by Stuart Cosgrove for the Scottish Football Monitor
In the early years of the new millennium, ‘The Battle of the Saints’ was a First Division encounter. Both St Mirren and St Johnstone had been relegated and were among the favourites to return to the spiritually suffocating SPL. Winning the First Division title was a mixed blessing. It provided a football moment that old firm fans could only dream of – an open-top bus round. But victory meant you were back in the SPL, a league that had been shaped for the benefit of the two big clubs.
Television revenues were skewed, there were no play-offs, only one team could be relegated and the voting structures would bring shame to a tin-pot dictatorship. It was a league you could never realistically win and so never fully enjoy. I remember being in the ‘Wee Barrel’ a traditional football boozer near St Mirren’s old Love Street stadium. It was soon after the St Johnstone drug scandal. On 5th January 2001, George O’Boyle and his teammate Kevin Thomas had been sacked following allegations that they had used illegal recreational drugs. They had allegedly been caught taking an “unidentified white powder” at the club’s injured players Christmas Party at That Bar in Perth. The drugs scandal undermined St Johnstone’s much peddled identity as a local family club. A bitter industrial dispute unfolded and widespread dressing-room unrest. The team’s form catastrophically dipped. Inevitably, St Mirren fans were delighted to play host to such a “scandalised” and “drug-addled” club. Football fans relish the misfortune of others with almost satanic glee. So the Buddies cheered sarcastically when any Perth fans went into the Wee Barrel’s less than salubrious pub toilet. They made pantomime sniffing noises interjected with animal impersonations and at times it sounded like a famer’s convention had turned into a massive cocaine bender. I vividly remember that one St Johnstone fan became so enraged that he blurted out the unforgettable phrase ‘Aye but what about Barry Lavety?’ Further back in 1995 the St Mirren striker Lavety had been arrested for using the then ‘designer drug’ ecstasy making him the first footballer of the acid-house generation. In this short, pithy response outside a toilet door in the Wee Barrel, all the gut instincts of football spectatorship came to the surface and all the components of what was later to become known as ‘whataboutery’ were laid bare.
Whataboutery pre-dates the internet but it has been kindled by it. The web has transformed the way we talk and think about football. Suddenly and profoundly new forums for discussing the game quickly followed. Facebook was launched two years later in 2004, Twitter joined the social media firmament in 2006 and by 2012 and Scottish football’s summer of discontent the micro-blogging platform had 500 million active users. The rise of social media invoked an ‘epistemological break’ with previous eras of spectatorship and with other forms of media and communication. For the first time ever, fans had a way of instantly communicating, of answering back and disagreeing with each other in real-time. Whataboutery is a dismal art that can be defined by three often sub-conscious characteristics – a refusal to engage with the question at hand; an attempt to deflect the discussion on to others and a failure to engage with the morality of the subject.
Go on any web forum today and you will find many debates are pock-marked with whataboutery. The financial meltdown of Rangers is the most recent and most virulent example. What about Hearts they owe the taxman? What about Dundee they’ve gone bust twice? What about Leeds, Middlesbrough and Portsmouth? Sadly, the misdemeanours of others is an unstable platform on which to mount a moral defence and celebrating victory in a tax tribunal about complex offshore loan-trusts does not magically airbrush away tax-debt involving VAT and PAYE. Nor does whatboutery explain why already rich footballers should enjoy the moral right to hide behind complex off shore tax schemes, irrespective of their legality. Every football fan at some time in their life has felt a deep primal urge to defend their club. We are emotionally instinctive creatures and quick to play the martyr. But however passionate you are about football – and I would count myself as ‘combustible’ – being loyal to your club does not permit disloyalty or contempt for the institutions of a fair society.
Not surprisingly, the origins of the term whatboutery can be traced back to the sectarian divisions in Northern Ireland. Last year I met the journalist and blogger, Mick Fealty who is one of the driving forces behind the blog forum Slugger O’Toole, a site that has bravely tried to provide a platform for localism and for non-sectarian political discourse in Northern Ireland. It is often cited as the place where the term whataboutery was invented. Taking its lead from Slugger, the online dictionary wikitionary defines whataboutery as “responding to criticism by accusing one’s opponent of similar or worse faults.” Recently, at the height of rioting in Belfast in the aftermath of Belfast city council’s policy shift on flying the union flag, a major local newspaper the Belfast Telegraph said in a trenchant editorial – “For everyone who cares about democracy; who wants an end to sectarian posing and mind games; an end to mindless thuggery; an end to immature reactions to complicated issues; an end to whataboutery ….” An end to sectarian posing and mind games – how refreshing would that be? The recent case of Anthony Stokes is a case in point. Most fans would concede that Stokes is a fool to have associated himself with the Real IRA and criminal elements within the Dublin republican scene. But some fans – believing they were supporting their club and its Irish origins – are hard-wired to romanticism and a re-hashed history. Nothing that Stokes has done is either romantic or historic – it is grubby and pathetic. Nor is deflection acceptable either. Yes of course Andy Goram has associated with some fairly disagreeable characters but that does not absolve Stokes of responsibility. Celtic manager Neil Lennon has been unambiguous about that. Stokes is on a final warning and rightly so. Whataboutery is the glue of entrenched opinion. It cultivates extremes rather than subtleties, and favours glib comment over deeper dialogue. That is why TSFM should always be vigilant about the forum slipping into whatabouterty.
It seems almost banal to say it, but you can be a supporter without being a supplicant. You can be Rangers daft without endorsing morally bereft tax loopholes, you can want Neil Lennon to enjoy a life free from intimidation without defending complicated film investment schemes; you can relish a goal by Garry O’ Connor without admiring his self-defeating lifestyle, you can be a big Jambo but still expect staff to be paid on time, you can be a Red Ultra without having to urinate on videos of Gazza and you can soak up the atmosphere in the Dundee Derry, without cushioning its sectarian associations. And, yes I do know that there was once a dairy behind the goal at the Derry End – but when fights erupted in the 1970s, it wasn’t lactic pasteurisation they were fighting about.
