The Real Battle Begins?

Avatar ByTrisidium

The Real Battle Begins?

The increasing attacks on social media by the main stream press, fuelled in some respect by David Murray’s vague threats of litigation against bloggers, has brought into sharp focus the challenges facing the Blogosphere. It also brings into even sharper focus the prescience of Stuart Cosgrove’s assertion that this summer’s ‘epistemological break’  had begun to marginalize the Scottish sporting wing of the MSM.

The reality of that assertion is embedded in the misreporting of the FTT decision as a victory for RFC, falsely alleging that those who operated the EBT scheme had been exonerated, that RFC had ‘done nothing wrong’, and consequently accusing ‘vindictive anti-Rangers bloggers’ of playing a part in the downfall of that once great Scottish institution. It is also evident in Tom English’s rather bitter and one-dimensional anti-RTC polemic today in the Scotland on Sunday. Had it been entitled “Self Preservation”, it may have rung a few more truth bells.

I am not of the belief that the MSM is an instinctively pro-Rangers estate, but I do think that their reportage of the FTT is more geared towards discrediting the newly emergent forces in the social media area than it is towards rehabilitating the public image of RFC or David Murray.

However despite the contempt in which many people here hold the MSM and Murray, English does have a point that we would be foolish to ignore. No-one can deny that we do have a duty to ensure that we are responsible in how we present ourselves to the public. Now that our (and others’) success as a real and creative alternative has spurred the MSM into action, we are subject to greater scrutiny than at any time in the past. Our view is that we have to be pro-actively engaged in setting a standard for ourselves that is above those that the MSM have set for themselves.

We have on TSFM an audience exponentially greater than the number of posts. That presents us with a great opportunity to get our message across, but it also burdens us with an increased responsibility not to fall into the trap which has besought the Succulent Lamb Brigade.

We are a very different animal from RTC. RTC him or herself had information and insight to bring to the table that the administrators of this site do not. The founder and former admin of TSFM had the idea that the talent available from posters on the RTC – not just RTC himself – should continue to have a forum in a post-RTC world, and that those talents could be used to challenge the myths regularly represented as facts by lazy journalists in the MSM.

We have at our disposal on this blog forensic analysis of legal, media and corporate matters. We have an abundance of creative minds, all passionate about the game of football AS WELL AS a partisan love for their chosen club. With all that talent and expertise, we can make an impact on the agenda by challenging the misinformation and substandard journalism of the MSM, and our finest moments are when we do that. We lose authority and influence when the debate is impeded by bald accusation or innuendo backed up with little more than an historical view of our country.

Our biggest impact (and largest audience) is to be found when when our experts have collectively torn apart those myths presented as truths by the MSM, and when we have asked the questions that the MSM either can’t or won’t ask or answer. Those are the things that have driven the traffic to this site, and many of the emails we get congratulate us on that.

Our credibility plummets though when we go down the partisan path. We also get literally hundreds of emails from fans who ask that we cut down on the comments of those who are merely venting outrage at how they see the game being mismanaged (mainly so they can access the important stuff more quickly), and from fans who are just fed up with the constant name-calling – almost exclusively aimed at Ally McCoist and other Rangers figures.

If we claim to be an intellectual and journalistic rung or two above the likes of the Red Tops (not to mention to be decent and respectful of others), we need to refrain from the name calling and accusatory culture. We can ask questions, put items for debate on the public agenda, point out apparent irregularities and anomalies. In rushing to judgement of others from the comfort of the glow of our own laptop screens, we are guilty of the same lazy journalism we see in others. Name calling (all good fun of course on a fan site) is just a lazy thought process and as English says, comes across as “nasty”.

We never saw RTC as a fan-site. The original administrator of this blog never saw TSFM as one either, and nor do we. In order to succeed properly, we need sensible fans of ALL clubs to be comfortable and feel secure in our midst. Of course we are not breaking any laws, but can anyone honestly say that we have evolved into a welcoming place for Rangers fans?

TSFM is not about hounding any one club out of existence or into shame or infamy. In the Rangers saga we have sought to ensure that the football authorities play fair with everyone and stick to their own rules. One well kent RTC contributor, and no friend of Rangers, often said that if the FTT found in favour of Rangers we should move along and accept it. Well they did find in favour of Rangers in the majority of cases. That may not suit many of us, but we are the Scottish Football Monitor, not a Judicial Watchdog. We can say why we disagree with the decision, but criticism of the process through which the decision was arrived at is beyond our purview.

Since the accusation is often made in the MSM, we should state, unequivocally and unreservedly, that we are NOT anti-Rangers. Their fans face the same issues as the rest of us and they are welcome here. We are however, equally unequivocally against the gravy train journalism of the Scottish Football Wing of the MSM (with one or two honourable exceptions).

If the Anti-Blogateers in the press are correct, the popularity of the TSFM will recede as the Rangers Tax case reverts to the back pages before disappearing for good. However I do not believe that they are correct. I don’t believe that Scottish football fans are only motivated by either hatred – or even dislike – of one club. I believe we are more concerned with the game itself than the pot-stirrers in the MSM would have us believe, because we understand the interdependence of football clubs.

But we also understand that the people who run football clubs do not always run their clubs for the benefit of the fans. In the business world, that may not be out of the ordinary, since businesses are run for the benefit of shareholders.
However football reserves for itself a special place in the hearts of people in this country. If the people who run football clubs want to retain that favourable status, they have to be accountable to the fans.

The difficulty in holding them to account though, is that the cosy relationship cultivated between club directors, managers and players and the press renders the access to information a closed shop, and the information itself is heavily filtered and spun.

As long as we keep asking questions in response to the fruit of that cosy relationship, we will be providing people with an alternative angle and viewpoint, allowing them to come to their own conclusions, and not the one the MSM post-presser huddle delivers to us wrapped up in a bow.

For the SFM specifically, we believe that to have any influence, we need to enable the expertise at our disposal to flourish. It is also vital to our project that Rangers fans are included in our dialogue. We just can’t call ourselves the Scottish Football Monitor if they are largely excluded from participation because they feel they are being treated disrespectfully.

We can’t tolerate the accusations and name calling. We need to stick to what we have done best; factual analysis, conjecture based on known facts and on-line discourse leading to searching questions being asked.

One of the things we are looking at for the near future is to set up some kind of formal and transparent channel of communication between the SFM and the football authorities. Being truly representative of fans will make that easier to achieve.

The MSM will continue to attack the social media outlets. In one way you can understand it. Their jobs are at stake. The business model of the print media in particular has changed massively over the last five years, manifesting itself mainly in increasingly under-resourced newsrooms. Consequently it is besought by increasingly unreliable and under-researched journalism, even to the point where much of it is no longer journalism at all.

By comparison the Blogosphere has access to greater human and time resources, is able to react to unfolding events in real time, and crucially (because it has been eschewed instead of embraced by print media proprietors) has been occupied by ordinary folk with little or no vested interest.

We are still in position to provide a service in our small niche of the on-line world. We have rights to publish and speak freely about our passion, but we also have to live up to the attendant responsibilities, and thus the appeal for discretion on posting comments.

