The scandal in which Scottish football has become embroiled is neither equivocal nor complicated. It happened. It is easily seen to have happened. It is certainly not a degree course in nuclear physics. Why then, are simple facts ignored day after day, week after week, by not just the so called purveyors of truth in the media, but the body of the SFA itself, the clubs?
Five years or so ago, systematic cheating by a club involved in Scottish football was uncovered as a consequence of the club slipping into liquidation. This is easily established as fact.
It soon became clear that the authorities had been aware of the situation for as long as it had been going on, but instead of applying their own rules, which would have saved that club from it’s ultimate demise, they chose to enable it and cover it up. Also, backed up by documentary evidence.
As a consequence of the slide towards liquidation, the authorities went into cover-up overdrive to protect their own position. Inquiries based on rhetorical “you’ll have had your tea!” questions were set up to arrive at predetermined conclusions. The post-truth era in Scottish football had begun in earnest.
The claims of corruption which subsequently emerged were dismissed out of hand by the authorities and the press; first by accusations that it was only Paranoid Celtic fans looking to put the boot into Rangers who were behind the claims, then, when it became clear that it was not only Celtic fans who were angered by the way the integrity of the sport had been shattered, the “mad Celtic fans” epithet was amended to “mad online conspiracy theorists”.
The tactic was clear. NEVER address the issue. Attack the messengers. Ridicule them, mock them, demonise them. Despite that, the message of SFM and others was gaining traction and dangerously for the authorities, becoming difficult to ignore.
Last Autumn SFM was approached in confidence by senior figures in two print media outlets. The request was for us to provide them with the facts we had in bullet points – to make it easier for them to reach their audience, an audience they claimed was not sophisticated enough to absorb the detail and minutiae of the story.
The role of journalists is to do exactly that of course. They had access to the same documentary evidence we had (we know this because we gave it to them), but they wanted us to do their job for them? Leaving aside the scant regard I have for football journalists in this country, I don’t believe they are incapable of carrying out that simple task – but we humoured them anyway and provided them with the “SFA Corruption for Dummies” guide that they asked for.
But what were they really up to?
Remembering the RTC thread where he pointed out that genuine whistle-blowers in this saga were reluctant to come forward because of trust issues – they feared any contact with the MSM would result in their details being provided to those they were exposing – we proceeded with some caution. Amusingly, the same three questions was asked at each meeting; “You must know who Rangers Tax Case is?”, “any idea who John James is?” and, “what team do you support?”. (FYI, my answers were, “No”, “No”, and “Celtic” respectively).
Interestingly, for people who needed clarification by bullet-point, they were well enough versed in the minutiae to attempt to argue the flat-earth case and try to sell us the “it has been established legally that <insert something that hasn’t been established legally here>”
Our only conjecture was that they were trying to convince us we were wrong, or ascertain how firm a grasp we actually had on the facts to better see who and what they were dealing with, or (most probably) they were reacting aimlessly to online pressure and not really following any plan at all. Perhaps they were seeking to reassure themselves that it was just Celtic fans who were angry – although I fail to see how Celtic or their fans have less credibility when asking legitimate questions about the running of the game just because Rangers were involved.
Subsequently, despite the platitudes of “print and social media should work together” and the like, and despite being furnished with the aforementioned bullet points, no further contact was made with SFM other than a couple of childish comments about SFM on Twitter.
Facts might be facts to us all, but in the case of the print media, they can be ignored on the basis that mad internet bampots are not a credible source, although metaphysical hypotheses are clearly thought to be a far more sensible line of inquiry!
However, facts ARE indeed facts, and in the hands of real journalists like Alec Thomson and those in The Offshore Game (TOG), they are given the credence they merit. Since TOG published the report on the SFA (see below), the facts have emerged from not just the so-called internet bampots. Those facts have survived the scrutiny of several reputable journalists involved in TOG – and their legal advisers.
Accusations more blunt and unequivocal than we have ever made have been published. The genie is most definitely out of the bottle, but the prodigious MSM Twitterati, so meticulous in their investigations into the occupation of Craig Whyte’s female companions, appear to have run out of batteries on their keyboards. “No answer” is the loud reply, since TOG cannot be ridiculed quite so easily without exposing themselves to the same scrutiny they have failed to apply to the SFA.
If I can be as unequivocal about this as possible. Senior journalists in at least two MSM print outlets KNOW there has been a cover up, and that systematic cheating took place. They knew that before the TOG report, long before it, but still they did nothing. Even now they do nothing. They are now playing a reactionary role – as counterpoint to the accessible online truth – involved in actively concealing that truth from the offline public. An Offline Game if you like.
Of course we are not surprised by that, and as the falling-off-a-cliff circulation figures show, fewer and fewer people are playing their game. Even those who still purchase newspapers believe little of what they read.
The clubs are a different matter. Fans of every single club in this country – and that includes TRFC – will benefit from an inquiry into the handling of this matter. In the light of the TOG report, there is no excuse for the clubs to ignore calls for an inquiry to be set up. In fact by doing so, they are actively embracing corruption.
As we have said time and time again, this is no longer about Rangers. It is about institutionalised mal-governance at Hampden. By assisting the cover-up, the clubs are ensuring that the same corrupt practices are in place, ready to go again when necessary. Those practices which saw journalists and SFA officials cede editorial control (both statements backed up by documentary evidence) of their output to one club, and allow damaging conflicts of interest to circumvent rules.
The Offshore Game has thrown a media spotlight onto a cover-up. The MSM have attempted to bury it in the offline domain, but corruption, however well established,is not unbeatable. We can beat it if we work together – and here is how.
Season ticket renewals are dropping through letterboxes as I write this. If we do nothing other than protest, the clubs will do – just like Stewart Regan says he will – NOTHING!
There is only one way to establish the Independent Inquiry that is demanded in the wake of TOG report. Ask your club if they will vote for an Independent Inquiry to be set up.
If they agree, there is no problem. They are doing the right thing and will be deserving of our support.
Otherwise, send their renewal forms back to them unsigned.
It really is that simple.
http://www.theoffshoregame.net/475-2/
Tayred
The model being talked about is that after buying Carlisle, this hypothetical Glasgow club would play all their games there. Spiritual home abandoned. Objections to that facilitated by an escape from the ‘haters’.
In that scenario investment, difficult as it is to come by now, would be available for new stadium build ( Carlisle own a huge parcel of land just off the M6 spur).
I suppose there is always a chance of returning to Glasgow if the political climate changes at UEFA and FIFA, but moving just over the border may bear fruit.
If the club (which club would that be?) moved to Carlisle, they will lose a lot of support.
The true blue football supporter within the ranks won’t be interested. That group may well give birth to a new club, and another journey up through the pyramid which may well in time bring a blue presence back to the SPFL. I’d imagine such a club would have a good chance of successfully ridding itself of a lot of baggage along the way, and I for one would welcome that approach (shame it didn’t happen post 2012).
