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

Cygnus X-1Posted on4:56 pm - Jan 9, 2014


There are many things that confuse me about the mindset of the average Bear these days, but I’ll confine myself to the recent news, regarding my own team Celtic & the potential investigation by the EC.The tacit assumption by bloggers, such as Chris Graham & Bill McMurdo, that if such an investigation was to find any wrongdoing, would be a hammer blow to the club and its’ supporters & was conclusive proof of a concerted conspiracy, that they have suspected for years 🙄

I have news for them. Not only do I have no fear about a investigation, I bloody well want one.

And preferably a lengthy, thorough and detailed investigation, that leaves no stone unturned. Because you see, I have this old fashioned idea that the people who (currently) run my football club, should be completely honest, completely truthful and act with the highest professional standards possible. And if they do not, if they have broken any laws or acted and behaved in a way, which tarnish’s the reputation of the club, they should be removed immediately……bit of a contrast with our Southside brethern there 🙂

And while I’m here, let me also state that I have NO expectation that the(current) Directors of Celtic Football Club will live up to the standards I expect. Please excuse my cynicism, but frankly I expect to get let down at some point(perhaps it’s my inner rebel).

However, to be fair, it appears so far that this board are conducting themselves very professionally and run a very successful 21st century PLC, and until there is definitive proof otherwise, they must be regarded as professionals of the highest standards, but don’t think for a minute that I or many of fellow supporters are complacent about them. We remain vigilent.

What a pity these noted blue nose bloggers didn’t do the same. They might have avoided seeing their club implode and years later, still be scrabbling around in the sewar looking for dirt on another football club, just to even the score!!

Reminds me of the quote “How do you give the gift of sight to the blind?”

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on4:58 pm - Jan 9, 2014


“Easdales are not spivs. Laxeys are not spivs. Wallace and Grommit are not spivs.”

Did Brian Brian Stockbridge, the Financial Director and spiv’s man on the board leave then. I wasn’t informed. He does after all hold one of the pivotal roles on the board.

The rest may well not be spivs, depending on what one means by spiv.

Sandy Easdale is a convicted tax fraudster, with a business empire built on questionable foundations and is clearly fronting for someone. The fact that he holds the voting rights for around 25% of the business whilst he and his brother own less than 5% demonstrates that. Who is to say who is really behind whatever decisions he votes for.

Laxley’s as I understand it are asset strippers who are out to make as much money as possible, whether they keep a viable business or not is really neither here nor there. The best way to profit is all that matters and the good of a loss making football club is certainly not a factor.

I have no knowledge of the other two you mention.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on5:02 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Regarding CVAs

It is possible to consider the CVA process as having two stages.

Stage 1 is where the company that is proposing the CVA formulates its proposals to creditors, then posts them to creditors. A meeting is then held at which the creditors consider the proposals. At the meeting, if the CVA proposal obtains the requisite majorities, the proposals are approved.

Then Stage 2 comes into play. Following the approval of proposals, any creditor who feels aggrieved by the process has a right to apply to court to have the CVA overturned on the basis that the CVA is unfairly prejudicial to their interests. A creditor has 28 days, following the reporting of the approval of the CVA, to raise such proceedings (section 6 of the Insolvency Act 1986).

It is this 28 day period that can be of relevance in football cases.

What happens in football cases that does not often happen in other CVAs is that one group of ordinary creditors end up getting all of their debts paid while other ordinary creditors do not. They are of course those creditors who are something to do with football.

The mechanism that is almost universally used to do this is that the funds that are used to settle “football debts” are separate from the funds that are used to settle the CVA debts. Specifically this means that the funds of the company that is proposing the CVA are not used. Instead, third party funds are used. In that way, it can be argued that the CVA creditors (who will receive much less than 100p in the pound) are not prejudiced, as the funds that are used to settle the “football debts” are not funds that would be available to the other creditors in any circumstances.

In reality, that is probably not correct as whoever is funding the CVA and the entity going forward will have a finite amount of cash available to them. If that sum is £1m, and there are £750,000 of football debts, that will mean that there is only £250,000 to be thrown at the CVA debts. If there are only £250,000 worth of football debts then £750,000 would in theory be available to be thrown at the CVA debts.

The counter-argument might be that in practice the funder will not necessarily throw any more funds at the CVA debts than is necessary to obtain approval. However, if funds can be made available to settle football debts, they could similarly be made available to fund a higher return to the CVA creditors.

Of course unless football debts are settled, there will be no football played by the corporate entity thereafter. So the “ransom” position that the football authorities hold is clearly to the detriment of the ordinary creditors.

This is when the 28 day period comes into play. In the past, HMRC have used that challenge period to challenge CVAs set up in exactly the way I have explained above. They have argued that the CVA is organised in such a way as to be unfairly prejudicial to the interests of “non-football” creditors. To date, HMRC have been unsuccessful in that approach, with the courts taking the view that as the funds that are used to settle football debts are strictly speaking not funds that would otherwise be available to CVA creditors (exactly because those funds are coming from a third party) then the CVA should not be struck down.

It is precisely because of these situations and because of HMRC’s experience with the courts in this regard that HMRC have published guidelines as to their approach on CVAs. One of those guidelines is that HRMC are unlikely to approve any CVA proposal where one “special” class of ordinary creditors (from memory they use a phrase such as “debts due to other members of the same trade association” or some such as an example) gets a higher return than other creditors regardless of how that arises (by which they mean “third party funds”).

However, unless HMRC hold a substantial debt in a company proposing a CVA, the mere fact of HMRC voting against the CVA proposal will not mean that the CVA will not be approved. But where HMRC are in a position on their own to block a CVA, their guidelines would suggest that it will be almost impossible for a football club CVA ever to be approved.

View Comment

TSFMPosted on5:02 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Bauhaus says: (35)

January 9, 2014 at 4:44 pm

No, Billy, you haven’t read all replies but thankfully TSFM or whoever is modding got shot of it quickly.

In addition, calling someone a troll or a liar can indeed be personal abuse, especially if enough people do it to a single individual. Perhaps most importantly to an open blog/forum like this, if enough people do it that one poster it wrongfully stifles debate. Both because mud sticks and because you can exhaust someone trying to defend their good name

Some internet forums have a very useful house rule: you cannot ever call another poster a troll or a liar: if you have suspicions you report them to Admin. who have the power and discretion in this area.

