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?
Tincks says:
February 15, 2015 at 10:19 am
If football clubs are like cats then surely Rangers are “one down with eight to go” 😀
…………………….
Shroedinger’s Cat
Alive and dead at the same time ?
jockybhoy says:
February 15, 2015 at 9:35 am
“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.”
———————————————–
I would expect the same restriction is applied by every football club or any other organisation which ‘sells’ the right to place a suitably inscribed brick on their premises.
The reasons for this are obvious so I won’t detail them.
Celtic’s postion on bricks ‘sold’ to supporters is the same as Rangers:
parttimearab says:
February 15, 2015 at 10:06 am
But the ban is an attempt to get the Record to toe the line….and Rangers already have previous with the BBC…as MA has with both the Telegraph and IIRC the local paper in Newcastle ( the Chronicle ❓ ).
————————-
I think that the reality of this particular situation, however, is that the DR exercised their right to propogandise for D King before the ban was in place, and there is nothing to stop them continuing to speak freely, in exactly the same manner, now.
But I appreciate your position on the principle of the DR’s ban parttimearab.
Bryce Curdy says:
February 15, 2015 at 9:16 am
Even funnier than the brick remaining the property of TRFC is the 15 character limit for the message, INCLUDING spaces and punctuation!
——————————————————
As I pointed out above Celtic also retain ownership of the brick.
And they only allow 14 characters per line with a maximum of 2 lines whereas Rangers allow 15 character per line with a similar maximum of 2 lines.
So Rangers offer a better deal – it’s always worth checking out the facts although I don’t think you made the original mistake so I’ll let you off – this time 🙄
Rangers:
Celtic:
Interesting to hear some resurrected skirting around the OC/NC debate…I have never posted on this topic either here on or the dedicated sub-forum but after reading some of the other posts I thought, for what it is worth I would throw in my tuppence worth….
Firstly – there is one thing that really puzzles me about this whole debate….and this is the often heard refrain of “well what does it matter….is it really important?”
Well, maybe it is just me, but I feel that this question is fundamentally important…indeed I would contend that this question is right at the heart of most of the issues we find ourselves debating on this site….surely?
I come at this from two sides:
1. From a football fan perspective – can we really accept that a club/team call it what you want, can run up such obscene debt in the pursuit of football success, and then walk away from it all leaving behind a huge financial back hole – but basically can be then allowed to claim that they have absolutely zero responsibility for the carnage?
2. From a simple moral human perspective – can we really accept that any entity should be allowed to walk away unscathed from the immorality of their reprehensible actions and be allowed to claim no responsibility – remember this goes further than just stiffing creditors but extends to extremely dubious use of monies supposedly raised for charity among several other reprehensible actions.
So for those that ask why is important I suggest, just for starters mind, the two positions above….
Ultimately this is all leading to the time, sometime in the future where the football club currently trading as “The Glasgow Rangers Football Club Ltd. actually win a recordable honour.
There are official records kept of these things and for good reason…so I ask the question is it important in whatever scenario:
• Are The Scottish Football Authorities recording the achievement of “The Glasgow Rangers Football Club Ltd.” as the 28th League Cup Victory or the first…
• Are The Scottish Football Authorities recording the achievement of “The Glasgow Rangers Football Club Ltd.” as the 34th Scottish Cup Victory or the first…
• Are The Scottish Football Authorities recording the achievement of “The Glasgow Rangers Football Club Ltd.” as the 55th Senior Scottish League Championship or the first….
Is this not important?
If the answer is no and the records are allowed to show any achievement as a continuation of some other previous entity then the plan hatched by Murray et al will be complete …
The “Rangers” fans can of course think what they want…that is not the issue……the official position is all that matters in the end…
And people think this is “unimportant”, “a distraction”….? Really?
peterjung says:
February 15, 2015 at 11:47 am
Interesting to hear some resurrected skirting around the OC/NC debate…
——————————————————–
I think the reason that there has been skirting around the subject is that there is a separate sub-forum to discuss OCNC. That was established IIRC because the topic brought discussion on other topics to a virtual halt.
It is also the case that the same circular arguments were continually repeated without any noticeable change in anyone’s position. There was also the rich ground it provided for breeding squirrels.
So I won’t debate the OCNC issues you raise here because there is a separate forum for those interested in further debating the topic.
I have nothing to do with modding on this blog but feel on this particular subject the correct decision was taken so I have no problem in observing it. As I mentioned to another poster I won’t join you in the subforum because the subject has little or no real relevance IMO to more serious matters affecting Scottish Football.
ecobhoy says:
February 15, 2015 at 12:00 pm
…..
As I mentioned to another poster I won’t join you in the subforum because the subject has little or no real relevance IMO to more serious matters affecting Scottish Football.
_________________________________________________________________
Ecobhoy…respect and thanks for responding to my post.
Considering your weighty and astute contributions to the various discussions on this website I am somewhat surprised if I am I correct in assuming from your reply above that you do not consider it a serious matter if the various Scottish Football Authorities are allowed to perpetuate the fiction of “the continuation myth”? In fact even going as far as to pervert the official future historical record….
Really?
ecobhoy says:
February 15, 2015 at 10:37 am
======================================
I elected to stop buying the Daily Record over two decades ago. These days I don’t even purchase any newspaper on a daily basis, although I do sometimes.
What gets me is the moral high ground the Record and some other journalists / pundits are taking over the Ibrox ban. ‘We will always print the truth’ is the cry, yet it is plainly obvious if King gets control the Daily Record will simply become a cheerleading publication for his regime. The truth I suspect will be a very early casualty. They will be no different to many other papers of course. No doubt King will have most of them in his pocket, if he hasn’t already.
The single most important matter in Scottish Football is that those charged with the governance of it showed themselves to be utterly s ornful and contemptuous of the principle of Sporting integrity.
They in effect rigged our game and lied to us about
their whole dealings both with SDM’s RFC and with the new club founded by asset stripper CG.
They now continue in their disregard for the idea ofsporting competition by ‘allowing’ a new club to claim the honestly won honours of a club that died.
I cannot think of anything in sport that could possibly be more serious than the corruption of the sport by those who should be guarding its integrity.
