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

John ClarkPosted on3:38 pm - Mar 12, 2017


Stand up that bhoy who said ‘I wish you would [choke]!

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on4:13 pm - Mar 12, 2017


Not enough violence today to express outrage at, the DR have decided to help stir the broth a bit.

Record Sport Online have published a video/picture of a Celtic ballgirl. Headline is that she “appears” to be calling Clint Hill a fanny after he scores the equaliser today.

They are also Tweeting the pic. Now the pic is all over the usual forums and the “hunt” for this child is on.

The editor of the Record Online Sport is I believe a man with a young family. You would think he would know better.

Apparently not.

A child ffs.

View Comment

TheClumpanyPosted on5:20 pm - Mar 12, 2017


Good Afternoon.

If you haven’t yet seen it, do take a moment to look at the Record’s shameful article/tweets about the Celtic ballgirl who allegedly swore at Sevco players after their goal today. It’s disgraceful stuff which risks making her a target for the lunatics. Links herein. https://theclumpany.wordpress.com/2017/03/12/please-help-to-name-and-shame/

But do come back here to debate the issues! ?

Cheers.

TC

View Comment

TheClumpanyPosted on5:22 pm - Mar 12, 2017


BIG PINKMARCH 12, 2017 at 16:13
=====
Ah Sorry Big Pink I see you beat me to it!

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on5:48 pm - Mar 12, 2017


Guess the ref won’t have to buy his own drinks for a good while after that shocker penalty denial – and no need for consulting with the linesman either?

But, that aside, and some dodgy tackles aside…fair play that TRFC played a lot better than expected.  And good for Murty – but bet he’s glad to be getting back to the youth team.

Result doesn’t change anything for either side though.

View Comment

jimboPosted on6:37 pm - Mar 12, 2017


071717

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:48 pm - Mar 12, 2017


BIG PINKMARCH 12, 2017 at 16:13
They are also Tweeting the pic. Now the pic is all over the usual forums and the “hunt” for this child is on.
————————–
We can only hope some reasonable fans on these forums have a brain in their heads and call out the one’s (for the clown’s that they are)on the hunt on these forums,and also call out the disgraceful stuff by the Record Online Sport

View Comment

jimboPosted on8:04 pm - Mar 12, 2017


Oh Well it was a draw!   We are still unbeateaton.

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on8:18 pm - Mar 12, 2017


Was it just me or was the BBC commentary of the big game today very poor? I lost count of the number of occasions the 3 way discussion had to be interrupted because of events on the pitch. 

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on9:59 pm - Mar 12, 2017


Apparently in England referees if they have an allegiance to a club have to declare this to the FA (can anyone confirm this) therefore they may not referee a game involving their team.  If this is true why can this rule not be applied in Scotland. Is there possibly to many referees with an allegiance to one club?
This would help alleviate  paranoia from all fans and then we may be able to accept the term honest mistakes.  I for one would approve of this rule/change. I would like to think the SFA and referees would be agreeable to this request.  I cannot see any reason for them to oppose it, can anyone?

View Comment

bordersdonPosted on10:06 pm - Mar 12, 2017


valentinesclownMarch 12, 2017 at 21:59 Apparently in England referees if they have an allegiance to a club have to declare this to the FA (can anyone confirm this) therefore they may not referee a game involving their team.  If this is true why can this rule not be applied in Scotland. Is there possibly to many referees with an allegiance to one club?This would help alleviate  paranoia from all fans and then we may be able to accept the term honest mistakes.  I for one would approve of this rule/change. I would like to think the SFA and referees would be agreeable to this request.  I cannot see any reason for them to oppose it, can anyone?
———————————————————————————-
Nae sure that would work in Scotland? Jist sayin!

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on12:12 am - Mar 13, 2017


VALENTINESCLOWN
MARCH 12, 2017 at 21:59
Apparently in England referees if they have an allegiance to a club have to declare this to the FA (can anyone confirm this) therefore they may not referee a game involving their team.  If this is true why can this rule not be applied in Scotland. Is there possibly to many referees with an allegiance to one club? This would help alleviate  paranoia from all fans and then we may be able to accept the term honest mistakes.  I for one would approve of this rule/change. I would like to think the SFA and referees would be agreeable to this request.  I cannot see any reason for them to oppose it, can anyone?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Yep
“It`s an unwarranted  invasion of privacy and anyway doesn`t affect the way they perform their duties”
If you don`t like it you can lump it
 
Which would certainly be a more concise  and faster response than asking the Scottish government to create a public register of Freemasons in the Judiciary
i.e.
Petition the Scottish Parliament where it will  take 3 yrs to get nowhere
http://archive.scottish.parliament.uk/business/petitions/docs/PE306.htm

View Comment

Billy BoycePosted on12:48 am - Mar 13, 2017


valentinesclown March 12, 2017 at 21:59
 Is there possibly too many referees with an allegiance to one club?
—————————-
If all the Scottish referees had to declare their team loyalty then there would be nobody left to officiate at St Mirren matches – and Chick Young would be raging! 

