A Guest blog by @heavidor:
Given The Takeover Panel’s success in procuring a Court of Session order to compel Dave King to make an offer for all Rangers International Football Club Plc shares not owned by the Concert Party it would be impossible for King to remain a director unless he complies with that Order.
The co-option of Barry Scott to the board and the elevation of Alistair Johnston as a person with significant control could be construed as repositioning, however it will be whether King makes an offer of 20 pence per share to all the shareholders not included in the Concert Party or not that will determine what happens next and we shall know later this month.
(King resigning) is the correct thing to do and should have already occurred. Instead, Rangers financial reputation has been dragged through the mud by association.
Irrespective of whether King complies with the Court Order or not this story is far from over, and it will continue to hamper Rangers’ prospects until it is conclusively resolved. A King resignation as a director of RIFC would reduce the prospect of contaminating the club, its directors and advisors from the full effect of cold shouldering should he decline to make an offer.
That would mean that King, as distinct from RIFC, had financial pariah status and not the club. That is the correct thing to do and should have already occurred but, instead, Rangers’ financial reputation has been dragged through the mud by association with King.
What should not be underestimated is the reality of cold-shouldering, not for just the offending party, but for those involved in business with the offending party. The consequences are dire for the individual or organisation who falls foul of the rules, making it impossible to carry out normal business activities within the sphere of influence of The Panel, and the same consequences face those who shelter the cold shouldered.
It should be appreciated that there are members of the RIFC that are members of regulated financial professions who would be further prejudiced through association with a cold shouldered non-resident King.
Perhaps unfortunately for a large slug of the mainstream media and football authorities, financial pariah status pursuant to cold shouldering in the UK coming on top of criminal convictions in SA would be impossible to spin in any positive way or to maintain continued fit and proper status. I mean, we could have the SFA cold shouldered, couldn’t we? All said though, the cognitively dissonant will carry on regardless.
If King does the right thing by resigning from the board, it is still important to appreciate that the ‘4 Bear’ Concert Party as determined by The Panel will continue to exist irrespective of how Kings deals with the instruction to make an offer for the shares. This is the elephant in the room that remains.
The Concert Party via their shares and loans will retain the same level of control they currently have, and therefore remain compelled to abide by The Panel’s rules.
King’s resignation would not remove that impediment.
It doesn’t end there. By challenging the authority and insulting the intelligence of The Panel and the Court, King has ensured all large share transactions in RIFC will be scrutinised and questioned and could additionally determine, for example, that the Concert Party is increased to include Club 1872 and Barry Scott on the basis they are working in concert with King and/or other concert party members.
There are some who think that The Panel has been slow to respond and impose sanctions and that they are all bark and no bite. It would be wrong to think so. The reality is that King has moved the whole dispute into uncharted territory. There has been no precedent for such continued brazen and naïve flouting of Panel rules. Accordingly, The Panel has chosen to move at its own pace, dotting the ‘i’s and crossing the ‘t’s and I suggest they’re being methodical rather than indecisive in dealing with the estimable Mr King.
The true value of RIFC shares was a key point in the recent court case with all kinds of claims being made. Some think that the lack of significant arm’s-length trades makes it impossible to arrive at a correct price, and others say that the price paid to Mike Ashley in recent trades is the benchmark. In my opinion, neither is correct. Current and prospective shareholders have the financial figures in the accounts to work with, and can determine the real worth from there. On that basis it is clear to me the shares are not worth anything like the last alleged trading price on Jenkins. Rather it seems that the shares only have nominal value given the business has never declared a profit, continues to lose money and is reliant upon ongoing shareholder loans to stay in business.
Any subsequent share issue – even with King gone – could muddy the waters further; The Concert Party members may expose themselves to another Panel instruction to make another offer should any of its members acquire more shares without coming to an arrangement with The Panel beforehand.
To illustrate such an arrangement, Dermot Desmond got Panel permission to increase his shareholding above 29.9% the last time Celtic had a share issue. This is preferable to trying to hoodwink the financial authorities with tall tales.
It should be clear to all followers of RIFC’s financial travails that the status quo is unsustainable. So, the question is ‘what’s next’? The chairman’s statement that accompanied the annual accounts once more talked about loan to equity conversion without reference to the impact of the existence of a Concert Party amongst the RIFC Board of directors and providers of loans. This is remarkable any such conversion cannot take place without the permission of The Panel and/or without dragging the other directors and lenders in the quagmire with another possible offer for the shares not owned by the Concert Party.
.. the shares only have nominal value given the business has never declared a profit, continues to lose money and is reliant upon ongoing shareholder loans to stay in business
So, what should happen and what is required for RIFC to rid itself of this terrible yoke? The answers are pretty obvious; King should make an offer of 20 pence per share to all those shareholders not included in the Concert Party. He has said the shares are worth more than that and that no one would accept. If he’s correct he has nothing to worry about and he would create a clear path forward for Rangers. He would also resolve the dispute with The Panel, creating the conditions for a debt to equity conversion.
So, why might that not happen? Because if the shares are worth 27 pence as the directors have suggested that means the loan to equity conversion would have to be at the same price and, of course, if the shares not worth anything like that there would be a rush to accept 27 pence and the ball would be on the slates, so to speak.
It appears to me the board is stuck between a rock and a hard place, that King will resign, and that there will be no offer.
If this happens the position would be precarious. The current board doesn’t have the credibility, money or experience to take Rangers forward. Being a true blue should not be the defining characteristic of what’s required to make Rangers competitive but it appears to be the preferred qualification of most of their customers.
I believe Rangers need a need owner with a controlling shareholding and deep pockets to sort out this mess, and I have reason to believe this view is shared by some of those with influence.
That is not to say that a solution is imminent, but the reality check is at least a start.
Bordersdon
January 15, 2018 at 13:51
=============================
Absolutely.
If Dave King, or anyone else, is willing to keep putting money in then they have no solvency issues.
Evidence that he doesn’t have the money, well what he told the highest civil Court in Scotland might be. He said he didn’t have any money.
Exclusive, breaking news; Tonto is about to sign for the loan Rangers. Discussions still going on with Kimosabe.
.
HomunculusJanuary 15, 2018 at 13:56
… He said he didn’t have any money.
——
Indeed, and I don’t think many people doubt that Mr King is economical with the truth.
