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?
I think common sense has to drive debate surrounding political expression at a football match. For example I had no trouble with the idea that Margaret Thatcher should be taken to task by the crowd at Hampden before during and after the 1989 SCF, but am less comfortable with the Irish question.
Perhaps because I am not convinced that many of those engaged in the singing of such political songs are actually engaged in any kind of politics at all, and far more likely to be indulging in a sectarian GIRUY.
Songs like TBOTOB, Derry’s Walls and the Sash seem to me to be non-sectarian in themselves, but not rendered in the smiling, fond remembrence mode in which they were written.
I don’t think people are exercising their right to political expression on those matters any more than I think the Hearts fans were (© Leggo) when they rather rudely boo-ed during the minute’s silence for the late Pope John Paul a few years ago. They were just sticking it to the Celtic fans is all.
The debate is ultimately about the untouchability of relious expression in contrast to political views being fair game for challenge. I don’t see why it should hold that special status, but there are many places on earth (not just Glasgow or NI) where you would give voice to that thought at your peril.
Sorry eb – you’ve got me mixed up with my dad 🙂
ecobhoy says:
January 24, 2015 at 5:59 pm
3 0 Rate This
@ModgePKR says:
January 24, 2015 at 2:05 pm
I’m offended by some people’s beliefs. For example, to me, circumcision is male genital mutilation and is every bit as offensive as female genital mutilation but does that mean I can’t voice that opinion in case someone takes offence?
========================================
I think you have to widen your perspective beyond simply looking at people’s religious beliefs which may actually be founded on good medical grounds.
Sometimes circumcision is the recommended treatment in cases of balanitis and phimosis.
A lot of cultural issues have to do with the environment like in a hot country it makes a lot of sense to bury corpses asap and pig meat can be very dodgy because of the huge number of parasites which can infest them.
We should always try to look beyond a ‘belief’ and understand why and where it emanated from. In the modern age it might no longer be stricly relevant because of refrigeration but it has become entrenched in religious and cultural beliefs.
========================================
Apologies for not being clear enough. In my example provided, I meant purely cultural circumcision. Any procedure carried out for valid medical reasons, using today’s standards, are of course exempt from any criticism I may levy.
The reasons why such practices evolved are of little interest to me. If there is no valid medical reason for surgery then to my eyes it’s no different to cutting a baby’s toe or finger off for cultural reasons.
Some cultures promote paedophilia, slavery, FGM, punishment of rape victims and all manner of despicable practices. I offer no apologies for calling these out when I see them and the fact some will use a defence of “culture” cuts no ice with me.
Regarding beliefs around pork or any other decision which affects no other individual, I have no opinion. Everybody is entitled to choose what foods to eat or not to eat, what clothes to wear or not wear etc regardless of whether those beliefs are part of their culture or not and I’ll vigorously defend their right to do so.
I’m all for promoting respect, tolerance and understanding of other cultures but not when that culture is used as a shield from criticism for acts which inflict one person’s will upon another – especially when the victim is less powerful than the perpetrator.
An interesting perspective:
http://90minutecynic.com/comedy-errors-ibrox-farce/
@ModgePKR says:
January 24, 2015 at 6:46 pm
ecobhoy says:
January 24, 2015 at 5:59 pm
Apologies for not being clear enough. In my example provided, I meant purely cultural circumcision. Any procedure carried out for valid medical reasons, using today’s standards, are of course exempt from any criticism I may levy.
The reasons why such practices evolved are of little interest to me.
================================================================
I’m afraid if you have no interest in how the practices evolved then you message will never get through to those currently affected by them.
The actual reasons as to how they came about is at the heart of any successful re-education programme IMO. Oh you can go down the road of making them illegal which will only drive the practices underground and do absolutely nothing to eradicate them.
We have to look beyond our distaste at embedded cultural ‘norms’ in other societies if we are to achieve anything other than added grief.
Sale and/or leaseback?
Noticed that this older CQN article was being duscussed on twitter. May just be speculative banter, but there seems to be an implication that the scenario described is affecting current status of Ibrox & MP, plus the inability to secure loans against Ibrox itself.
Have I missed something? Is a form of leaseback currently in operation? If so, I suppose it wouldn’t matter how many shares anyone buys in RIFC as it won’t secure ownership of a stadium already owned by a 3rd party. Don’t see how that can be hidden, though.
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=10730
I know this is the Scottish Football Monitor but I just thought that I would congratulate Bradford City and Middlesbrough on their performances today.
At a time when a players worth is determined by the size of his pay check what a refreshing site to see the heart and desire of both of these sides today.
The FA Cup truly is a remarkable competition.
I remember the day that Sunderland defeated Don Revie’s Leeds Utd. Under dogs barely describe the odds.
Man United, who at that time were a very ordinary team, defeating the mighty Liverpool five days before they themselves would win their first European Cup.
Southampton beating Man Utd and the list goes on.
What has this got to do with Scotland I hear you ask, well one of the phrases constantly repeated over the last three years is ‘their rightful place’. Well if the FA Cup, and indeed football over the years prove, no one has a rightful place. The only place you have is the position you earn on the field of play.
Leeds United used to be giants of English football but now they are simply a team who financially over extended themselves and have been paying the price ever since. Remind you of anyone.
Liverpool in the 70’s and 80’s strode the sport, not only in England but Europe, as a colossus and few could see their domination fading. But it did and since the 90’s, with the exception of last year, they have flattered to deceive.
