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

registeringisdifficultPosted on1:54 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Folks

First time poster

It is really important that anyone with a L&G pension, ISA, PEP or savings plan ask them what entity is investing in Rangers international.

Legal & General Asset Management are the vehicle by which most investments into L&G products occur. They will have set up a range of mirror funds into which pension funds and ISAs etc invest the premiums or contributions be it monthly or annually into the investment trust. Even if you are invested in a company pension scheme this could invest in the fund that is proposing to buy shares in the newco

The same applies to Artemis and Insight. I emailled all three on Friday and have only had a reply from Artemis.

They confirmed that it two standard investment trusts plan to invest. No reply from L&G and Insight. If you have any products with these companies you need to ask if they are planning to use your money via trusts to invest in newco

My view is that these companies are very un likely to act as nominees for hidden individual investors – they have decided to take a punt. You might want to ask why

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on2:05 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Even with the extraordinary factors that drive the rangers.co website viewing figures it’s estimated worth is £140,451.22 – how many good nights out can be had for that?

View Comment

Avatar

Humble PiePosted on2:10 pm - Dec 10, 2012


blu says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 14:05

Approximately 1.5 good nights out if your name is Ogilvie, at least according to Chic Young.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on2:32 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Senior says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 13:49

I can also purchase another thousand for 35 pence per share.
——————————————————————

Can I ask how many shares you had ‘pledged’ for?

View Comment

Avatar

TallBoy Poppy (@TallBoyPoppy)Posted on2:40 pm - Dec 10, 2012


torrejohnbhoy says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 11:40
torrejohnbhoy says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 10:43
——————————————————————————————————————————–
I’ve had a look at the structure of the L&G named – one parent and two subsidiaries – and they formed a Commercial lending company at the beginning of the year. (March/April). Could it be that the ‘investment’ was in the form of a cash loan in return for shares?

View Comment

Avatar

dunnmanPosted on2:44 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Senior says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 13:49
8 0 Rate This
Definitely Christmas is upon us. I open my mail (a big brown envelope) this morning and discover that my shares application are priced at 70 pence per share and are secured. As a gesture, seeing the season that is in it, I can also purchase another thousand for 35 pence per share.
Tis the season to be jolly.lal lal lal la la le la la.
====================================================

Senior,

So you’ll sell the 35p ones for 70 cause they’ll be worth 70p, you just managed to grab a bargain?

Merry xmas, I wish I had gone for it now!

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on3:00 pm - Dec 10, 2012


I don’t know how many shares Senior pledged for but his comment suggests it could be 1,000. So say he bought the 2,000 that means the average price drops to 50p per share approx.

Now imagine if you were buying 100,000 or 1 million as an institution – how cheap could you buy them? Means all the claims of raising £27 million gross starts to look nonsense.

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on3:21 pm - Dec 10, 2012


ordinaryfan says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 13:32

… will go to the charities of Chuckles choice …

——

Aye, but remember how the charities were going to get their money. It had to make its way first through the highly reputable Rangers Charity Foundation. I think it may be that this organisation has a bank account in the name of Fr. Ted Crilley – or at least one that operates in the same way.

View Comment

Avatar

TSFMPosted on3:28 pm - Dec 10, 2012


One question we should ask ourselves (for academic interest at least) is why would institutional investors like those pledged to invest in Rangers do so?

My inference is that they are doing so because they think they will make some cash (although perhaps this is a PR thing?). The general consensus here is that they will not. So what about the finance exerts here taking a ount themselves;

Under what conditions is it possible to make money from the Rangers IPO if you are L&G for example?

View Comment

Avatar

bluPosted on3:34 pm - Dec 10, 2012


ordinaryfan says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 13:32
Carfins Finest. (@edunne58) says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 09:45

WRT The proposed boycott of Dundee Utd. FC by fans of the newest club in the league. Surely Charles Green has provided the way forward for everyone. He mentioned the 2 charities that he would like to benefit from monies due to the new club so evryone who wishes to see the game can go along and enjoy the match. Dundee Utd give the new clubs share to the 2 charities and everyone ends up happy.

==========================================================================
If this were to come about it would be reasonable for Dundee United to forward the donation made by THEIR fans to the charities concerned. Some might argue that those who provide the donation should also decide who should be the beneficiaries but I’m sure the charities mentioned by Charles Green are worthy of support. The charities may need to be careful though – any association with Dundee United might see them being boycotted by Rangers at some point in the future, to be determined by whim.

View Comment

Avatar

bogsdolloxPosted on3:40 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Institutional investors look at shares like this on a portfolio basis. These ones are a bit of a punt but in 5 years if everything goes to plan they could sell on for a decent profit. If not then there will be other shares in the portfolio that could compensate for any loss suffered. A few million to these investors is nothing.

Years ago Alan Hansen was involved as an advisor to Schroders who were buying into various clubs at the time. I expect they still have holdings in some still.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on3:46 pm - Dec 10, 2012


And what did chico pay for 5 million shares?

According to my reading of the Prospectus:

The Rangers Football Club Limited (RFCL) and Charles Green entered into a service agreement giving Green an option to subscribe for ordinary 1p shares at an exercise price £0.01 each.

In accordance with the provisions of the Share Exchange Agreement on 31 October 2012 RFCL and Charles Green agreed he would exercise his Option and RFCL would issue chico 5,000,000 ordinary shares in RFCL on payment of £0.01 each.

The option is conditional on RFCL receiving £10 million of equity capital from new investors and that the entire issued share capital of RFCL is admitted to trading on AIM or a recognised investment exchange.

So let’s do the maths: 5 million shares @ 1p each = £50,000.

If sold at 70p each = £3.5 million.

So what is the net amount raised going to be and shouldn’t the Propectus actually mention discounted share pricing because obviously the £27 million can never be achieved as it is calculated on a notional 70p price per share which probably only the £500 minimum Bears will pay – everyone else pays the Bear necessities 🙂

It make you wonder who else has been buying at 1p or ome other Offer price – could Imran Ahmad have bought his 2.2 million shares that way. Did Ally buy his 1 million shares that way or even cardigan who has splashed-out on 71,429 shares in his beloved club – well we know he’s canny with cash well mibbe not when spending Minty’s on players. Of coure it may well be that the people I have mentioned have all paid the full price for their shares to fully support Rangers just like the Bears,

I may be wrong in all this and I would therefore commend you to read the Prospectus yourself and form your own opinion or take professional advice if you are thinking of investing – do not take any notice of my personal ramblings.

