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?
ecobhoy says:
February 19, 2015 at 9:35 am
I have always leaned towards a Liquidation solution being employed by Ashley but now I seriously begin to look at an Aim Delisting and returning Rangers to a Private Limited Company.
====================================
To get a delisting, a 75% shareholder vote is required, (http://www.cms-ag.com/publications/delisting-from-aim/ ) and I don’t see Ashley getting anywhere near that figure, unless delisting is a strategy that also appeals to King and T3B. Of course an insolvency event at RIFC would in effect delist the shares, since the shares would be suspended immediately.
Whatever Ashley’s preferred strategy is will become clear before the EGM. Provoking the bears to even higher levels of permarage appears to be part and parcel of that strategy, so I have to conclude that Ashley isn’t in for the long term, not unless he fancies presiding over a “Rangers” playing in front of home crowds of less than 10,000, with a larger number demonstrating outside.
So if his strategy is an exit strategy, then it must involve a handover to King and T3B, but very much on Ashley’s terms. Ashley’s huge advantage is that he has zero emotional investment. If an insolvency gets him out with more money than King and T3B are prepared to pay, then insolvency it is.
He has to factor in the impact on Sports Direct sales, but he knows that a “Rangers” will reform, and he, in effect, will own the “history”. I believe the RFC membership of the SFA belongs to TRFC. I know that the SFA can veto transfers, but I doubt that they can transfer it themselves. That membership seems to be the key to the continuity theory. So whoever wants to restart “Rangers” is going to really, really want that membership. Ashley really does have them over a barrel.
And I see that no date has been announced for the EGM yet. So a bit more time for Ashley to control events.
Billy Boyce says:
February 19, 2015 at 10:16 am
Once again we see a ‘Rangers’ centric media outlet ramping up the anger against their ‘unchosen’ faction in the saga.
“Fresh financial papers for Rangers Retail reveal that from January 27, the Sports Direct founder and owner has been the “ultimate controlling party” of Rangers Retail, which handles the club’s merchandising and stores. It confirms the switch has been made from the previous controllers, the club holding company The Rangers International Football Club plc.”
‘Fresh financial papers…’ What fresh financial papers are these? Last nights chipwrappers, perhaps? If they have had sight of documents that shed light on what Ashley is doing to their ‘club’, then let it be known what these documents are so that an informed judgement can be made. I suspect, though, that it is no more than putting 2 and 2 together and maybe making 4 with the ‘papers’ being the minutes from last week’s meeting.
I suspect, too, that the article has been put together in a way that deliberately sets out to make it look like Ashley has grabbed the trademarks by some underhand way and now has them to do with as he likes. It then slips in that he actually holds them as security but forgets to make it clear that there is a difference between holding something as security and actually owning it, and that until such times as the loans covered are defaulted upon, all the rights and benefits remain with the borrower, returning to their rightful place once the loan has been repaid.
I think every factual part of the article has been debated here, and elsewhere, in a much less excitable and anger making fashion, for a couple of weeks or more, and the Herald has just published some factual information, already available to all, in a ‘let’s ramp up the anger (against Ashley)’ sensationalist way.
Or does anyone find anything new in the Herald revelations that I have missed?
AJ,
Its very simple.
Two weeks ago, MA putting £5m in regardless of conditions to keep the lights on (not to mention fulfilling THAT fixture) = GOOD.
Now, MA’s condition that he stitches up RR further as a result of them gratefully accepting the money = BAD.
Can anyone clarify, why has the RR turnover quadrupled? Was last year only a part year?
Also, never understood why MA would offer to relinquish his badge security and extra 25% of RR if the loans are repaid? Is that supposed to be a carrot to buy him out? No profit in that, Shirley?
jimmci @ 9.57am
Guidi was more ridiculous than usual last night but Gerry and Jim (in the chair) let him away with it 😉 Gerry occasionally challenges some of the guff he spouts but Mr Delahunt ????? Too scared to say anything now after events a few weeks back …. I listen purely for entertainment now 😆 any news on the new date?? For Mr King’s ‘victory’ ???
neepheid says:
February 19, 2015 at 10:47 am
ecobhoy says:
February 19, 2015 at 9:35 am
I have always leaned towards a Liquidation solution being employed by Ashley but now I seriously begin to look at an Aim Delisting and returning Rangers to a Private Limited Company.
====================================
To get a delisting, a 75% shareholder vote is required, (http://www.cms-ag.com/publications/delisting-from-aim/ ) and I don’t see Ashley getting anywhere near that figure, unless delisting is a strategy that also appeals to King and T3B. Of course an insolvency event at RIFC would in effect delist the shares, since the shares would be suspended immediately.
