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.
Re the craig whyte trial. I finished listening to TWN episode 14 (kept getting interrupted)and i know you can’t speculate on the next witness.
just a quick question. Can any witneses be called back?
thanks for any clarification on this matter.
Tincks
April 30, 2017 at 11:27
I prefer “pootles” can I have your permission to use it?
Re the stewarding
yesterday, the stewards were more interested in protecting goalposts from a scarf than Celtic players from an invading fan
Since Scottish football is so boring at the moment – also from the Guardian .
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2017/apr/26/the-forgotten-story-of-carlos-kaiser-footballs-greatest-conman
It would appear that it wasn’t just the bears without brogues who embarrassed their club yesterday, John Gilligan reportedly got rather heated with some of the brogue-less ones shouting at them from that bastion of dignity
, the Ibrox Directors’ Box! I doubt he was shouting reassuring words about soon to arrive ‘over-investment’!
Director in angry exchange with fans. https://t.co/eL22E3nL33
justice secretery Michael Martheson has demanded tougher action is taken against clubs for their fan’s misconduct.
Matheson want’s Strict Liability rules brought in, which would hold clubs responsible for their own supporters behaviour.
june 2 2016.
was he watching yesterday’s game i wonder
CLUSTER ONE
APRIL 30, 2017 at 19:01
justice secretery Michael Martheson has demanded tougher action is taken against clubs for their fan’s misconduct. Matheson want’s Strict Liability rules brought in, which would hold clubs responsible for their own supporters behaviour. june 2 2016.
was he watching yesterday’s game i wonder
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Actually
There`s a simple solution to the sectarian issue that surfaces regularly at Ibrox
One man could solve it at a stroke
He could leave a worthwhile legacy to his grandchildren at the same time.
By
Eliminating a cancer that has shamed many decent Rangers fans for decades
Dermot Desmond could sell his investment in Celtic and acquire a controlling interest in TRFC. He could then institute a zero tolerance policy at Ibrox that presented the Loonies with a simple choice
Behave yourselves, or your club will only field reserve players in the next 3 matches.
It`s that simple
GOOSYGOOSY
the solution is deducted points,that’s how simple it really is
HomunculusApril 30, 2017 at 12:43
There are 5 levels of club licences awarded by the SFA under Club Licensing Rules:
National Licence Award Certificates are granted by the Licensing Committee of the Scottish FA at 5 levels viz:
Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze or Entry level confirming compliance by a club in terms of fulfilment of all criteria for that particular level (including instances where derogation is granted).
These awards cover three main areas of football operations which accumulatively produce an overall award and for Premiership Clubs contribute to the award of a UEFA licence.
These areas are
GroundFirst TeamLegal/Admin Finance and Codes
(There is also an award for Youth Club Academy Scotland and all the club licensing rules can be found in a new manual for 2017 published at
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/2017/Scottish-FA-Club-Licensing-Manual-2017.pdf )
The above refers to National Club Licensing only and for a club to obtain an award at Silver level under Legal, Admin and Finance their accounts must satisfy this criteria:
Silver: Each club shall be required to provide a copy of its audited annual financial statements prepared according to the Companies Act 2006 and relevant accounting standards either International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) or the UK Generally Accepted Accounting Practice. Audited financial statements shall include the auditor’s report. The statements shall refer to the period ended 2016. Clubs will provide this information as follows – SPFL clubs –by 31 March 2017 All other clubs –by 30 April 2017 The auditor’s report in respect of the annual financial statements shall not include an adverse or disclaimer of opinion.
What is not known is what accounts have been presented by either TRFC or RIFC that meet that criteria or if derogation has been granted.
The above sets out the National Club Licence standards but UEFA have theirs contained in Articles 47 and 48 of their FFP.
Article 47 relates to full accounts less than six month old from the time licensing begins, but as the statutory date for TRFC accounts is 30 June then Article 48 would suggest Interim Accounts seems the more relevant. It certainly was Interim Accounts that were used in 2011 so on that basis here is what Article 48 states:
Article 48 – Financial statements for the interim period 1 If the statutory closing date of the licence applicant is more than six months before the deadline for submission of the list of licensing decisions to UEFA, then additional financial statements covering the interim period must be prepared and submitted. 2 The interim period starts the day immediately after the statutory closing date and ends on a date within the six months preceding the deadline for submission of the list of licensing decisions to UEFA. 3 Interim financial statements must be reviewed or audited by an independent auditor as defined in Annex V. which says : “ANNEX V: Determination of the auditor and auditor’s assessment procedures A. Principle 1. The auditor must be independent in compliance with the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) Code of Ethics for Professional Accountants (see Articles 47 and 48). 2. The auditor must be a member of one of the relevant IFAC member bodies. If there is no member of the IFAC within a licence applicant’s territory, the licence applicant is required to use an independent auditor who is permitted by national law to carry out audit work.”
