A special place for the posts of Ernest and those wishing to engage.
435 thoughts on “The Ernie B Thread”
you seem to talk a lot about Diouf , .have you met him ?
Anyone???
Dearie me.
Loans don’t materialise out of thin air in anyone’s language either.
Not suggesting they do, still does not make them earnings does it now?
Not changed my mind nor my question, do you know what was in the side letters,yes or no will suffice.
Unfortunately now and again someone joins the site who is bent on distorting every opinion and fact presented. I’m sorry to say that Ernest b., in my opinion, falls into that category.
That is the beauty of free speech,it is all about all inclusive opinions.
No. But the lack of any funds to make a loan would kind of make it immaterial wouldn’t it?
=======================================
The players received their loans,so no lack of funds.
now declared illegal
SC ruled the loans to be earnings,non compliant of tax laws, owing tax.
Nothing illegal.
re side letters I’ve actually forgotten so yes and no! Was it a contractual obligation to pay relative to services rendered, what any language would call ‘earnings’ or was it an offer to pay tax should the scam fall through. I forget which. Sorry.
===================================== Do you know if the amounts declared to the SPL included the loans or not?
WOODSTEIN,
Thanks for that info.
So RFC declared earnings but hid loans from the football authorities, not good,rule breach,close to cheating imo.
However had RFC shown the loan side letters would the SPL have declared the extra amounts as earnings, the answer is no,they are not tax experts,only the players earnings would have been registered.
This leaves us with the thorny issue of retrospective action,and it is a tricky one.
If RFC had declared the loans side letters and the SPL accepted them as loans not earnings,what happens years later if the courts decide they are earnings? I suggest nothing, it would be unfair to retrospectively sanction a club for fielding ineligible players based on a complex tax ruling years and years later.
This being the case i fail to see how not declaring side letters changes anything,apart from that there is no rule that enables retrospective ineligibility anyway and i can understand why.
My conclusion is this, if one takes a holistic view of the intentions,actions and events and ignores the logical category differences then one should apply the same holistic approach to consequences.
It is either start from lowest tier,3 year Europe ban and loss of 40 million or back in SPL and go for title stripping,either way the club is not dead.
Fin
Ernest BeckerDecember 1, 2017 at 22:55 (Edit)
SMUGAS,
LNS is an expert in logic that is why he stated the concealment of side letters in of themselves did not give a sporting advantage,he based this on the premise both DOS and EBT were not illegal,understandable since RFC were not being charged with fraud or tax evasion.Where some get confused is LNS used the word ” unlawful” which they assume refers to Tax Law,this is another category mistake.
===============
His premise that both DOS and EBTS were not irregular (the word LNS did use) was wrong at the time LNS considered the matter. An FTT had found the DOS ebts illegal/irregular in October 2010. LNS treated both as continuous as in one followed the other but one (the DOS) had been judged illegal/irregular in an FTT that outranks LNS, a hired hand of the SPL, in terms of authority.
As I think I may have mentioned the HMRC documentation that would have informed LNS of such illegality was not provided by RFC administrators when requested by the SPL in 2012. That same documentation also demonstrated dishonesty, but had to be kept from the SPL lawyers investigating the use of all ebts since July 1999 because the De Boer side letter and documentation relating to it could not have been provided, otherwise the LNS Commission range would have started from 30 August 2000, the date of the earliest side letter.
I like the mixed metaphors of elephants and fish but the wee tax case is all the evidence needed of what is know as “previous” as well as cover up.
A judgement based on error cannot be sound, nor can the implications based on that judgement.
RFC found a way to pay players more than their rivals clubs could use and stay within the law. To do what they did RFC had to conceal part of the contract with players from HMRC and the SFA/SPL.
In doing so they broke registration rules designed to deter/stop under the counter payments to players.
This in effect diverted money that should have gone to the public purse into players pockets – theft actually.
The motivation, as SDM stated was to give RFC a competitive advantage in the player wage market and it matters nought whether the players hired were better than their rivals.
What matters is that the rivals could not honestly use the same method. THAT is were the cheating occurred and where LNS got it fundamentally wrong. His justification for no sporting advantage was that all clubs could have used ebts as RFC had.
” Nor is it a breach of SPL or SFA Rules for a club to arrange its affairs – within the law– so as to minimise its tax liabilities.”
Other clubs couldn’t arrange their tax affairs as RFC had without breaking the law.
Sporting advantage or not, although the perceived wisdom is that the higher the wage the better the player, clearly demonstrated by the difference in quality between Celtic and their rivals, with the difference that no football rules were or are being broken by Celtic and no theft was involved, is not the issue, cheating their rivals is and in using ebts in a way that their rivals could not lawfully use , RFC did cheat them.
No question, using LNS own logic – based on restricted information to be fair to him.
Should the points have been deducted?
Possibly not if the failure to register side letters was an honest but deliberate mistake and that all ebts were legal and only registration rules were broken.
However there was dishonesty LNS was unaware of (cynics might disagree, I couldn’t possibly comment) and some of the ebts LNS treated as regular were not.
Now had all the evidence been supplied (and from what Doncaster and McKenzie said after the SC ruled, the question of dishonesty was never part of the LNS Commission) the Commission would have been in new territory as LNS himself recognised.
” There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. But in the kind of situation that we are dealing with here we are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches. There was therefore no breach of SPL Rule D1.11.”
Nothing makes a player registration more fundamentally defective than lying to authorities actively or passively, and the same individuals who lied to HMRC are the ones who kept the same information they withheld from HMRC from the SFA. LNS did not know that.
Quite what SFA Article RFC would have been charged with is unclear but somewhere in the version of Article 5 of SFA Articles of the period from 2000 that sets out responsibilities of members of the SFA lies the answer.
The current version states at Article 5.1 (f)
5.1 All members shall:-
(f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith.
Maybe in 2000 the idea that any club would require this to be in the rules was unthinkable but it is hardly a reason not to treat what RFC did from then as a fundamental defect.
Back then bringing the game into disrepute would probably be in the rules, but in the disrepute charges that were brought against RFC in 2012 they were never charged with doing anything wrong or dishonest prior to CW’s takeover, and he wasn’t charged with non payment of the wee tax bill red herring that had its genesis in August 2000 when RFC under SDM acted disreputably to Scottish football….
Ernest BeckerDecember 2, 2017 at 01:21
‘…This being the case i fail to see how not declaring side letters changes anything,apart from that there is no rule that enables retrospective ineligibility anyway and i can understand why.’
________
You fail to see lot of things.
A certain lawyer had the most peculiar views on rules about ‘eligibility’ as he gave ‘evidence’ to the magical , circular, LNS enquiry.
You appear to have the same peculiar views.
You are attempting to defend the most outrageous act of sports cheating ever committed in Scottish Football, and to defend a most blatantly corrupt Football governance body in its corruption in facilitating that cheating.
You are, frankly, quite wrong in defending liars and cheats. And actually quite useless in the attempt, to boot.
Because the most sophisticated, specious argumentation on behalf of falsehood simply cannot overcome the simple truth:
SDM cheated,
CW killed the club,
SevcoScotland are not Rangers 1872,
and the SFA are a seriously compromised ‘Governance’ body.
Respect yourself as a person.
Do not sell yourself to a lie.
Fan of Football. There is only one man who saddled the old club with unpayable debts (forget the old £18m nonsense ) and it was not CW.
CW has to bear some responsibility,SDM got the club into dire straits no argument but nobody forced CW to buy RFC and a normal buyer of a debt ridden company usually puts more than £1 in to turn the business round.
A high risk investor would have bought the business for 18 million,sold some high earners and ran it like Lloyds had been running it but with more spending cuts,the BTC took another 5 years to resolve which is plenty time to turn RFC into a sustainable and viable business,not dependant on CL income to make a profit. Basically do a Celtic and have an equal chance at CL revenue,Europa at worst.
HMRC would have accepted a payment plan over years because they got what they wanted.
His business plan was reckless because he had nothing to lose.
Ernest BeckerDecember 2, 2017 at 01:21 (Edit) WOODSTEIN,
Thanks for that info.
So RFC declared earnings but hid loans from the football authorities, not good,rule breach,close to cheating imo.
However had RFC shown the loan side letters would the SPL have declared the extra amounts as earnings, the answer is no,they are not tax experts,only the players earnings would have been registered.
==================
Correct the SPL are not tax experts, but HMRC are and HMRC called at Hampden in 2009 to look at player contracts and ascertain if there were side letters.
Someone with HMRC experience can confirm, but I imagine that HMRC would not just turn up at Hampden without some justification being provided, and the idea that the SFA/SPL had they been told that these payments were loans would not have contacted HMRC for advice is too far a stretch even for an organisation as incompetent as the SFA, unless they did suspect irregularity but didn’t want to know.
All it would have taken was RFC seeking confirmation from SFA/SPL that they were correct not to include the loans as earnings and RFC would have been in the clear if SFA said no problem, so why didn’t they ask? Why did RFC not wave an SFA waiver in front of the FTT and LNS but for the same reason they lied about side letters to HMRC?
1. Possibly losing the advantage over other clubs irregular use of ebts gave them.
2. Having to cough up the back tax owed.
The problem with your points based on rules and Articles is that they depend on trust and honesty to be of themselves a reliable indication of conformity. The minute you lie to stay within the rules is the minute the rules and the defence based on them mean SFA.
I have no problem with RFC being treated as the same club in football terms (they just aren’t legally) if the trophies and titles won during the period of ebt use were surrendered.
I think any decent Rangers man acquainted of all the facts would not want to be associated with them either. More than that it would send out a signal to the supporters of other clubs that the club now playing in the SPFL recognised right from wrong and so could be relied on to act honestly in future. As it stands, and you contribute to it, your club are not trusted nor are the SFA for enabling the present situation to be created.
There is a saying “if you love something let it go” letting go the idea Rangers acted properly towards fellow clubs and their supporters since 2000 and accepting the consequences would be loving your club. Trust me.
John clark
Your post below was so on the money ,i thought it deserved to be reposted
For someone to even attempt to defend the issue of side letters to players ,really does beggar belief
DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 01:54 10 0 Rate This
Ernest BeckerDecember 2, 2017 at 01:21‘…This being the case i fail to see how not declaring side letters changes anything,apart from that there is no rule that enables retrospective ineligibility anyway and i can understand why.
’________You fail to see lot of things.
A certain lawyer had the most peculiar views on rules about ‘eligibility’ as he gave ‘evidence’ to the magical , circular, LNS enquiry.
You appear to have the same peculiar views.
You are attempting to defend the most outrageous act of sports cheating ever committed in Scottish Football, and to defend a most blatantly corrupt Football governance body in its corruption in facilitating that cheating.
You are, frankly, quite wrong in defending liars and cheats. And actually quite useless in the attempt, to boot.
Because the most sophisticated, specious argumentation on behalf of falsehood simply cannot overcome the simple truth:
SDM cheated,
CW killed the club,
SevcoScotland are not Rangers 1872,
and the SFA are a seriously compromised ‘Governance’ body.
Respect yourself as a person.
Do not sell yourself to a lie.
Ernest BeckerDecember 1, 2017 at 23:40
ALLYJAMBO,EB, are you telling us that you do not know that a player’s full remuneration must be included in his contract and registered correctly for the player to be eligible to play in the, then, SPLI know this,now back to my question what was in the side letters?
___________________________________
If you knew this, why are you asking such stupid questions about them, and again, if you don’t know what was in the side letters, where have you been these last six years, they’ve been discussed an infinite number of times throughout the internet over that six years. though, admittedly, not to any depth by the SMSM?
To be honest, anyone who has been paying attention, but still finds it necessary to ask these questions, is either at the wind up thinking he is some super squirrel, or is extremely thick! You choose which one it is!
Ernest BeckerDecember 2, 2017 at 00:52
re side letters I’ve actually forgotten so yes and no! Was it a contractual obligation to pay relative to services rendered, what any language would call ‘earnings’ or was it an offer to pay tax should the scam fall through. I forget which. Sorry.
=====================================Do you know if the amounts declared to the SPL included the loans or not?
_________________________-
Again, you are showing yourself up as a man who knows absolutely nothing about the subject he has been spouting about for the last three or four weeks. Everybody who has paid the tiniest bit of attention to this saga and how Rangers operated their EBTs knows the answer to that one. No, they did not declare the ‘loans’ to the SPL, or the SFA. They deliberately withheld all such information, and as has been proven in court, calling a payment a loan doesn’t make it a loan. But if you needed a Supreme Court decision to appraise you of that fact, you must be extremely thick, for it is so obvious to all but the dimmest, that just because you call a payment a loan, doesn’t make it a loan, much in the same way that calling a football club ‘Rangers’ doesn’t make them the Rangers that died in 2012.
