Small Price to Pay?

Avatar 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

Avatar

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

Avatar

billyj1Posted on7:49 pm - Feb 23, 2017


I see Leicester have fired Ranieri. Is this the reason why TRFC have stalled in appointing a manager since they were waiting on their preferred choice becoming a free agent.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:55 pm - Feb 23, 2017


JOHN CLARKFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 14:35   
(Of course, if the Supreme Court supports the Court of Session judgment, we can nail the LNS ridiculous ‘no sporting advantage’ nonsense,which will certainly require the stripping of various illicitly won titles and what-not)

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

That ‘Phantom’ Rangers blogger is claiming today that Stewart Robertson was given assurances last week from the SPFL that there will be no title stripping whatsoever in the event BDO lose the Supreme Court appeal.  He also clams Robertson requested them to make a public announcement to that effect but they refused.  I have read that the ‘Phantom’ is a mainstream hack who uses his blogs to get stuff out he can’t get through his paper. Could be absolute rubbish of course. 

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on8:10 pm - Feb 23, 2017


UPTHEHOOPS
FEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 19:55 
JOHN CLARK
FEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 14:35   (Of course, if the Supreme Court supports the Court of Session judgment, we can nail the LNS ridiculous ‘no sporting advantage’ nonsense,which will certainly require the stripping of various illicitly won titles and what-not)
===========================
That ‘Phantom’ Rangers blogger is claiming today that Stewart Robertson was given assurances last week from the SPFL that there will be no title stripping whatsoever in the event BDO lose the Supreme Court appeal.  He also clams Robertson requested them to make a public announcement to that effect but they refused.  I have read that the ‘Phantom’ is a mainstream hack who uses his blogs to get stuff out he can’t get through his paper. Could be absolute rubbish of course. 
===========================

Regardless of the Supreme Court decision, I just can’t see the SFA doing an about turn, and finally get tough with TRFC.

In recent years, the Hampden blazers have repeatedly displayed their preference for ;
secrecy / misinformation / lies / rule breaking / looking the other way,
when it comes to ‘dealing’ with the multitude of Ibrox indiscretions.

I’m quite sure they will come up with some b*llox to avoid even revisiting LNS.

In the lead up to the Court ruling will we also see a coordinated PR campaign – to try to ‘condition’ the Scottish public into accepting that “Rangers has suffered enough!”.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:54 pm - Feb 23, 2017


STEVIEBCFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 20:10
Regardless of the Supreme Court decision, I just can’t see the SFA doing an about turn, and finally get tough with TRFC.
————————-
They may want to not do anything, but the pressure from all scottish fans should make them think again. I believe it will be the ordinary fans who will demand it.
—————————–
In the lead up to the Court ruling will we also see a coordinated PR campaign – to try to ‘condition’ the Scottish public into accepting that “Rangers has suffered enough!”.
———————–
It may be the reason why the front page in the record today

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on8:59 pm - Feb 23, 2017


STEVIEBC
In the lead up to the Court ruling will we also see a coordinated PR campaign – to try to ‘condition’ the Scottish public into accepting that “Rangers has suffered enough!”.

the new rangers have already said this is nothing to do with them,have they not

View Comment

Avatar

theredpillPosted on9:06 pm - Feb 23, 2017


A wee read for anyone who missed out first time round.

https://rangerstaxcase.wordpress.com/2015/11/30/the-never-ending-story/

View Comment

Sergio Biscuits

Sergio BiscuitsPosted on9:08 pm - Feb 23, 2017


EASTWOOD,

The FA guide from 2015 was the one where I got my info from and I didn’t find any mention of dissolving clubs who decide to become incorporated, but then why would there be any need for it?
Should a club become an empty shell to be discarded and have its history terminated for merely changing it’s corporate structure? Of course not, it’s never happened before and never will either. 
While these structures change a club from a legal standpoint, which I think is what you are getting at, in footballing terms and the rules and regulations which govern the game, only liquidation ends a club’s history………………well all clubs, bar one seemingly!
Every club that incorporated in Scottish football has kept their history pre-incorporation and rightly so, with no legal challenge.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on9:36 pm - Feb 23, 2017


Mark CFebruary 23, 2017 at 16:10
‘……can you explain why the SFA said:..’
_________
God Almighty man! They said what they said because they were determined to ‘save Rangers’ regardless of truth!
They said ” ..and Sevco Scotland Ltd, who will be the new owners of The Rangers Football Club. “
SevcoScotland Ltd simply did not become the ‘new owners’ of Rangers. There was no ‘Rangers’ to become owners of.
Sevco Scotland were merely the owners of a cheaply sold stadium and odds and sods of other accoutrements that had been sold to them by the Administrators.
And citing the SFA as any kind of authority for the truth of what they say when it is they who are the’accused’ is really rather silly, and  bit like asking SDM whether he cheated!

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on10:01 pm - Feb 23, 2017


UPTHEHOOPSFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 19:55
That ‘Phantom’ Rangers blogger is claiming today that Stewart Robertson was given assurances last week from the SPFL that there will be no title stripping whatsoever in the event BDO lose the Supreme Court appeal. He also clams Robertson requested them to make a public announcement to that effect but they refused.
————————-
TONYFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 20:59
the new rangers have already said this is nothing to do with them,have they not
———————–
It should be nothing to do with the new ibrox club.As i said earlier i believe it will be down to fan pressure to make the SFA do the correct thing if  BDO lose the Supreme Court appeal,
whatever happens it will be interesting

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on10:13 pm - Feb 23, 2017


Not sure but assuming the ‘Alex’ on Sportsound tonight was Alex Rae.

In relation to Warbutron he clearly chocked and couldn’t get the word ‘sacked’ out of his mouth when describing the options of how the Magic Hat left Ibrox ‘Resigned’ and ‘eh, eh, eh  left’ was as good as it got. Words like Sacked, TUPE, NOMAD  and Liquidation appear to be some words that dare not be spoken by those with blue tinted specs.

He then got into some daft conversation with Graham Spiers in a ‘show us your medals’ type argument re the pros and cons of McLeish v Davies.

Well Mr Rae anything you and your preferred managerial candidate McLeish won at Rangers were tainted by EBTS and your managerial and coaching career has been nothing short of pure gash. 

Other than being slightly better at kicking a baw than my grandad,  WTF is it you have to offer us in relation to taking Scottish football forward? Nowt. Bye and thank you.

(PS feel I may be turning into Up the Hoops!!!!)