We cannot move on properly to discuss all the many other actual ‘football’ isues meaningfully until the great wrong has been acknowledged, the guilty brought to book, and official records appropriately written up to reflect the truth
What the hell would be the point of pretending wr were watching a clean sport, when we KNOW we are not?
and I will not say ‘in my opinion’. the unholy 5 wY agreement and all the dirty stuff our SFA did to accommodate first the disgraceful cheating of SDM, and then the bullying charlatan CG are not ‘matters of personal opinion’.
They are matters of fact.
We cannot allow the baddies to get away with what they have done.
They must be brought to account, and given no encouragement or support by any hint that this blog intends to throw in the towel .
ecobhoy 11:16 am
Thanks for the correction. The source I read clearly implied fifteen characters in total rather than per line which just goes to prove the old adage that a good journalist should always check his sources.
I agree with John Clark re the importance of OCNC with regard to the integrity of the SFA/SPFL, which is the main focus of the forum, but perhaps we’re wrong and it IS more important to use the main thread to discuss deceased pets and how betting works!
Since Doncaster’s ‘same club’ announcement at the turn of the year, I’ve been emailing the SPFL with 2 simple, logically following questions – 1. If same club, by what mechanism did they get ‘demoted’ to the bottom tier and 2. If same club, why no CL in the following season for 2nd place? If they are convinced it’s the same club, they should easily be able to point to the sections of the rule book that led to both of those outcomes. Of course, they can’t and as a result, they simply do not reply, despite me now emailing daily after initially allowing (diminishing) periods of grace.
I’m not going away (though no doubt this post will, to the sidelined OCNC thread for unimportant issues).
peterjung says:
February 15, 2015 at 12:13 pm
ecobhoy says:
February 15, 2015 at 12:00 pm
As I mentioned to another poster I won’t join you in the subforum because the subject has little or no real relevance IMO to more serious matters affecting Scottish Football.
_________________________________________________________________
I am somewhat surprised if I am correct in assuming from your reply above that you do not consider it a serious matter if the various Scottish Football Authorities are allowed to perpetuate the fiction of “the continuation myth”? In fact even going as far as to pervert the official future historical record….
Really?
—————————————————
I think perhaps for a fuller explanation of my position you might read my post of February 15, 2015 at 9:54 am.
From that I think you will realise that you are mistaken in the assumptions you have drawn wrt my position.
On a more general point – different posters often have different rankings on the importance level of numerous issues affecting our game. That’s a fairly normal position and of course it’s every poster’s right to determine how they spend their time and what they want to post on or reply to.
In simple terms I won’t get into detailed discussions on OCNC on this forum because a separate one has been specifically set-up to deal with the nitty-gritty of usually tediously circular arguments that any debate on the subject invariable generates.
That’s not to say that the subject is necessarily unimportant but sadly over the last 3 years I have formed the opinion that the vast majority of posters have fixed and entrenched positions and therefore the debate hasn’t advanced one iota in that time.
There are many things that posters I highly regard post on in which I have no interest so I probably don’t read their posts on some subjects and I have no doubt others will exercise the same right wrt my posts.
You are perfectly entitled to decide what for you are the important matters in Scottish Football and I am well within my rights to determine my priorities. If I have anything to say in detail wrt OCNC then it will be in the sub-forum and not here. But it’s highly unlikely I’ll post even there and, indeed, don’t remember ever doing so although I might have.
If you read my earlier post which I referred to above then you’ll see what I think of the role of the Scottish Football Authorities and their OCNC stance.
However the way to bring change IMO is probably currently best served by Resolution 12 which Auldheid and many other industrious Celtic posters have been vigorously pursuing. It takes a lot of effort, time and tired brains but progress is slowly being achieved.
It’s easy to go onto any forum and trumpet about a perceived issue – and I certainly don’t accuse you of this – but some posters do a helluva lot of digging and investigation off the radar so to speak on the subjects which interest them before posting anything.
And as to the Bears – I don’t get terribly worked-up over whether they believe their club still legally exists or not. They believe it does and until the SFA and SPFL amend their rule books and tell the truth then I don’t blame the Bears and if Celtic had ended-up like Rangers then I’d probably hold exactly the same opinions on OCNC as they do.
That is simply their entitlement and mine and it doesn’t actually matter how crazy it might be as long as the rule books and the Hampden suits allow it to continue and the SMSM hide the truth.
And of course no matter what any rule books actually state at the end of the day when it comes to individual ‘hearts and minds’ beliefs then people are free to believe whatever they want to.
And long may that continue because it marks the difference between a functioning, albeit often flawed, democracy and a ruthless dictatorship IMO.
Bryson interpretations of football rules and regulations are one thing..
But surely the offer by one party to sell a brick to another party must be governed by the law of contracts and such like?
‘buy a brick’ is not the same as ‘ buy the right to have some few letters and spaces between letters inscribed on a brick’.
Do our clubs’ commercial chappies not speak to their legal folk before they write their money-raising scripts?
can you buy something without actually getting ownership rights which a Court would uphold?
can an offer for sale of a brick seriously be taken as meaning something legally quite different?
Get me Beltrami!
Or,perhaps better, Mr Thornhill, briefed by Bryson!
Bryce Curdy says:
February 15, 2015 at 12:52 pm
ecobhoy 11:16 am
Thanks for the correction. The source I read clearly implied fifteen characters in total rather than per line which just goes to prove the old adage that a good journalist should always check his sources.
——————————————————
No probs – I learnt a long long time ago that when I definitely knew something to be a fact then it usually turned out not to be so. We all live and learn although we sometimes forget which can be dangerous at my age 😆
As to checking sources – they often aren’t the problem but more usually it’s the source’s sources 🙄
John Clark says:
February 15, 2015 at 1:16 pm
But surely the offer by one party to sell a brick to another party must be governed by the law of contracts and such like?
———————————————————
Indeed it is. However if you look at the detailed terms and conditions wrt to inscribed bricks, seat plaques, paving stones or whatever it is clearly stated that the purchaser doesn’t buy ownership of the item which bears the inscription.
As soon as I saw the post I knew it was wrong because I have been involved in the ‘purchase’ of bricks at Ibrox and Parkhead and I have this infuriating tendency to check the small print of contracts before I sign them.
I thought the reason why you couldn’t buy the item would be obvious but it seems not. It’s not some legally arcane or obtuse fact. It’s much more practical in terms of ‘purchasers’ coming along later and wanting to extract bricks from a built wall or lift random paving slabs from a walkway.
