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

HomunculusPosted on10:23 am - Mar 14, 2017

MARCH 14, 2017 at 08:58

It’s an interesting point with regards what the shares are “worth”. Let’s not go into the whole worth or value debate it just opens things up for the semanticists (who ironically may argue with my use of the word semanticists). You know who you are BFB.

Anyhow, I have no idea why anyone would think they are worth more than 20p. The last significant trades in the shares, relating to around 34% of the business had them sold at 20p as far as I am aware. So why would they be worth much more now. The business has gotten deeper into debt, has de-listed, has had an unfavourable ruling from the Takeover Appeal Board, is in the middle of some very serious legislation etc.

I would suggest that if anything that would cause the value of shares to drop significantly, not to go up. 

People may think they have won the proverbial watch if they are offered 20p per share. They can get a decent bit of money back and walk away from the shambles. Particularly if they see things getting worse and not better.

View Comment

FinlochPosted on10:25 am - Mar 14, 2017

Given that yesterday’s ruling  was the result of an appeal (and factoring in the time that took) I’d say the outcome was probably already anticipated by those with skin in the game.
I’d guess anyone with significant shareholdings or unsecured loans or both has already weighed up their alliances and options. 

If they believe this unique ship can ever float their critical decision must be if their financial input so far has been downgraded to expenditure or if it could ever become real investment with returns.
Eventually (but maybe not yet) all the emotion will be stripped out and it will be about numbers.

For now it is about 2 questions.

Is 20p per share a way to soften the loss?

Or is 20p a bargain to help gain control?…..

….before some really, really serious money is required.

View Comment

naegreetinPosted on11:03 am - Mar 14, 2017

Re Park,Letham & Taylor – wonder if an enterprising journo (a financial one) will give a call to one or all of them to establish if yesterday’s TP decision “has no effect on Rangers” as per Dickie Wilson on BBC Sportsound last night .

Thought not .

View Comment

Hoopy 7Posted on11:26 am - Mar 14, 2017

In my opinion the House of Cards is about to collapse around the ears of the three bears.
This decision by the Takeover Board has the potential to ruin the three bears financially.
While King has been ordered to make an offer for the shares it is not beyond the possibility that he will, in his inimitable hubristic way, stick two fingers up to the authorities, retreat to his lair in South Africa and hang the three bears out to dry.
If King does not offer to buy the shares it is within the Takeover Boards power to order the others who were acting in concert with him to make the offer in his place.
In other words they will have to come up with the best part of £15 Million to buy the shares.
The only asset which The Rangers International Football Club has is “The Rangers Football Club Limited” and the debt which that historic five year old club owes to them.
It has been repeatedly said by PMG that “The Rangers Football Club” are paying in the region of £286,000 per month to an unknown offshore entity. Is it “Rent”?
If it is a fact that “The Rangers Football Club Limited” are Title Holders in name only and that another body is in fact the beneficial owner of the stadium then the historic five year old club only own their name and owe a lot of debt which they will be unable to pay as they could not sell or otherwise transfer the ownership of the stadium.
As Bomber Brown has said “Where are the deeds”? Who really owns the stadium?
Has anyone ever got to the bottom of why this money is allegedly leaving Govan for far off shores?
Even if I am wrong in my view that “The Rangers Football Club Limited” are not the owners of the stadium and it can be sold to TRIFC then it would only cover the debt owed to TRIFC and not the costs needed to fund the prospectus and share offer.
In short the three bears are walking towards the precipice. According to PMG one of the bears has exhausted his funds and another is haemorrhaging clients. I am of the opinion that they will have to pull the pin on the whole operation or find many millions.
Their reputations will be in tatters and could be ruined financially.
They should have listened to the words of the South African Judge.
In time I think King will be as welcome in the blue room as a fart in a phone box.

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on11:59 am - Mar 14, 2017

Valuation of most assets rests on comparable sales. Is the 20p a market value? No one can say because there have been no open market sales of the stock, the stock is for an opaque set of assets with numerous unquantified negative issues, the opaqueness of the stock means that finding truly comparable evidence is impossible. 
Once again we are into haruspicy which has all kinds of downsides from the financial equivalent of food poisoning. (A wee chicken entrail joke there for which I apologise)
Haruspicy was alleged against methods used by Surveyors and is probably fair comment

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:05 pm - Mar 14, 2017

Warburton and Weir given the Nottingham Forrest jobs.

Cat among the pigeons in any future employment tribunal?

My guess is an undisclosed settlement being agreed soon.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:10 pm - Mar 14, 2017

Wonder if the Magic hat will raid Ibrox for a few of his old player 🙂

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on12:15 pm - Mar 14, 2017

Pedro seems to be ideal for the next fleecing he has ticked all the right boxes when reading and stating his level 5 media test

View Comment

Charlie_KellyPosted on12:16 pm - Mar 14, 2017

An earlier poster speculated that Dave King will live up to his reputation and hang the 3 bears out to dry and that they will have to front up the £15 million.
So my question would be what happens if the 3 Bears cant (or won’t) put up the £15 million?
What happens then?
I do realise that not every shareholder will sell at 20p a share and that the final outlay won’t be anything like £15 million but my understanding of the rules is that they have to demonstrate that they do have the £15 million available. So like I say, what happens if they don’t have the £15 million? 

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on12:25 pm - Mar 14, 2017

wottpiMarch 14, 2017 at 12:10 
PS Wonder if the Magic hat will raid Ibrox for a few of his old player

Amazing how all connected at ibrox seem to believ in things like magic hats,moonbeams,castle greyskull
even Ally is at it,
“McCoist admitted knowing little about Caixinha, currently in charge of Qatar Stars League side Al Gharafa.

“I would clearly wish him all the very best, but I would be very surprised if he turns up with a magic wand.

So would we all

View Comment

GiovanniPosted on12:36 pm - Mar 14, 2017

MARCH 14, 2017 at 12:16

The Takeover Panel is set up under the 2006 Companies Act and it can refer matters to the Courts. What a High Court Judge will make of all these shenanigans is anyones guess.

