As we all know, this site emerged from the ashes of RTC. The wish of the original administrator of the site, one which I wholeheartedly share, was to keep together the wonderful community RTC had built, in terms of both personnel and spirit. There are still many individuals around who were also part of RTC, and regrettably many who are no longer with us. The RTC spirit however, that of a cross-party football site where issues can be discussed in a respectful and insightful manner remains. The “wisdom of the crowd” phenomenon is also with us to perhaps an even greater extent than before, and consequently SFM’s credentials as a formidable alternative to the print media have grown.
In recent times, many contributors have expressed frustration that we are pretty much a talking shop and little else; characterised as “a lot of gum bashing and no teeth”. I think that is fair comment up to a point, but then again our aim – up to now – has been to simply present an alternative view – a view that has increasingly become the fan view as opposed to the industry view (the industry being made up of club officials, players, and press).
In fact the way I see it personally, SFM has evolved to a point where it has become the watchdog (monitor if you will) of an industry which is subject to very little oversight. The Rangers situation will eventually be done with (no laughing at the back please), and like everything else will be consigned to history (albeit more than one). The same self-interest and lack of regard for sporting integrity though will still remain, and the need for oversight will remain also.
Having arrived at those conclusions, we have two alternatives; the first is to remain as we are (which is not a bad place to be), and the second is that SFM has to expand its role.
In recent weeks, the mods have met to discuss this, and we think that we ought to give the latter option a try. As to how we want to achieve that, and we have come up with a skeleton plan as follows;
1. We need to move into the area of gathering news content as well as commenting on what appears elsewhere;
2. We should act as a cross-club portal to get good fan site content from all clubs to a wider audience;
3. We need to highlight the positives in the game as well as the negatives;
4. We should become an actively campaigning body, aligning with fan groups to lobby for the changes we think important.
In order to achieve these objectives, more time will need to be spent on communication like podcasts, adding news content, expanding membership and building links with other fan groups. Time will also need to be spent setting up features, attending press conferences etc. Later in the year, one of the mods will have much more time on his hands to help achieve this.
Podcasts, premium content, labour, organisation and all of the above costs money, and ultimately a subscription based model backed by sponsorship seems to be our best way of achieving that. In order to give us a head start, we will in the next few months be putting together a business-plan and a pitch for Crowd Funding investment.
This is not to say that our existing model has been a failure. We have successfully managed to keep ourselves afloat through the ad-hoc generosity of people in our community, although the inability to keep the podcasts going has been a bit frustrating. Finding income streams which are more solid will allow us to respond to events more quickly (for example mounting an ad campaign to respond to some event or other, or buying new equipment), and hopefully achieve all of our objectives – and build a bigger audience base for our message.
Of course a move of this nature will require that, in the interests of transparency, anonymity of SFM will have to be set aside. That will not affect any of our contributors, and our practice of using (sometimes) imaginative names on the blog will remain. However, for crowd funding to be successful, we will require to have a board in place, and there is no hiding place from Companies House. The make up of the board is also crucial, and in addition to consideration of blog members for that role, we will be looking to have respected people from without.
I imagine there may be a consequent subtle effect on moderation policy to take into account.
The reason I have made this post is to keep the community up to speed with events. Although we have decided to move forward to see if we can get support for our business plan, that plan is by no means finished. As I said earlier, the “wisdom of crowds” has made our community unique and given it its credibility. There’s a lot more wisdom out there we hope to tap into before we go ahead with our initiative.
We already had someone in mind for chairman of the new board, but events have conspired tragically to rob us of that – and had the effect of postponing this announcement. However we would like to hear suggestions for suitable outside candidates for board and committee places.
We also want to hear from you if you have a suggestion to be added to our wish list of SFM function above – or even if you think it is a mistake to embark on this course.
This is a very big move for SFM, so we don’t want to rush into anything. We need to listen to what you folks have to say, because if the merging SFM is not considered a better SFM by our community there is very little point in looking to fund it.
Given that I consider the integrity of most on this site to be above reproach,
“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference”.
We know that SMSM are incapable of change, so it simply remains for all who can to stay sure, keep things in perspective and have a great summer.
The truth will out.
Allyjambo says:
May 24, 2015 at 9:13 pm
On Mike Ashley’s call for an EGM; has the 3 week period for the board to respond passed yet, and has the EGM been called?
——————
The 21 day period expired on Wednesday 20th May. Since there has been no published reply to Mr Ashley’s request I wonder if he’ll call one himself under section 305 of the 2006 Companies Act.
Notes 6 & 7 of the Act make interesting reading:
(6)
Any reasonable expenses incurred by the members requesting the meeting by reason of the failure of the directors duly to call a meeting must be reimbursed by the company.
(7)
Any sum so reimbursed shall be retained by the company out of any sums due or to become due from the company by way of fees or other remuneration in respect of the services of such of the directors as were in default.
Unfortunately, the phone-in test has had to be postponed due to some software issues. Hopefully we will get something going this coming week.
Details to follow.
Some of my own thoughts have evolved during the course of discussion with SFM and other members of the blog – and some friends outside of our sphere. I thought it might be useful to run it by the blog to see if it is in line with our collective aims.
Just as RTC’s natural life-cycle had come to end a couple of years ago, it may be that the time of (T)SFM in its present form is passing.
RTC had some very specific things to offer which exposed many of the wrong-doings not only of the old Rangers, but in the governance of Scottish Football as a whole. TSFM took up the baton passed to it by RTC and I think we have managed to articulate a very serious and thoughtful alternative view of how things are with the game. Unlike RTC though, we have not managed to create significant ripples in the pond, and whilst the analysis of our members is often far superior to that found elsewhere, we don’t get that message out to enough people.
Our sense of grievance with the authorities, something that we all share (fans of TRFC included) has often left us frustrated as the penetration of the blog has hit something of a glass ceiling. That needs to change.
I respect the SFM policy that the editorial slant of the blog is shaped by the posters on any given day, and up to now it has served us well. However I think that some editorial direction is required to give us a more campaigning focus, and we need to use technology available to us to get wider coverage for our message.
My own campaigning preference for example is that football is unlike other conventional businesses because of its social significance, and that consequently its governance should not be under the sole remit of the clubs themsleves.
In order to be able to effect deeper penetration of our message, and give us a greater campaigning clout, we should build on our status as an independent cross-party fan site by becoming a content aggregator, exposing material from a range of fan sites to a wider airing. We should also make aggressive use of other social media outlets to grow our readership, and carry the message deeper into Scottish football, further afield into other jurisdictions, and wider even into general sporting matters.
I also think that we should expand our output by broadcasting a series of internet radio programmes. News, media reviews, features and such have all been talked about. Phone-ins where people don’t get abused or shouted down because they are too clever or articulate for the pundits to deal with. If we can’t make a better fist of that than the current media lot, we need to chuck it in 🙂
Having the means to deliver that kind of content we should prioritise our aims and organise in a focused way to achive those aims, and be accountable to the people who have got us this far. The trick will be in maintaining the connection with what is a very wonderful community of people, but that should be the priority. I think all of this will require a more radical rebranding of the blog than SFM has suggested – and it will also require a concerted effort to bring Rangers fans on board as well.