View Comment

Avatar

registeringisdifficultPosted on4:02 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Bogsdollox
irrespective of the portfolio they have to base any specific investment on fundamentals not a pooled view. they need to justify the selection of rangers international on basis of either capital growth or dividend stream. liqudity of shares itself wouldnot be a major factor

View Comment

Avatar

Humble PiePosted on4:08 pm - Dec 10, 2012


TSFM says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 15:28

I understood that RIFC plc was deliberately set up to make it eligible for Enterprise Investment Scheme (al la Octopus) and Venture Capital Trust status (TRFC being ineligible). You will be aware that these schemes are often used as Special Purpose Investment Vehicles (Spivs) in order to minimise tax (although HMRC insist that they are used for ‘genuine’ trading purposes only). Sometimes the tax relief afforded by these schemes (as part of a wider portfolio) is more beneficial to the individual investors than any than any potential return on the investment itself.
At least that is my understanding, however, as always, I reserve the right to be wrong.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on4:24 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Whilst deferring to posters with relevant experience in the field of share offerings, I wouldn’t claim to understand how an institution like L&G would make ‘decent’ money with TRFC shares.

I was also convinced – in my own head – that no reputable institutional investor would want to be associated with the values/negative PR of TRFC. So what do I know ? Am really puzzled at L&G inclusion.

From memory, I mentioned the point from the Prospectus about Working Capital as I thought that was significant, although I have not seen any other comments so far.

Page 104, paras 9.1 & 9.2, [IIRC], stated that the Directors gave assurances that there was sufficient WC for 12 months of operations.
My interpretation was that they have this WC available now – i.e. it is not dependent on the proceeds of the share issue.
But as with other elements of the Prospectus, [e.g. sight of title deeds], appropriate proof may not have been provided ?

Did anyone else pick up on this / have an opinion ?

View Comment

Avatar

forweonlyknowPosted on4:46 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Humble Pie: 16:08
————————

I may be missing something here. I’d appreciate it if someone could explain (in lay terms obviously 😉 why RIFC is different? Ta.

2.1 2.1 The kind of company which can use the Scheme to raise money

“The Gross Assets of the company – or of the whole group if it is the parent of a group – cannot exceed £15 million immediately before any share issue and £16 million immediately after that issue. VCM15100 and Statement of Practice 2/06 explain how assets are valued for the purpose of this test.”

2.2 Limit on money raised

Companies are not allowed to raise more than £5 million in total in any 12 month period from the venture capital schemes. The schemes are the Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS), the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme (SEIS) and Venture Capital Trusts (VCTs). Investments from any of these schemes must fall within the £5 million limit. The £5 million limit must also take into account any other investment which the company has received in the relevant 12 month period which is an investment deemed to be State Aid under any other scheme covered by the European Commission’s Guidelines on State Aid to promote Risk Capital Investments in Small and Medium-sized Enterprises.

If any share issue breaks that limit, none of the investors in that issue will be able to claim any of the EIS tax reliefs.”

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/eis/part2/index.htm

Probably something very obvious … I am of course not a F.A.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on5:00 pm - Dec 10, 2012


StevieBC says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 16:24

re: Ranger Flotation
—————————————————————————-
You have to remember that L&G might be acting for a client who effectively remains anonymous by using this route.

It may also be that L&G is providing a VCT package based on Rangers and slicing it up for a group of clients to invest in.

I would very much doubt if they were putting any pension money in as it has never struck me as a share for ‘widows & orphans’.

They may just have made a misjudgement – you only need to look at the state the banks are in to see how easy that is.

View Comment

Avatar

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on5:15 pm - Dec 10, 2012


I am not, thankfully with L&G. However if I had been, I would be asking questions of the company who are looking after my pension and may be investing in loss making football clubs share options.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on5:17 pm - Dec 10, 2012


bogsdollox says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 15:40

Institutional investors look at shares like this on a portfolio basis. These ones are a bit of a punt but in 5 years if everything goes to plan they could sell on for a decent profit. If not then there will be other shares in the portfolio that could compensate for any loss suffered. A few million to these investors is nothing.

Years ago Alan Hansen was involved as an advisor to Schroders who were buying into various clubs at the time. I expect they still have holdings in some still.
———————————————————————————————————————

I very much doubt if Institutional investors would be thinking about keeping this for 5 years – not because it’s Rangers but because it’s a football club. From memory there are only 2 British clubs still listed on a UK share trading exchange and that’s Celtic and Arsenal and public trading in Arsenal is virtually non-existant and Celtic’ shares are pretty static.

A loss making share can be used to reduce tax on profitable deals but never fall into the trap of thinking that a few million to investorss is nothing – they want to make profit whether the share price is going up or down.

As to Hansen not sure if Schroders was involved but in 1997 Singer & Friedlander football fund, was launched by him in a blaze of publicity but it had the whistle blown in 2001 with poor results as I remember and not enough clubs to invest in as they were all getting out of the AIM, Plus & LSE Markets as fast as they could and as I explained above only 2 still in. That’s why the choice of AIM by chico is so interesting.

View Comment

Avatar

nickmcguinnessPosted on5:23 pm - Dec 10, 2012


For We Only Know at 16.46:

That is my reading of the HMRC rules too – that £16m of Gross Assets is the eligibility limit for VCT investments.
Thanks to the valuations by DM Hall of Murray Park and Ibrox, the Gross Assets of RIFC PLC appear to be WELL in excess of that figure.
Strange.
Unless . . . we bear in mind DM Hall’s caveat that no one had shown them the title deeds and they were unable to confirm if there were any encumbrances on the properties.
Strangely, nowhere in that document does it specifically state that RFCL or its successor RIFC actually “own” those properties. Other words are used, such as “enjoy” and “benefit from”, especially in relation to Murray Park.
It does state that RFCL “purchased” them back in June but, given those statements from DM Hall and a fairly recent assertion (of ownership of Murray Park) from Craig Whyte, you would think the RIFC Prospectus would be absolutely unequivocal on these points as regards outright ownership, Floating Charges or whatever.
Ah well, a fool and his money and all that.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on5:29 pm - Dec 10, 2012


TSFM says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 15:28

One question we should ask ourselves (for academic interest at least) is why would institutional investors like those pledged to invest in Rangers do so?

