Spot the difference?

Avatar 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

Avatar

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

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on7:55 pm - Feb 10, 2015


Carfins Finest says:
February 10, 2015 at 7:31 pm

In their haste to portray this as ‘Old Firm’ related the disgraceful Daily Record ran a story telling all and sundry how the disgusting attack was the work of Celtic Fans. Couldn’t wait to get the news out there. Not a thought about the victim or his young family.

Maybe the original reporter from the record would like to do a follow up and maybe print the facts. Thought not.
—————————————————-
I may be thinking about another identical incident but my recollection is that the victim’s wife was quoted in several papers and I believe on television identifying the attackers as Celtic supporters.

She was apparently not present during the attack and I believe the victim was either alone or accompanied by one of his children. Therefore how his wife was aware of the identity of the attackers is unexplained.

The paper can’t print any further story because two people have been charged with attempted murder and therefore the matter is sub-judice until the court case.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on8:00 pm - Feb 10, 2015


mcfc says:
February 10, 2015 at 7:33 pm

A touch of the Arsene Wenger’s there – “I did not see . . . ” is his laughable answer to any question about obvious indiscretions by his players – and the press now just seem to defer to him instead of asking why he’s always looking at his shoes during every match
_____________________________
Answer: He’s a Frenchman, he wears nice clothes and shoes.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on8:15 pm - Feb 10, 2015


The more I see and hear from the RIFC Plc Board the sloppier they appear to be.

The Regulatory Announcement they made to AIM on 6 February included the statement:

Shareholders may attend and vote at the General Meeting in person.

Oh Really ❗ Not one word that only 500 – probably picked by the Board – would be able to get into the meeting.

I still can’t get over the fact that the Board apparently believe they can’t effectively steward a maximum of say 3,000 Bears attending a general meeting at Ibrox.

Perhaps they should close down the in-house security outfit they set up and return to G4S who have controlled the crowd over many years at Ibrox in sell-out Old Firm games.

Indeed the debacle of the recently abandoned game at Ibrox points to serious flaws in the ability of the stewards to maintain order.

However at the recent agm in the stadium where 2,000 Bears attended there was afaik not a single attempt by a Bear to approach or attack the Board in their gazebo.

But suddenly Ibrox has been declared a no-go area for directors because of personal safety fears – all very strange IMO.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on8:21 pm - Feb 10, 2015


ecobhoy says:
February 10, 2015 at 8:15 pm

Shareholders may attend and vote at the General Meeting in person.

However at the recent agm in the stadium where 2,000 Bears attended there was afaik not a single attempt by a Bear to approach or attack the Board in their gazebo.

But suddenlt Inrox has been declared a no-go area for directors because of personal safety fears – all very strange IMO.
========================================================

Well then, why don’t they have the EGM in Ibrox for the fans, but only have the Board members displayed on one of those big, outdoor TV screens – placed on the pitch ?

…oh, wait a minute… 😆

View Comment

Avatar

MaBawPosted on8:23 pm - Feb 10, 2015


Justshatered – I expect the truth will be he hid behind the pretense of not watching the incident s he did not have to comment on an RFC player.

Scottish football should ditch SKY – SKY with BT is pathetic, we pay twice for our wee league. Scottish football should market its own tv channel(s)

Possibly partner with another country but either way, sell their product to their fans and forget sky, BT and BBC.

At the moment, BT seem obsessed with televising a particular empty stadium.

View Comment

Avatar

tamjartmarquezPosted on9:35 pm - Feb 10, 2015


Bawsman says:
February 10, 2015 at 9:14 pm

==
I was wrongly diagnosed with that once, I sought a 2nd opinion, then a 3rd 😆

View Comment

Avatar

parttimearabPosted on9:40 pm - Feb 10, 2015


Just when you thought the “three bears” had shown remarkable prescience in having Douglas Park on board they decide that calling on his particular area of expertise may not be such a good idea…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/roddyforsyth/

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on9:49 pm - Feb 10, 2015


StevieBC says:
February 10, 2015 at 8:21 pm

…Well then, why don’t they have the EGM in Ibrox for the fans, but only have the Board members displayed on one of those big, outdoor TV screens – placed on the pitch ?

…oh, wait a minute… 😆
——–

Excellent idea really. Being lectured to and ruled from London should be right up their alley. Good excuse for a round of GStQ (all stand) and flag waving. Quite quintessential 😀

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on10:06 pm - Feb 10, 2015


What happens when the big screen breaks down then?

View Comment

Avatar

parttimearabPosted on10:14 pm - Feb 10, 2015


Lee McCulloch’s possible two match ban has been condemned in the strongest terms….by most of the contributors in the bears den….seems they don’t think it’s nearly long enough…although him possibly missing the Hibs game has been greeted with what can only be described as unbounded joy…

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on10:35 pm - Feb 10, 2015


parttimearab says:
February 10, 2015 at 9:40 pm
Just when you thought the “three bears” had shown remarkable prescience in having Douglas Park on board they decide that calling on his particular area of expertise may not be such a good idea…

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/columnists/roddyforsyth/
———-

Genuinely funny headline — the whole image of bears organizing a convoy of buses. It’s like Madagascar without the penguins! Jeremy, the Sugar Puffs bear, travelled by train as far as I recall. Far more civilized.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on10:36 pm - Feb 10, 2015


Partimearab @ 10:14pm

I caught a snippet of Gordon Dalziel tonight wondering if McCulloch would appeal to free himself up to play Hibs. If he appeals it will be heard on Thursday and there is no excuse for a pundit not knowing that.

On a wider note it’s difficult to see any qualities McCulloch has to deserve the ‘legend’ status the media give him.

View Comment

ianagain

ianagainPosted on10:41 pm - Feb 10, 2015


Here is a bit of reality very long sound cast from a few Well stalwarts and General Mgr Alan Burrows.
Covers why SMc left. The finance of the club. The new owners ambitions etc.
A very very different story to some playing in the media riaght now.

https://soundcloud.com/bytheminsport/bytheminmfc-podcast-15

View Comment

Avatar

TrisidiumPosted on12:36 am - Feb 11, 2015


Folks, let’s not go off on another NL odyssey. Can we not accept that criticisms of NL from members on TSFM are free of sectarian motive?

