Spot the difference?

Bybroganrogantrevinoandhogan

Spot the difference?

Good Afternoon.

Announcing outstanding financial successes for Rangers PLC the then Chairman of the club opened his Chairman’s report in the annual financial statements with the following words:

“Last summer I explained that the Club, after many years of significant investment in our playing squad
and more recently in our state of the art facility at Murray Park, had embarked on a three year business
plan to stabilise and improve the Club’s finances. The plan also recognised the need to react to the
challenging economic conditions facing football clubs around the world.

Following a trend over a number of years of increasing year on year losses, I am pleased to report that
in the first year of this plan we have made important progress by reversing this trend. Our trading loss
for last year of £11.2m reflects a £7.9m improvement versus the £19.1m loss for the previous year and
although it will take more time to completely reach our goals, this is a key milestone. We also intend to
make significant further progress by the end of the current financial year. This improvement is the
consequence of having a solid strategy and the commitment and energy to implement the changes it requires”

Later on in the same statement the chairman would add:

“Another key part of our plan is associated with the Rangers brand and our Retail Division goes from strength to strength. Our financial results this year have been significantly enhanced by an outstanding performance in merchandising Rangers products, in particular replica kit, which makes our Retail Division one of the most successful in Europe.”

In the same set of financial reports, the CEO would report:

“To further strengthen Rangers hospitality portfolio, a new dedicated sponsor’s lounge was unveiled this season. The Carling Lounge is a first for the Club and was developed in conjunction with our new sponsor, Carling. ”

and

“Our innovative events programme continues to grow and this year saw a record number of official events including the highly successful annual Hall of Fame Awards Ceremony, Player of the Year and 50 Championships Gala Dinner, all of which catered for up to 1000 guests.

At Rangers, we continually develop our portfolio of products and as a key area of income for the Club, we evaluate the market for new revenue opportunities on an ongoing basis in order to exceed our existing and potential customer expectations and needs.

Demand for season tickets reached an all time high last season with a record 42,508 season ticket holders in comparison with the previous season`s figure of 40,320. Over 36,000 of these season ticket holders renewed for this season – a record number.

For the new season, we are delighted to welcome brewing giant, Carling on board as our Official Club sponsor. Carling is one of the UK’s leading consumer brands with a proven track record in football sponsorship.
The Club also continues to work with a number of multinational blue chip brands such as National Car Rental, Sony Playstation 2, Bank of Scotland and Coca-Cola. This year, we will also experience the evolution of the Honda deal via Hyndland Honda and welcome the mobile communications giant T-Mobile to our ranks.”.

The year was 2003 and in the previous 24 months Rangers Football Club, owned and operated as a private fiefdom by Sir David Murray, had made operational losses of some £30 million.

Yes – 30 MILLION POUNDS.

Of course the chairman’s report for 2003 was written by John F Mclelland CBE and the CEO was one Martin Bain Esq.

As Mr Mclelland clearly stated, by 2003 the club already had a trend of increasing year on year losses covering a number of years and was losing annual sums which stretched into millions, if not tens of millions, of pounds.

However, the acquisition of Rangers Football Club was absolutely vital to David Murray’s personal business growth, and his complete control of the club as his own private business key was more important than any other business decision he had made before buying Rangers or since.

When he persuaded Gavin Masterton to finance 100% of the purchase price of the club, Murray had his finest business moment.

By getting control of Rangers, Murray was able to offer entertainment, hospitality, seeming privilege and bestow favour on others in a way that was hitherto undreamed of, and he bestowed that largesse on any number of “existing and potential clients” and contacts – be they the clients and contacts related to Rangers Football Club or the existing and potential clients of David Murray, his businesses, his banks, or anyone in any field that he chose to court for the purposes of potential business.

His business.

It wasn’t only journalists who benefited from the succulent lamb treatment.

Accountants,lawyers, surveyors, broadcasters, football officials, people in industry and construction, utilities, financiers and other areas of business were all invited inside the sacred House of Murray and given access to the great man of business “and owner of Rangers” while attending the “record number of official (hospitality) events”.

Twelve months on from when John McLelland made those statements in the 2003 accounts, David Murray was back in the chair at Ibrox and he presented the 2004 financials.

In the intervening 12 months Rangers had gained an additional £10 million from Champions League income and had received £8.6 million in transfer fees from the sale of Messrs Ferguson, Amoruso and McCann. Not only that, the Rangers board had managed to reduce the club’s wage bill by £5 million. Taking all three figures together comes to some £23.6 million in extra income or savings.

Yet, the accounts for 2004 showed that the club made an operational loss of almost £6 million and overall debt had risen by an additional £7 million to £97.4 million.

However, the 2004 accounts were also interesting for another reason.

Rangers PLC had introduced payments “to employees trusts” into their accounts for the first time in 2001 and in that year they had paid £1million into those trusts. Just three years later, the trust payments recorded in the accounts had risen to £7.3 million per annum — or to put it another way to 25% of the annual wage bill though no one in Scottish Football asked any questions about that!

By the following year, the chairman announced that the 2004 operational loss had in fact been £10.4million but that the good news was that the 2005 operational loss was only £7.8 million. However Rangers were able to post a profit before taxation if they included the money obtained from transfers (£8.4 million) and the inclusion of an extraordinary profit of £14,999,999 made on buying back the shares of a subsidiary company for £1 which they had previously sold for £15 million.

All of which added up to a whopping great profit of ……… £12.4 million!

I will leave you to do the maths on 2005.

Oh and of course these accounts included the detail that 3000 Rangers fans had joined David Murray in participating in the November ’94 share issue where the club managed to raise £51,430,995 in fresh capital most of which was provided by Mr Murray… sorry I mean MIH ….. sorry that should read Bank of Scotland …… or their shareholders……. or should that be the public purse?

The notable items in the 2006 accounts included the announcement of a ten year deal with JJB Sports to take over the merchandising operation of the club and increased revenue from an extended run in the Champion’s League. However, the profit before tax was declared at only£0.1 million in comparison to the £12.4 million of the year before but then again that £12.4 million had included player sales of £8.4 million and the £15 million sweety bonus from  the repurchase of ones own former subsidiary shares for £1.

Jumping to 2008 Rangers saw a record year in terms of turnover which had risen to £64.5 million which enabled the company to record a profit on ordinary activities before taxation of  £6.57 million although it should be pointed out that wages and bonuses were up at 77% of turnover and that a big factor in the Rangers income stream was corporate hospitality and the top line of income was shown as “gate receipts and hospitality”.

However, 2009 saw a calamitous set of figures. Whilst Alastair Johnston tried to put a brave chairman’s face on it, the year saw an operating loss of £17.325 million which was softened only by player disposals leading to a loss before taxation of a mere £14.085 million.

Fortunately Sir David did not have to report these figures as he chose to stand down as chairman in August and so Johnston stepped in and announced that he was deeply honoured to do so.

In 2010, the income stream jumped from £39.7 million to over £56 million with the result that the club showed a profit before taxation of £4.209 million.

However, by that time the corporate hospitality ticket that was Rangers Football Club was done for as a result of matters that had nothing to do with events on the football field in the main.

First, the emergence of the Fergus McCann run Celtic had brought a real business and sporting challenge. This was something that Murray had not previously faced in the football business.

Second,the Bank of Scotland had gone bust and Lloyds could not and would not allow Murray to continually borrow vast sums of money on the basis of revalued assets and outrageous hospitality.

Third, the UEFA fair play rules came into being and demanded that clubs at least act on a semblance of proper corporate governance and fiscal propriety.

Lastly,Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs tightened up the law on the use of EBT’s which meant that Rangers could no longer afford to buy in the players that brought almost guaranteed success against domestic opposition.

On average, since 2002 Rangers PLC had lost between £7 million – £8 million per year – or roughly £650,000 per month if you like – yet for the better part of a decade David Murray had been able to persuade the Bank of Scotland that this was a business that was worthy of ever greater financial support or that he himself and his MIH business was of such value that the Banks should support him in supporting the Ibrox club whilst operating in this fashion.

Of course, had Murray’s Rangers paid tax on all player remunerations then the losses would have been far larger.

Meanwhile, all the other clubs in Scottish football who banked with the Bank of Scotland faced funding cuts and demands for repayment with the bank publicly proclaiming that it was overexposed to the football market in Scotland.

But no one asked any questions about why the bank should act one way with Murray’s club but another way with all others. No one in football, no one in the media and no one from the world of business.

