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.
Allyjambo
IF Graham Wallace left it would obviously signal major credibility problems (aswell as financial) and if others are correct, a possible suspension of share trading but this comes with a very big IF.
On the McMurdo blog, one thing is indisputable – he is publishing Jack Irvine’s views practically verbatim.
For Irvine to contact Radio Clyde and then persuade McMurdo to put out a blog about someone he supposedly doesn’t even read reveals a palpable whiff of desperation, if not panic.
There’s plenty of smoke in the air tonight.
Will we catch sight of an inferno tomorrow?
TSFM says:
February 4, 2014 at 10:28 pm
On the McMurdo blog, one thing is indisputable – he is definitely in the know. He’s not agitating for TBKs to make mischief. He is a board information outlet. I can’t see how blogging as he did tonight benefits anyone on the Rangers board. If Wallace is set to resign, why not just ignore the rumours and let the AIM announcement to the deed tomorrow?
====================================================
I agree with you that it doesn’t seem a wise move and it didn’t seem wise to me either for JI to get involved. But as I pointed out in my earlier post it might not be as simple as Wallace going tonight even if he actually has decided he is going.
I would disagree however that McMurdo is in the know – he has been pilloried by a lot of Bears for quite some time and threw his lot in with the new Board and was rewarded with some titbits for his blog which suited the PR agenda. He is being used but that’s it IMO – he isn’t privvy to much and is just part of the pincer movement on some of the fan groups that are to be liquidated because they have become a trifle bolshie towards the new board.
To declare he doesn’t read Phil’s Blog and then launch into his rant was good for a laugh. RM is doing a ‘just ignore and no comment stance’ which I would have thought is tactically the right move for the Blue Camp.
This Wallace story is intriguing.
Assuming the story is correct – that he drafted a resignation statement – then there is no ‘good’ outcome, IMO.
Either;
– Wallace resigns, and a tsunami of negative PR ‘might’ hit TRFC
[if the lamb munchers report it properly that is…]
or
– Wallace does not issue a statement, as he has – allegedly – ‘blackmailed’ those who have the power behind RIFC. He might have won this battle and bought some time, but shirley his ‘card will be marked’ thereafter ?
If he has a fundamental disagreement – e.g. on strategy – with the main RIFC shareholders – then he has to resign, IMO.
Interesting though.
I was turned onto the Rangers story by RTC on Twitter & like many, was spellbound by the revelations, as the whole, grisly story unfolded. Gradually, I began to realise that there were other angles and story’s within the main feature also to consider, most notably, the response of the Scottish Mainstream Media.
As a reader and avid follower of the story, I have been subject to propaganda that would make Goebbels & Lord Haw Haw blush with embarrassment, as various placemen & experts in important newspapers, radio programmes and social media outlets, rushed to deny the demise of one of Scotland’s leading sporting institutions.
To counteract this spin & lies there was & remains places and people whom one could trust to get the real story.The truth.
They were RTC, Phil Mac & Paul McConville plus a couple of internet bams. Compare and contract the performance of these individuals to the SMSM, the spin doctors and the PR agencies in breaking stories and dissecting the truth, about the biggest sporting scandal ever in the UK?
I know who I trust and if Phil Mac has got one wrong, so be it. We all get one wrong occasionally. Doesn’t change anything for me and I know who I’d rather trust to be digging for stories. Phil, keep digging!!
TSFM says:
February 4, 2014 at 10:24 pm
My contact told me tonight that it was perfectly possible that Wallace could resign, but that he could see no reason why. Tales of drawers stuffed with unpaid bills are ‘arrant nonsense’. He also told me that there were no spivs left at Ibrox (“at least in the boardroom” 🙂 ). The board comprises respectable and professional people, as are their advisors.
He also told me that the idea of a land grab by TRIFC would be spivvery, and therefore won’t happen. “The last of spivs running off with cash has gone”, he said. “Rangers definitely have serious financial problems, but they won’t result in administration.”
“There is still some deluded behaviour about the value of ‘the brand’, but by and large, the need for cutting costs has been recognised.”
“Administration serves no purpose, and is not necessary unless they are not paying tax and VAT, and I do not believe that.”
=======================================
@TSFM: I wondered if your source has explained how the new Board is going to work the oracle and ‘save’ Rangers.
I can accept that the new execs aren’t Spivs – but I don’t believe for a minute that the Spiv shareholders have left the building at least in terms of control because there is still money to be made from the property and in that they would share a common purpose with Laxeys – who I don’t label as Spivs although, like them, they have no interest in football and well know that running a football club is a money-pit.
I would also say that it is the duty of the Board to ensure that the property is safeguarded for the benefit of the shareholders and not TRFCL if there is a conflict of interest and there might well be.
I also find it strabnge for someone close to proceedings to say that it was perfectly possible for Wallace tp resign but he couldn’t see any reason for it. I don’t know but that comment jars with me as trying to have it both ways. At this stage I would expect someone close to the action to know whether he is likely to go or stay and say which it is.
I also don’t quite understand the comment about admin serving no purpose unless you aint paying tax or VAT. Also I remain surprised at the lack of action in actually cutting costs – which admin could achieve of course – and wonder how this is going to be done and when they will start.
And as to the comment: “The last of spivs running off with cash has gone”. I should think so too because there ain’t any cash left 😆
All in all I find the statement strange and I get the feeling that perhaps the new Board might have been infected with Rangeritis.
Still we shall see because the resignation/s will require to happen soon or be put to bed which doesn’t mean that things didn’t come close to nreaking-point. If they continue I still plump for a Laxeys Duo appearing on the scene post haste.
The drawers stuffed with unpaid bills was good for a laugh but I don’t think for a second that Stockbridge would be that stupid.
Tales of drawers stuffed with unpaid bills are ‘arrant nonsense’. He also told me that there were no spivs left at Ibrox (“at least in the boardroom” 🙂 ). The board comprises respectable and professional people, as are their advisors.
=====================================
There are two boards, the PLC and the Ltd Company.
James Easdale sits on the board of the PLC. I believe Sandy sits on the Board of the Ltd Company. They were both at the “top table” at the PLC AGM, and between the shares they own or hold proxies for they have effective control of the business. Albeit they may be taking instruction from others.
Here’s the thing.
If it was my club foundering on the rocks of financial oblivion under the direction of a bunch of unabashed spivs, I would be desperate to have access to the sort of investigative journalism that PMGB brings to the table.
It is more than ironic that the majority of fans of the SS (Sinking Ship) Ibrokes cannot see past Phil’s world view to see the value (to them!) of his investigative work.
Isn’t it odd that they have failed to produce a lasting, credible source of investigation into their own club?
Just shows that a diet of succulent lamb may be damaging to your long term health.
If only they could have seen past their own blind spot, they might have perceived the reality of the situation years ago.