Football fans can be emotionally passionate yet hold on to moral values. We can be vocal without being vacuous. We can be diehard fans without being robotic ideologues for our club. Many of us have found ourselves tied in knots trying to defend our clubs and in some cases defend the indefensible. The roll-call of whatboutery in Scottish football would shame a mature society. There’s defective flat-screen televisions in Manchester; hearses at Celtic Park; programme notes at Montrose; unidentified white powder; porn peddlers in the 1980s, Joanna Lumley’s love-life, urinal-videos in Aberdeen; Leigh Griffith’s unique contribution to fatherhood; Hugh Dallas’s emails; Maurice Edu’s car and Lee Wallace’s air-rifle. They are surreal and seemingly endless.
As new technologies surround us daily, whataboutery has gone digital and online disputes are now frequently backed up by a stream of phone-footage, rogue tweets, photo-shopped imagery and spectacularly desperate analogies. We live in the white-heat of social media where whataboutery goes on ad nauseum and in perpetuity. It is the dismal art of the web and a habit we have to overcome if Scottish football is ever to find a settled democracy. The financial collapse of Rangers has brought us to a cross roads. Unless there is some kind of rapprochement and an ‘appliance of compliance’, then whataboutery will last for many more decades to come. Whataboutery is a defence mechanism which allows fans and the clubs they support to avoid moral responsibility. But it need not be like that. In February 2007, Scottish football was given a simple lesson in how the game could be run if we could look forward. It was a cold and wet night at Fir Park during a midweek Scottish cup tie. St Johnstone’s Jason Scotland was unexpectedly targeted by a small band of racist Motherwell fans. By most reasonable accounts of the events, a gang of right-wing casuals taunted the player with monkey chants. Season tickets were not valid and many fans were not in their regular seats. But within a few minutes, groups of decent Motherwell fans turned on the racists, shouted them down and alerted the police.
Online there was a brief and half-hearted flurry of whataboutery. Some denied it had happened, others said that Jason Scotland was “playing the race card” and a small vocal minority argued it was Airdrie fans. This is an unfamiliar twist on an age old deflection. Blaming phantom support from elsewhere is quite common in Scottish football, although it is usually the demonology of Chelsea, Millwall or England fans that are cast as the mysterious villains.
Whatever the motives of those that posted their defence of Motherwell, the whataboutery was short-lived and brought to a shuddering halt by a simple, prompt and unambiguous apology. In an official club statement, Chairman John Boyle said: “These people should never show their faces at Fir Park again and they have no place in football,” adding “We are utterly appalled by this behaviour by a small group of people who have tarnished the name of our club. We are writing to Jason Scotland and St Johnstone today to apologise for this disgusting behaviour which is totally alien to all of us.”
Motherwell had scripted a blue-print for change. Rather than deflect attention elsewhere or dispute the minutiae of events, clubs, fans and officials have to become “better at being wrong.” When there is a clear injustice, evidence of wrong-doing or powerful proof that mistakes have been made, then it is no longer acceptable to hide from the moral consequences. Apologise and pay the price. That applies equally to all of us and there is no hierarchy of importance. No special cases. The SPL may have a history of gifting privileges but common decency does not.
Stuart Cosgrove
Stuart Cosgrove is a St Johnstone fan. He was previously Media Editor of the NME and is now Director of Creative Diversity at Channel 4, where he recently managed coverage of the Paralympics, London 2012. At the weekend he presents the BBC Scotland football show ‘Off the Ball’ with Tam Cowan. This is the second of a trilogy of blogs he has agreed to write for TSFM. The first was about the era of Armageddon. He writes here in a personal capacity.
finchleyflyer says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 18:53
Of course depending on whether or not you are a hearts (same club) or mind (they’re died) type with regard to the club known as Rangers the ‘Old Firm’ may also be considered dead along with the oldco.
stuartcosgrove says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 17:42
28 1 Rate This
timeforjustice1 says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 16:29
Great blog.
Stuart, a question was put to you on Your Call(8/12/12) about wether you believed that RFC(then) TRFC(now) were the same club?
Your answer was that they are the same club, as was the same reply from Tom English.
Can you tell us in your own words on this blog why you believe this to be, as most people on this blog and i include myself, clearly know that they are not the same club.
_________________________________________________________________________
Thanks timefor justice.
…..To be honest I have several competing thoughts. Probably at the heart of it is the differentiation between legal or trading entities: companies, consortia, holding groups, trading arms etc which fall under the areas of fiscal, fiduciary and financial laws. On the other hand the emotional associations with a club, where they play, club colours, fond memories, agonising defeats, great comebacks, favourite players and waiting anxioulsy to find out who you have drawn in the next rounds. The first set is rational – the second is emotional. For the many thousands of people who have returned to see Rangers play, they are being driven by the emotional. It is their club and no amount of complex company law will convince them otherwise.
I read this blog frequently and know the arguements inside out – but I do not think that the ‘emotional attachment’ theory is quite as easy to dismiss as some think.
Today the former St Johnstone midfielder Charlie Adam passed away. When he signed for us we were the ‘worst team in Britain’ at the bottom of the lowest league and had barely survived a significant insolvency event. We were ‘rescued’ only because of supermarket trade-off swapping land in near centre Perth for land on gifted farmlands on the periphery of the city. A group of largely incompetent businessmen had nearly killed my club and with it the memories I shared with my now dead uncle who had taken me to Saints as a kid. Those memories are more powerful in my mind than the legal documentation that underpins the club. The new stadium doesn’t have the same atmosphere, we lost crowd numbers on the way and we have never won the Scottish Cup. But we are still from Perth, play in blue and are called Saints. They are my club.
My uncle is buried on the half-way line at the East Stand side opposite our seats. Its where he will always lie.
…And what better place for a great man to be buried. For those that like their Latin our club crest is the sign of St John – Agnus Dei – the Lamb of God. We have had an unbroken company history since 1884, we have survived some tough times but for the first four years of our history we were a bigger team than Celtic. I like to think of Saints as – the Truculent Lambs.
Thanks for your courtesy it speaks volumes for the blog.
=============================================
Using your rationale then without doubt the vast (if not whole) of the Scottish pool of journalists and football commentators must have an emotional attachment to Rangers. That can’t be the case, or can it??
If the Sevco supporters have bought £5m of shares, that’s a great deal more than the £1.5m – £2m that was being bandied about yesterday.
Beware seizing on potential bad news as if it’s the cast iron truth. “Nuclear event” anyone?
Annoyed at auldheid’s sanctimonious catholicism, Southern exile goes OT in an OTT and unacceptable posting.