Looking back,it is hard to imagine a business which has been run on such a consistent loss making basis being allowed to continue by either its owners or by its bankers. However, a successful and funded Rangers was so important to the Murray group that David Murray was clearly willing to lose millions year after year to keep the Gala dinners and corporate hospitality going.

Rangers were Murray’s big PR vehicle and the club was essentially used by him to open the doors which would allow him to make more money elsewhere on a personal basis and if it meant Rangers cutting every corner and accumulating massive losses, unsustainable losses, then so be it.

Today, the new regime at Ibrox run the current business in a way which clocks up the same colossal annual losses whilst the club competes outwith Scotland’s top division. Each day we hear that the wage bill is unsustainable, that the playing staff are overpaid, that the stadium needs massive investment and that the fans are opposed to the stadium itself being mortgaged and the club being in hawk to lenders.

Yet, in the Murray era the Stadium was revalued time and time again and its revaluation was used as the justification for ever greater borrowing on the Rangers accounts. The playing staff were massively overpaid and financially assisted by the EBT’s and most years the Chairman’s annual statement announced huge losses despite regular claims of record season ticket sales, record hospitality income, European income, shirt sponsorship and the outsourcing of all merchandising to JJB sports instead of Sports Direct.

The comparison between the old business and the current one is clear for all to see.

It should be noted, that since the days of Murray, no major banking institution has agreed to provide the Ibrox business with any banking facilities. Not under Whyte, not under Green, not under anyone.

Yet few ask why that should be.

The destruction of the old Rangers business led those in charge of Scottish football to announce that Armageddon was on the horizon if it had not actually arrived, yet today virtually all Scottish clubs are in a better financial and business state than back in the bad old days of the Bank of Scotland financed SPL. Some have succumbed to insolvency, and others have simply cut their cloth, changed their structure, sought, and in some cases attracted, new owners and moved on in terms of business.

In general, Scottish Football has cleaned house at club level.

Now, David Murray has “cleaned house” in that MIH has bitten the dust and walked down insolvency road.

What is interesting is that the Murray brand still has that capacity to get out a good PR message when it needs to. Despite the MIH pension fund being short of money for some inexplicable reason, last week it was announced that the family controlled Murray Estates had approached those in charge of MIH and had agreed to buy some key MIH assets for something in the region of £13.9 million.

The assets concerned are land banks which at some point will be zoned for planning and which will undoubtedly bring the Murray family considerable profit in the future, with some of those assets already looking as if they will produce a return sooner rather than later.

However, what is not commented upon in the mainstream press is the fact that Murray Estates had the ability to pay £13.9 Million for anything at all and that having that amount of money to spend the Murray camp has chosen not to buy any football club down Govan way.

Perhaps, it has been realised that a football club which loses millions of pounds each year is not such a shrewd investment and that the Murray family money would be better spent elsewhere?

Perhaps, it has been realised that the culture of wining, dining, partying and entertaining to the most lavish and extravagant extent will not result in the banks opening their vaults any more?

Perhaps, it has been realised that the Rangers brand has been so badly damaged over the years that it is no longer the key to the golden door in terms of business, finance and banking and that running a football club in 2015 involves a discipline and a set of skills that David Murray and his team do not have experience of?

What is clear, is that the Murray years at Ibrox were not good for the average Rangers fan in the long term and that when you have a football club – any football club – being run for the private benefit of one rich individual, or group of individuals, then the feelings and passions of the ordinary fan will as often as not be forgotten when that individual or his group choose to move on once they have decided that they no longer wish to play with their toy football club.

David Murray did not make money directly out of Rangers Football Club. He used it as a key to open other doors for him and to get him a seat at other tables and into a different type of “club” altogether. He did not run the club in a day to day fashion that was designed to bring stability and prolonged financial, or playing, success to the club. its investors and its fans. He did not preside over Ibrox during a period of sustained financial gain.

Mike Ashley will not subsidise 2015 version of Rangers to anything like the same extent that the Bank of Scotland did in the 90’s and naughties.

However, Ashley, like Murray, will use his control of the Rangers brand to open doors for him elsewhere in the sports retail market, and he will use the Rangers contract with Sports Direct to make a handsome profit. He will also control all the advertising revenue just as he does at Newcastle. In short, Mr Ashley is only interested in The Rangers with a view to using it as a stepping stone to achieve other things elsewhere.

However, don’t take my word for any of this, take the opinion of someone who knows.

Mr Dave King is quoted today as saying the following about the current board of Directors who are in charge of the current Ibrox holding company.

“History will judge this board as one of the worst the club has ever had. There is not one individual who puts the club above personal interest.”

That is an interesting observation from a man who became a non executive director of the old Rangers holding company in 2000 and who had a front row pew for every set of accounts and all the financial statements referred to above.

Whether or not Mr King is a glib and shameless liar is a matter of South African judicial opinion. Whether or not he can spot someone who puts their own self interest ahead of the interests of Rangers Football Club and the supporters of the club is a matter that should be discussed over some fine wine, some succulent lamb and whatever postprandial entertainment you care to imagine.

I wonder if he has ever read the accounts of Rangers PLC and compared them to the corresponding accounts of MIH for the same period?

 

About the author

broganrogantrevinoandhogan author

Boot wearing football, sport & total nonsense fan-- Gourmet, Bon Viveur and eedgit! - Oh and I write a bit occasionally!

4,992 Comments so far

AllyjamboPosted on11:27 am - Feb 4, 2015


Can anyone remember, if, on the rare occasion neither member of that august body, the Old Firm, was represented at a semi- final or final, the visiting supporters had to pay rent to the clubs that graciously allowed them to use their ‘end’?

I ask that because I get the impression a director of Dundee United doesn’t want to put money into the bank account of a club that continually goes on about having a ‘rightful place’ 😕

I have no doubt that this Dundee United director is more than a little miffed that two of his club’s prized assets have gone west and his words are a petulant dig at the way Scottish football continues to be weighted towards two Glasgow clubs.

But…

Even when empty, Hampden belongs to the Old Firm mind-set! Is it a coin?

In years gone by, if Queens Park ever drew Rangers or Celtic at home in the Scottish Cup, what end did their fans get? Did they have a choice or were they just told to feel privileged to be allowed to share their own home with one of the big teams?

And now, the supporters of that new club, TRFC, will they demand the right to an end at Hampden, just because there’s more of them than the rest? Or is there an application process to go through?

View Comment

mcfcPosted on11:39 am - Feb 4, 2015


neepheid says:
February 4, 2015 at 11:22 am

Ogilvie isn’t the world’s greatest football administrator for nothing. He is kicking the can down the road on the dual interest case, in the expectation that Ashley’s loan players will have achieved promotion for TRFC before any substantive hearing. His plan is then to ensure that Ashley is kicked out of Scottish football, leaving the road clear for the King across the water plus his three bears to just walk into the Blue Room, and reap the benefit of Ashley’s generosity.

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

I hope that is Ogilvie’s plan – because it will be fun to watch him and the SFA chewed up and spat out by Ashley. Is Ogilvie really that blinded by arrogance – it is believable – in the interests of his favourite club.

View Comment

tayredPosted on11:41 am - Feb 4, 2015


Bawsman says:
February 4, 2015 at 10:54 am

Cos its a National Final. I know it sticks in the supporters of the “big” clubs throats every time this comes up but sorry, it’s a final. It should be played at a neutral venue. The end used by supporters should be set by the Police with no historical nonsense influencing. This rangers/celtic end drivel is just pure unadulterated arrogance.

50:50, clubs sell what they can, then any left can be sold as required. It will still work out with celtic getting more tickets, but thats the only fair way to deal with it.

Don’t blame the diddy clubs for the fact that all your season ticket holders don’t get seats. They wouldn’t have if it was an “old firm” final, so whats your problem? Or do you believe the Glasgow two are simply more important?

Hampden is the problem – too small for some games, far too big for many. Bulldoze the place and get a proper solution sorted.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:50 am - Feb 4, 2015


AyeRightNaw says:
February 4, 2015 at 8:51 am

I can sympathise greatly with you regarding the way your club was disadvantaged by the emergence of a new club of low morals, TRFC mark I perhaps, and admire the way it has recovered. I was very heartened to read of the way my club’s supporters were welcomed to Dumfries for our match there last year, I expect they are all looking forward to their visit again this season.

