Small Price to Pay?

ByBig Pink

Small Price to Pay?

I think there has been an appreciable shift of opinion amongst fans of TRFC recently.

 

Unlike the ‘invest: speculate to accumulate’ rhetoric featured in the press and by ex-players, the ordinary fans are coming to the realisation that there is no quick fix. There are even murmurings that there may never be a fix which involves their club becoming a competitive force.

 

Poor management of fan expectations has long been an accusation levelled at the TRFC board by SFM. It is possible though that many fans are beginning to manage their own expectations rather better. There are certainly justifiable criticisms of the manager, Mark Warburton, but alongside that is a realism about the limitations and constraints that he is working under.

 

There is a rather misguided, and possibly not accurate assumption that another liquidation for a team out of Ibrox would result in having to start ‘yet again’ in the bottom division; but in fact there is a growing acceptance that consolidation in the top league is a much better solution than gambling on huge borrowing simply to stop Celtic adding more notches to the goalpost.

 

Could it be that the fans are about to do the job that the board haven’t had the balls to do –accept the gap between themselves and (at least) Celtic, and settle for mediocrity on the field as a short term price to pay for continuity?

 

During the 1990s, in the middle of the Murray/BoS fuelled spending spree, and with Celtic in the doldrums, it seemed to many Celtic fans that their club would never be able to bridge that gap. Of course they did, but at the emotional cost of losing the exclusive 9IAR record.

 

TRFC now find themselves in pretty much the same position, but their road to bridging the current gap is a more difficult one.

 

There are similarities of course. Like the Celtic of the 90s, Rangers have major infrastructure challenges to meet. Celtic had a stadium to build, Rangers have Ibrox (and Auchenhowie) to fix and improve. Both required massive investment to improve the team, although I would argue that Rangers have a steeper hill to climb in that area.

 

Unlike RFC of the 90s, Celtic’s accrued wealth has nothing to do with an intravenous hook-up between their bank account and the chairman’s pals at the bank. Their baseline advantage over the current Rangers predicament is a combination of a stadium which holds 10,000 more fans than Ibrox, no debt, a burgeoning cash balance and the current inflow of European cash.

The Euro cash and the cash balance could be depleted, but the 10,000 extra seats won’t.

 

It also seems difficult to imagine how TRFC can obtain seed capital – even if they were inclined to gamble – given the combination of barriers to achieving that;

 

  • They have a PLC with no stock market listing
  • They have NO executive directors on the PLC board
  • The current chairman is a convicted criminal, convicted of offences involving money
  • The current chairman and vice-chairman are both directors of a previously liquidated club, and therefore associated with the financial mismanagement which brought that about.
  • In that climate, sponsorship deals are hard to come by. Major sponsors want to be associated with stability, success and integrity. TRFC don’t tick many boxes in that regard.
  • Banks do not lend to football clubs. Pre Murray/Masterton, football clubs were cash businesses with modest overdraft facilities to cover modest cash-flow peaks and troughs. The banks have returned to that model. 1987-2007 was the exception, not the norm.
  • They are at war with a powerful and substantial shareholder in Mike Ashley.
  • There is still litigation pending on more than one front which could even call into question the ownership of the club’s assets.
  • They are in debt already (estimated at around £15m).
  • The current onfield situation may require yet another write-off in terms of contracts.

Any one of those bullet points could be enough to derail any plan to get to the top. In combination, there may even be an existential question to answer.

That is why the fans are starting to look a lot smarter than the board, and ultimately the good sense of the fans may well help the board to find a way out of their current dilemma.

But even with realistic expectations from the supporters, is it possible that they can find a way? Is there for instance someone with a magic wand or bag of cash who could come in and turn it around? Perhaps, but who would risk money on a precarious venture like a football club when one of the most powerful businessmen in the country is in dispute with you?

 

In order for serious inward investment to happen;

  • Ashley has to be reconciled with the board (needs King and Murray to go).
  • The debt has to be written off .
  • The new investor(s) has to be given control of the club (and this would perhaps require another 75% special resolution where current shareholders would be asked to vote to dilute their own influence).
  • If they achieved that (and it is a pretty big if) the new investor cash would go into the club’s bank account – not used to pay off the debt –  and they would be free to pursue new and better sponsorship deals, improve the merchandising contract with an onside Ashley, and add new revenue streams.

Even then, any new board would need to see the infrastructure challenges as paramount. Having one eye squinting in the direction of Parkhead will blur the bigger picture.

Their priority should be to reduce the losses (whilst increasing wages for better players), fix the stadium and the training ground (both in need of repair and improvement), build a scouting and youth infrastructure, and free up a (relatively modest) wad of cash to improve the playing squad.

In defence of the current board, the challenges facing them are almost vertical in incline. No matter how skilful they are, nothing other than someone with a barrowload of cash and a very long term outlook can put any kind of fix in place.

£50m might buy the debt and equity, and repair the stadium, but progress requires on-field improvement. It also needs stability, and therefore Ashley’s cooperation. The price of that is the head of Dave King.

Rangers will bring in more at the gate than Aberdeen, Hearts or Hibs, but they have a considerably higher cost base than those clubs. With better players, recurring costs will be even higher – much higher.

To square this circle, however unpalatable it appears to be, peace has to be made with Ashley. That is the key to being able to embark upon a journey that has any chance of success. Otherwise, the clocks will have to be reset to 2022, and the end of the SD contract, before progress can be made.

However there is no chance it can go on that long. Rangers fans may be increasingly less demanding in what they expect, but they will need to see some signs – and not just words – that a plan is in place.

The board are getting ready to throw Mark Warburton to the hounds (the MSM lapdogs have already been armed with poison pens to effect that). This will buy them some time, but not enough.

 

We’ve said it before, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I’ll say it again;

 

For Rangers to have a fighting chance of competing at the top of football, King needs to be gone. If he does go, half of the barriers preventing the club raising cash are dismantled. 

So is King’s departure a price worth paying? If he really had Rangers in his heart, he would say ‘Yes’.

 

 

 

About the author

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

1,627 Comments so far

DunderheidPosted on2:51 pm - Feb 21, 2017


John Clark @ 13:36
On your reminder about the shameful failure of the SMSM to report the truth … I’d like to emphasise that, worst of all, we have been let down by the publicly funded BBC Scotland.
At least the rest of the SMSM can hide behind an excuse of there being a ‘commercial imperative’…

View Comment

bluPosted on2:52 pm - Feb 21, 2017


Did the SFA get their 5% levy within 3 days though? This is payable for rounds 4, 5 and 6.

Except when a match is played on a neutral ground, the monies received from all admission charges to amatch in any Round other than the Preliminary Round (if applicable), First, Second, Third, Semi-Final andFinal Rounds, shall be divided as follows:-(1) A levy of 5% of the monies received from all admission charges to the match shall be paid to theScottish FA within three days of the date on which the match is played.

View Comment

incredibleadamsparkPosted on3:13 pm - Feb 21, 2017


JOHN CLARK FEBRUARY 21, 2017 at 13:36
________________________________________
 
As a long term reader of SFM I’m well aware of the facts. There can be no disagreement with the truth. Perhaps you also have a list of all the speculation around Rangers that has turned out to be factually incorrect? I don’t but I’d speculate it’s a long list.