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on5:20 am - Mar 13, 2017


VALENTINESCLOWNMARCH 12, 2017 at 21:59   
Apparently in England referees if they have an allegiance to a club have to declare this to the FA (can anyone confirm this) therefore they may not referee a game involving their team.  If this is true why can this rule not be applied in Scotland. Is there possibly to many referees with an allegiance to one club?This would help alleviate  paranoia from all fans and then we may be able to accept the term honest mistakes.  I for one would approve of this rule/change. I would like to think the SFA and referees would be agreeable to this request.  I cannot see any reason for them to oppose it, can anyone?

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

That is most certainly the case in England. In Scotland Referees are made of higher moral fibre and can officiate in a game completely impartially even if the team they support is playing.  I have no idea whether any Scottish Referee ever intends to be biased, but it is an insult to our intelligence to say it is impossible to happen, as we are constantly told by the authorities and the media.  

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on7:47 am - Mar 13, 2017


There have been mercifully few comments on here about yesterday’s refereeing performance, but those who have brought it up seem to have taken the view that the ref failed to award a stonewall penalty. Despite claims that Clint Hill admitted to getting lucky in the penalty incident, as a neutral, I reckon the referee was correct not to award a penalty as he could not have been certain from his viewpoint that contact was made with Griffiths. I watched the match live and had the benefit of a couple of replays to form the opinion that on the balance of probabilities it was a penalty, just, but the ref didn’t have that luxury.

I actually thought Madden had a pretty decent game and made utter nonsense of JJ’s ludicrous articles on the subject which deliberately contains incendiary language designed to appeal to his Celtic facing audience. If he can get so animated about such a borderline decision, maybe he should consider the poor supporters of all the so-called ‘diddy teams’, who have to put up with being on the receiving end of such contentious refereeing decisions in every match against Rangers* and Celtic.

On the subject of JJ, I wonder how long we’re going to have to wait for an apology or explanation about the lack of an insolvency event at Tannadice, and indeed his claim that the story would be in last Monday’s mainstream media. 

View Comment

tonyPosted on9:13 am - Mar 13, 2017


HIGHLANDER
the ref on the touchline had a good view

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on9:56 am - Mar 13, 2017


Highlander
i don’t believe there are many neutrals who would concur with your view that Mr Madden had a decent game. The penalty incident was last in a series of decisions which could generously be described as lenient. In Mr Hill’s case he received the benefit of the doubt from Mr Madden on 4 separate occasions in the first half when 4 fouls were committed in quick succession; two of these being in the “professional ” category. These fouls were commented on by the radio summarisers Mr Bonnar and Mr Ferguson who expressed surprise that Mr Hill wasn’t booked. To be fair he was booked after committing his fifth foul.
Mr Madden had a clear view of Kenny Miller’s lunge (straight legged and both feet off the ground) yet took no action. Only Stuart Armstrong’s fleetness of foot prevented a serious injury. A continental referee would have sent Mr Miller off.
The challenge by Jason Holt on Patrick Roberts was deemed fair by Mr Madden. I don’t know if his view wasn’t clear but did the linesman also miss it?
i know this site normally steers clear of this sort of stuff but I felt your post merited a rebuttal. 
I wont be upset if this post doesn’t get past the moderators.

View Comment

shugPosted on10:03 am - Mar 13, 2017


From what I saw Celtic Had an off day which to be fair was due but they could still have won the game.The rangers played better than they have all season and could easily have come away with all 3 points. The penalty decision could have gone either way and to be honest The rangers had a claim for a penalty as well so all in all a draw was a fair result  apart from both keepers Clint Hill was the best player on the park in my opinion.The draw meant so much to The rangers fans it seemed almost better than a win.Of course the result changed nothing in the end Celtic will still win the league and The rangers will not.

View Comment

tayredPosted on10:21 am - Mar 13, 2017


EX LUDOMARCH 13, 2017 at 09:56

Celtic fans cry foul over the referee as TRFC are seen to get the rub of the green (so to speak), diddy club fans cry foul every time we play TRFC or CFC for the same reason. (Every fan cries foul over the amount of discretions Mr Scott Brown for example is allowed to commit before being booked… Interestingly not so much when playing in Europe.. funny that…). TRFC fans just cry foul!

Such is the state of refereeing in Scotland. Are any of our perceived biases correct? Possibly they are, but I’d suggest over the course of the season the bigger clubs will always come out on top, and that is the case in every league around the world – the referees are only human after all.

I don’t watch these, formerly known as Old Firm matches, but I have seen footage of the last minute penalty incident. For what its worth I’d say that a penalty would be given 9 times out of 10.

View Comment

watcherPosted on10:42 am - Mar 13, 2017


Highlander;  Sorry, but what game were you watching? I take it you are not being serious with your comments. Firstly i can honestly say i have no ball in this game, i support neither of these clubs. The referee was biased no doubt whatsoever about that. The penalty incident was a shocker, but what about Millers two footed flying tackle? You do not need to make contact with a player to be sent off, it just has to be reckless and “out of control”. The scissor tackle on Roberts is disgusting and totally illegal. The Clint Hill celebration with the fans is an automatic booking, second yellow and then red. Only in this country could you have a referee who was reportedly a season ticket holder once at Ibrox in charge of a match like this. It has been going on for years, i remember when a Dundee United fan once refereed a derby game at dens park, a league decider mind you, oh how we all laughed to find out he was at the hotel with United  after the game. As someone on another site often says. “Only in Scotland”.

