The Offline Game

ByBig Pink

The Offline Game

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/

 

 

About the author

Big Pink administrator

Big Pink is John Cole; a former schoolteacher based in the West of Scotland, He is also a print and broadcast journalist who is engaged in the running of SFM . Former gigs include Newstalk 106, the Celtic View, and Channel67. A Celtic fan, he is also the voice of our podcast initiative.

1,833 Comments so far

nawlitePosted on4:49 pm - May 13, 2016


PPS…… it is worth noted much of the info held by The Resolutioners and TOG is still under wraps. Hence the probing from some circles to establish what is and what isn’t known. The information I have seen is damning. The silence from the SFA is not unexpected given what is known……. ?
_____________________________________
That’s very interesting, TBK. Although I’ve supported his right to post/debate, could that explain Lawman’s appearance?

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on4:51 pm - May 13, 2016


HIGHLANDER
MAY 13, 2016 at 16:31

Lawman says Rangers were voted into the 3rd Division which is completely untrue, otherwise you are 100% correct

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on4:55 pm - May 13, 2016


TBKMay 13, 2016 at 16:30
PPS…… it is worth noted much of the info held by The Resolutioners and TOG is still under wraps. Hence the probing from some circles to establish what is and what isn’t known. The information I have seen is damning. The silence from the SFA is not unexpected given what is known…….
____________________-

TBK, I’ve just contacted CQN about donating to the Resolution 12 advert mentioned by Henr1k above, does your information suggest to you that I might be as well to hold onto my money? 22

View Comment

TommyBPosted on4:56 pm - May 13, 2016


Maybe it’s open to interpretation, depending which camp you are in but my recollection is that sevco applied for and were then allowed entry to the 3rd tier. To me that is quite different to the chairmen having voted to put them there. I don’t think that is splitting hairs but it is what actually happened at the time.

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on5:09 pm - May 13, 2016


TOMMYB
MAY 13, 2016 at 16:56

Tommy there is no need for interpretation
Sevco Scotland were granted membership of the SFL despite meeting absolutely none of the criteria required for membership
No need for splitting hairs, as facts, however unpalatable some find them, are facts
I intend to drop this now, as it is detracting from the main thrust, which is the TOG report and Res12

View Comment

steph1895Posted on5:28 pm - May 13, 2016


With respect to the The Lawman and his very cogent, nay say persuasive argument that Resolution 12 has no merit.
In that Rangers FC (IL) declared all overdue payables with the SFA/SPL/SPFL and this was then, via the “licencing process” communicated to UEFA (even though this outstanding bill remains unpaid to this day), then I have to say I agree with him.
In that they followed a self-certified process, that was taken in some sort of “good faith” by the SFA/SPL/SPFL before being forwarded on to UEFA.
IMHO Rangers FC (IL) had no intention of paying any overdue payables, when they got a clever lawyer to interpret the exiting rules as meaning they have only to declare overdue payables to be compliant (I believe the crux of The Lawman’s argument).
Rangers FC (IL) then used those rules to circumvent paying it, with a very compliant media and Footballing Authorities allowing it to happen.
INHO Resolution 12 is not about Rangers FC (IL) getting a licence to partake in European competion, BUT HOW they could get a licence to partake in European competition when there were enough hoops and check points to jump through, which SHOULD HAVE rendered their participation in European competion, null and void.
It could have been Leeds Utd FC  applying (which would please my dear old Dad), it just so happens it was Rangers FC (IL).
This has sadly turned into, by media and SFA/SPL/SPFL by popular demand, a “West of Scotland” issue, which is the narrative now peddled.
The Establishment are controlling the narrative, which in a democratic 21st Century country (you would like to think) is abhorrent as well as insulting, especially to my intelligence.
With regards to The Lawman’s assertion that Leeds Utd and The Rangers FC’s liquidation is similar, if not the same is an interesting one.
For the layman such as myself, the narrative used by The Lawman is again persuasive and argumentative (in a friendly type of way).
My close relatives support Leeds Utd and they see them as “Leeds Utd” BUT and this is a BUT; they understand that in the eyes of the law they are a new club carrying, with the permission of the FA, the history and title of the Leeds Utd Bremner, Giles and Lorrimer played for.
Stuart Regan has said the only honest thing in this whole saga when asked if The Rangers FC were the same “Rangers FC”

“We’ll let the fans decide” – or words to that effect.

I notice that the vote to put Sevco Scotland (renamed “The Rangers FC Ltd) into the lowest tier of Scottish Football, was used by The Lawman as proof that they were the same club (apologies if this is the wrong interpretation of that point).
This is 100% true BUT (that word again) I believe it was put to ALL of the clubs (Armageddon speech) that their had to be a viable “Rangers” in the SPL (overwhelmingly voted down) or at least in the 2nd tier (voted down) in an attempt to protect commerical contracts already in place.
The excuse being that Scottish football would suffer Armageddon with millions lost, if they were not parachuted into the top two tiers.
Basically the SFA/SPL/SPFL believed that Sevco Scotland (The Rangers FC Ltd) were too big a commericial risk to lose to start in the Junior leagues, as the rules and regulations dictated.
This was not explained to the football community properly (fans and shareholders of clubs), but hidden away in secret 5-way agreements and underhand deals.
I believe then a special motion to the SFL Members was made to decide where they would play and hoping that bribery, threats and intimidation would win the day (SPL 2 anybody).
I believe this special motion was forced on the authorities because fans were threatening a boycott of season tickets if Sevco Scotland (The Rangers FC Ltd) were fast-tracked into the top two tiers, at the expense of well-run and compliant clubs, who had played by the rules.
The overwhelming majority (25-30) stated that they would vote for the team to start at the bottom tier of Scottish Football.
This was business sense because ALL SFL clubs would benefit from The Rangers FC Ltd “journey” to the top tier – I believe some clubs made a healthy profit.
YES there was a vote and NO it wasn’t to allow the SAME team to play football, but ALLOW a NEW team to play football and bypass rules and regulations already in place – you could say special circumstances because of who they were.

Commericalism before integrity.

Everything else is just noise…………….

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on5:29 pm - May 13, 2016


The last 24 hrs reminds me of a modified version of Godwin’s Law.
Godwin’s law (or Godwin’s rule of Nazi analogies)[1][2] i
Is an Internet adage asserting that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1″[2][3]— that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Hitler or Nazism

On Twitter of old I’d call it Bryce’s Law out of respect of his determination to perpetuate it.
Basically it means that as a discussion between followers of Celtic and The Rangers develops, no matter the original topic, sooner or later it morphs into the old same club debate.
Its like the Glasgow Underground – one lot take the Same Club Outer Circle and the other the  “Naw Ye Urnae” Inner Circle and round and round we go in opposite directions doomed never to alight at the same station.
I guess I’m asking not so subtly, can we get off the bloody trains?

View Comment

the taxman comethPosted on6:10 pm - May 13, 2016


@sergio biscuits

Indeed the club itself can not continue the same club lie in the real world

In sevconia: RIFC PLC owns TRFC Ltd which is the company that owns and operates the “metaphysical” Club TRFC – 3 entities.
In the real world: RIFC PLC is the holding company of the club: TRFC Ltd which carries out the business of playing football as clubs do. A club 4 years old using assets it purchased from a defunct club – this can be easily demonstrated by looking at a RIFC PLC share certificate where it states in black and whyte that RIFC PLC is the owner of The Rangers Football Club.
To continue the lie is to insult all the fans and businesses cheated by the dead club who’s fans sat idly by and watched their club die.

View Comment

ReiverPosted on6:56 pm - May 13, 2016


If you are still around thelawman can I ask something from you.

You have stated that you have no respect for the SFA and SPFL and they are not fit purpose. You also say that you have gained respect and trust from the Rangers fans sites after a start where you were looked on as a traitor.

I would ask that you call for action, an independent inquiry would be fine, to have those who are mismanaging our game rooted out and replaced with a more suitable structure when you next visit those Ranger’s sites. This is afterall all that the vast majority on this site, at TOG and the Res12 guys are requesting. We are all football fans surely we can for once unite and make this game of ours a sport again.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:01 pm - May 13, 2016


THELAWMANMAY 13, 2016 at 06:19  9th August 2007 – Chairmen of England vote to keep Leeds as they were with a 15 pt deduction13th July 2012 – Chairmen of Scottish clubs vote to put Rangers in the 3rd Division?