I just think that observers of the situation need to try to avoid making assumptions (which can lead to the formulation of Q2-5 without knowing the response to Q1 🙂 ). There should be a bit more scrutiny of claims emanating from other blogs, too – sources which have made claims and predictions in the past which have not been validated.
You can bet that we don’t know the half of what’s going on behind closed doors and, although it’s always interesting and mentally stimulating to speculate, sometimes it’s all too obvious that the speculator isn’t being entirely objective.
Can anyone remember if there is a maximum number of players a team in Scotland is allowed to have on loan?
I have 4 in my mind.
I’ve been trying to find what ‘transactions’ are covered by the Takeover Panel Code. They are defined in
” THE CITY CODE ON TAKEOVERS AND MERGERS
INTRODUCTION
This is the link to the Introduction, http://www.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/code.pdf?v=8Jan2018
but you’ll have to scroll down to
A5 ..(b) Transactions In cases falling within paragraphs (a)(i) or (ii) above, the Code is concerned with regulating takeover bids and merger transactions of the relevant companies, however effected, including by means of statutory merger or scheme of arrangement (as defined in the Definitions Section). The Code is also concerned with regulating other transactions (including offers by a parent company for shares in its subsidiary, dual holding company transactions, new share issues, share capital reorganisations and offers to minority shareholders) which have as their objective or potential effect (directly or indirectly) obtaining or consolidating control of the relevant companies, as well as partial offers (including tender offers pursuant to Appendix 5) to shareholders for securities in the relevant companies. The …..Code also applies to unitisation proposals which are in competition with another transaction to which the Code applies.In cases falling within paragraph (a)(iii) above, “offers” means only any public offer (other than by the company itself) made to the holders of the company’s securities to acquire those securities (whether mandatory or voluntary) which follows or has as its objective the acquisition of control of the company concerned.The Code applies to all the above transactions at whatever stage of their implementation, including possible transactions which have not yet been announced.”
I have tried to find what procedures the ToP puts in place to alert FCA-authorised bodies and individuals when the ‘cold shoulder’ penalty is applied.
All I can find so far is that they put a statement out (with full details of the investigations etc) on their own website.
No indication that they issue a press release.
Perhaps the expectation is that all the FCA-authorised folk will look every day at the Top website, especially those who are regularly involved in share-dealing for client companies, brokers, Nomads and what not.( But I don’t see that the ordinary lending of money to a company or an individual director would come in to that?)
But there is no question but that being ‘cold shouldered’ is quite serious
see what happened in an early example
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/businesslatestnews/7891128/Who-else-has-the-Takoever-Panel-cold-shouldered.html
GERRYBHOY67
How many loan players are a club allowed in a season?There are quite a few restrictions on how many loan players, what type of loan and who they can be loaned from.
A club cannot have more than four players on loan at any one time (excluding development loans)Clubs cannot have more than one player over the age of 21 on loan at the same timeIn any one season, there cannot be more than two players over the age of 21 on loanClubs can only loan one player at a time from a single club in the same divisionClubs cannot loan more than two players at a time from a club in another divisionThere is a maximum of three players from any one club allowed on loan, including development loans
Thanks Tony — some clubs must be near the threshold!!!
Tony/Gerry,
I think that relates only to domestic (i.e. between Scottish clubs) loans. International loans are different:
Angus,
It’s all very well saying we should not speculate on speculation in other websites but where does that leave us?
Relying on the media for instance? I wouldn’t trust many of their articles especially opinion pieces any more that posters on here. They are notoriously ill informed and publish dubious claims as fact. Don’t get me started on radio pundits. Just fans with a microphone.
Lets take one example of documented hard evidence. Dave King’s representative saying he is penniless in court. And Dave King saying he will supply soft loans to keep TRFC afloat. What is the extent of his influence with NOAL?
Should we not speculate where the truth lies in these facts?
Don’t forget the volumes of truth that came out with The Rangers Tax Case site. Now at the time we were not privy to his source material but it was by and large true nonetheless . Just think, A Blogger!. And it didn’t stop people joining in with opinions/ comments.
Very often people on here participate in ‘joining the dots’. Gleaming information from disparate sources and seeing if it stands up to scrutiny as a theory or possibility. What on earth is wrong with that?
It would be a very sterile site if we were to limit ourselves to your preferred way of working Angus.
jimboJanuary 15, 2018 at 16:28
‘..Very often people on here participate in ‘joining the dots’.
_________
That was an excellent defence of this blog, jimbo. Very well said.
I think it’s pretty well understood that most of us can tell the difference between ‘wishful thinking’ , ‘preferred or hoped for outcomes’ and fact-based speculation, and know when we might be stretching a fact.
As far as I can tell, or been able to tell over the years, very few regular posters ( and probably not too many ‘trolls’) actual tell lies, blatant untruths. The majority who provide information can usually back up what they say with some kind of accessible source material, or with some kind of reasoned argument.
Whereas we know that the SMSM ( the football hacks, and not all of them) do not ask any serious question at all, let alone speculate, about the financial state of TRFC Ltd:they don’t even address reality when assessing TRFC Ltd as a football team.
The blog has nothing to hide. No agenda other than the restoration of integrity and sporting truth to our game, and the unmasking of those who so abandoned such ideas both before the collapse of the old Rangers Football Club ,and the creation of a new club falsely treated as being that same old club.
The SMSM, on the other hand, have to sustain the Big Lie,and support those in Football Governance and those on the RIFC/TRFC Ltd Boards who are deriving some profit from the Big Lie.
Maybe if we think of what goes on here as The Dialectical Method it would help Angus live easier with our faulty ‘speculation’.
Thesis – antithesis – synthesis.
Philosophers have used it for centuries.
The most respected Edinburgh Philosopher Dr. Easy Jambo HOM, is gracious enough to visit our site on a regular basis.
You know, the last three posts, by Jimbo, JC, Jimbo, are great examples of what is so very good about this blog.
One thing I would add to what they’ve said is that should we stop trying to piece together what is happening at Ibrox, the greater the chances are of TRFC getting away with another undeserved European Licence, and more, as the SMSM are not going to take anyone to task as the coverage of that club’s finances and underhand actions would soon go unnoticed or remarked upon.
We could well be seen as an antidote to the type of sycophantic nonsense that appears in TRFC supporters publications like the Daily Record, Sun, BBC Sport etc.