Bauhaus
We have no such hard and fast rule, although usually posts accusing others of trolling are removed.
The mods do from time to time accuse people of being trolls, after giving them the benefit of the doubt – usually that stops when the accused person becomes the main topic of debate on the blog.
My own opinion which is more often than not at odds with the consensus here, is that you have been winding people up a bit.
I have to say though that if you are trolling you must be pretty good at it, because there are more than a few who have bitten.
My advice: stop making this all about you. Stop the innuendo posts which end in an ellipsis and stop laying the man yourself (which you have done on a couple of occasions now).
You’ve said your piece – so far on only one subject afaics. Why not broaden your horizons? As of now there isn’t much we can add to that articular debate. If some other facts are entered into the public domain, fair enough, but right now it’s going round in circles.

To all.
All future posts which accuse Bauhaus of trolling/applaud his victim status, will be removed all mods are aware of this.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on5:09 pm - Jan 9, 2014


tykebhoy says: (7)
January 9, 2014 at 4:27 pm
ecobhoy says: (2209)
January 9, 2014 at 4:18 pm

Leeds United bought Elland Road back from the council prior to it being used for Euro 96. Things may have changed in 17 years but I think a condition of Elland Road being used was that it was owned by the club. Whether that was down to Uefa, the FA or state aid rules I can’t say.
——————————————————————————————————–
The bottom line that a lot of Bears are missing is that State Aid can be totally acceptable under Euro regs and indeed is seen as beneficial in lots of circumstances.

I had problems accessing the relevant site last night to trace the history of State Aid in football and how it is viewed by Europe and will try to do this over the weekend as it’s the type of thing that interests me.

I think one of the things driving Blue reaction in all of this – and it’s a consequence of the Bears being continuously battered from pillar to post emotionally – is that they see Celtic ending-up as a stadium with a magnificent approach to it and brilliant setting while Ibrox sits in a bit of an industrial wasteland with a very unceratin future.

I wish there was the money to regenerate every area of Glasgow but there isn’t and I suppose as a Celtic supporter I woulkd be pig sick if the Commonwealth Games were centred in Ibrox and huge redevelopment was being carried out there with next to nothing spent in the East End.

So what the Bears are feeling at an emotional level is pretty much just human nature. But that doesn’t excuse their ‘leaders’ using a pile of tripe to work the Bears into a frenzy of hating and being ‘done down’. At the end of the day when Celtic and just about every other organisation from the Scottish Government down is cleared then the Bears will once again have been marched up the hill and then emotionally left dumped at the bottom.

Some will say they deserve everything that’s coming to them but they have been let-down by everyone and the Rangers flag of Dignity has been left in tatters. I truly feel sorry for what’s coming as they have been used and abused financially by everyone associated with the club going back to the DM era IMO and its hard to accept the gravy train has ended even though most of the money they skimmed-off is clearly State Aid and hopefully BDO will get some of it back.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on5:13 pm - Jan 9, 2014


ecobhoy says: (2210)
January 9, 2014 at 4:18 pm

Agree as far it goes. However, I just don’t believe that getting a change of use at MP would be either simple or quick. There are lots of people who do not care about football, but who care very much about the environment and the planning system. Such a change in use would very quickly be tied up in knots, and would after a period of many months, possibly a year or more, find itself on the desk of some hapless Scottish Minister.

I still can’t see any Glasgow Councillor voting for a change of use at Ibrox, unless they had a château in France and a new identity to go with it….

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on5:15 pm - Jan 9, 2014


TSFM – ok – enough of the troll comments already – even in jest 🙂

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on5:18 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Barcabhoy says: (323)
January 9, 2014 at 3:10 pm
26 2 Rate This

Is there anything more pathetic than someone who posts on forums , who pretends to support one team whilst actually being a supporter of a rival.

Why do it ?
——————————————————————

( err deletes account on Rangers Media 😳 )

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on5:22 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Am I not right in saying that someone banking land would not be overly concerned if a change of use was to take several years. Land and property is pretty much a long term game is it not.

If they think that they can get the land cheaply enough, and when they get that change of use they can make a big enough profit, then it’s worth the gamble.

Particularly if they have some spare capital lying around not doing very much. What are we talking about here, a few million pounds.

View Comment

TSFMPosted on5:23 pm - Jan 9, 2014


For RTC & TSFM veterans, a wee blast from the past.
Given the recent stramash on the blog, I did a wee bit of digging – ninety seconds worth to be precise.

I am sorry to say (‘cos we do like to give people the benefit of the doubt), that we have witnessed over the last day or so, the return of that intrepid Troll known variously as Observer, Enkafid, Old Gold, Dalriadan etc.

Unless of course Bauhaus just happens to live in the same Yorkshire town, with the same IP address as all of those fellows.

Moderation for now 🙂

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on5:24 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Tif Finn says: (1200)
January 9, 2014 at 5:22 pm

Possible, but, even here the view on land banking is changing, There are moves a foot to bring in legislation that would make this a much less attractive option.

View Comment

FIFAPosted on5:29 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Apologies if asked before ,can anyone repost how the old Rangers came to own Murray Park ,I know it originaly was held by North Kelvinside Academy and the route from there to Rangers is not too clear,any info appreciated .

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on5:39 pm - Jan 9, 2014


TSFM says: (598)
January 9, 2014 at 5:23 pm

I am sorry to say (‘cos we do like to give people the benefit of the doubt), that we have witnessed over the last day or so, the return of that intrepid Troll known variously as Observer, Enkafid, Old Gold, Dalriadan etc.

Unless of course Bauhaus just happens to live in the same Yorkshire town, with the same IP address as all of those fellows.

Moderation for now 🙂
======================
Nice one TSFM 🙂

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on5:41 pm - Jan 9, 2014


TSFM says: (598)
January 9, 2014 at 5:23 pm

For RTC & TSFM veterans, a wee blast from the past.
Given the recent stramash on the blog, I did a wee bit of digging – ninety seconds worth to be precise.

I am sorry to say (‘cos we do like to give people the benefit of the doubt), that we have witnessed over the last day or so, the return of that intrepid Troll known variously as Observer, Enkafid, Old Gold, Dalriadan etc.

Unless of course Bauhaus just happens to live in the same Yorkshire town, with the same IP address as all of those fellows. Moderation for now 🙂
===========================================================
I didn’t need an IP address as the writing style stuck-out a mile 😆

Add Edit:

AT has a lot to answer for 🙂 🙂

View Comment

FinlochPosted on5:43 pm - Jan 9, 2014


TSFM says: (598)
January 9, 2014 at 5:23 pm

Unless of course Bauhaus just happens to live in the same Yorkshire town, with the same IP address as Observer, Enkafid, Old Gold, Dalriadan etc.
……………………………………………………………………………………………..

Made me laugh out loud!

View Comment

Tic 6709Posted on5:45 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Martin says: (21)

January 9, 2014 at 3:45 pm
===================
You can Ramble on here anytime Martin.Great post. (You’re not that naked rambler fellow are you ?)

