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.
ianagain says: (62)
December 27, 2013 at 9:54 pm
‘….Back to Danish’s original musings..’
———-
He certainly evoked some memories in me as well, possibly going a tad further back than most of the ‘youngsters’.
The back courts of the Corporation 3-storey, late 1920s/early 1930s tenements on Methven St, Cuthelton St., Dunning St., and Glenshee St., had three air-raid shelters.
These came down by about 1949 or so. A great open space was thus created.
And to my 7or 8 year old eyes it was a tremendously exciting thing to watch two full teams of young men-perhaps a third of them home on leave from National Service in the Forces, the rest resignedly awaiting call-up papers sooner or later- play blood and guts football. With often another dozen or so unlucky not to be picked for any particular game.
Plenty of passion, lots of encouraging shouting, no bickering about whether the ‘ ba’ was oot’, or ‘o’er the ( non-existent) bar’, or ‘past the (equally non-existent) post, or whether a tackle was fair or foul, or whether the ‘ba’played the man’ or ‘the man the ba”..
No referee, none needed, because there was a UNIVERSAL understanding of what ‘fairness’ actually meant, of the fact that there is not, cannot be, glory in winning by ‘cheating’. ( As an aside, I think ‘poachers’ were thought not to be really deserving of any great personal credit for the goals they scored with minimal effort and skill? )
An understanding that if not played fairly by the rules, the game is indeed a bogey.
I may be romanticising, of course, seeing things through the eyes of nostalgic longing for times past.
But I believe that many tens of thousands of others, of many younger generations, were not expressing any sense of ‘nostalgia’ when they howled in powerful protest against the fundamentally anti-sporting mindset of SDM etc etc, and the readiness of those charged with applying the Rules to abandon them, and thus make a mockery of the concept of Sporting Integrity.
I want the guilty men publicly identified, appropriately punished, and removed from office for inflicting such a wound on all of us.
Danish Pastry says: (1845)
December 27, 2013 at 10:28 pm
####################################
Perhaps they ran some projections on likely disciplinary hearings / costs / fines & felt they couldn’t afford him… 😳 😈
john clarke says: (1466)
December 27, 2013 at 11:32 pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’d forgotten the stick that used to get dished out to the ‘poacher’, even by members of his own team!!
I never realised sepia was such a pleasant colour…
Complicit journalists continue to participate in the sevco myth. Whilst they refuse to question the shenanigans the perpetrators believe that they’re getting away with it. Unfortunately for them, they’ve failed to acknowledge the assorted bampots who are digging relentlessly for the truth.
GW hasn’t answered the question but to be fair to him, no hack has asked: how can you operate with a wage bill at +100% of your income BEFORE you add running costs?
Just a couple of points.
If true, by my calculations, 600 homeless at £15 a ticket and say £4 for a pie and Bovril, that makes £11,400. Hardly a dent in the combined weekly wages of McCoist (£70 a week!!! FFS!), Daly, Stockbridge, etc. Especially as there are so many empty seats to fill anyway?
Good PR though for a struggling Co! This Co really have to be commended for the work they do supporting our Armed Forces and also our Homeless. Good on Jon Daly sticking up for the homeless in an official statement from the Co. No doubt Jon and Ally will be inviting all 600 around for a New Years Party at Charlies Chateu at New Year, along with 3000 Troops!. Nah, didn’t think so!
And, DP, really good Starting Post. It took me back to the days! We used to make our own goalposts, and it was a bonus one day when a few of us came across some unattended nets. Given, our goalposts were not as big and wide as you would expect, but if you had nets, there were no arguments!!!!!!!
p.s. your December 27, 2013 at 10:28 pm, I agree, Mr Sheils will be good for Morton. I too saw that interview and he shows real passion to succeed.
Just another quick thought!
Bearing in mind that CW withheld all that lovely VAT and NI money during his tenure, and not blaming Ally, as I’m sure his Tax Affairs are all legit, surely they have a cheek making a Big Issue out of helping the homeless?
Shameless comes to mind?
You coudn’t make this Pantomime up any better! Even the Muppets would struggle.
I dunno about you lot, but I find this really confusing.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-fan-thrown-out-supermarket-2963304
Why would this fan be so upset? Wasn’t Craig Whyte the guy who put Rangers into administration, thus paving the way for the Club to continue on debt free and with the history intact?
Or….?
Does this fan know something that the other Ibrox fans haven’t yet grasped?
Is he in fact….ahem….smarter than your average Bear? 😀
Did Craigy boy get one of the homeless tickets per chance.
Anyone else see any irony in the homeless receiving complementary tickets to watch a football match, played by a team who are so skint they may in fact soon be…
causaludendi says: (103)
December 28, 2013 at 1:58 am
‘…. irony in the homeless receiving complementary tickets to watch a football match, played by a team who are so skint they may in fact soon be……..’
———
Surely not the big ‘H’?
Nooooo!
There must be at least one of Her Majesty’s pipe-smoking Counsel learned in the law on hand to prevent that. Temporary accommodation perhaps, in a Central Park in a nice wee town,somewhere?
‘Nil desperandum’ has to be the cry! (Or am I thinking of something else entirely? The oul’ Latin is not what it used to be… vae victis…… delenda est Carthago….de mortuis nil nisi bonum…….Ne se dedere!!
Oh, where is Mr Wallace when you need him? (No, not that Mr Wallace, for heaven’s sake.As if! 🙂
No, my first Latin master.) 🙂
If there was half a brain shared amongst the SFA senior management, they would have contingency plans in place for ;
-TRFC achieving promotion to the SPL
&
– TRFC becoming extinct, a la Third Lanark.
(Edit: I’m not sure where PL fits into this: I am not a fan of his – but he is a shrewd operator to be fair.)
…you would think…
Lord Wobbly says: (995)
December 28, 2013 at 12:29 am
&&&&&&
Turns out it wasn’t Ticketus, it was Tescopoints!
Lord Wobbly says: (995)
December 28, 2013 at 12:29 am
‘…..Is he in fact….ahem….smarter than your average Bear?..’
