THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight

Acouple of weeks ago we revisited the OCNC debate. This is a useful exercise to turn to periodically, for I have noticed how, with the passage of time, new aspects have become clear as new information emerges, or some ridiculous claim is made and then debunked.

In those circumstances, we are given the opportunity to reassess what we already know using the new known knowns, or finding significance in something previously overlooked, but now shed in a new light.

Or put another way, the Beauty of Hindsight!

In introducing his notion that both ‘sides’ are merely putting their opinion, SFM contributor MarkC recently brought me to see that one side must be correct and factual, while the other will merely be left expressing an opinion. In the same way that one side must be right, because TRFC is either a new club, or it’s not, one argument must be the one that is factually correct and leaving the other as just opinion (at best). Once a factual argument is put forward, it can only be countered with fact, for anything else is just opinion.

Armed with facts, there would be no need to prove that TRFC is a new club, for first it would be necessary for those who claim ‘same club’ to show, using documentary evidence and facts, that ‘Rangers Football Club’ isn’t currently in liquidation.

So, factual evidence; what facts do we have?

Well, it is a fact that Rangers Football Club availed itself of the advantages of incorporation in 1899, and it’s a fact that Rangers Football Club Plc entered the terminal state of liquidation in 2012.

It is also a fact that at no time since this incorporation took place has anyone been aware of any other Rangers Football Club ensconced within Ibrox, no one has written or spoken about it; or not, at least, until a snake oil salesman used it to push his off the shelf company as ‘The Rangers Football Club Limited’.

What’s more, no other failed incorporated football club has ever availed itself of this new notion of the ‘eternal club’. The SFA was apparently unaware of it either, for they never offered up the salvation of its use to the likes of Airdrieonians, or Gretna, or dear old Third Lanark.

In fact it seems to have miraculously appeared only as a result of the failed CVA attempt of Rangers FC Plc, and the words of one of the spivs who surrounded Ibrox at that time (and for some time before, and after).

The only ‘fact’ put forward to support the ‘same club’ argument is that the SPL say, in their rules, that they are the same club. But the rules don’t actually make them the ‘same club’, for it’s not the SPL’s place to say what is and isn’t a club, and they only explain how they would treat the situation under their rules, and as Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit (see appendices I, II and III) brought to our attention, the football authorities had reasons to introduce this to their rules that had nothing to do with establishing a separate club that lives on eternally.

It does, though, as Easyjambo’s post describes, show a willingness by football’s governors to change the rules to support their desired outcome.

As Hirsutepursuit (Appendix II) points out, the change to the SPL’s rules that enable this ‘interpretation’ of continuance after liquidation, only came about in 2005. So, have we to believe/accept that the split between club and Club has only existed since 2005 and is the preserve of the SPL?

And that brings me to look again at what Lord Nimmo Smith said of how the SPL rules view the continuation of a ‘Rangers’ (see appendix IV for reference). In short, a lot of words that confuse rather than clarify, and give no legal basis, or justification, for what he, or the SPL rules, say. Basically, the rules say ‘Rangers’ continues as the same club because the SPL rules say it does.

Then, in January 2015, Doncaster said this in an interview with the BBC:

“In terms of the question about old club, new club, that was settled very much by the Lord Nimmo Smith commission that was put together by the SPL to look at EBT payments at that time.
“The decision, very clearly from the commission, was that the club is the same, the club continues, albeit it is owned by a new company, but the club is the same.”

What Doncaster seems to be saying here is that TRFC are RFC because LNS said so.

Which is strange because it was the SPL’s own rules, and nothing else, that LNS based his findings on, and to have lent weight to the ‘same club’ argument, LNS would have had to have used some independent reasoning, or examples in law, to back this up. Instead we are left with the following:

  • (i) the SPL, through an interpretation of their rules, told LNS that they looked on TRFC as the ‘same club’,
  • (ii) so LNS said the SPL looked on TRFC as RFC,
  • (iii) and then Doncaster said it’s the same club because LNS said so,

It’s a bit like me telling Big Pink (who is an acknowledged expert in the field of colours) that SFM treat black as white, BP tells the world that SFM treat black as white, and a couple of years down the road I announce that black is white, because Big Pink said so!


Now here’s a fact for us all to consider. At some point Rangers FC ceased to be a member of the SPL. With the help of Neil Doncaster, Sevco (Scotland) Ltd tried to gain entry to the SPL and to participate as The Rangers FC. They failed.

Whatever entity was trying to gain entry into Scottish football, it was at that time not a member of the SPL, and so never had been under the jurisdiction of the SPL.

Therefore whatever the SPL rules or Doncaster said, or what conclusion LNS reached over the matter when it was based solely on what the SPL rules said, it madeno difference to the new club, since the SPL or Doncaster had no locus in the matter. Sevco were in limbo, and everything then depended on Sevco, as The Rangers FC, getting entry into the SFL.

Now, the ‘same club’ argument’s only factual ‘evidence’ is the SPL’s rules, and if they hadn’t included the recent amendment highlighted in Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit’s posts, then there would be no ‘factual’ evidence, at all, however flimsy it might be.

So let’s take a look at what the SFL’s Constitution and Rules say on the matter, and I will quote the relevant parts!

Here’s what it says on a liquidated club joining the league:
“ …”

And here’s what it says, in full, about how it would treat a liquidated member club:
“ …”

In fact, there is absolutely no mention of liquidated clubs in the SFL’s Constitution and Rules, because the notion that a club could live on after liquidation is just that, a notion invented by a spiv!

And because liquidation means the end of a football club, there is absolutely no reason for rules covering such an eventuality to be considered within the rules of football.

And as I said earlier:
‘…the change to the SPL’s rules that enable this ‘interpretation’ of continuance after liquidation, only came about in 2005.

So, have we to believe/accept that the split between club and Club has only existed since 2005 and is the preserve of the SPL?’

What is now obvious is that there was nothing in the rules of Scottish football that gives succour to the notion that TRFC is one and the same football club as RFC.