View Comment

Fergies_SonPosted on5:46 pm - Jan 9, 2014


I have followed the Blog since it’s inception & the RTC Blog before it. I am more a reader than a poster because the contributors are normally of a high standard & knowledgeable on the subjects under. discussion.

I also followed the Paul McConville Blog, may he R.I.P., I went on to see how the Continuation blog was doing & I was amazed to find TSFM being criticised by, of all people Steerpike & the guy who started the Continuation, Gort It seems you do not meet the “standards” of some on that Blog.

I was amazed that a start up Blog would spend their time in critical appraisal of probably the best run & moderated Blog that I have read.

I was going to post on the Continuation in defence of TSFM but decided not to give them a reaction in case this is what they desire, people posting to give them numbers.

Paul McConville was unique in his style & his content was both knowledgeable & entertaining, He had a great sense of humour, none of which is reflected in the “Continuation” Blog.

Two Blogs have been started up from the readership of Paul’s Blog, neither are my cup of tea & I won’t be back on either.

Keep up the good work on TSFM,

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on5:48 pm - Jan 9, 2014


FIFA says: (482)
January 9, 2014 at 5:29 pm

Apologies if asked before ,can anyone repost how the old Rangers came to own Murray Park ,I know it originaly was held by North Kelvinside Academy and the route from there to Rangers is not too clear,any info appreciated.
===================================================
Posts I did on scots law back in July 2012

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/the-sfa-and-its-role-in-any-future-sale-of-rangers-murray-park-by-ecojon/

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/smoke-mirrors-and-sevco-rangers-assets-guest-post-by-ecojon/

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on5:52 pm - Jan 9, 2014


For the avoidance of doubt – the complaint was sent to EC long ago – all Chris Graham did was to contact the EC to confirm they were looking into it.

The “investigation” was all done by someone else who has posted all this stuff extensively on Rangers Standard,and McMurdos blog over last few months and has a blog site out there.

http://footballtaxhavens.wordpress.com/about/

In trying to cut through his writings, which is hard going at times (thus I still cannot believe it was Newtz who is the author, but I could be wrong!) – he is the one who gathered all the evidence and has contacted the EC in Dec, with his “findings” – however all this has been debunked by Ecobhoy as stated previously.

There is no suggestion anywhere that Chris Graham did anything of substance other than make a call to confirm it was being looked at. Not sure why he is being credited with doing anything other than waiting to see how it all pans out as usual!

Since Chris has previously heaped praise on SDM, CW, CG and more recently The Requisitioners – his track record and more importantly his street cred with his followers is awful. To eradicate this unwanted history, its probably the case that he has seen this case as a way to bump up his approval ratings with his pals, given that McMurdo backed the right horses for the AGM.

Jack Irvine has probably been active more in ensuring the BBC picked it up quickly – which they did of course!

Strangely enough, from over here in Yankeeland, I did hear that Gov Christie of NJ and Dennis Rodman are both scared in case Chris Graham endorses them too – no one wants Chris’ “help” nowadays! :mrgreen:

Final thing about the mud slinging – the problem with this is even when EC says no case that will not be the end of it – much like the besmirching of Jock Stein, even when there is no evidence, it doesn’t stop the nonsensical “cover up” conspiracy theorists. As Josef Goebbel’s noted, if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes fact. On this site, we have enough facts to concentrate on without making up jibberish like this EC nonsense.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on6:02 pm - Jan 9, 2014


scapaflow says: (1280)
January 9, 2014 at 5:13 pm
ecobhoy says: (2210)
January 9, 2014 at 4:18 pm

Agree as far it goes. However, I just don’t believe that getting a change of use at MP would be either simple or quick. There are lots of people who do not care about football, but who care very much about the environment and the planning system. Such a change in use would very quickly be tied up in knots, and would after a period of many months, possibly a year or more, find itself on the desk of some hapless Scottish Minister.
==============================================
Ah but I wasn’t meaning a change of use but a continuation of the sport/leisure use. That is obviously the simplest way to raise cash quickly.

More could obviously be raised if sold for housing but as others have also said that wouldn’t be that easy and would take time because there would be well-organised and active local opposition and not because the locals are Celtic supporters I hasten to add.

But because of other land deals for building with the local council leisure centre it might be that the council would be interested but there again in the current financial climate I don’t really know if that would be a goer.

However I’m sure there would always be someone willing to buy and it just depends on how low the Spivs will go 😉

I suppose a key element is what they could save in running costs although they couldn’t sack all of the staff as some would need to relocate presumably to Ibrox as being essential to keep players on the field. But I’m not sure of the make-up of the MP personnel.

Are there still all the steps up to the flasgpole in Bellahouston Park – it would be a bit like training on the Gullane Dunes although think of the transport costs even if you had a club bus. And I’m sure destroying the dunes wouldn’t be regarded as ecologically sound these days and bound to be objections from the Greens – some things never change 🙄

View Comment

wottpiPosted on6:07 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Can you really suspend/ban someone for lying about being a liar who is then found out to be a liar.
Does that not mean they were telling the truth!!!!
Like time travel causing disuprtion in the space time continuum, I’m confused 🙂

View Comment

RaymacPosted on6:27 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Ah come on!! I like Bauhaus–can we keep him? It’s not fair so it’s not that you went and did in 90 seconds what he himself (allegedlly-i.e-. look up some facts.y) couldn’t do.
I think he’s a Peter Lawell hater and has tuped over from CQN.

View Comment

MartinPosted on6:27 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Tic 6709 and mcfc,

Thank you for the encouragement.

For the avoidance of doubt I have been in the past and remain to this day fully dressed when posting.

I do like a thoughtful ramble though 😛

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on6:32 pm - Jan 9, 2014


State Aid: Commission clears Belgian support scheme for football stadiums

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1120_en.htm

Interesting in how it explains when State Aid can be allowed. Also mentions previoius approval for similar scheme in Hungary.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on6:39 pm - Jan 9, 2014


wottpi says: (1384)
January 9, 2014 at 6:07 pm

Can you really suspend/ban someone for lying about being a liar who is then found out to be a liar.
Does that not mean they were telling the truth!!!!
Like time travel causing disuprtion in the space time continuum, I’m confused 🙂
=========================================================
You’re confused? I’m the guy he said called him a liar.

I hope in view of the fact that we now know for certain who he is – even though he probably doesn’t – that I am allowed to state – just for the record – that he was lying when he said I called him a liar 😯

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on6:44 pm - Jan 9, 2014


http://ec.europa.eu/sport/news/20131218-state-aid_en.htm

On 18 December 2013, the Commission took two decisions concerning state aid for professional sport

In the first decision, the Commission declared French public support for the construction and renovation of nine stadiums in order to host the UEFA EURO Championship in 2016 to be in line with EU state aid rules. The Commission noted that after the EURO 2016 championship, the stadiums would continue to be available to clubs and citizens for social, sports and cultural events; as a consequence, in the Commission’s views the support given by France will further the promotion of sport and culture without unduly distorting competition in the EU internal market.