GERRYBHOY67JANUARY 15, 2018 at 14:35
Can anyone remember if there is a maximum number of players a team in Scotland is allowed to have on loan? I have 4 in my mind.
————
Don’t forget the trialists,The last time an ibrox club had players on loan they added some trialists also.
https://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/pair-join-gers-on-trial/
John Clark
January 15, 2018 at 14:47
“Perhaps the expectation is that all the FCA-authorised folk will look every day at the Top website”
That is my take on this too JC.
FCA MAR 4.3 1 Support of the Takeover Panel’s Functions
https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/MAR/4/3.html
The Financial Conduct Authority is the conduct regulator for 56,000 financial services firms and financial markets in the UK and the prudential regulator for over 18,000 of those firms
Saw this on twitter but have no idea where what is said emanates from, though it does look like Steve Clarke is quoted. Now, it’s not so much what this tweet tells us of what the TRFC offer might have actually have been, that piqued my interest, but the nonsensical criticisms of Killie’s stance the Ibrox faithful followed up with, including suggesting Kilmarnock have no right to deny the player a move to Ibrox as they are holding back his career! Now where have we heard that one before?
They really do think that their club should be facilitated in whatever they want to do, and not just by the game’s authorities, either!
From twitter:
‘Steve Clarke confirms @RangersFC bid for Jordan Jones “nowhere near acceptable. I would be a little bit sad if I was the player, it was so low. Easy to turn down.”’
woodsteinJanuary 15, 2018 at 17:58
John ClarkJanuary 15, 2018 at 14:47 “Perhaps the expectation is that all the FCA-authorised folk will look every day at the Top website”That is my take on this too JC. FCA MAR 4.3 1 Support of the Takeover Panel’s Functionshttps://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/MAR/4/3.htmlThe Financial Conduct Authority is the conduct regulator for 56,000 financial services firms and financial markets in the UK and the prudential regulator for over 18,000 of those firms
___________________
I’m sure the cold shoulder will have an effect at every one of those 56,000 financial services firms, for they are unlikely to want to get involved with him, or any company he is closely associated with. At the very least, his credit rating will surely be slashed, and TRFC’s doesn’t appear to be very good, even before the TOP ruling.
ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 15, 2018 at 18:18
From twitter:
‘Steve Clarke confirms @RangersFC bid for Jordan Jones “nowhere near acceptable. I would be a little bit sad if I was the player, it was so low. Easy to turn down.”’
———-
The ibrox club want the player, but don’t recon he is worth the asking price. no wonder Steve Clarke says I would be a little bit sad if I was the player,
AJ, There was ‘speculation’ on Radio Clyde tonight that the Ibrox bid could have been as low as £80-£100k. This is for a player with a season and a half left on his contract. Others are saying maybe £300k.
Gordon DL supporting the stance that clubs (TRFC) start of with a low offer.
There’s ‘low offers’ and then there is insults. As Steve Clarke was almost hinting at.
Maybe it was the payment terms.
I still speculate that TRFC are skint.
Thanks Cluster One for your update I’m continually amazed the amount of background information you guys have at your fingertips and remembering where to find it Cheers
With all the talk about the exact state of the finances at Ibrox and why they can afford to bring in players, I think enough has happened since 2011 to allow us to think anything is possible. Despite their reckless spending only the behemoth that is HMRC had the cojones to seek legal redress. Even then they waited months. The media, the football authorities, and some very senior politicians believed the survival of Rangers was far more important than the taxes everyone else has to pay, never mind the money they owed to others, which included other public bodies. The way I see it as long as the current Rangers don’t fall behind on tax payments they are pretty free to do as they please with whatever money is going through their hands, because no-one will take them to task for it.
There is a strong possibility that TRFC will have signed 4 loanees this January. With that in mind, what is the most appropriate opening statement for a football show this evening:
a/ ‘Rangers continue to rebuild this January window’
or,
b/ ‘Rangers continue to strengthen their squad for the remainder of the season’
Guess what? Radio Clyde choose option a/ REBUILD? Honestly?
Maybe I’m being pedantic. Or maybe this is what they call spin.
“Gordon DL supporting the stance that clubs (TRFC) start of with a low offer.”
Sorry, it was big DJ not Gordon DL
Allyjambo
January 15, 2018 at 18:27
—————————————
This is the go to place now:-
https://www.fca.org.uk/
GERRYBHOY67
JANUARY 15, 2018 at 14:35
Can anyone remember if there is a maximum number of players a team in Scotland is allowed to have on loan? I have 4 in my mind.
———————————–
Lest we forget:
On the 29th of July 2012, Sevco Scotland fielded 13 loanees (plus 2 more who stayed on the bench!) against Brechin in the Ramsdens’ Cup.
“Scottish Premiership tops Europe in terms of fan attendance figures
…
Scottish Professional Football League chief executive Neil Doncaster said:
“It is a further sign that our game is in good health and we hope that trend will continue in the years ahead.”
http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/42696675
==================================
Great timing.
The ‘most popularly supported’ League in Europe…
picking up peanuts in sponsorship from any willing company!
And as for Doncaster: shamelessly taking the credit, despite his incompetence / corruption.
Jingso.Jimmie surely that’s another World Record
ANGUS1983
JANUARY 15, 2018 at 14:23
I just think that observers of the situation need to try to avoid making assumptions …
=============================================
I didn’t make any assumptions.
From the accounts, Dave King has told the auditors that he would be able to provide £7.2m as loans. Elsewhere in the accounts he has said that the loans would be converted to shares.
It has subsequently been reported that his QC informed the Court of Session that Dave King does not have the money to buy shares from people outwith his concert party.
It is reasonable to infer that he is being disingenuous with one of those statements and from that there is a distinct possibility that King will not be able to provide the £7.2m that he and the auditors have said is required to keep the business going this year and next.
If be “economical with the truth” you mean “a liar” I think that has been well established.
Now that the ibrox club has added some part time coaches to the academy set up and brought in some loan players, And with the players that where out on loan returning. Has the wage bill increased?
I know Carlos Pena has left but the ibrox club still pays part of his wages.
operation “unsettle” has begun
TONYJANUARY 15, 2018 at 20:07
———-
We have Played this scene before.
They then complain the wages their club at ibrox pay’s it’s players they have brought in,when they turn out to be not very good.
