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/
SPANISHCELTMAY 31, 2016 at 10:07
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 ?
__________
I’m not sure if the Sun puff piece takes in the season both Hearts and Hibs were in the Championship, but regardless, the £4.5m is hardly a sensational amount over 4 years, and it came at a cost. The piece, of course, forgets to mention that, as part of the cause of TRFC starting life, at all, RFC had already cost the rest of Scottish football far many more millions of pounds in cheated titles, prize money, and European participation.
Only Rangers didn’t lose out, financially, as a result of their cheating, though it wasn’t enough to save them.
I still can’t get over that anyone would try to use a Sun ‘article’ to try to make us believe that TRFC have somehow been beneficial to Scottish football. It’s almost as though someone was trying to get a few more hits for the world’s most discredited rag’s online version! I suppose, in that sense, it worked. Damn
To be fair to Greenock Jack, he usually constructs arguments better than that. The Sun is not his spiritual home I don’t think.
wottpiMay 31, 2016 at 10:14
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’.
===================
If I was a potential buyer, I would see some potential profit right now. If you wait until Zadok the Priest is ringing out at a packed Ibrox, then the price will double. A load of money has been extracted from Ibrox over the last 3 or 4 years. I think there is still some juice to be squeezed from that particular lemon for someone who knows what they’re doing.
That’s a great piece that you’ve quoted from Bill Miller’s right hand man. I often wonder how things would have turned out under Miller’s ownership? I don’t think Superally’s feet would have touched the floor on the way out for starters. That one move would have knocked a year off “the journey” and saved a few million into the bargain.
Miller’s main problem was the fans. as Pritchett correctly identifies. Green knew exactly how to keep them on board and spending. Miller wasn’t into that kind of nonsense. He wanted to run it as a business. The fans simply wouldn’t accept that.
Never thought I would be the one defending GJ but there you go.
He had one valid point. That of the millions being spent within and surrounding TRFC on their journey that some clubs had felt a temporary and most welcome spin off. I know this to be fact, I spoke to an officer of one last night to be sure.
I should also say that since the net benefit was derived from club’s annual accounts then the issue raised by some of increased spend by those clubs should have been accounted for in accommodating the larger visiting crowds.
Of the several points GJ seemed to take pride in ignoring however:
1/ It had cost several more millions (than the net benefit) to actually put TRFC there for the spin off to be created. The natural follow on, if you are to proclaim that as a success as the article did (and incidentally ‘we’ all collectively did, ‘we’ paid considerable bonuses based on that very fact) is to say that as long as we all fund RFC’s continuing success then we’ll surely all reap some reward, maybe, possibly, it just depends, but support us anyway. That nonsensical business plan concerns me, as does the obvious lack of any plan B and, separately, particularly in the face of blatant unnecessary cheating by the most obvious beneficiary of the supposed relationship.
2/ (The Officer’s point) That them being there, “whilst unavoidable” (his exact words), had of course made a mockery particularly of leagues 3 & 4 for two years in the format that they (TRFC) chose to operate which is of course inextricably linked to point 1. Again however I stress that he considered that disruption “unavoidable in those particular circumstances” and by circumstances (cos I asked obviously!) he meant once someone was, and I quote, “stupid enough to give them £20m to p*ss up a wall.” It also explains why he felt no moral problem with banking his share of the booty!
[You will hopefully now see why I promised anonymity!]
3/ The blatant contradictions in the article, particularly in Mr Patey’s contribution, were beyond laughable. I seriously wonder why EY haven’t gagged him even if it was only the Sun. Its probably yet another sad indictment of our game that they haven’t felt the need.
4/ There was no mention of Hibs or Hearts contribution which is still not to downplay TRFC’s contribution subject to the above, just to highlight that I don’t believe that it was solely down to them thus a nod to the other factors would have been merited. Nor was there any discussion over why (I think) 5 clubs had still made a loss. Clubs up = Rangers good, Clubs down = rubbish clubs seemed to be the equation of choice.
‘Duty’done. I attended the Court of Session at 10.30 ish. The case of HMA /Craig Whyte as advertised in the Rolls of Court was called before Lord Glennie.Reporting restrictions prevent me from saying anything at all beyond that, except that I was home at 11.25 after a 25 minute town traffic bus journey. Case continues for three days from tomorrow.
A newly appointed judge was being sworn in today so things were running a wee bit late.
Neepheid,
Do you honestly see Mike Ashley offering King anything, far less 40m ?
Let me see if I have this correct?
The Sun newspaper’s contention is that a club that can muster a travelling support of 3-5K every fortnight had a financial benefit to clubs that regular play to crowds of less than 1,000 ?
Well thats my flabber well and truly gasted!
RPMcMurphyMay 31, 2016 at 12:02
Neepheid, Do you honestly see Mike Ashley offering King anything, far less 40m ?
===================
Why not, if he sees a big profit in it? Personalities won’t come in to it. But he really needs to get out of Newcastle first. That really has been a money pit.
Test
Big Pink, I wish that site hadn’t taken down the story about Oxford United, because I probably didn’t do it justice. It may have been based on outdated information, but that site is usually pretty thorough. Having said that, they may indeed have based their story on outdated information.
The stuff about Premiership match-fixing was pretty unnerving. The club they focused on went from being one of the two or three least fit in the division (per Opta, presumably) to one of the fittest–no change in management, no significant turnover in playing personnel. There were a few other salient factors–the other one I remember is that their games were handled by the same small group of referees, as opposed to the usual broad selection. The site has a number of other, more general stories that don’t single out specific clubs; they tend to focus more on betting patterns and such. Worth a look, although as I say, it doesn’t make for particularly pleasant reading.
On another note… I meant to say earlier that it might not be prudent to publish the names of specific UEFA officials re. Resolution 12–because we all know that there is an, er, element within Scottish football that prides itself on its ability to make people’s lives a living heck.
NEEPHEIDMAY 31, 2016 at 11:32
I get where you are coming from but the fact remains the club is in hoc to the Plc who is chaired by a man who probably wants a good dollop of cash to be on his way.
Hard to see someone coming in at this present time and splashing the cash. It is still too much of a gamble.
The cup final defeat and outings v Hibs and Falkirk show that a half decent team and manager have the current T’Rangers set up sussed.
If we take Pritchetts model then, on the face of it, item 1, the general culture of the club has not changed.
Item 2 Austerity has been by stealth and the tough love and hard truth approach has not been taken. Openess and transparency are not in evidence.
Item 3 Moneyball is being applied partially but Warbs doubling his salary and paying for Barton go against that philosophy.
Instead of a worldwide scouting network we seem to have McPaland recommended a few guys he was friendly with at previous clubs.
There is no signs that the lads brought in to date will be any better than some of those that other SPFL clubs will be looking to obtain in the summer transfer window.
Item 4- season ticket prices will be up and pay as you go will most likely be good, so an increased revenue stream but there is no sign of shaking off Ashley.
