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.
Homunculus @ 21.49
Precisely. Its down to money. The proposal is absolutely sod all to do with ‘developing football’ as eloquently described by Jim McInally yesterday. Its about two clubs being big. Its about a proposal that allows them to be even bigger in terms of fanbase and player pool. History tells us that that tends to mean they’ll be more successful despite LNS’ assurances to the contrary. They argue the spin off (apart from the financial ‘bribe’) is a better Scotland side but we’re all supposed to be too blind to see that that would only happen if the old firm young players who currently can’t get a game suddenly do so to develop their potential whilst in the ownership of the OF.
As Jim said yesterday, and credit to him for going public out with even his own club’s officialdom. It is not the job of the league, any league, to develop the old firm’s players for them.
Or, if it is, stop treating us like idiots and just come out and tell it like it is and let the fans decide.
UPTHHOOPS, I think you’re being a wee bit unkind to Hamilton there. They seem to be a well run club that have a pretty established model of bringing through their own players and then selling them on for a decent amount.
Why would their chairman put the needs of Rangers above the needs of Hamilton? Surely he, and presumably the entire board, work too hard to consider the financial needs of another club over their own.
Are you suggesting a lack of objectivity simply because the chairman is ‘Rangers facing’. Does that apply to all people who might be involved with clubs they don’t support, just Rangers fans or specifically the Hamilton chairman?
At the end of the day there has been a transfer of a player. Both clubs have negotiated a deal, whatever the details are, that they are satisfied with. Why does it need to be any more than that?
INCREDIBLEADAMSPARKJANUARY 26, 2018 at 09:35
I think the issue is just as people thought we were getting into an era where folks would call T’Rangers out, we have a rumoured cosy long term payment deal being made with Hamilton whose Chairman has been more than vocal abut needing a ‘strong Rangers’.
While I agree a deal is a deal which may suit both parties down to the ground (and T’Rangers won’t be the first club to have bought a players when their own finances are in dubious and unsettled condition) it does stick in the craw when, as you say yourself, a well run club such as Hamilton sells one of their best prospects to a club they are competing with in the same division who publicly admit they are running on fumes.
What the hell does it say for the integrity of the league if smaller clubs can be enticed to take cash, possibly on a never never installment deal, by another club who by all accounts is undertaking a risky gamble.
Hamilton will have sold because they too probably need the money and they too will now be facing a gamble of whether the loss of a player helps or hinders their premiership status. I’m guessing there would also have been thoughts of take the T’Rangers cash now or wait to see if and English club comes in at a later date with a better cash offer.
A deal is a deal but when dealing with the Ibrox club I’d suggest extreme caution.
As discussed the other day, pay day down Ibrox way seems to be passing without incident, players are being brought in, some may yet be on their way out this window to balance the wage bill, the roofs are still on.
While the financial position is far from ideal they do keep rollin along.
Friday is usually the time for a Blue Room conclave so I hope Phil Mac will soon be able to provide an update on where the money has come from this time?
INCREDIBLEADAMSPARKJANUARY 26, 2018 at 09:35
All I am saying is if what the agent has posted about the structure of the deal is true, it is a very poor one for Hamilton and a great one for Rangers. Also, the Hamilton Chairman has openly spoken of his past love for the Ibrox club. He has also made it clear in the past he would have been happy for a new Rangers to be parachuted into the top league. Obviously tens of millions in tax evasion means nothing to him. As for the Docherty deal, they reap what they sow. I am willing to bet if Celtic had shown an interest the demand would have been for over a million.
WOTTPI, wouldn’t disagree with much of that. What I would say is that I don’t find the rumours helpful. I have no idea what the payment plan is for the player nor can I read the mind of the Hamilton chairman.
What I won’t do is question his motives for making a deal based solely on what way he ‘faces’ (what I was responding to initially) in regards to a particular team.
Rangers have broken no rules, appear to have concluded business satifactorally for the selling club and the player. It’s all a bit of a non event to me.
UPTHEHOOPS, how is it a poor deal for Hamilton and why do you think they would have demanded over £1m if Celtic had been interested?
Transfers are structured is so many different ways. I personally can’t see a problem with the amount Hamilton and Rangers have agreed on.
upthehoopsJanuary 26, 2018 at 08:51
ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 26, 2018 at 07:39A 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.
___________________
As much as I agree with the bulk of your post, I think you will be wrong to say Celtic would see no benefit from this colts idea.
Celtic currently have, I believe, the largest amount of young hopefuls under contract in Scotland. They are lured there by the size of the club, it’s ‘cachet’, money, and facilities – but there is a downside of a lack of opportunities for each individual player to get match-time. Not only would a colts team in the SPFL provide more match-time (with the youth set-up continuing), the opportunity to quickly play in the SPFL would surely only add to that ‘cachet’.
