I have read many blog posts of fans not renewing their Celtic STs, due to disagreeing with club policy.

However, when it came to exposing the SFA at their Showcase game, it was a case of, ” any spare tickets, pal?”

Surely your gran would have understood the point being made? 😉

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on7:07 pm - Jan 7, 2014


StevieBC says: (969)
January 7, 2014 at 5:10 pm
10 0 Rate This

SFA’s ‘Scotland Supporters Club’
==========================
Has anyone here given up there SSC membership in protest at the SFA ?
Does anyone have knowledge of the membership numbers: has it risen or fallen in the last couple of years ?
——————————————
Yes I’m not renewing as a personal protest.(A few others I know are the same)

There used to be a waiting list to join but not now so numbers must be down.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on7:13 pm - Jan 7, 2014


scottc says: (425) January 7, 2014 at 2:13 pm

I see the RIFC share price has started heading south again on relatively light trading. Genuinely three for a pound now (with change)

http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=RFC

Share Price: 32.25
===========================
Light trading in terms of the number of deals but there was one trade involving 310,000 shares sold at 28p this afternoon.

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on7:38 pm - Jan 7, 2014


100BJD says: (122)
January 7, 2014 at 4:02 pm

The statutory redundancy notice periods are:
at least 1 week’s notice if employed between 1 month and 2 years
——

Remind me how old the employing company is again? A week’s notice should just about cover up to 20 redundancies I reckon. The cost is another matter, of course.

(This depending on what the TUPE Regs have to say about continuity of employment, I guess.)

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on7:39 pm - Jan 7, 2014


In answer to the earlier query about Hearts payment of “Football Creditors”. As has been discussed previously and on RTC, there is no Football Creditors rule in Scotland. However what is being played out through the Hearts CVA looks like a back-door Football Creditors rule being enforced by the SFA/SPFL.

The Foundation of Hearts proposed CVA itself does not include any payment to unsecured creditors, Football or otherwise, as all the funds will go to the first ranking secured creditor, Ukio Bankas.

However, FOH have undertaken to pay outstanding Football debts (or negotiate the repayment thereof), outside the CVA.

From the CVA proposal document.

5.3 FoH (or its nominee) will assume responsibility for settling the outstanding “football debts” of HoM plc, which are understood to be in region of £535,000.
:
:
6.2 The proposal, if accepted, will enable the Company to continue as a going concern and retain its memberships. The rules of the SPFL and SFA require members to fulfil their contractual and financial obligations to their contracted players in the absence of which sanctions may be imposed including suspension or expulsion hence the requirement for any purchaser of the Club to satisfy the “football debt” (this being the sums due by the Club in respect of contractual wages to players, and any sums due to other football clubs), by payment in full or at an agreed compromise amount.

So it appears that the football authorities are indeed enforcing a Football Creditors rules (under threat of further sanctions on the club?)

I’ve had a look at the creditors list. Of the suggested £535,000 liability for Football debts, approx. £205K is due to former players, with more than half of that (£115K) due to Andrew Driver, £83K is due to current players, and £69K is due to management and staff.

Other clubs due money include Liverpool £47,000, Kaunas £13,400, Stenhousemuir £12,000, Livingston £2,700 and further £5,600 due to the SFA themselves.

View Comment

scottcPosted on7:49 pm - Jan 7, 2014


easyJambo says: (622)
January 7, 2014 at 7:13 pm

Light trading in terms of the number of deals but there was one trade involving 310,000 shares sold at 28p this afternoon.

Nice one. In my defence that trade was not visible when I posted though. 🙂

View Comment

scottcPosted on7:51 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Angus1983 says: (1316)
January 7, 2014 at 7:38 pm

Remind me how old the employing company is again? A week’s notice should just about cover up to 20 redundancies I reckon. The cost is another matter, of course.

(This depending on what the TUPE Regs have to say about continuity of employment, I guess.)

