The Elephant in the Room

ByGuest Blogger

The Elephant in the Room

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.

About the author

Guest Blogger author

Guest Bloggers are drawn from SFM members and beyond. The opinions in Guest Blogs are not necessarily shared or endorsed by SFM. If you would like to submit a guest blog to SFM, let us know.

1,315 Comments so far

Cygnus X-1Posted on1:59 pm - Jan 24, 2018


BORUSSIABEEFBURG
JANUARY 24, 2018 at 09:14
ANYTHING in Scottish Football, that is connected to the discredited, redundant, outmoded & irrelevent “Old Firm” model, must be disbanded immediately.

Anybody from ANYWHERE, who is thinking of proposing something, that encourages, uses, or is reflective of the “Old Firm” needs their head looked, and let me tell you, as a Celtic fan, I want nothing to do with this horrible partnership.

I do not want my club associated in anyway, with another club, ever again in such an incestuous relationship, as took place previously.

If Colt teams are a serious proposal, then it has to be an option for every club in the top division of the SPFL to consider, and not just a prism for two clubs only…..

View Comment

sannoffymesssoitizzPosted on2:10 pm - Jan 24, 2018


Airdrieonians and Albion Rovers show a united front against SPFL Old Firm colt team plans

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/local-sport/airdrieonians-albion-rovers-show-united-11895042

Both Airdrie and Albion Rovers have spoken out against plans to add two colt teams to the SPFL – which could go ahead from next season.

It has been claimed that League Two clubs have met with Rangers and Celtic chiefs to discuss a two-year pilot scheme.

The plan would see the division grow to 12 teams, and it is also said that the colt teams will also guarantee the purchase of a minimum of 250 tickets for each of its away fixtures at £10 per ticket.

However, representatives from both Monklands teams have spoken against the latest proposals.

The board at Albion Rovers and the Supporters Trust both have plans to meet and discuss a formal response to the new proposals.

Chairman Ronnie Boyd remained firmly against the move to bring the teams into the Scottish lower leagues.

“I am happy for the colt teams to get a place in the Irn-Bru Cup, but I have an issue with them being allowed into the league format,” he told the Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser.

New owners decide Airdrieonians will return to part-time football less than two years after full-time switch

“It’s not too long ago that we won League Two, which was a great achievement for the club.

“However, in my opinion bringing in the colt teams would diminish the competition.

“We have had informal talks with fans, and a poll has been conducted online.

“It’s a small sample size but the fans who are commenting do not seem to be entirely in favour of the move – to put it mildly.“

He added: “The promise of £15,000 in ticket sales is something I can see that would tempt clubs. That is a significant figure.”

The Airdrieonians Supporters Trust have previously polled fans on plans – and the majority were against the idea.

A spokesperson for Broomfield fan group Diamonds for Change noted that they felt the system, which harnesses the loan system, is more of a benefit to young players.

They continued: “If you finish third top behind the colt teams you will be promoted; and if you finish third bottom with the colt teams below you you will be demoted.

“Something about that feels hollow.

“We don’t think supporters will be interested in watching colt teams.

“We think it makes a mockery of Scottish football”

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on2:38 pm - Jan 24, 2018


sannoffymesssoitizzJanuary 24, 2018 at 14:10

“We think it makes a mockery of Scottish football”
__________________

Exactly! Sadly, ‘a mockery of Scottish football’ is an ongoing facet of the game under the current governors.

View Comment

borussiabeefburgPosted on2:39 pm - Jan 24, 2018


Regarding the Colt/B team proposal, I’ve placed the following elsewhere:

Colts: the future Scottish subsidiary

  It’s a term I thought was redundant, but I’ll have to use ‘Od Firm’ as a joint moniker in the following case due to Celtic and Rangers (the new incarnation) uniting to ‘help Scottish football’.  

The proposed project is a ‘pilot’: the only comparable initiative to date in Scotland has been the failure of Colt sides in the Challenge Cup to attract increased crowds, the opposite has been the case. 
Evidence, only including OF clubs: 216 at Celtic Colts v Annan… 449 at Cowdenbeath v Celtic Colts… 324 at Rangers Colts v Stenhousemuir… 278 at Annan v Celtic Colts… 389 at Dumbarton v Rangers Colts. Some crowds have not reached three figures where Colt sides have been playing.  
Yet the experiment in that minor cup competition has been praised as a success by SPFL representatives. 
 
To state “the ‘B’ team concept works successfully in many other countries” doesn’t make it true. Where is the evidence of this? Figures bandied around concerning Spain and Germany are misleading. Some players who played a match for their B sides to regain fitness are included. Looking at the last Scotland squad, possibly each and every player has made an outing for their respective team’s second string. 
 
Then there’s Norway and the Netherlands: B sides evidently operate there with ‘great success’. Apart from, Norway hardly ever qualifies for the World Cup or Euros. The Netherlands are in a huge trough right now: the only evidence from there is that since B teams have been introduced in 2013, the national team has done worse. I’ll be watching out for Norway and The Netherlands in Russia this summer.  
 
Iceland will be there: there are no ‘B’ sides operating in the senior league system there. But there are in Andorra. 
 
In terms of ‘Football Development’ the document states Scottish players fail to reach their potential by the age of 21 ” as a result of not playing first team football”, and that “all of the Scottish football family are responsible for playing their part.” Perhaps we should look at the clubs who aren’t allowing these players of great potential play first team football! And stating Malky Mackay fully backs the proposal is no endorsement, is it? Maybe Malky should be asking his Ibrox pals why they are not “playing their part” this season in the Development League. 
 
The financial projections, stating clubs will be guaranteed £15,000 needs clarification. For example, who is paying this, the OF, the SFA or the SPFL? And there is an assumption that gates will increase: on what basis? As illustrated above, fans have no appetite for watching B/Colt/U21 teams playing their sides. Also, 6 home games for the fourth-tier clubs against teams which are not actually in competition with them means almost one-third of all home games are almost meaningless. The assumptions made are truly nonsense. 
 
With no promotion or relegation for the Colts (in the pilot…..but we’ll see…..) this means the third bottom side could tumble into the Highland or Lowland Leagues, while third top could be ‘Champions’ and sixth place in a promotion play-off. League integrity? I don’t see it. Looking at the present League Two, three clubs could change by the start of Season 2018-19, so should the Highland and Lowland League clubs, and those in League One not also be part of these initial presentations? And wait a second, don’t the present league rules prevent second string clubs operating at an level higher than the sixth? A game of leapfrog is being suggested here.
In any case, alterations to a league system should always be planned for the season following the next, in the interests of ‘league integrity’.
 
The 250 tickets at £10 nonsense should also be called for what it is, bearing in mind that no club in League Two charges as low as this for adults. And, as mentioned, who is paying for these tickets? 
 
The cash on offer is a bribe, and should be called out as such. And will more cash be paid out (again, who is funding this?) if Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibs and so on want to join in? What size of a league would we then be looking at?  
 
Now, all this is without thinking of the present paying customers supporting League Two sides. These fans are making their feelings quite clear on forums and social media: the vast majority will not attend if the proposal goes through, with some stating they will stop going to watch the Scottish game.  