Where Tom English got it completely wrong (in the uniquely ironic way the MSM have about them), is that his industry has mistaken the rights others have earned for them as entitlement, and ignored almost completely the responsibility they had to act on behalf of those who pay their wages.

About the author

Avatar

Trisidium administrator

Trisidium is a Dunblane businessman with a keen interest in Scottish Football. He is a Celtic fan, although the demands of modern-day parenting have seen him less at games and more as a taxi service for his kids.

3,018 Comments so far

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on12:25 pm - Dec 5, 2012


so we have

ibrox stadium
minty park
albion car park – owned by [sevco] who changed their name to the rangers football club ltd.

we will also have

Rangers International Football Club Plc (which is a seperate entity from TRFCltd)

1 – presumably – sevco/TRFCltd will OWN RIFCplc

2 – will RIFCplc be a subsidiary of TRFCltd or the other way round,

3 – or WILL THEY BE TWO SEPERATE COMPANIES ?

also, where does rangers catering ltd fit in

where does rangers merchndise ltd fit in

where does rangers credit ltd fit in?

and all the other sevco affilliated – rangers companies of which we’ve lost count?
are they all seperate companies or are they subsidiaries?

View Comment

Avatar

paulmac2Posted on12:29 pm - Dec 5, 2012


bawsman says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 12:07

Can someone explain to me why the RFFF are named as creditors, or on the comittee representing creditors?

……………………………………

I can only assume they provided the cash to take the SFA to the CoS…and have documented it as a loan…it would be interesting to see how much it is they are down for and for what reason are they owed?

Other than that…I can only think it’s a moody invoice they have submitted…in the hope they receive one or all of the following…

1. Shares
2. Cash from whatever BDO retrieve
3. A seat on the board
4. All of the above

View Comment

Avatar

BrendaPosted on12:33 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Everything will become clear on the 31st February 20?? 🙂 ……….. It will, it will honest!

View Comment

Avatar

ExiledCeltPosted on12:38 pm - Dec 5, 2012


RFF creditors – representing Debenture Holders maybe?

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on12:39 pm - Dec 5, 2012


so we have

ibrox stadium
minty park
albion car park – owned by [sevco] who changed their name to the rangers football club ltd.

we will also have

Rangers International Football Club Plc (which is a seperate entity from TRFCltd)

will Rangers International FC plc be paying rent money to RFCltd
for the rent of ibroxstadium, Murray park, and albion car park?

1 – presumably – sevco/TRFCltd will OWN RIFCplc

2 – will RIFCplc be a subsidiary of TRFCltd or the other way round,

3 – or WILL THEY BE TWO SEPERATE COMPANIES ?

also, where does rangers catering ltd fit in

where does rangers merchndise ltd fit in

where does rangers credit ltd fit in?

and all the other sevco affilliated – rangers companies of which we’ve lost count?
are they all seperate companies or are they subsidiaries?

View Comment

bawsman

bawsmanPosted on12:41 pm - Dec 5, 2012


paulmac2 says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 12:29

Cheers bud……………….Still find it strange though.

I thought the amount owed to each creditor would have been published too.

When we see the amount actually owed to HMRC the tax dodging label will be nailed on, that’ll possibly only happen after UTT I imagine.

Happy days ahead as the Directors are dragged through the courts. 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

bobferrisPosted on12:44 pm - Dec 5, 2012


I see the Record tomorrow is running a pull out celebrating “140 years of Gers tradition”. Fair enough I suppose if the cut off date is June 2012. If it’s not then this must be one of the most blatant lies that paper has ever published and that’s saying something.

Interesting that they pick tomorrow, Thursday, and not Friday or Saturday. Probably banking on a positive result for Celtic tonight and their jubilant fans buying the paper regardless of any Sevco puff piece.

View Comment

Avatar

bobferrisPosted on12:54 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Would also like to add that I would normally consider sending Dundee Utd a cheque for £10 to show solidarity but I am finding it difficult to get my head around contributing anything to any SPL club after the latest reconstruction nonsense. They just don’t get it, all 12 of them. Maybe I will just continue to spend my money at lowly SFL clubs who need every penny. In any case DU could have drawn Forfar at home and got a crowd of 5000. They may yet get tv money they would not have budgeted for so I’ll probably not send them anything but I hope they know that fans of every other club, on this issue at least, are 100% behind them.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on12:55 pm - Dec 5, 2012


stevensanph says:

Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 11:55

I posted a while back a link to an illustrative business case for Sevco. It can be found at

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Aq2m3ggkEX2RdER0WURDZEhOdmxVWGo5aFZEUVdMS1E#gid=0

It uses information provided by yourself and also based on previous Rangers accounts, some on pubished figures and some on estimates of gates and other expenditure items that prospective investors (as opposed to supporters who just want to do what they can to keep their club alive) should be interested in. Any factors not included or way out estimates can be changed to check impact on break even/profit.

It keeps inside the 33% figure of income wage ceiling CG uses as a selling point to investors and it shows the net level of wages that are necessary to do so year on year in blue rising from £1127 pw in Yrs 1 and 2 to £2857 Yr3 to £4918 in Yr 4 to settle at £6072 thereafter.

Whilst more than all other Scottish clubs can pay weekly, these wages come no where near what Celtic will be able to afford AS LONG AS GATES AT CP AT LEAST MATCH THEIRS and as long as the Celtic “brand” continues to grow and especially if CL money keeps flowing in.

The figures do allow for an annual clawback to Green/investors after year 3 (it might actually now be year 4) but if they want more than the £1.45m shown then the player wages have to fall.

The other factor that institutional investors have to consider is the projected gate income.

To allow the break even/small profit margin shown at the link their gates have to a) rise in number whilst at least doubling in price from a support happy to play second fiddle to a richer Celtic. History suggests that when Celtic are top dog “snaw aff a dyke” is a lable that can be applied to The Rangers support.

If income drops so too does wages on offer and so does return on investment and on field performance.

There are two major risk factors for any real investors as opposed to the emotional ones.

a) The Rangers support numbers, after saving their club, falls and they become just another Scottish club trying to make ends meet.

b) Celtic’s financial dominance makes the risk of the above much greater than it would be if Celtic where playing elsewhere.

Institutional investors with no emotional attachments are more likely to be looking at other places to make better money at lesser risk. Emotional investors will chuck in their money (pun intended) regardless.

View Comment

Avatar

rustyploughbhoyPosted on1:02 pm - Dec 5, 2012


bhoywithseethrougheyes
at 10.35

I have to agree , more should be done now & not when it is to late .
We have to save our game ourselves, because it has become clear
that the paid officials at the SFA & the press, that rely on the pound
in our pocket are hell bent on trying to re-establish the stranglehold
that the oldco team held over us all. We cannot let this farce to carry
on before they become accepted into society & we are back to square one.
The Cheats cannot Win !

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on1:03 pm - Dec 5, 2012


paulmac2 says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 12:29

I can only assume they (RFFF) provided the cash to take the SFA to the CoS…and have documented it as a loan …
——

Giving folk cash and calling it a loan? Wherever could they have got that idea from?

