THAT Debate, and the Beauty of Hindsight

Allyjambo ByAllyjambo

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!


SOMETHING IMPORTANT I THINK WE’VE OVERLOOKED

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?


WAS IT ALL ABOUT ARMAGEDDON?

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?


Footnote

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!


Acknowledgements
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.


APPENDIX I: HIRSUTEPURSUIT
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.

APPENDIX II: HIRSUTEPURSUIT
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.

APPENDIX III: EASYJAMBO

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.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/h/heart

APPENDIX IV
(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.

About the author

Allyjambo

Allyjambo author

What it says on the tin. My name is Ally. I am a Jambo in exile

1,483 Comments so far

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on6:46 pm - Apr 27, 2017


Any update on that Scottish team, [whose name I can’t remember], who were apparently being pulled up by the SFA for fielding an ineligible [?] player – in a cup game recently ?

Last week or week before ?

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on6:47 pm - Apr 27, 2017


JIMBOAPRIL 27, 2017 at 07:30       27 Votes 
I went down to the pub yesterday at about 3pm.  I excitedly updated the owner who is a big Celtic fan, ST holder, all the news from James Doleman’s tweets.
He gave me a kindly smile and said OK.  I could read in his eyes “get a life”.
I said to Reiver on here about a year ago us folk who are interested in the skulduggery of Scottish Football are in a minority. 
I still can’t wait until it all kicks off again at 10am. I might well go back down to the local at 3pm and bore the shit out of him again. I will have done my duty.
———————
had a similar experience at my workplace.
I excitedly updated all the ibrox fans of all the news from James Doleman’s tweets.
They gave me a kindly smile and said OK. I could read in their  eyes “get a life”. yet when everyone was getting arrested left right and centre you could hear the screams of justice before one could reach the front gate.
So the conversation turned to the youth cup final. I could read in their eyes they only wanted to talk football.
Today there was no talk on football18

View Comment

Avatar

tamjartmarquezPosted on7:49 pm - Apr 27, 2017


CLUSTER ONEAPRIL 27, 2017 at 18:47

Not to worry Cluster One, the chatter around the water cooler tomorrow will be bantertastic. Broonie will be the talk o’ the toonie. 

yep….. yellow card all day long, no red mist, no intent, no retaliation, no reckless-dangerous challenge no siree- just adequate force to not get the ball. Scottish football is not corrupt, it really is a joy to behold. Kids games played behind close doors. Kids emulating their heroes, but it is all a bit hollow because there are, in the words of Mr Cornwall, no more heroes anymore. Bit of a sham really.
Inevitable really, since Halliday didn’t see red at weekend, it is only fair that the it all evens out between you know who. Business as usual.
I seek the blogs indulgence, so any Soccerball fans from the far future can bear witness to the fractured game in Scotia, and the fair minded people on here criticise LNS. 
https://media.giphy.com/media/xUA7b6kQWyowYucBPi/giphy.gif

off to listen to latest podcast. nighty night everyone.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:07 pm - Apr 27, 2017


TAMJARTMARQUEZAPRIL 27, 2017 at 19:49       Rate This 
CLUSTER ONEAPRIL 27, 2017 at 18:47
——————–
yep….. yellow card all day long,
https://media.giphy.com/media/xUA7b6kQWyowYucBPi/giphy.gif
————————–
Inevitable really, since Halliday didn’t see red at weekend,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cScVII6TO_A
—————————–
so any Soccerball fans from the far future can leave a reply and tell us what you think.
We will get back to you on it honest in 404114

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on8:10 pm - Apr 27, 2017


BarcabhoyApril 27, 2017 at 18:00 
It makes sense now to wait and let what has been known to enter the public arena.
On LNS –
I always thought the side letters/registration issue was the wrong basis to make a case . 
I understand why the rush at the time, but the nature of the ebts that only Rangers used in the form they did in my opinion was and remains a defect in observing Article 5.1 (a) and 5.1(f) of SFA Articles and the SPFL equivalent B1of SPFL Rules. 
If however the SC uphold the COS Decision then the “fundamental defect” that LNS himself speaks of (para 88) in his Decision will be perceived as having taken place.
 SFA Handbook
5. Obligations and Duties of Members
 5.1 All members shall:-
 (a) observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship in accordance with the rules of fair play;
 (b) be subject to and shall comply with:-
 (i) these Articles;
 (ii) the Judicial Panel Protocol;
 (iii) the Challenge Cup Competition Rules;
 (iv) the Registration Procedures;
 (v) International Match Calendar;
 (vi) Club Licensing Procedures; and
 (vii) any statutes, regulations, directives, codes, decisions promulgated by the Board, the
 Professional Game Board, the Non-Professional Game Board, the Judicial Panel, a
Committee or sub-committee, FIFA, UEFA or the Court of Arbitration for Sport;
(c) recognise and submit to the jurisdiction of the Court of Arbitration for Sport as specified in the
 relevant provisions of the FIFA Statutes and the UEFA Statutes;
(d) respect the Laws of the Game;
(e) refrain from engaging in any activity, practice or conduct which would constitute an offence
 under sections 1, 2 or 6 of the Bribery Act 2010; and
(f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith.
SPFL Rule
B Membership of The League
Relationship between Clubs and the League
B1 In all matters and transactions relating to the League and Company each Club shall behave towards each other Club and the Company with the utmost good faith.
The appetite to revisit LNS if SC uphold the appeal using Article 5.1  and SPFL B1 for what  then could be deemed as a simple defect in observing 5.1 (a) and (f) and B 1 is unlikely to be big enough  to serve up that particular dish given a fine already imposed and collected.
On the other hand if the SC uphold the COS Decision, Doncaster will be dinner served on a B 1/Article 5.1 plate.