An explanation of the sub-title above. All I see this proposal as being is the maintenance of a Scottish presence should the Glasgow two manage to get into another league system. If there was a bit of honesty about this, some fans might find the idea more acceptable. I wouldn’t.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on2:44 pm - Jan 24, 2018


ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 24, 2018 at 13:37
The 5-year-old club an CFC are pushing colt teams to benefit themselves, not Scottish football . They want to have their cake and eat it . There should be no reason why other clubs should be prevented from participating . Create a pool of players from all clubs ( for some it may be two or three) and allocate them to the wee clubs involved until they are all accommodated . The SFA andSPFL could surely help with medical support and coaching (would give Malky summat to do). In the past, Grade A refs were allocated to the lower divisions to protect,as you say, skillful players from “hammer-throwers” , so there should be no problem organising that again . Maybe even hone the officials’ skills and help eliminate “honest mistakes” as there would surely be no vested interests . Even though we got a penalty last night, I still look askance at some of their decisions .

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on3:00 pm - Jan 24, 2018


It’s a good job that the Hampden suits ditched the idea of sporting integrity at the time of Rangers death and the LNS inquiry, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion over the Colts proposal. 

Does the fact that it has gone this far indicate that the other clubs are still rolling over whenever something resembling the Old Firm makes a ‘proposal’ for the good of Scottish football?

In truth, I smell more TRFC centred PR bullshot in this than anything they genuinely expect to see introduced, however, I must commend Borussiabeefburger for sparking this debate, for it shows another aspect of what we must always be wary of whenever an Ibrox club is looking for favours, wrapped up in ‘for the good of Scottish football’.

View Comment

SmugasPosted on3:02 pm - Jan 24, 2018


Can someone explain in plain English what this point from the original proposal means in case I’m picking it up wrongly.  The context is that this is a key justification for the Colts proposal:

Scotland perform exceptionally well at U16, U17 and U19 level. 37% of the players who match Europe’s best at these ages are lost to the 21’s, where success significantly declines, as a result of not playing first team football.  The 37% tend to come from Rangers and Celtic and are replaced with lesser potential Scottish talent who are playing 1st team football at a smaller club where they may access the 1st team earlier. Can we maintain the performance of the 16’s, 17’s and 19’s at 21’s by exposing our top potential Scottish talent to 1st team football against men earlier.

As I read it it is saying that 37% of the Scotland U19’s don’t make it as U21’s because they can’t get a game for their parent club.  They then expressly state that the 37% they refer to are mainly OF players who can’t get a game.  This apparently leaves poor old Scotland having to rely on those “with lesser potential” who have dared to play for the nonOF teams.  And the solution (within this proposal, I’m aware of other measures within ‘Brave’)  is to do precisely nothing to support said talent  that may wish and indeed could develop at another club and instead create a bigger talent pit that will hoover up yet more of the potential young talent to the detriment of the non-OF clubs and fans that might otherwise enjoy them?  

View Comment

wottpiPosted on3:03 pm - Jan 24, 2018


BORUSSIABEEFBURGJANUARY 24, 2018 at 14:39

Good post and the type we like to see on here, backing up your argument with facts and figures.

The only criticism I have is you started by using the phrase ‘Old Firm’  but ended with the ‘Glasgow Two’.

Firstly the Old Firm can’t exist as that was Celtic and Rangers.

However this clearly seems to be a joint initiative sanctioned by the two clubs involved (and IMHO) purely for their own benefit.

Can I suggest we now have something that needs to called  ‘The New (Old) Firm’ or similar.
07  

View Comment

Bogs DolloxPosted on3:06 pm - Jan 24, 2018


borussiabeefburgJanuary 24, 2018 at 14:39
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You have my full support on this one and I will be asking my club not to support the proposals.

The Old Firm has been reurrected and Scottish football is once again being reshaped to suit the Big Two. Disgraceful.

View Comment

justbecauseyoureparanoidPosted on3:27 pm - Jan 24, 2018


PADDY MALARKEYJANUARY 24, 2018 at 14:44

Indeed. Offside from a throw takes some beating, even by the appalling standards we’ve all grown to know and love.

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on3:39 pm - Jan 24, 2018


Wouldn’t it be nice if the SFA organised a “beauty contest” and get the fans input in deciding who to appoint as Scotland manager ? Get the names of all interested parties on a list and ask registered fans to vote for their top three preferences in order . Refer to the results of the poll when explaining why the final choice was made . We’ve been patronised for too long .

View Comment

SmugasPosted on3:44 pm - Jan 24, 2018


Since I’m on one anyway!

More from the proposal, this time worryingly headed up “Financial benefits to L1 and L2 clubs.”  Hang on, but I thought L1 wasn’t affected?

The colt teams will not receive any payments through the ‘ladder’. 

Am I right in saying this is essentially the prize money filter down?  Remember the thing that was utterly unchangeable until a side called TRFC turned up – anyone seeing a trend here?  And to go back to their heading; no change to the distribution offers no financial benefit whatsoever, just a continuation of the status quo.  

The colt teams involved in the pilot project will guarantee the purchase of a minimum of 250 tickets for each of its away fixtures at £10 per ticket.

For what its worth I don’t see an issue here BFB.  To me its very clear that the colt applicant team is paying each opposing team £2500 for tickets for three matches, hence the £15,000 per nonOF side. 

This will be a minimum guarantee and additional income would be expected through hospitality / catering etc.

Talk me through the mechanics here?  Please allow in your proposal that
a/  I’m not interested in OF participants as a rule because of all the baggage they bring wherever they go.  BFB’s crowd figures appear to back this up as well as anecdotal evidence that I’m sure we’re all aware of that whilst home crowds against the old firm sides tends to be higher overall that masks an increase in home ‘non attenders’ specifically for those games;
b/  I’m not going to be overly concerned about going to a game anyway if its meaningless to one of the participants and they’ve guaranteed us ticket sales anyway. Why bother?  Is this not the very inertia they’re trying to address?;
c/  The stated ‘ambition’ that stick out a team in blue or green and our corporate hospitality will simply rocket will make me do the precise opposite just out of spite.  Was the writer humming “yer only here to see the insertasapproporiate” as he was typing this?

Sorry but if the writer is asking me as a fan to trust them that gut feel and instinct aren’t always correct might want to review their approach to the game for the last 6 years hence.  Surprised Celtic have gotten sucked into it if I’m honest.  With my strategist hat on they should have let TRFC try this half arsed under the radar approach themselves and then gone it alone through more recognised channels.  They would have stood a better chance of success.       

View Comment

borussiabeefburgPosted on3:55 pm - Jan 24, 2018


WOTTPI today at 15:03: great suggestion.
‘The New (Old) Firm’

It pains me to resurrect the OF name, and I’ve a feeling that Celtic fans won’t thank me for that, but Celtic and Ibrox Parks have clearly associated themselves with each other for this exercise.