The comments section of a website can be powered by hypocrisy and speculation. It can also be powered by insight and knowledge. The problem is when a website/blogger, and I don’t mean SFM, claims to offer a truthful alternative to the MSM. Then I don’t think a huge distinction can be drawn between the two and they must be held to the same standards. Social media does not get a pass on that.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:20 pm - Feb 21, 2017


JOHN CLARK
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 at 13:36 

incredibleadamspark
February 21, 2017 at 11:55‘..Either way both sides can be poorly served by the SMSM and social media when half-truths, speculation and wishful thinking dominate to the exclusion of the facts.  ‘
______________

A very valid observation,incredibleadamspark.But, of course, there are actual facts, that SFM most definitely does not exclude.shall I list them all ( again?):…
========================================================

JC has given a comprehensive response.
His list validates why there is a climate of suspicion / speculation about all things TRFC.

If anyone had told me in 2009 that RFC would go bust, I would have laughed.
If anyone had told me in 2009 that RFC players had been improperly registered for 10+ [?] years, I would have laughed even louder.
Ridiculous !

In comparison, unpaid bills, dodgy rooves/roofs – and even incredulous rumours about tunneled, illegal water supplies – don’t appear so crazy. [OK, that last one was pushing it a bit !]

And it’s all RFC and then TRFC’s own doing: for being a fundamentally dishonest club/company, IMO.

Bampots who currently lean towards believing perhaps dubious rumours about Ibrox – do so until proven otherwise.
That’s not an ideal scenario, which facilitates untrue stories to obtain credence, but recent history justifies that response, IMO. 
Past behaviours show that virtually anything is possible down Govan way.

RIFC/TRFC: guilty until proven innocent, M’lud ! 14  

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on3:26 pm - Feb 21, 2017


Homunculus
February 20, 2017 at 21:20
 
As I recall.
“If HMRC are owed money by TRFC they will take action to secure it, including but not limited to petitioning to wind up the company*. If they have sufficient debt they will block any CVA. This simply their current policy where football clubs are concerned. It won’t change so long as football treats its own creditors as being more important than everyone else, including honest taxpayers. “
———————————————————————————————-
In early June 2012, there was much speculation on Rangers Tax Case site within comments as to “would a CVA be accepted or not”
A cursory read though the HMRC web site, made the point as you do above  “nae chance”
You recall correctly.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on3:39 pm - Feb 21, 2017


Another hat in the ring ?

EAKINGBlackburn manager Owen Coyle sacked

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:44 pm - Feb 21, 2017


For PAULMAC2 : PM / personal message sent to you, as mentioned.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on4:26 pm - Feb 21, 2017


INCREDIBLEADAMSPARKFEBRUARY 21, 2017 at 15:13

IAS
I get where you are coming from. The other week I got caught out by the fake Forrest Twitter account but only because when I hear stories involving a Scottish Club and club elsewhere I usually look at the other club’s local press and social media to see if their story is wholly different from the SMSM spin on things. I didn’t look close enough on that occasion so will be making double sure I don’t get caught out that way again.

While SFM posters generally try to keep away from flights of fancy as much a possible you can easily see why others get caught up in the rumours and speculations.

It was like that before the internet came along. The only issue now is that the banter gets circulated wider and quicker than when it was bar-room and back to the taxi talk.

However at the end of the day fans are fans. Part of the fun is spreading gossip about your rivals and telling tales about their dodgy goings on.  Late night drinking sessions, stealing bracelets when on world cup duty, players sleeping with their team-mates wives, training ground fall outs, ex-players fall from grace etc, etc – it is all part and parcel of the game for fans. A lot of it is harmless and shouldn’t be taken to seriously.

However the issues raised by JC are very serious. Similarly, so is the fawning over the likes of SDM, Craig Whyte, Charles Green and the current chairman of the RIFC Plc.

While I don’t care for people being led up the garden path and worry about people not being able to appropriate scrutinize information before them,  there is a world of difference between what is put out there by most bloggers and posters and those in positions of power and influence.

Trumps latest  faux pas re his contention that there is all this fake news while spouting more than his fair share (Sweden, electoral college result etc etc) being the prime example.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on4:30 pm - Feb 21, 2017


Hearst, Aberdeen, and now Celtic. 
    I’m loving this Armageddon

http://www.celticfc.net/news/12125

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:38 pm - Feb 21, 2017


We assimilate, we speculate, we know we cannot trust the SMSM (or any MSM). We are not, and do not claim to be, all knowing and all wise, we just try to join up the dots that others would prefer us not to join. The ‘others’ would prefer us to disappear, and as we are now obviously not going to disappear, they would like to discredit us.

I do not know how honest the likes of PMGB and JJ are, but I am old enough, with enough experience, to take everything I read with a healthy pinch of salt and to decide for myself if what is said holds water when placed beside what we all know to be facts. I have no doubt that both these bloggers hear a piece of news and build it up into a narrative, the truth of that narrative will depend on how good their sources are. I also know that if one of them, or anybody else, says such and such happened, but we do not see evidence that it did happen, it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen – because the only people who could confirm it happened are the very people who don’t want it to be confirmed.

Throughout it’s existence, TRFC has chosen to never respond to the various internet claims, and that is their right, while PMGB, at least, is an accredited journalist and writer of both fact and fiction, he depends on people believing what he says to make a living. He is freelance, so doesn’t have a contract to fall back on should his readers stop buying what he has published, to an extent he has to be confident that what he writes cannot be discredited. He has often made bold statements that have never been refuted by TRFC, some of them must have bordered on libel if provably untrue, and, at the least, damaging to TRFC/RIFC, so damaging, in fact, that most other companies would offer denials – if they could! But more to the point, TRFC/RIFC have had plenty of opportunity to prove him the liar they would like us all to see him as, they have never risen to the challenge! They could have/should have shut him up by now; again, only if they could!

That doesn’t mean I believe everything PMGB writes, but it does make me think there is a grain of truth running through it all, and is worthy of using in trying to piece together what might be happening and add it to the known facts, then speculate on what the outcome might be.

But why do we do it, this speculating?

We do it because without it we wouldn’t have enough information to keep this blog alive. We do it, because we want to show the SMSM what they should be doing, picking over the known knowns and putting a narrative together that just might force the truth out into the open. We do it because we each have thoughts on a common subject that we would like to share, and hope that others will expand on it, or show us that we’re wrong, so we can reassess what we have heard, or discard it as bunkum. We mostly do it, though, to keep the cheating, the covering up of that cheating, the lies, the preferential treatment and so much more, in the public gaze, sure in the knowledge that if we don’t, it will be swept under carpets from Ibrox, to Hampden, to the sports editors’ offices, to the BBC…all with the sole aim of allowing the offshoot of a corrupt football club to carry on as it, and they, would choose.

In the meantime, there’s always somebody coming on to chastise us for speculating on what the known knowns, together with the latest claims of goings on at Ibrox, might indicate or lead to, without ever giving an alternative that points in the opposite direction.

If anyone has any idea of what year on year losses, expensive court cases, management team’s resignations that weren’t resignations, broken promises and so much more, might indicate other than what we speculate, I’d like to read them!

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on4:45 pm - Feb 21, 2017


I very seldom go near the thumbs button Ally.  There is always the exception.  04  

View Comment

neepheidPosted on4:47 pm - Feb 21, 2017


HomunculusFebruary 21, 2017 at 14:21   
Sorry but I’m not really understanding that.
If the money was due to be paid either on Friday or on Monday then how could it possibly have been 5 days overdue on Monday.
Am I missing something.