View Comment

Avatar

goosygoosyPosted on9:44 pm - Apr 27, 2017


Re Broonie red card
I am in no doubt that this was a deserved red card for Broonie.
So also was the Halliday foul on Roberts at the weekend. The obedient SMSM deemed this yellow card  to be a routine”honest” decision .One that wasn`t really   a”mistake”as it was in line with the informal “practice” we all know about (DO WE? ) that Referees are entitled to be more lenient in the first 15 mins of a match than they would be later on.
First time I`ve heard that one…Must check the timing of sending offs in previous matches between Celtic and the now deceased RFC plc. There were plenty sending offs in that long sequence of games  so it ought to be possible to confirm this SMSM invention.”
However
Whats more interesting is that
This looks very much like the panel has effectively made a political decision to favour Celtic
Which begs the question 
Why?
Why  have the SFA used a so called impartial panel  to make a political decision favouring Celtic ahead of yet another match against the club they have bent over backwards to assist since it was founded as Sevco Ltd in May 2012?
Could it be that
The next 6 weeks leading up to the SC Final and end of the Season is going to be dogged by horrendous revelations about how a corrupt SFA behaved towards  the now deceased Ibrox club in 2010-2011-2012 ?
And therefore the political  imperative for the SFA at the minute is to distance itself from Ibrox by taking whatever means are open to them to act negatively as far as TRFC are concerned?
Like making a controversial decsion to reduce Broonies red card to a yellow?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
While its tempting to believe the above
Much more likely
The Broonie decision is a PR plus for the SFA ito be tucked away for offset later against upcoming honest mistakes in the SC Final
Time will tell

View Comment

Avatar

goosygoosyPosted on11:13 pm - Apr 27, 2017


 
That  Glesca  humour…………. …It spans the divide 
=,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
 From  another forum
Do You Think We Will Win The League Next Season?
Yes    11%
No     85%
Other 4%
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
wewillfollowrangers
 ,,,,,,,,,,,
 3 hours ago, Young Bob said:
I voted yes because Dave King has appointed a new manager and is going to give him the finance to bring in the players to stop Bheast FC.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Dear Bob
I am Prince Kufour Obumnekechukwukaakamdiocha, a Nigerian prince, I am having trouble getting funds out of Nigeria if you could send me 1.Your Full Name, Company’s Name, Address, Telephone and Fax Numbers. 2.Your Bank Name, Address. Telephone and Fax Number. 3.Your Bank Account Number and Beneficiary Name so i can transfer funds into your account, i will reimburse you handsomely for your troubles.
Katanga
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on1:25 am - Apr 28, 2017


Well it was an interesting afternoon in the pub.  A gay guy I know came in that I know and we spoke about Philosophy, the Pre-Raphelites in mid Victorian Britain and he praised me for not talking about football for a change! 05.

He went home.  Then the news came in that Broony had his red card downgraded to a yellow.  So seven bears invited me out for a fight to sort it out!

Only kidding!  I couldn’t fight my way out a lucky bag.

However I’m going to a sportsmans dinner Friday night where Frank MacAvennie is the guest speaker.  I’m going to remind him of the time I met him in the early 80s when he played for the buddies. It was a pub in Glasgow Road, Paisley.  Honestly, where’s the burds is most appropriate!

View Comment

Avatar

TrisidiumPosted on8:19 am - Apr 28, 2017


I believe Jim Craig is also attending that function J.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on11:05 am - Apr 28, 2017


Been to most of these sportsmen’s dinners over the years.  It’s to raise money for an annual trip to the seaside for all the children of our primary school and first two years of high school. they go for free.  A special train is hired for the day.  It started in 1926 (I think) when most children didn’t get holidays and going to the seaside in June was up there with the excitement of Christmas. You can imagine that in a mining village families were quite poor right up to the sixties. Thousands go to it.  It would bring tears to a stone to see all the kid’s happy faces marching from the school to the station even in this day and age when most will be familiar with Spain etc.

Really glad to hear Jim Crag will also be there, I didn’t know that.

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on11:51 am - Apr 28, 2017


Findlay continuing to cross examine SDM this morning.

Focusing on correspondence between DCK and the Takeover Panel.  Paraphrasing, DCK essentially saying that:
1. Club not well run under SDM
2. Deal by SDM to sell to Whyte wiped out minority shareholders
3. DCK unaware of EBT scheme – would have opposed tax evasion that caused the Club such problems

Just letting this sink in

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on11:53 am - Apr 28, 2017


TINCKS
APRIL 28, 2017 at 11:51
======================================

Findlay “Mr King was on the board that took the club to a shambles of a playing squad and all the rest…now saying ‘not me guv’?”

