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

m.c.f.c.Posted on2:54 pm - Jan 10, 2014


londonstockexchange.com vs lse-co-uk

Interesting that londonstockexchange.com is showing a delayed trade of 100,000 shares at 28p from this morning but lse-co-uk is not. I wonder if/when it will show up.

Edit: OK – it’s just shown up at lse-co-uk but is at the top rather than in chronological order. Bit confusing – without checking the time you might think the price had just crashed through 30p – no explicit indication it is a delayed notification trade. bye bye lse-co-uk

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:56 pm - Jan 10, 2014


neepheid says: (982)
January 10, 2014 at 1:19 pm
ptd1978 says: (119)
January 10, 2014 at 1:00 pm

Finally, why post accounts? If it’s part of the RIFC group then they could have followed the same principles as with TRFC and not have bothered.
==============
I had a look at Garrion Securities on the CH website a few days ago. In fact I posted here on the results of my search. So far as I could establish, Garrion haven’t submitted accounts yet, although they had submitted an annual return.
————————————————————————-
I’ve just had a quick look at Garrion on Companies House Webcheck site and – without pulling any documents – it appears that the first accounts were due to be made up to 30/09/2013 but this was altered in September to 30/06/2013. A private company such as Garrion has, from memory, 9 months from the accounting reference date ( 30/06/2013) to produce its accounts and that’s why the next accounts due date (which will be the first accounts) is shown by Companies House to be 31/03/2014.

I can’t see anything which runs counter to the regulations Companies House operate by. There is also nothing wrong with only having one director although I would expect another one will be added before long – I would not class this piece of admin tidy-up as important given the pressures on Rangers from far more serious issues like whether they are going bust in the coming weeks.

Wrt TRFCL then their accounts are due on 28 February 2014 – it has to be remembered that the TRFCL accounts were combined into the RIFC Plc accounts so quite a bit of info is already there.

However, bearing in mind Barca’s reminder about the RIFC Plc AIM Statement then quite a few important dates are coming up.

Subsidiaries of companies which are listed separately on Companies House have to individually meet the reporting requirements for the likes of Annual Returns and Accounts and do not get any exemption from this because they are a subsidiary. it is also up to companies – whether they are private or public, to structure their group companies as they see best for their business as long as they remain within the rules & regulations.

You ask why Stockbridge is the director – Well Green resigned which left only Stockbridge. But Stockbridge is probably a director on every Rangers subsidiary because he is the FD and is probably also company secretary of most of these companies. That’s pretty standard practice as is having the CEO as a director. It makes sound business sense.

I don’t think from the little we know that any IPO money went to Garrion and my understanding of Garrion is that it is meant to be an income generator.

That might, in the fullness of time, turn out not to be the case but without any evidence to the contrary it would be wrong and possibly dangerous to ascribe ulterior motives rather than just the vagaries of business and the good and bad decision made in pursuit of that enterprise.

There are many things about Rangers that puzzle me in a business and financial sense but we have to deal with cold hard facts that can be proven or we end-up looking as stupid as the Bears who believe they have proven Celtic received State Aid.

Personally I just work away looking at bits and pieces of the jigsaw and trying to figure out what’s actually going on and I believe the Truth always eventually surfaces and I have a lot of patience 😆

View Comment

BrendaPosted on3:01 pm - Jan 10, 2014


I don’t mind admitting I’m totally lost in the world of finance ❓ but at least I can admit it 😉 unlike Derek Johnstone who blabs a load of nonsense which the sevconians actually believe!!! Before whyte ‘bought’ the club/company he (DJ) had a certainometer!!! That rfc(now in liquidation) would be saved 😀 and on the day whyte was paraded down govan way he was absolutely ecstatic like a wean on Christmas morning 😉 that happiness was short lived and has spent the last two years desperately trying to convince himself and everyone who’ll listen that it’s all going to be fine, he used to really annoy me on SSB but now ……. I just enjoy his desperation 😆 he’s on tonight with his bestie HK 😉

View Comment

beatipacificiscotiaPosted on3:08 pm - Jan 10, 2014


RIFC share price is crashing, down 6% and no sign of support yet. The beginning of the end?