Not enough is known to have any debate on whether a UEFA licence has been properly granted or not and the foregoing is only offered in an attempt to aid understanding of the difference between National Club Licensing and UEFA Licensing,
The general feeling has been TRFC/RIFC will fail to meet UEFA FFP Break Even rules but according to an STV Article
https://stv.tv/sport/football/1374309-explained-will-rangers-need-approval-to-play-in-europe/
failing to meet break even rules does necessarily mean a licence is not granted, but just how anyone will arrive at a decision or know there is a decision for the UEFA Club Financial Control Body to arrive at and when is unclear from the STV article.
Very quiet today – I’ve always suspected that the majority of posters did so to relieve the tedium of a day at work!
However that leaves the happily retired like me a bit short of entertainment on Bank Holidays.
With the CW trial continuing tomorrow I wondered if anyone could refresh my memory as to the current status of the various other court/legislative issues facing the SFA’s favourite team, in particular Mr King’s failure to act on the takeover board ruling.
Thanks.
One can often gauge what the current popular view is by reading the scribblings in the daily record. In particular those of keith jackson. He follows opinion rather than reporting any sort of news. His style, if it can be called that seems to be to read rangers forums and reflect what the support themselves already think.
That being the case dave king is not a particularly popular leader this morning.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-were-being-torn-shreds-10331429
Oh and if he believes this
“And if the alarm bells aren’t now clattering inside King’s boardroom then the chairman’s stewardship of this club is going even more badly wrong than this latest derby day humiliation suggests.”
Then he also believes the PLC and the club are the same thing, because it is the PLC dave king is the chairman of.
JUSTBECAUSEYOUREPARANOIDMAY 1, 2017 at 10:37
) that’s my excuse anyway.
Very quiet today – I’ve always suspected that the majority of posters did so to relieve the tedium of a day at work!
—————
With it being a bank holiday(why don’t they just call it DIY Day
————————
HOMUNCULUSMAY 1, 2017 at 10:50
One can often gauge what the current popular view is by reading the scribblings in the daily record.That being the case dave king is not a particularly popular leader this morning.
——————-
One can often gauge what the current popular view is by listening to a couple of ibrox fans debate about king in the newsagents,( HONEST NOT THE PUB).
so overheard in the newsagents…”king has to put in the millions now,i think he (king) knew MW was not up to the job in the top flight, that’s why he never gave him true millions.(i know “true millions”)
————-
The next one could be David Murray ready to take over he is worth millions now and on the rich list. You heard it here first and not in the newsagents (pub)
According to Phil’s latest blog, a Blue Room delegate turned up at Ashley HQ on Friday, probably with a begging bowl, a white flag and a peace-pipe. Big Mike’s legal eagle was unable to accommodate him as the RRM could not assure him of DCK’s intentions or if he was acting with TG&SL’s knowledge or authority.
Meanwhile, JJ is getting mixed up with his sit coms, namely Fawlty Towers and Hogan’s Heroes. Who am I to talk? – I know nothing!
justbecauseyoureparanoid May 1, 2017 at 10:37
Very quiet today – I’ve always suspected that the majority of posters did so to relieve the tedium of a day at work! However that leaves the happily retired like me a bit short of entertainment on Bank Holidays. With the CW trial continuing tomorrow I wondered if anyone could refresh my memory as to the current status of the various other court/legislative issues facing the SFA’s favourite team, in particular Mr King’s failure to act on the takeover board ruling. Thanks.
=========================
The live cases affecting the Oldco/Newco that I am aware of are as follows:
* Craig Whyte trial – Underway
* 802 Works v Rangers – re WIFI Bill waiting for a court date, probably at Glasgow Sheriff Court
* Rangers v SD re breach of IP contract (it’s dependent on the reverse action below)
* SD v Rangers re breach of Retail contract – Waiting for a court date, probably at the RCJ in London
* EBT Appeal – Waiting for SC decision (July?)
* Employment tribunal ? – Warbo and his mates claim for unfair dismissal
* Takeover Panel enforcement action on King – waiting for a date at the Court of Session
* Oldco (BDO) v Duff & Phelps – re administration decisions – waiting for a date at the Court of Session
… and indirectly
* Duff & Phelps v Police Scotland – re failures in evidence gathering for the Fraudco case.
Oh before i go (DIY)
Any word yet from the SFA or the SPFL on the fan’s misconduct from ibrox. And what punishment they deem appropriate?