ERNEST BECKER
DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 01:21
However had RFC shown the loan side letters would the SPL have declared the extra amounts as earnings, the answer is no,they are not tax experts,only the players earnings would have been registered.
============================
As I understand it the “side letters” related to the money being paid into the trust, they were not “loan side letters” they related to contractual bonuses.
Are you suggesting that the football authorities need only be told about basic salaries and are not interested in bonuses. I would imagine a fair proportion of a football player’s income comes from performance bonuses.
In fact you only have to look at the EBT amounts to see that.
Ernest BeckerDecember 2, 2017 at 01:21
WOODSTEIN,Thanks for that info.So RFC declared earnings but hid loans from the football authorities, not good,rule breach,close to cheating imo.However had RFC shown the loan side letters would the SPL have declared the extra amounts as earnings, the answer is no,they are not tax experts,only the players earnings would have been registered.This leaves us with the thorny issue of retrospective action,and it is a tricky one.If RFC had declared the loans side letters and the SPL accepted them as loans not earnings,what happens years later if the courts decide they are earnings? I suggest nothing, it would be unfair to retrospectively sanction a club for fielding ineligible players based on a complex tax ruling years and years later.This being the case i fail to see how not declaring side letters changes anything,apart from that there is no rule that enables retrospective ineligibility anyway and i can understand why.My conclusion is this, if one takes a holistic view of the intentions,actions and events and ignores the logical category differences then one should apply the same holistic approach to consequences.It is either start from lowest tier,3 year Europe ban and loss of 40 million or back in SPL and go for title stripping,either way the club is not dead.Fin
_____________________
Are you sure you didn’t learn your case pleading ‘expertise’ from the Nuremberg Trials?
Former Feldwebel Ernst Becker said in his defence, ‘Until we lost the war in 1945, we all believed that it was OK to murder millions of Jews. So, if one takes a holistic view of our intentions, actions and events and ignores the logical character differences between genocide and murder, then one should apply the same holistic approach to the consequences that we Huns now find ourselves facing! We lost the war and it would be so very unfair of you to take action that might prevent us from enjoying all the trophies we picked up while stamping our jackboots all over Europe!’
PS, ‘holistic view/approach’, now who was it introduced that phrase to the lexicon of Scottish football? Wasn’t it a man not noted for his honesty and ability to string a sentence together without telling a lie?
But if you needed a Supreme Court decision to appraise you of that fact, you must be extremely thick, for it is so obvious to all but the dimmest, that just because you call a payment a loan, doesn’t make it a loan
I am confused,maybe you can help me out here,can you explain to me why such an obvious distinction did not fall at the first hurdle,why did the First Tier Tax Tribunal rule EBTs to be loans not earnings?
ERNEST BECKER
DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 13:13
I am confused,maybe you can help me out here,can you explain to me why such an obvious distinction did not fall at the first hurdle,why did the First Tier Tax Tribunal rule EBTs to be loans not earnings?
=================================
That’s an easy one. There were two lawyers and an accountant.
The two lawyers got it wrong.
Who is conning whom? Ernest Becker. Beware,this man has a black belt in obfuscation!
There’s a lot of ignorance out there.
The two lawyers got it wrong.
This is hardly evidence of an obvious easy distinction is it now,even with side letters.
No wonder there is no retrospective ineligibility,these titles would be going back and forward like the proverbial yo-yo.
I think cheating should be obvious and easy to prove,and anyone with a functioning brain can see this was not an easy or obvious case.
SMUGAS, The two lawyers went with the failed lawyers original hypothesis that they were loans which they were.
Interesting,these two lawyers must be as dim and extremely thick as me to make such an obvious error.
ERNEST BECKER
DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 13:47
The two lawyers got it wrong.
=======================================
This is hardly evidence of an obvious easy distinction is it now,even with side letters.
============================================
Loads of people saw it, including as Smugas explained, Dr Poon.
HMRC certainly saw it when they assessed that the tax was due. Before the two lawyers made their mistake.
RTC saw it and pretty much everyone who responded to his blog understood it.
ERNEST BECKER
DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 13:53
Interesting,these two lawyers must be as dim and extremely thick as me to make such an obvious error.
================================
Whatever the reason, they got it wrong. As did you.
Fortunately the Court of Session and the Supreme Court didn’t make the same mistake. Now hundreds of millions in avoided tax will have to be repaid.
At least something good came out of Rangers’ stealing.
Ernest BeckerDecember 2, 2017 at 13:13
But if you needed a Supreme Court decision to appraise you of that fact, you must be extremely thick, for it is so obvious to all but the dimmest, that just because you call a payment a loan, doesn’t make it a loan
I am confused,maybe you can help me out here,can you explain to me why such an obvious distinction did not fall at the first hurdle,why did the First Tier Tax Tribunal rule EBTs to be loans not earnings?
_____________________
Either because two out of the three judges were Masons, or, they, themselves, are in favour of tax-dodges, or, they knew what was required for the greater good of the country, and that was to set in motion a test case that would go all the way to the Supreme Court, where the obvious result would ensure that the country would recoup many millions in previously unpaid taxes, from a lot more people than benefited from the dodge at Ibrox.
Regardless, however, of whatever it was that made their lordships reach such an unfathomable decision, the EBT payments were never, ever loans, they were just structured in such a way as to appear to be loans.
Going into the world of your fantasy, if they were loans, why do you think it was necessary for Rangers to issue these side letters to indemnify the beneficiaries against future income tax, while at the same time promising the payments would be made? You seem so certain that they were loans you must have a very good explanation for these side letters to a ‘loan’. Can you give examples of other instances of side letters accompanying loans? Can you explain why it is that, despite having to ask so much about the circumstances surrounding Rangers’ use of EBTs, you seem to consider yourself qualified to state, quite categorically, that they were, in fact, genuine loans?
RTC saw it and pretty much everyone who responded to his blog understood it.
Indeed,maybe in the interest of fairness all future deliberations should be made by football fans,it is obvious objective legally trained minds are dim and extremely thick.
What concerns me about this scenario is football fans cannot even agree what is a penalty.
Either because two out of the three judges were Masons, or, they, themselves, are in favour of tax-dodges, or, they knew what was required for the greater good of the country,
Is this a transcript of HMRC’s appeal to the SC?
The sooner we get football fans in to replace all lawyers the better.
ERNEST BECKER
DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 14:14
What concerns me about this scenario is football fans cannot even agree what is a penalty.
==============================
It’s surely more concerning that lawyers can’t agree what is a payments and what is a loan.
Unsurprisingly a highly trained accountancy expert understood tax matters better than lawyers did.
ERNEST BECKER
DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 14:19
Is this a transcript of HMRC’s appeal to the SC?
==============================
HMRC didn’t appeal to the Supreme Court
You seem so certain that they were loans you must have a very good explanation for these side letters
You seem to be confusing me for a straw man,if you read back you will see nothing but uncertainty,withholding belief and complexity.
On the other hand i am being faced by certain football fans who think this was an obvious case and Masonic lawyers are dim and extremely thick.
ERNEST BECKER
DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 14:28
… lawyers are dim and extremely thick.
============================
You are the only person saying that, trying to twist the argument away from the simple truth.
They go it wrong.
You are the only person saying that, trying to twist the argument away from the simple truth.
I believe my argument is the truth in this case was not simple.
Moderators
Could you please delete Ernest Becker from the blog as soon as possible. His contributions are perverse & dishonest & the blog has become unreadable for the daily browser.
Thanks
Cluster OneDecember 2, 2017 at 21:52
ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 2, 2017 at 21:23I have to admit, though, that no matter how tiresome I find EB, I am in the Auldheid camp and enjoy the re-awakening of the OC/NC and EBT debates, and I do feel it important that anyone new to this site, not only gets the opportunity to read, perhaps for the first time, our thoughts on the matter, but isn’t left feeling that by our failure to respond, someone like EB has won the argument.————-And after some four weeks and asking ok convince me it’s still the same club.I have not been convinced it is,and anyone new looking in who thought for a moment oh wait maybe EB has something here will walk away saying good try but must try harder
__________________
My point, though, is that had no one responded, or if after a few attempts we’d given him the stage to say what he wanted, some people might have thought he had a point that we were unable to counter.
I have to admit, though, that I would have supported the mods if they’d decided to chuck him after a week of nonsensical posts and refusal to answer questions requesting clarification on what it was he was trying to say, let alone have us believe.
The thing is, I don’t believe the trolls come on here to influence us, rather they hope to have something to crow about over on the TRFC supporter sites to continue to blindside the bears. No problem for me if they succeed. I’ll be very surprised if there’s no posts on those sites saying something like, ‘that Ernest Becker isn’t half running rings round SFM’. They come over here, read his posts while ignoring the responses, and bingo, the RIFC AGM was a roaring success and ‘We Are The People’. You have to remember that thousands of the bears will see the guy who asked King about his school as some sort of hero!
Murty has done more than enough to convince me he is worth a punt until season end and it is the cheapest option.
Rangers overspending is planned and not unexpected,there is a world of difference between the two.
Directors have agreed to fund the losses incurred by increasing player wages from 6 to 10 million as promised
Retail will kick in next year and the big ticket item is Europa income.
CFC is a selling club,and come January i believe some of their diamonds will depart,BR will be gone in the summer,in effect the more successful CFC become the more likely it is players and manager will depart.
It may take a few years but CFC are constrained by domestic revenue and the commercial gap between the two clubs will shrink to a competitive level.
RFC is now a stalking horse this season and it will be interesting to see if CFC can handle a pressurised run in for the first time in 5 years,especially without some of their talent.
If Scottish football has to be rugged because it has little skill then don’t blame your kids and grand kids from supporting teams who can actually play football,no wonder refs are under constant pressure our game is glorified Junior football thuggery.
p.s. Ryan Jack is brainless.
Ernest BeckerDecember 3, 2017 at 23:14
————-
Wow, 11 definitive , clearly written statements, Ernest( whichever of the dual personality you are tonight):
With two of which I agree (“Murty..is worth a punt for the job”) and (“Ryan Jack is brainless”).
The others are no more than pious ( or, perhaps in your case, impious) aspirations!
Whereas my statement (not being a PR conman masquerading as a ‘genuine’ poster) that TRFC Ltd is Not Rangers FC 1872 is a statement of absolute truth and reality.
This blog is not focused on ordinary inter-club rivalry, but on an insistence that cheating in sport by any club is to be condemned, that lying by any club in order to cheat its way to ‘sporting’ success is not to be tolerated, and that a Football governance body that assists a particular club so to lie is an abomination.
RFC(IL) cheated big-time. They lied about their tax debt. They lied about what they were paying their players.
And were aided and abetted by the SFA all the way through.
Personally, I have no interest in the fortunes ( or lack of fortune) of the new club, TRFC Ltd.
This blog is not focused on ordinary inter-club rivalry,
Strange,i must have imagined the endless stream of posts on Rangers financial state,Rangers replacement manager and Rangers Chairman.
Thought i would mention another club to provide some balance to proceedings.
Your objection is overruled.
Ernest BeckerDecember 4, 2017 at 02:07
‘..This blog is not focused on ordinary inter-club rivalry’
________________
You talkin’ to me?
I’ve asked you before to identify which posters or posts you are referring to when you come back with a smart-ass reply.
The watch that is being assiduously kept on the affairs of the new club are, as far as I am concerned, not a reflection of any interest in that club, but to make sure that there is no more chicanery on the part of the SFA to further aid that struggling club (which of course is living a lie, and is on that account alone deserving of nothing but scorn as a cuckoo in the nest of Scottish football)
As I have said more than once:acknowledge that TRFC Ltd is NOT RFC(IL), acknowledge that it has no claim on the sporting history of RFC(IL), and acknowledge that RFC(IL) itself was not entitled to many of the honours and titles that it ‘won’ by cheating: and acknowledge tht some of the Board of TRFC Ltd are no more honest sportsmen than were the Board members of RFC(IL) before it was sold to Whyte,as well as after it was sold.
‘fess up that TRFC Ltd is a living mockery of sport and sporting integrity.
And there might be a chance of rehabilitation, once the bad guys are out of both the club and the SFA.
John Clark commented on Who Is Conning Whom?.
Ernest BeckerDecember 4, 2017 at 02:07‘..This blog is not focused on ordinary inter-club rivalry’________________You talkin’ to me?I’ve asked you before to identify which posters or posts you are referring to when you come back with a smart-ass reply.