Did i miss something? When did scottish clubs vote to put rangers in the 3rd division?

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on7:10 pm - May 13, 2016


Im still around. Out for a meal tonight with family. Will respond in kind later or over weekend. 

View Comment

AuldheidPosted on7:14 pm - May 13, 2016


steph1895May 13, 2016 at 17:28

You are right on Res12 and why UEFA have to investigate.
Either the rules are faulty if an overdue payable did exist but was not identified or the rules are ok but somebody told a pork pie.
Now if that somebody was CW what’s the odds? 😉
The TLM’s interpretation works on the basis that in order to get or retain a licence with no questions asked, it was enough to declare you had or did not have an overdue payable.
So either way it didn’t matter?
Really?

View Comment

ReiverPosted on7:21 pm - May 13, 2016


Tension is building and I am preparing for the worst. The provisional booking for the Betty Ford Clinic is made and will be taken up should the result go against us in Falkirk. It would be nice to think that, not being totally despised on here, that one or two of the kinder posters will visit me and help raise my spirits. The may try to medicate me but I know that drip attached to my arm containing the promise of a Scottish Cup win will just be a placebo so please show a little charity and help me through this.

Thanks.

Reiver

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on7:25 pm - May 13, 2016


Can someone explain this to me.

Under the old system, if a club was relegated (or demoted) from the SPL, as was, what was the actual system the other clubs in the SFL (as was) used to vote on which division of that league they were placed in.

Did they vote to allow them to stay at all, then vote on which division to put them in, was that the standard procedure.

View Comment

jimboPosted on7:26 pm - May 13, 2016


Good luck Reiver, I would have supported your team anyways but after all the sterling work you are doing, even more so.  04

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:00 pm - May 13, 2016


REIVERMAY 13, 2016 at 19:21
Any news on the handout up dates, as i’m going to the game this weekend and have time to hand out. I’m ready to print off if everything is up to date and ready to print

View Comment

jimboPosted on8:09 pm - May 13, 2016


Cluster One, I think your post might stop Reiver tipping over the edge tonight.  The Hibees are currently down 0-1

View Comment

jimboPosted on8:20 pm - May 13, 2016


Sorry that should read 1-0 Falkirk are at home.  Nothing against Falkirk but I once got overcharged for a bar meal in Falkirk and I haven’t quite got it out of my system yet.   I will let you rule guys get on with it.  My head is birling trying to keep up with the last couple of days.  I thought I had a handle on things.  1806

View Comment

ReiverPosted on8:45 pm - May 13, 2016


Cluster 1

Sorry should have said, they have been updated and are at the usual place,

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B_X7aVh2s6qcQTA5X0t5b1lwQ0U

THANKS.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on8:50 pm - May 13, 2016


STV has reported that Gary Withey and David Grier have been cleared  in the Fraudco case, following this week’s appeal hearing, leaving only Craig Whyte facing charges.

http://stv.tv/news/west-central/1354050-two-cleared-of-charges-against-them-in-rangers-fraud-case/

I don’t think that “cleared” is the correct term to use, but charges have been dropped against the pair, but for reasons that will only be revealed at the conclusion of the case.  Those who have attended the recent hearings will be aware of the background to today’s decision.

I think it is fair to say that the way this case has progressed, with multiple charges dropped or amended from the original indictment, doesn’t show the Crown Office in a good light.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on9:38 pm - May 13, 2016


Graham Spiers ‏@GrahamSpiers · 3m3 minutes ago
My column in The Times tomorrow:
•Bye-bye Ronny
•Tax Justice and Rangers
•New home for Dons?
•Tommy Wright

I wonder what his take will be on the TJN investigations.

View Comment

neepheidPosted on9:39 pm - May 13, 2016


From Graeme Speirs on Twitter just now- the second bullet might be of interest?

Graham Spiers ‏@GrahamSpiers 2m2 minutes ago My column in The Times tomorrow:
•Bye-bye Ronny
•Tax Justice and Rangers
•New home for Dons?
•Tommy Wright

View Comment

ReiverPosted on9:41 pm - May 13, 2016


I’m going to get Big Pink to remove that photo of me from the top of the page(me second from left) it doesn’t show me in good light.

View Comment

ReiverPosted on9:43 pm - May 13, 2016


You can’t argue with those goals. Well done the Bairns you had what we never had and deserve to go on.

View Comment

ReiverPosted on9:48 pm - May 13, 2016


EJ and Neepheid,

I find it interesting that he labels the TOG report as being about Rangers. He can’t even bring himself to be even handed and report it for what it is. Corruption in the administration of Scottish football.

View Comment

jimboPosted on9:50 pm - May 13, 2016


Sorry Reiver

View Comment

shugPosted on10:29 pm - May 13, 2016


There was never any doubt that hibs wouldn’t get through especially with muir then thomson in charge no disrespect to falkirk but they should have been down to 10 men in both games double handball in the first and no penalty then last man in the second.I think that hibs should probably just forfeit the cup final as they will get nowt there maybe time we changed our colours to blue lol.

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on11:31 pm - May 13, 2016


Re:CQN crowd funding for advertising Res 12.

I will be supporting this but against my better judgement. My support will be primarily because the res 12 initiators are appealing for it.I still have serious reservations regarding Celtic plc and their seeming inability to just issue a simple statement along the lines of ” shareholders,season ticket holders and supporters should be aware that we are mindful of our responsibilities and are prepared to pursue resolution 12 in due course.We have already registered our concerns with UEFA and when certain outstanding matters are dealt with shall revisit these concerns” The fact that we are having to advertise the worries over Scottish football governance in foreign media outlets speaks both volumes and makes me despair at the same time.

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on11:49 pm - May 13, 2016


ALLYJAMBO
,

  what is it that keeps The Lawman here, for hours on end? What is it he hopes to achieve?

 

Do you want me to leave you in peace singing from the same hymn sheet, slapping each other on the back ?  I actually thought people on here wanted to “still ask the questions”  wanted the truth.

Can anyone challenge anything i have said an point to a lie?  Is anyone going to apologise for attempting to discredit me over the Leeds situation only to be surprised by the truth ?

If im wasting my time and you are not going to consider anything i say, just be straight about it and I will go and leave you in the bubble of believing online myths that are simply untrue.

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on11:51 pm - May 13, 2016


THE TAXMAN COMETH

 The difference with Leeds is that the whole club in its entirety exited admin via a cva when hmrc withdrew its objection all charles green bought was the business and assets OF the club to start a new club The Rangers who changed their name on 31/7/12 to the same name as the defunct club that had also played at ipox

 

And still the myths and lies continue.  09

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on11:53 pm - May 13, 2016


SHUGMAY 13, 2016 at 22:29 
There was never any doubt that hibs wouldn’t get through especially with muir then thomson in charge no disrespect to falkirk but they should have been down to 10 men in both games double handball in the first and no penalty then last man in the second.I think that hibs should probably just forfeit the cup final as they will get nowt there maybe time we changed our colours to blue lol.
————————————-

In my view the worst team won, but that happens in football at times as we ALL know. My view is Killie will beat Falkirk over two legs. Hibs still have a chance of a major success this season.

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on12:08 am - May 14, 2016


THELAWMANMAY 13, 2016 at 23:52 0 0 Rate This
30 thumbs down tell its own story though. People dont like alternative view. Admin should take a more positive stance and role in this.
——————————————————————————————————————

Oh for heavens sake man/woman up! what does it matter how many thumbs up or down you get? This isn’t a lovefest it’s a forum for debate and so far you have acquitted yourself quite well, without persuading myself and it seems others. A thick skin is needed here. Prove that you have what it takes and answer questions on a wider reaching scale than the existence of possible documentation that could possibly show that…blah blah blah.Substantive issues such as pointed out earlier ie:Rangers voting to admit Sevco to the SPL , who played Brechin etc.

