The Blind Men and the Elephant, a cautionary tale

A Guest Blog for TSFM by beatipacificiscotia

As a child I read a poem by John Godfrey Saxe, “The Blind Men and the Elephant”, and stumbled upon it again recently.  It is a simple tale of how six blind men encounter an Elephant and attempt to describe the animal:

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a WALL!”

You get the idea.  The other blind men did little better.  The second grabbed the tusk and thought the elephant like a spear.  Others thought the elephant like a snake (the trunk), a tree (the leg), a fan (the ear), and finally a rope (the tail).  What does this have to do with this blog?  Let me explain.

There is a danger of all of us, whether consciously or unconsciously, making the same mistake as these blind gentleman.  It is too easy to use the parts of the argument that fit our values and belief system, at the expense of the whole truth.  The 13th century Jaina scholar, Mallisena, described a much earlier version of the same tale as a parable to argue that people deny various aspects of truth; deluded by the aspects they do understand, they deny the aspects they don’t understand.  He said:

“Due to extreme delusion produced on account of a partial viewpoint, the immature deny one aspect and try to establish another. This is the maxim of the blind (men) and the elephant.”

I am incapable of putting it any better than that, though I would go further.  I argue that people are deluded by the aspects that they choose to understand, and deny the aspects that they refuse to understand.  Which leads me to my tale …..

I have recently read a news report about a decision taken by the Advertising Standards Authority on advertising activities of The Rangers Football Club Ltd and their claims to history and honours.  It includes the following quote referring to advice from the SFA:

“We also consulted with the SFA, which confirmed that its definition of a football ‘club’ varied depending on context, and could sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club’s corporate owner.”

I was most unhappy to read this part of the statement.  I am yet to see the definition or statement of when you could “sometimes refer to an entity separate from the club’s corporate owner”.  This is a contradiction to the definition of a football club given by FIFA; a definition which is handed down to the Confederations, and from Confederations to Associations. 

You may or may not be aware, the application of good governance in football is administered through club licensing.  This annual process ensures that minimum standards are maintained, to promote growth and development, and ultimately protects all of football – every club, every player and staff member, the integrity of every competition, suppliers of goods and services, the reputation of sponsors, and most of all the fans.  FIFA Club Licensing Regulations state that a license applicant must be a football club, defined as:

“Legal entity fully and solely responsible for the football team participating in national and international club competitions that applies for a licence.”

This is a clear and unambiguous definition, which is being ignored by the SFA.  Why is this issue so important?  Simply, a football club must be held responsible for its commercial activities.  For example, an over-ambitious and over-spending Rangers changed the Scottish football landscape forever.  Other clubs tried to compete in an unsustainable “Cold War”-like football arms race.  I believe Scottish football was damaged.  Many clubs have been taken to the brink of death.  This could happen in any country, in any league, anywhere in the world.  For that reason, a football club and its corporate body must be one and the same, living or dying, inseparably intertwined.  The separation of club and company is a myth, a myth dangerous to good governance.  Rangers (1872-2012) should be a cautionary tale told to every club owner.

There are many benefits to club licensing.  These including minimum standards for stadia and infrastructure, youth development programs, and much more.  I would heartily recommend that you read the FIFA document if you have the time. It gave birth to the word and spirit of Financial Fair Play.  Look at some of the financial benefits detailed:

 

10.3  Benefits

Implementation of the financial criteria will help deliver both short and long-term improvements for clubs, the licensors and the football family in general.  For the football family in general, the financial criteria should help to:

• safeguard the continuity and integrity of competitions;

• increase the transparency and credibility of clubs’ financial operations;

• improve confidence in the probity of the football industry;

• create a more attractive market for the game’s commercial partners and investors; and

• provide the basis for fair competition, because competition is not just about the teams on the pitch.

 

For the licensors, the financial criteria should help to:

• improve their understanding of the financial position and prospects of their member clubs;

• encourage clubs to settle liabilities to creditors on a timely basis;

• enhance transparency in the money flow of clubs;

• enhance their ability to be proactive in assisting clubs with financial issues; and

• provide a starting point for club benchmarking at a national level for those licensors and clubs who want to develop this aspect.

 

For the clubs, the financial criteria should help to:

• improve the standards and quality of financial management and planning activities;

• enable better management decision-making;

• enhance clubs’ financial and business credibility with stakeholders;

• improve financial stability; and

• enhance revenue-generating ability and cost management.

 

Important words, and I trust the value and opportunity these regulations offer are now clear.  Note bullet points 3 and 4, and that our top league currently does not have a sponsor.  The SFA must ensure the integrity of competitions, discourage financial recklessness, and protect football for everyone.  This is only possible with a clear, unambiguous statement that confirms club / company are one and the same thing.

To suggest a football club can in some way survive liquidation is to undermine the definition of what is a football club, one of the cornerstones of FIFA Club Licensing Regulations.  For the SFA to suggest a football club can in some way survive liquidation, or allow this belief to go unchallenged, is a shameful dereliction of duty.  It puts all of football in danger.  We cannot allow this.  There is too much at stake.

The poem ends thus:
And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

The blind men were each partially right, though in their vanity / stubbornness / ignorance they failed to find the truth.  There is a lesson for us all in this story.  This may appear to be an attempt to renew the old club / new club debate.  It is not.  To see this as an opportunity to score points against Rangers fans is to completely miss the point – you have failed to find the truth.

This is global issue affecting one of the fundamentals of good governance.  Good governance must be the beating heart of our game – ensuring good health and long life.  I am looking at the here and now, and ahead into the future. 

We must protect and promote ALL of the FIFA Club Licensing Regulations.  To deny any part is to refuse to see the whole elephant, like the foolish blind men.

This entry was posted in General by Trisidium. Bookmark the permalink.
Tom Byrne

About Trisidium

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

1,867 thoughts on “The Blind Men and the Elephant, a cautionary tale


  1. andygraham.66 says:
    February 3, 2014 at 4:38 pm
    Then the M became a K
    its only 28,000

    And it was pounds rather than shares: £18,750 and £9,937. It seems we’re all fallible and some are maybe too anxiously hoping for Govan Armageddon. Patience.


  2. Re: Stockbridge ‘hoarding’ unpaid bills in his desk…
    ==========================================
    Presumably this story emanated from within the Ibrox walls.
    It just seems a bit too convenient to paint a picture of the – alleged – incompetent FD hiding unpaid / unopened bills in his desk…and they only come to light after he has been shown the door.
    Fits in nicely with the angle that Stockbridge was the ‘bad accountant’ who brought TRFC to its knees.

    But, Stockbridge was doing the job he had been tasked with – even though it looked a bit strange that losses where being racked up, unchecked.
    And he didn’t suddenly become ‘bad’ just before the AGM.
    He would have been micromanaging every penny from day one at Ibrox.
    The staff would know if bills where not being paid, via suppliers’ tetchy emails / phone calls / personal visits to the TRFC offices.

    Further mention of Stockbridge’s name in the MSM is – IMO – just a fluffy squirrel.
    He was only following instructions, IMO.
    [Edit: but he could – allegedly – still fall short on his professional body’s ethics code. 😉 ]


  3. blu – thanks for that. Always happy to be proved wrong – just means I will be better informed the next time. I will revisit the relevant rule in light of your post.

    What position does Mr Blair hold at SPFL? Anyone know?

    I wonder if he means a second insolvency event occurring to the same owner of a “Club” rather than two insolvency events to owners of the same “Club”.

    By this I mean that there is a new owner in G51 this time. The old owner won’t be suffering another insolvency event.