———-
Good m’ Lord, one wonders if he may not be playing an absolute solo blinder that will see both SDM and him emerge as the overall winners?
john clarke says: (1468)
December 28, 2013 at 3:00 am
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At one point I thought DM was going to come riding to the rescue (as part of the plan) but as time has went on I’ve become less sure of that hypothesis.
wrt the latin element, Multi Pertransibunt Et Augebitur Scientia!!
Has the date for the UTTT now been fixed?
HMRC V The former Rangers Football Club Plc (now RFC 2012 – in liquidation)
24 February to 21 March 2014 Edinburgh Tribunal Center, George House, 126 George Street, Edinburgh EH2 4HH
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/tribunals/tax-and-chancery-upper-tribunal-/hearings-register.pdf
It will be intteresting to see on Monday nights game against Dunfermilne if the prize assets get a game for fear of injury,course they will ,Ally’s his own man .he wont stand for any interference in his choice of team,oh whats that.breaking news Lee Wallace has picked up an injury in training,He tripped over Allys dropped over sized wage packet.
Glenn gibbons in the hootsmon does a half arsed job
… in comparing Celtic (under wee fergus) v Sevco (because Rangers were Liquidated)
RANGERS manager Ally McCoist will garner little from playing to the fans at Ibrox, and needs only look to Celtic managers of the past for hints on dealing with a slimmed-down transfer budget, writes Glenn Gibbons.
When Lou Macari was manager of Celtic in the closing days of the failed Kelly/White directorial axis, he was informed by his board that the absolute maximum he would be allowed to spend on the purchase of a player would be £50,000. To express the significance of the figure in house-buying terms, it would have been enough to cover the cost of acquiring football’s equivalent of a single-end – with outside loo.
In essence, the controllers of the Parkhead purse had informed their manager that spending money had become an alien concept at an organisation which was, at the time, hurtling towards the financial abyss.
Macari’s response to being metaphorically clapped in irons was to hatch a plan to bring the former Rangers striker, Robert Fleck, back from England, where his career was, at the time, at the bottom of a trough at Chelsea. Lou guessed that he would cost around £500,000 and hoped that, by agreeing the deal by his own efforts, he could, in effect, embarrass the board into finding the money.
Anyone reflecting on the episode now, armed with the knowledge of the depths of Celtic’s economic plunge, would recognise that Lou’s plot was doomed as an unrealisable fantasy.
Ten years on, Martin O’Neill was weaving his own web, putting a slightly sour note into the occasional press conference by hinting that his lofty ambitions for Celtic – embracing distinction in Europe as well as in Scotland – were being hindered by a board of directors who habitually used the word “prudence” as a shield against accusations of parsimony.
Had any fans during that period eavesdropped on my conversation with the then chairman, Brian Quinn, they would have discovered that, far from the growing resentment and potential acrimony that would have made captivating headlines, the manager’s relationship with his employers represented what passes for unremarkable normality in a largely eccentric business.
“Listen,” said an endlessly tolerant and understanding Quinn, “at any football club with the ambition we have, the manager has his job and the directors have theirs. As a matter of course, the interests of both parties will at times collide. This conflict is utterly unavoidable and woven into the very fabric of this kind of organisation.
“Now, Martin O’Neill is a clever man – that’s one of the reasons he is in the position he’s in – and we, as directors, would be very surprised indeed if he did not every now and then plant seeds in the media to see how they might grow. Martin knows precisely how the system works and how to maximise the effect he believes will advance his cause.
“But we are pretty good at what we do, too, and that’s why we’re in the job. We’re inevitably going to have these conflicts, but they’ll be resolved in a way that won’t damage the club. It’s all part of the process.”
The wildly varying (but curiously consistent) experiences of the two Celtic managers – one when times were bad, the other when they were infinitely better – resonated through the public musings of Ally McCoist this week, the Rangers manager dwelling on his misgivings over what could be called the atrophying of the Ibrox club’s financial muscle.
Both Macari and O’Neill, in starkly contrasting circumstances, encountered the priorities and imperatives of directors and, not for the first time, were reminded that they would more often than not be at odds with their own.
McCoist finds himself in the same straits as Macari and, clearly, would much prefer to have O’Neill’s “worries”. But he has been immersed long enough in the primordial soup that has been Rangers’ finances in recent years to realise that no amount of populism (despite his reverence among many of the club’s followers) will bring relief from the mess.
If anything, the annual meeting of shareholders nine days ago that brought the entrenchment of the current directors also virtually ensured that the manager’s prospects of strengthening his squad through a shopping expedition will dim to the point of invisibility. A few more foul-tasting truths have emerged since the conclusion of the agm, not least of them the unvarnished claim by chief executive Graham Wallace that substantial new investment will be required. And, much more tellingly, that it could take up to five years of streamlining and careful husbandry to prove to potential backers that Rangers are worth the risk.
The unmissable hint that the quality of the team is likely, if anything, to deteriorate during that period carries the unnerving possibility that widespread assumptions of an uninterrupted march from the fourth tier to the first in Scottish league football could be made to look ill-founded.
Speculation that McCoist will be forced to lose his best players during the January transfer window is sound enough on the grounds of reducing the wage bill. But, with Lee Wallace the only one so far reportedly interesting a possible buyer (“Nottingham Forest In £1 million Swoop For Wallace”), it is unlikely that sales will have the Ibrox counting house staff on overtime.
Forecasts of Rangers’ speedy transition from phoenix-like rebirth in the flames of liquidation to the perch at the summit of the SPFL Premiership and cutting a swathe through Europe may have to be modified to accommodate a more likely, considerably less rewarding prognosis.
Dissenters to this proposal would do well to recall that, even with the extraordinarily quick recovery of Celtic under Fergus McCann in 1994 – complete with an immensely increased annual turnover through season-ticket sales and merchandising and while remaining in the Scottish Premier League – it still took another four years to win the championship.
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/glenn-gibbons-populism-won-t-help-ally-mccoist-1-3249076
Long Time Lurker says: (672)
December 28, 2013 at 7:57 am
2 0 Rate This
Has the date for the UTTT now been fixed?