JI, the man that knows everything about everybody, is a rare man for the words. And he better be when the Bears finally realise the role he has played in sinking the ship. “Ah wiz only following instructions from my client” might not cut it with the disgruntled masses.
And meanwhile on the SS Ibrokes, the band is still playing, the lights are on… but there is a big ole white thing dead ahead…. full steam ahead chaps!
Nope
Only a Spiv would take a senior position working directly for Spivs And he would only do it for money and would leave if the money looked like drying up
So
All this stuff about Wallace walking away suggests only one thing
He is in grave danger of not getting paid and is walking before the Feb cheque bounces
nickmcguinness says:
February 4, 2014 at 10:41 pm
For Irvine to contact Radio Clyde and then persuade McMurdo to put out a blog about someone he supposedly doesn’t even read reveals a palpable whiff of desperation, if not panic.
————————————————————————————————–
Assuming that the board are busy trying to persuade Wallace to stay on and if they are successful then Jack’s
little interventions discredit Phil.
If they’re unsuccessful then Jack’s the cut out and the board have some deniability.
Alternatively Jack’s just done this off his own back – loose cannon?
It’s certainly a bit odd that, if they wished to rubbish the “rumours” that they simply didn’t release a press statement/put something on their own website.
TSFM, I cannot believe the spivs have all left the building. We are then playing very loose with the meaning of spiv. The spivs were hired to con the support into giving them a bargain with only one outcome, ‘they get rich quick.’ While there are Margaritas and blue chip holdings hovering in the background, with no knowledge of who controls them, then I am inclined to believe there is a lot more cash still to be had. Easdales, by proxy, have control but only on investors terms, so therefore could be classed as lackeys to Laxey. (Sorry 😳 )
sent you a message Auldheid
Donegaltim says:
February 4, 2014 at 11:49 pm
TSFM, I cannot believe the spivs have all left the building. We are then playing very loose with the meaning of spiv. The spivs were hired to con the support into giving them a bargain with only one outcome, ‘they get rich quick.’ While there are Margaritas and blue chip holdings hovering in the background, with no knowledge of who controls them, then I am inclined to believe there is a lot more cash still to be had. Easdales, by proxy, have control but only on investors terms, so therefore could be classed as lackeys to Laxey.
_______________________________________________________________
Don’t disagree with your point re the Easdales, but my earlier point is that the spivs have had their last pound out of Rangers. The message from the board – and from Laxeys – is that the club should be run properly. My information is that there is no dissent from that position on the board, although (my inference) there may be some influential stakeholders like McCoist who could scupper plans by leading a fans’ revolt.
No semantics at play here at all. According to my information, the controlling shareholders (Margarita and Blue Pitch are not in any control), the directors and their advisors are most definitely not spivs, and not selling instant success to the fans. He thinks they may well be looking at an exit strategy, to sell to Rangers man, but that the Rangers men have consistently refused to step up to the mark with their cash.
ecobhoy says:
February 4, 2014 at 10:32 pm
If the story is correct then the position of Somers is critical because I suspect that if Wallace goes then so would Nash and if Somers called it a day then there would be no execs left on the Board and – although I am finding it hard to believe this – only 1 NED in the shape of Easdale.
—————-
Aren’t you forgetting Laxey’s man, Norman Crighton. He’s a NED. Although he keeps a low profile he ain’t no shrinking violet.
TSFM says:
February 5, 2014 at 12:08 am
Margarita and Blue Pitch are not in any control
———————————————–
Maybe not but they still have substantial influence – where would the Easdales be without their approximately 10% worth of proxy shares?
TSFM says:
February 4, 2014 at 10:24 pm
“Administration serves no purpose, and is not necessary unless they are not paying tax and VAT, and I do not believe that.”
…………………………………
The last sentence of your post caught my eye…..”unless THEY are not paying tax and VAT”…they?
I am sure your contact has been honest…however when the term…they…is used…and not we…IMO it throws distance between what they believe is happening and what they know is actually happening…
To say there are no spivs left is quite a bold statement to make…not the sort of term I would expect someone close to the heart beat to use….but that is only my opinion…
To quote the famous line by Air Chief Marshall Sir Hugh Dowding from the movie Battle of Britain..
I’m not very interested in propaganda. If we’re right, they’ll give up. If we are wrong, they’ll be in London in a week!.
In short we will soon find out who was right and who was…well…possibly fed a pup….
I think most people are missing the point on here. The issue is not who may or may not resign or whether AIM will break the habit of a lifetime and suspend trading etc.
The issue is simple – accounts for the trading company from incorporation in May 2012 to 30 June 2013 are due to be filed by the end of this month. The parent company’s accounts for the period from November 2012 to 30 June 2013 have already been filed.
Why have the accounts for TRFC not been filed, given that they were finalised several months ago?
The only plausible reason is that they lack an unqualified audit report from Deloitte to accompany them. If TRFC cannot file accounts because it is not a going concern, the game is up on all fronts.
Audited accounts are required by 31 March for footballing purposes, and are generally required by parties who trade with the entity.
It is commonly accepted that Wallace and Nash are honourable men and will seek to do the right thing, i.e. get the audit report signed off. They clearly need finance to persuade the auditors so to do.
CW muddies the waters with his spurious claims making cash that is already next to impossible to access totally impossible to access. The company does not have enough cash to get through to the next round of ST monies.
Follow the accounts, not the man. There is no logical reason not to file them now save for that pesky report…..
No accounts, no Rangers……no matter what a plethora of Jacks say.
Re JI and BMcM interventions, surely, given all the various assertions/indicators offered this week by PMcG i.e.
the return of CW
exhaustion of funds
curiously random retweet ref the refuse/recycling ‘Creditor Of The Day’
potential resignation of GW
last ditch meetings with potential financers
doubt as to property ownership
meeting held at Ibrox
It’s fairly telling that the only contention specifically rebutted by JI/BMcM was that the meeting was held at Ibrox?
For me it equates with the Jim Traynor ‘but Chick, did Alistair Johnston actually say they would go bust?’ outburst.
We all know the outcome of that one.
Donegaltim says:
February 4, 2014 at 11:49 pm
We are then playing very loose with the meaning of spiv.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
As I see it
The meaning of “spiv” is pretty straightforward
It describes people who
Have no morality ……… are not committed to values most people uphold,,,trust,empathy,loyalty,
decency, compassion, solidarity reputation etc
Have no business ethics…… do not act fairly in dealings with employees,customers, shareholders and government institutions
Make extensive use of lawyers…. see the making of money as handicapped solely by the need to avoid being prosecuted for infringing the law
Have no qualms about telling lies other than the risk of being prosecuted for doing so
Are solely interested in making money and avoiding prison
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
In a nutshell
Spivs are people who will do anything they can legally do to make money irrespective of the impact on colleagues, employees, shareholders, customers, suppliers etc
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
ecobhoy says:
February 4, 2014 at 9:51 pm
‘…As I said I can’t think of a current SMSM journo who matches his investigative ability and that is a terrible indictment given that he lives in Ireland and isn’t actually based in Scotland.’
