A Blog by James Forrest for TSFM
I am a socialist, and as a socialist I believe in the fundamental goodness of people. Some people find that hard to believe when they read the stuff I write.
I published my first novel recently, on politics and the corrupting nature of it, and it is a deeply cynical book, a book where no-one has clean hands come the end. What has surprised some of those who’ve read it is that I didn’t focus on the lies and smears of the right, but the hypocrisy and deceit of those who claim to be of the left.
Corruption, you see, doesn’t respect political boundaries or points of view. It’s like rainwater. It finds every crack, and gets in there.
My political beliefs revolve around two apparently paradoxical elements; the belief in the inherent decency of people and the need for a strong, and powerful, state. I believe the second underpins the first, and this brings me into conflict with a lot of people, some on the left and some on the right. Too many people see the state as inherently evil, as something that interferes too much in the lives of ordinary people. As something suffocating.
Yet the state exists to protect us. It exists to provide a safety net. It exists to regulate and to oversee. If the state is made up of bad people, if the gears of society are captured by those with malicious or selfish intent, the results are obvious; war, corruption, chaos.
The vast majority of our problems in the modern age can be neatly summed up in two lines from Yeats’ poem “The Second Coming”, which I used to open my novel. “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”
We live in a time when those who are protecting their own interests have assumed such power that they’ve cowed the rest of us. They have become a law unto themselves. They have changed the nature of the game, because they have sapped our will to the extent some barely put up a fight anymore. The weak get weaker, and the strong use their strength to crush the rest even more. It is a vicious struggle, a downward spiral.
Society is held together not only by the endeavour and common interests of its citizens but by a collection of laws. We elect the people who make those laws. They do so in our name, and we can remove that right every four years. That is a powerful thing, and we do not appreciate it enough. The present corruption exists because we allow it to exist.
The people around me continue to puzzle over my uncommon interest in the affairs of a football club on the west of Glasgow. My own club plays in the east end. I tell those who ask that my primary interest in the goings-on at the club calling itself Rangers is no longer about football; how could it be, after all? With promotion this year they are still a full two divisions below us, emasculated, skint, weak and unstable. If we were fortunate enough to draw them in cup competition the match would be over, as a tie, by the halfway point … in the first half.
In footballing terms they are an utter irrelevance.
Rangers is more than a football club to me. They are a symbol. Their unfolding calamity is an on-going outrage. What is happening there, what is being allowed to happen, is an offense to decency. It is a stain on the face of our country.
In short, it is a scandal. It is a scandal without parallel in sport.
Yet it’s not just a sports story either. If it was, I might not be so focussed on it. What is happening at Rangers is a colossal failure of governance. It is a damning indictment against the very people who are supposed to oversee our game. It is a disgraceful abrogation of responsibility from those at the top, those who claim to be “running things.”
If this is not a failure of governance it is a result of corruption at the heart of our national sport. It says they are bought and paid for, and I will say no such thing here.
So let’s give them the benefit of the doubt. We’ll say instead that what they are is weak, indecisive, inept and disconnected from reality.
It reminds me of our political class, which has become insular and ignorant about what the public wants, and what it needs. It’s not a wonder parties like UKIP can achieve national vote shares of 25% at local elections. Nigel Farage strikes me as a dog-whistle politician, the kind who knows how to appeal to a select group of voters. He is little different to Charles Green, the man who beguiled Rangers fans into handing over large amounts of money, because he was “standing up for the club.” It is easy to do what he did, easy to do what Farage is doing.
Real leadership requires toughness. Say what you like about the Tories, but they have that in spades. Yeats was right about the worst being full of passionate intensity. Green was. Farage is. Cameron and Osborne personify it in their political outlook.
It is easy to be cowed by blunt force politics, and by “tough talking Yorkshire men” and venomous speeches about “strivers and skivers.” The politics of divide and conquer is the oldest form of politics there is, and it’s no surprise to see it practiced by some of the vested interests in the game here in Scotland. Yet, lest we forget … something significant happened last year. The maligned and the ignored, the weak and the voiceless found something they never realised they had. They discovered that, in a very real sense, the power was in their hands.
Last year, the fans rose up when the governing bodies and the media went all-out to save Rangers from the self-inflicted wounds caused by a decade of cheating, malpractice and ineptitude. I have no problem calling that what it was.
What happened at Rangers seemed incredible, but it was all too predictable, and some of us had been talking about it for years before it hit. The Association seemed caught in the headlights but it would amaze me if they really were as insular and ignorant as they appeared. They must have known how bad the outlook was for Rangers. They just chose to ignore it.
They were aided and abetted by a thoroughly disreputable media, a collection of cowards and compromisers, charlatans and frauds, masquerading as journalists, but who long ago laid aside any claim to be bold investigators and settled for commenting on events as they unfolded. More often than not, with their ill-informed opinions, sometimes due to weaknesses in intellect and others wilfully ignorant, they failed even in that.
Entire newspapers became PR machines for crooks and swindlers. They aided in the scam because they didn’t do their jobs, some because they were lazy, some because they were incompetent and others because they wanted a seat at the table and were willing to sacrifice whatever integrity they once had in exchange for one.
That all of this was embraced by the Rangers fans is amazing to me. They trusted when they should have been asking questions. They closed their eyes, covered their ears and sang their battle tunes at the top of their voices so they wouldn’t have to hear anything they didn’t like. As incredible as I found it then, and still find it now – and now, even more so, when they have already seen the results of it once – I find it pathetic too, and I do feel pity for some of them.
A lot of these people are genuine football fans, and nothing more. They have no interest in the phony narrow nationalism, or the over-blown religion, or the notion of supremacy which manifested itself in a ludicrous statement from McCoist when interviewed recently on Sky.
Some of the Rangers fans look at their team of duds, kids and journeymen, they look at a boardroom of cowards and crooks, they look at a failing manager in his first (and last) job in the game and at a dark future and are not in the least bit impressed by, or interested in, the chest-out arrogance espoused in those ridiculous words “we are the people.” They know full well that their present crisis was made by men like McCoist, and they understand that pretentious posturing is not an act born of strength, but a scrambling around in the gutter, and a symptom of weakness.
They understand their position, and they hate it. And because they care about Rangers, because they value the club, because they cherish those things that made it a great Scottish institution, they want that back. They understand that before the Union Jack waving, Sash singing, poppy wearing, Nazi saluting, Orange element became the public face of their support Rangers meant something else, and that, above all things, is what pains them the most.
People do not hate Rangers. When the country appeared to turn its back last year, they were turning the back on favouritism and the bending of rules. Yet it would be a lie to say that there is not an element of dislike in the gleeful mockery of many rival fans.
But they don’t hate Rangers either. They hate the version of it around which a certain section of the support continues to dance. They hate the version which hates, and so too do many, many, many Rangers supporters, and they definitely deserve better.
David Murray chose not to openly challenge that version. Indeed, he encouraged certain strands of it to flourish and grow, with his “Britishness Days” and his effort to turn the club into the “team that supports the troops.” Other clubs have done as much, if not more, for the British Army than the one that plays out of Ibrox. Other clubs have given more money. Other clubs have lent their support to those on the front lines. They just chose to do it with respect, and with class, and with dignity. They chose to do it in private, understanding that there eventually comes a tipping point between looking after the ends of the soldiers and using them to promote your own.
The army has not battened on to Rangers. Rangers has battened on to them, and although it is unclear when an altruistic motive became darker, what started out as a gesture of solidarity is now used to entrench division and promote a notion of superiority.