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on11:13 pm - Feb 23, 2017


This is embarrassing the guy and his team is no longer there, how many weeks has this site been left is money too tight to mention??https://rangers.co.uk/teams/
15

View Comment

Avatar

EastwoodPosted on11:25 pm - Feb 23, 2017


SERGIO BISCUITSFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 21:08 
The FA guide from 2015 was the one where I got my info from and I didn’t find any mention of dissolving clubs who decide to become incorporated, but then why would there be any need for it?Should a club become an empty shell to be discarded and have its history terminated for merely changing it’s corporate structure? Of course not, it’s never happened before and never will either.
___________________________
That guide describes in copious detail the process of transferring the business, assets, liabilities etc from the unincorporated body to the newly-formed company. For instance…

9. Transfer of Assets and Liabilities. Once the new legal entity has been formed, it will be critical to ensure that all assets (and those liabilities which the new entity is willing to take on) of its predecessor are transferred to the new entity – i.e. anything which was owned or owed by the club must be transferred into the name of the new entity on a certain date or dates…

So what is the nature of this “club” that you insist lives on after incorporation, retaining the history prior to the formation of the new legal entity? Do you think the unincorporated, constituted body – that has now been rendered totally redundant – lives on somewhere, somehow? The members meeting up for a drink in the pub or something, just keeping up the charade in order to claim the history of the defunct body?

Or, alternatively, we face the facts that continuity of that unincorporated body exists on a metaphysical plane entirely distinct from that of the law, in which the company “won” nothing prior to its own existence – by definition. 

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on11:38 pm - Feb 23, 2017


Looking forward to countdown as feb draws to a close 15
Guidance
Time is running out to use the Employee Benefit Trust settlement opportunityPublished 14 August 2014ContentsWithdrawal – 31 March 2015Settlements after 31 March 2015Why is the opportunity being withdrawn now?What are my options?What happens if I don’t settle?This settlement opportunity ended on 31 July 2015. You can still settle after that date, but the treatment of the agreement will be different.
Withdrawal – 31 March 2015Employers who used an Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) before 6 April 2011 must notify HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) by 31 March 2015 if they wish to take advantage of the beneficial terms of the EBT Settlement Opportunity (EBTSO) to settle the resulting PAYE and National Insurance contributions liabilities.
The EBTSO will only be available to employers who have notified HMRC of their intention to settle under the EBTSO before 31 March 2015 and then only for agreements that are subsequently entered into before 31 July 2015 with all amounts due under the settlement agreement either paid by that date or with a signed time to pay agreement in place.
Settlements after 31 March 2015If an employer notifies HMRC after 31 March 2015 that they wish to settle, HMRC will continue to settle appeals by way of agreement where appropriate but not on the beneficial terms of the EBTSO. HMRC’s expectation is that this will mean an increase in the amount on which HMRC is prepared to settle and which, in some cases, could be significant.
Why is the opportunity being withdrawn now?Since the launch of the EBTSO in April 2011, over 700 employer-level users, with significantly greater numbers of beneficiary employees beneath them, have taken advantage of its terms and settled with HMRC. But it was never intended to be open-ended – HMRC’s other settlement opportunities have defined operational periods. The decision to withdraw the EBTSO will allow HMRC to redirect resources into progressing the appeals of employers who don’t take advantage of the EBTSO by the cut off date. This reflects HMRC’s determination to reduce the use of avoidance schemes and bring enquiries to closure whilst allowing a reasonable period for those wishing to settle to do so. Employers need to make a simple decision, either to settle with us or be prepared to litigate their use of the scheme. And they will need to make that decision soon. Withdrawing the EBTSO now is one of the ways HMRC believe that they can encourage users to reach that decision point.
What are my options?Employers are invited to contact HMRC to discuss how the terms of the EBTSO would impact in their particular circumstances. If you already have a regular contact at HMRC, please contact them in the first instance.
If you don’t have a regular contact, please get in touch with one of the 4 lead contacts in HMRC for EBTs:
Andy Barnett
Phil Gilbert
Lesley Houlston
Bill Joyce
HMRC will make sure you’re allocated one of our specialist team to take forward discussion and agreement of the settlement amounts with you and/or your nominated representative.04
What happens if I don’t settle?12HMRC is also directing resource into litigating those who don’t take up the EBTSO, to ensure those cases reach the Tribunal as quickly as possible.

View Comment

Sergio Biscuits

Sergio BiscuitsPosted on12:42 am - Feb 24, 2017


EASTWOOD,

The nature of this club would be a football club, now company, having changed it’s corporate structure, like I said before.
The members, now directors and shareholders, would probably be sitting in the pub looking forward to the new season. After all, it would no doubt have been their idea to change the club’s status so they’re unlikely to saunter off into the sunset and leave the fruits of their labour to someone else, would they? No charade required.
When you think of all the lawyers kicking about football these days, you have to wonder why none of them have ever questioned the incorporation thing. You’d think at least one of them would have realised by now that a club can’t legally keep trophies it won before incorporation. Maybe one day someone will catch on……………………..

View Comment

Avatar

Mark CPosted on1:16 am - Feb 24, 2017


JOHN CLARKFEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 21:36 God Almighty man! They said what they said because they were determined to ‘save Rangers’ regardless of truth!

Im glad you cleared that up JC.  Im 100% confident in my stance now that its opinion and not fact.

Even IF, it is in direct contradiction to MY OWN opinion.  Something i can live with.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on2:42 am - Feb 24, 2017


BIGBOAB1916
FEBRUARY 23, 2017 at 23:13
This is embarrassing the guy and his team is no longer there, how many weeks has this site been left is money too tight to mention??https://rangers.co.uk/teams/
========================

Has Wee Stevie in IT ‘been resigned’ as well then ?

I think we should be told.

Ah’ll get ma mouse…  09

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on7:26 am - Feb 24, 2017


Did mini Murray do his speech about fishes and loaves does anyone know?

View Comment

Avatar

HighlanderPosted on7:33 am - Feb 24, 2017


There has been considerable debate in recent days about the process and effect of the incorporation of a specific Scottish football club into a company. We have been provided with extracts from, and links to, various rules and regulations, some of which relate to rugby and golf clubs, and all of which relate to English law.
 
Whilst this may be vaguely interesting, it’s as relevant to Scottish football as the laws, rules and regulations of the Yak Herders League of Uzbekistan, since we are governed here by Scots law and the Scottish football authorities.
 
Perhaps if, instead of indulging in semantics, Mark C and Eastwood in particular, both of whom assure us that they believe a new club currently operates out of Ibrox, could instead simply provide us with the facts which made them reach the conclusion that the old club died, we can be done with the subject for good.

View Comment

Giovanni

GiovanniPosted on8:41 am - Feb 24, 2017


In my memory I had the date of the next Sports Direct (Ashley) vs RIFC (KIng/Murray) court appearance as being March 2017, which I think I got from the SMSM. 

However in a recent twitter feed Mr Mac Giolla Bháin quoted someone called RhebelRhebel who stated that the date is 13th July 2017. 

Being somewhat confused I though I’d ask the experts on SFM. So when is it, please?

Although this is probably just another ‘craft’ moment on my part.

View Comment

Avatar

EastwoodPosted on9:56 am - Feb 24, 2017


HIGHLANDERFEBRUARY 24, 2017 at 07:33

Quick point – Company Law is reserved to the UK government. There may be local registrars of companies in Scotland, N Ire, England and Wales, but the same form is filled in and process followed north or south of the border.

It should be very obvious why I believe Sevco to be a new entity – it didn’t exist before May 2012! The old PLC is now liquidation, awaiting death. These facts cannot – nor have been to my knowledge has – denied. How could they?!

