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.
Not the Hud @ 8:41
“Administrative Action”
= A warning
Based on that whitewash a warning would be a case of “FFS don’t get caught doing that again especially if we get invited back next year”
Morning all… Regards the safety fears at Ibrox (again something that has been speculated for a couple of years), with the recent hard evidence that there were issues at a recent game surely the football authorities require a report and maybe even some professional statement on any damage, risk and repairs required, some safety assurances. I would suggest rangers should be proactive on this but I am not sure I would rely on that for now.
Does anyone know when the safety certificates are updated? Is if something that is required every couple of years/ every season maybe (would make sense) OR only require when changes are made to the stadium infrastructure?
I just hope we do not get any serious incident and all concerned go about pointing fingers at each other.
Who is ultimately on the hook for stadium upkeep?
I would assume that ANY event held at Ibrox would require the necessary safety certificate and as speculated here if the stadium was deemed unfit (independent review) for the CGs then surely the SFA have to ask some questions on the season past. If Rangers allowed their fans into a stadium that was a risk to health then that would easily be the lowest point in this whole rangers clusterf*… They have emptied the fans pockets, used smoke and mirrors to keep the illusion going and now they potentially put their lives at risk… What is it gonna take???
Licensing
Chief Executive’s Office
City Chambers
235 George Street
Glasgow G1 1RX
Tel: 0141 287 0129
The Service is always willing to offer advice to anyone involved in determining a safe capacity for a sports ground. Should you have any cause for concern about safety of spectators attending a sports ground, you should contact the management of the sports ground in the first instance.
john clarke says:
January 14, 2014 at 12:51 am
Exiled Celt says:
January 13, 2014 at 8:44 pm
‘..Campbell Ogilvie. …….. Any journalist wanting to ask the great administrator (is that really a compliment? and who gave him it?) ‘
———-
I struggle to remember who originated that sobriquet. I think it has been carried over from RTC days, and was lifted from some puff piece in the press about the wretch’s ‘abilities’.
We all know now in what area his abilities lie-no pun intended.
——————————————————————————————————————–
http://www.londonhearts.com/scores/mrep/20051126007.htm
This is earliest link I could find regarding CO’s abilities – a Stephen Halliday piece in the Scotsman from 2005 which labels him “one of British football’s most experienced and able administrators”
SPFL Rules
Ground Safety, Behaviour at Matches and Damage to Stadia
H22 All Clubs must have a valid and current safety certificate for its Registered Ground prior to the start of each Season and must maintain such certificate in full force and effect for the duration of each Season.
H23 Each Club shall, unless a copy shall previously been provided, provide a copy of its safety certificate to the Secretary not less than one month prior to the start of each Season or as soon as available and shall thereafter provide to the Secretary a copy of any replacement, renewed, extended or amended certificate within one month of same being issued.
H24 All Clubs shall appoint a Safety Officer who shall be or become a member of the Football Safety Officers’ Association (Scotland).
FairBairn says:
January 13, 2014 at 10:26 pm
ecobhoy says:
January 13, 2014 at 9:58 pm
I had a reply from ‘scottc’, on this subject, which included a link to a Unison pdf explaining TUPE.
I have seen TUPE in action a few times but only between viable companies, not through a liquidation. This is the part which bothered me regarding Sevco Scotland. According to Unison, as far as I can make out, it was Sevco’s own choice to use TUPE, but it became a white elephant for them.
=================================================================
You seem to suggest that you saw Tupe in existance with Rangers through a liquidation. You didn’t as it was done during the administration stage of the company when D&P were administrators which was prior to the Liquidation stage with BDO.
I have no memory of Unison ever issuing an statement, official or otherwise, that it was Sevco’s own choice to use Tupe. The law is very simple on the issue and is applied UK-wide and Sevco because of the procedures followed by D&P – or indeed not followed – and Green’s apparently blind desire to shackle players that could be sold at an immediate profit.
However this discussion is fast approaching the OCNC level of debate. The difference of course is that the OCNC arguments may yet have future airings depending on various events. The Tupe one is a dead duck – Green got it wrong and players walked as was their right under Tupe and Spivs didn’t get their hands on very much of the transfer fees involved.
Tupe is designed to protect employees although there are some safeguards for employers and I wonder what a ‘viable’ company actually means because in my experience of takeovers many so-called ‘viable’ companies are on their last legs but have or own something of interest to a predator or competitor. Of course sometimes it’s just owners, directors or shareholders wanting to cash-in.
Few give any thoughts to the workers who are downsized, have wages and conditions cut or are thrown on the scrapheap when these mergers of ‘viable’ companies take place. That’s why the Tupe protection was enacted and also to deal with all of the scams operated between companies and so-called professionals to find loopholes to prevent Tupe applying. If you care to check the EAT Decisions you will find a rich and varied seam of these dubious practices which have rightly been exposed and rejected in favour of the workers who are surplus to requirement in the rush to profit and feeding the insatiable maw of capitalism at its worst.
iamacant says:
January 14, 2014 at 9:22 am
http://www.londonhearts.com/scores/mrep/20051126007.htm
This is earliest link I could find regarding CO’s abilities – a Stephen Halliday piece in the Scotsman from 2005 which labels him “one of British football’s most experienced and able administrators”
=================================================================
I hate sloppy journalism – surely that should read: “One of the World’s . . .
blu says:
January 14, 2014 at 9:28 am
SPFL Rules
Ground Safety, Behaviour at Matches and Damage to Stadia
H24 All Clubs shall appoint a Safety Officer who shall be or become a member of the Football Safety Officers’ Association (Scotland).
====================================================
http://footballsafety.com/
Not had a chance to digest yet but defo worth doing to see where the threads run ❗
briggsbhoy says:
January 14, 2014 at 9:01 am
2 0 i
Rate This
Not the Hud @ 8:41
“Administrative Action”
= A warning
Based on that whitewash a warning would be a case of “FFS don’t get caught doing that again especially if we get invited back next year”
===========================
To be clear was that issued by the MoD re the soldiers conduct, or the SFA regarding some other trifling administrative matters?
blu says:
January 14, 2014 at 9:19 am
Licensing
Chief Executive’s Office
City Chambers
235 George Street
Glasgow G1 1RX
Tel: 0141 287 0129
The Service is always willing to offer advice to anyone involved in determining a safe capacity for a sports ground. Should you have any cause for concern about safety of spectators attending a sports ground, you should contact the management of the sports ground in the first instance.
============================================
Just a thought but would the Health & Safety Executive not have a role to play ❓
I hope the Glasgow Council have no reason in the future to regret having shirked their duty and responsibilities so lightly. Anything concerning safety is in a different League from the ASA and State Aid IMO.