———————————————————
Sorry I should have made it clearer that a delisting would follow an insolvency event in that the vehicle for the assets and business would be or become a private limited company rather than a public one.
However as I mentioned earlier for that to happen Ashley IMO still had some cards to play where timing was all-important.
I think originally Ashley may have seen complementary business interests with the mystery overseas shareholders assuming they do hold contracts wrt to the club as does Ashley.
However I’m not so sure that he will continue on that road as supporting the Easdales means further aggravating the Bears and that impacts on the Ashley income streams.
I simply have difficulty in seeing how the Easdales survive when throwing them overboard opens-up the possibility of a deal with T3B who won’t ditch DK but he can be accomodated in a settlement. And it earns Ashley Brownie Points with the Bears.
The Bears can be won round by Ashley if he exerts a little charm and a hint of Rangeritis – that would be a small price to pay for most people to buy peace and increase their commercial income.
He starts with an amazing bonus wrt the Bears of course in being a Real Billionaire and that’s a good starting point.
DK and T3B can’t go down the delisting route as I mentioned simply because they need AIL to raise money – Ashley doesn’t. Also that would hit too many fan shareholders.
Only one thing for sure and that’s whatever Ashley does is unlikely to be predictable 😆
Basically it comes down to one immoveable truth.
Can Ashley’s continued siphoning of revenues as he slips out of the limelight be accommodated in a post EGM Rangers?
Do they have funds to buy him out? Unlikely.
Do they have funds to drip feed in to the club, with meeting his contracts and keeping him sweet placed higher up the agenda than that whole pesky breaking even nonsense? More likely.
Do they/can they come to a deal pre EGM? odds even
Do they/Can they walk away if Ashley basically wins, but his strategy going forwards places breaking even way way up the list at the medium term removal of what the fans would consider success? Again, unlikely, especially with Media and King et al sniping from the sidelines.
Brenda says:
February 19, 2015 at 11:30 am
I think the ‘new date’ will be held secret or as long as possible, then announced as a sop to the masses (even though they have no choice). They might even be looking for an excuse – some disorder – to take it away from Glasgow with further delay. Not necessarily because Ashley needs the delay, just to p*ss off King and the bears. The more uncertainty and anger that can be caused, the more chance Ashley’s opponents will say or do something unwise, or just become so desperate that they give more plunder to him.
There appears to be some doubt wrt to the SD influence over RR. From the word go the control of the company has been heavily loaded in favour of SD.
The Bears and other investors were blind-sided IMO by the statement in the Rangers AIM Prospectus that RR was a Rangers subsidiary because it owned 51% of the shareholding.
What wasn’t known until I revealed it when the appropriate diocumentation was later filed at Companies House was that there were different voting rights attached to the Class A and Class B shares whereby on financial matter the 49 SD shares counted double and became 98 and the Rangers shares stayed the same at 51.
So control of the company IMO to all meaningful intents and purposes has always remained with SD who also have the right to purchase 100% of RR in certain events and yet this right doesn’t appear to extend to Rangers buying out the SD share.
On 27 January this year it was announced to AIM that, as part of the security for the recent loans, 26% of the Rangers shareholding in RR would be transferred to SD.
This means effectively 75% of RR shareholding is held by SD until the loan is repaid.
Correct.
Only thing I would have added, in addition to eco’s above to the herald article was that Murray and JJB negotiated x, and a matter of months later both of them went bust.
Allyjambo says:
February 19, 2015 at 11:49 am
Brenda says:
February 19, 2015 at 11:30 am
I think the ‘new date’ will be held secret or as long as possible, then announced as a sop to the masses (even though they have no choice). They might even be looking for an excuse – some disorder – to take it away from Glasgow with further delay.
Not necessarily because Ashley needs the delay, just to p*ss off King and the bears. The more uncertainty and anger that can be caused, the more chance Ashley’s opponents will say or do something unwise, or just become so desperate that they give more plunder to him.
—————————————————
That’s one possible scenario but it only adds to the case DK or T3B would have to present to the CoS to fix a quick egm date which could not be changed.
If there is any attempt to further delay the egm then IMO it’s because a delay is required to finalise plans or create certain conditions before the meeting.
But it’s a fine line as a Court would not be impressed by an over-long delay for the simple reason that the company ‘owns’ the meeting venue although I suppose it’s always possible that an onerous contract requires to be met wrt payments for providing a gazebo for general meetings.
