The Blind Men and the Elephant, a cautionary tale

A Guest Blog for TSFM by beatipacificiscotia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

10.3  Benefits

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

• safeguard the continuity and integrity of competitions;

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

• improve confidence in the probity of the football industry;

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

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

 

For the licensors, the financial criteria should help to:

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

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

• enhance transparency in the money flow of clubs;

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

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

 

For the clubs, the financial criteria should help to:

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

• enable better management decision-making;

• enhance clubs’ financial and business credibility with stakeholders;

• improve financial stability; and

• enhance revenue-generating ability and cost management.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Trisidium

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

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


  1. Barca
    The scenario facing Wallace isn’t just a resistance from controlling shareholders to do the right thing, its the challenge of being able to achieve the right outcome even if there was no resistance.
    ———————————————————————————————
    Why would controlling shareholders resist austerity?
    I’d have thought Laxey and the spiv block would welcome it with pretty much unaminous support in the board room.

    Yes, the challange would be to balance expectation levels with real austerity.


  2. Well, I wonder when the last time was that a manager found cause to complain that his club’s ground was not being used for a cup final!

    If not getting 3 out of 4 glamour cup ties is unfair, how would getting 3 out of 4 rate? I’d like somebody, from either TRFC or the SFA explain why anyone might expect the 4 matches not to be split evenly between the two grounds with sufficient capacity. Or does he think both finals should be played at Murrayfield? Though that would only raise the question of why not play the semis there either? I honestly don’t get what McCoist is moaning about, nor why anyone in the media is giving him the opportunity to comment.


  3. So McCoist now has a go at the SPFL leadership.

    Lets see now. The man is an expert in the following:-

    Running the SPFL and organising cup finals
    Organising TV companies and crews
    Betting
    White Water Rafting
    Bus Fires
    The procedures for Judicial Panels
    Backing Spivs
    Not Walking Away

    The only matters he seems to be totally lacking in knowledge and expertise is the financial running of a football club and putting an entertaining team out on the park.
    And for his involvement in such matters he was getting £800k per annum.

    Nae wonder they call him the Cheekie Chappy. If I was to try and get away with that nonesense I’d have taken a slap in the puss long time ago.

    I’ll leave it to other to add to the list of his expertise 🙂


  4. http://m.stv.tv/sport/football/clubs/rangers/246474-rangers-boss-baffled-by-call-to-hold-ramsdens-cup-final-at-easter-road/

    Rangers boss Ally McCoist says he is “baffled” by the decision to host this season’s Ramsdens Cup final at Easter Road.

    The fixture against Raith Rovers will be held in Edinburgh next year, a move which has surprised the Ibrox boss.

    McCoist, who would have preferred to see the game played at the significantly larger Celtic Park or at cash-strapped Hearts’ Tynecastle Stadium, says neither his club nor their opponents were consulted by the Scottish Professional Football League over the choice of venue.

    STV understands the decision to choose Easter Road was made on the recommendation of the league’s hierarchy and then approved by its board.

    The league say Edinburgh was the preferred city for the final because of near-equal travelling distance for both clubs, with Easter Road chosen over Tynecastle because of its larger capacity.

    Raith Rovers have told STV they would have been happy to play the final at any venue except Ibrox.

    “If I am the managing director of the sponsors, I would have wanted it at the biggest venue, I would have thought,” said McCoist.

    “If the Scottish Cup final can be held at Celtic Park, I would have thought the Ramsdens could have been held at Celtic Park and increased the opportunity for coverage and revenues.

    “It would have been more sensible to me but they decided to take the game to Edinburgh. In doing that, I would have given it to the club that need the money.

    “I would have given it to a team that’s in administration and tried to help them out that way.

    “But, for whatever reason, the game is being played at Easter Road, which we are fine about. I don’t have a problem with it at all.

    “You could look on it, for the reasons I’ve given you, maybe a strange decision but I’m not going to moan about it. We are delighted to be in the cup final and we’ll go to Edinburgh.

    “To my knowledge there has been no consultation or dialogue between all the parties.

    “Obviously there were questions asked before. Turnbull [Hutton, Raith Rovers chairman] was asked a couple of questions where he would like the game, and I was asked the same questions myself.

    “I would have thought one of the sensible things to do would be to have conversations between all the parties involved and see if we could have come up with an agreeable venue for us all.”

    McCoist also expressed sympathy for supporters who will be unsuccessful in obtaining tickets for the 20,400 capacity stadium on April 6.

    “I can understand them and I am on their side,” he said. I want as many Rangers supporters watching us in that cup final as humanely possible.

    “We’ve got 36,000 season tickets. I don’t think there is any doubt we could sell wherever with a Rangers support for the Ramsdens Cup.

    “It still will be a fantastic occasion but the fact that it is going to be a fantastic occasion, it would make more sense to me to get more people to witness the fantastic occasion.”

    In response, Neil Doncaster SPFL chief executive told STV: “It’s absolutely standard that the league, as an independent organisation, takes a non-partisan view of cup final venue selection.

    “In order to ensure fairness and avoid any allegations of favouritism, the league’s experienced administrators take a number of factors into account when deciding on a cup final venue.

    “The primary criteria is that it is a neutral venue, geographically between the home grounds of the finalists.

    “Taking all factors into account including location, facilities and stadium capacity, Easter Road was selected as the most suitable venue.

    “Stadium capacity is one criteria but is not the sole criteria. As a league we need to consider a number of factors.”


  5. Just watched the McCoist moment.What a pointless piece of media activity.It seemed somewhat churlish of Mr McCoist to proffer a view on the choice of venue for the LC final.Really who cares as to what he thinks in this regard.A churlish remark from a lower league manager.It would seem that the paranoia mantle has shifted from the East End to G51.


  6. If he’s “baffled” that the league cup final isn’t at the Brox, it must mean that he had every expectation that it would be there. Did someone on the sixth floor tip him the wink?


  7. Love the quote in Ahmad’s case today:

    ‘Mr McBrearty said that during the adjustment period in the case there had been no activity from the football club’s side at all.