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on3:15 pm - Jan 10, 2014


@ MCFC now has gone through the 30p barrier. A recent trade at 29p for 3000 shares

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on3:16 pm - Jan 10, 2014


blu says: (489)
January 10, 2014 at 1:06 pm

5

0

Rate This

ecobhoy says: (2224)
January 10, 2014 at 12:31 pm
==========================
ecobhoy, I think the articles are exactly the same, down to the mis-spelling of Drew Robert(s)on’s name. My interest on this occasion is how these things find their way into the media, rather than the message itself. It’s clear that at least one of these reports has been bought/lifted with no journalist input from the organisation/medium broadcasting it. The Herald article suggests that the author of the piece was Martin Williams. 4Traders notes Proquest’s copyright. ProQuest business is to sell access to library material – maybe they buy content from publications and sell it on? Or, as you say maybe the PA was the originator of the story, I don’t know. I’d be interested to hear from others who have more knowledge though.
==========================================================================
I haven’t looked at the full scope of ProQuest’s activities but there are a number of major information/suppliers throughout the world who feed the wireservices with news, sport, features, pics, opinion pieces, crosswords. Anything that appears in a magazine or newspaper or online site can come from these sites. I would think ProQuest is one of these and when they talk about ‘library’ they may well be referring to an electronic database where their self-generated output can be purchased.

That kind of input has grown tremendously in recent years as the number of journos had declined drastically which means less and less self-generated copy. Even the traditional wire services like PA and Reuters and many more have been hit by staff cuts so they too buy-in from content producers these days. PA used to be basically owned by all British Newspapers from memory but I don’t know if it has been sold off or not.

The name that appears on an article can mean nothing and doesn’t nercessarily signify that the person named has had any input whatsoever. They may have copied and pasted from the wire service feed onto their own internal editorial system and obvioulsy in dire times for the print industry they are despearte to keep their story count high to impress the accountants.

You have to remember that PR companies also feed their PR releases on behalf of clients to wire servcies as well and also to content producers. They used to often attempt to disguise the origion as a PR release. These days nobody cares – it’s just a case of stuffing anything in anywhere as long as its free or cheap.

It is very sad times and the quality of journalism and journalists has nosedived and some major Scottish papers are hanging on by their fingertips.

View Comment

GeronimosCadillacPosted on3:17 pm - Jan 10, 2014


beatipacificiscotia says: (212)
January 10, 2014 at 3:08 pm

RIFC share price is crashing, down 6% and no sign of support yet. The beginning of the end?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It’s young Alistair I feel sorry for – first a ludicrous salary cut and now £420k wiped off the value of his shareholding.

View Comment

Tic 6709Posted on3:17 pm - Jan 10, 2014


helpmaboab says: (258)

January 10, 2014 at 2:37 pm

Tic6709 at 7:50am
Re Daily Record front page. It’s a start,but typically red top. ‘Bigoted Poison Of Telly Star’s Brother’ when it simply should read ‘ Racist Bigot Jailed For Online Abuse’
=========================
Agreed,but as you say it’s a start. I’m wondering if they know something (Rat Pack) we had something about Millions lost off the value of Sevco this morning and the Record headline.What next ??
Maybe actual journalism,or am I being too optimistic.

View Comment

rantinrobinPosted on3:18 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Oh well ,you know the old saying

‘in for a penny,in for a pound’

or should that be ‘in for a pound,now worth a penny………….mebbee’

Such a nasty crash for a club in its infancy.Golden rule,never over extend yourself in your first year.Shame.

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on3:18 pm - Jan 10, 2014


There She Blows

15:00:23 10-Jan-2014 29.00 2,400 696.00 Uncrossed Trade
14:51:38 10-Jan-2014 29.00 3,000 870.00 Ordinary trade

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/exchange-insight/trade-data.html?page=0&fourWayKey=GB00B90T9Z75GBGBXASQ1&formName=frmRow&upToRow=-1

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on3:18 pm - Jan 10, 2014


beatipacificiscotia says: (212)
January 10, 2014 at 3:08 pm

RIFC share price is crashing, down 6% and no sign of support yet. The beginning of the end?
———————————————————————————————
Who knows? Could be ‘shorting’ at work but if it keeps falling like this then someone BIG is getting out – I wonder why ❓

View Comment

GeronimosCadillacPosted on3:20 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Tic 6709 says: (594)
January 10, 2014 at 3:17 pm
helpmaboab says: (258)

January 10, 2014 at 2:37 pm

Tic6709 at 7:50am
Re Daily Record front page. It’s a start,but typically red top. ‘Bigoted Poison Of Telly Star’s Brother’ when it simply should read ‘ Racist Bigot Jailed For Online Abuse’
=========================
Agreed,but as you say it’s a start. I’m wondering if they know something (Rat Pack) we had something about Millions lost off the value of Sevco this morning and the Record headline.What next ??
Maybe actual journalism,or am I being too optimistic.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Except of course it fits neatly into the UK journalists model where they big up Celebs, companies etc whilst they are “achieving” and popular but rip them to shreds when the wheels start to come off.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on3:21 pm - Jan 10, 2014