View Comment

woodsteinPosted on1:13 pm - Mar 14, 2017

It amazes me how many people think that they are “special” ?
The most serious disciplinary power exercisable by the Takeover Panel is to “cold-shoulder “ an offender by declaring the offender to be a person who in the opinion of the Panel is not likely to comply with the Code.
This triggers the consequence described in section 11(b)(v) of the Introduction to the Code, that, for up to 6 years,under the rules of the FCA, their members cannot  act for the person in any transaction covered the Code. In other words pariah status

View Comment

TheClumpanyPosted on1:46 pm - Mar 14, 2017

Good Afternoon.

Just to say I really enjoyed the podcast with David Low. Great stuff. 


View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:02 pm - Mar 14, 2017

I’ve now read the decision of the Takeover Appeal Board(TAB) in full.

And I was annoyed by para 28 of Annexe 1.

I have emailed a polite enough email, as follows:

“The Secretary,
Takeover Appeal Board

Dear Secretary,
I wonder if you would mind looking at para 28 of Annexe 1 to the report of the decision of the Takeover Appeal Board in the case referred to above?

In that paragraph we read :
“.Supporters were also concerned that Mr Ashley might seek to re-name Ibrox stadium to promote the Sports Direct brand andthat the requirement for the Scottish FA to give its consent to Mr Ashley holding more than 10% of Rangers (having regard to his ownership of Newcastle United) would subject the Club to scrutiny by the regulatory body that had forced the team out of the Scottish Premiership and caused it to restart at the bottom of the Scottish footballdivisions…’.

It seems to me to have been a bit slack not to have made it very clear that the words I have put in italics are reflective only of what the ‘supporters’ say, and do not indicate that that is what the TAB accepts and believes.

For, of course, the world and his wife know that the ‘Rangers’ that suffered the commercial death of entering Liquidation were not ‘forced out’ of the Scottish premiership.
They simply suffered the consequences , under the then SPL rules, of suffering a major insolvency event-the loss of entitlement to a share in the SPL.AND, of course, the consequential loss of entitlement to a share in the Scottish Football Association.

No regulatory body ‘forced’the old, liquidated Rangers out of anything!

And there is absolutely no truth in the assertion that the ‘old Rangers in Liquidation’ ‘restarted’ at the bottom of the Scottish football divisions.
No, the old Rangers is in Liquidation, until the Liquidators finish their business and the old Rangers is dissolved.

The club calling itself The Rangers Football Club Ltd is not the old Rangers, but a newish club founded by Mr Charles Green in 2012 ( and before the ‘holding company’ of Rangers international FC had been set up!)

As a new club, it had, under the rules, to APPLY for membership of a league.It had no automatic right to membership to any league.

It was refused membership of the then SPL.

It then applied for membership of the then SFL, not as a ‘re-starting’ old Rangers ( how could it, when the old Rangers is still legally in existence, in Liquidation?), but as a new club.

I would not wish the TAB inadvertently to propagate an untruth by careless wording in its written decisions.

I think, therefore, that para 28 should be amended to show clearly that what is being said is only what one party in the proceedings says, and that the TAB is not endorsing what that party says.

Yours sincerely,

[name and address supplied]

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on2:12 pm - Mar 14, 2017

I saw your comment only after my contribution was posted. My apologies, my defence is that I have given up reading anything except metaphysics for Lent so my head is a bit up my own fundamentals. .
Over the course of many years I have been called numerous things but not a semanticist, I do however admit a tendency toward semiotics and use the word hermeneutics as naturally as Mr Spiers the theological sports writer.
I consider my self well and truly tellt and thank you.

View Comment

nawlitePosted on2:38 pm - Mar 14, 2017

I realise that the TAB judgement is mainly focussed on DCK, as the ‘ringleader’ and perceived main beneficiary of the concert party. While the decision may not overly affect him, based as he is in SA, no one seems to be interested in the effect of the judgement on the other members of the concert party. 
In my opinion, this decision effectively establishes them as cheating, conniving businessmen, rather than the ‘reputable’ businessmen that we – and more importantly, other reputable businessmen –  perceived them to be.
Their business reputations must be tarnished as it has now been established that they are willing to find a way round UK regulatory requirements when it suits them to get what they want. How will any reputable person conducting business with them/their businesses feel now that they know Park/Letham/Taylor are actually dishonest people willing to do whatever it takes to get what they want even if it means flouting normal business ‘rules’? Can that tarnished reputation allow them to trade as easily as they did before?
Is there a need for (any of) them to make a statement claiming they were unaware of being part of this concert party and it was mere coincidence that their share purchases were timeous and misconstrued? Could we have more “I was duped” claims? 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:42 pm - Mar 14, 2017

TheClumpanyMarch 14, 2017 at 13:46
‘.Just to say I really enjoyed the podcast with David Low. Great stuff. ‘
So great  was it that I prevailed upon Mrs C to listen to it, and she listened with  a growing awareness that the blog is actually about serious stuff, not about the trivia of football.
She also agreed with me that BP is a natural broadcaster, with an easy-to-listen-to voice and a laid-back, relaxed style.
A bit surprisingly to me  she expressed an interest in hearing from Anne Budge and Leeann Dempster , and thought that BP could charm them into being interviewed!

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on3:12 pm - Mar 14, 2017

MARCH 14, 2017 at 12:05
Warburton and Weir given the Nottingham Forrest jobs.
Cat among the pigeons in any future employment tribunal?
My guess is an undisclosed settlement being agreed soon.
Maybe not
By appointing a new Mgr and backroom team TRFC have effectively ruled out the one option that could have saved them money (however unlikely)
Re-instating MW & team
By doing so they have simplified the case from one of Unfair Dismissal with the possibility of reinstatement to one of Unfair Dismissal where the only outcome is the amount of compensation
Its hardly a coincidence that the NF announcement comes AFTER the announcement that a new Mgr and team are in place at Ibrox
If this announcement had been made a few weeks ago it might have signalled a deal had been done
But the timing of the announcement may suggest otherwise
TRFC are living hand to mouth and recent events suggest their No 1 goal is to survive to ST time. Getting rid of MW&co has saved them some wages. Paying them off before ST money arrives would seriously damage their cash flow  at a critical time
And I just can`t see MW settling for some deferred payment arrangement after the way he has been treated

View Comment

naegreetinPosted on3:41 pm - Mar 14, 2017

Re aftermath of TP decision – surely the RIFC auditors will have to alert the company to its legal position as it now transpires the directors obtained control in an illegal fashion – this could unravel quickly (wouldn’t fancy being on the current creditors’list)

View Comment

BarcabhoyPosted on4:09 pm - Mar 14, 2017

Firstly , Let me congratulate both guys involved in the most recent podcast. For these things to be worthwhile , two elements are non negiotable. You have to ask the key questions and you have to have someone answering who has appropriate expertise and answers in a non partisan manner
The questions were exactly the one’s needing to be asked and the answers were knowledgeable and relevant.