HOMUNCULUS
MAY 1, 2017 at 10:50
One can often gauge what the current popular view is by reading the scribblings in the daily record. In particular those of Keith Jackson…
———————————————————-
You have to remember that the Monday morning ‘Keich By Keith’ is an ‘opinion’ piece, rather than reportage.
His opinion, going by today’s column, is rather confused.
EASYJAMBO
MAY 1, 2017 at 11:37
—————————————————–
Am I not right in saying it’s actually Rangers Retail Ltd v The Rangers Football Club Ltd (and possibly it’s Directors).
However it is SDI Retail Services Ltd taking the action on behalf of Rangers Retail as they were unable / unwilling to do so (the board is made up of two nominated by SDI and two from TRFC).
As and aside the accounts for Rangers Retail were due yesterday, however today is a bank holiday so they should be posted in the not too distant future.
EASYJAMBOMAY 1, 2017 at 11:37
Cheers EJ thanks for that.
As a non-fan, it never used to bother me what happened in ‘old firm’ matches, but since the liquidation I’ve always wanted Celtic to win heavily, so as not to allow TRFC* fans the opportunity to claim that they were ‘BACK’ beating or even just being competitive with Celtic. I was annoyed at the semi final win, the Murty 1-1 draw etc.
While delighted at the weekend 5-1, I wondered how many of those types of result it might take before TRFC* fans decided it was better to admit that they were a new club and therefore couldn’t be expected to be competitive. At the moment, to them it’s still the same club just going through a difficult recovery but would more of these “ashamed and embarrassed” days (Copyright K Miller) make it easier for them to disassociate the new reality with their old golden memories?
Surely at some point it’s easier for them to say ‘We’re just starting out, but we’ll try and catch you up’ than ‘We used to be the best and now we’re crap’ which is what most of their forums are bemoaning at the moment.
JINGSO.JIMSIE
HOMUNCULUS
MAY 1, 2017 at 10:50 One can often gauge what the current popular view is by reading the scribblings in the daily record. In particular those of Keith Jackson…
———————————————————-
You have to remember that the Monday morning ‘Keich By Keith’ is an ‘opinion’ piece, rather than reportage.
His opinion, going by today’s column, is rather confused.
====================================
Like I said, he appears to have lifted it from a variety of Rangers orientated social media sites over the weekend. It is therefore unsurprising that it is “rather confused”.
They can’t even agree on what dave king meant when he said. Though to be fair the man himself now seems unclear on what it means.
According to the rags, The Bullfighter is in the market for 12 fresh faces. That’s the ST sales drive slogan sorted.
#Goingforbroke
Homunculus May 1, 2017 at 11:49
=====================
You are right about SD’s request to bring an action on behalf of RRL, but the way the judgement is headed is as follows:
MR RICHARD MILLETT O.C. (SITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT)
Between:
SDI RETAIL SERVICES LIMITED Claimant
-and-
(1) DAVID KING
(2) PAUL MURRAY
(3) THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED
(4) RANGERS RETAIL LIMITED Defendants
EASYJAMBO
MAY 1, 2017 at 12:28
================================
Cheers EJ.
So the action is against King, Murray, TRFC Ltd and RR Ltd.
Why are RR Ltd a Defendant, is it because they didn’t do enough to defend SDI’s position, by not suing TRFC themselves. Again I am aware that two of the directors of RR Ltd were put there by TRFC Ltd. Clear conflict of interests I would have thought.
EJ
I see my confusion
http://www.oeclaw.co.uk/images/uploads/judgments/SDI_Judgment.pdf
Specifically the bit I have attached. It seems that SDI are doing it on behalf of RR, albeit RR is also one of the defendants.
ulyanova May 1, 2017 at 11:44
Billy Boyce Risking a ban by playing the man but you know nothing
————————————-
Thanks for that, but poor old Sgt Schults was trying to keep the Yanks in Stalag 17 in order long before the Catalonian waiter arrived in Torquay.
NAWLITEMAY 1, 2017 at 11:53
‘We used to be the best and now we’re crap’ which is what most of their forums are bemoaning at the moment.
———————-
That reminded me of something.
No guard of honour for celtic on saturday by the rangers players.( even after one or two of them moaned that some clubs were undignified when they never gave the rangers players a gaurd of honour.
But credit were credit is due they played simply the best for celic when the celtic players ran out the tunnel.
That is why they played it i’m sure
Well, since it’s quiet – and I don’t get ‘May Day’ until ‘Labor Day’ in September…
One of my brothers was visiting here, and he has never been interested in footy / sport in general.
I somehow managed to persuade him to get up at 0600 on Saturday morning to get to Jack Demseys bar for the game.
He had a great time, and enjoyed the atmosphere and chat.