So, Celtic will be an even greater attraction to the best of Scotland’s young talent, not only increasing their chances of finding the ‘next big thing’, but reducing everyone else’s, and, at the same time, moving the best of their youths out of the youth set-up, lowering the standard of the youth leagues. Celtic, and TRFC, would not only be gaining that much demanded ‘step up’ between youths and first team action, the youth set up for the rest would be taking a ‘step down’!
INCREDIBLEADAMSPARKJANUARY 26, 2018 at 10:30
As you will see from my follow on post I’m not a great believer in rumours myself.
However on the balance of probabilities T’Rangers will most likely be drip feeding the transfer fee to Hamilton.
That may suit Hamilton financial planning but it certainly restricts their ability to buy in an immediate replacement and they will most likely be left waiting for the next prospect on their conveyor belt to make a showing in the first team.
As you say, if both parties are happy then so be it, but it will still rankle with many that a club in such obvious dire straights can apparently splash the cash when they want to weaken the opposition.
P.S. Hypocritically, more than happy Docherty being side lined may have helped Hearts to that 3-0 win mid-week
incredibleadamsparkJanuary 26, 2018 at 10:38
UPTHEHOOPS, how is it a poor deal for Hamilton and why do you think they would have demanded over £1m if Celtic had been interested? Transfers are structured is so many different ways. I personally can’t see a problem with the amount Hamilton and Rangers have agreed on.
________________________________-
Living in England I lose track of players outside of Hearts and clubs at the top of the Premiership, so know very little of Docherty and could not say one way or the other whether the eventual amount to be paid is a fair price. Regardless, though, the way TRFC are going about their transfer business these days is a new low in the ‘tapping up’ that Ibrox clubs have always been known for.
What they appear to have done here, and similarly elsewhere, is to go in with a ludicrously structured offer, and thus informed a player (that under the rules they could/should not have approached), that they also know supports TRFC, of their interest, and, aided and abetted by their supporters in the SMSM, leaving Hamilton with a very unsettled player, and one they would be wasting their time touting around the rest of the Premiership in an attempt to, perhaps, match the offer but get money upfront with a quicker final payment; or, indeed, a bigger fee altogether.
As to whether or not trying to deal with a chairman who supports your team provides TRFC with a negotiating advantage, well, these tactics, or similar, don’t seem to work very well when dealing with the chairs of Hearts, Hibs or Aberdeen.
ALLYJAMBO, transfers are a negotiation. I have no problem with clubs (buying or selling) trying to get the best deal possible for themselves. That’s the way it’s always been.
Rangers have brought in players from Brighton, Norwich, Nottimgham Forest. I have read no complaints from these clubs about how Rangers have conducted their business. Maybe there has been in the papers down south and I haven’t seen them. You might have some examples of that.
The Kilmarnock manager was quoted as saying the Rangers bid for his player was normal football business: they made a bid it was rejected. Although I’m unable to confirm what way he ‘faces’.
Hamilton seem perfectly happy with the way the transfer has progressed and I haven’t seen or heard any reports of the player being ‘very unsettled’ by things. Maybe you do and I’ve possibly missed that.
Kris Boyd had a few things to say about Rangers offers but I refer back to my opening sentence: transfers are a negotiation.
incredibleadamsparkJanuary 26, 2018 at 10:38
UPTHEHOOPS, how is it a poor deal for Hamilton and why do you think they would have demanded over £1m if Celtic had been interested? Transfers are structured is so many different ways. I personally can’t see a problem with the amount Hamilton and Rangers have agreed on.
____________________
Might I suggest that:
a) They know Celtic could afford £1m.
b) They know Celtic wouldn’t be interested in him if they didn’t see him as having the potential to be worth, at least, £1m.
c) Their chairman finds it easier to say no to Celtic, and wouldn’t be put under pressure at the ‘lodge’. (I have no idea whether or not the Hamilton chairman attends a lodge, or not, but being a relatively wealthy businessman, and supporting ‘Rangers’, tends to suggest he might.)
d) £1m might be a bit of an exaggeration, but there’s no way he’d have allowed Celtic to pay this amount by instalments.
INCREDIBLEADAMSPARK JANUARY 26, 2018 at 11:43
The deals you refer to are for loan players the owner clubs were happy to let go.
Slightly different from the recent reported dealings when going for a full signing
Rumours (or proper investigative journalism) again but the Murphy deal at Brighton seems to have been down graded so something far more complex with a possible change of mind from the English club when they saw what the Ibrox offer was.
As you say all parties maybe walked away happy with the deal but the danger for T’Rangers is if the English market has rumours floating round that they are skinflints and spivs future deals may not be as easy.
As we agree, it really all depends on how desperate each party is to get a deal done.