Technically, all this is achievable. Journalistically, a move of this nature would compel the authorities and MSM outlets to engage with us. The problem is that all this new activity involves a fair amount of time and effort – and ultimately money. Far more than we could reasonably expect our members to cough up.
With our help SFM has up to now successfully and somewhat miraculously managed to keep the blog afloat, and will no doubt seek that help again as bills fall due. However the level of expansion being talked about will require investment that will fund salaries, premises, equipment and so on – a different order of investment magnitude.
I think the future will be in targetted ads and sponsorship, with maybe an ad-free subscription model. I think if that is the way we go, it will be essential to build in a safeguard that guarantees our independence. Perhaps an advisory board that carries a golden share on editorial matters.
Whatever way this goes, I hope we will all be a part of it. What I am talking about is ambitious. My understanding of business is very limited so the prospects of acquiring the startup capital we need will depend on if minds greater than (and pockets deeper than) mine see a potential return on their investment.
Someone – can’t remember who – said in response to SFM’s original post that the only thing he was sure of was that SFM could not stand still.
I do recognise the irony in my being excited and enthused by the prospect of expanding using other people’s money, but I can at least offer my tuppence-worth 🙂
Nawlite 7.06
The reason why RFC did not enter any UEFA competition in 2012 was not because the owner Craig Whyte was liquidated but because they failed to pass a number of UEFA licensing requirements.
One was no accounts were provided and the other was they owed quite a bit of tax to HMRC.
Chances are, although I don’t know for sure, they also owed other clubs money given that satisfaction of debt to them was a condition of the 5 way agreement.
Para 1 is ok but para 2 is indicative of a general ignorance of UEFA FFP.
The failure of the above conditions however only applied to 2012. What put them out of UEFA contention for 3 years was not the new club beginning in the bottom tier but the fact that under Art12 of UEFA FFP ( the ONLY place in FFP where a three year exclusion is mentioned) RFC the applicant club, had ceased to exist as UEFA define a licence applicant , as a result of their insolvency event- in RFC’s case liquidation – which meant as far as UEFA were concerned a three years membership of the SFA had to be served before the applicant club could be considered on sporting merit terms.
This rule is specifically designed to stop clubs shedding debt via liquidation and carrying on as if nothing had happened, which is what Regan failed to persuade other clubs to allow.
If Scottish football had the equivalent of Art 12 for the principled reasons UEFA have it – to protect the integrity of UEFA competition – then there would be no possibility of the obfuscating OC/NC debate getting any traction.
The failure of our msm and football governers to appreciate the need for such a rule says much of their ignorance of the principles of fairness that underpin such rules.
Big Pink says May 25 2015 @ 1.54 a.m
_____________
I wouldn’t disagree too much with what you say,BP.
But everything has to be predicated on the blog becoming formally źconstituted as a legal entity, able to enter contracts and generally operate as a legal person.
Can anyone say at this stagehow discussions on this are progressing, in terms of actual propsals
open for serious debate and, perhaps, voting on a
Constitution?
I doubt if anything like a physical public meeting of interested, potential subscribers could be arranged?
But we do need to get the foundations right in order not to be like a certain football club the business model of which appears to wnholly dysfunctional
sickofitall says May 23, 2015 at 8.04 a.m.
(the link to and text of ‘Jonny McFarlane’s’ unutterable crap.)
John Clark says: May 23, 2015 at 3:47 pm
I have no idea who ‘jonny’ might be. etc.
____________________________________________
Results of my internet search indicates that (Here comes) “Jonny” is Jonathan McFarlane of Edinburgh, Scotland. MA Journalism and BA Film graduate. Atheist, foodie and football fanatic. Tweets about politics and film. Writes for the Daily Record about Rangers.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=jonathan+McFarlane+UK+blogger
https://twitter.com/Jonnyrmcfarlane
Foodie – Loves :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: :slamb: ?
woodstein on May 24, 2015 at 7:16 pm
———-
During the past year in particular the DR has exposed itself as a purveyor of lies and spin, not all of it football related. The upside is the emergence of alternative media and opportunities to support these ventures via even modest contributions. So it was nice to read of the ambitions for SFM above.
Btw, totally agree with comments wrt the Qatar match. On top of everything else, blocking the Nepalese relatives to those killed in the recent disaster from attending funerals is disgusting — ‘but the stadiums have to be built on time’. FIFA backs this slavery, and indirectly the SFA, too. I can think of another Mid-East country, currently engaged in outrageous racism and genocide, that’s welcomed in European competitions. Some very serious issues right there. I’d like to see Scotland take a principled stand and boycott sporting contacts with both lands. If one small country does the right thing it creates ripples. Oops, it’s a bit early to start ranting. Apologies. I will take the dog out.
neepheid says: Member: (589 comments) May 24, 2015 at 3:34 pm
woodstein says: Member: (103 comments) May 24, 2015 at 7:16 pm
FIFA – The embodiment of just about everything that is wrong with self-regulation of business.
Makes me very 😡 😡 😡 😡 😡 😡
Btw, I dropped a tweet to Peter Eggenberger to let him know that his article was raising a few eyebrows in Scotland. I quoted the DR tweet linking to their article where he is quoted. He might be chuffed that he’s been crowned the official voice of FIFA, alongside Sepp, of course 🙂
It would appear that the Herald has taken its Sevco coverage to a whole new level. By which I mean, of course, Level 5.
This is a more polished–and thus more insidious–variation on the Daily Record’s story about how one writer at a FIFA publication has somehow acquired the authority to officially ratify Sevco’s self-generated mythology. Which insists that Sevco does not exist, and (despite a mountain of evidence and testimony to the contrary) that the liquidation-proof Rangers 1872 somehow lives on. Absolutely astonishing stuff. A new low for the Herald sports department. Or should I say, this week’s new low.
—————–
FIFA step into new row over Rangers ‘old or new club’ status
Martin Williams
Senior News Reporter
Sunday 24 May 2015
THE WORLD’S football’s ruling body has entered the heated debate over Rangers’ status after liquidation by promoting an article indicating it is not a new club.
Promotional material from FIFA ( Federation Internationale de Football Association) headquarters to promote the content of its weekly magazine, states: “After their enforced relegation in 2012, Glasgow Rangers are in the hunt for promotion back to Scotland’s top flight.”
It later emerged the comment promoted an ‘On The Inside’ article headlined ‘Rangers eye top-flight return’ written by Swiss writer Peter Eggenberger.
It states: ” In spring 2012, Rangers were placed into liquidation and relegated to the fourth tier of Scottish football. The 54-time champions overcame another obstacle on the long road back to the Premier League last weekend but, after winning two successive promotions in style, that final leap is proving a little more difficult.
A group of Celtic fans caused controversy when they paid for an advert in a newspaper saying Rangers are a new club.
The advert was a lengthy statement which claims Rangers became a new club following liquidation in 2012.
Those Celtic fans who feel Rangers are a new club, have objected to any commentary that indicates that if successful in the Scottish Championship play-offs, that they will “return” to the top flight.