I have to admit to feeling a bit down at yet another feeling of ‘deja vous’ watching the SFA and SPFL sit on their hands while TRFC are granted leeway to ignore the rules so they can strengthen their squad to the clear detriment of Queens, Hibs and Falkirk and possible detriment of my own. I didn’t think the title was in the bag before this loan fiasco, and even less so now.

I am gobsmacked that none of the clubs, including my own, are reacting to this latest carve-up, though hope that they are discussing it privately with a view to putting in a well constructed complaint, and all prepared to back each other to the hilt. To be honest, though, that hope isn’t all that great.

View Comment

EstebanPosted on11:51 am - Feb 4, 2015


tayred says:
February 4, 2015 at 11:41 am
This rangers/celtic end drivel is just pure unadulterated arrogance.

It reflects geography and safety. People know where best to get off public transport, where to park your car or where your bus will be leaving from at the end of the match. Fans being familiar with all these arrangements is an important part of getting people to and from the ground with as little hassle as possible.

View Comment

oddjobPosted on11:52 am - Feb 4, 2015


Allyjambo says,

February 4 2015 @ 11.27 am

In the early 1960`s I attended a division 1 league match between Queens Park and Celtic at Hampden. Entry was by payment at the turnstiles.
As far as I can remember, the Queens fans mostly occupied the South Stand.

I think the question of “ends” largely arose due to the frequency of the meetings at Hampden between Rangers and Celtic. Each set of supporters were segregated to facilitate crowd control, and so it became habit.

As a Celtic supporter from the eastern outskirts of Glasgow, I and my pals normally stood at the Springfield Road end of Parkhead for home matches, except when Rangers were the visitors, when that end became “the Rangers end”, and we were shunted to the Celtic end..
I have no doubt that all grounds in Scotland have specific “ends” which are used by visiting supporters.

View Comment

tayredPosted on11:54 am - Feb 4, 2015


Esteban says:
February 4, 2015 at 11:51 am

Like I said, set by the police on Security and safety grounds ONLY. Nothing else should come into it. I’m not convinced Geography is much of a marker – most folk will be coming out from the City centre anyways??

View Comment

EstebanPosted on12:02 pm - Feb 4, 2015


tayred says:
February 4, 2015 at 11:54 am

I accept that geography would have been more of a factor in the past but this contributed to fans and supporters’ clubs developing a set of familiar arrangements.

Of course you can change them, but if you alter arrangements and move away from the familiar it needs extra care in the planning and high-quality communication, which Police Scotland, the SFA and the SPFL are all utterly rubbish at.

A complicated plan could involve banning Celtic fans coming from the East End or Lanarkshire from coming off Aikenhead Road at Somerville Drive and making them loop around half the South Side before gaining access to the stadium. They could call it the Shaws Shank Redemption.

View Comment

incredibleadamsparkPosted on12:05 pm - Feb 4, 2015


AyeRightNaw says:
February 3, 2015 at 7:56 pm
_____________________________________________

Our views on this are not as far apart as you might think. I guess the ‘dope’ in the financial doping scenario would be the emergency (financial) loans supplied almost monthly by Ashley. Most clubs in the Championship, and Scotland, are now financial sustainable and in an ideal world all clubs would be but there are no rules that say they have to be. So Rangers financially bonkers march up the divisions is allowed to happen. Just like Livingston and Gretna before them. Look how their journey ended and there is no reason to think this will not happen to Rangers. Again. They should know better but they do it anyway.

So having witnessed this and other financial disasters at a number of clubs the SFA and SPFL have done what to stop this happening again? Nothing. Once the dust settled on Rangers demise the clubs, who had previously not been particularly well run, took it upon themselves to become more sustainable and the Scottish football landscape is all the better for it. I applaud them for doing this but I’m critical of the authorities for having no Stringent FFP rules in place then, or now, simply to protect clubs from themselves.

In terms of the player loans being unsporting or financial doping I still can’t agree because at the moment the rules are the same for all clubs who want to take a player on loan. Mentioning the other clubs was not whataboutery on my part. Whilst the financial positions at the clubs are different the financial arrangements of loan deals vary greatly and it’s never a one size fits all situation. For me to find it unsporting or financial doping I’d need to see some rules openly and deliberately broken. That’s not the case here.

Now, that’s not to say I agree with these rules. I don’t. My big problem is with who makes the rules and not with Rangers. My frustration is with the SFA and SPFL who have been utterly clueless over the last few years. I want simple rules for the benefit of everyone. If those rules are broken, by anyone, I want them applied with a giant, clunking iron fist. Spare me the velvet glove. For example LNS and the side letters. Rangers are fined £250,000 (spun as a victory by the utterly discredited SMSM) and have yet pay. Am I annoyed at Rangers for this non payment? Sure am. But I’m angrier at the non collection of it by the SPFL. I believe the issues stem from the poor governance of the game. Strict rules, firmly administered solve all the problems.

Don’t mistake me for a Rangers apologist. Sunday just confirmed how insignificant they’ve become and I don’t spend much time getting worked up about them (with the default position on here being pure bealing 😉 ) because, for me, Scottish football has moved on. If Rangers want to continue doing what they are doing they’ll eventually find their level and it’ll be so far from the top of the game. Told we needed them there by club chairmen, the SMSM, SFA and the SPFL, that if they were to start at the bottom it would punish all the other 41 innocent clubs, we knew that to be untrue. Rangers are a financial embarrassment and a footballing disgrace and not worthy of taking up much of my time. The authorities on the other hand….

View Comment

Famous songPosted on12:12 pm - Feb 4, 2015


I’m getting to the stage where my memory can be – what’s the word – fallible, so please indulge me. Surely the record for the number of loan players was set by Sevco, playing their first game against Brechin that time? The full starting line up, plus substitutes, were on loan from Rangers, iirc. And one of the Charlotte incarnations published the loan documentation. Perhaps someone should write to a ‘Fitba’ Q&A’ type forum and ask if this constitutes a world record. They’d be sure to publish.

View Comment

bluPosted on12:12 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Esteban says:
February 4, 2015 at 12:02 pm

tayred says:
February 4, 2015 at 11:54 am

I accept that geography would have been more of a factor in the past but this contributed to fans and supporters’ clubs developing a set of familiar arrangements.

Of course you can change them, but if you alter arrangements and move away from the familiar it needs extra care in the planning and high-quality communication, which Police Scotland, the SFA and the SPFL are all utterly rubbish at.

A complicated plan could involve banning Celtic fans coming from the East End or Lanarkshire from coming off Aikenhead Road at Somerville Drive and making them loop around half the South Side before gaining access to the stadium. They could call it the Shaws Shank Redemption.

Esteban, I can see that you’re trying to provide a practical rationale for the arrangements but would fans of most teams not be coming in from the east – certainly those that might readily take up 50% allocation – Aberdeen, Hibs, Hearts?

EDIT – sorry I don’t want to lead us into extended discussions about the minutiae of travel/parking.

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on12:13 pm - Feb 4, 2015


[]
Football SUPPORTERS……….I.E. Those who spend money on the game every week, should ALWAYS get first dibs. Simple rule of business, look after your customers.

As for the Celtic/Rangers end, it’s simply common sense logistics……….Do you think Celtic fans LIKED standing in the uncovered ends at both old Hampden and Celtic Park?

View Comment

mcfcPosted on12:14 pm - Feb 4, 2015


incredibleadamspark says:
February 4, 2015 at 12:05 pm
=======================================================================
Your description reminds me of the UK tax system – clobber the little guy with no power to fight back and turn a blind eye to the multi-nationals – who may offer you a nice job one day as a tax consultant.

Ashley will push SFA avoidance to the absolute extremes of the rules.

The SFA have no more control over Ashley / RIFC than HMRC have over Google or Starbucks.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on12:21 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Here’s a link to a replay of King’s press conference.

http://www.peterandroughie.com/exclusives/boot-room/videoid/190/feb-4-dave-king-on-his-plans-for-rangers

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:26 pm - Feb 4, 2015


oddjob says:
February 4, 2015 at 11:52 am

I never doubted it came about through geographical ease of access for supporters, but it should never have become such a fixture that it affected matches not involving both members of the Old Firm. The fact that it’s such an emotive subject to both sets of supporters shows how disparaging it is to all the rest.

I was also under no illusion that the QP supporters would have any problem with where they stood to watch, as I doubt much more than the main stand and enclosure was ever used to house the sparse home support at any match, but was using it as an example of just how ludicrous it is for Celtic and Rangers supporters to have their own ends of any ground other than their own.

