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/
Strong hint from AT that somebody (MSM or other ?) is going with story …
alex thomson@alextomo
@Dotsy1978 merely reporting what I’ve seen
CtH released QC’d LBC on 18th, so strange that AT reporting now …. see above
Charlotte Fakeovers@CharlotteFakes18 May
Ah, here’s some legal opinions on the merits of the claim dated 22 March 2013 http://www.scribd.com/doc/142204728/Letter-on-Worthington-Claims-Final …
#GoingNative ?
newtz says:
Sunday, May 26, 2013 at 22:51
“some possibilities ….”
—————
We are living in ‘interesting’ times.
newtz says:
Sunday, May 26, 2013 at 22:51
A wind up for BBC/CMcL
An attempt to prompt a reaction from BBC/CMcL
Too much wine tonight …. !
=======================
For those without twitter or those who can’t see the original tweets and for the avoidance of any doubt, the comments about BBC/RFC reply are mine and have NOT been tweeted by Alex Thomson.
I did tweet this though 🙂
Forres Dee @ForresDee 2h
@BBCchrismclaug When can we expect your/RFC reply to @alextomo tweets about the LBA?
Forres Dee (@ForresDee) says:
Sunday, May 26, 2013 at 23:35
—————————————–
Nice one ….
sorry for any confusion … you did introduce the BBC/CMcL angle …… #Appropriate
newtz says:
Sunday, May 26, 2013 at 23:30
“alex thomson@alextomo…#GoingNative”?
—————–
Charlotte Fakeovers @CharlotteFakes 18 May
Pinsent Mason deadline expired yesterday without a formal response from Whyte and others. Full and explosive QC’d LBC in 5-10 days instead.
—————–
I’m going to drop the qualifications ‘alleged’, ‘purported’, ‘unauthenticated’ when describing Charlotte’s input from now on to save on keyboard wear. The individuals indicated in the various pieces of information have had ample time to expose them as fakes or issue denials and have thus far failed to do so. If the documentation was less substantial and incriminating then the tactic of not dignifying it with a response might be credible. However we have seen from the MSM reaction to other leaked material that the lack of reaction suggests quite the opposite.
Charlotte’s timescale puts Letter Before Claim release at end of last week or beginning of this. Alex Thomson’s intervention may not be mere coincidence I suggest. The dam is creaking under the strain. How much more water can be taken onboard before gravity takes its eventual toll.
And the band played on.
mullach says:
Sunday, May 26, 2013 at 23:56
—————————————–
Interesting times indeed ……
Will PM cede to delay … ?
Have they already delivered interim to RIFC for last Fri board mtg … ? …. BBC leak … ?
Do they need to get RIFC consent to further delay … and costs… ?
Will CW claims be accepted …. without interjection of courts … ?
There may be a piece of evidence that we are not aware of that clears CG … !
Interesting times indeed …
Reading that CMcL BBC piece of churnalism again, a little more critically.
“bbc UNDERSTANDS that Charles Green will be cleared of having CLOSE links with Whyte.”
So leaving aside that the BBC may have misunderstood (on account of Gym Traynor’s atrocious diction… since no sources were disclosed it has not been possible to verify this aspect) it may be concluded that the dealings that took place between Whyte and Green weren’t ‘close’.
That’s a relief. Good to know they didn’t get as far as the conjugals eh Chris? There’s an image of cruelty to bears . … Unless it was like one of those Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinski 3rd base vs home run misunderstandings?
Nope. Purely platonic in their dealings, Green and Whyte, I am sure.
Business-like even. Maybe they mainly dealt with each other lawyers or through companies, or an intermediary… Aiden Earley for example. But never without a chaperone.
Anyhow: I have a scrabble dictionary here and a pin. Looky. here… some other words Chris could have chosen to use but didn’t.
– Inappropriate.
– Secret.
– Clandestine.
– Financial.
– Dubious
– Any
– Business
– Sinister
His twitter feed seems to suggest ‘no’ links… but I am guessing thats a 140 character limit thing…easily excused… because, otherwise… well how did CG get CW’s shares off him then? Found them in a carrier bag at the bottom of the marble staircase on his way to the gents, perhaps?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22658309
torrejohnbhoy(@johnbhoy1958) says:
Sunday, May 26, 2013 at 14:59
Souness joined Rangers in 1986, and left in 1991 as far as I am aware.
Rangers started using EBTs in 2000. Again as far as I am aware.
He received his EBT payment in 2001. Ten years after he had left the club.
No-one has ever explained, or even asked particularly loudly as far as I am aware, what his payment through an EBT was for. Particularly as the E stands for Employee.
=====================================
When Mark Daly,I think, opined that someone should ask Souness why he received an EBT payment 10 years after leaving RFC,did RTC not say the someone should ask him about “multiple” payments received?.
Maybe Mr Souness is the RFC version of Arrys Dug!
Funny how Gillespie,Whyte,Murray(David) all seem to have been involved with mining and steel in Lanarkshire but claim to have never met.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When RTC talks about multiple payments they need not have been made through the EBT of course and you are right to query why he should beneit from an EBT many years after leaving the club.
What were the findings of the City of London Police as regards their investigation? Genuine question because I don’t know – were there prosecutions?
resin_lab_dog says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 01:01
His twitter feed seems to suggest ‘no’ links… but I am guessing thats a 140 character limit thing…easily excused… because, otherwise… well how did CG get CW’s shares off him then? Found them in a carrier bag at the bottom of the marble staircase on his way to the gents, perhaps?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CG has already admitted to stiffing CW by telling him what he wanted to hear, so he admits there are links. Charlie didn’t need the shares at all – but then he knew that. But those are not the “business” links that are being suggested.
If I was a Pinset MASONS partner I would demand the full paper work to review. I would demand those Deloitte hound accountants set their noses to the ground and do their numbers wizardry. I would quiz the lot of them face to face. And I would sub contract some private eyes to dig a bit deeper – as don’t want any surprises or embarrassment.
But let’s be clear – Whyte and Green & Ahmed didn’t talk. The paperwork was there for all to see. But since when did spivs put pen to paper. The important stuff that exists is outside the channels that PM have access too.(emails. texts and more often than not telecons)
Seems there was great gnashing of teeth in the TRFC Twitter world yesterday – there was a banner at Hampden that as you can see says Achill Island CSC
https://twitter.com/BkHazard/status/338707899473866752/photo/1
Many folks misread this with their blue specs to read Islam CSC and launched a frenzy of messages
https://twitter.com/CelticTalk/status/338721496178495488/photo/1
Shame that people have nothing better to be offended about – its not as is there is anything worth getting worked up about or anything needing questions/answers at Ibrokes nowadays is it………….
Exiled Celt@The_Exiled_Celt
@GrahamSpiers @TomEnglishSport @alextomo Why did Souness have an EBT? Anyone asking him? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18148818 … #whatdidhedotoearnit
Exiled Celt
Exiled Celt Exiled Celt @The_Exiled_Celt 1m
@GrahamSpiers @TomEnglishSport @alextomo He left in 1991 and was not an Employee – what was this “payment” of 30K for? Was there more paid?
Re-the Souness EBT issue. For me the question that should really be asked is why he saw fit to pay £8.5M for Boumsong six months after he was available for a free? This was a player who had not lived up to his hype with Rangers, for whom it was a most profitable deal at a time they were truly feeling the pinch financially.
upthehoops says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 06:07
Re-the Souness EBT issue. For me the question that should really be asked is why he saw fit to pay £8.5M for Boumsong six months after he was available for a free? This was a player who had not lived up to his hype with Rangers, for whom it was a most profitable deal at a time they were truly feeling the pinch financially.