Just a very positive, enjoyable, entertaining, amusing and sociable couple of hours: what all sports should be about, IMO.
Without talking about the game – too much – I was just shocked at the lack of fight from the TRFC players.
Getting humped at home by your biggest rivals, I fully expected a sending off – or two – of TRFC players towards the end of the game. But they looked like they couldn’t be bothered to get physical at any point in the game.
Very strange – and must be very worrying for Pedro and the bears.
Looks like everything related to Ibrox at present is extremely negative, both on and off the pitch.
Oh dear, what a pity, never mind.
Cheats never win.
I noticed a link to this article elsewhere & I think it’s worth sharing:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/sports/soccer/cybernetics-cesarean-sections-and-soccers-most-magnificent-mind.html?ref=oembed&_r=0
As at above time, nothing on either the SFA or SPFL websites about the disgraceful incidents at Ibrox.
Disgraceful behaviour – again – from the blazers.
JINGSO.JIMSIEMAY 1, 2017 at 16:35
————————–
An interesting article Jingso. The clip below stood out for me as something that Jock Stein/Sir Alex Ferguson/Don Revie etc. Would all have recognised and employed as a `methodology`. I appreciate that the approach is trying to be holistic and simple at the same time but I don`t see anything new or revolutionary. The successful latter day advocates of these principles all share something with their illustrious forebears. They are strong minded individuals who can instruct and inspire their players. The players need to have the level of ability to respond and if so then success breeds success.
“..The week’s training is governed by what Frade and his disciples call the morfocycle. Throughout the season, each day is devoted to a specific aspect of play: Tuesday, for example, might always be what to do when in possession, Wednesday when out of it, Thursday to the opposition’s strengths, and so on.”
BILLY BOYCEMAY 1, 2017 at 13:38
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UgcxGFmYyPs
EASYJAMBOMAY 1, 2017 at 11:37
The live cases affecting the Oldco/Newco that I am aware of are as follows:
———————-
The SFA’s decision to rubber stamp Dave king as chairman of rangers will go to a two day judicial review. Lady Wolfee deciding the case will go to a judicial review over April 28 and 29 2017.
————–
Any new date on this case?
—————–
The Lawyers also questioned a lack of Transparency from the SFA as to why they deemed him fit and proper
————–
Seems to be Lawyers are always asking about the lack of transparency from football boards and football governing boards.Do these boards always have to wait until there is a court case until lawyers call them out on their lack of transparency.
Note to boards… why not show some transparency to the fans before a lawyer has to call you out on it
hope the pic works
Cluster One May 1, 2017 at 20:18
The SFA’s decision to rubber stamp Dave king as chairman of rangers will go to a two day judicial review. Lady Wolfee deciding the case will go to a judicial review over April 28 and 29 2017.
=======================
Where did you dig that one out of. My understanding was that SD dropped their action after the SFA disclosed more information about their FPP decision.
http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11788/10262294/mike-ashley-says-sfa-should-make-public-decision-to-find-rangers-chief-dave-king-a-fit-and-proper-person
EASYJAMBOMAY 1, 2017 at 20:51
Where did you dig that one out of. My understanding was that SD dropped their action after the SFA disclosed more information about their FPP decision.
—————
sorry my mistake date should have read 2016. so you would be correct
Where did you dig that one out of. My understanding was that SD dropped their action after the SFA disclosed more information about their FPP decision.
http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11788/10262294/mike-ashley-says-sfa-should-make-public-decision-to-find-rangers-chief-dave-king-a-fit-and-proper-person
———–
to much sun today
TWM 15 now available
James Doleman on Whyte trial to date, Rangers crisis, Joey Barton, and Harry Melrose of DAFC and Dons
BP – I just listened to your latest podcast with a trial update from James Doleman and your tribute to Harry Melrose.
Having been in court James’ take on proceedings was familiar, but it was good to hear you talking about Harry Melrose. Having been born in Fife I actually followed all my local sides including the Pars throughout the 60s and early 70s, when I moved to Edinburgh to attend University and stayed the the capital thereafter. I saw Harry play many times in the Pars best years and also retained an interest as my school contemporaries Jim Leishman, Dick Campbell, twin brother Ian Campbell and Doug Rougvie all started their professional careers at Dunfermline and elsewhere.
I got married in 1982 and moved to the SW of the city, and in my local pub I got to know four regulars who were brothers, George, Alan, Davie and Harry Melrose. All four always had a great interest in all things football, mainly Rangers and Hearts though. Sadly I think that Harry the only one who is still alive, although I’ve only seen him at a couple of his brothers’ funerals in recent years.
EJ
Couple of ex Dunfermline players have told me that Harry was a big Pars fan but I guess that was nurture rather than nature. The Hearts connection would arise from geography – and he did choose Rangers over both Hearts and Dunfermline in 1956.