————–
I agree.
But I would add that , in my opinion, at least some of our media men must have had the frighteners put on them by their editors if not by actual physical frighteners.
In particular, I think there was dirty work done to prevent Mark Daly really getting in to the story for BBC TV.
Given that his documentaries had already been screened, the fact that the ‘saga’ has not been seriously, investigatively, followed-up by BBC TV could only be the result of high level pressure on him and his producer and documentary team- from pretty senior BBC folk, who, of course, are among the most accomplished deceivers in the world.
As I have had occasion to remark previously, the print press is one thing: the hacks working for it have sold their souls to the Murdochs or whoever. We don’t pay them ( unless we buy their newspapers).
We DO pay the BBC, their big chiefs no less than their ‘ Dave King settled with the South African Tax authorities’ pundits.
We deserve to be better served by them in terms of serious, journalistic investigation into the administration (and administrators) of Scottish Football and the unhealthy connection between it/them and a dead club, and the apparently dying new club which that administration, and those administrators, brought into illegitimate life.
It is impossible to believe that none of our BBC journalists have managed to get nods, winks, hints, suggestions about what the SFA are thinking about the present RIFC situation. They must have some idea , some contacts, some notion about who is meeting whom.
If they don’t, they’re bum journalists.
If they do, and are not telling, they’re compromised.
Short note to anyone who now refuses to believe a word coming from journalists. There are loads of courses in journalism. Do one. Then you can be a journalist of the highest integrity.
john clarke says:
February 5, 2014 at 1:01 am
If a tea lady sneezes in Ibrox or Murray Park it makes the sports headlines on STV.
I would say it’s a very safe bet that the SMSM are well aware of what’s bubbling under the surface …. A Lamonts tweets today would indicate as much.
Whilst I don’t doubt there is a level of threats/intimidation and, they may be restrained by risk averse legal departments it boils down to two very simple reasons for me;
a.) still too many placemen in position to push the “there is no Scottish football without a Rangers” deception ….. c’mon EBT Dodds should have been sidelined for the duration of the EBT appeals process ….. Keevins – credible journalist seriously!? ……. Jackson “billionaire off the radar wealth” and he still picks up awards for journalism!?
b.) they have previously invested so much in the Rangers/SFA lamb trough that to about face now would (on a personal and professional level) prove their previous output to date to be totally without credibility.
They’re still hooked upto to the matrix.
Only a complete reboot will suffice.
rabtdog says:
February 5, 2014 at 1:22 am
Why bother doing a course?
Just copy a PR agents press release …. preferably with the words ‘billionaire’, ‘off’, radar’ and ‘wealth’ and you can be an award winning journalist.
They’ve made their own bed.
TSFM says:
February 5, 2014 at 12:08 am
‘…The message from the board – and from Laxeys – is that the club should be run properly..’
—————
Perhaps it’s a different, softer-fronted, more gentlemanly, City-acceptable spivvery!
Laxeys and the rest have money at stake. And serious reputations ( unlike parvenus barra-boys like CW and CG and convicted criminals) to protect.
So, of course, the business has to be run properly.
But not the business of football.
Laxeys in particular are not interested in longer-term, incremental profit from the (relatively small and uncertain) monies to be got from Scottish Football in perhaps two or three years time.
They need much quicker, more certain return.
They are under no overarching need to stay in the business of football.
And, you may be sure, Graham Wallace and the other accountant guy (Nash?) have been employed NOT to enhance the football business, but to ensure the best possible killing for the big, short-term investors, and bugger the football!
Or so it seems to me, after a lovely afternoon and evening with Mrs Clarke roon an aboot Biggar and West Linton and Abington, taking wee photies o’ the Clyde and Tinto. Does your heart good.
Bill Jackson says:
February 5, 2014 at 1:24 am
‘..They’re still hooked upto to the matrix.
Only a complete reboot will suffice.’
———-
Very nicely put.
The questions for us on TSFM are:
a)do they wish to be free, to unhook from the matrix?
b) can we help them rehabilitate?
c) should we bother our bahookeys , given the extent and duration of their wrong-doing?
We went to see ‘The Railway Man” last week. ( Nicole Kidman’s mum and dad very nearly bought a house not too far from my son’s in-laws in Queensland, and..and..and (oh, the excitement)my wife and I were in Perth up the road when they were shooting what turned out to be about two seconds of screen time!).
Basically, can bad guys be forgiven?
Is forgiveness and reconciliation possible?
john clarke says:
February 5, 2014 at 1:56 am
1 0 Rate This
Bill Jackson says:
February 5, 2014 at 1:24 am
‘..They’re still hooked upto to the matrix.
Only a complete reboot will suffice.’
———-
Very nicely put.
The questions for us on TSFM are:
a)do they wish to be free, to unhook from the matrix?
b) can we help them rehabilitate?
c) should we bother our bahookeys , given the extent and duration of their wrong-doing?
We went to see ‘The Railway Man” last week. ( Nicole Kidman’s mum and dad very nearly bought a house not too far from my son’s in-laws in Queensland, and..and..and (oh, the excitement)my wife and I were in Perth up the road when they were shooting what turned out to be about two seconds of screen time!).
Basically, can bad guys be forgiven?
Is forgiveness and reconciliation possible?
——————————————————–
I would go with C. They have made their beds with succulent lamb and sold not only their souls but the integrity of how many journalists are seen in the publics eyes with regards to tabloids. The Record and Sun have become nothing more than a habit but for in depth investigation, they’re nothing more than a comic book.
The internet has given readers better outlets to gain information without fear or favour. Would this scandal be out in the open without the bampots. Many opinions are dissected until we can work out for ourselves what’s genuine and what’s maybe not all it seems. The days of regurgitating PR releases have been shown up for what they were. They have tried to use their readership and treated them like imbeciles and that readership will pay them back with jam on it
Trying to pull the threads together on this developing story. Phil is being somewhat cryptic.
He’s mentioned Stockbridge and his drawer stuffed with unpaid bills.
He’s mentioned Cenkos and doubt about the original £22M figure.
GW has a resignation letter drafted and is ready to walk.
And the Scotsman has a puff piece about how we need an old firm cup final.
Classic.
