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.
Allowing for the normal interjection by the Missus “Your tea is ready” always at the moment I want to see or hear something on the telly. I think SSN referred to 2012/2013 season, which is this season – I think!
——————————————————————————————————————————–
It definitely said next season but clearly it was a mistake and it was gone a couple of hours later.
In connection with “who owns Ibrox Stadium and/or Murray Park and many other unanswered answerables”
Nobody in the MSM asks the questions which are posed on this blog because
a) They are afraid of the answers and their implications
b) They are afraid for their jobs OR
c) They are afraid
Let’s face facts if someone wants to put there hard earned cash into the club they love Good on them . But there is enough information (or lack of) in the prospectus as well as on the net ect To make people think twice prospectus at least hold off till a later date.Were they can see how and what there money is to breaks used for and Exactly what they are investing in.
So in short if they want to put there money where their Heart is Great 🙂 But they have been warned! So ON THERE OWN HEAD BE IT!
inverted commas should have ended after Park, my apologies, particularly to those who are “unsettled” by such errors…
You know who you are…
Bloody predictive text 🙁
tcup2012
Ye let them throw there money into chuckie’s pension fund 🙂
Then we can laugh at them again 🙂
Manandboy.
‘I’m referring especially to life after the global financial crash of 2008 and the Time of Austerity – now forecast to run till 2018 – and beyond?
By the time it’s over, most of us I suspect will be acquainted with Grim & Dire only too well’
_______________________________________
OT
By the way this old austerity thing is not all bad.
People are beginning to realise the value of goods rather than just the price, people are starting to talk to neighbours like the old days, people are repairing radios TVs cars etc,doing their own DYI, providing work locally rather than exclusively in Japan Germany China.
People seem to go to football matches during hard times rather than participate in more, expensive pastimes? The fastest growing danger to the Nation, financially and medically is the level of obesity stemming from the affluent society. Surely if yer man ‘Austerity’ restores a bit of common-sense into our lives again it might be no bad thing.
Sorry for off topic, but herself is at it again.
BTW excellent post Manandboy.
Interesting detail in the prospectus (page 111).
___________
Para 12.2.1 “…pursuant to the warrant instrument referred to in paragraph 12.1.7 , Cenkos Securities will be granted warrants to subscribe for Ordinary Shares exercisable for a period of five years commencing on the first anniversary of Admission……The total number of warrants will be equal to 1 per cent. of the Enlarged Share Capital and the exercise price will be such amount a shall be equal to the Placing Price plus a ten per cent. premium”
______________
[I’ll just note that 12.1.7 should read 12.2.3 Cenkos Securities warrants; 12.1.7 is 5 Way Agreement].
The shares will need to be worth over 77p each during the 5 year exercise period to make exercise of these warrants worthwhile, otherwise the warrants are worthless. Of course, CS could sell the warrants if they can find a buyer. There is always a price that someone will pay.
tcup2012 says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 11:45
To be honest. I’m of the same opinion. What’s said on here won’t make a blind bit of difference. If TRFC fans want to buy into what looks like a very dodgy share offer, then that’s upto them. They are adults (even if some of them don’t behave like it at times), the flaws have been pointed out to them, ultimately they are responsible for their own actions, so let them carry on if they want to.
At least Hearts fan know that their money is being shovelled into a big furnace, and they’re unlikely to ever see it again – but they’re under no illusions about that. Can you say the same about TRFC fans?
secularfootballfan says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 09:59
“Titles won’t leave Ibrox because Charles Green bought them and he owns them.”
——
Makes me think, that.
Mr Green obviously bought the bits of silver in the trophy room.
Can this be another of his double-speak moments? Does he have wriggle room to say that he only ever claimed that it was the physical “titles” (i.e. the bits of silver, etc, that he bought and that he had never claimed to buy the statistical records of them held by the SFA?
When he and his lieutenants say the titles will never be removed, do they in fact mean only that the bits of silver will never be physically removed from TRFC’s possession?
Am I making sense?
angus1983 says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 13:00
——
When he and his lieutenants say the titles will never be removed, do they in fact mean only that the bits of silver will never be physically removed from TRFC’s possession?
Am I making sense?
===================================================
I see what you’re saying, but it’s wrong. Mr Green is clearly playing to his audience and my interpretation is that he means he has the right to lay claim to all titles and trophies won by oldco, ever, no matter what the organisations that own the rights to these competitions might say. He means it in the same way as messrs McCoist, McLeish and Smith mean it. The truth is that none of these control these decisions.
As an aside, I’m glad that you continue to challenge the site orthodoxy – there’s nothing to be learned if we all always agree.
With Christmas coming up ,I fancy buying another European cup win for my club ,anyone got Notts Forrest number .
As someone involved in business (are we all not involved in “business”? funny statement that!) I occasionally find myself heading along to the odd “auction”. I say auction but they are actually what you and I would refer to as Fire Sales!
A company goes bust and an auctioneer is tasked (on behalf of the liquidator) to raise as much funds as possible … usually to pay the liquidators fees if the truth be told. Creditors won’t be seeing a penny of that money, trust me.