It also makes me wonder how much the board at Celtic Park have played their Resolution 12 guys along, and put a ‘face’ on some of their proclamations, but that’s a different debate. 

I think the smaller clubs will come out against this, and only Berwick Rangers (based in England) appear, so far, to have given any encouragement to this proposal to improve the Scottish International team’s performances in future 09.

View Comment

Jingso.JimsiePosted on4:07 pm - Jan 24, 2018


I’m not in favour of TRFC/CFC colts being placed in ‘improvement limbo’ in Div. 3.

In Rugby League in England, young players can be ‘dual-registered’ — that’s not on loan, but available to their owning club & one other, lower-league club.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_League_Dual_registration

‘Dual registration refers to an arrangement between clubs whereby a player continues to be registered to his current Club and is also registered to play for a club in a lower league. The system is mostly aimed at young Super League players who are thought to be not quite ready to make the step up to ‘week in, week out’ Super League first team duties but for whom first team match experience is likely to be beneficial for their development…’

That, to me, seems a pragmatic approach to blooding & maturing young players, albeit in a much higher-paced & physical game. In writing that, I also appreciate that a similar system in football would require the approval of FIFA & UEFA, although I suspect that those bodies could be amenable to an approach from a relatively small football nation to run such a scheme on a trial basis for a season or two, particularly if pitched at player welfare/improvement/career extension, rather than for out & out financial reasons.

Over to you, Mr. McKay.

View Comment

borussiabeefburgPosted on4:13 pm - Jan 24, 2018


SMUGAS JANUARY 24, 2018 at 15:44

For what its worth I don’t see an issue here BFB.  To me its very clear that the colt applicant team is paying each opposing team £2500 for tickets for three matches, hence the £15,000 per nonOF side. 

It’s a bribe. The small clubs are cash strapped, so they are being offered money to allow two larger clubs to jump past other sides and place their players in teams within the fourth tier. It’s offering cash to get a sporting advantage: cheating.

And, as I’ve said, some/many fans of the smaller clubs won’t go to these games anyway(for which they normally pay more than a tenner). 

Regarding the Scotland job, give it to Stewart Regan, let him pick Ronaldo, Messi et al, and if other countries complain, his assistant Sandy Bryson can argue that these players are imperfectly registered but eligible.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:33 pm - Jan 24, 2018


wottpiJanuary 24, 2018 at 15:03 
BORUSSIABEEFBURGJANUARY 24, 2018 at 14:39Good post and the type we like to see on here, backing up your argument with facts and figures.The only criticism I have is you started by using the phrase ‘Old Firm’ but ended with the ‘Glasgow Two’.Firstly the Old Firm can’t exist as that was Celtic and Rangers.However this clearly seems to be a joint initiative sanctioned by the two clubs involved (and IMHO) purely for their own benefit.Can I suggest we now have something that needs to called ‘The New (Old) Firm’ or similar.
______________

I think the ‘Old Firm’ was such a disgraced entity that it would be most fitting to use the name, unadulterated, again if Celtic and TRFC unite to form a second cartel designed to disadvantage the rest of Scottish football. If Celtic supporters (and TRFC supporters) find it insulting to be associated with the name in this way, then it is up to them to ensure that their club(s) never again combine in any way whatsoever.

PS I don’t for one minute believe that many Celtic supporters would be happy to see their club climb into bed with TRFC, but the people at the top at Celtic (as with capitalists everywhere, and at most other football clubs) clearly have a very high regard for money, and ways of making more.

View Comment

scottcPosted on5:05 pm - Jan 24, 2018


The colt teams involved in the pilot project will guarantee the purchase of a minimum of 250 tickets for each of its away fixtures at £10 per ticket.

SMUGAS
JANUARY 24, 2018 at 15:44
For what its worth I don’t see an issue here BFB. To me its very clear that the colt applicant team is paying each opposing team £2500 for tickets for three matches, hence the £15,000 per nonOF side.

BORUSSIABEEFBURG
JANUARY 24, 2018 at 16:13
It’s a bribe.

There is another way to read that statement though, and the final wording would have to be very precise. It could be read that any crowd of less than 250 will be ‘increased to 250’ at £10 a pop.

Personally, I think it’s an appalling idea; then again I don’t think the colt teams should be in the Challenge cup either

View Comment

valentinesclownPosted on5:23 pm - Jan 24, 2018


I do not support any colt proposal and I certainly do not want my club being linked to a new 5 year old club concerning this idea. I hated the term OF when used concerning RFC (now IL), so there should be no reference to this term linked to this new Govan club. 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on5:52 pm - Jan 24, 2018


Does the ibrox club have enough money to sustain a colt team?
What happens if another ibrox club goes into administration,how does that effect their colt team?
How would that effect the league the colt team from ibrox is playing in?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on6:06 pm - Jan 24, 2018


Rangers pull out of next season’s SPFL development league to challenge Europe’s top clubsThe Ibrox side have been given permission to withdraw for a year to take on the likes of Manchester City, Manchester United, Benfica and Sporting Lisbon.14 MAY 2017
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rangers-pull-out-next-seasons-10416724
———–
Would these players who have been pulled out of the development league be part of this colt team.
How did the challenge to europes top clubs go?

View Comment

scottcPosted on6:07 pm - Jan 24, 2018


EASYJAMBO
JANUARY 19, 2018 at 16:50
Glasgow Sheriff Court – Wednesday 24th January
Orlit Enterprises (S) PTE Limited v The Rangers Football Club Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Acts – GLW-CA121-17 – Anderson Strathern LLPOrlit Enterprises (S) PTE Limited v The Rangers Football Club Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Acts – GLW-CA121-17 – Dentons UKMEA LLP

Anyone know if this went ahead today and, if so, what happened?

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on6:26 pm - Jan 24, 2018


Nations League fixtures and dates 
MD1: No competitive fixture – friendly to be arranged.
MD2: Scotland v Albania – Monday, 10 September 2018, 7.45pm.
MD3: Israel v Scotland – Thursday, 11 October, 7.45pm.
MD4: No competitive fixture – friendly to be arranged. 
MD5: Albania v Scotland – Saturday, 17 November, 7.45pm.
MD6: Scotland v Israel – Tuesday, 20 November, 7.45pm.
What’s the chances of bumper crowds on a Monday night or even a Tuesday night in November ?
Apparently UEFA is responsible for dates and kick-off times .

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on7:39 pm - Jan 24, 2018


Wonder if this will put the fear into any EBT recipients ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42809696

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:47 pm - Jan 24, 2018


Here are my thoughts on the Colt teams proposal. I am not so sure how it will make a huge difference to anything. However I am totally sure if Rangers were cash rich and Celtic were in the grubber it would not be happening.  

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:54 pm - Jan 24, 2018


UPTHEHOOPSJANUARY 24, 2018 at 19:47
The rangers may not be cash rich….But Rangers’ youth system in best shape for 20 years, says chairman Dave King.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39556881
————–
Hope he is telling the truth

View Comment

SmugasPosted on7:59 pm - Jan 24, 2018


3 differences I think it will make (and that’s ignoring the legacy team safety net theory I’m seeing written elsewhere.)
 