HMRC V The former Rangers Football Club Plc (now RFC 2012 – in liquidation)
24 February to 21 March 2014 Edinburgh Tribunal Center, George House, 126 George Street, Edinburgh EH2 4HH
http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/tribunals/tax-and-chancery-upper-tribunal-/hearings-register.pdf
=================
Yes, that is the substantive hearing. It’s interesting that they have allowed 3 full weeks. That indicates that a load of witnesses will be called. Seems like Mr Bishopp was not very happy with the way the original hearing was conducted, and is starting from scratch on certain aspects.
jimlarkin says: (726)
December 28, 2013 at 8:18 am
…………………………………………………..
Can’t agree with you on that assessment JL. From my reading of the article Mr Gibbons is trying to get across the true, precarious, predicament to those of a blue persuasion. You may feel there was no need to discuss Celtic but it could be construed as highlighting how truly different the scenarios are. Also there is the ‘L’ word along with (very poor) allegory. But, at the end of the day, it comes down to perception.
Neepheid, I was under the impression that no further witnesses could be called (I think it was discussed on here way, way back) and it would just be a revisiting of the previously presented evidence? Do I take it from your post that we may in fact see a ‘re-trial’, if you will?!
Good heavens above, the very thought 🙂
causaludendi says: (106)
December 28, 2013 at 9:10 am
0 0 Rate This
Neepheid, I was under the impression that no further witnesses could be called (I think it was discussed on here way, way back) and it would just be a revisiting of the previously presented evidence? Do I take it from your post that we may in fact see a ‘re-trial’, if you will?!
Good heavens above, the very thought 🙂
=========
Bishopp was fairly critical of the decision of the “majority” at the original hearing. In fact it all seems to be a total mess. Here are his observations, be warned that this is not easy reading!
http://etims.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/UTT-tax-case.pdf
I’m sure the lawyers can talk for 3 weeks if allowed to (well they charge by the hour, after all!) but it would be unusual for any case not involving witnesses to be set down for a 3 week hearing. But maybe there are so many issues open that it really will need 3 weeks of legal argument! In fact Bishopp raises the possibility of the case being sent back to the original tribunal for further fact finding, so maybe no witnesses this time, but clearly this has a long way to go yet.
neepheid says: (962)
December 28, 2013 at 8:47 am
Hopefully with this being a public hearing the media will give a decent commentary and analysis on events. Alex Tomo on Twitter has said that he is going to keep an eye on the UTTT.
It will be interesting to see if the public nature of the UTTT hearing changes attitudes towards the club re financial doping and sporting advantage.
@ianagain, @john clarke, @fergussingstneblues (and many others),
Great posts. I’ve tried to contain myself by replying to some posters via PM, for fear of turning this blog into a complete nostalgia fest 🙂
There’s no doubt football needs to stop and look back to very basics of what made the sport so popular in he first place — if it has any chance of maintaining its claim to being ‘the beautiful game’.
It’s ominous, though, that while football aligns itself with betting, booze, and fans pay small fortunes to support teams on salaries light years from that of the working man — other sports are tackling problems head on.
Within tennis there are calls from leading players such as Murray and Federer for increased drug tests — even if it means less prize money. Easy for rich kids to say, but wouldn’t it be good to hear a Messi, Iniesta and Ronaldo call for the same? Cycling, in particular, is going through a long process of naming and shaming. All carpets at the cycling authorities’ headquarters in Switzerland are being removed, sweeping stuff under them is just not on anymore. And if you want to hear a couple of guys agitate for fairness in their sport check out the Eurosport cycling podcast. It’s presented by two Scots lads who pull no punches. Even the mega-rich, money-fuelled circus of F1 is making efforts to bring the smaller teams nearer to the front of the grid by closing the financial gap.
The Scottish game will never have the financial riches of the big nations, but we should expect the guardians of the game to protect the historical heritage which we still share with rest of the UK — of being a place where fair play is is of paramount importance. We may never have financial clout, but playing on a moral high ground is something you can’t put a price on.
Oddly enough, my goalposts of childhood were actually about looking to the future — or starting again — something I didn’t communicate too well. But you guys don’t need to be reminded that in order to plot the path moving forward you sometimes need to look back — even if it is to a pile of jaikets, chalked posts, broken windaes and climbing over the gates on Finlay Drive or Frairton Road to play on a gravel pitch!
Mods
I’m getting a malware alert from Google Chrome when I visit the site. have you been hacked?
causaludendi says: (106)
December 28, 2013 at 9:04 am
3 1 Rate This
jimlarkin says: (726)
December 28, 2013 at 8:18 am
…………………………………………………..
Can’t agree with you on that assessment JL. From my reading of the article Mr Gibbons is trying to get across the true, precarious, predicament to those of a blue persuasion. You may feel there was no need to discuss Celtic but it could be construed as highlighting how truly different the scenarios are. Also there is the ‘L’ word along with (very poor) allegory. But, at the end of the day, it comes down to perception.
=====================================================
[to me] The way it is set out, is to completely paper over the Liquidation, and what Liquidation actually means as opposed to “administration”.
The way gibbons portrays it, he (along with many Sevconians) see Liquidation and Administration as the same thing.
The same thing that means a wee bit of a financial belt tightening, but…through time, the financial belt tightening can be overcome.
It is an alarm call and a pleading to the Sevconians that the belt will need to be tightened, but fear not, for in future, it will be worth it.
It happened to Celtic and look at them now.
Rangers (now) need to follow the same path as Celtic.
Ergo…in future – Rangers can and will be back, as strong as Celtic.
Completely changing the context of the Liquidation and what it actually means.
causaludendi says: (106)
December 28, 2013 at 9:04 am
1 1 Rate This
jimlarkin says: (726)
December 28, 2013 at 8:18 am
…………………………………………………..
Can’t agree with you on that assessment JL. From my reading of the article Mr Gibbons is trying to get across the true, precarious, predicament to those of a blue persuasion. You may feel there was no need to discuss Celtic but it could be construed as highlighting how truly different the scenarios are. Also there is the ‘L’ word along with (very poor) allegory. But, at the end of the day, it comes down to perception.
&&&&&&
Like all hacks, Gibbons tries to say that sevco are in the same position as Celtic were in the 90s. Nothing could be further from the truth. The position Celtic found themselves in was as a direct result of a board operating on 19th century principles and failing to take cognisance of the potential ability of a football club to be both competitive and prudent. This board was challenged by organised supporters groups who had decided that enough was enough. Fergus McCann laid out a clear plan based on sound financial principles which has proven to be effective in the long term.
