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

TSFMPosted on9:07 pm - Dec 13, 2012


doontheslope says:

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 20:04(Edit)

Ara

Have responded but am modded. Probably my punctuation.
_____________________________________________________

Nope. Strange Spam folder behaviour. Am investigating.

View Comment

Avatar

blackadder2Posted on9:31 pm - Dec 13, 2012


Test

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on9:41 pm - Dec 13, 2012


Two points on LNS.

Firstly the result would be reasonably expected to come out at the end of the enquiry at end January I would assume just when a certain highly charged cup tie is scheduled. Don’t expect the findings any time before or indeed soon after that little affair is over.

Secondly, to pick up on a point I made earlier and 5star’s comment above. If Oldco played a ineligible player(s) then the result is amended to reflect this. In so doing Oldco lose their grasp on their precious titles as their default position is not, I assume, 1st.

Punishment enough I hear some cry? There is form for that particular claim after all. Well, hang on, in playing the ineligible players said club earned undeserved monies, or more importantly from my standpoint, denied my club the opportunity of the same riches. At the same time their default position would presumably, and I stand to be corrected here, have seen them come 12th, thus last and facing the infamous cliff that apparently exists between the SPL and first division. (to be clear my current nightmare is for some clever clogs to work out that every game for their club at 0-3 still sees them pipping mine on goal difference but I digress for comic effect, shirley).

At the same time, it transpires, and I know this for a fact cos the bampots told me, strangely the media don’t seem overly bothered by the point, that never mind the £500 the bearz are charging to the santa account, that I’ve been shelling out £20 a week times… for how many years?, jeez, I don’t even want to do the math.

My point, as before, is simple. Title stripping is consequence, not punishment. The current post-FTT media drive has ‘rent-a-strategist’ written all over it.

View Comment

Avatar

paulsatimPosted on9:48 pm - Dec 13, 2012


smugas says:
Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 21:41

Maybe the affected clubs over the years could start a “class action” against the SFA on behalf of their fans who have been cheated by their mismanagement at best, or worse, their collusion.

View Comment

Avatar

blackadder2Posted on9:50 pm - Dec 13, 2012


i have been away for a while, but feel compelled to comment on the latest work of fiction produced on behalf of Sevco. I will list the points i think would need to be fully investigated by anyone looking to invest,

1. Why have they included the negative goodwill release in the EPS ratio, i thought that exceptional items wouldn’t be included, specifically because the it skews the figures. Included to falsely show that a return can be made.

2. On what basis has the goodwill been valued, this is not clear, as they never acquired it, it is included as an addition.

3. Again the property was valued at 1.5m on acquisition, but it has also been revalued, but with all the caveats already mentioned.

4. Charles Green has indicated big investment managers are involved, but do we now this, is it not simply that these are nominee company who are a front for others.

5. Can anyone explain how finance leases of £1.6m are not debt, as that is what is shown in the management accounts. More lies it would appear.

6. He said that all football debt had been paid, but the opening debts were £2.8m, yet the cashflow only shows £800k being paid out, I assume the other £2m is included in creditors somewhere.

7. I have no idea what long term accruals are, i thought an accrual was an amount which is due but not invoiced at the year end, so how you can have a long term accruals seems odd.

8. Referring back to the goodwill, the notes mention that it is based on the income streams from the brand, but they have used the cashflows from when Sevco were in Europe and SPL, so over inflated i would suggest.

Apologies for some accountant speak, but in conclusion. I think anyone who invests needs their head examined, as they most certainly aren’t going to get a return on their investment.

Finally, i think that one of the reasons the IPO is just now is that once they have to produce audited accounts, Deloitte will certainly not give them the leeway they have been given with the numbers at the moment.

View Comment

Avatar

blackadder2Posted on10:01 pm - Dec 13, 2012


I also find it hard to believe why so many are giving him air time to spout his tosh, and yet not one person will ask him any relevant questions, it is almost as if they are scared to ask searching questions which is shocking in an age when most things are questioned.

View Comment

Avatar

campsiejoePosted on10:23 pm - Dec 13, 2012


blackadder2 @ 22:01

They didn’t question Murray or Whyte, so what makes you think that they will now question Charlie ?
When it comes to RFC(IL) or Sevco, any crap spouted is regurgitated to the masses as the truth, with no questions asked

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on10:29 pm - Dec 13, 2012


blackadder2 says:
Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 21:50

… from when Sevco were in Europe and SPL …
——

Quack Quack Oops!

Otherwise, an excellent post, blackadder. 🙂

And yes, it is thoroughly amazing that no-one has collared the man and asked the very relevant questions that are raised on here and elsewhere.

View Comment

jean7brodie

jean7brodiePosted on10:31 pm - Dec 13, 2012


smugas says:
Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 21:41

‘Title stripping is consequence, not punishment.’

Excellent point again.Just remembered the post about the burglar who gets caught coming out of house with with loot. The bag of stolen goods being removed by police is the consequence. The punishment in court is the next step.

View Comment

Avatar

borussiabeefburgPosted on10:31 pm - Dec 13, 2012


“I am sure there are plenty of other clubs which, if they were faced with the same situation, would have folded,” says Big Marv, today on official Ibrox site.

Now, I may be wrong, but I thought Rangers had ‘folded’.

This would be the same Big Marv who decided not to join Dundee United earlier in his career “on religious grounds”.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/scot_prem/3170951.stm

Was this the starting point of the Rangers/Tannadice hate-fest? 😉

View Comment

Avatar

campsiejoePosted on10:41 pm - Dec 13, 2012


borussiabeefburg @ 22:31

They will go to any lengths and say anything to cement the myth that the “club” escaped unscathed from admin and liquidation

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on10:44 pm - Dec 13, 2012


smugas says:

Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 21:41

One of CG’s myths is that the LNS enquiry is a witch hunt and it is one of the reasons for concern about allowing an uncorrected club to compete in our game at any level.

It is not a witch hunt, it is an enquiry to see if Rangers followed rules that have fair play as an underlying principle. Its not about revenge it is about looking into whether OTHER CLUBS lost out by Rangers using ebts to (according to FTT evidence) gain a sporting advantage and then did not record the full remuneration a player was receiving with the SFA in order to ensure the sporting advantage ebts were designed to deliver did just that.

That is not a witch hunt it is the other self respecting clubs saying we will not be cheated and want to know if we were. If it were Celtic in the dock I would expect exactly the same response from all the same clubs.

There is something about the Rangers pysche that appears terrified of admitting wrong doing. It is perplexing to any non Rangers supporting observor and yet if Rangers were to say yup we broke the rules to gain an advantage and are sorry, what a difference that would make to the whole unfolding scenario.

It seems however that confession and contrition just do not feature, which is a pity as that would lead to absolution. However if you are brought up not to be forgiving to yourself and so deny wrong, how can you believe others would be ready to forgive you?.

The cry here is

a) stop lying to us

but more important

b) stop lying to yourselves.