View Comment

tayredPosted on10:43 am - Mar 13, 2017


Oh and another thing I really object to. I caught some of the BBC radio coverage (my neighbour had it blaring into his garden, I was busy in mine and the subsequent raise in anger listening to it might have contributed to the overworking of the muscles which cause me to be in near agony this morning!).

Anyway, they repeatedly went on about how Madden was wise to keep his cards in his pocket, otherwise it would be along afternoon for him. For some reason the normal rules of association football do not apply during Celtic versus TRFC matches. I’m sorry but that is bull, and does nothing to help diffuse the stupidity and nonsense that surrounds this fixture. But also, it gives inherent bias towards both CFC and TRFC. Why? Because anyone else gets treated normally against these two, and will suffer from suspensions derived from any cards issued by the officials. So we all get to play twice as many games against “old firm*” clubs, we get treated differently in terms of being carded and suffer the consequences. 

This is for some reason accepted and positively encouraged by the media. Why? Fear. Fear of a game between two clubs and the behaviour of their fans – what other reason could there be? Unfortunately, this kind of nonsense is just prolonging it.

* apologies for use of the term.

View Comment

BrianMPosted on10:54 am - Mar 13, 2017


I might be wrong but Strachan and McCann on Sky excused the referee, Mr Madden, for his non decision in the penalty incident saying he was not in a position to see the ball. The obvious questions however, ‘Why was he not up with play?’ and ‘What was the assistant doing?’ were not answered. Here we go again, excuses, honest mistakes, – never blame.
That aside, I did see Lee Griffiths challenge him after the final whistle with the referee intimating that Hill, got the ball. He did therefore see the incident. No mention in the Sky studio of that little incident. I think Mr. Madden went on to say the same thing to Rodgers off camera. And what about Clint Hill’s open statement saying he ‘got away with one’? 
However, whether or not there was contact with the ball, Mr Madden had line of sight. A tackle above the waist was clearly made denying Griffiths a goal scoring opportunity. – Ball contact or not, if the opponent comes through the other player this is a foul. Inside the box, a penalty. Has McCann, the Sky expert on laws of the game lost his wee book? 
Did the timing of the incident have any bearing? Immediately after the equaliser. Only minutes remaining. Celtic beginning to waken up. Who knows?
His overall performance yesterday was woeful. He allowed several dangerous tackles to go unpunished and stopped the game to award minor infringements when play could easily have been allowed to continue. This is match officialdom in our wee country.
I look to games in England and abroad, Spain, Italy, Germany, etc. I do see (honest) mistakes. Of course officials make mistakes.
Maybe it’s me, but in comparison I never see anything like the overall inept displays week in week out of the likes of Madden, Beaton, McLean, Muir, Thompson, Columm: 
Are these really our highest achievers?
Is it, we are a small country and do not have the numbers to choose from?
Is our recruiting/training policy at fault?
Is the SFA fit for purpose?
Is there an agenda?
(Maybe the above question should be left aside in the interest of the old paranoia accusations, but I’ll mention it anyway. It must be on many minds.)
Whatever, when it comes to the disgraceful and often embarrassing standards of match officials here the ‘honest mistakes’ excuse has worn thin. Our refereeing is of a Pub League standard. Time to wake up and smell the coffee. Time for the pundits and all of Scottish Football to publicly recognise the problem and do something about it. 
The so called ‘referee’s strike’ with foreign officials taking their places, showed us how far we are behind in Scotland. Maybe it’s time to face the facts and recruit referees from abroad, at least until our home grown officials reach the required standards. After all we have enough foreign players in this country to fill the so called gaps and raise the standards. Why not referees from abroad?

View Comment

For whom the whistle tolls | wearethefamousPosted on12:06 pm - Mar 13, 2017


[…] they support and then never take charge of any games involving that team? It seems straightforward. Some people express doubts, however, that this system could ever work in Scotland. It’s hard not to share […]

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on1:13 pm - Mar 13, 2017


Concert Party anyone?

http://www.investegate.co.uk/takeover-appeal-bd-/rns/rangers-international-football-club-plc/201703131139222798Z/

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on1:20 pm - Mar 13, 2017


Seems the referee of the CFC v TRFC match lived up to everybody’s(including TRFC fans’) expectations . Scrap the contract and bring back foreign referees- at least they will follow the rules of the game rather than the “other” rules .

View Comment

naegreetinPosted on1:27 pm - Mar 13, 2017


EJ @ 13.13

Wow ! That is some “developing story” (see Tom Winnifrith’s take on it @shareprophets)

View Comment

FinlochPosted on1:28 pm - Mar 13, 2017


EASYJAMBOMARCH 13, 2017 at 13:13
Concert Party anyone?
…………….
EJ
I think I know what it says but can you give us your thoughts on what this actually means and what might happen next as a consequence?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on1:36 pm - Mar 13, 2017


The decision of the Takeover panel was that King and the 3 Bears were working in concert and as such King will have to make an offer to all other shareholders to buy their shares at 20p.
 
In practical terms it is unlikely that many people would take up the offer at that price, so it is doubtful that much will change.  However it might prompt one or more of the parties to try to get out themselves rather than risk having to come up with more cash for “worthless” shares.
 
The investigation is probably the reason why the Resolution 10 share offer has not been progressed before now, despite it having been authorised at the last couple of AGMs.

King now has 30 days to make an offer to all other shareholders.

