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

normanbatesmumfc

normanbatesmumfcPosted on1:41 pm - Apr 4, 2017


A very uncompromising summary of the lack of governance highlighted by the Ibrox saga on JJ site today;

https://johnjamessite.com/2017/04/04/a-very-british-scandal/

The fact he is able to document openly all these facts/assertions/speculation, without any hint of a legal challenge from those whose characters are being dragged through the mud, is perhaps testimony to the proximity to the truth in his words.

Sometimes the silence speaks volumes……

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on2:48 pm - Apr 4, 2017


Auldheid April 4, 2017 at 03:02
==================
As ever I will bow to your forensic reading and understanding of the licensing articles, but isn’t the key difference between 2012 and 2017 the implementation of the FFP regulations.  I would have thought that in itself would force the SFA to implement additional controls and scrutiny over the process …………. then again, maybe not, as it’s the SFA we are talking about.

View Comment

Avatar

Bogs DolloxPosted on3:02 pm - Apr 4, 2017


normanbatesmumfcApril 4, 2017 at 13:41     A very uncompromising summary of the lack of governance highlighted by the Ibrox saga on JJ site today;
https://johnjamessite.com/2017/04/04/a-very-british-scandal/
The fact he is able to document openly all these facts/assertions/speculation, without any hint of a legal challenge from those whose characters are being dragged through the mud, is perhaps testimony to the proximity to the truth in his words.
Sometimes the silence speaks volumes……
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It might just be that the server he fires his salvoes off from is in a jurisdiction that makes legal action not possible.

View Comment

Avatar

Higgy’s ShoesPosted on4:56 pm - Apr 4, 2017


For your information.
 
Some people think that for some reason I’m angry that Celtic have won the league.
I started the season KNOWING that Hearts were not going to win the league. I’ll go further, Hearts are never going to win the league again in my lifetime. I also suspected that Celtic would win it at a canter. As they will do for the next, I dunno,  10 years?. So, why would I be upset at something I predicted? I also predicted that we would get a hammering
 Given the choice I would rather have Celtic win the league. Celtic fans won’t of course, countenance the fact that there is a Hearts fan out there who has always favoured Celtic in the Glasgow derby Even before Sevco came into existence I would only support Rangers in these fixtures if it were in anyway beneficial to Hearts.
Believe it if you like, frankly I don’t care.
 
Secondly, the reason I haven’t posted in the last 24 hours is that I have been trying to search utube etc for footage of the Lustig incident because that is the only way that some of you will actually admit that not all things Celtic are as pure as the driven snow. This incident was as embarrassing as the Rivaldo incident at the world cup a few years ago. 
The nearest I got was a comment on a Celtic fan site from a fan who could only get a ticket for the game in amongst his Hearts buddies. He called it exactly as I did. Adding that he was ashamed.
 
HS

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on6:30 pm - Apr 4, 2017


Anyway, it was cold today though dry and a bit sunny.

View Comment

Avatar

bect67Posted on6:58 pm - Apr 4, 2017


HiggysShoes at 16.56

For what it’s worth, Cowie (it seemed to me!) did stamp on Lustig’s foot on the way past him – giving that usual sly look away when naughty.
I’m not saying it diminishes your point (re Lustig’s behaviour), which you’re clearly aggrieved about, but the Hearts man was no innocent bypasser.

View Comment

Avatar

Ex LudoPosted on7:18 pm - Apr 4, 2017


Just watching an old Simpsons episode in which Duffman declares that he can never die, only the actors who play the character. Sounds eerily familiar for some reason. 

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on7:18 pm - Apr 4, 2017


Looks like the UK Government is finally going to do something about the taxation of “image rights”

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/603279/59249_Cm_9433_Accessible.pdf

5: Committee of Public Accounts conclusion: The rules on ‘image rights’ as they are applied in football and some other industries are being exploited.
Recommendation: The Government should take urgent action to address image rights taxation. This must be included in the next Finance Bill to ensure this tax revenue is no longer lost.

5.1 The Government agrees with the Committee‟s recommendation.
Target implementation date: Spring 2017.

5.2 The Government is aware that some employers make image rights payments under separate contractual arrangements to those that generate employment income. Spring Budget 2017 announced that the Department will publish guidelines for employers who make payments for image rights to their employees, to help employers understand how these payments should be taxed. The Department thinks making new guidance publicly available will improve compliance by clarifying what an image right is and the tests to determine whether payments can be treated as image rights payments or must be subject to Pay As You Earn (PAYE) as earnings.

5.3 To make sure the rules on image rights are applied consistently in football, the Department has initiated a specific football compliance project. Dedicated technical experts will visit all English Premier League, Championship and Scottish Premier League clubs over a three year period and review all compliance risks including payments to players.

View Comment

Avatar

naegreetinPosted on7:33 pm - Apr 4, 2017


Re King’s search for funds to cover offer due by 12 April

If Phil is correct via his sources Dave is running out of time to come up with the readies to cover an offer to meet the TP requirements – given an offer has to be funded , prospectus printed & mailed out to shareholders I would guess time is running out v. fast . Maybe the Bank of Itchy & Scratchy in HK is the bank of “last resort”?

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on7:46 pm - Apr 4, 2017


easyJamboApril 4, 2017 at 14:48  
Auldheid April 4, 2017 at 03:02 ================== As ever I will bow to your forensic reading and understanding of the licensing articles, but isn’t the key difference between 2012 and 2017 the implementation of the FFP regulations.  I would have thought that in itself would force the SFA to implement additional controls and scrutiny over the process …………. then again, maybe not, as it’s the SFA we are talking about.
++++++++++++++++++++++
The purpose of Res12 was to establish exactly on what basis RFC were awarded and retained the UEFA licence in 2011.
That has more or less been established as a result of a mixture of information gleaned from UEFA via Res12 lawyer, public statements from RFC, and SFA and CAS rulings on other clubs that demonstrate what UEFA intend their rules to produce.
There is one word to describe what happened in 2011 and since 2013 when Res12 was raised. ” Dishonesty”.
The problem is where did it start and end and if SFA involved (and there is a persuasive case) who is going to implement additional controls? Not the same people who used the absence of such to allow provable dishonesty to go unchallenged.
That licence was either awarded and kept by dishonesty OR the rules were not tight enough to let a flawed application go undetected.
Now whilst UEFA are not needed so much to investigate dishonesty as that will become more than apparent in late summer, they most certainly need to conduct a review of their rules to ensure there are no holes in the process that allowed a club in breach of UEFA’s intent to get access to income at the expense of other clubs operating totally within the rules.
It is incredible that after 5 years we cannot be sure that the SFA will apply the rules as UEFA intend.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on7:53 pm - Apr 4, 2017


Coming back to AJ’s blog.