Billy Boyce says:
February 19, 2015 at 10:16 am
Martin Williams in today’s Herald:
Fresh financial papers for Rangers Retail reveal that from January 27, the Sports Direct founder and owner has been the “ultimate controlling party” of Rangers Retail,
—————————————————————
Absolute desperation from the Glasgow Herald – how far can a once proud newspaper actually sink I wonder?
The ‘fresh financial papers’ referred to by the writer Martin Williams were actually publicly released to AIM at 07:01am 27-Jan-2015.
They could have made that day’s edition of the Evening Times. Still nice to note that Mr Williams is keeping his eye on the ball although I’m amazed that he’s still able to read chip-paper that’s been lying in the gutter for over 3 weeks.
Indeed as I pointed out earlier: on ‘financial issues’ SD has always been the ultimate controlling party in RR.
I have puzzled over this for quite some time and have yet to determine what else is worth controlling in any company which isn’t of ‘financial interest’.
ecobhoy says:
February 19, 2015 at 12:17 pm
I’m pretty certain Ashley, or at least his advisors, will know exactly how much leeway they have with announcing a new date for the EGM, but I’m sure they will do everything within their power to leave King and co with as little response time as possible. The more angry and frustrated King becomes, the more likely he is to make a mistake, and as we know Ashley isn’t all that interested in owning, or running, a football club, King’s mistake might find him (King) owning a club that’s been stripped of even more value than it would have been if he’d kept a clear business head.
King might be a cut-throat businessman when negotiating in his own backyard, but a red (white and blue) mist seems to come over him whenever he senses power at Ibrox.
Collymore’s twitter at the mo is very interesting.
(read from bottom to top )
I clearly stated two weeks ago that in my opinion Chelsea and Rangers are made for each other. I’ll prove that on air tomorrow.
“We’re up to our knees in Fenian Blood” sung by 30 thousand.
Or maybe it was a “small minority”
Fucking hypocrites.
If @btsportfootball use me no longer after the next 3 , so be it, but I’ll make damn sure Rangers fans hypocrisy is outed at the same time.
Stan Collymore @StanCollymore
This is the visible danger of using the phrase “small minority” at football matches.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=OS_BN1…
1200 Ramgers fans want me sacked via petition. Good luck. I want the world to know you still sing sectarian songs at games. It’s illegal.
Stan Collymore @StanCollymore
This is the League Cup semi Final. This is sectarian chanting with “Fenian blood ” distinctly heard in the song m.youtube.com/watch?feature=…
On @btsportfootball I’ll be asking Rangers fans who want me sacked for expressing perfectly legal views find the following acceptable.
Tomorrow on @btsportfootball I’ll be challenged on my views about the Rangers/Chelsea “alliance”.
DetailsOpen
Need some help from friends north of the border . Could you point me to any footage (this season) of audible sectarian chanting. Any club.
I heard a caller on SSB last night pointing out that he only wanted a Rangers back in the top league if they did not cheat like the old club. He stated that the club had paid players it could not afford due to Mr Murray obtaining loans from Mr Gaviston his friendly banker. He lay the blame with the demise of Rangers at the doorstep of Mr Murray. Mr Guiddi got really defensive and asked the caller where was his prove of cheating as in his words the SFA and EUFA did not charge Rangers with any form of cheating. Not one of them mentioned the 5 players who were paid illegally (from the FTT/UTT). No mention of the ongoing appeal by HMRC on the issue of the EBT’s. They must all be aware of this but again shameful silence. Is there a date yet for HMRC’s latest appeal to be heard at the Court of Session?
If HMRC win this appeal how will the SMSM deal with this issue of cheating.
Allyjambo says:
February 19, 2015 at 1:01 pm
ecobhoy says:
February 19, 2015 at 12:17 pm
King might be a cut-throat businessman when negotiating in his own backyard, but a red (white and blue) mist seems to come over him whenever he senses power at Ibrox.
—————————————————–
That may very well be true. But I would be surprised if T3B are unable to hold him in check. However – it won’t be long know till we see what actually happens.
I think I can safely predict that no matter the egm outcome there’s still room for plenty of twists, turns, blind summits and corners with surprises galore lying in wait for all parties on this exciting journey 🙄
This far side of the world time difference is a bit of a pest!
But if I could just observe that I have always agreed with neepheid, and agree now with ecobhoy, that all of our clubs have been and remain ‘complicit’ in the dirty deeds of the people they elected onto their various boards.
I’ve occasionally made that point in my insistence that it did not fall to Peter Lawwell and Celtic to be the lone, self-sacrificing champions of Truth and Integrity.
Like most of us on here, I hugely admire Turnbull and his matter-of-fact public assertion of’ corruption’.