Under what conditions is it possible to make money from the Rangers IPO if you are L&G for example?
——————————————————————————————————————-

I’m not a financial expert but a lot depends on how heavily discounted the share price is to those buying a lot of shares. It looks as though the likes of chico is paying 1p a share for his.

The financial experts can make money whether a share price goes up or down unlike ordinary punters who usually lose money because they haven’t a clue about the perfectly legal manipulations which can take place in a market. They are usually the ones left in at the end when it all goes dark and their money and the company has gone.

Not saying this will happen with Rangers but there are no guarantees and it has already happened to Rangers shareholders and debenture holders who have lost tens of millions already this year.

The other way people can make money is just all the commissions to be earned dealing in shares. The percentages are low but the number of transactions can be massive and it goes on and on and on and as I said, whether they are going up or down, people are instructing to buy or sell and the commission clock keeps ticking.

View Comment

Avatar

paulmac2Posted on5:31 pm - Dec 10, 2012


exiledcelt says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 13:17
—————————————–

I am led to believe this is the case Exiled.

My mum God bless her at the young age of 68 comes from a very staunch rangers background. has no interest in football, but over the last 12 months has taken an interest in the goings on since it became obvious they were in trouble.

She pops off to the Bingo every Sunday and Wednesday and meets up with a few friends.

Imagine the scene a hall full of people in their own little cleeks playing a numbers game…as each game comes to an end it allows a minute or two to have a quick chat..

Last weekend in her group of about 6..there was a chap who was doing a bit of cheer leading and was telling the group how they should buy shares in the new club…my mum never has held her tongue when something needs saying…”eyes down”…and suddeenly there is money at stake…silence as the numbers are called oot!…game won…right chat time…

my ma…”a widnae gie that ar**hole your money never mind mine”…

rather rotund chap…”oh your wanna thame”…

ma ma…”wit do you mean wan o thame”…eyes down…silence as the next game takes its course…”al come back to you in a minute”….game won…

My ma…”right wid do you mean wan o thame”…

rotund chap…taken by surprise..”a Rangers hater”…

My ma…”wit are you talking about…they’ve gone bust”…”av’e nae interest in fitbaw”…

I should point out…at this stage the rest of the group are feeling decidely uneasy…

Rotund chap…”that’s the problem wi you rangers haters…you don’t know the facts”….eyes down…silence and off they go again…game won..

My ma…”oh a know the facts son…you’re a phanny and he’s takin you and anybody else daft enough fur a ride”…

The above was relayed to me by mother late Sunday evening…and she said 2 years ago this guy would have laughed it off…not now…he was deadly serious…she is now gonna go steaming in this Wednesday with a few more discussion points up her sleeve…68 and the heart of a lion…

Who would have thought Bingo could be so volatile?

View Comment

Avatar

rabPosted on5:51 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Paulmac2 on Monday, December 10, 2012 at 17:31

Who would have thought Bingo could be so volatile?

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

The big house must stay open, thats the full bottom line.

Incidently, my wife doesn’t like going to the bingo.

But I mecca.

Baroomp tsh.

View Comment

Avatar

ecobhoyPosted on6:00 pm - Dec 10, 2012


nickmcguinness says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 17:23
Strangely, nowhere in that document does it specifically state that RFCL or its successor RIFC actually “own” those properties.
———————————————————————————————————–
What intrigues me from the Prospectus is this:

‘This Valuation Report has been prepared to confirm to the directors of Rangers the current valuation of the property assets of the RFCL Group for inclusion in the Prospectus in relation to the Placing, Offer and Admission’.

RFCL Group is defined in the Prospectus as: RFCL (The Rangers Football Club Ltd) and all other subsidiary undertakings of RFCL from time to time.

‘Rangers’ and ‘Directors’ are not defined as far as I can see.

My reading is that if the property was held by an as yet unknown or even an as yet to be incorporated subsidiary of ‘The Rangers Football Club Ltd’ then that would be covered legally by the prospectus which IMHO could result in title passing to a newco subsidiary.

Would it not just have been easier to state: The property assets of ‘The Rangers Football Club Ltd’. Is that too simple or is there something deeper I’m missing?

I may be wrong in my guesswork so I give my usual caveat of do your own research 🙂

Jut for interest: ‘Rangers Group or Group’ is defined as: The Company (Rangers International Football Club Ltd’ and all subsidiary undertakings of the Company from time to time, and specifically as enlarged by the Acquisition of RFCL and all its subsidiary undertakings’.

View Comment

Avatar

doontheslopePosted on6:06 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Nice to see STV catching up with the news that 67 former Rangers (IL) players are taking action against the club. Mind you, it was pretty far down the prospectus.

View Comment

Avatar

borussiabeefburgPosted on6:12 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Sixty-seven players kicking ‘Rangers’ when they’re down.

Ibrox lays blame squarely at the doors of Dundee United and internet bampots.

More later from James Traynor…………………………………

View Comment

Avatar

bad capt madmanPosted on6:28 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Re the 67 players
It does bring back those concerns that when Sevco got its temporary conditional pretend membership, there might not have been enough time for players’ paperwork to be completed to transfer their registrations from RFC.
If indeed players we not properly consulted/informed as to their rights under TUPE, and did they actually sign new registrations? it does raise the question of whether they were properly registered to play, especially that first game at Brechin, an SFA competition game if i remember correctly.
Was CO very busy that night?
Of course the conditional membership shananigans/five way agreement probably had it covered, so not much to see here then, eh? Move along…

View Comment

Avatar

wottpiPosted on6:32 pm - Dec 10, 2012


67 players.

We deserve to know their names 🙂

I wonder if some are still in The Rangers squad today??

View Comment

Avatar

TommyBPosted on6:49 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Why oh why do the msm produce headlines that pretend to be breaking news. We have all known for some time now that these players have made a claim against rfcia. MSM should try being honest or get up to date. The employees of media organisations generally, surely have access to the same sources as the rest of us. It’s no wonder the circulation figures for newspapers and viewing figures for news programmes are dwindling.

View Comment

Avatar

redetinPosted on6:54 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Captain Haddock says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 18:28
_________________________________

Why should we have to guess about player registrations? Is there any need for this information to be confidential?

There is a need for all non-confidential information about players and clubs to be put online by the SFA.

We need the minutes of all SFA meetings (and possibly league meetings) to be made public.