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on11:58 am - Apr 28, 2017


That comes from this sequence

Murray says of King “I cannot remember and major issues he had during my chairmanship” adds not working for bank but to “win trophies”

Findlay asks about King’s complaint over tax scheme “We put in the accounts…Mr King could have read the accounts”

In letter King says tax scheme allowed Rangers to live on a”false economic basis for a long period of time” Says would have opposed

Murray notes Dave King had been on the board since 2002, “EBT” tax scheme since 2000 not challenged.

King : misled about retail deal, says transaction “significantly weakened the club” Findlay “was that a lie”? Murray “It’s not true

Murray says during transfers out Rangers were “taking the money early” to help the club, which led to a “discount for funds at present”

Murray “I can’t think of many business plans that go 100%”

Findlay “Mr King was on the board that took the club to a shambles of a playing squad and all the rest…now saying ‘not me guv’?”

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on12:01 pm - Apr 28, 2017


Hom,

I have some thoughts where Findlay is going with all this but will have to keep them to myself as it will get into speculation about the case itself.

Think there might be some traps being baited.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on12:07 pm - Apr 28, 2017


TINCKS
APRIL 28, 2017 at 12:01
==================================

I think people will draw their own conclusions, bearing in mind his job is to cast (reasonable) doubt in the minds of the Jury with regards whether Craig Whyte committed fraud.

As we have discussed before Fraud is not an absolute offence. You cannot commit it unless you intend to.

One wee subtle part from this morning.

Witness shown “Share Purchase Agreement” between Murray and Whyte, says purchaser will “attempt” to invest £20m Finday “not a commitment”

Murray says he took this as an obligation

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on12:20 pm - Apr 28, 2017


Oopsies!

“Murray says he made a mistake when he testified that he found out about Ticketus deal in December 2012, was Dec 2011/Jan 2012”

Now that’s a doozy of a mistake to have made.

He is now admitting he knew about the Ticketus deal well before the sale, not well after.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on12:28 pm - Apr 28, 2017


No. Jan 12 is post sale pre admin.  Shirley?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on12:32 pm - Apr 28, 2017


SMUGASAPRIL 28, 2017 at 12:28

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

You’re right, sorry my mistake.

He was out by a year but it was still post the sale.

View Comment

Avatar

Bogs DolloxPosted on12:46 pm - Apr 28, 2017


HOMUNCULUS
APRIL 28, 2017 at 12:32
      Rate This

SMUGASAPRIL 28, 2017 at 12:28

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

You’re right, sorry my mistake.

He was out by a year but it was still post the sale.

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

Which then makes his earlier answer nothing more than a mix up with dates because as you say it was not before the sale. Funny how people get things wrong under pressure.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on12:56 pm - Apr 28, 2017


BOGS DOLLOX
APRIL 28, 2017 at 12:46
=============================

Indeed.

Let’s see how it goes with his memory regarding whether he was contemplating administration or not.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on1:01 pm - Apr 28, 2017


Findlay to Murray “I have a copy of everything” puts to him he told Crown “I did consider pre-pack administration”
“I dismissed it”

Murray “I’m not playing tricks”
Judge “I’m not playing tricks either but did you consider it”?Murray agrees he has given it thought

*had*

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on3:14 pm - Apr 28, 2017


5 April 11 email from McGill “I don’t think the purchaser has the resources…we have no idea if they have the funds to run the club”

Email continues “Don’t think the deal is perfect.. uncertain what alternative exists..bank attitude hardening after press coverage”

Findlay suggests “even if the Whyte model was wrong, it was a plan”
Murray “it wasn’t our plan”
Findlay “But it was a plan”

Findlay “You left the club to a group of men who sat around waiting for the Sultan of Brunia to decide to buy a Scottish football club”

Findlay “loyalty is admirable, but what had these men done to your football club, our football club” Ends cross-examination

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

There you have it, Mr Findlay letting Mr Murray know what he has done. I think Findlay has made it clear he takes this as personal.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:38 pm - Apr 28, 2017


Well, if TRFC is Rangers, the same club in the eyes of the SFA / SPFL / SMSM ;

then shirley a high profile, CRIMINAL case involving the club – and with two Directors ‘still’ involved in the club – which tarnishes the image of SCOTTISH football…

would result in the club receiving a well deserved ‘Bringing the Game into Disrepute’ charge from the SFA ?!

I mean, it’s not as though it’s about a disputed parking ticket; these are serious charges, heard in the highest court, and involves numerous current and previous ‘same club’ Directors. 

The ‘leadership of Scottish football’ must be holed up in the bunker again – with no TV/radio/internet – until well after the trial is completed.

Whilst the image of our game is tarnished – yet again – because of one club’s intransigence, and absolute disregard for anyone and everyone who does not bow down in the direction of Ibrox.  11

[And unless I missed it: I haven’t read any court questions so far, asking whether any Rangers plc Director had considered the impact and potential consequences of the club’s sale, or Admin. – on the Scottish game in general ?
Probably didn’t even appear ‘on the radar’ in the blue room.] 

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on3:46 pm - Apr 28, 2017


Interesting point since it would form a decent defence that they did it (the doomed sale) for the good of Scottish Football.  And yet still it hasn’t seemed to have entered their heads to even say it never mind think it!