Rangers Football Club ceased to exist over a hundred years ago, replaced by the corporation now awaiting dissolution. To suggest any other entities are at play in this story (beyond parents like MIH, Wavetower, RFC International etc) is to move beyond the realms of the law. What is a football club if it is *not* either a corporation, or an unincorporated constituted body rendered defunct and wound up after incorporation? Perhaps someone could tell me…

SERGIO BISCUITSFEBRUARY 24, 2017 at 00:42“The nature of this club would be a football club, now company, having changed it’s corporate structure, like I said before.”

I repeat my question, as it’s a crucial one – what is a “football club”, as you refer, if not either:
1. An unincorporated body – Dissolved after incorporation has transferred its business and assets to the newly-formed corporation.
 2. A corporation, a separate legal entity that springs into existence at the point it is registered and has no claim to past exploits prior to its formation.

I am having little luck in persuading Sergio to let go of his notion of a “football club” that exists before a company is formed – so is patently not equivalent to X company – yet, somehow, survives the incorporation process, so is not synonymous with any unincorporated body.

Does anyone dare step into the realm of the metaphysical to allucidate this idea, or explain how this ethereal “football club” should be defined?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:21 am - Feb 24, 2017


To be fair Eastwood makes a very good point and debunks the “holding company” myth.

In the beginning was Rangers Football Club, it was started by four young men with a dream. They formed this club and saw that it was good.

However they decided that the best way forward for everyone was for that club to become a Ltd Company. They could be the shareholder and directors, or whoever it was who operated the club at that time could. However the point is that either a, the club ceased to exist and the Ltd Co came into being or b, the club became the Ltd Co. One can argue which happened all day long but the net effect is the same. The entity is now a Ltd Co, either brand new or the club has changed into it. 

At that point there is a limited company, it is Rangers. There is no other Rangers. There is no holding company with a subsidiary, no way for one thing to survive without the other, there is only one entity which lives or dies. That Ltd company was formed in may 1899.

In the future that Ltd Company becomes a PLC. There is no dubiety over that one it keeps the same company number it is SC004276, it is the same entity it has simply changed from a Private Ltd Co to a Public Ltd Co (a PLC). There is still no separation, still no holding company, still no subsidiary, it is one entity.

That entity, which has now changed it’s name to RFC 2012 Plc, still using the registration number SC004276 is currently in liquidation, it still exists. The same company, which was formed from the original club, still exists.

There can be only one. 

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on10:53 am - Feb 24, 2017


Smugas February 24, 2017 at 07:26
Did mini Murray do his speech about fishes and loaves does anyone know?
=========================
I believe that there is a post on Follow Follow about it, but I don’t have access to it.

From what I’ve seen about it previously, the event was held under Chatham House Rules meaning that those sensitive ICAS qualified souls should not discuss what was said on social media.

One thing I have picked up on though was that he claimed that the oldco ran on a break even basis without UEFA income.
(no laughing at the back 06)

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on11:08 am - Feb 24, 2017


Eastwood,

If your reading of the law and regulations is correct, and I have no reason to think that it is not, then the ‘break’ in continuity that occurred around the turn of the last century when clubs incorporated is a legal reality.

In fact it is one of those things that has come up several times before and I personally find it hard to argue with.

The difference of course between that industry-wide change and the situation with regard to Rangers is this;

The club/company transition of the 19th century was a voluntary construct employed by healthy football clubs to protect club members from liability and to better serve the running of the ever-growing football business. The authorities never questioned the continuity of those undertakings. 

The RFC/TRFC turnaround was an involuntary consequence of a failed and decidedly unhealthy football club (company) whose identity has been left open by SFA proclamations (the SFA being the only body with the authority to do any proclaiming in these matters).

Is the new Third Lanark the holders of the Hi-Hi history and honours since they call themselves Third Lanark and played at Cathkin? I think not, because catastrophic failure is not (usually) rewarded in that way.

Since I am not a legal practitioner, I have to steer myself away from legalities, but there is little doubt that precedent in Scottish football was set aside when Rangers were placed in liquidation. No other club causes TV presenters and journalists to hesitate before uttering their name. Boiler-room subsidiary. Where and who other than TRFC? The company that controls the club; what the actual feck are they talking about?

Eastwood’s contribution can clarify one thing for us. In his scenario, the ‘club’ is not some ethereal entity, but something real that is dissolved on incorporation of the new business, therefore the ‘club’ as we now speak of it, is  ‘the company’. Same thing.

The continued use of the term ‘club’ has given rise to the semantic gymnastics through which the myth is perpetrated, but it really was never necessary.

Rangers fans would have followed a self confessed new club playing in blue at Ibrox just as readily as they did the current mythological one – and the pariah status that is now attached to them would probably never have widened out beyond G40.

The trouble is that Charles Green either didn’t trust the fans to rally round, or understand them. Consequently, the OCNC thing will always be a bone of contention, and TRFC will, in perpetuity, be the only football club in the country with a ‘?’ before or after their name.

Ultimately that is not a good thing for the game, but hey, Charlie made his tidy packet didn’t he?

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on11:21 am - Feb 24, 2017


Re Paul Murrays talk this is from a post on Follow Follow.

As I am not a member of ICAs I assume I am not subject to the Chatham House Rules 🙂

Nothing that we didn’t already know, the format was different from what was advertised. Guy introduced PM saying that you’ll be disappointed as it won’t be ‘inside story of Rangers’ as it had been advertised. It was PM talking about his career mostly.
Things that I did find interesting….- He expects there to be a change to European structure driven by non-English leagues in ‘Big 5’ as they’re unhappy with their TV revenue in comparison to England’s, pointed out how Bournemouth can outbid Bayern Munich. Also money/interest in China having an affect, he can foresee the day when Chinese league says to Man Utd/City forget your league here’s 100M to come play a game in Beijing.- Said that some clubs have profit centres that purely look to buy young players to coach them with intention of selling on at a profit. Gave the impression that there was no real expectation that they’d ever make the first team, cited Man Utd and Chelsea.- Reiterated how under Alastair Johnston we ran the Club to break even against the money we knew was certain (38 league games and reasonable runs in domestic cups) and any European and extra commercial money would be reinvested in staff/infrastructure. We knew that already but he gave the impression that sees it as way forward.
Other than that he spoke very well, had a few digs at them (took a straw poll ‘hands up if you support Rangers, hands up the cel’ic fans, hearts, hibs…. and finally where are the cel’ic financial directors?! Also, when talking about 2008 season and us playing 4 games in a week said ‘it was all in the name of sporting integrity of course’).
He doesn’t give much away when he talks but can tell the affection he has for Rangers, spoke of the pride he has at being able to say he has been chairman of Rangers Football Club.
He said we’re taking time to get the DoF/manager right as there’s only been 15 people who’ve managed Rangers in our history and it’s an incredibly privileged position and it’s important that we get it right.
Nothing we didn’t know and not what was advertised but interesting all the same.