My gut feeling is that the OC/NC debate could be finally resolved in the future – but perhaps in a totally unexpected manner ?

Maybe there will be a very significant issue in the future, where it is in TRFC’s interest to insist that it is indeed a new club?
Maybe something generated from within football – or something raised externally via another court case ?

It sounds so ridiculous, but it is in relation to TRFC, so it might just be a possibility ?

[Even if it’s only a ‘temporary’ TRFC insistence that it is a new club.]

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on8:31 pm - Apr 4, 2017


STEVIEBC
APRIL 4, 2017 at 19:53
=========================================

Loads of “Rangerscentric” people admitted that the club had died, the support chose to ignore it. That isn’t going to change.

For example, 

Club Legend Walter Smith – “We wish the new Rangers Football Club every good fortune.”

Club Legend Richard Gough – “The club I gave blood, sweat and tears for is dead.”

Club Legend Terry Butcher –  “It is still a brilliant club for me, although technically it is now a new club.”

PR Legend Jim Traynor – “They’ll slip into liquidation within the next couple of weeks with a new company emerging but 140 years of history, triumph and tears, will have ended. No matter how Charles Green attempts to dress it up, a newco equals a new club. When the CVA was thrown out Rangers as we know them died.”

Traditional Singing Legend Donald Findlay – “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.”

It really doesn’t matter what anyone says, they will refuse to believe it. Even if it’s the club. The rationale would be “Well the club has to say that, but we all know it isn’t really true.”

View Comment

Avatar

HirsutePursuitPosted on8:56 pm - Apr 4, 2017


Worth having a look at the current Rangers’ website:
https://rangers.co.uk/club/history/former-managers/william-wilton/

In May 1899, Wilton was given the dual role of manager and secretary when the club became a limited liability company.

Of course, this is the club (with a lower case c) that became a company.
 14 12

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on9:01 pm - Apr 4, 2017


STEVIEBCAPRIL 4, 2017 at 19:53 
Coming back to AJ’s blog.
My gut feeling is that the OC/NC debate could be finally resolved in the future – but perhaps in a totally unexpected manner ?
    ———————————————————————————————————————
   It’s a nice thought Stevie, but………
     Amongst other things they would be wide open to the shares fraud, misrepresenting their product, and a squillion other charges, such as selling tickets.  Even though it may be a fact, only the possibility of a fatal scenario would force such an issue, and it would be a case of, “Out of the frying pan”. 
    For instance, due to STILL outstanding taxes, Rangers(I.L.) are ineligible for Europe. It won’t prevent the new Rangers from applying though, and they will still brass it out and manage the SMSM to portray an alternative reality. 
   It’s harder to imagine a more clear cut example that they are not the old club, but it makes no odds to them. They will fill in the forms stating their true legal standing, and put in their match-day programmes a polar opposite contradiction before the ink has dried on the forms……They are beyond shame.  
    The SMSM will support them…….They are beyond shame
   Our governing bodies will support them…….They are beyond shame.
   Our legal system and member clubs will turn a blind eye to this misrepresentative fraud….They are beyond shame. 
   It’s down to the fans to do the right thing. 
   

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on9:08 pm - Apr 4, 2017


HIRSUTEPURSUIT
APRIL 4, 2017 at 20:56
============================================

Sorry mate, no point in going over facts again.

We have long held that the club became the ltd company which became the PLC which is being liquidated.

The fact that the clubs own website confirms that is hardly relevant. 

This is about belief not fact. Facts are only to be used when one holds an opinion which those facts support. 

I’m afraid Companies House is no more helpful. “THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB P.L.C. 27 May 1899 – 31 Jul 2012”, that hardly helps, particularly when allied to what you posted, so better ignored.

View Comment

shug

shugPosted on9:16 pm - Apr 4, 2017


HS
utube etc for footage of the Lustig incident because that is the only way that some of you will actually admit that not all things Celtic are as pure as the driven snow.
I don’t think anyone said that or even claimed it However if it did happen then I’m sure some hearts fan would have posted it already and it would be all over social media if footage turns up showing what you believe happened then fine we will all know. The foul though did happen and it looked a sore one my dog just stood on my toe and it was damn sore so someone having a kick at your foot or standing on it would probably be worse.

View Comment

Avatar

finnmccoolPosted on11:35 pm - Apr 4, 2017


I think that there has been a lot of unnecessary confusion surrounding the Old Club/New Club.
The confusion arises from the term “football club”.
RFC was a PLC. Just like any other company which many of us work for in the private sector. It’s staff were employed, in the main, to play football and support that business. Like every other company, they had other staff employed to deal with administration, accounts, HR etc.
The company went bust. It was later put into receivership. Liquidated.
Assets of the company were sold to a private buyer. That was a company called Sevco Scotland.
Sevco did not buy a business, only assets.
The proceeds from that sale are to be used to pay creditors.
Note that the employees were not assets. They had no requirement to work for Sevco and Sevco had no requirement to employ them. (I did laugh when Charles Green thought that Sevco had bought football player registrations as assets.)
Sevco had no requirement to use the purchased assets to compete in the business of professional football.
Sevco could have used the purchased assets for any type of business.The point is. Sevco chose the football business. They didn’t have to. The purchased assets could have been used for any legal purpose. Sevco could have chose any trading name. Charlie’s chocolate factory, for instance
Whether it made commercial sense to go into the football business or not is irrelevant.
The OC/NC is irrelevant. Assets were bought by a company which could have been put to use for any business function.
So they have pursued a business in football. So what? It is still a new business.
Words like “club” and “team” are irrelevant. They are metaphysical bullshit, as it were
I regularly kick myself for not buying a sports stadium with excellent road and rail access to Scotlands major city for a couple of million quid.
What a car park that would have been! With a wee shopping centre and some fast food joints for commuters to get something to eat and pick up some vino and flowers for the wife on the way back home.
2,000 cars a day a £20 a head at 240 days a year – £9.6 million a year. Virtually no overheads. And rental income from the remains of the stadium.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on1:02 am - Apr 5, 2017


I realise what this site is all about and love it.  But although I visit loads of other sites I only post here and James Forrest & Joe McHugh’s blogs.  Please forgive me if I post on a football topic not related to our usual area of discussion.

The drain of good Scottish footballers to England.

Over the years I have had my heart broken (in a footballing sense) when we have had some of our star players lost to England.  I think immediately of Kenny Dalgliesh (SP) Charlie Nicolas (SP) and Henrik.  There has been many others and I suspect supporters of other teams in Scotland feel the same.

Even players moving from one Scottish team to another in Scotland can have the same effect.  When Celtic signed Stuart Armstrong & GMS from Dundee Utd. a poster from their club was heartbroken on another site.  He wasn’t wrong.  It seemed to signal their decline.