Add to that there is still the Fraudco issues to be resolved that could, on a left field issue bring up issues with ownership, along with other unresolved legal matters sitting on the back burner. Stadium maintenance has been identified as being needful by the current board so anyone coming in would have to consider that as well.
We are back to looking for a sugar daddy since Whyte turned out not to be one.
Before that SDM was looking for one as well and that was when they were playing Euro footbal, filling Ibrox and flogging kit.
There have never been any takers. I can’t see why there would be one now either.
Drop the toxic stuff and get a sniff of gaining membership of the EPL or a Euro franchise league and maybe someone will take a punt, but I can’t see it myself.
WOTTPIMAY 31, 2016 at 14:24
Add to that there is still the Fraudco issues to be resolved that could, on a left field issue bring up issues with ownership, along with other unresolved legal matters sitting on the back burner. Stadium maintenance has been identified as being needful by the current board so anyone coming in would have to consider that as well.
————————————————————————–
Unless of course the likely outcome of the stadium ownership is already clear to King and as such he has a trade off between securing ownership plus subsequent maintenance/upkeep of neglected and ageing stadium or building a new stadium elsewhere (may well be the cheaper option in the long run).
It might be easier and cheaper to repeat the crash and walk away to pastures new, badge it up as a new Rangers (although it will be sold as the same Rangers) and Bob’s your uncle – debt free, shiny stadia and in Englands rich and pleasant land.
Still don’t think it will happen though.
Tayred,
I think there is little doubt about ownership of the assets given the way the way that the Fraudco stuff has preceded. The sale of assets doesn’t appear to be under scrutiny in the criminal trial any longer, so TRFC/RIFC have no worries on that score.
Specifically with regard to the stadium there have been various allegations and suggestions made over the course of the last few years, but there doesn’t appear to be any substance to that.
The only challenge might be Law Financial one – although they are not exactly held in high esteem in the business community, and may well be chancing their arm.
I don’t think anyone in legal or business circles sees their chances as anything but ‘slim’.
I think King, odious as he may appear to be, has had a good courtroom career over this last year or so. Suspicions remain of course (except amongst the Bears) that he is still out for himself, but time will tell.
Still convinced that Warburton is on the Milkround looking for another job. The silence – aside from the off-the-wire-from-Level5 platitudes on Sky sports news yesterday, is deafening.
Notably, no-one is mentioning his name out loud in the papers – not even reaction from the Cup Final – and curiously no-one in the press talking him up.
It’s as if Level 5 had forgotten he ever existed.
The point is this, even if he doesn’t get fixed up somewhere else, even if I am indulging in a mad conspiracy theory, the post-cup final silence and the big signing press conference absence are both unheard of.
The fact that nobody in the press is even using his name out loud suggests they’ve been ‘asked’ to do so.
At long bloody last an academic analysis of why the SC final is but a manifestation of stupid thinking by those who have created a monster.
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2016/05/31/the-2016-scottish-cup-final-the-perfect-storm/
The problem is is such input beyond the intellect of our games governors and sms cheerleaderrs to grasp?
From The Scottish Football Book No. 11 – Published 1965
Curiously, the article, an uncharacteristic ramble by Hugh Taylor, was bemoaning Rangers’ ability to get past Inter Milan in the European Cup and blaming it on the lack of class players in Scottish football.
Warburton has been the SMSM’s favourite quote-generator throughout the season; he’s been prepared to give an opinion on anything and everything, at the drop of a (magic) hat. The silence since the Cup Final has been deafening–surely some enterprising hack is going to sense that their might be a story there. I’m surprised that Tom English, in particular, isn’t all over this one, having been egregiously singled out for “blame” by Gym Trainer, post-Hampden.
I think somebody asked earlier what Dave Cunningham King might be after, financially-speaking. Apol’s if this has already been mentioned, but King’s personal Moby-Dick would appear to be the £20,000,000 he reputedly invested in SDM’s Rangers FC in the bygone days of yore (if you will). Bu hook or by other methods…
Hibernian Media on 31 May, 2016 14:50
Hibernian FC today announced that it has taken action against a number of supporters identified as being involved in incidents on the pitch at Hampden following the Scottish Cup Final on May 21st.
Sanctions including life bans and indefinite bans have been imposed so far.
Leeann Dempster, Chief Executive of Hibernian FC, said: “While Police Scotland will continue with their own inquiries, we will continue to review what happened and take the action we think appropriate to protect the Club’s good name. We will also co-operate fully with the Independent Commission established by the SFA.
“We have initiated contact with the supporters informing them of our decision. We will continue to identify and impose appropriate sanctions against others involved in unacceptable behaviour.”
AULDHEID
MAY 31, 2016 at 16:15
At long bloody last an academic analysis…
————————————————
Here’s another from Gerry Hassan in the Scottish Review on the 25th of May:
http://www.scottishreview.net/GerryHassan40a.html
StevePlusTax
I think TRFC are pulling in favours from the press. They don’t know if he’s gonna be there next term or not. I spoke to a member of the press this afternoon, who would not comment on any Level 5-imposed embargo on Warburton’s name, but who opined that he wouldn’t be there at the start of the season, although he said that TRFC are hopeful he will be.
If he stays, watch the Magic Hat reappear. If he leaves, the abuse reserved for journalists on Twitter will be nothing to the red-top character assassination on Warbs and Weir.
PADDY MALARKEY
MAY 31, 2016 at 01:16
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 ?
===================================
Absolutely correct, my apologies, Green had the IPO millions to draw on obviously.
King hasn’t had his rights / share issue yet. I think a mixture of.
1, Not having a listing on an exchange.
2, Failure to dis-apply pre-emption rights.
and
3, Doubt over the ownership of assets.
May all be factors in that.
If I remember correctly there are around 80m Rangers shares just now.
The last traded price was around 27p. So a guestimate of market capitalization is around £22m.
If we are to look at the value of the assets, ignoring any figures in the accounts, as we have discussed those tend to be depreciated replacement cost (or some such witchcraft). I would venture that a dilapidated Ibrox Stadium in need of repair and a training ground with limited allowable use, plus a car park and Edmiston House would be of limited worth (I say worth rather than value) to very many people.
I am finding it hard to imagine anyone paying £40m for the whole thing, far less a controlling interest. I’m assuming we are talking about the PLC here, because if it’s the Ltd Co it is also around £18m – £20m in debt.
AULDHEID MAY 31, 2016 at 16:15
At long bloody last an academic analysis…
=======================
While I can agree with much of sentiment of the blog, I would take issue with one comment.
I think the writer fails to recognise how many clubs lived outside their means for several years. It is only in the last two or three years that clubs have been able to agree the write down of a large proportion of their indebtedness to their bankers.
We are all aware that Hearts and Dunfermline were both forced to go through an insolvency process to shed debt.
However, Dundee Utd (£2M), Aberdeen (£6.5M), Kilmarnock (£5.8M) and Hibs (£4.5M) all shed significant amounts of debt to Bank of Scotland, whose parent company is intent on exiting Scottish football as soon as possible. Partick Thistle and possibly Ross County have also recently negotiated deals to eliminate their bank debt.