At this rate Rangers will qualify for State Aid – Oh I forgot they’ve already had that 😆

View Comment

GeronimosCadillacPosted on3:21 pm - Jan 10, 2014


ecobhoy says: (2227)
January 10, 2014 at 3:18 pm

0

0

Rate This

beatipacificiscotia says: (212)
January 10, 2014 at 3:08 pm

RIFC share price is crashing, down 6% and no sign of support yet. The beginning of the end?
———————————————————————————————
Who knows? Could be ‘shorting’ at work but if it keeps falling like this then someone BIG is getting out – I wonder why ❓
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mate – there’s no need to get all personal about young Alistair.

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on3:23 pm - Jan 10, 2014


100,000 shares offloaded at 28p at 11:38am …

View Comment

BangordubPosted on3:25 pm - Jan 10, 2014


For those who are not “fans” of LSE here is a link to the FT page: http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Summary?s=RFC:LSE

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on3:26 pm - Jan 10, 2014


GeronimosCadillac says: (173)
January 10, 2014 at 3:21 pm

Mate – there’s no need to get all personal about young Alistair.

==========================================================
GC – he’s “pieing” not “buying” and “swelling” not “selling”

View Comment

scottcPosted on3:28 pm - Jan 10, 2014


m.c.f.c. says: (140)
January 10, 2014 at 2:25 pm

http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/exchange-insight/trade-data.html?page=0&fourWayKey=GB00B90T9Z75GBGBXASQ1&formName=frmRow&upToRow=-1

BTW – I’ve stopped using lse.co.uk.

I normally look at the site you quote but look at the LSE site for the share chat. I find that every bit as hilarious as other RFC sites

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on3:34 pm - Jan 10, 2014


scottc says: (437)
January 10, 2014 at 3:28 pm

I normally look at the site you quote but look at the LSE site for the share chat. I find that every bit as hilarious as other RFC sites
=================================================================================
You’re absolutely right – the forum resembles a rangers site rather than an independent share site – with the exception of one or two persistent souls who try to talk sense and discuss sensibly. If the guy this morning is anything to go by, most sensible folk can’t be arsed with the trolly complaints etc. Got to admit that lse-co-uk is easy to use – but the pollution has got too much for me.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on3:42 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Share price now 29p.
6% down today.

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on3:53 pm - Jan 10, 2014


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says: (1155)
January 10, 2014 at 3:42 pm

Share price now 29p.
6% down today.
==============================================================
torrejohnbhoy( – keep up mate 🙂

15:31:42 10-Jan-2014 28.02 1,500 420.30 Ordinary trade

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on4:00 pm - Jan 10, 2014


so, in excess of 2/3rds of the value gone in a year. Don’t think the bears will be claiming this as another world record somehow.

Any sign of a chap with a “The End is Nigh!” board outside Ibrox?

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on4:01 pm - Jan 10, 2014


m.c.f.c. says: (143)
January 10, 2014 at 3:53 pm

torrejohnbhoy( – keep up mate 🙂

15:31:42 10-Jan-2014 28.02 1,500 420.30 Ordinary trade
==============================================================

m.c.f.c. – keep up mate 😉

15:43:38 10-Jan-2014 28.00 13,715 3,840.20 Ordinary trade

View Comment

FIFAPosted on4:01 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Oh Dear
market cap now down to 20.18m ,soon be not enough for a good Campbell Ogilvie night out [copyrite acknowledgwd Mr Charles.Young]

View Comment

EstebanPosted on4:02 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Who exactly is writing this script?

From Twitter

Celtic_First ‏@Celtic_First 37s
If I have done my sums right, Sevco’s market cap is now £18.88 million.

View Comment

beatipacificiscotiaPosted on4:04 pm - Jan 10, 2014


FIFA says: (485)
January 10, 2014 at 4:01 pm

MCap down to £18.55M now, down 8% and still no sign of support.

View Comment

BangordubPosted on4:04 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Freefalling now 15:43pm

Rangers International Football Club PLCRFC:LSE
28.00
3.00 / 9.68%
171.31k
68.72%

View Comment

EstebanPosted on4:04 pm - Jan 10, 2014


With today’s price variation factored in, the 20.18 million for the market cap will become 18.878 million, which rounds up quite nicely to 18.88.

View Comment

EstebanPosted on4:06 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Spoke too soon.

View Comment

wildwoodPosted on4:09 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Threefurrapoun’ is so last week

View Comment

beatipacificiscotiaPosted on4:10 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Esteban says: (79)
January 10, 2014 at 4:06 pm

I spotted the £18.88M too but it didn’t last, the irony would have been too much!