Think that clearly means you’re not sitting on the fence JC …and bloody well said too
As I have said more than once:acknowledge that TRFC Ltd is NOT RFC(IL), acknowledge that it has no claim on the sporting history of RFC(IL), and acknowledge that RFC(IL) itself was not entitled to many of the honours and titles that it ‘won’ by cheating: and acknowledge tht some of the Board of TRFC Ltd are no more honest sportsmen than were the Board members of RFC(IL) before it was sold to Whyte,as well as after it was sold.
I have given this a great deal of thought and looked deep into my soul,here is my problem:
The verb ” to acknowledge ” means ” to accept the existence of truth “.
The noun ” truth ” means ” in accordance with fact or reality”.
Reality in Scottish football is determined by the SFA,they are the custodian of the facts and calling them corrupt does not alter this truth.
So despite my best intentions i cannot comply with your requests but i still hope we can be friends.
dear Ernest BeckerDecember 5, 2017
You were shite on Random they are saying and you are shite on here they seem to be saying. Seems other sites are having their say on you and are calling you out. Would the real slim shady please stand.please stand up..please stand up.
SFM normally shut Steerpike down after a couple of days but they seem to have accepted him in his latest guise. They know who he is – that arrogant, condescending style is unmistakable – but they’re tolerating him nonetheless. He has even started posting in a second identity to support his own arguments! I’ve never understood why he bothers as he convinces no-one but he’s certainly dedicated – does he have nothing else to do? It’s all very bizarre. He wouldn’t get away with it on JJ’s site – well, not unless he paid of course.
they could of course be wrong ( been nice) but they have you down as a roaster anyway ah well, i did say last time you’re number was up.
The reason for the delay in approaching Aberdeen to speak to their manager has now been revealed as an altruistic act of true sportsmanship by Dave King(pbuh).
DK waited until after the double header knowing these fixtures would be compromised by an early approach and protracted negotiation,he obviously considered an associate club’s position and decided winning at all costs was less important than fellowship.
Aberdeen have declined and some are jumping to the wrong conclusion,if RFC are short of cash now then they were short 5 weeks ago, ergo a cash shortage does not explain the delay nor Aberdeen’s refusal.
It appears even when DK sacrifices the interests of RFC for the interests of Scottish football his actions are distorted and twisted by some.
Derek will be in charge of RFC by the weekend,managing Rangers is a dream job for any ambitious Scottish manager.
the collapse of the second strongest team in Scottish football in not just one, but TWO, matches against at best a very, very, very mediocre team, of which to be manager is a lifetime ambition of the current manager of that second strongest team.
Aberdeen has been creaking since they sold some key players,they were the second strongest team in previous seasons but getting humped at home by Motherwell showed they were not the force of old.
Rangers has taken time to gel with an influx of new players but now seem to be getting their act together, just in time to tackle a fragile Celtic team ring rusty of any real competition.
The weakness of a one horse race is CFC are not used to handling any real pressure,the title run is going to be nothing but pressure because Rangers are not going away anytime soon.
‘Ernest BeckerDecember 6, 2017 at 00:38’
‘..Derek will be in charge of RFC by the weekend,managing Rangers is a dream job for any ambitious Scottish manager’
_____________
Managing the club that ‘Walter’ managed might indeed be a dream job, for some.
But managing a 5-year old club called Trfc Ltd , illegitimately procreated by the fornication of the SFA with CG is hardly the same thing.
(Dear God, that I should waste even a second of my time responding to the serpent of untruth!)
Another cracker from C Jack in the Herald,”It is understood that the Gers opted to do the honourable thing and wait until after the Premiership double-header with Aberdeen last week before making an official approach for the Reds boss.”
Obviously read my post last night,my sources are impeccable just like Phil’s.
I do not see Dave King as a particularly intelligent man
He and his fellow lenders would have to be deranged to keep lending money on an “UNSECURED ” basis if the business had serious financial issues,unlike CW they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by being reckless.
Ernest BeckerDecember 6, 2017 at 11:49
I do not see Dave King as a particularly intelligent man
He and his fellow lenders would have to be deranged to keep lending money on an “UNSECURED ” basis if the business had serious financial issues,unlike CW they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by being reckless.
————
Wasn’t what I was referring to when I said I do not see him as a particularly intelligent man, look back at my post and you will see what I used to qualify that statement, ie, his dealings with authorities that aren’t within his thrall. That man seems to have spent so much time conning people he believes everyone, including High Court judges, to be susceptible to his lies. Being very good at lying to and cheating gullible/desperate people does not equate to intelligence. As to what you say as suggesting King is intelligent (I think that’s what you are trying to show) because he’s encouraged a few rich bears to lend the club millions, well, lending money to a football club is seldom done after intelligent research, having more to do with childhood dreams, and is downright stupid when lending millions without security.
Here’s something that is well known amongst intelligent people. If you want to turn a large fortune into a small one, buy a football club!
King’s partners in his consortium look to be trying that one out for size.
Oh, and a group of businessmen indulging themselves in a loss making venture doesn’t indicate intelligence any more than one person doing it. And I’ll say it again, because you seem to think the opposite, lending money to any loss making business without security is downright stupid! While lending money to same, with security, doesn’t indicate intelligence either.
Has King also signed a ~24m personal guarantee then?
I have seriously tried to make sense of this but i have to admit defeat.
Are you asking about the validity of New Oasis Ltd’s undertaking to fund a further 4 million and 3.2 million?
If so DK seems to have proven to those with everything to lose New Oasis Ltd has the available funds and will part with it,since the security of existing 15.9 million loans depends on this undertaking i suggest if they are happy who are we to cast aspersions. “The Board is satisfied that those parties will continue to provide financial support to the Group and have satisfied themselves as to the validity of the undertakings”.
A PLC which has posted trading losses in every year of it’s existence and which has admitted it will be doing the same this year, and next. Which will have to have a £20m share issue just to pay off loans. Which has no proper banking facilities and no line of credit other than it’s own shareholders. In fact it seems all but one shareholder has had enough, and that one is a convicted fraudster, so hardly what one would describe as a certainty to make good on his promises.
A business analyst in assessing the viability of RFC would chuck the first 4 years accounts in the bin,in the SPL and out the SPL are two different business models,the losses were paid for by unsecured interest free loans soon to be converted into shares.This draws a line under a commercially irrelevant model outside the top tier.
Losses in the SPL and future losses are part of a growth strategy,investing an extra 4 million in player wages is expected to result in a higher turnover,not pie in the sky given RFC previous turnover when in the SPL and not in Europe was around 35 million.
I cannot think of any club in Scotland that is getting new credit from banks.
If other lenders have had enough then they would demand their loans be secured,they haven’t.
Business is a gamble, RFC is no different but the risks are minimal.
Craig Whyte had nothing to lose? You mean apart from the personal guarantee he issued to Ticketus that was subsequently used to bankrupt him personally including losing him his house (castle). You mean apart from that he had nothing to lose.
I am now finding it impossible to follow your train of thought,is this connected to your previous question or is it a new topic?
As a matter of interest i think he lost his castle for not paying a mortgage for 2 years,he was a lad.in effect CW had no assets or funds to back up his personal guarantee,so he lost nothing as i have stated.
Just time to edit hopefully as saw your latest post. “SPL Losses and future losses are part of a future growth plan” Really?
Borrowing for growth is hardly reckless if the borrowing is affordable and the growth target is realistic.
A business analyst would look at the domestic turnover prior to liquidation for proof it was realistic,break even on a 10 million player budget is realistic.
So apparently King has “everything to lose” which is wrong and “nothing to gain” which is also wrong but apart from that you’re right.
Unsecured lenders have everything to lose and nothing to gain by being reckless,this fact does not alter regardless who the lender is,i am sure in reality DK treats his family’s trust as if it was his own money,would be churlish to pretend otherwise.
Seems i am still right.
Ernest BeckerDecember 6, 2017 at 13:44
A PLC which has posted trading losses in every year of it’s existence and which has admitted it will be doing the same this year, and next. Which will have to have a £20m share issue just to pay off loans. Which has no proper banking facilities and no line of credit other than it’s own shareholders. In fact it seems all but one shareholder has had enough, and that one is a convicted fraudster, so hardly what one would describe as a certainty to make good on his promises. A business analyst in assessing the viability of RFC would chuck the first 4 years accounts in the bin,in the SPL and out the SPL are two different business models,the losses were paid for by unsecured interest free loans soon to be converted into shares.This draws a line under a commercially irrelevant model outside the top tier.Losses in the SPL and future losses are part of a growth strategy,investing an extra 4 million in player wages is expected to result in a higher turnover,not pie in the sky given RFC previous turnover when in the SPL and not in Europe was around 35 million.I cannot think of any club in Scotland that is getting new credit from banks.If other lenders have had enough then they would demand their loans be secured,they haven’t.Business is a gamble, RFC is no different but the risks are minimal.
________________________
Are you a business analyst, or someone who has experienced the work of a business analyst? Or is it just two words you know how to spell? What on earth makes you think that any business analyst would see the ‘RIFC model’ as anything other than farcical? What makes you think losses can possibly be a part of a growth strategy?
Profits = growth, losses = decline.
Borrowing for capital outlay can be seen as a growth strategy, ie Hearts new stand, borrowing to meet working capital is not only not a growth strategy, it is a route to insolvency.
What makes you think losses can possibly be a part of a growth strategy?
£5.24m was invested in strengthening the first teamsquad,….As a result of the above, the Group achieved a retained LOSS for the year to 30 June 2012 of £7.37m whichcompares with the previous year’s profit of £0.10m.Further information is contained within the FinancialDirector’s Review.
Although, on its face, the financial outcome for the yearended 30 June 2012 appears disappointing, this was theresult of a DELIBERATE policy of retaining key players inorder to achieve significant strategic objectives that, iffulfilled, would have a substantial beneficial impact laterin the year. The success gained on the pitch in meetingthose objectives now provides us with greater flexibilitythan would otherwise have been the case. http://cdn.celticfc.net/assets/downloads/Annual%20Report%202012.pdf
ERNEST BECKERDECEMBER 6, 2017 at 23:39
What makes you think losses can possibly be a part of a growth strategy?
£5.24m was invested in strengthening the first teamsquad,….As a result of the above, the Group achieved a retainedloss for the year to 30 June 2012 of £7.37m whichcompares with the previous year’s profit of £0.10m.Further information is contained within the FinancialDirector’s Review.Although, on its face, the financial outcome for the yearended 30 June 2012 appears disappointing, this was theresult of a deliberate policy of retaining key players inorder to achieve significant strategic objectives that, iffulfilled, would have a substantial beneficial impact laterin the year. The success gained on the pitch in meetingthose objectives now provides us with greater flexibilitythan would otherwise have been the case.http://cdn.celticfc.net/assets/downloads/Annual%20Report%202012.pdf
_______
You see, there is a strategy, and it paid off, because Celtic were under control, and knew they had the quality of players to not only be successful, but to sell if needs be. TRFC, on the other hand, don’t have a squad with a cumulative sale value to cover the past years losses let alone the cumulative year on year losses, and they are certainly not of a quality to be successful.
King has admitted that they are relying on future European income to cover the current and future losses. That is not a strategy, of any description, it is, at best, flying by the seat of their pants.
I think it might indicate madness to compare a well run business like Celtic with that of a football club that has made no trading profit in it’s history.
One thing’s for sure, if King has any sort of a strategy, it’s an exit strategy for himself.
Might I ask if Ernest Becker and Kris Boyd have both been seen in the same room at any time?
If not, perhaps a mystery has been solved
Kris Boyd is the man who opined before the second Aberdeen TRFC game that TRFC were a club on the up – the previous results being loss, loss, win…
As to his completely unjustified assertion on bigger and better, in my teaching days that would have led to a mark of 0 from me, after what might be described as an exclamatory rant.
You see, there is a strategy, and it paid off, because Celtic were under control, and knew they had the quality of players to not only be successful, but to sell if needs be.
You missed the actual point:
CFC had a short term loss making strategy and RFC have a short term loss making strategy.
CFC had the means to cover planned losses and RFC have the means to cover planned losses.
CFC and RFC both have their losses under control.
Posters who claim RFC’s business model is any different to CFC or any other business that invests for growth is mistaken.
Take away non-reoccurring expenditure like stadium repairs and Sports Direct compensation and add historical retail profits plus some extra football prize money for improved performances and RFC will be able to afford 10 million wage bill and some (without loans and without losses).
In effect they only need to borrow for this season and next before they break even on a historical 35 million domestic turnover.
If they achieve Europa all good and well, if not then the losses are covered.
If anyone understands what the hell the Board is doing with regard to a replacement manager then i don’t, nothing makes sense and it certainly blows all the conspiracy nonsense about SMSM tapping out of the water.