1/. Is the hassle that dropping two non promotable into the league will cause worth it? I appreciate the £150k bribe on offer to compensate.

2/. Who exactly will be playing in these colt sides? Would they otherwise be playing elsewhere?

3/. Who exactly will be watching these colt games?  Are they fans that wouldn’t otherwise go?  Will their watching habits be affected by the colt sides?  Will existing fans watching habits be affected by the colt sides both in the short term (will we go on Saturday Daddy?) or long term whereby lifetime club associations are developed?

View Comment

jimboPosted on8:42 pm - Jan 24, 2018


 Scottc,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42808521

View Comment

Bill1903Posted on8:51 pm - Jan 24, 2018


I sometimes wonder if various bloggers are fed duff information just to wind everybody up!
Admin any day again yet they just signed Docherty from Hamilton. As skint as Hamilton are I assume they must’ve put some cash up front.
Looking at their 3 loan signings they will definitely improve their team.
Much the better team in the first half tonight. It seems Murty has the measure of Mcinnes sadly.

View Comment

Paulmac2Posted on9:34 pm - Jan 24, 2018


I would be interested to know the maximum number of Loan players that can be fielded in one game and or at the same time in the same game…currently the home team at Ibrox have 4 on the pitch?

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:40 pm - Jan 24, 2018


BILL1903JANUARY 24, 2018 at 20:51
Admin any day again yet they just signed Docherty from Hamilton.
——————-
Weiss joins Rangers on one-year loanUpdated / Thursday, 19 Aug 2010 20:30
https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2010/0819/269463-weissv_rangers/

Rangers confirm club being investigated over tax issue Wednesday, 28 April 2010
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/r/rangers/8647085.stm
———-
I believe even for an ibrox club back then it was all about bringing players in when something was not right behind the scenes.
Ps. hope i got my dates right. See this is why a timeline blog would be good22

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:48 pm - Jan 24, 2018


PAULMAC2JANUARY 24, 2018 at 21:34
https://www.sfm.scot/the-elephant-in-the-room/?cid=165845

View Comment

macfurglyPosted on10:03 pm - Jan 24, 2018


Paulmac2January 24, 2018 at 21:34
—–
Paragraphs 75 to 87 of Annex 1 to the SPFL Rules, “Player Registration, Transfer and Contract Regulations”, specify the conditions in Cluster 1’s link above. There is no mention of the number of temporary transferee’s that can be on the pitch at any one time.

View Comment

jimboPosted on10:49 pm - Jan 24, 2018


Regan:

“My position is for our board to consider but I think we need to separate the reality from a lot of the media noise  that goes on.”

The media noise doesn’t count!  (Popular opinion doesn’t count either presumably).  God help him if he ever tries to be a politician.

He’s lucky we don’t have a vote.

View Comment

jimboPosted on10:58 pm - Jan 24, 2018


By ‘media noise’ I was inferring  social media of course.

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on12:04 am - Jan 25, 2018


Three defeats v TRFC Ltd? Mc Innes outsmarted by  Murty 3 times on the trot? As auld Victor would have said:”I don’t believe it!”   
On that kind of performance, Mc Innes has no chance of being considered for the still vacant post at Ibrox.Who would want a manager who cannot outfox a temporary stand in? Not once, but thrice!
But football is a funny old game, and the pledges of allegiance to one’s current club do not generally amount to a row of beans.
Aberdeen supporters must be spitting blood!

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on5:47 am - Jan 25, 2018


As an obsessive football player then fan…I don’t want my kids to have any interaction with the SFA.
That’s not normal, IMO.

But I absolutely believe that the SFA is a corrupt and/or incompetent organisation.
The longer Regan and Doncaster try to defend their positions, the more they alienate paying fans like my own family.

Personally, I am close to losing all interest in Scottish football.

Yes, TRFC is an abomination. 
But it is enabled by the SFA and the other 41 senior clubs.

We all have choices…

View Comment

John ClarkPosted on10:51 am - Jan 25, 2018


StevieBCJanuary 25, 2018 at 05:47
‘…We all have choices…”
_________________
Yes. 

I choose to keep insisting that I will do all that I can to rid Scottish Football Governance of those men who have so abandoned truth and sporting integrity as to render them, as hypocrites, unfit to be involved in ‘sport’, and to end the nonsense of a new club claiming the honours and titles of an extinct club.’

‘For, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought ‘.. to believe that the 5-Way agreement has any validity, or that Liquidation did not result in the death of Rangers Football Club as a football club with a right to participate in Scottish professional football, or that TRFC Ltd is any way shape or form entitled to claim to be that liquidated club.

Further, if the other 99 should yield and accept the terrible distortions of truth that the SFA, the SMSM and RIFC plc/TRFC Ltd have been and continue to be responsible for, I’ll carry on denouncing them.

‘force majeure’ gets baddies only so far and for so long. It is ultimately no match for the moral force of Truth.

And the baddies know it in their black hearts and perverted consciences-hence their desperate and angry grabbing at the flimsiest of made-up sticks to try to justify themselves.

They are beyond justification.

And beneath contempt.

View Comment

jimboPosted on11:15 am - Jan 25, 2018


“It would appear ropy Regan made no effort to consult with the champions’ hierarchy before taking on the trip – even though as many as EIGHT of Brendan Rodgers’ players are likely to be named in the squad….
Hoops supremo Peter Lawwell is now set to write to the SFA board to demand an explanation as to why they have booked up to go on a tour of South and Central America at a time when his club’s players will be in need of rest with the team, barring a disaster, involved in next season’s Champions League qualifiers.”

https://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/celtic-fuming-at-sfa-chief-regan/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+co%2FIRuC+%28Celtic+Quick+News%29

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:03 pm - Jan 25, 2018


JIMBOJANUARY 25, 2018 at 11:15

The Parkhead club are stunned with his decision to agree to a transatlantic money-making jaunt for Scotland to play friendlies against Peru and Mexico at the end of the season.

A bit of pot calling the kettle here given the club’s previous on doing the exact same when it suits them.

Also, while I am more than happy to have as many on form Hoops in the Scotland squad for competitive games, the national team really isn’t all about Celtic.

Yes Celtic fans should be proud that many of their payers are called up for the national team and they all put in a good shift in the Blue Shirt but they shouldn’t take it that this means they have a say, control or, indeed, a right to automatic selection for all international matches.

There are many ways of getting at Regan and the SFA but IMHO Celtic bleating too hard over this one just doesn’t sit well with me and I fear that if the issue is pressed to hard (along with the Colts thing) they may start to lose some friends they have won over in recent years.

Tread carefully out there!
 

View Comment

borussiabeefburgPosted on12:16 pm - Jan 25, 2018


My current pet subject of ‘colt’ sides again……………

Several fans, including myself, have had emails back from various clubs stating there is not a ‘formal proposal’ to introduce colt sides into the league system, therefore they don’t have a comment to make presently.

This is a cop-out: the official documentation distributed to lower league clubs has the approval of the SFA and SPFL, so you’d think the clubs, as members of both organisations, would have knowledge of what is being sent out on their behalf by the football authorities.