    He said Mr Ahmad “might have been forgiven for thinking rigor mortis had set into the defender’s case”.

    £500k – If Imram doesn’t get a move on he’ll be onto plums. As soon as one story runs in A Scottish paper referring to money probs at Rangers he’ll be straight back into court tying-up f £500k at Ibrox ❗


  8. If someone were to ask Neil Lennon his views on the LC Final venue, I hope he says “I don’t really care because we are not in the final, so its none of my business.”

    Only Inverness and Aberdeen opinions on the venue are relevant.


  9. Smugas says:

    February 6, 2014 at 3:03 pm

    12

    0

    Rate This

    Smugas says:

    February 6, 2014 at 3:03 pmuantcast

    I remember some discussion on here before that Sevco’s VAT would be either monthly or quarterly and that normal terms are to the 7th of the month following.

    So, presumably we’re saying that either January’s VAT (ouch) or Nov/Dec/Jan’s VAT (big ouch) is due in 36 hours time?
    ——————————————————————————————————————————————
    Smugas,

    Oct/Nov/Dec quarter VAT is due tomorrow 7th February.


  10. Rangers Vs Cambridge Utd

    If you’re looking for a club to compare to The Rangers, they’re charging £17 for adults against Dumfermline tomorrow. I paid £15 for Cambridge Utd Vs Braintree in the English Conference (5th division) on Boxing Day – don’t ask why – I don’t have a good answer.

    Pay At The Gate Rangers FC – Official Site 15:57
    http://www.newsnow.co.uk/h/Sport/Football/Scottish+League+One/Rangers


  11. StalagKnight ‏@THE_TBK Protected Tweets 48m
    1/2 …. If Ahmad is successful at ‘ring fencing’ his claimed £500k, AND if Sevco alleged financial situation is accurate,….

    StalagKnight ‏@THE_TBK Protected Tweets 46m
    2/2…. I would expect papers lodged by this Fri/Mon, for the appointment of a ‘Local & friendly’ administrator…. Wonder how busy BDO are?

    StalagKnight ‏@THE_TBK Protected Tweets 42m
    Again I have to point out, I have no ‘inside knowledge’, but all the ‘indicators’ as to what happened to old *Rangers appear to be surfacing


  12. Sorry, back on the McCoist nonsense, I mean latest nonsense, having just read NTHM’s post. In it McCoist says the Ramsden Cup Final should be played at Celtic Park because it has the highest capacity. Makes sense. He then ignores the fact that Easter Road has a higher capacity than Tynecastle, and says the match should be played at the Hearts’ ground because they are in administration. In the meantime he cites his concern as being for the 36,000 Ibrox Season Ticket holders and the lack of tickets available for them. I’m sure each and every one of them would rather see their club receiving a couple of thousand tickets more than to see Hearts get one penny from their big day out!

    Meanwhile, the other finalists get a mention:-

    “Raith Rovers have told STV they would have been happy to play the final at any venue except Ibrox.”

    I wonder why anyone at Raith Rovers might have imagined, for one moment, that the SPFL might have considered, also for one moment, that the game be played at Ibrox, rather than a neutral ground?

    Ally McCoist; empty vessels, they say, make most noise!


  13. Greenock Jack says:
    February 6, 2014 at 4:22 pm
    1 5 Rate This

    Barca
    The scenario facing Wallace isn’t just a resistance from controlling shareholders to do the right thing, its the challenge of being able to achieve the right outcome even if there was no resistance.
    ———————————————————————————————
    Why would controlling shareholders resist austerity?
    I’d have thought Laxey and the spiv block would welcome it with pretty much unaminous support in the board room.

    Yes, the challange would be to balance expectation levels with real austerity.

    ————–

    What evidence is there Laxey have implemented or forced any cuts at all ?


  14. Not sure if it is a complete coincidence, but I’ve just clicked onto On Fields of Green’s latest blog, ‘The End of Rangers’ and the banner advert immediately above the blog is for Amazon saying; ‘Valentine’s Day Gifts’ it couldn’t be, could it? 😆


  15. Two Scottish cup semi finals at Ibrox
    Two cup finals at Celtic Park
    Ramsdens final and league cup semi at Easter Road
    League cup semi at Tynecastle

    Fairly well split I would’ve thought ❓


  16. AJ – There is a rumour that Valentine’s Day will be renamed Craig Whyte Day………..well, if Maggie can get an Aug Bank Holiday named after her why not……….


  17. ecobhoy says:
    February 6, 2014 at 4:16 pm
    ————————————-
    worth noting that if results go as expected, Rangers would clinch the title at home on Saturday 15 March.

    Given that according to Radio Clyde “it takes 3 days to rig a match at Ibrox” (no laughing please, match officials), can you imagine the bears’ (MSM’s) response if the SPFL had said the League Cup Final was going to Ibrox and accordingly Rangers home game on the 15th was being moved to the following Wednesday evening?

    “SPFL in deliberate attempt to spoil league triumph”
    “Chumps banish champs elect”
    “Doncaster puts spokes in champs’ wheels”
    “Goodbye, you are the ‘week’est’ link”
    “Sunday, bloody Sunday”
    “Gers kicked out of own home on eve of triumph”
    “Gers Evicted by cruel league bosses”
    “Gers’ play 2nd fiddle to Mickey Mouse cup”
    “Out of order – Ally cries foul on cup hijack”
    “We need to know their names”
    “The Big Hoose must stay open (for Gers only)”

    Really when it came to deciding on the venue, Peter Lawwell was damned if he did, and damned if he didn’t .


  18. Barca
    The scenario facing Wallace isn’t just a resistance from controlling shareholders to do the right thing, its the challenge of being able to achieve the right outcome even if there was no resistance.
    ———————————————————————————————
    GJ
    Why would controlling shareholders resist austerity?
    I’d have thought Laxey and the spiv block would welcome it with pretty much unaminous support in the board room.

    Yes, the challange would be to balance expectation levels with real austerity.