Rangers Football Club plc, the former operating company, went into administration in February, 2012, after a £9 million PAYE and VAT debt was amassed to the taxman under Craig Whyte’s leadership. The oldco renamed RFC 2012 plc is now being liquidated.
The Celtic fans ad said the term The Old Firm was now redundant “following the liquidation of Rangers (1872)” and stated the new club came into being in 2012.
Many diehards will only refer to Rangers as Sevco, the name given to the Charles Green-headed consortium that bought the liquidated assets with a £5.5 million loan in 2012.
In December SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster insisted Rangers are the same club which existed before liquidation.
He said: “In terms of the question about old club, new club, that was settled very much by the Lord Nimmo Smith commission that was put together by the SPL to look at EBT payments at that time.
“The decision, very clearly from the commission, was that the club is the same, the club continues, albeit it is owned by a new company, but the club is the same.
“It’s the same club, absolutely.
“The member club is the entity that participates in our league and we have 42 member clubs.”
That commission’s decision referred to “the board of directors of Oldco as a company, as distinct from the football management or players of Rangers FC as a club…”
The Advertising Standards Authority in December, 2013, in considering challenges to Rangers’ claims as “Scotland’s most successful club”, supported the view that continuity of history continued.
It has emerged that UEFA confirmed to the ASA that its rules allowed for the recognition of the “sporting continuity” of a club’s match record, even if that club’s corporate structure had changed.
The European Club Association, the sole independent body recognised by UEFA and FIFA as representing clubs at European level confirmed Rangers remain as members of the organisation in December, 2012 after the transfer of ownership.
In June, 2012, Lord Glennie in considering a decision to uphold a transfer embargo on Rangers referred to “Rangers Football Club plc, a company presently in administration.. .that presently operates Rangers Football Club.”
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/football/rangers-is-not-a-new-club-say-fifa.1432466480
Its hard to understand why the ‘ new’ board at the ‘ new’ club havent denied Phil’s £300k per month ‘rent bhoys’ story….. I’m ‘pretty sure’it cant be the case same as I’m ‘pretty sure’the ‘ rent’ would’nt be automaticaaly increased on reaching the riches of the SPFL……
Steveplustax
If the Herald is correct then UEFA can dump Article 12 of UEFA FFP or revise it.
Either that or RFC stump up the £14m tax due with a potential higher sum if HMRC win the BTC appeals if they ever qualify to play in Europe.
Stupid article for what reason other than highlight ignorance of the principles in Art12.
It really is tiresome.
Giovanni says:
Member: (21 comments)
May 24, 2015 at 10:59 pm
Thanks for your response, Gio. Will be interesting to see Ashley’s next move. I do wonder, though, if his intention all along was to trigger a default event that might lead to an earlier repayment deadline than would otherwise be the case.
I suppose it all depends on what end result Ashley actually wants, whether he will be satisfied to see King build a stronger club, with Ashley benefitting from increased merchandising sales and eventually getting his £5m back, or will he go for the jugular to try to force a situation where the club can’t pay him back and he gets hold of all the secured assets, confident that, whatever happens, there will be some sort of ‘Rangers’ from which he can make huge profits, including rent that would, over the next few years, recover his initial outlay?
AJ,
One would have thought the former – a long term successful club (that doesn’t affect NUFC) that he can continue to milk retail sales and royalties from. If he was going for the short term asset grab, why would he build in a repayment clause at all to the loan and at zero interest with no break cost? Unless he is supremely confident that King can’t even raise 5m, or at least cannot afford £5m (for Ashley) out of his inevitable warchest once it jets in.
Taking it to extremes you could even say the quantum is actually designed to make the bears question the RRM – come on Dave its ONLY £5m, just pay the man!
Personally I see a symbiotic relationship develop like the shark and the wee fish that swims alongside. I’ll leave you to guess which ones which. To assist the wee fish is sporting a well worn shirt and a bouffant hair style.
Of course the ethereal club thingy that is in no way attached to either the fish or the shark because its just not because Neil D says so and he was very clear on that fact and why can’t you all just move on because as he’s said repeatedly there’s nothing to see here in this large lump in the carpet, needs 7m per annum to stay afloat (Dave’s figures, not mine) and nobody’s very clear where its coming from, or for how long.
@Ally, Ashley was very conciliatory towards NUFC fans yesterday. You can see he’s not comfortable speaking to cameras, which may be the real reason behind his media shyness, but it was quite an admission and promise to the fans. Perhaps he’ll be equally magnanimous north of the border now that it’s been scientifically proven that RFC survived liquidation and are, in fact, the same club as before (tee hee). Seriously, though, as some mention on here regularly, he could be the best thing for Ibrox long-term. A bit ironic if he is so miffed that he drops them lock, stock, etc, and King turns out to be less generous than pee-pel think.
Addendum to my post of 10.37.
Just read Phil’s latest*. We seem to be on a similar page.
*In case any readers feel the need to thumb down my daring to read Phil, to be fair I have also wasted 5 minutes of my life reading the utter p*sh in the Herald, so you can’t say I’m not balanced.
Unfortunately, for the Herald, I also have a brain.
Smugas says:
Member: (792 comments)
May 25, 2015 at 10:37 am
My two scenarios were just to make the point that the ball is still very much in Ashley’s court and that, not only do we (and I’d suggest King & co) not know what his next move will be, he has options that we can only guess at, though I’d suggest that they might be variations of one the two, and all very flexible to take account of any unknown unknowns.
I do feel that Ashley is working to a plan, albeit one that is flexible, while King is just jetting by the seat of his pants, though he might have the money to fuel even the most badly chartered course 🙄
Could it be Big Mike,now having seen how another club has been(badly) run ,and how he has allowed Newcastle to stumble along has had a change of mind and will give their fans a club to really cheer on,after appearing in a Sky interview after 8 years of self imposed camera shyness something must be about to give,the next few weeks could be squeaky bum time for one of Mikes other interests.
The onslaught of the Myth leaps across from the DR to the Herald and
…now to the Evening times
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/rangers/u/fifa-step-into-new-row-over-rangers-old-or-new-club-status.1432476546?
Maybe it’s time for another full page ADVERT by the fans
On the matter of the future direction of SFM: perhaps there is a gap that we can fill in cooperation with any smsm media who actually want to publish articles or stories that are spin free and accurate?
The complaint made by most journalists is the lack of time to research various issues that SFM clearly has and can draw on expertise and experience that simply is not available to the smsm.
I think there might be kudos for a msm publication that hitches itself to a sensible Internet resource, especially one that covers all of the game which is SFM.
The costs need not be so great given the expertise provided is free and the views of supporters attempting to transcend club loyalty is surely for the good of the game.
It’s a notion already tossed around when engaging with the SH and I can see such an alliance being profitable for any smsm publication who do not see the good of the game being totally dependent in trying to restore a failed model.
Scottish football is in need of much healing and to be able to claim to be part of a process that does that is surely an admirable objective that gasp (whisper it) might sell papers.
There is a precedent of sorts in the paid advert placed by some Celtic supporters on how they viewed TRFC. It took a bit of to and fro to come up with something acceptable but it should not require a valid point of view to be paid for to be published.