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on3:53 pm - Apr 28, 2017


I followed James Doleman’s reports throughout the day but it was interesting to read through Andrew Black of the BBC reports.  Obviously mostly similar but enough slight differences to give a fuller picture.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on4:22 pm - Apr 28, 2017


HomunculusApril 28, 2017 at 13:01‘…Murray “I’m not playing tricks” Judge “I’m not playing tricks either but did you consider it”? Murray agrees he has given it thought…’______________

I love it when a judge slaps some jumped-up ar.e of a businessman!
Especially a businessman who failed, business-wise, in every respect except in being a superb example of the low-life, debt-avoiding asset stripper, whose main aim is to ensure that, f.ck eveybody else, he and his family are going to do alright.

God help the children of such a businessman.

Most, if not all of us, have dads that we are not ashamed of.
Other children are not so blessed.They have dads whom the whole world knows are cheats, and strangers to the truth ( and to the Struth!)

Among these must be numbered the offspring of a disgraced knight of the realm
.God help them. Unless they are chips off the old block.
Or, rather, God help them if they ARE chips off the old block!

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:02 pm - Apr 28, 2017


Irony alert – During questioning about King’s letter criticising the JJB retail deal, amongst may other things. Murray denied that he had “Sold the jerseys”

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on5:04 pm - Apr 28, 2017


Could someone indulge me with an explanation of the following contained in James Doleman’s excellent Twitter reports. It concerns DCK’s letter to the Takeover Panel in 2011:

1. ‘King note “I was approached 10 years ago to make investment in the club” “After personal discussion with Mr Murray” agreed to £5m’

2. ‘Later raised investment to £20m, “asked for assurances 1) Be on the board 2) Not dispose of shareholding without consultation.’

3. ‘Murray says King himself removed his shareholding from Murray sport “signed a piece of paper” to transfer to himself’


It’s item 3 that interests me. What did DCK transfer from Murray Sports to who? Presumably his £20m ‘investment? Is it transferred from Murray Sports to DCK or (S)DM, or indeed, another Murray International/Group Holdings company? 

Thanks in anticipation 040619

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:13 pm - Apr 28, 2017


Findlay spent much of the day highlighting documents from the Board and other advisors that they had serious concerns about the status of the club before the takeover, all of which Murray sought to deny or deflect as merely opinions.

The stage is now set up for the subsequent witnesses to back up their assertions and show that Murray was wrong.

I was struck by the handwritten notes of Murray Group’s David Horne which showed that he was party to discussions about the possibility of Octopus (Ticketus) funding up to £15m, towards a takeover deal, as early as 3 November 2010.  SDM denied that Horne had shared that information with him and that he remained in the dark about Ticketus until late December 2011.

In the latter part of his evidence SDM confirmed that two people had received bonuses directly for their contribution to getting the RFC deal done.  One was Martin Bain, the other was ……………… David Horne.  Two others, Mike McGill and Donald Muir also received bonuses for their work within the larger Murray Group

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:27 pm - Apr 28, 2017


Jingso.Jimsie April 28, 2017 at 17:04 
Could someone indulge me with an explanation of the following contained in James Doleman’s excellent Twitter reports. It concerns DCK’s letter to the Takeover Panel in 2011:
1. ‘King note “I was approached 10 years ago to make investment in the club” “After personal discussion with Mr Murray” agreed to £5m’
2. ‘Later raised investment to £20m, “asked for assurances 1) Be on the board 2) Not dispose of shareholding without consultation.’
3. ‘Murray says King himself removed his shareholding from Murray sport “signed a piece of paper” to transfer to himself’ It’s item 3 that interests me. What did DCK transfer from Murray Sports to who? Presumably his £20m ‘investment? Is it transferred from Murray Sports to DCK or (S)DM, or indeed, another Murray International/Group Holdings company? 
Thanks in anticipation 
======================
1.  King was introduced to Murray Group by Alastair Johnston. The initial plan was to invest £5M in Murray Sports Ltd which was, at the time, the major shareholder in the club.  That figure was increased to £20m when other interested parties dropped out. Ben Nevis Holdings was the investment vehicle (later investigated by SARS, by which time King had switched his holding to Metlika Trading)

2. There were several conditions on the sale, including a seat on the club’s Board as long as he held the shares. He also expected to be consulted about any sale and sought first refusal on the right to match any offer that was made for the club.

3. When Murray Group was undergoing major reconstruction surgery in 2010/11 because it was effectively insolvent, King requested that he be allowed to convert his stake in Murray Sports Ltd. to a direct holding in the club.  That stake was under the name of Metlika.  IIRC from my own info, that change took place as late as February 2011.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on5:45 pm - Apr 28, 2017


Thanks for the updates EJ.

It’s good to fill in some of the gaps and get a feel for what happened. Whilst James’ tweets are interesting they are obviously very limited in their scope.

Are you of the same opinion as me that Donald Findley is somewhat teed off with David Murray for his part in the demise of the club Mr Findlay supported.

Remember his comment of a few years ago. 

‘It is a different club,’ he tells Sportsmail bluntly. ‘They may play at Ibrox and they may play sometimes in royal blue jerseys.
‘But you cannot pass on that which is undefinable. And that is spirit and tradition and all the rest of it.
‘To me this is a new Rangers which has to establish its own history and tradition.
But it’s not the Rangers I know. To me, genuinely, it is a new entity.’