Boys and girls TSFM says no religion. So no religion please. Hopefully whole spat will be removed by moderators. Lots of less offensive stuff has been.
finchleyflyer says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 19:42
£2M from fans leaked on Monday, turns into £5M today and transforms a 50% uptake from a failure into a success in news management terms
Heard on SSB that a football club can,t be liquidated and when a caller asked the pundit why ? he replied they can’t if you don’t let them
Does he mean legally or mentally .
Maybe someone should tell sevcos new PR guru as I heard him a while back saying he tried to buy Airdrie their badge back and was told …..if you want the badge pay the debts ,I would expect him at Hampden tomorrow morning demanding the badge back ASAP
Fair play to the fans who put in £5m, If this turns out to be correct, it must come as a shock to all who were writing off the fans commitment. Perhaps another case of communal wishful thinking?, its getting tiresome now, especially with the old dead horse of newco/oldco still being unmercifully flogged and no sign of any let up. I suppose the next line will be the expectation that the mug punters will soon be getting a right shafting, sad really.
What it all boils down to is that the only power that was wielded to any effect was the threat of withholding the ST money at the start of the season. Says it all really, the triumvirate can continue unfettered till next season regardless of what the prophetic posters postulate.
How and ever, it’s ten months since I had the good fortune to discover RTC and its son, not bad for a fiver, eh?
Infantile news management from Media House. The share issue raises half its target – though bang on what many on here predicted. By releasing an outrageously low estimate the day before thecissue close thry can then celebrate a dissapointing figure as a triumph on the grounds that it was not a disaster.
Crude management of bad news. Ought to be ridiculed but gullible berzz will be hailing the triumph no doubt. Big unanswered question is the price paid by institutions forvtheir investment. Second one is whether CG will buy up the unsold shares for a penny each. He just might.
Great blog Stuart. You’ve cheered us all up no end via the interweb for years ‘wae yer high-brow banter’, especially those of us who live abroad. I grew up in a kind of non-football family in Dennistoun in the ’60s, and had the night sky illuminated by the Parkhead floodlights but was taken along to Ibrox as a wee boy to see games. That geographical position from childhood reflects my lasting interest in both clubs.
When this whole thing started I went to some fan forums to ask questions and discovered 21st -century blue and green whataboutery – a word I’d never heard before the RTC blog! It’s as tiresome and neanderthal as you describe.
After many years abroad though, I’m probably more into whatiffery than whataboutery: What if fans of the blue side actually cheered on their green neighbours in Europe? What if green fans stopped gravedancing and just quietly smiled, secure in the knowledge that judgement day was visited upon their foes, and that they were found wanting? What if we could all see the new-found hope in home-grown youth players of all clubs, who now see opportunity born of Armageddon? What if the leagues got bigger and the abomination of desolation caused by the SPL was reversed? Naive perhaps, but maybe whatiffery is the next step on the evolutionary chart, after whataboutery? 🙂
There’s been something incredibly positive in recent events, things probably won’t be the same again. Your next challenge could be to encourage Tom English, or one of your other pals, to guest blog after the final part of the trilogy 😉
iceman63 says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 19:54
——————–
Iceman
That was my point. No religion. My first post said can we get rid of it.
STV now reporting £22.2M raised. However, the article makes an odd final comment, perhaps suggesting all is not quite as it appears:
http://local.stv.tv/glasgow/206599-rangers-shares-raise-222m-from-fans-and-institutional-investors/
£17million from institutional investors? To paraphrase Mae West or Grouch Marx, I for one wouldn’t want to live in that institution.
Grouch? Freudian slip there
Official statement now released
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/2959-rangers-listed-on-london-stock-exchange
‘Who are these institutional investors’ 🙂
I have to agree with Stuart Cosgrove around the club/company debate and must also say that it is becoming the most turgid topic on this forum. It has long since past the point where it looks contrary and petty.
Listen, I know, you know, we know that The Rangers are not the same club and corporate entity that was liquidated – wise men all over the blogosphere have shown this to be the case again and again. Yet, yet…banging that drum over and over will not change the mind of the fans and the notion that a football club exists beyond it’s ‘business’. We, as a collective, cannot argue for the heart and soul of Scottish Football and then decry Rangers fans for leading with their hearts and contriving the most elaborate reinterpretations of what it means to be a ‘club’.
However, I think where we often get confused is that the Sevco ‘issue’ has actually come to embody the worst aspects of the MSM – it is the new Succulent Lamb. It represents another way in which the MSM appear to be mouthpieces and unwilling or unable to apply some logic or analysis to the situation. That, I believe, is what irritates us – and rightly so.
But what I would like to ask the forum is this – what is the solution that would quench the insatiable desire for ‘justice’? If we firstly acknowledge that we would all like someone to express a defined legal explanantion, then what? An acceptance by the Rangers fans that there football club is no more? That they support a brand new club who have a history shorter than my internet browser? That they should drop every song and scarf and programme and consign it to the attic because the team it was associated with is no more?
Cos it ain’t going to happen. We can rant all we want but they will not bend on this issue. For once..just this once, I agree with them, heart and soul.
Wednesday:
A clear breakdown of the share issue will be revealed when trading begins.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/new-and-recent-issues/new-recent-issue-details.html?issueId=8816
Thursday:
Draw for last 16 of the CHAMPIONS LEAGUE
http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=1905574.html#story+far+celtic+fc
2012 – Everyday is Christmas
Whataboutery are you getting at , your point is ?
easyJambo says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 20:21
Official statement now released
http://www.rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/2959-rangers-listed-on-london-stock-exchange
Rangers Chief Executive …
Charles Green commented: “I am delighted to receive this plaque from the London Stock Exchange commemorating the day that Rangers becomes a public company..”
=======================================================
But I thought they already where a public company – but had been suspended/delisted from the Plus Market last December ?
Or are we talking about a different Rangers here…? Very confusing. 🙂
Iceman
I was well aware that my post might be judged in the wrong light but took that risk. If it had the sanctimonious overtones that OTT observed that was not my intent in posting so I can apologise that the words used did not reflect my intent cleary enough but not for any offense anyone might take at the post. Had I been the Montrose chairman I would have taken a similar line.
The intent had anyone taken the time to read the link was to raise awareness of the conditions that could lead to a social reconciliation and enable everyone to move on.
One of those conditions is admission of wrong doing and few would argue that there has been much sign of that from the Rangers side. Since the topic was whataboutery and the use of that as an excuse to avoid admitting wrongdoing I judged the matter relevant and worth raising.