The outcome
We dismiss the appeal and affirm the ruling of the Committee, save that we vary the date and direct that within 30 days of this decision (i.e. by   April 2017) Mr King announce an offer pursuant to Rule 9 of the Code and, save as to the offer date, such offer to be in accordance with the Executive’s ruling of 7 June 2016, as summarised in paragraphs 19 and 20 above
13 March 2017

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on1:39 pm - Mar 13, 2017


Statement from King

Statement by Rangers Chairman Dave King on the decision of the Takeover Appeal Board

The Takeover Appeal Board (TAB) has today ruled that I was acting as a concert party with George Letham, George Taylor and Douglas Park when we acquired shares in RIFC over 2 years ago.

The TAB requires that I, as the principal member of that group, must make an offer to acquire all of the shares in RIFC held by the rest of its shareholders at a price of 20p. I do not agree with TAB’s much delayed ruling nor follow its logic and I shall take the appropriate time to reflect upon it and consider the best course of action for myself, RIFC and its shareholders. My view on one individual not being able to exert undue influence on Rangers is already well known.

The complaint to the Takeover Panel was made by RIFC’s former Chairman, David Somers, as part of the old Board’s efforts to preserve their positions without regard to what was best for Rangers Football Club, its supporters and shareholders. Today’s decision by TAB is part of the price I have had to pay for being determined to rescue Rangers Football Club from its previous regime and the drastic consequences of their actions. I do so willingly.

It is my belief that the TAB has not understood the true nature of what occurred at Rangers and the tremendous role that the activism of supporters played in ensuring regime change. I am only one of a vast number of Rangers supporters and shareholders who fought to rescue our Club. The Rangers Football Club should never have become caught up in a takeover struggle. Those who placed it in that position bear a heavy responsibility.

I do not believe that there is any substantial group of RIFC shareholders that would be willing to sell its shares in RIFC at the price at which the TAB has determined I should make an offer. 20p is not a price that I personally believe represents a fair price for RIFC’s shares, nor is it the price at which shares in RIFC are currently trading.

I would anticipate that, if I was to proceed with an offer on the terms TAB require, it would be rejected by the overwhelming majority of RIFC’s shareholders and therefore not receive the level of acceptances necessary to proceed. I cannot see how making an offer that is doomed to fail can benefit RIFC’s shareholders.

TAB confirms in its decision (para 95) that it understands my position on this point but that the Rule to which they are giving effect “does not include considerations of whether the shareholders will benefit from an offer in a particular case”.

I will communicate further in due course.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:00 pm - Mar 13, 2017


It’s good to see that the Takeover Appeal Board saw fit to use “common sense” when deciding on the appeal

The existence and nature of an understanding between persons and whether their actions were concerted or co-incidental are often matters calling for the use of common sense and relevant experience in making reasonable inferences from all the surrounding circumstances in evidence in the case.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:10 pm - Mar 13, 2017


easyJamboMarch 13, 2017 at 13:39
‘….Statement from King.’
__________
eJ, congrats on getting that stuff.

And what a pisspoor ‘statement’ from King.
I am almost embarrassed on his behalf, for his appalling ineptitude as a communicator. Is the guy really so thick?

How would any thinking person ever have trusted that man?

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:11 pm - Mar 13, 2017


EASYJAMBO
MARCH 13, 2017 at 13:39
Statement from King [with my italics]

“My view on one individual not being able to exert undue influence on Rangers is already well known.”

[Yes, but what King said is not what he is happening…could he have been fibbing ?!]


“Today’s decision by TAB is part of the price I have had to pay for being determined to rescue Rangers Football Club from its previous regime and the drastic consequences of their actions. I do so willingly.”

[ Dave the RRM martyr.  What a guy!]


“I cannot see how making an offer that is doomed to fail can benefit RIFC’s shareholders.”

[i.e. Please, please don’t sell me your shares at any price !!!]
========================================

And we seem to be back to the long, rambling, emotional, irrelevant, p!sh RIFC/TRFC statements again.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:16 pm - Mar 13, 2017


Maybe someone can help with a bit of clarification.

In order to make the offer, and make it a real one, will Dave King et al have to show some “proof of funds”.

If so, would that be on the basis that everyone took up the offer. As a rough estimate £11m.

View Comment

naegreetinPosted on2:52 pm - Mar 13, 2017


Is it just King that is in the frame here ? If so , he probably doesn’t give a sh*t how his “reputation” is affected by this decision but for the 3 Bears its slightly different in that they DO have a UK reputation to uphold in business circles here .

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on2:56 pm - Mar 13, 2017


I wonder if a former manager and current shareholder will be taking up the offer. His penny shares would net him 200k if I remember correctly .

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on2:58 pm - Mar 13, 2017


WATCHERMARCH 13, 2017 at 10:42 Highlander; Sorry, but what game were you watching? I take it you are not being serious with your comments. Firstly i can honestly say i have no ball in this game, i support neither of these clubs. The referee was biased no doubt whatsoever about that. The penalty incident was a shocker, but what about Millers two footed flying tackle? You do not need to make contact with a player to be sent off, it just has to be reckless and “out of control”. The scissor tackle on Roberts is disgusting and totally illegal. The Clint Hill celebration with the fans is an automatic booking, second yellow and then red.