Now I am alarmed at the rumours of Kieran Tierney moving to Man. Utd.  The guy is Celtic daft.  He is very young and I thought we would be safe to have him until his mid twenties before the inevitable move south.

But money and some sort of ambition talks very loud.  These players earn more on a week than I ever earned in a year.  I would play for Celtic for buttons like the Lisbon Lions did and have a happy life.

It’s a funny old world.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on1:20 am - Apr 5, 2017


Of course the contrary argument to my post above was the spending spree of Rangers in the David Murray era (and just before).  England being barred from European competition, EBTs and a BOS deal which staggers belief, meant that England’s star players headed to Ibrox.  I was astounded at the time.  We were so innocent at the time.  There was no SFM, RTC for us to know the realities behind it.  I actually thought David Murray was a sugar daddy.  Instead we now know, he took out more than he ever gave in. 

Strip his knighthood.

Do away with knighthoods.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on1:25 am - Apr 5, 2017


jimbo April 5, 2017 at 01:02
================
The last figures I saw suggested that Celtic’s first team squad was on an average of £717k per annum (£14k a week)
http://www.globalsportssalaries.com/GSSS%202016.pdf; (page 26 of 28 I think)

Given his age, I expect that Tierney will currently be at the lower end of Celtic’s wage scale, albeit with the prospect of a new contract to take him to a higher level. Let’s say he has the prospect of earning £1M a year (£20k a week) for the next three years if he signs a new contract and stays at Celtic.

Such are the wages at the bigger clubs down south he would probably be looking at an absolute minimum of £3M a year (£60k a week) for a three year deal with the likes of a Man Utd. 

He will be 20 in the summer. Now tell me what would be the better deal for him to sign. Stay at Celtic, win trophies and earn a top wage for a footballer in Scotland, or go down south, compete for trophies, and earn at least three times as much for doing so.

All footballers are just a second away from a career ending injury. I think the decision is a no brainer for a young footballer.  I can understand older pros, like Craig Gordon, staying put, as he has already earned enough to have a comfortable “retirement”, but for a young guy, he will almost certainly want to earn the big bucks while he can, or at least that is what his agent will be telling him.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on1:47 am - Apr 5, 2017


I was once close friends with a brilliant journalist Kevin McKenna.  He was a Celtic season ticket holder.  Left of centre.  But I despaired of an article he wrote about social media. His disdain of sites like this left me unhappy. 

As I said above there were things going on at Rangers, financially, which we knew nothing about.  Journalists who have an ear to the ground know all this stuff.  Whether it is through bias, fear, or secret societies connections, they write what they write.  Kevin disappointed me when he rubbished social media. 

I’m not a fan of twitter or facebook but football blogs?  It’s the place to go for an inkling of what’s happening.  There still is a place for the printed media.  It gives us a starting point to debate.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on2:05 am - Apr 5, 2017


EJ,
I think the most pertinent point you made, and gave me pause for thought, was they are only a second away from a career ending injury.  So true.  I think that’s why I admire players like Stuart Armstrong studying for a law degree.  Celtic had a player who was a Dentist (can’t remember which). 

But I still want to hold on to KT.  I was at Old Trafford last year and it’s an impressive stadium, historic.  But for me not a patch on Celtic Park.  As I’m sure Tynecastle will be for you my friend.

View Comment

Avatar

causaludendiPosted on5:37 am - Apr 5, 2017


Jimbo, that would be Jim Craig you’re thinking of.

View Comment

Avatar

coatbridgeloyaltycadPosted on6:43 am - Apr 5, 2017


HirsutePursuitApril 4, 2017 at 20:56 Worth having a look at the current Rangers’ website:https://rangers.co.uk/club/history/former-managers/william-wilton/
********************************************************
Then we have this, from the same history section
https://rangers.co.uk/club/history/rangers-history/the-beginning-of-glory/
“Wilton was rewarded with his appointment as the Club’s first Manager as Rangers formally became a business company. Rangers Football Club Limited was established in March 1899 and appointed its first board of directors under the chairmanship of James Henderson.
Later that year they moved to New Ibrox – site of the present stadium – just up the road from the old ground where they had played since 1887.”

“Rangers formally became a business company.”  That’s the history, a club winning titles and cups are that clubs achievements
On what date RFC PLC cease to formally be a business prior to entering administration ?

View Comment

Avatar

coatbridgeloyaltycadPosted on8:10 am - Apr 5, 2017


Mark Warburton’s school of gibberish has found a star in the making!
“Hearts were equal to Celtic if you take away the goalposts” – Jambos boss Ian Cathro in bizarre claim after Hoops drubbing

You have to just shake your head and wonder………………………

View Comment

Bill1903

Bill1903Posted on9:35 am - Apr 5, 2017


jimboApril 5, 2017 at 01:02
I realise what this site is all about and love it.  But although I visit loads of other sites I only post here and James Forrest & Joe McHugh’s blogs.  Please forgive me if I post on a football topic not related to our usual area of discussion
—————————————————–
I thought you were one of John James’s biggest fans jimbo??

View Comment

Avatar

bordersdonPosted on9:41 am - Apr 5, 2017


                       coatbridgeloyaltycadApril 5, 2017 at 08:10Mark Warburton’s school of gibberish has found a star in the making!“Hearts were equal to Celtic if you take away the goalposts” – Jambos boss Ian Cathro in bizarre claim after Hoops drubbing
You have to just shake your head and wonder………………………
———————————————————————————-
Aye managers say some silly things at times. Like BR not being embarrassed by being humped by Barca and saying St Mirren (bottom of the secomd tier at the time) being the best Scottish team Celtic have played! 12
Cathro has his own style. He knows what he is trying to get over but taken literally sometimes comes across as silly.