As a comparison , the performance of Richard Wilson on BBC Sportsound ,on the same subject, was beyond laughable. It was partisan and it was ignorant of the facts and reality. Wilson functions to convey the views of the Rangers board, which the BBC may see as useful given their current dispute. However Wilson is an embarrassment to an organisation which should always strive for balance. 

Journalists get a lot of stick on this site, sometimes with very good reason. There are though excellent journalists in Scotland who work hard to present the facts in a fair manner and who’s opinion pieces are not influenced by PR or personal favourites. They don’t deserve to be bracketed by a lightweight like Wilson

On the subject of the podcast , i’d only add that it was revealing that the judgement exposed the incestuous nature of the relationship between King and the Rangers fan groups who now control Club 1872. This is supposed to be an arms length organisation who’s role is to hold the board to account, to protect fan interests and to ensure that the club is not exposed to the type of toxic control which has been the overriding feature of previous regimes.

 The below quote from the Takeover Report shows the incestuous nature of this relationship. In fact it could be reasonably claimed that these fans were as much a part of the concert party as Taylor , Leatham and Park

It was no doubt for this reason that on 2 January Mr King emailed Mr Graham of the Fans Union reporting that “I got all Artemis and Miton and 500K from River and Mercantile” 


Nobody will need reminding that Chris Graham was rewarded for his part in this concert party takeover with a seat on the board. We can laugh at Graham’s inept performance , laugh at his unquestioning approval of every regime, and condemn his racist and sectarian behaviour. However he still holds significant influence on Club 1872 at a time when a neutral and questioning fan group is badly needed.

King has the likes of Wilson and Graham to fight fires, but their credibility is zero outwith King loyalists. 

The TAB report adds another layer of challenge , it isn’t a minor issue. As David stated in the podcast , it appears clear that King does not want to make an offer. 

 As stated earlier, the Executive’s ruling was given on 7 June 2016 and on 2 August 2016 Mr King indicated to the Executive that he wished this Committee to review its ruling

He will though have to choose whether to comply in full or to ignore the TAB ruling. Complying will require him to demonstrate he has the available funds of close to £11 Million to buy out all shareholders outside of his fellow concert party members. Should he ignore the TAB then King should be finished as Chairman of Rangers , although i’m sure Richard Wilson and Chris Graham will push the self serving button one more time to downplay the real nature of this ruling

Talking of self-serving.

The SFA should have a significant problem on their hands . Their decision to approve King as fit and proper has been exposed as foolish. They ignored the words of a High Court judge in South Africa that King was a glib and shamless liar Nd could not be taken at his word. However they now should be considering King’s behaviour as Chairman of Rangers

i quote

  The Committee is in no doubt that this was a self-serving email designed by Mr King to cover his tracks and to give the false impression that his own acquisitions and those of the Letham “consortium” had not been co-ordinated


Be clear on this . The Takeover Advisory Board are accusing King of fabrication and deception, in his capacity as Rangers Chairman

then we have this 

 It is unfortunate that this matter has taken so long to come to a head but the Committee is satisfied that the delay is very substantially attributable to the lack of co-operation afforded by Mr King to the Executive’s investigation. That same lack of co-operation has continued to characterise Mr King’s dealings with this Committee.


It is clear that King continues to behave in exactly the same manner in his capacity as Rangers Chairman as he did when the South African Judge called him a glib and shameless liar.

Stewart Regan has proven himself a weak and ineffective CEO , however even he should be moved to take action over King’s behaviour in his capacity as Rangers Chairman

View Comment

SmugasPosted on4:26 pm - Mar 14, 2017

Thank goodness there’s nothing in Regans club file to suggest that Kings previous failings, say as a director, to deal with requests for information from official committees appropriately, say regarding side letters, has caused any problems in the recent past.

Thank heavens for that.  Phew.  Lucky escape there I’d say.  

View Comment

jimboPosted on4:45 pm - Mar 14, 2017

I seem to remember that it was disclosed in court in one of the Mike Ashley cases that the SFA did not rule on Dave King being fit & proper.  He is not a member of the board of the football club entity but Rangers International Football Club plc.  It is TRFC Ltd which has membership of the SFA.  So it was outwith their remit.

I think?

View Comment

SmugasPosted on5:03 pm - Mar 14, 2017

That’s my recollection also Jimbo.  Paul Murray is technically the “Rangers”(sic) chairman.  

View Comment

jimboPosted on5:25 pm - Mar 14, 2017

Interestingly Paul Murray, who is on the board of TRFC Ltd, did have to go through the Fit & Proper test, and even though he was a director of the liquidated club within the previous 5 years, he was nonetheless considered F & P.  The SFA what they like?

View Comment

LUGOSIPosted on6:10 pm - Mar 14, 2017

There has been remarkably little coverage of the Match Of The Week/Month/Year/Decade/Century which kicks off tomorrow morning at 10am. One would expect a bit of reporting about a tie which will determine six (or is it seven?) League Titles and any number of other results.
Not surprisingly RFC 2012 Plc (in liquidation) (formerly The Rangers Football Club Plc) are the home team but due to some inexplicable chicanery the tie is not being held at Ibrox.
‘Mon The Advocate General For Scotland.
Although preferably not TAGFS in person. The current incumbent, Richard Keen QC, has in the past represented Rangers against the SFA and has represented Paul Murray and Malcolm Murray against Rangers. I also note that Mr Keen had a little domestic difficulty last month involving firearms. Which of us doesn’t have some shotguns lying about the house?
‘Mon The Guy Or Gal From The Advocate General For Scotland’s Office. 
‘Mon Bobby Reed and Paddy Hodge.
You know it makes common sense.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:03 pm - Mar 14, 2017

Just had a listen to the latest podcast. Avery good listen and very informative.
One thing i missed over the weekend and did mean to ask,and i don’t know if anyone has asked?
Is the Pedro Mendes who was  at Celtic Park and is Pedro Caixinha’s agent, the same  Pedro Mendes £1million EBT?