There is no Hibs end at Tynecastle, or Hearts end at Easter Road. No Dundee end at Tannadice etc., just home and away ends. Does Celtic Park have a Rangers end?

Anyway, it is a subject that has disgusted supporters of every club outside of the OF and will continue for as long as there’s a TRFC and beyond, for it will outlast the existence of a ‘Rangers’ as Celtic supporters will continue to claim their own end at our ‘neutral national stadium’. Hampden truly is a national disgrace!

Much weightier issues are upon us, and ‘the Rangers end’ might, again, take on a different meaning, though the SFA are doing their damndest to help them climb to the point of most damage before they achieve yet another world record – as the club with the most reincarnations!

View Comment

tayredPosted on12:28 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Bawsman says:
February 4, 2015 at 12:13 pm

Nah, its not hatred. Tis only a game after all 🙂

But its all part and parcel of what is wrong with the Scottish game. As long as everything is hinged upon two clubs the rest by default suffer! Naming the ends of the National neutral stadium the Rangers and Celtic ends is just another symptom.

I agree that those that attend every week should, in an ideal world, be assured of a ticket. We unfortunately don’t have an ideal stadium, especially given how many tickets will have to go to Corporates. I also have no problem with Celtic being at one end if it is due to logistics, perfectly sensible.

I do like your idea that the Scottish powers would be interested in “looking after their customers” or would have any idea of any of the rules of business though 😉

Its the assumption that this and that will happen. It happens every year, we will no doubt have the same argument when its the Scottish cup final, and then for years to come. It just grinds many of us diddies down!

MaBaw says:
February 4, 2015 at 12:04 pm
This is about governance. This is TSFM, we aren’t just here to talk about Rangers and their behaviour. Just don’t read the stuff your not interested in!

View Comment

mcfcPosted on12:32 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Before the EGM occurs, some time in early March – if ever – Ashley will need to provide his second £5mil loan tranche to pay the wages for this month. As we all know that is predicated on an unspecified “due diligence” process – so the life saving dosh may not be forthcoming or may carry onerous conditions.

In the light of King’s pronouncements today, I would expect Ashley to protect his place men on the board with the corporate equivalent of a shark cage. The problem with King is he talks too much and does too little. the same cannot be said of Ashley.

King; “The board has had the time to analyse the share register and make the appointments and save spending the money. It must be as clear to the board as it is to me that the outcome of the general meeting is guaranteed once it is called.

“The compromises offered would have led to stalemate. It was a compromise weighted in favour of the other side who are starting to realise that they will lose when an EGM is called.”

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/man-who-would-king-ill-5103361

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on12:34 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Did King really say
“SARS agreed no fraud and settlement reached.”

I take it he’s forgotten the settlement reached was a substantial payment to avoid him doing serious jail time for the 40+ cases of ermmmmmm ……. frauduently avoiding tax he was found guilty of.

Did he also say he’d buy another 5% of the shares if he failed to oust the board? Isn’t that verging on if not even crossing rules on price senstive info?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on12:39 pm - Feb 4, 2015


tykebhoy says: February 4, 2015 at 12:34 pm

Did King really say
“SARS agreed no fraud and settlement reached.”
==================
King is correct to the extent that the fraud charges were dropped as part of the plea bargain. The 41 offences he was found guilty of were violations of the SA tax code.

However these were still “criminal” offences and King was forced to pay a sum into the criminal assets recovery scheme as part of his “settlement”.

View Comment

tykebhoyPosted on12:46 pm - Feb 4, 2015


PMGB latest suggesting Letham and Murray, of the Paul variety, have been meeting the institutional investors who have pointed out Murray can’t currently be on the board of any company (operating or holding) that is pretending to be Rangers. No such mention as to whether the advice was the same on King but Shirley its the same. They can’t be directors of RIFC/TRFC for 5 years after they were on the board of RFC/Wavetower.

View Comment

oddjobPosted on12:48 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Allyjambo @ 12.26 pm

I simply answered your question re matches involving Queens Park.

If you read my post again, you may notice that I made reference to the Springfield Road end at PARKHEAD, which became known S the Rangers end. It is mow ,I believe the Lisbon Lions Stand.

Personally, from what I can gather, I wouldn’t go to any end of Hampden if you paid me.

Thank you for you info re other grounds.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:48 pm - Feb 4, 2015


incredibleadamspark says:
February 4, 2015 at 12:05 pm

I agree with the bulk of your post, except this:

‘In terms of the player loans being unsporting or financial doping I still can’t agree because at the moment the rules are the same for all clubs who want to take a player on loan. Mentioning the other clubs was not whataboutery on my part. Whilst the financial positions at the clubs are different the financial arrangements of loan deals vary greatly and it’s never a one size fits all situation. For me to find it unsporting or financial doping I’d need to see some rules openly and deliberately broken. That’s not the case here.’

You are completely ignoring the fact that the SFA are contending that Ashley is breaking the rules by holding influence over both clubs. If he is breaking the rules in this way (and there is little doubt), he is compounding it by this loan arrangement. This ‘loan arrangement’ is not open to all, or any other, club, as no other club has any kind of connection with any bigger, stronger, or even weaker, club from which to get preferential loans as they are all operating within the rules in this particular respect. Using influence at one club, to benefit another, is outwith the rules, and it is written into the SFA Rule Book! Mike Ashley has even prevented the SFA from using their discretion to nullify the effect of this particular rule!

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on12:49 pm - Feb 4, 2015


easyJambo says:
February 4, 2015 at 12:39 pm
…………………

The remaining charges were dropped by the SARS not because he was innocent…but due to the fact the case had been running for 10 years…and was expected to run for a considerable number of years due to the number of charges involved…and the amount of evidence involved…the problem SARS had was that a number of the prosecutions witnesses were dying off..

View Comment

BawsmanPosted on12:49 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Allyjambo says:
February 4, 2015 at 12:26 pm
==============

The old Celtic Park did indeed have a Rangers end…………That was (like Hampden) the covered end 👿

View Comment

TartanwulverPosted on12:54 pm - Feb 4, 2015


When I was a wee football supporter, me and my pals went to watch my local ‘diddy’ team, and as a matter of course changed end at half time, as did the opposing team’s supporters. It was only when my dad took me to see his team play against Celtic in a cup semi at Hampden that I realised that we had to stay where we were for the second half. Maybe they need to invest in some very big tunnels below Hampden – problem of which support has which end solved!

View Comment

zerotolerance1903Posted on12:58 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Esteban says:
February 4, 2015 at 11:51 am
8 8 i
Rate This

tayred says:
February 4, 2015 at 11:41 am
This rangers/celtic end drivel is just pure unadulterated arrogance.

It reflects geography and safety. People know where best to get off public transport, where to park your car or where your bus will be leaving from at the end of the match. Fans being familiar with all these arrangements is an important part of getting people to and from the ground with as little hassle as possible.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Surely this is/was only a relevant consideration for matches featuring both Celtic and Rangers* I don’t believe that the majority of fans of the 40 other Scottish clubs would have an issue of there being an informal convention that one club get the West stand and the other gets the East for matches involving those two clubs.

However, it is IMO a nonsense that those two clubs should lay claim to “ownership” of those stands regardless of the opposition. Why should it be a consideration for matches not involving both Clubs? In 1989/90 (for example) why should Aberdeen have been allocated one end for the League Cup Final and the other end for the Scottish Cup Final just because they played Rangers in one and Celtic in the other?

And for fans of the other Clubs this is a governance issue as is the question of unequal allocations for those matches.

* – or any current or future club bearing that name.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on12:58 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Paulmac2 says: February 4, 2015 at 12:49 pm
====================
I agree re the status of the fraud charges.

A couple of snippets from close to the end of the press conference (28′ 30″ onwards), was that the Club would not be profitable for at least the next two years and that the Club would sue Ashley/Sports Direct if there was anything untoward in the deals that were set up.

View Comment

incredibleadamsparkPosted on1:03 pm - Feb 4, 2015


mcfc says:
February 4, 2015 at 12:14 pm
__________________________________________

Maybe I didn’t get my point across as well as I would’ve liked. The rules regarding loan signings and financial fair play are what they currently are. Rangers are able to get 5 players on loan from the same club. That club should not have been Newcastle. It was because the authorities postponed the hearing into Ashleys duel interests.