When the SPL clubs voted against Sevco, to be called The Rangers FC, from entering the SPL, they made the SPL rules on the ‘same club’ matter irrelevant.

When Sevco, to be called The Rangers FC, entered the SFL, they were, according to the SFL’s own rules, a new club, for there is nothing in the rules that says otherwise, or can be interpreted as saying so!

Of course, by the time Doncaster made his nonsense statement, the SFL had been disbanded, and it’s clubs were now part of the SPFL, with rules tailored to suit those who bought into the ‘same club’ notion. Handy, huh?


We all laughed at the time it was spewed forth, but perhaps Armageddon was a real possibility, but not in the way we were encouraged to believe. We know that RFC owed a significant amount of money (football debts) to clubs outside of Scotland, and so outside of the SFA’s influence. We also know, with some certainty, that the SFA turned a blind eye to, or were incompetent in policing, some of RFC’s wrongdoings (the EBTs and European Licence) and the last thing the SFA, and SPL, would want would be non-Scottish clubs kicking up the inevitable stink and getting UEFA/FIFA involved, and investigating the SFA. So how to prevent it?

Plan D (plans A through to C had been used up trying to save RFC)
Create a scenario where TRFC must pay these debts, is the answer! How to do that? Well there’s that rule in the SPL Rule book! Right! but we must ensure Rangers stay in the SPL! Easy, we’ll frighten the other clubs into voting them into the SPL, and so TRFC will have to pay ‘Rangers’ football debts… Oops, the vote went against us! OK, we can stall the other leagues for a year, let’s get them into the Championship, promotion’s a certainty… Oops, we did it again… Let’s create a new set up, all under the (effective) SPL umbrella, with rules to suit, before anyone notices!

Could it be that all that help wasn’t so much because, or not only because, it was ‘Rangers’, but because of what no Rangers, to pay the non-Scottish football debt, might mean for the SFA and SPL, and so for the whole of Scottish football? Was that the real Armageddon?


While putting this blog piece together I found it very difficult to write whenever I had to include the ‘what do you call it’ newly discovered ‘club’ thingy.

I find the ‘big C/little c’ method of describing it to be a nonsense, and at best a poor effort to create whatever it was they (whoever they are) wanted to create.

Even Lord Nimmo Smith, a much more learned man than I, failed to come up with a word, phrase or expression to adequately describe it. In short, a club with a capital ‘C’ is exactly the same as a club with a small ‘c’ – and only a fool could imagine it creates a difference!

Is a game of Football somehow different from a game of football?

But, of course, what can you call something that you can’t see, you can’t feel, can’t hear, can’t smell, something that has never been heard of or spoken of before?

Clearly, LNS could find nothing within the millions of words previously written within the myriad of cases dealt with under Scots Law, UK Law and EU Law, and clubs and associations, both corporate and incorporate, will have been the subject of a fair number of legal cases in the past for him to draw on, yet there was no answer to this conundrum to be found there.

And if Lord Nimmo Smith was unable to draw on his legal knowledge or research, he was merely expressing a layman’s opinion on how the SPL viewed a ‘????????’ club!

In such circumstances, his opinion is no more valid than any other reasonable person’s might be!

Easyjambo and Hirsutepursuit for the posts I have used in the appendices and my thanks in particular to EJ for kindly providing me with some documents I was unable to find on the internet by myself.
I’d also like to acknowledge the part MarkC played in bringing the debate back to SFM’s attention, it can’t be easy, constantly arguing against the accepted wisdom in any debate, but it always seems to bring out the best in us and something new.

March 1, 2017 at 23:02
EASTWOODMARCH 1, 2017 at 08:366 Votes …
Deviously, both the SPL (around 10 years ago coinciding with Rangers (In Liquidation) entering very choppy waters) and the SFA more recently, changed their rules to adopt this distinct “Club” (capital ‘C’) type definition, distinguishing it from the “owner and operator” company. It could have been said at the time to be a licence for unscrupulous, badly run “Clubs” to dump debts and shaft creditors, and so it proved with Sevco’s exploitation of these rules.

In 2005 the SPL changed its articles to create the definition of Club (with a capital C) – which actually INCLUDES the ‘owner and operator’. Whether the ‘owner and operator’ should be EXCLUDED depends on the context of the article in which it is used and to WHICH Club (with a capital C) it is referring.
The SFA did not add the ‘owner and operator’ tag until 2013.
It is interesting because the original SPL articles referred to the clubs (with a lower case c) as its members. Its members each held shares in the SPL. The clubs were listed by their full company names – rather than their trading names.
The Club (with a capital C) definition came about because the SPL were trying to launch SPL2 and one of the clubs (with a lower case c) that could have been included was Brechin.
Brechin is not a company, so could not as a club (with a lower case c) become a member/shareholder in the SPL. To cover this eventuality, a form of words was created that would allow the club (with a lower case c) to play in the SPL even if the share was not actually held by the club (with a lower case c).
If a club (with a lower case c) has not been incorporated, the club (with a lower case c) cannot own anything. In such cases, the assets are held by its members (usually a committee member or members). Since the original articles defined the member/shareholder as a club (with a lower case c), it would have resulted in the committee member who took ownership of the SPL share being defined as the club (with a lower case c).
The reference to ‘undertaking of a football club’ in the definition of Club (with a capital C) meant that it could refer to both an incorporated body and an unincorporated body of persons.
So the context of when the ‘owner and operator’ should be EXCLUDED from the definition of a Club (with a capital C) is only when that owner and operator is not a club (with a lower case c).
What is even more interesting is that three non-corporate clubs (with a lower case c) have each been listed as members/shareholders of the current SPFL – even though none have the legal personality to own anything.
…which is strange.

March 1, 2017 at 23:32

I should add that LNS found The Rangers Football Club PLC (the owner and operator) guilty of offences that predate the creation, in 2005, of the definition of Clubs (with a capital C).
Even if you accept that Rangers FC (the Club with a capital C) can be separated from The Rangers Football Club PLC/RFC 2012 (the owner and operator) – which, to be clear, I do not – that distinction only came about in 2005.
So if there is guilt prior to 2005, that guilt lay with the club (with a lower case c).
LNS didn’t seem to spot the distinction.
…which is even stranger.