*****
As well as signing Boumsong, remember the players from RFC while at Blackburn (Amaruso. Feguson and Tugay), Souness always seemed to be able to help SDM out when the money got tight at RFC-NIL
Interesting piece I saw here
Souness is perhaps best remembered at Southampton for signing Senegalese player Ali Dia, supposedly on the recommendation of former FIFA World Player of the Year and former Liberian striker George Weah. Souness did not check any of Dia’s supposed credentials, and this subsequently proved to be a hoax, instigated by Dia’s agent (who had made the initial call). When Dia played his only game in the Premier League as a substitute for Matt Le Tissier, he performed amazingly poorly, and was later substituted himself after only 20 minutes on the field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeme_Souness
upthehoops says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 06:07
3 0 Rate This
Re-the Souness EBT issue. For me the question that should really be asked is why he saw fit to pay £8.5M for Boumsong six months after he was available for a free? This was a player who had not lived up to his hype with Rangers, for whom it was a most profitable deal at a time they were truly feeling the pinch financially.
———
From a free to an £8.5m player within six months?
On the other hand, £8.5m can’t be that much really; after all, these days it would only be enough to pay the brilliant minds and moral guardians of the Scottish game for a year and a bit. Edinburgh might have trams, but we’ve got the Gravy Train in Glasgow 😀
The Souness/Ali Dia thing – What I don’t get is why Souness pitched him straight into the game. I mean, surely he would have observed him in training, and thought ‘Christ, I haven’t seen a performance that bad since Graeme Sharp last played for Scotland!’
Has anyone asked him about that either, or do people just not ask Souness questions at all?
In fact, the more I think about the Ali Dia thing, the more it doesn’t add up. It seems the press were all too eager to go ‘Ha-ha, he’s been duped. What a fool.’ and then move on – why would a normally rational football manager do something like that? Something that would go against any normal match preparation?
You’d expect to see a player in training, if only to observe their fitness if nothing else, surely?
Exiled Celt (@The_Exiled_Celt) says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 03:44
7 0 Rate This
Seems there was great gnashing of teeth in the TRFC Twitter world yesterday – there was a banner at Hampden that as you can see says Achill Island CSC …
———
It’s turned twitter into the funniest thing this morning. Some of the tweets (being re-tweeted) by Celtic Underground and Phil Mac are absolutely hilarious. We’ve got, ‘Halal, Halal we are the Silly Boys’, Chris Burka signing for Celtic, and The Sevconian Verses by C. Graham – ‘a fat-wan be upon him’. If ye need a titter I’d recommend it!
Funnily enough, when I glanced the banner I thought it was a supporters group from Iceland (spelt ‘Island’ over here), which I thought was kind of cool. But there you go, what the heart is full of, and all that …
Re souness / boumsong
The wrong question is being asked re the ebt. You should look at who got what out of the transfer fee. Anyone with contacts in the north east should be able to get the details.
And the perceived problem with an “Islam” CSC was what, exactly?
:unsure:
I posted the following in the funding page but thought that they might be worth including here aswell. If TSFM deems otherwise, he can delete them.
If the site wants to be taken seriously as TSFM opposed to TRFCM then it´ll have to widen it´s horizon´s and not focus 90% of the time on matters Rangers.
This site was born from the RTC site and it was natural that this would happen.
I accept that the amount of material coming from the Rangers situation is more than the rest of Scottish football combined but find that events such as Dunfermlines problems get disproportionately scant attention. Even the woes at Tyncastle involving one of the biggest teams in the country are largely passed over.
Against that, you have freedom of choice, that posters simply debate what they want to and if that is Rangers then so be it. This brings us back to the question of what this site is really about, Scottish football or Rangers and a wee bit of the rest.
I think a board has to accept what it really is and not pretend to be something else.
The principle is good and the MSM need to be forced to up their game and be pushed towards objectivity, just as society beyond Scottish football needs similar.
However I have reservations about the points made above and although difficult, efforts should be made to somehow balance output.
———————-
This thread is about funding and although not directly connected, the point I was making above is that to go forward and request funding/look for sponsership the blog should be what it purported to be, namely an all-inclusive Scottish football blog.
You raise a point that supports my previous post, ie. the old/new Rangers debate.
I think that to continue with this in a relentless way nearly a year down the road, to go down the Sevco road of dig´s and for it to be widely accepted that jokes or similar can be made continuously on this subject show´s the blog up for what it really is.
A continuation of RTC used mainly by Celtic supporters on the case of Rangers, creating an partizan enviroment where Rangers supporters won´t often participate.
Just had a look at the last few posts and they back up my point.
Are they about Dunfermline, Hearts, League reconstruction or the Cup Finals, No !
They are about Souness/EBT and Twitter messages that include “Turns out the zombies can’t read”.
Now Rangers are the big news story, of that there is little doubt but if the blog wants to be seen as a debating chamber of worth you need to have more than one side debating.
If you want to call yourself TSFM opposed to TRFCM and present your case for funding then something has to be done to address this.
I appreciate in the world of Scottish football this is difficult and unfortunately sometimes you just have to accept how things are.
john clarke says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 09:18
Rate This
Bringing some earlier posts (on the Funding blog) together,
I agree with
– greenock jock, that objectivity in the matter of fact-finding and reporting is critical if the stated aim of the blog is the monitoring of Scottish Football
I agree with jim larkin, that it is still necessary absolutely to nail the whole truth of the causes of RFC’s demise, the cover-ups and hasty re-arrangemnets made by the football authorities to prevent that demise if possible, and their continuing refusal to come clean about the 5-way agreement, their refusal to mount their own full scale enquiry, their readiness to keep highly conflicted personnel in office etc etc.
I agree with redlichtie, that funding for the blog should be sought from Supporters Direct, who get government funding but who have been singularly silent and inept in face of the crisis occasioned by the misdeeds of one club and the failure of the authorities both to act properly before the crisis, and their readiness to act improperly after the crisis broke.
As I and others have said repeatedly, the real problem lay, and lies, in the perception at least that the Board of the SFA for reasons unconnected with football governance ,treasured and valued one particular club to the point of concealing its deepest faults and protecting it when those faults resulted in its market crash and dissolution.
There has not been anything like the same desperation to help Dunfermline or HMFC, or any
club previously in difficulty.
Supporters Direct can waffle on about fan-ownership, getting public money to do so.
Let them begin to tackle the questions that this blog tackles, or, fan-ownership or not, they will onlyhelp perpetuate the corruption of our sport.
All the noise about this banner at the cup final isn’t covering anyone is glory.
The scores of TRFC supporters need to have a word with themselves. Anyone who who can’t seem to distinguish between a banner that they mistakenly think is from a muslin supporters group and a banner glorifying extremism are going to have problems seeing normal peaceful muslims as ordinary people.
Congrats to Celtic on a deserved win. Hard luck to Hibs.
angus1983 says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 08:54
Its all about the rather pathetic and more than a little offensive Celtic as Palestine and Rangers as Israel nonsense. To equate the position of Catholics in modern Scotland with that of Palestinians in the West Bank or Gazza displays a level of ignorance which is truly breath-taking. While a support that sings about its reverence for that wee fascist Billy Fullerton at every opportunity, while trumpeting its support for Israel is beyond parody.
angus1983 says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 08:54
Rate This
Quantcast
And the perceived problem with an “Islam” CSC was what, exactly?