He got a lot of grief for that. Imagine what would (not ‘might’) have happened if Lawwell had attempted to spearhead what the SMSM would have reported as an anti-Rangers attack!
Now, we know that there was huge anger among our then SPL clubs , and, indeed , the SFL clubs at the hectoring, bullying and essentially threatening tone of what was coming at them from the chief execs of their Boards.
It is to the then SPL’s credit that they said ‘no way’ to the new club being admitted to the SPL.
And it is to the credit of the the then SFL that said no to the ferociously pressed idea that the new club should be admitted to the then First or Second divisions.
That much should be openly admitted.
But the question then arises: what precise forces were exerted , and to what extent were the clubs- particularly those over which Longmuir held sway- browbeaten,influenced, otherwise pressurised into accepting the 5WA?
my own view is that people like CO,and Regan,and Doncaster acted outwith any proper authorisation with the express intention of ‘saving a Rangers’ for the sake of ‘saving a Rangers’ rather than for the saving of Scottish Football, try as they dishonestly might to pretend otherwise.
And landed Scottis Football and all our clubs with a fait accompli, which will be the devil of a job, and carry very definite risks-both bureaucratic and physical, to challenge openly.
I have been told of there being a climate of fear,pretty much as there was in Ernie Walker’s time, Ernie being the J Edgar Hoover of the SFA.
OK off to meet the guys for a pre-football bite to eat and hopefully a night of good football to showcase the Scottish Game.
Memories are made on occasions like this whether it’s Win, Lose or Draw as long as the football’s good and our guys do their best. ❗
On a quiet day
What will the non Bears do for live entertainment when this saga is over?
Could it be a long running comedy series like RC Nesbitt ?
Or a Xmas Show ?
Think about it
Many of the leading characters would fit well in any of the usual pantos
And what about some of the traditional shouts to the audience?
The mind boggles
MaBaw, Methilhill Stroller 18th February, sectarian singing = games behind closed doors.
I go along with that. It’s simple and would certainly be effective – what singing could there be in an empty arena? Mind you, calling it singing is stretching the meaning to breaking point. Anybody charged could certainly plead not guilty on the grounds of “Ah canny sing yur honour”.
One drawback I see is that the punishment could hurt the innocent. For example, the most recent TRFC v Berwick televised game among many. I don’t believe Berwick fans sang anything sectarian, although I can’t be certain. And, which club’s future games would be behind closed doors?
ecobhoy says:
February 19, 2015 at 12:30 pm
Billy Boyce says:
February 19, 2015 at 10:16 am
Martin Williams in today’s Herald:
Fresh financial papers for Rangers Retail reveal that from January 27, the Sports Direct founder and owner has been the “ultimate controlling party” of Rangers Retail,
—————————————————————
Absolute desperation from the Glasgow Herald – how far can a once proud newspaper actually sink I wonder?
The ‘fresh financial papers’ referred to by the writer Martin Williams were actually publicly released to AIM at 07:01am 27-Jan-2015.
They could have made that day’s edition of the Evening Times. Still nice to note that Mr Williams is keeping his eye on the ball although I’m amazed that he’s still able to read chip-paper that’s been lying in the gutter for over 3 weeks.
Indeed as I pointed out earlier: on ‘financial issues’ SD has always been the ultimate controlling party in RR.
====
I have puzzled over this for quite some time and have yet to determine what else is worth controlling in any company which isn’t of ‘financial interest’.
====================
The venue of an EGM?
Eco
Going back to your post about the RR shareholdings at 12.07pm today.
Can you clarify details of the temporary transfer of control of part of the TFRC holding to SD as part of the security for the loan?
When you say 26%, is that 26% of the total issued shares, i.e. 26/51 of the TFRC holding, or 26% of the actual TRFC holding i.e. 26/100 x 51?
The former would give 75% to SD and 25% to TFRC. The latter would give SD just over 62% and leave TRFC with just under 38%.
That wouldn’t affect control as such, other than allowing all ordinary resolutions to be passed by SD, but as you have maintained, they have a vested control over financial matters anyway. However, in the event of a dividend payment or profit-share distribution, the additional 13% could be material.
GoosyGoosy says:
February 19, 2015 at 2:41 pm
On a quiet day
What will the non Bears do for live entertainment when this saga is over?
Could it be a long running comedy series like RC Nesbitt ?
Or a Xmas Show ?
Think about it
Many of the leading characters would fit well in any of the usual pantos
And what about some of the traditional shouts to the audience?
The mind boggles
=================
They could relaunch “Only an Excuse” as “Only an “Entitlement”.