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on5:49 pm - Apr 28, 2017


Oh a wee message to BFB

It seems the egg chasers can be a bit OTT with refereeing decisions as well.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyleague/article-4455226/French-Rugby-League-player-knocks-referee-punch.html

Though to be fair, it was in France and the other code. 

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on6:16 pm - Apr 28, 2017


EJ,

so was Metlika an ordinary shareholder in complete isolation from the 83 odd percent holding that Murray sold to Whyte for a Quid?  Presumably also the switch at Feb 2011 from King holding shares in Murray Sports to King holding shares directly in Rangers PLC was done 1:1 for no financial recompense?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on6:39 pm - Apr 28, 2017


I don’t know if this helps

https://stv.tv/news/west-central/200240-ex-rangers-director-dave-king-has-scottish-restraint-order-revoked/

He claims to have invested around £20m in Rangers oldco, formerly The Rangers Football Club plc, in 2000. This led to him owning a 5.3% stake in the company through Metlika.
In a Court of Session action earlier this month, Mr King was successful in revoking the restraint order against him as an individual, although the court action remains in force in Scotland against Metlika.
A Crown Office spokesman said: “Following a request by the South African prosecuting authorities restraint was sought by the Crown in 2006 of assets of David King and Metlika Trading Limited, a company associated with David King. Part of the property held by Metlika included a shareholding in Rangers FC. The court granted a restraint order on 29th June 2006.
“The court recalled the restraint order in respect of King on Friday 9 November 2012. The restraint order in respect of Metlika remains in force.”
When contacted by STV regarding the court action to recall the order, Mr King said: “I did have the order revoked and also received a costs order against the Crown.”

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on7:07 pm - Apr 28, 2017


Smugas  April 28, 2017 at 18:16 
EJ,
so was Metlika an ordinary shareholder in complete isolation from the 83 odd percent holding that Murray sold to Whyte for a Quid?  Presumably also the switch at Feb 2011 from King holding shares in Murray Sports to King holding shares directly in Rangers PLC was done 1:1 for no financial recompense?
======================
Yes – post Feb 2011, Metlika’s holding in RFC was separate from the MHL holding which was sold to Whyte. He was in effect a minority shareholder in the club

King held 15.5% of Murray Sports Limited via Ben Nevis & Metlika.

Murray Sports Ltd. which later became known as RFC Investment Holdings Ltd., had a holding of 34.4% in RFC prior to the conversion.

When the conversion was done in 2011 he ended up with 5.33% of the club which reflected his share of the indirect holding via RFCIH.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:20 pm - Apr 28, 2017


Ok, I know David Murray. But who is this “Can’t Recall” Character he keeps talking about03

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on7:38 pm - Apr 28, 2017


Well, the SFA does have a strong role model.
[From BBC / my highlighting.]
===========================

“Fifa corruption: Top official Richard Lai admits bribery charges

Richard Lai, 55, has admitted taking $950,000 (£735,000) in bribes.

The Guam Football Association boss sits on Fifa’s audit and compliance committee as well as the Asian Football Confederation ethics committee…”

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/39747787
===========================

New FIFA President or not: if ever there was an organisation well overdue a major restructuring and rebranding…  18

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on7:38 pm - Apr 28, 2017


Cluster One April 28, 2017 at 19:20 
Ok, I know David Murray. But who is this “Can’t Recall” Character he keeps talking about
===================
It’s a standard way of avoiding answering difficult questions, but I did note that he used it more today than he had on Wednesday. (has he received some advice on answering questions after his first day’s evidence?)

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on7:51 pm - Apr 28, 2017


I’m reminded today of that phrase: ‘wilful ignorance’.

Can’t think why…or have I chosen not to think?! 15

And where did I put ma coat?

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on7:55 pm - Apr 28, 2017


https://twitter.com/RangersFC/status/858018759558258688/photo/1

Even the numbers on the shirt look crooked !

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:03 pm - Apr 28, 2017


STEVIEBCAPRIL 28, 2017 at 19:55       Rate This 
https://twitter.com/RangersFC/status/858018759558258688/photo/1
Even the numbers on the shirt look crooked !
———————-
Looks like they used am l instead of a 1

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on8:50 pm - Apr 28, 2017


Just going back to the Metlika transaction.  So just prior to the purchase of the important shares (Murray Groups) a transaction which he himself subsequently described as effective in totally sidelining the remaining minority shareholders he actually chose to move from being a joint owner of the shares being sold (and therefore retaining some value) to instead sail the good ship King as a standalone minority shareholder.  And he CHOSE to do this?

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:59 pm - Apr 28, 2017


just read this on twitter.
It has come to this. I know more about old rangers than David Murray does10

View Comment

Avatar

beatipacificiscotiaPosted on9:40 pm - Apr 28, 2017


http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/2017/230317CL%20current%20status.pdf

Has anyone seen this?

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on10:05 pm - Apr 28, 2017


BEATIPACIFICISCOTIAAPRIL 28, 2017 at 21:40  
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/2017/230317CL%20current%20status.pdf
Has anyone seen this?
   ————————————————————————————————————————-
    Same as this…….But different. 

