The Causes of Crime

Avatar ByBig Pink

The Causes of Crime

Amidst the emerging news of great trauma that is allegedly coming TRFC’s way in the near future, it would be prudent for us to keep our eye on the big picture – the one that captures the other clubs in the league playing the role of bystanders, powerless to influence events and unwilling to react .

For what it is worth, my information on the TRFC situation is that the stadium issues being talked about are not critical at this time (although talks have begun with Queens Park and the SFA to secure a lease of Hampden for two years), but that the creditor issues, including tax, national insurance and VAT, are of immediate, growing concern.

In the last few weeks, Celtic, Hibs, the SFA and referees have all been in the Ibrox firing line and subjected to Level 5 penned invective. Their response has been a dignified silence and a refusal to officially engage. Understandable perhaps, but the cowed nature of it is odd – especially given the opportunity it would have afforded for some proper PR retaliation on the part of any of those bodies.

Perhaps the real and most important question is ‘why does everyone stand idly by as this train-wreck heads for buffers’ ?

And the supplementaries;

  • If Rangers (IL) did in fact cheat, why on earth would clubs let them away with it?
  • Why would they allow the Continuity Myth to become embedded in the first place, emboldening others who might want to trigger an invisible liquidation to dump creditors?
  • While we are at it why would those who suffered financially as a consequence go to great lengths themselves (as we have witnessed over Res 12) to ensure that the offenders would never be held to account?

Here’s why. RFC got away with, and TRFC get away with appalling behaviour for one very simple reason; football’s mortal fear of regulation.

A second insolvency event at Ibrox in five years of the first (irrespective of how many clubs you think took part) would draw unwelcome attention to the SFA and SPFL’s failure to run the game honestly and effectively – and would almost certainly attract attention from Holyrood. Therefore it needs to be avoided at all costs.

When TRFC were caterwauling over the cup final report recently, no-one weighed in with counter-arguments because prolonging the debate would have kept it current long enough to possibly colour public attitudes on fan behaviour. Of course this already carried a government threat of the imposition of strict liability on the clubs. Better that those papers should be wrapping fish suppers as soon as possible – not lighting a bonfire under the main stand at Hampden.

RFC get away with appalling behaviour (and so is TRFC), for one very simple reason;

football’s mortal fear of regulation.

It might be worth mentioning the ‘Oops, we misspoke’ moment in the aftermath of the publication of that cup final report and TRFC’s demands that Hibs should suffer sanctions for their fans’ post final whistle behaviour.

They (TRFC) were consequently challenged to put their votes where their mouths were and sign up for strict liability. Oops! – and radio silence broken out.

The fact that the catastrophic failure of Rangers came about as a result of the catastrophic failure the SFA’s self-regulatory processes surrounding player registration – has made it unthinkable that football should admit to those failures.

Football does not want government cattle strewn around the tracks of its gravy train. Goodies in the shape of interest on loans or preference shares, favourable director contracts, tax write-offs, agent kick-backs and bungs are too great, and government intervention is a threatens to divert the train away from its current path.

Unless you are a forensic accountant, perhaps even if you were, I’d be willing to bet you’d have to get very lucky to extract usable information on the cost of shareholder finance from club accounts, or the extent of contracts between clubs and companies associated with club officials.

The very fact that the catastrophic failure of Rangers came about as a result of another catastrophic failure – that of the SFA’s self-regulatory processes surrounding player registration – has made it unthinkable that football should admit to those failures.

Scottish football tolerates bad behaviour of corrupt individuals and organisations because football itself is endemically, culturally corrupt.

There is no question that there is great antipathy towards RFC and TRFC amongst other clubs. They are pariahs within the Scottish game, but not because of any principled stand against or moral outrage at their behaviour. In fact for the most part, football people at the majority of clubs no moral objections whatsoever to the tax avoidance strategies of the Murray era.

Scottish football is mightily pissed off at RFC and TRFC because they went too far, made it inevitable that they would be found out, and exposed everyone else to the possibility of regulation by government.

Of course Murray, Whyte, Green, King and the rest knew all of this, and that knowledge has allowed them to push the envelope as far as they have.

However clumsily and ineptly each of these individuals have gone about their business, they are NOT the real problem. Our major concern should be that for every crime we discover, there are at least a half dozen that we never got wind of, perpetrated by much smarter offenders. Not to mention the enablers at Hampden and boardrooms all over the country who still promote a culture that seeks to cover it all up.

Let me paint a picture for those people whose ideal scenario in this saga is to have Rangers airbrushed from Scottish football history. Even if you were to get your wish, do you really think the corruption in the game would disappear with them? Would sporting integrity finally climb to the top of the priority list?

Of course it would do no such thing. The Rangers implosion gave Scottish football a chance to demonstrate that malpractice was isolated and confined to one club, but their reaction to it was a light-touch approach to governance and regulation, demonstrating fairly conclusively that the cancer has spread way beyond Govan. In fact the authorities and the clubs would once again become bystanders – perhaps some of them may even take to cheer-leading – if the same thing happened again.

That is why those people who run ALL of our clubs are largely unfit to do so. That is why the sport needs to be properly regulated and accountable. And that is why the SFA/SPFL edifice needs to be demolished, the rot dug out, and new structures put in place which are heavily weighted in favour of sporting integrity and consumer interests.

I never thought I would find myself quoting Tony Blair, and I shall probably go straight to hell for doing so, but it is no good just being tough on the crime itself, we need to be even tougher on the causes of the crime.

About the author

Avatar

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

296 Comments so far

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on10:47 am - Oct 13, 2016


Newly published TV money distribution to Premiership and sheduled payments – exactly the same as last year – and just confirmed and notified to clubs yesterday.

I have now added the Championship and Leagues 1 and 2 stuff. They are to some extent extrapolated, but pretty much bang on – and an interesting comparison can be made between the divisions.

Of the £21.1m, £17,354,750 goes to the Premiership, £2,542,550 to the Championship, £727,950 to League 1 and £474,750 to League 2.
None of these figures includes the solidarity payment from UEFA.

http://www.sfmonitor.org/premiership-tv-allocation-2016-17/

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on12:50 pm - Oct 13, 2016


Are claims of insolvency ahead not just wishful thinking by some?  The SFA did not think there was a problem in May.

Well they should know because this year Rangers (sic) were awarded an overall national club licence by the SFA at Silver level.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/2015/ClubLicensingStatusOct2016.pdf

Interestingly in the Legal/Admin and Finance individual category they obtain a Silver level licence too (it was Entry in previous year) .
(Just realised the award on Ground now looks questionable too but I’m looking at possible insolvency)
Both levels are necessary as the SPL Premier require a license at Silver level, although Hearts don’t have one overall and are the only club with an Entry level in the Legal/Admin and Finance category. Presumably there are technical reasons a Jambo can explain as their financial trajectory appear to be going upwards.

The criteria for a licence in the Silver category can be found in Part Two Section Eight para 8.11 of Club Licensing at
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/resources/documents/ClubLicensing/2015/2016%20Manual%20-%20Prt%201%20&%202.pdf
Since this ends ” The auditors report in respect of the annual financial statements shall not include an adverse or disclaimer of opinion” either there is nothing to worry about or the club licensing system is worth SFA.
So what’s the problem?

