The Blind Men and the Elephant, a cautionary tale

ByTrisidium

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.

About the author

Trisidium administrator

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 Comments so far

coatbrigbhoyPosted on12:58 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Mandrake Root says:
February 4, 2014 at 11:15 am

10

0

Rate This

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…
=====================================================

McCoist claims his side may even struggle to gain promotion back to the top-flight at the first attempt.
“So if we are lucky enough to go up this year, there are no guarantees – absolutely no guarantees – that we will do the same next season. We will just have to take it one step at a time.”

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-boss-ally-mccoist-agrees-3097707

more so Ally if your carrying a 15 or 25 point penalty ,absolutely

View Comment

neepheidPosted on1:01 pm - Feb 4, 2014


From Twitter re Sevco 5088-

moo ‏@moo_ted 29m
Here’s the changes made at Sevco 5088. pic.twitter.com/WxbFoddauo

You will have to cut and paste the link, I’m afraid.

moo ‏@moo_ted 31m
Sevco5088 making changes. CW resigned. Chad Earley appointed. Law Financial Ltd appointed.

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on1:12 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Pete Lambie@PLambie
@moo_ted @pmcn888 @IBartin guess who is in Law Financial Limited? Craig Thomas Whyte, Douglas Ware & Gold Manson ltd
pic.twitter.com/r05nIER6B7

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on1:17 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Carl31 says:
February 4, 2014 at 12:29 pm
===

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?
………………..
Alienation…If I know I am heading for an insolvency event and I shift all known assets out to another entity to avoid those assets being seized as part of my debts…

Can’t remember how much time is allowed to elapse from transferring the assets to hitting insolvency before alienation is considered…

The answer to the timing will be well known to the characters in this play…so the fact GW could not name the owners of the assets when he was asked suggests they have already been moved in anticipation of the main event and probably in plenty of time to avoid alienation.

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on1:18 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Phil, Were we not to expect the return of CW about now with something that would “rock Scottish Football”?

Scottish Football needs a bit of rock ‘n’ roll.

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on1:20 pm - Feb 4, 2014


ecobhoy says:
February 4, 2014 at 12:45 pm
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.
=============================================================================
Eco – I take your point about him discussing accountancy issues with some knowledge, but the basic tenet of the articles is let’s wait until the figures are out “which will tell us whether things have improved or deteriorated:”. Nothing to worry about or think about until them. No acknowledgement that if there was no £6m at Xmas events will overtake analysis of the account. Soothing words for the fatally injured in my opinion.

View Comment

Carl31Posted on1:20 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Esteban on February 4, 2014 at 12:46 pm

Lloyds werent calling CW’s shots.

View Comment

bartokPosted on1:23 pm - Feb 4, 2014


“Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it’s much more serious than that.”

That famous quote from the Scot Bill Shankly when he was manger of Liverpool FC rings true for many of us. In our part of Scotland the sport we love was hijacked long ago and had imposed upon it all sorts of politico-religious affiliations. This has made for a strange brew of hubristic triumphalism and demonisation that has morphed into something very different from sporting rivalry. Some will try to make a case that this is a distinctively Glasgow phenomenon. Allow me to demur, it is not. This sickness can be encountered nationwide.

However, these days professional football has been hijacked by something else.

And this is where the real game, the power game is being played. Not on your chosen field of dreams by the team wearing your colours, but by the people, often anonymous, who either govern or are financially involved in the sport. Sometimes they are the same person. Power to control both governance and finance can lead to all sorts of conflict of interest. This holds true both for Leagues and National Team Associations.

Of course, where there is a power base there is resistance to tranparency. Witness Alexandra Wrage, an authority on corporate anti-corruption and her experience with Fifa.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22251818

Wrage, a Canadian member of the IGC, said she was “frustrated and surprised” that Fifa had failed to back several measures she regarded as “really bland, straightforward governance provisions” after a meeting of its leading executive committee in March 2013.

Sir John Dalberg-Acton is famous for his remark, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” This was never truer than of the men (nearly always men, or is that always nearly men?), not necessarily great, who hold certain positions of power within Scottish Football. I do not include all of them, but they know who they are.

Some have come in, made their money and swiftly departed the scene with off-shore bank accounts freshly bulging. Others cling to their corrupted, conflicted and compromised bonus-culture positions, waiting for the right moment to cash in and get out.

Then there is the the Mainstream Media. How powerful the Fourth Estate used to be. Now their ability to set the agenda and to control the flow of information has been severely diluted in the age of Twitter and the blog. Investigative journalism should seek above all to tell the documented truth in depth and without fear or favour, to provide a voice for those without one and to hold the powerful to account. It is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.

However, print media owners and broadcasters have pages and programme schedules to fill and sell. They know their demographics. They know where and to whom to go to get the fluff pieces their main audience want to consume. For reporters, for that is what they are, It’s easier to regurgitate football club or association PR candy-floss than to ask awkward questions. Why bite the hand that feeds and go off-message? You would only upset the provider, your main consumers, and your employer. You’d soon be looking at a P45. Opinion pieces are slanted to keep the paying punters on board the merry-go-round. You can even sell negativity about your main consumers’ rivals. The customers really lap that up. If you are looking for objective insight, forget about it. Try the ‘internet bampots’ but be discerning!

At this point it might be reasonable to ask why any of us bother with the so called ‘beautiful game’. If its structure, finance, governance and media coverage are all so mired in corruption and obfuscation why don’t we just walk away and spend our God given resources on something more worthwhile?

Well, I suppose that takes me back to Shanks’ famous quote…the one about football being much more serious than life and death. Although partly tongue-in-cheek, there is an element of truth to this statement that’s hard to explain to the non-addicted. We fanatics have a passion for the game. If your club is struggling you support it and those who are similarly afflicted. If your team is successful you celebrate in community with fellow sufferers. If, like me you have been in this condition long enough, you will recognise that – and I know this sounds ridiculous – it can feel like being in a band of brothers.