I wanted Murty to stay so i am not all that bothered,save some money for a change.
RFC in 2008-09 had a turnover of 40 million with no European revenue,there is absolutely no reason to doubt RFC can achieve a domestic turnover of 35 million minimum within the next 2 years.
The big difference between then and now is a 40 million turnover would give RFC an operating profit of approx 5 million and not an eye watering loss of 17 million.
Given the similar season ticket sales between then and now the Board must be congratulated in managing fan expectations while at the same time slimming down RFC into a viable business.
Ernest BeckerDecember 8, 2017 at 02:51
You see, there is a strategy, and it paid off, because Celtic were under control, and knew they had the quality of players to not only be successful, but to sell if needs be.
You missed the actual point:CFC had a short term loss making strategy and RFC have a short term loss making strategy.CFC had the means to cover planned losses and RFC have the means to cover planned losses.CFC and RFC both have their losses under control.Posters who claim RFC’s business model is any different to CFC or any other business that invests for growth is mistaken.Take away non-reoccurring expenditure like stadium repairs and Sports Direct compensation and add historical retail profits plus some extra football prize money for improved performances and RFC will be able to afford 10 million wage bill and some (without loans and without losses).In effect they only need to borrow for this season and next before they break even on a historical 35 million domestic turnover.If they achieve Europa all good and well, if not then the losses are covered.If anyone understands what the hell the Board is doing with regard to a replacement manager then i don’t, nothing makes sense and it certainly blows all the conspiracy nonsense about SMSM tapping out of the water.I wanted Murty to stay so i am not all that bothered,save some money for a change.
______________________________
*Insert sweery word here* hell, ‘SHORT TERM LOSS MAKING STRATEGY’, have you lost the few marbles you had?
That short term loss strategy has existed throughout the whole of RIFC/TRFC’s existence. That is not short term, and it’s definitely not a strategy.
RIFC/TRFC do not ‘have the means’ to cover planned (or any other kind of) losses, they rely on other peoples money to cover those losses, read the accounts, it’s made very clear there; and the ‘going concern’ statement makes it very clear that your club, far from having any means whatsoever, is teetering on the brink. Consecutive ‘going concern’ matters, do not a strategy make!
Then, having said a few words that actually make sense, ‘If anyone understands what the hell the Board is doing with regard to a replacement manager then i don’t…’ you then resort to type with this ‘…nothing makes sense and it certainly blows all the conspiracy nonsense about SMSM tapping out of the water.’ As ever, you do not qualify or explain that nonsensical statement, but it suggests that you think that, just because a King ‘strategy’ fails (but only in it’s stated aim), it means that what was so very obvious to every observer, didn’t happen! A bit like your stance on liquidation, I suppose.
Bearing in mind that RIFC/TRFC have never come close to making any sort of trading profit, can you explain how five years of monumental trading losses can possibly be described as a ‘growth strategy’? If you can’t manage that, please give up!
I won’t even attempt to touch on your future profit making moonbeams, other than to say that the RIFC’s chairman has already stated that the club will require a further £7m in loans, just to survive, over the next two years!
I hate to say i told you so but quoting numerous Laws of the land on any issue was a category mistake,what i find a little bizarre is the SFA are actually accountable to the clubs you support.
Decisions are made within the rules in the best interests of your club’s long term viability,which is as i said a balance between integrity and commercial reality.
Was it a conspiracy?
You betcha, because one of the most important members was too big to fail and you better believe if it was CFC the response would have been identical.
Anyone who believes morality exists in a vacuum is a child,it is relative.
Firstly there may be no precedent and yes in law that makes it difficult but surely there must always be a first to make a precedent.
Indeed.
I am off to lie down in a dark room.
Ernest BeckerDecember 9, 2017 at 21:32
I hate to say i told you so but quoting numerous Laws of the land on any issue was a category mistake,what i find a little bizarre is the SFA are actually accountable to the clubs you support. Decisions are made within the rules in the best interests of your club’s long term viability,which is as i said a balance between integrity and commercial reality.
Was it a conspiracy?
You betcha, because one of the most important members was too big to fail and you better believe if it was CFC the response would have been identical.
Anyone who believes morality exists in a vacuum is a child,it is relative.
====================================
Morality doesn’t exist in a vacuum it requires context and in the context of the Golden Rule of a normative ethical philosophy –
Moral philosophy includes moral ontology, or the origin of morals, as well as moral epistemology, or knowledge of morals. Different systems of expressing morality have been proposed, including deontological ethical systems which adhere to a set of established rules, and normative ethical systems which consider the merits of actions themselves. An example of normative ethical philosophy is the Golden Rule, which states that: “One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.”[3] – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
to ignore that Golden Rule in the context of sport in the supposed interest of commercial balance means it is no longer a sport, whose existence depends on observing the Golden Rule articulated in the sporting rules that RFC drove a coach and horses through.
To think that the commercial value of sport does not depend totally on the Golden Rule puts the long term future of Scottish football based on circumventing the GR by deceit at risk.
It is at even greater risk if supporters of TRFC think that the Golden Rule can be broken with impunity, a belief that is understandable given that charges of dishonesty and deceit that should have been made have been studiously avoided and the rules used to aid that avoidance.
There is indeed a commercial reason for that avoidance, which is more than apparent to observers who understand what took place based on evidence and that is if what RFC indulged in was viewed as dishonest behaviour over a period of ten years, that gave them an advantage over rivals because it produced a bigger player wage budget (and no one argues that the advantage Celtic have over other Scottish clubs that generates football success is due to their wage budget, just as PSG and their ilk’s success is dependent on theirs) then how could such a club who paid no heed to the Golden Rule be allowed a position in Scottish football at ANY professional level?
If you ran a card school and I attended but cheated over ten years and you only found out how after ten years, would you invite me back to the card school knowing that the cheating robbed you all that time? I imagine not.
So yes commercial considerations did allow TRFC to replace RFC, but until there is evidence that steps are being taken to make them operate on the same basis of their rivals i.e. sustainably, which they can do but don’t, then for the supporters of other clubs to allow that uncorrected club to participate without trust in those whose job it is to protect integrity, and unfairness to their club, would be childish.
Your club or rather those who ran it into the ground (some of whom are still there) should be tried for crimes against Scottish football, who knows, such an action could be commercially popular.
Morality doesn’t exist in a vacuum it requires context and in the context of the Golden Rule of a normative ethical philosophy –
Morning AULDHEID,
The correct moral context is not the Golden Rule but SFA rules and since they apply to all equally i see no breach of ethics in this context, in fact if the rules had not been applied to save a club in a similar position under similar circumstances i would be asking why not.
Tax avoidance schemes were not against SFA rules and irregular tax avoidance schemes resulting in owed tax years after the event is also not against the rules,the unprecedented events of 2012 required an unique use of the rules to assist a member in distress.
It is wrong to assume uniqueness equates to unfairness when the unique action is within the rules for all, the only thing preventing previous clubs in liquidation from being given the same consideration was their own unique circumstances.
The moral zeitgeist on tax avoidance schemes has shifted dramatically over the last decade,when RFC employed tax avoidance it was not considered immoral and was commonplace.
ERNEST BECKER
DECEMBER 10, 2017 at 09:33
in fact if the rules had not been applied to save a club in a similar position under similar circumstances i would be asking why not.
Ah but the football authorities didn’t save a club. How could they when that club was in the death throes of liquidation?
What they did do was treat a brand new club , formed by a shyster from a basket of assets, as if it was the old, dead club.
There is a massive difference between treating them as if they were the same club and actually being so.
As you know, the football authorities’ legal expert, Rod McKenzie of Harper Macleod LLP, has confirmed in a court of law that the club currently playing out of Ibrox is not legally the same club as the one which was formed in 1872 and which died in 2012.
Ernest Becker
QED.
If I ever hold a card school, folk like you or who think like you would not be invited.
The SFA rules DEPEND on the Golden Rule or do you think your rivals should behave like RFC did or have the consequences of that thinking not given you cause to rethink?
I think there is a definition of insanity in there somewhere.
Derek(named after DJ) McInnes for want of a better word bottled the appointment but DK’s statement was cruel,hubristic and totally out of order.
I don’t blame him to be honest any manager given the task of stopping 10 in a row given the commercial gulf between the two teams is on a hiding to nothing.
The intensity of the West Coast bubble is bad enough with parity,the pressure on him and his family to succeed against the odds would have been merciless and relentless.
Money was not the issue in my opinion,as i have already posted on here if RFC could not afford him pretending otherwise 7 weeks later is perhaps not the best way to sell a lie.
the obvious and appropriate conclusions are drawn – that RIFC/TRFC is closer to administration/liquidation than it is to winning their next Derby Match!
I suggest your conclusion lacks any obvious evidence or appropriate reasoning.
Unsecured lenders with everything to lose AGREED to a player wage increase of 4 million.
Experienced businessmen did not blindly agree to this increase not knowing the loss making consequences.
Players are signed on 2/3 year contracts.
Conclusion: Unless these lenders are brain dead it is obvious they have the appropriate funding in place to cover these losses for the next two years.
Ergo the chances of administration are slimmer than slim and the chances of liquidation are non-existent,given CFC’s run of inconsistent results and lack of tested metal i think they have a reasonable chance of losing the next OF game.
RFC are under no financial pressure and CFC players seem to be prone to folding under ANY football pressure.
ERNEST BECKERDECEMBER 11, 2017 at 13:22
Conclusion: Unless these lenders are brain dead it is obvious they have the appropriate funding in place to cover these losses for the next two years.
They may indeed but that is just to stand still with an ageing striker, Hearts rejects, experienced but constantly crocked pro’s and a few decent loan players. Where is the money coming from to take the club to the next level. i.e to overtake Celtic and to be consistently in the latter stages of Euro competition?
There are no Sinclair or Dembele types on the Ibrox horizon.
Even if there is some increase in commercial revenue to take income back towards some of the latter 2000’s level it doesn’t take much increase in the cost of the first team (last reported at £10.4 million but this season unknown, my guess at least £13m) along with the general operating costs (in the past ranging from £10m-£15m) to eat away at any new spare cash.
Sure, if managed correctly, it should be enough to blow other SPFL teams out the water but I can’t see it being anywhere near enough to catch Celtic or provide any consistent runs in Europe.
A T’Rangers win in the next game v Celtic could indeed happen but it may be be the worst thing they could do in terms of doubling the resolve of Desmond, Lawwell and Rodgers to continue to be top dog domestically and push on in Europe.
I would invite John Clark who contributes to the SFM.
I hope JC is a psychiatrist.
I should have known that, because it is so evident that nobody ever lends to a business that eventually ends up in, say, liquidation. The truth is there, folks, nobody, not even banks, lend to businesses that are heading to ruin!
Unsecured,think about it.
if there’s something about lending, unsecured, a few millions to a loss making company that indicates a sound mind,
I did say the alternative was all these experienced lenders with more than 33 years business experience would all have to be brain dead,your case relies on all of them being bonkers,not the strongest argument to any sound mind.
P.S. 16 million unsecured with another 7 million unsecured to come is not a few million unless your banking experience was in Zimbabwe.
Lending unsecured money in the banking industry would be viewed as a sign of confidence,if the lenders had any doubts they would simply put a floating charge on the assets just in case,,,,THEY HAVEN’T.
If Phil is right about the “Invoice Financing” thing then that is little different from the Ticketus arrangement.
Refuse to read his fairy tales,but knowing Phil it will be a casual distortion of the Zebra Finance arrangement, fans pay in instalments just like a car but the dealer gets all or most of the cash upfront.
Standard stuff spun into a negative to support his administration verbal tic.
Particularly given your entirely ‘lender-dependent’ strategy for growth that you shared with us previously.
CFC’s Golden Era was lender-dependent,and they fully utilised a huge overdraft facility with the Co Op bank,and it was SECURED.
ERNEST BECKER
read downfall,aaaaaaaaaaaaagggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,last comment to this idiot
Furthermore, the lending in question was made with no expectation of getting the money back, therefor, security was probably considered unnecessary
There is a big difference between converting loans into shares and not getting it back for goodness sake !!
Your ever expanding theory now has emotionally attached weaklings sitting idly by waiting for insolvency and share extinction because security is unnecessary???
Unsecured lending by intelligent businessmen indicates confidence,i reject your alternative theory on the grounds my brain is not dead.
the multitude of bears would have gone bonkers (in the most vile of ways) if a standard security had been taken over Ibrox.
If insolvency was a risk i am sure the lenders would not give a toss what the fans felt about a floating charge,they are hardly going to be over the moon about them anyway.
As for unsecured lending to fool fans into a false sense of security.