ALLYJAMBO, all reasonable suggestions. As it happens I don’t think the player is worth £1m but I suppose a player is worth whatever someone is prepared to pay for them.
incredibleadamsparkJanuary 26, 2018 at 11:43
ALLYJAMBO, transfers are a negotiation. I have no problem with clubs (buying or selling) trying to get the best deal possible for themselves. That’s the way it’s always been.Rangers have brought in players from Brighton, Norwich, Nottimgham Forest. I have read no complaints from these clubs about how Rangers have conducted their business. Maybe there has been in the papers down south and I haven’t seen them. You might have some examples of that. The Kilmarnock manager was quoted as saying the Rangers bid for his player was normal football business: they made a bid it was rejected. Although I’m unable to confirm what way he ‘faces’. Hamilton seem perfectly happy with the way the transfer has progressed and I haven’t seen or heard any reports of the player being ‘very unsettled’ by things. Maybe you do and I’ve possibly missed that. Kris Boyd had a few things to say about Rangers offers but I refer back to my opening sentence: transfers are a negotiation.
______________
I don’t think Brighton were all that impressed by the ‘negotiations’ that were carried out when, what was described by TRFC’s friends in the media as Brighton ‘moving the goal posts’, was, in fact, the discovery that the quantum of the offer was to be paid in a manner unique to TRFC. A sale then turned into a loan deal. I have no idea whether or not Norwich were ‘satisfied’ with any negotiations, but Nottingham Forrest were only negotiating a loan deal. And, of course, the chairman of Accrington Stanley is still venting his spleen about the way two of his players were ‘encouraged’ to leave his club for Ibrox.
In all these negotiations, though, the clubs involved were not put under the media pressure Hamilton were put under, or Hearts, or Hibs, or Aberdeen, a big factor, and a grossly unfair one, you might not recognise in ‘negotiations’ between TRFC and other Scottish clubs, but a real one nonetheless.
ALLYJAMBO, were Hamilton put under media pressure to sell Docherty to Rangers? Whaterver pressure the media put Hearts, Hibs or Aberdeen under to do deals with Rangers didn’t seem to work.
I sometimes thing points are overstated and the influence of Rangers and the media to influence things in their favour are exaggerated.
Others disagree with that, but it makes for some interesting debate.
INCREDIBLEADAMSPARKJANUARY 26, 2018 at 10:38
UPTHEHOOPS, how is it a poor deal for Hamilton and why do you think they would have demanded over £1m if Celtic had been interested?
Transfers are structured is so many different ways. I personally can’t see a problem with the amount Hamilton and Rangers have agreed on.
==================================
I believe it could only be a good deal for Hamilton if the reported £425k had been paid in full. An agent has gone on Twitter stating that £300k of it will be paid over three years – how is that in any way a good deal for Hamilton? In terms of demanding a million from Celtic, because he would know the media would support his view, the same way they all gave ex-Rangers player Neil McCann space to demand £1.5m from Celtic for Jack Hendry amidst rumoured £800k interest. This was at the same time many journalists were lining up to slate Kilmarnock for their valuation of Jordan Jones, but not one of them thought McCann was over the top with his valuation. It seems clear to me there is a strategy to unsettle Rangers supporting players with the help of the media which will inevitably lead to their club having to sell at a deal they might not be 100% happy with. It’s desperate in my view and as others have said there is every chance Rangers may already be heading for pariah status with larger clubs in terms of doing transfer business with them.
incredibleadamsparkJanuary 26, 2018 at 12:22
ALLYJAMBO, were Hamilton put under media pressure to sell Docherty to Rangers? Whaterver pressure the media put Hearts, Hibs or Aberdeen under to do deals with Rangers didn’t seem to work.
I sometimes thing points are overstated and the influence of Rangers and the media to influence things in their favour are exaggerated.
Others disagree with that, but it makes for some interesting debate.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think that’s a very fair point.
The media have influence up to a point but they aren’t the decision makers. The decision makers are the spineless, self interested leaders of our game, including the owners of our clubs. Who never fail to fall short and let us down when it comes to matters of sporting integrity, transparency and leadership.
incredibleadamsparkJanuary 26, 2018 at 12:22
ALLYJAMBO, were Hamilton put under media pressure to sell Docherty to Rangers? Whaterver pressure the media put Hearts, Hibs or Aberdeen under to do deals with Rangers didn’t seem to work.I sometimes thing points are overstated and the influence of Rangers and the media to influence things in their favour are exaggerated.Others disagree with that, but it makes for some interesting debate.