In any case, Annan, Stirling Albion, Airdri and Albion Rovers have already intimated rejection of the scheme, and several other will hopefully follow soon, including Peterhead.

Their manager Jim McInally is widely quoted in the press today tearing into the proposal.

Press quotes include:
‘Peterhead manager Jim McInally has revealed Celtic’s head of youth could not list a single benefit for League Two clubs if Old Firm colt teams join the league.’

‘McInally said: “In my opinion the experiment of under-20 sides in the Challenge Cup has failed miserably both in terms of crowds and results. That should be stopped and the idea of colt teams in the league should be kicked out as well. “It is not up to the likes of Peterhead to help develop players en masse for Celtic, Rangers or other clubs. That is their responsibility. It is not Peterhead’s issue that other clubs find themselves saturated with players and they are trying to find something meaningful to do with them.”’

and my favourite:
‘As much as people support Celtic and Rangers, the people who support Peterhead, Montrose, Clyde, Elgin and others support their team every bit as much and every bit as passionately as Celtic and Rangers supporters support their team.
‘It really annoys me that Scottish football can’t see through this – for me this should have been blown out without even getting this far.’

https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/sport/football/scottish-football/peterhead-boss-slams-colts-idea-from-old-firm-clubs-he-says-are-out-to-bully-way-in/

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/celtic/peterhead-boss-jim-mcinally-slams-celtic-rangers-colts-plan-1-4671520

View Comment

gerrybhoy67Posted on12:22 pm - Jan 25, 2018


WOTTPI @ 12.03
You say there are other ways to get at Regan but as shown before they are in this alone with chairmen from other clubs too scared to fight for not only sporting integrity but their own paying customers and I also don’t think their response is saying Celtic players are running anything never mind automatic selection.
If they say nothing the shutters at hampden will do whatever they like AGAIN.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on12:47 pm - Jan 25, 2018


GERRYBHOY67JANUARY 25, 2018 at 12:22

Totally agree with you on the inaction by others (and indeed saddened that Ms Budge has not been strong at all on pursuing certain matters).
However, while I applaud the stance taken by Celtic with regards to some matters in the game I’m still far from convinced about the level of conviction at the top end of the club in relation to both the T’Rangers issues and sorting out the SFA.
I, like you, would have probably preferred a smash and grab approach but Celtic and perhaps others are playing a longer game. The frustration is that as long as issues continue, like not getting O’Neill, the future of Hampden and poorly timed friendlies,  the more we all become disillusioned and fearful that nothing is ever going to happen.

View Comment

jimboPosted on12:55 pm - Jan 25, 2018


Wottpi,

The SFA and the Scotland Team do not exist in a bubble.  This decision by Regan has a huge impact on Celtic and Peter Lawwell is quite entitled to express his concerns.  There were alternatives open to Regan which would not have impacted on Celtic in such a negative manner. I would like him to come out and justify a jaunt half way around the world and the timing of it. 

This not a dig at Scotland,  Celtic fans are very proud of our players contribution to the team.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:09 pm - Jan 25, 2018


jimboJanuary 25, 2018 at 12:55 
Wottpi,The SFA and the Scotland Team do not exist in a bubble. This decision by Regan has a huge impact on Celtic and Peter Lawwell is quite entitled to express his concerns. There were alternatives open to Regan which would not have impacted on Celtic in such a negative manner. I would like him to come out and justify a jaunt half way around the world and the timing of it. This not a dig at Scotland, Celtic fans are very proud of our players contribution to the team.
_____________

The thing is, Celtic aren’t the only club hit by this meaningless, and senseless, trip to Central and South America, all the clubs that qualify for Europe will most likely have players involved, especially if Celtic manage to pull out most, or all, of their players, and I, for one, don’t like the idea of teams trying to get their act together for Euro qualification with depleted squads. So, in effect, the point the Celtic board are making is for all the clubs involved to get behind, and pull out their players, too. That wouldn’t look too good on Regan’s CV, and that, after all, is all that matters to him. Well, that and a nice jaunt to very much warmer climes!

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on1:24 pm - Jan 25, 2018


borussiabeefburgJanuary 25, 2018 at 12:16 
My current pet subject of ‘colt’ sides again……………Several fans, including myself, have had emails back from various clubs stating there is not a ‘formal proposal’ to introduce colt sides into the league system, therefore they don’t have a comment to make presently.This is a cop-out: the official documentation distributed to lower league clubs has the approval of the SFA and SPFL, so you’d think the clubs, as members of both organisations, would have knowledge of what is being sent out on their behalf by the football authorities.In any case, Annan, Stirling Albion, Airdri and Albion Rovers have already intimated rejection of the scheme, and several other will hopefully follow soon, including Peterhead.Their manager Jim McInally is widely quoted in the press today tearing into the proposal.Press quotes include:‘Peterhead manager Jim McInally has revealed Celtic’s head of youth could not list a single benefit for League Two clubs if Old Firm colt teams join the league.’‘McInally said: “In my opinion the experiment of under-20 sides in the Challenge Cup has failed miserably both in terms of crowds and results. That should be stopped and the idea of colt teams in the league should be kicked out as well. “It is not up to the likes of Peterhead to help develop players en masse for Celtic, Rangers or other clubs. That is their responsibility. It is not Peterhead’s issue that other clubs find themselves saturated with players and they are trying to find something meaningful to do with them.”’and my favourite:‘As much as people support Celtic and Rangers, the people who support Peterhead, Montrose, Clyde, Elgin and others support their team every bit as much and every bit as passionately as Celtic and Rangers supporters support their team.‘It really annoys me that Scottish football can’t see through this – for me this should have been blown out without even getting this far.’https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/fp/sport/football/scottish-football/peterhead-boss-slams-colts-idea-from-old-firm-clubs-he-says-are-out-to-bully-way-in/https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/celtic/peterhead-boss-jim-mcinally-slams-celtic-rangers-colts-plan-1-4671520
_________________________

Good to see there’s still people involved in the lower leagues who have the sporting integrity to speak out in opposition to those for whom football is just another commercial venture. The spirit of Turnbull Hutton lives on in some.

There’s two ‘flagship’ projects of the suits at Hampden damned from the off. How bloody typical of those incompetents.

View Comment

bigboab1916Posted on1:26 pm - Jan 25, 2018


AllyjamboJanuary 25, 2018 at 13:09″…So, in effect, the point the Celtic board are making is for all the clubs involved to get behind, and pull out their players, too. That wouldn’t look too good on Regan’s CV, and that, after all, is all that matters to him. Well, that and a nice jaunt to very much warmer climes!”
Yep would be the perfect time now to deny him the legroom he never afforded the players on the sojourns abroad.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on1:26 pm - Jan 25, 2018


On the colts issue.

If the majority of the teams don’t want it then it won’t happen.

That’s how democracy works.

View Comment

wottpiPosted on1:47 pm - Jan 25, 2018


HOMUNCULUSJANUARY 25, 2018 at 13:26

Yes but only if all stakeholders get the vote.