(The following is a dramatisation of a situation I was in … companies and characters are for illustration purposes only)
Recently I went along to an auction where the company used to make toys, Teddy Bears and soft toys. The Auctioneer tried his hardest to raise the tension “great bargains to be had guys” but the 4 of us just stood there, cold, bored and a bit uninspired by it all.
Lot 1 …. No takers. Lot 2 ….. No takers … Lot 39 …. No takers.
‘Right‘ said the auctioneer. “A whole job lot!” … silence
“Cmon fellas” in his best cockney accent. … silence.
Eventually he gave in. No takers. After 5 mins or so I privately approached the auctioneer and offered the most offensive amount for “the job lot” I could think of. To my surprise he accepted it.
It was worth a punt.
As the factory was bigger than mine I decided to move all my staff and plant list to the new premises. Some refused to move as it was dead cold and damp … a bit smelly even. I respected their decision and let them move on.
Things were difficult but we seemed to be getting somewhere when one day I got a chap at the door (well reception shouted up to the portakabin office).
“Hi! Mr XXXXX?” said the young man in a Police Uniform, alongside 3 men in black suits.
“Yes! That’s me!“
“We have reason to believe that you are in possession of some stolen goods“
Of course my reply weas something along the lines of “Whit!“
“You recently purchased some goods from “Bears R Us” and we have information about assets, within that purchase, being obtained by illegal means“
“But I bought those assets in good faith” I said.
“We understand that Mr XXXXX, but I’m afraid we are going to have to take them back to the station until we determine who they belong to“
“But I bought them! They’re mine!…. They’re all mine!”
I don’t go to Fire Sales anymore!
The trophies conversation has similarities to previous discussions about stars on shirts – a quick online tour of club shops shows the shirts on sale by Milan and Barcelona have 0 stars, Ajax have 3, Bayern have 4, and Rangers are top of the heap with 5. And yet no-one in their right mind would think etc etc. The actual silver trophies are only representations, strip away their meaning and they are only worth what they can be melted down for.
Regardless of who ‘actually’ owns a title, the title or trophy itself is purely a recognition for a respected body that you have made an achievement.
They can remove their approval or acceptance at any time. Polishing your replica trophies in the club cabinet may give some satisfaction, but if the body that issues the titles has disowned your entitlement to use that title then all you own is your fake replica.
There is a huge lack of respect from Green as to who actually has the right to issue the titles and what that represents. Very materialistic approach…
There’s a touch of the pantomime villain about Charles Green isn’t there! In the event of the SFA deciding they have the right and finding the bottle to remove any titles, any attempt to benefit from claiming ownership of the titles would be blatant fraud, wouldn’t it? He wouldn’t do that would he?
Just a wee thought.
Given what Mr Charles said last night why would any fan want part with their cash, especially in these harsh economic times and that this time of year.
He says that the institutional investors were over subscribed and therefore if the ‘allocation’ set aside for fans was not taken up he would pass either that allocation back to the insitutional investors or buy the shares himself.
So unless the fans, by virtue of their shareholding, are getting a representative on the board to help influence the runnning of the club why put money into it when there are apparently plenty other people champing at the bit to part with their cash? Keep your money for another rainy day and see what the board and their investors deliver on their own.
Did anyone see mention of a fans representative getting on the board?
A word search of fans and board on the prospectus doesn’t seem to indcate anything in the offing.
Therefore to Gers fans – what is it you are investing in and what for?
Celtic, financailly secure, SPL leaders and CL last 16, provide an indication of what a likely future share price will be. I recall mention of somewhere around 38p or something at present?
Therefore it is doubtful, even if fans were inclined to sell, that a ormal punter is going to make any money.
If you can’t control anything at board level then you may as well let Charlie’s pals splash the cash and just boycott your own club when necessary to get your views known.
I can happily knock up a nice share certificate for your wall for a tenner because that’s about all you are going to get for your money.
Just wondering, Who “owns” Third Lanarks trophies?
Honours
Scottish Football League:
Winners (1): 1903–04
Scottish First Division[11]:
Winners (2): 1930–31, 1934–35
Runners-up (2): 1927–28, 1957–58
Scottish Cup:
Winners (2): 1888–89, 1904–05
Runners-up (3): 1875–76, 1877–78, 1905–06, 1937–38
Scottish League Cup
Runners-up (1): 1959–1960
Glasgow Cup
Winners (4): 1903, 1904, 1909, 1963
Runners-up (12): 1891, 1906, 1907, 1914, 1924, 1938, 1943, 1947, 1948, 1949, 1954, 1958
Glasgow Charity Cup:
Winners (4): 1890, 1898, 1901, 1952
Shared (2): 1954, 1956
Runners-up (8): 1884, 1897, 1910, 1914, 1932, 1939, 1943, 1946
If what Green says had any truth then all the above must be owned by someone and would make an ideal addition to any clubs history.