No judgement was implied of the benefits of one tradition over another only the difference was pointed out in an attempt to explore why it was so difficult for both sides to understand each other in the hope that the question might cause some readers to stop and think and allow us to go beyond labling.
Iceman
Having given my side of the story and relevance to the blog topic I think my post should be left in the interests of ending whataboutery through truth and reconciliation.
Firstly any money coming from fans reaching into the millions is not to be sniffed at, so praise where it is due.
However, as was pointed out by paulsatim earlier if the fans had rallied together earlier in the year then the reported £5m invested by end of play today and the money that is still sitting in the Rangers Fighting Fund would have been enough to see off Charlie and buy the whole club and get Rangers minded people on the board etc etc.
Let us not forget that Sir Cardigan and Jim McColl tried to come in at the 13th hour with a late bid of £6m.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18447530
Why did these two not step in sooner to have a club controlled by Rangers men and the fans instead of this proud institution being in the hands of spivs?
It could be argued that there was £6m to buy ‘the club’ from D&P and this could have then be followed up by getting in Season Ticket Money and then coming up with their own share issue and raising £5m from the fans. You cannot tell me that there isn’t Rangers minded business people out there would could have run up a dodgy prospectus and made contact with ‘institutional investors’ to get the £17m Mr Charles claims he has. Afterall it was such a good deal that they are apparently throwing money at the club.
Still smells to high heaven as far as I’m concerned and my hunch is that the numbers don’t add up. They might just manage to pull it off but if and when the club goes down the pan again nobody should be surprised.
So £22m well done, still £5m short. We await with interest the paperwork on the “short” positions and what will the market do to the price?
gazpops says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 20:24
You took the words out of my mouth (and attracted all the TD that I expected for such a post) – the reality of that whole circular argument (died/no-died) is that in the end – it doesn’t really matter, what matters is :
1) inquiry into illegal player registrations during the EBT years and any punishment
2) leadership and conduct of the SFA/SPL/SFL esp Ogilvie & Doncaster
3) The intimidation from TRFC and the lack of leadership from MSM/SFA/SFL/SPL
– for number 4 – the recent Kenny Sheils incident is a great example of double standards (whataboutery!) of the compliance officer.
So if you look at the important issues – none of them really change if TRFC = RFC or not, can we move on and focus on the problems above? or is there a real issue that needs resolved around the died/no-died discussion?
SouthernExile
Having read your post I think there is more need than ever for an attitude of reconciliation.
and just to show consistency isn’t my strong point i’m going to ask a curiosity question around the TRFC/RFC question – what was the reason that airdie couldn’t use their old name? and is that applicable here?
easyJambo says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 18:10
6 0 Rate This
With Hearts share offer ending tomorrow, an open letter from Vlad to fans of his basketball team in Lithuania has just surfaced.
…..
I don’t think it is particularly good news for Hearts as it is increasingly looking like several players will be sold or released as free transfers in January.
————–
Yes and no. At least he’s not trying to camouflage financial distress. Team-wise it might be a short-term blow with bragging rights at Easter Road for a while, but at least Hearts may remain as Hearts and not end up as some undignified, ever-morphing newco.
In one sense, most teams are reverting to post-Murrayism economics. The sooner Scottish football rights itself the better. The silver lining will be the likely increase in home-grown talent. Hurrah.
@auldheid
Over the past year that I have been on RTC/this site I have appreciated and enjoyed your contributions. My intervention this afternoon could have been better judged, it is easy to let other things going on in your life to let emotion take over.
I’d like to think we are on the same side in hoping for a better Scotland that leaves historical bitterness behind.
“This process has generated over £22 million which has exceeded the figure of £20m that we set out to raise when we announced our intention to float the company on 11th October 2012.
Is this Chuckie saying he does not need to buy the £5 mill shortfall in shares he said he would?
Thank you bayviewgold. I expect the TD’s! You are spot on but I would keep the argument about my fearless leader Mr. Shiels for a different argument. The ‘live’ issue around the deid/ no deid thing is as always the lack of reportage around the actual corporate implications of liquidation for a football club and the collective memory loss from those who peddled the ‘end of all things’ approach when a CVA was needed. That is merely another example of the journalistic dirge that inhabits most of our back pages. But, in my opinion, it is being lumped in with the Rangers fans willingness to hear the thing that confirms what they know – that their football club is alive. Are they hypocritical amnesiacs, flying in the face of reality? Yes. Like all football fans.
Join the club…or holding company.
😉
Some `History`;-
April creditors report indicated 17.3m net transfer from USrUS to RFCG – gosh golly – Blimey!
John Clarke
On the SFA. Absolutely and if you email me via tsfm I’ll discuss further.
Southern Exile
Cheers. I have been intested in Tnd R for a long time and think it would benefit Scottish society as a whole if we could reach it.
Danish,
That was such a cool post and made me think of who I am now regarding who I support and why.
Up until I was 13 I was an avid Morton supporter, living on Belville Street in Greenock meant it was a short (ish) walk with friends to Cappielow Park and getting punts, when younger, over the turnstiles into the game and loving every minute of it… as you do when you are a kid.
I watched Kings there, notably Baxter and Jinky.
My seismic shift happened when my school class won a day trip to Celtic Park, our PE teacher was Johnny Little (Google, youngsters!) who asked us kids if we knew the gentleman on the steps who was there to meet us….the late, great, Jimmy McGrory…cue blank faces!
Mr McGrory ushered us around the Parkhead tour and as I stood in the trophy room looking straight at Big Ears, ok replica, surrounded by the other trophies on a big plinth won the year before, I was smitten.
I love rivalry, hate hatred.
The overwhelming emotion for me in this whole Rangers saga, is the injustice. The injustice for the rest of the Scottish Football Clubs, fans and Scottish football as a whole that the SFA & SPL did not carry out their much trumpeted “we will act without fear or favour” and for the truth to be told by Rangers, the media and all associated with the running of football in this country.
Time and time again we witnessed the manipulation and dismissal of the rules of our game in relation to the Rangers problem. This feeling of injustice grew further due to the support, incompetence and compliance of the media in Scotland in aligning themselves with everything Rangers and to report every fart, cough, mumble and bullshit to come out of Ibrox and report it as the gospel truth and news even though we all knew that it was media spin and a form of indoctrination for the masses.