In view of the recent incident at Ibrox the council should be contacting the club to ascertain the status of the structure particularly in view of the stadium’s role in the Commonwealh Games. I have a funny feeling that foreign Broadcasters – and even those from England – might actually view it as an item worthy of report if the roof starts ripping-off.
We know it is of no interest to our spineless SMSM and also appears to be of little interest to Glagow Council. How curious.
To understand how TUPE operates in insolvency situations, it is first necessary to understand how TUPE operates in non-insolvency situations.
TUPE stands for Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) so its always relevant to remember that the purpose of TUPE is to protect employees.
TUPE will not apply in circumstances where the ownership of a limited company does not change. That will be important for our insolvency analysis later on in the context of CVAs. It is only when an “undertaking” transfers from Party A to Party B that TUPE will apply. Most commonly of course “undertakings” transfer by way of a business and asset sale from an existing owner to a new purchaser.
It is also important to realise that as far as employers are concerned, there is no option to apply TUPE or to disapply it. TUPE arises by operation of law if the circumstances in which it applies are applicable. TUPE applies in some situations where you might not think it would. Perhaps the most striking example of this of which I am aware is where the right to run a particular bus route is taken away by a local authority from Rubbish Bus Limited and given to The Great Bus Company Limited. Those employees of Rubbish Bus Limited who were wholly or mainly employed on that route will TUPE transfer across to The Great Bus Limited.
What does it mean to say that someone “TUPE transfers across”? Basically it means that as far as the employee is concerned, his new employer is The Great Bus Company Limited (and the employee is entitled to be employed by The Great Bus Company Limited on exactly the same terms and conditions (including length of service etc) as that employee enjoyed with Rubbish Bus Company Limited).
However, the employee is entitled to object to the transfer. You should think about this as follows:-
Imagine that I had very strong feelings about the role of pharmaceutical companies in society. Imagine then that The Great Bus Company Limited is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pharmaceutical Testing Limited. I would rather not be employed by a company that is a subsidiary of such a company. Accordingly, I do not wish to work for that company and I can object to the transfer. I don’t have to go and work for a company to which I am ideologically opposed and no one can make me – and quite right too. But in most cases of course an employee will want to carry on earning a wage and accordingly in most cases, there is no objection to the transfer from the employee.
There are certain rules about consultation with employees prior to any transfer occurring but for current purposes let’s not go into that.
So the important thing to remember is that:-
1. TUPE doesn’t apply in share transfers (it doesn’t have to as the identity of the employer does not change);
2. When an “undertaking” ceases to be carried on by one entity and is then carried on by a different entity, TUPE will apply automatically; and
3. You can’t force an employee to work for someone he/she doesn’t want to work for.
What happens in insolvency situations?
Well, it depends upon what the insolvency situation actually is.
TUPE applies differently depending on what the insolvency regime is.
If there is an administration and a successful CVA, TUPE will have no application as there is no change of employer. Remember that if a CVA is successful, the limited company will ultimately come out of administration and carry on as before. So there is no change of employer.
If there is an administration and a sale by the administrator of the “undertaking” of the company in administration, then TUPE will apply. It does not matter what the sale agreement between the administrator and the purchaser describes the sale as. Whether it is described as an “asset sale” or a “business sale” or a “business and asset sale”, the question that has to be asked is whether what has transferred to the purchaser constitutes an “undertaking” for the purposes of TUPE. In most cases, it will not be that difficult to determine.
And remember always that the “PE” in “TUPE” stands for “protection of employees”. If what is carried on by newco is substantially recognisable as what was carried on by oldco, then it is likely TUPE will apply.
However, if the transfer of the undertaking occurs during a liquidation (rather than an administration) TUPE applies in a slightly different way. In that circumstance, employees are much less well protected. That reflects the fact that in liquidations, it is much less likely that liquidators will conduct sales of businesses as such and also reflects the fact that liquidators, whose purpose in life is to break up the assets, may struggle to even do that if any purchaser fears that there is a risk that in acquiring assets in a liquidation situation, that they will have to bear considerable employee costs as well.
TUPE has come into UK law on the back of EU Regulations and unfortunately those regulations did not make it easy for lawyers to distinguish when the insolvency regulations would apply. However it is now I think settled law that that if there is a transfer of an undertaking by an administrator, TUPE will apply in its full glory, whereas that will not be the case in a transfer by a liquidator.
So the important things to think about in insolvency TUPE situations are:-
(i) what insolvency regime are we talking about – CVA, administration, liquidation?;
(ii) what is it that actually transfers from A to B; and
(iii) when does the transfer occur.
Smug
I took this off Not the Hud’s piece which he took from the paper article
“A police and army probe was launched over “concerns” raised as 400 personnel from all three forces were invited to Ibrox for a game in September”
Did the SFA ever take any action ? I don’t know TBH
ecobhoy says:
January 14, 2014 at 9:55 am
============================
ecobhoy, it would seem that stadium safety is the responsibiity of the operator rather than any licensing body. Probably as it should be. I’m sure GCC,SPFL or HSE would however investigate any concerns raised by a member of the public.
PS FSOAS members can log-in to their dedicated area on the site – not accessible to me.
Smugas says:
January 14, 2014 at 9:41 am
briggsbhoy says:
January 14, 2014 at 9:01 am
Not the Hud @ 8:41
“Administrative Action” = A warning
Based on that whitewash a warning would be a case of “FFS don’t get caught doing that again especially if we get invited back next year”
===========================
To be clear was that issued by the MoD re the soldiers conduct, or the SFA regarding some other trifling administrative matters?
=================================
Oh they’ll be invited back. However who exactly is being invited – it isn’t the British Army, British Airforce or British Navy.
It is Rangers supporters who happen to be in uniform. They do not constitute a representative sample of the British Armed Forces and because – based on Bear website postings over a lengthy period – they aren’t there in normal unit formations so end-up as a ragbag collection of individuals with no discipline which is actually a discredit to our Armed Forces.
In my book – and I am a supporter of the British Armed Forces and both of my parents served in WWII and my Irish grandathers served in WWI (all as volunteers) – I have no problem with the Armed Forces attending Ibrox or anywhere else to celebrate an Armed Forces Day. However it should not be restricted solely or predominantly to Rangers supporters but should be done on a unit basis and obviously rotated year by year.
Of course this is another case of the elephant in the room not being acknowledged – our SMSM and politicians won’t go near it. However I actually have a belief that the Scottish Command HQ in Edinburgh will be having a very close look at why this simple affair has ended in a fiasco two years in a row. The solution is simple – let the Armed Forces attend and not just Bears in uniform.