  4. Sugar Daddy says:
    February 3, 2014 at 4:18 pm

    ecobhoy says:
    February 3, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    Terms: Payment in advance
    ===================================

    Eco, you are a harsh man, even TRFC are entitled to a honeymoon period. 😀
    ============================================
    Eco – by “payment in advance” I assume you mean CASH – used, low denomination notes 🙂


  5. StevieBC says:
    February 3, 2014 at 4:51 pm

    It just seems a bit too convenient to paint a picture of the – alleged – incompetent FD hiding unpaid / unopened bills in his desk…and they only come to light after he has been shown the door.
    ================================================================================
    He’s probably only been ignoring the ones he knows won’t be phoning and emailing e,g, SFA & HMRC


  6. Campbellsmoney says:
    February 3, 2014 at 4:58 pm
    I wonder if he means a second insolvency event occurring to the same owner of a “Club” rather than two insolvency events to owners of the same “Club”.
    By this I mean that there is a new owner in G51 this time. The old owner won’t be suffering another insolvency event.

    He’s Company Secretary & Director of Operations and my interpretation is that if RIFC/TRFL were to have an insolvency event there would be a 25 point deduction. If TRFC/RIFC argue for 25 points, there are consequences. If they argue for 15 points, there are consequences. Los/Lose either way, and it would (maybe) settle the Bonkers OCNC debate.


  7. m.c.f.c. says:
    February 3, 2014 at 5:06 pm
    Sugar Daddy says:
    February 3, 2014 at 4:18 pm
    ecobhoy says:
    February 3, 2014 at 4:04 pm

    Terms: Payment in advance
    ===================================
    Eco, you are a harsh man, even TRFC are entitled to a honeymoon period. 😀
    ============================================
    Eco – by “payment in advance” I assume you mean CASH – used, low denomination notes 🙂
    =============================================
    @m.c.f.c – Oh defo cash ❗
    @Sugar Daddy – They’ve already had a honeymoom period 😉


  8. Did Graham Wallace learn from Craig Whyte

    Assuming Graham Wallace is a genuine guy trying to do a genuine job – and not just another spiv’s lackey for hire, I wonder how much research he did before agreeing to join RIFC. He had a reputation to lose and if, as Phil suggests, he saw RIFC as a career step then he should have checked them out carefully. It makes you wonder who said what to persuade him to join. If Graham had any clue what he was going into, he probably has recordings of that seduction.

    Also, if he is a genuine guy, he may do walking away sooner rather than later to avoid further career damage e.g. deceiving AIM, crossing HMRC and becoming persona non-gratis with SFA/SPFL


  9. Regardless of the number of shares traded….the specifics Phil has detailed regards the staff…proposed redundancies …companies visited….etc etc…. is no longer a matter of opinion….we are talking about peoples lives….forget the players…the jobs of ordinary workers are being destroyed for the sake of spivs wanting money…whilst the SFA and the SMSM have stood back and continued to Camouflage the spivery…

    If as we believe the house is collapsing and it eventually does then The SFA should be ashamed for the part they have played in assisting the spivs to destroy peoples lives…all because the SFA were blinded by their desperate love for one club regardless of who was running it….they changed the rules…ignored the rules….applied rules that didn’t exist…Hell f***** mend them!

    The SFA not fit for purpose…never have been…never will be…


  10. Paulmac2 says:
    February 3, 2014 at 5:48 pm

    forget the players…the jobs of ordinary workers are being destroyed for the sake of spivs wanting money.
    ================================================================================
    That’s an interesting one – because if the spivs hadn’t overspent relentlessly to maintain the image of “Rangers as usual”, many of the ordinary people would have been made redundant during Admin One, with more going recently to help balance the books.. You could argue they have benefited from Ranger-nomics as much as the players, in proportion to salary, and have stuck around for the same reasons of not having better options.


  11. Paulmac2 says
    ———————————————————————————-
    “Camouflage”

    Campbellflage?


  12. If the finances that Phil alludes to are correct, are they not trading while apparently insolvent?
    I thought there were rules against this and they should cease trading.


  13. m.c.f.c. says:
    February 3, 2014 at 5:43 pm

    Assuming Graham Wallace is a genuine guy trying to do a genuine job – and not just another spiv’s lackey for hire, I wonder how much research he did before agreeing to join RIFC. He had a reputation to lose and if, as Phil suggests, he saw RIFC as a career step then he should have checked them out carefully. It makes you wonder who said what to persuade him to join. If Graham had any clue what he was going into, he probably has recordings of that seduction.

    Also, if he is a genuine guy, he may do walking away sooner rather than later to avoid further career damage e.g. deceiving AIM, crossing HMRC and becoming persona non-gratis with SFA/SPFL
    ===================================================
    I expect he was a Spiv’s lackey for hire although he might not have realised that when being wooed. One thing I’m sure of is that if there is an AIM investigation he won’t be telling any lies as that would totally destroy him.

    It’s always possible that AIM could have asked him to stay in place while they investigate – don’t know if they do that kind of thing but it seems like a sensible move to me as long as there is a hope of saving the company and not turning a City Press spotlight back on the AIM Casino.


  14. ecobhoy says:
    February 3, 2014 at 6:07 pm

    It’s always possible that AIM could have asked him to stay in place while they investigate – don’t know if they do that kind of thing but it seems like a sensible move to me as long as there is a hope of saving the company and not turning a City Press spotlight back on the AIM Casino.

    ========
    Casino sums up AIM exactly. One thing I have learned over the last 18 months is not to go near AIM with a 40 foot bargepole. It is truly unbelievable what the spivs there get away with.


  15. StevieBC says:

    February 3, 2014 at 4:51 pm
    Re: Stockbridge ‘hoarding’ unpaid bills in his desk…
    ==========================================
    Steve, interesting points but:, my comments in brackets):

    Presumably this story emanated from within the Ibrox walls.
    He would have been micromanaging every penny from day one at Ibrox – (Agreed as per my post of a few blogs ago -nice expression though!)

    The staff would know if bills where not being paid, via suppliers’ tetchy emails / phone calls / personal visits to the TRFC offices….(too true….been there a few times myself and for less than the amounts alleged here!)

    He was only following instructions, IMO…(and the specific instructions of the spivs and the mysterious controlling shareholders)

    [Edit: but he could – allegedly – still fall short on his professional body’s ethics code….(absolutely no chance, unless a genuine case for criminal activity could be made. Allegedly therefore, about 10 (ten) ICAS members could or should have disciplined since DM took over! And no, I am not one of the suspects!)
    =================================================================================


  16. Congrats to ICT and Aberdeen on reaching the League Cup Final.
    The final is scheduled to be played on Sunday 16th March. Vvenue still unknown though Celtic Park and Ibrox seem to be the favourites to host the final. .
    On Saturday the 15th of March, Celtic play away to Kilmarnock and The Rangers are at home to Dunfermline.
    Surely the powers that be won’t ask the Cup Finalists to play at Ibrox just 24 hours after its hosted a 3rd division match?


  17. Strange about Wallace going down to the big pawn shop in London with nothing to pawn,he obvisouly [luckily] has never dealt with these people ,they like to drool over the collateral thats been pledged in return for their wonga,there is something just not sitting right with the non involvement of the SFA in this,are they just shouting squirrel at everything that comes out about the clumpany from Ibrox,if what is claimed about the approach for cash then the end is nigh and the powers that be should implementing a damage limitation to the league that this team are currently leading,but no ,they will be once again be drawing up more of their rule changing to help sevco 2014 ease back into whatever league they choose.


  18. Alba Bhoy says:
    February 3, 2014 at 6:25 pm

    Surely the powers that be won’t ask the Cup Finalists to play at Ibrox just 24 hours after its hosted a 3rd division match?
    ——
    Hope so.

    No disrespect to Caley, but it would be quite fun to win a Cup at Ibrox.


