The Offline Game


As a layman rather than a lawman, it strikes me …

Comment on The Offline Game by Highlander.

As a layman rather than a lawman, it strikes me that much effort is being put into avoiding the blindingly obvious in the posts above. Rules, regulations and laws are there for a purpose, and often it doesn’t take a genius, or even a lawman, to figure out what they are.

There is a clear desire by UEFA to exclude from its competitions those clubs who have outstanding social taxes . This is not rocket science. Similarly, the law of the land regarding liquidation is designed to ensure that those who dump multi-million pounds of debt cannot simply do so and expect to carry on as before. Simples.

Highlander Also Commented

The Offline Game

JOHN CLARK JUNE 2, 2016 at 07:01
The pus from this running sore will be with us until the antibiotic of truth is injected into the buttocks of Scottish Football Governance and our SMSM.

I can’t make up my mind whether the injection should be applied to the left or right buttock, or to Stewart Regan, the ars**ole in between.

Edit – apologies for double post

The Offline Game

JOHN CLARKJUNE 2, 2016 at 07:01
The pus from this running sore will be with us until the antibiotic of truth is injected into the buttocks of Scottish Football Governance and our SMSM.

The Offline Game
Bluegrass – the matter of who gained the most from Rangers* journey through the lower leagues isn’t complicated.

Some lower league clubs gained financially, so without Rangers*, they would have been worse off.

Rangers*, on the other hand would no longer exist, without the support they received from the lower league clubs. Indeed, in one respect, that is legally, they no longer exist anyway. Simples.

Recent Comments by Highlander

Questions, questions, questions
Vernallen 4th August 2022 At 22:56
“they are in deep doo-doo and a loss next week could trigger some emergency sales with over hyped figures.”
With respect Vernallen, speculation about the current incarnation going under financially has been ongoing for more than a decade now and is nothing more than tiresome wishful thinking.

The reality is that the current entity has weathered the storm and is in relatively robust financial health, not least thanks to the recent sales of Patterson and Bassey.

I’m not saying they’re currently balancing the books, but if they didn’t ‘die again’ in the few years immediately after 2012, they sure as hell aren’t going to be allowed to succumb now.

Trust me, nobody would’ve been more delighted than me if their [cough] operating company had become insolvent again, but the reality is that their ‘speculate to accumulate’ strategy appears to be paying off, as evidenced by last season’s European run, and even I have to grudgingly applaud them for reaching the point they’ve reached.

None of which alters the fact that the original Rangers of 1872 died the death of liquidation in 2012 and the current club is fraudulently claiming the titles and trophies of that defunct club, aided and abetted by a compliant media and the woefully inept governance body of Scottish football.

Questions, questions, questions
I meant to add to my previous post of 10.54am that Neil Doncaster is coming under increasing attack from Rangers* in view of his woeful incompetence in the cinch contract cock-up. Remember though, this is the same woefully incompetent Neil Doncaster whose word is nonetheless supposedly sacrosanct on the sole matter of club continuity, where his word is law and must not be questioned.

Questions, questions, questions
Albertz11 15th June 2022 At 20:16
Pretty much vindicates Rangers position in this shambles.

Surely it could only be the entirely separate and unrelated operating company that was vindicated, not the metaphysical football club, whose only function is to collect kudos, trophies and titles, even those that it didn’t win.

Questions, questions, questions
John Clark 5th June 2022 At 00:08

From the joint statement:
“We are pleased to confirm that agreement has been reached on all outstanding points relating to the transfer of the Scottish FA membership between Rangers FC (In Administration), and Sevco Scotland Ltd, who will be the new owners of The Rangers Football Club.”

Several things are striking from that joint statement. Firstly, as we are all well aware some ten years into ‘the saga,’ the name of the entity that went into administration followed by liquidation is the Rangers Football Club plc, an incorporated football club.

How peculiar then of the football authorities to ascribe those insolvency events to Rangers FC, rather than its operating company.

Then they refer to Sevco as the new owners of The Rangers Football Club, NOT the owners of Rangers FC. Yet we know that TRFC only came into existence in 2012.

Further on in the joint statement, reference is made to RFC(IA).

You have to feel a smidgen of sympathy for our obviously confused band of inquisitive journalists for failing to challenge the blatant anomalies in the official statement when my six year-old grandson could pull it apart in seconds and show it up for the concocted work of fiction it truly is.

ps I’m well aware that you and I are supposed to swallow the fallacy that Rangers FC was the owner and operator of the club, but I’m confident that you’re not gullible enough to fall for it either. If the football club owned and operated by the Rangers Football Club plc wasn’t Rangers FC or RFC, each of which died a self-inflicted death of liquidation, who exactly was it?

Questions, questions, questions
John Clark 5th April 2022 At 00:29
I have the greatest difficulty in accepting the principle that any company or business in the entertainment/sports industry can be held responsible for the criminal actions of its customers/patrons.
While I fully understand your point of view and have some difficulty in arguing against it, I think that there comes a point when drastic problems require drastic solutions.

Your theatre analogy illustrates the problem perfectly, but it doesn’t take a massive leap to imagine the site of that theatre instead housing a raucous nightclub filled with noisy, over-exuberant, drink and/or drug-fuelled patrons fighting, smashing bottles and glasses and damaging the property before spilling out onto the surrounding streets and debasing the neighbourhood.

Any such law-abiding club (or its operating company) could hardly be blamed for the actions of its clientele, yet it would be in danger of having curbs and restrictions imposed and, ultimately, facing closure. Why should football clubs be any different, particularly clubs with decades-long histories of trouble?

The problem is that strict liability can only be introduced in Scottish football if there is a will among the clubs to bring it in, but that would be like turkeys voting for Christmas, particularly for the bigger clubs. The alternative involves political intervention, which itself is fraught with danger as UEFA and FIFA don’t take kindly to political interference in the game.

Finally, while recognising they’re not quite comparable, the other minor problem I have with the argument that the club/company did all that it could and can’t be held responsible for the actions of individuals, is that it could be claimed, for example, that a rogue individual such as Craig Whyte was entirely to blame for the demise of Rangers Football Club, while the club itself was blameless. Spurious nonsense on many levels of course, but the kind of verbal diarrhoea that emanates from Govan and the Scottish media nonetheless.

About the author