Service is carried over with your contract when you TUPE Angus

View Comment

wottpiPosted on8:03 pm - Jan 7, 2014


scottc says: (427)
January 7, 2014 at 7:49 pm
2 0 i
Rate This

easyJambo says: (622)
January 7, 2014 at 7:13 pm

Light trading in terms of the number of deals but there was one trade involving 310,000 shares sold at 28p this afternoon.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Nice one. In my defence that trade was not visible when I posted though.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nor when I posted. I do however note that the trade is actually dated 3-Jan-14 but only showed up today.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on8:18 pm - Jan 7, 2014


easyJambo says: (622)
January 7, 2014 at 7:39 pm

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

i don’t get this, how is it football debts can be settled outwith the CVA? why are other creditors accepting this? Why are HMRC allowing this

either all creditors get treated equally or the CVA is rejected

Can anyone explain the mechanism by which this can be allowed to happen – both at Hearts who’s CVA has been accepted and at Rangers/Sevco who ‘s CVA was rejected but the newco are now settling oldco debts.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:24 pm - Jan 7, 2014


vivitron says: (12)
January 7, 2014 at 6:37 pm
‘….I continue to support my team because I enjoy going to the fitba’.’
————
The enjoyment for many of us is somewhat soured by the realisation that there is unapologetic rottenness at the top that besmirches the sport. Our Lance Armstrongs are not the players on the field but the men on the 6th Floor.
I would personally run a mile rather than receive a trophy at the hands of certain people for fear of contagion.

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on8:32 pm - Jan 7, 2014


PhilMacGiollaBhain says: (250)
January 7, 2014 at 5:33 pm
12 0 Rate This

Austerity through insolvency then?

Certainly an Administrator would have the power to chainsaw budgets very quickly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Didn’t we think that once before with some other club?

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on8:33 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1094)
January 7, 2014 at 8:18 pm
—————————————-
Essentially the SFA will impose the settlement of football debts as a condition of granting a licence post administration
I don’t think that this includes players

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:38 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1094)
January 7, 2014 at 8:18 pm
‘… how is it football debts can be settled outwith the CVA?..’
—————
One possible reason may be this: The Administrators’ duty is to try to keep the club as a going concern, by getting a successful CVA and keeping the business alive..

It could not stay in business unless it retains its SFA membership.

This puts the SFA as a creditor in a very strong position, because, of all the creditors, it’s the only one that can absolutely sink the business straight off , by withdrawing the club’s membership and therefore its capacity to operate as football club.

Can’t operate as a football club? That means Liquidation and footballing death. At least, it does In corruption free Footballing regimes where there are notions of sporting integrity and fair play and adherence to rules.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on8:46 pm - Jan 7, 2014


parttimearab says: (82)
January 7, 2014 at 8:33 pm
0 0 Rate This

Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1094)
January 7, 2014 at 8:18 pm
—————————————-
Essentially the SFA will impose the settlement of football debts as a condition of granting a licence post administration
I don’t think that this includes players

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

and HMRC and other creditors accept this……why?

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on8:47 pm - Jan 7, 2014


HMRC will not support any CVA which gives a normal creditor an artificial preference. Including any under the so called “football creditors rule” or a back door version of it.

Indeed they have shown in the past that they are willing to go to Court to fight that particular disgusting injustice.

Why should the taxpayer, the ambulance service, the police, small businesses etc lose out when profligate football clubs get paid in full.

View Comment

Palacio67Posted on8:53 pm - Jan 7, 2014


ThomTheThim says: (8)
January 7, 2014 at 5:51 pm
25 1 Rate This

StevieBC says: (969)
January 7, 2014 at 5:10 pm
7 0 Rate This

SFA’s ‘Scotland Supporters Club’
==========================
Had a periodical check of the SFA website, and saw the advert for above membership renewals.
If I’ve got it right: for ma, da & 2 weans they want GBP 150 upfront – if paid after 17th of this month.
For that payment, it appears you get a hat, t-shirt, and the privilege of buying more stuff, including match tickets.

Edit..

*****
It is a bee in my Bunnet that so many of my fellow supporters, who have been vociferous in their condemnation of the SFA, clamoured for tickets for last season’s Scottish Cup Final.