Cat
I always read it as 26/51 and assumed the significance being to hold 75% for any votes that weren’t of “financial interest” i.e. total control. I suppose the reduced figure would still give him a majority, just not the statutory 75% for certain key issues (non financial obviously).
As I said earlier, it also surprised me that he would install a release clause on repayment of his loan? Why do this? The addict has had his monthly fix and has given away his house (no, not the big one) to achieve it. Why dangle the keys back in front of him, at no profit in the transaction?
ecobhoy says:
February 19, 2015 at 1:55 pm
I think I can safely predict that no matter the egm outcome there’s still room for plenty of twists, turns, blind summits and corners with surprises galore lying in wait for all parties on this exciting journey
___________________
Yup, it’s twistier than a twisty thing 😉
Just a general observation, which I think others have alluded to in the past…
Perhaps like many others, I have been perplexed by MA’s involvement with TRFC.
OK, there might be easy money to be made, but that is relative pennies to his wealth. And he has used some of his own guys – especially Llambias – to allocate their valuable time on the ‘TRFC project’, whatever that is.
So, thinking of a possibly bigger picture…
MA is very rich, with wealth off the radar – no really. 😉
It goes without saying that he will have loads of ‘useful’ connections in business / politics / lobbyists, etc. in the UK, across the EU and probably further afield.
IMO, he will have early access to any information which could impact any of his business interests – for good or bad.
So, wrt TRFC to add to his NUFC hassles, what if he is aware of upcoming changes in regulations, whether it is at UEFA, or FA/SFA, EU or at UK business level e.g. tax law ?
I’m only guessing of course, but could he simply be positioning himself – for not much cash outlay – to reap the benefits from anticipated regulatory changes in the future which the Internet Bampots don’t know about at this time ?
But I could be talking mince, again… 🙄
Smugas says:
February 19, 2015 at 3:24 pm
Cat
I always read it as 26/51 and assumed the significance being to hold 75% for any votes that weren’t of “financial interest” i.e. total control. I suppose the reduced figure would still give him a majority, just not the statutory 75% for certain key issues (non financial obviously).
As I said earlier, it also surprised me that he would install a release clause on repayment of his loan? Why do this? The addict has had his monthly fix and has given away his house (no, not the big one) to achieve it. Why dangle the keys back in front of him, at no profit in the transaction?
====================================
Thanks.
That was the way Eco set out the outcome, but I was a bit confused by an inadvertent contradiction, so I thought it best to confirm.
That extra percentage is a nice bargaining chip for MA to play if DK gets anywhere near the blue room. 25% of RR profits back to TRFC if DK gives back SD its £5M.
That’s a nice buy-in for DK if he wants to play a few hands with MA. Has DK got that much clean cash, as MA won’t take an IOU or promises of OPM?
If the EGM ever takes place, the buy-in may have gone up to £10M, given that any change will not happen overnight. Call, raise or all in, Dave?
Stan Collymore has never struck me as being a potential MENSA candidate, but if even Stan can come up with the idea of not televising games that give fans the opportunity to sing their offensive song book to a wider audience, it makes you wonder what the highly-paid mega-minds at the SFA/broadcasters/sponsors are thinking of?
Stan’s idea is so close to genius, it might work.
re fans singing / behavior at away grounds, the supported club of the fans should responsible home or away. The ref could just take the teams off until the singing stops or a points penalty could be applied.
MaBaw says:
February 19, 2015 at 4:56 pm
Why leave it to the ref and others to make the decision?
The offending club’s executives can hear just as well as anyone else and know what songs are being sung and where it is coming from. Same with seeing aggressive and undesirable behaviour.
With a bit of co-ordination between the match commander and the PA system man there is no reason why fans cannot be given a warning that if the singing/behaviour isn’t stopped their CEO will instruct their manager to withdraw the team from the field of play, forgo the points and the club will happily face the consequences of the footballing authorities for doing so.
If fans knew that was their clubs position at the start of each season then the whole piece of nonsense could be ended almost overnight.
Stan’s the man. Brilliant stuff from him.
‘Je Suis’ Stan Collymore!
good point wottpi
Mr Delahunt saves Mr Guidi’s a**e again and avoids commenting on a very common sense filled call by hitting a commercial break…… 😉 do your jobs guys 😳
Well done Chelsea 3 identified and suspended.
Re Stan. I sadly suspect this great cause may not create the required sum. But what that won’t do is let all the Sevco chanting bigots a get out of jail card.
I still recall my innocent days of supporting ALL Scottish clubs in Europe ..yes even the old dead one V Juventus. Some years later I learnt of bigotry.