Really?
you seem to talk a lot about Diouf , .have you met him ?
Anyone???
Dearie me.
Loans don’t materialise out of thin air in anyone’s language either.
Not suggesting they do, still does not make them earnings does it now?
Not changed my mind nor my question, do you know what was in the side letters,yes or no will suffice.
Unfortunately now and again someone joins the site who is bent on distorting every opinion and fact presented. I’m sorry to say that Ernest b., in my opinion, falls into that category.
That is the beauty of free speech,it is all about all inclusive opinions.
No. But the lack of any funds to make a loan would kind of make it immaterial wouldn’t it?
=======================================
The players received their loans,so no lack of funds.
now declared illegal
SC ruled the loans to be earnings,non compliant of tax laws, owing tax.
Nothing illegal.
re side letters I’ve actually forgotten so yes and no! Was it a contractual obligation to pay relative to services rendered, what any language would call ‘earnings’ or was it an offer to pay tax should the scam fall through. I forget which. Sorry.
=====================================
Do you know if the amounts declared to the SPL included the loans or not?
WOODSTEIN,
Thanks for that info.
So RFC declared earnings but hid loans from the football authorities, not good,rule breach,close to cheating imo.
However had RFC shown the loan side letters would the SPL have declared the extra amounts as earnings, the answer is no,they are not tax experts,only the players earnings would have been registered.
This leaves us with the thorny issue of retrospective action,and it is a tricky one.
If RFC had declared the loans side letters and the SPL accepted them as loans not earnings,what happens years later if the courts decide they are earnings? I suggest nothing, it would be unfair to retrospectively sanction a club for fielding ineligible players based on a complex tax ruling years and years later.
This being the case i fail to see how not declaring side letters changes anything,apart from that there is no rule that enables retrospective ineligibility anyway and i can understand why.
My conclusion is this, if one takes a holistic view of the intentions,actions and events and ignores the logical category differences then one should apply the same holistic approach to consequences.
It is either start from lowest tier,3 year Europe ban and loss of 40 million or back in SPL and go for title stripping,either way the club is not dead.
Fin
Ernest BeckerDecember 1, 2017 at 22:55 (Edit)
SMUGAS,
LNS is an expert in logic that is why he stated the concealment of side letters in of themselves did not give a sporting advantage,he based this on the premise both DOS and EBT were not illegal,understandable since RFC were not being charged with fraud or tax evasion.Where some get confused is LNS used the word ” unlawful” which they assume refers to Tax Law,this is another category mistake.
===============
His premise that both DOS and EBTS were not irregular (the word LNS did use) was wrong at the time LNS considered the matter. An FTT had found the DOS ebts illegal/irregular in October 2010. LNS treated both as continuous as in one followed the other but one (the DOS) had been judged illegal/irregular in an FTT that outranks LNS, a hired hand of the SPL, in terms of authority.
As I think I may have mentioned the HMRC documentation that would have informed LNS of such illegality was not provided by RFC administrators when requested by the SPL in 2012. That same documentation also demonstrated dishonesty, but had to be kept from the SPL lawyers investigating the use of all ebts since July 1999 because the De Boer side letter and documentation relating to it could not have been provided, otherwise the LNS Commission range would have started from 30 August 2000, the date of the earliest side letter.
I like the mixed metaphors of elephants and fish but the wee tax case is all the evidence needed of what is know as “previous” as well as cover up.
A judgement based on error cannot be sound, nor can the implications based on that judgement.
RFC found a way to pay players more than their rivals clubs could use and stay within the law. To do what they did RFC had to conceal part of the contract with players from HMRC and the SFA/SPL.
In doing so they broke registration rules designed to deter/stop under the counter payments to players.
This in effect diverted money that should have gone to the public purse into players pockets – theft actually.
The motivation, as SDM stated was to give RFC a competitive advantage in the player wage market and it matters nought whether the players hired were better than their rivals.
What matters is that the rivals could not honestly use the same method. THAT is were the cheating occurred and where LNS got it fundamentally wrong. His justification for no sporting advantage was that all clubs could have used ebts as RFC had.
” Nor is it a breach of SPL or SFA Rules for a club to arrange its affairs – within the law– so as to minimise its tax liabilities.”
Other clubs couldn’t arrange their tax affairs as RFC had without breaking the law.
Sporting advantage or not, although the perceived wisdom is that the higher the wage the better the player, clearly demonstrated by the difference in quality between Celtic and their rivals, with the difference that no football rules were or are being broken by Celtic and no theft was involved, is not the issue, cheating their rivals is and in using ebts in a way that their rivals could not lawfully use , RFC did cheat them.
No question, using LNS own logic – based on restricted information to be fair to him.
Should the points have been deducted?
Possibly not if the failure to register side letters was an honest but deliberate mistake and that all ebts were legal and only registration rules were broken.
However there was dishonesty LNS was unaware of (cynics might disagree, I couldn’t possibly comment) and some of the ebts LNS treated as regular were not.
Now had all the evidence been supplied (and from what Doncaster and McKenzie said after the SC ruled, the question of dishonesty was never part of the LNS Commission) the Commission would have been in new territory as LNS himself recognised.
” There may be extreme cases in which there is such a fundamental defect that the registration of a player must be treated as having been invalid from the outset. But in the kind of situation that we are dealing with here we are satisfied that the registration of the Specified Players with the SPL was valid from the outset, and accordingly that they were eligible to play in official matches. There was therefore no breach of SPL Rule D1.11.”
Nothing makes a player registration more fundamentally defective than lying to authorities actively or passively, and the same individuals who lied to HMRC are the ones who kept the same information they withheld from HMRC from the SFA. LNS did not know that.
Quite what SFA Article RFC would have been charged with is unclear but somewhere in the version of Article 5 of SFA Articles of the period from 2000 that sets out responsibilities of members of the SFA lies the answer.
The current version states at Article 5.1 (f)
5.1 All members shall:-
(f) behave towards the Scottish FA and other members with the utmost good faith.
Maybe in 2000 the idea that any club would require this to be in the rules was unthinkable but it is hardly a reason not to treat what RFC did from then as a fundamental defect.
Back then bringing the game into disrepute would probably be in the rules, but in the disrepute charges that were brought against RFC in 2012 they were never charged with doing anything wrong or dishonest prior to CW’s takeover, and he wasn’t charged with non payment of the wee tax bill red herring that had its genesis in August 2000 when RFC under SDM acted disreputably to Scottish football….
Ernest BeckerDecember 2, 2017 at 01:21
‘…This being the case i fail to see how not declaring side letters changes anything,apart from that there is no rule that enables retrospective ineligibility anyway and i can understand why.’
________
You fail to see lot of things.
A certain lawyer had the most peculiar views on rules about ‘eligibility’ as he gave ‘evidence’ to the magical , circular, LNS enquiry.
You appear to have the same peculiar views.
You are attempting to defend the most outrageous act of sports cheating ever committed in Scottish Football, and to defend a most blatantly corrupt Football governance body in its corruption in facilitating that cheating.
You are, frankly, quite wrong in defending liars and cheats. And actually quite useless in the attempt, to boot.
Because the most sophisticated, specious argumentation on behalf of falsehood simply cannot overcome the simple truth:
SDM cheated,
CW killed the club,
SevcoScotland are not Rangers 1872,
and the SFA are a seriously compromised ‘Governance’ body.
Respect yourself as a person.
Do not sell yourself to a lie.
Fan of Football.
There is only one man who saddled the old club with unpayable debts (forget the old £18m nonsense ) and it was not CW.
CW has to bear some responsibility,SDM got the club into dire straits no argument but nobody forced CW to buy RFC and a normal buyer of a debt ridden company usually puts more than £1 in to turn the business round.
A high risk investor would have bought the business for 18 million,sold some high earners and ran it like Lloyds had been running it but with more spending cuts,the BTC took another 5 years to resolve which is plenty time to turn RFC into a sustainable and viable business,not dependant on CL income to make a profit. Basically do a Celtic and have an equal chance at CL revenue,Europa at worst.
HMRC would have accepted a payment plan over years because they got what they wanted.
His business plan was reckless because he had nothing to lose.
Ernest BeckerDecember 2, 2017 at 01:21 (Edit) WOODSTEIN,
Thanks for that info.
So RFC declared earnings but hid loans from the football authorities, not good,rule breach,close to cheating imo.
However had RFC shown the loan side letters would the SPL have declared the extra amounts as earnings, the answer is no,they are not tax experts,only the players earnings would have been registered.
==================
Correct the SPL are not tax experts, but HMRC are and HMRC called at Hampden in 2009 to look at player contracts and ascertain if there were side letters.
Someone with HMRC experience can confirm, but I imagine that HMRC would not just turn up at Hampden without some justification being provided, and the idea that the SFA/SPL had they been told that these payments were loans would not have contacted HMRC for advice is too far a stretch even for an organisation as incompetent as the SFA, unless they did suspect irregularity but didn’t want to know.
All it would have taken was RFC seeking confirmation from SFA/SPL that they were correct not to include the loans as earnings and RFC would have been in the clear if SFA said no problem, so why didn’t they ask? Why did RFC not wave an SFA waiver in front of the FTT and LNS but for the same reason they lied about side letters to HMRC?
1. Possibly losing the advantage over other clubs irregular use of ebts gave them.
2. Having to cough up the back tax owed.
The problem with your points based on rules and Articles is that they depend on trust and honesty to be of themselves a reliable indication of conformity. The minute you lie to stay within the rules is the minute the rules and the defence based on them mean SFA.
I have no problem with RFC being treated as the same club in football terms (they just aren’t legally) if the trophies and titles won during the period of ebt use were surrendered.
I think any decent Rangers man acquainted of all the facts would not want to be associated with them either. More than that it would send out a signal to the supporters of other clubs that the club now playing in the SPFL recognised right from wrong and so could be relied on to act honestly in future. As it stands, and you contribute to it, your club are not trusted nor are the SFA for enabling the present situation to be created.
There is a saying “if you love something let it go” letting go the idea Rangers acted properly towards fellow clubs and their supporters since 2000 and accepting the consequences would be loving your club. Trust me.
John clark
Your post below was so on the money ,i thought it deserved to be reposted
For someone to even attempt to defend the issue of side letters to players ,really does beggar belief
DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 01:54 10 0 Rate This
Ernest BeckerDecember 2, 2017 at 01:21‘…This being the case i fail to see how not declaring side letters changes anything,apart from that there is no rule that enables retrospective ineligibility anyway and i can understand why.
’________You fail to see lot of things.
A certain lawyer had the most peculiar views on rules about ‘eligibility’ as he gave ‘evidence’ to the magical , circular, LNS enquiry.
You appear to have the same peculiar views.
You are attempting to defend the most outrageous act of sports cheating ever committed in Scottish Football, and to defend a most blatantly corrupt Football governance body in its corruption in facilitating that cheating.
You are, frankly, quite wrong in defending liars and cheats. And actually quite useless in the attempt, to boot.
Because the most sophisticated, specious argumentation on behalf of falsehood simply cannot overcome the simple truth:
SDM cheated,
CW killed the club,
SevcoScotland are not Rangers 1872,
and the SFA are a seriously compromised ‘Governance’ body.
Respect yourself as a person.
Do not sell yourself to a lie.
Ernest BeckerDecember 1, 2017 at 23:40
ALLYJAMBO,EB, are you telling us that you do not know that a player’s full remuneration must be included in his contract and registered correctly for the player to be eligible to play in the, then, SPLI know this,now back to my question what was in the side letters?
___________________________________
If you knew this, why are you asking such stupid questions about them, and again, if you don’t know what was in the side letters, where have you been these last six years, they’ve been discussed an infinite number of times throughout the internet over that six years. though, admittedly, not to any depth by the SMSM?
To be honest, anyone who has been paying attention, but still finds it necessary to ask these questions, is either at the wind up thinking he is some super squirrel, or is extremely thick! You choose which one it is!
Ernest BeckerDecember 2, 2017 at 00:52
re side letters I’ve actually forgotten so yes and no! Was it a contractual obligation to pay relative to services rendered, what any language would call ‘earnings’ or was it an offer to pay tax should the scam fall through. I forget which. Sorry.
=====================================Do you know if the amounts declared to the SPL included the loans or not?
_________________________-
Again, you are showing yourself up as a man who knows absolutely nothing about the subject he has been spouting about for the last three or four weeks. Everybody who has paid the tiniest bit of attention to this saga and how Rangers operated their EBTs knows the answer to that one. No, they did not declare the ‘loans’ to the SPL, or the SFA. They deliberately withheld all such information, and as has been proven in court, calling a payment a loan doesn’t make it a loan. But if you needed a Supreme Court decision to appraise you of that fact, you must be extremely thick, for it is so obvious to all but the dimmest, that just because you call a payment a loan, doesn’t make it a loan, much in the same way that calling a football club ‘Rangers’ doesn’t make them the Rangers that died in 2012.