The jury is still out on whether the Manchester United era is over but the simple fact is that times change, tactics alter, and the game evolves.
Only in Scotland do we have an utterly ridiculous situation of one team having ‘a rightful place’. Absurdity piled on delusion where the sporting ethos is diminished simply because our media and administrators themselves cannot evolve.
What any prospective sponsor thinks when they hear that phrase is beyond me!
Do they think, ‘Yes that will be great exposure for my company’ or do they possibly think ‘So I’m supposed to sponsor a competition where one team is expected, by the media and authorities, to get the business end of the tournament or win it regardless of how good they actually are’.
It is no wonder our league has no sponsor.
Danish Pastry says:
January 24, 2015 at 8:07 pm
2 0 Rate This
Sale and/or leaseback
————————————————–
I always remember Bomber Brown on the steps of Ibrox having his rant. He had obviously seen something concerning the ownership to Ibrox that truly worried him and he clearly stated “Charles Green does not own the deeds”. His anger told me that he was clearly concerned. I wonder why to this day did Bomber not spill the beans on what Charlie did reveal to him. As mentioned above how can this sale & leaseback be hidden if it does actually exist and why?
valentinesclown says:
January 24, 2015 at 8:34 pm
_______________________________________
John Bomber Brown:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84503534&v=1aFC8Qw7lVU&x-yt-ts=1421914688
Thanks jean that is the rant in question.
The above suggestions about ownership of Ibrox are compelling, certainly more so than last Friday’s mob or a silver-tongued board persuading MA to drop securitisation on Ibrox.
And weren’t there plenty of suggestions anyway that this attempted securitisation was as least partly MA trying to establish whether TRFC actually owned the stadium?
Plus of course all such doubts could have been settled long ago by the board but they have failed to do so.
To any fans of TRFC reading this, perhaps you better establish that your club actually owns Ibrox before going ballistic at the prospect of it being mortgaged. The MSM clearly will not ask this question of your board. Will you?
You’ve been let down by virtually everyone in whom you’ve placed your trust, not least a media that simply refuses to ask the necessary questions. What a crash course you’ve had in modern corporate and media culture.
After such a crash course, though, placing your hopes in somebody with the track record of Dave King is nothing short of masochistic, like a woman battered blue by four successive husbands making eyes at Mike Tyson.
ecobhoy says:
January 24, 2015 at 7:07 pm
“An interesting perspective:”
————————————-
An entertaining summary made interesting by the Bomber Brown video appearing at the end and subsequently posted by jean7brodie above. I have heard this referenced many times but had never seen the full footage. Many of you will have and as such you may find the following comments passe but I think the passage of time might echo my own fresh perspective.
Brown is both naive and prescient in his speech. It is clear that he was not confident about the likelihood of success of the consortium he was allied with. In a way that may have given rise to the frankness of his opinions expressed on this occasion.
His ‘show us the deeds’ comment was not a one liner as I had imagined but was repeated mercilessly and clearly indicates that he did not just have doubts: He had a deep and well founded concern that the ownership of Ibrox and Murray Park were tied up with Green/Whyte/Ticketus. He had obviously been a lot closer to the negotiating table than any of the fans could ever get so he has some authority despite his demeanor being less than entirely compelling.
He talked about matching club finances with the league opposition they were expected to meet. He talked about starving out the Charles Green consortium. He talked about the supporters money being the prime mover in the ownership of the club. He talked about leaving Ibrox if necessary to bring about a negotiation of purchase of the property title deeds.
It seems that back in June 2012 there was a viable strategy available to extract themselves from the mire they now find themselves in but unfortunately it was being articulated by a man who however eloquent in his own terms, was more skilled on the park than off it.
He even recognised his own short comings by referencing Donald Findlay as a potential ‘collaborator’ in extracting the deeds and also in alluding to the anticipated assistance of experienced professionals within the Rangers support who might provide insight and clarity on business matters.
Unfortunately for Rangers Brown was a voice in the wilderness.
Hoping this gets through moderation. Previous efforts have never made it.
On the Ibrox security mystery we can say 2 things about what it’s not about and that is that Sevco Scotland don’t own the deeds or that it’s something to do with the contingent liability.
My own suspicion is that someone (Green) has an option contract for obtaining ownership under certain conditions. This would allow them to show that Sevco Scotland are the owners at Registry Scotland but maintain an effective grasp on the assets.
The application for a security would require someone with an option to come forward and object.
Danish Pastry says:
January 24, 2015 at 8:07 pm
“Sale and/or leaseback?”
——————————-
This resurfaced a week or so ago when rumours of an imminent £6.5M bill appeared. The three year rental period stated in the heads of terms were alighted upon as a possible reason for this alleged demand occurring just after new year. The time scale was a bit mashed up (did I do something there?) but the numbers could be made to provide a £6.5M figure if you had sufficient exposure to Carol Vorderman on Countdown.
The inclusion of Sports Direct in this alleged document was conjectured to be a reason why Mike Ashley might be able to secure a loan against the properties when apparently other potential funding sources could not.
It is all a bit tenuous but many of the facts encountered have been less credulous than this speculation.
justshatered says:
January 24, 2015 at 8:33 pm
26 0 Rate This
——–
Brilliant stuff. It’s the aspect of English football that still seems untainted. Been listening to the 5Live podcasts. Imagine MC getting off a plane a 7am today! Sums up the arrogance of the monied classes. Nice to see Neil Lennon’s Bolton getting a replay, too. And was it a former Accies’ player who sealed Bradford’s triumph?