Many injustices have been found during the last year, from the inability of the SFA and SPL to deal with anything Rangers to the media stoking the feeding frenzy of Charles Green and Ally McCoist’s ill thought utterances and rantings. This is coupled with the compliance of the SFL. To make matters even worse for us supporters of other worthy teams we find that a lot of the people in the top positions in our game are also affiliated to the Ibrox club in some form. They openly assisted and assist for them to survive in some shape or form without due consideration to the impact to Scottish football nor to the impact of the rest of the supporters of club football in this country.
The Kenny Sheils case is a classic. I see he is on a charge already. Green and McCoist got away with murder and can still say what they want without any censorship or rebuke.
The inequality of it all makes our blood boil. From the unequal revenue sharing in the SPL when Rangers were there, the ridiculous voting system, the pathetic disciplinary system when Rangers are involved to the media printing four or five Rangers or Celtic stories in one paper with barely a mention of the other 10 teams who make up the SPL.
Quite frankly we are all sick of it. We are sick of the inequity, sick of the sycophantic journalists, sick of the corrupt goverance and all we want is truth, integrity, sportmanship and a level playing field for all teams, clubs, chairmen and fans of Scottish football.
We want proper goverance, we want to develop our game even if it might mean a few steps back for a few years. We want change, change for the better, a change in attitude, but above all of that we want justice.
Firstly, there is no way Sevco raised the money they are bandying about. I’ll give 20/1 that the figures are b….s…..t.
Secondly, watch the share price plummet on the first day of trading………the long-awaited, ‘Nuclear Event’ perhaps!
Hey stuart why dont you take up investigative journalism and find some answers that
every scottish football supporter is asking ! never mind about your whataboutery ,
what about that ?
cosmichaggis says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 21:15
a cosmic post! well said. 🙂
il mio nome @white_italy
Based on AIM. Insight Management have invested £561,000. 3.30% #sevco #share #issue
Retweeted by TheBlackKnight TBK
Expand Reply Retweet Favorite
46m il mio nome @white_italy
Based on AIM Craig Mathers only invested £530,400. 3.12% #sevco #share #issue
Retweeted by TheBlackKnight TBK
Expand
48m il mio nome @white_italy
Based on AIM. Legal & General have invested £589,900. 3.47% #sevco #share #issue
Retweeted by TheBlackKnight TBK
Expand
50m il mio nome @white_italy
Based on AIM. Richard Hughes & Imran Ahmad have invested both at £649,400. 3.82%
Retweeted by TheBlackKnight TBK
Expand
51m il mio nome @white_italy
Based in AIM. Cazenove Man have invested £722,500. 4.25% #sevco #share #issue
Retweeted by TheBlackKnight TBK
Expand
52m il mio nome @white_italy
Based on AIM. Margarita have invested £766,700. 4.51% #sevco #share #issue
Retweeted by TheBlackKnight TBK
Expand
57m il mio nome @white_italy
Based on AIM. Artimis Inv Man have invested £1,263,100. 7.43% #sevco #share #issue
Retweeted by TheBlackKnight TBK
Expand
55m il mio nome @white_italy
Based on AIM. Blue Pitch Holdings*** have invested £1,179,800. 6.94% #sevo #share #issue
Retweeted by TheBlackKnight TBK
Expand
58m il mio nome @white_italy
Based on AIM. Hargreave Hale has invested £1,458,600. 8.58%
Retweeted by TheBlackKnight TBK
Expand
59m il mio nome @white_italy
Based on AIM% Charles Green has invested £1,473,900, 8.67%.
Retweeted by TheBlackKnight TBK
Expand
Someone posted earlier to stop banging the drum on this old rangers/new rangers saga, but if we give up and just accept it the SFA, SFL, green, the MSM will have finally ground us down and won, the next thing that will happen is the dual contract inquiry will fizzle out and the corruption,disinformation and intimidation will have triumphed.
Auldheid says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 21:10
1 0 Rate This
Southern Exile
Cheers. I have been intested in Tnd R for a long time and think it would benefit Scottish society as a whole if we could reach it
———-
You’re both making thoughtful points, but the language they’re expressed in probably doesn’t suit this forum. How about you try fish puns instead? You could start with trout and reconciliation.
I’ll get ma Sou’Wester …
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 21:23
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Unless my arithmetic’s completely askew, those figures don’t add up to £17m. Just what is going on here?
That was my post highlandjaggy and that isn’t what I said. I asked what exactly it is that people want from Rangers fans? Asking them to accept that their club is dead is just childish. You wouldn’t do it, neither would I. The reporting of the old/new debate is a different matter and one that is worthy of continued monitoring. When it is bundled in with the fans belief about their own club then I believe the argument loses its relevance.
parmahamster – I’m not entirely sure, but I’d hazard a guess that Chasbo G might have been somewhat economical with the actualite.
We’ll find out tomorrow. The Stock Exchange actually requires legit figures, not pish and wind press releases from the hand of J. Traynor, like like swathes of the Scottish press.
It will be interesting come the end of the season when RIFC win the third division will the SFA congratulate them on winning their 55th title or their first.
I’d disagree with you Stuart on this point.
I think everyone recognises and accepts the “emotional attachment” that Rangers supporters have with the football team that currently plays at Ibrox. I don’t think anyone doubts that trauma caused by the death of the previous club to use the Rangers FC brand has been eased by this ready-made replacement.
This time last year (when it was becoming increasingly obvious that Rangers would not survive its financial difficulties) there was much speculation about what would happen if the assets were broken up. What would have been the result if the stadium had been purchased by one company and the intellectual property by another? Where would the “spirit” of the old club go? Would the former club’s supporters be drawn to a team called Rangers FC playing out of Hampden or would a Govan Rangers FC based at Ibrox stadium have gained more traction?
The likelihood is that the support would have split. Some would have followed the “brand name” and others would have more closely cherished the links with their traditional home.
What draws supporters into a stadium is complicated – all of the things you mentioned. The “club” is just one component of a multitude of factors that.
You will know that from 2007 MK Dons stopped claiming the history of Wimbledon FC – indeed, they have gifted all trophies and memorabilia associated with their former name to the London Borough of Merton and the trademarks and branding to the new club AFC Wimbledon.