Craig Whyte took over from Murray and immediately understood the lure of the “dog whistle.” He knew too that the media would accept whatever he told them, without question, and as he spoke up for “Rangers traditions” he made sure the lunatic fringe was well onside. He met face to face with the hard-core extremists in the support first and made them his praetorian guard. They spoke up for him until the day the club entered administration.
So, whereas Murray pandered to them and Whyte used them to further his own ends, it was only a matter of time before someone suggested to Charles Green that he could use the same tactics to win over the support. He went even further and blatantly promoted and encouraged this mind-set, and stoked the hate and nonsense to frightening new heights. The same people who cheered Whyte to the rafters jumped on board the Big Blue Bus and the results are clear.
Through all of it, the ordinary Rangers fan has seen his club buffered against the rocks, battered, broken, smashed to smithereens and sunk. Now there’s a big hole in the side of the lifeboat, and they are terrified that further tragedies await.
They are right to be concerned. Much of the media is still not telling them what they need to know. The people in charge of their club – the owners who have lied, the former hack who covered up the truth about Whyte and now acts as a mouthpiece for Green, the “club legends” who are content to sup with the devil and take his greasy coin when they should be standing toe-to-toe with the fans – are trying to silence those members of the press who do have facts to present.
How many times now have media outlets been banned from Ibrox for daring to report the truth? The manager who demanded the names of a committee last year defends those inside the walls who are desperate to keep secret the things that are going on. He is either an unprincipled coward, or he is, himself, bought and paid for. The fans suffer for it.
The “inconvenient truth” is still being kept from them, and this denies them any chance to play an active role in their club. Indeed, it is all too possible that they’ve passed a point of no return, and that their club is heading for a new liquidation event and it can no longer be stopped.
In either case, their power has been eroded to the point at which they must feel they have nothing left to do but stand back and watch what happens next.
They are wrong. I am a socialist. I believe in the inherent good of people. I think the ordinary decent Rangers fans are the only people left who can save their club … and the means by which they will do it is as simple as it could be.
They must stand up for “big government.” They must embrace the need for a “strong state.” They must lobby the SFA, and they must trust the SFA and they must get the SFA to follow its own rules and thereby save them from any further harm.
There is a tendency amongst some Celtic fans to see our governing bodies as pro-Rangers. If it is true then those running our game are ruining Scottish football without benefiting the thing they love more. The incalculable harm that has been done to Rangers in the last 20 some months is a direct result of the subservient media and the willingness of the football authorities to be “deaf, dumb and blind.” Those who believe this has actually helped the Ibrox club have not been paying attention in class. It has irrevocably scarred them, and it may yet have played a hand in destroying them once and for all, as a force if not as a club entirely.
For years, the SFA sat and did nothing as a club in their association operated a sectarian signing policy. They did nothing whilst the fans sang sectarian songs. In their failure to act they strengthened those elements of the Rangers support, instead of isolating, alienating and eventually helping to eliminate those who saw that club as a totem pole of division and hate. Their failure over EBT’s, and their lack of scrutiny, led to one of the greatest scandals in the history of sport, and I say that with no equivocation at all. The testimony of their registrations officer in the Lord Nimmo Smith investigation was a disgrace and in years to come it will rank as one of the most disreputable and damaging moments in the association’s history.
The most egregious failures of all were the failures in the so-called “fit and proper person” tests, which allowed first Whyte and then Charles Green to assume controlling positions at Ibrox. They will pass the buck and say the responsibility lies with the club itself, in much the same way as they are content to let the club investigate itself at the present time, but any neutral who looks at this stance knows it is unprincipled and spineless. It’s like letting the defence set the terms at a trial. It is foxes investigating the chicken coop.
It is a blueprint for corruption, and a recipe for disaster.
It is now too late for the SFA to declare Green “unfit”, as it was too late when they finally slapped that title on Craig Whyte. He and his allies own Rangers, and they control its destiny. They can push the club to the wall if they choose, in the final extremity, if that gets them what they want. The time for changing that is past. The damage has already been done. The barbarians are not at the gates. They are inside the walls, and sacking the city.
The SFA will be forced to punish Rangers for the sins of the owners, for the second time in as many years, and whilst it is right that the club face up to that, all the better to send a message to other clubs and other owners, the SFA cannot be allowed to slither off the hook here as though this was none of their doing. Green will skip off into the sunset. Craig Whyte has yet to pay his fine. These people never cared about Scottish football and they don’t care now.
The SFA are supposed to. Our governing body is supposed to govern, for the good of the whole game, and not as a support system for a single club. What they have allowed to happen on their watch is absolutely shameful and if the people responsible were men at all, with any sense of accountability, they would resign en masse.
They can pretend ignorance, but only the truly ignorant would accept that. Craig Whyte was not inside Ibrox a week before RTC and other sites were dismantling his entire business history, with some of the people here doing the work the SFA would not. Whyte himself claims to have made the governing bodies aware of the scale of what was facing the club, and they did nothing at all. Heads should have rolled a year ago.
In October of last year, on this very site, I posted an article in which I wrote:
“Which isn’t to say the due diligence matter isn’t worrying, because, of course, it is. Again, no-one is going to convince me that the SFA has conducted proper due diligence on Charles Green and his backers. No-one will convince me they are satisfied that this club is in safe hands, and that the game in this country will not be rocked by a further implosion at Ibrox. They failed to properly investigate Craig Whyte, because of lax regulations requiring disclosure from the club itself, regulations which are just a joke, but they can be forgiven for that as the press was talking sheer nonsense about him having billions at his disposal, and a lot of people (but not everyone!) were either convinced or wanted to be convinced by him.
To have witnessed what Whyte did, to have witnessed the Duff & Phelps “process” of finding a buyer, and having Green essentially emerge from nowhere, with a hundred unanswered questions as to his background and financing, for the SFA to have given this guy the go ahead, only for it to blow up in their faces later, would annihilate the credibility of the governing body and necessitate resignations at every level. There would be no hiding place.”
There are times when it is fun to be right, but this is not one of them. It is dispiriting and disquieting to have been so on the nose. It scares the Hell out of me, as someone who loves football in this country, to have seen this matter clearly when the people running our game apparently either did not or chose to ignore very real, very obvious, concerns. The Internet Bampots had no special insight or access to information that was denied those at the SFA. We just weren’t prepared to ignore it and pretend that it wasn’t there. There was too much at stake.
I have become convinced that things will never change until the Rangers supporters join us in demanding the full and unabridged truth here. They need to come out from under the bed, and confront their fears. They need to be willing to take the consequences, so that their club can emerge clean from this, and start again, with all this behind them.
And it can all happen with one simple thing. The application of the rules.
The existence of laws comes down to a simple principle; they protect society from those elements within it who are interested only in their own selfish ends. We may cry out at those rules and regulations we see as “restrictive”, but the law was not made to restrict our freedoms but to protect them. Had the SFA years ago acted against Rangers sectarian signing policy, and the songs from the stands, the club would not have mutated to the point where there was no help on hand when they needed it the most. Let’s not kid ourselves about this; Whyte and Green were only able to grab control because the club itself has a dreadful image which put off respectable and responsible buyers. The SFA could have helped change that perception years ago and did nothing.
The SFA could have conducted its own investigation into who Craig Whyte was. They could have asked David Murray for full disclosure when he was running up £80 million of debt, a sum of money that is beyond belief for a single club in a small provincial backwater league. Had they had the guts to do that the club would never have spent itself into oblivion and forced the hand of Lloyds, which led indirectly to their ignominious end.