Meanwhile those more fanatical supporters happy to stick two fingers up to the “haters” and head off into the promised land that is the English Leagues, will probably lose interest very quickly when the dramatically reduced chances of winning anything become painfully obvious. I doubt they can secure sufficient investment to make in-roads towards the top league for years, and even if/once they get there I can’t see Carlisle Rangers having anything like the romance of a Man Utd, Chelsea or even Newcastle to secure the funding required to make a realistic challenge on any of the major trophies. European football would be a pipe dream. It would have to be a form of Glasgow Rangers, playing in and registered as a Glasgow team to stand any chance.
The model I’ve seen described would surely be a non-starter.
I think an update is in order regarding UEFA.
I called UEFA to speak to my previous contact there, Graham Peaker, this morning. Instead of Mr Peaker, who had passed on the documentation to someone more appropriate, I was put through to Juan Carlos Depoto who is now dealing with it. Unfortunately he was of the opinion that he would be giving it a low priority because of the amount of time that has passed since 2011. If you remember, this was an issue that was raised on this site earlier in the year when the Celtic board were playing “ignore the Res 12 guys” or put them off. There was much suggestion on here that this was a tactic to delay until the statute of limitation ran out in the spring. It looks like the tactic was successful.
I stressed to Senor Depoto that this was not an historic issue but that the 2011 issues were just a symptom of a long term problem that goes on until this day. I could not judge whether that moved his position at all or my warnings that the TJN report will be followed by other, wider ranging, independent reports in the near future had an effect. He can expect to here from me again though and maybe ten he will be clearer.
You know, at every stage of this I can’t help feeling that my original assessment, that in the end it will be down to ourselves, the fans, to force the change, is being depressingly reinforced.
That brings us back to our core difficulty, ensuring that ALL fans know that there is a problem.
Tayred
I agree that much of what you say may come to pass, but my source did stress heavily that he thought King was a risk taker. He actually said it with a hint of admiration.
If King is looking to get his £20m back, the current model’s rate of progress makes that unlikely. Taking a big gamble and blaming the move on the ‘bigots’ within the Scottish game (i.e. Everyone) might give him a shot?
I don’t deny there are a lot of what-ifs, but the current UEFA position on cross border participation is unambiguous, and the situation at Workington Reds and Carlisle is real.
Is the talk about the move to Carlisle based around any “investments” there. If it is I would probably choose to get the details of that, the details of the Workington Reds investment and any money that has arrived at Ibrox after a tortuous worldwide journey from South Africa. It might be an interesting exercise to examine these after having reread the document I attached at 9:33.
Sorry BP we appear to have cross posted.
Tony
I’ve not been on here much at all in a long time but I do remember much anger at sections of the media that were considered as outlets of spin which didn’t help in putting together a true picture or reflection of events and were often seeking to shape and influence opinion to the advantage of a particular party.
With that in mind can I ask why the link to John James is provided ?
Tayred @0935
Great minds and all that.
See my post from yesterday at 1157. I have played with these thoughts for a few years now and have often thought whether changes were the personal fantasy of an old man or whether others felt the same. How about you Tayred? Have you got changes that you would like to see?
BIG PINK
MAY 30, 2016 at 09:47
======================================
Apologies if this appears obtuse. However my understanding of that scenario is that a person or a group of people buy most or all of the shares in Carlisle United. They then own Carlisle United.
In what way does that club then become Rangers.
Subsidiary question, what happens to Rangers, the club about to join the SPFL premiership.
I short, how does one even try to sustain a continuity myth this time.
Hi Reiver, I do. But work beckons for me so I’ll have to save that for another day. But I think it is a topic that this wonderful place should devote more time to discussing.
paddy malarkeyMay 30, 2016 at 02:27
‘..I thought it was you who had previously pasted this legal link , Mr Clark(without an e ).I may be mistaken (again) .’
________
I think you might be right,paddy malarkey, but I had forgotten that I had done anything other than merely mention Runyon. Auld age definitely catching up!
Incidentally, your blog nom de plume might well have been the moniker of an habitue of a speakeasy in Runyon’s New York!
Homunculus and BP
There is another more damning point re “Carlisle Rangers” and that is the EL’s rules on ownership/interest in two clubs. It is an upcoming issue that Mike Ashley is about to face.
Big PinkMay 30, 2016 at 09:47
Tayred The model being talked about is that after buying Carlisle, this hypothetical Glasgow club would play all their games there. Spiritual home abandoned. Objections to that facilitated by an escape from the ‘haters’.In that scenario investment, difficult as it is to come by now, would be available for new stadium build ( Carlisle own a huge parcel of land just off the M6 spur). I suppose there is always a chance of returning to Glasgow if the political climate changes at UEFA and FIFA, but moving just over the border may bear fruit.
_____________________________________
I suppose, in this current Scottish football governance climate of liquidated club continues as if liquidation never happened, there could be two TRFCs, one in Carlisle and one in Glasgow, running at the same time, but actually co-existing as the same club, then, when it suits, they could just be the one same club, giving up membership of whichever league they don’t want to be a part of!
If there’s one club that could pull this off…
Would it be terrible of me to say that, for the sake of Scottish football, I hope their plan (to move to Carlisle) pays off? As long as they never return, that is!
On a more serious note, assuming the plan is to move to Carlisle. What is there for the genuine, Glasgow based, bear in this? I can see the potential financial benefits for the shareholders (even the fan shareholders), and in particular the benefits for the men ‘at the top’, but the ordinary supporter is going to be left with a 200 mile round trip to see his club’s home games, or a ‘reserve’ side playing in the lower reaches of the SPFL (which would be yet another disgrace if allowed).
Looks like yet another mess for Scottish football may be in the pipeline from Ibrox!
Sorry, but the Carlisle Rangers story just seems a bit like ‘a cab drivers told me…..’ type deal.
There has been plenty opportunity for English football to welcome Rangers/T’Rangers and Celtic had they any desire to do so.
They have turned them down at every time of asking.
Nothing has changed that makes me believe there has been any change in their views.
Coming up with some convoluted scheme that would end up pissing everyone off seems pretty far fetched and I doubt the English Footballing authorities and their member clubs would sanction such nonsense.
Article from The Scottish Sun
RANGERS’ journey back to the top flight netted their lower-league rivals a £4.5million windfall, The Scottish Sun on Sunday can reveal.
Smaller clubs cashed in on bumper crowds and juicy TV paydays from clashes with the Ibrox giants after their demotion to footie’s bottom tier.
Sponsorship, hospitality and merchandising boomed, while a travelling army of Bears fans splashed out in local shops, eateries and pubs on matchdays………
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/7181635/Money-Brox-Rangers-journey-to-top-flight-nets-minnows-millions.html
Homunculus,
I’d say the opposite. Now that we are being asked to believe that a club is simply what you want it to be, i.e. that you can pick and choose the bits that you like then it becomes a simple franchise to be attached to whatever physical playing entity you wish, with the freedom to continue to move the pieces around leaving any rejected nasty bits, like debt for instance, behind. Oakland is not in LA, as I understand it!
would not and could not go it alone on this.
To achieve this however you need three things:
1/ solidarity in the ranks to support the boards bidding else you just end up with breakaway factions – which in this case bearing in mind my ‘colt safety net’ comment above might not be a total disaster – if well, ahem, ‘managed’.