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/2017/280417CL%20current%20status.pdf

View Comment

Avatar

beatipacificiscotiaPosted on10:19 pm - Apr 28, 2017


Precisely!  Why the differences?  There is no consistency in which clubs are rejected.  Assuming both are real, what are the implications?

View Comment

Avatar

gunnerbPosted on10:43 pm - Apr 28, 2017


BEATIPACIFICISCOTIAAPRIL 28, 2017 at 22:19       2 Votes 
Precisely!  Why the differences?  There is no consistency in which clubs are rejected.  Assuming both are real, what are the implications?
___________________________________________________________
It look as though there has been an update from the original 23 March document to the latest release 28 April. Perhaps the SFA were awaiting clarification on one or two matters from TRFC before being comfortable with the update . I hope the SFA are on solid ground here as a lot of season tickets coming up for renewal.

View Comment

Avatar

gunnerbPosted on10:47 pm - Apr 28, 2017


Does anyone know who sits on  The Licensing Committee, for the SFA ?

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on10:49 pm - Apr 28, 2017


Corrupt official
April 28, 2017 at 22:05
beatipacificiscotia
April 28, 2017 at 22:19  
——————————————————-

When you save the PDF files the first one saves as
230317CL current status.pdf
And the second as
280417CL current status.pdf
 
These appear to be dated (first six characters) ? very odd!
—————————————————
update  gunnerbApril 28, 2017 at 22:43

You beat me to it 10

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on2:29 am - Apr 29, 2017


gunnerbApril 28, 2017 at 22:47
‘…Does anyone know who sits on The Licensing Committee, for the SFA ?’
______
Personally, all I need to know is that
• The Licensing Committee is composed of members of the Scottish FA Congress and co-opted persons;
• Licensing Committee members including the Chairman and Vice Chairman will be appointed by the Board [i.e the SFA board]upon a recommendation from the Scottish FA Office Bearers and Scottish FA Chief Executive;[my italics]
to be instantly distrustful.
I can’t find any page where the names of current committee members are listed, or the name of the ‘Licensing Manager’
I think that if that info is not in the public domain, it bloody well ought to be. In the words of a quondam gardening-as-a-second- career chancer, ‘who are these people?’

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on7:03 am - Apr 29, 2017


Well that was a great night last night.  I am so lucky I know so many lovely people.  I made a fatal mistake of not eating yesterday afternoon so as I would have a good appetite for the meal.  Home made soup, braised steak, cheese & crackers. It was yummy. But I got drunk too quick.

I introduced myself to Jim Craig by my Celtic nick-name ‘Jim the Tim’ and he gave me a wry smile.  Frank Macca was a lot quieter than I imagined but by the time I spoke to him I was a bit over powering.
An old friend who has given up the drink got me up the road safely.

I now have to go to the pub at noon to watch the Celtic v Rangers game. 

Life is hard at times.

I wont be back on here until Tuesday.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on9:45 am - Apr 29, 2017


Sorry I’m back on a bit earlier than I planned but my boiler is making funny noises.  The last time this happened it cost me the best part of £140 and that was from a friend!  18  So any of you of a religious persuison please pray for my boiler. 17

Back to the football.

My prediction 0 – 3

And I hope Dundee Utd get back up as well as Morton, Falkirk & Dunfermline.  20 Team league playing each other twice.

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on10:44 am - Apr 29, 2017


Thanks to those who replied to my query of 1704 yesterday.

Without prejudice, I’ll just leave this here.

I’m sure the majority of readers can work out what I mean.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on11:16 am - Apr 29, 2017


JIMBOAPRIL 29, 2017 at 07:03
I now have to go to the pub at noon to watch the Celtic v Rangers game. 
Life is hard at times.
——————
I would walk a day in you’re shoes anyday06

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on3:51 pm - Apr 29, 2017


HomunculusApril 28, 2017 at 17:45
‘..somewhat teed off with David Murray for his part in the demise of the club Mr Findlay supported.
Remember his comment of a few years ago. …..’
______________
When Findlay, some time ago, revealed in a tv documentary,that he had had deep personal problems which had put him almost to the point of self-destruction, I was ready to forgive said Findlay QC for his very questionable ‘attitude’ towards a substantial percentage of Scotland’s population ( while I  wondered at the sheer stupidity of a high profile QC at allowing himself to be caught in an’ unguarded’ moment), on the grounds that he was, in effect, sort of unbalanced in mind.

I am so very, very, glad that his entirely sane, rational, matter-of-fact acknowledgement of the truth of the death of SDM’s/CW’s RFC justifies my sympathy.

Unlike some of his peers, he faces fact, rather than create myths about ethereal entities  and the [ach, I canny remember at  the present moment what exactly were the words of the a.sehole of a QC I heard chuntering on about how ‘Rangers’ lives on!]

Findlay knows, as we all do, and as the SFA does, that TRFC is NOT the RFC sold by cheating SDM to a person who, in my opinion, was a low-grade asset stripper.

He very bravely spoke up for the truth.

Doing so must have caused him much pain.

He is to be applauded for that bravery, and for the sanity and soundness of mind that underlies it.