The mans a clown but he knows he has thousands of bigger clowns believing him!
this might interest a few
http://www.insideworldfootball.biz/worldfootball/europe/11706-uefa-calls-for-ban-on-third-party-player-ownership?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
UEFA calls for ban on third party player ownership
Wednesday, 12 December 2012
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email More Sharing Services
1
By Andrew Warshaw
December 12 – European football’s governing body is clamping down hard on third party ownership – by which footballers are partly controlled by outside parties when it comes to access and transfer rights.
UEFA’s Executive Committee has taken an unequivocal stance that third party ownership, often directed at those posing at agents, should be banned as a matter of principle.
UEFA is to lobby FIFA to issue worldwide regulations banning the practise, which takes money out of the game by parties who then profit from individual transfers.
Whether or not FIFA act, UEFA, through its Professional Football Strategy Council (PFSC), are prepared to implement their own rules to prohibit third-party ownership in their own competitions.
If this were the case, a transitional period of three to four seasons would apply.
FIFA’s Football Committee is chaired by UEFA President Michel Platini but that doesn’t necessarily mean FIFA will act since third party ownership is prevalent in South America.
“UEFA can of course implement regulations with regard to its own competitions – the same as in England and in France, where the third party ownership is prohibited for competitions,” said UEFA general secretary Gianni Infantino (pictured top).
“As far as the UEFA competitions are concerned, this is also very well within the remit of UEFA.”
Platini expressed firm views on the issue after last week’s UEFA Executive Committee meeting in Lausanne.
“I don’t think it’s very good if players from several teams belong to a financial company or belong to people,” he said.
“I think ethically, morally, it is not good.
“We have thought about it and asked FIFA to deal with it.”
Infantino said that no one should be surprised by UEFA’s stance.
“This is not a decision which has come out of the blue,” he reflected.
“This has already been discussed since the month of May.
“We all know that third-party ownership of players bears many threats, and there are many issues linked in terms of the integrity of competitions, financial fair play regulations and so on.
“It is really time to regulate it and to have a firm stance – however, in a reasonable way, with a transitional period to enable clubs to cope.
“UEFA is looking to have the necessary regulatory framework put in place to protect clubs and prevent the risk of clubs going out of business.
“The objective is to protect clubs for the longer term.”
New legislation would give transfer rights to the club that the player represents – and only to that club.
Infantino continued: “The players need to have their future in their hands, rather than in the hands of somebody whose business model is to bring about as many transfers of a player as possible, to make as much money as possible – money which then goes out of football and football clubs.”
English club West Ham United were fined for breaking rules on third party agreements when they signed Carlos Tévez (pictured above), now at Manchester City, from Brazilian club Corinthians in 2006.
A protracted legal battle ensued with Sheffield United suing West Ham for the cost of their relegation.
After two years, the clubs settled out of court.
When Brazilian Oscar joined Chelsea this year, the fee, estimated at £25 million ($40 million/€31 million), was divided up between two Brazilian teams, the midfielder himself and entrepreneurs who own what are called his “economic rights”.
liveinhop says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 15:27
Love how you can arrive so late in a game and think you have all the answers. ………..Taken from kds thought it was good
================================================================
liveinhop – very eloquent but as someone who exists outside the Glasgow Celtic/Rangers experience and history it looks a bit like tit-for-tat and “we’re winning now, so up ye!”. It presents a view that “them” and “us” are the only relevant clubs in Scottish football. I don’t buy the “walk a mile in my shoes” tone of it direcetd at the rest of Scottish football. Nor do I want to be lectured at by someone whose views are fixed directly in reference to those of their greatest rivals. An alternative approach has been taken by Celtic FC and its Chief Executive. They have focused singularly on the interests of that club and steadfastly resisted any calls to present the club’s actions or future direction as being co-dependent with Rangers. They’ve done a good job.
Not The Huddle Malcontent @ 15:49
UEFA, and for that matter FIFA’s, thoughts and opinions are quite frankly worthless and risible
They washed their hands of one of the biggest disgraces in football, and looked the other way while a member association aided and abetted by two member leagues corrupted the game in this country in the interests of one club
Hypocrites one and all
I think corsica had a copy of Ibrox title deeds . Will see what I can find and post this evening. Don’t think there was anything unusual.
Celtic aren’t the only club or fans that have been demonised, liveinhop – look at United. No doubt other SPL clubs will come under threats of boycott if/when TRFC get the opportunity because most have the demon mark on them.
Think corsica had a copy of Ibrox title deeds . Will see what I can find/procure and post this evening. Don’t think there was anything unusual although may be slightly dated.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/20634934
how can they “afford” any additional costs to their wage bill ?
Extracted from latest VB post, [won’t post link.]
=====================================
“…There is a fury within the Rangers support which burns in a manner akin to napalm – it cannot be extinguished. A fire of righteous indignation has spread right through the Rangers support.
