Staying On The Problem

ByBig Pink

Staying On The Problem

 

It’s not that I’m so smart, it’s just that I stay with problems longer.
Albert Einstein

The recent flurries of activity regarding the mis-governance of the Scottish Football authorities gave us some hope that perhaps the dam was about to be breached. Sadly, this has not proved to be the case. The independent TOG report, which highlighted the deeply flawed nature of the LNS inquiry and drew attention to the anomalous activities of the SFA in awarding Rangers FC a European competition licence in 2011, moved the discussion beyond the shores of Scotland. Subsequently, a letter from UEFA to lawyers representing Celtic shareholders reportedly confirmed that the licence had been awarded in contravention of the rules and protocols of the competition.

The TOG report concluded that there was a prima facie case suggesting that LNS had been misled, or misinformed. It suggested that Nimmo Smith may have been misled by SFA President Campbell Ogilvie when he gave evidence about the EBTs in operation at Ibrox, and that the SFA were unable or unwilling to ensure fair play in the game in Scotland. With respect to sanctions, LNS concluded that all EBTs were lawful and open to other clubs. This was of course factually incorrect, since despite the suspicious and comical FUBAR of the last-minute change to the terms of reference designed to exclude DOS EBTs, LNS still had sight of them.

The facts are pretty damning for the authorities. Rules were dispensed with over the licence issue, during which there appeared to be a curious request (to Rangers!) by the Chief Executive of the SFA for ‘permission’ to explain the SFA decision. On the SPFL side, terms of reference mentioned above were altered at the onset of the LNS inquiry to allow LNS to exclude the DOS EBTs, a strong indication that LNS was not only misled, but that he was deliberately led to the conclusion that the authorities desired.

The facts are there. So too is a very strong suspicion that evidence was falsified, and that erroneous conclusions were arrived at. The SFA/SPFL/MSM response? Silence. The same people who hold up their hands in horror at the IOC’s decision not to impose a blanket ban on Russia for alleged state-sponsored doping COMPLETELY ignore the cover up by our own authorities in the matter of systematic cheating and financial doping on our own doorstep.

The SFA, SPFL, the clubs, and their little helpers in the press are happy to sit by and enable cheating. Why? Because they see it as in their own interests?

If so. it must be personal self interest. What began as an understandable fear that tens of thousands of paying customers would be lost to the game has evolved into a trousers-at-the-ankles, Rixian farce of a cover-up.

There has been not one sentence of coherent rebuttal received from any of the above constituencies. Neither the SFA, the SPFL, the media, nor the clubs have even attempted to give us any justification for what went on.

The SFA are so rudderless and devoid of purpose that the Chief Executive feels justified in telling a group of people that he wouldn’t be motivated to do anything in response to systematic cheating, and an unremarkable former journalist turned PR operative can exclaim in a perfect study of un-self awareness, “I AM THE SFA!!” – whilst the President of that body smiles in senile obeisance, or childlike ignorance.

Yet those who present facts and ask serious questions about their behaviour are portrayed as bampots? If you weren’t a witness to this stuff as it happens, you would scarcely believe it.

There has been not one sentence of coherent rebuttal received from any of the above constituencies. Neither the SFA, the SPFL, the media, nor the clubs have even attempted to give us any justification for what went on.

Celtic have been (somewhat unfairly on occasion) on the wrong end of criticism from those of us who see the honesty of the game as paramount. They are only one club in a host of clubs whose interests have been crapped on by the failure of governance in the game in Scotland – and yet have done nothing to demonstrate their distaste for the rulebreaking.

David Murray may well have started this, but he fled the scene and lost his influence at Hampden long before the finish. Consequently, the clubs have failed the fans – wilfully so.

The Celtic issue though is more complicated. Unfortunately for them, they have a larger, and commensurately more powerful support than most – and that power was exercised by a group of their own shareholders who sought their own path to truth and justice. The fact that those shareholders gathered compelling evidence of wrongdoing at the SFA, took the trouble to set up official communications with the club, and that they then passed on their concerns along with that compelling evidence – certainly compelling enough to UEFA it seems – speaks volumes for their determination.

Our clubs are just not as invested in sporting integrity as the rest of us

That put Celtic in an uncomfortable place, but the fact that not one word of substance has emanated from them in support of those shareholders – despite the words of encouragement they may or may not have issued privately to the guys who took up the cause on the club’s behalf – is a plain enough message that they like their fellow clubs are just not as invested in sporting integrity as the rest of us.
My wholehearted and comprehensive contempt though is not reserved just for Celtic, despite the moral deficiency which has seen them ignore the excellent efforts of their shareholders to compel them to do the right thing.

My contempt is applied equally and liberally among all the clubs, for they are most deserving of it. We needn’t feel betrayed by the lackeys who run the SFA and SPFL. They do the bidding of the clubs – and the clubs alone.

Nor should we see the media as chief villains. The same media routinely print untruths and misinformation on a daily basis to deliberately mislead us on far more important issues than football. Hardly a betrayal from them – just western democracy.

The clubs tell us that ‘we are all in this together’, but in reality their real attitude is ‘us and them’

Hampden Towers

Hampden Towers
©Reganco

But the clubs’ betrayal of the sport and the fans is by far the most serious of all. They will tell us that ‘we are all in this together’, but in reality their real attitude is an ‘us and them’ one, digging moats around the boardroom to better defend themselves from fan participation. Based on the loyalty they know we all have for the colours, they think that with time this thing will go away, that the natives will calm down and the sophisticates in the boardrooms will see the order of things return to normal. One thing is certain – they certainly can’t all sign up Brendan Rogers (or equivalent) as manager each and every season ticket round!

But that is the game they are playing. Playing for time. Time that they hope will cloud the issue, to make it recede as a morning mist, and disappear completely in time for a free business lunch – business as usual.
Like Einstein says, being ready to spend a little more time on a problem pays dividends. Those with the wind of truth behind them don’t have to be particularly clever. They do have to be willing to spend as much time as necessary on the problem, and let the wind take them to where they need to be.

And they will get there, because those vested interests that deny the truth have (as we have shown) NOTHING to say. It is only a matter of time and patience – and staying on the problem.

It needn’t get nasty, it needn’t become abusive, it needn’t become complicated – but it might well get loud.

 

About the author

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

595 Comments so far

tayredPosted on1:18 pm - Aug 12, 2016


NAWLITEAUGUST 12, 2016 at 12:45 ———————————–The other day, 2 of the guys were trying to work out the odds of TRFC* getting 8 home draws in a row and were looking at it as (I think) 2 to the power of 8 (hence 255/1). I’m no statistician but I think it’s much more than this, is it not?I see where they’re coming from basing it on the number of rounds they have received a home draw with a 1 in 2 chance of a home draw happening, but surely that 1 in 2 chance happens every time an individual tie in the round is drawn, does it not?———————————–

Glad its not just me, i was thinking along similar lines but I couldn’t get my head round it, nor think of how to write my thoughts to enquire from the clever numerate folks here. I had rationalised it as coming down to simple home:away, 50:50, but it still niggles that there must be more to it than that degrees of freedom and all that….

Mathematics was always my downfall, I’m convinced I only found the urge to get my higher maths (at the second attempt) after my maths teacher told me “You’ll never pass higher maths”.

View Comment

bluPosted on1:21 pm - Aug 12, 2016


PADDY MALARKEYAUGUST 12, 2016 at 12:56
Paddy, I’ll save anyone else the trouble of saying any club has the right to postpone a match and take on a lucrative friendly at the beginning of the season. It’s an absurd situation that appears to favour two (one now?) teams and simply widens the £££ gap and reduces competitiveness in the league. Who came up with that idea?

