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?
“Eurosport” have covered “the Advert”
Looks like they’re happy to continue the “Holding company” myth
https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/early-doors/celtic-fans-pay-for-advert-in-national-newspaper-to-claim-old-firm-match-died-three-years-ago-141348771.html?
Allyjambo says:
January 25, 2015 at 3:52 pm
The only thing we can be sure of, is, there is nothing we can be sure of!
————————————————————————
AJ
A great man :irony: once said:
“The message is that there are no “knowns.” There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know. So when we do the best we can and we pull all this information together, and we then say well that’s basically what we see as the situation, that is really only the known knowns and the known unknowns. And each year, we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns.”
😕
Tincks,
Agree with a couple of points to add.
Firstly, king would bring the fans if follow follow is an issue, particularly if the team is struggling on the field. That shouldn’t be discounted. Also currently owns 15%. That’s the worst of both worlds. Too little to do anything, too much to be ignored.
For the 3bs to ‘win out’ MA has to be bought out. 13m and counting is the latest estimate. Working capital? Call it it 15m. I’m not convinced they have that, or at least are willing to risk such an investment.
Interesting times, but weren’t they ever.
Upthehoops 12.21
The SH certainly asked for and were given back up for the points being made in the article.
If the advert has got people thinking perhaps for the first time because they have been spoonfed manure by the smsm for years, then that in itself is an achievement.
It really asks two questions.
1. Is it factually accurate?
2. If it is, why was it necessary to pay a paper to publish?
I commend James Forrest ‘ s two articles on the matter.
One of the criticisms I read of the advert is that it would have carried more force/weight had it come from supporters of all clubs.
I agree very much with this point but having experienced the difficulties of getting two Celtic supporting organisations a few years back to agree to a final draft of a no confidence in the SFA motion from an Open Meeting where the original had been passed, I shudder at how long that process would have taken or indeed if it would have produced anything.
The capacity to do such a thing simply does not exist and building it is perhaps a debate that TSFM can take forward in the coming months.
To supporters of other clubs it would have been best if we had all spoken with one voice but practically it was not possible.
That does not of course prevent those who wish to express their own views doing so in their own way.
Facts are chiels that dinnae ding.
Apologies if already posted.
Brilliant Mickey Take from the Grauniad – Dave King – Man of the Week
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jan/24/said-and-done-rangers-bayern
jimlarkin says:
January 25, 2015 at 3:59 pm
I’d suggest that they make out that the answer to the debate doesn’t matter, that it’s all a fuss about nothing very much.
But…
They actually set out the truth, saying things like:
‘After Rangers went into administration and were liquidated three years ago…’
then:
‘Rangers began life again as a new club in the bottom tier of Scottish football after being liquidated, but Rangers fans maintain the history and bloodline of the 140-year old Ibrox club never died.’
That’s about the most accurate, and honest, two lines I’ve read from anyone in the MSM about the whole Rangers fiasco.
The article ends with a rather disparaging remark, but the whole article never questions the truth of what’s said in the advert:
‘Confused? Yep. ED is too. Seems to be a lot of fuss about nothing,…’
Tincks says:
January 25, 2015 at 4:21 pm
I particularly love this bit from King:
‘… paying £44m to avoid 82 years in prison – was “a favourable settlement” that allows him to start over, “without the integrity issues that previously dogged me”.’
as if, like history, integrity can be bought!
Green and King, two peas in a pod.
Tincks says:
January 25, 2015 at 4:21 pm
1
0
Rate This
Apologies if already posted.
Brilliant Mickey Take from the Grauniad – Dave King – Man of the Week
http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jan/24/said-and-done-rangers-bayern
=================================================================
They even managed to shoehorn the G&SL comment from the SA judge in there. 😀
nuary 25, 2015 at 4:09 pm
The SH certainly asked for and were given back up for the points being made in the article.
================================
I’m no lawyer but the inevitable complaint to the ASA surely means that to find against the Sunday Herald will mean the ASA has to prove the statement is incorrect, which it is not. What we will probably be left with is a judgement along the lines of how the law dealt with Rangers liquidation compared to the football authorities. Hopefully this will highlight just how absurd the football authorities have been.
Kicker Conspiracy says:
January 25, 2015 at 12:30 pm
15 0 Rate This
God forbid I should actually have to buy the paper to read the piece.
————–
All in all, The Sunday Herald is no the worst of them.
Regarding the face-saving, embarrassing retorts to the fans’ statement from the failed press & media:
“The man of independent mind
He looks and laughs at a’ that.”
And they probably huvnae a clue where that quote comes from, even on Rabbie’s ain day 😮
Paulmac2 says:
January 25, 2015 at 1:41 am
__________________________________________________________
Not sure what you’re getting at. There is no doubt that Green got an options contract from Sevco Scotland Ltd. It was declared in the TRFCL to RIFC share exchange which I assume comes from Charlotte or someone with similar access.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/195231558/TRFCL-to-RIFC-Share-Exchange-Agreement#scribd
In particular, this section makes it clear that only some of the terms of this share option agreement have been made public.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B8JRQz-IAAAkduk.png
I don’t get the relevance of which law firm wrote the contract?
Is it possible that Green has an option to claim Ibrox as his own for a pre-determined price upon certain triggering events? Like a Sevco Scotland Ltd administration?
The only point I’m making here is that this could be the type of arrangement a sleazy spiv would use to retain ownership of the assets when Sevco inevitably run out of money.
He can argue that the existence of the option contract was made public and that it is implicit in the public declaration that there are additional terms. No dishonesty involved m’lud.
Whether it’s this contract or another like it, I suspect that Green or one of his friends has come forward to block the security over Ibrox on the basis that it would prejudice pre-existing rights over them.
Might be some mileage in someone here to do the complaining to the ASA since any TRFC fan with an ounce of nous might see it is wholly accurate.