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on6:55 pm - Dec 10, 2012


doontheslope says:

Monday, December 10, 2012 at 18:06

Nice to see STV catching up with the news that 67 former Rangers (IL) players are taking action against the club. Mind you, it was pretty far down the prospectus.
———————————————————————————————————————————-

the players played for the “club”, but. . .as it is the same “club”

1. is it ‘oldco’ the action is against

2 is it ‘newco’ the action is against

3 will it matter as it is the same “club” they played for and will it be classed as a
“football debt” which chuckles will “agree” to pay?

it is very strange that this is “news” today.
the reason this is odd is because there is strict time limits for making a claim to an employment tribunal, and in this instance, the claim should have been “lodged”
within 3months of the act complained of.

i’m sure CQN covered this a while back (but what would CQN, they’re just internet bampots)

View Comment

broadswordcallingdannybhoy

broadswordcallingdannybhoyPosted on6:55 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Captain Haddock says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 18:28

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

If I was a proper Charlie, and my team of players didn’t have the time to be properly registered but the authorities in an act of brotherly kindness perhaps allowed the players to put the wrong dates on the forms, I’d certainly have the have the ammunition to allow me to behave with impunity towards them despite what any 5-way agreements may say.

But I’m not a proper Charlie and the possibility of a football authority not following it’s rules is so remote as to be preposterous.

What?

View Comment

Avatar

forweonlyknowPosted on7:23 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Just caught the One show (not watching it trust me) and I hear the words “sometimes the administrator will sell the brand as an asset”

Sounds familiar. It’s actually MFI – apologies if this has been pointed out on here or probably RTC a while back.

It turns out that MCR were pretty good at selling IP.

Got to have been the plan from day 1!

The difference being MFI never had 500m fans to prop it up like Norman Bates and his mother!

http://www.slideshare.net/MetisPartners/mfi-ip-asset-sale-insolvency-case-study

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on7:51 pm - Dec 10, 2012


ecobhoy says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 18:00

‘Rangers’ and ‘Directors’ are not defined as far as I can see.
——

I posted about this a couple of days ago. “Rangers” is defined, along with “Club”, as “Rangers Football Club”.

There is no definition of “Rangers Football Club”.

View Comment

Avatar

campsiejoePosted on8:12 pm - Dec 10, 2012


The Sevcovians have to maintain the pretence that there has been no break in their time line, because as time passes, they will try to airbrush the past year from history, and aided by the MSM cheerleaders. it has already started
They continue to peddle the myth that the company and not the “club” suffered insolvency, despite all evidence to the contrary, is central to their argument
Not one of them will ever address the fact that the “club” and not the company suffered the 10 point deduction, or the ignominy of scrabbling about looking for a place in Scottish football
We cannot let the behaviour of this “club”, in whatever incarnation, be wiped from the history of our game

View Comment

justshatered

justshateredPosted on8:16 pm - Dec 10, 2012


All those players taking action against both Rangers and ‘The Rangers’!!

There is the old split personality issue raising its head again except they’re both Mr Hyde!
It looks as if there should have to have been communication from the oldco informing their employees that they had the opportunity to TUPE over to the newco and also communication from the newco that they were willing to take over their contracts on the same terms and one or both did not apear.

‘Hawd oan a minute weir the same club/company as the auld club/company’ come the screams from the faithful.

How on earth are they going to square this issue that they are one and the same?

It would indeed be ironic if it was Rangers own former players who forced them to admit that they were a new club.

Don’t worry bampots I’m sure the media will be all over this like a rash with their incisive questions and award winning journalism!

No wait a minute an Aberdeen youngster has refused a new contract and Neil Lennon said that he would like to manage in England and Willie Column was……………………………. well………………….. Willie Column at the weekend!

Same old same old in Scottish football. Incompetence rife and sensationalist reporting over taking the real story.

View Comment

barcabhoy

barcabhoyPosted on8:23 pm - Dec 10, 2012


This is a direct quote from Charles Green, when he was looking to drum up City interest in October.

….on shareholder split:

“The original 19 shareholders came in at 50p. We’ve just done some pre-IPO funding at a £1. I’d like to see the fans with 15 or 20 per cent of the club. And maybe 50 per cent held by institutional investors.”

Well Charles certainly didn’t buy his 5,000,000 shares at 50 p and neither did Imran Ahmed buy his at that price. They both paid 1p

What’s also very confusing is this information provided in the prospectus itself

“There has been no significant change in the financial or trading position of the Group during and subsequent to 31 August 2012, the date to which the historical financial information has been prepared, save for the additional issue of 8,075,000 shares in RFCL from a pre-IPO fundraise at a total consideration of £5,575,000 which has been received by RFCL in cash.”

So, 8,075,000 pre IPO shares for total consideration of £5,575,000, which equates to a price per share of 69 pence.

This is yet another example of Green making things up as he goes along and then being contradicted when the facts come to light. This is not a good trait for a CEO and certainly would not build up any confidence amongst genuine institutional investors.

Why institutions such as L&G and Artemis want to invest their own investors funds in a business with no banking facility is curious. Why they would want to invest it in a football club with very seriously restricted earning potential , at a premium to the benchmark competitor , isn’t just curious it’s downright baffling …..

Unless they share the same logic and motivations as those other investment professionals who saw Ticketus as a “great opportunity” as well

View Comment

Avatar

Richard Wilson (@timomouse)Posted on8:33 pm - Dec 10, 2012


http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/35653783779/spl-viewing-figures

SPL Viewing figures updated to the latest BARB stats. Rangers vs Elgin cup tie most watched domestic game this season, Celtic vs Hearts then Hearts vs Celtic most viewed SPL games.

I will, at some point when I’m extremely bored, put this all on a spreadsheet so it’s a bit easier to digest but the basic points are that Sky Sports 4 is a graveyard for ratings. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that two of the three highest rated games of the season are also the only two to go on Sky Sports 1 (Rangers vs Elgin in the cup and Peterhead vs Rangers) and also ran unopposed against the EPL.

That Rangers were in both was, I believe, a coincidence and nothing more.

View Comment

barcabhoy

barcabhoyPosted on8:38 pm - Dec 10, 2012


The Green quote was taken from this article

http://www.cityam.com/latest-news/rangers-shoot-20m-junior-market-offering

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on8:40 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Negligent SFA, again ?
==================

So following the announcement of the ‘official boycott’ byTRFC, the SFA has still not issued a statement as far as I can tell.