March 2, 2017 at 08:01
My recollection of the change in the SPL and SFA rules on “Owner and Operator” was implemented in early 2006, as the SFA wished to sanction Vladimir Romanov for his comments, but couldn’t do so because he held no official post at the club (small “c”).
It was Vlad’s son Roman who was Hearts chairman at the time, although Vlad was the major shareholder. So feel free to blame Vlad for the change in the rules.
Hearts were fined £10,000 by the SFA for Vlad’s comments about referees in October 2006. The DR article below, suggests that the SFA rule change came into effect in May that year.

(46) It will be recalled that in Article 2 “Club” is defined in terms of “the undertaking of an association football club”, and in Rule 11 it is defined in terms of an association football club which is, for the time being, eligible to participate in the League, and includes the owner and operator of such Club.

Taking these definitions together, the SPL and its members have provided, by contract, that a Club is an undertaking which is capable of being owned and operated.

While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time. In common speech a Club is treated as a recognisable entity which is capable of being owned and operated, and which continues in existence despite its transfer to another owner and operator. In legal terms, it appears to us to be no different from any other undertaking which is capable of being carried on, bought and sold. This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise.

So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator. It is the Club, not its owner and operator, which plays in the League. Under Rule A7.1.1 the Club is bound to comply with all relevant rules. The Rules clearly contemplate the imposition of sanctions upon a Club, in distinction to a sanction imposed upon the owner or operator. That power must continue to apply even if the owner and operator at the time of breach of the Rules has ceased to be a member of the SPL and its undertaking has been transferred to another owner and operator.

While there can be no Question of subjecting the new owner and operator to sanctions, there are sanctions Which could be imposed in terms of the Rules which are capable of affecting the Club as a continuing entity (even though not an entity with legal personality), and which thus might affect the interest of the new owner and operator in it. For these reasons we reject the arguments advanced in paragraphs 2 and 9 of the list of preliminary issues.

1,483 thoughts on “THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight

  1. One thing we have learned about the CW court case over the last week or so is that the witnesses “Don’t Recall” much.
    You would believe that when the witnesses recieved  a letter to appear as a witness, a bit of revision could have been sought.It is after all as i believe i have heard it say it’s one of the biggest trials in scottish history.It’s not as if they have not had a constant reminder of what happened


    “…Regan will stay, complete his task and head off no doubt with a large pay off…”

    or, as they say in the trade, doing an Ogilvie.

  3. My niece has peen picked to be an audience member on Question Time this week from Edinburgh.  I think it’s on Friday night.  Anyway she asked us through a family group on Whats App suggestions for two questions.  I ignored it for a day since I hate politics nowadays.  But she pestered me so I said ask them when Scottish politicians are going to address the sectarian and racist singing at Ibrox?  Or at least direct the SFA & SPFL towards dealing with it.

    She gave me a thumbs up for it but my older sisters came on  “see you football!! as usual.  There are more important things in the world”.  No doubt poverty & the NHS & education will be brought up, quite rightly so,but sectarianism and racism is important too! 

    I don’t think she will have the nerve to ask anyhow.

  4. Regarding the losses vs income question, my attempt at an Accounting 101 follows. 
    There are three principle statements in a set of accounts. 

    1. A Profit and Loss account.  This is where revenue (ticket sales, sponsorship, TV money) and it’s related costs (wages, maintenance, etc) are shown.   Revenue less cost = profit if revenue is bigger or loss if costs are.   What can be included as revenue or costs are defined by accounting standards.  

    2. A Balance Sheet.  This shows on one side your assets (stadium, player registrations, debtors, stock in the shop, cash and bank) less your liabilities (creditors, loans, overdrafts).  This has to balance with Equity (i.e how much shareholders paid to buy their shares in th einitial allocation) plus retained profits.  

    3. Cash Flow. Not every item on the Proft and Loss perfectly represents a cash movement e.g. when you buy a player cash might go out the door Day one but in the profit and Loss you would allocate this over the length of th contract aka amortisation.   The cash flow statement adjusts for the non cash stuff in the profit and Loss and shows the change in a company’s net cash position over the year and explains it. Essentially this would show how losses have been met by an increase in overdraft or loans.  

    So in short loans cannot be counted as income.  They are liabilities in the balance sheet and an increase in loans will be shown to offset losses in the cash flow statement i.e. losses deplete your bank balance, loans restore it whilst creating a liability. 

  5. I was David’s senior partner in the funding,and he would come to me from time to time.
    Did Mr Murray not say Mr king was a few doors away and never dropped by to ask questions or something like that when he was a witness last week.

  6. I see that Señor James in his latest blog is claiming that ‘Hallowe’en Houston’ has attended court everyday thus far and is to be found in the public gallery.
    I can only comment on last Friday when I spent the day in court 4 and can state categorically that he most certainly was NOT there at ANY time.
    Perhaps JC can comment later about his presence, or lack of it, today.
    IIRC, there was a report that he was spoken to at the beginning in the vicinity of the court following a complaint about his behaviour. Perhaps he decided to stay away after this. In my opinion, as they say.
    Having read Mr D’s excellent tweets today re Mr Withy’s evidence in chief, I’m sure The Donald will be eager to cross examine once the AD has finished his line of questioning.

  7. mungoboy May 10, 2017 21:05
    He was certainly there most of the time during the first week of the trial.

  8. EJ,
    perhaps that was before Police Scotland had a word outside.
    As I said, he wasnt in court when I was there. No doubt JC will enlighten us about today.

  9. IIRC if a loan is received to a company doesn’t it appear on both sides of the balance sheet? As cash in the assets but as a liability in loans liable? Now the interest would make the liability higher than the loan under normal circumstances but if the loan is interest free it’d just be equivalent. Why would anyone do this? As has been said the requirement is for short term cash, the presence of longer term liabilities is apparently of little consequence. Unfortunately, as we know, these liabilities add up over time, until the straw breaks the camel’s back…
    I am sure my fellow Essex boy EBC can steer me right on this.