I am sure the possible consequences of these actions are obvious and the way to prevent any problems is by a club retaining ownership of the brick or slab.
It’s no big deal but simply to ensure that no structural problems or trip hazards are created. Just simple common-sense!
Ok, ecobhoy…honestly, my intention was not to get into an extended OC/NC discussion….
As you say… we all have our own perception about what is important…and for me that is not only the truth…but also in seeing that the truth is properly acknowledged by the governing authorities that run the sport. It is, the truth, after all which I would have thought should be more than a mere incidental fact….
In your latest post you allude to this yourself:
“….That is simply their entitlement and mine and it doesn’t actually matter how crazy it might be as long as the rule books and the Hampden suits allow it to continue and the SMSM hide the truth….”
My problem is that I see that “the Hampden suits” and the “SMS” hiding the truth is pretty high up there on the issue list for me…
I fully understand that we all have our own list and priorities therein…
Thank you for engaging….
Peace and respect sir…
I note on Sunday morning television that the Sunday Herald has an INVESTIGATIONS EDITOR, Paul Hutcheon. Is this site superfluous now the professionals are mobilized? The strange non death of the liquidated club is surely high up his list of topics …Scotland can’t offer so many cases that this is not to be covered? With hindsight,obviously not quite the focus of Scottish business or sports journalists – but a perfect fit for an investigation.
parttimearab says:
February 15, 2015 at 9:06 am
On cats and analogies.
I avoided getting entangled in last night’s little OC/NC outbreak and I won’t now but I’d just like to make a couple of wee observations.
1) What is it with OC/NC that causes the use of endless analogies involving Fido/Trixie/Joey (deceased)? – every time it happens visiting the blog is like taking a wander through a pet cemetery – please find some new analogies.
2) Or better still avoid analogies – they can be used to illustrate an argument but are not arguments in themselves.
—-
OK hows this?
I have a vegetable patch in which lies a row of Asparagus. very year I receive a welcome and very tasty month or so of now fine spears which are harvested, lightly steamed buttered and eaten.
The location of the spears growth does not change the roots or whatever are permanently located in one area, they have been there a number of years, but the spears, individually tasty and unique are consumed never to return exactly the same, ever again.
for the ON/NC debate it is fair to say rfc 1872 was a woody and probably mostly indigestible spear of asparagus.
TRFC 2012 is a new shoot from the location of the original root. I do not feel however is very palatable. Although some may consider it succulent
I believe they are the same club, but only when they get beat!
John Clark says:
February 15, 2015 at 12:33 pm
We cannot allow the baddies to get away with what they have done. They must be brought to account, and given no encouragement or support by any hint that this blog intends to throw in the towel.
————————————————
Couldn’t agree more and that’s why the Sunday Herald ad was so important.
But we have to keep coming-up with cleverer means of pinning the SFA and SPFL to the floorboards so they can’t slither away from their responsibilities.
I happen to think that endlessly discussing OCNC gives the false impression that the blog is actually achieving something when it isn’t. That’s not a slight on the Blog and how it’s run btw but more of an acknowledgement on how difficult it is to achieve a breakthough when it comes to Hampden and the failure and unwillingness of almost every club to actually take action.
I do hope that what we might be seeing is clubs awaiting various scenarios playing themselves out wrt Rangers. I have no doubt various clubs are having private discussions with each other wrt what positions might require to be adopted and the same with Hampden and between the SFA and SPFL.
But in the warped little country we inhabit, where even the Government won’t tackle our National Shame, then it should come as no surprise to anyone that clubs will caw canny.
They have to firstly wait IMO until the outcome of the egm and possibly beyond for the various developments which might follow the votes.
It is a complete enigma IMO what might follow and although various clubs might be discussing scenarios their hands are currently tied. The difference with posters is they are free to say and write whatever they want but they have basically no legal liability.
The SFA, SPFL and individual clubs – acting outwith the remit of those organisations – do have legal liability. They also have moral responsibilities because of the failure of the Scottish Government to act.
Basically anything could happen but I hope that after the egm quick and transparent decisions are taken for the benefit of the whole of Scottish Football.
ecobhoy says:
February 15, 2015 at 9:54 am
I have never really been that interested in the nitty gritty and mechanics of the OCNC debate per se. I do think it raises interesting points however and some very amusing ones such as the dead pet syndrome.
Indeed I’m beginning to wonder whether I should conduct a detailed study into a seemingly higher than average mortality rate suffered by pets of football supporters.
…………………………………………………………
If you do DO a detailed study, I recommend you ignore your own support.
You’d be wiser to go to Paisley (as an utterly random example…) where the team hasn’t won in 15 games and the fitba fans’ ancient method of stress and tension relief of kicking the feline Buddie is often deployed. 😕
peterjung says:
February 15, 2015 at 1:39 pm
In your latest post you allude to this yourself:
“….That is simply their entitlement and mine and it doesn’t actually matter how crazy it might be as long as the rule books and the Hampden suits allow it to continue and the SMSM hide the truth….”
My problem is that I see that “the Hampden suits” and the “SMS” hiding the truth is pretty high up there on the issue list for me… I fully understand that we all have our own list and priorities therein…
————————————————————-
I obviously am failing to explain my position with the required clarity. I have no interest in going over exactly the same ground as has been argued about here and on other sites on gawd knows how many previous occasions for the last 3 years without the debate moving forward by a millimetre.
I attempt to move the debate forward in many ways and have discarded attempting to do so by means of a predictable OCNC frontal assault which has come to resemble the tired old tactics and war of attrition which failed in WWI at enormous human cost.
The problem here isn’t what Bears actually believe or more correctly have been led to believe. The problem is the mince distributed by the SFA and SPFL and the silence from the SMSM.
Quite frankly IMO sitting here or on any other site and feeling better and thinking something has been achieved by repeatedly engaging in semantics with Bears on the intricacies of OCNC is a waste of energy and time IMO. That’s why I don’t do it.
I did suggest you might read my post at February 15, 2015 at 9:54 am but I don’t actually see any signs that you have so I will undernote a section of it:
I simply cannot make my position any simpler or clearer and I know what has to be done to resolve the issue. We can either work towards and find ways to force action from the Hampden Suits or we can sit and discuss why Bears are wrong and we are right.