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:11 pm - Mar 14, 2017

MARCH 14, 2017 at 20:03

I believe it was

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:32 pm - Mar 14, 2017

HOMUNCULUSMARCH 14, 2017 at 20:11
I believe it was
 “Oh! What A Tangled Web they Weave.
JIMBOMARCH 14, 2017 at 16:45       12 Votes 
I seem to remember that it was disclosed in court in one of the Mike Ashley cases that the SFA did not rule on Dave King being fit & proper.  He is not a member of the board of the football club entity but Rangers International Football Club plc.  It is TRFC Ltd which has membership of the SFA.  So it was outwith their remit.
I think?
Never stopped them before
The SFA have hit  Mike Ashley  with a £7,500 fine, later reduced to £1000 i believe(someone can correct me if i’m wrong) not about the fine just the amount of the fine.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:36 pm - Mar 14, 2017

Wonder if any of the SMSM will ask the new ibrox manager over the next few day’s if he knows anything about his agent and an EBT.
The SMSM asking any questions on EBT’S….. What am i on?

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on8:50 pm - Mar 14, 2017

The reality, as has been discussed before is that Dave King has never sat on the board of The Rangers Football Club Ltd and does not own any shares in it.

Why then does he make statements which are reported as being representative of the club. He is treated like the Chairman / Owner of that club, he isn’t.

It is a total fabrication that the media bought into and the fans needed. It is one that the SFA and SPFL ignore, because it suits them to. 

The SFA effectively recognise Dave King as Owner / Chairman without having to go through the troublesome process of him being ruled as fit and proper. What with his 80 plus convictions for fraud and the comments made by a Judge with regards his personal honesty. 

One wonders if they will reconsider now that his appeal against the ruling that he cheated during the takeover of RIFC PLC has failed. Or the comments of him being unhelpful when they were dealing with his own appeal. 

The man is a liar and a cheat who believes the rules don’t apply to him. He is not fit and proper. Unless you consider that kind of person should be the de facto owner and operator of a Scottish football club. 

View Comment

jimboPosted on9:59 pm - Mar 14, 2017

Dave King’s absenting himself from the board of TRFC Ltd. gave the SFA an easy get out in dealing with his Fit & Proper status.  But as we all know with the rules of the SFA (and the SPFL) there is so much wriggle room that if they were so minded to keep” a glib and shameless liar” at a distance from Scottish football it could be done.  He does indeed, in interviews and statements, come across as the controller of both the ‘club’ and the ‘holding company’.  If it were any other club things might be different.

I think things are coming to a head in his stewardship of TRFC Ltd. / TRIFC Plc.  Maybe he will be relieved but I don’t think you could burn his neck with a blowtorch.

View Comment

Ex LudoPosted on10:08 pm - Mar 14, 2017
From the archives. Lest we should forget.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:11 pm - Mar 14, 2017

you can read about the @UKSupremeCourt case here… and watch live here…
Watch it live….JC you may have to stay up late or get up early depending on the time difference.
Hope you can watch it live.

View Comment

Pat ByrnePosted on6:47 am - Mar 15, 2017

Maybe someone can put me right here and I am probably talking guff, it is my understanding that if King follows up the TAB’s ruling that he must make an offer for the shares and if a take up of his offer leaves him with over 50% holding, is it not the case he must then buy the whole club? I have probably got this wrong but something sticks in my head from a couple of years ago that this happened at another club. 
Regardless of the implications to the other shareholders,  how would this affect the FPP status the SPFL have in place? This clusrerf**ck of a mess is what happens when a governing body staggers from one crisis to the next trying to bend, make up or re write the rules as they go along their merry way digging themselves into an abyss. 

I suppose it’s a bit like golf, the original founders of the game thought ” this is fun, a nice wee simple game to pass some time, knocking a small ball around with a piece wood ” then some halfwit said “we need some rules here” before they know it they have a rule book that thick it would put the combined works of Leon Uris and JR Tolkien to shame, 

Imagine this scenario, TRFC are liquidated and a very rich major shareholder of another Scottish Club buys the assets including its history, amalgamates the two clubs calling it say the Celtic and Rangers (the 3rd) Athletic Football Club, would we then have a club with a trophy haul which would never be equalled.  Ludicrous but that’s what is basically being pedalled  as acceptable practice when Mr Greens bought his basket of assets. 
 The whole thing stinks and the more that gets exposed the deeper the hole those in charge find themselves in, they are getting to the stage where they are so deep that they can no longer remove the dirt without it coming back in and burying them, could someone please pass them a larger shovel.

View Comment

TrisidiumPosted on7:25 am - Mar 15, 2017

Pat Byrne
If an individual or a party acting in concert own in excess of 29.9% of a company, they must make an offer for all of the shares. The price is determined by the recent price paid for a share by the individual/concert party. No additional requirement whatever the take-up of that offer.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on7:30 am - Mar 15, 2017

WOTTPIMARCH 14, 2017 at 12:10
PSWonder if the Magic hat will raid Ibrox for a few of his old player
    I think that is answered by Woodsteins post @ MARCH 14, 2017 at 13:13 re cold-shouldering. If you think of the stock-trader replaced by Eddie Murphy in “Trading Places”, you will not be far from the truth. 
   Nobody will trade with them….For anything….. Funnily enough that was for a £1 bet. 12

View Comment

tayredPosted on8:26 am - Mar 15, 2017

TRISIDIUMMARCH 15, 2017 at 07:25 If an individual or a party acting in concert own in excess of 29.9% of a company, they must make an offer for all of the shares. 

So the 3 bears plus everyone else could theoretically dump the whole sorry mess on King and walk away whilst demanding 20p a share? Or are the 3 bears equally culpable in the eyes of TAB? Not that I believe for a minute King would come up with the goods, he’ll just stay in his South African bunker. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on8:44 am - Mar 15, 2017

If Dave King falls on his sword, and resigns as a director of RIFC, would that not strengthen the company’s position, just because he’d be gone? Or, as I suspect, is it the case that the rest of the concert party must make the 20p per share offer in his place, which they may not be prepared to do? What then?