Either there is none or club licensing is as good as a chocolate fire guard or its actually fine as long as the true financial position is declared by clubs.
Yet another reason why the SFA needs investigation to ascertain why an industry so important socially to many finds itself in so much disarray on and off the field.
A starting point would be the McLeish report and an audit into what has been done to adopt it’s recommendations and investigate the reasons why those that would have stopped more chaos have not been implemented.

Henreee!!!

View Comment

Avatar

ChristyboyPosted on1:01 pm - Oct 13, 2016


Dearie me, the way things are going, they’ll not be able to play at Ibrox and not be able to afford the rent to play elsewhere. What happens then ????  Double dearie me !!!!

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958)Posted on1:12 pm - Oct 13, 2016


Morning all.
Following a few tweets this morning & an interesting point crops up.
If TRFC manage to last until the middle of February then is the 5 year rule for a second insolvency null & void in this case & points deduction would be 15,not 25.
Also,a quick look at said rule says that 25 point deduction is applied when “same club” suffers an insolvency event.Would TRFC now argue that they are in fact,a new club & 15 point deduction is correct,thus contradicting Doncaster,who insists(although I’ve never seen any official confirmation) that TRFC are the same.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave” etc……
WRT RIFC taking Ibrox in lieu of debt,why would they burden themselves with what is,to all intent & purposes,a white elephant.Reported estimates to bring Ibrox up to standard were circa £20m this time last year.Who wants to be saddled with that & any serious investor willing to attempt to ressurrect some form of Rangers would surely baulk at this sort of outlay.If you’re into property development,though,the Ibrox,Albion,Hangingshaw site might be worth picking up if the price is right.
P.S. Latest on the Grandad thing.It appears I’m not only the designated driver but I’m now official photographer also!19
It’s good fun though.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:33 pm - Oct 13, 2016


AllyjamboOctober 13, 2016 at 11:53
‘…. can anyone confirm that Celtic are refusing to sell tickets for the New Year Derby unless they see evidence that all is well with the stand roofs? ..’
_______________
Your question, Aj, has prompted me to send this email to what(I suppose) might be an organisation with a ‘professional’ interest in football safety ( although I hadn’t known of the existence of it until this morning!)
To info@footballsafety.comToday at 13:25
Dear Football Safety Association(Scotland)You cannot be unaware that social media is currently awash with rumour and speculation about the physical condition of Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow and the possibility that there may be risk of harm to persons attending football matches.
Rumours are indeed no more than rumours and in the absence of evidence are not ordinarily to be credited.
I remember, though, that in the run-up to the Commonwealth Games of 2014, certain repairs had to be urgently carried out to parts of the fabric at Ibrox, with the Minister for the Commonwealth Games assuring the public that frequent, regular checks were being made to ensure the safety of spectators at events held there during the Games.
That was over two years ago.
However,against the background of very old structures having already needed urgent repairs here and there, it is difficult completely to disregard the persistence of the rumours currently doing the rounds (even quite far out rumours, the latest of which is that one club is refusing to sell tickets for a match scheduled to be held at Ibrox early in the new year!)Have you been approached by, or have you approached the Football Safety Officer at Ibrox, to ask whether there are any issues of safety that might justify real concern?Or, perhaps, have you, or will you, make appropriate enquiries to the appropriate department of Glasgow City Council regarding the validity of the current safety certificate held relating to Ibrox Stadium?I would personally feel a lot safer knowing that the rumours were baseless and that the safety of the public was very much in the forefront of the minds of the safety officer at Ibrox and of the Safety Officers’ Association.
Yours faithfully,John Clark

View Comment

paddy malarkey

paddy malarkeyPosted on2:20 pm - Oct 13, 2016


CHRISTYBOYOCTOBER 13, 2016 at 13:01

“If they play in the street, we will watch from the oavement .”

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on2:21 pm - Oct 13, 2016


I’m still of the opinion that yet another benefactor will be found.  Question is who, why, how much and on what terms?  I cannot see any benefit to them of an orchestrated crash, it’s way too late for now.  

Id also question as wishful thinking those who’d suggest another stadium could be available but that rent might be a problem.  Really?  After all thats been done for them to date?  In for a penny and all that…

View Comment

Avatar

billyj1Posted on3:07 pm - Oct 13, 2016


Test

View Comment

Tincks

TincksPosted on3:17 pm - Oct 13, 2016


Excellent Blog BP.  Similar thoughts to these were going through my mind this morning whilst I was out on my bike.

Since it’s inception TRFC has managed to get through:
* The IPO cash
* Loans from legitimate sources (Ashley/Sports Direct)
* Wonga loans (allegedly from SA via Hong Kong)

It remains a loss making business without a credit line from a bank (c) PMG, and is very obviously now circling the plughole.  In recent days we’ve seen plenty of squirrels but no sign of the rabbit from a hat that is required. 

A key figure for TRFC in the short term will be the FD.  He is a professional with a career and reputation to protect, (perhaps the one individual in the upper echelons of the Club with a reputation worth protecting), the day he concludes that they are trading whilst insolvent he will have to call the board together and get the administrators in.  If they fail to heed his advice he will have no option but to walk. 

As before, if they can get a CVA through with the creditors and restructure then they can survive,  If not we are looking at Third Rangers.  This is where the craven attitude of the games administrators and the owners/operators of the 41 other clubs becomes such an important issue as identified by BP.

Last time honesty and decency at least had Turnbull Hutton to speak up their name.  Who if anyone from the Clubs would do so this time?

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on3:33 pm - Oct 13, 2016


BP

I have long been of the opinion that the people who run Scottish football clubs (and it’s probably the case in all countries, and not just at football clubs either) do so to feather their own nests. In fact, I was still only a teenager when that realisation came to me back in the mid 60s when a series of transfers, one involving my own club, of some of Scotland’s best talents were carried out for ridiculously low transfer fees. The only reason I could come up with for clubs underselling their biggest assets was that money had passed under the table in each case. There was, of course, no questioning of the size of the fees by the SMSM.

The clubs back then were not owned by extremely wealthy men, but were usually run by boards of local businessmen, keen to feather their own nests with contracts and freebies passed to them by grateful, or matey, fellow football club board members. Election onto the SFA or league management boards would bring greater contacts and power to carry out favours, that would lead to even greater power. It was, I might imagine, like a private masonic lodge – without (perhaps) any barriers of a religious nature.

As I grew older, my opinion of how these low-cost transfers came about moved from straight cash payments to that of the ‘masonic’ style payment by favours and contracts. Imagine the favours a man like David Murray would have been able to accommodate during his involvement in football!

You have described what I have imagined to be the case, somewhat, since the demise of RFC, and why there was no angry backlash towards the SFA and SPL or those who ran Rangers, or, at least, you have described something that I felt was happening but couldn’t quite put into words.

I don’t know if you are 100% correct in what you say, I do hope that it’s not as dishonest, but I am convinced that there is something binds them all together that would mean that if one falls, they all fall together, though not necessarily as far!

Again, I have no doubt the SMSM (or press as it was back then21) have known about all this dishonesty since it first began, and, rather than expose it, have become a part of it.

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on3:57 pm - Oct 13, 2016


AJ

Whether there is widespread dishonesty or not, there is a primal fear of regulation amongst business people of the kind who run football PLCs AND smaller organisations.