:unsure:
+++++++++
Nothing to do with Palestine or Israel
TRFC supporters thought it was some show of support for the murderers of the soldier the other day – if you read their tweets. Why anyone would think like that – who knows
Greenockjack,
over to you Jack, lets have an update on;
Dunfermline’s admin,
Heart’s non-admin/ lack of funds,
league reconstruction,
Dundee’s takeover/investment bid – I’ll do that in a minute.
Souness and the EBT/business dealings was recently in a newspaper so it is fair game to bring it up, I agree the Island / Islam thing is probably better taken to a celts only board though.
Now, Dundee have received an offer of investment for a share of the club. The club has unissued shares and it would be these we would be selling. This would have the effect of reducing the share holding of DFCSS (DFC Supporters Society, formerly Dee4Life) from its current level of 51% to around 30% but no less than the magic 25.1%.
DFCSS have three directors on the BoD, they have in the past asked for and received the power to dilute the shareholding if suitable investment is offered. However, the vote to dilute the shareholding was taken twice, basically because it was organised by jumped up bus convenors, it was a disaster with votes counted after the deadline etc. So it was rerun when they didn’t get the result they wanted the first time around. They didn’t get the no result the second time either!
Now since then, they have had a year of being in the board room and the privileges that brings, they have filled hospitality with friends and family on freebies, to the point that match-day hospo doesn’t actually attract enough fee paying customers. This deal reduces DFCSS members on the BoD to one from three, so scared of loosing the blazer they have all rejected the deal outright. One was even reported to have refused to meet the investor due to a pub quiz night.
Now, these directors have dual-roles, DFCSS and DFC, they were warned that doing the two roles is practically impossible as DFC directors have a responsibility to the club and therefore can’t necessarily tell DFCSS and the support what is happening in the BoD, which is why they were put there!
Moreover, they have taken legal advice in how to avoid telling DFCSS what they are doing as DFC directors. Which leads to the following situation succinctly summed up by Cobracoyne on Dundee Mad:
Kydd, McDonald and Forbes of DFCSS today spoke of their outrage after discovering Kydd, McDonald and Forbes of DFC had withheld important information about the takeover for several months.
Kydd, McDonald and Forbes of DFC attended a meeting with the consortium but Kydd, McDonald and Forbes of DFCSS were unable to make arrangements at such notice.
Now, while initially skeptical about the investment, Dundee fans seem to be wanting it as a way of removing these three individuals who seem to be only protecting their own interests and position within the club.
In my opinion fans owned and run doesn’t work. Period.
A quick link to the Nelms interview on why they picked Dundee.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22668173
Hell mend us if this goes belly up a third time!
puzzlingresult.
Re the Boumsong transfer. Some time ago someone posted a link to a piece by a Guardian football writer (English not Scots) who was innocently puzzled by the price NFC paid for the player. It was reported to be £8.5 million yet this journalist had access to an industry database which put the player’s market value at £1.5 million. All very odd.
I’m trying to get some English journalists interested in the Govan scandal. They need a UK or English angle otherwise they see Sevco etc as a parochial story.
easyJambo says:
Saturday, May 25, 2013 at 10:33
“I don’t know why so many people are so exercised by the information leaked re the outcome of the PM inquiry”
—————
resin_lab_dog says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 01:01
“bbc UNDERSTANDS that Charles Green will be cleared of having CLOSE links with Whyte.”
Anyhow: I have a scrabble dictionary here and a pin. Looky. here… some other words Chris could have chosen to use but didn’t…
—————-
Easyjambo provided a concise summary of how the facts could be interpreted, fairly legitimately, by Pinsent-Masons to contrive a verdict on no linkage between CW and CG. I think his point of view has great merit. However there are inevitably other angles that could be used to view events.
resin provides a nice wee dissection of the media speak to illustrate how words are used selectively to the advantage of the crisis management process.
Let us not forget how close we know these links were. The width of a bordroom table. Here’s the proof as if you don’t know it already.
https://soundcloud.com/charlotteandthefakes/cg3
upthehoops says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 06:07
“Re-the Souness EBT issue. For me the question that should really be asked is why he saw fit to pay £8.5M for Boumsong six months after he was available for a free”?
————
You seem to be implying that this was a subsidy at the expense of another club. Boumsong went onto play for Juventus, Lyon and Panathanikos after leaving Newcastle United so he was not a donkey by any stretch of the imagination. Newcastle bought him from Rangers for about £8M and sold him to Juve for £3.3. Not great business for a guy in his mid-twenties.
Forres Dee (@ForresDee) says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 10:02
I’m not sure that this apparently unfortunate experience with Fan directors really tells us anything. However, it does tie in with my own experience in the charity/community sector. There is an awful lot more to “community empowerment” than giving groups and individuals the right to own/or be involved in the management of local facilities or services. Far too often, things are handed over to local groups, with no thought given to equipping the group members with the skills they will require to effectively run the facility or service.
Then when it, rather predictably, goes tits up, the authorities step in and triumphantly say “look we told you, it doesn’t work”, when in fact, it had been programmed for failure from the start.
Things have greatly improved, but a lot more needs to be done. This is an area where Supporters Direct could usefully direct some of its public funding. They could learn a lot from the voluntary sector, where there are some really excellent director training schemes available.
greenockjack says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 09:04
“Now Rangers are the big news story, of that there is little doubt but if the blog wants to be seen as a debating chamber of worth you need to have more than one side debating”.
————
Jack you make some fair points. It may take some time for the blog to slip its original RTC moorings and move onto a wider consideration. However it is not true to say that Dunfermline and Hearts have not been debated. The jambo’s and others have discussed this aspect in some detail and I for one am better informed because of it.
The issue with Rangers is the level of distortion in football governance that appears to have been created by this one particular club. Certainly Celtic gloaters will see their misfortune and wallow in the schadenfraude. However Rangers are a victim of their own devices. They could assist themselves greatly by emerging from the mire and cleaning some of the muck off their own carcass. Whilst they cling onto the MSM and football governance for buoyancy they only make themselves more vulnerable. They need to learn to swim for themselves and those who believe they are offering assistance need to realise that their efforts are counterproductive. If this was done it would open up more scope to allow us to consider the plight of other clubs. I and many others look forward to that day.
Well done to Celtic and Hibernian teams and supporters yesterday. Willie Collum, will ye stop getting in the player’s way? Ye don’t have to be within a yard of the ball to referee!
Really like the idea of TSFM podcast.
Jack
I agree that it is to be hoped that the debate on TSFM should become wider, but the focus on the Rangers situation is as unavoidable here as it is in the MSM. It is also the case that the main thrust of argument on here concerns the mismanagement of the Rangers affair by the authorities.
After all, what has been done in Rangers name has been done. The main thrust of the blog has been to expose the instinct of the SFA to look the other way and make up rules as they go along, the strong inference of corruption by those in power, and the plain nonsense and misreporting in the MSM.
Rangers have suffered the consequences of their own actions through liquidation. Nobody in the SFA, SPL, SFL or MSM, who have been complicit in the cover-up has suffered any adversity as a consequence. These are the people who need to be held to account.
If you are suggesting we should stop discussion of these issues just because any one club is at the heart of it, then we are simply not on the same page.