In the second decision, the Commission opened three in-depth investigations concerning public support in favour of seven Spanish professional football clubs. Clubs under investigations are: Real Madrid CF, Barcelona CF, Athletic Club Bilbao, Club Atlético Osasuna, Valencia CF, Hercules CF and Elche CF. The first investigation concerns possible tax privileges. The second one covers a widely reported land transfer between the City of Madrid and the club Real Madrid CF. The third one deals with guarantees given by the State-owned Valencia Institute of Finance for loans that were used to finance the local clubs.

More detailed information concerning this decision is available from the press release IP-13-1287.

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on6:46 pm - Jan 9, 2014


I am delighted to be able to endorse Bauhaus’ view that TSFM is on the ball.

The recent post by TSFM in slapping down those who’s motivation is to deflect and deceive was the ultimate home run.

Kudos

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on6:53 pm - Jan 9, 2014


TSFM says: (598)
January 9, 2014 at 5:23 pm
39 0 Rate This
————-

I think Observer is still waiting for an apology from Fritz and yours truly on account of our opposition to the nonsense that was Guidigate 😀

Share price down again. Some people’s 1p shares will soon be worth, 1p. Jings.

View Comment

nickmcguinnessPosted on7:21 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Just checking I’ve not been sent to the Naughty Step for calling the Troll a troll.
(He was bloody obvious, wasn’t he?)

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on7:28 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Wonder what his user id was on KSDS that he allegedly was banned from………….

Let’s hope he does not discover that you can change your IP address……….I change it all the time from my USA one to a UK one so I can watch the BBC Iplayer….. 😈

View Comment

JoethebookiePosted on7:36 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Bauhaus says: (38)
January 9, 2014 at 4:21 pm
 3 30 Rate This

I wouldn’t believe Chris Graham if he told me tomorrow was Friday.
I prefer sources with a little more credibility, like the monster raving loony party.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on7:42 pm - Jan 9, 2014


On the issue or RIFC Plc share price – worth remembering that on 14 January 2013 it was 90p and today almost a year later the Bid price was 30p with a share price of 31p.

Has something happened down Ibrox Way ❓

I wonder how low it will go ❓

View Comment

weescotsmanPosted on7:46 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Martin says: (21)

January 9, 2014 at 3:45 pm
===================
You can Ramble on here anytime Martin.Great post. (You’re not that naked rambler fellow are you ?)

He can’t be him….. he was jailed yesterday for breaching yet another Asbo…… 16 months this time. You’d think he would get a bit fed up of this palaver by now.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on7:54 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Eco, the ever declining share price simply reflects what everyone, from Bill Millar through Dave King to Jim McColl, who has spent more than 5 minutes thinking about it knows:

This is a business with a model that does not now and, can never, work.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:12 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Billy Boyce says: (169)
January 9, 2014 at 4:28 pm
‘………TSFM is for constructive debate. .’
———-
And in the main ,constructive debate is what we get.

As in any debate, there are differing points of view, even when the same set of facts is being looked at.

There is also a fair degree of speculation, sometimes arrived at by drawing conclusions from what has happened before in similar circumstances. This kind of speculation, as people try to see what might lie behind this or that event or utterance has its uses, in so far as it can prompt others to explore other possible interpretations.

All this is good.It is interesting. And, for those who are interested in any particular aspect, it is a spur to independent verification and research and further reading, and possible counter-argument.

Then there are those posts which are unthinking,wholly emotional statements of personal wishes: statements of what one would WISH to be the case, or would HOPE will be the case,made as assertions as if they are indeed the case!

And finally, there is occasionally the deliberate attempt to divert and distort in order to deflect and waste people’s time and energy chasing wholly irrelevant squirrels.

This blog has seen all of these various approaches being adopted.

Happily, though, most of us adopt the first two approaches ( perhaps sometimes, under extreme provocation, veering towards the third).
.
In particular, under the ‘facts’ approach,we agree:

that there was ( leaving aside the social taxes question) a huge offence committed against sporting integrity by one powerful football club, over many years;

that that club was killed by its two successive majority shareholders-SDM and CW

that that club had such entrenched influence on the ‘fabric of Scottish society’ that its death was enough to subvert the Football Authorities into committing the even more heinous offence of constructing the 5-way agreement, which, denying truth and fairness, allowed a new club to be irregularly admitted into the SFA, and to be so much regarded as a continuation of the old club as to be responsible for that dead club’s footballing (but no other!) debts;

that that dead club’s baneful influence on the sporting press AND the continuing influence of conflicted persons in office in the SFA has allowed the BIG LIE to be maintained and propagated in the press and on the airwaves by people who know that it is nothing more than a BIG LIE.

The second approach , fact-related speculation with intelligent putting together of limited facts to try to draw conclusions, is immensely interesting.

Speculation about the original scam- Who was/is behind it all? Was ‘Administration’ part of a huge fraud?What was behind ‘good night out’ dinners between SFA officials and sundry others? How many little private discussions and nods and winks were there between conflicted people and the ‘resurrectionists?’ What exactly is in the 5-way agreement? Who exactly were the signatories?
Why was the dead club’s dreadful finance regime allowed to continue unchecked year after year?
When will the new club go into administration? What happened to all the money? What will happen when the spivs pull out? Can any team be formed?Would it have a ground to play in? What would it do for money?
Could the SFA dare to modify their rules to accelerate the new club when it suffers the consequences of Administration?
And just who are the real money-makers and what exactly is their game plan?

All these ( secondary though they be to the main fact of SFA and Press deceit) are of great interest, and many on this blog have had their general financial and social history knowledge greatly enriched and enhanced by people who know their way in various fields.

TSFM and mods have generally kept the third and fourth kind of approaches within tolerable limits.
And although I have once or twice fallen foul of them, I am extremely grateful for the vigilance they
exercise.

Without that vigilance, this blog would not enjoy its high status as a genuinely all-team forum, free of the vileness and foulness of a great many ‘fan’s forums’ ( ok, ‘fora’ for the purists!))

We have learned a great measure of self-restraint, and the necessity of trying hard not just to open our mouths and let our bellies rumble, but to do some work and put thought into what we want to say.

It’s a great blog to be part of.

And the posts presently relating to the ‘EC Investigation’ are demonstrating that what we are after are established facts first, and then we can speculate on what those facts might mean-for or against the club involved, in relation to FIFA, UEFA or SFA rules.