But – and here’s the nub of it – that passion and devotion is being exploited now like it never has before. Since Rupert Murdoch’s empire got it’s hands on the rights to sell football digitally around the world, the sport is awash with manna. Broadcasting to almost every nation on the planet (not sure about North Korea, I must confess) has opened up fresh markets for viewing licences and merchandise. Those at the top of the food chain within the corridors of power at UEFA and FIFA have it within their largesse to grant tournaments to nations hungry for significance on the global stage. Backhanders anyone? Perish the thought.

But, while all these seemingly impenetrable institutional structures are self-interested and self-perpetuating there also exists in football power at grass roots level. Another famous and highly successful Scottish football manager, Jock Stein of Celtic said, “Football without fans is nothing.” There is always the possibility to rediscover the game and redeem the corrupted context which gives expression and meaning to your love of the game you follow. Don’t give up!

http://www.thecelticwiki.com/page/The+Rebels+Have+Won

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on1:29 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Paulmac2 says:
February 4, 2014 at 1:17 pm
Can’t remember how much time is allowed to elapse from transferring the assets to hitting insolvency before alienation is considered…

———————————————————————————————————————————————-
Gratuitous alienation – 5 years for a connected party (like a holding company or a director) – 2 years otherwise.

So to be safe from an alienation challenge, (if admin struck now) the assets would have to have been transferred by TRFC in 2009 (if transfer is to holding company). Pretty sure that didn’t happen.

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on1:36 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Dutchmul says:
February 4, 2014 at 10:52 am
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.
=======================
Shirley you mean “….and no shouts of “Armageddon or civil unrest” this time as we know that’s FISHY.”.

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on1:38 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Michael Gove Gets His Wish in Glasgow

Michaell wants more brutal punishment regimes in state schools to instil Public School style discipline. Well it’s already started in Glasgow

“CHILDREN from schools across Glasgow visited Ibrox today to get a taste of what it’s like to work for Rangers.
Two groups of teenagers aged 14 to 16 attended the club’s successful Study Support Centre, where they were given an introductory talk by head teacher Dominic Sharkey.
They then heard from Light Blues legend Mark Hateley – who spoke about life skills for success – and various members of staff.”

poor little blighters – they must have been very naughty indeed.

Making A Difference Rangers FC – Official Site 12:45
http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Sport/Football/Scottish+League+One/Rangers

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on1:46 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Carl31 says:
February 4, 2014 at 12:29 pm
===

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?

——————————————————————————————————————————————-
The transfer of a substantial asset from one company to a connected party requires shareholder approval (unless the transferor is a wholly owned subsidiary).

TRFC is a wholly owned subsidiary. RFC 2012 Ltd was not.

View Comment

DutchmulPosted on1:46 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Campbellsmoney said:

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.
*********************************************************************************************************
Maybe it has already been done, some time ago and it wont be an issue should admin occur soon?

View Comment

EstebanPosted on1:47 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Carl31 says:
February 4, 2014 at 1:20 pm

I know. I was answering your point on David Murray. Craig Whyte is still in the frame for the assets, by all accounts. And according to Charlotte, he was very much involved in the properties going to Charles Green when they did.

View Comment

slimshady61Posted on1:51 pm - Feb 4, 2014


redlichtie says:
February 4, 2014 at 1:18 pm
—————————————–
Phil was referring only to CW raising a spurious court action to frustrate the current owners.

I for one don’t believe he has any sort of case but making him go away is another issue altogether and his timing is deliberate.

So long as the threat from CW remains, the incumbents will find it impossible to raise cash. It would be difficult enough without this, but impossible so long as he is on the scene.

He wants a pay-off to go quietly, meanwhile the clock ticks towards the filing deadline of 28 February, Deloitte are refusing to sign off TRFC’s accounts and the SFA are watching with baited breath.

Nash & Wallace are honourable men and won’t hestitate to call in the administrators if TRFC cannot meet its debts going forward.

CW is a side-attraction here, not the main event, and basically he is holding a gun to the heads of the Spivs. Meanwhile the creditors are starting to demand payment.

View Comment

justpedylanPosted on1:52 pm - Feb 4, 2014


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 the iceberg is a reference to the Titanic then it “stopped sinking” at 12,500 feet down. That effectively meant any assessment of the gravity of the situation could be brief and conclusive.

So to pick up on the writer’s metaphor – RFC (in liquidation) hit the iceberg on 14/02/12 (the collison path had been some years in the plotting I accept). it’s descent was rapid and recognition of that fact only held up by peculiar administration, complicit authorities, the lack of a free press and who knows what other organisations desperate to defy gravity.

However, sunk they are and the depth of their plight means they are probably sunk for good. If only there was recognition of that they could get on with launching the sister ship.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on1:55 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Dutchmul says:
February 4, 2014 at 1:46 pm
Maybe it has already been done, some time ago and it wont be an issue should admin occur soon?

———————————————————————————————————————————————-

It’s possible but I doubt it because:-
1 – someone would have noticed at the Land Register and very little in this saga doesnt leak – and apparently the Bears have “land experts”;
2 – the 6 month period is only for statutory unfair preference – there is an unlimited time period for a common law challenge;
3 – it would (should!) I think have been required to be disclosed to AIM (don’t know for certain about that but I would be staggered if such a substantial acquisition by an AIM listed company wouldn’t require to be disclosed (not that (a) AIM would do anything if it wasn’t); and (b) the AIM compliance has been any good to date.)