If Scotland was to genuinely reflect on it’s treatment of Rangers over the last few months, it would quickly realise that the club is due a heartfelt apology. Whether such an apology is forthcoming is another matter. If it was, it would go some way to dousing those flames of anger within our support…”
======================================
So, who’s going to apologise first then ? 🙄
Perhaps an indication that all the nonsense around TRFC is not going to dissipate anytime soon.
corsicacharity says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 16:34pm
Think corsica had a copy of Ibrox title deeds . Will see what I can find/procure and post this evening. Don’t think there was anything unusual although may be slightly dated.
——————————————————————-
He didn’t have when I asked him back in Feb March time I think it was..he was gonna try and find out…but I never did see him produce anything regards this.
StevieBC @ 16:53
Would they like to tell us what they want to apologise for
Is it because we have offended their sensabilities, or shown up their ignorant and supremacist attitudes, or because we tried to enforce rules, that they and the rest of Scottish football wanted to ignore
If I have my way, it will be a cold day in hell before they receive anything even remotely approaching an apology
paulmac2 on Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 16:55
1 0 Rate This
corsicacharity says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 16:34pm
Think corsica had a copy of Ibrox title deeds . Will see what I can find/procure and post this evening. Don’t think there was anything unusual although may be slightly dated.
——————————————————————-
He didn’t have when I asked him back in Feb March time I think it was..he was gonna try and find out…but I never did see him produce anything regards this.
******
I’m fairly certain he did have something (perhaps in response to your request?) although I dont have copy. I’ve asked his son to have a look so hopefully have something this evening.
blu says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 16:14
10 4 Rate This
liveinhop says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 15:27
Love how you can arrive so late in a game and think you have all the answers. ………..Taken from kds thought it was good
================================================================
liveinhop – very eloquent but as someone who exists outside the Glasgow Celtic/Rangers experience and history it looks a bit like tit-for-tat and “we’re winning now, so up ye!”. It presents a view that “them” and “us” are the only relevant clubs in Scottish football. I don’t buy the “walk a mile in my shoes” tone of it direcetd at the rest of Scottish football. Nor do I want to be lectured at by someone whose views are fixed directly in reference to those of their greatest rivals. An alternative approach has been taken by Celtic FC and its Chief Executive. They have focused singularly on the interests of that club and steadfastly resisted any calls to present the club’s actions or future direction as being co-dependent with Rangers. They’ve done a good job.
………….
It is written from the prospective of a Celtic supporter for Celtic supporters. As a Celtic fan I agree with everything written in the piece, that’s not to say certain aspects cannot be expanded upon or taken away with regards to other Clubs thoughts. It is not meant to portray the thoughts and feelings of all Clubs fans, just one, which it does superbly.
Rob Penman says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 01:35
—————————————–
Ahhh….so Charlie owns them…not Rangers (that have been liquidated) so the record books must now show that in 1995 the Scottish Premier league was won by Charlie Green…not Rangers (now liquidated) or The Rangers Football Club Limited…
Is that what Charlie is saying HE BOUGHT THE HISTORICAL DETAILS…they are his and he won them…they were not bought by THE Rangers Football Club Limited..and therefore not won by them…has he bought them and gifted them to someone else?…
Does that mean if he leaves he takes them with him?
So Charlie is not only the fastest 200 metre sprinter in lead boots at his old school…but he was also winning Scottish football league titles on his own…even before he was born…
What a guy….what a PHUD….he has to be the biggest bafoon ever…to be involved in Scottish fitbaw..
The man is walking joke!
campsiejoe @ 17:02
First line should of course read
Would they like to tell us what they want us to apologise for
StevieBC
Think this may be a more accurate reflection on the feelings of the average Scottish football fan.
http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=11921525&t=8748656
StevieBC says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 16:53
Extracted from latest VB post, [won’t post link.]
“If Scotland was to genuinely reflect on it’s treatment of Rangers …”
——
Ha, I’m apologising for NOTHING until VB apologise for that apostrophe.
🙂
blu says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 16:14
Have to agree. Not a criticism of Celtic, but more of a certain type of fan of theirs. They seem to believe that everything that Rangers did was to spite Celtic (thankfully, they are a small minority). Although the creditors that lost out are the real losers, It was the WHOLE of Scottish football that were the victims of this. Celtic certainly lost a lot of income from finishing 2nd on occasion to a side with illegally registered players, a seemingly limitless overdraft, and a bank prepared to fund them whilst they were technically insolvent in return for a seat on the board (not that they were grateful for that, mind).
However, Celtic are of such a size that they could absorb such things, even if they shouldn’t have had to, and come out the other side stronger. Think of Hearts, Hibs, Dundee United, Aberdeen, Kilmarnock etc etc. Queen of the South or Falkirk even. Teams that had a chance of winning trophies, finishing higher up the league etc. Think of the potential income they’ve been denied over the years, and the effect that additional income could have had. Think of Dunfermline, reduced to paying part wages because they were relegated from the SPL, when in fact it should have been a Rangers side who, if normal practices had been applied, wouldn’t have completed the season.
stmiley says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 17:16
Think this may be a more accurate reflection on the feelings of the average Scottish football fan.
http://kerrydalestreet.co.uk/single/?p=11921525&t=8748656
——
Anyone that didn’t follow this link, may I respectfully suggest you do.