The treatment that Lennon suffered (and there is a pretty overwhelming agreement here that it was appalling) does not make him exempt from criticism. Feel free to argue about the criticism, but let’s not crack open the same old chestnut again and again.

If a Hearts fan’s criticism of Celtic is met with a nudge-nudge-wink-wink about sectarianism, that meeting should be taking place elsewhere.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:03 am - Feb 11, 2015


I see the Ross County Chairman is in the papers today citing the chaos at Ibrox as the reason for no league sponsor. At least it’s a different headline from Rangers needing to win everything for the game to be strong.

What I wonder though is whether deals have been knocked back by the League is anticipation of the ‘journey’ continuing unabated with a glorious entrance to the top league next season. Then they could announce a sponsor and say ‘well…you wouldn’t listen to us, but now that Rangers are ‘back’ look what happens’. Have they actually denied the league money? Shame on them if they have. Basically they told the world unless Rangers, no matter their sins, are in the top league then our game is rubbish. Yet they are still holding office 😡

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on7:27 am - Feb 11, 2015


Re – The EGM

What I don’t get is why are they bothered?

The shares they hold are in a company – not a club !?

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on8:34 am - Feb 11, 2015


jimlarkin says:
February 11, 2015 at 7:27 am

Re – The EGM

What I don’t get is why are they bothered? The shares they hold are in a company – not a club !?
———————————————————–
I would hope that most TSFM posters know the difference between a football club and an allegedly eternal club.

I regard my shares as being shares in Celtic Football Club and not in a holding company whose name may or may not change.

I also recognise the SFA and SPL use the term ‘club’ in their rule books and define it, albeit differently.

Rangers and Celtic and most other football clubs obtain the bulk of their income from the activities of the football clubs they operate.

As to why they are bothered? Probably for the same reason that Celtic fans were bothered pre-Fergus and still get bothered up to the present day over the minimum wage and Res 12.

View Comment

Avatar

AyeRightNawPosted on8:37 am - Feb 11, 2015


jimlarkin says:
February 11, 2015 at 7:27 am
Re – The EGM

What I don’t get is why are they bothered?

The shares they hold are in a company – not a club !?

————————————-

Clearly I’m guilty of overthinking jimlarkin’s post because all too quickly I ended up here. Again.

View Comment

Avatar

AyeRightNawPosted on8:54 am - Feb 11, 2015


In fact, having viewed the whole clip, it should be adopted as the theme for the EGM in its entirety – from opening song and dance to closing funny handshake. Casting would be determined by the drawing of lots.

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on8:59 am - Feb 11, 2015


jimlarkin says:

February 11, 2015 at 7:27 am

Re – The EGM

What I don’t get is why are they bothered?

The shares they hold are in a company – not a club !?
_______________________________________________________

I am a socialist of the “property is theft” variety. I don’t believe in share ownership 🙂

Consequently, I don’t see what difference it makes 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins FinestPosted on9:20 am - Feb 11, 2015


ecobhoy says:

February 10, 2015 at 7:55 pm

Carfins Finest says:
February 10, 2015 at 7:31 pm

In their haste to portray this as ‘Old Firm’ related the disgraceful Daily Record ran a story telling all and sundry how the disgusting attack was the work of Celtic Fans. Couldn’t wait to get the news out there. Not a thought about the victim or his young family.

Maybe the original reporter from the record would like to do a follow up and maybe print the facts. Thought not.
—————————————————-
I may be thinking about another identical incident but my recollection is that the victim’s wife was quoted in several papers and I believe on television identifying the attackers as Celtic supporters.

She was apparently not present during the attack and I believe the victim was either alone or accompanied by one of his children. Therefore how his wife was aware of the identity of the attackers is unexplained.

The paper can’t print any further story because two people have been charged with attempted murder and therefore the matter is sub-judice until the court case.
===============
Eco. The wife of the victim is stating quite clearly that she never said that the attack was about football rivalry. The incident was over a cigarette of all things. The point I was trying to make was that the blood letting that the likes of the Daily Record were looking for never materialised and so they were willing to jump on any incident and point the finger of blame on a football match. Had there not have been a Celtic v TRFC match hat day the story would have, unfortunately, never have seen the light of day. I take on board your comments re not being able to report further on the case.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on9:40 am - Feb 11, 2015


UTH,

Re Roy Macgregor’s comments on sponsorship.

Very simple calculation. SPFL collectively asked us to believe that foregoing 3 years of sponsorship (any sponsorship!) would be surpassed by the deal available in year 4 with the top division back “as it should be.”

Firstly, I don’t believe this. I do not believe that no deal at all was available. Exclusive coverage of an entire national league with no boycott risk since RFC were an integral part of the 4 division package and no-one at all was interested? Bolcox. I also do not for a minute believe an ‘as you were’ will be worth four times as much. No chance.

Secondly it absolutely smacks of a childish petty retribution. Along the lines of “well you voted them down (c) DR now here’s the consequence that we want you to feel (regardless of the reality).

Thirdly, there is now a very good chance that the rest of the league – that’s 41 other teams – will have to forego another year of no sponsorship as the glorious journey stutters. That in itself is bad enough. Sackable in fact! But worse, what exactly would be his (Doncasters) defence? We had no warning? Who could reasonably have thought you couldn’t guarantee RFC* not winning the 1st (a 1st that by that time they knew Hearts and possibly Hibs would be populating)? Never mind the business plan they had to hand and the update they received in December 2014.

I just feel we are all being held to ransom just to prove Neil and the peepil right, eventually….whenever.

Final point. Roy Macgregor is, unsurprisingly, being quite canny here. He is not specifically citing the absence as the root cause, but the mess that the sevco factor is creating. I notice (admittedly on a skim read) he does not specifically infer the mess is RFC*’s fault suggesting perhaps there are other factors…

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on10:37 am - Feb 11, 2015


StevieBC says:
February 10, 2015 at 5:53 pm

Mibbes we’re being too harsh on poor Keefy, now that the DR is banned from Ibrox.

What’s he going to copy/paste under his name ?!

But now – apparently – that the DR wants to publish only the truth, could there be an opportunity here ?

Maybe Keefy could copy/paste from TSFM more often if he wants the truth – and the Bampots would probably prefer not to get any accreditation in his rag either.