Was in the car yesterday afternoon and tuned in to SSB on Radio Shortbread. Within 2 minutes I was absolutely astounded to hear an exchange between the various pundits. Pundit #1 had advanced his thoughts that if he had to name an SPFL Championship 1st XI, he could not include any TRFC players as none would pass muster. Several other pundits muttered agreement only for (I think) Rob McLean to breathlessly dive in with ‘apart from Lewis McLeod ….. backdated’.
Where to start!
bfbpuzzled says:
January 25, 2015 at 5:27 pm
I’m sure we are going to read a lot from the usual MSM suspects of why TRFC should not rise to the bait and involve themselves in an unseemly row with some Celtic supporters. The bears will similarly be discouraged from pursuing the matter.
Although the MSM’s total effort has been to discredit the advert, at least it is being mentioned outwith the Herald. Quite a coup for the guys at CQN, and free publicity from those hacks that claim the Celtic fans involved have wasted £3000 on one advert!
Every shop i entered today the Herald newspapers had all gone.
AJ
I think you are correct. Despite the predictable outcry today amongst Rangers fans, none of them are daft enough to take this to the ASA. If any of them are, the more clued-up amongst them will put a stop to it tout suite.
The CQN thing has many imperfections, and I think a huge opportunity to extend the franchise and exponentially increase it’s effectiveness was missed.
Despite this, it has actually put Beardom in an awkward place. Ignore it and invite the inference that it’s true and accurate – challenge it and roll some heavily (and unfavourably) loaded dice in the hope that the ASA agrees that black is in fact white.
Not a bet I would make with my last fiver ..
Of course, CQN could just complain to the ASA themselves 🙂
Edit: bfbpuzzled – Apologies. You got there before me 🙂
bfbpuzzled says:
January 25, 2015 at 5:27 pm
Might be some mileage in someone here to do the complaining to the ASA since any TRFC fan with an ounce of nous might see it is wholly accurate.
________________________________________________________________
You’re giving them too much credit! None of the comments on Rangers Media are even thinking about what it says. Too busy pointing out how obsessed CFC fans are and how they are totally unable to accept the ‘reality’ (theirs) that it IS indeed the same club, as proven by all the usual suspects – LNS, ASA, SFA/SPFL websites, Neil Doncaster, Donald Finlay (who has apparently recanted and set the record straight as to what he meant), Martin O’Neill, Dermot Desmond et al. It’s simply not getting through their filters sufficiently even to make them question what it is saying, I’m afraid.
This Ashley loan without encumbering the stadium if correct screams someone in Celtic’s colours , unsure which owns the creaky castle.
When this scandal began to emerge, via sites like CQN and RTC, I entered into e- mail correspondence with David Hills, of Said and Done fame, in an effort to gain the attention of the Observer.
To his credit, he raised the subject at editorial level, but eventually came back to me with the news that, due to costs, etc., most sports departments just took their stories from the PA and wire services.
Hence, I suppose, the same hymn sheet views from the media.
I wild gave thought that Kevin Mc.Kenna, of that paper, with his Scottish background, would have told the truth.
However, Hugh Mc.Ilvanney remains my major disappointment re journalistic integrity.
PS.,
As a last chance, I tweeted Hills with the link to James Forrest’s excellent piece.
Interesting reaction to the Advert. The only groups who seem to challenge any of its assertions are the professional liars of the SMSM, the Peepul and a significant minority of Celtic Old Firm junkies. Every fan I meet of every other club knows that they are a new entity. Only the Glasgow bubble and the Press cling on to the Old Firm lie. Dons, Jambos, Hibees, Arabs to a man know the truth already.
Our database server has been attacked and knocked over this evening. I’m not reading anything into the timing just yet (besides, it wasn’t us who did the advert 🙂 )
I’ll continue to keep a watching brief and will keep you in the loop if there are developments.
TSFM says:
January 25, 2015 at 10:07 pm
Yip I noticed. Tried to get on several times and there was an error. Surprise surprise!! Keep up the good work. 🙂
I notice there has been some talk of having a TSFM ad campaign in the style of the CQN initiative. Whilst I am attracted to the idea, the sums being talked about are way out of TSFM’s league, either in terms of reserves or ability to raise funds.
In order to be able to carry out that kind of thing, we would really need a site sponsor who bought into and believed in the TSFM ethos. Since most potential sponsors in this part of the world are usually looking to sell goods or services to Rangers fans, I fear the silence of the cash registers is a sure way to suspend that belief. Trust me, we have tried 🙁
As Iceman and others have observed,the supporters of TRFC seem to be living in their own little bubble and up until recently I have pitied them more than anything else.I hope I can still afford such disdain after next week.
“..one can declare an identity until the cows come home but if people go “yeah right” then its not going to work” Grayson Perry.
Who are You Channel 4 2014
TSFM says:
January 25, 2015 at 10:14 pm
________________________________________
Please ask again for contributions for such an initiative and I’m sure you’ll be successful. I know we all have different circumstances but if we all put in what we can afford we will do it.
With the CQN statement today I’m sure we can expect the media in our land to turn their fire on the messenger and ignore the message.
Perhaps the reporters of the various newspapers should be asked to defend their own publications who all, with no exception, declared Rangers dead when the CVA was rejected.
After all why should we all believe them now when they have so clearly been wrong in the past. Is the truth a coin that you toss and, depending on whether it is heads or tails, the truth varies accordingly.
Perhaps a newspaper, any newspaper, should write an opinion piece, without attaching a name, defending their stance on the RFC/’The Rangers’ conundrum. After all they told the world RFC were dead only for them to declare them alive and well.
When Charles Green declared “I bought the ‘istory” even he must have been surprised how readily this nonsense was accepted. This in turn allowed him to dupe, oops there’s that word again, thousands of people into parting with their cash at the IPO as well as season ticket money.
The problem for the media here is that, in perpetrating the great lie, they themselves are culpable in the crisis in Scottish football. They have fundamental failed to provide a balanced debate or to ask open questions of the SFA, the former SFL or SPL.
Simple questions regarding why, if it is the same club, were ‘The Rangers’ relegated?
If it is the same club why were they not allowed to participate in the seeded sections of the domestic cup competitions the following season after finishing second in the SPL?