The SFA has also not commented on Charlie’s inflammatory statement which cast aspersions on SPL clubs.

So, in the absence of any public chastisement, Charlie and the TRFC fans will be emboldened – and might feel entitled to push that little bit further ‘next time’.

They probably believe that the SFA is too scared to take action. And the sad thing is – they are probably correct.

So at what point does the SFA stand up and ‘do the right thing’ ?

When there is a riot at a TRFC Scottish Cup game ?

When there is widespread mayhem in Glasgow / elsewhere following a TRFC cup game ?

The SFA has a basic duty to protect the game – including the fans – and their silence is shameful.

View Comment

Avatar

campsiejoePosted on8:46 pm - Dec 10, 2012


StevieBC @ 20:40

The only conclusion that you can draw, is that the SFA/SPL/SFL, are afraid of Charlie, but even more afraid of the mob
Longmuir’s statement at the weekend was one of the most nauseatingly sycophantic statements ever issued by someone charged with running the game in this country
Biased in favour of one team, you bet they are

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on8:58 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Richard Wilson (@timomouse) says: Monday, December 10, 2012 at 20:33
==================
I too have been tracking the TV audiences and I’d guess that they are maybe 20% down on last season. I suspect that this is mainly due to RFC fans “boycotting” coverage of SPL games.

Whether or not this will impact on future TV deals is less certain.

Your observations on graveyard channels is valid. SS1 is better than SS2 is better than SS3, SS4 and ESPN

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on9:13 pm - Dec 10, 2012


barcabhoy says: Monday, December 10, 2012 at 20:23

“There has been no significant change in the financial or trading position of the Group during and subsequent to 31 August 2012, the date to which the historical financial information has been prepared, save for the additional issue of 8,075,000 shares in RFCL from a pre-IPO fundraise at a total consideration of £5,575,000 which has been received by RFCL in cash.”

So, 8,075,000 pre IPO shares for total consideration of £5,575,000, which equates to a price per share of 69 pence.
=========================
I had a look at that too. The 69p is the net sum received per share, i.e. after costs of maybe £1M so the average gross price would probably be 12p higher.

The proposed placing shares at 70p (24,242,857) should raise almost £17M, but is estimated to only raise £15M after costs. That would equate to a net share value of less than 62p

View Comment

Avatar

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on9:21 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Richard Wilson (@timomouse) says: Monday, December 10, 2012 at 20:33
==================
I too have been tracking the TV audiences and I’d guess that they are maybe 20% down on last season. I suspect that this is mainly due to RFC fans “boycotting” coverage of SPL games.

Whether or not this will impact on future TV deals is less certain.
____________________________________________________

Can’t be any worse than the SPL Chief saying the game will be crap while he was negotiating the last one.

View Comment

Avatar

Richard Wilson (@timomouse)Posted on9:23 pm - Dec 10, 2012


easyJambo says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 20:58

To be fair, ESPN isn’t that bad, considering the very decent audience Hearts-Celtic got. the real downer with them is that, because the SPL started before the EPL, most subscribers hadn’t renewed until the week the EPL started meaning that the couple of games on there pre-EPL got abysmal audiences (without looking, I think Dundee Utd-Hibs got something like 18k!).

It’s hard to deny that viewing figures depend much on what channel things are on. Sky Sports 4 is particularly poor but, more often than not, the SPL is on there. I wonder if that is something actually contracted as one would think that the SPL would be eager to be on more viewed channels and should surely be onto Sky saying “excuse me, but Norwich vs Reading is, let’s face it, a bit boring – why not do a switcheroo with Celtic-Hearts?!” or at least they should be.

View Comment

Avatar

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on10:03 pm - Dec 10, 2012


StevieBC says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 20:40

campsiejoe says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 20:46

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

We should not expect anything from this cabal. The so called 5 way agreement cobbled together by Regan, Doncaster, Longmuir, Oldco and Newco, is something that not only we will never see, but likely that most directors of the clubs that those organisations represent, have never seen either. The fact that it was a secret agreement should have brought condemnation from everyone other than internet bampots. But no, there was silence from the MSM and every football chairman and director. Has any other Scottish football clubs membership application been covered in secrecy?
Questions were asked, again by internet bampots only, as to the validity of player registrations for their first match only hours after the granting of a fictitious conditional membership. Did anyone ever receive a reply, no.

If they could get away with all this, why would we expect any action on anything that relates to Sevco and Chuckie from the governing bodies.

And we are told to believe that reconstruction is not for the benefit of one club by these same people.

View Comment

Avatar

nowoldandgrumpyPosted on10:28 pm - Dec 10, 2012


SAFC statement
Posted on December 10th, 2012 at 22:14
It is disappointing in the extreme that a headline arising from Saturday’s game versus Rangers should be in connection with one of our young fans being struck by a coin rather than the focus being about our battling performance that arguably came within a couple of inches of pulling off a remarkable draw.

I have spoken this morning with the Head of Security at Rangers FC and I have been assured that he is fully aware of the incident that took place, during the half time interval, having been advised by the Police.

A full investigation is being undertaken, including a review of the CCTV footage.

The Police are treating this as criminal offence and if the individual(s) concerned can be formally identified, further action will be taken. Rangers have also given me the assurance that anyone found guilty of such an offence will be banned for life from attending matches at Ibrox.

I will communicate further on this matter when the outcome of the investigation is known.

In the meantime, I’ve been in contact with the young fan and his father to update them on developments as described above and to offer my apologies on behalf of SAFC that he should be subjected to such an irresponsible act.

As ever in football, it is disappointing that a small minority let down the great majority.

Stuart Brown
Operations Director, Stirling Albion FC

View Comment

Avatar

john clarkePosted on10:39 pm - Dec 10, 2012


I posted at 22.30- ish.

It’s gone into moderation.

I don’t see any obvious reason, so I can’t re-post an amended version.
Essentially, I make the observation that CO is still in post, still boss-man in charge of Regan and the SFA board.

As long as that is the case, the SFA will not be permitted to take effective action against Mr Green.

View Comment

Avatar

paulsatimPosted on10:42 pm - Dec 10, 2012


nowoldandgrumpy says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 22:28
======================

time for netting to protect visiting fans there.

View Comment

Avatar

paulsatimPosted on10:57 pm - Dec 10, 2012


From twitter, http://i45.tinypic.com/9h52z5.jpg

They’ll buy into anything. CG onto a winner with his share issue, if she is representative of the target audience!