There is no doubt that MK Dons and Wimbledon FC are/were the same football club. There was no need for players to TUPE, no loss of FA membership, no loss of Club Licence or Football League membership. They moved stadium, changed their name and sought out a new set of supporters – but they are the same legal entity. The original “spirit” may have been purged; but they are nevertheless, the same football club.
On the other hand, there is also no doubt that Wimbledon FC and AFC Wimbledon are different football clubs. Different grounds, FA memberships, league memberships, etc. However, it can be well argued that the “spirit” of Wimbledon FC has been rekindled in AFC Wimbledon – even more so, if/when they change their name to match. They, like the new Rangers, are attempting to create an “emotional attachment” with the former supporters of a football club that used to play with a similar or identical name.
In Italy this approach is recognised by the FIGC by the adoption of a “Sports Title” held by the governing body. Existing clubs or new companies can purchase the “Sports Title” of defunct clubs – by paying outstanding football debts – and thereafter claim the dead club’s name & history.
I view the new Rangers in the same way as I do AFC Wimbledon. Though neither can truthfully claim to be the football club they aspire to be, both hope to capture the “spirit”, the ethos and the supporters of another club.
The oldclub/newclub cannot be conceded. The name can even claiming the history could be ignored but the fundamental nature of what has occured must not be. If we allow the continuation myth to stand then Rangers can claim to have been punished and pubished severely and the ongoing enquiries can be seen as more fly kicks. The objectionable mythology and vile culture of this Rangers will somehow be vindicated. Only by understanding that this is legally a new club can any coherent sense of the status of the club and its privileged treatment be understood. Oldclub means they have been wronged and are victims. Newclub neans they have been privileged and are recipients of a generosity never before shown to any other club. It is about maintaining a desire to uphold the truth over caving in to a supremacist culture built on lies. Appeasement to lies or the dignity of upholding the truth in the face of sustained lying by a powerful cadre of unscrupulous unprincipled and loathsome individuals ( and that’s just the SFA).
Quick mental calculation:
Around £10m in cash and 53% of shares.
Where’s the rest?.
Although when AFC Wimbledon met MK Dons recently, it did give rise to one of my favourite chants – ‘Where were you when you were us?’
Forget what Green says about the share issue
Forget what Media House spin about the share issue
All that matters when an IPO is launched is the performance of the share price
Spivs know how to make money in the market by using inside information to sell shares at the most opportune time
Their first opportunity is coming up very soon
If the share price is still around 70p mark by end Jan then Institutions have indeed paid a fair price and the Spivs are not selling out just yet
nowoldandgrumpy says: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 21:23
———————–
Chuckles 5,000,200 (8.67%) shares cost him all of £50,002 as detailed in the prospectus as he gave himself an option to buy the shares at £0.01p before the IPO.
Also the share %ages reflect the position if no offer shares were taken up. These %ages will be reduced by the shares taken up in the offer.
An intersting thing tomorrow will be to see if the share numbers owned be any of the original or institutional investors have changed from what was indicated in the prospectus.
If any are lower, then it suggests that some of the placing shares were not taken up.
If any are higher then it suggests that some of the spare shares have been acquired, but we may not know how much was paid for them.
The other thing to look out for is the share price. How much will it rise or fall? Logic would suggest that it will fall given that the share offer wasn’t taken up in full. However if the market makers deem that the value of the company (RIFC with TRFC as a subsidiary) is matched by the shares on issue, then the price may hold up.
Those who supported the team that played at Ibrox prior to liquidation are free to believe whatever they want and nothing that is said by anyone else is likely to undermine their belief.
Just like the Flat Earth Society.
The important thing is that the governing bodies do not act upon belief but upon facts and rules.
Unfortunately, the governing bodies are known to consist of people who are known to be believers.
Do RIFC now have 22million in their bank account and do they now give said money to TRFC or is all of this just numbers on a piece of paper.
Can someone explain to this eejit how it all works?.
iki says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 22:08
0 0 Rate This
Those who supported the team that played at Ibrox prior to liquidation are free to believe whatever they want and nothing that is said by anyone else is likely to undermine their belief.
Just like the Flat Earth Society.
The important thing is that the governing bodies do not act upon belief but upon facts and rules.
Unfortunately, the governing bodies are known to consist of people who are known to be believers.
————————————–
As this embarrassing web page demonstrates:
http://www.scottishfootballleague.com/club/rangers/
A lovely answer Hirsute and a response from Rangers that mirrored your response would be great. I always thought they had a chance to use the chance of rebirth in their favour in both a corporate and spiritual sense. The contortions many perform to marry up both of these different aspects of ‘existence’ is not pretty but I make some allowances as I have mentioned previously. To me the notion that a club exists firstly in the intangible area of heart and history is a watertight argument. Indeed the whole sport thrives on romance and nostalgia..it’s usp is that old Shankly adage.
I would disagree with you on one point though, Rangers aren’t trying to capture the spirit of a club. They have done it..and good on them. The real worry isn’t the blinkered ideology of fans, but the willingness of media to leave these ideas wholly explained.
cosmichaggis says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 21:15
Excellent post. Thanks for articulating what I certainly feel.
Has anybody Emailed the SFL to point out the mistakes on their rangers page?.
Wholly unexplained I meant.
highlandjaggy says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 21:28
Another excellent comment!! More power to your elbow pal.
goosygoosy says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 21:59
If the share price is still around 70p mark by end Jan then Institutions have indeed paid a fair price and the Spivs are not selling out just yet
……………………………………………………………..
Goosy, if the share price is even close to half that amount by the end of Jan I will buy a Rangers season ticket!
This “thing” has to have movement over the weeks to the end of January and no one else will now be paying even close to 70p.
My guess is by Friday maybe 50p if they are lucky and by the end of January under 30p (maybe well under)
gazpops says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 20:24
I don’t think many would have an issue with the viewpoint that a lot of TRFC fans claim, that their club is more than just bricks,mortar, and spreadsheets, and goes beyond a physical entity. I completely understand their philosophical arguement about what makes a football team. I’m sure if you ask Airdrie fans, they’ll tell you that whilst there may have been some turbulence a few years ago, as far as they are concerned Airdrie are still the Airdrie that they followed.
However, what makes this slightly different is that you have a group not only claiming the philosophical territory, but that claim that the physical entity is no different either. The problem with this is that if it is the same physical entity, then they have had a grave misjustice done to them. If they are the same entity, then they would have a valid grievance about being chucked out of the SPL. If they are the same entity, then the view that the rest of the SPL got together and somehow plotted to get them chucked out must be true. No wonder they are so angry at the SPL and are organising boycotts. Who could blame them?