View Comment

Avatar

ikiPosted on1:05 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Oh what’s the bloody point !
When all this started there was a possibility of there being no Rangers …… and now there seems to be hundreds of them.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on1:10 pm - Dec 5, 2012


angus1983 says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 13:03

paulmac2 says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 12:29

I can only assume they (RFFF) provided the cash to take the SFA to the CoS…and have documented it as a loan …
——

Giving folk cash and calling it a loan? Wherever could they have got that idea from?
————————————————————————————————
As this was cash raised by the fans to help the club,why would they try and claim it back?.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on1:13 pm - Dec 5, 2012


8m Jane Lewis Jane Lewis ‏@JaneLewisSport

#DundeeUTD say they are disappointed by the content and tone of #Rangers statement re. Scottish Cup tickets.

#DundeeUTd add ”we do not intend to enter into a war of words with Rangers or to dignify their position by responding in kind.”

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on1:13 pm - Dec 5, 2012


bobferris70 says:

Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 12:54

Sometimes a choice is the lesser of two evils. League reconstruction has been on the go long before 140 years of history met its Mayan end (imagine them knowing about Rangers).

As long as sporting merit is paramount and rules are not used to circumvent this principle, the same one that saw The Rangers start in SFL3, I am inclined to support Utd financaily to counter the cost to them of what looks to me like bully boy tactics.

If SFA rules means The Rangers benefit from ticket purchase I am sure DU supporters can come up with “An Arab for a Day” fund to meet a cost Dundee Utd have already factored in (say ground improvement) that will have the same or better financial effect than the boycott will cost them.

Wily birds are Arabs.

View Comment

Avatar

Lord WobblyPosted on1:14 pm - Dec 5, 2012


torrejohnbhoy says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 10:32
4 0 Rate This

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/dundee-united/204234-rangers-dundee-utd-and-scottish-cup-tickets-your-questions-answered/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While it’s good of STV to do that, it’s important to note that Rangers was not denied re-entry to the SPL. The Rangers was denied entry.

It should also have been denied entry to the SFL, at least until it could fulfill the normal entry requirements.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on1:17 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Greg Hemphill ‏@greghemphill69

“Follow follow, we will follow Rangers, Everywhere, anywhere, except to the grounds of SPL teams that voted against us” isn’t as catchy.

View Comment

Avatar

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on1:20 pm - Dec 5, 2012


some of my thoughts on the “boycott”

the rules are the rules, and as such, i expect DUFC to make good on the requirements to hand over Sevco’s share of the gate.

DUFC should NOT reduce themselves to Sevco’s standards of dodging their commitments.

I have no qualms with Sevco refusing to take any ticket allocation – it is their right, however, the manner in which they have announced it is unacceptable and for that, the club needs to be taken to task.

Chuckles has made several statements about “enemies” and about the SPL stealing HIS money. Well, it now needs to be cleared up.

1st of all, the man needs to be charged for bringing the game into disrepute for his slandering of dundee utd.

He will be entitled to state his defence.

He should clarify who the list of enemies are and why. He should also be asked why other clubs are NOT enemies.

He should be asked to clarify if he expected preferential treatment for his club and for the rules to be broken for his benefit.

The SFA should do this in public and at the same time, they should clarify the terms and conditions of Sevco’s granting of the transfer of SFA membership.

Do the SFA regard them as the same club or not?
What was the conditions to grant the transfer? settlement of footballing debts – if so, have they been settled? Acceptance of LNS investigation into dual contracts – has it been accepted, transfer of “history” and honours included? UEFA co-efficient ranking? etc

On the subject of his outburst against DUFC, the club need to be sanctioned – as chuckles has confirmed it was unanimous across the board and senior management. it is not enough to simply punish chuckles as in this case, he is a spokesman.

Chuckles should be forced into a public apology and retraction and Elgin re-instated into the cup with Sevco expelled from this years tournament.

Following on from this, the SPL really need to ask themselves if they can ever accept Sevco back into the top flight – even on grounds of supporter safety alone it is clear there is going to be trouble. Never mind Chuckles saying he won’t go back, the SPL should bar him from a return.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on1:21 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Dundee United

Dundee United ‘won’t dignify’ Rangers’ statement with response
STV 5 December 2012 13:07 GMT
Rangers will not take tickets for their fans ahead of the game at Tannadice.SNS Group

Dundee united have said that they are “disappointed” with Rangers’ decision to refuse tickets for the Scottish Cup match between the sides and say they won’t dignify Ibrox chief executive Charles Green’s statement with a response.

A statement on the club ‘s official website said:

“It is with huge disappointment that we read both the content and tone of the statement from Rangers, stating that they will not be taking any tickets for our Scottish Cup tie in February and urging their supporters not to attend.

“However, we do not intend to enter into a war of words with Rangers or to dignify their position by responding in kind.

“We have noted their decision not to take any tickets for this cup tie and will now act accordingly in arranging the match. The statement from the Rangers makes it clear that their fans should not attend. We have therefore raised a number of related matters with the Scottish FA and will be making no further public statement until their advice has been received.”

View Comment

Avatar

ExiledCeltPosted on1:23 pm - Dec 5, 2012


140 years of Gers Traditions……….

Any chance we will have the police spokesmen from the police forces of Manchester/Barcelona/Newcastle/Pamplona/Birmingham/Chesterfield etc etc all contributing to the celebration pullouts?

Any chance we will be extolling the 100 years wonderful tradition of not choosing players based simply on their primary school? Or even if their name sounds not quite right e.g. Danile Fergus McGrain………..

Any chance we will understand why these traditions make it the only club not being able to find one player from Republic of Ireland to merit playing for their team?

Any chance we will understand why no one at Ibrox sings any songs about Bill Struth, Jim Baxter, George Young or John Greig?

I am sure the biggest Gers tradition of being the Establishment club will be celebrated as well – after all, if it was not for being the establishment, the TRFC supporters may well have revolted instead of standing alongside Chris Grahan and Dingbat, docking their cap and thanking the good people who know better for allowing them to breath the same air.

And now the old club is dead can we have a discussion on which of these traditions the new club is going to embody?

Or has CG already shown his “true colours” wearing Tangerine tops and pandering to the lowest denominator in order to sell his holding club to the hard of thinking Peepil?

After reading the prospectus I now understand – holding club means in reality a company formed for holding Bears money

A fool and his money are easily parted – CG is relying on that!

View Comment

Avatar

Lord WobblyPosted on1:32 pm - Dec 5, 2012


torrejohnbhoy says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 13:21
1 0 Rate This
Dundee United
Dundee United ‘won’t dignify’ Rangers’ statement with response
STV 5 December 2012 13:07 GMT
Rangers will not take tickets for their fans ahead of the game at
Tannadice.SNS Group
Dundee united have said that they are “disappointed” with
Rangers’ decision to refuse tickets for the Scottish Cup match
between the sides and say they won’t dignify Ibrox chief
executive Charles Green’s statement with a response.
A statement on the club ‘s official website said:
“It is with huge disappointment that we read both the content
and tone of the statement from Rangers, stating that they will not be taking any tickets for our Scottish Cup tie in February and urging their supporters not to attend.
“However, we do not intend to enter into a war of words with
Rangers or to dignify their position by responding in kind.
“We have noted their decision not to take any tickets for this cup tie and will now act accordingly in arranging the match. The statement from the Rangers makes it clear that their fans should not attend. We have therefore raised a number of related matters with the Scottish FA and will be making no further public statement until their advice has been received.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~
A dignified response. I wouldn’t have expected anything less.