Answer these simple questions without compounding the issue with the ‘holding company’ lie and then print the answers.
Even if they do use the ‘holding company’ lie ask why they were docked points as the club was not in administration. Indeed according to this new interpretation no club can ever be docked points simply because a club, being an indefinable entity, can never default on any payments because it has no legal standing.
Indeed going further how can a club buy and register players as it has no legal basis.
What a tangled web we weave…………..
Hi TSFM, could we not have a separate pot so to speak where we could donate specifically for an ad. Understand that the priority is to keep the site up and running and just throwing a suggestion out.
Christyboy
It would definitely have to be a separate pot – a fighting fund so to speak – but shiny gold things are scarce, and the current financial arrangements barely get us by at the moment – thanks to the generosity of the hosting company (as well as our subscribers).
I am also concerned that such an initiative would burn a metaphorical hole in our pockets. Like TRFC, maybe we need a line of credit so we can respond quickly to events, and then rely on our readership to pay it all back 🙂
Seriously though, a one-off approach to this problem is swimming against a very strong rip-tide. A proper fight back in the mainstream media would need to be periodical. From that point of view it would be better to try to grow our online readership. The publicity generated by the reaction to the CQN ad was not only publicity for the people who placed the ad – it helped to perpetuate the myth that the mainstream media is vitally important in getting a message across.
Even if that statement were true, each day in the online age makes it less so.
Very glad to see the antagonistic edges were taken off the draft and that the advert mainly focussed on the issue at hand. It was good to read.
Speaking for myself, I’d be very happy to contribute to a separate fund to pay for another advert publicly asking relevant questions of the SFA and SPFL, as previously outlined.
I think if TSFM is to do it, it should be done quickly, to keep up the momentum and to show that there is wider support for the CQN thoughts.
iceman63 says:
January 25, 2015 at 8:14 pm
37
0
Rate This
Interesting reaction to the Advert. The only groups who seem to challenge any of its assertions are the professional liars of the SMSM, the Peepul and a significant minority of Celtic Old Firm junkies. Every fan I meet of every other club knows that they are a new entity. Only the Glasgow bubble and the Press cling on to the Old Firm lie. Dons, Jambos, Hibees, Arabs to a man know the truth already.
_______________________________________________
The DR website version is running a poll ‘do you agree with the sentiment of this advert?’
Earlier today it was yes 53, bot 46.
A few minutes ago it was yes 56, no 44.
Very unscientific, but perhaps not what they expected!?
(Wonder if Donald Findlay QC voted? )
TSFM – Perpetuating the myth re MSM.
The aim is to smoke out the SFA/SPFL; there’s no need for an extensive campaign, once the question is out, and if no answer is made, supporters then take to emailing SFA and radio stations demanding an answer.
What the advert does is to provide focus for one simple question to be asked, rather than convoluted and tricky arguments having to be made to get the point across – it leaves little wriggle room to manouevre away from addressing the issue i.e. why wont the SFA answer the questions posted by TSFM in the Sunday Herald?
It also provides a simple point of reference for other fans who may be less animated but equally worried.
I think the positives considerably outweigh the negatives.
Edit: I also think it could be worded in such a way as to send a message to the MSM that we won’t accept their amateurism any further AND to the SFA that this matter will not go away.
Hopefully, when the inevitable skulduggery rears its head again, it will help focus and coalesce concerted fan action across all clubs.
I think the fact that any poll run by a red-top can’t blow the thing out of the water once and for all on behalf of the Liquidation Deniers is a startling one. On the basis that you should never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to (and are happy with it) 🙂
It might be fun though if by this time tomorrow the numbers have changed to 2% YES and 99% NO 🙂
On the gloomier side, it is quite likely that another boycott of any newspapers likely to take ads such as this will force said newspapers to refuse to place further notices.
There have already been noises over in the Den about that very thing.
Its been good to see that with all their multi multi millions, a number of EPL clubs struggled over this weekend. Money can buy you great individuals, but not necessarily a great team. In the 1980s before Alex Ferguson, Man united regularly bought great players but could only challenge for cups.
Big Pink says:
January 25, 2015 at 11:23 pm
1 0 Rate This
I think the fact that any poll run by a red-top can’t blow the thing out of the water once and for all on behalf of the Liquidation Deniers is a startling one. On the bsis that you should never ask a question you don’t already know the answer to (and are happy with it) 🙂
It might be fun though if by this time tomorrow the numbers have changed to 2% YES and 99% NO 🙂
==========
Or they may simply remove the poll when it becomes obvious which way the wind is blowing.
Might be interesting however, if they get a lot of Yes responses, will they reconsider their approach to reporting the story? We are often told the reason they follow the preferred then-now-forever narrative is that they have to appeal to their readership.
Felt it appropriate to buy a copy of the SH today, there was only one copy left at Asda
On another point I was at a dinner last night and was speaking with a Rangers man. Everybody is guilty apart from SDM which amazed me, he argued that he never broke the law and only took money that was given to him by the bankers as everyone did at that time. He did not accept that he was the foundation for Rangers downfall. EBT’s wasn’t breaking the law, that was legal and he insisted the man had never broke the law and therefore could not be described as a Spiv, like Green & Whyte. In some ways SDM hasn’t been charged with anything (that I’m aware of)so in some ways he’s correct. He eventually walked away from me, he wasn’t for hearing anything more.
Hamerdoon says:
January 25, 2015 at 11:06 pm
TSFM – Perpetuating the myth re MSM.
The aim is to smoke out the SFA/SPFL; there’s no need for an extensive campaign, once the question is out, and if no answer is made, supporters then take to emailing SFA and radio stations demanding an answer.
What the advert does is to provide focus for one simple question to be asked, rather than convoluted and tricky arguments having to be made to get the point across – it leaves little wriggle room to manouevre away from addressing the issue i.e. why wont the SFA answer the questions posted by TSFM in the Sunday Herald?
It also provides a simple point of reference for other fans who may be less animated but equally worried.
I think the positives considerably outweigh the negatives.