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on4:14 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Why do the football authorities levy any punishment at all for insolvency? There has never seemed to me to be any logic in how the relevant authorities within the game deal with this.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not stating that an insolvent company should not be punished in some way – I think it should be – the question I am asking is why we consider it appropriate. Once we understand why a punishment is appropriate, it might be easier to rationalise what that punishment should actually be.

It seems to me that the perceived reason to impose a punishment is because the insolvent company is assumed to have lived beyond its means for a period of time prior to the insolvency. Having done so, it has been able to prosper (probably by fielding a stronger team) at the expense of competitors who have lived within their means. By fielding a stronger team, they will have enjoyed an advantage on the park.
Unfortunately, that employs a very simplistic analysis of insolvencies. Not all companies that suffer an insolvency event have been profligate. Sometimes bad things happen to good companies.

However, I agree with Smugas that, in this particular industry, the pursuit of success is a much more common reason for insolvency.

Nonetheless the reasons for an insolvency are often complex. Having a flexible approach that has regard to the cause of insolvency, rather than the mere fact of insolvency, would seem more reasonable. However flexibility might require discretion and who among us would now trust those charged with the exercise of that discretion?

So, if we accept that:-
(i) insolvency alone is the trigger for a punishment being applied;
(ii) punishment is to be a points deduction; and
(iii) the reason for punishing is because it is perceived that an advantage has been obtained over other competitors;
then we can begin to consider what would be an appropriate punishment.

It would seem to me to make sense to relate the extent of any points penalty to the extent of the (supposed) advantage. In an industry where exits from insolvency are invariably (!) by way of a CVA, that means connecting the size of the points penalty to the percentage of debts that are paid in the CVA. A CVA can of course offer anything from 99p in the pound to 0.1p in the pound to creditors. A company that pays 99% of its debts seems to me to be less deserving of punishment than a company that pays 0.1% of its debts. The latter is indicative of living far further beyond your means than the former, and therefore is suggestive of a greater advantage having been obtained.

In any case, I would consider it wholly preposterous that any company that suffers an insolvency event during a season should receive any reward (financial or sporting) during that season. To my mind, that means no prize money and no promotion. I have also always considered it odd that there is no sanction applied in cup competitions. If you are going to punish in the league why is an insolvent company left untouched in the cups? The same “advantage” has been obtained after all.

All of the above is football. What comes next is slightly technical insolvency.

I think its necessary to distinguish between CVAs and administrations. The two are often intimately connected in football insolvencies but are truly separate processes.

An administration without a CVA may achieve little for a company other than perhaps a cashflow advantage.

During administration, debts need not be paid in the ordinary course. Some debts will need to be paid (those incurred during the administration) otherwise suppliers won’t supply and employees won’t work. But the pre-administration debts will just have to wait.

However, administration of itself does not get rid of, or reduce, the pre-administration debt burden. That is what a CVA attempts to do.

The reason CVAs usually occur during administrations is because, in an administration, pre administration creditors cannot take legal action to recover their debts. So a company has a period of grace to restructure or propose a CVA. If the company did not have the administration ongoing and proposed a CVA, the likelihood is that creditors would (rightly) take fright and pile in with any number of legal actions pursuing debts and (probably) seeking to wind the company up on the basis that it is insolvent (as it will have admitted its insolvency by virtue of having proposed a CVA). So you put the
company into administration first to head off the possibility of a tidal wave of legal actions.

But as I have noted above, in and of itself, administration does not shred the debt. What it does allow is for the administrator to restructure the business (by, for example, breaching contracts and effecting redundancies). However such courses of action are not free from consequences just because they are carried out in administration. Breaching a contract gives rise to a claim for damages and a debt due by the company. Making redundancies gives rise to redundancy costs. These still have to be dealt with.
Outside football, the norm is for the sale of whatever assets an insolvent company has (either by way of a going concern business sale or as a break up sale). Whichever way it happens, the proceeds of those sales are applied to meeting the claims of creditors. The fact a company in administration breaches a contract means that the other party to the contract has a claim in the administration and that claim means that the list of creditors is bigger than it would otherwise have been. That means that creditors all get a correspondingly smaller percentage of whatever the pot of realisations turns out to be.
However in football, the exit is invariably (!) through a CVA so, to some extent, you can measure the extent of perceived culpability by way of the percentage offer in the CVA proposal.