Teetering on the brink. Now Feb 5th. Will Sevco survive till the 14th? All be revealed soon. Yet still they talk about next season. Waken up Bears there will be no next season. There will be no this season.
rabtdog says:
February 5, 2014 at 1:22 am
===========================
Rather than answering the way you did, why not offer a view why so many Scottish Journalists not only avoid the truth about what goes on at Ibrox, but many openly repeat spin with no foundation. That much has been established beyond all reasonable doubt, and if they believe that means they are journalists of the highest integrity, then more fool them.
john clarke says:
February 5, 2014 at 1:36 am
TSFM says:
February 5, 2014 at 12:08 am
‘…The message from the board – and from Laxeys – is that the club should be run properly..’
—————
Perhaps it’s a different, softer-fronted, more gentlemanly, City-acceptable spivvery! Laxeys and the rest have money at stake. And serious reputations ( unlike parvenus barra-boys like CW and CG and convicted criminals) to protect. So, of course, the business has to be run properly. But not the business of football.
==============================================
And that’s it in a nutshell because the original takeover of the club had nothing to do with football and was all about making money for a few individuals who became shareholders and who still lurk in the shadows and keep hiding by giving stooges their proxy votes.
The likes of Laxeys has entered the scene because they see a legitimate way of extracting cash from the assets to return to shareholders. As this has nothing to do with preserving football and its history and traditions the hidden investors are happy to let them proceed as it suits their deep pockets as well.
At some stage I believe Wallace, Somers and Nash will truly come to understand the nature of the hidden agenda behind Rangers and if they truly are honourable men then they will walk-away and not just threaten it.
Like so many before they have been given a train set to play with to keep them happy and diverted but the Beecham Axe is just around the next bend waiting for the full-time whistle to close the curtains on Ibrox as is.
readcelt says:
February 5, 2014 at 6:53 am
==========================
To be fair to the article in the Scotsman, ex Celtic player Joe Miller loaded the gun, and they simply fired it.
How come we all know that The Rangers are doomed but the Scottish media do not discuss it.
Personally, I would even now be surprised if at least ‘some form of team playing in blue out of Ibrox’ (or words to that effect) didn’t keep going, given the vested interests of SFA, MSM and various bend-over-backwards in positions of political and legal influence. The interest will be to see if they follow the Leeds United model of having a lengthy and drawn-out repositioning themselves as a club with a rich history (however tenuous the links might be to the current incarnation) but an impoverished present, or if the structure of Scottish football is moulded around their needs to an ever greater extent. The first will very likely kill off the traditional version of how the club, is seen, the second will very likely kill off Scottish football.
readcelt says:
February 5, 2014 at 6:53 am
Trying to pull the threads together on this developing story. Phil is being somewhat cryptic.
He’s mentioned Stockbridge and his drawer stuffed with unpaid bills.
He’s mentioned Cenkos and doubt about the original £22M figure.
GW has a resignation letter drafted and is ready to walk.
And the Scotsman has a puff piece about how we need an old firm cup final. Classic.
===================================================
Wrt: Cenkos and doubt about the original £22M figure
I had a disagreement with Phil about the £22 million figure raised which I believed was roughly correct. But Phil as I understand it was actually referring to the net figure left after expenses being overstated.
Long after Phil’s original statement it was slowly drasgged out of Ibrox that the costs were at least double what they should have been so IMO all the grand statements in the AIM Prospectus document about most of the the money that was going to be spent, never mind what was needed for operating costs, ended-up just hot air.
Another time Phil was right but many believed he and his sources were wrong.
Tartanwulver
I agree that there is likely to always be some kind of entity for Rangers people to attach themselves to. I just wish they would get back to scratch and build something we could welcome !
Instead, rhey could replace their “Rangers then, Rangers now, Rangers forever” with perhaps “Rangers then, Rangers again, Rangers whatever” !
Fisiani says:
February 5, 2014 at 7:25 am
How come we all know that The Rangers are doomed but the Scottish media do not discuss it.
============================================
For once I will actually back the SMSM on this. If a company is on the verge of financial disaster and struggling to survive then the media have a convention and certain legal obligations not to pull the plug quite simply because if they do then the business is kaput and Scottish jobs will be lost.
It really is that simple.
And the only time it would be any different in my experience is when it is proveable that criminal activity is taking place and it is therefore in the wider public interest – when balanced against the jobs involved – to take action.
Now that might be a convenient excuse for SMSM to sit on the sidelines at the moment but if things are really as bad as it all looks the ship is doomed IMO and the media will know that and know that they will then be able to run the story with a clear conscience. In fact they will be sitting putting the story together at the moment.
There is always the chance as well, in this time of collapsing circulation, that one paper breaks ranks and publishes but it will assuredly then be damned permanently by its Blue readership because the messenger is always the one that gets shot.
So the editors are sitting on tenter-hooks trying to decide whether to go for it or wait for an AIM announcement which would throw open the flood gates. Patience in my book really is a virtue.
The Round Baw says:
February 5, 2014 at 7:44 am
Tartanwulver
I agree that there is likely to always be some kind of entity for Rangers people to attach themselves to. I just wish they would get back to scratch and build something we could welcome !
Instead, rhey could replace their “Rangers then, Rangers now, Rangers forever” with perhaps “Rangers then, Rangers again, Rangers whatever” !
==============================================
And that’s when the hand of ‘forgiveness and reconciliation’ has to be extended. It’s not enough just for Rangers to move on but the whole of Scottish Football must be prepared to enter a new era which must begin with a Hampden clear-out.
Tartanwulver says:
February 5, 2014 at 7:25 am
2 0 Rate This
Personally, I would even now be surprised if at least ‘some form of team playing in blue out of Ibrox’ (or words to that effect) didn’t keep going, given the vested interests of SFA, MSM and various bend-over-backwards in positions of political and legal influence. The interest will be to see if they follow the Leeds United model of having a lengthy and drawn-out repositioning themselves as a club with a rich history (however tenuous the links might be to the current incarnation) but an impoverished present, or if the structure of Scottish football is moulded around their needs to an ever greater extent. The first will very likely kill off the traditional version of how the club, is seen, the second will very likely kill off Scottish football.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There has been an element of ‘it’s oor baw, an’ if we’re naw gettin’ tae play, then neither ur youz’ throughout all of the period that they like to call armageddon.
Unfortunately for them, the ‘if Rangers (sic) are not fast-tracked back (sic) where they belong (sic) then Scottish football may as well switch off the lights’ tune is constantly played to an audience that is too busy enjoying life free from the Ibrox yoke (feel free to exchange the ‘y’ for a ‘j’ if you prefer).
Paulmac2 says:
February 5, 2014 at 12:23 am
TSFM says:
February 4, 2014 at 10:24 pm
“Administration serves no purpose, and is not necessary unless they are not paying tax and VAT, and I do not believe that.”
…………………………………
The last sentence of your post caught my eye…..”unless THEY are not paying tax and VAT”…they? I am sure your contact has been honest…however when the term…they…is used…and not we…IMO it throws distance between what they believe is happening and what they know is actually happening…
======================================
It’s just the old shell game in action and the Spivs are masters at it.