As McInally points out there are plenty within the game and many fans who would probably not want to see that happen.

The decision will however be taken by boards and  chairmen of clubs.

You know the same ones like Milne, Budge, Petrie who have all let the majority of paying customers  too many times on certain other matters.

BORUSSIABEEFBURG’s call is for fans etc to get involved and make their views known so that those votes are well informed by the views of the paying fan as opposed to The New Old Firm shilling.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on2:16 pm - Jan 25, 2018


wottpi
January 25, 2018 at 13:47

HOMUNCULUSJANUARY 25, 2018 at 13:26
Yes but only if all stakeholders get the vote.
=====================================

I don’t know what you mean by stakeholders, however as I understand it this would be a fundamental change which would have to be agreed by the clubs. I’m assuming a straight majority of the 42 existing SPFL clubs, however I suppose it could be a higher majority than that.

I go back to when Rangers were allowed into the SFL (as was). Whilst I personally think that was wrong it was not my decision to make, neither was it a decision for the SPL (as was) clubs to make. They had already voted not to let the new club into their league. It was a decision for the SFL clubs to make, and on a majority they voted the new club in.

I believe this is exactly the same scenario albeit there is only one league now so it will be for all existing SPFL clubs to vote on.

If the members clubs, or a majority of them, don’t want it to happen then it won’t.

Personally I think a “Reserve League” like we used to have would be a better way forward. I can’t understand the reason we got rid of it in the first place. It serves the purpose of developing youth at a higher level and providing a platform for injured players to make their way back to first team, or off-form players a chance to try to play their way back into the first team. It is presumably also a bigger draw if it involves some of the bigger names who are not at first team level for whatever reason.

However I don’t know if there is any appetite for that, for whatever reason.

View Comment

bordersdonPosted on2:39 pm - Jan 25, 2018


John ClarkJanuary 25, 2018 at 00:04
Three defeats v TRFC Ltd? Mc Innes outsmarted by  Murty 3 times on the trot? As auld Victor would have said:”I don’t believe it!”   On that kind of performance, Mc Innes has no chance of being considered for the still vacant post at Ibrox.Who would want a manager who cannot outfox a temporary stand in? Not once, but thrice! But football is a funny old game, and the pledges of allegiance to one’s current club do not generally amount to a row of beans. Aberdeen supporters must be spitting blood!
———————————————————
This one is JC! AFC and TRFC have both lost 6 games this season but our 6 has been against TRFC (3), CFC (2) and Motherwell (1). This gives some credibility to the widely held belief that Derek’s teams don’t perform in pressure games. Don’t know why but since it’s 25 January “facts are chiels that winna ding”

View Comment

StevieBCPosted on3:15 pm - Jan 25, 2018


I guess TRFC made payroll today then ?

View Comment

bordersdonPosted on3:19 pm - Jan 25, 2018


                       StevieBCJanuary 25, 2018 at 15:15
I guess TRFC made payroll today then ?
—————————————————-
And bought a new player (in one rag for £680k)!

View Comment

paddy malarkeyPosted on3:31 pm - Jan 25, 2018


Don’t professional football players contractual holiday allowances and restrictions on when they can utilise them ?I’ve also heard tell of clubs having players on 11 month contracts so that they don’t get paid through their summer break .You would hope the summer jaunt is voluntary . I wonder what would happen to players who were selected but declined as they have family holidays organised ? Hopefully PFA Scotland are looking to their members best interests in this as in other matters .

View Comment

wottpiPosted on3:33 pm - Jan 25, 2018


BORDERSDONJANUARY 25, 2018 at 15:19
                       StevieBCJanuary 25, 2018 at 15:15I guess TRFC made payroll today then ?—————————————————-And bought a new player (in one rag for £680k)!
————————————–
And the roofs are still on.
And the u20s part-time coach outsmarts McInnes with ease, once again.
And they are now second in the league.

As discussed the other day credit where it is due. They just keep rollin along!!!

View Comment

borussiabeefburgPosted on4:06 pm - Jan 25, 2018


HOMUNCULUS        JANUARY 25, 2018 at 14:16

I don’t know what you mean by stakeholders, however as I understand it this would be a fundamental change which would have to be agreed by the clubs. I’m assuming a straight majority of the 42 existing SPFL clubs, however I suppose it could be a higher majority than that.

I think the set up now (the ‘Rules’ which can be altered at the discretion of the ruling body) is for 75% from each of the four leagues to vote for whatever is put in front of them (ie, 9 from the 12 in the top league, 8 of 10 in the Championship and so on).

However, it may depend on the wording of any motion which is put to the clubs, on any matter, not just regarding the Colts. 

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on4:52 pm - Jan 25, 2018


I don’t think the issue is whether Rangers paid their staff or not.

It’s whether they have to keep borrowing money to do it.

As it stand the answer is yes, they had to borrow money. The total this year is predicted as £4m. The figure predicted next year is £3.2m.

Sorry but if I pay for my shopping, electricity, clothes, petrol etc using a credit card the issue isn’t whether I paid the bills or not. It’s why am I having to use a credit card to do it.

(Before anyone says it, yes I know people do it for other benefits and pay the card every month, that’s not important right now.)

View Comment

jimboPosted on5:43 pm - Jan 25, 2018


Wottpi,  I have fallen  out with  you mate.

View Comment

Skoosh60Posted on6:29 pm - Jan 25, 2018


https://twitter.com/Chris_Jack89/status/956551024382181377?ref_src=twcamp%5Eshare%7Ctwsrc%5Em5%7Ctwgr%5Eemail%7Ctwcon%5E7046%7Ctwterm%5E2

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on7:12 pm - Jan 25, 2018


BORUSSIABEEFBURG
JANUARY 25, 2018 at 16:06

(ie, 9 from the 12 in the top league, 8 of 10 in the Championship and so on).

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

I’m sorry but that doesn’t make any sense.

There is only one league, with four divisions.

Why would the individual divisions have different votes. There are 42 members, all with equal rights. There should only be one vote. 

View Comment

wottpiPosted on7:19 pm - Jan 25, 2018


JIMBOJANUARY 25, 2018 at 17:43

Don’t know why?

Non-world cup qualifiers are fair game for being invited to play pre-tournament friendlies for the lucky  ones going.

In 2014 we were invited to play Nigeria at Craven Cottage (presumably as they wanted some European competition as a warm up) and a great time was had by all.

Brown, Mulgrew (both starting) & Griffiths (unused sub) all went on that jolly on 28 May.

Celtic’s Champions League campaign that year started on 15 July v KR Reykjavík away.

Celtic were happy to play a series of friendlies with Austrian clubs home and away on 3, 6, 8, 11, of July and then travelled all the way to Dresden for a game on 19 July three days before playing the Reykjavik home game on the 22 July.

That was all under Deila of course and given the performance that year then Rodgers may indeed have a point about trying to protect payers fitness, but it will be interesting to see how packed Celtic’s schedule is with friendlies etc come the start of next season.