And, of course, for the fact that he chose to defend the person who actually put in motion the events that killed the club that he (Findlay) was emotionally attached to.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on5:10 pm - Apr 29, 2017


I honestly don’t know what to say.  If this wasn’t the SFM I would have a lot more to say.  I will leave it to JC , Auldheid EJ, Homuculus  and the rest to report on today.  Love and best wishes to you all!.  02 

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on6:06 pm - Apr 29, 2017


Am wondering if there might be consequences beyond the immediate blowback from these to Glasgow Derbies.

Not just the sores but the sheer disparity in the current standards between two teams,  Might there be an impact upon season ticket sales at TRFC?  Given the already parlous state of finances every season ticket counts. 

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on9:22 am - Apr 30, 2017


Martin Williams and Ron McKay in the ‘Sunday Herald’ have a summary  account of the ‘Trial” so far.

A fairly straightforward account.

But why in God’s name do they turn chicken and refuse to speak the truth about TRFC about being a NEW club, and not the old RFC?

This is what they say:
“..After liquidation the reconstituted club were admitted into the bottom tier of Scottish football..”

The sheer nonsense of that statement must be as apparent to them as it is to anyone with a single brain cell.

A liquidated club cannot be re constituted. It is simply not in existence except in the limbo of Liquidation, awaiting dissolution when the Liquidators are finished their business.

The only thing that was ‘constituted’, not re-constituted ,was a brand new club that had never existed before, had no place in Scottish Football, no record of football achievement, but had to go begging to be admitted into Scottish football for the first time-and was disgracefully and deceitfully allowed ,by a perverted football authority, to lie in claiming to be what it manifestly is not!

Do the Williams and Mckays of the sports-writers’ world not value objective truth as much as most of us do.?

View Comment

Avatar

jockybhoyPosted on9:29 am - Apr 30, 2017


Coins and at least one battery thrown at players on the pitch; a fan invading the pitch area and physically confronting the opposing team’s captain. Standard prohibited songbook.

The racist guy I assume will be charged by the police and banned from football as per the almost identical disgraceful actions of a “fan” directed at Diouf some years ago…

But what price some action from SPFL on any/all of the above?

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on9:52 am - Apr 30, 2017


The main blowback from yesterday’s game that I can detect is the smell of strong coffee permeating the various caves where most of the Bears have been hibernating for the last 5 years or more.
I’ve only looked at a couple of fan forums, but the number of posts calling out King and Murray is a revelation. In fact a lot of sense being talked, in among the bile, of course, and thankfully much less bile than I remember from previous visits.
There are even calls for the return of Ashley, as the only real billionaire available. And Houston is getting pelters for ousting the Ashley regime and replacing it with “a career criminal”- a phrase I never thought I would see on a Rangers forum.
I think the fans have finally given up on King and his empty promises. I really don’t expect King to see out the summer as Chairman..

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on10:08 am - Apr 30, 2017


The following link (you might have to copy and paste it) is a visual reason for believing the reports that Ibrox stand roofs need, at the very, very least, some strong netting, and that it should have been put in place before now.

I wonder why it is that the netting hasn’t been put in place yet?

I am no engineer, but I would imaging that he worst effects of any deterioration are out of sight and hidden by the ceiling cladding. Worse still, the visible damage is most likely due to more serious damage to the superstructure and/or roof itself.

Looking at the damage, you have to ask yourself, how could it have happened, if not by serious deterioration to the roof/structure? Certainly not by anything making contact with the underside of the roof/ceiling, it has to be caused by something above! And that something above has to be in a worse state than the visible cladding!

your head if you’re in BR5 and sitting beneath that! https://t.co/sCv0WSh5vS

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:20 am - Apr 30, 2017


JC

you need to download the herald translator app.   It converts heraldspeak into everyday English.  For instance:

reconstituted:  any variation of “new” you can come up with.

blackhole:  well, if new is really just reconstituted then we can probably just discount this one and everyone just move along.

precipice:  not 2nd, in the top league.  For clarity 1st is also discounted.

Investment Strategy / Long term vision:  this app has developed a fault.  We will have to get back to you on this one.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on10:37 am - Apr 30, 2017


TINCKSAPRIL 29, 2017 at 18:06 
Am wondering if there might be consequences beyond the immediate blowback from these to Glasgow Derbies.
Not just the sores but the sheer disparity in the current standards between two teams,  Might there be an impact upon season ticket sales at TRFC?  Given the already parlous state of finances every season ticket counts. 

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

I doubt they will use a ‘Going for 55’ type sales pitch this time.  I don’t think the media would be as supportive of that as they were last year. I expect they might lash out at all the ‘haters’ to boost the sales.  It’s worked before. 

View Comment

Avatar

tamjartmarquezPosted on10:47 am - Apr 30, 2017


UTH I suspect ‘stopping 10IAR’ is going to be dominating their thoughts. And with that in mind what chance an expanded league?