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on1:56 pm - Feb 4, 2014


An Aberdeen supporting mate of mine has sent me this from the Aberdeen footymad site, that I understand has been sent to the BBC:

“I’m writing about the total inaccuracies presented as fact by BBC Scotland over the course of the weekend. Primarily the fact that one journalist in particular, would appear to have some agenda against Aberdeen supporters. said journalist reported (on a game he was NOT attending) at the weekend that an opposing manager had been hit by coins and spat on at Tynecastle on Saturday. This has been blown up by the Scottish Media in general as a result, without any cear evidence. Indeed the so called victim stated that ONE coin had been thrown (one, not plural & that it missed) and made no mention of spitting. The interviewer also asked if there had been “sectarian” comments. This question is greatly offensive to me. I have never heard any religious bigotry being used by Aberdeen supporters. Nor have I heard the BBC direct questions of this nature to either Celtic or TRIFC officials when it has been warranted. There has been absolutely no evidence (other than an apparent phone call from the so called victims agent) to confirm what the BBC still reports on it’s website is a fact. Will the BBC either present evidence of the coins (plural) and spitting or remove a non-factual story from it’s website? Will the journalist please explain why he felt the need to ask about sectarianism? Will the BBC be as condemning of behaviour & religious bigotry (when it actually happens) going forward? I look forward to this new direction upon the first ever game held between Celtic fc and The Rifc”

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on2:11 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Meanwhile, Celtic cleared by the SPFL of allowing the display of a banner clearly celebrating a proscribed organisation:

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/celtic/262735-celtic-cleared-by-spfl-over-fans-display-of-h-banner-at-aberdeen-match/

“The SPFL found that the banner was offensive and breached the SPFL’s Rules. However, Celtic FC were able to demonstrate that they had taken all reasonably practicable steps to prevent the banner being displayed at Celtic Park. As a result, it was determined that there was no evidence of any breach of the SPFL’s Rules by Celtic FC.”

Given the £42K fine handed down by UEFA for a directly comparable display, this is obviously a joke, right?

View Comment

neepheidPosted on2:18 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
February 4, 2014 at 1:55 pm
0 0 Rate This

Dutchmul says:
February 4, 2014 at 1:46 pm
Maybe it has already been done, some time ago and it wont be an issue should admin occur soon?

———————————————————————————————————————————————-

It’s possible but I doubt it because:-
1 – someone would have noticed at the Land Register and very little in this saga doesnt leak – and apparently the Bears have “land experts”;
2 – the 6 month period is only for statutory unfair preference – there is an unlimited time period for a common law challenge;
3 – it would (should!) I think have been required to be disclosed to AIM (don’t know for certain about that but I would be staggered if such a substantial acquisition by an AIM listed company wouldn’t require to be disclosed (not that (a) AIM would do anything if it wasn’t); and (b) the AIM compliance has been any good to date.)
========================================
I’ve raised a similar point a couple of times. Certainly in England it is possible to transfer the beneficial interest in a property without notifying the Land Registry. This is common between group companies. I have asked before whether Scots Law differs in this respect, the consensus has been that the position is the same.

As regards AIM, notification would not be required, as I understand it, since any transfer would be within the group, so that shareholders’ interests would be unaffected..

The accounts to 30 June seem to show the beneficial ownership with TRFC, so I think that the earliest transfer date would be 1/7/2013, unless the accounts reflect legal rather than beneficial ownership, but I doubt if that could be the case.

View Comment

ianjsPosted on2:20 pm - Feb 4, 2014


bartok says:

February 4, 2014 at 1:23 pm

That is a work of art, operatic, not a redundant word in it! bravo sir!
seriously.

View Comment

Tic 6709Posted on2:25 pm - Feb 4, 2014


v
slimshady61 says:

February 4, 2014 at 1:51 pm

redlichtie says:
February 4, 2014 at 1:18 pm
—————————————–
Phil was referring only to CW raising a spurious court action to frustrate the current owners.

I for one don’t believe he has any sort of case but making him go away is another issue altogether and his timing is deliberate.

So long as the threat from CW remains, the incumbents will find it impossible to raise cash. It would be difficult enough without this, but impossible so long as he is on the scene.

He wants a pay-off to go quietly, meanwhile the clock ticks towards the filing deadline of 28 February, Deloitte are refusing to sign off TRFC’s accounts and the SFA are watching with baited breath.
========================
Slim, who exactly is going to pay him to go away ? we are being told that Sevco have no money so where is it going to come from ? Some penny shares perhaps.
Maybe he really does have a case.

View Comment

andypandimoniumPosted on2:25 pm - Feb 4, 2014


The casket is empty,
Abandon ye all hope,
They ran off with the money,
And left us with the rope.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:27 pm - Feb 4, 2014


m.c.f.c. says:
February 4, 2014 at 1:20 pm
ecobhoy says:
February 4, 2014 at 12:45 pm

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.
=============================================================================
Eco – I take your point about him discussing accountancy issues with some knowledge, but the basic tenet of the articles is let’s wait until the figures are out “which will tell us whether things have improved or deteriorated:”. Nothing to worry about or think about until them. No acknowledgement that if there was no £6m at Xmas events will overtake analysis of the account. Soothing words for the fatally injured in my opinion.
————————————————————————————
I hear what you say and don’t necessarily disagree with it from a non-Rangers standpoint. However, looking at it from a Bear point of view I find it hard to believe they have any other option at this point in time but to await the outcome of events.

They did have chances to influence things and especially how the club would progress but they lost that opportunity and we have all debated long and weary on here about that seemingly ingrained deference they have to brown brogues and blazers and belief in the Sugar Daddy – the only thing I can equate it to is that strange, mainly Pacific area phenomenon, of ‘cargo cults’.

They will have another opportunity come ST time and they may well be played like a fish again because I keep seeing signs that the more intelligent and professional element in the support is slowly disappearing like snow off a dyke. They still regard themselves as Rangers supporters but I see quite a few guys who always attended games now in the pub watching football.

View Comment

Carl31Posted on2:34 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Esteban says:
February 4, 2014 at 1:47 pm

Cheers Esteban

Campbellsmoney says:
February 4, 2014 at 1:46 pm

Cheers for that.
Would the approx 85% shareholding of SDM at the time, then CW after the sale of the Club, not have been enough to win a vote? Apols if this is covering old ground on the blog.

