Scottish Football Administration in the 21st Century

By

Ecobhoy says: (2017) October 18, 2013 at 9:35 pm One of RTC’s …

Comment on Scottish Football Administration in the 21st Century by Smugas.

ecobhoy says: (2017)
October 18, 2013 at 9:35 pm

One of RTC’s strongest attributes that brought me to his site was, having first explained the facts to me – as a diddy supporter I was none the wiser (and this despite reading several MSM publications 🙄 !) – he would then predict, with unerring accuracy, exactly how the MSM would cover it and spin it.

Smugas Also Commented

Scottish Football Administration in the 21st Century
Tiff/ GJ

We can speculate on the floating charge till the cows return. More importantly a check on the deeds would give a definitive answer on its existence or otherwise. I see more mileage in completing the triangle ticketus’ hold on Craig whyte by virtue of a personal guarantee or similar. If there wasn’t one then a/ ticketus will not be fund managers for long or b/ the deal was already set up, perhaps by someone with credit history with Ticketus. Somebody with squillions to burn? Knight of the realm perhaps?

Debt dumping, like CEOs, is not just for Christmas!


Scottish Football Administration in the 21st Century
I believe we’re now at the true end game. There is a simple measure. If TRFC is sold on cheap WITH Ibrox then the switcheroo predicted by many is complete. CG et al have divvied up the fans £5m between them and the institutions have been repaid, by a mechanism I still can’t work out. The club will march on and it’ll be up to the loyal to fund it and/ or accept cost cutting mediocrity.

Spivs have no need to sell Ibrox given the 16m loan in place. If they do they have either accepted a payment possibly pre-arranged, or they have been ‘warned off’. As ever nothing is simple and I can’t work out the Easdales role in this. Can’t forget whytie and the ticketus personal guarantee either. A continuation of the anonymity surrounding investors still suggests to me that the deeds are up for grabs, as is normal in a mortgage situation.

Interesting times.


Scottish Football Administration in the 21st Century
GJ

Celtic would lobby for their European league place

Oh stop it, can this day get any better?

Sorry sensible debate only.

Celtic go to Europe. Other teams have competitive league and euro spot
Celtic have to downsize to meet more realistic expectations.

Now read the two options again minus the blue specs and instead from the perspective of the 10 other did dies previously frozen financially out of competitive football


Recent Comments by Smugas

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In fairness to the pundits.   To a man Tonight (considering the chopped off derby goal) they could not understand why the tele evidence instantly available to anyone with a phone couldn’t be used in that scenario.  


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In simplistic terms, as far as the recipients were concerned, the monies were paid in net.  I.e. as far as they were concerned all tax payable had been deducted and paid. Billy Dodds said as much on the radio as I recall.  What SDM said in one of the hearings was that they took the monies that would otherwise have been deducted and forwarded for tax added it to the payment to the player.  Hence a player who would have received £60 wages and in addition had deducted £40 in cash to give a £100 total from any other club would have received the whole £100 from oldco.  This gave rise to the famous quote about “buying players they couldn’t otherwise afford.”

so the answer to your question is…both!

The reason for the confusion of course is because the players had side letters explaining all this but sssshhhhh, they’re secret.


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
So, square the circle.

1/  King told to make offer.  No guarantee of level of take up especially given that…
2/  Future security of club predicated on King Loan.
3/  King saying he can’t afford to make offer so would presumably have to resign.
4/  Potential that him resigning causes share loss (ignoring imminent dilution).  One would think that might tempt a few more to his offer. 
4/  Also small matter that regardless of whether he resigns or not, whether he offers and whether they take up his offer, the future security of the club is still predicated on his loan.
5/  If he’s not a director can he trust the board with his extended loan, especially given that…
6/  In case you haven’t spotted it this is a loss making business.  Extending that loan doesn’t staunch the flow it simply pours more in the top to be leaked.  Staunching the flow requires more profitable surroundings (a new CL bucket).  But that needs investment and then…..

Ok you get the rest!
 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
FWIW I still don’t see any advantage to them in ‘eventing.’  Threatening to ‘event.’  Yes for sure. That’ll get all the Christmas coppers rattling in the buckets  since whilst they may look down their nose at a credible challenge for 2nd it would still be a great result for them and give them European access.  Interestingly of course so does 3rd (4th?).  As clubs like Aberdeen know its actually bloody expensive in relative terms being the plucky loser.  But I fear crowd indifference would kick in.  Aberdeen losing 2000 fans by accepting 3rd is no biggie.  Rangers losing 20,000 is a different barrel of kippers.  

The no-event assumption has two core requirements of course.

1/  All parties keep speaking to each other, ignore individual rationality and act instead for the greater good of the club (don’t start) particularly in view of….
2/  Somebody, somewhere has to pony up to keep the loss making bus on the road else it grinds to a halt in the race to the top.  Shouting and screaming and stamping their foot that its all so unfair unless all the other buses are told to stop too is unlikely to get a sympathetic hearing.  Well, not from the fans anyway…. 


It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus @ 12.38

My thoughts exactly.  The AGM stuff to me made sense to a/ get a hold of 1872’s ‘new’ money with zero repayment clause and b/ to tidy up the balance sheet with a view to a euro licence (listed you will recall as essential to the clumpany’s future well being) which will surely be scrutinised like never before.  It makes no sense for the creditors to do it (unless a billionaire has flown in off the radar offering more per share for their quantum than a simple loan repayment would yield i.e. parity*) and it makes even less sense to allow a situation where the creditors can individually decide whether to do so given the fragility of the underlying company(ies).  Particularly given the reputation of some of the principle creditors.  

* parity insofar as they’d get their money back.  It is not enough to promise growth on their shares in some future dream complete with CL soundtrack if achieving said dream is literally costing you money in the meantime in terms of shareholder calls. RBS being the most recent example to spring to mind.  


About the author