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on10:59 am - Apr 30, 2017


Ewan Murray’s Guardian match report calling out the Ibrox atmosphere in unusually strong and direct terms for the MSM.  Suspect he might be going on a list for this.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/apr/29/rangers-celtic-scottish-premiership-match-report

Some highlights:

One fan had to be forcibly removed from the pitch after accosting the Celtic captain, Scott Brown, as others reverted to prehistoric verse. The Brown incident, which occurred after goal No1, should lead to scrutiny of Ibrox security given the distance travelled by the spectator at far more of a stagger than a sprint. Scottish football’s lame approach to such affairs means Rangers will probably be spared any penalty.
Missiles were hurled at celebrating Celtic players and one Brain of Britain contender was captured on television making monkey gestures at Scott Sinclair after the game’s opening goal. Rangers said they do “not condone any form of unacceptable behaviour”, which is all well and good, but here we are in 2017 and the message is not getting through. The claiming of moral high ground is a seriously tricky business where these sets of fans are concerned but how Rangers conceded territory in this lunchtime kick-off.

It would be comical if there were not such a depressing undertone: this scene of Rangers and their very serious, historic sense of entitlement, which triggers such venom as Celtic revel in a position of vast superiority. A notably intense, nasty, opening-half atmosphere subsided only when apathy set in.

As Rangers once again contemplate an uncertain future – what will come first, audited accounts or a title tilt?

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on11:09 am - Apr 30, 2017


NEEPHEID
APRIL 30, 2017 at 09:52 I think the fans have finally given up on King and his empty promises. I really don’t expect King to see out the summer as Chairman..

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

If the Court of Session orders him to make the offer instructed by the Takeover Panel and he doesn’t do it he may not be on the board of any company in the UK.

Ignoring a regulatory body is one thing. Ignoring the senior civil Court in Scotland is an entirely different proposition. 

View Comment

Avatar

tamjartmarquezPosted on11:09 am - Apr 30, 2017


Tinks, i particularly liked the first para for its clarity and honesty. No continuity myth- well done Ewan 

In a five-year period that has encompassed administration, liquidation, Saturday afternoons in the company of Albion Rovers and even a 5-1 trouncing at Celtic Park, nothing has wounded the Rangers support as much as this. Make that 16-4 on aggregate to Celtic from six Old Firm fixtures this season, and in the last one a record: the scoring of five at this venue

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on11:18 am - Apr 30, 2017


upthehoopsApril 30, 2017 at 10:37

I doubt they will use a ‘Going for 55’ type sales pitch this time.  I don’t think the media would be as supportive of that as they were last year. I expect they might lash out at all the ‘haters’ to boost the sales.  It’s worked before. 
—————————————————————————–
UTH,

I was thinking something similar.  They are pootles.  Whether Pedro remains in situ or not they will be operating with the same bargain basement approach to recruitment that has characterised the last two years. 

When it came to selling season tickets this year the Joey Barton signing and the going for 55 nonsense was lapped by the fan base.  Just no way that trick can be repeated.

Less season tickets = even more need for director loans.  At what point do those who are currently keeping the show on the road decide to cut their losses? 

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on11:22 am - Apr 30, 2017


tamjartmarquezApril 30, 2017 at 11:09

No messing about here either.

Rangers’ decision to part company with Mark Warburton in February has not been endorsed by events since.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on11:24 am - Apr 30, 2017


TINCKSAPRIL 30, 2017 at 10:59                  should lead to scrutiny of Ibrox security given the distance travelled by the spectator at far more of a stagger than a sprint.
—————-
One can only hope at the ease of which the guy got on to the pitch(i also read he fell over the hoardings first,don’t know if true)But the length of time it took him to reach his destination “a stagger” was there not enough stewards? were the stewards just match day volunteers and not trained to deal with an intruder.
These and many more questions must be asked.If you are reading from the future 4040, this is 2017 let’s hope 4040 fans are not asking the same questions

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on11:27 am - Apr 30, 2017


TincksApril 30, 2017 at 11:18

pootles – meant to be potless 16

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on11:32 am - Apr 30, 2017


Re UEFA licencing:

In the last 48 hours I’ve seen comment on social media that the SFA have approved TRFC for a Silver UEFA licence whilst Hearts get Bronze.

Do any TSFMers know if there is any truth to this and/or have any comment?

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:41 am - Apr 30, 2017


I read Ewen Murray’s report last evening. It’s a decent piece, particularly when compared to BBC Scotland’s on-line match report. However, like many, he’s in denial or ignorance about the songbook. The BTL comments are worth reading as well.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on12:13 pm - Apr 30, 2017


Tincks @ 11.22
Rangers’ decision to part company with Mark Warburton in February has not been endorsed by events since.

Rangers’ decision? (and that’s not even an OC/NC jibe by the way)

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on12:43 pm - Apr 30, 2017


TINCKS
APRIL 30, 2017 at 11:32  

Re UEFA licencing:

In the last 48 hours I’ve seen comment on social media that the SFA have approved TRFC for a Silver UEFA licence whilst Hearts get Bronze.
Do any TSFMers know if there is any truth to this and/or have any comment?

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

I think it’s based on this.

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/2017/280417CL%20current%20status.pdf

It was updated fairly recently, the Rangers licence appears to have been granted at that time.

Comments – It comes as no surprise to me, I always thought they were going to be awarded it no matter the circumstances. Given what happened in 2011 I would be surprised if anyone is actually surprised. What will be more interesting is how the club which loses out reacts.

Given that Aberdeen and Celtic are in the cup final and are both now qualified for Europe it will be an SPFL Premiership place as I understand it.

View Comment

Comments are closed.