So despite all the talk of transparency no-one, even ICAS, members are any further forward re the inside story down Ibrox way.
I also note that the Bears were complaining that members of Celtic’s finance department had apparently signed up to the talk.
Clearly they have no understanding of how such peer to peer type talks work and why others working in the same industry may have an interest.

View Comment

incredibleadamspark

incredibleadamsparkPosted on11:24 am - Feb 24, 2017


In the beginning you had, and I’m sure I’ll miss a few, EBTs, side letters, cover ups, Campbell Oglvie, European licenses, SFA corruption, LNS and the liquidation process. I can get right behind discussing this, trying to shine a light, because of all the information and evidence that exists. There are a few notable exceptions, but getting in the way has been, and continues to be, a very poor SMSM who lack the desire/resources/skills to pursue this in the correct manner. Every fan of every club has been let down by them. What was started by RTC has been continued on here and other places.
 
Since Rangers were granted entry into the league, as a new club, I’m struggling to see the need for such analysis and focus on them. The other day someone said Rangers were guilty until proven innocent and that seems to be the general feeling. My view is that other websites, I don’t include SFM and never did in my original post that seems to have started something, exist in the main to talk about Rangers. I read a lot of speculation masquerading as the truth.    
 
When I was a Rangers fan I would participate on Rangers websites and be called a ‘timposter’ with no one entirely convinced I was a fan. It made me smile to be called a Rangers apologist the other day. Once my granddad got too ill to attend matches it was never the same. I was also a bit older and wiser and started to ask questions about David Murray. I eventually moved away, lost interest and win, lose or draw, remain unmoved. That was about ten years ago.
 
Recently I did consider going back to Ibrox. My Dad started taking the grandson, my nephew, and thought about being there with them. I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t do it because of all the things mentioned in the first paragraph. I do understand the anger. This is an unprecedented scandal and an absolute disgrace that it could possibly happen.

But what’s happening at Rangers now? I just don’t see as that important. Maybe I’m tired of the whole thing, this unquenchable thirst for wrongdoing, perceived or otherwise. They are only hurting themselves, lying to and cheating their own fans as other clubs go about the business of becoming well run, sustainable clubs with modern facilities. Rangers have been left behind, forced to steal water from the Kirk and with a roof in imminent danger of collapse.           

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on11:28 am - Feb 24, 2017


Speaking on financial matters I thought it was good to hear Graham Speirs on Sportsound last night re-iterating the Europa League football did provide a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow nor the answers to T’Rangers financial problems.

Like every other club playing in Europe is something to strive for. It puts down a marker of success/progress domestically and a provides a measure of ability when up against our Euro cousins.

It is however, despite the impression given from members of the Blue Room,  not the be all and end all when it comes to generating income albeit a few full houses at Ibrox or elsewhere is always welcomed.
 

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on11:57 am - Feb 24, 2017


BP

This is genuinely not badness, nor any desire in any way to perpetuate this OC/NC debate.  But…

In fairness the argument vis a vis the club is not, in the SFA’s eyes at least, tied up in the legal semantics of incorporation, association or whatever.  Mackenzie in his frankly pathetic submission in the Coral case was absolutely clear that there was a membership-holding club (highlighting the small ‘c’) this legally definable entity that did legal stuff like contracts and held debt and he was in no doubt that (with a nod to the continuing work of BDO) effectively, to our intents and purposes, there is no longer a membership holding club doing that stuff at least not the original one. 

What he does is introduce this previously considered bizarre concept of a Club (big ‘C’).  This Club apparently is entirely different to the legal presence, persona and stature of the little ‘c’ club so whilst I am indebted to those fighting the incorporation company and club angle that is to divert slightly from what the SFA are actually trying to say here.  The Club, they argue, is essentially the membership itself*.  I’ve said my piece on whether it was THE Rangers membership that was transferred or, in summary, A full membership that was freed up involuntarily (a crucial distinction I agree) that was then offered to be utilised by another legal entity, another club, awarded its continuing full status by discretion on the basis that it had the same name and on the acknowledgement that full status couldn’t be awarded by any other means.  That is not to belittle the entirely correct argument that during ‘Brechin week’ both entities appeared to be relying on the same membership which, you would think, should ordinarily be impossible.

So IF IF IF and again IF said Club exists then said Club is rendered immortal.  All Clubs are as long as one man and his dog are willing to watch it and provide and finance a company vehicle, a club, to run it, hold it or whatever the hell you do with it .  But that argument takes you down several routes of which I would suggest two are currently of most importance.

Firstly, who/what actually competed in the competitions?  The club or the Club?  Crucially, under this structure are the fortunes of the Club not predicated on the financial performance of the club?  Please someone provide me with an answer why that would not be the case and if they do, let the response not include the letters L, N or S PLEASE!

Secondly, pertinent to just now and really in response to adams’ query following re our and other’s continuing focus on all things Rangers.  Quite simply, if the Club is now immortal then why not carry out the same debt shedding exercise again.  And again.  And again if needs be until such time as you win? 

*  Just to acknowledge that I am relying heavily on James Doleman’s coverage of Kinloch versus Coral for the SFA’s stance.  If I have misunderstood it feel free to correct me.      

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on11:59 am - Feb 24, 2017


INCREDIBLEADAMSPARKFEBRUARY 24, 2017 at 11:24

They are only hurting themselves, lying to and cheating their own fans as other clubs go about the business of becoming well run, sustainable clubs with modern facilities.

You know that is just nonsense.
They play in a league where, because of all the nonsense of the SDM days a good number of clubs got caught up in the financial rat race. Luckily most have survived and have made great strides to get back on an even keel and run their clubs in an honest manner.

The current goings on at T’Rangers have all the hallmarks of the poor management of the past. While we have yet to see her majesty diddled for her tax there is no doubt league and cup success along with euro qualification is trying to be achieved on the never never.

That is the club’s prerogative.

However, this time I don’t think the rest of Scottish Football should be sitting back quietly and let history repeat itself as we can all do with out any further fall out in terms of insolvency events, potential breaking of FFP rules etc etc.

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on12:02 pm - Feb 24, 2017


Incorporation
https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/royal-charters/chartered-bodies/
“There are in excess of 900 Chartered Bodies. A Royal Charter is a way of incorporating a body, that is turning it from a collection of individuals into a single legal entity. A body incorporated by Royal Charter has all the powers of a natural person, including the power to sue and be sued in its own right. Royal Charters were at one time the only means of incorporating a body, but there are now other means (becoming a registered company, for example)*, so the grant of new Charters is comparatively rare. New grants of Royal Charters are these days reserved for eminent professional bodies or charities which have a solid record of achievement and are financially sound. In the case of professional bodies they should represent a field of activity which is unique and not covered by other professional bodies.”
London Assurance 1720
Royal Exchange Assurance 1720
Royal Bank of Scotland Ltd  1727
 
*Companies Act 1862
 
“Any seven or more persons associated for any lawful purpose may, by subscribing their names to a memorandum of association, and otherwise complying with the requisitions of this Act in respect of registration, form an incorporated company, with or without limited liability”
 
Look again at my post containing the Articles of Association for The Rangers Football Club,  and the seven signatures on last page, this was the document forming an incorporated company, as per above.