An excellent rant, and sums matters up extremely well. Should be forwarded as a press release to all media outlets forthwith.
(I’m even tempted to deploy “Wow, just wow”, and even the horribly pretentious “chapeau”.)
Question…
If they are the same club…why did Charlie have to buy back what must be their own history? shurley?
The man is a Vaudeville gag every night of the week!
areyouaccusingmeofmendacity says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 17:38
0 0 Rate This
blu says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 16:14
Have to agree. Not a criticism of Celtic, but more of a certain type of fan of theirs. They seem to believe that everything that Rangers did was to spite Celtic (thankfully, they are a small minority). Although the creditors that lost out are the real losers, It was the WHOLE of Scottish football that were the victims of this. Celtic certainly lost a lot of income from finishing 2nd on occasion to a side with illegally registered players, a seemingly limitless overdraft, and a bank prepared to fund them whilst they were technically insolvent in return for a seat on the board (not that they were grateful for that, mind).
However, Celtic are of such a size that they could absorb such things, even if they shouldn’t have had to, and come out the other side stronger. Think of Hearts, Hibs, Dundee United, Aberdeen, Kilmarnock etc etc. Queen of the South or Falkirk even. Teams that had a chance of winning trophies, finishing higher up the league etc. Think of the potential income they’ve been denied over the years, and the effect that additional income could have had. Think of Dunfermline, reduced to paying part wages because they were relegated from the SPL, when in fact it should have been a Rangers side who, if normal practices had been applied, wouldn’t have completed the season.
……….
Everything they did, they did because of an insistence of supremacy, particularly over Celtic.
Celtic supporters have ALWAYS been the most vocal against this, for years they pointed out the corruption and collusion within the SFA and SPL with regards to Rangers.
They continuously fought to expose the Succulent Lambers who have helped destroy Scottish football, they were not supported in this by other Clubs supporters to any real extent, but labelled “paranoid” by many. Is it any wonder they feel particularly hard done by?
Have any other support tried as hard to expose the corruption eating away at our game from the inside over the years? They fought on in the face of a hostile Media that took great pleasure in ridiculing Celtic’s “paranoia”? It is only over the last 2 years or so that other fans groups are joining the fight against corruption in large numbers.
paulmac2 says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 17:51
Paulmac2, good point. Also-
Why were they ejected from the SPL?
Why did thay have to transfer their SPL membership (to themselves?!)?
Why did they have to TUPE players (again, to themselves?!)?
Apologies, point 2 in my last post should read “SFA membership”.
paulmac2 says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 17:51
Question…
If they are the same club…why did Charlie have to buy back what must be their own history? shurley?
______________________________________________________________
In fact, the CVA proposal makes no mention of “history”, only the “business and assets”. The “history” point is just made up. Repeated often enough, it becomes a factoid.
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Byta_cvHX5jyNEV5eTFpZVRBaDQ/edit?pli=1
StevieBC says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 16:53
15 0 Rate This
Extracted from latest VB post, [won’t post link.]
=====================================
“…There is a fury within the Rangers support which burns in a
manner akin to napalm – it cannot be extinguished. A fire of
righteous indignation has spread right through the Rangers
support.
If Scotland was to genuinely reflect on it’s treatment of Rangers
over the last few months, it would quickly realise that the club is due a heartfelt apology. Whether such an apology is forthcoming is another matter. If it was, it would go some way to dousing those flames of anger within our support…”
======================================
So, who’s going to apologise first then ?
Perhaps an indication that all the nonsense around TRFC is not
going to dissipate anytime soon.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The VBs are a joke even amongst the Rangers and The Rangers support. Craig Whyte was the answer to their prayers even when everyone else had long since come to agree with the readers of RTC and just about everyone else who told them he was a wrong ‘un.
They rank along side Chris Graham. One shoogly rung above Leggo.
CelticCynic
Also why would an astute businessman like CG try and pay £8.5m for a club when he can get the LOT for £5.5m ,can’t wait for a sevco fan to explain that one to me
ordinaryfan says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 17:56
They continuously fought to expose the Succulent Lambers who have helped destroy Scottish football, they were not supported in this by other Clubs supporters to any real extent, but labelled “paranoid” by many. Is it any wonder they feel particularly hard done by?
Have any other support tried as hard to expose the corruption eating away at our game from the inside over the years? They fought on in the face of a hostile Media that took great pleasure in ridiculing Celtic’s “paranoia”? It is only over the last 2 years or so that other fans groups are joining the fight against corruption in large numbers.
…………………………..
It’s true the hostile media highlighted supposed Celtic ‘paranoia’ to an extent, but I’d suggest it’s unfair to point to other supporters at smaller clubs who, only now to you appear to be taking up weapons against the corrupt system.
Firstly, Celtic has a support outnumbering all the other clubs put together, and accordingly were/are given more media attention.
Secondly, I’d propose that supporters of smaller clubs have often been angered by a bias within the system towards the Ibrox club, given, as examples, the ‘honest mistakes’ by referees which have contributed to the Govan side securing trophies.