I would also suggest that you are being a little disingenuous as you bemoan the lack of debate on other subjects. You are well adept at stirring the discussion pool on here, so why not use those talents to turn the debate around to those matters you correctly identify as important, Hearts, Dunfermline, Dundee etc.
The floor is yours.
scapaflow14 says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 10:41
Scapa, the problem with fans reps on the board seems to be that the actual act of being on the board prevents that person from informing the fans what is going on within said board.
The fans believe that the rep is there to report back to them with whats happening on the BoD, but that can’t happen. This creates friction and divisions as the fans rep will tell those close to them whats happening, creating an inner circle of those with ‘inside info’. This was compounded at Dens with the inner circle receiving free hospitality which created a buffer between the reps and the average fan. It went wrong at Dens and doesn’t seem to be working well elsewhere either.
New Poll on Blog Format.
Click on “Poll” on the main menu or HERE
Forres
I think that Souness was in the newspapers for something unconnected with EBT´s.
Good effort on bringing the proposed Dundee takeover onto the board.
Unfortunately, I won´t have much time today to contribute.
Mullach
Other issues are debated but IMO get relatively little attention considering the extent of both their problems and size of both clubs.
You can´t force feed issues or decree that X subject must get X amount of coverage or X amount of posters following it but you surely have to then recognize what the blog is accordingly.
Another issue is the tone of debate and language employed.
TSFM
I refer you to the above and add the following.
At no point do I say or imply that discussion on issues surrounding Rangers should stop.
Only that given other issues that are ongoing, Rangers receive a disproportionate amount of attention on what is purported to be a blog about Scottish football.
That there is an underlying tone that makes it an uncomfortable place for Rangers supporters to share. At the same time I recognize the difficulty in creating a “perfect enviroment”.
I would add that there are several contributors that stick to what appear to be facts, usually back them-up and analyse in a neutral tone. This is indeed valuable and if this was the norm or this approach was encouraged then the blog could become something formidable.
The little time I have to spend on here I use mostly to swim against the tide on a beach near me. It is surely for other´s with more knowledge of the situations at other clubs to raise relevant issues, as Forres has done this morning. I hope there is interest in what is going-on at Dens Park.
Souness featured in the Stevens enquiry
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/6755991.stm
“Stevens also reported “inconsistencies in evidence” provided by the former Newcastle manager Souness and Kenneth Shepherd, son of Magpies chairman Freddy Shepherd.”
… later …
“Newcastle’s statement read: “The report makes clear that Newcastle officials have done nothing wrong and have at all times offered their full co-operation.”
rubiconbhoy says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 10:10
Hi
Back when RTC was on the go, I posted the info that I had been given re the transfer and who got what. RTC decided to remove the post, so I assume that the info that I posted was pretty accurate and there was a good reason for RTC to remove the post – GS?. That reason will still hold today but the value you quote re the player is pretty accurate and is what Rangers allegedly got net from the deal
Forres Dee (@ForresDee) says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 11:01
Again, this is no different from the changes happening in the voluntary sector. Confidentiality is all too often used as an excuse, when orgs can’t be ar*ed or simply think its none of your business, rather than their being a genuine need for confidentiality.
One possible way forward is to make the club director role, an ex officio part of the role on the board of the supporters group. This also provide a route for the supporters group to get rid of non performing directors. I would also suggest that their should be an agreed process for issuing an update to the wider supporters group following each board meeting.
In short, the voluntary sector has been grappling with these problems for sometime, I don’t think re-inventing the wheel is necessary
Forres Dee (@ForresDee) says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 10:02
“DFCSS have three directors on the BoD…Now, while initially skeptical about the investment, Dundee fans seem to be wanting it as a way of removing these three individuals who seem to be only protecting their own interests and position within the club”.
————-
An interesting perspective Forres and one which shows the hazards of having amateur representation on club boards.
I came across this snippet concerning worker representation. I picked Germany from the list of countries as I knew their process was well establishe.
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/1998/09/study/tn9809201s.htm
“Employees in companies with 500 employees or more have representation on the supervisory board. The proportion of worker representatives varies from one-third, in companies with between 500 and 2,000 employees, to one-half, in companies with more than 2,000 workers. In these larger companies, the chair in effect represents the shareholders and has the casting vote. The one exception is the larger coal or iron and steel companies where the chair is independent. In the coal, iron and steel industries, the employee representatives can also appoint the “labour director”, who is part of the management board”.
In an industrial environment worker participants are far more likely to remain focussed on their responsibilities and are not entirely amateur. The proportions here reflect that level of inferred professionalism. The term ‘Supervisory board’ suggests this is not executive level.
For a football club, I’d imagine that having one supporters representative would be sufficient. They could be selected from a poll of affiliated supporters clubs. This one representative would have the effect I suspect of curbing the worst corporate excesses. They would have to retain confidentiality concerning the board’s proceedings but they would offer a more formal conduit of communication between the club and fans than exists currently.
rubiconbhoy says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 10:10
Thommo is from Newcastle, IIRC
For the moment things are quiet down Govan way, there isn’t anything to answer for as far as things are concerned for the present moment. I think there will be new revelations over the summer and ones that cannot be ignored or swept under the carpet.
These things normally come out in the wash and as we are entering the quiet months traditionally for the football calander (year between major tournaments). Sport hacks will fill the pages with crap, tragic pasts and new beginnings, clubs i’ve always wanted to play for, and the 2 weeks of wimblebum with the “hope for Britain” Andy Murray etc etc….
The thing that does seem very odd to me is that with all the potential evidence put forward by Charlotte (for me its not verified however is fairly compelling and by all accounts very damaging) there doesn’t seem to be any kind of shaking of trees by the rangers support?
No demonstrations, no beseiging of the doors with placards, angry questions, or well any kind of murmer coming from any noticable amount of bears.
Now i dont read rangers forums, i’m sure some of you may have browsed their sites from time to time, but i don’t seem to notice any kind of movement, questions or in fact any concerns from their fanbase as to the deeply suspicious happenings going on at ibrox.
The only thing that I have noticed is the finger pointing and deflection tactics used by some twitter users to inflame a bad situation with what happened in Woolwich last week for a devious bit of one-upsmanship by claiming that a banner that due to the misfortunate coincidence of letter font and folding appeared to people for a brief moment to look like Islam instead of Island (Auchill Island CSC).
I’m not going to waste my time to speculate on motive for this because that in itself is a no brainer. What does puzzle me is why the Rangers support as a whole wish to pander to this kind of muckraking rather than put their energies into questioning the goings on at their own club is beyond me.
Do they need to have a figure like Bomber Brown, Walter Smith, Jardine to Follow Follow?
Mullach,
We had one Dee4Life member on the board pre-admin 2, but he like the rest of us got caught up in the Melville mania, so we went for three the second time around.
That just created a little self preservation cabal that feathered it’s own nest with fans money and in the meantime forgetting its roots as a fund raising organisation.
Like much of scottish football, you couldn’t make it up!
paulsatim,
Thank you. Yes, I knew that but I’m keen to open a second front with the printed media. I’ve put some feelers out.
With regard to Dunfermline Athletic, the recent falling of East End Park Ltd into administration looked like being a major development, but the issue appears to be being downplayed by the DAFC administrator.