This is nothing more than grumpy old man syndrome on a quiet day. Had a quick perusal of the papers and my over reaching impression is how much the new CFC signing target needs a slap with his grunge T shirt, cap and the Victory V sign. How much would you like Lennon, in fact not even Lennon, the doorman at Celtic Park to turn the guy and his agent on their heels and to come back when he’s grown up.
Told you I was grumpy!
Don’t quite understand the hearts appeal situation and the one in, one out thing either?
EDIT: meant to say, re the Doncaster led HFC statement, nothing said, and god forbid, nothing questioned about what else was discussed at board level then? Anything about corrective actions on clubs suffering insovencies for instance?
One Man’s Bias is Another Man’s Bias
Read this and maybe allow yourself a wee wry smile at the suffering and subjugation of an oppressed minority whose culture is derided and undermined at every turn by the media and contemporary Scottish society.
Sharks , Trolls , Headstones and Apathy DoTheBouncy (Weblog) 20:54 Mon, 13 Jan 2014
http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Sport/Football/Scottish+League+One/Rangers
WATPersecuted
blu says:
January 14, 2014 at 10:19 am
ecobhoy says:
January 14, 2014 at 9:55 am
============================
ecobhoy, it would seem that stadium safety is the responsibiity of the operator rather than any licensing body. Probably as it should be. I’m sure GCC,SPFL or HSE would however investigate any concerns raised by a member of the public.
PS FSOAS members can log-in to their dedicated area on the site – not accessible to me.
=================================================
I would agree that legal liability rests with the operator/owner in the final analysis. However I’m not so sure that public safety is solely entrusted to an operator/owner of any premises which the public are invited to enter especially in large numbers. Obviously the operator/owner has a duty to follow the various laws, rules and regulations, enacted and overseen by various bodies, to ensure public safety in both public and private property.
But these bodies also have responsibilities to ensure an operator/owner is adhering to their responsibilities as there is always a temptation, especially in times of financial difficulties or even time constraints, to cut corners and leave things till later. Often these decsions are only exposed following an accident.
Obviously I wouldn’t expect to be able to access the private area of the website in question. But I will read the public area to see what duties and obligations are placed on the officers who at the very least I assume to be the eyes and ears of the SPFL on safety issues. Would the designated Ibrox person be required to make a report on the recent incident regarding the roof and to whom ❓
I must have misunderstood/misread the letter from the licencing Department which you copied in as it appeared to me to be a brush-off to a member of the public raising the issue by telling them to contact the club with their concerns.
ecobhoy says:
January 14, 2014 at 10:44 am
Would the designated Ibrox person be required to make a report on the recent incident regarding the roof and to whom ❓
=============================================================================
If someone drops a paper clip in my workplace, forms must be competed. Is the roof blowing off Ibrox any different from the ceiling falling in at the Apollo ?
The Met said there was “no criminal act involved”, while Westminster City Council is investigating what happened.
The local authority confirmed the 112-year-old theatre’s health and safety checks were up to date.
The last formal inspection of the ceiling took place in September, theatre owners Nimax said.
Nickie Aiken, cabinet member for community protection with Westminster City Council, said: “As a precaution, all historic theatres are carrying out further safety checks.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25459567
ecobhoy says:
January 14, 2014 at 10:24
Of course this is another case of the elephant in the room not being acknowledged – our SMSM and politicians won’t go near it. However I actually have a belief that the Scottish Command HQ in Edinburgh will be having a very close look at why this simple affair has ended in a fiasco two years in a row. The solution is simple – let the Armed Forces attend and not just Bears in uniform.
==================================================
Unfortunately it is highly unlikely that anyone in positions of command within the armed forces will give a monkey’s toss about this. What to us is an outrageous piece of jingoistic nonsense is to them “a day out for our hard pressed lads and lassies”. They will have very little knowledge of the true situation and/or reasons for this “festival” taking place and there will be no appetite for taking any steps that could cause dissension in the ranks, especially if all the servicemen and women are raving about “their day out” when they return to barracks. The protests from us will be seen as the outpourings of a left wing/anti monarchy faction that is best ignored. Any attack on a squaddie is viewed as an attack on the establishment. An establishment that they have taken an oath to protect at all costs. In addition most positions within the armed forces are rotated on a regular basis so the officer(s) in charge this year will in all probability be replaced by the time the next day of shame takes place. Why put your head above the parapet when you are not going to be in the firing line for too long.
tomtom says:
January 14, 2014 at 11:02 am
================================================================================
Totally agree about the armed forces’ attitude to events., But if this had happened south of the border there would be a whole host of people and organizations ready to express an opinion on TV radio and in the papers: churchmen, councilors, local politicians, govt depts,numerous quangos etc
It certainly would not be allowed to slip under the carpet and be forgotten about.
There does seem to be a very deep seated unwillingness to face the underlying issue in Scotland .
(Article from VideoCelts website…but if i post a link, i can’t post the article – sorry guys)
Bampots – discuss
Referee chief explains why they won’t go public
Date: 14th January 2014 at 11:03 am
Written by: Joe McHugh | Comments (0)
Steven Craven Celtic newsReferee chief John Fleming has explained why referee’s can’t speak out after matches.
This season has seen the usual number of honest mistakes from Craig Thomson missing two clear cut penalties in the Aberdeen v Hibs match on Friday to Stevie McLean’s embarrassing catalogue of errors during Celtic’s 5-0 win at Motherwell.
A simple statement on the SFA website within an hour of the final whistle would satisfy most fans, players and managers but there are no signs of enlightenment at Hampden where it seems that refereeing mistakes are off topic.
Before leading 50 referees on a sunshine five star training break to La Manga Fleming explained to the SFA website: “I believe there are occasions when an explanation of a decision could be beneficial, like a technical matter.
“The problem we have with referees speaking after a game is that a number of matters may be referred to the Compliance Officer for review and a referee commenting could prejudice any case.
“We are very restricted in what we can voice and I think it would bring more problems than benefits to the referees. We need to protect them as best we can so it’s best they don’t speak to the media after matches.
“We have opened the door on referees speaking to the media when a match has been postponed to offer an explanation and that has happened on a number of occasions this season. In the past, we have held media training sessions which have helped develop better relationships with the media and helped their understanding of the decision-making process.”
Fleming claimed: “I think we are doing well domestically but there is always room for improvement. Situations occur in a match that, through a lack of concentration, can catch referees out.
“We need to look at them in more detail and learn from them. That’s something we’ll look to do at this training camp.”
This is the sixth year that referees have enjoyed their La Manga training camp with Fleming believing that the break benefits everyone in the business.