However, if they AREN’T the same physical entity, as the rest of the SPL decided when they had a vote to consider admitting them in Rangers place (remember that? The vote was to allow this new entity to take the place of the old one that ceased to exist – It was NOT, as a lot of TRFC fans will tell you it was, a vote to relegate them), then it was perfectly justified to make them start in Division 3, although Spartans might have something to say about that.
And that’s the argument in a nutshell – if Scottish football is to justify what happened to Rangers/TRFC, then it has to be a new club, otherwise the alternative is that Rangers as a club have been shafted royally by everyone else.
It may be that it would easier to sweep it under the carpet, as the SFA seem content to do, but to do so is to add fuel to the fire. By the SFA announcing that they are indeed a new club (even with a bone thrown in with a small addition about them understanding why Rangers fans would not view it as one), then it would kill any attempts to stir up resentment and move things away from where we are today.
Roll on 0800 tomorrow morning, then. 🙂
On the subject of who TRFC are, I don’t care. However, I think it only right that it should be officialy acknowledged that they are not the same club as RFC – in fact, it has been acknowledged from some quarters. UEFA entry, Scottish Cup rounds, etc.
I do feel that it should be acknowledged by all authorities and organisations, though. They don’t need to come out and say it, they only need to amend websites, information sources and so on. If they all did it, the “wrath” of the hordes would be torn in so many directions it’d be ineffectual.
Come on ye authorities – stand up and be counted. Montrose started the ball rolling and were forced to backtrack. Who’s going to be next to grow a pair?
on the subject of Aidrie, i cant wait till jim gets grilled on his attempt to purchase the airdrie badge for his club.
he couldn’t do it……something about having to pay all the debts to get the badge (he said out loud & on air).
wonder if chic could get a copy of the tape and ask him……ok maybe not chic…..
gazpops says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 21:45
‘…Asking them to accept that their club is dead is just childish…’
——–
No, with respect, there is a fundamental point of principle involved.
The club that is in liquidation owed a helluva lot of people a helluva lot of money.
To get out of that fix, it was killed.
But before it finally died, and while it was still a living, breathing entity, its ‘500 million’ loyal fans actually switched their allegiance to a quite different new club, new under civil law and under football legislation, which ran in parallel. It is the simple fact that there were simultaneously TWO clubs.
If , and God bless them in their desperation, those 500 million need to pretend that the club which they now support is the same as the one they ALLOWED ( by not mounting any serious supporter attempt to get it out of administration) to be murdered by SDM and Co, well, no real harm done, except to themselves.(I am sure a huge weight of self-recrimination is hidden under the strident assertions that ‘it is the same club’.)
But it is NECESSARY that those who should, and do in fact, know better , namely, the MSM, should be challenged when they, whether out of actual physical fear or fear of missing the succulent lamb,join in the pretence that nothing has actually happened and Rangers are still alive.
I may add to an earlier poster’s observations, my own view that the BBC Sportsound editor undoubtedly has a pro-‘The Rangers’ agenda , working his/her socks off to keep the idea of ‘the Old Firm’ being everyone’s heart’s desire.
In scheduling that , forgive me, crap with Gough and Bonner tonight, talking about feckin long- past games, the intention was clearly to lend the BBC’s weight to support the fantasists.
The Rangers FC of my boyhood, adulthood, and (relatively) old-age hood is dead.
‘The Rangers FC’ is but a pale mockery of an imitation.
Rangers Football Club International ( Scotland, not Africa) will be an even more distanced imitation of that mocking imitation.
And Clodius and company will be laughing all the way to the bank when the time is ripe.
nowoldandgrumpy says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 21:23
____________________________________________
That’s just over £9.1m for 54.09%…………..
But we all know Green hasn’t put his hand in his pocket so his shareholding may be worth that on paper, but he really hasn’t actually put any money in to the share issue…
That brings you to the question of how much have they actually raised?
Will AIM have it on paper that this is what they’ve invested because of the price of the share issue, but in reality that £9.1m is nowhere near what they’ve received for the 54.09%??
It just doesn’t add up, either I’m a frigging imbecile or will Sevco be lucky to last till the end of the season without going into Administration?
gazpops says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 22:14
0 0 Rate This
A lovely answer Hirsute and a response from Rangers that mirrored your response would be great. I always thought they had a chance to use the chance of rebirth in their favour in both a corporate and spiritual sense. The contortions many perform to marry up both of these different aspects of ‘existence’ is not pretty but I make some allowances as I have mentioned previously. To me the notion that a club exists firstly in the intangible area of heart and history is a watertight argument. Indeed the whole sport thrives on romance and nostalgia..it’s usp is that old Shankly adage.
I would disagree with you on one point though, Rangers aren’t trying to capture the spirit of a club. They have done it..and good on them. The real worry isn’t the blinkered ideology of fans, but the willingness of media to leave these ideas wholly explained.
————————————————–
I’m not so sure.
I have always worked on the basis that bullies are the most insecure people. The behaviour of the old club’s supporters and the new club’s officials has demonstrated an enormous of insecurity.
The new club and the old club’s supporters are still at an early stage in their relationship. They may well stay together long-term; but this is not certain. It may not even be likely.
When the new Rangers hit the entirely predictable troubled times ahead, their historical void will undoubtedly start to gnaw away at the supporters’ currently espoused certainties. Whether or not they will have bonded sufficiently by then to survive, is still to be determined.
Re the died/no-died – the posters above have made some great points, but the problem is that the authorities have refused to say either way, and again it gets back to the lack of any clarity or leadership, the SFA or SFL can end the debate in a heartbeat by coming out and saying RFC are a continuation and here is why (no-died) or TRFC are a new club and here is why (died) but instead we have this fuddle of mixed rules, where they are then they’re no. Maybe we do all write to the SFL about their webpage.
pau1mart1n says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 22:31
Is that why Airdrie couldn’t use their old name? they had to settle debts or buy the IP/Brand? was it the owner or the SFA that mandated the name change?
Based on the information from the prospectus and earlier sources, these are the shareholdings we should see tomorrow:
The percentages exclude the public offer shares, so should reduce once the offer shares are included tomorrow. The values are what they would be at 70p a share.