I actually try to spend my time more constructively than that and I simply refuse to be distracted by squirrels or my cremated cat or any of the other occupants of the rapidly expanding TSFM Pet Cemetary or indeed the latest vegetable plots that are poking their green shoots through the manure 🙄
Eco, I feel priviliged you read my post even if it provoked such a reaction. I agree the inane bickering about a liquidated club is taking away from the more serious and important work the likes of you do on here.
I stand tall with your ilk and in particular JC for his opinion mirrors mine, the f….cheated pure a simple and they are with institutional help trying to wash away it all and carry on,
not for me
regards
M
WRT the importance or otherwise of the OCNC debate.
I wouldn’t lie about my own club’s history. I’m certainly not going to lie about Sevco’s.
What have I done? 😳
My post last night seems to got the fur flying and Whiskas twitching.
Having had paws for thought, it may not have been the purrfect thing to have done. Perhaps the OC/NC debate should be confined to the litter tray for a wee while, so we can get our claws back into ND and the cabal of floor 6 incompetents.
If I can get the new cat off the settee, I can settle down and watch the Accies v Dons game. Nice to see that Alex Neil has jetted in from Norwich International Airport to join the lads in the studio.
The Daily Record, Free Speech and Why OC/NC Matters (As part of the Bigger Picture). IMHO
The posters and readers of RTC/TSFM have a unique perspective on Scottish football and its governance. Collectively we have enjoyed the Blogging of RTC, Big Pink, BHRT, Auldheid – sorry making a list is invidious as I’m bound to leave out someone important. Coming here took me to Random Thoughts and the outstanding work of Paul McConville (how I wish we could have his analysis of the current state of play). We also get to enjoy the contributions of many fine regulars below the line.
My starting point is that any organisation banning a newspaper form its premises because they don’t like what they say is just plain wrong. The DR has a right to free speech and to say wht they like.
However, what RTC/TSFM/Random Thoughts/Phil M has given me is the knowledge base to understand just how badly the DR abuses its right to free speech.
They were the cheerleader for the ownership and management of a club that cheated the rest of Scottish football for a decade or more. They cheerlead for a club that cheated the taxpayer and a multitude of small business left waiting for a few pennies in the pound. They cheerlead for Craig Whyte, Charles Green and now Dave King. Has any newspaper ever shown such a spectacular lack of judgement so consistently?
Churnalism pure and simple. KJ and his cohort wouldn’t know the truth if it jumped up and bit them in the bum – unless of course it was convenient to whoever they were doing the bidding of that day.
OC/NC matters because it is about the rewriting of history, rewritten by corrupt officials and a fourth estate failing to do their job. John Clark at 12.33pm hits the nail on the head.
But, the OC/NC debate has been done to death on here. The challenge is how to move on. It’s why I think the Herald advert was so important.
Only the clubs can force change. Only the fans can make clubs want change.
What’s all this talk of the suppression of ‘Free Speech’? That is not what I am seeing from Rangers just now, if anything, the only thing they are attacking is ‘Free Listening and Lunching’. Is this not exactly what we have been criticising over the last few years?
Some of our press are still free to continue writing the one-sided (no possibility to retort), agenda driven crap they have always written, that has not changed with this ban.
The only thing Rangers are guilty of with this ban is crass stupidity in a PR sense, the DR however; well their sins run much deeper as they have failed miserably to report the truth (or even the facts) before, during and after the reign of Craig White! They had all the info Rangers fans needed and sat on it, and strangely enough, are still sitting on some of it. No defence!
They have abused a privilege by not presenting all arguments to allow the readers to form opinions, in some instances actually misinforming to lead the fans away from the truth. No defence!
I am all for free speech but can never look at any of the Scottish MSM with any respect as long as they (whoever it is driving the bus) continue to control, edit and restrict some of the very good journalists and reporters we have at our disposal (even at the DR).
Regarding the daily record being banned, will it really affect their ability to report goings on at ibrox when it has been more than apparent that they trawl this and other sites for their stories.
I don’t think the TRFC ban on the Record is anything more than a withdrawal of free tickets and free coffee & sandwiches at Ibrox (which I have to say, even in the good old EBT days, was nowhere near succulent) 🙁
The “ban” is a withdrawal of patronage that footballers and managers use to good effect all the time. Martin O’Neill was expert at currying favour with journos by playing one off against the other. He could easily just refuse to talk one-to-one with someone whose copy he didn’t fancy. Walter Smith was equally ruthless – and the stories I have heard from older reporters and broadcasters about Alex Ferguson (when at St Mirren and Aberdeen) could fill a library.
Is it an infringement of free speech if Martin O’Neill for example refuses to talk to Andy Walker or be in the same room as Charlie Nicholas whilst privately talking to Glenn Gibbons and Roddy Forsyth? Or if Rangers don’t talk to Keith Jackson but invite Iain King over for a wee chat with Derek and Sandy?
To me there is no difference at all.
None of this (nor the recent DR ban) has prevented the individuals concerned, or the Record, from saying what they want. They just need to pay to get in and get watered and fed is all.
To be fair to the Rangers board, why would you extend that kind of special patronage (because that is what the issue of press creds is) to a group of people who were actively campaigning to undermine your business strategies?
Not all cows that moo “free speech” are sacred IMO. This is definitely not one of them.
http://www.shareprophets.com/views/10610/the-worthington-group-fraud-part-2-1st-damning-leaked-email
“I have still not received a formal claim from libel from Worthington (WRN) but just to give the fraudsters a taste of who and what they are up against here is a quite damning leaked email which shows that company funds are not being used properly and that Worthington lies to its investors. Boy this is fun and The Sheriff of AIM has a lot more where this came from.
On 24 January 2013 the fraudsters announced that David Simpson had stepped down as a NED. The RNS reads:
The Company announces today that David Simpson, Non-Executive Director, has tendered his resignation with immediate effect. Mr Simpson is a practising barrister and has regretfully decided that the demands of his professional legal commitments mean he cannot continue in his role at the Company.
Doug Ware, CEO, comments: “We wish David well and should like to thank him for his efforts over the last six months.”
Ends
As it happens that RNS is not true. The real reason Simpson quit is contained in an email he sent to CEO Doug Ware on 20 January 2013. And as it happens, I have that email which is as follows
From: David Simpson [mailto:davidsimpson@worthingtongroupplc.co.uk]
Sent: 20 January 2013 21:28
To: ‘Doug Ware’
Subject: RE: Request for briefing note
Dear Doug
I hereby resign as non-executive director of Worthington Group plc.