Win/Win ! 😉

______________________________________________

PMcG is gonna have to put in a double shift now.
Jackson may have to get his ‘exclusives’ out within days of Phil penning them.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on10:42 am - Feb 11, 2015


God bless Jim Spence for speaking the truth. There’s some candid stuff on his twitter timeline:

Jim Spence ‏@bbcjimspence 14h14 hours ago
@davidstoker_lfc @devlincross @STVSport
how do you talk it up with access once a week to many clubs with PR keeping media at bay?

David Stoker ‏@davidstoker_lfc 14h14 hours ago
@bbcjimspence @devlincross @STVSport
it’s a fair point Jim, but journalists have to shoulder some of the blame of the mistrust that exists

Jim Spence ‏@bbcjimspence 14h14 hours ago
@davidstoker_lfc @devlincross @STVSport
some journos agreed. But what about downright porkies and half truths told to us on weekly basis.

Francis S Hughes ‏@SocialistBhoy 42m42 minutes ago
@bbcjimspence @STVSport
A good place to start would be scrapping the great liquidation lie. Yourself excluded. Then we could all move on.

Jim Spence ‏@bbcjimspence 40m40 minutes ago
@SocialistBhoy @STVSport
that battle is lost among football hierarchy. What many people tell you privately they won’t repeat publicly.

Alastair Henderson ‏@allyjh72 12m12 minutes ago
@bbcjimspence @SocialistBhoy @STVSport
You are saying that journos can’t speak truth due to fear of RFC fans.This is why we don’t need them.

Jim Spence ‏@bbcjimspence
@allyjh72 @SocialistBhoy @STVSport
you can draw your own conclusions. It goes deeper than that though. Tentacles right through society

Alastair Henderson ‏@allyjh72 3m3 minutes ago
@bbcjimspence @SocialistBhoy @STVSport
What a corrupt society we live in. Find it hard to keep any interest in Scottish football after this.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on11:13 am - Feb 11, 2015


A bit more from Jim Spence. There are crossed conversations, so not always easy to piece together. The folllowing is connected to the above:

@bbcjimspence @SocialistBhoy @STVSport
Jim, what do you think prevents those who speak privately from airing the same publicly?

Jim Spence ‏@bbcjimspence 1h1 hour ago
@hermygromit @SocialistBhoy @STVSport
fear

Guy Gadbois ‏@hermygromit 59m59 minutes ago
@bbcjimspence @SocialistBhoy @STVSport
I’m not being deliberately obtuse, but fear of what?

Guy Gadbois ‏@hermygromit 52m52 minutes ago
@bbcjimspence @SocialistBhoy @STVSport
Fear of reprisals, physical or otherwise, from rogue elements and those who govern the sport?

Jim Spence ‏@bbcjimspence
@hermygromit @SocialistBhoy @STVSport
I asked a question, faced a campaign to have me sacked at the trust and abuse in the street Do you 1/2

Jim Spence @bbcjimspence
Think others are keen to go through the same scenario,

Arthur Stramash ‏@ArthurStramash
@bbcjimspence @hermygromit @SocialistBhoy @STVSport
So the sport is, essentially, governed by mob rule?

The Clumpany ‏@TheClumpany 9m9 minutes ago
@bbcjimspence
Culture of bullying will plague game until authorities take a stand. It comes to something when speaking truth is dangerous

Guy Gadbois ‏@hermygromit 1m1 minute ago
@TheClumpany @bbcjimspence
Thanks to the majority of the MSM and all on 6th floor at Hampden, to question the truth results in retribution.

View Comment

Matty Roth

Matty RothPosted on11:20 am - Feb 11, 2015


Jim Spence ‏@bbcjimspence
@allyjh72 @SocialistBhoy @STVSport
you can draw your own conclusions. It goes deeper than that though. Tentacles right through society

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

“Tentacles”

Interesting choice of word.

Remind me, what sort of creatures have tentacles?

View Comment

scapaflow

scapaflowPosted on11:23 am - Feb 11, 2015


upthehoops says:
February 11, 2015 at 7:03 am

Interesting contrasts across the press, in how they have covered MacGregor’s comments. I suspect that for once, The Express have probably got it right :mrgreen:

“My own belief is it will still be difficult to get a sponsor as long as Rangers behave the way they have been.”

Roy is flat out stating, that potential sponsors view the reputational risks as too high.

The Board of the SPFL are not meeting their responsibilities to their shareholders, in allowing this mess to drag on and and on and on. However, lest we forget, the shareholders are the 42 clubs, and they have a duty both to themselves, and each other, to ensure that the Board do sort it out.

So, once again I am left with the conclusion that individual clubs may be unhappy, but, thy are not unhappy enough to actually get off their asses and do something about it. Instead of the gallant forty twa, we have the whining 41.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on11:25 am - Feb 11, 2015


Matty Roth says:
February 11, 2015 at 11:20 am

Jim Spence ‏@bbcjimspence
@allyjh72 @SocialistBhoy @STVSport
you can draw your own conclusions. It goes deeper than that though. Tentacles right through society

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

“Tentacles”

Interesting choice of word.

Remind me, what sort of creatures have tentacles?
_____________________

Wednesday Quiz?

a) A squirrel

b) A squid

c) An octopus

PS Odd man out quiz

View Comment

Avatar

Resin_lab_dogPosted on11:41 am - Feb 11, 2015


GoosyGoosy says:
February 10, 2015 at 3:17 pm

How to make money in football
Buy a football club ltd in England in or near the top league with potentially break even core support
Strip out every penny of costs and revenues needed to break even leaving the business entirely dependent on its core support
Buy a football club ltd in Scotland in or near the top league with potentially break even core support
Strip out every penny of costs and revenues needed to break even leaving the business entirely dependent on core support
Appoint a Coach for each team with no say in player loans or transfers
Prioritise Coaches to developing young talent and avoiding relegation
Appoint a senior talent spotter for the English club to advise the board on players with sell on potential
Manage all back office tasks centrally for both clubs to eliminate duplication
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Thereafter?
Use both clubs to develop talent capable of holding down a first team place in the English club
Sell on any players who can yield a decent profit on their purchase price.
Loan or transfer development failures and long term injured to the Scottish club ( with their costs)
Ignore the media and treat the fans like peasants
………..
Any Geordies out there who would disagree?