However the smsm must make money to survive and the suggestion of cooperation with one towards a mutually agreed objective is perhaps worth exploring as an alternative to infrequent one off adverts?
Auldheid.
Spot on,now who would be the first of the smsm to sign up to this,certain members would have to pass a FPP which does not leave many that would have the required CV,Karma.
Jim Larkin
Who scweams loudest?
The original advert obviously upset many folk.
It still stands. This is just another lame attempt at giving something authority quoting a non authority.
For this claim to be true UEFA under FIFA direction would have to withdraw or revise Art12 of FFP. It ain’t going to happen.
The OC/NC debate is always a lot of fun – in the way that it finds new ways to insult our intelligence. But just not this time.
The citing of the authority of a non-authority FIFA fanzine is one they used a while back with the authority of the non-authority ECA, so the latest bout of activity is more interesting from the point of view of its timing than its content. I fear a mass squirrel sighting is underway.
I think – as long as it complies with the FIFA guidelines – that the SFA have a right to say whatever they like about the status of TRFC. It is their ball after all and if they choose to employ a marketing device to retain and attract paying customers (the ethereal entity device), then it’s their choice to do so.
However conflating their right to conduct their business with an imaginary role as a quasi-legal body is where they get themselves in a fankle.
For example, I think they should also be more specific than Neil Doncaster’s well chosen words on the matter. They should go the whole hog and say that their rules now allow provide a new statute whereby any club that cannot agree a settlement with creditors can simply sell on its IP to a Newco, continue with the same name and same directors, and dump all but football debts …
… and how that fails to constitute a sporting advantage …
… and how open to litigation that might make them to former creditors of any ethereal entity which took advantage of the new statute.
Well done on the last 2 paragraphs BP.
Without opening the farrago once again, I’ve said right from day one that the one entity that didn’t have the luxury of flexible artistic licence with reference to the ethereal being thingy was the SFA, since it pushed ajar precisely the door you mention – the magical no more debt door. Readers of a pre2012 era will recognise this as the thing previously referred to as the terrible to-be-avoided-at-all-costs Trap-door.
Big Pink/Auldheid,
About six months ago I posted in support of both the creation of an SFM Editorial Line and reaching out to others.
I like the idea of aggregating content from other sources. I also think it would be a good idea to try a re-edit some of the SFM blogs and maybe some of the posts (with poster’s support) seeking to get them published in fanzines and other fan forums.
Adopting an editorial line is a big step and has the potential to be divisive if handled badly.
However, there are people that I would trust wholeheartedly as members of an editorial committee. The key to me is that debate and polite disagreement should always be welcomed which I am sure it would be.
We have all become aware of the latest SMSM campaign introducing the idea that a magazine is the go to authority on Scots Law and seen it as a squirrel, possibly for something about to happen down Govan way. To add to this is an article I’ve copied from another fan site I believe originally comes from Pie & Bovril, apparently written by Davie Provan and is a complete change of direction from his normal stance. Strangely accurate and insightful, in fact.
On the one hand an old, but emotive, argument is re-opened that smacks of Level5 propoganda, on the other, an article questioning the hitherto unquestioned Dave King, even going as far as to ridicule the FFP decision in a very challenging manner!
Something’s up!
“This decision was a proper whitewash
King verdict makes fool of SFA
By DAVIE PROVAN
NEW Rangers saviour Dave King must really be pinching himself.
In the week the SFA ruled on his fit and proper status, King got a result that would make OJ Simpson blush.
We shouldnt be surprised. Had the SFA blocked Kings Ibrox coronation Gers fans would have burned down Hampden.
For a support with a sack of spuds on its shoulder, this would have been the final straw.
Instead of which, the SFA board conveniently made a decision that would have embarrassed the Eurovision song contest.
I dont blame them. A No vote for King would have seen that committee living under the witness protection scheme. Instead, the welcome mat was rolled out for the boy from Castlemilk.
A good result for those of us pining for a competitive Premiership instead of the current nonsense,
But this decision leaves Hampdens fit and proper rules in bits.
King didnt find himself in a South African court for dropping litter. He was guilty of 40 serious tax offences.
And but for a £40million plea bargain he was looking at decades in jail. Yet hes kosher where the SFA is concerned?
How does Hampden square that with their fit and proper criteria? Didnt they promise us better regulation of club boardrooms? Werent all new directors to be vetted robustly?
Apart from his tax convictions King was also an Ibrox director within five years of Gers going bust.
An open and shut case if ever there was one, yet Hampden caved in to the pressure.
The SFAs endorsement of King leaves their regulations redundant.
What next? A place in the Hall of Fame for Mad Vlad and Craig Whyte?
For all of the SFAs bluster they have allowed King to drive a horse and cart through Hampdens sixth floor.
But if the South-Africa based businessman found it easy in opposition to the last Ibrox regime, he will find government more difficult. For the first time King has now taken centre stage. Where previously he could take pot shots at the Easdales and Mike Ashley the ball is now at his feet.
Fellow director Paul Murray can only blame the previous regime so often, the new board now has to deliver.
Up until now they have had better press than Mother Teresa. While Mike Ashley and henchman Derek Llambias have been vilified by the media, King has had the kid gloves treatment.
King was unimpressive at his midweek media conference. One moment claiming Rangers have a balance sheet to match anything in world football, the next admitting a cash squeeze required wealthy share-holders to meet the last wage bill.
You dont need a degree in accountancy to see Rangers are still haemorrhaging cash.
Then theres Ashley. The new Ibrox board claim to be unfazed at the prospect of repaying Ashleys £5m emergency loan.
Really? They are relying on pay-day loans to meet the wage bill, but unconcerned they might have to find five million quid? Kings people were screaming blue murder when Ashley took security over Murray Park. Now, offered the opportunity of reclaiming the training complex, they are backing off?
Equally baffling is Kings pursuit of Ally McCoist. If Rangers have one of the best balance sheets in the business why are they after McCoist for half-a-years salary?
The person who sanctioned Coistys contract should be sectioned under the Mental Health Act.
Some £800,000-a-year to win a part-time league? But thats not McCoists fault, like every pro in the game hes going to take every penny of his contract.
Kings public appeal to McCoist to do us a favour by waiving the terms of the agreement smacked of emotional blackmail. Coisty should tell him to run along.
Over the years the strikers goals earned Rangers millions of pounds.
The brace against Leeds that got Gers into the Champions League group stage in 1992 springs to mind.
Or how about the four against Vladikavkaz that got them into the groups again four years later?
Throw in the other 349 goals McCoist scored, and Gers have earned more from McCoist than he has from the club.
If King really has the money he claims his pursuit of McCoist is embarrassing. Down south West Brom will pay Alan Irvine every penny of his gardening leave.
Thats the way proper football clubs do it. They dont put out the begging bowl for donations.”
I have just two minutes ago used the ‘ contact FIFA’ facility by email( real name and normal email addressed used: I’m not afraid of lying b.stard European ‘ Press men’ of the stamp of many of our SMSM favourite piners for a succulent lamb
supper washed down with SDM’ s very own ,from
his own vineyards indeed , best (how was the wine
described?) vintage.