+++++++++++++++++++++
Not that I can see. JJ is not strong on detail, he should have read the rules and said simply that payment was due by 5pm Friday, but is now overdue. By throwing in his “5 days overdue” assertion, he just hands ammunition to his detractors.
Looking at the timeline, I’m pretty sure Morton got their money earlier than they would have done otherwise as a result of JJ’s article. If I’m correct, he has at least done a small club a bit of a favour. It at least saves Morton from having to go crying to the SFA.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:20 pm - Feb 21, 2017


On Mortongate!

Yesterday, at 4.52pm, a poster on Jamboskickback posted the following:

‘Posse from sevco at Hampden as we speak please let it happen’

Now I’ve no idea if any ‘posse’ did arrive at Hampden, but 8 minutes after that was posted (no idea at what time said ‘posse’ was meant to have arrived), Morton tweeted that the money had been received. Just another co-incidence, of course!

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:43 pm - Feb 21, 2017


Even Keith Jackson is calling out Richard Wilson’s sugar coated view of how things are at Ibrox. Says much!

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on6:56 pm - Feb 21, 2017


CORRUPT OFFICIAL
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 at 14:44
======================================

So from what you guys are saying, when he posted his exclusive on Monday it should have been.

“Morton payment from Rangers due today but not paid yet …”

or

“Morton payment from Rangers due on Friday but not paid by Monday …”

A bit different from

Greenock Morton haven’t been paid the £150k they are owed by Rangers from the Scottish Cup Tie. It is now five days overdue. Nobody will take their phone calls at Ibrox.
Sounds like a severe cash flow issue.

He really is his own worst enemy. It’s just another example of a very basic error leading to a sensationalist claim. No need for it.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on7:02 pm - Feb 21, 2017


PADDY MALARKEY
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 at 15:39
==============================

I would genuinely doff my chapeau if Rangers were to employ Owen Columba Coyle as their manager.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:10 pm - Feb 21, 2017


ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 21, 2017 at 16:38
But why do we do it, this speculating?
We do it because without it we wouldn’t have enough information to keep this blog alive. We do it, because we want to show the SMSM what they should be doing, picking over the known knowns and putting a narrative together that just might force the truth out into the open
—————
Geat post.

But why do we do it, this speculating? to find out the truth and get the facts right, sometimes a poster may not get all the “facts” right and not word it accordingly but we have our friends on TSFM to help us better explain our wordings and   help us understand more of what the true picture is.
But why do we do it, this speculating?….Obsession19
“There is nothing to beat an obsession when it is driven by a simple desire to find the truth”.
I love that quote

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on7:18 pm - Feb 21, 2017


The person TRFC needs as manager is the football equivalent of a ‘company doctor’*; a turnaround specialist.

Quite who that is I’ve no idea, but I doubt it’s someone who has failed (often more than once) in the English Championship.

*It should go without saying that the whole shebang needs a company doctor, of course.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:22 pm - Feb 21, 2017


JINGSO.JIMSIEFEBRUARY 21, 2017 at 19:18  
The person TRFC needs as manager is the football equivalent of a ‘company doctor’*; a turnaround specialist…
====================================

Well, they did bring in James Traynor.  21 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on7:23 pm - Feb 21, 2017


To be fair to JJ, when I first read his blog, I was sufficiently curious to google the “Scottish Cup rules”. The search linked to an SFA PDF which stated the following:
(e) The share of the receipts, or the guarantee, shall be paid, in cash, on the day of the match, unless any agreement is made to the contrary.

I assumed the above to be the current rule until the “handbook” link was posted on here. That linked document gave five business days leeway to the home club.

If JJ based his article on the same link I saw, then that would explain where the five days overdue came from.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:30 pm - Feb 21, 2017


Cluster OneFebruary 21, 2017 at 19:10

But why do we do it, this speculating?….Obsession “There is nothing to beat an obsession when it is driven by a simple desire to find the truth”.I love that quote
__________________

First time I’ve read that quote, CO, but I, too, love it!

We all know that without those hours and hours of speculation and obsession, shown here and elsewhere online, those obsessed with burying the truth would have prevailed.

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on7:31 pm - Feb 21, 2017


in the interests of fairness and consistency, not to mention all parties sticking to the rules, – is there a precedent for clubs not paying their opponents their due on time? What sanction if any was imposed? We should be told! Who were these people? Ok, it was what, one working day late, but what are the rules, sanctions and precedents?
I just couldn’t let it lie…not that I’m at all convinced the SFA would be sanctioning TRFC anytime soon given the collective deafness to the banned song apparently heard at every game and in every broadcast.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:44 pm - Feb 21, 2017


easyJamboFebruary 21, 2017 at 19:23
And to give a little more credit to JJ, he certainly created a big enough splash to get the SMSM’s knickers in a twist! Typically, though, the SMSM are concentrating their efforts in debunking the messenger, rather than chasing the real story. Not seen a lot of quotes from either Morton or TRFC yet, and if there was a ‘good’ story there, it would have been published by now, we can be sure of that.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on7:45 pm - Feb 21, 2017


So apparently, TRFC did pay their debt yesterday to Morton.  Well done.
But more negative PR was generated about the Ibrox club.

Yet TRFC could have paid the money on Monday of last week, I believe.
They would already have banked the ticket money, so by paying ‘early’ to Morton they could have pretended to be a big team – and generated some positive PR for helping out one of the ‘smaller’ teams.  
And an opportunity to maybe spin away those other rumours of financial distress at TRFC.
 
Why didn’t Traynor think of that ?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:52 pm - Feb 21, 2017


bad capt madmanFebruary 21, 2017 at 19:31

I wouldn’t be at all surprised that any sanction for late payment would be at the SFA’s discretion14 and that, without the online revelation, we would never hear of it, at least not when a club from Ibrox is the guilty party. It’s the SMSM, though, that should be asking the questions of the SFA and the clubs involved!

I seem to remember, that as the Hearts’ administration loomed, the SMSM had their moles inside Hearts’ dressing room, and knew all the questions to ask of the SFA and SPL!

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:04 pm - Feb 21, 2017


CELTIC Football Club has announced that it will today make a Proposal of Application Notice to Glasgow City Council in relation to possible further development of the Celtic Park area, including the potential creation of a new hotel, retail store, ticketing facility and museum.
——————
Would be nice if the museum is to include memories and pictures from the past on which the museum may be built upon. It looks like it could be built on the land were the old railway ran, and from memory were some horse stables were situated,but i can’t remember what the stables were for.
or has my memory gone altogether

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on8:07 pm - Feb 21, 2017


Maybe it’s time I went back to my old job of closing down shops, – remember that one run by Pressed Rat and his pal that sold amplified heat and all that? Sports Direct franchises here I come.
(hope some of you old timers get it)

View Comment

bordersdonPosted on8:18 pm - Feb 21, 2017


Cluster OneFebruary 21, 2017 at 20:04
CELTIC Football Club has announced that it will today make a Proposal of Application Notice to Glasgow City Council in relation to possible further development of the Celtic Park area, including the potential creation of a new hotel, retail store, ticketing facility and museum.——————Would be nice if the museum is to include memories and pictures from the past on which the museum may be built upon. It looks like it could be built on the land were the old railway ran, and from memory were some horse stables were situated,but i can’t remember what the stables were for.or has my memory gone altogether
——————————————————————————————–
 Aye you have forgotten this is no a Celtic site! Apparently!!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on8:22 pm - Feb 21, 2017


StevieBCFebruary 21, 2017 at 19:45
 
The money that TRFC held was not their own, and never had been, it was held in trust for Morton, so they should have had it ready as soon as it had been counted and the Morton share arrived at.