‘They’ won’t be RIFC Plc. It must be TRFCL. All along the Spiv strategy is to make these terms merge into the generic terms ‘Rangers’ or ‘The Club’ to confuse the masses and the media. But the Spivs always know which one is which.
But the legal seperation as different entities provides plausible deniability although these days it’s not so plausible to the bampots. The Spivs have been operating this trick since Day 1 and obviously still are.
I mean no disrespect to TSFM’s source but if he/she doesn’t actually know what ‘They’ are up to on something as important as tax and VAT payments, given the previous history, then that raises certain issues ❓
Lord Wobbly says:
February 5, 2014 at 7:59 am
Unfortunately for them, the ‘if Rangers (sic) are not fast-tracked back (sic) where they belong (sic) then Scottish football may as well switch off the lights’ tune is constantly played to an audience that is too busy enjoying life free from the Ibrox yoke (feel free to exchange the ‘y’ for a ‘j’ if you prefer).
——————————————————————————————–
Can I add an ‘l’ before the ‘k’ and delete the ‘e’ on the basis that you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs and that’s what the SFA attempted to do 🙄
Somebodies working on a new book about his time at Ibrox, should be interesting.
Giovanni says:
February 5, 2014 at 12:13 am
ecobhoy says:
February 4, 2014 at 10:32 pm
If the story is correct then the position of Somers is critical because I suspect that if Wallace goes then so would Nash and if Somers called it a day then there would be no execs left on the Board and – although I am finding it hard to believe this – only 1 NED in the shape of Easdale.
—————-
Aren’t you forgetting Laxey’s man, Norman Crighton. He’s a NED. Although he keeps a low profile he ain’t no shrinking violet.
————————————————————-
You’re right I did forget Crighton – as I wrote the post I had a feeling there was someone missing but didn’t check so I’m as bad as Phil 🙄 I will plead lateness of the hour in my defence however 😆
Laxey’s are key to all this and I really don’t accept that the Spivs have taken their last £ out of Ibrox when the property is sitting apparently free and unencumbered. IMO it therefore suits Laxeys as I have said before to join with the Spivs to release value from the property to return it to the shareholders. That is their raison d’etre and there’s nothing illegal in it. It’s just how business is done and has nothing to do with football.
So I don’t see Crighton doing any walking-away till that job is done. But that still potentially could leave the problem of no execs which I think inevitably would spell AIM disaster. But as I have said a couple of times – Laxeys will be able to fill that gap but a little time is needed to arrange it and that’s why I think Wallace walking might be slightly delayed.
It all might cause a drop in share price but that will recover as those in the know realise that the property value is going to be released. What happens later? At this stage I don’t think that’s clear as there are too many variables, including the time-scale, involved.
Report says Charity Commission not fit for purpose
Few readers of this blog will find that much of a surprise
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26036279
Bill Jackson says:
February 5, 2014 at 12:31 am
…
For me it equates with the Jim Traynor ‘but Chick, did Alistair Johnston actually say they would go bust?’ outburst.
We all know the outcome of that one.
=====================
That pretty much sums up where we are.
As for fast tracking Rangers to where they belong, I believe Rangers Men are doing that for us.
I guess one way to try and undermine someone’s credibility would be to focus on a narrow point on which they may have got something wrong and use that to suggest that they are unreliable, or worse (a lot worse) “mad.”
Phil made a mistake recently in getting a share number wrong by a factor of a few zeros, rapidly corrected. He has said Wallace had a statement drafted for his resignation. Not that he was leaving but threatening to. Also there had been crisis meetings at Ibrox to which the response was there were no meetings at Ibrox.
To me this reads as lets focus on a few trees and ignore the great big wood out there. It’s a bit different to a squirrel approach. it’s not look over there, it’s focus on a few details and lose sight of the big picture.
The big picture is that the current Ibrox club are in severe financial trouble. Furthermore I wouldn’t know that if I didn’t come here. Here I find out about the latest blog posted by Phil and can read the intelligent analysis from many posters on the club’s financial situation missing from TMSM (maybe for some good reason for once as has been pointed out by others).
Phil Mac GiollaBhain gets a lot of kudos, a lot of credibility for me from the fact that he was one of the first (if not the first) with the original Rangers crisis story years ago. Had there been a focus on the message at the time, instead of the messenger, it’s just possible that there would have been enough time to save the original club, just as just about every other Scottish club in recent times (fingers crossed for Hearts) has been saved. But it was too easy to focus on the messenger instead, especially given that he could be identified with the other side of the football divide.
So there is great irony in the focus on the messenger again. The only club that has gone bust. I wonder why.
IMO Phil has got most things correct in this ongoing saga – albeit with timings slightly off. When he told us RFC was headed for administration in November, he was correct. We just had to wait till February while CW withheld various payments to keep the wolves at bay. If he hadn’t refused to make the tax payments Phil would have been spot on.
And that brings us to the present day. Based on their publicly available accounts, RIFC are out of money. Lots of people are hung up on ‘April’ and ‘1 million in the bank’, but I am yet to see ANY analysis that shows how that was possible based on their accounts. IMO it is purely wishful thinking and believing what the spivs said.
So I happen to believe Phil when he says the money has now ran out. I believe it has as well. The question though is, what happens now. If they simply stop paying bills they will buy themselves another few months. They could quite conceivably get through till April/May, or they could quite conceivably collapse tomorrow. I still don’t see the attraction in administration for RIFC. I still think the property swap has to come in somewhere (if it hasn’t already), with the carcass of TRFC given away to the fans/rangers men.
On a different note re: the questions about property swaps and why didn’t CW swap the property to Wavetower. Aside from the reason that wavetower only owned 85% and was thus a seperate business, there would have to have been some consideration from Wavetower to RFC to ‘buy’ the assets. RFC couldn’t have simply given them away, especially with creditors being owed millions from the day Whyte took control. You also have to remember that at the time RFC valued these assets at 100million +, so if they had sold them for say 5million the club (RFC) would immediately have been bankrupt. That wasn’t CW’s plan – he needed to make the summer so the switcheroo could happen behind closed doors, which was foiled thanks to McCoist’s management ‘skills’.
The difference that I see now is that RIFC are 1) a 100% owner of TRFC and more importantly 2) RIFC are owed 20 million +++ by TRFC. There is also – 3) that the assets are now valued in the accounts at around the 25million mark (if memory serves me correct), so we could well be at the point whereby the amount TRFC owe RIFC matches what the assets are worth. So RIFC could right off that debt, in return for the assets.
Evening Times today (Derek Rae – Commentator/ESPN) – Part of a piece in the ET today regarding the Lennon incident, which has been well covered, link to full story below. But this section I felt was interesting.