For their trouble, they had the privilege of cheering as CO handed over the trophy to Scott Brown.

What a chance they missed to boycott the Final and draw attention to the corrupt SFA.
—————————————————-
Me and Junior Palacio Bhoycotted, tickets given away to A father and Daughter who missed out in ballot despite going to all ties. I would have loved to have a banner against CO/SFA in the North Stand in full view of the cameras. Too late to organise for this year? No matter who reaches the final albeit being held at CP??

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on8:55 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Lord Wobbly says: (996)
January 7, 2014 at 8:32 pm
The initial Duff & Phelps play (with the benefit of hindsight) was always to keep the club together through the Administration as much as possible “shed” the debt in a CVA and deliver it back to CW in the SPL debt free.
CW didn’t count on becoming a persona non grata by the SFA on the Disrepute charges.
Therefore he had to use a proxy in CG.
That HMRC controlled the lion’s share of the debt meant that a CVA was a non-runner.
A REAL administration would start from the premise that the company would try and trade out of insolvency if, of course, costs could be cut sufficiently.
This is-I am told- square one for any…err…normal Administration.

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on8:55 pm - Jan 7, 2014


RFC’s football debts were paid by Sevco 5088 as part of the price of membership of SFA
Legally OK, but morally wrong
As regards Hearts, could possibly be challenged as the club will be continuing

View Comment

actonsheepPosted on9:00 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:

I’d expect the reason its allowed is because its the creditors themselves who approve it by voting in favour of the CVA. If they don’t like it, they can vote against. I believe HMRC stated position is they will vote against CVA containing clauses like this, so they tend not to want to allow it. I believe the reason its allowed by law is because its not the company under CVA themselves who will clear the debt, its the entity paying for the CVA – in this case FOH. It would require a change of law to make this kind of arrangement between members of an organisation such as the SFA illegal.

I do however agree 100% that it is repulsive, especially when you consider that footballers will get the few hundred k back pay they are due paid in full, when the tax due on that will be paid at 0p/£. Its utterly disgusting.

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on9:04 pm - Jan 7, 2014


campsiejoe says: (627)
January 7, 2014 at 8:55 pm
0 0 Rate This

RFC’s football debts were paid by Sevco 5088 as part of the price of membership of SFA
Legally OK, but morally wrong
As regards Hearts, could possibly be challenged as the club will be continuing

—————————————————

in hearts case, i don’t imagine HMRC have enough % to block it – but these football debts are being excluded from the CVA proposal and being paid in full – so surely the CVA is illegal/invalid as not all creditors are in the proposal and not all are being treated equally.

Whether or not the SFA force Hearts to pay up later in the day if they want to continue is a different matter – at the time of teh CVA, some creditors are getting preferential treatment and that cannot be right.

As for Sevco – surely in this case where HMRC are in control of the CVA, if they see Sevco paying SOME the debts and claiming to be the same club they can then send the bill to sevco and perhaps cite them as a phoenix operation

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on9:05 pm - Jan 7, 2014


That is indeed the point Phil. An administration attempts to save the Company, to allow it to continue trading. If that means decimating the playing squad and backroom staff, selling off assets and minimising costs then so be it. Ask the fans of any club who have been through a proper administration.

It is clear that the point of this administration was to save the club, shed it of debt, keep it in the SPL and trading debt free, with a strong squad, and as such at an advantage over everyone else. In fact they actually tried to bring a striker in if memory serves.

When the CVA failed then the priority should have been to maximise the return for the creditors and nothing else. That did not happen, and laughingly so. The undervalued sale of assets, to a chosen new owner, was agreed in advance of the failed CVA.

Like you I have spoken to experienced insolvency practitioner, who has dealt with a football club. Early doors he told me how weird the process was and questioned why players were not being let go. He confirmed my own thoughts on the matter. It was a farce.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:11 pm - Jan 7, 2014


As often before, I don’t know what I’m talking about!
See this link for some useful words on the ‘The Football Creditors rule’
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c35b6d7c-c36e-486b-97e5-e11ebcb055c0
Especially the observation that each case has to be determined on the particular facts. i.e it does not seem to be an absolute, universal rule applying to all football administrations.