View Comment

wildwoodPosted on8:14 pm - Jan 9, 2014


TSFM says: (598)
January 9, 2014 at 5:23 pm

I am sorry to say (‘cos we do like to give people the benefit of the doubt), that we have witnessed over the last day or so, the return of that intrepid Troll known variously as Observer, Enkafid, Old Gold, Dalriadan etc.

Unless of course Bauhaus just happens to live in the same Yorkshire town, with the same IP address as all of those fellows.

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

Wot! All those guys stay in the one place!? And use the same computer?

Is it underneath a bridge with some ‘billy’ goats rattling over it

View Comment

Tic 6709Posted on8:32 pm - Jan 9, 2014


weescotsman says: (6)

January 9, 2014 at 7:46 pm

Martin says: (21)

January 9, 2014 at 3:45 pm
===================
You can Ramble on here anytime Martin.Great post. (You’re not that naked rambler fellow are you ?)

He can’t be him….. he was jailed yesterday for breaching yet another Asbo…… 16 months this time. You’d think he would get a bit fed up of this palaver by now.
======================
Christ, that’s a bit stiff.(couldn’t resist)

View Comment

BroadswordcallingdannybhoyPosted on8:48 pm - Jan 9, 2014


weescotsman says: (6)

January 9, 2014 at 7:46 pm

6

0

Rate This

Quantcast

Martin says: (21)

January 9, 2014 at 3:45 pm
===================
You can Ramble on here anytime Martin.Great post. (You’re not that naked rambler fellow are you ?)

He can’t be him….. he was jailed yesterday for breaching yet another Asbo…… 16 months this time. You’d think he would get a bit fed up of this palaver by now.
=======================================

You’ve got to admire his balls!!

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on8:50 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Having a look at who can lodge a valid State Aid complaint to the European Comission.

Apparently it is ‘Interested parties’ defined under (Article 1(h) of the Procedural Regulation) which states: “any Member State and any person, undertaking or association of undertakings whose interests might be affected by the granting of aid, in particular the beneficiary of the aid, competing undertakings and trade associations.”

‘Please note that the complainant has to show a legitimate interest in bringing the case before the Commission. The simple fact of having lodged a complaint with the Commission does not mean that the complainant automatically becomes an interested party. ‘
———————————————————————————–
Does that actually empower Bears to fire off email complaints? Certainly the submission of a complaint doesn’t in itself accord the complainant the status of ‘interested parrty’.

So I’m actually beginning to wonder who has complained to the European Commission Could it actually be Rangers Football Club? Has ‘Trade Association’ been stretched to cover a supporters’ group because shirley the SFA hasn’t lodge the complaint against Celtic . I know the last one sounds crazy but things must be getting desperate in the Hampden corridors I reckon

All very interesting stuff and plodding through it makes me think that EBTs might breach Euro Competition Law. Will be well worth following that one up once we have the UT Decision which could make it a slam dunk.

Also worth remembering the five conditions required to comprise ‘State Aid’:

Use of state resources
Economic advantage
Selectivity (i.e. the aid favours certain commercial undertakings or the production of certain goods)
Effect on competition
Effect on trade between Member States
————————————————————-
Who would ever have thought that Celtic doing its bit to regenerate the East End could have an effect on trade between all the European Member States.

It is also made clear that if these 5 conditions aren’t met then you should not lodge a complaint about State Aid through the authorised website. Even if State Resources were used by anyone then there would be no breach of Euro Regs unless the other four conditions were also met.

I personally don’t believe that State Resources were involved as fas as Celtic were concerned. All that happened was the normal kind of land transactions which happen day and daily involving the City of Glasgow – I shudder to think how many thousands are carried out each month.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:50 pm - Jan 9, 2014


ecobhoy says: (2218)
January 9, 2014 at 6:02 pm
‘….it would be a bit like training on the Gullane Dunes ..’
———-
Bhoy, that takes me back! And it takes me aback that it was so long ago!
Never ever did get the reason for Jock’s resignation when, fair dos, he had been doing so well.
Anyone?

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on8:55 pm - Jan 9, 2014


john clarke says: (1508)
January 9, 2014 at 8:50 pm
ecobhoy says: (2218)
January 9, 2014 at 6:02 pm

‘….it would be a bit like training on the Gullane Dunes ..’
———-
Bhoy, that takes me back! And it takes me aback that it was so long ago!
===========================================
Hey cut the ageist patter 😎

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on8:57 pm - Jan 9, 2014


John Clarke – according to Wiki, we will never know – however if it is to do with salary, wonder how Jock would be taking it based on Super Salary’s 800K a year stint………..all about timing!

Wallace’s managership of Rangers in the mid-1970s saw the club regain the ascendancy it had enjoyed throughout much its history. But just as the prospect of further sustained success beckoned, Wallace unexpectedly resigned as manager in 1978. The precise cause was never fully established, as Wallace maintained silence until his death in 1996. Most of the speculation centred on alleged disputes with the Rangers board (and with Waddell in particular) about transfer budgets or Wallace’s own salary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jock_Wallace,_Jr.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on8:58 pm - Jan 9, 2014


ecobhoy says: (2219)
January 9, 2014 at 8:50 pm
‘… All that happened was the normal kind of land transactions which happen day and daily involving the City of Glasgow .’
———–
And, I may say, because there WAS a time when not all Glasgow cooncillors were clean totties, you can be sure that any business transacted in recent years with ( to be fair) either of the then big two city football clubs would have been squeaky clean to the nth degree .

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:01 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Exiled Celt says: (903)
January 9, 2014 at 8:57 pm
‘..alleged disputes with the Rangers board (and with Waddell in particular) about transfer budgets or Wallace’s own salary.’
——
Than you, EC.
So that’s the precedent set for the present Mr Wallace and the present manager, then!

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on9:04 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Apologies if posted already

Limond jailed
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-25672182

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on9:25 pm - Jan 9, 2014


I’m going to go against the grain here as I have a feeling that Graham Wallace may well be making a genuine effort to put rangers on a sound(er) financial footing.
My best guess is that the current talk of a £1m wage reduction is aimed at getting them through to the next batch of season ticket sales.
The 120 day review will aim to see to what extent they can live within their means in season 2014/2015.
In other words any short term savings may be painful but will pale into insignificance compared to what may lie in wait during the summer – if the current majority of shareholders think it’s achievable and think that flipping a solvent rangers to a buyer once in the top tier will yield more profit than a pre-pack in the short term.
Expect a massive hike in st prices coupled with an early start to st sales – this will be dressed up as giving the fans a longer period to pay up at the higher price.
Probably easier sell austerity to the people they need to buy st’s than a sale and leaseback of ibrox?