It will always be possible that difficulties will be encountered in counting and balancing the money, especially if the club counting the money has a shortage of employees to do the counting, hence the generous leeway given. In reality, though, it will never take a week to have the money ready for transfer, unless the money has already been spent, or has been used to cover something else, like a temporary overdraft, perhaps, that had to be renegotiated before the share of the gate could be passed over! We will never know why there was this delay in paying Morton, but we can be sure it was not a good one, nor indicative of rude financial health! In fact, it might indicate/confirm that TRFC didn’t have £150,000 lying around in their bank account last week left over from the last loan…and their share of the cup tie gate!

I wonder how the Hamilton board are feeling just now, and if they’ll be contacting the SFA to see what can be done to ensure that their share of the quarter-final gate money is secure?

View Comment

tonyPosted on8:23 pm - Feb 21, 2017


CLUSTER ONE
horses 0606

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on8:28 pm - Feb 21, 2017


ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 21, 2017 at 19:52

We know now that their share of the SC tie gate receipts were paid to the
‘Ton late yesterday . Do we know if it was TRFC or another party who ponied up ?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:31 pm - Feb 21, 2017


BORDERSDONFEBRUARY 21, 2017 at 20:18
Aye you have forgotten this is no a Celtic site! Apparently!!
——————
My own Nostalgia got in the way…sorry mods.
———–

horses 060606

View Comment

neepheidPosted on8:32 pm - Feb 21, 2017


Cluster OneFebruary 21, 2017 at 20:04  Would be nice if the museum is to include memories and pictures from the past on which the museum may be built upon. It looks like it could be built on the land were the old railway ran, and from memory were some horse stables were situated,but i can’t remember what the stables were for. or has my memory gone altogether
+++++++++++
Don’t know about stables, but I do remember a cooperage where the railway crossed Janefield Street. The smell from the whisky barrels was quite something!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:33 pm - Feb 21, 2017


paddy malarkeyFebruary 21, 2017 at 20:28 
ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 21, 2017 at 19:52
We know now that their share of the SC tie gate receipts were paid to the‘Ton late yesterday . Do we know if it was TRFC or another party who ponied up ?
______________________

Funnily enough, that thought crossed my mind, though it would be a dangerous precedent to set and is highly unlikely.

On the other hand, oh god, not more speculation, there was the alleged sighting of a ‘posse’ from TRFC at Hampden yesterday, and bearing in mind that we know TRFC have requested, and been given, their share of prize money early in the past. Could it be possible a TRFC deputation, having requested that the SFA pay over some of their SC prize money to Morton (perhaps the balance of moneys due), had to go there to complete the necessary documentation?

In their tweet, Morton only state that ‘all monies due from Rangers from our Scottish Cup tie have been received’. Not only does it not say when it was received or even that it was received on time, it doesn’t say that ‘Rangers’ paid the money to them!

Interesting too, that while Morton made a face saving tweet, face saving for TRFC, that is, TRFC, themselves, have said nothing!

View Comment

Billy BoycePosted on11:42 pm - Feb 21, 2017


upthehoops February 21, 2017 at 18:43 
Even Keith Jackson is calling out Richard Wilson’s sugar coated view of how things are at Ibrox. Says much!
———————————————
Apparently on BBC Sportsound this evening they were going hammer and tongs at each other over the current state of play at Ibrox when the wily Jim Spence interjected with “I hesitate to intrude on private grief here”.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:56 am - Feb 22, 2017


BORDERSDON
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 at 20:18

==================================================

Yes it’s interesting that no-one has brought up the exciting developments taking place with regards Aberdeen and Hearts and how they make it look like people are trying to move Scottish football forward with optimism for the future.

Wait, that’s not right, that did happen.

View Comment

bluPosted on9:23 am - Feb 22, 2017


AJ,EJ, see when we talk about the SMSM, what do we mean? Is it an online presence that uses self-taught, casual labour to fill space, which is lightly edited? The Morton payment story was a juvenile piece written by a young man who may or not have been paid for it. It’s embarrassing and wouldn’t pass muster on TSFM, even without the Ad-hom element. I assume it brought hits to the DR website though, so maybe seen as a good bit of business.

ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 21, 2017 at 19:44  easyJamboFebruary 21, 2017 at 19:23And to give a little more credit to JJ, he certainly created a big enough splash to get the SMSM’s knickers in a twist! Typically, though, the SMSM are concentrating their efforts in debunking the messenger, rather than chasing the real story. Not seen a lot of quotes from either Morton or TRFC yet, and if there was a ‘good’ story there, it would have been published by now, we can be sure of that.

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on9:36 am - Feb 22, 2017


HomunculusFebruary 22, 2017 at 08:56 5 Votes 
BORDERSDON FEBRUARY 21, 2017 at 20:18
==================================================
Yes it’s interesting that no-one has brought up the exciting developments taking place with regards Aberdeen and Hearts and how they make it look like people are trying to move Scottish football forward with optimism for the future.
Wait, that’s not right, that did happen.
—————————————
BORDERSDON
Rule 1
Thou shalt not be mildly critical of Celtic in any way or Homunculus and others will jump upon you

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:47 am - Feb 22, 2017


BILL1903
FEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 09:36

===========================================

Actually he wasn’t being critical of Celtic in any way that I could see. He was taking a comment that someone made about a positive development at Celtic and using that to suggest that this was a Celtic blog.

I was merely pointing out that similar posts had recently been made about both Aberdeen and Hearts, and their stadium developments. How they showed that Scottish football was looking to the future and trying to develop the sport and the experience for the fans. Three clubs, that I know of planning major development of their facilities is surely a positive thing and as far from Armageddon as one can get.

Unless of course you think positive comments about Celtic should not be allowed. 

How are the plans for your new stadium going btw, it all looks very exciting. I’m assuming by the badge you are an Aberdeen supporter. 

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on11:37 am - Feb 22, 2017


Hom the 1903 is a clue also to Bill’s “agenda” and we all have one Barry Ferguson to TRFC say I following my own Bully Wee weltanschaung as we say down Ice Station Broadwood way.

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on12:26 pm - Feb 22, 2017


Not particularly keen on the location of the new stadium if I’m honest.
If it goes ahead(and I still have my doubts) I think the city council will regret not helping to find the club somewhere with the city.
Pittodrie isn’t a great place to watch football though so something’s got to give.

PS
I hate the fact that this site is seen by many Dons fans as a ‘Celtic’ forum and wish there were more post on here. There are certainly some I know with strong opinions who could contribute.

View Comment

tonyPosted on12:37 pm - Feb 22, 2017


BILL1903
get them signed up bill

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:38 pm - Feb 22, 2017


bluFebruary 22, 2017 at 09:23
“..AJ,EJ, see when we talk about the SMSM, what do we mean?…’
_______________
As I understand matters, blu, the ‘SMSM’ (Scottish main stream media)  as a term used on this SFM blog, means the traditional newspapers/national broadcasters operating in Scotland.