Finally, (ready for TDs), these same provincial supporters have noted Celtic getting advantages not always accorded to their own clubs, and to an extent Celtic supporters are refusing to accept that this is the case.
http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/eu-backs-free-to-air-football-right
EU backs free-to-air football right
After 16 months with RTC and 5 months with TSFM – We don`t seem to be attracting the trolls anymore
Discuss
twopanda says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 19:01
0 0 Rate This
After 16 months with RTC and 5 months with TSFM – We don`t
seem to be attracting the trolls anymore
Discuss
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s the season of goodwill? D
That should be 😀
ordinaryfan says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 17:56
Any advantages and appeasement from the SFA and SPL were seen as advantages afforded to “both sides”, which has been proven to be a lie.
Celtic were not labelled paranoid “to an extent”, but practically know as factually paranoid throughout Scotland. Especially according to the Succulent Lambers who spent years perfecting their defence, which was “don’t believe a word Celtic supporters say because they are paranoid and if proof surfaces that RFC are given advantages be assured that Celtic are afforded those same advantages”
………………
I have my own biases as a non-OF supporter and see events differently. To my eyes, Scottish football is overly stacked to an unhealthy degree in favour of the OF both in terms of SFA power, financial reward and media time (and the pro OF media bias).
I don’t discriminate between either of the two but see a collective skew in their favour. I can understand why it happens, but it is frustrating. For example – there is very little point in me signing up to sky as there as so few games with my team playing. It may be an SPL contract, but there is little incentive to sign up. Better to go to the pub for the odd game. Why buy the local newspaper rags when you gave to trawl past pages of “Ally McCoist said this” and “Neil Lennon said that” to find a vague paragraph. It isn’t worth reading the copy and paste pro OF propaganda from a West Coast biased media.
There are also regular bad news days for the team about to play an OF side.
Criticism has been lacking from a media that is too scared to be judgemental on either half for years. They know where their market is, and money talks loud and clear unfortunately.
It is a credit to the non OF supporters who stick by their team. In my opinion, these are the guys that make the league and support their team through thick and thin – Keep the chin up.
jonnyod says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 18:36
CelticCynic
Also why would an astute businessman like CG try and pay £8.5m for a club when he can get the LOT for £5.5m ,can’t wait for a sevco fan to explain that one to me
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remember that, had the CVA been approved at £8.5m, that money was to be in the form of a loan
Paulmac.
The man is walking joke!
_______________________
Sorry Paul, it is Scottish football who are the walking joke, to allow such a notorious Shylock set the agenda for years to come and indeed introduced a lethal virus that IMO will be almost impossible to eradicate.
No, Charles is no joker he is on the cusp of walking away with his fortune made, and will leave a scared football landscape for many years to come, and our three administrative bodies plus nearly all the clubs have remained, on the surface, silent on the matter.
Interesting that Green doesn’t appear to have a great track record of financial wizardry previous to this project. Elsewhere, research has shown a trail of companies he’s been involved with which are no longer trading. Yet, somehow, he seems to have reanimated a corpse, and appears to have a good chance of making some serious bucks out of a marketplace (ie Scottish football) which is on its knees.
God loves a tryer and all that. Apposite that he may make his fortune in the land of Robert the Bruce.
finchleyflyer @ 20:05
He has, to be fair, had quite a lot of help from external parties, such as the SFA/SPL/SFL, MSM etc etc
Campsie, agreed. Part of the point I was trying to make. He’s exploited oppurtunities and made use of historical biases to get where he is. It’s a very imperfect market he’s operating in.
http://www.thefootballlife.co.uk/post/37805447189/what-does-football-need-in-2013
A general “What do we need next year” not involving Rangers at all.
Would like to know what people on here think about Supporters Direct. I’ve been chatting with them a bit and, while they say the right things and are very proactive, a quick look at their site and the facebook fanbase – their support seems to be, oddly, of a Rangers hue. Is there a reason for that or is it simply just coincidence and do people think that their lobbying is representative of what people want on here?
spanishcelt says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 15:30
Just wondering, Who “owns” Third Lanarks trophies?
Honours…
Scottish Cup:
Winners (2): 1888–89, 1904–05
============================================
Ooh as a Hibby, can we buy the 2nd Cup win? 🙂
Richard Wilson (@timomouse) says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 20:38
‘..Would like to know what people on here think about Supporters Direct…’
—-
Frankly, I think SupportersDirect blotted their copybook by being singularly silent about the admittance of Cg’s team into the SFL and SFA membership, and about the five-way agreement.
As a publicly funded body, they ought, in my opinion, to have asked serious questions about the integrity of the authorities, and for a full explanation of ‘conditional’ membership, etc.
They might not have been entitled to the answers, or might have been ready to accept any rationale put forward. Who knows?
But like the MSM, they did not even appear to think that there were questions to be asked.
‘Nul’ points’, in my opinion.
Ownership question : Who owns Charles Green?
cowanpete says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 20:46
No CP. As every hibee knows, you couldn’t even buy a cup win.