ERNEST BECKER
DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 01:21
However had RFC shown the loan side letters would the SPL have declared the extra amounts as earnings, the answer is no,they are not tax experts,only the players earnings would have been registered.
============================
As I understand it the “side letters” related to the money being paid into the trust, they were not “loan side letters” they related to contractual bonuses.
Are you suggesting that the football authorities need only be told about basic salaries and are not interested in bonuses. I would imagine a fair proportion of a football player’s income comes from performance bonuses.
In fact you only have to look at the EBT amounts to see that.
Ernest BeckerDecember 2, 2017 at 01:21
WOODSTEIN,Thanks for that info.So RFC declared earnings but hid loans from the football authorities, not good,rule breach,close to cheating imo.However had RFC shown the loan side letters would the SPL have declared the extra amounts as earnings, the answer is no,they are not tax experts,only the players earnings would have been registered.This leaves us with the thorny issue of retrospective action,and it is a tricky one.If RFC had declared the loans side letters and the SPL accepted them as loans not earnings,what happens years later if the courts decide they are earnings? I suggest nothing, it would be unfair to retrospectively sanction a club for fielding ineligible players based on a complex tax ruling years and years later.This being the case i fail to see how not declaring side letters changes anything,apart from that there is no rule that enables retrospective ineligibility anyway and i can understand why.My conclusion is this, if one takes a holistic view of the intentions,actions and events and ignores the logical category differences then one should apply the same holistic approach to consequences.It is either start from lowest tier,3 year Europe ban and loss of 40 million or back in SPL and go for title stripping,either way the club is not dead.Fin
_____________________
Are you sure you didn’t learn your case pleading ‘expertise’ from the Nuremberg Trials?
Former Feldwebel Ernst Becker said in his defence, ‘Until we lost the war in 1945, we all believed that it was OK to murder millions of Jews. So, if one takes a holistic view of our intentions, actions and events and ignores the logical character differences between genocide and murder, then one should apply the same holistic approach to the consequences that we Huns now find ourselves facing! We lost the war and it would be so very unfair of you to take action that might prevent us from enjoying all the trophies we picked up while stamping our jackboots all over Europe!’
PS, ‘holistic view/approach’, now who was it introduced that phrase to the lexicon of Scottish football? Wasn’t it a man not noted for his honesty and ability to string a sentence together without telling a lie?
But if you needed a Supreme Court decision to appraise you of that fact, you must be extremely thick, for it is so obvious to all but the dimmest, that just because you call a payment a loan, doesn’t make it a loan
I am confused,maybe you can help me out here,can you explain to me why such an obvious distinction did not fall at the first hurdle,why did the First Tier Tax Tribunal rule EBTs to be loans not earnings?
ERNEST BECKER
DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 13:13
I am confused,maybe you can help me out here,can you explain to me why such an obvious distinction did not fall at the first hurdle,why did the First Tier Tax Tribunal rule EBTs to be loans not earnings?
=================================
That’s an easy one. There were two lawyers and an accountant.
The two lawyers got it wrong.
Who is conning whom? Ernest Becker. Beware,this man has a black belt in obfuscation!
There’s a lot of ignorance out there.
The two lawyers got it wrong.
This is hardly evidence of an obvious easy distinction is it now,even with side letters.
No wonder there is no retrospective ineligibility,these titles would be going back and forward like the proverbial yo-yo.
I think cheating should be obvious and easy to prove,and anyone with a functioning brain can see this was not an easy or obvious case.
SMUGAS,
The two lawyers went with the failed lawyers original hypothesis that they were loans which they were.
Interesting,these two lawyers must be as dim and extremely thick as me to make such an obvious error.
ERNEST BECKER
DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 13:47
The two lawyers got it wrong.
=======================================
This is hardly evidence of an obvious easy distinction is it now,even with side letters.
============================================
Loads of people saw it, including as Smugas explained, Dr Poon.
HMRC certainly saw it when they assessed that the tax was due. Before the two lawyers made their mistake.
RTC saw it and pretty much everyone who responded to his blog understood it.
ERNEST BECKER
DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 13:53
Interesting,these two lawyers must be as dim and extremely thick as me to make such an obvious error.
================================
Whatever the reason, they got it wrong. As did you.
Fortunately the Court of Session and the Supreme Court didn’t make the same mistake. Now hundreds of millions in avoided tax will have to be repaid.
At least something good came out of Rangers’ stealing.
Ernest BeckerDecember 2, 2017 at 13:13
But if you needed a Supreme Court decision to appraise you of that fact, you must be extremely thick, for it is so obvious to all but the dimmest, that just because you call a payment a loan, doesn’t make it a loan
I am confused,maybe you can help me out here,can you explain to me why such an obvious distinction did not fall at the first hurdle,why did the First Tier Tax Tribunal rule EBTs to be loans not earnings?
_____________________
Either because two out of the three judges were Masons, or, they, themselves, are in favour of tax-dodges, or, they knew what was required for the greater good of the country, and that was to set in motion a test case that would go all the way to the Supreme Court, where the obvious result would ensure that the country would recoup many millions in previously unpaid taxes, from a lot more people than benefited from the dodge at Ibrox.
Regardless, however, of whatever it was that made their lordships reach such an unfathomable decision, the EBT payments were never, ever loans, they were just structured in such a way as to appear to be loans.
Going into the world of your fantasy, if they were loans, why do you think it was necessary for Rangers to issue these side letters to indemnify the beneficiaries against future income tax, while at the same time promising the payments would be made? You seem so certain that they were loans you must have a very good explanation for these side letters to a ‘loan’. Can you give examples of other instances of side letters accompanying loans? Can you explain why it is that, despite having to ask so much about the circumstances surrounding Rangers’ use of EBTs, you seem to consider yourself qualified to state, quite categorically, that they were, in fact, genuine loans?
RTC saw it and pretty much everyone who responded to his blog understood it.
Indeed,maybe in the interest of fairness all future deliberations should be made by football fans,it is obvious objective legally trained minds are dim and extremely thick.
What concerns me about this scenario is football fans cannot even agree what is a penalty.
Either because two out of the three judges were Masons, or, they, themselves, are in favour of tax-dodges, or, they knew what was required for the greater good of the country,
Is this a transcript of HMRC’s appeal to the SC?
The sooner we get football fans in to replace all lawyers the better.
ERNEST BECKER
DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 14:14
What concerns me about this scenario is football fans cannot even agree what is a penalty.
==============================
It’s surely more concerning that lawyers can’t agree what is a payments and what is a loan.
Unsurprisingly a highly trained accountancy expert understood tax matters better than lawyers did.
ERNEST BECKER
DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 14:19
Is this a transcript of HMRC’s appeal to the SC?
==============================
HMRC didn’t appeal to the Supreme Court
You seem so certain that they were loans you must have a very good explanation for these side letters
You seem to be confusing me for a straw man,if you read back you will see nothing but uncertainty,withholding belief and complexity.
On the other hand i am being faced by certain football fans who think this was an obvious case and Masonic lawyers are dim and extremely thick.
ERNEST BECKER
DECEMBER 2, 2017 at 14:28
… lawyers are dim and extremely thick.
============================
You are the only person saying that, trying to twist the argument away from the simple truth.
They go it wrong.
You are the only person saying that, trying to twist the argument away from the simple truth.
I believe my argument is the truth in this case was not simple.
Moderators
Could you please delete Ernest Becker from the blog as soon as possible. His contributions are perverse & dishonest & the blog has become unreadable for the daily browser.
Thanks
Cluster OneDecember 2, 2017 at 21:52
ALLYJAMBODECEMBER 2, 2017 at 21:23I have to admit, though, that no matter how tiresome I find EB, I am in the Auldheid camp and enjoy the re-awakening of the OC/NC and EBT debates, and I do feel it important that anyone new to this site, not only gets the opportunity to read, perhaps for the first time, our thoughts on the matter, but isn’t left feeling that by our failure to respond, someone like EB has won the argument.————-And after some four weeks and asking ok convince me it’s still the same club.I have not been convinced it is,and anyone new looking in who thought for a moment oh wait maybe EB has something here will walk away saying good try but must try harder
__________________
My point, though, is that had no one responded, or if after a few attempts we’d given him the stage to say what he wanted, some people might have thought he had a point that we were unable to counter.
I have to admit, though, that I would have supported the mods if they’d decided to chuck him after a week of nonsensical posts and refusal to answer questions requesting clarification on what it was he was trying to say, let alone have us believe.
The thing is, I don’t believe the trolls come on here to influence us, rather they hope to have something to crow about over on the TRFC supporter sites to continue to blindside the bears. No problem for me if they succeed. I’ll be very surprised if there’s no posts on those sites saying something like, ‘that Ernest Becker isn’t half running rings round SFM’. They come over here, read his posts while ignoring the responses, and bingo, the RIFC AGM was a roaring success and ‘We Are The People’. You have to remember that thousands of the bears will see the guy who asked King about his school as some sort of hero!
Murty has done more than enough to convince me he is worth a punt until season end and it is the cheapest option.
Rangers overspending is planned and not unexpected,there is a world of difference between the two.
Directors have agreed to fund the losses incurred by increasing player wages from 6 to 10 million as promised
Retail will kick in next year and the big ticket item is Europa income.
CFC is a selling club,and come January i believe some of their diamonds will depart,BR will be gone in the summer,in effect the more successful CFC become the more likely it is players and manager will depart.
It may take a few years but CFC are constrained by domestic revenue and the commercial gap between the two clubs will shrink to a competitive level.
RFC is now a stalking horse this season and it will be interesting to see if CFC can handle a pressurised run in for the first time in 5 years,especially without some of their talent.
If Scottish football has to be rugged because it has little skill then don’t blame your kids and grand kids from supporting teams who can actually play football,no wonder refs are under constant pressure our game is glorified Junior football thuggery.
p.s. Ryan Jack is brainless.
Ernest BeckerDecember 3, 2017 at 23:14
————-
Wow, 11 definitive , clearly written statements, Ernest( whichever of the dual personality you are tonight):
With two of which I agree (“Murty..is worth a punt for the job”) and (“Ryan Jack is brainless”).
The others are no more than pious ( or, perhaps in your case, impious) aspirations!
Whereas my statement (not being a PR conman masquerading as a ‘genuine’ poster) that TRFC Ltd is Not Rangers FC 1872 is a statement of absolute truth and reality.
This blog is not focused on ordinary inter-club rivalry, but on an insistence that cheating in sport by any club is to be condemned, that lying by any club in order to cheat its way to ‘sporting’ success is not to be tolerated, and that a Football governance body that assists a particular club so to lie is an abomination.
RFC(IL) cheated big-time. They lied about their tax debt. They lied about what they were paying their players.
And were aided and abetted by the SFA all the way through.
Personally, I have no interest in the fortunes ( or lack of fortune) of the new club, TRFC Ltd.
This blog is not focused on ordinary inter-club rivalry,
Strange,i must have imagined the endless stream of posts on Rangers financial state,Rangers replacement manager and Rangers Chairman.
Thought i would mention another club to provide some balance to proceedings.
Your objection is overruled.
Ernest BeckerDecember 4, 2017 at 02:07
‘..This blog is not focused on ordinary inter-club rivalry’
________________
You talkin’ to me?
I’ve asked you before to identify which posters or posts you are referring to when you come back with a smart-ass reply.
The watch that is being assiduously kept on the affairs of the new club are, as far as I am concerned, not a reflection of any interest in that club, but to make sure that there is no more chicanery on the part of the SFA to further aid that struggling club (which of course is living a lie, and is on that account alone deserving of nothing but scorn as a cuckoo in the nest of Scottish football)
As I have said more than once:acknowledge that TRFC Ltd is NOT RFC(IL), acknowledge that it has no claim on the sporting history of RFC(IL), and acknowledge that RFC(IL) itself was not entitled to many of the honours and titles that it ‘won’ by cheating: and acknowledge tht some of the Board of TRFC Ltd are no more honest sportsmen than were the Board members of RFC(IL) before it was sold to Whyte,as well as after it was sold.
‘fess up that TRFC Ltd is a living mockery of sport and sporting integrity.
And there might be a chance of rehabilitation, once the bad guys are out of both the club and the SFA.
John Clark commented on Who Is Conning Whom?.