I noticed Van Gaal mentioned Queens Park ‘Raisins’ again 😀
Castofthousands says:
January 24, 2015 at 10:13 pm
4 0 Rate This
——–
I see. I hadn’t realised it (the big £ bill) was being connected specifically to pre-IPO machinations. Beginning to realise why some people speculate the IPO was a sham. Was also surprised that Llambias was involved with the Keith Bishop PR business — perhaps not the naive Sevco rookie after all? Jings.
What silenced John Brown?
OT, Albion Rovers always seem to get rid of Managers, Willy Nilly and for, ‘No Good Reason’. I think they will find it hard to keep this Management Team. Darren Young and Sandy Clark, ( Also the Backroom staff and Directors ) should be applauded in their efforts. I for one say, ‘Well Done’.
‘Iron Men from the Iron Burgh’
Returning to the Ms Budge statement
Personally, I felt she could have come down harder on the behaviour of the fans, but as already pointed out, she was responding to questions from her own fans, so let’s leave it at that
On the plus side, it is refreshing to see the owner of one of our senior clubs come out and give her honest opinion on the situation
I only hope she isn’t subsumed into the stinking morass of the SFA/SPFL hierarchy
We need more like her if our game is to be cleansed
Brown spilled the beans to Sir Walter and Alastair and they didn’t want to know. Ally and Wally knew best?
Castofthousands says:
January 24, 2015 at 9:56 pm
The video of Bomber Brown was difficult to watch, if not looking at it as a comedy piece, and I don’t think it was (a comedy piece). I think we see there a very sincere man who knows something he doesn’t fully understand, but knows it’s bad for the football club he loves. I think he is constrained in what he can say by people who had a better understanding, but wanted to remain anonymous, of the issues at hand, and also by his own lack of oratory skills. He is one of the very few, perhaps the only, RRM, in any way involved since liquidation, to come out of it all with any credit.
He knew something, or at least believed he knew something, yet he suddenly gave up his campaign to get the truth out there! Now, either he was given information that satisfied him that all was well, or he found something out, something that made him depart the scene without letting the bears know what he’d found. Good news wouldn’t have shut him up, or I don’t think it would, as he’d have been delighted to tell his fellow bears that all was well.
Recently, amid rumours that Ibrox was not available for use as security, Mike Ashley lodges a notice of his intent to take a Standard Security over the stadium. This gave cause for most to reckon that Ibrox was indeed free of encumberance, or Ashley was using part of his loan to clear the way for the ground to be used as security. Now, without explanation, or confirmation that the full loan will still be made, the board announce that they do not intend to proceed with the security over Ibrox.
I get the feeling that the dispute over the ownership of Ibrox still has legs, and that it’s too messy for even Ashley to sort out!
John Brown clearly believed there was something wrong with the ownership of Ibrox, perhaps Mike Ashley has just found out what that was.
With regards to the ownership of Ibrox, there has been an interesting number of tweets from the user @TheTributeAct. They can be seen at https://twitter.com/TheTributeAct. Not sure that I fully understand it but there are plenty on here who will I’m sure.
Again the question needs to be asked by the rangers support.
If, for the sake of arguement, and not to imply any kind of inside knowledge, that ticketus took a negative pledge on Ibrox. So it stays on the TRFC balance sheet apparently unencumbered (legal beagles will need to confirm if the pledge would show up). TRFC pay out say 8m per year onerously to an anonymous supplier. In so doing it runs up 8m in annual losses and requires funding (eg an IPO) to finance it.
The important point is this. Is it a temporary situation? Does the pledge get torn up on repaying a certain figure (presumably 24m in the hypothetical Ticketus example). In which case I can see mileage. I can also see light for future investors, real people like park and Taylor, not mythical Institutions.
Or, quite simply, is it just a rent pure and simple.
That is the key to their future at the moment.
Allyjambo says:
January 24, 2015 at 11:23 pm
Castofthousands says:
January 24, 2015 at 9:56 pm
Recently, amid rumours that Ibrox was not available for use as security, Mike Ashley lodges a notice of his intent to take a Standard Security over the stadium. This gave cause for most to reckon that Ibrox was indeed free of encumberance, or Ashley was using part of his loan to clear the way for the ground to be used as security. Now, without explanation, or confirmation that the full loan will still be made, the board announce that they do not intend to proceed with the security over Ibrox.
I get the feeling that the dispute over the ownership of Ibrox still has legs, and that it’s too messy for even Ashley to sort out!
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Nope
IMO
For ” The Board” read Ashley`s CEO + Ashley`s FD + the Spivs who got him there, The Easedales and their proxies
So theres only one possible explanation
Ashley is dropping a dire hint to all potential lenders that the security is compromised without explaining how it is compromised
Why do this?
Two reasons
1 To enable the Board to point blank refuse to give any security over Ibrox to his rivals…without explaining why or evidencing why
2 To put distance between him and the events which preceded the IPO
i.e.
“MA`s lawyers have just discovered this dreadful problem with the security…. so dreadful its confidential”
Why put distance between himself and a compromised security?