Apparently Blair Nimmo of KPMG has been appointed administrator of EEP Ltd. The company has a notorious loan from LBG (I would assume secured over the ground). The concern must be that the ground will be repossessed or sold to a party with little interest in having football played. However, Bryan Jackson (of BDO, adminstrator of DAFC Ltd) has stated that he believes that in fact the latest news improves the chances in the short term of agreeing a deal to play at EEP, and that the bank would be sympathetic to this. The fact that Mr Masterton’s influence is further reduced is also being seen as a good thing.
In the meantime, many fund-raising initiatives continue to raise cash in order to secure the club’s future. There is still much to be done.
greenockjack says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 11:34
“That there is an underlying tone that makes it an uncomfortable place for Rangers supporters to share. At the same time I recognize the difficulty in creating a ‘perfect enviroment'”.
—————-
Jack, your engagement in the debate is welcome. There have been and still are I believe, posters with an affinity for Rangers. Sometimes they get an unduly hard time and that is to be regretted. I could excuse it but it would take too long.
The reason Rangers fans visit here and read is because they want information closer to the truth than what they are being fed by MSM. Our job is partly to break that media stranglehold (arthritic grip) because while it persists the whole of Scottish football and wider is done a disservice. That connection is strongest with Rangers. At some point in the future there might be a similar bias in favour of Celtic. That is when principles will be tested since those gloating at Rangers demise will then be asked to apply the same measure to clubs closer to their own heart. If the measure devised turns out to be too strict then this will be shown in the fullness of time.
We are where we are however. Whatever the motives of the inceptors of this blog it is one of the few places where rational debate can take place amongst fans of any and all clubs, including Rangers. If it had been Rangers supporter who had begun the self scrutiny of their own club I suspect their efforts would have been of equal widespread interest. It is not in our nature however to be overly self critical and it is often our detractors who are first to point out the faults that we only through time become cogniscent of.
If you want to change the cente of gravity Jack then you must become part of the debate. This may mean that you have a few brickbats thrown at you but if your heart is in the right place and your zeal is burning then I’m sure you can deal with it.
To use a military metaphor, if you want to overrun a stae you will often strike out for its capital. There will be other objectives in the process but the capture of the capital sends a strong signal to the citizens of the state that regime change is underway. Rangers accepted and acquiesed in their own capitalisation. It is an infortunate necessity that this arrangement needs primarily to be overturned if a new way forward is to be found. This was not a state of our making but it will be one of our breaking.
When that is done we will turn to other issues; issues that most certainly will test our partisanship. Hopefully by that time we will have grown sufficiently as a contiguous community to face these further challenges without fear or favour.
mullach says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 12:36
Agreed, up to a point. The nature of the fan engagement at board level, would surely depend upon the nature of the fan involvement. If the fans group holds a considerable share holding, then, its hard to see how they could be denied a commensurate number of directorships. (Incidentally, this I exactly the same issue that Rangers may yet face with the Two Rons). I don’t think there is a right or wrong answer, it really will be down to each club on a case by case basis
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/can-rangers-legitimately-register-new-players-on-1st-september-yes-they-can/
Test
Scapa & Exiled – thanks. I’d assumed it had some kind of tie-in with Woolwich, but thought there must be something more to it than that.
Evidently not. The wilful ignorance of some peepil never ceases to amaze.
Apologies for OT, but we have created a new page outlining some ideas for podcast content and setting out our stall for potential sponsors.
We have already had some good advice and offers of assistance from TSFM-ers, and thanks for that. Please have a look at the new page “Funding” on the main menu, or just click HERE
Ideas on the sponsorship thing will be appreciated – particularly as it will ensure our medium term future, and there are comments facilities on the new page. Since we are on a bank holiday weekend, I will bump this post until Monday teatime to get to as many readers as possible.
greenockjack says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 09:04
==================================================
Generally, I don’t bother with the TU/TD stuff; but I did give you a TU for the main thrust of your post.
I too had been thinking about the funding issue for TSFM and have to I agree with your conclusion that finding potential sponsors would be extremely difficult due to the blog’s perceived agenda against all things Rangers. Most commercial enterprises in Scotland would simply not wish to be associated with such a group.
A reminder of the stated aims:
Reaction to Rangers fans comments on what they thought was an “Islam CSC” do not (IMO) fit in to the stated aims of this blog.
That is not to say that the “misunderstanding” does not merit serious comment – simply that it does not appear (to me) to have a proper place within the context of this blog.
However, where I cannot agree with you is:
Let me state that I am fairly agnostic with regard to the long-term financial benefit or detriment to Scottish football as a whole of “a” Rangers existence. I do not believe the effective duopoly of the “Old Firm” was a viable long-term model nor do I believe a Celtic monopoly is any more or less sustainable. Either scenario is simply a managed decline into financial and sporting oblivion for the sport in this country. The previous Rangers approach especially is a busted flush. What Scottish football requires is less emphasis on the financial might of individual members and the adoption of a focused approach to youth development throughout the country. We need a system that encourages community buy-in and is transparent and fair on clubs, players & supporters. In short, I believe the integrity of sport should always take primacy over commercial concerns.
If this new Rangers or a future version lives within its means and makes its way to the top tier of Scottish football, I would have no particular complaint. However, in doing so, they must be treated in exactly the same way that any other club would be.
It appears to me that in the case of the Rangers FC demise, officialdom and the MSM abandoned any real notion of sporting integrity over the perceived commercial (and perhaps social?) needs of keeping their brand alive and operating as near as possible as before. There have been a number of debates on Dunfermline, Hearts & League reconstruction (I’m not sure what points you would want to raise wrt the Cup Final(s)?). The number of posts written on this blog are perhaps proportional to the general level of dissatisfaction with actions of officialdom & the MSM’s reporting of these stories. If you feel that the authorities have behaved badly or the newspapers are mis-telling the event and the particular point has been missed by the blog, you are certainly free to bring it to our attention.
It is important I think, to understand that the oldco/newco debate – or more precisely the oldclub/newclub debate – cuts to the heart of how football’s officialdom and the MSM have jointly attempted to create an alternative reality for Scottish fans over the past year.
Personally, I often use the term “Sevco”, “Sevco 5088″, Sevco Scotland”, “Sevco’s Rangers”, “New Rangers” or even “the new club” when referring to the current version of Rangers
I tend to use “Rangers FC”, “RFC plc” or “the old club” when referring to the version of Rangers that is currently in liquidation.
I will use just “Rangers” when referring to the brand (the intellectual property previously owned by Rangers FC and purchased by Sevco Scotland) or to the supporters if it has no particular context in the oldclub/newclub debate.
None of these expressions are used (by me) to have a “dig” at anyone. They are used as appropriate factual descriptors of the relevant entities involved.
Of course some contributors to TSFM are partisan – that is the nature of football supporters after all, I’m sure that most fans of Rangers FC who have transferred their support to the new club would hope that everyone else would stop pointing out that it is a new club; but this is just part of the overall reality for other football supporters. I do not use the word “zombies” when referring to the new club or its supporters – though I understand why some fans would use this term to have a “dig”. Generally though, most of us prefer to stick to the stated aims of the blog using verifiable facts and the use of neutral language.
If I were asked by a Christian and were to stand up and say “I do not believe in God”, it would be because I thought it was the truth. It would certainly not be to have a “dig” at the questioner or belittle his/her beliefs. Most of the contributors here have personal experience of attempting to relate their own reality of Rangers, Sevco, SDM, CW, CG & others to friends or colleagues – only to be treated like the heretic who opined that the world might actually be round.