Since we’re speculating , I reckon that TRFC/RIFC had funds in the region of £200k to tempt McInnes to Ibrox from Pittodrie , and are now using it to fund the loan deals to the end of the season . They will hope to secure a Europa League spot via league placing or Scottish Cup . Whatever iteration appears next season will have to reach Europa League group stages to have a chance of avoiding an insolvency event . If they succeed in this , their domestic season will be f*cked as they don’t have the quality or strength in depth to compete at this level and domestically . Then reboot . I said to some TRFC -supporting mates that they did themselves a favour getting out of Europe early as it was their last chance of winning the league for the foreseeable future and they’re laughing still . They might get into CL by winning EL ,though ,and everything would be rosy . Then again , they might not .
TONYJANUARY 15, 2018 at 20:07
operation “unsettle” has begun
————
was this not the same tactic we seen with jamie walker
CLUSTER ONE
and mcinnes
paddy malarkey January 15, 2018 at 20:35
==========================
I suspect that they had a bit more than that, but loan deals are a cheap way of bringing in players of a decent standard (in SPFL terms).
There are around 20 weeks left until the end of the season and I’d suspect that Rangers aren’t paying any more than a wage contribution of £7.5k a week for each player.
That is a cost of £150k per player. If they bring in five loan players the cost would be £750k. When you consider that their annual players wage bill was £10.4m for season 2016/17, that is decent value for the best part of half a season, if you can improve the team. One position higher in the league and a cup run to a semi-final or final would justify the outlay.
Savings on a proportion of Pena’s wages and the non-recruitment of a new manager will also have provided them with the scope to bring most of these guys in without increasing the “football budget”.
I’ve been reading The Secret Race, Tyler Hamilton’s account of his career and, in particular, his days as a team-mate of Lance Armstrong. It’s a no-holds barred account of the doping that went on in the pro peloton and it contributed to Armstrong finally having to admit to the extent of his mis-deeds.
Just before the Contents page there’s a quotation from Zola (Emile, not Gianfranco !!!!) –
“If you shut up the truth and bury it under the ground, it will but grow and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.”
When we can see the lengths that the MSM here will go to to ignore what’s under their nose in the hope that it all goes away, reading something like that gave me a little boost. I hope it does to you too.
PS it’s a great book – well worth a read.
EASYJAMBOJANUARY 15, 2018 at 21:12
I wasn’t suggesting that £200k was their tank , just the money they were willing to wager on a McInnes deal . I also think that they have budgeted for a run to the SC semis anyway, and see themselves as being a strong 2nd . Apart from that, 110% in agreement !
EASYJAMBOJANUARY 15, 2018 at 21:12
That is a cost of £150k per player. If they bring in five loan players the cost would be £750k. When you consider that their annual players wage bill was £10.4m for season 2016/17, that is decent value for the best part of half a season, if you can improve the team. One position higher in the league and a cup run to a semi-final or final would justify the outlay.
———–
Then it’s back to the merrygoround of season ticket time of how they will splash the millions in the summer with the money they have saved,And the SMSM will help with that spin along the way.
Jingso.JimsieJanuary 15, 2018 at 19:19
‘…Lest we forget: On the 29th of July 2012, Sevco Scotland fielded 13 loanees (plus 2 more who stayed on the bench!) against Brechin in the Ramsdens’ Cup. ‘
_________________
Having had to get the written permission of the football club which held the registrations of the players, then still in Administration!
The double-dyed effrontery of that farce still takes my breath away!
That the governing bodies should have so lost its head in blind panic and fear as to cobble up disgraceful parodies of legality as ‘conditional’ membership, while two teams claiming to be one and the same while each signed documents as quite separate entities!
Honest to God, how can any of them, as they all get older and more nearly approaching career and life’s ends , look themselves in the face in the mirror, and feel any kind of self-respect about their chicanery and double deceit?
To know that many people despise them is one thing: to despise oneself is something altogether different, and there will not be one of them who is truly comfortable in his skin.
To hold honourable office, and dishonour it: a terrible burden for even the most glib verbaliser and skilful debater.
I’m beginning to wonder how far the season ticket money is going to stretch this summer at Ibrox. What with all the loanees ‘options to buy’ going to kick in and some hefty instalments due from last summer’s signings (and previous) it’s a worry.
Never mind there is the new retail deal to sort things out.
JOHN CLARKJANUARY 15, 2018 at 21:49
2
0 Rate This
Jingso.JimsieJanuary 15, 2018 at 19:19‘…Lest we forget: On the 29th of July 2012, Sevco Scotland fielded 13 loanees (plus 2 more who stayed on the bench!) against Brechin in the Ramsdens’ Cup. ‘_________________Having had to get the written permission of the football club which held the registrations of the players, then still in Administration!
———-
I shall be grateful if you would obtain the consent of the SPL board in accordance with SPL rule 01.16 in order for these players to be able to play for sevco scotland ltd trading as The rangers football club.
John Clark, I was putting some thought into what you say about those suits back in 2012. But I started to get angry.
So the happy side of my brain kicked in and I began to imagine Margaret Thatcher on her death bed feeling ashamed about her deeds in office. It was impossible. So I saw her at the pearly gates arguing profoundly with Saint Peter and giving him a huge dressing down. “What do you mean the back door you socialist, papist, fish smelling peasant?” “Do you know who I am?”
She should have followed the path of Pilgrim in Pilgrims Progress.
JIMBOJANUARY 15, 2018 at 21:54
2
0 Rate This
I’m beginning to wonder how far the season ticket money is going to stretch this summer at Ibrox.
————
And after getting permission to fix the roofs, summertime would be the best time to get them fixed.
After they give the new manager his millions to spend to match celtic
A number of our high earners such as Kranjcar and Holt are out of contract. I imagine Alves will also be off, as will Wilson. Even if we sign Martin and one or another of the loan players, I’d imagine the wage bill will be significantly down from what it was in the summer. The club and the SMSM will dress up any signings as “buying young Rangers men” which will appease most of the fans. To be honest I agree with everyone else that the loan deals represent good value in comparison to buying players outright.
Darkbeforedawn (What a great moniker BTW) and ClusterOne,
I talk about the loan signings with a bit of tongue in cheek. But in all honesty it is the correct route for TRFC. Plenty of other clubs in Scotland need to do it. On it’s own there is no shame in it. It has taken a while for the club to wake up to some form of reality. As I have said plenty of times there is no point in acting Billy Big Baws when your skint. If they had done this in the bottom tier instead of paying Ally McCoist c£1m per year and the players top tier wages they might not have been in the state they are in. All for ego.