Because he was involved in the scam from the start
,,,
Consider this
Forsey is CEO of SDI ..thats a very big job
Yet Mr Forsey was the registered Director for the SDI co called Newco No1 Ltd from the very day it was incorporated on 13 July 2012
Why would the top man in SDI be instructed to get involved in an executive capacity in a piddling co that was to become Rangers Retail a few weeks later on 14 Aug 2012?
Was it because Newco no 1 Ltd had another purpose ?
Was it also the vehicle for funding a significant part of the £5.5m paid for the assets?
Rewarded by some kind of leaseback deal arranged through Green
Or
Put another way
Did Ashley buy out some or all of Whytes share of Sevco 5088?
Who knows?
Is the cqn advert in the Herald in the public domain now?
Anyone got a link to it?
TheTributeAct says:
January 24, 2015 at 10:02 pm
………………….
Lets suppose there is a truth to what is suggested…then who would be the most likely Scottish legal firm who would have arranged such an option for the parties concerned?
With reference to the ad in The Sunday Herald, no fluff or flannel, a very impressive piece:
http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/a-little-bit-of-history/
Celtic fans statement can be viewed here
http://www.afootballforum.com/forum/index.php?/topic/70091-a-group-of-celtic-fans-have-paid-£3k-to-publish-a-full-page-advert-in-the-herald-on-2501-claiming-that-rangers-died-in-2012/
Here’s a screen-grab of the ad/statement from the digital edition of TheSH (if you don’t sub. it costs £1.50 for single digital issue, btw):
https://twitter.com/arthurstramash/status/559270232314118144
PS You can enlarge the image in the twitter app for iPhone by moving two fingers apart on the screen image
In praise of the “Old Firm” by the Scotsman. You can take out as many paid adverts as you like, but the ruling cabal can still get their story out there free.
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl/aidan-smith-this-old-firm-needs-to-happen-1-3670333
readcelt says:
January 25, 2015 at 8:41 am
Danish Pastry says:
January 25, 2015 at 8:49 am
———————————–
These are different.
Is one a previous draft maybe?
neepheid says:
January 25, 2015 at 9:23 am
0 0 Rate This
In praise of the “Old Firm” by the Scotsman. You can take out as many paid adverts as you like, but the ruling cabal can still get their story out there free.
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl/aidan-smith-this-old-firm-needs-to-happen-1-3670333
———————————————————
From the beano (DR) to the above this is the term they use to sell their papers. The term old firm is now a thing of the past and as fans we all know this for the simple reason as it is TRUE. It is an embarrassment that in our country this scenario exists, we cannot mention openly terms like newco and liquidation. It is back to the days when all fans stood as one and said no to NEWCO. We as fans will not accept that they are the same club as the old one and we do not need them, but the smsm needs them and more importantly wants them to continue to be classed as the same club. This is embarrassing but also IMO quite sinister. Well done on the article by Celtic supporters and I hope all other supporters of our clubs do something similar. Power to the people (not the old paper ).
neepheid says:
January 25, 2015 at 9:23 am
How many words does one man need to use to say nothing! I indulged him by reading what he’d written, even though it was very trying and tedious, just to see how he was going to convince us all of why this ‘Old Firm’ (his words, not mine) NEEDS to happen! He certainly put less effort into telling us why than he did into describing his own childhood, though he might well have put in plenty of effort to find some reason, but just failed to come up with very much at all!
Once again, a ‘journalist’ totally ignores the very real reasons why this fixture is not ‘needed’, but he’ll be tucked safely away in some media lounge until the worst elements have gone from the surrounding area, and be home and safe while the Glasgow medical (miracle) workers, and the other emergency services, deal with the fallout. They certainly don’t ‘need’ a return of the ‘Old Firm’!
Apart from that, the only interest the rest of Scottish football has in the match is the ghoul factor, with only the winners of the other semi-final hoping for a result other than a crushing victory for Celtic!
One concession I will give him; the return of an ‘Old Firm’ match is needed – by TRFC and the Scottish Mainstream Media!
Well done to CQN and thank you for saying what needs to be said in a way that will take facts into an area where they are normally ignored! Compare and contrast what that poor excuse for a journalist wrote in the Scotsman! A more flowery piece could only be found at Interflora, though even Interflora don’t have use for so much horse manure!
Kicker Conspiracy says:
January 25, 2015 at 9:30 am
4 1 Rate This
readcelt says:
January 25, 2015 at 8:41 am
———————————–
These are different.
Is one a previous draft maybe?
———
There was a draft. This one is from today’s paper.
PS @Rhaps, you trying to create a new world record for walking away from the blog and coming back? 😆
@rhapsodyinblue
I actually believe it to be a necessary statement. The SMSM and the footballing authorities have promoted a version of history that most football fans are not buying 😉 The game itself will never recover with this kind of deceit hanging over it.
The very notion that a club can dump debt through liquidation and be considered the same club with an unbroken history once “reconstituted” thereafter with the assent of the people who run the game is a recipe for disaster.
You have your own footballing memories and you will no doubt look back fondly on many of them. There is no harm to anyone in that. However, the people who run the game should face the facts. The very facts laid out in such a measured way in the statement.
“If you tell a lie often enough…” You know the rest.