The SFA could have fully investigated Charles Green and the means by which he took control, instead of rushing through a license. His emergence at the last minute was transparently suspicious and designed to force them into a quick decision, but they did not have to bow to that pressure by making one, without being in possession of the facts, as it is now 100% clear they were not.
Had they asked for every document, had they insisted on legal affidavits and personal securities from investors (and this would have been perfectly legitimate and is common place in other licensing areas) none of this would have come to pass. After Craig Whyte they had a moral responsibility to the rest of the game to get this one right and their failure is without parallel in the history of Scottish football.
As the club hurtles towards a new abyss, names are cropping up which should send a shudder down the spines of every honest, genuine supporter of not only Rangers but every team in the land. The SFA claims that a strong Rangers is essential for the sake of Scottish football, but they have been extraordinarily lax in protecting that club, and therefore the game, from destructive elements. Craig Whyte and Charles Green had dubious personal histories, and the acquisition of the club itself was mired in controversy and scandal. Yet it was allowed.
Neither Green nor Whyte were known to have operated outside the law, yet neither was worthy of trust or stood up to scrutiny. Neither man should ever have been granted the status as fit and proper persons to assume a role in our national sport, and if it is true of them what can we say about the three men who are, presently, being touted as the Great White Hopes for a bright, new Rangers future; Dave King and the Easdale brothers?
King recently cut a deal with the South African government over an on-going dispute over taxes. In other words, he pled guilty and accepted the central plank of their argument; that for years he was engaged in wilfully with-holding vast revenues from their Treasury. The media does not like to put it like that, and the SFA seems willing to ignore it utterly, and this would be scandalous enough. But it does not stop there. HRMC rules – as well as the SFA’s own governance documents – actually bar him from serving on the board of the new club.
Last but not least, aside from being an admitted tax cheat, King is also awaiting trial in South Africa, having been indicted for corruption, forgery and fraud – 300 charges in total. Yet as recently as last week, we were told that the Association was willing to look at him and consider representations from his lawyers. This is almost beyond belief.
If Dave King’s position is untenable, and he is yet to be convicted of a crime, what can we say about the position of the Easdale’s? One of the two brothers, Sandy, has already served jail time. He is a convicted criminal, a fraudster nonetheless, who’s “victim” was the same Treasury who are appealing one case involving the old club and liquidated it entirely over another. This is precisely the kind of “businessman” the fit and proper person test was supposed to weed out, and if the SFA holds its nose here the reek will stink out the halls at Hampden for decades. If King or the Easdale’s are judged fit and proper, then who exactly is the test for? What exactly do you have to do to fail it? How do we explain the existence of laws, when these are not applied?
Pascal says “Law without force is impotent.” The SFA’s weakness has allowed one version of Rangers to destroy itself, and has allowed an existential risk to another. If the next power at Rangers resides in South Africa or Greenock I can say with some certainty that the Association is engaged in an even more dangerous roll of the dice, because the surfacing of fresh scandal will be an ever present risk, and will be of the sort no-one will survive.
The damage to Scottish football will take years to heal. The Scottish game has been through enough trauma. It does not need more. It barely survived the last calamity to hit Rangers. The rest of us should not be forced to pay the price of the next one.
The greater damage will be done to Rangers itself. If the Green crisis ends in another collapse – as it well might; another administration event is a certainty, and another liquidation is a much more likely prospect than it was before 14 February 2012 – the club will once again have to start from the bottom, and this time the reputational damage will be impossible to repair. The club faces internal strife, sporting sanctions, and criminal investigations. The last takeover might be declared a fraud. the Whyte takeover will almost certainly be. The share issue might be invalid, as well as criminal, and the people involved may well end up in jail. Lawsuits could follow from investors, there could be as yet unknown consequences from the Upper Tier Tax Tribunal (thank you Brogan Rogan for pointing out what those might be) and a host of other issues.
Rangers fans must be the loudest voices here. How do you want the world to view your club in years to come? Do you want one to be proud of, or one forever associated with the shame and disgrace of these days gone by? The one which bailed out on its tax obligations. The one with supporters who disgrace your very name. The one which allowed Whyte and Green to take you to the cleaners and send you to the wall. The one which handed over control to one convicted criminal and another awaiting trial. Do you want to be reborn clean, or mired in the muck?
David Murray destroyed your financial stability. He made it so no bank would issue you a line of credit and no investor of note wanted to buy. Craig Whyte liquidated you. Charles Green has cast the future of the Newco into doubt and acted in a manner which has annihilated your credibility with the financial markets for decades to come.
Between these three men, they have taken everything from you, and the press and the people who run the game here, as well as some of your own blindly ignorant fans, have allowed them to do all this and more. Now they conspire to hand the keys to Ibrox to other men of questionable character, who will wreck further havoc on the reputation of the club.
The Scottish Football Association has damaged the game it was supposed to protect, but above all else their greatest failure of governance was a failure to protect one of its biggest clubs from its own excesses and those of its owners.
Rangers fans, the SFA have betrayed your trust, more than the trust of any other club. What you must insist on now is full disclosure and transparency from the powers that be in Hampden. The SFA has to end the charade of allowing your club to handle this in-house. They must hand everything over to an outside agency – whether a legal one, or a footballing body like UEFA – and they must demand co-operation and answers, and threaten to withhold the license if they don’t get them.
You must not be afraid of that. You must embrace it. The men with their hands on the gears at Ibrox are motivated by money, and nothing more. If the license is withdrawn their “investments” are worthless. They cannot risk that.
You must demand that the rules on fit and proper persons are applied, and where necessary even made stronger, to prevent your club falling into unclean hands. You must demand that they protect your reputation from further damage, by getting this all out there and acting accordingly, even if that means your club does not play football for at least a year.
You must be willing to suck it all up, knowing that what will emerge is a Rangers which has been cleansed and moves forward with honour, and dignity, led by custodians who treasure it rather than those who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
The Rangers Standard has recently emerged as a genuine voice for those in your support who are sick and tired of what Rangers has become, and want it restored to something that is worthy of the love and respect in which you hold it. On that website, there are discussions about the kind of club you seek to be and about whether the institution of Rangers is about more than just football.
If that’s how you feel about it then you know it is about more than how many titles the club can claim, about more than just results on the park, about more than just the game. Rangers, like Celtic, is an idea. It has to be something you are proud of.
I am a socialist, but one with a fevered imagination and a tendency to write very dark things. This piece won’t have been good reading for some of you (perhaps all of you haha!) but I think there’s more hope in here than in other things I’ve written.
In spite of everything that’s come to pass, I still believe. I believe in Scottish football. I believe in our system of football governance, even if those who are working in it are failing on some level.
In society, as much as we strain against them, laws exist for our protection. To fail to enforce them is to leave us at the mercy of those elements who would do us harm. The rules of football ensure the protection of all clubs, not just a few.
The failure to enforce the rules has never had graver consequences than here in Scotland. The irony is that bending and breaking them has hurt the one club those violations were designed to help. It cannot be allowed to happen again.
The rules must be applied without fear or favour.
The best must find their conviction, and their passionate intensity once more.
James is a co-editor of the On Fields of Green Blog http://www.onfieldsofgreen.com/
Night Terror says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 14:37
“Overstating the copious sins of the Ibrox club does not help understanding or accuracy”
————-
Night Terror, I think your post is measured and balanced in the manner that you would wish others to comment. I too have been a bit bemused by the insistence in splitting the two entities Oldco/Newco since as you infer, the handy term Rangers would not seem inappropriate.
I think I am beginning to ‘get it’ now though. I think this is a reaction to the MSM attempts to gloss over lessons that have not been fully assimilated. So I am starting to understand the need for differentiation even if for me, from a purely academic standpoint, the ‘Rangers’ fans would not make the same discrimination.