  19. With all of the talk of insolvency about to hit down Ibrox way, people need to remember that we are dealing with 2 completely separate companies
    Too many, including the MSM are treating RIFC and TRFC aka Sevco, as one and the same They are not
    RIFC are not the cash burners, and I would be surprised if their running costs were anything other than fairly low
    TRFC is the cash burner
    It is the subsidiary running a football team, and is therefore responsible for all of its own operating costs and bills
    The fact that these costs have to date been met by the Parent Co, is neither here nor there
    When RIFC says to TRFC there is no more cash, it is TRFC who have the problem
    If I was a shareholder, I would be asking the RIFC board why they are trying to raise funds to keep a cash guzzling, loss making subsidiary afloat
    TRFC may or may not suffer an insolvency event, but I am sure that RIFC will take every pound and asset from it , before either ditching it, or making it live, really live within its means
    Interesting times


  20. Angus1983 says:
    February 3, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    “but perusal of comments from people who were at Saturday’s game may be of interest”
    ————————–
    Thanks Angus. It is generally helpful to be able to view the other side of the coin. I leapt to Lennon’s defense given the history he has endured but as he himself has shrugged off the incident (as another poster indicated he had) and it may not have been significant as first reported, then my own apologies go out to any Aberdeen fan or supporter that has been offended by my own remarks.

    Our reading of the SMSM over recent times can makes us highly suspicious of their motives and it is not implausible that their sudden reconciliation to Lennon’s plight has only been engineered to stir up animosity between Celtic and Aberdeen supporters in advance of their impending meeting. As such a scenario cannot be entirely discounted then I hope supporters do not rise to the bait and provide any more material for the :slamb:

    By the same token, the outrage that was expressed allied with the call for supporter self policing should be heeded by all. Hopefully right minded supporters witnessing fellow affiliates engaging in disruptive behaviour will have the good sense to reign them in. I for one would not wish that the unhealthy aspects of a previous rivalry to be reincarnated in some new form.


  21. Castofthousands says:
    February 3, 2014 at 7:29 pm

    I for one would not wish that the unhealthy aspects of a previous rivalry to be reincarnated in some new form.
    …………………………….

    The very same thought crossed my mind….oh how the SMSM would love another club to step in and fill the shoes of the liquidated club…


  22. blu says:
    Campbellsmoney says:
    February 3, 2014 at 3:44 pm
    On the 25 point penalty for a “second” administration – that is not going to happen to the Ibrox team.
    I think you may be wrong Campbellsmoney – this is from Iain Blair at SPFL on this subject:

    if the owner of the Club had administrators appointed within the last 5 years, then the points penalty is 25.
    BUT THE OWNER OF THE CLUB IS NOT THERE ANYMORE,AND WHO OWNS THE DEEDS?


  23. Well the picture painted by Phil today was pretty bleak.
    Now considering when RFC went to the wall the powers that be knew FOUR months in advance what was going to happen how much notice have they had this time?

    What steps have they taken to prepare the world, the 500 million fans never mind Scottish football, for this unfolding disaster.
    Have they warned the other teams in the league?
    Does the board of the SPFL know the full circumstances or is it a cleek within the board that know?
    Will the other teams in the league allow a serial financial offender, if we are to believe they are the same club, promotion?
    What is there to stop ‘The Rangers’ doing this again next year to gain promotion to the top league?
    Or even the year after that?
    How far will the SFA/SPFL go to keep this debacle on the road.
    Will the SFA lie, as they undoubtedly did before, to allow ‘The Rangers’ into European competition?
    What are the SFA’s version of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play rules?
    Have they even adopted such rules?

    Who is finally going to grow a pair and say ‘enough is enough’ in this scandal?
    With each passing day and each new nugget of information uncovered the distrust is growing amongst all fans of their own clubs directors. No one wants to take responsibility yet everyone wants to have their nose in the trough snorting money like cocaine.
    It’s beyond disgusting!


  24. justshatered says:
    February 3, 2014 at 9:02 pm

    Maybe the answer is for the SFA to nationalise the club from Govan and make sure it is run for ‘the good of the country’?

    Oh hang on……. they have held that stance that for years 🙂


  25. justshatered says:
    What steps have they taken to prepare the world, the 500 million fans never mind Scottish football, for this unfolding disaster.

    What steps have they taken to stop………………… social unrest…………….. 💡


  26. justshatered says:
    February 3, 2014 at 9:02 pm
    ==============================
    An opportunity was missed in 2012 to start afresh and build bridges with the rest of the game. The club from Ibrox could have shown some contrition for what happened, a willingness to move on, and with the right directors and management team in charge could have progressed through the leagues at a fraction of the cost.

    Instead there is carnage, utter carnage, and despite all that’s happened it is as certain as death itself the Scottish establishment and footballing authorities will ensure their survival, and allow them the right to claim nothing has changed. If we thought there was bad feeling about this the last time, I think it is about to become completely irreparable.


  27. Unfortunately, its the people lower down the food chain that suffer the most when businesses are not run properly and go to the wall. A prime example is RBS, where Fred ‘the Shred’ Goodwin walked into the sunset with a very nice golden handshake. Thousands of staff paid for his and others corporate greed and malfeasance. The ‘little’ people are inevitably the victims in the fallout.At Ibrox, where the city spivs hold all the cards, they are dispensable collateral in the money making business. From early doors it was clear what their M.O. was and continues to be. The disgrace is how quickly the SFA became cosy bedfellows with the new arrivals, to ensure any kind of club operated out of Ibrox. This is proving to be a continual shame on them and no doubt behind the scenes the deals and dodges will continue away from uninterested smsm eyes and under the noses of a press pack who couldn’t smell a story if it was wrapped up in 3 week old fish.
    It stinks, and stinks big time.


  28. A simple, perhaps naive, question.
    When will the SFA consent to an interview with anyone outwith the smsm? Perhaps with the SFM?
    Actually I would love to see an interview between Regan, Doncaster or whoever with certain contributors here. Think about it.
    Meanwhile things are getting desperate elsewhere:
    “Rangers FC Official ‏@RFC_Official 4h
    TICKETING: Take your seat for the title run-in, quarter season tickets are on sale now! Read more here: http://rng.rs/LqD618


  29. Phil’s blog suggests that the game is up for any kind of Rangers that can’t live within its means.
    If there is no money for a respected figure like Graham Wallace now, who is going to pony up for a new share offer? Admin will be a method of cutting the wage bill. RIFC will need to find cash from somewhere to exit an admin. They can offer a debt for equity swap to prevent any other bidder, but Whyte has scuppered their last card.
    We might need to see some kind of partnership or deal for Rangers to even have a chance of competing next season. For example, The Blue Knights stump up a bit of cash and RIFC agree not to vote against their CVA proposal in return for 50/50 control.
    Should be interesting. If Wallace can pull off the impossible and keep them out of admin. They will still be able to boast the second biggest football budget in Scotland. If they go into admin. There is no budget at all. They will need all the corrupt meddling the SFA can provide just to exist.


  30. So was the trip to see the money men in dat London for another sub, to see them over to the other sub they need. Or is this them asking for the original one referred to in the accounts. I seem to remember the accounts were very sketchy regarding the loan/going concern topic. Some comments about trading whilst insolvent came up at the time the accounts came out, due to the mention of said loan. Could this be the source of the alleged investigation by the LSE or wishful thinking on my behalf.


  31. ptd1978 says:
    February 3, 2014 at 10:19 pm
    Galling fiver says:
    February 3, 2014 at 10:39 pm

    Why are the executives of a PLC running around, trying to raise finance for a cash guzzling, loss making subsidiary
    Most parent companies chop loss making subsidiaries without a second thought
    Their duty is to the shareholders, not the vanity project called TRFC


  32. PTD

    Guess they might even go to 49% thus giving the BK’s control of their beloved TRFC. All they need is one tiny little painless signature on a conveyancing form and another on the direct debit slip and then all the nasty men will go away and they can continue their glorious journey any way they choose.