View Comment

tayredPosted on1:22 pm - Aug 12, 2016


BORDERSDONAUGUST 12, 2016 at 13:17 
Wee question for Tayred. Did we not use the postponement provision last season (or the one before) due to fixture pile-ups during EL qualifiers? Not saying 2 wrongs make a right though.

—————————–

Yes, indeed we did. I’d completely forgotten about that. That was just before or just after we had flown to the borders of China in Almaty? 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on1:28 pm - Aug 12, 2016


wottpi’
August 12, 2016 at 10:00
‘…the paying customer is surely entitled to seek clarification and transparency as I doubt the rules and procedures regarding SFA registrations opening hours is known..’
_________
Of course, there is a right  to know what the rules are.
And I am astonished to learn that ‘deadlines’ for registration can be got round if you know that someone is working (unscheduled? unpaid?unofficial-help-a-mate-in-a-club?) overtime the day after the deadline?
Is that actually the case?
That would be administrative madness. Does the SFA understand what is meant by ‘deadline’?
Possibly not, since they obviously do not understand the meaning of ‘sporting integrity’ or ‘Liquidation’, or that ,try as they might have done to deceive us all,  CG’s new club is NOT the disgraced RFC of the disgraceful  Murray or Whyte….

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on2:13 pm - Aug 12, 2016


People might be interested in having a look at ‘BDO’s survey of club financial directors 2016’ which was put on line late yesterday afternoon (after I was told on the phone yesterday at about 4.30 pm that it ‘should be on line now’ , after its release to the press at 10.00 a.m.
You’ll find it at   https://www.bdo.co.uk/en-gb/insights/industries/leisure-and-hospitality/the-annual-survey-of-football-finance-directors-en
Only 5 Scottish club finance directors ( all in the ‘premier’ division) were included in the total of 60.

View Comment

tamjartmarquezPosted on2:35 pm - Aug 12, 2016


Thanks Paddy M for reply, I think we are in general agreement except  . “I think Scott Brown did a service to Scottish football by calling a fellow pro a cheat , because that is what that fellow pro is. I do hope he has the courage to repeat the call if it involves a teammate, either for CFC or Scotland.” I’m sure Dembele got the message13
I think we agree that the penalty was of the, er, soft variety. And although not totally convinced from the tv coverage that there is no contact, however on probabilities I can accept the disciplinary decision and move on. However it is the process i am struggling with.

“Disciplinary Rule 201 – At the above match you committed an act of simulation in that you did pretend that you were fouled by a player on the opposing team, namely Kieran Tierney, and did thereafter dive in the penalty box of the opposing team. That this act of simulation caused a match official to make an incorrect decision, namely the incorrect awarding of a penalty to Heart of Midlothian FC.”
So Walker simulated to cause referee to give incorrect decision- Hearts awarded penalty and score, have materially been advantaged. Result Walker disciplined -seems fair.
Hypothetically, if we assume Dembele and Halliday both ‘dived’.
Halliday situaton, defender yellow card, resulting free-kick hits post. No material advantage gained, other than defender being booked. No discipline necessary. If free-kick had gone in. Would player be cited?
Dembele, no free-kick given, escapes yellow. No material advantage gained. No discipline necessary. Except for Broonies reprimand ringing in his ear!10
Ultimately its a physical, dynamic game and shit happens, creates pub talking points, it is only a game, but strangely i have a foreboding that there is more to it, anyway back to TMS.  

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on3:55 pm - Aug 12, 2016


More court action coming up

http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/7223839/Rangers-launch-multi-million-pound-legal-case-against-Green-Ashley-and-Co.html?

RANGERS have launched a multi-million pound legal action against the club’s former directors and billionaire tycoon Mike Ashley.

The Gers allege that Charles Green, Imran Ahmad, Brian Stockbridge and Derek Llambias did not act in the business’ best interests in a commercial deal with Sports Direct.

The deals include an agreement for the naming rights to Ibrox which was sold off for just £1, despite the Light Blues’ believing it is worth £500,000 a year.
 
The Light Blues also believe that Mr Ashley unfairly benefited and assisted from the alleged negligence displayed by Mr Green and his colleagues, who are being sued in the Court of Session in Edinburgh.

The Premiership side hope to recover a total of £4,106,470.83 from the action.

They also want a civil judge to declare the Partnership Marketing Agreement void.

The action came to light following a short hearing on Friday.

Advocate Craig Sandison QC, who was appearing on behalf of Sports Direct and Mr Ashley, succeeded in his attempt to get Rangers to disclose documents to them.

The lawyer argued that Sports Direct and Mr Ashley needed access to the documents to help them prepare for the case.

Judge Lord Boyd agreed with Mr Sandison’s submissions and allowed both Sports Direct’s and Mr Ashley’s lawyers to access the documents.

He added: “I am content to allow the motion.”

The club’s legal team believe Mr Green, Mr Ahmad and Mr Stockbridge breached their “fiduciary” duties when they negotiated the “naming rights” for Ibrox stadium.

The agreement was in existence for approximately two years but was never enacted.

The directors who negotiated the deal claim that they didn’t do anything wrong.

They say that if another company made a rival offer, Mr Ashley’s firm would have to make another offer at a competitive price to retain the rights.

The club also object to the Partnership Marketing Agreement which was agreed in 2014. This allowed Sports Direct to secure advertising space at Ibrox.

Lawyers acting for Rangers claim the advertising space was also sold for £1.

They claim that Mr Llambias agreed that the agreement with Sports Direct should go ahead.

Rangers claim that Mr Ashley “assisted” in the breach of the “fiduciary duties” owed by the directors to the club.

The individuals deny any wrong doing. The case will next call before the court sometime in the near future.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on4:14 pm - Aug 12, 2016


John Clark  August 12, 2016 at 14:13  Only 5 Scottish club finance directors ( all in the ‘premier’ division) were included in the total of 60.
========================
One significant point from the report is that one of the five Scottish Premiership club surveyed falls into the category of “A cause for grave concern/on the verge of administration”

The survey was taken during June and July, so I’m not sure if the clubs represent the current or previous Premiership sides.  There are a few candidates for clubs in serious financial difficulty, but I’d be tempted to guess at Kilmarnock.  

View Comment

wottpiPosted on5:12 pm - Aug 12, 2016


EASYJAMBO
AUGUST 12, 2016

Interesting stuff.  I must admit that the board at Ibrox have to be commended for trying to throw everything and the kitchen sink at this in an attempt to try and get some from of settlement / escape route that they see as benefiting the club.
Whether that is by deign or desperation is open to question. 
 
The sums involved are interesting as do they not appear to remember that not so long ago no-one would touch them with a barge pole, the whole club was only worth £1 and the basket of assets were £5.5m.

While not connected with the deals being questioned in court have the current board not forgotten that originally having SD on board was probably priceless in terms of convincing the markets and indeed the fans to invest in the IPO.

The fact that someone like DCK is challenging others with regard to fiduciary responsibility is brass necking of the highest order.

However I guess business is business in the world of making a fast buck at everyone else’s expense.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on5:39 pm - Aug 12, 2016


Looking back it would appear there are reports T’Rangers already spent £250k on trying to sort out the naming rights issue.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11074562/Ibrox-naming-rights-sold-for-1-to-Newcastle-owner-Mike-Ashley-and-Rangers-ground-could-be-renamed-Sports-Direct-Arena.html

In an interview with the Daily Record, Easdale would not reveal how much the deal was worth for confidentiality reasons. But the newspaper claimed the deal was struck for £1 with Rangers then spending £250,000 on legal fees in a failed bid to get the contract torn up.