2/ all of the other clubs to accept and support the idea – that includes the Scottish clubs who sold their soul to support the reincarnation and the English clubs about to be ‘shoved aside.’ Really, this is the core of my argument why one cheek
3/ The member associations, one of which would be signing its own death warrant in its current form, to go along with it and UEFA with all of its internal wranglings and current cross border problems to rubber stamp it.
I could also add a need for a competent RFC board, with the resources and ability to network and flesh-press through the proposal.
And finally a compliant media who would need to see something in it for them – which for the Glasgow sports writers would be a commonwealth games every 30 years or so.
The best chance the two clubs have of this happening is some kind of Euro super league drawing away the City’s, Utds and Chelseas of this world and the English FA that remains looking for some way of refreshing what’s left. I suspect this might be the very rough roots of a contingency for that type of occurrence.
I tell you what though. It would serve them all, including my own, damn well right!
ReiverMay 30, 2016 at 10:17
‘… I was put through to Juan Carlos Depoto .’
__________
Reiver, I think that was terrific of you. Depoto’s response was perhaps less discouraging than you imagine. I mean, he was not likely to say anything too definite, any more than any bureaucrat would say over the phone. He might be aware that some other bods in UEFA are guilty of collusion in the dirty deed which saw RFC get its licence and is watching his own back while perhaps rooting about discreetly.
There re twisted sods in UEFA administration too, and honest men have to tread carefully.
I wonder if it might be possible to enlist the support of any or all of the thirty-odd clubs that were sanctioned for what RFC got away with? Our own clubs, particularly Celtic, now seem content to let the cheats get away anything.
Go on, Bank Holiday Special. For those of you haven’t read the sun article, guess the contributor of the quote:
Oh dear Lord, and again, Some Clubs were excluded from our sample including Dunfermline who…..
“went bust in 2013”
Smugas
Re. Sun article
You seem keen to focus in a negative direction but the positives for Scottish football far and away outweigh this, wouldn’t you agree?
ps. I would say that this analysis is correct not to take into consideration Dunfermline, given the circumstances and dates.
JC @1117
Senor Depoto did not sound like he was speaking the party line or being bureaucratic but I could be wrong because there was the issue that he was speaking in English, his second language. We are all aware how that adds difficulty to interpreting the timbre.
You are of course right that getting Scottish clubs on board would be ideal but as yet I have still only received one reply, a knock back, and that was from Hearts. It was the same with supporters clubs although I did not, and could not, contact all of them and consequently may not have contacted the correct ones. This has been over a period of about six months and more recently I have concentrated on UEFA and my own club Hibs. Despite almost daily calls and a number of emails I have not yet had a conversation with, a call back or email reply from Leeann Dempster. She is always in a meeting, conducting a tour or just plain not in today. Hibs should be proud to have such workaholic CEO. Unfortunately in the area I would like her to work she seems to be a complete skiver.
Bluegrass,
“The positives for Scottish football far and away outweigh this (my negativity)” as long as you, I and most notably the article (including of course comment from a finance “expert”) also omit to mention the £10-25m of share and loan funding that RFC powered through to provide the apparent £4.5m disbursement of which a significant proportion came from the fans in the shops, pubs and eateries – and so was actually ON TOP of the £10-25m.
Your fans commitment and spending power has never been in doubt. As a business plan to support “the positives of Scottish Football” however, I would respectfully suggest it sucks.
Edit, sorry, large range of £10-25m is only because no-one is entirely sure how much went in, how much came out (but it would appear all of it) and who the benefactor of the funds actually was, new chateaux notwithstanding.
Re. Sun article
Some details for those who may not be able to click on link.
– But figures for the three seasons to 2014/15 reveal 22 of the game’s smaller clubs turned a combined £3.28million loss into a £1.23million profit.
– In the three years before 2012 their assets shrank by £1.69million — but rose by £144,000 in the three years after.
– Meanwhile, total cash reserves bounced back from £1.08million in the red to £1.63million profit, a £2.71million turnaround.
– Cash-strapped Ayr United, Montrose, Peterhead, Albion Rovers, Cowdenbeath, East Fife and East Stirling failed to improve their bank balances in the three years.
– Paul Goodwin, of the Scottish Football Supporters Association, said: “Many clubs paid off debts thanks to having a large travelling support visit twice a season. Rangers fans also benefited far-flung local communities by spending in shops and restaurants.”
In general a big positive for the lower league clubs in Scotland that often get forgotten about……often in the rush to find the negative Rangers angle.
I don’t think there can be any doubt that the new club being allowed into the SFL (as was) provided much needed income for the lower league teams. Which is precisely why they were allowed in, over anyone else who may have wanted the vacant spot.
We can argue all we want about whether it was right or not, but the reality is there was a democratic vote of the clubs concerned and they voted the new team in by a substantial majority. At least some have reaped the financial benefits of that decision.
I also don’t think any of that is particularly new though.
Here’s the thing I have always found hypocritical, people seem happy enough to have a go at the SPL clubs for not doing enough with regards various debates. Those clubs (quite rightly) voted not to accept the application of the new club. It probably cost some of them a lot of money. I have seen it argued that it cost every SPL club a lot of money, Armageddon if you will.
The lower league clubs who voted the new team in, and benefited financially from that decision seem to be immune from criticism. The bottom line however is had they not made that decision there would be no debate, on pretty much any of this. There simply wouldn’t have been a new club allowed in senior football and as such no argument over what happened to the old club.
Rangers and their support have more to thank the SFL clubs for than the SFL clubs have to thank the new club for. It is possible that some of the SFL clubs would have been worse off, the new club would not even have existed.
An article in the Sun showing that a ‘Rangers’ have benefitted the lower reaches of Scottish football financially. I think we already knew that, well most people who can add up without using a calculator would know that without thinking about it, everybody else needs to read it in the Sun.
I bet, though, that the Sun didn’t mention the money all Scottish clubs had to stump up (via the SPFL coffers) to BT to have TRFC’s games covered on live TV in an effort to make them appear relevant!
More supporters = more money
Supporters like to drink – a lot = more money in the community via the pubs
Extra police on duty = more overtime = more money to spend in the community
Lots of bears come to town, with lots of songs and unpleasant behaviour made worse by a new chip on their shoulder = there’s a price to pay for more money
£4.5m over 4 years; not much of a windfall, really. Most clubs wouldn’t make enough to take Campbell Ogilvie on a good night out
Ally
“I bet, though, that the Sun didn’t mention the money all Scottish clubs had to stump up (via the SPFL coffers) to BT to have TRFC’s games covered on live TV in an effort to make them appear relevant!”
————————–
How much was it ?
BlueGrassMay 30, 2016 at 12:31
Ally“I bet, though, that the Sun didn’t mention the money all Scottish clubs had to stump up (via the SPFL coffers) to BT to have TRFC’s games covered on live TV in an effort to make them appear relevant!” ————————–How much was it ?
_________________
Around half a million if I remember correctly, though not sure if that was per season or for more than one. Supposedly to cover their extra costs of covering the matches at grounds with no gantries etc. Sensible thing would have been to have BT stick to the usual model of only covering top tier league clubs, or lower tier games at grounds where there would be no extra costs incurred. But that wouldn’t have suited Green who wanted maximum coverage for his money making scheme.
I see that the “Sun” article has the name of the ludicrous Neil Patey associated with it. Need one say more? Probably not, but here goes.