Celtic fans are no angels however in the context of communal singing in an open arena Celtic ARE vastly mode innocent marred only by a genuine small minority.
Sevco don’t do truth…they never accept responsibility (the early 70s in court included).
Successive regimes have fostered this Top down denial, and nigh on 50 yrs on from that court case, they still don’t accept it.
RST Response to Stan Collymore
We note that Stan Collymore has become the latest self-publicist to use the serious issue of sectarianism to raise his profile. Going by Mr Collymore’s comments, his understanding of the subject is about as comprehensive as his ability to win trophies as a player. Whilst he had a mediocre career on the pitch it would appear he hopes to excel as an internet troll. We are loath to respond but see that sadly the press have picked up his comments.
Rangers are currently being run into the ground by an inept and possibly corrupt regime. Mr Collymore is aware that there will be no response from the club and so it once again falls on the fans to deal with agenda driven attacks on our support.
If Mr Collymore was interested in sectarianism then he would deal with the subject evenly. As a well-known Celtic fan, who is apparently well versed in fan behaviour at the last Old Firm game, perhaps he could discuss Celtic fans’ sectarian banners, mocking British war dead, which had the word “Hun” sprawled on them? He could also discuss sectarian “Go Home Ya Hun” chants directed at the Rangers support. Or he could discuss the sectarian motivation behind attacks on Rangers fans both young and old at the game. Sadly, like so many commentators of his type, he knows Rangers are currently a soft target and acts accordingly. Mr Collymore of course has a history of cowardly attacks on those he doesn’t think can defend themselves.
The Rangers support will continue to take the issue of sectarianism very seriously. We will not however take lessons from Mr Collymore who has a history of sectarian behaviour. He has used the sectarian term “Hun” towards Rangers fans on social media and has suggested to the British people of Northern Ireland that they should “F*** off back to Britain.” We think it would be fair to suggest that sectarianism is not his only flaw.
Rangers have done significantly more than most other clubs, including Mr Collymore’s Celtic, to deal with issues around fans’ behaviour over the years and we are sure that will continue. The efforts of those who are genuinely interested in eradicating sectarianism are not assisted by “vile hypocrites” like Mr Collymore who exacerbate any genuine issues with ill advised, inaccurate and inane interventions. If this is the type of man that BT Sport wish to associate themselves with then not only Rangers fans, but fans of all clubs, have the option of voting with their subscriptions.”
– See more at: https://www.therst.co.uk/news/rst-response-to-stan-collymore/#sthash.W1NsZ4Li.dpuf
_____________
what about what about what about 😯
wottpi says:
February 19, 2015 at 5:15 pm
“Why leave it to the ref and others to make the decision?”, and suggests offending clubs’ executives, the match commander, and the PA system man as the main people to act.
==================================
Sorry to be cynical about what in normal times and places would be workable proposals. But the executives of the worst offending club have done nothing for many years. Indeed they condoned this stuff for decades.
Match commanders up and down the country have proved repeatedly that they suffer extreme selective deafness.
PA system men have been fired and threatened for telling the truth about the worst offending club, so are unlikely to want to get involved.
Only my opinion. At least we’re trying to talk out possible ways and means.
Andy,
Where do you start with that RST statement re Colleymore?
Apart from anything else, how does someone can their BT Sport subscription when it’s free?
Maybe they could commence by a ‘don’t watch’ boycott, starting tomorrow night.
I, on the other hand shall watch.
Friday night is Comedy Night…. at least recently it is. 😆
RST could just state we will not sing those songs anymore.
andy says:
February 19, 2015 at 7:02 pm
RST Response to Stan Collymore
“We note that Stan Collymore has become the latest self-publicist…”
======================================================================
Oh, and they were doing so well until that opening sentence !
Stan should really send them a wee ‘Thank You’ card.
Mibbees with a tenner inside…?
OT, but worth mentioning the great coverage on BTSport 1 from Glasgow and the studio. Bravo.
And a wee shout out to poster @tcup2012 who gave an excellent tip for a much more suitable IPTV streambox solution, which essentially means being able to stream more channels than my current subcriber-based IPTV. This is am. Android-based mini computer that, with some very helpful guidance from @tcup, does the business. One-off purchase, too, so nae subscription. And it even streams STV and BBC Alba. Nice.
Wiz jist aboot tae bin that BT Sport but……. hing oan!
Personally I thought there were a lot of fair points in that statement from the RST, with the glaring omission being any admission of wrong doing on behalf of Rangers fans. They should have opened with that, unequivocally, then moved on to their other points.
inter players are about as stable on their feet as a game of jenga
Ryan,
until RST admit their wrong doing, their point is mute, nobody is interested.