Also it has to be remembered that Ashley passing back the naming rights were linked to extending loans to a club that is still ‘running at a loss and with no credit line from a bank’.
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/mike-ashley-returns-rangers-naming-rights-isnt-nice/article/1321595

What exactly was the Wonga interest rates that Ashley has saved the club over the years.

Frankly without Ashley’s involvement and loans there was a good chance of the Zombie club only lasting a few years.

What chance of Ashley counter-claiming in court that the constant pursuit of him (and driving down the value of his shares in RIFC) is some form of vendetta by DCK?
07

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on6:10 pm - Aug 12, 2016


easyJamboAugust 12, 2016 at 15:55
‘….More court action coming up..’
__________
Hark! Is that the sound of the gleeful hand-rubbing of some of Her Majesty’s Counsel learned-in-the-law, win or lose?
Applying probability theory, in the light of the fact that Ashley has lost/withdrawn  a couple of times, can we assess the odds on a King victory?

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:04 pm - Aug 12, 2016


WOTTPIAUGUST 12, 2016 at 17:39 4 1  Rate This 
Looking back it would appear there are reports T’Rangers already spent £250k on trying to sort out the naming rights issue.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/rangers/11074562/Ibrox-naming-rights-sold-for-1-to-Newcastle-owner-Mike-Ashley-and-Rangers-ground-could-be-renamed-Sports-Direct-Arena.html
In an interview with the Daily Record, Easdale would not reveal how much the deal was worth for confidentiality reasons. But the newspaper claimed the deal was struck for £1 with Rangers then spending £250,000 on legal fees in a failed bid to get the contract torn up.Also it has to be remembered that Ashley passing back the naming rights were linked to extending loans to a club that is still ‘running at a loss and with no credit line from a bank’.http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/mike-ashley-returns-rangers-naming-rights-isnt-nice/article/1321595
What exactly was the Wonga interest rates that Ashley has saved the club over the years.
Frankly without Ashley’s involvement and loans there was a good chance of the Zombie club only lasting a few years.
What chance of Ashley counter-claiming in court that the constant pursuit of him (and driving down the value of his shares in RIFC) is some form of vendetta by DCK?
__________

I wonder if this is the oportunity that MA might have been waiting for, to have King’s dirty deeds aired in court, while showing just how vital the Ashley/SDI involvement was in keeping the club alive, only to see his remaining investment nose dive once King got into power. I’m pretty sure that Ashley will be able to show that without King’s intervention the club would be on a much sounder footing than it is now.

Does King really want to give his much more powerful enemy the oportunity to raise in court the effect that the King led conspiracy to, not only, boycott SD shops and merchandise, but also to boycott Ibrox itself, had on the club and the eventual loss of NOMAD and AIM listing? I also wonder if King might find that the true source of the funds that repaid the Ashley loan is brought into question, along with his involvement in the original club. A man with so much dirty linen surely doesn’t need it aired in court; unless he is very desperate!

I will be very surprised if this goes all the way to a full court hearing, and is anything more than more King sabre rattling, for the benefit of the bears, who just love a goid rattling of a sabre!

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:56 pm - Aug 12, 2016


ALLYJAMBOAUGUST 12, 2016 at 19:04
A man with so much dirty linen surely doesn’t need it aired in court; unless he is very desperate!
———————
Just how desperate could it get with a, we can’t win this argument with SD and the club is now up for sale so someone can take it forward spin?

View Comment

jimboPosted on4:34 am - Aug 13, 2016


I agree with BP, get rid of the TUs & Tds.  I used to love them for a laugh but now they can be used for the wrong reasons. 

But keep my smileys/ emojs.

BTW because my last post got 18 tus has got nothing to do withit ya scoundrals.

View Comment

jimboPosted on4:41 am - Aug 13, 2016


*Tds was meant 0204

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:10 am - Aug 13, 2016


JOHN CLARKAUGUST 12, 2016 at 18:10 Hark! Is that the sound of the gleeful hand-rubbing of some of Her Majesty’s Counsel learned-in-the-law, win or lose?Applying probability theory, in the light of the fact that Ashley has lost/withdrawn  a couple of times, can we assess the odds on a King victory?

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

It is a ‘home’ fixture for TRFC, although they are playing the game in Edinburgh.  I reckon their own crowd behind them may be enough to spur them to victory. Perhaps if King had been forced to play this fixture outwith Scotland the chances of victory would be less.

I have yet to read a media report that has actually acknowledged this case could be lost. All reports so far simply sensationalise the millions big Mike is going to have to pay.

View Comment

DunderheidPosted on8:55 am - Aug 13, 2016


This morning’s Times has a sports opinion piece by Graham Spiers which can only be described as dismal.

He opens by asserting he’s ‘not especially’ into the Rangers new club/same club debate, then proceeds to appeal for this club to be given space and time to ‘crack on with being a modern, vibrant, flourishing brand’.

He goes on to lament a ‘disingenuous attitude’ towards this club of uncertain origin and status. Keeping up the tone of cognitive dissonance, he then bemoans his view that this club has to ‘soldier on through endless claims of “guilt” and “cheating” and much else from its troubled years.’

For crying out loud, Graham … As you might put it yourself … What a load of tosh.

Is that the best you can do … ?

View Comment

Madbhoy24941Posted on9:16 am - Aug 13, 2016


This latest court case takes me back to The RTC days.
It was stated back then, that win, lose or draw that fight, the only people who would actually make money from Rangers over the next 5 to 10 years, would be lawyers.
Internet Bampots indeed….

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on10:32 am - Aug 13, 2016


DunderheidAugust 13, 2016 at 08:55 
This morning’s Times has a sports opinion piece by Graham Spiers which can only be described as dismal.
He opens by asserting he’s ‘not especially’ into the Rangers new club/same club debate, then proceeds to appeal for this club to be given space and time to ‘crack on with being a modern, vibrant, flourishing brand’.
He goes on to lament a ‘disingenuous attitude’ towards this club of uncertain origin and status. Keeping up the tone of cognitive dissonance, he then bemoans his view that this club has to ‘soldier on through endless claims of “guilt” and “cheating” and much else from its troubled years.’
For crying out loud, Graham … As you might put it yourself … What a load of tosh.
_______________________

Graham Spiers should get on with his job as a so called journalist, and leave us to get on with our role as members of the public who discovered they’d been cheated for, at the very least, ten years out of thousands of pounds of our own hard earned money! Who have watched, as tax paying members of the public, that self same club go bust, owing us millions of pounds in unpaid taxes, and have had to then put up with the game’s governing bodies, and the country’s media, trying to have us all accept that the ‘club’ didn’t die, while, all the time, waiting for the ‘same club’ pay the laughable ‘penalty’ imposed for that 10 years of cheating.

The only reason this ‘disingenuous attitude’ continues is because people like him keep telling us to ‘move on’, rather than to do their job properly by seeking, and publishing, the truth!