This sentence appears to form the basis of the “analysis”-
“figures for the three seasons to 2014/15 reveal 22 of the game’s smaller clubs turned a combined £3.28million loss into a £1.23million profit. ”
So they’re saying that the 3 year period to 14/15 was more profitable by £4.5m than the prior 3 years to 10/11 for the 22 clubs included. And without a shred of supporting evidence, the whole of this improvement is attributed to the presence of TRFC.
The “profitable” three seasons were 11/12, 12/13 and 14/15. There is a tiny wee problem with that. Let’s start with the fact that TRFC only entered the SFL in July 2012.So can anyone explain to me what on earth the 11/12 season has to do with this? Has it been pulled in because it was a very good year for the wee clubs, so let’s add it on to boost the “Gers” effect?
Clearly, the figures for 11/12 need to be included with 10/11 to give a meaningful comparison of the 2 year periods with the “mighty gers” in the SFL, compared to the previous 2 years without them. Anything else is simply manipulation.
And even a 2 year comparison is only valid if we accept that every pound of improvement is down to just one factor, and one factor only. There is zero evidence to support that.
The article is total nonsense, in my opinion, produced from manipulated figures solely for the purpose of supporting a “Rangers good for Scottish football” agenda.
The Rangers have announced that it is there intention to expand there business and enter the shopping sector and have identified areas that they have been on The Journey and capitalise on the amount of money, sorry, positivity they have left behind in these areas. The shops will have there own identity even though they may seem familiar but definitely not taken from anyone else. The new shops are RIDL- Rangers Isnae Deid Lads, RASDA – Rangers And SFA Deliver Always and RALDI – Rangers Aren’t Liquadated Despite Insolvency. A general appeal goes out to all those who are full of or regard themselves to be of an excessively positive manner to come along and thank us for improving your shitey little lives and your crappy wee toons and that you will all be eternally greatful to us for ever and ever Daveking.
Albion Rovers were never in the same division as TRFC.
Also the fag-packet calculation in The Sun (so one would expect a holistic & fastidious approach) doesn’t appear to take into account extra expenses incurred with stewards, police and other staff. It also ignores the social cost of slumbering towns being rudely awakened and their service infrastructure stretched to the limit and beyond.
Having the Sun in the appendices to any thesis would immediately discredit the thesis in my view.
Another squirrel.
Gave up on the Sun Article once I saw it was Neil Patey blethering on again.
£4.5m split between 29 lower division clubs averages out to £155k.
Yet the article says Falkirk gained £2m from 8 games v T’Rangers and QoS £1.7m – so that leaves £0.8m
Even if you take the lower figures mentioned for the above two clubs in terms of a ‘cash boost’ that total comes to £1.1m.
Therefore on that lesser figure that leaves leaves £3.4 split between 27 = £126k.
As Big Pink says , some never enjoyed a visit from the lads fae Govan.
No doubt some clubs and their associated community will have gained additional income from ‘the journey’ but I would take any figures quoted by the Sun and Patey with a pinch of salt.
HOMUNCULUS
Is it wrong to try and focus on a general positive for the majority of senior Scottsih football clubs instead of always having to find an angle that in someway points towards ‘Big Bad Rangers’ ?
I suppose at least I can understand the logic of the negative you want to take from a positive.
But what hypocritical right does any supporter of a larger club have in effectively (4 years later) blaming the smaller clubs for not voting to refuse Rangers a place in the Scottish League (so as to currently make a positive into a negative) ? The logic suggests that it doesn’t really matter what happens to the wee clubs, just help us get rid of Rangers.
Allyjambo on the other hand and IMO presents a more naked logic. He quickly twists the Rangers support from those who were part of contributing to the relative financial windfall for the lower leagues into drunken and badly behaved group of singing bears, surrounded by Police.
I don’t consider that fair, balanced or a reflection of the reality throughout the huge majority of our away trips in the lower leagues.
It’s fair to say that Hearts will have contributed somewhat to the numbers presented in the article.
Quite a surprise to see the ‘Carlisle Rangers Exclusive’ but I personaly doubt it to have real substance.
BLUEGRASS
HOMUNCULUS
Is it wrong to try and focus on a general positive for the majority of senior Scottsih football clubs instead of always having to find an angle that in someway points towards ‘Big Bad Rangers’ ?I suppose at least I can understand the logic of the negative you want to take from a positive.But what hypocritical right does any supporter of a larger club have in effectively (4 years later) blaming the smaller clubs for not voting to refuse Rangers a place in the Scottish League (so as to currently make a positive into a negative) ? The logic suggests that it doesn’t really matter what happens to the wee clubs, just help us get rid of Rangers.
====================================
1, I said that there could be no doubt that the lower division clubs had benefited financially from the new club bring additional revenue, there is no doubt about that.
2, I am not trying to take a negative from that positive, it stands there on it’s own. The positive of the additional money to the lower league clubs is a simple fact.
3, There is nothing hypocritical in stating a fact. It is now four years later, however I also said it at the time, as did many others.
4, I am not blaming them for anything. They had every right to vote the new club in, I only mention the consequences of them making the decision they did. They allowed a new club to have a league to play in, without that decision the club would have failed. Unless you think it could have survived as a Junior team with no pyramid structure into senior football at that time. Rangers have their very existence to thank the SFL clubs for.
5, My logic suggests nothing of the sort. It is how you chose to interpret the whole situation, that is an entirely different matter. It wasn’t a case of getting rid of Rangers, it was a case of allowing the new club in. No-one needs to get rid of that which no longer exists.
If you would like to tell me which part I posted which you actually disagree with I could try to answer.
PS I would point out a subtle distinction here. The lower league clubs were not asked to vote on whether to refuse Rangers entry to their league. They were asked to vote on whether to allow them entry. Likewise the SPL clubs did not vote Rangers out, they declined to vote them in.
The distinction is an important one. It comments on what a person thinks the default position should be.
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.
Re the Carlisle Rangers thingy.
Could it be possible that a newly named Carlisle Rangers would be allowed to play their English League etc. matches at Ibrox Stadium?
Possibly even on a ground share basis with the existing occupants of Ibrox until such time that it becomes possible for Carlisle Rangers to become the single occupants of Ibrox while the original occupants move to the previous home of Carlisle at which time both clubs could conveniently switch identity?
CrownStBhoy
May 30, 2016 at 14:18
Not with the rules as they are currently. The authorities would simply veto such a proposal. However the authorities on either side of the border can do nothing under the current rules to prevent someone from buying a Football league club and changing their name and strip.
For information purposes, the Welsh anomaly – where clubs like Cardiff and Swansea play in the English league – came about because there were no adequate transport links between North and South Wales – but those towns were easily accessible from England. Derry, were a ‘near border’ side so were allowed to play in Ireland. What contrivance – if any – could be manufactured to make it impossible for a club to play in Scotland?
It would be a wrench for any club to leave it’s spiritual home. However we have all seen how easily it is to manipulate football fans and instil in them a sense of mass victimhood. That faux outrage may be enough for Rangers fans to consider following a club playing just an hour and a half away across the English border.