Check out bart simpson and hector on the left side of scarf!!!

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on11:21 pm - Dec 10, 2012


john clarke says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 22:52
..
StevieBC says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 20:40
‘..So at what point does the SFA stand up and ‘do the right thing’ ?’
———-
The Chairman of the SFA is still in office…
=================================

Agreed jc, that with CO remaining in office, there seems to be a lack of will to deal with TRFC.
By default, there also appears to be a lack of will amongst member clubs to speak out.

So, will it only take some ‘shocking’ external incident – outwith the SFA’s control – to focus a spotlight on the whole TRFC shambles ?

…an ‘unintended consequence’ of pandering to TRFC which makes e.g. the general public, politicians – even the media – to stop and say; “No, this has gone too far…” ?

View Comment

Avatar

coineanachantaighePosted on11:30 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Richard Wilson (@timomouse) says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 21:23
————————————————-
I think you make a good point. I believe one reason the likes of Doncaster was trying to keep Sevco in the TV deal is that selling the SPL was easy when you packaged the OF in. With no OF he and his chums would have to work a lot harder and show a bit of imagination. They are IMO incapable of either.

View Comment

Avatar

ordinaryfanPosted on11:33 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Have Alloa been paid yet?

View Comment

bawsman

bawsmanPosted on11:45 pm - Dec 10, 2012


Mr. Cosgrove, I know you will read this.

You took the plaudits on here, I personally thought you were late to the plate but I’m a reasonable type and give you the benefit of the doubt, still do.

This Mr. Green needs nailed.

People, and I include Rangers fans who want to follow their team, are in harms way because of this guys desire to turn a buck.

How depressing that our country’s press are so cowed.

This is probably is the biggest story in football history, yet there’s not a journalist with balls to run with it.

View Comment

Avatar

ordinaryfanPosted on11:52 pm - Dec 10, 2012


What happened with regards the racist chanting by a huge section of Sevco supporters during the Show Racism The Red Card display, which was on Live TV?
I would have thought the SFL would have been so utterly embarrassed, disgusted and horrified that they would have decided on what action to take by now.
Presumably a harsh punishment would be made public pretty sharpish considering the importance of showing the public just how serious they take this disgraceful behaviour in Football.

View Comment

Avatar

john clarkePosted on12:01 am - Dec 11, 2012


goosygoosy says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 21:38
‘….Part of the reason the venom has been so widespread is because the usual target for all this has been very difficult to pin down .’
—-
Not a few posters have acknowledged that the ‘usual suspects’ played not only a very honest but a vitally important part in removing themselves as any kind of provocation to the maddened hordes.

They did this

– by quietly observing , when asked, that the financial affairs of another club had no significant bearing on them and their finances,

– AND by simply ignoring any assertion that they in particular had any duty ,or right, to step in and publicly say anything more whatsoever in this case.

They sensibly left the matter to the proper authorities.

One surprising , and, paradoxically, beneficial outcome of that approach has been to cause the maddened hordes to rate EVERY club in the SPL as an enemy- for reasons unconnected with sectarianism!

And the rest of Scottish Football has begun to see something of the ‘unreason’ and intractabilty of the dead club’s ethos.

There will be a new dawn, once the moral authority of the SFA is re-established , and no club is allowed to get away with deliberately undermining the whole idea of true sporting (and business and civic) integrity.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on12:02 am - Dec 11, 2012


angus1983 says:

Monday, December 10, 2012 at 10:22

Thanks for the link. This bit

” Traynor is undoubtedly a big “name” which Rangers can commercially exploit. By promoting “Traynor interviews Green” or “Traynor interviews McCoist” and putting it behind a paywall on the club’s website or on pay-per-view Rangers TV, the club would generate its own content and raise new revenue. And that’s Green’s language ”

and the idea that there is oodles of money to be made via Internet video ignores the fact that most folk have grown up with a “free” internet and culturally are not disoposed to pay. I think that will change in time but not before some effort is put into making the cases that non match attenders who watch should be bearing a much higher share of the load of financial support than they do compared to match day goers.

In Celtic’s case for example as an overseas Celtic TV subscriber I pay around £3.50 per game to watch all Celtic SPL games and an SB holder pays £27 to watch home games only. With football being delivered on line via many devices being the way of the future then a greater degree of balance needs to be struck or there will be no team to watch.

But that argument for balance has still to be presented and bought into. Good luck to JT on that one. Greater brains than his have struggled to “moneterise” what the internet can offer precisely because it was born free.

PS Celtic have made lots of material on the club available on You Tube and I think it is all free (presumably Celtic getting a cut from advertising but not via ppv. ) This suggests the kind of return from on line video that CG is selling his share issue on is not going to materialise for some time, if ever.

View Comment

broadswordcallingdannybhoy

broadswordcallingdannybhoyPosted on12:03 am - Dec 11, 2012


john clarke says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 22:52

====================================================
Doing the right thing was never on the agenda until the season ticket cash was used as a bargaining chip by the bampots. The governors of the game in this country would find it very very hard to convince me that they are not corrupt.

When RTC signed off he/she/they said that Rangers in Div3 was probably a fair outcome, and I suppose that an argument could be made for that.

The problem now is that a persecution complex has been allowed to fester and grow amongst the Ibrox faithful and they feel that they have been unjustly treated. I genuinely fear that this will lead to violence, maybe not of Manchester proportions, but someone will get hurt, it may be via the mail or a few thugs might start throwing hands in a street brawl (or coins at a match).

Ultimately the media have to shoulder a high burden of blame for this.
No one in the media has opposed the ‘punished enough’ view as vociferously as it’s proponents have trumpeted (or dog whistled) it.

I fact one of the posters on this blog has had the platform to do this and has failed to do so.
I have no wish to attack Stuart Cosgrove (I send the odd joke to him and Tam and they’ve always read them out) and no one should see this as any sort of ad hominum, but with his position in the media, he and others like him have allowed the opportunity to pass. He sat next to James Traynor every Saturday night, and intellectually could have wiped the floor and dried the dishes with him.

The victim mentality/punished enough nonsense should have been nipped in the bud (or sledgehammered into oblivion). It wasn’t and sometime soon I fear that someone will pay the price for that neglect.

There were enough Rangers fans willing to accept what had happened with good grace, support their club and earn their place back at the top table, what chance have they now of having their voices heard?