Here’s a wee idea for you, Graham. As you are incapable of seeking and publishing the truth about ‘Rangers’, why not write an article explaining how changing our attitude would be beneficial for us, and for Scottish football? While you’re at it, explain to us how it might be good for sport, any sport, that a lie should be allowed to become an accepted truth about the true status of one of it’s participants?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:41 am - Aug 13, 2016


DunderheidAugust 13, 2016 at 08:55
‘… then proceeds to appeal for this club to be given space and time to ‘crack on with being a modern, vibrant, flourishing brand’.’
_________
I wonder to whom  Spiers  is making this appeal, given that every newspaper and radio station,especially the provincial outpost of the BBC, have already spent 5 years force-feeding us the myth that the ancient,lifeless ,languishing-in-liquidation ‘brand’ is on track for certainly coming a close second in the SPFL Div 1, taking its rightful place in Europe, and, under the far-seeing guidance of a former city trader ( synonym for barra boy?) , is readying itself for a place in the foretold ‘world’ league?
I think it’s time for Spiers and his like to
admit the truth,
push for all the records to be corrected to reflect the true sports story,
campaign to have  the SFA dragged into some semblance of fair and competent governance, 
call for the sacking of officials and the discrediting of former Board members who are known to have acted the goat
and refer to the new club by its proper, legal name, and award it only such honours as it has actually won
Spiers should also apologise to us for all the guff he has written , such as  “not being specially” into the old club/new club debate.
He has never unequivocally declared the truth that the new club is just that, a new club, but, like some QC, tries to argue that  ‘manifestations’ , ‘ethereality’  ‘the what-it’s-all-about’  of ‘Rangersness’ has corporeal existence.
Let him stick to Golf- where there is still some sense of sporting and sports reporting integrity.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on11:27 am - Aug 13, 2016


MADBHOY24941AUGUST 13, 2016 at 09:16 
This latest court case takes me back to The RTC days.It was stated back then, that win, lose or draw that fight, the only people who would actually make money from Rangers over the next 5 to 10 years, would be lawyers.Internet Bampots indeed….

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

I’m not sure how lawyers structure their fees but in my view whoever is representing the club from Ibrox in this one should be asking for payments to be made on a continued basis rather than handing them a bill at the end. Should the CoS rule against Rangers, and award Ashley costs, will they be able to pay it? Or will it be the excuse for Administration or even Liquidation given the authorities have granted ‘Rangers’ immortality. 

However I do have a hunch they will get something from this case.  I do hope the media don’t put it on the front page that the Judge is a Celtic fan before the case starts. 

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on11:40 am - Aug 13, 2016


JOHN CLARKAUGUST 13, 2016 at 10:41
=========================

Graham Spiers has admirably spoken out against bigotry at Ibrox for years. However he is a lifelong Rangers fan and periodically through his media work it appears to me he has the same sense of entitlement and superiority as other Rangers fans. This latest nonsensical article is a prime example.  Are taxpayers and other creditors supposed to feel honoured that they have been cheated by such a distinguished institution? Are football fans of all other clubs not supposed to care that the football authorities have effectively turned a blind eye to what went on by creating rules with the intent of getting a pre-determined outcome?

Personally I will move on when:

1. Dave King and Paul Murray issue a public apology for what went on during their time on the old club board.

2. The football authorities at the very least make a note in the record books against honours that were won during the EBT years. 

3. The football authorities make it clear the current Rangers history began in 2012.

4. David Murray is stripped of his Knighthood. 

None of the above will happen of course, because the establishment look after their own. 

View Comment

RPMcMurphyPosted on1:14 pm - Aug 13, 2016


UPTHEHOOPSAUGUST 13, 2016 at 11:40 9 0 Rate This
JOHN CLARKAUGUST 13, 2016 at 10:41

For me personally, only number 3 above matters, the rest is the dead club and emphasising number 3 puts the rest into a dead club’s past just like Third Lanark.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:36 pm - Aug 13, 2016


With an acknowledgement to a poster on JJ’s site, it is worth noting that the case against MA and others is being brought by TRFC Ltd, and not RIFC plc. This will mean that King is not directly involved, though no doubt he is the main driving force.

I wonder if this is due purely to TRFC Ltd being the ‘damaged’ party, and therefore a legal necessity, or a ploy to distance King from any claims of conspiracy against the club (boycotts etc), or King not wanting to be dragged into the matter and have his past raked over! 

In any event, it can’t damage the TRFC case to have King as far removed as possible.

I’m sure, though, that MA’s lawyers will be keen to ensure that King’s part in damaging the business and value of TRFC is brought up as evidence that there was a lot more at play than onerous contracts to hurt TRFC, and as a result, RIFC and it’s investors.

I’m sure, too, that MA’s legal team will show how the MA/RIFC connection was beneficial to TRFC in a way that more than covered the apparent disadvantage to the club of the RRL deal!

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on2:34 pm - Aug 13, 2016


Nice to see big Robert Snodgrass back and scoring . He was sorely missed during Scotland’s last attempt at tournament qualification .

View Comment

tamjartmarquezPosted on2:54 pm - Aug 13, 2016


TAMJARTMARQUEZAUGUST 12, 2016 at 14:35
—-
Staying on the problem. Equitable reporting. The witchhunt of Walker and the ignoring of this incident. I am grateful to a poster on jamboskickback for the following link.
https://twitter.com/portyhearts/status/764211694155563008?lang=en-gb

Compare and contrast.
Walker goes down easy, unbalanced, challenge from side/behind. He doesn’t claim pen. Although Pen given.
Called a cheat by Captain of opposition, Captain, according to media reports, apologised to by referee at HT. Walker cited offered 2 match ban. Hearts appeal rejected, Neilson acceps punishment and’plays down’ Captain Browns ‘cheat’ comment. Mediastorm all week.
Dembele, seeing Jack Hamilton prone, premeditated, swallow dives over keeper, whilst waving a ‘claiming arm’. Claim is waved aside. 
Was this incident shown/ discussed on highlights? 
I dont know why Walker is punished and Dembele isn’t.
BP,  I don’t mean to flog a dead horse, or cause friction between Hearts/ Celtic. This evidence is compelling If I look at the two incidents and compare. I think there has been an injustice. The SMSM ignored this incident, why?

View Comment

tangoedPosted on3:18 pm - Aug 13, 2016


TAMJARTMARQUEZAUGUST 13, 2016 at 14:54
———————————————
Looks a stonewall penalty to me.

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on3:52 pm - Aug 13, 2016


BBC
First-half goals from Harry Forrester and Kenny Miller gave Rangers their first Scottish Premiership win of the season at Dundee.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Meanwhile down at Anderson Quay the Security man sighs and whispers to the Corpse

“”First-half goals from Harry Forrester and Kenny Miller gave Sevco  their first ever Scottish Premiership win” 

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on4:00 pm - Aug 13, 2016


TAMJARTMARQUEZ

I think you illustrate my earlier point. Subjectivity plays a huge part in this. The difficulty in legislating for this kind of thing is that if you make the sanction drastic enough, you have to be in no doubt that the offence took place.

I thought the Walker offence last week was one of those, and I have to say that the Dembele one looks pretty bad in your clip (though I didn’t at the time). 

Neither was sanctioned during the match, in the first case, because the ref believed it was a penalty, in the second, presumably because the ref thought (as I did at the time) that the dive was so contrived it was because Dembele was avoiding contact with the ‘keeper.

Also, and again perhaps due to my own perspective and allegiances, I wouldn’t have characterised the coverage as a witch-hunt against Walker.

If we try to set aside subjectivity for the moment and accept that both of the players were in fact guilty of diving, then the sanction (during the game) would have been a booking for both of them.

The difference between the two (in respect of the rules as far as I am aware) is that Walker actually gained a significant advantage from his offence and retrospective punishment reflects that. Dembele’s offence did not not and in that situation there is no mechanism for retrospective punishment – and might explain why it was not featured in the highlights prog?