Very very good player though. Alex Ferguson said he wasn’t a man for a battle, but he was in the huff at Melrose getting his place in the 65 SCF.
If not already mentioned.
According to an infamous TRFC forum, Keef was told he was no longer welcome at Ibrox or Murray Park – last Friday.
Interesting if true…
RTC appears to have starting writing again, but about Keith Jackson.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-zcoN5XkAAm6Cr.jpg
There’s a typo in a date that should read 6th May 2011 (the date of the Whyte takeover)
STEVIEBCMAY 2, 2017 at 03:05
If not already mentioned.
According to an infamous TRFC forum, Keef was told he was no longer welcome at Ibrox or Murray Park – last Friday.
Interesting if true
—————————————————————————————————————————
For “Banned” Stevie, read “Flag of convenience” The BBC fly under the same flag. …Captain Hornblower disguised as a whaler.
Today’s first witness is Ian Shanks, who was the Lloyds Bank’s relationship manager for the club at the time of the Whyte takeover.
So Mr Shanks, how big was the smile on your face the day that you were informed you had an 18m potential write off fully repaid?
NAWLITE: ” wondered how many of those types of result it might take before TRFC* fans decided it was better to admit that they were a new club and therefore couldn’t be expected to be competitive. “I seem to remember stating my preference along these lines back around the phoenixing of TRFC.
I’d probably reference the classics – comparing the Roman razing Carthage and salting its earth versus  to the punishment of the Greek titan Prometheus getting his liver eaten on a daily basis.
From JD tweets:
Findlay “None of you gave a thought to the institution that was Rangers Football Club, nobody cared.”
Findlay “These were the people who were running Rangers Football Club, no wonder it went bust” mentions tax liability and judge intervenes
DF will not be welcome down Govan way using words like these! Court adjourned for the day. Feckin part – timers!
In my opinion by far the most interesting session this afternoon in the Craig Whyte trial.
To avoid making any unfortunate comment myself I can only recommend that those who are interested read through James Doleman’s timeline. It really is extraordinary reading.
Today’s witness, Ian Shanks of Lloyds Bank. In charge of managing their relationship with Rangers (IL).
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman
From James Doleman Tweet. Comment from me hardly required, but, I can’t help it…
“Findlay “These were the people who were running Rangers Football Club, no wonder it went bust” mentions tax liability and judge intervenes”
Note, not only does he say ‘Rangers Football Club’, he clearly means ‘the club’ he had feelings for (probably still does, in the same way I still have feelings for the Beatles) and supported from childhood. He is not talking about some separate limited company that merely financed the club he loved!
Should of course have said just what a fantastic job JD has been doing with his tweets. Not least a remarkable feat of fingers and thumbs that would be beyond me, that’s for sure.
Some comments about Lloyds being concerned about their reputation in Scotland and the negative PR in the event of Rangers going into administration.
On a completely separate issue (and a different bank), I don’t remember the BOS having concerns for their reputation when they wanted to shut Celtic down for a much smaller amount. Thank goodness wee Fergus stepped up.
Thought the Jambos on here might be interested in this from Phil Mac.
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/05/02/jambos-financial-commonsense-and-rebel-songs/
(Don’t be put off with the reference to ‘rebel songs’, it’s harmless).
jimbo May 2, 2017 at 17:36
Thought the Jambos on here might be interested in this from Phil Mac.
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2017/05/02/jambos-financial-commonsense-and-rebel-songs/
===================
The Foundation of Hearts Board has just published its proposals for a new governance model once the club moves from private ownership (under Ann Budge) to Fan Ownership (under FoH), around the end of 2019 or early 2020. That is the document from which Phil has taken his extract.
There’s a healthy debate currently taking place on the Jambos Kickback message board about the proposals, not so much about the values that the club will enshrine going forward, which Phil has alluded to, and I take as a given, but the practicalities of the ongoing use of funds raised and the status of past and present contributors.
Personally, I have concerns about some of the proposals and will communicate these back to the FOH Board as part of the initial consultation phase which will continue through to August. The process that the FoH Board is following is laudable, but it will be interesting to see if they can retain the same unity of purpose within the support as has been evident since the club became insolvent.
By now, Pedro should be fully aware of what his club represents.
And as their manager, his job it is to deliver a successful team – and to defend the club and its image [?!] at all times.
He has heard the song book from his own fans several times.
It should be painful enough for Pedro to be getting pelters from his own fans about the gutless, impoverished team he inherited.
Regardless, he is still obligated to defend them and their 17th Century nonsense.
I guess Pedro had some idea of the Ibrox club before he joined ?