    BTW these lessons apparently unlearned down Ibrox (and indeed Hampden) way…

  10. James Doleman‏ @jamesdoleman 4m4 minutes ago   
    No live tweeting of Craig Whyte trial today.

    Boo hisssssss!!!

    James Doleman‏ @jamesdoleman
    For legal reasons can’t comment on why no live tweets Will post updates during breaks

  11. I am pleased to report that a well-known sporting organisation is apparently no longer several months behind on a smallish monthly invoice. Maybe it had some kind of windfall recently.

  12. mungoboyMay 10, 2017 at 21:43  ‘EJ, perhaps that was before Police Scotland had a word outside. As I said, he wasnt in court when I was there. No doubt JC will enlighten us about today.’
    Yes, mungoboy,  your man was there during the time I was in court yesterday. 10.10am to 12.30.

    I have written the following, as an honest summary account of what I heard. I did not take written notes, not wishing to be embarrassed by being approached by a big polis, so I am relying on memory-which ,of course, is fallible.
    There were times I couldn’t quite hear clearly , and it’s clearly possible that the running order of question/response might not be accurate. But, in substance, I believe what I have written to be the gist of what the jury heard, with no add-ons.

    I haven’t seen what JD or anyone else from the ‘reserved for media’ seats has tweeted or otherwise reported( there were about 10 guys, including JD and Grant Russsell, with whom I chatted before and during the morning break)

    As for the proceedings , essentially the witness was asked to say who he was, what age he was ( he seemed to have difficulty with that one!) , did he know CW and could he see him present in court, and what exactly his  ( the witness’s) occupation is.

    Winess gave the answers to the basic questions, and then described himself as a corporate lawyer, whose business lay chiefly in helping companies buy/sell other companies. He had occasionally dealt with football clubs, notoriously difficult and complicated businesses.

    He gave some kind of explanation of differences between tax lawyers, property lawyers, commercial lawyers, and further questions related to Takeover rules, and how one had to be careful not to accidentally force a proposed target company prematurely  to go public about a possible take-over bid because of the immediate effect on share values.  Correspondence in the early stages has to make it plain that no bid is being made, just an expression of interest in ‘looking under the bonnet’

    Further questioning (stumblingly put, I thought) established that witness had never heard of CW until he was asked by a Peter Shakeshaft whether he knew this wealthy individual. He said he had not, but kind of made the assumption that he would be connected to Whyte and McKay ( he pronounced it, not as ‘McEye’ but as McKay as in OK), and Shakeshaft suggested that CW might be worth getting to know.

    He got a later phone call from Shakeshaft asking whether he knew that CW was contemplating buying RFC, and that it might be useful to witness to think about getting involved.

    Witness ( a partner in Collyer Bristow) invited CW and nine other prospective clients as his guests at a ‘Plus’ market do.

    Subsequent to that, witness said, nothing much happened : he was kind of left up in the air as to whether CW was going to use his services.

    At some point though, he wrote to Dundas and Wilson ( acting for ‘Murray’) informing them that Liberty Capital would be using a ‘newco’ if it were to go ahead with any purchase. Liberty Capital had the resources available ,from a reliable financial backer.

    Witness was asked to describe what that letter was intended to portray.

    It was a ‘letter of comfort’ only, simply an indication that no one was wasting RFC’s time .

    Advocate Depute produced a later letter, signed by Witness, on CB headed notepaper, repeating the information and saying that the ‘newco’ would Wavetower, the directors of which would be Ellis, Akers and CW, and giving  the proportionate levels o fthe shareholdings of eack.

    The letter went on to say that Wavetower would have the necessary £33 + million- £25=m for debt repayment and £5 .?m for purchase of majority 85% shareholding.

    Asked about the fact that  shareholdings of Akers and Ellis were simply shown as TBA ( to be agreed?), while those of CW were shown as being 75.2%, witness explained that it was important not to be seen to be actually bidding-because that would fall foul of the ‘Blue Book’- if a bid were formally made, the ‘Blue Book’ (the  Takeover Panel’s/ Stock Exchange’s rules would immediately apply)

    Asked what the purport of that letter was, witness again said it was no more than a ‘letter of comfort’as from a him as a corporate lawyer ascting for a client,  and  NOT as from  an appointed (under the Blue Book rules)financial adviser whose function it would be to issue any  ‘proof of funds’.

    Witness said he was subsequently told by Olswang’s (??) that they were acting the main operators, and that witness should just do his ‘little part’ . Witnss said he was told that  a firm called (?Cairns and ?)
    would act for Ellis and Akers, while he was, loosely, acting for CW.

    The advocate depute got the witness to agree that the letter said ‘funds are there’, not ‘funds would be there’
    Witness confirmed that in, wriiting those letters, he had taken instructions from CW-who was sole shareholder in Liberty Capital.

    I left the Court at that point, to keep another appointment.
    (At one point  Donald Findlay raised a point of law , the jury was sent out, and the point was quickly discussed. No ruling on the point was required to be made as the AD agreed the point.
    Tea-break followed immediately, and then, with the jury back, proceedings recommenced).

  13. Some tweets this morning from JD to whet your appetite:
    Withey: “My personal view is that the Ticketus money was known about.”
    Continues: “Only deal I’ve ever worked on where the vendor was pushing so hard, they were desperate to get the deal over the line”
    AD asks if any mention of Ticketus Withey “The answer is no but there is a bigger story behind it, but you ask the questions”
    Court takes a break, summary of morning session to follow. The Advocate Depute is questioning former lawyer Gary
    Withey: “I thought of something odd last night can I explain

  14. Just a general observation, about life in general. 

    I am thinking that a duped person can actually be the ‘duper’ ?

    And that mibbees, sometimes, the wrong person can appear in a dock?

    Generally speaking.