Without differences of opinion the blog would lose momentum and your discussion with chipmunk is both informative and entertaining. Perhaps over time their will be a convergence of opinion but if we all started off from the same standpoint their would be no need for a meaningful discussion.
vforvernacular says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 15:47
10 5 Rate This
Interesting response to a measured post – at the risk of TDs can I ask of the posters who TD VforV why? I really don’t read much into the TU/TD but in this case I am curious
Night Terror says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 14:47
I think that, on re-reading it, my post lacked clarity. Let me try again.
You said ” he certainly did not say “Rangers “won” the big tax case”.”
If you omit ‘industrial scale’ from his quote it reads “For two years there was certainty that Rangers would be found guilty of cheating, a prejudgment that was proven to be wrong.” That might not actually be ‘saying’ that they won the case, but it certainly implies it.
My point wasn’t really about TH’s statement, it was about yours. You said ” he certainly did not say “Rangers “won” the big tax case”.” which, imo, is only valid if it is run through a filter. The very thing that you were chastising others for doing.
With regard to whether or not the result (sic) of the FTT was “some sort of victory for MIH and Rangers (in liquidation)” I would refer you chipm0nks post at 13.40.
Ok we appear to have duelling leakers,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tqxzWdKKu8
“Truthteller @GersTruth 2h
Please RT
https://soundcloud.com/the-truthteller/conversation-imran-to-mm …
Details
“
scapaflow14 says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 16:12
what a complete and utter farce this is – entertaining though, make a great film, although the actors playing the SFA won’t have to learn many lines.
internetbampots says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 15:53
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/rangers-malcolm-murray-was-fired-by-imran-ahmad-1-2936757
Must have been a fun atmosphere round T ‘ Big Howse for the last 3 months. If Murray knows a lot of what is now being released surely he must come out and speak to the Rangers fans or is it a case of ‘Keep schtum and you’ll get a tidy payoff’ ? People who know him have indicated he is a principled man. I guess we’ll know soon enough.
==================================================================
It may well be that Malcolm Murray is remaining quiet because of his legal obligations to AIM and shareholders as chairman of a publicly quoted company. And the fact that he is a life-long Rangers fan would probably mean that he wishes to minimise damage to his club even when he must be fizzing at the personal smears mounted against him by spivs.
I think his strategy might be to see Green off the premises and if that is the case then he’s playing a blinder. In all of this he appears to be the only one, possibly Cartmell as well, who has acted with any dignity. He is a guy who it appeares to me probably knows he will be forced to fall on his sword. I am confident that in time the true story of his integrity and sacrifice will emerge.
newtz says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 13:07
————————————–
yep, …… but the office of your QC and two doors down ………… Fake It ……..
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course the offices of the QC aren’t there at all. He is in Verulam Buildings in Grays Inn. I’m assuming you are refereing to Merchant Laegal LLP?
scapaflow14 says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 15:04
“Latest from Charlotte – Who Are These People?”
————-
She didn’t take long in disspelling TE’s assertion concerning her true identity.
scapaflow14 says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 16:12
Why does that sound like a set up?
Ticks every sevconian box. Skeptical head on with that one!
Or does it just not tick enough ‘confirmatory bias’ boxes for me today?
Jack Jarvis says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 16:08
You’ve lost me, Jack.
Even if I omit some of Tom’s words, as you suggest I do, I cannot find any basis for disagreement with my original statement that ”he certainly did not say “Rangers “won” the big tax case”.
Maybe I’m unwittingly using a filter that prevents me from understanding the words in front of me, but I cannot reconcile what English actually wrote with the inference you draw.
Tom says: “For two years there was certainty that Rangers would be found guilty of cheating, a prejudgment that was proven to be wrong”
You say: That might not actually be ‘saying’ that they won the case, but it certainly implies it.
I say: Tom certainly did not say “Rangers “won” the big tax case
You’re inferring something from English’s article that I just don’t get, don’t see, and can’t even work out how you see it.
bayviewgold says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 16:03
I didn’t thumb him either way, however I do disagree with what he says.
People simply disagreeing with another person’s expressed opinion is not bullying. I have seen nothing recently which could be considered bullying even by the most sensitive of souls.
If you are referring to the voting system, that just means a lot of people agree or disagree. I have had it happen to me plenty of time. I don’t consider it bullying, people just disagree with something I have said. That’s absolutely fine. People are allowed to be wrong if they want.
Just listened to the Imran/ Malcolm Murray tape . He didn’t sound like the dignified Chairman of The Rangers to me – sounded like a wee boy getting told off by the Headmaster .
Does anyone feel bullied? Not me.
chipm0nk says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 16:32
Total nonsense
scapaflow14 says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 16:12
He’s talking to the Rangers’ chairman as if he were a naughty child, and Murray is accepting it.
That is actually horribly embarrassing for Malcolm Murray.
The boys on FF are convinced that the new leaker is in fact an old leaker, namely, Mr Ahmed. They are not happy, and appear to believe that he has been hawking stuff around the press, with much more to come!
twopanda says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 16:41
===========================
That’s not debate, that’s just bullying.
chipm0nk says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 16:32
Thanks for the response, to be honest – you are correct “bullying” is probably too strong a word, however this is a tendency to try and slant the forum in one direction and avoid any inconvenient dissenting voices or points, no matter how reasoned. for this forum to be accepted as a valid voice of scottish football – we have to debate openly and reach consensus, the petty point scoring should be left to the other fan sites. I do not see any problem with a predominance of CFC fans – as given the numbers each week – they are much larger fan base than my club for instance. However I would like to see more reps from TRFC to get their views and also add legitimacy to TSFM talking as a unified voice for scottish football. I welcome the input by NT, GJ and others as they do question the groupthink. They may not always be correct – but how many on here can say that they are faultless. Anyway back to Peterhead score watching 🙂
Night Terror says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 15:01
…………………………….
So you can be bothered…and you do care….you are fully aware that referring to them as the…’Ibrox club’…gives suggestion to the old club…subtle it is not!
*there is a tendency
paulmac2 says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 16:45
I’m not quite sure what you’re suggesting, paulmac2.
What does “gives suggestion to the old club” mean?
What am I not being subtle about?
Night Terror says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 15:01
paulmac2 says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 14:49
Making explicit which side of that divide you are on in the course of discussion now seems futile to me and a block on constructive discourse.
“The Ibrox Club” helps me avoid this in company of any sort. And here you can see how well it is working for me!
================================================================
Reminds me of ‘The Scottish Play’
scapaflow14 says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 16:44
=====================
They really are revolting.
Dave King seems to be the new messianic figure.
They must be keen on glib and shameless liars. That would be 4 in a row.
Would that be a World record
Night Terror says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 16:51
paulmac2 says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 16:45
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gentlemen – might I respectfully suggest youse are never going to agree, as it’s as intractable an issue as the “bent refs” debate which frequently breaks out on here.
Personally I’m like Mark Guidi on this one and fed up with the oldco/newco “debate”. Rangers fans and the MSM believe its the same club. The rest of us sane people don’t.
Night Terror says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 16:27
You win NT. I know what I mean, but I don’t care anymore if you don’t.
Did Rangers win the big tax case?
Let’s take a man up in court charged with 80 cases of theft. Due to some weird judicial viewpoint he is found not guilty on 75 of them and, due to his circumstances, is unpunished for the 5 that he is found guilty of. Would you find it strange if he went round telling anyone who’d listen that he got off with it. I wouldn’t.
bogsdollox says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 17:06
bogs’ – I’m not even sure what it is paulmac2 is arguing with me about. I can’t agree with a point that is not fully expressed. In that sense, I guess it is indeed intractable.