Ernest BeckerDecember 4, 2017 at 02:07‘..This blog is not focused on ordinary inter-club rivalry’________________You talkin’ to me?I’ve asked you before to identify which posters or posts you are referring to when you come back with a smart-ass reply.
Think that clearly means you’re not sitting on the fence JC
…and bloody well said too 
As I have said more than once:acknowledge that TRFC Ltd is NOT RFC(IL), acknowledge that it has no claim on the sporting history of RFC(IL), and acknowledge that RFC(IL) itself was not entitled to many of the honours and titles that it ‘won’ by cheating: and acknowledge tht some of the Board of TRFC Ltd are no more honest sportsmen than were the Board members of RFC(IL) before it was sold to Whyte,as well as after it was sold.
I have given this a great deal of thought and looked deep into my soul,here is my problem:
The verb ” to acknowledge ” means ” to accept the existence of truth “.
The noun ” truth ” means ” in accordance with fact or reality”.
Reality in Scottish football is determined by the SFA,they are the custodian of the facts and calling them corrupt does not alter this truth.
So despite my best intentions i cannot comply with your requests but i still hope we can be friends.
dear Ernest BeckerDecember 5, 2017
You were shite on Random they are saying and you are shite on here they seem to be saying. Seems other sites are having their say on you and are calling you out. Would the real slim shady please stand.please stand up..please stand up.
SFM normally shut Steerpike down after a couple of days but they seem to have accepted him in his latest guise. They know who he is – that arrogant, condescending style is unmistakable – but they’re tolerating him nonetheless. He has even started posting in a second identity to support his own arguments! I’ve never understood why he bothers as he convinces no-one but he’s certainly dedicated – does he have nothing else to do? It’s all very bizarre. He wouldn’t get away with it on JJ’s site – well, not unless he paid of course.
they could of course be wrong ( been nice) but they have you down as a roaster anyway ah well, i did say last time you’re number was up.
The reason for the delay in approaching Aberdeen to speak to their manager has now been revealed as an altruistic act of true sportsmanship by Dave King(pbuh).
DK waited until after the double header knowing these fixtures would be compromised by an early approach and protracted negotiation,he obviously considered an associate club’s position and decided winning at all costs was less important than fellowship.
Aberdeen have declined and some are jumping to the wrong conclusion,if RFC are short of cash now then they were short 5 weeks ago, ergo a cash shortage does not explain the delay nor Aberdeen’s refusal.
It appears even when DK sacrifices the interests of RFC for the interests of Scottish football his actions are distorted and twisted by some.
Derek will be in charge of RFC by the weekend,managing Rangers is a dream job for any ambitious Scottish manager.
the collapse of the second strongest team in Scottish football in not just one, but TWO, matches against at best a very, very, very mediocre team, of which to be manager is a lifetime ambition of the current manager of that second strongest team.
Aberdeen has been creaking since they sold some key players,they were the second strongest team in previous seasons but getting humped at home by Motherwell showed they were not the force of old.
Rangers has taken time to gel with an influx of new players but now seem to be getting their act together, just in time to tackle a fragile Celtic team ring rusty of any real competition.
The weakness of a one horse race is CFC are not used to handling any real pressure,the title run is going to be nothing but pressure because Rangers are not going away anytime soon.
‘Ernest BeckerDecember 6, 2017 at 00:38’
‘..Derek will be in charge of RFC by the weekend,managing Rangers is a dream job for any ambitious Scottish manager’
_____________
Managing the club that ‘Walter’ managed might indeed be a dream job, for some.
But managing a 5-year old club called Trfc Ltd , illegitimately procreated by the fornication of the SFA with CG is hardly the same thing.
(Dear God, that I should waste even a second of my time responding to the serpent of untruth!)
Another cracker from C Jack in the Herald,”It is understood that the Gers opted to do the honourable thing and wait until after the Premiership double-header with Aberdeen last week before making an official approach for the Reds boss.”
Obviously read my post last night,my sources are impeccable just like Phil’s.
I do not see Dave King as a particularly intelligent man
He and his fellow lenders would have to be deranged to keep lending money on an “UNSECURED ” basis if the business had serious financial issues,unlike CW they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by being reckless.
Ernest BeckerDecember 6, 2017 at 11:49
I do not see Dave King as a particularly intelligent man
He and his fellow lenders would have to be deranged to keep lending money on an “UNSECURED ” basis if the business had serious financial issues,unlike CW they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by being reckless.
————
Wasn’t what I was referring to when I said I do not see him as a particularly intelligent man, look back at my post and you will see what I used to qualify that statement, ie, his dealings with authorities that aren’t within his thrall. That man seems to have spent so much time conning people he believes everyone, including High Court judges, to be susceptible to his lies. Being very good at lying to and cheating gullible/desperate people does not equate to intelligence. As to what you say as suggesting King is intelligent (I think that’s what you are trying to show) because he’s encouraged a few rich bears to lend the club millions, well, lending money to a football club is seldom done after intelligent research, having more to do with childhood dreams, and is downright stupid when lending millions without security.
Here’s something that is well known amongst intelligent people. If you want to turn a large fortune into a small one, buy a football club!
King’s partners in his consortium look to be trying that one out for size.
Oh, and a group of businessmen indulging themselves in a loss making venture doesn’t indicate intelligence any more than one person doing it. And I’ll say it again, because you seem to think the opposite, lending money to any loss making business without security is downright stupid! While lending money to same, with security, doesn’t indicate intelligence either.
Has King also signed a ~24m personal guarantee then?
I have seriously tried to make sense of this but i have to admit defeat.
Are you asking about the validity of New Oasis Ltd’s undertaking to fund a further 4 million and 3.2 million?
If so DK seems to have proven to those with everything to lose New Oasis Ltd has the available funds and will part with it,since the security of existing 15.9 million loans depends on this undertaking i suggest if they are happy who are we to cast aspersions.
“The Board is satisfied that those parties will continue to provide financial support to the Group and have satisfied themselves as to the validity of the undertakings”.
A PLC which has posted trading losses in every year of it’s existence and which has admitted it will be doing the same this year, and next. Which will have to have a £20m share issue just to pay off loans. Which has no proper banking facilities and no line of credit other than it’s own shareholders. In fact it seems all but one shareholder has had enough, and that one is a convicted fraudster, so hardly what one would describe as a certainty to make good on his promises.
A business analyst in assessing the viability of RFC would chuck the first 4 years accounts in the bin,in the SPL and out the SPL are two different business models,the losses were paid for by unsecured interest free loans soon to be converted into shares.This draws a line under a commercially irrelevant model outside the top tier.
Losses in the SPL and future losses are part of a growth strategy,investing an extra 4 million in player wages is expected to result in a higher turnover,not pie in the sky given RFC previous turnover when in the SPL and not in Europe was around 35 million.
I cannot think of any club in Scotland that is getting new credit from banks.
If other lenders have had enough then they would demand their loans be secured,they haven’t.
Business is a gamble, RFC is no different but the risks are minimal.
Craig Whyte had nothing to lose? You mean apart from the personal guarantee he issued to Ticketus that was subsequently used to bankrupt him personally including losing him his house (castle). You mean apart from that he had nothing to lose.
I am now finding it impossible to follow your train of thought,is this connected to your previous question or is it a new topic?
As a matter of interest i think he lost his castle for not paying a mortgage for 2 years,he was a lad.in effect CW had no assets or funds to back up his personal guarantee,so he lost nothing as i have stated.
Just time to edit hopefully as saw your latest post. “SPL Losses and future losses are part of a future growth plan” Really?
Borrowing for growth is hardly reckless if the borrowing is affordable and the growth target is realistic.
A business analyst would look at the domestic turnover prior to liquidation for proof it was realistic,break even on a 10 million player budget is realistic.
So apparently King has “everything to lose” which is wrong and “nothing to gain” which is also wrong but apart from that you’re right.
Unsecured lenders have everything to lose and nothing to gain by being reckless,this fact does not alter regardless who the lender is,i am sure in reality DK treats his family’s trust as if it was his own money,would be churlish to pretend otherwise.
Seems i am still right.
Ernest BeckerDecember 6, 2017 at 13:44
A PLC which has posted trading losses in every year of it’s existence and which has admitted it will be doing the same this year, and next. Which will have to have a £20m share issue just to pay off loans. Which has no proper banking facilities and no line of credit other than it’s own shareholders. In fact it seems all but one shareholder has had enough, and that one is a convicted fraudster, so hardly what one would describe as a certainty to make good on his promises.
A business analyst in assessing the viability of RFC would chuck the first 4 years accounts in the bin,in the SPL and out the SPL are two different business models,the losses were paid for by unsecured interest free loans soon to be converted into shares.This draws a line under a commercially irrelevant model outside the top tier.Losses in the SPL and future losses are part of a growth strategy,investing an extra 4 million in player wages is expected to result in a higher turnover,not pie in the sky given RFC previous turnover when in the SPL and not in Europe was around 35 million.I cannot think of any club in Scotland that is getting new credit from banks.If other lenders have had enough then they would demand their loans be secured,they haven’t.Business is a gamble, RFC is no different but the risks are minimal.
________________________
Are you a business analyst, or someone who has experienced the work of a business analyst? Or is it just two words you know how to spell? What on earth makes you think that any business analyst would see the ‘RIFC model’ as anything other than farcical? What makes you think losses can possibly be a part of a growth strategy?
Profits = growth, losses = decline.
Borrowing for capital outlay can be seen as a growth strategy, ie Hearts new stand, borrowing to meet working capital is not only not a growth strategy, it is a route to insolvency.
What makes you think losses can possibly be a part of a growth strategy?
£5.24m was invested in strengthening the first teamsquad,….As a result of the above, the Group achieved a retained LOSS for the year to 30 June 2012 of £7.37m whichcompares with the previous year’s profit of £0.10m.Further information is contained within the FinancialDirector’s Review.
Although, on its face, the financial outcome for the yearended 30 June 2012 appears disappointing, this was theresult of a DELIBERATE policy of retaining key players inorder to achieve significant strategic objectives that, iffulfilled, would have a substantial beneficial impact laterin the year. The success gained on the pitch in meetingthose objectives now provides us with greater flexibilitythan would otherwise have been the case.
http://cdn.celticfc.net/assets/downloads/Annual%20Report%202012.pdf
ERNEST BECKERDECEMBER 6, 2017 at 23:39
What makes you think losses can possibly be a part of a growth strategy?
£5.24m was invested in strengthening the first teamsquad,….As a result of the above, the Group achieved a retainedloss for the year to 30 June 2012 of £7.37m whichcompares with the previous year’s profit of £0.10m.Further information is contained within the FinancialDirector’s Review.Although, on its face, the financial outcome for the yearended 30 June 2012 appears disappointing, this was theresult of a deliberate policy of retaining key players inorder to achieve significant strategic objectives that, iffulfilled, would have a substantial beneficial impact laterin the year. The success gained on the pitch in meetingthose objectives now provides us with greater flexibilitythan would otherwise have been the case.http://cdn.celticfc.net/assets/downloads/Annual%20Report%202012.pdf
_______
You see, there is a strategy, and it paid off, because Celtic were under control, and knew they had the quality of players to not only be successful, but to sell if needs be. TRFC, on the other hand, don’t have a squad with a cumulative sale value to cover the past years losses let alone the cumulative year on year losses, and they are certainly not of a quality to be successful.
King has admitted that they are relying on future European income to cover the current and future losses. That is not a strategy, of any description, it is, at best, flying by the seat of their pants.
I think it might indicate madness to compare a well run business like Celtic with that of a football club that has made no trading profit in it’s history.
One thing’s for sure, if King has any sort of a strategy, it’s an exit strategy for himself.
Might I ask if Ernest Becker and Kris Boyd have both been seen in the same room at any time?
If not, perhaps a mystery has been solved
Kris Boyd is the man who opined before the second Aberdeen TRFC game that TRFC were a club on the up – the previous results being loss, loss, win…
As to his completely unjustified assertion on bigger and better, in my teaching days that would have led to a mark of 0 from me, after what might be described as an exclamatory rant.
You see, there is a strategy, and it paid off, because Celtic were under control, and knew they had the quality of players to not only be successful, but to sell if needs be.
You missed the actual point:
CFC had a short term loss making strategy and RFC have a short term loss making strategy.
CFC had the means to cover planned losses and RFC have the means to cover planned losses.
CFC and RFC both have their losses under control.
Posters who claim RFC’s business model is any different to CFC or any other business that invests for growth is mistaken.
Take away non-reoccurring expenditure like stadium repairs and Sports Direct compensation and add historical retail profits plus some extra football prize money for improved performances and RFC will be able to afford 10 million wage bill and some (without loans and without losses).