I know less than nothing about share value, but I do have an intuitive notion of how finance ought to work, and from my point of view, the lack of any investment or credit facility to give TRFC a stable and non hand-to-mouth existence suggests that no-one with money to invest or to lend is impressed with the business model.
King and Co are also in the main, successful businessmen, so one wonder why they;
As businessmen;
a. don’t invest appropriately, or
b. run for the hills.
or as RRM;
a. bring in appropriate investment – even if it means giving up control of TRFC
My inference, drawn from the provenance of the people involved, is that they have a rabbit to pull out of a hat (uncontaminated by majyk or otherwise), which will set TRFC on the road to long term prosperity.
That rabbit for e has to be a fundamental change to the parameters of the current business model.
The question I have always wanted to ask of these guys is “why?”. Is there any real possibility of a favourable outcome for them in Scottish football with the current business model?
TRFC fans will no doubt observe that I am obsessed. I hope that is not the case. I hope that I am merely trying to see my way through the fog of possibility that another implosion of TRFC will damage our game beyond repair.
WOTTPI well at least Hibs are doing something but still I have heard nothing coming from The rangers side of anyone being identified or up in court.
BIG PINK
MAY 31, 2016 at 17:39
================================
The Rangers business model was seriously flawed for a long time.
Part of the reason is the myth that Celtic and Rangers were pretty much on a par commercially. That was simply not true. There are three obvious differences.
1, Large sponsorship deal, outwith the norm. Nike was worth an additional £5m per annum to Celtic. That was in effect “free money” as there was no real cost attached.
2, Higher gate income. Realistically Celtic had 4,000 additional paying customers for home games. Say £25 for 18 games. That would be another £1.8m. Again little additional cost. Laughing about how accurate the figures are for attendees does not change how many actually paid for a seat.
3, Higher merchandising revenues. Call that another £1.2m, I think it might have been more but it makes the numbers easier.
In my opinion, prior to Rangers being liquidated, Rangers domestic income was about £8m less than Celtics (pre tax), and Celtic could not break even based on domestic football alone. They needed European income, at the very least every couple of years.
Rangers were totally dependent on European income, much more so than Celtic given a similar cost base. When he club failed to reach the CL or even Europa in their last season an already all too obvious fate became inevitable.
Shug @ 1757. I think in the present climate, if The Rangers identify anyone they are more likely to pin a medal on them !!!!!!
Can anyone tell me how League cup revenues are to be split , especially in the group stages ? Are the total revenues collected and split evenly after costs, do the two competing clubs split the day’s take, or a different formula employed ? I tried looking on the SPFL site but maybe lack of competence prevents me finding the info .
Yes it would seem just another display of dignity from those dignified gents at £brox.
I’m afraid that the Scottish game was damaged almost beyond repair in the 80’s when Rangers started spending silly money to attract big names. Ever since then (until Rangers went bust) the rest of the bigger teams tried to keep up but, but with the exception of Celtic) had no success and only managed to get themselves into debt.
It is now 31 years since any team outside Rangers and Celtic have won the league and I would be willing to put money on it being at least another 31 years before it happens again.
This lack of competition is soul destroying for the fans of the other clubs. Ask any fan outside the big 2 what their hopes are for next season and the response will be (if honest) second place in the league and possibly a cup run/win.
Too me there are only three ways that Scottish football can reverse it’s decline into an irrelevance.
1. Rangers and Celtic get their dream move to English football.
2. Both Rangers and Celtic go bust.
3. The rest of the teams form a new league and don’t allow Rangers and Celtic entry.
Any of these would transition Scottish football into one of the most competitive leagues in the world overnight making it far more attractive to better quality players.
I realise that this will attract a lot of thumbs down but think it through. Is there any other league in the world where the biggest club can, at present, and probably will spend more than the rest of the league combined ? A difference in financial power is normal in football but, in Scotland, the difference is such that the idea of true competition is utterly destroyed before the season even starts. Just look at the odds being given on Celtic winning the league in the coming season, 1:4 or in other words as close to a certainty as possible. The next favourites are Rangers ! A team that has just been promoted, has little to no money to spend, could only name 4 subs for a cup final, has reduced the size of their squad by 2 already and is nowhere near being good enough, as it stands, to compete.
BERRTY
The next favourites are Rangers ! A team that has just been promoted, has little to no money to spend.
mate that is a bookie being smart,all trfc fans will stick money on that making the bookie a fortune
HOMUNCULUSMAY 31, 2016 at 18:08 2 0 Rate This
BIG PINKMAY 31, 2016 at 17:39================================
The Rangers business model was seriously flawed for a long time.
Part of the reason is the myth that Celtic and Rangers were pretty much on a par commercially. That was simply not true. There are three obvious differences.
1, Large sponsorship deal, outwith the norm. Nike was worth an additional £5m per annum to Celtic. That was in effect “free money” as there was no real cost attached.
2, Higher gate income. Realistically Celtic had 4,000 additional paying customers for home games. Say £25 for 18 games. That would be another £1.8m. Again little additional cost. Laughing about how accurate the figures are for attendees does not change how many actually paid for a seat.
3, Higher merchandising revenues. Call that another £1.2m, I think it might have been more but it makes the numbers easier.
In my opinion, prior to Rangers being liquidated, Rangers domestic income was about £8m less than Celtics (pre tax), and Celtic could not break even based on domestic football alone. They needed European income, at the very least every couple of years.
—————————
But remember.
DAVE KING has told the Rangers supporters that the club will NEVER be as big as Celtic, until they personally outspend their rival fans.But the fans are currently boycotting all official merchandise until new terms are agreed.King warned supporters that no matter how much cash he and his fellow investors put in, the club will never be sustainable or even able to challenge their rivals and reigning Scottish champions, Celtic, without their money.http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/dave-king-rangers-never-big-6118402#m2RBXxjI98mWPeDW.97
The Rangers business model was seriously flawed for a long time.and still is,the ibrox fans have no hope in hell’s chance to outspend celtic fans.they have no shirts to buy ond no european tickets to buy.
Tony, Maybe it is the bookies being smart, but if you exclude Rangers then the nearest is Aberdeen at 12/1 or in other words rank outsiders.
I am not advocating the removal of Rangers and Celtic from the league (in case I gave that impression) Merely pointing out that for all the clubs outside Rangers and Celtic this would be a win/win scenario. My personal thoughts are that Celtic and Rangers (over the course of the next 30 years or so) will weaken to the point that the league begins to become competitive again.
BERRTY
you dont need to wait 30 years trfc will be lucky to get in top 6 imho,celtic have already scaled down but seem to have awoken again with the signing of rodgers,if you are a dons fan 12/1 sounds like a wee tenner bet to me,remember a team won the EPL @5000/1
I wonder if any magic hats will be thrown in the ring for this ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36420398
It would be a complete waste of money Tony. Even if Aberdeen were 9 points ahead at the split they would still finish second. They collapse after the split every year.