It seems obvious to say it; but the majority of the new club’s fans cannot actively participate in TSFM, because (by and large) they are are already plugged into the alternative reality matrix promoted by sections of officialdom and the majority of the MSM. That alternative reality, I believe, is corroding whatever trust remains in “football as a sport” in Scotland. While that alternative reality, is what keeps the old club alive in the minds of the followers, it is a reality that this blog is actively seeking to undermine.
Perhaps we should all be a little more respectful to those whose beliefs differ from our own. At the same time, it is important not be cowed into meekly ignoring an important and discoverable truth; even if that truth is incompatible with the espoused doctrine of others.
mullach says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 10:27
You seem to be implying that this was a subsidy at the expense of another club. Boumsong went onto play for Juventus, Lyon and Panathanikos after leaving Newcastle United so he was not a donkey by any stretch of the imagination. Newcastle bought him from Rangers for about £8M and sold him to Juve for £3.3. Not great business for a guy in his mid-twenties.
====================================================
I would have answered earlier but the joys of working for a company that does not take the late May Bank holiday scuppered that!
Taking all the evidence into consideration I find it difficult not to conclude there was an element of subsidy to this transfer. As I said Boumsong was available for nothing and no major English club showed an interest. I do not believe for a minute that an experienced football man like Souness believed in his heart of hearts that six unspectacular months at Ibrox made him an £8.5M player. Having said that I never claimed he was a donkey and as you say he played for significant clubs in his career, but the circumstances of the move to Newcastle, the size of the fee, and the Manager involved are definitely up for question in my opinion.
I was going over Charlotte’s output looking for the draft 5 way agreement so I could give a considered response to neepheid concerning his well thought out and detailed previous contribution on the matter. I’m struggling to find it but this, among other posts caught my eye. To me it illustrates two things.
Firstly, the output from this blog (and others, CQN is quoted in another Media House e:mail), is being monitored by the Rangers (Newco) crisis management team.
Secondly, if content was felt to be sufficiently libellous then legal action would likely be instituted.
If Phil Mc GB’s speculative output was felt worthy of ‘hammering’ then how much more provocative must Charlottes very precise documentation be challengeable if not true. Yet it has not been challenged to the best of my knowledge. I think this speaks volumes.
The link to Phil’s website brings up his currentv output. I have placed a link to what I think is the article being considered in the e:mail below it.
—————
Charlotte Fakeovers (@CharlotteFakes) says:
Monday, May 13, 2013 at 15:16
…Big Jack would take the lead in smothering out bad news, nipping the source in the bud, so to speak.
____________________________________________________________________________
From: Jack XXXXXX
Date: 1 February 2012 13:26
Subject:
To: Craig Whyte
Cc: Gary Withey , Ramsay Smith
Phil Mac Ghiolla Bhain is attempting to set a rather nasty hare running by suggesting that the Proceeds of Crime Act may be in play in relation to your affairs.
Presumably Collyer Bristow can lay this to rest and if untrue could hammer Bhain for once and for all.
It’s the second item on his website
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/
http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/privileged-information/
I have to correct myself concerning one aspect of my previous post. The CQN monitoring was not via a Media House e:mail, it was from the Sun newspaper.
At the risk of being tiresome I’ll reproduce Charlotte’s text to ensure clarity.
———–
Charlotte Fakeovers (@CharlotteFakes) says:
Monday, May 13, 2013 at 03:30
Here’s yet another from the Scottish Sun.
Unsure of the reasons for all this reverse briefing – then again, I’m not a journalist.
________________________________________________________________
From: Kenny McAlpine
Date: 26 October 2012 23:56:11 CEST
To: ctw@libertycapital.biz
Subject: Fwd: Seen this?
This has been published on Celtic quick news. It was sent in to me by one of the sports guys. The chat is the guy who is behind is it is the guy McKenna who introduces a chap from North America. It does seem a bit detailed to be a wind up but you never know! The link is at the very bottom.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kenny McAlpine
Date: 26 October 2012 18:06:11 BST
To: “gerry. duffy”
Subject: Fwd: Seen this?
Big robert sent me this. Don’t know if anything in it.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: “Thomson, Robert”
Date: 26 October 2012 17:20:12 BST
To: Kenny McAlpine
Subject: Seen this?
http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/?p=10730
—————
Robert Thomson or Gerry Duffy are journalists at the Sun.
Re: Tonto8’s earlier observation that things quite down Govan Way.
Could not help thinking that it has been a while since i last heard any pronouncement from Gordon Smith.
He is not on loan to the SFA perchance.
rubiconbhoy says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 13:11
All power to you, mate !
Ref: Souness ebt.
Cartuja on KdS has a very specific take on the Sunday Mail story about the Gillespie/Murray/Sounes ménage à trois. If we assume for a moment that Murray has fallen out with Souness & Gillespie, it could be argued that only one side of the story would be allowed out through Murray-friendly poodles….and I believe Cartuja to be correct in that what we see are snippets damaging to Souness and Gillespie -but not Sur Davie.
The obvious attention somehow always falls on the Boumsong transfer – but it was not that particular deal that saw the most scrutiny from Stevens:
“Faye was arrested by City of London Police on 28 November 2007 along with Harry Redknapp, Milan Mandaric, Peter Storrie and Willie McKay over allegations of corruption.[23]
His transfer from Portsmouth to Newcastle United in January 2005 was one of those about which the Stevens inquiry report in June 2007 expressed concerns:
“There remains inconsistencies in evidence provided by Graeme Souness – a former manager of the club – and Kenneth Shepherd – apparently acting in an undefined role but not as a club official – as to their respective roles in transfer negotiations.”
The night Faye was signed (-S)DM, Souness and Graham Gillespie were cosied up together Champany’s in Linlithgow.
Also note that the UTT appeal has been split into three seperate appelants – Premier Property Group Ltd, Murray Group Management Ltd and GM Mining Ltd…further evidence that the former close business associates have suffered a traumatic and terminal seperation.
Some references:
http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2012CSIH41.html
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/RANGERS+FURY+AT+pounds+150k+BUNG+SLUR%3B+EXCLUSIVE+Bain+house+deal…-a0147030142
KdS Feb 2012:
“What an appalling lickspittle of a Moonbeams-rimming journalist Tom English is.
So he states that “Murray had never heard of Whyte”?
So the owner of Murray Metals had never heard of the son-in-law of a Lanarkshire steelmill owner?
Someone who ran an infamous plant hire firm in Lanarkshire?
Who owned offices right next to his pals the Gillespies in Bellshill?
And who was described in the national press as “the next David Murray”?
May 2012.
Thanks to the lads who forwarded me on details about Willow International Limited.
This was a company registered in the 1990s at the same address in Bellshill as an office of GM Mining, a joint venture between Sir Minty Moonbeams and the feuding Gillespie brothers.
Just a few streets away were the registered addresses of several of Craig Whyte’s firms.
These guys moved in the same circles. Mining firms need plant hire. Wee Craigie and his dad supplied it.
In 1999, GM Mining were rumoured to be launching a takeover of Waverley Mining.
Instead a little-known company, Corporate Resolve (effectively controlled by Craig Whyte) launched a bid that failed dismally.
Waverley Mining Finance then became Palmaris. And their first purchase? Custom Services Group, owned by wee Craigie’s dad Tom.
Mind you, that ended in acrimony when, two years later, Palmaris attempted to sue Tom Whyte for effectively selling them a “pup”.
So far, so what? Well, it indicates that Whyte and Murray have been known to each other for decades.