Jack Jarvis says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 17:10
Thanks. Did you ever?
The old club / new club chestnut is one that will persist for ever. Other Scottish football fans will forever taunt the blue club – ‘You’re a new club and you’ve no got 54 titles or if you say you are the same, pay all the tax and creditors back, you tax cheats’. It will forever be a stick to (metaphorically, of course) beat them with.
One thing thats ticking away at the back of my mind is, did CW really have a plan to crash Rangers from the outset. This was a conjecture of mines last night but it didn’t feel entirely comfortable even when I wrote it.
Why make a £49M contingency if it was never intended to draw upon it?
The clinching factor concerning administration seemed to be the failure to progress in Europe. Whether this should ever have been factored into a business plan, as others have commented, is dubious. However might CW have beleived there was a going concern here. I’m immediately sceptical about my own speculation since CW doesn’t have a track record that I’ve seen for running businesses. I’m led to believe he’s more about mergers, acquisitions and sell on for profit.
What if he did believe he could somehow restructure the clubs finances and sell on thereafter. There were bidders at the time of administration but the big tax case liability scared them off. CW would have had to wait it out until all the levels of HMRC litigation were complete before he could take disregard the £49M contingency.
In that case, was the expectation that the big tax case would be lost at the first hurdle (FTT) and at that stage he would call on the contingency.
That would put the business into huge indebtedness however and made a sell on as difficult as it turned out to be.
I had thought that perhaps Mr Big had set him up with the promise of the £49M knowing that they were never going to honour their promise; then pull the rug out from under him and buy the assets in the same way that CW/CG eventually did. Basically use CW as a patsy.
Who could make that kind of credible promise in the first place. ‘Advance Entertainment’ are the lenders according ton the document Charlotte provided. I can’t immediately find a profile for this company. They must be a well capitalised organisation if they have got £49M to pay other peoples debts. It was going to be secured on future season ticket sales. £18M+ to Ticketus and £49M to Advance Entertainment. That’s an awful lot of season tickets. How viable could this have been. If Ticketus was a three year deal then you might be looking at 12 years worth of season tickets???
Here’s the document again.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/141168170/HoT-Rangers-Tax-Case-Facility-v2
The big tax case may not be resolved for some time so who could afford to keep £49M tucked away for a rainy day, as spare cash if you like. You’d need to have very Big pockets to have that jangling around in loose change at the bottom of them.
Just a few random thoughts to possibly put others minds to work as mines isn’t big enough to suss out this angle on its own.
Night Terror says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 16:51
paulmac2 says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 16:45
I’m not quite sure what you’re suggesting, paulmac2.
………………………………………..
Yes you do.
We are not having an arguement…merely a discussion on why you choose the reference Ibrox club…when referring to the new club
bogsdollox says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 16:25
2 0 Rate This
newtz says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 13:07
————————————–
yep, …… but the office of your QC and two doors down ………… Fake It ……..
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course the offices of the QC aren’t there at all. He is in Verulam Buildings in Grays Inn. I’m assuming you are refereing to Merchant Laegal LLP?
—————————————-
Small World. Craig Whyte doesn’t go far to seek out his legal advice. Merchant Legal LLP who provided the preliminary view on Sevco 5088’s claims has a London office at Aldermary House, 10-15 Queen St, London. EC4N 1TX, shared with the trading address of the Merchant House family of companies and Merchant Legal’s managing partner Alan O’Doherty joined the board of Merchant Strategic Renewal Plc in April 2012 just after Craig Whyte stepped down. Small World indeed.
mullach says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 17:55
…………………………….
I believe the plan may well have been to last until the FTT returned…and at that point there may have been the possibility to rescue the situation with the contingency…however you are correct…the European exit engineered by McCoist blew any possible survival out the water.
For the avoidance of doubt, if the phrase ‘the Ibrox club’ is used post-setting up of the new club, then the clear inference is that it is the current Ibrox club. If you’re referring to the old club and you use language that infers the current club, then of course you will be pulled up and asked to qualify your statement. It would save everyone a lot of time if those who refer to the old club make the distinction by utilising the prefix ‘old’, ‘former’ ‘ex-‘ etc.
paulmac2 says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 18:12
1 0 Rate Down
mullach says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 17:55
…………………………….
I believe the plan may well have been to last until the FTT returned…and at that point there may have been the possibility to rescue the situation with the contingency…however you are correct…the European exit engineered by McCoist blew any possible survival out the water
——————————————————————————————————————–
Allymaggedon??
I’m really struggling to understand why Night Terror gets such a hard time on here.
To me, NT generally sounds pretty objective. Is that a bad thing?
are st johnstone the muirton or mcdairmid club ??
mullach says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 17:55
One thing thats ticking away at the back of my mind is, did CW really have a plan to crash Rangers from the outset. This was a conjecture of mines last night but it didn’t feel entirely comfortable even when I wrote it.
============================================
For me the only part of Whyte’s plan that didn’t work was gaining entry to the SPL, and even then it was only fan power that put a stop to it.
angus1983 says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 18:22
Exactly – who cares? Apparently if you refer to ‘Rangers’, or ‘the Ibrox club’, then you’ve got an agenda. The bottom line is that they finished second in the SPL and yet ‘somehow’ found themselves in the 3rd division, and forced to take part in earlier rounds of the cup. Whether you choose to refer to them as Rangers, The Rangers, Sevco or ‘that club that’s been around since 1872’, then it doesn’t matter, we know who the poster is referring to . The facts still stand, and to get bogged down in naming conventions is a little pathetic, and not that far removed from the ‘Pacific Shelf’-ers that you see on the BBC website comment sections.
We’ve done the new club/old club thing to death on here, and it appears there’s more important stuff afoot than whether someone sticks the definitive article in front of ‘Rangers’.
upthehoops says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 18:45
=========================
Do you think he expected HMRC to reject the CVA.
To me there are two really important and pivotal issues. The CVA rejection and the SPL rejection.
Both were required to prevent a “debt free” club in the SPL.
If the former had been accepted it would be the original Rangers
If the latter had been accepted it would have been the new one.
I always refer to them as Rfc*
people can take the * in any way they like ,new-old-continuing -past – then now forever
they can even think it refers to 1 star for their Div 3 title if it suits them .
For the removal of doubt I will reveal what * means to me
* = shameful
* = conflicted
* = tainted
shameful then conflicted now tainted forever *
SFA*
chipm0nk says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 16:42
He’s talking to the Rangers’ chairman as if he were a naughty child, and Murray is accepting it.
That is actually horribly embarrassing for Malcolm Murray.
————
It’s an odd recording and not at all pleasant listening. I’ve never heard Ahmed’s voice so have no idea if it’s him, and Murray is so garbled that it would be easy to say it’s a fabrication.
But, if genuine, what is the point of the release? Ahmed sounds like an unpleasant bully who wants Mr Murray to stop talking to certain people and organizations. Don’t see how the recording shows Ahmed in a good light. Murray’s reaction was surprising too, somewhat meek for a man in his position of ‘authority’.
* What’s ‘nonsense in the blue room’?
* And why is it so important his walking-wounded status status was partially hidden from Cenkos?
* Or is this just an attempt to muddy the waters?
http://glasgowradio.blogspot.be/2013/04/replay-of-imran-ahmed-from-last-july.html
this is Ahmed* talking to Tommy the taxi driver for a comparison
https://soundcloud.com/the-truthteller/conversation-imran-to-mm
sounds like the same individual to me
upthehoops says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 18:45
mullach says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 17:55
One thing thats ticking away at the back of my mind is, did CW really have a plan to crash Rangers from the outset. This was a conjecture of mines last night but it didn’t feel entirely comfortable even when I wrote it.