I think Celtic will win the premiership in the coming season with Aberdeen and Hearts fighting out second place just the same as this season. A lot will go down to luck with regards injuries throughout the season and which club is better covered for loss of players.
My money would be on Rangers for fourth, from what I have seen they have been rather lucky with injuries in the season just ended. Particularly with such a small squad.
TRISIDIUM MAY 31, 2016 at 16:08
Still convinced that Warburton is on the Milkround looking for another job. The silence – aside from the off-the-wire-from-Level5 platitudes on Sky sports news yesterday, is deafening.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Agreed
The”proof” is his disappearance immediately the SC Final was over. This was an unheard of action. It smacks strongly of an deliberate attempt to seriously embarrass DCK and create a major PR problem for the club while he was on holiday and awaiting his May pay cheque
It was an “If you don`t like it fire me”, sort of gesture”.
The subsequent release of a narrowly worded Level 5 statement saying a doubled salary had been “agreed in principle” smacks of an attempt to soothe the fans during ST renewals. By excluding reference to anything else it also implied that negotiations were just about money and all that remained was signing the contract. In other word an attempt to buy time.
It may be that DCK told MW he will not be fulfilling some of the promises made when he interviewed MW for the job. It may even be that he will not be receiving his entire promised £500k bonus in the May salary
MW comes across in the media as someone of independent mind. It’s most unlikely given his previous jobs that he came to Ibrox for the money. As a businessman he will by now have figured out the motivation of Senior Mgt and their willingness to do whatever is necessary to become a respectable football club
I just can`t see him wallowing in the bigoted and sectarian culture that permeates Ibrox. By doing nothing he is tacitly accepting that this is an ok work environment MW is also too shrewd a character to believe this sort of behaviour is a sensible basis for running a football business. So he may already have requested the Board to take action on culture change.
Perhaps sectarian singing during the SC Final following on from similar chanting at other televised matches provided him with the perfect excuse to leave with dignity.
Goosy,
I think a split with TRFC & Warburton has been on the cards for some time. With hindsight, his listing of only five subs in both the semi-final and final of the Scottish Cup can be seen as a shot across the bows of the board, and if he does leave may give the clearest indication why. I’m surprised that a gamble (in playing terms) such as that went largely undiagnosed by the press – and us!
The Leeds job, especially when you look at the individuals they have sought out unsuccessfully so far, looks to be one which may suit Warburton. Living in the south east as he does, the commute will not be as exhausting as the current one.
On the minus side of the equation, if he does take the Leeds job, he certainly knows how to pick a board 🙂
I think T has it right – he’s most likely gone.
Looks like Stubbs is off to Rotherham.
paddy malarkeyMay 31, 2016 at 19:27
‘…Can anyone tell me how League cup revenues are to be split ,.’
_____
This link to the SPFL rules and regs , Page 128, or thereabouts should help
http://spfl.co.uk/docs/067_324__therulesofthescottishprofessionalfootballleagueasat19january2016_1461332495.pdf
Wasn’t aware of this from last may:
http://www.sportsmole.co.uk/football/leeds-united/news/warburton-to-become-leeds-manager_220928.html
Warburton breaks his silence:
http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11788/10299424/rangers-boss-mark-warburton-hails-joey-barton-signing
His comments don’t sound like he has any major issues with his current employer but that does not rule out any interest in offers that may be coming his way from South of the Border.
Anybody fancy putting together a list of players at the Euros who have played in or are playing in Scotland?
Poor old Warbs, if his career choice is either to work for King, or work for Cellino. Cellino’s “churn rate” of managers, both at Cagliari and Leeds, is quite astonishing. A couple of quotes from Cellino’s Wikipesdia page-
The only plus point for Warbs is that Cellino is allegedly looking to sell Leeds. But maybe Reading would be a better bet for him- and closer to home.
MELBOURNEDEE
MAY 31, 2016 at 22:21
Almost as if he said it himself 🙂
Hibs fans surprisingly and admirably phlegmatic over Stubbs to Rotherham. I think the Scottish Cup glow might last as long as Chernobyl’s 🙂
Question is – who is next? Who can win them the Championship?
BIG PINK
Hearing it could be Neil Lennon
To be honest, I don’t think Stubbs will be that big a loss to Hibs. Yes he did very well in one off games and got Hibs playing some good football, but, for a former defender he never managed to get Hibs looking solid defensively. That was their achilles heel when he started there and remains there problem area now.
Explosive.
DON’T MENTION THE WEE TAX CASE!
A quick recap on the issues surrounding the Wee Tax Case for anyone not familiar enough with why Resolution 12 is important…
Thanks to Catch Up TV, Box sets and You Tube nearly everyone is familiar with Fawlty Towers and the episode where Basil Fawlty tries hard not to mention the war to the German guests at his hotel. You can enjoy it here:
Well the SPFL/SFA and Scottish main stream media have adopted Basil’s stance but in a very literal way in respect of not reporting or commenting on anything that would enlighten the football paying pubic and the hard pressed taxpayer on the details of the Wee Tax Case EBTs as operated by Rangers FC between 1999 and 2002/03.
Some of you will be aware of the facts but, for those who are not so familiar, here is what the wee tax case is all about, what the consequences of not mentioning it are for Celtic, all Scottish clubs and Scottish football as a whole. It is done in the pursuit of the truth through the blanket of silence surrounding the Wee Tax Case that protects the guilty, in the hope that the truth will set our game free.
The devil is always in the detail of facts and history and that can put readers off, but to encourage you to stay the course, the consequences of the attempts not only to not mention The Wee Tax Case but to bury it alive, are set out first. The detail and facts of history, like the devil’s tail, are at the end.
THE CONSEQUENCES
For the SP(F)L.
1. The Lord Nimmo Smith (LNS) Commission, supposedly set up to investigate Rangers use of EBTs with side letters, was seriously misled as a result of the failure by Rangers administrators Duff and Phelps to provide the documents explaining the nature and genesis of the Wee Tax Case EBTs to SPL lawyers Harper MacLeod. Not acknowledging and addressing this deception seriously questions the honesty and integrity of the SPFL and so the integrity of the very competition its clubs play in.
For the SP(F)L unspecified-7
2. The burying of the Wee Tax Case obviously creates a problem in that the titles of 1999 and 2003 that Rangers won should be forfeit as a result of paying players by irregular means that using LNS’ own logic did provide sporting advantage. Additionally redistribution of prize money to other clubs one step down the SPL ladder in those years should have been part of the infamous Five Way Agreement and in its absence from the agreement those clubs have lost out.
In spite of letters and reminders to the SPFL, who have all the paperwork – see The Scottish Football Monitor blogs “An Honest Game? Convince Us” and “It Takes Two to Tangle”and another blog about how the same burial of evidence inevitably led to the SPL Board being incorrectly advised to accept the LNS decision, (something they never have officially done in the form of a Board statement), nothing is being done to correct a clear miscarriage of the justice that the LNS Commission was supposed to provide.