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on12:24 am - May 14, 2016


REIVE Trust is earned and more so when there is history of abuse towards posters because of their stance on the subject matter highlighted on this site. Auldheid has been pursued and attempts to expose his identity made with a view that he should be “dissuaded” from his actions. John James has recently recounted on attempts against him. And of course we all know of the need for special branch to advise those involved with the aftermath of RFC’s demise. It is the reason that I too use a nom de plume.

Agreed.  Peoples anonymity should be respected.

 The problem with TLM is that, even before joining us here, he was informing us he was a member of a group of above average intelligence, professionals with experience in the legal sphere. Despite our lowly position he was welcomed here and the discussions were civil but we still carry suspicions in the back of our minds. So when I see the frequency and repetition of his posts I naturally ask”What is he trying to achieve here?”

 

Without doubt, of all the posters on here, you seem to have the biggest problem with me.  I did not inform you i was a member of a group of above average intelligence at all.  If, as a non Rangers supporter you choose to spend your time on Rangers forums then thats your choice.  To be clear though my opening paragraphs on my article on Rangers Media were not in any way referencing my intelligence. I was simply stating that people i mix with have a certain background that in my opinion has an advantage on others when looking at rules, regulations and legal technicalities.  By the same token, if i was looking for a view on the structure of a new house, then i would email my auditing partner friend or my lawyer friend.  

 He cannot back up his assertion that the overdue payables were declared in 2011 despite the mainstay of his argument being that the licensing was correct because of their declaration.

 

100% spot on.  I only have the evidence revealed on the Offshore report and the declaration by Auldheid on this matter.  The evidence certainly points to it though.

 

So, point made and answered, why continue with same argument ad infinitum? He was invited to comment on the many other issues that concern us but responded by picking one from the list, not the first one, and excused himself from commenting because of lack of information. Although he did change tack suddenly and became an expert on Leeds United and had all the information readily to hand.

 

I am an expert on Leeds and i make no bones about it.  As a group of friends we looked at this very closely back in 2012 because believe it or not, I initially though the game was up and our history and club was gone for good IF a CVA was rejected.  Yip, you are reading this correctly, back in the days following admin, i thought it was all over.  It was only after reading many cases, that my views softened.  Im not afraid to admit i was wrong.  In Leeds case, i ensured i was fully up to speed with the 100% truth.  Its a pity you didnt do the same.

 
And then we must ask why is a professional person spending hours of the working day posting on here especially when you have a five hour meeting coming up. Less than six hours between last post at night and first the next morning comes across as a little desperate. Of course that could be perfectly normal but with the backdrop of threatened violence that the subject matter comes with I think suspicion is excusable.

And here we are at the crux of the matter.  You dont like me.  You dont like the fact that I can respond in a respectable manner without resorting to such cheap and nasty vibes as this.  Let me give you some background which probably can be verified by admin.  I travel a lot across the UK.  I spend hours on trains, planes and in automobiles as well as hotels.  Im lucky if i sleep 4 to 5 hours a night because im constantly in work mode.  But i work online.  I think myself as quite an amiable but capable person who can look at things online whilst still in work mode.  None of this concerns you.  I dont criticise you for the 954 posts you put on John James site begging people to sign a petition which to some “comes across as a little desperate” Im actually embarrassed for you for this post and I havent a clue what the backdrop of violence is about.  Personally, you have painted yourself into a corner on this.

 I may be wrong with my distrust and it may be that there is much more that TLM can offer and if that is so I must apologise in advance but to engage on here I would rather that an attempt to gain trust was made. How about an opinion on actions required to right the wrongs, perceived or otherwise, in the running of our game. An explanation of his beliefs on the advantages, or not, of financial doping and the subsequent actions taken by the SF?. It would help.

 
Im guessing, which is the norm that you simply dont read my full posts and instead, revert to the default position that as a Rangers fan im the root of all evil.  Have a read at my post from earlier this morning wehe i gave my view on what happend.  Open your mind.  Open your eyes.  Allow yourself to look at an alternative view.

 The suspicion of how suddenly from nowhere he appeared after the first time an independent report is published that actuallly concludes the we are right to have concerns is there.

 

I have only appeared from nowhere in your world and mind.  I have tried for months to post on John James site but my considered views are blocked and not posted.  Im thankful that i am allowed to express my opinion on here without being silenced and blocked as i have been on JJ site. I have wrote on RM for years and my views have been subject to many an internal rammy by Rangers fans.  Ive only appeared from nowhere in your own blinkered wee agenda driven world.

 The Scotsman today seems to be reacting to that report by labelling us “swivel eyed loons” I believe. Is this the start of a counter attack because we are at last making headway? Is the appearance of TLM related to that. Time will tell.

The football press and media in Scotland are gash.  All fans know it.  Some fans think its just them, in their own wee bubble.Am i related to the press.? Oh dear ?  01 

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on12:26 am - May 14, 2016


KOPWEB

 If the debate was about the treatment of Gretna, Airdieonians or Third Lanark it might be of more relevance.

 

I have already covered that.  None of the above clubs were bought during the administration process from the administrators.  They are not relevant in the Rangers case at all.

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on12:27 am - May 14, 2016


INCREDIBLEADAMSPARKMAY 13, 2016 at 14:13Thank you for your comments.

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on12:36 am - May 14, 2016


TheLawManMay 13, 2016 at 23:52

“30 thumbs down tell its own story though. People dont like alternative view. Admin should take a more positive stance and role in this.”
————————-
Whoaa there Lawman. We are all entitled to our opinions and SFM offers a free space where just about all are able to express them, within the confines of common decency. I have read all your posts and never took time to view the thumbs up/down situation at any time. You must surely appreciate that these indicators merely suggest the direction of the prevailing wind. The mods generally don’t have a judgement on contributors point of view; the site is fairly democratic in that respect.

I noticed on your seminal post on the Bears Den on this matter that you received rebukes concerning lending legitimacy to the TJN TOG report by debating it in the first place. I also recall you yourself invoking the term ‘Rangers Haters’ when differentiating the TJN output from other sources you have encountered. This remark is less contentious when taken in context of ameliorating a potentially hostile reaction from posters on that site but to join the TSFM discussion and assume you would receive a fair wind even though you knew the subject matter was contentious is rather presumptuous.

I have read your input with interest and it has raised some questions in my own mind. However just because I am capable of harbouring doubt over a complex issue does not mean I am liable to be browbeaten into accepting a specific interpretation of events. I suppose I might get a load of thumbs up for challenging your standpoint in this particular case but that is not why I post this point of view. Nor will I be unduly swayed in my perspective whether my contribution proves popular or not. Many long term posters have received negative reaction to their comments but they do not as a matter of course call foul in such a situation. They swallow it and move on. They do this because they are not expecting a ‘silver bullet’ outcome to their contributions. The narrative unfolds over time and it is woven in many different shades. SFM may have a strong tinge of Green but it is not exclusive and in my experience, does not generally exclude.

You must understand that over the five or so years since the progenitor of this current site, TheRangersTaxCase, came into being there have been numerous attempts to derail the narrative by individuals who appeared disingenuous in their approach. We are not rounding on the new kid on the block, we are feeling you out. I’ve seen it all before.

Your views are interesting and challenging but not overwhelming. Attitudes have been built up over many years and they are not going to be dissolved by a single wave of a magic wand, however impressive and sparkly that wand may appear to be. If you have merely visited SFM to flex your intellectual muscles then don’t be surprised if posters are not wholly taken by your physique. If you have the courage of your convictions you will stick around and assist the community in coming to terms with your understanding. In this process the community will inevitably attempt to similarly sway your point of view. It’s a dialectic and that’s how such things operate.

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on12:40 am - May 14, 2016


In relation to the countless claims there was no vote to put Rangers in the 3rd Division.

