The Day I was on the Scotland U-23 Bench


See my earlier post Jimbo.  It’ll be 15 points as …

Comment on The Day I was on the Scotland U-23 Bench by Smugas.

See my earlier post Jimbo.  It’ll be 15 points as a new club but as long as it’s post 14th Feb expect it to be dressed up as same club but more than 5 years since previous event.  I’m not clear if the liquidation events of August 2012 have any bearing on that.  

But FWIW barring an unexpected development around March (Whyte, Ashley, Supreme Court) I just can’t see an admin occurring.  To what purpose?

Smugas Also Commented

The Day I was on the Scotland U-23 Bench
What’s that saying?  Something about one admin is unfortunate but two is just downright careless!  Particularly if you’ve suffered a liquidation in between.

i just can’t see that they can chance letting matters slip to that extent.  Too risky.  I assume that is the position facing the nearly-but-not-quite-Real Rangers Men at the moment.  But that assumes they have something (anything) in the tank to leverage further soft loans.  To be clear by leverage I mean in the crowbar sense, not the commercial pound for pound sense.

To a diddy of course the obvious trigger is second place.  Write off Celtic as the rest of us have and instead concentrate your efforts against the red maroon and blue invaders lined up to your rear.  Win that battle and it might afford you time and money (soft loans covering ongoing operating losses).  But lose that battle as well and the STs won’t quite fly as they once did and the battle for next year will be all the harder, on and off the park.
And the magic 5 year anniversary where the nasty points deductions lie is just a month away…

The Day I was on the Scotland U-23 Bench

The most interesting part of that report (with the necessary caveat nowadays that it is ‘but a media report’) is the clarity with which it is written.  Failed to emerge from administration*, wasn’t available to transfer so Chalmers is welcome to set up a new club (repeated three times for clarity) which will “revive the club” and “protect rugby league in the city.”

In other words, as I read that, it is a new club by necessity which the good citizens of Bradford are welcome to treat as their club, their bulls, whatever if they so wish.  Simples.

Interesting point for me being neither a liquidation specialist nor a rugby league rules expert.  The CVA appears to have failed because the administrator rejected the bid (as opposed to the creditors)?  Is that relevant to Sevco’s alternative reality? 

Only fair as well to remind ourselves of one of my favourite RTC quotes that is relevant here. I paraphrase “there will be many reporting inaccuracies regarding this (the Rangers) story but strangely the vast majority will all lean in the same direction.”

Unlike Bradford Bulls it would seem.

The Day I was on the Scotland U-23 Bench
I commented earlier that I wasn’t too bothered about the shorthand, brief and possibly (god forbid07) lazy use of the term “Rangers” when referring to OC/NC.  Regarding Broadfoot’s view I’ve said all along that the only body who couldn’t afford, nor be afforded such flexibility (or “opinion”) was the SFA.  They are either a new cub with all that entails, and most crucially that means not dumping debt without footballing sanctions such as Auldheid refers to in his Southampton scenario, or they’re not, inferring that dumping debt is now somehow ok AND indeed  to be encouraged.

For the absence of doubt dumping debt is where a creditor is shafted against their will. A creditor accepting a CVA a la Hearts (or a governing body exempting a club from a requirement to achieve a CVA a la Leeds which I happened upon today) is entirely different in one basic facet – the creditor is protected such that the game is protected (both from being a creditor but also from continuing to receive the services and credit terms of service providers, the entire purpose of the authority’s long established solvency procedures.

Recent Comments by Smugas

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In fairness to the pundits.   To a man Tonight (considering the chopped off derby goal) they could not understand why the tele evidence instantly available to anyone with a phone couldn’t be used in that scenario.  

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
In simplistic terms, as far as the recipients were concerned, the monies were paid in net.  I.e. as far as they were concerned all tax payable had been deducted and paid. Billy Dodds said as much on the radio as I recall.  What SDM said in one of the hearings was that they took the monies that would otherwise have been deducted and forwarded for tax added it to the payment to the player.  Hence a player who would have received £60 wages and in addition had deducted £40 in cash to give a £100 total from any other club would have received the whole £100 from oldco.  This gave rise to the famous quote about “buying players they couldn’t otherwise afford.”

so the answer to your question is…both!

The reason for the confusion of course is because the players had side letters explaining all this but sssshhhhh, they’re secret.

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
So, square the circle.

1/  King told to make offer.  No guarantee of level of take up especially given that…
2/  Future security of club predicated on King Loan.
3/  King saying he can’t afford to make offer so would presumably have to resign.
4/  Potential that him resigning causes share loss (ignoring imminent dilution).  One would think that might tempt a few more to his offer. 
4/  Also small matter that regardless of whether he resigns or not, whether he offers and whether they take up his offer, the future security of the club is still predicated on his loan.
5/  If he’s not a director can he trust the board with his extended loan, especially given that…
6/  In case you haven’t spotted it this is a loss making business.  Extending that loan doesn’t staunch the flow it simply pours more in the top to be leaked.  Staunching the flow requires more profitable surroundings (a new CL bucket).  But that needs investment and then…..

Ok you get the rest!

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
FWIW I still don’t see any advantage to them in ‘eventing.’  Threatening to ‘event.’  Yes for sure. That’ll get all the Christmas coppers rattling in the buckets  since whilst they may look down their nose at a credible challenge for 2nd it would still be a great result for them and give them European access.  Interestingly of course so does 3rd (4th?).  As clubs like Aberdeen know its actually bloody expensive in relative terms being the plucky loser.  But I fear crowd indifference would kick in.  Aberdeen losing 2000 fans by accepting 3rd is no biggie.  Rangers losing 20,000 is a different barrel of kippers.  

The no-event assumption has two core requirements of course.

1/  All parties keep speaking to each other, ignore individual rationality and act instead for the greater good of the club (don’t start) particularly in view of….
2/  Somebody, somewhere has to pony up to keep the loss making bus on the road else it grinds to a halt in the race to the top.  Shouting and screaming and stamping their foot that its all so unfair unless all the other buses are told to stop too is unlikely to get a sympathetic hearing.  Well, not from the fans anyway…. 

It Is Better To Offer No Excuse Than A Bad One
Homunculus @ 12.38

My thoughts exactly.  The AGM stuff to me made sense to a/ get a hold of 1872’s ‘new’ money with zero repayment clause and b/ to tidy up the balance sheet with a view to a euro licence (listed you will recall as essential to the clumpany’s future well being) which will surely be scrutinised like never before.  It makes no sense for the creditors to do it (unless a billionaire has flown in off the radar offering more per share for their quantum than a simple loan repayment would yield i.e. parity*) and it makes even less sense to allow a situation where the creditors can individually decide whether to do so given the fragility of the underlying company(ies).  Particularly given the reputation of some of the principle creditors.  

* parity insofar as they’d get their money back.  It is not enough to promise growth on their shares in some future dream complete with CL soundtrack if achieving said dream is literally costing you money in the meantime in terms of shareholder calls. RBS being the most recent example to spring to mind.  

About the author