  15. STEVIEBCMAY 11, 2017 at 15:02
    Just a general observation, about life in general. 
    I am thinking that a duped person can actually be the ‘duper’ ?
    And that mibbees, sometimes, the wrong person can appear in a dock?
    Generally speaking.
       In such a general situation the duping could quite easily be by mutual consent,  in a wider duping blu-haha

  16. Still nothing on the SFA website about fans’ incidents over the last 2 weekends; 

    – fans, [who have pled guilty to], accosting a player on the field, and another making racist gestures
    – dodgy singing
    – pitch invasion

    However, the SFA website does manage to include details of the upcoming England match.

    “William Hill Stand – £60 adult/£20 junior*
    East Stand – £45 adult/£15 junior*
    * under-16s
    All transactions are subject to postage + £3 booking fee”

    So a family of 4 might have to fork out c. £160 + £12 = £172
    Add in pies, Bovril, programme…a conservative £200 ?

    To watch the latest disappointing Scotland team, [and typically including several players I just don’t recognise] ?

    …and to contribute to the overblown salaries of blatantly corrupt blazers at Hampden ?!

  17. STEVIEBCMAY 11, 2017 at 15:46

    Could it be that Daryll Broadfoot is no longer actively defending the SFA and as a consequence their PR is non-existent. It does seem rather strange that the SFA have not issued even a vaguely worded condemnation of all bad things etc.

  18. StevieBC May 11, 2017 at 15:02 
    Just a general observation, about life in general. 
    I am thinking that a duped person can actually be the ‘duper’ ?
    Indubitably 12

  19. Some problems with the site tonight. DNS servers at our domain reg company are all over the place so making some changes.

  20. BIG PINKMAY 11, 2017 at 22:01
    I suppose some may see this and pass it on to others. Change dns settings to google dns servers or

  21. Gunnerb
    Use those in laptop. It’s the nameservers causing the problem.

  22. GUNNERBMAY 11, 2017 at 23:23       3 Votes 
    BIG PINKMAY 11, 2017 at 22:01_______________________I suppose some may see this and pass it on to others. Change dns settings to google dns servers or
    suppose some may not have a clue how to go about that18

  23. Tweet yesterday from Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News. Several people on his Timeline ask him to expand but he says no more

    @alextomo It seems the Scottish FA say Rangers will not be stripped of titles whatever Supreme Court’s Big Tax Case verdict might be.

  24. UPTHEHOOPSMAY 12, 2017 at 07:01
    Tweet yesterday from Alex Thomson of Channel 4 News. Several people on his Timeline ask him to expand but he says no more
    @alextomo It seems the Scottish FA say Rangers will not be stripped of titles whatever Supreme Court’s Big Tax Case verdict might be. 
       I’m not sure if Tomo is referring to anything fresh UTH, but perhaps may be referring to something historical. 
       He doesn’t so much appear to be implying to a direct quote or statement made recently from anybody. 
       It may be the case that something relating to this blog by ecojon has crossed his bows.

  25. Well we know he is a Rangers* lackey, running things by them prior to release. Daveboy Unseen was pulling no punches telling him what was required and reminding him who’s boss.  

  26. Someone else is now celebrating ‘6iar’ then ?!

    Keef has retained his ‘Sports Journalist of the Year Award’ for an incredible 6th time.

    He’s rubbish at his sports job, but he must be bl00dy brilliant at giving…something I couldn’t possibly mention here!


    [Does Keef collect his Awards from a ‘Lucky Bag’ ? I think we should be told. That’s one for the more mature Bampots.]

    Happy Friday.  01

  27. The Tweet by Alex Thomson about titles not being stripped prompted a post on KDS that ended.
    LNS was a report commissioned the SFA, not legally binding, but the outcome was based only on the evidence provided, so they got the report they wanted. They’ve got a bit smarter since Farry.
    This elicited my response below that addresses the evidence not provided and why.
    Whilst that is true, what Rangers were asked to provide SPL lawyers with was all documentation relating to ebts since 1998 when SPL began that had side letters.
    Not all that documentation was provided by Duff and Phelps including the De Boer side letter of 30 Aug 2000 and the HMRC letters provided in court last week setting out the HMRC case as well was the irregular nature of the DOS ebts.
    What is unclear is why that documentation was not provided by Duff and Phelps because they were aware of its contents and used them in 2012 in pursuit of the £2.8m set aside under the SPA before LNS ended in 2013.
    The point is that there is a case that vital information was deliberately kept from the SPL lawyer much as the fact that wtc liability had crystalised before the 31st March was deliberately avoided by Grant Thornton auditors/ RFC Chairman A Johnson and later by SFA CEO S Regan when questions started being asked after Sherriff Officers called at Ibrox in 2011.
    Deceit has clearly played it’s part in achieving the LNS result it has and no decision based on deliberately misleading the regulatory authority can be allowed to stand.
    When it was pointed out to SPL lawyers in 2014 by SFM that information had been witheld no attempt was made by the SPL to establish if it was deliberate. The argument was it didn’t matter.
    Time has proven for that not to be the case so not only should LNS be set aside, the circumstances under which requested information was not provided should be part of a new enquiry.
    SPL lawyers said that the exclusion of the De Boer letter of 30 Aug 2000 made no difference but that stance no longer stands scrutiny. The failure to supply it and the associated HMRC correspondence describing the irregular nature of the De Boer ebt materially affected the decision reached by LNS, so to say LNS and it’s conclusion is final tramples all over natural justice.
    When you add SDM’S testimony to the FTT about the motivation for using ebts it is risible to think LNS Decision should stand on both a truthful and natural justice basis.
    In simple terms Doncaster was lied to, knowingly or unknowingly, and much as he and the SPL would wish it all to go away, they cannot use deceit to perpetuate deceit.

  28. Auldheid
    More power to you and the other Requisitioners.
    I hope you win your fight at Celtic and Celtic move positively on your mandate to clean up our game top down with some dismissals for corruption and or incompetence.

    We are all in your dugout.

  29. StevieBCMay 12, 2017 at 15:58 
    Keef has retained his ‘Sports Journalist of the Year Award’ for an incredible 6th time.