Gibbons fails to reflect on ranger’s inability to pay social taxes, pay NI & PAYE, the attempt to sign players AFTER entering administration, the payment to players of £20k per week contracts during administration and the eye watering sums paid to the administrators before ultimately plunging into liquidation. The entity to which Gibbons compares Fergus McCann’s successful enterprise bears no similarity.
Sevco are attempting to animate the corpse of RFC. Ally (£750k per year, 1M shares @1p) McCoist is trying to win titles for the first time. Fortunately for him he won’t face the obstructive behaviour of a CEO like Jim Farry, and he enjoys the almost universal admiration of the lamb munchers.
Gibbons also fails to mention that, whilst Fergus McCann’s business and personal life was scrutinised in forensic detail by the MSM, it was left to internet bampots to demolish the billionaire myth, reveal the Ticket us deal, disclose the non payment of social taxes and uncover the murky links between the various pan to characters past and present down sevco way.
Time to put head above parapet again and admit confusion. Why is The Rangers Football club plc party to the tax case?
ianagain says: (64)
December 27, 2013 at 11:10 pm
Loads of talk on RR of various players going “off the books” in January for one month only in order to return when the high earners are culled. Oh dear they are doing it again. Step forward the PFA please. They never learn.
===========================================================
Tbh I reckon any player foolish enough to allow their contract to be ‘broken’ for a month is more in need of psychiatric help than that of PFA Scotland.
Also – how do you cull high earners without a large pay-off which Rangers simply can’t afford. The simple solution is admin after Rangers perhaps manage to shift 2/3 players at bargain basement prices.
Or I suppose a fairly substantial injection of cash could delay the inevitable and once again a psychiatrist could come in handy by identifying one of their wealthy private patients as a possible donor 😯
They were the party that operated the EBT scheme. Each of the Murray companies is being tackled seperately in the UTT I believe
ecobhoy says: (2105)
December 28, 2013 at 11:17 am (Edit)
5 0 Rate This
————
I used to wonder if the generous contracts Sevco were handing out had some unique conditions attached, that allow for their termination, in certain circumstances. A risk worth taking for the players since they must have, at least, tripled their wages by moving to Ibrox.
Danish Pastry says: (1847)
December 28, 2013 at 11:53 am
ecobhoy says: (2105)
December 28, 2013 at 11:17 am (Edit)
————
I used to wonder if the generous contracts Sevco were handing out had some unique conditions attached, that allow for their termination, in certain circumstances. A risk worth taking for the players since they must have, at least, tripled their wages by moving to Ibrox.
=============================================
Been meaning to PM you to thank you for the memories of a far simpler time when love of the game for its own sake was what mattered.
It’s possible that special clauses could have been built-in but I struggle to think what they could be. I believe there were guaranteed yearly increases to match the anticipated yearly promotion and there might be some escape clause if the promotion wasn’t achieved.
But I also can’t see PFA Scotland agreeing to what would effectively be two different groups of players at Ibrox and would the SFA want to be dragged even deeper into the mire by agreeing to what effectively revolves around the financial performance of a club in how different player groups are to be treated contractually.
We have learnt that anything is possible down Ibrox and Hampden Ways so who knows? But what agent would be daft enough to recommend such a move when dealing with Green especially after his scant regard to legalities over the players who were totally within their legal rights when they walked-away under the protection of Tupe.
ecobhoy says: (2106)
December 28, 2013 at 11:17
– how do you cull high earners without a large pay-off which Rangers simply can’t afford.
—————————————————————————————–
You punt them out on loan to an English championship or league one club until the end of the season.
As well as reducing costs short term it puts them in the shop window for a summer sale.
Their big problem at the moment is any prospective buyer for players will have doubts due to the level they are and have been playing at, the above helps overcome this.
ecobhoy says: (2106)
December 28, 2013 at 12:19 pm
1 0 Rate This
———
Cheers ecobhoy.
I’ve no idea how contracts are drawn up or approved, just speculating. If they saw a possible new admin looming it would not have been necessary with any escape clauses, I suppose. Sandaza was off-loaded without much fuss, which still bothers me. I think that lad was treated badly. I hope he got a pay-off.
I can see Wallace moving to a championship club, or even the woefully-defending Villa. Otherwise, I’m not sure who else will bring in any cash. Loan them out?
This cost-cutting plan will be a ‘courageous’ move, to quote Sir Humphrey.
The Rangers Football Club PLC was the original appellant.
Not to be confused with the current businesses Rangers International Football Club PLC or The Rangers Football Club Ltd.
The Rangers Football Club PLC (being liquidated) changed it’s name to RFC PLC 2012 to free the original name up.
If it is true that the players who came in are guaranteed salary increases then that creates an even bigger gap between income and expenditure. Given that the increase in prize money and TV money is unlikely to be huge between the first division and the championship that money has to come from somewhere.
Sponsors are not going to be putting a lot more in I wouldn’t have thought so the only real alternative is an increase in season tickets and match tickets. The risk with that of course is a drop off in attendances negating the increase in prices, particularly if the squad is not improved.
Bottom line, they should have started from scratch, even allowing for the way they were cheated into senior football it was the only way to go.
Mr Green really made a mess of this one, with the failed IPO and his total misunderstanding of TUPE regulations. I just don’t see how it works now, short of someone actually gifting them money.
Between a rock and a hard of understanding place.
The Rangers support really don’t have their troubles to seek. After an eagerly anticipated agm, which they hoped would put the board firmly in their place and ironically did just that, just not in the fashion they’d hoped – the outcome provided as much comfort and Christmas cheer as you’d enjoy finding you’ve been burgled on Christmas morning then finding you’d overlooked renewing the home insurance. Facing the real fiscal nightmare pointed out in wonderfully understated fashion by Graham Wallace against the alternative comedic stance taken by McCoist -‘Cuts, what cuts ? Nobody told me about any cuts. Oh, I’m warning you chief, the angry bears are behind me. Am a total legend in these parts. Do you not know who I am ? Don’t you dare talk about not giving me money we don’t have !’