This is because WRN has made loans to Aidan Earley and relies upon repayment of the same for its survival. As Aidan Earley is a client of my legal practice there is a lack of necessary arms length distance between me as NED and WRN’s business dealings.
My resignation is nothing to do with your communication with tPR or my not providing the Briefing Note to tPR. I am willing to justify my actions in this regard.
I reserve the right to disclose this email to tPR.
Best wishes
David Simpson
Ends.
So now you know that the RNS was a lie in that it did not reveal the real reason why Simpson quit. More damning is what the email fesses up to. Aiden Early is a disqualified director. He is the long-time business associate of Craig Whyte (currently on trial over the Rangers fraud) and his lawyer is stating that Worthington has lent Mr Earley money.
Those loans have NOT been disclosed and should never have been made.
As it happens I know that they have been repaid and – unhappily for all concerned – I know exactly how they have been repaid. And I have the evidence to prove it.”
The goal line technology debate may be restarted later on today.
Dons denied a goal when the ball clearly over goal line as it came down off crossbar over the line and then bounced out again. Excellent Benny Hill closing credits impression by the offending assistant ref at half-time as he got down the tunnel in record time, passing Derek McInnes in a blur.
Tincks @ 3.38
…OC/NC matters because it is about the rewriting of history, rewritten by corrupt officials and a fourth estate failing to do their job. John Clark at 12.33pm hits the nail on the head.
But, the OC/NC debate has been done to death on here. The challenge is how to move on. It’s why I think the Herald advert was so important.
Only the clubs can force change.
Only the fans can make clubs want change.”
……………………
After seeing the ASA ruling regarding “the Advert’ and the elated response from Sevconia, because in the land of Sevconia, the advert made no declaration that the advert was factually true, only that because it was full of beliefs and opinions (I know, I know), then the advert was not making any claims or statements of a legal nature, so maybe virtually pointless getting it done.
Is there a legal avenue to be used to settle the “same Club”
(Not company) ???
jimlarkin says:
February 15, 2015 at 4:53 pm
Tincks @ 3.38
…OC/NC matters because it is about the rewriting of history, rewritten by corrupt officials and a fourth estate failing to do their job. John Clark at 12.33pm hits the nail on the head.
But, the OC/NC debate has been done to death on here. The challenge is how to move on. It’s why I think the Herald advert was so important.
Only the clubs can force change.
Only the fans can make clubs want change.”
……………………
After seeing the ASA ruling regarding “the Advert’ and the elated response from Sevconia, because in the land of Sevconia, the advert made no declaration that the advert was factually true, only that because it was full of beliefs and opinions (I know, I know), then the advert was not making any claims or statements of a legal nature, so maybe virtually pointless getting it done.
Is there a legal avenue to be used to settle the “same Club”
(Not company) ???
==========================================
Why bother? Whatever happens, there will always be a Flat Earth Society.
Perhaps the following could be a way to go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Sued_God
jimlarkin says:
February 15, 2015 at 4:53 pm
Is there a legal avenue to be used to settle the “same Club”
=======================================================
I’d imagine not as technically they stopped being a club in any sane legal sense when they incorporated.
The proper body to determine this are the SFA who as yet have made no public pronouncement on the matter that I can recollect.
There have been numerous examples of national associations coming down on either side of the argument discussed on here over the years.
the taxman cometh says:
February 15, 2015 at 4:23 pm
http://www.shareprophets.com/views/10610/the-worthington-group-fraud-part-2-1st-damning-leaked-email
————————————————
Share prophet doesn’t appear to take any prisoners 😆
parttimearab says:
February 15, 2015 at 5:18 pm
jimlarkin says:
February 15, 2015 at 4:53 pm
Is there a legal avenue to be used to settle the “same Club”
=======================================================
I’d imagine not as technically they stopped being a club in any sane legal sense when they incorporated.
The proper body to determine this are the SFA who as yet have made no public pronouncement on the matter that I can recollect.
There have been numerous examples of national associations coming down on either side of the argument discussed on here over the years.
=================================================
As signatories to the 5WA, the SFA are hopelessly conflicted and therefore unable to make any meaningful pronouncement.
Only when those within the current SFA that were responsible for that action have been removed from office and brought to justice, can the New SFA move forward. At some point in the future they can then, without fear or favour, make a statement as part of the truth and reconciliation process.
fishnish says:
February 15, 2015 at 2:05 pm
ecobhoy says:
February 15, 2015 at 9:54 am
I have never really been that interested in the nitty gritty and mechanics of the OCNC debate per se. I do think it raises interesting points however and some very amusing ones such as the dead pet syndrome.
Indeed I’m beginning to wonder whether I should conduct a detailed study into a seemingly higher than average mortality rate suffered by pets of football supporters.
…………………………………………………………
If you do DO a detailed study, I recommend you ignore your own support.
You’d be wiser to go to Paisley (as an utterly random example…) where the team hasn’t won in 15 games and the fitba fans’ ancient method of stress and tension relief of kicking the feline Buddie is often deployed. 😕
———————————————–
You triggered a folklore memory cell which I think came originally from Japan.
I have no idea what the postie did next 🙄
Interesting how the alleged incident involving Llambias is panning out.
Sky reported at 3.16pm today that Police Scotland are investigating threats and intimidation last week by Rangers supporters against Llambias and Leach in a Glasgow bar.
This is allegedly the second incident in a month which has been reported and police apparently are aware of the identity of the handful of supporters involved.
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11788/9716544
Then at 4.46pm today the DR reported that Police Scotland couldn’t find any report of the second incident.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/rangers-chief-derek-llambias-claims-5168541
This could all end-up very messy on various levels IMO
ecobhoy says:
February 15, 2015 at 5:36 pm
———————————————–
You triggered a folklore memory cell which I think came originally from Japan.
Man comes home late after spending evening with geisha girl. Wife complains and he chastises her.
Wife smacks child. Child kicks dog. Dog bites postman next morning.
I have no idea what the postie did next 🙄
===================================================
I expect the postie was a bit upset when he found out that his wife was masquerading as a geisha to boost her housekeeping, so he may well have…. ❓
The Cat NR1 says:
February 15, 2015 at 5:27 pm
As signatories to the 5WA, the SFA are hopelessly conflicted and therefore unable to make any meaningful pronouncement.