View Comment

Avatar

paulsatimPosted on10:59 pm - Dec 13, 2012


From RST via poster on CM

RST — Roll Up Roll Up Invest In RST
What does a BuyRangers share get you?

on Thursday, 13 December 2012. Posted in Latest

A £125 investment buys you 1 community share in the Rangers Supporters Society. (The legal name for the RST) The RST in turn uses your investment and that of all other investors to make a block purchase of shares from Rangers.

The RST then owns the shares. As the RST is owned by its members, you as a member are a part owner of all the shares purchased and have a say in how we as supporters use our collective voice in the club. Whether you invest £125 or £20,000, you have the same voice as it is operated on a 1 member 1 vote basis.

Just to make clear, the share you purchase from the RST is not a share in Rangers Football Club International, it is a share in a Community Benefit Society. All monies collected by the RST will be used to purchase shares in the club.

All monies received by BuyRangers will be used to purchase shares in Rangers. The costs of the scheme are covered by the annual membership fee each member pays.

Contrary to some malicious rumours in circulation, this an FSA approved scheme backed by the Government, UEFA, and Supporters Direct. The scheme has been developed in conjunction with Cobbetts, our solicitors and all monies will be held in escrow by them until shares are purchased.

This is a real opportunity for the support to acquire a significant voice in the running of the club and obtain effective representation for the first time in our 140 year history.

If anybody has any questions at all regarding the BuyRangers campaign, please ask our campaign team

View Comment

Avatar

Flocculent ApoideaPosted on11:17 pm - Dec 13, 2012


One member one vote in an organisation owning shares in the club that give no voting rights? Great!

View Comment

Avatar

Dave BPosted on11:30 pm - Dec 13, 2012


Sorry if I missed it but has HMRC’s appeal re the FTTT been allowed?

View Comment

Avatar

Billy BoycePosted on11:47 pm - Dec 13, 2012


john clarke says:
Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 20:45

Nothing in for me from GOC Commanding. Feeling a bit neglected!
—————————————————————————————–

And I’m still waiting on Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Defence, to reply to me.

However, I noticed that earlier today a poster on one of the Celtic messageboards had a response from the MOD answering pretty well the same questions I asked of the Minister, namely:

In relation to the “poppy day” celebrations at ibrox…
· 349 servicemen from regular armed forces
· They were on stand down and attended on a volunteer basis
· 37 from Reserve forces, they were on duty and paid during attendance
· It is not possible to say how much it cost
· The big gun was officially sanctioned by the commanding officer of the 105 regiment of royal artillery (volunteers)
· The cost of the gun, the transport to and from ibrox of the gun and blank ammunition was met by the MOD budget

View Comment

Avatar

ordinaryfanPosted on11:51 pm - Dec 13, 2012


Why are we even having an independent investigation by LNS? Are the SFA not capable of understanding and abiding by their own rules? Improperly registered players = void games, simple as that.
Fear, fear and more fear. How can anyone have any faith or trust in men who are too scared to simply do the jobs they are being paid to do?
If they are scared, which is obviously the case, why not say so and tell us why and who of, then contact the Police and tell them. If they are too scared to do that, then leave the job to people who are capable of fulfilling the roles they are being paid to carry out.
We all just accept unheard of situations like this and get on with it. Why?

View Comment

Avatar

goosyPosted on11:55 pm - Dec 13, 2012


paulsatim says:
Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 22:59
From RST
“Just to make clear, the share you purchase from the RST is not a share in Rangers Football Club International, it is a share in a Community Benefit Society. All monies collected by the RST will be used to purchase shares in the club.”
………..

Not true

It appears the RST don`t understand company law or how the stock market operates

It is not possible for anyone to purchase shares in “the club” if by “club” the RST mean “TRFC”

Because

TRFC is a private limited co which is not listed on any Stock Exchange and therefore does not sell shares to the public
If, by “club” the RST mean “Rangers International Football Club plc” then they are still NOT buying shares in TRFC
All they are doing is buying shares in a Group Holding Co called RIFC which happens to own TRFC at this point in time
Just like Murray International Metals and later Wavetower ( now Rangers FC Group) once owned RFC
Any money used by the RST to buy shares in RIFC will NOT give ownership of a single share in TRFC nor will it confer any influence whatsoever since the majority voting structure is firmly under the control of the Spivs
Minty tried to sell shares in RFC and only got 10% of what he was seeking
Can you imagine how much he would have raised if he was asking Bears to invest in the Group Holding co for RFC i.e……….Murray international Metals?
,,,,,,,,,,

Hey
Why should I be bothered?

If that`s what the Gullible want to do

Who cares?
Not me
And probably not fans of other clubs

View Comment

Avatar

john clarkePosted on12:37 am - Dec 14, 2012


My normal routine was disrupted today, so I only got to read yesterday’s ‘Scotsman’ about half an hour ago.
There is a brilliant piece by Tom English.
I’ve spent the last ten minutes scrolling back but don’t see any reference to it on the blog, surprisingly ( and I’ve checked my glasses for wallpaper bloody paste. See home decoration! see feckin Homebase! and even more feckin B&feckin Q! see wives and the run-up to Christmas…!)

So, here is the link to his article.
It is entertaining, and fairly courageous.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sport/football/tom-english-2012-the-crazy-year-of-rangers-1-2688909

View Comment

Avatar

Humble PiePosted on1:59 am - Dec 14, 2012


Call me pedantic, but whilst it is certainly well-written and makes entertaining reading, I am not sure you could call Mr English’s article even ‘fairly courageous’. Courage requires that you speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Rangers are dead, this new club in SFL3 calling itself The Rangers FC could be more aptly called ‘Son of Rangers’ or somesuch. Instead English refers to them simply as ‘Rangers’ and infers that they are still the same club by referring to ‘..what has happened and what is continuing to happen at Rangers.’

This obvious conflagration of two seperate teams by the mainstream media is poor reporting and is likely to cost a good number of my fellow citizens a great deal of money in this time of austerity.
The key to selling these shares in RIFC to the gullible or the willfully ignorant is maintaining the ‘common misperception’ that Rangers (1872 model) are not dead and that potential investors in Green’s IPO are making an ’emotional investment’ in their club, when in fact RIFC is no more than a holding company (albeit one that ‘currently’ owns TRFC).

Mr English and his supposedly ‘journalistic’ colleagues have been ‘at it’ all month.
One of the most blatant examples was from earlier this week “Those of us, including Charles Green, who initially concluded administration and liquidation of the old holding company resulted in the formation of a new club Rangers have been forced to rethink perspectives.” Gary Ralston, Daily Record. Even ‘commercial channel’ STV gave a free 5 minute advertisment for this share issue, where the interviewer allowed free reign to Mr Green to conflate these two clubs without challenging any of his deluded assertions. This reminded me of one of those cable chanel ‘advertising features’ selling some useless skin-care product as a ‘scientific breakthrough’ using actors to ask leading questions to allow the product to be the focus of the commercial.

Look, I believe that everyone has the right to decide for themselves what they think, what they do and what they buy, that’s none of my business. My concern is the mainstream media’s use of lies and misinformation to force their ‘opinions’ on the minds of the hard of thinking. Journalists have a duty to inform not to manipulate. Tell the truth, then let the customer decide.