Oh come on, if you’re going to give me quality feeder lines like that…!
macbrayne: Got it in one. Just follow (follow) the money.
I am in no way advocating a rapid return to Scottish football’s top flight for any team from sunny Govan … but results in the SPL and cups by CFC … and by a new club’s results in SFL3 … would suggest when given a chance … the “wee diddy teams” would indeed give it their best shot …Would this not lend weight to the argument for bigger leagues ? … As a part time supporter these days (ex season book holder for many a year that attended games both home and away) … one who got disillusioned with playing teams 4 times a season (at least) … you see my reckoning was that against smaller teams we could give youngsters/reserves more first team games … that indeed may backfire occasionally … and smaller teams that found themselves safe some way into the season … may be inclined to open up and have a real go against the bigger teams … and by bigger teams I mean the regulars in the SPL … I also find this season quite interesting in that most teams may start a season thinking … ah well we’ll lose 24 points against 2 Glesga teams … But now that is scaled down to 12pts … and if they can take points at their home grounds that 12 decreases even further … Thus bringing teams more closer … like whot is happening Noo ??? …. Maybees Aye Maybees Naw ??? ….. Hands Up … I for one hated going to games were we played against 10 defenders and a goalie in one half of the pitch … Bored the proverbials aff me !!! … Hope that rant made some sense !
smugas says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 21:34
cowanpete says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 20:46
No CP. As every hibee knows, you couldn’t even buy a cup win…………
_______________
Mock us you if you wish, but there’s more to life than winning trophies – now where did I put my copy of Confucius? I’m sure he had something to say the last time we won the Cup! By the way, has any one noticed how Petriefied the Hibees become when they play at Hampden?
This is the details from the land register for Ibrox as at end-July 2012 (I have had to cut and paste as there is some data that could identify individuals):
Application Number – 12GLA16376
Date of Application – 15/06/2012
Application Status – Confirmed
Consideration – Implementation of Agreement
Title Number – GLA210958
Application Type – First Registration
Parent Title Number – Not Available
Applicant(s) Name and Address – SEVCO SCOTLAND LIMITED, CAPELLA, 60 YORK STREET, GLASGOW G2 8JX
Property address – IBROX STADIUM, EDMINSTON DRIVE, GLASGOW G51 2XD.
Granter(s) Name and Address – RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB PLC
Agent No. – 5907
Deed Type – Disposition
Additional Information – THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB PLC/ SEVCO SCOTLAND LIMITED – pp application not on bops
Afraid that is all we could find and don’t ask me to interpret it. I THINK it means that sevco scotland own Ibrox.
whisperer18 says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 21:46
10 0 Rate This
I am in no way advocating a rapid return to Scottish football’s top flight for any team from sunny Govan … but results in the SPL and cups by CFC … and by a new club’s results in SFL3 … would suggest when given a chance … the “wee diddy teams” would indeed give it their best shot …Would this not lend weight to the argument for bigger leagues ? … As a part time supporter these days (ex season book holder for many a year that attended games both home and away) … one who got disillusioned with playing teams 4 times a season (at least) … you see my reckoning was that against smaller teams we could give youngsters/reserves more first team games … that indeed may backfire occasionally … and smaller teams that found themselves safe some way into the season … may be inclined to open up and have a real go against the bigger teams … and by bigger teams I mean the regulars in the SPL … I also find this season quite interesting in that most teams may start a season thinking … ah well we’ll lose 24 points against 2 Glesga teams … But now that is scaled down to 12pts … and if they can take points at their home grounds that 12 decreases even further … Thus bringing teams more closer … like whot is happening Noo ??? …. Maybees Aye Maybees Naw ??? ….. Hands Up … I for one hated going to games were we played against 10 defenders and a goalie in one half of the pitch … Bored the proverbials aff me !!! … Hope that rant made some sense !
…………..
You could argue that the recent results and performances in games that you refer to, show that the current set up can work, if given the chance to without The Anchor Round Our Necks FC.
Many of us on here are always keen to highlight the thuggish behaviour of fans of a certain club so it seems only fair to point out that unfortunately there are a few neds at all clubs.
http://news.stv.tv/north/205555-police-force-welcomes-banning-orders-on-football-supporters/
At lest these ones have been dealt with and taken off the street for a wee while.
Follow Follow has just e-mailed me with the bargain of the century. For the princely sum of £125, I can make an important contribution to the RST that will allow Charles Green to retire in splendid wealth to his tropical island.
Dingwall and his cohorts are now using the Follow Follow membership list in an effort to drum up business on behalf of Sevco’s chief executive. I was most impressed with Mr Green’s pledge on TV last night that he would personally make up any shortfall in the share issue. In that case I am going to spend my hard earned money on the children this Christmas, knowingly that the club’s future is already assured.
Yeesh. I meant ‘Should have been awarded’.