“The winter training camp provides us with the opportunity to take away 50 referees and specialist assistant referees for four days for intense practical and theory sessions,” the ref’s chief explained.
“The weather conditions in Spain are much better than in Scotland at the time of the year so it gives us the perfect platform to train. The trip gives me the opportunity to speak to the referees about the season to date and review any match incidents in detail. I can also assess the fitness levels of the officials whilst we are away.”
Shamed Dougie McDonald has rejoined the SFA as a referee development officer.
Re Keith Jackson’s article yesterday. Do you know how sometimes you read something and it sums up perfectly one’s own views on a topic? The extract below is taken from a post on Kerrydale Street (so I declaim any credit) and I think it really nails why so many football fans from clubs at all levels feel so strongly about what has been going on in OUR game.
“Do you know who I feel sorry for in all this, Keith? Hibs.
They realised years ago that the spending was unsustainable and put in place a business plan that involved paying back debt, turning a profit, selling on their best players when they could, paying wages they could afford and scrambling about for bargain basement managers. Ten years of that involving a relegation, little success and having their noses rubbed in it by Hearts, who spent money like water while Hibs worked within those confines.
THAT is the hard road, Keith. Should we feel sympathy for those supporters who never ask for it; who only turn up week in-week out to see their team? Was Hibs’ desire to run themselves sustainably killing Scottish football? Did they hate themselves?”
I’m not having a go at Hearts fans here – in fact I have been struck at how well they have reacted to the whole fiasco. They have accepted that Hearts’ problems are of Hearts’ own making and are doing everything they can to rectify their situation within the established rules of the game and laws of the land. Nor am I in full agreement about just how well Hibs have been run, but that is not relevent – they have been run well enough to survive. But what does strike a chord with me in the above extract, however, is the anger; anger at Rangers and many of their fans, the media and the football authorities who fail to either grasp or acknowledge who the real victims are in this whole, sorry saga. The victims are clubs who – like Hibs – have tried their best to deliver success while at the same time pay their bills on time. The clubs who have been criticised in our press for not “speculating to accumulate.” Clubs have been referred to as “diddy teams” for daring to operate within their means. As much as some fans wear it as a badge of honour, I would say that there are no solvent diddy teams in Scotland – their continued existence in extremely difficult economic circumstances is their true measure of success. The real diddies are those who put themselves out of business. And the real cause of the “hate” is Keith Jackson and “journalists” of his ilk who are either too stupid to understand the truth or are wilfully ignoring it. I don’t know which is worse.
4 furra pound, Sevco shares, 4 furra pound
actually, 24.75p each now
RIFC shares down another 10% to 24.25p valuing them at £15.79m.
A further slip since NTHM’s post above
m.c.f.c. says:
January 14, 2014 at 11:14 am
2 0 Rate This
tomtom says:
January 14, 2014 at 11:02 am
================================================================================
Totally agree about the armed forces’ attitude to events., But if this had happened south of the border there would be a whole host of people and organizations ready to express an opinion on TV radio and in the papers: churchmen, councilors, local politicians, govt depts,numerous quangos etc
It certainly would not be allowed to slip under the carpet and be forgotten about.
There does seem to be a very deep seated unwillingness to face the underlying issue in Scotland .
===========================
Totally agree.
Gee69 says:
January 14, 2014 at 11:40 am
3 0 Rate This
RIFC shares down another 10% to 24.25p valuing them at £15.79m.
A further slip since NTHM’s post above
==============================
Surely that was the signal for King to jet in and buy them all and build the supercasino stadium and sign newly crowned Balon D’or winner Ronaldo?
Market Cap was to hit £16.90M and timmy would be put in his place
no?
What happened?
tomtom says:
January 14, 2014 at 11:45 am
0 0 Rate This
m.c.f.c. says:
January 14, 2014 at 11:14 am
2 0 Rate This
tomtom says:
January 14, 2014 at 11:02 am
================================================================================
Totally agree about the armed forces’ attitude to events., But if this had happened south of the border there would be a whole host of people and organizations ready to express an opinion on TV radio and in the papers: churchmen, councilors, local politicians, govt depts,numerous quangos etc
It certainly would not be allowed to slip under the carpet and be forgotten about.
There does seem to be a very deep seated unwillingness to face the underlying issue in Scotland .
===========================
Totally agree.
===========================
Totally Agree.
Gee69 says:
January 14, 2014 at 11:40 am
RIFC shares down another 10% to 24.25p valuing them at £15.79m.
A further slip since NTHM’s post above
=======================
So Sevco are now worth one Victor Wanyama and a good night out with Campbell Ogilvie.
More inconsistent mutterings from Neil Doncaster as the SPFL continue to make up the rules on the hoof..
From yesterday:
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/hearts/260219-spfl-leaves-door-open-for-hearts-to-strengthen-squad-under-existing-rules/
Doncaster said: “Last summer Hearts applied for Danny Wilson to be brought in and they made it clear which player he was replacing.
“The board looked at it and sanctioned Danny Wilson’s registration at that point.
“If Hearts wish to register an individual player then the process is very clear and there’s no question of changing the rules.
“The rules are clear, it has been the case since last summer and these were the rules we used last summer.
“The board did not discuss Hearts at all today.”
From the summer:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23117440
An SPFL statement read: “The SPFL player registration of Heart of Midlothian FC player Danny Wilson would, had he not agreed a contract extension, have terminated on 30 June.
“The SPFL has now received documents extending the contract of the player.
“As a result, the player’s existing SPFL registration is automatically extended and is not affected by the embargo on new SPFL player registrations currently in place on Heart of Midlothian FC as a result of Heart of Midlothian plc (in administration) being in administration.”
Now which version of the truth and the rule book was being used in each case?
SPFL Board – Not fit for purpose.
1M shares sold at 24p at 11:47 this morning.
2.75M shares just sold
http://www.lse.co.uk/ShareTrades.asp?shareprice=RFC&share=rangers_int
1.5 million shares offloaded in a few minutes this morning. Trouble at t’mill?
Edit: Now 2.75 million. Something’s occurring.
Seeing the major offloading of shares while the price tumbles, I can’t seem to get the Tom Petty song “Free Falling” out of my head.
Whooft … now four big share sales!
Time/Date Price Volume Trade value Type
11:51:35 24.00 250,000 £60,000.00 O
11:51:12 24.00 250,000 £60,000.00 O
11:50:49 24.00 1,000,000 £240,000.00 O
11:48:49 25.00 250,000 £62,500.00 O
11:47:45 24.00 1,000,000 £240,000.00
Has the Balloon D’Or gone up?
Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.