So – I would suggest that an appropriate mode of punishing companies in this industry might be to have regard to the actual proposals of the CVA. If the company pays 99% of its debts, it should be less punished than a company that pays 0.1% of its debts.

If you go into administration and exit without a CVA – well done – that means you have managed to pay 100% of your debts – no punishment.

Of course, if you exit via liquidation, it doesn’t matter what punishment is applied, because you no longer exist.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:15 pm - Jan 10, 2014


taxman cometh says: (120)
January 9, 2014 at 11:30 pm
‘..Charlotte back with this
““NewCo” in the Context of an Insolvency Event..’
———-
The paragraph in this (presumably internal Board) paper that caught my eye is
‘..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…’
Do we know whether any ‘all club’ meeting has taken place, and if so, whether the proposal was broadly supported? The author of the paper is clearly wary of putting something on the agenda for a General Meeting unless its proposers are reasonably sure that it would be likely to be accepted.

They have perhaps learned that club owners are not to be too easily bounced into decisions made by a few officers and Board members.

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on4:20 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Tif Finn says: (1206)
January 10, 2014 at 1:18 pm

Just for clarity, what is an insolvency event inspired newco.

If a company achieves a CVA then it comes out of the insolvency event as the same company.

If it fails and is liquidated then it doesn’t exist any more.

This “newco” stuff really doesn’t mean anything other than new company, as in didn’t previously exist.
____________________________—-

Q: When is a new company not a new company?

A: When you only use the first five letters

View Comment

BangordubPosted on4:22 pm - Jan 10, 2014


There appears to be a run on – 27p:

Add to portfolioAdd to watchlistSet alertInteractive chartHistorical pricesData definitions
Rangers International Football Club PLCRFC:LSE
27.01
3.99 / 12.87%
174.93k
69.82%

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on4:22 pm - Jan 10, 2014


To paraphrase Keith Jackson from last night:
WRT Hearts plight,
The punishment seems harsh now but the SFA/SPL set a precedent with the draconian penalties handed out to Rangers.

If we had a Joke Of The Week contest,this would win it
____________________________

Were the Rangers “draconian penalties” (signing embargo) not handed out for deliberate witholding of VAT and associated offences, with concerted non co-operation, obfuscation and deliberate destruction of evidence thrown in for good measure.

This was all described as being only just short of match fixing in terms of gravity?

Offences that could have led to expulsion from the game and most likely would have led to suspension at least for any other club

So the “most draconian of penalties” was dreamt up by the SFA to get them off the hook and was bizarrely then promptly appealed by TRFC.

Is this what Hearts were found guilty of?

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on4:24 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Timber !!!

16:03:44 27.01 621 167.73 O

edit – Bangordub beat me to it

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on4:26 pm - Jan 10, 2014


My gut feeling….the shear volume of movement in a matter of hours would suggest somebody has an inside track of what is coming and has decided to get out….

The expected cost cutting can have a positive effect on the markets…so it is puzzling to think if major haircuts are coming to structure the business into a more profitable one…why dump large volumes of shares?

I’m guessing the cash reserve is far lower than we anticipated and selling is preferrable to them being worthless.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on4:29 pm - Jan 10, 2014


My point exactly Mr Clarke, especially if its adoption on Monday further strengthened the barrel over which TRFC currently finds itself slung for the reasons I gave earlier.

I find it incredible that it has received no coverage at all, in fact I am increasingly drawn to (was it Blu’s) view that Charlotte’s release of the board minute had more to do with referring to the immortal club in defending the 250k charge against it. The implications for Monday’s meeting are almost a by product but meaningful nonetheless.

View Comment

BangordubPosted on4:29 pm - Jan 10, 2014


m.c.f.c. says: (145)
January 10, 2014 at 4:24 pm
Lol, not competing, just enjoying the show!

View Comment

Tif FinnPosted on4:34 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Rangers agreed to the transfer embargo as part of the “five way agreement” If they hadn’t then presumably the new club would not be playing in Scottish senior football just now.

Oh and given that they didn’t have any money at the time, pre IPO and certainly didn’t want to be spending on buying in new players it was hardly what one would call a Draconian punishment.

If anything accepting that embargo helped Rangers.

1, It was part of the deal to cheat them into the league.

2, It gave them an excuse not to spend money and lie by saying they would if only they were allowed.

3, It provided fuel for the “everyone is against us mentality” which served Green et al well and has continued to do so.

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on4:39 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Who is doing the buying?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:40 pm - Jan 10, 2014


As at close of business (4.30 pm):
price chng change% day’s vol
Rangers International Football C.. 28.50p 2.50 % fall 8.06 % 174,934

http://shareprices.com/fallers/ftseaimallshare

——
What fun, looking up this kind of thing !