In my humble opinion, ‘The Rangers’ share issue is nothing more than a confidence trick. Investing your hard-earned cash to prop-up a dead club with the uncertain promise of potential future ‘profits’ emanating from the cold cadaver of the ‘Rangers’ brand makes neither financial nor logical sense. Encouraging the obviously deluded to make an emotional investment in this fantasy (especially during the Christmas period) is just taking advantage of the ‘financially naive’. Both STV and the Daily Record should be ashamed of themselves.

The simple truth is that ‘Rangers’ as we all knew them are dead and no amount of claimed ‘world record attendances’ or rhetorical poppycock can change that. Make no mistake about it, the SFL3 team calling themselves ‘The Rangers’ currently playing in blue at Ibrox is an entirely new club, formed barely 6 months ago.

As Spike Milligan brilliantly observed, “Just because a cat has kittens in an oven, that doesn’t make them biscuits”

Caveat Emptor – Invest at your peril.

View Comment

StevieBC

StevieBCPosted on2:07 am - Dec 14, 2012


john clarke says:
Friday, December 14, 2012 at 00:37

My normal routine was disrupted today, so I only got to read yesterday’s ‘Scotsman’ about half an hour ago.
There is a brilliant piece by Tom English…
===================================

Well spotted jc: can’t believe we all missed that piece.

I have had varying views about Mr. English’s output in recent months, but that deserves a ;

Wow just Wow !

My personal favourite;

“…10. Ally McCoist reacts to the transfer embargo by demanding to know the identities of the judicial panel that handed down the verdict, despite his club agreeing that their identities should remain private for fear of reprisals, which came soon enough when the three-man panel was named. “Make no mistake about it,” said the Rangers manager. “This panel is not totally to blame for the death of our football club if it happens, but this particular decision could kill our football club.” Not McCoist’s finest hour…”

From some of the terminology and content in his ‘Top 20’ I also got the impression that Tom may occasionally peruse this site – which is no bad thing !

Well done Tom for telling it straight…but think you maybe off some bears Christmas card list now… 🙄

View Comment

Avatar

Humble PiePosted on2:31 am - Dec 14, 2012


Oh ! and surely Mr Custard the bluenose clown debacle was worthy of a mention.

View Comment

Avatar

iceman63Posted on5:37 am - Dec 14, 2012


The share issue is a ludicrous scam. They are selling non-voting shares in a company which is not Rangers football club – nor even The Rangers Football Club – on the basis of a bogus prospectus. Anyone who throws away a penny on that deserves all that is coming, frankly.

Where will that money actually go? It won’t be a big pot of pennies for players T’Rangers can’t buy; it won’t be to fix up the stadium, and build super pubs; it might be to pay the continuing running costs of the club – but there are absolutely no guarantees there either. Why would they do that with the money: it is not a profitable business at present and unlikely to be made into one in any foreseeable future?

As for the longer term survival of The Rangers – none of us can say for certain. They have a business model operating at an annual loss of around 12 million a year for at least the next two years and no obvious plan that does not involve a reckless punt on European football to break even or make cash thereafter – so the institutional investors are presumably satisfied that they have the physical assets of the club as sufficient asset to cover their investment.

I certainly expect the institutions which presumably willl control RIFC to sell off TRFC at some point to gain some kind of return on their investment ( and what have they actually paid for their 17 mill worth of shares – I would reckon the 5.5 mill borrowed by Chuckie for the club myself – His profit will be the fans’ cash).The new investors will then divest the club (TRFC aka SEVCO) to whoever is willing to pay – be that the cardigan or DK or ASDA or TESCO – they give not one jot – and wind up RIFC – some new owner will have the club – or if more pennies are offered solely for the assets then some real estate – Chuckie pockets the fans’ cash: and the mug fans get squat basically.

No Rangers fan should be supporting this new club – they are not Rangers but a cynical bunch of asset strippers feeding off the corpse of the dead club and cynically selling back nothing. Every penny any Rangers fan puts into this will not secure their club’s future ( that club is deceased) nor even the newclub’s future ( that is uncertain and the way this prospectus has been drawn up leaves it entirely open to liquidation, sale on, cherry picking or whatever machinations will provide a few bawbees for the gangsters who run it).

When it all goes belly up – as it must – the blame will lie once again in Ibrox, not Peter lawwell, nor the SFA, nor whatever conspiracy of Rangers haters are flavour of – the ones to blame for this fiasco willl be the Spivs who duped the Rangers’ fans cynically through their desire to see their club “survive”. This has been cruelly used to scam the last pennies from their pockets, through waves of irrational anger and vengeance.

I would like to feel sorry for them , but the emotional heartstrings that have been used to get them on board would not work on decent, balanced individuals. It is their sense of entitlement, supremacy, and contempt for all others which has been used here to fleece them – and those whose emotional investment is bound up in such hostile and ugly emotions are probably not individuals on whom one should waste any sympathy at all. Notwithstanding it is still an outrage perpetrated on “ordinary” fans by cynical “businessmen”

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on6:24 am - Dec 14, 2012


iceman63 says:
Friday, December 14, 2012 at 05:37
3 0 Rate This

The share issue is a ludicrous scam …
———-

That’s a rather doom-laden piece iceman. I did notice Barca here recently painting a less gloomy picture of the financial prospects for that new club. Though if it does become a grab-the-money-and-run situtation wouldn’t there be a few bona fide investors who’d be less than pleased? Is your theory that only the select few will sell up, make their profit, and perhaps claim SFA or SPL interference led to a lack of investor confidence? I suppose blame could be apportioned elsewhere if you’ve had a handy, on-going war of words with the authorities.

It maybe comes down to whether you believe the current owner is a shrewd businessman or a get-rich-quick fantasist?

View Comment

Avatar

torrejohnbhoyPosted on6:26 am - Dec 14, 2012


Someone gets it:

https://twitter.com/Broxibear9/status/279326269970186240/photo/1

View Comment

Avatar

Lord WobblyPosted on6:45 am - Dec 14, 2012


john clarke says:
Friday, December 14, 2012 at 00:37
7 1 Rate This
My normal routine was disrupted today, so I only got to read
yesterday’s ‘Scotsman’ about half an hour ago.
There is a brilliant piece by Tom English.
I’ve spent the last ten minutes scrolling back but don’t see any
reference to it on the blog, surprisingly ( and I’ve checked my
glasses for wallpaper bloody paste. See home decoration! see
feckin Homebase! and even more feckin B&feckin Q! see wives
and the run-up to Christmas…!)
So, here is the link to his article.
It is entertaining, and fairly courageous.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sport/football/tom-
english-2012-the-crazy-year-of-rangers-1-2688909

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Shirley 2012 was a crazy six months for Rangers? It wasn’t around for the second half the year.

Of course The Rangers has begun its existence in a similarly bizarre fashion, albeit in the fourth division.

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on7:14 am - Dec 14, 2012


john clarke says:
Friday, December 14, 2012 at 00:37
8 1 Rate This

So, here is the link to his article.
It is entertaining, and fairly courageous.

http://www.scotsman.com/the-scotsman/sport/football/tom-english-2012-the-crazy-year-of-rangers-1-2688909
———–

Thanks for the link JC. Posted late by TE, judging by a few typos in the text. He seems to have decided that the life of a tightrope walker ain’t for him. He’s recently penned unflattering pieces that critique both sides of the Glasgiw divide, for quite different reasons. A welcome break with tradition. The comments after this latest piece are also very readable.