The alleged interaction between the ref and Scott Brown, the reported contact between the ref and Rogers, and Brown’s public remarks (made initially to Walker in person at the post-match presser) are all white noise with respect to the substantive issue – although worthy of separate discussion.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on4:25 pm - Aug 13, 2016


BIG PINKAUGUST 13, 2016 at 16:00
===========================

I try to avoid these debates on here as I believed the mods did not approve of them.  Given that you have responded then I would like to ask why no-one is discussing why Don Cowie only saw yellow for his tackle on Kieran Tierney? The bottom line is there is so much we could throw into these debates, and as fans it frustrates the hell out of us when when we perceive there is a lack of consistency in how incidents are highlighted and reported by the media, and subsequently addressed by the SFA. Look at today’s Dundee v Rangers game. Harry Forrester is already on a yellow card then soon after commits another tackle which many Refs would issue yellow for. Craig Thomson issues him with a warning but no second card. Then soon after Forrester commits another tackle which bordered on a straight red. Thomson is looking straight at it and does nothing. Forrester is then quickly substituted.  BT Sport gave it plenty of debate and Chris Sutton, Peter Lovenkrands and Stephen Craigan all agreed Forrester should have walked. BBC Sportsound on the other hand didn’t even mention it post match, save for Richard Gordon briefly mentioning Warburton was asked about it at the post match presser.  The national broadcaster really need to up their game, because at face value it looks like they are trying to cover up a significant advantage handed to Rangers in a tight game.  

UTH
BP was responding to a specific question from TJM. I don’t think dissecting every incident in the match is useful in this regard. We already have a consensus that referees are poor, but drawing conclusions about the ref’s motives is way outside our remit.
Gonna let the debate carry on, but it’s the inference that the refs have it in for any particular group that is gonna cause us problems, because;
a. it’s not true and
b. there is no way of proving it even if it is

View Comment

tamjartmarquezPosted on5:02 pm - Aug 13, 2016


BP We agree both should have received yellow cards. And I agree the punishment is for ‘conning the ref’. Subjectively I know which one I think is the more premeditated and Browns comments, if accurately reported, did not do Scottish football a great service, the opposite in fact, lacking in class, compared to Robbie’s after match discussion with Scott which was apparently about youth coaching!21 

View Comment

tamjartmarquezPosted on5:44 pm - Aug 13, 2016


My originally comment on this topic was last Saturday after the Rangers* game, when, in my opinion, Halliday whilst running with ball dived twice. These  and the Dembele incident were not given any coverage. Walker has been called out by a fellow pro and by the host (McIntyre) on Radio Shortbreads midweek coverage. 
…..7 days later, Harry Forrester 3 yellow+ card challenges in 5 minutes of restart. Booked for the 1st, escapes censure for the later two. Immediately substituted. Ref gives free-kick for all 3 challenges. Anyway definite advantage gained. Dundee should have played 10 men for 40 mins. 
If not a witch hunt, the narrative is clear. Plucky opponents, fodder for the big two. Big opporchancity missed to refresh the game. 
Back to TMS where plucky Pakistan are giving the Establishment team a bloody nose.

View Comment

bfbpuzzledPosted on6:16 pm - Aug 13, 2016


Perhaps calling cheating cheating and cheats cheats is what is needed to discourage such behaviours. I see that Mr Warburton is adopting the Trumpian tactic of saying something followed by the claim that he could not say anything, in the T’Rangers case saying that perhaps his player could have been sent off followed by saying he could not comment about that decision.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on7:26 pm - Aug 13, 2016


TAMJARTMARQUEZ
AUGUST 13, 2016 at 17:44

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

If the two you are talking about are Celtic and Rangers, in what way are Rangers “big”.

A four year old club, which has just been promoted into the top division for the first time, has a squad made up of youth and over the hill free transfers, is losing money every year, doesn’t have an overdraft facility and has little control over it’s own merchandising income.

That’s not a “big” club, it’s a car crash looking for a place to happen. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:31 pm - Aug 13, 2016


Big PinkAugust 13, 2016 at 16:00

The difference between the two (in respect of the rules as far as I am aware) is that Walker actually gained a significant advantage from his offence and retrospective punishment reflects that. Dembele’s offence did not not and in that situation there is no mechanism for retrospective punishment – and might explain why it was not featured in the highlights prog?
__________________________

I believe it was established on this blog some time ago (or was it on RTC?) that it matters not if an act of cheating gained an advantage, or failed to gain an advantage, it was still cheating and equally reprehensible. At least that was the case when it was Rangers who were doing the cheating. Add to that the fact that Walker didn’t claim for a penalty, or, at least, the penalty was given before he had a chance to claim, while the beautiful dive Dembele executed was followed by raised arms and what appeared to be words claiming a penalty, which was followed by the standard look of a man just denied a stonewall penalty. I’m afraid I find it impossible to judge a man more guilty just because a penalty is given than a man who not only makes every effort to gain a penalty, but also makes an effort after the fact to influence the referee into giving that penalty. The acts were almost identical, it was the referee who got them both wrong, by giving the penalty and not booking Walker (assuming it was a genuine act that would be followed by a call for a penalty had the ref not so quickly given it) and, having clearly deemed the second dive, a dive, not booking the culprit for it.

There have been a number of people who have praised Scott Brown for calling out a cheat. I reckon I will have to wait a long time to hear him call out his team mate in a similar fashion, but if he does, I will praise him for it.

As to the Dembele incident being missed from the highlights programme, we know what would be said on here if it was a TRFC player who’d dived in similar circumstances and the incident ignored by the TV editor and our esteemed pundits…

As to the criticism for ex-players who have admitted they’d have done the same as Walker, heaven forbid, people in the media being honest about their past dishonesty. It will never catch on!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:38 pm - Aug 13, 2016


HomunculusAugust 13, 2016 at 19:26 
TAMJARTMARQUEZ AUGUST 13, 2016 at 17:44
=====================================
If the two you are talking about are Celtic and Rangers, in what way are Rangers “big”.
A four year old club, which has just been promoted into the top division for the first time, has a squad made up of youth and over the hill free transfers, is losing money every year, doesn’t have an overdraft facility and has little control over it’s own merchandising income.
That’s not a “big” club, it’s a car crash looking for a place to happen. 
_________________________

It was my impression that TJM was referring to the way the media look upon TRFC – and they undoubtedly look upon them as ‘big’. You are, of course, correct about the reality of their situation, but when was the media’s coverage of Scottish football influenced by reality? They have their chosen truth, and that is what they will foist upon us.

View Comment

tamjartmarquezPosted on7:43 pm - Aug 13, 2016


HOMUNCULUSAUGUST 13, 2016 at 19:26
===
Big? as in more season tickets sold, more supporters worldwide too, 500 million i believe, according to 01. I agree a car crash waiting to happen. In 4 years they have unbelievably amassed 54 league titles.
Influence, without doubt. They are so big that Paul Hartley either didn’t watch game today, had no thoughts on the major ‘talking point’ , or his thoughts are censored.
todayhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37071358

View Comment

jimboPosted on9:12 pm - Aug 13, 2016


Time to calm down folks.  I got fourteen thousand thumbs down but I’m OK with that!  181718  Get rid of the Thumbs down, it’s  not nice.18

Think it’s because of my Celtic crest. I automatically get 2 TDs right away. no matter what I say.