Only when those within the current SFA that were responsible for that action have been removed from office and brought to justice, can the New SFA move forward. At some point in the future they can then, without fear or favour, make a statement as part of the truth and reconciliation process.
========================
Wholeheartedly agree with the above.
I’ve often wondered what the SFA will say when/if they get round to it….and I suspect they’ll come to a conclusion I agree with for reasons that I don’t.
I have just watched the funniest youtube video ever. A send up of ‘the saga’ in Spanish with translation/subtitles. It’s on Twitter now. 😆
Jean,
I guess this is the video. I nearly pee’d my pants.
Hope the mods allow ths – a bit of light relief.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMF5RnCelFE&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop
credit goes to @scotsubtitles
The alleged incident involving Llambias has taken another turn.
Craig Houston posted on SoS Facebook last night that he was contacted by a newspaper on Friday night which asked him for a comment on:
Allan Oliver however ran a story in the Sunday Mirror at 10.30 on Saturday night which stated that on an unspecified night earlier in the week Llambias was sitting alone in a Glasgow city centre bar when he was attacked by a man believed to be a Rangers supporter.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/rangers-chief-executive-derek-llambias-5166078
I assume that Police Scotland will be giving this matter priority as the various differing allegations that are swirling around are a discredit to the good name of Glasgow. It would truly be appalling if the chief executive of Rangers Football Club was assaulted in a city centre hotel.
I would assume that the alleged venue must be an up-market estabishment and therefore would trust that any incident which took place has been captured on CCTV.
It should be remembered that afaik Llambias himself has not made any public statement wrt to any alleged incident. However I am sure that Police Scotland will want to issue a definitive statement on the matter and if Llambias was indeed assaulted or threatened then I would assume that the appropriate procedures will be followed.
It’s all very confusing with Sky saying earlier today that a handful of supporters were involved and police were aware of their identity and investigating whereas the DR then stated that the police have no report of any incident having taken place.
I’m sure it will all come out in the wash in due course.
PS: It would appear that the minutes of the official Rangers Fans Board meeting had yet to be released and the delay was causing some Bears concern. However there is no suggestion that the delay has anything to do with the alleged incident which some media appear to think happened after the Fan Board meeting.
I’m trying my best here to maintain a balance between respect for respected fellow posters (with or without assorted deceased pets) and incredulity at their sometimes convoluted, fluffy, feathery, wispy, ethereal view of an entity that even they admit is legally dead, defunct, extinct, expired, no more. It seems to me that the last 3 years have been hijacked by supposedly intelligent people tiptoeing through a minefield of realities, not daring to tell the truth lest it offends the guilty party in this ongoing farce.
“I personally have always held the ‘hearts and minds’ continuing club idea since I first came to the site and held it previously on Paul’s site. However my ‘hearts and minds’ belief is a personal one and should not be conflated with the ‘resucitation’ of a club which died through liquidation. Indeed I posted a few days ago that if Rangers make it back to the Premiership I will go to games after a 10 year break of not watching them. Part of my reasoning for going back was because I know without a doubt that legally it isn’t the same club.”
I rest my case.
However, as John Clark(e) so eloquently points out, the fault isn’t primarily with the current or recent custodians of the fabled Ibrox marble staircase but with the utterly inept and corrupt football authorities who have turned their backs on reality and sporting integrity for reasons only they can try vainly to justify.
If my ‘lurking radar’ is faulty, I might apologise via a full page advert in a prominent Scottish broadsheet. Please note , no humans, or animals, including Bears, were harmed during this factual report.
Tincks says:
February 15, 2015 at 7:28 pm
I guess this is the video. I nearly pee’d my pants.
———————————————
I just have 😆
Tincks says:
February 15, 2015 at 7:28 pm
____________________________________
The very one!!! I didn’t post the link because I was unsure if it would be allowed. A bit of light relief never harmed anyone 😉
Highlander says:
February 15, 2015 at 7:49 pm
======================
Agree 100%
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2954735/Inter-Milan-set-train-Rangers-training-ground-Murray-Park-ahead-Europa-League-32-clash-Celtic-Parkhead.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
It looks like the Daily Mail are sh*t stirring on someone’s behalf. The headline is not backed up by the body of the article. Was that written by one of the DR copytypists that are short of work following the Ibrox ban?
Headline: Inter Milan set to train at Rangers training ground Murray Park.
Last line of “report”: ‘Yes, training at Rangers is an option. We will decide on Thursday morning.’
The other options are not disclosed in the exposé, so that wasn’t included in the email. Not just the SMSM with a credibility gap then. :slamb: :slamb: :slamb:
Highlander, I think you misinterpret Ecobhoy’s position.
I can’t think of anyone on this blog less likely to be guilty of “tiptoeing through a minefield of realities, not daring to tell the truth lest it offends the guilty party in this ongoing farce.”
Say what you will about eco (and I don’t always agree with him) but he tells it as he sees it, and I admire his convictions, as much as his wisdom and thoughtful and well researched analysis.
Tincks says:
February 15, 2015 at 7:28 pm
Jean,
I guess this is the video.
That just made my day, thanks 🙂
Bloated EPL tv deal catches attention of chattering classes…several years too late.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/15/football-one-of-the-inequalities-that-bedevil-us-premier-league
In fairness not a bad article IMO and one passage will ring true with the supporters of most Scottish Clubs….
“To dream is one of the pleasures of being alive: if you aren’t a supporter of one of the big clubs, better not dream. Instead, it will be another season of having one’s back against the wall and learning to live with the idea that avoiding outright failure is the best to be hoped for. There is no hope of success – a depressive self-knowledge that gets into the marrow of your being. Unfairness corrodes, even in football.”
parttimearab says:
February 15, 2015 at 9:06 am
On cats and analogies.
I avoided getting entangled in last night’s little OC/NC outbreak and I won’t now but I’d just like to make a couple of wee observations.
1) What is it with OC/NC that causes the use of endless analogies involving Fido/Trixie/Joey (deceased)? – every time it happens visiting the blog is like taking a wander through a pet cemetery – please find some new analogies.
2) Or better still avoid analogies – they can be used to illustrate an argument but are not arguments in themselves.
=====================================================
I was hoping to get my 7 iron analogy in during Sportscene later, but I’d better keep that in the bag for now.