Clubs should be run sustainably. There should be strict FFP rules enforced by the authorities. It’s the way forward. If you look around the game it could have stopped Leeds implosion and curbed the financial excesses of Chelsea, Man City, PSG and Monaco.

I don’t share your pessimism about Ashley and the SFA but agree that HMRC have no chance with Google or Starbucks and the like. When a system is manipulated my principal annoyance is at those in charce who allow such abuses.

View Comment

jimlarkinPosted on1:11 pm - Feb 4, 2015


During the presser – King said [after Sevco get into the Premiership] – Sevco would not have European money for the 1st year !!

Obviously assuming that after the 1st year Sevco will def qualify for European tourno ?

View Comment

incredibleadamsparkPosted on1:13 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Allyjambo says:
February 4, 2015 at 12:48 pm
___________________________________________

Agree. See my post above.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on1:17 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Diddy Power

If the 40 “diddy” clubs want to reform the SFA and SPFL they can do so. Just decide what they want, call an EGM, table resolutions and vote them in. YOUR club has the power – why are they not using it? Are they happy with the current way of doing things? Ask them?

A good start would be:

• Proportional representation voting – related to a club’s football performance – league position, cup runs etc – maybe over 3-5 years. This is designed to ensure that no cabal of big clubs can dominate to the detriment of the majority.

• A “parliament” that discusses interpretation of rules and application of “discretion” and puts recommendations to be voted on by the clubs. A gap in the rules must no longer be an opportunity for board members to do what is best for their favourite club without oversight, discussion, transparency or democratic mandate

• The “parliament” would apply the same processes to changing the rules – especially filling the many obvious gaps.

• A straight forward mechanism for “recalling” board members via a vote of no confidence for do not doing the bidding of the clubs – eg failing to secure sponsorship, failing to apply the rules diligently and consistently.

YOUR club has the power – why are they not using it? Are they happy with the current way of doing things? Ask them?

View Comment

tomtomPosted on1:17 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Bawsman says:
February 4, 2015 at 12:49 pm
2 2 Rate This

Allyjambo says:
February 4, 2015 at 12:26 pm
==============

The old Celtic Park did indeed have a Rangers end…………That was (like Hampden) the covered end 👿
—————————————–
The Rangers end at CP was covered in 1967. The Celtic end was first covered around 1958 – although it did not extend all the way to the front of the terracing.

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on1:20 pm - Feb 4, 2015


1. Certain teams having a specific end of a national stadium is ludicrous and arrogant and I have always felt that way, the author of that piece needs a kick up the rear end on that point. Just to be clear, there has not always been a ’Celtic End’, there was only ever a ’Rangers End’ and others then referred to the sub-standard other end as ’The Celtic End’.

2. Tickets for key games have always been a contentious issue, my view is clear. The cups are different tournaments and as such, your season ticket does not, and should not entitle you to anything. I would however have a scheme where you get priority for buying tickets for previous rounds of the same competition; this makes logical sense to me if you want to play the loyalty card. In saying that, I am all for the 50/50 split as the big teams (ones that play more finals than others do) already have other advantages and an even crowd can be a great leveller.

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on1:22 pm - Feb 4, 2015


TSFM says:
February 3, 2015 at 2:46 pm
35 0 Rate This

What people are saying about the rules is very true. If no rules have been broken we shouldn’t be pointing a finger at those clubs who take advantage. What you can do is react to flagrant disregard for the spirit of the rules by plugging the gaps. What we might expect of a governing body blessed with the world’s greatest administrator is that they might be proactive in these situations and plan ahead.

What I think is more pertinent is how this deal affects the dynamic with regard to MA’s undue or otherwise influence at Ibrox. We will wait and see how the SFA view it, but to be honest, I can’t see a way past the plausible deniability that Ashley’s lawyers will build into the narrative.

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

I think you are correct TSFM, the rules are the rules after all.

However as we have seen on many occasions in the past the rules often allow the SFA to use their discression where appropriate. I’d be very surprised if the rules for registering new players didn’t include a requirement for the SFA to be in a position to “approve” the registration of players as appropriate.

So I don’t think its too much to expect them to look at the application for registering these players and perhaps suggest that “given the perilous financial position of the club and also given the concern about dual ownership on this occasion only 2 loans would be permitted”. A compromise offered.

There might be no rules on how many loans a club can have but I’d expect the SFA have full control over whether they accept an application to register a player or not.

View Comment

theoldcoursePosted on1:25 pm - Feb 4, 2015


I was out on the course this morning with an old friend who also happens to be a big The Rangers fan. Our discussion got around to football and he drops in the snippet that 3 of the 5 loan rangers are injured for around 5 weeks. I have not heard same from any other source so I am a bit sceptical that it is nothing other than football banter. Can any of the forums more qualified investigators add anything.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:29 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Bawsman says:
February 4, 2015 at 12:49 pm

Thanks to you and to oddjob for letting me know there was a ‘Rangers end’ at Parkhead. Just adds to the close connection between the two clubs and the disdain they both held for all the other clubs. I have to admit, though, that I had never heard or read it called that unless both were playing in opposition.

Anyway, back to the goings on at the Rangers end, oops, sorry, the SFA offices, at Hampden…

View Comment

Eoinel JessiPosted on1:41 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Any team reaching a cup final has earned to right to play at a neutral venue. That should include the opportunity to sell half of the tickets to their own supporters.

One of the advantages of supporting a team that isn’t part of the historic Glaswegian duopoly (a diddy, if you will) is that you’re practically guaranteed a ticket on those rare occasions when you’re club actually makes it to a final.

I’m sorry for Celtic fans (and the Rangers ones of old) who can’t always make it to their annual trophy lifting ceremonies but, quite frankly, you can put it in your glory-hunting pipes and smoke it! 😆

View Comment

mcfcPosted on1:41 pm - Feb 4, 2015


incredibleadamspark says:
February 4, 2015 at 1:03 pm
Maybe I didn’t get my point across as well as I would’ve liked. The rules regarding loan signings and financial fair play are what they currently are. Rangers are able to get 5 players on loan from the same club. That club should not have been Newcastle. It was because the authorities postponed the hearing into Ashleys duel interests.
=======================================================================
I agree. It would appear Ashley has not broken specific loan rules over the NUFC loaners, but has driven a coach and horses through the dual ownership rules – again.

On dual club ownership, is it clear to the dogs in the street that Ashley does not pass the test of “any power whatsoever to influence the management or administration of another club.”. So the SFA are vacillating in the interests of their favourite club because Ashley is the only lender in town, and he is preferable to another dead Rangers.

A bit like the Govt and HMRC, it’s better to have some PAYE and NI from Starbucks employees but no corporation tax than no tax at all and a political principle to uphold. The SFA board are running a cosy club for their mates, applying/interpreting the rules to suit and the Diddies are paying the price. Time for the Diddy Revolution – it’s called democracy.

View Comment

MaBawPosted on1:43 pm - Feb 4, 2015


call the allyjambo end then, jeez

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:48 pm - Feb 4, 2015


mcfc says:
February 4, 2015 at 12:32 pm

He’s a wag, that Dave King, isn’t he?:-

“”It’s fairly easy to take soundbites from 11 years of litigation but the important point is that I was involved in 11 years of litigation in South Africa…””

I think the soundbite that said ‘guilty of 41 counts..’ was a pretty important point in your case, Dave! Should we just write it off in our assessment of you because you caused the case, by your ongoing lack of honesty, to last for 11 years?

View Comment

grecian urnPosted on1:50 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Curiously enough, all three “Celtic Ends” in the major Glasgow stadiums, Hampden, Ibrox & Parkhead were at the left side of the stadiums ( Stadia ❓ ) 🙂

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on1:52 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Allyjambo says:

February 4, 2015 at 12:48 pm

0

0

Rate This

incredibleadamspark says:
February 4, 2015 at 12:05 pm

I agree with the bulk of your post, except this:

‘In terms of the player loans being unsporting or financial doping I still can’t agree because at the moment the rules are the same for all clubs who want to take a player on loan. Mentioning the other clubs was not whataboutery on my part. Whilst the financial positions at the clubs are different the financial arrangements of loan deals vary greatly and it’s never a one size fits all situation. For me to find it unsporting or financial doping I’d need to see some rules openly and deliberately broken. That’s not the case here.’