  33. Imagination bled dry by their own cloth and hand,
    No sweet new understandings
    in this barren land,
    of the hope
    that suffering can inspire.


  34. ptd1978 says:
    February 3, 2014 at 10:19 pm

    16

    4

    Rate This

    Phil’s blog suggests that the game is up for any kind of Rangers that can’t live within its means.
    If there is no money for a respected figure like Graham Wallace now, who is going to pony up for a new share offer? Admin will be a method of cutting the wage bill. RIFC will need to find cash from somewhere to exit an admin. They can offer a debt for equity swap to prevent any other bidder, but Whyte has scuppered their last card.
    We might need to see some kind of partnership or deal for Rangers to even have a chance of competing next season. For example, The Blue Knights stump up a bit of cash and RIFC agree not to vote against their CVA proposal in return for 50/50 control.
    Should be interesting. If Wallace can pull off the impossible and keep them out of admin. They will still be able to boast the second biggest football budget in Scotland. If they go into admin. There is no budget at all. They will need all the corrupt meddling the SFA can provide just to exist.

    _________________________________________________

    Not sure if it is just Whyte that has scuppered their plans.

    Phil implies that the plan was to raise funds by basically remortgaging Ibrox. If – as it seems – the ‘survey’ says ‘eh uh’, then they can’t move for standing on their own feet.
    I expect Wallace and Nash to give it to the bears straight. On the back of an invoice, no doubt.


  35. If things are that bad at Ibrox (and I don’t doubt they are) how did Deloitte manage to sign off the accounts as a going concern?
    Surely they had access to the cashflow etc and could see that there wasn’t any way of operating as they were and being able to pay the bills.
    It wasn’t that long ago they signed the accounts and it’s not as though there has been a massive change in the fortunes of RIFC during the past few months.
    Baffling.


  36. ptd1978 says:

    February 3, 2014 at 10:19 pm

    Phil’s blog suggests that the game is up for any kind of Rangers that can’t live within its means.
    If there is no money for a respected figure like Graham Wallace now, who is going to pony up for a new share offer? Admin will be a method of cutting the wage bill. RIFC will need to find cash from somewhere to exit an admin. They can offer a debt for equity swap to prevent any other bidder, but Whyte has scuppered their last card.
    We might need to see some kind of partnership or deal for Rangers to even have a chance of competing next season. For example, The Blue Knights stump up a bit of cash and RIFC agree not to vote against their CVA proposal in return for 50/50 control.
    Should be interesting. If Wallace can pull off the impossible and keep them out of admin. They will still be able to boast the second biggest football budget in Scotland. If they go into admin. There is no budget at all. They will need all the corrupt meddling the SFA can provide just to exist.
    _______________________________________________________________________________

    I don’t think it is down to Wallace – or even the recent shambolic governance of Rangers that is the key stumbling block to getting finance.

    Before David Holmes took over as CE of RFC in the 80s, football clubs didn’t carry significant debt. They basically lived within their means. As the Sky era dawned, the game became showbiz, and banks in the UK, often as vanity projects, delivered shed-loads to the English clubs.

    Holmes – and subsequently Murray – got a piece of that action themselves and other clubs, caught in the headlights of the Murray juggernaut, followed suit.

    At the end of nearly thirty years of that culture, the banks have at last recognised the swampland that the game’s foundations are built upon, and are slowly deleveraging those clubs who have survived. Debts are being wound down and reeled in everywhere as the banks are forcing clubs to get back to the 80s equilibrium.

    Regardless of the prudence (or lack) of TRFC directors, or the reputation of Wallace or others, in this climate there is simply no way banks will lend significant sums to football clubs. As a new club/company/entity, TRFC are in a less favourable position than those clubs who are still carrying bank debt.

    Clubs who do own bank debt may be bailed out in the short term if the bank thinks it is in danger of losing the lot, but there is nothing to gain – though much to lose – by helping a new football club with the seed capital necessary to gain instant competitive status in the SPL. Even had TRFC not been the basket case we have witnessed over their short lifetime, money would still have been almost impossible to come by.

    In the view of at least the two football finance veterans of this blog’s acquaintance, they would find it impossible to raise enough to achieve competitiveness even if they re-mortgaged Ibrox.

    The only choices available are the same as they were a year ago – and the year before that. Get real, cut the cloth immediately and save the club – or ignore the warnings and die.

    Wallace’s talk of a five-year-plan is a signal that, at last, somebody at Ibrox gets it. The bears may be disappointed to hear that reality, but they have been unhappy at disappointed at many recent developments. They had little alternative to go along with Green, because there were no realistic options available to the fans. For all of their protests over the last couple of years they have been powerless to prevent the madness, because the only way to do that was by with-holding ST cash which would have been tantamount to them inflicting the fatal blow on the club themselves. If the alternative to the five or ten year plan is the death of the club they believe to be the same as the one founded in 1873, they will go along with Wallace.

    In the words of Murray’s political hero, the late Margaret Thatcher, “there is simply no alternative”.


  37. vascodapars says:
    February 4, 2014 at 12:14 am

    4

    0

    Rate This

    If things are that bad at Ibrox (and I don’t doubt they are) how did Deloitte manage to sign off the accounts as a going concern?
    Surely they had access to the cashflow etc and could see that there wasn’t any way of operating as they were and being able to pay the bills.
    It wasn’t that long ago they signed the accounts and it’s not as though there has been a massive change in the fortunes of RIFC during the past few months.
    Baffling.
    ____________________________________

    Not necessarily.
    If the assets were valued on the books at a level that suggested they could be used to sustain the debt for 12months going concern is OK. Going concern just means ‘probably financially able to trade through the next 12 month period, as far as can be foreseen, without running out of cash’

    An assumption that cash could be raised against the properties would not have been unreasonable form a practical point of view at the time, justifying the sign off.

    If it turns our that – for whatever unforseen reason – when push came to shove, the cash was no longer able to be raised, they weren’t to know!


  38. Re the possible end game at Ibrokes.

    RIFCL takes the property in full/part payment of debt that TRFCL owes it, on the understanding that TRFCL must rent it back for 20/30/40/50 years. Then they offer TRFCL to Rangers minded people and tell them if they dont buy it, the club goes into admin/liquidation and dies again for good. The brogues then offer shares in TRFCL to the WATP. TRFCL then have to live within their means forever more.

    This seems the likely scenario to me. I can’t see any other way for the spivs to get any more money out of the carcass.

    Ot, good news for the jambos today, another step on the way.


  39. As a pessimistic accountant 🙂 I can’t help thinking that the continued silence from Hampden wrt TRFC means that ‘the next fix’ is already agreed.

    Perhaps Ogilvie, Regan, Doncaster, Wallace et al have already enjoyed a fine dining experience in Glasgow to plan the next manipulation of the Govan club’s progress – for the good of Scottish football.

    And I find it particularly distressing to acknowledge that Ogilvie is STILL the President of the SFA!


  40. StevieBC says:
    February 4, 2014 at 1:10 am
    ===========================
    All easily fixed if the media were willing to highlight facts and demand answers, instead of providing them with a smokescreen.


  41. I’ll ask again given the latest dire predictions down Ibrox way.Why aren’t the football authorities demanding guarantees from sevco that they will still be around to fulfil their fixtures this season and next?
    We should be telt!


  42. TSFM
    ———-
    I totally agree that the only viable model for any football club now is one of living within its means. Sugar Daddy’s are great for a while but when they leave, they leave a club with no means to pay for the tail end of their largesse.
    David Murray was always talking about Rangers needing to cut their cloth to match their means. This was evidently lambsh!t when he said it but turned out to be true nevertheless.
    Sevco’s problem is they can’t even afford the scissors now. Wallace wants to make the cuts, but the cash has been drained too thoroughly by the (probably now all departed) spivs.