Mibbees he just didn’t appreciate the scale of the problems with the club, generally ?
It would be different if he was spearheading a strong, anti-b!gotry campaign at Ibrox, but that is clearly not the case.
If Pedro had any self-respect; how could he possibly choose to remain in position at a club whose values are abhorrent to any reasonable, educated, neutral individual ?
He can’t simply be that desperate to get a crack at English football can he…?
Lindsay Herron 2/5/2017 the sun.
The former Dundee and St johnston star had been one of Ally McCoist’s marquee signings in the crazy summer of 2012 when rangers were kicked down to the Third Division.
————–
Now i don’t know if Lindsay Herron is a man or a woman. But what i do know is that he/she can’t be that stupid on the 2/5/17 to still believe that a club called rangers was kicked down to the third division.
Ps hope picture works
CLUSTER ONE
MAY 2, 2017 at 20:03
…
Now i don’t know if Lindsay Herron is a man or a woman…
================================================
Definitely not a journalist…
EJ, I admit straight away that I know next to nothing about fan ownership of a club. On the face of it, it sounds good if not a bit ‘romantic’. As you say on the way towards the goal there is unity of purpose. And it has certainly been the saving of Hearts. It’s what happens once it is achieved that I would worry. In my humble opinion management by committee can be fraught with danger. You still need strong leadership and people with a business head. Fan representation on the board – good, fan control of the board – bad. Not to say of course that many of your fans will not be good businessmen/women.
I think fans having a strong voice at AGMs & EGMs would potentially be excellent, but not the day to day running of the club nor indeed the strategic vision required to go forward. Fergus McCann & Peter Lawwell have come in for stick many times, not caving into fans desires, but it worked.
Fan ownership by all means, but keep MS. Budge. Besides I have my own hopes for her in the SFA and SPFL. Start the demolition of the ‘old boys network’ at Hampden. Also the lady at Hibs.
Re Lindsay Herron
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7moP3dJLwywC&dq=lindsay+herron+son+of&source=gbs_navlinks_s
I guess it helps the book sales.
Oh dear the last bit of my post reads terrible:
“Fan ownership by all means, but keep MS. Budge. Besides I have my own hopes for her in the SFA and SPFL. Start the demolition of the ‘old boys network’ at Hampden. Also the lady at Hibs.”
I of course did not mean the demolition of Leanne Dempster, but that she would work alongside Ann Budge.
jimbo May 2, 2017 at 20:36
==================
While I support the Foundation of Hearts, I’m not in the “Queen Ann can do no wrong” camp which seems to be the accepted wisdom that is conveyed both by Hearts and the media in general.
She is probably very much in the mould of a Fergus McCann, although she gets much more adulation that Fergus ever got during his tenure at Celtic Park. I’m sure that her approach, actions and legacy will be revealed at some point after she steps down, and will show that she was much more of a hard headed business woman than the philanthropic Hearts fan as she is so often portrayed.
Cluster OneMay 2, 2017 at 20:03
‘….Now i don’t know if Lindsay Herron is a man or a woman. But what i do know is that he/she can’t be that stupid on the 2/5/17 to still believe that a club called rangers was kicked down to the third division.’
_________
If he (and Herron is a ‘he’) is stupid then he has some kind of excuse for deliberately not telling the true facts.
If he is not stupid, then he is no server of true and honest journalism, whether through personal bias or through craven fear.
Fergus McCann left Celtic with more money than he put in. IIRC Ann Budge wants her money back at some point in the future. Again if I remember correctly she recently delayed it to see out the building of the new main stand at Tynecastle (happy to be corrected). So yes maybe not philanthropists but at least they took a leap of faith in their clubs especially their fans when it was needed most. They were both catalysts for getting things turned around. Massive respect from me.
Compare and contrast the saviours at Ibrox. We should be grateful every day.
JOHN CLARKMAY 2, 2017 at 21:39
Lindsay Herron is indeed a man, and is alive and kicking. In charge of Rangers Media for a time, as well as, writer & broadcaster of all things blue nosed.
Like Chris Jack, Keith Jackson, Richard Wilson et al, he is one of a type of Scottish Journalists, who would be best described, as fans with typewriters. Unfortunately, most of his and their current output, with regard to the Ibrox based entity, would now fit the description of fantasy writers, quite delusional fantasies, if truth to be told
HIRSUTEPURSUITMAY 2, 2017 at 20:56 5 Votes
Re Lindsay Herronhttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7moP3dJLwywC&dq=lindsay+herron+son+of&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Rangers: The Official Illustrated History: A Visual Celebration of 140 Glorious YearsI guess it helps the book sales.