MaBaw,
I don’t think that’s a particularly healthy way of looking at things. Just because they didn’t admit their own wrongdoing doesn’t mean their other points are moot.
Ryan, it allows their support to think this is ok, but a ban on the supporters would soon resolve the issues.
I’ve said before that I’d be in favour of taking proper action to deal with fans behaviour.
It does allow fans to think it’s ok in a way, but groups of people by their nature will club together and go on the defensive when they feel they are being attacked.
Ryan, I feel the same way about Celtic fans singing about terrorist organisations, in this day and age, I would shut the clubs down if they cannot sort these things out.
MaBaw, as do I, and I commend you for saying that. Which is why I said I don’t think all of the points in the RST statement should just be dismissed because they didn’t admit their own substantial culpability; there were other valid points made.
To be honest, the next time Rangers and Celtic meet, it would be very easy to wheel out an evidence reel of footage and say that no tickets would be sold and the game would not be screened because fans couldn’t behave. They should, but they won’t. The reason why is a word that rhymes with bunny.
castaway says:
February 19, 2015 at 7:25 pm
Hear what you say but just think of the kudos a CEO would get from the rest of Scottish football and indeed the watching world (because it would get global coverage) by taking such bold action of saying ‘enough is enough’.
i don’t know the cost of the Inter team ( probably 30 x Celtic ) and likely they may win tonight but they are beatable.
Collymore binned from tomorrow’s BT show
Scottish fans should cancel BT in protest
Sorry to get caught up in football, but picked up tonight’s game at 0-2 – how exciting was that? How many Scottish players plus Guedetti did well?
Andygraham,
Wind up?
Collymore or any English pundits for that matter do not feature, nor have ever featured,on any of the Scottish games on BT, so how can he be binned from something he was never going to be involved in?
(Sutton doesn’t count!)
Mind you, the visiting fans might give him a bit of a mention
The BT commentators @(studio) must know something. Celtic will win the SPL by 15 points apparently? Really?
No there is a sit round the table show at 7pm on bt every night. He has been on it a number of times and had said today he would bring all of this up tomorrow on the show.
They phoned him tonight to say he was being replaced tomorrow, subsequent tweets would suggest he may be sat down for good.
blu says:
February 19, 2015 at 10:09 pm
Sorry to get caught up in football, but picked up tonight’s game at 0-2 – how exciting was that? How many Scottish players plus Guedetti did well?
================================================================
Not a football site per se, but this is what football should be about, IMO.
A good honest game, minimal acting, [especially for a Euro game], played in a competitive spirit, technically not the best with plenty of mistakes, but it was still frenetic, exciting and entertaining. So well done to both teams for that.
And it would be great to get this whole TRFC/SFA/SPFL saga brought to a satisfactory endpoint sometime soon, so we can focus on talking about the positives and opportunities in Scottish football…
MaBaw says:
February 19, 2015 at 9:58 pm
Scottish fans should cancel BT in protest
———
Aye, it started so well with the build-up focusing on the historical perspective but the pundits Sutton and McManaman are pretty disparaging on the after analysis. A couple of prize bawbags.
Have only seen random tweets from Stan Collymore tonight. Think he needs to use his block button and disengage. No point in even trying to reason with those types. Fair do to him, though, for callng out Glasgow’s sectarian poison when the SFA more or less condone it by their inaction.
Regarding the RST statement on Stan Collymore.
Where the f&%k do I start.
Talk about rearranging the deck-chairs.
Their club? is going down the pan and this is important to them?
Ach well.
Comeongetaff,
If it was your club, regardless of what was going on, and a high profile figure posted relentless tweets singling you out for criticism and lumping you in with Chelsea fans ridiculously racist behaviour a couple of nights ago for no reason, would you not be bothered?
Can we leave out the cheerleading please Jean? Adds zero to the debate.
Also Stan Collymore’s personal conduct has got nothing to do with this discussion either – unless he has been involved in the singing of sectarian chants.
Of all people Ryan, I would have thought Ad Hominem would be off-limits to you.
Misogynistic bully boys are at the lowest end of human behaviour, and whatever the story is re. Collymore on that score (I know he disputes the media story), it s squirrelling as far as this point goes.
He said “@StanCollymore: I’ll ask one more time as you’re starting to sound like a politician @RangersFCTrust .Do you condemn RANGERS fans for singing billy Boys?”