    ————–
    BB
    What evidence is there Laxey have implemented or forced any cuts at all ?
    ——————————————————

    There isn’t evidence either way.
    I’m asking you, what could the motives of controlling shareholders be in resisting austerity?
    It would seem most unusual for a hedgefund like Laxey not to stand foursquare behind the CEO in cost-cutting.


  19. Greenock Jack

    February 6, 2014 at 5:30 pm
    0 0 Rate This

    Barca
    The scenario facing Wallace isn’t just a resistance from controlling shareholders to do the right thing, its the challenge of being able to achieve the right outcome even if there was no resistance.
    ———————————————————————————————
    GJ
    Why would controlling shareholders resist austerity?
    I’d have thought Laxey and the spiv block would welcome it with pretty much unaminous support in the board room.

    Yes, the challange would be to balance expectation levels with real austerity.

    ————–
    BB
    What evidence is there Laxey have implemented or forced any cuts at all ?
    ——————————————————

    There isn’t evidence either way.
    I’m asking you, what could the motives of controlling shareholders be in resisting austerity?
    It would seem most unusual for a hedgefund like Laxey not to stand foursquare behind the CEO in cost-cutting.

    —————

    So you think Laxey are in control ?


  20. Barca,

    The information I received a few days ago implied very strongly that austerity is coming at the behest of the controlling shareholders.
    I don’t know numerically who that is, but I did think that Laxeys were part of the controlling group.
    My source also stated that the spivs (in terms of shareholdings are very much on the sidelines) and that McCoist was probably the only spiv left in the building.
    Also he stated specifically that he thought Laxeys bought into the “international brand” nonsense, but now realised that it was a bad investment.
    Reversing out of that via a leaseback would be spiv-like and damaging to Laxeys (and Wallace’s) reputations.

    If I am wrong I am wrong, but it does seem plausible.


  21. ecobhoy on February 6, 2014 at 4:41 pm
    10 0 Rate This

    Love the quote in Ahmad’s case today …
    ———

    I seem to remember a former director — a ‘real Rangers man’ too — doing the very same. Hundreds of thousands ring-fenced, money the club owed him, (for whatever he did to help drive it over a cliff) back from when he still had a seat on the gravy train.

    Anyone know the comparative and superlative of “Armageddon”? Might need to use them soon if this keeps up!


  22. TSFM says:
    February 6, 2014 at 5:43 pm

    Also he stated specifically that he thought Laxeys bought into the “international brand” nonsense, but now realised that it was a bad investment.

    So was this just his opinion, or based on some statement from Laxeys?

    Reversing out of that via a leaseback would be spiv-like and damaging to Laxeys (and Wallace’s) reputations.

    I see nothing spiv-like in a hedge fund attempting to recover their position via a leaseback.
    Their whole modus operandi is based on spotting ways of getting more out of assets then they paid for them.


  23. Barca
    Laxey are part of the controlling shareholders, not the controlling interest.

    Motives?

    TSFM
    I don’t think Laxey have their eyes closed.


  24. Greenock Jack says: February 6, 2014 at 6:02 pm

    Barca
    Laxey are part of the controlling shareholders.

    TSFM
    I don’t think Laxey have their eyes closed.
    ================================
    Laxey may well be the largest individual shareholder with 12.74%, but in terms of voting or controlling power they are second to Sandy Easdale’s combined proxy and personal shareholding that represents 26.62%


  25. Here’s a stoopid thought…

    Rather than trying to raise funds to buy TRFC, why don’t the bears use this valuable time – pre-implosion – to draft up a ‘new club charter’.

    What if the TRFC supporters groups got together to agree and draft up a new constitution for a new Govan club ? One owned by the fans – and a club which publicly abhors all the nonsense of prior years, a club that will live within strict financial limits, a club which is sorry for the misdeeds of the past – but now wants only to make a positive contribution to Scottish football – and Scottish society.

    [I know, and I’ve not even had a drink… 😉 ]

    But, if this unlikely event was to happen, and this group then appealed to the SFA/SPFL and other Scottish clubs and fans – would they receive a favourable hearing ?

    …would they even receive ‘assistance’ – approved by the other member clubs – to get established and break away from any remaining spivs ?


  26. Sometimes, good things happen to good people!

    http://www.celticfc.net/newsstory?item=5390

    Fergus McCann to be honoured at Celtic Park

    By: Newsroom Staff on 06 Feb, 2014 17:52

    CELTIC Football Club today announced that Fergus McCann is to be welcomed back to Celtic Park for the first home league match of next season as the Club’s Guest of Honour.

    This year, 2014, marks the 20th anniversary of Fergus’s takeover of Celtic, the beginning of a period where he revitalised the Club and ensured Celtic’s proud history and tradition at the top of Scottish football continued.

    Celtic Chief Executive Peter Lawwell said: “We are delighted that Fergus has agreed to be our Guest of Honour at our first home match of next season.

    “2014 is a very special year for Celtic, with a great deal happening for the Club, but not least it is a year of real significance, as it marks the 20th anniversary of Fergus’s takeover of Celtic and it is absolutely right that the special contribution he made to Celtic is marked in this way.

    “Fergus’s intervention in 1994 delivered the current Celtic Park, at the time the largest club stadium in Britain and ultimately, he re-established Celtic as a footballing force by winning the Scottish Premier League in season 1997/98.

    “He enabled supporters to take a stake in the Club they loved, to be part of something and once again have pride in their team. He energised and motivated our support and our supporters responded brilliantly by backing his vision.

    “Fergus was also instrumental in revitalising Celtic’s charitable traditions, establishing a Charity Foundation which has now become one of the most successful in world football as well as personally delivering financial assistance to causes close to the Club’s heart.

    “A true Celtic supporter, Fergus delivered huge personal investment, sound leadership and tremendous vision during his tenure at Celtic. He showed unwavering determination and resilience to ensure his Club could once again flourish and his contribution has led directly to the position of health which our Club is in today.

    “I know I speak for thousands of Celtic supporters when I thank Fergus sincerely for all he achieved at Celtic and I am sure we will join together in August to remember and celebrate his magnificent achievements.”