_________
I may be wrong, but wasn’t there similar ‘articles’ in the media to the Jones at Kilmarnock ones saying the player’s progress was being held back by his club? Not only that, until a fee had been agreed, TRFC should not have been in contact with the player, but they seem to have a unique relationship with the media that leaves the hacks to ensure no player, in Scotland at least, should remain unaware of their interest, or have an idea of how much more they will be paid than they currently receive. These tactics might not have worked at the other three clubs I mentioned, but Hearts were left with a disillusioned player, who has now left, Hibs ended up having to sell an important player to Celtic, and Derrek McInnes’s magic seems to have deserted him since the media onslaught that he faced. Our media may well be p*ss, but their p*ss still affects the people who read about themselves in the rags, and TRFC’s PR lackeys certainly are effective in that respect, if not in actual journalism.
As I said in an earlier post, TRFC’s tactics (which included that media pressure) didn’t work at Hearts, Hibs and Aberdeen, but then, the people in the chairs at those clubs weren’t TRFC supporters.
UPTHEHOOPS, It might be beneficial for a club like Hamilton to get payments at certain times of the year when things might be a bit tight. It’s not out of the question that they have negotiated something like that for themselves. Neither of us know for sure.
Ex Dundee, Hearts, Rangers, Southampton and Falkirk player Neil McCann is perfectly entitled to ask for as much as possible for his player. Especially with rumoured interest from EPL clubs.
This is just my personal opinion but I don’t rate Jones that highly. I though boyhood Queen of the South fan and ex Queens Park, Dunfermline, Rangers, Bradford, Dundee, Falkirk, Hamilton, Partick and Clydbank player Ian McCall was quite right about him.
Also as the Ayr Utd manager it probably a deliberate wee dig at Killie. As someone who comes from that part of Scotland I can confirm its a pretty fierce rivalry at times.
PMGB has just posted a blog that would be extremely easy for TRFC’s poodles in SMSM to counter, if they could! No need to ask anyone in the Ibrox boardroom, no need for TRFC to respond to an ‘Irish Blogger’. Jackson and his mates could just phone and ask their counterparts in the outside broadcasting media. In fact they would not even need to do an article if afraid to mention the blogger within their mainstream work, they could just produce their counter on Twitter, and condemn Phil to their masters’ great satisfaction.
https://philmacgiollabhain.ie/2018/01/26/stadium-troubles-in-glasgow-both-real-and-invented/
incredibleadamsparkJanuary 26, 2018 at 13:24
UPTHEHOOPS, It might be beneficial for a club like Hamilton to get payments at certain times of the year when things might be a bit tight. It’s not out of the question that they have negotiated something like that for themselves. Neither of us know for sure.
________________________
That’s a bit weak, Adam. I hardly think it likely to be beyond Hamilton’s Finance Director to either use the full fee to accrue interest in a savings account (all be it at not a great rate) or to use it to reduce the amount of interest being paid on overdraft. Do you honestly think small clubs don’t have the nous to create a facility whereby money can be lodged in an account and only withdrawn to use as working capital at certain times of the year? The idea that any business would prefer that a business rival should have use of what is their money, is, quite frankly, risible.
ALLYJAMBO, I make no claims to know the ins and outs of how the transfer payments will be made or why. We are all speculating on that.
Staged payments are not uncommon in football transfers, for whatever reasons (weak or risible) and if this is the case with the Docherty transfer what’s the problem with that? Why is that bad for Hamilton?
ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 26, 2018 at 14:01
But of course is that not what exactly Hearts did with the £1.2m – £1.5m transfer fee for Lee Wallace.
IIRC he was transferred in July 2011 but reports in the press were that when the club accepted a reduced fee of £400k in February 2013 they were still due £500k from Ibrox in that summer.
Therefore I agree with Adam that this sort of drip feed of the transfer fee goes on in the transfer market. Especially when folks may be desperate a la Vlad’s Hearts
My issue was more the moral issue of structuring a drip feed deal with a financial basket case (and improving their squad) where, not only you don’t get your cash up front and weaken your own team but, as per the Lee Wallace case, when dealing with Spivs you may loose out in the long run.
In the same way SDM and Vlad deserved each other maybe Les Gray will live to regret getting into bed with DCK on this deal.
AllyjamboJanuary 26, 2018 at 13:24
‘..PMGB has just posted a blog…’
_______________________
and I was just going to comment on a comment made by a reader of that blog ( reminding folk that when Regan was CEO of Yorkshire CCC , that club was disqualified from a T20Blast competition for fielding an ineligible player) when I saw another comment to the effect that it seems that a reference to a ‘joint bid’ by Celtic and TRFC Ltd to host Scotland games has been removed suddenly from the BBC news link.
Was that poster wrong? Or was the BBC incorrect? Or has the reference to ‘joint bid’ been removed as some kind of attempt to conceal an unpleasant (for me, anyway) truth? in good old BBC style?
JC the link for that joint approach re international matches is still there on the BBC’s Scottish Football page now. Disappointing to see that between that and the joint Colts proposal, Celtic are still willing to be seen as joint anything with the new club imo.