All of which , in their support for the Big Lie, are put to shame ( if they but knew the meaning of the word) by the Munich Post in pre-war Germany:

“…And the Munich Post never stopped reporting on this ultimate aim and on Hitler’s use of murder, decrying any attempts to “normalize” the tyrant. They kept fighting until two months after his January takeover. In March 1933, when the Nazis ruled the media and the Post was “legally” shut down. There had been a few other brave journalistic souls — Konrad Heiden, Fritz Gerlich. But swiftly, oh so swiftly, the order of the day became “gleichschaltung” — “realignment,” or forced conformity, savage normalization. Goebbels and other Nazi propagandists made it their crusade to get the German body politic “adjusted” to the new reign of terror. “Gleichschaltung” meant normalize or else.” 

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/normalization-lesson-munich-post/

The Munich Post guys were fighting evil on a scale that is almost beyond measure, and were prepared to face death in their resistance to that evil.

Our SMSM guys? Have they fought the ‘evil’ of the attempt by the Football Authorities to ‘normalize’ Scottish Football? Have they resisted  the Big Lie?have they tried  to call to account the supposed Guardians of our sport who so disgracefully threw out the very concept of Sporting Integrity as having any meaning or relevance in Scottish Football?

Have they hell.
Rather is it the case that they have actively collaborated in maintaining and fostering the Big Lie , and vie with each other in shoving it down our throats.

It is not too fanciful to imagine that, all things considered, they are the kind of journalists who would NOT have worked for the Munich Post!

They would quite happily have chosen ‘Gleichschaltung’ and trotted out untruths and Nazi PR stuff, saved their worthless necks, and died in the knowledge that they were hollow men, despising themselves, and despised by the world.

View Comment

Mark CPosted on1:26 pm - Feb 22, 2017


 
JOHN CLARKFEBRUARY 21, 2017 at 13:36 
incredibleadamsparkFebruary 21, 2017 at 11:55‘..Either way both sides can be poorly served by the SMSM and social media when half-truths, speculation and wishful thinking dominate to the exclusion of the facts.  ‘______________A very valid observation,incredibleadamspark.But, of course, there are actual facts, that SFM most definitely does not exclude.shall I list them all ( again?):RFC were liquidated.

 

I fully expect to be rounded on re this but the first “fact” you listed, actually isnt a “fact.”  Its actually EXACTLY the point incredibleadamspark raised so in trying to shoot his points down you proved his very point JC.

Again, big enough to take what may be inevitible flak but there is a lot of that in the case of Rangers/Sevco/The Rangers and what people present as facts but in the main are opinion.  

I get that the collective Opinion on here is that Rangers are a New Club, however there is a whole list of evidence for people who hold the opinion they are not.  Just saying its an established fact doesnt make it so, no matter how strongly one “feels” about it……..and that applies to both sides of course.

I have to say that the post above at 11:55 in its entirety is as close to my “opinion” on the entire saga as i have read online.

RFC are NOT liquidated.  That is a fact.  
RFC are a new club.  That is an opinion.
RFC are the same club. That is an opinion.

View Comment

bluPosted on1:26 pm - Feb 22, 2017


JOHN CLARKFEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 12:38  bluFebruary 22, 2017 at 09:23“..AJ,EJ, see when we talk about the SMSM, what do we mean?…’_______________As I understand matters, blu, the ‘SMSM’ (Scottish main stream media)  as a term used on this SFM blog, means the traditional newspapers/national broadcasters operating in Scotland.

Thanks John, that was sort of my point, no shit, Sherlock, that there is no or no substance to the SMSM – the Morton article in the DR responding to JJ’s blog was online and the young individual whose name was attached to it is a casual employee of Media Scotland, owners of the largest selling print daily in Scotland.  
The fact that someone allowed this piece to be published online (there surely wasn’t an editor involved?)  is clear evidence that whilst the publisher seems to think it needs an online presence, it sure as hell doesn’t provide any journalistic resource or structure for that presence. If we look at a very small point of reference – RTC, PMG, TSFM and Johnjamessite have all been plagiarised by what used to be known as the SMSM and now their online publishing streams. The decline in print sales is irreversible and online hits for advertising revenue are likely to follow the most successful British model out there, the Daily Mail, which gave up on journalism a long time ago and was responsible for mega-hit generating Sidebar of Shame. It doesn’t make any money either, mind you.

We may not like them all, but the bampots have won. 
  

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on1:30 pm - Feb 22, 2017


BORDERSDONFEBRUARY 21, 2017 at 20:18

     I believe this was the first post to mention Celtic’s rather marvellous and ambitious plans BD.  
———————————–
FEBRUARY 21, 2017 at 16:30 
Hearst, Aberdeen, and now Celtic.     I’m loving this Armageddon
http://www.celticfc.net/news/12125
———————————-
   If you forgive my typing error with Hearts, you will note that the invitation for Dons and Jambos to talk of their excitement is there. Don’t kid yourself on. These developments ARE exciting for Scottish fitba, and I have mentioned what Aberdeen and Hearts are doing in several or eighteral other posts. 
    I like your wee “Celtic site” jibes though. They do the site no harm, and probably a wee bit of good. It’s easy to become partisan, and a wee bit of banter never killed anybody. but the truth is I was genuinely excited when Celtic released the news, as I was when Hearts announced a new stand, and that you were to get a new sheep-dip. 06   

View Comment

tonyPosted on2:27 pm - Feb 22, 2017


MARK C

RFC are NOT liquidated. That is a fact.
they are going through the process of liquidation

RFC are a new club. That is an opinion.
it’s not an opinion,they started life as sevco

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:30 pm - Feb 22, 2017


Mark CFebruary 22, 2017 at 13:26
‘… and what people present as facts but in the main are opinion. …..’
____________.
Mark C,
I am quite a patient man.
But, really!
The Rangers of Sir David Murray, the Rangers that he sold for a pound to Craig Whyte, are in Liquidation.
The club that Charles Green founded as Sevcoscotland and renamed ultimately as The Rangers Football Club Ltd had to apply as a new club for membership of a league, any feckin league, in order to gain membership of the SFA and participate in professional football. 
Those are actual facts.
There is no room whatsoever for any ‘opinion’ on the matter.
Legally, commercially and in football legislation, the Rangers of 1872 no longer exists, except in law as a debt defaulter in liquidation, in the control of liquidators who are trying to get some money for the creditors of that monstrously cheating entity, among whom I ,as a taxpayer, number myself.
So, go away and have a think, and try to face reality.

View Comment

Mark CPosted on2:44 pm - Feb 22, 2017


As i said John, i knew it wouldnt go down well.
As you have NOW pointed out, “RFC are in liquidation” which is a different proposition from “RFC were liquidated”  One is a fact and the other isnt.

In relation to all the other stuff, i have read pretty much every word you and others have written on the matter on this forum and as strong a position that you paint, the fact remains that there are various courts and more importantly, football administrators who disagree with your assertion.

Rangers membership with the SFA is not a new membership as you claim.  The old membership was transferred across as confirmed by the SFA.  If as claimed Rangers were applying as a new club and a new membership then they would have been required to provide 3 years financial statements to do so and would therefore have been ineligible.

When it comes down to the sharp end of things, there is strong evidence on both sides of the fence on this particular issue.  