Watcher, I’m not picking on you to make this reply, it’s just that your post covers most of the points others have made too about yesterday’s refereeing performance.

Firstly, when you say “the ref was biased, no doubt whatsoever about that”, I suspect you inadvertently forgot to say “in my opinion”, rather than misleading us into thinking it was an unarguable fact. Personally, I think he made a few mistakes, in common with most referees in most matches, but that claims of bias are widely off the mark.

Secondly, you illustrate perfectly my point about ‘diddy teams’ not mattering with your mention of Miller’s two-footed lunge (which I confess I forgot about), which was indeed a shocker.

What relevance does this have to ‘diddy teams’? Well a few months back, Scott Brown performed precisely the same reckless and out of control manouevre on a Hearts player without even receiving a yellow card, far less a red. When I mentioned this on here, I was shot down in flames amid assurances from those many Celtic fans who responded that the referee was correct to take no action. Are you now saying there should be a different set of rules applied to Celtic and Rangers* players, as mentioned by Tayred above? Surely not, since it would be hypocritical of us to chastise Rangers* for having a rulebook all to themselves (or indeed none, as the case may be), but condone the two Glasgow rivals operating under different rules to the also rans.

As I said previously, try supporting a diddy team (maybe you already do?) and see just how consistently unfair referees can really be!  

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on3:02 pm - Mar 13, 2017


As predicted by David Low on our podcast just before Christmas the Kingco alliance has been deemed by the Takeover Panel to have been acting in concert, and have been instructed to make a bid for all of the shares in the company at 20p per share.

My information is that the institutional shareholders – and Mike Ashley – would be happy to cash out at that price, if Kingco make the bid.

Failure to make the bid would bestow irretrievable damage to the reputations of those involved. Although there is no statutory requirement to follow the TP instruction, that failure would attach pariah status in the business world on anyone doing business with the concert party.

Now though is Dave King’s opportunity to show that he is as committed to Rangers as he says, rid the club of the nuisance shareholders and take control.

Won’t happen though. There will be no bid. King is finished.

View Comment

BrianMPosted on3:08 pm - Mar 13, 2017


We await with great interest any comments from The Offshore Game on the demise of the glib and shameless liar.

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on3:20 pm - Mar 13, 2017


Here’s the full Report of the Takeover Panel. 

http://www.thetakeoverappealboard.org.uk/downloads/2017-01.pdf

Supreme timing, eh?!

New thread Big Pink?

View Comment

naegreetinPosted on3:26 pm - Mar 13, 2017


Will there be subsequent court actions raised by those who were disadvantaged by the concert party takeover e.g Somers et al who raised the original complaint to the TP ? 

View Comment

DeekbhoyPosted on3:30 pm - Mar 13, 2017


Are not one of the others in Kings concert party a partner with Morgan Stanley? If that is the case how are they going to view this ruling?
 

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on4:18 pm - Mar 13, 2017


Big Pink March 13, 2017 at 15:02
=======================
Some good points there.  Ashley and Easdale controlled around 24m shares the last I checked. At 20p a share King would be struggling to fund it, if they chose to sell.

View Comment

watcherPosted on4:34 pm - Mar 13, 2017


Highlander, thanks for your reply.
First off yes i do support a diddy team.
Second, yes of course it was only an opinion and perhaps i should have made myself more clear. I am not saying anything against the referee as such, my main point that i failed to get across is that it is very unfair to put a referee in charge of a game where there is even a suggestion of any bias. This in my opinion is very unfair and brings enormous pressure on the referee. There is something wrong with our “game” if the fans can not believe that fair play at all times is what we are witnessing.
Third i am glad you remembered the two feet off the ground flying tackle just glad you are not a referee, don’t get how anyone witnessing that and the Roberts tackle could possibly forget them. By the way i do not know which team you support but i hope they try to play football at all times.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on5:10 pm - Mar 13, 2017


So King has to offer 20p for every share. That’s hardly punitive, when most shareholders bought in for a lot more than 20p. I can’t imagine many fans wanting out at that price. I assume the Three Bears are staying in. I doubt very much whether Ashley will bail out. So who’s left, who would take 20p? McCoist, certainly. Maybe the Easdales and Charles Green. Blue Pitch and Margarita? Who knows. 
I can’t see the exercise costing more than a few million. King would presumably then have majority control, and can get his resolution passed to issue shares in exchange for the outstanding loans, plus some for cash to Club 1872 and any other fans who are feeling flush.
A cheap way of getting absolute control, in my opinion. So does King have the few millions required? I guess so, but getting it to the UK might be a problem.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on5:15 pm - Mar 13, 2017


Oops!!

Mr Letham was also aware that the appellant, Mr Dave King, was interested in
acquiring shares of Rangers. He was a businessman from Glasgow, but was then, and
still is, living in South Africa. He had invested money in the old Rangers club before it
went into administration in 2012. He was in touch with Mr Letham from the summer
of 2014 onwards. He co-operated with him in October 2014 in two successive proposals
concerning Rangers. The first was a consortium funding proposal to provide a major
injection of capital in the form of funding of £16m, as to £8m from eight individuals to
be co-ordinated by Mr Letham and a Mr Paul Murray, and as to £8m from Mr King,
the total to be split equally between debt and equity. They were acting in concert in
putting forward the funding proposal, which would have resulted in the funders
acquiring 33% of the enlarged share capital. The second proposal involved acquiring a
blocking stake of 25% of Rangers shares. Both proposals failed to materialise, but Mr
Letham and Mr King stayed in touch.