In 2016 when we were cannon fodder for Italy & France’s Euro’s preparation no Celtic players (other than the then out of contract Charlie Mulgrew) were considered for those friendlies squad.

Therefore it is quite easy to have players from elsewhere make up the numbers if burn out is an issue combined with club Euro preparations. 

That of course was all under Strachan who seemed to wake up late to the talents of Armstrong, McGregor and the likes but the argument still stands. There are others who can take up the slack in friendlies.

As I said before if some players aren’t available because of club Euro commitments then all well and good from my point of view.

I and a new manager (if appointed)  have no need to know what the likes of Gordon, Brown, Berra, Griffiths, etc can do in a Scotland shirt, so why would the likes of them even be going on a cross Atlantic trip?

I’m more interested in seeing younger and fringe players being given a cap in such games. From that point of view then its the likes of Hibs (McGinn) and Hearts (Soutar) that could be more disadvantaged, than Celtic, if they have a euro spot. 

If we are falling out re my comments re T’Rangers then I speak the truth.

Despite all the dire warnings of all kinds of catastrophe they keep rollin along and have done for the last five years.

Homunculus is right, they keep getting cash from somewhere and only time will tell when that catches up with them.

Have a dram and we will be buddies again soon 19

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:21 pm - Jan 25, 2018


CLUB 1872 have launched a campaign to raise £1million as part of the upcoming Light Blues share issue.
The Gers hierarchy will hold a share issue in the coming months to provide additional cash and allow a portion of the loans from the likes of King and Douglas Park to be converted to equity.
“Most Rangers supporters aren’t millionaires, but they don’t need to be because together we can invest millions of pounds in Rangers Football Club
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/15897862.Club_1872_target___1million_investment_in_Rangers_share_issue/#comments-anchor
—————–
So club 1872 want to take part in a share issue in the company, and this additional cash will allow a portion of the loans to be converted to equity.
so just how does a raised £1million that a portion of it is being used to allow the  loans from the likes of King and Douglas Park to be converted to equity.
just how does that invest millions of pounds in to Rangers Football Club?

View Comment

borussiabeefburgPosted on8:53 pm - Jan 25, 2018


HOMUNCULUS
JANUARY 25, 2018 at 19:12

BORUSSIABEEFBURGJANUARY 25, 2018 at 16:06
(ie, 9 from the 12 in the top league, 8 of 10 in the Championship and so on).
==================================
I’m sorry but that doesn’t make any sense.
There is only one league, with four divisions.
Why would the individual divisions have different votes. There are 42 members, all with equal rights. There should only be one vote. 

I’m not trying to make sense, I’m looking at the ‘Articles of Association’ issued by the SPFL. 

https://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__articlesofassociationofthescottishprofessionalfootballleaguelimitedasat20july2016_1470742749.pdf

Within these it differentiates between Ordinary Resolutions and Qualified Resolutions, with each having different voting requirements.

“Ordinary Resolution means a resolution of the Company at a General Meeting, which is not a special resolution, Qualified Resolution or Commercial Resolution, of which notice has been duly given in accordance with these Articles, and which requires the support of not less than each of: (i) 75% of the Members owning and operating Clubs entitled for the time being to be the members of the Premiership [9 from 12]; (ii) 75% of the Members owning and operating Clubs entitled for the time being to be the members of the Championship [8 from 10]; and (iii) 75% of the Members owning and operating Clubs entitled for the time being to be the members of League One and League Two [15 from 20], whether all the Members of the Company actually attend and vote or not, to be passed; 
Qualified Resolution means, in relation to those Reserved Matters referred to in Article 62, a resolution of the Company at a General Meeting, of which notice has been duly given in accordance with these Articles, and which requires the support of not less than 90% of the Members owning and operating Clubs entitled for the time being to be the members of the Premiership [11 from 12]; 75% of the Members owning and operating Clubs entitled for the time being to be the members of the Premiership and the Championship [17 from 22]; and 75% of the Members owning and operating Clubs entitled for the time being to be the members of the Premiership, the Championship, League One and League Two [32 from 42], whether all the Members of the Company actually attend and vote or not, to be passed; “

It doesn’t matter anyway, unless a much bigger carrot is dangled, the colt proposal is dead. 

View Comment

Kilgore TroutPosted on9:04 pm - Jan 25, 2018


BORUSSIABEEFBURG

I do hope so as the only good colt proposal is no colt proposal at all.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:13 pm - Jan 25, 2018


Cluster OneJanuary 25, 2018 at 19:21 
CLUB 1872 have launched a campaign to raise £1million as part of the upcoming Light Blues share issue.The Gers hierarchy will hold a share issue in the coming months to provide additional cash and allow a portion of the loans from the likes of King and Douglas Park to be converted to equity.“Most Rangers supporters aren’t millionaires, but they don’t need to be because together we can invest millions of pounds in Rangers Football Clubhttp://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/15897862.Club_1872_target___1million_investment_in_Rangers_share_issue/#comments-anchor—————–So club 1872 want to take part in a share issue in the company, and this additional cash will allow a portion of the loans to be converted to equity.so just how does a raised £1million that a portion of it is being used to allow the loans from the likes of King and Douglas Park to be converted to equity.just how does that invest millions of pounds in to Rangers Football Club?
____________________-

Questions, questions, questions, don’t ask so many bloody questions! The People might not like the answers. At least they have announced the date of the share issue; you know, the one they’ve been planning since the current board took office! So, at last, it’s all systems go, and that date is…’upcoming’…’in the coming months’…sometime maybe never, before the result of the TOP appeal is known, after the result of the TOP appeal is known…

As ever, though, there’s something in the statement that they maybe hope is overlooked, the SMSM will certainly overlook it, and that’s confirmation of what’s been discussed here, and elsewhere, before – it’s only a ‘portion’ of the loans that will be repaid with equity. I wonder how much of the ‘quantum’ will be repaid using whatever is syphoned off from Club 1872’s subscription to the share offer, and perhaps more importantly, how much will remain in the balance sheet under ‘Liabilities’!

‘A portion’, just ‘a portion’, not ‘a large portion’, or ‘the bulk of’, just ‘a portion’. If £6m is in reality, £500,000, and a £1m, possibly £2m, player, is announced as £10m, what might the reality of ‘a portion’ be?

In reality, I suspect the £1m mentioned as coming from Club 1872 is to meet the second (first?) payments for any deals they’ve entered into and some of the outstanding money owed for the duffers bought last summer. Could the current ‘spending’ spree even be a carrot to give the impression any monies raised will be used to up the level of new signings in the summer? Create the aura of yesteryear and there’s no need to make promises in any prospectus, just leave it to the fevered imagination of football fans to make of it what they will.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on9:26 pm - Jan 25, 2018


borussiabeefburgJanuary 25, 2018 at 20:53

Kilgore TroutJanuary 25, 2018 at 21:04 
BORUSSIABEEFBURGI do hope so as the only good colt proposal is no colt proposal at all.
____________________

To me, the most important thing to be considered is not that the clubs will throw the proposal out, but that a proposal, designed to benefit only the two proposing clubs, has been allowed to get this far!