    Celtic Manager Neil Lennon said: “It is absolutely right that we show our respect and gratitude to Fergus McCann, someone for whom I have enormous respect. Fergus showed tremendous foresight and, indeed, courage to tackle the situation the Club was in at the time in 1994.

    “No-one can deny that Fergus absolutely delivered. He did what he believed in and achieved all that he said he would.

    “The first time I met Fergus was at Fenway Park in Boston. It was a pleasure to meet him and I felt it was very important that the players met him too on that occasion. He was very humble about all his achievements, something which says a lot about him as a man.

    “There are many great figures in Celtic’s proud history and for me, Fergus McCann is right up there as one of our most important.”

    Fergus McCann said: “It is very kind of the Club and supporters to think of me and to offer this gesture.

    “I am sorry I can’t be with you at the match on the 1st of March due to unavoidable commitments in America but I will be pleased and honoured to attend a match at the start of next season. It is incredible to think that 20 years have passed since the takeover.

    “It gives me great pleasure to see Celtic as such a successful and well-run club as it is today. That is credit to the faithful backing of the supporters, also the investors, and, since I left, the vision and management of the Board, Peter Lawwell and Neil Lennon and their staff and players.”

    The Club is already planning to mark Fergus’s contribution to Celtic at our home match against Inverness Caledonian Thistle on March 1, 2014.

    This date is our nearest home match to the date of the 20th anniversary of Fergus’s takeover which took place on March 4, 1994. Further details on the arrangements for this matchday will be announced shortly.

    Unfortunately, due to unavoidable commitments in the United States Fergus will not be able to attend the match in March.

    However, we are delighted that he has agreed to be our Guest of Honour in August and we are sure this will be a day when we can celebrate the wonderful 20th anniversary of his achievements and herald a man who is undoubtedly such an important and influential figure in Celtic’s history.


  27. Barcabhoy says:

    February 6, 2014 at 3:56 pm

    “…. A fresh injection of capital with absolutely no expectation of a return. Wallace knows that this will not come from legitimate sources, and he wont hang around if there is any attempt to introduce questionable funding.”
    ==============================================================================
    Barca…superbly succinct post, even I can understand the numbers you put forward…so why can’t the followers of the Govan team?

    However, may I ask if you or any other contributor to the blog could elaborate on “….any attempt to introduce questionable funding.”

    I am off to read my Money Laundering Manual…if I can find it!


  28. TSFM on February 6, 2014 at 5:43 pm
    ——–

    Seems odd that Laxey didn’t smell a rat from the off in that case. Didn’t CG have to make extraordinary compensation to them for the top dollar they gave for their initial shares? That in itself must have warned them that all was not well. They could have cut and run before now, you’d think.

    Anyhoo, what with TicketUs, Laxey, Imran, and whoever else looking for their pound of flesh, something has got to give, surely?


  29. Only my fag packet calculation but if RIFC end up owning the assets and said assets had a value of say £25-30m in total then the value per share would be between 38-46p per share.
    Maybe that gives the RIFC. Shareholders,Laxey included,an acceptable return.


  30. EJ
    I believe both (Laxey and SE block) were part of the 65.3% who voted for Stockbridge (lowest pro-board % at AGM) and that both want austerity.

    So whilst they may differ on some issues, austerity won’t be one of them.


  31. Exiled Celt says:

    February 6, 2014 at 6:12 pm

    “Fergus was also instrumental in revitalising Celtic’s charitable traditions, establishing a Charity Foundation which has now become one of the most successful in world football as well as personally delivering financial assistance to causes close to the Club’s heart.
    =============================================================================
    …and not ever even a hint of passing interest from OSCAR…the Charity Regulator in Scotland…compare and contrast……….


  32. Greenock Jack says:

    February 6, 2014 at 6:17 pm

    EJ
    I believe both (Laxey and SE block) were part of the 65.3% who voted for Stockbridge (lowest pro-board % at AGM) and that both want austerity.
    ****************************

    You say “both want austerity” as if there was any choice in the matter!

    There is no other avenue open than cut back – no line of credit, no IPO money , no SA convicted criminals with loads of money to give away……..what is the alternative?

    However to continue to allow the entire squad and entourage to be driven by bus to small towns 100 miles away the night before a game to stay at 5 star hotels rather than leave at 9am on the morning of the match says to me that they are not serious at all about “austerity” – only finding financial finagling to keep going until the ST money comes in.


  33. The talk down here is still of convicted fraudster Cellino’s attempted takeover of Leeds United.

    From yesterday’s Guardian:
    http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/feb/05/leeds-united-manager-football-league-massimo-cellino

    Convicted fraudster Massimo Cellino’s attempt to take control at Elland Road suggests that a more robust approach to vetting prospective club owners would be useful.

    As convicted fraudster Massimo Cellino attempts to take control at Elland Road, reports into the latest edifying caper in English club ownership remind us that the Football League has retired its “fit and proper person” test, presumably on the basis that it had become so self-parodic that something had to change. That something, in the great traditions of English sporting administrative inertia, was the name.

    Still, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and the “fit and proper person” test has become the “owners and directors test”. So it’s now a second-generation nonsense – a reminder that what we have above all in this country is heritage.

    What we don’t have, as both Premier and Football Leagues are always keen to point out, is any truck with “subjective judgments” about who should or shouldn’t own a football club. As they have been at pains to remind bemused reporters in recent days, the leagues deal in objective facts. Or rather, they do if the owners feel like giving them any – although surprisingly, they sometimes don’t.

    Article then talks about if the Leagues did try to make a judgement that it wouldn’t stand up in a court. But in the US (the land of litigation!), prospective owners in the NHL are vetted by Ernst & Young, and in the NBA a would-be owner must submit to investigation by the league and a specialist risk management security firm.

    And concludes:
    In fact, if the Football League needs an illustration of the continuing damage to its reputation, it should ponder how it possibly contrived to pull off the feat of leaving a convicted liar like Cellino with all the truest lines.

    “They asked about my criminal record – I should have asked about theirs,” he snorted last week. “The English don’t know how to run football.”