View Comment

Avatar

NawlitePosted on1:34 pm - Dec 5, 2012


angus1983 says:

Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 13:03

Brilliant!!!!!!

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on1:36 pm - Dec 5, 2012


given the ongoing “boycott” issue, i thought this was worth a re-post.
thanks for your time folks.

the article by taysider at 9.08am is – as stuart cosgrove would say – fannntastic..

. . . all other “clubs” are struggling – to compete and pay off their debts in an honest fashion.

one “club” has been allowed to ditch their debt, to “rise” debt free, and want every other club and the supporters of other clubs, to forget about how the ‘rangers’ debt was “wiped clean”.

charles green says he wants to move on ?
charles green says he wants others to move on ?

now he is bring up past events – again.

if he wants to discuss past events – lets talk about the debts they should be obliged to pay
. . . as they are REALLY – THE SAME CLUB ?

View Comment

Avatar

borussiabeefburgPosted on1:37 pm - Dec 5, 2012


A wee recap>

Rangers Official Site
Tuesday, 4th December. McCoist said: “Tannadice is one of the toughest places to go in the country and that has always been the case.
“I had a brief chat with Peter Houston yesterday and they’re obviously looking forward to the tie as much as we are.”

Rangers Official Site
Tuesday, 4th December.
“This is a unanimous decision by the board, senior management and staff at Ibrox. Everyone at this club is dismayed at the actions of certain SPL clubs, which were actively engaged in trying to harm Rangers when we were in a perilous situation and we are acutely aware of their attitude to us.”

Dundee United Official Site
Wednesday, 5th December.
“However, we do not intend to enter into a war of words with Rangers or to dignify their position by responding in kind.”

From the above, it seems McCoist and Green are involved in a war of words, given their contrary positions still available to view on Rangers official site.

View Comment

Long Time Lurker

Long Time LurkerPosted on1:39 pm - Dec 5, 2012


From the AIM application:

“Rangers Football Club, based in Scotland, has become one of the world’s most successful clubs, having won 54 League titles, 33 Scottish Cups, 27 League Cups and the European Cup Winners’ Cup in 1972.”

I wonder if UEFA will confirm if the history does or does not remain with The Rangers Footbal Club? As, it appears that the ‘history’ is of some relevance to the share offering.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on1:39 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Can I throw in my tuppence worth wrt the Hearts/HMRC agreement announced yesterday.Whilst £1.5m is a lot to be repaid,at least everything is out in the open.All parties involved in the HMFC possible share issue/takeover now know what needs to be provided for.That’s good.
Also,by payments not starting until May,it gives HMFC 5 months to organise their finances.
IMO this is a step in the right direction and hopefully will help in the fight to save hearts.

View Comment

Avatar

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on1:43 pm - Dec 5, 2012


On the share issue announced

it states that after floatation, the share holders would be
—————————————————
After Admission
Rangers International Football Club plc which will own Rangers
Football Club Limited (assuming no take-up under the public
offer)
No of Ordinary
Shareholder Shares Percentage
—————————— ————– ———-
Charles Green 5,000,200 8.67%
Hargreave Hale Limited 4,949,000 8.58%
Artemis Investment Management
LLP 4,286,000 7.43%
Blue Pitch Holding 4,000,000 6.94%
Mike Ashley 3,000,000 5.20%
Margarita Funds Holding Trust 2,600,000 4.51%
Cazenove Capital Management
Limited 2,450,000 4.25%
Richard Hughes 2,200,000 3.82%
Imran Ahmad 2,200,000 3.82%
Legal & General Investment
Management Limited 2,000,000 3.47%
Insight Investment Management
(Global) Limited 1,900,000 3.30%
Craig Mather 1,800,000 3.12%
———————————————————————–

that is 63% (approx – save you all adding it up)

so, to my mind, that suggests that Chuckie is only letting the fans buy 37% of the club – for “up to 27M”

I hope he fleeces them blind and they all have a miserable christmas with bairns delighted with the wee framed share cert above the mantlepiece

Also, at least there is no pretence they are buying shares in the club…the club is a notional entity that you can’t own or trade and they are just buying holding company shares….just hope that is clear to them as they hand over their money

and that they don’t own Ibrox/Minty moonbeams park etc.

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on1:44 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Douglas Fraser ‏@BBCDouglsFraser

A young company that could use Osborne’s new investor tax breaks: ‘Rangers International Football Club plc’, just published £27m share offer

4m Baws On The Slates Baws On The Slates ‏@BawOnTheSlates

@BBCDouglsFraser Didn’t the previous entity benefit from tax breaks?

3m Stoogie92 Stoogie92 ‏@Stoogie92

@BBCDouglsFraser Rangers International Football Club PLC? Theres a club called that in Nigeria, Rangers International Football Club.

View Comment

Avatar

corsicacharityPosted on1:45 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Here’s an interesting question?

Is the RFFF a legal entity?

They were neither a charity nor a company the last time I looked (which was when they were “donating” to RFC). I researched RFFF for corsica some time ago and found that it was simply a group of various RFC fan groups which did not exist in its own legal right (I will try to find post and repost here). They cannot (even if they have since formed a company or charity) therefore be a creditor as at the time of any financial transaction they did not exist in law.

Also remember, as both corsica and Paul McConville made clear at the time of the legends match, charities cannot donate to private companies.

If you look at the income/expenditure account for RFFF, they did not pay any creditors. They did, however, make payments to RFC staff (principally scouts) and operations (eg turf relaying/treatment). Perhaps they think this gives them creditor status? But it still doesn’t negate their non-existence….mind you, we know they have a problem with understanding existence and being. 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on1:51 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Jane Lewis ‏@JaneLewisSport

RT: @BBCjsutherland Rangers hope to raise £27million in AIM share issue. Club will be floated as ‘Rangers International Football Club’.

5m Jonathan Sutherland Jonathan Sutherland ‏@BBCjsutherland

Rangers hope to raise £27million in AIM share issue. Club will be floated as ‘Rangers International Football Club’. #bbcsport
=================================================================
“Club will be floated”
No it won’t!

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on1:54 pm - Dec 5, 2012


One of the key people at Artemis Investment is a Mr Richard Turpin 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

redetinPosted on1:56 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Rangers International FC

Website is up and running>

http://rangersinternationalfc.com/

View Comment

Avatar

jimmyshandPosted on2:00 pm - Dec 5, 2012


NTHM…………are you surprised to see L&G and Insight in the mix ????

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on2:00 pm - Dec 5, 2012


corsicacharity says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 13:45
Here’s an interesting question?

Is the RFFF a legal entity?

They were neither a charity nor a company the last time I looked (which was when they were “donating” to RFC). I researched RFFF for corsica some time ago and found that it was simply a group of various RFC fan groups which did not exist in its own legal right (I will try to find post and repost here). They cannot (even if they have since formed a company or charity) therefore be a creditor as at the time of any financial transaction they did not exist in law.