Edit: I also think it could be worded in such a way as to send a message to the MSM that we won’t accept their amateurism any further AND to the SFA that this matter will not go away.
Hopefully, when the inevitable skulduggery rears its head again, it will help focus and coalesce concerted fan action across all clubs.
=================
Apologies for the amount of reading to follow but it requires copying over UEFA articles in order to ask the SFA a simple question.
Article 12 – Definition of licence applicant
1 A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsible for a football team participating in national and international competitions which either:
a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league (hereinafter: registered member); or
b) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: football company).
2 The membership and the contractual relationship (if any) must have lasted – at the start of the licence season – for at least three consecutive years. Any alteration to club’s legal form or company structure (including, for example, changing its headquarters, name club colours, or transferring stakeholdings
between different clubs) during this period in order to facilitate its qualification on sporting merit and/or its receipt of a licence to the detriment of the integrity of a competition is deemed as an interruption of membership or contractual relationship (if any) within the meaning of this provision.
Article 45 – Written contract with a football company
1 If the licence applicant is a football company as defined in Article 12(1b), it must provide a written contract of assignment with a registered member.
2 The contract must stipulate the following, as a minimum:
a) The football company must comply with the applicable statutes, regulations, directives and decisions of FIFA, UEFA, the UEFA member association and its affiliated league.
b) The football company must not further assign its right to participate in a competition at national or international level.
c) The right of this football company to participate in such a competition ceases to apply if the assigning club’s membership of the association ceases.
d) If the football company is put into bankruptcy or enters liquidation, this is deemed to be an interruption of membership or contractual relationship within the meaning of Article 12. For the sake of clarity, should the licence
have already been granted to the football company, then it cannot be transferred from the football company to the registered member.
e) The UEFA member association must be reserved the right to approve the name under which the football company participates in the national competitions.
f) The football company must, at the request of the competent national arbitration tribunal or CAS, provide views, information, and documents on matters regarding the football company’s participation in the national and/or international competition.
3 The contract of assignment and any amendment to it must be approved by the UEFA member association and/or its affiliated league.
ANNEX I: Exceptions policy
ANNEX I: Exceptions policy
B. Principle
1. The UEFA administration may, in accordance with Article 4, grant exceptions on the following matters:
a) Non-applicability of a minimum requirement concerning the decision-making bodies or process defined in Article 7 due to national law or any other reason;
b) Non-applicability of a minimum requirement concerning the core process defined in Article 9 due to national law or any other reason;
c) Non-applicability of a minimum assessment procedure defined in Article 10 due to national law or any other reason;
d) Non-applicability of the three-year rule defined in Article 12(2) in case of change of legal form or company structure of the licence applicant on a case by-
case basis;
e) Non-applicability of a certain criterion defined in part II, chapter 3 due to national law or any other reason;
f) Extension of the introduction period for the implementation of a criterion or a category of criterion defined in part II, chapter 3.
2. Exceptions related to items a), b), c), e) and f) are granted to a UEFA member association and apply to all clubs which are registered with the UEFA member association and which submit a licensing application to enter the UEFA club
competitions. Exceptions related to item d) are granted to the individual club that applies for a licence.
3. In principle an exception is granted for a period of one season. Under specific circumstances this period may be extended and the UEFA member association may be placed on an improvement plan.
4. A renewal of the exception is possible upon a new request.
C. The process
1. The UEFA administration acts as the first instance decision-making body on exception requests.
2. An exception request must be in writing, clear and well founded.
3. Exceptions related to items defined under A(1)(a, b, c, e and f) must be submitted by the UEFA member association to the UEFA administration by the deadline communicated by the latter.
4. Exceptions related to the item defined under A(1)(d) can be submitted at any time. A licensor notified of the reorganisation or restructuring of an affiliated club
(e.g. change of legal form, merger of clubs, split of club, liquidation or bankruptcy) is responsible for notifying the UEFA administration accordingly as soon as it becomes aware of it.
5. The UEFA administration uses the necessary discretion to grant any exception within the limits of these regulations.
6. The status and situation of football within the territory of the UEFA member association will be taken into account when granting an exception. This encompasses, for example:
a) size of the territory, population, geography, economic background;
b) size of the UEFA member association (number of clubs, number of registered players and teams, size and quality of the administration of the association, etc.);
c) the level of football (professional, semi-professional or amateur clubs);
d) status of football as a sport within the territory and its market potential (average attendance, TV market, sponsorship, revenue potential, etc.);
e) UEFA coefficient (association and its clubs) and FIFA ranking;
f) stadium ownership situation (club, city/community, etc.) within the association;
g) support (financial and other) from the national, regional and local authorities, including the national sports ministry.
7. The decision will be communicated to the UEFA member association. The decision must be in writing and state the reasoning. The UEFA member association must then communicate it to all licence applicants concerned.
8. Appeals can be lodged against decisions made by the UEFA administration in writing before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in accordance with the relevant provisions laid down in the UEFA Statutes.
There are a few questions arising from this e.g when RFC applied for UEFA license before 2012 was it under 1a) of Art 12 or 1b) and did a written contract of assignment exist?
However the simple question for the SFA if any accredited journo wants to put it is:-
Did you notify UEFA that RFC had been liquidated as required by Annex 1 (C) para 4, when was it and what form did that notification take?
Supplementary
Was an exception request made or were UEFA simply notified of the event and
What was UEFA’s response? It is taken as read that TRFC (Newco) could not play in Europe until it had achieved three years uninterrupted membership of the SFA. That is the accepted wisdom but as three year will have passed before TRFC will be able to apply on sporting merit did UEFA apply Article 12 on the information that you supplied them?
How does whatever you told UEFA tie in with your ambiguous stance re TRFC being a continuation of RFC under football guidance issued by UEFA to protect sporting integrity?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtic-fans-spark-storm-protest-5040733
The Celtic fans statement provoked a mixed reaction. Last month, SPFL chief executive Neil Doncaster was adamant that the Ibrox side were “absolutely” the same club. This stance is also backed up legally by Lord Nimmo Smith’s report which saw Rangers’ history remain intact.