I think it comes from the unshakeable self-belief – some might say arrogance – that the outside opinions are unworthy and not as valid as their own. It’s their business after all. Except when the club belongs to ‘all of us’ – usually around ST renewal time 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

Jungle JimPosted on4:22 pm - Oct 13, 2016


Andy Muirhead submitted a FOI request and the reply from Glasgow Council would appear to blow any claims of immediate safety concerns out of the water.
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/health_safety_certificate_ibrox

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:36 pm - Oct 13, 2016


Good effort BP, and perfectly plausible that the puzzling inaction from cheated clubs is at least partially down to self-interest, and the avoidance of external scrutiny.

If TRFC hits the buffers, then the average punter – who is not an Internet Bampot – could be left reasonably wondering what the heck is going on in Scottish football, and specifically how incompetent, [or corrupt], are those who run the national sport ?
There would be an even stronger case to freeze any public monies due to either of these bodies, until public confidence is restored.

Then again, mibbees the Hampden blazers could kick the can down the road with a ‘marketing ploy’: rename & rebrand the SFA & SPFL as the all new, all singing and dancing ‘proper’ Scottish football governing bodies.  Maybe a few new faces as well.
…and then nothing will change at all.

This blog, IMO, reaffirms the need for some external body forcing the SFA & SPFL to change – because the member clubs have no motivation to lobby for change, and regardless of what the paying customers / fans actually want.

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on4:36 pm - Oct 13, 2016


Big Pink
October 13, 2016 at 15:57

AJ
Whether there is widespread dishonesty or not, there is a primal fear of regulation amongst business people of the kind who run football PLCs AND smaller organisations.
I think it comes from the unshakeable self-belief – some might say arrogance – that the outside opinions are unworthy and not as valid as their own. It’s their business after all. Except when the club belongs to ‘all of us’ – usually around ST renewal time ?
___________________________
I think there can be little doubt that Scottish football is run by the type of people you describe, the saga we’ve been writing about for 5 years or so bears testament to that. They are, in fact, similar to the friend you wrote of yesterday, the ex professional footballer (in terms of the outside opinions, at least). Not so much the case that they can’t see the wood for the trees, but more, can’t see the wood because they are (or were) one of the trees!

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on4:55 pm - Oct 13, 2016


Jungle Jim
October 13, 2016 at 16:22

Andy Muirhead submitted a FOI request and the reply from Glasgow Council would appear to blow any claims of immediate safety concerns out of the water.https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/health_safety_certificate_ibrox
__________

I may be wrong, but the decision to issue the safety certificate seems to rely on assurances from a board headed by man most notable for his readiness to lie to people in positions of authority!

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on4:58 pm - Oct 13, 2016


Is anyone else experiencing problems when typing on SFM?

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on5:48 pm - Oct 13, 2016


HOOPY 7
OCTOBER 13, 2016 at 12:07  
Good Afternoon,Both Phil and JJ seem to be up early today.They, together with others in the blogosphere cannot all be wrong.It seems that Hector has the thumb screws at the ready.It would not surprise me if the Holding Company called in the debt and transferred the stadium from TRFC in satisfaction of what is due and then let the “Club” go to the wall to be picked up for a song and then try and start a third club again.The SFA and SPFL were complicit and are still complicit in the wrongful governance of the game.Real fans must stand firm once again.Scottish football does not need Rangers and the baggage which it brings to the game, threats, intimidation, riots, wanton destruction and sectarianism.Time to cut the head off the snake.Scottish Society should be better then that.

If there are a whole load of outstanding other debts and, particularly, if the rumour of an HMRC demand are correct, then I think that boat has already sailed. If they transferred assets to satisfy THEIR debt, any administrator would, I think, be able to reverse the transfer to the benefit of all the creditors. That certainly used to be the case when I worked in the field (as far as I can recall).

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on6:10 pm - Oct 13, 2016


scottc
October 13, 2016 at 17:48

If there are a whole load of outstanding other debts and, particularly, if the rumour of an HMRC demand are correct, then I think that boat has already sailed. If they transferred assets to satisfy THEIR debt, any administrator would, I think, be able to reverse the transfer to the benefit of all the creditors. That certainly used to be the case when I worked in the field (as far as I can recall).
_____________________

The only problem in getting any money back might be if it had gone to some offshore company, via, say, Hong Kong!

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on7:07 pm - Oct 13, 2016


It would certainly be interesting to see how the two were ranked.  £18m to parent holding company thingy RIFC and £5m to a 3rd party who is absolutely definitely not a director of TRFC but perchance is of RIFC.  Interesting to hear how the three bears in particular viewed the ranking.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on7:42 pm - Oct 13, 2016


The Rangers Football Club Ltd only has two charges against it’s assets.

Those are both in relation to “Training centre youth academy, auchenhowie road,”

They are held by The Scottish Sports Council and The Scottish Sports Council Trading as Sportscotland.

I therefore work on the basis that in an administration there would be no secured creditors other than the above.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on7:47 pm - Oct 13, 2016


Nice bit of banter about the DR: had to look twice !

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cuqd0zCXYAAaexx.jpg

[Jingle Jangle might get some ideas for a ‘scoop’ !]

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:49 pm - Oct 13, 2016


From the header blog

A second insolvency event at Ibrox in five years of the first (irrespective of how many clubs you think took part) would draw unwelcome attention to the SFA and SPFL’s failure to run the game honestly and effectively – and would almost certainly attract attention from Holyrood. Therefore it needs to be avoided at all costs.

I’m trying to guess what avoided at all costs means. If they owe unpaid tax there is no way HMRC could not pursue it unless there is a direct order not to from Westminster, which is unlikely.  Or unless a billionaire with deep pockets appears, which seems unlikely.  Or unless they are given emergency state funding, which seems unlikely.

What does seem likely is the authorities will have another scam up their sleeve to pretend it didn’t happen.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on9:05 pm - Oct 13, 2016


AllyjamboOctober 13, 2016 at 16:55
“…I may be wrong, but the decision to issue the safety certificate seems to rely on assurances from a board headed by man most notable for his readiness to lie to people in positions of authority!’
_______
Reading the letter which is at this link
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.whatdotheyknow.com%2Frequest%2F345247%2Fresponse%2F851463%2Fattach%2F3%2F5686444%2520Muirhead.doc&embedded=true
I quite see where you are coming from. That letter seems to suggest the Council’s approach was kind of like this:
 ” Is everything a’right safety wise?”
“Oh, yes,I assure you we meet all the safety requirements”
” Aye, okay then, just send us a letter saying that, and we’ll issue the certificate”.
We know of another organisation that relies on self-regulation, don’t we?
I’m sure there MUST be some kind of independent physical inspection, eh? Surely?  I would expect the  Council would be at pains to say as much, to cover themselves. Maybe it is said elsewhere in the bumph, but that letter certainly  wouldn’t re-assure me.