View Comment

gerrybhoy67Posted on9:37 pm - Aug 13, 2016


Further to Graham Speirs pleading and repetitive article in today’s Times as per Scottish sports section only take a look at this link tweeted by our pal The Clumpany as per the nationally edited part of the main paper – and brought to their attention by a professor no less!!

https://twitter.com/HectorBeegabaw/status/764439465951649792

View Comment

jimboPosted on9:39 pm - Aug 13, 2016


John James site worth donating to.  The new RTC if you ask me.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:37 pm - Aug 13, 2016


I was just idly whiling away some time, ruminating on a fact about Wullie Shakespeare of which I was hitherto ignorant( he also was a tax cheat!!), I thought I would try to look back to find the first reference on  ‘Rangerstaxcase’ blog to the question of the legitimacy of the granting of the European club licence to RFC(IL).
I got back to the RTC post entitled ‘Yet another 24 hours’ of 1st April 2011.
And one of the (very few, in the early days) comments on that piece is this one:
[mutley says: 01/04/2011 at 9:53 am
“…..Anyway, was looking at the finance criteria for licensing and came across some things which I have included below.
We have this morning seen UNAUDITED accounts provided to the LSE by Rangers.
As we can see from the finance criteria, they must provide annual AUDITED accounts and because their year end is more than six months away, AUDITED interm accounts.
So either they have provided the SFA with the same UNAUDITED report that we have access to (in which case they fail the UEFA licensing criteria), or they have provided the SFA with and AUDITED report which differs from the figures we have seen.
Is there any significance in that?
Are they allowed to produce to different sets of figures?”]
Mutley, who I reckon must still be a poster (but using a different name?) then goes on to cite the criteria which govern the ‘social taxes’ debt situation.
I am now about to try to follow whether there were subsequent references, because I have to admit that the next thing I can actually remember was hearing about the Res 12 resolution being on the Celtic AGM agenda in 2013!
But top marks to ‘mutley’ for rising the question of what the SFA was using as evidence that   SDM’s cheating club were entitled to be granted the licence.
They sure as hell are still very coy about producing their ‘evidence’  for public scrutiny….-five years on!
Given the gravity of the charge and the damage that that charge has done to their credibility as an honest governance sports  body, it seems to me that if they could produce convincing , ‘incontrovertible’ evidence that RFC was not in breach of the licensing rules, they would have done so, long ago.
But carry on, chaps, while I get back to archive-trawling!
And if RTC-the- person happens to read this, let me metaphorically shake his hand, and hope that perhaps one day, I’ll be able actually to shake that hand.( And if the person turns out to be a ringer for , say, Julia Roberts as she is now, so much more wonderful!)19

View Comment

MercDocPosted on11:23 pm - Aug 13, 2016


GERRYBHOY67AUGUST 13, 2016 at 21:37
I remember this was discussed a few years ago. How we laughed!!!
https://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/16/triggers-broom-theseus-ship-douglas-adams-golden-pavilion-sevco-rangers-whats-the-link-guest-post-by-adm/

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on11:47 pm - Aug 13, 2016


gerrybhoy67August 13, 2016 at 21:37
‘……take a look at this link tweeted by our pal The Clumpany as per the nationally edited part of the main paper – and brought to their attention by a professor no less!!’
_______
And, judging by his academic publications, it can be inferred that  Professor Stachura knows a thing or two about Nazi propaganda and the distortion of truth by media types!
I shake his hand.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:49 am - Aug 14, 2016


In not giving what appeared to be a clear yellow card decision yesterday (if not a red) that might have had an impact on the result, was Craig Thomson guilty of bringing the game into disrepute or is he merely a result of the consequences of decisions already taken that have had that effect?
When will there be a Judicial Review of The Football Authorities and who could demand it but supporters watching a disreputable product? 
To whom could such a demand be addressed, for it must.
How can the game move on, it can hardly stand up.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:53 am - Aug 14, 2016


I read on another forum a reference to an article in the Herald on 1st September 2015 where Dave King  revealed moves to pay off the club’s oldco creditors and resuscitate the in-liquidation operating company. The Herald go on to say this move will cost King £78M. To the best of my knowledge King has never issued another statement to say the plan has been withdrawn. 

Why does no-one from the media ever ask King how this plan is progressing? Apart from HMRC and other creditors receiving what they are owed, the goodwill from such a move would be priceless. Over to the media guys who have access to King. 

View Comment

kill ultraPosted on9:18 am - Aug 14, 2016


AULDHEIDAUGUST 14, 2016 at 00:49 23 4 Rate This
“In not giving what appeared to be a clear yellow card decision yesterday (if not a red) that might have had an impact on the result, was Craig Thomson guilty of bringing the game into disrepute or is he merely a result of the consequences of decisions already taken that have had that effect?When will there be a Judicial Review of The Football Authorities and who could demand it but supporters watching a disreputable product? To whom could such a demand be addressed, for it must.How can the game move on, it can hardly stand up.”

——————

Auldheid. Are you serious? W(h)ither “Resoution 12”. Celtic plc is an integral part of ‘The Football Authorities’.

View Comment

goosygoosyPosted on9:51 am - Aug 14, 2016


SPL
1 Rangers        P 2 F 2 A 1 Pts 4
2 St Johnstone  P 2 F 2 A 1 Pts 4

BBC Radio
Rangers are top of the SPL with 4 pts
St Johnstone  are second with the same number of pts
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Oh Dear
There is no joint first any more
Alphabetical order decides who is first and who is second
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I`ll make a prediction
This quote will never be repeated if there is a similar situation with TRFC and any other club who come before R in the alphabet

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on10:28 am - Aug 14, 2016



Goosy,
Rangers have scored one more goal than Saintees.

View Comment

View Comment

PortbhoyPosted on11:59 am - Aug 14, 2016


GOOSYGOOSYAUGUST 14, 2016 at 09:51 
SPL1 Rangers        P 2 F 2 A 1 Pts 42 St Johnstone  P 2 F 2 A 1 Pts 4
BBC RadioRangers are top of the SPL with 4 ptsSt Johnstone  are second with the same number of pts,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Oh Dear
……………………………………………………………
I saw this crackin’ quip on another forum last night.  
Aye, … that’s like Jack Mullard and Hilda Baker bein’ top of the pops !! 
Hi …..

View Comment

PortbhoyPosted on12:11 pm - Aug 14, 2016


Oops, … Arthur Mullard.

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on12:42 pm - Aug 14, 2016


Kill Ultra
Indeed they are, along with the other clubs and the structure of the SFA and SPFL makes it impossible for them not to be.
It is the absence of independent oversight from those structures that has produced a disreputable game.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:09 pm - Aug 14, 2016


BIG PINKAUGUST 14, 2016 at 10:28 
 
Goosy,
Rangers have scored one more goal than Saintees.
________________

You are, of course, correct, but we can be sure that, if the Saints had the extra goal, TRFC would have been, at the very least, described as ‘joint leaders’!

We should be grateful, I suppose, that they weren’t described as having, ‘returned to the top of Scottish football’, or worse, ‘returned to where they belong’! Still time for both, I suppose. And had Celtic played yesterday and gained at least a point, then just how many rags would have carried the headline, ‘The top of Scottish football has a familiar look to it!’

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on3:24 pm - Aug 14, 2016


I don’t recall (but open to be reminded) any major controversies occurring when Scottish referees went on strike . No complaints about standards . I would suggest it as the way forward-replacing one private company with another who provide a better service . Does anyone know how long the current referees contract with SPFL lasts ?

View Comment

Charlie_KellyPosted on4:13 pm - Aug 14, 2016


Don’t really see what the problem is in describing rangers as “top of the league” If teams finish level on points then it gets decided by goal difference and then goals scored.
So if the league finished like it currently stands, rangers would be champions and not “joint champions”.
I’m all for holding the media & authorities to account (I wouldn’t be here otherwise) but I think this is straying in to nitpicking if people are genuinely complaining that rangers are being described as “top of the league” as opposed to “joint top”

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on4:15 pm - Aug 14, 2016


AJ
Sad but true. Now can you all agree that Celtic playing that friendly was in fact a GOOD thing? ?