Also remember, as both corsica and Paul McConville made clear at the time of the legends match, charities cannot donate to private companies.

If you look at the income/expenditure account for RFFF, they did not pay any creditors. They did, however, make payments to RFC staff (principally scouts) and operations (eg turf relaying/treatment). Perhaps they think this gives them creditor status? But it still doesn’t negate their non-existence….mind you, we know they have a problem with understanding existence and being
.======================================================================
” The committee will comprise representatives from Ticketus, Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, as well as Andrew McCormack, chairman of the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund”,

The statement just says Andrew McCormack,chairman of the RFFF is on the committee.Is it possible that Mr McCormack is a personal creditor and not claiming on behalf of RFFF?.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on2:02 pm - Dec 5, 2012


redetin says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 13:56
0 0 Rate This
Rangers International FC

Website is up and running>

http://rangersinternationalfc.com/
————-

Well, even though Mr Green would have us believe that The Rangers are in the black, I think this is a case of mistaken identity!

View Comment

Avatar

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on2:05 pm - Dec 5, 2012


jimmyshand says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 14:00
1 0 Rate This
NTHM…………are you surprised to see L&G and Insight in the mix ????

———————————————————————-

sorry, not really paid attention to the names and neither mean anything to me.

View Comment

Avatar

redetinPosted on2:06 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Danish Pastry says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 14:02

redetin says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 13:56
0 0 Rate This
Rangers International FC

Website is up and running>

http://rangersinternationalfc.com/
————-

Well, even though Mr Green would have us believe that The Rangers are in the black, I think this is a case of mistaken identity!
_________________________________

Beware 419 scammers over the coming months.

The new “Rangers International FC” is going to cause confusion on an international scale.

View Comment

Avatar

briggsbhoyPosted on2:07 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Re: RFFF at Creditors meeting

I reckon they have set this up so that they could gain entry and hear what was being said and what was going to happen to their beloved club and also so they could get their bit in or try to influence matters. It would also allow them to eyeball those that were in attendance, not that I’m suggesting for a moment that that would be intimidation. If I was RFFF I would want to have been at the meeting regardless of whether owed £5 or £20k.

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on2:10 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Good grief. As Douglas Fraser points out, the whole thing is actually one of those Nigerian scams!

http://rangersinternationalfc.com/

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on2:14 pm - Dec 5, 2012


redetin says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 14:06

Danish Pastry says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 14:02

redetin says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 13:56
0 0 Rate This
Rangers International FC

Website is up and running>

http://rangersinternationalfc.com/
————-

Well, even though Mr Green would have us believe that The Rangers are in the black, I think this is a case of mistaken identity!
_________________________________

Beware 419 scammers over the coming months.

The new “Rangers International FC” is going to cause confusion on an international scale.
================================================================
Won’t be long before the E-Mails start:
“You’ve been awarded 27m worth of shares in Rangers International Football Club.
Just send us your bank details and a handling charge(£16.90) to receive your £27m by return”
😆

View Comment

Avatar

jimmyshandPosted on2:16 pm - Dec 5, 2012


immyshand says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 14:00
1 0 Rate This
NTHM…………are you surprised to see L&G and Insight in the mix ????

———————————————————————-

sorry, not really paid attention to the names and neither mean anything to me.

Thanks NTHM

Anyone else surprised to see these investment/insurance funds ???

View Comment

Avatar

ExiledCeltPosted on2:20 pm - Dec 5, 2012


” The committee will comprise representatives from Ticketus, Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, as well as Andrew McCormack, chairman of the Rangers Fans Fighting Fund”,

The statement just says Andrew McCormack,chairman of the RFFF is on the committee.Is it possible that Mr McCormack is a personal creditor and not claiming on behalf of RFFF?.

______________

If he is a debenture holder then he woudl be a creditor

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on2:21 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Not The Huddle Malcontent says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 13:43

On the share issue announced it states that after floatation, the share holders would be
that is 63% (approx – save you all adding it up)
——————————————————————————————————-

I have the feeling that it only lists shareholders with 3% and over from memory. So people like Ally don’t show.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on2:26 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Based on today’s release, I think it is becoming clearer that ownership of Ibrox and Murray Park does not lie with The Rangers Football Club Ltd (SC425159) but probably remains with SEVCO 5088 LTD as originally agreed in the deal with D&D back in June.

Some elements of the “Heads of Terms” alluded to back at the end of October may therefore also still come into play with TRFC LTD effectively leasing the facilities from Sevco 5088.

A remider of the companies involved from a previous post oif mine from a few days ago

What’s in a name?

For ref:
SC004276 (oldco)
27/05/1899 THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB PLC incorporated
31/07/2012 renamed as RFC 2012 PLC

08011390
29/03/2012 SEVCO 5088 LIMITED incorporated

SC425159
29/05/2012 SEVCO SCOTLAND LIMITED incorporated
31/07/2012 renamed as THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LTD

SC437060
16/11/2012 RANGERS FOOTBALL PLC incorporated
27/11/2012 renamed as RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC

View Comment

Avatar

arabest1Posted on2:29 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Its like the Euro nights in the 80’s again all roads lead to Tannadice! ……….7 requests by phone and facebook for tickets to see the 5th round Scottish Cup tie between Dundee Utd and a 4th tier outfit (with various names), and none of the requests from Arabs……..4 Celtic, 1 St Johnstone, 1 Hibs, 1 Aberdeen………so far 😉

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on2:31 pm - Dec 5, 2012


I may be making a fool of myself and have totally misread this but here’s how I think I see this:

After Admission
Rangers International Football Club plc which will own Rangers
Football Club Limited (assuming no take-up under the public
offer)
No of Ordinary
Shareholder Shares Percentage
—————————— ————– ———-
Charles Green 5,000,200 8.67%
Hargreave Hale Limited 4,949,000 8.58%
Artemis Investment Management
LLP 4,286,000 7.43%
Blue Pitch Holding 4,000,000 6.94%
Mike Ashley 3,000,000 5.20%
Margarita Funds Holding Trust 2,600,000 4.51%
Cazenove Capital Management
Limited 2,450,000 4.25%
Richard Hughes 2,200,000 3.82%
Imran Ahmad 2,200,000 3.82%
Legal & General Investment
Management Limited 2,000,000 3.47%
Insight Investment Management
(Global) Limited 1,900,000 3.30%
Craig Mather 1,800,000 3.12%

“After Admission”,
this reads to me that the above will own 63% of RIFC.
RIFC are trying to raise £27m.Could around £17m of this have been already raised and used to purchase the RFC(IL)assets and supply working capital?
The investors above will now be receiving their shares in lieu of monies already advanced(probably including a mark up as a profit).
This would leave circa £10m to be raised from fans etc.
Total £27m

View Comment

Avatar

ExiledCeltPosted on2:34 pm - Dec 5, 2012


angus1983 says:

Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 14:10

Good grief. As Douglas Fraser points out, the whole thing is actually one of those Nigerian scams!

http://rangersinternationalfc.com/

********************

where is Mr Custard when you need him LOL

View Comment

Avatar

ordinaryfanPosted on2:37 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Rangers original since 1970.