    Once Jim Traynor retired it left the way open for Keith to go for 10 in a row. There is now no competition and the awards ceremony is devalued because of it.

    I miss Jim and his fine journalistic output and his Football Phone in where when he was in full Goebbels mode  (which coincided with Rangers going out of business)  Cosgrove was drafted in to babysit him.

    Is anyone able to post a link to Jim’s last piece for the Record as it was a brilliant summatoin of the internet Bampots and their conspiracy filled outpourings.

  30. PortbhoyMay 13, 2017 at 00:05
    ‘…There you go BD, ….
    A great link,Portbhoy!

    I had forgotten that rant from  a barrel of lard ( sorry, Essexbeancounter, for using what I’m sure you recognise as a Shakespearian phrase! Nice to have you back,btw) like our James Traynor, who could say in the same piece both this

    “I was asked to remain but my conscience won’t allow me to stay in our profession

    and this

    “against Rangers and their fans, who deserve enormous credit for having saved their club, just waiting for the catalyst?”

    ( the italics in both quotes are mine)

    The man is a disgrace to himself and to journalism, even the kind of journalism practised by the sports people at the DR.

  31. PortbhoyMay 13, 2017 at 00:05
    There you go BD, ….

    Some good stuff in there about the tax case and how we are all biased. Not a single word or apology about how he lied to the BBC licence payer for all those years when he said he was an Airdire supporter.

    The lies to the licence payers continue.

  32. This is my favourite Jim Traynor thing.

    Never let it be said he is not a man of unwavering integrity

  33. Mr Traynor issuing propaganda to the loyal via the club website in January 2013, whilst threatening the other clubs and people in the media. I love the bit where he calls people semi-literate, when starting a sentence with “And”.

    Propaganda and threats ended off with “Tolerance and sanity. That’s what Rangers will demonstrate and maintain, especially when back at the summit.” It’s quality stuff. 

    Well actually it’s just another example of an official from the club indulging in “rabble rousing” but that’s hardly a rarity. If the owners, directors and managers can do it why not the media team.

    It isn’t that long ago clubs, particularly those in the top flight, were solemnly insisting that ignoring the views of fans would be akin to financial suicide.

    Remember? It was when the game was wrestling with the problem of what to do with Rangers.

    All the clubs were squealing that the wishes of fans had to be granted. If you swallowed any of that bilge you probably also believed in sporting integrity.

    Of course it was all nonsense. Sporting Integrity was a cloak of convenience, albeit a rather thin, practically transparent one, behind which club leaders huddled together to come up with sanctions.

    Rangers had to be punished, they deserved to be punished but it seemed as if additional penalties were being randomly introduced depending on who was in which meeting.

    Many Rangers fans like to think the frenzy to cause the club as much additional pain as possible was driven by one club but that wasn’t strictly the case. Many fans of many clubs waded in but this is not to say Celtic fans or their club didn’t attempt to influence the outcome of debates on Rangers and possible sanctions.

    Of course they did. And they are still at it on social media sites and on blogs clattered out by individuals who are no better than semi-literate.

    The sheer hypocrisy of what is happening within Hampden’s corridors of power right now will be lost on them but let’s not pretend sporting integrity or the wishes of supporters really are important to all those clubs pushing for this change.

    If they were listening to fans they wouldn’t be sticking with a top division of 12 , and if there was any integrity there would be no rush to bring in changes for the start of next season.

    If, as seems likely, the structure is altered for 2013-14 supporters won’t get what they’ve already paid for, especially those following teams striving for promotion. Actually this entire season will be rendered meaningless.

    Sporting integrity won’t merely be compromised, it’ll be crushed but this is what happens when desperation slips in and throttles reason.

    This belief won’t sit well with the few who are more or less running the SPL and influencing thinking within that desperate organisation but they can’t complain. After all, they’ve dismissed Rangers’ views  completely.

    This club, the biggest one in the country, were not invited to take part in talks which will shape the game’s future.

    We are then entitled to conclude that this club are not important, which is strange indeed when so many fans of other clubs continue to be obsessed by Rangers, who are simply getting on with their own affairs asking no favour from anyone.

    We do, however, expect commonsense to be applied, along with fair play.

    Look, Rangers will return to the top flight, which will of course have to be rebranded. Rangers will take a seat at the head of the table where, despite the latest insult of being shut out of reconstruction talks, we will act with the good of Scottish football in mind.

    We’ll work through the divisions and we will return stronger and better than ever before.

    This club accepted their sanctions and moved on but too many others have been unable to do the same. They continue their assaults and while the deranged, who are using social media sites as conduits for their twisted agendas, should be ignored there are more than a few in the mainstream still maligning the club at every opportunity.

    In a BBC radio debate last Saturday night one pundit, in a matter-of-fact manner, said Charles Green speaks with ‘forked tongue.’ No attempt to explain or justify the statement, just as no explanation was offered when another radio voice claimed there was a dishonesty about Walter Smith when he went public with a late bid for the club.

    Word of advice gentlemen. From now on be very careful when talking or writing about this club.

    To paraphrase something said about another club, Rangers will not be treated less than others. And although there is no desire to pick fights, be assured that no one will attack Rangers with impunity.

    Better, however, to quote Bill Struth: ‘Never fear, inevitably we shall have our years of failure and when they arrive, we must reveal tolerance and sanity. You do that, you will emerge stronger than before.’

    Tolerance and sanity. That’s what Rangers will demonstrate and maintain, especially when back at the summit.

  34. Can anyone who was in attendence in court expand on the basic numbers presented (within the confines of what can be said obviously)  (I’ll also credit johnjames here for having a stab at it too earlier this week).

    As I understand it Whyte (Wavetower) were required via the SPA to provide 18m for Lloyds repayment, 5m for immediate player investment, 5m for working capital (was the HSE debt within this figure?) and circa 3m for the wee tax case.  It is alleged that he mortgaged STs from season 11/12, 12/13, 13/14 and 14/15 to do this.  However it is now apparent from court that Murrays oldco Rangers were potentially in debt to Ticketus for up to £6m.  But surely these were also mortgaged on the same 11/12 set of STs?

    im not too concerned about the legality issue, the law is the law after all, I’m just struggling to get my head round the base arithmetic.  One cake, how many slices sort of thing!