In effect they only need to borrow for this season and next before they break even on a historical 35 million domestic turnover.
If they achieve Europa all good and well, if not then the losses are covered.
If anyone understands what the hell the Board is doing with regard to a replacement manager then i don’t, nothing makes sense and it certainly blows all the conspiracy nonsense about SMSM tapping out of the water.
I wanted Murty to stay so i am not all that bothered,save some money for a change.
RFC in 2008-09 had a turnover of 40 million with no European revenue,there is absolutely no reason to doubt RFC can achieve a domestic turnover of 35 million minimum within the next 2 years.
The big difference between then and now is a 40 million turnover would give RFC an operating profit of approx 5 million and not an eye watering loss of 17 million.
Given the similar season ticket sales between then and now the Board must be congratulated in managing fan expectations while at the same time slimming down RFC into a viable business.
Ernest BeckerDecember 8, 2017 at 02:51
You see, there is a strategy, and it paid off, because Celtic were under control, and knew they had the quality of players to not only be successful, but to sell if needs be.
You missed the actual point:CFC had a short term loss making strategy and RFC have a short term loss making strategy.CFC had the means to cover planned losses and RFC have the means to cover planned losses.CFC and RFC both have their losses under control.Posters who claim RFC’s business model is any different to CFC or any other business that invests for growth is mistaken.Take away non-reoccurring expenditure like stadium repairs and Sports Direct compensation and add historical retail profits plus some extra football prize money for improved performances and RFC will be able to afford 10 million wage bill and some (without loans and without losses).In effect they only need to borrow for this season and next before they break even on a historical 35 million domestic turnover.If they achieve Europa all good and well, if not then the losses are covered.If anyone understands what the hell the Board is doing with regard to a replacement manager then i don’t, nothing makes sense and it certainly blows all the conspiracy nonsense about SMSM tapping out of the water.I wanted Murty to stay so i am not all that bothered,save some money for a change.
______________________________
*Insert sweery word here* hell, ‘SHORT TERM LOSS MAKING STRATEGY’, have you lost the few marbles you had?
That short term loss strategy has existed throughout the whole of RIFC/TRFC’s existence. That is not short term, and it’s definitely not a strategy.
RIFC/TRFC do not ‘have the means’ to cover planned (or any other kind of) losses, they rely on other peoples money to cover those losses, read the accounts, it’s made very clear there; and the ‘going concern’ statement makes it very clear that your club, far from having any means whatsoever, is teetering on the brink. Consecutive ‘going concern’ matters, do not a strategy make!
Then, having said a few words that actually make sense, ‘If anyone understands what the hell the Board is doing with regard to a replacement manager then i don’t…’ you then resort to type with this ‘…nothing makes sense and it certainly blows all the conspiracy nonsense about SMSM tapping out of the water.’ As ever, you do not qualify or explain that nonsensical statement, but it suggests that you think that, just because a King ‘strategy’ fails (but only in it’s stated aim), it means that what was so very obvious to every observer, didn’t happen! A bit like your stance on liquidation, I suppose.
Bearing in mind that RIFC/TRFC have never come close to making any sort of trading profit, can you explain how five years of monumental trading losses can possibly be described as a ‘growth strategy’? If you can’t manage that, please give up!
I won’t even attempt to touch on your future profit making moonbeams, other than to say that the RIFC’s chairman has already stated that the club will require a further £7m in loans, just to survive, over the next two years!
I hate to say i told you so but quoting numerous Laws of the land on any issue was a category mistake,what i find a little bizarre is the SFA are actually accountable to the clubs you support.
Decisions are made within the rules in the best interests of your club’s long term viability,which is as i said a balance between integrity and commercial reality.
Was it a conspiracy?
You betcha, because one of the most important members was too big to fail and you better believe if it was CFC the response would have been identical.
Anyone who believes morality exists in a vacuum is a child,it is relative.
Firstly there may be no precedent and yes in law that makes it difficult but surely there must always be a first to make a precedent.
Indeed.
I am off to lie down in a dark room.
Ernest BeckerDecember 9, 2017 at 21:32
I hate to say i told you so but quoting numerous Laws of the land on any issue was a category mistake,what i find a little bizarre is the SFA are actually accountable to the clubs you support. Decisions are made within the rules in the best interests of your club’s long term viability,which is as i said a balance between integrity and commercial reality.
Was it a conspiracy?
You betcha, because one of the most important members was too big to fail and you better believe if it was CFC the response would have been identical.
Anyone who believes morality exists in a vacuum is a child,it is relative.
====================================
Morality doesn’t exist in a vacuum it requires context and in the context of the Golden Rule of a normative ethical philosophy –
Moral philosophy includes moral ontology, or the origin of morals, as well as moral epistemology, or knowledge of morals.
Different systems of expressing morality have been proposed, including deontological ethical systems which adhere to a set of established rules, and normative ethical systems which consider the merits of actions themselves.
An example of normative ethical philosophy is the Golden Rule, which states that: “One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.”[3] – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
to ignore that Golden Rule in the context of sport in the supposed interest of commercial balance means it is no longer a sport, whose existence depends on observing the Golden Rule articulated in the sporting rules that RFC drove a coach and horses through.
To think that the commercial value of sport does not depend totally on the Golden Rule puts the long term future of Scottish football based on circumventing the GR by deceit at risk.
It is at even greater risk if supporters of TRFC think that the Golden Rule can be broken with impunity, a belief that is understandable given that charges of dishonesty and deceit that should have been made have been studiously avoided and the rules used to aid that avoidance.
There is indeed a commercial reason for that avoidance, which is more than apparent to observers who understand what took place based on evidence and that is if what RFC indulged in was viewed as dishonest behaviour over a period of ten years, that gave them an advantage over rivals because it produced a bigger player wage budget (and no one argues that the advantage Celtic have over other Scottish clubs that generates football success is due to their wage budget, just as PSG and their ilk’s success is dependent on theirs) then how could such a club who paid no heed to the Golden Rule be allowed a position in Scottish football at ANY professional level?
If you ran a card school and I attended but cheated over ten years and you only found out how after ten years, would you invite me back to the card school knowing that the cheating robbed you all that time? I imagine not.
So yes commercial considerations did allow TRFC to replace RFC, but until there is evidence that steps are being taken to make them operate on the same basis of their rivals i.e. sustainably, which they can do but don’t, then for the supporters of other clubs to allow that uncorrected club to participate without trust in those whose job it is to protect integrity, and unfairness to their club, would be childish.
Your club or rather those who ran it into the ground (some of whom are still there) should be tried for crimes against Scottish football, who knows, such an action could be commercially popular.
Morality doesn’t exist in a vacuum it requires context and in the context of the Golden Rule of a normative ethical philosophy –
Morning AULDHEID,
The correct moral context is not the Golden Rule but SFA rules and since they apply to all equally i see no breach of ethics in this context, in fact if the rules had not been applied to save a club in a similar position under similar circumstances i would be asking why not.
Tax avoidance schemes were not against SFA rules and irregular tax avoidance schemes resulting in owed tax years after the event is also not against the rules,the unprecedented events of 2012 required an unique use of the rules to assist a member in distress.
It is wrong to assume uniqueness equates to unfairness when the unique action is within the rules for all, the only thing preventing previous clubs in liquidation from being given the same consideration was their own unique circumstances.
The moral zeitgeist on tax avoidance schemes has shifted dramatically over the last decade,when RFC employed tax avoidance it was not considered immoral and was commonplace.
Ah but the football authorities didn’t save a club. How could they when that club was in the death throes of liquidation?
What they did do was treat a brand new club , formed by a shyster from a basket of assets, as if it was the old, dead club.
There is a massive difference between treating them as if they were the same club and actually being so.
As you know, the football authorities’ legal expert, Rod McKenzie of Harper Macleod LLP, has confirmed in a court of law that the club currently playing out of Ibrox is not legally the same club as the one which was formed in 1872 and which died in 2012.
Ernest Becker
QED.
If I ever hold a card school, folk like you or who think like you would not be invited.
The SFA rules DEPEND on the Golden Rule or do you think your rivals should behave like RFC did or have the consequences of that thinking not given you cause to rethink?
I think there is a definition of insanity in there somewhere.
Derek(named after DJ) McInnes for want of a better word bottled the appointment but DK’s statement was cruel,hubristic and totally out of order.
I don’t blame him to be honest any manager given the task of stopping 10 in a row given the commercial gulf between the two teams is on a hiding to nothing.
The intensity of the West Coast bubble is bad enough with parity,the pressure on him and his family to succeed against the odds would have been merciless and relentless.
Money was not the issue in my opinion,as i have already posted on here if RFC could not afford him pretending otherwise 7 weeks later is perhaps not the best way to sell a lie.
the obvious and appropriate conclusions are drawn – that RIFC/TRFC is closer to administration/liquidation than it is to winning their next Derby Match!
I suggest your conclusion lacks any obvious evidence or appropriate reasoning.
Unsecured lenders with everything to lose AGREED to a player wage increase of 4 million.
Experienced businessmen did not blindly agree to this increase not knowing the loss making consequences.
Players are signed on 2/3 year contracts.
Conclusion: Unless these lenders are brain dead it is obvious they have the appropriate funding in place to cover these losses for the next two years.
Ergo the chances of administration are slimmer than slim and the chances of liquidation are non-existent,given CFC’s run of inconsistent results and lack of tested metal i think they have a reasonable chance of losing the next OF game.
RFC are under no financial pressure and CFC players seem to be prone to folding under ANY football pressure.
ERNEST BECKERDECEMBER 11, 2017 at 13:22
They may indeed but that is just to stand still with an ageing striker, Hearts rejects, experienced but constantly crocked pro’s and a few decent loan players. Where is the money coming from to take the club to the next level. i.e to overtake Celtic and to be consistently in the latter stages of Euro competition?
There are no Sinclair or Dembele types on the Ibrox horizon.
Even if there is some increase in commercial revenue to take income back towards some of the latter 2000’s level it doesn’t take much increase in the cost of the first team (last reported at £10.4 million but this season unknown, my guess at least £13m) along with the general operating costs (in the past ranging from £10m-£15m) to eat away at any new spare cash.
Sure, if managed correctly, it should be enough to blow other SPFL teams out the water but I can’t see it being anywhere near enough to catch Celtic or provide any consistent runs in Europe.
A T’Rangers win in the next game v Celtic could indeed happen but it may be be the worst thing they could do in terms of doubling the resolve of Desmond, Lawwell and Rodgers to continue to be top dog domestically and push on in Europe.
I would invite John Clark who contributes to the SFM.
I hope JC is a psychiatrist.
I should have known that, because it is so evident that nobody ever lends to a business that eventually ends up in, say, liquidation. The truth is there, folks, nobody, not even banks, lend to businesses that are heading to ruin!
Unsecured,think about it.
if there’s something about lending, unsecured, a few millions to a loss making company that indicates a sound mind,
I did say the alternative was all these experienced lenders with more than 33 years business experience would all have to be brain dead,your case relies on all of them being bonkers,not the strongest argument to any sound mind.
P.S. 16 million unsecured with another 7 million unsecured to come is not a few million unless your banking experience was in Zimbabwe.
Lending unsecured money in the banking industry would be viewed as a sign of confidence,if the lenders had any doubts they would simply put a floating charge on the assets just in case,,,,THEY HAVEN’T.
If Phil is right about the “Invoice Financing” thing then that is little different from the Ticketus arrangement.
Refuse to read his fairy tales,but knowing Phil it will be a casual distortion of the Zebra Finance arrangement, fans pay in instalments just like a car but the dealer gets all or most of the cash upfront.
Standard stuff spun into a negative to support his administration verbal tic.
Particularly given your entirely ‘lender-dependent’ strategy for growth that you shared with us previously.
CFC’s Golden Era was lender-dependent,and they fully utilised a huge overdraft facility with the Co Op bank,and it was SECURED.
ERNEST BECKER
read downfall,aaaaaaaaaaaaagggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,last comment to this idiot
Furthermore, the lending in question was made with no expectation of getting the money back, therefor, security was probably considered unnecessary
There is a big difference between converting loans into shares and not getting it back for goodness sake !!
Your ever expanding theory now has emotionally attached weaklings sitting idly by waiting for insolvency and share extinction because security is unnecessary???
Unsecured lending by intelligent businessmen indicates confidence,i reject your alternative theory on the grounds my brain is not dead.
the multitude of bears would have gone bonkers (in the most vile of ways) if a standard security had been taken over Ibrox.
If insolvency was a risk i am sure the lenders would not give a toss what the fans felt about a floating charge,they are hardly going to be over the moon about them anyway.
As for unsecured lending to fool fans into a false sense of security.
Really?