You are completely ignoring the fact that the SFA are contending that Ashley is breaking the rules by holding influence over both clubs. If he is breaking the rules in this way (and there is little doubt), he is compounding it by this loan arrangement. This ‘loan arrangement’ is not open to all, or any other, club, as no other club has any kind of connection with any bigger, stronger, or even weaker, club from which to get preferential loans as they are all operating within the rules in this particular respect. Using influence at one club, to benefit another, is outwith the rules, and it is written into the SFA Rule Book! Mike Ashley has even prevented the SFA from using their discretion to nullify the effect of this particular rule!
==========================================
If MA is controlling both the Gerdies and the Geordies, then he is in clear contravention of the SFA Dual Influnce rules.

If MA is not controlling both the Gerdies and the Geordies, then he may well be in contravention of FIFA’s Third Party Influence rules with respect to the loanees.

Clearly those deals are not at arms length on normal commercial terms, which in itself should prevent the deals being rubber stamped in a “nothing to see here” way.

Question. If MA (and by extention SD/MASH) were not on the scene at Ibrox (in spirit rather than corpulent body in MA’s case), would these transactions have occured?
If the answer is yes, then there is nothing to do, other than continue the howling at the moon and wailing and gnashing of teeth.
If the answer is no, then one of the two scenarios presented above comes into play, but which of the two?

The financial situation at Ibrox is in the public domain, so the directors of TRFC Ltd should be considering every transaction with the potential consequences of Wrongful (and Fraudulent) Trading in mind. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/45/section/214

Having said that, it does appear that normal insolvency laws and practice ceased to apply at Ibrox many years ago, as BDO are now gradually finding out, so perhaps they won’t bother with the minutiae of company law and just blame on a big boy who ran away if it goes wrong (with a very obvious big boy to point at).

View Comment

oddjobPosted on1:59 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Grecian urn @ 1.50 pm

Not so.

View Comment

oddjobPosted on2:01 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Grecian urn @ 1.50 pm

Not so. Hampden is the odd man out.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:03 pm - Feb 4, 2015


MaBaw says:
February 4, 2015 at 1:43 pm

Allyjambo has stood, and sat, at both ends. Has supported his club and his country at both ends. Strange there isn’t a Scotland end! But an Allyjambo end? Nice thought, but naw, it would be more than a little elitist!

View Comment

AyeRightNawPosted on2:04 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Indeed Oddjob. Was trying to get my head around Grecian Urn’s Hampden geography.

View Comment

Matty RothPosted on2:07 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Esteban says:
February 4, 2015 at 10:48 am
16 8 Rate This

One counter-argument people use in the ticket allocation discussion is that supporters of the bigger team, who pay up and turn up all the time have to miss out if they are unlucky in the ballot, while for a sizeable number, who everyone accepts has the opposing team’s best interests at heart, the final may well be their first game of the season.

Hard not to have a bit of sympathy with people on each side of the argument.

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

Personally I’ve never been convinced by this argument.

Isn’t having more competition for tickets if your club has a larger support base just a side effect of choosing to follow a bigger club?

ie its not the problem of the fans of the other club.

Sensible approach would be for a 50-50 split in principle but some a system to ensure “no ticket is unsold” should be in place. I’m sure this can be achieved.

That the current protocol is so flimsy is typical of our game at the moment.

Look back at the Aberdeen-ICT Cup final last year, where huge sections of the ground were empty while thousands of Dons fans couldn’t get tickets. Its just not right.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on2:20 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Allyjambo says:
February 4, 2015 at 1:48 pm
Should we just write it off in our assessment of you because you caused the case, by your ongoing lack of honesty, to last for 11 years?
============================================================================
Yeah, what’s 41 tax evasion convictions between RRM. What many don’t seem to (want to) acknowledge is that when you plead guilty to a criminal charge you are convicting yourself – you are accepting the prosecution’s case and saying “yes I did that, I’m guilty as charged and deserve the punishmemnt laid down in law”. Did Dave misunderstand that is some way?

And what about the sound bite that labelled Mr King a mendacious witness – by someone who deals daily with that strata of society – looks like that is still a valid comment given Dave’s creative representation of his “favourable settlement”.

View Comment

EstebanPosted on2:21 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Matty Roth

Were the Dons fans who couldn’t get tickets against ICT not just paying the price for choosing to follow a bigger club?

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on2:27 pm - Feb 4, 2015


theoldcourse says:

February 4, 2015 at 1:25 pm

4

0

Rate This

I was out on the course this morning with an old friend who also happens to be a big The Rangers fan. Our discussion got around to football and he drops in the snippet that 3 of the 5 loan rangers are injured for around 5 weeks. I have not heard same from any other source so I am a bit sceptical that it is nothing other than football banter. Can any of the forums more qualified investigators add anything.
======================
Streete, Bigirimana and Vuckic played for the U21s in a 4-3 defeat to Reading U21s on 24 January. Bigirimana came on for Steete at half-time (injury?), whilst Vuckic played the full match and scored one of the Magpies’ goals.
Apparently Vuckic went on the club’s trip to Dubai a few weeks back. That will have set him up nicely for the West of Scotland.
No sign of the other two in the three U21 squad matches played this year.

Ferguson has been injured, but may be on the road back
https://twitter.com/shane_fergie/status/557631204221276161

I’m not sure if the other chap has ever kicked a ball, so he’ll fit in well with Elbows and Bookie Black.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on2:51 pm - Feb 4, 2015


tomtom says:
February 4, 2015 at 8:17 am

If I was Kenny Macdowall and I wanted to get the hell out of Dodge with my full entitlement I’d leave the 5 loanee’s out of any future squads. 😈 😈
==================================
Absolutely ! 😉

Or alternatively…

Not sure if McDowall would have got a new contract for reluctantly assuming the acting/caretaker manager duties, but with these 5 loanees apparently being foisted on him, could he;

– resign immediately claiming constructive dismissal [notice period notwithstanding]
or
– refuse to remain as caretaker manager and resume coaching duties only, as previously ?

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on2:54 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Between Lord Ashcroft and Dave King’s Double Talk Express, my sides actually are aching #ComedyGold :mrgreen:

View Comment

AyeRightNawPosted on3:11 pm - Feb 4, 2015


incredibleadamspark says:
February 4, 2015 at 12:05 pm

Like others before me I agree with much that you say. I do however stand by my post from last night equating the loans to financial doping. The spirit of the rules has been disregarded with regard to dual ownership and undue influence. Only time will tell if the rules themselves are judged to have been broken. My view is that it’s difficult to imagine a clearer example of undue influence to gain an (un)sporting advantage.

I don’t, however, equate doping with the drip feeding of funds to the club – Ashley may be using it as cover for an assett grab but its also standard business practice when trying to keep an ailing entity afloat and while that may be shortsighted it at least reduces risk and ensures staff and creditors are paid – nothing untoward about that.

View Comment

grecian urnPosted on3:18 pm - Feb 4, 2015


My bad of course the ” Celtic End at Hampden is the Toryglen side

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on3:22 pm - Feb 4, 2015


mcfc says:

February 4, 2015 at 2:20 pm

3

0

Rate This

Allyjambo says:
February 4, 2015 at 1:48 pm
Should we just write it off in our assessment of you because you caused the case, by your ongoing lack of honesty, to last for 11 years?
============================================================================
Yeah, what’s 41 tax evasion convictions between RRM. What many don’t seem to (want to) acknowledge is that when you plead guilty to a criminal charge you are convicting yourself – you are accepting the prosecution’s case and saying “yes I did that, I’m guilty as charged and deserve the punishmemnt laid down in law”. Did Dave misunderstand that is some way?

And what about the sound bite that labelled Mr King a mendacious witness – by someone who deals daily with that strata of society – looks like that is still a valid comment given Dave’s creative representation of his “favourable settlement”.
===========================
Tom English’s article of 21 January that was posted on here at the time has not lost any relevance in the last fortnight.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30911000

The collective putting of fingers in ears, closing of eyes and going la la la la la will not make the issue disappear for those in the Hampden bunker.

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/legal-advice-and-honest-mistakes/
Phil’s honest mistake scenario would surpass even the LNS farce.

View Comment

smartie1947Posted on3:25 pm - Feb 4, 2015


There has been many occasions in the past 3 seasons of friction between Raith Rovers and Rangers/Sevco.
From the lambasting of Turnbull Hutton, intimidation of Eric Drysdale, courtesy of the cheeky chappie, threats to burn down Starks Park and the current impasse re Raith’s reluctance to let Rangers sell tickets for an upcoming league match amid doubts about their financial status.
Lo and behold, there is a Scottish Cup-tie scheduled for Sunday between the two clubs.
Wouldn’t it be a wheeze if Raith issued a statement to the effect that they were not prepared to fulfil this fixture until they were satisfied that any player Rangers might field had met all registration criteria including international clearance.
That should hurry things along a bit.