The link is still there on the Scottish football page, John.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42824301
scottcJanuary 26, 2018 at 15:19
nawliteJanuary 26, 2018 at 15:13
‘ ..the link is still there.”
_________
Thanks, gentlemen: but the words ‘joint bid’ are not there. If they were there originally and removed as being inaccurate, that might put a different complexion on things, as meaning that each club had made its own separate bid, meaning, perhaps, that Celtic are trying to make sure there is no possibility of Ibrox being declared the only venue!
Nothing about any other bid from Tynecastle, Easter Road, Aberdeen…?
Good spot, JC. I am sure the article did originally say it was a joint bid.
It’s interesting how all the talk of Celtic surreptitiously supporting the return of (new) Rangers affects our views. It could be seen that the (forced?) removal of ‘joint’ is good news if we assumed that Celtic had forced it because they did not want to be seen as connected with TRFC/the Old Firm(!) yet your first reaction was that it had been removed at the behest of Celtic so as to hide that connection.
Whilst I’m not knocking the efforts of the clubtropicanas or whatever they’re called, either their member contributors or their board who I can see have had a hell of a job pulling the various factions together, a potential timeline as follows should at least be considered by them, their advisors and the media.
1. They put in their reserve in lieu of shares. TRFC have cash.
2/ TRFC spend said funds on costs of share issue. TRFC no longer have cash.
3/ TRFC use said share issue to convert their debt to equity. TRFC no longer have debt.
4/ As a result of converting their debt I understand that helps them be eligible for Europe (Auldheid?) but newly qualified TRFC have no cash……
Is it not POTENTIALLY a bit like being asked to buy the rack on which you are about to be stretched upon?
INCREDIBLEADAMSPARKJANUARY 26, 2018 at 13:24
I think the point about weakening their squad to the benefit of a rival who is running on fumes is a very good one. It all smacks of Rangers overspending to try and get into European Group stages. If they don’t do they need another £7m in soft loans next year?
McCann’s punditry style IMO clearly shows a dislike of Celtic and bias towards Rangers. I also made the point the media facilitated his view without any negative comment, unlike with Steve Clarke.
I only recall Jones once myself when he had a very good second half against Celtic when Killie drew 1-1. Just like Neil McCann I find Ian McCall simply can’t hide his bias against Celtic and towards Rangers. It wasn’t just McCall either, the media waded in.
nawliteJanuary 26, 2018 at 16:08
‘..your first reaction was that it had been removed at the behest of Celtic so as to hide that connection.’
___________
I’m still harbouring some resentment that Celtic didn’t steam right in on the Res 12 matter!
They had a golden opportunity to ask hard questions, not as a rival football club trying to cause trouble, but as a plc obliged to debate (and follow-up, if passed) shareholder resolutions as a matter of company law.
I always saw their reluctance to do that as questionable.
“Rangers and Celtic have made a proposal etc etc”
Take ‘a proposal’ how you like but while it doesn’t say joint, neither does it say separate.
You couldn’t make this stuff up….. then again 🙂
I suppose Celtic FC is run as a business based around a football team.
Most football fans would probably like to think only of the sporting side rather than financial aspect of their clubs.
It’s no real surprise to me that the colts proposal, and the Hampden proposal, have been made on a joint basis by the two best supported clubs in the land.
What would be a surprise to some would be if, unpalatable though it might seem, behind the scenes there has been a partnership devolving ever since the new club was formed.
Extracted from a Scotsman article today;
“…McCoist, who has been out of work since leaving Rangers in 2014, described the position as a ‘great job’, adding:
“You never turn your back on your country. I would have to suggest there might be one or two in front of me in the queue, but if your country comes calling, you never turn it down.”
Read more at: https://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/scotland/ally-mccoist-could-never-turn-down-scotland-job-1-4673366
============================================
Such an ‘absolutely’, unsuitable suggestion…that the SFA just might take him seriously!
WOTTPIJANUARY 26, 2018 at 16:25
“Rangers and Celtic have made a proposal etc etc”
Take ‘a proposal’ how you like but while it doesn’t say joint, neither does it say separate.
You couldn’t make this stuff up….. then again
======================
Or…as part of comments received by the SFA over Hampden both Celtic and Rangers, and possibly other clubs as well (Hibs, Hearts, Aberdeen?), have offered the use of their stadiums in the event Hampden is not retained. The Rangers facing BBC then decide to mix it with how they present the story.
UPTHEHOOPS, The Hamilton chairman, Neil McCann, Ian McCall and now the entire BBC. Is there anything that isn’t Rangers facing?
On a separate note, with both their names attached to the ridiculous colt teams proposal and now this stadium proposal is it a case of meet the new arse, its the same as the old one?
I posted about the possibilities in the event of the SFA pulling the plug on Hampden. But I got about a million Thumbs Down for some reason.