For Lord Nimmo Smith
As a result of the evidence being buried his decision that all EBTs with side letter were “not irregular” when two with side letters clearly are, is simply wrong. However the corollary of his ruling that regular EBTs provided no sporting advantage has to be that irregular EBTs did provide such an advantage and that even although Moore did not have a side letter, as he was still paid by an irregular means that no other clubs could use, then along with De Boer and Flo, Rangers had to have gained a sporting advantage in the games in which all three played individually from 1999 to 2003.
For the (then)SFA President unspecified-6
1. Campbell Ogilvie made no distinction between the original DOS EBTs that produced the Wee Tax Case and the later “loan” Big Tax Case EBTs in his testimony to Lord Nimmo Smith during the Commission hearings. This in spite of the fact he sat on the remuneration policy committee in 1999 that agreed to use DOS EBTs to remunerate employees of Rangers and authorised the first DOS EBT to Craig Moore and was himself a recipient of a the later MGMRT EBT of Big Tax Case fame.. He was either disingenuous in his testimony or forgetfully incompetent, not to mention weak and lacking integrity in not questioning the morality of the decision by Rangers to use EBTs in 1999 to keep up with Celtic.
For the (then)SFA President
2. Who was elected to office on 7 June 2011 just 12 or 13 days before the Wee Tax Case bill became overdue and 23 days before overdue payables at 30 June had to be declared to UEFA under Article 66 of UEFA FFP 2010. What part if any did he play in what was submitted to UEFA by Rangers in July 2011 to prevent UEFA questioning the licence and asking for financial forecasts as required by the rules? Why did he along with Stewart Regan meet Rangers to discuss the licence issue in Dec 2011? The role of the SFA is something that Resolution 12 to the Celtic AGM of 2013 is trying to establish.
For the SFA Licensing Committee (LC)
In 2011 Andrew Dickson, a long term administrator at Rangers going back to when EBTs were introduced, sat on three LC meetings that year that dealt with the granting and monitoring of a UEFA licence with unpaid social tax arising at 30 June and 30 September 2011 as a result of the Wee Tax Case. What if any role did he play in advising that Committee on Rangers UEFA Licence?
For Scottish Football Governance
However the greatest unfortunate consequence of all of the above is to remove any semblance of honesty and trust in those running Scottish football who remain in post. One can only imagine that the clubs who make up the SFA and SPFL either do not care about or are unaware of what has taken place. Are they not concerned about the potential consequent long term lingering damage the lack of integrity will do to our game if the duplicity at play from 1999 right through to 2012, when the LNS Commission was set up (and it was a set up), is not recognised and if those responsible for such duplicity are not brought to account and changes made to faulty processes to stop any possibility of a repeat?
THE WEE TAX CASE HISTORY
In September 1999. Rangers agreed as a matter of policy to use employee benefit trusts as a matter of remuneration policy. That is they took a deliberate decision to pay players more than they could otherwise afford, in order to attract them then to sign for Rangers and so offset the wage advantage accruing to Celtic as a result of Fergus McCann’s vision became reality of a 60,000 seat stadium with the extra revenue that would provide Celtic, to make them at least wage competitive with Rangers.
You could say the Celtic supporters, through Fergus, invested in Celtic, Rangers however decided to let the taxpayer bear the cost of remaining wage competitive.
The then secretary of Rangers, now SFA President Campbell Ogilvie, was present at that policy making meeting and actually set up the first EBT under the Rangers Employee Benefit Trust (REBT) using a Discount Option Scheme (DOS) for Craig Moore when he re-joined Rangers from Crystal Palace, who had defaulted on his transfer payments. It was a one-off golden “Hello Again.” payment with no side letter although it is not known if the payment was included in the registration details provided to the SFA in 1999.
(This DOS EBT should not be confused with the better recognised Big Tax Case EBT with a side letter that Moore later received in 2004/05 tax year).
However there were another two recipients of DOS EBTs where the payments were part of their regular remuneration package. In August and November 2000 Ronald de Boer and Tor Andre Flo respectively signed for Rangers and were given side letters that were an attempt to indemnify or reassure them against having to pay tax should HMRC come calling. Hardly confidence in the regularity of EBTs as a legitimate form of payment is it? But that is why footballers have agents.
In 2002/03 Rangers switched to the now more widely recognised EBTs of “Big Tax Case” fame made under The Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust (MGMRT). To all intents and purposes the Wee Tax DOS EBTs faded into history, only to re-surface in public consciousness in April 2011 supposedly as a result of due diligence in the lead up to Craig Whyte taking over Rangers FC for £1. They were however quickly re-buried and conflated in the public’s mind by the SFA and media with the Big Tax Case EBTs until Sheriff Officers called to collect the tax due on them in August 2011. So the question is why was tax due on the “Wee Tax Case” and not the Big Tax Case EBTs, why were they different?
Where the determining factor at its simplest was players did not have direct access to the money paid to family in the form of a loan, even although that loan would probably never be repaid. (HMRC have not given up on the appeal process which is continuing to the Court of Session, but the concern here is the Wee Tax Case).
What applied with the Wee Tax Case was something completely different as the following shows.
In October 2010 a First Tier Tribunal ruled that payments made to their staff by the Aberdeen Asset Management company via a Discount Option Scheme, the same as or similar to that used by Rangers, were taxable for reasons set out in full in an understandable form HERE:
…at page 17 where the opening paragraphs explain how the DOS EBT scheme worked…
This from the end of page 17 into 18 about sums it up:
“It was also observed that being the sole owner of the entire share capital of a company (as Moore, De Boer and Flo were in the Rangers case) which had a sole asset consisting of cash was not dissimilar to having funds in a bank account and needing to write a cheque or take other relevant action to extract the money from that bank account.”
Aberdeen Asset Management did not use side letters, they simply used a scheme that was blocked as illegal of itself. However the side letters had an important role to play in the case of Rangers as will be explained.
AAM appealed to a Upper Tier Tribunal (UTT) in 2012 and the UTT decision narrowed the scope of the FTT decision, but the UTT ruling was itself overturned finally at the Court of Sessions in October 2013 to restore that of the FTT of October 2010 on which HMRC first acted to pursue payment.
So we have a very definite irregular/illegal/unlawful EBT being used by Rangers from 1999 to season 2002/03 to pay Moore, Flo and De Boer. A method of payment not open to any other club, which conferred an unfair wage advantage they had no means of matching.
It was the finding of the AAM FTT in October 2010 that prompted HMRC to first pursue Rangers solely on the basis that the EBTs used by AAM (and so Rangers) were illegal, but in February 2011 HMRC took a more aggressive stance for reasons that can be deduced from the correspondence of that date.
The time limits for recovering unpaid tax is normally six years but there are rules for extending the limits beyond the norm. Two reasons for extending limits are if HMRC can prove NEGLIGENCE or FRAUDULENT INTENT which is set out in their correspondence of February 2011 with Rangers.