Not saying it is definitely gonna happen, and as wottpi says, it has the sound of ‘a cab driver told me’. However, the information about the purchase of Workington Reds and the sniffing around CUFC shares is most definitely not.
The extrapolation on my part is what – if anything – those facts lead to. From a Celtic standpoint, having Rangers act as stalking horse for entry into the English setup.
My remark about the provenance of any new club was an ironic one. Of course it would be Carlisle United’s history moving forward. It would certainly put an end to OCNC for good 🙂
BlueGrassMay 30, 2016 at 13:35
HOMUNCULUS Is it wrong to try and focus on a general positive for the majority of senior Scottsih football clubs instead of always having to find an angle that in someway points towards ‘Big Bad Rangers’ ?I suppose at least I can understand the logic of the negative you want to take from a positive. But what hypocritical right does any supporter of a larger club have in effectively (4 years later) blaming the smaller clubs for not voting to refuse Rangers a place in the Scottish League (so as to currently make a positive into a negative) ? The logic suggests that it doesn’t really matter what happens to the wee clubs, just help us get rid of Rangers.
Allyjambo on the other hand and IMO presents a more naked logic. He quickly twists the Rangers support from those who were part of contributing to the relative financial windfall for the lower leagues into drunken and badly behaved group of singing bears, surrounded by Police. I don’t consider that fair, balanced or a reflection of the reality throughout the huge majority of our away trips in the lower leagues. It’s fair to say that Hearts will have contributed somewhat to the numbers presented in the article.
Quite a surprise to see the ‘Carlisle Rangers Exclusive’ but I personaly doubt it to have real substance.
_____________________________
I think you’ll find it was not I who introduced the fact that a large number of supporters would be spending their money on drink, rather one of the beneficiaries of this new found wealth mentioned in the article was, ‘the pubs’. I have no idea, myself, of where much more money would be spent, other than on pies and such in suddenly overcrowded wee shops, and I doubt many local shops of any other kind would be selling much extra of their wares, unless they’d managed to find a line in rip-off ‘Rangers’ gear! There will also have been a much larger presence of police in some of those rather sleepy towns than had ever been seen before. They all need paid, and many will have been on overtime. If you think a couple of thousand ‘Rangers’ supporters, whose songs are not noted for their sense of bonhomie, would not blight a small community, then you have not witnessed their coming from the viewpoint of a non-bear.
I will acknowledge that much of what I’ve said could be said of Hearts and Hibs visits to the grounds of the Championship teams, though the towns visited were generally of a larger, and less rural, nature, and so less affected by an influx of football supporters. Oh, and nobody in the media is writing articles on the benefits to the communities they’ve visited.
However, the point of my post was not to add yet more words to describe the despicable behaviour of ‘Rangers’ supporters over the years, but to show how ridiculous it is to quote anything in the Sun as somehow worthy of note. And as for Neil Patey…
HOMUNCULUS, thank’s for the reply.
1. I didn’t say you hadn’t.
2. From a Rangers fan POV, I disagree. You at least recognised the positive but went on to speculate regards the vote. You did so from from your own POV when the real and only relevant POV was that of the voting clubs. ie. the numbers in the article have a firm base but your slant which whilst involoving real options is only looking at it from your very hypothetical point (that was very far from reality)…..and the substantive and real point to take from the article is Positive.
3. As I said above, a very hypothetical fact that wasn’t ever in the real world of 90%+ of lower league clubs back in 2012. Hypocritical IMO because of how larger clubs prioritise finance (you as an individual may have a different view).
To sum-up
I can understand most of your logic but would point out that the base for which to have made one of it’s main points (re.voting options) relevant, was never going to be touched or be seriously considered. It was a fact but so is that Edinburgh City may win the Scottish Cup next season.
Hence, IMO the general financial benefits to lower league clubs and the numbers behind them are the real story here. Others who instantly reject them (not yourself) seem to do so very quickly, almost automatically and without offering alternative numbers.
In case that was a dig at me…
I repeat, my alternative numbers were that of the £10-25m that has disappeared into the Ibrox black hole over the last five years (and we can argue the toss how much it was, but we can surely agree it was more than the 4.5m disbursement on which the article focusses) the other clubs are claimed to have benefitted to the tune of £4.5m. Of that figure, since much of it is attributed to the net revenues received from the gers fans’ away day experience then you equally have to add that additional spend on to the other side of the equation, on to the £10-25m that it cost to have them there in the first place.
So my point, backed by numbers, is to say that of the £27m (the £25 plus say, half the £4.5m), we’ve got £4.5m to show for it. Yay for us!
Ally: “Lots of bears come to town, with lots of songs and unpleasant behaviour made worse by a new chip on their shoulder = there’s a price to pay for more money”
——————-
The point I was making was that your emotive language didn’t reflect the reality of the Rangers journey through the divisions. Unless of course the new standard of behaviour has changed to ‘Sunday School Outing’ rather than that of football fans going to a game.
I point this out because it has become far too easy to automatically take a negative slant re. Rangers fans and/or single them out for criticism.
Part of this is our own fault and simply down to bad behaviour but another significant part of it is also down to ‘other reasons’.
‘Other reasons’ is a whole issue in itself.
BlueGrassMay 30, 2016 at 14:48
HOMUNCULUS, thank’s for the reply. 1. I didn’t say you hadn’t. 2. From a Rangers fan POV, I disagree. You at least recognised the positive but went on to speculate regards the vote. You did so from from your own POV when the real and only relevant POV was that of the voting clubs. ie. the numbers in the article have a firm base but your slant which whilst involoving real options is only looking at it from your very hypothetical point (that was very far from reality)…..and the substantive and real point to take from the article is Positive. 3. As I said above, a very hypothetical fact that wasn’t ever in the real world of 90%+ of lower league clubs back in 2012. Hypocritical IMO because of how larger clubs prioritise finance (you as an individual may have a different view).
To sum-up I can understand most of your logic but would point out that the base for which to have made one of it’s main points (re.voting options) relevant, was never going to be touched or be seriously considered. It was a fact but so is that Edinburgh City may win the Scottish Cup next season.
Hence, IMO the general financial benefits to lower league clubs and the numbers behind them are the real story here. Others who instantly reject them (not yourself) seem to do so very quickly, almost automatically and without offering alternative numbers.
_________________________
I think something you seem to be ignoring, though it has been pointed out to you already, is that no one ever doubted that there would be a financial benefit to the lower league clubs as a result of larger crowds, as well as a share of the TV revenue they’d never enjoyed before. It was always the only argument of substance for allowing the new club in ahead of all others. It was discussed here, and on RTC before, that there would undoubtedly be a financial benefit for the smaller clubs with a ‘Rangers’ in the lower tiers. It’s not rocket science. There is no need to bring it up again just because the Sun, a turd within a sea of turds, has an article on it, using input from Neil Patey
. It is small beer compared to all the other factors in the ‘Rangers Scandal’. Considering the figures are just guesswork. with no actual match-day figures used, I’m surprised the ‘benefit’ stated is so small!
On the voting into the SFL of TRFC; the SFL clubs, as indicated by Turnbull Hutton, were put under great pressure, blackmailed indeed, to vote TRFC into the SFL. They resisted voting them into the second tier, but were obliged to gerrymander them into the bottom tier. £4.5m, spread very unevenly, is a small return for the damage to the game’s integrity that was forced upon it by men of low morals.