View Comment

Rufus Otis and HugoPosted on4:41 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Derek Johnstone has always been a balloon. I can remember him on Clyde years ago regurgitating night after night the then chairman, John McClelland’s quote that, “Rangers were comfortable with their multi million pound debt as it was like a mortgage and wasn’t due for 25 years.” In the words of Paul Simon, “Still Crazy After All These Years.”

OT. I have noticed an anti bass player and Epiphone bias creeping into the site. For the avoidance of doubt bass players are the most important part of any band and Epis are great guitars. I have a Fender Precision and an Epiphone Electro Acoustic and they are both brilliant.

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on4:41 pm - Jan 10, 2014


m.c.f.c. says: (146)
January 10, 2014 at 4:39 pm
……………………………..

I don’t mean to be flippent…but that would have bought you 167 football clubs from David Murray!

View Comment

selfassessorPosted on4:42 pm - Jan 10, 2014


RIFC plc shares down 12.87% today to 27.01.

End game in sight?

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on4:47 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Don’t be surprised if it lifts above 27.01 by days end…

View Comment

Para HandyPosted on4:48 pm - Jan 10, 2014


As the shares come tumbling down, I had a few thoughts about the different types and sources of media used on here. On the one hand, we watch the share prices and commentary on various web sites that vary in their tone but are pretty much accurate as they would either be considered irrelevant or taken to court for gross and consistent inaccuracies. On the other, the various branches of the Scottish sports media (and I would include Irvine in this). On the whole, inconsistent, certainly subject to editorial bias and always looking for the big Celtic/The Rangers story because that sells the papers.

Three things spring to mind:

1. The SMSM are not complicit, rather it is a symbiotic or parasitic relationship between the clubs and the media. The Clubs get free marketing and advertising; the media get to fill inches/minutes with “controversial” stories that they know will engage people and hence support advertising and sales.

2. The extent of the media coverage is directly related to the size of the following hardly surprising) and this probably becomes self serving as the more coverage, the more free advertising. It could also be said that this is one thing which has lead to the continued dominance of what used to be referred to as “The Old firm”.

3. The unfortunate thing for the clubs, is that the media set the tone of the coverage and is interested in as much hype as possible. Although I am sure the clubs like some controversy as it can add to rivalry (and sport is after all reliant on that), it means they lose control over certain aspects of their image, which, for a PLC can be troublesome.

One thing I can say from personal experience is that having two friends who are or have been very senior players in the Scottish media, I would in no way ever consider there to be an actual pro-“Rangers” or anti-Celtic bias on the BBC, however, it is easy to see why their is often a perceived bias, and in the private media, there is a far greater need for them to have a perceived bias at the very least in order to keep circulation based on sports coverage up (or declining less rapidly).

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on4:48 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Maybe those who bought the shares at a penny realised its true value :mrgreen:

View Comment

selfassessorPosted on4:49 pm - Jan 10, 2014


At 14:40 somebody sold 100k shares for £28k. Wonder what the poor sod paid for them? Could have been three times that!

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:53 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Paulmac2 says: (840)
January 10, 2014 at 4:39 pm
‘.Who is doing the buying?.’
——–
They will be the professional ‘market-makers’ in the middle, constantly offering to buy @ x pence and offering to sell @ a few pence more,making their living that way. They’re not interested in holding shares per se, but only for as long as they can turn a wee profit on them.
As I (very vaguely) understand matters.

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on4:59 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Scotsman headline – Rangers’ value drops by £16 million in 4 months
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/rangers-value-drops-by-16-million-in-4-months-1-3263785

News Headline – Rangers’ value drops by £1.6 million in 1 day

View Comment

Carl31Posted on5:05 pm - Jan 10, 2014


I guess Laxeys do not have sufficient control and are buying up to the proportion required.
I guess its them who are buying.

Campbellsmoney says: (7)
January 10, 2014 at 4:14 pm
The issue with a smaller punishment proportionately applied is that clubs will behave strategically. They could in theory pay off the debt they need to via CVA to avoid the points deduction that means relegation or dropping a place in a table. A large aspect of the consequences of insolvency must be designed to be punitive regardless of how extensive the insolvency is. Personally, I dont think a straight 15pts is enough.

View Comment

Tic 6709Posted on5:09 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Paulmac2 says:

January 10, 2014 at 4:39 pm

Who is doing the buying?
========================
Could it be the board to take them over the 75%,I can’t remember why they needed to be over that threshold but one of the lads will know ?????