Takeover Panel boycott on the cards …

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on5:22 pm - Mar 13, 2017


NEEPHEID
MARCH 13, 2017 at 17:10
=================================

It’s worth bearing in mind that King et al bought in at 20p, when the shares were trading higher. It was Laxey, Artemis, Miton and River & Mercantile they bought from. 

Given the ongoing losses some more people may decide to simply get out, particularly if they think there is a real risk of insolvency.

Just for the sake of argument Ashley and the Easdale block may decide to sell up. Particularly if they think King etc are going to get over 75%. Their own shares become almost pointless. So why not just sell up. That would cost in the region of £4m, which would be money that could not be used to bolster the club during the ongoing losses.

So King et al may have to provide proof of funds of say £12m, then pay out £4m of that. Bearing in mind that’s money gone, no swap for equity, it’s all to their “enemies”.

There also the issue (pun intended) of the 10% shareholding which is not allowed to vote, get an income from it’s shares, or trade them. What will their position be, would this be a way out for them. That would be another £1.6m.

It really isn’t a good thing for King et al, or the PLC. 

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on5:23 pm - Mar 13, 2017


I was very much neutral in my opinion of Mr Park before and after his buying of shares in the Ibrox entity. My only knowledge of Hume was his name on the side of buses and  car showrooms. However now that the Concert Party allegation is found proven and his connection to the Shameless One is established as part of a prior agreement then that opinion must be revised very much to the negative both in terms of his judgement and in relation to the kind of criminal he has been found to consort with. The reputational damage must be considerable both in relation to his customers and the money market community.
the whole thing becomes more and more bizarre – were it any other club disrepute charges would be sure to follow- the were it any other club is the real problem.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on5:29 pm - Mar 13, 2017


Here’s the full takeover panel ruling. Lots of interesting detail.
https://t.co/JHI2l2wtVU

View Comment

Hoopy 7Posted on5:43 pm - Mar 13, 2017


It is worth noting that in the decision it is stated that,
““In addition to the person specified in Rule 9.1, each of the principal members ofa group of persons acting in concert with him may, according to the circumstancesof the case, have the obligation to extend an offer.” 
The point of this is that if King does not buy them then the others may be ordered to do so.
This still has a long way to run and all the while we still do not know who owns the deeds.
Moreover there is the oustanding issue of driving the share price down and the damage that this caused to other investors.
If the 3 bears are struggling to find loans as is rumoured then how will they cope with finding money to buy out investors?
Yesterday’s game was yet another reminder that we can take nothing for granted. At least 3 shocking decisions from a referee who seems not to want to implement the basic rules of the game.
Celtic failed to turn up and it was a  Deilaesque performance despite Brendans pride in his team.
They will need to turn up big time if they want to win another cup because you cannot rule out all manner of decisions to take it away from them.
Sevco’s new manager will not last a wet weekend in Govan.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on5:48 pm - Mar 13, 2017


Has the game been disreputed yet?  I’m sure wee Craigy got hammered for quite a lot less.  

View Comment

naegreetinPosted on6:35 pm - Mar 13, 2017


CO @ 17.48 – I think “besmirched” is the word you are looking for !
What will happen to Mr ProBono if King decides to exit stage right ? Enter Mr Kennedy stage left ?

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on6:54 pm - Mar 13, 2017


Absolutely – this Take Over Panel is just full of ‘Rangers’ haters !
Who are these people ?!

And has anyone at Hampden mentioned this decision – and yesterday’s dodgy refereeing – to the Bunker residents today ?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, not a peep on either the SFA or SPFL sites.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on6:55 pm - Mar 13, 2017


I actually did laugh out loud at this.

https://stv.tv/sport/football/1382974-pedro-caixinha-this-squad-is-the-best-in-scotland/

On what he thinks of his squad
“For us this is the best squad in Scotland, we are going to work with the best squad in Scotland, so we just need to give them that confidence.

8 points and 22 goals behind Aberdeen

33 points and 52 goals behind Celtic.

Clearly the best squad in Scotland are under performing a tad. Oh and has anyone told him they have a couple of loanees playing in the first team and several people out of contract come the summer.  He might not have some of the squad’s main players for next season.

View Comment

tamjartmarquezPosted on7:01 pm - Mar 13, 2017


I won’t get dragged into referees and decisions as the futility is well established. but has Broonie had a word with Dembele yet for his dive? Thought not.

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on7:03 pm - Mar 13, 2017


Mr D. Johnstone on SSB waxing lyrical about the Jason Holt “tackle” on Partick Roberts from the game on Sunday. Is anyone surprised? 

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:06 pm - Mar 13, 2017


The way I read it, DCK claims he knows nowt about  New Oasis and has no connection to or influence over them . He has no connection to any shareholding . He was just sunning himself in SA when he got the call from the footsoldiers to come to the rescue .  He rattles on about the long suffering TRFC fans and that he is one and happy to take a hit on their behalf . Although mentioned only once , he neglects to append (IL) after Rangers Football Club . He seems perplexed that TAB doesn’t get it, that this is an institution that should get preferential treatment regardless , and it should be of no concern to anybody else . It was always thus so why should anybody see it otherwise ? They(TAB) obviously have no concept of being one of “the People” and all that entails . Any of this right ?