Have any other media outlets picked up on the ‘Carlisle exclusive’ ?
Jack
You’re only back 5 minutes – or 20 posts 🙂 – and already you are playing the man.
We have had some problems recently with a troll, so we are hoping this isn’t just another instalment.
SFM isn’t a table tennis court. Make your point. if it is obvious you haven’t converted anyone, move on.
There’s more agreeing to disagree here than you might think. It’s why we are still here despite divergent agendas. That – and a reluctance to quote the Sun in the midst of forensic analysis.
And whilst I am at it – what about your blog? Why not make your points there.
BLUEGRASS
MAY 30, 2016 at 15:31
Exactly what I mean by trolling Jack. Nobody claimed that story as an exclusive, although I find the premise that a story of any truth would find itself the subject of an SMSM feature.
Your mocking tone is of no worth to SFM at all. We can’t be a solution to your boredom.
The Rangers/Carlisle rumour is probably nonsense but it reminded me of Gillford Park. In 2012 a scottish businessman bought them and they were rebranded as Celtic Nation FC.
Their new strip was green and white hoops, the badge had a shamrock on it and Willie McStay was their manager for a while. I’m sure everyone can imagine the rumours surrounding the club. I’m not too sure what happened but they went out of business in 2015.
I mention this because that club was based in…. Carlisle. Maybe some people were/are eyeing that city as the place to export/inflict the ‘unique’ rivalry of the old firm.
BLUEGRASSMAY 30, 2016 at 15:25
I don’t think you will find anyone on here disagreeing that ‘the journey’ has help contribute financially to some of the lower league clubs.
The more fans in general go to games, home and away, the better it is for the game as a whole. Nobody on here will argue against that.
The skepticism you will find here is that the article you referred to has a headline which implies T’Rangers are the new and sole saviours of the lower reaches of Scottish Football.
Those clubs mostly done fine without a big club in their leagues for decades and they will do so again now that T’Rangers are back in the top division.
I would guess the Falkirk situation is as much to do with reaching the final of the Scottish Cup the other season, where their share of crowds of 21k and 37k in the semi and final respectively and access to that prize money will have boosted that clubs income.
As has been mentioned it is also the case that Falkirk, who have a decent home fan base to be exploited, benefited from Hibs visiting (2 league home games in 14/15 and 2 in 15/16 combine to an average attendance of 6291). Rangers Ave for the same period = 7427 and Hearts for two games in 14/15 = 7369.
Yes the contribution made by T’Rangers to the finances of the lower league clubs is a positive.
However like the claims of the number of players attacked at the Cup final, let’s not get carried away with ourselves and understand there is a lot more to be analysed than what the papers tell us.
BlueGrassMay 30, 2016 at 15:10
Ally: “Lots of bears come to town, with lots of songs and unpleasant behaviour made worse by a new chip on their shoulder = there’s a price to pay for more money” ——————-The point I was making was that your emotive language didn’t reflect the reality of the Rangers journey through the divisions. Unless of course the new standard of behaviour has changed to ‘Sunday School Outing’ rather than that of football fans going to a game. I point this out because it has become far too easy to automatically take a negative slant re. Rangers fans and/or single them out for criticism. Part of this is our own fault and simply down to bad behaviour but another significant part of it is also down to ‘other reasons’.‘Other reasons’ is a whole issue in itself.
_______________________
Not sure whether you’re agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or excusing the worst aspects of the RFC/TRFC support in this post.
As to the part of your post that I’ve highlighted, I’d suggest it far more accurate to say ‘it has become far more appropriate to take a negative slant re ‘Rangers’ fans…’, rather than ‘too easy’.
Re your ‘‘Other reasons’ is a whole issue in itself.’:
I’d say it’s not ‘a whole issue in itself’ as everything that is wrong with your club, that I have witnessed in my rather long life, is wrapped up in sectarianism and the WATP attitude, unless the ‘other reason’ you refer to is something even worse that I am, as yet, unaware of.
incredibleadamspark
May 30, 2016 at 15:42
Exactly IAS. Frank Lynch I believe was behind Celtic Nation with exactly the same intentions for Celtic as the purchase of the stake in Worthing Reds is for TRFC.
Two points which made me conjecture further in the wake of (what I think is) the faux outrage and phoney argument between TRFC and the SFA et al are;
1. Carlisle are a lot nearer the top tier than Worthington Reds, and;
2. King is a different beast from the uber-conservative Celtic board who had no intention of going along with Lynch’s plans (to the extent that he has pretty much given the club away). He might feel he has little to lose and a whole lot to gain by going for it. Of course if you (or anyone else) really feel that King is all about the good of Rangers, you might conclude that he wouldn’t take such a gamble.
My starting point is that, like almost all people involved in our national game, King is all about King.
TRISIDIUM
Where have I ‘played the man’?
I ask because all I see is that I may have disagreed with someone, put forward my reasons and I need to know your interpretation.
It’s plain I’m not going to be on the same page as the majority here so that would probably mean fairly lively contested debates if and when I was on. I think it comes down to if those in charge really want such debates or not.
I’ve been too far away from events in recent months to be able to do a blog at present and looking at the present situation, it would need a tweak in direction.
wottpi
Your point about having Hearts and Hibs AND TRFC in the Championship all contributing to a hike in financial well-being is a well observed one.
I don’t remember any banner headlines about the benefits the return to the Premiership of Hearts last year would bring to the game.
The ‘article’ in The Sun also appears to ignore the financial strides taken by Premiership clubs during the time when TRFC were still on the first, second, third and fourth parts of their journey, and unable to assist.
In fact your point is one which might be well used to advocate a bigger league – one which the authorities have rejected for generations on the basis that it would mean financial ruin.
The narrative, as we hear it so often, is that only TRFC are required to make things right. We need ALL of our clubs – including TRFC – but the game won’t die for the lack of any one particular club, no matter who it is.
BlueGrass
May 30, 2016 at 16:02
Jack,
1. You rushed to take offence at BP’s squirrel remark – despite it not being directed at you.
2. You then mocked BP’s conjecture about the Cardiff situation.
3. You asked why people posted links to other blogs (specifically one you don’t like).
4. If you have time to make so many posts in such a short space of time, why not lay it all out on a blog?
5. And now the old ‘you don’t really want debates on here’ chestnut is aired (rather early this time – you usually leave that one for much later) – as well as the even earlier dark dereferences to ‘other resaons’.
You know most people don’t agree with you on here. If you really think that you can make your point by arguing semantics – and that people will warm to you because of it, I think you are making a mistake.
However I don’t think you are that daft. You could try to win a few friends – which is what involving yourself in a community is all about.
There are other TRFC fans on SFM. They make their point and defend their ground. They seldom play the ‘I’m smarter than you card’ which is a (tiresome) character trait of our trolls (of all hues).
I wish you would try to make friends, but I don’t think that is your intention.
Aw come on BP/Tris, let us play.
Of course it appears to cost £7-8m per annum to have a Rangers to actually argue about so as long as that’s completely and utterly ignored since its other people’s money then its game on…
Oh but we do get 4.5m back. Over four years. And its not without its risks. Neil P says so. In the Sun.