============================================
For me the only part of Whyte’s plan that didn’t work was gaining entry to the SPL, and even then it was only fan power that put a stop to it.
=========================================================
I would only add that the failure to then get into SFL1 after not making the SPL was also a killer blow in terms of cash flow.
I have often felt with CW – without any hard evidence – that originally he was probably paid to do a job to crash the club and step aside and let others pick it up really cheaply and debt free of course. But I think he too is another victim of Rangeritis and once inside the Blue Room and Directors Box then fantasy land took over and possibly be truly believed he could pull it off.
timtim says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 19:37
2 0 Rate This
http://glasgowradio.blogspot.be/2013/04/replay-of-imran-ahmed-from-last-july.html
this is Ahmed* talking to Tommy the taxi driver for a comparison
——
Thanks timtim. You’re right, close similarity. Still don’t see the point of its release though. If this is The Sun’s recording then their line is its come from allies of Ahmed and Green. If its to discredit MM by insinuation that he’s been filmed misbehaving you’ve got to wonder what that misbehaviour was – a boozy rendition of “My Father’s Rash Was Sore”, or, telling some home truths about Charles and his ‘little swarthy friend’?
ecobhoy says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 19:52
0 0 Rate This
I would only add that the failure to then get into SFL1 after not making the SPL was also a killer blow in terms of cash flow.
=================================================================
I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. It’s actually amazing to think the people who tried to enforce that scenario are still at the head of the footballing authorities in this country. Truly amazing indeed.
areyouaccusingmeofmendacity says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 18:50
………………………………………………..
Not sure why you are getting your under garments so twisted…it was a fairly light discussion based around NT’s stand point…that he could not be bothered…only to then adopt a reference that displayed he could be bothered…in effect suggesting his point of view may not be as honest as he/she portrays…
The naming thing was not the real issue…but I guess you may have missed that before dropping in with both feet…
On media voices again, Stuart Cosgrove’s damning description of the culture of avoidance among Scottish football authorities (on taking decisions) is really worth listening to (yesterday’s Sportsound Extra podcast between 5.25m to 7.55m).
Good discussion of the Hearts issue too.
Danish Pastry says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 21:07
=============================================
Cosgrove’s savaging of the authorities was spot on. I do wish however he had also posed the question if decisions are only hard to make depending on which club is involved.
paulmac2 says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 18:12
“I believe the plan may well have been to last until the FTT returned…and at that point there may have been the possibility to rescue the situation with the contingency…however you are correct…the European exit engineered by McCoist blew any possible survival out the water.”
————–
upthehoops says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 18:45
“For me the only part of Whyte’s plan that didn’t work was gaining entry to the SPL, and even then it was only fan power that put a stop to it”.
————–
chipm0nk says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 19:02
“Do you think he expected HMRC to reject the CVA.
To me there are two really important and pivotal issues. The CVA rejection and the SPL rejection.
Both were required to prevent a “debt free” club in the SPL.
If the former had been accepted it would be the original Rangers
If the latter had been accepted it would have been the new one.
————-
ecobhoy says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 19:52
“I would only add that the failure to then get into SFL1 after not making the SPL was also a killer blow in terms of cash flow.
I have often felt with CW – without any hard evidence – that originally he was probably paid to do a job to crash the club and step aside and let others pick it up really cheaply and debt free of course. But I think he too is another victim of Rangeritis and once inside the Blue Room and Directors Box then fantasy land took over and possibly be truly believed he could pull it off”.
————
There seems to be a majority view above that losing SPL status was pivotal.
I can see that due to the resulting loss in revenue (prize money, European competition) this would be the case.
I do recall also from Charlotte’s documents that there had been a hope of doing a ‘commercial’ deal with HMRC. Here’s Charlotte’s documents relating such :
http://www.scribd.com/doc/142089135/Duff-and-Phelps-Advice
It is a long and detailed exchange (from April 2011) but the jist of it concerning HMRC is that big tax case liability might be limited to some extent.
In scrolling through this two other things caught my eye.
1. Security on season tickets was thought to survive a CVA. I recall D&P went to court to challenge Ticketus right in this regard. David Grier of MCR (bought over by D&P I believe), is copied into the salient e:mail. The phrase “need to stress” was used which suggests a liberal use of the facts.
2. Earliest e:mail talks abour ‘doomsday scenario’ of bank putting company into administration and their subsequent ability to nominate MCR as administrators.
I can see that D&P (ex MCR) appointment as administrators would have increased the chance of a CVA being agreed (if that had ‘ever’ been the plan). So your remark chipmunk ‘Do you think he expected HMRC to reject the CVA’ resonates.
So they possibly had their own crash rehearsed. Persuaded Ticketus to give them the money. Plan was then to crash and stiff Ticketus.
Exit from Europe meant club liquidity dried up. HMRC then stepped in when PAYE/NIC didn’t get paid. ‘Doomsday scenario’ was not instigated by the banks but nevertheless they got their chioce of administrator.
So that suggests the £49M contingency was only there to give comfort to Ticketus.
But the Big tax case debt could have and still could, fall liable. So would CVA ‘ever’ have been an option. Surely they were looking to stiff HMRC as well as Ticketus.
That’s why HMRC jumped in when they did.
If HMRC did have their size 9’s on and spectacles clean then the only reason they would not have challenged D&P’s appointment is because they wanted to catch them in the BDO net. I understood at the time HMRC could have applied to nominate their own administrator but were willing to accept CW’s nominee.
Good work by HMRC. How did they know?
a. They are clever and diligent guys and have been watching these crooks for some time.
b. Someone tipped them off.
For some reason I’m thinking now that the crash was on the cards from the beginning. That D&P new this and were party to the whole scam. We might not get written evidence of this as it may have been too sensitive to put into writing.
So how far has the cancer spread. BDO? HMRC?
Thanks for your responses. I may not have used all your input but it was enough to set my hare running.
I now finally appreciate many on the conversations that took place on RTC.
IF someone tipped them off…..?
Danish Pastry says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 19:28
“And why is it so important his walking-wounded status status was partially hidden from Cenkos”
————
I love an inquisitive mind DP.
Could Malcolm Murray be the fall guy for AIM failure. If he has reassured Cenkos and Cenkos job is to reassure AIM, then MM talking to Cenkos might confirm any suspicions (put on record) they might be gaining that they are looking at ‘Scamsville Central’.
Cenkos might be part of the nudge nudge, wink wink brigade but the ability to distance themselves from the stinking mess and point to MM and say ‘He did it’, might be just the firebreak they require.
The audio suggests MM may not be in the right frame of mind to fight his corner, which is perfect for the spivs.
Feel a bit sorry for MM. Rangers man who possibly didn’t realise what he was getting involved in. Blind allegiance to the club. Spivs have used this characteristic throughout to their advantage.
If this scenario holds any water and Ahmad had already set the timer for his departure, would this be the event that would trigger a sudden blaze of some description.
Are the Easdales the new generation of dupables?
mullach says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 21:38
“The audio suggests MM may not be in the right frame of mind to fight his corner”
MM sounds as if he is ” tired and emotional” and IA sounds as if he is taking advantage of the situation. Altogether a very embarrassing exchange for Murray , I can’t see him continuing after this .
mullach says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 21:38
1 0 Rate This
… The audio suggests MM may not be in the right frame of mind to fight his corner, which is perfect for the spivs.