_________
legally 😯
they have no shame
andy says:
January 26, 2015 at 12:51 am
I’m not sure if it iss shamelessness, or simply that they are too thick to understand how the LNS commission worked, and too bloody lazy to ask!
briggsbhoy says:
January 26, 2015 at 12:14 am
7
0
Rate This
Felt it appropriate to buy a copy of the SH today, there was only one copy left at Asda
On another point I was at a dinner last night and was speaking with a Rangers man. Everybody is guilty apart from SDM which amazed me, he argued that he never broke the law and only took money that was given to him by the bankers as everyone did at that time. He did not accept that he was the foundation for Rangers downfall. EBT’s wasn’t breaking the law, that was legal and he insisted the man had never broke the law and therefore could not be described as a Spiv, like Green & Whyte. In some ways SDM hasn’t been charged with anything (that I’m aware of)so in some ways he’s correct. He eventually walked away from me, he wasn’t for hearing anything more.
==============
PM me for an E mail addy and I’ll give you a copy of where MIH lied to HMRC in 2005.
SDM launched RFC on the ebt path. He picked the wrong ebts and switched later to the ones under appeal.
Why lie if you think what you are doing is legal.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/row-zed/old-firm-derby-celtic-fans-5040788
Strange the different take in the DR’s English based sister paper
scapaflow says:
January 26, 2015 at 1:01 am
andy says:
January 26, 2015 at 12:51 am
I’m not sure if it is shamelessness, or simply that they are too thick to understand how the LNS commission worked, and too bloody lazy to ask!
================
I’ve been looking at what was said by LNS and why, for I did wonder why he was pronouncing on the same club debate at all when the Commissions was about ebts and side letters.
Then I realised from reading two documents that the first time that he made his statement was in Sept 2012 and then that was repeated in the final Commission Decision.
My reading of the first Decision is that it was that Newco raised the issue and protested about any punishments being laid at their door for Oldco’s behaviour.
The SPL statement of case which LNS dealt with in September 2012 quite clearly shows the SPL saw RFC’s existence ending on 14 June although there was then a debate about whether it was then or 3 August.
However for the purposes of justifying the Commission and its later findings LNS rules as he did
(4) There were sanctions which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which were capable of affecting Rangers FC as a continuing entity now owned and operated by Newco.
I would argue, but hope others with a grasp of the detail of the September Decision and the final one of 2013 will check, that had Newco not argued they were not liable for punishments because of Oldco’s action, (as they now are in terms of paying the £250k fine) Lord Nimmo Smith would not have entered the same club territory at all. It was not the purpose of the Commission, it was simply a response to a defensive tactic by the new owners to save them from the consequences of what they had bought into.
I would further argue that LNS only made the statement in September in terms of rules that The Commission and only the Commission had to observe and not to make a statement for wider footballing applicability that flies in the face of UEFA’s stance (see my earlier post) which is what his statement in the final Decision has morphed into.
I have uploaded that earlier decision
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B62m3ggkEX2RNnBuS214VFNQZHc/view?usp=sharing
in the hope that others will check it out and give their views on my view. The danger in looking for something is you find what you want to and not what is there.
That Doncaster has seized on LNS to argue against the case the SPL actually put in 2012, that he has not even justified his Xmas statement by reference to the SPL’s position pre Sept 2012 and how LNS simply gave the SPL the power in 2012 the mete out a punishment to Newco in 2013 is for Doncaster to answer.
Depending on feedback perhaps he could be asked.
(and in rant mode LNS had vital evidence kept from him which in my view nullifies the whole Commission.
Allyjambo says:
January 25, 2015 at 2:24 pm
“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?”
—————————————-
Sevco 5088 got exclusivity to champion their CVA deal (see section 4.19 of linked document). Part of the CVA proposal was that if a CVA was not agreed then an asset sale would result (section 4.23).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/152313313/Rangers-Cva-Proposal
HirsutePursuit says:
January 26, 2015 at 1:23 am
4
0
Rate This
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/row-zed/old-firm-derby-celtic-fans-5040788
Strange the different take in the DR’s English based sister paper
“The intense rivalry between the two sides ran for decades up until Rangers went into liquidation and eventually folded in 2012, a time when ‘the new Rangers’ started at the foot of Scottish football.”
Yup. Just a pity they posted an early draft of the advert. They have been telt.
Re the “Telling of Truths”, advert.
This blog,imo,is seen as anti-therangers by a sizeable portion of the smsm,and that we are only here,to bring about their downfall. Maybe not true,but can be portrayed as such.
I would willingly donate money to help get the “truths” stated and re-stated and if it has to be TSFM as the conduit,then so be it.
A better way,imo,would be some of the better supported clubs fans to continue the” telling of truths”. or some of the fans of clubs joining together,(may be difficult).
Come on you Jambos,Arabs,Hibees,Dees,Dandy Dons,Lichties or even the Doonhamers!
P.s Its still a bloody good read on this blog.
We could be Lichties,just for one day!
http://www.footballcourier.com/news/story/3751214/rangers-gearing-up-for-old-firm-clash-and-their-legends-hit-back/full_story.html
I dont know where to start with this story that has appeared in the mail online today. A number of Rangers ‘legends’ spoke out yesterday regarding the newspaper advert. The tone set by the journalist is one thing, but to read about Rangers ‘always acting with dignity’ is appalling. If dignity involves the theft of at least £21M from the UK taxpayer, with possibly more to come, then they are welcome to it.
Castofthousands says:
January 26, 2015 at 1:55 am
Sevco 5088 got exclusivity to champion their CVA deal (see section 4.19 of linked document). Part of the CVA proposal was that if a CVA was not agreed then an asset sale would result (section 4.23).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/152313313/Rangers-Cva-Proposal
________________________
But did the creditors vote to accept this, or was it presented as a fait acommpli? From my dodgy memory, D&P expected to be given the liquidator job, but were blocked by HMRC. Perhaps they acted prematurely and outwith their authority?