I haven’t the technical skill, even if this stupid wee
Samsung tablet has the capacity, to copy and put
my comments on here.
Essentially, I have demanded an apology from
Eggenberger for his factually incorrect article, as
being an insult to even my intelligence.
I have not accused him of lying, of course.
But have stated that his article is in fact untruthful in relation to the facts.
I don’t know the man, but I suspect that he’s more
at the crappy ,biased BBC Sportsound end of the
sports journalist spectrum( the ones that get
defended by their editors even when they
propagandise on behalf of convicted criminals
) than at the, say, properly- schooled -in -journalistic- detachment end.
If I get any kind of response, I’ll let the blog know.
Well said Davy Provan,better press than Mother Teresa,a belter considering who we are discussing.
Auldheid says:
May 25, 2015 at 2:10 am
————————-
Auldheid, you won’t be surprised to hear that I am not surprised that you (and other posters) know the FIFA rules better than the SPFL!
Do you think it is just that they don’t know the rules, or – given that my original question to them was in the hope of them tripping up and admitting it was a new club, rather than a newco – do you think they’ve answered in that way deliberately to avoid answering the question correctly? That is, in the way you suggest, that they couldn’t play in Europe for 3 years because the club was liquidated? I wouldn’t put it past them.
In response to Martin Williams’ piece in the Herald, The Rangers Football Club was formed in 1872 as an unincorporated association of individuals, each of whom had unlimited personal liability for the club’s debts and obligations.
The club consisted of the individuals who ran it. It had no separate legal personality.
The club was incorporated on 27th May 1899 as “The Rangers Football Club Limited”. Its details and the date of incorporation can be seen by entering the company number SC004276 on the webcheck section of the Companies House website.
The legal effect of a sports club incorporating as a limited company is neatly summarised on the Sportscotland website, which states:
“Converting your sports club to a Limited Company enables your club to become established as a legal entity in its own right, separate from the individual members.
Advantages – Limited Company
• Because the club is a distinct legal entity, it is easier for the club to enter into contractual arrangements e.g. to borrow money, own buildings, or stage very large events.
• The club itself, rather than the individual members, are responsible for the club’s obligations and debts (unless one of the officers has acted negligently or fraudulently, in which case the individual remains personally liable)
• And the individual members can only be held responsible for the debts and obligations of the club up to the nominal value of their guarantee.”
The key point is that, upon incorporation, a club becomes a limited company. The limited company (in Rangers’ case company SC004276) was the club. From 27th May 1899 onwards, the club and company were one and the same.
The Rangers Football Club Limited subsequently became a plc, and its name was accordingly changed to “The Rangers Football Club PLC”, to indicate that its shares were now traded on a public exchange.
It entered administration on 14th February 2012 and compulsory liquidation on 31st October 2012. In the interim, its name was changed to R.F.C. 2012 PLC on 31st July 2012 and some of its assets were sold by its then administrators, Duff & Phelps, to Sevco Scotland Limited (Company Number SC425159), which had been incorporated on 25th May 2012 and changed its name (also on 31st July 2012) to “The Rangers Football Club Limited”.
The club was not sold to Sevco Scotland Limited. The club was one and the same as The Rangers Football Club PLC (now called RFC 2012 Limited). The club could only be acquired by acquiring its shares (i.e. the shares of The Rangers Football Club PLC (now called R.F.C. 2012 Limited)).
Sevco Scotland Limited did not acquire any such shares. They acquired some of the club’s assets, including its stadium and club crest. Some of the club’s employees – notably Ally McCoist, Lee McCulloch and Lee Wallace among others – also chose to transfer under TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)) regulations from the club to Sevco Scotland Limited and became employees of Sevco Scotland Limited.
At the time it agreed to purchase certain assets of the club, Sevco Scotland Limited (now called The Rangers Football Club Limited) was not itself a football club. It subsequently became a football club when it was granted conditional membership of the Scottish Football Association and a licence to operate as a football club under the auspices of the SFA.
Sevco Scotland Limited (now called The Rangers Football Club Limited) bears a close resemblance to the previous The Rangers Football Club PLC as it has a very similar name, uses the same stadium and club colours and employs some of the same people. Many of those who attend its matches also attended matches of the original Rangers.
Sevco Scotland Limited (now called The Rangers Football Club Limited) is not, however, the football club formed in 1872 and incorporated on 27th May 1899. It does not own the club formed in 1872 either. It was not possible in law for Sevco Scotland Limited to acquire the club formed in 1872 other than by acquiring the shares of The Rangers Football Club PLC (now called R.F.C. 2012 Limited), which was (and still is) the original Rangers Football Club. No such share acquisition has ever taken place.
The football club formed in 1899 still exists, but is no longer active as a football club. It is a corporate husk, kept alive temporarily while its liquidators seek to recover as large a portion as possible for its creditors of the money which the creditors are owed by it. It will remain in existence only until the liquidation process is complete, at which point it will be dissolved and removed from the Register of Companies. It played its final competitive football match on Sunday, 13th May 2012, twelve days before the club currently playing out of Ibrox came into existence.
MONDAY, 25 MAY 2015
Why Scottish football hates Rangers being same club
“You’re not Rangers any more” – Hibs supporters on Saturday
“Same old Rangers, always cheating” – Hibs supporters on Saturday
This Rangers ‘dead’ argument is becoming the biggest parody and joke in Scottish football.
Uefa, Neil Doncaster, several courts of law, and now recently FIFA have all concurred that Rangers are the same Club.
Every football supporter outside Scotland does not even raise the question of Rangers being a ‘new’ club, and, actually, quite a few sensible supporters of other clubs north of the border, including Celtic, admit too that there is no question of Rangers being a new club.
However, with Rangers on the verge of returning to the Premier League in lieu of a potential victory over Motherwell in the play off final, the whole issue has obsessively reared its ugly head by a group of frankly unhinged individuals who constantly peddle the nonsense of ‘Sevco’, ‘zombies’ and ‘dead’, particularly witnessed in terms of some of the oddballs who have been seen to comment on this blog, indeed.
FIFA said, and I quote:
“After their enforced relegation in 2012, Glasgow Rangers are in the hunt for promotion back to Scotland’s top flight.”
The key word is ‘back’.
I will not lie, I have not once seen this extremist branch of Scottish football supporters (who probably have tattoos of tricolours and 45’s on their arms) ever raise obsessive questions about Fiorentina, Leeds, Coventry, Portsmouth, Airdrieonians, Middlebrough…you name it.
Only Rangers.
There is a real school of insanity in Scotland where so many non-Rangers fans cannot handle the fact Rangers are not dead. The hatred they had for the Club was amplified in 2012 by taking half-truths about tax debts and blowing them out of proportion. By obsessing over EBTs (completely legal practice) and calling Rangers ‘tax cheats’.
It did not matter to these people that the Big Tax Case was lost by HMRC when Rangers were found completely innocent, they just screamed ‘fix’ or tried to console themselves with the 2-1 verdict in favour of Rangers.
Craig Whyte – yes, we know he did absolute wrong and we hate him far more than anyone, but is it not ironic that these idiots in Scottish football who pretend to canvass for justice are the ones who love Whyte and wear masks of his face?