View Comment

iamacantPosted on9:30 pm - Jan 9, 2014


TSFM says: (598)
January 9, 2014 at 5:23 pm

For RTC & TSFM veterans, a wee blast from the past.
————————————————————————————————————–

Sorry for being OT but a few “ageist” comments made me hark back to my youth and reminded me of some old LP’s I used to have.

Another blast from the past is the fact that Bauhaus did release an album titled “GO AWAY WHITE” :mrgreen:

View Comment

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on9:40 pm - Jan 9, 2014


ecobhoy says: (2220)
January 9, 2014 at 8:50 pm

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

just wondering about this post…..if indeed the complaint has come from “more than just a fan” – i.e. Sevco or even the SFA as an interested party – could this be the real reason about the Celtics board recent statement on the resolution brought to the AGM by the Celtic trust regards the SFA and the granting of the UEFA license to Rangers in their final european campaign?

Maybe RIFC have overstepped the mark in dragging Celtics name down and this has prompted the Celtic boards interest in investigating this.

Could the public announcement from Celtic that it’s still on the cards simply be a warning shot for them to drop it?

Cynical me.

View Comment

BauhausPosted on9:41 pm - Jan 9, 2014


I’ll be back.

Best wishes from rainy Yorkshire, all!

Thought I’d give Old Gold the final word or three 🙂

View Comment

ptd1978Posted on9:45 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Didn’t Charles Green overhaul the security arrangements to take them in-house? He also did the same with something else, but I can’t remember what it was (catering?, retail?).
Is Green still a director of these companies and is there any way to find out the details of the contracts between these shiny news T’Rangers offshoots and either TRFC or RIFC?
I’d be shocked if they weren’t being used to siphon of as much of that lovely IPO money as their directors could get away with, either now or with sweetheart contracts lasting for many years and with crippling penalties should RIFC/TRFC try to get out of their side of the arrangement.
Is it even possible there could be some way to give these contracts primacy in the event of an administration??

I’m probably looking into this too much, but these two restructuring processes are the only actions I know of that Green took which haven’t been exposed as outright, then and there cash grabs. That makes me wonder if there isn’t something else going on with these companies.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:54 pm - Jan 9, 2014


parttimearab says: (84)
January 9, 2014 at 9:25 pm
‘…I have a feeling that Graham Wallace may well be making a genuine effort to put rangers on a sound(er) financial footing…’
——–
You may very well be right as regards the man’s personal intentions.

But it’s very likely that while he may be working honestly, he will be working to a false brief.

That is, the RIFC board as a whole will have told him: show us what needs to be done to make this club a continuing milk cow for us.
Or tell us that it can’t be done. You’ve got 120 days ( and, by the way, we might do our own thing in the meantime, without consulting you!)
Promises of a tough structural review always look good to shareholders and the market, buy time, are easy to make, and suggest that you’re fighting hard for financial stability and success ( while being ready to cut and run at a moment’s notice).
Or is that just a shade too cynical?
With no significant debtors, is Administration/liquidation likely to make the big shareholders much more money more quickly than even a moderately successful championship football club over a season or two?
I confess that I don’t know how to make that calculation- certain quite big money now as against uncertain but possibly bigger money in an uncertain future?
Nae wunner Ah’m poor!

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on9:57 pm - Jan 9, 2014


PTD

http://companycheck.co.uk/director/907595268

Strange that charles green is not listed as ever been a director of TRFC LTD or RIFC PLC

View Comment

Carl31Posted on9:59 pm - Jan 9, 2014


So he was from a Yorkshire town, eh?!

By ‘eck! that Bauhaus fella thats been on this ‘ere t’internet be none other than thy fella Charlie Greeeen, an I claim me five pound!!
:0)

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on10:00 pm - Jan 9, 2014


“Bauhaus says: (38)
January 9, 2014 at 9:41 pm
7 19 Rate This

I’ll be back.”

Hasta la vista baby

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on10:07 pm - Jan 9, 2014


This is Charles Green who created the new Rangers Club and set about destroying it.

http://companycheck.co.uk/director/916889225

View Comment

TSFMPosted on10:10 pm - Jan 9, 2014


iamacant says: (379)

January 9, 2014 at 9:30 pm

Sorry for being OT but a few “ageist” comments made me hark back to my youth and reminded me of some old LP’s I used to have.

Another blast from the past is the fact that Bauhaus did release an album titled “GO AWAY WHITE” :mrgreen:
____________________________________________________________________________

They did indeed – but more importantly, you had more than one Les Paul? 🙂

Toff !

View Comment

parttimearabPosted on10:19 pm - Jan 9, 2014


john clarke says: (1511)
January 9, 2014 at 9:54 pm
—————————
Certainly not too cynical John, nothing I think would surprise any of us any more.
However,imo, administration/liquidation while it cuts costs rapidly and effectively risks finally alienating the fans and above all else they need the st monies.
I can still see it as an (inevitable?) option if Wallace can’t make the sums work but to my thinking a last resort rather than the first one.

View Comment

ianagainPosted on10:20 pm - Jan 9, 2014


I find it significant that sonsofstruth shut down.
This I believe was the home of the “redoubtable” George. the guy who started all the protests via rangers rumours and out his own pocket printed all the leaflets that led to the bears red card protests.
He was a bit OTT with claims of fraud squad investigations etc.
He did print many true stories regarding redundancies, close family to directors getting lucrative work, ,problems with Edmiston house (versus the popular stadium rumours) and so on. In short he was a pain in the ass to the current board.
However now he’s shut down its full steam ahead for strip and run.

View Comment

weescotsmanPosted on10:24 pm - Jan 9, 2014


weescotsman says: (6)

January 9, 2014 at 7:46 pm

6

0

Rate This

Quantcast

Martin says: (21)

January 9, 2014 at 3:45 pm
===================
You can Ramble on here anytime Martin.Great post. (You’re not that naked rambler fellow are you ?)

He can’t be him….. he was jailed yesterday for breaching yet another Asbo…… 16 months this time. You’d think he would get a bit fed up of this palaver by now.
=======================================

You’ve got to admire his balls!!

Unfortunately, so did the courtroom so he was banished to the cells for the duration of the hearing……. seems he’s a tall chap and when he stood up in the dock, his appendages were on full display…..

View Comment

FIFAPosted on10:33 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Ecobhoy 17.48
Thanks for the links ,a bit dumb but I remember something on RTC a few years back with some mention that Rangers had aquired Auchenhowie from Kelvinside for a peppercorn rent and was wondering how this then became owned by said payers of the peppercorns,could be worth asking Chris Graham to take this up with his Euro pals,maybe’s aye ,maybe’s naw

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on10:35 pm - Jan 9, 2014


weescotsman says: (7)
January 9, 2014 at 10:24 pm

The chap is ex-military with serious mental health issues, I am unclear how locking him up is helping the situation. Way off topic for this forum though.