Anyway, whilst we’ll probably not see eye to eye on this, it seems pretty clear to me that, despite your protestations, you care very much about the content of the statement. In caring so much that you feel the need to comment, you are very much part of the target audience, and there’s nothing embarrassing about that.
rhapsodyinblue says:
January 25, 2015 at 10:28 am
You don’t like the advert, we get that. You don’t seem to get that it wasn’t meant to make you like it, though. Maybe some Celtic fans don’t like it, maybe some find it embarrassing – that should give you some solace rather than the need to return here to try to discredit it – but these complaints don’t make what was said untrue, and you know it! Which is why you attack the form of the message, rather than it’s content!
It’s out there for all to see, it will come under the jurisdiction of the advertising authorities and your club will be able to take some decisive action if they believe what was said is a lie. The anonymity of the internet not only protects posters here and elsewhere, but also allows your club to leave what is said unchallenged. This is not the case now. The same club claim is extremely important to TRFC’s continued existence, your club now needs to prove this advert a lie – much more than it needs the continuance of the ‘Old Firm’! In fact, any supporter not banging on the Blue Room door to demand the club takes action, clearly isn’t convinced they’d win their case!
Don’t waste your time here, rhaps, get along to Ibrox and start banging on that door 😉
From the far side of the world Aidan Smith’s crap demonstrates exactly why the statement of truth wad and is necessary
There are lots and lots of lying hacks out there who fear for their wretchedly earned dishonest livelihoods. They have consistently and remorselessly supported the Big Lie for utterly corrupt and venal reasons.and in so doing have shielded and protected thoroughly rotten football governors and administrators.
All the hufffing and puffing by A Smith and others has no more effect on the Truth than one of his weak f.rts has on climate change.
RFC (IL) ceased to exist as a recognised member of the SFA. There is no historic connection between Celtic and TRFC.
And there can therefore is no OF.
To pretend otherwise is to propagate a cynical lie.
Many of us have both more sense and personal integrity than to accept that lie or to forgive those who would foist it uppn us
Bad cess to all such.
Silent Partner says:
January 25, 2015 at 10:50 am
Anyway, whilst we’ll probably not see eye to eye on this, it seems pretty clear to me that, despite your protestations, you care very much about the content of the statement. In caring so much that you feel the need to comment, you are very much part of the target audience, and there’s nothing embarrassing about that.
________________
Very well put 🙂
Looks like I jumped the gun with my link at 8.41 am.
I await the land deal loons, setting about the ASA with great interest, much mirth to come
Do I rember a Mr Traynor writing 7 minutes that ended 142 years of history regarding rejection of a cva and liquidation
The Sunday Herald advert is a truly important step which I don’t view as a challenge to Rangers or Rangers fans.
Rather it is an opportunity for Bears interested in football to examine the statements and arguments used and decide where the dividing line between truth and blustering rhetoric lies.
But there is no doubt it is a challenge to Scotland’s corrupt system of football governance and the craven acquiescence of the majority of the SMSM.
I was particularly pround of those behind the advert and the contributors to its cost on reading the footnote which revealed the surplus funds raised were going to feed schoolchildren in Malawi.
Proof – if it was ever needed – that Scottish Football supporters have vision and compassion that extends far beyond the Hampden dung-heap.
Time the Old Guard was rooted-out and replaced by men and women of principle with a love and passion for what can once again be: ‘Our beautiful game’.
scapaflow says:
January 25, 2015 at 11:38 am
I await the land deal loons, setting about the ASA with great interest, much mirth to come
=======================================================
Yes the ASA will probably come to realise the true nature of the madness and learn that appeasement only provides ‘protection’ for a very limited period.
From shameful Andrew Smith in the the Scotsman
2 paragraphs that caught my attention
It would be all the better if a section of the Celtic support stopped trying to deny its very existence. In doing so, they have shown themselves guilty of a self-absorption and moral relativism that is desperately unappealing. Rangers exist. Next Sunday will see the resumption of the most monumental fixture in the history of the Scottish game.
Really, a section of the Celtic support need to get a life over all of this – and accept that there is a Rangers with a life; an Ibrox club that many of their fellow fans at Parkhead genuinely look forward to having as a title rival at some future date.
I take it from the above that no other fans apart from Celtic have the same point of view or opinion on the non existence of the old Govan club. Absolutely shameful
@Valentinesclown
Aidan Smith. Andrew Smith would tend to disagree with his namesake
neepheid says:
January 25, 2015 at 9:23 am
In praise of the “Old Firm” by the Scotsman. You can take out as many paid adverts as you like, but the ruling cabal can still get their story out there free.
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spfl/aidan-smith-this-old-firm-needs-to-happen-1-3670333
=============================================================
The Scotsman truly has reached the bottom of the journalistic pit in its financial death throes.
The ‘rigged’ photograph used in the article shows Celtic and Rangers supporters standing side by side with no separation gap and no police or stewards in attendance. Oh really?
The picture shows that ‘carnival atmosphere’ we all know existed when the Old Firm still existed 🙄 What a distortion of the facts which would be a breach of journalistic ethics if the paper and its staff had any.
It would have been much more journalistically objective to show the battered and bruised casualty department victims in the aftermatch of the Old Firm Games.
And the uniting colour for supporters and total innocents is ‘red’ from the blood spilt by the bucket load.
But that might spoil the media agenda fuelled from Hampden to talk-up a now dead piece of tribalism which has no place in a modern Scotland.
I hope good sense and moderation prevails on the day from all sides but I think we will see a week of battle drums being beaten and a call to arms by the Press. They want their bloody spectacle and sadly they might get it.