The problem i see is that the New Club theory is exclusively limited to Social Media commentary, which was part of the point being made. The Same Club theory has evidence on many sides, including courts and the football administrators.

Neither side can claim their opinions as fact on it.  Unless you are saying that we know more about it than the courts and football authorities.

View Comment

erniePosted on3:15 pm - Feb 22, 2017


How is the new Aberdeen stadium proposal going I hear you ask with baited breath?  Well, as it happens, I was shopping in Westhill today (other M&S are available) and there in front of me was another indicator of what is nae so good about Scottish fitba.  Oh yes, “Say no to Kingsford” (the proposed site of the new stadium) regaled the banner and a petition to sign to boot.  I had a wee word about the fact that the whole Westhill/Kingswells was wide open farming and wooded countryside in my youth but nevertheless neither I nor the general Aberdeen public objected when they (the nimbys) wanted to build their wee white boxes that pass for houses all over my bonny countryside.  Bitter, moi?
Of course Kingsford is not in Westhill but this does not stop the nimbys and also does not stop Aberdeenshire Council advising that the City should turn down the application.  Why is this a symptom of the state of Scottish fitba?  If the development was for another 1000 houses, 20 mega offices (there has been an explosion of these in this area), a hotel, a shopping mall (there is one in the pipeline apparently), a golf club or (I suggest) a rugby stadium there would not be a “campaign”.
I would prefer to remain at Pittodrie but can understand why the club wants to move to a new site.  If it falls through I can only say that, as a city, we get the sh*te facilities we deserve.  You would think that a half decent, self sufficient SPL team would be a positive feature of any city or town.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on3:28 pm - Feb 22, 2017


MARK CFEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 14:44

The problem with mentioning the courts wrt the same club thingy is that  we now know that this is an ethereal entity which can only be seen by believers or is a basket of assets  – I don’t recall it being referred to in other parlance in the courts . I am a “new club” adherent but am happy to be disabused of this notion . For starters, could someone explain the vote by the 12 SPL members on Sevco’s application to join (10 against, 1 abstention, and 1,RFC, in favour ?).

View Comment

tonyPosted on3:30 pm - Feb 22, 2017


MARK C

If as claimed Rangers were applying as a new club and a new membership then they would have been required to provide 3 years financial statements to do so and would therefore have been ineligible

which was the reason they never got european football that season despite finishing second
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%9312_Scottish_Premier_League#League_table

View Comment

FinlochPosted on3:31 pm - Feb 22, 2017


Rangers are in a box just waiting the for the lid to be closed when liquidation is complete.
They owed a lot of people money and social taxes, the things that keep things like hospitals and schools open. And pay the armed forces too because Rangers fans care about the armed forces.

Sevco Scotland and or maybe Sevco England started life as off the shelf companies who merged into a new club called sometimes “The Rangers” in the bottom division as the only final compromise Neil, Bill and Stuart could deliver to uphold their tawdry secret 5 way agreement.

The new, blue club even had to play Brechin in an early Ramsden cup round at Brechin as non-seeded aided by with questionable admin stuff facilitating the game in the chaos that week.

The New Sevco football club, not sure which one so I’ll just call it Rangers, didn’t play in Europe either in 2012 despite their runner-up league position and qualification.

The pesky star players just left because in law The New Rangers was not seen as the old one. and they didn’t tupe because they didn’t have to.
And in all the money lawyers have made along the way nobody took them to any kind of court to get Charlie more money.

The fans didn’t seem to want to notice as long as they were helping to fight the b ogg itry Charlie magicked up during a grumpy tv interview. They helped by singing the old crap even louder and spending loadsamoney.  It also allowed Stuart and Neil to avoid their own personal financial armageddon fears with big bonuses along the way.

Rod, Stewart, Peter and the powerful guys in charge of other clubs seemed happy enough too despite the fans like the bampots on SFM who think some stuff was finagled rather than done right.

Rangers (every one in the SMSM calls them Rangers rather than The Rangers) have spent a fortune getting back to where they are and it is amazing a club with such earning capacity seems to lose so much. 
Just think how good inverness would be with Rangers budgets and support.

Some fans and commentators (on both sides) really get angry about the status of Rangers but I think it has been very entertaining and there is more to come.

Maybe even another box?

View Comment

EastwoodPosted on3:32 pm - Feb 22, 2017


JOHN CLARKFEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 14:30
You mentioned the “Rangers of 1872” that is now in liquidaton.

Forgive me the minor, pedantic point but that corporation did not exist prior to its formation in 1899, as of course the incorporation process creates a new, separate legal entity.

Crediting existence to a corporation prior to the point of its own formation, merely for acquiring elements of a pre-existing business, is a logical impossibility Sevco know all about.

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on3:40 pm - Feb 22, 2017


MARK CFEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 14:44

At the time, I thought a ” Conditional Membership ” was given to Sevco Scotland not a remaining Membership transferred? Indeed there was much discussion as no-one had heard of such a Membership.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:56 pm - Feb 22, 2017


Mark C has posted his opinion, and that’s a fact. Like all of us, he is entitled, and welcome, to do that. He has somehow forgotten, though, that TRFC’s status as a new or old club is also bound by the rules of ‘fact’, and so cannot, both, be mere opinion. One has to be a fact.

There is/was no ‘factual’ line between Rangers Football Club Ltd, and Rangers Football Club, absolutely none, and so far, no one has even attempted to show that there is, or was, one. Until a lying spiv (recognised by all as such) claimed to have bought RFC’s history, and that owning the history equals being the history, it was accepted by all that the death of a football club entering liquidation was a FACT.

Since then, some people, all with a vested interest, have said that TRFC are Rangers Football Club, that is, at best, an OPINION, but could be more accurately described as a lie, put out there for purely commercial reasons, by a man whose business record is built on lies.

Is there something happening in the world of Sevco, now called The Rangers Football Club? For we seem to be getting an almost daily dose of people questioning our right to speculate, and now our right to view a fact as a fact!

Here’s a couple of  indisputable facts. (a) Rangers Football Club became a limited company. (b) There was no separate ‘club’, either in existence or imagination, ever seen or mentioned again.

On the other hand, even those who tried to convince us that the ‘club’ hadn’t died, and invented all sorts of daft names, like ‘engine room subsidiary’, tried to claim a ‘football club’ exists somewhere in the ‘hearts and minds’ of supporters, well excuse me, even if it does ‘exist’ there, only the deluded would see that as a fact!

So, as Rangers Football Club has to exist, or not, and one argument is based on fact, while the other on what some would like it to be, before anyone can argue that our position, based on facts, is mere opinion, they would have to show what merit the other position holds, also based on facts, not wishful thinking!

As with those who would question our speculation over financial events at Ibrox, who provide nothing in the way of an alternative interpretation, I would invite MarkC to enlighten us on how the FACT of ‘liquidation equals death’ became mere opinion!

I acknowledge RFC is currently in the process of liquidation and so so still exists, but it’s condition is terminal.

View Comment

EastwoodPosted on4:09 pm - Feb 22, 2017


ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 15:56 

“Here’s a couple of  indisputable facts. (a) Rangers Football Club became a limited company.”

My point to John Clark was seeking to address this confusion! You are on very dodgy ground if you wish to say that – because parts of a business are acquired by a newly-formed, *separate* legal entity, that such business BECOMES said legal entity. Simply false.