View Comment

smartie1947Posted on2:36 pm - Feb 4, 2014


m.c.f.c. @1.38pm.

Pair wee souls these bairns at Ibrox today.
Imagine listening to a talk from Mark Hately on “life skills for success”
It wouldn’t fill page 1 in your jotter!!

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:39 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Angus1983 says:
February 4, 2014 at 2:11 pm
Given the £42K fine handed down by UEFA for a directly comparable display, this is obviously a joke, right?
========================================
Different organisation – different rule book

However what is the alternative – a strip-search of everyone attending a Scottish football game.

And, lest there be any doubt, I don’t regard those as organsing and displaying the banners as being Celtic Football supporters with the accent on ‘football’ and I felt the ‘message’ was totally inappropriate for a football match. That is not to say that I think all political messages are inappropriate but that is something possibly to be discussed elsewhere and one I would only debate on a per-issue basis.

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on2:39 pm - Feb 4, 2014


neepheid says:
February 4, 2014 at 2:18 pm
As regards AIM, notification would not be required, as I understand it, since any transfer would be within the group, so that shareholders’ interests would be unaffected..

I’ve raised a similar point a couple of times. Certainly in England it is possible to transfer the beneficial interest in a property without notifying the Land Registry. This is common between group companies. I have asked before whether Scots Law differs in this respect, the consensus has been that the position is the same.

————————————————————————————————————————————–
Not sure about that (or this). Rule 12 of the AIM Rules would seem (to me) to require disclosure. But AIM Rules are not my thing at all.

Beneficial interests. Transferring beneficial interest in an asset is a curious thing in Scots law. Its not really the same thing as the English law position at all.

The obvious example of where a beneficial interest is created arises when an asset is in trust. I put my house into a trust for the benefit of my children. Me and Mrs Campbellsmoney are to be the trustees. My children are the beneficiaries of the trust property. They have a beneficial interest in the house but do not appear as the owners of it. But I do need to transfer the house (and have that recorded at the Land Register) as a transfer from (i) Mr Campbellsmoney to (ii) Mr Campbellsmoney and Mrs Campbellsmoney as Trustees of (iii) the “Kidstrust”. if I don’t do that and go bust – my trustee will say that the asset still belongs to me. (Incidentally if I go bust within 5 years it will likely be attacked as a gratuitous alienation by me anyway).

In insolvency in Scots law what matters is whether a person has a real right, a security right (which is in fact a type of real right) or a trust right in an asset. if you don’t have one of them you have only a personal right and that means you will be an ordinary unsecured claim in the insolvency (rather than having any right to the asset itself).

I cannot think of another way in Scots law of creating a “beneficial interest” in land in Scots law that would defeat a liquidator/administrator. Registered ownership, security or trust – that’s all folks.

I accept that a transferee might be sitting with a signed but unregistered disposition of land – that gives rise other issues as and when the transferor suffers an insolvency prior to the dispo being registered.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on2:47 pm - Feb 4, 2014


slimshady61 says:
February 4, 2014 at 1:51 pm

. . . . meanwhile the clock ticks towards the filing deadline of 28 February, Deloitte are refusing to sign off TRFC’s accounts and the SFA are watching with baited breath.’
———————————————————————————————-
I didn’t realise Deloitte are refusing to sign-off TRFCL’s accounts – if it was in Phil’s blog then I missed it. A very important point ❗

View Comment

Exiled CeltPosted on2:49 pm - Feb 4, 2014


For the avoidance of doubt, the 5 Way Agreement is the key to this whole debacle of who is to blame for the basket case we find in the Govan area of Glasgow………..

Up to then, the Spivs had manoeuvred themselves very well – CW appointed his folks Duff and Duffer (alleged copyright Keef Jackson!) who then got into bed with Big Hauns in a classic counter attack…….

But the SFA and SPL/SFL held the ace in their sleeves…….the golden ticket to play football at Ibrox in blue competing in the SPL/SFL. Without it there was no payoff for the Spivs.

As has been pointed out, the only financial Armageddon with no TRFC in the league but a Spartans club was the money funnel being empty in Govan. None of that loss would have any impact on the rest of Scotland as we have seen.

So in reality the SFA/SFL/SPL could have demanded all kinds of things – a full and frank list of investors, a financial plan for the next 3 – 5 years, a legal binding document that ensured a fully transparent MO down Govan way and perhaps even some football supporters involvement…………

They could also have demanded the proof they needed for the LNS hearings and acceptance of the findings, bearing in mind it had no relevance to the new entity. They could also have mandated an apology for the prior sins of the prior entity and a statement that things were now new and afresh.

They could have – they held all the keys to the safe that the Spivs coveted.

Instead they gave them the keys with not one iota of return…………..

Big Hauns was allowed to use his French to demean the rest of us, he gave the go ahead to the hard of thinking to actually believe that you could buy history – but only the bits you like of course – and he was allowed to rape and pillage the Ibrox club far more than CW was ever allowed to do – and yet CW is the only one banned by the SFA! Not SDM nor CG nor Mather…………….

Well done Neil and Stuart – now we can see why we can never get any sponsors for the football competitions – is it because your negotiating skills are so…………lacking perhaps, to be kind?

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on2:50 pm - Feb 4, 2014


I see that Tie Rack has had a CVA approved. Having banged on long enough about why CVAs are rarely tried outside football, I thought it might help give some insight into the CVA process to reflect upon Tie Rack.

Retail chains are one of the few other industries are occasionally tried. They are still tried in only a very small proportion of cases. However various retailers have gone down the CVA route. I think that JJB Sports tried it twice and various others that you will have heard of.

Why try a CVA in retail?

The answer invariably lies in the fact of how the properties are occupied. One of the values in a retail chain is that there is an existing network of shops available to get the product to the market.