Then, three months ago, it was announced that Whyte’s Liberty Capital had transferred £104,000 in Merchant House Group shares to a firm registered in the Seychelles.
Its name? Willow International Limited.
Daniel O’Connell
May 27, 2013 at 5:14 pm
It’s not subjective at all. To qualify for the UEFA license necessary to play in the top flight, you must meet UEFA’s definition of a football club – a legal entity fully responsible for a football team.
As The Rangers Football Club Ltd is not the same legal entity as Rangers Football Club plc, it is not the same club.
Edit to fix broken link in previous post:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/RANGERS+FURY+AT+pounds+150k+BUNG+SLUR%3B+EXCLUSIVE+Bain+house+deal-a0147030142
greenockjack says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 09:04
====================================
Others have had their say Jack but I feel compelled to comment. I came to this site because I wanted somewhere where I could get decent, insightful football debate from knowledgeable people. I’ve certainly got that and it’s not all been from Celtic fans as far as I can see. I agree there is much talk of Ibrox events but a lot of it is very informative, and supports the aim of the forum in providing us with information we would otherwise never hear of via the mainstream Scottish media. If there are Rangers fans out there who can offer realistic alternative views that cast doubt on much that is posted then they should share those views with us. I would welcome such contributions rather than what we get elsewhere from people like Chris Graham, which is basically that a big boy called Peter did it and ran away.
jimlarkin says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 19:58
I would have thought that it was The Rangers FC Ltd who would apply for a UEFA licence.
That Company is wholly owned by Rangers International FC PLC, but does that really matter.
McCaig`s Tower says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 13:20
With regard to Dunfermline Athletic, the recent falling of East End Park Ltd into administration looked like being a major development, but the issue appears to be being downplayed by the DAFC administrator.
Apparently Blair Nimmo of KPMG has been appointed administrator of EEP Ltd. The company has a notorious loan from LBG (I would assume secured over the ground). The concern must be that the ground will be repossessed or sold to a party with little interest in having football played. However, Bryan Jackson (of BDO, adminstrator of DAFC Ltd) has stated that he believes that in fact the latest news improves the chances in the short term of agreeing a deal to play at EEP, and that the bank would be sympathetic to this.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————–
It’s unlikely that the ground has much commercial attraction other than as a football stadium (if my memories of East End Park are accurate it’s largely surrounded by residential properties making a retail/supermarket sale unlikely and it’s not a large enough area to be viable for private housing).
That’s the good news – if the example of Dundee FC is anything to go by then Dunfermline will get to continue playing at East End Park but a hefty rent will be levied for the privilege of doing so.
No longer owning the ground they will be unable to borrow against it and while this may prevent excesses it also ensures extreme caution as season book money would need to be held back against unforseen expenses, limiting spend on playing staff.
All in all a testing time ahead for the Pars and I hope they come through.
TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy) says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 19:34
“Thanks to the lads who forwarded me on details about Willow International Limited”.
————–
Not sure of the significance but a Willow International are mentioned in the Sevco 5088 Limited minute of 9th May 2012 provided by Charlotte. Here’s the link. Perhaps you can make sense of any possible connection (Item 5(2)).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/142190916/Board-Meeting-9-May-2012
Willow International Ltd appear to have been dissolved (winding up order 31/3/2010 : http://www.insolvencydirect.bis.gov.uk/piudb/viewpiucasedetails.asp?companyname=Willow%20International%20Ltd),
if it is the same company.
However despite this the Duedil entry I’ll post a link to below shows a last update of 12 March 2012.
https://www.duedil.com/company/SC111302/willow-international-limited
This may not be news to you but is posted for completeness.
Some posters appear to believe this blog should mirror a debating chamber where issues are artificially debated in the abstract between two equally matched ‘teams’ with members who have no personal or emotional involvement in the subject chosen for debate. Obviously debating societies have a place to play and are valuable for personal skill building and development.
However, I find it difficult to see how much of the ‘debating society’ can usefully be transferred to a football forum where the participants aren’t equally matched numberwise and – possibly more importantly – care passionately about football and tend to have very fixed and opposing positions in many areas.
So if there is actually a perceived ‘bias’ against any particular football team on this blog then I truly wonder just how much control would need to be exercised to create a ‘level playing field’ acceptable to all sides involved.
By the very nature of Scottish Football – different clubs have different sizes of support and it seems reasonable to accept that they would therefore have different numbers of posters on any forum which might interest the supporters of more than one team.
It also seems inevitable that Celtic and Rangers posters would be the most numerous groups on a forum such as this. I see the argument here that the overwhelming number of pro-Celtic posters inhibits the contribution that could be made by Rangers supporters to the wider issues surrounding Scottish Football.
I think a number of issues arise from that and I’m not claiming the ones I raise are an exhaustive list. But I don’t see how any Blog can determine that a blog stays on a certain ‘issue’ like say the financial problem of Hearts. Does the blog lay out a leader piece on the generality of the Hearts situation and then allow responses only on the subject of Hearts with extraneous posts deleted by heavy moderation? Personally there isn’t the human resources available for moderation; there is the problem where difficulties faced by one team might impact to a greater or lesser extent on another team or teams or indeed be caused by these teams – should discussion be allowed on that? I could go on but that path would destroy the blog IMO.
So if we are unable to control what posters wish to post about – irrespective of the leader piece – how do we achieve balanced debate if there isn’t a balanced number of posters. Personally I don’t think mechanistic balance is possible in any case and even if it was I see two major problems. How do we determine that separate groupings of equal posters in terms of numbers actually are in some way comparable in terms of ability, passion and experience? Also do we only allow posters to post a set number of responses or only have a limited time limit to get their point across? I doubt if any of that is either achieveable or even desirable.
So where does that take us? I would suggest to this statement:
“The Scottish Football Monitor
The purpose of The Scottish Football Monitor is to pay homage to, and carry on the work of the groundbreaking RangersTaxCase blog (RTC). The aim of the Scottish Football Monitor is to cast a questioning and watchful eye on Scottish Football officialdom and the compliant mainstream media (MSM).”
I can only observe that for some years – if you remove the normal ‘tripe’ of Scottish football reportage – the biggest story in Scottish Football in terms of occupying the suits and media has been Rangers. They truly are the biggest story in town and country and it’s almost impossible to believe the capacity for self-harm which a Scottish Institution has inflicted on itself and which shows little sign of stopping.
From personal discussions with my Rangers-supporting relatives and friends they are universally sick of what is happening and just want to get back to watching and concentrating on football. But, and I think this is important, they don’t actually see a viable road ahead. Only a couple of that group post on internet fan forums – all are technically capable and heavily involved workwise in new technology.
So I wonder are the posters on fora such as this ‘typical’ of ordinary supporters of any team? And possibly more importantly does that mix alter in a forum where IMO there is a higher standard of debate and cross-team participation than many of the typical fan sites.
Personally I think the many deep divisions which fractures the Rangers support is also another issue which prevents them being able to form a coherent and united argument to justify their position. I also find it difficult to see how that argument will find much, if any, support from other football fans when so much of the rhetoric emanating from Rangers fans is either aimed at financially damaging Scottish Football or destroying it.
There are many other things I could say about what I perceive to be serious factual flaws and seeming inability to understand what some of the basic arguments are about and IMO that translates into an inability to develop their argument in a free-flowing debate.