Rangers hit rock bottom as SFL bows to fan fury
Chairmen vote Glasgow club into Third Division amid chaos over ‘SPL 2’ plans
Martin Hardy
Friday 13 July 2012Football in Scotland was plunged into chaos yesterday when Rangers were relegated into the Third Division following a vote by Scottish Football League chairmen at Hampden Park.
In the most dramatic day in the 122-year history of the SFL, 25 of the 30 member clubs rejected pleas from the Scottish Premier League and the Scottish Football Association to show leniency to the Rangers “newco” and only demote them one division.
Instead, in a huge rebuff that has potentially massive ramifications, the SFL took the decision to relegate Rangers three divisions, and risk the “armageddon” that the SPL chief executive, Stewart Regan, had warned would follow such an action.
The Rangers chief executive, Charles Green, and manager, Ally McCoist, came out in the immediate aftermath of the decision and said they supported it, even though it means their club cannot play in the SPL until the 2015-16 season at the very earliest.
However, the spectre of the launch of an “SPL 2” remained late last night and Rangers officials were tight-lipped about the possibility. The 11 remaining members of the Scottish Premier League will meet on Monday and launching another division, or even questioning the initial demotion of Rangers, are both believed to be under consideration.
Jim Ballantyne, the SFL president, admitted his organisation would be powerless if there was a desire to ensure Rangers were not relegated to the lowest tier of the game in Scotland.
“We don’t have any control over the SPL and they are entitled to do whatever they wish within their own rules,” he said. “But it is important to mention the Division One clubs went out of their way to make it clear their route regarding a solution involved all 42 teams. I think that says a lot for them.
“Other bodies are going to have to look at the decision we’ve taken and decide what view they take. As far as we’re concerned, it’s crystal clear and it was a massive majority.
“The talk of financial meltdown is scary for everybody but that completely ignores the views of fans. They’ve been vociferous in their view of what this whole situation may bring. The message coming across from every club is exactly the same, even from Rangers fans themselves. If they had their choice, it would be Division Three. That reflected the views of First, Second and Third Division clubs.”
McCoist, who has just a handful of established first-team footballers at his disposal at the current time, said: “I fully accept the decision of the SFL today and thank them for allowing us into the SFL.
“Clearly, starting again from the bottom league is not ideal and makes the task of rebuilding Rangers a longer one but the SFL was placed in an impossible situation and I respect its decision. I fully supported the fans’ views that starting again in Division Three maintains the sporting integrity that the SPL clubs were so keen on.
“The SPL clubs and the SFA have made their positions clear over the last few weeks and it remains to be seen what the long term effects of their decisions will be. Rangers has been severely punished for the actions of some individuals who previously ran the club and it will take time for us to recover but we will come back stronger thanks to the loyalty of the fans and the commitment of everyone at Ibrox who are working tirelessly to bring stability and success back to Rangers.
“I will be carefully monitoring events and reactions over the new few days and will be making further comments, probably early next week.”
However the response of those chairmen who voted Rangers into the lowest tier of the domestic game as they left the historic meeting at Hampden Park last night suggested they were prepared for the very real possibility of a further civil war inside Scottish football.
“What remains to be seen is whether us having made that decision leads on to others beginning to interfere and gerrymander,” said the Raith Rovers chairman, Turnbull Hutton. “We await, with interest, what happens. I said last week that today was important. Today isn’t the endgame in this; let’s not kid ourselves.”
John Yorkston, the Dunfermline chairman, said: “We’ll have to see what develops on Monday and I’m not sure it’s over yet. I’m sure there’ll be a twist in the tale, and that will come out on Monday when the SPL meet.”
Key to developments over the next 48 hours will be the reaction of Sky TV and ESPN to yesterday’s decision. Sky’s new five-year £110m contract to broadcast Scottish football has not yet been signed and their agreement includes four Old Firm league games a season.
While the very smallest clubs in Scotland took their decision based on huge fan hostility to the idea of relegating Rangers only one division, those at the basement of the SPL rely significantly on the funding from television revenue. Dundee United picked up £1.4m from the SPL because of the television deal last season, but it has been suggested that figure will fall to around £200,000 if the new deal is not signed.
As things stand, however, Rangers will begin next season in the Third Division of Scottish football with an away fixture at Peterhead, whose ground has a capacity of just 3,250 and who played a friendly last night against Inverurie Loco Works.
Rangers, who have won the Scottish title a record-breaking 54 times and have never been relegated, will take the place of Stranraer and complete their fixtures for the 2012-13 season.But that is dependent on developments in the SPL meeting on

View Comment

gunnerbPosted on12:50 am - May 14, 2016


I may have been grittier in an earlier post but this made me laugh. Thanks CoT.
________________________________________________________________________________________
“If you have merely visited SFM to flex your intellectual muscles then don’t be surprised if posters are not wholly taken by your physique.”

View Comment

TrisidiumPosted on12:56 am - May 14, 2016


Lawman

I understand your frustration at some of the suspicions directed at you. You have been posting so prodigiously for a new poster (almost beat ecobhoy’s 48 hour record in fact – and he took a bit of flack for that as I remember), that you should understand why suspicions arise. However complaining about it – or the mods failure to run to your rescue – is not the way to deal with that. Nor is accusing folk of lying.

I think your tone is sometimes provocative too, but you won’t be the first or last person to take some time to get into the swing of things here so you will get some slack cut in that regard. 

Your contribution has been thought-provoking and valuable, and whilst you haven’t changed any opinions on issues, you should have inferred by now that most people here respect yours (even whilst disagreeing). I hope you continue to contribute in that way – although I am sure your zeal and post-rate will decrease soon 🙂

Make your points by all means, but please consider how accommodating folk are in the main, and try not to cherry pick the stuff you don’t like to portray yourself a victim. The blog is about the arguments, not the personalities.

And lay off the mods please – and let us do our job. 

Oh and on the TU/TD thing. Utterly meaningless. If I attached any meaning to them personally, I would have been forced to pack it all in three years ago 🙂

Same rules for everyone else folks. Lawman’s post-rate has nothing to do with the issues. As noted above he is not quite as prodigious as some others – who have never been accused of derailing the blog.

The mods are always on the lookout for trolls, so accusations of squirrel-ing or trolling are needless. On another day when other more prescient matters were current we may have asked for a ceasefire on the cyclical arguments that become rather pointless after a few repeats – but right now, there’s no harm in it.  

View Comment

TrisidiumPosted on1:18 am - May 14, 2016


MAY 14, 2016 at 00:26 

KOPWEB

 If the debate was about the treatment of Gretna, Airdieonians or Third Lanark it might be of more relevance.
 

 

    

THELAWMAN

I have already covered that.  None of the above clubs were bought during the administration process from the administrators.  They are not relevant in the Rangers case at all.

More than a wee bit misleading. Nor were Rangers bought during the administration process. 

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on1:19 am - May 14, 2016


THELAWMANMAY 14, 2016 at 00:26 0 8 Rate This
KOPWEB
If the debate was about the treatment of Gretna, Airdieonians or Third Lanark it might be of more relevance.
I have already covered that. None of the above clubs were bought during the administration process from the administrators. They are not relevant in the Rangers case at all.
//////////////////////////////////////////
oh but I have to disagree 
infact so would Rangers administrators 
so much so that because they where only selling the assets after a CVA fails they changed the name of the club going into liquidation 
to RFC 2012 ( or something along those lines) 

The administrators knew exactly what they where doing only selling the assets yet making a loophole of sorts for an apparent continuation (if required by the asset purchasers ) 

so so in short Gretna, third Lanark RFC 2012(Rangers) all went into liquidation never to be again 

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on1:28 am - May 14, 2016


Lawman 
I am pleased to see a difference of opinion on the site (brings a freshness to everything ) 

but one question which seems to me to unbalance your argument is 
If Rangers as you say where bought out of administration who or more exactly what is in the process of being liuqedated ? 
I have heard some say it’s a holding company and if this is the case What is the name and when did this holding company aquier RFC?