You really have to wonder what planet McCoist is on when he says he wasn’t aware Wallace was going to talk about cuts needed to keep the club solvent. Oh yeah, I’ve remembered – Planet Rangers ! They don’t settle for second best, silly me. ‘For every fiver they spend, we’ll rack up £10 in debt.’ Won’t work anymore Ally.
Winning every game in the season has proven a step too far for his side. His limited managerial abilities should have been about developing the best young side Ibrox and Murray Park could muster but within the narrow financial constraints the new club can afford, building and progressing to the top tier. But that quite clearly is not his concern. His MO is all about attempting to keep his managerial career to the fore, regardless of the danger that the cost of this plan would wreak on his club. Now the chance of a 100% record has gone up in smoke I would expect a few more dissenting supporters who only now fully realise what actions must be taken if The Rangers are to avoid going the way of their namesakes, and that would involve not blithely following every whistle call from McCoist. The new board members are starkly aware of the financial limitations they find the club. Its not something any Ibrox supporter wanted to hear, but McCoist harping on about needing to spend is the antithesis of what they need to.
With ignorance like his, there’s a danger his club not only won’t get to the top league, but struggle to survive in any form. I’m afraid I’ll retain my sympathies if they don’t.
The damage even as a new club they are able to do to the Scottish game as they lurch from one unseemly headline to the next is probably an equally damning endictment on those who should be equally shame-faced at Hampden. Note the word ‘should’ in the last sentence, as I am firmly confident in their ability to absolve themselves of any wrong doing as I am in their lack of any other ability. If the worst comes to the worst for Ally and shock horror, he’s found to be an utter managerial failure, he could always give his pal Campbell a call. After all, with his proven ability..drawing a huge salary for sweet FA, he’d fit right in and who knows, those old connections could come in mighty handy…
scapaflow says: (1258)
December 28, 2013 at 10:23 am
10 0
Rate This
Mods
I’m getting a malware alert from Google Chrome when I visit the site. have you been hacked?
——————-
Likewise – from ‘AVG’
parttimearab says: (80)
December 28, 2013 at 12:37 pm
ecobhoy says: (2106)
December 28, 2013 at 11:17
– how do you cull high earners without a large pay-off which Rangers simply can’t afford.
—————————————————————————————–
You punt them out on loan to an English championship or league one club until the end of the season.
As well as reducing costs short term it puts them in the shop window for a summer sale. Their big problem at the moment is any prospective buyer for players will have doubts due to the level they are and have been playing at, the above helps overcome this.
==================================================
I hear the Theory . . . But ❓
I find it difficult to believe an English Championship or League 1 manager would be that interested in a Rangers player precisely because of what you have mentioned – the generally poor standard of part-time opposition.
So unless Rangers continue to shoulder most of the wage bill – which rather defeats the purpose – I think an English club manager would be more interested in a loan of a player they have seen at their own level and can judge how they would fit-in.
Of course there might be a manager out there – with old ties of loyalty – prepared to help Ra Peepil in their hour of need. Whatever, I just don’t see the cash raised or money saved being significant in terms of meaningful cost-cutting. Our problem is that we don’t actually know what the spiv plan and timetable is and it’s quite possible that neither do the Rangers chairman or chief exec.
All we do know for sure is that things can’t continue as at present and I suspect the ultimate losers will be the ordinary Bears who have dug deep to support their club and keep it alive for it only to be consumed piece-meal by spivs and speculators.
Tif Finn says: (1100)
December 28, 2013 at 1:05 pm
If it is true that the players who came in are guaranteed salary increases then that creates an even bigger gap between income and expenditure. Given that the increase in prize money and TV money is unlikely to be huge between the first division and the championship that money has to come from somewhere.
Sponsors are not going to be putting a lot more in I wouldn’t have thought so the only real alternative is an increase in season tickets and match tickets. The risk with that of course is a drop off in attendances negating the increase in prices, particularly if the squad is not improved.
Bottom line, they should have started from scratch, even allowing for the way they were cheated into senior football it was the only way to go.
Mr Green really made a mess of this one, with the failed IPO and his total misunderstanding of TUPE regulations. I just don’t see how it works now, short of someone actually gifting them money.
__________________________
One of the blatantly obvious things in the whole RFC(IL) – Sevco scenario is that the people in charge of managing costs, from Whyte to Duff and Phelps to Green, couldn’t really care how much was going out of the 2 clubs. Their only interest was their piece of the pie.
I don’t know if you can recall one of the leaked taped conversations between Whyte and one of the Duffers. Whyte asked something like “How much are the wage costs now that the players didn’t tupe over ?” The reply was “I don’t have a clue.”
You might also remember when Whyte gave incredible wage increases to the likes of McGregor, Whitaker et al when he took over. We all knew at the time that this was a paper exercise and that he knew that administration beckoned.
An Administrator who doesn’t have a clue about probably the biggest outgoing cost says all you have to know about them.
Not one person in this whole shambles has ever had the best interest of the club at heart including McCoist.
On the Rangers Tax Case before the FTTT I think what many people may have missed in the decision is that it didn’t just split 2-1 between the two male judges and the lone female tax accountancy expert.
Much more important was that the two distinguished judges appear to have formed their majority decision on how admittedly rehearsed evidence was presented by witnesses who personally appeared before the FTTT. However, Heidi Poon with the dissenting minority opinion seems to have based her findings much more heavily on the voluminous anount of written evidence and documents provided.
In view of what is a surprisingly excoriating condemantion of the original FTTT proceedings and the majority decision handed-down by the guy who is about to preside over the UTT appeal I have little doubt – as I have stated since the original misguided FTTT decision – that Heidi’s findings will prevail.
However it would be a mistake IMO for the UTT to return the case to the FTTT as I think few could have any real confidence in the judgment of those responsible for the original majority decision especially as they made to attempt to contradict anything in Heidi Poon’s minority decision. I have always felt that, for whatever reason, this case was beyond them and the only bright spot for Scottish justice was Heidi’s crystal-clear findings which pointed the finger without fear or favour.
Surely the SFA are currently in hot pursuit of Companies House to get clarification on this crucial issue. As TRFC is the licenced club.
All limited companies in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are registered at Companies House, an Executive Agency of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS).