View Comment

Avatar

iceman63Posted on7:22 am - Dec 14, 2012


Iiceman63 says:
Friday, December 14, 2012 at 05:37
3 0 Rate This

The share issue is a ludicrous scam …
———-

That’s a rather doom-laden piece iceman. I did notice Barca here recently painting a less gloomy picture of the financial prospects for that new club. Though if it does become a grab-the-money-and-run situtation wouldn’t there be a few bona fide investors who’d be less than pleased? Is your theory that only the select few will sell up, make their profit, and perhaps claim SFA or SPL interference led to a lack of investor confidence? I suppose blame could be apportioned elsewhere if you’ve had a handy, on-going war of words with the authorities.

It maybe comes down to whether you believe the current owner is a shrewd businessman or a get-rich-quick fantasist?

___________________________________
I have looked at the running costs and income streams based upon the projections in the prospectus – income at 12.4 mill running costs 24 mill – and don’t see how the gap is bridged – no banking facilities either. The institutions clearly have some angle to make money – presumably the asset value of Ibrox and Murray Park – the business model as a football club even on their own figures does not add up.

Moreover, the issue is sold in such a way that the TRFC remains a wholly owned private company and the RIFC is a holding company which owns it – seems to me to be set up specifically to sell the club on. We don’t know how much cash these institurions have paid for their “17 million” worth of shares – I am guessing considerably less than that. I am satisfied that TRFC own the stadium and Murray park – or no institutions would buy at all. A lot of shares have been distributed already, presumably at cut price.

For anyone to buy them at 70p in madness frankly.

This share issue is not a cash injection for the club – the spivs see some mileage in it and have persuaded some institutions to take a punt.

There may be someone who can make money out of running it as a football club – a genius in my book – but it would need to be on a different model and I can’t see where that comes from. Cutting costs is certainly possible but it would alienate the fans and lead to reduced income and a vicious cycle of rapid decline – possibly with the promotions stalling at SPL 2 – there are no obvious large untapped income streams to tap.

It is tough enough to make an SPL team survive – a club with the expenses of TRFC in any other league must lose money. It needs someone with deep pockets to sustain them – and by the time they get into the SPL that would need to be around 30 million of input – I don’t see any return on the football club, hence the holding company which can sell on the assets. Short of a rich billionaire coming in or some brave investors willing to take a long term hit for some even longer term highly dubious reward I can’t see it stacking up – the moment the SPL clubs voted to scupper Donkey’s plans to have them in the SPL the whole project was in serious trouble.

If the cardigan or other “Rangers” people buy the club then at least 30 million would be needed in outside investment to make the club competitive with Celtic in the SPL. I guess some kind of leaseback could happen to reduce the initial outlay but the rental would encumber the club further.there is no prospect here of a debt-free Rangers in the SPL in three years – some believe this but I don’t see how: I just don’t see it as viable given the lack of such investors to date.

If The Rangers survive at all I will be very impressed: if they ever get back to the stature and dominance of their predecessor club I will be utterly amazed!

View Comment

Avatar

Danish PastryPosted on8:06 am - Dec 14, 2012


iceman63 says:
Friday, December 14, 2012 at 07:22
0 0 Rate This

… Short of a rich billionaire coming in or some brave investors willing to take a long term hit for some even longer term highly dubious reward I can’t see it stacking up …
———–

Interesting stuff from you in these early hours ice. No, it does not seem to stack up, as you say.

If we were to take Green at face value what he has got going for him is the loyalty of defiance from fans who will put their money down for season tickets, if nothing else, even if the fitba is not up to scratch. And there may well be those brave investors who have an emotional attachment. His trump card though, seems to be the concept that he’s bought a piece of some new Klondyke in the form of a share in the next generation of Euro leagues and TV revenue. It’s not a far-fetched idea, though it is still just an idea. To me, football clubs have never really been about making money, I see them as community projects supported by changing benefactors whose reward is not financial. I share your scepticism about the long term, perhaps Green does too, and that’s why he wants out sooner rather than later?

View Comment

Avatar

briggsbhoyPosted on8:22 am - Dec 14, 2012


Re: Mike Ashley

Did someone not previously highlight a good while back when his name was first mentioned that there may be a conflict of interest if Mr Ashley invested in The Rangers. It was likely rubbished and I missed any reply but just in case I didn’t what about the fact he would have an interest in two clubs albeit in different Associations. What if he still had dual involvement and the two teams met in European competition!

Are there rules against this that are being overlooked, not for a moment am I suggesting that would ever happen in The Rangers case 🙂

View Comment

Tartawulver

TartawulverPosted on8:32 am - Dec 14, 2012


Page 10 of the prospectus says

“should the Company receive funds from the Offer, the Directors have identified other potential investments that would go beyond the Group’s strategy in the next 12 months, but which could further enhance revenue opportunities”

and

“Additionally, cash could also be used to provide the Directors with additional flexibility to opportunistically consider appropriate investment opportunities as and when they arise”

Essentially, these seem to give the recipients of the cash carte blanche to spend the money they raise on whatever they like. The way it is worded, presumably the ‘investment opportunities’ could be getting in at the start of the world’s next leading mega company, but then again it could be punting half the cash on Laughing Boy at 200-1 in the 4.40 at Doncaster. But seriously, if they did, could anyone complain? The prospectus clearly states that the owners of the company have the flexibility to do whatever they consider appropriate with the cash, whenever they consider it appropriate. And that covers a LOT of ground.

Apologies if this has been done to death in earlier posts and I just missed it.

View Comment

Avatar

tomtomPosted on9:09 am - Dec 14, 2012


TW (@tartanwulver) says:
Friday, December 14, 2012 at 08:32

Page 10 of the prospectus says

“should the Company receive funds from the Offer, the Directors have identified other potential investments that would go beyond the Group’s strategy in the next 12 months, but which could further enhance revenue opportunities”
=================

Missed that bit.

At a time when all sensible businesses are divesting of non-core operations they are looking to add to their empire. A wise man advised me years ago, “eat in restaurants and sleep in hotels, not the other way round” Generally businesses that stray from their day to day activities end up losing a lot of money.

I can’t believe that any institutional investor would back this horse unless there is some serious discounting going on behind the scenes. Max Bialystock is alive and well.

View Comment

Avatar

aramintamoobeamqcPosted on9:24 am - Dec 14, 2012


@tomtomaswell

“I can’t believe that any institutional investor would back this horse unless there is some serious discounting going on behind the scenes. Max Bialystock is alive and well.”

Glad I’m not the only one who has noticed the similarity between Chas Green and M.B.

I can well foresee Green in another ‘big hoose’ , selling shares in a holding company like ‘The Barlinnie International PLC 2014″ to lags and warders.