  34. Ex.Celt
    You say “both want austerity” as if there was any choice in the matter!
    ———————————————————————————————–
    What’s being put forward is that Graham Wallace is having problems with controlling shareholders regarding bringing in austerity.

    I’m asking what motives these controlling shareholders would have to resist austerity?
    My belief is that they very much want austerity.


  35. Greenock Jack says:
    February 6, 2014 at 6:29 pm

    What’s being put forward is that Graham Wallace is having problems with controlling shareholders regarding bringing in austerity.

    I’m asking what motives these controlling shareholders would have to resist austerity?
    My belief is that they very much want austerity.

    I’m not convinced that anyone is saying the controlling shareholders are resisting the austerity. Read PMG’s blog, “Escape to Austerity” and it seems clear, to me anyway, that it is various factions within Ibrox that are the resistance

    http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/escape-to-austerity/


  36. Greenock Jack says: February 6, 2014 at 6:17 pm

    EJ
    I believe both (Laxey and SE block) were part of the 65.3% who voted for Stockbridge (lowest pro-board % at AGM) and that both want austerity.

    So whilst they may differ on some issues, austerity won’t be one of them.
    ===================================
    I am aware that Laxey and Easdale voted for each and every one of the current board. However you need to consider who Easdale represents with his proxy votes.

    The proxy votes that were reported via AIM announcements those managed by Beaufort Nominees on behalf of Blue Pitch (6.14%) and Margarita (now ATP?) (3.99%). We can also reasonably assume that the 4.67% held by Beaufort on behalf of smaller investors is also included within the proxy.

    Add holdings by Craig Mather 2.77% Norne Anstalt, Putney Holding, Asia Credit (Chris Morgan), James and Sandy Easdale’s personal holdings and I’d suggest that there remains a strong influence by the Spivs, if not a controlling one.


  37. Greenock Jack

    yet again you pick up on one point in my original post, and it seems to me try and ,deflect away or avoid commenting, if thats more agreeable , on the main issue. It matters not what Laxey’s view on Austerity is if they are not in a position to enforce it.

    The main point is that Rangers as a business have flawed fundamentals. Seriously flawed.

    Austerity alone will not fix that. Not unless the austerity measures include cutting adrift a ludicrously expensive training complex , that Rangers have never been a big enough or wealthy enough club to properly afford.

    The next reality is that revenue streams are hampered by deep discounts on season books, and merchandising and catering deals that do not deliver the income they should.

    The final reality is that Rangers are not in a position to pay the wages they currently do, to team management, to players and to back office staff.

    The potential solution , and it comes with no guarantee it will work, is to downsize to a bottom 6 SPL team in wages and to charge the same season book charge that the biggest club in Scotland does. However to get to that will require either a new influx of share capital, a loan facility or administration. There are no other viable options. Wallace will know that, he will not want a loan facility that comes with usurious rates of interest or money from a questionable source. Such as Rizvi or worse . The chances of normal lending would be very slight giving the trading and zero given the contingent liability

    That leaves administration or new share capital. Administration brings obvious quick fixes in regards to excessive wage contracts but also brings risk in regard to control , timing and penalties. I have to assume that resolution 10 was important to those in control. That is clearly the case as Wallace, Somers ,Crichton and the Easdales had it on at the AGM. you don’t put forward resolutions unless they are important to future plans. So I wouldn’t rule out Res 10 being reintroduced at an EGM, if they have enough cash to last to an EGM.

    Now not only Wallace knows all this to be true , so do Laxey. Whilst austerity will have to be part of any future, it isn’t enough on its own to guarantee a future. Reality is on the way, and the sooner Walternomics ** is consigned to the file marked stupidity and sits in there under lock and key with every clueless pronouncement that came out of David Murrays mouth , the better it will be for supporters of Rangers

    ** Walternomics. Not sure who coined it……but Kudos . As apt a description as its possible to come up with to describe Rangers since 1980


  38. Ally McCoist gave an interview today Charles Green would have been proud of. His pathetic ‘or whoever runs the SPFL’ has a clear inference. Sadly though the media will sit in compliant silence when he should be asked to explain what he means. What business is it of McCoist’s where the final is played anyway? His team is not in it. The only two managers who should comment are the two competing managers.


  39. And there’s your problem. Walter wants a shiny bus that RFCnew can’t afford. Barca, Wallace and Laxey all want a rusty old bus to make-do which the fans, metaphorically speaking, wouldn’t be seen dead in. The answer therefore lies somewhere in between. But because of the walternomics so blatantly displayed in the last 18 months RFC can’t afford to do it.

    Simples.


  40. Scott
    I’m not convinced that anyone is saying the controlling shareholders are resisting the austerity. Read PMG’s blog, “Escape to Austerity” and it seems clear, to me anyway, that it is various factions within Ibrox that are the resistance.
    —————————————————————————-
    PMGB says Wallace is having problems with the board (Feburary / post transfer window) but that it remains possible to sort the situation out. The date limits what could be done around the football squad.

    What other “faction” has the power to resist the controlling shareholders + the CEO?


  41. GJ

    The answer is whoever has the ear of the cash cow that is the fans, surely? And I don’t think either Wallace or Laxey would claim to have that, yet.


  42. Danish Pastry says:

    February 6, 2014 at 6:15 pm (Edit)

    1

    0

    Rate This

    Quantcast

    TSFM on February 6, 2014 at 5:43 pm
    ——–

    Seems odd that Laxey didn’t smell a rat from the off in that case.
    __________________________________________________________________

    As I said, Laxeys bought into the “big brand” thing. They were also fed the “playing in England soon” line as well.
    The extent to which they went for either or both is debatable, but I think (from a lay point of view) a convincing case for that could be put to investors on the basis of the stadium and attendances.
    We’ve always had the maxim of follow the money here. The very fact that the authorities have bent over backwards to accommodate the new club, tells me there’s money there.
    I’ve never been of the opinion that TRFC are unsustainable through faulty DNA – just under the Rangersitis business model. Whether or not Laxeys and others were infected at any time in the past, I am told that they are no longer.