Every reference to Sevco Scotland Ltd (now TRFC) being established in 1872 attempts to play that exact trick. Factually incorrect. Sevco was formed in May 2012. Nothing pre-existing “became” it, whatever Level 5 choose to tell you.

Same goes for the 1899 entity.

View Comment

Mark CPosted on4:11 pm - Feb 22, 2017


 
TONY
FEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 15:30Rate This
MARK C
If as claimed Rangers were applying as a new club and a new membership then they would have been required to provide 3 years financial statements to do so and would therefore have been ineligible
which was the reason they never got european football that season despite finishing second

 

Tony, the reason they never got European Football is because amongst other things, they didnt meet the licence criteria on 31st March 2012.  The SFA and UEFA confirmed that to Duff and Duffer in April 2012.

The SFA confirmed on their website that the membership was transferred.  It was not a new membership.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10204

View Comment

Mark CPosted on4:16 pm - Feb 22, 2017


CHRISTYBOYFEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 15:40       2 Votes 
MARK CFEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 14:44
At the time, I thought a ” Conditional Membership ” was given to Sevco Scotland not a remaining Membership transferred? Indeed there was much discussion as no-one had heard of such a Membership.

______________________________________________________

The Conditional membership was given to allow the League season to start whilst the lawyers completed the legal documents.  

Once those were completed, the membership was transferred.  It was not a new membership.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsID=10252

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=3218&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10287

View Comment

Mark CPosted on4:21 pm - Feb 22, 2017


Allyjambo, I agree 1 has to be fact.  

My main point though is that if you asked the SFA, they would say same Club.  The SPFL would say same Club.  LNS summation said same Club.  Rod McKenzie said same Club.  Rangers fans obviously say same Club.

We all, in the main, say New Club.

For me, none of us on here have the legal standing or administrative power to say our view is fact and that all of the above are wrong.  Thats where it becomes opinion in my book.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:26 pm - Feb 22, 2017


As ridiculous as it sounds, if I was King I would seriously consider Bazza as assistant manager, [or even manager].

Bazza would seamlessly fit back into Ibrox: well he publicly comments on TRFC more than he does on his own club.

And his USP to boost ST sales is the connection to the old club and 9 IAR.

A McLeish / Bazza dreamteam would also surely sell the ST’s fast – whilst aided by a lot of sentimental spin about the old club.

[McLeish might be relatively expensive compared to Warbs, but Bazza would be cheap.]

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on4:41 pm - Feb 22, 2017


MARK CFEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 16:16

“whilst the lawyers completed the legal documents” 
I don’t follow that Mark C, legal documents for what? 

View Comment

BallyargusPosted on4:55 pm - Feb 22, 2017


Here we go again! Every so often another one appears with spurious arguments and is given time and space to write his take on the “Big Lie”. Where there is no merit to his/her opinions, if in fact that what they are, no-one should waste their time replying.
 I think this Mark C person is what others on here call “a squirrel” and should be ignored if not barred.

View Comment

steph1895Posted on4:58 pm - Feb 22, 2017


Mark C:
You are either having a bad day/month/year, but i will bite.
I am a creditor to the old Rangers in liquidation.
If it is the same club that plays at Ibrox; why am I bothering to get my pence in the pound (if anything at all), when I can just knock on the door at Edminston Drive and ask for my £k’s.
On a sporting front; can you tell me what date Rangers exited administration with the letter to prove that they have, sent to the SPFL/SFA in the timely manner as per Hearts??
As a consequence; if you haven’t exited administration, why haven’t Rangers been deducted more points??
As another strange consequence; how can a football team be relegated to the bottom tier – for entering administration or punishment or something else??
How can you be sent down the divisions by the authorities – that is very draconian and as far as I am aware, not in the rules.
Leaving debts behind and basically saying to myself (and of course others) f–k you, really gives me the boak.
Liquidation is a permanent thing not a pick and mix from Woolworths.
What,s that you say; Woolworths they are liquidated if you didn’t know, with a big hole on the corner of Argyll Street where it used to stand.
Never mind, I can get my pick and mix from the pound shop and reminisce and drown in the sea of nostalgia!!

View Comment

CrownStBhoyPosted on5:09 pm - Feb 22, 2017


BALLYARGUSFEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 16:55Here we go again! Every so often another one appears with spurious arguments and is given time and space to write his take on the “Big Lie”. Where there is no merit to his/her opinions, if in fact that what they are, no-one should waste their time replying. I think this Mark C person is what others on here call “a squirrel” and should be ignored if not barred.

100% correct.

View Comment

tonyPosted on5:51 pm - Feb 22, 2017


BALLYARGUS
yes,i’m finished with my debate,for what it was

View Comment

nawlitePosted on6:07 pm - Feb 22, 2017


This isn’t anything to do with Mark C’s recent contributions, which like Ballyargus, I view as a squirrel. Why he is squirreling right now, I’m not sure but usually it means there is something worth deflecting us away from so eyes open everyone!
I’m only posting because coincidentally I received today a response to my complaint about the Scottish Sun’s reporting of the Coral vs Kinloch case.
Back on 12 January, I complained about the wording used – “Near the end of this article, this sentence appears “…Months later they were liquidated and a new Rangers formed, but SPL clubs voted to relegate them to the Third Division.” The first and second parts of that sentence cannot both be the truth. If, as the writers say, a NEW club was formed after liquidation, how can that NEW club then be relegated? The new club was allowed entry to the SPFL after a vote by SPFL clubs. I would like you to explain what the sentence in question actually means, please?”
The online complaint process passed it to someone at the main Sun who replied “Dear Mr Xxx, I am passing this on to the Scottish sports editor for a response as I’m afraid I wouldn’t know where to start with this one.  Hope you get a reply soon.Best wishesPhilippa Kennedy
I had to chase a couple of times and eventually received this today.
Dear Mr Xxx,The Scottish office have come back to me on your complaint and they believe they gave an accurate record of events.
The status of Rangers as a club that has been relegated is a source of contention, as outlined by this report on a court case about whether or not a bookmaker would settle a bet on Rangers being relegated.
The company ‘The Rangers Football Club’ entered administration and liquidation in 2012. 
The business and assets of that company were purchased by another company – then Sevco, now Rangers International Football Club – who continue to trade as a football club named Rangers from Ibrox and enjoy the continued support of Rangers fans. 
The new Rangers company acquired the old Rangers company’s SFA membership.
As part of the agreement the old Rangers company’s share in the then Scottish Premier League was transferred to Dundee and sanctions relating to the club were taken on by the new Rangers company.
This has variously been interpreted as Rangers being relegated, Rangers beginning again at the bottom of the Scottish league structure and an entirely new club beginning at the bottom of the Scottish league structure.
‘Relegate’ when used in this context can refer to either the specific football authority action of dropping down leagues or the more general definition of the word “to assign an inferior rank or position to”.
While there can be contention about whether what happened to Rangers constitutes relegation in the footballing sense it is clear the de facto position was that Rangers did ply there trade at a lower rank or position to the season before.
The Scottish Sun believes the language used was entirely accurate.  I hope this answers your query.  With best wishes and apologies for the delay.Philippa Kennedy
So it looks as if the Sun has decided to adopt the general definition of the word ‘relegation’. I wonder if the judge will do likewise!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on6:12 pm - Feb 22, 2017


EastwoodFebruary 22, 2017 at 16:09 
ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 15:56 
“Here’s a couple of  indisputable facts. (a) Rangers Football Club became a limited company.”
My point to John Clark was seeking to address this confusion! You are on very dodgy ground if you wish to say that – because parts of a business are acquired by a newly-formed, *separate* legal entity, that such business BECOMES said legal entity. Simply false.
Every reference to Sevco Scotland Ltd (now TRFC) being established in 1872 attempts to play that exact trick. Factually incorrect. Sevco was formed in May 2012. Nothing pre-existing “became” it, whatever Level 5 choose to tell you.
Same goes for the 1899 entity.
_______________

I’m not sure what you are meaning, I was taking about RANGERS FC, not The Rangers FC (previously Sevco).