Given that the alternative to a CVA would be the pre-pack “newco” route or a sale to a trade purchaser, the fact that most (if not all) of the shops will be held on lease means that any purchaser has to attempt to get the approval of the landlords to the leases being assigned across to the newco. Logistically in a largish chain that can be a nightmare – 100 separate negotiations with no guarantee that the landlords will agree to any of them (especially when there are already outstanding arrears. So, in order to keep any value in the business, it is appropriate to try the CVA.

In the case of Tie Rack, what was offered to creditors was less than one pence on the pound. That’s right. Less than one penny for every one hundred pennies that you’re owed. You might well wonder how they managed to get this approved.

Well, the simple answer is that there was one creditor who was owed more than 75% of the debt. That creditor was unconnected with the company itself so that creditor could single-handedly, push through the CVA. Of course that comes at a price for that creditor. They too are only entitled to less than 1% of what they are owed. As it happens that creditor was owed two separate sums – a massive unsecured claim and a smaller (£6 or 7 million, if I have it correct) secured amount. Secured debts are not however compromised in CVAs.

So here, the CVA route was effective in preserving the secured creditor’s position at the expense of its unsecured position (and the unsecured position of all other creditors). Presumably, the secured creditor considered that it would have received less in a liquidation.

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on3:29 pm - Feb 4, 2014


ecobhoy says:
February 4, 2014 at 2:39 pm

However what is the alternative – a strip-search of everyone attending a Scottish football game.
——
I wouldn’t think they’d have to strip-search everyone – just the guy with the 10-metre waist measurement who had the banner up his shirt.

“However, Celtic FC were able to demonstrate that they had taken all reasonably practicable steps to prevent the banner being displayed at Celtic Park.”

[]

View Comment

CampbellsmoneyPosted on3:31 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Carl31 says:
February 4, 2014 at 2:34 pm
1 1 i
Rate This

Esteban says:
February 4, 2014 at 1:47 pm

Cheers Esteban

Campbellsmoney says:
February 4, 2014 at 1:46 pm

Cheers for that.
Would the approx 85% shareholding of SDM at the time, then CW after the sale of the Club, not have been enough to win a vote? Apols if this is covering old ground on the blog.

—————————————————————————————————————————————-
It would have been enough to have won the vote – 51% would have been enough for that. But there would have had to have been an EGM and therefore publicity.

View Comment

redlichtiePosted on3:38 pm - Feb 4, 2014


slimshady61 says:
February 4, 2014 at 1:51 pm
redlichtie says:
February 4, 2014 at 1:18 pm
—————————————–
He wants a pay-off to go quietly, meanwhile the clock ticks towards the filing deadline of 28 February, Deloitte are refusing to sign off TRFC’s accounts and the SFA are watching with baited breath.
======================================================

Slim, you state that “Deloitte are refusing to sign off TRFC’s accounts” – is this a known fact? RL

Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

View Comment

seminalPosted on3:39 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
February 4, 2014 at 2:50 pm
2 1 i Rate This

So here, the CVA route was effective in preserving the secured creditor’s position at the expense of its unsecured position (and the unsecured position of all other creditors). Presumably, the secured creditor considered that it would have received less in a liquidation.

—————————————

Campbell, that is an interesting point you make, and it reminds of when, other than HMRC, nearly all creditors accepted Charles Greenes paltry CVA offer of about 8 pence in the pound.

Personally, I would have been a bit more Shylock with them and demanded my pound of flesh, even simply pour encourager les autres.

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on3:44 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Campbellsmoney says:
February 4, 2014 at 1:29 pm
…………………….

Cheers Campbell….makes you wonder how CW pulled that off under the previous admin….

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on3:49 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Angus1983 says:
February 4, 2014 at 3:29 pm

Here’s a new “reasonably practicable step” for them … given the history of certain factions of the support, only banners which have previously been cleared for display are allowed through the gate. Boy, that was difficult to figure out.

======================================
Angus – that’s a really clever idea ❗

Problem is that those who wish to display banners that wouldn’t be cleared for display obviously wouldn’t bother to present them for inpection beforehand as they wouldn’t pass.

So they would stick them up their juke – so how do you stop them ❓

As to your 10 metre waistline quip – I can only assume you made that comment without looking at how the message was was put together as revealed in the photograph 😆

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on4:06 pm - Feb 4, 2014


ecobhoy says:
February 4, 2014 at 10:12 am

“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.”
—————————–
Its funny how a perhaps throw away comment can tip a balance of probability in your mind and set in motion a thought process that takes you somewhere new.

Its not often Campbell Ogilvie is the recipient of benefit of the doubt but there was something about eco’s remark that resonated. There isn’t a brief way to put this so I’ll crack on.

When Charlotte first appeared back in May I urged fellow posters to deconstruct the material we were coming into possession of (I was Mullach back then). Slimshady I recall dismissed the material as likely the work of CW but I naively soldiered on, believing there was some good in the world; there was a god! I also felt it was unlikely that it was the product of CW since it seemed to compromise his own position in many ways. I continued to believe this even after I had analysed the times of the first 11 posts she made on TSFM, which indicated a likely timezone of +1hr (Monaco?), rather than the Caribbean locale that had been widely postulated originally.

Later material which emanated from very close to Ibrox stiffened my cynicism and my jury was well and truly out concerning Charlotte’s motives.

If CW was Charlotte (as is entirely plausible), then it appeared his motives were to publicise his property claims via Sevco 5088. That indeed may be part of the ploy. However one of the documents she released (or was it audio) referred to a meeting with the SFA and CW. We all shouted, ‘give us the audio Charlotte’ in gleeful anticipation but none was forthcoming.

So perhaps the Sevco 5088 thing is not CW’s trump card. Perhaps it is the audio with him meeting with CO et al. Charlotte has already demonstrated how her offerings can permeate the hallowed halls of even a lamb stuffed media, has she not? Could this have been a well aimed shot across the bows? Would a compliant SFA be of higher value than a big slice of the property?