====
I think the response to this sad incident has shown us that it is high time that we all started forming our own opinions.
For I am afraid that far too many people are being led down the garden path by agitators in the blogosphere.
Now, there are a lot of good writers online. But I get very tired of reading people who only have one outlook on life. And it troubles me greatly that many people seem to want to believe anything they publish.
http://t.co/f90j9Pd8zd
stevensanph says:
February 5, 2014 at 8:47 am
The difference that I see now is that RIFC are 1) a 100% owner of TRFC and more importantly 2) RIFC are owed 20 million +++ by TRFC. There is also – 3) that the assets are now valued in the accounts at around the 25million mark (if memory serves me correct), so we could well be at the point whereby the amount TRFC owe RIFC matches what the assets are worth. So RIFC could right off that debt, in return for the assets.
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
To transfer the property from TRFC to RIFC today would require the board of RIFC to agree with the board of TRFC that the transfer takes place for a certain price and to agree the manner in which that price is paid. Given who is involved – that would be a formality.
Let’s say they do agree £20m is the price and is to be paid by the discharge of the £20m intercompany loan (if indeed there is a £20m intercompany loan – I agree that there must be some amount due by TRFC to RIFC of course).
As things stand there is nothing untoward about that and nothing anyone could do about it today.
However if there is an insolvency event at TRFC, then the transfer of the property (even if £20m is considered to be “adequate consideration” for the purposes of the gratuitous alienation rules) in such a manner will be a challengeable unfair preference.
Passing the property up the group structure and writing off £20m does not in any way assist the cash position within (i) TRFC; (ii) RIFC; or (iii) the combined TRFC/RIFC group.
The Scotsman piece with Joe Miller was predictable fodder, but Andrew Smith did describe the potential fixture in a way that we would not have read two months ago… ” the first derby between the Rangers created post-liquidation and his old team”. It’s a trickle, but the dam will burst.
Big Phil has an interesting new blog up.
TSFM says:
February 4, 2014 at 10:24 pm
He also told me that the idea of a land grab by TRIFC would be spivvery, and therefore won’t happen. “The last of spivs running off with cash has gone”, he said
===================================
I find that a strange statement on several levels.
Firstly, a “land grab” by RIFC would not be spivvery at all. A transfer of the properties out of a subsidiary heading for insolvency is almost a requirement of the Companies Act. The directors of RIFC have a legal duty to look after the interests of their shareholders. They can only carry out that duty by arranging for the properties to be extracted from the mess that is TRFC, and urgently, if it hasn’t already been done. Far from being spivvery, that is the way properties are ring’fenced in most public companies with a trading arm. Usually a separate subsidiary company is formed solely for the purpose of owning all the group properties. That makes life so much easier in the event of a trading subsidiary getting into difficulty. It is done to protect the interests of the shareholders.
Have all the spivs left the building? Well that depends on your definition of spiv, apart from anything else. Laxeys are not spivs in my book, and of course they have been building their stake recently. However Laxeys have less than zero interest in football. They invest in companies where they see an opportunity to make a large profit in as little time as possible. To even dream of making money out of a football team in the state of the one at Ibrox would require a huge long term commitment of cash, and a huge slice of luck. Well, those two things, cash and luck, might get you on to the European stage and let you strut about a bit, but where’s the profit for the investors? It would take them about 10 years just to get their money back.
So we know that Laxeys haven’t joined the party for the football, the marble staircase, the loving cup ceremony, the club tie and blazer (I know, don’t forget the brogues) or any of that crap. Why have they bought in to RIFC? They want a quick return for their investors. They do that by being “activist shareholders” and ensuring that management act in the interests of shareholders. And that is done by “sweating the assets”. In this case the only assets worth sweating are the properties. So Laxeys will want those properties protected. And why not? Because it might annoy the bears and the Rangers men? That’s really going to worry hedge fund operators, I don’t think.
I am certain sure that Laxeys have not been sold a pig in a poke here. They will have carefully assessed the real value of the properties before investing. Whether they see any value in the “brand” is doubtful, if simply keeping the “brand” afloat costs £1m a month. Where’s the value in that?
So the idea that a property transfer would be “spivvery” is nonsense in my humble opinion. The shareholders want the only worthwhile assets distanced from a hopeless basket case of a football club. And quite right too. Whether the original spivs have gone away is a question I can’t answer, but it’s irrelevant in my opinion. There is a class of people who are neither Rangers men nor spivs. They are professional investors, and they appear to be in charge now, like them or loathe them. They will do whatever it takes to turn a quick profit on their investment. And that involves property, not football.
Wow, quite a 12 hours to catch up on!
Pick off the easy ones first.
Re Joe Miller’s views.
If a horse stumbles at Aintree, do they a/ shoot it or b/ drag it back to the start line and force it to race again against other faster horses?
blu – you’ve got mail
Campbellsmoney says:
February 5, 2014 at 9:36 am
However if there is an insolvency event at TRFC, then the transfer of the property (even if £20m is considered to be “adequate consideration” for the purposes of the gratuitous alienation rules) in such a manner will be a challengeable unfair preference.
========================
Surely that is not the case if, at the time of the transfer, there are no external creditors? If taxes, wages, and all bills are paid up to date at the point of transfer, there are no creditors to alienate, gratuitously or otherwise. So far as we know, wages taxes and bills are still being paid on time. So there is no external debt.
Can creditors whose debt is created after the date of transfer, challenge the transfer of a property which took place before their debt even existed? I would be surprised if that is the case, but then I’ve been surprised many times before!
Slim
No accounts, no Rangers……no matter what a plethora of Jacks say.
——————————————————–
I think the word plethora would be more apt in labeling opposing opinion to what is often a lonely voice.
neepheid says:
February 5, 2014 at 9:53 am
=============================================================
neepheid – very good post. I guess what would make Laxey (and others) into spivs in the minds of most would be the cynical manipulation of the naive and vulnerable fans, rather than just sweating the assets. If we get that far, their style will soon be seen regarding STs, moonbeams for next season, promises of war chests, rabble rousing about enemies and promises of alternative shirt colours. Interesting times ahead.
neepheid says:
February 5, 2014 at 9:53 am
Firstly, a “land grab” by RIFC would not be spivvery at all. A transfer of the properties out of a subsidiary heading for insolvency is almost a requirement of the Companies Act. The directors of RIFC have a legal duty to look after the interests of their shareholders. They can only carry out that duty by arranging for the properties to be extracted from the mess that is TRFC, and urgently, if it hasn’t already been done. Far from being spivvery, that is the way properties are ring’fenced in most public companies with a trading arm. Usually a separate subsidiary company is formed solely for the purpose of owning all the group properties. That makes life so much easier in the event of a trading subsidiary getting into difficulty. It is done to protect the interests of the shareholders.