CROWNSTBHOYMAY 30, 2016 at 14:18
Re the Carlisle Rangers thingy.
Could it be possible that a newly named Carlisle Rangers would be allowed to play their English League etc. matches at Ibrox Stadium?
Possibly even on a ground share basis with the existing occupants of Ibrox until such time that it becomes possible for Carlisle Rangers to become the single occupants of Ibrox while the original occupants move to the previous home of Carlisle at which time both clubs could conveniently switch identity?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
One Scenario
If TRFC acquired Carlisle Utd they could “inform” the SFA and SPFL that they intended to play all their future home games at Carlisle on dates that did not clash with EPL games involving Carlisle Utd. i.e. Both teams would operate from the same stadium
The SFA already have one member ( BerwickRangers ) who have a stadium in England so it would be yet more “victimisation” if they refused to agree to TRFC moving out of Scotland
Lots of permutations thereafter about how and when this enables TRFC to join the EPL
Alternatively
All the Carlisle stuff is just a Spiv ploy to pressurise the SFA to move their HQ from Hampden to Ibrox bankrupting Queens Park in the process
Ibrox becomes the sole venue for for International matches as part of the deal
Queens Park get saved from liquidation by a group of RRM and are allowed to groundshare at Ibrox with a hefty chunk of the proceeds from closing Hampden used to renovate Ibrox
We end up with a well maintained national stadium that is regularly maintained for the good of Scottish football
Who gets Carlyle’s history Does it get added on, stretching Sevco’s history back to 1760? Will Carlyle become a city, built on shipbuilding and the tobacco trade?…It’s all very confusing. It’s awfy far away from Wales.
I doubt all that can happen. If the deal does go through, I think it more likely that Carlyle would just change their name, and they would still be Carlyle, but can just kid-on about all the rest…..Is that allowed in Engerlundshire? Would that be considered European fitba’?……..I just don’t know anymore. What’s happened? Where am I?
I’ve got to agree with BP and Tris here.
The main issue on here is the SFA’s malfeasance with the RFC/TRFC parts being a symptom of that.
Visitors like Lawman and now Bluegrass quickly try to concentrate the discussion on the symptom, they are not interested in the SFA concerns. All that they seem to want to do is to draw the discussion far enough round that the contributors on here can be labeled “Rangers haters”.
It is easy to enjoy the debate guys but take care that you are contributing to a troll’s aims.
100% correct Reiver hence the squirrel reference from myself apparently the last squirrel dropper has proved the TJN report wrong yeah as if lol.
I’ve just had a bit of a read-up on Carlisle United.
There are some names in their recent history (Michael Knighton, Brookes Mileson) that we’re familiar with.
I also note that in the Wikipedia entry, there’s a reference to an article by a John Goodbody in the Times of the 7th of October 1989, entitled “Rangers owner assists Knighton buy [Manchester] United” (my brackets). That would be SDM, by the date.
Can someone pull up the article please?
JINGSO.JIMSIE found this instead, wtf? ‘i was gonna manage utd, and walter stay at rangers’
http://www.squawka.com/news/i-was-going-to-manage-united-graeme-souness-reveals-how-close-he-came-to-replacing-ferguson/647199
nb this is a reasonably new article
BLUEGRASS
i put his link on as a different view for people to read,nothing sinister
Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC
Press Release : 30th May 2016
Thanks for the info BP.
I have to confess I wasn’t being entirely serious, however, as a matter of interest Oswestry Town, an English club playing in the Welsh League, played their home matches in England.
They no longer exist having merged with The New Saints a Welsh League club playing their home matches at Oswestry Towns’ old ground in England.
BTW, apologies for my ‘squirrel’ comment in response to another poster; I’m a sucker for playing the man
But surely the SFA would have to move to Scotland’s biggest football stadium, after all Queens Park were originally suggested as being named ‘The Celts’
“Jack,1. You rushed to take offence at BP’s squirrel remark – despite it not being directed at you.”
quite right too, there’s nothing worse than being de-squirrelised.
I’m probably missing something here, but how would taking over Carlisle get King his £20m back? Has anyone ever made any money from Carlisle FC?
, so is Leeds) would be cheaper and quicker? They already have good stadiums, and are just one good season of “overinvestment” away from EPL glory. And even then, you can overinvest a fortune (Fulham?) and still fall well short.
I can see that if you got Carlisle a new 50k seat stadium, changed their name to some sort of Rangers, got the bears on board, and got into the EPL, you could maybe hit the jackpot. A lot of “ifs” there, and that would cost much more than £20m, would take at least 5 years, and with no guarantee of success at any point along the new “journey”. Even renaming a club in England is difficult. The owner of Hull has been trying without success to change the name to Hull Tigers for years now. And King has no leverage over the FA. Just a small fish in a big pond.
Surely buying a Championship club (Newcastle is currently for sale
King might be a risk taker, but he’s surely not totally stupid. In Glasgow he has the stadium, he has the punters, and he has the SFA so compromised that he can get whatever he wants from them. He can milk his £20m out of the Scottish set up much more quickly and easily than he could from Carlisle, in my opinion. Green & co seem to have got a lot of money out of the club while in the lower divisions. King can surely do better in the top flight.
NEEPHEID
MAY 30, 2016 at 21:27
==========================================
Green and Co ran the business with trading losses, King an Co are doing the same.
The big difference is that King and Co had the proceeds of an IPO to get their bit from.
It’s difficult to see how anyone can get money out of Rangers just now because it doesn’t actually make any and has no line of credit to provide funds.
I see that the CQN page relating to Resolution 12 has been taken down (has someone threatened legal action?)
HomunculusMay 30, 2016 at 22:30
The big difference is that King and Co had the proceeds of an IPO to get their bit from.
Green ?
HEN1RIKMAY 31, 2016 at 01:46
========================
Things appear to be moving regarding Res 12 and there may come a time fairly soon when the mainstream media have to give it some coverage. However, we should not forget that it will also be an opportunity for them to twist the debate for the benefit of readers and listeners who are not familiar with it. I expect it to be portrayed as more paranoia from obsessive Celtic fans at a time the future of Scottish football is looking good. It will be time to move on as Rangers have taken their punishment. I expect quotes from a ‘source’ at the SFA assuring us the Licensing Committee in 2011 acted correctly. We all have a good idea who the source is of course. Someone who posts on here regularly has probably met him face to face this year!
HomunculusMay 30, 2016 at 22:30
Green and Co ran the business with trading losses, King an Co are doing the same.
The big difference is that King and Co had the proceeds of an IPO to get their bit from.
It’s difficult to see how anyone can get money out of Rangers just now because it doesn’t actually make any and has no line of credit to provide funds.
============================
You are quite right that Green & Co managed to milk both the bears and the investment community for over £20m via the IPO. King has a task that is both harder and easier. Harder because Green has poisoned the well- I don’t see even the stupidest of the City boys being hooked again. Easier because King can work almost entirely without scrutiny. Remember those almost weekly market statements, and that all too visible share price? None of that “transparency” for the King regime.