This document is also stamped  Registered 27 May 99.

Job done.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on12:11 pm - Feb 24, 2017


WOTTPI

My favourite quote last night on listening to Spiers espousing on why Rangers (sic) have to get back to winning, to winning ways, to a winning mentality.

” But if they win we have to lose, yes?”

The source?  A ten year old listening with me! 

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on12:20 pm - Feb 24, 2017


Lets give Sevco the benefit of choice.      Come clean, and admit to being a new club, or accept a transfer embargo, and a 25 point penalty, every season in perpetuity, until these documents are lodged at the Court of Session.  
Let them decide for themselves what they want to be.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/27794267

View Comment

incredibleadamspark

incredibleadamsparkPosted on12:43 pm - Feb 24, 2017


WOTTPI, you may think it nonsense but I don’t. No one forced these clubs you’re talking about to overspend and the very idea that it’s SDM fault lets them off the hook regards responsibility. Blaming someone other than themselves is the very thing Rangers are taken to task for. Rightfully so. Plenty of clubs did not overspend, Celtic under Fergus being one of them, and the fans hated him for it.

Untill proper FFP rules are in place there is nothing to stop clubs over stretching themselves. Livingston, Gretna, Dundee, Motherwell, Hearts and Rangers have all done so fairly recently. Any legislation from the SFA to stop this happening? Not a Rangers issue but one, again, of poor governance from our authorities. 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on1:14 pm - Feb 24, 2017


I agree.

If you deliberately overspend it’s your fault, not anyone else’s. To say clubs overspent because another club did it is simply blaming someone else for your own mistakes.

To do it because you can’t face the fact that the other club is winning games, or leagues, or cups that you are not is just childish.

When Celtic got to the UEFA cup final the club was £18m in debt. A lot of fans wanted to spend even more, to “get to the next level”. Fortunately calmer more sensible heads prevailed and the club started moving back towards living within it’s means.

I think most clubs have been there. The really important thing is how the club and it’s support react to it.

In recent years Hearts and their support have reacted fantastically well. They have taken the knocks, but then got behind their team and are fighting to get it back on an even keel and moving forward. I have rarely heard any of them say, “but a big boy did it and ran away”.

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on1:53 pm - Feb 24, 2017


I wholly agree that all clubs had a choice whether or not to chase SDM’s Rangers  and splash the cash.

However the reality of the situation was that those in charge at other clubs were under great pressure to do so.

In retrospect it clearly was the wrong thing to do but it was however an understandable reaction  to the direction the game was taken by SDM and his friends at BoS, who lets not forget  were instrumental in facilitating many clubs with loans and the likes.

Yes we all wish we had solid and sensible people on the boards of our club but as Sir Walter of Cardigan rightly said, at times common sense appears to have no place in football and many a poor decision can be made with the best intentions and ambitions in mind.

View Comment

Avatar

EastwoodPosted on2:08 pm - Feb 24, 2017


WOODSTEINFEBRUARY 24, 2017 at 12:02

I’m not quite sure the point you’re seeking to prove by providing that extract from the 1899 Articles. The wording of those articles makes it explicit that what is being formed is a new company, a new entity, to “takeover and acquire” assets and undertakings from the original unincorporated entity. Even to the extent of stating that the new company will seek membership of the SFA – proof if any more was needed that this wasn’t in any legal sense a re-badging exercise of a continuing entity (which clearly already was an SFA member).

Rangers Football Club didn’t become a company. It died in 1899. A company was formed with a similar name, picked up the baton and ran with it – with occasional bouts of financial doping – until keeling over itself in 2012.

SMUGASFEBRUARY 24, 2017 at 11:57

If you’re looking to understand the SFA’s stance, look no further than Aidan O’Neill QC, who – on behalf of the SFA – said the following in the Court of Session no less…. (thanks to SFM stalwart John Clark for recording these gems)

“Judge: Are you saying it is the club which is the member of the SFA?
Mr O’Neill: Yes… if you look at 7.1.9, 7.1.16- at 7.1.16 ‘members shall be’ … and at 7.1.9 back to full member, means club. The club is the member, now, the wholly owned Rangers Ltd and RIFC are the ‘corporate manifestations’


Mr O’Neill: The club is an idea, the law has to catch up with social reality.


Mr O’ Neill: My learned friend says Rangers FC the club is the Limited Company, and not the plc. But I contradict that. We’re dealing with ‘corporate surroundings’ around the administration.

Mr O’Neill: I’m querying the identification of Rangers Football Club Ltd with Rangers FC..
Judge: I’ve written that down ‘the limited company is not the same as the club.’

Judge: You accept the club has no personality,can’t do anything…  
Mr O’Neill: But there is a reality… The Limited company is NOT the club.”

Anyone under the illusion that the SFA have – when forced into a corner – remained sat on the fence re. Sevco and the club/company/continuity question is, to be blunt, either ill-informed or in complete denial. 

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on2:15 pm - Feb 24, 2017


woodstein February 24, 2017 at 12:02
=====================
The Certificate of Incorporation of 1899 would also support your position with its references to it being “incorporated under the Companies Acts 1862 to 1898”

Also “a bona fide solvent reconstruction” is specifically allowed within the SFA’s articles of association, which would cover such changes to legal form, unlike insolvent reconstructions purportedly carried out to revive deceased entities.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:07 pm - Feb 24, 2017


Slightly OT…

A certain Miss Mone has been mentioned in dispatches here a few times in the past.
So, some Bampots maybe distressed to learn that she has just announced her retirement from business, and public speaking.
It’s in the DR, so it must be true !

But very considerately, she has stated that her retirement date will actually be in 3 years time.
As you do.
And not for any cheap, publicity seeking reasons.

If only the SPFL / SFA had some competence in self-promotion…  09 

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on3:37 pm - Feb 24, 2017


Eastwood

Ref your answer to Woodstein @ 14.08

Rangers Football Club didn’t become a company. It died in 1899. A company was formed with a similar name, picked up the baton and ran with it – with occasional bouts of financial doping – until keeling over itself in 2012.

Yes.  But the argument exists that “Rangers” in the SFA’s eyes was the baton, not the corporate holder.

Ref your answer to me. 

Anyone under the illusion that the SFA have – when forced into a corner – remained sat on the fence re. Sevco and the club/company/continuity question is, to be blunt, either ill-informed or in complete denial. 

I think you are saying that they’ve been clear on the above point, is that right?  That they have always stated, badly, that there was a club, a legal persona so to speak, and a separate Club, a membership for want of a better word.  Whether they have been challenged on it (apart from sarky judge’s comments) is another matter. 

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on3:50 pm - Feb 24, 2017


incredibleadamsparkFebruary 24, 2017 at 12:43
‘….there is nothing to stop clubs over stretching themselves. Livingston, Gretna, Dundee, Motherwell, Hearts and Rangers have all done so fairly recently. Any legislation from the SFA to stop this happening? Not a Rangers issue but one, again, of poor governance from our authorities.
_____________
Actually, incredibleadamspark , there is something to stop clubs overstretching themselves, and there always has been.