——————————————————————————————————————————————–
I don’t have a problem with what you say in the abstract but:-
When a company is on the verge of insolvency, the duties of the directors are owed primarily to the creditors, not the shareholders. We have to distinguish the position of the directors of TRFC from the position of the directors of RIFC (even if they are (sometimes) the same people).
RIFC may or may not be balance sheet or cashflow insolvent.
TRFC probably is one or both.
It would be sensible for the directors of RIFC to want the property transferred. I cannot see how the creditors of TRFC (other than RIFC) are served by a transfer of property here.
Putting group property assets in a separate “propco” is good business sense. Putting them in topco (when topco is a creditor) on the verge of insolvency is as clear an unfair preference and breach of directors duties (by the directors of TRFC I mean) as you will ever see.
slimshady61 says: February 5, 2014 at 12:28 am
If those in charge of finance at the company prepare the draft accounts and see that they are “no longer trading as a going concern” do they have a duty to inform their shareholders or the stock exchange? It seems to me that is information that the regulators and shareholders should be told at the earliest opportunity….
Sorry if that’s a naive question 😕
neepheid says:
February 5, 2014 at 9:53 am
———————————
Good post neepheid. But the only way as far as I can see that the assets have any value if there is a football club paying rent to use them. I am sceptical about the value of brown field sites in Govan for use as housing or a Tescos. £3 million at most. And it probably wouldn’t be worth all the hassle from disgruntled bears. Murray Park to me looks too “protected” in order to gain the planning for development.
However the rental value of these properties from a viable football club could be £2m a year. On a 6% yield basis you are talking a valuation of £33m.
Therefore the property play itself is dependent on a viable football club being able to rent them. Yes it makes sense to ring fence the property assets. But not to send the club to the wolves. Laxeys will know this.
1. rabtdog says:
February 5, 2014 at 1:22 am
Short note to anyone who now refuses to believe a word coming from journalists. There are loads of courses in journalism. Do one. Then you can be a journalist of the highest integrity.
———————————————————————————————————-
I have many problems with the government of today, the judicial system, policing and many other inefficiencies I see on a daily basis, should I go on a course to learn all these professions or should I use my voice as a customer to let the people who are currently trained and paid to do that job, to actually do it!
On PMG’s blog
I’m struggling to read his true meaning.
If he is inferring (and more than inferring) that “holdalls and sports bags of cash” have already left the building, then I suppose, if there is a good side to that statement, it is that the underlying football club is running at a lower monthly loss than before. Not exactly the most positive ‘plus’ side I will accept.
If instead, he is inferring that any deal to buy the club (whether with property or without) either from the RIFC entity or out of, presumably, an administration of TRFC as is, will involve subsequent holdall(s) stuffed full of cash or else CW will simply torpedo the deal until such time as business principles are temporarily put aside then CW gets a lot more credit (literally 😆 ) and I struggle to see how the Rangers Men can achieve anything without serious, and I mean serious, cash that was never evident before.
Put it this way, If a “Smith led consortium” or some such now has to pay 25-30m to get their club back to day one, and then more £ms to keep it going because its now only losing £400k per month as opposed to £1m then CG and CW, I absolutely applaud your skill in this area.
Just as a final by the way – there have been so many posts inbetween but Eco, your post on why the club potentially in administration should be promoted, even after taking a points deduction on the chin – apologies I cannot quickly reference the time/date. This is why I was so interested in Charlotte dropping in the Doncaster proposal re any newco transfer also incurring a relegation/non promotion clause. This has gone very quiet but could (the inactivity that is) be another crucual link. I’m not surprised.
If they don’t sell the club then the only real reason I can see for admin this year rather than next would be to manouvre in a corporate sense, and to get rid of the 25 point deduction at the same time. Just to throw some final petrol – could said manouvre be to place a second administration (I know, don’t start) in between the first (£5m all in) and second (£20m +) asset transfers for instance?
Interesting times.
Eco
This is another stage (post AGM) in the process of making money out of Rangers by people who aren’t at all emotionally attached to the club. I believe this group (containing various sub-groups) have control of the boardroom but may disagree on some current issues with Wallace and Nash.
Stockbridge leaving was always going to produce nasty surprises and a brief opportunity to lay the blame at his door (upcoming interims). The board and in particular Wallace and Easdale.S have went public on various occasions saying that there will be no insolvency event at Ibrox so I believe that between the various groups represented on the board a way will be found to stay open until the ST money is due in. This may effect their short-term margins but unless an insolvency event can be worked to their advantage then I think efforts will be made to stay on track regarding whatever broad strategy they have in place.
Regarding the make-up of the board and advisors, there are several alarm bells.
– Somers: Read his open letter from early December and note that he was recommended by the Green friendly Nomad, Daniel Stewart.
– Easdale fronted proxy group: ??
– Crighton: Represents hedgefunds interests.
– Daniel Stewart (Nomad)
– Mediahouse: Ever presents
Then you have Wallace and his assistant Phillip Nash who may be getting more uncomfortable with the situation. The question for now apart from the obvious asking about the actual bank balance is how far apart (if at all) are GW and PN from the rest of the board?
Not forgetting the football team who have managed to get to Feburary relatively unscathed. This is another area of recent conflict for GW and PN. The fact that there seemed to be little to no net gain from the transfer window just closed seems to suggest that other ways will be found to finance the club up until ST renewals. Perhaps they thought that subsequent take-up would be effected by forcing out the likes of Wallace and Templeton for a net amount way below market value.
I think that GW and PN will continue looking to cut costs to the bone where possible, possibly make use of the 2.5M unsecured facility (if still available) although terms may be such that they’d prefer not to. Then bring in some investment along with ST renewals and at the same time start making changes in the football operation. Dependent on what happens in the Scottish Cup and if money allows that may mean Ally McCoist being out of a job.
At this time the board may be looking towards the assets of the club to help raise money.
m.c.f.c.
Classic Rangers-think. The directiors haven’t done a damn thing, even the most obvious thing, to create a sustainable business so they must have a cunning, secret and very clever plan to ensure survival. This blind faith in something bigger, delivered by people who have stuffed your club time and time again is amnazing.
—————————————–
Classic Reaction without having read it properly or thought it through-think.
I pointed towards the controlling group(s) on the board possibly looking to keep their strategy on course, for their benefit. These people are not interested in the longterm future of the club.
No blind faith here.
seminal says:
February 5, 2014 at 10:19 am
So if the assets were transferred you would need a leasing agreement in place that was considered reasonable enough …. maybe £2m a year locked in for ? 25 years, modest escalation clauses, to entice in investors with true “Govan-itus.”
Such investors would need to be willing to not only taken on the lease but also meet the short term financial shortfall (plus costs to bring Ibrox up to spec) and gamble on being able to keep the bears with their season ticket money on board. Do such people exist and if so why haven’t we seen them before, or have we (not a question specifically directed at you by the way but for this site)? If they do exist, there could just be a way ahead? But if not….