HERITAGE OF A GREAT FOOTBALL CLUB: Rangers International
cheeronnigeria.blogspot.com/…/heritage-of-great-football-c…

View Comment

Avatar

Not The Huddle MalcontentPosted on2:43 pm - Dec 5, 2012


torrejohnbhoy says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 14:31
0 0 Rate This
I may be making a fool of myself and have totally misread this but here’s how I think I see this:

After Admission
Rangers International Football Club plc which will own Rangers
Football Club Limited (assuming no take-up under the public
offer)
No of Ordinary
Shareholder Shares Percentage
—————————— ————– ———-
Charles Green 5,000,200 8.67%
Hargreave Hale Limited 4,949,000 8.58%
Artemis Investment Management
LLP 4,286,000 7.43%
Blue Pitch Holding 4,000,000 6.94%
Mike Ashley 3,000,000 5.20%
Margarita Funds Holding Trust 2,600,000 4.51%
Cazenove Capital Management
Limited 2,450,000 4.25%
Richard Hughes 2,200,000 3.82%
Imran Ahmad 2,200,000 3.82%
Legal & General Investment
Management Limited 2,000,000 3.47%
Insight Investment Management
(Global) Limited 1,900,000 3.30%
Craig Mather 1,800,000 3.12%

“After Admission”,
this reads to me that the above will own 63% of RIFC.
RIFC are trying to raise £27m.Could around £17m of this have been already raised and used to purchase the RFC(IL)assets and supply working capital?
The investors above will now be receiving their shares in lieu of monies already advanced(probably including a mark up as a profit).
This would leave circa £10m to be raised from fans etc.
Total £27m

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

i was jsut about to embark on something similar, but too busy!

however, you ahve to remember of the 31.3M shares “after floatation” 22M were owned by the original consortium

so, 9.2M shares have been “pre-sold”

if sale price is to be 70p, then they have raised 6.44M from these new investors

they are still looking for £20+M

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on2:50 pm - Dec 5, 2012


corsicacharity says:

Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 13:45

Here’s an interesting question?

Is the RFFF a legal entity?

They were neither a charity nor a company the last time I looked (which was when they were “donating” to RFC). I researched RFFF for corsica some time ago and found that it was simply a group of various RFC fan groups which did not exist in its own legal right (I will try to find post and repost here). They cannot (even if they have since formed a company or charity) therefore be a creditor as at the time of any financial transaction they did not exist in law.

Also remember, as both corsica and Paul McConville made clear at the time of the legends match,

charities cannot donate to private companies.

If you look at the income/expenditure account for RFFF, they did not pay any creditors. They did, however, make payments to RFC staff (principally scouts) and operations (eg turf relaying/treatment). Perhaps they think this gives them creditor status? But it still doesn’t negate their non-existence….mind you, we know they have a problem with understanding existence and being.
=================================================

charities cannot donate to private companies.

well, how come the rangers charity, donated to the rangers football club [plc or ltd]

View Comment

Avatar

TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy)Posted on2:53 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Danish Pastry says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 11:36
——————————————————–

His first ever Directorship. Perhap’s he’s a proxy for these gentlemen:

Also on the Turquoise International Board – Ian Thomas – is a former director of Close Brothers Corporate Finance. Fellow boaed members Ali Naini and Francis Wright are also ex – Close Brothers Corporate .

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on2:57 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Thanks EasyJambo for the post below, but –

what about all the other sevco listed companies around that time

rangers catering, rangers merchandise, rangers this, rangers that, all listed by lord charles

————————————————-
Based on today’s release, I think it is becoming clearer that ownership of Ibrox and Murray Park does not lie with The Rangers Football Club Ltd (SC425159) but probably remains with SEVCO 5088 LTD as originally agreed in the deal with D&D back in June.

Some elements of the “Heads of Terms” alluded to back at the end of October may therefore also still come into play with TRFC LTD effectively leasing the facilities from Sevco 5088.

A remider of the companies involved from a previous post oif mine from a few days ago

What’s in a name?

For ref:
SC004276 (oldco)
27/05/1899 THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB PLC incorporated
31/07/2012 renamed as RFC 2012 PLC

08011390
29/03/2012 SEVCO 5088 LIMITED incorporated

SC425159
29/05/2012 SEVCO SCOTLAND LIMITED incorporated
31/07/2012 renamed as THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LTD

SC437060
16/11/2012 RANGERS FOOTBALL PLC incorporated
27/11/2012 renamed as RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PL

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on3:03 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Based on the numbers of shares after admission, the amounts raised from the new institutional investors, based on a 70p share price, are:

Hargreave Hale Limited 4,949,000 8.58% £3,464,300
Artemis Investment Management LLP 4,286,000 7.43% £3,000,200
Cazenove Capital Management Limited 2,450,000 4.25% £1,715,000
Legal & General Investment Management Limited 2,000,000 3.47% £1,400,000
Insight Investment Management (Global) Limited 1,900,000 3.30% £1,330,000

The total of these investments is £10.9M. It could be more if there are other smaller investors around the £1M mark. It’s actually a decent amount to raise in the circumstances and shows that there are people prepared to invest if the returns are right, but what are the returns, either guaranteed or prospective?

View Comment

Avatar

Night TerrorPosted on3:09 pm - Dec 5, 2012


arabest1 says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 12:06

finchleyflyer says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 11:55
2 0 Rate This
This whole ticket boycott farrago is getting a beyond a joke. Or perhaps I should say, panning out exactly how you would expect, given the predilections of the media. Dundee Utd being labelled a “disgrace” by Murdo Macleod on R5L this morning just about takes the biscuit.

————————————————————————————————————–

Really ff! What did he say?

Nothing like that.

Seems like a fellow Arab had Tangerine headphones in when he listened to the 5Live interview.

Transcript:
Nicky Campbell: What do you make of er Rangers, s saying th er that their fans should boycott the game against Dundee United in the cup because of Dundee United’s hostile attitude to Rangers and wanting them to to be relegated Dundee United were particularly outspoken can you understand Rangers just to shift the er the subject a little bit but it’s a big news story can you understand Rangers’ anger at Dundee United?

Murdo Macleod: Yeah I can understand that cos obviously people were in Rangers they know what Dundee United went about their business and know how they went about their business and they tried to put Rangers in the and they pushed for Rangers to get out and which wasn’t wasn’t right we should have been helping the clubs but Rangers should mibbe been bigger ‘n that and just stepped back a wee bit and just just went on wi’ it and just tried for the betterment of Scottish football jist took the tickets if the Rangers fans didn’t want to go then they’d had a choice whereas now they’ve not got a choice.

Pinched from http://www.eastfootball.co.uk/forum/showpost.php?p=978178&postcount=47 where the “disgrace” comment seems to have been invented.