View Comment

CastofthousandsPosted on1:49 am - May 14, 2016


I’ve managed to locate the Lord Nimmo Smith inquiry report from the interweb. Here’s the passage I was interested in :

“[108]Given the seriousness, extent and duration of the non-disclosure, we have concluded that nothing less than a substantial financial penalty on Oldco will suffice. Although we are well aware that, as Oldco is in liquidation with an apparently massive deficiency for creditors (even leaving aside a possible reversal of the Tax Tribunal decision on appeal),in practice any fine is likely to be substantially irrecoverable and to the extent that it is recovered the cost will be borne by the creditors of Oldco, we nevertheless think it essential to mark the seriousness of the contraventions with a large financial penalty”
So this reads to me that the judgement had one eye on the financial reality of the situation when setting the tariff. As has been commented upon many times, the £250,000 fine levied appears substantially disproportionate given the number of infringements that were accepted as having been committed. Of course comparisons with recent apparently parallel circumstances such as the punishment meted out to Dundee United may be invalidated by the commission’s ultimate conclusion that though players were incorrectly registered, they were not automatically ineligible to play. This finding is rather contentious in the eyes of many but it is only fair to draw it to general attention.

If mis-registration HAD automatically conferred ineligibility then it might have been expected that any “large financial penalty” could have run into £10’sM. If that had been the case then the terms within the 5 way agreement that required Sevco Scotland to accept the footballing debts of Oldco Rangers would have placed their resurrection beyond the financial compass of Charles Green and Co.

Whilst the liturgy does allow for the fine actually levied and this fine was realistically capable of being met by the purchaser of Oldco’s assets, for the cynical amongst us it might be construed as all too convenient. It might also grate that this fine, to the best of my paltry knowledge, has never been paid.

Just sayin.

View Comment

YerevanPosted on5:25 am - May 14, 2016


Spiers breaks ranks :-
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/choose-again-keane-or-lennon-p60tpdwln?shareToken=e8ee8a217b4eba173cf2a766d0ca7ff3

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on7:38 am - May 14, 2016


THELAWMANMAY 14, 2016 at 00:40 1 14  Rate This 
In relation to the countless claims there was no vote to put Rangers in the 3rd Division.
Rangers hit rock bottom as SFL bows to fan furyChairmen vote Glasgow club into Third Division amid chaos over ‘SPL 2’ plansMartin HardyFriday 13 July 2012Football in Scotland was plunged into chaos yesterday when Rangers were relegated into the Third Division following a vote by Scottish Football League chairmen at Hampden Park.In the most dramatic day in the 122-year history of the SFL, 25 of the 30 member clubs rejected pleas from the Scottish Premier League and the Scottish Football Association to show leniency to the Rangers “newco” and only demote them one division.Instead, in a huge rebuff that has potentially massive ramifications, the SFL took the decision to relegate Rangers three divisions, and risk the “armageddon” that the SPL chief executive, Stewart Regan, had warned would follow such an action.
——————————————————————-
What rules are in place to vote a liquidated club or relegate a club in liquidation down divisions. And why would there be a rule on this in the first place?

View Comment

upthehoopsPosted on7:50 am - May 14, 2016


YEREVANMAY 14, 2016 at 05:25
Spiers breaks ranks 
=======================

Vary well done to Graham Spiers for running with this story. He could have sat there saying nothing like his peers simply accepting that no-one can ask if cheating took place if asking the question is detrimental to ‘Rangers’.  However, unless more of them ask the question the SFA remain untouchable. Next week could see Rangers win the Scottish Cup, which offers a European qualification place. As others have pointed out in a very detailed manner, there are serious doubts as to whether their financial position meets the criteria to be awarded a licence. Yet the SFA are in the perfect position to do what they like, and they will. 

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:07 am - May 14, 2016


http://stv.tv/sport/football/108463-in-full-document-sent-to-sfl-clubs-to-put-rangers-into-the-first-division/

The 30 clubs in the Scottish Football League received a proposal on Thursday outlining proposals for league reconstruction.
The presentation was sent by the SFL to its clubs, following talks between the league, the Scottish Premier League and the Scottish Football Association.
They include allowing Rangers to play in the First Division. The SPL has warned that if these are not voted through by the SFL clubs in the coming weeks, they will create a breakaway SPL2.
The document has been seen by STV and has been reproduced in full below.
The proposal to SFL clubs, titled “Your Game, Your Club, Your Future
WHY DOES RESISTANCE TO CHANGE IN FOOTBALL EXIST?
•Fear of the unknown
•Lack of involvement
•Lack of information
•Threat to power, or status
•No perceived benefits
•Fear of failure
•Unless behaviour changes, nothing changes
UNDERSTANDING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
•Perceptions of being “worse off”
•If the reasons for change are not clear
•If implementation plans are not clear
•If there is no clear “link” with your own objectives
•If a change is seen as a threat to your long term security or well being
WE THEREFORE NEED SOME CLEAR COMMUNICATION PRIORITIES FOR THE SFL
•Logical and positive communication to eliminate doubt, threat and insecurity
•Fully explained in terms of short and long term benefits to you and the organisation
•Not left to the last minute
•Involving you at an early stage
•And seen in the context of a wider strategic plan
CURRENT REALITY
•Rangers have no where to go
•SPL Clubs have indicated their voting intentions
•SFA wish to see a solution in the interests of the game
•Moral/sporting question vs financial collapse
•Are The SFL are in a position to accommodate a solution?
WE HAVE CONSIDERED FIVE SCENARIOS
1.Rangers stay in SPL
2.Rangers to Third Division
3.Rangers to First Division
4.Rangers to SPL2
5.Rangers terminated or suspended
1. RANGERS STAY IN SPL
•Not an option
•SPL clubs have indicated no
2. RANGERS TO THIRD DIVISION
•Takes approximately £16 million out of the game
•Commercial partners walk away and seek compensation
•The settlement agreement becomes a major risk
•The sporting opportunity is quashed for other clubs
3. RANGERS TO FIRST DIVISION
•Reduces SPL income by approximately 30%
•Balances short term need for redemption with a least worst case financial scenario
•It is financially possible to recover from this scenario
4. RANGERS TO SPL2
•Currently not supported by the SFA
•Creates a bigger divide
•Leads to some short term commercial losses
•A legal challenge could paralyse the game
•The overall pot would be much less than anticipated
5. RANGERS TERMINATED OR SUSPENDED
•Complete financial meltdown
•Settlement agreement is obliterated
•Fans are lost to the game forever
•The game survives but where?
SO WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER?
•Rangers in the IRN-BRU First Division this coming season
•A one off fee to buy out the Rangers media value. (£1million) thus protecting the current contracts in place.

IF WE AGREE THEN WE REQUIRE THE FOLLOWING
•Play-Offs immediately, based on our format
•A new distribution model with the settlement agreement value protected and future proofed
•An amalgamation of the SPL & SFL
•A more balanced governance model (as circulated)
WHICH WILL DELIVER BENEFITS TO THE SCOTTISH FOOTBALL LEAGUE
•Immediate cash benefit for all 30 clubs!
•Gate receipt uplift in Division 1
•Potential hospitality & advertising values increase
•Sponsors receive added value through additional exposure
•Scottish Government remain committed to our community strategy
•SFL has more influence at the top table
•Play-Offs restore the sporting meritocracy and deliver additional value
AND BENEFITS TO SCOTTISH FOOTBALL
•A unified plan presented to the Scottish footballing public which offers real possibilities for the game
•Keeps all 42 clubs together avoiding a divisive SPL2 split
•Deals with the need for sporting integrity with regard to Newco
•Delivers innovation in the form of a single league, Play-Offs and a pyramid plan
•Delivers new value for the game
•Potentially narrows the financial gap between Scottish Premier League & Scottish League
•Shows leadership for the game in Scotland
•Allows fans to engage in the bigger picture
•A positive media outcome

Share this article

Home/Football/
They include allowing Rangers to play in the First Division.Nothing about demotion or relegation.

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on8:41 am - May 14, 2016


CLUSTERONE – So to my original point, does the above prove that on the “13th July 2012 – Chairmen of Scottish clubs vote to put Rangers in the 3rd Division” as well as my other point which has been challenged “the Chairman voted to put Rangers into the 3rd Division.”Am i going bonkers here ?  10

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on8:58 am - May 14, 2016


allowing Rangers to play in the 3rd division…to enter. Not relegate or demote them to, To allow them to enter.”Or Am i going bonkers here ? 10

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on9:10 am - May 14, 2016


CLUSTER ONE

 allowing Rangers to play in the 3rd division…to enter. Not relegate or demote them to, To allow them to enter.”Or Am i going bonkers here ? 10

I think one of us is.