That would have been a hole new angle that may have flagged up a fairway to look at Green and those in the Hampden bunker (and the rough times that the Bears have suffered, of course). I’ll get round to it when the TSFM punometer has dropped sufficiently off the radar, if I have the drive, and such posts are not ruled out of bounds.
Highlander says:
February 15, 2015 at 7:49 pm
I’m trying my best here to maintain a balance between respect for respected fellow posters (with or without assorted deceased pets) and incredulity at their sometimes convoluted, fluffy, feathery, wispy, ethereal view…
————
I know what you mean. There is something seriously wrong with TSFM at the moment. Thankfully, though, the overwhelming majority of posters are still sensible, sympathetic and balanced — not at all what you would describe as pompous, obsessive-compulsive windbags.
The Cat NR1 says:
February 15, 2015 at 4:39 pm
The goal line technology debate may be restarted later on today.
Dons denied a goal when the ball clearly over goal line as it came down off crossbar over the line and then bounced out again. Excellent Benny Hill closing credits impression by the offending assistant ref at half-time as he got down the tunnel in record time, passing Derek McInnes in a blur.
——————-
Aye Wullie Collum and his fellow officials were terrible today. Thankfully it didn’t affect the result.
It’s been a bad season so far for referees but I think it’s just incompetence rather than some conspiracy.
Danish Pastry says:
February 15, 2015 at 9:16 pm
Thankfully, though, the overwhelming majority of posters are still sensible, sympathetic and balanced — not at all what you would describe as pompous, obsessive-compulsive windbags.
———————————-
Touche 😀
Highlander says:
February 15, 2015 at 7:49 pm
However, as John Clark(e) so eloquently points out,
If my ‘lurking radar’ is faulty,
====================================================================
Higlander…notwithstanding the reaction to your long term “lurking”, to which you are perfectly entitled, I do take exception to your use of the “John Clark(e)” comment, since in my febrile state, I thought that I had copyright/bragging rights to this attribute as to one of our most venerable and consistent posters… ❗ ❗
I would greatly appreciate that you would confirm that you will refrain from the use of the (e) suffix…failing which you will hear from my solicitors…or I will set Ecobhoy loose on you…(again)!
essexbeancounter says:
February 15, 2015 at 9:24 pm
I would greatly appreciate that you would confirm that you will refrain from the use of the (e) suffix…failing which you will hear from my solicitors…or I will set Ecobhoy loose on you…(again)!
Apologies essexbeancounter, the (e) suffix has been expunged from my vocabulary. As a ‘virgin’ poster, can I just mention how honored I am to be in your ‘virtual’ presence. 🙂
Bill1903 says:
February 15, 2015 at 9:21 pm
The Cat NR1 says:
February 15, 2015 at 4:39 pm
The goal line technology debate may be restarted later on today.
Dons denied a goal when the ball clearly over goal line as it came down off crossbar over the line and then bounced out again. Excellent Benny Hill closing credits impression by the offending assistant ref at half-time as he got down the tunnel in record time, passing Derek McInnes in a blur.
——————-
Aye Wullie Collum and his fellow officials were terrible today. Thankfully it didn’t affect the result.
It’s been a bad season so far for referees but I think it’s just incompetence rather than some conspiracy.
===============================================
Fortunately it didn’t change the outcome, but the overall result should have been at least one or two more goals higher in the Dons’ favour.
It will be interesting to see how much they show on Sportscene and how much they analyse at the end.
Hopefully, the title won’t be decided on GD. Otherwise, the tit for tat gainsaying of the honest mistakes will go on forever.
Looking at the overall refereeing sitution, it must be difficult being employed by such a dysfunctional and distrusted organisation. Is that affecting their work?
Thanks Jean for a great laugh. We’re still bursting out laughing in this house. I think and hope we’d be able to at least smile if it was our club.
castaway says:
February 15, 2015 at 10:09 pm
______________________________________________
Happy to be of some help and to give some laughter castaway. I am still full of mirth too. 😀
It would appear that the toothless wonder is a hated character in Spain. They obviously don’t share our sense of humour or aren’t aware of ‘the saga’ 😆
The Cat NR1 says:
February 15, 2015 at 8:43 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2954735/Inter-Milan-set-train-Rangers-training-ground-Murray-Park-ahead-Europa-League-32-clash-Celtic-Parkhead.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
It looks like the Daily Mail are sh*t stirring on someone’s behalf. The headline is not backed up by the body of the article. Was that written by one of the DR copytypists that are short of work following the Ibrox ban?
Headline: Inter Milan set to train at Rangers training ground Murray Park.
Last line of “report”: ‘Yes, training at Rangers is an option. We will decide on Thursday morning.’
The other options are not disclosed in the exposé, so that wasn’t included in the email. Not just the SMSM with a credibility gap then. :slamb: :slamb: :slamb:
==================================================
http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/558374/Inter-set-Rangers-Training-Base-Bhoys-Europa-League-Clash?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+daily-express-sport-news+%28Daily+Express+%3A%3A+Sport+Feed%29
And now an almost identical headline on the (Scottish) Sunday Express site, with the same ‘Yes, training at Rangers is an option. We will decide on Thursday morning.’ quote. :slamb:
JeanBrodie@10.19pm
And there was me thinking it was a Timmy wind-up. Thanks again Jean.
And now back to C.Ogilvie. Maybe you should send it to him.
Highlander says:
February 15, 2015 at 9:38 pm
Do virgin posts qualify for Mulligans?
I’ll get ma visor
Now why would Worthington lend money to AE who’s previous employers coughed up millions to BDO via their somewhat overought insurers to avoid a court appearance?
Given the insurance paid did he just need running about money?
Very strange. Not likely to get Worthington back on the exchange soon either.
ianagain says:
February 16, 2015 at 12:25 am
Now why would Worthington lend money to AE who’s previous employers coughed up millions to BDO via their somewhat overought insurers to avoid a court appearance?
Given the insurance paid did he just need running about money?
Very strange. Not likely to get Worthington back on the exchange soon either.
===============================
It was Gary Withey’s employers who were implicated and not Aiden Earley’s.
I read the link to the Panel of the Pensions Regulator hearing re the Trustees of the Jerome Pension Fund from the Shareprophets website.
http://www.shareprophets.com/file_download/393/WRN1.pdf
The evidence heard was pretty damning of David Simpson and Doug Ware of Worthington/Jerome Pension Fund who helped finance Craig Whyte’s purchase of RFC.