Current ministers are here…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_for_Business,_Innovation_and_Skills
So, same as any other government department who are not implementing government policy, through your MP (as this is a UK no devolved area) you have the right to approach your MP on the matter and ask him to raise it within parliament.
Of course your local scottish MP will undoubtedly run a mile surpassing world record pace, for fearing of changing the balance of the independence vote/political need at this critical juncture.
But as we pay for all these MPs maybe it is one of these moments when we should actually ask for them to do something.
Now slightly less serious, the irony of a “Conservative and Unionist MP” being the one lunging the knife in makes me laugh. Or for some more comedy gold a member of the green party (Green Party leader Caroline Lucas won the Brighton Pavilion seat)
Comments appreciated, because in a parliamentary democracy our government is accountable.
Buddy
PS: I am well cynical enough to realise we live in a non-Utopian state where the politicians only do things to suit themselves or the money men. While at all times distancing themselves from unpopular decisions.
From the UTT Judge
“Although the professional football team known as Rangers had played in the Scottish Premier League until 2012, the collapse led to the ejection of the team from that league, and a team known as Rangers now plays in the Scottish Third Division. ”
Judges tend to be precise in what they say and if he meant “that team now plays in …” he would have said it.
On the possibility of the matter being returned to the FTT
====================================================
In my view the determining factor should be the means by which the matter may be
resolved most efficiently, and in weighing that factor against the background and the
parties’ arguments as I have described I have come to the conclusion that the more
effective course is for the Upper Tribunal to determine the fundamental issue first. If it
upholds the majority but does not feel able to determine the outcome in respect of the
five individuals it is true that it will have to remit the matter to the First-tier Tribunal for
that determination to be made, and in that case two hearings will be necessary. However,
if it upholds the majority but finds it possible to deal with those five individuals’
circumstances itself, or alternatively reverses the majority in a manner which is
determinative of those five cases, only one hearing will be necessary. Even if it reverses
the majority but does not feel able to resolve the five cases, it will be able to remit the
matter to be determined in accordance with its view of the law rather than the (on this
hypothesis) incorrect view of the majority. Thus on this basis two hearings are possible
but not inevitable. By contrast, as it seems to me, the Murray Group’s proposal
guarantees two hearings and risks three: one to determine the outcome in respect of the
five individuals; a second before the Upper Tribunal; and a third before the First-tier
Tribunal, re-visiting its findings of fact in the light of the Upper Tribunal’s conclusion.
The risk may be slight, but it cannot be discounted and in my judgment makes it clear
that the balance of convenience dictates that the appeal to the Upper Tribunal should
proceed
Just like to comment on the recent TRFC result against Stranraer that blew the world record for winning games out of the water. I heard Ally Mcoist saying that they may have been a little below par because of the length of trime since their previous match. Is it not the case that TRFC moved this match to boxing day when, tradiotionally the top tier teams play in a further attempt to appear as one of the big boys? TRFC have also in the past moved league games from Saturdays to midweek when CL games are being played. Again for the same reason. To try and continue the illusion of importance and relevance. The problem they have now created for themselves is they now need to fit in 4 games in 11 days to get back into step with their own division. Why are TRFC allowed to move games at will? is this allowed by the rules of the game?
scapaflow says: (1258)
December 28, 2013 at 10:23 am
10 0
Rate This
Mods
I’m getting a malware alert from Google Chrome when I visit the site. have you been hacked?
——————-
Likewise – from ‘AVG’
___________
Me too – also from AVG – but the warning disappeared (yesterday i think)
Among many interesting points made by Colin Bishopp the UT Judge in the Rangers case is his comment: ‘ Before coming to the detail of the case it is worth making a preliminary observation.
‘I have referred above to the strong feelings of many football supporters. Perhaps because of such feelings, professional football clubs are often regarded as having a special status. In some respects that may be the correct view; but it should nevertheless not be overlooked that a modern professional football club is not a “club”, in the sense of an unincorporated association of members who join together in pursuit of a common purpose, but a commercial enterprise whose function is to generate profits for its shareholders.
‘From that perspective it has no special status, and there is no reason why its tax affairs should not be as open to scrutiny as those of any other profit-making organisation. The players, too, have no greater right to conceal their tax affairs from public scrutiny than any other taxpayer.
‘The fact that they are in the public eye is irrelevant. Any application for privacy, anonymity or redaction of detail must therefore be supported by the same type and quality of evidence as would be required of another taxpayer, and will be granted only for the same reasons.’
As far as I am concerned Bishopp makes it clear that a modern football club is a company which is a legal entity and which if liquidated legally ceases to exist. I don’t think I have seen anyone state it more clearly and especially the way he differentiates between that and an unincorporated association. What does the ASA have to say on that one?
He was also very clear that putting ‘club’ in its name does not make a company into a club
Beat me to it Ecobhoy
Very small point but surely the Administrators should be serving the creditors so how does paying Companies House for a change of company name do this.
LNS – v – The SFA
Sporting Advantage
If LNS declared (on behalf of the SFA) that Rangers1872 had no material Sporting Advantage by fielding players who’s contracts were not properly registered, then why do “we” have the bookings and suspensions system?
On the basis of LNS’s “findings”, then it actually makes it unfair on teams to “lose” any player on that basis, as fielding any 11 players gives no material sporting advantage, so there is no need for suspensions?
Danish Pastry says: (1848)
December 27, 2013 at 10:28 pm
Apropos Morton, I listened to an interview with Kenny Shiels tonight on Inverclyde TV. The man consistently talks a good game and has some very sensible ideas on incorporating youth into teams.
I’m convinced that Ibrox missed a trick when they didn’t show their current management team the door. Shiels was a perfect fit for a team with budget constraints, hoping to nurture and promote home-grown players. It’s almost as if they wanted to run out of cash.
============================================================
I think they might accept him as a manager now but IMHO at the time anyone other than McCoist would have had to have been a ‘big name’ manager (very unlikely) or a Rangers legend type guy and they already had one. It’s only now that a lot of their fans are really beginning to realise the situation they’re in that they would accept someone like Shiels – a decent manager but one who’s never managed a top team and has no Rangers connection (except his boy signed for them).