Are we going to see a desperate bid to find a buyer (MA?), or, perish the thought, should the 3bears decide to pony up, could that King of Conmen, safely tucked away in SA, accept their offer (by whatever slight of hand is necessary) and sell them his holding at 20p per share? Could they afford, or would they be prepared to pay, this additional amount over and above what King, himself, would otherwise have had to pay? His final act in screwing up the bears!

It is certainly going to be interesting to watch this all unfold, but I do have a feeling that this might be the catalyst that sees the club, eventually, on a level footing; or just plain dead!

View Comment

jimboPosted on9:10 am - Mar 15, 2017
Live from the Supreme court , starts at 10 am.

Come on HMRC ! (Never thought I’d hear myself saying that!)

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:29 am - Mar 15, 2017

James Doleman has intimated that the decision in the Kinloch v Coral case will be published around noon today.

Coincidentally it is Coral Cup day at Cheltenham. 07

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:12 am - Mar 15, 2017

In my opinion King will simply say that he has decided not to make the offer because

1, It is not in the best interests of the club 

2, There would not be a big take up anyway

3, The cost of doing it would not be justified based on 1, and 2,

The majority of the support will be behind him, which is all that matters anyway. The man has no reputation left to tarnish and he clearly does not care what anyone else thinks of him. 

How the other three members of the concert party act will say a lot about them. I think Park in particular may have issues. A lot of his business must involve providing or brokering loans. Does he really want to have issues with the FCA.

The last thing I think will happen is for King to actually make the offer he has been told to. 

View Comment

andydfcPosted on11:21 am - Mar 15, 2017

I would agree that King is very unlikely to make the offer to shareholders, but I think the logical next step is that the Panel would then go after the 3Bs as they are jointly liable here, albeit that they have put King at the top of the list.
As these are guys with considerable UK interests, that is when it will get really interesting. 
Also I understand that the offer needs to be made only to those outside of the concert party

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on12:02 pm - Mar 15, 2017

Kinloch Decision – Rangers wasn’t “relegated”

[210] In summary, for the foregoing reasons, I am persuaded that the sound construction is that contended for by the defenders. Accordingly, on this construction of the pursuer’s bet it is a losing bet.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:37 pm - Mar 15, 2017

easyJamboMarch 15, 2017 at 12:02
‘…Kinloch Decision – Rangers wasn’t “relegated”’
Oh, that Charles Dickens were alive now to make some brilliant observation about the huffing and puffing of that ass, the ‘Law’!

Lord Bannatyne could have saved himself and the tax-payer a hilling or two if he had simply adverted to the fact that of course
‘Rangers’ were not relegated because they  ceased to be capable of being relegated by , in effect, dying!

And that it was altogether a new creation that had had the bother of trying to begin to exist as a football club, not some ‘continuity Rangers.’
I’m happy that it is now ackowledged that there was nno ‘rangers’ to be relegated!

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on12:56 pm - Mar 15, 2017

From the Kinloch decision
[180]    However, as submitted by Mr Sandison that is not what happened to Rangers.  It was either unchallenged evidence or a matter of admission, that what happened to Rangers at the material time was this:  the Rangers Football Club Plc sold inter alia the one share in the SPL to Sevco Scotland Limited.  That sale required the approval of at least 8 of the members of the SPL.  That application was refused.  It was thus no longer eligible to play in the SPL.  It thereafter applied to the SFL and was permitted to join the lowest league of the SFL (the five part agreement). The foregoing process cannot be described as being moved by anyone to a lower division, or being moved down or demoted.  The dictionary definitions are not apt to cover what happened to Rangers.  I am satisfied that what did not happen was that the SPL moved or demoted Rangers to a lower division.  Rangers ended up in a lower division by the entry into a contract which allowed them to join the SFL in the third division.
So in Lord Bannatyne’s opinion Rangers wasn’t relegated, moved or demoted. 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:58 pm - Mar 15, 2017

And, now that my machine seems to be connected again to the internet, I can say that I got a very reasonable reply to my email to the Secretary of the Takeover Appeal Board.
Here it is:
“Dear Mr………
I acted as Secretary to the Takeover Appeal Board in relation to the above and am writing to thank you for your email below. I have forwarded your email to the Chairman of the TAB for his information.
 I should point out that the relevant paragraph (paragraph 28) is actually an extract from the decision of the Hearings Committee which was appealed to the TAB.  This extract was annexed to the TAB’s decision and the TAB only referred to this extract by way of historic background to the concert party issue which was before the TAB for decision.  The TAB is not in a position to amend the contents of para 28 or to re-open the matters set out in it.
For your reference, the full Hearings Committee decision, of which paragraph 28 forms part, was also published yesterday.
 Yours sincerely
 Mark Curtis
(As Secretary to the Takeover Appeal Board)”

I replied as follows:
“Dear Mr Curtis,
I am most grateful for your prompt response and helpful explanation/clarification of the context of Para 28 and for passing on my email to the TAB Chairman.
Yours sincerely…..”

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on1:12 pm - Mar 15, 2017

John Clark March 15, 2017 at 12:37
Now now JC. You know full well that his Lordship can only make a decision based on the evidence put before him.  Given that neither party sought to use the OC/NC argument to further their case meant that he was unable to make a judgement in those terms.

As stated in para 180 above, he did conclude that Rangers wasn’t relegated, moved or demoted. He opined that Rangers came to be in SFL Div 3 by contract.  A contract can only be entered into by a legal entity and we all know that the entity which entered into that contract was Sevco Scotland. 

View Comment

jimboPosted on1:15 pm - Mar 15, 2017

Was quite difficult to follow the Supreme Court proceedings, it’s all about case precedents, none of which, to me, had much resemblance to Murray & Rangers EBTs circumstances.  I think they are talking about legal terminology as to what exactly earnings are and when/if they get taxed.  The counsel for BDO got very flustered at times, trying to find passages in his bundle.  The judges were giving him a hard time towards the end.  Lord Hodge was very impressive.