I don’t know, and as I said, probably barking up a wrong tree, but I’ve never read any reasoning as to why the creditors would vote to reject a CVA but agree to accept a smaller sum for all the assets of the company. I know the CVA would have meant that Green bought Rangers as a going concern, and so would be enhanced by the brand’s goodwill, but later, in RIFC’s first accounts, it was shown that the brand had negative goodwill, which would surely lead us to expect the assets to be worth more without the ‘goodwill’ factor.
The way that D&P presented the package always smacked of coercion to me, a sort of – ‘if you don’t accept x you’re only going to get y’ kind of thing, but I do concede that this might actually be normal, or occasional, practise.
What we do know is the men running the administration process are now in court over their handling of it, and this, or other questionable actions surrounding the sale of the assets, might well be a factor in blocking any moves to take security over the heritable assets. If I recall correctly, Edmiston House and the car park were bought from Murray after the sale to Green of the rest of the assets, and so were available as security.
Whether or not I am barking up the wrong tree, there must be some doubt, until the court case is heard, over the validity of the sale of assets to Green, and this may well add to the list of possible encumbrances over Ibrox and MP. A list that’s not necessarily a ‘pick one of’ list, but ‘perm any number from’ 🙄
upthehoops says:
January 26, 2015 at 6:59 am
I don’t value the opinions of professional footballers on matters more complex than team formations, so will avoid that article in the DR. Thanks, though, for confirming my valuation of footballers’ opinions 🙄
It is worth noting, though, how, with the declining standards of sports journalism, the opinion of players is sought more often, with no attempt by the writer to explain why someone who has lived their life in the football bubble should have anything of value to say over financial or legal matters – they leave all that to their agent, or so they tell us when pressed on personal matters!
Auldheid says:
January 26, 2015 at 1:47 am
__________________________
http://www.tsfm.scot/bonkers-ocnc-thread/comment-page-2/#comment-8294
LNS accepted an interpretation of the SPL AoA and rules as they were presented by “the prosecution” and not disputed by “the defence”.
The meaning of “Club” can only be determined by the context in which it is used.
Although they did not use the term, LNS could have transposed Club with Franchise.
The LNS ruling has no bearing or consequences on the meaning of “club” as understood by the AoA and rules of the SFA and/or UEFA.
thepinkpanther says:
January 26, 2015 at 2:13 am
28 1 Rate This
Re the “Telling of Truths”, advert.
This blog,imo,is seen as anti-therangers by a sizeable portion of the smsm,and that we are only here,to bring about their downfall. Maybe not true,but can be portrayed as such…
———
Irony is, that the past 3 years of chaos at Ibrox has been, in large part, caused by the failure to tell fans the simple truth. The MSM has aided Charles Green and everyone else who’s walked into Ibrox — those who’ve earned massively on the back of the myth.
One day, the fans who’ve been misled so completely might just see what’s actually happened. But that’ll probably be when they have to start 3rd Rangers or just grow fired of living in servitude to the owners of Sports Direct Sevco. Dearie me, think of the money the fans have spent and how little they’ve got to show for it. Could have had a proper new club and their own stadium for what’s already been wasted.
DR poll seems currently to be 57-43% in favour of the sentiments in the ad!
Allyjambo says:
January 26, 2015 at 7:58 am
From what I remember, the CVA proposal was blocked by HMRC, as I fully expected it would be, since accepting a CVA would have totally gone against HMRC’s own published guidance. Because of the size of HMRC’s claim, they were in a position to block any CVA proposal on their own.
A vote was taken at a meeting of creditors- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18441178 – but given the voting power of HMRC, that meeting was simply a formality.
I believe that the sale agreement was negotiated with Green by D&P without the direct involvement of the creditors, which is in line with normal practice as I understand it. However that transaction is currently the subject of criminal proceedings, so perhaps it would not be appropriate to comment further.
The same club belief.
No one, the MSM, SFA, SPL and uncle Tom Cobley, were under any illusion that liquidation didn’t mean the end. Even Charles Green, and a whole host of RRMs told us it was the end of 140 years of history. Then one day Charles Green changed his mind. This man, without a legal qualification, other than those acquired in the life of a spiv, was then accepted without question as the authority on the matter, and his reverse of opinion was never questioned by those who should have been the first to question it. He told them he’d bought the history (for the first time in history!!) and they believed him (well, saw it, and him, as an answer to their prayers).
There was then a whole procession of ludicrous proclamations from this man, almost 100% of them proving to be lies or untruths. The bears, the MSM, and I’m sure the football authorities, want him to stay away from Ibrox for the damage he has done to their favourite club. There are a few voices in the wilderness, I suppose, that still think he was a messiah, but generally no one sees him now as being much different from Craig Whyte. Everyone knows he tells lies.
And yet, there is one thing that he said, one thing that he alone said, that has set up the greatest myth ever in Scottish football. Everything that has happened, and there’s precious little, to back his words, has happened AFTER he pronounced his club was the same as the old one. Without that claim there would have been no 5 way agreement, and so no need for Doncaster to make his pronouncement, even almost 3 years after the event. Without any ‘Rangers’, other than an unconnected, totally new, Rangers (though accepted by the fans as their replacement), there would have been no need for LNS to mention anything about a continuation under SPL rules, for there would have been no club to pass any ‘football debts’ onto.
A man who tells lies and untruths for a very lucrative living has told one lie that his victims desperately want to believe. That lie enabled him to persuade his victims to part with their own money. It enabled him to persuade others, financial institutions, to part with other peoples’ money. He has made a pretty penny out of that lie.
A classic piece of spivery!
And still they believe the lie, the man they believe to be a liar, told them. They believe it because they want to, and because they need to!
Allyjambo says:
January 26, 2015 at 7:58 am
. . . this may well add to the list of possible encumbrances over Ibrox and MP
=======================================================================
I have always had the feeling that MP might not be encumbered quite simply because it wasn’t in the slightly longer term plan.
It was a money-burner and Whyte, if anyone, would have known that. So I think it was for the chop and possibly one of the reasons it was never re-named as it kept alive part of the stigma from DM’s financial stewardship.