It’s called ‘suffering an insolvency event’.

Not so much a matter of direct SFA ‘legislation’ but of the SPFL ( and the previous SPL and SFL ) articles of association

The relevant SPFL Articles of Association read as follows:
32.If the Board shall determine that: 32.1. ..32.2…32.3.   a Member has taken, suffered or been subject to an Insolvency Event;32.4…32.5…..and/or32.6……then such Member shall cease to be entitled to hold aShare..

So, if one’s club suffers the indignity of  ‘Liquidation’-the ultimate ‘insolvency event’- it ceases to be entitled to a share in the SPFL.

And automatically ,bang goes its membership of the SFA!

And , in consequence, bang goes its existence as a recognised football club participating in professional football.

Simples.

Or it would be simples if our Scottish Football Authorities were decent, honourable and truthful bodies.

Unfortunately, they have proved  to be anything but!

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on4:10 pm - Feb 24, 2017


Yes John, but for instance the 32.1 article that you quote actually says:
 

a Member (other than a Trustee) shall have ceased to be the owner and operator of a Club;

The member is the club, the legal persona.  They are arguing that the Club is somehow different.  Whilst I don’t agree, not least because no-one appears able to tell me what the Club under that definition actually is and also, as I said above, I cannot see how the success or otherwise of that Club is somehow remotely distinguishable from the financial performance of the club (the member). 

View Comment

incredibleadamspark

incredibleadamsparkPosted on4:12 pm - Feb 24, 2017


John, an insolvency event is the result of a club over stretching themselves. It does not stop clubs from going down that road as, say, strict and enforced FFP rules might do.

Given the number of clubs that have suffered administration, and the one currently in liquidation, it hasn’t been a very successful deterrent has it? 

View Comment

Avatar

Paulmac2Posted on4:19 pm - Feb 24, 2017


StevieBCFebruary 24, 2017 at 15:07

Thanks Stevie,

PM in your inbox.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on4:26 pm - Feb 24, 2017


And again (sorry to interject John and Adam)….it has been very effective right up to the minute that someone decides that the Club is now somehow different to the distressed club such that a liquidation takes out the club but somehow magically leaves the Club to be transferred more or less at will.  Why do you think so many worked so desperately hard to achieve the CVA’s?  To save themselves 3 years obscurity? 

That is precisely the distinction I am making and precisely why I am struggling to come to terms with whoever’s opinion it was started this debate.

as (I think) easy jambo put it, quite brilliantly if I may add, New club is very simple (and we are still all ears as to why it is too simple), Old club is very very complicated. 

View Comment

incredibleadamspark

incredibleadamsparkPosted on4:41 pm - Feb 24, 2017


Smugas, the point I’m making is that no club should be allowed to get themselves into such a financial mess as to need a CVA to get out of that mess. Would FFP rules not stop this from happening?

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on4:51 pm - Feb 24, 2017


Adam

Not if the Club is somehow magically isolated from the club, no.  Why would they?  The majority would for sure because they have a tendency to adhere to rules and, lets be honest, as long as the status quo financing of their club has them where they are satisfied with being there wouldn’t be an appetite for doing anything else.

But there are those with ambition, there are those who believe they have a god given right to be somewhere and, I suspect, there are those who would seek to exploit the commerciality/take advantage of either of the first two.  Do you think the protagonists of all three of those scenarios haven’t taken due notice that the downside risk of taking it to their logical and inevitable conclusion now seems to be a reset at Level 4 and off we go again? 

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on4:56 pm - Feb 24, 2017


incredibleadamsparkFebruary 24, 2017 at 16:12
‘…. an insolvency event is the result of a club over stretching themselves. It does not stop clubs from going down that road as, say, strict and enforced FFP rules might do.’
________
The key is ‘enforcement’ of whatever the rules at ny given time are.
And it is precisely the non-enforcement of the rules , rules that have applied to other clubs, that has caused the ridiculous situation that Scottish Football finds itself in!
A football club (not some ‘holding company’) goes into Liquidation, loses its entitlement to membership of a League, and consequently its membership of the SFA.
And a whole panicky reaction sets in. ‘This cannot be’ the voices cry. ‘Rangers liquidated, dead? Impossible! ‘
And a whole unholy scenario is crafted, about ‘club’ remaining intact while ‘holding company’ goes bust, and so on.Crafted not by the ‘guilty’ club, but by the very ‘enforcers’ of the rules .
All the FPP rules in the world come to nought if you have ‘corrupt’ so-called ‘enforcers’.

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on5:21 pm - Feb 24, 2017


Sons of Struth‏@SonsofStruth 4h4 hours ago   Sons of Struth Retweeted Rangers FC
Great pic but cant see how it’s poss to read the gates and not have stadium behind them.Sons of Struth added,

Think the penny has dropped, debts needs taking care of, are the creditors lining up for first dibs should the same club myth continue or are the new creditors of the new club getting nervous.0512    

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on5:45 pm - Feb 24, 2017


Eastwood
February 24, 2017 at 14:08
 
“I’m not quite sure the point you’re seeking to prove by providing that extract from the 1899 Articles. The wording of those articles makes it explicit that what is being formed is a new company, a new entity, to “takeover and acquire” assets and undertakings from the original unincorporated entity. Even to the extent of stating that the new company will seek membership of the SFA – proof if any more was needed that this wasn’t in any legal sense a re-badging exercise of a continuing entity (which clearly already was an SFA member).”
 
Now I am completely lost.
 
The images of the articles of association I posted do not mention any of the words
in bold above. What am I missing?

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on6:08 pm - Feb 24, 2017


My thanks to MarkC for starting our revisit to the OC/NC debate, for I believe it is an important factor in what currently ails Scottish football. I think it’s important, though, to remind everyone that MarkC didn’t suggest TRFC are not a new club, and actually pointed out that, in his opinion, they are a new club. My own disagreement with him was that he stated both differing viewpoints were mere opinions, and I set out to challenge that notion by showing that, while one argument was based solely on what people have said (some forced into saying it, one, at least, commissioned to say it, and others consumed by wishful thinking), the other viewpoint was based on fact.

I do not see it as necessary for us to prove that TRFC is a new club, but rather it is incumbent on those who want it to be the same club, to first show how it could be that an incorporated football club, any incorporated football club, does not die with liquidation.

It doesn’t prove anything for even the SFA to state that TRFC are the same club as old RFC, even if they had done, which they haven’t, unless they can point to the legislation, or even their own rules, that makes it so. They can’t because it’s not there. Not only is it not there, but the notion has never been raised, at any time, by, or within, the SFA, or within the various leagues over more than a century of failing clubs, or the SMSM, or amongst the supporters, until after that fateful moment when Charles Green’s CVA failed. Even then, it wasn’t considered until that man of dubious character claimed to have bought the history of a football club. Again a notion that had never been visited before. The scrambling around to legitimise his claims then began.