View Comment

Avatar

abcottPosted on12:06 am - Dec 11, 2012


From the prospectus;

Condition of Buildings
Our inspection of the subjects did not constitute a structural survey nor did we inspect woodwork or other
parts of the structure which were covered, unexposed or inaccessible. Also, the various services have not
been tested and we are not in a position, therefore, to report that any of the properties are free from defects.
We have not had sight of an Asbestos Risk Assessment relative to the subjects and cannot report that
they are free from risk in this respect. Accordingly, we have made the assumption that such an
investigation would not disclose the presence of any such material in any adverse situation or condition.

View Comment

Avatar

abcottPosted on12:11 am - Dec 11, 2012


Also in the prospectus;
Remuneration to August 31;
C Green £90,000

Did he not say that he hadn’t taken any salary?

View Comment

Avatar

bogsdolloxPosted on12:31 am - Dec 11, 2012


abcott says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 00:11

Also in the prospectus;
Remuneration to August 31;
C Green £90,000

Did he not say that he hadn’t taken any salary?
========================================================================

Probably a loan then.

View Comment

Avatar

manandboyPosted on12:47 am - Dec 11, 2012


I think I hear the title ” The Loan Rangers ” coming into use.

View Comment

Avatar

ordinaryfanPosted on12:55 am - Dec 11, 2012


http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/nov/28/uefa-europa-league-champions-league

Oldish news so not sure if posted. I would presume that would mean 3? Scottish teams in a new structure. That would certainly increase interest from teams with a more realistic chance of making it into Europe.

View Comment

Avatar

john clarkePosted on1:00 am - Dec 11, 2012


broadswordcallingdannybhoy says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 00:03

No one in the media has opposed the ‘punished enough’ view as vociferously as it’s proponents have trumpeted (or dog whistled) it…I fact one of the posters on this blog has had the platform to do this and has failed to do so.’
—-
Just to be clear, in my post I was referring to CFC as ‘the usual suspects’, extremely conscious as they were,that , by an injudicious or badly timed comment, they might have given the unreasoning mob( possibly dog-whistled by MSM headlines) licence to run savagely amok.

But I agree entirely that too many of the MSM have eaten succulent lamb for too long to expect them even to think of striving for a degree of objectivity.

One or two have begun to try to do so, encouraged and emboldened, I would say, by Stuart Cosgrove.

View Comment

Avatar

stunneyPosted on7:16 am - Dec 11, 2012


http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/sfl-division-three/67-players-in-queue-to-take-on-rangers-in-contracts-legal-battle-1-2684565

View Comment

Avatar

stunneyPosted on7:17 am - Dec 11, 2012


http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/spl/rod-petrie-warns-of-cost-cuts-if-hibs-fans-fail-to-return-in-greater-numbers-1-2684705

View Comment

Avatar

jonnyodPosted on8:11 am - Dec 11, 2012


abcott 00.08
Is your post on buildings and conditions genuine ,if so am I reading this right .
They are asking serious investors to put big sums into a business that states it has not had the buildings surveyed properly and as such they can’t confirm if they have any structural defects or
contain the dreaded Asbestos (which was rumoured in the past )
If so then ,what on earth is going on here ,is it normal for investors to accept such omissions in any prospectus .IMO the buildings and structures (Ibrox in particular ) are a big part/drain on the companies income/expenses and as such any structural or other problem would be immensely damaging to the turnover and profit of the business .
I am surely reading this wrong

View Comment

Avatar

TaysiderPosted on8:36 am - Dec 11, 2012


nowoldandgrumpy says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 22:28

SAFC statement – Posted on December 10th, 2012 at 22:14

It is disappointing in the extreme that a headline arising from Saturday’s game versus Rangers should be in connection with one of our young fans being struck by a coin rather than the focus being about our battling performance that arguably came within a couple of inches of pulling off a remarkable draw.

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

Am I the only one surprised to read about this? I don’t recall seeing any headlines in the MSM and an internet search reveals no obvious coverage. So have I missed it or has it been ignored and if so why at a time when a coin throwing incident is all the news? Don’t want to be hyper neurotic and I would accept that there are reasons the Rio Ferdinand incident (famous and a player) would get more coverage but is it just not newsworthy as it is a young Stirling Albion fan or is not newsworthy because it is a young Stirling Albion fan at Ibrox?

View Comment

Avatar

doontheslopePosted on8:54 am - Dec 11, 2012


– We have yet to get visibility of Ibrox title deeds. (People on here said that prospectus would have to reveal that. It didnt.)
– Sevco have “benefit” of Murray Park, not ownership.
– Prospectus “assumes” there are no asbestos/structural issues but admits no survey has been carried out.
– £3.5 million spent in wages in three months.
– 67 players taking action for three months wages.
– At least three players taking action for constructive dismissal.
– No European football until 2016 at the earliest.
– Cant sign any players til end of next year.
– HMRC appealing FTTT decision.
– LNS enquiry pending (but FTTT decision has already revealed ‘prima facie’ case to answer, and supplied details.)
– Police investigation.
– Favoured investors buying shares for 0.01p, everyone else, 70p.
– Former club liquidated.
– Sevco supporters boycotting Dundee United and pissing off every other club in Scotland.
– Team out of every cup competition they entered and probably about to be knocked out of Scottish Cup.

The way I see it, they have three things going for them:

– They have ‘their’ men at the top of Scottish football governance and Charles Green has them by the short and curlies re the secret five way agreement anyway.
– A large gullable and easy to manipulate following.
– A compliant MSM.

All things considered, Sevco are not going to make it.

View Comment

Shooperb

ShooperbPosted on9:00 am - Dec 11, 2012


Taysider says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 08:36

I was thinking the same. The only reason that I knew this took place was because of the tweet from Stirling Albion themselves. I’ve not seen ANY mention of it in the media. Perhaps they’re refering to the headlines on their website, or the local Stirling paper?

Or it could simply be that it’s a pointed way of saying that it should have been a headline, and they are not happy with what happened at Ibrox, given that they simply came to play football?

View Comment

Avatar

paulsatimPosted on9:51 am - Dec 11, 2012


ordinaryfan says:
Monday, December 10, 2012 at 23:52
==============================

Longmuir answered that with his ringing endorsement of the 140 years “celebrations”

View Comment

Avatar

Night TerrorPosted on10:22 am - Dec 11, 2012


doontheslope says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 08:54

– We have yet to get visibility of Ibrox title deeds. (People on here said that prospectus would have to reveal that. It didnt.)
– Sevco have “benefit” of Murray Park, not ownership.