So, just so we are clear; Rangers fans hate Craig Whyte for his law-breaking and damage to Rangers, while Scottish football loves him and hates what they claim is ‘cheating’ by Rangers?
The hypocrisy goes something beyond laughable and becomes outright sinister.
There is no hint of logic here, no real sincerely in Scottish football’s objections about Rangers; it is nothing than wild-eyed hate, with zero logic or reason behind it.
As Jackie McNamara once said:
“I don’t think I would take any satisfaction if someone handed me a winner’s medal because Rangers had been stripped of a title or a cup. We lost in those cup finals and we lost those league titles because Rangers were a better team. Sometimes it is not just your turn and that is the way I’ll always look at it. I genuinely would not take any pleasure from seeing Rangers having trophies taken from them. It doesn’t matter what Rangers players were being paid. As a footballer you have to beat what is put in front of you. It is not my concern how Rangers went about their business. They put a team on the field and Celtic and Falkirk were unable to beat them. Over the years Rangers had a lot of top players such as Paul Gascoigne, Brian Laudrup and Ronald De Boer and it was just great to play these guys and test myself against the best. It didn’t concern me how much they got paid.”
If only Scottish football as a whole was as sensible as this.
Posted by Ibrox Noise http://www.ibroxnoise.co.uk
Jimlarkin.
Where would I start answering your post.
Rangers weren’t relegated, they were liquidated.
They went out of business, died!
They are tax cheats, a fact they readily admitted in what is referred to as the wee tax case.
They lied, cheated, refused to divulge documentation when requested.
I won’t go on.
Posts like yours are one of the reasons for a very large number of supporters having no time for the new Rangers, previously known as Sevco.
Give it a rest!
Ye cannae beat inflatable canaries 🙂 What an achievement by Alex Neil and Norwich. Difficult record to beat gaining play-off promotion in Scotland and England consecutive seasons. Accies must be proud today annaw. Brilliant.
PS @billyj1, I think Jim posted an entire quote without quote marks
Posted by Ibrox Noise http://www.ibroxnoise.co.uk 🙄
The club chairmen are playing a very very dangerous game here. I hope they feel it’s worth it.
A bit of a social media kerfuffle about the ticket situation for the play-off final ties.
Motherwell stated last week that they would allocate the South Stand, with a capacity north of 3500 (out of a 13K capacity) to away fans regardless of who made the final.
From Saturday they have been negotiating with TRFC for 2000 tickets out of a capacity of c. 55K. But Sevco have insisted on 900. Negation so continued into today. with well fans at the stadium, off for the bank holiday, requesting that the tickets be released.
TRFC wouldn’t budge so Motherwell issued an official statement expressing disappointment and stating that they had reconsidered their position and released 1500 tickets only to TRFC.
1200 too many if you ask me (considering rough percentages). Sevconians none to happy.
Entitlement. Entitlement. entitlement!
I’ll be so gutted if we lose our top league place to this bastion of unfair sporting advantage
Danish Pastry says:
Blog Writer: (1184 comments)
May 25, 2015 at 5:17 pm
Ye cannae beat inflatable canaries 🙂 What an achievement by Alex Neil and Norwich…
===============================================
I watched the game this morning, and the large crowd [85K !] and atmosphere came across well, for a high tempo, cup style game, and was very watchable – even if I didn’t know the players and was only watching for Alex Neil.
And for all our [justified] moaning and groaning about governance, clubs’ inaction, the SMSM and the Ibrox club, it’s great to see something as positive as Neil’s achievement.
To go from the SPL and earn promotion to the EPL in 5 months is incredible, IMO – especially when you also consider that the highly experienced Lennon couldn’t get an EPL post, and has yet to achieve promotion.
Well done Alex Neil ! 😛
Good Evening
Earlier today, I finally had the opportunity to properly read Martin ‘Engine Room Subsidiary’ William’s piece about the FIFA magazine article. Dear me. What a load of nonsense. Straw-clutching taken to a new extreme.
Here are some further – extensive – thoughts on his thinly-argued piece.
https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/2015/05/25/definitively-pish/
Enjoy the rest of the day
jimlarkin says:
Member: (286 comments)
May 25, 2015 at 4:03 pm
MONDAY, 25 MAY 2015
FIFA said, and I quote:
“After their enforced relegation in 2012, Glasgow Rangers are in the hunt for promotion back to Scotland’s top flight.”
////////////////////////////
Jim may I ask
What exactly enforced their relegation?
And may I also ask
What was the name of the football team hibs fans were shouting about
And what was the name of the team playing against hibs on Saturday?
A couple of straight forward questions I’m sure you can answer
Well done to Norwich and Alex Neil.
There was talk on ‘Off the Ball’ that Hamilton may get a wee kick back based on Neil success.
If true then that would be very nice indeed.
When Rangers were liquidated, most of their top players walked away, and signed for other clubs.
Mr Green made noises about this, threatened court action etc etc. He did not follow up his threat, presumably on legal advice.
Now, if we have to believe the latest , as spread by the SMSM, , all of the players who deserted Ranger should still be under contract to that club, since the club is perpetual.
Now, if that is correct, how many games over the last three years have featured players, from Rangers, who are not legitimately registered?
billyj1 says:
Member: (18 comments)
May 25, 2015 at 4:36 pm
Jimlarkin.
Where would I start answering your post.
===============
Jim just cut and paste from another source (Ibroxnoise?). He’s certainly heading for a record TD count as a result. But it wisnae him, honest!
http://www.fifa.com/ballon-dor/news/y=2012/m=12/news=moments-that-defined-2012-1977017.html
FIFA view in 2012
“FIFA view in 2012”
that’s soooooo 2012 though.
wildwood says:
Member: (58 comments)
May 25, 2015 at 6:14 pm
============================
Interesting figures Wildwood. I have just listened to Motherwell getting viciously panned on Radio Clyde, and less viciously so on Radio Scotland. The theme is Motherwell are bad people because they are keeping people away from the game. Yet what you are suggesting sounded fair enough to me. For 2000 tickets at Ibrox, Motherwell would have given an entire stand to Rangers fans at Fir Park. That sounds a pretty fair compromise to me.
Now for something completely different. If Rangers have a card display on Thursday night it is inevitable the same thing will happen again with crunched up balls of card being hurled at Motherwell players. If a player is going to take a corner and simply refuses to do so if he is getting pelted, then the referee is surely duty bound to act and involve the Match Commander. I don’t go along with it being harmless as I have seen someone taken to hospital with an eye injury due to card being thrown during workplace horseplay. Aside from that it is a distraction and surely the players will wonder if everything being thrown will just be card. I do hope Motherwell are prepared to make a stand about this because the media glossing over of it last week was ridiculous in my view.