View Comment

Avatar

Billy BoycePosted on9:13 pm - Oct 13, 2016


StevieBC October 13, 2016 at 19:47
Nice bit of banter about the DR: had to look twice !
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cuqd0zCXYAAaexx.jpg
[Jingle Jangle might get some ideas for a ‘scoop’ !]
—————————————————————
Judging by the recent front page headlines of this august organ, I’m struggling to be convinced tomorrow’s edition is a prank.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on9:56 pm - Oct 13, 2016


And mentioning ‘self-regulation’ ( my post of 21.05 refers) ,you know the Regulatory News Service?
According to the Stock Exchange , “RNS is both a regulatory and financial communications channel for companies to communicate with the professional investor”.
Well, yesterday I was reading over RNS 2133D  (that’s the one announcing the SportsDirect loan deal). If you remember, it was written in such a way as to make one unsure which entity  needed the money  and whether the Directors of TRFC as directors of that company  had formally either signed the agreement or at least formally authorised the Directors of RIFC to do so. ( At the time, both Boards had nearly all the same directors, so it was a kind of academic matter, irritating because it smacked of that desire to confuse people by using names interchangeably).
Anyway, I flogged off a wee query to RNS  expressing my mild sense of confusion, and asking who actually authored the RNS statement.( It’s been niggling away on and off at the back of mind since I originally read it)
Yes, you’ve got it in one!  The RNS just issues what the company gives them , like SMSM hacks printing PR releases, no questions asked!
I should know by now that nothing to do with the world of ‘finance’ should surprise me.But I was surprised. Regulatory? Aye that’ll be right!
( and as wee extra, it was good news that Parliament will discuss stripping that other Green chancer of his knighthood. We must ready ourselves to demand ( if the Supreme Court upholds the Court of Session EBT judgment) that Scotland’s cheating knight be deprived of his ‘honour’.)

View Comment

Avatar

goosygoosyPosted on11:28 pm - Oct 13, 2016


ALLYJAMBOOCTOBER 13, 2016 at 16:55 Jungle JimOctober 13, 2016 at 16:22
Andy Muirhead submitted a FOI request and the reply from Glasgow Council would appear to blow any claims of immediate safety concerns out of the water.https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/health_safety_certificate_ibrox__________
I may be wrong, but the decision to issue the safety certificate seems to rely on assurances from a board headed by man most notable for his readiness to lie to people in positions of authority!
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Spot on
As far as I recall
The SAG is a management body. They don`t carry out technical surveys or go into the detail of technical issues before making a decision. 
Their role seems to be ensuring the paperwork is in order such that in the event of a failure there is a named person in the Company to blame.
Or put another way
They are not a preventative body; they rely entirely on the integrity of the Companies they oversee.
Since the Companies themselves can be run by non-technical people, any conclusions they make may rely on a non-technical judgement of recommendations made in a technical survey report.  submitted by contracted Engineers or Consultants The brief for the survey would be written by Company Management and would typically direct the Contractor to ” examine all areas where there is a need for compliance with Local Authority and H&S regulations and make appropriate recommendations”
If the technical people believe there is a problem it will be in their report. Whether or not the report is subsequently submitted to the SAG is a matter for the Company. Likewise the Contractors are not responsible for ensuring that the Company has acted within the law by agreeing to implement critical recommendations discussed at the survey meeting. The onus is entirely with the Company

View Comment

Avatar

HelpumootPosted on1:21 am - Oct 14, 2016


Excellent article showing why the various ‘bodies’ colluded in this. It comes down to money and greed. They all have a vested interest. However, there is one body of people to whom this argument does not seem to apply – the Judiciary. What did Lord Nimmo Smith gain? Or the two Lords who were so utterly humiliated by Lord/Lady Poon? There were others. 
This all reflects badly on the Scottish Judiciary and surely if an English Lord throws out BDO’s appeal (if they indeed do appeal), it will look even worse.
Money and greed explain a lot of this but there is more to it than that.

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on7:48 am - Oct 14, 2016


Going back to the point of the original blog, surely if there is a 2nd insolvency event at Ibrox the very least we can expect is for financial fair play to be introduced? What would any Scottish club bar one have to lose by this, or is that the problem?!!!!!!! 

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on10:02 am - Oct 14, 2016


Some downtime again this morning. Investigating right now ….

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:22 am - Oct 14, 2016


Gents and lasses,

Could someone give me, or point me towards a very rough funding structure at Ibrox at the moment;

Essentially there’s a shareholding of which I understand DK is the largest at ~15%.  Outwith current shareholdings there is also third party debt.  Am I right in thinking the 3 bears are still in for ~£9m and DK via his HK engine room subsidiary (21) in for another £5m.

Thanks in advance  

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:06 am - Oct 14, 2016


Yesterday, I sent an email to  info@footballsafety.com . Curiously I got one of those long mathematical technical kind of messages which said: Delivery has failed to these recipients or groups:    and it instanced the email address of a chap at Kerrydale St.
Can one of the techies confirm that I would be right in thinking that although I sent only one email to one address without copying  to any other email address, emails to the ‘ info@footballsafety.com ‘ must automatically be sent to more than one person in the Association, and that some other members of the Association will  have received the email?
Interestingly enough, the ‘failed recipient’ is a chap (possibly the safety officer?) at Celtic Park!

View Comment

Avatar

PortbhoyPosted on11:15 am - Oct 14, 2016


Any little street cred Warburton had, …
Well, …. it’s gone for a burton noo ! … ok, … ah’ll get ma jaiket…..

https://i.imgflip.com/1cbtw3.jpg

View Comment

Avatar

joburgt1mPosted on11:36 am - Oct 14, 2016


STEVIEBCOCTOBER 13, 2016 at 19:47       27 Votes 
Nice bit of banter about the DR: had to look twice !
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cuqd0zCXYAAaexx.jpg
[Jingle Jangle might get some ideas for a ‘scoop’ !]

———————-

Surely the easiest way around all the structural problems down Govan way is to install a hover roof

View Comment

Avatar

stevoPosted on12:40 pm - Oct 14, 2016


 John ClarkOctober 14, 2016 at 11:06Can one of the techies confirm that I would be right in thinking that although I sent only one email to one address without copying  to any other email address, emails to the ‘ info@footballsafety.com ‘ must automatically be sent to more than one person in the Association, and that some other members of the Association will  have received the email?

 

info@footballsafety.com will redirect to at least that one address you got the bounce from. It’s almost certainly a mailing list with multiple recipients but there’s no way to say for sure.

On an unrelated note, the Sky Sports News banner last night reported that Celtic’s Dembélé had been voted SPFL Player of the Month for September, and then that Andy Halliday was the Rangers player of the month. I have to admit I was previously unaware of this new and oddly specific award category.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on12:55 pm - Oct 14, 2016


Smugas October 14, 2016 at 10:22 
Gents and lasses,
Could someone give me, or point me towards a very rough funding structure at Ibrox at the moment;
Essentially there’s a shareholding of which I understand DK is the largest at ~15%.  Outwith current shareholdings there is also third party debt.  Am I right in thinking the 3 bears are still in for ~£9m and DK via his HK engine room subsidiary ( ) in for another £5m.
Thanks in advance  
=====================
I haven’t seen any evidence to support the anecdotal stuff that PMGB, JJ and others have been speculating on. Any speculating I indulge in tends to be based on actual published numbers and making projections from there.

The last known position on their indebtedness was the RIFC interims published on 7 March which suggested that they had £9.25M in shareholder loans and no external financing. All loans were interest free, and the club had the remainder (£1M) of a £6.5M loan facility available to see them through to the end of the season,

A week later, the latest TRFC accounts suggested that £5.7M of the £6.5M had been drawn down, which would take the total indebtedness to £9.45M

RIFC’s interims suggested that they had lost just £288K in the first half of the year (2015/16). Projecting that forward, then the full year losses shouldn’t really be any more than a couple of million, unless there are some unexpected or exceptional costs. We should know more when their full year accounts are published within the next month or two.

Moving forward to the current season, they put up ST prices by 20% yet still sold 6,000 more. That, coupled with average home gates of 49,000 should have been enough to get them close to breaking even.

However, the big unknowns for me are the terms of the latest shareholder loans and the extent of any stadium repairs. If, as has been suggested by others, there was a repayment date attached to the £6.5M loan, then it could be a game changer. They would then need additional funds to be raised to cover what has been repaid.