  43. My sieve like memory is telling me that there was a post here a while back explaining that if there if one creditor who is owed an overwhelming proportion of the debt in an administration, a CVA can still only be agreed if more than half of the other creditors agree to it.
    If I didn’t misread that, does that mean Stockbridge has made agreeing a CVA a bit less likely by ignoring all those bills?


  44. Cluster One says:
    February 3, 2014 at 8:42 pm
    blu says:
    Campbellsmoney says:
    February 3, 2014 at 3:44 pm
    On the 25 point penalty for a “second” administration – that is not going to happen to the Ibrox team.
    I think you may be wrong Campbellsmoney – this is from Iain Blair at SPFL on this subject:

    if the owner of the Club had administrators appointed within the last 5 years, then the points penalty is 25.
    BUT THE OWNER OF THE CLUB IS NOT THERE ANYMORE,AND WHO OWNS THE DEEDS?

    CO, I think that is intended to mean ‘whoever is the owner of the club’. In terms of this rule on insolvency events it doesn’t matter if it’s the Easdales, John Brown, Craig Whyte or David Murray – a second level penalty of 25 points kicks in. If you were to be generous to the rule makers you might say that they’ve at least tried to catch up with the rule breakers and adapted the rules to make it tougher for those who flout them. How it will actually be applied remains to be seen, of course. As I said in an earlier post, if you happened to be running Rangers and there is a second administration, the choice to fight for a 15 or 25 point penalty is a tricky one. Give Hearts (apologies to Allyjambo etc. for presumption) a 25 point start and still claim Old Club or give them a 15 point start and be recognised as a brand new club.


  45. ptd1978 says:
    February 4, 2014 at 9:02 am

    Here is the answer to your question regarding a CVA vote, extracted from here:

    http://www.realbusinessrescue.co.uk/company-voluntary-arrangement-cva

    Creditors and Shareholders Vote On Whether to Approve the Proposal – During the creditors’ meeting a vote will be held and if an amount of creditors responsible for 75% or more of the company’s unsecured debt vote in favour of the CVA then it is approved. If modifications to the proposal are requested then the same rule of 75% majority approval applies. This is the part of the process that most directors are worried about. However, if care is taken to draft a thorough and detailed CVA, and to communicate with creditors leading up to the meeting, then there should be no problem in obtaining approval in most cases. Regarding the shareholders’ meeting – at least 50% of shareholders must vote in favour of the proposal for it to be approved. – See more at: http://www.realbusinessrescue.co.uk/company-voluntary-arrangement-cva#sthash.WL1vdzqd.dpuf


  46. (Wealth off the radar benefactors apart) – football clubs like all businesses can only live within their means.

    After their successful visit to the city in 2012 TRIFC raised enough to provide a base that along with fan revenues would have got them to the SPL in successive years.

    The various members of the rifc spiv consortium are not stupid people so one can only assume that their excessive overspending has been part of their plan that inevitably leads to their wholly owned subsidiary running out of cash.
    Every appointment has had a job to do and all the confusion means there is no single person to wreak vengeance on.
    And along the way they have extracted maximum cash and set up some attractive downstream earners.
    They still have full control via their appointed puppets and shareholdings.

    They were never Rangurz men in fact they were never football men and it is all just business – an easy opportunity to make a lot of money for a lot of people.

    However RCO is a Rangurz man and a football man.
    He has played a blinder in the rape of the club he holds dearest.


  47. ptd1978 says:
    February 4, 2014 at 9:02 am

    Who really knows how this will pan out. If RIFC’s plan is to transfer the fixed assets from TRFC into the company prior to putting TRFC into voluntary Administration, no matter how they do it, is a CVA of any consequence? In the real world of course it would: but in this case all that would need to be done is for the soft assets (club, brand, history!!!!!, goodwill etc.,) to be transferred to a new entity prior to the company being liquidated, and this hastily followed by a transfer of the SFA licence and SPFL membership to said new entity.

    The current silence from the authorities against the backdrop of intense speculation of TRFC soon suffering an insolvency event suggests that arrangements as to how to administer the fallout (for the good of Scottish football you understand) will already be formed and agreed.


  48. ptd1978 says:
    February 4, 2014 at 9:02 am
    0 0 i
    Rate This

    My sieve like memory is telling me that there was a post here a while back explaining that if there if one creditor who is owed an overwhelming proportion of the debt in an administration, a CVA can still only be agreed if more than half of the other creditors agree to it.
    If I didn’t misread that, does that mean Stockbridge has made agreeing a CVA a bit less likely by ignoring all those bills?

    ———————————————————————————————————————————————

    Yes – Rule 1.16A (4) of the Insolvency (Scotland) Rules 1986 – a CVA is not approved if those voting against it include more than half in value of the creditors who are unconnected with the company.


  49. ptd1978 says:
    February 4, 2014 at 9:02 am

    My sieve like memory is telling me that there was a post here a while back explaining that if there if one creditor who is owed an overwhelming proportion of the debt in an administration, a CVA can still only be agreed if more than half of the other creditors agree to it.
    If I didn’t misread that, does that mean Stockbridge has made agreeing a CVA a bit less likely by ignoring all those bills?
    ===================================================
    Well what about a possible scenario that the bills/invoices that remained allegedly un-opened were from RIFC Plc ❓

    I also doubt given their previous admin/liquidation history that the other debts would be that high not unless the creditors have a sever case of Rangeritis. On the tax front – IT, NI and VAT – I think they will be up-to-date again because of the history and the fact that it would be highly likely criminal prosecutions would follow if they weren’t.

    Always assuming of course that we actually retain the powers to prosecute companies who intentionally evade tax payments as we seem to take no-action against the Amazons and coffee empires who quite legally pay zilch by offshoring their profits.


  50. vascodapars says:
    February 4, 2014 at 12:14 am
    —————————————-
    You mistake the holding company for the trading company, Deloitte has only signed off the holding company accounts and because of its assets, they had no issue with going concern.

    No accounts have yet been filed for the trading company – The Rangers Football Club Ltd – though they are due to be filed on 28 February.

    That is the whole point, if what is being reported is true, Deloitte will not sign off those accounts since there is a going concern issue.

    That is the reason for all the urgency right now – if Wallace cannot get satisfaction on the funding of TRFC, the accounts won’t be signed off. Apart from the small matter of Companies House compliance, signed accounts must of course be lodged with Campbell Ogilvie’s guys by 31 March to ensure compliance with the SFA’s procedures. I am sure that the SFA will act with all due integrity in this matter.

    So to sum up, you can extend the year end all you like but any new clumpany must file within 21 months of incorporation (in this case May 2012).

    The SMSM should be all over this story on 28 February if accounts have not been filed, but I rather fancy events will overtake them sooner than that as both Wallace and Nash seem to be men of integrity, with good reputations to uphold, and therefore if they form the view in the next couple of weeks that TRFC cannot meet its obligations over the next 12 months, they will put TRFC into administration.

    You can be sure Deloiite will be in favour of that course of action as that firm will not want to be seen to have anything to with prolonging, under false pretences, the life of a fledgling company that has simply, in common with so many other fledgling companies, failed to survive.

    That being the case, McCoist’s usefulness has gone hence the strong rumours surrounding Brown & Kinnear. They may well be being lined up for the new Rangers trading vehicle, whether by the Spivs or the Knights

    54 (sorry, 24) sleeps to go (at most)


  51. campsiejoe says:
    February 3 2014 at 7:16pm

    Whilst we are dealing with two separate companies we are also dealing with two separate groups of shareholders within RIFC. The group I’ll label “the spivs” are only interested in RIFC as a property owning asset and will happily get rid of the loss making subsidiary TRFC asap by whatever means is the cheapest. The second group, I’ll call “the peepul”, which I believe includes the Easdale brothers, actually want RIFC to continue as a football team clumpany. Which one is in the ascendancy is unknown. As an aside this may explain the position Mr Wallace finds himself in; if he was brought in by “the peepul” he may have only found out, when it was too late, about “the spivs” agenda.