Several thoughts come to mind after looking online at the FIFA Weekly. This is no legal text but a sort of free advertising weekly that I think sucks in cheap copy to space out the ads. The printed article is much briefer than the made in Scotland versions? Who on earth would have stumbled on it without a wink and a nod? It is not even easy to find in the comic.Did some folk in Scotland see a pre print draft? Did some folk in Scotland provide a pre print draft for topping and tailing? The ‘article’ is headed On the Inside. That could a misprint of From the Backside
It does raise the question as to whether this sort of publication – read with awe by the press – might be a venue for a piece from our skilled in house SFM team? Not worthy of their informed forensics but sometimes needs must …
upthehoops says:
Member: (704 comments)
May 25, 2015 at 7:43 pm
Now for something completely different. If Rangers have a card display on Thursday night it is inevitable the same thing will happen again with crunched up balls of card being hurled at Motherwell players.
if everything being thrown will just be card. I do hope Motherwell are prepared to make a stand about this because the media glossing over of it last week was ridiculous in my view.
Ibrox fans have set set a precedent.If no action is taken against them.What is to stop other fans doing the same,and shout out if it is good for them it is good for us.The governing bodies had a chance to nip this in the bud,and failed yet again.
A genuine post from today on Rangers Media –
“Has there ever been an example anywhere else in the world of rival clubs voting on a teams fate after suffering an insolvency event, or is that just another piece of corruption unique to Scottish Football?
They booted us out via a corrupt vote.”
Has no one over there explained how hard the SFA worked to keep them in the league system? How ungrateful!
Nawlite 2.44
I’ve seen and heard Regan ‘ s response with regard to SFA monitoring responsibilities in respect of the UEFA 2011 licence.
He either did not understand SFA monitoring responsibilities as laid out in FFP or he did and was disingenuous in his statements on air and to Celtic.
He was either incompetent or concealing the truth.
The Herald piece shows how low their standards have sunk, in large part here due to Martin Williams, who comes across in Twitter and in print as one of Sevco’s weaker minded adherents. All the Herald need to do, as I suggested for the Record, is to reprint their back page for the day after “Rangers got relegated”.
In other matters, I suspect a lot of us spotted Jim Larkin’s cut and paste job from the lunatic shores as being just that. I certainly TD’d it on the basis of the content rather than as a reflection on Jim per se: he and I are chums in a different context and I know him to be a sound fellow who plays the ball where it lies.
The Ibrox Noise article depends on ignorance.
Ignorance of the illegal ebts kept from LNS that enabled the decision football authority wanted in order to minimise the consequences of the use of illegal ebts to pay players. See previous blog.
Somebody at RFC decided not to provide the SPL with the detail of the illegal ebt cases relating to De Boer and Flo in 2012.
Should the info in the letter of 23 Feb 2011 which was sent to Harper MacLeod been provided to SPL lawyers the LNS Commission would not have been looking at a failure to register full contracts but at paying players by an illegal method not open to other clubs.
Now what if it turned out that exactly the same info in the 23rd Feb letter was kept from the SFA in June 2011 in the shape of a tax demand of 20th May 2011 when FFP rules required it be disclosed?
Such a revelation would take the feet away from the whole RFC as victims narrative. Indeed it would raise questions the SFA would not want to answer.
And some people wonder why Res12 is taking so long to get answers.
Sectarian singing was a hallmark of RFC (now deid)
It should have stopped in 2012 when RFC were liquidated
Perhaps when Sevco fans started using these chants it was a way of comforting themselves when grieving was at its height.
However
To the rest of us it`s a reminder that although RFC were liquidated their sectarian legacy is alive and well in 2015
WelI I for one have had enough
It’s not yet too late to do something.This cancer needs to be eliminated from our game
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I can`t make it happen but I can hope
That
TRFC fans rue the day they picked up the sectarian baggage left by the Liquidator
The rest of Scottish football adopt a common anthem in response to these offensive songs
Not as a pre-emptive wind up in a good natured match
But as a kneejerk response to offensive singing by TRC fans
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Perhaps eventually the message will sink in
“You stop offending Scottish society and the fans of 41 clubs by your offensive singing”
“And we`ll stop reminding you that RFC died in 2012”
wildwood says:
Member: (58 comments)
May 25, 2015 at 6:14 pm
A bit of a social media kerfuffle about the ticket situation for the play-off final ties.
Motherwell stated last week that they would allocate the South Stand, with a capacity north of 3500 (out of a 13K capacity) to away fans regardless of who made the final.
From Saturday they have been negotiating with TRFC for 2000 tickets out of a capacity of c. 55K. But Sevco have insisted on 900. Negation so continued into today. with well fans at the stadium, off for the bank holiday, requesting that the tickets be released.
TRFC wouldn’t budge so Motherwell issued an official statement expressing disappointment and stating that they had reconsidered their position and released 1500 tickets only to TRFC.
1200 too many if you ask me (considering rough percentages). Sevconians none to happy.
Entitlement. Entitlement. entitlement!
I’ll be so gutted if we lose our top league place to this bastion of unfair sporting advantage
============================
We won’t we will beat them end of.
ianagain says:
Member: (485 comments)
May 25, 2015 at 10:23 pm
____________________________________________
I am willing you on against the cheats 🙂
TheClumpany says:
Member: (35 comments)
May 25, 2015 at 6:42 pm
Good Evening
——————
Thanks,that came in handy
Famous songFamous song says:
Member: (43 comments)
May 25, 2015 at 9:18 pm
The Herald piece shows how low their standards have sunk, in large part here due to Martin Williams, who comes across in Twitter and in print as one of Sevco’s weaker minded adherents. All the Herald need to do, as I suggested for the Record, is to reprint their back page for the day after “Rangers got relegated”.
In other matters, I suspect a lot of us spotted Jim Larkin’s cut and paste job from the lunatic shores as being just that. I certainly TD’d it on the basis of the content rather than as a reflection on Jim per se: he and I are chums in a different context and I know him to be a sound fellow who plays the ball where it lies.
…………………
Thanks FS…
I guessed the TD’s were for the article.
I’ve copied and pasted a few times from ibrox noise, as I really am astonished that there is so much ignorance on the blue side of the fence – even their Legal eagles like Donald Findlay have explained it to them, but no, it doesn’t penetrate!
I think it was Churchill who said that: “The truth is so fragile that it needs protecting by an army of squirrels and deficating ruminants”
What’s being protected by the latest bit of bullpoo?
Has the financial black hole become a black box?
Very entertaining Twitter stuff tonight by Jim Craig (@cairney2)
Worth a look for anyone who loves the game, but maybe especially for CFC fans.
After last weeks heady stuff with the Kings coronation and the after speeches about how great the finances are,the future is secured with being in an enviable position world wide,it realy is scarey ,Norwich are guaranteed £110 million after gaining promotion to their top league ,a similar opportunity is open to Kings club this week but the financial rewards a lot less,admittedly they only have debt of £5m to big Mike and Dave is about to announce a business plan that is going to outstrip anything his predecessor’s have ever done,interesting time’s ahead,only question that seems not to being asked this weather is exactly what is the position with the RIFC,have they also been put out to graze along with Ally and co as since the EGM the don’t seem to be on the radar any longer,There was me thinking this was the parent company and where responsible for the drip feeding of funds etc to the footbal club,where owed millions from the football club itself,can anyone update on what’s changed.
Here’s a strange one, yahoo.com have various news headlines on their site, and this morning there was one with the heading “Millionaire footballers to evade new 50% tax rate by taking wages as interest-free loans”. The link directs to a Mail Online article from 31 May 2009.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1189864/Millionaire-footballers-evade-new-50-tax-rate-taking-wages-free-loans.html
What could possibly go wrong?