What is the urgency for any stadium repairs? I don’t know. The stadium was used to full capacity for the Commonwealth Games Rugby just two years ago. I can’t imagine any degradation that would require major spending now, but was not evident two years ago.

I’m not saying that PMGB or JJ are wrong, it’s just that I haven’t seen or been party to any evidence to support their speculation. I do know that JJ has previously speculated about ST revenue, but in my opinion his calculations understate the club’s revenue by over £3M.
————————-
The Breakdown of the published borrowings is as follows:

28/03/15 – £1.5M – Three Bears
28/04/15 – £0.75M – Three Bears
22/05/15 – £1.5M – New Oasis (King)
01/01/16 – £6.5M (£5.7M used as at 15/03/16) – Consortium of King, Park, Letham, Taylor, Bennett, Scott, Ross

I think we can assume that the remainder of the £6.5M facility has been taken up which would make the total £10.25M

The inter-company balance of £18M can really be ignored, unless there is an insolvency event.  The total comes from the proceeds of the RIFC IPO in Dec 12 and the new share offer in Sep 14, the net receipts of which were “loaned” to TRFC.

View Comment

wee_alpha

wee_alphaPosted on1:16 pm - Oct 14, 2016


JOBURGT1MOCTOBER 14, 2016 at 11:36
STEVIEBCOCTOBER 13, 2016 at 19:47       27 Votes Nice bit of banter about the DR: had to look twice !https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cuqd0zCXYAAaexx.jpg%5BJingle Jangle might get some ideas for a ‘scoop’ !]
———————-
Surely the easiest way around all the structural problems down Govan way is to install a hover roof
——————————
If the recent rumours are to be believed the roof is already hovering!

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on1:27 pm - Oct 14, 2016


WEE_ALPHA
on the brink

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on1:33 pm - Oct 14, 2016


EASYJAMBOOCTOBER 14, 2016 at 12:55

Thanks for the update on the financials.

Like you I am a bit suspect re all the talk of major roofing problems as I don’t think those in the Blue Room would be so foolish to muck about with such matters, especially given the potential for individuals to be hit with corporate homicide and the like.

VAT of course is a different matter and as I understand it there is a 12 month surcharge period companies can enter into if they default. If T’Rangers are in that position then it may have an agreement with Hector but at the end of the day it will (and the associated interest)  catch up with them.

The other unknown you didn’t mention is the footballing wage bill.

In previous years the general running costs of Ibrox and Murray Park was around £14m. It may be that costs have been cut but from what I recall it was still going to be at least £10m.

We know the footballing wage bill in recent years has been mentioned in accounts as being around the £6m mark. I can’t see how that figure will have been reduced. 

Clearly there has been talk about minimum wages of £7k a week and Joey being on £20k a week.
 
Any thoughts on how this seasons increased income from ticket sales will look against the need to, at the very least, shell out somewhere between £16m to £20m? 

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:51 pm - Oct 14, 2016


stevoOctober 14, 2016 at 12:40
‘info@footballsafety.com will redirect to at least that one address you got the bounce from. It’s almost certainly a mailing list with multiple recipients but there’s no way to say for sure.’
_________
Thank you, Stevo.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on2:12 pm - Oct 14, 2016


wottpi  October 14, 2016 at 13:33
   Any thoughts on how this seasons increased income from ticket sales will look against the need to, at the very least, shell out somewhere between £16m to £20m? 
========================
I tend not to look at the football wage bill in isolation as it is maybe only a third, at most, of the overall costs.

I have been tracking various items reported in the accounts, from before the sale of the club, its admin/liquidation and the accounts of both TRFC and RIFC since then

The ST numbers are a good example.
Season… Number. Revenue.. Average per ST (net of VAT) 
2012/13 – 38,228 – £8.03M – £210
2013/14 – 36,039 – £7.73M – £214  (prices frozen)
2014/15 – 26,515 – £6.28M – £237 (average increase of 18%)
2015/16 – 36,000 – £9.13M – £250 (average increase of 5%)
2016/17 – 42,000 – £12.6M – £300 (average increase of 20%)

The figures up to 2014/15 are “actuals” taken from the accounts.  The price increases and STs sold since then are taken from Rangers own statements and website publications.  

Re this season, with an estimated £12.6M revenue coming from STs, near full houses, an extra £1M from SPFL place money, televised cup ties etc., they shouldn’t be far off breaking even against the costs you suggest.

The absence of the RRL revenue and costs in the last published accounts makes like for like comparisons difficult, but barring exceptional expenses that we don’t know about at this stage (like a loan repayment), the finances actually look ok to my untrained eye.  

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on2:32 pm - Oct 14, 2016


John Clark
October 14, 2016 at 11:06
 
Have a look here
 
http://www.footballsafety.com/fsoascotland.cfm
 
Operational Structure
The Executive Committee
The current Executive Committee comprises:
Chairman
Mr Ronnie Hawthorn
Celtic Football Club
Kerrydale St
Glasgow
G40 3RE

View Comment

tony

tonyPosted on2:50 pm - Oct 14, 2016


phil’s latest 
regarding DR 
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-daily-record-makes-a-terrible-mistake/#more-8095

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on3:03 pm - Oct 14, 2016


EASYJAMBOOCTOBER 14, 2016 at 14:12

Thanks EJ for confirming my thoughts.

That being that with ticket sales, ‘prize money’ some corporate sales, sponsorship and whatever is gained via retail,  T’Rangers might break even this season but still have ‘internal debt’. 

However if the players overall wage bill has risen and there are other, as yet unknown, costs down the line then choppy waters could still be ahead that may require RRM with deep pockets or the 1872 funds to be raided.

Either way there is no other obvious income stream available for strengthening the squad which is why they need to find a way to get Joey off the books and Warburton has been talking this week about loan deals being the way forward in January.

’55’ and Euro glory are still a long way off IMHO.

View Comment

Avatar

Billy BoycePosted on3:48 pm - Oct 14, 2016


easyJambo October 14, 2016 at 14:12

Re; TRFC costs.  You may recall, some time ago Phil told us that £375k went off-shore every month.  Was this figure ever identified in their audited accounts?  No one down Edmiston Drive way sought to rebuff Phil’s allegation.  I wonder if such payments actually existed and, if so, they continue to be made?  Assuming they were arranged in Charles Green’s time, by now a substantial sum would have been lost to the warchest.

View Comment

tykebhoy

tykebhoyPosted on4:24 pm - Oct 14, 2016


Looks like ESPN may be added to the haters list as Brand Parrot (c) @theclumpany won’t be happy as one Glasgow club are included in this http://www.espnfc.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/17764057/football-kit-mashups-from-a-to-zenit but a certain other Glasgow club isn’t

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on4:24 pm - Oct 14, 2016


Billy Boyce  October 14, 2016 at 15:48
====================
I certainly haven’t seen anything to suggest that cash of that magnitude was being taken out the business.  Phil hasn’t mentioned it for some time either.

Phil can and does get things wrong on occasion.  It may not be his fault, but a reliance, for example, on a single source with connections to the club, could lead to him being fed disinformation. 

An example would be the repayment of the £5M SD loan at the end of last year.  Phil claimed that interest and/or fees of more than £1M were payable in addition to the £5M. Again there is nothing in the accounts to suggest that any more than the £5M was repaid.  The loan was interest free, or at least that’s what was reported to the AIM stock exchange at the time. 