Have had a quick look through the Football Safety Officers’ Association (Scotland) site at http://footballsafety.com/
Lot of it sounds sensible and wise and I will undernote it but I can’t spot what action a Football Safety Officer is meant to take should an incident happen during a game wrt reporting it anywhere, either internally or externally to the club he is employed by. If this is indeed the case then it is IMO a flaw in the oversight system and open to a kind of ‘What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas’ kick it under the carpet scenario.
However possibly gambling with the lives of people shouldn’t be hidden away and any possible threats to life and limb should be reportable outwith the club concerned so that an independent view can be obtained. This should apply to every football club without fear or favour.
The ‘Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975’ created ‘Safety Certificates’ in respect of sports grounds accommodating more than 10,000 spectators with powers of entry and inspection to persons authorised by the local authority, the chief officer of police and the building authority.
So it seems the power is there to act but what is regarded as an acceptable trigger-point ❓
My addled memory seems to be telling me that Rangers possibly fired a Stadium Manager recently but I don’t know whether they were replaced – is anyone up to speed on that ❓
From the FSOA website:
DESIGN
Students studying architecture and design should note the following safety features which have been incorporated into various football grounds in Scotland:
* The employment of Ticket Centre Managers and Stadium Managers who ensure that ticketing and maintenance matters are properly supervised.
* Policies of full co-operation with the police, fire, and building control authorities whom regularly undertake ‘spot checks’ within grounds.
SAFETY
Pre-Match Meeting – 48 hours before Match
Host Safety Officer will chair a Pre-Match Meeting. Composition of those attending varies from club to club but can include: The Police, Stewarding Companies, Club Directors, Stadium Managers, Ticket Centre Managers, Commercial Managers, Corporate managers, Catering Managers, representatives of the SPL and SFA together with Fire and Ambulance.
Ground Inspection – 24 hours before Match
The host Safety Officer or perhaps the Stadium Manager will also represent the club at a pre-match inspection of the ground along with the police. The inspection usually covers important aspect of public safety, including: (a) Basic structural conditions . . .
Safety Confirmation – 3 hours before Kick-off
In terms of a condition contained in their respective Safety Certificates, it is incumbent upon both Rangers and Celtic Football Clubs to provide the Police Commander, 3 hours before the kick-off, with a written assurance that spectators may be safely admitted to, and remain within, the ground for the duration of the match.
Stadium Control Point – during Match
(k) Contingency plans , which are referred to in the Green Guide which depict suggested courses of action in the event of DAMAGE TO STRUCTURES and other contingencies . . .
The Stadium Manager, because of the specialist skills required to give this assurance, will normally sign this document on behalf of the Club.
Sharks , Trolls , Headstones and Apathy
BY STEPHSTAR – POSTED ON JANUARY 13, 2014
POSTED IN: RANGERS NEWS
Written by Locutus59
SHARKS
I like to think of myself as an ordinary Rangers fan, maybe a little older and in some places greyer than the average demographic of todays Rangers fan, but where it counts I’m the same now as I was nearly 40+ years ago when I went to my first game at Ibrox.The excitement as I approach our magnificent Stadium still wells up in my chest. The heart beats just that little bit faster, butterflies start except being practically an old fart now I suppress the urge to smile, but make no mistake I still want to. The excitement builds as I find my way to my seat acknowledging nods from friends and well kent faces.
The players come out to warm up and eyes past their best years scan to see who’s warming up and who hasn’t made the squad. The PA starts and plays a few familiar songs as the players leave the warm up and disappear down the tunnel. Penny Arcade booms out and the crowd ceases talking about this player or that and what did or should have happened at the last game. The players take the park , the referee blows his whistle and the game kicks off while the fans finish singing Penny Arcade. My physical failings aside I’d imagine that’s similar the experience of most supporters, although a few might throw in the odd libation or fast food delicacy en route .
It’s an experience I’m sure we’d miss if it were taken away from us and the people who own our club know that. They know that they have an addicted clientelle who although their numbers may diminish slightly every now and again that they can be pretty secure that their brand loyalty will remain intact and that the odd bribe of a new player or manager will encourage those who are disheartened to come back to the fold. That’s an excellent thing to have for a company unswerving brand loyalty, but its something that’s sadly taken for granted and abused by all too often by football clubs. Rangers where no better or worse than any other club is this respect until quite recently in our 140+ year history. Now however things are different , its not directors with any real passion for Rangers other than the huge salaries that run the club. They are highly paid to deliver for their masters , not the fans or even egocentric owner as was the case in the past but hedge funds and pension investment companies without whose block votes their jobs would long since have vanished. They have no love whatsoever for the club and are purely their out of self interest , that’s not too bad if their ambitions mirrored that of the season ticket holder or the fan who pays at the gate to see his or her team but it doesn’t. The knights in shinning armour that some fans perpetually are waiting on are little better they promise the world and a cure to all ills so long as the fans are willing to stump up for it because they’re not putting their own hands in their own deep pockets. Meanwhile there are some circling the club awaiting the next financial meltdown presumably so they can step in and buy the club at a knock down price and be seen as the saviour so many long for . The impact on the team in respect of points deductions and loss of players isn’t that important to then,nor is the heartache it causes Rangers fans worldwide, they’ve got the club and that’s what matters .
TROLLS
In the past few weeks there have been several case in the news of Rangers fans and football fans being internet Trolls. I differentiate between the two as that’s what the media does. When its a celtic fan hurling racist abuse at two Rangers players or a celtic supporter making disgusting comments about Fernando Ricksen or Lee Rigby then its a football fan. When its David Limmond making comments about Angela Haggerty or a Rangers Fans making private comments about Neil Lennon then the media report them as Rangers fans. I don’t condone any of the comments that I know about from any of these people but surely they all deserve to be treated equally in an unbiased media. There’s the rub because as we all know the media in Scotland is far from impartial . The Daily Record , once a long long time ago the best news publication in Scotland bar none , is now no more than an outlet for releasing Peter Lawwells pr spin as they are hamstrung by commercial ties to celtic and companies owned by well known celtic supporters. BBC Scotland sport is even worse . Once the very name BBC was the hallmark worldwide of accuracy and unbiased reporting of facts, without bias or agenda if you lived in a tinpot banana republic you listened to the BBC for the unblemished truth. How times have changed , the BBC done even have the commercial excuse that the Daily Record has for its proven agenda against Rangers. Theirs is done through pure malevolence and bigotry. They knowingly allow their employees to factually misrepresent Rangers at every chance they get.The latest being a guest appearing on a radio show , Graham Speirs, intentionally claiming that Rangers had died and where a new club. The fact that EVERY official body including the SFA and SPFL recognise the clubs history to be intact. This was nothing more than trolling on the publicly funded BBC to raise the discredited journalists own profile. So what make Mr Speirs so very different from the rabid celtic supporter butting into a discussion to wind up Rangers fan talking about Rangers?