    Both groups will be dependant upon the property assets to raise funds and this seems to be where the problems really begin. “The spivs” will want to rent Ibrox/Murray Park etc back to TRCF or TRFC2 whichever ends up as the clumpany, “The peepul” will need to sell and leaseback the property to provide immediate working capital for RIFC as the clumpany.

    Over the weekend I spoke to two of The Rangers supporters who said “Ibrox is seriously dilapidated” and “It needs a **** sight more that a lick of paint”. In both of the aforementioned scenarios RIFC will have to bring the property up to a fit state before either action can be taken.

    That’s serious money needed in the immediate future. Also both options remove the property assets from use by any clumpany as a means of raising long term future funds.


  52. Reference the 15 or 25 point deduction if administration occurs debate. What gets to me is that the new govan club just imitated the old govan club by paying wages they could not afford ( which the sfa knowingly allowed) and won leagues by having a financial advantage and again not paying bills. So leagues won and promotions achieved by the same old habit, cheating.
    Sfa do something wthout fear or favour of Mr Ogilvie.


  53. tilhotdogsbark says:
    February 4, 2014 at 9:27 am

    The current silence from the authorities against the backdrop of intense speculation of TRFC soon suffering an insolvency event suggests that arrangements as to how to administer the fallout (for the good of Scottish football you understand) will already be formed and agreed.
    ====================================================
    I think you are almost certainly right. It’s important to separate the caricature of the SFA as a bumbling, incompetent members’ club from the intelligence, power and determination of its key officers to help Rangers in all its forms. There are no doubt flip charts on the 6th floor what-ifing every scenario.

    It will be very interesting to see what they come up with though. Last time it just seemed to be a matter of push starting the old business model by getting Ranger back into the league as high as possible without debt. As it happened they were not very successful in the face of fan power. If they had succeeded we wouldn’t be on the brink of Armageddon II.

    This time the business model will need to be very different and creative – they are under much more scrutiny – and they must be smarting from last time because their “honour amongst blazers” code was used, abused and routinely shafted by Green and Co. They must be aware that they are at risk themselves if they reach too far and fail again.


  54. Finloch says:
    February 4, 2014 at 9:21 am

    ‘They were never Rangurz men in fact they were never football men and it is all just business – an easy opportunity to make a lot of money for a lot of people.

    ‘However RCO is a Rangurz man and a football man. He has played a blinder in the rape of the club he holds dearest.’

    —————————————————————————————————
    This is by no means an attempt to whitewash RCO as even B&Q doesn’t have enough paint in stock to do that job.

    But I have often wondered if RCO was conned at the start by the Spivs into believing they were the only show in town when it came to ‘saving’ Rangers. If he went down that road and it’s possible Wee Craigie might even have the tapes then: ‘The Great Administrator that never was’ is well and truly fracked because he would just have inevitably been swallowed by the rampant Spivvery that permeated Ibrox and who knows what dodgy deals by footballing authorities to facilitate the Spivs and ensure the survival of Rangers until the job was done.

    I could even perceive a scenario where the Hampden power brokers eventually became aware of the situation and took the wrong collective decision to back the wrong horse and let things go for the greater good of Scottish football. Don’t laugh ❗ There is an argument that can be made for it although I don’t subscribe to it.

    Key to any such decision would be the sure and certain knowledge that the Spivs were passing through and would go as soon as all the dosh was collected leaving an albeit-reduced Rangers back in the control of Real Rangers Men as it should be 🙄

    And shortly after that date then I wouldn’t be surprised by a quiet resignation at Hampden probably on ‘health grounds’ as a means of providing the SMSM with an adequate excuse, for them, not to inquire too deeply into the past and just write acres of fresh dung about the ‘Glorious Journey’ to continually rip-off Ra Berrs.

    Will they ever learn and wake-up to the fact that they will only get the kind of Rangers they deserve. And if they don’t take control then they will remain cash-providing fodder for the Blazer wearers in the directors’ box. Perhaps there might be enough of them coming out of hibernation this time to do it but the signs so far aren’t that hopeful.


  55. Neepheid
    Campbellsmoney

    Thanks for the information.

    The only pan out one of two ways.
    If the spivs are still in charge, the asset transfer will have to take place before admin and the very existence of a football team playing at Ibrox will be what is on sale in a CVA through which RIFC will let others buy TRFC. A basic property grab after all the cash has already been grabbed.
    Alternatively (and I think more likely) the guys now in charge actually want to save the business as is. Here other creditors are a problem because a
    majority will have to be convinced that the sharp practices of the last 2 years (well – decades) are over and that the shares they will be offered instead of payment will have value.
    Either way the big problem for anyone there is that there’s no cash.
    The axe will be swung and will cut deep into running costs, but there will still need to be a call for help to the fans to keep the club going until ST payments come in.
    I would predict a sensible administrator this time and a much more conventional way of rescuing the business. Ally might be offered the change to stay with a 80-90% pay cut, or he might just be let go immediately.
    After all that, it may still not be enough, because Ibrox is not cheap to run, the wage bill is enormous, administrators are expensive, the fans historically don’t dig too deep when asked and there’s no cash!!!


  56. blu says:
    February 4, 2014 at 9:08 am

    ‘If you were to be generous to the rule makers you might say that they’ve at least tried to catch up with the rule breakers and adapted the rules to make it tougher for those who flout them. How it will actually be applied remains to be seen, of course.

    ‘As I said in an earlier post, if you happened to be running Rangers and there is a second administration, the choice to fight for a 15 or 25 point penalty is a tricky one. Give Hearts (apologies to Allyjambo etc. for presumption) a 25 point start and still claim Old Club or give them a 15 point start and be recognised as a brand new club.’

    I agree with what you say. However if ever there was a time for a new rule or ‘Bryson Interpretation’ of an existing one then surely it should happen in the event of another Rangers admin.

    I don’t think it should be a matter of whether a 15 or 25 point deduction is made simply because we have seen a club recklessly spend money to assemble a squad capable of demolishing other teams in its division and deliberately amassing a +25 point differential so that admin wouldn’t create a road-block for The Long March to their rightful place.

    This approach cannot ever be condoned as it would facilitate the Spiv’s underlying strategy to strip Ibrox bare but leave the licence to play football capable of transfer and into a higher division which is crucial to the new ‘owners’ presumably in the shape of Real Rangurz Men.

    If Admin comes a second time to a team playing out of Ibrox within two years given the financial Spivvery that has been taking place and the fact that no one knows who actually owns the club or even the property assets it would appear – then promotion shouldn’t be on the agenda in my book.

    And I don’t say that as a Rangers Hater – I would hope that my history of posts on that subject would bear me out on that one. But if Rangers get a promotion should it suffer another Admin Event IMO it will turn-off another tranche of Scottish football supporters who just see it as simply another injustice added to many others perpetrated by the SFA to protect the Establishment Team at all costs.


  57. Not a huge amount of activity on the share front today. You’d almost think that they’d ground to a halt.

    Very quiet in the press too. Is Mr Irvine on holiday?

    Positive news from the east regarding Hearts, though. Should bring a bit of cheer after that 95th-minute goal they let in!


  58. Bottom line on Zombie FC is none of us are in on the plan, so we need to wait and see what happens, but it seems that the cash is almost gone and therefore whatever is going to happen will happen soon.

    There aren’t too many different scenarios that are possible and I think we’ve covered them all, but it will be interesting to see what the SFA/SPFL do this time if there is an insolvency event, all eyes on them and no shouts of “Armageddon or civil unrest” this time as we know that’s carp.