And once again, with wearisome brow I ask Aiden the question could he define to me a set of circumstances by which a club didn’t exist, if this is his defence as to why this particular one does? Which, as far as I can see is “because they’re big and we all miss them” (my quotation marks).
there is a Rangers-true, and a colourful pageant it is, but Mr Smith’s statement hides more than it reveals. I would not want to rehearse any of the arguments but 7 minutes to end 142 years of history is true. for the avoidance of doubt I am not a Celtic supporter-support your local team.
Allyjambo says:
January 25, 2015 at 10:51 am
===================================
While newspapers often print inaccurate or untrue material, I’m sure this particular advert has been subject to much legal scrutiny by the Sunday Herald, given the likely fall out. Any retaliatory statement will no doubt use LNS and Neil Doncaster as evidence, but neither of those statements have any legal standing whatsoever.
I think it is likely the rest of the media, rather than denying the veracity of the statement, will instead attack the Celtic support as being petty. I can live with the media being hostile to Celtic fans. I’ve lived with it for decades.
Good Afternoon
Just had a look at the TRIFC plc accounts it says,
“Basis of consolidation
The Group’s set of financial statements incorporates the financial information of Rangers International Football Club plc and entities controlled by the Company (its subsidiaries). Control is achieved where the Company has the power to govern the financial and operating policies of an investee entity so as to obtain benefit from its activities.”
Using that as the criterion for what constitutes control then surely MASH and, or, Mr. Ashley and TRFC have scored an own goal and cannot be anything other than guilty of the charges levelled at them by the SFA?
We live in interesting times.
If found guilty will the SFA effectively kill their precious child or will they turn a blind eye?
Cannot help thinking about the Property and who owns the deeds. If a third party has an interest which was not disclosed in the IPO surely an investigation is merited?
Been offered a free ticket for the match but have declined to attend.
I cannot confer legitimacy on cheating and I fear for any decent fans caught up in the poisonous atmosphere.
ecobhoy says:
January 25, 2015 at 11:51 am
6 0 Rate This
scapaflow says:
January 25, 2015 at 11:38 am
I await the land deal loons, setting about the ASA with great interest, much mirth to come
=======================================================
Yes the ASA will probably come to realise the true nature of the madness and learn that appeasement only provides ‘protection’ for a very limited period.
===========================
I guess once the inevitable complaint hits the ASA the Herald will be asked for comment, and will provide evidence from their legal people there is nothing untrue in the statement.
Thanks for the clarification Danish and readcelt.
God forbid I should actually have to buy the paper to read the piece.
Andrew Smith’s journalistic ‘professionalism’ is just shining through of late 😉
Brenda says:
January 25, 2015 at 12:37 pm
As Silent Partner correctly pointed out, it’s Aidan Smith who is responsible for the nonsensical ‘Old Firm’ article. Andrew Smith tends to have a decent grip on reality. I bet he’s sick already with all the phone calls he’s getting from mates who’ve made the same mistake 😉
Apologies all round did not see silent partner’s comment ……… 😥 I’ll go back to the housework 😕
A lateral thought based on information in the public domain
The decision to switch the assets from Sevco 5088 to Sevco Scotland must have been agreed with the Administrators before the 14 June 2012 Creditors Meeting. The minutes record Charles Green as representing Sevco Scotland at the meeting
So
The then owner of RFC must have known on or shortly after 14 June that a switcheroo had taken place.
If this owner was “duped” by Green into a prior agreement to change the name of RFC prior to 14 June
Then
Surely this agreement would have referred to Sevco 5088 not Sevco Scotland?
Meaning
Even after 14 June 2012, the owner still held the important card of refusing to change the name of The Rangers Football Club plc to Rangers (2012) plc… Thus preventing Sevco Scotland from taking over the RFC name
This name change could not be registered by the Administrators without the RFC owner’s written agreement
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The name changes for Sevco Scotland and RFC were both registered on 31 July 2012 with the relevant resolutions also dated 31 July 2012. This strongly suggests there was some urgency in the registration process
And indeed there was urgency
Sevco Scotland played Brechin City on Sunday 29 July 2012 The match was attended by Jim Parks Consultant to Green. For this match Sevco called itself TRFC. Whether Sevco had a dispensation to use TRFC is unclear
What is clear however is that securing the agreement of the RFC owner to the name change was a negotiation that ran from 14 June 2012 to 31 July 2012 The fact that it extended beyond the 29 July date of the Brechin Match rather suggests tough negotiating tactics.
What else happened during this 6 week vital period in the history of Sevco Scotland?
Surprise surprise
On 24 June Jim Parks is asking Whyte in an email to approve some numbers he is intending to put to Mr Ashley at an upcoming meeting. These numbers include brokers percentages presumably associated with the purchase or sale of shares
And
On 13 July 2012, SDI registered a brand new company called SDI Newco No1 ltd. The CEO of SDI, Michael Forsey was registered as a Director. Four weeks later on 14 Aug 2012 SDI Newco No1 was renamed Rangers Retail Ltd and Green was registered as a Director
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
What dots can be joined from the above?
The deal to buy the assets was done and the money had to be paid by 31 July 2012.Green therefore needed his investors to cough up the cash ASAP. He also needed the agreement of the RFC owner to enable Sevco Scotland to change its name to TRFC
The RFC owner needed all the help he could get to retrieve a disaster (if indeed he was duped by Green over the switcheroo). His only short term card was the name change needed by Sevco. He was already in negotiations about something with Ashley via Jim Parks.