View Comment

Avatar

Charlie_KellyPosted on11:55 am - Apr 5, 2017


I’d argue that in terms of tactics, chances created and the overall problems that they caused Celtic, that Brendan Rodgers was absolutely spot on with his assessment of St Mirren.  Bearing in mind these comments were prior to the recent 1-1 draw with rangers. Up until that point in the season, Rangers, Aberdeen and Hearts had offered virtually nothing on their visits to Celtic park this season. St Mirren on the other hand were excellent and well deserving of their halftime lead and were a whisker away from going 2-0 up at the start of the second half.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on12:31 pm - Apr 5, 2017


HirsutePursuitApril 4, 2017 at 20:56 (Edit) 
Worth having a look at the current Rangers’ website:https://rangers.co.uk/club/history/former-managers/william-wilton/
In May 1899, Wilton was given the dual role of manager and secretary when the club became a limited liability company.Of course, this is the club (with a lower case c) that became a company.
_______

coatbridgeloyaltycadApril 5, 2017 at 06:43 (Edit) 
HirsutePursuitApril 4, 2017 at 20:56 Worth having a look at the current Rangers’ website:https://rangers.co.uk/club/history/former-managers/william-wilton/ ******************************************************** Then we have this, from the same history sectionhttps://rangers.co.uk/club/history/rangers-history/the-beginning-of-glory/“Wilton was rewarded with his appointment as the Club’s first Manager as Rangers formally became a business company. Rangers Football Club Limited was established in March 1899 and appointed its first board of directors under the chairmanship of James Henderson. Later that year they moved to New Ibrox – site of the present stadium – just up the road from the old ground where they had played since 1887.”
“Rangers formally became a business company.”  That’s the history, a club winning titles and cups are that clubs achievements On what date RFC PLC cease to formally be a business prior to entering administration ?
__________________________

The quotes you provide knit nicely to one of the points I made in my blog:
    “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’.”
Those quotes confirm that, from day one of incorporation, there was only one Rangers Football Club, even in the minds of the most ‘Rangers of Rangers’ people, and that was a limited company, that was Rangers Football Club Limited. Nothing else existed, not even in the minds of the club’s officials and supporters. Even the man or woman who put this history together was clearly unaware of any notion of some metaphysical ‘club’ existing separately from the reality of the limited company.

The posts of HirsutePursuit and Coatbridgeloyaltycard are factual, and to debunk the conclusions that are so obvious from them, a factual argument would have to be put forward. We never see factual arguments put forward to counter the reality that liquidation means the death of Rangers FC!

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on12:34 pm - Apr 5, 2017


normanbatesmumfc
April 4, 2017 at 13:41
 
“is perhaps testimony to the proximity to the truth in his words.”
—————————————————————————————-
But  in the comments for todays article  “The Apogee Of Political Opportunism”
today he replies to a post*
 
 
* “Spain will not veto Scotland the torys and smsm have known this for months”
 
Reply “Stop reading Wings Over Scotland. The Catalan and Basque separatist movements would be advanced by an independent Scotland gaining EU accession. Madrid are implacably opposed. To suggest otherwise is a lie, which WOW does so well. It’s mendacity is in a class of its own”
 
Daily Express  26/02/2012
“ But yesterday Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo insisted his country would not raise any objection to European Union recognition – if Scottish independence was accepted by Westminster.”
In the Last 3 days
“Spain has said it would not veto an attempt by an independent Scotland to join the EU, in a boost to Nicola Sturgeon’s campaign for a second independence referendum and the clearest sign yet that Brexit has softened Madrid’s longstanding opposition. Alfonso Dastis, the Spanish foreign minister, made it clear that the government would not block an independent Scotland’s EU hopes, although he stressed that Madrid would not welcome the disintegration of the UK.
In the Guardian, The Sun, The Express, The National.
Oops!
 

View Comment

neepheid

neepheidPosted on3:57 pm - Apr 5, 2017


woodsteinApril 5, 2017 at 12:34    
normanbatesmumfc April 4, 2017 at 13:41   “is perhaps testimony to the proximity to the truth in his words.” —————————————————————————————- But  in the comments for todays article  “The Apogee Of Political Opportunism” today he replies to a post*     * “Spain will not veto Scotland the torys and smsm have known this for months”
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Rasther than address the inaccuracies in his very feeble piece, he has left the piece up but pulled all the comments. He blames a “SNP flash mob”, coordinated from Bute House.
I think he’s losing the plot, actually. It seems his current target audience is Unionist Celtic supporters. I know there are some, but I wouldn’t be building a business on that demographic.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on4:41 pm - Apr 5, 2017


Ally Jambo 12.31
The Only Opinion that Counts.
http://etims.net/?p=11054 
UEFA!

View Comment

Avatar

killie1962Posted on5:21 pm - Apr 5, 2017


Hi fellahs, 
I have to agree with Allyjambo, when you are liquidated you are bust, simple as that. I really think that if I had been a Glaswegian I would have been a Third Lanark fan but then again I like history. I remember going to watch Killie against Celtic in the 1972 Scottish Cup Semi Final, just a wee puppy with my Da, the Killie buses were parked not too far from the old Cathkin Park and the terracing and entrances were not demolished, all the troops had been drinking so that Scottish sense of using somewhere to pee were in the back of the derelict main doors!! Obviously at my age it was coke but I still remember asking my Da what happened that a club could fold, I was too young to fully understand, I think my point here is why did the SFA not try to help this club, as well as the other clubs that have folded, Airdrieonians(still cannot see that it’s the same team) Gretna, Clydebank etc. I know teams died in the earlier part of the century but the help given to bail out the Rangers football club is nonsensical. On a a personal note I hope we gub them tonight, I do not consider them Rangers despite the hype. Enjoyed that wee piece AllyJambo and it made me think there are still some sensible people out there, I see it from a different angle living in the USA, they haven’t a clue, especially in the social clubs who show the games on a Saturday
Gaun the Killie 

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on7:12 pm - Apr 5, 2017


neepheid
April 5, 2017 at 15:57
He blames a “SNP flash mob”, coordinated from Bute House.——————————————————————————- 
That is where I had to get off, when he said he had their IP address.
Can you imagine Bute House or Downing Street, broadcasting all their IP addresses to the world!  No security??
I think not.
 

View Comment

Avatar

bordersdonPosted on11:19 pm - Apr 5, 2017


Charlie_KellyApril 5, 2017 at 11:55
I’d argue that in terms of tactics, chances created and the overall problems that they caused Celtic, that Brendan Rodgers was absolutely spot on with his assessment of St Mirren.  Bearing in mind these comments were prior to the recent 1-1 draw with rangers. Up until that point in the season, Rangers, Aberdeen and Hearts had offered virtually nothing on their visits to Celtic park this season. St Mirren on the other hand were excellent and well deserving of their halftime lead and were a whisker away from going 2-0 up at the start of the second half.
—————————————————————————
You can argue all you want mate but the final score was 4-1 and the buddies were bottom of the second tier (and still are as far as I know). He was talking sh**e!

View Comment

fishnish

fishnishPosted on1:14 am - Apr 6, 2017


BORDERSDON:
You can argue all you want mate but the final score was 4-1 and the buddies were bottom of the second tier (and still are as far as I know). He was talking sh**e!”
……………………
well… Someone is. And I don’t think it’s Rodgers.
it’s the Paisley CLUB that is temporarily bottom of the league, not the team…. not really the buddies…
The team inherited a deficit of points from the CLUB of 2016.  There has been a wholesale clearance of personnel and a relaunch. The only table worthy of consideration is that of in-form teams. (Clubs are so 2016!)
and the Saints sit proudly at the top of the in-forms.   Ayr United suffered last Saturday by encountering the new Buddies in the form they showed to Rodgers at Parkhead.

the Great Escape is ON, without recourse to liquidation and re-invention.  There may be a god… And s/he is still a Buddist.