Charles Green……..8.67% 5,071,629 £3,550,140
Hargreave Hale……8.58% 4,949,000 £3,464,300
Artemis……………….7.43% 4,286,000 £3,000,200
Blue Pitch Holding..6.94% 4,000,000 £2,800,000
Mike Ashley…………5.20% 3,000,000 £2,100,000
Margarita Funds…..4.51% 2,600,000 £1,820,000
Cazenove Capital…4.25% 2,450,000 £1,715,000
Richard Hughes……3.82% 2,200,000 £1,540,000
Imran Ahmad……….3.82% 2,200,000 £1,540,000
Legal & General……3.47% 2,000,000 £1,400,000
Insight…………………3.30% 1,900,000 £1,330,000
Craig Mather………..3.12% 1,800,000 £1,260,000
Ally McCoist………..1.86% 1,071,429 £750,000
Glenmuir…………….1.73% 1,000,000 £700,000
Andy Hosie…………1.56% ..900,000 £630,000
Ian Hart………………0.97% ..561,429 £393,000
Chris Morgan………0.69% ..400,000 £280,000
Alan Mackenzie…..0.43% ..250,000 £175,000
Jean Haddad………0.43% ..250,000 £175,000
Malcolm Murray…..0.47% ..271,429 £190,000
Colin Howell……….0.35% ..200,000 £140,000
John McClure……..0.35% ..200,000 £140,000
John Goold…………0.17% ..100,000 £70,000
Elias Kaisar………..0.17% ..100,000 £70,000
Stephen Adams…..0.09% …50,000 £35,000
Brian Stockbridge..0.12% …71,429 £50,000
Walter Smith……….0.12% …71,429 £50,000
Ian Cormack……….0.04% …25,000 £17,500
John Graham………0.04% …25,000 £17,500
Sub Total…………..72.73% 42,003,774 £29,402,642
Totals (pre offer).100.00% 57,758,057 £40,360,639
Assuming that the MSM quoted numbers from the offer are correct, then the total number shares will increase by 7.43M and the total value by £5.2M
First of all, thank you to Mr. Cosgrove for again taking the time to Blog here and follow up with replies – it is good news that at least someone in the media is listening and willing to take part in the debate.
Regarding the comments “…..To be honest I have several competing thoughts.” I am the same.
The Junior team I go to watch these days – home games for me seem to be further away than away games, unfortunately – were once a Senior side in the Scottish Football League. Many years ago. The club website still lists their results in the Senior Leagues. They still play at the same “Stadium” (it HAS seen better days I can assure you) and still play in the same strips. But I would never for one minute claim them to be the same club. The club itself doesn’t. That would just be plain crazy.
But, by the same token, if I saw The Rangers on TV (that’s as close as I get these days) then I would want them to win the game. Fairly, of course. And they would still be the same team to me. Albeit sans my boyhood heroes of Cooper and Russell. Because I want them to be.
And I consider myself a reasonably intelligent man. Some might argue*.
As for the fans who go every week, pay their money and chucked money at this share issue, then I can understand why they too hang on to it being the same club. Despite the seemingly incontrovertible evidence.
Saying that they are not the same team on TSFM to me just seems like preaching to the converted. I’m not saying people shouldn’t do it, or that it should just let it go, just that it doesn’t seem to be a particularly hard argument to win here.
*I don’t condone any of the goings on at Ibrox over the years. Tax policies, improperly registered players etc and have no problem with punishments being meted out for breach of any rules. For clarification.
I must take my hat off to Charlie. He has achieved all he said he would and more.
This raising values Rangers at £40m, £6m more than Celtic! And who said markets were efficient?!
It is likely that most of the institutions would have paid somewhere in the region of the 40p to 60p mark. Only the bears have paid the full 70p.
The fun and games start tomorrow. Greens original consortium paid £5.5M for roughly half the company, so they are quids in whatever happens – or atleast if the share price doesnt fall below about 25p. Expect them to sell to any willing bears at the soonest convenience. They may have to wait a lock in time period, though.
In order to keep a floor under the share for the Green gang to sell to they will need to keep shamelessly playing to the gallery – both bear and financial market. We can expect a great deal more of Greene “wit” in the months ahead!
Its hard to say why these institutions got involved. As a fund manager myself it looks bonkers on a relative value perspective. This share price has one way to go.
However, regardless of what the price does, the £27m or so is added to the season ticket monies and will make the new Rangers secure for the forseeable future.
jim said he tried to buy the old badge to give to the new club years after the changeover, he couldnt get it without paying the debts. at least that is my recollection of what he said on air.
i’m sure he’ll shout at anyone who asks that it’s not the same thing……..
easyJambo says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 18:10
It’s a bit like getting a begging letter is it not! Vlad is a fine example of the excesses that led us to where we are today, Vlad maybe took a bit longer than SDM.
Southern Exile. I hadn’t intended looking back to see what the argument with Aulheid was but in the end I did. Whilst I get your point (in a manner of speaking) it is not your best post by a long shot, I’m not even going to debate it, bayviewgold summed it up . Glad to see however that you an Aulheid are moving on and that is what makes this blog different and a cut above the others.
There is a typo in one of the totals figures which was 100K out and it should read:
Totals (pre offer).100.00% 57,658,057 £40,360,639
———————————
If the number of shares related to the £5.2M is shown to be more than 7.43M, then it will be an indication of some investors being invited to take up spare shares at less than the official 70p price.
highlandjaggy says:
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 22:11
Do RIFC now have 22million in their bank account and do they now give said money to TRFC or is all of this just numbers on a piece of paper.
Can someone explain to this eejit how it all work
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
hj
You have fingered the only issue that matters to the Gullible.
Will Ally see any of this cash?
Make no mistake
RIFC are not legally committed to spend any of this money on their subsidiary co TRFC. For all we know they intend to use this money to clear debt owed to Whyte,Close Leasing and Ticketus
Is it £22m ?
Did RIFC get hard cash for the shares they sold ?
Or was it a promise to pay at a future date?
Or a purchase at the lowest average market price ruling in Jan 2013?
Or a spread betting option?
etc etc
there could be multiple permutations ………….all yielding less than 70p/share
The only real money we can be sure of is what was subscribed at 70p by the Gullible
If it is remotely close to £5m then it would be fair to say that
“Never in the whole history of AIM IPOs have so many been so duped by so few”