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on9:11 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Tif Finn says: (1189)
January 7, 2014 at 9:05 pm
When RFC went into administration I (stupidly) thought it was going to be a run of the mill insolvency operation.
I spoke to man who had been at a high level at Motherwell FC and two people close to the action at Dundee FC.
I kept in touch with the three of them throughout those months and they were amazed-jaws on floor-at what Duff & Phelps were doing or attempting to do.
Daniel Cousin….. 😮

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on9:20 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Palacio67 says: (246)
January 7, 2014 at 8:53 pm

I think the moment has passed.There would have had to have been an almost spontaneous outrage amongst the support.

That didn’t happen and the day out for the final superseded what, I believe, would have been the bigger picture.

Still think it was an open goal missed, but to each their own.

No more from me on this, as it may become a bit parochial .

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:20 pm - Jan 7, 2014


I can hardly blame those of you reminding us just how much of a farce and stitch up the administration and liquidation was, but it’s left me feeling pretty disheartened once again at what they will get away with when they get to the top league.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on9:21 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Tif Finn says: (1189)
January 7, 2014 at 9:05 pm

Like you I have spoken to experienced insolvency practitioner, who has dealt with a football club. Early doors he told me how weird the process was and questioned why players were not being let go. He confirmed my own thoughts on the matter. It was a farce.
=================
A farce indeed, and performed under the watchful eye of Lord Hodge. Not nearly enough attention has been paid to his cameo role in this particular pantomime. A minor role, but a vital one.

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on9:30 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Tif Finn says: (1189)
January 7, 2014 at 8:47 pm
6 0 Rate This
Why should the taxpayer, the ambulance service, the police, small businesses etc lose out when profligate football clubs get paid in full.
——————————
Why would you assume that a club owed money by another club which had entered administration had been profligate?
See easyJambo’s post of 7.39 – Hearts owe Stenhousemuir £12K – a very substantial sum for Stenny I would have thought
I think the football authorities consider that a football creditors rule (or similar) protects cup receipts, staged transfer fees etc.
I can see the point of this although I would personally prefer that not for profit creditors such as St John’s Ambulance were covered and perhaps small creditors below a certain value – not sure how practical that would be though

View Comment

taxman comethPosted on9:40 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Sevco 5088 have published accounts apparently

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on9:43 pm - Jan 7, 2014


OT question.

Can anyone tell me the significance of the bracketed number after the user name on a post, please.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on9:44 pm - Jan 7, 2014


10/02/2012

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/rangers-win-race-to-sign-daniel-1116328

Rangers win race to sign Daniel Cousin as veteran striker snubs move to Championship

11/02/2012

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/16967931

Daniel Cousin rejoins Rangers and eyes Champions League

17/02/2012

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17034037

SPL blocks Rangers deal for Daniel Cousin

19/02/2013

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/02/19/daniel-cousin-mystery/

The Daniel Cousin Mystery – Why are Rangers’ Administrators Signing Players?

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on9:48 pm - Jan 7, 2014


taxman cometh says: (119)
January 7, 2014 at 9:40 pm
Do you have a link to that?
Thanks

View Comment

neepheidPosted on9:52 pm - Jan 7, 2014


taxman cometh says: (119)
January 7, 2014 at 9:40 pm
2 0 Rate This

Sevco 5088 have published accounts apparently
=============
Saw that on twitter, and had a look on Companies House site. Last thing filed was a change of accounting date. Some confusion?