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on10:41 pm - Jan 9, 2014


scapaflow says: (1283)
January 9, 2014 at 10:35 pm

Very sorry to hear that this chap has serious mental health problems.
I think other posters were trying to lighten the mood but were unaware of this fact.

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on10:44 pm - Jan 9, 2014


wottpi says: (1384)
January 9, 2014 at 6:07 pm
Can you really suspend/ban someone for lying about being a liar who is then found out to be a liar.
Does that not mean they were telling the truth!!!!
Like time travel causing disuprtion in the space time continuum, I’m confused 🙂
========================================================

I’ve just consulted Sandy Bryson of SFA fame and he advises that as Bauhaus was an undisclosed liar when he registered with TSFM then any sanctions TSFM wishes to impose because he was later discovered to be a liar, e.g. moderation or banishment, are not applicable.

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on10:45 pm - Jan 9, 2014


jean7brodie says: (417)
January 9, 2014 at 10:41 pm

Jean, no worries, the situation is not without its humorous side. Our prisons are full of the sad, the bad and the mad. It is unfortunate that the sad and the mad populations tend to dwarf the bad.

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on10:50 pm - Jan 9, 2014


TSFM says: (599)

January 9, 2014 at 5:23 pm
For RTC & TSFM veterans, a wee blast from the past.
Given the recent stramash on the blog, (my edit)
=================================================================================
TSFM….have you acknowledged the “copyright” to Arthur Montford in this quote…?

“…Up go the heads…and it’s a stramash…” from an 1974 World Cup qualifier at Hampden…IIRC.

…ah’m aff tae ma pit noo…!

View Comment

scottcPosted on10:50 pm - Jan 9, 2014


jimlarkin says: (750)
January 9, 2014 at 9:57 pm

http://companycheck.co.uk/director/907595268

Strange that charles green is not listed as ever been a director of TRFC LTD or RIFC PLC

Tif Finn says: (1201)
January 9, 2014 at 10:07 pm

This is Charles Green who created the new Rangers Club and set about destroying it.

http://companycheck.co.uk/director/916889225

They are, in fact, one and the same person. Another Spiv trick. Check out how many Easdales there are in the bodies of just two men. Slight change of address, or using an initial instead of a name

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on10:54 pm - Jan 9, 2014


@Eco

Posts I did on scots law back in July 2012

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/25/the-sfa-and-its-role-in-any-future-sale-of-rangers-murray-park-by-ecojon/
———————————————————————————————————————————————-

Jeez I had a couple of rants in that post..

Is derelict land given cheaply if it is sat doing nothing for the community, it needs some work, is a bit of an eyesore and is less than desirable for anything other than arable use? Given that a top class facility could be built on that bringing jobs and money into the local community.. No brainer.. As Minty bought the original ranger for nowt, made a profit selling it for a quid, I wonder how much he paid for the auchenhowie centre???

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on10:57 pm - Jan 9, 2014


@TSFM I would never say Bauhaus is a troll or write anything to that effect BUT what if I just THOUGHT he was a troll? Bertie Auld cheers.. 😳

View Comment

essexbeancounterPosted on11:03 pm - Jan 9, 2014


ecobhoy says: (2220)

January 9, 2014 at 8:55 pm

5

0

Rate This

Quantcast

john clarke says: (1508)
January 9, 2014 at 8:50 pm
ecobhoy says: (2218)
January 9, 2014 at 6:02 pm

‘….it would be a bit like training on the Gullane Dunes ..’
———-
Bhoy, that takes me back! And it takes me aback that it was so long ago!
===========================================
Hey cut the ageist patter 😎
===============================================================================
Guys…this takes me back to those halcyon days when, in the Glasgow Evening Times, a cartoon, penned by the late great Bud Neil, depicted a nonplussed John Greig, having come off the dunes on to the grass and looking up at Jock Wallace, saying, …”hey boss, what is this green spikey stuff…?”

TSFM…you are an authority on the late great Bud, any chance you can research the original cartoon?

View Comment

FIFAPosted on11:05 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Oh dear I seem to have hit someone on the thumb with my last post ,do tell.

View Comment

MercDocPosted on11:05 pm - Jan 9, 2014


I see the TSFM has its own Blogger regeneration in Bauhaus ( Dr Who Cares from Yorkshire), doesn’t he know we’ve already had Christopher Eccleston ( I know he’s from Lanacashire). I doubt this will be his last regeneration or constipation, going by his arguments.

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on11:29 pm - Jan 9, 2014


scottc says: (434)
January 9, 2014 at 10:50 pm

This is Charles Green who created the new Rangers Club and set about destroying it.

http://companycheck.co.uk/director/916889225
—————————–
How many of these Charles Alexander Greens are Chico?

http://companycheck.co.uk/search/results?SearchCompaniesForm%5Bname%5D=Charles+alexander+green&yt3=

View Comment

taxman comethPosted on11:30 pm - Jan 9, 2014


Charlotte back with this

““NewCo” in the Context of an Insolvency Event

Introduction

The SPFL Articles and Rules both contain a definition of Insolvency Event. The definition is identical. The possibility of an insolvent owner and operator of a Club applying to effectively exit insolvency by means of a share transfer of the SPFL share from the insolvent owner and operator to a new solvent owner and operator of a Club is not expressly referenced as an Insolvency Event.
A CVA is referenced as an Insolvency Event but would not typically of itself attract a 15 point deduction in accordance with section E of the SPFL Rules because, except in exceptional cases, a CVA would be part of an Insolvency Process and each stage of one Insolvency Process does not attract individual 15 point penalties.

The traditional exit route of an owner and operator of a Club from insolvency is by means of a CVA and it has been tacitly accepted by Clubs, both in the SPL and SFL, that a single sporting sanction of a one off deduction in points is appropriate for a single Insolvency Process where a CVA is used as an exit method providing that the whole Insolvency Process is completed within the same Season and the immediately succeeding close Season.

In effect, the SPFL Rules provide that if the Insolvency Process as a whole is not completed for the start of the following Season then a further 15 point penalty results.

There are instances in England where, for whatever reason, a CVA route has not been possible to implement in order to exit an Insolvency Process and in Scotland, to date, we have the one example of Rangers FC where a CVA could not achieve the requisite 75% vote of creditors in favour of the CVA proposal.

In such circumstances, if “a Club” is to be “saved” and not to suffer the fate of Third Lanark and Clydebank then the only solution is what has become known as the NewCo solution.

In contradistinction to football the NewCo means of exiting an insolvency situation with the business continuing, albeit with new owners, is the norm. Often this is accomplished by a “pre-pack”. Whilst CVAs have become slightly more popular in general business in the course of the last few years, the great majority of Insolvency Processes which involve the “saving” of the business are implemented by means of a NewCo typically as a component of a pre-pack.