Counsel for HMRC stood up at about 12.30.  He speaks in a very halting manner, looked a bit nervous but his points were very straight forward and easy to understand.  In his own way he is quite convincing and was getting an easier time from the judges for his first half hour.  Lunch 1pm resumes 2pm.

HMRC winning so far.

Jimbo QC.

View Comment

nawlitePosted on1:26 pm - Mar 15, 2017

Happy enough with the outcome of the Kinloch case, that ‘Rangers was not relegated’. That ties in with my email from the SPFL in 2015 and, more importantly, will quieten down those ‘believers’ that the same club was simply relegated.
I’m disappointed, however, by the Background provided by LB in para 7 of the judgement where he states that “An association football club bearing the name “Rangers Football Club” was founded in 1872.  Until 2000 Rangers Football Club was owned by the Rangers Football Club Ltd and thereafter by Rangers Football Club Plc.  A team with the name “Rangers” has played in various different football leagues, football cup competitions and football championships.”
This appears to state legally (in court!) that Old Rangers had two distinct entities – the company and the club, which is of course not the case given the one Comp[any number. Am I reading too much into this? It appears to give succour to those who wish to believe in the myth that only the old company was liquidated.
If my interpretation is right, can his Background be challenged? By whom?

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on1:33 pm - Mar 15, 2017

BarcaBhoy and others interested in the impact of the un folding scenarios, like the seven veils being dropped, that will end in the summer, on the SFA is this.
The rules that govern UEFA FFP depend to a very large extent on self certification which then depends on the honesty of the signatories.
As the lies that have been told that are on record since March 2011 at least it will become clear rules depending on trust and honesty are worthless.
In respect of TRFC how anything they sign up to be believed under the current mindset?
This leaves the game two options.
Police the rules independently and properly adding a further auditing layer to the process 
Remove TRFC’S membership.
The SFA and clubs cannot do nothing and hope the game will survive. It doesnt need a strong Rangers it needs an honest Rangers.

View Comment

jimboPosted on1:37 pm - Mar 15, 2017

Correction,  The counsel for HMRC is in fact the counsel for the Advocate General of Scotland since BDO’s beef is with Court of Session’s decision.

That’s why BDO’s man kept referring to cases used in Edinburgh as being weak or irrelevant.

No mention yet of Aberdeen Asset Management yet.  Guess that case will be mentioned this afternoon.

View Comment

BadgerbhoyPosted on1:52 pm - Mar 15, 2017


Would that be the same Lord Hodge who made sure that the old Rangers didn’t go into instant liquidation by opening an investigation into Duff and Phelps and subsequently finding nothing wrong with their administration of the club?

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:08 pm - Mar 15, 2017

MARCH 15, 2017 at 12:56

So basically the ruling is exactly what has been said on here for quite some time.

Rangers weren’t relegated. The new club applied to join the SPL (as was) and their application was declined. They then applied to the SFL (as was) an entirely different league, and their application was accepted. 

The obvious other inference is that it has to be a new club. If it was the same club why would they have to apply to join a league they were already a member of. 

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on2:16 pm - Mar 15, 2017

Naw lite
Come hell or high water the supporters of TRFC will hold on to the belief that RFC and TRFC are the same club.
It’s not something written  on paper from any real authority.
Indeed the ultimate authority on football rules in Europe (UEFA) have stated categorically that the entity operating out of Ibrox is new to them.
“New” means not the same as before and it cannot be any clearer than that, although STV did their best to leave out the new club/company words in their reporting of the reply from UEFA to Res12 lawyers.
The club that applied for a UEFA licence as defined by Art12 of FFP in 2011 and before, will not be the same club who apply for a UEFA licence in the future. They simply cannot be to get a licence unless they pay off the tax that is already owed to HMRC.
I haven’t read the Coral judgement in full and no doubt the semanticsists (or Pharisees) will be crawling all over it to come up with another meaning but whatever way you slice and dice it TRFC are no where near being the force that tramped all over our game.
The direction now should be SFA reform to protect supporters of all clubs including TRFC from the vultures who find Scottish football good pickings.

View Comment

nawlitePosted on2:18 pm - Mar 15, 2017

Homunculus, don’t want to argue as that’s exactly how I’d like it to be viewed but my post above about the Background paras gives me real cause for concern.
I can’t use his ruling that the old club was relegated to prove it to mad myth-believers if they can then turn round and point out that he also says it was only the old COMPANY that was liquidated. It looks to me as if the ‘same club’ myth believers have something in his judgement that they can cling onto too. Which feels like shit, to be honest.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on2:26 pm - Mar 15, 2017

Interestingly when the SFL accepted TRFC into their league TRFC were automatically a Registered Member of the SFA. ( A category removed when SPFL formed).
They had 14 days to put in an application for Associate Membership of the SFA and after 5 years apply for full SFA Membership.
They did not apply for Associate Membership but asked for the SFA Membership of RFC in administration to be transferred to them. This was done under the auspices of the 5 Way Agreement and I suspect the threat that Green would walk away if that transfer was not agreed to.
The same club myth was given a foundation by this agreement made in spite of the fact UEFA saw the TRFC SFA Membership as beginning in August 2012.
You are probably aware of all this but it’s a point worth repeating in interests of veracity.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:26 pm - Mar 15, 2017

Surprising headline from the DR;

“Watch LIVE feed as Rangers ‘Big Tax Case’ goes to Supreme Court”


Now, if we went back to say 4 or 5 years ago…would this case even get a mention in the likes of the DR ?

IMO, this ‘live’ coverage’ is further, tangible proof that our SFM Court Reporters, [Jimbo/JC/EJ etc], James Doleman and other Bampots have had an impact.

Social media, wrt Scottish football, has embarrassed the SMSM newspapers too many times.
Now, they are trying to play catch-up.
But it’s too late.
Their papers’ brands have been plunging in value and relevance – along with their circulation figures – in recent years, [generally].  

It was t’internet wot done it – and showed us just how p!sh the SMSM has been for God knows how many years: mibbees always?

Well done the Internet Bampots !