HEADSTONES
I am not a member of any Rangers fans group . I was previously a member of the Rangers Supporters Trust, but no longer. Though some fan groups add to the atmosphere and stand up for the club most of the fans groups are nothing more than an excuse to have a rant and kid themselves on that they’re some kind of “ ultras “. The inference being the rest of us are not as good fans in some way because we are not “ultras “ like these uber fans . The Blue Order , Union Bears aside there’s only one group I can see that have actively done anything other than gasbag and that’s the Vanguard Bears . As I say I’m not a member nor do I agree with them on many of their views . Politics should have no place in football , but that’s a debate for another day . Where the Vanguard Bears have excelled is by taking action that really matters . They restored the grave of Founding father William McBeath who was sharing an unmarked paupers grave as well as shaming the club into restoring the graves of others at Craigton cemetery . That alone would have earned my admiration but they also pursued a complaint against BBC Sport Scotland all the way to the BBC trust and won their agreement that their complaint was valid . Instructions on compliance where forwarded to Pacific Quay , or was it Pacific Shelf , its hard to tell the two apart sometimes or where one ends and the other begins . I’ve no doubt that future complaints will reference this ruling and eventually get the message across. Well done on your efforts as well as the research you’ve unearthed regarding state aid to a Glasgow football club that is being investigated by a European commission . I have no doubts this would not have happened had you and other dedicate Rangers fans not shone a light on these shameful incidents.
APATHY
At the time of writing , Rangers International Football Club Plc , the trading name for Rangers on the London stock exchange has the club valued as follows:
( GB £ ) per share 26p ( approx.)
total Shares issued 65,100,000
Shares owned by fans 7,812,000 12% ( approx. )
Shares owned by A McCoist 2,278,500 3.5 % ( approx )
leaving shares owned by others 55,009,500 (approx )
If just the 40,000 fans that turned up on Saturday paid into £3.43 ( approx ) a week for two years they’d have £14.302470. which is enough to buy the 55,009,500 at todays prices .
Simplistic I know, I realise that these shares are not all available for sale at this moment I time. What is a fact is that there are more shares for sale than there are Rangers supporters wanting to buy them. We do not need to own the whole club , 51% fan ownership seems to be the best model fiscally while still providing for the needs of the football team first.
Ask yourself this , if Rangers goes into Administration or liquidation again , and remember most of us thought it couldn’t happen before, what would you tell your kids or grand kids when they asked what happened to Rangers and did you try to stop it happening?
If you don’t think you can afford to buy some shares or join a syndicate to buy them through your bus or whatever then thats ok, but know the facts before you make that decision . You DON’T need to buy £500 or even £125 worth of shares at a time . You can shop about the various banks and buy as many or as few as you like , they will charge you brokerage fees but these are often fixed meaning you’ll pay much the same buying £10 worth as you would buying £100 worth. Yes if the club goes broke you could loose some or all the money you have in shares but be honest if Rangers went out of business would £100 worth of shares be the biggest concern to you?
The choice is yours , there is no hero waiting to do it for you #dothemath
==========================================================
This is the article which was referenced above.
It is on dothebouncy.com
If the club goes into Liquidation AGAIN ! ! !
WTF
2.75 million shares just been shifted at 25p and 24p.
Someone just cashed out?
Ecobhoy and Campbellsmoney
Thanks for your analysis and information. The Unison PDF was general info and not specific to Rangers. I still believe that Chico Verde was desperate to have A. Mc C on board, so he was landed with the salary from the previous contract. It appears to be the same situation with the banks a few years ago, where if the government had let them fail and picked up the pieces later, Fred and his pals wouldn’t have had the large pensions. In that case the government done the right thing to protect the ordinary people. Chico appeared to misjudge the situation, as Alastair would have signed whatever was put in front of him.
Angus1983 says:
January 14, 2014 at 8:52 am
I remember tootling along an Alpine road a couple of summers ago and passing a tiny village which had a huge big banner at the side of the road saying “xx welcomes Heart of Midlothian FC training camp!”
======================
Aye, I’ve been to xx. Easily excited bunch they are 🙂
I’ve decided, watching the sevco soap opera is like watching Columbo
the opening scene reveals all, the murder, who done it, how and why…..and then we get the credits and the hero emerges.
This is when teh sevconaians switch on the telly, they’ve missed what happened and who the villain was – so they are in the dark as to who the murderer is and how it will end
but everyone else knows the story and it’s just a case of enjoying the journey until Columbo nails him and he is bang to rights.
it’s only a matter of time before they are in admin again, we all know this as we caught the start of Columbo, but the sevconians think they might still get away with it. But they won’t, columbo always gets him man
https://twitter.com/PLambie/status/423067156910071809/photo/1
So very many shares dumped in the last hour? What will the next hour bring? Methinks something resembling a crisis has kicked in.
Fivefurrapound? Good on alliteration and it matches with the stars on the shirt!
Two thoughts on the large share sales. 2 of 1 million, and 2 of 250k
1 million shares is the amount owned by McCoist.
The board may now have enough shares to win on resolution 10 , should they decide to go for an EGM with this resolution reissued
Barcabhoy says:
January 14, 2014 at 12:21 pm
____
When I saw the 1m share trade, my gut instinct was that it was McCoist selling up, don’t know why. Could be one of the many ‘institutional investors’…
RIFC Share Sales
Tbh what is significant here to me isn’t actually the price but the volume traded. Something big is happening – but what ❓
I am certain there has never been that many shares traded since the IPO on a single day which is yet young 😯
It will be interesting to see who is selling and who is buying.
As discussed the other day Green only managed to transfer some of his shares to Laxey after the lock-in ended. therefore without any other evidence it appears he was still holding the majority of his shares.
His deal with the Easdales was supposed to happen in May this year.
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/237857-sandy-easdale-announces-rangers-share-deal-with-charles-green/
Would not be surprised if he dumped and ran as soon as the share price hit 25p.
Still say keep and eye on Laxey. Maybe a Regulatory News announcement on them and/or Easdale increasing their stakes beyond AIM notification thresholds.
22. bobcobb74 says:
January 14, 2014 at 11:29 am
Your post has reminded me of a theme that I come back to about once a year, and it’s that of the article that Craig Burley wrote (or, at least, put his name to ) in the Sunday Mail just before the SFL vote on whether to admit TRFC to the first division, third division. His article was basically ‘Who the hell do these diddy clubs think they are to determine whether or not the Mighty Rangers get to join the league, and at what level?’