  35. It is unlikely that Rangers were “in debt” to Ticketus per se, as that is not how Ticketus operated. 

    They did not provide loans. They bought season tickets in advance at a discount and sold them at face value via the club, their profit was the discount. As far as the supporter knew they were simply buying the ticket from the club.

    If there was “debt” it was just the same as any other season ticket holder. They pay up front, and their debt is reduced as games are played, whether they attend or not. Every season ticket holder at a club is a creditor until the last game they have paid for is played.

    The difference with Ticketus was that they were no longer a creditor once their last ticket was sold on to a supporter. I imagine the “debt” was the fact that the games had not been played and their tickets had not been sold at that time. Once those tickets were sold and Ticketus received the money then there was no debt.

    The fact that Rangers were using them prior to the sale to Whyte is indicative of, at the very least, cash flow problems. 

  36. Smugas May 13, 2017 at 09:31
    The SPA commitments were £18m debt to Lloyds, £2.8m for the WTC, £1.7m for the H&S issue, £5m working capital and £5M per year investment in the playing squad for four years, for a total of £47.5m.

    I’m not sure whether or not JJ has the £8m RFC Ticketus liability correct, as I don’t know if the £8m borrowing occurred during season 2009/10, 2010/11 or both.  There was mention of an £8m advance by the Advocate Depute during McGill’s evidence on 9th May, although I wasn’t in court that day.

    James Doleman tweeted the following, on 9th May, suggesting that the £8m referred to was during season 2009/10 in respect of STs for season 2010/11:
    Advocate Depute shows agreement between Ticketus and Whyte to sell £20m worth of season tickets, notes in previous season RFC borrowed £8m

    A day or two earlier an unspecified RFC Ticketus liability, which sounded as if it related to season 2010/11, was also mentioned in court while I was present. However, I wasn’t 100% certain that I had picked up the information correctly, and the point wasn’t followed up so I didn’t get confirmation one way or another.

    Incidentally, Lloyds had apparently set a limit on Ticketus funding of £5M.   Again on 9th May, when Findlay was cross examining McGill, James Doleman tweeted:
    Letter from Bank of Scotland to Rangers from 2009, mentions £34m credit facility agreed in 2004.
    Document goes on to say bank limited any borrowing from Ticketus over £5m and must be repaid by June

    It’s probably not widely known, but Whyte actually made two payments back to Ticketus during his brief tenure.  From the D&P creditors report of 5 April 2012, it notes that Whyte repaid £3m in June 2011 and £5m in September 2011. However, he also borrowed a further £5m in September 2011 (probably the same £5m he repaid), by mortgaging a fourth season’s STs.

    It is not clear whether or not the £8m repaid related to earlier borrowing by RFC, or was in fact the amount due to be repaid from STs from 2011/12 for Whyte’s first year of his initial three year deal.

    From other documents that I’ve kept, Ticketus provided circa £20.3m in May 2011 and £5m in September 2011.  In the civil action Ticketus v Whyte, the claim was for £18.2m and the amount awarded was £17.7m, being the net exposure of Ticketus without interest or the expected profit.

    The above figures suggest to me that the repayments made by Whyte were in respect of the first year of his deal rather than any previous borrowing by RFC.

    I also note that Ticketus’ creditor claim against RFC (2012) was £26.7m, which may be the total amount outstanding that Ticketus would have expected to receive from RFC over the remainder of the Whyte deal. 

  37. From Lord Hodge, way back when.

    It is probably worth noting it was Rangers doing the deals with Ticketus, even after Whyte took over. 

    I believe it is false to think of Rangers / Ticketus and Whyte / Ticketus deals. They were the same thing.

    Ticketus operates a business of buying and selling tickets for, among others, sporting events. The two contracts with Ticketus, which I discuss below, in summary involve the sale by Rangers to Ticketus of season tickets and an agency arrangement by which Ticketus is to receive the income flow from the sale of the season tickets. On or about 9 May 2011 Ticketus paid £20,300,912 for the first tranche of the season tickets which covered the seasons 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. On or about 21 September 2011 Ticketus paid a further £5,075,213 for the second tranche of season tickets, which covered the seasons 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. I am informed that the expected income flow from the sale of the season tickets is likely to represent about 60% of the cash flow of Rangers in those seasons.

  38. My post of 02.06 this morning is in moderation.

    I reproduce it below, having excised the phrase that might have triggered the ‘moderation’

    “PortbhoyMay 13, 2017 at 00:05 ‘…There you go BD, ….‘ _________

    A great link,Portbhoy!

    I had forgotten that piece from James Traynor, who could say in the same piece both this

    “I was asked to remain but my conscience won’t allow me to stay in our profession”

    and this

    “against Rangers and their fans, who deserve enormous credit for having saved their club, just waiting for the catalyst?” ( the italics in both quotes are mine)

    The man is a disgrace to himself and to journalism, even the kind of journalism practised by the sports people at the DR.”

    Homunculus’ later post is a far better example of the kind of  ‘journalist’ that I believe JT to be, i.e one whom it is scarcely worth the effort of despising.

    (the phrase I had used was taken from a description of Falstaff in  ‘Henry IV’ ( apologies, Essex, for a the reference to Shakespoke. Nice to have you back, btw!)

  39. I should have waited a wee bit longer to see if my first post would be released from ‘moderation’!
    Sorry about the ‘repeat’ post.

  40. HOMUNCULUSMAY 13, 2017 at 07:59
    I love the bit where
    Rangers had to be punished, they deserved to be punished.
    Celtic fans or their club didn’t attempt to influence the outcome of debates on Rangers and possible sanctions.
    This club accepted their sanctions and moved on.
    Word of advice gentlemen. From now on be very careful when talking or writing about this club. (moved on indeed)
    To go from deserved to be punished(But never mentions what the punishment was rangers got ) to then go on and say, the club accepted their sanctions
    it’s as if he has no clue what he is talking about.just a rant and a few coupled together soundbites

  41. Thanks EJ.  As I said, there is only one ST cake.  It doesn’t matter how you slice it up (and despite your best efforts and patience I confess to still being a little confuddled but that’s nothing new) it’s the same cake.  