  59. Blu – on the 15/25 point issue – I undertook to come back once I had the chance to reread. I have (I wish I hadn’t).

    The relevant section E5 says:-

    “Where a Club, whether owned and operated by the same or a different Member, suffers or is subject to an Insolvency Event which results in a deduction of points in terms of these Rules and within 5 years of the date of such Insolvency Event suffers or is subject to a further Insolvency Event which is not part of the same Insolvency Process as the Insolvency Event then suffered, the points deduction applicable in terms of Rules E1 in respect of that second or further Insolvency Event, shall be 25 points with the 15 points in Rules E2 and E3 being 25 Points. ”

    I would deconstruct the first part as follows:-

    “Where a Club, whether owned and operated by the same or a different Member………….”

    [OK – so whether that would include whatever is playing in blue at Ibrox at the moment will wholly depend upon the answer to the question – is it the same Club? Bonkers OCNC – I am not allowed to go there.]

    “suffers or is subject to an Insolvency Event which results in a deduction of points in terms of these Rules ”

    [This is the difficult bit to construe – because this bit relates to the earlier of the two insolvency events. So the question is – was the administration and then liquidation of the company now known as RFC 2012 Limited (in liquidation) “an Insolvency Event that results in a deduction of points in terms of [the SPFL] Rules”?

    Well certainly, administration gives rise to a points deduction so, on the face of it, Iain Blair’s explanation looks prima facie correct . However the difficulty in interpreting arises from the use of a present tense verb “results” in respect of an event that (because it relates to the first insolvency event) is necessarily in the past. If asked the question – “but did it give rise to a points deduction in terms of these Rules?” – the answer would be “No”. If the question is,” if it happened now, would it give rise to a deduction?” , the answer would be “Yes”.

    Basically I think the question is whether the words ” which results in a deduction of points in terms of these Rules ” are an extended adjective describing the noun “Insolvency Event” or are instead describing an event that occurred in the past (a deduction) – hence my difficulty – because it is necessarily referring to a something that happened (or didn’t happen) in the past (because its the first (prior) insolvency that is referred to).

    If its an extended adjective – 25 points – if its not – 15 points.

    Anyway – good to know Mr Blair thinks that it would be 25 pointer. He may very well think that but I expect some Q.C. will suggest that a different interpretation is possible. After all despite his position as Company Secretary (and that probably means he will be a lawyer) its not up to Mr Blair to decide what the SPFL Rules actually mean.

    On balance though I think blu and Mr Blair are correct – which would make me wrong yesterday (and right today 😀 ). Or at worst, right yesterday and wrong today. Bit like a broken clock.


  60. ptd1978 says:
    February 4, 2014 at 10:16 am
    “the asset transfer will have to take place before admin”
    ———————————————————————————————————————————————-
    A few weeks ago I posted at length on this but (very) briefly :-

    any transfer of an asset to a creditor in discharge (or partial discharge) of a debt will be an unfair preference if it takes place within 6 months prior to administration.


  61. ptd1978 says:
    February 4, 2014 at 10:16 am

    If the spivs are still in charge, the asset transfer will have to take place before admin and the very existence of a football team playing at Ibrox will be what is on sale in a CVA through which RIFC will let others buy TRFC. A basic property grab after all the cash has already been grabbed.
    Alternatively (and I think more likely) the guys now in charge actually want to save the business as is.
    ========================
    I don’t really understand why anyone (Rangers men excepted) would want to save this business, other than as a source of rental income. It is quite simply a money pit, and certain to remain so for years, if not forever. How is a profit ever going to be achieved? Even in the top flight, this business will struggle to survive, especially if it has to pay rent.

    The Rangers men are in a difficult spot. Even if they get TRFC handed to them for nothing, the problem is that it’s worth less than nothing, because whoever acquires it will have to immediately put up a few million in cash just to get to the end of the season.

    But whatever the cost, surely the Rangers men can’t refuse duty this time, after letting the bears down so badly last time? And expect the bears’ pockets to be totally emptied this time round. Even Charles Green, the P.T. Barnum of Scottish football, could only extract £5 million from them. That simply won’t do this time. With no properties and rent to pay, the institutions will be posted missing. Can the fans raise £20m or so? In theory yes, after all there are 500 million of them 🙄 , and the Celtic fans showed them how to dig deep to save a club, but the bears have a very poor track record. They seem to see an off the radar billionaire around every corner, so why should they pay up? This could all go very badly wrong, unless the bears come up with a lot of money. Interesting times at Ibrox. And that’s before Whyte makes a move- but I’m not holding my breath on that one.


  62. Campbellsmoney says:
    February 4, 2014 at 10:52 am

    Anyway – good to know Mr Blair thinks that it would be 25 pointer. He may very well think that but I expect some Q.C. will suggest that a different interpretation is possible. After all despite his position as Company Secretary (and that probably means he will be a lawyer) its not up to Mr Blair to decide what the SPFL Rules actually mean.

    No – that is Mr Bryson’s job 👿


  63. I don’t think admin is on the cards as they’re only 23 points ahead just now. A 25 point penalty would mean no guaranteed league win when they have only the youth left and a manager who can only ever win when the odds are massively stacked in his favour.

    They dare not go into the play-offs with what would be left of their squad, and they can’t leave admin until next season as then the League will be a much harder prospect…


  64. The Truth Will Soon Be Revealed – And All Is OK

    Some more subtle diversion here for the bears in an apparently logical post with a financial bent. The gist is “OK we’ve hit the iceberg, but let’s wait until the ship has stopped sinking, then, and only then, can we assess the full gravity of the situation”.

    If I remember correctly the accounts are not due until late March (no date in the article, just “soon”) and the chance of the scenario being suggested as the probably outcome is no doubt Siren music to the ears of those who will not educate themselves in the workings of the institution they profess to hold most dear.

    Rangers results due for 6 months to December 2013 FollowFollow.com 10:22
    http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Sport/Football/Scottish+League+One/Rangers


  65. If, as we all have suspected for some a while now, the Ibrox club are running low on cash it really is all going to come down to a matter of timing.

    The ‘quarter season tickets’ offer seems a desperate measure to get money in through the door.
    However Wallace and Nash are clearly trying to scrape in every single penny they can to see if they can get to season ticket renewal time.

    Being we are now quickly heading towards the end of the season and Xmas has long merchandising income must be on a downward path. So I’d guess not much to be had there.

    Where else can they generate income being there is still no sign of any cost cutting other than Ally’s pay cut just coming into force? The longer they drag their feet the faster the clock is clicking.

    As others have pointed out before the CEO’s 120 day review is up financial info has to be made available to other bodies. It is therefore surprising that Wallace’s review won’t be complete until after those deadlines.

    If Stockbridge has, and who would be surprised, left a clusterfeck behind him then surely review timescales have to be adjusted – and fast.

    Can the non processing of bills, non-payment of wages and the like be kept of the balance books long enough until the season ticket money comes in?

    They dare not mess with HMRC who must surely have a beady eye on Ibrox this time round. (keep your eyes peeled for the winding up orders!!)

    Added to that we have Imran heading to court again and the possibility of Craigy Boy adding to the legal bun fight. Their involvement also all comes down to timing. Both strike me a folks who if they don’t get what they want they will happily bring others down with them, if required. Even a few quid in their favour will be better than nothing and seen as a victory.

    If there is indeed no line of credit then everything seems to be stacked up against Sevco.

    Could it be they only hope they have is the few £100k still tucked away in the fans fighting fund?
    What ever happened to that? Lets hope someone hasn’t invested the cash in a French Chateau.


  66. ecobhoy says:
    February 4, 2014 at 10:44 am
    I don’t think it should be a matter of whether a 15 or 25 point deduction is made simply because we have seen a club recklessly spend money to assemble a squad capable of demolishing other teams in its division and deliberately amassing a +25 point differential so that admin wouldn’t create a road-block for The Long March to their rightful place.