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:58 pm - Oct 14, 2016


IF the assorted rumours / speculation are true, then potentially the following organisations should now feel obligated to escalate their interactions with RIFC/TRFC – if only to cover their own bahookies ;

1) The SFA: for issuing this season’s licence based on TRFC’s financial ‘forecast’ / boll*x.

2) The SPFL: to ensure TRFC can fulfill its fixtures, on behalf of all other member clubs.

3) HMRC : to avoid being stiffed and humiliated wrt outstanding taxes by the ‘same club’ as last time!

4) Glasgow Council: to avoid injury to the general public – and GCC liability – wrt alleged safety issues / risks at Ibrox.

5) The board of any club playing at Ibrox: to avoid potential liability wrt the safety of their own travelling supporters.
etc…

Are they all just standing about ‘looking down at their shoes’ – hoping that someone else will make the first move in the Ibrox direction ?

Something has to give…you would think ?  

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on5:24 pm - Oct 14, 2016


Joey Barton running a book on issuance of next TRFC statement.

10/1 for tonight.
8/1 tomorrow
5/2 for Sunday.
Evens for next midweek.

Mibbees 😉

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on6:15 pm - Oct 14, 2016


TV money distribution still a very interesting read. All bar last placed Premiership team receive >£1m.

Despite decreased coverage, Championship teams cut same as last year.

http://www.sfmonitor.org/premiership-tv-allocation-2016-17/

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on6:45 pm - Oct 14, 2016


woodsteinOctober 14, 2016 at 14:32
‘..Have a look here http://www.footballsafety.com/fsoascotland.cfm Operational StructureThe Executive CommitteeThe current Executive Committee comprises:ChairmanMr Ronnie HawthornCeltic Football ClubKerrydale St’
_______
Thanks, Woodstein.
It wasn’t Hawthorn’s name that showed as the non-recipient at Celtic Park, though: another name entirely: possibly just the actual Celtic Park safety officer, while Hawthorn is at a more elevated level. If he is, and if he actually got the email, so much the better!
I wonder will I get any reply?

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on7:27 pm - Oct 14, 2016


Big PinkOctober 14, 2016 at 18:15
‘..TV money distribution still a very interesting read’
_________
Not the least interesting thing about the figures is that when I add up the four totals given to each league (i.e £17,354,750 + £3,449,850 + £727,950 +£474,750 ) I get £22,007,300, as opposed to the table’s total of £21,100,000.
I can show you my workings, sir!
If my sums are right, why are the SFA’s sums wrong by £907,300?

John, Pretty sure it will be an error in my spreadsheet. The Championship, League 1 and League 2 figures are extrapolated from previous years percentages and this year’s staged fixed payouts. I will re-check
BP

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on4:45 am - Oct 15, 2016


http://stv.tv/sport/football/1369943-livingston-face-cup-expulsion-after-fielding-ineligible-player/

I see Livingston may be the latest club to incur an expulsion punishment for fielding an ineligible player. I have no particular issue with that, but I do have an issue with the previous Rangers getting away with fielding several ineligible players over a number of years. 

View Comment

Allyjambo

AllyjamboPosted on7:43 am - Oct 15, 2016


upthehoops
October 15, 2016 at 04:45

http://stv.tv/sport/football/1369943-livingston-face-cup-expulsion-after-fielding-ineligible-player/
I see Livingston may be the latest club to incur an expulsion punishment for fielding an ineligible player. I have no particular issue with that, but I do have an issue with the previous Rangers getting away with fielding several ineligible players over a number of years.
____________________________

This is something we are all going to have to live with, for the foreseeable future, at least. It is right that clubs who break the rules are penalised in this way, despite what happened in the RFC EBT and mis-registration case, but, until and unless RFC are stripped of their titles, won while deliberately carrying out an illegal tax scheme to enable them to field players they, themselves, admit they couldn’t otherwise afford, exacerbated by deliberately mis-registering players to facilitate that scheme, the anger amongst all those who value justice will return whenever a club is penalised to a level far out of proportion to that meted out on the biggest cheats Scottish sport has ever known!

The fact that there appears to be no backlash, and a meek acceptance of their fate by Livingston (barring any appeal, but we can be sure they won’t site RFC in any appeal), gives credence, as if it were needed, to BP’s blog.

There has to be something that stops clubs calling out the SFA whenever they face the ultimate penalty for such transgressions!

View Comment

helpmaboab

helpmaboabPosted on8:30 am - Oct 15, 2016


Joburgt1m great avatar.

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on9:09 am - Oct 15, 2016


FIFA are SNATCHING  the reins of the Greek FA away from them. Seems it is well within their powers to do so. 

https://twitter.com/LawTop20/status/787185951038705665

View Comment

Avatar

theoldcoursePosted on10:43 am - Oct 15, 2016


I note that the Scottish Sun are reporting that Mr Joeys suspension has been extended yet again. I would dearly love to see the grounds on which his employer is allowed to do this. The initial charge was for alleged misconduct, and for that he was given a suspension which he has served. These extra extensions are reportedly for a misdemeanour which has no connection with the original charge. That being the case I would dearly love to know the employers grounds for connecting the two. An interesting case, which I’m sure Joeys legal team will be keeping an eye on.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:50 am - Oct 15, 2016


upthehoopsOctober 15, 2016 at 04:45
‘..I see Livingston may be the latest club to incur an expulsion punishment for fielding an ineligible player. ‘
__________
From the SPFK web site:
            “It has been reported to the SPFL that Alan Lithgow of Livingston FC played in the IRN-BRU Fourth Round Cup tie away to Crusaders FC on Friday, 7 October, 2016, while under suspension by the Scottish FA.   
Alan Lithgow started for Livingston FC in the above game and played the full 90 minutes.     As a result, Livingston FC have today been charged with fielding an ineligible player and are requested to attend a hearing to be held by the SPFL on Monday, 24 October, 2016.   
No further statement will be provided before this hearing takes place.  ”
There is, we know  without question, a deep rottenness at the heart of our football governance when relatively  ‘small fry’ are routinely and hypocritically brought to book while the really big bad beast was allowed to walk free.
There will be no question of ‘vital evidence’ being withheld from the Alan Lithgow hearing, or a fantastic ‘re-interpretation’ of “ineligibility” a la [what was that wretched,unjust  man’s name?]to secure an acquittal,will there?
I would wish that Livingston would make a big issue of the cheating RFC’s decade-long deceitful and deliberate playing of ‘ineligible players’ and stress the point that that club did cheat massively by not disclosing all payments made to players (whether there was or was not any tax cheating).

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:57 am - Oct 15, 2016


Oops! SPFL, of course. Thumsy clumbs.19

View Comment

Avatar

Jingso.JimsiePosted on11:25 am - Oct 15, 2016


THEOLDCOURSE

OCTOBER 15, 2016 at 10:43      

I note that the Scottish Sun are reporting that Mr Joeys suspension has been extended yet again. I would dearly love to see the grounds on which his employer is allowed to do this. The initial charge was for alleged misconduct, and for that he was given a suspension which he has served. These extra extensions are reportedly for a misdemeanour which has no connection with the original charge. That being the case I would dearly love to know the employers grounds for connecting the two. An interesting case, which I’m sure Joeys legal team will be keeping an eye on.
———————————————————-
You’re conflating two different things, I think.

I interpret the bones/runes cast by the SMSM as being ‘suspended after a bust-up’ & not ‘suspended for a bust-up’.