I still think they will struggle come the summer for reasons I have mentioned and Cluster One.
I don’t think there will be a huge war chest for whoever is the manager.
Eternal OptimistJanuary 15, 2018 at 21:13
‘…“If you shut up the truth and bury it under the ground,..”
____________
There are lots of things I can imagine myself arguing about with Zola, but what a superb display of moral courage he showed in the several-years’-long struggle to show that Dreyfus was maliciously and wrongly framed and imprisoned for treason by his military superiors, and the government of the day.
I think the quotation you cite is something he said in connection with that struggle.
We know that the truth eventually burst forth in the cycling world and in the athletics world.
It will emerge in the world of Scottish Football, too: Compromising emails, letters, records of phone calls , statements from death-beds, loose, boasting talk of drunk men, disaffected ex-board members, or perhaps even the early the demise of TRFC Ltd…. will sooner or later force the nailing of the truth to the flag-poles of Hampden ( or wherever).
Something in this photo is fictitious can you spot it?
DARKBEFOREDAWN
JANUARY 15, 2018 at 22:27
To be honest I agree with everyone else that the loan deals represent good value in comparison to buying players outright.
================================
That’s one way to look at it.
The other is that it really isn’t building a team / squad. It is short term fixes in order to try to remain competitive in the two remaining domestic tournaments. Whilst giving the impression of ambition, which the support really need.
Ally that to failing to recruit a manager and going with promoting the U20 coach for the rest of the season and you have every indication of a club struggling to make ends meet, and a business struggling to keep trading.
The above is my take on the evidence available to me. It is neither an exclusive, nor based on speculation.
HOMUNCULUSJANUARY 15, 2018 at 23:34
) Let’s say these players help the ibrox club gain a european place. 
That’s one way to look at it.
The other is that it really isn’t building a team / squad. It is short term fixes
—————
To try and gain that european place.But how do you compete in the early rounds of europe when you are trying to build a team?
Let’s say the club from ibrox get’s some good loan players in(with the option to buy
Now the board is either stuck with the fans demands that they sign these players, that will cost “fixed fees”
Or the players are sent back to their original clubs because the ibrox club really can’t afford them.
The ibrox club will either have to buy these players so any european money gained is spent before they get it.
Or the ibrox club have to get different loan players in (if the others are sent home)And these loan players will be what the ibrox club try and make an impact in europe with.And if that fails the pressure is on the new manager and players before a ball is even kicked in the league.
I believe it can’t go wrong
After listening to Sportsound last night I was forced to look up the league table, and was astonished to find that Rangers are actually third. I was also astonished to find out all the players they are signing on loan are not getting a game for their parent clubs. The BBC could cut their bills by simply broadcasting Sportsound every night from the Louden Tavern. The patrons of that bar could not possibly be any more biased towards Rangers than the Sportsound presenter and the vast majority of pundits they use.
There are lots more of good reasons for loans:
try before you buy (for both club and player)
you can get players you would not be able to afford on on a transfer or even wage basis
effectively using car lease type arrangements to get a contractual agreement for future transfer allowing time to get finance in place
Preserves finances for incoming manager/ensures available roster spots for preferred incoming players
but as other posters have indicated this doesn’t fix underlying problems and when it’s being done in scale, it adds to uncertainty and a feeling of transience across the squad…
The new manager, or newly permanent Murty, will need to bring in half a dozen new players in the summer – obvs they hope to get money for outgoing players but big cash, no. If Rangers do manage to make it into Europe, they will be trying to gel new players and change in manager at a time when their opposition is often well into their domestic season, which increases the potential for defeat against “minnows”.m
sure loans is the right thing to do now – because it’s the only thing they can do now, but it’s not a plan, it’s a response….
Can you guess who wrote this
“I have conducted a thorough investigation of David Cunningham King. Many of my peers acknowledge that I am the leading authority on this career criminal. Mr. King is playing The Takeover Panel for fools.
Friday’s petition to The Court of Session to have King’s motion of appeal thrown out was unsuccessful. As a consequence Mr. King will not be in contempt of Lord Bannatyne’s considered opinion of 22/12/17 on the 21st of this month. The Inner House has set aside two consecutive days for the appeal on the 28th February and 1st March. Three Lord Ordinary will listen to submissions by a former Lord Advocate of Scotland, Baron Davidson of Glen Clova.”
Here’s a clue, Neil Davidson has never, to the best of my knowledge, been the Lord Advocate. You would think someone with such an eye for detail and ability to conduct “forensic analysis” would not get such an important and simple point wrong.
Hat tip to BRTH on tweeting this link
https://www.ft.com/content/a4dd80be-f9f1-11e7-a492-2c9be7f3120a
The text on the differences between administration and liquidation cant possibly be true…..
Good morning, everyone! Nice to read that you are all still putting a hard shoulder to the wheel in the interests of truth, honesty and integrity. Been under the cosh with operations during the last year but it is nice to be able to dip a toe in the blog again.
As the effects of the scandalous Ibrox saga continue to rumble on, with King in permanent Houdini mode, it is becoming more and more obvious that the authorities which regulate company conduct are somewhat toothless. Firstly, as an erudite financial lady stated on the radio this morning, many companies are treated to very light touch audit processes, processes which are supposed to protect the interests of all but often many auditors are too fearful of saying too much forthrightly, worried about losing future business. One only needs look at the Carillion disaster and the trail of past opaque audits at Ibrox to see the deleterious effects, all of which contribute to putting the incomes of many individuals and familes at risk. I am sure, also, that the massive current light touch regulatory environment …..until the need for blame emerges…. suits the purpose of serious vested interests, particularly governments, which never want to pay out a penny, until they see the whites of their responsibilities’ eyes. They don’t care who pays, as long as it is not them.
King and his cohorts have been able to operate with impunity because they can and, of course, in the case of all things Ibrox, the other helping hands in the shadows, make things even easier for them. Also, the Press, Police, often the legals and Courts and the football authorities are quite useless in assisting the ending of this preference and entitlement. After all, this is a Scotland still in the thrall of the few. Until these unhelpful groups are made more accountable for their actions, we will all have to keep pushing water uphill. It is a disgraceful state of affairs in a supposedly educated, developed country.