SDI needed maximum leverage over Sevco about the structure and trading arrangements for Rangers Retail. The ability to influence the Sevco name change would have been a top bargaining chip
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
So
Either
Green was involved in two critical but separate negotiations that were happening simultaneously. In one of them he was opposed by the owner of RFC over the name change. In the other negotiation he was cooperating with the owner of RFC to secure a cash contribution of some sort from SDI towards the £5.5m owed to the Administrators
Doesn’t seem too plausible does it?
More likely
These negotiations were somehow interlinked
And if they were interlinked
The commercial deal involving the structure of Rangers Retail also involved securing consent of the RFC owner to Sevco Scotland taking over the name of Oldco
And
If SDI were party to the name change negotiations
They may also have been party to the switcheroo
Who knows?
SSB discussions this week or avoidance of the advert will be interesting…not..
Well done to the contributors to CQN.
(If they do another advert, I for one, will be willing to contribute).
http://news.stv.tv/west-central/307843-celtic-fans-buy-sunday-herald-advert-saying-rangers-are-a-new-club/
STV have the “report” followed by their own (Smsm) agenda of
Using LNS as a factual answer to the “beliefs” in the CQN advert.
Is it true the CQN advert cost only £3k? I thought it’d be much more.
If it was around that amount, is there any appetite for posting an open letter to Doncaster with 5 or 6 key questions under the TSFM banner?
Not a statement of facts as we see them but a genuine inquiry along the lines of:
Why grant a Euro licence when outstanding taxes were due?
Why were RFC relegated and which rule permitted that?
Why was the RFC club granted two votes when every other club had only one?
Why was DOS omitted from LNS?
I’m sure others moreknowledgeable than I can decide upon and frame the questions better but you get my point.
They want this to die and for us to get over it – I say let’s keep it going and keep asking awkward questions as loudly as we can.
Plus, might grow our audience here which is a nice side effect.
They were not relegated they a were allowed in at the bottom.
Hey guys
On the subject of the ad, I wrote a wee reaction piece on the way the press is covering it so far.
http://thecelticblog.com/2015/01/celtic-fc-2/celtic-fans-go-where-the-hacks-fear-to-tread
bfbpuzzled says:
January 25, 2015 at 2:00 pm
2 0 Rate This
They were not relegated they were allowed in at the bottom
========================================
I know that, you know that, most sensible people know that yet the media continue the fiction.
The idea behind the open letter is not to argue these points but to question them.
If the man at the top says it’s the same club, then let’s follow up with him and ask the questions he can’t answer.
There’s so many holes and inconsistencies in the official story it’s not going to be hard to trip him up.
He who lives by the sword and all that.
GoosyGoosy says:
January 25, 2015 at 1:15 pm
Been thinking back about the sale of assets to Green. I suspect it may have been discussed to death at the time, but I can’t remember. But. The CVA was proposed. The amount wasn’t enough (by a long way) and the creditors rejected it. For some reason D&P had already agreed to sell the assets to Green, for less than the amount of the CVA! Did the creditors agree to this? Seems unlikely that they’d be happy to see the assets go for less than they could recover under a CVA. Do the insolvency laws allow for the sale of assets after a CVA is rejected, but prior to the liquidator being appointed? It may well be that I’m barking up a wrong tree, and that what happened is quite normal; but, if I remember correctly, D&P expected to be given the liquidator gig, HMRC stymied that one. A game changer.
There are people involved in the sale, D&P people, who are currently involved in a court case surrounding the administration of Rangers. Could some irregularity here, or indeed something else not kosher with the sale, be yet another potential block on using Ibrox as security?
If as Goosy suggests, MA has been involved from the outset, could his reason for his sudden interest in getting control over TRFC and the main assets, have it’s roots in an unfortunate encounter with a spiv (perhaps, he too, was duped) and he saw grabbing control as a way of controlling events, or, just by owning/controlling it all, he’d prevent anyone else from finding out that he had been involved? He might have been prepared to pay off the spivs to get the security over Ibrox and MP, but BDO, or the police, might just have beaten him to it by uncovering something that, may, lead to an unravelling of the sale to Green! I’d imagine any court case, that may lead to a dispute over/turn over the sale of the assets, would prevent security being taken over them. It may also be that it’s only recently that the BDO/police investigations reached a point where this could happen.
This is all just more speculation, and doesn’t do any more than add to the list of possible reasons for the withdrawal of Ashley’s intentions to use Ibrox as security. I am not suggesting, and doubt very much (because he doesn’t need to) that Ashley might be involved in anything illegal, just that even the best of businessmen make mistakes, and can get caught up in something they wish they hadn’t, from time to time.
Paulmac2 says:
January 25, 2015 at 1:27 pm
4 0 Rate This
SSB discussions this week or avoidance of the advert will be interesting…not..
============================================
The SSB tactic will be to ridicule Celtic fans. No doubt a challenge will be out out asking why anyone is going to the game if they feel that way. Narrow minds will always find a narrow argument to make them feel better.
jimlarkin says:
January 25, 2015 at 1:29 pm
I see that STV have missed out that LNS only acknowledged what the SPL rules said, and didn’t make a judgement, ruling or even give his own opinion on the matter. I notice, too, that they make no comment on whether or not they expect the club to retaliate, perhaps waiting for guidance/instruction from inside the Blue Room.