TRFC have the matter under investigation & a disciplinary hearing will be held when that enquiry in complete. 

I also think that it’s a squirrel to suggest that any extension of of his suspension(s) is for his current SFA Notice of Complaint.

It’s worth remembering that TRFC are bearing the cost of his non-availability & paying his basic salary while Barton goes hill-walking & golfing.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on11:32 am - Oct 15, 2016


Corrupt officialOctober 15, 2016 at 09:09
‘…FIFA are SNATCHING the reins of the Greek FA away from them.’
________
I love this bit:  in http://www.beinsports.com/en/football/news/fifa-take-control-of-greek-federation/352773

“…..Greece’s Deputy Sports Minister Stavros Kontonis welcomed the move as “a positive development which will be combined with the placement of worthy people to manage a problem that has plagued Greek sports for years”.

Any chance of us getting the Scottish minister for sport interested in leaning on FIFA to get our manifestly duplicitous  football governance bods  replaced by “worthy people” who will actually enforce the laws re sporting integrity and financial fair play with justice and integrity?

View Comment

Corrupt official

Corrupt officialPosted on11:59 am - Oct 15, 2016


JOHN CLARKOCTOBER 15, 2016 at 11:32
Corrupt officialOctober 15, 2016 at 09:09‘…FIFA are SNATCHING the reins of the Greek FA away from them.’________I love this bit: 
    ———————————————————————————————————————
    Of course FIFA are not without their own issues John, but it would appear highly unlikely that they would “assist” (if I can use that word) Greek football, by putting in place anything other than folk of a squeaky clean reputation. 

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on12:23 pm - Oct 15, 2016


What is happpenig on the south side of Glasgow over Govan way is hugely damaging to Scottish football.
 It is the inevitable consequence of short term and narrow thinking from 2010/11/12 that refuses to accept that the business model adopted by RFC then TRFC is unsustainable in spite of all supporting evidence.
 The business plan presented to SFA/SPFL in 2012 allowing TRFC a place in the game must surely have set some conditions for financial stability? Well in a professional run competent football authority you would think so.
 However perhaps the problem is that there is no authority.
There is an expectation of it but Regan himself in an interview with Alex Thomson confessed to SFA powerlessness.
 Perhaps reality is wakening up the other clubs to the idea that the two club business model on which the game was built in last 20 years is no longer a foundation on which to build.
 People with new ideas need to come to the fore and reshape the governance so that there IS authority.
 If there is another financial collapse I fervently hope that it becomes the opportunity to kill off the two club model based on a poisonous rivalry and I hope new blood is brought in to do what should have been done in 2012.
 Otherwise it will be more of the same.

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on12:58 pm - Oct 15, 2016


Auldheid,

Couldn’t agree more – and I also think your views are a sign of the changing attitudes of Celtic fans. I think increasingly more of them would be happier to see honours spread a bit more evenly – perhaps even allow for the principles enshrined in progressive taxation to be applied.

The danger of course is that the bigger clubs (and I mean more than just two of them) are more concentrated on the latest incarnation of the Atlantic League which dispenses with the national league structure in favour of a franchise system with no meritocracy. 

For the likes of Aberdeen, Hibs and Hearts, that path leads to greater riches. For Celtic, it is a bargaining tool in their quest to join the English structure. For Rangers, it is either life or death, unless they change their current business model.

For the rest, it means that progress towards a successful, healthy and sustainable national game will be slowed.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on10:46 pm - Oct 15, 2016


Very , very quiet tonight. Has something happened?
Been so quiet that, prompted by the ‘Off-the-ball’ discussion earlier, I’ve just watched ( or  rather, listened to ) the Chick Young v James Jabba Traynor  spat over the ‘nod’.

And was confirmed in my view that our James would have looked well in field grey and jackbooks as he supervised the burning of boots or indulged in other such unintellectual,  boorish and bullying pursuits.

And, of course, he did nothing to endear himself to me by his (embarrassing to Warburton)  finger-pointing , aggressive, and totally counter-productive ‘PR’ (!) intervention during the Warburton press conference.

As a former city trader, Warburton had the savvy not to make a scene.

But I’m pretty sure that his self-respect would have demanded that he had words  with Traynor behind the scenes.

And he would have my understanding  if he had lamped him good and proper, as I think even I in such circumstances might have done, poor auld pensioner an’ all that I am!

The fact that Traynor coud feel that he can behave  like that speaks volumes about the kind of directors who are running the new club. Not in respect of their moral qualities ( we know about them already) but in respect of their common sense and competence as businessmen!

Warburton is by all accounts a decent man, and it’s not his personal fault that the SMSM treat him as the fount of all knowledge about football in Scotland and the greatest manager since whenever.

He does himself no favour if he allows a fellow-employee to treat him with such marked disrespect.

Or if he allows the Board to let Traynor away with such behaviour.

View Comment

Avatar

goosygoosyPosted on11:47 pm - Oct 15, 2016


A Lateral Thought
What if
The Hong Kong loan to clear the TRFC £5m Ashley debt in Jan 2016 came from a mixture of UK and Hong Kong Residents?
(As I think it was)
And then
Repayment of the so called Hong Kong loan resulted in the money being deposited initially into a UK Bank account in the name of the lenders?
Not unreasonable since some of the lenders were themselves UK Residents
Despite only contributing a miniscule amount of the loan between them( IMO)
It would mean of course that instead of asking TRFC the Hong Kong lenders would have to ask the Bank holding the money to send their share back to Hong Kong
But they wouldn’t have to hurry themselves to repatriate this money
Because effectively they would have opened a joint UK Bank Account in conjunction with the UK lenders
They could postpone repatriating this money indefinitely
 Wouldn`t that be handy for the TRFC lenders who lived in Hong Kong?
 They wouldn`t need to worry about foreign exchange problems every time they came to the UK

Would they?
It sound like a good wheeze for the Honk Kong lenders if they were planning to spend lots of time in the future spending money in the UK
So good that
If TRFC asked for another short term loan the following year just to tide them over until the April May June 2017 ST money arrived the Honk Kong lenders might be sorely tempted to do it again
And again in 2018
Providing of course TRFC had enough ST income to use as collateral for the loan
There`s just one problem with this wheeze
If the loan comes with Wonga rates of interest
A £5m loan in Jan2016 might cost £6.25m to repay in July 2016
And
A £6.25m loan in Jan2017 might cost £7.81m to repay in July 2017
And
A £7.81m loan in Jan2018 might cost £9.77m to repay in July 2018
And so on leading to the conclusion that TRFC would have not have enough ST monies in July 2019 to pay of the HK lenders
Meaning the HK Lenders stop lending  to TRFC in July 2018
But
If the HK boys always used fresh HK money to lend to TRFC each year and didn`t touch any of the money sitting in the UK Bank Account
By July 2018 the UK Bank account would comprise
£6.25m from July 2016 plus £7.81m from July 2017 plus £9.77m from July 2018
I.e. a total of £23.88m has been moved out of HK into a UK Bank account
Its true of course that
The above numbers ignore the amounts repaid to UK lenders which are assumed to be miniscule (under £20k in total) and to have been lent in order to fudge the amount lent from HK and mix together UK and HK sources
If we include the monies spent on buying RIFC shares to the above loans get close to the £30m mark which is an “investment” number that used to be quoted in the SMSM
Clearly all this money movement wil have no impact on the ability of TRFC to buy better players or pay them high wages
But
That wouldn`t be the real name of the game anyway

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on12:40 am - Oct 16, 2016


goosygoosyOctober 15, 2016 at 23:47
‘..A Lateral Thought..’
________
Not so lateral as to make it impossible, goosygoosy.