As I said above, Charlotte’s material did splatter a bit of mud on CW but this might not have mattered if the property title was not your prime motive. You might even double your take by selling such a spurious title claim onto another party whilst you kept the tastiest titbit for yourself.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on4:34 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Angus1983 says:
February 4, 2014 at 2:11 pm

“Meanwhile, Celtic cleared by the SPFL of allowing the display of a banner clearly celebrating a proscribed organisation:”
——————————–
I saw that article as well. I’m a Celtic fan but rarely a supporter so in some ways don’t have the same right of comment as I feel others may have. Having made that caveat, I’ll comment thus.

Politics and sport do occasionally cross over. The Black Power salute in the Mexico Olympic games is arguably a justifiable manifestation of when such a crossover is valid. I have always felt that the success of Celtic in the late 1960’s might have in some small way added succour to the civil rights protestors in some communities of Northern Ireland in the same time frame. Whilst these movements were largely peaceful then such an association might have been viewed as merely symbolic and co-incidental. However the collapse of this region of the UK into a defacto civil war places such comments as mine in the very contentious category (but I don’t know how to say it without saying it). So my condemnation of the banner display that follows does not completely ignore the context.

There has been a bit of posting about old architecture and how to maintain parts of our history for future posterity. It is recognised that maintaining these historic edifices in a changing world is either expensive or in many cases impractical. So it is with traditions.

I have listened to Celtic matches on the radio and wondered at how such a melee can be maintained for the whole of a football match; then later realised it was likely the Green Brigade conjuring up all their enthusiasm to bring some atmosphere to the occasion. However if all this energy is being spent at the expense of common decency then in my opinion it is too much to ask. That was then, this is now. Time to move on.

I agree Angus, Celtic appear to have got off lightly. I note that they have disbanded season ticket holders from the Green Brigade area and this at least shows some modicum of action. It may be that such punitive action is poorly aimed and causes as much harm as it does good but we need to move on.

I myself have many opinions on these matters but am generally obliged to keep them private. Time to move on. Some of our histories can be retained but much of them will just have to be built upon anew. It has ever been thus.

I apologise if this infringes your posting rules TSFM. I will respect your decision if you feel you need to delete or edit it.

View Comment

erniePosted on4:45 pm - Feb 4, 2014


ecobhoy says:
February 4, 2014 at 3:49 pm

Angus – that’s a really clever idea

Problem is that those who wish to display banners that wouldn’t be cleared for display obviously wouldn’t bother to present them for inpection beforehand as they wouldn’t pass.

So they would stick them up their juke – so how do you stop them

As to your 10 metre waistline quip – I can only assume you made that comment without looking at how the message was was put together as revealed in the photograph
====================================================
Doesn’t real matter anyway because “…… it was determined that there was no evidence of any breach of the SPFL’s rules by Celtic FC” and subsequently no penalty. A lot of fuss about nothing then.

View Comment

Angus1983Posted on4:59 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Angus, very close to your usual windup. If you want to indulge in sarcasm, find another avenue. I’ll let the rest of it go.
TSFM

ecobhoy says:
February 4, 2014 at 3:49 pm
——
Thank you, castofthousands, for a sensible and open-minded response. I like the cut of your jib. 🙂
Why can it not just be accepted that the Club should have been brought to book for their lack of ability (or reasonable effort) to prevent this display, which was found to be offensive? Is it because they is Celtic? 🙄

Come on folks – without fear or favour, remember?

View Comment

Para HandyPosted on5:02 pm - Feb 4, 2014


ecobhoy says:
February 4, 2014 at 3:49 pm
9 1 Rate This

So they would stick them up their juke – so how do you stop them
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Easy way to stop them (and not just at Celtic Park) would be for the Club to announce that any non-approved banner shown would lead to the immediate suspension of any fan whose seat number is under the banner and it can be shown that they had used the ticket to enter the ground. Then it becomes self policing. Admittedly it would only work for all ticket matches but if you are really serious about it.

I know that Clubs are on a hiding to nothing when it comes to controlling certain elements of their support, however, if they really want to be do it then draconian measures are needed.

As for the banner in question, IMHO completely indefensible and indicative of the eejits who attend matches. Leaving aside the risk of serious injury from the throwing of a hard projectile, such “statements” as this are as damaging as any sectarian/racist chants and provide fuel for the fires the lazy media love to start to ensure they sell a few more papers.

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on5:34 pm - Feb 4, 2014


So it’s Celtic Park then

http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/inverness/262841-celtic-park-to-host-league-cup-final-between-aberdeen-and-inverness-ct/

Maybe Neil’s ambassadorial role won it 😉

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on5:37 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Para Handy says:
February 4, 2014 at 5:02 pm
ecobhoy says:
February 4, 2014 at 3:49 pm

So they would stick them up their juke – so how do you stop them?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Easy way to stop them (and not just at Celtic Park) would be for the Club to announce that any non-approved banner shown would lead to the immediate suspension of any fan whose seat number is under the banner and it can be shown that they had used the ticket to enter the ground.
—————————————————————————————
I have no wish to prolong the debate but I think your solution is flawed and unacceptable. I don’t believe that someone who may not have had any part in bringing a banner into a ground and is not helping to hold it up should be penalised because their seat happens to be under where the banner is flying.

It takes me back many decades to when the cops would just arrest a section of the crowd to get a couple of drunks launching bottles or tinnies filled with p*sh. Many innocents got caught-up in such scenes and similar when batons were used much too freely for no good reason and this happened not just to football supporters but to peaceful demonstrators and strikers.

Sometimes this type of force was used to quell violence but it was often used indiscriminately just to cow people and break-up legitimate protest and deny freedom of expression and in my experience more innocents tended to be hurt than hard-core hooligans.

Just because you are in proximity to an incident doesn’t make you a prime mover in that incident and many many people end-up in trouble simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Controversial banners are difficult to deal with – hard to prevent them getting into a ground and difficult to take them off people without sparking a potentially serious situation. So the answer is always to try and identify the perpetrators and remove their ST and bar them from the ground. But that is a lengthy and difficult process.