Prisoners of love, blue skies above…

View Comment

AllyJambo

AllyJamboPosted on9:40 am - Dec 14, 2012


TW (@tartanwulver) says:

Friday, December 14, 2012 at 08:32

tomtomaswell says:

Friday, December 14, 2012 at 09:09

___________________________________

Whatifery moment, please forgive me 😉

The TRFC supporters are clearly being asked (emotionally coerced?) into buying shares in a holding company, RIFC. All the money raised is going into the coffers of this holding company, to be spent wisely, to make a profit, by men not necessarily in the least bit interested in the fortunes of TRFC. There appears to be no binding statement in the prospectus that the money raised will be for the sole benefit of the football club, indeed, in a carefully worded statement, they make it muddily clear that football may (will?) not be their main investment interest. Could this be the way Green and his associates get their money out of Rangers? Add together his apparent interest in opening pubs and clubs with the word ‘International’ in the new company name, could his plans involve opening a string of pubs and clubs across the globe in far more celebrated areas than Ibrox and Govan? I suspect a lot of the money raised by Rangers International Football Club could find it’s way into many an offshore business or trust: trully International, in fact 😉 In fact it was offshore trusts that got Rangers into this whole mess in the first place. Isn’t there something about history repeating itself?

View Comment

Avatar

tomtomPosted on9:59 am - Dec 14, 2012


Is diversification not what got Hibs into trouble a few years back.

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on10:01 am - Dec 14, 2012


Interesting re the Broxi bear twitter – that they catch onto the questionable voting rights bit within the RST, but singularly, whether deliberately or fearfully, fail to mention that a/ that RST would not be investing in “Rangers” at all but rather a holding company, and b/ that even ignoring that fact, that their representative would have no voting right in any case.

Apparently being mindfull of repercussions is not the sole property of the bampots.

View Comment

Avatar

Sugar DaddyPosted on10:29 am - Dec 14, 2012


Iceman63 05.37

I agree with your analysis that the structure of the RIFC share issue & the wording of the prospectus does give directors flexibility to do what they want with the money.

The presence of institutional investors, assuming they are not acting for individuals, suggests there is more to this than just a quick dash for cash and on to sunnier shores.

The exit strategy, in order not have the worst elements of TRFC fan base playing with matches around your newly acquired beachfront property, might need to be slower.

I therefore think that a drip feeding of cash into TRFC until they are one step from the top division to keep Bears onside prior to a sale of the club, with a lease deal on Ibrox & MP, to some willing Cardigans is the safest route. Once back in top division for a couple of years easier to sell stadium to whoever owns the team franchise.

The flaw in this plan is the amount of cash required to keep this ship of Theseus afloat until a buyer is found. So perhaps Walter’s consortium is already talking to Chuckles.

Asset strippers always have their exit carefully planned. In this case I suspect it’s…

Quietly walking away.

View Comment

Avatar

jimlarkinPosted on10:31 am - Dec 14, 2012


john clarke says:
Friday, December 14, 2012 at 00:37

My normal routine was disrupted today, so I only got to read yesterday’s ‘Scotsman’ about half an hour ago.
There is a brilliant piece by Tom English…
===================================

Well spotted jc: can’t believe we all missed that piece.

I have had varying views about Mr. English’s output in recent months, but that deserves a ;

Wow just Wow !

My personal favourite;

“…10. Ally McCoist reacts to the transfer embargo by demanding to know the identities of the judicial panel that handed down the verdict, despite his club agreeing that their identities should remain private for fear of reprisals, which came soon enough when the three-man panel was named. “Make no mistake about it,” said the Rangers manager. “This panel is not totally to blame for the death of our football club if it happens, but this particular decision could kill our football club.” Not McCoist’s finest hour…”

From some of the terminology and content in his ‘Top 20′ I also got the impression that Tom may occasionally peruse this site – which is no bad thing !

Well done Tom for telling it straight…but think you maybe off some bears Christmas card list now…

———————————————————————————————————————–

would it not have been more accurate if tom english had quoted chucles, as well as bomber and alistair ?

if he had quoted green telling the fans (it was actually in the cva)
if hmrc don’t agree to the cva, that will be the end of rangers.

…green later changed his tune

why is dave king saying, if the cva fails, and we go down the newco route, rangers history ends and that’s it, rangers are dead.

why would a trye rangers fan say that?

View Comment

Avatar

RiddriePosted on10:36 am - Dec 14, 2012


Humble Pie says:
Friday, December 14, 2012 at 01:59

I agree with everything you say, but The Zombies won’t.

And that’s all that matters.

The aggressive, thuggish stance of the peepil since Rangers went into liquidation will come back to bite them, and its what they deserve.

Chazza’s share offer could be the final nail in The Zombies coffin.

View Comment

Avatar

whispererPosted on10:43 am - Dec 14, 2012


Briggsbhoy …. Sorry pal but I nearly ruptured ma sides there ……… “What if he still had dual involvement and the two teams met in European competition!”

View Comment

Avatar

Night TerrorPosted on10:47 am - Dec 14, 2012


campsiejoe says:
Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 22:23

blackadder2 @ 22:01

They didn’t question Murray or Whyte, so what makes you think that they will now question Charlie ?
When it comes to RFC(IL) or Sevco, any crap spouted is regurgitated to the masses as the truth, with no questions asked

That’s not quite the whole story though, is it?

Any observation of the financial activities in Scottish football, English football, and the whole econoimy with particular focus on the banks, suggests that the opportunities to question are as limited as the competence of the questioner.

These are not easy “was it offside or not” questions, and I’ve seen little evidence that any mainstream journalist has the opportunity and/or ability to pursue an answer to an important question of someone in a position of importance. There are just too many ways for the interviewee to obfuscate and not enough time for the interviewer to pin them down on any issue if they actively want to avoid giving a straight question.

Everything is PR these days, with spokesmen employed to run down the clock on the press’s time and patience. If we suckers ever find out the truth and get to hold anyone to account, it is retrospectively when everyone is desperate to move on.

So, reserve your particular ire for Mr Green and amplify it for the general acceptance of this being the way business is done.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on10:49 am - Dec 14, 2012


The prospectus paints a rosy future for The Rangers in terms of eventually playing in Europe.

When watching Celtic play Arbroath both time I was impressed by the standard of Arbroath’ play and thought that if it is replicated throughout their division promotion of The Rangers is no certain matter without further investment in better and so higher paid players.

Another paranoid thought entered my head that if those in charge thought the best thing for Scottish football was a quick return to the top and any had shares in The Rangers then The Rangers might get by with a little help from their friends.

Would it not be reassuring if SFA made it mandatory for anyone involved in committees to declare share holdings in the interests of transparency to make sure no committees or groups became overloaded with members from any particular club?

View Comment

Avatar

whispererPosted on10:52 am - Dec 14, 2012


Ah seriously doubt there will be any substantial investment coming from fans …. They didn’t dig deep when Murray was in need ….. And I do wonder how the not so pleasant element will react towards the MSM for going along with this scam ……. OR … Maybe there is indeed a plan/agreement between CG & Co with Walter & DK whereby some of DK’s dirty dosh is being laundered to the benefit of RFC ? ? ……… The silence from certain bluenoses is deafening !