It is difficult to summon up sufficient praise for the sterling work done by so many on this blog but I offer my sincere thanks for the prodigious hard work all of you do and for the education received from your findings.
cmontheshireJanuary 16, 2018 at 09:51
Glad to see you back, ‘Shire, and enjoyed your return post. Sorry to hear you’ve been unwell and hope you are in fine fettle now to help continue our good fight
jimboJanuary 15, 2018 at 16:28
It would be a very sterile site if we were to limit ourselves to your preferred way of working Angus.
—–
Indeed. “Sterile”, as in “dealing with known facts”? Kind of like how the legal process that we’re all relying on functions?
What I often see here is a couple of known facts, which are the subject of dot-joining. Now, this is fair enough. It’s when the next level of dot-joining happens, connecting some of the purely speculative dots together, that things can come unstuck a bit.
Before you know it, new “facts” appear and become accepted wisdom – when they have little basis in reality. For example, Dave King is refusing to comply with the TOP. Therefore the TOP may implement the cold shoulder. Therefore TRFC/RIFC will not be able to perform any financial dealings. Therefore admin is the only way out. Therefore admin is imminent and will probably happen this Friday, after 5pm.
Speculation is never a bad thing, but one must be careful not to start seeing its results as an accepted fact. That’s all I mean.
Anyhow, having been here since RTC days, I’ll just go back to lurking here in the Frozen North now, having discovered that I still don’t need sarky comments from the current “in-crowd”. 🙂
ANGUS1983JANUARY 16, 2018 at 10:47
Bit uncalled for there Angus. Haven’t seen any sarky comments from any ‘in crowd’.
On TRFC’s loan deals.
A number of years ago, and unrelated to Rangers/TRFC, I had a wee thought, quite a few times really, about how multiple loan deals sit with a club’s identity. In my opinion, the identity of football clubs has been worn away over recent years, particularly in light of the Bosman ruling, with very few players remaining at a club for more than two, maybe three, years, unlike in the past when a player could spend the whole of his fruitful career at one club. The identity of football clubs has been further eroded by, and it’s particularly obvious in England, the increasing ownership of clubs by people from overseas, who have absolutely no attachment to the club other than as a vehicle for their own egos or entry to British business opportunities. I am not, I hasten to add, saying there’s anything wrong with this other than as a cause of this loss of a club’s identity.
Anyway, back to the point on loan players. It’s one thing having, from time to time, the need to call on a loan player to plug a gap, it’s another, altogether, to build a squad full of them; not in itself, wrong, but when we look at the identity of the club, to go on and win, say, a cup competition with four or five of the team’s best players (maybe all their best players) on loan – who has actually won the cup? Such memories, the winning goal scored by a Manchester United striker, a Spurs teenager running the midfield, and a last minute penalty saved by a keeper on loan from Barcelona. Again, who ‘won’ the cup? Was it my club, or was it Loans United, playing as…?
Remember Lord Nimmo Smith’s defence of TRFC being the same club! Well, one of the factors included in his ‘definition’ was ‘the players’. It was a nonsensical notion that his list constituted a club, but who could deny that we, as supporters, identify with those players, who’s skills and actions will live with us for most of our lives. To the supporters in the stands (remember those days when it was ‘on the terraces’? In those days the players were around for a long time), watching the game, the players are the club.
To me, this overuse of loan players is a bigger affront to our clubs’ identities than the effect of the Bosman ruling, for at least these players, who only remain around for a couple of seasons (maybe less), are actually ‘owned’ by the club, they do not ‘belong’ to anyone else, they ‘belong to us’!
Now, we know that for the past six years that the identity of TRFC (as ‘Rangers’) has been a major talking point in Scottish football, with, from the very outset of the club’s existence, it being a bigger issue amongst that club’s supporters than the cheating of their previous club. They could ignore the latter, but never ignore the former!
Yet now, six years into this desperate need for an identity, it looks like they are going to be relying on other people’s players (not unlike their preferred use of other people’s money). A very sensible approach to their financial precipice, but very much a dilution of that precarious, all important, identity.
Not even the most ardent of bears could deny that these loanees, are ‘not Rangers players’!
Angus, thank you for your contribution, though I am not sure what the point was you were trying to make. If it was just that ‘speculation’ is not proof of something happening, or about to happen, then you would not get any argument on SFM, and I am surprised you didn’t realise that if you’ve been reading the blog for a while. The point that much of what we say is speculation, or a passing thought, or just a ‘what if’ has been made often by posters; so often, in fact, that there is no need for regular posters to make that clear in every single post they make. What’s more, if anybody does come on here, or a even blogger elsewhere, and says something is definitely going to happen, ‘just because’, they are generally taken to task, in a respectful way, but what they say is also analysed and discussed. That is what we do and enjoy doing.
I may have missed it, but I don’t recall you telling us in any of your posts exactly why we shouldn’t do it, and if you feel there’s some harm in what we do by speculating. In truth, if half the paid for SMSM hacks were to do the speculating we do on here, then it would be much harder for the spivs to get away with whatever it is they are doing, and even harder for the SFA to issue licenses to clubs who patently don’t qualify for them.
ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 16, 2018 at 11:32
I think the whole loan thing has gotten out of hand.
I recall discussing similar on here a while back about some form of cap being brought in or perhaps even having a system where you have a balance of loans in and out. Maybe it was around the time of the Newcastle four being dumped on the Ibrox club.
I can’t see the sense of filling your teams with loan players when you have your own players, including, youngsters out elsewhere on loan. As you say it dilutes a clubs identity and for me it is also questionable in terms of developing players and allowing them to play at the highest level.
That being said my proposals would most likely end up with Hearts having to take back Connor Sammon!! However we have never seen the Manchester City lad brought in at left back due to injury and the new Manchester United lad is an unknown quantity at this time. At the same time we have managed well recently at rotating the full backs and Liam Smith is out playing week in week out at table topping St Mirren.
However it is not just in football. Given the ongoing Carillion affair people will have noted the increase in the amount of out-sourcing and consultants employed by the public sector.
This, to my mind, has resulted in many national and local authority departments not really having any ‘identity’ or a consistent approach in terms of their aims and objectives.
While public sector employees come in for criticism, it can also be the case that external consultants just don’t have the same commitment to ‘the cause’ or service as they may have a limited time resource or simply be moved on to another contact at any time, thus never really getting a hang of local issues and being around long enough to develop long term strategies.