_____________________________________

yep… Sound business. And STILL a major step up from where TRFC are headed right now! Them’s the facts.

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on11:45 am - Feb 11, 2015


Big Pink says:
February 11, 2015 at 8:59 am
jimlarkin says:

February 11, 2015 at 7:27 am

Re – The EGM

What I don’t get is why are they bothered?

The shares they hold are in a company – not a club !?
_______________________________________________________

I am a socialist of the “property is theft” variety. I don’t believe in share ownership 🙂

Consequently, I don’t see what difference it makes 🙂

……………………………….

BP – thanks for your “opinion”, but what I was after and getting at, is this

After various “incorporations”, everybody thought that Rangers were a football club.
Until Liquidation that is.
Liquidation comes after Administration.
Everybody (bears included) accept that Rangers went into Administration.
Whilst in administration, Rangers then were seperated into the club and the company????

So, all of a sudden, it wasn’t, the club who had the financial difficulties, it was the holding company!

On that basis, the club doesn’t/shouldn’t need a holding company to get along in this world.

The club evidently can never cease, so why bother or have the need to buy shares in a holding company which is seperate from the club and as has been proved already – the club does not need a holding company to survive, so why are the Bears bothering with throwing their money away on an unnecessary “appendix” ??

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on11:45 am - Feb 11, 2015


Bull’s Eye Barry

Combining all the above, I’m persuaded that there really were no sponsorship contenders for the first three years of the journey. Sponsors are shrewder than the SFA/SPFLunderstand and can find much better use for their marketing budgets. Maybe there will be no sponsors for years 4, 5 and 6 of the journey either.

Honestly – look at the proposition and suggest to me what kind of company would want to be attached to those core values at any price.

The SFA/SPFL are used to high-handed dealings with fans who have a strong emotional bond with their sport and club and will take much more abuse than the wider population simply because they have no option.

What the SFA/SPFL forget is that the business world outside their incestuous clichés is populated by thinking, reasonable, decent people making choices for the good of their businesses, employees, customers. To them the SFA/SPFL’s business incompetence is transparent and their sponsorship proposition is pompous, ridiculous, deluded.

I think we are witnessing SFA/SPFL following the same business spiral as their favourite club.

The prophet Hearne has spoken.

View Comment

Matty Roth

Matty RothPosted on11:56 am - Feb 11, 2015


I think you are right mcfc, the SPFL have shown themselves to be completely unworthy of sponsorship or association with any decent business.

Being seen to be honest and ethical in all dealings is important for any business.

Sponsoring a dishonest, disingenuous and craven “sports” organisation like the SPFL is the last thing any decent business would want.

View Comment

Matty Roth

Matty RothPosted on11:57 am - Feb 11, 2015


Talking of sponsors, did we ever get sight of any progress made by eddiegoldtop?

What was the outcome there?

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on11:58 am - Feb 11, 2015


Combien D’Euros

I wonder what cut Charles of Normandy is taking on each ironic St Valentine’s Day brick – to add to the €10,000 per day already leaking from the Ibrox warchest.

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/club-news/item/8492-make-your-love-last-forever

View Comment

Tartanwulver

TartanwulverPosted on12:09 pm - Feb 11, 2015


Jim Spence – I don’t know the guy but he seems to me like a man who is uncomfortable with dishonesty, and appears to be a journalist of the old school that can’t believe his luck in getting paid to write about a sport he would follow for the love of it anyway. A nice wee antidote to the cynicism that pervades much of the sport, particularly in certain areas of the game in this country. More power to him.

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on12:15 pm - Feb 11, 2015


mcfc says:
February 11, 2015 at 11:58 am

Combien D’Euros

I wonder what cut Charles of Normandy is taking on each ironic St Valentine’s Day brick – to add to the €10,000 per day already leaking from the Ibrox warchest.

http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/club-news/item/8492-make-your-love-last-forever

It’s nice to see that those Valentine bricks are “weather dependant”, whatever that means. The standards just haven’t been the same since the departure of James Traynor.

View Comment

Avatar

bfbpuzzledPosted on12:23 pm - Feb 11, 2015


Jim Spence thank you, you are saying what should be commonplace but is not, that is crazy. Let them all know that the truth shall set them free. The smsm reminds me of the kind of thinking which called the Berlin Wall Th anti fascist protection barrier.

Property is theft – try the Catholic Workers which take that much further including voluntary poverty Sorry for the OT preaching.

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on12:24 pm - Feb 11, 2015


Untrained Eye

I can’t think of Regan and Doncaster without hearing my favourite Pulp lyric: “It may look to the untrained eye, I’m sitting on my arse all day.”

I Spy, Pulp

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on12:33 pm - Feb 11, 2015


Roy MacGregor, Ross County chairman:

“My own belief is it will still be difficult to get a sponsor as long as Rangers behave the way they have been. We’re not projecting ourselves as businesses that can self-manage ourselves.”

This is as close to a calling out of the SFA/SFL/SPFL by any club since Turnball Hutton. I think gradually more and more heads will appear over the parapet.

The SFA/SPFL are IMHO setting new standards for incompetence/bias – delete as you feel appropriate. A combination of the two in my opinion. From the moment of the 5 Way Agreement the authorities have systematically let down the supporters of every other club and the also the decent support of TRFC. At times it’s easy to forget the length of the charge sheet:

1. The financial doping of the Murray years
2. Allowing Craig Whyte into Scottish Football
3. The 5WA
4. Allowing Big Hands Charlie (and who knows who else – Blue Pitch/Margarita) into Scottish Football
5. The Nimo Smith fiasco
6. Bryson’s Law
7. Doncaster and Regan’s twitter ramblings
8. Dithering over duel influence
9. Failure to rule out DCK and P Murray as fit and proper
10. A rule book deliberately devised to allow “discretion” wherever it suits – not a set of rules to be imposed without fear of favour and where everyone knows where they stand.

Looking in from the outside I see an arbitrary disciplinary process. The recent re-emergence of the worst of the Ibrox songbook seems to have generated no more than a collective shrug.

And let’s not talk about sponsorship and TV deals.