In fact, I think he may have worded it in an even more high-handed, insulting manner than that, but you get the jist.
There’s not many articles in the Sports press that I’ve read that have made me genuinely angry – most of them you read, and you think ‘Aye, mate, whatever. Whose agenda are you pushing?’ – but Burley’s one almost made me burst a bloodvessel when I read it.
Apparently, clubs who had temerity to live within their means, pay their bills, and had suffered in a football sense because of that, had no right to pronounce judgement on The Mighty Rangers. These clubs exist to serve their local communities, and whereas they probably could have mortgaged themselves up to the hilt, borrowed money they could never pay back from the bank, and stiffed local business’ to fund a successful team, they chose not to. In fact, ‘chose’ probably isn’t the right word, because that suggests that they felt there was ever a choice.
So that was 2.75m shares sold, at 24/25p, inside four minutes. More to the point, somebody has shelled out £662,500 to buy them. Somebody who clearly knows a lot more than me. Could we have some analysis and elucidation, before I go completely round the twist? Extended Xmas break from work to blame.
Text of an email I have just fired off to Shona Robinson MSP, Minister for Commonwealth games and Sport ( to her anonymous Private Secretary’s office)
“… May I express some concern to the Minister at the report that a number of fans attending a very recent match at Ibrox Stadium were moved from their places and relocated due to some fears that the roof structure under which they were seated was dangerous?
Can we be reassured that
a) the Organisers of the Commonwealth Games will not, as planned, use the stadium for the Rugby 7s without independently checking that the structure poses no danger to the spectators?
and b) that no public finance will given to the the owners of the stadium to enable them to make the stadium safe?
May I also ask what contingency plans there are for the use of another venue should Ibrox Stadium (or, indeed, any other privately-owned structure that is currently scheduled for use by the CG organisers) fail to pass any safety inspection?
Yours faithfully,
“
Famous song says:
January 14, 2014 at 12:35 pm
So that was 2.75m shares sold, at 24/25p, inside four minutes. More to the point, somebody has shelled out £662,500 to buy them. Somebody who clearly knows a lot more than me. Could we have some analysis and elucidation, before I go completely round the twist? Extended Xmas break from work to blame.
================================================================
It could mean many things and I’m afraid speculation gets you nowhere unless you’re on the inside track as to what the end goal is.
All will be revealed in due course so patience is called for. What is certain is that something is probably changing but who knows because spivs can operate in many seemingly mysterious ways – to outsiders – when it comes to share dealings.
Rumours flying 😉 only rumours mind that Wallace has resigned???
It may mean something or nothing but previous large trades:
c4 million traded 15 August – Laxey
c3.3 million traded 20 November – Laxey
Araminta Moonbeam QC says:
January 14, 2014 at 12:28 pm
Barcabhoy says:
January 14, 2014 at 12:21 pm
____
When I saw the 1m share trade, my gut instinct was that it was McCoist selling up, don’t know why. Could be one of the many ‘institutional investors’…
====================================
Poor Ally – you have to feel sorry for him. Wages supposedly slashed and if he had sold his One Million shares which he got for 1p each last January he would have got 90p a time for them almost four times a share for what he got if he sold today.
And if he hasn’t sold today what will he eventually get for them ❓ Oh Dear Oh Dear – does not walking away extend to not walking away from his shares ❓
Re the stephsmart, Rangers News post above.
Firstly, fair play, the guy/girl has put his thoughts down on paper. I’d query the particular paper chosen right enough – preaching to the converted and all that.
Throughout, I am reminded of Alan Sugar’s memoirs and his claim that he oft left White Hart Lane to his own supporters calls of “Sugar you ******* Idiot, that’s another £25m you’ve blown on us!”
Penny shares still show a handsome profit, despite the 24p price today.
Some party is chasing control of the assets to the extent that they dont need to ask other shareholders permission to do something.
48. john clarke says:
January 14, 2014 at 12:29 am
Who said garrison city?
=============================================
Isn’t that Fort William?
I just see that the latest selling spree as maybe folk who were in a lock-in period are bailing. Who’s buying? Well as ecobhoy says, speculation gets you nowhere, but it’s fun so…. might this be the building of a shareholding to tak ethe club privae again? I do think that must be somebody’s planned endgame – it was impossible to buy the club outright under the IPO rules but the plummeting shareprice and (I assume) the lack of serious buyers means the current market cap is “only” about £15m. Could that be King? The Easdales?
BTW to those more in the know than I, might the breaching of certain trigger prices (24p for example) prompt some program trading to kick in – i.e. shareholder has left instructions to sell @ a certain price.
If the 2.75M shares traded were sold by the same party, then it would limit the number of possible sellers.
List of those holding 3% or more of RIFC
Laxey Partners Ltd 8,292,957 12.74%
Artemis Investment Management LLP 5,479,000 8.42%
Hargreave Hale Limited 4,601,688 7.07%
Blue Pitch Holding 4,000,000 6.14%
Mike Ashley 3,000,000 4.61%
Alexander Easdale 2,942,957 4.52%
Miton Capital Partners 2,662,178 4.09%
ATP Investments 2,600,000 3.99%
Richard Hughes 2,200,000 3.38%
Beaufort Securities with 3,040,000 (4.67%) also hold proxies for a group of smaller shareholders.
@Jockybhoy I am no big investor but I think my trigger would have been around the 50p mark, but who knows..Could be Ally supplementing his alleged recent pay decrease.. Be interesting to see who is buying hope it’s not my pension company again..
blu says:
January 14, 2014 at 12:55 pm
ecobhoy says:
January 14, 2014 at 12:31 pm
RIFC Share Sales
Tbh what is significant here to me isn’t actually the price but the volume traded. Something big is happening – but what I am certain there has never been that many shares traded since the IPO on a single day which is yet young
==========================================================
It may mean something or nothing but previous large trades:
c4 million traded 15 August – Laxey
c3.3 million traded 20 November – Laxey
==============================================
In November Laxeys became biggest shareholder with 11.64% of RIFC shareholding. If they buy the shares sold today then we will probably have a regulatory announcement tomorrow or Thursday at the latest.
If they are buying it looks as though they will be going into action shortly and the property seems a logical target for them. Of course maybe they have decided to ditch their shareholding although I think that unlikely.
I just wonder if Ashley’s attention has wandered more in the direction of Debenhams after his moves yesterday – could he be ditching his Rangers holding. After all better to play with a Debenhams train set than fiddle with the points at the Ibrox Megastore, waiting for the train to call at the Ibrox Stadium Station (courtesy of Green), even though its 500 million customers presumably are more than Debenhams have 😆
Exactly what I was just working out ej
If it is the same people selling the shares then there is a very limited number of people who could do it.