View Comment

Avatar

Charlie_KellyPosted on4:21 am - Apr 6, 2017


Bordersdon: The final score was also 4-1 on one of Aberdeen’s visits to Celtic park. When they last came to town they held out for a 1-0 loss and in between that they put up one of the most powder puff performances ever seen in a cup final by any Dons team in living memory. In fact I can barely remember the last time Aberdeen even put up half the fight that St Mirren put up against Celtic in Glasgow. I reckon you’re gripes would be far better directed at Mr McIness & his players as opposed to Brendan Rodgers for merely stating the obvious.

View Comment

Bill1903

Bill1903Posted on7:22 am - Apr 6, 2017


Bordersdon you have broken rule 1
Though shalt not be critical of Celtic in any way. 12

View Comment

Bill1903

Bill1903Posted on7:41 am - Apr 6, 2017


^
Swap though with thou
————————————
It’s fair to say that we have been poor against Celtic this season. In fact we’ve been poor against the team currently in 3rd place. A lucky winner at Pittodrie and a defeat at Ibrox. Hopefully we show our true form on Sunday.

View Comment

Avatar

Carfins FinestPosted on8:14 am - Apr 6, 2017


Good Morning all. Haven’t been on here for a while but recently noticed that the revelation of the Sevco v Celtic match date post split had been announced. I wondered if, Like me, anyone found this rather peculiar? Why release this date until all qualifiers were finalised. No other dates arranged yet. Was there a desperate need to let someone know that a decent sized cheque would be in the post at around that time? Someone somewhere needed financial comforting. The line about giving Scotland’s Finest plenty of notice is just hogwash regurgitated by the usual suspects. So who/what needed to know that payday was around the corner? UEFA maybe? I am just guessing at the reasons for this anomaly but I am sure the guys on here will be able to put my troubled soul to rest on this matter. 
Sorry in advance if this has indeed been covered.

View Comment

Avatar

naegreetinPosted on9:22 am - Apr 6, 2017


CF @ 08.14 6 April – they (TRFC) have a constant need for cash but what interests me (& more importantly ,should the SFA) they are less than 1 week from meeting the TP requirement of a share offer from DCK . I would think the SFA would have been all over any other member club whose control was achieved illegally but with TRFC its always say nothing until you have to .

Anyone on here got shares in TRFC ? If you have why not send an email to Ibrox & ask when the offer is coming as you have financial plans for the £0.20 per share (to be offered?) .

View Comment

Avatar

bordersdonPosted on9:32 am - Apr 6, 2017


                       Bill1903April 6, 2017 at 07:41 ————————————It’s fair to say that we have been poor against Celtic this season. In fact we’ve been poor against the team currently in 3rd place. A lucky winner at Pittodrie and a defeat at Ibrox. Hopefully we show our true form on Sunday.
———————————————————————————————-
Here’s hoping Bill. I agree with Charlie about our performances against Celtic, especially in the cup final. Still think all managers talk s***e at times though.

View Comment

Avatar

Charlie_KellyPosted on12:17 pm - Apr 6, 2017


I haven’t seen anyone on here say that you cant be critical of Celtic. I also agree that all managers talk sh*te from time to time. I just don’t think that “St Mirrengate” was a particularly good example of a manager talking sh*te.
A Better example IMHO would be his comments after the 7-0 defeat to Barcelona along the lines of that it wasn’t an embarrassing result. A 7-0 defeat to anyone under any circumstances is an embarrassing result by the very nature of the scoreline.
Finally I don’t think Rodgers was suggesting that St Mirren are actually the 2nd best team in Scotland. He was merely commenting on their performance in a one off cup-tie and contrasting it with the efforts of the other teams Celtic had faced at Celtic park up to that point. Obviously over a 38 game season St Mirren couldn’t live with the likes of Aberdeen, Rangers, Hearts, St Johnstone etc but the fact is that for a good 50-60 minutes they were more than a match for Celtic.

View Comment

Avatar

bordersdonPosted on1:52 pm - Apr 6, 2017


                       Charlie_KellyApril 6, 2017 at 12:17
I haven’t seen anyone on here say that you cant be critical of Celtic. I also agree that all managers talk sh*te from time to time. I just don’t think that “St Mirrengate” was a particularly good example of a manager talking sh*te. A Better example IMHO would be his comments after the 7-0 defeat to Barcelona along the lines of that it wasn’t an embarrassing result. A 7-0 defeat to anyone under any circumstances is an embarrassing result by the very nature of the scoreline. Finally I don’t think Rodgers was suggesting that St Mirren are actually the 2nd best team in Scotland. He was merely commenting on their performance in a one off cup-tie and contrasting it with the efforts of the other teams Celtic had faced at Celtic park up to that point. Obviously over a 38 game season St Mirren couldn’t live with the likes of Aberdeen, Rangers, Hearts, St Johnstone etc but the fact is that for a good 50-60 minutes they were more than a match for Celtic.
——————————————————————————————-
Maybe Celtic were s***e during that period?
I agree nobody has said you cant be critical of Celtic! But you certainly get criticised if you are 12.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on3:38 pm - Apr 6, 2017


naegreetinApril 6, 2017 at 09:22
‘…… I would think the SFA would have been all over any other member club whose control was achieved illegally but with TRFC its always say nothing until you have to .’
__________
And,naegreetin, when they have to say something,  they of course lie!

They have to lie, and they have to continue to lie.

People in the SFA knew from very personally beneficial knowledge how SDM was operating the pornographer/struck-off solicitor’s wizard EBT tax ‘avoidance’ scheme.

They failed to act.

They allowed SDM to cheat not just his fellow SPL club owners but the rest of us- for years.

Unhappily for them, and despite all the cheating, and all the feckin guff from archcheat SDM about spending double what any other club could spend, the cheating of that archcheat  bandit caught up with him, and in a blind, four year long panic, he desperately tried to sell off the huge liability that he KNEW his cheating had incurred.

And found a tenth rate asset-stripper to relieve him of that liability.

Who himself was cheated , it would appear , by a really quite sharp horse-lover with big hands.

Who was able to cripple other smaller chancers who subsequently tried to duff him, by entering certain contracts!

And so bloody on and on…..

Who will rid us of this obscene blot on the face of Scottish Football?

Certainly not the guys who helped facilitate the cheating, and who continue to lie and continue to facilitate the cheating.

The cheating was clearly established.
The club that cheated died the death brought about by its cheating.
That death was universally acknowledged at the time.

But then?
 Out of the blue( no pun intended) we get myth creation on a Disney scale!