They couldn’t answer it, and I’d suggest that one reason they can’t is because they don’t want to experience the wrath of the angry Bears themselves
TSFM says:
February 19, 2015 at 10:57 pm
__________________________________–
OK. 😐
TSFM,
Apologies. []
Comeongetaff, you didn’t fix it for me. I meant what I said.
Ryan,
I can’t speak for anyone else on this forum (although I reckon the Celtic fans would probably agree with me), but whatever motivated Collymore, I’m pretty sure he had reason enough to draw the comparison.
The real lesson to draw from his intervention is not that Rangers fans sing sectarian songs. The world and his brother already know that. However it may raise a few eyebrows outside of the Scottish bubble if his message articulates the fact that the Scottish football and law enforcement authorities are either unable or unwilling to deal with it.
I don’t think Collymore is doing Rangers any further damage, but he most definitely is exposing some gross inadequacies in our country. I would have thought that should worry us all more than anything else.
The RST response is classic whatabouttery and deflection – as well as the childish and irrelevant stuff about Collymore’s inability to win honours. In fact it was also a non-denial denial, and completely worthless outside of the Rangers realm.
RyanGosling
Do not want to get involved in titfortattery.
Lets leave it,please.
Thankyou.
Ryan, you seem a decent guy, we need more decent guys to try and get a toehold in the RFC support, to try and get them to enjoy football and forget about their songbook.
In 50 years time, all Scots whether, Celtic, Rangers or any other team will be disgusted that their parents and grand parents sung these songs.
OT so I’ll keep it short. I really expected Celtic to be taken apart tonight, as the gulf in player quality is huge between the two teams. However for a Scottish team (with a fair number of Scots players) to have shown the kind of character they did is encouraging. Maybe our wee country has more to offer than we think?
Armagaddon postponed again…
BigPink,
I both agree and disagree with you. Yes, there was classic whatabouttery and deflection there, no argument. Which is why I said earlier that they should have begun their statement with some introspection. But I also think there were valid points in there; at the same game there were unacceptable banners and songs from Celtic fans but Mr Collymore only highlighted Rangers issues. The point I am making ultimately I suppose is that Rangers fans are adopting a siege mentality when they feel singled out, and while I by no stretch of the imagination think we are whiter than white I think Mr Collymore is pursuing some kind of mission with regards to Rangers.
There are fans of every team in Scotland and worldwide who participate in unacceptable, ridiculous behaviour. As I said previously, if someone unconnected begins to continuously single out one group of people, those people will not just accept the criticism; they will defend themselves.
Can I just say quite clearly to follow that up that I am completely and utterly bored of the behaviour of our fans singing proscribed offensive songs at matches and I wish they would stop. I have no problem with the issues Mr Collymore is raising, but I don’t think he is doing anything in a manner which will effect any change.
BigPink,
Just read your second post. If it had finished 2-0 to Inter, would you have commented about Armageddon being postponed again?
The Armageddon theories have been proved to be nonsense as demonstrated by a game which is surviving just fine. I think that position though, of TSFM advocating the strength of the game, is weakened when “Armageddon” is mentioned after a good result but ignored after a bad one.
I hesitate to say a draw in Europa league at home doesn’t always end well.
A Motherwell doctor writes!
However entertaining.
Anyway s as the last Scots team standing I’m behind them.
Be at least interesting to see how it goes.
Ryan
All I hear is “yes, but …”.
Your argument is whatabouttery – and as far as I know based on conjecture and not fact. Still whatabouttery even if it was.
Collymore or anyone else is entitled to call things as he sees them. Pointing a finger and shouting “there goes a squirrel!” does not invalidate his remarks or his insight.
ianagain says:
February 19, 2015 at 11:44 pm
I hesitate to say a draw in Europa league at home doesn’t always end well.
_______________________________________________________
Yes you are correct of course 🙁
The point is that despite the so-called lack of competition in Scotland, we can still produce teams that can extend the mega-rich clubs from time to time.
BigPink,
At the risk of sounding aggressive / childish, If all you hear is “yes, but” I suggest you go back and read my remarks in full.
I wouldn’t even describe it as my “argument” as I don’t see who I am arguing with other than Mr Collymore. Whatabouttery is too easy a thing to fall back on to dismiss a point in a conversation. I am not making the usual “they are both as bad as each other” point; I am saying that in a situation where one set of fans behaved badly, and another set of fans behaved badly, an individual has chosen to highlight one set of fans only, and the reaction from the RST was surely to be expected.
Once again I will say that the sound of the Billy Boys, complete with proscribed lyrics, was shameful and illegal. I want to be clear that I am not in any way attempting to defend the behaviour of Rangers fans.