But that’s missing the original point. To my mind, when Davie Weir made his breathtaking save on the line against Dundee United, it was Dundee United who were the victims (and clearly, Craig Levein thought the same.)
wottpi says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 22:46
Many of us on here are always keen to highlight the thuggish behaviour of fans of a certain club so it seems only fair to point out that unfortunately there are a few neds at all clubs.
http://news.stv.tv/north/205555-police-force-welcomes-banning-orders-on-football-supporters/
At lest these ones have been dealt with and taken off the street for a wee while.
——————————————————————————————————————
A 39yo and a 37yo should know better as well. Pity only one of them was jailed
corsicacharity says:
Wednesday, December 12, 2012 at 22:20
—————————————————————-
That would suggest there could be a rental agreement between Sevco Scotland Limited and The Rangers Football Club Limited
Anybody missing Craigie Boy?
He`s a rascal ……….but more enjoyable than Chuckles
paulmac2: so, not only does Mr Green and and all his we’re-only-in-it-for-the-club, never-heard-of-them wideboys get the benefit (?) from the proceeds of a flotation, sevco gets to charge Green FC rent in perpetuity for the privilege of playing on ‘their’ home ground!
I’m warming to Mr Green!
Ordinaryfan … Point taken …. But to be brutally honest playing each other FOUR times a season is what really finished it for me …. It felt like 2 seasons in one … Same old same old …. Especially when it was a 10 team league …. Nope for me it has got to be at least 16 (preferably 18) …. And I would love summer football …. I remember the tail end of the Lisbon Lions …. And bouncing aboot the jungle ….. Pumping the wee teams … Yeehaa ! … And slipping up against the wee teams … Shit happens ! …. And as a dyed in the wool green n white jock ah absolutely loved (to a certain extent) when the “new firm” were at large ….. It’s a game … It’s meant to be a competition ….. But it sorely lacks competition !
PaulMac
That makes no sense, Sevco Scotland and The Rangers Football Club Ltd are one and the same, no?
Right this blog is for Scottish football …. The point I am trying to make is that in my 52 years on this planet … The top league has been won by mostly 2 Glasgow teams …. With 4 (IIRC) going north ….. When we dropped from 19 to 10 teams we basically put the fear on every other team outside the big 2 ….. You only have to look at last season’s placings compared to today’s to see that any of the other 10 could be pushing hard at the top of the table OR indeed fighting in a relegation position …. We need to take the pressure off the regular SPL members …. Those guys are the ones that provide competition …. If we expand the leagues we give them some breathing space … And hopefully the players that play for those teams might be very very happy to have a real go at winning something …. Rather than have a manager saying … Right “the fastest guy” up front on his own … 9 defenders and a goalie who at every chance are instructed “punt it up the park !” Add another 6 teams and we are on our road to recovery …. Especially now there is only one BIG team to have a go at ….. Ah want to see competition …. Ah can handle my team not winning the league if we are beaten fairly and honestly believe some players currently plying their trade in the SPL would love to have a go if they’re managers/board would allow them ! Rant over … Sweet Dreams await
Ordinaryfan
Borussiabeefburger.
If I may contribute to the discussion on the way the paranoia claim was promoted and used as a first line of defense by msm to protect Rangers and SFA.
I remember listening with mounting anger at the Real Radio phone in back in late 2009 early 2010 when honest mistakes were beginning to multiply and Celtic themselves had asked the SFA to explain some of the decisions that had been made that favoured Rangers.
The DJ a Jambo called Ewan? ?? played The Twilight Zone music as he encouraged callers to phone in then ridicule their paranoia. If those programmes are still available now they would add to the mounting stack of evidence, some like JT joining The Rangers, circumstantial, that there was a concerted effort to use the paranoia charge to deflect any meaningful enquiry at the SFA. On top of on field honest mistakes there were the number if disciplinary decisions including review panel stuff that nearly always went in favour of Rangers.
It was very much with this in mind that an Open Meeting of Celtic supporters put forward a motion of no confidence in the SFA via Celtic that avoided any statement that could be labled paranoid but instead demanded transparency and accountabilty from the SFA as well as changes to the disciplinary process including the Review Panel workings.
Nobody called anybody cheats or asked questions about why Rangers got favour, it was simply an expression of extreme disatisfaction at what was being witnessed (strange one way decisions) backed by the threat of a boycott if changes were not made.
Transparency and accountabilty started to enter the lexicon of debate thereafter and nullified the paranoia defense used to such good effect before then.
To the surprise of the meeting leaders (CST and CSA & others) the SFA conceded quickly on the RP working changes and a year later the necessary Disciplinary process overhaul took place.
It was an example of how the support and a club can work together although having a common aim did help. In the ongoing battle to ensure that the sporting integrity of Scottish football and sporting merit remains paramount supporters and clubs must sign up to that objective.
It is a matter if concern that The Rangers have signed up a communications officer in Jim Traynor whom I have heard and read pour scorn on sporting integrity and how a club with that atttude are allowed to compete in our game is beyond me.
What we need is a statement of intent from the SFA that commits them to governing the game in such a way that sporting merit and integrity will always take precedence over the commercial considerations that have almost destroyed it.
Surely if the SFA have a purpose this has to be No 1 on any kist?