    Im off to a dark room with my slide rule and abacus!

    MAY 13, 2017 at 11:24


    EJ my reading of it is that Whyte was negotiating to do the deal from late 2010.

    It was completed in early May 2011.

    The first load of Ticketus money was paid on 9th May 2011, after Whyte had taken over. That deal was with Rangers. 

    It included the money already negotiated prior to Whyte buying the shares, and the money Whyte used to partly fund the deal.

    The entire deal was with Rangers, because that was who was selling the tickets, whether Murray owned the shares or Whyte doesn’t really matter. It was basically a roll up of the season ticket sales already agreed (with Murray) plus the additional ones being sold (agreed with Whyte).

    It was basically all the same deal, between Ticketus and Rangers. 

    It’s really surprising how little Rangers knew about it. 

  43. Why would the SFA or SPFL not want to strip titles if the HMRC appeal is upheld.  It then is a matter of fact that players were playing/registered illegally.
     I have heard in court evidence that proves factually  that the wtc crystallized before the end on March deadline which means that RFC got a license to play in CL illegally.  Also that De Boar, Moore and Flo were registered illegally and every game they played in should have resulted in RFC losing 3 0.  Will all this be ignored by the SFA? 
    Why do the SFA/SPFL not want to address this what reasons can they give.  This is a serious question, why can this liquidated club not be held to account in the history books for what they have done.
    I wrote to my club in the past concerning the BTC and was informed that it was still an ongoing process.  I will write again if HMRC appeal is upheld as this is at present all I can do.

    Nothing said in court proves anything factually. That’s for the court to decide. We may well hear other ‘facts’ that contradict those ones you refer to. It’s a mistake to draw conclusions too soon. Still 9 weeks of this trial to go.

  44. From that video, can I just point something out.

    The club doesn’t pay VAT or PAYE, it hands it over.

    VAT and PAYE are collected from customers and employees. So what he is actually saying is that he spent money that wasn’t his, to finance a football club.

    That is not the same as being unable to pay tax. 

  45. gunnerb May 13, 2017 at 17:53 
    Received this link is in an email this morning from my bro-in-law. He highlighted the fact that TRFC are not listed and suggested that this might mean no license to play in uefa competitions ?
    I don’t think that’s the case.

    It is more likely that the 5 year cycle of Oldco’s coefficient points (the last ones earned on their day trips to Malmo and Maribor in 2011/12) have just dropped off the list.

    The newco will just get Scotland’s basic coefficient figure for teams that haven’t featured in Europe for the previous five seasons.

    MAY 13, 2017 at 17:53
    Dundee united who were on the exact same points as Rangers (original) last season are still on the list for this year,Rangers (original) are gone all together.
    Is it possible for a club to lose nearly 5 co-efficent points after 1 season?,united only dropped 0.2 points from last season.This could be about the license issue or it could be UEFA removing them from the list as they no longer exist.

    MAY 13, 2017 at 19:32
    MAY 13, 2017 at 19:34
    Thanks for the replies. I think it most likely that EJ has called it.

  48. That Euro list only lists clubs who have played in euro competitions in the last five seasons. Neither new club or old club have done so, so are not included.

  49. It’s a very quiet night, and not being at all interested in the Eurovision Song Contest, I spent a little time on the UEFA website, (sent there by interest in the ‘co-efficient’ posts about the non-appearance of TRFC in the list., which I think has been satisfactorily explained by Ej and P/T Pete)

    My interest turned to the European Clubs Association.

    RFC  was, of course, a founder member of the Association.But they lost full membership when they ceased, through being put into Liquidation, to be able to participate in professional football.

    Irritatingly, the ‘Scotland’ entry still shows a ‘Rangers’ as an ‘associated member.’

    Wikipedia has this : “Due to the liquidation in 2012 of the company that formerly ran the club, Rangers were not permitted to continue their full membership of the ECA. However Rangers FC was entitled to associated membership of ECA as considered to be a founding member with its history intact.”

    The breath-taking inconsistency is, well, breath-taking! How do the minds of these people actually work?

    I have sent a message to the ECA ‘contact us’ email address to point out that TRFC is not commercially, legally or in football terms, the RFC that was a founder member of ECA, and is in no entitled to be regarded as such.

    Much good it may do, but I feel better for having sent a message.19

  50. SmugasMay 13, 2017 at 13:17    
    Thanks EJ.  As I said, there is only one ST cake.  It doesn’t matter how you slice it up (and despite your best efforts and patience I confess to still being a little confuddled but that’s nothing new) it’s the same cake.  
    Im off to a dark room with my slide rule and abacus!
    I thought the point was that, prior to the Billionaire buy out, Murray owned the club and £6m of the cake was already sliced up and legally spoken for.

    And when the cake required further slicing, to enable Whyte et al to acquire the company, it would not have been possible to do so without Murrays knowledge as Ticketus would have had to deal with him as he was the owner at the time.
    My favourite cake is Carrot cake BTW.

  51. Just listening to a programme on R. Scotland about women who worked in the Mills in Paisley.  I have worked all over Scotland in my time and Paisley has to be one of my favourite places, closely followed by Lanark.

    I became close friends with a lady and her hubby who was a big Buddies fan.  Took me to Love St. on a few occasions.  Happy days.  I got a St. Mirren tammy and wore it for years in my home town without a mention, I think everyone just thought it was a black & white tammy 10.

    I just wish that leader in N. Korea would concentrate on football and not nuclear weapons.  Regardless of your feelings about Britain’s nuclear detterent at least it is defensive. He wants to be aggressive. 

    When you think of Spain, Italy, Germany etc. in the modern era you think of football.  (apart from holidays) .  Why can’t he aspire to that?

    Rant over. 04

Comments are closed.