I heard it stated a few times on Sportsound today that BBC were not reporting from Dens Park because Dundee attempted to dictate who could and who couldn’t represent the BBC from the ground. Given that the BBC are banned from all Rangers press conferences and no interviews are allowed, I have to wonder why they still send reporters to Ibrox. Why the different reaction to both situations?
If the administrators, Duff and Phelps, had any intention of acting in the best interests of the creditors, which was their legal duty once the CVA was rejected, they would not have had a binding agreement with one party should that eventuality arise.
They would have opened things up to bidding, whether it be for the company as a whole, or the individual assets. However the plan was always to save the business and keep it together. Which is not their remit.
1, Save the Ltd Company
2, If that fails get the best deal for the creditors.
Ironically what they did was probably the worst start for the new club as it led directly to where they are now. A pre-pack, clearing the debt, radical re-structuring and working up through Scottish football in a sustainable manner would almost certainly have worked much better. No-one could accept that though, not the owners, not the fans, not the footballing authorities.
Being honest it was probably a pre-pack in all but name, it’s just the radical re-structuring they missed.
Actually, on the same basis, what is the point of Vincent Lunny and his trials by television commentator? Going by the “they were registered at the time and nothing can be done retroactively” rule, surely Mr Lunny should not be charging players after a referee has failed to book them during normal playing time? It’s a can of worms, right enough.
ecobhoy says: (2109)
December 28, 2013 at 3:16 pm
11 0 Rate This
Among many interesting points made by Colin Bishopp the UT Judge in the Rangers case is his comment: ‘ Before coming to the detail of the case it is worth making a preliminary observation.
‘I have referred above to the strong feelings of many football supporters. Perhaps because of such feelings, professional football clubs are often regarded as having a special status. In some respects that may be the correct view; but it should nevertheless not be overlooked that a modern professional football club is not a “club”, in the sense of an unincorporated association of members who join together in pursuit of a common purpose, but a commercial enterprise whose function is to generate profits for its shareholders.
‘From that perspective it has no special status, and there is no reason why its tax affairs should not be as open to scrutiny as those of any other profit-making organisation. The players, too, have no greater right to conceal their tax affairs from public scrutiny than any other taxpayer.
‘The fact that they are in the public eye is irrelevant. Any application for privacy, anonymity or redaction of detail must therefore be supported by the same type and quality of evidence as would be required of another taxpayer, and will be granted only for the same reasons.’
As far as I am concerned Bishopp makes it clear that a modern football club is a company which is a legal entity and which if liquidated legally ceases to exist. I don’t think I have seen anyone state it more clearly and especially the way he differentiates between that and an unincorporated association. What does the ASA have to say on that one?
————————————————————–
Nothing ecobhoy, they failed to answer any questions I put to them, first of all in the original complaint, the Appeal and in my final letter before their ‘judgement’. I followed up with many an email, questioning, well, nearly everything that they wrote,not one answer to any query whatsover.
You would like to think the ASA would be out of reach of all the skullduggery which has gone on,
I’m not so sure.
So, Ticketgate…where are we today?
I’ve been reading more on Alzipratu and the Foundation and it is jaw-dropping stuff.
upthehoops says: (761)
December 28, 2013 at 4:13 pm
I heard it stated a few times on Sportsound today that BBC were not reporting from Dens Park because Dundee attempted to dictate who could and who couldn’t represent the BBC from the ground. Given that the BBC are banned from all Rangers press conferences and no interviews are allowed, I have to wonder why they still send reporters to Ibrox. Why the different reaction to both situations?
=========================================================
Could it be that the BBC ban has been lifted by Rangers but quietly so as not to disturb slumbering Bears who are slipping into a somnambulant hibernation and it might be a long time before they fully wake. Tbh I don’t blame them as I don’t think if I supported Rangers I would be too happy about contemplating the wasteland which Ibrox seems to be heading for.
I think the Bear rebellion and boycotts have simply run out of steam and now they are just waiting to see what the future holds knowing deep inside that they have no say in influencing events as they unfold.
EDIT ADD: The agm showed that their shareholding votes count for nothing and the bosses are those mystery overseas investors with an Easdale ‘front’ although I don’t think Easdale has a clue who they are either – but that’s no excuse especially if you profess to be a Rangers Man.
Can’t we call it ‘turnstile’?
Seriously though, I’m not sure if charities are obliged to answer FOI questions; I suspect not so I can’t really see any way to force an answer to the question other than continually pestering RIFC/RCF publically. That could easily backfire though.
FOI inquiries relate to public authorities.
There is a specific Scottish act and Commissioner, you can find out anything you want to know about it here.
http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/home/ScottishInformationCommissioner.aspx
You can search for a public authority here
http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/ScottishPublicAuthorities/Authorities/FindYourAuthority.aspx
Or just check the alphabetical list
A search for “charity” provides this
=================================
Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator
2nd Floor, Quadrant House
9 Riverside Drive
Dundee
DD1 4NY
Phone: 01382 220446
FOI Email: info@oscr.org.uk
Website: http://www.oscr.org.uk
===================================
So they are open to FOI(S) requests, and an unsatisfactory reply could be referred to the commissioner. (After having requested it be reviewed)
http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/YourRights/UnhappyWithResponse.aspx
Fairly interesting shareholder/caller on Sportsound extra complaining about non transparency. Then again all too late isn’t it?
Edit Now KJ saying they will buy there way to the top and its all scaremongering about cuts.
Conversly Spiers saying its all cuts from now on.
Go figure?
Does Jackson say where the money is coming from.
Or is it just further propaganda that it’s Rangers so it will come from somewhere.
Like them being too big to fall.
Tif
That’s it basically. Its them of course it will be all right.
Did they not learn anything from the administration and the liquidation.
The former is not that long ago and the latter is ongoing.
Now a business with a £14m trading loss and no credit available to them is going to be buying it’s way back to the top and the cuts (spoken about by the CEO at their AGM) are “scaremongering”.
It beggars belief.
On the back of the gambling scandal.
If I place a bet on a player being sent off and he doesn’t but after a review he is given a retrospective “red card” would I pick up my winnings ?