View Comment

Avatar

coineanachantaighePosted on10:55 am - Dec 14, 2012


Humble Pie says:
Friday, December 14, 2012 at 01:59
————————————————-

I think you make a good point about what can be pretty much described as free advertising for the Sevco product.

And the same thing happened at the start of the season let us remember the free advertising for Sevco season tickets even with cut-out forms. How many clubs got this benefit? Just one.

This share issue thing is even more disgusting because there are so many flaws in it and it looks like fans who buy in are getting shares in nothing, not even (even if financially worthless which they might accept, a share in their club).

It’s one thing for the MSM to encourage sales of tickets, at least the fans get to see the games. But to refuse to give an honest and fair appraisal of the share issue and on top of that actually – in effect – work as promoters for the issue, is almost criminal. It’s certainly morally bankrupt.

View Comment

Avatar

iamacantPosted on10:59 am - Dec 14, 2012


Has the charity been paid yet ? You know, the one that TRFC were donating £5000 of the Elgin £25000 fine to for the postponed match.

View Comment

Avatar

coineanachantaighePosted on11:00 am - Dec 14, 2012


mble Pie says:
Friday, December 14, 2012 at 01:59
————————————————-

I think you make a good point about what can be pretty much described as free advertising for the Sevco product.

And the same thing happened at the start of the season let us remember the free advertising for Sevco season tickets even with cut-out forms. How many clubs got this benefit? Just one.

This share issue thing is even more disgusting because there are so many flaws in it and it looks like fans who buy in are getting shares in nothing, not even (even if financially worthless which they might accept, a share in their club).

It’s one thing for the MSM to encourage sales of tickets, at least the fans get to see the games. But to refuse to give an honest and fair appraisal of the share issue and on top of that actually – in effect – work as promoters for the issue, is almost criminal. It’s certainly morally bankrupt.

View Comment

Avatar

coineanachantaighePosted on11:07 am - Dec 14, 2012


I really thought my post had been lost in the ether, any chance of a delete option TSFM? And edit function too. I’d be willing to contribute more to your fund if that was needed

View Comment

Avatar

TSFMPosted on11:21 am - Dec 14, 2012


monsieurbunny says:

Friday, December 14, 2012 at 11:07(Edit)
I really thought my post had been lost in the ether, any chance of a delete option TSFM? And edit function too. I’d be willing to contribute more to your fund if that was needed
__________________________________________________________________

An excellent suggestion and that one of the improvements we will be looking into after the new year. There is no capability afaik with wordpress.com, but the self hosted version, wordpress.org has plugins available to do that. The vBulletin format, which I am also looking at, allows users to self edit as well.

The current setup may allow self editing, but it would require registration with the TSFM as a contributor (currently you only need to be registered with wordpress/facebook.twitter). We can look into that in the meantime, but I don’t think people would be keen to go down that route.

View Comment

Avatar

coineanachantaighePosted on11:41 am - Dec 14, 2012


Thanks for the quick response TSFM. Have donated a fiver to show my appreciation (not saying in what currency, it might be in shares for a certain holding company).

View Comment

Avatar

paulmac2Posted on11:50 am - Dec 14, 2012


iceman63 says:
Friday, December 14, 2012 at 07:22
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There has been a heavily structured effort to convey the financial health of the new club…and an even bigger effort to portray a cause of ‘they’re aw against us…rally round and give us yer cash’

Throw in the MSM’s continued effort to keep them relevant to the SPL with story after story of Charlie throwing the odd grenade in to keep them associated and relevant to the SPL in one shape or another..then the result is what we see now!

Once this honey moon period has dried…and believe me Charlie and the media will make every effort to keep it running…the siege mentality will drop…the enthusiasm will diminish and subsequently the numbers will reflect this…

The rush to get a share floatation out now IMO is to avoid a floatation with audited (don’t laugh) accounts…

View Comment

Avatar

NawlitePosted on11:57 am - Dec 14, 2012


Aren’t honeymoons supposed to be fun?!?!

View Comment

Avatar

cowanpetePosted on12:07 pm - Dec 14, 2012


tomtomaswell says:

Is diversification not what got Hibs into trouble a few years back.

Well yes, that and a string of useless managers apres John Collins…
I’m a Hibby, I’m allowed to say that 🙂

View Comment

Avatar

SmugasPosted on12:07 pm - Dec 14, 2012


paulmac2 says:
Friday, December 14, 2012 at 11:50

I see your “implied SPL relevance” and I raise you my Graham Spriers

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/spiers-on-sport-do-old-firm-fans-hate-each-other-more-than-ever.1355247939

View Comment

Avatar

zendavistaPosted on12:12 pm - Dec 14, 2012


I dont exspect any goodwill to these remarks but I have been reading these blogs for almost 9 months now and what has struck me is that their is so much involvement and disection in to what is happerning in Scottish football,but the truth is that unless you can get these valid arguements into the MSM nothining is going to change,Its a travesty that the SFA SPL and SFL have blatently refused to address the obvious breaches of their own charter. I can only believe that a push by all contributors to said associations may get their notice. As an aside I am a West Ham supporter born and bred but believe that football has become a buisness mans plaything to do as he wants and stuff the fans not only in Scotland !!

View Comment

ismellafix

ismellafixPosted on12:18 pm - Dec 14, 2012


I have read a few posts where the poster states that RIFC ltd currently own TRFC ltd, but as far as I am aware this new 1 month old company owns didly squat. What is even more incredible is that this is the company being floated on AIM!!!!!

I have tried several times to read the “prospectus”, however after a few pages I always get bogged down by the jargon and give up and usually try to skim read for anomalies. I had hoped that others more proficient in this type of document might have been able to translate it into lay man’s terms.

On yet another skim read this morning I noticed several references to the “Share Exchange Agreement”. Has anyone seen this document dated 7th December, or is it locked away with the 5-way agreement, never to be cleansed by the light of day.

The reason I ask is, I believe this document holds the key to how Green and his merry men escape with the loot.

When you consider that the current TRFCL shareholders own 100% of that 6-month old company, that’s ownership and voting rights via a simple share class. According to the prospectus, if the IPO is successful some (we don’t know how much) of the funds raised, will be used to purchase TRFCL in it’s entirety. As part of this share exchange agreement/purchase, the existing TRFCL shareholders will receive a 1 for 1 share allocation in the new 1-month old company RIFCplc.

When you look at the list of current TRFCL shareholders, who own 3% or more of the company it is possible to compare their current shareholding with their proposed VOTING shareholding in the new company RIFC plc. Their 100% voting rights in TRFC ltd is only being diluted to 58% voting rights in the new holding co. As the new share numbers quoted do not support this proportion, I can only assume that a significant proportion of the new shares will not hold voting rights, (preference shares perhaps?).

Through the AIM listing rules it is only the new co (RIFC plc) shares which will need to be held for a minimum of twelve months. This would suggest to me that the purchase part of the “share exchange agreement” could potentially be for the vast majority of the funds raised. For example, in the unlikely event that £27m was raised in the IPO. Say £25m of this is used to buy TRFCL allowing Green and his cohorts to pocket the lot. What would be left is the holding company with minimal capital, but ownership of the assets and “goodwill” of the new 6 month old club. What happens thereafter is anybody’s guess, but if the new co RIFC plc goes bust then another insolvency event could take place, (possibly via a successful CVA this time). A new consortium moves in and picks up the co/club for a song. A 10pt penalty would probably still see TRFC win the 3rd div and be promoted.