Angus,
‘The in crowd’. You obviously haven’t seen my record of Thumbs Down my friend.
Anyhow, speaking for myself, I am always careful to couch my posts with words like apparently, rumour, possibly, allegedly and so on. I seem to remember the Mods. posting a caution to everyone, a few years back, that what they say does not verge on libellous, getting themselves or the site into hot water.
For that reason alone I don’t think I ever present anything as a fact that is hearsay. I would say that applies to the site in general. Of course there are comical posts which are so ludicrous to be seen for what they are. But I’m sure you know that.
Please don’t go back to lurking over this. You obviously have something to say and can say it well. It’s not worth denying the blog your insights over a small disagreement.
ps It’s frozen down here too.
Boycotting games to achieve SFA reform and clear out of people prepared to lie and cover lies up is always going to be difficult to organise.
However E Tims have come up with a suggestion that might force the SFA to the table with the SPFL to rake over coals of 17 years of cheating which is a bookies boycott.
” With the SFA facing allegations of corruption and collusion, there have been calls for a boycott of the Scottish cup, in order to attract attention to the current crisis facing our game, and despite the fact its not in the papers, it is a crisis, a crisis of confidence.
No, a boycott could be self harming, and the only way to make these people sit up and take notice-the governing body, that is, is to hit them in the pocket.
The Scottish Cup is sponsored by William Hill, a chain of bookmakers. The gambling industry is fiercely competitive, and a huge chunk of its income is from football betting, although with Joey Barton and Ian Black now banned, that income may have taken a hit.
Everyone likes a wee flutter on the game, a couple of quid here, a few bob there, and thats how we can begin the fight against the SFA.
When you place your bet this weekend, on any cup game, do it with another bookmaker.
Don;t boycott the football, and don’t go without your bet.
Just don’t do it with William Hill.
If you can spread this idea around a bit, either on other forums or on social media, then it might just grow enough wings to send a shot across the bows of the company, and in turn they will put pressure on the SFA to start to play fair, and without favour.
After all, if a bookmaker is willing to tie his name to that shower, can we really trust them to play fair, especially as the SFA are known to give a helping hand to one club in particular ?
Bookmakers are the next in the governments sights to be blocked from advertising, which is a crisis for both bookies and the advertising industry, and until some whizz kid politician hits on the idea of re-introducing the ten pence in the pound betting tax and giving it to the NHS, they will be on shaky ground, as the market is somewhat sautrated at the moment.
We, as supporters, need to let them know who is in charge, and boycotting Hills this weekend is the first step.”
It’s not difficult and central point is simple. How can bookies ask customers to bet on a competition their customers have no confidence is being run fairly.
The immediate aim is simple. Let SFA demonstrate they can be trusted by producing a report from the Compliance Officer that addresses the facts put to him by lawyers supporters/shareholders funded to gather.
A further aim of a bookies boycott would be the introduction of domestic club licensing with a FFP element tailored to the needs of the game in Scotland that for example set limits on club borrowing that was transparent and subject to independent review.
It’s not rocket science and if the SFA Compliance Officer investigation shows weaknesses in a self certification trust based system (and it should) such change is absolutely necessary to protect all clubs from not only themselves, but other clubs from using unscrupulous means to give them unfair advantage.
This is an issue supporters of all clubs should want addressing unless of course the current arrangement favours all clubs so please discuss on relevant club forums.
HomunculusJanuary 16, 2018 at 08:31
‘..Can you guess who wrote this..’
___________
Whoever it was, he wasn’t in Court 2 last Friday.
Unless, of course, he is a court official or one of the legals taking part(and if he’s one of the legals, he’s feckin ignorant of how the plural of ‘Lord Ordinary’ is expressed!)
I was in Court. The motion was not that King’s appeal should be ‘disposed of’ as in being thrown out, , but for ‘urgent disposal’ meaning an urgent hearing.
ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 16, 2018 at 11:32I think the whole loan thing has gotten out of hand.
————————————————————————–
It could b argued that Sevco are cashing in a company asset, (the playing squad), by bringing in loan players, meaning more Sevco owned players can be shop windae’d, and possibly sold
Purely to keep the lights on.
20p a pop must be looking very much like free money, as the company’s asset value is depleted.
Just saying.
AULDHEIDJANUARY 16, 2018 at 12:54
Lots of years ago, I was often tasked with putting my Granda’s bets on (he always seemed to be on nightshift) and his instruction was never to use Hills , as (he believed) the founder had been in the Black and Tans and was no friend of his ( Granda was from Donegal but his family was from Bray). I’m surprised that E-Tims have to suggest a boycott to CFC fans – I didn’t think they used them for historical reasons .
HOMUNCULUS
JANUARY 16, 2018 at 08:31
JOHN CLARK
JANUARY 16, 2018 at 13:06
‘..Can you guess who wrote this..’
For a man who purportedly is familiar with legal terminology and legal affairs he also doesn’t know his Lord Advocate from his Advocate General. Hopefully the two office bearers and their respective governments know which is which.
Paddymalarkey
Even if E Tims did have that bit of historical info they would still have said boycott Hills as they are SFA sponsors.
It need not be Hills alone. I believe Ladbrokes are active at Celtic Park, if they were to be included and they complain to Celtic, it would strengthen Celtic’s resolve to get assurances from the SFA in a tangible form to restore trust and integrity.
I notice all the scheduled senior games in England, France, Belgium and Holland are going ahead tonight.
It’s a good job there are no games planned in Scotland this evening because they would all be cancelled due to the weather.
I blame the SFA and SPFL.
Oh, and Ernie B too.
Going back to the issue of Domestic Club Licensing with a strong Financial Fair Play ingredient, one outcome of the SFA Compliance Officer investigation should be that the current licensing arrangement is no longer suitable for Scottish Football as the financial fair play element is either missing and/or too weakly policed to deter unfair play.
We have referees to see fair play according to the football rules on the park, most of which we all have a reasonable idea of, but what do we know about club licensing and is it providing the kind of off field financial refereeing type service that modern day football requires?
The SFA Compliance Officer investigation should, if done in good faith, show that any financial refereeing role that the SFA had is at best useless given what has taken place since 2000 and at worse subject to bias, be it commercial or favouring a particular club or a combination of both.