Now, let’s for a moment, assume the notion of a club living on, under the circumstances RFC found itself in, ie exactly the same circumstances every other insolvent Scottish football club found itself in when denied the salvation of a CVA, and ask the question, why didn’t anyone from those earlier failed clubs just do what Green supposedly did? Why didn’t the supporters just buy the history for, say, one pound, and carry on, in perhaps a lower league, the Juniors, say, or any other league under the auspicies of the SFA, just waiting for the time when they could climb back into the league structure, or buy their way in via another ailing league club? They didn’t because the notion is only a notion, the facility never, ever existed.

It never existed, and that has to be a fact, because the SFA never, ever, contacted the people surrounding those earlier insolvent clubs to let them know there was a way to survive liquidation. They didn’t even contact the people surrounding RFC to let them know that the history and honours of Rangers could live on, even in the event of liquidation. They only came up with the bunkum after Charles Green bought the basket of assets for Sevco.

One thing for anyone at odds with what I have said here to bear in mind; if you think the ‘same club’ mob came up with this for Rangers because they were so big that, at last, someone rooted around and found this loophole; before you put that idea forward, please ensure you know where the documentary evidence, previously overlooked, and found by someone, Sandy Bryson, perhaps, was located. A quote from that hitherto missing document would be helpful, too.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on6:44 pm - Feb 24, 2017


AJ,

A minor addendum if I may.

If (as I suspect will happen) it is argued that the spiritual Club is somehow distinct and isolated from the legal, touchable, identifiable member club, whereby on liquidation of the club this separate Club identity can somehow be magically transferred and thus continued, what specifically is it that separates the success of that Club from the financial performance of the underlying club?

Apologies all.  

View Comment

incredibleadamspark

incredibleadamsparkPosted on7:15 pm - Feb 24, 2017


SMUGAS, if anyone thinks they have a God given right to be anywhere would it be apt to point out the big man can give life but also take it away? Apparently. 

In my FFP heaven Club and club wouldn’t matter. There would be no way unsustainable losses could be allowed to put any of the Cs in danger of disappearance. Sensible, break even business plans leading to long term stability and financial good housekeeping. Making debates like this redundant. Praise be. 

JOHN, correct. Enforce the rules without fear or favour and problems are solved.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on7:15 pm - Feb 24, 2017


SMUGASFEBRUARY 24, 2017 at 18:44 
AJ,
A minor addendum if I may.
If (as I suspect will happen) it is argued that the spiritual Club is somehow distinct and isolated from the legal, touchable, identifiable member club, whereby on liquidation of the club this separate Club identity can somehow be magically transferred and thus continued, what specifically is it that separates the success of that Club from the financial performance of the underlying club?
Apologies all.  
________

Addendum welcome, Smugas, but might I then take it further and ask, why has no other insolvent club availed itself of this fluffy, ethereal, thingummy, whatever it is? Why have the SFA, or whoever within Scottish football, never before brought it up to ‘save’ those other clubs and carry their trophies forward? For regardless of the mechanics surrounding the purchase of the basket of assets FC, any credence in this notion of a metaphysical club must surely apply to all clubs, it must always have been there, and had to be known, unless it lay, hidden until 2012, in some document yet to be produced for our enlightenment.

Or trying to simplify it, for my own benefit as much as anyone elses, if this strange ethereal club has always existed, but no one was aware of it, and, I have to say, it must be an invisible thing, something visible must have to exist now for it now to have become a fact! What has turned up, shortly after Rangers failed to achieve a CVA, that indicates something existed, hitherto unknown and unrecorded?

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on7:36 pm - Feb 24, 2017


Just one of those wee thoughts that mysteriously float into my head!

Isn’t it revealing how the SPFL’s solicitor had to use that ridiculous small ‘c’ capital ‘C’ conflumagation in court to explain the inexplicable! Or, rather, to avoid going down the road all ‘newclubbers’ would have loved to hear him going!

When a practitioner of law uses non-language rather than describe something openly in plain language, we know he is doing so to avoid something either he or his client/employer doesn’t want aired in open court. Especially when a previous, more learned lawyer, was given his @rse in his hands to play with by a judge when trying to describe that very same thing, a tad more openly!

Metaphysics, don’t ya just love it!

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on7:37 pm - Feb 24, 2017


Well here goes!! Long post as I read everything on here, sorry. Same club… shoite!!!!

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on8:46 pm - Feb 24, 2017


JEAN7BRODIEFEBRUARY 24, 2017 at 19:37
Well here goes!! Long post as I read everything on here, sorry. Same club… shoite!!!!
   ———————————————————————————————————-
   Ditto Miss Brodie,  and your old fashioned teaching techniques. I watched them being liquidated on the telly. 04

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on9:19 pm - Feb 24, 2017


Corrupt officialFebruary 24, 2017 at 20:46
______________________________________
Hahaha. Or liquidised as I prefer!!!!!!!!!

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on9:43 pm - Feb 24, 2017


Bears are raging – again.

Speculation that Eck is holding out for the gig long-term, not on a short-term basis. Make of that as you will.

Third place looking tricky now?

King better appoint someone ASAP, or he’ll be getting the flak.

View Comment

Avatar

bigboab1916Posted on10:44 pm - Feb 24, 2017


Claudio Ranieri
Only fitting that the guy be remebered for giving us one of the most astonishing and memorable moments in EPL history and might never be repeated in our lifetime.
For all the cultured folk on this site this link is worth a right good listen. Wine glasses at the ready sit back relax and enjoy.

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on2:02 am - Feb 25, 2017


John James latest 
https://johnjamessite.com/2017/02/25/should-part-tice-employees-feel-less-secure-at-garrion/

View Comment

Avatar

HighlanderPosted on7:58 am - Feb 25, 2017


On the subject of John James’ blog, I posted a message a few days ago pointing out the fact that he’d misspelled Gazza’s surname as Gascogne, instead of Gascoigne. This was particularly ironic given the nature of the ‘Colour Me Discredited’ article, which attacked journalist Mark McDougall, saying “His schoolboy spelling errors are redolent of a singular lacking in his education.”

JJ didn’t take kindly to me exposing his own schoolboy error as he corrected his spelling and removed my comment during moderation. I presume I’m banned from posting, which is no great loss considering I’m only a casual observer. His articles can be entertaining and informative but there is something deeply grubby about both his combative style and his constant demand for donations. 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on8:59 am - Feb 25, 2017


TONY
FEBRUARY 25, 2017 at 02:02

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

It was somewhat remiss of Murray not to mention the loss of £144,000 at Garrion Security Services Limited, a subsidiary of  The Rangers Football Club Ltd, where he and John Gilligan are sole directors.

How sweet, “…where he and John Gilligan are sole directors”.

What does that mean, that they are in charge of the fish. How in the name of feck can two people be sole directors. 

It really is funny when he belittles others for things like speeling mistooks. 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on9:05 am - Feb 25, 2017


Just one comment about the Inverness v Rangers game last night, and not about the football.

Have the Scottish football authorities and the the media now decided to totally ignore the sectarian chants. Has any pretence of wanting to rid Scottish football of this been abandoned. 