But it is clear that Rangers fans takes what may be a perverse pride in declaring that the whole of Scotland is talking about them and that Celtic supporters talk more about them than their own team. I think the Rangers supporters may be missing the point but that doesn’t actually matter because they, in many cases, appear to have reached a disconnect point where they have have no need for debate to bolster their beliefs.
And one thing for sure about the majority of football fans I do know for certain and that’s they can give as good as they get in terms of banter and this wouldn’t be a football forum if acceptable banter was moderated out of existence.
I personally observe what takes place on a number of Rangers fan sites and I have never ever posted on them and never would. If I did post I know for a fact what I would be called with no attempt to debate with me but just to heap sectarian bile on my head. I wouldn’t need to even advance any dissent but just state that I supported Celtic or one of the other teams on the hate list. I have never actually witnessed that happening on this site and I hope I never do and most certainly would oppose it.
Btw one of the reasons I started monitoring Rangers sites was because of what to me was obvious manipulation going on from external sources. At first I thought it was PR manipulation but eventually came to believe it was more like the ‘boiler ops’ run to influence share prices on share sites which are highly transportable into football fora in terms of influencing and moulding opinions.
I happen to believe that on this site and a couple of other ‘thinking’ sites that a more sophisticated PR initiative is being waged and sometimes I feel that it is these ‘poor souls’ that are most in need of protection rather than genuine Rangers football fans.
So, in conclusion, I don’t think that high a percentage of Rangers fans are actually interested in posting here and I think there are varied reasons for that and I truly believe that by and large it is beyond the capability of this blog to actually alter that and especially whilst Rangers continues to be embroiled in pulling itself apart.
HPs response at 1722 today to a newish regular poster ,who I assume hails from these parts ,…puts the finger superbly on the problem of getting a real good representation of sensible Rangers fans onto this forum…and also ultimately solving the trust and justice issue at the heart of what really is now a serious schism in Scottish Football .
…The classic ‘ GroBe Luge’ has indeed been perpetrated on them and whether they really believe it , or force themselves to because not to is unthinkable in their mindset, it is out there as a reality and it absolutely is the majority opinion and belief within their ranks..incredibly even in the more intelligent classes..
As a consequence the problem Scottish football has …if Rangers fans are coming from a starting point that , as HP alludes to , the earth is 1000% flat and there is no debating that…then how can you even begin a conversation ?…the basics required for any sensible debate don’t even exist…..many of us have encountered that in spades trying to engage in any discussion with our erstwhile Rangers supporting friends in the last year or so.
What would those intellectual giants Hume or Smith think of the incredible lunacy at work in this the land of the enlightenment and in the mindset of the Governing authorities,media etc..225 years on ..that allowed this to happen to such an important (albeit significantly reducing in influence ) group in society on such a critical subject to them ?
The challenge this forum and like minded people ,with the good of Scottish football at heart , have is that we will have no choice but to constantly work away at exposing this reality and wrongdoing until just as back in 1945 (as i alluded to above )it finally dawned on the German people that they weren’t in fact the victims of an aggressive Jewish plot and master plan to destroy them ..but that it was in reality the reverse …And only at that point did they finally understand the arrant nonsense they had bought into and which had actually destroyed them..
Europe only got peace and prosperity when the German people themselves exposed and threw out their ‘GroBe Luge’….seeing it for the scam that it was….so it will be for our wee world of Scottish football
That in a nutshell is why this blog continues rightly as ‘part’ of it’s raison d’être to focus on the rangers situation until this is all resolved
As another poster pointed out a day or two ago..a la Hillsborough The truth will definitely finally out…particularly if good men make it their objective to ensure that it does…even if it takes decades….hopefully this one won’t take as long..!
If people want different topics, and moderation to ensure threads stay on topic then they are really looking for a forum rather than a blog.
That way there can be various threads, running at the same time, regarding different topics. People can join in with the one’s they want, and even start new ones as issues / ideas occur.
That’s what I voted for as a way forward.
mullach says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 20:53
The willow-international company you have mentioned is dealt with in following article and I’m not sure that there is any connection tbh:
http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/Medi/News/ukfirstcriminalconvictionsforlandbankingfraud.htm
I would have assumed that the Willow International mentioned in the Sevco doc is actually an offshore incorporated company and therefore we wouldn’t be able to trace anything on it.
I wonder if L’Equipe would like to do a follow up on their 2006 story concerning Boumsong and Prso, Stojic and Bain. Be a shame if no journalist got the chance to earn their stripes on this. I’ve e:mailed their football investigative journalist on the off chance with a brief outline.
For anyone interested, contact details (in French) can be found here :
http://www.lequipe.fr/Fonctions/page_contacts.html
@eco @mullach
The £25k cheque (CtH) was from Liberty Capital Markets …
http://www.scribd.com/doc/143447074/Charles-Green-Cheque
————–
mullach says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 20:53
——————————————-
CW has a history of moving assets and/or shareholdings to …. Dormant companies (companies with no significant trading in past year(s) ……. seems to be a trademark of his ….. sometimes it is the prelude to ….. the old switcheroo …. or putting assets out of reach …
Will try and dig up some examples when have time ………… Paul McC did a blog on it some time ago … (what a resource his blog is ….)
So Willow and Korissa issued 5m shares each payment being ….. the opportunity …. to aquire assets with debenture waiver ….
ecobhoy says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 21:08
Excellent piece!!
Am I not right in thinking that Craig Whyte hid assets as part of the same con which led to him getting the 7 year ban from being a director.
He basically put them somewhere the creditors could not get their hands on them.
Hows that for coincidence …. had the tab opened in some research on Sherri Ellison …. she’s never far away that gal !
http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/craig-whyte-strident-plc-and-some-detail-re-others/
growing map shows an interesting pattern emerging …
and what a gang they make ….
CW the front man
AE/WE the deal brokers ….. similiar to CG/IA role
KMacL the accountant
SE the company sec
ecobhoy says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 21:45
http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/Medi/News/ukfirstcriminalconvictionsforlandbankingfraud.htm
———–
That link didn’t work for me ecobhoy. Can you check it via the blog and repost if necessary. Thanks.
Nice piece above too. Very thoughtful and considered. I read it with interest.
mullach says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 20:53
Yip, the Willow mystery is a small, but interesting sub-plot in the Craig Whyte merry-go-round. As it probably another of the many sideshows spun off from the main event I doubt we’ll ever get to the bottom of this one. Shame.
http://boards.fool.co.uk/im-digging-up-an-old-thread-here-but-i-was-12391168.aspx
http://www.investegate.co.uk/Article.aspx?id=201109020700094876N
http://boards.fool.co.uk/liberty-capital-11862335.aspx?sort=whole#11862335
So why would Craig be exercising convertable loan notes in a company with no relevance to anything or anybody? Cash flow, prbably. Perhaps there are more answers to be found from back in the days when the Gillespies, Whytes and Murrays all cut about in Bellshill, -but is it the same company? – I doubt it. And as echobhoy points out (although the link is broken) there was a land-bank scam by a company of a similar name. (I think we discounted that particular Willow earlier).
There must be an offshore solution, as indicated by the Pershing Nominees proxy Holding.
And Bain and Murray never did sue L’Equipe. Wonder why.
chipm0nk says:
Monday, May 27, 2013 at 22:18
Am I not right in thinking that Craig Whyte hid assets as part of the same con which led to him getting the 7 year ban from being a director.
He basically put them somewhere the creditors could not get their hands on them.
=====================================================
Sounds like Gillespie and Souness. What a bunch of feckin chancers. (allegedly)