At least my suggestion was to utilise all the larger football stadia. eg With a capacity above 15k.
It’s going to an issue worth talking about for sure.
Adam @ 18.00
yes
JANUARY 26, 2018 at 14:53
6
1 Rate This
ALLYJAMBOJANUARY 26, 2018 at 14:01
The idea that any business would prefer that a business rival should have use of what is their money, is, quite frankly, risible.But of course is that not what exactly Hearts did with the £1.2m – £1.5m transfer fee for Lee Wallace.
IIRC he was transferred in July 2011 but reports in the press were that when the club accepted a reduced fee of £400k in February 2013 they were still due £500k from Ibrox in that summer.
Therefore I agree with Adam that this sort of drip feed of the transfer fee goes on in the transfer market. Especially when folks may be desperate a la Vlad’s Hearts
My issue was more the moral issue of structuring a drip feed deal with a financial basket case (and improving their squad) where, not only you don’t get your cash up front and weaken your own team but, as per the Lee Wallace case, when dealing with Spivs you may loose out in the long run.
In the same way SDM and Vlad deserved each other maybe Les Gray will live to regret getting into bed with DCK on this deal.
______________
Nope. If you revisit Adam’s post you will see that he is suggesting that the staged payments might have been agreed at Hamilton’s behest, while the situation you refer to came about because Hearts were in dire straits and needed the money as quickly as possible. That was definitely not what they originally planned when the contract was signed.
Can anyone honestly envisage a situation where one club offers another a figure for a player, and the other accepts, but only on condition they receive the money over three years and not upfront?
ALLYJAMBO, that’s not what I was suggesting. Possibly didn’t make myself clear on that. What I was suggesting is that if there are staged payments that have been agreed then that does not necessarily make it a bad deal for Hamilton.
They might be perfectly happy to get a certain amount of money at a specific time of the year. I haven’t read any complaints about the deal from them so maybe they are satisfied with whatever has been agreed?
JOHN CLARKJANUARY 26, 2018 at 15:08
AllyjamboJanuary 26, 2018 at 13:24 ‘..PMGB has just posted a blog…’_______________________and I was just going to comment on a comment made by a reader of that blog ( reminding folk that when Regan was CEO of Yorkshire CCC , that club was disqualified from a T20Blast competition for fielding an ineligible player) when I saw another comment to the effect that it seems that a reference to a ‘joint bid’ by Celtic and TRFC Ltd to host Scotland games has been removed suddenly from the BBC news link.
Was that poster wrong? Or was the BBC incorrect? Or has the reference to ‘joint bid’ been removed as some kind of attempt to conceal an unpleasant (for me, anyway) truth? in good old BBC style?
__________
Strangely enough, John, shortly before I read PMGB’s blog, I’d read the BBC piece you refer to, and was sure it said something similar to it being a ‘joint bid’ and, more than a little irate, I copied the link and started a post on here, but when I went back to check something, I found that it didn’t quite say what I thought it had said, in that there was nothing catagorically spelling out that it was a ‘joint bid’, but it still read as though it was talking of a joint bid. I suppose it’s possible that between my visits to the piece, it had been changed, but I cannot be sure.
Thinking I was maybe a wee bit paranoid, I decided not to make the post – and, of course, it’s only coincidence that the bids appear to have been lodged at the same time.
Basically a club, any club, can’t afford to pay the entire transfer fee upfront. The selling club agrees to get the fee in instalments and wants those instalments at specific times of the year.
That’s it. Can’t really add anything else to this so will leave it there.
SMUGASJANUARY 26, 2018 at 16:13
5
0 Rate This
Whilst I’m not knocking the efforts of the clubtropicanas or whatever they’re called,
———————–
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/15898584.Rangers_Q_A__Club_1872_on___1million_share_issue_fundraising_drive__Ashley_share_purchase__board_representation_and_fan_ownership/?utm_content=buffer30052&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
———–
Q&A
The money did go directly to Mike Ashley. But we believe it was an investment in the club in terms of removing his influence. It was a really good moment.
———–
We have several campaign opportunities that we see the fans buying into. We have current members, they can increase their subscriptions up to £18.72 per month from our current average, which is about £5. That could generate several hundred thousand pounds over the next couple of months.
——–
It could but then again it may not, a big increase to ask for.
On the subject of Club 1872 have launched a £1million fund-raising initiative ahead of the Ibrox share issue, they do know a Prospectus for a share issue could cost £1mill
INCREDIBLEADAMSPARKJANUARY 26, 2018 at 19:05
ALLYJAMBO, that’s not what I was suggesting. Possibly didn’t make myself clear on that. What I was suggesting is that if there are staged payments that have been agreed then that does not necessarily make it a bad deal for Hamilton.