    This evening, I got a very firm “no administration”, although to be fair that was equivocated with the rider, “unless they completely f*** it up” 🙂

    He says they won’t though, and that TRFC will limp on (in comparison to RFC).


  43. The talk about Laxey is interesting,some people think that they are in agreement about the austerity measures.
    But if they really want out would it not make more sense to undermine that idea.
    They let the clumpany stagger on ,then sale and leaseback ,their shareholders get a return,they get out of the firing line and live happily ever after.


  44. Jack,

    I think the obvious faction is the football one led by McCoist. He could resist by appealing to the fans – although I can’t think what the end game would be. As Smugas says, whoever holds the fans’ vote will win out, but if McCoist really and truly wants TRFC to survive he needs to play ball.
    Not wanting to do a character assassination job on Ally, but like many football people, he is a survivor, an opportunist and a politician. I think he will do what is best for him and not for Rangers. I think he is the single biggest threat to Wallace’s plans.


  45. Greenock Jack says:

    February 6, 2014 at 6:29 pm

    Ex.Celt
    You say “both want austerity” as if there was any choice in the matter!
    ———————————————————————————————–
    What’s being put forward is that Graham Wallace is having problems with controlling shareholders regarding bringing in austerity.I’m asking what motives these controlling shareholders would have to resist austerity? My belief is that they very much want austerity.
    ******************

    No – what is being put forward is that GW is unable to deliver any of these measures. Why? If all the shareholders and the CEO are in agreement that austerity is required, why no cuts?

    For my example of the travel expenses, note Ally’s response…..

    ‘We are still Rangers Football Club and have always attempted to be as professional as we can. That will never change as long as I’m manager. To give the players the opportunity to play as well as they can, you have to prepare as well as you can. We will continue to do that until I’m told otherwise”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2543005/Thats-rich-Ally-McCoist-Rangers-boss-defends-cash-strapped-clubs-trip-lavish-hotel.html

    So someone is resistant to implement the austerity measures requested by the CEO and shareholders…….yet he is still in a job? But maybe they cannot afford to sack him…….so he gets his way…

    As has been noted – redundancies mean more money in the short term to enable longer term savings – however no short term money means no redundancies.

    You can say all you want about how they want austerity – it isn’t happening – because they cannot afford it

    All the blogs are saying that GW is frustrated because his hands are tied so he cannot deliver the necessary savings and/or cuts…………..I don’t think you have found anything to the contrary have you? If so please correct me……………


  46. When Rangers were in trouble, Mccoist was all “who are these people”

    When Sevco started up and all was rosy, McCoist was all “its going to be great to go on the journey round the country”

    McCoist’s comments today suggest he is back at the former situation.


  47. Interesting that we appear to have reached a consensus that Ally is the key player here. If no-one questions the board’s or the controlling shareholders’ need for austerity, and Ally leads a faction who say otherwise, what’s in it for him?
    He may not be the brain of Britain, but he is definitely not stupid.

    I can’t see how he gains by resisting Wallace.


  48. TSFM says:
    February 6, 2014 at 7:12 pm

    It sounds like he is agitating to be sacked? Would he gain from this? Sorry for my ignorance 😳


  49. Bill1903 says:
    Two Scottish cup semi finals at Ibrox
    Two cup finals at Celtic Park
    Ramsdens final and league cup semi at Easter Road
    League cup semi at Tynecastle

    Fairly well split I would’ve thought ❓

    —————————–
    Evenly split they may be but hardly fair.

    It guarantees 1 Glasgow team a home semi-final and another Glasgow team a home final (should either of them get that far).

    I’m sure it could have been done better.


  50. When the fans finally suss Ally for what he is and re-evaluate his actions and words over the past two years, we’ll all be quoting William Congreve correctly:

    “Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned,”


  51. As far as I have seen, the main supporters of the Walternomics have been Ally and Dave The Lion King! The Blind Men perhaps…………..

    http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/jan/24/rangers-dave-king-ally-mccoist

    Ally McCoist believes Rangers will want to make use of Dave King’s wealth despite the former director of the old Ibrox club claiming he had not heard from the board since offering to invest last month.

    The South Africa-based Glasgow businessman was quoted in the Scottish Daily Mail on Friday morning, stating he had received no contact from the chief executive, Graham Wallace, or the club’s other directors in the past four weeks.

    It was confirmed last Thursday that Wallace had asked McCoist’s squad to consider a 15% pay cut in an attempt to stem losses reported to be as much as £1m a month.

    The proposal was rejected by the players but King, who lost money when the company that owned Rangers was liquidated in 2012, says he is still ready to plough in more cash to ensure the League One leaders are able to put up a fight on their return to the Scottish Premiership. Despite their woes, the ruling Ibrox regime have yet to take up King’s offer.

    McCoist said: “The chief executive has said he is certainly looking for investment. I can’t speak for Graham but, if there was a potential investor, Dave King or whoever, it’s safe to say Graham would sit down and talk to them.”

    http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/rangers-must-keep-spending-on-squad-says-dave-king-1-3280438

    FORMER Rangers director Dave King as urged the club to keep spending money on players, rather than cutting costs.

    King expressed his concern that Rangers would be ill-prepared to compete with Celtic when they return to the Scottish Premiership.

    Ibrox chief executive Graham Wallace is undertaking a review into every aspect of Rangers’ business, and proposed a 15 per cent pay cut for the first-team squad, which was dismissed.

    Wallace has conceded that cuts need to be made in order to balance out the business, but he has ‘categorically denied’ that administration is a possibility.

    King believes cutting costs at this stage will undermine the club’s efforts to reach its previous status.

    The first-team wage budget is around 30 per cent of turnover – far lower than UEFA’s guidelines – and following the departure of Neil Murray last year, the club lacks a scouting set-up.

    King told The Herald: “The CEO has a lot of personal credibility but he is constrained by the funding realities.

    “I believe the club has to have funders who will invest to ensure that we can compete with Celtic when we get back to the SPFL. Unfortunately, our existing shareholders either don’t have the money or the willingness to support the manager.”