Suddenly, there are ‘holding companies’.
Suddenly there are fanciful ,ethereal ‘what it’s all about’ entities ( and what an ar.ehole that guy was!),
Suddenly ther are ‘clubs’ and ‘Clubs’.

And , in the round, there are lying, cheating, ‘businessmen’, trying to make money without regard to any kind of sporting ethic-or any kind of common sense.

And that’s what really galls me.

That the SFA (and complicit others) should so take us for mugs as to to think that they can lie to us so basically and so consistently.

The curse of Cromwell be upon them.

And, of course, their lies will not go unrecorded .
I hope to live long enough to add a few words to their obituaries or their wiki entries.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:55 pm - Apr 6, 2017


Re: TRFC being OK’d by the SFA to play in Europe.
[Apologies if covered before, but can’t remember.]

If TRFC qualifies, then I don’t think anyone would be surprised if the SFA simply rubber-stamps their application/licence to play in the Europa qualifying rounds.
Well, from what we have observed of the SFA in the last 5+ years, this should be a relatively straightforward bit of paperwork to process on their part – and regardless of any fans’ / customers’ queries or objections.

Despite FFP ‘rules’, TRFC get ready to play in their first Euro ties.
Mibbees they do actually play well, and progress into the next round.
Mibbees they even reach the Group stage, and everyone at Ibrox is overjoyed at ‘their return’ to the European stage.

But what if TRFC finally runs out of cash during the qualifiers – or even during the Group stage?
Even being temporarily in Administration would be rather embarrassing for the SFA, and UEFA probably wouldn’t be best pleased that their competition is being treated in such an amateur fashion by those who govern the Scottish game.

And if there is fallout / punishment, I doubt it would be restricted to just the offending club. [?]
As it would be a failure by the SFA – first and foremost – for negligently allowing TRFC access to the Europa competition – then all the top Scottish clubs will suffer.
A ban on Scottish clubs in European competitions for x seasons ?

Who knows?

But that is the risk to other clubs, IMO, of the SFA enabling TRFC into a European competition – when the Ibrox club should not be there in the first place. 

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on4:34 pm - Apr 6, 2017


StevieBCApril 6, 2017 at 15:55
‘……As it would be a failure by the SFA – first and foremost – for negligently allowing TRFC access to the Europa competition – then all the top Scottish clubs will suffer.’
__________
StevieBC, there is nothing in the track record of the SFA’s dealings in relation to either the dead RFC or to TRFC to support the view that they would ever act merely  ‘negligently’

The evidence suggests powerfully that they would be keenly aware of their ‘duty’ to take positive action to allow TRFC access to whatever.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on5:20 pm - Apr 6, 2017


Or mebbe’s being on a European stage makes them more sellable for the next sucker to buy his fifteen minutes of fame keeping the dream alive. 

You can understand the argument that the club (don’t start) being given the European licence that its position merits will be easier to handle and has most chance of coming remotely close to being sustainable than one that hits what it will publicly claim to be a very thin, unfair, biased, bigoted (delete as applicable) glass ceiling on its onwards journey.

You can’t agree with it obviously but you can understand it, in the same way any parent ever has shut a petulant child up temporarily with a chocolate bar just to buy a precious minute’s peace.  But then that brings you onto consequences…

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on7:09 pm - Apr 6, 2017


DR headline, [my highlighting];

“Rangers vs Celtic Youth Cup Final set to be played behind closed doors due to crowd trouble at previous clashes”

This year’s Youth Cup Final between Rangers and Celtic could be held behind closed doors because of a history of crowd trouble…
====================

IMO, that’s just another outcome of the numerous, missed opportunities in the last 5+ years for the SFA, [& SPFL], to reboot Scottish football – to make it generally more appealing, especially for families and kids. 
[Whilst acknowledging some notable, club-specific exceptions.]

So fans / customers might not be allowed to watch a bunch of promising teenage kids play a game ?
And not allowed to watch them at Hampden either – the very home of Scottish football ?!  
Reasons behind the decision might be perfectly valid – but why is this scenario even possible in ‘modern’ football ?  

Answers on a postcard to the Hampden blazers…  09

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:25 pm - Apr 6, 2017


STEVIEBCAPRIL 6, 2017 at 15:55   

But that is the risk to other clubs, IMO, of the SFA enabling TRFC into a European competition – when the Ibrox club should not be there in the first place. 

Perhaps it’s too simple for the SFA to grasp, but surely the point of FFP is that a club is in a fit financial state before being put forward. It’s not to give them a licence in the hope potential European income will be their saviour.

Hearts and Aberdeen did not specifically mention FFP in their accounts for nothing.  No matter the current problems at Tynecastle I hope Hearts do not sit in silence should they miss out.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on8:49 pm - Apr 6, 2017


upthehoops April 6, 2017 at 19:25
Hearts and Aberdeen did not specifically mention FFP in their accounts for nothing. No matter the current problems at Tynecastle I hope Hearts do not sit in silence should they miss out.
==========================
Hearts forum Jambos Kickback recently held a Q&A with the Foundation of Hearts chairman, Stuart Wallace, who also sits on the club’s Board.

He was asked the question:
Q20 “Whether he would use his position, of representing the FOH membership, to influence how the club would respond to a potential situation of an FFP compliant Hearts just missing out on European qualification, while a non FFP compliant club could be given special dispensation from the SFA. The purpose of the FFP rules is to stop clubs spending money they don’t have to achieve sporting advantage. One club has clearly failed to comply over the last three years, but given the previous record of the football authorities I do not trust them to do the right thing.”

A20 Stuart stressed that responsibility for day to day footballing matters rests with the football club and the exec team there. However, as a point of principle he sees part of his role as FoH Chair as representing the views of the FoH members generally were he asked to give an opinion.

View Comment

Avatar

ChristyboyPosted on10:31 am - Apr 7, 2017


UPTHEHOOPSAPRIL 6, 2017 at 19:25

Absolutely. Would I be right in thinking that the SFA can revert to discretion when putting forward clubs to compete in Europe ? Or maybe i’m thinking of something else. I remember one of Auldheid’s posts mentioning this but it could have been a different topic altogether. 