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on5:11 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Para Handy says: (34)
January 10, 2014 at 4:48 pm
‘… I would in no way ever consider there to be an actual pro-”Rangers” or anti-Celtic bias on the BBC, ..’
———-
Perception is everything, of course. And there is undoubtedly a blind spot which seems to allow a disproportionate representation by ex-RFC(IL) players and people known to have leanings towards RFC(IL) (and the new club) on the football programmes.

The brazen bigotry for so long embodied by Peter Thomson may have formally disappeared, but it is unquestionably the case that Sportsound failed signally to tell the truth about the RFC(IL) saga, because certain presenters and pundits were eating succulent lamb, and one in particular actually tried to mislead by inaccurate reporting.

View Comment

BangordubPosted on5:12 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Paulmac2 says:

January 10, 2014 at 4:39 pm

Who is doing the buying?

My own opinion is that the Sellers are of most interest, and their motivation for selling

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on5:13 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Carl31 says:
January 10, 2014 at 5:05 pm

I see what you are driving at. However I am not sure that such “strategic” behaviour will be all that possible in the context of most insolvencies – there are few enough options available to insolvent companies. In any case, why would that be a bad thing if it encourages a higher return in the CVA and means creditors get paid more? If the creditors aren’t happy with what they are offered and they think there should be more in the pot for them, they can vote against any CVA that is offered.

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on5:14 pm - Jan 10, 2014


john clarke says:
January 10, 2014 at 4:53 pm
……………………………………..
Thanks John…

Although someone still has to buy…

Could the spivs have friends within the market makers…who could call in favours to punt onto other market makers who can absorb said amounts into large client institution portfolios?

Or is that too Ian Fleming in my thinking?

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on5:19 pm - Jan 10, 2014


If it is an internal movement for purposes of percentage gain…then I would expect some support to follow to try and push the value back up…otherwise it will just appear to be a dump and run…which if followed by a catastrophic event would have calls of insider trading…

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on5:21 pm - Jan 10, 2014


from ff

“Would YOU put your money in our club?

There is uncertainty over who owns what – “Show me the title deeds”

The spectre of Whyte keeps raising it’s head periodically and focusing his googly eyes over to us.

We have a HUGE wage bill for the league we are in

Our contracts for security etc are being given to companies OWNED by our directors (Complete carve up and no financial best value)

Fans are against the board

One of the most influential people at the club has a HUGE salary and is renegade against the board

The directors have a stranglehold on the club that seems unlikely to be broken unless someone comes in with a huge offer to tempt them to sell (unlikely)

I ask you again, would you buy or hold our shares?”

One this is clear, Mr McCoist still knows how to play the Rangers fans like a cheap tin whistle :mrgreen:

“One of the most influential people at the club has a HUGE salary and is renegade against the board”

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on5:22 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Bangordub says:
January 10, 2014 at 3:25 pm

For those who are not “fans” of LSE here is a link to the FT page: http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Summary?s=RFC:LSE
==================================================================
I think what’s really interesting about the above site is the comparitive graphs as to how Rangers is doing against other sectors. it’s Loss, Loss, Loss all round for them I’m afraid.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on5:22 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Wonder what Mr Wallace makes of his new job?.
That’s around 20% of the companys market value gone since he started 5 minutes ago.

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on5:23 pm - Jan 10, 2014


So looks like there are a few peepil walking away
Many thought the spivs deliberately delayed the AGM to get them to the end of the lock in period .
Is this what the delay was for .
If the SP keeps dropping Salary might actually see a loss in his 10 grand penny shares ,is the half pence still legal tender
🙄 🙄 😛

View Comment

fergusslayedthebluesPosted on5:27 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Ecobhoy
with losses like that ,one could be forgiven for thinking Ally was managing the PLC on a cup run (Euro/domestic)

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on5:36 pm - Jan 10, 2014


torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
January 10, 2014 at 5:22 pm
………………………………….

From memory the IPO raised 22 million allegedly…..the club is now worth around 18-19 million based on share price…WHAT AN INVESTMENT!

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on5:43 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Market Trivia – or – Granny – look this is how you suck an egg

It’s worth noting that the RIFC plc spread is 11.11% i.e. the difference between the Bid (we buy at price) of 27.00p and the Ask (we sell at price) of 30.00p aka the Offer..By comparison for Celtic the spread is 0.33% (Bid 76.00p, Ask 76.25p) and for Tesco it is 0.06% (Bid 321.85p, Ask 322.05p).