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on4:17 pm - Aug 14, 2016


Charlie,
That was the point I was making to Goosy, thought both teams had identical records, and that the sorting was based on alphabetic order.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on6:10 pm - Aug 14, 2016


Why The Rangers are top
Determination of League etc. Position in Case of Equality of Points
C35 If any two or more Clubs are equal in points in any Division at the end of the Season
or, as the case may be, after 33 League Matches for each Club in the Premiership
the higher placed Club shall be the Club with the larger or largest positive goal
difference (or the lower or lowest negative goal difference where appropriate).
Goal difference shall be determined by deducting the goals conceded from the
goals scored in all League Matches played during the Season or, as the case may be,
after 33 League Matches for each Club in the Premiership. In the event of the goal
difference being equal, the higher placed Club shall be the Club, which has scored
the most goals in League Matches during the Season or, as the case may be, in the
first 33 League Matches for each Club in the Premiership. In the event of each of the
Clubs having the scored the same number of goals in League Matches during the
Season or, as the case may be, in the first 33 League Matches for each Club in the
Premiership, the higher placed Club shall be the Club, having the greater number of
points in League Matches between the relevant Clubs in the Season in question or,
as the case may be, after 33 League Matches for each Club in the Premiership and
in the event of the number of such points being equal the higher placed Club shall
be the Club with the larger or largest positive goal difference (or the lower or
lowest negative goal difference where appropriate) in League Matches between
the relevant Clubs in the Season or, as the case may be, in the first 33 League
Matches for each Club in the Premiership. Goal difference shall be determined by
deducting the goals conceded from the goals scored in League Matches played
during the Season or, as the case may be, in the first 33 League Matches for each
Club in the Premiership between the Clubs concerned

View Comment

ParadisebhoyPosted on7:17 pm - Aug 14, 2016


Aye But ! The Rangers comes after St Johnstone alphabetically ! 2222

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on9:31 pm - Aug 14, 2016


AuldheidAugust 14, 2016 at 00:49
“…When will there be a Judicial Review of The Football Authorities and who could demand it but supporters watching a disreputable product?..”
AuldheidAugust 14, 2016 at 12:42
“…It is the absence of independent oversight from those structures that has produced a disreputable game.”
________
Never mind anything so grand as ‘Judicial Review’, Auldheid. I think I’m right in saying that we, unlike our southern counterparts, don’t even have An Independent Football Ombudsman!

Mind you, having just read that Ombudsman’s most recent annual report , I doubt that such a post would be able to deal with the kind of allegations we make against our football Authorities.

It would, however, be a start.
See the IFO’s seventh report at
http://www.theifo.co.uk/docs/IFO_Ann-Rep_2014-15(web).pdf I

View Comment

ParadisebhoyPosted on11:22 pm - Aug 14, 2016


It’s getting hard to keep up with all the legal action – Is this new ?
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/mike-ashley-rangers-vdlldls3m
The billionaire founder of Sports Direct is embroiled in a new legal row with Rangers FC, which has accused his tracksuit and trainers empire of taking improper dividends from the Scottish football club’s merchandise business.
Dave King, Rangers’ chairman, claims that Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct took almost £1m of dividends from Rangers Retail Limited that it was “legally not entitled to receive”, according to papers filed at the High Court. The disagreement is said to have led to a standoff, with directors of the Glasgow-based club refusing to sign off Rangers Retail’s accounts, which are now close to seven months overdue.
The spat is the latest twist in a long-running saga that started in October 2014 when Ashley, who also owns Newcastle United FC, laid siege to Rangers by buying a stake of nearly 9% through his personal company, MASH Holdings. Supports have accused him of trying to strangle the club by exerting excessive financial control.
In April, Sports Direct filed a claim arguing that King had made “unjustifiable allegations of impropriety” about two property deals and the payment of two dividends last year. It said the Rangers chairman was “not motivated by any legitimate concern” but was trying to put pressure on Ashley to renegotiate various commercial contracts.
Since 2012, Sports Direct and the Scottish club have been partners in Rangers Retail, which sells replica kits and accessories. Ashley’s company originally owned 49%, while Rangers held 51%.
Sports Direct’s lawsuit said that in August 2014, it agreed to oversee the closure of lossmaking Rangers stores in Belfast and Glasgow Airport for the sum of £620,000. This was to be repaid from Rangers Retail’s dividends, it said, meaning that when the merchandise company distributed £1.61m in January last year, Sports Direct received £1.39m and Rangers took £220,000.
Sports Direct claimed that its shareholding in Rangers Retail jumped to 75% in the same month as part of an agreement to lend the club up to £10m. As a result, it said it received £900,000 of a £1.2m dividend in February last year, while Rangers took £300,000.
The lawsuit cited letters from King in September and October last year disputing the increase in Sports Direct’s shareholding and describing the higher dividends as having been “deliberately and unlawfully deducted”.
In its defence in May, Rangers confirmed its view that the dividends were unlawful, and that it had refused to sign off the accounts. But denied that its actions were unjustified. It said it was suing former Rangers bosses — including Derek Llambas, who previously worked at Newcastle United — for breaching their duties in their dealings with Ashley.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on6:53 am - Aug 15, 2016


PARADISEBHOYAUGUST 14, 2016 at 23:22 
The disagreement is said to have led to a standoff, with directors of the Glasgow-based club refusing to sign off Rangers Retail’s accounts, which are now close to seven months overdue.

——————————————–

Oh well…at least we know it’s not the auditors who are holding up the accounts 14

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:56 am - Aug 15, 2016


PARADISEBHOYAUGUST 14, 2016 at 23:22
Dave King, Rangers’ chairman,11
when did this happen? don’t they know he is just the chairman of the holding company.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:05 am - Aug 15, 2016


Edit – In my haste to post at 06:53hrs I note that it’s not Rangers accounts they are talking about, but Rangers Retail. I need to up my game on a Monday morning. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on8:42 am - Aug 15, 2016


PARADISEBHOYAUGUST 14, 2016 at 23:22 
It’s getting hard to keep up with all the legal action – Is this new ?http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/mike-ashley-rangers-vdlldls3mThe billionaire founder of Sports Direct is embroiled in a new legal row with Rangers FC, which has accused his tracksuit and trainers empire of taking improper dividends from the Scottish football club’s merchandise business.Dave King, Rangers’ chairman, claims that Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct took almost £1m of dividends from Rangers Retail Limited that it was “legally not entitled to receive”, according to papers filed at the High Court. The disagreement is said to have led to a standoff, with directors of the Glasgow-based club refusing to sign off Rangers Retail’s accounts, which are now close to seven months overdue.The spat is the latest twist in a long-running saga that started in October 2014 when Ashley, who also owns Newcastle United FC, laid siege to Rangers by buying a stake of nearly 9% through his personal company, MASH Holdings. Supports have accused him of trying to strangle the club by exerting excessive financial control.In April, Sports Direct filed a claim arguing that King had made “unjustifiable allegations of impropriety” about two property deals and the payment of two dividends last year. It said the Rangers chairman was “not motivated by any legitimate concern” but was trying to put pressure on Ashley to renegotiate various commercial contracts.Since 2012, Sports Direct and the Scottish club have been partners in Rangers Retail, which sells replica kits and accessories. Ashley’s company originally owned 49%, while Rangers held 51%.Sports Direct’s lawsuit said that in August 2014, it agreed to oversee the closure of lossmaking Rangers stores in Belfast and Glasgow Airport for the sum of £620,000. This was to be repaid from Rangers Retail’s dividends, it said, meaning that when the merchandise company distributed £1.61m in January last year, Sports Direct received £1.39m and Rangers took £220,000.Sports Direct claimed that its shareholding in Rangers Retail jumped to 75% in the same month as part of an agreement to lend the club up to £10m. As a result, it said it received £900,000 of a £1.2m dividend in February last year, while Rangers took £300,000.The lawsuit cited letters from King in September and October last year disputing the increase in Sports Direct’s shareholding and describing the higher dividends as having been “deliberately and unlawfully deducted”.In its defence in May, Rangers confirmed its view that the dividends were unlawful, and that it had refused to sign off the accounts. But denied that its actions were unjustified. It said it was suing former Rangers bosses — including Derek Llambas, who previously worked at Newcastle United — for breaching their duties in their dealings with Ashley.
_____________

Could this case be what sparked the latest? case where TRFC/Kingco are, in turn, taking MA, SDI and others to court? They (the cases) certainly seem to be linked.