One thing that got somewhat overlooked in Barry Hearn’s evisceration of Doncaster is that he also said to the Clubs, “and you employ these people”. Nothing will change unless and until the clubs get together and lay out a collective vision for Scottish football based on:

1. Sporting Integrity
2. Financial Fair Play

They then need to employ a set of regulators to take the game forward on this basis.

The MSM is a busted flush – although even here I expect increasing cracks to appear in the consensus. I don’t want to sound melodramatic but I’m beginning to think that TSFM has to become the rallying point for all those who want a decent future for Scottish Football.

If it is only the clubs that can effect change, then it is only fans that can pressure the clubs into making that change.

There was discussion recently of a banner advert on Daily Mail Online. Not the way to go in my opinion FWIW. But how much to take out an advert on Hibs, Hearts, Dundee, DUFC and others websites? How about asking clubs to host a guest TSFM blog on their sites?

How about fanzines and fan organised websites. How much to advertise on these? How about guest articles/blogs for the fanzines/websites?

There is a battle for hearts and minds to be won.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on12:37 pm - Feb 11, 2015


mcfc says:
February 11, 2015 at 11:58 am

I had to ask myself if that was a spoof (still not convinced it’s not) but once I read the following I thought, ‘only TRFC could come up with that’. Kind of fits in with the question ‘who owns the stadium?’

‘Please Note: Buying a Stadium Brick does not transfer ownership of that brick to the purchaser. At all times, Stadium Bricks remain the property of The Rangers Football Club.’

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on12:40 pm - Feb 11, 2015


Je Suis Spencey 😛

View Comment

Avatar

Billy BoycePosted on12:40 pm - Feb 11, 2015


Following an article in the BBC’s website on 15th December 2014, I complained that:

“your reporter added the following footnote: “Rangers, who were founded in 1872, had never played outside the top division from the formation of the Scottish League in 1890 until they were demoted in 2012, a year after winning their 54th Scottish title”. As a public funded broadcaster, your organisation is obliged to confine itself to fact, and to check those facts before putting them into the public domain. Why therefore has BBC Scotland pronounced that Rangers were “demoted”? There have been a number of previous complaints to your department regarding the erroneous use of the words “demoted” and “relegated” etc. As you are fully aware, Rangers F.C. is in liquidation and a new entity, The Rangers Football Club, entered the fourth tier of the Scottish league for the first time in 2012. It is that simple. Why do you persist in repeating this lie?”

After almost two months I have just received this reply:

“Thank you for getting in touch. The reference to Rangers being ‘demoted’ was, as you point out, incorrect and we apologise for this error. The article has now been changed to say: ‘Rangers, who were founded in 1872, had never played outside the top division from the formation of the Scottish League in 1890 until they entered the Third Division in 2012.”

Why did I even bother?

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on12:45 pm - Feb 11, 2015


jimlarkin says:
February 11, 2015 at 11:45 am

Big Pink says:
February 11, 2015 at 8:59 am
jimlarkin says:

February 11, 2015 at 7:27 am

Re – The EGM

What I don’t get is why are they bothered?

The shares they hold are in a company – not a club !?
_______________________________________________________

I am a socialist of the “property is theft” variety. I don’t believe in share ownership 🙂

Consequently, I don’t see what difference it makes 🙂

……………………………….

BP – thanks for your “opinion”, but what I was after and getting at, is this

After various “incorporations”, everybody thought that Rangers were a football club.
Until Liquidation that is.
Liquidation comes after Administration.
Everybody (bears included) accept that Rangers went into Administration.
Whilst in administration, Rangers then were seperated into the club and the company????

So, all of a sudden, it wasn’t, the club who had the financial difficulties, it was the holding company!

On that basis, the club doesn’t/shouldn’t need a holding company to get along in this world.

The club evidently can never cease, so why bother or have the need to buy shares in a holding company which is seperate from the club and as has been proved already – the club does not need a holding company to survive, so why are the Bears bothering with throwing their money away on an unnecessary “appendix” ??
============================================
Spot on JL.

That is the Doncaster Interpretation (DI) in a nutshell.

In effect, no business should consider trading with a Scottish club that falls within the DI without having security over assets.
If the clumpany fails, the club walks away unscathed and leaves the debts behind. The creditors are stiffed and the directors carry on as before, with the excepetion of one ritual scapegoat. There is no incentive to operate a financially viable business model. All the transactional risk is one way.

Strangely, only one club seems to be pursuing that path, with the rest opting for long-term sustainability. The conclusion must be that the DI is only accepted by one of the 42 SPFL clubs, and by inference the other 41 regard it as having no validity. Actions speak louder than words. ❓

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on12:55 pm - Feb 11, 2015


mcfc says:
February 11, 2015 at 11:45 am
Bull’s Eye Barry

Combining all the above, I’m persuaded that there really were no sponsorship contenders for the first three years of the journey

Nope, I am quite sure there was a report a year or two ago that a sponsorship offer had been turned down because it was for, as far as I recall, two years and did not offer ‘sufficient’ money, although it was more than the zero that we ended up with.

Oh, and DP, on Jeremy, the Sugar Puffs bear, …

he ended his days at Camperdown Zoo in Dundee, you know.

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on1:04 pm - Feb 11, 2015


scottc says:
February 11, 2015 at 12:55 pm

Nope, I am quite sure there was a report a year or two ago that a sponsorship offer had been turned down because it was for, as far as I recall, two years and did not offer ‘sufficient’ money, although it was more than the zero that we ended up with.

=======================================================================
Scott – Did that mystery sponsor have a name and how much did they offer, Did the sponsor have big hands, googly eyes, a panchant for pies, a basketball club, an Interpol warrant or a discount sports shop ?

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on1:10 pm - Feb 11, 2015


Escher Logic Alive & Well

There must be a specific medical term for suffering hatred and martyrdom that does not exist.

http://www.ibroxnoise.co.uk/2015/02/were-rangers-right-to-ban-record.html

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on1:11 pm - Feb 11, 2015


Billy Boyce says:
February 11, 2015 at 12:40 pm

Obviously written by one of those people at the BBC restrained by the fear (be it his/her own or his/her masters’) Jim Spence alluded to on twitter.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on1:16 pm - Feb 11, 2015


scottc says:
February 11, 2015 at 12:55 pm
mcfc says:
February 11, 2015 at 11:45 am
Bull’s Eye Barry

Combining all the above, I’m persuaded that there really were no sponsorship contenders for the first three years of the journey
Nope, I am quite sure there was a report a year or two ago that a sponsorship offer had been turned down because it was for, as far as I recall, two years and did not offer ‘sufficient’ money, although it was more than the zero that we ended up with.