Stock brokers usually have a few shares “in stock” ready to balance buying and selling volumes. But if the share price is likely to change quickly (volatile) and there isn’t much demand for either buying or selling the share (liquidity) they will hedge their bets in three ways 1) reduce stock held 2) make a bigger margin per share handled by increasing the gap between Bid and Ask 3) limit the maximum number of shares in a single trade so Bid/Ask can be adjusted gradually rather than in big jumps. Like bookies, traders must have attractive Bid/Ask prices but must not expose themselves to too much risk.

Granny – a spread of 11.11% is equivalent to blues and twos that the brokers think this share has problems based on the dynamics of how people have been buying and selling recently.

View Comment

redetinPosted on5:43 pm - Jan 10, 2014


john clarke says:
January 10, 2014 at 4:53 pm

3

0

Rate This

Paulmac2 says: (840)
January 10, 2014 at 4:39 pm
‘.Who is doing the buying?.’
——–
They will be the professional ‘market-makers’ in the middle, constantly offering to buy @ x pence and offering to sell @ a few pence more,making their living that way. They’re not interested in holding shares per se, but only for as long as they can turn a wee profit on them.
As I (very vaguely) understand matters.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That’s correct, John.

Remember also that when you see a buy going through, it may be someone who has sold earlier and is buying to cover their position. “Shorting” shares becomes the way to make money when you “know” the price is going to fall.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on5:46 pm - Jan 10, 2014


scapaflow says:
January 10, 2014 at 5:21 pm

from ff

“Would YOU put your money in our club?

There is uncertainty over who owns what – “Show me the title deeds”

The spectre of Whyte keeps raising it’s head periodically and focusing his googly eyes over to us.

We have a HUGE wage bill for the league we are in

Our contracts for security etc are being given to companies OWNED by our directors (Complete carve up and no financial best value)

Fans are against the board

One of the most influential people at the club has a HUGE salary and is renegade against the board

The directors have a stranglehold on the club that seems unlikely to be broken unless someone comes in with a huge offer to tempt them to sell (unlikely)

I ask you again, would you buy or hold our shares?”
=========================================

WE told YOU so.

Sorry, couldn’t resist. Carry on.

View Comment

scottcPosted on5:54 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Tic 6709 says:
January 10, 2014 at 5:09 pm
2 0 Rate This

Paulmac2 says:

January 10, 2014 at 4:39 pm

Who is doing the buying?
========================
Could it be the board to take them over the 75%,I can’t remember why they needed to be over that threshold but one of the lads will know ?????

It’s to allow them to pass certain types of resolution like the disapplication of pre-emption rights

View Comment

JimBhoyPosted on6:10 pm - Jan 10, 2014


http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11095/9110054/

I wonder how long over the next 3 weeks this story will hold up…My bet is within the next 10 days McCoist will be saying he agreed/decided to cut some of the big earners in the interests of the club but he will be investing that money (his £10k warchest) in the summer. 😡

View Comment

andygraham.66Posted on6:34 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Ian Redford died today, only 53

View Comment

scottcPosted on6:47 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Albion Rovers trying a ‘pay what you can’ deal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25651834

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on6:50 pm - Jan 10, 2014


andygraham.66 says:
January 10, 2014 at 6:34 pm

Very sad to hear of the death of Ian Redford, one of Dundee United’s Golden Generation

View Comment

scottcPosted on6:53 pm - Jan 10, 2014


andygraham.66 says:
January 10, 2014 at 6:34 pm

Ian Redford died today, only 53

Very sad.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:53 pm - Jan 10, 2014


Could it be the board to take them over the 75%,I can’t remember why they needed to be over that threshold but one of the lads will know ?????
The Importance of Resolution 10 ?

I posted a couple of replies to Portpower last night in relation to resolutions 9 and 10 at Thursday’s AGM. I will take it as read that most people know to which AGM I am referring. Here are the comments.

Budweiser
December 20, 2013 at 12:23 am (Edit)
Portpower.
I noted also that res 9 was passed, but res 10 failed. Res 9 basically gives the board the right to issue shares at some future date. Res 10 would have meant that they didn’t have to offer them to existing shareholders first. Res 10 failed as it received approx 69% of the votes but as it was a special resolution it required 75%. What this means is that the current board [ or their proxies] need to either acquire [ buy ] 8% more of the shareholding or gain proxy voting rights from another 8% of the existing shareholders. They would then command the 75% necessary to have another vote and then res 10 is passed. Which would mean that in effect they could sell shares to whoever they liked. At the rate the share price is dropping they may just decide to give them away. It is xmas after all.
To be followed shortly thereafter by this one.
Full article http://continuingrandomthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/the-importance-of-resolution-10/comment-page-1/#comment-134

View Comment

Comments are closed.