Feel a bit sorry for MM. Rangers man who possibly didn’t realise what he was getting involved in. Blind allegiance to the club. Spivs have used this characteristic throughout to their advantage …
———–
I see. Very interesting theory on MM as a patsy @mullach. Of course, that little plot, if it existed, has surely been undermined by recent releases of other documents & audio?
As pointed out earlier on here, Alex Thomson on twitter is indicating there may be legal reasons for the no-comment on the CF revelations by football authorities. He doesn’t seem too willing to discuss them, at least not yet.
PS Apologies for the misspelling of Ahmad’s name in previous posts.
mullach says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 21:25
====================
It’s simpler than that.
Craig Whyte said that he might have to put the business into administration, but that would be within a couple of weeks. If I remember rightly he did that on the steps of Ibrox.
HMRC immediately petitioned for administration, and Rangers contested that.
HMRC fought the case and a compromise was offered. That Rangers could pick the administrator.
HMRC agreed, so long as it happened that day, and Rangers paid their costs. Rangers really had no option but to agree.
However, that made it much easier for HMRC to reject the CVA. If they had appointed the administrator it would have looked pretty off if they had subsequently rejected his CVA proposal. There was never any chance they were going to OK it, for a variety of reasons. The amount of money they were going to get was not one of them.
HMRC’s action at liquidation was entirely different. They basically said we will be picking the liquidator, that is all.
Craig Whyte had planned a controlled administration, on his timescale, with a pre planned outcome and costs. We have seen the correspondence confirming this. The deal was a debt free Rangers, which he owned 85% of, playing in the SPL. I very much doubt he would have stayed much after that. He would have done his job, cleaned the club up, and then sold it on. He would have been the villain who put them into administration, however he would have walked away with a tidy pay day.
His alternative became the Sevco 5088 option. We all know how that worked out.
Just so we are clear, in my opinion HMRC’s route of choice was Ranger’s being liquidated. That is as clear as the nose on your face and their statement confirmed it. BDO are now doing their work for them.
RM not happy at signing of Jon Daly
“Doesn’t matter, he’s 30 now so that means he’s finished. I can’t think of one single footballer who did anything of note after they hit the big three-oh. ”
Hmmmmm …. Lubo?
Thanks chipmunk
Danish Pastry says: Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 21:07
On media voices again, Stuart Cosgrove’s damning description of the culture of avoidance among Scottish football authorities (on taking decisions) is really worth listening to (yesterday’s Sportsound Extra podcast between 5.25m to 7.55m).
Good discussion of the Hearts issue too.
================================
You might see it as a good discussion on Hearts, but both the panel and the callers are badly uninformed.
Graham Spiers thinks Hearts will receive a 17 point reduction at the start of next season. It would be 18 points this season or 15 points next season
The caller who says UBIG own 40% was wrong. They own 79%, although that should be diluted a little on Thursday, when the AGM actually gets round to allotting the shares that the fans bought in December.
One thing that no one has mentioned is the fact that the “Group Undertaking” rule change only took place on 1st July 2012. Given the LNS ruling on RFC was based on 4 different sets of rules in force at the time. Hence Hearts should not be accountable for any issues related to UBIG prior to July last year. (Incidentally, Hearts have operated independently of UBIG since January 2012).
Not one pundit has actually articulated or questioned what the SPL intended by way of the rule on “Group Undertakings”. Is it just to cover a straight forward business failure experienced by the owner. In that case if Stewart Milne’s house building business went bust would that mean that Aberdeen would be deemed to have suffered an insolvency event, or Hibs with Tom Farmers Tyres and Exhaust business. That doesn’t make sense.
My interpretation would be that the rule was established to capture the “Holding Companies” set-up with their primary business as operating a football club, e.g. RIFC, or Celtic PLC. Additionally I would expect parent companies who provide payments, loans, capital injections, debt forgiveness, DFE swaps etc., to also be targeted.
UBIG would fall into the second category, but I believe that Hearts would argue that the had not received any financial assistance from UBIG since the rule change was implemented last July. If the SPL Board seek to implement a points reduction, I would expect a legal challenge from Hearts, so it could get very messy.
The Group Undertaking rule itself is far too vague and open to interpretation, thus legal challenge is likely. I understand the SPL’s desire to allow them flexibility, but I think that it would help both the SPL Board and the Clubs is the rule was much more concise as I outlined above. Indeed it should be possible for clubs to know in advance of a season, the exposure they have should their parent company suffer an insolvency event.
enoughx2 says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 22:25
RM not happy at signing of Jon Daly
“Doesn’t matter, he’s 30 now so that means he’s finished. I can’t think of one single footballer who did anything of note after they hit the big three-oh. ”
———–
http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/225992-dundee-uniteds-jon-daly-confirms-he-will-sign-deal-with-rangers/
says he’s being offered a 3 year deal…but the 3rd year [part] is dependent on the results of a scan, to determine if long term problems envisaged.
“errrrm…sorry mr daly…we’ve found a grey bit on your x-ray.”
“i’ve not got my specs with me at the moment.”
“there it is there…next to the black bit and the white bit…errrm, sorry…c ya”
easyJambo says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 22:42
“My interpretation would be that the rule was established to capture the “Holding Companies” set-up with their primary business as operating a football club, e.g. RIFC, or Celtic PLC. Additionally I would expect parent companies who provide payments, loans, capital injections, debt forgiveness, DFE swaps etc., to also be targeted.”
Easyjambo,
it does not seem straightforward, if at all possible, to differentiate for the purposes of these rules, between the owner and operator company that is of the RIFC type, and the others.
enoughx2 says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 22:25
RM not happy at signing of Jon Daly
“Doesn’t matter, he’s 30 now so that means he’s finished. I can’t think of one single footballer who did anything of note after they hit the big three-oh. ”
Hmmmmm …. Lubo?
——
Gordon Strachan springs to mind … Dino Zoff, Jim Leighton and Buffon were/are goalies who last a bit longer, right enough. Mr Beckham, maybe? Beckenbauer? Diego Forlan, World Cup Golden Ball winner at 31, Roma stalwart Totti, Ibrahimovic, Puyol, Villa and Xavi, Pirlo, Giggs …
Angus….what about Davie Weir?
easyJambo says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 22:42
‘…both the panel and the callers are badly uninformed..’
—–
I am taken aback, eJ, at the idea that you thought that the Radio Scotland (McIntyre, Spiers and co) panel might have been anything but hopelessly uninformed!
They were absolutely all at sea, with no nocean of any actual facts ( such as share ownership, or the changes in SPL rules and dates thereof) that are easily ascertainable.
I freely confess that I myself don’t know many facts about the financial set-up at Hearts.
But then I am not a journalist, or a BBC- fee-grasping pretendy imitation of one.
I do know that there will be an enormous cry of ‘Foul’ from all quarters in the Scottish Football world if there is the least smidgeon of suspicion that Heart of Midlothian will be treated harshly under the ‘rules’ without any degree of latitude, when the ‘authorities’ have already bent and broken the rules to accommodate a brand new applicant club.
A club which masquerades as the club that was killed by its greedy, grasping, deceitful.owners, and which itself is in process of going down the tubes because of the machinations of the spivs and bandits that are fighting for control of what had been the assets of the dead club.
As said before, when the ‘Authority’ has itself treated its own ‘laws’ with contempt, it has by definition, lost its moral authority.
The SFA is gefickt.
Who is able to put it to rights?