View Comment

AyeRightNawPosted on3:30 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Allyjambo says:
February 4, 2015 at 11:50 am

Sorry Allyjambo, missed your response to my earlier post re Gretna.

I too would like to think the clubs immediately affected by the Ashley-backed player loans are discussing a joint complaint to the SFA.

I have no idea if they are or are not. Fans again are so far being kept in the dark. It’s time the clubs considered their customers and explain what they are doing. And if they are doing nothing then I think that needs explained too.

View Comment

Jungle JimPosted on3:40 pm - Feb 4, 2015


This has probably been asked before and if so I apologise.

Should the SFA not be making it clear right now that Dave King is not ‘fit and proper’. Is it not incumbent upon them to do so prior to any EGM? How can they sit back and allow shareholders to vote on a resolution that, if passed, cannot be applied. What sort of mess would that situation create?

Likewise the situation with Mike Ashley. How can they continue to allow him to so obviously run the club after previously telling him that he would not be allowed to?

These were the topics of discussion over a couple of pints last night. Just ordinary fans of Celtic, Kilmarnock and Ayr United who watch this stuff going on and feel completely frustrated with the complete lack of conviction and/or willingness to simply apply the rules.

We’re convinced we must be missing something.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on3:40 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Has Dave got his sums wrong ?

He states in the Q&A section of his presser that “we should be 23 days away from [the EGM]…” 4mins 53secs http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/309106-dave-kings-plan-for-the-future-of-rangers-key-questions-and-issues/

Section 304 of the Companies Act 2006 defines the responsibilities of directors after receiving a notice under Section 303 calling a general meeting. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/13

• 304 Directors’ duty to call meetings required by members

• (1)Directors required under section 303 to call a general meeting of the company must call a meeting—
• (a)within 21 days from the date on which they become subject to the requirement, and
• (b)to be held on a date not more than 28 days after the date of the notice convening the meeting.

• (2)If the requests received by the company identify a resolution intended to be moved at the meeting, the notice of the meeting must include notice of the resolution.

• (3)The business that may be dealt with at the meeting includes a resolution of which notice is given in accordance with this section.

• (4)If the resolution is to be proposed as a special resolution, the directors are treated as not having duly called the meeting if they do not give the required notice of the resolution in accordance with section 283.

By my extensive calculation that is 28 days from Friday – which is 30 days from today – one week later than Dave expects. Will he be jetting in prematurely?

If I’m wrong, please put me straight. If I’m right, is Dave to be trusted with the Byzantine finances of the clumpany when he can’t use a calendar competently. Could this undiagnosed dyscalculia be the cause of his troubles with SARS.

View Comment

Nell DoncasterPosted on3:59 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Jungle Jim 15:40
==============

I suspect 6th floor may take the view that they should not tell Dave he is not allowed to be a Sevco director until he has become one.

Why take the easy path, when they can make a mess as per their job description?

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on4:11 pm - Feb 4, 2015


http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/8461-company-announcement

The Company confirms that it has today drawn down the sum of £5 million from the credit facility agreement entered into between SportsDirect.com Retail Limited (SD) and Rangers Football Club Limited (RFC) and has repaid the loan of £3 million to RFC provided by Mash Holdings Limited (MASH).

As a result of this repayment, all rights of MASH to nominate two persons for potential appointment to the board of directors of the Company and RFC have now lapsed. SD has the right to nominate two persons for potential appointment to the board of directors of the Company, but has not currently exercised this right.

Further to the Company’s announcement on 27 October 2014, the Company would like to clarify the position in relation to any rights of MASH to appoint directors of RFC as referred to in that announcement. The correct position is that MASH never had the right to directly appoint directors of RFC.
——————–
I assume this to be the 1st tranche of £5M. That being the case then it is likely that the January Payroll was fulfilled from other income, e.g. Cup semi final ticket monies that now have to be forwarded to the SPFL, to be divvied up 4 ways.

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on4:12 pm - Feb 4, 2015


smartie1947 says:

February 4, 2015 at 3:25 pm

1

0

Rate This

There has been many occasions in the past 3 seasons of friction between Raith Rovers and Rangers/Sevco.
From the lambasting of Turnbull Hutton, intimidation of Eric Drysdale, courtesy of the cheeky chappie, threats to burn down Starks Park and the current impasse re Raith’s reluctance to let Rangers sell tickets for an upcoming league match amid doubts about their financial status.
Lo and behold, there is a Scottish Cup-tie scheduled for Sunday between the two clubs.
Wouldn’t it be a wheeze if Raith issued a statement to the effect that they were not prepared to fulfil this fixture until they were satisfied that any player Rangers might field had met all registration criteria including international clearance.
That should hurry things along a bit.
=========================================
Would they be eligible to play by then?

The SFA Cup Competition Rules only states the following:
“All players in the Competition must be eligible to play in the relevant match having regard in particular (but without prejudice to the generality) to the Registration Procedures and the Disciplinary Procedures.”
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/SFAHandbook/12%20CupCompRules.pdf (para 15(c) on page 197.)

Therefore the SFA registration procedures are the relevant regulations and no specific restriction applies to cup ties (other than the specific semi-final to final prohibition).
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/SFAPublications/SFAHandbook/13%20RegProced.pdf

Para 3.2 on page 229 states
“The temporary transfer of the player’s registration will be effected from the date on which such form is received and acknowledged as valid by the Secretary.”

When will validity be established though? Therein lies the answer. ❓

On the assumption that the same level of priority will be attached to that issue as to establishing MA’s dual influence status, it will be sometime in March. :irony:

View Comment

bluPosted on4:14 pm - Feb 4, 2015


A perfect blog title in respect of this nonsense from RIFC. See club announcement today (top) and RNS 27 October (below). It all looks like a non-denial denial. The net effect is still that MASH/SD/Ashley get what they want.

Wednesday, 04 February 2015 15:30
Company Announcement
Written by Rangers Football Club

Company Announcement

The Company confirms that it has today drawn down the sum of £5 million from the credit facility agreement entered into between SportsDirect.com Retail Limited (SD) and Rangers Football Club Limited (RFC) and has repaid the loan of £3 million to RFC provided by Mash Holdings Limited (MASH).

As a result of this repayment, all rights of MASH to nominate two persons for potential appointment to the board of directors of the Company and RFC have now lapsed. SD has the right to nominate two persons for potential appointment to the board of directors of the Company, but has not currently exercised this right.

Further to the Company’s announcement on 27 October 2014, the Company would like to clarify the position in relation to any rights of MASH to appoint directors of RFC as referred to in that announcement. The correct position is that MASH never had the right to directly appoint directors of RFC.

The Board is pleased to announce that the Company’s subsidiary, The Rangers Football Club Limited (“RFCL”) has entered into a credit facility agreement with MASH Holdings Limited (“MASH”) pursuant to which MASH shall make available the sum of £2 million for drawdown by the Company (the “Facility”). MASH is a shareholder in the Company holding 8.92% of the voting rights in the Company. The Facility shall be secured by standard security granted by the Company over Edmiston House and Albion car park. The Facility shall be for a 6 month term and is interest free. The Facility will be used by the Company for general working capital purposes. Under the terms of the Facility MASH has the right to appoint up to 2 directors on the board of directors of RFCL.

Further to the announcement made on 8 October 2014, the Company has entered into a letter agreement with MASH (the “Withdrawal Letter”) pursuant to which the Company has invited MASH to put forward the names of 2 nominees of its choice for appointment to the Board, such appointments being subject to all necessary regulatory approvals being successfully completed for such persons nominated by MASH. In addition, the Company confirms that MASH has agreed the immediate withdrawal, by virtue of the Withdrawal Letter, of the notice served by MASH on the Company on 7 October 2014 requiring the Company to convene a general meeting of the Shareholders of the Company to put resolutions to such Shareholders for the removal of Mr Graham Wallace and Mr Philip Nash as directors of the Company

View Comment

MoreCelticParanoiaPosted on4:15 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Ticket allocation – as with many things in life there is no one definitive right and wrong answer.