    This approach cannot ever be condoned as it would facilitate the Spiv’s underlying strategy to strip Ibrox bare but leave the licence to play football capable of transfer and into a higher division which is crucial to the new ‘owners’ presumably in the shape of Real Rangurz Men.

    If Admin comes a second time to a team playing out of Ibrox within two years given the financial Spivvery that has been taking place and the fact that no one knows who actually owns the club or even the property assets it would appear – then promotion shouldn’t be on the agenda in my book.

    Agree 100%


  67. Site speed issue seems to have gone away for now. We have made a few changes to the config which will hopefully help, but we will continue with a watching brief for now.

    For information, if you want to see the progress of the BHF Paul McConville Memorial Page, here is the link;
    https://lastinghope.bhf.org.uk/paulmcconville#

    I have updated the Funding page where discussion has turned to Mugs 🙂 and would urge all of you to get involved in the discussion there.


  68. Morning all.
    If the clumpany increase STs by 50%,that would bring in only £3-3.5m nett,assuming all current holders renewed.It seems there are lots of families going to Ibrox at the moment as the kids tickets are cheap.A family with 1 adult and 2 kids could be looking at an increase approaching £200.Take up may fall.
    However,all things being equal,an extra £3m would still leave a shortfall of around £11m.Trim the players wages by the same £3m and you’re down to £8m.Pay off say 100(that’s a lot). Of the ancillary staff who earn probably less than £20k but if we use that then thats another £2m saved.
    So we’ve wiped the playing budget,but assumed the fans will renew 100%(doubt it),made,unfortunately, 100 people redundant and we’re still £6m short of breaking even.Operating costs will have dropped by £5m and income increased to around £22m.
    Costs will be running at around £2.35m per month.If ST cash comes in over say 5 months and you allow say £3m income from other sources over the same period then, with income of around £12m beginning in May,then TRFC will be skint again by October.


  69. Campbellsmoney says:
    February 4, 2014 at 10:52 am

    Blu – on the 15/25 point issue – I undertook to come back once I had the chance to reread. I have (I wish I hadn’t).

    On balance though I think blu and Mr Blair are correct – which would make me wrong yesterday (and right today ). Or at worst, right yesterday and wrong today. Bit like a broken clock.

    Campbellsmoney, I thought the wording was confusing but came to the same initial conclusion as you. I asked Mr Blair for clarification though and it’s that clarification I posted.


  70. torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
    February 4, 2014 at 12:01 pm

    Agreed. It really is just a matter of timing unless some drastic cost cutting takes place or throw-away money
    is somehow passed through the clubs bank account.

    As raised many times before, the cost of running the club minus wages has in previous accounts always been £14m or more per annum. Therefore even with some cost cutting my guess is that they would still need to get, say, £10m in per annum before thinking about spending on anything else.

    The big club status, the 50k plus stadium and 5 star training facility are as much of a burden as they are a sign of superiority in the current dire staits Sevco find themselves in.


  71. On the 15 or 25 pt deduction…
    If they are a new Club then its 15 pts deduction.
    Wording around owner/operator or owner of a Club still begs the question how a ‘Club’ is defined for the purposes of these rules.
    The SPLIC (with all its flaws) set out how a club could be considered as a recognisable entity without legal personality – and that was the context used for the purposes of that Commission.
    That does not mean that the SPL, now SPFL, has adopted such a context for its definition of a Club in all cases.
    If it has, this deeply undermines the SPFL, and the SFA, as rulemakers. They would in effect be requiring entities with zero legal standing to comply with rules (a form of contract?) .

    The main piece above explains how the Club must be:

    “Legal entity fully and solely responsible for the football team participating in national and international club competitions that applies for a licence.”

    … means this Rangers is a new Club, and should be deducted 15pts if/when next an insolvency occurs.

    In the context of the legal entity, there is no doubt that the current Ibrox Club are a new one.
    Ambiguity arises only when the legal definitions are sidestepped or disregarded.

    ===

    On the subject of moving the property assets to the RIFC holding company from TRFC the Club…
    What was to stop SDM moving them to MIH or CW moving them to Wavetower?
    What might the current spivs be looking at doing, that was not open to the previous owner(s) and why?


  72. m.c.f.c. says:
    February 4, 2014 at 11:44 am

    The Truth Will Soon Be Revealed – And All Is OK

    Some more subtle diversion here for the bears in an apparently logical post with a financial bent. The gist is “OK we’ve hit the iceberg, but let’s wait until the ship has stopped sinking, then, and only then, can we assess the full gravity of the situation”.

    If I remember correctly the accounts are not due until late March (no date in the article, just “soon”) and the chance of the scenario being suggested as the probably outcome is no doubt Siren music to the ears of those who will not educate themselves in the workings of the institution they profess to hold most dear.

    I’m not so sure it is actually a ‘diversion’ as the writer I seem to remember is a Bear Accountant whose previous comments on FF were quite incisive from memory. Accountants in my experience often have a different ‘take’ on situations from mere mortals and this guy is clearly stating what needs to be in certain sections of the accounts to be submitted or there’s trouble. But like most accountants he is heavily hedging his bets because he presumably doesn’t have access to the actual figures and is therefore guessing like the rest of us.

    He particularly warns that if there wasn’t £6 million in the bank on 31/12/2013 then – obviously barring any further financial injection – they will have probs making it to next season’s ST income in June 2014.

    He deals in some depth with Rangers Retail and correctly IMO says that any profit from there will reduce operating losses. But he warns the headline profit figure will be trumpetted rather than the % share left after Ashley has his cut. And he points to the key issue that to actually extract any profit there needs to be dividends paid by Rangers Retail.

    Given that the company might have already given £1 million of a £1.5 million draw-down facility to TRFCL then I doubt, in the current circumstances, whether Ashley will be for paying any dividend. And it must be remembered that in the interesting share structure of Rangers Retail that Sports Director has the majority vote on all financial matters.

    I also think his final point about the latest 6-month average running costs level is well-founded and will show whether the basket-case is getting worse, remains the same or whether there is even one green shoot of optimism.

    So I think the post is actually a sign of someone who knows how to interpret the figures and get at the ‘truth’ as much as any accounts reveal that. Of course it might all be too late and the sinking could well occur before the sheet music is delivered for the swansong from the PR Fiddlers.

    However I expect all sorts of deckchairs are currently being shuffled now that the last lifeboat has pulled away from Ibrox headed for sunnier offshore climes 😆


  73. Carl31 says:
    February 4, 2014 at 12:29 pm

    What was to stop SDM moving the property assets to MIH or CW moving them to Wavetower?
    What might the current spivs be looking at doing, that was not open to the previous owner(s) and why?

    Lloyds were calling all the shots and wanted to sever all ties as quickly as possible.


  74. Have these Sevco 5088 changes at Companies House been noted already?

    AP02 03/02/2014 CORPORATE DIRECTOR APPOINTED LAW FINANCIAL LIMITED
    AD01 03/02/2014 REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 03/02/2014 FROM
    35 VINE STREET, LONDON, EC3N 2AA
    AP01 03/02/2014 DIRECTOR APPOINTED MR AIDAN CHAD EDMUND EARLEY
    AD01 31/01/2014 REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 31/01/2014 FROM
    48 SKYLINES VILLAGE, LIMEHARBOUR, LONDON, E14 9TS
    TM01 31/01/2014 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR AIDAN EARLEY
    TM01 31/01/2014 APPOINTMENT TERMINATED, DIRECTOR CRAIG WHYTE

    What does this all mean? Law Financial to now lead early action to regain the assets?

    Why a resignation from Earley then a re-appointment just days later?

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

Comments are closed.