I use `Ibrox` with or without `club` frequently. There is `Ibrox` and there is a `club` – where`s the obfuscation?. By using `Ibrox` there`s no condoning of what they`ve done – or doing – or any denial the oldco is in the process of being wound up and dissolved – nor any idea / inference / allusion whatsoever that nothing has changed. None at all.
Some people trying to raise creative open discussion – are being railroaded on TSFM
Getting to you could blog about the weather on TSFM – but receive v bitter ripostes on liquidation history.
WE don`t need a hobby horse to know what`s what. We followed the CVA/HMRC timeline and facts
The obfuscation comes from RFC>RFC2012PLC>TRFC>RIFC – We don`t know what to properly call it.
There`s TWO companies [2 profit centres] newly registered for heaven’s sake – what more proof is needed that it`s different?
.
That liquidation bit is done – probably one of the few certainties in this fracas. Liquidation is signed off in the Court of Session – It is the `Official` Legal Status – The Law of the Land – There can be no doubt.
.
.
There`s real action on the go at the moment – but some recent posts repetitively harking back to liquidation can only be described as deliberate agenda setting for the TSFM Blog – or naïve.
Best if it stays creative on here and the vast majority are & `on the ball`.
Danish Pastry says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 19:28
“And why is it so important his walking-wounded status status was partially hidden from Cenkos”
===============================================================
It might be as simple as the fact that if Cenkos were officially informed then, as Nomads, they would need to have informed AIM with a notice issued. That could have set a lot of hares running which they didn’t want. It’s hard to ignore the strong possibility IMO that both Green and Ahmad ‘engineered’ their departure from Rangers for purposes as yet unknown.
I don’t think it should ever be overlooked that the Easdales were promised at least one seat on the board by Green and they may well have been pushing hard for that to be implemented. And they weren’t out in the Far East they were just 30 minutes down the road.
But I keep getting dragged back to a timing issue where Green and Ahmad wanted out before MM was confirmed as ‘leaving’ although he had already been effectively sacked. That might fit to an extent with the theory that MM would appear as the ‘fall-guy’ but he certainly wasn’t going to be about sticking his nose in during the critical end game period.
One can only hope that Stockbridge as Finance Director would have carried out his duties in a professional way during this time because of the various pressures being exerted and what looks like general chaos at board level.
However, it would appear that MM after the phone conversation with Ahmad found some backbone or support from somewhere and just refused to go. He might still have been intending to leave after the end of the season or even in June after his Institutional Investors were able to sell their shares.
But everything has accelerated and now the STs might be affected and if that’s the case is there any point hanging about for what might be a very reduced cash pot? So the big question is I reckon – what is the position with Ibrox and Auchenhowie?
easyJambo says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 22:42
5 0 Rate This
Danish Pastry says: Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 21:07
On media voices again, Stuart Cosgrove’s damning description of the culture of avoidance among Scottish football authorities (on taking decisions) is really worth listening to (yesterday’s Sportsound Extra podcast between 5.25m to 7.55m).
Good discussion of the Hearts issue too.
================================
You might see it as a good discussion on Hearts, but both the panel and the callers are badly uninformed.
————-
@easyjambo, good in the sense that it was actually discussed at length, and not as a side issue to the Rangers mess. Mr Spiers is not someone whom I pay a lot of attention to, so taking him out of the equation, I thought it threw up issues for us who are still at the Hearts Financials for Dummies stage. But if SC is right about the avoidance culture his hunch of a points penalty applied next season might come into play. Or no penalty at all.
By the way, I thought another caller challenged the 40% figure and also mentioned that the club’s debt could potentially be bought up by another company, leaving the club self-sufficient with manageable debt on a trimmed back budget.
Tapegate in DR, https://o.twimg.com/2/proxy.jpg?t=HBgpaHR0cHM6Ly90d2l0cGljLmNvbS9zaG93L2xhcmdlL2NydDZ2bi5qcGcUkAMUrAIAFgASAA&s=sbB-Bs_s-ITvNA44_RNq2fjNqfbsAUuQ1ObNNJWTE5o
chipm0nk says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 19:02
6
upthehoops says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 18:45
=========================
Do you think he expected HMRC to reject the CVA.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes but it was important to go for it to appease the fans. Don’t forget CW has form for stiffing HMRC – they’re like them wotchamacallits – you know them big grey things with trunks – they never forget.
Re the £49M facility to pay off the big tax case – I think it was just talk to get the deal through and demonstrate to the seller that there was a plan. As to who the “lender” might have been well there’s nothing to stop CW setting up yet another company is there? But as Mullach says maybe there was a Mr Big behind the scenes.
As an aside – I’m impressed with this relatively new boarder Mullach. His leadership qualities have developed very quickly and despite professing to having no “skillz” in the corporate big bizness field he has acquired some very quickly. Keep it up mate.
angus1983 says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 18:22
I’m really struggling to understand why Night Terror gets such a hard time on here.
To me, NT generally sounds pretty objective. Is that a bad thing?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No it’s not a bad thing it is vital to the health of this blog.
He is a very “robust” poster very much like the Aberdeen posters on here he really provides some non West of Scotland insight on various matters which I find valuable. It looks to me that some of the Celtic minded posters find it difficult to deal with and I can understand that.
paradisebhoy says:
Sunday, May 19, 2013 at 21:57
I agree with you thoughts on MM performance. In some ways it reminds of times in the past where I’ve had to discipline staff and you know straight away in some cases that the individual is not taking in what you are telling them. I’m thinking of one particular scenario where I was informing my Assistant Manager that she had two choices, I was either going to sack her for gross misconduct or she stepped down from her role immediately and took a non managerial role. Her brain had somehow shut down and I knew that what I was telling her was not registering, a few hours later she had a moment where it hit her like a train. For his level of experience I would have thought that he would have had more spunk and been sharper in his thought process and responses.
paulsatim says:
Monday, May 20, 2013 at 00:24
2
0
Rate This
Tapegate in DR, https://o.twimg.com/2/proxy.jpg?t=HBgpaHR0cHM6Ly90d2l0cGljLmNvbS9zaG93L2xhcmdlL2NydDZ2bi5qcGcUkAMUrAIAFgASAA&s=sbB-Bs_s-ITvNA44_RNq2fjNqfbsAUuQ1ObNNJWTE5o
______________________________________________________________
Ow! (top left)
twas a good season nevertheless. Congrats to St.J. Last 2 games were a game too far for Caley. And todays match was a shocker for football, after the quality that we have put out this season on bus drivers wages.
Crackin season though.
I was at the County game. But we stayed till 10 mins after the final whistle and we took our medicine. I think Derek Adams is due his gloating, and I am happy to have given him a full away end to do it in front off!
I say again this is armageddon, Hell is heaven!
What a season!
Caley are a financially responsible club with a business model that works. 1 place above county. Thats the target for next season!
resin_lab_dog says:
Monday, May 20, 2013 at 00:43
0
0
Rate This
_______________________
forgot to add…
“The highlands are ours!”….
bogsdollox says:
Monday, May 20, 2013 at 00:28
‘…As an aside – I’m impressed with this relatively new boarder Mullach..’
——-
Me too.
Not least because he/she has clearly taken the trouble to read her/himself in to the blog, which some newish posters don’t seem to do.
But ( and, oh, the damage done by those who have destroyed our innocent enjoyment of fair competition and turned us all into hard-questioning sceptics!), the thought occurs: is Mullach a former poster under a different moniker?
Some of my favourite posters from RTC days ‘disappeared’ on the changeover to TSFM.
I miss them.
I’d like to think that mullach was one of them, now returned to the fold!
bogsdollox says:
Monday, May 20, 2013 at 00:28
Aw shucks bogsdollox. Thanks.