Thus HMRC sought payment of tax owed for De Boer and Flo because they had evidence that Rangers had concealed the existence of side letters from HMRC when HMRC specifically enquired in 2005 if any such letters existed. It appears HMRC also thought this evidence was withheld from visiting inspectors but there are no details of when. It was the concealment of these side letters that was the main deciding factor for Thornhill QC when advising Rangers to settle.
It was the concealment of the same letters and HMRC correspondence by Duff and Phelps acting as Rangers administrators in 2012 that led to the LNS Commission being misled in what can be seen as a discernible pattern of behaviour of concealment and deceit.
As mentioned before there was no evidence of a side letter to Craig Moore As a result the £219K that he would have owed, had it not gone outside the time limit was not pursued, although the £2.8M tax owed for De Boer and Flo (plus a £1.3M penalty) most definitely was with unfortunate consequence for an SFA and SPFL who seem determined to diminish the full extent and consequences of the breach of rules that actually took place over a period of 13 years from 1999 to 2012 during the career lifespan of the (then) SFA President.
Before any bears ask would I demand the same punishment for other clubs then yes I would if they won titles unfairly.
John ClarkMay 31, 2016 at 21:35
Cheers, JC (if I may be so bold) . Annex 2, Section 8, if anyone else has an interest . Bar semi-finals and final , home club deducts 15% for expenses and the rest is split 50-50 .
Section 7 tells us that players must be registered, though doesn’t state if that is improperly or not .
There is also a section regarding Pre Arranging Results (G55-G56) on page 63, but I was losing the will to live by that stage so didn’t bother reading it . Hope it’s against this practice but, considering who we are dealing with, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was not .
A wee bit of extra-curricular reading for the night shift, courtesy of The Guardian (hope that’s spelled correctly – wouldn’t let me write “spelt”).
PS I must have pressed something ‘cos I have a ” Comment page 22 -F12 developer tools” page . Is this for playing with ?
Interesting that the J P Jenkins website appears to be down. Is that because Warbie has been trying to sell the shares that King gave in lieu of his £500K promotion bonus?
HomunculusMay 31, 2016 at 17:23
If I remember correctly there are around 80m Rangers shares just now.
The last traded price was around 27p. So a guestimate of market capitalization is around £22m.
If we are to look at the value of the assets, ignoring any figures in the accounts, as we have discussed those tend to be depreciated replacement cost (or some such witchcraft). I would venture that a dilapidated Ibrox Stadium in need of repair and a training ground with limited allowable use, plus a car park and Edmiston House would be of limited worth (I say worth rather than value) to very many people.
I am finding it hard to imagine anyone paying £40m for the whole thing, far less a controlling interest. I’m assuming we are talking about the PLC here, because if it’s the Ltd Co it is also around £18m – £20m in debt.
As regards the property assets, I agree that on a forced sale basis, you are looking at £10m tops. The current playing squad might be worth a million or two.
However Ibrox is a valuable asset to the club, since it avoids the need to pay rent to anyone else.
The prices paid for football clubs bears very little relation to underlying asset values.
I consider Leeds Utd to be a fairly comparable club to Rangers, and Cellino (who is no mug, by the way) paid £35m for a 75% stake in Leeds a couple of years ago. And he didn’t even get ownership of a stadium for that. Elland Road and the top class training facilty at Thorpe Arch are both currently leased by the club from a BVI company on a 25 year lease. The rent won’t be cheap.
On the plus side for RIFC they are already in the top tier, they have a reasonable chance of European football in the next few years, they own the ground the team plays in, and their fan base, while short of Green’s proclaimed 500 million, must be many multiples of Leeds fan base, which hardly extends beyond West Yorkshire.
The only plus for Leeds is the potential for promotion to the promised land of the EPL. However achieving that dream would involve investing a lot in players, with absolutely no guarantee of ultimate success.
Yet someone was prepared to pay £35 million for 75% of Leeds. So I don’t think £40 million for control of RIFC is unreasonable on that basis .
Re Lennon,
That would be a very interesting appointment for Hibs and Lennon if he was interested. He could prove his managerial prowess in a non-OF* role (with both the benefits and the disadvantages that that brings), Hibs would certainly know what they were getting with the added advantage of it being a relatively big club but still in a league away from the inevitable goldfish bowl that would await him in the premiership. The only downside would be that RFC* vs Hibs would be an absolute stick on for the first round of the cup!
Just to pick up on a previous post:
A couple of points. Whilst damaging for the game Murray (or was it the cigarettes chap, I forget) initial spend in the mid eighties was damaging. But it must be remembered that it was neither against the rules at the time and it was apparently self funded (allegations against BoS notwithstanding). It was also fortunate to co-incide with Englands euro ban. It wasn’t fair, particularly to me, a high flying Dons fan, but it wasn’t cheating per se either. It was no more damaging than what Man City are doing in the premiership now.
You missed an absolutely key point on your bullet point list however (although point 2 possibly touched on it). That is, how the game deals with the situation if one of the “big” clubs is caught abusing their position and in fact utilising some nefarious methods to maintain and enhance it. If that was to happen (as if) the game would have two choices. Use the natural rebalance (and a concurrent self inflicted liquidation would undoubtedly help) to re-energise the game. Yes Celtic would have to twist or stick as a consequence, and do it alone temporarily, but they are but one club of 42(3!). Alternately, you could ignore the entire episode despite having more than a grubby hand in its creation, use said blatant ignorance (a generous description) to inflame uncontrollable passions that will flail in random directions and just try and keep hold of the reins. Oh and continue to cream your bonuses whilst doing it. I would suggest the former business model would have been a hell of a lot more long term than the other from the perspective of over 95% of the competing clubs. Why? Well if for no other reason than because a technically new but instantly recognisable RFC in whatever format would not have been a kick in the rear away from where they are now, completing a genuinely glorious journey (possibly an equally generous description but you’ll take my point) in amongst all clubs knowing that whatever happens that rules and fair play are paramount.
Res 12 Swiss MSM
http://www.pressreader.com/bookmark/iyvSwDexbSAvgr4HpwnFvynRRJDGTwFN_sWA83H6wBI1/PageView
neepheidJune 1, 2016 at 09:39
‘…they own the ground the team plays in, ..’
_________
“Philosophically and morally and legally speaking, and in the abstract, there is a view that the actions of a petty asset-stripper buying a distressed company are in no way of the same order of wickedness as the systematic, deliberate, calculated, dishonesty of a high-flying , ‘pillar of the business world’ and lionised establishment figure ,or of a perverted Press.
I have a strong weakness for hoping that big bad bast.rds get nailed: and if the relatively small fry can help nail them for us, so much the better.”
https://twitter.com/MinogueTom/status/737937779196334080
I
I had high hopes 6 months ago that the criminal cases would lead to just that result- that the accused might publicly expose the lies and corruption at the back of all this.