This is pure speculation and the £25m is a pure guess, but in the absence of sight of the “Share Exchange Agreement”, guessing is all we can do. However it might offer a more believable explanation of why a new company is being floated rather than Green and his buddies simply selling some or all of their current shareholdings in TRFC ltd, (I don’t believe the EIS VCT status dross).

I am probably miles off the mark. Surely an honest as the day is long Yorkshire man would not stoop to such a dastardly trick on the supporters he loves so much????

View Comment

Avatar

ekbhoyPosted on12:26 pm - Dec 14, 2012


Paulmac2

Agree with your longer term view.

I am just sitting back and enjoying the situation with them, the social mayhem often predicted will result in a few marches and protests by them but nothing much else. It is the finances and the in-built fondness for them in the SFA that is keeping the SFA quiet.

Why should anyone on this blog get worked up about them’s share offer or the MSM cheer leading, plenty more things wrong in this life than a few thousand cretins being stiffed for a few hundred quid a pop, if it makes them happy for a while, why object or stand in their way?

Focus should be on re-vitalising how we play the game (also ref stds) , how the game is structured and looking at bringing talent into ( a Fergus and a Ferguson if you like) the football authorities , rather than the blazer brigade, amateurs currently drawing a salary.

Forget the MSM in 10 years the Record will be gone and the others in terminal decline , they will be increasingly irrelevant.

Sit back and enjoy , look forward to the next Green bollocksagram , we are living through very enjoyable times if you ask me.

View Comment

Avatar

paulmac2Posted on12:34 pm - Dec 14, 2012


I’m surprised we have not had a day by day update on the world wide success of share requests that have been processed for the holding company that is a holding company for the football club..

One would think the over subscription and the millions rolling in would have them on TV like a dog with 2 d*cks…

View Comment

Avatar

briggsbhoyPosted on12:37 pm - Dec 14, 2012


whisperer18 says:
Friday, December 14, 2012 at 10:43

Glad to see that my hypothetical senario had you laughing, hopefully your spandex underwear kept everything intact 🙂 As we know Rangers wont be in Europe for quite a while and I suppose realistically Mr Ashley’s involvement with the Rankers will be fleeting. Old Chuckies original intention was to make a fast buck and head for the hills with bulging pockets, that hasn’t happened but once and if he gets his dosh he and Mr Ashley will dissapear into the Sunset.

Will The Rangers be able to apply for early access to that Inter Toto Cup (if it still exists) or do new clubs (see what I did there) still need to to be in existence for 3 years.

View Comment

Avatar

ekbhoyPosted on12:38 pm - Dec 14, 2012


Paulmac2

There will be an announcement straight after Her Majesty’s Christmas Day speech.

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on12:43 pm - Dec 14, 2012


On Why LNS enquiry is necessary and Why It is Being Attacked

The following is from a discussion on Paul McConville’s blog about the Lord Nimmo Smith enquiry into player registration which CG portrayed as a witch hunt. It delves into underlying principles and why admission of wrong is so difficult.

I was not talking about the FTT decision but what the findings suggested in terms of player registration that will be decided on by LNS..

You guys just do not get it do you? The underlying principle of sport is fair play and that is what the rules are intended to convey. LNS is looking at player registration and if the rules about revealing all remuneration were broken.

EBTs according to the FTT evidence were intended to provide Rangers with a sporting advantage and that they did by allowing them to attract a higher quality of player than they might have otherwise. However in failing to report the added benefit accruing via the use of ebts when they registered players (and this is not in doubt from what the FTT reported) they broke the fair play principle the rule is intended to support. The two issues, tax avoidance by ebt and player registration, whilst separate converge at the player registration point because had the additional remuneration been reported as part of the player contract there would have been no question of why it was not reported, which on the face of it, was to ensure the sporting advantage ebts were used for, was in fact delivered.

Based on what came out of the FTT it seems that Rangers embarked on a risky tax avoidance scheme that they hid from the football authorities (and do not give me it was in the accounts crap) to gain sporting advantage and the question has to be why? If the tax adviser said it was not necessary and Rangers took that advice they usurped SFA authority by not checking with them. Whatever way you slice and dice it ebts should have been included in player registration remuneration details or permission to exclude them requested. Neither was done and the only conclusion can be is that Rangers did not want to put the ebt objective at risk by seeking guidance or reporting them and so they willfully did not and so broke the rules.

On the question of contrition etc thanks to whoever responded. [only God gives absolution] It suggests why there is such a wide cultural gap between supporters of either club. One group is used to admitting wrong during their life time, the other to denying it until they die. Very interesting in terms of understanding why LNS is seen by one side as a witch hunt that would confirm officially a wrongdoing took place for which no absolution is possible in their lifetime and the other side as a search for the truth and justice. that could then lead to reconciliation.

View Comment

Shooperb

ShooperbPosted on12:56 pm - Dec 14, 2012


Auldheid (@Auldheid) says:
Friday, December 14, 2012 at 12:43

I may be wrong, but as well as ensuring there was no conflict of interest in the paying of players wages, I thought one of the uses of player registration was that it was used to determine fines levied against players in disciplinary matters and such like?

View Comment

Avatar

rabPosted on1:21 pm - Dec 14, 2012


I think the reason behind trying to get the LNS enquiry stopped is to garnish the myth that the club continued. At the moment, the sevcovites, the msm and by their silence the SFA are clinging to and relentlessly pushing this concept, they have their collective heads in the sand and are ignorantly steamrollering ahead in the hope that eventually we all get bored( i wont ) or time causes the weight of nonsense to mask the truth thats still fresh in everyones mind. Future generations will see a blue team called rangers at ibrox and equate it to the one who used to play there. Now, if a permenant mark (*) was to be left on the club for stripped titles then that would keep the memory fresh as each generation are told of the cheating that took place, and how that cheating manifested itself. This would keep a certain toothpaste flavoured business man alive in perpetuity as a bogeyman to scare the kids with. And a club with a permenant reminder.

Dad, why do some titles have an * beside them?

Well son, its like this……………

View Comment

Avatar

* (@enmac75)Posted on1:26 pm - Dec 14, 2012


just read this. in the name o’ the wee man

http://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/2012/12/13/shares/news-and-analysis/rangers-to-debut-on-aim-Cfp9SvZqxYCJG1VyljMyYI/article.html#comments

Rangers to debut on Aim

By Ken Wieland,
13 December 2012

Rangers International Football Club (RIFC) plc is expected to join London’s junior market on 19 December. For fans, that means the opportunity to grab a stake in Glasgow Rangers, 54-times Scottish champions, as an early Christmas present. The official name is now Rangers Football Club Ltd. RIFC is to own and operate Rangers FC, which, after exiting administration earlier this year, is now debt-free but plying its trade in the fourth tier of Scottish football.