I’ve spent a very interesting couple of hours tonight trying to get an understanding of what the company
“HM treasury UK Sovereign Sukuk plc” is all about.

Where money is concerned there is no principle other than ‘make it!’, hypocritically or otherwise.

Just get in there, and find a way to make money!

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on12:55 am - Oct 16, 2016


GG – like whenever I walked past a typically empty hairdressers or tanning salon and wonder how these particular premises make any money…and then I think of RIFC/TRFC…? 

View Comment

Cluster One

Cluster OnePosted on9:39 am - Oct 16, 2016


easyJamboOctober 14, 2016 at 14:12 i 10 Votes
wottpi October 14, 2016 at 13:33

Any thoughts on how this seasons increased income from ticket sales will look against the need to, at the very least, shell out somewhere between £16m to £20m?

========================

I tend not to look at the football wage bill in isolation as it is maybe only a third, at most, of the overall costs.
I have been tracking various items reported in the accounts, from before the sale of the club, its admin/liquidation and the accounts of both TRFC and RIFC since then

The ST numbers are a good example.Season… Number. Revenue.. Average per ST (net of VAT) 2012/13 – 38,228 – £8.03M – £2102013/14 – 36,039 – £7.73M – £214 (prices frozen)2014/15 – 26,515 – £6.28M – £237 (average increase of 18%)2015/16 – 36,000 – £9.13M – £250 (average increase of 5%)2016/17 – 42,000 – £12.6M – £300 (average increase of 20%)

The figures up to 2014/15 are “actuals” taken from the accounts. The price increases and STs sold since then are taken from Rangers own statements and website publications.
Re this season, with an estimated £12.6M revenue coming from STs, near full houses, an extra £1M from SPFL place money, televised cup ties etc., they shouldn’t be far off breaking even against the costs you suggest.
The absence of the RRL revenue and costs in the last published accounts makes like for like comparisons difficult, but barring exceptional expenses that we don’t know about at this stage (like a loan repayment), the finances actually look ok to my untrained eye.
——————–

but barring exceptional expenses that we don’t know about at this stage…..
A bill for damage to some toilets.
A JB pay off.
Some court cases
A semi final knock out of LC.
A repair bill for alledged unsafe roofs
A bill for damaged LED screens at hampden
A bill for unsold stock(shirts)coming over the hill.
And anything else we don’t know about at this stage….

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on10:36 am - Oct 16, 2016


Being something of a simpleton in these issues I tend to take a very straightforward view.

If RIFC PLC’s results for the year to June 2016 were anywhere near decent we would already have seen the “financial highlights”. I suspect we won’t see very much this side of Christmas and that they will release figures at the latest possible opportunity. That is just a feeling by the way, I have no inside information or source.

As an aside, I suspect Celtic are being a bit disingenuous with their own financial highlights. Not in a bad way, before anyone draws the wrong inference. I think there might have been a bit of exceptional spending in the second half of the year. The drop in “profit” from end December to end June just doesn’t sit well with me and it makes me think there is something else being done in the background. Perhaps clearing a bit of debt or making some other bean counter type adjustment, spending profit before reporting it if that makes sense. Again that is just a feeling.

View Comment

Avatar

Big PinkPosted on12:23 pm - Oct 16, 2016


John Clark

The TV revenue figures include a typo in the headline figure for the Championship. The rest of the working is fine and balances as well as the accounts of any self respecting Scottish Football club 🙂

http://www.sfmonitor.org/premiership-tv-allocation-2016-17/

View Comment

woodstein

woodsteinPosted on12:36 pm - Oct 16, 2016


http://www.thedrum.com/news/2016/10/14/trinity-mirror-merge-sunday-mail-and-daily-record-news-teams-putting-22-jobs-risk
 
Now it starts.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:05 pm - Oct 16, 2016


HomunculusOctober 16, 2016 at 10:36
‘….The drop in “profit” from end December to end June just doesn’t sit well with me and it makes me think there is something else being done in the background. Perhaps clearing a bit of debt ..’
_________
Homunculus, I can scarcely believe how incredibly suspicious the ‘saga’ has made me!
Your post prompted me to have a look on-line at the Celtic plc annual report and accounts.
Not at the money pages, of course ( I have very little grasp on what all that stuff actually means! ) but at the Strategic Report ‘Strategy and Business Model’  section (iii)  ‘Principal Risks and Uncertainties’, and in particular at this paragraph:
“The risk matrix evaluation identifies types of risk, the likelihood of the identified risk occurring, the potential impact it may have on the Group if it did occur, and the steps that have been or should be taken to reduce the likelihood of occurrence and mitigate the impact if it did occur. The individuals responsible for managing these risks are identified and the steps required to be taken are subject to internal audit verification”
And the horribly suspicious mind begins to reflect on the question of whether the plc board considers that there is a ‘risk’ of TRFC going belly-up for lack of the necessary wherewithal and judges that that is a risk it should be ready to take action to prevent, in the financial interests of Celtic. 
Surely to God they have not set aside some dosh to slip as a loan, if required, to RIFC???
Someone please tell me to get a grip, and that such a scenario could not possibly develope, and that I should take a long holiday break in Australia!
But this bloody saga has created such measure of cynicism and distrust of football boards who accepted monumental cheating of themselves by the knighted master cheat and the ‘Authorities’ that I am ready to believe the worst.

View Comment

Avatar

John ClarkPosted on1:17 pm - Oct 16, 2016


woodsteinOctober 16, 2016 at 12:36
‘..Now it starts.’
____________
The possibility is that most if not all of the jobs to be lost will be the jobs of ordinary decent folk, not sports hacks
But if any hacks are to go, I can think of one or two who would be no loss.

View Comment

Homunculus

HomunculusPosted on1:37 pm - Oct 16, 2016


JOHN CLARK
OCTOBER 16, 2016 at 13:05
=================================

John, I don’t think for a second that Celtic, or any other sensibly run business would lend money to such a basket case of an organisation. If anything I think Celtic and the other clubs will be preparing themselves for Armageddon II. 

I was more thinking of for example clearing or partly clearing outstanding loans, perhaps putting money towards contingencies. That would reduce the profits being reported, making the position look (on the face) of it weaker, whilst actually strengthening the club’s real position. 

I don’t know enough about these things, it’s pure conjecture on my part. I just remember an accountant once saying to me “If someone asks me what their profit is I ask them what they would like it to be”. 

View Comment

Avatar

upthehoopsPosted on1:38 pm - Oct 16, 2016


AULDHEIDOCTOBER 15, 2016 at 12:23
==============================

People often say they feel sorry for the Rangers fans. I am not in that camp. The present day support has been reared on success achieved with money the club didn’t have, and as far as I can see they are blind to that fact, or simply don’t want to see it. I know it is wrong to generalise, but I have seen no evidence at all that Rangers fans are willing to accept a club which spends no more than it earns, or at least operates only at affordable debt levels. Bloggers left right and centre are openly stating Rangers are behind on tax and I believe if that was not the case a denial would have been issued by now. Rangers fans should be worried, but still they think it’ll never happen, even though 4 years ago it did. It would be so much better if the mainstream media simply did their job. 

View Comment

Comments are closed.