Below is an extract from a blog of 6 years ago putting out ideas on what a financial fair play licensing system might look like. Without something on these lines how can we tell if clubs are all operating to the same financial fair ply standards?
I believe that the Licensing Service that is supposed to protect the financial well being of Scottish clubs has failed totally and that failure has undermined the integrity of our game.
The process the SFA use is governed by UEFA and the UEFA Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules that stipulate amongst other things what is to be treated as allowable income and allowable debt come into force for the new season. The problem with the UEFA FFP based rules is that they are designed to stop rich owners putting money into clubs and thus help restrict player wages, the high cost of which is why so many clubs are carrying so much debt although the huge hike in TV income since FFP introduced presents new challenges.
What Celtic had to compete with in the years 2000 to 2012, losing trophies (and prize money) to main rivals Rangers who first indulged in in an unlawful method of paying player wages (EBT’s) and then borrowing beyond their means to repay, the supporters of Aberdeen, Hibs, Hearts, Killmarnock and others are now facing, Celtic’s strong financial position protecting them to a much greater degree.
So although the SFA Compliance Officer investigation is the result of questions raised by Celtic shareholders regarding the circumstances under which a UEFA licence was issued to their main rivals in 2011, the core issue of effective domestic club licensing suitable to the environment of professional football in Scotland is one that all clubs under pressure from their supporters should be addressing as a trust restoring measure.
In that respect raking over the coals can only be good for our game especially as those opposing it fear the personal impact of doing so more than they love the game.
Anyhoo here is a suggestion for discussion of what might take the place of the current licensing arrangement which simply cannot be allowed to continue if the Compliance chap does his job.
In Scotland, unlike England where 4 clubs can qualify, the risk of failing to get CL money means the loser can be condemned to be the perpetual bridesmaid or not getting a wedding invite at all, forcing them into taking risks/gambles that can seriously damage the well being of each club, if not end it. So, the licensing processes in Scotland have to be tighter to take more of an account of a clubs debt and to confirm that all players at all clubs are contracted on a basis that complies with standard tax law principles. (a tick against “ Are your players wages subject to PAYE should suffice)
A way of balancing debt with income and expenditure would be a triangulation profile for all clubs. A triangulation profile would have income (A) in one corner, players wages (B) in another and debt (C) in the third. The triangle has to be equilateral and kept in balance and the figures from the accounts supplied to the SFA by clubs have to feed each of the balance points.
It gets more complicated in that what is counted as income has to be defined because some has to be allocated to non football costs,but as these need to be met they have to be included in the formula to set (A). What can be allowed as income will be defined by the UEFA FFP rules but is generally gate money, TV income, merchandising and UEFA money.
Players wages including PAYE and NI should be easy to arrive at and the debt level would have to bear some relationship to the income and wages.
So say for arguments sake (and the multiplier would have to be argued) the debt allowed was 3 times the difference between income and wages (like they used to do in my young days when mortgages bore some relationship to income) then everyone would know if a club was overborrowing if (C) > (A)-(B)*3
A simple spreadsheet drawing on the figures from the accounts with a pie chart to present the picture could be published for each club without divulging the figures beneath and any club not meeting the result of the formula would have their licence to play in UEFA competitions refused as well as it triggering an SFA audit of their accounts.
There is for Scottish Clubs (usually Celtic and Rangers) however an additional issue of what is allowable income for triangulation purposes because of the “skew” affect of Champions League money and the fact that it cannot be depended upon.
Because of the consequences of the proposed profiliing, a club borrowing would have to take a risk that they were always going to have that money as guaranteed income as its loss would risk a refusal of a UEFA license or an audit under the proposed profiling rules.
So what any sensible club would do is not to include money that could not be depended upon in the income, and if they get a windfall (like CL money) that is used it to avoid or to reduce debt levels, not to keep using debt to try and ensure they get the money that enables them to stay in debt, as Rangers have done.
In fact any sensible measure of governance in Scotland with only two realistic competitors for CL money should insist on the CL money being excluded from the debt affordability calculation by removing it from the allowable income. (since Euro Cup money is more dependable and a lot less this could be included as allowable but not CL money)
JOHN CLARK
JANUARY 16, 2018 at 13:06
================================
Thanks JC, that’s what I thought having read the reports, on this blog, on what had happened.
I am certain you can legitimately claim an exclusive on this one.
Sitting back and waiting for Carillion to exit liquidation . I’m told this is possible .
Homunculus
Your plagiarist pal refers to his peers. In his case that probably means a phalanx of invented friends who are found commenting on his blog.
The fact that South African Tax authorities and Courts and so on had long dealings with Mr King and saw all of his tactics might suggest that they know more about him than a blogger whose inaccuracy is only balanced by his overblown self confidence and delusions.
If you check the names of the largest GAA grounds you will get a good name for starting an Irish based blog albeit including the word taigh in the title…In Limerick I think where the dark side came from originally.
PADDY MALARKEYJANUARY 16, 2018 at 18:08
Sitting back and waiting for Carillion to exit liquidation . I’m told this is possible .
—————
I just bought their history, but let me tell you it is not the best history.
AULDHEIDJANUARY 16, 2018 at 16:12
It gets more complicated in that what is counted as income has to be defined because some has to be allocated to non football costs,but as these need to be met they have to be included in the formula to set (A).
————-
The financial boost comes off the back of Celtic qualifying for last season’s Champions League group stage and will earn each of the 11 other top flight sides from last season around £370k with payments due.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/premiership-clubs-financial-boost-receive-11361813
—–
The money each would receive is to help with youth development i believe (non football costs)
I don’t know if youth development is classed as non football costs, but if these clubs do not receive this financial boost, the youth development would have to come out of their own pocket.
So what any sensible club would do is not to include money that could not be depended upon in the income, and if they get a windfall. Thank the ones who got them that windfall
I think that is what i am trying to say
paddy malarkeyJanuary 16, 2018 at 18:08
‘…Sitting back and waiting for Carillion to exit liquidation . I’m told this is possible .’
_________
Sadly, in spite of Kenny Mac and the other two members of the Sportsound Rangers Supporters Club, the Carillion of Scottish Football is still in Liquidation.although to listen to Kenny Mac, you would think he actually believes that TRFC Ltd is Rangers 2012 fc!
Used to be the BBC required a certain level of intelligence in its front-of-house staff. Spoiling my enjoyment of my Costco chicken, listening to the crap.