A 50/50 split – or as close to it as possible – could lead to some Celtic fans who attend week in-week out missing out.

On the other hand a Cup Final is supposed to be played at a neutral venue and a massive imbalance in the respective support undermines that.

I have to say I sympathise with supporters of other teams and would agree that offering the other club the chance to sell a 50% allocation would be the right thing to do, provided enough time is built in to return any unsold allocation for sale to Celtic fans. To me it simply seems the right thing to do for sporting integrity.

A secondary point is that Celtic do reach more finals than other clubs so the opportunity comes around much more often.

Celtic supporters are “faithful through and through” and are rightly proud of the way we support our team but are not immune to the peaks and troughs that big games and freezing dreich Tuesday night fixtures bring. (see 150,000 or whatever at Seville and some of the low attendances this season) So it’s a bit unfair to castigate other clubs for only turning up for cup finals. It’s simply human nature.

We were rightly up in arms about the gerrymandering of venues to benefit TRFC in last season’s cup competitions – one of the main criticisms being that a stadium with an overwhelming imbalance in numbers of support for one team undermines the neutrality of the occasion, so I think we need to be big enough to accept the same standard for ourselves even if unfortunately that means some of us have to miss out. Life can be a female dog at times.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on4:18 pm - Feb 4, 2015


mcfc says:
February 4, 2015 at 3:40 pm

Has Dave got his sums wrong ?
=========================================

I don’t think sums are Dave’s strong point. Look at all those honest mistakes he made filling in those damn South African tax returns.

As regards the EGM, I will be surprised if it ever takes place. By naming himself and Paul Murray as replacement directors on the requisition, he seems to have given the Board good reason to refuse the request on the grounds that King and Murray are potentially debarred from acting as directors of any “Rangers” company. It seems incredible that this was just an oversight on King’s part. If you are serious, why not name a couple of squeaky clean (but very compliant) Rangers Men as the new directors, then get yourself and mini-Murray on to the Board in due course?

But as always with this saga, who knows what is really being played out behind the scenes. I certainly don’t have a clue. Lots of surprises still to come, though, that much seems certain.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on4:23 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Not sure if mentioned before.
Going back to the monkeys produced by Celtic fans at the game, there is a train of thought that it was in relation of getting the old firm tag/monkey off their back. In relation to ad in newspaper.

View Comment

The Cat NR1Posted on4:25 pm - Feb 4, 2015


mcfc says:

February 4, 2015 at 3:40 pm

8

0

Rate This

Has Dave got his sums wrong ?

He states in the Q&A section of his presser that “we should be 23 days away from [the EGM]…” 4mins 53secs http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/309106-dave-kings-plan-for-the-future-of-rangers-key-questions-and-issues/

Section 304 of the Companies Act 2006 defines the responsibilities of directors after receiving a notice under Section 303 calling a general meeting. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/13

• 304 Directors’ duty to call meetings required by members

• (1)Directors required under section 303 to call a general meeting of the company must call a meeting—
• (a)within 21 days from the date on which they become subject to the requirement, and
• (b)to be held on a date not more than 28 days after the date of the notice convening the meeting.

• (2)If the requests received by the company identify a resolution intended to be moved at the meeting, the notice of the meeting must include notice of the resolution.

• (3)The business that may be dealt with at the meeting includes a resolution of which notice is given in accordance with this section.

• (4)If the resolution is to be proposed as a special resolution, the directors are treated as not having duly called the meeting if they do not give the required notice of the resolution in accordance with section 283.

By my extensive calculation that is 28 days from Friday – which is 30 days from today – one week later than Dave expects. Will he be jetting in prematurely?

If I’m wrong, please put me straight. If I’m right, is Dave to be trusted with the Byzantine finances of the clumpany when he can’t use a calendar competently. Could this undiagnosed dyscalculia be the cause of his troubles with SARS.
=============================
CA2006 was updated by The Companies (Shareholders’ Rights) Regulations 2009 to incorporate the EU Shareholder Rights Directive. It may have changed some of the PLC rules. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/1632/pdfs/uksi_20091632_en.pdf

View Comment

weemanPosted on4:33 pm - Feb 4, 2015


blu says:
February 4, 2015 at 4:14 pm

A perfect blog title in respect of this nonsense from RIFC. See club announcement today (top) and RNS 27 October (below). It all looks like a non-denial denial. The net effect is still that MASH/SD/Ashley get what they want.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

With the added bonus of covering their tracks where the SFA Notice of Complaint is concerned.

Lucky that the date for the hearing was pushed back so that this could be clarified beforehand.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:37 pm - Feb 4, 2015


The Cat NR1 says:
February 4, 2015 at 4:12 pm
===============================
When will validity be established though? Therein lies the answer… ===============================

Validity-schmalidity…

Rule 30 (a) trumps all others:

30. Alterations and Additions to Rules
(a) The Board shall have the power to temporarily suspend, amend or add to these
Rules as circumstances may dictate from time to time, as it deems appropriate in
its reasonable discretion, to facilitate the smooth running of the Competition, or in
order to ensure that the Association is capable of meeting the commitments put
upon it under the terms of its television and sponsorship contracts.
======================================
In other words, yes, we can make it up as we go along. It’s in our rules, so nothing to see, run along etc. etc.

View Comment

mcfcPosted on4:41 pm - Feb 4, 2015


The Cat NR1 says:
February 4, 2015 at 4:25 pm

CA2006 was updated by The Companies (Shareholders’ Rights) Regulations 2009 to incorporate the EU Shareholder Rights Directive. It may have changed some of the PLC rules. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/1632/pdfs/uksi_20091632_en.pdf
=============================
Thanks – I didn’t want to over complicate things. I took a look at that and there are tweaks to Sect 303 (calling a general meeting) that aren’t relevant here, but nothing on Sect 304 (directors’ responsibilities when a meeting is called using Sect 303).

View Comment

tayredPosted on4:43 pm - Feb 4, 2015


I note Kings last line in the Herald article with interest:

“As a fan, I want to see the Rangers I know, the Nine-In-A-Row club, the dominant club in Scotland, back.

“I would like to think that every single season Rangers can start off competing with Celtic for the Scottish title and performing well in Europe.”

First of all that club you want back, Mr King, you know the one you were a Director for when it all went pear shaped? Doesn’t exist any more.. sorry, gone, expired, kaput, an ex-club.

As for your next line – the other 40 clubs might as well just give up then eh? You just want back to the two club situation so you can bore the pants off the rest of us again. Enough of this more competitive game we have been nurturing the past few years! Back to the good old days! Even more games like Sunday past to look forward to!

Yeah…. I can’t wait….

View Comment

Ron.an.MathPosted on4:52 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Statement O’Clock and apparrently 41 three-legged gazzele have been fitted with prosthetic limbs and are back happily grazing the veldt as if nothing had happenned . . .
Neither the herd or the game wardens have any concerns about Mufasa and his Pride continuing to operate in their territory as the previous dismemberment was merely a dispute over legal ownership of the original limbs . . 😆

View Comment

mcfcPosted on4:54 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Those Other Pesky Charges

Of which Mr King was not found innocent – according to Wikipedia:

“After a decade of legal process, including an agreed, but vetoed, settlement,[9] King eventually reached an agreement with the South African High Court whereby he pled guilty to 41 criminal counts of contravening the South Africa Income Tax Act and agreed to pay a fine of 80,000 Rand per criminal conviction or 3.28 million Rand in total. As part of the deal to drop the other 281 criminal charges he faced, King also agreed that he would pay the Criminal Assets Recovery Account of the South African Authorities 8.75 million Rand in compensation. King was originally indicted on 322 counts including fraud, tax evasion and evasion of exchange control regulations, as well as money-laundering and racketeering.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_King_%28businessman%29

View Comment

scapaflowPosted on5:05 pm - Feb 4, 2015


Ashley giveth with one hand, whilst he taketh away with the other
Blessed be the Name of Ashley :mrgreen:

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/8461-company-announcement

So egm or no egm SD now have the right to two seats on the board as a result?

EDIT
OK, SD arguing that Llambias was not an Ashley appointment. Wheels within wheels, over to SFA

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:07 pm - Feb 4, 2015


mcfc says:
February 4, 2015 at 4:54 pm

I wonder what the chances are of anyone chraged with 281 crimes being innocent of all 281? I then wonder what the chances would be if that same person had admitted guilt in a further 41 cases? Pretty slim, I’d guess!

View Comment

Comments are closed.