View Comment

Palacio67Posted on9:54 pm - Jan 7, 2014


neepheid says: (976)
January 7, 2014 at 9:21 pm
6 0 Rate This

Tif Finn says: (1189)
January 7, 2014 at 9:05 pm

Like you I have spoken to experienced insolvency practitioner, who has dealt with a football club. Early doors he told me how weird the process was and questioned why players were not being let go. He confirmed my own thoughts on the matter. It was a farce.
=================
A farce indeed, and performed under the watchful eye of Lord Hodge. Not nearly enough attention has been paid to his cameo role in this particular pantomime. A minor role, but a vital one.
———————
Totally Agree, he let the dying corpse of RFC1872 squiggle around for the best part of 6 weeks rather than kill it dead. Just enough time to get Norman Bates FC up and running and playing somewhere. Another very important cog in the cheatery that has gone on.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on9:55 pm - Jan 7, 2014


If it’s a planned-for administration that’s on the cards will The Rangers have their preferred administrator lined up already?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on10:00 pm - Jan 7, 2014


parttimearab says: (83) January 7, 2014 at 9:30 pm
———————————-
I believe the £12,000 owed to Stenhousemuir by Hearts is their sell on fee for the Templeton transfer to Spivco.
======================================
Not The Huddle Malcontent says: (1096) January 7, 2014 at 9:04 pm
———————————
The point about the CVA being approved is that the payment of Football debts is outside the CVA.

However it would be interesting if a Hearts creditor sought to challenge the arrangement at the Court of Session.

The CVA already has conditional approval by 87% to 13%, subject to the UBIG shares being transferred to FoH, which is expected within the next few weeks. Interestingly the 13% of those voting against was valued at £1.88M, exactly the amount owed to HM Revenue & Customs Debt Management. However, HMRC also had a second debt of £647K owed to HM Revenue & Customs – VAT National Insolvency Unit. It appears that the VAT people failed to vote at all.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on10:11 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Danish Pastry says: (1875)
January 7, 2014 at 9:55 pm
1 0 Rate This

If it’s a planned-for administration that’s on the cards will The Rangers have their preferred administrator lined up already?
==================
Of that, there can be no doubt. But this time it will be a real hatchet job- not a D&P fairy tale administration.

View Comment

EstebanPosted on10:13 pm - Jan 7, 2014


ThomTheThim says: (10)
January 7, 2014 at 9:43 pm

It’s just the number of posts, Thom. Although it can be deceptive. I changed holding email addresses recently, which is why I appear to have so few, but I actually started posting in 1873.

View Comment

PhilMacGiollaBhainPosted on10:14 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Danish Pastry says: (1875)
January 7, 2014 at 9:55 pm
I would think so.
I understand that the Secured Creditor gets to pick the Administrator.
CW had a stressful 30 minutes when he wasn’t sure if HMRC was going to allow Duff & Phelps to be RFC’s Administrator.
Then Hector relented.
At that point CW’s plan was still in play.

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on10:22 pm - Jan 7, 2014


If there is another administration then the whole point will be to cut things dramatically.

The one issue I have with the potential of their being one, particularly for the PLC, is that it hands power over to the administrator and away from the Easdale’s, Stockbridge et al. I cannot see them being comfortable about that.

An administration of the Ltd Co, with the PLC owning the assets at that time opens a couple of possibilities. Primarily it allows the loss making football club to be cut to the proverbial quick, without risking the real business, the property company that is the PLC. Or it allows that part of the group to be sold off to someone on a white charger.

If they can do that and still have the 25,000 season ticket holders, maybe more if there is a sale of the club, then that might start to make sense. The PLC gets an income, risk free and has the assets to fall back on if the whole thing collapses. They could voluntarily liquidate if they wanted at a later date.

View Comment

slimshady61Posted on10:24 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Esteban says: (7)
January 7, 2014 at 10:13 pm
—————————————
Yes, I was assured that posts from RTC would carry over into TSFM and let no one say any different.

5400 posts to 00000000

View Comment

ThomTheThimPosted on10:43 pm - Jan 7, 2014


Esteban says: (7)
January 7, 2014 at 10:13 pm
11 0 Rate This

ThomTheThim says: (10)
January 7, 2014 at 9:43 pm

It’s just the number of posts, Thom. Although it can be deceptive. I changed holding email addresses recently, which is why I appear to have so few, but I actually started posting in 1873.

********
Thanks. I too, have around here for a while, but have had to re-register.

I suppose I’ll have to change my user name to The Thom The Thim :mrgreen:

View Comment

Comments are closed.