View Comment

nawlitePosted on3:23 pm - Mar 15, 2017

Auldheid, I get that TRFC fans will hold onto the same club myth. Until now it has been a simple choice for them because as you say “It’s not something written  on paper from any real authority.” Effectively, it was Charles Green’s word that he had bought a club – a club that we all know was/is being liquidated.
My concern is that today’s Background comments by LB seem to be an official/legal recognition that Old Rangers had both a club and a company and that something was liquidated causing it to lose its place in the SPL.
TRFC fans have had no option but to accept that something was liquidated, so have gladly jumped on the fiction that only the company was liquidated with the club continuing. LB appears to have given Charles Green’s suckers some succour and I am really disappointed in that.
I agree with your point and, like you, don’t really care what the fans choose to believe, but I desperately want the SFA to acknowledge the new club and separate the histories. I want those fans to be forced to recognise that – OFFICIALLY – they are not the same club.

View Comment

jimboPosted on4:21 pm - Mar 15, 2017

Well that’s it for today.  Apart from all the legalism regarding what constitutes ‘earnings’ and therefore taxable there was much mention of how the trusts operate and at what point can tax be considered (or not) to be payable.

1. Rangers FC Club 
2.  Club Executive
3. Player signs (bargain struck at this point) side letter issued
4. Salary paid to player and also The Principal Trust every month
5. Principal Trust pays into sub trust
6. Player or his nominated member of family receive tax free cash in their bank  account.

Counsel for Advocate General for Scotland (HMRC’s view) the tax is due at point 4.  But he seemed to admit that even if he was wrong in that then tax on the EBT would at least be due at point 5. 

EBT supporters would love to think that the gap between the player and the sub trust (the principal trust) means it’s tax free. As if the PT was a charity throwing money around.

The counsel for Advocate General of Scotland has stood up very well, plain speaking unlike Thornhill for BDO this morning who was boring.  He was the chap who advised Rangers to settle with HMRC for the wee tax case.  A Tax expert but has got some history apparently.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:27 pm - Mar 15, 2017

NAWLITEMARCH 15, 2017 at 15:23

As has been stated a number of times in the past, the court can only rule on the evidence put before it, and, in the same way, accept any statement (especially if not put forward as ‘evidence’ but merely as background) that goes unchallenged. As we know, stating the true nature of TRFC, as a new club, was the elephant in the room both sides wished to avoid, while one side, quite ludicrously, introduced the ‘big C little c’ spiel, to confuse rather than enlighten the court. His lordship hasn’t stated that TRFC is the same club as RFC, he’s merely couched his determination in the context of what was put before him by one side’s counsel and not challenged by the other. I’d imagine that for the determination to hold water as ‘evidence’ of ‘same club’ the judge would have had to have heard opposing argument by one side. Strangely enough, the one side that could have argued against it (because it was put forward by the defence), was the side who’s case was made stronger (though ultimately failed) by their oponents introduction of the ”same club’ flim-flam.

View Comment

nawlitePosted on4:39 pm - Mar 15, 2017

Allyjambo, are you then saying that we shouldn’t be bothered by his statement “Until 2000 Rangers Football Club was owned by the Rangers Football Club Ltd and thereafter by Rangers Football Club Plc.”

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on5:16 pm - Mar 15, 2017

MARCH 15, 2017 at 16:39

People can be bothered or not about what was said. To each their own. However the hearing was in relation to the question were Rangers relegated. As far as I know that was the simple scope of the question, the answer to which would determine if a punter won his bet or not. 

Ltd Companies don’t get relegated, football clubs do.

The hearing and decision was therefore in relation to the football club.

The ruling therefore was that Rangers, the football club, was not relegated. 

Some nonsense regarding the separation between company and club doesn’t change that. Any more than Mr Nimmo Smith’s comments with regards sporting advantage. 

What really happened was that a club existed, that club either became or begat  a limited company, that limited company became a PLC and that is now being liquidated. Another club was refused entry to the SPL and gained entry to a different league. None of that changes the fact that Rangers, the football club, was not relegated. In spite of the claim of it’s supporters to say that a, it is therefore the same club and b, they were punished. It just isn’t true. 

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on8:25 pm - Mar 15, 2017

Watched the SC case today 
Counsel for BDO made the point that although employee tax should not be assessed as due at the point it was paid into the Trust it could be assessed as due when it was paid out by the sub trust whether in the form of a loan or cash
Seemed to be angling for some sort of lesser ruling that RFC were not liable for the employers share of NI since only employee NI and income tax was  due when the money was paid out by the trust
Or put another way
He was representing RFC not RFC + the EBT employees
They`re happy with a ruling that employees are thrown under the bus as long as RFC are let off their share of NI

View Comment

tonyPosted on8:57 pm - Mar 15, 2017

excuse my ignorance GG,but how can they get NI from a liquidated company

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:17 pm - Mar 15, 2017

MARCH 15, 2017 at 20:25

Thanks for the insight, that’s an interesting take. However given that the appellant is in liquidation and all this will really effect will be the amount available to each of the creditors (the more HMRC gets the less anyone else gets) it strikes me as kind of a pointless exercise. Having said that, for the same reason the whole thing does. This appeal will do nothing more than reduce the creditors pot.

Unless as has been suggested before HMRC were quite happy to go for this ruling and may even (as major creditor) have instructed BDO to do it. A precedent from the Supreme Court would almost certainly encourage any outstanding cases to seek settlement. 

With regards the money being paid out of the sub-trust as a payment rather than a loan. It is my understanding that the way these trusts were set up that was always possible. The benefactor just had to pay the tax due as the money was then irrevocably theirs. As opposed to the artificial scenario of it being loans. 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:39 pm - Mar 15, 2017

HOMUNCULUSMARCH 15, 2017 at 17:16
What really happened was that a club existed, that club either became or begat a limited company, that limited company became a PLC and that is now being liquidated. Another club was refused entry to the SPL and gained entry to a different league. None of that changes the fact that Rangers, the football club, was not relegated. In spite of the claim of it’s supporters to say that a, it is therefore the same club and b, they were punished. It just isn’t true.
I have read that the BBC are now going with “Removed”from the SPL18
Rangers were removed from the SPL in 2012 following liquidation and returned to football in the SFL Third Division….OH DEAR.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:51 pm - Mar 15, 2017

So not relegated or demoted any more.

They were removed.

Maybe someone can show me where the SPL had a rule where a club could be “removed” from the league.