Oh, and DP, on Jeremy, the Sugar Puffs bear, …

he ended his days at Camperdown Zoo in Dundee, you know.
——

I didn’t know that, well, not until yesterday when I saw a wee press cutting about it. Small world. I thought of the Calderpark lion when saw the reference about Jeremy in Dundee. Sad places, zoos.

View Comment

Avatar

jw hardinPosted on1:30 pm - Feb 11, 2015


J Spence – “you can draw your own conclusions. It goes deeper than that though. Tentacles right through society”

I suspect JS was alluding to something much darker, dangerous and anti-democratic than an investment company.

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on1:48 pm - Feb 11, 2015


mcfc says:
February 11, 2015 at 1:04 pm

=======================================================================
Scott – Did that mystery sponsor have a name and how much did they offer, Did the sponsor have big hands, googly eyes, a panchant for pies, a basketball club, an Interpol warrant or a discount sports shop ?

😛 Afraid not, mcfc. I believe they were named in the report but were not a ‘big’ name and so ND would get absolutely no kudos from signing them up. I’m sure it was mentioned in an interview with him carried in one of the papers; he was ‘holding out’ for the big one. If I win the lottery tonight, I will invest the lot in a sponsorship package. That is bound to help. Now, I just have to hope those three numbers come up

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on1:48 pm - Feb 11, 2015


Allyjambo says:

February 11, 2015 at 12:37 pm

mcfc says:
February 11, 2015 at 11:58 am

I had to ask myself if that was a spoof (still not convinced it’s not) but once I read the following I thought, ‘only TRFC could come up with that’. Kind of fits in with the question ‘who owns the stadium?’

‘Please Note: Buying a Stadium Brick does not transfer ownership of that brick to the purchaser. At all times, Stadium Bricks remain the property of The Rangers Football Club.’
========================================
Where’s ra deeds fa me brick?
Show us the deeds.
🙄

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on1:51 pm - Feb 11, 2015


jw hardin says:

February 11, 2015 at 1:30 pm

J Spence – “you can draw your own conclusions. It goes deeper than that though. Tentacles right through society”

I suspect JS was alluding to something much darker, dangerous and anti-democratic than an investment company.
=====================================
That’ll be that legendary Unseen Fenian Hand then. :irony:

View Comment

Avatar

rabtdogPosted on1:51 pm - Feb 11, 2015


Cloud cuckoo post for a Wed lunchtime.
1. Massive Kickstarter to raise some tens of millions
2. Buy majority of shares
3. Take Rangers off AIM
4. Unilaterally hand back titles & trophies won during ‘EBT cheating’ years
5. Make sectarian singing a ‘close Ibrox’ offence
6. When singing continues either play games behind closed doors or make them women and under 16s only
7. If the move to stamp out sectarianism works, make further efforts to make Rangers a community club
8. If it doesn’t work then wind up the operation, demolish Ibrox and recoup some of initial outlay by land sale
9. Meanwhile tell the truth, the whole of it and nothing but…
10. If the SFA or SPFL object, start talking in public about Ogilvie & Doncaster.

Come on. Compared to Crossrail this would be •cheap•

View Comment

Avatar

GoosyGoosyPosted on2:09 pm - Feb 11, 2015


jw hardin says:

February 11, 2015 at 1:30 pm

J Spence – “you can draw your own conclusions. It goes deeper than that though. Tentacles right through society”
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Tentacles right through society ?

………More like cloven hoofs

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on2:41 pm - Feb 11, 2015


Someone over on LSE suggested that HMRC may have a veto/influence/opinion on King being a director at Ibrox given his 41 tax favourable settlements. Any one know in detail if that is true or jsut wishful thinking ?

If they do, they may save the SFA from making complete arses of themselves with a F%PP cop out – but there are other opportunities for complete arse making coming up soon.

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on2:43 pm - Feb 11, 2015


mcfc says:

February 11, 2015 at 1:10 pm

Escher Logic Alive & Well

There must be a specific medical term for suffering hatred and martyrdom that does not exist.
==============================
Try this MCFC. It seems fairly accurate.
http://psychcentral.com/encyclopedia/2008/paranoid-delusion/

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on2:57 pm - Feb 11, 2015


mcfc says:

February 11, 2015 at 2:41 pm

Someone over on LSE suggested that HMRC may have a veto/influence/opinion on King being a director at Ibrox given his 41 tax favourable settlements. Any one know in detail if that is true or jsut wishful thinking ?

If they do, they may save the SFA from making complete arses of themselves with a F%PP cop out – but there are other opportunities for complete arse making coming up soon.
==========================
I’m not sure that HMRC would involve themselves in that. They may have an opinion, in the same way that we do, and they could forward that to those responsible for applying for a UK disqualification. DK’s overseas criminal record should prevent him being involved in a UK listed company anyway. The unfolding RFC liquidation may result in a UK disqualification depending on the liquidator’s report, which would be a second impediment.

https://www.gov.uk/company-director-disqualification is a handy guide to the disqualification procedure.

View Comment

oddjob

oddjobPosted on3:00 pm - Feb 11, 2015


Mcfc says,

February 11. 2015 @ 2.41 pm

Could be in relation to the signature on the VAT registration form perhaps ?

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on3:19 pm - Feb 11, 2015


mcfc says:
February 11, 2015 at 2:41 pm
Someone over on LSE suggested that HMRC may have a veto/influence/opinion on King being a director at Ibrox given his 41 tax favourable settlements. Any one know in detail if that is true or jsut wishful thinking ?
======================
Absolutely nothing to with HMRC. In my many years at a fairly senior level in the Inland Revenue, I never had such a request from the DTI (as was), and certainly not regarding someone resident in a foreign jurisdiction. What opinion could HMRC have?