Re the ticketing debate.
It would come as no surprise to learn that many in the media were unaware that despite restrcting Hibs to 950 tickets, Ibrox was far from sold out . In fact there were over 9,000 unsold seats.
I have no issue with any club restricting away fan allocation in an attempt to create competitive advantage . However to ignore the fact that Rangers started this process and were unable to then get anywhere close to a full house, at the same time as panning Hibs and Motherwell for exactly the same circumstances, is yet another example of why so many in the MSM are not trusted.
As an aside, based on official attendances and match prices, Hibs fans spent £198,000 buying tickets for their home game ,whilst Rangers fans spent £201,000 doing the same. This follows on from the analysis of away fan support in the Championship this year , which shows that Hearts took more away fans to games than Rangers did. Funnily enough , i have never seen media comment on how Hearts have kept Scotland’s lower league clubs going during their “journey”
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl-lower-divisions/will-hibs-slip-off-the-map-if-rangers-go-up-1-3783045
From The Scotsman today. And as if we needed reminding, it’s all about “Rangers”, even when it’s supposed to be about Hibs.
The final paragraph caught my eye-
Looks to me like the “establishment” are getting the great Scottish football public nicely warmed up for a quick reconstruction “just in case”.
Barca
The shame of the Scottish press pack will all be revealed one day ,do these people not bother with the future and the shame they bring to their profession.
On the issue of the SMSM I saw an article yesterday where the Egyptian authorities are taking a few journalists to court for writing untruths!!!!
If only there was a law in Scotland allowing the same ……………. :slamb: :slamb: :slamb:
BarcabhoyBarcabhoy on May 26, 2015 at 9:25 am
Re the ticketing debate.
It would come as no surprise to learn that many in the media were unaware that despite restrcting Hibs to 950 tickets, Ibrox was far from sold out . In fact there were over 9,000 unsold seats….
———-
SSB, with Keevins leading the charge, was getting stuck into Hibs & Motherwell. All their fault, apparently. Arguments became absurd when it was pointed out (as you do above) that there were indeed thousands of unsold tickets for Hibs’ match at Ibrox. If I didn’t know better I’d say Keevins gets a stipend from L5 for spouting the west coast bias he professes to despise.
Neepheid @ 9.28
I’ve long said that reconstruction was a given for 2016-17 either to provide a four position safety blanket as King implements his plans in the Championship following a Motherwell defeat, or to provide a safety net as the new club finds its feet in the top tier.
I’m sure there will be other reasons for a reconstruction stuffed away in an appendix somewhere also.
Whether they’d have the gall to try it now for 15-16 should circumstances dictate I’m not sure. I have a suspicion they’d rather they just came up fair and square by defeating Motherwell.
Interestingly however the old SPL cabal – those that remain at least – would then kick in. Why share the riches of the glorious return between 16 or 18 when you can just keep it yourselves in a 10 or 12.
Hard to see it as “fair and square”, Smugas. Everyone else has to live within their means. The club masquerading as Rangers goes from one loan it can’t pay back to meet the second-highest wage-bill in Scotland to the next.
Regards the OC/NC issue that reared its head in selected papers at the weekend, Im just wondering whats prompted it. Was it simply a Level 5 GIRUY or was there more behind it – is there something particularly pressing which is prompting it?
On a separate note…..I am sure the BDO Creditors report is due for its 6-month update at the end of this week (previous: http://www.bdo.co.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/879165/Rangers-Creditors-Circ-13-November-2014.pdf) which should give some progress updates on, in the main:
EBT Case (HMRC Appeal – surely must be due to heard soon!)
Case against previous administrators/Whyte
Dave King “claim”
Incidentally – whatever happened to the Worthington “claim” against Sevco?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11129371/Rangers-facing-new-legal-threat-as-Worthington-Group-recovers.html
This new FIFA survival squirrel is truly, madly, deeply desperate.
What is notable since Charles Green bought the history is that no one pushing the survival myth has thought to simply ask the SFA, UEFA and FIFA to officially clear up the matters once and for all. Instead of clutching at the most apathetic of straws – out of date webpages, out of date indices, promo copy in unread house rags.
We can only assume that the reasons the survival peddlers have not gone straight to the oracles are two-fold:
a) They do not believe it themselves – but need smaller brained bears to believe it to loosen their pockets
b) They cannot rely on UEFA and FIFA to do their bidding as they did with LNS and others. As such the SFA would never have the balls to lead the way and so rely on tacit agreement from the likes of Doncaster and Regan
adjective: tacit: understood or implied without being stated.
Perhaps it is time for SFM to put together a one page factsheet and ask the official bodies their official position. My recent post would be a good starting point – with proofing, links to company house, some numbers on tax owed (disputed and undisputed), reference to the on-going UTT case, and HMRC spelt out as Her Majesty’s REVENUE & CUSTOMS for the benefit of UEFA and FIFA.
http://www.sfmonitor.org/sfm-the-next-steps/comment-page-2/#comment-54640
Who knows UEFA and FIFA may decide they ARE the same club after all – and they need to accept ALL their history.
No argument there Este!
Liquidation is death. If something came out of the ashes and claimed it was the same entity except that only the debts died I would be repulsed and have nothing to do with it. That there are tens of thousands ho claim to believe that nothing has changed except that the debt including taxes and emergency services had gone shows demonstrates a mind set which I cannot begin to understand. Yet not only do they claim to believe that, but talk about the Rangers way as a code for dignity and resolve. Add to that the carnival of dodgy characters making fortunes from the ashes and an endless stream of lies and contradictions even over very short times then I really cannot understand why someone would want either to adhere to that entity or fund it out of limited wages.
In this post modern time it would appear that people will believe in anything to give them a tribal identity.
This whole farrago is really deleterious to the common good.
Sorry to keep harping on along a well worn path bfbpuzzled, but…
I can perfectly understand why the fans desperately want continuation.
I can perfectly understand why this emotional attachment (with added institutional protection) drew in chancers like moths to a flame.
Neither of these parties are required whether by law, statute or anything else to have a particular frame of reference. Their club can be what they want it to be.
The SFA/SPFL do not have, never did have nor ever should have that luxury.
Agree with Smugas, bfb. You can blame TRFC* fans for a lot of things, but for ignoring the fleecing of creditors to continue supporting (what they see as) their team I think that’s a bit unfair.
Obviously liquidation goes further, but administration also results in creditors being ‘fleeced’ to an extent. I recognise the differences in that with Admin they agree to be fleeced, but nonetheless I don’t see anyone arguing that fans of Dundee, Hearts, Dunfermline etc are condoning the fleecing of customers by continuing to support their team after admin.
Smugas says:
Member: (797 comments)
May 26, 2015 at 1:04 pm
The SFA/SPFL do not have, never did have nor ever should have that luxury.
=========================================
Agree – but you need to extend your arguement to include the Chairmen and Directors of the 41 other clubs who have done precisely nothing since the summer of 2012 to object to this monstrous corruption of Scottish football.