So there isn’t an easy solution IMO and knee-jerk reactions and suggestions are more likely to fuel the flames than solve the problem.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:37 pm - Feb 4, 2014


PMGB Now tweeting Wallace has a statement prepared and is ready to leave TRFC.

Sorry, for some reason unable to copy and paste his tweet 😐

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on5:40 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Allyjambo says:
February 4, 2014 at 5:37 pm

PMGB Now tweeting Wallace has a statement prepared and is ready to leave TRFC.
——————————————————————————————————–
I can only assume he is now aware of the hidden agenda and by walking away he shows dignity and keeps his integrity and reputation.

View Comment

ChristyboyPosted on5:42 pm - Feb 4, 2014


” Bringing the school kids in for a chat is like a new signing……honest.”

View Comment

Resin_lab_dogPosted on5:43 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Lord Wobbly says:
February 4, 2014 at 5:34 pm

4

0

Rate This

So it’s Celtic Park then

http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/inverness/262841-celtic-park-to-host-league-cup-final-between-aberdeen-and-inverness-ct/

Maybe Neil’s ambassadorial role won it 😉

____________________________________

Great.
Can’t wait to book my ticket.
We may get pumped. But it will be a fantastic occasion and great for Inverness.
Palpable excitement in the city already.

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on5:43 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Lord Wobbly says:
February 4, 2014 at 5:34 pm

So it’s Celtic Park then

http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/inverness/262841-celtic-park-to-host-league-cup-final-between-aberdeen-and-inverness-ct/
========================================================
That’s one I want to see – don’t know who to support right enough 😆

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on5:44 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Angus1983 says:
February 4, 2014 at 4:59 pm
Angus, very close to your usual windup. If you want to indulge in sarcasm, find another avenue. I’ll let the rest of it go.
TSFM

ecobhoy says:
February 4, 2014 at 3:49 pm
——
Thank you, castofthousands, for a sensible and open-minded response. I like the cut of your jib. 🙂
Why can it not just be accepted that the Club should have been brought to book for their lack of ability (or reasonable effort) to prevent this display, which was found to be offensive? Is it because they is Celtic? 🙄

Come on folks – without fear or favour, remember?
………………………………………………………………
I would like to think not….however the SFA have never been slow to take us to task in the past…

Could you be suffering from the same skewed mind set that believes because it is Celtic they should be punished every time regardless of the facts?

Simply because it is Celtic doesn’t always follow that there has to be a club punishment….just in the same way that Aberdeen FC should not be held responsible for a couple of morons who got drunk and decided to lob stuff at club officials at Tynecastle…we deal with it and we all move on.

Personally I am not the greatest fan of the GB….but I do believe there is a helluva hypocrisy applied by UEFA when they can decide that political banners are wrong at football matches only to condone political banners at football matches the following month???.

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on5:49 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Resin_lab_dog says:

February 4, 2014 at 5:43 pm

0

0

Rate This

Quantcast

Lord Wobbly says:
February 4, 2014 at 5:34 pm

4

0

Rate This

So it’s Celtic Park then

http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/inverness/262841-celtic-park-to-host-league-cup-final-between-aberdeen-and-inverness-ct/

Maybe Neil’s ambassadorial role won it 😉

____________________________________

Great.
Can’t wait to book my ticket.
We may get pumped. But it will be a fantastic occasion and great for Inverness.
Palpable excitement in the city already.
…………………………….
Hope you get a good seat with a great view…

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on5:54 pm - Feb 4, 2014


ecobhoy says:

February 4, 2014 at 5:40 pm

I’ve felt for a while he’d leave before he had a can to carry. Don’t blame him. Went in with many re-assurances, I’m sure, and has, I’m also sure, found them to be unfounded. He is the first CEO with a genuine reputation to keep, and in his business, he needs it. If Phil’s information is accurate, and I’ve no reason to doubt it, I expect the statement is to be read to the AIM in the morning. No doubt Nash is leaving too, although I doubt this would be requiring an announcement on AIM, so no statement required from/about him.

If, in the meantime, no one persuades him to change his mind, things must be worse than any of us expected.

View Comment

bad capt madmanPosted on5:54 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Pure malicious unfounded speculation of course, but I can’t help but wonder if the decision makers at Hampden have been in a quandary over the venue for AFC v ICT.
On the one hand they would have been keen to give whatever helping hand they could to TRFC ( for the good of Scottish football of course), but on the other hand even they would not be unaware of the dreadful possibility of administration or worse for TRFC before the final took place.
Imagine the embarrassment of a late switch or postponement if TRFC had no staff in place to host the final or if the big hoose gates were locked on the day……

Haha

sorry, that last bit wasn’t very dignified.

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on5:57 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Allyjambo says:
February 4, 2014 at 5:37 pm
PMGB Now tweeting Wallace has a statement prepared and is ready to leave TRFC.
……………………………………………

And that would leave……………who in charge?…or is it a free for all?

And still the SFA will sit and watch and wonder….who is supposed to be dealing with this sh**?

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on5:59 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Allyjambo says:
February 4, 2014 at 5:37 pm
PMGB Now tweeting Wallace has a statement prepared and is ready to leave TRFC.
……………………………………………

Now tweeting a retraction as Wallace was only leaving Ibrox tonight and will be back in the morning !

😆

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on6:01 pm - Feb 4, 2014


bad capt madman says:
February 4, 2014 at 5:54 pm
………………………..

Never mind the consequences of Administration….I would have been genuinely concerned for the safety of supporters….the place is a maintenance mans nightmare…with it deteriorating faster than a pair of chocolate knickers…

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on6:03 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Bill1903 says:
February 4, 2014 at 5:59 pm
……………………………………..