Sadly, those hopes have been almost extinguished by the apparent collapse of most of the criminal cases. I suppose Craig Whyte must know where all the bodies are buried. What he says in his own defence will be interesting- if it ever comes to trial. I’m not optimistic that it will.
NEEPHEIDJUNE 1, 2016 at 09:39
Get where you are coming from but the fact remains you could have got the whole basket of assets for around £7 in 2012.
If you had gotten rid of McCoist et al, explained to fans about why an IPO was necessary to raise additional cash, sorted out a decent retail deal and then chucked in a few extra million to get things ship shape, the club from Ibrox could have been playing in the 1st Round Qualifiers of the Europa Cup in Hearts/Aberdeen’s place, in preparation from Zadok the Priest next season!!
No need to splash out anywhere near £40m.
Unless there is access to the EPL or a Euro League the only folk interested are RRM.
As you say in your Leeds exemplar people wish cash to burn will be more interested in ‘investing’ in a championship side with potential access to the EPL than a Scottish club who may just scrape into Europe and then not get past the qualifying rounds. Even if progress is made in Europe the sums involved are minuscule compared to the income gained from the EPL.
I think it will be many(if any) years before TRFC become a saleable asset.Their insistence as being seen as the biggest & best killed them before and may kill them again.There seems to be no attempt to put TRFC on an even keel.probably due,as we’re told consistlently,that the fans would never settle for second best.
IMO,TRFC cannot prosper until the accept a few salient facts:
They will not,for the forseeable future,and by that I mean years,reach CFCs level of turnover so will not be able to compete financially.
They have no access to credit if required whereas CFC can sign a cheque for £20m tomorrow if required.
They do not have the stadium capacity to dramatically increase revenue.CFCs extra 10k seats allow for millions in extra revenue(if they can fill them).
Sponsorship.From shirt sales to shirt sponsorship,hospitality etc,TRFC are lagging way behind CFC & will continue to do so.The days of joint sponsorship are gone,maybe for good.
They do not have the business infrastructure required.They run on a day to day basis,making decisions on the go,with no long term planning.They do not know where the money to meet the total of all next seasons financial requirements is coming from.
Their public image,except amongst their on fans and lauded by the MSM,is not good.People remember Manchester,Barcelona etc.The club themselves do nothing to change this.Quite the opposite,in fact.
Arrogance!.Nobody likes us,We don’t care,is the cry.tRFC don’t ask,they demand.Every statement should be taken as fact.if TRFC say that’s how it is,them that’s how it is and we should all be grateful to be allowed to sup from the same cup.That’s the message.
Sectarianism.this is not just a football but social problem in this wee country of ours.Football clubs,as a whole try,with varying degrees of success to deal with this but until it’s taken seriously by the Government(a few soundbites here & there don’t work)then it’ll always be a problem.Unfortunately,and I think more for business reasons than anything else,TRFC,whilst making the right noises,don’t really address this as they should.Most people know this but just won’t say,or else they use “whataboutery” to deflect the issue.To prosper long term,TRFC will have to deal with this.
Quite a long list.
Not insurmountable but it’ll take time.It’s taken Celtic 22 years to build the infrastucture now in place & they’re still building.It’s hard enough to catch your biggest rival if they’re standing still,never mind still pulling away from you.
TRFC have a long way to go but until they build a solid foundation,built on good financial practice,good PR,etc then they’ll go nowhere.They do though,have a large supply of building blocks(the fans)which if used correctly,over a period of time,could see them building something substancial.They need to put all their ducks in a row,though.
sad that it has had to come to having to put a newspaper ad in a foreign newspaper, as the powers that be and journalists in Scotland refuse to bring to the attention of the wider public……..
. http://www.celticquicknews.co.uk/tanks-on-the-lawns-of-uefa/
The premier business paper where Uefa is headquartered in Nyon, Tribune de Geneve, today ran an advert, paid for by public subscription, questioning the governance of Scottish football.
The advert asked readers to reference The Offshore Game report: Doing SFA for Fair Play and explained some of the issues governance, accountability and oversight in Scottish football. It reads:
“A report by The Offshore Game (TOG), an arm of The Tax Justice Network (TJN), has highlighted examples of poor SFA governance in respect of:
• A Commission established in 2012 by the Scottish Premier League to investigate the use of employee benefit trusts to reduce the tax paid to HMRC by an SFA member club where the SFA provided key testimony which is now being questioned.
• The processing of a UEFA Licence in 2011 by The SFA when Court Officers called to collect overdue tax from a member club between Champions League and Europa League qualifying games. Proving there were no overdue and unpaid taxes was a condition of granting then retaining a licence to compete in both UEFA competitions. The tax concerned was never paid!
• The SFA have neither commented on the TJN report nor attempted to address the issues it raises. The TJN has called for an independent review of the SFA to make it more accountable.
• A group of shareholders of Celtic PLC acting in terms of Resolution 12 of the Celtic PLC AGM of 2013, have been pressing the SFA for over two years for a satisfactory explanation of their administration of the UEFA licensing process in 2011. In the absence of any meaningful reply they have now taken up the case with the UEFA Club Financial Control Body.
The TOG report highlights the financial cost over a decade to the British Taxpayer in Millions of pounds. The cost to Scottish football in terms of the loss of trust placed in the SFA to govern the Scottish game with integrity is incalculable.
Football fans everywhere are invited to read this important report into the game in Scotland.”
Our game suffers from a perceived lack of oversight, accountability and governance; fundamental requirements in modern sport which have been painfully lacking across world football for decades. Uefa now have an opportunity to measure where Scottish football, and their own processes, are on these metrics.
It is noteworthy that my Club, like the SFA, still remain silent on this issue, whilst individuals are hounded and threatened by an ignorant mob of bigots that align themselves with the *Rangers support.
I see the SFA are set to announce the chairman of their panel of inquiry into events at the Cup Final today.
I understand that it’s to be the well-known jurist, Lord Bucket of Distemper. No chance of a whitewash, then
I thought that, with the Scottish Parliamentary elections now over, I would get back in touch with the dept of Health, Wellbeing and Sport at Holyrood. Needless to say they still weren’t changing there position on it not being their concern no matter how I tried to explain that to trust that the SFA handle it, as they suggest, was a nonsensical position to take.
As a result, I then contacted my local MSP, John Lamont. He was unaware of the TJN report and requested that I forward everything I had on the subject. Once he has reviewed that then he says he will decide whether to contact the SFA directly or ask a question on the subject in Holyrood.
We can but wait and see but in the meantime can I ask that others telephone their representative at Holyrood and point then towards the TJN report.
Reiver @ 15.12 1 June
Well done again – I also have been thinking of contacting my local MSP & raising this matter – I will do again stressing this an SFA matter & not anti “The Rangers” . My constituency has a sizeable loyalist following & anything touching the Rangers’ nerve will provoke a response which may affect her decision to take my queries forward .
No luck yesterday with Leanne which was understandable given what’s in her in tray at the moment – maybe you can try later in the summer when the dust has settled !