View Comment

Avatar

corsicacharityPosted on3:10 pm - Dec 5, 2012


jimlarkin on Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 14:50
0 0 Rate This
corsicacharity says:

Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 13:45

charities cannot donate to private companies.

well, how come the rangers charity, donated to the rangers football club [plc or ltd]

*****
Jim, you need to see my previous posts on this. That little chestnut is still the subject of an (ahem) ongoing investigation by OSCR despite a damning report bring submitted at the start of September. It is clearly illegal for s charity to make donations to a company but it can make suitable and appropriate payment for services rendered. For the avoidance of doubt, the charity is in the wrong.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on3:18 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Hear are some TRFC shareholdings from a few weeks back as documented by Paul McConville. It shows some of the smaller shareholdings including that of AMcC.

TRFC shareholdings -(P McC 22/10/12)
Blue Pitch Holdings 4,000,000
Margarita Funds Holding Trust 2,600,000
Imran Ahmad, Rangers 2,200,000
Richard Hughes, Zeus Capital 2,200,000
Gorbon Ltd 1,550,000
Norne Anstalt 1,200,000
Ally McCoist, Rangers 1,000,000
Glenmuir 1,000,000
Craig Mather 900,000
Andy Hosie 900,000
Ian Hart 490,000
Chris Morgan, Asia Credit Corporation 400,000
Alan Mackenzie 250,000
Jean Haddad 250,000
Malcolm Murray, Rangers 200,000
Colin Howell, Unicorn Asset Mgt 200,000
John McClure, Unicorn Asset Mgt 200,000
John Goold 100,000
Elias Kaisar 100,000
Stephen Adams, Kames Capital 50,000
Brian Stockbridge 50,000
Ian Cormack 25,000
John Graham 25,000

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on3:19 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Directorships currently held by Mr Green:

http://company-director-check.co.uk/director/916889225

RANGERS MEDIA LIMITED Active
RANGERS SECURITY SERVICES LIMITED Active
ASDFGHJKL LIMITED Active
RANGERS MEDIA INVESTMENTS LIMITED Active
RANGERS MATCHDAY SERVICES LIMITED Active
RANGERS YOUTH DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Active
RANGERS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED Active
RANGERS.CO.UK LIMITED Active
THE RANGERS SHOP LIMITED Active
THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED Active
SEVCO 5088 LIMITED

View Comment

Avatar

ordinaryfanPosted on3:20 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Let’s not forget that the reason Chuckles has had to come out and state he doesn’t want the allocation of tickets is simply because of THREATS of picket lines. THREATS to physically stop men, women and children from attending a sporting event.
This is what is concerning me most about this. A picket is an entire different beast altogether from a boycott. The MSM will not use the word “picket”, they will talk of boycott because they are well aware that the threat of pickets will raise serious concerns amongst Clubs, Police, Sponsors and the few left amongst the Footballing Authorities who actually do care about the game in Scotland
Threats to mobilise organised pickets could well be the start of something far more sinister unfolding for Scottish football, and this needs to be confronted strongly from all sides including a statement from the Police authorities warning that pickets will not be allowed outside any sporting arena in Scotland and anyone attempting to organise any such action will be dealt with in the strongest possible way.

View Comment

Avatar

nickmcguinnessPosted on3:28 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Margarita Funds Holding Trust is based, apparently, in the Turks & Caicos Islands.
I have not a clue why anyone doing business out of that corner of the Caribbean would want to be involved with The Rangers.
Can someone maybe ask their spokesman:
http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1138861/media-house-international-enlisted-fight-vat-turks-caicos-islands/

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on3:29 pm - Dec 5, 2012


rantinrobin says:

Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 11:02

So if the team playing at Ibrox does not own Ibrox but Rangers did own Ibrox the team now playing at Ibrox is a new occupant , presumably paying rent?

That rent will be taken off income leaving less to spend on already promised restricted players wages.

The question Rangers fans have to ask is are they ready to pay to watch a club who no longer can operate with the benefit of financial steroids and will be anything but the”strong Rangers” the msm say Scottish football needs.

If yes, then fair enough and they turn out in the same numbers as when they were winning regularly.

I’m not so sure.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on3:40 pm - Dec 5, 2012


easyJambo says:

Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 15:03

if you go back a page or two I have linked to an illustrative business case that can be used as a “what if” device to see effect of projections changing.

With CG’s committment to live within their means the risk is they cannot atttract the standard of player to get access to the CL riches that would make an investment worth while.

They might be taking a long term punt though (as Fergus did) that over a number of years they will see a return.

View Comment

Avatar

arabest1Posted on3:40 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Thanks NT. I would be surprised if Murdo ever said anything of substance, for anyone who doubts the existence of the Old Firm, listen to Murdo he embodies it! a supine, deferential, lickspittle approach to both Glasgow clubs, can’t believe he still gets a gig with the BBC.

View Comment

Avatar

TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy)Posted on3:44 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Ecojon’s thoughts on ” Anstalt” at PMcC’s blog in October plus some other investors

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/the-rangers-shareholder-list/comment-page-1/

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on3:52 pm - Dec 5, 2012


jimlarkin says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 11:36
11 1 Rate This
can someone explain this to me?

craig whyte purchased an 85% shareholding of “something” for £1
what was it he purchased for £1 exactly ?

charles green, wants to sell “shares” apparently for approx £1.50 each.
[or is it 70p each, going by the posted prospectus]

what is it that charles green is offering for sale exactly?

if someone answers – he is offering shares for £1.50 each or 70p each

what is it that the shares or of – a “share” of what ?

are the shares on offer, the very same shares as craig whyte previously owned?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nah, that company is in liquidation. This is a new company. 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

bogsdolloxPosted on3:53 pm - Dec 5, 2012


neepheid says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 10:08

I would like to find a way of getting the price of a ticket to DUFC, in solidarity with other fans, and in such a way that Green and TRFC don’t get a penny of that money. Any ideas?

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

What about a share issue? DUFC create a class of basically worthless non voting shares and those who wish can subcscribe for them, including of course institutional investors. In this way it won’t create a tax liability which ticket putchases or donations would.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on3:55 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Not The Huddle Malcontent says: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 14:43

i was jsut about to embark on something similar, but too busy!

however, you ahve to remember of the 31.3M shares “after floatation” 22M were owned by the original consortium

so, 9.2M shares have been “pre-sold”

if sale price is to be 70p, then they have raised 6.44M from these new investors

they are still looking for £20+M
================================
The share numbers intrigue me too. If there were 22M shares owned by the original consortium, then new shares must have been issued to make up the current total of approx 33.4M (calculated from the percentage holdings in pre admission TRFC).

Charles Green didn’t feature among those listed in the original consortium’s holdings, but now has 5,000,200 shares (gifted to him?) in TRFC Ltd (soon to be held in RIFC). At 70p a share, his holding is worth £3.5M, which appears to be in the ballpark of what was promised to him for fronting the consortium.

The only other person who appears to have upped his stake from the original consortrium was Carig Mather, who has doubled his holding fro, 900,000 to 1,800,000 shares.

View Comment

Avatar

parmahamsterPosted on3:57 pm - Dec 5, 2012


torrejohnbhoy says:

Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 13:51

=================================================================
“Club will be floated”
No it won’t!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Oh yes it will, s**t invariably does.:)

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on4:02 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Not The Huddle Malcontent says: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 14:43

i was jsut about to embark on something similar, but too busy!

however, you ahve to remember of the 31.3M shares “after floatation” 22M were owned by the original consortium

so, 9.2M shares have been “pre-sold”

if sale price is to be 70p, then they have raised 6.44M from these new investors

they are still looking for £20+M

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

The share numbers intrigue me too. If there were 22M shares owned by the original consortium, then new shares must have been issued to make up the current total of approx 33.4M (calculated from the percentage holdings in pre admission TRFC).