—————–
Explains a lot. But why is he allowed to put to print such false information? The sun is not a comic or fantasy magazine. (not the last time i looked)Even the ibrox fans must have their heads in their hands reading that rubbish.You can almost hear some of them scream “stop it,stop it” you are just heaping more embarrassment on us
I’ve been thinking about my previous post in defence of Peter Lawwell and I want to point out a caveat. Peter was wrong not to bring old Rangers, the SFA & SPL to task for the years of cheating. He was wrong on several levels. To the cheated fans of Celtic, paying supporters who were handing over their cash to attend or support in other ways a rigged league. To the Celtic shareholders who deserved a better dividend because Celtic were cheated out of Euro. money at the very least. And where was his leadership of Scottish Football that we are reminded of so often, to rally the other Scottish clubs against this cheating. How many other clubs were done out of European competition? The year of Res. 12 being a prime example.
Even if he was not aware of EBTs & imperfect registrations at the time, as soon as it became public knowledge red flags should have been hoisted.
Other than that he has been fine in balancing the books.
CLUSTER ONE
MAY 2, 2017 at 22:35
HIRSUTEPURSUITMAY 2, 2017 at 20:56 5 Votes Re Lindsay Herronhttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7moP3dJLwywC&dq=lindsay+herron+son+of&source=gbs_navlinks_s Rangers: The Official Illustrated History: A Visual Celebration of 140 Glorious YearsI guess it helps the book sales. —————– Explains a lot. But why is he allowed to put to print such false information? The sun is not a comic or fantasy magazine. (not the last time i looked)Even the ibrox fans must have their heads in their hands reading that rubbish.You can almost hear some of them scream “stop it,stop it” you are just heaping more embarrassment on us
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
The Sun is not a comic or fantasy magazine.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Sorry to disagree C1
This rag has been spouting moonbeams for decades
Their scottish football strategy seems to be aimed at winning readers from those gullible fans who currently lap up the dross served up by the DR. At best this will ensure the Sun are the last rag left standing in a virulent race to the bottom. More likely they will get out of Scotland as soon as they discover that despite increased market share, the Sun cannot survive on a media strategy underpinned by PR handouts from Level 5
So on that note I bid you all a good night. It’s difficult manning this board in the late hours when BP & Tris are away to their kips. I have to be up early tomorrow morning to prepare for James Doleman’s tweets. Breakfast at 9am – due to my forgetfulness once again I have no bacon so it will need to be a roll & egg. I now hand you over to Auldheid & JC. Bye Bye.
Well, earlier today I ‘jetted in’ to Edinburgh after my five months in Australia.
I daresay I jetted rather less comfortably in body than Dave King does.
But I’d rather be me uncomfortable in steerage (or ‘ economy class’), than said King in either ‘first’ or at least ‘business’-class!
Because even during the virtual non-stop ,cramped,21-hour flight I managed to get some untroubled-in-mind sleep!
–
I have just read today’sproceedings as reported by the redoubtable, flying-fingered, elephant-memoried, key-point-identifying JD. And very much appreciate his talents and service to the cause of honest reporting.
I very much like the Findlay observation that “we have all sorts of documents that people thought would never see the light of day”…
The kind of observation that any QC might make to a witness , to try to ensure that the witness was aware of the duty to tell the truth, much of which might already be known to the QC.
In the context of the CF material (that I , at least, implicitly believed from the start to be genuine, and which, it seems from previous Court references in other matters, appears capable of being accepted as evidence) it made me smile with satisfaction, when I recall what the provenance of the CF stuff is said to be.
–
( I, incidentally , on board the flight from Melbourne to Abu-dabi-doo , I watched a film entitled ‘Miss Sloane’.
I thoroughly enjoyed it ( I used to have that kind of female colleague!). And I enjoyed , not a court-room episode, but an American Congressional Enquiry episode.)
Coming back to our ‘Trial’, I have to say that eJ’s great memory , without written notes, has fleshed out some interesting stuff that never appeared in the SMSM, without breaching ‘reporting restrictions’.
I hope to be able to attend the High Court in Glasgow on numerous occasions ( at least a couple of days a week, and,if I keep Mrs C sweet, maybe more often). In the hope that when it becomes possible, I can add my tuppence worth to how things actually played out as I watched and listened.
I am pretty sure that I heard ,on one occasion , a judge remark that there was some vagueness about whether someone emailing a friend or sending a tweet or text message to friends could be held to be ‘reporting’ in the context of the understanding of what ‘reporting restrictions’ mean.
If, for instance, I were to tell my wife over the dinner table , or my brother by personal text or email, every thing that I hear in Court, would I be in breach of any ‘reporting restrictions’? If I were to PM individually every poster on this blog, would that fall under the heading of ‘reporting’, in such way as to be in breach of ‘reporting restrictions’ orders?