It just keeps getting murkier!

View Comment

SmugasPosted on10:47 am - Aug 15, 2016


Of course the obvious out here is that Puma and Rangers ‘win’ following another questionable performance in court by Mike’s supposed legal dream team and they move the sports and casual outfitters contract to another entity completely and utterly unrelated to Sports Direct, no link whatsoever, so siree, maybe called Mikeley’s Sports Emporium or similar.

Bears all turn up for the taps in their thousands (and nobody denies there are thousands) probably with GIRUY as the players name across the orange shoulders, and perhaps with a wee indent on the shoulder for them to park their chips.

Whats not to like? (and I include the mystery anonymous directors of Mikeley’s Sports Emporium in that comment).  

View Comment

bordersdonPosted on10:56 am - Aug 15, 2016


Has tayred’s post congratulating Andy Murray been removed?

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on10:59 am - Aug 15, 2016


Wee reminder from our diary 5 July 2012;

The SFA/SPL become actively involved in a coercive campaign to force Sevco into the SFL Division 1.

Stenhousemuir reveal details of a talk given to them by Neil Doncaster and Stewart Regan, where SFL clubs are threatened with bankruptcy if they don’t vote Sevco Scotland into Division 1.

Figures presented are ridiculed by the internet groups, including RTC.

Clyde and Raith Rovers emerge as the cheerleaders for sporting integrity in the lower leagues, with both clubs openly speaking out against what they describe as “irresponsible”.
Raith Chairman Turnbull Hutton suggests the SFL clubs send their mascots to vote on the proposal for Sevco to enter SFL1.

View Comment

Big PinkPosted on11:01 am - Aug 15, 2016


and from four years ago today;

SFA Membership Agreement Failure?
15 August 2012

Dundee Utd in a short statement reveal that they have not been paid by Sevco/TRFC for the unpaid debt relating to last season’s Scottish Cup with Rangers (IA).

Despite an agreement with the SFA to pay these debts, Charles Green blames the SPL for going back on a agreement made in May to pay this out of money owed to Rangers (IA). Dundee Utd, and other European clubs remain unpaid, as does the face painter from Glasgow.

It is unclear how the ‘conditional’ membership works if the ‘conditions’ have not been met.
STV further report that SPL clubs still do not know how much TV cash they are going to get from the new SPL SKY deal. The SPL make no comment.

View Comment

tayredPosted on11:40 am - Aug 15, 2016


BORDERSDONAUGUST 15, 2016 at 10:56 1 2  Rate This 
Has tayred’s post congratulating Andy Murray been removed?
——————————————————————–
Yip. 

View Comment

The_SteedPosted on1:14 pm - Aug 15, 2016


I was watching Sportscene last night and saw the three tackles from Forrester which resulted in only one yellow card.  This reminded me of an anecdote which I heard ages ago from a friend who was pals with a ref.

Story goes that they were discussing the perception of the man in the street that the dubious decisions would always benefit ‘The Old Firm’.  The ref said that this was because they had to be 100% sure they were right because any decision against The Old Firm would be put under the microscope and potentially impact their career.  If they shied away from the controversial decision, then whilst it would incur the wrath of the non-Old Firm fans, it wouldn’t be plastered all over the media and they would live to ref another day.

Can’t help thinking that is still not a million miles away from current reality.  A quick squizz on the BBC Scotland Football site and the only mention I could see about Forrester is an article from Warburton gently opining that well, he could have got a second yellow, but there were a lot of contentious decisions in the game anyway.  And the cherry on top of the icing on top of the cake is that the story has a picture (purely for comedic effect presumably) said Forrester poking the ref which should be yet another yellow card!

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on2:17 pm - Aug 15, 2016


I see that Philippe Senderos is on trial with TRFC . As a Swiss national, would he require a work permit , and if so, would he comply with the criterion of having played 75% oa international A team matches ?Can’t recall him appearing in the recent Euros .

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on3:13 pm - Aug 15, 2016


PADDY MALARKEY

AUGUST 15,  2016 at 14:17  
I see that Philippe Senderos is on trial with TRFC . As a Swiss national, would he require a work permit , and if so, would he comply with the criterion of having played 75% oa international A team matches ?Can’t recall him appearing in the recent Euros 

You seem to be under the misapprehension that any form of Rangers must adhere to the same set of rules as the rest of us mere mortals.

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on4:31 pm - Aug 15, 2016


I watched the 100m final last night, and was pleased – along with many – that Bolt won.  He comes across as a decent guy, is a great advert for Athletics and the Olympics…and just hope to God he is never outed as a drugs cheat, a la Lance Armstrong.
But,  I didn’t appreciate that his nearest challenger – an American called Gaitlin – had been caught out on drugs offences 3 times previously, but only punished for two.  IIRC, he had been banned for 4 years in 2010.  It might not have been shown in the UK, but a major US network had an interview with Gaitlin before the race: he was given a very easy ride to flatly deny that he had ever taken anything to gain an unfair advantage. 15  Very poor TV reporting. 

Anyway, relevance to SFM: what if Gaitlin had won the Olympics 100m final last night ?
The ‘blue-ribbon’ event of global athletics being won by a banned drugs cheat ?
Gaitlin was partially booed on his introduction to the track last night.
If he had beaten Bolt, I think the whole stadium would have booed him.
And how would that have reflected on the Olympic ideal: “…the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.” ”

Some people who had loved the Olympics previously, are now generally disinterested: myself included.
Likewise, some people who loved going to support their Scottish football team have drifted away in disgust at the TRFC / SFA / SPFL cheating.
If cheats are allowed to prosper, then you simply don’t have a sport.  
It’s not rocket science. 

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:39 pm - Aug 15, 2016


paddy malarkeyAugust 15, 2016 at 14:17
‘…Senderos is on trial with TRFC . As a Swiss national, would he require a work permit , and if so, would he comply with the criterion of having played 75% oa international A team matches ?.’
______
Just heard Kenny Mac say Senderos has 57 caps for Switzerland, but did not figure in the Euros. I don’t know what percentage of caps to possible games that represents in his case?

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on4:57 pm - Aug 15, 2016


StevieBCAugust 15, 2016 at 16:31
!Some people who had loved the Olympics previously, are now generally disinterested: myself included..’
_______
And here we all are, with a cuckoo football team in the premier bit of the SPFL being allowed to pretend to a load of sporting honours that were ‘won’ by a completely different football club, that is still legally alive In Liquidation while the pretendy club goes on its schizophrenic way
against a background of  ‘Governance’ lies and deceit that includes, in the opinion of many, deceitful disinformation given to UEFA to protect that former completely different club!
Argument and discussion about yellow/red cards pale into insignificance when we consider that the whole game was dirtied and sullied  in many different ways years ago, by one club in particular,aided by at least the incompetence if not the active support of ‘Governance’.
Who among us now is anything but cynical about football in this country in the way that most of us are cynical about the Olympic ‘achievements’, such has been the scale of past corruption both by individual athletes and at least one State?

View Comment

Comments are closed.