View Comment

Avatar

goosygoosyPosted on11:33 am - Apr 7, 2017


According to Phil`s latest the Chairman is offering Far East 3rd parties a sale and leaseback deal in an effort to raise money to buy out the non-concert party shareholders instructed by the TAP
Methinks if Phil is right and this is a genuine i.e. “sincere” (no laughing at the back) offer then the Chairman  
Either
Already owns these assets meaning he controls the onerous contract that draws a steady income from TRFC
Or
He is acting on behalf of the RIFC Board. If so the Board of RIFC must have agreed to lend their Chairman sufficient funds to to enable him to purchase these shares and pay expenses
And 
If that is true
The chairman needs temporary control over the maximum amount he might require and needs to have complete control over the buying process
Thus
After all willing shareholders have been bought out
A naughty Chairman could offset his TRFC loan and current shareholding against any residual cash left over 
He could then be out of the picture at no cost and can resign with dignity leaving TRFC with possibly an even more onerous contract than they have at present
IMO
I find it hard to believe any sale and leaseback deal will happen
It’s more likely to be posturing ahead of a cold shoulder punishment

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on3:32 pm - Apr 7, 2017


easyJamboApril 6, 2017 at 20:49
‘….. However, as a point of principle he sees part of his role as FoH Chair as representing the views of the FoH members generally were he asked to give an opinion.’
____________
Do you know , eJ,  the terms under which  he sits on the Board ? Has he no ‘right’ to speak unless invited to do so?
That may be the arrangement, for all I know, and it is not at all for me to be critical of him on that account.
I do find it a bit odd that he appears to think that the possibility of a club that is wholly compliant with every relevant rule and condition being cheated out of a place in European competition if  the the very governing body gives that place to a non-compliant club, is only a ‘day to day footballing matter’ to be left to the ‘club and the exec team there’!

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on3:44 pm - Apr 7, 2017


GOOSYGOOSY
APRIL 7, 2017 at 11:33

I find it hard to believe any sale and leaseback deal will happenIt’s more likely to be posturing ahead of a cold shoulder punishment
===============================================
Who would loan money to – or do business with – King, and especially wrt RIFC/TRFC ?

‘Respectable’ sources are no longer an option.
So what type of individual / organisation would even consider getting involved with King and the Ibrox club ?
14

Mibbees King is just making very public efforts to raise cash, so he can later spin it in the SMSM that the TAB didn’t give him enough time to raise the cash, are being unreasonable…or are just ‘Rangers haters’ ?

It also comes back to the SFA failing Scottish football – again – by facilitating King’s involvement with RIFC/TRFC, when he should have been ‘cold shouldered’ by the Hampden blazers.
Perhaps the TAB will now do it for them ?

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on3:50 pm - Apr 7, 2017


John Clark April 7, 2017 at 15:32 
easyJamboApril 6, 2017 at 20:49 ‘….. However, as a point of principle he sees part of his role as FoH Chair as representing the views of the FoH members generally were he asked to give an opinion.’ ____________ Do you know , eJ,  the terms under which  he sits on the Board ? Has he no ‘right’ to speak unless invited to do so? That may be the arrangement, for all I know, and it is not at all for me to be critical of him on that account. I do find it a bit odd that he appears to think that the possibility of a club that is wholly compliant with every relevant rule and condition being cheated out of a place in European competition if  the the very governing body gives that place to a non-compliant club, is only a ‘day to day footballing matter’ to be left to the ‘club and the exec team there’!
==============================
As part of the funding agreement FOH is entitled to two seats on the club’s Board, and as far as I know Stuart has full rights to propose, comment or vote as he sees fit.

The “published” answer given takes a slightly softer position than what was actually said at the Q & A, so may have been sanitised for public consumption, either by Stuart or another party. I will reserve my position of knowledge until we see how the situation plays out.  

Edit: FOH is due to assume control of 20% of the voting rights around the end of this month, as part of the current agreement. It is not enough to outvote Ann Budge, but it is a symbolic step on the way to FOH taking full control of the club.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on4:13 pm - Apr 7, 2017


easyJamboApril 7, 2017 at 15:50
‘……..As part of the funding agreement FOH is entitled to two seats on the club’s Board, and as far as I know Stuart has full rights to propose, comment or vote as he sees fit.
The “published” answer given takes a slightly softer position than what was actually said at the Q & A, so may have been sanitised for public consumption, either by Stuart or another party. I will reserve my position of knowledge until we see how the situation plays out. ….’
________________
Thanks for that, eJ.

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:13 pm - Apr 7, 2017


GOOSYGOOSY

APRIL 7, 2017 at 11:33       

He is acting on behalf of the RIFC Board. If so the Board of RIFC must have agreed to lend their Chairman sufficient funds to to enable him to purchase these shares and pay expenses
———————————————-

Perhaps I’m mistaken in my understanding; I thought that other members of the RIFC board/T3Bs couldn’t directly (or as proxies) finance King’s share purchase as that would implicate them in ‘concert party’ shenanigans. I’m not clear whether that would be in the current TAB case or as a secondary transgression.

Will Broxi Bear will be renamed Proxi Bear?

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on4:52 pm - Apr 7, 2017


Easy Jambo
The FOH should have a look at this in terms of not accepting the first justification from Mr Regan that  Hearts might be given for awarding a licence to TRFC at Hearts expense. 
http://etims.net/?p=11064 
The guy is all over the place and there is a reason for that.
Dishonesty – and it is hard not believe the SFA based on E mails in Sept and December 2011 were not part of it.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on5:24 pm - Apr 7, 2017


Auldheid April 7, 2017 at 16:52
===============
Hearts will have to finish 5th and Hibs not to retain the Cup to be directly impacted.  The way they are currently playing makes the first criteria highly uncertain.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:08 pm - Apr 7, 2017


After today’s celtic announcement that Brendan Rodgers has signed a new contract and was done quietly and the SMSM were kept out the loop. No headlines in the future we are going to do this and do that.Celtic did the same when a new member of the coaching staff was appointed, not a hint in the papers beforehand anything was happening.
I like the way celtic now do there business and the SMSM are kept out the loop until the last min

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on7:27 pm - Apr 7, 2017


Cluster One April 7, 2017 at 19:08
After today’s celtic announcement that Brendan Rodgers has signed a new contract and was done quietly and the SMSM were kept out the loop. No headlines in the future we are going to do this and do that.Celtic did the same when a new member of the coaching staff was appointed, not a hint in the papers beforehand anything was happening.I like the way celtic now do there business and the SMSM are kept out the loop until the last min
=====================
Also a good day to bury news of a hike in ST prices (albeit probably back to the pre £100 discount levels). It is still an inflation busting rise, which no doubt will be used to help fund Rodgers’ contract.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on7:35 pm - Apr 7, 2017


EASYJAMBOAPRIL 7, 2017 at 19:27
Also a good day to bury news of a hike in ST prices (albeit probably back to the pre £100 discount levels). It is still an inflation busting rise, which no doubt will be used to help fund Rodgers’ contract.
————————
Will they be the highest priced ST in the SPFL? or does that claim still belong to ibrox?
will be interesting to see what celtic fans get for their buck compared to the ibrox fans….just my thoughts and this is not a celtic blog,i must remind myself.