Smugas says:
February 5, 2014 at 10:02 am
Ref the Scptsmans Old Firm final.
If a horse stumbles at Aintree, do they a/ shoot it or b/ drag it back to the start line and force it to race again against other faster horses?
———————————–
Silly me. Obviously the answer is it depends how large and lucrative the crowd for the rematch would be! One thing though. Where would a Celtic Sevco final be played this year? Just asking.
seminal says:
February 5, 2014 at 10:19 am
Therefore the property play itself is dependent on a viable football club being able to rent them. Yes it makes sense to ring fence the property assets. But not to send the club to the wolves. Laxeys will know this.
=============================
I agree that Ibrox is worth peanuts without a team called Rangers playing there. I don’t think Laxeys will throw TRFC to the wolves, so much as wrap it up carefully and hand it over, cash, debt and property free for nothing to those who care deeply about the club. My calculation would be (if I was Laxeys) that there is sufficient support and emotional commitment to guarantee that the “club” will stagger on come what may. I think we all know that the sensible course of action would then be a ground share at Hampden, but the fans simply would not accept it. The emotional attachment is too great. So shares would be issued, costs cut, tickets sold, whatever, just to pay the rent on Ibrox.
Murray Park is a different kettle of fish. I know that there are planning constraints currently, but this is land in a prime residential area. Just the kind of property that large builders like to keep in their land bank for 10 years or more, just waiting for the planning climate to change in their favour. Maybe Laxeys already know of an interested party, I would be surprised if they didn’t.
The grim message for the bears is this- if you think you’ve had to dig deep already, then you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Smugas
An Old Firm final would be at Parkhead.
They were no caveats when the venue was announced.
Aberdeen may well prevent this scenario.
There is a smugness about the relative state of Scottish football that doesn’t reflect reality and that includes the dismissal that Rangers wouldn’t be missed. Ask Mr.Lawwell if he shares the view on a Rangerless game in Scotland.
They would be missed, but does missing them allow for what went on two years ago to try and keep them in play at all costs.
The current fear is that idea would be reprised
john clarke says:
February 5, 2014 at 1:56 am
Bill Jackson says:
February 5, 2014 at 1:24 am
‘..They’re still hooked upto to the matrix.
Only a complete reboot will suffice.’
———-
Very nicely put.
The questions for us on TSFM are:
a)do they wish to be free, to unhook from the matrix?
b) can we help them rehabilitate?
c) should we bother our bahookeys , given the extent and duration of their wrong-doing?
We went to see ‘The Railway Man” last week. ( Nicole Kidman’s mum and dad very nearly bought a house not too far from my son’s in-laws in Queensland, and..and..and (oh, the excitement)my wife and I were in Perth up the road when they were shooting what turned out to be about two seconds of screen time!).
Basically, can bad guys be forgiven?
Is forgiveness and reconciliation possible?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes it is possible. If it isn’t then we’re flogging a dead horse.
Greenock Jack says:
February 5, 2014 at 10:57 am
—
Man, that squirrel’s so old it’s got white hair and smokes a pipe.
There were big games with big crowds and big, international TV audiences. They boosted the bottom line. That was good. Sometimes Celtic won, which was doubly good. Sometimes that gave access to the Champions’ League cash, which was triply good.
The money people would love to have big games again with a new rival replacing the one that died; a lot of the football people would too, especially if they could be confident of winning most of them. All of this is common sense.
There are two problems. The previous status quo is gone and cannot come back and that is no fault whatsoever of Celtic’s. No amount of newsprint expended on wishing things were different will make things different.
Secondly, a new rivalry with a new club could generate big games again, but it’s not worth sacrificing whatever remains of sporting integrity in Scottish football to fast-track the new club to engineer the new rivalry as quickly as possible. The very thought would give any fan the boak.
Greenock Jack says:
February 5, 2014 at 10:57 am
There is a smugness about the relative state of Scottish football that doesn’t reflect reality and that includes the dismissal that Rangers wouldn’t be missed. Ask Mr.Lawwell if he shares the view on a Rangerless game in Scotland.
=======================
I don’t think that smugness is the right way to describe it. Lawell is a money man, with a duty to shareholders. So of course he wants a Rangers around, because for Celtic (alone of all the clubs, I would say) that means a lot more money.
However there is more to life than money, and more to Scottish football than Rangers and Celtic. Apart from Celtic, the teams in the top flight have clearly benefited from the absence of Rangers (in my opinion).
Overall, I think Scottish football would be healthier without any form of Rangers, although that will never be allowed to happen. The money men would hate it, but most of the fans would love it (apart from the Rangers fans, obviously). Unfortunately the game is all about money, not genuine football, as the events of the last 20 years have clearly illustrated. Which to me is a great shame. Sir David Murray destroyed Scottish football for me. Can the game ever recover? I doubt it, and certainly never while there is a Rangers in the mix.
I read a piece here recently suggesting a rangers spokesman/JI suggested that PMcG’s detail published recently wrt meetings at Ibrox, Chairman looking to get out before the implosion etc was nonsense…
However was there a response/ defence on the mention of staff redundancies, deferred severance payments, not enough wedge to cover the full wage bill etc. I would have thought this would have been more worthy of comment than some meetings at Ibrox..
Greenock Jack says:
February 5, 2014 at 10:57 am
Smugas
An Old Firm final would be at Parkhead.
They were no caveats when the venue was announced.
Aberdeen may well prevent this scenario.
There is a smugness about the relative state of Scottish football that doesn’t reflect reality and that includes the dismissal that Rangers wouldn’t be missed. Ask Mr.Lawwell if he shares the view on a Rangerless game in Scotland.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I’m not sure there is a smugness. Celtic will have a concern about falling crowds but the free pass into Europe compensates for that. On the football sidethey would want to see a more competitive league as this would benefit their Euro challenge.
The rest of the teams are all doing well enough give or take one or two and as they have always had to live a bit of a hand to mouth existence anyway there’s not much difference financially.
On the football side they have Europe to play for without being cheated out of their place by the Rangers/SFA. The latter “competed” with players they couldn’t afford and the former helped with the paperwork. If Rangers were allowed back now would they still be competing with players they can’t afford?
Neeps
Today money is what allows football to exist at a certain level, at least for those who run the game and clubs. The “more to life than money line” is all fine and well but this only supports my line about “reality”.
What would be healthy about a league with only one possible winner?
The stick and the carrot
One way the fans can fix this mess is to starve the Spivs of cash to the point where they give away TRFC and Ibrox to TBKs
The trade off would be influential bears using their establishment connections to get planning permission for residential housing at MP. This would give the Spivs an exit strategy