    The South Africa-based businessman added that he felt the club should be investing in the squad, and not reducing it, with the right shareholder profile.

    He continued: “We should be supporting Ally McCoist 100 per cent.”

    King has said in the past that he is keen to lead a fresh round of fundraising through a new share issue. The shareholders would have to reinvest in order to maintain the size of their stake in Rangers International Football Club (RIFC), so a new scheme would likely alter the ownership.

    Wallace has agreed to address the need for funding once he has dealt with the business.

    Former Weir Group employee King, who reportedly lost £20 million during the financial collapse of the oldco club, held meetings with shareholder and board member Sandy Easdale last year in a bid to arrange an agreement allowing him to invest in the club once again and assume the role of chairman of RIFC plc.

    However, he failed to reach a compromise with the various factions within the shareholder base.

    He was also keen on bringing Paul Murray back to the club, describing him as ‘a man that all Rangers fans can completely trust’, but Murray was one of the ‘gang of four’ who did not receive enough votes at last month’s AGM to be elected onto the Ibrox board.


  52. TSFM says:
    February 6, 2014 at 7:12 pm
    1 0 Rate This
    Interesting that we appear to have reached a consensus that Ally is the key player here. If no-one questions the board’s or the controlling shareholders’ need for austerity, and Ally leads a faction who say otherwise, what’s in it for him?
    He may not be the brain of Britain, but he is definitely not stupid.
    I can’t see how he gains by resisting Wallace.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    He gets to keep his team on the park and his managerial reputation inta…..no sorry, I thought I had something there.


  53. TSFM – Ally is in it with Dave King – they obviously have a plan of some sorts.


  54. Ally clearly doesn’t want to have to run a team on a realistic budget and be judged as a mere mortal – he’s too used to stardom and adulation and ready-made excuses. Better to crash the bus and talk about how great the journey was until the money-men turned it all sour and robbed him and the lads of the chance to shine. 110% Selfish ? Do you have any evidence to the contrary?


  55. Exiled Celt says:
    February 6, 2014 at 7:23 pm

    TSFM – Ally is in it with Dave King – they obviously have a plan of some sorts.
    _______________________________________________________

    OMG that thought gives me the heebie jeebies. 👿


  56. TSFM says:
    February 6, 2014 at 5:43 pm

    Also he stated specifically that he thought Laxeys bought into the “international brand” nonsense, but now realised that it was a bad investment.
    Reversing out of that via a leaseback would be spiv-like and damaging to Laxeys (and Wallace’s) reputations.
    ====================
    This truly mystifies me. What on earth is “spivlike” about a hedge fund trying to look after its investors by pushing for a sale and leaseback, which I think by common consent is the best, quickest and maybe only way for the shareholders to extract some value from the pathetic mess at Ibrox? What might well trash Laxeys reputation is the fact that they have stood on the sidelines for over a year while shareholder value has been destroyed by the Ibrox pantomime. Now we hear the word austerity. Well old neepheid doesn’t have a Harvard MBA, and he doesn’t run a hedge fund either, but the back of his fag packet told him 12 months ago that without a sugar daddy, or austerity, the cash would run out about now. So what have Laxeys, with all these high paid, super salaried and totally talented analysts been doing?

    If the Laxeys activist shareholder plan was to passively watch the cash run out for 12 months, then buy more shares, and then, but only then, once the patient is at death’s door, insist on austerity, then I’m afraid I’m not impressed. So they bought into the “international brand” did they? Well we all know where that came from, don’t we? There must have been a great buffet and lots of very strong drinks at Charles Green’s city presentations is all I can say to that particular gem.

    If things are as you report, then Laxeys no longer have any reputation (except for utter incompetence) to protect. If I was a Laxeys investor (thankfully I’m not) and read that Laxeys were such shy bairns that they weren’t prepared to go down the only (and obvious) route that would protect my investment, then spitting feathers wouldn’t even begin to describe my reaction.

    I really don’t buy it, sorry. Laxeys must want out quickly with a reasonable profit. Sale and leaseback achieves that. Otherwise, they are stuffed. Somebody please explain to me (and my fag packet) where I’m wrong.


  57. TSFM

    It is really obvious , McCoist just believes that his club must challenge Celtic on the football pitch and he will do everything to stop his own suits getting in the way of it. He defines Rangers in terms of Celtic ….

    Equally obvious, Wallace has to clear out the football mgt team to remove the WATP / Walternomics voodoo thinking , standing in his way……

    Ally wins certain death , as the cash simply runs out , Wallace’s way , survival.

    Still 50 /50 in my book ….. Administration is still my personal favourite , as it allows Wallace to bin Ally and his crew ….. and sends a message to everyone inside and outside the club …..


  58. Barcabhoy says:
    February 6, 2014 at 6:44 pm

    ** Walternomics. Not sure who coined it……but Kudos . As apt a description as its possible to come up with to describe Rangers since 1980
    ==============================
    Cheers Barca – I might seem immodest to rush in to claim copyright (c) on the ‘Walternomics’, but I rarely get things correct on this site…

    I made the observation after Walter’s ridiculous statement that ‘Rangers needed to spend money they didn’t have’ – it seemed like another economics category had thus been identified.

    Following e.g. Reaganomics, Freakonomics, etc… we now had a totally unique category in Walternomics, [which will produce a predictable outcome 😉 ]


  59. Ally believes that they are entitled to the LC final.


  60. @TSFM.
    I don’t see what he gains by resisting Wallace.

    —————– ——————
    I think it may be more a case of what he will lose through austerity measures.
    Sooner or later, he will be forced to pitch his skills against a team of similar quality.
    We all know football fans can be a fickle bunch. I think if his next rabble rousing outburst, was to be met by “Shut it Numpty!” by a previously adoring fan, it would literally break his heart.
    Quite simply, Austerity means he will be part of the austerity cuts.