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:32 pm - Jan 25, 2018


Allyjambo January 25, 2018 at 21:13
=====================
Club1872 bought half of Mike Ashley’s shares for £1m at the end of June last year, so I’d guess that the most they will have available now would be around £500k.

If King and co. do manage to progress with a debt for equity swap, TOP notwithstanding, then the likelihood would be that Club1872’s current 10% holding would be diluted, unless they are in a position to invest a fair bit of new money into the club. They may have been given a steer as to the likely share price, how many new shares will be issued and how much debt would be “swapped”. A £1m investment might be the figure required for them to stand still and maintain their 10%.

I’ll have to do some calculations to see if if can replicate such a scenario.

Any new money used by Club1872 to buy into a share issue would go straight to the club. There could be one or two others with new money to invest such as Scott and Johnston. I can’t see King or the 3 Bears doing anything more than converting part of their loans to equity. They would not receive any funds from the cash raised.

However, the amount of new cash raised could reduce the amount required from NOAL to keep the show on the road.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:35 pm - Jan 25, 2018


BORUSSIABEEFBURG
JANUARY 25, 2018 at 20:53
I’m not trying to make sense, I’m looking at the ‘Articles of Association’ issued by the SPFL. 
===========================

Apologies, I clearly didn’t express myself very well.

I meant the rule made no sense, not you.

If there is one league (the SPFL) then there should be one vote, with all 42 clubs having an equal say.

If you re-read my post in that context I hope it’s clearer. 

View Comment

jimboPosted on9:47 pm - Jan 25, 2018


Wottpi,  We will never fall out.  This is the problem with social media.  You cant always see body language or tongue in cheek.  Or trying to have a laugh. Go over to the music forum and I will send you a nice song.  You love football in whatever shape or form.  But the likes of Regan is despicable to whomsoever you support.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:49 pm - Jan 25, 2018


ALLYJAMBO
JANUARY 25, 2018 at 21:26

To me, the most important thing to be considered is not that the clubs will throw the proposal out, but that a proposal, designed to benefit only the two proposing clubs, has been allowed to get this far!
====================================

I’m not sure I get your point AJ.

I thought clubs in the bottom tier were going to be getting a guaranteed income, in relation to 4 games a year. Presumably increasing their turnover and helping the clubs make ends meet. 

How is that only benefiting two clubs.

If I have picked that up wrong then I am happy to be corrected. 

Don’t get me wrong, like I said if the majority are not interested, cool. I would prefer a reserve league anyway. Benefiting all of the Premiership teams, including the players. 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:49 pm - Jan 25, 2018


EASYJAMBOJANUARY 25, 2018 at 21:32
0
0 Rate This
Allyjambo January 25, 2018 at 21:13=====================Club1872 bought half of Mike Ashley’s shares for £1m at the end of June last year, so I’d guess that the most they will have available now would be around £500k.
——————-
by giving a little extra – from just £5 per month – we can make a huge difference.”
“One of the central messages we’re delivering today is that if we act together, fans can provide substantial additional revenue streams for Rangers. For the price of two pints each month, we can help rebuild our club. For the price of a pie and a bovril each month, we can leave a lasting legacy and show future generations that we fought for our club so that they would never have to experience what we have over the last few years.”
———–
The pie and Bovril years. Wonder if this is how the Level5 will spin a book sale for an ibrox club in years to come.£500k that is a lot of pints to give up and a lot of pie and bovrils to be consumed.
“sorry Nacho not tonight i have a pie and bovril to catch up on”

View Comment

jimboPosted on10:55 pm - Jan 25, 2018


I love pies and Bovril at a game.  And I am a vegetarian.  That’s how much I love my club.  Anything to help.

(btw that is a genuine photo of me)

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on7:39 am - Jan 26, 2018


HomunculusJanuary 25, 2018 at 21:49 
ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 25, 2018 at 21:26To me, the most important thing to be considered is not that the clubs will throw the proposal out, but that a proposal, designed to benefit only the two proposing clubs, has been allowed to get this far!====================================I’m not sure I get your point AJ.I thought clubs in the bottom tier were going to be getting a guaranteed income, in relation to 4 games a year. Presumably increasing their turnover and helping the clubs make ends meet. How is that only benefiting two clubs.If I have picked that up wrong then I am happy to be corrected. Don’t get me wrong, like I said if the majority are not interested, cool. I would prefer a reserve league anyway. Benefiting all of the Premiership teams, including the players.
_________________________-

I said the proposal was designed to benefit only the two proposing clubs, not that no other club would benefit. The proposal also assumed that our ‘poorest’ clubs would sell the integrity of their competition for enough money to…increase the number of bar staff, by two part-timers, in their social club, perhaps?

A reserve league would, in my opinion, be the way to go, although maybe not all clubs could afford to run a reserve team, and under-age teams, side by side. But a reserve league, of course, would be a new league, with no integrity to respect/disrespect, and it might be possible for clubs, without the facilities to field a reserve side of their own, to ‘pool’ their players and field one or two combined teams.

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on8:51 am - Jan 26, 2018


ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 26, 2018 at 07:39

A reserve league would, in my opinion, be the way to go, although maybe not all clubs could afford to run a reserve team

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

As I said previously if TRFC were awash with cash and Celtic were the ones dependant on soft loans to survive I don’t believe this proposal would be on the table. 

I see no benefit for Celtic and rather worryingly for me they appear once again willing to have their name stained by association.  Given the huge level of tax evasion, court cases, and multitude of dodgy characters at Ibrox past and present Celtic should keep their professionally run business away from any association with Ibrox IMO. 

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on9:01 am - Jan 26, 2018


I remember a debate on here a couple of weeks back that Rangers PR ‘works’. It definitely does IMO, following a glance online at various media outlets.  It even seems clear that Murty is being coached what to say. It is worth noting that they have exactly the same amount of points they had this time last year under Warburton. Despite that Radio Scotland said the other night ‘the giant is finally awaking from its slumber’. 

However as a cautionary note PR only works if there is a media willing to be fed it and to refuse to challenge it. In that sense Rangers are pushing at an open door.  I also think without a Rangers facing Hamilton Chairman they would not be parading any latest signing. If what an agent has posted on Twitter is true about the payment plan Hamilton deserve all they get. £125k down payment (rumoured to be paid by a Director), then five payments of £60k over three years. 

View Comment

HighlanderPosted on9:30 am - Jan 26, 2018


On the colts issue, my understanding is that the SPFL comprises of 42 clubs, all of them no doubt different, yet all of them equal, and rightly so. 

The fact that the two clubs with the largest support wish to introduce changes that will benefit only them should be setting off alarms and klaxons that even our inept and corrupt football authorities can’t turn a deaf ear to, but unsurprisingly they are at the forefront of the proposals to shred any pretence of sporting integrity in favour of a grubby deal that would see the lesser clubs offered bribes to agree to something that would potentially see the big two create an even bigger chasm between themselves and the rest than already exists.

If the argument is that Rangers and Celtic would not gain an advantage, it begs the question why do they want to do it?

View Comment

Comments are closed.