They might be perfectly happy to get a certain amount of money at a specific time of the year. I haven’t read any complaints about the deal from them so maybe they are satisfied with whatever has been agreed?
_________
Apologies for misunderstanding your post.
Regarding the instalments deal for GD .
There is nothing wrong with structuring instalments into a transfer .
Of course it becomes a problem when you employ a PR guru to convince peepil all is well and were still the same club .
Lets be honest ,it really doesn’t look good for a team who boast of full houses of 50,000 every 2nd week having to pay instalments to Hamilton for a £650,000 player .
I see that reports of a £675,000 popping up but of course no mention of instalments ,so gives the impression the full amount has been paid .
Forgive me though if I take any suggestions of an instalment deal being beneficial to Hamilton with a large bag of salt
All this diouf re. a luvvin cup, ….. here’s the REAL WAN,…..
Re Speirs/To-day’s Times
He has an interview with Leeann Dempster , Hibs CEO – interesting to note she was a season ticket holder at Ibrox for 20 years .
https://twitter.com/ScotsmanSport/status/956885683272110080
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2007/jan/10/newsstory.sport5
naegreetinJanuary 27, 2018 at 10:15
Re Speirs/To-day’s TimesHe has an interview with Leeann Dempster , Hibs CEO – interesting to note she was a season ticket holder at Ibrox for 20 years .
______________
It looks more and more like an Ibrox season ticket is a passport to high office within Scottish football. While I am sure Leeann Dempster is career minded enough not to let her true allegiance interfere with her day job, I doubt very much she is in Rod Petrie’s ear with financial facts about how a ‘strong’ TRFC (I’m sure she’ll call them ‘Rangers’) is not a particularly good way of increasing the Hibernian support.
CORRUPT OFFICIAL
JANUARY 27, 2018 at 10:17
======================================
Next you’ll be telling us that Walter Loyal described TRFC as a new club.
HomunculusJanuary 27, 2018 at 10:44
‘..Next you’ll be telling us that Walter Loyal described TRFC as a new club.’
_______________
Nice one, Homunculus.
CO @ 10.17 Re Walter Smith/SFA
Interesting to read again about Smith’s return to Rangers – I’d forgotten about the compo wrangle – but my point is that David Taylor’s involvement ( I was at school with David & met him subsequently through tennis/business & always found him to be v. approachable & smart , bourne out with him landing a big job with UEFA only to die early) . Now I wonder how much David knew about SDM’s salary regime at Ibrox circa 2008 & whether Bryson let on re players’ registrations – I presume he (David) must have had an idea but that is conjecture & I don’t want to have a go at someone’s reputation who isn’t here to defend himself .
My point is the comparison with David Taylor who was always pro-active vis a vis the tartan army & perceived himself as an ordinary Scotland fan with Regan (business class flights etc) who has been a PR disaster for Scottish football – I can only hope the Compliance Officer’s report into Rangers’ Euro Licence 2011 is the final nail in Regan’s coffin (some hope !) .
As I understand it if a player declines to play for the national team they can be stopped from playing in club matches. is that correct.
If so, I would be interested to know how that would sit legally. Surely if someone has an employer, who wants them to do their job and is paying them for it, then the governing body has no legal right to prevent them doing it.
If it’s not the case then surely the position should be “No, I’m not playing in a meaningless friendly, involving thousands of miles travelling. Competing for my club in European competition is more important”.
It’s more important for the individual clubs, and for the co-efficient to try to make qualifying easier in the future, for everyone.
Folks, Big thanks to you all for your posts. Currently quite housebound, I rely on SFM for analysis of the issues. Following since RTC days.
Have not been to a match since diagnosis. Celts when I was young, Dons with my pals, Brechin, Montrose cos they were close by, and you see guys there playing good basic fitba. Occasional game on BBC Alba completes my diet.
Me, I think that Regan and Doncaster were brought in as strangers to fitba and to Scotland. How have they lasted?
An infrequent poster here I have always said SFA needs to become really transparent as a start to remedial action on Governance. Minutes of meetings and committees, clarity of decision making. Sure, separate off the Confidential areas, that’s not difficult. Clear rules on Conflict of Interest. Team selection. Recruitment. Allthe aspects that modern businesses are addressing, though still long ways to go.
Again, thanks all, I read every day with interest.
PORTBHOYJANUARY 27, 2018 at 08:50
What a great picture. I haven’t seen that one before.
Redetin, I wish you well and hope that your health improves.
Some good games today in the Premiership. 3 matches involve teams who are close to each other points wise.
Dear goodness Leigh Griffiths off injured. Pulled up with something. Celtic are cursed with injuries. I blame Regan.
Regarding the Colts – there are a number of fans who as soon as they hear anything in Scottish football that has an association with Celtic or Rangers , get a bit apoplectic – they would rather Scottish football was back in the 1950s, a bit like a brexit attitude.