  61. Barcabhoy on February 6, 2014 at 6:44 pm

    ** Walternomics. Not sure who coined it……but Kudos . As apt a description as its possible to come up with to describe Rangers since 1980
    ——–

    Well, I used it earlier when commenting on Phil’s blog. It was short for ‘Spend, spend, spend Walternomics’. Do I get copyright? 🙂

    While we’re on daft words:

    Armageddon
    Armageddogovaner
    Armageddogoner

    [Edit: Who is this StevieBC? I demand to know! 🙂 ]


  62. Basic questions for our media;
    If the club is fine financially why were the staff, playing or otherwise, asked to take a 15% pay cut?
    Did Wallace and Nash attempt to borrow money from the city in the last few weeks?
    If they did why, if the club is financially sound?
    Has Wallace threatened to resign?
    If he has what were the circumstances that led him to do so?

    If Phil Mac is correct, and Wallace and Nash, failed to get finance if the city what are the options when the money runs out?
    This isn’t money to run the club, there is no money to pay the gas and electricity, no money for Police Scotland, no money for the ambulance service. So what is the scenario by which the lights are kept on and the fixtures fulfilled?
    Well season books could be ripped up and fans told to pay again to attend fixtures.
    How would fans react to this?
    They may rally to the cause again but would they continue after the league has been won?
    Meanwhile costs on the playing side would have to be slashed. This would be no Duff and Phelps administration because there is no money in the bank to carry on s before. The players may be asked to take a 60% pay cut but what happens if they refuse?
    The players may simply walk away leaving the club with a decimated squad probably too late to affect this years league but the ramifications for next year could be catastrophic. Remember that a transfer ban come with administration and if it lasts well into the summer then the playing squad may not be fit for purpose come the start of next season.
    This leads on to the season ticket sales for next years campaign. If fans are asked to pay for the remainder of this seasons games how many are likely to stump up in advance for next year considering that there will have to be a large increase in there cost.

    If Wallace is looking for a quick administration he may be in for a shock!!!


  63. Danish Pastry says:
    February 6, 2014 at 7:49 pm

    Barcabhoy on February 6, 2014 at 6:44 pm

    ** Walternomics. Not sure who coined it……but Kudos . As apt a description as its possible to come up with to describe Rangers since 1980
    ——–

    Well, I used it earlier when commenting on Phil’s blog. It was short for ‘Spend, spend, spend Walternomics’. Do I get copyright? 🙂 …
    ==============================
    Oh…see you in court DP !

    …unless you give me a Craig Whyte-style, ‘f*** off fee’ ! [(c) PMcG ? ]
    😉


  64. TSFM says:
    February 6, 2014 at 7:12 pm
    ==========================
    Maybe I look on it too simply, but does McCoist think Rangers are so big and so important that money should simply always be there for them. He grew up in an era where they were portrayed as far bigger and far more important a club than they genuinely are, and got money off others for decades. Maybe he just can’t see through it.


  65. If the Pars leave Govan on Friday night Ally will leave Govan on Saturday we with his Harry Potters.


  66. StevieBC on February 6, 2014 at 7:52 pm
    ———

    Haha, I was sure I wasn’t the first to coin that 🙂

    I’m not sure my comparative and superlative of Armageddon are original either …


  67. Mantooth. if you have Sky.

    Press TV Guide, All channels, Ch101 if in Scotland, then the +24Hours button


  68. I think we have seen how ‘blind faith’ that created ‘Walternomics’ is almost impossible to remove from those who cannot, or will not, see. Some of the utterances from the likes of Walter Smith, and his sidekick, McCoist, are quite mindboggling in the way they seem so relaxed with the idea that ‘Rangers’ must be big. They both seem to think that the words of wisdom, that people who genuinely know about money say, have absolutely nothing to do with ‘Rangers’, and that ‘Rangers’ will prevail, regardless of reality. In this they are totally at one with the support. This is further demonstrated, and exacerbated, by those supporters who are deemed to be knowledgeable within the financial sector, the Murray’s etc, whose intervention from time to time has reinforced this belief that all they have to do is to hold onto their ‘Rangersness’, and all will be well. I’ve only recently, tonight actually, began to see that they are like a religious sect, who’s leaders have assured them their belief will save them, regardless of whatever nature throws at them, all they have to do is believe, ask no questions of them, and sit praying, or singing their songs of superiority, as the tsunami approaches from all sides.

    Now Graham Wallace is the only one who can save them, and their club/belief, but first he has to make them see that this belief is without substance. If he fails, they are gone. If he succeeds, how many will remain with their belief shattered? It is possibly an impossible task!


  69. upthehoops on February 6, 2014 at 7:54 pm
    1 0 Rate This

    TSFM says:
    February 6, 2014 at 7:12 pm
    ==========================
    Maybe I look on it too simply, but does McCoist think Rangers are so big and so important that money should simply always be there for them. He grew up in an era where they were portrayed as far bigger and far more important a club than they genuinely are, and got money off others for decades. Maybe he just can’t see through it.
    ———-

    He’s known nothing else.

    It’s a bit like those bonkers Man United fans on the phone-ins down south who can not accept the reality that they are no longer top dogs. ‘Moyes has to go!’ ‘We demand success!’ They feel that their rightful place is as perma-Champs.

    The authentic spirit of football seems much lower down the leagues these days.


  70. StevieBC says:
    February 6, 2014 at 7:52 pm
    3 0 Rate This

    Danish Pastry says:
    February 6, 2014 at 7:49 pm

    Barcabhoy on February 6, 2014 at 6:44 pm

    ** Walternomics. Not sure who coined it……but Kudos . As apt a description as its possible to come up with to describe Rangers since 1980
    ——–

    Well, I used it earlier when commenting on Phil’s blog. It was short for ‘Spend, spend, spend Walternomics’. Do I get copyright? 🙂 …
    ==============================
    Oh…see you in court DP !

    …unless you give me a Craig Whyte-style, ‘f*** off fee’ ! [(c) PMcG ? ] 😉

    Sorry guys.

    June 9th 2005

    http://2deepthoughts.blogspot.co.uk/2005/06/walter-nomics.html


  71. I’d never have imagined that it was possible to play so many different tunes on a dog whistle, but credit to Maestro McCoist for his dexterity with it.

Comments are closed.