For whatever reasons a NewCo solution to an Insolvency Process is regarded negatively in football and the widely held view is that additional sporting sanctions, over and above any sporting sanctions that might have been imposed at the time of administration (15 or 25 point penalty and registration restrictions in the case of the SPFL) ought to result from a NewCo solution being adopted to secure an exit from insolvency.

SPFL Articles

The possibility of the transfer of the business assets and undertaking of a Club between one owner and operator and a new owner and operator has always been envisaged in the Articles of Association of the SPL. The relevant current SPFL Articles are 31 to 43 (inclusive).

These Articles apply whether the context of the proposed NewCo is one which involves an Insolvency Event or otherwise.

So far as SPFL Limited is concerned the critical component of a NewCo Transaction is the transfer of the one SPFL Limited share held by the existing owner and operator of the Club (“OldCo”) to the proposed new owner and operator of the Club (“NewCo”).

Subject to a series of mandatory requirements where to consent to the registration of the transfer of the SPFL Limited share must be refused, the Board of the SPFL Limited has absolute discretion, unfettered by any express criteria, to approve or otherwise the registration of the transfer of an SPL share between owners except in the context of relegation and promotion.
The discretion is not limited by any express criteria becausethe discretion must be exercised in the best interests of SPFL Limited and the members of SPFL Limited. In short, the members of the Board cannot either refuse to approve the registration or decline to approve the registration for reasons which are not reasons having regard to the interests of SPFL Limited and its shareholders.
Rangers FC

It is important to bear in mind that whilst Rangers FC spent Season 2011/2012 playing in the SPL and Season 2012/2013 playing in Division 3 of the SFL, that was not as a consequence of any sanction or penalty imposed either by the SPL, SFL or, for that matter SFA. Rather, what some argue effectively amounted to a relegation of three divisions was the result of the then shareholders in SPL Limited not agreeing to register the transfer of the Rangers OldCo share in SPL Limited from Rangers OldCo to Rangers NewCo and then Rangers NewCo only being able to secure associate membership of the SFL on the basis that Rangers FC, owned and operated by NewCo, would enter the SFL in Division 3.

There are many, and to some extent, conflicting analysis and rationales as to why the result was as it came to be of that process and, in the present context, there is unlikely to be any benefit in further examination of the events which led to it.

NewCo Arrangements in Insolvency Contexts – for discussion

It is understood that there is a view held by a number of SPFL Clubs that explicit provision should be made for a specific sporting sanction to be imposed in the event of “a Club” seeking to emerge from an Insolvency Process by use of a NewCo procedure. Whilst SPFL Article 33 entitles the Board to attach whatever conditions that it thinks fit to the approval of the transfer of an SPFL Limited share between an Oldco and a Newco, it is considered by some not to be appropriate to leave decision making on such conditions to the unfettered discretion of the Board.

The proposal that has been articulated is that whatever other conditions may be attached to the approval of the registration of the transfer of an SPFL Limited share in an insolvency context, the conditions should, as a minimum, require that the Club concerned be relegated by one division if a NewCo solution is implemented (“Sanction Relegation”).

If the Club concerned were to be liable to be relegated in any event, by reason of its position in the relevant division at the end of the Season or by virtue of the result of a Play-Off Competition then the Sanction Relegation should be applied on top of the “Sporting Relegation”.

The proposal is best explained by example.
Assume during a Season that the owner and operator of a Club suffers an Insolvency Event, most likely an administration, the result would be that the Club owned by that owner and operator would immediately suffer the fixed 15 points deduction. Assume that the Club is playing in the Premiership and that at the end of the relevant Season the Club concerned holds tenth place in the Premiership, taking account of the points deduction for the administration. Assume also that the Club is unable to exit its Insolvency Process by any means other than a NewCo solution. In such circumstances the Club concerned would, as part of the conditions attached to the SPFL share transfer, be relegated to play in the Championship in the immediately succeeding Season i.e. a “Sanction Relegation” would automatically be applied.

If the same Club were to finish in twelfth place in the Premiership at the end of the Season in question, taking into account the 15 points sporting sanction, then the Club would be relegated initially to the Championship, being a Sporting Relegation, and would then be subject to the Sanction Regulation taking the Club down to play in Division 1 in the immediately succeeding Season.
Precisely identical principles would be applied in the case of Clubs in the Divisions below the Premiership in the relevant Season.

One anomaly could arise where the Club using the NewCo solution finished in a play-off place at the end of a Season. The proposal in that situation is that the Club in last place in the Division shall participate in the play-off competition and the Club using the NewCo solution would be automatically relegated.

Further detailed provision would need to be made in the Rules for situations in which more than one Club in any one Season in any one Division uses a NewCo solution and/or are in the Divisional play-offs or are compelled to take part in the Pyramid Play-Off Competition from League 2 in which case some kind of pre-play-off competition(s) would need to be included in the Rules. Detailed provision would also require to be made for which Club(s) would be promoted as a consequence of a Sanction Relegation.

Steps Required for Implementation

The above approach to Sanction Relegation by essentially one Division has unanimous support from the Board. The next step is to identify the extent of support for the proposal amongst the Clubs.

Any change in the existing arrangements would require amendment of the Articles which would require (i) 11 Premiership Clubs to vote in favour (i.e. 11 Clubs); (ii) 75% of the Clubs comprised in both The Premiership and The Championship; and (iii) 75% of all the Clubs in membership of the SPFL.

The required changes are to Articles which are not included in SPFL Article 194 and therefore the three year moratorium and the 100% vote in favour do not apply.

One option would be to take the proposal as a discussion matter to Clubs at an All Club Meeting in order to identify the level of support. If the support was at a sufficient level and was sufficiently broad based to indicate likely adoption by the required majorities, then detailed drafting could be undertaken with a view to bringing proposed amendments to the Articles to the General Meeting proposed for 13 January.

SPFL Board
16 September 2013
http://tl.gd/n_1rvj95a · Reply
Report post (?)

View Comment

Tic 6709Posted on11:30 pm - Jan 9, 2014


jean7brodie says: (417)

January 9, 2014 at 10:41 pm

scapaflow says: (1283)
January 9, 2014 at 10:35 pm

Very sorry to hear that this chap has serious mental health problems.
I think other posters were trying to lighten the mood but were unaware of this fact.
====================
Just noticed your posts,forgive me, I did not know the ex royal marine was suffering from health problems.
It was as Jean said just trying to lighten the mood.

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on11:36 pm - Jan 9, 2014


m.c.f.c. says: (131)
January 9, 2014 at 11:29 pm

Think Agent Smith in Matrix Revolutions:

View Comment

Comments are closed.