In addition, for a few of those it would take them back below the 3% mark, which I believe is notifiable.
So who it is could be narrowed down very soon, assuming the market is notified.
RIP the Wee Barra…
john clarke says:
January 14, 2014 at 12:42 pm
Best of luck with getting a suitable response.
I assume that this has already been raised but It really irks me that one of the principal reasons underpinning the IPO was that £9m of the investment raised would be directed to the upgrading of Ibrox Stadium, with £5.5m of this sum expended in the 12 months immediately following the offering. This planned expenditure was set against a gross target investment of £24.5m. RIFC have indicated that the IOP raised £22.5m so it would be reasonable to assume that the vast majority of this £5.5m ring fenced sum would have been spent on the necessary upgrades. I trust that the CG organising committee were fully aware of the intention to upgrade the stadium as an integral part of the decision making process to allocate the Rugby Sevens to Ibrox Stadium and will be seeking details of the progress to date. It would also be incumbent upon the SFA to have been aware of these promised improvements and to be monitoring progress in keeping with their decision to host both Scottish Cup semi finals at this venue.
Carl31 says:
January 14, 2014 at 1:03 pm
Penny shares still show a handsome profit, despite the 24p price today.
Some party is chasing control of the assets to the extent that they dont need to ask other shareholders permission to do something.
============================
With respect, they’re not chasing that hard!
I am wary and in agreement in equal part re the possibility of a private buy out – presumably some kind of Laxey/Easdale conglomerate. The difference this time is the positioning of the assets vis a vis the football ‘activity’ (carefully avoiding the word club 😉 ). The two are now discernibly different, with vested non footballing interests in control. If this is some kind of Establishment end play its a pretty risky game they’re playing.
Famous song says:
January 14, 2014 at 12:35 pm
3 0 Rate This
So that was 2.75m shares sold, at 24/25p, inside four minutes. More to the point, somebody has shelled out £662,500 to buy them. Somebody who clearly knows a lot more than me. Could we have some analysis and elucidation, before I go completely round the twist? Extended Xmas break from work to blame.
========================================================================
My understanding is that the market maker buy the share that are put onto the market and holds them till their is a buyer.
It looks as if over 2.75m shares have been traded today and thus far only approx. 256k bought.
Forgive my ignorance, but I keep hearing there is a chance that ‘share trading will be suspended’. Could anyone give me a brief idiots guide as to what this means, and what the potential consequences would be?
Perhaps plans to change the ownership of the stadium have had to be re-thought if it is now actually finally falling down. People might well be deserting whilst there is some money available.
I see that the mid price has crept back up to 26p. That would suggest to me that we should see a large purchase going through shortly as the balancing transaction from this morning’s sales.
arabest1 says:
‘share trading will be suspended’. what this means,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The co cannot use stock market services if shares are suspended
To name but a few
– Nobody can buy or sell shares through the stock market
– No loan notes can be issued
e.g Co .Offers to pay annual interest of 8% on a £100 loan certificate with loan repaid in 10yrs
– No share dilutions can be made
e.g.Co creates new shares out of thin air and offers them for sale at an “attractive” (i.e lower) price than the shares were being sold at immediately before the announcement was made
Maybe we are seeing the stock market value of RIFC converging with the perceived market value of the property portfolio? In which case the shares have suddenly become attractive to real investors?
Or alternatively, could this be the culmination of a hugely successful shorting exercise? We have seen weeks of the share price declining on very thin trading. In fact most of the trades made no sense to me in real terms, who sells 100 shares for £35 for goodness sake? We can take the fans out of the equation, certainly. They hold (mostly) 700 shares and are either going to sell up entirely or (mostly) hold on.
If today’s big business is “inter spiv”, surely it would have done behind closed doors by private treaty, No need for brokers to be involved, just a handshake and a good audio clip.
I don’t know if they have, but if someone really has shorted 2.5 million shares to 25p 3 months ago, and today’s transactions reflect that, then someone has just made themselves an awful lot of money (by my standards).
Thanks Goosy…..so it would be a real spanner in the works…..particularly if the Co was financially ‘stressed’.
arabest1 says:
January 14, 2014 at 1:18 pm
—————————————
Forget what you’re hearing.
There is no chance the shares will be suspended, even if they reach 1p. It would have to be the receipt of information by AIM that requires them to suspend the shares. That information would have to fall into the fairly serious category of offence – fraud, fraudulent trading etc.
The share price is really academic as far as the day to day trading of the company is concerned; it matters not if the price is rising or falling – that is only a matter for the shareholders themselves.
What appears to be happening here is that the small shareholders are being squeezed/induced to sell, particularly those who bought in at 70p.
That would leave just the big players who doubtless have a couple of plans up their sleeves – either some new investment altogether that can safely be approved by the remaining shareholders or the asset stripping sale/leaseback etc scenarios.
All grist to the mill though – it adds to the uncertainty. Certainly any journo worth his salt should have on his list of questions for McCoist this week “have you sold your shares?” A typical way to appease an employee having his wages cut is to allow him to sell some shares to make up for the loss.
It would not take a financial genius to guess that 25p is likely to be the highest those shares trade at for the foreseeable future/ever again*
(*delete as appropriate but some including me would plump for the latter)
24p to 0
It won’t have been Ally selling his shares to be honest. After all, he did come out with this:
“I have personally invested in the club,” said McCoist. “I think the best way to put it is that I have bought shares in the club as a fan, I haven’t bought them specifically as the manager.
“I wanted to do it as a supporter and when I am long gone the shares I have invested in the club will be passed down in my family.
“It is obviously close to my heart and like a lot of Rangers supporters will do, I did it on behalf of my family, it’s not so much for myself, more for my sons than anything else.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/9751359/Ally-McCoist-buys-Rangers-shares.html
PS. Check out the picture!
SO for example
Spiv A has 2.5M shares which he acquired at 1p (£25k)
share price is, for example, 54p (they like that number)
through a friendly broker/nomad
Spiv B “borrows” those shares from spiv A and the short begins
Share price drops to 24p and they then return the borrowed shares to the broker/Spiv A
Spiv B has made 2.5M x 30p in the short = 750k
Spiv A still has 2.5M shares worth 24p = 600k – which is a significant profit on his £25k cost.
is that about the long and short of it? Does that maybe answer who is buying these up now?
Aren’t “balancing transactions” usually the wee trades of 80- 120 shares etc that make up to a round number the larger shares purchases?