RFC was a club, that club became a limited company in 1899 (I’d have put that date but couldn’t remember it), that is the fact I was referring to. Sevco was a limited company, it changed it’s name to The Rangers Football Club, which was not the fact I was referring to. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on6:36 pm - Feb 22, 2017


Mark CFebruary 22, 2017 at 16:21 
Allyjambo, I agree 1 has to be fact.  
My main point though is that if you asked the SFA, they would say same Club.  The SPFL would say same Club.  LNS summation said same Club.  Rod McKenzie said same Club.  Rangers fans obviously say same Club.
We all, in the main, say New Club.
For me, none of us on here have the legal standing or administrative power to say our view is fact and that all of the above are wrong.  Thats where it becomes opinion in my book.
_____________________

So far the SFA have avoided answering that question, Regan leaving it to the Rangers supporters to decide how they wanted to view the club – there is a reason why it is avoided! The SPL (now SPFL) rules stated a new club would be ‘treated’ as the same club (so be liable for any penalties of the old club), the word ‘treated’ is very telling.. LNS said Rangers ‘ceased to be’, something always ignored by those who wish to claim the ‘same club’ narrative, while only ‘acknowledging’ that the SPL treated them as the same club.

On the other hand, UEFA have stated quite clearly, that TRFC is a new club, and so not liable to face sanctions over the old club’s misdeeds. 

It was a High Court judge who described the suggestion that ‘the club’ lives on in The Rangers FC as metaphysics. I am no expert on metaphysics, but I do know it doesn’t relate to facts belonging to this world!

However, facts are not changed by words, no matter who says them, the fact is that ‘Rangers’ were a limited company, nothing else existed as a club called Rangers, that limited company is now in liquidation. There is no ‘fact’ that separates club from company, just words that were never used to describe the effect of liquidation until it became a reality.

View Comment

jimboPosted on6:58 pm - Feb 22, 2017


Just heard on the radio that Hearts have decided to bring forward replacing the pitch.  Starting in the next couple of days.  2 weeks to get it laid down and settled in.  Apparently this turf is about 6 inches thick and wont move or cut up as easily as previous new pitches which needed a summer to bed in.  A lot more expensive.  Ms. Budge doesn’t hang around!

Should be a better game tonight I think the Easter Road pitch is in good nick.  Can’t get it on the TV – why organise the replay on a CL night?  I’ll listen to it on the radio.  Good luck to all concerned.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on7:06 pm - Feb 22, 2017


With Sevco having 60 applicants for the managers job, will that be 59 disappointed managers finding out they handed in their resignations last week, for using their club as a stepping stone?     Did Sevco really give Morton’s money to Port Vale for a back-up keeper?    Is the skeleton of a nomad lying unclaimed in the lost property dept of Glasgow airport?   Has “Murts” not applied for the job, until they tell him he applied  last Monday?   Was Joey really a Jailbird?    Is Chuck really a puppet?    Will SFM ever be distracted from attempting to look behind the spin by squirrels?
    All these questions, and many more, will be answered in next week’s episode…Of ……..

View Comment

Mark CPosted on7:07 pm - Feb 22, 2017


CHRISTYBOYFEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 16:41
“whilst the lawyers completed the legal documents” I don’t follow that Mark C, legal documents for what?

It was in the links i provided Christyboy.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsCategoryID=3&newsID=10204

The above link is where the temporary conditional membership was first mentioned followed by the below link to confirm the membership has been transferred

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=1961&newsID=10252

BALLYARGUS and CROWNSTBHOY who want me barred??  For what ??

Let me clear something up.  Every bit of my insides believed when the liquidation process started, the CVA rejected and Sevco setting out again meant New Club.   I still believe it.  Nowhere, anywhere above have i said any differently.  

However, I cant argue with a lot of the evidence that supports the opposing opinion of mine. 

The point was made by INCREDIBLEADAMSPARK very eloquently in my opinion that ” both sides can be poorly served by the SMSM and social media when half-truths, speculation and wishful thinking dominate to the exclusion of the facts. ”  

This was challenged by JC and in challenging it, in my opinion proved the point that was being made.

I still believe they are a New Club.  The difference, it appears is that im not willing to shut down all opposing opinions to me and simply state im right and all of them are wrong.  My opinion on Rangers being a New Club is not a Fact.

So in short, you want me banned because even although i probably hold the exact same opinion as you on Rangers being a New Club, im not allowed to express on here freely that there is evidence which challenges my opinion in it.   

If thats the case then you should start an election campaign for the USA in 4 years.  I here voters over there like that kind of thinking.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on7:17 pm - Feb 22, 2017


STEPH1895FEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 16:58 

As another strange consequence; how can a football team be relegated to the bottom tier – for entering administration or punishment or something else??

==================================

Indeed

Can we just remember again.

The SPL and SFL were different leagues at that time. The SPL had 1 tier and the SFL 3.

There was an agreement between the two that clubs could move from the top tier of the SFL to the single tier of the SPL. With other clubs making the opposite journey. That was the only form of relegation in place. 

Rangers applied to join the SPL and it was rejected.

They applied to join the SFL and were accepted.

No relegation involved. Applying to join something, being rejected, then applying to join something else is not relegation. 

I believe all of the above are facts, that may just be my opinion though. 

View Comment

Mark CPosted on7:23 pm - Feb 22, 2017


 ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 18:36  LNS said Rangers ‘ceased to be’, something always ignored by those who wish to claim the ‘same club’ narrative, while only ‘acknowledging’ that the SPL treated them as the same club.

 

ALLYJAMBO, im afraid this another half truth which again backs up the point being made.  LNS never said that at all.  The report said: “That power must continue to apply even if the owner and operator at the time of breach of the Rules has ceased to be a member of the SPL and its undertaking has been transferred to another owner and operator. While there can be no question of subjecting the new owner and operator to sanctions, there are sanctions which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which are capable of affecting the Club as a continuing entity (even though not an entity with legal personality)”

As i said in my last post, i wish none of this was out there but every time i think i get it, something else crops up that offers the alternative opinion.

View Comment

EastwoodPosted on7:26 pm - Feb 22, 2017


ALLYJAMBOFEBRUARY 22, 2017 at 18:12

In 1899, the “Club” as you refer to it did not *become* the 1899 Corporation. Once aspects comprising its business were transferred to the new company, it would have been dissolved. 

Attempting to establish continuity in the stuff that transfers between the two – legally entirely DIFFERENT – entities is exactly the trick being played by same club apologists in recent times.

Incorporation creates a new entity. Attempts to reach back to 1872 may tug on the heart strings of some, but has absolutely no basis in law. 

View Comment

Comments are closed.