Was that a threat or a half hearted promise? 😀

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on6:05 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Bill1903 says:
February 4, 2014 at 5:59 pm
Allyjambo says:
February 4, 2014 at 5:37 pm
PMGB Now tweeting Wallace has a statement prepared and is ready to leave TRFC.
……………………………………………
Now tweeting a retraction as Wallace was only leaving Ibrox tonight and will be back in the morning !
——————————————————–
Yea I would tell porkies as well rather than being launched down the marble staircase 😆

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on6:06 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Paulmac2 says:
February 4, 2014 at 5:57 pm

Allyjambo says:
February 4, 2014 at 5:37 pm
PMGB Now tweeting Wallace has a statement prepared and is ready to leave TRFC.
……………………………………………

And that would leave……………who in charge?…or is it a free for all?…
============================
I don’t know why they didn’t bring in Gordon Smith as CEO – he would quite happily have bumbled along – “knowing nothing about anything”…

If Wallace does go, then Irvine will be working double overtime to manage the MSM to copy/paste some spin – or to copy/paste a humongous squirrel to distract the bears… 🙄

View Comment

jean7brodiePosted on6:07 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Paulmac2 says:
February 4, 2014 at 6:01 pm

You could have said ‘chocolate fireguard’ or ‘chocolate teapot’ etc 😡

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on6:11 pm - Feb 4, 2014


jean7brodie says:
February 4, 2014 at 6:07 pm
Paulmac2 says:
February 4, 2014 at 6:01 pm

You could have said ‘chocolate fireguard’ or ‘chocolate teapot’ etc 😡
==============================================
Leave the boy alone with his fantasies 😎

View Comment

tobyPosted on6:15 pm - Feb 4, 2014


If Mr Wallace does walk, as per Phil’s earlier tweet, it merely confirms what has been said on here for months and months. TRFC is headed for the rocks at the first time of asking. The position of Chairman is indeed a poison chalice and obviously Mr Wallace wasn’t made fully aware of their financial predicament. He has too much experience on a CV that he would want tarnished by the inevitable messy fallout. Not walking away, but running for the hills..

View Comment

ecobhoyPosted on6:16 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Paulmac2 says:
February 4, 2014 at 5:57 pm
Allyjambo says:
February 4, 2014 at 5:37 pm
PMGB Now tweeting Wallace has a statement prepared and is ready to leave TRFC.
……………………………………………
And that would leave……………who in charge?…or is it a free for all? And still the SFA will sit and watch and wonder….who is supposed to be dealing with this sh**?
=================================================
There’s only one man in Scotland capable of saving Ibrox and that’s: The World’s Greatest Football Adminstrator.

Might be the best chance ever to prise him out of Hampden 😉

View Comment

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on6:22 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Phil now tweeting:
Remember the £2.5m loan guarantee.That’s very important…………

Make of it what you will.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on6:22 pm - Feb 4, 2014


The tone of this blog has become somewhat chucklesome 😆

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on6:23 pm - Feb 4, 2014


ecobhoy says:
February 4, 2014 at 6:11 pm
2 0 Rate This
jean7brodie says:
February 4, 2014 at 6:07 pm
Paulmac2 says:
February 4, 2014 at 6:01 pm
You could have said ‘chocolate fireguard’ or ‘chocolate teapot’ etc
==============================================
Leave the boy alone with his fantasies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you’re going to have chocolate sexual fantasies, you might as well make them Marathon sessions 😀

View Comment

Tic 6709Posted on6:26 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Wallace away ? That’s probably the reason Celtic park got the final.
Maybe the SFA think that the gates at Ibrox will be padlocked.
Just noticed bad capt madman’s post.

View Comment

Greenock JackPosted on6:27 pm - Feb 4, 2014


I wonder if today PMGB has taken the time to check the details and stand-up his line (GW & all-day crisis meetings) before ‘going to print’ ?

I’d also ask how reliable his source for recent info out of Ibrox is.
I wouldn’t dispute that the source will have knowledge but I would question if he always tells the truth.
I’d also bet that Tommy the Taxi driver has spoken to Mr.Source in the past.

View Comment

Lord WobblyPosted on6:30 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Greenock Jack says:
February 4, 2014 at 6:27 pm
0 0 Rate This
I wonder if today PMGB has taken the time to check the details and stand-up his line before
‘going to print’ ?
I’d also ask how reliable his source for recent info out of Ibrox is.
I wouldn’t dispute that the source will have knowledge but I would question if he always tells the truth and I would bet that Tommy the Taxi driver has spoken to him in the past.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Maybe Phil has simply out Irvined Irvine and this was simply a PR campaign to ensure Celtic got the League Cup final?

Love a conspiracy theory me.

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on6:31 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Ssb have just announced statement from Mr Irvine that phil mac tweets are all fantasy?
Time will tell.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on6:34 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Greenock Jack says:

February 4, 2014 at 6:27 pm

If PMGB is wrong, that hardly saves TRFC. If he’s right, it sinks them.

View Comment

Tic 6709Posted on6:34 pm - Feb 4, 2014


Only an Excuse Musical Chairs springs to mind.

View Comment

Danish PastryPosted on6:39 pm - Feb 4, 2014


valentinesclown says:
February 4, 2014 at 6:31 pm

… Time will tell.
———

Indeed. I imagine that Phil would only make such categoric statements if his info was from a trusted source. Though there’s no telling if the trusted source hasn’t been fed a line.

Since this is the monitor, it’s probably time to do just that. To misquote an old adage, justice delayed is not necessarily justice denied.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on6:40 pm - Feb 4, 2014


PMGB’s record for getting his facts right is far greater than the whole of the SMSM put together. And Jack Irvine is Jack Irvine 😆

View Comment

m.c.f.c.Posted on6:41 pm - Feb 4, 2014


What Will It Be ?

Personal reasons,

Ill health,

Unable to work with this shower of back-stabbing b+st*rds,

Artistic differences,

More time with the family,

A man needs to know his limitations,

View Comment

Comments are closed.