The judge in question seemed to feel that there was a debate to be had in appropriate quarters. Why?
Because,theoretically, under the law, every man and woman (possibly, child!) in Scotland is entitled , as a rule,to be physically present on the public benches of a court.
If enough people turned up , the Court authorities would surely be obliged, in modern conditions, to get big TV screens erected in public places to meet the legitimate demands of the people to see the Courts in action on their behalf!
I suspect that the concept of ‘reporting restrictions’ was introduced originally to protect judges and the legal profession when printing was invented and ‘reporting’ to wide audiences became possible: as much as to protect the ‘accused’.
And I think that the idea that any bunch of paid hacks of, say, the likes of Rupert Murdoch or some such newspaper proprietor,is more virtuously wedded to truth and accuracy than ,say, I am, or you are, or are somehow to be assumed to be more honest and unbiased in their accounts of what transpired in the course of a trial, is insulting.
I really do.
And it’s nice to be back home, and to have a wonderfully caring , next-door-neighbour young couple, who looked after the house while we were away.
Ye canny whack it!
Welcome home JC(e)!! ??
I hope you’ve plenty paper and sharp pencils, if not I can nip to the shop…!
Just watching a clip from Sky Sports where Davie Provan was asked what would it take for Rangers to close the gap on Celtic. “Hard cash”, was his answer, but no insight as to where it will come from. Just like Walter Smith, Ally McCoist, Willie Henderson etc.
I wonder why people are scared to point out Rangers were never really rich, that they just had a very friendly bank, then adopted very dodgy tax avoidance practices. I make no apologies for repeating the same bank tried to put Celtic out of business, and also that Celtic never employed very dodgy tax avoidance practices. Neither for that matter have a number of other clubs. Perhaps it might also be worth asking if the Ibrox ‘Investor’ they speak about exists, then why has he or she not appeared before things got to the various stages we have witnessed these past few years.
Welcome back John. I take it you are fully refreshed and eager to get back to SFM work? How’d you manage to get five months off from BP anyway
?
Good morning all.
.
not been as active on the site lately as I would like.Grandparent duties seem to be more time consuming than I thought
Trying to keep up to date though.
Thought it may be of interest to some that it appears someone has successfully petitioned the court to have MIH(IL) re-instated at Companies House,9 months after being put into liquidation.
UPTHEHOOPS
MAY 3, 2017 at 07:20
Just watching a clip from Sky Sports where Davie Provan was asked what would it take for Rangers to close the gap on Celtic. “Hard cash”, was his answer, but no insight as to where it will come from. Just like Walter Smith, Ally McCoist, Willie Henderson etc.
I wonder why people are scared to point out Rangers were never really rich, that they just had a very friendly bank, then adopted very dodgy tax avoidance practices…
——————————————————-
I suspect the only time that any form of Rangers had ‘hard cash’ in the last thirty years was in the immediate aftermath of Chuck’s IPO.
I wonder what happened to it?
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) May 3, 2017 at 10:00
Good morning all. not been as active on the site lately as I would like.Grandparent duties seem to be more time consuming than I thought . Trying to keep up to date though. Thought it may be of interest to some that it appears someone has successfully petitioned the court to have MIH(IL) re-instated at Companies House,9 months after being put into liquidation.
==============================
I have an hour or two off grandparenting duties just now before a nursery pickup, so I’m catching up too.
That is an odd one re MIH. There is no indication on the document of who has requested that the company be reactivated, or why. Perhaps it’s been in Bill Miller’s incubator for the last few months, and is ready to emerge as a healthy new company having been cleansed of its tarnished past, not to mention £700m of debt.
Cross-examination of Shanks continues.
David Henderson, BBC Scotland business correspondent & presenter tweeting today, so will try to follow along with James Doleman to give different perspective and to judge how close to what’s actually said, a BBC reporter reports!
Welcome back JC.
I took a day off today, so hope to catch some JD tweets,and now the bleeding sun has come out.
Anyway rant of today. (before JD tweets take my attention) Gordon Smith..Competition has always been at the heart of smith’s love affair with the game and seeing it dismantled in such staggering fashion has left him looking elsewhere to fill his appetite for a contest. writes Gareth law.
——————-
I Take it smith was looking elsewhere when this love affair and competition with the game, when paying supporters who were handing over their cash to attend or watch a competition that was rigged for years during the DOS and EBT years. Why no complaint from Mr Smith then?
———————
Mr smith again… what i want to see at any level is competition.I’m always disappointed when that is not there.
——————-
Was Mr Smith disappointed when one club from ibrox was cheating to sustain a level of competition?