I said “the Chairman voted to put Rangers into the 3rd Division.” Your article confirms that.  

From what you posted, they could have allowed them to “STAY in the SPL” which was voted against, put them in the 1st division or put them in the 3rd division. 11 out of 12 chairman voted against allowing them to “STAY in the SPL” and 25 out of 30 Chairman voted to put them in the 3rd division.

Im using the words from the article YOU provided here.  Im clearly not getting what you see that i dont.

View Comment

Cluster OnePosted on9:13 am - May 14, 2016


allowing Rangers to play in the First Division. The SPL has warned that if these are not voted through by the SFL clubs in the coming weeks, they will create a breakaway SPL2
So if they never voted to allow them to enter the 3rd division there was a threat of a breakaway. Nothing like holding a gun to someones head05

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on9:27 am - May 14, 2016


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/18813407
Does this help?

Rangers crisis explained
Rangers went into administration owing up to £134m to unsecured creditors and will eventually be liquidatedAs a result its registrations with the Scottish FA and Scottish Premier League were terminatedCharles Green led a consortium which bought Rangers’ assets for £5.5mThe former Sheffield United chief executive is reforming Rangers as a new companyBut the ‘newco’ did not get the required votes for re-admittance to the SPLInstead, the new Rangers will start life in Division Three

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on9:33 am - May 14, 2016


1010 Does this help?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22951447

View Comment

ReiverPosted on9:37 am - May 14, 2016


I think we would all agree with you TLM if you changed one word in your assertion.

“the Chairman voted to put Rangers into the 3rd Division.”

to

“the Chairman voted to allow Rangers into the 3rd Division.”

It is amazing the difference a word makes to the timbre of a sentence.

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on9:39 am - May 14, 2016


RIEVER – “put” or “allow”. If thats what it takes for you to agree then fair enough. Not sure how it ties in with the view that one of the options was to “STAY in the SPL” mind you. To use the word “STAY” means that they had to have been there previously, according to the evidence used above.

Anyways, can we all simply agree that not one of us is going to change our minds on the new or old club thing.  There isnt a single thing anyone can post EVER that will move anyones stance on it so its a waste of time even posting about it.

So on that note, and on that topic, I am out.  You have a free reign to post anything and there wont be a rebuttal…..as there is no point.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on9:40 am - May 14, 2016


THELAWMANMAY 14, 2016 at 00:26 =======================================
KOPWEB
 If the debate was about the treatment of Gretna, Airdieonians or Third Lanark it might be of more relevance. 
=======================================
I have already covered that.  None of the above clubs were bought during the administration process from the administrators.  They are not relevant in the Rangers case at all.

==========================================

Neither were Rangers.

The administrators, in an extraordinary decision, agreed that if a CVA was not achieved then Sevco 5088 would buy the assets for an agreed sum. When the CVA was rejected the assets were sold to Sevco Scotland, a totally different company.

The bottom line is that if the CVA failed then the administrators should have done everything they could to maximise the return to the creditors. They didn’t even try. They sold the assets to a company as a job lot, and not even the company they had agreed to sell them to. The fact that “Sevco” appears in both names is convenient but irrelevant. 

Rangers was placed into liquidation, that is ongoing, no amount of obfuscation changes it. 

View Comment

ReiverPosted on9:46 am - May 14, 2016


I have a personal interest in the Spiers article because I am left to wonder whether it was an article he put together for the Times and it was approved for print or whether he was instructed by the Times sports desk to cover the issue. It is afterall only four days since the London sports desk was informed by phone of the existence of the TOG report. They initially wanted to transfer me to the Scottish office of their paper but I refused and insisted that this was of UK importance.

I’m not looking for any pat on the back here but I think the context of the articles appearance in the paper is important to the overall picture. My concern is that the line –
“All of this may well fizzle out. ” is actually more of a warning that this is as far is the reporting on the subject goes. Well WE must ensure that it doesn’t “fizzle out”.

View Comment

HirsutePursuitPosted on9:53 am - May 14, 2016


THELAWMANMAY 14, 2016 at 09:33 0 0  Rate This 
 Does this help?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-22951447
………………………..
Really?  

You are posting on a site that has, at its core, the idea that the SFA and SPL have been, at best, ‘creative’ in their application of rules and regulations against the principles of sporting integrity. 

The BBC Trust ruling is right up there with LNS as an example of how a particular decision can be reached – not according to truth – but according to who you ask and what you ask.

Doncaster and Regan have next to no credibility – a point with which I think you agree – yet you cite a BBC decision based on their non-credible information. 

Really? 

View Comment

tcup 2012Posted on9:54 am - May 14, 2016


TheLawManTHELAWMANMAY 14, 2016 at 08:41 0 4 Rate This
CLUSTERONE – So to my original point, does the above prove that on the “13th July 2012 – Chairmen of Scottish clubs vote to put Rangers in the 3rd Division” as well as my other point which has been challenged “the Chairman voted to put Rangers into the 3rd Division.”Am i going bonkers here ? 10
////////////////////////////
Yes I think you are ?

The he votes where a request from the SFA/ Hamden bunker 
They first asked the SPL ( a separate Leauge ) to vote if they could take the new entity/club playing out of ibrox into their Leauge 
Then asked the SPFL if it was possible to insert them into their Leauge set up ( preferably into the first division ) which they voted on and allowed them to enter into the third division

The SFA/Hamden bunker made these requests due to fear over sponsorship and profile of the leagues also the fear (rightly or wrongly) that thousands of paying customers would be lost to the game for many years to come 
Armageddon I think was the word they used to describe it 

View Comment

naegreetinPosted on10:00 am - May 14, 2016


Re : The Spiers’ article in to-day’s Times

Fair play to the “Son of the Manse” , he has put in print something no one else in the Scottish media has dared to (yet) . He has gone up in my estimation , now can anyone else (the BBC ?) have a grown up debate about the TJN findings ?

Good on you Reiver if your contact with the Times in some way helped provoke this movement by Speirs .

View Comment

ReiverPosted on10:01 am - May 14, 2016


TLM

“Stay” is not a word any independent person would use in connection with the attempt to have a new team in the top league. That was what all the stushie from the fans was about. In fact the term that sticks in my mind was “dropped” into the top league.
You seem to have taken offence at my explanation over why there is a natural suspicion over the sort of entrance on to this site you made. Anyone who is active on this subject as very aware of the care they must take. There is history that not all with views opposing views wish just to debate the issue.
I would suggest that you engage us a while longer as there is much we can do better together than separately. It would be interesting though to first know your stance on the broader issues that you have already refused to respond to. Likewise, the suggestion that you use your position on the Ranger’s sites to encourage action there against the SFA/SPFL.

PS I have NEVER been on the Bears Den site. Your post from there was published in full on John Jame’s site.

View Comment

campsiejoePosted on10:06 am - May 14, 2016


Lawman

This is my final word on this subject
Can you show definitively where Rangers, who were already members of the SPL,  applied for membership of the SPL and subsequently the SFL

The fact that journalists refer to Rangers in their articles does not mean that was the reality, and was all part of the continuity myth

The only organisation that applied for membership of both the SPL & SFL was Sevco Scotland, who subsequently changed its name to TRFC
That is an indisputable fact ,as you well know, but you carny on with your denial

I won’t be posting on this subject again

View Comment

nawlitePosted on10:20 am - May 14, 2016


Allyjambo
May 13, 2016 at 14:30
Ignoring all the usual crap surrounding Ibrox, if we compare Rangers insolvency to Leeds United’s, we can see reasons why one, and not the other, was put under a very strong microscope by supporters of all other clubs.
Leeds United were a badly managed club, who tried to chase the dream by spending money they didn’t have. In other words, they did what most clubs have tried to do with varying levels of success. They didn’t get enough success to provide the returns with which to clear the debt they’d got themselves into. If as The Lawman insists, they went into liquidation, they did so in a manner no one else cared enough about to question their same club status.
If, on the other hand, Leeds United had, prior to their insolvency, conducted a dodgy tax scheme, whether illegal or not, that had aided them to a number of titles, and cost the other clubs in prize money and European places, then I’m pretty certain they would have faced a much more concerted, with the English MSM joining in, investigation of their same club claims than TRFC ever have!
Sometimes ‘no one notices us, they don’t care’, has a better outcome than, ‘no one likes us, we don’t care’!
————————————————————————————————————————————-
Sorry AJ, I don’t like that at all. Your argument is that if Leeds were more successful/important, people would call them out as a new club. That only plays into the superiority complex of those fans in Scotland who claim the new club issue is driven only by Rangers-haters envious of their success.  