View Comment

tonyPosted on7:13 pm - Mar 13, 2017


TAMJARTMARQUEZ
how do you know he hasn’t ?
you don’t,thought not 

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on7:24 pm - Mar 13, 2017


No discussion of the Takeover Appeal Board Decision on BBC Sportsound, just a short statement from a Rangers supporting sports reporter that I paraphrase as “This is not a problem for Rangers” 

Subsequent discussion on Celtic v Rangers match like a Bobby Madden Appreciation Society.

Now talking about Pedro’s statement / interview. 

You’d never guess that the BBC is banned by The Rangers! 

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:50 pm - Mar 13, 2017


I wonder about Mr Letham’s position, given that
5.Mr Letham admits that, in acquiring interests in the Laxey shares at 20p per share, he acted in concert with Messrs Taylor and Park.
Do you think the rest are still talking to him ?

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on8:28 pm - Mar 13, 2017


I also wonder if any of those arrested at Sunday’s game  will make use of the fact that Police Scotland did nothing about the massed (if I can use the word) singing of sectarian anthems, when defending themselves against charges of doing the same or similar.

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on8:34 pm - Mar 13, 2017


PADDY MALARKEY
MARCH 13, 2017 at 13:20
Seems the referee of the CFC v TRFC match lived up to everybody’s (including TRFC fans’) expectations. Scrap the contract and bring back foreign referees- at least they will follow the rules of the game rather than the “other” rules.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The role of the Compliance Officer
 
Many people including me thought the Compliance Officer had the power to retrospectively review serious incidents apparently “missed” by the Referee and Linemen and recommend disciplinary action if appropriate
Where “appropriate” meant a punishment that would have resulted if the Referee had taken the correct action at the time
 
However
 
The Josh Meekins hand ball incident disproved this notion
 
Judicial Panel outcome: Meekings   Thursday, 23 April 2015 Alleged Party in Breach: Josh Meekings (Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC) Match: Inverness Caledonian Thistle v Celtic (Scottish Cup) – Sunday, 19th April 2015 Disciplinary Rule(s) allegedly breached: Disciplinary Rule 200: In that at the above match you did deny the opposing team an obvious goal scoring opportunity by deliberately handling the ball Outcome: Notice of Complaint dismissed and no suspension applied.
So
Despite having video evidence to the contrary the Panel concluded the notice of complaint by the Compliance Officer should be dismissed
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 
This suggests that in addition to the TV video, the Panel also took evidence from the Referee
If so they dismissed the Notice of Complaint because they believed it was an “honest mistake”
i.e.
The incident had not been missed by both the Referee and his Linesman
But
Their combined view of the incident at the time concluded that no offence had taken place. No doubt in the light of the video evidence they admitted their mistake at the meeting
And
The word of the Referee was taken over the video evidence
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Applying this concept to the Hill / Griffiths incident yesterday suggests the following:
If the Referee readily admits after the match that he made or might have made an “honest mistake”, he puts the Compliance Officer in a difficult position
Meaning
If “honest mistakes” are admitted in advance of a Panel Mtg rather than saying nothing then the CO is wasting his time issuing a Notice of Complaint
Because
The Panels starting point assumes the incident had been missed by both Referee and Linesman
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 
Which explains why Bobby Madden cleverly got his “honest mistake” argument into the public domain by speaking to Griffiths after the match?
 Suggesting
 A Notice of Complaint is unlikely
But
 If a Notice of Complaint is indeed issued it will be dismissed by the Panel
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
At the very least
A good story for Bobby’s after dinner circuit in the years to come
 

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on8:59 pm - Mar 13, 2017


I think I am correct in saying T3B’s “loans” are scheduled for repayment around December. If they were to accept DCK’s enforced offer of 20p, (their approx buy-in price)and collect the loan repayments in December, they can walk away without loss
    I’ll bet they never thought that a possibility this time last week. 
    They may or may not, but they have a perfect opportunity to rag-doll DCK if they choose to. leaving him holding the baby. 
  I must say a rather excellent negotiating position.  
    

View Comment

tamjartmarquezPosted on9:05 pm - Mar 13, 2017


TONYMARCH 13, 2017 at 19:13
Well he does have a history of going public on such matters, not this time? Thought not.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:30 pm - Mar 13, 2017


CORRUPT OFFICIAL
MARCH 13, 2017 at 20:59
===============================

Would he have to make an offer to the other members of the “concert party”.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:32 pm - Mar 13, 2017


TAMJARTMARQUEZ
MARCH 13, 2017 at 21:05

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

That’s not what you said and he replied to though.

“but has Broonie had a word with Dembele yet for his dive? Thought not.”