I guess that this will be decided by the relevant department (Vince Cable’s lot?) on the basis of the South African public record of any convictions. If they need to contact anyone, it will be via the South African Embassy, who will no doubt have a SARS liaison person based in London.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on3:23 pm - Feb 11, 2015


mcfc says:
February 11, 2015 at 2:41 pm

I don’t know if they’d have a veto with regard to King’s SA Tax convictions, but I’d certainly think they might well have under the following!

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/02/10/7e18068ceddc0a91390b3a32e064471b.jpg

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on3:29 pm - Feb 11, 2015


Looks like Hibs might need those neck braces after all 🙄 Another ‘not proven’ verdict on the way!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31375476

View Comment

Avatar

AyeRightNawPosted on3:35 pm - Feb 11, 2015


Allyjambo

Agree – I posted yesterday afternoon you can see a not proven verdict coming on this because he’s been cited for the ‘wrong’ offence (s).

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on3:43 pm - Feb 11, 2015


scottc says:

February 11, 2015 at 12:55 pm

mcfc says:
February 11, 2015 at 11:45 am
Bull’s Eye Barry

Combining all the above, I’m persuaded that there really were no sponsorship contenders for the first three years of the journey

Nope, I am quite sure there was a report a year or two ago that a sponsorship offer had been turned down because it was for, as far as I recall, two years and did not offer ‘sufficient’ money, although it was more than the zero that we ended up with.
==================================
Would you trust them to negociate a sponsorship deal after they signed a tv deal that ended up costing us £750K in backhanders?

They’d probably end up paying the sponsor millions instead.

I wouldn’t trust Doncaster and his lackeys to negotiate their way through a city centre one way system, let alone negotiate a fair sponsorship or tv deal.

View Comment

Avatar

auchinstarryPosted on4:06 pm - Feb 11, 2015


Re Jim Spence comments. This may indeed be news to some people sheltering in the cover of Scottish innocence. Not to others. The obvious and often palpable fears dripping between the lines of Scottish Journalism on the Sevco /Oldco/Newco subject have been clear from the Off.
The treatment and barrage of insults/threats etc meted out to anyone who questions their history, integrity or indeed wisdom are documented and real.
If Mr Spence is suggesting these “Tentacles” reach deeper and from more multiple sources, then this also is NOT news. Perhaps he should be asked to elaborate, but then again for the sake of his own personal Safety, perhaps not.

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on4:07 pm - Feb 11, 2015


Allyjambo says:

February 11, 2015 at 3:29 pm

Looks like Hibs might need those neck braces after all 🙄 Another ‘not proven’ verdict on the way!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31375476
===============================
Thay have video evidence of the identical incident in the League Cup (presented by QTS) semi-final(on Guidetti) that was deemed to be acceptable, so on the basis of consistancy they will argue for an acquittal.

And who could say that they wouldn’t have a valid case?

Trial by Sportscene is in danger of becoming an even greater embarrassment, if that is possible. It was claimed that 1M people watched the second League Cup (presented by QTS) semi-final, so that is 1M people that saw that incident, yet somehow the CA missed it or decided not to act. Next week, an identical incident occurs and thanks to Sportscene, it was cited.

Beyond farce.

View Comment

Avatar

andygraham.66Posted on4:13 pm - Feb 11, 2015


We all, quite rightly, criticise the SPFL for all they do wrong.

This one they have got right, Jay Beatty’s goal against Hamilton is up for goal of the month.

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on4:34 pm - Feb 11, 2015


Allyjambo says:
February 11, 2015 at 3:23 pm
mcfc says:
February 11, 2015 at 2:41 pm

I don’t know if they’d have a veto with regard to King’s SA Tax convictions, but I’d certainly think they might well have under the following!

http://tapatalk.imageshack.com/v2/15/02/10/7e18068ceddc0a91390b3a32e064471b.jpg

=======================
That link is certainly to Revenue guidance, but it’s a Companies Act matter, so any compliance issue lies with the Department for Business, etc.

Believe me, HMRC have more than enough on their plate just trying to ensure compliance with the Taxes Acts!

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on4:41 pm - Feb 11, 2015


carfins finest

You have PM

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on4:45 pm - Feb 11, 2015


Allyjambo says: February 11, 2015 at 3:29 pm

Looks like Hibs might need those neck braces after all 🙄 Another ‘not proven’ verdict on the way!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31375476
=================================
After the Kris Boyd “Not Proven” head butt, I would have probably agreed with you without looking too closely at the incident. However, on this occasion I think there is enough evidence to reach a guilty verdict.
1) he is looking down at Carrick as he steps on him
2) he makes no attempt to avoid stepping on him
3) if anything he shortens his step to ensure he does make contact. Check the angle of his lower leg in the Gif below.
4) he makes no attempt to lessen the impact

http://i.imgur.com/wqdXzJu.gif?1

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on4:45 pm - Feb 11, 2015


Thanks to all our tax experts.

So why aren’t the directors of The Rangers Football Club PLC (renamed RFC 2102 plc) all disqualified as a matter of course given that the criteria are:

‘Unfit conduct’ includes:

• allowing a company to continue trading when it can’t pay its debts
• not keeping proper company accounting records
• not sending accounts and returns to Companies House
• not paying tax owed by the company
• using company money or assets for personal benefit
https://www.gov.uk/company-director-disqualification

Is BDO meant to do this in the public interest? If so, why is it taking so long? King and Murray have active UK directorships created after admin (14 Feb 2012) and liquidation (31 Oct 2012)

• King: Ibrox 1972 Ltd http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC473553
• Murray: VICAST LIMITED http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC434394

BTW renaming The Rangers Football Club plc to RFC 2012 plc on 02 Aug 2012 may have been seen as a means of making Ranger International Football Club plc available as a non-pheonixed name for the IPO with the blessing of Duff & Phelps, but it also had the effect of hiding the “Rangers” name as a company in liquidation at Companies House – clever Charles. http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC004276

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on5:02 pm - Feb 11, 2015


Re: lack of league sponsorship, IMO, Doncaster maybe didn’t try too hard over the last few years because that would not fit the narrative – and it would also provide personal ‘validation’ to announce a major sponsor only when TRFC reached the SPL.

Regardless of whether that is true or not, is this not another lost opportunity for generating some goodwill amongst Scottish football – and a wider demographic ?