The complicated structure has not prevented Charles Green, chief executive, from drumming up interest among institutional investors ahead of the Aim listing. Mr Green had originally intended to raise £20m from the IPO, but £17m has already been committed, at 70p a share, from a range of investors. These include Hargreave Hale, which is to purchase 4.95m shares and acquire an 8.58 per cent stake (before the public offer). Artemis (7.43 per cent), Cazenove Capital (4.25 per cent) and Legal & General (3.47 per cent) are among the other investors. Pre-IPO investors also include Mike Ashley, UK retail entrepreneur and owner of Newcastle United, who has 3m shares.

Mr Green expects the public offer to raise another £10m, taking the IPO total up to £27m. Although £500 is the minimum price to get a stake in RIFC, that is unlikely to deter fans. According to one source, speaking to Investors Chronicle, Capita Registrars has received subscription demand for RIFC shares totalling £24m.

True, there are some concerns. Languishing in Scotland’s fourth tier as punishment for going into administration, lucrative European football is some years away. The prospectus also mentions the threat of legal action from some players, complaining they were not consulted about contract changes after the old club was liquidated. Mr Green is no doubt counting on Rangers worldwide fan base, estimated to be in excess of 5m, to more than offset those negatives.

IC VIEW:
There are some reasons to think this football IPO might buck the trend of awful performance by football investments. For one thing, the assets – which include Ibrox (the club’s stadium), the Murray Park training facility, the players and the brand – add up to around £100m. Moreover, by next May – when totting up the money from pre-IPO fundraising, the Aim listing and expected season ticket sales – RIFC could be sitting on a net cash pile of £50m. The IPO, however, gives RIFC a market cap of £50m. One to watch.

View Comment

Tartawulver

TartawulverPosted on1:28 pm - Dec 14, 2012


rab says:
Friday, December 14, 2012 at 13:21

Dad, why do some titles have an * beside them?

Well son, its like this……………
————————————————–
Is that why the club shirt has five asterisks on it?

View Comment

Avatar

rabPosted on1:30 pm - Dec 14, 2012


Damn, spelt the same word wrong twice so i cant blame shoogly transport or clumsy fingers.

My name is rab, i canny spell.

View Comment

AllyJambo

AllyJamboPosted on1:41 pm - Dec 14, 2012


ismellafix says:

Friday, December 14, 2012 at 12:18

Your post seems to me to make quite a bit of sense with a possible answer to ‘how do they get away with the money?’

Green and his mates currently own TRFC, they sell if to RIFC, and pocket the money. However much they sell it for is immaterial, as long as they get more than their initial investment they’ll make a tidy profit. After that they still have a hefty share, and along with the institutional investors, some of whom may well be in on it, still hold a controlling interest in TRFC and it’s assets. Could well end up that TRFC continue for years to come, are sold on to whoever, and the bears are happy with that, but they’ve all been ripped off grandly! Could it be that the ‘institutional investors’ are, in fact, the unnamed backers of those that originally financed Chuckie’s deal?

Many posters have wondered at Green’s apparent carelessness in bigging up the value of the assets, ie Ibrox, in view of the possibility of gratuitous allienation charges. Could this be the reason he’s taken an apparent risk, so that, whatever he sells it for to the new company, he can show all and sundry that it is a ‘bargain’ price?

View Comment

Avatar

AuldheidPosted on1:55 pm - Dec 14, 2012


areyouaccusingmeofmendacity says:

Friday, December 14, 2012 at 12:56

I think that is true but the requirement to reveal all payments was not introduced to enable fine levels to be calibrated, wages could be ascertained on any fining occasion. I believe it was more to deter brown envelope inducements to a player to sign for one club rather than another.

In that respect the ebt was the envelope in which the inducement was delivered.

View Comment

Avatar

easyJamboPosted on1:55 pm - Dec 14, 2012


alex thomson‏@alextomo
David Limmond arrested this morning by Strathclyde police in connection with Rangerschat podcast used on C4News report recently..
================================

I must have missed the C4 news report. Can anyone fill me in?

View Comment

Avatar

ordinaryfanPosted on2:00 pm - Dec 14, 2012


http://rt.com/sport/football/new-football-league-2014-055/
UEFA “has said it will allow the unification of championships,” Giner stated
Head of the Russian Premier League Sergey Pryadkin has shared his ideas on the issue with the R-Sport agency: “It’s possible all 16 Russian [Premier League] clubs will compete and all 14 Ukrainian [top flight] ones.”

View Comment

fishnish

fishnishPosted on2:17 pm - Dec 14, 2012


paulmac2 says:

Friday, December 14, 2012 at 12:34
I’m surprised we have not had a day by day update on the world wide success of share requests that have been processed for the holding company that is a holding company for the football club..

One would think the over subscription and the millions rolling in would have them on TV like a dog with 2 d*cks…

……………………………………………………………………………………
This is a very useful post.
I always wondered about the derivation of pubs being named the Dog and Duck…

I still don’t know why there should be two ducks in this instance, but bigger pub, likely… with a hover bar and 500, 000 punters.

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on2:19 pm - Dec 14, 2012


iamacant says:
Friday, December 14, 2012 at 10:59

Has the charity been paid yet ? You know, the one that TRFC were donating £5000 of the Elgin £25000 fine to for the postponed match.
——

That’ll be the Rangers Charity Foundation, who (ahem) will pass on the cash to the two named charities. It may rest in their account for a while first, after resting in TRFC’s account for a while before that, though.

View Comment

Avatar

tomtomPosted on2:37 pm - Dec 14, 2012


TW (@tartanwulver) says:
Friday, December 14, 2012 at 13:28

rab says:
Friday, December 14, 2012 at 13:21

Dad, why do some titles have an * beside them?

Well son, its like this……………
————————————————–
Is that why the club shirt has five asterisks on it?

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

Even Patrick Moore struggled to explain those 5 stars 😀

View Comment

Avatar

borussiabeefburgPosted on2:40 pm - Dec 14, 2012


My daily trip to the official Ibrox site sees the club informing of their new betting partnership with ‘Bet Butler’. Under the headline ‘A Safe Bet’, David Evans, spokesperson for Bet Butler, states: “As we continue to build high-profile partnerships in Scottish football, it’s great to be playing a part in the rebirth of Rangers Football Club.”

So today, it’s neither an oldclub or a newclub, it’s a regenerated entity!

Definition:-

Reborn, adjective.

1 Brought back to life or activity
2 Having experienced a complete spiritual change

Let’s hope it’s ‘2’.

View Comment

Avatar

ordinaryfanPosted on2:42 pm - Dec 14, 2012


http://news.stv.tv/scotland/205960-man-arrested-by-terrorism-officers-over-rangers-podcast-remarks/

View Comment

Avatar

angus1983Posted on2:48 pm - Dec 14, 2012


easyJambo says:
Friday, December 14, 2012 at 13:55

alex thomson‏@alextomo
David Limmond arrested this morning by Strathclyde police in connection with Rangerschat podcast used on C4News report recently..
================================

I must have missed the C4 news report. Can anyone fill me in?
——

Presumably the piece that was used in AT’s C4 report on intimidation by some of the TRFC support?

View Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.