Maybe it’s where they are liquidated and cease to exist.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:52 pm - Mar 15, 2017

NAWLITEMARCH 15, 2017 at 16:39 
Allyjambo, are you then saying that we shouldn’t be bothered by his statement “Until 2000 Rangers Football Club was owned by the Rangers Football Club Ltd and thereafter by Rangers Football Club Plc.”
I’m saying that I’m not worried by it. Think about it, in the SFA v MA case, the SFA side claimed same club, the MA side said new club, the judge said ‘metaphysics’. In that case, one side made a point, the other side blew it apart. The judge laughed the ‘same club’ argument out of court. That is a judge making an important point (but not a judgement because it was not what he was making a judgement on). In today’s result, the judge, again, wasn’t making a decision on whether or not TRFC are the same club, he was merely giving his reasoning based on what was presented in court, and unlike the previous case, he included something that wasn’t argued against in his court, and so was nothing more than padding it out in an effort to show how well he’d considered the arguments presented.

What you have to remember, and I know we are on the same side on this, the judge has to show he has listened to all the points raised, because he doesn’t want to give rise to an appeal by not addressing each argument made. It doesn’t mean he agrees with the argument, he is just covering his arse!

Remember, his decision was –  Rangers were not relegated! So how the hell were they no longer an SPL side? He didn’t answer that, because nothing was produced in court that caused him to answer that very point! Kinloch’s side HAD to avoid that question (because it proved RFC were not relegated) and the other side just HAD to avoid it, period.

Rest assured, if either side had made the point that TRFC were a new club, or that RFC had died, the judge would have had no alternative but to agree! Because there is nothing in law that says otherwise, and judges don’t deal in anything other than law, and laugh metaphysics out of court!

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on9:57 pm - Mar 15, 2017

When a manager comes out and makes a fool of himself by stating things like having best squad, the media when challenged on it say things like he has to say things like that , deep down he does not believe it.
So is it the punters that are taking for mugs or is it the manager or the media who are the real mugs because it is fans on both sides who have either phoned up or blogged to state he is talking shite. 

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on10:04 pm - Mar 15, 2017

NAWLITEMARCH 15, 2017 at 16:39

And thereafter Wavetower (I think),which is still in existence.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on10:08 pm - Mar 15, 2017

HOMUNCULUSMARCH 15, 2017 at 21:51       3 Votes 
So not relegated or demoted any more.
They were removed.
Maybe someone can show me where the SPL had a rule where a club could be “removed” from the league.
If only someone at the BBC or someone from the SMSM would ask that question

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on10:49 pm - Mar 15, 2017

TONYMARCH 15, 2017 at 20:57  GOOSYGOOSYexcuse my ignorance GG,but how can they get NI from a liquidated company
RFC (IL) are not skint despite BDO themselves racking up huge fees. They got around £24m from suing Collyer Bristow the law firm who had a bent lawyer working with CW
HMRC are the largest creditor in money terms and hence will get the proportionate largest share of whats left after RFC(IL) are dissolved at the end of liquidation
If the SC decide that RFC are only liable for the employers NI element and not the entire employer/employee NI + employee income tax then the HMRC share of the pot will drop dramatically although they will still be the largest Creditor
So its worthwhile for BDO to get a ruling along these lines as they carry no responsibility for employee income tax with a ruling that employees must pay
Throwing the EBT employees under a bus like that will mean nothing to them
BDO only represent Creditors and the smaller the pot the better

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on10:52 pm - Mar 15, 2017

MARCH 15, 2017 at 22:08

Whilst tongue in cheek, I was actually being a bit serious.

If a club was not relegated or demoted how or why was it “removed” from the league. Where was the rule covering that. 

The only thing I can think of is that if a club didn’t exist any more then it had to be removed. I hope that makes sense. It then had to be replaced because that league had to have 12 clubs at that time, 12 shareholders in the Ltd Co. That was the rule.

You will remember the “Club 12” fiasco. It might be Dundee, it might be a new club. When the new club was rejected Dundee got the spot in the league, making it back up to the required 12. Those 12 held the 12 shares in the company. There wasn’t a share in that league which could go to anyone else or be transferred anywhere else. The league and the limited company had its 12 members and its 12 shareholders.

This has nothing to do with the SFA, it is a “Private company limited by guarantee without share capital”.

View Comment

tonyPosted on11:00 pm - Mar 15, 2017

i’ll be honest i forgot about BDO 15 it’s been that long,

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:40 pm - Mar 15, 2017

Cluster OneMarch 15, 2017 at 22:08
‘…..If only someone at the BBC or someone from the SMSM would ask that question..’
A more important question, Cluster One, is WHY are the SMSM and indeed the whole Scottish football and legal establishments so unwilling to face the simple-and it is simple-truth that their ‘Rangers’ ceased to exist as a football club?
What driving , pernicious, force has caused them to join together in collective insanity to deny such an obvious ,self-evident truth?
When men learned-in-the-law and men in the Press and national broadcasting ,skilled  in the use of words, utter patent ,self-contradictory nonsense in order  to avoid telling the actual truth about something that is in the last analysis a trivial matter of Sport, I think we are in serious trouble as a nation.
Last week, the ‘Times’ featured a piece about the evil bast.rd SS Brigadefuhrer Dr Franz Six,  whom Hitler had appointed to be gauleiter of the UK when the Nazi invasion had been  successfully accomplished.
This bad bas.ard ( who died when I was in my 30s!) had a list of nearly three thousand folk who were to be summarily arrested and dealt with as dangerous opponents.The list  included journalists and prominent folk in many walks of life, including legal folk.
[Rebecca West sent Noel Coward a  telegram saying “My dear—the people we should have been seen dead with.”]
It is shameful to think that our SFA ‘governance’ people, and so many of our present day ‘journalists’ and lawyers and such like who have been prepared to lie , prevaricate, and dissemble to avoid admitting the truth about ‘Rangers’ would NEVER have been at risk of ending up on such a list!
If they can sell their souls for the sake of a cheating sports club, they are clearly the type of people who would run no risk of offending any Hitler, but instead happily spread  his evil propaganda to save their own rotten hides.
I metaphorically spit upon them.

View Comment

Comments are closed.