IIRC, Barcelona actually paid UNICEF to have their logo as the first ‘advert’ displayed on a Barca top. Most folks thought that was a classy thing to do, and it reflected very well on the club and its members.

Shirley, in the absence of any sponsor, the SPFL could have made a magnanimous gesture to add e.g. UNICEF for nothing, or maybe another, more relevant UN agency;

UNOSDP – UN Office on Sport for Development and Peace. 😕

Or maybe a charity like SSPC, Macmillan Nurses, Barnardos, etc ?

There should be a policy on ensuring that the SPFL always has a sponsor: paid or not.

[Same for the Cups too.]

View Comment

Avatar

AyeRightNawPosted on5:04 pm - Feb 11, 2015


Apologies for the long post, was going to submit as potential blog but posting seems self indulgent enough!

I’m not a family member so have no locus but as a supporter of football in Scotland I’d like to think some serious consideration is being given to turning off the life support machine at Ibrox.

Not only would such action spare further heartbreak for friends and family, it would be an enduring act of public service.

Addiction is never pretty and, I know from bitter experience, seldom ends well.

The years of financial doping at Ibrox eventually and inevitably took their toll. Events elsewhere led to changes in circumstances for their main supplier and when his successor couldn’t maintain even a facade of continuity tears were shed and crests were cracked as the patient proved beyond help. Phase one was over.

Never more vulnerable than when grieving, friends and family then seized on the illusionary hope proferred by a latter-day Dr Frankenstein who, with the support of mystery backers, convinced them that Requiescat In Pace was actually Latin for ‘Only Sleeping’. And phase two began.

But old habits die hard and in the blink of an eye financial doping was again the toxin of choice. Family and friends dug deep and the millions spent in securing fourth then third tier titles was matched only by the millions more being smuggled out the back door to sate the investors.

Despite dire warnings, the family and friends, many blinded by hope, were slow to realise there was something malodorous about their resurrected entity.

Too slow. For once again the financial dope supply faltered and the bills and expectations kept piling up. Death came calling again but this time the scythe was avoided by the interventions of a dispassionate investor keen to future-proof his income stream.

Not for him the continued prescription of living beyond means without consequence. Yes he would supply the goods but in return he tightened his control on the club’s decision making and revenues.

The price exacted has proven to be too much to bear for many friends and family. Now, in phase three, they have walked away and there are no signs that absence is making their hearts grow fonder.

Meantime competitor clubs have learned lessons with many now spurning financial doping and most cutting their cloth according to their means.

However, those friends and family ensconced within the game’s administration and  media have been on pause awaiting, or actively working to facilitate, a glorious return for the miraculous entity.

Their shameful inability and apparent unwillingness to promote and market a national sport which has broadly prospered despite, or perhaps because of, the loss of a major player is negligent bordering on corrupt.

The game can only move forward and find a level from which it can start to grow if those charged with running and promoting it stop looking wistfully to the past.

The same release and relief needs to be afforded to the patient’s friends and family. No more heartache and pain. No more false expectations of recovery. Instead an opportunity to let go and, if it’s so vital, build again from the ground up.

Scottish football needs to be released from the damaging purgatory of this saga. And so do the patient’s family and friends.

Scottish football needs to flip the switch on the life support and move on.

View Comment

The Cat NR1

The Cat NR1Posted on5:05 pm - Feb 11, 2015


mcfc says:

February 11, 2015 at 4:45 pm

Thanks to all our tax experts.

So why aren’t the directors of The Rangers Football Club PLC (renamed RFC 2102 plc) all disqualified as a matter of course given that the criteria are:

‘Unfit conduct’ includes:

• allowing a company to continue trading when it can’t pay its debts
• not keeping proper company accounting records
• not sending accounts and returns to Companies House
• not paying tax owed by the company
• using company money or assets for personal benefit
https://www.gov.uk/company-director-disqualification

Is BDO meant to do this in the public interest? If so, why is it taking so long? King and Murray have active UK directorships created after admin (14 Feb 2012) and liquidation (31 Oct 2012)

• King: Ibrox 1972 Ltd http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC473553
• Murray: VICAST LIMITED http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC434394

BTW renaming The Rangers Football Club plc to RFC 2012 plc on 02 Aug 2012 may have been seen as a means of making Ranger International Football Club plc available as a non-pheonixed name for the IPO with the blessing of Duff & Phelps, but it also had the effect of hiding the “Rangers” name as a company in liquidation at Companies House – clever Charles. http://companycheck.co.uk/company/SC004276
==============================================
The liquidator’s report will contain recommendations as to whether a DDO (or criminal proceedings) is warranted.
The liquidation is ongoing, and as yet that report has not been issued.
That is a separate report from the periodic creditors reports of which we have seen extracts on here.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on5:11 pm - Feb 11, 2015


easyJambo says:
February 11, 2015 at 4:45 pm

It is also obvious from the footage that’s available that he turns to the right, towards Carrick, rather trying to stop or turn to the left away from him. There can be no doubt he knew exactly where Carrick was, he put him there. He jumps as if to avoid his victim but doesn’t lengthen his stride to clear him and, as can be seen, uses a straight leg well direct to the top of his thigh with all his weight on it.

Although it probably won’t be taken into consideration, that smile says it all about a senior professional who takes pleasure from hurting smaller and younger players.

View Comment

Avatar

mcfcPosted on5:14 pm - Feb 11, 2015


The Cat NR1 says:
February 11, 2015 at 5:05 pm

The liquidator’s report will contain recommendations as to whether a DDO (or criminal proceedings) is warranted.
The liquidation is ongoing, and as yet that report has not been issued.
That is a separate report from the periodic creditors reports of which we have seen extracts on here.

==========================================================================
As you can see, I’m struggling with my Spiv NVQ homework. Is it usual to wait so long. There is no dispute that HMRC were owed the Wee Tax Case settlement plus the PAYE and VAT that Whyte withheld so they were “not paying tax owed by the company”. And logically they were also “allowing a company to continue trading when it can’t pay its debts”

At https://www.gov.uk/company-director-disqualification it says “Anyone can report a company director’s conduct as being ‘unfit’.” using https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-a-limited-company

Would a complaint now accelerate matters or are we doomed to wait forever until BDO get around to it?

View Comment

Comments are closed.