Tif Finn says:
December 28, 2013 at 5:51 pm
A search for “charity” provides this
=================================
Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator
——
Anyone wishing to make a FOI request, remember to be very specific (or very open!) in what you ask for.
Having been on the receving end of such requests, it’s often very easy to understand what the requestor wants – and often very easy to not give it to them simply by giving them what they actually asked for.
You would want to know, for example, how many complaints had ben received about a given charity, on what dates. You could ask for all correspondence relating to those, or any specific, complaints. You could ask whether any investigations have been carried out into the activities of a particular charity, and what the results of those investigations were. Again, you could ask for all correspondence, including but not limited to written correspondence, emails, records of telephone calls and other communications relating to those investigations.
If you ask the right FOI questions, what you may end up with is a bunch of redacted stuff, but it may contain enough information to be interesting.
Remember that what you would be asking for would be information relating to the Charity Regulator’s involvement,not information about a given charity’s normal activities as such. You couldn’t ask them what, for example, RCF did with cash from the Milan game (unless that was investigated by the Regulator – in which case correspondence relating to that investigation may contain such information).
Keith Jackson talking about the AGM, prior to the AGM. 18th October
Stockbridge could be sacked for gross misconduct or gross incompetence.
He clearly wanted “Paul” and the guys onto the board. No doubt the new guys have much more credibility and credentials as businessmen who could be trusted.
Video included, it’s really a bit cringe worthy.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/video-keith-jackson-rounds-up-2463681
Further, it may be an idea to browse some of the FOI requests that have been made of the OSCR, and see what kind of response they get …
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/oscr
Reilly1926 says: (215)
December 28, 2013 at 6:35 pm
On the back of the gambling scandal.
If I place a bet on a player being sent off and he doesn’t but after a review he is given a retrospective “red card” would I pick up my winnings ?
===========================================
A bit like the Pools Panel you’ll need to ask the gambling adjudication committee which comprises Black & Bryson 😆
Tif Finn says: (1108)
December 28, 2013 at 6:40 pm
Keith Jackson talking about the AGM, prior to the AGM. 18th October
Stockbridge could be sacked for gross misconduct or gross incompetence.
He clearly wanted “Paul” and the guys onto the board. No doubt the new guys have much more credibility and credentials as businessmen who could be trusted.
Video included, it’s really a bit cringe worthy.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/video-keith-jackson-rounds-up-2463681
________________
I worry about these guys who went out on a limb for the “rebels”. So much so I go past Leggo’s house every morning to make sure that his milk bottles aren’t stockpiling. The auld soul has been conspicuous by his absence since their mauling.
#PrayForLeggo
Leggat speaking shortly before the AGM.
=================================================
http://davidleggat-leggoland.blogspot.co.uk/
McCOIST BOOST FOR FANS’ BID FOR RANGERS REGIME CHANGE
ALASTAIR McCOIST’S decision to proxy his 1M shares to his local supporters club has boosted the fans’ stake in Rangers to more than 13.5 per cent.
And it flies in the face of everything the £270,000-a-year spin doctor employed by the Rangers regime, Jack Irvine, has been whispering in the ear of journalists, namely that the outcome of Thursday’s Annual General Meeting is a foregone conclusion in favour of the deeply unpopular board.
The Irvine strategy is clear. He wants to sicken the already battle weary Rangers supporters. He wants them to believe they have no chance and that it is not worth their while voting.
But Irvine’s typical sneak attack is not working. For Rangers supporters know they hold the key to the outcome of the AGM. They know that their votes will count. Now the most high profile Rangers fan of them all, manager Alastair McCoist, a Rangers icon, has gone back to his Bluenose roots to act with deep commitment and display his real love of Rangers.
Any Rangers supporter who is also a shareholder must now act. Every Rangers supporter who is also a shareholder must make sure they vote on Thursday. They must attend the AGM or proxy their vote to a trusted pal.
For despite the black propaganda from the regime’s hated £270,000-a-year spin doctor, Jack Irvine, the fact of the matter is that the outcome of the AGM is tight and still too close to call. And the regime knows that.
Therefore every vote counts. Every percentage of ownership of Rangers will be vital in determining whether Rangers remain in the grip of the current regime or are passed into the hands of those who will act as custodians of what Bill Struth called the sacred trust of being a Ranger.
McCoist has already displayed his Struth credentials….again.
{The drivel continues}
==========================================
Leggat, like Dingwall and Graham, is just another part of the Rangers’ supporters’ problems.
This has always intrigued me.
Devils advocate would say it was part of the CVA failure fallback agreement to do the asset purchase.
However it stinks to high heaven.
Buddy
And a business acting in the best interests of its shareholders would be correct in pursuing every venue to attempt to get the most profitable business outcome for its shareholders.
Lets say your star player was “suspended” for a cup semi final, surely you could use the bryson interpretation, play him any way and await the SFA attempt t sanctions. Wander through the appeals process and then go to judicial review.
Because the SFA would not throw you out for taking them to judicial review, use the LNS findings as case evidence.
Alternatvely following the Summer 2012 debacle , I thought a harshly treated club, like spartans with the two signatures would have pushed the ball up the hill to the SFA to ask why their lack of sporting advantage meant they should not have been expelled from the Scottish cup.
Buddy
Would a referee allow a player to take the field if he was suspended.
Pre Craig Whyte, (-S)DM had ran up a large debt from RFC(NIL) to MIH.
As the Wee Tax Case and Big Tax Case came to the fore and before penalties, (-S)DM could have dived into administration as through MIH he held enough debt to carry through an administration, he would write off the money through MIH.
I have never fully understood why he did not o this….
Apart from….
1. He is too big headed to admit failure.
2. He needs the RFC adulation.
3. He was not going to take the blame.
4. He was not brave enough.
Then the whole selling on for £6million and then eventually to CW for a £1.
Then CW deliberately does not pay NI/PAYE as it falls due and liquidation.
Buddy
I don’t think David Murray had been in control of his businesses for quite some time.
Lloyds even put their own man on the board of Rangers to control it for them.
From memory they owned about 10% of Rangers and 10% of MIH. Then after an equity for debt swap they owned about 24% of MIH.
In my view Lloyds were making all of the decisions well before Murray sold to Whyte, In a deal which included him buying the debt from them, at full price.