If ever the SMSM feel the need to ask why this advert was placed, they need only look to their own copy for the answer!
STV try to justify their report by including a tweet, apparently from a Celtic supporter.
Can anyone confirm that this Bishop Crosas is a genuine tweet? I genuinely don’t know if a Bishop Crosas exists, or if this is just an online nickname.
The tweet itself is unremarkable, and I’d suggest it is used primarily because of the name of the tweeter to add a little weight to what is said. A bit disrespectful to a man of the cloth (by STV), either way.
Not at Ibrox today but delighted to hear via Twitter that a substantial crowd is there supporting Fernando Ricksen and his family at a time when emotional assistance will offer them all great succour.
Well done to all who are supporting him, his family and others afflicted by a truly awful disease.
jimmci says:
January 25, 2015 at 3:03 pm
Here, here.
This saga has had more twists and turns than a Manitoba Snake Pit. Trying to work out what the future holds can seem a pointless and futile exercise. But hey ho it’s a slow Sunday and the brain keeps wandering.
With hindsight it seems that at the start of the month there were three options available:
• New Murray Rangers – funded by Sarver (with his own money maybe) or by King (with OPM)
• A sustainable future under the Three Bears – possibly with an insolvency event of some description
• A Sustainable future under MA/Sports Direct – possibly with an insolvency event of some description
I’ll nail my colours to the mast and make a prediction. Some form of Rangers will survive and I think it will be controlled/owned by the 3B’s with a strong probability of MA/Sports Direct having a minority holding.
The modus operandi of the 3B’s is piquing my interest. They seem to be legitimate businessmen familiar with 21st century business practices. Unless I have missed something there does not seem to be any information floating around about dodgy pasts/convictions. I could be wrong but I have no sense that these people would want to be involved with King. Happy to be corrected.
Throughout the life of TRIFC/TRFC the one thing we have not been short of is leaks. KJ, Phil and others all seem to have had inside sources of information at times. In the past few weeks there is a noticeable drying up of stories and blogs based upon “reliable sources tell me that”. I suspect that those sources are no longer within the Blue Room.
It is the absence of these runes to read that intrigues. It smacks of grown adults doing deals in a professional manner. This seems to be Ashley’s M O and I believe the 3B’s.
The only leak that has come out recently is MA not using Ibrox as security. I believe this is totally deliberate. This is saying, “I’ve checked, and do you what, we may not actually own it”. It is a signal to others of just how deep the pit is.
The only thing we know for certain is that TRFC is in a perilous/parlous state. It could go down at any moment. The timing and content of Doncaster’s “Same Club” statement were quite, quite deliberate.
Back to my prediction. Ashley and the 3B’s are getting a deal lined up in time for the forthcoming hearing. More short term emergency funding from MA with loans, nothing else. He will be repaid in full and keep the merchandising contract. The 3B’s will then run the business/club in a proper sustainable manner. They don’t strike me as sugar daddies. There may be an insolvency event to rid the club of other onerous contracts.
What can blow my lovely theory out of the water? Just about anything, not least any further landmines lurking in the depths that have been left behind by
My apologies to all, I now realise that Bishop Crosas CSC is an Aberdeen based Celtic supporters club. I presume STV used it for that reason as it showed the strength of opinion of at least one supporters club, and by association, of most others.
But wait a minute, this is one guy tweeting that he doesn’t like one group of Celtic fans speaking for all the rest. Well he, himself, is apparently speaking for a whole supporters club, I wonder if his tweet was made after a vote was taken at a meeting, or, in light of the use of the first person singular, he is speaking only for himself?
STV make out, though, that he speaks for a number of supporters by saying the following, immediately above the tweet:
‘Some Celtic fans took to social media to distance themselves from the publication of the advert.’
Bishop Crosas CSC @BishopCrosasCSC
Follow
I don’t care for “the advert”, I certainly don’t like a small number of people speaking for all Celtic fans. You can all fight out the rest
10:27 AM – 25 Jan 2015
No other tweets are given to support ‘some’!
I’d suggest this lad might well have a number of his fellow members rather annoyed with him, and maybe even have his access to the club’s twitter account removed!
Allyjambo says:
January 25, 2015 at 2:57 pm
3 0 Rate This
STV try to justify their report by including a tweet, apparently from a Celtic supporter.
Can anyone confirm that this Bishop Crosas is a genuine tweet? I genuinely don’t know if a Bishop Crosas exists, or if this is just an online nickname.
=============
It appears to be a genuine CSC in Aberdeen.
Tincks says:
January 25, 2015 at 3:33 pm
Excellent summary on this slow Sunday, and an enjoyable read.
The only thing we can be sure of, is, there is nothing we can be sure of!
neepheid says:
January 25, 2015 at 3:47 pm
Cheers, neeps, though I realised that (actually did a bit of research) and posted another lot of waffle a few posts up 😉
If we are gonna be cherry-picking Twitter items, I am sure the propagandists among us could have a field day 🙂
There was a time when a newspaper like the Scotsman would have been keen to ensure that it couldn’t be used to push propaganda. Unfortunately that no longer applies and they are now basing conclusions on a sample size of one.
If any of their psephologists have a look at my Twitter account this evening, they may well be predicting an overall Westminster majority for the Scottish Socialist Party at the upcoming general election 🙂
I’ll get my ballot paper ….