It really is much more pronounced when games with a smaller crowd are televised. 

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on10:10 am - Feb 25, 2017


HOMUNCULUSFEBRUARY 25, 2017 at 09:05
Have the Scottish football authorities and the the media now decided to totally ignore the sectarian chants. Has any pretence of wanting to rid Scottish football of this been abandoned.
——————–
The SPFL did issue a reminder(january 2017) to clubs over unacceptable behaviour at games.
The league chiefs modified existing guidelines in a bid to stop strict liability being imposed.
The member clubs were left in no uncertain terms that it it is their responsibility  to take disciplinary measures against fans who are found to have broken the rules
———
Maybe if the SPFL could publish the modified rules fans may take the hint.
or maybe if the ibrox club could issue a statement(they do like a statement) to their fans of the modified rules, we may not have to listen to the sectarian chants

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on10:53 am - Feb 25, 2017


You may remember “The Lawman” and his posts defending Rangers actions re the “Wee Tax Case” and Ogilvie’s evidence to the LNS Commission, before his posting rights were revoked.

I always thought that he came across as an intelligent guy, at least in setting out his arguments, but a bit intransigent when it came to considering any alternatives, or by a balance of probabilities, that showed Rangers to be in the wrong.  

However, it seems that the penny has dropped for him re the club’s current financial position. Here’s a recent post by him from RM.

Unless you are living on Kings Fairyland, like some on here, then you will realise we are living off loans. Those loans, so far, have been given, with the “feeling” and “hope” that we return to our former glory and that the investment becomes an important stake in our famous club back in Europe.

The more we get beat, the further we slip down the table, the wider the gap becomes, the likelyhood is that the money will dry up.

We have £13m of loans repayable in 10 months or in some cases, on demand. Rangers men or not, if our lenders start to think there is no light at the end of the tunnel, and lets face it, there is NONE right now, they will call on their money.

You could be mistaken for thinking there is an ulterior motive for not holding the rights issue and converting those loans now.

Make no mistake about it, we are in deep trouble right now.

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on11:54 am - Feb 25, 2017


Podcast Alert

Folks, I had originally planned to get the Podcasts up and running straight after the Christmas break. Unfortunately, I have been under the weather a bit since then – although now back to (as) full (as it gets) fitness 🙂

Consequently the Podcasts will return on Monday week.

We really would like to have any budding podcasters contribute content for these. An interview with one of your heroes, an opinion piece, a head to head chat about your club etc.

I am anxious that the SFM podcasts don’t just sound like a BP rant every week or fortnight. Diversity is after all the USP of SFM. Happy to assist anyone with an interest by helping to make the technical stuff easier. 

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on11:59 am - Feb 25, 2017


StevieBC

I think that King is definitely attracting disapproval. More than one hitherto compliant L5 mouthpiece has begun to stray from the script. I did notice last night that the King Social Media Army is doing a great job of rearguard action though, and the Ashley card is being played to death.

The preferred option is I am told, that no extra salaries are added to the bill before ST time. A rabbit might be expected to appear out of the now unoccupied magic hat by then.

As you say though, pressure might hasten that trick if the board apologists win out.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on12:01 pm - Feb 25, 2017


EasyJambo,

I’ve sent you a PM

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on12:29 pm - Feb 25, 2017


Allyjambo February 25, 2017 at 12:01 
EasyJambo,
I’ve sent you a PM
======================
I’ve responded with two PMs 02

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on12:47 pm - Feb 25, 2017


Personally I think a response should be posted to Lawmans narrative.  Something along the lines of “never fear, investment, like performances, player calibre and ultimately success on the park are completely unrelated to the underlying finances and rule adherence that underpin them.”  You could use the username SBryson if it helps!

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on12:57 pm - Feb 25, 2017


EasyJambo

Trying not to be a flash harry here, but I think I posted several weeks ago with some rhetorical questions –  and some  answers – over the failure to convert.

Despite the failure of the resolution on dis-application of preemption rights, the board DOES have the authority to sell the same amount of shares on the basis of having to offer them first to current shareholders. Almost all of any rights issue, preemption rights or not, will go to paying off loans, and immediately disempower the people who are in control of the club at the moment (those who own the debt – not the shares).

There are also rumours, unsubstantiated, but plausible, of a board split, and dissatisfaction with DCK. One that was suggested to me was that King has thus far failed to deliver on a promise to underwrite any share issue. 

Like all such rumours, a healthy pinch of salt is required, but when rumours like these and other, much wilder ones are circulating, it is suggestive of a need to extrapolate in the absence of that much promised transparency.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on1:05 pm - Feb 25, 2017


This is exactly the point a lot of people miss.

They can have a rights issue any time they want.

What they can’t do is control who can (or rather can’t) buy the shares.

Bearing in mind it would also wipe out a lot of the current loans. Maybe the lenders don’t actually want shares in the club after all. They would rather get their money back, now reality is seriously kicking in.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on1:11 pm - Feb 25, 2017


Big Pink February 25, 2017 at 12:57
===================
I do remember your posts on the subject and much of them resonates with my own thoughts on the matter.

From what I’ve read on RM in recent weeks, there is evidence of a realisation among a growing number of posters that all may not be well within the boardroom and/or with the club’s underlying finances.

“The Lawman” appears to be a respected voice on RM and has previously condemned King, but this is the first time I’ve seen him really questioning the financial well-being of the club

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on1:36 pm - Feb 25, 2017


easyJamboFebruary 25, 2017 at 12:29 
Allyjambo February 25, 2017 at 12:01  EasyJambo, I’ve sent you a PM ====================== I’ve responded with two PMs
_________

Both received with thanks and further PM in acknowledgement.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:40 pm - Feb 25, 2017


tonyFebruary 25, 2017 at 02:02  ”  John James latest  https://johnjamessite.com/2017/02/25/should-part-tice-employees-feel-less-secure-at-garrion/
_____________
I’ve just read what JJ says ( and thanks for the link, tony)
What caught my eye ( in addition to the ‘sole directors’ point that Homunculus neatly remarked upon) was his statement that Paul Murray is the Chairman of the TRFCL board.
The official website of TRFCL lists the directors, but does not say which is the elected Chairman, or on which basis board meetings are conducted.
Maybe each director takes a turn in the chair?
Or perhaps Murray, as King’s puppet, merely relays instructions from the Chair of RIFC ( who, of course, is not a fit and proper person to be a director of a Scottish football club!)
Or maybe I missed an announcement?

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on1:47 pm - Feb 25, 2017


Said elsewhere that kings plan seems to have been to ride the succesful return wave, get as close to a presumably still dominant Celtic as possible, say as close as Aberdeen got this time last year and then quietly sell out at a profit before anyone really got s handle on the underlying finances.  A comfortable 2nd relative to 3rd (as opposed to this constant self harming comparison to 1st) would also hAve achieved it with a bit of luck but anything less coupled to a rediculously dominant Celtic and the wheels seriously come off his plan.  I agree I don’t think the shareholding is where the immediate action and battle lines are drawn.

View Comment

Comments are closed.