The “loan” to Rangers and subsequent litigation to recover the funds is referenced several times in the submissions.
One piece of information I took from the link was that the Jerome Pension Fund was expecting to make £75K a quarter in interest on a loan of £2.925M (approx. 10% p.a.).
I don’t know if the Jerome Pension Fund finally got their money back as part of the out of court settlement with Collyer Bristow’s insurers (BDO got £24M), but I will be interested in any future “leaks” on the Shareprophets website.
I guess that, given some of the information that is revealed may related to any future criminal proceedings against Craig Whyte and others, we should be careful in what is repeated on TSFM.
Thank you Danish, we’re obviously reading from the same page. I was beginning to think it was only me that was being overwhelmed by pomposity. It grates even more when an observed position changes, without changing you understand…
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
(Through The Looking Glass)
(& the meaning may well change depending on how challenged 👿 🙄 )
Artemis out. Who has got their paws on the shares?
PS @causa, indeed.
Danish Pastry says:
February 16, 2015 at 7:26 am
Artemis out. Who has got their paws on the shares?
=========================
A strange announcement, given that Artemis only held 0.32% of the shares. I wouldn’t have thought that such a small sale merited an announcement.
Here’s a link to a list of current shareholders which might be of interest-
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/305651-who-owns-rangers-our-detailed-breakdown-of-the-shareholders-at-ibrox/
OC/NC
What if they argued that hard that they were the same club and it became fact. Someone I know was at an internal department presentation on tax matters. A member of the audience posed a question ” what if a company went bust owing owing millions in tax. That company reappears with same staff, working from the same premises, wearing the same uniform, with the same customers, in the same business and claim they are the same company should they be liable for outstanding tax of the original company. The response was “I think I can see where you are going with this and if such a situation arose then we likely would review this and monitor the situation over a period of time and would look at any official announcements from the new company where they lay claim to be the same as the old. Evidence would be gathered to support this over a period of time in order to back any claim of unpaid tax and that they were indeed operating as the same company.
A company came to my mind but I also pondered has that organisation ever made any official “we are same company,we never died statement”. I would be ironic if this companies organising body helped put the nail in the coffin of the new company by insisting they were the same. Also wouldn’t it all be very interesting if this was a course of action considered by Hector. Keep claiming you are the original I say just in case it is an option for Hector.
@neepheid – Artemis and Miton both sold out to King at the beginning of January. I think the AIM notice is just a late announcement.
neepheid says:
February 16, 2015 at 8:18 am
——
Good link that. Everything in colours and pie charts. Ok, it was the shares of Milton as well, which I can’t find in the list (Artemis & Milton the same?).
Even Felix Magath had/has more than Artemis. But if it helps gain a majority then I suppose it’s significant. Still can’t believe King and the others are willing to spend their life savings on this uncertain project. Have they been under the bonnet?
Danish Pastry says:
February 16, 2015 at 9:20 am
neepheid says:
February 16, 2015 at 8:18 am
——
Good link that. Everything in colours and pie charts. Ok, it was the shares of Milton as well, which I can’t find in the list (Artemis & Milton the same?).
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Looking at the STV list ( credit to them for a good piece of work, by the way), it appears that Artemis didn’t totally sell out to King, and today’s announcement seems to relate to the residual 0.32% that King didn’t buy. I still don’t understand why such a piddling transaction should generate an announcement. I think the threshold for an announcement is 3%. It looks like Milton sold all their holding to King at the start of the year, so don’t appear on the current list.
Danish,
That is Kings weak spot and well Ashley knows it. King can’t go under the bonnet because its the only bonnet he’s got (*cue Fergus jokes). He knows damn fine what’s under it.
So, he has limited options.
He can ‘make the bonnet work.’ He has two alternatives here: ride on the bears goodwill towards him and austere a course to safety (see what I did there). OR, milk the bears yet again and hope they don’t notice that their ride to the top is either financed by them (unklikely), or even worse, is financed by magic beans that turn to gold on winning the CL. History does not favour this route and that experience is not solely an RFC thing. Regrettably, this is the route that all Kings pronouncements lead me to believe he is following.
His other very limited option is to ‘scrap the bonnet’ via some kind of event. Although I would trust Ashley to do this most thoroughly – in fact it is probably their best card they could play especially if promotion is missed, the attraction to shareholders of King carrying the fans with him shouldn’t be dismissed. I just feel his direct involvement will derail the thing, yet again, from day one, but is that better than him sniping from the sidelines?
TheCatNr1: re. “Inter Milan set to train at Rangers training ground Murray Park.”
Welcome to 21st century “churnalism” – someone writes a story and gets it up online, everyone else needs immediate copy to populate their websites so they regurgitate it, tweaking the language but the “quotes” stay the same (after all they are now in thepublic domain). Just look at the avalanche of stuff that appears on a given subject on the “newsnow” website.
This brings me back to the wee “freedom of speech” riff that was runniing over the weekend. The whole Charlie Ebdo thing and indeed the recent events in Copenhagen have their basis in “freedom of expression” – but I say here as I have said elsewhere, paraphrasing Spiderman movies – with the great power of free speech comes the great responsibility to use it, er, responsibly.
In many Celtic fans view, The Daily Record has a history of fabrication and sensationalism – borne out when it came to Neil Lennon & Martin O’Neill who both won or had the paper settle libel claims – O’Neill twice I think.
Lennnon also won apologies from the Record for “inflammatory & offensive” language before opening Celtic/OldGers fixture in their last year in the top flight.
The Record (and indeed Mirror Group) make money by selling newspapers (or ads next to stories on the internet) – make no mistake this is not about freedom of speech it is about restriction on trade. They don’t want to be lambasted by their bosses for missing a lamb-based headline. What were the revelations the “undercover” Record reporter gleaned from his attendance whilst banned? As far as I know it was all about eating sandwiches and photobombing the board….
“Permanent embarrassment and an occasional disgrace” has multiple usage in Scotland IMO.
“Also wouldn’t it all be very interesting if this was a course of action considered by Hector. Keep claiming you are the original I say just in case it is an option for Hector.”
My memory could be wrong but did hector not say something along the lines of “rangers could continue playing out out of ibrox” when CG was buying the assets? So I don’t think hector would do much.