The Colts in the lower division would benefit Scottish football. There are some street artists in Edinburgh who can attract a bigger crowd with their chalk drawings than some of the bottom clubs when you remove the free tickets. The Colts would bring more interest and more paying punters. The teams would benefit playing better players. Also, remember, 75% or more of the Colt players are unlikely to play for the first team – they may go onto better things with other clubs. It would help increase the level of football, whilst having more youth players on display for all clubs to benefit.
Unfortunately with Scottish football, the majority of the clubs have not got a creative bone in their body when it comes to improving football marketing, they are happy to take the Regan Doncaster pound and keep quiet and carry on 1950s style.
From this Forum’s Twitter Account. Pathetic from the Hamilton Board, as they weaken their squad, Rangers strengthen theirs, and the media can boast about Rangers splashing the cash.
Imagine taking a personal guarantee from a man who has declared himself potless in a court of law
SCOTTCJANUARY 27, 2018 at 17:13
“Imagine taking a personal guarantee from a man who has declared himself potless in a court of law”
———————————————
A “personal” guarantee….. So not from NOAL ………..Interesting.
UTH @ 16.58
Who runs a business selling to your competitor an asset that weakens you & strengthens (presumably) your competitor with payment terms of 6 months (for 1st tranche) & balance over 3 years with a “guarantee” from that source – nuts ! If I was an Accies fan I would be raging & asking for an explaination from the board .
Those fanciful notions have already been debunked by attendances and performances of the colts in the cup competition they were allowed into.
Indeed, but I wonder if it has ever crossed your mind that many supporters from towns across Scotland abandon their local teams to go and watch one of the big two? Whether they do so for historical ‘cultural’ reasons or simply because they’re glory hunters is a moot point.
Although I appreciate everyone is entitled to their opinion, I really do fail to understand how anyone reading or participating on a forum which strongly advocates sporting integrity can support the principle of two clubs receiving preferential treatment, all the moreso when those clubs already have such massive advantages over the rest of the clubs.
CORRUPT OFFICIAL
JANUARY 27, 2018 at 17:32
=====================================
Indeed, how can someone with no money (it must be true he told the Court of Session) provide a personal guarantee for hundreds of thousands of pounds and why would someone else accept it.
It’s almost as if he is a multi brazillionaire when it suits and impecunious when it doesn’t.
NAEGREETIN
JANUARY 27, 2018 at 17:42
===================================
Possibly one which is financially desperate having lost something like £900,000 last year having fallen victim to fraud.
Highlander, you have not debunked anything – the Colts have never featured in a division. Celtic and Rangers generate the most money in the game, if they did not exist the same arguments would be put forward for Hearts, Hibs or whoever became the most powerful team. There is a jealousy element and a dream of football being back in the 1950s and never changing. The Colts could be from the teams finishing first and second…whatever.
as I stated many of you supporters bring nothing to the table other than rubbish any change. Whenever the SFA are to be challenged the other teams all stand behind Celtic and say go on take them on….then the other teams run away, their chairmen/women always back the SFA.
A lot of people on these forums are either retired or live outside Scotland. Scotland needs forward thinking people not those living in past.
there are lots of Hearts and Hibs fans outside Edinburgh…as is the case for every top club globally….maybe if we get rid of tv and go back to the 1950s so everyone in every town supports their local club.
upthehoopsJanuary 27, 2018 at 16:58
Surely Park Senior and Jnr. cannot be in positions of influence on the Hamilton board as well as at Ibrox as is intimated on ‘JJ’s latest. If so where’s the point in supporting Hamilton, I know we keep using the phrase ‘or the games a bogey’ but to be honest if this is the case then the game truly is a bogey.
that’s my last word on the Colts, I think is important to remind you that because a few of you agree with each other, it does not mean the vast majority of fans agree with you.
No, but their effect on attendances at cup matches has been negligible, so how can you possibly extrapolate from that that they’d increase league attendances? To use your own phrase, you have not debunked anything.
Charming. Personally I’m not averse to change, but only if it is for the greater good, and not just to pander to two clubs.
STAN
JANUARY 27, 2018 at 18:19
=============================
What matters is what the 42 clubs want and if they don’t want the fourth division extended by two and the colts playing in it then that’s that.
According to wiki the lowest attendance in the division in 2016 was 241 and the highest was 1748. The average attendance across the division was 537.
As I understand it the teams in that division would have guaranteed away sales of 250, and that would possibly be higher if more away support followed the colts teams.
People see that as a “bribe” and feel that the benefit from that is outweighed by the perceived advantage that Celtic and Rangers would get by having their colts play in that division.
As I have said elsewhere, that’s how democracy works. Though I would be particularly interested in what the supporters of Clyde, Edinburgh City, Montrose etc thought about it.