View Comment

the taxman comethPosted on10:52 am - May 14, 2016


In all the smoke and mirrors of the same club lie its good to be reminded of the real world

A licence applicant may only be a football club, i.e. a legal entity fully responsiblefor a football team participating in national and international competitions whicheither:a) is a registered member of a UEFA member association and/or its affiliatedleague (hereinafter: registered member); orb) has a contractual relationship with a registered member (hereinafter: footballcompany).”
Mebbes TLM can give us his definition of what a club is, who owns it, how they prove ownership

View Comment

casper999Posted on11:01 am - May 14, 2016


I don’t post often but have in the past. Iv been reading the ongoing stushy and just have this to say. Using the words “stay” or relegated or “put down” are just ways of the msm to try and continue the “big lie” the continuity myth.    In very simple terms, Rangers died. Owing lots of people lots of money.   Unable to meet these bills , they went under. Like woolworths.   I pass an old woolworhs shop in my area , now called B. And M,s . It’s not woolworths . It’s the same building , been ere since I was a child but it’s not woolworths .   On achieving promotion this year the new 4 year old Rangers were lauded as “returning” to the top league.    Again , a big lie .  With this in mind .  I started throwing in the odd remark to my blue minded colleague at work that I was really looking forward to going back to Honolulu , or Dubai or Saudi Arabia . To which he aske me ” oh, I didn’t know you’d been there” to which I replied  ” I haven’t”  he soon clicked to what I was doing and went in the huff .     So , we all owe it to the people  who lost money to never let the big lie go unchallenged . What I was saying was patently rediculous.   So is the big lie .     Casper.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on11:13 am - May 14, 2016


There were two prices put forward for the two possible transactions. £8.5m for a CVA, and a back up price if the CVA was refused, of circa £5.5m, (if I recall correctly), whereby it automatically resorted to an asset purchase via liquidation,   
    This two part bid, or back up bid, was demanded by D&P because they feared that Charlie would walk away if the CVA was rejected, and they were left holding the bits.  
   I have never had it fully explained to me, but why would Charlie walk away from a cheaper purchase price?  And what did the £3m price difference buy in one transaction, over the other?

View Comment

tangoedPosted on11:28 am - May 14, 2016


If/when a CVA had been achieved at leeds,would that club have been considered solvent?
 
http://pjgrecovery.com/solvent-reconstruction.asp
 
“Often a company has simply reached the end of its lifespan due to the age of the promoters, the sale of the business out of the company or because the purpose for which it has been set us has been achieved. In such instances solvent liquidations often provide a tax efficient method of extracting the company’s funds and returning them to the shareholders. Once again the advice of the company’s own tax advisers is important.”
 
Within the football world solvent reconstruction is perfectly legal,it would also explain why there was a CVL at leeds and why the shell left behind is being liquidated.

View Comment

HomunculusPosted on11:34 am - May 14, 2016


CORRUPT OFFICIALMAY 14, 2016 at 11:13       This two part bid, or back up bid, was demanded by D&P because they feared that Charlie would walk away if the CVA was rejected, and they were left holding the bits.  

=================================

Sorry but I disagree.

With the amount of debt owed to HMRC there was never any prospect of a CVA, neither was there ever any prospect of the assets being sold to anyone else.

The whole thing was a con with a pre-determined outcome. That was not getting the best return for the creditors.

I do realise this is just my opinion.

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on11:35 am - May 14, 2016


TheLawManMay 13, 2016 at 23:49
  what is it that keeps The Lawman here, for hours on end? What is it he hopes to achieve? 
Do you want me to leave you in peace singing from the same hymn sheet, slapping each other on the back ?  I actually thought people on here wanted to “still ask the questions”  wanted the truth.
Can anyone challenge anything i have said an point to a lie?  Is anyone going to apologise for attempting to discredit me over the Leeds situation only to be surprised by the truth ?
If im wasting my time and you are not going to consider anything i say, just be straight about it and I will go and leave you in the bubble of believing online myths that are simply untrue.
_______________________________________–

Firstly, I have had a quick read through the posts that follow and note you still haven’t answered the question, of what it is you hope to achieve. This seems to be a part of your MO that does, in itself, lead me to ask the question in the first place. It is one of a number of questions you have left unanswered, preferring to attack the questioner’s right to question you instead.

Yesterday I pointed out that I am still unsure of what your original point was, from your opening gambit, and asked for clarification, saying that from what I could gather, your point was; that if Rangers had declared all overdue payments then there was no problem.

I agreed with you on that point. I’m sure everyone would agree with you on that point. I’d also agree that if you, or anyone, can produce proof that everything that should have been declared, was declared, then we can all move on and the Resolution 12 guys can all give up and call in at Celtic Park to renew their season tickets.

Somewhere within all the words you have posted, you may have provided that proof (of full and honest declaration) but it’s beyond me to find it. If you have done so, can you give a précis of it? You see, by my understanding, that is all that Resolution 12 seeks, the evidence that the license was not issued fraudulently!

You see, without that evidence, the question still remains, what do you hope to achieve? For without that evidence, you are hardly likely to change the opinion of people who have been asking for that evidence for some three years!

One thing you might like to consider regarding your recent responses is:

 You told Reiver that ‘The football press and media in Scotland are gash.’

You then went on (in a later post) to use some of that gash reporting (along with the words of people you already admitted were not fit for purpose) to justify your argument that ‘Rangers’ were demoted/relegated and ‘voted down’.

If your arguments and beliefs of what happened are based, in any way, by what those ‘gash’ reporters said, it’s hardly surprising we find difficulty in accepting much of anything else you claim.

On your enlightening of the blog over the Leeds United case. Excellent argument put forward, and it does appear you are correct. That does not, however, change the OC/NC debate over Rangers one little bit. It only shows that when the supporters/public take their eye off the ball, unscrupulous people can get away with anything! It is a perfect example of why we are here.

View Comment

easyJamboPosted on11:36 am - May 14, 2016


Corrupt official  May 14, 2016 at 11:13
————————–
The £3M difference was he difference between life and death (barring SFA/SPL resurrection).

The negotiations on the future liabilities incurred by sustaining the Oldco with HMRC and the Footballing authorities may well have been more fraught had the CVA succeeded, even more so than those imposed by the 5-way agreement.  Retaining the Oldco would also have meant honouring the expensive contracts of those who walked away like Naismith, Lafferty, Whittaker, McGregor and Davis. It was always likely to be a more expensive option had it succeeded. 

However there is a counter argument whereby decent transfer fees may have been obtained for those who left and may have allowed them to maintain a competitive side in the SPL.

It is worth noting that the £8.5M offer was in fact a loan that would have to have been paid back by 2020, while the £5.5M was a cash pile.

The Newco route would also have offered the “investors” EIS and VCT tax breaks. It certainly happened that way when the RIFC IPO was set up.

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on11:54 am - May 14, 2016


HOMUNCULUSMAY 14, 2016 at 11:34
     “Sorry but I disagree.”
    ————————————————— 
   No need to apologise for disagreeing, but Charlie is on tape talking about the two part deal. and that is along the lines of how I remember it. I also agree that an accepted CVA was never to be a likely outcome, but was just a necessary step to achieve an end goal.  

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on12:01 pm - May 14, 2016


EASYJAMBOMAY 14, 2016 at 11:36
    “It is worth noting that the £8.5M offer was in fact a loan that would have to have been paid back by 2020,”
      ————————————————————————————————————-
   Ah the loan EJ…..Kind of like buying the company with it’s own money. 
I think your first line hit the nail on the head, “The £3M difference was he difference between life and death (barring SFA/SPL resurrection)”….As that was the point I was clumsily making. 