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on9:44 pm - Mar 13, 2017


The line taken by Richard Wilson on BBC Sportsound on the Concert Party was that this would have no effect on the Club so it is effectively a non story. This only works if there is an inexhaustible war chest or warchest. He forgets that each pound spent in making the offer to the other shareholders and in paying off those who take the offer is a pound less for investment or over investment.
The TAB report on D King shows him to have continued in precisely the way that the South African Courts described him.
Like many aspects of this the pulling out of one thread cascade into others not only was there a Concert Party but it’s activity followed activities by at least one of its members which might be argued caused the share price to be les than it should have been -going for 55 (court cases)

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:50 pm - Mar 13, 2017


CORRUPT OFFICIALMARCH 13, 2017 at 20:59       2 Votes 
I think I am correct in saying T3B’s “loans” are scheduled for repayment around December. If they were to accept DCK’s enforced offer of 20p, (their approx buy-in price)and collect the loan repayments in December, they can walk away without loss    I’ll bet they never thought that a possibility this time last week.     They may or may not, but they have a perfect opportunity to rag-doll DCK if they choose to. leaving him holding the baby.   I must say a rather excellent negotiating position.
———————-
I shall take the appropriate time to reflect upon it and consider the best course of action for myself, RIFC and its shareholders.
———————
He may be on gardening leave before that, or for the off reading that part of the statement….All for the best for the club/company of course

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:55 pm - Mar 13, 2017


BFBPUZZLED
MARCH 13, 2017 at 21:44
==================================

That is an absolutely preposterous position to take. Not your’s, Richard Wilson’s. 

First the main Rangers shareholders, who usurped the previous board have been effectively found guilty of at best shady practices. The report makes that quite clear. 

Second it could mean they will have to offer millions to other shareholders and realistically they may have to actually spend some of those millions. Giving it to their “enemies”. The support will love that. 

Third, that would be money that they had probably put aside (in their heads) to provide further loans to keep the business trading. Without it they may not be able to pay bills as they fall due.

Fourth, in a share issue they may have been willing to buy more shares, over and above their debt for equity swap. If they won the pre-emption vote.

That’s just off the top of my head. 

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on10:02 pm - Mar 13, 2017


HOMUNCULUSMARCH 13, 2017 at 21:30 
CORRUPT OFFICIALMARCH 13, 2017 at 20:59===============================
Would he have to make an offer to the other members of the “concert party”
   ———————————————————————-
   For all the shares he did not own was the wording. 

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on10:07 pm - Mar 13, 2017


HomunculusMarch 13, 2017 at 21:55 
BFBPUZZLED MARCH 13, 2017 at 21:44 ==================================
That is an absolutely preposterous position to take. Not your’s, Richard Wilson’s. 

I listened to that station tonight and could not believe the denials in everything from King which they skipped through and then the game, talk about a concert party, Spiers,Ferguson,Wilson and Kenny Mac absoloute shit holes no spine. They have the red neck to talk about the game,play wee clips and talk to BR but no interview due to dispute with Ibrox. Why do the BBC employ these people and give this creation light?
Honest question: Who believes any this stuff, i really mean it, you would have to be in a coma to take this seriously or is everybody just tune in to laugh?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:51 pm - Mar 13, 2017


As an aside, the Takeover Appeal Board seems to think that RIFC and TRFC are one entity:
” 16. After the purchase of the shares in Rangers the existing directors of Rangers were removed by the shareholders vote at an EGM in March 2015 and Mr King’s nominees were appointed as directors of Rangers. In May 2015 Mr King was appointed chairman of Rangers.”
We know of course that King, not being a fit and proper person, obliged the SFA by not taking a seat on the TRFC Board , thus saving them having to find an illicit way of accommodating him. The SFA  are quite happy, though, to look through their fingers as King exercises de facto  control of that football club by being Chairman of Rangers International FC!
And irritatingly, they mention in para 8 that “the old Rangers club …. went into administration in 2012” without following through with the fact that it went into Liquidation. It’s  as if they shared the general reluctance of the SMSM and the BBC to use the word ‘liquidation’.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on12:07 am - Mar 14, 2017


JOHN CLARK
MARCH 13, 2017 at 23:51

And irritatingly, they mention in para 8 that “the old Rangers club …. went into administration in 2012” without following through with the fact that it went into Liquidation. It’s  as if they shared the general reluctance of the SMSM and the BBC to use the word ‘liquidation’.

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

17.In February 2012, old Rangers entered administration and in July 2012 it entered liquidation.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on12:55 am - Mar 14, 2017


New Podcast up. David Low, who predicted today’s Takeover Panel decision, on the fallout from the verdict.

http://podcast.sfm.scot/#.WMc98wfx0Rg

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:46 am - Mar 14, 2017


One for the not-so-oldies.

The photos of Pedro reminded me of someone, but couldn’t quite place him.
Then it came to me: attached image is Pedro without a hat, and the bears must be hoping he has something up his sleeves?

Ah’ll get ma colouring in books.  😉

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=QA4f7C9U&id=D87691E95587316BC7C39D6329EDBB9570A384C1&q=inspector+gadget&simid=608040441346132303&selectedIndex=26&qpvt=inspector+gadget

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on8:58 am - Mar 14, 2017


According to David Low on the Podcast, if King complies with TP instruction, there is a disagreement amongst fans of how it would an out.

Rangers fans think no-one will sell RIFC shares @20p because they are worth much more. David thinks otherwise – that there will be a rush to sell at that price.

Ascertaining the actual value of the shares (says Low) is very difficult since the de-listing has taken them off the market, and reduced the reporting requirements on RIFC. Finding a proper price becomes guesswork?

Reading between the lines from that conversation, I think King’s days are over.

Full interview here: http://www.podbean.com/media/share/pb-8t4mp-68a1a0#.WMesfIzBiOw

View Comment

Comments are closed.