It’s also worth remembering that Mather when he arrived spent IIRC 6 months there as DoF before becoming Rangers’ Ch Ex. He very much had a sporting background and was a partner in a sporting agency with footballers on the books.
He was ideally placed to have a look at the youngsters and flog them on. It didn’t happen probably because Sevco has been blown off course by events on a number of occasions.
But as I posted last week it was significant that MP and Ibrox were in the advance notice wrt security issued to the Land Registry but MP wan’t mentioned in the AIM Notice which followed.
IIRC I also mentioned that a source had told me that MP had ‘gone’. I went back to him yesterday to ask whether he was definite that his info was that it was ‘gone’ meaning sold and not merely security for a loan.
He said he was told it had been sold although he didn’t know when the sale would be concluded. He did point out – as if anyone needs to be reminded – that decisions are taken and reversed at Ibrox faster than our weather changes and often more dramatically.
Actually he didn’t use those words but referred to the speed at which the breeks of the world’s oldest profession were lowered and raised.
So I await with interest to see whether we have an AIM Regulatory Notice today or not and whether it tells the whole story or not. That should not be taken as implying any misdeeds but simply that the notice may well be overtaken by future events down Ibrox Way.
You could start a fitba’ team with the amount of glib and shameless liars involved in the Govan shambles.
Of course they would have to start in the bottom tier.
upthehoops says:
January 26, 2015 at 6:59 am
http://www.footballcourier.com/news/story/3751214/rangers-gearing-up-for-old-firm-clash-and-their-legends-hit-back/full_story.html
I dont know where to start with this story that has appeared in the mail online today. A number of Rangers ‘legends’ spoke out yesterday regarding the newspaper advert. The tone set by the journalist is one thing, but to read about Rangers ‘always acting with dignity’ is appalling. If dignity involves the theft of at least £21M from the UK taxpayer, with possibly more to come, then they are welcome to it.
=======================================================
I’ve never got too hung-up over their ‘Dignity’ thing because it’s obvious that their ‘Dignity’ isn’t mine.
I was brought-up in a poor working class background where the spectres of joblessness, hunger and the poorse hoose was never far from the door.
But I came to learn what Dignity meant because I watched my grandparents and mum show it every day of their lives by working whenever work was available, not stealing from all the other desperate people who stayed in the tenements, not borrowing money – although the pawn was often a lifesaver – paying bills on time and somehow managing to save a few pennies every week against the all too real possibility that times could be even harder.
That by and large was the lot of a helluva lot of Irish immigrant families to Scotland. And it made me the person I became.
I’m not an eternal optimist because I know too well that life can destroy many good people who become exhausted by the day to day struggle for survival and simply give up.
But I also know that there is hope for many Rangers fans to recognise that parts of their history and actions as a ‘club’ contain no ‘Dignity’ and have to be consigned to the dustbin and a new history and credo of sporting integrity and living within their means built.
With that will come a slow and steady growth of a Dignity shared by other clubs. It’s not an easy road and many mistakes are made along the way by most clubs including Celtic.
But we also need a total root and branch howking-oot of our rotten, corrupt and secret system of football governance. And WE the fans have to ensure that all our clubs not only support that but actually bring it about.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/opinion/sport/keith-jackson-celtic-v-rangers-5043134
Jackson in the Record, if anyone can be bothered reading it. Our esteemed press corps, having poured a few gallons of petrol on the bonfire, now find it to be uncomfortably hot.
Newspapers live much more by advertising revenue than they do by paper sales so i had a chuckle reading the Mirror piece that told us Celtic fans had gone to ” extreme lengths” by, gosh, taking out an advert in a newspaper!!!!!
Silly boys.
What are they all like?
Castofthousands says:
January 26, 2015 at 1:55 am
Allyjambo says:
January 25, 2015 at 2:24 pm
“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?”
—————————————-
Sevco 5088 got exclusivity to champion their CVA deal (see section 4.19 of linked document). Part of the CVA proposal was that if a CVA was not agreed then an asset sale would result (section 4.23).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/152313313/Rangers-Cva-Proposal
==============================================================
Worth remembering that Sevco 5088 didn’t simply ‘get’ exclusivity rights from D&P. They had to pay £200k for the rights.
If I were an end of times type as is popular among televangelists I would have to say that
has all the hallmarks of the antichrist. He came among chaos and appeared to make things right leading the people into the promised land. Then he showed his satanic side by enriching himself from the proceeds of the people’s offerings. Not only that but he was seen to have told many lies. Yet still they believed his greatest lie that things were back to how they always had been and the sheep would not be separated from the :slamb: or goats. As others talked of Armageddon the Antichrist looked on from afar knowing that the 4 horsemen were in bother because he had all the horses. He knew that there would be an Armageddon but only of the small local variety on the south side of a River named after a wandering football club who wore red white and black.
jimmci says:
January 26, 2015 at 9:53 am
Newspapers live much more by advertising revenue than they do by paper sales so i had a chuckle reading the Mirror piece that told us Celtic fans had gone to ” extreme lengths” by, gosh, taking out an advert in a newspaper!!!!!
Silly boys.
What are they all like?
========================================================
I’ll tell you what they’re like. The Record and Scottish Sun will be getting their asses kicked today from London demanding to know why the Sunday Herald got the ad and not their own ad departments.
It will not be lost on London that football fans have chosen not to use what would normally be seen as the fitbaw papers to carry their message.
I have yo say I am quite surprised by the publicicty generated by the CQN Ad. That’s no criticism of the ad but how papers work. Often when one paper gets an exclusive the others totally ignore the story as ‘proof’ that it isn’t actually important.
Sometimes they might try to pick holes in it but if there aren’t any that doesn’t work.
I am wondering the last ad in a Scottish Newspaper that has actually generated UK-wide coverage and as much comment as this one. From I heard of it I thought it was a good idea and might have some impact.
I still think it was a good idea but Bhoy did I totally get the impact factor wrong 😳
And of course on Rangers Forums they are flooded with ‘We don’t care posts’ and ‘Just proves they’re obsessed with us’. Oh yea! One ad has had an enormously wider reach and impact than 12 months of unfounded State Aid allegations and their corrupt and failed anti-HMRC petition.