View Comment

TheLawManPosted on12:08 pm - May 14, 2016


ALLYJAMBO

 Firstly, I have had a quick read through the posts that follow and note you still haven’t answered the question, of what it is you hope to achieve. This seems to be a part of your MO that does, in itself, lead me to ask the question in the first place. It is one of a number of questions you have left unanswered, preferring to attack the questioner’s right to question you instead.

 

I guess the first thing to note is that this is a forum for football fans to express their opinions so im not sure you need to want to achieve something to come on and post.  Again, one could be forgiven for thinking there is an alterior motive in your question.  It feels like you are saying “Why did you bother coming on here?”

My MO is to post my experience, views and considered opinion along with factual evidence because from what I can see and read online there is a lot of misleading information being put out there by fans.  This is extremely topical given all the posts on Leeds claiming all sorts and even when a legal document was presented, people still didnt believe it.  Further down, you have accepted my version of events was true and correct but there are still people who believe the version they have been misled by many a blog over the years is still correct.  I mean, whats a legal document on Companies House compared to a blog by football fans eh?

 
Yesterday I pointed out that I am still unsure of what your original point was, from your opening gambit, and asked for clarification, saying that from what I could gather, your point was; that if Rangers had declared all overdue payments then there was no problem.
I agreed with you on that point. I’m sure everyone would agree with you on that point. I’d also agree that if you, or anyone, can produce proof that everything that should have been declared, was declared, then we can all move on and the Resolution 12 guys can all give up and call in at Celtic Park to renew their season tickets.

 

My original point was to clarify the rules and state them clearly.  The reason for doing so is aligned to the above in that it was clear that people were just not understanding the rules.  Lets leave aside the Rangers licence situation and just concentrate on that point alone.  Again, despite each article and annex being explained clearly, people cant take the emotion and misinformation out of the equation and see the rules for what they are in black and white.

Like you, it is beyond ALL doubt in my mind that as long as Rangers declared their overdue payments as at June 30th on the declaration form then they met the requirement.  As long as the SFA sent that information to UEFA by July 14th then they also met the requirement.  

 Somewhere within all the words you have posted, you may have provided that proof (of full and honest declaration) but it’s beyond me to find it. If you have done so, can you give a précis of it? You see, by my understanding, that is all that Resolution 12 seeks, the evidence that the license was not issued fraudulently!

 
I 100% accept that i have no confirmation this took place but i believe in the balance of all probabilities and based on the premise of common sense, I am confident it was disclosed.  I believe that with the amount of emails, letters and phone calls to UEFA over the years that someone over there will have said “Can you show me that file please from July 2011?”  If they opened it and there was a Nil return, the Investigatory Body would have already opened a case. 

 You see, without that evidence, the question still remains, what do you hope to achieve? For without that evidence, you are hardly likely to change the opinion of people who have been asking for that evidence for some three years!

 

Ah, we are back here again.  “So if you cant show us a copy of a confidential document, why are you even here.  Cant you just leave us all to discuss it amongst ourselves, even if half of us dont actually know the rules.”

 
One thing you might like to consider regarding your recent responses is:
You told Reiver that ‘The football press and media in Scotland are gash.’
You then went on (in a later post) to use some of that gash reporting (along with the words of people you already admitted were not fit for purpose) to justify your argument that ‘Rangers’ were demoted/relegated and ‘voted down’.
If your arguments and beliefs of what happened are based, in any way, by what those ‘gash’ reporters said, it’s hardly surprising we find difficulty in accepting much of anything else you claim.

 

Just to clarify and as i have said, i will not discuss the merits of new/old club any further, I only posted that in reference to the fact there was a vote by the Chairman as people kept telling me i was telling lies.  There was a vote.  That is a 100% irrefutable fact.

 On your enlightening of the blog over the Leeds United case. Excellent argument put forward, and it does appear you are correct.

 
Thank you again.  So it appears that my being on here has certainly changed your perspective of the Leeds United situation and I hope there are others like you who agree.  I am disappointed that the original poster who “called me out” on my lies and questioned all my views as a result is man enough to do the same and apologise.

 That does not, however, change the OC/NC debate over Rangers one little bit. It only shows that when the supporters/public take their eye off the ball, unscrupulous people can get away with anything! It is a perfect example of why we are here.

No-one will change their mind on this issue.  I get it.  Hence me not discussing NC/OC any more as i agree on that point there is absolutely no reason for me being here. 

View Comment

AllyjamboPosted on12:17 pm - May 14, 2016


nawliteMay 14, 2016 at 10:20 
Allyjambo May 13, 2016 at 14:30 Ignoring all the usual crap surrounding Ibrox, if we compare Rangers insolvency to Leeds United’s, we can see reasons why one, and not the other, was put under a very strong microscope by supporters of all other clubs. Leeds United were a badly managed club, who tried to chase the dream by spending money they didn’t have. In other words, they did what most clubs have tried to do with varying levels of success. They didn’t get enough success to provide the returns with which to clear the debt they’d got themselves into. If as The Lawman insists, they went into liquidation, they did so in a manner no one else cared enough about to question their same club status. If, on the other hand, Leeds United had, prior to their insolvency, conducted a dodgy tax scheme, whether illegal or not, that had aided them to a number of titles, and cost the other clubs in prize money and European places, then I’m pretty certain they would have faced a much more concerted, with the English MSM joining in, investigation of their same club claims than TRFC ever have! Sometimes ‘no one notices us, they don’t care’, has a better outcome than, ‘no one likes us, we don’t care’!————————————————————————————————————————————-Sorry AJ, I don’t like that at all. Your argument is that if Leeds were more successful/important, people would call them out as a new club. That only plays into the superiority complex of those fans in Scotland who claim the new club issue is driven only by Rangers-haters envious of their success.  
______________________________-

Firstly, Nawlite, I am not arguing with you, I am merely trying to show how Leeds United got away with it. The eyes of the world of football supporters was not upon them. They were much more stealthy than Rangers, and, regardless of the respective successes of the clubs, one went into administration in the midst of the biggest scandal to hit British football, and so was already under a very large microscope, the other had had it’s day and had been slipping off most people’s radar for some time. It’s more than a little bit possible that, without the internet and us bampots, they’d have got clean away with a smooth transition from one Rangers to the next.

I’m sorry, too, but there is no denying that, within the Scottish football scene, Rangers were much bigger than Leeds United were in England. There is no denying also, that the bigger you are, the more sets of eyes that are upon you. Whatever I say, the Rangers supporters’ superiority complex will exist. My point is, however, that that ‘superiority’ is part of the reason that they have not been allowed to get clean away with it.

Oh, and my argument is not that if Leeds United were more successful/important, people would call them out, it is that they would have been put under a much larger microscope than they were at the time.

Putting aside your concern that my argument might feed the bears’ superiority complex, do you think my reasoning as to why Leeds United were able to get away with their seamless transition, unchallenged, is wrong?

View Comment

Corrupt officialPosted on12:39 pm - May 14, 2016


Lawman. 
   I get that you have been side-tracked, but many of the issues overlap, and it is bound to happen. 
   If I can get you back to your original opinion, if I have it correctly, that you are of the opinion that Rangers(I.L.) were granted a Euro licence legitimately. 
   In trying to find some common ground, would you agree that by dint of the fact Rangers(I.L.) entered administration prior to completion of the tourney, then whether rightly or wrongly admitted, the avenue of what the rules are aiming to achieve should be explored. (That being amongst the myriad of reasons for the FPP rules, administration mid tourney,would be one scenario they were designed to avoid) 
   In other words, do the rules work. 
   Personally I think that should be looked at, and I think that is what the TOG report is hoping to achieve. However, until the SFA point out, and demonstrate, that they were followed to the letter, we will never know, if or where the rules fell down. We will not get to the root
   So conversely, and with the benefit of hindsight, it could be said that as well as arguing that Rangers(I.L.) were entered fairly, in accordance with the rules, you are also arguing that the rules were inadequate to perform, at least in part, their function.  
   Would that be a fair assessment of your position?

View Comment

Comments are closed.