View Comment

Avatar

GiorgioVasariPosted on8:01 pm - Apr 7, 2017


Evening Chaps and Chapettes.
James Doleman @jamesdolemanHigh Court Judge Richard Miller rejects Rangers’ bid to stop Sports Direct case over allegations of breach of contract over merchandise deal  Even though we post rarely. We are still here! 😉

Good weekend all.
GV

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on8:11 pm - Apr 7, 2017


Bosses at a company within Sports Direct are seeking damages from Rangers after they say directors wrongly terminated their contract.
The deal allowed the sports shop to sell branded products, including kits.
Rangers’ directors dispute their claim and wanted a judge to call a halt to the litigation.
Deputy High Court Judge Richard Millett has decided Mr Ashley should be allowed to continue with the damages claim.
He announced his decision in a written ruling on Friday after analysing competing arguments on whether litigation should stop at a High Court hearing in London.
The judge gave no date for the next hearing.
——————————
so many court cases i can’t remember. Is there not one to take place in july?

View Comment

Avatar

GaslampPosted on8:35 pm - Apr 7, 2017


My wife was ticking me off tonight for getting animated at the TV.  Apparently the third placed team in the SPFL, 12 points and a goal difference of 28 (not that this is going to prove significant!) behind the second placed team, is attempting to capture second place!  Yet the team in fourth place, 6 points behind the team in third place, is attempting to consolidate fourth place!  How interesting!

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on9:40 pm - Apr 7, 2017


CLUSTER ONE
APRIL 7, 2017 at 19:08  
After today’s celtic announcement that Brendan Rodgers has signed a new contract and was done quietly and the SMSM were kept out the loop. No headlines in the future we are going to do this and do that…
============================

Good to see the club taking necessary action it was guilty of dodging in years gone by: investing when they are top dogs.

Having Rodgers managing in Scotland is good for the profile of the SPL – and good for the young players he can develop.

And agreed CO: dealt with by a professionally run club in a discreet and proper, business-like manner.

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on9:51 pm - Apr 7, 2017


Cluster One and Steve BC, no Dons around, so I’ll say it – share your delight with fellow fans on a club site please.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on10:15 pm - Apr 7, 2017


I was in food retail management in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s. In those days 7% NET profit margin was very acceptable.

We hear a lot of moaning about The Rangers retail deal only giving 7p in the pound spent to the clubs coffers.

If I remember correctly all the *Rangers staff employed in the retail division were transferred over to SD.  So wages, NI, sick pay, pension? insurance etc. became the responsibility of SD.  Perhaps also building costs and maintenance.  Certainly warehousing and transport costs.

Maybe I’m being unfair in saying SD here.  Lets say the Rangers Retail (company) 50/50 SD & The rangers.  But the point stands that after all expenditure 7% is not the worst in the world.

It appears to me that Mike Ashley is blamed for all the financial problems at Ibrox.  Nonsense!   The best retail deal in Scotland would not put The Rangers into profit.

Charles Green was desperate to get a big heavy hitter on board in 2012 to give ‘comfort’ to potential investors.  He probably did give the new Ibrox club a deal which was below par for a non food retailer.  Probably 15% net would have been more acceptable.  But he was anxious to get big Mike on board.

But this story ends on a high.  Chuckles now lives in France and has a nice house with stables for his horses. 

He didn’t receive any EBTs, so all is well.

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on10:36 pm - Apr 7, 2017


BLUAPRIL 7, 2017 at 21:51       1 Vote 
Cluster One and Steve BC, no Dons around, so I’ll say it – share your delight with fellow fans on a club site please.
——————-
CLUSTER ONEAPRIL 7, 2017 at 19:35
.just my thoughts and this is not a celtic blog,i must remind myself.
————–
Already made my apologies.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on10:53 pm - Apr 7, 2017


   If Celtic were looking for a squirrel to distract from Res 12 (Thommo says SC verdict around June) they have just thrown away a big huge one, with the signing of Brengun. 
   I recently received an encouraging, (if not exactly a firm commitment) from CFC that as far as the matter goes, it was still a “live” situation.
   Just saying. 

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:56 pm - Apr 7, 2017


BLU
APRIL 7, 2017 at 21:51
==================================

You have a good point.

Significant off field activity at a Scottish football club should not be discussed on the Scottish Football Monitor. 

Though to be fair, that kind of doesn’t leave a lot left to discuss. 

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on11:36 pm - Apr 7, 2017


Cluster One @ 22:36, noted, and note to self to read posts fully before jumping in.

View Comment

Avatar

jimboPosted on12:07 am - Apr 8, 2017


It’s an interesting topic keeping the SFM neutral.  We can’t kid ourselves on that a huge amount of the discussion on here in terms of the media, football governance, integrity, finance, EUFA and so on, revolves around a certain club/s. 

Most of all posters try to keep it polite but pointed.

When Celtic win something important it’s frustrating not to be able to share on here but I understand the reasons.  I now settle for a smiley with no comment.  02.  If Aberdeen or Hearts etc. were to win something I would be hearty with my congratulations.

It’s especially true I have to avoid seeming to be interested only in Glasgow teams concerns.  I have the Celtic crest beside my moniker. 

I thought about that before I registered but I took it to be OK because two of my favourite posters, EJ & AJ had Hearts symbols.

Now as regards to Auldheid’s wee picture thing I’m mystified.  I imagine him to be an auld guy but his picture is of a ‘Marvel’ hero type!

Probably most appropriate.  Him & JC – THE AVENGERS!!!.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on12:22 am - Apr 8, 2017


Corrupt officialApril 7, 2017 at 22:53   
   If Celtic were looking for a squirrel to distract from Res 12 (Thommo says SC verdict around June) they have just thrown away a big huge one, with the signing of Brengun.     I recently received an encouraging, (if not exactly a firm commitment) from CFC that as far as the matter goes, it was still a “live” situation.    Just saying. 
+++++++++++++++++++
That is my understanding as reflected in this response on CQN.

” It has been passed over to Celtic.
 In one way going to UEFA is no longer required in terms of establishing what took place. That has more or less been accomplished by the enquiries made by the Res12 lawyers, and the revelation of how UEFA treated other clubs in a similar situation who appealed to The Court of Arbitration on Sport.
 Additional information will either emerge during the CW trial or become useable in public after it, hence the current silence.
 However if after then a particular narrative involving the SFA is proven to be the case then, if for no other reason than to point out to UEFA that their rules need revising to reflect their intent, then UEFA should be contacted.
 That apart if what looks like dishonesty (some might say criminal dishonesty) on a grand scale is shown, then it cannot hide behind any technical time bar, especially if a dishonest party (the SFA) were part of the delay. ”
If you read The ETims article I linked to earlier you will see why 
http://etims.net/?p=11064&nbsp

View Comment

Comments are closed.