In the hundreds and hundreds of posts I haven’t seen one that attempt to rebut the points made with the nearest being: ‘It’s not worth replying we know the truth’ 😆
So do we mate and so does the rest of the UK.
Auldheid
Sorry Auldheid, I didn’t explain myself very well. The advert would ask several questions. My point about one single question is that in trying to get the SFA to engage, or to phone radio stations, the enquirer or caller would simply ask one simple question – why won’t the SFA answer the questions posted by TSFM in the Herald?
It is that single point of reference that becomes the focus, without the need to talk about the surrounding issues; it is then up to the responder to address the questions or indicate they won’t answer.
In effect, it simplifies the approach, making it easier for fans to rally around. I can see banners at games with the simple refrain – ANSWER THE QUESTIONS – TSFM logo at the bottom!! All in respective club colours. Ok……. Getting carried away now, but hopefully you get my drift.
Auldheid says:
January 26, 2015 at 1:47 am
You’re totally correct that it came from the pre-hearing discussions to deal with preliminary matters and set the framework for the actual hearing.
I have been mulling over the issue for a few weeks now but keep getting blown off-course mainly through pressing personal and business issues. However your post has given my thoughts a bit of structure and hopefully I’ll manage to put my thoughts into words this week if they make sense 😉
ecobhoy says:
January 26, 2015 at 9:57 am
1 0 Rate This
Castofthousands says:
January 26, 2015 at 1:55 am
Allyjambo says:
January 25, 2015 at 2:24 pm
“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?”
—————————————-
Sevco 5088 got exclusivity to champion their CVA deal (see section 4.19 of linked document). Part of the CVA proposal was that if a CVA was not agreed then an asset sale would result (section 4.23).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/152313313/Rangers-Cva-Proposal
==============================================================
Worth remembering that Sevco 5088 didn’t simply ‘get’ exclusivity rights from D&P. They had to pay £200k for the rights.
_______________
would that be the 200k that whyte paid via imrans maw
DR January 25 2015
“CELTIC fans have triggered a storm of protest after they paid for a full page newspaper advert claiming Rangers are a new club and that the “Old Firm” derby was dead.”
—————————————————————-
“We are not quite sure who is doing the storming or the protesting”
Here are the results as at 26/01/2015
Yes 57%
No 43%
For some reason the comments section is closed on the Heralds’ article about Rangers legends, a host of them no less, expressing their opinions on the Celtic fans ad in the Sunday edition. Strange, that…..
It is very decent of Ronald de Boer and Alex McLeish to offer their services as spokesmen for the Celtic support. According to them, only 1% of Celtic fans agree with the ad content and we miss Rangers. Really?
I’ll have a pint of what they’re drinking.
While you are probably correct they are interlinked because if the number of the latter dropped significantly the revenues from the former would dry up PDQ. No point paying for adverts nobody will see 😈
This blog will, inevitably appear anti Rangers and anti SMSM. This blog seeks, as far as is possible to uncover, and to state the truth, as far as can be known.
Rangers , as presently constituted is built upon a verifiable, unanswerable lie.
the SMSM are proving to be the exact opposite of the purpose of a free and fair press, whose job is to uncover and to disseminate what it believes to be, and what is verifiably true, and are instead seeking to suppress truth when it should be discovered, and are disseminating falsehoods.
The problem is not that this blog is Anti Rangers and anti SMSM , it is that the truth is Anti-Rangers and anti SMSM, and that anyone who seeks to find and identify the truth will by definition be in opposition to both Rangers and the SMSM.
They are the problem we are one small, but important, part of the solution.
woodstein @10.24am
Well said and no matter what the DR’s ‘top sportswriter’ writes or how many times radio clyde plug ‘ the old firm’ match coming next Sunday ……….. We know they are a new club (the old one went into liquidation) and oc or nc whatever they see themselves as they are still skint and hanging on by the skin of their teeth???
I have often wondered what Green actually meant when he claimed to have “bought the history”. Can anyone explain what tangible thing or agreement he bought that would be described as history?
The only thing I can imagine that might meet the description of paying for the history would be if he paid the authorities for the right the claim continuation and/or paid them to promote the myth by listing all the honors of Rangers on the relevant TRFC pages of their websites.
Could he have paid for this privilege?
Of course I could be looking for a grain of truth in a statement from a man reputed for telling vast wheat fields of lies.
neepheid says:
January 26, 2015 at 9:50 am
So, it’s all our fault! According to Keith it is, and he should know, this man who brought us ‘wealth off the radar’ and so many other choice ‘facts’. Keith Jackson is so firmly in the realm of those who lack credibility, his criticism is as good as a recommendation for internet bampots, everywhere.
Go for it, Keith. We know you can spot a liar and charlatan at a thousand miles… after he’s left Glasgow with a suitcase full of other peoples’ money!
Matty Roth says:
January 26, 2015 at 10:38 am
I think he may well have paid the SFA/SPL for the history when he signed the 5 way agreement, by agreeing to pay the outstanding football debts.
While Keith Jackson was lauding the latest incumbents to the Ibrox throne, there were posters on RTC, many later moved to TSFM, who took the time to do some digging and came up with the dirt on both Whyte and Green, only to be ridiculed by Traynor, Jackson and the rest.
We all know who got it right.
We all know who is disparaging those who got it right, in the meanest of terms.
We all know who has got it wrong… again!
Lest we forget, the guys who bled Rangers to death:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18148818
The history attaches itself to the rights to use the brand name logos and other identifying aspects of that identity. Voigtlander stopped producing cameras in 1972 but the name was used by Rollei until 1982. In 1999 the name was revived by Cosina and one can buy Voigtlander equipment today branded ‘ Voigtlander Since 1756’ Everyone knows the truth but if I sell a Voigtlander lens I know that it has no connection to the real company but also that it has aspects of voigtlanderness which make for a very good price. If TRFC adherents admitted death and revivification there would be a lot more sympathy for them. Denial of truth is ludicrous