I see that STV are reporting that Regan has spoken on Resolution 12, sorry can’t do link, and is claiming the ‘requisitioners’ are satisfied with his response!
Unfortunately he has not indicated whether or not this ‘response’ to the Resolution guys is a recent one, or the one he made around the time Resolution 12 was first raised. Naturally, in the interest of the SFA’s commitment to transparency, he doesn’t reveal anything of what his response was.
Interesting that, while the bears are mocking the ‘Resolutionn12’ advert that was published today in Switzerland, the press are asking, for the first time, the overdue question, and Regan has, uncharacteristically, replied. Of course, the two events (the ad and Regan’s reply to the media’s question) couldn’t possibly be linked, could they?
Vive la Resolution 12
http://stv.tv/sport/football/1356053-sfa-answered-resolution-12-query-on-rangers-euro-licence-says-regan/
Regan interviewed by STV.
Still in deflect mode by saying that the “requisitioners” accepted that the licence was correctly awarded after the 31 March 2011 cut-off, but the SFA is less forthcoming about the information supplied by Rangers at the end of June 2011, saying it is now a matter for UEFA.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36426878
I haven’t come across Mr Bowen in any Rangers related cases to date, so perhaps their remains a truly independent mind out there.
Edward F Bowen, sheriff principal for the Lothian and Borders, will chair the independent commission into the Scottish Cup final disorder.
Violent clashes and vandalism marred Hibernian’s win over Rangers as thousands spilled onto the Hampden pitch at the final whistle.
Mr Bowen CBE QC will establish the commission immediately.
And he will provide the Scottish FA with a report into the “security and risk management procedures” deployed.
The SFA has asked for the report to be presented by 31 July.
The SFA’s compliance officer has also initiated an investigation into the scenes at the cup final, from a “football regulatory perspective”.
A statement from the governing body says the independent commission will consider whether:
All reasonably practicable steps were taken to minimise the possibility of the pitch invasion and related eventsThere was adequate liaison regarding security measures among the relevant groups prior, during, at the end of the match and thereafter
The stadium configuration, segregation, seat sales and seating arrangements contributed to the pitch invasion
The response – including reaction times – of the relevant stakeholders (Scottish FA, Police Scotland, G4S and the clubs) in identifying, dealing with and resolving the pitch invasion and all related consequences were satisfactory.
There are measures that can be taken to improve the safety of players, officials and others proximate to the pitch at any stadium where association football matches are concerned under the auspices of the Scottish FA
Rangers said some of their players were assaulted by Hibs supporters during the pitch invasion, while the victorious Edinburgh club has already imposed bans on a number of their supporters.
I’m glad to see that the Scottish Government has now woken from its slumbers with regard to the introduction of strict liability, and if not they may consider legislation.
http://stv.tv/sport/football/1356032-justice-secretary-calls-on-sfa-to-introduce-strict-liability-rules/
It’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that some sort of council licensing process could be put in place for sports grounds, akin to that already in place for pubs, clubs, etc. Strike three times and you lose your licence. Simples really.
EASYJAMBO
JUNE 1, 2016 at 16:21
Correct
Everybody and their uncle now knows this is about the information supplied and approved at the 30 June cut off.
We know from the Ken Olverman email that Rangers were telling porkies re ‘awaiting payment schedules’
We know that the SFA had at least seem ‘draft numbers’ relating to Player Transfer on Rangers’ June submissions.
What we don’t know is if the SFA were told about the supposed repayment schedule scenario.
We all understand why the end of March application was Okayed.
We all understand that if Uefa didn’t ask for any more info from Rangers by October 2011, why would the club want to say anything to change that. Boxes ticked and they move along.
We do however understand that good governance from the regulatory body close to the action should involve double and triple checking things to ensure you are squeaky clean and that there should be an audit trail to explain yourself.
If, as he says, Regan has nothing to fear then why not simply put the issue to bed now.
Tell us how they have nothing to fear. Explain it in simple terms. Take the fight to the Res 12 guys and make the whole issue tomorrows’ chip paper.
To do otherwise just makes people mistrust you all the more, especially when you continually use the words openness and transparency but nearly every issue of importance about the professional game in this country is given the cloak and dagger treatment.
Comments from Regan are unsurprising:
“My understanding is that the requisitioners have accepted that they have no issues with the granting of the licence to Rangers in 2011 . ”
Have they? Perhaps someone would like to update me and other shareholders on that. I personally, disagree entirely with that statement!
“Our position on that is that we have complied with UEFA requirements in the period immediately following March 2011 and clearly if there is still an issue with the requisitioners then that’s for them to take up with UEFA.
Why? This is a Scottish Football issue. Why is it left to a group of shareholders, of one particular Club, to pursue something we know is amiss? Is it telling that even your communiques still refer to “immediately following March 2011” and not June / July / August or September 2011? Again a group of shareholders are left to ask questions and no doubt will continue to receive threats for doing so.
“We’ve said if they do that then we’ll fully cooperate and comply with any requests for information from UEFA and we’ve provided details at UEFA for the requisitioners to make contact.”
Hope it isn’t Campbell (I may have forgotten or perhaps I don’t know how to use the shredder m’lord) Ogilvie!!
“So we believe that the matter has been communicated to those involved and they will deal with it as they see fit.”
………………….Said Pontius Pilot!
NEEPHEIDJUNE 1, 2016 at 09:39
===========================
We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
Celtic’s current market cap is £68m
If I had £40m to throw away I would rather have 58% of Celtic than a similar slice of Rangers.
I think the assets, including player registrations have greater value, I think the chance of winning things is greater, I think the chance of competing for CL tens of millions is greater, I think the prospect of bringing in substantial sponsorship and merchandising income is greater, there is a lack of a binding contract with Mike Ashley for the next 6 years strangling income, I see no dubiety re the ownership of Celtic’s assets, I believe that the Co-op provide a nice borrowing facility at favourable terms.
I also think anyone investing £40m in Celtic would be mad. I can’t even imagine anyone doing similar with Rangers.
EASYJAMBOJUNE 1, 2016 at 16:41″…
Edward F Bowen, sheriff principal for the Lothian and Borders, will chair the independent commission into the Scottish Cup final disorder
…
And he will provide the Scottish FA with a report into the “security and risk management procedures” deployed.
The SFA has asked for the report to be presented by 31 July
…
A statement from the governing body says the independent commission will consider whether:
…”
===================
Based on the facts that ;
1) The prior LNS Commission was a farce.
&
2) The SFA is held in utter contempt by most/all Scottish football fans, for continuing incompetence, corruption, ignoring fans’ queries, etc.
&
3 ) The SFA is universally NOT “Respected and Trusted to Lead”.
Why bother with another expensive Commission, [which the fans ultimately pay for], and with possibly another predetermined outcome ?
Does anyone really believe that this Commission will provide a comprehensive, objective review – and provide some much needed transparency and insights into the workings of the SFA ?
I presume a very specific Terms or Reference will be provided by Regan – despite what is stated publicly.
Or, am I just getting too cynical now ?