Charles Green didn’t feature among those listed in the original consortium’s holdings, but now has 5,000,200 shares (gifted to him?) in TRFC Ltd (soon to be held in RIFC). At 70p a share, his holding is worth £3.5M, which appears to be in the ballpark of what was promised to him for fronting the consortium.

The only other person who appears to have upped his stake from the original consortrium was Carig Mather, who has doubled his holding fro, 900,000 to 1,800,000 shares.

——————————————————
from the bbc website –
Rangers Football Club hopes to raise up to £27m in its forthcoming share issue, it has emerged.

Ahead of the launch on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM), the club said it had already received pledges of £17m from business investors.

It hopes to attract another £10m of investment from supporters, bringing the total value of the club to £50m

View Comment

scottc

scottcPosted on4:02 pm - Dec 5, 2012


bogsdollox says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 15:53

neepheid says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 10:08

I would like to find a way of getting the price of a ticket to DUFC, in solidarity with other fans, and in such a way that Green and TRFC don’t get a penny of that money. Any ideas?

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

What about a share issue? DUFC create a class of basically worthless non voting shares and those who wish can subcscribe for them, including of course institutional investors. In this way it won’t create a tax liability which ticket putchases or donations would.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That would cost United money. How about a PayPal account followed by a simple donation to their coffers

View Comment

Avatar

arabest1Posted on4:11 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Hate to back to Mr Traynor, but the events of the last 24hrs have exposed the dangers of his swan song in the Record this week.
Someone made the excellent point yesterday (can’t remember who, sorry), having spent 30 + years reporting from the front line of Scottish football, through 10 Scotland managers, the peaks of Alex Ferguson’s career, a plethora of events and incidents from which to choose, Mr Traynor manages to resist the temptation to share any of his experiences or anecdotes, with wit and reflection. Instead he subjects his readership to visceral outpouring in defence of the moribund RFC and a bilious attack on those who wanted the rules applied to the new TRFC. No real analysis of the BTC, nor the 10’s of millions Murray spunked in pursuit of glory, no mention that the tax payer has already bailed out MIH’s bankers, Lloyds to the tune of hundreds of millions no for Traynor it is all the fault of petty ‘agendas’.
To feed the persecution complex of the Rangers most loyal is at best irresponsible, at worst its downright dangerous………Traynor’s insipid agenda is utterly luminous.

View Comment

Avatar

bogsdolloxPosted on4:14 pm - Dec 5, 2012


torrejohnbhoy says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 13:39

Can I throw in my tuppence worth wrt the Hearts/HMRC agreement announced yesterday.Whilst £1.5m is a lot to be repaid,at least everything is out in the open.All parties involved in the HMFC possible share issue/takeover now know what needs to be provided for.That’s good.
Also,by payments not starting until May,it gives HMFC 5 months to organise their finances.
IMO this is a step in the right direction and hopefully will help in the fight to save hearts.
========================================================================

Shame they tried to cheat the taxman out of £1.5m in the first place but as they are repaying it let’s hope they survive.

View Comment

Avatar

iceman63Posted on4:20 pm - Dec 5, 2012


This situation cannot be resolved by the SFA – in fact I suspect they don’t actually see it as a “situation” at all. This is just “business as usual”, helping Rangers and its interests in any and every legal and illegal way they can, and ensuring that no rules will ever be applied which affect the Rangers badly in any way.

For them the real tragedy of the summer was the pesky ST boycott of clubs by revolting fans who prevented them trampolining a debt-free club into the SPL. In their eyes the correct thing to do – not for commercial rerasons but to further their raison d’etre. For most employed by the SFA Rangers is Scottish Football. They care nothing for any other club, the development of players or even the national side.

The SFA in short, has absolutely no interest in Scottish Football. The SFA has no interest in its own rule book. The SFA is a life support for the mentality that created both “Struthian” Rangers and the crazed SEVCO version.

Why any clubs put up with it is beyond me – I despise all of the Scottish clubs now for their pathetic cravenness and acquiescence in a clear sporting fraud – yet they have always accepted this injustice as somehow the natural order of things – and the signs are that they will always do so – our very own “Stockholm Syndrome” perhaps. We all laud the bully, the hijacker, the criminal cuckoo in our midsts. The destroyer is to be protected at all costs.

Scottish football is either one of two things:

A safety blanket and promotional vehicle for all things Rangers regardless of any other factors

or

The governing body of the game of Association Football in Scotland.

The clubs have a choice in deciding what they want it to be. It seems that at present they are all opting for the former.

This leaves the fans with a choice – either support Scottish clubs in their craven acquiescence and allow “business as usual” or walk away!

View Comment

Avatar

Night TerrorPosted on4:31 pm - Dec 5, 2012


I’m not sure I agree with your overarching point that the SFA will do nothing, iceman63, but you make half the point I have made for a long time – that Scottish football needs to decide whether it is there as a platform to propel the Old Firm into their annual European assault, or to create a competitive, sustainable and entertaining domestic league that is attractive to customers.

If competitiveness is the answer, a few powerful, vocal and visible people are going to be upset, and I doubt those picking up a wage as a football administrator have the urge to take them on.

View Comment

Avatar

redetinPosted on4:37 pm - Dec 5, 2012


arabest1 says:
Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 16:11

“Hate to back to Mr Traynor, but the events of the last 24hrs have exposed the dangers of his swan song in the Record this week………
Mr Traynor manages to resist the temptation to share any of his experiences or anecdotes, with wit and reflection.”

____________________________________

Savin it up for his book? 🙁

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on4:38 pm - Dec 5, 2012


Not The Huddle Malcontent says: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 at 14:43

i was jsut about to embark on something similar, but too busy!

however, you ahve to remember of the 31.3M shares “after floatation” 22M were owned by the original consortium

so, 9.2M shares have been “pre-sold”

if sale price is to be 70p, then they have raised 6.44M from these new investors

they are still looking for £20+M

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

The share numbers intrigue me too. If there were 22M shares owned by the original consortium, then new shares must have been issued to make up the current total of approx 33.4M (calculated from the percentage holdings in pre admission TRFC).

Charles Green didn’t feature among those listed in the original consortium’s holdings, but now has 5,000,200 shares (gifted to him?) in TRFC Ltd (soon to be held in RIFC). At 70p a share, his holding is worth £3.5M, which appears to be in the ballpark of what was promised to him for fronting the consortium.

The only other person who appears to have upped his stake from the original consortrium was Carig Mather, who has doubled his holding fro, 900,000 to 1,800,000 shares.

——————————————————
from the bbc website –
Rangers Football Club hopes to raise up to £27m in its forthcoming share issue, it has emerged.

Ahead of the launch on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM), the club said it had already received pledges of £17m from business investors.

It hopes to attract another £10m of investment from supporters, bringing the total value of the club to £50m

FIFTY MILLION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

View Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.