King just needs to find someone with loads of money and persuade them to buy him out. Since King holds his shares via some offshore entity, how would we ever know? He might have sold out already (I’m not suggesting he has, by the way), and there would be nothing in the public domain. That is the beauty of an unlisted company. Which is why I don’t believe that King ever had any intention of replacing the Nomad and continuing the listing.
RIFC, with Rangers in the top flight, is surely a much more attractive proposition than the company Green took to market almost 4 years ago. And Green raised over £20m for a 70% stake. So far as we know, King has around 30% which he seems to have acquired very cheaply. I’m sure another 20% could be found who are willing to sell at the right price.
Before delisting, anyone wanting to buy over 30% of the PLC had to be prepared to buy 100%, since minority interests were protected by the takeover code. I may be wrong, but in the current situation I believe the minority shareholders have no protection. Which means that by delisting, the potential cost of buying the company has halved, since the buyer can achieve full control with a 51% holding, acquired privately. That makes RIFC much more attractive to anyone looking to buy a football club.
As things stand, and as far as we know, RIFC is staggering along from month to month, surviving on soft loans, presumably, since losses continue. However loss making in the football “business” is almost a given, there is no bank debt, and the world appears to be well stocked with football-mad, billionaire egomaniacs. If a buyer can be found who is prepared to pay £40m or so for a controlling interest, that would get King his £20m back.
Is £40m too much to pay for control of RIFC? Whoever buys will also have to cover the losses and supply a warchest, so in year one, a buyer might need to find an extra £15m or so. Could the company be made profitable? Only if the retail deal is sorted out, in my opinion. Which makes Ashley the obvious buyer- if he can sell Newcastle.
I’ve never quite got a handle on the web site http://footballisfixed.blogspot.com/ . Their area of interest seems to be organised football-betting scams, which is a very murky area indeed–the material on the site seems credible, but there’s no way of really knowing. I do know that earlier this year they ran an long & detailed article that contained very serious allegations against one Premiership club. Part of the story involved blood doping–several weeks later the same club was named in the Sunday Times’ investigation into the dodgy Harley Street medic who claimed to have administered performance-enhancing substances to footballers Premiership from three or four Premiership clubs. The original footballisfixed story was subsequently taken down.
Anyway, the reason I mention this particular site is that one of their archived articles concerned Celtic FC. (The story appears to have been deleted.) It seemed far-fetched at the time, and I don’t think I bothered to re-post the details. The story stated that Oxford United had been bought by a cartel of individuals with ties to Celtic; it claimed that there were plans to use the English club as a vehicle by which Celtic could gain entrance to the football leagues. I can’t recall the date/year of the original story, but a casual glance at Oxford United’s recent ownership history doesn’t appear to substantiate the allegations of a Celtic connection; unless I’ve overlooked some potential connections.
Just thought I’d mention this now, given all the gossip bubbling up about Carlisle/RIFC.
don’t know if this has been posted
http://twohundredpercent.net/scotlands-football-press-history/
AllyjamboMay 30, 2016 at 12:28
An article in the Sun showing that a ‘Rangers’ have benefitted the lower reaches of Scottish football financially. I think we already knew that, well most people who can add up without using a calculator would know that without thinking about it, everybody else needs to read it in the Sun.
I bet, though, that the Sun didn’t mention the money all Scottish clubs had to stump up (via the SPFL coffers) to BT to have TRFC’s games covered on live TV in an effort to make them appear relevant!
More supporters = more money Supporters like to drink – a lot = more money in the community via the pubs Extra police on duty = more overtime = more money to spend in the community Lots of bears come to town, with lots of songs and unpleasant behaviour made worse by a new chip on their shoulder = there’s a price to pay for more money
£4.5m over 4 years; not much of a windfall, really. Most clubs wouldn’t make enough to take Campbell Ogilvie on a good night out
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Does this report take into account that during much of the same period the ”lower divisions” also benefited from the inclusion of Hearts and Hibernian ?
SteveplustaxMay 31, 2016 at 09:18
I’ve never quite got a handle on the web site http://footballisfixed.blogspot.com/ .
=====================
Quite a lot of stuff seems to have been taken down from that site recently. I remember an article which compared EPL referees with the results of various clubs when refereed by them. It struck me as borderline libellous at the time. Taken down, of course, along with the Celtic/Oxford article and a few others too I suspect.
Here is a link to another article on the Oxford story- http://etims.net/?p=8882
Apologies for linking to a fan site, but it does seem relevant to the debate.
Neepheid
I remind people of what Bill Miller’s man Jon Pritchett said re what needed to be done to make the club profitable (or even, just sustainable).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sportsmoney/2012/10/08/what-can-we-learn-from-the-financial-meltdown-of-glasgow-rangers-fc/3/#3281f1dd4a3a
Despite the talk of ‘over-investment’ the current board at Ibrox have made some attempt to follow this advice.
The big hurdle is of course the retail deal and you have to take your hat off to them for making moves to try and sort that situation out. However it is a gamble as previous CEO’s have clearly viewed the deal as being watertight. King’s latest move may work if he has identified a loophole to be exploited. However if the move fails then the financial fallout of costs and damages could be significant. If the deal holds then its six more years of the same.
With the right approach there is no reason why T’Rangers could not be an attractive proposition to a buyer.
However IMHO it is going to take years to get to that point. As such it is a question of how long can the RRM and the fans group continue to contribute financially to keep the club competitive and afloat if there is no obvious improvement or ‘payback’.
At last!
I spoke to Ms Dempster at Hibs this morning. That is the good news, now the not so good news. She is solely concentrating on Hibs business at present and is not prepared to be diverted from that until it is complete. The intimation is that she MAY be prepared to discuss the matter when the new season starts and her work load reduces. It is just a pity that she was never available to speak every time I called over the second half of last season before the workload increased. Perhaps, then, our issues may have been given the respect and concern that it deserves. I must not detract from the good work she has done on behalf of my club but there must be a place within that business to deal with the concerns of its fans with respect to serious questions being asked about the governance of the game as a whole. Unlike our nurses and doctors in the NHS where the excessive workload is enforced upon them Ms Dempster has the luxury of defining the priorities in her own workload and even has the ability to delegate the less important issues. Unfortunately there would appear to be no place for our concerns. Not at the highest level of necessity as we see it where she would review the issues personally. Nor at the lowest level, as defined by our media, where delegating the review of the matter and having a summary produced for her perusal would appear to be warranted. I cannot help feeling disappointed.
On a broader note, is it a generational thing? The prioritising of making money and running business over morality and integrity? Is this just another of Thatcher’s legacies and is the moral outrage that is displayed on SFM just a reflection of the fact that the majority on here are from an age when the dinosaurs that are morality, justice and social responsibility were present in our society?
Steveplustax
The Oxford United story is nonsense. Celtic did agree (in the late 90s) to buy a controlling interest in Wimbledon (now MK Dons) then playing in the top league darn sarf.
The Fergus McCann-led plan was to change their name to Celtic, and then change the location to Glasgow. At the time, there were no specific rules which prevented that from taking place, but fearing a legal challenge from current Wimbledon shareholders, Brian Quin persuaded the Celtic board to back off.
There have been other mutterings since then, but geography now plays a big part as cross border participation is now proscribed. That is why Oxford is a no-no, but Carlisle, Workington Reds and Celtic Nation are plausible.