On page 4 of the The Rangers International Football Club prospectus (subliminally TeRrIFiC?) there is a statement that
“The Club’s primary asset is Ibrox Stadium, situated 2.5 miles south-west of Glasgow city centre and has been home to the Club since 1899. The all-seated
50,987 capacity stadium is owned by RFCL”.

That seems unambiguous – they claim to own the stadium.

View Comment

Avatar

ExiledCeltPosted on10:28 am - Dec 11, 2012


Let’s face it – from The Peepils perspective, what was celebrated on Sat was not incorrect – they celebrated 140 years of Rangers history. All of the ex-players and former heros of the Gers were paraded to great applause. Trophies they won during that era were peraded – maybe even the St Ettienne bike was cycled round the track.

There was nothing wrong with what they did.

Thing is they cannot celebrate 141 years.

Reality is, my family could have a party every year to celebrate my grandmother who died when she was 90 – we can celebrate her 90 years of existance and the people she brought inot the world, her achievements and her magnificant caring compassion and ensure she is not forgotten.

What we cannot do is pretend she is still able to get older.

That would be Norman Bates like surely!

View Comment

Avatar

ExiledCeltPosted on10:33 am - Dec 11, 2012


Night Terror says:

Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 10:22

doontheslope says:
Tuesday, December 11, 2012 at 08:54

– We have yet to get visibility of Ibrox title deeds. (People on here said that prospectus would have to reveal that. It didnt.)
– Sevco have “benefit” of Murray Park, not ownership.

On page 4 of the The Rangers International Football Club prospectus (subliminally TeRrIFiC?) there is a statement that
“The Club’s primary asset is Ibrox Stadium, situated 2.5 miles south-west of Glasgow city centre and has been home to the Club since 1899. The all-seated
50,987 capacity stadium is owned by RFCL”.

That seems unambiguous – they claim to own the stadium.

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

I disagree – it says the Club’s primary asset is Ibrox – yet one thing that is glaring is the definition of the club is not in the prospectus. Who owns it? Sevco or RIFC? Where is the corporate structure given that Sevco claim ot be a holding company for the club?

Also – it says its primary asset is Ibrox – my primary asset is my house – and I have a mortgage so I don;t own it do I?

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on10:35 am - Dec 11, 2012


the number 1 issue that i think has never been properly addressed by the SFA, SFL, SPL or the MSM.

THE SFA ISSUE A CATEGORY OF MEMBERSHIP TO SEVCO, THAT DOES NOT EXIST

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/the-brechin-ultimatum-did-sfa-botch-rangers-fcs-membership-are-any-rfc-players-registered/#more-1714

“Conditional membership”?

I have been through the SFA Handbook, which contains the SFA’s Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association, Player Registration Rules and Rules of the Scottish Cup. There is no reference to a “conditional membership”.

Article 4.2 states that members shall be of three classes: full members, associate members and registered members.

The definitions of each class as contained in the Articles is particularly helpful.

A full member is defined as “a club or association which is a full member of the SFA”.

An associate member means a club or association which “has been admitted as an associate member”.

A registered member is “a club or association which has been admitted as a registered member”.

Clear enough?

But if you need more clarification, here goes.

Under Article 6.2 a club is admitted automatically as a registered member by virtue of being a member of an Affiliated Association or league, and not already a full or associate member. Membership of the SPL automatically confers SFA membership. Membership of the SFL does not.

Under Article 6.3 a club desiring full SFA membership must first become an associate member. A club can only be admitted as an associate member of it complies with, and undertakes to continue to comply with, the Membership Criteria.

Once an associate member has been such for five years, it can apply for full membership.

Now Sevco Scotland Ltd has not applied to become a new member. Instead it applied for transfer of the SFA membership presently in the hands of Duff & Phelps as administrators of Rangers Football Club PLC (RFC PLC).

Article 14 deals with transfer of membership. In these circumstances the request for transfer is reviewed by the SFA Board which has “complete discretion to refuse or grant such application on such terms and conditions as the Board shall think fit.”

Sevco Scotland Ltd has applied for a transfer. The SFA Board can grant that or refuse it. I do not see that power as extending to “granting” the transfer temporarily until the remaining points in the negotiations can be completed. Indeed that is not what the SFA claims to have done.

I also do not see where the Board has the power to grant “conditional membership” or to invent such a status.

The SFA Board does not have the power to invent matters relating to the constitution of the company. At the very least a vote of members would be required.

The statement is quite clear. This is not a “temporary transfer” of membership, nor a “conditional transfer” which could, it can be argued, be issued. Instead the clear implication of what the statement says is that (a) RFC PLC still possesses membership of the SFA, as it has not been transferred and (b) Sevco Scotland Ltd has a separate “conditional” membership.

What the SFA seems to have done, as licensing authority, is to grant a non-existent licence to Sevco Scotland Ltd.

How might this affect Rangers FC?

The first thing to say is that, if no one else raises the issue, the SFA, SPL, SFL and Sevco Scotland are not going to do so. The agreement seems to suit all the parties.

However I wish to offer a scenario for consideration. It may seem far-fetched, but this whole mess has been far-fetched.

Let’s imagine that Brechin City has a full house tomorrow at Glebe Park. As well as the turnstiles clicking busily, they get a decent payment from BBC Alba, and sell loads of pies (that one’s for you mick).

The fact that they are facing up to a team stuffed with players many of whom will be paid more in a year than Brechin City’s entire annual turnover – 2009 – £404,000 – makes it likely that they will lose the game, either in normal time or extra time. There are no replays in the Ramsdens Cup.

I think Brechin City would, should they lose on the pitch, have a good case for arguing that they have been beaten by a team which was ineligible to play them.

This would be on the basis that the “conditional membership” as applied and described by the SFA did not actually exist, and therefore, as the SFA membership had not been transferred over to Sevco Scotland Ltd, Rangers FC could not be in position to play in accordance with the rules.

In this scenario, a defeated Brechin City writes to the SFL raising the issue of Rangers FC’s ineligibility on Monday. A critic might say that Brechin ought to have thought of the issue before kick-off. However, the release of the statement on a Friday evening means that the club cannot reasonably have been expected to have taken legal advice before the game.

View Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.